Subscribe to this page via e-mail here - Subscribe
0307
At. Lexington, Tennessee, August 25-28.
In this report I shall show some of the things into which Clark was driven by Bro. Freed's sledge-hammer blows. On 'Infant Baptism' Clark was so pressed that he finally said that fleshly Israel had nothing to do with infant sprinkling, that fleshly circumcision was not in any way connected with baptism, that baptism does not come in the room of circumcision, and that all Methodists who teach these things are mistaken. When Bro. Freed pressed upon Clark the fact that baptism is for that class who can and do believe, he said that a baby eight days old can and does believe, and if it does not it will be damned. To prove this he quoted Mark 16:16, "He that believeth not shall be damned." He then spoke of the baptism "in the cloud and in the sea" (I Corinthians 10:2), stating that many infants were baptized on that occasion. Bro. Freed showed that all who were baptized are able to eat spiritual meat and drink spiritual drink. Then he asked Clark: "Do your baptized infants eat spiritual and drink spiritual drink? At first he would not answer, but finally said, "Yes." He then affirmed that the Bible states that Christ was baptized when he was eight days old, referring to Luke 2:22: "And when the day of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord." Freed showed that the word "him" is not in the original text, and that the thing presented is named in verse 24: "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons." Every passage that Clark presented in reference to sprinkling was turned with telling effect.
On immersion, Bro. Freed first gave the primary definition of "baptidzo" from the standard lexicons of the world, showing that the first meaning of the word is "to dip, to plunge, to immerse," and that it never means to "sprinkle or pour". He then read the plain statements of Romans 6:3-4, and Colossians 2:12 saying, "These are surely sufficient to convince any fair-minded man that immersion in water is baptism." To this Clark replied: "Those passages refer to Holy Ghost baptism; there is not a drop of water in them." In the same speech he quoted Joel 2 and Acts 2 to prove that when men were baptized by the Spirit it was poured out; that it was not an immersion - thus contradicting himself. In Bro. Freed's reply he pressed Clark's contradiction upon him so forcibly that the effect upon the congregation was noticeable.
Bro. Freed showed that God commanded Naaman to dip himself seven times, and that the word from which "dip" is translated is the word from which "baptism" comes. Clark replied that God commanded Naaman not to dip, but to wash; that the word from which "wash" is the word for "sprinkle", that Naaman was nothing but a "Campbellite," anyway; ant that he did not do what God commanded. Bro. Freed then called Clark's attention to the fact that in II Kings 5:14 it is said: "Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God." Clark found himself in an embarrassing position and, indeed, this was the case throughout the debate.
On the operation of the Holy Spirit, Clark made another great blunder. He stated that Phillip was a "Campbellite" preacher; that he preached and baptized people without their receiving the Holy Ghost; and that Peter and John - good, old-time Methodist preachers - hearing of the work, went down and prayed for those folks, that they might received the Spirit. At this point he declared that this Spirit was not given to them by the laying on of hands; he said that Peter and John did not lay hands on them at all. Bro. Freed arose and demanded that Clark read Acts 8:17: "Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Clark read the passage.
Clark was weak on "baptism condition of pardon: but Freed was strong. When Clark closed his last speech, the Methodist moderator, very angry, jumped to his feet and began singing an old song. He said we always scattered songbooks and tried to close the debate. This was one time we would not do it. So that was their way of closing when suffering under the lash of truth.
Brethren, if Pigue, Hall comes to your community wanting a debate, write to Professor A. G. Freed, Henderson, Tennessee. It matters not who may be his opponent, the truth will never suffer in his hands. He is a man from every standpoint - loyal, true, brave, educated - and especially qualified for debating. I consider him the best debater in Tennessee. Indeed, I doubt if there is a better debater anywhere.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>
Print
A. G. Freed vs T. P. Clark (Methodist)
October 1, 1903
Lexington, Tennessee
(By W. T. Boaz)
October 1, 1903
Lexington, Tennessee
(By W. T. Boaz)
At. Lexington, Tennessee, August 25-28.
In this report I shall show some of the things into which Clark was driven by Bro. Freed's sledge-hammer blows. On 'Infant Baptism' Clark was so pressed that he finally said that fleshly Israel had nothing to do with infant sprinkling, that fleshly circumcision was not in any way connected with baptism, that baptism does not come in the room of circumcision, and that all Methodists who teach these things are mistaken. When Bro. Freed pressed upon Clark the fact that baptism is for that class who can and do believe, he said that a baby eight days old can and does believe, and if it does not it will be damned. To prove this he quoted Mark 16:16, "He that believeth not shall be damned." He then spoke of the baptism "in the cloud and in the sea" (I Corinthians 10:2), stating that many infants were baptized on that occasion. Bro. Freed showed that all who were baptized are able to eat spiritual meat and drink spiritual drink. Then he asked Clark: "Do your baptized infants eat spiritual and drink spiritual drink? At first he would not answer, but finally said, "Yes." He then affirmed that the Bible states that Christ was baptized when he was eight days old, referring to Luke 2:22: "And when the day of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord." Freed showed that the word "him" is not in the original text, and that the thing presented is named in verse 24: "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons." Every passage that Clark presented in reference to sprinkling was turned with telling effect.
On immersion, Bro. Freed first gave the primary definition of "baptidzo" from the standard lexicons of the world, showing that the first meaning of the word is "to dip, to plunge, to immerse," and that it never means to "sprinkle or pour". He then read the plain statements of Romans 6:3-4, and Colossians 2:12 saying, "These are surely sufficient to convince any fair-minded man that immersion in water is baptism." To this Clark replied: "Those passages refer to Holy Ghost baptism; there is not a drop of water in them." In the same speech he quoted Joel 2 and Acts 2 to prove that when men were baptized by the Spirit it was poured out; that it was not an immersion - thus contradicting himself. In Bro. Freed's reply he pressed Clark's contradiction upon him so forcibly that the effect upon the congregation was noticeable.
Bro. Freed showed that God commanded Naaman to dip himself seven times, and that the word from which "dip" is translated is the word from which "baptism" comes. Clark replied that God commanded Naaman not to dip, but to wash; that the word from which "wash" is the word for "sprinkle", that Naaman was nothing but a "Campbellite," anyway; ant that he did not do what God commanded. Bro. Freed then called Clark's attention to the fact that in II Kings 5:14 it is said: "Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God." Clark found himself in an embarrassing position and, indeed, this was the case throughout the debate.
On the operation of the Holy Spirit, Clark made another great blunder. He stated that Phillip was a "Campbellite" preacher; that he preached and baptized people without their receiving the Holy Ghost; and that Peter and John - good, old-time Methodist preachers - hearing of the work, went down and prayed for those folks, that they might received the Spirit. At this point he declared that this Spirit was not given to them by the laying on of hands; he said that Peter and John did not lay hands on them at all. Bro. Freed arose and demanded that Clark read Acts 8:17: "Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Clark read the passage.
Clark was weak on "baptism condition of pardon: but Freed was strong. When Clark closed his last speech, the Methodist moderator, very angry, jumped to his feet and began singing an old song. He said we always scattered songbooks and tried to close the debate. This was one time we would not do it. So that was their way of closing when suffering under the lash of truth.
Brethren, if Pigue, Hall comes to your community wanting a debate, write to Professor A. G. Freed, Henderson, Tennessee. It matters not who may be his opponent, the truth will never suffer in his hands. He is a man from every standpoint - loyal, true, brave, educated - and especially qualified for debating. I consider him the best debater in Tennessee. Indeed, I doubt if there is a better debater anywhere.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>
| Powered By |
| TheLordsWay.com |
| Click here to host your own church web site today! |
