“The Greek - that marvelous tongue, so flexible and fitted for accurate expression, used of the Holy Spirit in the giving of the New Testament” (Boll) - has a family of words expressive of the action of Baptism, as taught in the New Testament. Beginning with the root word - BAPTO - we have: BAPTO, ‘dip’; EMBAPTO, ‘in-dip, dip in’; BAPTIZO, ‘dip-ize, immerse’; BAPTISMA, ‘dip-ism, immersion, submersion’; BAPTISMOS, ‘dipping, immersing’; and BAPTISTES, ‘dipist, immerser’ (a term applied to John the harbinger, because he immersed people. Matthew 3:1-7).
Therefore, the idea of sprinkling or pouring for Baptism is out of the question. Furthermore, the Greek for sprinkle is RANTIZO, meaning ‘to scatter a liquid in small drops’. The word for pour is CHE or CHU, meaning ‘to move a liquid by gravity, from a container’. Hence, the Scriptures, correctly translated, read “immerse,” instead of “baptize”; “immersion,” instead of “baptism”; and immerser”, instead of “baptist.” See The Emphatic Diaglott, The Living Oracles, and the first edition of The Bible Union Translation.
Sprinkling and pouring for Baptism originated in the ranks of Roman-ism and were borrowed from them by many Protestant parties. So they have no higher authority than “the man of sin” and “son of perdition” and iniquity, the chief minister of “the falling away” or the great apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:1-7) or “Mystery Babylon” (Revelation 17:1-5).
The fact that we are baptized “into (Greek: EIS) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:18), thus changing our state or relationship, is positive evidence that Baptism is essential to salvation from sin.
So also the fact that Baptism is “for (Greek: EIS, “in order to obtain” - Thayer, Feyerabend, and Goodspeed) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38 compare Matthew 26:28) is positive evidence that Baptism is essential to the remission of sins, or salvation from sin.
And, too, the fact that we are “baptized into (Greek: EIS) Christ” (Galatians 3:27) and “into (EIS) His death” (Romans 6:3) where He shed His blood (John 19:36) assures us of the necessity of being baptized.
Furthermore, Jesus puts baptism between every sinner and the Kingdom: saying, “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, He cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5). In the expression “born OF water” we have in the Greek EK - out of - showing that a person must voluntarily go under the water, and come up out of it. So the Eunuch “came up OUT OF the water”, when he was baptized. See Acts 8:36-38.
I exhort every unbaptized person who see this to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16) - before it is too late! “If weak be thy faith, why choose the harder side?”
J. D. Phillips
Keeping the Record Straight
(Phillips - Hayhurst Debate - Number 1)
For the benefit of those who are interested in the cups question, but who did not have the pleasure of attending the above discussion, I shall give briefly the arguments in a series of reports under the above heading. No doubt many who did not attend the debate, would have attended, but some of the cups preachers who were conducting meetings nearby did not announce it.
Hayhurst opened the discussion by stating that he was a peace-loving man, and that he had tried hard to get us to drop the contention over the use of cups, but we would not. Bro. Phillips replied that Bro. Hayhurst wanted us to say nothing against the innovation, while he and others should be left free to agitate it privately to his heart’s content, and that we had peace until they sowed the seed of discord among us.
Hayhurst contended that he was affirming no special way for observing the communion; that the expression, “they all drank of it”, Mark 14:23, indicated the idea of passing it around, and that in Matthew 26:27, Jesus says, “the cup is the blood”, and in Luke 22:17, He says, “take this (cup, fruit of the vine - blood) and divide it among yourselves”. And from this he contended strongly that the “cup” is the “fruit of the vine”.
Phillips showed that Hayhurst was contending for a special way, or ways, as he contended that the wine must be in one vessel until after thanks are given, and that it must not be put into individual cups, then. Hayhurst never recovered from this blow. Phillips said, “When Hayhurst drinks his cup (fruit of the vine) without a cup (drinking vessel), and passed it on to others he may get somewhere”.
Phillips showed that the word, “cup” never did mean wine, but by the figurative use, it may be used to present to the mind something else. He then showed that Hayhurst had misquoted 1 Corinthians 11:25 and Luke 22:20, and instead of it saying, “This cup is the blood’, it reads, “This cup is the New Testament”.
