COMMON FATAL BELIEFS Class Series Lesson #2-a
OBJECTIONS TO BAPTISM
INTRO. When men do not believe the plain statements of God (see
Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1Pet.3:21), you can be sure they will
"wrest the scriptures" and so twist them to accomodate their
theories. These scriptures, to them, must be forced to harmonize
with their idea of "faith only". They would never consent to
trying to harmonize their idea of faith with the scriptures on
baptism. Efforts are made to get around the simple force of
scriptural wording. Let us consider some of the common objections
to baptism.
A. PAUL SAID CHRIST DIDN'T SEND HIM TO BAPTIZE, THEREFORE BAPTISM
IS NO PART OF THE GOSPEL OR SALVATION. 1Cor.1:17
1. If baptism is no part of the gospel, then it is wrong to add
it to the gospel. Like adding circumcision, it would be a
perversion of the gospel. See Galatians. Especially 1:6-10. 2.
All the Corinthians were baptized by someone. Acts 18:8; 1
Cor.12:13 3. Paul did baptize several. 1 Cor.1:14-16. Did Paul do
something contrary to what he was sent to do? 4. Baptism is
what is done as a response to the gospel, but only the
gospel will convince one to respond this way. Matt.28:18-19;
Mk.16:15,16; Acts 8:35f. Therefore, baptism is part of the
gospel. 5. Preaching the gospel is primary. All are to hear. Only
a few will obey. Therefore, baptism is in consequence of
preaching, thus baptism is consequential, not the primary
mission. Preaching is primary. It puts one in position
to be baptized. Who does the baptizing is inconsequential. 6.
Paul is not arguing that baptism is non-essential. He had just
argued that in order to be "of" someone (whether Paul, Peter, or
Jesus), two things had to be true: 1) that person had to have
been crucified for them, and 2) they had to be baptized in that
person's name. Thus, he affirms that a person cannot claim to be
"of Christ" unless Christ was crucified for them and they were
baptized in the name of Christ. See 1 Cor.1:12,13
B. WHAT ABOUT THE THIEF ON THE CROSS? WASN'T HE SAVED WITHOUT
BEING BAPTIZED?
1. The great commision was issued after Jesus' death, burial, and
resurrection. Matt.28:18-20. Whoever died before this was not
subject to it. 2. The New Testament came in force after Jesus'
death. Heb.9:15-17 Each person must act by faith in whatever
is required of him. The same things may not be required, but
the same faith to do what is required is expected. Abraham
had to offer his son Isaac. We are not required to do
that. Noah had to build the ark. We do not. The thief may
not have been required to be baptized, but we are. Each
one is to act by faith to the extent required of him. 3.
Could the rich young ruler be saved like the thief? How do you
know you can be saved like the thief? 4. Given opportunity, would
the penitent thief have been baptized? Are people who have
opportunity allowed to use the thief's assumed lack of
opportunity as grounds for their own assurance?
C. PLACES SALVATION IN THE HANDS OF ANOTHER MAN INSTEAD OF JESUS.
1. The gospel has been put in the hands of a preacher. Rom.10:15-
17. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Rom.1:16. Do
we conclude that no one should preach lest we make man and his
work of preaching an essential part of the saving process?
Would this place salvation in the hands of another man? 2. Just
as we "implore you on Christ's behalf"(2Cor.5:20), so we
baptize in Jesus' name and on His behalf. Thus, He saves you
when you meet His required conditions of faith. 3. Hearing,
listening, learning, believing are man's responsibilities. In
this way he "saves himself"(Acts 2:40; Phil.2:12). Does he
become his own savior instead of Jesus? Is his salvation in
his own hands instead of in Jesus' hands? Do we conclude that
we must not believe lest we take some of the credit for
our salvation?
D. WHAT OF THOSE KILLED ON THE WAY TO THE BAPTISTRY?
1. The Lord knows the heart. He saw that Abraham was going to
offer Isaac, and accepted Abraham's faith. See Gen.22 2. What
of those killed while under conviction, but not yet able to
confess Jesus? 3. There is more hope for those in the process of
obeying, than for those who excuse themselves from doing what
God says. 4. What if Noah had a stroke and was unable to finish
the ark? Could he reason beforehand that building the ark
is not essential because he might have a stroke or get
killed? Would that attitude be called "faith" or "unbelief"?
Is it faith or unbelief that leads people to present such
arguments against what Jesus said about baptism? Mk.16:16;
Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal.3:37; 1Pet.3:21?
E. SUPPOSE A MAN IS IN A DESERT AND WANTS TO BE SAVED?
1. How did He learn about Jesus in the desert? Did he know he
needed to be saved from sin and that he needed to believe in
Jesus before he got to the desert? How much does he need to
know about Jesus before he can be saved? If he has time to
learn all of that, will he have time to get to some water?
2. A person may be hindered from being baptized.
Acts 8:36. What hinders you?
3. Saul was allowed three days to stew in godly
sorrow before being told to "arise and be baptized, and wash
away your sins"(Acts 22:16). I'm sure he would have
preferred to know he was saved earlier. Three days should be
enough time to get to some water.
4. Can men in prisons and
deserts be saved without baptism while Paul had to wait for
what Ananias told him? Why was this modern philosophy not
applied in Paul's case? Are people today saying that Ananias
was wrong to preach what he preached to Paul because of
desert and prison cases?
5. What if there was no one to confess
Jesus to? Do we conclude that we can tell people it is not
essential to confess Jesus because some people may
conceivably be saved in deserts alone where there was no
chance of confessing Jesus before men?
F. WHAT ABOUT GOOD PARENTS OR PREACHERS WHO DID NOT BELIEVE THIS?
1. How good were they? Do you think they were honest? Honest
enough to accept the truth had they heard it? If so, then let
God handle their judgment. Be just as honest with these truths
as you would envision them to be had they had the opportunity
you now have.
2. The question is, "how good and honest do you
think God judges you to be with His word, if you do not
believe that 'baptism does also now save us'?"
3. Good and honest parents want you to be honest
with God's word and obey it to the extent you have learned
it even if it exceeds what they had learned.
G. MARK 16:16 MAY REFER TO HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM.
1. If so, it is performed by humans. Matt.29:19.
2. Cornelius had the Holy Spirit, but was commanded
"water" so that he could be "baptized in the name of
the Lord"(Acts 10:47-48). Thus,
baptism in the name of the Lord is in water and is "for
remission of sins". Acts 2:38. Cornelius believed and was
baptized. So were the Jews on Pentecost. Therefore they were
saved. The baptism of the great commission was carried out by
Jesus' authority by human hands and was performed in "water".
See also Acts 8:36
H. BAPTISM IS A "FIGURE" (1 PET.3:21) OR SYMBOL. WE ARE LITERALLY
SAVED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
1. The flood waters of verse 20 is the "like figure
whereunto"(pointing ahead to the non-figure) baptism (the non-
figure or antitype) now saves us.
2. Baptism is the "antitype",
the real thing typified by the flood that washed away the
sinful world of Noah's day.
3. "There is also an antitype which
now saves us, namely baptism.."(NKJV).
4. We are literally saved
by the blood of Christ when we submit by faith and by such
faith are baptized.
I. CORNELIUS HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT BEFORE HE WAS BAPTIZED. ONLY
SAVED PEOPLE CAN HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.
1. Cornelius is the exception to the rule. The outpouring of the
Holy Spirit was not to save Cornelius in that action, but to
confirm to the Jews, who came with Peter, that there can be no
objection to baptizing the Gentiles in the name of the Lord.
Notice the following chart:
THE CASE OF CORNELIUS
Feared God... Acts 10:2.....................Yet not saved. Saw
vision ...Acts 10:3 ....................Yet not saved
Peter would tell him what to DO....Acts
10:5,6...............WORDS would tell him how to be saved - 11:14
WHILE PETER WAS SPEAKING ... 10:44 AS HE BEGAN TO SPEAK........
11:15 BEFORE HE TOLD CORNELIUS WHAT TO DO...10:5,6,48
INTERRUPTION-- HOLY SPIRIT FELL ON GENTILES Note: It was
unexpected. 10:45. The Jews were astonished. They were not
praying for it. Peter did not tell them it was coming. Words did
not tell them that the Holy Spirit would save them miraculously.
WHAT DID THIS MIRACULOUS OUTPOURING PROVE?
1. That these Gentiles were already saved? NO! 11:14,15 2. That
Gentiles must all be saved by miraculous outpourings? NO! 3. That
no one could forbid Gentiles to be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for remission of sins?? YES! THIS WAS PETER'S
CONCLUSION. Acts 10:44-48; 2:38; 1Pet.3:21 THIS IS MY CONCLUSION.
WHAT IS YOUR CONCLUSION???
_________________________________________________________________GREAT
COMMISSION JEWS-Acts 2 GENTILES-Acts 10 Preach
Gospel to all Gospel preached Gospel preached He that
believeth pricked in heart believed and is baptized
Repent, be bapt. Commanded baptism shall be saved
remission of sins remission of sins Mk.16:15,16
Acts 2:36-28 Acts 10:43,48
QUESTIONS
1. Can the Holy Spirit be poured out upon
anyone for a purpose other than to save them?
2. Did the Lord open the mouth of Balaam's ass
(Num.22:28) to save the ass? Was this not
a demonstration like at Cornelius' house?
3. Was Cornelius saved before or after the Holy Spirit unexpectedly
fell upon him?
4. Since Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. do not
claim miraculous outpourings of the Holy Spirit upon themselves,
why was it miraculous in Cornelius's case?
5. Does conversion take place before hearing, while hearing, or
after hearing the gospel?
6. Was this miraculous outpouring a
common occurence in all conversions, or something that Peter
could remember happening only one time before? Acts 11:15-17
Terry W. Benton terrywbenton@bellsouth.net
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
BELIEF IN SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY
Class Series
Lesson #1
BELIEF IN SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY
INTRO. It is amazing how poorly the subject of eternal
salvation is communicated. Even the basic essentials are not
well defined and therefore people are arguing matters, but not
communicating. Each person argues from assumptions, ideas, and
definitions that are his own, while failing to realize
that the other person has different concepts and definitions.
In the matter of "faith", there are people with vague notions
and ideas as to what it is, what is it's nature, what it
includes and excludes, and until it is sufficiently defined,
people will argue with each other and never really communicate
and understand each other. The concept of faith must be clear,
or it may be fatal. That is, if it is a mistaken faith, a vague
idea, an unclear faith, and it is weak and ashamed (Jno.12:42f),
a person may be given a false assurance that he is saved when he
is not, AND THAT WOULD BE FATAL.
I. THE WRONG CONCEPT OF SAVING FAITH CAN BE FATAL.
A. A few statements from John MacArthur (of Grace
Community Church) illustrates the dangers involved: "On a
disturbing number of fronts, the message being proclaimed today
is not the gospel according to Jesus. The gospel in vogue today
holds forth a false hope to sinners. It promises them they can
have eternal life yet continue to live in rebellion against God.
Indeed, it encourages people to claim Jesus as Savior yet defer
until later the commitment to obey Him as Lord. It promises
salvation from hell but not necessarily freedom from iniquity.
It offers false security to people who revel in the sins of the
flesh and spurn the way of holiness".^F "Salvation is solely by
grace through faith (Eph.2:8). That truth is the biblical
watershed for all we teach. But it means nothing if we begin
with a misunderstanding of grace or a faulty definition of
faith".^F
B. False assurance is at the bottom of religious apathy
and indifference. If a person is assured
that he is already saved, and particularly
if he is assured that there is nothing he can do to lose it,
then nothing else matters.
We cannot penitrate his will to leave the social club church
and be a Christian only, or to accept what the Bible says about
baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc. None of this matters to him,
since he is assured that he is already saved forever. This is
fatal.
II. WHO TEACHES SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY?
A. Certainly not the Bible. Jas.2:19ff More on this
later. But, saving faith is never alone. Faith
is itself a driving force of conviction
and obedience. "The Bible does not recognize faith that lacks
this element of active repentance. True faith is never seen as
passive--it is always obedient. In fact, Scripture often equates
faith with obedience (Jno.3:36; Rom.1:5; 16:25; 2Thess.1:8)".^F
B. The Methodist Discipline says: "Wherefore, that we
are justified by faith, only, is a most
wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort".^F
C. The Episcopal Church, Articles of Religion XI says
the same thing. D. Julian Pope of the Baptist Church
affirmed the following proposition: "The
Scriptures teach that Salvation comes at the point of faith
without any further acts of obedience".^F E. Glen V. Tingley of
the Christian-Missionary Alliance affirmed the following
proposition:"The Scriptures Teach that Alien Sinners Are Saved
by Faith Alone Before and Without Water Baptism".^F F. Bob
L.Ross, Baptist, says, "Salvation is promised at the point of
faith..."^F G. A paper distributed by Watchman Fellowship from
their "Cult Awareness Institute" entitled "The Gospel"(p.6)
says,"We believe that man is saved by faith alone, but never a
faith which will remain alone". So, according to this vague
statement, a person must wait and see if his faith starts to
working before he can know if he has the saving kind. Then why
not wait and see if they will be baptized before saying they are
saved?
III. SALVATION BY A VAGUE FAITH BEFORE BAPTISM IS A RELATIVELY
RECENT IDEA.
A. Luther is often credited with teaching this kind of
"faith only", but his faith only included baptism. Luther was
fighting the Catholic concepts of meritorious works. He was not
trying to teach that faith does not include repentance and
baptism. Therefore, his "faith only" concept was different than
modern concepts. Luther said, "The first thing in baptism to be
considered is the divine promise, which says: "he that believeth
and is baptised shall be saved." This promise must be set far
above all the glitter of works, vows, religious orders, and
whatever man has added thereto; for on it all our salvation
depends. But we must so consider it as to exercise our faith
therein and in nowise doubt that we are saved
when we are baptised".^F
B. Luther taught that faith could never be simply an
idea in the head or a mere appreciation of the facts of Jesus
Christ. He said, "faith is an active, difficult, and powerful
thing". There is a sense in which we too would say we are saved
by "faith alone". It is faith alone that urges me to teach what
Jesus said about repentance and baptism (Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38).
Faith is the only reason for repentance or baptism. The Law of
Moses does not teach one to be baptized. The law of
the land or whatever has been distributed morally
among the Gentiles does not teach one to be
baptized. Only my faith in Jesus teaches me to be baptized.
Therefore, the only motivating force is faith in Jesus Christ.
In this sense, though it is not the angle of James' approach in
2:19f, we can be said to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ
alone. But, if we do not define our angles and our word
meanings, we open ourselves up for misunderstanding. This
becomes fatal to those who misunderstand us. Only because of
faith does one "love the Lord", "hope" to see God, "work" to
please God, etc. But, such a statement does not
attempt to define the precise moment of salvation
by faith as happening "before and without baptism".
IV. THE HARMONY OF PAUL AND JAMES
A. Luther was frustrated with James and practically
disregarded him as inspired. Modern denominations have a
philosophy that struggles and strains at harmonizing Paul and
James but with violence to both Paul and James. B. The following
chart shows that Paul, in Romans, was speaking of an obedient
faith in Jesus in contrast to works of law or merit. Those who
reject Jesus have only one option if they would be accepted by God.
They must do everything the law demands without one violation.
This is "works whereby one can boast". Faith in Jesus is the
only other way. Through Jesus we can be forgiven of sins. It is
grace. Faith does not earn this privilege, but it is God's
perogative to offer forgiveness on whatever terms or conditions
He desires. James, on the other hand, is emphasizing the nature
or quality of the faith involved in justification.
The works that he speaks of are
not meritorious works, but works of faith. If the faith is not
obedient to Christ, it is not faith. Faith is
perfected and demonstrated by actions.
V. FAITH COMPLIES WITH WHATEVER CONDITIONS GOD DEMANDS, OR IT IS
NOT FAITH OF THE SAVING KIND. Notice the chart below. (Note:
This chart was done with a different program. Send for it if
interested. TWB)
VI. WHAT DOES SAVING FAITH INVOLVE?
A. Our "faith only" friends are very vague on the issue
of faith. That is why it is so important to get
them to define the nature of the faith
they put so much faith in. In essence, you could say that most
people have faith in faith. They do not truly believe in Jesus
and take Him at His word. Else they woud not argue with the
conditions He has given. Can you imagine the children
of Israel arguing whether marching around Jericho and blowing
the trumpets was absolutely essential? True
faith does not call God's clear instructions into
question and then proceed to promise God's
grace upon people who have faith in faith.
True faith takes Jesus at His word and acts on the terms
set forth. But, we must pin down the concept and the very nature
of the faith they envision to save. What does this faith of
theirs include or exclude?
1. Conviction of sin? Must one be convicted of
sin against God before he can be saved? Most will admit
that this is included in saving faith. 2. Godly sorrow over his
sins? Must one be sorry he sinned against God before he
can be saved? Most will admit that saving
faith will include this. 3. Repentance, turning from sin? Must
one determine to turn from the
practice of sin? Or, may one decide to
keep on sinning before, during, and after
salvation? Does saving faith
include repentance? 4. Confessing Jesus? Does
saving faith include confessing Jesus? Or, may
one be saved who believes in his heart
even though he is unwilling to confess Him?(See
Jno.12:42). 5. An understanding that the blood
of Christ is needed? Can one be
saved even if he has not learned that
forgiveness comes to us on the basis of what
Jesus did on the cross? Note:
Before we bring the question of baptism into the
equation, how much of this activity is mental
"WORKS"? Is faith itself a work of the heart and
mind?
Even if one says it is God's work, he has qualified the phrase
"not of works"
so that God's works are not included in the equation. But, if
faith is God's work because He gave us the ability and the
reasons, then so is repentance and
baptism. "By one Spirit were we all baptized into one
body"(1Cor.12:13). The Spirit, by means of the gospel, convicts
and leads one to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins. See Acts 2. Were it not for the Spirit we
would not think of being baptized. Further, when one is buried
in baptism he has faith in the operation of God that He will cut
off the sins of the flesh (Col.2:11-13). 6. An understanding
that "here is water, what doth hinder me from
being baptized"? (Acts 8:36f). If it is
excluded, why was it included in the Eunoch's
equation? Why is it included in Acts 2:36-40? Why is
it included in Saul's conversion?(Acts 22:16) Why is
it involved in Col.2:11f as a part of "faith in the
working of God?"
B. You see that when our faith-only-friends are forced
to tell us WHAT faith entails, many of them will agree that it
entails more than a mental agreement to some facts. Many can see
how repentance comes under faith as an essential CHARACTERISTIC
or quality of the faith that saves. With just a little more
openness and honesty, they can also see how baptism is a part of
the process of faith that brings one into the enjoyment of God's
saving gift.
CONCLUSION: Why is the modern doctrine of salvation by faith
only a fatal belief? Well, let us summarize: 1) It gives people
a false sense of security, 2) It distorts God's word. 3) It
causes people to take lightly the voice of truth, because they
do not feel the need to study further or change any practice. 4)
It is vague. 5) It appeals to larger numbers because most people
do not want a great deal of religious commitment. They want an
easy way to go to heaven.
_________________________________________ QUESTIONS:
1. Does Jesus want us to believe that He does not want us to
OBEY Him, that He
merely wants us to believe He has taken care of everything?
2. If we do not believe that He has taken care of everything,
has He taken care of everything anyway?
3. Has Jesus taken care of the sin of unbelief?
4. Will unbelievers be lost? Why?
5. Does Jesus demand anything of us in order to be saved? If
so, what?
6. What is one to believe before he can be saved?
7. Is repentance absolutely essential?
8. Is faith and repentance the same word?
9. Does saving faith encompass repentance?
10. When is one saved through faith?
Terry W. Benton terrywbenton@bellsouth.net
F. The Gospel According to Jesus, John MacArthur, 1989,
p.15-16 He further
says, "A well-publicized opinion poll indicated nearly a third
of all Americans claim to be born again. Those figures surely
represent millions who are tragically deceived. Theirs is a
damning false assurance". Ibid., p.31
Ibid.,p.32,33
Methodist Discipline,
Article IX
Howard-Pope Debate, p.46
Porter-Tingley Debate, p.227
Acts 2:38 and BaptismalRemission, p.57. However, in his book on "The Restoration
Movement", pgs.70-71, he acknowledges that faith alone is an
active, obedient kind of faith. He is so vague as to why baptism
is not one of the obedient acts of faith. He admits that "faith is a package
word"(p.76) which contains such things as repentance, trust,
love, etc. Why does not baptism fit in the package? It does in
Peter's package (Acts 2:36-30), in Paul's package (Acts 19:1-6;
Rom.3-6), but not in Mr. Ross' Baptist package.
