Remove the guilt right now! Here is the solution: Let us attempt to clear the cobwebs of misunderstanding brought on by the practices of the religious world and focus right now only on what the word of God actually says. Go with me step by step so that you can follow what God has told us is the truth about this subject. About 15 minutes of your time is really all you need. If you want to avoid any confusion DO NOT Google this subject! Your New Testament is the only source you will need to establish the truth of God’s word in your understanding.

A. It all starts with Jesus and His original purpose in coming in the way He did, born as a human being (declared by God – Matthew 17:5, Jesus is to be heard – remember, Jesus is the “Word” – John 1:1-5; 1 John 1:1-7, He came into this world to save mankind from being lost in sin. He is also the Creator who spoke all things into existence in Genesis 1, and amazingly, at the judgment He is to be our judge as well – John 5:22). Enduring the same temptations as any man, yet without sinning (Hebrews 4:15), He was to be the perfect sacrifice, ending the old law which required animal sacrifices every year to put away the sins of the Jews under the old law (the law of Moses which was for the Jews only but is “nailed to the cross” and a new law is now in effect – Colossians 2:11-14). This is also why the New Testament is THE ONLY LAW to which all of mankind is now responsible. The old law, i.e. the Old Testament is only for our learning and is not applicable for law or prophecy in our age.

B. By His death, burial and resurrection from the dead, Christ had accomplished His goal to save the souls of all of mankind by the means of hearing the word of God, having faith in Christ, to turn from sins, confessing the name of Christ and be baptized for the remission of sins. – Acts 2:36-41; 8:35-39; 1 Peter 3:21. In this way the mission of Christ has been achieved: the only way for the souls of man to be saved from eternal damnation – Acts 4:12; 14:27

C. The beginning of the Church of Christ – Acts 2:42-46.  Once we have met the conditions to receive salvation we are added by the Lord Himself – Acts 2:47; 1 Peter 2:5.

D. Membership in a local church is required, following the example of Saul of Tarsus – Acts 9:27-29. We are to worship every first day of the week with the local church – Acts 20:7, and we are to submit to the leadership of the local church we are members of and help in this way to maintain the discipline of the church – Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2-3

E. Many of us are constantly amazed at the way religion in the name of Christ is shown all around us. The religious world of our time evidently does not know what the mission of the New Testament Church is to be. What is now the established order and what we see everywhere we look are denominational groups enthusiastically being involved in and funding literally everything they can imagine and doing these things in the name of God without ever seeming to worry about whether their efforts are actually of God or not. Without the authorized will of God from His word, such religions (invented at the whims of men), still claim that “their God” would endorse them – Colossians 2:20-23.

F. But what IS the mission of the church of Christ? Flying in the face of contemporary denominational religions is that the Lord wants the work of the local church to be limited and focused on just three things. The apostle Paul set out to inform the congregations of God’s people what the mission or work of the Lord’s church was to be.
The Mission of the Church is:

1. Preach the Gospel – Ephesians 3:10-12
2. Perfecting the Saints – Ephesians 4:11-16; Hebrews 10
3. Caring for the Needy – 2 Corinthians 8:4

G. How Long Do We Continue This? This might be the simplest of all of these points: Jesus said, “..occupy till I come” (Luke 19:13)! Christians have been doing this since the church was established in Acts 2. Christ will return someday in the same manner as He departed – Acts 1:9-11, “Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

A very excellent fact to know is that all of the cases of conversion are very conveniently found in the Book of Acts. Added to this is the fact that all of these cases of conversion mention baptism. The prevailing denominational views of course minimize or eliminate the need for actual baptism over variations of grace only salvation.

I have rejoiced many times to see the happy amazement of so many Christians when this basic help to their understanding is revealed to them. They almost hate to admit that such an obvious truth has been right in front of them all along. But now that they know about it, they are thrilled with prospects of easier access, less bumbling and confusion on their part when they are attempting to convert the lost.

What comes to mind is the “slam dunk” realization just knowing that the authority we need to teach the doctrine of baptism for remission of sins is so solidly and completely supplied by the Lord. This evidence is undeniable and incontrovertible and we must teach it that way!

What are the ten references given in the Book of Acts?

1. Acts 2:37-41 – On the Day of Pentecost
2. Acts 8:12 – The Samaritans
3. Acts 8:13 – Simon the Sorcerer
4. Acts 8:38 – Ethiopian Eunuch
5. Acts 9:18 – Saul of Tarsus
6. Acts 10:48 – House of Cornelius
7. Acts 16:15 – House of Lydia
8. Acts 16:33 – House of the Jailor
9. Acts 18:8 – House of Crispus & Many Corinthians
10. Acts 19:1-5 – The Ephesians

Why is this so great a fact to know? Two reasons mainly:

1. There are ten cases of conversion given. Ten is a solid, easy to remember number that feels “so complete” when it is considered.
2. All ten references are in a single book. One does not have to go to any other portions of the New Testament to feebly search for references that to our memory may seem vague. This instills confidence in us as we offer these facts to potential converts to the truth.

What to do with this knowledge?

• First, I would suggest you get a highlighter pen and mark all ten passages in your New Testament immediately.
• Secondly, link them by writing in the margin the next reference so you can easily find them every time you need them.
• Thirdly, become familiar with all the contexts of all ten references so that you can recount them whenever the need arises.
• Finally, seek out opportunities to share this vital and important knowledge so that others can come to the truth and be saved! Do it now!

(This is the first in a series of brief articles devoted to us being about our “Father’s business.” Sometimes we lose our way spiritually, and need to get back to “doing the first works” (Revelation 2:4-7, “Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place–unless you repent. 6 “But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.” Please feel free to copy & paste these articles for use in your local bulletins where needed).

This article consists of an analysis of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, recorded in John 3.  As the conversation is lengthy, and I desired to include the entire context in this one article, it too is rather long.

