Table of Contents

Chapter One-Introduction

Chapter Two-How to be Saved

Chapter Three-What Constitutes Scriptural Baptism?

Chapter Four-The Lord’s Supper

Chapter Five-Scriptural Method of Financing a Church

Chapter Six-Church Government

Chapter Seven-Church History

Chapter Eight-Church Covenant

More Information

Chapter One-Introduction

I want to open this booklet by saying with all the emphasis at my command EVERY CHRISTIAN SHOULD BE A CHURCH MEMBER and also say with equal emphasis EVERY CHURCH MEMBER SHOULD BE A CHRISTIAN.

To even suggest one can be as good a Christian and remain outside of church membership as he can by being a church member, is an insult to human intelligence and a gross insult to God. Sane reasoning forces us to admit that every Christian should be a church member or else everyone of them should refuse to be a church member. God certainly does not put it into the heart of one to be a church member and into the heart of another to refuse church membership. Logic forces us to conclude that it is Satanic influence that causes anyone who claims to be a Christian to long remain outside of church membership.

Surely it is an insult to God to refuse membership in the church which Christ founded. If the church is of no value and church membership of no importance then God placed a valueless institution in the world and all the Apostles and early Christians, who affiliated with the church and went about establishing churches, were guilty of supreme folly.

If being a church member is so vital a matter, it is certainly of great importance that we be members of a true Scriptural church. Reason forces everyone to admit that Christ did not found a variety of churches with conflicting ideas or with ideas conflicting with the Scriptures. It behooves us to study carefully and prayerfully lest we become affiliated with some unscriptural organization that poses as a true church of Christ.

It might be well at this point to ascertain the meaning of the word "church" as used in the New Testament and note the various ways it is used. The Greek word from which the word "church" is translated means a called out and assembled together group. This Greek word had been used to designate secular assemblies long before Christ applied it to His church. Just to be called out did not constitute a church, they also had to be assembled together.

The church Christ founded is a called out people. He taught that even though His followers are in the world "they are not of the world" (John 17:14). They are indeed a called out and separated people having become new creatures in Christ Jesus by the new birth, but to be a Scriptural church they must be united together as an assembly on the conditions Christ has prescribed. We shall discuss these conditions in the following chapters.

Now let us note the various ways the word "church" is used in the New Testament. The word "church" which means a called out and assembled together group of people is used in four ways and I shall give a Scripture reference for each.

1. The word is applied to Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38).

2. It is used several times of non-Christian assemblies (Acts 19:32,39,41). The translators translated it assembly in these verses, but it is the same word they have translated church more than 100 times.

3. The word is used in the institutional sense as we might say "the school is a great institution," by that statement we would mean any school but not all schools assembled together in one great assembly. Or as we might say "the dog is man’s best friend," by that statement we would not mean all the dogs formed into one mammoth dog, but we would refer to the dog family meaning any dog. When Christ says "My church" in Matthew 16:18 He means any New Testament church and not all the churches gathered together in one great assembly in this world, for such is not possible.

4. The word church is used most frequently in the New Testament to designate some specific local body, as the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2). "The seven churches that are in Asia" (Rev. 1:11).

When I use the word church in this book, I will use it in one of the when we refer earthly ministry, these are the only two ways it is ever referred to in the Scriptures during its earthly sojourn.

A very dangerous theory that is widely taught and believed is that the church consists of all believers in ages past, present and future. Those who so teach, use such last two ways mentioned. I am sure that to the church Christ founded during His terms as universal or invisible church or some kindred term. I have already pointed out that the very meaning of the word "church" requires the assembling together in one group and it would be impossible to assemble the group mentioned above at anytime or place in this world. we are not discussing what shall happen to the church after the resurrection of the saved. I am discussing the church from the time Christ founded it until the time He will come again for it or during its earthly sojourn.

This so-called universal or invisible imaginary church is not only contrary to the very meaning of the word "church" but such a monstrosity could not function. It could not be the custodian of the church ordinances or administer them. It could not receive and dismiss members. It could not administer church discipline. It could not carry out the evangelistic, missionary, benevolent, educational program Christ has set up for His churches. The only churches we find in the New Testament are local organizations.

Another dangerous error is to assume that all organizations that call themselves churches are equally Scriptural and therefore all we need to do is to find the one that suits us best and join it. This could not be true for it makes God the author of confusion and accuses the Holy Spirit of establishing churches that conflict with each other and also with the word of God. God is not the author of confusion.

A third erroneous view we possibly should give a little attention to is: There is no true Scriptural church in the world today. The trouble with this view is that it contradicts the words of Christ in His very first reference to the church for He said, "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." If the true church has disappeared from earth then surely the gates of Hell have prevailed against it.

I am sure that a true church is a body of baptized believers with the Holy Spirit as its administrator and the Bible as its guide in all things. If it is not according to the Scriptural pattern, we know it is a man made institution rather than a true church.

It is only natural that the various so-called churches, that sprang into existence hundreds of years after Christ founded His church, should argue the universal church idea or that true churches disappeared from the earth or that all are equally Scriptural or that the Scripture does not give us any definite pattern for church organization and operation. That is the only way they can justify their existence, organization and methods, for if they admit that there has been a true Scriptural church founded by Christ and existing continuously since that time, they would be admitting they had no right to start another.

Let us also consider briefly the meaning the term "denomination" has come to have in the minds of many. This may not be the definition you find in your dictionary, but we believe the following definition is the meaning commonly accepted by most people, namely: A denomination is a group of churches of similar views who have organized themselves into one centralized organization and this organization formulates the policies and programs for the churches affiliated with it, also exercising authority over them, sometimes a great degree of authority, sometimes very little, nevertheless, affiliated churches are expected to look to this organization as something over and above local churches. In other words many think of this large unscriptural organization as the denomination, its officers as leaders of the denomination and its offices as headquarters of the denomination.

Apparently many Baptist churches have traveled a long way in that direction, nevertheless, it is unscriptural and true Baptist churches are each of them an independent local democracy with the Holy Spirit as the administrator of all their affairs and the Bible which the Holy Spirit has given them as their guide. Therefore it is not right to use the terminology "The great Baptist Church" meaning the aggregate of all Baptist churches united in one organization and terming it "The Baptist Denomination." Let us think and speak in Scriptural terms, recognizing each church as complete and independent, then we will speak of them as "The Baptist churches" and not "The Baptist Church."

I believe in a regenerated, enlightened church membership, members who have firm convictions founded on the clear teachings of God’s Word, members who know what the church they are a part of believes and teaches and why they arc a member of it.

I believe that careful and prayerful study will prove that true Baptist churches are true Scriptural churches, both history and Scripture giving abundant evidence of this fact. In as much as the church is such a grand institution of Divine origin and in as much as every Christian should be not only willing but anxious to be a member of it, I believe they should be anxious to be the best possible member.

The following chapters are written with the hope they will help Christians to better understand a few vital truths that should help them to select a Scriptural church home and take their proper place in church life. I realize I am touching but a few points of this vital subject, but as a pastor for twenty-five years, I have found much confusion on these points. It is my firm conviction that when you have grasped the truths treated in the following chapters you will not find it very difficult to grasp most of the other Scriptural teachings about the church.

Chapter Two-How to be Saved

The most important of all questions is "What must I do to be saved?" Paul answered it by saying, to a penitent sinner, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31). That is all a penitent sinner can do. This man gave evidence of repentance. Salvation is certainly through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and a personal, definite experience that trusts everything one hundred per cent in the merit of the sacrifice Christ made, when He bore our sin in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (1 Pet. 2:24). The blood and nothing but the blood of Christ can cleanse from sin. This truth is stated in 1 John 1:7, "The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin." That blood, indeed, cleanses from all sin past, present and future.

The individual who thinks his good works, his high morality, his culture, his sacrifices, his tears, his baptism, his church membership, his giving, his service or anything else he is or does has any power to cleanse of even the smallest particle of his sin, simply does not understand the plan of Salvation. You can’t be saved and trust partly in Christ and partly in self effort and the individual, who thinks his Salvation depends on the atonement Christ made plus his own works, just can’t be saved.

It is our judgment both from studying God’s Word and from observation that the most wide-spread false doctrine in all Christendom is the teaching that we must trust in Christ and be just as good as we can be through our own effort to be saved or that we must trust in Christ and be just as good as we can in order to stay saved.

A thorough examination of all false religions will reveal the fact, that they teach Salvation is totally or partly by good living and good works. Anyone who so teaches is a false teacher and a real enemy of the truth. It matters not how sincere he might be. If we feed deadly poison to our children, thinking it is good food, the result will be death, just as truly as if we poisoned them purposely. The fact we were sincere will not alter the effect of the error.

Certainly God’s Word teaches that Christians should live holy, clean, honest, upright lives in every way. It teaches that perfection should be their goal, that they should crucify the flesh with all its lusts, that they should desire to keep their bodies clean, that whatsoever they do in word or deed should be done to the glory of God. It says they are to glorify God in their Spirit and in their body, that they are to walk in the spirit and they shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. But it teaches very clearly that the saved do these things not in order to be saved or to stay saved, but in order to please and glorify the Savior, who gave Himself to save them. It also teaches they will not fully reach this high goal until they awake in His likeness in their resurrection bodies, but will be constantly laying aside every weight and the sin that besets them, that they might better run the race and better exemplify, glorify and satisfy their Lord. If the saved fail to live as a child of God should, they will be chastened for their sins of omission or commission, but not condemned to hell.

We have digressed from the subject of Salvation in the last few paragraphs because we thought it well to show that while good, works can not save us or keep us saved, they are the inevitable fruits of Salvation. When we are born into the family of God we are born with an appetite for Spiritual things just as truly as the babe born into this world has an appetite for material food.

Now let us return to the subject of Salvation. There are but two dominions in this world, Christ’s and Satan’s. You belong wholly to one or the other. Christ said "lie that is not for me is against me and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

Christ’s domain consists of all those who have been born again having exercised repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21), "Testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." I also believe all dying in infancy are saved.

Satan’s domain consists of all who have not exercised repentance toward God and faith toward 01.11- Lord ,Jesus Christ or all who have not been born again.

1. We should be Christ’s by the right of creation. (He gave us our life.)

2. We should be Christ’s by the right of provision. (He provides us with all that sustains life.)

3. We should be Christ’s by right of redemption. (He died to redeem us.)

However, the human race chooses to turn from God to Satan (Rom. 1:21, 28), "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." The unsaved portion of the human race in all ages has lived in open rebellion to God’s revealed will. Since the first sin of man, the battle has been fought between Satan and Christ and Satan is, indeed, the god of this world and most of the human race still choose to follow him. The natural man certainly proves how exceedingly evil he is when he will take the life God gave and the provisions God supplies and use them to serve Satan. Could anything prove more conclusively his total depravity?

