|
|
|
News & Views, April 1999 - Edited By E. L. Bynum
Less Clothes, More Divorces - By E. L. Bynum
"In the Same Britches" - By Nila Szweda
Honesty vs. Deception - By Bill Mosley
The New Testament Church (Continued From Last Month)PBC 3/99) - By T. T. Martin, Evangelist
The 38th Annual Conference theme was dealt with, in a wonderful way by our speakers this year. It was a joy to hear such sound Bible preaching. Our speakers were from nine different States, and Canada. We also heard sermons from missionaries serving in several different countries. You will be blessed and challenged by the clear presentation of the truth. There are 17 sermons clearly recorded on cassette tapes.
I have always believed that immodest clothing leads to more and more immorality, divorce and other great social problems. I have based my beliefs upon the teaching of God's Word, which after all, is our standard of conduct as set forth by God. Up until recently I had never done any research on this from a statistical standpoint. My interest was recently peaked by something that I read in the newspaper, of all places. The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 4-10-99, contained an editorial written by the editors of this Lubbock paper. This thought provoking article cause me to search for statistical information, which would back up what the editors said.
The editorial was entitled "Divorce Rate Factor," and it was based on a research study that was done by Howard Markman, a psychologist with Denver University. I shall now quote from part of the editorial.
"Strangely enough researchers say, the divorce rate of any place in the continental U.S. can be reliably predicted by knowing the number of days out of the year that women there can wear swimsuits. Generally speaking, the more warm weather days suitable for bathing attire, the higher the divorce rate; the more cold weather days unsuitable for swimwear, the lower the divorce rate."
It seemed reasonable to me that this was true, and I automatically surmised that if it was warm enough to wear swim suits, it would also be warm enough to wear shorts, miniskirts and other skimpy clothes. I felt like I should seek some statistics that would bear this out. Without too much trouble I was able to find the statistics based on the following:"
"Marriages and Divorces - Number and Rate, by State: 1980 to 1995" Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 6, January 2, 1998.
In this report we have the very statistics that prove the Denver University professor's report was true.
I will here list the first ten States with the lowest divorce rate. They will be listed in order by listing the State with the lowest divorce rate first.
Please note that not one of the above ten States with the lowest divorce is located in the Southern part of the United States, but that they are all in the northern part of the country. This is where there is less warm weather, and where bathing suits, shorts, and other skimpy clothing can be worn the least number of days in a year.
These are all listed in order, beginning with the State with the worst record listed first, etc.
As you can see with the exception of Indiana and Wyoming, all of these States are located in the South. Of course Nevada tops the list with the most divorces. We have excluded it from the statistics because it is the divorce capital of the United States. People go there from all parts of the country to get a divorce.
It pains me to write about this because I am from the South. I was born in Oklahoma and have lived most of my life in Texas. Texas barely escaped being in the top ten of the worst States in having the largest number of divorces. The South is supposed to be in the so-called Bible belt. If there ever was a Bible belt, someone has stolen the buckle, because the belt is not holding anything up. One way to help the morals of the South, would be to air condition the country, and that might be a little too expensive, even with government aid.
Other statistics on unwed births, and teenage pregnancy generally follow the same trends as the number of divorces. It really is true, that the more men are able to observe women and girls running around in bathing suits, shorts, and other skimpy clothing, the more broken homes you will see, and the more divorces that will take place. I also believe that women wearing pants that show the shape of their hips, thighs and pelvis, certainly encourage the same kind of conduct. (Most if not all of the pants on women do this.)
What the Bible says about modesty is true, because God said it. However, it is also true that statistics reflect what the Bible says about it. I Tim. 2:9, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel...." God said it, and He has not changed His mind, and He never will. We have several tracts on this subject, so we will not repeat their contents here. Those who want more information can write us, asking for our list of tracts. Yes, I am against immodest clothing worn by men and boys. This goes for shorts, swim suits, or tight pants, because they are immodest on men as well. I think I can safely say that this does not arouse women nearly as bad as immodest clothing on women will arouse a man. Why? It is just the facts of life, and we cannot change that. As our society has masculinized women and feminized men, we have seen a great increase in homosexuality. The solution is to let girl be girls, and let boys be boys. Frankly, I am sick of sissified men going around with long hair, wearing earrings, and acting like women.
