You will need
the following viewers
to view many of the
files on this site.

Click here to
download
Adobe Acrobat Reader

Click here to
download
Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer

University church of Christ

Assembly Times

 Sunday

   Bible Classes (9:30)

   AM Worship (10:20)

   PM Worship (6:00 pm)

 Wednesday

   Bible Classes
(7:00 PM)

Location

449 North Gay Street

Auburn, AL 36830
Click Here for Specific Directions

Baptist Questions Given Bible Answers

by Larry Ray Hafley

(I received the following questions from a Baptist whom I do not know. Perhaps the answers given in response will be of help to him and others.)

Bro. Hafley,

First, you should know that I'm nothing more than a feeble-minded Southern Baptist. I agree in the plan of salvation sprinkled throughout Romans; and it is my belief anyone which truly "confesses with their mouth" and "believes in their heart" shall be saved. Your doctrine, the New Testament, would therefore indicate true believers in the churches of Christ are saved Christians...along with myself.

I could ask you to prove why the mercy of God, the blood of Christ, doesn't cover the sins of someone already in Christ until they confess it. I could ask you why you aren't re-baptized every time you fall short of God's glory. I could ask you why one part of Mark 16 is literal (v. 15), yet another part is metaphoric or non-applicable to our day (v. 16, 17). I could ask why you, wanting to be the reincarnation of the early church, avoid using pianos and drums, yet use microphones and air conditioning. Instead, I will cite one example of a question I have from your doctrine; then I would like for you to give a Biblical explanation, if you would.

One Sunday while attending my Baptist church, my cousin (who is a member of a church of Christ) noted, among other things, that we did not partake in the Lord's Supper. We began to discuss the differences of having the Lord's Supper every Sunday and having it once every couple of months or so. During the discussion, I was enlightened by this passage (which I know you are familiar with)...Acts 20:7. Apparently this one verse is the foundation for this particular doctrinal rule, or law, if you will, of the Lord's Church.

Not having a concordance handy, I took her word on the "breaking of bread" being a reference to the Eucharist and not to a fellowship supper. The question I had for her, and the question I pose for you today, is about the second half of that verse. Notice the length of Paul's sermon. He must've been quite long-winded that particular night. But, according to the logic applied to the first half of the verse, because he was long-winded that specific night, he was long-winded every Sunday.

Why then, Brother Hafley, are meetings at the churches of Christ some of the shortest among Protestant churches in my area? I anxiously await your response-(Name Withheld; We shall refer to him as "Robby").

"Feeble-Minded Southern Baptist"

"I'm nothing more than a feeble-minded Southern Baptist. I agree in the plan of salvation sprinkled throughout Romans; and it is my belief anyone which truly 'confesses with their mouth'" and 'believes in their heart' shall be saved. Your doctrine, the New Testament, would therefore indicate true believers in the churches of Christ are saved Christians...along with myself."

Reply: While I appreciate your humility, I cannot agree that you are "feeble-minded." Generally, "feeble-minded" folks cannot ask thoughtful questions. Neither would there be a need to respond if you were truly "feeble-minded," for one must understand the truth before he can be obedient to it. If you were "feeble-minded," you could not be brought to such understanding as the Lord requires (Matt. 13:15, 19, 23; Jn. 8:32; Rom. 6:17-where obedience "from the heart" refers not only to a sincere purpose but also to a heart which understands what it has heard; one must "come to the knowledge of the truth" before he can be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). Hence, you, like the Ethiopian treasurer, are simply untaught
(Acts 8:30,31). In that vein, I shall respond to your earnest inquiries.

You say that you "agree in the plan of salvation sprinkled throughout Romans; and it is my belief anyone which truly 'confesses with their mouth'" and 'believes in their heart'
shall be saved."

First, I shall assume that you also agree with the plan of salvation as it is elsewhere "sprinkled throughout" the New Testament and not just in the book of Romans. Robert Wilkin, president of the Grace Evangelical Society, stresses the gospel of John as you have specified the book of Romans (See the Hafley-Wilkin debate, which may be ordered from www.Biblework.com, and also our written review of Mr. Wilkin in The Christ, The Cross, And The Church). Surely, you agree that we must take all the Bible teaches about "the plan of salvation."