Christ redeems and keeps all who wish to be delivered from Satan’s domain, if they will but put their case wholly in His hands. Those who try to escape by their own power are doomed to fail. Eventually Christ will completely crush Satan and his domain and Satan with all his followers shall be cast into the lake of fire forever and ever and the earth will be purged of every trace of contamination Satan and his followers brought upon it.

In concluding this subject let us notice a few clear statements from God’s Word:

1. The entire human race is declared sinful. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10). "For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

2. It declares the results of sin is death and certainly this means separated from God now and eternally. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23). "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1).

3. It teaches Christ Himself died in our place, actually bearing the penalty of our sin in His own body. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (1 Pet. 2:24). "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6).

4. We become God’s child by faith in Christ, trusting completely in the sacrifice He has made in our behalf on the cross. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12). "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).

5. God promises to keep all who are saved. "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand" (John 10:28-29). "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 24).

6. God’s Word teaches that this new life received when we received Christ expresses itself in upright living and good works. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). "What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s" (1 Cor. 6:19-20). "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Col. 3:17).

Chapter Three-What Constitutes Scriptural Baptism?

Before I open the discussion of Scriptural Baptism, I wish to make a few general remarks that indicate my attitude toward all Scriptural subjects. I certainly believe every Christian should be as broad on all subjects as the Scripture, but I also believe he should be as narrow as the Scripture on all subjects. Whenever we step beyond the Scriptural boundary line we have gone too far.

The Scripture teaches salvation was purchased for us by the shed blood of Christ on Calvary’s cross and it becomes our personal possession when we accept Him by faith as our own personal Savior. I do not believe anyone has a right to teach otherwise. I also believe we must accept and follow the Scriptural teachings on all other doctrines and that none have the right to add to, take from, change or by any word or act indicate that they approve of such things being done. I believe it is as much the duty of the Church to adhere rigidly to the teachings of God’s Word on the doctrine of baptism as any other doctrine.

No individual who is saved has the privilege of choosing whether or not he will be baptized. God’s Word commands it and refusing to submit to it is nothing less than disobedience to the clear teachings of God’s Word.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). This certainly teaches the converts were to be baptized. There is much reason to doubt the salvation of those who profess to be saved and yet refuse to be baptized when they know God commands it. One of the very first fruits of salvation is the desire to do God’s will.

There is not the slightest indication in the New Testament that any of the early Christians ever refused or even hesitated about the matter of baptism. We find the very opposite to be true. They were not only willing, but anxious to fulfill this command as quickly as possible. Acts 2:41 tells us they were baptized the same day they were converted. Acts 10:47-48 tells us as soon as there was evidence of salvation baptism was administered. Acts 8:36-38 tells us the eunuch desired baptism as soon as he believed and they stopped the chariot and baptized him. Acts 16:32-33 shows the jailer was baptized immediately when he believed.

However, the early Christians were in a little different position than the present day converts for then there was just one church and one mode of baptism. Today there are many churches, all claiming to be true to the Scripture and so much confusion about what really is the right mode of baptism that the present day convert may have to take time to carefully study in order to clear these things up before he is in a position to offer himself as a candidate for baptism. Every thinking individual knows that all cannot be right and every individual of integrity and conviction wants to be right.

The individual, who carefully studies these matters from a Scriptural viewpoint, rather than just taking someone’s word, should certainly be commended. God’s Word commends the Christians at Berea because they searched the Scripture rather than just taking man’s word (Acts 17:11).

It doesn’t matter what the preacher says, what mother or father says, husband, wife or friend says, it doesn’t even matter what we think about it, but what the Word of God teaches is final on every subject.

Acts 2:41 shows that on the day of Pentecost about three thousand were baptized; it also refers to them as being "added to them," that is added to the group of disciples or the church. Here we see the door into the local church is Baptism. Keeping in mind the fact the church first authorizes such baptism as a prerequisite for membership. Acts 2:47 clearly teaches God adds the saved to the church so we see they were being baptized into church fellowship as fast as they were being saved. Though this verse does not mention baptism the method of adding has been stated in previous verses. We believe there is little discussion on this point as most all churches require what they call baptism as a pre-requisite for church membership.

The figurative teaching of baptism is clearly set forth in Romans 6:3-4, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we arc 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." See Colossians 2:12.

It is a real picture of the same truth the Holy Spirit proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4—"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures."

It proclaims to the eye the fact that we have died with Christ, we are buried with Christ and our resurrection is assured in Christ. We also believe it signifies that we have died to the old life of sin, are buried in the watery grave (not buried to kill us to old life of sin, but because we have died to it) and coming up out of the watery grave typifies we have risen to walk the new or spiritual life. In this discussion we have now reached phases of the baptismal question about which there is much discussion and many differences of opinion, therefore, we would like to define and then discuss what constitutes Scriptural baptism. We are not doing this merely to attack others and tear down their arguments, but with the hope it might help some to see the clear teachings of the Scripture on this important and vital subject.

Scriptural baptism is the immersion in water of one who has accepted Christ as his Savior, this immersion having been authorized by the proper authority (the proper authority is a church that believes and practices only Scriptural baptism), and administered by the proper administrator (the proper administrator is one who has been Scripturally baptized, and believes, teaches and practices Scriptural baptism and has been authorized by a Scriptural church to administer baptism to the candidate). It is administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

We shall spend very little time discussing the mode of baptism for we believe the Scripture is so clear on this subject every honest, unbiased mind must grant that the only Scriptural mode is immersion (Matthew 3:6; 3:16; Acts 8:36-39; Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12). The very Greek word "baptizo," from which our word baptize comes, means immerse, dip, plunge. Church history proves conclusively that immersion was the only mode used in the early church. We once heard a great preacher and teacher (who was not a Baptist), say "there is no use for anyone who claims to be either a student of history or Scripture to deny the fact, that for the first two and one-half centuries after Christ nothing was known as baptism save immersion." That statement should have fully settled the question, but he added this: "But in as much as God has used and blessed immersion proves He baptism." To the last part of that statement we reply: God uses men even though they make this error and not because of it. I believe that some men who are truly great and godly men along other lines have made this serious error and God has continued to use them but that does not put God’s stamp of approval upon this error. If God could only use men who are one hundred per cent free from error, He would have no one to use. God has used some men greatly who were post-millennial in view and teaching; this too is a serious error and God did not use them because of this error but used them even though they had erroneous views on this doctrine. I could mention other doctrinal errors great and godly men have held and God used them, however, we have said enough to show that God uses men even though they do teach some error and not because of it. I certainly believe we should honor and love these men whom God uses but we do not believe we should subscribe to or practice the error they teach and practice. I believe it is the duty of every Christian to refrain from practicing and teaching error as fully as possible and try to keep others from being misled by it rather than excusing and encouraging it on the grounds that many great men of God have made this error.

I have already referred to the Scripture which points out that the only Scriptural mode of baptism is immersion. I now want to give you Scripture to show that only believers are fit subjects for baptism (Matthew 3:7-8; Acts 2:41-42; 8:36-39; 10:47; 16:31-34; 16:14-15; 8:12-13).

Even though one be immersed by proper authority and proper administrator, it is not Scriptural baptism if the candidate is unsaved. In regard to the question as to who men, who have not been baptized by has no displeasure in other modes of constitutes the proper authority to authorize the candidate’s baptism, there may be some differences of opinion. I believe baptism is a Church ordinance and the Church is the custodian of it. I do not believe it is an ordinance given to every individual Christian to be practiced absolutely independent of all Church authority. It would seem that logic forces us to accept one of these two positions. I believe it is generally agreed by not only Baptist churches but most other so-called churches that baptism is a Church ordinance and the Church has a voice in the matter of baptism of all candidates. Some may invest the pastor with the power, but even in that case the church gives him his authority, or they may use some method of delegating the authority to just a few, a board, a committee, etc., yet all these methods recognize the church as the source of the authority. As Baptists, we do not believe in centralized power in pastors or any other individual, nor do we believe in delegated power placed in the hands of pastors, boards or committees. Occasionally a situation might arise where it is wise to appoint a committee for a brief period of time to perform some specific task, but even then a Church should instruct them what to do as far as possible and have a complete detailed report of what was done. There is no Scriptural authority for delegating power to a few and it is certainly unwise and unbaptistic to do so. However, I must not digress into a discussion of church government in this message and my reference to what other churches believe in regard to church authority on the question of baptism is simply to point out how the vast majority of all churches recognize the church as the authority, even though they have different methods of handling the matter. I affirm that great numbers believing and practicing a certain view does not prove it right; frequently majorities are wrong. What saith the Scriptures?

The first we read of baptism in the Scripture is where John the Baptist is baptizing converts. In Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:30; Luke 20:4, Jesus speaks of baptism as though it began with the ministry of John the Baptist and certainly his question implies that the source of John’s authority was from God, but what I want you to note is that God did not give this authority promiscuously but to one person divinely selected.

Jesus Himself came to John for baptism, thus recognizing the Divine source of John’s commission to baptize. John 3:22 to 4:3 shows that when Jesus entered upon His public ministry He authorized and had His disciples baptize, though He did not baptize (John 4:2). Nevertheless He did not just authorize every one who was saved to administer baptism. I also believe that. He gave the great commission to the church. We note He had instructed His disciples to baptize during His earthly ministry. He also gave them as a group the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper in the upper room and gave them as a group the commission in Matthew 28:16-20.

Someone might argue that Acts 9:10-19 furnishes a case of baptism without the church authorizing it. That may be true and yet we are told there were a group of disciples in Damascus (Acts 9:19) and they may as a local church have authorized this baptism; however, we do know that God personally authorized it and we do not claim God makes rules so iron clad He Himself becomes a slave to them. Saul’s conversion as well as his baptism was different than the average case in many respects. The case of Phillip and the eunuch in Acts 8:29-39 furnishes another case where no church authorized his baptism, but again we have a case where God sent a special man to a special task and therefore a case where God authorized the baptism. However, in Phillip’s case we have a man who had been especially selected by the church as an outstanding man to be one of the seven for special duties (Acts 6:1-6).

Possibly as he developed into a mighty preacher the church may have instructed him and others, being scattered by the terrible persecution then raging, to go forth and baptize converts much as they instruct missionaries today. We do not say such was the case for this is another case of special Divine guidance and therefore Divinely authorized.

