In the light of these words of God, some are probably wondering if I have lost my mind because I have asked the question, “Did Jesus command immersion for believers.” But, it will not seem so far-fetched when you read further.

A few weeks ago I received a tape of a sermon by a brother titled something to the effect of “Line Upon Line, Precept Upon Precept” in which he took at least two very unscriptural positions that I will discuss in a moment. My first impression was to write an article showing his error but I just attributed it to his being somewhat of a novice in the ministry and in the Lord also and decided not to reply at all. I was sure that any mature Christian, especially if he were a Baptist, would see the error so clearly that no one need point it out.

But, now (last week of September, 2000) I have received a Landmark Baptist paper and was surprised and disappointed to see that they had printed the sermon. In fact, it was the most prominent article in the paper.

The first thing wrong with the article is that it promotes the idea that “Precept upon Precept” is teaching by example, not by commandment. It says,

Before I proceed, I would ask, “Is it wrong to ask for chapter and verse in which something is commanded and taught?

As one Baptist writer has said,

The Hebrew word for precept is TSAV which means a precept or command. It is from the Hebrew word TSAVAH which is translated “command” a mere 514 times in the Old Testament. It is translated “charge” 39 times and “commandment” 9 times. To my knowledge it is never translated “example." It is a case of gross misinterpretation to infer that it does not mean a commandment but rather means “example.” Whether it was intentional or oversight on the preacher’s part, he has misled the unsuspecting reader to think that a “precept” is an example, rather than a command or injunction. Of course, most discerning readers and listeners would know the word was being misapplied, for whatever reason. Any discerning reader reading this article will see that the goal of rightly dividing the word of truth was missed by a long shot.

DENIES THAT IMMERSION WAS COMMANDED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The article goes,

The article under consideration reflects a reckless disregard for the teachings of the Word of God. As an example, it says,

There is not one whit of evidence that the Corinthian church was observing the Passover when these became intoxicated. In fact, most commentators after whom I have read say that the Corinthian assembly was primarily a Gentile assembly. What would they be doing observing the Passover? 1 Corinthians 11:20-21 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. After 43 years in the ministry, this is my first time to hear that the Corinthian assembly came together to observe the Passover when these became drunk. The Passover was just read right into that passage for Paul certainly did not put it there.

Another example of this careless adding to the Word of God is seen in the following statement,

What saith the Scripture, Dear Reader? Acts 14:27-28 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. 28 And there they abode long time with the disciples. Do you read anything about a business meeting in those verses? Do you see where the church at Antioch conducted any business at that assembly? When one gets into the habit of reading things into Scripture there is no telling what he can find in the Bible that no one else can find unless he is inclined in the same direction.

More than once the article asserts that there is no command to immerse found in God’s Word. It argues that immersion is only taught by example and erroneously indicates teaching by example is “precept upon precept”.

We must be careful about developing the penchant for reading into Scripture that which is not there. When one practices this, he can as handily read out of Scripture what is there. I refer to his denial that there is any command in Scripture to immerse. I submit that every command to baptize is a command to immerse and can produce many witnesses to that effect. I noted that the article cited scriptural examples of immersion, but carefully avoided those verses that directly command immersion.

It is true that we use examples of biblical baptisms to enforce the doctrine that baptism must be by immersion. But, our use of those examples does not negate the fact that the Bible does indeed command immersion. As I have already indicated, any and every sound Baptist knows that any command to baptize is a command to immerse. In denying the command to immerse, the article thereby denies the command to baptize.

We call Matthew 28:18-20 “The Great Commission.” Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. A commission is a charge to do something.

The argument that the New Testament does not command immersion is obviously not true. Let the sprinklers and pourers say that immersion is not commanded in Scripture, but not a true Landmark Baptist! The command to baptize is a command to immerse.

The only people I have heard argue otherwise were sprinklers or pourers. The article admits that the Greek word means immersion but denies that immersion is ever commanded in Scripture. What under heaven did Jesus command when he commanded his church to go and make disciples and to baptize those disciples if he did not command them to immerse those disciples? I have read after many Baptist writers on the subject of baptism. Each and every one of them held that baptism is immersion and only immersion is baptism.

