Not Recommended Reading: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Part 3)
Acts
One of the usual ways members of the churches of Christ check any book is to observe the handling of the truths set forth in the Book of Acts. Here, Jesus ascends into heaven (Acts 1:9-11) to receive the kingdom promised to His father (ancestor) David (Acts 2:29-33). Peter establishes the Lord's resurrection from the Scriptures and eyewitness testimony (Acts 2:22-36). When those who crucified Jesus ask what they should do (Acts 2:37), it is absolutely crucial that all mankind listen to the answer. However, only a paragraph in How To… mentions this great salvation that Peter taught, and the significance of being forgiven through repentance and baptism is neither explained nor expounded upon. Fee and Stuart write:
When he [Luke, gws] records individual conversions there are usually two elements included: the gift of the Spirit and water baptism. But these can be noted in reverse order…and scarcely ever with a specific mention of repentance, even after what Peter says in his opening address in the book (Acts 2:38-39) (119).
That's all they wrote concerning Peter's answer regarding what the people should do in response to their crucifixion of Jesus. The passage is not discussed anywhere else in their book. Repentance may not be cited as often as baptism is, but it is scarcely ignored. In fact, as soon as Acts 3:19, Peter preaches, "Repent therefore and be converted." Paul, on Mars Hill, told the crowd that God "now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Everywhere Paul presented the gospel, he taught that people "should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance" (Acts 26:20). Luke also mentions repentance five other times in the Book of Acts (5:31, 11:18; 13:24; 19:4; and 20:21). Thus, Luke hardly ignores the concept.
The two responses that Peter gave the multitude proved them guilty of murder in Acts 2. The answer to their question of what they should do (Acts 2:37), involved repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of their sins. The receiving of the Holy Spirit is not a command; it comes as the result of obeying the two commands. So, we see very little attention paid to the most important topic of the New Testament—the way a person is saved from his sins.
Restoration
Of course, the concept of teaching only what is recorded in the New Testament is of great importance to us. What should we do—ignore what is written there and throw in with popular cultural ideas instead? By whose authority could we do such a thing?
The concept of restoration has always been a legitimate one—especially after decades (or centuries) of "Christians" departing from what is written in the New Testament concerning salvation, the church, and other fundamental doctrines. In the Old Testament, we study about kings who made efforts to restore the kingdom to the way God designed it. How did they do it? Most obvious are the restoration efforts of Hezekiah and Josiah. What they did is full of common sense.
Did God say not to make idols—graven images? Yes, He included that principle as part of the Ten Commandments that He gave to Israel at Mount Sinai when He gave them His holy law: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20:4). Over the course of Judah's history, some very corrupt kings came to power; were idols made during their reigns? Yes. They were worshiped and served (2 Chron. 28:22-25).
What was the solution to this problem that Hezekiah faced? The obvious answer was to restore things to the way God wanted them when He gave the law—get rid of the idols! Thus, restoration involved returning to the way God designed things in the first place. Could the idols remain and God be pleased with His people? No! They had to go.
Another example of disobedience occurred during the days of Nehemiah with respect to the Sabbath. God had specifically stated: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work…" (Ex. 20:8-10a). Now, if people worked on the Sabbath, in violation of this command, then what was the solution?
Would it not be to restore what God originally said and cease working on that day? Nehemiah saw the violations occurring: "In those days I saw people in Judah treading wine presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and loading donkeys with wine, grapes, figs, and all kinds of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. And I warned them about the day on which they were selling provisions" (Neh. 13:15).
Now, what is the only solution to the problem? Is it not to return to the Law God gave His people regarding there being no work accomplished on the Sabbath day? That would mean a cessation of all the WORK the people were doing on the Sabbath day, including selling their wares in the market place on that day. Is it difficult to see that a change of their behavior would restore God's original design?
Just as men ignored God's laws regarding the Ten Commandments over the centuries, so have many New Testament teachings fallen by the wayside—or been altered, such as baptizing infants (although it usually involves sprinkling or pouring water upon an infant rather than immersion). So, what is the solution? Shall we continue with what has now become a common "Christian" practice (because so many engage in it), or return to the New Testament teaching that only responsible adults should choose to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins?
