Old Paths Advocate Volume 5 Number 10

Editorial

Scriptural Baptism

“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

---

Special Interest

---

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

Our Needs

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.

---

Articles

---

Some Thoughts On - Number 3

2 Corinthians 5:17

According to the New Testament the third “step” or command, for the unsaved to take, or obey, is faith, or belief in the Son of God. Notice John 20:30-31, 1 John 2:23, Acts 16:30-31: “Faith, or belief, cometh by hearing the Word of Christ.” Romans 10:14-17, Acts 18:8. “Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing unto him.” Hebrews 11:6, Romans 14:23. Faith or belief in the Lord changes the mind from evil to good. “Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the earth.” Colossians 3:2, Romans 7:25.

The alien having taken these three “steps,” or obeyed these commands, is then prepared to take the FOURTH “step,” or obey the FOURTH COMMAND, which is “repentance unto life” (not into). Acts 11:18, Acts 17:30, Luke 13:3. “Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation,” (not into). 2 Corinthians 7:10, Matthew 26:75. Repentance changes the conduct or practice. Hence, “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, etc.” Acts 3:19, Matthew 21:29.

Fifth “step” or command: the sinner is to “confess with the mouth, and before men, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” Matthew 10:32-33, Romans 10:9-10, Acts 8:36-37. Confession with the mouth leads the penitent “unto (not into) the place of salvation.” Romans 10:9-10, Acts 8:36-37.

Sixth (last) “step” or command the penitent is to take or obey, is baptism. This puts him into Christ, into His death. Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27. This is water baptism. Acts 10:47-48; Acts 8:36-39. Christ shed His blood in His death: John 19:33-34. “With­out shedding of blood there is no remission.” Hebrews 9:22.

​Those who have heard, learned (been taught), believed, repented, confessed Christ, been baptized into the death of Christ, have reached or come to the blood of Jesus. Therefore, they are “cleansed from all past, sins.” 1 John 1:7, Romans 3:25. They are in Christ, hence, “new creatures.” “Saved,” Mark 16:15-16, 1 Peter 3:21. “Have had their sins washed away.” Acts 22:16. “Have the answer of a good conscience toward God.” 1 Peter 3:21. “Born anew of water and the spirit.” John 3:3-5. “Have been regenerated.” Titus 3:5. “Thus have come to the throne of grace” (Christ), Hebrews 4:15-16, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 13:12-13, 1 John 2:1-2.

“Sinner will you start for that home today
and His services now begin?
If you look to Christ and the promise claim
​He will save you from your sins.”

Joseph Miller
(More to follow)

Class Teaching

I am in receipt of a brotherly letter, favorable to the Class Method of teaching the Bible. The usual arguments are advanced, with some others of a more original nature.

As we find the words Master and Disciple frequently used in the New Testament, it is reasoned that we have the equivalent of Schoolmaster and Pupil.

This argument would be stronger if the word Master did not universally refer to Christ, and the word Disciple to Christ’s disciples.

Besides, where does this constitute an argument for the Class System? Did Christ use the Class System? The verb form of the Greek word is used with reference to the varied conditions of Christ’s teachings, but without suggesting a class.

It is claimed that the words “Teacher, and teaching are used about 159 times in the New Testament.” But a bare 8 times is the Greek word, translated Master, used loosely, to include others that Christ. Only twice does it refer to uninspired teachers, and one of them is in rebuke of the ambition. The single exception would lay upon every Christian the obligation to become a Teacher, and would imply Mutual Edification, rather than the Class System.

Another argument is based upon the fact that Christ and His Apostles accompanied Preaching with Teaching, with both Saints and Sinners. This is supposed to necessitate other method than the public proclamation of the gospel.

But a careful study will show that they did Teach by public proclamations, and nothing is said, or implied, as to a class system. Preaching is the initial announcing: of new truth, while Teaching is the continued repetition of the truth, whether publicly or privately.