A Compend of Luther's Theology, by Hugh T. Kerr, p.166 and quoted
in "Is Baptism Essential to Salvation? Jerry Moffitt,p.52
Lesson #1
BELIEF IN SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY
INTRO. It is amazing how poorly the subject of eternal
salvation is communicated. Even the basic essentials are not
well defined and therefore people are arguing matters, but not
communicating. Each person argues from assumptions, ideas, and
definitions that are his own, while failing to realize
that the other person has different concepts and definitions.
In the matter of "faith", there are people with vague notions
and ideas as to what it is, what is it's nature, what it
includes and excludes, and until it is sufficiently defined,
people will argue with each other and never really communicate
and understand each other. The concept of faith must be clear,
or it may be fatal. That is, if it is a mistaken faith, a vague
idea, an unclear faith, and it is weak and ashamed (Jno.12:42f),
a person may be given a false assurance that he is saved when he
is not, AND THAT WOULD BE FATAL.
I. THE WRONG CONCEPT OF SAVING FAITH CAN BE FATAL.
A. A few statements from John MacArthur (of Grace
Community Church) illustrates the dangers involved: "On a
disturbing number of fronts, the message being proclaimed today
is not the gospel according to Jesus. The gospel in vogue today
holds forth a false hope to sinners. It promises them they can
have eternal life yet continue to live in rebellion against God.
Indeed, it encourages people to claim Jesus as Savior yet defer
until later the commitment to obey Him as Lord. It promises
salvation from hell but not necessarily freedom from iniquity.
It offers false security to people who revel in the sins of the
flesh and spurn the way of holiness".^F "Salvation is solely by
grace through faith (Eph.2:8). That truth is the biblical
watershed for all we teach. But it means nothing if we begin
with a misunderstanding of grace or a faulty definition of
faith".^F
B. False assurance is at the bottom of religious apathy
and indifference. If a person is assured
that he is already saved, and particularly
if he is assured that there is nothing he can do to lose it,
then nothing else matters.
We cannot penitrate his will to leave the social club church
and be a Christian only, or to accept what the Bible says about
baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc. None of this matters to him,
since he is assured that he is already saved forever. This is
fatal.
II. WHO TEACHES SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY?
A. Certainly not the Bible. Jas.2:19ff More on this
later. But, saving faith is never alone. Faith
is itself a driving force of conviction
and obedience. "The Bible does not recognize faith that lacks
this element of active repentance. True faith is never seen as
passive--it is always obedient. In fact, Scripture often equates
faith with obedience (Jno.3:36; Rom.1:5; 16:25; 2Thess.1:8)".^F
B. The Methodist Discipline says: "Wherefore, that we
are justified by faith, only, is a most
wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort".^F
C. The Episcopal Church, Articles of Religion XI says
the same thing. D. Julian Pope of the Baptist Church
affirmed the following proposition: "The
Scriptures teach that Salvation comes at the point of faith
without any further acts of obedience".^F E. Glen V. Tingley of
the Christian-Missionary Alliance affirmed the following
proposition:"The Scriptures Teach that Alien Sinners Are Saved
by Faith Alone Before and Without Water Baptism".^F F. Bob
L.Ross, Baptist, says, "Salvation is promised at the point of
faith..."^F G. A paper distributed by Watchman Fellowship from
their "Cult Awareness Institute" entitled "The Gospel"(p.6)
says,"We believe that man is saved by faith alone, but never a
faith which will remain alone". So, according to this vague
statement, a person must wait and see if his faith starts to
working before he can know if he has the saving kind. Then why
not wait and see if they will be baptized before saying they are
saved?
III. SALVATION BY A VAGUE FAITH BEFORE BAPTISM IS A RELATIVELY
RECENT IDEA.
A. Luther is often credited with teaching this kind of
"faith only", but his faith only included baptism. Luther was
fighting the Catholic concepts of meritorious works. He was not
trying to teach that faith does not include repentance and
baptism. Therefore, his "faith only" concept was different than
modern concepts. Luther said, "The first thing in baptism to be
considered is the divine promise, which says: "he that believeth
and is baptised shall be saved." This promise must be set far
above all the glitter of works, vows, religious orders, and
whatever man has added thereto; for on it all our salvation
depends. But we must so consider it as to exercise our faith
therein and in nowise doubt that we are saved
when we are baptised".^F
B. Luther taught that faith could never be simply an
idea in the head or a mere appreciation of the facts of Jesus
Christ. He said, "faith is an active, difficult, and powerful
thing". There is a sense in which we too would say we are saved
by "faith alone". It is faith alone that urges me to teach what
Jesus said about repentance and baptism (Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38).
Faith is the only reason for repentance or baptism. The Law of
Moses does not teach one to be baptized. The law of
the land or whatever has been distributed morally
among the Gentiles does not teach one to be
baptized. Only my faith in Jesus teaches me to be baptized.
Therefore, the only motivating force is faith in Jesus Christ.
In this sense, though it is not the angle of James' approach in
2:19f, we can be said to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ
alone. But, if we do not define our angles and our word
meanings, we open ourselves up for misunderstanding. This
becomes fatal to those who misunderstand us. Only because of
faith does one "love the Lord", "hope" to see God, "work" to
please God, etc. But, such a statement does not
attempt to define the precise moment of salvation
by faith as happening "before and without baptism".
IV. THE HARMONY OF PAUL AND JAMES
A. Luther was frustrated with James and practically
disregarded him as inspired. Modern denominations have a
philosophy that struggles and strains at harmonizing Paul and
James but with violence to both Paul and James. B. The following
chart shows that Paul, in Romans, was speaking of an obedient
faith in Jesus in contrast to works of law or merit. Those who
reject Jesus have only one option if they would be accepted by God.
They must do everything the law demands without one violation.
This is "works whereby one can boast". Faith in Jesus is the
only other way. Through Jesus we can be forgiven of sins. It is
grace. Faith does not earn this privilege, but it is God's
perogative to offer forgiveness on whatever terms or conditions
He desires. James, on the other hand, is emphasizing the nature
or quality of the faith involved in justification.
The works that he speaks of are
not meritorious works, but works of faith. If the faith is not
obedient to Christ, it is not faith. Faith is
perfected and demonstrated by actions.
V. FAITH COMPLIES WITH WHATEVER CONDITIONS GOD DEMANDS, OR IT IS
NOT FAITH OF THE SAVING KIND. Notice the chart below. (Note:
This chart was done with a different program. Send for it if
interested. TWB)
VI. WHAT DOES SAVING FAITH INVOLVE?
A. Our "faith only" friends are very vague on the issue
of faith. That is why it is so important to get
them to define the nature of the faith
they put so much faith in. In essence, you could say that most
people have faith in faith. They do not truly believe in Jesus
and take Him at His word. Else they woud not argue with the
conditions He has given. Can you imagine the children
of Israel arguing whether marching around Jericho and blowing
the trumpets was absolutely essential? True
faith does not call God's clear instructions into
question and then proceed to promise God's
grace upon people who have faith in faith.
True faith takes Jesus at His word and acts on the terms
set forth. But, we must pin down the concept and the very nature
of the faith they envision to save. What does this faith of
theirs include or exclude?
1. Conviction of sin? Must one be convicted of
sin against God before he can be saved? Most will admit
that this is included in saving faith. 2. Godly sorrow over his
sins? Must one be sorry he sinned against God before he
can be saved? Most will admit that saving
faith will include this. 3. Repentance, turning from sin? Must
one determine to turn from the
practice of sin? Or, may one decide to
keep on sinning before, during, and after
salvation? Does saving faith
include repentance? 4. Confessing Jesus? Does
saving faith include confessing Jesus? Or, may
one be saved who believes in his heart
even though he is unwilling to confess Him?(See
Jno.12:42). 5. An understanding that the blood
of Christ is needed? Can one be
saved even if he has not learned that
forgiveness comes to us on the basis of what
Jesus did on the cross? Note:
Before we bring the question of baptism into the
equation, how much of this activity is mental
"WORKS"? Is faith itself a work of the heart and
mind?
Even if one says it is God's work, he has qualified the phrase
"not of works"
so that God's works are not included in the equation. But, if
faith is God's work because He gave us the ability and the
reasons, then so is repentance and
baptism. "By one Spirit were we all baptized into one
body"(1Cor.12:13). The Spirit, by means of the gospel, convicts
and leads one to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins. See Acts 2. Were it not for the Spirit we
would not think of being baptized. Further, when one is buried
in baptism he has faith in the operation of God that He will cut
off the sins of the flesh (Col.2:11-13). 6. An understanding
that "here is water, what doth hinder me from
being baptized"? (Acts 8:36f). If it is
excluded, why was it included in the Eunoch's
equation? Why is it included in Acts 2:36-40? Why is
it included in Saul's conversion?(Acts 22:16) Why is
it involved in Col.2:11f as a part of "faith in the
working of God?"
B. You see that when our faith-only-friends are forced
to tell us WHAT faith entails, many of them will agree that it
entails more than a mental agreement to some facts. Many can see
how repentance comes under faith as an essential CHARACTERISTIC
or quality of the faith that saves. With just a little more
openness and honesty, they can also see how baptism is a part of
the process of faith that brings one into the enjoyment of God's
saving gift.
CONCLUSION: Why is the modern doctrine of salvation by faith
only a fatal belief? Well, let us summarize: 1) It gives people
a false sense of security, 2) It distorts God's word. 3) It
causes people to take lightly the voice of truth, because they
do not feel the need to study further or change any practice. 4)
It is vague. 5) It appeals to larger numbers because most people
do not want a great deal of religious commitment. They want an
easy way to go to heaven.
_________________________________________ QUESTIONS:
1. Does Jesus want us to believe that He does not want us to
OBEY Him, that He
merely wants us to believe He has taken care of everything?
2. If we do not believe that He has taken care of everything,
has He taken care of everything anyway?
3. Has Jesus taken care of the sin of unbelief?
4. Will unbelievers be lost? Why?
5. Does Jesus demand anything of us in order to be saved? If
so, what?
6. What is one to believe before he can be saved?
7. Is repentance absolutely essential?
8. Is faith and repentance the same word?
9. Does saving faith encompass repentance?
10. When is one saved through faith?
Terry W. Benton terrywbenton@bellsouth.net
F. The Gospel According to Jesus, John MacArthur, 1989,
p.15-16 He further
says, "A well-publicized opinion poll indicated nearly a third
of all Americans claim to be born again. Those figures surely
represent millions who are tragically deceived. Theirs is a
damning false assurance". Ibid., p.31
Ibid.,p.32,33
Methodist Discipline,
Article IX
Howard-Pope Debate, p.46
Porter-Tingley Debate, p.227
Acts 2:38 and BaptismalRemission, p.57. However, in his book on "The Restoration
Movement", pgs.70-71, he acknowledges that faith alone is an
active, obedient kind of faith. He is so vague as to why baptism
is not one of the obedient acts of faith. He admits that "faith is a package
word"(p.76) which contains such things as repentance, trust,
love, etc. Why does not baptism fit in the package? It does in
Peter's package (Acts 2:36-30), in Paul's package (Acts 19:1-6;
Rom.3-6), but not in Mr. Ross' Baptist package.
A Compend of Luther's Theology, by Hugh T. Kerr, p.166 and quoted
in "Is Baptism Essential to Salvation? Jerry Moffitt,p.52
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Biblical Faith #2
Biblical Faith: Part 2: Why Baptism Is Necessary For Faith in Jesus
“Sez Who?”
• Faith Means Trust
The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Greek word which is translated “faith” in our English Bibles is "pistis". This word means “faith, trust.” Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Translated by Arndt and Gingrich, (University of Chicago: Chicago, 1957), p. 668.
• Review From Part 1: Faith Is Not Always Limited To “Just Believing”
Although faith means "to trust", how one is required to trust or to have faith in any given situation changes depending on the nature of situation. In other words, faith means to trust but how one is required to manifest that trust is dependent upon each context. Since God has given us Jesus, God determines what it means for us to trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
Paul identified that faith response which causes one to become a child of God as someone who responds to the message by being baptized into Christ. Galatians 3:26-27 From a historical perspective, Luke agreed with Paul’s theology when he recorded how that those who believed the Gospel responded by being baptized, resulting in God adding them to those who are saved. Acts 2:41, 47; 8:12 Furthermore, Matthew's account of the Gospel collaborates this doctrinal understanding as Jesus told his disciples to make more disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as well as teaching them to observe everything he had commanded. Matthew 28:19-20
But to have faith in Jesus requires more than just submitting to the act of baptism. To trust in Jesus also involves believing in Jesus in our heart and confessing him with our lips. Romans 10:8-11 It is to live our life wholly dependent upon Jesus as our Savior in that way God has prescribed.
• Blood: Covenant & Forgiveness
God has used and continues to use covenant as the basis for establishing a relationship with humanity and identifying those who are His people. In Exodus 24:3-8 Israel entered into one such covenant with God by being sprinkled with sacrificial blood. In describing this event, Hebrews 9:16-22 explains that blood was necessary not only for establishing the covenant but also for purifying the people who were entering into that covenant.
This introduces the other role of sacrificial blood, namely atonement (to cleanse someone or something so that a holy God could be present in fellowship). In the Law of Moses, God established the principle that “the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your soul. For it is the blood that makes atonement for your soul.” Leviticus 17:11 See also Leviticus 4:1f; 6:24f Often this blood would be sprinkled on (or in some other way applied to) whomever or whatever was being atoned for. Leviticus 8:15-34; 16:11-19
The New Testament continues this emphasis upon blood as being necessary for the remission of sins. Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:22 Yet, Hebrews 9 and 10 stress that the sprinkled blood of bulls and goats made one holy so that one was outwardly clean. It could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper forever by removing the sense of guilt. Acccording to this letter, the continual parade of sacrifices teaches that more sacrifices were needed. Hebrews 9:9, 13; 10:1-4, 11
• Jesus’ Blood: Forgiveness & Covenant
In contrast to the blood of bulls and goats, Jesus’ blood is able to cleanse our conscience. Hebrews 9:14 With one sacrifice Jesus makes perfect forever those who are being made holy. Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:10, 12-13
Because the salvation which Jesus brings depends upon the blood he shed in his death as an atoning sacrifice, Paul described that justification which comes through trusting in Christ as being “faith in His blood.” Romans 3:25; 5:9 To be a Christian involves depending upon Christ’s blood to justify ourself.
At the last supper, Jesus described this blood he would be pouring out “for the remission of sins” as being “my blood of the covenant.” Matthew 26:28 Jesus’ death achieved more than just being a sacrifice for sins. Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:12 It also created a new covenant relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 His blood inaugurated that new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 cf. Hebrews 8:8-12
It was prophesied that those who would enter into this new covenant relationship with God would enjoy a number of blessings, including the forgiveness of sins and God’s Spirit. Jeremiah 31:34, Ezekiel 36:25-27; 37:26-27 For us to enjoy the “remission of sins” made possible by the new covenant, we have to enter into this new covenant relationship God has made possible through Jesus.
• Baptism: Entering Covenant & Receiving Forgiveness
Drawing upon the background of sprinkling sacrificial blood for purification and entering covenant, the Hebrews writer claimed that Christians can enter God’s presence because their hearts have been cleansed from a guilty conscience by being sprinkled with Jesus’ blood. Hebrews 10:19-22; 12:23-24 The author then tied together this sprinkled blood with the physical action of one’s body having been washed with water. Hebrews 10:22 Although the blood of Jesus is said to be sprinkled on one’s heart in a manner reminiscent of a priestly ceremony, the administration of New Testament baptism is a burial or a washing in water. Romans 6:3; Colossians 2:12; Hebrews 10:22 The Hebrew author’s point is that when someone has been purified by Christ’s blood by being baptized, he can now boldly enter into God’s presence with a clean conscience. Admittedly, his emphasis is not upon baptism but upon Christ’s blood enabling us to come before God.
1 Peter 1:2 also describes the elect as those who have obeyed Jesus Christ and have been sprinkled by his blood. Similarly, Peter also attributes a “good conscience toward God” as being the result of baptism, claiming that “baptism ... now saves you.” 1 Peter 3:21
• Baptism: Point of Transition Into Covenant
The New Testament places baptism as being the transition point of entering covenant and the covenant community known as the body of Christ.
• Acts describes the promises of the new covenant (forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit) as being realized when one is baptized. Acts 2:38; 22:16
• Paul refers to baptism as being that moment of transition when one wholeheartedly obeys a form of teaching responsible for setting one free from sin (the forgiveness of sin promised in new covenant). Romans 6:17-18 See the context of Romans 6:3-16
• Paul presents baptism as an act of faith in God’s power to raise one up with Christ, a resurrection (transition) from being dead in sin to becoming alive with Christ. Colossians 2:12-13 This transformation describes the difference from being dead outside of covenant to enjoying the blessings of being in Christ’s covenant.
• The transition involved in the new birth includes being “born of water.” John 3:5 Paul would describe this salvation which comes by grace through faith as “He saved us through the washing of rebirth.” Titus 3:5-7
• With baptism one is said to enter into the body of Christ, namely the new covenant community. Thus, Paul wrote that the Spirit baptizes one into the one body. 1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul also described baptism as being “baptized into Christ” resulting in one becoming clothed with Christ. Galatians 3:27 Luke recorded that people were added to the body of believers as a result of baptism. Acts 2:41
• Final Observations
Understanding baptism, as a faith response to hearing the Gospel resulting in someone entering into the new covenant so that this person receives the blessings of the covenant and hence becomes a member of Christ’s body explains the New Testament’s references to salvation comes by trusting in Jesus and the role of baptism in this reliance upon Christ.
1) This accounts for why Jesus commanded baptism as a requirement in making disciples. Matthew 28:19-20,
2) This explains 1 Peter 1:18-22 “you were redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ .... Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth.” It also explains the close correlation between obeying Jesus and being sprinkled with his blood. 1 Peter 1:2
3) This agrees with what we know of the history of the New Testament church. In Acts, Luke recorded that when people heard about the Gospel about Jesus they responded by being baptized.
4) This explains why the Ethiopian eunuch upon hearing the Gospel message responded, "Look, here is water! What is preventing me from being baptized?" Acts 8:36
5) Paul’s writings reflect this understanding of faith. Paul stated his missionary goal as being to bring “all the Gentiles to the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5) and that the preaching of the Gospel results in the “obedience of faith.” Romans 16:25-26
6) This explains why the New Testament which defends the principle that salvation comes by trusting in Jesus also makes statements such as: Jesus “became the author of eternal salvation for all who obey him” Hebrews 5:9 and that God “will punish those who ... do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” 2 Thessalonians 1:8
Other articles which may be of interest might include:
New Testament Baptism
What About the Thief on the Cross?
Baptism - Why so Many Different Doctrines?
Barry Newton, Copyright © 1998, 2000
“Sez Who?”
• Faith Means Trust
The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Greek word which is translated “faith” in our English Bibles is "pistis". This word means “faith, trust.” Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Translated by Arndt and Gingrich, (University of Chicago: Chicago, 1957), p. 668.
• Review From Part 1: Faith Is Not Always Limited To “Just Believing”
Although faith means "to trust", how one is required to trust or to have faith in any given situation changes depending on the nature of situation. In other words, faith means to trust but how one is required to manifest that trust is dependent upon each context. Since God has given us Jesus, God determines what it means for us to trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
Paul identified that faith response which causes one to become a child of God as someone who responds to the message by being baptized into Christ. Galatians 3:26-27 From a historical perspective, Luke agreed with Paul’s theology when he recorded how that those who believed the Gospel responded by being baptized, resulting in God adding them to those who are saved. Acts 2:41, 47; 8:12 Furthermore, Matthew's account of the Gospel collaborates this doctrinal understanding as Jesus told his disciples to make more disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as well as teaching them to observe everything he had commanded. Matthew 28:19-20
But to have faith in Jesus requires more than just submitting to the act of baptism. To trust in Jesus also involves believing in Jesus in our heart and confessing him with our lips. Romans 10:8-11 It is to live our life wholly dependent upon Jesus as our Savior in that way God has prescribed.
• Blood: Covenant & Forgiveness
God has used and continues to use covenant as the basis for establishing a relationship with humanity and identifying those who are His people. In Exodus 24:3-8 Israel entered into one such covenant with God by being sprinkled with sacrificial blood. In describing this event, Hebrews 9:16-22 explains that blood was necessary not only for establishing the covenant but also for purifying the people who were entering into that covenant.