Hayhurst then complained about who challenged for the debate, and that H. O. Freeman, a one cup man, was the first one to preach on this question.
Next, Hayhurst took up, “Divide it among yourselves”, and argued that it did not tell how to divide it, hence that matter was left to us.
He stated that he would accept none but the King James and American Standard versions, and that he was not making a law, when he objected to the individual cups, as the COST of them was what he objected to.
Phillips replied that he knew of a church that used one cup, which cost fifty dollars, or more. Hayhurst said, “Shame on a church that will use a fifty-dollar cup, and millions starving for bread’. Phillips said, “Hayhurst rides in a six-hundred-dollar Ford, while millions starve for bread - shame on you!”
Hayhurst had much to say about the little book written by Phillips and the authorities he used. Phillips replied that he was glad that Hayhurst and others were reading the book, as they may learn something, and that he had just quoted from the authorities on the meaning of language used by Christ and the Apostles.
Phillips showed that the disciples were told to divide the cup, Luke 22:17, by drinking of it, or out of it, Matthew 26:27, and that they understood it this way for “they all drank of it”, Mark 14:23. He further stated that he accepted the versions mentioned by Hayhurst on the cups question. He then showed from 1 Corinthians chapter 1, that Paul was giving instructions to Christians everywhere, and from 1 Corinthians chapter 11 that Paul said, “Keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you”. “I received of the Lord, that which I delivered, - Jesus took a cup, - supped, - and said, this do”. Phillips said, “Now one cup is what He delivered to us, will we KEEP IT?” He showed that Hayhurst was a lawmaker, for he had said that God did not say how many cups to use, but still he objected to the individual cups.
Homer A. Gay
(Continued in next issue)
Reese - Musgrave Debate
The above was conducted at Somerton, Arizona, June 7-10. One session each day.
Proposition: “Baptism for the remission of sins by faith, repentance, confession, is scriptural; even though administered by First Christian preachers.” J. L. Musgrave affirmed, and Chas. F. Reese denied.
Bro. Musgrave proved by Philippians 1:15-18 that it makes no difference about the administrator. Bro. Reese tried hard to tear it down, but failed.
Here are some of Bro. Reese’s contentions: The digressive members are branches, and will be cast forth. Bro. Musgrave showed that baptism is the step that puts into Christ (the Vine); hence the baptism was all right or they would not be in the Vine. He next contended that the digressive will be “gathered out of the Kingdom.” Bro. Musgrave showed that their baptism was valid, or else they could never have been in the Kingdom, John 3:5. Bro. Reese was forced to admit that erring Christians must be re-baptized, or “born again”, in order to be restored. Musgrave proved that we can be “born again” but once. Reese contended that all those who have advocated the various innovations have been guilty of “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”. Musgrave reasoned, if this be true, why baptize them?
Bro. Musgrave showed that if anyone was guilty of being a “shaker”, it must be Bro. Reese, since he accepts folks into the fellowship who have committed the unpardonable sin, per his teaching.
Many other such contentions were made, but this is a fair sample. Suffice it to say that Bro. Musgrave met and completely overthrew by the scriptures every argument presented.
We unhesitatingly endorse Bro. J. L. Musgrave to meet false doctrine of whatsoever nature, and as a Christian gentleman.
W. H. Hilton
First, we need subscriptions and donations to meet our obligations with the printers, that we may keep the Old Paths Advocate coming regularly to you. We need someone in each congregation, who will take a personal interest in the paper, and work for subscriptions. Then, if the preachers who are out in the field, would put the paper before the people, both publicly and privately, in an earnest way, many who are not now reading the paper could be induced to do so. In this way, you will not only relieve the financial burden, but will assist others in a closer walk with God.
Furthermore, we need well written articles on the following subjects: “Church Discipline”, “Purity of Life”, “A Clean Pulpit”, “Mission Work” et al. Let us remember that there are more condemning sins than one. The “Old Paths” presents a wide field of subjects for the writers, hence we should not ride anyone thing to the exclusion of all others. We have plenty of articles in the office, but the above suggested subjects seem to have been neglected.
H. L. K.