Churches all over the country are sponsoring youth activities that encourage immodesty. There are Baptist churches which allow people to attend their worship services in shorts or whatever they want to wear. The pastor of the Second Baptist Church in Lubbock, in television ads asks people to come as they are. You surely know that this means there is no dress codes. (Of course Second Baptist is about as liberal as you can get.) A number of people have told me of going to other Baptist churches and observed people sitting in the pews with their shorts on. If they are doing that in the Baptist churches, what must they be doing in the liberal churches. I have passed by other Baptist churches, and have seen young people going in the buildings for activities, dressed in shorts and other immodest apparel. These churches are encouraging immorality, divorce, and children being born out of wedlock. Of course they say they are out to save the youth, but in reality they are destroying the youth, as well as the adults.
Churches that sponsor or encourage mixed swimming, are doing the same thing. Some so-called fundamental Baptist churches are doing this, and it will have a lasting effect on their youth. Some Fundamental Baptist youth camps allow the youth to dress in shorts, mini-skirts, big legged culottes, which are nothing more than shorts in disguise. Most camps allow the girls to wear pants to the activities. In many instances they show a clear outline of their hips, thighs, and pelvis. This is plain talk, but it is time for it. The reason why this condition is worsening is because some preachers have no convictions, and others do not have the backbone to stand up to their family and to the Church. They wouldn't want to say anything that would upset folks, curtail their popularity, or perhaps hurt their pocketbook. Too many of the preachers are described in I Sam. 2:36. "... Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests' offices, that I may eat a piece of bread."
A few days ago I received a letter from an organization coming to Lubbock. No kidding, it is called "Christians Of Lubbock Aquatics." You will find a copy of their letter printed below for evidence.
"Dear Church leaders,
"I am excited to write you this letter and express the ministry God has laid on my heart. What I am about to share with you has not been done in any part of the country, and I am honored to be a part of God's plan to reach a new generation of warriors for His Kingdom.
"Having been a coach in the sport of swimming for almost two decades now, I am thrilled to have God give my staff and I the opportunity to use our passion for kids and our sport to bring the gospel to the youth of Lubbock County. We are bringing a new team to Lubbock, called Christians Of Lubbock Aquatics, or COLA, which will be unlike any swim team in the nation.
"Our staff truly believes that athletics is an instrument which God uses to bring kids together to receive the good news and promises of God's love through His Son, Jesus Christ. Through our competitive swim team, we want to plant the seeds of Christ's love not only to the youth of this area, but also to the hundreds of thousands of others we will come in contact with nation wide, as we travel from the bottom of Texas to the top of our nation, and from the east coast to the west coast
"Our mission is simply to use athletics as a tool, in bringing the message of Romans 10:9 to young hearts, that they will not only come to know salvation, but become witnesses and warriors for the kingdom of God Almighty.
But we need help from the body of Christ, and we are asking for you to seek God in prayer to protect us from the attacks of satan (sic). Furthermore, we would like very much to have the opportunity to pass out some fliers in your Sunday school classes and/or youth groups. We also would be pleased to be able to share our ministry with your congregation in a 5 minute presentation. And finally, we have enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope with the hopes that you will be able to help in supporting our stand for God's Kingdom. It is a steep, uphill climb financially to get this team started, and we will need $4,700 simply to begin. No matter how large or small the contribution, God will use it to complete His work!!
"Thanks so much for your time and prayers. May God richly bless you and your congregation. Take care and God bless,
"Mike ......
"Christians Of Lubbock Aquatics"
In view of what we have already written, it does not seem necessary to say much about this new organization. The people behind it may be sincere people with a sincere desire to help the youth of our city. However, that cannot change the facts. The result will be that they will take boys and girls, dress them in skimpy swim suits, and then parade them around the country in the name of Christ. (If anyone thinks they will wear the old long bathing suits of a hundred years ago, they would probably buy frogs that are advertised as being able to fly to the moon.)
