Church Membership

Unsaved sinners ought not to belong to any church. If you have been saved by God's grace, then you ought to follow Paul's example (Acts 9:26) and join yourself to that church nearest your present, temporary home which shows evidence that it is of Christ's building, a church whose only Head is Christ, whose only message is His word.

References

Below is a list of scripture verses containing the word "church" or "churches." Read and study them for yourself to be sure of the Bible teachings about the church.

Matthew 16:18; 18:17.

Acts 2:47; 5:11; 7:38; 8:1, 3; 9:31; 11:22, 26; 12:1, 5; 13:1; 14:23, 27; 15:3, 4, 22, 41; 16:5; 18:22; 20:17, 28.

Romans 16:1, 4, 5, 16, 23.

First Corinthians 1:2; 4:17; 6:4; 7:17; 10:32; 11:16, 18, 22; 12:28; 14:4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33, 34, 35; 15:9; 16:1, 19.

Second Corinthians 1:1; 8:1, 18, 19, 23, 24; 11:8, 28; 12:13.

Galatians 1:2, 13, 22.

Ephesians 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32.

Philippians 3:6; 4:15.

Colossians 1:18, 24; 4:15, 16.

First Thessalonians 1:1; 2:14.

Second Thessalonians 1:1, 4.

First Timothy 3:5, 15; 5:16.

Philemon 2.

Hebrews 2:12; 12:23.

James 5:14.

Third John 6, 9, 10.

Revelation 1:4, 11, 20; 2:1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 29; 3:1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 22; 22:16.

(Note: The above article on Christ's Church was first published in July, 1938, when I was pastor at West Liberty, Ky., and before I knew any Greek. I can add now that a knowledge of Greek confirms the interpretation here given.)

Ten Bible Proofs Of

Baptist Perpetuity

IF GOD'S WORD IS TRUE, THE CHURCH THAT

JESUS STARTED STILL STANDS-HAS ENDURED!

"...The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim. 3:15.)

Recorded history often reveals more of historians' prejudices than of actual events, and the history of Christianity has been written mostly by the enemies of Baptists. Even so, there is historical evidence for the continued existence of what would now be called Baptist churches from the days when Jesus was on earth in the flesh down to the present time. This evidence is not beyond dispute but it is more than sufficient if we are willing to believe the promises of God's word.

My purpose here is to show from the Bible, APART FROM ALL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, that we must believe in Baptist church perpetuity if we believe that God's Word is true.

The Gates Of Hades

His Promise of Perpetuity

"...Upon this Rock, "said Jesus, referring to Himself, "I will build my church; and the gates of hell [Hades] shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18.)

We may find various interpretations of this statement of Jesus, but despite a great variety of ideas in detailed interpretation it is fairly clear to all that we have here a PROMISE of our Lord that His church would not be overcome by the powers of evil. Whatever this church was, it could not fail if Jesus spoke the truth. We believe that this church was what would now be called a Baptist Church, and anyone who will honestly examine the organization and doctrine of this New Testament institution in comparison with the organization and doctrine of Baptist churches today will reach the same conclusion.

If the church that Jesus built was not a Baptist church, then we need to find out what kind of church it was, and join that church, if we want our service to be pleasing to Him. One thing we can be sure of: if Jesus spoke the truth---and what real Christian would deny this? ---the church that Jesus built has been in the world ever since and will be here till He comes again.

The popular Protestant dogma in this connection speaks of an "invisible" church to which all Christians belong. More on this as we go along, but for the present note a few simple facts:

a. Neither the expression "invisible church" nor the idea of such an expression can be found in the New Testament.

b. The whole purpose of the "invisible church" dogma is to justify the Protestant splits from Roman Catholicism. But since Baptists are not Protestants and were never a part of the heretical Catholic system, we have no need of any such dogma to justify our existence.

c. Most Protestants and many ignorant Baptists suppose that Christ built two churches: the "invisible church" of their own vain imagining and the organized assemblies that they cannot help recognizing in the New Testament. Then, to add insult to injury, they call their imaginary monstrosity the "true" church! But the Bible says that there is only one body (church), that is, one kind of body, just as there is only one baptism, that is, one kind of baptism. (Eph. 4:4, 5.)

d. Since there is no just reason to do otherwise, we must understand that Jesus used the word "church" (Greek "ekklesia") in Matt. 16:18 in the same general sense that it has everywhere else in the New Testament: that is, an assembly, almost always an organized assembly. The word here is used abstractly; that is, it expresses an idea whose realization is to be found in a particular organized assembly.

Church Discipline

"...If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily 1 say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." (Matt. 18:17, 18, AV, with corrected tenses of verbs in verse 18.)

This text suggests three simple questions that believers in an "invisible" church might try to answer:

a. How can a wronged brother tell his grievance to an "invisible" church?

b. How can an "invisible" church decide an issue, make known its judgment to a trespassing brother, or execute that judgment "if he neglect to hear"?

c. Is not the authority to "bind and loose," whatever this means, in verse 18 given to the same church that is in view in verse 17?

Obviously the reference here is to an organized assembly; and obviously such organized assemblies must always have existed from that time to this in order that faithful followers of Jesus might obey His instructions here given.

Baptized Into One Body

"For also in one Spirit we all were baptized into one body. . . And ye are a body of Christ, and members in particular." (I Cor. 12:13, 27, corrected translation.)

Verse 27 of this quotation tells what kind of body is meant in verse 13: the kind of which the church at Corinth was an example. I Cor. 1:13-17 shows what kind of baptism is meant: namely, baptism in water. In fact, there is only one kind of baptism recognized in the New Testament as an ordinance of Christ: all other so-called baptisms are figurative or symbolic, deriving their significance from this baptizing in water to declare the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and all that this means to us.

Almost all Christians recognize baptism, or some substitute for it that they call baptism, as sprinkling or pouring, as a church ordinance. But if it is a church ordinance, then there must always have been churches to administer the ordinance. If the church to which Jesus entrusted the ordinance passed out of existence as an institution, then the ordinance lapsed with the church, and nowhere in the Bible is anyone authorized to start it up again.

"Till He Come"

"...As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (I Cor. 11:26.)

Again, practically all Christians recognize the Lord's Supper as a church ordinance. But how could the ordinance be continued if at any time there were no true churches to observe it? Note that the Scriptures give no hint of any possible lapse or failure of our Lord's churches to declare or show forth His death by eating this bread and drinking this cup "till He come."

Church Officers

"...If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work . . . They that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree...." (I Tim. 3:1, 13.)

The context of the two verses shows that bishops and deacons are church officers, and to this fact practically all Christians agree, however far they may depart from Scriptural ideas of the duties of these offices. Even believers in an imaginary "invisible" church become at least temporarily realistic and operate in some kind of organized assembly in naming bishops and deacons.

But if bishops and deacons were officers in the kind of church that Jesus built, and if this kind of church passed out of existence, as Protestants allege and as ignorant Baptists admit, then by whose authority are such officers named today?

A Holy Temple

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building [or, better, every building] fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph. 2:19-22.)

Paul was writing to the church at Ephesus and he reveals here the glorious fact that a true New Testament church is a holy temple in the Lord, and that one purpose for which the Lord built His church at Ephesus, and, we believe, every other true New Testament church, is that God in the Spirit might dwell therein.

Can anyone believe that God, having chosen to manifest His presence in a special way in the churches of the Lord Jesus, allowed His purpose to be frustrated, so that for centuries He had no such habitation on earth? But Protestants do so declare, and countless Baptists, ignorant of or indifferent to their blood-bought heritage, are deceived by or are silent in the face of this monstrous lie!

A Dead Bride?

"...Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead..." (Rom 7:4.)

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." (Eph. 5:25---read on through verse 32.)

These and other Scriptures compare the spiritual relationship of Christ and His church to the human marriage relationship. That the "wedding" is still future is shown by Matt. 22:1-13; 25:1-13; and Rev. 21:2.

Was our Lord at any time betrothed to a dead bride? After He gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her by the washing of water in the word, that He might present her to Himself in glory---after all this, was there ever a time when nowhere on earth could be found a church that could be truly called His bride? Was there ever a time when the only "Christianity" on earth was the religion of spiritual harlots? Perish the thought! But if it be so, what are all the churches today but harlots and offspring of harlots?

"I Am With You Alway"

"..Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world..." (Matt. 28:18-20.)

Practically all Christians recognize that Jesus was speaking here to His church. The only real question is, what kind of church was it?

Of course, an imaginary "invisible" church cannot go anywhere, it cannot disciple any nations, it cannot baptize anybody in any way, it cannot teach anybody anything, and being nonexistent, it would not know the difference whether the Lord were with it or not.

But an organized assembly of baptized believers, such as Jesus had constituted His disciples, can do what He commanded and in doing so can claim the promise of His continuing presence---and it is the only organization on earth that can do so.

Jesus promised this kind of church that He would always be with it, even to the end of the age. But He could not be with it unless it existed to be with. Therefore if Jesus spoke the truth He has had His churches in the world ever since and He has been with them all the time--- and so it will be to the end of the age.

Glory In The Church

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end... "(Eph. 3:21.) More literally translated: "To him the glory in the church in Christ Jesus, unto all the generations of the eon of the eons."

We have here a Spirit-inspired declaration or prayer. If it was a prayer, as the King James version indicates, it nevertheless declares an assured fulfillment, for the Holy Spirit does not inspire vain prayers. "..He maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." (Rom. 8:27.)

Therefore we understand that God gets glory in the church in Christ Jesus. This was true in Paul's day and it was to continue "unto all the generations of the eon of the eons," an expression of eternity beyond our comprehension. But He could not get glory in the church unless the church continued to exist. And of course He is far from getting glory in an imaginary "invisible" church whose advocates reject and deny the plain, simple, straightforward teachings and promises of His Word.

Pillar And Ground

"These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim. 3:14-15.)

Speaking of the church as an organized assembly, as the context clearly shows, Paul here calls it "the pillar and ground of the truth." That is, the church not only, as a pillar or column, upholds the truth, but it is the foundational support of the truth.

Here we have the explanation for the wholesale loss of Bible truth by false churches and unattached Christians. It has pleased God that His church should be the pillar and ground of the truth, and so it has been through the centuries.

A Solemn Warning

When men reject Bible truth about the church, and refuse to recognize its rightful place as the body and bride of Christ, the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth, they quickly lose other truth as well.

The truth of God's Word is still upheld in the world today because of the faithfulness and the martyrs' blood of the true churches of God through the dark ages, and this truth will still be upheld to the end of the age because there will still be some churches, the true churches of our Lord, to serve as the pillar and ground of the truth.

The Body of Christ

SCRIPTURAL STUDY OF THIS TERM

CONTRADICTS POPULAR ERROR

"For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Ephesians 4:12.)

Fanciful misinterpretations and misapplications of figurative language in the Bible are among the means used by Satan and his ministers to discredit the word of God among the ignorant. With reference to the New Testament Church, Satan has accomplished one of his most cunning deceptions in the popular though ridiculous myth that the figurative "body of Christ," as Christ's church is scripturally called, is not really a body at all, but is identical with the family or the kingdom of God.

Scripture passages in which the church is referred to and described under the figure of a human body as the body of Christ include: Rom. 12:4, 5; I Cor. 10:16, 17; 12:12-28; Eph. 1:23; 4:4, 12-16; 5:23-30; Col. 1:18, 24; 2:19; 3:15.

A careful and intelligent study of these scriptures in context is enough to expose to the Bible believer the evident fallacy and folly of the universal church heresy.

A Body Essentially

"For as we have many members in one body. . . so we, being many, are one body in Christ." (Rom. 12:4,5.) The essence of the comparison is the organization of different members in one body. If a human body is ground into hamburger and fed to the dogs on six continents, it is no longer a human body. Neither do Christians constitute a body scattered around the world in space and through 19 or 20 centuries in time. The idea is so superbly silly that it could have been spawned only by Satan and adopted by people more influenced by the philosophy of Plato than by the teachings of Christ.

"...We have many members in one body" (v. 4), referring to the human body of each of us, does not mean that we have one big universal invisible human body. But such a monstrous idea is exactly as sensible as the idea that the one body in verse 5 is universal or invisible.

Ecumenical, modernistic, and compromising interpreters who reject the Lord's church but try to count themselves in a mythical universal church need to study the abstract, generic, institutional, general, distributive, and ideal uses of words; or, if they already understand the truth about the church and reject it, they need to get saved.

