Barnes church of Christ

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

Luke wrote of the church in Troas: “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). The events of the day were both normal and unusual, as in regard to “the day of the week.” It was normal for the saints in the first century to worship God every “first day of the week” and more than likely, the phrase, “break bread,” is used as a part of speach called synecdoche.
The words themselves, “break bread,” referring to the Lord’s Supper, but is the one part of worship that is only done on “the first day of the week;” therefore, the perfect part of worship to stand for the whole done on “the first day of the week.” Had Luke wrote, let us say, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to sing,” when we might have to struggled to prove that we have authority to take the Lord’s Supper on “the first day of the week.” Not that it could not be done, for a good student of the New Testament would have noticed that Luke had also written earlier, at the birth of the church, these words: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). So, Luke has given us two verses; first, showing what the first converts to Christ did after obeying the gospel did in worship; and second, what the church continued to do throughout; as she worshiped God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).
With these opening remarks before us, let us give some thought to these Old Testament words: “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD” (Psa. 122:1). Taking some liberty as we put these words into a New Testament context; they might read: “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the assembly of worship upon the first day of the week.” Here are a few questions: 1) Am I really glad when Sunday arrives? 2) Do I really take advantage of this great opportunity to worship God? 3) Do I put such an opportunity first in my life? Go ahead and answer these questions for yourself before reading the rest of this article.
Now let us go back to the text of Acts 20:7; and recall the earlier words; “The events of the day were both normal and unusual, as in regard to ‘the day of the week.” First, the normal was the church gathered to “break bread” upon “the first day of the week;” which we have looked at to some degree. Second, notice the unusual: “and continued his speech until midnight.” Just for the fun of it, as you answered the three questions above, did you give any thought to the idea, would you stay in the assembly, if the preacher “continued his speech until midnight?” Through the years of my preaching, I have known some clock watchers!
However, the Greek word Luke used, translated into our English word “preach,” is not what you might first think. It is the Greek “dialegomai” and means: “to converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss.” So, if you have visualized Paul standing and preaching as a preacher generally does on Sunday morning, then, you have the wrong thought. Luke is telling us that Paul was carrying on a discourse, a conversation; more than likely answering their questions while he talked with them about many things. All of this was “done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). But, this was not the end of the events
No, after the events about Eutychus, they went back into the third loft, ate, and Paul “talked a long while, even till break of day” (verse 11). Now, it is true, we do not know at what hour the assembly of worship started, but we can be sure of one thing, these saints first, worshipped God “in spirit and in truth,” then, Paul discoursed with them until midnight, then, after eating, he talked until the “break of day.”
One thing we can be sure of: “What a day of worship! So, I recall the words: ““I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD.” Is this the way you think, when the clock rings on Sunday morning?