Second, you are aware, of course, that there are conditions with respect to the plan of salvation in the book of Romans other than those two you have cited, confession with the mouth and belief in the heart (Rom. 10:9, 10). One must repent before he can be saved (Rom. 2:4, 5). I think you concur with that (Acts 2:38; 3:19).

Third, not only must one believe, repent, and confess, but we also find "in the plan of salvation sprinkled throughout Romans," the following words:

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3, 4).

Robby, do you also "agree" with those words? They are found among the passages "sprinkled throughout Romans," and they have reference to "the plan of salvation." Do you agree that one must be "baptized into Jesus Christ" and "into his death?" If one must be "baptized into Jesus Christ," he is not "in Christ" until he is baptized. Do you believe that, Robby? It is what the Scripture says. The reason I ask is because I have never known a Southern Baptist who believes it. Since you are an avowed "Southern Baptist," I wonder if you will say you believe that one must be "baptized into Jesus Christ" and "into his death." If you will accept what the book of Romans says with respect to faith, repentance, and confession, will you also accept what it says with respect to being "baptized into Jesus Christ" (Rom. 2:4, 5; 6:3, 4, 17, 18; 10:9, 10)?

If you do accept this part of "the plan of salvation sprinkled throughout Romans," you may find yourself being rejected by your brethren in Southern Baptist churches.

Third, I am encouraged by your statement to the effect that "the New Testament" is my "doctrine," in the sense that it is the source of what I believe and teach. Indeed, that is true (Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 1:13). There are various and sundry doctrines which abound among us today. Those doctrines of men make one's worship and service to the Lord vain and empty (Matt. 7:21-23; 15:8, 9; 2 Jn. 9).

However, Robby, I cannot agree that you and I are both Christians, children of God. I do not say that to hurt you, nor to offend you, but to help you. Being a Baptist, it is certain that you have been baptized, but you were not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, that is, by his authority (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16). The passages cited show the clear and certain purpose of that baptism instituted by the Lord. The baptism you received was not of that kind, not of that nature. No Baptist preacher would have baptized you into Christ "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3). No Baptist preacher would tell you what Ananias told Saul, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Thus, it is apparent that you have not been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Too, your baptism put you into a Southern Baptist church. That is something that New Testament baptism never did. No one who became a child of God by faith, being baptized into Christ, was ever thereby made a member of any human denomination, Baptist or otherwise. The baptism of the New Testament, that baptism authorized by the Lord, puts one into the body or church of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). It never constituted one a member of a denominational church, whether Protestant or Catholic. Accordingly, since your baptism placed you into a Southern Baptist church, it was not the baptism authorized by the Lord in the New Testament.

(1) In Jerusalem, we read of those who were baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Later, we read of "the church" (Acts 2:38; 5:11; 8:1,3). (2) In Samaria, we read of those who were baptized when they believed what was preached concerning the name and authority of Christ and his kingdom (Acts 8:12). We then read of the church in Samaria (Acts 9:31). (3) In Corinth, we read of those who were baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:13; 6:11). We read of the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2; 12:13). (4) In Galatia, we read of those who were "baptized into Christ" in order to become children of God by faith (Gal. 3:26, 27; 1 Pet. 1:1; 3:21). They, too, were part of that "spiritual house," the church (1 Pet. 1:1; 2:5; 1 Cor. 16:1; Gal. 1:2). (5) In Ephesus, we read of those who were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5; That baptism "in the name" of Christ was "for the remission of sins," Acts 2:38). We read that the Ephesians were "in one body," "the same body," the church (Eph. 1:22, 23; 2:16; 3:6; 5:23). (6) In Philippi, we read that those initial converts were baptized (Acts 16:15, 30-34). We later read of the church in Philippi (Phil. 4:15). (7) In Colosse, we read of those who had been "buried" in baptism (Col. 2:12--Being buried in baptism puts one "into Jesus Christ"- Rom. 6:3, 4). We next read of those Colossians who were "in one body," the church, the kingdom of God (Col. 1:13; 3:15-Hence, they had been born
again of water and the Spirit-Jn. 3:3, 5; Col. 1:13).

