Old Paths Advocate Volume 5 Number 7

Editorial

Slander is of the Devil

The Devil’s name in Greek is Slanderer, the Greek word itself being Diabolos meaning, literally, Through-caster, slanderer. It is from diabolloo, which means to cast aspersions because of (the accusative form of THROUGH), slander, Diabolos is often used as a name of Satan, as the Slanderer of the Saints, as in Job 1:9. “Slander, a false or malicious report; verbal defamation” (Webster).

Jesus said to the slanderous Jews: “Ye are of your father, the Devil, and the works of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).

There is entirely too much slander in the Brotherhood. Last summer, while in Indiana, I heard it boldly declared that Bro. R. H. Boll, Editor of the Word and Work, was teaching “the second chance theory of Russelism.” This report is false - it is a slander! I do not agree with Bro. Boll on several things, but I hate to see him slandered. A jealous and envious spirit is evidently behind it.

Bro. Daniel Sommer has been slanderously misrepresented because of his opposition to Bible Colleges. Many brethren say: “He does not believe in education.”

The whole body known as the “church of Christ” has been slanderously accused of not believing in doing mission work. This accusation is made by those who advocate Missionary Societies to do Church work. This is a wicked slander.

We have been unmercifully slandered because of our opposition to Sunday Schools. Many brethren say: “They do not believe, in teaching the Bible to children.” Some have gone so far as to say: “They think it is wrong to teach the Bible!” The fact about it is, we believe in teaching the Bible to all classes of mankind just as strongly as anyone on earth. The Commission says: “Go, disciple all nations”' - and we believe it. But, as other brethren oppose a Missionary Society as a means of preaching the gospel to the heathen, so we oppose a Sunday School society to teach people in the homeland. We insist that the church is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15-16) and that the work be done through it, thus preserving “the unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3) and giving God the “glory through the church”' (Ephesians 3:21): for it is through the church that “the manifold wisdom of God” should “be made known” (Ephesians 3:10).

Some good honest brethren have been maliciously slandered on the cup question. They have been represented as saying that the “drinking vessel alone is the cup of the Lord”! Nothing is farther from the truth. We teach, and so did the primitive church, that it takes both a drinking vessel and the fruit of the vine to constitute “the cup of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 10:21).

​Brethren, let us leave all slander with the Devil, where it belongs. God shall bring all things into judgment, and all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire. I am glad that we who stand on the truth do not need to resort to slander to uphold our teaching. “Strong is the truth and mighty above all things, and will prevail.”

Homer A. Gay

---

Special Interest

---

Keeping the Record Straight

The church of Christ was established in Eola, Texas, by Bro. H. O. Freeman, about eight years ago. Bro. Freeman being a one-cup man, he started out on the sound platform of' Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent”; and hence we have never used more than one cup in the Communion service.

We had no controversy on the question until about four years ago when Bro. Alva Johnson preached a sermon here advocating the use of two or more cups. Later on, L. W. Hayhurst advocated the cups both publicly and privately. Bro. J. W. Kelly then did much private teaching on the subject in most every home represented in the congregation, contending strongly for two or more cups! As a result of this teaching, several of the members became cups folks.

Just recently Bro. J. D. Phillips held a meeting at Lometa, Texas, and while that close decided to visit with me. The Elders decided to have him preach a few times while here. As several others had talked on the cups question, Bro. Phillips decided that he would, too. Now, it was perfectly all right for Brethren Johnson, Hayhurst, Kelly and others to talk on the subject; but for Bro. Phillips to show up the truth on the matter was more than the cups people could stand. So, they fled for refuge to Bro. Hayhurst. He came, and after flaying the Elders for one night, decided to discuss the question with Bro. Phillips. Hayhurst tried to get Bro. Phillips and me to agree that we would not advocate the cup anymore. We told him that we had never locked our mouths nor subscribed to a human creed. So, the discussion began. Bro. H. Coble kept time for both speakers.