— Frank R. Williams

Many times we start talking about doing something and before we know it, we have talked so much and the subject has become so large, we have long left the original subject and have no idea what we started talking about. As a small congregation, we may not be able to do large things, but we can do a number of smaller things. We, the elders, have ideas on how to make the outside of the building look better and it sure needs to look better. At the same time, being small in number means we are short on money; therefore, our plans are going to be small. It may be one thing at a time; a little here and a little there. If we plan well, each little thing will fit into the larger plan.
The same thing is true of the inside of the building. We have long talked about lowering the ceiling; as this will cut down on the cost of heating and cooling the building. Of course, it will also make the inside of the building look a lot better. With the lowing of the ceiling, we would also be able to put up the overhead project, or, so it will hang from the ceiling and will allow us to move the podium back to the middle of the pulpit area. Yes, we will have to raise the screen so it can be seen over the head of the speaker. This will require planning, so the ceiling, the screen, and the projector all work together. Now, if it does not work one way, we will be adjustable and do it another way. I can see it all working together in my head, but you know things do not always work the way you “see them in your head!”
Here is a good place to take a look at the words of Paul to the church of Ephesus: “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Generally, when we see the word “Spirit” and it has a capital “S,” our first thought is the writer is referring to the Holy Spirit; even though the word “Holy” is not in the next! We need to take a second look at this way of thinking! First, when the word “Holy” is not used with the word “Spirit,” this should get our attention. It should cause us to study the text more closely. Second, we should all know by now that the Greek was written in all capital letters; therefore, it was not the inspired writer who determined to put a capital “S” on the word “Spirit” in the text. Third, this means it is the translator, or the publisher, who determined to put the capital “S” on the word “Spirit” in the text. So, what does all this mean to us as we read and study the text before us? It means we must be open to the idea that the word “Spirit” may not refer to the Holy Spirit at all. However, if not to the “Holy Spirit,” then, to what does the word “Spirit” refer?
The context gives itself well to the idea that the word “Spirit” refers to “the disposition of the human spirit;” therefore, Albert Barnes wrote: “This does not refer to the fact that there is one Holy Spirit; but it refers to unity of affection, of confidence, of love. It means that Christians should be united in temper and affection, and not be split up into factions and parties.” Also Adam Clarke wrote: “ By the unity of the Spirit we are to understand, not only a spiritual unity, but also a unity of sentiments, desires, and affections, such as is worthy of and springs from the Spirit of God.” True, these are only the opinions of men, but what we write is always the opinion of man; it is just our opinion! To help us here, Clarke wrote this: “There can be no doubt that the Church at Ephesus was composed partly of converted Jews, as well as Gentiles. Now, from the different manner in which they had been brought up, there might be frequent causes of altercations.” Within most congregations today, there are brethren from different parts of the country, brethren raised in different cultures, then, we are just naturally different! The word “endeavouring” needs to have our attention here, as it means, “to exert one’s self!” It takes personal effort to reach what Paul is challenging the church to have and he adds: “in the bond of peace.” The Greek word (sundesmos) translated “bond” is used for “of ligaments by which the members of the human body are united together.” Truly this expresses the “bond of peace” of which Paul is writing! It also shows what each member must bring to this “unity of the spirit!”
Each member will have ideas of what we need to do, of how we need to do it; but in the end, only certain things can be done, and they can only be done in one way. So, how do we get to this one thing done and this one way? It is when each one of us gives ourselves to: “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

— Frank R. Williams

We are not there yet, but we sure are approaching it and it is a good time to look both back and forward. There are at least two reasons for looking in both directions: 1) to see the blessing of the past year and to see the shortcomings; and 2) to correct and do better in the coming year and to think about the blessings that are sure to come upon us in the New Year.
This is good both individually and as a congregation. If you will, allow me to do it this way; I have more than one pair of “shoes” in the Barnes church of Christ; 1) I am a member of the Barnes church; 2) I serve as one of the preachers; 3) I am honored to serve as one of the three men who are elders of the Barnes congregation; 4) I serve as Dean of students of the Oklahoma City School of Biblical Studies; 5) I am a teacher in the school; 6) I am director of our annual lectureship; 7) I am editor of our Journal “One Heart;” and last, 8) I write the weekly article for the bulletin and edit the bulletin. Don’t get this list wrong, it is not a brag list; anything from it! Over the past year I have failed to reach anywhere near the goal of any of these works! All of them have been done less to one degree or another than they should have been done! So, as an individual this means I have a lot of room for improvement! I could go into my shortcomings, but for the most part, you know them! But, take “One Heart” for just an example. I am to see that we put into the mail four issues for per year; but I have never got the job done! 2015 was the worse year of all, as I think we mailed out two issues. How is this for failure? You see what I mean about looking back and seeing where improvements need to be made!
Now, let us look at the eldership, and I think I can do this being one of them. First, I have always believed that a congregation will never be better than her elders! We have lead in getting somethings done, one that has been a “dream” of this congregation for years; the new restrooms. As this is being written great progress has been made and we can see with our own eyes the new restrooms, though not completed; the improvement in the foyer and hallway. Then, the building will be safer and more in accordance with the city code. There are other things that need to be done, but we are moving in the right direction in this area. We even have plans, as money is available, for a new library and sound room!
But, the elders need to do better! We need to put before the congregation a budget. A budget shows what we plan to do, where we plan to spend money in necessary areas; but also in future plans. A budget reveals our plans; it lets the congregation know where we plan to go in the year 2016.
A budget also lets the congregation know how much money is needed each week. Of course, God has given us the manner of giving: “as God hath prospered him,” and we each need to understand: “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). But, it helps when we all know where the money is going to be used and a budget does this.
So, as one of the elders of the Barnes congregation, I have opened the door and we have looked in; we have seen good and we have seen the need for improvement in the eldership. This may be the best thing that elders can do for the congregation which they oversee! After all, Paul did say to the elders of the church in Ephesus, as he looked at the overall charge: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Here calling attention to the opening words: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves!”
This is the first of more than one article on the subject, as we leave the “old year” and prepare to “enter the New Year.” We must not be afraid to honestly look at ourselves; how else can we ever get better?