Robby, kindly may I say that neither the baptism nor the church referred to in those passages resembles the Southern Baptist church nor any other denomination formed and fashioned by the doctrines and commandments of men. True to his pledge and promise ("I will build my church"), Jesus built and bought his church, purchasing it with his own blood (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28). If one is not a member of that body, the church, he is not a member of Christ; that is, he does not belong to Christ (Eph. 5:30, 32; Cf. 1:22, 23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23-26). Remember, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it" (Psa. 127:1). Robby, are you in "the house," the church which the Lord built? Jesus said, "Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up" (Matt. 15:13). Robby, where will you be on "rootin' day"?

"I Could Ask You Why..."

Next, Robby, you say, "I could ask you to prove why the mercy of God, the blood of Christ, doesn't cover the sins of someone already in Christ until they confess it. I could ask you why you aren't re-baptized every time you fall short of God's glory. I could ask you why one part of Mark 16 is literal (v. 15), yet another part is metaphoric or non-applicable to our day (v. 16, 17). I could ask why you, wanting to be the reincarnation of the early church, avoid using pianos and drums, yet use microphones and air conditioning."

Yes, Robby, "you could ask" all those questions. If you did ask them, here is how I could answer them:

(1) "I could ask you to prove why the mercy of God, the blood of Christ, doesn't cover the sins of someone already in Christ until they confess it."

Reply: (a) "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land" (2 Chron. 7:14). "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy" (Prov. 28:13). "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn. 1:9). Will he forgive our sins if we will not confess them? If so, what is the point of 1 John 1:9?

(b) Simon, the sorcerer, believed and was baptized (Acts 8:12, 13). Thus, in accordance with the promise of the Lord, he was saved (Mk. 16:16). Afterward, he sinned and Peter told him to "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee" (Acts 8:22). However, if, as you contend, Simon's sins had been forgiven by "the mercy of God (and) the blood of Christ," as soon as he committed them, why did the apostle Peter tell him that he need to repent and pray that the Lord would forgive them? Also, if Simon had been forgiven, why did Peter say, "For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity" (Acts 8:23)? How could one be "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" if he already had been forgiven and cleansed of his sin by "the mercy of God (and) the blood of Christ"?

(c) One who is tempted and "overtaken in a fault," is to be restored, that is, he is to be mended, put back into his rightful place (Gal. 6:1). Why, though, should this be done, if, as you allege, he is forgiven? If he is forgiven by "the mercy of God (and) the blood of Christ," to what does he need to be restored? If he is safe in the mercy and grace of God, restoring him, putting him in some other place, can only remove him from God's love.

(It will not suffice to say that the fellow in Galatians 6:1 did not truly sin, for the offender is contrasted with those who are "spiritual." Since they are "spiritual, " what does that make him? In addition, the "spiritual" ones are to be wary lest they "also be tempted." The fact that they were to avoid being "tempted," as their brother had been, shows that it was truly a sinful condition into which he had fallen, for why should they consider themselves if their being "tempted" would not cause them to sin? From that situation, "spiritual" ones were to "restore such an one." So, he was in sin and unforgiven.)

(d) See also James 5:19, 20 - "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins" (Jas. 5:19, 20). If a man is instantly forgiven without confession of his sins, how can it be said that he needs to be converted and that his soul needs to be saved from death? If, as you argue, he is forgiven "by the mercy of God (and) the grace of Christ, and is thus safe in God's grace and mercy," "converting" (turning, changing) him will lead him away from God's mercy, grace, and forgiveness.

Again, since, according to you, his erring from the truth is forgiven, how, or in what sense, can it be said that his soul needs to be saved "from death"? How can a man's soul be in danger of "death" if he is already forgiven without confession?

Finally, in this connection, what does James mean when he says that a "multitude of sins" will be hidden when the man is converted? According to your doctrine, he is forgiven before he is converted, before he is brought to confession of his sins. So, how can it be said that there is a "multitude of sins" that yet remain and need to be hidden?

