Barnes church of Christ

One of the sweetest thoughts is that of forgiveness! It is learned at an early age and we never outgrow it. If you will “forgive” me I will use a personal story to help make the point. The earliest event I remember wherein I desired forgiveness occurred when I was about five or six years old. These years are like muddy water in my mind, as it is very hard for me to get the years and the events in order. I remember the exact location where it took place, however, and other events that also took place there. One of them was very funny, though it was not so funny at the time, but it will be saved for another time.
The event here took place while I was at my grandmother and step-grandfather’s house just outside of Plainview, AR. My dad and mom had brought me to their house, with whom my younger brother lived. I was of the mind to leave and go with my dad and mom, but for some reason, which I had no understanding, they determined that I was to stay with my grandmother. This made me very unhappy! While I was demonstrating my unhappiness, as an immature child might, my mother trying to make me happy, gave me a pencil and paper to draw on. Needless to say, I was not in the drawing mood and I proceeded to poke holes in the paper! Now this may sound and read like a total innocent action on my part. However, to this day, I wish I could hear my loving mother say, “Son, I forgive you!”
You see, my mother was doing something she knew that I liked to do; something that normally would make me happy! But, I was not going to be happy, no matter what! Yet, this is not the whole story. I wish I could fill those holes up again; I wish that I had never put those holes in that paper in the first place! Why is this little event so important to me? You see my mother would die in a few years and I would never see her again; and I would never hear those loving words: “Son, I forgive you!” Of course, in my mother’s mind there was no need of forgiveness, but in my mind, even to this day, I regret putting holes in that piece of paper!
It was not then, but later, when the act could not be undone that I came to feel the need of forgiveness! It was an event so unimportant by the standard of events, but it is big in my mind and still is! Forgiveness! I can feel with the apostle Paul when he writes, though as we measure things and see things, the event of which I write has no place; but Paul wrote: “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. 1:15). Paul had been forgiven, but he still remembered the sins he had committed; and in humbleness he saw himself as “sinners; of whom I am chief.” The consequences of some of his sins could not be undone! For he stood by giving his consent as Stephen was stoned to death (Acts 8:1); yet, he “heard” the blessed words, “thy sins be forgiven,” as when Ananias said to him: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:6). Yes, Saul/Paul arose and was baptized and his sins were washed away: forgiveness!
How sweet the words, “Thy sins be forgiven!” However, standing between sins unforgiven and sins forgiven, is repentance! Standing before repentance is “godly sorrow!” Yes, Paul wrote these words: “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death” (2 Cor. 7:10). Please understand, repentance is not “godly sorrow,” but “godly sorrow worketh repentance!” The “repentance” acceptable to God, is “worked out” by “godly sorrow!” Now, get this please, repentance (metanoia) is “a change of mind,” worked out by “godly sorrow!” A person may “change” his mind, for any number of reasons, but “repentance” that brings about “forgiveness” is produced by “godly sorrow!”
Yes, sweet are the words, “thy sins be forgiven!” How I have wished through the years I could have heard my dear mother say, “Son, I forgive you!” Even though in her mind, no forgiveness was necessary! However, when we sin against God, forgiveness is absolutely necessary! Unforgiven sin stands between us and salvation now and later eternal salvation!

