Music, Baptism, Cups
“The Greeks certainly understood their own language, and the Greek church could never find any authority in the word ‘psallo’ for adopting a musical instrument in worship - not any more than they could find authority in ‘baptidze’ for the adoption of sprinkling for baptism!” (Daniel Sommer, in Apostolic Review).
And “the Greeks certainly understand their own language” enough to know that when Jesus “took a cup (POTERION, a drinking-cup, wine-cup)”, He took a literal, material, cup, or drinking vessel, and hence Thayer and Robinson in their excellent Lexicons of the Greek New Testament, say POTERION is used properly, that is, literally, here (Matthew 26:27), and Thayer says it is “this cup containing wine” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 15, on Luke 22:20). John Chrysostom, an “Ante-Nicene Father,” wrote in Greek for Greek-speaking Christians, and he says of the wine, “that which is in the cup is that which flowed from His side” (24th Homily in 1 Corinthians). Justin Martyr confirms Thayer and Chrysostom, for he says, “A cup of wine and water are then brought to the president” (Apol. I pp. 82, 83). Ambrose backs them, too, for he says, “wine is put into the cup.”
In Alexander Campbell’s celebrated work, ‘“Campbell on Baptism,” there is a chapter devoted to a consideration of the Greek preposition EK, which governs the genitive case. Bro. Campbell showed that EK means “out of,” and hence it is said of Jesus that when He was baptized of John in Jordan, He “came up OUT OF (EK) the water,” thus showing that baptism is an immersion, or burial, in water, and an emerging from it. So also when Paul says, “Let him drink of (EK, out of) the cup (POTERION, a cup, a drinking vessel)” (1 Corinthians 11:28), he says, EK TOU POTERIOU, “out of the cup.” EK (out of) is a preposition governing the genitive case, and Thayer says; “EK with a genitive of the vessel out of which one drinks, EK TOU POTERIOU,” out of the cup, or drinking vessel.
Hence, the Greek Church, the church of Christ, or any other church, cannot find authority in the Greek Scriptures for the use of more than one cup in each assembly. The Greek Christians of the post-apostolic and the Ante-Nicene age knew this, for we read: “For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to (show forth) the unity of His blood” (Ignatius, A. D. 30-107). “We receive of one loaf and of one cup” (Ambrose, died A. D. 307). We hope that Bro. Sommer will finally see this, too, for we certainly need him in our fight for the primitive faith.
J. D. Phillips
Explanation - No August Issue
We were very sorry that we could see no other alternative but to miss the August number of the Old Paths Advocate, and there was just one reason - a lack of funds. We do hope the readers and friends of the paper will not allow this to happen again, but unless you go after subscriptions and donations in earnest immediately it will be inevitable.
Brethren, we are more than glad to have your articles and reports for publication, but we sometimes wonder if you appreciate the Old Paths Advocate enough to solicit subscriptions and donations while out in the field. Times are hard, it is true, but subscriptions can still be obtained if we go at it in the right way.
H. L. K.
Keeping the Record Straight
To our surprise, Bro. L. W. Hayhurst was put up again by the cups brethren to meet Bro. J. D. Phillips in discussion, at Eola, Texas, from August 1-5.
In addition to the cups question, they discussed the manner of breaking the loaf. Due to the Baptists having a meeting in progress, we were compelled to have all the discussion in the daytime, but the attendance was very good in spite of this.
Preachers in attendance were G. B. Sliger, Earl Evans, Alva Johnson, J. N. Cowan, G. B. Shelbourne, A. B. Watkins, Moore Eubank, W. E. Hanley, J. M. Malone, J. P. Hutton, J. I. Grantham, I. G. Hayes, I. E. Lackey, C. R. Graves, W. E. Boyett, Jas. T. White, W. H. Gill, and the writer. The moderators were Sliger for Hayhurst and Grantham for Phillips.
I consider Bro. Hayhurst the best the cups advocates have when it comes to dodging and covering up the issue. However, Bro. Phillips proved himself master of the situation and equal to the occasion at all times. So much so that it seemed somewhat one sided, I think, to all fair-minded people. Bro. Hayhurst advocates two or more cups, but objects to the individual cups; thus, making of himself a lawmaker for the Lord.
The results were gratifying. Three preachers on Bro. Hayhurst’s side told me and others that Hayhurst could not do a thing with such an inconsistent position, but if he would go over to the individual cups, he might make a showing. Bro. J. P. Hutton stated publicly that he had been converted from the cups and Hayhurst’s idea of breaking the loaf. Several others told me the same. We endorse Bro. Phillips to meet any man, with whom he cares to debate. I have never heard a man who could cover more ground in thirty minutes than Doug Phillips.