(e) Robby, "the mercy of God, (and) the blood of Christ" is extended toward the alien sinner, as well as to the erring child of God (1 Jn. 2:1, 2). "I could ask you to prove why the mercy of God, the blood of Christ, doesn't cover the sins of someone not in Christ until they confess them." Does that same "mercy of God" and "blood of Christ" forgive the alien who has not confessed his sins? As we know, the alien sinner must meet certain conditions in order to receive forgiveness through the mercy of God and the blood of Christ (Jn. 3:36; 8:24; Heb. 5:9). So must the erring child of God (1 Jn. 1:9).

However, if "the mercy of God (and) the blood of Christ" automatically forgive the child of God, why do they not also grant the same immediate forgiveness to the alien sinner,
without his having to comply with conditions of pardon? Can you take the Bible and show a distinction between the conditional forgiveness of the alien sinner and the forgiveness of the erring child of God?

(2) "I could ask you why you aren't re-baptized every time you fall short of God's glory."

Reply: As the pattern of Acts 8:12, 13, 22-24, shows in the case of Simon the sorcerer, one need not be "re-baptized every time" he sins. See also 1 John 1:9 cited above. There again the Spirit shows us what the erring child of God is to do; namely, repent, confess, and pray. That is what the Bible teaches and that is what Christians do when they sin.

Robby, "I could ask you why you aren't re-baptized every time you fall short of God's glory," too. You see, you believe that one should be baptized because he has been saved and forgiven. Alright, that being the case, when you sin and are granted forgiveness for it, as you believe you are, why are you not "re-baptized every time" you are forgiven? If, according to you, I must be "re-baptized every time" I sin in order to have my sins forgiven, why is not the same true of you? Why are you not "re-baptized" every time you are forgiven of sin?

For example, you were baptized into the Baptist church. Suppose you were to fall into sin and be withdrawn from by the church. Now, if you repented and were forgiven, would you have to be "re-baptized" to be received back into fellowship in the Baptist church? No, but, since you say you had to be baptized to get into the Baptist church initially, why must you not have to be "re-baptized every time" you sin and fall away from it? See the parallel with your attempt to say that I must be "re-baptized every time" I sin? So, if you can understand how that you need not be "re-baptized every time" you fall away and then come back into the Baptist church, you ought to see that the same is true with respect to the child of God (Acts 8:12, 13, 22-24; 1 Jn. 1:9).

(3) "I could ask you why one part of Mark 16 is literal (v. 15), yet another part is metaphoric or non-applicable to our day (v. 16, 17)."

Reply: "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following." (Mk. 16:15-20).

You wonder why I accept verses 15 and 16 but do not accept the rest of the verses which speak of miracles. Before I explain, let me ask you the same question. Do you not accept verse 15 - "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"? Do you not accept verse 16 when it says, "he that believeth not shall be damned?" Surely, you do. Now, do you believe that men today may take up serpents and "drink any deadly thing" without it hurting them? No, you do not. So, I ask you the same question, why (do you say) one part of Mark 16 is literal (v. 15), yet another part is...non-applicable to our day" (v. 17, 18)?

Observe that as they went and preached, the Lord worked with them, "confirming the word with signs following" (v. 20). That word "was confirmed" (Heb. 2:3, 4). Once it "was confirmed," it did not need to be confirmed again, for "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto" (Gal. 3:15). So, once the word "was confirmed," miracles ceased and were "done away" (1 Cor. 13:8-10 - From our web site, www.Biblework.com, you may order the tapes, "Holy Spirit
Baptism, Tongues, And Miracles" and, "If They Have Holy Spirit Baptism").

Jesus was approved and shown to be the Son of God by miracles and wonders and signs, especially by his resurrection from the dead (Matt. 9:6; 11:3-5; 12:39, 40; Jn. 3:2; 10:25, 37, 38; 12:37, 38; Acts 2:22; Rom. 1:4). Do we need those signs to be performed again in every age and generation in order to produce faith? No, they "are written (not performed again) that ye might believe" (Jn. 20:30, 31). Jesus' miracles "follow" in that they are recorded in the testimony which has been "confirmed." Today, "faith cometh by hearing" that divinely confirmed word (Jn. 20:17; Acts 14:1; Rom. 10:8, 14-17).

