 False
Standards of TRUTH
Some folk prate about "having the truth" when it is evident they
can't give chapter and verse for their contention. I wonder how they
know they have the truth? When Jesus said, "Thy (God's) word is
truth;" (Jn.17:17) He stated the dependability of God, and the
accuracy and integrity of His teaching. In a sense, people are "set
apart" by false doctrines and practice, (witness sectarianism) but
Jesus prayed that the Apostles might be set apart by their
acceptance and adherence to TRUTH.
All who have access to the word of God "have the truth" — to learn,
believe, obey. But many seem satisfied to hold aloft this "Holy
Bible" — the outward aspect of truth, yet give little attention to
the contents of the book. By reading a verse now and then, and
making use of some Bible terminology, they suppose their doctrines
are "based on the Bible."
A thing is neither wrong nor right because we have always done it.
Can we safely assume that our forefathers were infallible? We use
the term "always" rather loosely when we refer to a practice of
thirty, fifty, or even one hundred years. The gap between the early
church and the practice of the church today is spanned, not by
succession, but by the seed which is the word of God. (1 Pet. 1:25)
A thing is neither wrong nor right because "denominations" do it. We
may wisely hesitate to adopt a procedure common among those in
error. But some brethren have developed a negative philosophy — a
thing is not good, or a thing is wonderful, on the basis of the
conduct of the opposition. There is a short, much safer cut to the
solution. Let God's word determine the right or wrong; period.
A thing is neither wrong nor right because of the supposed "end.”
May we assume to infallibly predict the end? God alone sees the
whole picture, and His plan is certain to bring about an "end" He
desires. When we leave His plan for our "more efficient" scheme, we
presumptuously cast reflection upon divine wisdom.
A thing is neither wrong nor right because it evokes either
opposition or acclaim, from the people. Paul said, "Do I seek to
please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of
Christ." (Gal.1:10) A preacher once told me he knew a certain action
was right, but that if he took a stand on the subject it might
"cause trouble." I agree that unnecessary trouble should be avoided,
but if his analysis of the situation was correct, "trouble" already
existed. The time had come to "reprove, rebuke, exhort.” The
majority has usually been wrong in matters religious, and neither
one nor many people have ever constituted divine authority.
A thing is neither wrong nor right because "good" or "bad" men do
it. What makes a man "good"? Jesus said, "None is good, save God" —
i.e., we must acknowledge God as the source of good, and the things
of God alone as being truly good. A man "does good" with reference
to a given problem when he acts in keeping with God's will. This is
applicable to preacher and elders, as well as to any others. A good
action does not make or precede "truth"; on the contrary, "truth"
precedes the good action, and the act is good because it is in
keeping with truth. Remember, God's word is truth.
No Man Loves Truth Who Shows Disrespect For God’s Word
Write that on your samplers, teach it to your children, shout it
from the housetops, and apply it to your own religious practices now
and then. What egotism, what unmitigated gall is this that allows
one man to use the pulpit, radio, or journals to challenge another
for his authority to — let us say, use mechanical music in the
worship, — and then hold me in contempt if I ask him for his
authority to support human institutions from the church treasury? Is
God's word the standard for TRUTH only when it suits our purpose?
A Plea For Truth Seekers
God give us men of courage; honest men, hungry for TRUTH. Banish
selfish concern, creed-bound fumblings after truth; and help us to
search thy word prayerfully, convinced that therein are the answers
to our problems. Open our eyes that we may see, our ears that we may
hear, and our hearts that we may understand.
"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower
of grass. The grass withereth,
and the flower thereof
falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.
And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
1 Pet. 1:24
Plain Talk, Volume 1, Number 2, February, 1964
|
|
Paul and
the Sinner's Prayer
By Ron Boatwright
In Acts chapter 9, Saul of Tarsus, who later was called Paul, was
struck blind when he met the Lord on the road to Damascus . Then we
read in Acts 9:6 about Paul, “So he, trembling and astonished said,
‘Lord, what do you want me to do?’ Then the Lord said, ‘Arise and go
into the city and you will be told what you must do’.” Notice, Paul
would be told “what you must do.” Then we read “But they led him by
the hand and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days
without sight, and neither ate nor drank” (Acts 9:8-9). Did Paul
have faith in the Lord? Yes. Was Paul saved by “faith only” at this
point? No; as we will see, Paul still needed to be baptized to wash
away his sins.