Still another argument is based on the fact that Christ and the apostles sometimes asked, or answered questions. It is reasoned that this involves the Class, catechetical method of teaching.

But it can be shown that questions were asked and answered without the class system being employed. The occasional asking of questions for information, or the asking of ‘catch questions,’ to provoke thought, do not lead to the Formalism and Ritualism, which our Reformers fought so hard to destroy.

I need not say that the formal asking and answering of questions leads to the Literature System, and the set Catechism, which leads to human Creeds, and to men becoming disciples of Disciples, instead of the disciples of Christ.

We would be shocked at the idea of using Camp­bell’s Christian System, for systematic study; but we deliberately teach from human literature, because, forsooth, it is prepared by Master minds.

Another argument used by my brother is to the effect that the children can be better taught in a class, by the catechetical method. But the New Testament does not indicate that the church is to teach children. That is no part of its ‘organized effort,’ if we are confined to ‘what is written.’

Parents are admonished to teach and train their children. Our business is to save the parents, and set them to train their own children. We destroy the contrast between Christian homes and others by training other people’s children for them. God’s way is always best.

Usually, questions were asked by the learner, of his superior, in New Testament times. We have reversed the process. This destroys the dignity of the Parent, as teacher, and spoils the child.

Another argument is based on what my friend chooses to name, “The Schools of the Prophets,” in the Old Testament. Now, the word ‘School’ is found but once in my Bible, and that is in the New Testament, and refers to a heathen school.

I know no reason for supposing that the schools of the ancients were taught in classes, or by the catechetical method. I am supposing -that the ‘Sons of the Prophets’ were taught much as our Savior taught the Twelve and the seventy.

Our brother refers to what he calls the ‘Synag­ogue school,’ and assumes that it was taught just as the modern schools are taught. We do not even know that children were taught in the ancient synagogue.

But our Savior did away with the synagogue idea. There were no Church-houses for 150 years after the apostles. The Ritualism of the moderns was strikingly absent from the New Testament church.

The initiative of the Mutual Edification taught in the New Testament is calculated to develop volunteer workers, as contrasted with the ecclesiastical machinery of this institutional age, where every worker, from the Pastor down, is appointed to his respective sphere of action.

Our brother refers, to the ‘tutors’ of Galatians 4:2. Is he not aware that the tutors and governesses of the time previous to the days of Robert Raikes were private teachers, and confined to the homes of the children taught?

The modern custom of sending the children away from the home, and parental control, to be taught in herds, is the curse of this age. Orphan homes, and even Bible colleges, are no exception to this rule.

Orphans had better be adopted into Christian homes, and young preachers associated with older evangelists.

If the Class idea had been prevalent in the New Testament age, or had it been contemplated, or desired by the Holy Spirit, Paul would not have needed to tell women to ‘learn in silence,’ or ‘ask their husbands at home’.

According to ‘our Loyal Brethren,’ the permissibly of woman’s participation in class work is based on its being a ‘Private’ work, independent of the ‘church meeting’. It usually comes before the ‘Church meeting’, and gives the women a chance to ask questions before they get home to their husbands, and before they are even tempted to ask in the Church.

If Paul were here we would ask him what a woman is to do if she has no husband, or if she is smarter than her husband? And what is a child to do who has no parents, or whose parents are infidels?

Also, what is a woman to do if there are no men to preside at the Lord’s table, or to preach? And what is a family to do whose head is ignorant, or drunk, and whose mother is at the club?

What is a congregation to do that has no preacher, and no elders qualified to lead? What is a man to do if there is nobody to baptize him, or if a tree falls on him and kills him?

What if a single congregation is not financially able to do what it is told to do, without joining a missionary society? What if our song leader is unable to lead a song without the aid of an instrument?

​It appears to me that we would do well to bring about conditions to fit the New Testament teaching, and trust the Lord to supply any deficiencies.