If you think that scantily clad girls do not cause men to lust, you need someone to tell you about the birds and the bees. In their hearts men know better, and women should. What these people are going to do, is cause lust, fornication, adultery, unwed mothers, and divorce.
They want to come and recruit our youth, and take up money from our adults to get this "Christians Of Lubbock Aquatics" started. That will happen just as soon as catfish learn to drive Cadillacs, and I don't think that will be very soon. This may seem to be a hard article, but I learned a long time ago you can't fight the devil with a feather duster. Some who read this, particularly on the Internet, will call me a dirty old man. No, my friend I am not, but I do know the facts of life, and it is too bad that many pretend that they do not know.
Grandma Bynum was a matter of fact kind of person. She met life's adversities with stoical resolve, never complaining about much except missing her grown children when they left after a visit. It was a shock when I moved north as an adult and heard for the first time the bewailing of depression hardships from older folk. It struck me as peculiar that I had never heard my own grandma bemoan her difficulties during this disastrous economic period of our history.
She spent most of her life without electricity or indoor plumbing on the family farm in Oklahoma. It wasn't because they couldn't afford it. Grandpa was just one of those folks that didn't have much use for "new-fangled" conveniences.
Grandma cooked on a wood burning stove. The kitchen was a reflection of Grandma, unadorned and practical. It was sometimes home to a batch of chicks hatched in cold weather. Slop buckets for the pigs stood by the door. Milk came by hand from the Jersey tethered to a fence post. Bathing took place in a #10 washtub in the front yard.1 There wasn't much worry about modesty since traffic down the remote dusty red dirt road was rare except on Sunday.
Sunday company, often the preacher, was a big event. It meant a trip out to the yard, grabbing up a Leghorn and summarily wringing its neck. There seemed no discrepancy between the role of loving grandma and the chicken yard messenger of death. Stooped from years of hard farm work with sun toughened skin, this plain woman could put food on the table that no haute cuisine chef will ever match.
She worked all day from wood hauling to milking to field work. Then there was the stitching of cup towels, the sewing of quilts and aprons. No matter what transpired throughout the day, the evening was the same-grandma sitting in the chair with a kerosene lamp, Bible laid open across her bony knees.
That's how she got so smart. In retrospect, I see she knew an awful lot. Great pearls of wisdom were dispensed in plain speech to a small child from those thin unpainted lips. Verbal guidance issued forth so matter-of-factly that no child even considered questioning it. As a child it was taken in, accepted, and acted upon though never really cherished until later in life.
Childhood angers and upsets were put in their rightful place with a "Well, you can just get glad in the same britches you got mad in." That edict was so often dispensed that it became integrated in a young developing character. Though a little late, modern science now confirms that such a philosophy is of inestimable benefit to the mental and physiological health and well-being of man.
Science taught us what Grandma already knew-that it isn't healthy to stay mad. Anger is a powerful and useful tool. It can bolster our courage in battling and defeating adversity, immorality, and injustice. It releases hormones and chemicals in the body that help us face such challenges undaunted. Those same elements harbored for an extended period of time can also be devastatingly detrimental.
Grandma gets the credit for the development of an attitude that does not embrace or cling to anger. Of course, not everyone had the benefit, of a grandmother like mine. You and I meet folks all the time who can't seem to get through a single day without getting riled up about one thing or another. It seems that no matter what the day brings to those individuals they are going to growl and grumble and fuss about it. If the day doesn't bring something new, they'll, dredge up something old to growl and grumble about.
We all get angry from time to time. Sometimes there is something worthy of anger, but no slight, no event, no circumstance in our life is worth staying angry over. It isn't right.
1. Actually it was a #3 washtub in the backyard, and the bathing was done at night.
(Nila Szweda is the daughter of E. L. Bynum. She is a reporter for a weekly newspaper in Wisconsin. The above article appeared in her weekly Personal Opinion column recently. Her childhood conception of my mother is right on target.)