Repeating, the essence of the comparison of a genuine New Testament church to the human body is the fact that each is an organization or organism having different members with different functions but all functioning for their mutual profit in the whole body.

A Body Eating

"We being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (I Cor. 10:16, 17.) The reference, of course, is to the Lord's supper, which is scripturally observed by the members of one church or at least one kind of church eating from one loaf or at least from one kind of bread.

But of course there are in the world many genuine children of God who belong to false churches or to no church at all, and who partake of different kinds of bread in mockeries of the Lord's supper or never partake at all; and of course those Christians are no part of the "one body," or one kind of body, referred to here.

A Body Exercising

More than anywhere else in the Bible, the figure of the human body to represent an organized church is elaborated in I Cor. 12:12-28. The baptism in verse 13 is of course water baptism; the one body is what would today be called a Baptist church.

Note the words "no schism" in verse 25. Advocates of a universal church have an imaginary body full of schisms or splits---surely nothing fit to represent Christ, Who is not divided. (I Cor. 1:10-13.)

Verse 26 beautifully describes the ideal fellowship in a genuine church; I suppose that no believer in a universal church is stupid enough to pretend that the language fits his imaginary body.

A Body Edified

God gave Christ to be "...Head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Eph. 1:22, 23.) Christ in turn (Eph. 4) "gave gifts . . . for the edifying of the body of Christ." Again the expression "one body" in Eph. 4:4 means one kind of body, just as "one baptism" in the next verse means one kind of baptism.

Edification of a genuine New Testament church, an organized body of baptized believers under the headship of Christ, is fittingly figured in Eph. 4:11-16. Note the emphasis in verse 16 on "the whole body fitly joined together." In plain words, the figure means that the church needs to be well organized in order to experience "the effectual working in the measure of every part."

A Body Engaged

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." (Eph. 5:23.) "The church" or "the body" is no more universal or invisible than "the husband" or "the wife." The terms are used abstractly, generically, or ideally, and express reality only when applied to real entities. No man ever yet loved a universal invisible wife. The church which Christ loved and for which He gave Himself (v. 25) is an organized body of baptized believers in Him, having Him alone as its Head.

A Body Exalted

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Col. 1:18.) See how Christ has honored and exalted the church which He Himself organized during His personal ministry on earth and declared that He would continue to build upon Himself! Under the figure of a building, He is its foundation; under the figure of a body, He is its Head.

Shall He recognize as members of His body rebellious children who have refused to join themselves to Him as Head in a church relationship? The supposition is mere fatuous fancy, without a shred of scriptural support.

A Body Enduring

Paul rejoiced in his sufferings for the saints at Colosse that he might "...fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church." (Col. 1:24.) Of that church, he tells us in the next verse, he was "made a minister." Now, it hardly needs to be pointed out to intelligent readers that Paul's ministry was not performed merely in an abstract idea, but in real assemblies of the saints having definite organization and location.

Because or by means of the sufferings of Paul and the afflictions of Christ in the flesh of other faithful ministers through the centuries, the figurative body of Christ, formed during His earthly ministry, has endured to this good hour; and such churches will still be here when He comes again. (Matt. 16:18; 28:20; Eph. 3:21; etc.)

A Body Enlarging

Christianity in general is in a spiritual decline, having less and less of God as it has more and more in numbers and wealth; less and less of truth as it dotes more and more on bogus miracles; or, in the language of scripture, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." (II Tim. 3:5.)

A genuine new Testament church, however, being an organized body holding fast to Christ as its Head, "...from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God." (Col. 2:19.) This is the kind of growth we need.

A Body Enrolled

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful." (Col. 3:15.) How can the peace of God rule in hearts that rebel against the teaching of His word on the church and its ordinances?

The first church at Jerusalem (before Pentecost) had a roll or list of names to the number of "about a hundred and twenty." (Acts 1:15.) They had been called not only to salvation but also to the peace of God ruling in their hearts in one body. As one body they carried on business for the Lord, including the election of Matthias as a successor to Judas Iscariot.

How thankful we ought to be, if our names are enrolled not only in the Lamb's book of life, but also in the membership of the kind of church which Jesus organized, commissioned, and promised to be with until the end of the age! (Matt. 16:18; 28:20.) True members of this kind of church will eventually be brought together in one heavenly city, the new Jerusalem, as the bride of Christ. (Rev. 21:2.)

Conclusion

Saul of Tarsus learned that when he persecuted the church he persecuted Christ (Acts 9:4), and as Paul the apostle to the Gentiles he learned to honor and serve Christ by honoring and serving His churches. Modern seekers for self-glory who downgrade and minimize the sacred importance of Christ's churches are either ministers of Satan or unfaithful in their ministry for Christ.

Enemies of truth may accuse us of believing that only Baptists are saved. They lie. Salvation and church membership are two different things. Every saved person on earth ought to be a member of a genuine New Testament church, but many saved people, perhaps most of them, are not. Their numbers cannot justify their disobedience.

Jesus organized and commissioned only one kind of church. That kind of church is better in the sight of God than false churches organized by men, and certainly it is infinitely better than a universal church which does not even exist except in heretical imaginations.

The Church in Ephesians

ABSTRACT USE OF SINGULAR NOUNS

IS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND

"To him the glory in the church in Christ Jesus unto all the generations of the age of the ages. Amen. "(Eph. 3:21, improved translation.)

Of the 115 times that the Greek work "ekklesia" (usually translated "church" in KJ) appears in the New Testament, according to the Englishman's Greek Concordance, 79 occurrences are in the singular and 36 in the plural. Most of the singulars are so obviously referred by the context to a particular assembly or congregation at a definite place that the most rabid advocates of a "universal" or "invisible" church cannot deny the simple fact that in these places the word "church" does mean "assembly" or "congregation."

But the word occurs nine times in Paul's letter to the Ephesians, each time in the singular, with the definite article, and without mention of a meeting place. And it is universally assumed by Protestant commentators with an ax to grind (and, sad to say, by ignorant or mis-taught Baptists with their nose (noses) on the Protestant grindstone) that these references are to a "universal" or "invisible" church, as distinguished from "local" churches.

Wet Water - Cold Ice

Actually, to speak of a "local" church is like speaking of wet water, hot fire, or cold ice. There is no other kind in a Biblical sense. The use of the word "church" to mean a meeting house, a denomination, or a universal hierarchy or religious monstrosity, visible or invisible, is completely unscriptural.

In the Bible the word "church" (Greek "ekklesia") means assembly, only and always. It never refers to an unknown, unassembling, confused and scattered multitude. Such a "church" exists only in the imagination of heretics desperately trying to justify their schisms.

Abstract - Ten to None

Every day we all use singular nouns in an abstract, generic, or distributive sense. We are not so silly as to dream up a vision of a universal, invisible automobile just because we hear or read of the changes the automobile has made in American life.

But instead of wasting space with more extra-scriptural examples, let us note some other singular nouns so used in Ephesians. This is only a partial list, and there is no Biblical evidence at all for a universal church: therefore in Ephesians the evidence is easily 10 or 15 to nothing that the word "church" is used abstractly and retains its usual meaning of "assembly" ("local," of course---there is no other kind).

Our Flesh

"...We all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh . . ." (Eph. 2:3.) The reference is not to universal, invisible flesh, whatever that might be, but to flesh in the abstract, or specifically to the flesh of each one of us.

If it be objected that this is a peculiarity of the English word "flesh," which could not be used in the plural, the answer is that this is not true of the Greek word "sarx," which is used in the plural five times in one verse (Rev. 19:18).

His Workmanship

"...We are his workmanship..." (Eph. 2: 10.) The plural form for the singular word here translated "workmanship" appears in Rom. 1:20, where it is rendered "the things that are made."

No one will argue that "we" are one universal invisible thing that is made, one universal workmanship of God. Indisputably "workmanship" here is used abstractly, and the meaning is simply that each one of us is a product of God's making.

Mind or Understanding

"The eyes of your understanding." "Having the understanding darkened." (Eph. 1:18; 4:18.) Both of these references are to a plurality of persons, but in either case the thought is not that they have a universal understanding, but that the statement made applied to the understanding of each of them. In Eph. 2:3 the plural of the same Greek word is used, but is translated in KJ by the abstract English singular "mind."

A kindred Greek word (singular) also is translated "mind" with a plural possessive in Eph. 4:17, 23; "their mind" and "your mind." Misty minded mystics may mouth about a "universal mind," but clearer heads will recognize easily the familiar abstract or distributive meaning and apply it at once to each individual in the class covered.

Singular Heart

"...Blindness of their heart." "Melody in your heart." "Singleness of your heart." (Eph. 4:18; 5:19; 6:5.) In each of these three quotations we find a plural possessive with a singular "heart." Shall we therefore imagine one monstrous universal heart having invisible connections with all the people included in the plural pronoun?

Sane readers, again, will have no difficulty in understanding this language as conveying essentially the same meaning, in application, as when the plural forms are used in Eph. 3:17 and 6:22.

Through Faith

"...By grace ye have been saved through faith..." (Eph. 2:8.) It seems to be "universally" agreed that the reference here is to the personal faith of each individual believer. Yet, while the subject is plural, the word for faith is singular, and with the definite article meaning simply the faith in each case.

Circumcision

"...Ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands." (Eph. 2:11.)

Here two abstract terms, Uncircumcision and handmade Circumcision, are used in the singular with plural concrete meaning, and by metonymy the act or condition of circumcision or its absence means the people so affected. Certainly no one will contend that only one act of circumcision is here in view, even though the word is grammatically singular.

The Old Man

"That ye put off... the old man." (Eph. 4:22.) Plural subject: did they all have just one old man? What a monster, then, was he! And if Paul's Ephesian readers put him off once for all (as the aorist infinitive suggests), why should we be bothered about him now?

Coming back to good sense, we all know that "the old man" is no universal monster: each of us has his own "old man" and each of us must put his own away. But in this quotation the noun is singular abstract: it is in the application that we come concretely to each individual.

The New Man

"And that ye put on the new man..." (Eph. 4:24.) Every true Christian is separately and personally a new creation (II Cor. 5:17); nevertheless we have again a plural subject with an abstract singular to be referred concretely to each person in the group. We could call this a distributive use of the noun, as if the word "each" were included in the subject.

One New Man

"...To make in himself of twain one new man." (Eph. 2:15.) More literally: "That he might create the two in himself into one new man."

Examination of context shows that plural Gentiles and Israelites are spoken of as two things or races made one; then they are figured as two men created into one.

Are we, then, to imagine a monstrous, universal, invisible Gentile-Israelite having his limbs, cells, and corpuscles scattered all over the world? No one, perhaps, is quite so silly---until he begins to talk about "the church."

The Inner Man

"...That he would grant you (pl.) . . . to be strengthened. . . in the inner man." (Eph. 3:16.) Only one inner man for you all? Or can we not see here again the singular abstract which must be pluralized in its concrete application?

Husband and Wife

"The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church...." (Eph. 5:23.) It would be exactly as sensible and intelligent to argue from this text for the real existence of a universal invisible husband and a universal invisible wife as of a universal invisible church. One is just as scriptural as the others.

If any critic is foolish enough to object that Christ cannot be the head of more than one church in the true sense of assembly wherever a true church exists, let him. note I Cor. 11:3: "...The head of every man is Christ."

The Christ of the Bible can as easily be the head of every (true) church as He can be the head of every man, and so He is.

No Ecumenical Monster

But Christ is not the head of modern denominations: Catholic, Protestant, or so-called Baptist. He is not the head of any universal so-called church which can exist only in heretical imaginations. And He will not be the head of the ecumenical monster that Satan is rapidly forming.

Our Lord's church in Ephesians is exactly the same kind of church that it is everywhere else in the New Testament: an organized assembly of baptized believers built together on Him as their foundation and acknowledging Him as their head, furnishing in themselves a holy temple for a habitation of God in Spirit. (Eph. 2:19-22.)

The Church of Colossians

CHRIST HAS ONLY ONE KIND OF CHURCH

ACCORDING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Col. 1:18.)

