Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
August 16, 1962
NUMBER 15, PAGE 2,11b

Miscellaneous Matters From "Burnett's Budgett" - (VII.)

Bill Cavender

(Note: The material in this article is from bro. T. R. Burnett's "Budget," the issue of January 15, 1911, and which was published in Dallas, Texas.)

1. Jesus says: `Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God." The life germ is implanted in the begetting. The birth act is baptism. Therefore every person who believes that Jesus is the Christ, and is baptized, is both begotten and born, and is a child of God.

2. Every Christian in Texas should pay his taxes, and have a tax receipt, and be prepared to help take Texas out of the saloon business. It is as much your duty to do this, as it is your duty to help your neighbors build good roads, good schools, and good society. A Christian is not a recluse. His work is among his people, to help them in every good thing. When it comes to prohibition, there is only one side to the question to a Christian man.

3. "The only Baptist mentioned in the Bible was John the Baptist, and he was received into the church at eight day's old." — Pigue's Paper.

A mistake. John was born into the Abrahamic church, and circumcised eight days after he entered. But infants are baptized into the Methodist church (see creed), hence, baptism does not come in room of circumcision. Yet infants do not get into the Methodist church by birth, circumcision, baptism, or any other way.

4. A Texas editor says that a man who is dead-bent on going to heaven can get there as quickly afoot as he can in an automobile. Yes, and if he does not keep out of the way of the other fellow's auto, he will get there more quickly.... Red River was frozen over during the recent cold spell, the first time such a thing has occurred in over twenty years... During the year 1910, Dallas located 296 new firms, 10 factories, secured a million-dollar twenty-story hotel, and entertained 27 conventions....A Texas editor condemns Noah because he did not take his mother-in-law into the ark with him....When a modern man falls from grace he tries to make believe it was only a slight slip of one foot....One of the easiest things in the world is for a preacher to say something that somebody will not endorse....0n the last day of the year the town of Fulton, Ark., voted out the saloons, and there is not now a wet spot on the map between Little Rock and Dallas, Texas, a distance of 354 miles....A scribe in the Firm Foundation calls the communion "the sacramental supper." That sounds Ashdodic and sectarian. The word sacrament IS derived from the Latin SACRAMENTUM, and means oath: There is no oath about the Lord's Supper....When a husband eats wet goods in order to kill the strong breath of a snuff-dipping wife, marriage is a failure...."Sam Day has wedded Lucy Knight, And now the people say, The preacher wrought a miracle, By turning Knight to Day"....The time has passed when an old man thinks it smart for his little boy to 'suck the corn-cob stopper of his Christmas jug.

5. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LORD'S SUPPER. "Bro 'Burnett: Our brethren are not altogether a unit in their manner of observing the Lord's Supper. Some churches use leaven bread, some a loaf made of biscuit dough, (which is made with sour milk, and soda or baking powder,) while some use ordinary soda crackers. Some use wine, some, unfermented grape juice, while some use a concoction made by steeping raisins in water and straining out the grapes and sweetening with sugar. The more I have investigated this matter, the more certain I feel that this condition should not exist, but that there should be uniformity in our practice. There is certainly a need of teaching along this line, and I know no one who is more competent to do it than yourself. Will you please give the matter of the bread and cup a thorough investigation, and give us your conclusion in the columns of the Budget?" — R. W. Holbrook When two persons differ, one of them is evidently wrong. When two churches differ about an important matter like the Lord's supper, one of them has departed from the apostolic model. We can hardly conceive that one church used unleavened bread, another biscuit-dough cake, and another crackers, in the apostolic day. Nor can we hardly conceive that one used wine, another must, and another sweetened water. It may not be a damning sin to use either fermented or unfermented wine (if there can be such a thing as fermented wine), as both are "fruit of the vine," but one or the other is a departure from the model. It is always safe to follow the model. The writer once worshipped in a church where the pastor gave thanks for the bread and wine at the same time, and he afterwards asked if there was anything wrong in it. I replied that I could see nothing wrong in it, only it was not like the model, and I would be afraid to depart from the model. The Savior did not give thanks for the bread and wine at the same time. And the Savior did not use three sorts of bread and three sorts of grape-juice when he instituted the Lord's supper. He used the unleavened bread of the Passover, and wine of the Passover, which was (if authorities are of any value) the common red wine of Palestine, or the fermented juice of the grape. Abbott's Commentary says the bread was "a round cake of unleavened bread." Smith's Bible Dictionary says the cup contained the "common red wine of Palestine," and further says: "It has been disputed whether the Hebrew wine was fermented, but the impression produced on the mind by a general review of the above notices is that the Hebrew words indicating wine refer to fermented, intoxicating wine." The use of wine in the Passover was not enjoined by the law of Moses, but had become an established custom at the time of our Savior, and was a part of the feast when he instituted the Lord's supper. As the use of wine has been so prostituted in our day, some zealous prohibitionists think Christ could not have used intoxicating wine In the Lord's supper, and deny flatly that he made such wine at Cana. This writer is a' prohibitionist "(Of the strongest type), but he is also a stickler for Bible truth. Christ made wine (oinos) at Cana, and Paul says in Eph. 5:18, "Be not drunk with wine, (oinos), wherein is excess." The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says the words "fruit of the vine," which the Savior used, had been used by the Jews from time immemorial to designate the wine used on sacred occasions like the Passover. This writer has never refused to worship with a church that uses unfermented grape juice, (because it is also fruit of the vine), but it is not what the Savior used, and it is always safe to follow the model. The Lord blessed the loaf (gave thanks) before he brake it, but some elders reverse the order. This too is a departure from the model. Adhesion to the model will bring harmony.

