Day by day we can see how modernism is flourishing in the religious world. We have been warning Christians for years, concerning the liberal thinking of Dr. Billy Graham. Every year that passes, he seems to spout the doctrines of the apostates more aggresively. We see more and more evidence that he has past the point of no return. Graham got his start among conservative fundamental Christians, but years ago he abandoned their position and has changed over to the doctrines of the apostates, and Roman Catholics.

The following clipping was sent to me by an Independent Baptist Pastor of Altus, Oklahoma. It was taken from the daily newspaper. It contains a terrible attack upon God, written by Billy Graham. In his reply to a question, he said, "God does make mistakes." I deny that God has ever made a mistake. If God ever made one mistake, he would cease to be God. To say that God makes mistakes, is to deny the absolute holiness of God. I Pet. 1:16, Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. To say that God makes mistakes, is to deny what the Bible says about the immutability of God. Mal. 3:6, For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. To say that God makes mistakes, is to deny His omniscience. God knows all things from the beginning to the ending. He is not capable of making mistakes, but if He could, He would know in advance, and could keep from making that mistake. Many Scriptures teach His omniscience. Rom. 11:33, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! Isa. 40:28, Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

God is omnipotent, which means that He is all powerful. God can do anything that is holy and right, and He can do nothing that is unholy. Nothing that is in His will is beyond His power. If He does not have the ability to not make a mistake, then He is not Omnipotent. Matt. 19:26, But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Jer. 32:17, Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee.

There are hundreds of Scriptures that disprove Graham's statement. Anyone that says that God makes mistakes, is either ignorant or apostate. Below, you will read Billy Graham's article in its entirety.

DEAR DR. GRAHAM:

Does God ever make mistakes? My aunt died in a car accident, and I can't see why God let her die. She was a good person of great faith who was always helping people and her work on Earth wasn't done, in my opinion. -- Mrs T.G.

DEAR MRS. T.G.:

God does make mistakes -- that doesn't mean He is directly responsible for everything that happens in this world. Evil is real, and even if you don't understand why God permits it, we know we live in a world which is bruised and torn by evil.

I must be honest: I can't say why God allowed your aunt to be taken so unexpectedly. I wish I could but now we see only a small part of the picture; only God sees the whole. Some day in Heaven we will understand, I am convinced -- but for the present all we can do is trust the promise of God's word: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28.)

Don't be bitter, or paralyzed with doubt. Instead, thank God for your aunt -- and ask Him what He wants to teach you through her death. Perhaps, for example, you have never given much thought to death, and you are not ready to die. If so, make sure of your salvation by trusting Christ and committing your life to Him.

Ask God to make you the kind of person your aunt was. From what you say, she was like Dorcas in the Bible. "...always doing good and helping the poor" (Acts 9:36). Our world needs more people like this -- and perhaps God is challenging you to take your aunt's place.

West Texas has long been considered as part of the Bible Belt that covers much of the south. That title came about because of the widespread use of God's word in preaching and personal soul winning in rural communities. Throughout the Bible belt Baptist churches at one time had summer gospel meetings under brush arbors. These meetings dotted the countryside with rural farm families and small villages shutting down all operations to attend the "meeting." These were called "protracted meetings," meaning a date was set to begin but the close of the meeting would be decided later. The idea being if the church was being revived and souls were being saved and added to the Lord's church by scriptural baptism, the meeting would continue. Most of these meetings consisted of both morning and evening services. Those who were saved as well as those from other denominations who desired membership in these Baptist churches were baptized by the authority of that church. The baptismal service was generally in a farm pond near to the church. In Southwest Oklahoma at one such baptismal service a saintly elderly lady who was a lifelong Methodist walked to the edge of the pond with tears and asked if the church would baptize her. She had received Methodist sprinkling and became aware by the preaching during such a meeting that she lacked proper scriptural baptism. She was accepted and baptized by that church on her profession of faith and for the last years of her life attend a local Baptist church.

