Is It A Cult?

IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST A CULT?

2010-02-11T10:06:00.000-08:00

IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST A CULT?

Gary W. Summers

On a few occasions the church of Christ has been called a cult by some. The purpose of this article is to explain why this statement is inaccurate. One disclaimer, however, is necessary, and that is that in the late ’70s there was a group that split off from us that did become a cult. Chuck Lucas began what he designated the Crossroads Church; later Kip McKean became the head of the movement, and it was referred to as the Boston Movement. Currently it is known as the Church of Christ International. This group has been separate from us for more than two decades, although some individuals may not have this knowledge and erroneously believe that any church of Christ is a cult. The fact is that they divided churches and, once churches discovered their cultic practices, were opposed by brethren everywhere. They went out from us because they were not of us (1 John 2:19).

Characteristics of a Cult

The best way to determine whether or not something is a cult is to set forth definitions and see how many of them may apply to any religious group. The following definitions are provided by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart in their book Handbook of Today’s Religions. All of the information cannot be repeated, but the main distinguishing marks are listed below.

1. “A cult is a perversion, a distortion of biblical Christianity and/or a rejection of the historic teachings of the Christian Church” (17).

2. “…cults justify their existence by claiming they have something more than just the Bible and its ‘inadequate message’” (20).

3. “Some cults make no claim to new truth or extra-biblical revelation, but believe that they alone have the key to interpreting the mysteries in the Bible” (20).

4. “…a sure mark of a cult is that the final authority on spiritual matters rests on something other than the plain teaching of the Holy Scripture” (21).

5. “One characteristic that is found in all cults is false teaching about the person of Jesus Christ in the light of historical biblical Christianity” (21). “All cults ultimately deny the fact that Jesus Christ is God the Son, second Person of the Holy Trinity, and mankind’s only hope” (24).

6. “Characteristic of many cultic groups is a frontal attack on orthodox Christianity. They argue that the church has departed from the true faith” (22).

7. “A feature of some cultic groups is that they say one thing publicly but internally believe something totally different” (22).

8. “Another characteristic of all non-Christian cults is either an inadequate view or outright denial of the Holy Trinity” (23).

9. “Cult doctrines are continually in a state of flux and have no sure foundation on which to anchor their hope. Adherents of a particular cult will learn a doctrine only to find that doctrine later changed or contradicted by further revelation” (23).

10. “Cults are characterized by central figures who consider themselves messengers of God with unique access to the Almighty. …he can dictate the theology and behavior of the cult” (24).

11. “Another feature of the cults is they often promulgate false prophecy. Cult leaders, who believe they have been divinely called by God, have made bold predictions of future events, supposedly revealed by the inspiration of God. …these predictions of future events do not come to pass” (24-25).

12. “One teaching that is totally absent from all the cults is the gospel of the grace of God. No one is taught in the cults that he can be saved from eternal damnation by simply placing his faith in Jesus Christ. It is always belief in Jesus Christ and ‘do this’ or ‘follow that.’ All cults attach something to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. It might be baptism, obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, or something else, but it is never taught that faith in Christ alone will save anyone” (24).

Before commenting on these, let us add the definitions of others. Walter Martin has both studied and written about cults. He said:

A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone’s interpretation of the Bible and is characterized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ (Walter Martin, The Rise of the Cults p. 12) (McDowell and Stewart 17).

Similar to these are: “What Are Some Characteristics of a Cult?” from Carol Giambalvo’s Cult Information and Recovery website (carol2180@aol.com). She lists most of the preceding characteristics and a few additional ones (all emphasis is mine):

1. Authoritarian in their power structure

2. Totalitarian in their control

3. Deceptive in recruiting and/or fundraising

4. Exclusive and innovative in appearance

5. Dependent on others in the group

6. Led by a charismatic, self-appointed leader

7. Maintained by a fear of leaving the group

8. Skilled in thought reform techniques

9. Isolated physically or psychologically from society

10. Zealous in controlling the flow of information; many use mind-altering techniques (such as chanting, meditation, hypnosis, and other forms of repetitive actions) “to stop normal critical thinking.”

Now anyone who is familiar at all with the churches of Christ would know immediately that, out of all the characteristics given above, only one could possibly be applied to us. We simply do not fit the pattern on practically any level of consideration. For someone to even accuse us of being a cult is to show a tremendous lack of knowledge on their part of 1) what a cult is, and 2) what members of the body of Christ actually teach. No one who had knowledge of either could so charge us.

Our Defense

First, the churches of Christ have had no strong central leader apart from the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Some have tried to credit Thomas or Alexander Campbell with beginning the church of Christ, but such is folly. Others were teaching some of the doctrines they taught prior to them, as well as about the same time that they reached their conclusions. Furthermore, Alexander Campbell would have made a poor cult leader, since he not only did not act in secrecy, but set forth his views publicly for years. He edited first The Christian Baptist (1823-30) and then The Millennial Harbinger (1830-1866, the time of his death). These are thick volumes; he taught nothing in secret. Furthermore, he engaged in five public debates, including one with atheist Robert Owen. What cult figure was ever so public? Furthermore, he had no revelation of his own but called people to abide by what the Scriptures teach. He invited people to read and study for themselves—a poor way to control information. He championed critical thinking, as brethren always have.

When we preach and teach, we often ask people not to take our word for anything but instead to study the Scriptures to see if what we are saying is so (Acts 17:11). We are one of the few religious groups who invite critical thinking. Many religious groups defend themselves by saying, “That’s our tradition,” or “That’s just the way we do things.” The important thing to remember is not what we or Campbell teach—but that the Scriptures themselves teach critical thinking. How often did Jesus reason with His enemies? As one studies His life, He is constantly encouraging others to think upon the evidence and draw the proper conclusions.

We do not teach that we have any authority of our own, nor is there anyone among us who claims to be authoritative or is dictatorial. All we do is attempt to discern what the Bible actually teaches. We have no one with latter-day revelations who wastes his time making foolish predictions. As we consider this point, however, where does this description leave Pentecostals, who claim that God speaks to them constantly? We, not they, are abiding by the teachings of the revelation from God found in the New Testament; they are the ones saying, “God told me this” and “God told me that”—and we are considered a cult? The pope claims Divine interpretive power. He is a charismatic leader; has anyone called the Catholic Church a cult?

Churches of Christ have no leader besides Christ (Matt. 28:18). We not only do not have an earthly head over us; we don’t even have a denominational structure. The Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians all have annual conferences to decide what they will believe for the next year; they even take votes on it. We never need one because God has already declared in His Word what Christians are going to believe next year, as well as every year after that. Has anyone accused these various denominations of being cultic because they have a human authority (themselves) in addition to the Bible?

So we are neither authoritarian in our power structure (since we do not have one), nor totalitarian in trying to control our members. Our only “control” is to appeal to fellow Christians on the basis of what the Bible teaches.

We are not deceptive in recruiting; we teach the Bible to those who are interested. We do not engage in fund-raising of any kind. We do not use thought-control techniques or isolate members to get them to conform. We do practice withdrawing of fellowship, as the New Testament teaches (1 Cor. 5:1-13), but no one, apparently, is intimidated by this practice, since people depart all the time. We use no physical pressure on people whatsoever, since we do not have a commune, and the only psychological pressure comes from what the Scriptures themselves apply to a person.

Historic Teachings

The churches of Christ have not changed with respect to the historical teachings on moral issues, but look at what various religious groups have done. Anyone who wants to take the trouble to trace what has been taught about homosexuality through the centuries would discover that virtually all religious denominations have been opposed to such a perversion. We still are! How many denominations have reversed themselves regarding this doctrine—yet we are called a cult? We are the ones still upholding what the Bible teaches as it applies to moral issues.

The same is true of worship. Historically, just about every religious denomination opposed the use of instrumental music when it was added to worship—leaders such as John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Charles Spurgeon, Albert Barnes, and others. Now some have turned the concept of worship given unto God into entertainment for themselves. We are not the ones who have changed the historic teachings of the Christian Church.

The Deity of Christ

Christians cannot hold to any other doctrine but that Jesus is the Son of God. If there is any doctrine that has been upheld by us, this is it. Some of the greatest lessons ever presented by preachers in the church of our Lord have been on this topic. By this one definition of a cult alone we must be excluded. We truly believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and have defended these truths for centuries.

Of course, we do not hold to any of these doctrines because others do; the only reason Christians believe any doctrine is that the New Testament teaches it. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church did change many teachings. History records them. The appeal of the churches of Christ has always been to return to the doctrine and practices of the New Testament. Something, such as infant baptism, may have been practiced incorrectly for centuries. Longevity does not validate it.

Our One “Aberration”

The only accusation that could possibly be leveled against us is that we teach something in addition to grace and faith—obedience. Cults may demand so many works be done, or one’s salvation is in jeopardy; we have no such practice. The Scriptures do teach, however, that there is a correct response to God’s grace. Nowhere does the Bible teach salvation by “faith only.” We are saved by faith—one that obeys the Lord. Do McDowell and Stewart wish to argue that one can be saved without any obedience whatsoever?

They obviously showed their bias in what they wrote on this cultic characteristic. Churches of Christ teach the grace of God and the necessity of faith. It would be foolish for anyone to think he could earn salvation. No one possesses that much goodness; no one has the ability to counteract his own sins by laboring diligently in the kingdom or doing so many acts of kindness. Only the blood of Christ, shed by the sinless Jesus, the Son of God, can remove sins. Works cannot do it.

A person’s “faith,” however, if it will not lead him to repent and have those sins washed away (Rev. 1:5), is not genuine faith. If Hebrews 11 teaches anything, it is that faith acts. Jesus promises salvation to all them that obey Him (Heb. 5:9). Does that sound like “faith only”? Again, Jesus said: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Does that sound like “faith only”? “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). Does this Bible verse make it sound like we are saved by “faith only”?

So, are we saved by faith or works? We are saved by faith that obeys God. We are not trusting in ourselves to save us—only Jesus can do that. But He saves us when we repent and are baptized (Acts 2:38). Being baptized does not merit salvation, but it is an expression of compliance with God’s commands—the answer of a good conscience toward Him (1 Peter 3:21). Even after we are baptized, we will not be 100% obedient to God in all things and will still not merit salvation (1 John 1:8, 10). This fact, however, does not mean that we must not walk in the light anyway (1 John 1:7). Imperfection does not disprove the need for obedience. God still requires that we obey Him in all things to the best of our ability.

This is not some new doctrine. It was taught in the New Testament, and early Christians practiced baptism for the remission of sins. People departed from that truth, along with others, at a later time. The question is, “Do we want to stand with the doctrines of men that developed over time—or stand with what the Holy Spirit revealed in the New Testament?” May the members of the body of Christ stand with truth—despite what all others do! We have debated this issue with denominations for 200 years—with great success—and will continue to do so.

*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST A CULT? (02/26/06)."

SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO "COMMON SENSE" QUESTIONS (PART 1)

2010-01-29T22:39:00.001-08:00

SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO "COMMON SENSE" QUESTIONS (PART 1)
GARY W. SUMMERS

Recently, we were made aware of a Website (www.biblebelievers.com) which contains a document with the ambitious title, "Common Sense Questions A 'Church of Christ' Preacher Cannot Clearly Answer." Its author is "Pastor" David Martin of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Bartlett, Tennessee.

His low opinion of the Lord's church and of our preachers and elders is made evident from the outset. If he possessed any respect whatsoever, he would not have used "Church of Christ" as an adjective, thus implying that we are a denomination and that we believe in denominationalism as he does. He also uses intentionally the epithet Campbellite, by which we have never referred to ourselves. It is a term of derision which the enemies of the cross of Christ use, thinking that, if they call us names, it will somehow diminish the Truth (which it fails to do). Martin knows that we study the Word of God--not Campbell; in fact, it is doubtful that even 10% of the members of the body of Christ know what Campbell taught concerning any particular subject.

Martin regards himself highly; he boasts of his tract:

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 [note: ANY gws] of the questions posed by Pastor Martin.

We have one question for him before we answer his thirteen to us: When he was ordained a "pastor" in 1986, did he meet all of the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9? Such would preclude his knowing how the New Testament defines pastor.
Prior to the thirteen questions, Martin seeks to prejudice the reader by calling us "a most deceptive and dangerous cult" and comparing us with "the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches." He does not like the idea that we believe we are "the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ." Well, then, by implication he is admitting that the Solid Rock Baptist Church is not "the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ." So why does anyone attend there? He has admitted he belongs to a man-made religious organization--not the church established by Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching over the centuries, departing from New Testament doctrine on salvation, worship, and church structure. The Mormons have additional revelation people must know in order to be saved (to which no one had access for 1800 years). We are like neither of these groups; our philosophy is to abide by what the New Testament teaches and to present that to others. We have not changed the faith (Jude 3), nor do we have additional revelations (whether in the form of one man speaking ex cathedra or of several men adding multiple and contradicting revelations to the Bible). Our plea is for all men to study the Word of God and follow it.

Martin's complaint about the one true church may be founded upon a really dangerous concept that no one can know the Truth. Yet Jesus said that we could--if we continue in His Word (John 8:31-32). How intelligent is it to tell someone: "I'm a member of the Solid Rock Baptist Church; we're not the true church you read about in the New Testament"? That would be truthful.

Martin's solution to anyone who has come in contact with our "dangerous" doctrines is to ask his thirteen questions--"then get your King James Bible out, open it up, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the TRUTH (John 16:13)." How can anyone trust this man? He does not know the first thing about understanding the Scriptures. Any one who thinks he makes sense should read John 16:12-13. Jesus is promising the apostles (not all Christians) that they will be guided into all truth when the Holy Spirit comes upon them (which occurred on the day of Pentecost). Everyone else receives the Truth by reading what the apostles wrote. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire the Word to be recorded and then have to interpret it for us, also? The apostles recorded "all things that pertain to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3); when we read what they wrote, we can understand it (Eph. 3:1-4). God is fully capable of communicating effectively with His creation.

After making several "cutesy" comments, Martin begins with his questions. Not one of them shows any original thought; the reader has probably heard them all before. They have been asked and answered hundreds of times--often in public debates. Martin, however, thinks he has provided insurmountable problems for "Campbellites." He is as wrong as he is rude.

1. "Where was the New Testament church before1800 (some questions are paraphrased due to space limitations)?" "What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?" Prior to 1800 the New Testament church existed in various locales, beginning in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. The church underwent persecution several times during its first three hundred years. After that, it developed into the apostate church which is now called Roman Catholicism. Martin may have heard that this body persecuted and put to death those who disagreed with her. Thus, records are rare and spotty. We do have evidence of brethren meeting in various locations in the 1600s. We have never claimed to come into existence in the 1800s. Truth was always in the Word of God--several manuscripts of which have survived, which shows that most people probably had access to the Truth.

2. "If a 'Church of Christ' elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will?" Mr. Martin demonstrates that he is clueless on this point. Where did he get the idea that we teach that only elders can baptize someone? Unfortunately, he failed to document anything he writes. [Does not the Pensacola Bible Institute (from which he graduated in 1984) teach its students to document their claims?] The fact is that elders, preachers, deacons, and members have all baptized those who are ready. If a Christian is not handy, then a total stranger (even an atheist) will do. The one doing the baptizing is not important; rather it is the one who knows he needs to be baptized.

This question has a second part:

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?

No. All this diatribe consists of is emotion, mixed with smoke and poor logic. Has Martin not read that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save men (1 Cor. 1:21)? What? Is a mediator needed? Was Peter a mediator on the day of Pentecost? Was Philip a mediator when he baptized the eunuch? Was Ananias a mediator when he told Saul to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16)? This charge is fatuous. Jesus is the only Mediator because only He can save; only His blood can wash away sins (Rev. 1:5). But God chose to put the Gospel into earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7). We do not save; we bring people to Christ so that He can save them. This question is so absurd that it really deserves no response.
3. "If the water pipes broke and the baptistry [sic] was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up?" Haha. Martin should turn his attempt at humor back on himself. If the spokes on the eunuch's chariot had broken apart, would he have had to wait for a wheel repairman before obtaining salvation? If Naaman had been wounded in the leg by a bandit, would his leprosy not have been removed just because he could not get to the Jordan River? Any time God attaches a condition to something, then that condition must be met. Fortunately, there are other bodies of water besides the one in the church building.

4. "If my 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 [sic]?!!" If people are saved at the moment they recite the sinner's prayer (or whatever Martin has them do), wouldn't the best chance of their going to heaven be to be struck by lightning at that moment?!!

5. "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 know for sure that I was saved or lost?" Obviously, Martin has been studying John Calvin far more than he has been perusing the Sacred Volume. Apparently, he thinks salvation cannot be lost, yet practically every book in the New Testament teaches precisely that. He might be careful about calling God an Indian giver, for it is He who writes a person's name in the book of life--and blots it out.

Some things that God does are conditional. For example, in 1 Samuel 2:30 God tells Eli:

"Therefore the Lord God of Israel says: 'I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever'; but now the Lord says: 'Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.'"

Does David Martin want to accuse the Almighty of being an "Indian giver"? The man ought to be ashamed that, in his irrational and emotional determination to discredit the church of Christ, he is willing to accuse Deity. Those who obey the Gospel have salvation, but if, like Eli's house, they dishonor God, God can take that salvation away from them.
Moses understood this principle. As he prayed for the nation of Israel, he said:

"Yet now, if you will, forgive their sin--but if not, I pray, blot me out of the book you have written." And the Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book" (Ex. 32:32-33).

Likewise Jesus told the apostle John to write to the church at Sardis:

"He who overcomes shall be clothed with white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels" (Rev. 3:5).

There exists a Book of Life. Paul said that the names of his fellow laborers were written in it (Phil. 4:3). Some names are never written in it (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). Those individuals will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). Those whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life get to enter the eternal city (Rev. 21:27). So, some people's names never get into that Book, but the names of others do. But of those whose names are therein recorded, some will be blotted out. Moses knew that; Jesus knew that. One of the final verses of the New Testament proclaims this fact:

And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Rev. 22:19).

In other words, it is not true that once a person's name is written in the Book of Life, it must remain there; it may be blotted out (erased, expunged). "Once written, always written," is just as erroneous as "once saved, always saved." God is not an "Indian giver": we choose to become saved, and we can choose to give up our salvation, also. God pleads with us to become Christians (Matt. 11:28-30) and to remain faithful (Rev. 2:10), but the decision always rests with us.
Numerous other passages substantiate the point that those who have been saved can sin so as to be lost. Paul taught that he would be lost unless he was able to bring his body into subjection (1 Cor. 9:27). He also taught that any brother who would bind portions of the law of Moses upon Christians (circumcision, e.g.) was estranged from Christ and fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). It is impossible for a person to be estranged from someone (Christ) with whom he was not familiar in the first place. One cannot fall from grace if he was never saved.

Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan; how is that possible unless they were first in the kingdom of Christ (1 Tim. 1:20)? If they had never departed from the kingdom of darkness (Col. 1:13-14), then Paul could not have sent them back. James says that if a Christian wanders from the truth, his soul will face death (James 5:19-20).

If continued faithfulness is not important to maintaining salvation, then why is the book of Hebrews replete with exhortations against falling away (Heb. 2:1-4; 3:12-4:2;10:23-39)? It is entirely possible that some will draw back to perdition (Heb. 10:39). We are encouraged by past examples of faithfulness (Heb. 11) and particularly by the example of Jesus (Heb. 12:1-3). Christians must not "refuse Him who speaks"; we shall not escape, for "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:25-29).

John speaks of seeing a brother sin. One kind of sin does not lead to death; another type does (1 John 5:16-17). The observing brother is not asked to pray about the sin leading to death. Some who become Christians are determined to commit certain sins no matter what. They will not ever repent of them; thus, they are lost.

Can one who has lost salvation regain it? Yes, but he must humble himself, repent of the sin (quit practicing it), and pray for forgiveness. This was Peter's prescription for Simon the magician in Acts 8:20:22.

Can we know that we are saved or lost? Yes, it is not that difficult. Are we living faithfully and walking in the light (1 John 1:7), or have we returned to the darkness, from which we were delivered? We know that we are imperfect; we know that we continually fall short of what God ideally wants us to be. But surely we can determine for ourselves whether we are doing the best we can to walk with God or whether we are walking in our own stubborn way. Do we persist in some immorality? Then, we are lost. Do we care nothing for the worship and work of the church? Then our salvation stands in jeopardy. The seven letters to the churches in Revelation (chapters 2-3) serve as an excellent guide as to what Jesus thinks about salvation. We can be confident of, not uncertain about, our salvation. The Word is given to us for just that reason--to communicate to us the right attitudes and the right actions.

*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO 'COMMON SENSE' QUESTIONS (PART 1) (05/19/02)"

2009-12-15T05:25:00.000-08:00

How Do We Receive the Holy
Spirit today?
1). Listen to His revealed and confirmed
word in the gospel.
Rom.10:17; Acts 2:37

2). Let the truth of His word convict
you of truth about Jesus, truth
about your sin, and the truth of
your desperate need for mercy
and grace. - Acts 2:37; John
16:13f

3). Repent of your sins and of your
resistance of the Holy Spirit - Acts
2:38; 7:51

4). Be baptized in water (Acts
2:38; 10:47-48) in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins.

5). You will receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit (salvation from sin and
condemnation) Acts 2:38,39,21;
Rom. 8:1

6) Failure to submit to His message
is "resisting the Holy Spirit".
Acts 7:51

7) Those who resist remain lost
and condemned. Heb.10:29;
Rom.3:23; 6:23

What Happens at the point of
Spirit guided baptism in the
name of Jesus Christ?

1) You are added to the church
(Acts 2:47) or baptized into One
Body - 1 Cor.12:13

2) You are showing faith and God
operates to remove the sins of the
flesh - Col.2:12

3) You have buried the old man in
baptism with Christ, are forgiven,
and rise to walk in newness of life -
Rom.6:3-5

4) You have "put on Christ" and
have been adopted as sons and
daughters. Gal.3:26,27

5) You have been spiritually translated
out of darkness and into the
kingdom of God's dear Son.
Col.1:13

6) Your sins are washed away -
Acts 22:16; 2:38 - "you are
washed" -1 Cor.6:11

7) You body becomes the temple
of the Holy Spirit - 1 Cor.6:19,20

8) You are justified in the name of
the Lord Jesus - Acts 2:38; 1
Cor.6:11

9) You are sanctified by the Spirit
of our God - 1 Cor.6:11

10) You are saved from sin and
condemnation. Mk.16:16; 1
Pet.3:21

11) Your conscience is cleaned in
the blood of Christ. 1 Pet.3:21;
Heb.9:14; 10:22

12) Your old manner of life is
washed away and you are a new
creature in Christ. 2 Cor.5:17

13) Your name is written in the
Lamb's book of life - Phil.3:20; 4:3

14) You begin growing to spiritual
maturity. 2 Pet.1:5-10; 1 Pet.2:1-3

~ Terry W. Benton

OBJECTIONS TO BAPTISM

2009-03-24T20:34:00.000-07:00

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

BELIEF IN SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY

2009-03-24T20:18:00.000-07:00

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

Biblical Faith #2

2009-03-12T10:28:00.000-07:00

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

Biblical Faith #1

2009-03-12T10:26:00.000-07:00

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

The Church is not a Denomination

2009-03-10T06:25:00.000-07:00

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

Answering A Baptist Pastor that "Could Not Be Answered"

2009-03-05T08:24:00.000-08:00

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.]

