Barnes church of Christ

At this time of year, most Americans are preparing for their taxes; papers are gathered up, the forms are filled out. The dead line is April fifteenth and many of us are hoping that we don’t have pay any more taxes. Money having already been taken out of our hard earned income with every pay check.
Taxes are not new! Looking back through the years to the time of Caesar Augustus, who ordered that a census be taken for the purpose of taxing, our study begins. This was done when Cyrenius was governor of Syria and while Herod the Great (also known as Herod I) served as king of Judea. The Hebrews had to return to their “home” city and Joseph (the supposed father of Jesus) and Mary were of “Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)” (Luke 2:4). They lived in Nazareth of Galilee which is between seventy and ninety miles from Bethlehem. If they traveled twenty miles a day, it would have taken them just over four days, but one must remember Mary was with child; thus, traveling twenty miles a day over difficult terrain may not be the most likely. A more reasonable time would be seven days, or longer. Nevertheless, they traveled to Bethlehem to pay their taxes to the Roman government!
It was at Bethlehem that Mary gave birth to the male child, whom the angel that appeared unto Joseph had said: “thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In this name his mission was announced, “he shall save!” The Greek word “Jesus” (Iēsous) means: “Jehovah is salvation.” The apostle Matthew tells us this was done in fulfillment of what Isaiah had written: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Isa. 7:14 and Matt. 1:23). However, almost from the time of his birth; not from the time of his birth, but almost from the time of this birth; his life was in danger! The one who came to save us was in danger of losing his life!
There were “wise men from the east” that came to Jerusalem asking: “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” (Matt. 2:2). Please notice they did not go to Bethlehem! They were not seeking the birthplace, but they were seeking, “he that is born King of the Jews?” They did not ask, Where is he to be born, but “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” So, who asked about the birthplace? It was Herod! Here is what Matthew wrote: “When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born” (Matt. 2:3-4). He was told: “In Bethlehem of Judaea;” (Matt. 2:5; Michah 5:2). It is here that Herod, “privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared” (Matt. 2:7). What was in the mind of this evil man? He desired to kill the baby! Of course, this is not what he told the “wise men,” but he said unto them: “when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also” (Matt. 2:8).
The “wise men” being guided by “the star” followed it “till it came and stood over where the young child was” (Verse 9) “and fell down, and worshipped him” (Verse 11). Then, “being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way” (Verse 12); but, what about Herod? “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men” (Verse 16). The fear of Herod’s evil did not end here, but God warned Joseph: “the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him” (Verse 13). Thus, Joseph did not take his family back to Nazareth, but into Egypt and there they would remain unto the death of Herod the Great!
However, first after eight days Joseph would take his family to Jerusalem and a most beautiful event would take place. There was a man in Jerusalem, who had been promised by the Holy Spirit: “that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ” (Luke 2:26). Thus, “He came into the temple and the parents of Jesus brought him into the temple,” Simeon “took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation” (Luke 2:28-30).
There you have it, from taxation to the faith of Simeon, and to our salvation! Think of it, holding the babe in his arms, and based upon the word of God, this man said: “now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation!” Faith based upon evidence!