Things are rapidly changing in West Texas as well as in other areas. Church buildings now have baptistries with temperature controlled water. Some even have baptismal chairs so the pastor need not enter the tank. There are other conveniences that space doesn't permit mentioning. These are not the particular changes that are bothering me the most. I always entered into the water and came up out with the candidate (Matt. 3:13-16; Acts 8:38,39). Some changes are seriously dangerous and many Baptist pastors are falling in line. The trap of ecumenism is set and many Baptist pastors and churches are taking the bait springing the trap with disregard of the danger.

A full page news article entitled "98, The Year in Religion" was featured in the Lubbock A-J, Vista section 12-26-98. The column also continued on page five covering almost one quarter of that page. The subtitle read: "President's sin tops review of religion issues for past year." An enlarged photo of the Pope with small pictures of five "prominent" Lubbock ministers are pictured below. There is also a 5x3 inch photo of the President representing a remorseful pose and admission of the blatant sin he committed. I pray that President Clinton has indeed repented toward God for his sin. However, the remorseful pose and any admission of wrong doing would never have been noticed or confessed if he had not been caught. Judah of old said, "God hath found out," (Gen. 44:16). Yet the God of Heaven has never "found out" anything since He has known everything from the beginning to the end.(Isa. 41:10,11)

Although there was a casual mention of the President's sin, the main theme of the Lubbock ministers was "Interdenominational Relationships." The pastor of First Assembly of God Church: "I see a growing harmony and fellowship among ministers transdenominationally." The bishop of Agape Church of God: "I've been thoroughly pleased at the cooperation of all the churches in the city of Lubbock that have worked on this Billy Graham 2000." The pastor of St. Luke's Methodist: "People from 94 different congregations with almost 20 different denominational or nondenominational groups attended the prayer seminar held in early 1998." Second Baptist Church (SBC): "I really do believe that the church is becoming more catholic (universal), with a small `c.'" Pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church: "It's a change that goes back to the Reformation."

Be careful, brethren, the word `church' is used as carelessly today as the word `Christian.' "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 7:21) One feature of the Father's will is given to Paul for the church at Corinth. " Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Cor. 6:17). Not every building that bears the name "church" is representative of the church Jesus referred to in Matt. 16:18. "...upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," identifies His church as one that followed His instructions. One making disciples by preaching His gospel, baptizing (immersion) them in the name of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 28:19) The very next verse says, "Teaching them to observe all thing whatsoever I have commanded you." Only then can the Lord's promise be claimed that He will be with them "alway, even to the end of the world."

The LAJ religious reporter placed this note beside the 7x9 inch photo of Pope John Paul: "Pope John Paul's visit to Cuba was a significant event in religion during 1998, which was seen as an advance in religious freedom." This reporter obviously did not wait long enough to see the real impact of the pope's visit. Religion Today, 2-9-99 gives the report that just a short while after the pope's visit: "Thousands of Bibles were burned by military troops in Cuba last week, Voice of the Martyrs said. Garbage containers in Arrollo Naranjo, a suburb of Havana near a military base, were used to burn the books, the Oklahoma-based group said. A witness at the scene quoted a soldier at the fire as saying the Bibles were being burned because `they are subversive.'" See February PBC, p4.) Who can deny that communism is a constant threat to the Lord's church? This pope nor any other pope will change a Christ rejecting world with the propaganda of mariolatry. He can shake his gourd shaped smoking wand over the entire island of Cuba and it will not create a holy cough. The pope was presumably accepted by Castro's communism regime. All the hype of the news media concerning the pope's spiritual accomplishments in Cuba went up in smoke. Had the pope or the church that calls him "Holy Father" brought true religion to Cuba they would have never been accepted. Any one who believes this pope, or any of his predecessors, have promoted the message of biblical Christianity is spiritually blind.