Bro. Hayhurst, like all others I have heard try to defend a false doctrine, evaded the issue all the way through. He argued that if “drink of 'the cup” had to mean they picked up the cup and drank from it; that those who drank of Jacob’s well would have had to pick up the well and drink of it. Bro. Phillips showed that, though the same expression is used, the surrounding circumstances, as indicated by the context, will not allow the same usage; as, “He rode on a stick horse”; “He rode on a train,” etc. He showed that when he rode the stick horse, he got astride the stick and took one end in his hand, and tore out down the road, running and carrying the stick horse; then, according to Bro. H., when he rode on a train, he would have to get astride the train, grab the engine up in his hand and tear out down the road with it, running and kicking up his heels. Many arguments were made which are familiar to our readers, so I will not mention them.

The discussion lasted only one night (June 2), though Bro. Phillips told them to carry it on as long as they wanted to as he had plenty of time. I predict that there will not be another discussion here on the cup question, and if there is I doubt if Bro. Hayhurst will be chosen to represent the cups people.

Bro. Phillips is powerful in debate. We surely enjoyed his visit with us and we look forward to another visit from him soon.

When sound congregations learn to use sound preachers only, and the leaders learn to be watchful, we will have less trouble in the churches.

Homer A. Gay

---

Articles

---

Some Thoughts On - Number 1

2 Corinthians 5:17

“Wherefore if any man is in Christ (whether bond or free, male or female, Jew or Greek [Gentile] white or black, rich or poor, young or old, great or small, strong or weak, homely or beautiful) he is a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold, they are become new.”

The following facts are obvious:

First, a man (not a baby) must be in Christ (not some man-made church or institution) to be “a new creature”.

Second, a man must be in Christ before “old things are passed away”.

Third, a man must be in Christ, before “all things are become new”.

The above facts cannot be successfully denied nor refuted. The foregoing teaching evidences that “God is no respecter of persons.” Thus we read, “and Peter opened his mouth and said of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him.” Acts 10:34-15. Peter further impresses the above doctrine as follows: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some count slackness, but is long suffering to youward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9. Moreover, Jesus is “The way, the truth, and the life.” John 14:6. Therefore, to be in “the way, the truth, and the life” a person must be in Christ (not in some human arrangement).

​Our Lord “brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel,” 2 Timothy 1:10, and thus brought in “a new and living way.” Hebrews 10:20. Hence all accountable beings must be “born anew of water and the spirit,” John 3:3-5, to get “into Christ,” or become “new creatures.” “God is no respecter of persons”. For this you know that every soul is free to choose his life and what he will be.

Joseph Miller

When Instituting the Communion,
​Did Jesus Eat and Drink?

In the efforts put forth by all lovers of the word of God to follow the plain truth of the scriptures in all things, there should be no departure from the simplicity, humility, and loving intimacy as practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and the early church. Also, if we find that we are or have been practicing anything that has been introduced by men, and that is opposed to or added to the revealed teachings of the Holy Scriptures, we ought to be willing (as have been many before us), when the light of Holy writ dawns upon us, to take each step forward, closer to the Divine Pattern, and accept the plain discernible truth regardless of whether or not it disrupt our former doctrine and practice, or that of our friends, relatives, or close associates of long standing. Furthermore, though it should break every human tie and place upon us the burden of facing alone the battles of life, it was better by far, to please God rather than men. If God be with us, we are not alone, and there may always be some honest hearted who will have the courage to stand out for truth and right.

Then “to the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20. (Authorized Version)

“And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, HE BRAKE IT, and gave to them, and said, Take ye, this is my body. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them; and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Verily I say unto you, I SHALL" NO MORE DRINK of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29, Luke 22:14:20. (Revised Version)

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you; that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, HE BRAKE IT, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: This do in remembrance of me. AFTER THE SAME MANNER HE TOOK THE CUP; WHEN HE HAD SUPPED, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. (Authorized Version)

“THIS DO,” he said, or we might put it, “DO THIS.” To what did Jesus refer the first time (verse 24)? He referred to what He, Himself, was doing or had just done. What had He just done? “HE BRAKE IT” (the loaf). Again, when He had taken the cup, AFTER HAVING SUPPED, (version d’ostervald), He said, “DO THIS.” To what did He refer this time (verse 25)? He referred to what He had just been doing, DRINKING or SUPPING from the cup. Therefore Jesus, as an example to His followers, ate and drank when instituting this ordinance.

