Old Paths Advocate Volume 5 Number 12

Editorial

Things That Should Be Said

One can take the American Standard Revised Version, the New Testament in Modern Speech and Smith’s Bible Dictionary, and prove to any rational mind that it is unscriptural to use more than one container when observing the supper of the Lord. One can also take the Authorized Version of the Bible and prove beyond question that we may use a hundred containers if we want to.

J. A. Brad­bury
In the Apostolic Way,
​October 1, 1921

By “containers” I suppose our brother means cups, for the bugbear “container” is now used in that sense to dodge what Paul says about “the cup (Greek: POTERION, a cup, a drinking vessel) of blessing” (1 Corinthians 10:16). I am glad to know that he admits that the American Standard Version (perhaps the best, from the standpoint of scholarship, there is) and the Modern Speech New Testament are against the use of cups in the communion. But how our brother can fail to see that “the cup” of the King James Version cannot mean “two or more cups” is beyond me.

But Bro. Bradbury thinks “the cup” is authority for “two or more cups”. But he knows that “a cup” in the revisions excludes the use of “two or more” cups.

​“The cup” in the King James Version is translation of TO POTERION in the Stephens Text, and the translation is correct. But that TO (the) is an interpolation has long since been proved by the weight of hundreds of ancient MSS., among which is Codex Vaticanus. They simply have the word POTERION, which, according to all lexicographers, means “a cup”, the absence of the article “the” and the grammatical form of POTERION requiring the addition of the indefinite article “a”, to make the full sense of the Greek Text. So, after all, Bro. Bradbury has no authority for the use of cups!

J. D. Phillips

---

Special Interest

---

Important Announcement

We have just recently learned that Bro. G. C. Brewer is attempting a review of Bro. J. D. Phillips’ booklet, “Cup of The Lord”, through the columns of the “Gospel Advocate”. In the very near future Bro. Phillips will begin a reply to his sophistry in his desperate effort to cover up the truth. Rest assured that Doug is able to take care of the matter. This will appear in the columns of the Old Paths Advocate, beginning we think in the next issue. Do not miss it!

H. L. K.

Keeping the Record Straight

(Phillips - Hayhurst Debate Number 3)

On the “dividing it among yourselves” (Luke 22:17), Bro. Hayhurst contended when the one who waits upon the table, divides the contents of the cup after thanks are given, that all take part in the dividing for all agree to it.

Bro. Phillips showed that this is not true, as we are to divide - share - it among ourselves.

Again, Hayhurst went to “metonymy” to find relief, giving as an example, “The kettle boils,” and tried to show that the water only is under consideration. Hence tried to show that the same is true of “drink the cup.”

Phillips showed that in the metonymy, “The kettle boils,” the water had to be in the kettle, before one could say by metonymy, “The kettle boils.” Thus, it takes both the vessel with its contents to make this kind of metonymy. He further showed that if the water were in a bucket we would say, “The bucket boils,” or if we should take a part of the water from the kettle and put into another, or others, it would be, “The kettles boil.” Even so with the cup, the wine must be in a cup, before we can correctly refer to it by metonymy and call it a cup. If in a bottle, we would call it a bottle by metonymy. But if we take a portion of the wine out of the cup and put it into another, we should have cups by the same use of language. Hence, in each case it takes both the vessel with its contents to constitute this kind of metonymy. Therefore, it takes both a cup (drinking vessel) and its contents (fruit of the vine) to constitute the “cup of the Lord.”

Hayhurst continued to misquote Luke 22:20 thus, “This cup is my blood,” and argued that the “fruit of the vine” alone was the “cup.” He said he did not agree that “we drink the cup by drinking what is in the cup.”

Phillips showed that Hayhurst misquoted Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, and Matthew 26:28. He showed that the Bible says, “This is my blood,” and "This cup is the New Testament,” and that various translations read, “This cup containing wine, etc.” Hence, according to Hayhurst, - it would have to be, “This wine containing wine, etc.”, which would make nonsense.

Hayhurst contended that when you break off a piece of the bread and eat it, that the piece is separated from the whole before you eat it, and yet you eat of it, trying to make this parallel to cups.