The gospel of Christ had a distinctly different effect on the inhabitants of Ephesus. Paul preached unto them Jesus even to the opposition of those in the "school of one Tyrannus." (Acts 19:9) Those who believed were baptized by Paul who was sent out by the church at Antioch to preach the Gospel of Christ. Their true conversion to Jesus Christ resulted in this: "And many that believed came, and confessed, and showed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver," (Acts 19:18,19). Paul's visit to Ephesus had a distinctly opposite effect than the pope's visit to Cuba. The pope's visit changed nothing spiritually in Castro's government. Cuba was only a launching pad for the pope on the way to the U.S.A. for a kiss on the hand by the president. (Obviously this president is not too particular where his kisses are placed.) This kiss may have cost tax payers as much or more than others with more notoriety.

The pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church of Lubbock said their coming together "does not exclude Islam or anyone else." The pastor of Second Baptist Church said, "I think society is reaffirming the church as an agent for social change." I remind you again that this group is not referring to the Church that Jesus instituted during His ministry on earth. At this time Islamic nations are imprisoning and killing believers in Christ and yet in America large Islamic worship houses are being constructed. This is the cultist religion that this group of pastors will not exclude. "Islam or anyone else" includes a mart of religious weirdos with an end of self celebration and soul condemnation. What a sad day for West Texas if and when the Nation of Islam's cult leader, Louis Farrakhan, is invited to Lubbock to speak to this ecumenical group. (See "False Religion Of Islam" by Dean Robinson, PBC, 12/97.) The Huntsville Times (Alabama) 10-17-97, reported Farrakhan saying to Christians, "Go to your Bible. Where does it say Jesus wanted you to be a Christian? You can't find it. Christ is a man of yesterday. He cannot guide you in 1997." (via Calvary Contender, 11-15-97.) Obviously Farrakhan should spend more time in God's Word than in the Islamic bible. Hebrews 13:8 reports, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." It was Jesus Christ that said, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." (Mark 4:19) Some of this same group were scattered because of persecution in Jerusalem. Some stopped in Antioch and were soon know as "Christians." "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch," (Acts 11:26) and the name has remained to this day. Farrakhan and all other Christ rejectors will be among those when "every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." (Rom. 14:11)

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association is planning an area wide crusade in Lubbock in March or April 2000. Billy Graham's son, Franklin Graham, heir to his father's religious throne, will be the featured speaker. Area pastor/churches will be bombarded with advertisement, literature, personal and phone contacts in advance. To reject participation in this escapade will seem to many as being sacrilegious. Many will think the very thought of any Baptist church not joining all other denominations for this grand endeavor appears nothing short of irreverent. After all isn't Billy Graham the most popular Baptist of all time? (Well, of course there is Bill Clinton.) Mr. Graham is just as interested in breaking down denominational walls as the group of pastors named above as well as the Promise Keepers. Graham said in an interview during the Bay Area crusade, "Wouldn't it be great if we could forget our denominations and just be people of God?" (Christian Times)

Beware Baptist pastors/churches! "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." (I Peter 5:8,9) Satan is not only stalking the physical body of the saints, he is also stalking the Body of Christ, His church. "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).

T. T. Martin (1862-1939) furnishes us with a wonderful example of what Southern Baptists used to believe about the New Testament Church. Most Southern Baptists, and most other Baptists have departed from the scriptural doctrine of the Church. Even the most conservative (sometimes called fundamentalists), among Southern Baptists, in their fight against the liberals in the SBC, have neglected to restore the doctrine of the New Testament Church. If Baptists are to survive, they must come back to the Scriptural stand on the Church, that Baptists once held. If they do not they shall come to the place where they are just another Protestant denomination.