As in Mark 14:25, how could Jesus say, “I shall NO MORE drink,” unless He; had ALREADY DRUNK SOME? The very law of sense and language maintains that He could not drink MORE unless He had already drunk SOME, and He said He should drink no more until He would drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Jesus took the cup, handled, partook of and gave to the disciples “in like manner” (Revised Version), or “in the same manner” (Authorized Version), that He took the bread, handled, partook of and gave to them. Since we have established that He drank of the cup, we must naturally infer that He ate of the loaf: the manner of eating, He brake of it, or from it. Then He gave to the disciples and said, “all of you eat of it” and we infer they all ate of it. In what manner? Again, we necessarily infer that they followed His example and brake it, of it, or from it. The language, “in like manner,” indicates that He handled, partook of, and gave to the disciples “the loaf,” the same as “the cup.” In other words, as He had supped His portion of the cup in drinking, He also broke his portion of the loaf in eating.

The Original Greek - 1 Corinthians 11:25:

Osautos kai to poterion meta to deipnesai
Likewise also the cup after the having supped

legon touto to poterion he kaine diatheke
saying this the cup of new covenant

estin to emo aimati.
is in my blood.

To put this in plain English we have, “Likewise also the cup, after having supped (it) saying,” etc. Cup is evidently understood after “to” (the) which is placed after “meta,” thus making it, “the having supped”: which is “having supped the” (cup of course).

In addition to this we consider verse 28: “Let him eat out of the bread,” (ek with supply, Thay­er page 191), “and drink out of the cup” (ek with “the vessel out of which one drinks,” Thayer page 510).

How did Jesus eat out of the bread? He brake it, of it, or from it.

How did he drink the cup? He drank from it, or out of it.

After He brake the bread, “He gave to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” We necessarily infer that they ate as He commanded them. In what manner? As He broke of it, so also would they break of it. After He supped the cup, He likewise said, “drink ye all of it, and “they all drank of it.” Thus, jointly and severally they showed beforehand the death of the Lord, and we must conclude that Jesus ate His portion of the loaf, the disciples followed His example; He drank His portion out of the cup, the disciples imitated Him. In like manner, we find Paul teaching the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:1), “Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.”

What else would Paul be doing at Troas, (Acts 20:11) than partaking of the Lord’s Supper? He instructed the Church at Corinth, “if any man is hungry let him eat at home.” Therefore, the breaking of bread at Troas could not have been a common meal, but no other than the Lord’s Supper. This scripture tells of him breaking the bread and eating, but says nothing of him giving the loaf to others. However, we are told that Jesus brake the bread and gave to the disciples. Therefore, we rightly conclude that, Paul as a faithful “imitator” of his Lord did likewise. In verse seven we are told of their purpose in assembling together, and in verse eleven we are told of the fulfillment of their purpose. There is nothing new or extraordinary in so alleging. Although every detail may not be given, when we have a record in the New Testament of a conversion, yet we necessarily infer that all the steps were taken, i. e. Faith, Repentance, Confession, Baptism.

​Hence, why is it not just as logical, just as necessary, to infer that in the instances of the Lord’s Supper, when we are told of the breaking of bread, we conclude they also drank the cup? And analogously, Jesus when He had broken the bread, gave to the apostles and they ate. Therefore, when Paul had broken the bread and eaten, he gave to the disciples, and they broke and ate. It is just as reasonable to infer that Paul ate all the bread, as to allege that he did all the breaking. He broke and he ate. If he broke it all, he ate it all, and if he ate it all he broke it all, but he didn’t do it all. The whole meeting was a joint participation of all. Paul sang with, discoursed with, ate with, drank with, prayed with and talked with those present. It is obvious that this was a complete meeting in which they worshiped, remembering Christ. Would any act of worship, honor or glory be omitted?