This introduces the other role of sacrificial blood, namely atonement (to cleanse someone or something so that a holy God could be present in fellowship). In the Law of Moses, God established the principle that “the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your soul. For it is the blood that makes atonement for your soul.” Leviticus 17:11 See also Leviticus 4:1f; 6:24f Often this blood would be sprinkled on (or in some other way applied to) whomever or whatever was being atoned for. Leviticus 8:15-34; 16:11-19
The New Testament continues this emphasis upon blood as being necessary for the remission of sins. Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:22 Yet, Hebrews 9 and 10 stress that the sprinkled blood of bulls and goats made one holy so that one was outwardly clean. It could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper forever by removing the sense of guilt. Acccording to this letter, the continual parade of sacrifices teaches that more sacrifices were needed. Hebrews 9:9, 13; 10:1-4, 11
• Jesus’ Blood: Forgiveness & Covenant
In contrast to the blood of bulls and goats, Jesus’ blood is able to cleanse our conscience. Hebrews 9:14 With one sacrifice Jesus makes perfect forever those who are being made holy. Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:10, 12-13
Because the salvation which Jesus brings depends upon the blood he shed in his death as an atoning sacrifice, Paul described that justification which comes through trusting in Christ as being “faith in His blood.” Romans 3:25; 5:9 To be a Christian involves depending upon Christ’s blood to justify ourself.
At the last supper, Jesus described this blood he would be pouring out “for the remission of sins” as being “my blood of the covenant.” Matthew 26:28 Jesus’ death achieved more than just being a sacrifice for sins. Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:12 It also created a new covenant relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 His blood inaugurated that new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 cf. Hebrews 8:8-12
It was prophesied that those who would enter into this new covenant relationship with God would enjoy a number of blessings, including the forgiveness of sins and God’s Spirit. Jeremiah 31:34, Ezekiel 36:25-27; 37:26-27 For us to enjoy the “remission of sins” made possible by the new covenant, we have to enter into this new covenant relationship God has made possible through Jesus.
• Baptism: Entering Covenant & Receiving Forgiveness
Drawing upon the background of sprinkling sacrificial blood for purification and entering covenant, the Hebrews writer claimed that Christians can enter God’s presence because their hearts have been cleansed from a guilty conscience by being sprinkled with Jesus’ blood. Hebrews 10:19-22; 12:23-24 The author then tied together this sprinkled blood with the physical action of one’s body having been washed with water. Hebrews 10:22 Although the blood of Jesus is said to be sprinkled on one’s heart in a manner reminiscent of a priestly ceremony, the administration of New Testament baptism is a burial or a washing in water. Romans 6:3; Colossians 2:12; Hebrews 10:22 The Hebrew author’s point is that when someone has been purified by Christ’s blood by being baptized, he can now boldly enter into God’s presence with a clean conscience. Admittedly, his emphasis is not upon baptism but upon Christ’s blood enabling us to come before God.
1 Peter 1:2 also describes the elect as those who have obeyed Jesus Christ and have been sprinkled by his blood. Similarly, Peter also attributes a “good conscience toward God” as being the result of baptism, claiming that “baptism ... now saves you.” 1 Peter 3:21
• Baptism: Point of Transition Into Covenant
The New Testament places baptism as being the transition point of entering covenant and the covenant community known as the body of Christ.
• Acts describes the promises of the new covenant (forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit) as being realized when one is baptized. Acts 2:38; 22:16
• Paul refers to baptism as being that moment of transition when one wholeheartedly obeys a form of teaching responsible for setting one free from sin (the forgiveness of sin promised in new covenant). Romans 6:17-18 See the context of Romans 6:3-16
• Paul presents baptism as an act of faith in God’s power to raise one up with Christ, a resurrection (transition) from being dead in sin to becoming alive with Christ. Colossians 2:12-13 This transformation describes the difference from being dead outside of covenant to enjoying the blessings of being in Christ’s covenant.
• The transition involved in the new birth includes being “born of water.” John 3:5 Paul would describe this salvation which comes by grace through faith as “He saved us through the washing of rebirth.” Titus 3:5-7
• With baptism one is said to enter into the body of Christ, namely the new covenant community. Thus, Paul wrote that the Spirit baptizes one into the one body. 1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul also described baptism as being “baptized into Christ” resulting in one becoming clothed with Christ. Galatians 3:27 Luke recorded that people were added to the body of believers as a result of baptism. Acts 2:41
• Final Observations
Understanding baptism, as a faith response to hearing the Gospel resulting in someone entering into the new covenant so that this person receives the blessings of the covenant and hence becomes a member of Christ’s body explains the New Testament’s references to salvation comes by trusting in Jesus and the role of baptism in this reliance upon Christ.
1) This accounts for why Jesus commanded baptism as a requirement in making disciples. Matthew 28:19-20,
2) This explains 1 Peter 1:18-22 “you were redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ .... Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth.” It also explains the close correlation between obeying Jesus and being sprinkled with his blood. 1 Peter 1:2
3) This agrees with what we know of the history of the New Testament church. In Acts, Luke recorded that when people heard about the Gospel about Jesus they responded by being baptized.
4) This explains why the Ethiopian eunuch upon hearing the Gospel message responded, "Look, here is water! What is preventing me from being baptized?" Acts 8:36
5) Paul’s writings reflect this understanding of faith. Paul stated his missionary goal as being to bring “all the Gentiles to the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5) and that the preaching of the Gospel results in the “obedience of faith.” Romans 16:25-26
6) This explains why the New Testament which defends the principle that salvation comes by trusting in Jesus also makes statements such as: Jesus “became the author of eternal salvation for all who obey him” Hebrews 5:9 and that God “will punish those who ... do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” 2 Thessalonians 1:8
Other articles which may be of interest might include:
New Testament Baptism
What About the Thief on the Cross?
Baptism - Why so Many Different Doctrines?
Barry Newton, Copyright © 1998, 2000
Biblical Faith #1
Biblical Faith: Part 1: Faith Is Not “Just Believing”
Faith Can Be Manifested As:
“Believing”
“Building”
“Not Being Afraid”
“Marching Forward”
“Being Immersed”
• Faith Means To Trust
The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Greek word which is translated “faith” in our English Bibles is "pistis." This word means “faith, trust.” Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Translated by Arndt and Gingrich, (University of Chicago: Chicago, 1957), p. 668.
• How Our Faith In God Is To Be Manifested Changes, Depending On What God Has Said
To summarize God’s message to Noah, God told him that He would destroy all the living creatures of the land and air with a flood. To prepare for this, Noah was instructed to build an ark.
Noah had never seen a flood. So what did it mean for Noah to have faith? To have faith required Noah to trust in God by building an ark even though the idea might have seemed absurd. And because he constructed that ark, Noah became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith. Hebrews 11:7
Jumping forward in history, God promised Abraham that he would have a son even though he and his wife were too old. So how did Abraham manifest his faith in God? In this context to have faith required believing God's promise. And because he believed, Abraham became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. Genesis 15:6
Fast forwarding through history one finds king Jehoshaphat telling the people to have faith in God. What response was required in order for those people to demonstrate their faith in God? You can not know until you have first heard the story.
A vast army was advancing against God’s people, but God told king Jehoshaphat not to be afraid of this vast army, but to march out against them. Jehoshaphat then told the people to have faith in the LORD. 2 Chronicles 20:15-17 How was faith to be manifested in this context? What response was required in order for faith to be realized? You can not know until you have heard the story! To possess faith in God in this situation meant to not be afraid but to trust in God by marching out against the enemy. 2 Chronicles 20:20
As we move through history again, we come to king Ahaz. If Ahaz was going to have faith in God how was he supposed to respond? Until you have heard the story, you can not know! Ahaz was being tempted to rely upon foreign military strength to repel the enemy coming against him. Isaiah 7:3f. God’s instructions to Ahaz indicated that he was to stand firm in faith. Isaiah 7:9 In this context, to possess faith meant “don’t send for military help, wait on God.” Unfortunately, Ahaz chose to trust in military power. 2 Kings 16:5f.
• How Faith In God Is Manifested Is Determined By What God Has Said And Done
How trust or faith is to be manisfested in any given situation is determined by the context. For example, how does one demonstrate faith in someone who has made a promise? Faith is realized if one “just believes.” The context of a promise only requires "belief" in the promise in order for one to have faith. And so when God gave His promise to Abraham and Abraham responded in faith by believing that promise, Abraham demonstrated faith and it was credited to him for righteousness.
Paul’s use of Abraham in Romans 4 is not making the claim nor affirming by example that faith in Christ means to “just believe.” Rather, Paul is seeking to defend the principle that by trusting in God, without the works of the Law, one can be made righteous. Abraham is an example of one who was credited as being righteous based upon his trust in God as opposed to depending upon himself by what he had achieved through obedience to the Law of Moses.
Although a promise only requires one to just believe, when God issues a command, to respond with faith to that command requires more than just believing. When God commanded Abraham to leave his country and “go to the land I will show you” (Genesis 12:1), faith did not mean “just believe.” It meant for him to pack his bags and head down a dusty road trusting that God would in fact lead him. When God commands, to trust in God involves “believing” and “obeying.” To respond with less than what the context demanded was to fail to demonstrate faith.
Although faith always means to trust, how that trust is to be manifested changes depending upon the context. Perhaps this can be illustrated by computer language. Faith is not a “literal string” where it always demands the same response such as “just believe." Rather, faith is like a variable whose specific demands of how one is going to trust changes depending upon each context.
• To Know How To Have Faith In Jesus Requires That One First Hear The Gospel Story
How does one trust in Jesus? You can not know until you have first heard the story! There exists several theoretical possibilities for how God might require us to trust in Jesus. If God has simply made us a promise through Jesus that He will do something for us, then to respond with faith would simply mean to "just believe the promise."
If, however, God has presented us with a Lord whom we must submit to, then faith would demand that we "submit to Jesus as Lord." Or it might be that God has commanded us to trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior by responding with a particular action. Then faith in Jesus would require not only believing but also obeying God's command. What it actually means to trust in Jesus will be determined by hearing the Gospel message. It does not depend upon what I think it means to have faith in God.
Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, God announced through His prophet Isaiah that His Servant would suffer and take upon himself the sins of others. The story of Jesus is how God fulfilled many prophecies like this one thus providing peace and salvation toward man.
God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power. Jesus went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him.
When the religious leaders felt threatened by Jesus, they began to plot how to kill him. They succeeded in having him killed. But on the third day God raised him up to life and appointed Jesus to be the judge of the living and the dead when God will judge the world with justice.
Before ascending to heaven, Jesus told his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations by baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to observe everything he had commanded them. The good news is that those who believe in Jesus receive the forgiveness of their sins.
• What Can We Learn From Paul?
To note that Paul wrote his letters to Christians and not to non-Christians may seem like a small point at first, but it influences how one interprets Paul. Paul did not write his letters to teach Christians how to trust in Jesus! Although Paul wrote a lot about faith and strongly defended the principle of trusting in Jesus, Paul knew that his readers already understood how to trust in Jesus. Paul's primary purpose for writing about the justification which comes by faith in Christ was to respond to those who claimed that obedience to the Law of Moses (works) was necessary for salvation. (Cf. Acts 15; Romans 4; Galatians 3) Paul’s purpose was to defend the principle of faith against schemes of self-dependence. Paul should not be interpreted as trying to primarily explain how one should trust in Jesus for salvation!
In fact, with the possible exception of some of the Gospels and perhaps the book of Acts, the entire New Testament was written to the community of faith, to people who had no need of being told what it meant to acknowledge Jesus by faith. This should alert us to the fact that the New Testament authors had no need to address the question we are asking. Accordingly, when the nature of faith is discussed in the New Testament, typically it either describes matters of practical living for those already within the community of faith (James 2:14-26), or it highlights one aspect of trusting in Jesus. In such cases, these verses are not seeking to teach us everything about how we are to respond in faith but rather, the author is using some aspect of faith to advance some other point.
• Romans 9:30-10:21
One example where Paul while making another point partially described what it means to trust in Jesus is found in Romans 10. In explaining the obstacle that had prevented Israel from receiving the righteousness which comes by faith (Romans 9:30-10:21), Paul used Deuteronomy 30:11-14 to teach that the righteousness which comes by faith requires “the message” (Jesus) to become a belief in one’s heart and a confession of one’s lips.
The function of this passage is to show from scripture why Israel had failed to arrive at faith. Israel had not internalized the message of Jesus. Israel had refused to believe in their hearts on Jesus nor were they willing to confess him with their lips. But since salvation is open to all who will call upon the Lord, that is, to all who will depend upon Jesus for salvation (cf. Acts 2:21; 22:16), even an Israelite would be saved if he would respond to the message of Christ with his heart and his lips. Paul’s purpose here in talking about faith is not to define for his reader everything about faith, rather he identified that barrier which had prevented Israel from being justified by faith.
In spite of Paul’s purpose for writing, we can discover from this text something about what is required to have faith in Jesus. Faith in Jesus includes the willingness to confess Jesus as Lord and to believe on him in one’s heart.
• Galatians 3:26-27
Another text in which Paul partially described how God wants one to trust in Jesus is Galatians 3:26-27. In the original language this text comprises one sentence which reads: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have clothed yourselves with Christ.” Paul defined that faith which causes one to become a child of God as involving baptism, specifically a baptism into Christ that results in one being clothed with Christ.
In spite of Paul’s purpose for writing Galatians which appears to be a response to those who would bind the Mosaical Law upon Christians, we can discover something about what Paul understood constituted responding to Christ by faith and thus being sons of God. To become a child of God by trusting in Jesus necessitated that one be baptized into Christ.
Paul’s writings reflect an understanding of faith and works that did not create a dichotomy between belief and actions. For Paul, "faith verses works" was the dichotomy between trusting in Jesus verses self-reliance such as could come by observing the Law. Unfortunately today, many people mistakenly assume that the contrast between “faith and works” involves “belief verses action.” To assume that faith equals “believe” and works equals “action” is unbiblical. Both faith and works can include actions. Both are based upon beliefs, albeit not the same beliefs.
Paul understood faith to be trusting in God and in Jesus. To trust in Jesus involves “the obedience of faith.” In Romans 1:5 Paul stated that his missionary goal was to bring “all the Gentiles to the obedience of faith.” Similarly, at the end of this same great letter which champions faith in Jesus, Paul wrote that the preaching of Jesus Christ leads to the obedience of faith. Romans 16:25-26
• Does Luke Agree With Paul?
Just as Paul’s purpose was not to teach all of the details about conversion nor how to become a Christian, so also Luke did not write Acts to teach us how to respond to the Gospel message. But Acts does historically record how people did respond to the preaching of the Gospel. When people heard the story about Jesus' death and resurrection, many did respond with faith. For example, in Acts 4:4 one reads, "But many of those who heard the word believed; and they numbered about five thousand." Similarly when the message of Jesus was proclaimed at Antioch, "a great number became believers and turned to the Lord." Acts 11:21 Likewise when some Jewish priests heard the Gospel, they became "obedient to the faith." Acts 6:7
In Acts 8:12 Luke describes the response of faith in greater detail when he wrote, “But when they believed Philip while he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized.” Acts 8:35-36 agrees, “Then Philip ... proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” What Luke portrays in this text is that when Philip simply presented the message about Jesus, that Gospel message evoked the faith question, “Why can’t I be baptized?”
Does this mean that there are/ can be different responses to the Gospel message? No. Sometimes Luke used “believe” or “obedient to the faith” in a very general way to mean “they were converted.” Such phrases serve the same function and communicate the same message as Acts 14:21 which states, "They preached the good news in that city, and made many disciples..." In these verses, no details are given about HOW one entrusted his life to Jesus. At other times Luke provides details about how one's faith in Jesus was manifested as a result of hearing the Gospel message.
When people heard the preaching of the good news about Jesus, how did they trust in Jesus? Those that believe the message requested baptism. Although it was simply the Gospel which was being preached, that story of Jesus obviously included the message about how to respond to Jesus in faith which explains why the Eunuch requested baptism. In Acts, the salvation which is associated with the forgiveness of sins required baptism. Acts 2:38; 22:16
Doesn’t Acts 10:43 also teach that the forgiveness of sins would come to those who just “believe” in Jesus. First of all, the text never says "just believe." Second, it is obvious that Peter's message to Cornelius comprised the necessity of the general call to trust in Jesus because the text goes on to show that his whole family was baptized. Paul and Luke both agree that the biblical response of faith to the Gospel message involves a baptism into Christ.
The New Testament writers understood faith in Jesus to be trusting in Jesus as our sacrifice, a response that involves not only believing that Jesus was raised from the dead but also a willingness to confess him as Lord and to cast one’s hope upon Christ as one is buried in baptism. Faith in Christ is to depend on Christ and His blood. Romans 3:25; 5:9 In Hebrews 10:19-22, the Hebrew author revealed that he believed it was because of Jesus' blood that he would be purified and thus could enter into God's holy presence. What is significant for our discussion is that he tied together the contacting of Christ's blood with the physical act of having one's body washed with pure water.
Barry Newton, Copyright © 1998 Revised 2000
Faith Can Be Manifested As:
“Believing”
“Building”
“Not Being Afraid”
“Marching Forward”
“Being Immersed”
• Faith Means To Trust
The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Greek word which is translated “faith” in our English Bibles is "pistis." This word means “faith, trust.” Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Translated by Arndt and Gingrich, (University of Chicago: Chicago, 1957), p. 668.
• How Our Faith In God Is To Be Manifested Changes, Depending On What God Has Said
To summarize God’s message to Noah, God told him that He would destroy all the living creatures of the land and air with a flood. To prepare for this, Noah was instructed to build an ark.
Noah had never seen a flood. So what did it mean for Noah to have faith? To have faith required Noah to trust in God by building an ark even though the idea might have seemed absurd. And because he constructed that ark, Noah became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith. Hebrews 11:7
Jumping forward in history, God promised Abraham that he would have a son even though he and his wife were too old. So how did Abraham manifest his faith in God? In this context to have faith required believing God's promise. And because he believed, Abraham became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. Genesis 15:6
Fast forwarding through history one finds king Jehoshaphat telling the people to have faith in God. What response was required in order for those people to demonstrate their faith in God? You can not know until you have first heard the story.
A vast army was advancing against God’s people, but God told king Jehoshaphat not to be afraid of this vast army, but to march out against them. Jehoshaphat then told the people to have faith in the LORD. 2 Chronicles 20:15-17 How was faith to be manifested in this context? What response was required in order for faith to be realized? You can not know until you have heard the story! To possess faith in God in this situation meant to not be afraid but to trust in God by marching out against the enemy. 2 Chronicles 20:20
As we move through history again, we come to king Ahaz. If Ahaz was going to have faith in God how was he supposed to respond? Until you have heard the story, you can not know! Ahaz was being tempted to rely upon foreign military strength to repel the enemy coming against him. Isaiah 7:3f. God’s instructions to Ahaz indicated that he was to stand firm in faith. Isaiah 7:9 In this context, to possess faith meant “don’t send for military help, wait on God.” Unfortunately, Ahaz chose to trust in military power. 2 Kings 16:5f.
• How Faith In God Is Manifested Is Determined By What God Has Said And Done
How trust or faith is to be manisfested in any given situation is determined by the context. For example, how does one demonstrate faith in someone who has made a promise? Faith is realized if one “just believes.” The context of a promise only requires "belief" in the promise in order for one to have faith. And so when God gave His promise to Abraham and Abraham responded in faith by believing that promise, Abraham demonstrated faith and it was credited to him for righteousness.
Paul’s use of Abraham in Romans 4 is not making the claim nor affirming by example that faith in Christ means to “just believe.” Rather, Paul is seeking to defend the principle that by trusting in God, without the works of the Law, one can be made righteous. Abraham is an example of one who was credited as being righteous based upon his trust in God as opposed to depending upon himself by what he had achieved through obedience to the Law of Moses.
Although a promise only requires one to just believe, when God issues a command, to respond with faith to that command requires more than just believing. When God commanded Abraham to leave his country and “go to the land I will show you” (Genesis 12:1), faith did not mean “just believe.” It meant for him to pack his bags and head down a dusty road trusting that God would in fact lead him. When God commands, to trust in God involves “believing” and “obeying.” To respond with less than what the context demanded was to fail to demonstrate faith.
Although faith always means to trust, how that trust is to be manifested changes depending upon the context. Perhaps this can be illustrated by computer language. Faith is not a “literal string” where it always demands the same response such as “just believe." Rather, faith is like a variable whose specific demands of how one is going to trust changes depending upon each context.