2009-03-05T05:23:00.000-08:00

Conversion Of The Ethiopian Eunuch
by David Padfield

In the eighth chapter of the book of Acts we find one of the many cases of conversion in the New Testament. These examples have been recorded for us to demonstrate how men enter the kingdom of God. Like every other case of conversion in Acts, God used the "foolishness of preaching" (1 Corinthians 1:21) to reach the alien sinner. An angel of the Lord sent a preacher named Philip to teach an Ethiopian nobleman (Acts 8:26).

Little is known about the Ethiopian. In all likelihood, he was a black man who had turned to Judaism. We know he was a sincere individual, for he had traveled over 1,000 miles, from Ethiopia to Jerusalem, to worship God (Acts 8:27). It would be hard to believe a man would travel that far across the desert by chariot just for "show." I know folks who claim to love God but won't drive fifteen minutes in a new car to assemble with the saints. His dedication to God is further shown in Acts 8:28, where we find him "reading Isaiah the prophet" as he traveled.
The Ethiopian was a very humble man. When Philip drew near the chariot he asked the Ethiopian if he understood what he was reading. He replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:31). After this, Philip got up into the chariot and "preached Jesus to him" (Acts 8:35). In the course of preaching Jesus, Philip spoke of water baptism. We know this because the Ethiopian said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36). Philip responded "If you believe with all your heart you may" (Acts 9:37). The man then confessed, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

His confession was an acknowledgment of the Lordship of Christ. In Romans 10:10 we read, "For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation." This confession, as noble as it is, will not bring salvation by itself. "Even the demons believe -- and tremble" (James 2:19).

After his confession, "he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). New Testament baptism was always by immersion in water. It is referred to as a "burial" (Romans 6:1-4). Sprinkling or pouring instead of immersion was introduced by men centuries after the completion of the New Testament. I am certain Philip was not a Baptist preacher, for you will notice that no church voted on the Ethiopian before he was baptized. When a man is saved, the Lord adds him to His church (Acts 2:47).

Furthermore, Bible baptism is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). We are baptized in order to obtain salvation. Some people have changed the divine order of things by teaching salvation comes at the point of faith, before and without water baptism. This doctrine is out of harmony with the word of God (Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21). After his baptism, the Ethiopian "went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:39). He had good reason to rejoice, for he was now a child of God, redeemed by the blood of Christ. He was now a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17).

If you would like to know more about baptism and the church Jesus built, please contact us. If you do not have a Bible, we will be happy to give you one.
_____________________________________________________________
Don Phillips, a Baptist preacher, and David Padfield engaged in a public discussion on the Purpose of Water Baptism. The debate was held in Terre Haute, Indiana. In this debate Dr. Phillips told the audience that "You can't trust the apostle Peter because he was a legalist!"
http://www.padfield.com/1993/ethiopia.html

Baptism For The Remission Of Sins

2009-03-05T04:53:00.000-08:00

Baptism For The Remission Of Sins

by David Padfield

Just seven weeks after Christ's death on the cross the first gospel sermon this side of Calvary was preached. After Peter accused his audience of crucifying the Son of God, they cried out "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Peter announced the terms of Divine pardon: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). This passage makes an inseparable connection between baptism and the remission of sins. It makes the remission of sins depend upon baptism in the same sense as it is made to depend upon repentance. Through the years, many attempts have been made to negate the force of this passage.

I have never understood how Baptist preachers can make repentance a condition for salvation and then exclude baptism. They usually claim that repentance is "for" ("in order to obtain") the remission of sins and baptism is for ("because of") the remission of sins. However, the preposition "for" cannot express two different relationships to the two words-what it means to baptism it means to repentance. If repentance is essential to salvation, then so is baptism.

In several debates with Baptist preachers I have illustrated this verse with a chart showing two box cars on a train track. "Repentance" is one car and "baptism" is the other. They are joined by a small coupler -- the word "and." Because these cars are joined by the coupler, whatever direction one car travels, the other has to move in the same direction. If baptism is "because of" the remission of sins, then so is repentance. If repentance is "in order to obtain" the remission of sins, then so is baptism.

A parallel passage can be found in Acts 3:19, "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." Repentance occupies the same place in both passages. In Acts 3:19 "be converted" occupies the place that "be baptized" is given in Acts 2:38. They are therefore identical in act and purpose-whatever baptism is for in Acts 2:38, conversion is for in Acts 3:19.

We have all been told "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Some commentators have apparently followed this advice when dealing with Acts 2:38. A. T. Robertson, the world renowned Baptist scholar, sought to avoid the issue in his Word Pictures In The New Testament (Broadman Press, 1930). In Volume III, on pages 35 and 36, while commenting on the phrase "for the remission of sins," as used in Acts 2:38, he wrote, "This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology ...One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not." But, while explaining the same phrase in Matthew 26:28, he wrote in Volume I, page 210, "This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as a basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins."

Another smoke screen often used to get around Acts 2:38 is the argument that since the words "repent" and "be baptized" are different in both person and number in the original text, the phrase "for the remission of sins" cannot refer to both verbs.

A few years ago I wrote to several prominent Greek scholars to see if the above line of reasoning was valid. The question I sent to them was as follows: "Is it grammatically possible that the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion,' 'for the remission of sins,' as used in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, 'repent ye and be baptized each one of you,' even though these verbs differ in both person and number?" The following men responded to my inquiry. I will give their qualifications along with their response to my question.

Bruce Metzger was the editor of the Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies. He is currently teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey. He wrote, "In reply to your recent inquiry may I say that, in my view, the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion' in Acts 2:38 applies in sense to both of the preceding verbs."

F. W. Gingrich was a professor of New Testament Greek at Albright College in Reading, Pennsylvania. Gingrich, along with William Arndt, published A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature in 1957. He wrote, "The difference in person and number of 'repent' and 'be baptized' is caused by the fact that 'repent' is a direct address in the second person plural, while 'be baptized' is governed by the subject 'every one of you' and so is third person singular. 'Every one of you' is, of course, a collective noun."

Arthur L. Farstad was the chairman of the New King James Executive Review Committee and general editor of the NKJV New Testament. The NKJV was translated by over 120 Greek scholars, many of whom teach in Baptist schools. He wrote, "Since the expression 'eis aphesin hamartion' is a prepositional phrase with no verbal endings or singular or plural endings. I certainly agree that grammatically it can go with both repentance and baptism. In fact, I would think that it does go with both of them."

John R. Werner is the International Consultant in Translation to the Wycliffe Bible Translators. He was also a consultant to Friberg and Friberg with the Analytical Greek New Testament. From 1962 to 1972 he was professor of Greek at Trinity Christian College. He said, "Whenever two verbs are connected by kai 'and' and then followed by a modifier (such as a prepositional phrase, as in Acts 2:38), it is grammatically possible that modifier modifies either both the verbs, or only the latter one. This is because there is no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts, so we don't know whether the author intended to pause between the first verb and the 'and.' It does not matter that, here in Acts 2:38, one of the verbs is second person plural ("y'all") and the other is third-person singular ("is to"). They are both imperative, and the fact that they are joined by kai 'and' is sufficient evidence that the author may have regarded them as a single unit to which his modifier applied."

Barclay Newman and Eugene Nida edited The Translator's Handbook On The Acts Of The Apostles. This book, published by the United Bible Societies, says on page 60: "So that your sins will be forgiven (literally 'into a forgiveness of your sins') in the Greek may express either purpose or result; but the large majority of translators understand it as indicating purpose. The phrase modifies both main verbs: turn away from your sins and be baptized."

The New Testament plainly teaches that accountable people have to be baptized into Christ in order to have their sins remitted. Have you been baptized for the remission of sins? "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16).

________________________________________________

"For The Remission Of Sins." A few years ago David Padfield wrote to several prominent Greek scholars and posed this question: "Is it grammatically possible that the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion,' 'for the remission of sins,' as used in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, 'repent ye and be baptized each one of you,' even though these verbs differ in both person and number?" This booklet contains photocopies of their responses and explains the phrase "for the remission of sins" in a very detailed manner (PDF File size: 640k).
http://www.padfield.com/1995/sins.html

ANSWERING PASTOR DAVID MARTIN OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH

2009-03-04T08:26:00.000-08:00

The following is an answer to Pastor David Martin, of the Solid Rock Baptist Church, who says the church of Christ is a cult. Understand that each congregation in the church of Christ is autonomous and there is no headquarters for the church that can answer these questions. As a member of the church of Christ, I will do my best to answer Pastor Martin's questions. To make his case, he offers the following points which I have copied and pasted here. My answers are in caps to set them apart from Pastor Martin's questions.

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?

MR. MARTIN MISREPRESENTS THE CHURCH'S POSITION. NO ONE IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST BELIEVES THAT THE CHURCH CEASED TO BE UNTIL THE 1800'S. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CONTINUED EVEN THROUGH THE DARK AGES EVEN IF HISTORICAL DATA IS RARE. THERE WERE, AFTER ALL, RELIGIOUS FORCES WHO DESTROYED OR SILENCED ANYTHING THEY DEEMED HERETICAL. IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THERE ARE ONLY SKETCHY REFERENCES TO SMALL POCKETS OF CHRISTIANS WHO IMMERSED ADULTS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. THERE IS HISTORICAL INFORMATION THAT SUGGESTS THAT CHURCHES IN BRITAIN AND OTHER PARTS OF EUROPE BELIEVED AS WE DO. WHILE THE BAPTIST CHURCH HAS A SHORT HISTORY, PAUL RECOGNIZED THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST (Rom. 16:16) THAT COULD NOT BE DESTROYED. IT IS MR. MARTIN WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR THE SHORT HISTORY OF HIS CHURCH THAT ISN'T MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.

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 Campebllite "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?

ISN'T IT INTERESTING THAT MR. MARTIN TAKES TO ARGUING AGAINST A PRACTICE THAT JESUS COMMANDED? JESUS COMMANDED WATER BAPTISM WHICH REQUIRES A BAPTIZER (WHICH MR. MARTIN SAYS IS A MEDIATOR) AND A BAPTIZEE. NOW I HAVE READ BAPTIST MATERIAL AND HAVE LEARNED THAT BAPTIST WITHHOLD MEMBERSHIP INTO THE CHURCH FROM THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN BAPITZED. EVEN IF IT IS FOR THE WRONG REASON THAT THEY DO SO, THEY STILL REQUIRE BAPTISM AND A MEDIATOR FOR ENTRANCE INTO THEIR CHURCH. SO WHY MR. MARTIN CANNOT UNDERSTAND JESUS COMMAND TO BE BAPTIZED, PREFERRING RATHER TO SUGGEST THAT JESUS WAS COMMANDING HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM IS BEYOND ME.

AND NO, IT DOESN'T TAKE A "CHURCH OF CHRIST" OR A "CAMPBELLITE" PREACHER TO MAKE A VALID BAPTISM. THE SUGGESTION BY MARTIN INDICATES HIS LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHURCH OR ELSE A WILLINGNESS TO WRONGLY PREJUDICE PEOPLE AGAINST OUR TRUE BELIEF. PASTOR MARTIN WOULD NOT FIND A MEMBER WHO WOULD SUGGEST ANYTHING OF THE SORT. A VALID BAPTISM REQUIRES THE GRACE OF GOD AND AN OBEDIENT FAITH IN THE SINNER (Rom. 1:5; 16:26; 6:1-5. BAPTISM "FOR REMISSION OF SINS" IS PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE GRACE OF GOD (Mt. 28:19,20; MK. 16:16 Acts 22:16). SALVATION IS A GIFT, TOO GREAT TO BE EARNED, BUT IT IS RECEIVED AT A PARTICULAR MOMENT WHEN A PERSON IS IMMERSED INTO CHRIST -- NOT BEFORE.

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.

IF WATER PIPES FREEZE OR BREAK, THERE IS STILL PLENTY OF WATER TO BE FOUND. THAT IS NOT AN EXCUSE. EVEN THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH COULD FIND WATER WHILE PASSING THROUGH A DESERT. SOMEONE ELSE COULD USE MR. MARTIN'S WEAK OBJECTION BY DEMANDING THAT REPENTANCE COULDN'T BE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION OTHERWISE WHAT IF A PERSON DIED IN BETWEEN THE TIME OF BELIEF AND REPENTANCE. JUST AS A PERSON MUST REPENT IN ORDER TO BE BAPTIZED, AND CANNOT BE SAVED BEFORE IT NO MATTER HOW MANY IMPOSSIBLE SCENARIOS MR. MARTIN POSES, SO MUST THE PERSON BE IMMERSED INTO CHRIST (Acts 2:38-41). THE SAME KIND OF SCENARIO COULD BE PUT BEFORE MR. MARTIN, WHERE IF HE WERE TO BE CONSISTENT, WOULD HAVE TO DENY HIS OWN BELIEFS. MR. MARTIN, IF SOMEONE HEARD THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVED IT, BUT DIED BEFORE HE COULD PRAY "THE SINNER'S PRAYER", WOULD HE GO TO HELL? EITHER MR. MARTIN IS CONSISTENT AND SAYS YES, OR HE MUST BELIEVE THAT A PERSON CAN BE SAVED WITHOUT "ACCEPTING CHRIST INTO HIS HEART." THE COMMAND TO BE BAPTIZED IS FROM GOD, AND SO MR. MARTIN'S QUARREL IS AGAINST JESUS CHRIST, NOT US. BEFORE ANYONE DENIES WHAT ACTS 2:38 SAYS, BE SURE TO CHECK IT OUT FOR YOUSELF. "REPENT AND LET EACH ONE OF YOU BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." GO AHEAD AND CHECK EVERY TRANSLATION AND SEE THAT THEY CONTRADICT PASTOR MARTIN. MR. MARTIN, THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GIVEN AFTER THE BAPTISM AND IS NOT THE BAPTISM. ACTS 2:38 IS CLEAR ENOUGH FOR A CHILD TO UNDERSTAND.

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?

HONESTLY I WOULD SAY THAT WITH THAT ATTITUDE AND UNDERSTANDING, IT WOULD BE BETTER NOT TO EVEN HEAR THE GOSPEL. CHRISTIANS AND THE WHOLE CHURCH OF CHRIST BELIEVE IN THE SAVING GRACE OF GOD. NO ONE WHO IS SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE BELEIVES HE IS SINLESS AND PERFECT. WE ARE MADE SINLESS BY WALKING IN THE LIGHT AND BY CONFESSING OUR SINS. IT'S A PROCESS OF GOD'S GRACE CONTINUALLY CLEANSING SO THAT THE IMPERFECT ARE KEPT AS IF THEY DID NOT SIN. CHRISTIANS UNDERSTAND WHAT JOHN SPOKE OF THAT IF WE WALK IN THE LIGHT AND IF WE CONFESS OUR SINS THEN GOD IS FAITHFUL AND JUST TO FORGIVE OUR SINS ( Jn. 1:6ff). DOES MR. MARTIN NOT UNDERSTAND THE SIMPLE CONDITION PUT FORTH IN 1 JOHN 1? GOD'S SAVING GRACE WASHES SIN AWAY INSTANTLY, KEEPING THE BELIEVER SINLESS. HOWEVER, THAT A CHRISTIAN CAN FALL AWAY IS NOT DENIABLE. READ FOR YOURSELF THAT HEBREWS 6:4-6 (AND OTHER PASSAGES AS WELL) SPEAKS OF A CHRISTIAN WHO HAS FALLEN AWAY. IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN ASK THE PASTOR ABOUT THIS VERSE AND SEE IF HE BELIEVES WHAT IT SAYS. SINCE SALVATION IS A GIFT GIVEN TO IMPERFECT PEOPLE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO FALL FROM GOD'S GRACE. TO FALL, A PERSON MUST TURN AWAY FROM GOD. ONCE AGAIN, PASTOR MARTIN IS ARGUING AGAINST SCRIPTURE, NOT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

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.

THE PASTOR'S QUESTION IS IF SALVATION CAN BE LOST FOR THE SIN OF TURNING AWAY FROM GOD, OF GOING BACK TO THE FORMER LIFE? THE ANSWER IS YES, IT IS CALLED APOSTASY. IT'S NOT A NEW TEACHING. I'M SURPRISED THE PASTOR HASN'T HEARD OF IT. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL WERE SAVED, COVENANT PEOPLE OF GOD. BUT BECAUSE OF THEIR UNBELIEF AND APOSTASY, THEY FELL AWAY AND DID NOT ENTER THE PROMISED LAND. JUST AS GOD'S PEOPLE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT COULD APOSTATIZE, THE SAME CAN HAPPEN TO COVENANT CHRISTIANS TODAY WHO GRUMBLE, COMPLAIN AND LONGS FOR THE BREAD OF EGYPT (Heb. 3:14-19). IT CANNOT BE DENID THAT A BROTHER OR SISTER IN CHRIST CAN LOSE SALVATION. LOOK AT TWO PASSAGES.
- Mt. 18:15-18 DOES SAY TO PUT A "BROTHER" OUT OF THE CHURCH AND TREAT HIM LIKE SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. WOULD THE GOOD PASTOR TREAT A BROTHER DIFFERENTLY THAN GOD DOES? DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE THAT GOD HAS ALSO PUT THE UNREPENTANT MAN OUT OF THE CHURCH? AND SINCE SALVATION IS ONLY IN THE CHURCH, IS IT FAR-FETCHED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE MAN HAS LOST HIS SALVATION? SUCH A CONCLUSION IS NOT UNFOUNDED.
- Heb. 10:25-26 TELLS CHRISTIANS NOT TO FORSAKE THE ASSEMBLY OF CHRISTIANS. IT THEN WARNS "IF WE GO ON SINNING WILLFULLY AFTER WE HAVE RECEIVED THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, THERE REMAINETH NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS." THE GOOD PASTOR SHOULD EXPLAIN HOW IT IS CULTIC TO TEACH WHAT IS A CLEAR MESSAGE. HOW CAN THE PERSON IN QUESTION BE SAVED ONCE THERE IS NO LONGER A SACRIFICE FOR SINS? THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE. BUT IF THE PERSON TURNS FROM THE FAITH, GOD REMOVES THE SACRIFICE. MR. MARTIN THINKS THAT THAT MAKES GOD AN INDIAN GIVER. I SUPPOSE MR. MARTIN COULD ASK GOD ABOUT THAT. I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE THE CHARGE AGAINST GOD THAT HE IS UNJUST FOR REQUIRING THAT PEOPLE KEEP THE COVENANT AND BE FAITHFUL. JUST AS A PERSON MAKES THE DECISION TO BECOME A CHRISTIAN, EVEN SO CAN HE MAKE THE DECISION TO GO BACK TO THE WORLD. GOD'S SAVING GRACE WAS NEVER PROMISED TO THOSE WHO TURN AWAY FROM THE FAITH. IT IS NOT WRONG TO TEACH WHAT THESE VERSES TEACH. A COMMON TACTIC USED BY PEOPLE LIKE THE BAPTIST PASTOR IS TO SAY THAT THE WARNING HERE IS FOR THOSE WHO REJECTED THE SACRIFICE PRIOR TO ACTUALLY BECOMING CHRISTIANS. THAT'S JUST PLAIN 'OLE NONSENSE. THE CONTEXT (SEE HEB 10:22FF) INDICATES THAT THE WRITER IS SPEAKING TO CHRISTIANS (SEE ALSO Heb. 6:4-6).

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?

THE PASTOR SHOULD KNOW THAT INDEED A PERSON CAN COME BACK TO THE LORD. THE PRODIGAL SON CAME BACK. SIMON THE FORMER SORCERER IN ACTS 8 CAME BACK. IT IS IN ACTS 8 THAT WE ALSO SEE THE WAY FOR A CHRISTIAN TO COME BACK TO THE LORD. AFTER SIMON SINNED AND RECEIVED A REBUKE FROM THE APOSTLES, HE WAS TOLD TO "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee" (Acts 8:22).
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST DOES NOT THINK GOD IS AN "INDIAN GIVER" FOR REMOVING HIS GRACE. THE TERM IMPLIES AN INJUSTICE WHERE SOMEONE ENTERS A GOOD FAITH AGREEMENT ONLY TO HAVE THE OTHER PARTY RENEGE ON THE DEAL. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION HERE. GOD DOES NOT RENEGE ON FAITHFUL PEOPLE. ONLY IF SOMEONE IS UNFAITHFUL, DOES GOD REMOVE HIS GRACE. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST BELIEVES THAT IF YOU LOVE JESUS, AND IF YOU OBEY HIS VOICE, AND IF YOU ARE LED BY THE SPIRIT (Rom. 8:5ff), THEN EVEN THOUGH YOU REMAIN IMPERFECT AND NEED THE POWER OF HIS BLOOD FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, YOU WILL BE SAVED. THAT DOESN'T SOUND VERY CULTIC, DOES IT?

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.

YES, THERE IS A SIN THAT WILL PUT YOU BEYOND THE "POINT OF NO RETURN". CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." 1Jn. 5:16 THE VERSE IS TALKING ABOUT A "BROTHER" IN CHRIST. THE IMPLICATION IS THAT A BROTHER CAN COMMIT A SIN "UNTO DEATH". WITH HIM STAYING ON HIS PRESENT COURSE AND DISPOSITION, THERE IS NO POINT IN PRAYING FOR HIS FORGIVENESS. THE ONLY WAY THAT HE CAN BE FORGIVEN AND SAVED IS IF HE REPENTS AND PRAYS. IN HEBREWS 6:6, THE INSPIRED WRITER SAYS, "it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." IF THE FORMER CHRISTIAN QUITS TRAMPLING ON THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST BY REPENTING, THEN GOD WILL FORGIVE.

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. it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE. THE TERMS SANCTIFIED AND JUSTIFIED DO NOT MEAN THAT ONE NEVER SINS. THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF GOD'S PLAN. HE CLEANSES HIS CHILD IMMEDIATELY WHEN THE SIN IS COMMITTED. ONLY IF THE PERSON HAS MADE A DECISION TO TURN BACK TO THE WORLD, TO FOLLOW THE FLESH, IS THERE NO LONGER A SACRIFICE FOR SINS (Heb. 10:25-26).

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"?

IT IS INTERESTING THAT THE PASTOR WOULD MAKE A BALD-FACED DENIAL OF SCRIPTURE. ROMANS 16:16 USES THE PLURAL FOR "CHURCH OF CHRIST". "EKKLEISIAI TOU CHRISTOU" IS THE GREEK FOR "CHURCHES OF CHRIST" AND IT THEREFORE REFERS TO MORE THAN ONE "CHURCH OF CHRIST". THERE IS AN IMPORTANT POINT HERE THAT THE GOOD PASTOR SHOULD CONSIDER. THE BIBLE SAYS NOT TO ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM GOD'S WORD. DOES THE PASTOR KNOW WHERE THE "BAPTIST" CHURCH IS MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE?

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?