6. THAT RAW BAPTIST AGAIN. "When Ananias approached Saul, he called him 'brother Saul.' Why did he call him brother? He told Saul what he had come for (when he laid his hands on him), that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. But Eld. Burnett says he was not filled with the Holy Spirit until he was baptized. Chapter and verse, please." — Bid. B. E. Masters Bid. Burnett gave you chapter and verse, but you paid no attention to it. He gave you Acts 2:38, where the Spirit was given after baptism; John 14:17, where Christ said that sinners can not receive the Spirit; and Acts 22:16, which shows Saul's sins were not washed away till he was baptized. As the Spirit is given after baptism (except the miraculous), it was as necessary for Ananias to come to him for this purpose as that he might receive his sight. See? Well, if somebody would work a miracle on you, and open your eyes, you could see. Ananias called Saul brother, because that was the way one Jew addressed another. On the day of Pentecost Peter called the wicked Jews who crucified the Lord 'brethren' while charging them with murder. Did that prove they were at that time converted? — Burnett.

"Cornelius received the Holy Ghost or the Holy Ghost fell on him and his household, before they were baptized, which enabled them to speak with tongues, just like the apostles did on the day of Pentecost. The speaking with tongues was the result of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and no man was baptized with the Holy Ghost before regeneration. Now, elder, it is up to you to establish the contrary:" — Eld. B. H. Masters., We established the contrary in a former article, but you paid no attention to it — as usual. Cornelius received the baptism of the Spirit before he was saved, for the angel said he would be saved by the words told by Peter. (Acts 11:14) and Peter had not told the words when the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius, for Peter said: "As I BEGAN to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning." (Acts 11:15). Open your eyes, elder. We gave you the case of the man who was endued with the Spirit from his mother's womb. When was he regenerated? Balaam's ass spoke with tongues, Masters can not speak with tongues. Does the ass present a better proof of regeneration than Masters? If the miraculous endowment of the Spirit and the gift of tongues are proof of regeneration, (as you say) the ass has the proof and Masters has not! Say, elder: If you will submit the case to the "coroner's inquest" of any Baptist church, it will vote the ass in, and vote you out! We told you the miraculous gift of the Spirit had nothing to do with regeneration, and could be received before or after, though the gift was generally bestowed upon regenerated persons. — Burnett.

"Speaking of Saul's blindness, the Scriptures represent a lost sinner as blind, having the understanding darkened. 'But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.' Also Eph. 4:18. This is spoken of sinners. Two things are essential to seeing; one is light, and the other is sight. God's word gives light, but it requires an additional power to produce sight. Now, elder, if you will meet these scriptures, and show that baptism gives light, I will let you off." — Eld. B. E. Masters.

Nobody wishes to show that baptism gives light, for nobody holds such foolishness. But light is not remission of sins. Light shows a man how to obtain remission of sins. You ought to buy you a dictionary, and learn the definition of words. You think Saul's blindness was spiritual blindness, and when he received his sight he obtained remission of sins. What sins, then, were washed away in baptism? Do you think remission of sins took place in his eyes? Even a blind Baptist ought to know better than that; elder. Saul had been spiritually blind many years, but on the way to Damascus his spiritual eyes were opened, while his physical eyes were blinded. He had to be led by the hand — he couldn't see the road. Can a sinner see the road, elder? Does sin blind the physical eyes? Well, when Ananias healed Saul's physical blindness, it had nothing to do with his spiritual blindness, for Saul was not then spiritually blind. You think the scales that fell from his eyes were his sins, but even a scaly Baptist ought to know better than that. Sins do not stick to a man's eyes. — Burnett.

— P.O. Box 5794, Longview, Texas

(Continued on page eleven)'