Born Again (John 3:1-5)

Jesus, in John 3, had a conversation with a ruler of the Jews named Nicodemus. While it is obvious by Nicodemus’ words he was impressed with Jesus, it must be noted that he was ignorant of who Jesus truly was, and was a bit cautious in his approach.

Nicodemus referred to the Lord as a “rabbi” (teacher), and acknowledged that the miracles Jesus performed marked Him as a man from God. However, the fact that John revealed the ruler’s approach to be “by night” indicates that Nicodemus may have desired not to be seen talking with such a controversial man.

It is interesting that Jesus did not wait to learn from Nicodemus the reason for his visit. While we do not know for certain what Nicodemus wanted to ask, Jesus clearly revealed what Nicodemus needed to know!

Jesus’ words dealt with the kingdom of God. It was a subject of interest to the Jews, and certainly to a Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews. As one commentator put it:

It is likely that the (unstated) query of Nicodemus had to do with the coming kingdom, something like this: “What would a man of my station have to do to have a part in the kingdom which you are teaching people about.” Evidently Nicodemus thought that because he was a Jew, and more than a Jew, a Pharisee of high public office, there was little left for him to do to associate himself with the coming kingdom.

Dan King, Truth Commentary on John, pg. 56

But Jesus’ words indicated a different reality. One that reveals that there are no distinctions of rank in the kingdom of God; and that the kingdom of God was to be spiritual rather than physical.

Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (vs. 3). In order for one to have a part in the Messianic kingdom, no matter who he is, he would have to be “born again.” This new birth has reference to a new relationship with God through faith in Christ.

Nicodemus missed the point completely, which is understandable. While his mind turned to the obvious absurdity of a physical birth, Jesus’ reference was to a spiritual new birth. Jesus said further, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (vs. 5).

We, as Nicodemus, need to know what is meant by the statement, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Fortunately the meaning is clear, when the entirety of scripture is consulted.

For example, an examination of the first two chapters of Acts reveals that the kingdom (if understood as the subjects of Christ’s rule), and the church are one and the same. We are told that those who received the words of the gospel “were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (Acts 2:41). Water baptism is “for the remission of sins” (vs. 38); to put one “into Christ” (Galatians 3:27); to “wash away sins” (Acts 22:16); and to “save us” (1 Peter 3:21). Such passages reveal clearly that the phrase “born of water” refers to water baptism. One who is baptized “into Christ” is added to the church, or gains entrance to the kingdom of God.

Paul draws the same basic picture in Romans 6, where he writes, “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (vs. 3-4).

The more difficult words of the passage are “and the Spirit”, indicating that one must be born of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven. While John’s baptism was also a baptism in water, an added dimension is revealed here in the work of the Holy Spirit as it pertains to the new birth. As R.C.H. Lenski put it in his commentary, “the former being the divinely chosen earthly medium (necessary on that account), the latter being the regenerating agent who uses that medium.” (The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, 237).

It is amazing that while few would ever deny one must be born of the Spirit in order to see the kingdom, the majority of religious people today deny the necessity of being “born of water.” Denying the necessity of baptism is denying the teaching of the Lord himself. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone necessitates one ignore these plain words of Jesus Christ. “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

The Wind Blows Where It Wishes (John 3:6-8)

The text of John 3 contains a verse that is commonly misunderstood by religious people. It is the eighth verse, which reads, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” As David Lipscomb wrote, “These verses have been ever of great difficulty because men try to get out of them what is not in them.” (G.A. Commentary, John, pg. 46).

A proper understanding of the passage is not difficult so long as the context is observed and respected. The important thing to remember is that Jesus has described the new birth (a spiritual birth), and that Nicodemus was confused by the description because he was thinking of the physical birth (cf. vs. 4).

After affirming the new birth to be something other than a physical birth, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (vs. 3), Jesus continues his explanation of his assertion in verses 6-8. So, the context has Jesus correcting Nicodemus’ mistaken understanding of his teaching. When the verses are understood to be a contrast between physical birth and the new birth, most difficulties in the text are resolved.

In verse 6 the contrast is revealed in plain terms. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Though the text is plain, there are some who seek to read into it things that are not there. One example of this is Albert Barnes, who seeks to infer depraved character in the term flesh, and purity and goodness in the term spirit. His words are telling, “The word flesh here is used as meaning corrupt, defiled, sinful.” (Barnes on the N.T., pg. 203). This is typical of those who seek to defend the theology of Calvin. Anytime the word flesh is used, an attempt is made to define it as the corrupt nature of man. As Barnes states, “And as the parents are wholly corrupt by nature, so their children will be the same” (ibid.).

In fact, such an explanation of the text is neither necessary, nor natural. All our Lord is doing is indicating the difference between fleshly birth and spiritual birth. In doing so, he clearly reveals to Nicodemus that in saying a man must be born again, he is not referring to him entering “a second time into his mother’s womb” (vs. 4); but to the birth of a spiritual man, by or through the work of the Holy Spirit. It is not an inferred argument regarding corruption or purity; it is a plain argument regarding the physical body of man contrasted with his spirit.

This truth is born out by the next sentence uttered by our Lord. “Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again” (vs. 7). If you understand the new birth to be a spiritual one, the ridiculous image of a man entering again his mother’s womb is removed.

Verse eight continues the explanation by the use of an illustration. As the spirit of man is ephemeral, so is the wind. The two are contrasted to again emphasize the difference between the new birth, and physical birth.

Unfortunately, Charismatics have gotten hold of this passage, and confused many. They seek to read some teaching of significance regarding the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ words about the wind. They teach that the Holy Spirit is like the wind, that “blows where it wishes.” From this they infer things such as the miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and His subjective guidance of the Christian.

In fact, a careful reading of the passage shows that the wind is equated with the one who is born of the spirit, not of the Holy Spirit Himself. Again, when the context is considered, the meaning is clear and simple.