I followed each speaker closely with notes, and propose to give the arguments pro and con in a series of articles soon. Let us get all whom we can to read the Old Paths Advocate; it will be interesting.
Homer A. Gay
“My soul, be on thy guard,
Ten thousand foes arise;
The hosts of sin are pressing hard
To draw thee from the skies.”
Tidwell - Hutchenson Debate
This investigation was conducted at Maud, Texas, early in July, by Brethren J. E. Tidwell, of El Dorado, Arkansas and D. L. Hutchenson. The following propositions were discussed:
1. “The scriptures teach that the class system of teaching the word God, as maintained by me and my brethren, is the most effective system.”
2. “The scriptures teach that one cup (drinking vessel) only is authorized in the communion for each congregation of the Church of Christ.”
3. “The scriptures teach that two or more cups (drinking vessels) are authorized in the communion for each congregation of the Church of Christ.”
Bro. Hutchenson affirmed propositions 1 and 3, while Bro. Tidwell affirmed proposition 2.
Space will not permit me to give all the arguments submitted pro and con, but I shall give a few. In his efforts to sustain the class system of teaching, Bro. Hutchenson introduced Hebrews 5:12-14, trying to apply this to the children and the grown-ups, thus making it necessary to divide the assembly into classes. Bro. Tidwell clearly showed that the “babes” mentioned here did not refer to infants, but to the young converts. Bro. Hutchenson insisted that the class system was the best system and the most effective. Bro. Tidwell countered by saying that if this be true, why not use the class system all the time?
Bro. Hutchenson then took the position that the Bible gives no specific method or system of teaching. Bro. Tidwell showed that it did by referring to Deuteronomy 31:11-12, Joshua 8:35, 1 Corinthians chapter 14, which was one speaking at a time to the undivided assembly, that being a male. Being refuted here he took the position that the classes arranged in separate rooms were private, hence could be taught by women. Bro. Tidwell demanded that he show just one such church, or practice in the Bible, and, of course, he failed here. It was clearly shown by Bro. Tidwell that such arrangement originated with Robert Raikes, instead of with the Bible.
His next resort was to try to find some consolation in Acts chapter 2, as authority for more than one speaking at a time, or the class system. Just why he went here, no one could understand, for as Bro. Tidwell pointed out, verse 14 clearly showed that Peter addressed the whole assembly.
Bro. Hutchenson labored hard to avoid the responsibility of dividing the church over the class system, but Bro. Tidwell fastened this on him and his brethren, by showing that we were in perfect accord with Christ, the apostles, Moses, Joshua, and all the examples recorded in the Bible, and that it was all due to the unscriptural practice of the Sunday School brethren.
In discussing the cups question, Bro. Tidwell emphasized the oneness portrayed in the Bible; viz., one God, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one hope, one New Testament, one blood, hence, one cup. He showed that if we are to have two or more cups, we should have two or more bodies, bloods, New Testaments, etc.
In an effort to discredit the idea of any importance being given to the drinking vessel, Bro. Hutchenson took a glass of water to illustrate the argument. He picks up the glass of water, contemplates the giving of thanks, and then dashes the water out and says, “Now drink the cup. Can you do it? Do you get the blessing?” In reply, Bro. Tidwell showed that we do not contend that the empty vessel is the “cup of the Lord,” but that the vessel with its contents (the fruit of the vine) is understood. Hence, in drinking the cup, we simply drink out of the vessel, or what it contains. But to refute the illustration, Bro. Tidwell takes the glass with some water in it; dashing out the water, he asks, “Can you now drink your cup? Did you receive the blessing? Can you handle this element without the vessel? Yet, you claim there is no importance to the drinking vessel. Can you take the one volume of the one cup and put it into cups, and still be the one blessing, or volume?” Bro. Hutchenson replied, “You cannot.”
Seeing that he had lost on this, Bro. Hutchenson tried to show that “cup” was used in a figurative sense with reference to the communion, giving Psalm 23:5 and Psalm 51:22, also Matthew 26:39, as the proof. Bro. Tidwell agreed that it was so used in these passages, but not so in Matthew 26:27, where fit is clearly seen that the Savior actually took a drinking vessel, containing the fruit of the vine, and too, there was only one cup, or drinking vessel used.
It was clearly seen that Bro. Hutchenson failed to make a point that was not successfully met by Bro. Tidwell. Many other arguments were made, but the above is a fair sample of how the debate was conducted and the results.
R. R. Jones
Welch - Brooks Debate
The above was conducted at Vera, Texas, July 4-10, by H. C. Welch, of the Church of Christ, and N. W. Brooks, representing the Holiness. Subjects discussed were working of miracles now, instrumental music in the worship, and women preaching. There were to be two nights for each subject, but as Mr. Brooks soon saw that he was unable to defend his doctrine, he gave it up after two nights.