A growing tendency toward acceptance of dishonesty by American society today is disturbing to say the least. One of the outstanding attributes of grass roots America in past history: "A man's word is his bond." A handshake was once accepted as binding as a signed contract. Even more binding than many signed contracts today since those with the uncanny ability to find legal loop holes to avoid responsibilities prey on those who are honest. What a sad commentary of Modern American History can be written when leadership on almost every level is accepted regardless of their impaired integrity.
Although dishonesty in civil government and society in general is completely unacceptable, far more despicable is being dishonest in the area of religion. Recent years have uncovered dishonesty of character in popular TV evangelists as well as their untrustworthy handling of funds. Reports to the Internal Revenue Service by some have been found fraudulent. Answering to the proper officials certainly has brought embarrassment to many who fell into the greed trap. Those who financed these misleading individuals likewise had reason to feel ill at ease.
Character Qualification
Honesty is a distinctive trait of character that is more than casually mentioned in scripture as a necessity if a person is to please God. The Lord's parable of the sower reveals honesty to be an outstanding characteristic of one beginning new life in Him. The seed that fell " . . . on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience" (Luke 8:15). No wonder Paul encouraged the Philippian church to continue in the same honest character with which they began. (Phil. 1:6) "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ...." The believer's influence for good in the world depends upon their honesty. (1 Thes. 4:11,12) "And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing."
The first church at Jerusalem grew in number until the apostles were unable to attend to all things required. Their involvement in matters of less importance took great tolls from time that could more profitably be given to prayer and the word. Under direction of the Holy Spirit the twelve advised the church to search out and set apart seven men to attend to these matters freeing the apostles to preach the word. They were to be men " . . . of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom" (Acts 6:3). No doubt these were not the only men in the church who would have met these qualifications. Honesty was surely the customary rather than the exception. These acceptable qualifications for spiritual leadership have never been repealed but rather enlarged upon as the New Testament unfolds the walk all believers are to follow.
Since honesty is required in character qualification, it is a no less requirement in certain identification. This is certainly true of discipleship. (Mark 8:38) "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." To hide the identity that a person inwardly claims and then renounces before others is unacceptable before the Lord.
Regardless of the reasoning behind such action there is an alarming trend that appalls many Baptist today including this writer. I am certainly aware that those who hold the doctrinal truths that true Baptist accept today have not always been called Baptist. But today we are! I am not ashamed to be called a Baptist nor am I ashamed to attend church where the name Baptist is on the sign outside the building where the church meets. Though I have no fear of this happening, should the name Baptist be removed from that sign I will no longer attend but will seek a Baptist church that claims and defends that name unashamedly. Since an honest heart is a requirement for salvation, an honest heart is equally required for service (Luke 8:15). Paul in writing to the church at Rome advised them to, "Provide things honest in the sight of all men" (Rom. 12:17) [Emp. mine]. That would certainly include the sign which designated the "kind" of "church" which assembles in that building. Later in the same letter (Rom. 13:13) he said, "Let us walk honestly, as in the day," implying that everything the church is involved in should be above question and reproach and certainly honest. It is not enough to argue that "the Lord knows our doctrinal stand and that is all that counts." (2 Cor 8:21) "Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men" [Emphasis mine]. Being honest in a name is just as important as being honest in doctrine.
It is less than honest and extremely unscriptural for a church with Baptist in their name to accept alien baptism, that is, baptism (even immersion) from a denomination that teaches works for salvation. It is just as dishonest for a church to leave Baptist out of their name and claim to be Baptist in doctrine. To seek to attract the unchurched or even the lost by omitting true identity is deceitful. It would be more honest to use the word "beguile" than "attract" when using such deception to reach the "unchurched." That would fall into the category of "...beguiling unstable souls," (2 Pet. 2:14). When inviting someone to visit the church where I attend I want them to know we are Baptist. (2 Cor 4:1,2) "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." The church with "Community" (or some other ecumenically acceptable name) which accepts any or all forms of baptism or none at all are more honest than the church by the same name that seeks to hide their true identity yet claim doctrinal purity. Church signs normally leave no doubt as to the true identity of the doctrine of the church meeting in that place. Think of the confusion of seeking a doctrinally sound church home without Baptist in the name.
