Is It Possible to Restore the New Testament Church? #2
Inspired writers predicted a great falling
away from the faith. Paul warned that
the time would come when men would not endure sound doctrine, but after their
own lusts they would find teachers who would preach what pleased them. The compromising preachers Paul had in mind
and our world is filled with them--would be like the prophets who preached what
the Israelites wanted them to. Isaiah
wrote: "This is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will
not hear the law of the Lord: who say to the seers, See not; and to the
prophets, Prophesy unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits" (Isa.
30:9-10). Such attitudes brought the
wrath of God down on
Most religious groups in our nation have departed from God's original
pattern for church government. Some
churches have elaborate governmental superstructures which have absolutely no
resemblance to what the New Testament teaches.
Besides, those churches combine hundreds or thousands of churches into
enormous organizations over which some president or director reigns. Why not follow the New Testament pattern for
church government? Churches in New
Testament times were independent entities which had as their leaders elders or
overseers or shepherds. Never in the
Bible can one find the word church being used of some national or international
structure. This departure from the New
Testament pattern has resulted in large organizations which make their own
rules and regulations and ignore what the scriptures teach on almost every
topic. These churches in many cases have
become a law unto themselves. They
decide by vote what they will teach and practice.
In New Testament times, churches followed the explicit teaching of
God's word. They had no voice in
deciding what doctrines were to be believed, preached and practiced. Paul by divine inspiration pronounced a curse
on anyone who departed from God's pattern.
"I marvel that you are so soon removed from him who called you into
the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be
some who trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven, preach
any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed. As we said before, so say I
now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have
received, let him be accursed. For do I
now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek
to please men? For if I yet pleased men,
I should not be the
Churches have no right to decide what
governmental structures they will follow; those decisions were made two
thousand years ago by the Holy Spirit.
Nor may churches decide what they will preach. God’s word tells us what men and women must
know, believe and do to become and to remain faithful Christians. If we want to have God's approval, then we
must follow his word implicitly and explicitly.
The Old Testament laid down this principle which has not been cancelled. "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto
the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that
you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers
gives you. You shall not add unto the
word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you
may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Dt.
4:1-2). Why do individuals and churches
have difficulty understanding and living by this principle?
Churches have also departed from God's
pattern for the kind of music the church should use in its worship to God. Some religious groups use mechanical
instruments of music, as if they were still living under the law of Moses. Many of those same churches have perverted
the Lord's supper in various and sundry ways.
Some have even decided to have the Lord's supper on Thursday night or at
any other time they would like to have it.
Time will not allow a full discussion of the many departures from the
pattern God has given in his word, but I want to dwell for the remainder of our
time on perversions relating to New Testament baptism. Virtually every religious group in the world
which calls itself Christian has some teaching on baptism. But our concern is: What does the Bible teach
about baptism? Very briefly, let me
review what God's book says about baptism.
Jesus and his apostles taught that New Testament baptism is for, in
order to, or unto the remission of sins.
Mark records our Lord's Great Commission in these words: "Go into
all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be
saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16). Christ's language is so simple and so
powerful no one should have any difficulty understanding what Jesus said and
what he meant. Baptism saves--not
baptism alone--but baptism as one of the actions an alien sinner must take to
be forgiven. Peter taught the same truth
in his great sermon on Pentecost.
"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit" (Acts
The reformers of
If the reformers and other teachers have
departed from the Bible's teaching on baptism, what can modern teachers,
preachers and churches do to correct the situation? We can and must do what men like Alexander
Campbell, Barton Warren Stone and other faithful gospel preachers have
done. We must return to the clear Bible
teaching about baptism. We must begin
to preach--if we are not already doing so--what Paul taught the Galatians
Christians: "For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus. For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal.