Paul Hays

The Cups Theory Exposed

1.
The “unleavened bread, bitter herbs and meat”
With his disciples Christ desires to eat;
At the Passover table is where they sit
When Jesus takes “the cup” saying “drink ye all of it.”
He plainly commands his disciples to obey.
In Mary’s testimony, I heard Him say.
And this is the law from God’s dear Son
That binds us now to use but one.
2.
The great “multitudes” in the days of yore
Is no excuse for the “two or more.”
The Jerusalem Church is no place to hide
For the Holy Spirit was there to guide;
They observed the communion but no use to look
To find out how it’s not in the book,
By command and example quite easy to see
That the theory of cups is false as can be.
3.
On a certain day at a certain hour
“As a rushing mighty wind” so came the power,
“Endued” with the power the Apostles preach
And seventeen tongues their messages reach;
The people “were amazed and were in doubt”
Not understanding what brought this about,
Finally convinced they were wicked and lost
“Three thousand” were “added” on Pentecost.
4.
This teaching was done in a miraculous way
Why not the communion? I’d like to say,
Such miraculous power is far too great
For man’s opinions to have any weight,
And I verily believe that all could sup
The whole “three thousand” from one little cup,
For the same great power satisfied - hungry wishes
OF a GREATER multitude with the loaves and fishes.
5.
With miraculous power, just as easy to deal
With great multitudes in a sacred meal,
And the theory of cups I cannot believe
For it limits this power to try to deceive;
But the big Church today, the critic may ask
“How will you provide?” that’s not my task
In Churches large and Churches small
It is Jesus who “provides” one cup for all.
6.
The days of miracles have come to an end
But in the words of Jesus I can still depend.
A big Church today might do the Lord’s will
But to obey his command must “the cup” refill.
My erring brethren to you I appeal
Please obey the Lord in the sacred meal.
He’s coming again and in Judgment He’ll sit
And the book will still read “drink ye all out of it.”

E. F. Morgan

Christians, Up!

Christians, up! the day is breaking,
Gird your ready armor on;
Slumbering hosts around are waking;
Rouse ye! in the Lord be strong!
While ye sleep or idly linger,
Thousands sink, with none to save:
Hasten! Time’s unerring finger
Points to many an open grave.

On the Lord’s Day - Number 1

In a previous issue, I believe we established that the First Day of the week began with the rising Sun and ended with the rising Sun on the second day of the week. As it affects our practice, this is a live question.

​When the prophet said, “Unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings,” he used the figure of speech called metonymy.

“Metonymy is a figure in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.” Hart, p. 129.

In Malache’s figure, the attributes of Jesus as, - “the Light of the World,” “the Great Healer,” and His rising from the dead with the healing power for men’s sin-diseased souls are readily comprehended. Our Savior is also called the day­spring, Luke 1:78, and the day-star, 2 Peter 1:19. The spring of the day comes with the rising sun, 1 Samuel 9:26, and the day-star (or Sun) rises in the morning. Hence, we have our Sun, the Lord Jesus, rising as “the light of the world.” This all important resurrection occurring at the hour when the Sun arose, the dawn of the First Day of the week, ushering in a new era, marks the change of time.

Let us awake out of sleep and arise from the dead and Christ will shine upon us. Behold the light of “the day that the Lord hath made.” “Let us rejoice and be glad in it.” Psalm 118:24, John 20:20.

1. If the Lord's Day began at sunset how could it be VERY EARLY on the First Day of the week when the Sun was risen? Mark 16:1-2, Luke 23:56, Luke 24:1.

2. How could it be night, when the dawn of the First Day of the week was breaking?

​If the First Day of the week began with the setting Sun, it began in darkness, but Jesus came to bring life and immortality to light. What better time to emphasize this great event than with the rising Sun?

Could Sun arise in nobler cause,
The figure, bright of nobler Son ?
Could light e’er shine on grander sight,
Or sight e’er lighten darker night?