Again, I am aware that there was a long period of time when those who hold to the biblical practices that true Baptist hold today were identified by a different name. However, the name by which they were distinguished at that given time in history left no doubt as to their doctrine even unto death. Those who dared to follow Christ in salvation and scriptural baptism were appropriately apprised of the cost of membership in the Lord's true church. Let me remind you again that the Lord's true church is identified as Baptist today and I for one am not in the least ashamed of that name! It has been so since the day that "ANA-" was dropped from "Anabaptist" that the doctrine has remained the same though it seems the dignity of that name has depreciated in the mind of some.
The apostle Paul was sent out as a missionary from the church at Antioch (Acts 13). What he once was he no longer is (I Tim. 1:12,13). There was no effort to conceal his identity with the church that sent him. No country or city into which he entered were left in doubt as to the doctrine or determination of Paul. It was to reach lost humanity and establish other churches (the same kind as Antioch) in every city. Such churches were "grounded and settled" so as not to be "moved away from the hope of the gospel," (Col. 1:23).
Paul's purpose in his ministry is clearly stated in I Cor. 2:4, "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power ...." The inventions of man's wisdom were unacceptable. The Holy Spirit's demonstration of power was the only means used by the early church. It would be well today if every little group of baptized believers would totally depend on the same method to reach the lost. Except the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain that build it (Psa. 127:1). To drop the name, change the name, invent another name, for the sake of establishing other churches is no more than the inventions of man and less than honest in the sight of God and man. The wise man declared in (Eccl 7:29) "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." "Inventions" imply to weave or fabricate, to plot or devise a plan to a desired end. The plan for establishing churches for the glory of God was given by our Lord in Matt. 28:18-20. The power of the Lord is needed; the command of the Lord must be heeded; and those who followed His command succeeded. Jesus was baptized by a Baptist preacher sent from God (John 1:6). May repentant believers never be ashamed to follow our Lord's example.
The greatest objection to Baptists on the part of other people is what is called "Close Communion." But it will now be shown that whenever there is "Open Communion," there is, in the sight of God, no Lord's Supper at all; that for Baptists to give up "Close Communion" would mean to blot the real Lord's Supper from the face of the earth; and that Baptists teaching and practicing "Close Communion" proves absolutely that they are the New Testament churches, and that they come down from the time of Christ.
Baptism is symbolic: "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom.6:4). Hence, in the nature of the case, when the symbol is absent, there is no baptism, for the baptism is the symbol itself. Likewise, the Lord's Supper is symbolic, and if the symbol is not there, then there is no Lord's Supper. In first Cor. 10:17, we are told what the Lord's Supper symbolizes: "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." Then the Lord's Supper is to be a picture, a symbol, of the Lord's one body. There is one loaf of bread to represent His one body, and the church celebrating the supper is to be "one bread and one body." Suppose now that those celebrating the supper are not "one bread and one body"; suppose they are divided, and so not one body? Notice God's teachings, I Cor. 11:18-20, "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." Wherever, then, there are divisions in the body gathered round the table, God's Word says that it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper. But whenever there is Open Communion, there is always division. The very term Open Communion indicates that there are divisions. Then whenever there is Open Communion or divisions around the table, God's Word says it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper. Then in the sight of God there is no Lord's Supper at all, whenever there is Open Communion. The world calls it the Lord's Supper, just as the world calls sprinkling and pouring, baptism; but whenever there is division, Open Communion, God says it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper. Picture Methodists and Presbyterians and Disciples in Open Communion, the Presbyterian with his Calvinism, the Methodist with his salvation-partly of works, and the Disciple with his immersion in order to the remission of sins. Are there not divisions there? Why, if what the Disciple teaches is true, the Methodists and the Presbyterians have no remission of sins and are going to hell. They call it, and the world calls it, Open Communion; but God says it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper, because there are divisions there.