Phillips showed that this proves, too much for Hayhurst, as this would bring in, or give authority for, the individual cups, which Hayhurst says is wrong.

Hayhurst ridiculed the idea of the cup representing the New Testament, when we have the Testament right with us.

Phillips showed that we have the covenant that God made with man, that He would never destroy the earth by water, right with us, and yet we have the rainbow to represent it Genesis 7:13.

Phillips showed that there were many factions among the cups advocates; some for one cup until after thanks, then two or more; some for a pitcher until after thanks, as at Eldorado, Texas; some for three bottles until after thanks, as at Norton, Texas; and some for individual cups.

Hayhurst complained about Phillips using Thayer, saying that millions never saw Thayer.

Phillips replied, “Millions never saw the King James version of the Bible,” and showed that the Czech Bible on Mark 14:23, reads, “He took a drinking cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, and they all drank out of it.” How are they to know any better?

Phillips proved that one cup (drinking vessel) is essential in order to obey the command - could not obey without it, but that we do not have to have more than one. Hence, we are not divided over the essentials (one cup), but over the non-essentials (two or more cups). Therefore, the use of two or more cups is the cause of the division. He further showed that all will agree that one cup is safe, right and scriptural. Hence, one cup is the common ground of unity.

​The reason I have given more arguments by Phillips is because he made about two to one. Others present will confirm this.

Homer A. Gay

Religious Discussion

Resolved: That the scriptures teach that the Church of Christ, or Kingdom of God’s dear Son, was set up and established on the Day of Pentecost of Acts 2:1. Beginning December the 1st at 7:00 o’clock p. m., and continuing over the 3rd at the Court House, in Madison, West Virginia.

C. W. Holley

---

Articles

---

Some Thoughts On - Number 4

2 Corinthians 5:17

We shall endeavor to learn in what sense a person is “a new creature”. By way of illustration I will use the natural marriage.

From a natural viewpoint when a lady and gentleman are united (joined together) in marriage, the woman takes upon her new obligations, vise, a new leader or ruler, new life, new name, new relationship, new duties, new practices, new law, etc. Those who are in Christ are married or joined to him. Romans 7:4, 2 Corinthians 11:1-2, 1 Corinthians 6:17. Hence, He is their new husband. Ephesians 5:22-27, Acts 20:28. They then have a “new name” which is Christian. Isaiah 62:1-2, Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16. “New relationship”. Ephesians 2:19, 1 John 3:1-2. “New life”. Romans 6:4, Galatians 6:15. “New prophet”. Matthew 21:11. “Priest”. Hebrews 3:1. “King or ruler”. Matthew 28:18, Revelation 17:14. “New law or doctrine”. Romans 8:2, Hebrews 10:20, Acts 17:19-21. “New babes”. 1 Peter 2:2. “New man”. Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 2:15, Ephesians 4:24. “New lump”. 1 Corinthians 5:7. “New walk.” Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:6. “New goal”. Philippians 3:14. “New birth”. John 3:3-5. “New” or “living hope”. 1 Peter 1:3. A “new city” to go to. Revelation 21:1-2. “New speech”. Ephesians 4:24, Philippians 1:27, 1 Peter 4:11.

​These thoughts suffice to show in what sense those “in Christ are new creatures”. I trust that those who read may understand.

“Party names then lay aside,
And cast away your broken systems,
Christ the Lamb, His church the Bride,
Then take no other name but Christian.”
“Brides they wear their husbands’ names,
Nor would they sanction any others,
Why not we do the same?
What do you say, my fellow-travelers”?

Joseph Miller

“Can’t We Agree on Something?”

For the past few months, much has been written under the above caption in the “Apostolic Review” and other religious journals, in a proposed effort to bring about unity among the warring factions of the Christian people. Plans and proposals have been discussed pro and con, but it seems that not much headway has been accomplished thus far.