Proponents of the universal church idea abuse and misinterpret the epistles of Ephesians and Colossians perhaps more than any other part of the New Testament in their vain attempts to produce some scriptural support for their fantastic theories. In another study I have shown how the use of the word "church" in Ephesians corresponds to the abstract, generic, institutional, or distributive use of other singular nouns with plural connections. Let us now examine the same subject in Paul's letter to the Colossians.

In the first place it is axiomatic that words ought to be understood in their ordinary sense unless the context demands otherwise, or unless the writer or speaker explains that he is using a word in a sense different from what would be naturally understood by his readers or hearers. The question in Biblical interpretation is not what meaning modern religionists may like to read into the scriptures, but what meaning was clearly intended to be conveyed by the original writers, according to the ordinary usages of language.

Meaning of Ekklesia

Honest translation requires that the Greek word ekklesia be rendered "assembly" or "congregation" ---a fact attested by competent scholarship and easily confirmed by anyone who will examine the word in context in all its occurrences in the New Testament. The fact is so self-evident that even the most rabid advocates of a universal church are compelled to recognize a literal assembly in the great majority of all Biblical uses of the word.

Satan's ministers, enemies of our Lord's church, needed about half a thousand years to get much acceptance of the idea of "universal" or "catholic" church in opposition to New Testament churches, and a thousand years more to sell the idea of a "universal invisible" church. Of course, a universal or worldwide assembly is a contradiction in terms, and even more so is an invisible assembly of visible mortals. There is no such confusion in the New Testament.

Abstract Singulars

Stubbornly shutting their eyes to the abstract use of singular nouns, enemies of our Lord's real churches dream of what they call "the true church" as something that exists only in imagination, something that never assembles, something supposed to include all Christians and yet leaving them all out of any definite or recognizable obligations to Christ.

For readers whose minds are open, I cite a few of more than a dozen instances in Colossians of various singular nouns used with the definite article and with plurality of application: that is, the singular does not have an immediate particular reference, nor does it suggest anything universal; but it is to be applied plurally (distributively) according to context.

Col. 1:4: "...Your faith..." and "...love." The possessive pronoun is plural; the "faith" and "love" are singular. Not universal faith and love, but individually and collectively the faith and love of all the Colossian saints.

Col. 2:11: "...Ye are circumcised. . . in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." Note the plural subject. The Colossians did not all at once put off one big universal body of sins, but each of them individually put off the body of the sins of his own flesh.

Col. 2:12: (Literally) "Buried with him in the baptism." The subject is still plural, but "the baptism" (singular) is not one big universal invisible splash; the reference is to the baptism of each individual.

Col. 3:8: "...Your mouth." Plural possessive (genitive) pronoun; singular "mouth." Devotees of a universal church may have nightmares about a universal mouth; other readers will have better sense.

The Church The Body

"Ekklesia," traditionally mistranslated "church," appears four times in the letter to the Colossians. The first two times, in verses 18 and 24 of the first chapter, it is figuratively declared to be the body of Christ.

Very little intelligence and only a moderate amount of thinking will be needed to discern how apt is this figure when applied to an organized assembly and how ridiculous it is to try to apply it to the imaginary "universal church." Reduce a human body to smoke and ashes, dispel the smoke around the world, and scatter the ashes across six continents and seven seas: then try to get some work done by that "universal body"!

The figure of the church as the body of Christ is enlarged upon in Romans 12 and in I Corinthians 12. It is a beautiful and meaningful figure when we think of a real union of God's people organized under the headship of Christ, holding a common faith and purpose, bound together in mutual love, sharing one other's joys and sorrows, believing and obeying the word of God in the unity of the Spirit.

Enemies of Christ's church are they who destroy this figure, making it ridiculous with their "invisible church" nonsense. The figurative body of Christ of the New Testament is no mere figment of the imagination, but can be found in real life wherever an assembly of baptized believers, recognizing only Christ as their Head, carry on business for Him.

Suffering For the Church

In verse 23 of Col. 1, Paul says he became a minister of the gospel; in verses 24 and 25 he says he became a minister of the church. There can be a difference, but Paul was both. In verse 24 he wrote of himself as one "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church."

Perhaps we shall never fully understand this scripture in this life. Certainly we must not confuse the meritorious, substitutionary sufferings of Christ which He alone bore for our redemption with other sufferings in which we are called upon to share.

Whether we can understand it or not, Christ and His apostles had an interest not only in individual souls but also in the church as an institution. Those ministers of the gospel who attach no importance to the church, who imply that "one church is as good as another," who thereby despise the only kind of church that Jesus ever organized, are surely not led by the Spirit of Christ or of Paul.

The Church in a House

In Col. 4:15 is the third mention of "church" in this letter: "Salute . . . Nymphas, and the church which is in his house."

Notice: not that part of the church which is in his house, as it would have to read if the church were something scattered all over the world, but "the church which is in his house." Whether Nymphas had a very large house, or whether the church that met there was a rather small church, we are not told.

What we are told is enough to let us know (1) that the church is not universal; (2) that a church is something different from a house; and (3) that a church may be contained in a house. All this is obvious in a single verse.

Churches in Fellowship

Fourth mention of the word "church" in Colossians is in 4:16: "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."

The only organic connection between real New Testament churches is that they have the same Head, but this is enough. We are complete in Him. (Col. 2:10.) Real churches cannot scripturally join together to form a higher organization, whatever it may be called, to exercise authority over them. When they transfer their allegiance from Christ to men, they cease to be Christ's churches.

But this does not mean that churches ought to exist in isolation. On the contrary, having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc., we have every reason to enjoy and profit from fellowship with one another.

No doubt there were differences between the local conditions and circumstances of the Colossian church and those of the Laodicean church, but their needs and interests were similar enough that an apostolic letter to either church merited the attention of the other.

It is not good for a church to cut itself off from others of like precious faith. New Testament churches enjoyed fellowship with one another in the worship and praise of God, in ministering to the needy, and in missionary undertakings. If we will maintain good fellowship with our Head, we shall also have good fellowship with one another.

Where Is The Lord God?

GOD DWELLS IN A SPECIAL SENSE IN HIS CHILDREN AND IN HIS CHURCHES

"...He (Elisha) took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah? And when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over." (II Kings 2:14.)

Elisha's question quoted above, part of which is used as the title of this message, has to do with a special manifestation of God's presence and power. Elisha's prayer, expressed to Elijah and quoted in verse 9, was answered, and Elisha found that God was with him as He had been with Elijah, even to the extent of a double portion of Elijah's spirit. Taking this text as a point of departure, let us note some Bible answers to this question in a broader sense: Where is the Lord our God?

God is Everywhere

In the broadest sense, God is everywhere, He is omnipresent. "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?" asked David. "Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there." (Psalm 139:7,8.)

Jeremiah quotes from God Himself: "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord, Do not I fill heaven and earth?... " (Jer. 23:24.)

Solomon was wise enough to understand that the temple which he had built could not limit the presence of God, but could serve only for a special manifestation of that presence: "Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!" (II Chr. 6:18.)

In the New Testament we find the apostle Paul declaring the same truth, that God is "...not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being...." (Acts 17:27, 28.)

God is in Heaven

"...God is in heaven, and thou upon earth..." (Ecl. 5:2.) True, this quotation is from Ecclesiastes, a poor source of proof texts, since it is but the inspired record of a man's natural reasoning and natural wisdom "under the sun," and much of this natural wisdom is foolishness with God. (I Cor. 1:20.)

But Jesus Himself taught His disciples to pray, "Our Father which art in heaven." So there is a sense in which God is in heaven rather than on earth. So Christians are commanded to "...seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." (Col. 3:1)

We read of the martyr Stephen that, "...being full of the Holy Ghost," he "looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55.)

Something of the difference between God's presence everywhere, including earth, and His fuller presence in heaven seems to be figured in Isaiah 66:1: "Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool..."

If we can grasp the thought that, while God is everywhere, yet He is especially present in heaven, and that in a sense in which He is not on earth, we are ready for the further teaching of scripture that He is present in certain places, persons, or conditions on earth in a sense in which He is not present elsewhere.

In His Children

The Bible definitely and clearly teaches that God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, dwells within every individual child of His. This personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the lives of His children must be a special measure, degree, or manifestation of His presence in order to mean anything at all. In other words, He must be present in His children in a sense in which He is not elsewhere present on earth.

Jesus, speaking of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, said to His

disciples, "...He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (John14:17.)

Following the descent in power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, this promise was fulfilled, and this personal indwelling of the Spirit of God is now part of the experience of every child of God.

The fact of this personal indwelling is plainly set forth in the eighth chapter of Romans, where we read in the 14th and 9th verses, respectively: "...As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." "...Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Moreover, we read, especially in the book of Acts, of special bestowals of the Spirit, disciples who already enjoyed His indwelling receiving Him in added fullness and power, including sometimes the power to work miracles. We can all see that the Spirit was present with these workers of miracles in a sense beyond His presence in ordinary disciples in ordinary times.

In His Churches

Writing to the saints at Ephesus, Paul told that church: "...Ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph. 2:22.)

To Timothy the apostle expressed his concern for proper behavior "...in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim. 3:15.) Examination of the context, referring to bishops and deacons, shows clearly that Paul was thinking about what some people call a "local church," which is in fact the only kind of church that can be found in the Bible.

In I Cor. 12:27 we find the apostle telling that church: "...Ye are a body of Christ." The definite article of the King James version is not in the original language.

In the third chapter of this same book (I Corinthians), Paul wrote that he laid the foundation, namely Jesus Christ, for this church at Corinth, and then warned other men to beware how they built upon this foundation. In verses 16 and 17 we read: "Know ye not that ye [plural] are a temple [singular and without the definite article] of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

Note that in verse 16 we should read "a temple of God." In verse 17 "the temple" is correct, referring to the church at Corinth, as shown in the preceding verse.

Our Master's Word

Our Lord and Master, giving instructions to His church with reference to dealing with personal differences (Matt. 18:15-20) gives us the positive assurance in this connection: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." The context makes it clear that He was referring to a gathering of one of His true churches.

To sum up, we can say with confidence, on the authority of God's own word, that while He is present everywhere He is especially present in heaven; and on earth He is present in, the hearts of His children and still more in the gatherings of His churches in a sense in which He is not present elsewhere. Such is the privilege of our fellowship "with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." (I John 1:3.)

Why Go To Church?

BOTH SINNERS AND SAINTS MAY PROFIT BY CHURCH ATTENDANCE

SOME SCRIPTURAL REASONS

"Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." (Heb.10:25.)

To some people, "going to church" is something for other people to do. To some others, it is a religious habit kept up for little reason except that it is a habit. Still others go or stay home by spells, depending on their moods, the weather, or other changing conditions. Our text suggests that it is nothing new for Christians to forsake the assembling of themselves together, and admonishes us against such forsaking. In other words, we ought to "go to church" regularly. WHY?

Our Lord's Command

First of all, for true Christians, to know that our Lord has commanded us to do anything is reason enough to do it. "...Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46.) "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me..." (John 14:21.)

We know, of course, that persons confined to their homes by bodily infirmities are not able to attend public services, but sometimes we hear able-bodied but spiritually ignorant Christians declare that they can be "just as good Christians," outside the church as in it. They may not mean it so, but really they are accusing the Lord Jesus of doing a useless and foolish thing when He organized His church and commissioned it to carry on His work.

"Ye are the light of the world," said Jesus to His disciples. "A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." (Matt. 5:14.) The reference is to the heavenly "mount Sion" and the "heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22), of which each true New Testament church is a representation on earth.

The "Candlesticks"

"Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 5:15, 16.)

The English word "so" in verse 16 is too weak and ambiguous. The Greek word is placed first in the sentence for emphasis, and verse 16 is better translated as follows:

"In this way" (that is, by putting your candle on the candlestick) "let your light shine" (Greek imperative---"I command your light to shine") "before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven."

The figures of candle and candlestick are explained elsewhere in the Bible: "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord..." (Prov. 20:27.) "...The seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." (Rev. 1:20.)

It is true that the words "candle" and "candlestick" could be better translated "lamp" and "lampstand," but the principle is the same. Jesus commands true disciples to glorify the Father by putting their lamps (spirits) together on the lampstands (New Testament churches).

The Christian who hides himself under a bushel of worldliness or a bed of ease and thinks he can serve God "just as well" as in church is as foolish as a man would be who would light a literal lamp and then hide it under a bushel or under a bed. (Mark 4:21.)