If now, when there are divisions, there is no Lord's Supper in the sight of God, then for Baptists to give up what is called "Close Communion" and practice what is called Open Communion, would mean that there would be no Lord's Supper on the earth at all.
Now, the Savior, in instituting the supper, said, I Cor. 11:26: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death TILL HE COME." Then Jesus said that there would be a real celebration of the Lord's Supper "till He come." But God's Word says plainly that it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper when there are divisions, or Open Communion. Then Jesus said there would be the real Lord's Supper, which is without division, or Close Communion, "till He come." But Baptists are the only ones who do practice Close Communion. Then they are the churches that come down from the time of Christ.
NOTE BY E. L. BYNUM: In the past few years there have developed three different positions on the Lord's Supper. There is now Open Communion, Close Communion, and Closed Communion. Open Communion means that anyone present, professing Christ may eat the Supper. Close Communion means that anyone who is from a Baptist Church of like faith and order, may partake of the Supper in any Baptist Church where they may be visiting. Closed Communion means that only the members of the local Baptist Church who are in good standing may partake of the Supper. In the opinion of this editor, only the Closed Communion position can stand the test of Scripture. The whole context of I Corinthians 5, is dealing with the sinful member of the Church who is a fornicator. Verses 7-13 puts it in the context of the Lord's Supper. In verse 11, we are not to eat with certain people. I Cor. 5:11, "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." Some might say that this is not the eating of the Lord's Supper. Verses 7-8 seem to put it in the context of the Lord's Supper. Even if it is not referring to the Lord's Supper, surely no one would say that we should eat at the Lord's table with people we were forbidden to eat with at a private meal. Verse 12 instructs the Church to judge those in its membership. There would be no way to judge strangers who might be present at the Lord's Supper in the local Church. I Cor. 5:12, "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?" Paul told the Church at Corinth that they could not eat the Lord's Supper if there were divisions or heresies among you (I Cor. 11:18-20). If visiting Baptists are to be invited to the Lord's table, then we are possibly eating with those that may be heretics, or a source of division in the Church where their membership is located. They should be active in their own Church and partake of the Lord's Supper in their own Church. It is believed by this editor that in 1917 when T. T. Martin wrote this book, that Close Communion meant the same thing as Closed Communion today. Since this book was written there has been a redefining of the meaning of Close Communion.
Because Baptist churches are New Testament churches, they are under the most solemn obligation to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). The question arises, What should be the attitude of Baptist churches and Baptists toward other churches?
Let it be understood that it should not be that of bitterness nor harshness. There is a vast difference between earnestly contending and bitterly contending. While there has been great harm done by Baptists' compromising the truth, there probably has been as great or greater harm done by the bitter spirit in which some of us have contended for the faith. Not only should there be no bitterness, but there should be tender love for everyone who is redeemed, whatever his religious errors may be; for, "Every one that loveth Him that begat loveth Him also that is begotten of Him" (1 John 5:1).
Baptist churches and Baptists should rejoice in all the truth that any people hold. "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us" (Luke 9:49-50).
But the question arises, Baptist churches being New Testament churches, what should be the attitude of Baptists and Baptist churches toward the religious errors of other people? Let two principles be laid down: whenever Baptists or Baptist churches make stronger efforts to reach other people in religious error than they make to reach outsiders, they are sectarians and bigots. Second, whenever they make less efforts to reach people in other religious bodies than they make to reach outsiders, they are cowardly bowing to a maudlin sentiment, and are betraying their trust in being unfaithful to their Lord. For instance, there are churches that do not teach the New Testament way of salvation through believing on Christ as complete, eternal Redeemer from all iniquity. Then whenever Baptist churches and Baptists make less efforts to lead these people to accept the New Testament way of salvation than they make to get the outside world to see it and accept it, it is from pure cowardice and a betrayal of their solemn trust. There are people who do not know the way of New Testament baptism. Whenever Baptists and Baptist churches fail to make the same effort to reach these people with this truth that they make toward the outside world, they are compromising and betraying their sacred trust. Whenever they make a greater effort to get them to accept this truth than they make to get the outside world to accept it, it is from a party or sectarian spirit.