S. E. ANDERSON HELD THAT IN BAPTISM (IMMERSION) ONE OBEYS HIS LORD

 

S. E. Anderson held that baptism was by immersion. He also argued that that immersion was expressly commanded by God. Under the heading, In Baptism One Obeys His Lord, Bro. Anderson wrote,

Since there are evidently others who apparently agree with the article, I am forced to ask, “Do you believe a believer is obeying his Lord when he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Do you believe that Christ commanded his church to go and immerse believers? Do you believe that “the first command of Christ to the new-born believer” is to be immersed?

Ben M. Bogard was a Landmark Baptist. He held that immersion was commanded in the great commission. He wrote,

Dare I ask, “Did Christ intend that his church immerse when he commanded them to baptize?”

Every true Landmark Baptist believes that immersion is the only mode of baptism taught in Scripture, in fact, the only mode of baptism that exists. Henry D’Anvers, in his 1675 A. D. answer to Mr. Will, wrote,

D’Anvers held that the word baptize means nothing else than dipping. And dipping is immersion. If one admits that the Bible commands baptism, he is admitting that the Bible commands immersion for that is what baptism is, no more and no less. One could as correctly say “Immersion by baptism” as to say “Baptism by immersion.” Or, “Dipping by baptism” as to say, “Baptism by dipping.” Or, “Submerging by baptism” as “Baptism by submerging.” Or, “Dunking by baptism,” as “Baptism by dunking.” To say, “Baptism by immersion” is tantamount to saying that there are other modes of baptism. Though we all probably do it at times, it is redundant and superfluous to say, “Baptism by immersion.” I repeat that to say that immersion is not commanded in the New Testament is to say that baptism is not commanded in the New Testament.

It seems to me from Scripture that the rejection of immersion is a rejection of the counsel of God, which certainly implies a command. Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

ELD. MILBURN COCKRELL HOLDS THAT NEW TESTAMENT IMMERSION IS AN INSTITUTION OF HEAVEN AND A COMMAND OF GOD

Someone might object to this heading when they read the following quotes from the pen of Bro. Milburn Cockrell. I will be the first to admit that he never uses the word “immerse” in the following lines. But, Dear Reader, I will stake my life on the fact that anytime Bro. Cockrell uses the word “baptize” or “baptism” with reference to that ordinance he means immersion. I will venture to say that to him New Testament Baptism, the first ordinance of the Lord’s churches, is immersion, only immersion, and always immersion.

The question is, of course, “Does Bro. Milburn Cockrell hold that immersion is commanded in the New Testament?” It is unequivocally evident that he does. He wrote,

Bro. Cockrell further commented,

If baptism is an act of obedience, then immersion must be commanded in Scripture. To obey means to follow the commands of another. One cannot be obedient in baptism unless there is a command to be baptized, i. e., a command to be immersed. Again, Bro. Cockrell wrote,

One would have to be totally blind to doubt that Bro. Cockrell believes that immersion is commanded in the New Testament. Surely no reader has difficulty in seeing that from the quotes above.

An Old Landmarker by the name of J. M. Pendleton wrote,

Let me cite yet another well-known Old Landmarker on this matter of whether or not immersion is commanded in Scripture. I doubt that any Landmarker would deny that J. R. Graves was an Old Landmark Baptist. Did that Old Landmarker hold that baptism was commanded in Scripture? Let us see from his writing. He wrote,

Dear Reader, I say a hearty “AMEN, Bro. Graves.” But the the article we are considering says, “No, Bro. Graves, immersion is not commanded in Scripture. There are examples that teach immersion but it is never commanded.”

I have already cited the great commission as a command to baptize and I assert and insist that every command to baptize is a command to immerse.

Another verse that sounds very much like a command is Acts 22:16. “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Paul had shortly before been converted. Now, at the command of the Lord Jesus Christ, Ananias says, “Arise, and be baptized.”