The Jewish Sabbath might well begin with the setting sun, for it was a day of rest and typified soul rest in Christ. But the Lord’s Day is a day of life - of activity in the Lord. The Israelitish age is rightly called the moonlight age. The Sabbath beginning at night, functioning amidst all the other flickering shadows of the old law presents that figure. However, the Lord’s Day begins with the rising Sun: for that was when Jesus arose from the dead, bringing life and immorality to light through the Gospel. The confirmation of the Gospel is His resurrection. His resurrection is the completion of His work in redemption - thus it is the beginning of the new era. (cf. Exodus 12:2).

On this day, we observe our memorial feast to Him who died and arose again. IT IS THE LORD’S DAY. cf. Revelation 1:10.

May we meet for worship on the Lord’s Day for one hour, and follow worldly pursuits the remainder of the day? If so be that we do, - Shame! That day of all days when Jesus was born from the dead, the birthday of Him who has accomplished so much for us! When the human race was doomed to destruction, to suffer eternally without hope, He took our place, suffered in our stead, released us from eternal captivity to sin, death and the devil. Is any honor too glorious for such a friend? Is any request He made too great? Should we reject the commands of such a lofty love? If we do, remains there any more hope?

“The God of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ should not DAWN upon them. 2 Corinthians 4:4. But “the path of the righteous is as the DAWNING light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” Proverbs 4:18.

As we said before, the Lord’s Day is a day of activity in the Lord. On the resurrection day Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome came first to the tomb, Mark 16:1. They saw the stone rolled away and the vision of angels, Mark 16:3 cf. Luke 24:22, Luke 24:28. Then they fled from the tomb and told the disciples as they mourned and wept, Luke 24:10. Peter and John ran to the tomb. John outran Peter, but did not enter the tomb. However, when Peter came he boldly entered and saw the napkin and the cloths. Then John entered and saw, and they both departed unto their own home, John 20:3-10. But Mary still stood without at the tomb, weeping, when the Lord appeared unto her. This was His first appearance, Mark 16:9. He sent Mary to the disciples with the glad news of His resurrection, Matthew 28:10 cf. John 20:17-18.

Later two disciples met Him while on the way to Emmaus, but their eyes were holden that they should not know Him. When they reached the village, they constrained Him to abide with them, “for,” said they, “it is TOWARD evening and the day is far spent.” Luke 24:29. When they sat down to meat, “Jesus took bread, and blessed; and breaking it gave to them,” and their eyes were opened so that they knew him. Then He vanished out of their sight. In haste these two returned to Jerusalem, (about 7 or 8 miles) and found other disciples gathered together. By this time, it was evening (see Luke 24:33-35, John 20:19), and behold Jesus stood in the midst and showed himself unto them. Now we are reminded of His promise, “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst.” Matthew 18:20.

Here are two different meetings, both on the First Day of the week, each at a different time, both attended by Jesus. The one was before evening, but toward evening. The other was in the evening. Here is authority for two meetings: Both having the stamp of divine approval, with Jesus in the midst as promised. Both meetings were on the First Day of the Week, at different times in different places. Thus, the records show that Jesus met with different disciples, in different places, at different times on the same day, the First Day of the Week. He Sanctified the whole day as a day of worship, honor, and glory to God. He SHOWED HIMSELF to the disciples at all these times. Is not this the object of our meetings, to show forth the Lord, crucified, buried, risen, ascended, crowned, glorified, and to look for His coming again? “As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye show forth the Lord’s death until he come.”

​The whole day should be observed in honor and glory to Him: “Until He come, each First Day” of the Week should be given over to showing forth His death, by worshiping him and preaching his Gospel. Under the old law, one day in seven (the seventh) was given over to sacrifice and special service to God. Under the new law, one day in seven (the first) is given over to special worship and praise to God through his Son. For those who have them, it may be necessary to “lead forth ox or ass to watering,” but when Christians have so much stock, so many earthly duties that they cannot give over the most part of the Lord’s Day to worship and praise, they have too many cares of this life. If other arrangements cannot be made, would, it not be better to get rid of the stock, the job, or anything else that interferes with our service to God? The CARES, the riches and the pleasures of this life cause souls to be lost. One may have cares without either pleasures or riches. However, God has never placed upon us any labor or temptation too great for us, but has made plain a way of escape. If we have faith in Him, He has promised to provide our necessities and remove our cares.