This runs across the popular conception of denominational courtesy and comity. But who gave any man or set of men authority to set up institutions or doctrines contrary to New Testament churches and doctrines? And who made it obligatory that New Testament churches should bow to these institutions and doctrines and not "earnestly contend for the faith?"
It has been shown that the two essential doctrines of a New Testament church are the way of salvation and the way of baptism; "Go ye therefore, and teach (make disciples) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19). But the remainder of the commission is still in force, "teaching them to observe all things." So many of our churches and people have stopped with the two essential doctrines instead of reaching out earnestly for the "all things." We should not only welcome all truth, but should yearn for it, and strive to incorporate all truth into our work and lives, "and the truth shall make you free." We would as well face the fact that while other churches are not New Testament churches, not standing for both essential doctrines to a New Testament church, yet some of them have gone far beyond some of our churches in reaching out after other truths and doctrines of God's Word, and in incorporating other truths and doctrines into their lives. How the lives and sacrifices of many of these other Christian bodies put some of our Baptist people and churches to shame! Oh, for a revival among our Baptist churches that will lead them to reach out intensely, earnestly for all the doctrines, all the teachings of God's Word!
A word in concluding these thoughts on the New Testament church, concerning the proper attitude of Baptist churches and Baptists toward other Baptists and other Baptist churches holding some religious errors. We should face the fact that some of our Baptist churches and some of our Baptists have greatly injured God's cause by bitterness and harshness toward other denominations, because of their wrong doctrines. But we have probably inflicted a greater injury on God's cause by our bitterness toward each other. The bitterness of Baptists toward other Baptists, whom they considered to be in error, is one of the great stumbling blocks to other peoples. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." It is true that Paul withstood Peter to the face because he was to be blamed; yet he did it in such a spirit that Peter afterward referred to him as "our beloved brother Paul."
But, alas! so often when we oppose an erring Baptist church or brother, we do it in a spirit that burns and tears and crushes. We should oppose errors held by Baptists as earnestly as we oppose errors held by others. Whenever we oppose errors of Baptists less than we oppose the errors of others, we are sectarians and bigots. Whenever we oppose the errors of our brethren or others in a bitter, rasping way, we are unworthy of our Savior and Lord who, in rebuking bitterness, said: "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives but to save them" (Luke 9 :55, 56).
By R. S. MacArthur.
To the question, "Why am I a Baptist?" I should answer by saying that it is because I believe that Baptist doctrines are the doctrines of the New Testament, as interpreted alike by the highest scholarship and by the understanding of unlearned but devout readers; and, furthermore, because these doctrines are, in many respects, in harmony with the views adopted by the best thought of today, whether in the church or without. If one were asked to state the fundamental idea of the Baptists, he might give it as this: Personal faith in the Lord Jesus alone saves the soul; or, stating the thought negatively in relation to baptism, baptism will not make a man a Christian. He might also enlarge the thought by saying: Obedience to the will of Christ as expressed in the inspired Scripture, including personal faith in Christ as the ground of salvation, baptism in the name of the Trinity as the profession of that faith, and loyalty to Christ in all other things which He has commanded. A Christian should, of course, be baptized, as a soldier should put on a uniform; but as it is not putting on the uniform which makes a man a soldier, so it is not baptism that makes a man a Christian. The man puts on the uniform because he is already a soldier; so a man should be baptized when he has become a Christian. A true church, therefore, consists of truly regenerated persons who have been baptized on the profession of their faith. Thus, Baptists refuse to give baptism to unconscious infants. They baptize only those whom they believe to have already becomes Christians, only those who show evidence of having met with an internal change.