— Frank R. Williams

In reply to a question put forth by Thomas, Jesus answered: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”(John 14:6). In this answer, Jesus has given three areas which he personifies: 1) “I am the way,” 2) “I am the truth,” and 3) “I am the life.” Here Jesus is using what is called a figure of speech called “personification;” where a thing is given human attributes. To help us understand this figure of speech, the following is given: “The sky weeps;” in this expression we are giving the sky the ability to cry, which is a human quality. Therefore, we can say that the sky has been personified in the sentence. This is what Jesus has done with the words: 1) “the way,” 2) “the truth,” and 3) “the life.”
When Jesus concludes with: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me,” he is saying that one comes unto the Father by means of “the way, the truth, and the life” which he is! The word “cometh” is in the present imperfect tense in the Greek, and means a continuous kind of action, or action in progress. In other words, it started in the past, is going on at the present, and will continue in the future. Another way of saying it, it is a state of persistence! At some point a person, if he is to come unto the Father, must start, continue, and finish the course. Here is a good time to recall the words of Paul: “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:6-8). The apostle is writing about the middle and the end, but we know about his beginning; as he was asked by Ananias: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). So, Paul started, he continued, and he finished the course; and while he did so, he “kept the faith!”
Paul was baptized “into Christ” and by doing so, he also “put on Christ;” as this is what he was taught by the Holy Spirit: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Therefore, as Jesus personified the terms: “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” Paul was in “the way, the truth, and the life!” Paul was one who was doing just what Jesus had said; he had started, was at any point in his life continuing to do, and at the end of his life he had finished his doing; therefore, he “cometh unto the Father,” by Jesus! We are not surprised at his words: “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness!” But, Paul did not stop here, however, it is so important that we read on; for it is in Paul’s final words that we also find joy; that is, if we have started in Christ, continued in Christ, and finished the course in Christ: “a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:8). It is the case that only those who “cometh unto the Father” by Jesus; who is “the way, the truth, and the life” will “love his appearing!”
John, who is known as the apostle of love, wrote these very strong words: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3). Our love of God is expressed in one way, and one way only: that we keep his commandments!” The word translated “keep” is the Greek “tēreō” and means: “to attend to carefully, take care of.” This is done by keeping the eye upon the commandments, in order that they do not escape our attention!
It is sheer folly, the highest type of foolishness, to think that one can continue in Christ and “cometh unto the Father” while not keep on keeping the commandment of Christ! Being in Christ is equal to being in “the way, the truth, and the life;” which is equal to keeping the commandments of Christ! How sobering are the words: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” and be “in Christ” requires being baptized “into Christ!”
Yet, so many folks laugh, and make fun of the idea of baptism being necessary unto salvation! Do they not understand that they are laughing at and making fun of being “in Christ?”

— Frank R. Williams

Salvation is one of the sweetest words in the English language. It is enriched even more when we identify from what one is saved. Merriam-Webster gives this meaning: “preservation from destruction or failure; deliverance from danger or difficulty.” Of course, the meaning becomes even greater, as the degree of the danger is increased. If one is merely saved from stumbling, with little danger of being hurt in the fall; then, there is little rejoicing. However, if one is saved from a building that is on fire and one’s life is in danger of being lost; then, when saved there is great rejoicing! Therefore, it is easy to understand that the greater the danger, the sweeter the word salvation becomes!
When the word salvation is attached to the word eternity, as in eternal salvation, it has reached its sweetest state. The word of God is described: “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psa. 119:103). This being true of the word of God, how would we describe salvation; as being saved from eternal damnation? Eternal damnation being the worst loss that a soul can experience and being saved from such a loss; well, maybe we just don’t have the to words describe it. But, just a little taste of it would be sweeter than honey to our mouth, for sure!
Jesus at the house of Zacchaeus, who was little of stature, made this announcement: “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). So, just what did this mean to Zacchaeus? Zacchaeus was “the chief among the publicans” (verse 2), and at best was not thought of as being very good. First, tax collectors were hated and despised because they were usually fellow Jews who worked for Rome. Just to give you an idea of the taxes (As this is being written we are in tax preparation time.) Judea was in the province of Syria and every man was to pay 1% of his annual income for income tax. But that was not all, there were also import and export taxes, crop taxes (1/10 of grain crop and 1/5 of wine, fruit, and olive oil), sales tax, property tax, emergency tax, and on and on. Then, just to make things worse in the eyes of the Jews, it was actually a Roman official who was ultimately responsible to Rome for collecting the revenue of the province, but he sold the rights to extort the tax to the highest bidders. The text also reveals that Zacchaeus was rich (verse 2) which would not help his being in favor with the folks! With this information before you, take another look at Zacchaeus.
The context reveals the following as Jesus was going to the house of Zacchaeus and the folks were not very pleased about it; the text reads: “they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner” (verse 7). Right or wrong, this is what they thought! It is to this that Zacchaeus replies: “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold” (verse 8). So, here is Jesus, on the one hand, he has those who are charging Zacchaeus as being “a sinner;” and on the other hand, he hears the words of self-defense, “the half of my goods I give to the poor; …if I have taken any thing… by false accusation, I restore him fourfold” of Zacchaeus. What does Jesus do?
Jesus does not justify nor condemn the man of “little of stature,” but he announces, “This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” He introduces them to one of the sweetest words in their language, in any language: salvation! In doing this, he stated his mission into this world, “he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8). His death was not just any death, but “even the death of the death.” Upon his cross, he shed “the precious blood,” “as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19) of our redemption; of our salvation!
How sweet the word salvation! Let it ring throughout the land as we teach the gospel of Christ!