The case of Paul and Barnabas and the other early missionaries may be cited but Acts 13:1-4 shows that they were sent out both by a special Divine call and church authority, as we send forth missionaries today; therefore, the church had approved of their administering the church ordinances and establishing churches when they were sent out.

But ii there be those who insist baptism is not a church ordinance and that any saved, baptized individual has a perfect Scriptural right to administer it to any other saved individual, then we are logically forced to this position. Every saved, baptized individual has a perfect right to baptize, without any church authority, any other individual who has accepted Christ any time or place that individual is willing to be baptized. If such baptism is Scriptural no church has the right to reject it. Personally, if I had to choose between being baptized by someone who had been Scripturally baptized but had no church authority to baptize me or some one who had not been Scripturally baptized and did riot believe in the Scriptural mode or purpose I would certainly prefer to be baptized by the one who had been Scripturally baptized. Yet I wonder what would happen in the average Baptist church that accepts immersed members from other than Baptist churches, if at some service where the invitation was being given for church membership, someone would say I was on an outing with one of the members of this church a few days ago. I had accepted Christ and there was a nice stream of water there so I just had this Baptist brother baptize me and I expect to be received into this Baptist church on that baptism. I imagine someone would say, who gave him his authority? Why didn’t he have you come before the church and have the church authorize your baptism? Why weren’t you baptized by one whom the church authorized to administer the baptism? I expect lie would be rejected. I know he should be.

But let us change the picture a little. Suppose someone came with a letter or saying I was baptized by a man who was never Scripturally baptized, who says it doesn’t make any difference what mode is used; sprinkle, pour or immerse. However, he immersed me because I insisted on it, the church that authorized my baptism holds the same views the administrator held. Some dear brother moves to receive him, who did not believe they should receive the one who had been baptized by a Baptist because the church had not authorized his baptism. I would still much prefer to have the first man in the church for he could at least plead there was some similarity between his case and the one of Phillip and the eunuch in Acts 8:26-30 and the last individual doesn’t have anything in the Scripture that even resembles his case.

But another candidate comes with a letter or statement from a church that teaches immersion as the only mode of Scriptural baptism but the church also teaches baptism is essential to salvation. The one who administered it claims he had to be baptized to be saved and also claims he baptized the candidate in order to save him. The church that authorized his baptism authorized it as a part of the candidate’s salvation. Yet many Baptist churches will receive such baptism as valid and Scriptural. I would still rather have the first man, the one who had been baptized by one who had been Scripturally baptized and one who was baptized as an act of obedience because he had been saved, than the one who had been baptized to complete his salvation, though I certainly would oppose receiving even the first ones.

But I would like to ask a few questions:

Could sprinkling, pouring and immersion all be Scriptural modes of baptism? Certainly not.

Is it logical to believe that a church that teaches so un-Scripturally on the doctrine of baptism, is fitted to authorize Scriptural baptism, even when they authorize immersion? Not very probable.

Is a man, who has never been Scripturally baptized and who teaches the mode of baptism makes no difference, a fit subject to administer Scriptural baptism, even though he immerse, (which he usually does only when the candidate insists)? Certainly not.

Does God ever commission a church to authorize baptism to complete the candidate’s salvation? Certainly not.

Is a man who believes he had to be baptized to be saved and teaches baptism is essential to salvation Scripturally fitted to administer baptism? Certainly not.

But no doubt someone will say the candidates are not responsible for what the church that authorized their baptism believed and taught nor for what the one who administered it believed and taught. All that is necessary is that the candidate’s mode and purpose be right. I am forced to differ with this statement. First, I ask this question: If the candidate had the right view of baptism both in regard to its purpose and mode, why did he receive it from a church with un-Scriptural teachings on this doctrine and at the hand of an administrator whose views were un-Scriptural on the subject? But all parties involved must be held responsible.

First, a church cannot Scripturally authorize a candidate’s baptism unless he professes to have met the Scriptural requirements and there is no known evidence to the contrary. Certainly a church could not Scripturally authorize the baptism of a candidate, who did not profess to be saved or who sought baptism in order to be saved or where there was known evidence he was living a life that proved his profession of salvation untrue.

Second, an administrator can only administer Scriptural baptism to the one who professes to have met the Scriptural requirements and when there is no known evidence that proves the profession untrue. If the candidate by his profession and actions deceives the church and administrator and they act in good faith, the candidate will answer to God for this deception. The church and administrator are not responsible.

Third, a candidate does not have the privilege of accepting baptism on the authority of a church that is not Scripturally qualified to grant such authority, nor at the hands of an administrator who is not Scripturally qualified to administer baptism. Even though the church claims to meet the Scriptural requirements, and the administrator makes the same claim, where their teaching and practices on this subject are un-Scriptural, that in itself is evidence they lack the Scriptural qualifications and are unfitted to administer Scriptural baptism. Therefore, the candidate has no right to accept it from them.

A church only has a right to recognize and accept Scriptural baptism and they cannot make un-Scriptural baptism Scriptural even though they recognize and accept it. When a church does accept or recognize un-Scriptural baptism, they have done the individual, they so receive, an injustice and have shown a willingness to compromise with false doctrine.

But why will a Baptist church receive un-Scriptural baptism even though it be immersion? We list several reasons. There may be more. First, failure to understand the teachings of God’s Word on the subject. Second, a willingness to disregard the teachings of God’s Word on the subject. Third, a desire to get more members Scripturally or otherwise. Fourth, afraid to take a stand for fear we will offend someone or be considered narrow. But ask the average Baptist church or Baptist preacher if they are just as happy to receive members baptized by other churches as they are those baptized by Baptist churches? Many of them who follow the practice will admit they prefer Baptist baptism.

If other baptism is Scriptural it is certainly entirely right and in every respect equal to Baptist baptism and the church should receive it as whole heartedly and gladly as they receive Baptist baptism. If they receive it reluctantly that is evidence they are doubtful and they better not receive it at all.

One proof showing that many Baptist churches, who receive alien immersion, do not believe the churches from which they receive these members are on a Scriptural basis is found in the fact they will not grant letters to these churches. The very member they received on alien immersion could not get a letter to go back to the church he came from. To illustrate our point, we might say we once knew of a Baptist church that received alien immersion and had several alien immersed deacons and this deacon board recommended to the church a constitution stating they would not grant letters to churches other than Baptist. We would like to have someone explain why members should be received from the churches they would not grant letters to. If these churches are Scriptural, we should grant letters to them as readily as we receive letters from them. If they are un-Scriptural churches we should neither receive letters from them or grant letters to them.

The individual coming from another church to a Baptist church certainly should do so because he believes the Baptists are right and the church he comes from wrong, where the two hold different views or he has no just reason for changing. It is hardly possible for him to consider both churches equally right where their teachings conflict, yet it is frequently true that those who come into Baptist churches on immersion received in other churches become very angered if the pastor preaches the whole truth on baptism. You then see clearly they have changed churches but not convictions.

A Baptist church surely could not welcome into its fellowship those who do not classify it in their judgment as the only Scriptural church. A man may come into a Baptist church with the attitude it makes no difference what church one belongs to, but in that case he has no convictions and really is not a Baptist. It is almost impossible for anyone to really believe that all churches are equally Scriptural. Even though some people make statements to that effect most of them by their actions indicate they do not so believe.

May I ask this question: If anyone believes that all churches are equally Scriptural or even believes that many of them are equally Scriptural does not that very argument condemn all but the first one organized? What right do I have to start another denomination today if there are already Scriptural churches in the world. The only logical argument that any one could give for launching new denominations would be that the others are un-Scriptural.

When you study the origin of all the denominations that have sprung up since the time of Christ they all claimed they started a new movement on a Scriptural basis. Some of these are only a few hundred years old, some much less, some are now being formed and I suppose still others will be. By their actions and teachings all these imply (even though they do not actually say so) that there was no true Scriptural church in the world when they started theirs.

I believe Matthew 16:18 teaches that the church Jesus built will remain in the world until its mission is completed. I certainly do not believe that the gates of Hell have prevailed against it. Therefore, I am forced to believe there has always been a true church of Christ in this world from the day Christ started it and will be until He comes to receive it unto Himself. Certainly Baptists have a glorious history carrying them back far beyond the reformation period, therefore they are much older than any protestant church. We believe it can be and has been historically proven that there have been churches from the time of Christ that held substantially the same views that Baptists hold today. Different names have been applied to them, usually by their persecutor, just as the name Anabaptist was originally applied by their persecutors. There are many histories I might mention but I believe one will be sufficient; John T. Christians, "History of Baptists."

Again I say if all churches are equally Scriptural (though we deny that they are) certainly the only one that could prove its right to exist would be the oldest one. All the others should be censored for starting new churches, causing divisions, multiplying organizations, creating confusion and causing unnecessary waste of money in spreading the gospel because if one is as good as another, one could take care of the average field and there is no need of so much overlapping.

Logically there could be the formations of new denominations only on the basis their founders believed all others wrong and did not want fellowship with or membership in them. The very fact of their formation is a refusal to be members of the churches then existing. However, when members from these churches decide they want membership in the churches their founders refused membership in, they think these churches should receive them into their membership just as they are and be glad to get them. If they refuse many of them term them narrow, bigoted, uncharitable, non-cooperative, etc. How strange it sounds to hear those who started divisions, confusion, discord, non-cooperation and refused membership in the churches then existing take such an attitude toward them now. Who caused the division, discord, and confusion? The old or the new? Did not the founders of all new denominations treat the oldest as though membership in it was undesirable? Let us be fair and put the blame for divisions, dissensions, and confusion where it actually belongs.

Certainly this line of reasoning could lead to but one logical conclusion, if all are equally Scriptural (though again I say they are not) then the younger denominations should withdraw in favor of the oldest.

This line of reasoning would put all in the Baptist camp. Therefore, I conclude the only logical argument any church can give for organizing a new denomination would be that in their judgment there were no Scriptural churches in the world when they organized and when they take this position they are logically forced to declare all the churches existing at the time they organized were un-Scriptural, therefore, they could not believe that both their church and the Baptist churches are Scriptural churches, thus when they really become Baptists they will have reversed their opinion and believe the Baptist churches the Scriptural ones. While this line of thought is both interesting and profitable and much more could be said along this line yet at present we must not take time or space to develop it farther but return to our original line of thought.