L. L. McGill
(Continued)

Can Infants Qualify for Baptism?

Infant Baptism - Part 1

1. Jesus said, “teach all nations baptizing them” - (the taught) Matthew 28:19. Infants as long as in infancy cannot be taught, hence cannot qualify for baptism. Surely, everyone can see this.

2. Believers are the ones to be baptized. Mark 16:16, Acts 8:36-38 and Acts 18:8. Infants cannot believe, therefore should not be baptized.

3. Babies do not need baptism. They are saved without it and do not gain a blessing by it. If there be one blessing to baptized infants that those not baptized may not enjoy, what is it? Does the preacher give them some special power or gift when he lays his hand on their heads? Disobedient hands do not - never did - confer gifts. And those who set aside the Lord’s commands are disobedient.

4. If parents and preacher are to administer baptism to their babies, why not give them the Lord’s supper also? And why not put them thru a form of obedience to all the other Gospel commands?

Is it urged that the supper was not intended for babies? Then, neither was baptism. Does someone say he would not know what the supper was for? No more does he know what baptism is for. Do you say the supper would do him no good? And so, with baptism. Do I hear someone urge that the wine would strangle him, and so would the water if he were really baptized.

To single out baptism and force it upon babies is not only to change its design, but also to give it an emphasis that Jesus did not intend.

​5. Infant baptism takes away the privilege of choice. The one thus forced into a church, or onto to it (almost into it) is robbed of his freedom of choice, and should he ever decide to exercise his choice he must do so in passive submission or become a rebel against his infant baptism. This he may do and often does do, but the purpose of the institution is to keep the child in his father’s, or mother’s, or preacher’s church. And who has not heard such statements as, “Your poor old mother who has gone to heaven had you baptized for this church”? This points a person’s responsibility to his mother instead of to his God.

L. W. Hayhurst
(Continued)

The Last Opportunity

Yes, the CHURCH (EKKLESIA) are in Christ’s kingdom on earth during this age. (Colossians 1:13, Colossians 1:18). The saints of God are “fellow-citizens.” (Ephesians 2:19 of this kingdom, a “holy nation.” (1 Peter 2:9). This kingdom set up by the God of heaven “in the days of these kings” (Daniel 2:4, Daniel 2:44), is a, growing kingdom. (Daniel 2:35). And by being BORN AGAIN (John 3:3), “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:15-16, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 2:11-13) one enters into this kingdom. And this TIME OF OPPORTUNITY, lasts only until the “end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20).

​And when Jesus comes, the OPPORTUNITY for repentance has passed for all. What holds Jesus back? The long suffering of God, giving an opportunity for salvation. “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise (John 14:1-4, Acts 1:11, 2 Peter 1:16), as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9). And so we read: “When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: and before Him shall be gathered all nations; and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth sheep from goats: and He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world …Then shall he say also to them on his left hand, Depart from me ye cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels… And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46). Hence, Peter, after showing what holds the Lord back, that is an opportunity for repentance, goes on to say, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night: in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat: the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” (2 Peter 3:10).

H. C. H.

The Need of The Hour

Not long since a brother asked me to point out the one outstanding need of the church today. I replied: “The one outstanding need of the church today, as I see it, is a REALIZATION of the worthwhileness of the Christian profession.”

​Let Christians get a REALIZATION of what heaven, with all its joys, means and what hell with its attendant associations with the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:46) means, and it will end bickering and backbiting, caviling and crookedness. And it will not be hard to get brethren to come face to face with the Bible as the rule to measure all worship and service to God.

H. C. Harper