— Frank  R. Williams

The spirits of untold millions upon millions have been uplifted by the words of Jesus to his troubled disciples after he told them of him death. He said: “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know” (John 14:1-4). Upon hearing this, Thomas had a natural question: “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” (verse 5) If you do not know where a person is going, it is only natural that you do not know the way!
It is here that Jesus uttered the words under which we write: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (verse 6). The clear and unmissable truth taught here by Jesus is that, as he said, “I am the way … no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” This is not to say the other words are unimportant, for indeed they are, but we are going to make a point that is generally over looked using the words, “I am the way.”
Jesus being “the way,” and he used the definite article, as he did with all three words, “the way, the truth, and the life;” thus, making the point there are not ways, but “the way,” as in one way! Jesus is one, not two or three, so there is one way, not two or three. We would be amiss just here, if we did not also make the point there is but one truth, not two or three, as there is but one life, not two or three! However, the subject of this article are the words of Jesus, “I am the way,” and the implication of these words.
Jesus being “the way” unto the Father; thus, eternal salvation; does it not occur to anyone that it is most important to be in him? As the reader thinks about this question, how about these subjects: 1) the blood, as in the song, “Nothing but the blood; 2) the cross, as in the song, “The old rugged cross; 3) the death, as in the song, At Calvary; and 4) the resurrection, as in the song, He is Risen. Where do we find all these points? Take a look at the words of Paul to the church at Rome: “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. 6:3-4). Did you notice the words” 1) “baptized into Jesus Christ;” 2)” baptized into his death;” 3) “baptism into death;” and 4) “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?” Did you get it? Jesus said, “I am the way,” the way leads us: 1) “into Jesus; 2) “into his death;” and 3) “in newness of life!” And each one is by baptism! Yet, many teach that baptism is not necessary! Thus, by implication they are teaching that: 1) Jesus, 2) his death, and 3) his resurrection; are not important!
Yet, Paul did not stop here, but wrote: “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17-18). Now get this! The word “form,” “that form of doctrine” (teaching, frw) is the Greek “tupos” and means: “the mark of a stroke or blow, print.” Where is there a print, of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, but in baptism? Read once more the words of Paul: “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.” There is that “form of doctrine” which had been delivered unto those who were the church in Rome as Paul wrote.
Now, we must not forget the final words Jesus said to Thomas in our text: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Is there anyone, who claims to be a Christian, who believes that they can come “unto the Father” without the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus? Is there one who believes that he/she can come “unto the Father” without baptism? If so, you have a contradiction! When Jesus said, “I am the way,” he fully understood it lead through this death, burial, and resurrection; and it is baptism that is the “form of doctrine” where we come into his death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is the way!