One may come from another church into a Baptist for convenience sake because he is nearer or for business or social advantages, yet his doctrinal views remain in accord with the church he came from, in that case he is a Baptist in name only. Unless one is a Baptist by conviction he isn’t a Baptist at all and it is unfair to the church for him to seek membership in it with beliefs that are unbaptistic. You can’t make a Cadillac out of a Ford just by putting it into a Cadillac display room or putting the name Cadillac on it; neither can you change members of other churches to Baptists just by transferring membership to a Baptist church.

It is certainly unfair to any real Baptist church for any pastor or other members to invite or urge people into its membership who are unbaptistic in their beliefs and object to coming in the Baptistic way. It is equally unfair to the individuals, who are being invited into the Baptist fellowship, for if they are not Baptists in belief they are much better off in the church they believe is right. However, if they as a matter of conviction have decided the Baptist Churches are right, they naturally must conclude the one they are a member of is wrong. Having reached this conclusion they will no longer be satisfied with baptism received from a church lacking Scriptural authority to authorize it and by an administrator without the proper Scriptural qualifications. They will naturally desire Scriptural Baptism and come into the Baptist church in a Scriptural and baptistic way and thus be a true Baptist.

Everything is to be gained and nothing lost by a Baptist Church that dares to remain one hundred per cent true to God’s Word on the baptismal question as well as all other questions. When we once begin to compromise on any doctrine there is no place to stop. So it is best to stop before you start.

To those who have made a mistake in the matter of baptism, all I know to tell you is correct that mistake as you would any other mistake by having it done in the Scriptural way. Follow the example set by those mentioned in Acts 19:1-5, even though your mistake might be different than theirs. Their method of correction was the only Scriptural method. Have it done Scripturally.

There are many who strongly criticize those Baptist churches that adhere strictly to God’s Word on the question of baptism, calling them narrow, bigoted, etc. Quite often these same individuals are perfectly willing to hold membership in churches that have un-Scriptural practices on the teachings of baptism. And they will commend churches that are un-Scriptural on the subject because they are so charitable and broad. Is it possible that they really believe we should surrender the clear teachings of God’s Word just in order to avoid offense to man? Is it not much worse to offend God in this or any other matter? Let us hear the words of Christ in Matthew 5:19. Here we are told that the one who broke one of the least of the commandments and taught it so among men would be called least in the kingdom of heaven or in other words he will lose his reward. It is certainly a logical conclusion to believe this rule applies to all of God’s people in all ages and that all who teach, practice, encourage or approve things contrary to God’s Word, shall lose at least part of their reward even though their souls are not lost.

I have written with the hope I might help some to understand some things about baptism it took me many years to clearly comprehend. Once in my early ministry I recommended receiving one who had been immersed in a church that taught sprinkling, pouring and immersion are all baptism. The more I study our Bible and church history, the more I am convinced the views expressed in this message are Scriptural and logical. I send it forth with the hope it might be helpful to some.

Chapter Four-The Lord’s Supper

There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding on this very important subject. I believe that most of this misunderstanding has been brought about by taking men’s opinions rather than a thorough study of God’s Word. I think that the first thing we need to fix clearly in our minds is that it is the Lord’s Supper, therefore, He alone has the right to fix the requirements for partaking and say who are fit subjects to partake. If anyone of us should prepare a supper we would certainly claim the right to say who should be invited to partake of it and if someone we considered a friend should be so presumptuous as to tell us what to serve, how to serve and then insist on the right to invite whomever he pleased, we would certainly think his actions exceedingly unfair. Is it not evident that for any professed Christian or group of Christians, to change by adding to or taking from the clear teaching of our Lord, on the proper observance of His Supper, must be exceedingly grievous to film who instituted it?

I believe it is the duty of every church to observe the Lord’s Supper in accord with the divine pattern and mandates. We shall not endeavor to answer any of the man made arguments on this subject, but we shall endeavor to set forth the clear teachings of the Scripture on this subject. All must agree, that when we see what God’s Word teaches on any subject we need no man made arguments, for God’s Word speaks with absolute authority and finality on all subjects it presents.

A careful study of when and how "The Lord’s Supper" was instituted reveals a number of very important and interesting facts. It was in the evening and while I do not insist it should always be in the evening, I do confess that I prefer to have the church come together in the evening for just the purpose of observing "The Lord’s Supper" and after they have done so to quietly pass out. Our experience in observing it in this manner has lead us to much prefer this instead of either having it at the close of a morning or evening service. There is something about coming together for just that purpose that gives a different atmosphere to the service. There is one thought and purpose in hearts and minds of all, which helps all to grasp more fully the meaning and sacredness of the Supper.

The original pattern certainly teaches close communion, for Christ took only the twelve Apostles with Him when He instituted the Supper and it is our understanding that even Judas departed before "The Lord’s Supper" was instituted. I believe the open or close communion question will be settled, in a large measure, by the proper answer to the question, "Whom did Christ make custodian of The Lord’s Supper?"

I believe the Scripture clearly teaches "The Lord’s Supper" is a church ordinance and therefore the church is responsible to see that it is Scripturally observed. There may be those who believe it is not a church ordinance, but was promiscuously given to every individual Christian to be observed individually or in groups without any church supervision or oversight. As I see it, to believe in open communion, it would be necessary to insist it is not a church ordinance, for if we agree that it is a church ordinance then the only logical conclusion is, that the first requirement for partaking of the Supper is membership in a Scriptural church.

I do not accept the universal church idea, which teaches the church consists of all the saved, but even if I did, reason would tell me such a thing could not function and could not be custodian of the ordinances. I believe the word "church" is used in two ways in the Scripture. One use refers to the church as an institution and the other as local bodies.

Many scholars and Bible students, other than Baptist, agree "The Lord’s Supper" is a church ordinance, but our principal reason for believing it is a church ordinance is, God’s Word teaches us it is. Every place in God’s Word where we are told any thing about the observing of "The Lord’s Supper" it is a local church (and there is no other kind) that meets together to observe it. There is not a case in the Scripture, I have ever been able to discover, where messenger bodies or groups of Christians other than a local church ever observed "The Lord’s Supper." In as much as "The Lord’s Supper" is a church ordinance we must agree that all who are not members of a Scriptural church are Scripturally barred from the Lord’s table.

How do we define a Scriptural church? The most widely accepted definition among Baptists is the definition given in the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, from which I quote the first phrase, "We believe the Scriptures teach that a visible church of Christ is a company of baptized believers." To save space we omit the rest of the definition and I think the part quoted would be a better definition if the word visible were omitted, for when we use the word visible it implies there might be some other kinds of a church besides a visible one. Every church and individual that believes a church is a company of baptized believers, certainly could not believe a church is a company of unbaptized believers, or a company of people baptized to make them believers or a company of people baptized before they are believers. Therefore, unbaptized people could not constitute a Scriptural church and do not meet the Scriptural requirements to partake of "The Lord’s Supper."

If someone should ask what constitutes Scriptural baptism I reply: Scriptural baptism is the immersion in water of one who has accepted Christ as his Savior. This immersion having been authorized by a proper authority (a proper authority is a church that believes and practices only Scriptural baptism) and administered by a proper administrator (a proper administrator is one who has been Scripturally baptized, that believes, teaches and practices Scriptural baptism and has been authorized by a Scriptural church to administer baptism to the candidate). It is administered in the name of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I need not argue that to be received into the membership of a Scriptural church one must have received Scriptural baptism, for that is evident.

My conclusion on this part of the discussion is that the Lord placed His Supper in Scriptural churches to be kept, guarded and administered by them and that only members of Scriptural churches are qualified to partake of this Supper.

I believe two other conditions for partaking are clearly taught in God’s Word namely: We must be in fellowship with both God and the church that administers "The Supper" to meet the Scriptural requirement to partake. Many things seen and unseen to the eye of our fellowmen may break our fellowship with God. I believe that is the reason the Scripture urges each individual to carefully examine his own heart before God before partaking. There may be sins hidden in our lives the church cannot discipline because it doesn’t know they are there. There may be covetousness, hate, hidden immorality, dishonesty, desire for self-exaltation or planned sin we are just waiting for an opportunity to give expression to. Many times the sins of omission break our fellowship with Him. Oh, how many of us refuse to do many of the things we know we should do, shun every possible responsibility, refuse to make any sacrifice for His cause always putting selfish interests before His interests. Yes, many things can break our fellowship with Him. That is why we need to examine our hearts so thoroughly before partaking. There are those who refuse to partake because they know they are not in fellowship with God, apparently they prefer to remain in a state of broken fellowship rather than confess their sin as they are told to in 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," and have that fellowship restored.

It certainly is not right to take the position that one has a right to remain out of fellowship with God providing he refrains from partaking of the "Lord’s Supper." God expects everyone of His children to be in fellowship with Him and restore broken fellowship by confessing and forsaking his sin, then he will be a fit subject to partake of "The Lord’s Supper."

No doubt, some actually refrain from partaking of "The Lord’s Supper" because of a conviction they are unworthy and they think 1 Corinthians 11:29 which says, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body," means that those who are unworthy should not partake. They say they are not worthy to partake and certainly none of us are worthy of salvation or any of the wonderful manifestations of God’s mercy and on that interpretation of the verse everyone would be barred from "The Lord’s Table." The very belief that we partake of the Supper because we think ourselves worthy to do so would prove us unworthy. On this verse we would like to quote the comment of J. R. Graves. "It does not say that if unworthy, and we eat and drink we are guilty of the body and blood of Christ, but if we eat and drink "unworthily"—an adverb, and not an adjective—and we should rejoice that it is so, for we are all unworthy to be accounted the friends, much less the brethren and sisters of Christ and children of God. No man such an honor. The fearful drink in an improper manner, the ordinance—in a word, body."

Now let us consider the other part of the statement affirming fellowship with the church where one partakes of "The Lord’s Supper" is essential to Scripturally partaking. There are a number of offenses that members may commit making it mandatory on the church to withdraw fellowship from them. Certainly when God commands the church to withdraw fellowship from a member, He is not going to invite the member out of fellowship with His church to partake of "The Supper" which would indicate he is in fellowship with God. One can not be out of fellowship with the church and be in fellowship with God, unless it be a case where the church has acted contrary to the teachings of God’s word. In such a case an individual would be duty bound to oppose such church action. Such a church would not have a Scriptural right to serve the Lord’s Supper until it repented and returned to the teachings of God’s word.

There are a number of things specifically mentioned in the Scripture for which a church should withdraw fellowship. One reason is stated in Matthew 18:15-17 "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of’ two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." These verses teach that those who will not accept the decisions of the church and settle their differences on that basis should be dismissed from fellowship."