• To Know How To Have Faith In Jesus Requires That One First Hear The Gospel Story
How does one trust in Jesus? You can not know until you have first heard the story! There exists several theoretical possibilities for how God might require us to trust in Jesus. If God has simply made us a promise through Jesus that He will do something for us, then to respond with faith would simply mean to "just believe the promise."
If, however, God has presented us with a Lord whom we must submit to, then faith would demand that we "submit to Jesus as Lord." Or it might be that God has commanded us to trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior by responding with a particular action. Then faith in Jesus would require not only believing but also obeying God's command. What it actually means to trust in Jesus will be determined by hearing the Gospel message. It does not depend upon what I think it means to have faith in God.
Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, God announced through His prophet Isaiah that His Servant would suffer and take upon himself the sins of others. The story of Jesus is how God fulfilled many prophecies like this one thus providing peace and salvation toward man.
God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power. Jesus went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him.
When the religious leaders felt threatened by Jesus, they began to plot how to kill him. They succeeded in having him killed. But on the third day God raised him up to life and appointed Jesus to be the judge of the living and the dead when God will judge the world with justice.
Before ascending to heaven, Jesus told his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations by baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to observe everything he had commanded them. The good news is that those who believe in Jesus receive the forgiveness of their sins.
• What Can We Learn From Paul?
To note that Paul wrote his letters to Christians and not to non-Christians may seem like a small point at first, but it influences how one interprets Paul. Paul did not write his letters to teach Christians how to trust in Jesus! Although Paul wrote a lot about faith and strongly defended the principle of trusting in Jesus, Paul knew that his readers already understood how to trust in Jesus. Paul's primary purpose for writing about the justification which comes by faith in Christ was to respond to those who claimed that obedience to the Law of Moses (works) was necessary for salvation. (Cf. Acts 15; Romans 4; Galatians 3) Paul’s purpose was to defend the principle of faith against schemes of self-dependence. Paul should not be interpreted as trying to primarily explain how one should trust in Jesus for salvation!
In fact, with the possible exception of some of the Gospels and perhaps the book of Acts, the entire New Testament was written to the community of faith, to people who had no need of being told what it meant to acknowledge Jesus by faith. This should alert us to the fact that the New Testament authors had no need to address the question we are asking. Accordingly, when the nature of faith is discussed in the New Testament, typically it either describes matters of practical living for those already within the community of faith (James 2:14-26), or it highlights one aspect of trusting in Jesus. In such cases, these verses are not seeking to teach us everything about how we are to respond in faith but rather, the author is using some aspect of faith to advance some other point.
• Romans 9:30-10:21
One example where Paul while making another point partially described what it means to trust in Jesus is found in Romans 10. In explaining the obstacle that had prevented Israel from receiving the righteousness which comes by faith (Romans 9:30-10:21), Paul used Deuteronomy 30:11-14 to teach that the righteousness which comes by faith requires “the message” (Jesus) to become a belief in one’s heart and a confession of one’s lips.
The function of this passage is to show from scripture why Israel had failed to arrive at faith. Israel had not internalized the message of Jesus. Israel had refused to believe in their hearts on Jesus nor were they willing to confess him with their lips. But since salvation is open to all who will call upon the Lord, that is, to all who will depend upon Jesus for salvation (cf. Acts 2:21; 22:16), even an Israelite would be saved if he would respond to the message of Christ with his heart and his lips. Paul’s purpose here in talking about faith is not to define for his reader everything about faith, rather he identified that barrier which had prevented Israel from being justified by faith.
In spite of Paul’s purpose for writing, we can discover from this text something about what is required to have faith in Jesus. Faith in Jesus includes the willingness to confess Jesus as Lord and to believe on him in one’s heart.
• Galatians 3:26-27
Another text in which Paul partially described how God wants one to trust in Jesus is Galatians 3:26-27. In the original language this text comprises one sentence which reads: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have clothed yourselves with Christ.” Paul defined that faith which causes one to become a child of God as involving baptism, specifically a baptism into Christ that results in one being clothed with Christ.
In spite of Paul’s purpose for writing Galatians which appears to be a response to those who would bind the Mosaical Law upon Christians, we can discover something about what Paul understood constituted responding to Christ by faith and thus being sons of God. To become a child of God by trusting in Jesus necessitated that one be baptized into Christ.
Paul’s writings reflect an understanding of faith and works that did not create a dichotomy between belief and actions. For Paul, "faith verses works" was the dichotomy between trusting in Jesus verses self-reliance such as could come by observing the Law. Unfortunately today, many people mistakenly assume that the contrast between “faith and works” involves “belief verses action.” To assume that faith equals “believe” and works equals “action” is unbiblical. Both faith and works can include actions. Both are based upon beliefs, albeit not the same beliefs.
Paul understood faith to be trusting in God and in Jesus. To trust in Jesus involves “the obedience of faith.” In Romans 1:5 Paul stated that his missionary goal was to bring “all the Gentiles to the obedience of faith.” Similarly, at the end of this same great letter which champions faith in Jesus, Paul wrote that the preaching of Jesus Christ leads to the obedience of faith. Romans 16:25-26
• Does Luke Agree With Paul?
Just as Paul’s purpose was not to teach all of the details about conversion nor how to become a Christian, so also Luke did not write Acts to teach us how to respond to the Gospel message. But Acts does historically record how people did respond to the preaching of the Gospel. When people heard the story about Jesus' death and resurrection, many did respond with faith. For example, in Acts 4:4 one reads, "But many of those who heard the word believed; and they numbered about five thousand." Similarly when the message of Jesus was proclaimed at Antioch, "a great number became believers and turned to the Lord." Acts 11:21 Likewise when some Jewish priests heard the Gospel, they became "obedient to the faith." Acts 6:7
In Acts 8:12 Luke describes the response of faith in greater detail when he wrote, “But when they believed Philip while he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized.” Acts 8:35-36 agrees, “Then Philip ... proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” What Luke portrays in this text is that when Philip simply presented the message about Jesus, that Gospel message evoked the faith question, “Why can’t I be baptized?”
Does this mean that there are/ can be different responses to the Gospel message? No. Sometimes Luke used “believe” or “obedient to the faith” in a very general way to mean “they were converted.” Such phrases serve the same function and communicate the same message as Acts 14:21 which states, "They preached the good news in that city, and made many disciples..." In these verses, no details are given about HOW one entrusted his life to Jesus. At other times Luke provides details about how one's faith in Jesus was manifested as a result of hearing the Gospel message.
When people heard the preaching of the good news about Jesus, how did they trust in Jesus? Those that believe the message requested baptism. Although it was simply the Gospel which was being preached, that story of Jesus obviously included the message about how to respond to Jesus in faith which explains why the Eunuch requested baptism. In Acts, the salvation which is associated with the forgiveness of sins required baptism. Acts 2:38; 22:16
Doesn’t Acts 10:43 also teach that the forgiveness of sins would come to those who just “believe” in Jesus. First of all, the text never says "just believe." Second, it is obvious that Peter's message to Cornelius comprised the necessity of the general call to trust in Jesus because the text goes on to show that his whole family was baptized. Paul and Luke both agree that the biblical response of faith to the Gospel message involves a baptism into Christ.
The New Testament writers understood faith in Jesus to be trusting in Jesus as our sacrifice, a response that involves not only believing that Jesus was raised from the dead but also a willingness to confess him as Lord and to cast one’s hope upon Christ as one is buried in baptism. Faith in Christ is to depend on Christ and His blood. Romans 3:25; 5:9 In Hebrews 10:19-22, the Hebrew author revealed that he believed it was because of Jesus' blood that he would be purified and thus could enter into God's holy presence. What is significant for our discussion is that he tied together the contacting of Christ's blood with the physical act of having one's body washed with pure water.
Barry Newton, Copyright © 1998 Revised 2000
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Church is not a Denomination
May 5, 2002 File #: 1443 The Church is not a Denomination - pg 1
The Church is not a Denomination
INTRODUCTION.
A. In the first century, there was only one church, the church that Christ built.
1. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and
on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail
against it.” (NKJV)
2. On the day of Pentecost, after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the
Lord’s church was established. (Acts 2:47)
B. However, throughout the course of the centuries, there began to crop of different
churches, all claiming to be the church that Jesus built, but none bearing the
characteristics of Christ’s church. This continued even to today when we have
thousands of different churches within the world.
1. If you study and follow the “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,”
you will become a Christian Scientist.
2. If you follow the writings of Ron L. Hubbard, you will become a member of
Scientology.
3. If you follow the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” then you would
become a Catholic.
4. If you follow the “Reasoning from the Scriptures,” using the New World
Translation, then you would become a Jehovah’s Witness.
5. If you follow the “Book of Mormon,” “The Doctrine and Covenants,” and
“The Pearl of Great Price,”then you would become a Mormon.
6. If you were to follow “The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches,” then you
would become a Baptist.
7. If you were to follow the 1904 “Methodist Discipline,” then you would
become a Methodist of 1904.
8. If you were to follow the 1972 “The Book Of Discipline of the United
Methodist Church,” then you would become a Methodist of 1972.
C. How did we get to this point? The answer is simple: Division.
D. With this lesson we will show that the church which Jesus built was never intended
to become a denomination. Denominations only came into existence when men
began to divide in regards to religious practices and beliefs.
I. GOD CONDEMNS DIVISIONS.
A. Causing dissensions (divisions) will keep one from inherit the kingdom of God.
(Galatians 5:20)
B. Within the church, there is to be no divisions. (I Corinthians 1:10)
C. In order to prevent divisions within the local congregation, the church is to stay away
from those who would cause divisions. (Romans 16:17,18)
II. FALSE TEACHERS LEAD TO DIVISIONS.
A. We must not listen to false teachers because they do not have God. (II John 1:9-11)
B. False teachers set aside the word of God and make it of no use. (Mark 7:9-13)
C. False teachers may teach partial truth, and thereby deceive the ignorant and
unlearned. (II Corinthians 11:13-15)
D. Christians should prepare their selves to stand against false teachers. (Ephesians
4:14-15, example: Galatians 1:6-9)
E. False teachers will bring upon themselves swift destruction. (II Peter 2:1)
III. UNITY CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN JESUS.
A. Jesus prayed that His believers would be one, just as He and the Father were one.
(John 17:21)
B. This unity can only be recognized if we are of the same mind and judgment. (I
Corinthians 1:10)
C. Why must we be of the same mind and judgment? Because, we have all been
baptized into one body, which is the church. (I Corinthians 12:12-13, 27; Colossians
1:18)
CONCLUSION.
A. When we turn to the teachings of man, and make void the teachings of Jesus and His
apostles, we begin to turn the church into a denomination. There is to be only one
church, with all the members of that body being one as Jesus and God are one. This
unity cannot be recognized if we teach and preach different doctrines
B. The church built by Jesus was neither a denomination nor a combination of
denominations. It was simply the church.
C. If people will follow only the Bible and recognize the authority of Jesus and His
inspired writers, then, and only then, will there be no more denominations.
------------------------------------
The Church is not a Denomination -- May 5, 2002 -- File # 1443 – by John M. Duvall -- Lawton, OK
The Church is not a Denomination
INTRODUCTION.
A. In the first century, there was only one church, the church that Christ built.
1. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and
on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail
against it.” (NKJV)
2. On the day of Pentecost, after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the
Lord’s church was established. (Acts 2:47)
B. However, throughout the course of the centuries, there began to crop of different
churches, all claiming to be the church that Jesus built, but none bearing the
characteristics of Christ’s church. This continued even to today when we have
thousands of different churches within the world.
1. If you study and follow the “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,”
you will become a Christian Scientist.
2. If you follow the writings of Ron L. Hubbard, you will become a member of
Scientology.
3. If you follow the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” then you would
become a Catholic.
4. If you follow the “Reasoning from the Scriptures,” using the New World
Translation, then you would become a Jehovah’s Witness.
5. If you follow the “Book of Mormon,” “The Doctrine and Covenants,” and
“The Pearl of Great Price,”then you would become a Mormon.
6. If you were to follow “The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches,” then you
would become a Baptist.
7. If you were to follow the 1904 “Methodist Discipline,” then you would
become a Methodist of 1904.
8. If you were to follow the 1972 “The Book Of Discipline of the United
Methodist Church,” then you would become a Methodist of 1972.
C. How did we get to this point? The answer is simple: Division.
D. With this lesson we will show that the church which Jesus built was never intended
to become a denomination. Denominations only came into existence when men
began to divide in regards to religious practices and beliefs.
I. GOD CONDEMNS DIVISIONS.
A. Causing dissensions (divisions) will keep one from inherit the kingdom of God.
(Galatians 5:20)
B. Within the church, there is to be no divisions. (I Corinthians 1:10)
C. In order to prevent divisions within the local congregation, the church is to stay away
from those who would cause divisions. (Romans 16:17,18)
II. FALSE TEACHERS LEAD TO DIVISIONS.
A. We must not listen to false teachers because they do not have God. (II John 1:9-11)
B. False teachers set aside the word of God and make it of no use. (Mark 7:9-13)
C. False teachers may teach partial truth, and thereby deceive the ignorant and
unlearned. (II Corinthians 11:13-15)
D. Christians should prepare their selves to stand against false teachers. (Ephesians
4:14-15, example: Galatians 1:6-9)
E. False teachers will bring upon themselves swift destruction. (II Peter 2:1)
III. UNITY CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN JESUS.
A. Jesus prayed that His believers would be one, just as He and the Father were one.
(John 17:21)
B. This unity can only be recognized if we are of the same mind and judgment. (I
Corinthians 1:10)
C. Why must we be of the same mind and judgment? Because, we have all been
baptized into one body, which is the church. (I Corinthians 12:12-13, 27; Colossians
1:18)
CONCLUSION.
A. When we turn to the teachings of man, and make void the teachings of Jesus and His
apostles, we begin to turn the church into a denomination. There is to be only one
church, with all the members of that body being one as Jesus and God are one. This
unity cannot be recognized if we teach and preach different doctrines
B. The church built by Jesus was neither a denomination nor a combination of
denominations. It was simply the church.
C. If people will follow only the Bible and recognize the authority of Jesus and His
inspired writers, then, and only then, will there be no more denominations.
------------------------------------
The Church is not a Denomination -- May 5, 2002 -- File # 1443 – by John M. Duvall -- Lawton, OK
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Answering A Baptist Pastor that "Could Not Be Answered"
COMMON SENSE QUESTIONS A "CHURCH OF CHRIST" PREACHER CANNOT CLEARLY ANSWER
By Pastor David MartinSolid Rock Baptist Church
David Martin is pastor of the Solid Rock Baptist Church, 5893 Old Brownsville Rd. E, Bartlett, TN 38135 USA; phone: 901-634-1622. He is a 1984 graduate of Pensacola Bible Institute of Florida, and was ordained to the gospel ministry in 1986. He has been in his current pastorate for eight years. His article on the Church of Christ cult is the result of in-depth personal conversation with a Church of Christ elder that led to a 3-day public debate with a Church of Christ evangelist in 1997. The debate was attended by 250 people nightly from within a 300-mile radius of Memphis, Tennessee.This is one of the most controversial articles on the church of Christ you will find anywhere. No church of Christ preacher can satisfactorily answer any of the questions posed by Pastor Martin.
If you wish to respond to this article, please click here to email Pastor David Martin.
[First, given David Martin's credentials and experience, it is apparent that we are not dealing with a novice. He is fully capable of giving "an answer" to our scriptural review and refutation of his views (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15). Therefore, if he does not agree to further discussion, it is not because he is not qualified to do so, but because he has been answered and his doctrine cannot stand the test of open debate.
Second, the posting of Martin's material acknowledges the "controversial" nature of it. Hence, Mr. Martin surely will not object as we respond in an equally candid fashion. Note: Our replies will be enclosed in brackets beneath each of his questions.
Third, let it be understood that this review is not a defense of a "Church of Christ cult" to which Martin refers. In the New Testament, the church of Christ was referred to as "this sect" which was "every where...spoken against" (Acts 28:22). As the apostle Paul would not defend a sect or cult of men, but was "set for the defense of the gospel" and "explained...the kingdom of God," so shall we (Acts 28:23; Cf. 8:12; 19:8, 9; 20:24, 25; Phil. 1:17).
Fourth, whether one may "satisfactorily answer" Martin's questions may be subject to one's personal view. Paul answered the Judaizers, but not "satisfactorily," according to them! Stephen answered the Jews, but not, as they judged, "satisfactorily" (Acts 7:54-60). Paul gave answers to heathen, pagan, Jewish, and Roman authorities, but not "satisfactorily" (Acts 17:22-32; 22:1-22; 2 Tim. 4:16).
Let the reader be the judge. Let us, therefore, continue to debate the issues. Whether others view these efforts as being sufficient or satisfactory, is of no particular consequence (1 Cor. 4:3-5). Rather, my main concern is to provide scriptural answers, ones that are pleasing to God, if not satisfactory to men-"Study to show thyself approved unto God." "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Now, to Mr. Martin's comments and questions.]
The religious sect known as the "Church of Christ" has many peculiar and aberrant doctrines that are contrary to the word of God. It is a most deceptive and dangerous cult. Their teaching of baptismal regeneration is an age-old heresy that has damned millions to hell, and is still doing so today. The idea that they are the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ puts them in the same league with the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches.
[It is certainly true that "baptismal regeneration is an age-old heresy." However, no Christian, no saved believer, no member of the church of the Lord teaches the doctrine. If the fact that one teaches that baptism is essential to salvation makes one a teacher of "baptismal regeneration," does the teaching that repentance is an essential condition of salvation (as Martin correctly teaches) make one a teacher of "penitential regeneration"? Mr. Martin teaches that one cannot be saved without faith in Christ (Jn. 8:24; Heb. 11:6). Would it be fair and correct to charge him with believing in "faith regeneration," and not in regeneration by the Spirit of God? No, it would be neither fair nor correct. Why, then, is it right to charge that one believes in "baptismal regeneration" when he contends that baptism, like faith in Christ, is but one of the conditions with which the sinner must comply in order to be saved by the blood of Christ?
One must be baptized in order to become a member of a Baptist Church. Shall we charge our Baptist friends with believing in "baptismal membership," indicating that water (not faith, not the Lord) adds them to the Baptist Church?
Naaman was not healed of his leprosy until he dipped seven times in the river Jordan (2 Kgs. 5:1-15). Would Mr. Martin argue that this was a case of "seventh dip healing"? The blind man in John 9 had to "wash in the pool of Siloam" before he could be healed of his blindness. Would Martin argue that this was a case of water healing, and not a healing of blindness by the Lord? No, he would not do so in either case. Why, then, argue that if one says what Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," that he is contending for "baptismal regeneration"?
If we say that baptism is a condition of salvation, Martin says this puts us "in the same league with the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches." Well, Catholics, the Mormons, and Martin argue that one must believe before he can be saved. Does this put him "in the same league with the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches"? If it works one way, it works the other.]
If you are a member of this "church" or have been influenced by its teachings, we challenge you to ask your preacher the questions that follow, then get your King James Bible out, open it up, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the TRUTH (John 16:13). If you have never been saved in the Bible sense, for heaven's sake, do not mistake being "washed in the baptistry of the church" for being washed in the blood of Christ.
[Where does the Bible tell us to "ask the Holy Spirit to" show us the truth? The Holy Spirit tells us to "read," and that when we do, we will understand (Eph. 3:4). When the Bereans "searched the Scriptures daily" to see whether or not they were being taught the truth, Paul did not tell them to quit studying the Scriptures "and ask the Holy Spirit" to show them the truth (Acts 17:11; Cf. 2 Tim. 2:15). Why does Martin tell us to do what no apostle ever told anyone to do?
Certainly, "If you have never been saved in the Bible sense," we would encourage you to become saved in that manner-"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 16:31; 17:30; 22:16).
Mr. Martin warns, "do not mistake being 'washed in the baptistry of the church' for being washed in the blood of Christ." How would he answer the following admonitions? (1) Do not mistake being washed at the altar in answer to a preacher's call for you to give your life to Jesus, "for being washed in the blood of Christ." (2) Do not mistake being washed from your sins by saying the sinner's prayer "for being washed in the blood of Christ." (3) Do not mistake being washed from your sins by faith "for being washed in the blood of Christ." Mr. Martin, when one comes to the altar, and as a believing penitent says the sinner's prayer and is "washed" from his sins, does that process exclude the blood of Christ? If not, your objection to baptism fails. If one may be saved by doing those things, without making void being washed from his sins by the blood of Christ, so he may also be baptized without nullifying the washing of the blood of Christ.