T. T. Martin had a long and profitable ministry. He taught at Baylor Female College, Belton, TX., 1886-88. He pastored several different churches until 1900. He then served as a full-time evangelist from 1900-39. God richly blessed his ministry as an evangelist and he wrote a number of good books. One of them is entitled "The New Testament Church," which we are printing in a series in the Plains Baptist Challenger. As the Lord provides the funds, we intend to reprint this excellent book. It contains truth that Baptists need to pay heed to. It was originally published by the Western Baptist Publishing Company of Kansas City, MO, in 1917.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3 :16, 17). Then the Scriptures will assuredly make plain what a New Testament church is. If the Scriptures teach what a New Testament church is, then it is the only divine institution or organization on the earthall others are of human origin. Three questions, therefore, arise:

First, have any of God's redeemed people the right to change a New Testament church?

Second, have any of God's redeemed people the right, because of father, mother, husband or wife, because of business relations, social ties or political influence, to put their lives, their influence, in an institution that is not a New Testament church, any institution that rivals or apposes a New Testament church?

Third, is an institution that has changed the New Testament church teaching, that is of human origin, really a New Testament church?

By some, possibly by many, these questions may be considered as of minor importance, or of no consequence. But if it was of sufficient importance for the Spirit, by inspiration, to put on record what a New Testament church is, surely it is of sufficient importance for every redeemed man or woman to bow to that inspiration. Who is he that has grown so great that he has the right to trifle with the Spirit's record as to the New Testament church?

Further, is it honest, is it truthful, to pray "Thy will be done" and not do His will when we know what His will is?

From love for Him who redeemed us from all iniquity (Titus 2 :14) every redeemed one should bow to His recorded will as to a New Testament church, as well as to all other things. But further, He Himself said: "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." Earth's standards and earth's greatnesses shall shrivel and fade away in the blaze of the Judgment Day. "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved."

Redeemed reader, shall you meet your Redeemer and say, "Lord, your inspired Word did, not make plain enough for me to find out what a New Testament church was?" Or shall you say "I loved father, mother, husband or wife more than you?" Or shall you say, "I put social position, business advantage, or political influence above your will?" Not long, and you will meet Him face to face.

Let the reader give careful, prayerful attention to the closing two chapters, by B. H. Carroll of the South and R. S. MacArthur of the North.

T. T. Martin

Blue Mountain, Miss.

The author is known as one of our greatest Gospel preachers, and is an evangelist second to none. His tracts and books have had a deservedly wide circulation, and they will be read, more and more, with the passing years.

In this little volume the author is at his best, and has made a real contribution to the literature of this great subject. Baptists, of all people, should have an intelligent conception of the origin, nature and obligations of New Testament churches. It is the profound conviction of the writer that a large portion of our difficulties have come from a false definition of a church.

One's conception of a church should naturally determine his ecclesiastical alignment and denominational behavior. Should the author's idea of a church prevail, it will prove a mighty impetus to Baptist development and progress. May the blessings of the Head of Churches rest richly upon it.

J. W. PORTER, D. D., LL. D.

Jesse B. Thomas, in his great book, "The Church and the Kingdom," has forever settled the matter that the church emphasized in the New Testament is not universal invisible nor the universal visible church, but a local, visible body. It will be many a day before any intelligent man even attempts to reply to the book, and no one will ever really reply to it. The Catholic or Episcopalian who, in order to establish the claim of a universal visible church, will attempt to reply to the book, will have a task second only in hopelessness to that of the Baptist, Plymouth Brother, Methodist or Presbyterian, who has to attempt to reply to it to show that the universal invisible church is the one emphasized in the New Testament. And the one who has been driven from the wild, baseless claims for the universal invisible church to talking and writing much about "The Kingdom" will, in trying to reply to the book, find on his hands an equally hopeless task in trying to identify the New Testament church and the Kingdom.