— Frank R. Williams

The question of being taught wrong and baptized biblically is one that answers itself! That is, if one will just stop and think for a moment. How could a person be baptized biblically, that is, according to the teaching of Christ, when taught something other than the teaching of Christ? Biblical baptism is in the teaching of Christ! However, there have been some through the years and even now among the churches of Christ, who believe and teach that a person may be taught wrong and baptized biblically, so it is necessary to address the subject.
A good place to start this article is looking at the reasons some people are baptized. First, let us look at the United Methodist. From their own page the following: “We also believe that in baptism God initiates a covenant with us, announced with the words, ‘The Holy Spirit works within you, that being born through water and the Spirit, you may be a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ.’ This is followed by the sign-act of laying hands on the head, or the signing of the cross on the forehead with oil.” An interesting point to notice is that no New Testament authority is given for this statement. You can read through the New Testament and you never read anything like this and you will never see anyone doing anything like it. Clearly, the person who has been taught in this manner has been taught wrong; so how could his baptism be biblical?
Second, a look at what Presbyterians believe about baptism. The following is taken from one of their pages: “Presbyterians do not believe that baptism is essential to salvation, nor do we believe that we are saved by baptism. We believe that the normal mode of entrance into the church is by baptism but recognize that not all genuine believers have baptized.” This teaching clearly denies the words of Jesus, who said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16) and the inspired words of Peter: “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). There can be no doubt that all people who have been baptized upon being taught Presbyterian teaching, have been taught wrong and their baptism cannot be biblical.
Third, let us take a look at what is not so well known by non members of the Roman Catholic Church: “The baptism of desire applies both to those who, while wishing to be baptized, die before receiving the sacrament and ‘Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience” (Constitution on the Church, Second Vatican Council).” Have you ever questioned where the idea of the “pious un-immersed” came from? Well, you might have your answer in these words though the words, “pious unimmersed,” do not appear. Clearly the Roman Catholic Church teaches that a person, who has never been taught the gospel of Christ, can be saved and a person who has never been baptized can be saved. This teaching stand against the teaching of Christ (Mark 16:16)!
Fourth, a look at the Baptist Church and what they believe about baptism. Baptist teach that one is saved before being baptized! Here are the words of a Baptist: “Let us consider the account of those baptized into the first church on the day of Pentecost. ‘Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.’ (Acts 2:41). Preceding this verse Peter had preached a sermon with such power that the people, under conviction for sin, asked the question ‘What shall we do?’ Peter told them they must repent and because of this repentance be baptized. This is seen in verse 41. ‘Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.’ Here as everywhere else in the Scripture, these folks were already saved when they were baptized into the church.” This writer goes on to cover a number of cases where baptism took place in the New Testament, but in each case he reaches the same conclusion; namely that all were saved before being baptized!
In all four cases given above it is seen that each teaches a baptism that is not scriptural! In other words, each denomination teaches what is wrong, then, baptizes. How can wrong teaching end in a right baptism? If I believe I am saved before being baptized, then, I am being baptized for some other reason(s). Therefore, I have not obeyed “the teaching of Christ and let us remember, that salvation is within “the teaching of Christ!”