A sincere endeavor to bring about UNITY of God’s people is commendable, no matter who attempts it, and as for me, I feel just as David who said, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity.” What a blessing if this could be accomplished according to the will of the Lord! But, unless this could be accomplished on the New Testament basis - by all bringing their wills into subjection to the will of the Lord, it would tend to make matters worse, by corrupting those who are now in favor of God. If we must sacrifice truth - matters of faith - in order to have unity, we are the losers. A human basis for unity, if accepted, would make all who accepted it wrong. Union without UNITY must be avoided. The Bible teaches “UNITY”, or oneness; not “union”.

It would be a difficult task to itemize all the things, over which we may disagree, hence I shall not attempt it. First of all, there must be a love for truth, Christ, the brethren, and unity, in the hearts of the Christian people, before we can have that “UNITY” for which the Savior prayed (John chapter 17). Let the peoples’ hearts be filled with a sincere desire to please the Lord - let them say, “Not my will but thine, be done”, “Lord, speak, thy servant heareth; command and I will obey”. Let them ask, how may I please God, that I may finally reach Heaven? With these motives in view and self and the desire to be popular, and I may add, the love of money, out of the way; the things that are standing in the way of unity will vanish like a cloud. We can then have that unity taught by Paul - “no divisions among you perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10).

Brethren, how much do you want unity? Are you willing to pay the price? It would be far better to pay the price of unity than to shoulder the responsibility of division. Let it be remembered that someone will have to compromise in order to bring about that much talked of unity. On what then may we compromise? Not on matters of faith, for we are exhorted to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). There is but to contend for matters of faith, even if it should divide the church. Hence, there can be no compromise where the Lord has spoken. There is only one thing to do with any passage of scripture, and that is to BELIEVE IT WITH ALL THE POWER THAT WE HAVE, and should it be a command or example, DO OUR UTMOST (Abrahamic like) TO OBEY IT. Seeing we cannot compromise on matters of faith, we must look elsewhere, and that is to things, which are matters of OPINION things that are matters of indifference, or permissible. On these we can and must be willing to compromise or sacrifice.

To illustrate the difference between things of faith and things opinion, I give the following:

In John 3:2, it is said that Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. That he CAME BY NIGHT, is a matter of faith, because the Bible so states. But, WHY did he come by night? The WHY is a matter of opinion, or indifference. We are commanded to SING (matter of faith), but the selections or number of selections are matters of permission. On the latter, we must be willing to compromise, while on the former, we must contend. On the things which are matters of permission, we must let 1 Corinthians 8:13 and Romans 14:19-23 govern. Are you willing to do that? The conscience of others must be respected, if we are to have and to maintain unity. I am sorry to state that the disposition of brethren, who have introduced innovations into the church, has been contrary to that commanded by Paul. Generally, they have said or implied, “we want it, and we are going to have it. If you don’t like it, you can get out”. How sad!

There is but one solution of this vital question, as I see it, and that is to get back to the New Testament order of work and worship. Let us go back to the first century, while the church was under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and there ascertain how the early church carried on the work and worship. Certainly that will please every lover of truth. Those who are not willing to pattern after the primitive order in order to have unity, certainly do not have uppermost the desire to please the Master. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4 :11). If all would bind themselves by this rule, would it not solve the problem?

Is it not a fact that we are pretty well agreed on the things taught in the New Testament, but divided over the things not taught therein? Where in the New Testament do we read about the Bible college, instrumental music in the worship, the Sunday school with its human literature, division into classes and women teachers over those classes, the modern pastorate, the multiplied societies to do the work of the church, and a plurality of drinking cups for each congregation? Are not these the major things over which we are divided? Did the church in the first century, have these things? Was there ever a period of time in the history of the church, that greater progress was made? The following quotation from the pen of that gifted writer, Gilbert O. Nations, in the C. L. for September 6, is in order just here;

“The New Testament knows no ladies aid, no Sunday school, no Bible colleges to educate parish priests, no missionary societies, no ‘self-supporting’ churches, no ordination of the Christian ministry, no ministry as a class, no financial program expect to care for the poor, no church suppers, no bazaars or other world traps to catch money for a venal priesthood.” Again, “We must truly return to Jerusalem. We must restore the simple congregational life. We must abandon unauthorized congregational practices for the carrying on of which a trained parish priest is required.”