Personal Need

Jesus' command to His disciples to join and assemble themselves together regularly in His churches is reason enough to do so, but He so commanded because He understood our needs.

Even the lost ought to attend the public services of true churches of the Lord Jesus, where His gospel is preached, because "...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17.)

If the lost sinner is ever saved, it must be through hearing and believing the gospel of Christ, and there is no better place for this than in one of His churches.

Christian Growth

But the injunction of our text is addressed to Christians who already are members of such a church. We are not to forsake "the assembling of ourselves together."

Just as the message of salvation was preserved through the centuries and came to us, directly or indirectly, through the blood bought and blood-tracked testimony of "...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim. 3:15), so this church is the best place to go to on earth to get the "...sincere milk of the word" that we must have for normal spiritual growth. (I Peter 2:2.)

Mature Stability

For this very purpose our Lord has given to His churches pastors and teachers, "...for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine. . ." (Eph. 4:11-14.)

It may be readily observed that, generally speaking, Christians who do not attend church regularly are spiritual runts, easily led astray by false teachings. The teaching ministry of His church is our Lord's appointed means of building up and strengthening His children in the faith of His word.

Full Assurance

Too many Christians do not have the assurance that is their birthright as God's children. They lack assurance because they lack faith in the promises of God; they lack assurance because they lack obedience to the commands of God, and so their own hearts condemn them. (I John 2:3; 3:20)

Now, it is in the house of God (His church) that we can best find assurance if we are truly His children, because it is there that He especially manifests His presence: "And having an high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith." (Heb. 10:21, 22.)

Fellowship

In a church of our Lord can be found the best and sweetest fellowship this side of heaven. "...Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his son Jesus Christ." (I John 1:3.)

A limited degree of fellowship can indeed be enjoyed among true children of God outside of His church. Despite differences of doctrine and practice, there are and ought to be some bonds of love and common interests among all the saints, who are children of one God and trust in one Savior, though their obedience to "one Lord" is more or less imperfect.

But it is only in the "one body" of a New Testament church that we can have the unity of the Spirit, one hope of our calling, one faith, and one baptism. (Eph. 4:3-6.) It is only in such a church that we "...are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph. 2:22.)

Joy in the Lord

Obedient Christians are happy Christians. "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." (John 13:17.)

Our greatest joy is to be found in our Lord: "...In thy presence is fulness of joy..." (Ps. 16:11.) And Jesus assures us of His presence when His church meets: "...Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20.) The preceding verses show that He was speaking of His church.

So we see our own personal need of "going to church" to help us to grow spiritually, to attain mature stability, to gain Christian assurance, to enrich our Christian fellowship, and to have fulness of joy as God's children doing His will in His presence.

A Good Testimony

Finally, we have the privilege and responsibility of witnessing to others for our Lord and Savior. One of the best ways of giving this testimony is to show by our faithful attendance at God's house the genuineness of our faith.

Christians (if we can properly call them Christians) who despise "...the church of God, which he..." (the Son) "...hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28) will have a hard time trying to convince any intelligent person that they love the Savior or the souls of men.

Therefore, "let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." (Heb. 10:24,25)

"Teaching To Observe--"

LEXINGTON BAPTIST COLLEGE-

A Teaching Agency of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever

I have commanded you..." (Matt. 28:20.)

Failing to teach their members to observe all that Jesus commanded, even true churches of our Lord pave the way to their own destruction. Baptists of this generation are numerous and prosperous because of the faithfulness and sacrifices of previous generations: but by our own betrayal of the historic Baptist faith we are storing up trouble for our successors.

A Baptist Failure

Practically all Baptist churches still have some sense of a mission to the world and all that have any real claim to the name Baptist are still baptizing their disciples, but the sad fact is that most Baptist churches today are failing to indoctrinate their membership with the teachings and commandments of Jesus.

A generation of modernistic preachers, a product of denominational and undenominational seminaries, is gradually leading our churches away from loyalty to the Lord Jesus and His word. The disastrous loyalty of this generation is either to a denominational program or to a super-denomination in process of formation. Thus few Baptists today have much real conviction of Baptist teaching, which is to say, Bible teaching.

What are some of the "all things" that we are commanded to teach baptized disciples to observe? I mention four:

1. Obedience to Jesus as Lord.

2. New Testament church polity.

3. The ordinances of this church.

4. Witnessing to the saving grace of God in Christ.

Personal Obedience

Theoretically all Christians worthy of the name will acknowledge that it is their duty to obey Christ. Yet in practice the majority of so-called Christians want to choose for themselves how far they will go in this obedience. Various denominations have chosen some of the commandments of Jesus for emphasis while openly rejecting or disregarding other commandments. Interdenominational "fundamentalists" pride themselves on their faithfulness to what they are pleased to call essential teachings or commandments while they ignore or regard lightly those commandments of our Lord which are most divisive.

Our Lord has not excused the disobedience of even the least of His commands: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:19.)

Church Polity

Jesus declared (Matt. 16:18) that He would build His church, and in Matt. 18:17, 18 we find Him instructing His disciples to refer their personal quarrels, as a last resort, to this church, showing that by this time the church was already organized for business.

The commission in Matt. 28:18-20 must have been given to this church as a continuing institution. If He was speaking to the disciples in their personal capacity the commission died with them. If He was speaking to them merely as disciples then He was authorizing the utter confusion that we see in professed Christianity today.

The view that Jesus was speaking here to His disciples as an organized church is the only view that makes good sense. In fact, practically all Christians recognize that our Lord has something called a church with authority to carry on His work in this world. Divisions arise over the question of whether to recognize the church as it appears in the New Testament or to substitute something else.

Any church or any school as a teaching agency of a church or churches that does not teach Christians to observe the church polity instituted by the Lord Jesus certainly is not teaching them to observe all things He has commanded.

Lexington Baptist College is one of very few schools today that maintain a sound scriptural position on the church of the Lord Jesus as we find it revealed in the New Testament.

Ordinances

Apart from a true New Testament church it is of course impossible to observe scripturally the ordinances of that church baptism and the Lord's Supper. "...In one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." (I Cor. 12:13.) The kind of body referred to is that kind of which the church at Corinth was an example, as we read in verse 27, "ye are a body of Christ." From I Cor. 1:2 we find that by "ye" Paul meant "the church of God which is at Corinth."

Of course the only kind of church that can administer baptism is an organized church. And if the baptism is to be scriptural the church administering the ordinance must be of the kind instituted by our Lord, deriving its authority by succession from that first church.

The Lord's Supper is quite generally recognized as a church ordinance. In I Cor. 11:17-20 we learn that even when a church meets to observe the ordinance if there are divisions and heresies there it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper. How much more is this true where the divisions and heresies are of such a nature as to have given rise to distinct denominations?

Lexington Baptist College as a teaching agency of the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church and other churches cooperating in this teaching ministry believes in and stands for believer's baptism under the authority of a New Testament Baptist Church and the Lord's Supper as an ordinance of that church.

Witnessing

"...Ye shall be witnesses unto me..." (Acts 1:8.) "Make disciples of all nations." (Matt. 28:19.)

True churches of the Lord Jesus are evangelistic, missionary churches. Undoubtedly this is the chief emphasis of the great commission and the church which has lost this mission has lost its very reason for existence.

In our insistence upon teaching to observe all things that our Lord has commanded, we are not to lose sight of this great commandment to His church to preach the gospel to every creature.

A prime objective of Lexington Baptist College is to maintain a fervent spirit of evangelism and to prepare and inspire the students for scriptural missionary work.

Ashland Avenue Baptist Church and other churches and individuals contributing to the support of Lexington Baptist College are carrying out through the agency of this school the command of our Lord to teach God's people to observe all things that He has commanded.

Part Two  

 THE BAPTISM

One Baptism - In Water

DISOBEDIENCE TO DIVINE COMMANDS IS NOT A WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

"There is . . . one baptism." (Eph. 4:4, 5)

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into (with reference to) Jesus Christ were baptized into (with reference to) his death?" (Rom. 6:3.)

"Our fathers . . . were all baptized into (with reference to) Moses in the cloud and in the sea." (I Cor. 10:1, 2.)

Use of scriptural terms in an unscriptural sense is a favorite trick of modernists that has been adopted by some so-called interdenominationalists who pride themselves on their supposed orthodoxy or fundamentalism. So it has become fashionable in certain circles to speak of a "spiritual baptism" of which the Bible tells us exactly nothing.

Satan has never introduced among God's people a heresy so ridiculous but that he has been able to find men willing to prostitute some degree of scholarship in its defense. So it has been with the practice of baby baptism, pouring, and sprinkling as substitutes for believer's baptism. There have been a few scholars of limited ability or honesty, or both, who have tried to justify these unscriptural practices by perverted interpretations of scripture.

A Lost Battle

But among competent scholars the scriptural meaning of "baptize" and "baptism" is no longer a matter of debate. Everyone knows that the ordinary literal meaning of baptize in the New Testament is to dip, plunge, or immerse in water, and whatever figurative meaning the word may occasionally have must be derived from and based upon this literal sense.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley, whatever their doctrinal errors, were at least, unlike some of their followers, scholarly enough to admit that scriptural baptism was immersion, and that sprinkling in its place was an innovation for the sake of convenience rather than obedience.

Figurative Baptisms

An elementary principle of honest translation and interpretation is that the literal or ordinary meaning of a word is always to be preferred if it makes good sense in the context; figurative or unusual meanings are to be adopted only when demanded by context.

Undoubtedly in Matt. 20:22, Mk. 10:38, and Lu. 12:50 Jesus was speaking of a figurative baptism or immersion in the sufferings of the cross. So the baptism in fire mentioned in Matt. 3:11 and Lu. 3:16 is evidently not a dipping in water. Some interpreters think the reference is to the "fiery trial" of I Pet. 4:12; others refer the language to the lost in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15), in which case the baptism is quite literal, except that it is in fire instead of water.

In The Holy Spirit

The Bible also speaks of a baptism in (NOT "with") the Holy Spirit. Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lu. 3:16; Jn. 1:33; Acts 1:5,11:16, these six times and nowhere else do we read that Jesus was to baptize in the Holy Spirit. This baptism in the Holy Spirit took place on the day of Pentecost, symbolizing the dedication and accreditation of the church as an institution, even as baptism in water symbolizes the dedication and accreditation of the individual believer.

Just as an individual believer is scripturally baptized in water only once, so the church as an institution was baptized in the Holy Spirit only once, that is, on the day of Pentecost. The additional manifestation in the house of Cornelius was simply to convince Peter and other Jewish church members that Gentile believers rightfully belonged in the same church.

Not An Individual

Never in all the New Testament is a single individual said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. This was a baptism of the church as such, not of single believers as such. Let us not confuse fillings with the Spirit or gifts of the Spirit with baptism in the Spirit.

If we are members of a scriptural church, in scriptural succession from that first (Baptist) church in Jerusalem, then our church was baptized in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, once for all. If we have not such a church, no fake "Pentecost" will change the fact.

Baptized "Into" Moses

A preposition is a weak peg to hang a doctrine on, but the phrase "baptized into Jesus Christ" in the King James version of Rom. 6:3 has long been a favorite with baptismal regenerationists. They are conveniently or willfully ignorant of the fact that identical translation of the same Greek preposition eis in I Cor. 10:2 makes "our fathers . . . all baptized into Moses."

Of course, nobody is ever dipped into Christ, any more than anybody was ever dipped into Moses. The Greek preposition in both these passages should be rendered "with reference to" or "because of," either of which translations will give good sense, while "into" gives nonsense.

Wild Wuestern Whimsy

A reader wants to know what I think of the so-called "expanded translation" by Kenneth S. Wuest of Rom. 6:3 and Eph. 4:5. I quote:

"Do you not know that all we who were placed in Christ Jesus, in his death were placed?" (Rom. 6:3.)

"One Lord, one Faith, one placing into [the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit]." (Eph. 4:5, brackets included.)

I answer: that is not translation, expanded or otherwise: that is mere wild Wuestern whimsy.

The Greek word transliterated baptize does not mean to place

or place into in any such free and easy sense. It means to dip, plunge, or immerse in water, unless the context obviously demands another element.

No reputable Greek scholar ever dreamed of such "translation" in former years, but now, driven to desperate expedients to promote the "invisible church" fantasy, modernistic Bible dictionaries and commentaries of pseudoscholarship are chirping a chorus of "spiritual baptism" a thing as invisible and nonexistent in the Bible as the invisible church itself.