Baptists teach that one cannot be a member of a Baptist Church without being baptized. Does their insistence on baptism for membership mean they are trusting on membership in the water of the baptistry of the church and not in the blood of Christ?]
If you ask one of these "preachers" any of the questions in this tract, you won't get a straight answer due to their "screwball" theology. You'll have them in "hot water," "swimming in circles," trying to explain their heretical positions. They'll be "hopping all over the pond" because they can't stay too long in one spot without sinking in the mire of their false doctrines.
[Is "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" "'screwball' theology" (Mk. 16:16)? Is "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" "'screwball' theology" (Acts 2:38)? Is "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" "'screwball' theology"? Will Mr. Martin give us a "straight answer," or will he find himself "in 'hot water,' 'swimming in circles'" while "'hopping all over the pond'" and "sinking in the mire of his "heretical positions" and "false doctrines"? So, tell us, Mr. Martin, are the passages cited "'screwball' theology"? We await your "straight answer."]
Don't YOU wind up being baptized in the "Lake of Fire" by accepting a "waterworks" based plan of salvation and rejecting salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. (Matt. 3:11; Rev. 20:15; Eph. 2:8,9; Rom. 5:9; Rom. 11:6).
[Since one must be baptized to be a member of a Baptist church, are all Baptists guilty of "accepting a 'waterworks' membership in the body of Christ (Cf. 1 Cor. 12:13)? As such, are they guilt of "rejecting" membership in the body of Christ by grace through faith? Are they guilty of trusting in "'waterworks'" membership in the body of Christ and not in the "finished work of Christ"?
If they do so, might those Baptists "wind up being baptized in the 'Lake of Fire'?" No, I suppose Baptists would be in no such danger, even if they do reject the "finished work of Christ" with their "'waterworks'" membership, because Baptists believe once a man is saved, he may do "despite unto the Spirit of grace" and count "the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing," and still go to heaven (Heb. 10:29)! Let Mr. Martin deny that last charge if he will.
We trust that Mr. Martin will give us a "straight answer" to these questions. We would hate to see him refuse to answer and watch him land in "'hot water,' 'swimming in circles,' trying to explain (his) heretical positions." Watching Mr. Martin refuse to give a "straight answer" while "'hopping all over the pond'" of his "'waterworks'" membership, would not be a pretty sight.]
Here are Questions for Campbellites
1. According to the history of the "Church of Christ," God used certain men to "restore" the New Testament Church in the early 1800's. Where was the true New Testament church before then? Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it.
["Although no Christian today is a member of the congregation which was established in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, all Christians of all times are members of the same church of the Lord which was established on that day. (Cf. 1 Cor. 1:2b; 12:13; Eph. 2:16; 3:6-LRH).
"The church was established once for all. It had but one birthday, it is not born again and again each century, or after periods of apostasy. Christ was made head of the church once for all. He does not ascend each generation, make purification for our sins, and sit down at God's right hand (Heb. 1:3, 13; Eph. 1:19-23; Acts 2:30-36). His reign is not started anew each generation. He was not de-throned by the apostasy and re-enthroned by any restoration movement. Peter did not say Christ would reign until His enemies conquered his kingdom and brought to an end His reign as king. He did not say that after this had taken place, centuries later a group of men would or could re-enthrone Christ. Peter said Christ would reign until all enemies are conquered, and Paul said that when this is done, the kingdom will be delivered to the Father (Acts 2:34-36; 1 Cor. 15:24-28). The last days dispensation started once for all and will not be started again, for this dispensation and covenant is the eternal covenant (Acts 2:16, 17; Heb. 1:1, 2; 2:3, 4; 13:20).
"....Congregations in various cities and regions can depart from the faith and individuals can depart from the faith. A congregation in a given locality can be destroyed, and, when such happens, there is a need for a congregation to be established there, and in this sense for the church to be restored there. However, the reign of Christ cannot be destroyed or restored. It continues until the end of time. Men need to accept Christ, but, whether they accept Him or not, He still reigns" (James D. Bales, Restoration, Reformation, Or Revelation?, 18-20).]
2. If a "Church of Christ" elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will? Do I need Jesus AND a Campbellite "preacher" in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation - the "Church of Christ" preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?
[Author's Note: This same question was answered in an earlier article. At that time, I did not know that Mr. Martin was the one who had framed the question, hence, you will see no direct references to him in the answer below-LRH
No New Testament Christian would refuse to baptize a penitent believer in Christ. One need not be baptized by an elder in the Lord's church in order to be saved. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" he did not say, "He that believeth and is baptized by an elder shall be saved." Yes, one is lost until he does what the Lord said do; namely, believe and be baptized (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).
Before replying to the remaining question, let me say a word about the term, "Campbellite." First, it is a name which I do not wear. I would not call a man a "Baptist" if he rejected the term. Second, there is nothing which I believe, teach, and practice which began with the teaching of a man named Campbell. If so, what is it? (1) Is it baptism "for the remission of sins?" No, Acts 2:38. (2) Is it the fact that I am a member of a local church of Christ? No, Romans 16:16, "the churches of Christ salute you." (3) Is it because disciples come together "upon the first day of the week" to break bread? No, Acts 20:7. (4) Is it because members of the church "lay by in store" upon every "first day of the week" ? No, 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2. (5) Is it because members of the church refuse to wear human names and are referred to as "Christians," "disciples," "saints," "brethren," "children of God" ? No, Acts 11:26; 1 Cor. 1:2; 3:1; Gal. 3:26.
Again, our querist needs to cite one item that I believe, teach, or practice that originated with a man named Campbell. Can he do it? If not, let him not call me a "Campbellite," for I reject anything and everything in religion for which I cannot find a "Thus saith the Lord" (1 Pet. 4:11).
Further, regarding the term, "Campbellite," from the Encyclopedia Of Religion, edited by Vergilius Fern, we note the following: "A term applied to the Disciples of Christ; (1) Whimsically by themselves; (2) Ignorantly by the non-church public; (3) Viciously, as well as ignorantly by the less enlightened sects. Obsolescent, with the general advance of religious intelligence and interdenominational courtesy."
Perhaps, our Baptist friend has used the term, "Campbellite," in ignorance. If he continues to do so, we shall let Mr. Fern's description define why.
Next, our Baptist challenger argues that if baptism is essential to salvation, then it makes the baptizer a mediator of another's salvation. Therefore, Christ is not the only mediator (1 Tim. 2:5).
First, the Bible says that God saves men through the preaching of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:21). One cannot believe and be saved until he first "hears" the gospel, "and how shall they hear without a preacher" (Rom. 10:14)? Now, our Baptist friend is in the same position in which he attempted to place us. A preacher is required before one can hear, believe, and be saved (1 Cor. 15:1, 2, 11). Let our Baptist respondent tell us if that makes a preacher a "mediator" and an administrator of salvation in addition to Christ. Since he says that one who baptizes another becomes another mediator, another besides Christ, why does that not also make a preacher another mediator, in addition to Christ, since the preaching of the gospel is essential to one's being saved?
Since he said a baptizer "is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me!" we shall now ask him if a preacher "is performing a saving act on the sinner when he preaches to him so he can be saved"? If he can understand how that a preacher is not a mediator and is not usurping the role of Christ even though he must preach in order for me to hear, believe, and be saved, then he ought to be able to see how men may baptize others without becoming mediators along with Christ.
Second, one must do the believing which saves him-"except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (Jn. 8:24). Does the fact that one must, himself, do the believing make one a Savior of himself? No, and the same is true of baptism. Further, one must, himself, repent-"Except Ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Lk. 13:3). Does the fact that one must do the repenting make one his own co-Savior? No, and our Baptist friend, who believes in the essentiality of both faith and repentance, agrees with us. If, then, the fact that one must believe and repent to be saved does not make him his own Savior, then he ought to see the same with respect to one's being baptized.
Our Baptist gentleman asks if someone other than the Holy Spirit is the administrator of baptism. No, men are the administrators of water baptism. Jesus told men, not the Holy Spirit, to teach and baptize all nations (Matt. 28:19). It was men who performed water baptism in the New Testament-"he (Philip) baptized him" (Acts 8:38).
If our questioner thinks the Holy Spirit is the administrator of the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13, let him tell us what the element is. Into what element does the Spirit baptize one? The Spirit cannot be both the administrator and the element into which one is baptized.
Observe that the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 places one "into one body," that is, into the church. Since Baptists acknowledge that water baptism places one into the church, can they not see that the baptism which puts one "into (that) one body," the church, is water baptism?
Again, though, our Baptist friend has crossed himself up with respect to how many baptisms there are. He speaks of one here which he says is administered by the Holy Spirit. That is one baptism. Then, he also admits the practice of water baptism which is administered by men-two administrators equals two baptisms. Two baptisms is one baptism too many, for the Spirit says, "There is...one baptism." Let our Baptist friend tell us how he can hold to two administrators and two baptisms while the Bible says there is "one baptism."
In view of the above facts, who is it that is guilty of "blaspheming" Jesus Christ? (This is the conclusion of the insertion of a previous answer to the same question. Below are additional remarks directed to Mr. Martin-LRH).
In accordance with Scripture, Mr. Martin correctly believes that one must "call on the name of the Lord" in order to be saved (Rom. 10:13). However, before people can call on the Lord and be saved, they must hear the word of God, "and how shall they hear without a preacher" (Rom. 10:14)? Since one cannot call on the Lord without faith, and since one cannot believe until he hears the word, and since he cannot hear "without a preacher," then preachers must preach the gospel (Rom. 10:13-17). Now, in view of that fact, let us ask Mr. Martin:
"If a 'Baptist' elder refuses to preach to me, will I be lost until I can find one who will? Do I need Jesus AND a 'Baptist' preacher in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation-the "Baptist Church' preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he preaches to me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?"
Note, that Mr. Martin argued that if another person is needed to baptize one "into Christ," that proves that Jesus is not our all sufficient Mediator and Savior. Well, why is not the same thing true with respect to necessity of having a preacher preach the gospel? Romans 10:13, 14 clearly shows that folks cannot hear, believe, and call on the name of the Lord and be saved until preachers preach the gospel (Rom. 10:13-17). Now, if the fact that another person is needed to baptize one into Christ nullifies Jesus as our only Mediator and Redeemer, does not the necessity of a preacher do the same? We shall await Mr. Martin's "straight answer" to this question.
Since Mr. Martin agrees that a preacher is necessary in order for one to hear and be saved, yet this does not make void the fact that Jesus is our Savior, why does he not see that the same is true regarding the position of one who baptizes another?]
3. If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up? If I were to die before then, would I go to hell? If obedience to water baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, then I would.
[Author's Note: Again, this same question was answered in an earlier article. At that time, I did not know that Mr. Martin was the one who had framed the question, hence, you will see no direct references to him in the answer below-LRH
Since it takes baptism to constitute one as a Baptist, "If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my membership have to wait until the plumber showed up?"
"If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry," one might decide to go elsewhere to obey the Lord who said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16).
After his broken water pipe scenario, our friend asks, "If I were to die before then, would I go to hell?" Well, suppose another case. If the preacher lost his voice and could not tell an illiterate man about Jesus' death for his salvation, would his salvation have to wait until another preacher showed up? "If he were to die before then, if he were to die before he could be lead to believe, would he go to hell?"
If a broken water pipe nullifies what the Lord said about baptism because someone might be lost without being baptized, would a preacher's inability to speak nullify the fact that one must hear the gospel before he can believe and be saved? If a man dies before hearing and believing the gospel, he will be lost. Regardless of the objections, Scripture still says that one must repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 22:16). If he does not do that, he will be lost (Lk. 13:3; Jn. 3:3, 5).
(Again, this is the conclusion of the insertion of a previous answer to the same question. Below are additional remarks directed to Mr. Martin-LRH).
Mr. Martin, since Paul said we are "all baptized into one body," if the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my membership in the body of Christ have to wait until the plumber showed up (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 5:23)? Since Jesus "is the Savior of the body," and we are "baptized into one body," If I were to die before the plumber got there would I go to hell? Since obedience to God in being baptized into the body of Christ "for the remission of sins" is essential, then I would indeed be lost (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:16; 3:6; 5:23-26- "with the washing of water by the word").
One thing is for certain, the Baptist church could not exist if the world's water pipes burst and there were no plumbers, for one must be baptized in order to be a Baptist. Mr. Martin sees no problem with that, of course, for he does not believe one must be a member of a Baptist church in order to be saved. According to him, one can be saved and never even learn of the existence of Baptist churches, and go to heaven when he dies. However, this is not true with respect to the Lord's church, for Jesus is the Savior of it (Eph. 5:23). Jesus' blood purchased His church and none can be saved apart from it (Acts 20:28; Eph. 2:16; 5:23-27, 32), but one can be saved even if he never hears about a Baptist church. Therefore, the Baptist church is not the Lord's church.
Further, not only can one be saved without being a member of any Baptist church, one also can be saved without ever hearing or believing the gospel as preached by the Baptists, but one cannot be saved if he does not believe the gospel of Christ-"He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:15, 16; Jn. 12:48). Therefore, gospel of Christ is not Baptist doctrine.]
4. If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to "lose my salvation" and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn't my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry?!! - before I had a chance to sin so as to be lost again? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of heaven, isn't that my best opportunity?
[Author's Note: This question, too, was answered in an earlier article as follows:
If my membership in the Baptist church is conditional, and since I may sin and be withdrawn from by a Baptist church after being baptized into it, wouldn't my best chance to die as a Baptist be to drown in the baptistry?-before I had a chance to sin so as to lose my membership in the Baptist church? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of my membership in the Baptist church, wouldn't it be my best opportunity?
Please observe that our Baptist friend does not appeal to Scripture to sustain and support his position, but to conjecture and his imagination. Over and over he presents predicaments which he thinks undermine the authority of what the Lord has said. He begins the paragraph above with, "If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water...." There is no "if" about it. According to the testimony of the Spirit of God, one is not forgiven until he believes, repents, and is baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; Cf. 3:19; 22:16).
Further, if one cannot lose his salvation, why all the warnings in the Bible about it (Heb. 2:1; 3:12; 4:1, 11; 12:15; 2 Pet. 3:17)? Why does the Bible tell us to take heed lest we fall, if we cannot (1 Cor. 10:12-see context of that statement, 10:1-11)? Why does Scripture speak of those who "are fallen from grace" if such a thing cannot occur (Gal. 5:4)?]
5. If as a Christian I can sin so as to "lose my salvation," just what sin or sins will place me in such danger? Is it possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin, and become lost again? Please be specific and give clear Bible references.
[Author's Note: Below is an answer previously given. Again, though there are no direct references to Mr. Martin, the material and its questions are now intended for him!
What "sins will place me in such danger?" (1) "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matt. 5:22). Now, this cannot be talking only to unsaved men for they are not merely "in danger" of hell fire, but are "condemned already" (Jn. 3:18). So, it is addressed to the saved. Does our Baptist friend believe that a child of God shall be "in danger of hell fire" if he says, "Thou fool"? If a child of God cannot go to hell, how could he ever be "in danger" of it? Let our friend explain. (2) Is it possible for a child of God to commit murder? Yes, for David "killed" a man (2 Sam. 12:9). What does the Spirit of God say about a man who commits murder? "Ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" (1 Jn. 3:15). Obviously, an alien sinner does not have eternal life abiding in him, so there would be no question about whether he had eternal life, even if he had not murdered anyone. Hence, the passage is speaking of brethren, of children of God. One who hates his brother is a murderer, "and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Does our Baptist friend know that? Yes, it is "possible," as our Baptist friend inquires, "to know at what point one has committed such a sin," for Nathan told David. If a man can know that he has said to another, "Thou fool," and if a man may know that he has murdered another, then, it is "possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin and become lost again."
Since he asked us to "be specific and give clear Bible references," please note that we have done so. (End of previous reply. Below are additional remarks for Mr. Martin.)
Mr. Martin boldly asks "just what sin or sins will place me in such danger?" As expressed by one of his brethren, "Pastor Sam Morris," there is no sin a child of God could commit which would place his soul in any danger. Below is what Mr. Martin believes and teaches. Let him deny the words of Sam Morris if he will. I dare him to tell us he does not believe the quotation below. Speaking of the Baptists, Sam Morris said:
We take the position that a Christian's sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul....All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger" (Sam Morris, Do A Christian's Sins Damn His Soul?)
Will Mr. Martin tell us whether he agrees with the quotation above? Will he give us a "straight answer," or will he resort to "swimming in circles"? Mr. Morris's words are the consequence of the Baptist doctrine of "once saved, always saved." If Mr. Martin denies them, he denies his doctrine. If he agrees with them, let him tell us plainly.
6. If as a Christian I can fall and "lose my salvation," is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God "takes away" my salvation, doesn't that make Him an "Indian giver"? How could I ever know for sure that I was saved or lost?
[Author's Note: From an earlier response to the same query.
Yes, it is possible for one to regain his salvation. "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee" (Acts 8:22; Cf. 1 Jn. 1:9-"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." It is possible, for David, who had committed murder, and who, therefore, had no eternal life abiding in him, was forgiven and restored (Psa. 32:1; Rom. 4:6).
But, "If God 'takes away' my salvation, doesn't that make Him and 'Indian giver?'" Well, let us try that same reasoning on the Baptist church. "If the Baptist church withdraws from me and takes away my membership for some sin I have committed, doesn't that make it an Indian giver?" We know that Baptist churches will not keep a drunken adulterer in their fellowship. When they withdraw from such a man, after having once accepted him as a member, are they "Indian givers"? If not, why not?
Again, our Baptist friend relies on his own human reasoning. Let him read the verses below and then tell us if he thinks God is an "Indian giver."
(1) David said to Solomon, "If thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever" (1 Chron. 28:9). Was David telling Solomon that God is an "Indian giver"? (2) "The Lord is with you while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you" (2 Chron. 15:2). Does this make God an "Indian giver"? (3) "Because ye have forsaken the Lord, he also hath forsaken you" (2 Chron. 24:20). Was God an "Indian giver," according to our Baptist friend's rules? (4) "If we deny him, he will also deny us" (2 Tim. 2:12). "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mk. 8:38). Is God an "Indian giver" when he denies those who deny him?
Tell us, Mr. Martin, is he?
What of the unbeliever who is assured of damnation, but who later turns to Christ, becomes a believer and is saved (Jn. 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24)? Is God an "Indian giver" when he fails to send the former unbeliever to hell after he had promised him that he would? Just as God is not an "Indian giver" when he cancels the condemnation of the unbeliever who becomes a believer, neither is he an "Indian giver" when he condemns the believer who turns away from him in an "evil heart of unbelief" (Heb. 3:12).
Finally, in this connection, God is not an "Indian giver" when he condemns those who turn from him, for he is giving them exactly what he said he would if they forsook him (1 Chron. 28:9; Rom. 11:22; 2 Tim. 2:12).]
7. After becoming a Christian, are there any sins that will put me beyond the "point of no return" so that I cannot regain salvation? What sin or sins will put me in such jeopardy, so that, after becoming a Christian, I would be doomed to hell without any recourse? Please be specific and give me clear Bible references.
[Author's Note: More from a previous reply to the same question.
"But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin....If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn. 1:9). Is that "Bible" reference "clear" and "specific" enough?
Let it be noted that we have replied with Scripture, not with our own reasonings and rationalizations.]
8. If I committed some sin -whether in thought, word, or deed, one minute before a fatal car crash - would I go to hell if I did not have time to repent of it? And, please, don't just say that it's up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference.
[Author's Note: Same reply from "Answering A Baptist Attack Against 'Campbellite'"
[If David "killed Uriah" "one minute before a fatal chariot crash," would he have gone to heaven without eternal life abiding in him (1 Jn. 3:15)? "And, please, don't just say that it's up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference."
If an alien sinner, an unbeliever, was on his way to hear a Baptist preacher and died "one minute before the preacher spoke," before he had time to come to faith in Christ, would he go to heaven even though he was still an unbeliever? "And, please, don't just say that it's up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference."]
9. Why does the "Church of Christ" insist that their name is scriptural when it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible? The church is referred to as the "church of God" eight (8) times in the Bible, but never is it called the "church of Christ." The verse they use is Romans 16:16, but it doesn't say "church of Christ." Where does the Bible call the church the "church of Christ"?
[Author's Note: Yet another copy of the answer to the same question.
From my book,"The Christ, The Cross, And The Church," pages 114, 115, we note:
Before we deal with the question as to the advisability of using the designation, "church Of Christ," perhaps we should establish that it is a scriptural label. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14, the Spirit cited "the churches of God." However, when he wanted to speak of one such church, he spoke of, "the church of God" (1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, the singular of "churches of God" is "church of God." In Romans 16:16, the Holy Spirit mentioned "the churches of Christ." Since the singular of "churches of God" is "church of God," what is the singular of "churches of Christ"?