Jesus’ explanation to Nicodemus showed him that the spiritual birth was not visible like the physical birth of man. Just as the wind cannot be seen, though we see its effects, the new birth is not seen. It perhaps is not straining the comparison too much to note that we can see the effects of the new birth, as we can with the wind, but the verse is most certainly not talking about the Holy Spirit.

So, while we do not physically see the actual new birth, every child of God evidences the new birth in the life he lives. As Paul wrote, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:11-12). When men see our good works, they see evidence of the new birth, and by such “glorify [our] Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

Answering Nicodemus (John 3:9-15)

Jesus’ explanation of the new birth should have been sufficient for Nicodemus, but it was not. In verse 9, Nicodemus, reacting to Jesus’ declaration, “You must be born again”, answered by asking, “How can these things be?”

It may be helpful to consider Nicodemus’ reluctance to accept Jesus’ teaching in light of his standing as a ruler of the Jews. In chapter 7, John revealed Nicodemus to be one of the Sanhedrin, as he intervened on Jesus’ behalf before that august body. So, Nicodemus was a “ruler of the Jews” (verse 1), who accepted Jesus as a “rabbi” (verse 2), a teacher of the law of Moses. As he was a Pharisee and ruler, it made no sense to him for Jesus to say he had to be born again to enter the kingdom.

What Jesus taught had a surface similarity to the rituals required of Jewish proselytes. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia documents the requirements of a proselyte. He was first questioned, and if his answers indicated a sufficient faith and knowledge of Judaism, he was circumcised. After his circumcision he was immersed (baptized) as a cleansing, and after this immersion he was considered to be a “new man” and was given a new name. (Volume IV, page 2469).

It may be that Jesus’ requirements were hard for Nicodemus to accept because they showed him that he, as a Jewish leader, would have to become as a proselyte. If so, his reasoning was hardly unique. Most Jews had such a misunderstanding of the nature of the Messiah’s kingdom.

Regardless, his words elicited a rebuke from Jesus. “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?” (vs. 10). Jesus again and again had to deal with the ignorance of the Jews as He presented Himself as their Messiah. In fact, such prejudice remained well into the time of the kingdom. The writer of Hebrews had to deal with it as well, and admonished the Jewish Christians to whom he wrote. He found his explanation of Jesus as our High Priest “hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.” (Hebrews 5:11). Their dullness was the result of apathy, and their desire to return to the Law of Moses.

Jesus’ teaching was based in His experience as God’s Son. “We speak what We know and testify what We have seen” (vs. 11). This testimony was often misunderstood and rejected by the Jews, and especially the Jewish leaders. Why? Despite their knowledge of the law, they allowed their presuppositions and prejudices to cloud their thinking. “How will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (vs. 12).

Future actions by Nicodemus indicate that Jesus’ words had at least some effect. As previously indicated, he intervened on the Lord’s behalf before the Sanhedrin (7:50-52). John later records that at the death of Jesus, Nicodemus supplied 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes which were used in the preparation of His body (19:39-42).

In verses 13-15 of the text, Jesus makes two assertions regarding Himself. Verse 13 reads, “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that it, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” The text is fairly difficult to fathom, due to our limited understanding of Jesus’ incarnation on earth. In fact, though the earliest manuscripts contain the final clause of the sentence, “the Son of Man who is in heaven”, some later manuscripts omit the clause. One theory that explains this omission is that scribes could not understand how the Son of Man could be on earth and in heaven at the same time, hence they concluded the final words did not belong in the narrative.

The problem is, as usual, that men seek to limit God. We may not fully understand how Jesus could be both descended from heaven and in heaven at the same time, but the passage affirms that it is so. Regardless, the words clearly identify Him as God.

Another explanation, advocated by David Lipscomb, is that the last clause is an interpolation of John, as the gospel was written after Jesus’ ascension. William Barclay believed the entire verse to be John’s commentary rather than Jesus’ words. Both views are doubtful, as the text is represented as being the actual words Jesus spoke to Nicodemus.

In verses 14 and 15 Jesus refers to the narrative of Numbers 21, where Moses “lifted up” a brazen serpent in the wilderness so that those Israelites who had been bitten by serpents could be saved from death. The account, no doubt, was very familiar to Nicodemus.

Jesus predicts his death with the next words, “Even so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (verse 14). The phrase “lifted up” refers to his crucifixion, not his resurrection. Compare the phrase with John 12:32, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” John explained Jesus’ words in the next verse, “This He said, signifying by what death He would die” (verse 33).

So, in these three verses, Jesus affirms Himself to be both God and Redeemer. Because of these assurances we can know, “that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (verse 15).

(John 3:16-21)

The last portion of our Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus consists of a soliloquy where Jesus clearly distinguishes between those who will be saved, and those who will be condemned.

The text begins with the verse that is perhaps the best known in the Bible. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (3:16).  This verse has been referred to as the gospel in miniature.  It is a wonderful expression of both the extension of God’s grace, and the conditional nature of acceptance into Christ’s kingdom.  All of the verses that follow enlarge upon the basic premise of this one sentence.

For example, verse 17 affirms the purpose of Jesus’ coming.  The purpose of his first incarnation was not to condemn, but to save!  The world was already condemned.  The ubiquity of sin (cf. Romans 3:23) left mankind in a state which compelled Paul to quote the 14th Psalm, “As it is written:  ‘There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one’” (Romans 3:10-12).

Into this decrepit state God inserted His only begotten Son for the express purpose of saving man from his sins.  Other places in scripture explain why it was necessary for Jesus to come, explain the consequence of sin, the value of Christ’s blood, and the way in which grace reconciles God to man.  Here is the simple affirmation, “He who believes in Him is not condemned” (verse 18).  It is sufficient here to know that God loves us, and that His Son’s incarnation makes reconciliation available to all who will believe.