Verily, the leader broke the bread and gave to the others, and they also broke it. The leader drank the cup, gave to the others, and they also drank it. In fulfilling the ordinance there was a joint participation of all. It was Jesus with the apostles who gave us the first example.

In following this course, who will say we have not observed the Lord’s Supper?

Where in the scriptures is there any record of any other course? who will have the courage to stand out for truth and right.

L. L. McGill

Queries

1. Please tell me what the Greek words translated “covered” (1 Corinthians 11:6), “power” (1 Corinthians 11:10), also ' “shorn” and “shaven” (1 Corinthians 11:6), “silence” (1 Corinthians 14:34).

B.

Answers

Shorn, keiroo, “cutting short the hair of the head. 1 Corinthians 11:6.” - Thayer.

Shaven, xuraoo, “Mid. to get one’s self shaved, 1 Corinthians 11:6” - Thayer.

Power, exousia, power, power of authority, authority. In this place “the sign of the authority of the husband over his wife. - Berry. That is, the thing signified (power) is put for the sign (long hair). “And he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:16) “As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.” (1 Peter 3:6) “That they (the aged women) may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (Titus 2:3-4) “They (women) are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)

Silence, sigaoo, “to keep silence, to hold one’s peace, 1 Corinthians 14:28, 1 Corinthians 14:30, 1 Corinthians 14:34.” - Thayer.

Covered, katakaluptoo, “to veil or cover one’s self.” - Thayer. And “long hair is given to her for a covering (peribolaiori, veil, 1 Corinthians 11:15). - Thayer. That is, being under her long (natural) hair as a token of being under (as to authority) her husband.

With hair cut, man is uncovered (1 Corinthians 11:1 and 1 Corinthians 11:14), manly, as he should be; with “long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14), that is, uncut hair, man is sissy, womanly, henpecked, as the token shows, being under, kata, as to authority.

​With cut hair, woman wears the authority sign, not being kata, under; breeches woman, authority over the man being her token, and she would as well xuraoo, get herself shaved; or keiroo, have her hair also cut close to the head. “If a man have long hair (hair uncut, natural hair), it is dishonor to him.” (1 Corinthians 11:14) Why? Because he wears nature’s badge of sissy. “But if a woman have long hair (hair uncut, natural hair), it is a glory to her.” (1 Corinthians 11:14) She wears the womanly badge, kata, under, keeping the place God assigned her, “for long hair (uncut hair, natural hair) is given to her for a veil, or covering, under which badge she is pleased to remain if faithful to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:14).

H. C. H.

This Restoration Movement

We are living in “perilous times” of apostasy and rebellion (1 Timothy 5:1-6), and the spirit of lawlessness has invaded, not only the world but also, the church. “The signs of the times” indicate the prevalence of the present apostasy. “The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bear false rule.” Innovations in the church, immorality, carelessness, indifference, and such like, are among the signs.

But there is a restoration movement now in progress among those who wish to follow the New Testament. Many, even among those who see the pressing need of such a restoration, seem to be at sea without chart or compass. We preachers (and others as well) need to re-study every inch of our ground. Many of us have followed “in the rut” of the older preachers, and have never taken the time to really study to see whether the things we have taught are true. Many of our “sermons” need to be over-hauled. Everything should be “weeded out” of them except those things for which we can give a “Thus saith the Lord” either in express terms or by an approved precedent. The exact language of inspiration, rather than the Ashdodish language of our neighbors, should be used.

Each individual is “a king and priest unto God” (Revelation 5:10) - a member in particular of the body of our Lord. As kings, we need to rule over the dark passions of the depraved heart and bring it into subjection to the will of our Exalted Head and Lord. As a priest, each disciple must offer his “body a living sacrifice unto God which is your reasonable service” (Romans 12:1). Our lives must conform to the Pattern and Law set forth by Christ, our Exemplar.

Since each disciple is “a king and priest, unto God” (Revelation 5:10, 1 Peter 2:9) we are on equal footing. So, then, there should be no human over-lords over God’s people. Each should be recognized as a free disciple - free to follow the dictates of the Holy Spirit, as revealed in the Scriptures. Many congregations have self-imposed and self-appointed leaders over them that really stand between the church and its duty to God. I mean to cast no reflection upon scriptural Elders.