The following verse states a number of’ reasons why that ever lived was worthy of threat is to those who eat and in violation of the laws of "not discerning the Lord’s fellowship should be severed. 1 Corinthians 5:11: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." It is possible that the command not to cat here may mean we are forbidden to even eat a common meal with them, but certainly if that be true the Lord is not going to invite them to His table, after forbidding us to eat with them.

I need not comment upon fornicators for all agree such are not fit to fellowship. The same is true of the idolater and drunkard, but we cannot escape the fact that it is just as contrary to God’s will to have fellowship with the covetous, railers, and extortioners. Many people are so covetous they will steal what actually belongs to God. The tenth is the least we have a Scriptural right to give Him, but many are too covetous to give Him even that. I will discuss this more fully in the chapter on church finances.

Railers are those who use abusive language, this is also a reason for terminating fellowship. Extortioner is one who has a greedy, grabbing, disposition. God put them right in the same class with fornicators, idolaters and drunkards and also tells the church to refuse them fellowship. Church bosses are hated of God, therefore they are out of fellowship with Him and the church, Revelation 2:6: "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Also 3 John 9, 10: "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church."

Worldliness is a cause for non-fellowship: Ephesians 5:11 "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Disorderly walk severs fellowship: II Thessalonians 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." Disorderly walk in this case seems to refer primarily to those who were too lazy to work and help support the church but wanted the church to support them, verses 7 through 12 indicates this.

A heretic is to be rejected: Titus 3:10 "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject." This means one who causes factions or we might say divisions caused by self-willed or doing and teaching what he pleases independently of the teachings and practices of the church.

All of these things axe Scriptural causes for the church withdrawing fellowship and hence they bar those who practice them from the "Lord’s Table." Might I call attention to the fact that the church discipline should keep those mentioned above from "The Lord’s Table" and in as much as the church has no power to discipline others than its own members, it certainly is not in a position to administer "The Lord’s Supper" to those it cannot discipline hence it can only Scripturally administer "The Supper" to its own members.

In as much as I desire to keep this article brief I will not discuss the many un-Scriptural teachings regarding this ordinance. We are not at liberty to choose if we will partake of the "Lord’s Supper" or not. Jesus told all of His apostles to drink of it in Matthew 26:27 and if He commanded all of them to, surely He must expect all of His followers to do the same. Just imagine some of them walking out or just sitting there and refusing to partake and saying they were not fit to partake. True they were far from perfect and in that respect were like all other Christians but they were in fellowship with their Lord and they were assembled together.

This ordinance has a very significant meaning. It is not a sacrament and its observance has no effect upon the Salvation of the soul. Transubstantiation and consubstantiatian are both unscriptural. It is a sacred ordinance. It shows us how Christ sacrificed His very life for us (Matthew 26:28; 1 Cor. 11:24-25). The fruit of the vine representing the blood of Christ which was shed for our sin. The broken bread represents the body of Christ broken for us. Surely He was beaten, smitten, spit upon, crowned with thorns, pierced by the cruel nails and the Roman spear all for us.

Our partaking of this Supper symbolizes the fact that our Spiritual lives must be sustained by feeding upon Christ.

Last let us note that this ordinance also has a forward look pointing to the time of the glorious return of our Lord for He said "Till I come again." Surely all Christians should deem it a great privilege to partake of this Supper and they should see to it that they meet the Scriptural requirements to partake. The church should see that its membership is properly instructed regarding the Lord’s Supper and certainly the church, whom Christ has made custodian of the ordinances, should be very careful to see that it is Scripturally observed. It is certainly a serious offense for a church to attach unscriptural teaching to the "Lord’s Supper" and observe it in ways contrary to Divine revelation.

Chapter Five-Scriptural Method of Financing a Church

How shall a Church be financed? First, let us approach this question from the standpoint of cold hard logic. Let us first make the logical application to those who are outside the Church.

May I ask the following questions? What would the country be with all churches and all church influences removed? Would you want to establish your home and rear your family in a land entirely void of all churches and all church influences? Do you believe the community and nation is better and safer because of the influence of the church and the teaching of Christian principles? Do you not believe Christ was right when He said of Christian people in Matthew 5:13-14: "Ye are the salt of the earth" and again "Ye are the light of the world." If Christians are indeed the light of the world and the salt of the earth and if the churches are a blessing to our community and nation; if our families are safer and our lives are happier because of the church and her teachings, then both saint and sinner are reaping great benefits from the church.

Cold hard logic teaches that every one is a debtor to his benefactor and the one, who wishes to reap all the benefits while others bear all the responsibilities, has a low rating in the minds of all thinking people.

I would further say that it is not really a donation when you invest your money in an institution that gives returns far greater than the value of the investment. In our nation we have schools, courts, police departments, etc. I believe they are necessary for the good of society and certainly we do not believe that others should pay their up-keep and we should be relieved of such responsibilities, but share in all the benefit. Neither do we call it a donation to charity when we pay taxes to support them. I believe they are necessary. The same cold hard logic would make every thinking individual a supporter of the church for all reap benefits from it.

In 1 Samuel 25 we have the story of Nabal, a man who failed to appreciate the benefits he received from the protection God’s servant had given him and his possessions (1 Sam. 25:21) and when they asked a slight favor at his hands he treated them with scorn and acted as though they were beggars. (1 Sam. 25:11.) He wanted everything for his own personal gratification even to the extent of dissipation. (1 Sam. 25:36.) Many people are like Nabal thinking they can scorn giving anything to the cause of God and use everything they get possession of for their own pleasure but they too will one day learn the folly of such reasoning. Verses 36 through 38 shows how God’s hand fell in judgment upon this selfish, ungrateful man. May we remind you at this point God is no respecter of persons and all who treat God’s cause so shall some day be punished for so doing. Even though cold logic says that every fair minded man should be willing to do his part to support that ,from which he reaps great benefits, yet I do not believe the church should expect unsaved people to support it and try to work plans and schemes to get such support. There is certainly no Scripture to indicate the early church ever did so.

Now let us apply logic to those within. If you are a stockholder in a company do you expect to reap returns but expect the other partners to pay all upkeep, running expenses, etc.? Certainly not. You expect to pay your part as well as receive your part. If you go on an outing, a hunting or fishing trip do you expect the other members of the party to pay all expenses or do you expect to pay your part? If you belong to a lodge, a labor union or a club do you expect them to carry you as a member in good standing if you refuse to do your part? You know they would not. Why not apply the same logic to your church? It is the most important institution in the world. Every Christian admits that. We know it is of Divine origin, that our Lord gave His life to found it, that He is watching over it, that He is present whenever it gathers together and that some day He is coming to receive it to Himself. We believe He gave to the Church the great and glorious mission of evangelizing the world; yet many members who profess to believe all these things (if not audibly, yet in heart and mind) complain because they are expected to do their part to support the church. May we digress enough to say people never grumble and complain about supporting that which they love. A man who loves his wife and children gladly supports them and feels very, very badly if he is unable to do so. Even so everyone who truly loves the Lord and church for which He died and which He loves so dearly, will be extremely happy because he has the privilege of supporting it with his presence at its services, with the talents he has, with his prayers and also with his money. I like to take the most kindly view possible and I do believe the reason so many Christian people give so meagerly and often grudgingly is because they have not been rightfully instructed from the Word of God on this subject. While I am fully convinced that the voice of logic would make every member a happy loyal supporter, I believe the voice of inspiration speaks with greater force than cold hard logic alone, though I certainly believe that logic and inspiration agree on this and all other subjects.

What does God’s Word teach on this subject? If it teaches us anything at all on this subject whatever it teaches must be accepted as final and certainly every child of God will want to follow His teaching on this subject the same as on all other subjects.

There are some who seem to believe the Lord gave the church guidance on all other matters but no guidance on how it should be financed. They insist His Word teaches how members should be received, how the Lord’s Supper should be observed, how the church should be governed, how missionary work should be carried on, etc.; and they even admit He had a financial plan for Israel but say He hasn’t any for the church. If there is no Scriptural plan to finance a church, then every church and every member in every church has an equal right to his opinion and all of these opinions must be treated with equal respect, admitting however that some might reason out a better financial plan than others. Such views of church financing can lead only to financial confusion.

Let us lay aside all personal opinions and search the Scripture with the desire not only to know, but to follow its teachings on this subject. Let us note a few facts found in 2 Corinthians eighth chapter. 2 Corinthians 8:1 refers to the disposition to give us a grace of God bestowed upon them. Surely God has implanted in the heart of all who are truly saved the desire to give. Let us note carefully the fruits of this grace in their lives. Verse 2 shows they were in GREAT trials of affliction and DEEP poverty but even in this condition there was ABUNDANCE of joy and RICHES of liberality. Verse 3 shows they were WILLING givers and even to the great apostle Paul it seemed as though they were giving beyond their power. Verse 4 indicates that the apostle, knowing their circumstances, hesitated to receive their gift but they entreated him MUCH that he would take this gift and use it to take care of the needs of the saints. What a picture of the effect of God’s grace working in the hearts of redeemed people so gloriously that even though they are in great trial of affliction and deep poverty they plead for the privilege of giving to the needy saints and these saints were not in their own church or community but lived at distant places and were unknown to them. How different it is today when it seems we must plead with people (who are in far better circumstances than these saints at Macedonia) in order to get them to give. In verse 6 we find he is sending Titus to the church at Corinth in order that he might finish in them the grace of giving. We need many men like Titus today who can develop in churches and individual Christians the grace of giving. Verse 7 emphasizes the fact that it is not sufficient to abound in faith, knowledge and love, but they are to ABOUND in this grace also. What does he mean by "this grace?" He means the grace of giving and when he says abound in this grace he means that we should have the disposition to give in great abundance.