Why, though, do we still believe that Mark 16:15, 16, is applicable-"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mk. 16:16). Do men need to be saved today? Do men need to hear the gospel of Christ in order to be saved? If so, then those words are still applicable. The man who believes and is baptized will be saved; the man who does not believe will be condemned.

(4) "I could ask why you, wanting to be the reincarnation of the early church, avoid using pianos and drums, yet use microphones and air conditioning."

Reply: (I shall assume by your use of the term, "reincarnation," you are referring to Christians who follow the instruction of the New Testament to "make all things according to the pattern" of the word of God.) Robby, do you mean to imply that the Southern Baptist churches claim not to be patterned after those of the New Testament? (I know they are not, neither in their work, worship, or organization, but I did not expect you to suggest that they do not attempt to emulate the form and fashion of the New Testament.) Do you not desire that your children hold to the traditions and
teachings of the Southern Baptist church of which you are a member? Should every Southern Baptist church in each generation be free to establish its own system of faith and practice? If so, of what use is the New Testament? If not, what was your point in seeming to speak derogatorily of those who desire to pattern themselves after the New Testament order?

In the New Testament, Christians were urged to follow the pattern of the word of God (Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 4:6, 17; 11:1, 2; Gal. 1:6-9; Phil. 3:16, 17; Col. 3:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2; Heb. 8:5; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:18, 19). Those churches and individuals that varied from the teaching they received, we exhorted to turn back to the truth from which they had wandered (Gal. 1:6-9; 3:1; 5:7; 6:16; 1 Tim. 1:3, 9-11; 4:1-6, 11, 16; Rev. 2:5).

Now, to your question which seeks, in principle, to equate "pianos and drums" with "microphones and air conditioning." You ask why we "avoid using pianos and drums, yet use microphones and air conditioning." I could ask you why you avoid using hard rock bands and exotic dance troupes, yet use microphones and air conditioning. If I did, what would you say?

We do not use pianos and drums because they are not authorized in the New Testament. The Bible says we are to sing and make melody in our hearts, not on our harps (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). If you can show me where we are given the authority to "play" as well as to "sing," I will not avoid either pianos or drums. Southern Baptists "avoid baptismal fonts for the sprinkling of infants, yet use large baptisteries for immersion." Robby, when you explain why that is done, you will have the answer to your questions of me.

Microphones amplify the voice or sound. We are commanded to teach and to sing (Matt. 28:19; Eph. 5:19; 2 Tim. 2:2). A microphone does not add to those acts. It simply aids us in doing what the Lord said do; namely, to teach and sing. (A hammer and a saw did not add to what God told Noah to do. Rather, they aided him in doing what God said do; namely, build the ark.) However, a piano and a drum necessitate another action or activity; namely, playing. We are told to sing, not to play. If you can find the authority for playing, you will have found authority for those instruments.

The Bible speaks of the church coming together "in one place" (1 Cor. 14:23). It speaks of Christians who assemble or "come together" (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Heb. 10:25). (If there were no passages showing that Christians must come together, there would be no authority for a meeting place and for its seats, lights, and heating and cooling facilities.) The authority to assemble necessitates certain physical facilities. For example, lights often must be used (Acts 20:8). Neither the lights, nor the heating or cooling adds to what God said to do; namely, to assemble and worship as God has instructed. Rather, they assist the worshippers in being able to carry out their assigned activities as God would have them to do. When we use lights, microphones and heating and cooling units, we have done nothing other than what God said do; namely, come together, sing, eat the Lord's supper, and "lay by...in store."

However, the same cannot be said when we add a piano or a drum. Those instruments require an action (playing) which God has not been approved. If they were authorized, we could use a microphone in order to make the sound of that which was played audible to others. First, though, the activity itself must be authorized. It is the same with respect to singing. Without the authority to "sing," there would be no authority for a microphone, a song book, or a song leader. With the authority to sing comes the right to have such items, for they expedite the command. If there were divine authority for playing instruments, we could have them, along with conductors, sheet music, and microphones. Without the authority to play, we can have none of them. (The command to "teach" also, of course, would authorize the use of a microphone.)