Frank R. Williams

Just what does the word “liberal” mean as it relates to “the teaching of Christ?” It is hard to give a definition to the word liberal when it comes to “the teaching of Christ” from a dictionary. This is the case because the word is looked at from a political point of few most of the time. However, the following will help in our understanding as we pursue the subject. A liberal is a person who is: open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways. This definition has its short comings to be sure! Nevertheless, let’s take a look at it.
First, anyone who studies the Bible should be “open-minded,” in that we must be willing to change when we learn that we are wrong in what we believe. So, to be “open-minded” is to be willing to examine the evidence, then, stand with the truth!
Second, if the word “orthodox” means: “accepted as true or correct by most people: supporting or believing what most people think is true;” then, we must we understand it does not matter what “most people think is true;” no, the truth seeker, must be determined to find the truth and stand with it!
Third, the word “traditional” generally means: “based on customs usually handed down from a previous generation.” If this word is used to refer to “manmade traditions,” then, in religion they have no binding place! As Jesus said: “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition” (Matt. 15:6). Yet, the apostles of Christ used the word, as Paul wrote: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). So, it is not the word itself, but whose “traditions; is the “tradition” of man’s or of God! If of God, then, it is binding; it is truth and we must stand with it!
Fourth, we have “established forms or ways,” and once more, it is a matter of whose “established forms or ways;” if man’s, then they may and sometimes must be changed, but if God’s, then, they must not be changed in any way; for it is truth and we must stand with it!
Finally, the apostle John gives us the best inspired definition of what the word “liberal” means as it relates to “the teaching of Christ,” as he uses these very words. John wrote: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). The Greek word from which our English word “transgresseth” is translated, is “ parabainō;” and Thayer gives use four points to help us understand the word:
1) “to go by the side of;” here keep in mind that we are talking about “the teaching of Christ” and one going by the side of it and, therefore, not in “the teaching of Christ.”
2) “to go past or pass over without touching a thing;” in going past or over, a person “the teaching of Christ” he is not in “the teaching of Christ!”
3) “to overstep, neglect, violate, transgress;” here once more, the person “steps” outside “the teaching of Christ;” therefore, he does not abide in “the teaching of Christ!”
4)“so to go past as to turn aside from;” such a person has overrun “the teaching of Christ;” therefore, he has turned aside from “the teaching of Christ” and does not abide in it.
It should be clear to the reader, that the word “transgresseth” goes hand in hand with the word “liberal” when used in a religious context. It means that one has gone out of “the teaching of Christ;” it matters not if it is to the left or right. Finally, just here, it is to advance beyond the limits of “the teaching of Christ,” and this word contains an ironical allusion to the pretensions of the teacher’s having advanced to a higher degree of knowledge!
However, John did not stop with the word “transgresseth,” but he also used the words: “and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” The Greek word for “abideth” is “menō” and means: “to remain … in reference to place” and the place is “the teaching of Christ!” So, what is the consequence of not abiding in “the teaching of Christ? This person no longer has God; in that he no longer has fellowship with God. He has lost his salvation!
The “liberal” is the person who goes outside “the teaching of Christ,” thus, losing all the benefits of “the teaching of Christ!” No, it is not likely that you will find a liberal who will even identify himself as a liberal, and surely not as one who has lost his salvation! Nevertheless, this is what a liberal is according to John!

Frank R. Williams

“Oh that is just your interpretation!” And with these words many Bible conversations end, when they should be just starting. It is truly amazing how many conversations end when the magical words are spoken. Hid within the magical words is a fatal error which is generally mis-understood by most who use these magical words. So, what is this fatal error?
The magical words are “your interpretation,” which imply that everyone is entitled to have his own interpretation and this leads to the fatal error. If everyone is entitled to his own interpretation of “truth,” then there is no such thing as truth. This is the fatal error! It may be stated, “One faith is just as good as another.” Or, “Everyone is entitled to his own belief!” Or even, “Who are you to question the faith of another?” Logically, each one of these is saying, there really is no such thing as “One faith;” or there is no such thing as truth! Yet, the apostle Paul wrote in his seven plank-platform of “ones;” just assuredly as there is “One God,” there is “one faith!” (Eph. 4:4-6). This is not one of many interpretations, it is the interpretation! It is the very meaning of the word to interpret: “to explain the meaning of (something); to understand (something) in a specified way” (Merriam-Webster). If one can truthfully interpret the words “there is one faith” to mean there is one thousand faiths, then, he can also interpret the words “there is one God” to mean there is one thousand gods! You see, to interpret, is to reach the “meaning,” the “understanding;” the truth in the meaning of the words spoken or written. If we can do this with “One faith,” why is it so hard for us to do it with the words “one God?” When you read the Bible, what are you reading?
Now, let us take a well-know statement made by Jesus: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). These words have been the subject of many debates, many articles, and many sermons. The words are not hard to understand, for if we just put them in a mathematical form there is no question; there is no debate. Let “believeth” equal “1” and “baptized” equal “2”, making “saved” equal “3.” A beginner in math will have no problem! Now, take the second part of Jesus’ statement: “believeth not” equals “-1, thus, “damned” equal less than “3.” Is it not also true, he that “believeth” which equals “1” and is not “baptized” which equals “-2,” is also less than “saved”, thus, it is not equal to “3!” You see, it matters not which number is removed, be it “1” or “2,” neither by itself can ever equal “3!” So, when you read the Bible, what are you reading?
Here, just for the sake of representing the case fairly, the following quote is given: “Question: “Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?” Answer: As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches through careful consideration of the language and context of the verse. We also filter it through what we know the Bible teaches elsewhere on the subject. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation is a faulty interpretation.” First, one simple truth, the New Testament never refers to baptism as a work! Just what is the person being baptized doing, but yielding to “the teaching of Christ?” Second, filtering the subject of baptism through “what we know the Bible teaches elsewhere on the subject,” let us read what Peter wrote: “… eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us …” (1 Pet. 3:20-21). Did the inspired apostle teach that baptism saves? Taking the words of Jesus and the words of Peter, it is clear to the honest reader “that baptism is necessary for salvation!” So, when you read the Bible, what do you read?
Grace is appropriated by means of “the faith” (Eph. 2:8) and within “the faith” are the words of Jesus: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” So, does your faith stand in “the faith” revealed by the Holy Spirit, written in the New Testament, or does it stand in the words of men who reject the words of Jesus? Remember, it is your eternal salvation which is in the balance!