2 Corinthians 9 says much about giving. Let us carefully note some of its great truths. Verse 6 shows a man reaps in proportion to what he sows, therefore a man who gives little needs to expect but little from God and the one who give much will receive much from God. I do not believe this means you will become rich in this world’s goods by giving to the Lord or a pauper if you do not, for even Paul the writer of this epistle was poor in this world’s goods, but it certainly means great spiritual blessings will be given you in this world and great eternal rewards will be yours. By giving you are laying up treasures in Heaven (Matthew 6:19-21). Your pastor and church are doing you a very great injustice if they do not teach you to give. They are robbing you of a chance to invest your money in a way that will pay eternal dividends. Verse 7 warns us against giving in the wrong spirit. God not only sees the gift but the spirit and He does not want that which is given grudgingly, nor does God want us to give because of necessity. Some give because they feel it is necessary to maintain their standing, some because they are high pressured into doing so, but not cheerfully. The following verses in the chapter emphasize how marvelously God’s grace is lavished upon the cheerful giver. 1 Corinthians 13:3 shows that if we give all our possessions and even our life and are prompted to do so by any other motive than love, it will bring no blessing at all to the giver. Acts 5:1-12 shows God so abhors the wrong motive for giving that He stuck the first pair dead that gave to get praise from man. In the preceding chapter we learn Barnabas and others had given every thing they had but were prompted by the motive of love. Ananias and Sapphira wanted the church to think they were also willing to give all they had so they concealed a part of it and gave the remainder. Their motive was to maintain their standing in the church, but in reality they gave grudgingly, and God struck them dead. Many a man has lied to the church on the question of giving since that time, either by pretending he had given all he could when he really had not, or pretending he could not give when in reality he could. God has not struck all such dead but God is no respecter of persons and He does not think more of people who give from wrong motives or practice deception on the giving question now than He did then.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 gives us a little added light on Scriptural giving. First, it is to be done regularly (the first day of the week); second, none are exempt (everyone of you); third, it is to be proportionately (as God has prospered you). This brings us to the question, is there any way to know what proportion constitutes Scriptural giving? To this question I answer, yes. Let us briefly summarize what we have discovered. First, that the disposition to give is a grace bestowed by God in the heart of the redeemed: second, that where that implanted grace has taken root in the heart it produces such a desire that even though we are in affliction and poverty, even though Christian leaders think we are giving beyond our power, we will insist on giving; third, we find Christian leaders are to develop the grace of giving in the church and Christian people are urged to abound in this grace also; fourth, we learned our blessings will be in proportion to our giving; fifth, that God insists the spirit of giving must be right for He has no delight in that which is given grudgingly or of necessity or to receive the plaudits of man or without love, but is highly pleased when we give cheerfully and will abundantly bless the cheerful giver; sixth, we learn every Christian is expected to give; seventh, that we are expected to give regularly; eighth, that we are taught we should give proportionately. Before I discuss the proportion the Scripture says we should give, I wish to point out there is no such thing as giving too large a proportion of our possessions to God, if it comes from a heart of sincere love and is given cheerfully. Acts 4:34-37, tells of many who sold all their property and gave all the proceeds to the Lord. While this type of giving is not commanded in God’s Word it is certainly highly commended and is well pleasing to God. Mark 12:42-44, tells us the poor widow cast in two mites which was her entire living. Jesus did not call her foolish but spoke of her giving in very complimentary terms. So we see there is no maximum to the proportion we can give, for if we give all it is pleasing to God, but there is a minimum and God calls those who give less than the minimum robbers. How strange it is that those who give as much as the minimum usually consider themselves good givers and are so considered by the church, however, we must admit if all professed Christians gave no more than the Scriptural minimum the Lord’s work would receive many times the amount it now receives.

Let us turn to the word of God and see what is the minimum proportion of our income that is acceptable to God. Here we find it clearly taught that the tithe is the smallest portion of our income acceptable to God and all who give less are accused of robbing God (Mal. 3:7-10). If anyone does not know what portion is meant by the tithe we ask you to look it up in your dictionary. The definition in my dictionary is that tithe means the tenth part of anything. So it is very clear that the tithe of your income means one-tenth of it. When the Scripture speaks of tithes and offerings as it does in Malachi 3:8 the offerings are what is given in addition to the tithe. Frequently we hear people say that tithing belonged only to the age of law and was God’s method of financing His work in Old Testament times but that in the church age the Scripture does not require us to tithe. May we ask you to do just a little clear thinking on this subject before we study the Scripture on it.? Do you think that God’s people should love Him less since Christ died for them on the cross than those who lived before that time and looked forward to the crucifixion of Christ for their sin? Can you imagine the apostles saying the age of law is closed and there is now no law demanding that we give a tenth, so we will now give less to God and keep more for ourselves? Do you think the Jew in the Old Testament age owed a deeper debt of gratitude to God than Christians do in the New Testament age? Doesn’t logical reasoning force us to the conclusion that the individual who argues tithing is not expected of Christians in this age and who gives less than a tithe, is so arguing to justify his own selfishness? I grant that we might respect the honesty of convictions on the part of the individual who argues tithing does not belong to the church age if that individual gives a tithe or more to God, but we cannot have much faith in the quality of his love or the integrity of his argument against tithing if his giving falls below the tithe. Let us make one more observation in our appeal to reason. As a pastor for 25 years we have found VERY, VERY few exceptions to this rule. Those who oppose tithing give less than the tithe and those who practice tithing strongly advocate it. [Since writing this in 1945, it is now 1972 (now after 57 years in the ministry) I am more strongly convinced than ever this statement is true and I believe flit same about this entire book.]

Now let us search the Word and abide by its teachings on this subject. To those who call tithing legalism we ask you to note that tithing was in practice more than 400 years before the Mosaic law was given on Sinai (Gen. 14:20). Here we find Abraham giving tithes. In Gen. 28:22 we find Jacob promising to give a tenth. These men lived long before the law was given. When God gave the law to Moses He incorporated tithing in it just as lie did many other things that were being practiced at the time the law was given. Leviticus 27:30-34 shows how completely tithing was to be practiced under the Mosaic law. When Israel was in a good spiritual condition they tithed (Neh. 10:37) and there never was a financial need in carrying on God’s work when the nation was tithing (2 Chron. 31:4-10). I also notice that failure to tithe and spiritual decline were always inseparable (Neh. 13:10-14; Mal. 3:7-11). Many other passages in the Old Testament could be referred to, but these referred to show plainly that Israel was commanded to tithe. God blessed them when they tithed and punished them when they failed to tithe. These Scriptures further show that when the spiritual life was strong they always tithed and that they never lacked funds when they tithed. 1 also note that financial trouble was always proof of spiritual decline. I am convinced that the same rule holds good today and that in most every case a church having a hard financial struggle is at low spiritual ebb. Again I say there might be giving without spirituality but there can never be spirituality without the desire to give.

Now may I ask what Christ and the inspired writers of the New Testament say on the subject of giving? In Matthew 23:23 I find Christ puts His approval on tithing. In Hebrews 6:20 also 7:17 and 21 tells us Melchisedec was a type of Christ, so when Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec they were in reality given to Christ. Hebrews 7:9-10 shows that when Abraham gave tithes his unborn descendents were represented as tithing for they were not superior to their forefather Abraham, through whom they received their high standing. Most people agree these blood descendents of Abraham should and did tithe. Galatians 3:13-16 shows that the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant was given to the Gentiles through the seed of Abraham; the seed referred to being Christ. Here we see the Gentiles receive spiritual blessing through the Abrahamic covenant and while we admit his natural seed should tithe some argue the Gentiles, who receive their spiritual blessings through his seed, are. free from the obligation to tithe. Galatians 3:24 says, "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." If it be argued that tithing is legalism (though we still say it is not) and therefore was one of the things the law taught us as it acted as schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, isn’t it strange that after it got us to Christ, He changed and lowered the standard of giving. I Corinthians 9:13-14 shows that the ministry is toy be supported like those who ministered at the temple in the Old Testament age. Verse 14 says "even so." Certainly dial means in like manner. No one denies that they were supported by the tithe that was brought in. But when we read in 2 Corinthians 8:9 that Christ was rich and became poor for us, when we hear Him say that foxes have dens and birds have nests but that He has not so much as a place to lay His head and when we add to that the fact that He not only gave up all material riches but His very life for us, how can we object to giving and how can we be satisfied to give as little as a tithe?

How can we be so ridiculous as to profess our first love is for Him and then think we have given liberally when we just give one tenth, which is the minimum the Scripture requires? As we study the giving of those early Christians we find they never thought they had reached the stopping point in giving even when they had given a tenth but went far beyond it. Luke 18:28-30 shows the apostles left all for Jesus and Jesus promised them blessings in proportion to the sacrifice they made for Him but He also stated that blessing was for all who put Him first. In Mark 12:42 we find the story of the poor widow who gave all and Jesus speaks very complimentary about her giving. Acts 4:34-37 tells of a group of early Christians who gave all they had. Philippians 3:8 shows how Paul gave everything and counted it as but the filth of the earth in comparison to what he received in spiritual blessings for putting all upon the altar for Christ. Luke 19:8 tells us when Zacchaeus was saved he gladly gave half. So we see in the cases just mentioned how those who loved the Lord really gave.

Do not expect any blessing for giving no matter how much the gift might be or how much sacrifice it represents unless you give because you love Him. Those who love, love to give and the more they- can give the happier they are. Those who do not love, if they give at all, give because they think it is their duty to do so. They get no joy out of giving and receive no blessings for giving. May God grant that if any such read this pamphlet their eyes might be opened to understand the Scriptural truth about giving and may their hearts be warmed to a real fervent love for their Savior. Then may they give with God’s blessing upon both the gift and the giver.

Chapter Six-Church Government

There is, also, a great amount of confusion on this subject. I might say there are only three forms of church government namely: the Autocratic, Representative and Democratic. The Autocratic is where a few people in high position control the affairs of a group of churches. Occasionally someone in a local church, a pastor, a deacon or, someone else gains such control of the church he becomes a real Autocrat of its affairs.

There is also the Representative form of church government where churches elect delegates and these delegates in turn set up boards, committees, etc., which act for the churches. Certainly they are supposed to operate according to recognized and adopted by-laws, but they are usually in a position to interpret these by-laws in such a way as to give themselves much power over the churches they are supposed to represent. It is also true that we sometimes find individual churches guilty of investing broad powers in individuals, committees or officers within their own membership and these individuals or groups manage and control most of the activities of the church.

There is also the Democratic form of church government where the local church controls all of its own affairs without any interference from outside groups or individuals. Every individual member of the church has an equal voice in all the affairs of the church. We Baptists say a great deal about our independence and democracy, but in many instances that is far from true. It is surprising how many Baptist churches have presumed that they have the right to re-delegate the authority God has delegated to local churches. Acting on that presumption they appoint boards, committees, etc., with broad powers both in churches and by messenger bodies.

I might add this statement, in some instances there might be a combination of several forms of government in a church or practiced by a group of churches in cooperative work. Some might call that a different form of government, but we consider it just a mixture of the ones already mentioned.

I use the term local church for convenience sake, but we want to make it clear that we are absolutely certain that there is not, never was, and never can be any other kind of a church.