Peace and harmony will prevail among all disciples if each has been wholly converted to the Lord to the extent that he will always say, “Let the will of the Lord be done!” Ambitious men, with the dictator spirit, should never be appointed as leaders or Elders in a congregation of disciples.

​Paul says, “We persuade men.” Again: “In meekness, instructing them that oppose themselves. This is our plan. Follow the inspired way of convincing men. Put the facts before them. Let them study and follow the teachings of the Holy Spirit. Isaiah says, “Come, let us reason together.” And, beloved, we come.

W. T. Taylor

The Sufferings of Jesus

“He is despised and rejected of men; a Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief. We hid as it were our faces from him. He was despised and we esteemed Him not” (Isaiah 53:3).

Thus, we see Isaiah’s forecast of the intense sufferings of our Lord. The disciples were familiar with his description of the events of the crucifixion, so Christ says: “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). So, the predictions of the prophet had not yet been fulfilled.

He “was acquainted with sorrows” before His death He was always among the poor and poverty-stricken. He was among the sick. He viewed them in their sufferings. He heard the despairing cry of the hungry and the afflicted. He once met a funeral procession. The grief-stricken widow was among the number. He stopped the procession, and restored life to the son who was being borne away to his burial. When His friend Lazarus died, the weeping women sent for Jesus of Nazareth. He beheld how they were weeping over him. “Jesus wept”! He then comforted them, saying, “Lazarus will rise.” He stopped their grief when He said: “Lazarus, come forth”! And he came! “He was acquainted with grief.”

Once more. He now enters Jerusalem, the beloved city. It was in splendor, and imaginary safety. He looked down over it and, weepingly said to its inhabitants: “Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto you! How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen does her brood under her wings and you would not!” (Matthew chapter 28). They were chosen of God, yet they were drifting on the sea of despair and sin. They had been warned of their oncoming avalanches of judgment and doom. But they did not heed. “I would” said Jesus. But “you would not” Ah friends! this tells the sad story. This was a heartrending scene.

But the physical sufferings of the body yet awaited the Savior. “He was scourged.” The Roman scourge was a piece of thick leather, about eight inches wide and thirty-six inches long. There were holes in the leather about one fourth of an inch in diameter and one to every square inch. It is said that this scourging sometimes took, not only the hide off the subject but also the flesh off the bones.

He was betrayed by His “own familiar friend” (Psalm 41:9, John 13:18) who “ate His bread.” When the Paschal Feast was over and Jesus had instituted His own memorial the Communion - Judas the Traitor left Him and went to His enemies and covenanted with them to sell him for “thirty pieces of silver,” or $15.00. He was the “Man of Sorrows.”

Now follow Him to Gethsemane. He went away to pray, asking His disciples to watch. He prays earnestly for the Father to “Let this cup (of sorrow) pass from Me.” But His disciples, whom He loved better than His own life, went to sleep! In His bitter agony His sweat became, as it were great drops of blood. They then come out with Him and He meets the betrayer. He said: “Whom seek ye?” The soldiers then went back and fell on the ground. They come to Him again, and He said: “Whom do you seek”? They say: “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus says: “I am He.” They then took Him, and His disciples left Him and fled! He is now led to the Judgment Hall, of Rome. He sees the spectators. Perhaps some whom He had fed and cared for were there. They followed Him for the loaves and fishes, but would not follow Him for life eternal in the Heavens.

The crown of thorns is put on His head. Gall and vinegar are given Him to drink. They say: “He saved others; Himself He cannot save”, “He trusted in God; Let Him save Him.” Yet Jesus in His meekness and kindness says: “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.” Finally, He suffered the deeper, direr agony of being forsaken of God; for He cried, “My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?” All others had forsaken Him, and now the worst came - He was forsaken of God!! He was a “Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief.”

​Now, brethren, let us be kind; tender-hearted, and Christ-like. Let us not frown upon those who are inferior to us. Above all, let us not frown upon the Son of God.​

S. J. Gay

What Must I Do to Be Saved?