But some things need to be emphasized concerning the New Testament church. The New testament church is not to be known or to be identified by a name, but by doctrines; for the church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3 :15). Our Disciple friends, founded by Alexander Campbell, though their convention has designated the name as "The Disciples," persist, especially in the South, in calling themselves "The Christian Church," making the baseless claim that that is the New Testament name for the church, arguing that the church is the Bride and the Savior is the Bridegroom, and that the Bride ought always to be called by the Bridegroom's name. That does not always follow. And if it did, His name was not Christ; that was His office or calling; "Thou shalt call His name Jesus" (Matt. 1:21); and so our Disciple friends, to be consistent, should call themselves "Jesuits" and not the "Christian Church." Besides, the marriage of the Bride and the Bridegroom has not yet come, and it is always suspicious when a woman persists in calling herself by the name of a man before she is married to him. But the Disciples in the South persist in trying to force the name "The Christian Church" on the people, for the evident purpose of catching people with a name instead of the doctrines. Their chief doctrine is that baptism (immersion) is for (in the sense of "in order to") the remission of sins. If that is true, then the rank and file of Methodists and Presbyterians have no remission of sins, and hence are going to hell; and this issue ought to be faced honestly and squarely. As a matter of fact, to call the Disciples "The Christian Church" means that Methodists and Presbyterians and others are not Christians, and Baptists and others ought to have the Christian manhood not to be browbeaten into any such thing.

Only two doctrines are essential to a New Testament church. Other doctrines are important, precious, but only two are essential to a New Testament church. They are the way of salvation and the way of baptism. The commission makes this clear. Matt. 28:19, 20, "Go ye therefore, and teach (make disciples) all nations, baptizing them ...." A body of people holding these two doctrines and in this New Testament order may be in error on other doctrines; yet it is a New Testament church. A body of people may hold all other New Testament doctrines, yet if it fails to hold either of these, or fails to hold them in the New Testament order, it is not a New Testament church. This needs to be kept clearly and continually in mind. For instance, if there is in the West a church called a "Baptist Church" that holds immersion for baptism, but does not hold the New Testament way of salvation, then it is not a New Testament church. If there is a church in New York or England called a "Baptist Church" that holds the New Testament way of salvation, but does not hold immersion as baptism, then it is not a New Testament church. If there is a church called a "Baptist Church" that holds the New Testament way of baptism, but that one ought to be baptized before being saved, then it is not a New Testament church.

The first of the only two essential doctrines to a New Testament church is the way of salvation, the way to make a disciple.

When, the only time the question is asked in the New Testament, it was asked, "What must I do to be saved?" the answer was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31). This can only mean to believe on Him in His real character. For one to believe on Him as a demon, or as having come simply to show how to raise children, or to run civil government, is not for one to be saved; and for a church to hold as a doctrine that one is to believe on Him in any one of these characters to be saved, is for it not to be a New Testament church. His real character is as Savior through real redemption: "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6); "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). Then no one is saved who does not believe on Him in this character, and no body of people is a New Testament church that does not hold this doctrine.

Only as Deity could He be a real Redeemer; for one dime can only redeem one dime, but one dollar can redeem ten dimes. If He were only man He could only redeem one man. But as Deity He could redeem the whole race; hence "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel (God with us)" (Isa. 7:14); hence Jesus said, "If ye believe not that I am" (the title of Deity) "ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24). Then no one is saved, redeemed, who does not believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ, and no body of people is a New Testament church that does not believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ.

But the question comes, From how many of our sins does He redeem us? Titus 2:13-14, "Our Savior Jesus Christ; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity." Then no one is saved who does not believe on Him as a complete Redeemer, as Redeemer from all iniquity; and no body of people is a New Testament church that does not hold that the sinner must believe on Christ as complete Redeemer, as Redeemer from all iniquity, in order to be saved. But no church which believes that the believer must join a certain church or be baptized or live a certain kind of life, in order to be saved, holds the doctrine that Jesus is Redeemer from all iniquity. Then none of these are New Testament churches. In such a body of professing Christians there may be, there doubtless are, saved people. But as a church it does not hold the doctrine of complete redemption, from all iniquity, one of the essential doctrines to a New Testament church.