Belief, however, is a condition of that reconciliation.  Verse 18 reveals that clearly, stating:  1) “He who believes in Him in not condemned”; and, 2) “he who does not believe is condemned already.” John’s reasoning is clear.  A refusal to believe in Jesus Christ condemns a man because Jesus Christ came from God the Father.  The Jews had been looking for a Messiah, and now He was in their midst.  He is “the only begotten Son of God.” Again, as in verse 13, Jesus affirms His deity.  This is something the Jews would well understand.  In fact, on another occasion (John 5:18), John records that the Jews tried to kill Jesus, “because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

There are two phrases that are used in this context to describe Jesus.  The “Son of Man” (verses 13, 14) and the “Son of God” (verses 16,17,18).  In these self-affirmations, Jesus clearly revealed His duality as He lived upon the earth.  The Father sent His Son to be God on earth (Matthew 1:23), God incarnate (John 1:14).  Though Jesus remained God while on earth, he also was fully human (Philippians 2:5-8).  Only Jesus could accurately refer to Himself as both the “Son of Man” and the “Son of God.” This is what makes Him unique, and qualifies Him both as sacrifice, High Priest and Mediator (Hebrews 8:1-6).  As Christians, we must confess Jesus both as God and as Man. “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God…” (2 John 9).  Please note that in the specific context of 2 John we have the condemnation of those who “do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.”

One thing to consider here.  In both verse 16 and 18 Jesus refers to Himself as the “only begotten.” Though the word begotten commonly refers to one who is born, this term should not be construed to indicate Jesus having a beginning.  John clearly affirms that Jesus is self-existent, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1:1).  The term differentiates between Jesus and all of us who can call God our Father through adoption (cf. Romans 8:12-17).  Divinity is suggested by the word “begotten” — it is not by the word “adopted.”

Finally, Jesus introduces the concept of light and darkness to describe the difference between those who respond to God’s grace and those who do not.  Jesus is the light that “has come into the world” (verse 19).  Evil men who seek to hide their evil deeds hate that light, and do not “come to the light, lest [their] deeds should be exposed” (verse 20).  However, the one who is righteous in his deeds has nothing to fear from the light.  When exposed, his deeds are revealed to be “done in God” (verse 21).

Whether it is described as coming to the light or faith, a man must respond to God’s gift of grace.  God sent His Son to die for all men, but not all are saved.  It is required that we love the light.  We must believe in Jesus Christ.  As He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

Members of the various “Charismatic” or “Holiness” faiths, who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, are surprisingly divided over the purpose and timing of Holy Spirit baptism. For instance, the United Pentecostals believe that Holy Spirit baptism is a part of the “new birth” (being born of the water and the spirit – John 3:5). They teach that one can not be saved until he has been baptized in the Holy Spirit and in water. However, the Assemblies of God teach that Holy Spirit baptism is a “second work of grace” that comes after salvation.

Those who see the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a “second work of grace” believe that it is the means by which a Christian moves on to a higher level of spiritual life. As some have put it, without Holy Spirit Baptism, “You are an eight cylinder engine firing on four, or possibly six at the most. You are just not quite there” (Charismatic Chaos, John F. MacArthur, Jr., p. 249).

As such, Holy Spirit Baptism is something that is earnestly sought after by these individuals:

“Charismatics generally believe that after someone becomes a Christian, he or she must seek diligently for the baptism of the Spirit. Those who get this baptism also experience various phenomena, such as speaking in tongues, feelings of euphoria, visions, and emotional outbursts of various kinds. Those who have not experienced the baptism and its accompanying phenomena are not considered Spirit-filled; that is, they are immature, carnal, disobedient, or otherwise incomplete Christians” (ibid, pp. 26-27).

The claims and teachings of charismatics have had an impact upon the way some people view various aspects of the Holy Spirit, especially the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In this article we will examine what the Bible has to say about Holy Spirit Baptism.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit Was A Promise

A careful reading of the Bible will show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise, not a command.

“Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high’” (Luke 24:46-49).

“And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, ‘which,’ He said, ‘you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now… But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth’” (Acts 1:4-5, 8).

Promises are to be enjoyed, but they can not be obeyed. Commands are to be obeyed. Water baptism was a command which man had to choose to obey (Acts 10:48, 22:16). Men never chose to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is the Administrator of Holy Spirit Baptism

To be baptized means to be immersed, thus the baptism of the Holy Spirit means to be immersed in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the administrator (the one who does the baptizing). He is the element (that into which one is baptized). The Scriptures make it clear that Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is first mentioned by John the Baptist. “I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’” (John 1:33). The Father told John that he would recognize the Messiah when he saw the Spirit descending upon Him. Just as John baptized men with water, Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11).

Before His ascension, Jesus told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit and were thus endued with power from on high. This occurred in Acts chapter two. When the apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a loud sound as of a mighty rushing wind attracted a crowd of Jews together at the Temple and they were astonished as they heard the apostles speaking in different languages (Acts 2:1-12). Peter said that what they were witnessing was the fulfillment of a prophecy made by Joel: “But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh…’” (Acts 2:16-17). Peter went on to tell them that the resurrected Christ was the one who had poured fourth the Holy Spirit. “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:32-33). Thus Jesus was the One who baptized with the Holy Spirit.

This Promise Was For the Apostles

Gaining a proper understanding of the Scriptures requires us to take note of who is speaking and unto whom they are speaking. Jesus never promised that all men would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. This promise was made to the apostles, not to all of mankind (Acts 1:2-5).

Some people object to this conclusion by claiming that John the Baptist taught that Jesus would baptize all men with the Holy Spirit. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11).