— Frank R. Williams

Is there a case of “re-baptizing” in the New Testament? In other words, is there a case where a person was taught wrong, baptized, then, taught right and baptized a second time? There are some who might even laugh at such questions, yet, the very idea of baptizing a person a second time is scorned in some places!
The subject is not new within the churches of Christ! Tolbert Fanning, with William Libscomb, the older brother of David, started the “Gospel Advocate” in 1855, Fanning was mentor to David Lipscomb; he wrote the following in 1859:
“Bro. N. W. Smith, of Georgia, recently immersed some eleven Baptists into Christ. This he did because their first immersion was only intended to bring them into the Baptist church. Whilst we do not desire to debate the necessity of re-baptism, we have no doubt it is as fully the duty of persons who are baptized without understanding the truth, as it was for the twelve who were taught, and no doubt, baptized by Apollos, to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ after they heard Paul preach. We do not intimate that the candidate must understand every thing regarding the ordinance of baptism to render the act valid in the sight of heaven; but our position is, that he must know some scriptural statement of the matter in order to acceptable obedience. If he should not know baptism is in order for the remission of sins, it may answer to understand that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, or in being buried in Christ and rising again, we put off the old man and put on Christ; but he who is put into the water because he is pardoned, has got religion–been regenerated and made and heir of God, evidently does not honor Jesus Christ, or in any sense obey the gospel. No one in profound ignorance can walk in the light; but there is neither occasion of darkness or stumbling, if we follow the dictates of the Good Spirit.” (“Immersion of Baptists,” Gospel Advocate 5 (November 1859) 346).
It may not be known by many today, but the “Firm Foundation” was started because of the disagreement on the subject of re-baptizing, by Austin McGary in 1844 and David Lipscomb of the “Gospel Advocate.” He gave the reason for starting the “Firm Foundation:” “to oppose everything in the work and worship of the church, for which there was not a command or an apostolic example or a necessary scriptural inference.” McGary taught that a person subject to baptism, as revealed in the New Testament, must be taught and understand, that baptism is unto the remission of sins. Lipscomb on the other hand, taught that the one being baptized only needed to believe in any scriptural reason qualified as scriptural baptism. By the late 1930s the McGary position came to dominate the churches of Christ in all but Middle Tennessee, which was most under the influence of Lipscomb. However, over the last few years the Lipscomb view has been making a comeback. Therefore, we have one of the reasons for addressing the subject in this series of articles.
It is being taught, just as it was in the past, that a person may be taught wrong, but baptized biblically. It must be understood by all who would set out to teach another the gospel of Christ. It would seem so unnecessary to say, yet apparently it is not, you must “teach” the gospel! You must “teach” Christ! In teaching the gospel, in teaching Christ, you must teach baptism. Now, just think about this simple question: “If you must teach baptism, would it seem out of place to teach the reasons for being baptized?” No! As a matter of fact, it would be totally out of place to affirm that you have taught someone about baptism, but did not teach them the reasons for being baptized. So, if you are going to teach the gospel, and you come to the subject of baptism, just what should you teach? First, you would teach that baptism is necessary unto salvation (Mark 16:16). Second, you would teach that baptism is unto remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Third, you would teach that one is baptized into the death of Christ (Rom. 6:3). Fourth, you would teach that we are “buried with him by baptism into death” (Rom. 6:4). Fifth, you would teach that you are “baptized into the one body,” which is the church (1 Cor. 12:13, Eph. 1:21-22). Sixth, you would teach that “baptism doeth now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). Seventh, you would teach that “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. 6:4).
Did I hear someone object, saying, “That is just too much to teach?” My answer is, are you teaching the gospel or not? Are you truly interested in the salvation of the soul/spirit that dwells within the body of that person you are teaching? Yes, it is true, you must be taught the gospel, and teaching the gospel includes the reasons for being baptized; if you are to be baptized biblically; this may require a second immersion! This would be the case, if the person was “taught wrong,” then, he would have been also be baptized wrong!

— Frank R. Williams

First, on the mind of a student of the New Testament and the subject of baptism should be that of John, the first person found to be baptizing. The subject in this series of articles is that “taught wrong, baptize biblically.” John and some who came to him to be baptized will serve us well just here.
John is in the region round about Jordan when the multitudes came to him in order to be baptized. However, John was unwilling to baptize some. Matthew wrote of the event: “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matt 3:7-9). First, from this event we should notice that John refused to baptize some. Therefore, not all people are fit subjects of baptism; in that they are lacking something. They may not have been taught; thus, they are not fit subjects of baptism. Second, they may have been taught, but have not obeyed what they have been taught; thus, they are not fit subjects of baptism. Third, one of these options being true, John refused to baptize some of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But, does the text identify which was the case; for what reason did John refuse to baptize these Pharisees and Sadducees? It is clear in John’s words, “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance,” that they had not repented. Keep in mind that John preached, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (verse 2). So, the conclusion is correctly reached that these Pharisees and Sadducees had been taught correctly; at least they had the opportunity to have been taught correctly, but failed to obey it. They had not repented! Repentance was a prerequisite to being baptized according to John’s baptism!
Is it the case that today, a person may come to be baptized, having been taught the truth, the necessary prerequisites, but having never done one (at least one) of them; therefore, is not a fit subject for being biblically baptized? Yes! This being true, would it not also be the case, if a person came to be baptized having never been taught, at least one of the necessary prerequisites; thus, having never obeyed this necessary prerequisite, if he was baptized anyway; would his baptism be a biblical? No! In the case of those Pharisees and Sadducees who came to John seeking to be baptized and John refusing to baptize, then we have a Bible example of a necessary prerequisite, being grounds for refusing to baptize them. But, this case also shows us the necessary prerequisite; something that is required in order to be baptized according to John’s baptism, which in this case was repentance!
However, this is not the only case that the New Testament gives us. Paul came to Ephesus and here he met twelve men who had received John’s baptism. From the context, it appears these folks had been baptized in John’s baptism after it had ended. Therefore, Paul says to them: “John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus” (Acts 19:4). John’s baptism not only looked at the present, repentance, but it also looked forward: “that they should believe on him which should come after him.” Therefore, even though John’s baptism was “the baptism of repentance,” it was also forward looking; and these are here shown to be prerequisites; but after Jesus had come, the forward looking part was null and void. John’s baptism was no longer acceptable. Thus, a rebaptism was called for!
The twelve folks in Ephesus give us a clear case that if one is taught incorrectly and baptized, their baptism is not acceptable, it is not New Testament baptism, and they must be re-baptized! This case also allows us to see that a person in order to be baptized biblically, according to the baptism of Christ, must know why he is being baptized and it must be according to the teaching of Christ! Clearly, if a person believes that he is saved before being baptized; his faith is not according to the teaching of Christ! If a person has not repented, but has been baptized, his baptism is not according to the teaching of Christ.
We must understand, repentance is a matter of faith, confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is a matter of faith; and being baptized in order to have our sins forgiven is a matter of faith. Therefore, the person who has been baptized believing that he is saved before being baptized; has a faith not according to the teaching of Christ. He was taught according to the teaching of man and he cannot be baptized biblically!
Those who would “shake the hand” of those who have been baptized in a denomination; who do not teach “the teaching of Christ” and welcoming them into the body of Christ; are causing such a one to continue in his sins, and doing great harm to the body of Christ! Talk about sitting upon the Throne of God, such have done just this!