Frank R. Williams

The question has appeared in a number of forms, “Can we understand the Bible alike?”. Then, someone says, “If we understand it, it will be alike!” It is true, if two people read the same thing but reach two different conclusions as to what it is saying, it is true that at least one of them has failed to understand it. It may be the case that both have failed to understand it!
Let me here relate a sad story, but true in my life. I was too young to remember all the dentails, but enough will be recalled to make the point. When I was about seven or eight years old my mother wrote a letter in which she let it be known that she wanted me to live with my father’s mother, my grandmother. This was just before she died. My aunt and I, who was/is but two years older than me, both read the letter and concluded that my mother wanted me to stay with my mother’s step-father and my aunt. My aunt, was/is more like a sister, as we were raised together much of our younger years. My uncle, my father’s brother, came to get me, and take me to my grandmother but we let it be known that my mother had written that she desired that I stay with her step-father and my aunt/sister. We made no impression on my uncle, as he knew what the letter had really said. You see, he understood the letter and my aunt/sister and me had read the letter incorrectly. I think we read the letter from our desires, more than with a view to what it really said.
It is sad, but many people read the Bible as my aunt/sister and I did the letter my mother had written! Therefore, the question: “When you read the Bible, what are you reading?” As we think about this subject, ponder this, have you ever heard someone say, “That is just your interpretation!” It is said as though no part of the Bible must be interpreted! So, just what does this word mean? The word “interpreting” means: “to explain the meaning of (something) and to understand (something) in a specified way.” (Merriam-Webster). Therefore, interpreting and understanding go together! We can take some of the simplest statements in the Bible, such as: “And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Gen. 1:5). What is Moses saying in these words? Let us interpret them. Why? Because I desire to understand them! Interpretation and understanding go hand in hand; as one and the same thing.
First, Moses wrote on the “post” side of the children of Israel crossing the Red Sea; after the Law of Moses had been given to Israel. Thus, he is writing in the language, using words they would know; words they would understand! Second, notice that Moses wrote, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” If I were writing today, I would write, “And the morning and the evening were the first day.” However, Israel started their day in the “evening,” thus, “the first day,” is counted from “the evening and the morning.” I can just see the “bright” student over in the corner raising his hand and asking, “How can you have an evening before you have a morning?” Please notice there was “darkness” before there was “light!” Thus, “evening” (darkness) and “morning” (light). God never said, “Let there be darkness,” as it was already dark!
Second, the words “evening and morning” include the whole day. The “evening” including darkening and darkened hours; while the “morning” includes the lightening and light hours. So this brings us to the age old question: “How long was a day in creation?” Having already noticed that Moses is using words which the Hebrew nation would understand, as they got their understanding of what a day was from creation; is there any reason to think that the Hebrews were to interpret the word “day” in any other way than a twenty-four-hour day? No, not one! Just think about it, why would this new nation, which had just received the “Law,” have any reason to think of the “day,” which is described by the words “the evening and the morning were the first day,” in any other why than a twenty-four-hour day? There is not one reason!
Yet, volume upon volume has been written trying to prove that the word “day” is anything but a twenty-four-hour day in the opening chapter of Genesis! Remember, the first people to read/hear these words were those who died in the “wilderness.” Was Moses, through the Holy Spirit, writing a great mystery to them, or was he writing in simple words easy to be understood? Through the years the effort is to misinterpret more than to interpret the opening chapter of the Bible. Therefore, when you read the Bible, what are you reading?