John was speaking to a mixed group of individuals on this occasion, some of whom would receive the baptism of fire (Hell, v. 12), and some of whom would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John was not talking about who would receive these baptisms, but who would administer these baptisms: John baptized with water and Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

We previously noted that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the apostles in Acts chapter two was a fulfillment of a prophecy made by Joel. Some contend that the statement in Joel’s prophecy, “I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh” (Acts 2:17) means that all believers will receive Holy Spirit baptism.

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out in such a way that it affected all flesh (men and women, young and old, Jew and Gentile). Some received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit in a limited measure: prophesying, seeing visions and dreams, etc. However, these gifts were made possible by the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 8:18). All believers certainly benefited from the work that the Spirit did through the apostles, but they did not receive the Spirit in the same measure as did the apostles. Only the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit.

The Purpose of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

As we have pointed out, some believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is essential for man’s salvation. Others claim that it is the means by which one becomes a complete Christian. The Bible, however, teaches that the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was to empower or equip the apostles to do their work (Luke 24:46-49, Acts 1:8). This was done when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem in Acts chapter two.

After being baptized with the Holy Spirit, the apostles had the ability to:

1. Reveal divine truth regarding Christ, His resurrection, and the conditions for entrance into His kingdom (John 14:26, 16:12-13).
2. Perform signs and wonders to confirm this truth (Acts 2:4-6, 33, 43).
3. Impart spiritual gifts to others (Acts 8:18).

According to the Bible, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was the means by which the apostles were equipped to do their work. Jesus never indicated that the office of an apostle was to be passed on from the original twelve. None of the apostles ever taught that men were to take their place. Since the apostles occupied a temporary role in the Lord’s church, there is no need for the baptism of the Holy Spirit to take place today.

What About the Household of Cornelius?

Those at the household of Cornelius experienced a baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). Does this prove that such was a common occurrence in the First Century and, thus, should happen to all true believers today?

The baptism of the Holy Spirit that occurred on Pentecost equipped the apostles, but it also served as a sign to the unbelievers who were present in Jerusalem. It attracted their attention and gave credibility to the message that was preached by the apostles.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit that occurred at the household of Cornelius was also a sign, but the unbelievers in this case were Peter and the six Jewish Christians who were with him.

Notice three things that Peter did when the Holy Spirit fell upon these Gentiles:

1. He recognized it as that which had happened to the apostles on Pentecost (Acts 11:15).
2. He identified it as Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 11:16).
3. He immediately concluded that these Gentiles were appropriate candidates for water baptism (Acts 10:47-48, 11:17).

The baptism of the Holy Spirit that occurred at the house of Cornelius was a special occurrence for a special purpose; unique to that account of conversion. It was just one of several extraordinary things that God did to get Peter and the rest of the Jewish Christians to understand that the Gentiles were to receive the gospel (an angel appeared to Cornelius and told him to send for Peter; a vision appeared to Peter three times, in which Peter was admonished not to call that which God had cleansed “common” or “unclean;” the Holy Spirit told Peter to go with the Gentiles to the house of Cornelius, doubting nothing).

Conclusion

As was noted in our study, some people believe that those who have not received Holy Spirit baptism are “immature, carnal, disobedient, or otherwise incomplete Christians.” Paul did not encourage Christians to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. He said that “all Scripture” was the means by which “the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17).

Holy Spirit baptism served its purpose. We can benefit from the work that the Holy Spirit did through the apostles when we study the New Testament, but we were never promised that we would receive the Holy Spirit in the same measure in which it was received by the apostles.

"I was wondering since Campbell was baptized by a Baptist how it is possible we have evolved to an understanding it is for remission of sins?  Understanding Campbell did not come to such conclusion till eight years after the fact and was never re-baptized for remission of sin. Was he too unsaved?" 

Reply: First, by reading pages 396-398 of Robert Richardson’s biography, Memoirs of A. Campbell, Vol. I, our querist might see Mr. Campbell’s view of the purpose of baptism when he was baptized by Matthias Luce.

Second, how one assesses the design of water baptism is not to be determined by a process of evolution.  Are not the Scriptures clear enough?

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16).

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

"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 like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21).

When we show an individual the passages cited above, are they sufficient to lead him to "an understanding (that baptism) is for (the) remission of sins"?  If not, are those Scriptures sufficient to lead him to "an understanding that repentance is for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38)?  Does our inquirer ever wonder how "we have evolved to an understanding" that repentance is "for the remission of sins"?  We do not believe that repentance is mandatory because it is likely that the one who baptized Mr. Campbell believed it essential.  We believe it is necessary to repent because that is what the Savior said (Lk. 13:3; 24:47).  So, why not the same with respect to baptism?

Are the Scriptures cited sufficient to show one that he must believe before he can be saved (Mk. 16:16)?  If those verses are able to lead one to understand that he must believe and repent in order to be forgiven and saved, why are they not complete enough to teach him that he must be baptized, too?

Therefore, away with this talk about "our" having "evolved" to an understanding of baptism, as though it were something that "we," as Christians, gradually developed and adopted.  What was heard, understood, and obeyed in Acts 2 ("they that gladly received his word were baptized" for the remission of sins – 2:41) is as clear today as it was then (Acts 8:5, 12, 35-39; 18:8).  It can be obeyed today by an understanding heart, one that knows the point and purpose of baptism as assuredly as they knew it when they first heard it proclaimed in the first century (Matt. 13:15, 23; Rom. 6:3-6, 17, 18).

Yes, I know that error has darkened the counsel of God from time to time, but the light of truth always has shone through to honest hearts (Acts 17:11, 32-34; Eph. 3:4; 1Thess. 2:13).

"I was wondering since Campbell was baptized by a Baptist how it is possible we have evolved to an understanding it is for remission of sins?"  Suppose Campbell had been sprinkled with water by a Catholic priest?  Would that make one today, who is content with the Scriptures, slow to believe that baptism is immersion?