"Acts 20:7, The Lord's Supper, And "Long-Winded" Preaching."

One Sunday while attending my Baptist church, my cousin (who is a member of a church of Christ) noted, among other things, that we did not partake in the Lord's Supper. We began to discuss the differences of having the Lord's Supper every Sunday and having it once every couple of months or so. During the discussion, I was enlightened by this passage (which I know you are familiar with)...Acts 20:7. Apparently this one verse is the foundation for this particular doctrinal rule, or law, if you will, of the Lord's Church.

Not having a concordance handy, I took her word on the "breaking of bread" being a reference to the Eucharist and not to a fellowship supper. The question I had for her, and the question I pose for you today, is about the second half of that verse. Notice the length of Paul's sermon. He must've been quite long-winded that particular night. But, according to the logic applied to the first half of the verse, because he was long-winded that specific night, he was long-winded every Sunday.

Why then, Brother Hafley, are meetings at the churches of Christ some of the shortest among Protestant churches in my area?"

Reply: Before I reply to issues you have raised, please tell me what a "fellowship supper" is. I can read that when the church eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord that the members have "communion" or fellowship with the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16, 17). Thus, if anything should be called a "fellowship supper," it should be the Lord's supper-"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42). To what "fellowship supper," then, did you have reference? How can holy men of God partake of the spiritual body and blood of the Lord and have spiritual "communion," and fellowship therein, and then turn and say, "Now, let us be dismissed for a 'fellowship supper,' which consists of potato salad, fried chicken, and baked beans?! If those things constitute a "fellowship supper," what was the Lord's supper and our praise and prayer unto him?!

Next, let me say that I am very disappointed in your cousin. Since he is a member of the body of Christ, he had no reason to be with you at a Southern Baptist church on Sunday, the Lord's day. He should have been assembling with the saints (Acts 20:7). As your account of his conversation with you shows, he obviously knows the difference between what Baptists preach and practice and what the New Testament authorizes. That being true, he should not have gone with you (Heb. 10:25).

His going with you was a poor example. It said, in effect, that it was unimportant whether one assembles with the Lord's people and worships as the New Testament directs. Your cousin likely knew before he went that it was not the practice of a Baptist church to break bread "upon the first day of the week" as the Bible teaches (Acts 20:7). He knew that he could not contribute of his means "upon the first day of the week" as the Bible teaches (1 Cor. 16:2). (Amazing, is it not, that Baptist churches will accept an "offering" every Sunday, but they will not take the Lord's supper that frequently.) Your cousin knew that the singing, contrary to the plan and pattern of the Bible, would be accompanied by mechanical instruments, yet he chose to worship with you and your fellow Baptists (Col. 3:16, 17). Your cousin did you a disservice by going and giving credence, by his presence, to your worship, which, according to Jesus, is in vain (Matt. 7:21-23; 15:8, 9). Worse, yet, he slapped, as it were, the Lord in the face and discounted his word, discredited his will, and despised his way as a matter of no moment or consequence. Shame on him!

Further, let me note that the Lord's church is not a "Protestant" church, as that term is commonly understood. Though the Lord's church is universal or world-wide in scope, potentially encompassing "every creature" in "all nations," it is not a "Catholic" church as the world views Catholic churches. Likewise, though it protests against sin and error, it is not a "Protestant" church in the same sense as the world considers a church to be a Protestant church.