"Shut UP TO Moses"

Amusingly consistent only in its inconsistency is the same Wuestern "translation" of I Cor. 10:2: "And all had themselves immersed, surrounded by the cloud [on both sides], thus shut up to Moses [as their leader]." (Brackets are part of quotation.)

"Shut up to Moses," indeed! At least, thank God, we are not shut up to Wuest. If that is translation, a dozen generations of formerly respected English translators missed their calling.

Only One Baptism

According to the Bible (Eph. 4:5), there is only one (literal) baptism, and that is the baptism in water instituted by John the Baptist by divine commission, received by the Lord Jesus, and by Him committed to His church to be observed as an ordinance for disciples (believers) only, as a first act of obedience, to be followed by the observance of all His commandments.

When men speak of a fictitious "spiritual baptism" not mentioned in the Bible, and belittle the one baptism (in water) that is taught in the Bible, we can be sure that their strange doctrine is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

More About Baptism

Reply to Query: The Article, "One Baptism--In Water," published in the Ashland Avenue Baptist, has drawn criticism from a number of readers, some friendly and some hostile. Answering such criticism, Bro. Brong submits the following review with some additional facts from the scriptures:

Let us simply recognize that nouns and verbs, in the very nature of language, are more nearly dependable in meaning than are prepositions. Specifically, we MUST take the Greek preposition eis in different senses in different contexts; we NEED NOT take the noun or verb for baptism or baptize in any other than the literal or nearly literal sense of dip, plunge, immerse, submerge, or overwhelm and ALWAYS in water unless the context DEMANDS otherwise. This assumption makes possible harmonious interpretation of the scriptural doctrine of baptism without difficulty.

But if we insist on "into" as the unvarying English translation

of eis, even though Webster's Third New International Dictionary gives 11 main definitions of "into," we shall have all sorts of trouble. Did the men of Nineveh repent "into" the preaching of Jonah? Did Jesus speak of giving someone a drink "into" the name of a disciple? (Matt. 12:41, 10:42.) Did Peter tell repenters at Pentecost to be baptized "into" remission of sins? (Acts 2:38.)

This last reference involves the use of eis in connection with baptism certainly parallel with Matt. 28:19, Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27, etc. Even more pertinent is I Cor. 10:2, where we read that the Israelites were baptized eis Moses. The construction here is exactly parallel with baptism eis Christ and eis the name of the Lord Jesus. There is no more reason to imagine a "spiritual baptism" "into" Christ than a "spiritual baptism" "into" Moses.

To Avoid Confusion

No doubt there is a real spiritual and scriptural experience FIGURED or SYMBOLIZED in scriptural (water) baptism, but we ought not to confuse the figure with the thing figured. From such confusion the Campbellites teach baptismal regeneration and ultra-dispensationalists teach that "water baptism" was a "temporary rite" no longer to be practiced.

Romans 6:5 seems to me simple enough: "For if we have become planted with (Him) in the LIKENESS of his death, yet also we shall be (in the likeness) of his resurrection." The baptism which figures the burial of Jesus in His death, and His resurrection, also figures our own spiritual death and resurrection as well as the death and resurrection of our bodies. With all this wealth of meaning in Christ's ordinance of baptism, it is no wonder that Satan tries to destroy it!

If we have here only a "spiritual" baptism, a "spiritual" likeness, a "spiritual" death, have we also only a "spiritual" resurrection? Some would say so, but the Bible teaches otherwise. See I Cor. 15:12-19, 29.

Buried With Him In Baptism

BIBLICAL BAPTISM BURIES THE BODIES

OF BELIEVERS- "MUCH WATER" USED

BY FIRST BAPTIST

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." (Col. 2:12.)

A person can no more be baptized with a few drops or even a few quarts of water than he can be buried with a few specks or even a peck of dirt. More than this is needed for burial. The first Baptist preacher baptized in a certain place "because there was much water there" (Jn. 3:23), and Baptists have been using much water ever since.

The Biblical Act

That the Biblical act of baptism was immersion in water is admitted by all competent scholars. No respectable authority claims otherwise.

Moreover, the ordinary English reader, having no knowledge of Greek, will come to this conclusion from a careful reading of the New Testament in the King James version, a translation made by a group of baby sprinklers.

As to people who know Greek, the Greek Orthodox Church, which surely knows its own language, practices immersion. And not only Roman Catholic authorities, but eminent Protestant leaders who continued to follow Rome in pouring or sprinkling, though "protesting" against some other unscriptural practices, have freely admitted that Biblical baptism was immersion. Among such honest (on this point) Protestants were Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley.

Today only a few partisan zealots ignorant of language and ignorant of history attempt to defend sprinkling or pouring as baptism from a scriptural standpoint. The usual argument is that sprinkling and pouring are more convenient and that the matter is of no great importance anyway.

Still, the plain fact remains that the Biblical act of baptism is immersion in water, and if we are to be baptized WITH JESUS, we too must be dipped or "buried" with Him.

The Biblical Actor

The Biblical actor in the drama of baptism is as clearly defined as the act itself. Jesus set the example for later actors to follow, and only believers in Him are qualified to walk in His steps.

John the Baptist demanded "fruits meet for repentance" as prerequisite to baptism, and Jesus required by precept and example that the making of disciples precede their baptism. (Matt. 3:7-9; 28:19; Jn. 4:1.) Other Baptists through the centuries have followed the same rule.

At Pentecost "...they that gladly received his word were baptized..." (Acts 2:41.) So always in the New Testament, the person baptized is a professed believer. Not a single instance of so called "infant baptism" can be found in the Bible.

The Biblical actor in baptism has died to sin and self, even as

He Who knew no sin died to His own (human) will that He might do the will of the Father Who sent Him. It is in this spirit of self surrender to the will of God that we are "buried with him in baptism."

The Biblical Agent

If human authorities have power to choose and appoint their own agents to administer their affairs, much more does the God Who made the heavens and the earth have power to designate His chosen agents with authority to represent Him in carrying out His commands.

That the administration of Biblical baptism involves the question of authority of the agent is evident from John 1:25: "...Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?"

John as God's first agent of baptism had his authority from the highest of all sources. Later, we find Jesus baptizing through the agency of His disciples. (Jn. 4:1, 2.) Finally, with His disciples organized as a church (Matt. 18:17), He left with them orders to continue making, baptizing, and training disciples to the end of the age. (Matt. 28:18-20.)

Obviously the Biblical agent of baptism for our day is no individual disciple mentioned in the New Testament, for all these individuals long ago ended their labors upon earth. Just as obviously though the continuing agency must be the church, neither the abstract institution nor any church in concrete reality can as a whole serve as agent in the actual administration of baptism.

What remains is that a church administers baptism through its appointed ministers, and this is not only logical and scriptural, but is generally agreed to by nearly all Christendom, including true churches and false. But again it is obvious that God has not appointed false churches to serve as agents for Him. (See I Cor. 14:33.)

To put it briefly and simply, if we would be "buried with him in baptism," we should remember that Jesus was baptized by a Baptist preacher.

The Biblical Aim

We do not decently bury a man to kill him, but because he has already died. Likewise the aim of baptism is not to kill the old man of sin but to signify that he is already dead.

The Biblical aim of baptism is not determinative, but declarative. It is not to attain salvation, but to proclaim it.

Biblical baptism aims at advertising two literal resurrections and one figurative. The literal resurrections are the bodily resurrection of Christ, now already accomplished, and our own bodily resurrection, still future. The figurative resurrection is our beginning of a new spiritual life unto God after having died to sin.

Biblical baptism aims not to secure but to symbolize the washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), a washing actually secured in the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5). Baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but does aim at a good conscience toward God (I Peter 3:21).

As an army uniform does not make a soldier, but declares the wearer to be one, so in Biblical baptism we "put on Christ," aiming to let ourselves be known as His people, since we are already "the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26, 27.)

If we are truly "buried with him in baptism," then, we must aim simply to show forth the death, burial, and resurrection of our Savior, in Whom is fulfilled all righteousness. (Matt. 3:16.) Any thought of contributing to our own salvation in this act is an insult to Christ and perverts what should be an act of loving obedience into a wickedly presumptuous sin.

Minimum Essentials

Whatever else might be said of detailed teaching of scripture concerning baptism, the four points here mentioned certainly constitute minimum essentials for Biblical baptism. The Biblical Act, the Biblical Actor, the Biblical Agent, the Biblical Aim, how can there be Biblical baptism with any one of these missing?

A so-called baptism that does not involve immersion of the whole person in water is not Biblical baptism.

A so-called baptism of an unsaved, unregenerated person is not Biblical baptism.

A so-called baptism without the God-given authority of a true New Testament church is not Biblical baptism.

A so called baptism aiming to attain salvation by human merit, instead of aiming to proclaim a salvation already obtained through faith in the crucified, buried, resurrected Savior is not Biblical baptism.

Only if our baptism includes the Biblical Act, the Biblical Actor, the Biblical Agent and the Biblical Aim only then are we truly "buried with him in baptism."

Baptism -- A Figure

HONEST READING OF SCRIPTURE SHOWS THAT SALVATION IS IN CHRIST

NOT IN BAPTISM

". . . when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by (through) 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." (I Peter 3:20-21.)

Verse 21 can be more accurately translated and punctuated as follows: "With reference to which also an anti type, baptism now saves us: not a putting off of the filth of the flesh, but an asking of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The Type--Flood Water

"Water" is the antecedent of "which" at the beginning of this verse, or the antecedent of "whereunto," as we have it in the King James version. A glance at the Greek text is enough to establish this fact with anyone who knows Greek.

That is, Peter is comparing New Testament baptism to the water of the flood "in the days of Noah." But did the water of the flood save souls? Figuratively speaking, the answer is yes:

". . . the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein [literally, into which] few, that is, eight souls were saved by [better, through] water."

Saved Through Water

How did the water of the flood save the lives of Noah and his family? If they had trusted in the water itself, they must have perished along with the ungodly who would not believe that the judgment of God was about to fall upon them. Belief that the water itself would have saving power must have been at least as fatal to their salvation as refusal to believe that the water would come. But--

"...Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood." (Gen. 7:7.)

The water of which God warned him drove Noah and his family into the ark, and so through water they were saved into the ark.

No great intelligence is needed to see that actually these lives were saved in or by virtue of the ark, and not in or by virtue of the water, from which, in fact, the ark saved them while others drowned in that same water.

Moreover, the same water which overwhelmed and destroyed the wicked became the means of lifting up the ark as the true refuge and savior of those who trusted not in the water but in the ark as God's appointed means of their deliverance.

The Like Figure

Now, that water of Noah's day was the type of which baptism is an antitype, or "the like figure," as King James has it.

If the type or likeness is perfect, we must suppose that baptism does not really or literally save anyone, any more than did the water of the flood, but only symbolically or figuratively. And our supposition becomes certainty when Peter hastens to declare that baptism is "not a putting off of the filth of the flesh."

Obviously "the filth of the flesh" means sin, not merely physical dirt, since physical dirt can be washed off in baptism. But only the blood of Jesus Christ can cleanse us from sin, and the merits of this blood are obtained through faith, not through baptism. John 3:16 should be sufficient evidence on this point.

A Good Conscience

For readers who think that the King James version is inspired, I would say that I have rather liked the word "answer" in our text and might have kept it if honesty permitted. But accurate translation tells us that Baptism is "an asking of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Either way, baptism appears as Christian duty, whether as an answer or an asking of a good conscience toward God. The believer in Christ who neglects or refuses to be baptized cannot possibly have a good conscience toward God on this point. If his conscience does not condemn him, then his conscience is as bad as his conduct.

Through the Resurrection

With the parentheses of the King James version we are made to read, "Baptism doth also now save us . . . by [through] the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This must mean simply that when we witness scriptural baptism we are reminded of the death, burial, and (especially) resurrection of Christ our Saviour, through Whose resurrection we are saved, since He "...was raised again for our justification." (Rom. 4:25.)

Baptism which points us to Christ does not any more really save us than did the water of the flood save Noah and his family when it drove them into the ark for salvation. (Gen. 7:7.)

It is possible, and I think preferable, to connect the phrase "through the resurrection" with the noun "asking." Thus we read that baptism is "an asking of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

"...Because I live," said Jesus, "ye shall live also." (John 14:19.)