Another verse that sounds very much like a command is Acts 2:38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Let us hear from some other Baptists on this matter. In the next issue, God willing, we will go back over 300 years and call on an Old Baptist for his testimony. (To be continued)

RETURN TO TOP

I wrote last month, “I am the kind of Old Landmarker who believes in a truly local church and only in the local church. I believe that to be truly local, a church must assemble in one place.” I introduced Eld. J. R. Graves as the first of many witnesses whom I will call. He verified that one of the axioms of true Old Landmarkism is that a true New Testament type of assembly was required to assemble in one place. His exact words were, "The ecclesia of the New Testament could, and was required to assemble in one place.”

While searching through various old papers that I have, I found a single issue of The Immanuel Light, March, 1980, which was edited by Eld. Harold J. Harvey and Ed Norris. There was a sermon by Eld. Elton Wilson called How Local Church Is The Local Church? Bro. Wilson had used as his text Matt. 18:15-19.

In answer to his question, How local is the local church, Bro. Wilson set forth as his first point, IT IS LOCAL ENOUGH TO ASSEMBLE. Some of the proof which Bro. Wilson set forth reads as follows,

Acts 2:1— The church was assembled in one place, in one accord. The apostle Peter preached to this assembled group and the Lord added to this local church about 3,000 people (vs. 41). They continued to assemble and the Lord continued to bless them. So the church of our Lord is not a Radio church or TV church, it is a local assembly.

1 Cor. 11;17— They were coming together.

1 Cor. 5:4— When ye are gathered together.

Heb. 10:25— Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together.

The Bible speaks of the church at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, Colosse, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. These were all local churches and not a part of a universal church. The Bible is so positive that when it speaks of the church in a plural sense it says, "churches".

Of the local church Bro. Wilson made another point. In answer to his question, How local is the local church? he wrote,

Our Lord instituted His supper with His church (Mark 14:22-25; Matt. 26: 26-29; Luke 22:17-20). In writing to the church at Corinth, Paul instructs this local church on how they were to take the Lord's supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34). Only members of the local church may examine themselves and take the Lord's supper in the church, where they are a member. Our Lord did not invite other believers to eat His supper and neither do we have the authority to invite other believers to partake of the supper. Only the local church can scripturally partake of the emblems at the Lord's supper.

I fear that some brethren are not exactly consistent on this matter of local-church-observance of the Lord’s Supper. I remember a few years ago receiving a report from a missionary in which he was exulting that the pastor had made a visit to the “mission” for a special service and, while there, the “mission” congregation had take the Lord’s Supper with the pastor of the sponsoring church administrating. Now folks, that is about as Scriptural as the pastor visiting a sick person in the hospital with two or three other members of the church and observing the supper at the hospital.

This is another problem faced by those churches that have two or more assemblies of baptized believers meeting in two or more places. Yes, Dear Reader, there are some churches that claim to hold to the local-church-only position that have a home base that is sometimes called the “sending church.” It is also called the “mother church” or the “sponsoring church.” This partial body of the church meets in one place, another part of the body may meet a hundred, a thousand, or 10,000 miles away, and another part of the body may meet in another distant or not-so-distant location. The body is divided into two, three, or more parts. It never assembles as one, concrete body. It is always divided.

This editor fully agrees with what Bro. Wilson has declared in this sermon. A local church is local enough to assemble. To assemble it must meet in one place, as did the church in Jerusalem and other churches in the New Testament. A local church is local enough to assemble in one place to eat the Lord’s Supper. 1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. Because of divisions in the church at Corinth, even when they came together in one place they could not scripturally partake of the Lord’s Supper. I propose the following question, “When what is supposed to be a local church is divided into two or more assemblies assembling in two or more places, can any one of those assemblies scripturally observe the supper? The supper should only be observed when the church comes together in one place. Divisions render a church incapable of partaking of the supper. These divisions may be doctrinal or practical divisions. Is it not a practical division to have a divided body?