The Lord sent a man, named Ananias, to tell Paul what he must do.
The Lord told Ananias to “Arise and go to the street called Straight
and inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for
behold, he is praying” (Acts 9:11). Paul had been praying, but he
did not receive forgiveness of his sins through praying. Paul still
had all of his sins. Paul was told by Ananias “And now why are you
waiting? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on
the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Paul was not saved and his sins
were not forgiven until Paul did what he was told he must do; that
is to “arise and be baptized and wash away your sins.”
Today men have come up with the idea of “accepting Jesus as your
personal Saviour” and saying the “sinner’s prayer” in order to be
saved. This is a ploy of Satan which will cause many people to be
eternally lost by not obeying what the Lord says that we must do in
order to have our sins forgiven and to be saved. Satan knows people
are not saved by saying the “sinner’s prayer.” “Accepting Jesus as
your personal Saviour” and saying the “sinner’s prayer” in order to
be saved is foreign to the Bible. Why wasn’t Paul’s sins forgiven by
his praying before he was baptized? Paul’s sins were not washed away
until he was baptized. Paul was not told to pray the “sinner’s
prayer”, but to “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins.” I
cannot think of a more flagrant crime against God and man, than to
tell lost sinners who want to be saved something different than what
God says in the Bible. ~
|
|
Baptism
for the Dead
by David King
“Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the
dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?”
(1 Cor. 15:29).
This is the only passage in the New Testament that mentions baptism
for the dead. Paul appears to describe it as an actual practice but
provides no other information, so we are left to wonder what he
referred to.
For centuries commentators have struggled to explain it. According
to one review of the subject I read recently, there are over two
hundred different interpretations.
The most natural interpretation is some kind of proxy baptism, in
which a person is baptized in behalf of a dead relative or friend.
This is the view taken by the Mormons, in particular. While
grammatically appropriate, this approach suffers from a complete
lack of corroborating evidence in the New Testament, as well as
contradicting everything we know about baptism as a personal
decision tightly linked to one’s own faith and repentance (Ac.
2:38).
Others adopt unusual definitions of the phrase “for the dead” to
find the meaning. For example, some suggest Paul is referring to
those who are baptized “in view of their own impending death,” or
those who are baptized “to take the place of the fallen martyrs,” or
those who are baptized “in response to the death of Christ.” All
these interpretations get credit for cleverness, but they are
obviously stretched too thin to be credible.
The key to unlocking this puzzle is to notice the pronouns: “what
will they do . . .why are they baptized?” Paul is not describing
something that he or the Corinthians practiced. Rather, it is some
other group that performs this kind of baptism. Throughout this
chapter, Paul consistently uses the pronouns “we” or “you” (v. 17,
19). But suddenly here he switches to “they.” Why?
Corinth was located just a few miles from the town of Eleusis, which
was the home of an ancient religion known as the Eleusinian
Mysteries. The Mysteries were probably the dominant religious
movement of the day, certainly in Greece. One of the rituals
practiced by the followers of this religion was baptism in the
nearby Aegean Sea, performed at the autumnal equinox. There is some
evidence that these worshippers practiced a form of baptism for the
dead (Orphic Fragment 245).
Remember that Paul’s objective in this chapter is to defend the
Christian doctrine of the resurrection. Paul is making an argument
based on the Corinthians’ existing knowledge of a pagan religion. He
is not legitimizing the pagan religion or ritual. Rather, he is
using it as a means of reinforcing the reasonableness of a belief in
the resurrection. Even the pagans recognize a future life; their
practice of proxy baptism proves it. So why should his teaching of a
future resurrection be so hard to believe?
In conclusion, baptism for the dead was indeed a form of proxy
baptism, known to the audience for whom Paul was writing. But it was
a practice of the pagans of that day, not the Christians. There is
no Biblical basis for God’s people today to practice it. ~
|