So the born-again believer, already passed out of death into life (John 5:24), now in the "figure" or antitype of baptism draws a picture in this physical act of spiritual truth already spiritually received.

So through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, living the life of his risen Savior, in this act of obedience he asks for a good conscience toward God, a good conscience such as is unknown to disobedient Christians.

Baptism For Remission

BELIEVERS WITH SINS ALREADY REMITTED ARE COMMANDED TO BE BAPTIZED

"Then Peter said unto them, 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.)

For more than a thousand years before Alexander Campbell misstated the Baptist doctrine of believers' immersion with the Catholic doctrine of so-called baptismal regeneration, most of the heretics of Christendom were perverting this text and a few others in supposed support of the delusion that remission of sins may be obtained through the waters of baptism, or through the waters of pouring or sprinkling as substitutes for baptism.

The idea did not originate with Campbell: he was wise enough to recognize that Baptists were right in their insistence on immersion of believers; but with his Presbyterian background he was foolish enough to stay with the Catholic tradition that baptism (or, for most Catholics in recent centuries, affusion) is necessary to salvation.

The Problem

Were, it not for this widespread heresy of long standing, comparatively few readers would misunderstand our text, or other texts that have been given a perverted interpretation by advocates of baptismal regeneration; and any such misunderstanding would be quickly cleared up as the reader examined the text in light of context. But when readers bring preconceived heresies to their reading, it is harder for them to see the simple truth.

Surely it is obvious enough to any "open mind that if this text teaches the Catholic-Campbellite doctrine that baptism is a condition precedent to the remission of sins, then the Bible is in hopeless contradiction with itself and we have no reliable textbook from which to derive Christian doctrine. If the Bible is a book of contradictions, we have no reasonable ground of any Christian faith. This is the problem raised by the contradictory doctrine of various Christian or so-called Christian sects: are they really Biblical contradictions, or merely contradictions of interpretation?

Language Interpretation

Judicial interpretation and (mostly) misinterpretation of the United States Constitution, exhibiting staggering contradictions in less than 200 years, may serve as an example of how lawyers, political and religious, can twist and befog language that was clear enough before it got hid behind their interpretations.

Baptists, at least old fashioned Baptists, believe that the Bible is God's guidebook for His people, written to make His way so clear that "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." (Isa. 35:8.)

Most controversial point in Acts 2:38 is a prepositional phrase, "for the remission of sins," as it reads in the King James version, or "unto the remission of your sins," as in the American Standard version. Either reading involves interpretation by the translators and requires further interpretation in English.

First then, it is debatable whether this phrase modifies only the verb "repent," only the verb "be baptized," or both, not to mention one or two other possible syntactical interpretations. I merely note the difficulty: we need not worry about it; we can get the truth clearly enough from other texts.

As to the preposition "for" or "unto" (Greek eis), again the meaning is ambiguous. "For" can mean "in order to," as when a man works "for" pay that he expects to receive later; but it can also mean "because of," as when he receives pay "for" work already done. Likewise "unto" may have either a past or future reference, relating either an addition to something already had or an attainment to something else.

Properly translating in contextual agreement with New Testament language and teaching, Acts 2:38 may be read as follows: "And Peter said to them, Repent ye, and each of you be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ because of remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Why "Because Of"?

"Because of" is not the most usual translation of the Greek preposition eis. Many prepositions, Greek and English, are used to express various relationships. For example, look up the words "to," "in," "on," and "for" in a large English dictionary. This has been an instructive exercise even for some college students.

Young's concordance lists a dozen different translations of eis

in the King James version, then adds "etc." The good English bishops, whose creed teaches baptismal regeneration, avoided the translation "because of," but it fits excellently in several passages.

Three times in Matt. 10:41, 42 eis is rendered "in", "in the name." Obviously this means "because of the name"; in fact it is so explained in Mark 9:41, though there the preposition used is en. Ninevites "repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas" (Matt. 12:41); that is, of course, because of the preaching of Jonas.

"...Wherefore didst thou doubt?" asked Jesus in Matt. 14:31. "Wherefore," meaning "why," is the King James rendering of two Greek words, eis ti, which could be translated literally, "Because of what?"

So it is evident that "because of " is a legitimate translation of

eis if it can be justified from context, and the New Testament context makes this the best possible translation in Acts 2:38.

John's Baptism

From John 1:40-42 and Acts 1:20-22 it is clear that Peter was

thoroughly familiar with the baptism and doctrine of John the Baptist. There is no reason to imagine that the apostle would suddenly announce a new and revolutionary doctrine of baptism, and especially in such ambiguous language.

John's baptism manifestly was not announced as a means of obtaining remission of sins. On the contrary, John demanded that candidates for his baptism whose sincerity he doubted bring forth "fruits worthy of repentance." (Lu. 3:8.) He baptized "in water unto (eis) repentance" (Matt. 3:11); that is, because of repentance already exercised and proved by worthy fruits, as appears in the preceding verses.

Mark tells us that John preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (1:4.) This means that the baptism was the result of repentance. If we relate "for (eis) the remission of sins" to the word "repentance," then "for" may mean "in order to"; if we relate the phrase to the word "baptism," then "for" must mean "because of" to harmonize with context.

No honest reader, surely, will accuse the first Baptist of being a ritualist. Peter had learned of John through Andrew to follow Jesus (Jn. 1:35-42), and we can be sure that they have the same doctrine of baptism.

Christ's Baptism

John's baptism was Christ's baptism. This truth is so important that it is recorded in all four gospels. (Matt. 3:13-17; Mk. 1:9-11; Lu. 3:21, 22; Jn. 1:29-34.) To say that John's baptism was not Christian baptism is to say that Christ did not have Christian baptism. How ridiculous can you get?

When Christ received baptism from John the Baptist, He demonstrated once for all that baptism is not in order to the remission of sins, since Christ had no sins to be remitted. But "...thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matt. 3:15.) That is, baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and in that death, burial and resurrection all righteousness is fulfilled.

Apostolic Agreement

Moreover, the apostles continued the practice of baptism according to the original order, for we read, "...Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)." (Jn. 4:1,2.) That is, it was through the ministry of His disciples that He "made and baptized more disciples than John." Notice: they made disciples first, and then they baptized them. This is always the scriptural order.

Read I Cor. 1:12-17 to see how completely the apostle Paul subordinated the ordinance of baptism to the preaching of the gospel. Though baptism symbolizes the gospel, it is in itself no part of the gospel, as appears in the words "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (I Cor. 1:17).

Paul likewise identified his baptism with that of John the Baptist when he found at Ephesus a dozen disciples who claimed, no doubt sincerely, that they had John's baptism, but who had never heard John's message. Of course, a mere form of baptism, administered by unauthorized persons who lack the scriptural message conveyed in true baptism, is of no value. When Paul informed these imperfectly taught disciples of John's true message, they proved their faith by being baptized "in the name," that is, by the authority, "of the Lord Jesus." (See Acts 19:1-7.)

Let Peter Interpret

If there are readers who might imagine that Peter's doctrine of baptism could have been different from that of John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul, it would seem to be worth while to find out whether Peter himself stated his doctrine any more clearly on other occasions.

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,..." said Peter, with no mention of baptism, in Acts 3:19. But if he had considered baptism to be necessary to salvation, his language here would have been criminally misleading.

Again, to the household of Cornelius, Peter declared concerning Christ: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43.) Either Peter was a true apostle or he was not; and if he told the truth to Cornelius, then his language in Acts 2:38 must not be misinterpreted so as to contradict his plain statement here.

With no reference to baptism, Peter affirms explicitly that the new birth is by virtue of "...the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," and that it is "...not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God..." (I Pe. 1:3, 23.)

Peter's only mention of baptism in his two epistles is in I Pe. 3:21, and there he is careful to declare that baptism is NOT a "...putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer" (or, asking) "of a good conscience toward God."

Common honesty demands that we let Peter interpret himself, and thus it becomes perfectly clear that in Acts 2:38 he was commanding each of his hearers who repented, and no others, to be baptized because of remission of sins, remission already obtained through repentance (which in a scriptural sense includes faith). That this was his meaning, and that he was so understood, is obvious also in verse 41, where we read that only "...they that gladly received his word were baptized...."

Christ's Commission

Alexander Campbell felt free to "restore" a "primitive Christianity" far removed from the faith once for all delivered to the saints - far removed from true New Testament Christianity. But true Christians must recognize Christ and Christ alone as our Lord, as the Author and Finisher of our faith. (He. 12:2.)

Never did the Lord Jesus condition His salvation upon the outward act of baptism. His commission to His church was first to make disciples, then to baptize them, and finally to teach them to observe all His commandments. (Matt. 28:18-20.) In Mark 16:16 He assumes that true believers will generally be baptized, but according to Jesus the damning failure of sinners is not failure to be baptized, but failure to believe the gospel. So He taught always.

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (Jn. 3:18.)

Baptism Now Saves Us

THE ONE BAPTISM OF THE BIBLE PICTURES

THE ONE AND ONLY SAVING GOSPEL

"...l am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9:22.) ". . . Eight souls were saved through water. With respect to which also an antitype -baptism - now saves us: not a putting off of the filth of the flesh, but an asking of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (I Pet. 3:20, 21, improved translation.)

Since it is in the Bible, it must be Baptist doctrine and must not be denied by true Baptists that in some sense baptism now saves us. Gross perversion of this doctrine by baby sprinklers and baptismal regenerationists must not be allowed to rob us of what the Bible really teaches on this subject. How, then, does baptism save, from what, and to what?

Sources and Means

Let us distinguish first between sources and means or instruments. Instrumentally speaking, Paul earnestly sought to "save some" (I Cor. 9:22), but he well understood that he was nothing but a minister through whom they believed (I Cor. 3:5). So we are said to be saved through the gospel (I Cor. 15:2) and through faith (Eph. 2:8). But ultimately, "...Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9), and can come only from and in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. (Acts 4:10-12.)

Now, the more spiritually intelligent of the false teachers who claim that baptism is essential to salvation will admit that there is no intrinsic merit in the mere outward act of baptism, but they insist that it is the divinely appointed means for obtaining the remission of sins. In this insistence they are either right or wrong.

Unity or Conflict?

Paul tells us that Christ's gifts in the ministry of His church are designed to bring us to "...the unity of the faith...." (Eph. 4:13.) But the idea that baptism is the means or a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins creates irreconcilable conflicts with true scripture teaching and makes unity of faith impossible.

All the "proof texts" used (or rather misused) to teach baptismal regeneration or baptismal remission are either ambiguous or actually teach truth opposed to these heresies, as does our present text.

On the other hand, the Bible, especially the New Testament, is full of statements assuring us that all true believers, only believers, and believers only (prior to and without baptism or other good works) are in present possession of everlasting life and are legally justified before God.

Picture or Reality?

Really, the Bible clearly tells us that Biblical baptism is a picture or "likeness" of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Rom. 6:3-5.)

When Jesus was baptized (by the first Baptist preacher) He declared that "...thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness...." (Matt. 3:15.) Notice: "thus," in this way, not in this act, but like this; that is, in the death, burial, and resurrection pictured in this act.

LET THOSE WHO WILL IDOLIZE AND TRUST IN THE PICTURE; LET US WHO KNOW OF THE CRUCIFIED, RISEN SAVIOR TRUST IN HIM.

Antitype

In the King James version of our text, baptism is called "the like figure," so putting us on guard against mistaking it for the actual Savior.

More literally, baptism is an antitype of the water through which eight souls were brought safe. Actually, Noah and his family were saved by the ark, which they entered before the water came. The people outside the ark were baptized sure enough, in the broad sense of the word, but it was a baptism of death and not of salvation.

The only sense in which the flood waters saved Noah and his house is that "the water increased, and bare up the ark." (Gen. 7:17.)

Even so, Biblical baptism, in "much water" (Jn. 3:23), symbolically lifts up the Lord Jesus, and all who take refuge in Him escape the judgment appointed to a sin cursed world.

Saves From What?

So it is not from eternal judgment that baptism saves us, except figuratively, as it exalts Christ, our real Savior. Yet, if we grasp the spiritual meaning of this symbol, it can save us from the fatal folly of trusting in our own good works, including baptism, to save us from the wrath to come.