Divisions in a church body are condemned in Scripture. Paul warned the church at Rome to mark those who caused divisions and to avoid them. Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Paul admonished the church in Corinth to avoid divisions and to be perfectly joined together in mind and judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Paul issued a scathing rebuke of this assembling assembly in Corinth for divisions that were in that local body. 1 Corinthians 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 1 Corinthians 11:17-19 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Now some may make the argument that their division into two or more bodies meeting in two or more places is not the same kind of divisions that existed at Corinth. The church that meets in two or more assemblies in two or more places is nevertheless divided. Part of the body meets in Possum Grape, Arkansas, another part of the body may meet in a city in the Philippines, and another part of its body may meet in some city in Romania. You can’t get more divided in the assembly than that. Supposing that your church meets in more than one locality, here is another question, “Which part of the body has the authority to observe the supper?” Also, may I ask, “What gives one part of the body, higher privileges than another part of the body meeting in another place?” Further, “Are the members of your church that meet in another locality not second class members if they cannot observe the Lord’s Supper while those at the so-called “mother church” can observe the supper?”

Yet another question occurs to me. What about the equality of members? I don’t know of a true Landmark Baptist who will not argue for equality of the membership. Yet, I have known of cases where a church with only a few members sponsored a work in some place and the members in that place soon out numbered the members in the “mother” church. If there is an equality of members in the body, should not the majority rule? Could the group in the mission not outvote the members in the “mother” church? What is to keep them from firing their pastor and calling one of their own number as pastor? If, indeed, majority rules, and if, indeed, the “mission” members are members of the same church as are those at the home base, and if, indeed, members are equal, it could be done. This is a potential problem for those who divide their church body into two or more assemblies meeting in two or more places.

I have also known of cases where a “mission” with more members in the body than there were in the home base decided they should be organized into a church. The fewer members of the “mother” church voted that they could not organize. If there is a true equality of membership, how under heaven could a few members tell a majority of members they could not organize? If there is a true equality of membership, and the majority of the members of the church vote for the organization service, I see no scriptural ground for a minority in one place denying the vote of the majority in another place. This lordship of a few over the majority should not be so. This practice of operating “missions” is fraught with many pitfalls as is most anything that has no biblical basis. The Old Landmark doctrine that a true New Testament type of ecclesia must assemble in one place would solve this problem.

Bro. Wilson made another point that is worthy of our consideration. He declared that the local church

On this point he observed,

What a joy for God's people to be able to come together in one place and hear the teachings of God's Word. The Word of God is spiritual food to the soul of every born again person. It will provide the needed strength for babes in Christ to grow in grace and knowledge of the truth. We do not want to fail to mention the Christian fellowship that the local church has. No place in all the world is like the assembly of true believers in Christ. No wonder David said, "I was glad when they said unto me let us go unto the house of the Lord."

Thank the Lord for His church that is local enough that I can attend. (From THE BIBLE BAPTIST REMINDER, Reprinted in The Immanuel Light, March, 1980).

I especially call your attention to these words, “What a joy for God's people to be able to come together in one place and hear the teachings of God's Word.” Sadly, a divided church with parts of the body meeting in one place, and another part or parts meeting in another place or places, never knows this joy of coming together in one place to hear the Word of God taught. The part of the body that is called the “mother church” may never have the privilege of assembly with the part of the body that meets in a foreign country. The part or parts of the body that is/are called a mission/missions may never have the joy of assembling with the “mother church.”

Even with their divisions, the whole church at Corinth was still able to and did assemble in one place. 1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? Here Paul speaks of the WHOLE CHURCH coming together into one place.

That Old Landmarker, J. R. Graves laid down as one axiom of Old Landmarkism that a true, New Testament type of assembly MUST ASSEMBLE, and it must assemble in one place! In fact, he wrote, "The ecclesia of the New Testament could, and was required to assemble in one place. This is impossible for a universal or invisible church to do. It was often required to assemble. (Matt. 18: 17; I Cor. 11:18; 14:23.) Discipline, baptism and the Lord's Supper could only be administered by the assembled church." (Old Landmarkism, P. 40).