This is a very old question but it is as important still as it was the first time it engaged the attention of man. As we journey along life’s pathway we have our ups and downs, doubts and fears; but there is one thing, at least, that we should be absolutely sure of and that is our soul’s salvation.

There is no cause, for doubts or uneasiness concerning this question. We can be sure. But in only one way is this possible, and that is to take the Bible as our guide and to do exactly as it teaches. The Gospel is God’s power unto salvation. - Romans 1:16.

The Gospel of Christ had great power on the day of Pentecost. - Acts 2.37. The hardhearted Jews who heard it were cut to the heart and were made to cry out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” - Acts 2:37. However, the word of God is as a two-edged sword. - Hebrews 4:12. It cuts both ways, unto life, or unto death. The ones who hear it, believe, and obey it, are saved (unto life). Those who hear, and reject it are forever lost if death overtakes them in that condition. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8.

This question is very many times answered by shallow and flippant persons who lightly regard this subject. Sometimes we meet honest people who think that they can find the great plan of redemption anywhere in the Bible. I think that the greatest cause of the spread of false doctrines is ignorance of the Bible, and ignorance of how to study it. Paul wrote to the young preacher, Timothy, to study and rightly divide the word. - 2 Timothy 2:15.

If you want to know anything concerning the origin of man, go to Genesis, the book of beginnings. However, you cannot find the answer to your question, “What must I do to be saved?” here. It cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. Then we must search the New where it is found. We can only find it here because it had not been given when the Old was written. The Old was only a shadow of good things to come. - Hebrews 10:1. “The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.” - John 1:17. It is by the Truth that we are made free, - John 8:32 in obedience to it. - Romans 6:17-18, Romans 8:2.
 
I know that some people would have you believe that there’s nothing one can do to be saved; but such is not taught in the word of God. When persons asked this question in Apostolic days, we find that they were always told to do something. This was the case even before the inauguration of the new order. A certain young ruler asked Jesus what he should do to inherit eternal life. He was told to keep the law, because he was under the law. He answered that he had done this from his youth. Then the Savior told him that there was something yet for him to do - sell what he had and give to the poor. The record says that he was very sorrowful for he was very rich - Luke 18:18.

In answer to the question - now we go to John 20:30-31 and we learn that a man must believe on Jesus Christ in order to be saved. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believe on Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” - John 3:16. See Acts 16:31, Romans 5:1, Galatians 3:26, and Hebrews 11:6. These scriptures clearly show that faith is very necessary to salvation. But we will learn by studying further that one is not saved by faith alone, because if that were true the devil himself would be saved. James 2:19. “Faith only” is mentioned only once in the New Testament and that is in James 2:24, which says we are not saved by faith only.

After faith, the next thing necessary to salvation is genuine repentance. - Luke 13:5, Acts 17:30; Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38 and 2 Peter 2:9.

The next thing necessary is the good confession, this from reading Matthew 10:32, Acts 8:36, Romans 10:9-10. Please read these scriptures for yourself.

The last step, the one that puts one into Christ is baptism. - Galatians 3:27.

Summing the foregoing up, we have:

1. Faith is unto salvation. - Romans 10:10.
2. Repentance is unto salvation. - Acts 11:18.
3. Confession is unto salvation. - Romans 10:10.
4. Baptism puts us into Christ (Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3-4) where we obtain salvation. 2 Timothy 2:10.

Though false teachers pervert the scriptural teachings concerning each of these steps, it is baptism that has suffered most at their hands. To them, I would say that we have not as much as one promise without obedience to our Lord in baptism. Baptism is for no other purpose than for the remission of past sins. Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-4. The above passages mean one and the same thing (in order to have our sins forgiven). See 1 Peter 3:21 - “The like figure where unto Baptism doth also now save us.”

“Blessed are they that do His commandments that they may have right to the tree of life.” - Revelation 22:14.

​Kind reader, will you study and ponder well the scriptures that have been given? If so I will be satisfied.

O. B. Perkins