Third, we are asked if Alexander Campbell was saved if he never was baptized for the remission of sins.  Let me ask, "If Campbell did not repent for the remission of sins," would he be saved?  Again, either way, what does this have to do with what the Bible teaches?  Does Campbell’s eternal destiny change what the word of God says a man must do in order to be saved?  No, not one bit. (For further study see my book, The Christ, The Cross, And The Church, 109-111, 121-166).

Dear Don,

Thank you for asking for the facts about the decision I shared at the Spring Festival of Worship and Praise. My opening comment was "I have a long story to tell, but we do not have time for a long story, so I will make it short."  Standing before the congregation I announced my desire to publicly confess Jesus as my savior and Lord and demonstrate my commitment to him through believer’s baptism.  Most, if not all, concluded I was saying the Lord saved me then and there, and in the context of Bro. Hill’s message, that conclusion is understandable.  However, the issue I wanted to settle Sunday night was the matter of obedience in baptism following my profession of faith made a number of years ago, after a long struggle with doubt about my initial profession of faith as a nine year old boy.  On several occasions as a teenager and young adult, I experienced times of doubt as to whether my decision as a child was legitimate.  In my late twenties, I decided to settle the issue by asking for the Lord’s forgiveness for my sin as though I had never asked him before.  In essence, driving a spiritual stake in the ground to serve as a definitive marker in my spiritual life.  What I did not do following that experience is follow through with a public profession and baptism.  So for nearly twenty years, I have lived under a cloud of disobedience at the point of baptism.  On Sunday night, the Lord convicted me about this and I decided to wait no longer to declare my faith in Christ by following him in baptism. I am sure, in retrospect, I could have communicated my intention more clearly.  I hope my explanation is helpful to you.  Please feel free to call me if you have further questions. I appreciate your prayers for me and JFBC (Jasper [Alabama] First Baptist Church–LRH) as we seek the Lord’s will for the future.

Yours in Christ,
James

Don,

James was not a Baptist for twenty years, for one cannot be a Baptist without baptism.  James was not a member of a Baptist church for the past twenty years.  What of all those he baptized?  Is their baptism valid since they were not baptized by a Baptist preacher?  (If James says he was a Baptist, then every unbaptized believer in the world would be a Baptist!)

He said, "I have lived under a cloud of disobedience at the point of baptism."  Since this fellow allegedly was saved twenty years ago, if he had remained in disobedience with respect to "a public profession and baptism," would he have been saved anyway?  If not, what becomes of the doctrine of perseverance, or "once saved, always saved"?  If he would have been saved without ever being baptized, then one may die in disobedience to Christ and still be saved.  Here are some passages which address the issue:

1. When the Lord comes again, he will take vengeance on them "that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."  The disobedient shall be "punished with everlasting destruction" (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

2. Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him," not to those who disobey him (Heb. 5:8, 9).  "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).  Since James was not obeying him, Jesus was not his Savior.

3. "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (Jn. 3:36).  Thus, if James had died in his "disobedience," he would not have been saved.  However, Baptist doctrine says he would have been saved even if he never had obeyed the Lord in baptism.  How does that fit with what the Lord said – "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16)? 

4. James said, "I decided to settle the issue by asking for the Lord’s forgiveness for my sin…."

   So, for twenty years, by his own testimony, he was living in sin because he had not been baptized.  If James had died in sin, before he asked "for the Lord’s forgiveness for (his) sin," would he have been saved?  If not, we again ask what becomes of the doctrine of once saved, always saved?  If he would have been saved in his sin, he contradicts the plain statements of the Bible.  Jesus said that if we die in our sins, we cannot go and be with him (Jn. 8:21, 24).  Let James tell us his spiritual condition before God as an unforgiven, unbaptized sinner.  James, were you saved during that time or not?

5. If James was saved all those years in disobedience, without being baptized, he was saved before the Lord said he would be.  As noted above, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."  Note other passages to the same effect.  (a) "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).  (b) "And now why tarriest thou?  Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). 

6. As the passage just cited says, "And now why tarriest thou?"  Bible baptism was always immediate.  (a) Those in Acts 2 who "gladly received the word" which told them to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins," were baptized "that same day," not twenty days or twenty years later, but "that same day" (Acts 2:38, 41).  (b) The Ethiopian treasurer was baptized the very moment he confessed his faith in Jesus as the Son of God (Acts 8:35-39).  There was no delay.  Philip did not tell him to wait until he could make a "public profession" of faith and then be baptized.  He did not wait until he could give his testimony before a local church and see if they would accept him.  No, he was baptized right then.  (c) The same thing is true with respect to the jailer and his household in Philippi (Acts 16:25-34).  At the inconvenient hour of midnight, he heard the word of the Lord and was baptized "the same hour of the night."  There was no delay.  There was no waiting until he could give his testimony before a local church.  (d) So, the question of Acts 22:16 meets us again and again, "And now why tarriest thou?  Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

7. James asks for prayer for the Baptist Church of which he is a member.  Where does the Bible authorize a Baptist Church, let alone pray for one?  There were no Baptist Churches prior to 1600 A.D.  There is no reference to a Baptist Church or to Baptist Churches, in any literature written before 1600 A.D.  The Bible certainly never mentions one.  Men and women were members of the church, the body of Christ in the New Testament, but no one was ever member of a Baptist Church (Eph. 1:22, 23; 2:16; 3:6; 4:4; 5:30-32).  So, why should we pray for an institution about which the Bible says nothing?

8. James signs his letter, "Yours in Christ."  One is not "in Christ" until he is baptized, for we are "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27).  So, for twenty years, without being baptized, James was not in Christ.  If James was saved during the twenty years before he was baptized, he was saved outside of Christ, but that cannot be true for salvation is "in Christ" (2 Tim. 2:10).

Did James think himself to be saved "in Christ" before he was baptized?  Let him declare.  If he says, "yes," he contradicts the Scriptures which plainly show that one is "baptized into Jesus Christ."