Not only have Calvinists and others perverted
the Bible's teaching on the purpose of New Testament baptism; they have also
strayed from its teaching on the subjects of baptism. In New Testament times, only penitent
believers were baptized--never infants who cannot believe and have nothing for
which they need to repent. On the day of
Pentecost, Peter convinced the Jews of their complicity in the death of God's
Son--the Jewish Messiah. The Jews
believed the truth Peter preached and asked Peter and the other apostles,
"Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
Peter told them to repent and to be baptized for the remission of their
sins (Acts 2:37-38). Only those who
believed on the Lord and repented of their sins were baptized on the day of
Pentecost. Babies are not sinners. They could not believe and repent if they
were. Babies do not need to be
baptized. The scriptures nowhere require
baptism for babies; nor do they even hint that such ever took place with the
Lord's permission. O I know about
Cornelius and his household, the Philippian jailer and his household, but there
is not a man alive who can find a baby in these households. If they could discover babies in one of these
households, they could not find any command to baptize those babies. Surely, no one would seek to find
justification for any practice on such flimsy evidence.
Some denominational churches have changed the
action of baptism from immersion to sprinkling and pouring. It was several hundred years after the
church's beginning on Pentecost until sprinkling became a widespread practice
in religious circles. There are no
cases--not one--of sprinkling or pouring as substitutes for New Testament
baptism. The word "baptize" (baptizo)--means
to dip, to immerse, to submerge--not to sprinkle or to pour. The New Testament uses words for sprinkling (rhantizo)
and pouring--there are at least five of these--but not one of these words for
sprinkling or pouring is used of New Testament baptism.
But one does not have to know the Greek to
understand the action of baptism. The
story of the eunuch's conversion in Acts 8 makes plain the action of
baptism. The Ethiopian eunuch asked
Philip the evangelist: "What hinders me from being baptized?" Philip answered, "If you believe with
all your heart you may be baptized."
Now please listen carefully to what transpired on that occasion. "And the eunuch commanded the chariot to
stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the
eunuch; and Philip baptized the eunuch.
And whey were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught
away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went away rejoicing"
(Acts 8: 36-39).
If Philip had planned to sprinkle or to pour
water on the eunuch's head, why did they both go down into the water? It would have been much simpler if the
preacher had simply taken a cup or a canteen of water and poured it on the sinner's
head. Besides, there is nothing in
pouring or sprinkling which even faintly resembles the death, burial and
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Yet that is the kind of language Paul used of men's obedience to the
gospel. "Do you not know, that so
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his
death? Therefore we were 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" (
Let me give you one example of conversion as
recorded in Acts 8. After Stephen had
been stoned to death, there arose a great persecution against the body of
Christ in
What did Philip say about the
Philip also preached to the Samaritans about
the name of Christ. Oh yes, I am
familiar with the saying, "There is nothing in a name," but no one
has ever arrived at that position from his study of the scriptures. Peter told the Jews on Pentecost,
"Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"
(Acts 2:38). Peter said to the Jewish
leaders who had rejected Christ as their Messiah: "This is the stone which
was set at nought by your builders, which is become the head of the
corner. Neither is there salvation in
any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we
must be saved" (Acts 4:11-12).
Peter wrote to some early Christians as follows: "If any man suffer
as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that
name" (1 Pet. 4:16),
Can I prove that what I have read to you from
the New Testament is what Philip preached to the Samaritans about the name of
Christ? No, nor am I wanting to leave
that impression. But Philip did preach
the name of Christ and so must we--if we want God's blessings to rest on
us. It is through his name and by his
name that we are his children. Paul
exhorted the Colossians: "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the
name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks unto God and the Father by him"
(Col. 3:16).
My final question relates to baptism. What did Philip say to the Samaritans about
baptism? My friends, I do not know. Did he preach what I have read to you from
Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6, Galatians 3 and 1 Peter 3? We do not know because we cannot know. But we do know the passages I have read to
you and what the import of those passages is.
We know the purpose of baptism, the ones who are to be baptized and what
the action of baptism is. But I do not
know how much of that information was given to the Samaritans.
I also know that no one can preach Christ
fully and faithfully without preaching baptism.
Jesus Christ began his personal ministry be requesting baptism at the
hands of John the baptizer. He completed
his work on earth by commanding the apostles to go into all the world and
preach the gospel, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15-16). How can anyone claim to preach the truth
about Christ and neglect to preach about baptism?
I urge you today--if you are not a New
Testament Christian--to confess your faith in Jesus as the Son of God, repent
of your alien sins and be baptized into Christ for the remission of sins.
Winford Claiborne