— Frank R. Williams

In the early years as men were “searching for the ancient order of things” questions came up, articles were written, sermons were preached, and debates were conducted, and even division resulted over a number of subjects. One subject was that of baptism! As truth was learned on one subject, it was put into practice, but over time, this resulted in men leaving the denomination they were members of, as most were members of some denominational church. We of today need to learn to appreciate their struggles! All of these “truth searchers” were confronted with great opposition from their denominational friends and even family members at times. Yet, their love for truth burned so deep within their hearts, nothing would stop their march toward truth that would save their souls!
Of course, many subjects came up and became the object of searches to determine just what the inspired writers taught on the subjects. They understood truth stood in the inspired word and not within the thought and writings of men! Jesus himself settled this point when he asked: “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” (Matt. 21:25). Prior to the 1800’s many men had written on the subject of baptism, but it was still true, it was “of men,” and not “from heaven.” If these men had written truth on the subject of baptism, the truth was “from heaven,” and the authority was still not in the men who wrote. This brings us to the subject of quoting men from the time which we fondly call, “the search for the ancient order of things.”
These men were truly giants of the time! They stood equally with the founding “fathers” of our nation, in devotion, intelligence, and statesmanship. In fact, some of these men were friends with the politic leaders of their time. But, it must never be forgotten, they were just men, subject to the failities of mind of other men, then and now. In fact, it is not uncommon to find within their writings where they wrote two different ways on the same subject. Keep in mind just here, that Thomas and Alexander Campbell were Presbyterians and as such had received infant baptism, sprinkled; thus, the first study was what is called the mode of baptism. After much study of the subject, it was rightfully concluded that baptism in the New Testament was immersion. At this time, neither Thomas nor Alexander questioned their own baptism, though neither had been immersed. This helps us see the difficulty they had in putting together their learning and practice. In this case, both had been taught wrong and been baptized wrong, but came to understand that what they had learned was wrong.
It was in 1812 at the birth of Alexander’s first child that a serious study of scriptural baptism was made. The Campbell’s had all been sprinkled as babies, therefore, they concluded that they had not been scripturally baptized; that is, they had not been immersed. Mathias Luce, a Baptist preacher, was persuaded with some effort to immerse them. Here a question needs to be asked, “Why was it hard to persuade a Baptist preacher, who believed that baptism is immersion, to immerse them? Is there something missing in the story to this point?” For one thing, Campbell stipulated there was to be no “religious experience” called for, as there was no New Testament account of any converts ever being called upon to do so.
Though Campbell had come to understand the correct “mode” of baptism, immersion; had he in his “search for the ancient order of things” come to understand the purpose of baptism as it relates to remission of sins? Maybe we cannot answer this question, as we were not there and only have what he and others have written. However, it would only be a few years later that Campbell would write: “I do earnestly contend that God, through the blood of Christ, forgives our sins through immersion – through the very act and in the very instant.” Let it be understood, what Campbell knew, when he was immersed or did not know, does not change truth!
In this first article in this series, may I be so brave as to ask what others will not ask, was Campbell, at the time of his being baptized, if he failed to understand that baptism is unto the remission of sins; thus, his learning being wrong, was he baptized biblically? Be it before far from me to put myself upon the Throne of God; but I will not give comfort to those today who have not been taught why they must be baptized into Christ, and that baptism is unto the remission of their sins! Neither my salvation, nor anyone else’s depends on Alexander Campbell and his baptism! It is my responsibility to teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing, but the truth! Why would any gospel preacher do less?