​Yes, “ABANDON” the “UNAUTHORIZED” things, and our Savior’s prayer can be answered right now. Brethren, do you love the “unauthorized” things better than you do this unity? Why not give them up that we may be one?

Homer L. King

A Parting Message to The Church

This earthly life must close with all; and the time of my departure is at hand. I have preached the Word both in season and out of season. I have ever contended for the things that are written. Jesus said to the Jews, “If ye continue in my word, then truly are ye my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” John 8:32. And in his prayer to his Father, he tells what will sanctify the disciples to God, saying, “Sanctify them through thy word; thy word is truth,” John 17:7.

Put your confidence in the word of God, and follow it implicitly and your hope will be an anchor that will hold you safely amid the storms of this earthly life. You can then rejoice in afflictions and persecutions and will ever have a Friend in Jesus, a Friend that sticketh closer than a brother. And when all things earthly perish, He will take you to His heavenly rest in mansions prepared for the faithful.
           
take the counsel of the Lord. His commandments are righteousness, Psalm 119. Then turn not from them to follow the “commandments and doctrines of men,” which shall perish with the using, Colossians 2:21-22.

I am 78, and bed-fast. I should like to hear from true brethren.

​“Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy: to the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power both now and forever, amen”.

Meet me in Heaven.
Your brother in Christ,
Jackson Kowton

Remember These “Nevers”

1. Never neglect daily private prayer; and when you pray, remember that God is present, and that He hears your prayers. (Hebrews 11:6). Never ask God for anything you do not want. Tell Him the truth about yourself, however bad it makes you; and then ask Him, for Christ’s sake, to forgive you and to make you what you ought to be (John 4:24).

2. Never neglect daily private Bible reading; and when you read, remember that God is speaking to you, and that you are to believe and act upon what He says. Doubtless much backsliding begins with the neglect of these two rules (John 5:39).

3. Never let a day pass without trying to do something for the Master. Every night reflect on what the Lord Jesus has done for you, and then ask yourself, “What am I doing for Him?” (Matthew 5:13-16).

4. If ever you are in doubt as to a thing being right or wrong, go to your room and kneel down and seek God’s blessing upon it (Colossians 3:17). If you cannot do this, the thing is wrong (Romans 14:23).

5. Never take your pattern for holy living from other disciples, or argue that, because such and such people do so and so, you may do likewise (2 Corinthians 10:12). You are to ask yourself, “How would my Lord and Master act?” and strive to follow Him (John 10:27).

​6. Never believe what you feel, if it contradicts God’s Word. Ask yourself, “Can what I feel be true if it is contrary to God’s Word?” If both cannot be true, believe God, and make your own heart the liar (Romans 3:4, 1 John 5:10-11).

Selected

Queries

Was Alexander Campbell, son of Thomas Campbell, ever a member of the Baptist Church?

Answer: No. However, Moody, in his excellent little book, Eunice Lloyd, and Sommer in his debate at Sullivan, Indiana, both state that Alexander Campbell was at one time a member of the Baptist Church. I called Brother Moody’s attention to this misrepresentation of Campbell, which he readily acknowledged, but which he never corrected in his book, so far as I know. And Som­mer’s attention was called to his false statement about Campbell, but he never had the goodness to retract it.

H. C. H.

Infant Baptism - Part 2

6. Suppose parents have a child baptized into the wrong church, say, the Catholic, and that such child later in life decides that it is wrong, but feeling a respect for his parents and a fear lest he cause them grief he is led to stay wrong. In this case, the parents are responsible for leading their child astray, and causing him to stay there.

Here it may be urged that the church has nothing to do with salvation, that all churches are right, or as some others say all are wrong. To this we reply, “Regardless of your church, his church, their church or the other fellow’s church, Christ built His church, built it on the rock, and it is right. See Matthew 16:18. He adds the saved to it Acts 2:47. He is the head of it Colossians 1:18. God is glorified in it, and it stands forever Ephesians 3:21.” But in all the Divine record we do not find where this church ever receives infant membership or baptized babies for future membership. It follows, then that all churches that practice infant baptism differ from the church on the rock, the church of Christ, and are therefore wrong churches.