— Frank R. Williams

Life in general, life lived through the years, and life lived daily, sometimes has bad events that must be faced. Yet, these bad events may be used for good or bad, and this depends on our character! There is nothing new about this; bad times are common to all of us. Do they make or break us? The answer to this question depends on us; it depends on the character we have made ourselves into.
When James wrote to those of the first century, his words must have sounded unbelievable: “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations (trials, frw); Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience (James 1:2-3). How can “trials” be counted as something good, something to rejoice over? These brethren were going through what Peter called, “the trial of your faith” (1 Pet. 1:7). Think about it this way, how would you ever know what kind of faith you have without “trials?” How would you ever be able to overcome really bad “trials,” if you had not faced little “trials” first? Be thankful for little “trials” which come upon you; and understand they give you an opportunity to grow stronger. Being stronger enables you to overcome the harder, the more severe “trials!” So, be thankful for those little trials which try your faith!
But, not everything in life is a “trial,” and we should be thankful for these. I am so thankful that I have the opportunity to worship with God’s children. That we can come before the great throne of the Almighty God, who, left on our own, we would have no right to even approach, but thanks be to God, we come through “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:18). Therefore, we can worship “in spirit and in truth (John 4:24):” 1) as our voices join together in singing beautiful biblical truths (Col. 3:16); 2) as we pray expressing our desires and needs to our Heavenly Father through him who can be “touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” and so we come “boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:14-16); 3) we give as “as God hath prospered” us (1 Cor. 16:2) knowing that “God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7); 4) as we individually, yet together take of the Lord’s Super: “ For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26); and 5) and being edified by the truth; as we feed upon the spiritual food, the word of God, in the manner Timothy was charged: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Yes, I am thankful for all such blessings!
Then, there is this beautiful truth that I am saved not based upon my own merit! For based upon my own merit, I would never be saved! Therefore, Paul’s words mean so much to me: “For by grace are ye saved through (the, frw) faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). If we will read this verse with care, we will get a better understand of it. First, the words, “that not of yourselves,” reaches back to the word “saved.” Meaning we are not saved of ourselves! Second, neither “grace” nor “the faith” is of us, both are from God and both are required in our being saved. The favor God bestowed upon us was not based upon our goodness; then, the plan of salvation, “the faith,” did not come because of our goodness. Therefore, our salvation is “not of yourselves!” I am so thankful that my salvation is not of man, for if it were, it would be no salvation! I am so glad that my redemption is by “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:18). You see, I rejoice in the words: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
With Paul, I say: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). I am thankful that God has put his power of salvation in “the preaching of the cross” and that I can have a little part in such! I am thankful that I can have fellowship with those of like mindedness; not only in the Oklahoma City area, but unto the utter most part of the earth! I am thankful for all of God’s children; who desire to follow him in his truth that makes us free!
Have you counted your blessings, have you counted your blessings lately? Well, count them, and name them one by one as the old beautiful songs says; and be thankful for each one! When the storm clouds come upon you, remember, God put a rainbow in the sky!

— Frank R. Williams