Yes, numerous terms are used to identify God's people in the New Testament, but not one time does Scripture say anything about a "Baptist Church" or "Baptist Churches." As a matter of fact, in no literature, whether sacred or secular, written before 1600 A.D., can one find any reference to a Baptist church, either singular or plural. Perhaps it is fair to ask, since our querist is a member of a Baptist Church, "Where does the Bible, or any literature, written before 1600 A.D., mention either a "Baptist Church" or "Baptist Churches"? We have answered from Scripture regarding "the churches of Christ," now let him do the same if he can.]
10. If the "Church of Christ" claims to worship God only as "authorized" by scripture because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the "authority" to use hymnals, pitchpipes, pews, and indoor baptistries in their worship services? If the answer is that they are "aids to worship," where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitchpipe can be an "aid to worship" for the song service in the "Church of Christ," then why can't a piano be an "aid to worship" for Baptists who may need more help in singing?
[A piano is not an "aid" for singing. One may sing, either beautifully or badly, with or without a piano. Martin's saying that a piano is an "aid" for worship in song is like saying a car is an "aid" for walking. No, a cane is an "aid" for walking, but when one is in a car, he is riding, not walking. Likewise, a piano is not for singing, but must be played. Playing on the instrument is what God has not authorized. Now, we shall deal with his argument on such "aids" as he has mentioned.
The Bible does not state that Noah used hammers, saws, and axes in the construction of the ark. However, such instruments were authorized by the command, "Make thee an ark" (Gen. 6:14). Without the instruction to build the ark, the tools would have been unauthorized.
The Bible does not mention church buildings per se. However, they are scriptural because of the authority to assemble (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:18; 14:23; Heb. 10:25). Without the right to assemble, church buildings would be without divine authority.
The Bible does not refer to song books. However, they are authorized by the command to sing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3;16). They assist us in carrying out the divine direction to "sing and make melody" in our hearts to the Lord. Without the authority to sing, songbooks would be unscriptural.
The Bible does not talk about chalk boards, computerized images, or overhead projectors. However, they are approved by the authority to teach (Matt. 28:19). They assist in doing what the New Testament churches did; namely, teach (Acts 11:22-26). Without the authority to teach, boards and projectors would be contrary to Scripture.
The Bible does not say anything about collection baskets. However, they are authorized by the command to "lay by in store" (1 Cor. 16:2). Without the authority for a contribution, collection trays would be unauthorized.
The Bible does not mention plates on which to serve the bread of the Lord's supper. However, they are authorized by the command to "take, eat" (1 Cor. 11:24). Were there no communion, the plates would not be scriptural.
The Bible does not specifically cite a baptistry, an artificial pool in which baptism is performed. However, the command to baptize authorizes a place to baptize. Without the right to baptize, a baptistry would be without authority (Matt. 7:21-23).
Note These Contrasting Parallels
The Bible does not directly mention the use of pianos and organs in the worship of the church. If we had scriptural authority to "play music," such instruments would be authorized. As there is Bible authority for song books because we are to sing, so there would be authority for pianos in worship if we were commanded to "play music." When someone finds Scripture for "playing," he will have found authority for guitars, trumpets, "an such like." Until then, they cannot be used with the approval of heaven.]
11. The "Church of Christ" teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder. Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one's sins forgiven? Every time the phrase "for the remission of sins" occurs it is speaking of the fact that sins have been forgiven previously! The Bible plainly teaches that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned upon repentance of sin and faith in Christ - never upon water baptism! (Matthew 3:11; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 20:21; Romans 1:16; Romans 4:5; et.al.) Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sin is linked with water baptism? When Christ made the statement in Matthew 26:28, "for the remission of sins," it had to be because they had been forgiven all through the Old Testament! Christ shed His blood because God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before the Son of God came to "take away" sins and to redeem us and pay the sin-debt with His own precious blood. How can one say that "for the remission of sins" means 'in order to obtain' in light of the fact that God never uses the phrase in that sense? In the Old Testament God forgave sin on the basis of a blood sacrifice (Heb. 9:22) - the Old Testament saints had their sins remitted (i.e., forgiven) but they were not redeemed until Christ came and shed His blood at Calvary. Their sins were covered (Romans 4:7; Psalm 32:1), but the sinner was not cleared of his guilt (Exodus 34:7) until the Cross (Heb.10:4). Before Calvary, the sins of believers were pardoned, but they were not paid for (i.e., redeemed) until the crucifixion (see Romans 3:25 and Heb. 9:12-15). When Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30), all sin - past, present and future - was paid for, and the plan of salvation was completed, so that 'whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins' (Acts 10:43). In Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven (at Calvary when Jesus said, "Father, forgive them,") and they received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ and accepted Him as their Saviour and Lord. Friend, heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this.
[Author's Note: A very similar question was answered in another article. Since it applies to most of the above.
No, neither the Bible nor the church of Christ "teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder." However, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16). Not only does our friend misrepresent the church of the Lord, but he also misrepresents what Jesus taught.
He says, "Every time the phrase 'for the remission of sins' occurs it is speakingof the fact that sins have been forgiven previously!" (1) If that is so, why do the following Baptist translations of Acts 2:38 read as they do?
"You must repent--and as an expression of it, every one of you be baptized-that you may have your sins forgiven" (Williams).
"You must repent, and every one of you be baptized-in order to have your sins forgiven" (Goodspeed).
"Repent (that is undergo a change of mind and feeling) and be baptized each of you with a view to the remission of your sins" (Baylor University, a Baptist school).
"Repent and be baptized every one of you for (in order that you may receive) the forgiveness of your sins" (Short Baptist College, 1921).
(2) If the phrase, "for the remission of sins" "is speaking of the fact that sins have been previously forgiven," what does that do with repentance which is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38)? One is to "repent...for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Are one's sins "previously forgiven," that is, are his sins forgiven before he repents? They must be, if "for the remission of sins" "is speaking of the fact that sins have been previously forgiven."
Now, if sins are forgiven before one repents, then one's sins are forgiven before he believes, for Baptists teach that one believes after he repents. Let our Baptist friend tell us if one's sins are forgiven before he believes. Acts 10:43 says that one who believes shall receive "the forgiveness of sins." Does that mean that one is forgiven before he believes?
The same preposition, "for," in "for the remission of sins" also appears in Romans 10: 10, where we are told that one believes "unto" salvation. Does one believe because of salvation that has been previously granted?
Next, we are told, "The Bible plainly teaches that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned upon repentance of sin and faith in Christ - never upon water baptism! (Matt. 3:11,Lk. 24:47, Acts 3:19, Acts 5:31, Acts 10:43, Acts 20:21, Rom. 1:16, Rom. 4:5, et al)."
Ignoring passages on baptism, as our Baptist friend does, will not make them go away (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:26, 27; 1 Pet. 3:21). We agree with every passage he has cited with respect to the essentiality of faith and repentance, but we dare not pretend that passages which prescribe baptism as a condition of salvation do not exist, as our friend has done.
We are asked, "Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sin is linked with water baptism?" To which we reply, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). One might cite the baptism of John. John's baptism was said to have been "for the remission of sins" (Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3). Further, as we have shown, Acts 2:38 connects the two. Peter proves the connection when we compare his statement in Acts 3:19 with that of Acts 2:38:
Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins-Acts 2:38
Repent and turn that your sins may be blotted out-Acts 3:19
From the comparison above we see that the expression "for the remission of sins" is equivalent to that of one's sins being "blotted out." Thus, we have shown that "forgiveness of sins is linked with water baptism." Again, we have answered Mr. Martin's questions with Scripture. Will he do the same?
Our friends twisting and torturing of Matthew 26:28 has him declaring that Jesus shed his blood "because" sins were previously forgiven. If that is true in the absolute, then Jesus need never have died and shed his blood.
Since 'without shedding of blood is no remission," Jesus had to shed his blood in order to provide the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22). Yes, "Christ shed His blood because God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before the Son of God came to 'take away"'sins and to redeem us an pay the sin-debt with His own precious blood." Let it also be noted that "God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before any man ever believed that God raised Christ from the dead," yet men today must believe that fact in order to be saved (Rom. 10:9). The fact that many were saved without believing that God raised Christ from the dead does not mean that we can be saved if we do not believe it (Rom. 10:9).
Our friend unties his whole argument when he says, "the sinner was not cleared of his guilt (Ex. 34:7) until the cross (Heb. 10:4)" In other words, Jesus shed his blood for (in order to) the remission of sins. Thayer's Lexicon says "for the remission of sins" means "to obtain the forgiveness of sins" (p. 94). Bauer's work, translated by Arndt and Gingrich says that the expression in Acts 2:38 means, "for the forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven" (p. 228). We shall let our friend argue with the scholarship of the world as to the meaning of the expression, "for the remission of sins."
Our friend says, "In Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven (at Calvary when Jesus said, "Father, forgive them,") and the received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ and accepted Him as their Savior and Lord. Friend, heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this."
Again, note that if those in Acts 2:38 were "baptized because their sins were forgiven," then they repented for the same reason, that is, "because their sins were forgiven," for Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins." So, if one is baptized because he is already forgiven, then he repents because he is already forgiven.
On the cross, Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive them," but they were not forgiven at the time that prayer was uttered. If so, then they were forgiven without either faith or repentance, for they neither repented nor believed before Acts 2. Jesus' prayer for the Father to forgive those who slew him was answered in Acts 2 when about three thousand souls repented and were baptized "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38, 41).
We agree that "heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this."
12. If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and baptism is a work of "righteousness," then how can water baptism be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16) In the Bible, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and grace does not involve human effort or merit - grace is grace and work is work! (Just read Ephesians 2:8,9 and Romans 11:6.)
[Mr. Martin assumes what he must prove; namely, that baptism is included in the works of righteousness referred to in Titus 3:5. He assumes it; he asserts it, but he cannot prove it.
Let us ask Mr. Martin if believing in Jesus is a righteous act? Is it, Mr. Martin? Next, is it necessary for one to believe in Jesus before he can be saved? Yes, one must believe, and one's believing is an act of righteousness. It certainly is not an unrighteous action. So, if baptism is excluded because it is an act of righteousness which man must do, then faith is also excluded on the very same basis.
Further, must one have godly sorrow and repent of his sins? Is repentance of sin an act of righteousness or unrighteousness? It is an act of righteousness. Therefore, if Mr. Martin excludes baptism because it is an act of righteousness with which man must comply before he can be saved, then repentance is excluded on the very same grounds.
With these facts in mind (that faith and repentance are works of righteousness with which man must comply), let us construct a parallel to Mr. Martin's statement above:
"If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and faith is a work of "righteousness," then how can faith in Christ be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16)." When Mr. Martin answers that question, he will have answered his objection to baptism. But, again:
"If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and repentance is a work of "righteousness," then how can repentance of sins be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16)." When Mr. Martin answers that objection, he will have answered his own complaint against baptism.
No, salvation is not by the works of man's righteousness (Titus 3:5). However, one must work the righteousness of God. "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34, 35). Again, we ask Mr. Martin if faith, repentance, and baptism are works of man or works of God? Are they works of man's own devising, or are they works of God (Jn. 6:28, 29)?
Mr. Martin says that "grace does not involve human effort or merit." While we might agree that grace does not rely on human merit, Mr. Martin has overstated his case by saying that "grace does not involve human effort or merit." If that be true, then faith is excluded, for one must believe in Christ. God will not believe for the sinner. The sinner must believe, "except ye believe," Jesus said, "ye shall die in your sins" (Jn. 8:24). Believing is a "work" (Jn. 6:29). So, if "human effort" nullifies grace, then Mr. Martin nullifies grace every time he tells someone to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." If one's human effort in being baptized excludes baptism, it excludes faith for the very same reason.
The same is true with respect to repentance. If "grace does not involve human effort," then salvation is not by grace when Mr. Martin demands of an alien sinner that he repent. God will not repent for us. We must do it ourselves. Jesus said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Lk. 13:3). Since Mr. Martin says that "grace does not involve human effort," and he thereby excludes baptism, he will have to do the same with repentance, for it, too, is something that one must do.
No, we are not saved by our own works, nor by the works of the law of Moses, as Scripture clearly teaches. However, we exert some "human effort" in hearing the word of his grace and in believing, in repenting of our sins, and being baptized into Christ (Acts 19:5; Eph. 1:13; 2:8, 9). This is what the Ephesians did when they heard, believed, and were baptized "in the name of the Lord" "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 19:5). Later, Paul said those Ephesians who had done so, those who had exerted the "human effort" to hear "the gospel of the grace of God" and who had believed and were baptized, were saved by grace through faith (Acts 19: 5; 20:24; Eph. 1:13; 2:8, 9). Finally, "confession" of Christ as Lord is made "with the mouth" "unto salvation" (Rom. 10:9, 10). Mr. Martin, is there any "human effort" required for one to confess with his mouth "unto salvation"? If so, does this "human effort" negate salvation by grace?
The same is true with respect to repentance. If "grace does not involve human effort," then salvation is not by grace when Mr. Martin demands of an alien sinner that he repent. God will not repent for us. We must do it ourselves. Jesus said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Lk. 13:3). Since Mr. Martin says that "grace does not involve human effort," and he thereby excludes baptism, he will have to do the same with repentance, for it, too, is something that one must do.
No, we are not saved by our own works, nor by the works of the law of Moses, as Scripture clearly teaches. However, we exert some "human effort" in hearing the word of his grace and in believing, in repenting of our sins, and being baptized into Christ (Acts 19:5; Eph. 1:13; 2:8, 9). This is what the Ephesians did when they heard, believed, and were baptized "in the name of the Lord" "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 19:5). Later, Paul said those Ephesians who had done so, those who had exerted the "human effort" to hear "the gospel of the grace of God" and who had believed and were baptized, were saved by grace through faith (Acts 19: 5; 20:24; Eph. 1:13; 2:8, 9). Finally, "confession" of Christ as Lord is made "with the mouth" "unto salvation" (Rom. 10:9, 10). Mr. Martin, is there any "human effort" required for one to confess with his mouth "unto salvation"? If so, does this "human effort" negate salvation by grace?]
13. The "Church of Christ" teaches that "obeying the Gospel" includes being baptized in water in order to be saved. If this is true, then how is it that the converts of Acts 10 were saved by faith before and without water baptism? The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost - so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved? In the light of Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:14-18, and Acts 15:7-11, how can anyone honestly believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation? Simon Peter said their hearts were "purified by faith" (Acts 15:9) and that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were (Acts 15:11); that is, before and without water baptism! We know that unsaved people do not receive or have the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; Romans 8:9). We know that the Holy Spirit is given only to those who have believed on Christ (John 7:39). We know that the Holy Spirit seals the believing sinner the moment he puts his faith and trust in Christ as Savior, before he is ever baptized in water (Ephesians 1:12,13). How does the warped theolgy of Campbellism explain away these clear passages of Scripture without "muddying the waters" of truth and drowning its members in eternal damnation?
[In Acts 10, Cornelius and his household received Holy Spirit baptism. This reception of the Spirit was not to save them. They were saved by what hearing the words of the gospel, not by receiving the Spirit (Acts 11:15). Their hearts were "purified by faith," not by the reception of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 15:9). They were granted "repentance unto life;" they did not receive life by receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. They were baptized in water (Acts 10:47). Their baptism in water was "in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). Baptism in the name of the Lord is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5). Thus, they received forgiveness when they heard, believed, repented, and were baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."
Mr. Martin is correct. We are saved "by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were." Like them, we heard "words whereby" we can be saved (Acts 11:14). Like them, we believe on the Lord Jesus (Acts 10:43). Like them, we repent in order to have eternal life (Acts 11:18). Like them, we are baptized in water, in the name of the Lord, for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:48).
However, if the reception of the Spirit before they were baptized in water proves they were saved before they were baptized, Mr. Martin has a problem. Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Those in Acts 10 were to hear words whereby they would be saved (Acts 11:14). Peter spoke to them that they might believe (Acts 15:7). However, the Spirit fell "as (Peter) began to speak" (Acts 11:15). So, before they heard words which would lead them to believe and be saved, the Holy Spirit fell on them. Now, if the reception of the Spirit before baptism proves they were saved before baptism, it also proves they were saved before faith, for they received the Spirit before they believed!
(For a more complete and thorough study of this same argument, see my book, The Christ, The Cross, And The Church, pages 136-138, 142-145.)]
It would be impossible to discuss all the false doctrines of the "Church of Christ" in this small article. If you have a particular question not dealt with here, or need clarification on the issues discussed, contact us via email or at the phone number or address listed. We will provide you with sane, sensible and scriptural answers to your Bible questions. www.biblebelievers.com
[Likewise, it would be impossible to discuss all the false doctrines of the "Baptist Church" in this article. If you have a particular question not dealt with here, or need further clarification of the issues discussed, contact me via e-mail . Also, see our web site (www.Biblework.com). We will provide you with scriptural answers to your Bible questions. (There is no need to say that we will provide "sane, sensible" answers as Mr. Martin did, for scriptural answers, by their very nature, will be both sane and sensible.)
I shall be willing to meet Mr. Martin in a public discussion on the subject of what constitutes salvation by grace through faith. I do not believe he will agree to it, but let it be known that the opportunity is hereby extended to him. If he does not agree to a discussion, we shall know that he feels his questions have been answered.]
By Pastor David MartinSolid Rock Baptist Church
David Martin is pastor of the Solid Rock Baptist Church, 5893 Old Brownsville Rd. E, Bartlett, TN 38135 USA; phone: 901-634-1622. He is a 1984 graduate of Pensacola Bible Institute of Florida, and was ordained to the gospel ministry in 1986. He has been in his current pastorate for eight years. His article on the Church of Christ cult is the result of in-depth personal conversation with a Church of Christ elder that led to a 3-day public debate with a Church of Christ evangelist in 1997. The debate was attended by 250 people nightly from within a 300-mile radius of Memphis, Tennessee.This is one of the most controversial articles on the church of Christ you will find anywhere. No church of Christ preacher can satisfactorily answer any of the questions posed by Pastor Martin.
If you wish to respond to this article, please click here to email Pastor David Martin.
[First, given David Martin's credentials and experience, it is apparent that we are not dealing with a novice. He is fully capable of giving "an answer" to our scriptural review and refutation of his views (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15). Therefore, if he does not agree to further discussion, it is not because he is not qualified to do so, but because he has been answered and his doctrine cannot stand the test of open debate.
Second, the posting of Martin's material acknowledges the "controversial" nature of it. Hence, Mr. Martin surely will not object as we respond in an equally candid fashion. Note: Our replies will be enclosed in brackets beneath each of his questions.
Third, let it be understood that this review is not a defense of a "Church of Christ cult" to which Martin refers. In the New Testament, the church of Christ was referred to as "this sect" which was "every where...spoken against" (Acts 28:22). As the apostle Paul would not defend a sect or cult of men, but was "set for the defense of the gospel" and "explained...the kingdom of God," so shall we (Acts 28:23; Cf. 8:12; 19:8, 9; 20:24, 25; Phil. 1:17).
Fourth, whether one may "satisfactorily answer" Martin's questions may be subject to one's personal view. Paul answered the Judaizers, but not "satisfactorily," according to them! Stephen answered the Jews, but not, as they judged, "satisfactorily" (Acts 7:54-60). Paul gave answers to heathen, pagan, Jewish, and Roman authorities, but not "satisfactorily" (Acts 17:22-32; 22:1-22; 2 Tim. 4:16).
Let the reader be the judge. Let us, therefore, continue to debate the issues. Whether others view these efforts as being sufficient or satisfactory, is of no particular consequence (1 Cor. 4:3-5). Rather, my main concern is to provide scriptural answers, ones that are pleasing to God, if not satisfactory to men-"Study to show thyself approved unto God." "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Now, to Mr. Martin's comments and questions.]
The religious sect known as the "Church of Christ" has many peculiar and aberrant doctrines that are contrary to the word of God. It is a most deceptive and dangerous cult. Their teaching of baptismal regeneration is an age-old heresy that has damned millions to hell, and is still doing so today. The idea that they are the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ puts them in the same league with the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches.