7. There is not a command, nor an example nor a necessary inference in the New Testament where Jesus or one of His apostles ever baptized a baby. Does someone say there is? Then where is the passage? The truth is, it is not there. Therefore, infant baptism is unscriptural. And why not follow Christ and thus be relieved of all doubt? Acts 3:23.

8. If parents and preachers may ordain a child for baptism, why not also for the ministry, elder­ship, etc.? If baptizing him gives a church a claim on him why would not ordaining him for its ministry give it a double claim on him? I would like to see some preacher who baptizes babies make an argument against ordaining babies to the ministry that we cannot make against infant baptism.

9. Infant baptism sets aside the Lord’s order to teach and baptize the taught. It baptizes the untaught and hopes to teach them later. To presume to change the Lord’s way is a dangerous thing.

10. To receive infant converts” (?) into the church, or at least through the door leading into it is to receive members not accountable for their deeds. Irresponsible attachment to a church is not only anti-scriptural, but also a fruitful source of corruptions. All the wickedness of the world is thus incorporated into the church.

11. To baptize a person knowingly who has not repented is to set aside, knowingly, the command of the Spirit: “Repent and be baptized,” Acts 2:38. But no infant can repent of his sins, since he has not committed any, and since he is not commanded to repent of his fathers’, and since he hasn’t the power to repent anyway, it follows that as long as he is an infant he cannot get ready for baptism, cannot qualify for it. Therefore, no infant can be scripturally baptized.

12. The Lord says hear, learn, come. Man says be brought before you can come, then hear and learn. To accept the words of Jesus is to reject the idea of baptizing babies.

13. Infant baptism is unnecessary. Baptism means entrance into a church. Babies do not need membership in a church. The church does not need infant members; it will do well to direct those whom it can teach. And the place for babies is in the home. And his parents - not preachers nor Sunday school teachers - are to direct his steps until such time as he is a responsible person who can believe, repent and thus get ready to be baptized.

14. Infant baptism either regenerates the babies or attaches them somehow to the church un­regenerated. Let the preachers who baptize them say which. Do they teach baptismal regeneration or unregenerate church attachment? Will they be kind enough to tell us which?

15. Among all the cases of New Testament conversion not a case of infant baptism is to be found. In Acts chapter 2 those baptized heard the word, were assured, received the word, repented and then were baptized Acts 2:36-42. These were not infants.

​Acts 8:12-13 gives the account of “both men and women,” but no babies. The last part of the chapter records a case of conversion but it was a man. To the Gentiles Peter preached, but not to babies. It was to those who had heard the report of the preaching in Judea, Acts 10:37. They heard Peter’s words, verse 44; they spoke, verse 46. No babies here.

L. W. Hayhurst
(Continued)

The Mistake of The Review

I. F. R. - Did John know Christ before he baptized Him?

(Answer) - He was a near relative, and would know His personal life as being very good. This is what is meant in Matthew 3:15. John had the same idea the re-baptism folks have today, that baptism “is FOR the remission of sins” only, and that when that “design” is not present no use to be baptized. And since John had never been baptized himself, he naturally thought that of the two he needed baptism more than Christ. But when the baptism was performed and the demonstration took place previously predicted to John, then he knew this is the Messiah of the prophets.

When one is without sin, as was Christ, such a one might reasonably claim “the design and example of Christ in being baptized.” But where is such a one? There is none. Then why does the Review claim: “John had the same idea the re­baptism folks have today”? Nothing is farther from the truth.

Is an alien sinner without sin before he has “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine,” Romans 6:17-18? No. Then on what ground can he claim the right to ignore the command to “Repent and be baptized” FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, Acts 2:38? Will the Review tell us? Is there a command in the New Testament to be baptized for anything else than for the remission of sins? Where?