There are also three departments of government. First, the Legislative or that department that makes the laws. Second, the judicial or the department that hears the case and sees that the law is rightly applied to the case at hand. Third, there is the Executive department which is to see that the sentences and verdicts of the law are enforced. Sometimes in dictator or autocratic forms of government, all three branches of government are controlled by one or at most a few individuals, who make the laws, judge every case and proceed to enforce the sentence. It is a sad truth, but we must face the fact that even in church government (yes, in some churches that call themselves Baptist) there is too much dictatorship.

To stimulate thought let me ask a few simple questions. Did God establish many forms of church government? Would God establish conflicting forms of church government? Did God fail to establish any form of church government? Would an all-wise God establish a church and give no idea how it was to be governed? Did God just leave it to human wisdom to set up any form of government that man saw fit to devise to govern the church which Christ purchased with His own blood? Isn’t the one who founded the church, builds the church, adds to the church, loves the church, meets in every church meeting, walks among the churches and who will one day take the church to be with Himself in glory, the proper one to make its governing laws? If God has told us how the church is to be governed, isn’t it a dangerous thing for man to tamper with God’s government?

Israel was not satisfied with the government God provided for them. They cried out for a king. God warned them they were making a mistake, but still they wanted another form of government, so God permitted them to have kings, but it certainly proved a fatal mistake on their part.

God may permit churches to go on for a long time even though they choose their own form of government rather than following the government He gave them, but it is certainly a shameful and fatal error for them also. God demonstrated His wrath against those who were dissatisfied with His method of government and attempted to set up one of their own making in Numbers 16:1-35. It certainly takes a tremendous amount of presumption on the part of anyone to think he can improve on God’s plan.

Many church by-laws prove the church is an outlaw to God’s laws. In most instances these by-laws are written by some preacher, often so written as to place great power in his own hands and a trusting, unsuspecting church is inveigled into adopting them. I know that churches and individuals, who refuse to submit to man made rules and by-laws, are termed outlaws by those who seem to think they have a right to do things contrary to God’s laws. One should be happy to be considered an outlaw if it means you put God’s law above man made laws. Daniel and the three Hebrew children were that type of outlaws. Peter and John were that type of outlaws, Acts 4:18-20. Those Diotrephes cast out of the church, 3 John 9 and 10 were that type of outlaws.

As we study the Scripture on this subject, we trust we shall clearly see what kind of government God gave to the churches, Autocratic, Representative, or Democratic. I also expect to discover what phases of government God delegated to the church. I am sure God alone holds the Legislative power in the church. He alone made and declared the laws under which the church is to operate. I believe the Scripture clearly teaches that He delegated to the church the power and responsibility to carry on the judicial and executive branches of His government in relation to church life.

After Jesus Christ had founded the church He went back to Glory to be our great interceding High Priest (1 John 2:1; Rom. 8:34). But before going He told them He would send the Holy Spirit to be the administrator of church affairs and He commanded them not to proceed in church work until the Holy Spirit actually took charge (Acts 1:4-5).

I would like to say much about the Holy Spirit and His ministry, but for present purposes we must be content to state a few brief facts in regard to His position as administrator of church affairs:

1. He gives power in testimony (Acts 1:8).

2. He gives boldness in testimony (Acts 4:31).

3. He selects missionaries (Acts 13:2).

4. He selects pastors (Acts 20:28).

5. He directs the affairs of churches (Rev. 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).

6. The chief instrument through which He works is the Word of God (Eph. 6:17; 2 Tim. 3:14-17).

It is interesting to note, in studying the administrative work of the Holly Spirit in directing church affairs, that He always directs in a way that honors Christ, His church, and the Word of God. Primarily I want to consider the part the church has in its own government. I agree that the Holy Spirit is the administrator. I, also, insist that the Bible is God’s infallible, revelation to His church on the plan of church government, the same as it is on all other subjects it deals with.

If there be those who take issue with me on this subject, I would like for them to inform me where the following things can be found in the Scriptures:

1. Where can we find that the church has a Divine right to make its own laws or in other words to function in the legislative realm?

2. Where can we find any organization of any kind over and above a local church that has authority over the local churches or authority for its existence?

3. Where in God’s Word is there Autocratic or Representative forms of either by those in the membership of a local church?

I do not believe a verse of Scripture can be found to justify any one of these things, therefore, I believe they are not in accord with God’s will. Let those, who insist they are right, defend them, but let them make sure that their defense is more than mere human arguments. I want Scriptural proof.

Let us consider now the positive side of this question. What does God’s Word say about church government? First, let us note the offices God has established in the church. There was the Apostolic office, which ceased when the last Apostle had died. They had no successors, but we do have two offices that are to continue throughout the church age, therefore, the Scripture tells us the exact qualifications that are required of those who fill these offices (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). If the Word of God recognizes more than two offices, isn’t it strikingly strange that the requirements for these two offices are so fully given, yet no where in the New Testament do we find any requirements given for any other office? The answer is simple. There are no other offices. As to deacons I ask when and why were they elected? What were their duties? How often are they mentioned? What Scripture makes them an advisory board? A discipline board? A financial board, etc., or them and the pastor such boards? We know the word means servant and unless there duties are stated in Acts 6 where in the Bible are they stated? It would be fine if they functioned in that field and stayed within the Scriptural boundary lines of their obligation and authority.

If there be a question as to the use of the words bishop and elder, we will find they refer to the same office, and the word overseer used in Acts 20:28 has the same meaning. You will notice Titus used the words interchangeably. No doubt, elder is the title of the one who fills the office, bishop or overseer describing the work he does. This office is identical with what is commonly called pastor today. The other office mentioned is deacon.

God knew there would be a disposition on the part of some elders to become overlords, so He gave a warning against that in 1 Peter 5:1-4. If there be those who appeal to Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 to prove that the church is to follow unquestionably what the elder says, we reply that verse 7 refers entirely to former leaders, who have already gone to their reward. I agree verses 17 and 24 referred to their present leaders. The only way they could have been obedient to both their past and present leaders was for the past and present leaders to have been in agreement and we believe that was true in this case. There is only one way their past and present leaders could have been in complete agreement and that was for them to both have been guided by the same rule and no doubt they were all guided by God given instructions namely: His Word.

But what does it mean to rule? I think Christ gave the clearest possible teaching on this subject in Mark 10:42-45. He certainly warned against rulers abusing their position. To rule means to see that the laws are enforced and the overseer, elder or bishop, which ever you want to call him, is simply to see that the church of God is governed by the laws God has given for it.

If a civil ruler tries to force people to do things contrary to the law, we all agree, he should be punished and dismissed from office. If one entrusted to rule among God’s people as an elder, leads the church contrary to God’s law and endeavors to bring rules and by-laws into the church of God, that either adds to or takes from Divine established laws, that man has made himself a subject for church discipline and the church should deal with him more severer, than any other member of the church. Sometimes a deacon or a group of deacons want to be overlords in the church and sometimes the deacons and the pastor form themselves into a group and try to be overlords. Many times they succeed, but the stern fact remains God hates such conduct (3 John 9, 10; Rev. 2:6).

Let us now turn to Matthew 16:18-19 and see church government in action. We see God gave the church great powers in the judicial and executive realm. It has absolute authority to receive and dismiss members. Some may differ with us on this being the right interpretation of these verses, but we believe that is their meaning, but we will find other verses that clearly gives this power to the church as we continue our study.

Next, let us note Matthew 18:15-19. Here the church is dealing with trouble between its members. First, note the absence of a discipline committee. If God had wanted a discipline committee there would surely be one mentioned here. That is another man made office. It is to be told to the entire church and the church action is final. If there was an institution over and above local churches, surely the one not satisfied with the church decision could appeal to the higher order, but no such an appeal can be taken because there is no higher authority to carry out God’s laws than a local church.

Let us note next that God placed the ordinances and mission of evangelizing the world in the church (Matthew 26:26-29; 28:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:2-34). In as much as I have discussed these things in previous chapters, I will not further discuss them here.

In Acts 1:15-26 we see the church conducting an election. Though all eleven apostles were there they claimed no special privilege. Every one present had an equal chance to vote. There was not even a nominating committee. They used the lot system.

Again in Acts 6:1-7 we see the election of what may have been the first church deacons. However, the Scriptures nowhere calls them deacons, but the point we want to note is how they were selected. You will note the apostles only told them the qualifications these men should have. They claimed no special power to act for the church. They did not even so much as suggest anyone for the office. Verse 5 tells us the multitude did the choosing.

Acts 13:1-4 tells of the selection of the first missionaries. The Holy Spirit called them by having the church send them to the work. It is certainly worth noting that the Holy Spirit used the church to work through when He sent out missionaries. There is no board, no council, or group of self appointed men or a group the church had re-delegated their God given authority to, who took over the missionary affairs of the church. If the Holy Spirit worked through the church I am sure He was right. Therefore, we are forced to the conclusion that the local church is the only institution in the world that has the right under God to send out missionaries.

Acts 14:23 does sound as though Paul and Barnabas might have selected elders for these new churches they had organized but a careful study of the verse will show the very opposite to be true. The marginal note in Scofield Bible reads, "to designate by stretching out (or pointing with) the hand." Young’s Concordance says "to elect by stretching out the hand." So we find what was really done was to vote by a show of hands. Then those thus selected by the church were prayerfully set forth to the task by Paul and Barnabas. It is indeed a remarkable proof of the fact that these men of God really believed in the independence and democracy of each individual church, for even after they had gone into these various places, led these people to the Lord and organized them into a church, they still recognized these churches as being capable under the leadership of the Holy Spirit of selecting their own elders.

Surely they were in a position to influence these churches into letting them select elders for them, if they had been so unfair as to want to control the affairs of these churches.

1 Corinthians 5:1-7 speaks of a man in the church at Corinth, who was living such a vile life he should be excluded from church membership. Paul had also organized this church and he tells them the wrong and danger of retaining such a member in their fellowship, yet he does not attempt to exercise authority over the church. He knew that the only way anyone could be Scripturally excluded from church membership is by a vote of the church. The church alone has the power and it also has the duty of purging out those who are a reproach to the cause of Christ.

Some think that 2 Corinthians 2:5-8 might refer to the same character found in 1 Corinthians 5:1-7, after the church had excluded him from its fellowship and he had repented. We do not say it was the same man but we do know it is someone who had been excluded and had repented. Again we see Paul only tells the church what God would have them do. He does not attempt to override the church’s authority. Verse 6 tells us this punishment was "inflicted of many." The expression "of many" means by the majority, so we see this man had been excluded by a majority vote.

Need we give more examples to show that the Scriptural form of church government is democracy? Do not these Scriptures prove that these very missionaries, who organized the churches, recognized them as complete democracies within themselves and respecting that fact refrained from trying to run their affairs?