NOW THE PASTOR IS ATTACKING US FOR SINGING? THE BIBLE SAYS TO SING. BUT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY TO "PLAY" OR ELSE ALL CHRISTIANS WOULD OBEY GOD BY PLAYING SOME INSTRUMENT. THE PASTOR SUGGEST THAT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS BEING INCONSISTENT BY DENYING ONE ADDITION TO THE WORD WHILE ACCEPTING ANOTHER. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE BECAUSE THE CHURCH UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS AN "AID" TO FULFILL GOD'S COMMAND AND WHAT IS AN "ADDITION" TO GOD'S COMMAND. I ASSUME THE PASTOR WOULD BE AGAINST AN ADDITION TO GOD'S WORD. BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF ADDING TO GOD'S WORD, CARING PEOPLE ARE CAUTIOUS NOT TO APPROVE WHAT IS NOT NECESSARY. BUT UNLESS THE PASTOR STUDIES THIS SUBJECT IN GREATER DETAIL, HE IS LIABLE TO ALLOW ALMOST ANY RATIONALIZATION ON THE BASIS OF A PERCEIVED "NEED". HIS RATIONALIZATION FOR "NEEDING" THE PIANO IS THE SAME ONE USED TO RATIONALIZE ALL KINDS OF THINGS TO "SPICE UP" THE WORSHIP. TO SOME PEOPLE, THE WORSHIP AS FOUND IN SCRIPTURE IS JUST TOO "BORING" FOR THEM. THEY "NEED" SOMETHING MORE TO MAKE IT APPEALING TO THEM. THE CONVERTED PAGANS AND JEWS WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THIS SUBJECT BETTER THAN DOES PASTOR MARTIN.
HERE IS HOW THE CHURCH OF CHRIST DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN THE HYMNAL/AID AND A HARMONICA/ADDITION. WHEN GOD COMMNANDED SINGING, HE COMMANDED A PARTICULAR KIND OF MUSIC. BUT GOD DID NOT GIVE THE PARTICULAR SONGS. THE GENERIC COMMAND TO SING SPIRITUAL SONGS LEFT IT UP TO THE CHRISTIANS TO DECIDE WHICH SONGS TO SING AND HOW TO COMPILE THEM - IN SAY, A HYMNAL. BY ASSEMBLING A SONG BOOK, CHRISTIANS DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE COMMAND TO SING. WHEN GOD COMMANDED MUSIC, HE ALSO TOLD THE KIND OF MUSIC - A CAPELLA, NOT INSTRUMENTAL. THE HERMENEUTIC PRINCIPLE SAYS THAT WHEN SOMETHING IS SPECIFICALLY COMMANDED, IT NEGATES ALL OTHER OPTIONS. BECAUSE HE COMMANDED SINGING, IT NEGATED PLAYING OF INSTRUMENTS. GOD DID NOT COMMAND OR HINT AT THE PLAYING OF INSTRUMENTS. A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO FULFILL THE COMMAND TO SING. INSTRUMENTS ARE NOISE THAT CONSTITUTES AN ENTIRELY KIND OF MUSIC THAT GOD DID NOT COMMAND. BUT A SONGBOOK HELPS THE CHURCH TO FULFILL THE COMMAND TO SING. THE HYMNAL DOES NOT ADD A NEW KIND OF WORSHIP, BUT A PIANO DOES! IF GOD HAD SAID "MAKE MUSIC" IN THE CHURCH, THEN NO ONE IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST WOULD FIND ANY PROBLEM WITH SINGING AND PLAYING IN WORSHIP. BECAUSE GOD WAS SPECIFIC AND SAID TO "SING" (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), THAT IS THE ONLY MUSIC OFFERED IN WORSHIP TO GOD. THE PASTOR MIGHT UNDERSTAND THIS POINT IF SOMEONE TRIED TO JUSTIFY MAKING AN ADDITION TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. A LEGITIMATE "AID" OR "EXPEDIENT" TO PARTAKING OF THE LORD'S SUPPER WOULD BE A COMMUNION CUP. BUT AN UNSCRIPTURAL "ADDITION" TO IT WOULD BE SLATHERED BUTTER ON THE BREAD, OR A LEG OF LAMB ON THE SIDE. THEN AGAIN, MAYBE THE GOOD PASTOR IS CONSISTENT, AND SEES NO PROBLEM WITH ADDING TO THE COMMUNION JUST AS HE SEES NOTHING WRONG WITH ADDING TO THE SINGING. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CAN HARDLY BE CALLED A CULT BECAUSE IT CARES ABOUT OFFERING THE WORSHIP GOD HAS ASKED FOR. WHY ISN'T IT MR. MARTIN WHO IS CALLED TO ANSWER FOR GIVING APPROVAL TO SOMETHING HE CAN'T FIND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?

11. The "Church of Christ" teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder.

NOPE, THIS IS NO WHERE SAID EXCEPT BY PEOPLE LIKE PASTOR MARTIN WHO DO NOT KNOW BIBLICAL TEACHING.

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!

NOPE, THIS IS NOT SO. ACTS 22:16 SHOWS THAT THE BELIEVING APOSTLE PAUL WAS NOT YET WASHED OF HIS SINS AND WOULD NOT BE UNTIL HE GOT UP AND GOT BAPTIZED, THEREBY CALLING ON CHRIST FOR SALVATION. AND PETER DID NOT SAY THAT THE 3,000 ON PENTECOST WERE ALREADY FORGIVEN PRIOR TO THEIR BAPTISM.

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.

NOTICE THAT MR. MARTIN IS NOW ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT SOMETHING IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION BEYOND SAYING A SINNER'S PRAYER. NOW MR. MARTIN SAYS THAT A PERSON MUST DO REPENTANCE BEFORE BEING SAVED. i BET THAT MR. MARTIN WOULD ALSO SO THAT A PERSON MUST DO CONFESSION OF JESUS BEFORE BEING SAVED. NOTICE THAT THE GOOD PASTOR SAYS THAT THE BIBLE SAYS NO WHERE THAT BAPTISM IS "FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS". INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY QUOTING SCRIPTURE TO PROVE HIS WORDS, THE PASTOR CAN ONLY MAKE BOLD EXCLAMATIONS. ACTS 2:38 SAYS BAPTISM IS "FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS". ACTS 22:16 SAYS, "WHY DO YOU DELAY, ARISE AND BE BAPTIZED AND WASH AWAY THY SINS, CALLING ON HIS NAME." AND 1 PETER 3:21 SAYS, "AND CORRESPONDING TO THAT, BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU . . ." WHAT DO THESE VERSES SAY TO YOU? THE GOOD PASTOR SAYS THEY MEAN ONE IS TO BE BAPTIZED "BECAUSE" SINS ARE ALREADY FORGIVEN. THIS IS A NICE ATTEMPT AT CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS" SAYING THAT IT MEANS "BECAUSE" OF THE FORGIVENESS FOR SINS IN THE PAST. BUT THEN AGAIN THE FACT REMAINS THAT "FORGIVENESS" IS A FUTURE REALITY THAT FOLLOWS JESUS' DEATH. CONTRARY TO WHAT PASTOR MARTIN SAYS, MATTHEW 26:28 DOES NOT SAY THAT JESUS SHED HIS BLOOD "BECAUSE" FORGIVENESS OF SINS WAS ALREADY GIVEN. FORGIVENESS IN THE PAST AND FUTURE COULD ONLY FOLLOW THE CRUCIFIXION. PAUL WARNED AGAINST DISTORTING SCRIPTURE (Gal. 1:6-9). THE PREPOSITION "EIS", TRANSLATED "FOR" IN ACTS 2:38 DOES NOT EVER HAVE THE RETROSPECTIVE MEANING "BECAUSE". THE PREPOSITION TRANSLATED "FOR" IN ACTS 2:38 INDICATES PROSPECTIVE DIRECTION. IN THAT VERSE, BOTH REPENTANCE AND FORGIVENESS PRECEDE "FORGIVENESS OF SINS", NOT JUST REPENTANCE. PASTOR MARTIN GIVES SOME GOOD VERSES THAT SHOW THE NECESSITY OF REPENTING FOR SALVATION, AND I AGREE COMPLETELY. BUT THOSE VERSES DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY ON HOW TO BE SAVED. THEY DON'T MENTION BAPTISM, BUT THEY ALSO DON'T MENTION CONFESSION WHICH IS ALSO NECESSARY (Rom. 10:9,10). SO THE PASTOR'S POINT IS INVALID.

12. If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and baptism is a work of "righteousness,"

THAT IS THE PASTOR'S WORDS, NOT OURS. BAPTISM IS A WORK OF FAITH, NOT AN WORK OF MERIT. A WORK OF "RIGHTEOUSNESS" IS TO PAUL IN HIS DISCUSSION ON ABRAHAM THE ATTITUDE OF MAKING ONESELF RIGHTEOUS BY HIS WORKS. NO ONE THINKS HE IS SAVING HIMSELF WHEN HE IS BAPTIZED; IT IS GOD WHO IS SAVING AT THE POINT OF BAPTISM. Galatians 3:26,27 and Colossians 2:12 SHOWS THAT BAPTISM, IMMERSION INTO CHRIST, IS WHERE SAVING FAITH MEETS SAVING GRACE. THE PASTOR CONTINUES:
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.)
IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION, THE PASTOR SAID THAT REPENTANCE OF SINS PRECEDED FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DOES HE FORGET THIS OR DOES HE NOT SEE THAT REPENTANCE IS WHAT I DO? I DON'T ACCUSE THE PASTOR OF TEACHING THAT REPENTANCE IS AN EFFORT TO JUSTIFY ONES SELF. SO HE SHOULD NOT ACCUSE ME OF TEACHING ERROR FOR SAYING THAT BAPTISM, LIKE REPENTANCE AND CONFESSION WITH THE MOUTH (ROM. 10:9,10), IS A WORK OF FAITH - NOT MERIT (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). THE CHURCH OF CHRIST DOES NOT TEACH MERITORIOUS WORKS, AS THE PASTOR IMPLIES. HE IS QUITE RIGHT THAT SALVATION IS BY GRACE, BUT HE LEAVES OUT THAT IT IS THROUGH FAITH; WE ARE SAVED THROUGH AN OBEDIENT FAITH, NOT DEAD FAITH. TRUE SAVING FAITH CONFESSES, REPENTS AND IS BAPTIZED. BAPTISM IS A "WORK OF FAITH" THROUGH WHICH THE GRACE OF GOD IS RECEIVED. A RIGHTLY BAPTIZED PERSON DOES NOT TRUST IN HIS WORK/BAPTISM TO SAVE BECAUSE HIS FAITH IS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST TO SAVE. COLOSSIANS 2:12 SAYS THAT BAPTISM IS WHERE GOD SAVES THE PERSON OF FAITH. GALATIANS 3:26,27 SHOWS THAT A SINNER BECOMES A SON OF GOD BY FAITH AT THE POINT OF BEING BAPTIZED. BAPTISM DEMONSTRATES TO GOD ONE'S TRUST AND GOD FOLLOWS BY GIVING HIS SAVING 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?

FIRST, THE PASTOR IS CONFUSING THE WORKING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OR THE FALLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE SUPERNATURAL EVENTS FOR SIGNS. THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS COMES WITH NO VISIBLE MANIFESTATION AND IT ONLY OCCURS WHEN THE SINFUL PERSON HAS BEEN WASHED BY THE BLOOD IN BAPTISM.

THE PASTOR THINKS THAT CORNELIUS WAS SAVED BEFORE BEING BAPTIZED, BUT THE TEXT DOESN'T SAY THAT. THE PASTOR THINKS THAT THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT REQUIRES THAT THE HOUSEHOLD MUST HAVE BEEN SAVED BY THE ACTION. BUT THE TEXT DOES NOT SAY THAT. IF YOU KNOW PASTOR MARTIN, ASK HIM WHY THE HOUSEHOLD IMMEDIATELY RECEIVED WATER BAPTISM (Acts 10:47,48). THE PASTOR CONTINUES:

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?

IF THE ACTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT PROVES CORNELIUS WAS SAVED, THEN IT PROVES THAT BALAAM'S DONKEY WAS SAVED! THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON THIS HOUSEHOLD DID NOT SAVE THE HOUSEHOLD. BUT PASTOR MARTIN ASSUMES THAT IT DOES. BUT PETER WAS NOT FINISHED PREACHING, AS HE HAD ONLY BEGUN HIS PREACHING (Acts 11:15). JESUS SAID PETER "SHALL TELL THEE WORDS, WHEREBY THOU AND ALL THY HOUSE SHALL BE SAVED" (Acts 11:14). IF PETER WAS NOT FINISHED PREACHING THE "WORDS", THEN THE "SAVED" DID NOT YET HAPPEN. IT IS THE GOOD PASTOR WHO READS INTO THE TEXT. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT SAY THAT THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT BROUGHT SALVATION. PASTOR MARTIN CONTINUES:

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?

PASTOR MARTIN SAID THAT SALVATION IS BY FAITH, NOT BY BAPTISM. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST TEACHES THAT SALVATION IS BY FAITH AT BAPTISM. AND THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE IN SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT THIS. COL. 2:12 AND GAL. 3:26,27 BOTH TEACH THAT BAPTISM IS AN ACT OF FAITH. THE BIBLE TEACHES THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HOUSEHOLD OF CORNELIUS WAS NOT THAT. THE PASTOR CONCLUDES:

It would be impossible to discuss all the false doctrines of the "Church of Christ" in a small tract like this. If you have a particular question not dealt with here, or need clarification on the issues discussed in this tract, 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.

THE PASTOR HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS A FALSE CHURCH. HE HAS NOT PROVEN THAT THE NAME IS UNSCRIPTURAL. HE HAS SAID THAT SALVATION IS BY GRACE AND THROUGH FAITH. THIS IS WHAT CHURCHES OF CHRIST BELEIVE AND TEACH. IN SEVERAL INSTANCES THROUGHOUT THE PASTOR'S PRESENTATION HERE, HE HAS MADE FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. HE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE REALLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. IF I HAVE SAID SOMETHING WRONG HERE, IF I HAVE SAID SOMETHING IN ERROR, I WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS.

Questions for Pastor David Martin:
1. Where does the Bible mention the Baptist church?
2. What Bible verse, and in what translation, do you turn to to show the purpose of baptism?
3. Why does the Pastor understand that a person who dies before REPENTING will not be saved, but cannot understand that a person who dies before being BAPTIZED will not be saved. He teaches the necessity of belief, confession, repentance, not baptism.

By Dan Mayfield

Posted by DM at 9:26 PM http://www.aconqueringfaith.net/2007/10/following-is-answer-to-pastor-david.html

Common Objections to Baptism's Place in Salvation

2009-03-03T14:45:00.000-08:00

Brief Responses to Common Objections Regarding
Whether Baptism Is Essential For Salvation

I prepared the following evangelistic tool for members of our congregation. Perhaps it might also be helpful to you, as you work with people to lovingly dispell the fog by which they dismiss the necessity of baptism. From time to time, I may update this further. My goal is to succinctly get at the heart of the matter.

Since the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized in order to be saved, we can be saved without baptism.

We can say: You are right in saying the thief was not baptized to be saved. There were many people who lived before Jesus' death and resurrection who will be saved but who were never baptized. Take for instance, Abraham. Luke 16:22
For several reasons the fact that the thief was saved without being baptized neither confirms nor denies our need for baptism. Consider:.
First, Luke's purpose in telling us about the thief and others whom Jesus forgave while he was alive was not to teach us about how to respond to the death and resurrection of Jesus, but to emphasize that Jesus is good news because he has the authority to save. Luke 5:20-26 These pre-resurrection stories of grace and salvation do not provide models for us about how we are requried to trust in Jesus. For example, in the story of the paralytic, Jesus looked at "their faith" and forgave the paralytic. Today, I can not count on Jesus looking at your faith and then turning around to forgive me!
Second, while certain elements about the good news regarding what God was doing through Christ began to be proclaimed during Jesus' ministry, the gospel message in its final form calls us to trust in Jesus, who died and rose again. What is commonly called Christian water baptism only began after Jesus' death and resurrection. The first time it was practiced is found in Acts 2:38-47 Because of this, the thief's situation is not parrallel to ours' since unlike us could not trust in Jesus' death and resurrection. Therefore he can not be an exception to the gospel's command that we need to trust in Jesus and his death and resurrection by being baptized. (There was a baptism which John the Baptizer practiced and which Jesus' disciples administered, but this was neither in Jesus' name, nor was it a response to the good news about Jesus, nor did someone receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Those who received this baptism after the resurrection needed to be rebaptized! Acts 19:3-5)

We are saved by grace through faith, not by baptism.

We can agree that salvation is by grace through faith. We can also agree that this saving faith is more than just believing some truths about Jesus. Even the demons have that kind of faith. James 2:19

The saving faith that the New Testament authors wrote about involves a trusting and a reliance upon Jesus. Many have illustrated the difference between this true faith and mere belief by the story of a tightrope walker who pushed a wheelbarrow across a rope over Niagra Falls.

According to the story, he even did it with 150 pounds of potatoes in the wheelbarrow! When he asked the crowds if they believed he could push his wheelbarrow with a man inside it to the other side, the crowd enthusiastically yelled "Yes!" Then he asked who would be first. Silence! The people believed some truths about the man, but they would not rely upon him by climbing into the wheelbarrow. Salvation by faith involves an active trust in Jesus, not merely believing some truths about Jesus. So far, everyone is on common ground.

There is, however, something about this story which seems to have eluded many. In this story there is only one way to trust in the tightrope walker! You have to actually climb into his wheelbarrow. No other response constitutes reliance upon him. What we can learn from this is that the context or story determines how we must trust. Everyone who tells you to trust in Jesus must tell you to do something to be saved - whether that be say a pray and invite Jesus into your heart or rely upon him by being baptized. Knowing how to trust in a particular situation is determined by the story or situation, not what we may think it means to trust.

When God announced he would send a flood and commanded Noah to build an ark, faith in God required building an ark. Hebrews 11:7
For Abraham to have trusted in God's promises about his descendants only required him to believe the promise.
Similarly, the gospel tells us how we must respond to Jesus in order to trust in him and become a forgiven child of God. We begin to depend upon Jesus by being baptized at which time we are forgiven and become a child of God. Galatians 3:26-27; Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5 To rightfully acknowledge that we are saved by grace through faith does not exclude our need to trust in Jesus by being baptized. Baptism is how we begin to trust in Jesus.

As to how we are to rely upon Jesus, nowhere are we told in scripture to say a sinner's prayer to invite him into our heart. (For the misappropriation of Romans 10:9-10&endash;see below) We are shown and told to be baptized. Acts 8:12,13; Matt. 28:19

If your friend doubts that faith in Jesus might require some form of obedient action (faith in the tightrope walker required action!), you can point out that to insist upon defining faith as excluding all action forces the Bible to contradict itself. The New Testament clearly describes Christians as having been saved from their sins by doing something! 1 Peter 1:22-23; Romans 6:17-18 (Just as they will acknowledge that saying a prayer is not a work, so too this is NOT works- see below)

John 3:16 says that whoever believes in Jesus will be saved. This says nothing about baptism.

This Gospel opens affirming that Jesus has made it possible for those who believe in him/ receive him to become children of God. John 1:12 The Gospel of John makes it clear that to truly believe requires more than just believing some truths about Jesus. John 8:31-32; 12:42-43 The actual question is what does it take for a person to believe in him/ receive him? See the previous response for more assistance with this.

If we look at the context of John 3, we find that Jesus has just finished telling Nicodemus that for him to enter the kingdom of God (be saved) he had to be born of the water and the Spirit. The early Christians understood this water to be baptism, not a woman's water breaking while giving birth. The parallel text of Titus 3:5 as well as the historical accounts of conversion in Acts shows that this naturally refers to baptism, not the water associated with physical birth.

Following upon this discussion of the new birth, John 3:16 then announces the wonderful news that salvation is open to everyone who will believe in Jesus, that is receive him. This verse does not inform us how to receive Jesus, but rather announcing the universality of salvation made possible to those who would believe in him.

To believe in someone requires a person to do something depending upon the context. To believe in your teenager who just received a driver's license may involve dropping the keys into his or her hand. To believe in your dad when stuck in a tree requires dropping into outstretched arms. To believe in mom when she promises to bake your favorite dinner involves just believing. To understand how the gospel calls us to believe in Jesus we must look at the story, not just John 3:16.

Romans 10:9-10 teaches us that everyone who calls upon Jesus by confessing him and believing on him in their heart will be saved. Therefore, baptism is not necessary.

We can see an actual example of someone calling upon the Lord and being saved in Acts 22:16. Already Saul had seen Jesus and definitely believed that Jesus is Lord, but it was not until he was baptized that he relied upon Jesus to save him. We do not have any example within the Bible of someone calling upon the Lord by saying a sinner's prayer in order to invite Jesus into their heart.

In Romans 10, Paul was writing to Christians who knew how they had responded to Jesus to be saved! His purpose was not to provide the reader with a comprehensive guide on how to respond to Jesus in order to be saved. Rather Paul described the barrier that had prevented Israel from obtaining righteousness; they did not pursue it by faith. (Romans 9:30-32) Israel had refused to confess Jesus and believe in their hearts that God had raised him from the dead. They would not call upon Christ for salvation. However, Paul announced the good news that if they would respond to Jesus they too will be saved. To assume that these verses tell us everything about how to trust in Jesus is to force them to serve a function and purpose which contextually they were not intended to perform.

The Bible tells us we can not be saved by works. (Eph. 2:9) Works involve doing something. If salvation then does not come by doing something, how can baptism be necessary for salvation since this requires you to do something?

Before examining what Paul meant by works, it might be helpful to observe that everyone who preaches the gospel must tell a person to do something in order to receive Jesus and rely upon him. Whether a person says a prayer to invite Jesus into their heart or is baptized, a person is doing something. The real question is: what does the gospel instruct us to do?

When Paul condemned works as being useless to save us, he condemned the futility of relying upon ourselves by trying to be good enough. He was not dismissing doing something in order to rely upon Jesus for salvation, whether that might be saying a prayer or being baptized. Works, when used by Paul in a negative sense, refer to the effort to depend upon our own goodness. Paul contrasted this useless path toward trying to be right with God with that of grace through faith whereby someone relies upon God's gift of salvation through Jesus. This is called salvation by faith.

Even Protestants admit that salvation by faith alone is more than just believing certain teachings to be true about Jesus. To have faith in Jesus involves relying upon Jesus for salvation. People are saved by trusting in Jesus to save them. The question is, how does the Bible instruct us to trust in Jesus that we might be saved? Repeatedly both by example and by teaching, we learn that to trust in Jesus for salvation involves being buried in baptism. Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; Acts 2:38; 16:22; Romans 6:3-4, 17-18; 1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16

Paul's contrast between faith and works involved denouncing self-reliance and exalting the principle of depending upon Jesus. Paul did not contrast "doing something" verses "just believing." In fact, the faith which the preaching of the gospel is supposed to produce in people involves "the obedience of faith." Romans 1:5; 16:25-26 That obedience involves doing something to rely upon Jesus to save us! Romans 6:17-18; 1 Peter 1:22

It might also be helpful to consult the Niagra story described above to illustrate that how we are supposed to trust is determined by the story/ context.

If a person still insists that faith excludes any form of "doing" while works include all forms of "doing something," you can point out that this viewpoint conflicts with many scriptures like 1 Peter 1:22; Romans 6:17-18; 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8; Acts 2:38, 22:16.

Romans 4 (or Galatians 3) contrasts works (doing something) against believing. No one is saved by works. Since baptism is doing something, baptism is a work.