NOTE: Included in this first essential doctrine of a New Testament church are two others, repentance and regeneration. Repentance, an entire change of mind and purpose, turning from sin and from all self-righteousness, as a helpless, lost sinner, and turning to God, comes before faith in Christ. "Repent and believe the Gospel." Then when one has believed on Christ he is born again: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John 5:1).

The first essential doctrine, then, to a New Testament church, as is shown by the Great Commission, is the way of salvation, the way to make a disciple.

The other essential doctrine to a New Testament church is baptism. When our Savior was baptized He said: "Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15) . The word "thus" has but one meaning; it means, in this way. Then only "thus," in this way, can one be baptized. Of all the vagaries of religious beliefs and controversies, no one ever claimed that Jesus was baptized in four different ways, though the world claims that there are four ways to be baptized. If when the Savior was baptized He was immersed, then nothing else is baptism; for he said "thus." If when He was baptized, some other act than immersion was performed, then immersion is not baptism, for he said "thus." If immersion is not baptism, what is the sense of "going down into the water" to sprinkle or pour a little water on a person? What is the sense of "Buried with Him in baptism?" What is the sense of "Raised in the likeness of His resurrection"? If immersion is not baptism, what is the sense of "He baptized Him"? (Acts 8:38). He could not have sprinkled Him; he could not have poured Him. It does not say "He baptized on Him," you sprinkle or pour the water; but it says "he baptized Him." Then he immersed Him.

If immersion is not baptism, if it is not the way Jesus was baptized (and He certainly was not baptized in four different ways, and He said "thus"), why will all denominations who teach sprinkling or pouring for baptism, receive one who has been immersed without resorting to what they call baptism? But it is claimed that this is "broad" and "liberal," and that Baptists are "narrow" and "bigoted" not to return the courtesy. The other man has no right to be liberal with my pocket book, and this is God's truth that we are dealing with.

If immersion is not the way Jesus was baptized (and remember that He said "thus"; then that is the only way) why would John Calvin, who started a new denomination that teaches that immersion is not baptism, say plainly that the New Testament teaches immersion? "The very word baptize signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church" (John Calvin's "Institutes" Book 4, Chapter 15). Why would John Wesley, whose work resulted in another great denomination that teaches against immersion, say that the New Testament teaches immersion for baptism? "'Buried with Him,' alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion" (John Wesley, Notes on Rom. 6:4). Why would Martin Luther, who started another great denomination that teaches that immersion is not baptism, say that the New Testament teaches immersion for baptism? "The term 'baptism' is Greek; in Latin it would be translated 'mersio' since we immerse anything into water that it may be covered with the water" (Martin Luther, Works Vol. 1, p. 7l, Wit. 1582). Why would the Catholic church come out and tell that they changed baptism from immersion to affusion, as they did at the council of Ravenna? Cardinal Gibbons in "The Faith of Our Fathers," p. 275: "Since the Twelfth Century, the practice of effusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by immersion." It is a pitiable sight to see Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans going wild over "The Menace" (and that paper is doing a great work) for opposing and exposing the errors of the Roman Catholic church, and then turn and meekly take for baptism what the Roman Catholic church has substituted for what our Savior did and taught; and then after fastening it on their helpless children, tell them it is a terrible sin to ever repudiate this substitute for what our Savior did and the New Testament teaches.

If, now, baptism is one of the essential doctrines of a New Testament church, then no body of people which does not hold this doctrine is a New Testament church; and no body of people that does not hold immersion of a person after he is saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, is a New Testament church. There may be, and there doubtless are, many saved people in such bodies of professed Christians; but they are not a New Testament church.

It has been shown that two doctrines only are essential to a New Testament church, and that these are the way of salvation, believing on Christ as complete Redeemer from all iniquity, and baptism. Surely it will not be denied by any intelligent person that Baptists hold these two doctrines, and no other body of professing Christians hold both of these doctrines. Not all bodies of professing Christians who are called Baptists hold these two doctrines; then not every body of people that is called a "Baptist church" or that calls itself a "Baptist church" is a real New Testament church; but, as a rule, Baptist churches do hold these two doctrines.