If he says, "no, I was not saved in Christ before I was baptized," he denies his salvation prior to baptism!  Let him tell us which it was.

Larry

Larry, my wife and I often have discussed the topic of denominational baptism.   We were both baptized in a Baptist church.  At a later time, I came to the understanding that they (the Baptists) were in error, but my wife, on the other hand, feels that she was baptized for all the right reasons.  Although they teach faith only, she says she was baptized for the remission of her sins.  I told her that you could not be taught wrong and be baptized right.

Could you help me with any information on why denominational baptizing  is wrong.  I’m still a babe in Christ.  I’m learning, and it’s really frustrating when I can’t counter someone’s questions on Bible topics.  Thank You very much.

Dear Bob,

Thank you for your kind comments.

I am sure you have told your wife that no Baptist preacher would have baptized her “for the remission of sins.”  No Baptist preacher would have taught her the truth on the nature and purpose of water baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).  It is the truth, not error, that makes one free (John 8:32; 17:17).   One must obey the truth “from the heart,” that is, understanding what God has done for us and what he requires of us (Matthew 13:15, 23; Romans 6:17, 18).

Generally, one who is to be baptized by a Baptist preacher must confess that he has received Christ by faith and that God has heard his prayer for forgiveness.  That is what a penitent believer usually confesses or acknowledges before a Baptist preacher will baptize him.

However, a penitent believer in Acts 22:16 was told, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).  No Baptist preacher would ever tell anyone what Saul was told.  If a Baptist preacher saw one praying, as Saul prayed, and saw one who had repented and was sorrowful for his sins, and who believed in the Lord, as Saul did, he would say that man was saved.  No Baptist preacher would ever tell him what Saul was told – “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

If this is doubted, she might ask the preacher who baptized her if one is forgiven and saved before baptism.  She might also ask that same preacher if he understood that she was being baptized “for the remission of sins.”  His answer will be, “no.”

Baptist baptism makes one a member of a Baptist Church.  The “one baptism” of the New Testament never made anyone a member of a Baptist Church.  One is baptized “into one body,” the body of Christ, the body of the saved, the kingdom of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13; John 3:3, 5; Ephesians 2:16; 4:4; 5:25, 26).  Since your dear wife’s baptism put her into a Baptist Church and gave her fellowship with the Baptists, she did not receive the baptism of the New Testament, for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ never enrolled one into a Baptist Church and never gave him fellowship with Baptists.  (There were no Baptists or Baptist Churches in the first century.  In fact, there is no record of a Baptist Church, or of Baptist Churches, in any literature, either sacred or secular, written before 1600 A.D.)

Suppose an infant was immersed by a Catholic priest “for the remission of sins.”  Would that baptism be scriptural?   Even though it was for the right purpose, and even though it was an immersion, the baptism would not be scriptural, for it was not preceded by faith and repentance, nor was the baby a sinner in need of forgiveness.  Thus, it would not be baptism “in the name of” (by the authority of) Jesus Christ.  Likewise, in your wife’s case.  Though she was immersed, her baptism was not in harmony with that of the New Testament.  Her baptism was not, therefore, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

If your wife can see these facts, perhaps they will help her.  “Holler back” if you have further questions.

Brotherly, Larry

Mr. Hafley,

Last night our church members were knocking on doors in Meadowlake Village carrying out the great commission of personal soul winning. I don’t know if you are familiar with this or not? One of our young ladies said she was confronted by a Church of Christ Cultist on Osage St., and I quickly thought of you. I just wanted you to know that this particular young lady has more of the Spirit of God in her little finger than you ever will. This young girl has given her heart and her life for the cause of Christ. What a shame someone so positive as her would have to cross paths with someone so negative and combative as you! Where is your fruit? What have you done for Jesus? All you know how to do is attack and belittle people. This young lady, Jennifer Spell is her name, goes out several times a week to try to reach the lost for Christ. How many doors have you knocked? How many people have come to know Christ because of you? I’m not talking about baptizing someone into your church, I’m talking about a real conversion like the one Jennifer had at an early age and is now producing fruit. Jennifer loves the Lord and as she seeks God’s will for her life I pray that she doesn’t encounter any more stumbling blocks like the one she did last night.

Tim Cryer, Victory Baptist, 1800 Archer, Baytown, TX, 77521, (281) 421-4862

Dear Tim,

Thank you for your letter. I appreciate the fact that you will not allow anyone to spiritually abuse one of your brethren or sisters. The Bible teaches that we ought to hold up the hands of those who teach the truth and neither endorse nor support those who would speak against the word of God (Prov. 17:15; 2 Tim. 1:8; 2 Jn. 9-11). Though I wish you had chosen to address our spiritual and scriptural differences by appealing to the word of God rather than giving vent to your feelings toward me, I understand your desire to defend those whom you believe have been unfairly and unjustly attacked and belittled (Acts 23:1-5).

Tim, you have charged me with a number of evil and sinful things. You imply that I am not familiar with "the great commission soul winning," that I am "a Church of Christ cultist," that in a "negative and combative" manner I "confronted" your dear sister, Jennifer Spell, that I have very little if any of the Spirit of God in me, that all I know "how to do is attack and belittle people," that I do very little to convert the lost, that those I do convert are not truly converted, that I do little for Jesus and produce no fruit, and am a "stumbling block" to those who do. Given the seriousness of those accusations, I bid you, as Paul did King Agrippa when he was being accused, to "hear me patiently" as I respond (Acts 26:3).