​Does the Review practice the baptism of children of God” - “those who are already saved”? Does it endorse such a practice? If it will receive into the fellowship those who have been thus baptized, is this not an endorsement of the practice of thus baptizing “folks”? The Review in this matter is unscriptural and inconsistent.

H. C. H.

A Pure Ministry

I have been asked to write on “A Pure Ministry”. I suppose the preacher is referred to. The word “minister” means “a servant”. The preachers are not the only servants of the church. No one man should be called The Minister. Away with the language of Ashdod!

But ministers should be pure. Even a widow, to be supported by the church, must be an ideal character. Even the mail carriers in the New Testament church were “The glory of Christ”. The deacons were to “hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience”. Servants were to “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things”.

But I know a lot of so-called preachers who are “ministering damnation”. “He that committeth sin is of the devil”. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”. “He that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as He is pure”.

It is all right to oppose innovations. It is fine to be Loyal, and Scriptural to be Loving, but licentiousness is an abomination in the sight of God, and all pure people. Why bring our Loyalty into reproach by living immoral lives?

Some preachers are fine at “skinning the sects” who have no more morals than a hound. Of some preachers it is written, “without are dogs”, and “they shall have their part in the lake which burn­eth with fire and brimstone”. It would be a blessed thing if they were “without”.

I cannot conceive of a decent church, or a “loyal” religious paper, boosting such preachers “within” the church of the living God, and yet want to be called The Church of Christ. It is enough to turn Christ’s stomach. One Achan in the camp of Israel is enough to defeat the hosts of the Lord, and give victory to the enemy.

Oh, we are good at boycotting preachers who revel in the prophecies, even though they have a record of deep spirituality, and pure character; but we “are puffed up” about some of our “loyal preachers” who have no more religion that a certain character in Corinth, who was to be delivered over to the devil, the first time they came together.

Oh, we don’t believe in the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit”. “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit”? “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy”. What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? Perhaps you are accustomed to “skinning the sects” with that passage.

Maybe you have denounced the Catholic Church for having a licentious priesthood. “Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgeth”. No doubt you are a fine debater, and an acrobat at “mudslinging”. There is glass on your windshield. And God can see through you!

I had rather be noted for being a pure man, than for being a big preacher. I had rather go to heaven for raising my boys right, and never preach another sermon, than act the hypocrite, by preaching to other folk’s boys, and committing fornication with their sisters.

Why don’t somebody get up another “hobby” to stop all this disgraceful Pharisee-ism, that spends its time in bragging on “our Name” and our Restoration’ of New Testament Christianity, while we are no better than the “sects” and the world.

If I wasn’t afraid of your boycotting me, I would venture to prophesy that the Judgment of God is impending. Are we ready to meet Him, as a Bride adorned for her husband? Do you know what the Bride’s “robe” represents? Does it stand for “opposition to innovations”?

I am opposed to innovations. I don’t even believe in church houses, or taking the Lord’s Supper at dinnertime. But I want to be especially noted for being opposed to ministers going in debt, and raising bad boys, and setting a bad example in the evangelistic field, and building sects, and bragging about their loyalty.

Paul Hays

I Never Have

I have walked in summer’s meadow
When the sunbeams flashed and broke,
But I never saw the cattle
Or the sheep or horses smoke.
I have watched the world with wonder
When the grass with dew was wet,
But I never saw a robin
Puffing at a cigarette.
I have fished in many a river
When the sucker crop was ripe,
But I never saw a catfish
Puffing at a pipe.
Man’s the only living creature
That parades this vale of tears,
Like a snorting traction engine,
Puffing smoke from nose and ears,
If Dame Nature had intended,
When she first invented man,
That he’s smoke, she would have built him
On a widely different plan.
She’d have fixed him with a smokestack,
And a damper and a grate,
And he’s have a smoke consumer
That was strictly up to date.

Edythe Goode

Jewish Calendar

“Their day was twofold: the natural, consisting of from ten to fourteen hours, which commenced at sunrise, and the civil, beginning at sunset and ending at sunset, which ran through the” twenty-four hours.”

(Bagster Bible, Teachers’ Edition, p. 182)