Frank R. Williams

Did you know that we take some things for granted? Think about it this way, how many churches do you know that assemble on the first day of the week, Sunday to us, for worship? Most churches in what is called “Christendom” gather upon Sunday to worship! Ever wonder why? It is just taken for granted that there is a reason; it is taken for granted that there is New Testament authority; and it is taken for granted that there is authority in “the teaching of Christ,” in that there is a command for Christians to assemble to worship God on “the first day of the week:” Sunday!
Well, stop for a moment and think! Run the New Testament through your mind and look for one commandment that says anything like, children of God are to assemble to worship on the first day of the week! Did you recall one such commandment? As the old song says it: “No, not one!” Are you surprised? More than likely you are, as you have just taken it for granted that somewhere in the New Testament, in “the teaching of Christ” there is such a commandment! Now you may be asking, how is it that the disciples of Christ, who were “called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26), always assembled on the first day of the week to worship God?
That they did this is clearly revealed in the New Testament. Those who were the first converts on that great Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus, did so! Luke wrote of them: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:41-42). Pentecost was always on “the first day of the week!” Moses wrote in establishing the day: “And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, (Saturday, frw) from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths (7X7=49, frw) shall be complete: Even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath (7X7+1=50, frw) shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD” (Lev. 23:15-16). There is the day of Pentecost and how it always came on “the first day of the week!” Now, what does this mean to our subject? It means that the first worship of the church, done by the “about three thousand souls,” was on “the first day of the week!”
Yet, we have no commandment! Many times we have heard preachers quote these words: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25). Yes, this is a commandment! And it is generally applied to ‘the first day of the week” assembly of worship. However, Barnes in his notes says: “It properly means an act of assembling, or a gathering together, … The command, then, here is, to meet together for the worship of God, and it is enjoined on Christians as an important duty to do it.” However, read with clarity and notice the words, “the first day of the week,” do not appear in the text. Without doubt, “the first day of the week” assembly of worship is included in the “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,” but they are not limited to “the first day of the week” assembly of worship! Therefore, to this point we have a command for “assembling of ourselves together,” but no direct commandment to assemble on “the first day of the week.”
So, how do we ascertain New Testament authority, with responsibility, that carries the weight of a commandment, to assemble to worship God on “the first day of the week?” My friends and brethren, you look for a pattern! We have already seen the first point in the pattern in Acts 2:42; therefore, let us now add to this and make the pattern firm and sure! Luke also gives us the second point in the pattern: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). Paul gives us a third point in the pattern: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2). Finally, we have that general command, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,” which includes the pattern of “the first day of the week” assembly of worship!
Therefore, we have ascertained New Testament authority, authority within “the teaching of Christ” for the first day of the week assembly of worship!