Next, referencing Acts 20:7, and the weekly observance of the Lord's supper, you say, "Apparently this one verse is the foundation for this particular doctrinal rule, or law, if you will, of the Lord's Church." (a) How many times must a thing be said for a it to be a "doctrinal rule, or law...of the Lord's Church"? Is not "one verse" sufficient to establish God's "rule, or law"? (b) Baptist churches take up a collection of funds every Sunday. There is only "one verse" which speaks to the propriety of such action (1 Cor. 16:2). Is that "one verse" sufficient to establish "this particular doctrinal rule, or law"? Evidently, it is, for that is what Baptist churches do. That being so, why is not "one verse" all that is needed to set the pattern for the Lord's supper, too? (c) No other passage in the Bible tells us when the disciples broke bread. It is all we have as to the time and frequency of its being eaten. We know they "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine...and in breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42). Do we not abide in the apostles' doctrine when we do as they did with respect to the Lord's supper (Phil. 3:16, 17; 4:9)? Likewise, do we not stray from apostolic teaching when we fail to do as they did (Cf. Acts 15:24)? (d) Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Do we not walk "by faith" when we do as they did? When Baptists and others partake of the Lord's supper daily or monthly, they cannot do so "by faith," for, as noted, "faith cometh by hearing" the word of God. (e) We are to speak and act only as the New Testament directs us (Matt. 28:20; 1 Cor. 4:6, 17; Col. 3:17; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Jn. 9).  Where, in the New Testament, do we learn that we are speaking "as the oracles (or spokesmen) of God" when we speak of a monthly or quarterly observance of the Lord's supper? (f) Since you imply that "one verse" may not be enough to make the weekly observance of the Lord's supper a "doctrinal rule, or law," how many verses do you have for the practice of Southern Baptist churches with respect to the time and frequency with which they take it?

Your objection to the above, though, is that if we would bind the Lord's supper to the first day of the week, we must also insist on long services since Paul preached a "long" time.

The length of the service is not bound upon us anymore than the fact that it was held in the "third loft" of that building (Acts 20:9). "Since all knew it was the last time Paul planned to be with them, they would naturally plan for a long meeting" (New Testament History-Acts, Gareth L. Reese, quoting professor Dale, p. 736). As proof of Dale's conclusion, note Acts 20:25, 38. On that same journey, Paul expected not to see the Ephesians again, so he would not see the men of Troas again, either. Thus, the long service is explained by that fact and not because it was part of apostolic preaching and practice.

Too, at times, it may be necessary not to have extra long services so that all things may be done decently and in order. As long as a service allows enough time for a congregation to learn, be edified, and comforted, exhorted and encouraged in the word of the Lord, fulfilling the appointments of the Lord, that service is pleasing to God if it be done "in spirit and in truth" (Jn. 4:24; 1 Cor. 14:3, 5, 12, 26b, 31, 33, 40).

Though it was not a meeting of the Lord's church, we do know that one preaching service lasted less than an hour, for the jailer at Philippi was baptized "the same hour" he heard the word of the Lord (Acts 16:25, 30-34).Since the particular length of a service cannot be given, I cannot bind a time limit. However, I will say that it often (though not always) is typical of soft, weak, compromising churches to seek shorter and shorter services. They have time to sit through long movies and ball games, but an attitude of, "get me in and get me out" of worship, sort of like a drive through window at McDonalds, seems to permeate and motivate the hearts of many.

I realize, of course, that some weak, soft, compromising churches, especially those of human origin, often have long services. Thus, neither the shortness nor the length of the service can be a true and complete measure of its spiritual worth and value. Whether long or short, is the will of the Lord being done (Col. 2:4-8)? Is the word of God being taught? Are saints being exhorted, warned, reproved, rebuked, and encouraged (Col. 1:28; 2 Tim. 4:2-5)? Are sinners being taught the truth, hearing and learning about
righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25)? Dare we put a stop watch to such high, holy, and heavenly themes? Yes, churches of Christ should take heed in this regard.

Robby, I trust that these thoughts will be helpful to you in your study. I encourage you to leave the Southern Baptist church, obey the gospel, and become a Christian. Leave and lay aside every vestige of human religion and follow the heavenly pattern of work and worship outlined in the New Testament. If I may answer further questions, or be of help to you in any way, please do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely, your friend,

Larry

Other Articles
Four Flaws in the Four Spiritual Laws
Living Together Before Marriage
Jesus - The Way Out of Confusion

 

 

 Would you like others to read this article?

                    Please share!