— Frank R. Williams

The question has been and still is being raised, even among members of the churches of Christ, is baptism necessary to salvation? Yet, through the years preachers in the churches of Christ have debated this subject hundreds of times; while affirming that baptism is necessary unto remission of sins. It may also be said, that preachers in the churches of Christ have debated Baptist preachers so many times and converted so many members of the Baptist Church, that the Baptists stopped debating the subject!
Now, it is not uncommon for Baptist preachers to write on their “blogs” great swelling and bold articles, but when challenged, not a word is heard from them. Here is one question, a bold Baptist preacher put forth: “If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up? If I were to die before then, would I go to hell? If obedience to water baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, then I would.” (Bold words are his.) Let us just ask him, if I die before I believe, will I go to hell? If I did not repent before I die, will I go to hell? No answer is necessary! Is it so hard to locate enough water to immerse a person in?
Here is another of his questions: “If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to “lose my salvation” and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn’t my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry?!! – before I had a chance to sin so as to be lost again? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of heaven, isn’t that my best opportunity?” Here I will let John the apostle of Christ answer: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 John 1:8-10). First, John is writing to those who have had their sins forgiven. Of course, our brave writer is teaching against “falling from grace,” therefore, I shall allow Paul to answer the question: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Did Paul teach that one can fall from grace? Yes, he did and that is the end of the debate! It does not matter how one falls from grace, if it can be done, it can be done! (If you would like to look the page up: The quotes were taken from: David Martin, pastor of the Solid Rock Baptist Church, 5893 Old Brownsville Rd. E, Bartlett, TN 38135 USA; phone: 901-634-1622).
Now, let us get back to the subject of baptism. Turning to another Baptist preacher, Oscar Gibson, who writes under “Providence Baptist Ministries” while addressing “Baptists and Beliefs;” he writes: “We come now to answer the question of so many people, ‘why don’t Baptists accept the baptism of other faiths?’ I believe I can make it quite clear.” So, just how does he make it clear? Here are his own words: “The ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were not given to any individual, but to the church that Jesus built. Since Baptist churches are the only churches in the world without human origin, and go all the way back to Jesus Christ, we contend that Jesus gave the ordinance of baptism to these churches.” Before continuing, here is good time to look at the word “ordinance.” The English word “ordinance” means “an authoritative rule or law; a decree or command.” However, in Ecclesiastical terms, it refers to: an established rite or ceremony, a sacrament, the communion. It is best to see how the inspired writers of the New Testament used the words, but there are more than one such Greek word which needs attention: 1) “dikaioina,” means: “that which has been deemed right so as to have force of law” and is found in Luke 1:6 and is used referring to the Law of God; 2) “dogma,” means: “doctrine, decree and is found in Ephesus 2:15 and is used of the Law of Moses ; 3) “ktisis,” means: “the act of founding, establishing” and is found in 1 Peter 2:13 and is used of ordinance of man. These are given to show that the word “ordinance” is not limited to baptism and the communion. Though is it clear that Baptists so limit it! However, Gibson writes: “All Protestants received their authority to immerse and administer the Lord’s Supper from the Roman Catholic church, or from the church from which they went out in protest.” This means that the baptism of all other churches is not acceptable to the Baptist!
Did I hear a protest? Did I hear someone say, this is just not so? Let Gibson speak for himself: “Thus we do not accept the baptism of other faiths.” He also made the point that Baptists do not teach that baptism has anything to do with salvation! He wrote: “Understand, we are not talking of salvation. We are speaking of baptism.” There it is as clear as it can be stated; baptism has nothing to do with being saved! Yet, Jesus said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). Yes, it is true, that baptism is only for those who believe the gospel and being saved follows being baptized!