Consider the responses in the prior objection . In addition to them:
The "doing" in this text describes human efforts to demonstrate self-produced righteousness. (Galatians 3:3) Such efforts lead to boasting. (Romans 3:27-28) The doing associated with works has nothing in common with doing something to rely upon God to declared us righteous.
The example of Abraham is perfect. God gave Abraham a promise and Abraham trusted in God and was declared righteous. Paul's use of Abraham defended this principle of faith/ trust.

Similarly, we are made right with God by trusting in Jesus. What Paul did not do in this text was inform us how to trust in Jesus. Paul's objective was to defend the principle of faith. He was writing to Christians, they knew how they had already trusted in Jesus! Galatians 3:26-27.
In the context of a promise (such as the one given to Abraham) a person trusts by simply believing. In the context of the Jesus dying for our sins in order to save us, we have been instructed to trust in him by being baptized. Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-12
In this text, the call for us to have faith is consistent with the rest of the gospel message; it is the call to trust in Jesus. Romans 4:5 If we desire to learn how the gospel tells us to rely upon the risen Christ, we need to look at texts other than just either Galatians 3:5-9 and Romans 4:1-8. Consider Matthew 28:19; Acts 8:12; 2:41; Colossians 2:11-12; Galatians 3:26-27)

Paul was saved on the road to Damascus. Before Saul was baptized, Ananias called him "brother," this shows that he was already a Christian.

It is true that on the road to Damascus Paul came to believe Jesus is Lord. Acts 9:5 But rather than showing that Paul was saved by just believing, this story reveals he was not saved until after he was baptized. Although Paul had believed Jesus was Lord, he was still guilty of his sins (unsaved) until he was baptized. Acts 22:16

The reason Ananias calls him brother is this was a customary greeting among Jews. Consider Acts 2:37. 13:15,38 where non-Christian Jews are called brothers.

Paul only told the jailer to believe in the Lord Jesus in order to be saved. Therefore, baptism is not necessary.

Paul took a situation where the jailer was fearful he would be executed for allowing prisoners to escape and transformed it into an evangelistic opportunity. Paul told the jailer that he could be saved if he would believe in the Lord Jesus. The jailer had no idea what this meant. So Paul preached the gospel to him. Acts 16:32 Nothing in the story indicates he was saved before being baptized. Actually, it was after he had responded to Jesus by being baptized that he was joyful because he had come to believe in God.

When Paul first announced to the jailor that he needed to believe in Jesus, Paul was proclaiming the necessity of relying upon Jesus to be saved. He was not claiming that the jailor only needed to believe certain truths about Jesus. Even demons believe the truth about Jesus. James 2:19

The jailor first had to learn who Jesus was and why he was so important. Part of the proclamation about Jesus involves how to receive him&endash;namely by being baptized. This is why when the eunuch heard the story of Jesus he asked, "What's stopping me from being baptized?" Acts 8:35-36 See also Acts 8:9

Acts 4:4 and 5:14 show that people are added to the church when they believe. Nothing is said about baptism being necessary.

Passages such as Acts 4:4; 5:15; 6:7; 9:35, 42; 11:21 use expressions like "turned," "believed," or "became obedient to the faith," to indicate that someone was converted. But these verses do not tell us how those people exhibited their trust in Jesus as a result of hearing the gospel. At other times Luke did provide details about how someone's faith in Jesus was manifested as a result of hearing the Gospel message. Acts 2:41; 8:12, 44-45

If baptism is essential, why then did Paul write in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that the Lord did not send him to baptize?

Paul's purpose was to announce the gospel, not to be the assistant who was baptizing those who responded to the gospel. Instead of denying baptism, the context of 1 Corinthians actually supports baptism as being the biblical response to the gospel.

• The Corinthians were a community of baptized believers. Because of their problems Paul was glad he was not the one who baptized them. 1 Cor. 1:14-16

• 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 reveals that both Paul and the Corinthians understood baptism to be evidence of their salvation. Paul's point was: just because they had been baptized this did not mean that they could just go on sinning. If they did insist on sinning, they would fall away just as many in Israel had fallen. 1 Cor. 10:5-12

Barry Newton, Copyright © 2006

What About the Thief on the Cross?

2009-03-03T14:34:00.000-08:00

"What About the Thief on the Cross"?

The wood felt rough upon his back. The beam had not been crafted for comfort. It's purpose was grisly, to slowly cause his life to ebb away through much suffering. One thing was certain now, death would start closing in upon him. He was about to meet God.

Suddenly from another cross, a second criminal began to hurl out insults at the one being crucified between them. "Aren't you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!"

According to Luke's account of the Gospel, one thief rebuked the other criminal for accosting Jesus in that manner. Then he proceeded to ask Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom. Jesus' response has been immortalized, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." In response to a dying thief's request, grace poured forth as Jesus granted salvation to this guilt-ridden individual condemned even by society's standards.

Sometimes as the gospel's beautiful message of grace is presented that sinful humans who do not deserve salvation can be saved as a result of relying in faith upon Jesus through baptism, some people have objected because they believe that baptism is not a necessary part of salvation by faith. Perhaps the most common objection is, "doesn't the thief on the cross show that one does not have to be baptized in order to receive salvation?" Before this question can be accurately answered, other questions must be answered. Some of these include:

What purpose does the inclusion of this story in the Gospel record serve?
Is the situation of the thief on the cross parallel to our situation?
Can or should the thief serve as a paradigm for how we are saved by faith?

Jesus' Authority to Forgive Sins is Demonstrated in the Gospel Narratives

Clearly, this story fits into one of Luke's themes. Whether it be the paralyzed man let down through the roof, the woman who washed Jesus' feet, Zacchaeus' encounter with Jesus at his house or the criminal on the cross, the wonderful message we all need to hear breaks forth throughout this Gospel.(Luke 5:15, 7:48; 19:9-10; 23:43) Not only has Jesus come to seek the lost, he has the authority to save them by forgiving their sins. Jesus is eager to forgive. This is good news. The Gospel narratives teach us that we can rely upon Jesus for salvation.

Was the Thief on the Cross Intended to Serve as a Model for How Christ Will Save Us Today?

This question raises the question about the purpose of those Gospel narrative accounts where Jesus forgives. Is the Gospel story teaching us how to be forgiven or that Jesus can forgive us? While the Gospel of Luke establishes the fact that Jesus can forgive sins, it closes with Jesus' proclamation that beginning at Jerusalem, repentance and forgiveness in his name would be preached to all nations.(Luke 24:47) A new era would soon dawn based upon Jesus. His death and resurrection would make possible a new and wonderful message for all peoples.

Starting in Jerusalem, Jesus was proclaimed as the crucified, risen and exalted Lord and Messiah. All peoples, even those who are far off, are to rely upon him for salvation by repenting and being baptized. Acts 2:38-39 For a valid exception to this message to exist, it needs to have occurred after this message rang out from Jerusalem. There are none.

The Gospel narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell us why Jesus is good news. But the preaching of Christ crucified and how we are to respond to this gospel is largely unveiled after Jesus completed the story of the gospel by rising from the dead. In other words, the Gospel narratives give us reason to believe that there is good news in Jesus. Following his death, burial and resurrection, Jesus then told his disciples how they were to call others to become his disciples based on the good news of his life, death and resurrection. Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16

Consider the chart at top of page about the gospel message.

Would it not be a distortion of Luke's message to argue that a person can be saved today on account of his friends' faith because of the story of paralytic? Similarly, would it not be a misapplication of the text to argue that the criminal on the cross proves that someone does not need to conform to the gospel message which was later inaugurated and given to even those who would be a far off? None of the events where Jesus demonstrated his authority to forgive sins should be understood as nullifying some aspect of the gospel which was later announced.

Contrasting Salvation Before and After the Resurrection

Although Abraham serves as a model that justification through the gospel is by faith (Romans 4), neither Abraham nor the thief on the cross can inform us how the gospel calls us to trust in Jesus. How a person is required to trust in any given situation is dependent upon each specific context.

Many people have gone to paradise who were never baptized AND who never even heard of Jesus. For example, consider those heroes of faith mentioned in the Old Testament such as Enoch and Noah. Hebrews 11:5-7 But all of these examples precede Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. Since they were never called to respond in faith to the message of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, none of these examples can tell us anything about how the good news of Jesus calls us to rely upon Jesus and his blood which justifies us (Romans 3:25).

To summarize, many who lived and died before the death of Jesus were justified by faith because they responded in faith to that message which God had given them (e.g. Hebrews 11:6). None of these examples are parallel to our situation since none of them were responding in faith to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In the gospel, we have told told to trust in Christ in a very specific manner. Examples of someone being saved prior to Christ's death and resurrection have no bearing upon what the gospel may demand of us.

The Situation of the Thief is Not Parallel to Our Situation.

To compare the thief with what is or is not required of us in response to the gospel is like comparing apples and oranges. The following numbered paragraphs describe in more detail some of the significant differences between that time prior to Christ's resurrection as opposed to our situation before God today.

Since the gospel message by which we are saved today is built upon the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), no one who lived and died before the resurrection can be taken as an example of what it means to respond to the gospel. Although there was much activity leading up to the actualization of the gospel such as: glimpses of this gospel were announced ahead of time (Galatians 3:8), Jesus spoke about the life he was making possible (John 4:7-26), Jesus demonstrated his power to grant both life (e.g. Lazarus) and forgiveness to certain ones, all of this pointed toward the salvation which would be available for all people once the gospel had been completed with Christ's resurrection. Until Christ was risen, no one did or could have responded to the good news of Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Neither Abraham nor the thief on the cross could have obeyed the gospel containing the message of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. Accordingly, pointing to an example of anyone being saved prior to Christ's death and resurrection tells us nothing about what the gospel does demand of us in order that we might be saved by grace in Christ.

Since baptism in the name of Jesus is based upon Christ's death, burial and resurrection and requires a faith in God who raised Christ from the dead (Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:3-4), no one who died before the resurrection could have received baptism in the name of Jesus even if they had wanted it since Christ had not yet been raised. Prior to Jesus' resurrection a different baptism was practiced. See below.

The gospel message requires baptism because baptism in the name of Jesus is necessary for entering into the new covenant whereby Christ's blood forgives us of all sin.
When Christ died, he inaugurated a new basis for a promised relationship between God and humanity. Scripture calls this new basis for a relationship with God, the new covenant. Jesus was aware that with his death his blood would inaugurate a new covenant relationship with God which would make the forgiveness of sins available to people. Matthew 26:28 See also Hebrews 9:15-23. For those who enter into this covenant relationship made possible by Jesus' death, God promises to no longer remember their sins (Hebrews 10:12-18; 8:8-12). A central promise of the new covenant is the forgiveness of sins. When God saves a person today as a result of their trust in Jesus, according to scripture it is because that person has entered into this new covenant relationship and the blood of Christ has forgiven that person of all his sins.

When scripture speaks of someone being "in Christ" and salvation being "in Christ," it is describing those who have responded to the message of the gospel and thus have entered this new covenant relationship with God which Christ has made possible. Accordingly, it is quite understandable that the biblical authors would describe that action which is necessary for entering Christ as being an action for the remission of sins since by entering into the new covenant a person is purified by Christ's blood. Acts 2:38; 22:16 Paul's description of an obedience which results in being released from sin (Romans 6:17-18) refers to the baptism described in Romans 6:3-4. See also 1 Peter 1:18-22; 3:21; Hebrews 10:22.

Since the new covenant was not yet in effect when the thief died and the thief's salvation did not depend upon his being in that new covenant which was about to be inaugurated, the thief can not be considered as a valid teaching example regarding what is or what is not required for us to enter into this new covenant of Christ. He does not constitute an exception proving that baptism is not necessary for us today.

Scripture reveals that the gospel message requires baptism because baptism is necessary for one to become a child of God. Jesus made it possible for those who would receive him to be born of God. John 1:12-13;1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:1 This new birth comes as the result of believing in his name. John 1:12; Galatians 3:26. Whereas many people today mistakenly assume that this means that a person only needs to believe in Jesus, in actuality this statement affirms that it is those who will trust in Jesus who will become children of God. In Galatians 3:26-27 Paul made it very clear that becoming a child of God by trusting in Jesus involves being baptized into Christ. Similarly, within the Gospel according to John, Jesus described being born of water as being necessary for being born again and entering into the kingdom of God. John 3:3-5 In similar language, baptism elsewhere is described as a "washing of regeneration" Titus 3:5 (NASB) and the birth of a new man in Christ (Romans 6:3-4).

Preaching the Gospel Message

The good news is that through Jesus, God has provided salvation to all peoples who will rely upon His Son. Through his death Jesus provided a new basis for us to have a relationship with God (namely, the new covenant), a relationship with God which would be based upon Jesus and not upon who we are or what we have achieved (that is, it is not based upon works). When people trust in Jesus and in his blood, God adds them to the community of Christ which results in them being justified and hence saved. (Acts 2:47; Romans 3:25) The manner by which the gospel calls people to trust in Christ is by being baptized. Those who are baptized thus become disciples, are saved, are forgiven, become children belonging to God and are added by God to the body of Christ. Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 41; Galatians 3:26-27 The result is that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus for they have been freed from all sources of accusation against them. Romans 8:1 This is good news indeed!

Once Jesus made this salvation possible through his death, the gospel was then preached to people calling them to respond to the good news about Jesus. To rehash and amplify in greater detail some of the aspects in the previous paragraph:

The gospel calls us to trust in Jesus. When people do trust in Jesus they become members of his body, that is, they become a part of the new covenant community Jesus created by his death. When the scriptures refer to someone as being "in Christ," they are describing those whom God has brought into this community or body of Christ.

As might be expected, those who are members of this body of Christ or covenant community receive the promises associated with the new covenant such as forgiveness of sins and being adopted as God's children. Hebrews 8:7-12; 10:14-17 As someone might expect, those elements which are responsible for creating this new covenant relationship with its promised forgiveness and with it promise that he or she will belong to God or which are involved in causing us to be incorporated into it are described in scripture as providing the forgiveness of sins (salvation) and causing people to belong to God.

Jesus - John 1:12, 29
Jesus' blood - Matthew 26:28; Romans 3:25; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:14-15; Revelation 5:9
Faith in Christ - Galatians 3:26; John 3:16
Baptism - Acts 2:38; 22:16; Galatians 3:26-27

This original message regarding how the gospel calls us to receive Jesus requires us to respond in faith to the story of Jesus by being baptized. When people do respond to Jesus in this manner, they are included in Christ where all spiritual blessings exist such as being cleansed from their sins (Ephesians 1:3, 7; Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:3-4; Hebrews. 10:22). Therefore salvation is by grace (an undeserved gift) through faith (not based upon who we are or what we have achieved). Titus 3:5-7; Ephesians 2:8-9

Incidentally, it is only after the Gospel narratives recount the resurrection of Christ that we find the teaching: "... make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ...." (Matthew 28:20), "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16) and "repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ..." (Acts 2:38). Although John and Jesus preached the gospel that the kingdom was coming soon, it is not until after after Christ's resurrection that gospel of Jesus Christ was proclaimed.

Salvation Before the Time of Christ's Death (Salvation Before Christ's Covenant was Inaugurated)

Since the message of the gospel is that through Jesus' death, salvation has been graciously extended to us conditional upon our trusting in Jesus, upon what basis were people saved before Christ died? Paul mentions that prior to Christ, God had passed over the sins previously committed. Romans 3:25 What does this mean? We find help in Hebrews 9:15 which also teaches us an important principle. The power of Christ's death not only reaches down through time to us, but that cleansing power also flowed backward through history retroactively canceling sins committed under the former covenant. Since the author of Hebrews was contrasting only the Mosaical system with the new covenant brought by Christ, he only considers the effect of Christ's blood on these two groups. But he has demonstrated an important principle. Those who have been faithful to God are cleansed by Christ's blood. Thus Jesus' words "no man comes unto the Father but by me" remains true. John 14:6 The question which is important for today is, "how does God call us today through the gospel to be faithful to Him?" We can find the answer to this in Jesus' final statements and the message of the early church.

But Didn't Baptism Exist Before Christ's Death?

The baptism John administered during Jesus' earthly ministry was different from the baptism established by Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. In Acts 19:3-5, Paul clearly distinguished between these two baptisms. In contrast to John's baptism, the baptism associated with the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:38) involves an immersion or burial into Christ's death (Romans 6:3) and a faith in God who raised Christ from the dead (Colossians 2:12). Christian baptism could not have been administered until after Jesus arose from the grave. Accordingly, it was first practiced on the day of Pentecost after Christ's resurrection (Acts 2:38). Not only was the thief not baptized with Christian baptism, it was impossible for him to have received it.

If Baptism Is Necessary, Why Did Not The New Testament Writers Emphasize Baptism More?

First of all, it is everywhere. From the historical examples of conversion in Acts to the Great Commission of the Gospels to the fabric of the New Testament epistles. But if some people might question why Paul or other New Testament authors did not write even more on this subject, it must be remembered that they were addressing a first century context where the New Testament church was not debating the nature of baptism. All of them knew how they had become Christians and what role baptism had played in this. In fact, it is this common foundation which lies behind Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 10. Why doesn't the New Testament contain more on baptism? Because it was not an issue then. But for those who are willing to listen, the New Testament is sufficiently clear on its teaching regarding baptism.

Baptist Baptism vs. Bible Baptism

2009-03-03T14:27:00.000-08:00

Baptist Baptism vs. Bible Baptism
by Grover Stevens

After reading my tract on Why I Left the Baptist Church a man recently asked me "when and where I ever heard of any candidate being baptized into the Baptist Church rather than into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Do Baptists believe that a person is baptized "INTO the name of the Father ... Son ... and Holy Ghost?" Listen to this: On page 12 of J. M. Pendleton's "Church Manual For Baptist Churches" (published by the Broadman Press, Nashville, Tenn.) we read, "Regeneration, repentance, and faith are private matters between God and the soul. They involve internal piety, but of this piety there must be an external manifestation. This manifestation is made in baptism. The penitent, regenerate believer is baptized into the name of the Father, and of the So and of the Holy Spirit. There is a visible, symbolic expression of a new relationship to the three persons of the Godhead -- a relationship entered into in repentance, faith, and regeneration." This simply says that the relationship of being into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is "entered into in repentance, faith and regeneration," which come before baptism, and that baptism is only a "visible, symbolic expression" of this new relationship Hence we are forced to conclude that according to Baptist Doctrine that Baptists baptize a person whom they believe is already "into the name of the Father, and of the Holy Ghost." But, the Bible teaches that we are baptized into this relationship, hence we reach the relationship when we are baptized, and not before as Baptists teach. I realize that when Baptists baptize a person they say, "I baptize you into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," but in the alight of the above, they do not do what they say they do, nor do they believe that they do what they say they are doing, for they believe that the person being baptized is already "into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

My Baptist friend, if you do not believe that, then you should renounce Baptist Doctrine, and leave the Baptist Church for they do believe it, and you are standing for it and lending your support to it as long as you are a member of the Baptist Church. Be honest with your own soul. There is a judgment day coming!

Baptist Baptism Puts One Into The Baptist Church

This is evident from a few quotations from the Church Manual. On page 12 we read, "The ceremonial qualification for church membership. This qualification is baptism." Again, on page 14, "This shows baptism to be prerequisite to church-membership." Again on pages 17 and 18 under the caption "How Members are Received" we read, "In accordance with the first way (experience and baptism), persons wishing to unite with a church give an account of the dealings of God with their souls, and state the `reason of the hope that is in them;' where upon, if in the judgment of the church recognized as candidates for baptism, with the understanding that when baptized they will be entitled to al the rights and privileges of membership." This is further evidenced by the fact that simply being baptized does not qualify one to become a member of the Baptist Church, but only those who receive Baptist baptism -- by the hands of an ordained Baptist preacher by the authority of a Baptist Church. (Pages 64 and 65 of the Church Manual.)

Bible Baptism Puts On Into Christ

The apostle Paul wrote the Galatians, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26-27). The same apostle wrote the Romans, "Know ye not, that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death. Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:3-4). Baptists claim that a person is in Christ before and without baptism. Hence, Baptists do not baptize a person into Christ as the Bible teaches, therefore, they do not administer Bible baptism.

Bible Baptism Is In The Name Of Christ

Actually, Baptists do not baptize "in the name of Christ." "In the name of" means "by one's command and authority." On page 65 of the Baptist Church Manual "a proper administrator" is defined as "a person who has received from a church authority to baptize." In other words the Baptist preacher gets his authority to baptize from a (Baptist) Church, hence "by the authority of" the Baptist Church, or "in the name of the __________ Baptist Church." Bible baptism is by the command and authority of Christ, or "in the name of Christ." (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5).

My Baptist friend, if you would follow Jesus, you should do as the twelve men in Ephesus, who upon learning that their baptism was, among other things, not in the name of Christ, "were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:1-5).

Bible Baptism Is For The Remission Of Sins

Baptist baptize people whom they claim have already received remission of sins. "There is an actual, a real remission of sins when we believe in Christ -- there is a declarative, formal symbolic remission in baptism." (Baptist Church Manual, page 13). The Bible plainly states that baptism is "For the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) or to "wash away sins" (Acts 22:16).

Baptist administer baptism only on a confession that one is already saved. (See quotation above from the Baptist Manual on "How Members are Received"). Baptists believe and teach that a person is saved "when he believes in Christ" (Baptist Church Manual, p 13, given above), hence, "He that believeth shall be saved." The Lord Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16). The apostle Peter said, "... baptism doth also now save us." (1 Pet. 3:21).

How Baptists Are Made

Another interesting point is how one becomes a Baptist. This is clearly outlined in the quotation already given from pages 17 and 18 of the Baptist Church Manual. First a person must tell his experience and state that he is saved. Whereupon, if the Baptist Church thinks that his experience is genuine and that he is actually saved, they vote to recognize him as a candidate for baptism and after baptism into their membership. Hence the steps are: (1) confess that you are saved. (2) Be voted on. (3) Receive Baptist baptism. The vote determines at least three things (1) Whether the Baptist Church things you are saved or not. (2) Authorizes your baptism. (3) To receive you as a member of the Baptist Church after baptism.

Is Baptist Baptism Acceptable?

Many in Baptist Churches do not know what the Baptists teach on baptism, and when they learn, they want to renounce this error which they have embraced and for which they stand as a member of the Baptist Church. Many immediately confess their faith in Jesus Christ and are baptized for the remission of sins, but some do not want to be "baptized again" because, they contend, they were baptized "for the remission of sins." When it is pointed out that Baptists do not baptize "for the remission of sins," they argue that they believed in their own heart that they were baptized "to be saved" or "for the remission of sins" and therefore they were baptized for that purpose regardless of what the Baptist preacher said or believed. This could be true, but I doubt that a person who has just confessed "I believe that God for Christ's sake has pardoned my sins" really believes that he is being baptized "to be saved" or "for the remission of sins." He either lied to the Baptist Church when he made his confession, or else he believed no such thing. Either one, it seems to be, would disqualify him for baptism. If he lied to the Baptist Church, he had not repented; and if he did not lie to the, then he believed that he was saved before he was baptized, therefore, that his sins were already remitted, or else, he didn't know what he was doing. Let it be remembered that one cannot get into the Baptist Church without first confessing that he is already saved, and then being voted on to see if the Baptist Church judges you to "have passed from death unto life" -- to already be saved.