Frank R. Williams

This is the last article in this series as the reader may be growing tired of the subject. However, these articles have given us the opportunity to see what some in the denominational world think of the churches of Christ and what they have to say. In this case it has been a Lutheran “Pastor” expressing his own created views and thoughts for the most part. The writer is Dr. Keith W. Schweitzer (Pastor, Immanuel Lutheran Church, 505 NE Dodge Street, Greenfield, Iowa 50849) and the quotes have been taken from his thirty-page article, which he called: “Various Doctrinal Positions of The Campbellite Church of Christ And a Lutheran Response to Those Positions.” His entire writing may be found on the internet by searching these words.
In this final article, let us take up the subject of worship as addressed by “Pastor Schweitzer. He writes: “Campbellite Church of Christ Position: “We believe only five acts of worship are authorized in the Bible: 1. Acappella singing, 2. Praying, 3. Taking a collection, 4. Taking communion, 5. Preaching. To do anything else during the worship service is not authorized and is thus sinful and vain worship.” He does not give any place from which he is quoting; however, THIS WRITER totally agrees with his words! This agreement is based upon the fact that New Testament authority can be given for each of these five acts of worship as they are found in “the teaching of Christ” given by the apostles of Christ.
First, before getting into the “acts of worship” which the “Pastor” says cannot be traced to any reliable historical source; a few words are in order about his continued use of the words “the Campbellite Church of Christ.” This is an insulting term to every member of the churches of Christ! No member of the churches of Christ to my knowledge has ever used these words! There never has been a “Campbellite Church of Christ!” Keep in mind, these words come from a man who is a member of the Lutheran Church which is named after a man, Martin Luther, and he freely wears this man’s name!
However, before giving such authority, let us notice the “Lutheran’s Response” which we look at in two parts. The first part: “These “acts of worship” cannot be traced to any reliable historical source within the Campbellite Church of Christ. They are more likely part of the “oral tradition” originating from a preacher’s pulpit and circulating to eventually become “orthodox” teaching. Again, there is no location in the Scriptures that identifies these acts of worship as the only acts ordained by God apart from any others.”
The first part, the acts of worship which he so decries! The apostle Peter wrote: “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5). The only “spiritual sacrifices” Christians as a “holy priesthood” “offer up” to God is our worship! Those on that great Pentecost day, who “gladly received his (Peter’s, frw) word” “were baptized;” then Luke wrote that the first things saved souls did, was offer up their “spiritual sacrifices:” “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:41-42). Here we have: 1) prayers; 2) breaking of bread (the Lord’s Supper); 3) fellowship (giving); and 4) the apostles’ teaching. This is a “reliable historical source” of the best kind, the word of God! One act of worship of the five is not listed here, but is found elsewhere; Paul to the church in Colosse: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16). Now we have the fifth act of worship, singing! Thus, we have given New Testament authority for the five acts of worship from the only “reliable historical source,” the inspired “the teaching of Christ!”
The second part, a few words about the “Pastor’s” remarks: “Again, there is no location in the Scriptures that identifies these acts of worship as the only acts ordained by God apart from any others.” Let it here be known, there are no “others” acts of worship ordained by God in “the teaching of Christ!” However, there is a price to be paid by those who would go beyond “the teaching of Christ; John wrote: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). With these words we conclude this nine-part series of articles.

Frank R. Williams

This is a continuation of article number seven, which was dealing with the charge made by Dr. Keith W. Schweitzer (Pastor, Immanuel Lutheran Church 505 NE Dodge Street, Greenfield, Iowa 50849) and his so-called: “Campbellite Church of Christ Position” as it related to the teaching that baptism is unto remission of past sins. He believes this is a totally ridiculous teaching.
The reason he believes it is ridiculous, is because he believes in the doctrine of “original sin.” Here is what he writes: “As the Campbellite Church of Christ stresses the absolute necessity of being baptized, rejects the biblical doctrine of original sin, and yet affirms an “age of accountability,’ baptism in the Church of Christ, by definition, must cover only a very small portion of a person’s sins during his lifetime.” He has a real problem with the “age of accountability,” and writes in another place, dealing with the same subject: “The doctrine of an “age of accountability” is a doctrine of subterfuge within the Campbellite Church of Christ. It is a doctrine which was created out of necessity to reconcile the paradox the Campbellites created for themselves between the doctrine of the essentiality of baptism in order to be saved and their denial of the doctrine of original sin.” The reason he has this problem is because he believes in the doctrine of “original sin.” This doctrine does not allow for such; for according to the doctrine of “original sin,” a baby is conceived in “original sin” that must be forgiven! Thus, the so-called baptism of babies!
Therefore, let us deal with the subject of the doctrine of “original sin.” First, this is not a biblical teaching, but a necessary subject to study as much of the denominational world believes in such! The “Pastor” then makes this statement: “This doctrine states that a child is only held accountable by God for his sins once he reaches the age of his being cognitively aware of his sins. The Scripture passage held out to support this doctrinal position is Isaiah 7:16: “For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.” May I say here, in my forty-eight years of preaching, I have never used this verse, nor have I heard it used, as Dr. Schweitzer so charges! This does not mean, that some preacher has never done so, however.
So, how do you go about to prove the doctrine of “original sin” is not a biblical teaching? First, the words never appear in the inspired text! It is always best to use biblical words when addressing biblical subjects; though it is understood at times it is necessary to use words not found in the Bible. Before addressing the subject, let us notice another statement made by the “Pastor:” “There is no point in a person’s lifetime here on earth when he is not accountable to God for that life and the conduct of his life.” Just how would you go about to defend such a teaching? Just how is a baby, who has no ability of understanding, no ability to believe, and no ability to repent, held “accountable to God” for anything that he might do? But, keep in mind, the doctrine of “original sin” does not involve any sin personally committed. No, it is an inherited sin! This doctrine teaches that a baby is conceived a sinner through the flesh from Adam onward. Here is a major problem in such a teaching; Luke wrote what the angel said unto Mary: “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS” (Luke 1:31). Add to this the words of John: “And the Word was made flesh ,…” (John 1:14). It should be clear that Jesus was conceived in a fleshly womb, and was “made flesh,” therefore, he was “flesh” when conceived just as are all babies! Yes, the “original sin” folks have an elaborate doctrine in an effort to get around this conclusion. But, was Jesus a flesh baby through the lineage of Adam, or not? Was Jesus born of a woman, just as all other babies? Therefore, whatever all other babies born of the flesh are, so was Jesus! However, this is just an inconvenient problem for the “original sin” folks to deal with! Don’t forget that the inspired Luke gave the fleshly genealogy of Jesus back to Adam (Luke 3:23-38), which would make Jesus guilty of “original sin,” if there was such!
Is there one case of a baby being baptized in the New Testament? No not one! However, our “original sin” folks have an answer to this question. They just point to the case of Lydia where Luke wrote: “And when she was baptized, and her household, …” (Act 16:15). So, what is this supposed to prove? According to the “original sin” folks, a “household” has a baby within it! In order to make their case, it would have to be, that all households have babies, for if one household did not have a baby, then, it just might be that the household of Lydia did not have a baby within it and their proof case is lost! The preacher who taught me, once in debating such folks, stated that Lydia had two red headed daughters! His “original sin” opponent questioned him: “Where did you did the two red headed daughters?” To which Clint Lovelady replied: “The same place you got the babies!”
Yes, of course, they have much more to say on the subject, but this will show their “proof” text is no proof text at all. It is the case that baptism is in order to have your past sins, sins actually committed, forgiven (Acts 2:38)!