Now, the Savior promised on two occasions that there should be real New Testament churches on the earth till He should come back again.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said: "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The New Testament church cannot be identical with the "church in the wilderness"; for Jesus would have had to say, "I am building" or "I have built," instead of "I will build." He could not have meant the universal invisible church; for again He would have had to say, "I am building" instead of "I will build." Further, the only other occasion on which the Savior used the word church before His resurrection and ascension was in Matthew 18:17; and there it absolutely means a local body of believers. (And this was before Pentecost; hence the church was in existence before Pentecost.) After His resurrection and ascension, to John on the Isle of Patmos, as recorded in Revelation, He used the word church about twenty times, and every time as referring to a local body of believers.

The second time that our Savior promised that there would be a New Testament church on the earth until His return was when He instituted the Lord's Supper. (He instituted the Lord's Supper before His crucifixion; all churches hold that the Lord's Supper is a New Testament church ordinance; then it follows absolutely that there was a New Testament church before the day of Pentecost.) In instituting the Supper, He said, "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME" (1 Cor. 11:26). Then Jesus said that the real Lord's Supper would be celebrated on the earth "TILL HE COME." But everyone admits that the Lord's Supper is a New Testament ordinance. If, now, the Lord's Supper is a New Testament church ordinance, and the Savior said that the Lord's Supper would be on earth "till He come," then there has been a real New Testament church on the earth since the night our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper, and will be "till He come."

That this has been true, nine of the greatest men and historians have testified:

Alexander Campbell (Disciple): "From the apostolic age to the present time the sentiments of Baptists and their practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced."

John Clark Ridpath (Methodist): "In the year one hundred all Christians were Baptists."

Zwingli: "The institution of the Anabaptists is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years has caused great trouble to the church."

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic), president Council of Trent: "Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater numbers than all the Reformers."

Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of Christians which has not symbolized with the church of Rome."

Mosheim (Lutheran): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modern Dutch Baptists."

Edinburgh Cyclopedia: "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described under the appellation of Anabaptists. Indeed, this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death Of John the Apostle.

Prof. Wm. Cecil Duncan, professor of Latin and Greek, University of Louisiana: "Baptists do not, as do most Protestant denominations, date their origin from the Reformation of 1520. By means of that great religious movement, indeed, they were brought forth from comparative obscurity, into prominent notice, and through it a new and powerful impulse was given to their principles and practices in all of those countries which had renounced allegiance to the Pope of Rome. They did not, however, originate with the Reformation, for long before Luther lived, nay, long before the Roman Catholic church herself was known, Baptists and Baptist churches existed and flourished in Europe, in Asia and in Africa."

The king of Holland, in 1819, appointed J. J. Dermout, chaplain to the king, and Professor Ypeij, professor of theology in the University of Groningen, to write a history of the Dutch Reformed church. In the authentic volume which they prepared and published at Breda, they devote one chapter to the Baptists in which they say: "We have now seen that the Baptists who were formerly called Anabaptists (some of these Anabaptists churches were not real New Testament churches because they did not hold both the essential doctrines to a New Testament church. T. T. M.), and in later times Mennonite (some of these Mennonite churches, for the same reason, were not New Testament churches.T. T. M.), were the original Waldenses (likewise some of the Waldensian churches were not real New Testament churchesT. T. M.), and who long in the history of the church received the honor of that origin. On this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and as a Christian society has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all the ages. The perfectly correct internal and external economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth disputed by the Romish church that the Reformation brought about in the Sixteenth Century was in the highest degree necessary; and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics that their communion is the most ancient."