Christ died for our sins, Christ was buried, Christ arose again for our justification (I Cor. 15:3; Rom. 4:25): Biblical baptism saves us from forgetting this vital message.

Baptismal remissionists and their logical offspring, baby sprinklers, have deluded untold millions of souls with false promises and vain hopes. Biblical baptism, no part of the gospel but a simple picture of the gospel, has saved Baptists from these delusions through nearly 20 centuries.

Saves To What?

Biblical baptism, our text informs us, is "not a putting off of the filth of the flesh, but an asking of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Like any other good work rightly motivated, baptism is conducive to a good conscience toward God. Certainly after we have believed the gospel and trusted Jesus, after we have been born again (I Jn. 5:1), if we are true disciples of our Lord (Matt. 28:19), we shall want to obey Him by being Biblically baptized. Only then can we have "a good conscience toward God" on this point. Therefore, "Repent ye, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38.)

Authority in the Baptism

THE BAPTISM COMMANDED FROM HEAVEN

IS COMMITTED ONLY TO BAPTISTS

"Having been buried with him in the baptism in which also ye were raised with (him) through the faith of the energy of the God, the one having raised him from the dead." (Col. 2:12, literal translation.)

Our text describes the one baptism of the New Testament authorized as a continuing ordinance of God. First administered by the first Baptist on direct command from heaven, it was continued under the direction of Jesus by the disciples constituting the first Baptist church, and finally committed to that same church for administration to the end of the age. "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?..." (Matt. 21:25.) A right answer to this question must lead to a recognition of the authority of Jesus as Head of His church, even as Jewish priests and elders reasoned long ago.

Only One Baptism

In a literal sense the Bible teaches only one baptism, that is, one kind of baptism, as a New Testament ordinance. This is immersion in water of a born-again believer by the ministry of a New Testament church for the purpose of providing a symbol or figure of the faith professed.

Other literal immersions, bathings, or washings are mentioned in the New Testament, but the Greek uses a different noun from the one used for New Testament baptism.

Jesus spoke of His sufferings as a baptism, but of course this is figurative language. John said that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit and in fire, but this too is figurative, as baptism is properly a dipping in water. The first Baptist church in Jerusalem was once for all figuratively baptized by Jesus in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, thus receiving for all time divine certification that this is the kind of church in which God dwells on earth.

It remains true that for New Testament purposes there is literally only one baptism (Eph. 4:5), and therefore our text (Col. 2:12) refers to it literally as "the baptism." The definite article is used also in Rom. 6:4, "we were buried with him through the baptism with reference to the death."

Bogus Baptisms

As our text makes clear, the baptism of the New Testament involves a burial in water and a raising of the buried body as a picture of the burial and resurrection of Christ. Obviously pouring or sprinkling do not afford such a picture, and if men call such rites baptism the term is bogus when so applied.

Baptism is done through the faith of the operation or energy of the very God Who raised Christ from the dead. This rules out Campbellite and other so-called baptisms of false faiths. The one baptism is an expression of one faith in one Lord. (Eph. 4:5.)

Now, to demand this faith in the person being baptized while denying its necessity in the administrator of baptism is a gross inconsistency.

Any man, woman, or child with physical ability can imitate in

word and deed the outward form of scriptural baptism, regardless of the religious or irreligious character of anyone involved, but if the act is not performed by divine authority it is bogus.

Authorized Administration

Certainly the only ultimate and absolute Authority is God Himself, and certainly all Christians will agree in theory that baptism, as well as every other act of Christian service, must be in submission to His authority to be acceptable in His sight. Differences arise, however, with regard to subordinate authority in administration.

John the Baptist was a man sent from God with authority to baptize (Jn. 1:6, 33), and the first disciples of Jesus got their authority directly from Him (Jn. 4:1, 2). When Jesus went back to heaven did He commit administrative authority to anyone in particular, or did He leave it to be assumed by anyone in general?

Subordinate authority may be explicit, implicit, or assumed. Both explicitly and implicitly Jesus committed to His church the responsibility of making disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all His commandments. (Matt. 28:18-20.) Attempts by other persons to exercise this authority are assumption based on presumption.

Practically all Christendom has substantially agreed for over 19 centuries that Jesus committed to His church the administrative authority for carrying on His work. For the identification of this church, see chapters on "Christ's Church" and "Ten Bible Proofs of Baptist Perpetuity."

In recent years, the most destructive attacks upon church authority have been made by advocates of the universal invisible church theory, according to which all saved persons are members of this imaginary church. But if Jesus commissioned disciples merely as disciples to administer baptism, then sprinklers, pourers, and Campbellites, not to mention Catholics (or at least genuine disciples among them), have equal authority with Baptists, since there are almost certainly some saved people in all these groups.

On the other hand, if by some feat of mental acrobatics the Baptist apologist for alien immersion insists that only the authority is unimportant, while the scriptural form, subject, and motive of baptism must be maintained, it need only be said that both subject and motive are unscriptural where divine authority is flouted. In alien immersion nothing remains but empty form.

Disputed Cases

Some disputants have tried to build an argument on the fact that inspired history in Acts does not give details of church procedure in connection with recorded baptisms. So they assume that at least some of these baptisms were administered by individual disciples without church authority.

One answer to this problem, if it is a problem, is simply that in some exceptional cases God the Holy Spirit could have, if He so wished, given personal direction to an individual to administer baptism rather than directed through church action, which is His more normal procedure. Upon any person claiming such authority today lies the burden of proof to show that he is prompted by the same Holy Spirit in harmony with apostolic doctrine. More likely he is prompted by his own fleshly pride to promote his own heresy.

Another answer, conclusive for saints who honor God's word, is that if we are going to assume something beyond what is written concerning the generally faithful servants of God, let us assume that they were obedient rather than disobedient with reference to service which God approves in His word. It is just as easy, and much more honoring to Christ and His body, the church, to assume that all baptisms recorded in Acts with divine approval were performed with church authority, explicit or implicit, as to assume that Philip or Ananias, for instance, acted without such authority (Acts 8:38; 9:10-18) just because the details are not recounted in the scripture.

A Matter of Doctrine

We are told in Acts 19:1-4 something of baptism without authority. At Ephesus Paul found about a dozen disciples who claimed to have John's baptism. Probably they had been dipped by Apollos, who later learned "...the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:24-28), but this point is irrelevant.

The Bible does not say that these men had John's baptism. The Bible says that "they said, Unto John's baptism." That is, they claimed to have, perhaps they really believed they had, John's baptism.

Attempts to distinguish between John's baptism and later Christian baptism, attempts to make the doctrine of John the Baptist and of the apostle Peter different from the doctrine of Paul-such attempts are mere hogwash.

When these disciples showed their ignorance of New Testament doctrine while claiming the baptism of John, Paul immediately summarized the teaching of John as identical with that of all true New Testament teachers, "saying unto the people, that they should believe . . . on Christ Jesus."

The point is that New Testament doctrine must accompany New Testament baptism. Only so do we have the baptism of our text, "through the faith of the energy of the God that raised him (Christ) from the dead."

So instructed, the disciples at Ephesus "were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" that is, under His authority through an official minister of His church.

It is always so. Where Christ is honored, His word is believed, His body is respected. The authorized administrator of the baptism that pictures His gospel is the church that He instituted and that He promised to be with to the end of the age. This is the only kind of church that believes and obeys His word and so can teach other disciples to obey Him.

Part Three -

 APPENDIX

The Origin of Baptists

"HERITAGE SERIES" OF S.B.C. TRAINING UNION SELLS BIRTHRIGHT FOR MESS OF POTTAGE

"The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?" (Lu. 20:4.) "...All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matt. 28:18-20.)

The origin of Baptists is not primarily a matter of profane history, but of inspired revelation. Our Lord Jesus Christ, according to His own word, built His own church, promised that the gates of hades would not prevail against it, gave it a worldwide commission, and declared that He is with it "all the days until the complete finish of the age." If this church that Jesus built was not, in concrete reality, what would today be called a Baptist church, then Baptists ought to find out what kind of church it was and by all means, at any cost, return from our schisms to that kind of church that Jesus tells us He is with.

When we abandon the authority of God's word for the Babel of profane history and human tradition, there is no logical stopping place for nominal Christianity short of abject subservience to the pope of Rome, since the preponderance of human testimony in numbers, wealth, and power is overwhelmingly on his side.

Official Sellout

In the April 2, 1964, issue of the Western Recorder, a paper which in past generations promoted Baptist (that is, Bible) truth, appeared an article headed "The Origin of Baptists" by one Glen Lee Greene, who, according to a footnote, "is a graduate of Louisiana College and New Orleans Baptist Seminary." The same footnote informs us that "He wrote this series of articles on Baptist Heritage at the request of the Training Union."

More and more it is becoming apparent that the opinions set forth in Bro. Greene's article are not mere personal aberrations, but represent the prevailing view of present Southern Baptist Convention officialdom, which is fast selling out the proper blood-bought heritage of Baptists for the red pottage of popular pleasure in the alluring deceptions of modern Babylon and her adulterous daughters.

What's In A Name?

The first paragraph of Bro. Greene's article reads as follows:

"Jesus did not give the church a formal name. Men not only named it, they divided and changed it. Historical evolvement produced changes, either good or bad, right or wrong. The course of Christian history was affected by crises and tensions both within and without the Christian movement. No church today conforms in every detail to, nor carries on its work exactly like, the New Testament church. This is not possible, necessary, or desirable."'

Obviously the writer, though for his own reasons he avoided the word "evolution" and used "evolvement" instead, does not believe that Jesus built His church, but that whatever he might call a church is a product of evolution, which he chooses to call evolvement.

The reference to conformity "in every detail" is senseless. No two creatures of God, no two men, even no two snowflakes, are exactly alike "in every detail." But the variations among individual men are of a different order from the distinction between men and apes. So the variations among individual churches of the New Testament kind are of a different order from the distinction between such churches and the so-called churches of human origin.

"Early Christianity"

Quoting Bro. Greene further, "According to Matthew, whose Gospel is the only one that refers to the subject, Jesus used the word `church' three times (once in Matthew 16:18 and twice in Matthew 18:17). Primitive Christianity produced a rapid development of Christian communities. Church organization and worship remained simple. There was no central administrative authority and no uniformity in local church organization."

It is not true that Matthew's Gospel "is the only one that refers to the subject." It is true that the word "church" (Gr. "ekklesia") does not occur in the other three Gospels.

Continuing to quote, the third paragraph reads:

"Majority and minority movements soon emerged within the one Christian fold. The big church, the mainstream or majority of the Christian movement, had powerful champions in the great centers of population, which attracted able, ambitious leaders. These leaders, the bishops, jealously strove for the extension of their own authority. They were extremely competitive bishops. This majority movement was largely held together through its insistence that it was the one true, catholic (universal) church. The minority, however, was fragmented. In various forms it reacted against the majority movement's claim to be the sole custodian and interpreter of the divine revelation."

Just what Bro. Greene means by "one Christian fold" and by "the `big' church" is perhaps known to him. As to "the one true, catholic (universal) church," such a thing is foreign to the New Testament, and all true Bible believers must immediately reject it as a MONSTROUS FRAUD, regardless of whether it be a majority or a minority of what Bro. Greene calls "the Christian movement."

"Sects and Succession"

Under this subhead Bro. Greene says (fourth paragraph): "Twin ideas, the apostolical succession of the clergy and the historical succession of the church, were invented to bolster, the pretensions of an ecclesiastical power structure. Apostolical succession refers to an effort to validate the ordination of a clergyman by attempting to trace the ancestry of that ordination in an unbroken line of valid ordinations back to the apostles. Historical succession refers to an effort to validate the existence of a church by attempting to trace the ancestry of that church as a clearly definable historical entity in a valid and unbroken line back to New Testament times."

Here we have a cunning and sneaky attempt to reduce the promises of Christ to the level of the pretensions of Antichrist.

We have no more need of validating the existence of one of Christ's churches by tracing its ancestry through human records back to New Testament times than I have of validating my own existence by tracing my ancestry through genealogical records back to Adam.

I am persuaded from God's word, and need no further proof, that as I bear in myself the likeness of my first father Adam, I am therefore his descendant, and no product of evolution from apes or other beasts. So with a church: if it is of the New Testament kind, it is no accident or freak of nature, and no product of evolution or "evolvement." It is this kind of church because Jesus promised to preserve His church and to be with it to the end of the age. Human genealogies and church histories may be interesting and valuable records and studies, but absence or loss of records cannot nullify the facts of life.