[It is certainly true that "baptismal regeneration is an age-old heresy." However, no Christian, no saved believer, no member of the church of the Lord teaches the doctrine. If the fact that one teaches that baptism is essential to salvation makes one a teacher of "baptismal regeneration," does the teaching that repentance is an essential condition of salvation (as Martin correctly teaches) make one a teacher of "penitential regeneration"? Mr. Martin teaches that one cannot be saved without faith in Christ (Jn. 8:24; Heb. 11:6). Would it be fair and correct to charge him with believing in "faith regeneration," and not in regeneration by the Spirit of God? No, it would be neither fair nor correct. Why, then, is it right to charge that one believes in "baptismal regeneration" when he contends that baptism, like faith in Christ, is but one of the conditions with which the sinner must comply in order to be saved by the blood of Christ?
One must be baptized in order to become a member of a Baptist Church. Shall we charge our Baptist friends with believing in "baptismal membership," indicating that water (not faith, not the Lord) adds them to the Baptist Church?
Naaman was not healed of his leprosy until he dipped seven times in the river Jordan (2 Kgs. 5:1-15). Would Mr. Martin argue that this was a case of "seventh dip healing"? The blind man in John 9 had to "wash in the pool of Siloam" before he could be healed of his blindness. Would Martin argue that this was a case of water healing, and not a healing of blindness by the Lord? No, he would not do so in either case. Why, then, argue that if one says what Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," that he is contending for "baptismal regeneration"?
If we say that baptism is a condition of salvation, Martin says this puts us "in the same league with the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches." Well, Catholics, the Mormons, and Martin argue that one must believe before he can be saved. Does this put him "in the same league with the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches"? If it works one way, it works the other.]
If you are a member of this "church" or have been influenced by its teachings, we challenge you to ask your preacher the questions that follow, then get your King James Bible out, open it up, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the TRUTH (John 16:13). If you have never been saved in the Bible sense, for heaven's sake, do not mistake being "washed in the baptistry of the church" for being washed in the blood of Christ.
[Where does the Bible tell us to "ask the Holy Spirit to" show us the truth? The Holy Spirit tells us to "read," and that when we do, we will understand (Eph. 3:4). When the Bereans "searched the Scriptures daily" to see whether or not they were being taught the truth, Paul did not tell them to quit studying the Scriptures "and ask the Holy Spirit" to show them the truth (Acts 17:11; Cf. 2 Tim. 2:15). Why does Martin tell us to do what no apostle ever told anyone to do?
Certainly, "If you have never been saved in the Bible sense," we would encourage you to become saved in that manner-"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 16:31; 17:30; 22:16).
Mr. Martin warns, "do not mistake being 'washed in the baptistry of the church' for being washed in the blood of Christ." How would he answer the following admonitions? (1) Do not mistake being washed at the altar in answer to a preacher's call for you to give your life to Jesus, "for being washed in the blood of Christ." (2) Do not mistake being washed from your sins by saying the sinner's prayer "for being washed in the blood of Christ." (3) Do not mistake being washed from your sins by faith "for being washed in the blood of Christ." Mr. Martin, when one comes to the altar, and as a believing penitent says the sinner's prayer and is "washed" from his sins, does that process exclude the blood of Christ? If not, your objection to baptism fails. If one may be saved by doing those things, without making void being washed from his sins by the blood of Christ, so he may also be baptized without nullifying the washing of the blood of Christ.
Baptists teach that one cannot be a member of a Baptist Church without being baptized. Does their insistence on baptism for membership mean they are trusting on membership in the water of the baptistry of the church and not in the blood of Christ?]
If you ask one of these "preachers" any of the questions in this tract, you won't get a straight answer due to their "screwball" theology. You'll have them in "hot water," "swimming in circles," trying to explain their heretical positions. They'll be "hopping all over the pond" because they can't stay too long in one spot without sinking in the mire of their false doctrines.
[Is "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" "'screwball' theology" (Mk. 16:16)? Is "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" "'screwball' theology" (Acts 2:38)? Is "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" "'screwball' theology"? Will Mr. Martin give us a "straight answer," or will he find himself "in 'hot water,' 'swimming in circles'" while "'hopping all over the pond'" and "sinking in the mire of his "heretical positions" and "false doctrines"? So, tell us, Mr. Martin, are the passages cited "'screwball' theology"? We await your "straight answer."]
Don't YOU wind up being baptized in the "Lake of Fire" by accepting a "waterworks" based plan of salvation and rejecting salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. (Matt. 3:11; Rev. 20:15; Eph. 2:8,9; Rom. 5:9; Rom. 11:6).
[Since one must be baptized to be a member of a Baptist church, are all Baptists guilty of "accepting a 'waterworks' membership in the body of Christ (Cf. 1 Cor. 12:13)? As such, are they guilt of "rejecting" membership in the body of Christ by grace through faith? Are they guilty of trusting in "'waterworks'" membership in the body of Christ and not in the "finished work of Christ"?
If they do so, might those Baptists "wind up being baptized in the 'Lake of Fire'?" No, I suppose Baptists would be in no such danger, even if they do reject the "finished work of Christ" with their "'waterworks'" membership, because Baptists believe once a man is saved, he may do "despite unto the Spirit of grace" and count "the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing," and still go to heaven (Heb. 10:29)! Let Mr. Martin deny that last charge if he will.
We trust that Mr. Martin will give us a "straight answer" to these questions. We would hate to see him refuse to answer and watch him land in "'hot water,' 'swimming in circles,' trying to explain (his) heretical positions." Watching Mr. Martin refuse to give a "straight answer" while "'hopping all over the pond'" of his "'waterworks'" membership, would not be a pretty sight.]
Here are Questions for Campbellites
1. According to the history of the "Church of Christ," God used certain men to "restore" the New Testament Church in the early 1800's. Where was the true New Testament church before then? Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it.
["Although no Christian today is a member of the congregation which was established in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, all Christians of all times are members of the same church of the Lord which was established on that day. (Cf. 1 Cor. 1:2b; 12:13; Eph. 2:16; 3:6-LRH).
"The church was established once for all. It had but one birthday, it is not born again and again each century, or after periods of apostasy. Christ was made head of the church once for all. He does not ascend each generation, make purification for our sins, and sit down at God's right hand (Heb. 1:3, 13; Eph. 1:19-23; Acts 2:30-36). His reign is not started anew each generation. He was not de-throned by the apostasy and re-enthroned by any restoration movement. Peter did not say Christ would reign until His enemies conquered his kingdom and brought to an end His reign as king. He did not say that after this had taken place, centuries later a group of men would or could re-enthrone Christ. Peter said Christ would reign until all enemies are conquered, and Paul said that when this is done, the kingdom will be delivered to the Father (Acts 2:34-36; 1 Cor. 15:24-28). The last days dispensation started once for all and will not be started again, for this dispensation and covenant is the eternal covenant (Acts 2:16, 17; Heb. 1:1, 2; 2:3, 4; 13:20).
"....Congregations in various cities and regions can depart from the faith and individuals can depart from the faith. A congregation in a given locality can be destroyed, and, when such happens, there is a need for a congregation to be established there, and in this sense for the church to be restored there. However, the reign of Christ cannot be destroyed or restored. It continues until the end of time. Men need to accept Christ, but, whether they accept Him or not, He still reigns" (James D. Bales, Restoration, Reformation, Or Revelation?, 18-20).]
2. If a "Church of Christ" elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will? Do I need Jesus AND a Campbellite "preacher" in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation - the "Church of Christ" preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?
[Author's Note: This same question was answered in an earlier article. At that time, I did not know that Mr. Martin was the one who had framed the question, hence, you will see no direct references to him in the answer below-LRH
No New Testament Christian would refuse to baptize a penitent believer in Christ. One need not be baptized by an elder in the Lord's church in order to be saved. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" he did not say, "He that believeth and is baptized by an elder shall be saved." Yes, one is lost until he does what the Lord said do; namely, believe and be baptized (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).
Before replying to the remaining question, let me say a word about the term, "Campbellite." First, it is a name which I do not wear. I would not call a man a "Baptist" if he rejected the term. Second, there is nothing which I believe, teach, and practice which began with the teaching of a man named Campbell. If so, what is it? (1) Is it baptism "for the remission of sins?" No, Acts 2:38. (2) Is it the fact that I am a member of a local church of Christ? No, Romans 16:16, "the churches of Christ salute you." (3) Is it because disciples come together "upon the first day of the week" to break bread? No, Acts 20:7. (4) Is it because members of the church "lay by in store" upon every "first day of the week" ? No, 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2. (5) Is it because members of the church refuse to wear human names and are referred to as "Christians," "disciples," "saints," "brethren," "children of God" ? No, Acts 11:26; 1 Cor. 1:2; 3:1; Gal. 3:26.
Again, our querist needs to cite one item that I believe, teach, or practice that originated with a man named Campbell. Can he do it? If not, let him not call me a "Campbellite," for I reject anything and everything in religion for which I cannot find a "Thus saith the Lord" (1 Pet. 4:11).
Further, regarding the term, "Campbellite," from the Encyclopedia Of Religion, edited by Vergilius Fern, we note the following: "A term applied to the Disciples of Christ; (1) Whimsically by themselves; (2) Ignorantly by the non-church public; (3) Viciously, as well as ignorantly by the less enlightened sects. Obsolescent, with the general advance of religious intelligence and interdenominational courtesy."
Perhaps, our Baptist friend has used the term, "Campbellite," in ignorance. If he continues to do so, we shall let Mr. Fern's description define why.
Next, our Baptist challenger argues that if baptism is essential to salvation, then it makes the baptizer a mediator of another's salvation. Therefore, Christ is not the only mediator (1 Tim. 2:5).
First, the Bible says that God saves men through the preaching of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:21). One cannot believe and be saved until he first "hears" the gospel, "and how shall they hear without a preacher" (Rom. 10:14)? Now, our Baptist friend is in the same position in which he attempted to place us. A preacher is required before one can hear, believe, and be saved (1 Cor. 15:1, 2, 11). Let our Baptist respondent tell us if that makes a preacher a "mediator" and an administrator of salvation in addition to Christ. Since he says that one who baptizes another becomes another mediator, another besides Christ, why does that not also make a preacher another mediator, in addition to Christ, since the preaching of the gospel is essential to one's being saved?
Since he said a baptizer "is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me!" we shall now ask him if a preacher "is performing a saving act on the sinner when he preaches to him so he can be saved"? If he can understand how that a preacher is not a mediator and is not usurping the role of Christ even though he must preach in order for me to hear, believe, and be saved, then he ought to be able to see how men may baptize others without becoming mediators along with Christ.
Second, one must do the believing which saves him-"except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (Jn. 8:24). Does the fact that one must, himself, do the believing make one a Savior of himself? No, and the same is true of baptism. Further, one must, himself, repent-"Except Ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Lk. 13:3). Does the fact that one must do the repenting make one his own co-Savior? No, and our Baptist friend, who believes in the essentiality of both faith and repentance, agrees with us. If, then, the fact that one must believe and repent to be saved does not make him his own Savior, then he ought to see the same with respect to one's being baptized.
Our Baptist gentleman asks if someone other than the Holy Spirit is the administrator of baptism. No, men are the administrators of water baptism. Jesus told men, not the Holy Spirit, to teach and baptize all nations (Matt. 28:19). It was men who performed water baptism in the New Testament-"he (Philip) baptized him" (Acts 8:38).
If our questioner thinks the Holy Spirit is the administrator of the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13, let him tell us what the element is. Into what element does the Spirit baptize one? The Spirit cannot be both the administrator and the element into which one is baptized.
Observe that the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 places one "into one body," that is, into the church. Since Baptists acknowledge that water baptism places one into the church, can they not see that the baptism which puts one "into (that) one body," the church, is water baptism?
Again, though, our Baptist friend has crossed himself up with respect to how many baptisms there are. He speaks of one here which he says is administered by the Holy Spirit. That is one baptism. Then, he also admits the practice of water baptism which is administered by men-two administrators equals two baptisms. Two baptisms is one baptism too many, for the Spirit says, "There is...one baptism." Let our Baptist friend tell us how he can hold to two administrators and two baptisms while the Bible says there is "one baptism."
In view of the above facts, who is it that is guilty of "blaspheming" Jesus Christ? (This is the conclusion of the insertion of a previous answer to the same question. Below are additional remarks directed to Mr. Martin-LRH).
In accordance with Scripture, Mr. Martin correctly believes that one must "call on the name of the Lord" in order to be saved (Rom. 10:13). However, before people can call on the Lord and be saved, they must hear the word of God, "and how shall they hear without a preacher" (Rom. 10:14)? Since one cannot call on the Lord without faith, and since one cannot believe until he hears the word, and since he cannot hear "without a preacher," then preachers must preach the gospel (Rom. 10:13-17). Now, in view of that fact, let us ask Mr. Martin:
"If a 'Baptist' elder refuses to preach to me, will I be lost until I can find one who will? Do I need Jesus AND a 'Baptist' preacher in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation-the "Baptist Church' preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he preaches to me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?"
Note, that Mr. Martin argued that if another person is needed to baptize one "into Christ," that proves that Jesus is not our all sufficient Mediator and Savior. Well, why is not the same thing true with respect to necessity of having a preacher preach the gospel? Romans 10:13, 14 clearly shows that folks cannot hear, believe, and call on the name of the Lord and be saved until preachers preach the gospel (Rom. 10:13-17). Now, if the fact that another person is needed to baptize one into Christ nullifies Jesus as our only Mediator and Redeemer, does not the necessity of a preacher do the same? We shall await Mr. Martin's "straight answer" to this question.
Since Mr. Martin agrees that a preacher is necessary in order for one to hear and be saved, yet this does not make void the fact that Jesus is our Savior, why does he not see that the same is true regarding the position of one who baptizes another?]
3. If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up? If I were to die before then, would I go to hell? If obedience to water baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, then I would.
[Author's Note: Again, this same question was answered in an earlier article. At that time, I did not know that Mr. Martin was the one who had framed the question, hence, you will see no direct references to him in the answer below-LRH
Since it takes baptism to constitute one as a Baptist, "If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my membership have to wait until the plumber showed up?"
"If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry," one might decide to go elsewhere to obey the Lord who said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16).
After his broken water pipe scenario, our friend asks, "If I were to die before then, would I go to hell?" Well, suppose another case. If the preacher lost his voice and could not tell an illiterate man about Jesus' death for his salvation, would his salvation have to wait until another preacher showed up? "If he were to die before then, if he were to die before he could be lead to believe, would he go to hell?"
If a broken water pipe nullifies what the Lord said about baptism because someone might be lost without being baptized, would a preacher's inability to speak nullify the fact that one must hear the gospel before he can believe and be saved? If a man dies before hearing and believing the gospel, he will be lost. Regardless of the objections, Scripture still says that one must repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 22:16). If he does not do that, he will be lost (Lk. 13:3; Jn. 3:3, 5).
(Again, this is the conclusion of the insertion of a previous answer to the same question. Below are additional remarks directed to Mr. Martin-LRH).
Mr. Martin, since Paul said we are "all baptized into one body," if the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my membership in the body of Christ have to wait until the plumber showed up (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 5:23)? Since Jesus "is the Savior of the body," and we are "baptized into one body," If I were to die before the plumber got there would I go to hell? Since obedience to God in being baptized into the body of Christ "for the remission of sins" is essential, then I would indeed be lost (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:16; 3:6; 5:23-26- "with the washing of water by the word").
One thing is for certain, the Baptist church could not exist if the world's water pipes burst and there were no plumbers, for one must be baptized in order to be a Baptist. Mr. Martin sees no problem with that, of course, for he does not believe one must be a member of a Baptist church in order to be saved. According to him, one can be saved and never even learn of the existence of Baptist churches, and go to heaven when he dies. However, this is not true with respect to the Lord's church, for Jesus is the Savior of it (Eph. 5:23). Jesus' blood purchased His church and none can be saved apart from it (Acts 20:28; Eph. 2:16; 5:23-27, 32), but one can be saved even if he never hears about a Baptist church. Therefore, the Baptist church is not the Lord's church.
Further, not only can one be saved without being a member of any Baptist church, one also can be saved without ever hearing or believing the gospel as preached by the Baptists, but one cannot be saved if he does not believe the gospel of Christ-"He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:15, 16; Jn. 12:48). Therefore, gospel of Christ is not Baptist doctrine.]
4. If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to "lose my salvation" and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn't my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry?!! - before I had a chance to sin so as to be lost again? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of heaven, isn't that my best opportunity?
[Author's Note: This question, too, was answered in an earlier article as follows:
If my membership in the Baptist church is conditional, and since I may sin and be withdrawn from by a Baptist church after being baptized into it, wouldn't my best chance to die as a Baptist be to drown in the baptistry?-before I had a chance to sin so as to lose my membership in the Baptist church? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of my membership in the Baptist church, wouldn't it be my best opportunity?
Please observe that our Baptist friend does not appeal to Scripture to sustain and support his position, but to conjecture and his imagination. Over and over he presents predicaments which he thinks undermine the authority of what the Lord has said. He begins the paragraph above with, "If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water...." There is no "if" about it. According to the testimony of the Spirit of God, one is not forgiven until he believes, repents, and is baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; Cf. 3:19; 22:16).
Further, if one cannot lose his salvation, why all the warnings in the Bible about it (Heb. 2:1; 3:12; 4:1, 11; 12:15; 2 Pet. 3:17)? Why does the Bible tell us to take heed lest we fall, if we cannot (1 Cor. 10:12-see context of that statement, 10:1-11)? Why does Scripture speak of those who "are fallen from grace" if such a thing cannot occur (Gal. 5:4)?]
5. If as a Christian I can sin so as to "lose my salvation," just what sin or sins will place me in such danger? Is it possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin, and become lost again? Please be specific and give clear Bible references.
[Author's Note: Below is an answer previously given. Again, though there are no direct references to Mr. Martin, the material and its questions are now intended for him!
What "sins will place me in such danger?" (1) "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matt. 5:22). Now, this cannot be talking only to unsaved men for they are not merely "in danger" of hell fire, but are "condemned already" (Jn. 3:18). So, it is addressed to the saved. Does our Baptist friend believe that a child of God shall be "in danger of hell fire" if he says, "Thou fool"? If a child of God cannot go to hell, how could he ever be "in danger" of it? Let our friend explain. (2) Is it possible for a child of God to commit murder? Yes, for David "killed" a man (2 Sam. 12:9). What does the Spirit of God say about a man who commits murder? "Ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" (1 Jn. 3:15). Obviously, an alien sinner does not have eternal life abiding in him, so there would be no question about whether he had eternal life, even if he had not murdered anyone. Hence, the passage is speaking of brethren, of children of God. One who hates his brother is a murderer, "and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Does our Baptist friend know that? Yes, it is "possible," as our Baptist friend inquires, "to know at what point one has committed such a sin," for Nathan told David. If a man can know that he has said to another, "Thou fool," and if a man may know that he has murdered another, then, it is "possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin and become lost again."
Since he asked us to "be specific and give clear Bible references," please note that we have done so. (End of previous reply. Below are additional remarks for Mr. Martin.)
Mr. Martin boldly asks "just what sin or sins will place me in such danger?" As expressed by one of his brethren, "Pastor Sam Morris," there is no sin a child of God could commit which would place his soul in any danger. Below is what Mr. Martin believes and teaches. Let him deny the words of Sam Morris if he will. I dare him to tell us he does not believe the quotation below. Speaking of the Baptists, Sam Morris said:
We take the position that a Christian's sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul....All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger" (Sam Morris, Do A Christian's Sins Damn His Soul?)
Will Mr. Martin tell us whether he agrees with the quotation above? Will he give us a "straight answer," or will he resort to "swimming in circles"? Mr. Morris's words are the consequence of the Baptist doctrine of "once saved, always saved." If Mr. Martin denies them, he denies his doctrine. If he agrees with them, let him tell us plainly.
6. If as a Christian I can fall and "lose my salvation," is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God "takes away" my salvation, doesn't that make Him an "Indian giver"? How could I ever know for sure that I was saved or lost?
[Author's Note: From an earlier response to the same query.
Yes, it is possible for one to regain his salvation. "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee" (Acts 8:22; Cf. 1 Jn. 1:9-"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." It is possible, for David, who had committed murder, and who, therefore, had no eternal life abiding in him, was forgiven and restored (Psa. 32:1; Rom. 4:6).
But, "If God 'takes away' my salvation, doesn't that make Him and 'Indian giver?'" Well, let us try that same reasoning on the Baptist church. "If the Baptist church withdraws from me and takes away my membership for some sin I have committed, doesn't that make it an Indian giver?" We know that Baptist churches will not keep a drunken adulterer in their fellowship. When they withdraw from such a man, after having once accepted him as a member, are they "Indian givers"? If not, why not?