Frank R. Williams

In continuing our response to “The Lutheran Response” of Dr. Keith W. Schweitzer (Pastor, Immanuel Lutheran Church 505 NE Dodge Street, Greenfield, Iowa 50849) to his so-called: “Campbellite Church of Christ Position.” This article will deal with his response, “The Campbellte Church of Christ: ‘We teach that baptism is for the remission of sins. But only for a person’s past sins.”
Before continuing this article, let it be known to all, there is no one on this earth who has the authority to speak for the churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16)! The churches of Christ have but one head and this one head is Christ, who is sitting at “the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:3). These churches have no organization on earth larger or smaller than each local congregation. It is true, that there is general fellowship among these churches based upon “the teaching of Christ” (2 John 9). Any member, elder, deacon, or preacher, may state or write what is generally believed and taught by these local churches, but no one has the authority to speak for them. The New Testament knows of no organization larger or smaller than the local church/congregation! With this in mind, let us continue with the position: The churches of Christ “teach that baptism is for the remission of sins. But only for a person’s past sins.”
Here is the “Lutheran Response: This is a doctrinal position not well know(n) even among members of the Campbellite Church of Christ.” Before continuing, let me deny one point, that it is not well known among members of the churches of Christ that one is baptized in order to have his past sins forgiven! Just think about it for a moment! If a person were baptized for past and future sins, would such a person not be free to continue in sin knowing that they had already been forgiven? It is more than a “get out of jail free card,” it is a “never go to jail free card!” Yet, the apostle questioned: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (Rom. 6:1). Now hear the Paul’s answer: “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:2-4). We are not baptized in order to be forgiven of sins not yet committed! Those who are members of the churches of Christ, who have been taught what the New Testament teaches, know that they are not baptized to have future sins forgiven, but past sins!
It is here that Dr. Schweitzer quotes two writers: first, Alan Highers: ““Churches of Christ have stood almost alone in the religious world on the subject of water baptism. We have insisted that immersion of a penitent believer is essential to salvation from past sins.” (The Spiritual Sword, no. 2 (January 1994); and second, C. R. Nichol: ““Though in becoming a child of God, one is commanded to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, it is, and can be, only for the sins committed before becoming a child of God, for he is guilty of no other sins before that time.” (Sound Doctrine, vol. 5, Clifton, Tex.: Nichol Publishing Company, 1920). Once more, just for the sake of truth and understanding, neither of these men speak with authority for the churches of Christ! However, both men have done nothing more than state what the authority of Christ teaches! But, let us look a little deeper into the subject as taught by Dr. Schweitzer and the Lutheran Church. As he writes: “As the Campbellite Church of Christ stresses the absolute necessity of being baptized, rejects the biblical doctrine of original sin, and yet affirms an “age of accountability,’ baptism in the Church of Christ, by definition, must cover only a very small portion of a person’s sins during his lifetime.” You can see that the subject is much larger than “baptism.” As he brings up “the absolute necessity of being baptized,” and what he calls “the biblical doctrine of original sin.” A third point would be what he would call the “mode” of baptism.
As we conclude this article, as space forces it, give thought to some questions: “If a person believes in “original sin,” and Dr. Schweitzer does, and baptism is for the forgiveness of original sin; does it not stand true, that baptism is necessary in order to have original sin forgiven? So, how does he and others deny the necessity of baptism? Another question, why do some “baptize” babies? It is because they believe that babies are born spiritually dead; guilty of their so-called “original sin!” Thus, making “baptism” absolutely necessary!