— Frank R. Williams

There is a practice among us to quote the early preachers (1800 – 1900), those who were “searching for the ancient order of things,” and to use them as authority. As one who teaches, “The history of the churches of Christ in America” (Having changed the term by which his period is identified because of how it has been abused.), one of the early things I learned was that it was not easy to come out of denominationalism! Then, as one who came out of denominationalism, I can say first hand, it is not easy to put away what one has been taught and embraced as truth for years! Thus, I have a firsthand experience, yet, my “darkness” was not near so “dark” as those early searchers!
In my teaching, I have described their efforts as, “one step forward and two backward” and two steps forward and one step backwards,” but finally, they were taking more steps forwards than they were taking backwards. Yet, at times they appeared to fall backwards! However, it is described, it was never as easy as one might believe! This continuing struggle can be seen in the writings of many, if not most, of those early “searchers!” One place this can be seen is in the subject of baptism.
Before getting into their writings, which show the personal struggles, allow me to point out that we have among us some young and some not so young preachers today, and yesterday, who have taken up the same debate, that a person does not have to believe that baptism is unto remission of sins; in order to have his sins forgiven in baptism. That is, if a person believes that he was saved, that his sins were forgiven before baptism, nevertheless, his baptism is biblical. Meaning, it is still according to Jesus’ words: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). In fact, this person may believe that these words do not be belong in the New Testament at all! This person in fact, does not believe Peter’s words: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis, into, unto, to, towards) the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). As he believes that he was saved before being baptized; that his sins were forgiven before and without baptism! Yet, it is now being taught, and has been taught by some through the years, that this person’s baptism is biblical and should be acceptable.
It is easy to quote from the early preachers, of which we wrote above, at different times in their writings views which go backwards and forwards. Take a quote from Alexander Campbell: “Therefore, none but those who have first believed the testimony of God and have repented of their sins, and that have been intelligently immersed into his death, have the full and explicit testimony of God, assuring them of pardon. To such only as are truly penitent, dare we say, ‘Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord,’ and to such only can we with assurance, ‘You are washed, you are justified, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God.” (The Christian System, 1839). Does this read like Campbell was teaching that a person who had no idea, or one who even did not believe that baptism is unto the remission of his sins, should “Arise and be baptized?” Just ask such a person, “When did you receive remission of your sins?” If he should say, “I received remission of my sins before being baptized;” it is clear he was not had not “been intelligently immersed into his (Christ’s) death;” that he did not “have the full and explicit testimony of God, assuring them of pardon.” Yet, you might read in another place in Campbell’s writings: “There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of faith, absolutely essential to a Christian–though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort. … But he that thence infers that none are Christians but the immersed, as greatly errs as he who affirms that none are alive but those of clear and full vision” (Lunenburg Letter, 1837).
However, in 1851, reflecting on almost 30 years of controversial discussion about the subject, Campbell wrote: “I say, then, that in order to the union of Christians, we must have a definite and unmistakable term indicating one and the same conception to every mind. If, then, the Christian Church ever become really and visibly one, she must have one immersion, or one baptism.”(Millennial Harbinger, 1852, p. 210).
So, what is the point? Men are subject to change; therefore, our authority does not rest in man, but in Jesus Christ! In “the teaching of Christ”(2 John 9) we have fellowship with God and Christ and outside “the teaching of Christ” there is no fellowship with God, or Christ!

— Frank R. William