Conclusion

We have seen that Baptists do not baptize "into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," that they do not baptize "into Christ," that they do not baptize "in the name of Christ," that they do not baptize "for the remission of sins" or to be saved, therefore Baptist baptism is not scriptural baptism.

Let me plead with you, my friend, to consider these things carefully. They deal with the most important thing in the world to you -- the eternal salvation of your soul. Have you accepted man's imitation of God's commandment? Won't you surrender your rebellious will to the will of the Lord in being baptized as the scriptures direct?

The church of Christ is the church that you read about in the Bible. We became Christians, children of God just as people did in New Testament days. As members of the Lord's body, the church, and without joining any denominational group, we meet together and worship God as the New Testament directs. We are, therefore, Christians, and Christians only. We teach what the Bible teaches. We call Bible things by Bible names, and do Bible things in Bible ways.

The Matter of “Baptismal Regeneration”

2009-03-03T14:08:00.000-08:00

The Matter of “Baptismal Regeneration”
By WAYNE JACKSON
October 9, 2001

Is the doctrine of “baptismal regeneration” scriptural? In order to answer such a question, one first must define precisely what he means by that designation.

Exactly what is “baptismal regeneration”? The phrase connotes different things to different people. For some, the expression is merely a bit of inflammatory rhetoric designed to intimidate those who affirm that baptism is a part of the regeneration process. To others, it is the notion that baptism is a “sacrament” which has a sort of mysterious, innate power to remove the contamination of sin—independent of personal faith and a volitional submission to God’s plan of redemption.

The doctrine of baptism’s essentiality has the support of the Bible; the “sacramental” ideology does not. Let us reflect upon this latter concept.

Baptism As a Mystical Sacrament

“Baptism,” as administered by the Roman Catholic Church, reflects a form of “baptismal regeneration” that is wholly at variance with the New Testament. A leading Catholic authority defines “baptism” in the following fashion:

“A sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ, in which, as a result of washing with water accompanied by the words ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,’ a human being is spiritually regenerated, and made capable of receiving the other sacraments” (Attwater, p. 45).

This view involves the idea that “baptism” need not be accompanied by faith, or personal surrender to the Lord. Note these additional citations from the same page of this volume.

“Baptism of the insane may be lawfully performed if such a desire has been expressed in a lucid interval, or in imminent danger of death if, before losing reason, a desire had been manifested. Those who have been insane from birth, or since before attaining the use of reason, may at any time be baptized as infants.”

“Baptism of the unborn.

If there is not a probable hope that a child can be baptized after birth, Baptism may be administered in the womb: in the case of a head presentation, on the head; in other presentations on the part presented, but then it has to be again baptized conditionally if it is living on complete delivery. Should the mother die in labour, the child is to be extracted from the womb and, if certainly living, baptized absolutely; if life is doubtful, conditionally. An aborted fetus must also be baptized, unconditionally or conditionally according to the circumstances.”
The sentiments expressed by Attwater (whose book, incidentally, has the Imprimatur of the Roman Church) are wholly foreign to New Testament doctrine. But how does the teaching of the New Testament differ from this concept of “baptismal regeneration”?

New Testament Baptism

First, there is nothing in the teaching of the Scriptures which would even remotely suggest that there is some magical essence inherent in the water of baptism that can effect forgiveness of sin. Rather, baptism, i.e., immersion in water, is a rite that is accompanied by both faith (Mark 16:16) and repentance (Acts 2:38). Void of those prerequisites, it has no validity whatever.

Second, baptism is an act of obedience wherein one expresses his confidence in the power of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection to produce pardon. Paul makes it quite clear that when one is buried with Christ through baptism, it is into the Lord’s death, i.e., the benefits of his death, that the sinner comes. And, just as the Son of God was raised from the dead to the glory of Father, even so, when one is raised from the burial of baptism, he passes into a state characterized as “newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). The power to save is in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Penitent believers access that power when they humbly submit to the Lord’s requirement to replicate the Savior’s burial and resurrection in the action of baptism (cf. Col. 2:12-13).

Third, though we readily acknowledge that there is no “sacramental” power intrinsic to the water of baptism, that does not give us leave to repudiate the sacred connection between the rite of baptism and forgiveness. To do so, is to ignore numerous passages of the plainest import.
Salvation is preceded by both faith and baptism, according to the precise language of Mark 16:16. The Greek text literally suggests: “He who has believed, and who has been immersed, shall be saved.” In a parallel passage, baptism is viewed as the culminating act by which one is acknowledged as a disciple (Mt. 28:19 – ASV).

Jesus informed Nicodemas that one does not enter the kingdom of God except by the new birth process (Jn. 3:5), which involves “water,” i.e., baptism. Not many would deny that the new birth and “regeneration” are equivalents. Hence, there is a solid connection between regeneration and the birth that involves water. For fifteen centuries it was conceded that the “water” of this passage is an allusion to baptism. John Calvin introduced the novel view that the “water” must be spiritualized, and he has been followed by numerous advocates of the doctrine of salvation by “faith alone.” The historian Philip Schaff observed that Calvin’s view was an excessive reaction to the dogma of Catholicism, and that it is impossible to disassociate the “water” in this verse from the rite of baptism (Lange, p. 127).

When asked: “What shall we do?” by sincere folks who had been convicted of their sin guilt, Peter informed them that they must repent and be baptized “for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). No sectarian quibble can evade the force of this transparent command and the design associated with it.

Paul of Tarsus, who had been praying for days—and still was lost, was instructed to: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). This was not “baptismal regeneration” in a mystical sense; rather, it was merely submission to an inspired ordinance.
It is by baptism that one is said to enter “into Christ” (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:27), wherein salvation is located (2 Timothy 2:10).

Paul describes baptism as a “washing of water,” or a “washing of regeneration,” in connection with which the sinner is “cleansed” or “saved” (Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5). A.T. Robertson, a Baptist scholar, concedes that both of these passages allude to water baptism (p. 607). And so, while the Roman Catholic dogma of “baptismal regeneration” is false, there is a perfectly legitimate nexus between baptism and regeneration.

Peter unequivocally affirms that baptism is involved in our salvation. Just as Noah and his family were transported from an environment of corruption into a realm of deliverance, so, similarly, in baptism we are moved from the world of defilement into a redeemed relationship with the Lord (1 Pet. 3:21).

One does not have to believe in the Catholic concept of “baptismal regeneration” in order to acknowledge that there is a relationship between water immersion and forgiveness, in the passages cited above.

The Principle Involved

Perhaps it would be helpful if we would illustrate, by other cases in the Scriptures, the principle that is involved in this relationship.

The Case of Naaman

Naaman was an officer in the Syrian army, but he was woefully afflicted with the dreaded disease leprosy. The prophet Elisha bade him go “wash” in the Jordan river, promising that he would be “clean.” Finally, after some equivocation, the captain thus did, and his flesh was restored (2 Kgs. 5:14).

Certainly there was no merit in Jordan’s water, and there is no textual suggestion that Namaan was disposed to trust in the efficacy of the river; he simply came to a state of confidence in the prophet’s message. There was no “water healing” in this case. But who, thinking rationally, could deny that his restoration was dependent upon submission to the divine command?

The Man Born Blind

Jesus once encountered a man who had been blind since birth. The Lord spat upon the ground and made a clay potion, anointing the man’s eyes. He then commissioned the gentleman to: “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (Jn. 9:7). The man obeyed; he washed, and came away seeing.
Was there medicinal value in Siloam’s water? Of course not. Should the blind man have refused the Savior’s command? What if he had reasoned in this fashion: “If I go and wash, that will suggest that I am trusting in water. I do not believe in ‘washing restoration.’ I do not wish to ‘merit’ my sight. Therefore, I will simply trust in Jesus’ power to heal, and refrain from going to Siloam.” Just what would have been the result?

Perhaps the following chart will help to put things in focus with reference to the connection between baptism and salvation, and the order of their occurrence, in the scriptural plan.

The Biblical Order
Baptism
Salvation (Mk. 16:16)
Born of Water
Enter Kingdom (Jn. 3:5)
Baptism
Remission of Sins (Acts 2:38)
Baptism
Washing (Acts 22:16)
Baptism
Death of Christ (Rom. 6:3)
Washed
Justified (1 Cor. 6:11)
Baptism
Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13)
Baptism
Clothed With Christ (Gal. 3:27)
Washing of Water
Cleansed (Eph. 5:26)
Baptism
Working of God (Col. 2:12)
Washing of Regeneration
Saved (Tit. 3:5)
Baptism
Saved (1 Pet. 3:21)

Conclusion

Even when one has done precisely as the Lord commands, he has merited nothing; he has earned nothing. The fact that we are saved by God’s grace does not negate human responsibility in accepting Heaven’s gift, and one’s refusal to do what is clearly commanded by the Son of God, or to assign it a subordinate status, is not justified.

Those who speak in opposition to New Testament baptism, contradicting the sacred writings, will have a heavy judgment to bear.

Sources
Attwater, Donald (1961), A Catholic Dictionary (New York: Macmillan).
Lange, John Peter (1874), The Gospel of John (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.).
Robertson, A.T. (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman), Vol. IV.

2009-03-03T13:53:00.000-08:00

Is the church of Christ a cult?
Kevin Cauley

It has not been too long ago when I heard a report of someone accusing the church of Christ of being a cult. Now before I even address the question of the church of Christ being a cult, let me first state that the person who made the accusation does not understand the description, “church of Christ.” In fact, any time someone uses the phrase “church of Christ” in such a way demonstrates that he or she really thinks that the church of Christ is a denomination. Such of course is a misrepresentation because the church of Christ is not a denomination. That phrase is merely a description for the people of Christ worshiping at some location. I dare say that the person who made this accusation would call the church that belongs to Jesus, a cult. So I am sure that when the accusation was made, the individual in question assumed that in referring to the “church of Christ” he felt like he was speaking of some denomination. With such in mind, let’s consider the matter further.

When one thinks of a cult, of what does one think? The first thing that pops into my head is a single living charismatic person who controls everything his or her devotees practice. You identify the cult by the name of its leader: David Koresh, Jim Jones, etc. Of course, if having a single charismatic leader in and of itself meant that you are a cult, then almost every denomination that is out there would be a cult. The one man “pastor” system is one of the most common practices among Protestant denominations. Some of these denominational leaders even exercise cult-like power over their members. I heard a story of one who told his members that singles who were part of that congregation had to get the “pastor’s” permission before they could go out for the evening. In sharp contrast to this type of system, churches of Christ do not have a one-man “pastor” rule. In contrast we have a plurality of men referred to as elders (also called shepherds and overseers in the Bible, Acts 20:17, 28) which serve as the leadership for the individual congregation. The preacher within churches of Christ has no authority beyond teaching and preaching God’s word. If the church of Christ is a cult based upon this standard, then more so are the denominations.

The second thing that comes to mind is brainwashing. This is usually done by isolating the cult members from the rest of society, controlling their communications, and feeding them on an exclusive diet of whatever doctrine the cult is propagating. Through this technique an individual can be programmed to believe whatever the cult leadership wants the individual to believe. In contrast, I personally know of no preacher or leader within the churches of Christ who practice such a technique. In fact, the Bible teaches just the opposite and so we preach. The Bible says that Christians need to be in the world in order to be lights of the world (Matthew 5:14). In my preaching, I encourage our members to participate in community activities such as civic organizations, pancake breakfasts, volunteering at schools, enrolling children in baseball or soccer, or being members of the local community center. Involvement in any wholesome community activity is something which cults discourage their members from doing. We also encourage our membership to question the preacher. Our standard of right from wrong is the Bible and not some individual. If the preacher is not preaching what the Bible says, then he needs to be questioned and challenged. This is not how things work in many denominations. In many places, what the preacher says, goes and if you challenge the preacher then your allegiance is questioned. If the church of Christ is a cult based upon this standard, then more so are the denominations.

The third thing that comes to mind is a group of people who claim to be the sole proprietors of certain “mysteries,” which if you want to understand what they are, you must join their group. I would say that the Ku Klux Klan, the Masons, and other “secret” organizations fall into this category. These exercise cult like power among their members and encourage them to believe their “mysteries.” In contrast, the Bible teaches that anyone can come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). This is what I preach and teach and most other gospel preachers I know preach and teach the same thing. There are no “mysteries” that you can only understand only if you attend the church of Christ. In contrast, the Bible teaches that it is a book that can be understood just like any other book can be understood, that it is not hard to understand, and that if we sit down and read it, we can understand exactly the meaning that those who wrote it intended (Ephesians 3:3-5). In fact, the Bible says that the mystery that once existed in the word of God has now been revealed so that all can know God’s saving truth (Romans 16:25-26). The Bible requires you to believe nothing but the truth that is revealed within it and that is what I and most preachers I know, teach. On the other hand, I have heard many a denominational preacher say that the Bible cannot be understood and that in order to interpret it correctly you had to listen to him and him alone. I have heard many speak about the “mysteries” that are within the gospel and heard many say that they only have the key to understanding them. If the church of Christ is a cult based upon this standard, then more so are the denominations.

The bottom line is, there is no valid evidence to prove that the churches of Christ are cults. So what is the motivation for individuals saying that the “church of Christ” is a cult? Their motivation is simply this: they don’t like the church of Christ and they don’t want others to listen to the preaching of the gospel. So, they make up names and doctrines and ascribe them to the church of Christ as “straw-men” in an effort to dissuade as many as possible not to listen to faithful preachers, teachers, elders, and members. Their sole concern is to get you to believe something about churches of Christ that is simply not true. Now judge for yourself; is this the way a Christian behaves, or is this the way a cult member behaves? Christians, true Christians, have nothing to fear from those who are teaching the Bible. However, those who are not teaching the Bible have everything to fear from those who are. I challenge you, dear reader, to examine all the doctrines that all the different “churches” are teaching and compare them to the Bible. You will find that the Bible is always right, and those who are following the Bible are clearly recognizable. You will also find that there are many that have gone astray. If the church of Christ is following the Bible in your community, then become a member. If it is not, then find one of Christ’s churches that are faithfully doing so. In so doing, you will not go wrong, and will never be a member of a cult. You will be a member of the church that the Bible talks about, the church that belongs to Christ, the church of Christ.

Disclaimer: This article does not represent a defense of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). The author has not been and is not affiliated with that religious group.
Author's web site: http://www.swsbs.edu

Benton-Goldsmith Debate

2009-03-03T12:33:00.000-08:00

Benton – Goldsmith Debate

On “Fools”

Can Christians use this word in confrontation with others under any circumstances?

Proposition #1It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.
Affirmed: Terry W. Benton
Denied: Mark Goldsmith

Proposition #2:It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.
Affirmed: Mark Goldsmith
Denied: Terry W. Benton

2009

Benton – Goldsmith Debate
1st Affirmative

Proposition #1It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Terry W. BentonDenied: Mark Goldsmith Proposition #2:It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

These propositions are agreed to and will be discussed in this order. There will be three exchanges each per proposition and the length of the debate will involve no more than 3,000 words each per exchange. Mark has agreed to discuss this issue with me and I will begin my first affirmative.

Defining the Proposition

It is right – means it is proper, scripturally acceptable, within bounds of righteous behavior and within bounds of God’s authority.
“to use the English word “fool” – the word in English by which the Greek word “moros” has come to be translated into the English language.
“when referring to people” – means when speaking of or to certain people, these are certain people who are qualified by the next phrase in the proposition.
“who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23” – the Pharisees were notorious liars (John 8:44f) and hypocrites who deserved to be called “fools and blind”. Indeed they were fools and blind and there are people LIKE them today who need to hear these words of rebuke.

The Proposition Related To Matthew 5:20-26

We will consider the context of Jesus statement that “whoever says “you fool” shall be in danger of hell-fire. Of necessity, we will have to consider whether Jesus had something specifically in mind, a particular use of the word that does not incriminate Him in His own behavior in Matthew 23 and other places where Jesus DOES use the word. We want to know if Jesus sinned because He used the word, or did He NOT sin because He was speaking of a particular use of the term, not an absolute forbiddance of ANY use of the term. If the context shows that Jesus was not forbidding ALL use of the term, but a particular use of the term, then Jesus did not sin. But, if Jesus was forbidding “whoever” to use that term ever at all, then Jesus and Paul and many other Bible writers fall into danger of hell-fire. They all sinned on this particular point. It is inescapable that Jesus SINNED if He was forbidding ALL use of the word “fool”, because Jesus used the word frequently, even within His sermon on the mount. My opponent will have a hard time rescuing Jesus from the sin of hypocrisy, and the sin of violating this righteous rule. The Savior had to be righteous, without sin, in order to pay for our sins. If Jesus sinned in using this forbidden word, then we are still in our sins and our hope and faith is in vain. A sinner cannot pay for our sins. Only the spotless lamb of God could pay for our sins. If Jesus said “whoever says “you fool” under any circumstances will be in danger of hell-fire, then Jesus said it, violated the rule, and is in danger of hell-fire. Mark will have to show that Jesus either:

1) did not have to do right, or
2) did not have to do what he said “whoever” (everybody) would have to do (Matthew 5:22), or
3) will have to admit that Jesus and Paul did wrong and sinned, or
4) will have to agree with me that Jesus was NOT forbidding ALL use of this word (fool).

If he says that Jesus did not have to do right (#1), we will prove beyond doubt that He did have to keep the Law and be completely righteous. He had best not choose to take that position. If Mark says that Jesus did not have to do what He said “whoever” (everybody) would have to do (#2), then we will show that Jesus did have to submit to everything He said was righteous. Mark had better not choose 1 and 2 above. But, neither would it be good for Mark to choose number 3 above. That is self-evident. However, other than 4 above there is no other alternative. My proposition says:

It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

I affirm that proposition because: 1) Jesus did not sin, and 2) the context of Jesus’ statement in Matt.5:22 shows that He was forbidding a CERTAIN use of the term, not ALL use of the term. So, if it is the case that Jesus was forbidding a certain use of the term and not ALL use of the term, then we can show that Jesus did not violate the rule of righteousness when He used the term in a legitimate way in a different context from what He forbade in Matt.5:22.

The Context of Matthew 5:22

The subject matter is how the Pharisees handled the issue of MURDER. Jesus is going to show that murder in the heart is also reason to be brought before God’s council and judgment. First, disciples of Christ must have a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. Their righteousness was superficial and external. The law forbade hatred and certain types of anger and bitterness (a form of murder in the heart). Jesus said you have heard them forbidding murder, you don’t hear them forbidding anger
with his brother. Anger or internal rage is what precedes murder. The Pharisees would condemn Cain for murdering his brother, but righteousness according to God’s law would have forbidden his raging anger that had no justifiable cause. God condemned his attitude. Sin was “crouching at the door” when Cain’s countenance had fallen. When pouting turned to jealous anger. Jesus is saying that rather than it just being a sin to murder, it is a sin to be in an uncontrolled state of anger, and to then express that anger in words like “raca”. Here is anger, short of the act of murder, but anger expressed in indignant terms to murder a person’s self-worth. Consider this word “raca”.

RACA

Nabal is an example of a case that should come before the council. He was hurling the kind of degrading insults that Jesus and righteousness would forbid. The Pharisees would have overlooked this, but would have acted on murder alone. David realized that Nabal’s contempt was murder in the heart and deserved the death sentence as much as the act of murder.
1 Sam 25:39
39 When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, "Praise be to the Lord , who has upheld my cause against Nabal for treating me with contempt. He has kept his servant from doing wrong and has brought Nabal's wrongdoing down on his own head."
What Nabal had done was “hurl insults”, which is what is involved with “raca”.
1 Sam 25:14-17
One of the servants told Nabal's wife Abigail: "David sent messengers from the desert to give our master his greetings, but he hurled insults at them. 15 Yet these men were very good to us. They did not mistreat us, and the whole time we were out in the fields near them nothing was missing. 16 Night and day they were a wall around us all the time we were herding our sheep near them. 17 Now think it over and see what you can do, because disaster is hanging over our master and his whole household. He is such a wicked man that no one can talk to him."

INSULT
Nabal had responded to the polite solicitation of David's men with an insolent refusal. David was intending to avenge himself, but Abigail, Nabal's wife (and later David's), successfully appealed to him not to take vengeance with his own hands. When that decision was made, "the Lord smote Nabal, and he died" (1 Sam 25:38).
Numerous passages in the Psalms call upon Yahweh to act against the psalmists' insulters. In Ps 69 the psalmist says, "the insults of those who insult thee fall upon me" (v. 9). Here the correlation is between insults to God and insults to the people of God. It is on the basis of this correlation that, after eloquent expression of the insults that have been given him (v. 20), the psalmist appeals to God to pour out His indignation upon those who have insulted him (vv. 22-28).

This correlation, however, does not warrant vengeance by the insulted person. This is clear in David's case against Nabal. Indeed, Lam 3:30 tells us that it is good for a young man to "give his cheek to the smiter, and be filled with insults" (cf. Matt 5:39). The principle of reciprocity is clear here (cf. Lam 3:61-66), but it is balanced by the recognition that we also have sinned (v. 42), by appeals for modesty and educability (v. 40), and especially by the assurance of the compassion of God (vv. 31-33). Similarly, one is a fool who reacts passionately to insult (Prov 12:16); a wise person stays calm when insulted. Passionate retaliation for insult is always wrong. This advice concerning reaction to insult is both followed and developed by Paul, who endured insults "for the sake of Christ" (2 Cor 12:10).

Jesus' explication of the true meaning of the law in Matt 5:21 moves from the prohibition of murder to the prohibition of insult. Both the murderer and the person calling another "Raca" count the object of their act, a person made in the image of God, as of little worth. That the correlation of relationships to people with the relationship to God is operative here too is clear from the subsequent saying about leaving the altar to make peace with an offended brother. Gk. ‎raká ‎is a transcription of the Aram. ‎rêq¹°‎. This Aramaic insult, in turn, is related to Hebr. ‎rêq‎, an adjective meaning "empty," to which the vocative ending is added (TDNT, VI, 974 ). It very likely meant "empty-headed one" and thus something like our "block-head." (from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

It is a difficult word to trace down, but it seems to come from a word of contempt that is essentially “spitting” at a person with a word of contempt.

Raca
vain, empty, worthless, only found in Matt 5:22. The Jews used it as a word of contempt. It is derived from a root meaning "to spit."
(from Easton's Bible Dictionary)

Now consider that Jesus is taking the topic of MURDER by degrees.

Chaldee ‎reeyqa‎, "worthless, vain man" (James 2:20; Judg 9:4; 11:3). Expressing contempt of one as at once despicable and worthless; three degrees of angry bitterness, and of corresponding punishment, are described Matt 5:22. (from Fausset's Bible Dictionary)

Now, if Jesus is speaking of murder in the heart by use of bitter and angry words, then is He forbidding the use of the word under all circumstances, or is He forbidding the kind of expressions of contempt and anger that uses such words to murder the heart and spirit and worth of another person? For example, is it contemptuous anger to tell an atheist that he is a fool if he cannot see God in His creation? (Psa.14:1; Rom.1:20-22). No! It is not the word itself, but the way the word is used that determines whether it is lawful or unlawful.