Frank R. Williams

The dishonesty of Dr. Keith W. Schweitzer, Pastor, Immanuel Lutheran Church 505 NE Dodge Street, Greenfield, Iowa 50849, is the subject in this sixth article addressing some of the charges made in his thirty pages. Here is the quote which will serve as the main subject of this article: “The writings, sermons, and lectures of such men as Foy Wallace, Austin McGary, Thomas Warren, Guy Woods, and Grover Cleveland Brewer are also highly regarded within the Church of Christ and were all significant contributors to the “oral tradition” of doctrinal formulation which was handed down throughout the 20th century.” His subject is that of formulating doctrines which he likes to call “catechisms, creeds, or other ‘man-made’ writings to formulate doctrines.”
It is highly possible that many young, and some older, members of the churches of Christ have never heard of some these men, and those who have, may not have read any of their books, which our good “Pastor” names above! Each of them are all dead; Austin McGary, June 15, 1928; Grover Cleveland (better known as G.C.) Brewer: June 9, 1956; Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: December 18, 1979; Guy N, Woods: December 8, 1993; and the last of which he writes was Thomas B. Warren: August 8, 2000. Let it here be said that no knowledgeable person, preacher or elder, in the churches of Christ would ever cite the writings of these men as authority for the churches of Christ! This is not to say, that some unknowing member, or even a preacher, has not, used some writing in such a manner, but if so, he was wrong! The churches of Christ have but one book of authority and this one book is the Bible, the inspired word of God! The churches of Christ serve under one head, which is Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) and operate under the authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18). Each local church is autonomous and is served by her self-appointed overseers (Acts 20:28)! She answers to no one else, nor to any other congregation! Yes, she may be questioned for her actions and the teaching she does, as are within “the teaching of Christ” (2 John 9). Dr. Schweitzer knows full well that no person, who ever came forward during an invitation in an assembly of a local church of Christ, has ever been asked does he/she believe the teaching in any of the books written by any of these men! There are many church of Christ buildings in which not one these books written by these men are to be found! Of course, this is not the case with the Lutheran Church and their “catechisms!”
For the sake of honesty, a search was made to the following question: “What is a Lutheran?” Here are the results: “While there are a variety of ways one could answer this question, one very important answer is simply this, ‘A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.’ The Book of Concord contains the Lutheran confessions of faith. Perhaps you have attended a ordination of a pastor and heard him promise that he will perform the duties of his office in accord with the Lutheran Confessions. When people are received into membership into the Lutheran congregation through confirmation they are asked if they confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as they have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true. These solemn promises indicate to us just how important the Lutheran Confessions are for our church. Let’s take a look at the various items contained in the Book of Concord and then we will talk about why the Lutheran Confessions are so important for being a Lutheran.” Of course, we will not look into the Book of Concord, as we are only making the point, that Dr. Schweitzer, who charges the churches of Christ as being a cult; in his own words: “The position of this writer is one that claims the Campbellite Church of Christ to be a cult” Why does he do so? Let him answer: “It has throughout its history lied and distorted the facts concerning its origins and many of its aberrant doctrines” The churches of Christ make no claims to believe any teaching that is not found in the Bible! No man, or group of men, has ever written a Catechism or Confession of Faith, to which anyone has ever been required, or even asked, “that he will perform the duties, nor are asked “if they confess the doctrine” of any book!
It appears to THIS WRITER that Dr. Schweitzer has just indicted the Lutheran Church as a cult! The Lutheran Church freely confesses to having and requiring a person, before becoming a member; and here we quote: “When people are received into membership into the Lutheran congregation through confirmation they are asked if they confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as they have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true.” Not one word about believing the Bible!
Thus, the readers of this article can make their own conclusion as which church is a cult; the churches of Christ who confess to taking what they believe from the Bible, or the Lutheran Church who confesses to requiring confession to “the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church” written by uninspired men!