Again, our Baptist friend relies on his own human reasoning. Let him read the verses below and then tell us if he thinks God is an "Indian giver."
(1) David said to Solomon, "If thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever" (1 Chron. 28:9). Was David telling Solomon that God is an "Indian giver"? (2) "The Lord is with you while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you" (2 Chron. 15:2). Does this make God an "Indian giver"? (3) "Because ye have forsaken the Lord, he also hath forsaken you" (2 Chron. 24:20). Was God an "Indian giver," according to our Baptist friend's rules? (4) "If we deny him, he will also deny us" (2 Tim. 2:12). "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mk. 8:38). Is God an "Indian giver" when he denies those who deny him?
Tell us, Mr. Martin, is he?
What of the unbeliever who is assured of damnation, but who later turns to Christ, becomes a believer and is saved (Jn. 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24)? Is God an "Indian giver" when he fails to send the former unbeliever to hell after he had promised him that he would? Just as God is not an "Indian giver" when he cancels the condemnation of the unbeliever who becomes a believer, neither is he an "Indian giver" when he condemns the believer who turns away from him in an "evil heart of unbelief" (Heb. 3:12).
Finally, in this connection, God is not an "Indian giver" when he condemns those who turn from him, for he is giving them exactly what he said he would if they forsook him (1 Chron. 28:9; Rom. 11:22; 2 Tim. 2:12).]
7. After becoming a Christian, are there any sins that will put me beyond the "point of no return" so that I cannot regain salvation? What sin or sins will put me in such jeopardy, so that, after becoming a Christian, I would be doomed to hell without any recourse? Please be specific and give me clear Bible references.
[Author's Note: More from a previous reply to the same question.
"But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin....If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn. 1:9). Is that "Bible" reference "clear" and "specific" enough?
Let it be noted that we have replied with Scripture, not with our own reasonings and rationalizations.]
8. If I committed some sin -whether in thought, word, or deed, one minute before a fatal car crash - would I go to hell if I did not have time to repent of it? And, please, don't just say that it's up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference.
[Author's Note: Same reply from "Answering A Baptist Attack Against 'Campbellite'"
[If David "killed Uriah" "one minute before a fatal chariot crash," would he have gone to heaven without eternal life abiding in him (1 Jn. 3:15)? "And, please, don't just say that it's up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference."
If an alien sinner, an unbeliever, was on his way to hear a Baptist preacher and died "one minute before the preacher spoke," before he had time to come to faith in Christ, would he go to heaven even though he was still an unbeliever? "And, please, don't just say that it's up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference."]
9. Why does the "Church of Christ" insist that their name is scriptural when it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible? The church is referred to as the "church of God" eight (8) times in the Bible, but never is it called the "church of Christ." The verse they use is Romans 16:16, but it doesn't say "church of Christ." Where does the Bible call the church the "church of Christ"?
[Author's Note: Yet another copy of the answer to the same question.
From my book,"The Christ, The Cross, And The Church," pages 114, 115, we note:
Before we deal with the question as to the advisability of using the designation, "church Of Christ," perhaps we should establish that it is a scriptural label. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14, the Spirit cited "the churches of God." However, when he wanted to speak of one such church, he spoke of, "the church of God" (1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, the singular of "churches of God" is "church of God." In Romans 16:16, the Holy Spirit mentioned "the churches of Christ." Since the singular of "churches of God" is "church of God," what is the singular of "churches of Christ"?
Yes, numerous terms are used to identify God's people in the New Testament, but not one time does Scripture say anything about a "Baptist Church" or "Baptist Churches." As a matter of fact, in no literature, whether sacred or secular, written before 1600 A.D., can one find any reference to a Baptist church, either singular or plural. Perhaps it is fair to ask, since our querist is a member of a Baptist Church, "Where does the Bible, or any literature, written before 1600 A.D., mention either a "Baptist Church" or "Baptist Churches"? We have answered from Scripture regarding "the churches of Christ," now let him do the same if he can.]
10. If the "Church of Christ" claims to worship God only as "authorized" by scripture because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the "authority" to use hymnals, pitchpipes, pews, and indoor baptistries in their worship services? If the answer is that they are "aids to worship," where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitchpipe can be an "aid to worship" for the song service in the "Church of Christ," then why can't a piano be an "aid to worship" for Baptists who may need more help in singing?
[A piano is not an "aid" for singing. One may sing, either beautifully or badly, with or without a piano. Martin's saying that a piano is an "aid" for worship in song is like saying a car is an "aid" for walking. No, a cane is an "aid" for walking, but when one is in a car, he is riding, not walking. Likewise, a piano is not for singing, but must be played. Playing on the instrument is what God has not authorized. Now, we shall deal with his argument on such "aids" as he has mentioned.
The Bible does not state that Noah used hammers, saws, and axes in the construction of the ark. However, such instruments were authorized by the command, "Make thee an ark" (Gen. 6:14). Without the instruction to build the ark, the tools would have been unauthorized.
The Bible does not mention church buildings per se. However, they are scriptural because of the authority to assemble (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:18; 14:23; Heb. 10:25). Without the right to assemble, church buildings would be without divine authority.
The Bible does not refer to song books. However, they are authorized by the command to sing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3;16). They assist us in carrying out the divine direction to "sing and make melody" in our hearts to the Lord. Without the authority to sing, songbooks would be unscriptural.
The Bible does not talk about chalk boards, computerized images, or overhead projectors. However, they are approved by the authority to teach (Matt. 28:19). They assist in doing what the New Testament churches did; namely, teach (Acts 11:22-26). Without the authority to teach, boards and projectors would be contrary to Scripture.
The Bible does not say anything about collection baskets. However, they are authorized by the command to "lay by in store" (1 Cor. 16:2). Without the authority for a contribution, collection trays would be unauthorized.
The Bible does not mention plates on which to serve the bread of the Lord's supper. However, they are authorized by the command to "take, eat" (1 Cor. 11:24). Were there no communion, the plates would not be scriptural.
The Bible does not specifically cite a baptistry, an artificial pool in which baptism is performed. However, the command to baptize authorizes a place to baptize. Without the right to baptize, a baptistry would be without authority (Matt. 7:21-23).
Note These Contrasting Parallels
The Bible does not directly mention the use of pianos and organs in the worship of the church. If we had scriptural authority to "play music," such instruments would be authorized. As there is Bible authority for song books because we are to sing, so there would be authority for pianos in worship if we were commanded to "play music." When someone finds Scripture for "playing," he will have found authority for guitars, trumpets, "an such like." Until then, they cannot be used with the approval of heaven.]
11. The "Church of Christ" teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder. Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one's sins forgiven? Every time the phrase "for the remission of sins" occurs it is speaking of the fact that sins have been forgiven previously! The Bible plainly teaches that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned upon repentance of sin and faith in Christ - never upon water baptism! (Matthew 3:11; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 20:21; Romans 1:16; Romans 4:5; et.al.) Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sin is linked with water baptism? When Christ made the statement in Matthew 26:28, "for the remission of sins," it had to be because they had been forgiven all through the Old Testament! Christ shed His blood because God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before the Son of God came to "take away" sins and to redeem us and pay the sin-debt with His own precious blood. How can one say that "for the remission of sins" means 'in order to obtain' in light of the fact that God never uses the phrase in that sense? In the Old Testament God forgave sin on the basis of a blood sacrifice (Heb. 9:22) - the Old Testament saints had their sins remitted (i.e., forgiven) but they were not redeemed until Christ came and shed His blood at Calvary. Their sins were covered (Romans 4:7; Psalm 32:1), but the sinner was not cleared of his guilt (Exodus 34:7) until the Cross (Heb.10:4). Before Calvary, the sins of believers were pardoned, but they were not paid for (i.e., redeemed) until the crucifixion (see Romans 3:25 and Heb. 9:12-15). When Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30), all sin - past, present and future - was paid for, and the plan of salvation was completed, so that 'whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins' (Acts 10:43). In Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven (at Calvary when Jesus said, "Father, forgive them,") and they received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ and accepted Him as their Saviour and Lord. Friend, heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this.
[Author's Note: A very similar question was answered in another article. Since it applies to most of the above.
No, neither the Bible nor the church of Christ "teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder." However, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16). Not only does our friend misrepresent the church of the Lord, but he also misrepresents what Jesus taught.
He says, "Every time the phrase 'for the remission of sins' occurs it is speakingof the fact that sins have been forgiven previously!" (1) If that is so, why do the following Baptist translations of Acts 2:38 read as they do?
"You must repent--and as an expression of it, every one of you be baptized-that you may have your sins forgiven" (Williams).
"You must repent, and every one of you be baptized-in order to have your sins forgiven" (Goodspeed).
"Repent (that is undergo a change of mind and feeling) and be baptized each of you with a view to the remission of your sins" (Baylor University, a Baptist school).
"Repent and be baptized every one of you for (in order that you may receive) the forgiveness of your sins" (Short Baptist College, 1921).
(2) If the phrase, "for the remission of sins" "is speaking of the fact that sins have been previously forgiven," what does that do with repentance which is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38)? One is to "repent...for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Are one's sins "previously forgiven," that is, are his sins forgiven before he repents? They must be, if "for the remission of sins" "is speaking of the fact that sins have been previously forgiven."
Now, if sins are forgiven before one repents, then one's sins are forgiven before he believes, for Baptists teach that one believes after he repents. Let our Baptist friend tell us if one's sins are forgiven before he believes. Acts 10:43 says that one who believes shall receive "the forgiveness of sins." Does that mean that one is forgiven before he believes?
The same preposition, "for," in "for the remission of sins" also appears in Romans 10: 10, where we are told that one believes "unto" salvation. Does one believe because of salvation that has been previously granted?
Next, we are told, "The Bible plainly teaches that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned upon repentance of sin and faith in Christ - never upon water baptism! (Matt. 3:11,Lk. 24:47, Acts 3:19, Acts 5:31, Acts 10:43, Acts 20:21, Rom. 1:16, Rom. 4:5, et al)."
Ignoring passages on baptism, as our Baptist friend does, will not make them go away (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:26, 27; 1 Pet. 3:21). We agree with every passage he has cited with respect to the essentiality of faith and repentance, but we dare not pretend that passages which prescribe baptism as a condition of salvation do not exist, as our friend has done.
We are asked, "Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sin is linked with water baptism?" To which we reply, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). One might cite the baptism of John. John's baptism was said to have been "for the remission of sins" (Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3). Further, as we have shown, Acts 2:38 connects the two. Peter proves the connection when we compare his statement in Acts 3:19 with that of Acts 2:38:
Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins-Acts 2:38
Repent and turn that your sins may be blotted out-Acts 3:19
From the comparison above we see that the expression "for the remission of sins" is equivalent to that of one's sins being "blotted out." Thus, we have shown that "forgiveness of sins is linked with water baptism." Again, we have answered Mr. Martin's questions with Scripture. Will he do the same?
Our friends twisting and torturing of Matthew 26:28 has him declaring that Jesus shed his blood "because" sins were previously forgiven. If that is true in the absolute, then Jesus need never have died and shed his blood.
Since 'without shedding of blood is no remission," Jesus had to shed his blood in order to provide the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22). Yes, "Christ shed His blood because God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before the Son of God came to 'take away"'sins and to redeem us an pay the sin-debt with His own precious blood." Let it also be noted that "God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before any man ever believed that God raised Christ from the dead," yet men today must believe that fact in order to be saved (Rom. 10:9). The fact that many were saved without believing that God raised Christ from the dead does not mean that we can be saved if we do not believe it (Rom. 10:9).
Our friend unties his whole argument when he says, "the sinner was not cleared of his guilt (Ex. 34:7) until the cross (Heb. 10:4)" In other words, Jesus shed his blood for (in order to) the remission of sins. Thayer's Lexicon says "for the remission of sins" means "to obtain the forgiveness of sins" (p. 94). Bauer's work, translated by Arndt and Gingrich says that the expression in Acts 2:38 means, "for the forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven" (p. 228). We shall let our friend argue with the scholarship of the world as to the meaning of the expression, "for the remission of sins."
Our friend says, "In Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven (at Calvary when Jesus said, "Father, forgive them,") and the received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ and accepted Him as their Savior and Lord. Friend, heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this."
Again, note that if those in Acts 2:38 were "baptized because their sins were forgiven," then they repented for the same reason, that is, "because their sins were forgiven," for Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins." So, if one is baptized because he is already forgiven, then he repents because he is already forgiven.
On the cross, Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive them," but they were not forgiven at the time that prayer was uttered. If so, then they were forgiven without either faith or repentance, for they neither repented nor believed before Acts 2. Jesus' prayer for the Father to forgive those who slew him was answered in Acts 2 when about three thousand souls repented and were baptized "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38, 41).
We agree that "heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this."
12. If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and baptism is a work of "righteousness," then how can water baptism be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16) In the Bible, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and grace does not involve human effort or merit - grace is grace and work is work! (Just read Ephesians 2:8,9 and Romans 11:6.)
[Mr. Martin assumes what he must prove; namely, that baptism is included in the works of righteousness referred to in Titus 3:5. He assumes it; he asserts it, but he cannot prove it.
Let us ask Mr. Martin if believing in Jesus is a righteous act? Is it, Mr. Martin? Next, is it necessary for one to believe in Jesus before he can be saved? Yes, one must believe, and one's believing is an act of righteousness. It certainly is not an unrighteous action. So, if baptism is excluded because it is an act of righteousness which man must do, then faith is also excluded on the very same basis.
Further, must one have godly sorrow and repent of his sins? Is repentance of sin an act of righteousness or unrighteousness? It is an act of righteousness. Therefore, if Mr. Martin excludes baptism because it is an act of righteousness with which man must comply before he can be saved, then repentance is excluded on the very same grounds.
With these facts in mind (that faith and repentance are works of righteousness with which man must comply), let us construct a parallel to Mr. Martin's statement above:
"If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and faith is a work of "righteousness," then how can faith in Christ be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16)." When Mr. Martin answers that question, he will have answered his objection to baptism. But, again:
"If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and repentance is a work of "righteousness," then how can repentance of sins be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16)." When Mr. Martin answers that objection, he will have answered his own complaint against baptism.
No, salvation is not by the works of man's righteousness (Titus 3:5). However, one must work the righteousness of God. "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34, 35). Again, we ask Mr. Martin if faith, repentance, and baptism are works of man or works of God? Are they works of man's own devising, or are they works of God (Jn. 6:28, 29)?
Mr. Martin says that "grace does not involve human effort or merit." While we might agree that grace does not rely on human merit, Mr. Martin has overstated his case by saying that "grace does not involve human effort or merit." If that be true, then faith is excluded, for one must believe in Christ. God will not believe for the sinner. The sinner must believe, "except ye believe," Jesus said, "ye shall die in your sins" (Jn. 8:24). Believing is a "work" (Jn. 6:29). So, if "human effort" nullifies grace, then Mr. Martin nullifies grace every time he tells someone to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." If one's human effort in being baptized excludes baptism, it excludes faith for the very same reason.
The same is true with respect to repentance. If "grace does not involve human effort," then salvation is not by grace when Mr. Martin demands of an alien sinner that he repent. God will not repent for us. We must do it ourselves. Jesus said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Lk. 13:3). Since Mr. Martin says that "grace does not involve human effort," and he thereby excludes baptism, he will have to do the same with repentance, for it, too, is something that one must do.
No, we are not saved by our own works, nor by the works of the law of Moses, as Scripture clearly teaches. However, we exert some "human effort" in hearing the word of his grace and in believing, in repenting of our sins, and being baptized into Christ (Acts 19:5; Eph. 1:13; 2:8, 9). This is what the Ephesians did when they heard, believed, and were baptized "in the name of the Lord" "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 19:5). Later, Paul said those Ephesians who had done so, those who had exerted the "human effort" to hear "the gospel of the grace of God" and who had believed and were baptized, were saved by grace through faith (Acts 19: 5; 20:24; Eph. 1:13; 2:8, 9). Finally, "confession" of Christ as Lord is made "with the mouth" "unto salvation" (Rom. 10:9, 10). Mr. Martin, is there any "human effort" required for one to confess with his mouth "unto salvation"? If so, does this "human effort" negate salvation by grace?
The same is true with respect to repentance. If "grace does not involve human effort," then salvation is not by grace when Mr. Martin demands of an alien sinner that he repent. God will not repent for us. We must do it ourselves. Jesus said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Lk. 13:3). Since Mr. Martin says that "grace does not involve human effort," and he thereby excludes baptism, he will have to do the same with repentance, for it, too, is something that one must do.
No, we are not saved by our own works, nor by the works of the law of Moses, as Scripture clearly teaches. However, we exert some "human effort" in hearing the word of his grace and in believing, in repenting of our sins, and being baptized into Christ (Acts 19:5; Eph. 1:13; 2:8, 9). This is what the Ephesians did when they heard, believed, and were baptized "in the name of the Lord" "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 19:5). Later, Paul said those Ephesians who had done so, those who had exerted the "human effort" to hear "the gospel of the grace of God" and who had believed and were baptized, were saved by grace through faith (Acts 19: 5; 20:24; Eph. 1:13; 2:8, 9). Finally, "confession" of Christ as Lord is made "with the mouth" "unto salvation" (Rom. 10:9, 10). Mr. Martin, is there any "human effort" required for one to confess with his mouth "unto salvation"? If so, does this "human effort" negate salvation by grace?]
13. The "Church of Christ" teaches that "obeying the Gospel" includes being baptized in water in order to be saved. If this is true, then how is it that the converts of Acts 10 were saved by faith before and without water baptism? The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost - so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved? In the light of Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:14-18, and Acts 15:7-11, how can anyone honestly believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation? Simon Peter said their hearts were "purified by faith" (Acts 15:9) and that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were (Acts 15:11); that is, before and without water baptism! We know that unsaved people do not receive or have the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; Romans 8:9). We know that the Holy Spirit is given only to those who have believed on Christ (John 7:39). We know that the Holy Spirit seals the believing sinner the moment he puts his faith and trust in Christ as Savior, before he is ever baptized in water (Ephesians 1:12,13). How does the warped theolgy of Campbellism explain away these clear passages of Scripture without "muddying the waters" of truth and drowning its members in eternal damnation?
[In Acts 10, Cornelius and his household received Holy Spirit baptism. This reception of the Spirit was not to save them. They were saved by what hearing the words of the gospel, not by receiving the Spirit (Acts 11:15). Their hearts were "purified by faith," not by the reception of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 15:9). They were granted "repentance unto life;" they did not receive life by receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. They were baptized in water (Acts 10:47). Their baptism in water was "in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). Baptism in the name of the Lord is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5). Thus, they received forgiveness when they heard, believed, repented, and were baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."
Mr. Martin is correct. We are saved "by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were." Like them, we heard "words whereby" we can be saved (Acts 11:14). Like them, we believe on the Lord Jesus (Acts 10:43). Like them, we repent in order to have eternal life (Acts 11:18). Like them, we are baptized in water, in the name of the Lord, for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:48).
However, if the reception of the Spirit before they were baptized in water proves they were saved before they were baptized, Mr. Martin has a problem. Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Those in Acts 10 were to hear words whereby they would be saved (Acts 11:14). Peter spoke to them that they might believe (Acts 15:7). However, the Spirit fell "as (Peter) began to speak" (Acts 11:15). So, before they heard words which would lead them to believe and be saved, the Holy Spirit fell on them. Now, if the reception of the Spirit before baptism proves they were saved before baptism, it also proves they were saved before faith, for they received the Spirit before they believed!
(For a more complete and thorough study of this same argument, see my book, The Christ, The Cross, And The Church, pages 136-138, 142-145.)]
It would be impossible to discuss all the false doctrines of the "Church of Christ" in this small article. If you have a particular question not dealt with here, or need clarification on the issues discussed, contact us via email or at the phone number or address listed. We will provide you with sane, sensible and scriptural answers to your Bible questions. www.biblebelievers.com
[Likewise, it would be impossible to discuss all the false doctrines of the "Baptist Church" in this article. If you have a particular question not dealt with here, or need further clarification of the issues discussed, contact me via e-mail . Also, see our web site (www.Biblework.com). We will provide you with scriptural answers to your Bible questions. (There is no need to say that we will provide "sane, sensible" answers as Mr. Martin did, for scriptural answers, by their very nature, will be both sane and sensible.)
I shall be willing to meet Mr. Martin in a public discussion on the subject of what constitutes salvation by grace through faith. I do not believe he will agree to it, but let it be known that the opportunity is hereby extended to him. If he does not agree to a discussion, we shall know that he feels his questions have been answered.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)