What We Are Not Debating

We are not discussing the propriety of using murderous words spoken in bitter hatred. Though Jesus used the words “fools and foolish” He was not speaking these words out of personal hatred to murder their self-worth but to awaken their sense of direction. “Don’t be a fool” is an appropriate expression when trying to awaken a person’s sense of objectiveness and balance in thinking clearly about their direction and end-results.

We are not saying that it is always, under all circumstances and all motivations, right to say “you fool”. There are clearly times when motivations are murderous in nature. The use of the terms “fool” and “foolish” out of such personal anger and hatred are clearly not authorized and are clearly forbidden. However, there are other circumstances and motivations which would make the terms quite proper and appropriate. We will talk about some of those appropriate circumstances later in the presentation of evidence.

What We ARE Debating

Because of Goldsmth’s misuse of Matthew 5:22, he is logically forced to argue that Jesus is in danger of hell fire. Why? Because the passage says "WHOEVER" says "you Fool" shall be in danger of hell fire". Jesus said it (Matt.23). So, Jesus is in danger of hell fire. Is that right? Not at all. But, if Goldsmith is right in his usage of Matt.5:22, then it is inescapable that Jesus is in danger of hell fire. The fact of the matter is that there is a contextual matter that speaks of the REASON such terms may endanger one. It is not THAT a certain word is used, but HOW and WHY a word is used that puts one in danger of hell fire. We can say without reservation that Jesus did NOT violate His own rule. But, GOLDSMITH misuses the passage and misunderstands the point Jesus was making.

It must be remembered that Jesus’ comments in Matthew 5:22 were made within a context where He was condemning unrighteous anger (5:21-26). Whereas the Pharisees condemned murder, but overlooked the evil emotions and attitudes that sometimes led to the shedding of innocent blood, Jesus condemned both the actions and the thoughts. Instead of dealing with only “peripheral” problems, Jesus went to the heart of the matter.

Like the unrighteousness that characterized the Pharisees’ charitable deeds (Matthew 6:1-4), prayers (6:5-15), fasting (16-18), and judgments (7:1-5), Jesus also condemned their unrighteous anger. [NOTE: Jesus did not condemn all anger (cf. Ephesians 4:26; John 2:13-17), only unrighteous anger.] It was in this context that Jesus warned against the use of the word “fool.” Jesus was not prohibiting a person from calling people “fools” if it was done in an appropriate manner (cf. Psalm 14:1), but He was forbidding it when done in the spirit of malicious contempt. He “warned against using the word fool as a form of abuse” that indicated “hatred in one’s heart toward others”. As in many other situations, it seems that the attitude, rather than actual words, is the focus of the prohibition.

The issue here is that anger is associated with murder. Do not lose the connection between verses 21 and 22. Jesus is looking at the command, "You shall not murder," and is giving the background for it. If you are going to obey this command, it is not enough simply to have never killed anyone. The condition of your heart is what is being examined before God. You can be a murderer in your heart even though you have not carried it out in your deeds.

Jesus simply says, "It isn't the issue of murder alone; it's the issue of anger and hatred in your heart. You cannot justify yourself because you don't kill, because if there's hatred in your heart, you are the same as a murderer." Jesus taught that anger is the root of murder and, consequently, merits equal punishment. Our Lord was saying that what goes on inside of you is what God judges. In terms of the judgment of which you are worthy, you may never kill anyone, but you are just as guilty in God's eyes.

1 John 3:15 (NKJV) Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Though anger is a serious sin, there is a righteous anger that we need to talk about, even though that is not what Jesus means here. For example, there was a time when Jesus took a cord and started driving people out of the Temple (Jn. 2:13-17). There are times when God's indignation reaches its absolute limit and explodes in vengeance. There are also times when a believer has a right to be angry. In fact, I believe that the holier we get, the angrier we should be getting about some things. Abortion, injustice, lying deceit and hypocrisy should arouse righteous anger in us. We ought to have the kind of anger that is not sin: "Be ye angry, and sin not..." (Eph. 4:26a). There is a right kind of anger.

When Christ got angry, it was not because someone hurt his ego or thwarted his will. He got angry when he experienced sinful behavior that was harmful to the person and to others. And his anger was without malice or contempt for the sinner:

Keep in mind that we are talking about a particular KIND of anger. There is “righteous indignation” kind of anger, and there is carnal anger. Jesus’ anger was righteously motivated, concerned about truth and righteousness, not a personal insult to his pride that stirred carnal anger. So, as we are connecting Jesus’ words in Matt.5:22 to the contextual subject of “murder”, we are forced by the evidence to consider:

1. Jesus was speaking of carnal anger like Cain had and the contemptuous words like Nabal used out of carnal anger.
2. All anger is not wrong. Jesus was righteously angry at times, yet without sin (“be angry and do not sin” – Eph.4:26).
3. All uses of the word “fool” are not wrong. It is wrong when it is used out of personal hatred and contempt, but Jesus was not wrong, nor was Paul wrong to use it out of righteous anger or out of a loving desire to awaken a person to the danger of their direction of behavior.

Conclusion:

It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

Terry W. Benton
1st Affirmative: Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fool

Benton – Goldsmith Debate
1st Negative

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (KJV)CONCLUSION:IT IS RIGHT TO HEED CHRIST'S WORDS WHEN HE SAY THAT SAYING THOU FOOL, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELLFIRE.MARK GOLDSMITH

Benton – Goldsmith Debate
2nd Affirmative

Proposition #1It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Terry W. BentonDenied: Mark Goldsmith

You will notice that Mark Goldsmith signed on to deny the above proposition. That means that he denies that it is right to use the English word “fool” when referring to people who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23. So, inasmuch as he denies that it is right to use the word “fool” and his proof is Matthew 5:22, then it follows that he believes that Jesus did wrong in Matthew 23 when He called the Pharisees “fools and blind”.

Mark thought he was clever to simply quote Matthew 5:22, but the above proposition is not about Matthew 5:22. It is about Matthew 23. It is there that Jesus called the Pharisees “fools”. I affirmed that Jesus did RIGHT, and Mark signed on to deny that Jesus did right. To be in the negative of the above proposition is to say that Jesus did wrong in Matthew 23. So, unless Mark changes his position, he is denying that Jesus did right in Matthew 23. This means that his Jesus did wrong and died on the cross in danger of hell-fire. Because of the nature of the proposition, it turns out that it was not a clever move for Mark to spend one of his whole negatives just quoting Matthew 5:22. We already affirmed our belief in Matthew 5:22, but the proposition affirms also that it is right to use the word “fool” in the way Jesus did in Matthew 23 because Jesus did the right thing when He spoke to the Pharisees with this word.

The reader should observe that Mark wasted his opportunity to state why he is in denial of the above proposition. He has now only two more chances to state why Jesus was wrong in calling the Pharisees “fools”. I don’t believe that Jesus was wrong, as my proposition and first affirmative shows. However, I took the time to explain the harmony between Matthew 5:22 and Matthew 23. I took the time to show the connection to “murder” in the heart that the word can have if one is “angry with a brother without cause”. I showed the connection that words spoken in murderous anger can have, and I showed that Jesus was not using the word “fool” in that manner when He used it often in other settings and circumstances. Because I took the time to show the meaning of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:22, I was able to show that Jesus did not act the hypocrite when He used the word “fool” in a justifiable manner in Matthew 23. Mark opted to merely quote Matthew 5:22 without harmonizing the verse with Matthew 23. So, he really accomplished nothing except to affirm that Jesus did wrong by default.
Now, if Mark wants to leave it at that and merely quote Matthew 5:22, he will have clearly exposed himself as in error regarding the proposition as it relates to Jesus and Matthew 23. A debate proposition is designed to focus on the truth or falsity of the proposition. Whereas I took time to prove the validity of my proposition as it relates to Matthew 23, Mark merely quoted what I already quoted as proof of my proposition. I already affirmed the truth of Matthew 5:22. What the proposition is about is to show that in other settings, when anger without cause is not behind the word fool and murderous hatred and rage is not behind the word, then in those circumstances there are proper times to use the word “fool”. I demonstrated that Jesus and Paul were right to use the word, and we are right to quote those words to similar people. For example, it is proper to say to an atheist that he is a fool if he thinks this world and life all happened by accident. Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool has said in his heart, “there is no God”. If a person is behaving in the same manner as the Pharisees, it is proper and right to tell them that they are “fools and blind”. I know that is right, because Jesus did right when He said this to them, and He told us to follow His example. He told his disciples to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”. Well, if we are aware of what their influence and doctrine is like, then we are in position to judge by their fruit that they too are “fools and blind”. If we can beware of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees, then when we detect it in certain people, then we can say what Jesus said in Matt.23 to those people.

It is inescapable that Jesus SINNED if He was forbidding ALL use of the word “fool”, because Jesus used the word frequently, even within His sermon on the mount. My opponent will have a hard time rescuing Jesus from the sin of hypocrisy, and the sin of violating this righteous rule. The Savior had to be righteous, without sin, in order to pay for our sins. If Jesus sinned in using this forbidden word, then we are still in our sins and our hope and faith is in vain. A sinner cannot pay for our sins. Only the spotless Lamb of God could pay for our sins. If Jesus said “whoever says “you fool” (under any circumstances) will be in danger of hell-fire, then Jesus said it, violated the rule, and is in danger of hell-fire. Mark will have to show that Jesus either:

1) did not have to do right, or
2) did not have to do what he said “whoever” (everybody) would have to do (Matthew 5:22), or
3) will have to admit that Jesus and Paul did wrong and sinned, or
4) will have to agree with me that Jesus was NOT forbidding ALL use of this word “fool”.

If he says that Jesus did not have to do right (#1), we will prove beyond doubt that He did have to keep the Law and be completely righteous. He had best not choose to take that position. If Mark says that Jesus did not have to do what He said “whoever” (everybody) would have to do (#2), then we will show that Jesus did have to submit to everything He said was righteous. Mark had better not choose 1 and 2 above. But, neither would it be good for Mark to choose number 3 above. That is self-evident. However, other than 4 above there is no other alternative. My proposition says:

It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

I affirm that proposition because: 1) Jesus did not sin, and 2) the context of Jesus’ statement in Matt.5:22 shows that He was forbidding a CERTAIN use of the term, not ALL use of the term. So, if it is the case that Jesus was forbidding a certain use of the term and not ALL use of the term, then we can show that Jesus did not violate the rule of righteousness when He used the term in a legitimate way in a different context from what He forbade in Matt.5:22.
Mark’s Jesus in Danger of Hell Fire
Mark Goldsmith argues that Jesus is in danger of hell fire. Why? Because the passage says "WHOEVER" says "you Fool" shall be in danger of hell fire". Jesus said it (Matt.23). So, Jesus is in danger of hell fire. Is that right? It is right ONLY if Mark is right about his understanding and application of Matt.5:22. But, Jesus is not at all in danger of hell-fire when we do not divorce Matthew 5:22 from its CONTEXT to the subject of MURDER and degrees of ANGER and EXPRESSIONS of ANGER. But, if Goldsmith is right in his usage of Matt.5:22, then it is inescapable that Jesus is in danger of hell fire. The fact of the matter is that there is a contextual matter that speaks of the REASON such terms may endanger one. It is not THAT a certain word is used, but HOW and WHY a word is used that puts one in danger of hell fire. We can say without reservation that Jesus did NOT violate His own rule. But, GOLDSMITH misuses the passage and misunderstands the point Jesus was making, and through his misunderstanding of Matt.5:22 has found himself in the position of having no way to justify the words being used by Jesus, Paul, and other Bible writers who in turn expected us to judge by people’s fruit that they are “swine” (Matt.7:6) or “fools” (Eph.5:15; Psalm 14:1; Rom.1:20-22).

If He is condemning the use of the word at all in any context, then all other places it is used in the Bible is inappropriate. But, He also told us on what basis that He recognized the Pharisees as fools so that when we see someone acting the same way we will know that JESUS would call them a fool. If I see a Pharisee today who lies intentionally, but that same Pharisee does not repent of his lies and insists that others never use the word "fool", then I know I'm looking at someone Jesus would call a fool, and that Jesus would like for me to follow His example and make the same observation He would. At any rate, Mark cannot escape the fact that by being in the negative of the PROPOSITION and drawing the false conclusion that Matt.5:22 says and means to never use the word “fool” in reference to people, he has in fact made Jesus a SINNER and put Him in danger of hell-fire. If not, why not?

Did Jesus Have to Fulfill All Righteousness?

Did Jesus have to keep the Law and do right? Indeed Jesus came to fulfill “all righteousness” (Matt.3:15), and in His Sermon on the Mount He was telling of “righteousness” (Matt.5:19-20). So, if Jesus had to fulfill all righteousness, then Jesus had to keep the righteousness of what He said in Matthew 5:22. Goldsmith argues that Jesus was the Son of God and did not have to keep His own rules, but Jesus had to keep the Law of Moses. So, according to Goldsmith Moses had a law that bound the Son of God, but Jesus did not have a law that He was bound to exemplify. We wonder if there were any other rules Jesus spoke in the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus did not have to follow, even though He had to keep the Law of Moses perfectly????

Sin is transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). In order to claim that Jesus was sinless, He had to have kept the Law perfectly. Thus, He was subject to the Law. Likewise, to claim that Jesus was RIGHTEOUS, He had to do all that was RIGHT. Abraham asked, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth DO RIGHT?” The answer is always a resounding “Yes”. Jesus would do right so that He could be a fitting, perfect sacrifice for us and to show us how to do right by following His righteous example.

Ps 89:14
14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne;
love and faithfulness go before you. NIV

Isa 11:5
Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist. NIV

Jer 23:6
This is the name by which he will be called:
The Lord Our Righteousness. NIV

Jesus came to speak the words of righteousness and to exemplify that righteousness. His actions in Matt.23 were not out of harmony with His words in Matt.5:22.

Goldsmith is in the negative of this proposition: It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to people who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

Thus, he is saying that he denies Jesus did right in Matt.23 and anyone who copies what Jesus did will also do wrong, be in violation of Matt.5:22, and thus be in danger of hell-fire. We anticipate that Mark will simply spend every one of his posts simply quoting Matthew 5:22 with no explanation of the text or context, and with no attempt to show how there is harmony between what Jesus said (Matt.5:22) and what Jesus DID (Matt.23:17). He will have denied the proposition and thus made Jesus a sinner, and will have destroyed his own chance at salvation, because a sinning Jesus cannot save us.

Marks’ Approach like “Swear-Not-At-ALL” Approach

Marks’ approach is to simply quote the verse (Matt.5:22) and make no effort at harmonization. It reminds of the fellow that thought he would take the position that you can make no vows “at all”. In a debate with someone he decided to just quote the scripture “swear not AT ALL”. His opponent would ask if it was alright to vow in court to tell the truth. The man would respond “swear not AT ALL”. His opponent would then ask, what about marriage. Can you take a vow in marriage? The man would respond “swear NOT AT ALL”. His opponent would then ask if you could sign a “promissory note” on a house or car, and the man would just respond with “swear not AT ALL”. When his opponent called the man’s boss and told him that his employee did not believe in any kind of sworn contract or agreement, the boss quickly cut the man’s pay in half (just to see his reaction). The man came storming into the office and said, “What do you mean by breaking our contract and cutting my pay in half?” The boss grinned and said, “Didn’t you say “swear not AT ALL”? “We have no sworn and binding contract because you said I must not swear at all”. The man hung his head and said “well, I didn’t mean AT ALL”. Instead of looking at the context and showing the harmony between the text and context of “swear not at all”, he should have looked at the context and other passages to see what his sugar-stick verse really meant and how it does harmonize with other verses. This is exactly what Goldsmith is doing in this debate. His approach is just as unreasonable as the “swear-not-at-all” approach of some gullible people. The old adage applies in both situations: “A text taken out of context as a proof-text is only a pretext”. What is a “pretext”? It is something really phony that is used or rather misused to get something else one really wants.

Pretext:
1. something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse: The leaders used the insults as a pretext to declare war.
2. the misleading appearance or behavior assumed with this intention: His many lavish compliments were a pretext for subtle mockery. (Online Dictionary)

Likewise, Mark Goldsmith is hoping you will look at certain words in Matt.5:22 devoid of context or how that context relates to other things Jesus said and did, in hopes of you drawing the wrong conclusion based merely upon the words themselves. Exactly like “swear not at all”. The conclusion some want you to reach by just the words themselves, devoid of context and comparison to other verses, is that you can never swear under ANY circumstances. Likewise, Mark wants us to dismiss the context and other verses and conclude that it is NEVER right to use the word “fool” under any circumstances with reference to another human being. He would have to say that it is fine for God to do wrong, but never right for us to do wrong. We hope that Mark will continue to simply quote Matthew 5:22 and leave it at that throughout the whole debate. Such a game plan will mean:

1. On the basis of Matthew 5:22 it is never right to call the Pharisees “fools”.
2. Jesus called them “fools”. That was not right.
3. That would have been a perfect time for the Pharisees to bring Jesus before the council on the basis of such unlawful words and had Him executed justly on that basis. Why did they not use that as their justifiable reason? They all heard Him use this term that deserves hell-fire. It would have been right, according to Mark to kill Jesus on the justifiable grounds that “whoever says ‘you fool” shall be in danger of hell-fire”.

Mark does not seem to know how to debate a proposition. Putting up an unrelated verse, making no comment, and failing to comment on the verse within the proposition means that he fails to show any justification for denying the proposition. If he cannot show what was wrong with all my arguments, then he cannot show that he has used Matt.5:22 in a proper way. His role in this debate in the negative of this proposition is to show point by point what was wrong with the textual and contextual arguments I made on all the scriptures I offered as proof of my proposition. His strategy will only show to the reader that he is just as unprepared to prove his belief as the man who misunderstood “swear not at all” until it got down to the pay contract he signed with his employer.

Since Goldsmith answered NONE of my arguments, NONE of the scriptures I offered, and hoped merely that posting “swear not at all” or rather “whoever shall say ‘you fool’ will be in danger of hell-fire” is enough, then we are happy to have so easy a task before us of exposing his “swear-not-at-all” position as most empty of contextual reasoning and common sense.

I have proven that my proposition is correct:
It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.
Terry W. Benton

Benton- Goldsmith Debate2nd Negative

The Proposition:
It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Terry W. BentonDenied: Mark Goldsmith
______________________________________________________
Mark Goldsmith’s 2nd NegativeMat 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (New American Standard Bible)Conclusion:It is wrong to call someone a fool according to Jesus Christ.Mark Goldsmith

Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Benton’s 3rd Affirmative

The Proposition:
It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Terry W. BentonDenied: Mark Goldsmith

Matt 23:17-19
17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies* the gold? 18 And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.' 19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? NKJV

Jesus did not violate the rules of righteousness. It was right to call the Pharisees “fools”. Jesus did the right thing.

Rom 1:20-23
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. NKJV

Paul was not violating any rules of righteousness. It was right to say that unbelievers were “fools”. Paul did the right thing.

Thus, I have proven my proposition. Mark did nothing to disprove it.

Terry W. Benton

Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Goldsmith’s 3rd Negative

The Proposition:
It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Terry W. BentonDenied: Mark Goldsmith

3RD Negative22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (NIV)Conclusion:It is wrong to call someone a fool according to Jesus Christ.Mark Goldsmith

Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Goldsmith’s 1st Affirmative

Proposition #2:It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

22But I say to you that everyone who continues to be [ad]angry with his brother or harbors malice (enmity of heart) against him shall be [ae]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court; and whoever speaks contemptuously and insultingly to his brother shall be [af]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, You [ag]cursed fool! [You empty-headed idiot!] shall be [ah]liable to and unable to escape the hell (Gehenna) of fire. (Amplified Bible)Conclusion:It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think you can disobey his warning and call people fools. Mark Goldsmith

Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Benton’s 1st Negative

Proposition #2: It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

I am happy to engage this first negative to the above proposition. Mark Goldsmith is affirming by the above proposition that what Jesus did in using the term “fool” in reference to the scribes and Pharisees was most sinful for a human being, putting himself and any who follow His example here in danger of hell-fire. To excuse Jesus’ behavior here Mark says that Jesus is God and can do whatever He wants. I beg to differ. God cannot LIE. Even though He is God, He cannot LIE. Yet, it would be a lie to say that He had to fulfill “all righteousness” (Matt.3:15) and then turn around and not fulfill it on grounds that at that moment He was acting the role of God instead of a righteous man. It would also be a LIE for Jesus to say “whosoever” and then exclude himself and Paul from his “whosoever” commandment. Either Jesus had to fulfill all righteousness or He didn’t. You cannot argue the matter both ways.

Notice the Proposition

It is NEVER right – this means that is was not right when Jesus and Paul used the word “fool”. It is NEVER right –is what Mark is affirming.
It is NEVER right…when referring to people who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

a. It is NEVER right to get angry at a brother. The same direct language is used for this issue as for the “fool” issue.
b. It is NEVER right to get angry even though JESUS and PAUL got angry.
c. It is NEVER right to get angry even though Paul said “be angry and sin not”(Eph.4:26).
d. An atheist would ask Mark Goldsmith to explain this contradiction.

Jesus says you cannot get angry, yet He got angry, and Paul says you can get angry without sinning. Mark can camp on Matt.5:22, but that only has him in conflict with the context and with other passages. If he does not explain the contradiction, all he has done is simply shown the readers that he is unreasonable and he does not help solve textual problems and demonstrate how to properly harmonize the contexts with the rest of scripture. Atheists are delighted for him to camp on Matt.5:22, because they see the words as in contradiction with other passages. They are delighted for Mark to camp on Matt.5:22 and they will camp with him there and also camp on other verses like Matt.23:17 to show that Jesus was truly in contradiction with himself and cannot be the Son of God. Mark is helping them. Why? Because he makes no effort at harmonizing Matt.5:22 with the passage in his affirmative proposition. His proposition says that it is NEVER right to use the word “fool” and yet Jesus uses it. It would be interesting to see how Mark explains his contradiction to an atheist.
e. Whether he accepts MY explanation and harmony with the passages or not, he still has his own obligations to others to show that there is NOT a contradiction. So, if he would camp on the first part of the verse (Matt.5:22) about anger, he has a problem explaining Jesus and Paul’s behavior and contradictory words, or if he camps on the last part of the verse, he has a problem explaining Jesus and Paul’s behavior and contradictory words. Either way, Mark Goldsmith is not helping his proposition by merely quoting Matt.5:22. His proposition refers to Matt.23 and he has not explained the discrepancy between Matt.5:22 and 23:17. If he says, on the basis of the wording of Matt.5:22 alone, that it is never right to use the word “fool”, then his readers will have to conclude that Jesus sinned. Jesus violated the rule of righteousness to NEVER use the word “fool”.
f. Paul violated the rule of righteousness to NEVER use the word “fool”. Therefore, if Mark Goldsmith is correct in camping on Matt.5:22 the way he has, then he has automatically given the Pharisees a REAL justification for having Jesus crucified. All that would have been necessary, instead of raising phony accusations against Jesus, was to raise the REAL issue that Jesus called them “fools” and Jesus’ own words say that such a person deserves worse than death. Also, by leaving his proposition hanging like he has and not defending the validity of Jesus’ words to them, Mark has shown that Jesus was indeed a SINNER and not the spotless Lamb of God.