Frank R. Williams

The boldness of some writers is seen in their own words! In this series of articles, we are answering a thirty page, that’s right, a thirty-page article entitled: “Various Doctrinal Positions of The Campbellite Church of Christ And a Lutheran Response to Those Positions” written by, Dr. Keith W. Schweitzer Pastor, Immanuel Lutheran Church, 505 NE Dodge Street, Greenfield, Iowa 50849. This is our fifth response to his charges!
In this article we take up another charge made by “Pastor” Schweitzer: “Campbellite Church of Christ Position: ‘We believe a person must complete five steps in order to be saved. A person must: a. Hear the Word; b. Believe the Word; c. Repent of his sins; d. Confess his sins publicly; e. Be baptized by immersion only.” For all those who might happen to read this article, here is a question: “If you believe that Jesus followed through on his promise to build his church (Matt. 16:18), just where would you read of such building activity?” Would it be in the book which is the history of the activities of his ambassadors, the apostles of Christ? This book is “The Acts of the Apostles” and is the inspired historical record of the establishment and the building of the church to which the Lord added those who were saved (Acts 2:41, 27). Luke the inspired historian records for the truth seeker, case after case, of those who were converted to Christ. It is noticed by the careful reader that different answers were given to the same question; this fact should compel any honest reader to ask why? The simple answer lies in the fact that those who asked the same question, “What must I do?” Were in different places in their learning and understanding. Thus, the answer was given accordingly! However, it will be noted that all five of the points given by the doctor are correct, but one, which he incorrectly states!
On the day of Pentecost, the text says, “Now when they heard this” (Acts 2:37)! Peter answered the question of these believing Hebrews, who had been looking for the coming of the Christ; their question was: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Please notice in his answer, Peter does not tell them to believe for it is understood they already believed; as he said: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (verse 38). So, to this point what do we have: 1) they heard the gospel; 2) they believed the gospel; 3) they were told to repent; and 4) they were commanded to be baptized for “unto” the remission of their sins! Charge or not, in the first case of converts in the gospel age that we have four of the five steps which Dr. Schweitzer is making fun of? But, this is not all! As we keep reading, the inspired Luke wrote: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Verse 41).
Now, as an honest seeker of truth, we read in the eighth chapter of Acts and notice that Philip went down to “the city of Samaria and preached Christ unto them” (verse 5). Please notice what happens! In verse six Luke wrote, “hearing,” and in verse twelve he wrote: “they believed,” then he says, “they were baptized.” However, let us read on in chapter eight and we come to “a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure” (27). The amazing thing, at least in the eyes of some, is what takes place here. After Phillip “preached unto him Jesus” (verse 35) unto this honorable man, he asked Phillip: “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (verse 36). Now, don’t allow this next point to get away from you, as it addresses point “d” of the doctor’s charge; though he is willfully incorrect in his words: “Confess his sins publicly!” Here is what Philip said: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (verse 37). Now get this as the eunuch replies: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” There is the “confession!” In my forty-eight years of preaching, I have never asked more and have never heard of any church of Christ preacher asking for any more. Not only have we proved the five points required in being saved for past sins, but we have also proved Dr. Schweitzer is willfully wrong in his charge against his so-called “Campbellite Church of Christ Position!” Never have I seen, or heard of anyone doing what Dr. Schweitzer writes in his point “d. Confess his sins publicly,” in the churches of Christ before being baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27)!
Honesty requires that a person get the whole truth on any subject being studied, and the answer to the question: “What must I do to be saved?” is no different! There is no other book, under heaven, where the inspired answer to this question is given in its fullness, than in “The Acts of the Apostles;” our good “Pastor” Dr. Schweitzer not withstanding!

Frank R. Williams