The following testimony is taken from the great work, "Crossing the Centuries," by Wm. C. King, having as associate counselors, editors, collaborators and contributors, such men as Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop John H. Vincent, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, David Starr Jordan, former president Leland Stanford University; P. S. Henson; Patrick J. Healy, Catholic University of American; Lyman Abbott, editor The Outlook; E. Benj. Andrews, chancellor University of Nebraska; Benj. D. Hahn, authority on archaeology, philology and theology; Albert Bushnell Hart, Ph. D., LL. D., Litt. D., head department of history, Harvard University; W. H. P. Faunce, president Brown University; Geo. B. Adams, M. A., Ph. D., Litt. D., the University of Yale; E. B. Hurlbert, M. A., the University of Chicago; A. F. Schauffler, secretary International Sunday School Lessons Committee; Henry K. Carroll, editor staff The Christian Advocate:

"Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, have an unbroken continuity of existence from apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands, yet they swerved not from their New Testament faith, doctrine and adherence."

The immoral, and the amoral people of our generation, are doing their best to destroy all the heroes of America. These people live immoral lives themselves, therefore they want to try and prove that all of our great leaders of the past were also immoral adulterers. By this method they hope to justify their own ungodly conduct. History is no longer important in our schools since it is not taught. What history that is being taught is distorted, in many instances.

During the last 15 months it has been proven over and over agin that our president is an adulterer and a molester of women. I had great suspicions, when in the heat of this controversy they came out with DNA research that supposedly proved that Thomas Jefferson was the father of a child by one of his slaves. The defenders of Bill Clinton immediately jumped on that to prove that everybody was immoral, so why prosecute the president. The Clinton loving liberal news media jumped on that and gave it quite a play. Even members of Congress mouthed this unproven story to defend their guy.

No one in this world knows for sure whether Jefferson fathered such a child or not. Even if he did, he was not married at the time. Even if he did father such a child, no one can prove that the slave woman did not gladly consent. Even if he did this indefensible act, that would in no way justify the deeds of our president. If I knew that Jefferson was guilty, I would not defend him by any means, and I would still denounce the ungodly conduct of our leader.

Jefferson and other founding fathers are being denounced for owning slaves. If the truth were known, very likely the ancestors of these critics also owned slaves. What does that have to do with anything today? I know that some of my ancestors owned slaves. I am not proud of that, but it is the truth. If I had lived in the days of slavery, I very likely would have owned slaves as well. I have never defended slavery, and I think it was always wrong, but that does not mean that the founders of our republic were immoral ingrates because they owned slaves. I oppose the slavery that is being practiced in many parts of the world today. In parts of Africa, slaves are bought and sold like cattle. I read-only yesterday that in parts of India, when a man gets tired of his wife, he auctions her off to another man for money. Where are the self-righteous hypocrites who are willing to say much about this? Slave labor is being used in various parts of the world today. Never mind that, they are not interested, but they are interested in denigrating the great history of our country.

It seems that this study on Jefferson was released at just the right time, to be used to protect a guilty man. In the first place I do not believe the report on Jefferson. The way that these tests were done cannot prove for certain that Jefferson did this. Please do not be deceived by the people that want to destroy the reputation of the great men of our country.

Below you will read a question and answer that was printed recently in Parade Magazine. This short article shows that there is no definite proof that Jefferson committed such an act. No one could be convicted in a court of law by such flimsy evidence.

"Q. I'm confused. Most reports say the DNA evidence proves Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one child by his slave, Sally Hemings. Others say it isn't conclusive. Who is right? Greg Stewart, New York, N.Y.

"A. Dr. Eugene A. Foster, the retired pathologist who led the study, told us: "Jefferson had no sons, and currently the only reliable way to test DNA is through the male Y chromosome. As a result, we had to do tests on descendants of Jefferson's uncle. When we published our conclusions in Nature, we explicitly said we were not 100% certain of our interpretation that Jefferson probably was the father of Hemings children. Part of the problem was the misleading headline: Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child." Parade Magazine, 2-28-99