The sum of Mark’s comments upon the meaning and application of Matt.5:22 are as follows:

IT IS RIGHT TO HEED CHRIST'S WORDS WHEN HE SAY THAT SAYING THOU FOOL, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELLFIRE.
It is wrong to call someone a fool according to Jesus Christ.
It is wrong to call someone a fool according to Jesus Christ.
It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think you can disobey his warning and call people fools

The sum of Mark’s comments on Matt.23, which is part of the PROPOSITION, is nothing at all. In other words, he felt no need to explain the action of Jesus or Paul in using the word “fool”. His comment 4 above indicates that Jesus, because of His Godhood, did not have to do righteousness or submit to the will of God while in confrontation with the Pharisees. In other words, Jesus could pick and choose His own morality. When He wanted to break a rule of righteousness He could simply put on His Godhood hat, and when He said “Which of you convicts Me of sin?”, if anybody brought up a matter, Jesus could say, “Well, I was wearing My other hat then. I can do what I want when I’m filling a role as God. Only when I’m filling my role under the Law as a human am I obligated to follow the rules of righteousness”. This is what Goldsmith would have us conclude as we try to sort through the matters of what Matthew 5:22 appears to say on the surface, and in trying to compare that surface understanding with the other words and actions of Jesus and Paul. He would have us believe that Jesus did not have to do right when He wanted to put on His Godhead hat. Yet, this man had to follow the Law of God through Moses as a human in order to be the spotless Lamb of God. In Matthew 23 he is not spotless. He is sinning and violating the rule of righteousness He himself spoke in Matt.5:22. Unless Goldsmith can explain WHEN Jesus needs to do right and when He does not, we would be left having to take up His challenge “Which of you convicts me of sin?” and answer that He violated His OWN standard of righteousness.

NEVER RIGHT TO GET ANGRY?

Now, let me play the same game on another topic within the same verse (Matt.5:22). The verse reads:
Matt 5:22

22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; ….ASV

Now, to show how simplistic and unreasonable Mark has been throughout this debate on “fool”, let us see how it works with the subject of “anger”. For illustration purposes let us suppose that we are debating the following propositions:

Proposition #1: It is right to get angry like Jesus and Paul did on occasions.
Affirmed: Terry W. Benton
Denied: Mark Goldsmith

Proposition #2: It is never right to get angry.
Affirmed: Mark Goldsmith
Denied: Terry W. Benton

Mark would simply quote Matt.5:22 and consider his case proven. He would have to keep quoting the verse, giving no attempt to explain the kind of anger, nor to harmonize the verse with other verses such as those in which Jesus was angry or where Paul said “be angry and sin not” (Eph.4:28). Goldsmith would be most unreasonable to rest his case fully upon one statement that he does not even explain in its context. Yet, this is precisely what he has been doing in this debate. He answered NONE of my arguments and scriptures, so he did not disprove my proposition. My proposition was sustained by contextual considerations and other scriptures, one of which was the main scripture in BOTH of our propositions. Yet, Mark did not even attempt an explanation of that very key verse (Matt.23:17). He is simply misguidedly doing as the “swear not at ALL” person. He can do that, but his opponent will be blowing him away with many pieces of evidence that Mark is completely ignoring. The swear-not-at-all guy will be blown away by the total evidence and the contextual evidence of his very own passage, and likewise the person who says you can NEVER get angry and camps out on Matt.5:22, and likewise with Mark as he camps out on Matt.5:22 and claims that it says that you can NEVER use the word “fool” in reference to people who are making foolish choices and decisions. Consider again how the “NEVER-be ANGRY” person would use the very same arguments and the very same approach as Mark Goldsmith.

His comments on the subject of anger would boil down to four comments:

1. IT IS RIGHT TO HEED CHRIST'S WORDS WHEN HE SAY THAT WHOEVER IS ANGRY WITH HIS BROTHER SHALL BE IN DANGER OF THE JUDGMENT
2. It is wrong to GET ANGRY according to Jesus Christ.
3. It is wrong to GET ANGRY according to Jesus Christ.
4. It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think you can disobey his warning and GET ANGRY WITH PEOPLE.

He would position his whole debate on one verse that he refused to explain, and he would misuse it to say that you can never get angry in a righteous way. Some gullible people might be impressed with how simple and scriptural his position was. After all, it is exactly what Jesus said. No need to consider anything else, right? The problem is that there is a contextual KIND of anger being overlooked, and there are those other passages that show Jesus getting angry. One would need to explain whether Jesus was in violation of His own words and how to harmonize Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:22 with Paul’s statement in Eph.4:26. Has Mark done enough just by quoting Matt.5:22? Has he REALLY proven his proposition that it is NEVER right to get angry? Of course not! All he has really done is taken a hard-nosed position that only appears to have Jesus’ support behind it, but is really just a misunderstood statement that contextually means a particular kind of anger, not all anger. He has merely rested his case on a superficial reading and is actually out of harmony with all else that is said on the subject. Now, I don’t know if Mark would say it is always wrong to get angry, but if he would be consistent, he would have to. The same verse that he thinks means to never say “fool” could also be taken to mean to never get angry. Is it right to simply quote Matt.5:22 and make no attempt to harmonize it with other scriptures or to even explain the context of the words? No! Mark is just as obligated to define his proposition and harmonize Matt.5:22 with Matt.23:17 as all other “Christians” are. However, in Mark’s case it is something he feels a need to avoid doing because it tends to cause him problems with his understanding of Matt.5:22. Earlier we illustrated Mark’s problem with a person who took the “swear not AT ALL” position. Both Mark and the Swear-not guy had a scripture with clear words. Both stood behind their single scripture. Both failed to define the words and associate the words in the single sentence to the contextual topic, and both failed to harmonize their single sentence with other verses that seemed to contradict their single sentence. Sometimes a single sentence does not mean what it appears to mean.

NEVER RIGHT TO SWEAR or TAKE OATHS?

“Swear not at all” – appears to mean what it says, but when put back in context actually means “swear not commonly of the worthless kind at all”. When put back into its context it does not forbid all oaths, but all worthless and insincere oaths.
“Whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment” – appears to mean what it says, but when put back in context actually means “angry out of jealousy and hate like Cain which precedes the act of murder”. It does not include righteous anger like Jesus had when He turned over the tables and drove the money changers out of the temple. Righteous anger is right. There are sins that ought to arouse anger in us. But, a person COULD stand their ground on Matt.5:22 in spite of contrary evidence that it is never right to get angry with a brother. Such unreasonableness is precisely what we are seeing in Mark Goldsmith’s determined effort to camp on Matt.5:22. He can camp there, but no one is impressed with how he harmonizes things that contradict the position of strict wording. Might there be a contextual consideration that would tell us something significant about HOW the word fool is being used? Is there no obligation to harmonize a strict reading with other verses that contradict the strict reading approach? Obviously the connection to murder means that Jesus is discussing types of MURDER. Physical murder, murder in the heart, and murder with words of contempt.
“Let not many of you be teachers” (James 3:1) – appears on the surface to mean what it says. Would it be applied correctly if there were a whole congregation of dedicated and wise individuals to come in and tell that group that not many of them should become teachers of God’s word? A straight-forward reading of James 3:1 would say that it is wrong for that whole group to be teachers. If a brother camped out on that one verse, would he have understood and applied that verse correctly if he made a rule for every congregation that there not be many teachers in any one congregation? Remember, we are looking at the words and they specifically say: “Let not many of you be teachers”. If one were to play the same game Mark is playing with Matt.5:22 they would have to. They are not doing justice to the context of the expression, nor with the rest of the scriptures.(Heb.5:12). All we are saying here is that anybody can play the game Mark is playing with Matt.5:22 and be as unreasonable about many other specific wordings that SEEM to say one absolute truth. All of these things have a context that causes us to refrain from the simplistic reading to an attempt to make sure we understand the context and the contextual meaning of the sentence in question.

WHAT MARK IS AFFIRMING

Mark’s proposition is not about Matt.5:22. He is supposed to be proving that it is never right to do what Jesus did in Matthew 23. Regardless of what he thinks of Matt.5:22, his obligation is to prove his proposition.

It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

Has he proven that it is NEVER right to use that word? Has he proven that even when Jesus used it, it was wrong? If it was not wrong when Jesus used it, then his proposition is wrong to say “never”. If it was not wrong for Paul to use the term, then Mark’s proposition is wrong to say “never”. If Jesus and Paul were wrong because Mark’s proposition is right, then Jesus and Paul did wrong and sinned. If Jesus sinned, we are all still in our sins because a sinner cannot pay for our sins. If Paul was wrong and sinned in using the term, then we cannot believe anything he wrote. In the next post by Mark, I expect that he will continue to ignore all of this, answer none of these matters, and continue his pattern of quoting Matt.5:22. The reader will now see this maneuver as harmful, not helpful to the truth of his proposition. At least it will be in print for all to read for years to come, and we will be happy for people to see how the “swear-not-at-all” kind of stance is most illiterate regarding context and harmonization of scripture and will avoid using that unreasonable technique to answer the problems involved. If that is all that is accomplished, it will have been worth the effort, even though it has been, so far, the easiest debate I have ever engaged.

Terry W. Benton

Benton-Goldsmith Debate on FoolsMark Goldsmith' 2nd AffirmativeProposition #2:It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[b] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. (NKJV)
Conclusion:It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think youcan disobey his warning and call people foolsMark Goldsmith

Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Benton’s 2nd Negative

Proposition #2: It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

Note that Matt 5:22 ends with "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." On casual glance one would think that Jesus and Paul sinned and are both in danger of hell-fire. Notice how they appear to violate the above statement.
Matt 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
Matt 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Luke 11:40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?
Luke 12:20 (KJV) "But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?"
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
1 Cor 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Throughout this debate Mark Goldsmith has ignored everything, and has chosen to merely quote Matthew 5:22 without explanation and/or any attempt to harmonize his chosen verse with the context and the rest of scripture. Thus, his part of the debate is devoid of substance that pertains to explaining his proposition or answering the many problems I have confronted him with in the process of this total debate. His chosen tactic has been to simply station himself on the words of that single verse, just as the “swear-not-at-all” fellow did in his debate.
Other Observations About Matthew 5:22

Matthew 5:22
[Thou fool] Moreh, probably from ‎maarah‎, to rebel, a rebel against God, apostate from all good. This term implied, among the Jews, the highest enormity, and most aggravated guilt. Among the Gentoos, such an expression was punished by cutting out the tongue, and thrusting a hot iron, of ten fingers' breadth, into the mouth of the person who used it. Code of Gentoo Laws, chap. 15 sec. 2. p. 212. – Adam Clarke Note: These Persian and Indian “Gentoo” laws were some of the oldest preserved laws in the world.

Furthermore Clarke adds:
‎There are three kinds of offences here, which exceed each other in their degrees of guilt.
1st. Anger against a man, accompanied with some injurious act.2dly. Contempt, expressed by the opprobrious epithet raka, or shallow brains.3dly. Hatred and mortal enmity, expressed by the term moreh, or apostate, where such apostasy could not be proved. – Adam Clarke

Clarke Quotes Dr. Lightfoot as explaining the words and the background for Jesus’ statement:

The FIRST is causeless anger, which he thinks too plain to require explanation; but into the two following he enters in considerable detail:
"The SECOND. Whosoever shall say to his brother 'Racha,' a nickname, or scornful title usual, which they disdainfully put one upon another, and very commonly; and therefore our Saviour has mentioned this word, the rather because it was of so common use among them. Take these few examples:
"A certain man sought to betake himself to repentance (and restitution.) His wife said to him, 'Rekah, if thou make restitution, even thy girdle about thee is not thine own, etc.' Tanchum, fol. 5.
"Rabbi Jochanan was teaching concerning the building of Jerusalem with sapphires and diamonds, etc. One of his scholars laughed him to scorn. But afterwards, being convinced of the truth of the thing, he saith to him, 'Rabbi, do thou expound, for it is fit for thee to expound: as thou saidst, so have I seen it.' He saith to him, 'Rekah, hadst thou not seen, thou wouldst not have believed, etc.' Midras Tillin, fol. 38, col. 4.
"To what is the thing like? To a king of flesh and blood, who took to wife a king's daughter: he saith to her, 'Wait and fill me a cup;' but she would not whereupon he was angry, and put her away; she went and was married to a sordid fellow; and he saith to her, 'Wait, and fill me a cup;' she said unto him, 'Rekah, I am a king's daughter, etc.' Idem in Ps 137.
"A Gentile saith to an Israelite, 'I have a choice dish for thee to eat of.' He saith, 'What is it?' He answers, 'Swine's flesh.' He saith to him, 'Rekah, even what you kill of clean beasts is forbidden us, much more this.' Tanchum, fol. 18, col. 4.
"The THIRD offence is to say to a brother, 'Thou fool,' which, how to distinguish from racha, which signifies an empty fellow, were some difficulty, but that Solomon is a good dictionary here for us, who takes the term continually here for a wicked wretch and reprobate, and in opposition to spiritual wisdom: so that in the first clause is condemned causeless anger; in the second, scornful taunting and reproaching of a brother; and, in the last, calling him a reprobate and wicked, or uncharitably censuring his spiritual and eternal estate. And this last does more especially hit the scribes and Pharisees, who arrogated to themselves only to be called ‎chokamiym‎, wise men, but of all others they had this scornful and uncharitable opinion, 'This people, that knoweth not the law, is cursed,' John 7:49. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary).

Now, if Lightfoot is correct, and it appears that he has proven his case, then Jesus is not forbidding the word in any and all contexts, but is forbidding the haughty and arrogant way that the Pharisees had built themselves up as “the wise men” and scornfully treated others as worthless cursed fools. This is what Jesus is condemning. He is not condemning the use of the term in ANY context, but this MANNER of using the word (which, like murder, totally dismisses the worth of a human life). Keep in mind that Jesus and Paul used the same word, but not IN THIS MANNER.
Albert Barnes comments on Matt. 5:22 this way:

In this verse it denotes a degree of suffering higher than the punishment inflicted by the "court of seventy," or the Sanhedrin, and the whole verse may therefore mean, "He that hates his brother without a cause is guilty of a violation of the sixth commandment, and shall be punished with a severity similar to that inflicted by the court of judgment. He that shall suffer his passions to transport him still further, so that he shall make his brother an object of derision and contempt, shall be exposed to severer punishment, corresponding to that which the Sanhedrin (council) inflicts. But he who shall load his brother with odious appellations and abusive language shall incur the severest degree of punishment, represented by being burned alive in the horrid and awful valley of Hinnom." (Barnes Notes).
Barnes observes further:

The amount, then, of this difficult and important verse is this: The Jews considered but one crime a violation of the sixth commandment, namely, actual murder, or willful, unlawful taking life. Jesus says that the commandment is much broader. It relates not only to the external act, but to the feelings and words. He specifies three forms of such violation:
1. Unjust anger.
2. Anger accompanied with an expression of contempt.
3. Anger, with an expression not only of contempt, but wickedness.
Among the Jews there were three degrees of condemnation: that by the "judgment," the "council," and the "fire of Hinnom." Jesus says likewise there shall be grades of condemnation for the different ways of violating the sixth commandment. Not only murder shall be punished by God, but anger and contempt shall be regarded by him as a violation of the law, and punished according to the offence. As these offences were not actually cognizable before the Jewish tribunals, he must mean that they will be punished hereafter, and all these expressions therefore relate to degrees of punishment proportionate to crime in the future world-the world of justice and of woe. (Barne’s Notes).

Consider also from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown:

What precise degrees of unholy feeling toward our brother are indicated by the words "Raca" and "fool" it would be as useless as it is vain to inquire. Every age and every country has its modes of expressing such things; and, no doubt, our Lord seized on the then current phraseology of unholy disrespect and contempt, merely to express and condemn the different degrees of such feeling when brought out in words, as He had immediately before condemned the feeling itself. In fact, so little are we to make of mere words, apart from the feeling which they express, that as anger is expressly said to have been borne by our Lord toward His enemies, though mixed with "grief for the hardness of their hearts" (Mark 3:5), and as the apostle teaches us that there is an anger which is not sinful (Eph 4:26); so in the Epistle of James (James 2:20) we find the words, "O vain" or 'empty' man [‎oo ‎‎anthroope ‎‎kene‎]; and our Lord Himself applies the very word "fools" [‎mooroi‎] twice in one breath to the blind guides of the people (Matt 23:17,19) - although, in both cases, it is to false reasoners rather than persons that such words are applied.
The spirit, then, of the whole statement may be thus given-`For ages ye have been taught that the sixth commandment, for example, is broken only by the murderer, to pass sentence upon whom is the proper business of the recognized tribunals: but I say unto you that it broken even by causeless anger, which is but hatred in the bud, as hatred is incipient murder (1 John 3:15); and if by the feelings, much more by those words in which all ill feeling, from the slightest to the most envenomed, are wont to be cast upon a brother: and just as there are gradations in human courts of judicature, and in the sentences which they pronounce according to the degrees of criminality, so will the judicial treatment of all the breakers of this commandment at the divine tribunal be according to their real criminality before the heart-searching Judge.' O what holy teaching is this!
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary).

Matthew Henry observes of this passage:

Matthew 5:21-26
The commandment is exceeding broad, and not to be limited by the will of the flesh, or the will of men.
1. Christ tells them that rash anger is heart-murder (v. 22); Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, breaks the sixth commandment. By our brother here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much our inferior, as a child, a servant, for we are all made of one blood. Anger is a natural passion; there are cases in which it is lawful and laudable; but it is then sinful, when we are angry without cause. The word is ‎eike‎, which signifies, sine causâ, sine effectu, et sine modo—without cause, without any good effect, without moderation; so that the anger is then sinful, (1.) When it is without any just provocation given; either for no cause, or no good cause, or no great and proportionable cause; when we are angry at children or servants for that which could not be helped, which was only a piece of forgetfulness or mistake, that we ourselves might easily have been guilty of, and for which we should not have been angry at ourselves; when we are angry upon groundless surmises, or for trivial affronts not worth speaking of. (2.) When it is without any good end aimed at, merely to show our authority, to gratify a brutish passion, to let people know our resentments, and excite ourselves to revenge, then it is in vain, it is to do hurt; whereas if we are at any time angry, it should be to awaken the offender to repentance, and prevent his doing so again; to clear ourselves (2 Cor 7:11), and to give warning to others. (3.) When it exceeds due bounds; when we are hardy and headstrong in our anger, violent and vehement, outrageous and mischievous, and when we seek the hurt of those we are displeased at. This is a breach of the sixth commandment, for he that is thus angry, would kill if he could and durst; he has taken the first step toward it; Cain's killing his brother began in anger; he is a murderer in the account of God, who knows his heart, whence murder proceeds, ch. 15:19.
2. He tells them, that given opprobrious language to our brother is tongue-murder, calling him, Raca, and, Thou fool. When this is done with mildness and for a good end, to convince others of their vanity and folly, it is not sinful. Thus James says, O vain man; and Paul, Thou fool; and Christ himself, O fools, and slow of heart. But when it proceeds from anger and malice within, it is the smoke of that fire which is kindled from hell, and falls under the same character. (1.) Raca is a scornful word, and comes from pride, "Thou empty fellow;" it is the language of that which Solomon calls proud wrath (Prov 21:24), which tramples upon our brother-disdains to set him even with the dogs of our flock. This people who knoweth not the law, is cursed, is such language, John 7:49. (2.) Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred; looking upon him, not only as mean and not to be honoured, but as vile and not to be loved; "Thou wicked man, thou reprobate." The former speaks a man without sense, this (in scripture language) speaks a man without grace; the more the reproach touches his spiritual condition, the worse it is; the former is a haughty taunting of our brother, this is a malicious censuring and condemning of him, as abandoned of God. Now this is a breach of the sixth commandment; malicious slanders and censures are poison under the tongue, that kills secretly and slowly; bitter words are as arrows that wound suddenly (Ps 64:3), or as a sword in the bones. The good name of our neighbour, which is better than life, is thereby stabbed and murdered; and it is an evidence of such an ill-will to our neighbour as would strike at his life, if it were in our power.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible)

As any honest observer of the context and connection to the primary subject of “murder” can easily see, it is the way the term is used that makes all the difference. The Pharisees would use the word in hateful disdain for others, while Jesus and Paul used the word in caring frustration at willful ignorance. The Pharisees dismissed people out of haughty anger and hatred (a form of murder in the heart). Jesus appealed to them out of anxious care to awaken them to the danger they face if they do not wake up and wise-up. The same instrument (a knife) can be an instrument of murder in the hands of an angry vengeful person, or an instrument of life in the hand of a surgeon. Likewise, the same instrument (the word “fool”) can be an instrument of murder from the mouth of a hateful and angry person, or it can be an instrument of life from the mouth of one in loving frustration trying to awaken a foolish person to an awareness of the danger of their course of life and thinking. Goldsmith is denying that this word can ever be used at all, and condemns the use Jesus and Paul made of the word. He refuses to see the surgical use of the word from their mouth or pen, and is content to condemn them on the basis of Matthew 5:22. Actually, his goal to only to find a way to condemn me, but has unwittingly condemned Jesus and Paul in the process.

What Has Been Proven?
1. All anger is not forbidden by Matt.5:22. Only ‘murderous” anger is forbidden. Righteous anger is not under consideration in this verse. Jesus did not violate this verse by being angry on occasions.
2. All use of the word “fool” is not forbidden by Matt.5:22. Only “murderous” use of the word is forbidden. A righteous use of the term is not under consideration in this verse. Jesus did not violate this verse by using the term in Matt.23 and other occasions.
3. Jesus did not sin against Matt.5:22 when He used the word “fool” in Matt.23, and if He did not, then Mark did not prove his proposition.
4. Paul did not sin against Matt.5:22 when he used the word “fool” in Romans 1:20-22, and if he did not, then Mark did not prove his proposition that it is “NEVER right” to use the word “fool”.

Conclusion:
We are glad to show that Mark’s stance is exactly like the “never get angry” people who stand on Matt.5:22 AGAINST the context and total evidence, and we are happy to have shown that his one-verse stance is EXACTLY like that of the man who would only quote “swear not AT ALL” to bolster his position that it is wrong to ever make oaths of any kind. When this debate finishes, and Mark has only ignored the evidence and quoted Matt.5:22 out of context, you will know who teaches the truth on these propositions. God bless those who read all in search of truth.
Terry W. Benton

Benton-Goldsmith Debate on FoolsMark Goldsmith' 3rd AffirmativeProposition #2:It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. BentonMat 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (New American Standard Bible)Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (KJV)Mat 5:22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. (American Standard Version)Mat 5:22But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, `Raca,' shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, `Thou fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire. (21st Century King James Version)Mat 5:22But I say to you that everyone who continues to be [ad]angry with his brother or harbors malice (enmity of heart) against him shall be [ae]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court; and whoever speaks contemptuously and insultingly to his brother shall be [af]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, You [ag]cursed fool! [You empty-headed idiot!] shall be [ah]liable to and unable to escape the hell (Gehenna) of fire.(Amplified Bible)Mat 5:22But *I* say unto you, that every one that is lightly angry with his brother shall be subject to the judgment; but whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be subject to [be called before] the sanhedrim; but whosoever shall say, Fool, shall be subject to the penalty of the hell of fire. (Darby Translation)Mat 5:22But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.(Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)Mat 5:22But I say to you that(AN) everyone who is angry with his brother[b] will be liable(AO) to judgment; whoever insults[c] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to(AP) the hell[d] of fire.(English Standard Version)Mat 5:22 But I tell you, if you are angry with a brother or sister,[b] you will be judged. If you say bad things to a brother or sister, you will be judged by the council. And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell. (New Century Version)Mat 5:22 But here is what I tell you. Do not be angry with your brother. Anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' must stand trial in the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire in hell. (New International Reader's Version)Mat 5:22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (NIV)Mat 5:22`But I tell you this. Anyone who is angry with his brother without having a good reason, will be judged in court. Anyone who says wrong things to his brother will be judged for it in the big court. Anyone who says "You fool!" will be judged to go into hell fire. (Worldwide English (New Testament))Mat 5:22 But I say to you, that each man that is wroth to his brother, shall be guilty to doom; and he that saith to his brother, Fie! shall be guilty to the council; but he that saith Fool, shall be guilty to the fire of hell.(Wycliffe New Testament)Conclusion:It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think youcan disobey his warning and call people foolsThus, I have proven my proposition. Terry Benton did nothing to disprove it.Mark Goldsmith

Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Benton’s 3rd and Final Negative

Proposition #2

It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

As we come to the close of this debate, I would like to thank Mark for agreeing to engage this debate. Even though he said nothing to explain the proposition or any of the scriptures, he was willing to go on record in a debate and allow that his name be associated with this debate for years to come. Regardless of what I think about the wisdom of how he chose to approach this subject, he is to be commended for agreeing to leave a record of his faith in a debate that cross-examines his position. There are others that will not do as much.