Myths and Sects

This subhead is mine, but the next two paragraphs are Nos. 5

and 6 in Bro. Greene's article:

"Actually almost nothing is known of some of the apostles, and even less of the men they might have ordained, if any. In its zeal for catholicity the majority movement made serious compromises; it altered the New Testament faith. Moreover, in an alliance with government, it sought to enforce conformity and to crush opposition. Its claims of apostolicity and succession notwithstanding, its self-projected image as a monolistic [monolithic?] structure embracing and speaking for the whole of Christianity has remained but a myth.

"Sectarian Christianity, on the other hand, has not been without its partisans who asserted some form of succession on behalf of the minority. These views lack convincing historical proof regardless of which side their advocates may be on. Despite their tendency to splinter and to proliferate, the sects in the minority camp were generally marked by a common denominator: the affirmation of a warmhearted, evangelical New Testament faith."

At least Bro. Greene recognizes that "the majority movement"

(by which apparently he means Roman Catholicism) "altered the New Testament faith." But like the Reformers and unlike Job, he seems to believe that men can bring a clean thing out of an unclean. (Job 14:4.)

Use of the word "myth" to characterize popish claims could be rather damaging to the efforts of seminary apologists to persuade the more fundamental brethren that references to the "myths" of the Bible are not intended to cast doubt on the truth of Biblical narrative.

But when Bro. Greene writes of "sectarian Christianity," he is

guilty of gross confusion of terms, since Catholicism is itself the most sectarian of all so-called Christianity. And "the affirmation of a warmhearted, evangelical New Testament faith" cannot properly be called sectarian at all.

"Convincing historical proof' is, of course, a mere matter of opinion.

Historical Fiction

"Baptists arose out of Separatism, the extremest, sectarian wing of the English Reformation." So Bro. Greene begins his seventh paragraph. If I believed that, I would do as Roger Williams did: stop pretending to be a Baptist and become a seeker." But to continue quoting paragraph 7:

"Although organized as a distinctly recognizable group early in the seventeenth century, they undoubtedly inherited a tradition, dissent and numerous principles cherished by earlier sects. In particular they owe much to the Anabaptists (rebaptizers), to whom the epithet `Anabaptist' was applied because they rejected, infant baptism and insisted on the baptism of believers. Yet there were significant differences between Baptists and Anabaptists. For example, in 1525, Hubmaier, an Anabaptist, baptized more than three hundred men by using a milk pail filled with water. Imagine what would happen if a church today allowed that to occur and then attempted to affiliate with one of our Baptist associations in Louisiana!"

How naive can you get? These statements sound as if all people, churches, or religious groups called by the same name were practically identical in doctrine and practice!

Any informed person knows that there are many churches today using the Baptist name that vigorously disclaim any kinship or fellowship with other so-called Baptist churches. And so with other tags or labels that have been put on different churches or religious groups.

In fact, most of the people called Anabaptists practiced immersion. The historical fiction quoted above is no more fair or true than it would be to accuse Baptists in this country and in this generation of having generally abandoned scriptural baptism on no more evidence than that a few so-called Baptist churches have become community or open membership religious societies.

"The Name 'Baptist'"

Paragraphs 7 to 10 of Bro. Greene's article carried the above subhead. I have already quoted No. 7; Nos. 8 to 10 follow:

"Anabaptists and Mennonites (Dutch Anabaptists) have never admitted any close identity with Baptists. English Baptists very clearly rejected the name 'Anabaptist' when it was applied to them in derision.

"Many persons even today quite incorrectly assume that Baptists originated with John the Baptist and that the origin of the name `Baptist' can be traced to that venerable forerunner of Christ. In the case of John, his name probably should be rendered 'John the Baptizer.' He was given that name because he baptized. Baptists took their name to denote that they had been baptized.

"One reason why early English Baptists rejected the name 'Anabaptist' was that they did not believe they had been rebaptized; they rejected any baptism but that for believers only. Thus the word 'Baptist' came to connote both the rites of immersion and the evangelical significance of that rite. At first various names were used: Baptized Congregations, Baptized Churches of Christ, etc. Eventually the word "Baptized" came into disuse and the shorter form 'Baptist' had become the accepted title by the opening of the nineteenth century."

No reader could guess from the above quotation that John the Baptist was a man sent from God (Jn. 1:6) to baptize in water (Jn. 1:33), and that his baptism was good enough for Jesus (Matt. 3:13-17), Who endorsed it as a baptism from heaven (Lu. 20:4-8).

Nor could anyone guess from Bro. Greene's denial of the Baptist heritage that Jesus commissioned His church to continue the practice of this one baptism with the assurance, "Behold, I am with you all the days until the complete finish of the age."

Certainly no intelligent Baptist will contend that this or any other mere name is vital to the identity of a New Testament church, but at least until recent years Baptists generally have been willing to bear the reproach of Christ (Heb. 13:13) and to stand against the world in the testimony of His word.

We have come upon sad days when men who call themselves Baptists join in the chorus of infidelity to honor the harlot daughters of Babylon above the virgin bride of Christ.

"Are Baptists Protestants?"

By this time the reader should be prepared for Bro. Greene's eleventh and concluding paragraph:

"The term 'Protestant' was used in Germany in 1529 to designate the Lutheran minority which entered a formal protest against discriminatory legislation that would have practically abolished the Lutheran territorial churches. It soon came to mean the entire Reformation movement to restore primitive Christianity. Used loosely today, it refers to those Christian denominations that are not Catholic. Baptists have drawn upon, and contributed to, the evangelical Reformation tradition. Identified in roots and sympathies with the minority movement, they need not take offense when classed as Protestants in a contemporary sense."

Baptists who have learned from history that Protestants, given the power, persecuted Baptists as cruelly as Rome ever did cannot help being reminded of Jesus' words in Matt. 23:29-31:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets."

So the compromising Baptists of our day, professing a Protestant-Catholic-Jewish-Pagan ancestry, are witnesses against themselves that they are spiritually the children of those who have persecuted true Baptists over a bloody trail through nearly 20 centuries.

Seminarial Sophistry

STATEMENT ON BAPTISM BY WAYNE E. WARD IS LESS SOPHISTICATED THAN SOPHOMORIC

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." (Jn. 14:15.)

"Any Form of 'Re-baptism' is a Compromise," says the heading of an article by Wayne E. Ward of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary published in the August 31, 1967, issue of the Western Recorder. The article is calculated to give aid and comfort to the enemies of Baptists by encouraging recognition of alien baptism. No doubt many nominal and unfaithful Baptists may consider the article an example of religious sophistication. In fact, however, it is rather sophomoric.

Whose Compromise?

"Some people have said to me, 'You have emphasized believer's baptism by immersion; wouldn't you throw a church out of the association if they received some other kind of baptism?'" So Dr. Ward begins his article, and continues in his first paragraph:

"Here is my answer. You see, I have always voted to baptize a person by immersion when he comes into a Baptist church, even though he may have been a born-again Christian believer for many years without ever having received New Testament baptism. But even that is a compromise, because baptism really means the sign of beginning the Christian journey. If he has been a genuine believer in Christ for many years, it is impossible to make baptism mean for him what it meant in the New Testament, the sign of rising to walk in a new life with Jesus."

The only compromise involved here is Ward's. After quoting a question, he says, "Here is my answer," and then gives no answer at all, except by implication. He could have said "Yes" or "No." Instead, he wrote about 400 words without saying either, though we may read "No" between the lines.

Sign of Ignorance?

"Baptism," he says, "really means the sign of beginning the Christian journey." But this is only part of the meaning of baptism. To say that baptism "really means" this, without mentioning other and more important meanings, is extremely misleading. If any man thinks that his baptism is no more than "the sign of beginning the Christian journey," that man's baptism is really more a sign of ignorance than of anything else.

Of course the primary meaning of genuine baptism, which is to say scriptural baptism, which is to say Baptist baptism, is its testimony to the historic death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whatever other meanings true baptism may carry are involved in, dependent on, and subordinate to this symbolic testimony. A teacher in a Baptist seminary ought to know this.

Prepositions Confused

Dr. Ward's second paragraph reads as follows:

"If another Baptist says, 'Well, I know he was baptized with the wrong form; but at least, it was performed upon a believer at the beginning of his Christian journey and I am not going to make him go through a ritual just to get the form right when it is 30 years too late for the real meaning', then I realize that he is making a compromise in one direction while I am leaning in another. I like my compromise better than his, because I think the form of baptism is an eloquent witness to the gospel which I simply cannot give up."

Suddenly he has switched from discussing a sign "of" beginning to insisting upon a sign "at" the beginning. A professional teacher ought not to imagine that all his readers will be so stupid as to follow him in his confusion of the prepositions "of" and "at."

Only Catholics, Campbellites, and other baptismal regenerationists believe that the act of baptism is simultaneous with the beginning of what Dr. Ward aptly calls "the Christian journey." If, as the Bible teaches and as Baptists have believed for 19 centuries, baptism is an act of obedience by previously regenerated believers, then it is less important whether it be after an interval of 30 seconds or 30 years than that it be a genuine act of obedience. Dr. Ward may compromise all he wants to, but on this point real Baptists, by whatever names they may have been called, have for 19 centuries refused to compromise.

Errors Of Fact

Third paragraph from Dr. Ward:

"But, it is literally impossible to baptize a person at a later stage of his Christian journey without modifying the New Testament meaning to some extent. We are in a situation today that simply did not exist in the New Testament, and we have to apply the teachings as carefully as we can in order to preserve the real meaning of the New Testament in a changed environment."

Remove the desperate appeal to the axiom that no two situations in time or space are exactly alike, and there is not a single fact left in the above paragraph. Dr. Ward forgets that Christ's commission to His church extends to "the end of the age" as well as to "the uttermost part of the earth." (Matt. 28:20; Acts 1:8.)

Away with double-talk about "modifying the New Testament meaning"! We do not "preserve the real meaning of the New Testament" by disobeying Christ, but by, doing what He commanded!

Love and Obey

"If my fellow Baptist," writes Dr. Ward in his fourth paragraph, "together with his church congregation has prayed and studied God's word and come out with an application to baptism, the Lord's Supper, or church membership in which he is honestly trying to preserve the vital truth of the New Testament in a changed situation, I am going to bind him to me with cords of love, even when he differs with my conclusion and I will listen to him to see if I may have been wrong."

Now, who is not in favor of love? And surely love will cover a multitude of sins. Yet it remains true that love "rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." (I Cor. 13:6.) And regardless of double-talk, men do not "honestly" try, to preserve the truth by destroying it with the excuse of a "changed situation."

"This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (I Jn. 5:3.)

What Kind of Baptist?

Fifth and last paragraph of this exhibition of seminarial sophistry reads as follows:

"This is what it means to be a Baptist. What glorious and exciting fellowship in which to study and apply God's word to the needs of today's world. God grant that we may never kill it by authoritarianism!"

Countless Baptists of previous generations, as well as many today, have had somewhat different ideas of what it means to be a Baptist. Fellowship with mystery Babylon and her daughters (Rev. 17:5) may be exciting, but to some of us seems something other than glorious. And, however strange the idea may have become to Dr. Ward, some Baptists still believe that the best way to apply God's word to the needs of the world, today or any other day, is to obey the word, rather than to try to please the world.

"What it means to be a Baptist"! We are reminded that in religion as in other phases of life, the label is not always conclusive evidence of the contents.

Question of Authority

Finally, Dr. Ward fires a parting shot from his ultimate weapon, the dreadful bogeyman, "authoritarianism!" But Jesus declared that all authority was given to Him in heaven and on earth. We either believe Him and respect that authority, or we do not.

Some men may prefer the authority of denominational bonds, or perhaps of ecumenical ambitions. Others may prefer the authority of ancient traditions or of modern fashions, of human reasonings or of fleshly lusts. But Baptists in legitimate succession from him whose voice cried out in the wilderness of Judea are happy to hail the authority, the complete, final, eternal authority of the Lamb of God, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Teacher and Lord, Bridegroom and Head, of His church.

His word is our law, to obey Him our delight. God grant that by His authority we may ever kill all fellowship with the powers of wickedness that hate Him and despise His truth!

10/00