Till a recent date the idea that baptism will not make one a Christian was distinctly a Baptist doctrine; in the middle ages all but Baptists held the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. If one had been baptized, it was assumed by most church men that he had been made a Christian, and, without any demand for evidence that he was changed in character, he was admitted to all the rights of the church. This is true, for the most part, among the Roman Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans of today, and to some degree even among those who claim to be more evangelical. All who were baptized in infancy are considered to be Christians, though they show no evidence whatever of an internal spiritual change. The rapid growth of Baptist churches in modern times results from a general discarding of the doctrine that Baptism will make a man a Christian. Evangelical revivals, like those of the days of Edwards and Whitfield and like those which followed Mr. Moody's preaching, add greatly to Baptists' numbers. When Mr. Moody said that baptism will not make a man a Christian, that no man is a Christian till he has truly repented of his sins and exercised personal faith in Jesus Christ, people immediately ask: "Why, then, should infants be baptized ?"
They adopt the Baptist principle that as no man puts on the military uniform till he has already enlisted as a soldier, so no one should be baptized till he has already repented and believed and become a Christian.
Now the Baptist principle is the New Testament principle. When certain Pharisees asked John the Baptist to baptize them, he told them they must bring fruit meet for repentance; that baptizing them would not make them holy men; that they must first give evidence of repentance, and then they could be baptized. First, belief, and then baptism, then the Lord's Supper; this is the New Testament order of the Baptist churches still. This Baptist idea, that baptism will not make a man a Christian, that it is unreasonable to baptize him till he has already met with a change of heart, commands the approval of all sensible men outside the church, and it is being rapidly adopted by all the more evangelical religious bodies. These churches must make more of infant baptism or less.
There is absolutely no place for infant baptism in an evangelical system of theology. Those who do believe in baptismal regeneration are logical but unscriptural; those who do not so believe and who practice infant baptism are both illogical and unscriptural. Many evangelical churches are beginning to realize their inconsistency. Not near so many infants are baptized among the Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Methodists as among the Roman Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans. Why is this? It is because while the last named churches still adhere to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the former, for the most part, have abandoned it, and they are coming more and more to see that if baptism will not make a child a Christian, there is little reason for baptizing the child.
I unhesitatingly assert that there is not in the New Testament a single command for, or example of infant baptism. If there were, it could easily be found, but no one yet has made this discovery. How can men who adopt the famous dictum of Chillingworth, "the Bible, and the Bible only, the religion of Protestants," practice infant baptism? In so doing they depart from their fundamental principle; they cannot successfully antagonize the "churchianity" and traditionalism of the Church of Rome. Secular common sense and the evangelical religious thought of today are in this respect in harmony with the New Testament. The scholarship of the world is in agreement with this view. Many more authorities might be cited, but the following are sufficient:
Luther says: "It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles" (Vanity of Inf. Bap., Part 2, p. 8).
Neander says: "Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive of baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution" (Ch. Hist., Vol. 1, p. 311; Plant and Train, Vol. 1, p. 222).
Professor Lange says: "All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament" (Inf. Bap., p. 101).
Hanna says: "Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants" (N. Brit, Review, August, 1852).
Tertullian is the first who mentions the custom and he opposes it. It was at the close of the Second Century, or about A. D. 200. His opposition proves two things: First, that it was in occasional use, at least; second, that it was of recent origin, since had it been long used some earlier record of it could be found (Neander Ch. Hist. Vol. 1, p. 311).
"All students of ecclesiastical history know that at an earlier period corruptions perverted Christian faith and practice. Among these, one of the earliest was that of undue efficacy attributed to baptism. Its sanctity was so exalted that it was believed to have power to wash away sins and cleanse the soul for heaven. By it the sick were supposed to be prepared for death, and salvation made more certain by its efficacy. Anxious parents, therefore, desired their dying children to be thus prepared—washing in the laver of regeneration, as it was termed—that they might be sure of salvation. And here came in that pernicious error of ‘baptismal regeneration' which gave rise to infant baptism, and which has through all these ages clung with more or less pertinacity to the clergy and laity of all churches which have practiced it."—Edward S. Hiscox.
Professor Lange's words are weighty and should be carefully pondered by Protestant defenders of this papal emanation. He says: "Would the Protestant church fulfill and attain to its final destiny, the baptism of new born children must of necessity be abolished. It has sunk down to a mere formalism without any meaning for the child" (Hiss. Protestantism, p. 34).