I’m sure that in ignoring all that I said and even in ignoring the statements Jesus made in Matt.23:17, Mark felt that this one passage (Matt.5:22) sizes up the whole subject to him. He camped there and never left the side of his companion verse. We have to at least admire his loyalty to that one verse, even though he misunderstands it. We would likewise admire a man who thought it a sin to ever get angry and based his whole conclusion on the same verse Mark based his view of the “fool” issue upon. Both Mark and the “Never-get-angry” person would have the exact same misguided loyalty to a misunderstanding of the verse, it’s context, and it’s harmony with other scriptures. Yet both could do as Mark did in this debate for the exact same reasons, yet both will still not have done justice to the text, the context, and the harmony they should feel obligated to explain relative to passages that contradict their position on the one verse.

In this debate, Mark never answered one argument of mine while he was in the negative, and he never answered anything I offered while I was in the negative. It is most unusual that when a man’s thinking has been shown to be erroneous, as erroneous as the “Never-get-angy” guy, and as erroneous as the “Swear-not-at-All” guy, to continue to ignore all arguments and all contextual evidence and all contrary evidence in other passages and keep the same stubborn course. So, although his strategy must have seemed suitable enough to him at the moment, the total record will surely be something he wishes he had engaged differently in the future. In fact, his part was quite foolish in view of the verse in his proposition that he never mentioned. Nevertheless, the part I offered in the debate will be convincing and harmonizing to the passages in question and others will surely be profited by this study.

How shall I spend my last negative in this somewhat strangely conducted debate? I will spend my space to show the fallacy of the “never-say-the-word-fool” position. When I have finished Jesus will have been exonerated from the common accusation that He violated His own words. I will also show the fallacy of the thinking of my opponent in this debate and of others like him.

False Arguments My Opponent Made and Others Make

It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think youcan disobey his warning and call people fools

Answer: I can follow His righteous example without thinking I am equal to Him, and if His example is righteous, then it is not disobeying Him to follow that example, it is obeying Him to follow His example (1 Cor.11:1), and I make it a practice to be VERY careful to only call real fools, like Elymas and the Pharisees, “fools” with care that I am not violating Jesus’ warning in Matthew 5:22 about using the term in a hateful, angry and murderous way. In this regard I study the reasons Jesus called the Pharisees “fools” and see the word as a surgical word of caring rebuke and righteous anger at sinful and hardened dispositions, and avoid using the word as a murderous weapon of uncaring hate and unrighteous anger. Jesus shows us that the same word can be a helpful, yet painful surgical word in the hands of soul-doctors who seek to save, or it can be a murderous word in the hands of those who care not for other’s well-being. Words like “fool” can be like a knife. In a surgeon’s hands it is calculated to do something painful in order to do ultimate good, but in the hands of the angry and uncaring it can be a weapon of murder. It is the latter that Jesus was warning against in Matt.5:22, not the former.

Secondly, I make it a practice not to haphazardly call “people” in general fools or any other uncaring name or insulting name. In the rare times when I do use it, it will be calculated on the basis of the hardness and wickedness of the person I hope to shake up and wake up for their good. A Pharisee or an Elymas (Acts 13:10) in our day are hardened liars who clearly have a sinful and hardened conscience or no conscience at all, and are intent on perverting the straight ways of the Lord. When I am 100% sure (“by their fruits you shall KNOW them”) that I am dealing with a hardened LIAR, then and only then will I bring out the words Jesus and Paul used for such hearts. Jesus and Paul did not go around calling people in general “fools” or “sons of the devil”. But, on occasions they did because it was the right thing to do. I have studied their principles, their character, their behavior, and learned from them to spare such terms for the right times for the people who need those words of calculated rebuke. So, if you know somebody that was the recipient of these terms from me, just realize that I was 100% sure the time, the person, and the reason justified the terms.

Thirdly, Jesus expected His disciples to size up a person and judge whether they will trample your precious, saving doctrine as “swine” would do to pearls (Matt.7:6). This means that He expects us to make judgments of this nature. If we can make such judgments that we are casting pearls before swine, then we can also judge dishonest hearts by their fruits and know that we are dealing with a person or persons who will trample your saving message and turn and rend you as a swine would a person who was trying to give them something of value like pearls. Jesus COMMANDED us to make such needed judgments. Therefore we can and must. But, if we can determine that we are dealing with swine, then we can also determine when the word “fool” might be most useful and needful to use as Jesus and Paul did. Jesus did not warn against using the term at all, but of using it in murderous anger.

The Holy Spirit (God) was informing people they were fools THROUGH Jesus and Paul. You do not have such revelations from God.

Answer: The Holy Spirit informs us through the fruit of a persons observable life and behavior. The whole book of Proverbs is written to give us wisdom and to detect when we and others are being a fool. The Holy Spirit informs us as to why the Pharisees were “fools and blind” so that we will be informed when we or others are being “fools and blind” as well. The Holy Spirit informed us that liars are fools, so that we can know when we are being a fool or dealing with a fool. Many of Jesus’ parables are designed to inform us when we are being a fool or when others are being a fool. We can process the information a certain person puts on display and draw from the information the Holy Spirit has provided and know that we are dealing with a fool. For example, we can listen to a man say “there is no God”, process the information the Holy Spirit gave us in Rom.1:20-22 and Psalm 14:1 and conclude that this man is a fool. If not, why not?

The Holy Spirit gives us a training school for knowing the difference between wise and foolish. The whole Bible is designed to help us be wise and to know when we and others are being foolish. The man who laid up his goods for many years to eat, drink, and be merry, but made no preparations for his soul and eternity was openly identified as a fool. We take that Holy Spirit information and can easily determine that if a man is not preparing for his soul to meet God he too is a fool. Likewise, we take the information Jesus gave us about the lying Pharisees, process it, and then when we run into similar liars today, we know we are dealing with modern Pharisaic fools. Consider other ways that the Holy Spirit has trained us to recognize the wise and the fools.

Prov 23:9

9 Do not speak in the hearing of a fool , For he will despise the wisdom of your words. NKJV - This tells us that we can determine a fool by whether he will appreciate the wisdom of our words. Jesus said to make a judgment in this regard. Am I casting pearls before swine who will trample the pearls and turn again and rend you (Matt.7:6)? So, the Holy Spirit is clearly training us to look for the indicators of whether we are dealing with swine or fools. So, the argument that only the directly inspired may use the word “fool” is a false argument. The whole Bible is the Holy Spirit’s training school for us to exercise our senses and know that we are either being a fool or dealing with a fool.

Prov 26:11
11 As a dog returns to his own vomit, So a fool repeats his folly. NKJV
The Holy Spirit tells us to look for whether a person repeats his foolish act, such as lying, cheating, slandering, etc. Those who keep repeating their sins are clearly fools. The Holy Spirit trains us to recognize the fruit and recognize who is a fool.

Ps 14:1

The fool has said in his heart,"There is no God."NKJV
Obviously, the Holy Spirit wanted us to listen to what a man says and from that determine that he is a fool. We do not have to be directly inspired of God to know when the term “fool” applies.

Prov 10:18

18 Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, And whoever spreads slander is a fool .
Obviously, a man who spreads slander is lying about someone. Lies and slander are sinful and marked out for hell. If we can recognize when a person is slandering someone, then we are told by the Holy Spirit that this person is a fool.

Prov 15:5

5 A fool despises his father's instruction, But he who receives correction is prudent.
Again, the Holy Spirit had these things written to observe things in people that indicate that they are fools. The Holy Spirit would not have given us such training in this matter if He intended for us to never use this word.

Prov 18:2

2 A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart. NKJV
The Holy Spirit is training us to identify fools. If a person doesn’t want and appreciate understanding, knowledge, and wisdom and learning it, then the Holy Spirit is training us to know the characteristics of a fool. He is not training us to never use the term, but to recognize a fool and be able to tell him so when the time is right.

Prov 29:9

9 If a wise man contends with a foolish man,
Whether the fool rages or laughs, there is no peace. NKJV
Here the Holy Spirit is telling us some common responses we will get from a fool as we contend with them. They will get mad and rage or they will try to laugh you to scorn. The Holy Spirit is clearly training us to know and recognize fools and wise. Jesus did not come along in Matt.5:22 and tell us to disregard all that training and that a new plan would be to never use that word again. He tells us how we are not to use that word in anger, hatefulness, and slander, and then He shows us in example and word how and when to use the word properly. Again, Jesus did not violate Matt.5:22. The Holy Spirit did not have Jesus and Paul violating a rule of righteousness.

Other Historical Insight

Chapter Eighteen
‎In regard to St. Matt 5:22, we remember that the term 'brother' applied only to Jews, while the Rabbis used to designate the ignorant, 2533 or those who did not believe such exaggerations, as that in the future God would build up the gates of Jerusalem with gems thirty cubits high and broad, as Reyqa, 2534 with this additional remark, that on one such occasion the look of a Rabbi had immediately turned the unbeliever into a heap of bones!
Again, the opprobrious term 'fool' was by no means of uncommon occurrence among the sages; 2535 and yet they themselves state, that to give an opprobrious by-name, or to put another openly to shame, was one of the three things which deserved Gehenna. 2536
(from Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim)

The “Reyqa” is the same as “Raca”. Edersheim was tracing this word to the historical context and found that a Rabbi used it in a most hateful way with a look that could kill if it could. Thus, the connection to the subject of murder. The word “fool” was sometimes a hateful way to try to destroy or “put another openly to shame”. Thus, again, this is showing that it is not the word itself, but the USE of the word in an angry and murderous way that Jesus was condemning in Matt.5:22.

In “Hard Sayings of the Bible” the authors note:

5:22 - "you Fool!" Merits Hell?
But was "You fool!" actually regarded as being such a deadly insult? In this same Gospel of Matthew the cognate adjective is used of the man who built his house on the sand (Matt 7:26) and of the five girls who forgot to take a supply of oil to keep their torches alight (Matt 25:2-3), and Jesus himself is reported as calling certain religious teachers "blind fools" (Matt 23:17). It is more probable that, just as "Raca" is a non-Greek word, so is the word ‎moore ‎that Jesus used here. If so, then it is a word which to a Jewish ear meant "rebel (against God)" or "apostate"; it was the word which Moses in exasperation used to the disaffected Israelites in the wilderness of Zin: "Listen, you rebels; must we bring you water out of this rock?" (Num 20:10). For these rash words, uttered under intense provocation, Moses was excluded from the Promised Land.
Whether this was the word Jesus had in mind or not, he certainly had in mind the kind of language that is bound to produce a murderous quarrel: chief responsibility for the ensuing bloodshed, he insisted, lies with the person who spoke the offending word. But behind the offending word lies the hostile thought. It is there that the guilty process starts; and if the hostile thought is not killed off as soon as the thinker becomes aware of it, then, although no earthly court may be in a position to take cognisance of it, that is what will be the first count in the indictment before the judgment-bar of God.
(from Hard Sayings of the Bible)

Conclusion

Did Mark Goldsmith prove this proposition?

Proposition #2

It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

If it is “NEVER” right to use this word, then Jesus and Paul were sinners. If Jesus and Paul were exceptions then the proposition is wrong. If Matt.5:22 does not condemn what Jesus and Paul did, then the difference is in the context of how the word is used, not the fact that the word is used. But, if it is sometimes proper and right to use the word as Jesus and Paul did, then the proposition Mark signed is false. We have proven that Mark signed a false proposition.

Before I had even finished my last negative Mark was boasting that he had avoided “secular reasoning” and that he stayed with the spiritual text alone. He was trying to explain that his strategy was correct in this debate. The fact of the matter is that Mark used no reasoning at all. He explained nothing at all. He harmonized nothing at all. He answered no questions at all. His strategy was as foolish as the brother who used the same verse to teach that it is wrong to ever get angry. His strategy was foolish and disappointing to those who read and wished for him to expound and explain the very passage in his proposition that he ignored and that actually refutes the position he takes on Matt.5:22. Clearly, Mark did not prove his proposition, and I have clearly shown that it was false. May the reader be wise and gain much from this study of the subject of the biblical usage of the word fool in various contexts.

I also hope that by providing harmony of text and context that Jesus is exonerated from the false charges that He violated His own words, and that He is honored and glorified by this study. To God be the glory forever and ever. Amen!

Terry W. Benton

The
End

Is It A Cult?

2009-03-03T12:22:00.000-08:00

Is It A Cult?
- Terry W. Benton

Recent exposure in the news and on talk radio and TV has brought back around the charge from Baptists and Presbyterians that the “Church of Christ is a cult”. Immediately, the connotation of “cult” brings to mind such mind-control groups as Jim Jones and the People’s Temple or David Karesh and other far-out groups. The term is loaded with prejudice, and is often so vaguely defined that anyone, including the Baptists and Presbyterians, can be charged with being a cult. Of course, it does not feel as well to them when they are on the receiving end of the accusation.

Several years ago, about 1980-81, a local Presbyterian, formed an organization called “New Life, Inc.” It was a group of Presbyterians who wanted to “expose” the “cults”, without people knowing that they were members of the Briarwood Presbyterian Church. Briarwood did not want the negative publicity of putting down other area religious groups. So, they supported New Life to do the dirty work and take the heat under the name New Life. New Life would be viewed as a group of Christians exposing the cults, and the Briarwood Presbyterian Church could be viewed as clean and loving and harmless.

New Life began advertising a list of the “cults” in the Birmingham News and Post Herald. The Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Bahai, and Churches of Christ, were lumped together as “cults” to beware of. The list made no attempt to explain the definition of a cult, or to explain why the Baptists and Presbyterians were not listed also as cults. It was an underhanded tactic to use a scatter-gun approach to prejudicing the public mind against any group that New Life claimed was a “cult”.

Not willing to let these guys get away with their accusation without a challenge, I called Craig Branch, the head of the New Life organization in Birmingham, and asked why he said that Churches of Christ were a “cult”. He was evasive, and so I asked for a public discussion of the issues. He would not consent to a public debate, but, after much pressure from Larry Rouse and myself, he agreed to meet privately for some discussions of the issues. We got some brethren to help us put some counter advertisements in the paper exposing New Life as a front group for the Briarwood Presbyterian Church and challenging them to retract the charge that Churches of Christ can be legitimately classified as a “cult” or to meet us in public discussion to prove their accusation. This was embarrassing to area Presbyterians, because they knew members of churches of Christ to be level-headed and decent people, and that the term “cult” should not have been thrown out so loosely and haphazardly. The Webster dictionary definition would have made all religions, including Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and Presbyterians, come under the word’s meaning. However, the New Life organization was not using the basic dictionary definition.

In our discussions, it became clear that “mind-control” was not the issue. There was no church built around a single man who sought to control the individual lives of every member. The issue was not that we tried to make our members live in a bubble or in a commune. Nor, was it an issue of how our Bible classes or worship was conducted. The issue, according to Craig Branch and New Life, was that we taught that one has to be baptized in order to be saved. When he said that, I asked, then, if Peter was a member of a cult, since he told people to be baptized for remission of sins (Acts 2:37-40)? It was amazing how different Peter’s teaching was from that of Craig Branch, New Life, and the Briarwood Presbyterian Church. I told him that I was glad to stand with Peter, but that he should be honest and advertise that Peter and the early church were also what he was calling a “cult”. This point made it apparent that Craig Branch’s brand of religion was different from Peter’s, and that therefore his own religion was no more scriptural than the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other groups he called “cults”. New Life fell out of existence for a while. Craig Branch later started his efforts again under a new name. The group is now known as “Watchman Fellowship”.

Prejudicial terms were used against the early church. They were called “the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5) by Jews wanting to prejudice people against them. If we stand for the same truth they stood for, it is unavoidable but that we too will be maligned or accused with terms loaded with prejudice. We cannot keep people from prejudice and preconceived, erroneous notions, but we can live honorably before all men and teach the truth without compromise. We can even love our enemies, but we must remember that it was prejudice and unfairness that caused our Lord’s crucifixion. If the most perfect man could be mistreated and falsely accused, we must be mentally, spiritually, and emotionally ready to be recipients of the same.

There is a danger in using words that are loaded with prejudice, and that leave undefined the particular issue that caused one to select the particular term. No one today usually thinks the term “cult” is a compliment to another person or group, and all confess that it has the power of striking fear and suspicion about any group so accused or described as a cult.

Michael Lagrone, a leading spokesman about cults, confessed that there is a tremendous amount of ambiguity associated with the term. He wisely remarked: We also hope that in your own endeavors you apply the term “cult” judiciously and with an acute awareness of its ambiguity and limitations. (The Definitional Ambiguity of “Cult” and ICSA’s Mission).

Was The Early Church a Cult?

If we take the earliest meaning of the term cult, then the early church was a cult, and the term did not necessarily have any negative connotation to it. One writer researched the origin of the word and found it was very positive or neutral. Any group would not have been offended to have been referred to as a cult. One writer said:

Perhaps the most confusing and dangerous religious term is "Cult". The word is derived from the French word "culte" which came from Latin noun "cultus." The latter is related to the Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a deity." Thus, in its original meaning, the term "cult" can be applied to any group of religious believers: Southern Baptists or Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses or Catholics, Hindus or Muslims. However, the term has since been assigned at least 7 new and very different meanings. The original meaning of "cult" remains positive; more recent definitions are neutral, negative, or extremely negative…

The word “cult” is the noun of the verb “cultivate”. What has been cultivated is the cult. The church is about cultivating hearts and souls. Hearts and souls that are cultivated to serve God and others are the “cult” of what is being cultivated. All churches should be trying to cultivate hearts and souls for the development of the fruits of the Spirit. Thus, all churches SHOULD be “cults” (that which has been cultivated). If this is the connotation being used, we should not and would not object. However, terms have a way of changing, and often the user of a term has developed a new slant on the word. Do you remember the days when the word “gay” was a fine word and had nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation? The same has become so with the word “cult”. It has been given some negative connotations, and often the user is totally wrong in his doctrinal outlook that moves him to call another a cult of error. Often the user is so blinded by his own erroneous doctrines that he sees only through the glasses of his own cultivated beliefs, and speaks negatively of what has been cultivated (rightly or wrongly) in another who differs with him.

If the original meaning was “to worship or give reverence to a deity”, then what church would have felt insulted by the term? This meaning is very positive. Even Craig Branch (Briarwood Presbyterian’s own), would have to admit that he was a member of a cult. But, as mentioned earlier, it was the arbitrary and newly created definition that urged that he classify churches of Christ as a cult. He determined that if a group says that salvation is at the point of baptism into Christ, instead of by “faith only”, then he believed he had the right to classify that group as a cult on newly contrived charges and with a new and negative connotation of the term.

But, this negative definition backfired on Craig Branch. It was his definition that put him in the position of having to (if he wanted to be logically consistent) call the Biblical writers as “cultic”. James, for example, said a man is NOT justified by “faith only” (James 2:19f). He said a faith that does not work is dead and does not “save”. Thus, being at odds with Presbyterian doctrine of salvation by faith only, James taught what churches of Christ are saying, and the opposite of what Branch teaches. So, if one man or the other is justly called “cultic”(under the new and negative definition), would it be James or Craig Branch? Furthermore, Peter told people they had to “do” something to be saved (Acts 2:37-40). He told them that they must repent and be baptized for remission of sins. Branch would have had to have told them that they were already saved at the moment of conviction, by “faith only”. Because Peter differed with Branch, which person should get the modern dishonor of the word “cultic”? Peter? Or Branch? Peter also said “baptism does also now save us” (1 Pet.3:21). Branch says it does not. So, who gets the modern dishonor of the term “cult”?

Several weeks ago a preacher of a “Church of Christ” was shot by his wife. The media took the story and tried to make sense of the shooting. A Baptist preacher was asked if the Church of Christ was a “cult”, and if this might have some bearing on understanding why the wife behaved the way she did. Of course, the Baptist preacher could not go to the Bible and show evidence that there ever was a Baptist Church in the first century. Thus, it is very strange that a religion foreign to the Bible (Baptists) could sit in on a critique of another religion and call them a “cult” (in a negative sense). The old saying that “those who live in glass houses should not throw stones” would be very fitting here.

Has a Baptist preacher ever been shot or killed by his wife? If so, then do we neatly label the Baptist Church as a “cult” to explain the killing? Has a Presbyterian minister ever been killed by his wife? If so, then do we neatly label the Presbyterian Church as a “cult” to explain the killing? Obviously, the purpose of bringing out the term “cult” was of no value in explaining the incident. It was simply a convenient opportunity to take a prejudicial stab at all Churches of Christ.

I would encourage people to study the teaching of any group, including Churches of Christ, to find out if it is scriptural or biblical in teaching and practice. The name of a group is a give-away as to whether it is biblical in other areas of teaching or practice. If the group does not mind being different from the early Christians in name, then they will also be very lax and indifferent to biblical truth and authority in other areas of teaching and practice. A good rule to remember is “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). If the very name of the group cannot be found in the “oracles of God” (the Bible), then it is unscriptural and therefore a false religion. Jesus did not authorize the existence of various denominations and the various names attached to these later developments.

This means that a representative of an unscriptural church or organization has no business talking about other religions as unbiblical or unorthodox. However, the fact that a group tries to be scriptural in name, does not mean that they are automatically scriptural in other areas of teaching and practice. Various denominations venture away from the teaching and example of the early church in various degrees. Some are further away from the Bible than others. But, all modern denominations are “cultic” in comparison to the early church. They all teach people to be different from the original model. It is not good or safe to venture away from the original pattern to any degree.

If a group tries to identify itself in name, teaching, and practice by the model of the early church, give it a fair chance. Look into it carefully. Study it! If the teaching is identical with the Bible, then either the early church was also a “cult”, or the term “cult” is pejorative, and prejudicial in the hands of a man who needs to be busy pulling the plank out of his own eye. Demand truth above all else, and God will see that you either start or help support a scriptural church.
terrywbenton@bellsouth.net