If God made each individual church the custodian of the ordinances and the commission to teach and evangelize, if God gave each church the power to receive and exclude members, the power to discipline members, the power to send out missionaries, the power to elect its own officers (both elders and deacons), free from any outside interferences, He surely did not believe we need conventions, councils, conferences, synods, etc., to direct the affairs of the churches. In as much as He made no mention of and no provision for any of these other organizations, I am convinced these organizations are not according to His will, therefore, I can not be a part of them or in any way encourage them conscientiously. I believe it is Scriptural for Scriptural churches to fellowship and cooperate together, but I believe the degree of such fellowship and cooperation is decided by the local church with the Bible and Holy Spirit as their guide and no external individual or organization can Scripturally use any cohesive methods to control any phase of the life of a local church.

I believe it is a very serious offense to go contrary to the teachings of God’s Word on any subject and I farther believe that there is much unscriptural teachings on these subjects we have discussed, therefore, I put this booklet into the hands of every member of the church over which I am overseer, so that I might do all possible to keep them from these terrible errors.

I am well aware of the fact that many will say the positions taken. on all these subjects are very narrow and bigoted. However, the only thing that concerns me is the Scriptural position. If my position is Scriptural, as I believe it is, then it is right regardless of what men’s opinions might be. If my position is unscriptural then it is wrong and if all the world agreed with me that would not make it right.

I send this booklet forth with a prayer that it might be helpful to some and harmful to none.

Chapter Seven-Church History

We believe this booklet would not be complete without a brief summary of church history. The most concise, clear, forceful statement, we have ever seen on that subject is found in the book "Church Truth," by the late W. Lee Rector, D. D., former pastor of The First Orthodox Baptist Church of Ardmore, Oklahoma, who granted me permission to use this material.

The Church—Its Builder and Its Perpetuator

Introduction:

(1) Scripture lesson: Matthew 16:18 and 28:10

(2) Aspects of study:

a. The builder of the church is Christ.

b. The perpetuator of the church is Christ.

A. THE BUILDER OF THE CHURCH, BOTH IN ITS LOCAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS, IS CHRIST— “I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), says the Lord.

1. The Master is the builder throughout the ages (Matthew 16:18).

(1) The Lord, and not Saints, is the builder. Saints are the materials out of which He builds. “Ye are God’s building” (1 Cor. 3:9).

(2) The Lord, and not denominations, is the builder (Matthew 16:18). Denominations are human inventions and are not known to the Scriptures.

(3) The Lord, and not Christian Schools, is the builder (Matthew 16:18). Christian education, apart from local church control or divine worship, is unknown to the Scriptures.

(4) The Lord, and not Associated Churches, is the builder (Matthew 16:18). Church sovereignty is delegated, and not original. All church authority originates in Christ, the builder.

(5) The Lord, the builder, uses saved souls in His building (1 Cor. 3:9), and never calls upon the Saints to supply Wisdom for His building program. Had the Lord needed supplementary Divine agencies, he would have provided for them.

2. The Master builds His CHURCH, His witnessing agent, and abiding institution. Through the Holy Spirit who stands in it in His stead, He plants new churches and carries on through them. In His work—

(1) The Holy Spirit comforts the church (John 14:16-17).

(2) The Holy Spirit teaches it (John 14:26).

(3) The Holy Spirit testifies of Christ to it and through it (John 15:26).

(4) The Holy Spirit preaches to it and through it (John 16:6-11).

(5) The Holy Spirit guides it into all truth—doctrinal and missionary (John 16:13; Acts 13:1-4). The church can have no Heaven sanctioned, Scriptural program, except it be initiated by the Holy Spirit. Programs for churches by committees, boards and denominations are without Bible sanction. They are human inventions, hence earthly.

3. The Master builds His church on Himself (Matthew 16:18), with the Holy Spirit the supervisor. Thus we have for the church of the living God—

(1) A divine builder (Matthew 16:18).

(2) A divine foundation (1 Cor. 3:11).

(3) A divine supervisor (Acts 13:1-4).

(4) Divine light—the Word (2 Tim. 3:16).

(5) Divine material— saved souls (Acts 2:41, 47).

B. THE PERPETUATOR OF THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION IS CHRIST— “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18), the Lord says. As an institution, the Lord decrees continuous life for the church.

1. The Builder avows the church’s perpetuity:

(1) Of His church, the Lord says, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

(2) To His church, the Lord says, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the age,” Matthew 28:20.

(3) To His church, he declares that the Holy Spirit will “abide with you forever” (John 14:16).

(4) Since the Lord thus affirms the church’s perpetuity, we know it lives today. If there has been, or shall be, a moment in which a church like the first one has not obtained since He uttered these words, then He spoke falsely and we have been betrayed by the church’s founder. Thank God, He spoke truly, and He perpetuates His church.

2. There are some warning facts about church perpetuity that should not be overlooked in this connection:

(1) We can’t discount church perpetuity by subterfuges as some attempt to do and get by the Lord with it.

a. To hide behind the “general church” idea is to shame the Lord. As touching church perpetuity, He speaks of the First Church as an institution living on and on in other churches throughout the ages, each of which finds its roots in the First Church. The gates of hell cannot prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).

b. To hide behind the “perpetuity of the faith” idea dodges the issue. Since the church is the custodian of the faith (Jude 3; 1 Tim. 3:15), to admit the “perpetuity of the faith” is to attest the perpetuity of the church. Both Pseudobaptists and Pedobaptists are wrong in their “general church” or “faith perpetuity” ideas about the church.

c. The historical appearances of Pedobaptists makes them too late to qualify as unprejudiced witnesses on church perpetuity. Church perpetuity condemns them.

(a) The Lutherans appeared 1530 A. D. —1500 years too late.

(b) The Anglicans appeared 1534 A. D. —1504 years too late.

(c) The Presbyterians appeared 1541 A. D. —1511 years too late.

(d) Congregationists appeared 1602 A. D. —1572 years too late.

(e) Methodists appeared 1744 A. D. —1714 years too late.

(f) Disciples, or Campbellites, appeared 1827 A. D. —1797 years too late. All of these have to oppose church perpetuity.

(2) Historical testimony of the centuries Baptist perpetuity.

a. During the first and second centuries, the Messalians, the Euchites, and the Montanists preached the Word and practiced the same according to Baptist message and method.

b. During the third, fourth, fifth, and the sixth centuries, the Novantionists held to and propagated Baptist doctrines and practices.

c. During the seventh and eighth centuries, the Paulicans became very numerous and brought down upon themselves the hatred and the hostility of the papal church organization, and these worshipers maintained Baptist peculiarities in faith and practice.

d. During the ninth century, the Waldenses became very dominant, and the glorious Gospel of the Son of God was preserved in its pristine purity. They were called by Roberson, the historian, “Trinitarian Baptists.” All orthodox Baptists are Trinitarians.

e. During the tenth century, the Peterines came into existence along with the affirms Waldenses and maintained Baptist preachments and practices.

f. During the eleventh century, the Waldenses, Albigenses, the Cathari, the Lyons, and the Anabaptists attracted renewed attention throughout Europe and perpetuated the Baptist faith and practice.

g. During the twelfth century, the Arnoldists, the Waldenses, and the Anabaptists maintained the pure Gospel and perpetuated Baptist peculiarities and practice.

h. During. the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and the seventeenth centuries, the Anabaptists and the Mennonites preserved the preachments and the practice of Baptists.

i. During the eighteenth, nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, modern Baptists have maintained the pure Gospel, preaching and practicing according to the Apostolic and the Christolic message and pattern. The Baptist faith, proclaimed by brethren bearing different names during the centuries, has been perpetuated through Baptist churches. Our doctrine and practices, apostolic in character and kind, have come down through the centuries.

3. Christ, the Builder, has perpetuated His church because He has been with it all the centuries (Matthew 28:20). The testimony of Pedobaptists shows that Baptist churches, holding Baptist faith and practice, have abounded from Christ until now.

(1) Zwingli, a Swiss reformer of the sixteenth century, says: “The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for 1300 years has caused great disturbance in the church.” Thus Zwingli traces Baptist baptism back to the second century, or within 200 years of Christ.

(2) Mosheim, a Lutheran historian and a Pedobaptist, says, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the name, ‘Anabaptists’ is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and consequently difficult to be ascertained.” Thus Mosheim absolves Baptists from the criticism of being Protestant. Baptists are not Protestants. Baptist testimony abounded through groups called “heretics,” and by these Baptist churches, the light of the Word was shed forth day by day, and century by century. This was done according to the Apostolic message, pattern and practice.

(3) Dr. Dermont, chaplain to the King of Holland, and Dr. Ypeij, professor of theology at Graningen, received a royal commission to prepare a history of the reformed Dutch church. This history, prepared under royal sanction, and officially published, contains the following testimony to the antiquity and the orthodoxy of Dutch Baptists: “We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and have long in the history of the church received the honor of that origin. On this account, the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all the ages.” Thus these historians carry Baptists back to the apostles and declare that Baptists have preserved the Gospel light in its purity down through the ages.

Chapter Eight-Church Covenant

Having been led, as we believe, by the Spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, and on the profession of our faith having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we do now, in the presence of God, angels and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ.

We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk together in Christian love; to strive for the advancement of this church in knowledge, holiness and comfort; to promote its prosperity and spirituality; to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline and doctrines; to give it a sacred pre-eminence over all institutions of human origin; to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the Gospel through all nations.

We also engage to maintain family and secret devotions; to religiously educate our children; to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances; to walk circumspectly in the world; to be just in our dealings, faithful in our engagements, and exemplary in our deportment; to avoid all tattling, backbiting, and excessive anger; to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, and to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of our Saviour.

We further engage to watch over one another in brotherly love; to remember each other in prayer; to aid each other in sickness and distress; to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation, and' mindful of the rules of our Saviour to secure it without delay.

We moreover engage that when we remove from this place we will, as soon as possible, unite with some other church of like faith and order, where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God's Word.

This material was brought to you free of charge by <a href="http://www.pbministries.org/">Providence Baptist Ministries. </a>

Comfort in a Time of Sorrow is a helpful reference for anyone who is experiencing a time of grief and sorrow. The gift book is filled with healing Bible scriptures, poetry and other writings which offer hope and comfort for the healing heart. Scriptures quoted are from the King James version of the Holy Bible. Psalm 46:1 God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.

<a href="http://www.lulu.com/commerce/index.php?fBuyContent=10249684"><img src="http://static.lulu.com/images/services/buy_now_buttons/us/gray.gif?20111206124946" border="0" alt="Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu."></a>