I ask anyone to affirm that a true New Testament ecclesia can regularly meet in two or more localities in two or more cities, in two or more states, in two or more countries, or on two or more continents, and still be called a local church. I ask anyone to affirm that such a divided body can scripturally observe the Lord’s Supper. I believe that a true New Testament type of assembly is, as Graves declared, to assemble in one place. "The ecclesia of the New Testament could, and was required to assemble in one place.” As Bro. Elton Wilson has so ably declared, I believe that the local church “is local enough to assemble in one place and observe the Lord’s Supper.” And, Dear Reader, I am not alone in this position. Before I am finished with this study, I will present 30 or more witnesses to this position. Some are still living today and others are dead. But, the writings of both the dead and the living testify that Graves, Wilson, and I are right on this matter. "The ecclesia of the New Testament could, and was required to assemble in one place.”

CALIFORNIA: I do not receive your paper via USPS. I visit your page on the net every once in a while. Your web page has provided me with numerous very good articles over the years. (Yes even the one on "wine") Your articles on the 'five points' are superb. I have shared them with many. Your page is a constant blessing. Thank you for the work that you put into your web page! It is a much needed part of the web.

I would be very blessed if I were added to your mailing list.

WWW: I'm thankful for this article on gambling. I believe that I'm a Christian and can truthfully say that I'm not a habitual gambler by any means. I don't play the lottos, I don't get into the drawings, etc.. What I wish to relate is an experience I just had over Labor Day weekend (Mon.-Tues.). I went to Niagara Falls for an overnight vacation, and had no real conscious intention of gambling. Anyhow, I did end up going to the Casino with the thought that I'd "play 4 or 5 dollars in the slot machines". I put $2-$3 worth in, and, sure enough, I started winning some money. I cashed out with about $30 (and figured out later that I had probably spent about 15 or 20). My point? I felt drawn to go back a few more times, and I'd watch a ten disappear, then a twenty, then finally a five. Since I knew now how much I was putting in I had no illusions of thinking I was winning more than I was playing. After playing the last $5 slot, an alarm finally went off in my head..."You're done, get out of there! You don't belong here at all!" That I can only attribute to the Grace of God since I realized that I'd gotten out of control (I ended up spending about $40 that weekend, which was $35 more than I had originally wished to spend)! This is just over 2 days, and my week has been miserable as I've been pondering my actions and recognizing more and more that this was indeed a sin. While I know some would say "Hey, $40 isn't any big deal-don't worry so much about it.", I know between me and the Lord that only the Spirit of God finally restrained me and got me out of there! I can honestly say that I have no ongoing, continuous desire to repeat this experience and truly hope that God will Grace me by His Spirit never to set foot in a Casino again! 

WWW: I see that you don't believe in celebrating Christmas because, as I think I understand what you are saying, it is a pagan holiday and we should stay away from paganism.

I take it then that you are against brides using viels in weddings as this was a pagan belief that spirits could invade the bride before she was wedded. I also assume that you are against saying "bless you" after someone sneezes as this too is based on a pagan concept. The concept was that by sneezing, you were then opening the door for evil spirits to enter the person. Finally, I assume that you are also against wedding rings because they too are from pagan traditions and beliefs.

I hope that you do not do any of the above. Afterall, while I might not agree with your stance or beliefs on such things, you would at least be consistent.

OHIO: My name is ____________ I live in Chesapeake VA. I receive your paper every month and enjoy reading it.

I have a question from the August issue from the section on the eternal mystery. I have always wondered about how souls were saved in the Old Testament. I know that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice before the foundation of the world but in time he did not come to this earth until after a few thousand years had past.

It is a great mystery that I do not understand and would ask if you could provide some of your wisdom on the subject. Thank you Bro. Camp.

WWW: PK is godly men, why don't you judge them by thier fruits, moron.

WWW: RE: Is This Hatred. this very statement defies that which you proclaim...