Foolish Hobbies

THESE are many hobbies in this old world of ours. Some are useful, some

useless, and some foolish. The brethren are not immune to some of these

foolish hobbies. In this article we want to point out a few of these foolish

hobbies.Human Helps

One brother says he is against all "human helps" in the study of the Bible.

Brother, you must read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew and the New

Testament in Greek. Our English translations would come under the head of

"human helps." You had better make no references to chapters and verses. The

Bible was not divided into chapters and verses for hundreds of years after the

book was written. These are ''human helps," and mighty good helps they are.

Do you use songbooks where you worship? These are "human helps." Yes,

and they are uninspired, and would come under the head of "literature." When

your preacher preaches, he is making uninspired comment About ninety per

cent of his sermon would be his oral comments, and all of it would be

uninspired. What change would it make if he were to write these comments

instead of giving them orally? The only difference I can see is that he might

take more time and thought in the preparation of the written comments. Does

your preacher ever use the blackboard or charts? Those are all "human helps."

And they are uninspired! The chances are that your preacher will use "human

helps" to show that he is against "human helps"! All preachers use "human

helps" in the preparation of their sermons. I have seen many a Bible study (?)

all but ruined because the teacher (?) had not made preparation. I am sure the

class would have derived much more benefit from the lesson had they had

some carefully prepared "human helps" to have guided them.

Bible Study

And still other brethren are opposed to a systematic study of the Bible on

Lord's-day morning. Sometimes they will deny that they are against Bible

study, but they are against the Sunday school. I do not think much of using

the term "Sunday school," because of the association in the mind of the

average person. I am sure the term "Bible study" is to be preferred. Some say

that they are against dividing into classes. Brother,you do not need to do this; the Lord has taken care of that little matter. We

are already divided into classes. The little child is not in the same class with

the mature Bible student. We must adapt our teaching to the one being taught.

I am sure this cannot be done so effectively when we have the little child and

the adult in the same class before us. Sometimes I think the honest brethren

are not so much opposed to the "class system" as they are to the confusion

that is often found where two or more classes are being taught in the same

room. All of us should be opposed to this noise and confusion. Very few

rooms are large enough to have two or more classes going at the same time

without too much noise and confusion. But why have this condition? Why not

provide rooms for each class? The cost would not be prohibitive. And this

would also do away with a lot of the trouble that we have about "classes."

Surely no sensible person is going to oppose the teaching of the Bible to a

group who have come together for the express purpose of studying the Bible.

And Lord's-day morning would be one of the most convenient times to

thus assemble. Why not spend some precious time before the regular hour of

worship in a careful study of the Bible? I am sure this would be more

profitable than lying in bed on Sunday mornings or reading the "funnies." And

we could gather in many children and others from sectarian homes and from

homes that make no profession of religion and teach them the word of God.

Why let the sectarians gather in the children while we sit supinely by?

"Baptisteries"

Some good, honest, and sincere brethren think it is wrong to baptize in

artificial pools. I would be afraid to take that position. My reason for thus

being afraid is that I would be afraid to add an opinion to the word of God and

bind that opinion on others. The book teaches plainly that we must be

baptized to be saved. This baptism must take place in water. There the bookstops. I am sure it is wise for us to stop where the Bible stops, but do not stop

until it stops. When we say that the water must be in a certain place or

contained within certain limits, we have gone beyond what is written. We are

speaking where the Bible does not speak. If there were to be any importance

attached to the container of the water, I am sure the Lord would have said •

so. Someone is ready to say that all of the cases of New Testament baptism

which are recorded took place in streams of running water. This no one

knows. In what stream or streams were the three thousand on Pentecost

baptized? We know they were baptized, but I am equally sure that we do not

know exactly where the water was. The Bible does not say. In what stream

was the Philippian jailer baptized? The Bible does not say. It does say that he

was baptized, but it does not say where he was baptized. He may have been

baptized in a stream, but this cannot be proved by the Bible. It takes water in

which to perform a scriptural baptism. It takes enough of it to bury the

candidate in. When we meet these requirements, we have done exactly what

the Bible says to do.

"Cups"

In some quarters we hear much talk about using more than one cup. I am

sure that none of us believe in more than "one cup"; but when we begin to

confuse the "cup" with the vessel in which the "cup" is contained, we are

confusing the issue. The vessel is not the cup. Jesus gave thanks for the cup.

"And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye

all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for

the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this

fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's

kingdom." (Matt. 26:27-29.) What was it Jesus took? The cup! For what did

he give thanks? The cup! What did he tell the apostles to drink? The cup!

What did Jesus call "my blood of the new testament"? The cup! What did

Jesus call "this fruit of the vine"?The cup! The cup is what we give thanks for; it is the blood of the new

testament; it is the fruit of the vine.

And sometimes brethren who are so against the use of "individual cups"

will use two or more right along! Can we not see that such a position is not

only foolish, but absurd as well?

"And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said. Take this, and divide it

among yourselves." (Luke 22:17.) What is the antecedent of the pronoun "it"?

Of course it is "cup." What were they to divide? The cup! Of course no one

thinks they were to divide the vessel and drink it! The thing that was to be

divided was "the cup." Sometimes I think a lot of trouble could be avoided

and confusion in the congregations prevented by dividing the fruit of the vine

after the giving of thanks. I go many places where this is done. It takes but a

few minutes. And if we are in a worshipful frame of mind, this gives us a few

quiet minutes for meditation. And complete unity is worth a few minutes of

our time. And noise is not worship after all.