Infants are not cognizant of having done anything wrong; they have had no time to develop faith in God (which comes by hearing the Word of God, as per Romans 10:17); they cannot make the good confession that Christ is the Son of God (1 Tim. 6:12). They cannot of their own volition choose to repent of their sins (even if they had any) or be baptized to have those sins forgiven. In addition to these truths, God never authorized infant baptism, and not one example of anything even close to it can be found in the New Testament.
The only way we know to be pleasing to God is to do what He has commanded and not invent things to do that He has not commanded, such as baptize infants. The only way to restore New Testament doctrine, therefore, is to go back to what we find taught in the New Testament—and abide by it. If we find only adults obeying the gospel, then why would we want to present any other ideas? When the Israelites created graven images, the solution was to get rid of them. If they violated the Sabbath, the answer was to restore rest, as God had commanded it. If an error has crept into the practice of Christianity, then it should be removed. This is the concept of restoration.
Therefore, it is disconcerting to observe that Fee and Stuart disparage the concept when they write:
Many sectors of evangelical Protestantism have a "restoration" mentality. We regularly look back to the church and Christian experience in the first century either as the norm to be restored or the ideal to be approximated. Thus we often say things like, "Acts plainly teaches us that…." However, it seems obvious that not all of the "plain teaching" is equally plain to all (113).
Why not? It is not difficult to see the solution when Israel violated God's laws. Why is it so difficult to see it when reading the New Testament? Could it be that people do not want to give up a practice simply because it is not in the New Testament? Do we choose rather to malign the concept of restoration rather than abide by it?
All that we have to go on is written in the New Testament. Having found departures from what it teaches, the only legitimate response is to restore what the Word actually teaches. Any other approach compromises the very purpose and doctrine of God.
No Definition of Baptism
Fee and Stuart, in the final analysis, so desire to be tied to cultural customs and practices, rather than what the Scriptures teach, that they offer the following assessment: "There is no express teaching on such matters as the mode of baptism, the age of those who are to be baptized…" (127). What?!
The reason that the New Testament does not comment on a mode of baptism is that modes did not exist. Those who read and study the New Testament have never found in the pages of the New Testament anything concerning modes of baptism. In fact, the word mode does not appear in the New Testament.
Did the people who read the Greek language know what their own word, baptism, meant? Of course, they did. They knew the definition of the word is "immersion." Thus, when baptism was mentioned, they did not look at each other and say, "I wonder what mode we're talking about." One can begin with Thayer's lexicon to see the way baptisma is defined (immersion, submersion) and then consult a thousand similar works—all of which will say the same thing. No linguistic controversy exists.
Mark 1:4 describes the ministry of the one who baptized: "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Did he have enough water to immerse people? The Jordan River surely was sufficient. John offers a note of explanation when John was in a different locale: "Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized" (John 3:23).
When Paul writes Romans 6, he simply points out what the Greek readers of the New Testament already knew—that baptism is a burial in water: We are buried with Him [Jesus, gws] "through baptism into death" (v. 4). A burial is a complete—not a partial—covering. Therefore, no confusion ought to exist among those who read the New Testament. Baptism refers to immersion, a burial in water.
Therefore, one wonders what the problem is with Fee and Stuart. They cannot be ignorant of these facts. What, then, is the reference to modes? They are trying not to offend those who have grown up in a time when sprinkling and pouring some water on someone (especially an infant) is called baptism. All of us should recognize that people's feelings, even when they are taught error, are important.
But compassion on the predicament of others cannot be allowed to change the truth! Only the truth can set people free from sin (John 8:31-32). We cannot have it both ways. People cannot be saved by having water sprinkled or poured over them because those actions are not baptism. Fee and Stuart seem more than willing to compromise on the matter, but those who want mankind to be saved cannot do so. We must continue to teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 2:38-41; 20:27).