First, however, let me say that the harsh, critical, and judgmental tone of your letter surprises me. I thought you encouraged folks not to speak in such an accusatory fashion to others as they seek to convert them. Now, I do not know what Jennifer and her friend related to you, but, honestly, before God, nothing was said in the nature and manner with which you have responded to me. No abrasive or unkind words were exchanged between us. Neither of us raised our voices or spoke without a kindly smile. More about that later, but I think that Jennifer and her friend, who witnessed and took part in the exchange, will tell you that nothing cutting or unkind was said by any of us. Did we disagree? Assuredly. Were we "attacking and belittling" one another? Absolutely not!

Tim, as the record of our past correspondence will show, I have never referred to you in a demeaning manner. I have never made personal charges against your character. I have never impugned your motives or slandered your work and efforts as you contend for what you believe to be right. I have documented, with Scripture, our differences and have shown that your teaching does not accord or comply with what the Bible teaches, but I have never spoken against you as you have against me, criticizing and condemning me without providing proof to substantiate your cruel and caustic portrait of my life and character. Again, since you did not witness my study with Jennifer and her friend, your "negative and combative" words, attacking and belittling me, are all the more shocking.

Now, if that is the path you choose to pursue, if you wish to fire back at me as you have done, you may have the field to yourself. I will not return in kind; I will not react in that way. However, if you wish to reason with me, to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine," then "I am set for the defense of the gospel," and will study with you (2 Tim. 4:2; Phil. 1:17).

Second, I would encourage you to "hear me patiently," especially since you were not a witness to the friendly conversation that I had with Jennifer and her friend. Frankly, I can hardly believe that they painted such a picture of me as you described, but if they did, that is their right, and they will have to give account for it (Eccl. 12:14; Rom. 2:16; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10).

Due to the seriousness of the charges and their implications against my soul, I shall give as precise and detailed account of our conversation as I am able.

"Carrying Out The Great Commission"

Before I relate the amiable meeting with Jennifer and her friend, I want to comment on your statement that your "church members" were "carrying out the great commission." Let me assure you, Tim, that I fully support anyone and everyone who faithfully is "carrying out the great commission." I have spent the major portion of my life in that grand assignment. However, let us note the principle items set forth in that "great commission." Surely, if we are going to carry it out," we must know what it entails and convey it as it was delivered (Jude 3). Let us note, therefore, the commission as Jesus gave it. After doing so, let us be sure that we are "carrying out" exactly and precisely what he charged or commissioned us to do. We must do this with great care, for the curses of heaven are pronounced against all who would in any way alter or tamper with it (Matt. 28:20; Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Jn. 9).

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo,I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt. 28:18-20).

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:15, 16).

"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Lk. 24:47).

That is the "great commission" as given by the Lord. From it we learn a number of salient facts. First, Jesus Christ has all authority, all power (Matt. 28:18). Neither you, nor I, nor the Pope has any power or authority to legislate and prescribe the will of God. Second, it is for "every creature," every person, in "all nations" (Acts 10:35). Third, we learn that men must be taught (Jn. 6:45). They must hear the gospel before they can believe, repent, and be baptized, for "faith cometh by hearing" the word of God (Rom. 10:17). This, of course, excludes infants since they are incapable of hearing and believing. Adult "men and women" were the subjects of the great commission as first century disciples carried it out (Acts 8:12). Fourth, we see that those who hear the gospel must believe it before they can be saved and forgiven (Mk. 16:16). Fifth, they must repent before they can receive the remission or their sins (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38). Sixth, one must be baptized before he can be saved, for Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

When Catholicism attempts to insert infants into the process, we simply point them to the words of Jesus in the "great commission" and insist that they are not the subjects under consideration. Likewise, Tim, when Jews and Muslims claim salvation apart from faith in Christ, you and I cite them to the words of Jesus in the "great commission," heaven’s declaration of independence from sin. Too, when some say that one need not be baptized in order to be saved, we simply cite the words of the Savior, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

In Luke 24:47, Jesus said that "repentance and remission of sins" were to be preached in his name, "beginning at Jerusalem." From Jerusalem in Acts 2, we learn how "repentance and remission of sins" were preached in his name. Peter, speaking as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance "said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (2:38).

There is more, Tim, but that, in essence, is the "great commission." In all kindness, but with all candor, those dear ladies who came to my door did not come with the same message given by the Son of God. As proof, I now relate to you the conversation we had on my front porch. You will note that what they told me was not in harmony with what Jesus said in the great commission.

About That Front Porch Exchange

Two nice, friendly ladies greeted me at my door. As I stepped out on the porch, one of them, perhaps it was Jennifer, asked me if I knew I was saved, and if I had asked Jesus to come into my heart as my personal Savior. I replied that I believed I did, but that I was not sure what she meant since the Bible no where speaks of asking Jesus to come into our hearts as our personal Savior. She smiled and said, "Oh, yes, there is," and quickly turned to Romans 10:9, 10-"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation."

I explained that the passage did not say we should ask Jesus into our hearts, but that it said we must both believe and confess Christ. Those are two things the sinner must do, not just one, but, I noted, there is more that one must do. I then said, "Let us turn to Acts 2 and see that in addition to believing and confessing Christ that one must also repent." The lady with a long, slender copy of the New Testament opened to Acts 2. (Privately, I noted that the publishers had highlighted verses 37 and 38.) We read the passage together. "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Before I could comment, the other lady said, "I don’t believe we have to be baptized to be saved." I pointed to the passage again and said that it says we must repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins." I then asked them to turn to Acts 22:16, and I read it aloud, too. "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Immediately, with a kind smile and a twinkle in her eye, the lady said, "The thief on the cross was saved, and he wasn’t baptized." I said, "No, he was not, but if we do not have to be baptized because the thief was not baptized, do I have to believe and confess that God raised Christ from the dead?" "What if," I continued, "I argued that since the thief was saved without being baptized, I also may be saved without confessing that God raised Jesus from the dead because the thief never made such a confession? Would you ladies say I was saved if I would not confess that God raised Christ from the dead" (Rom. 10:9, 10)?

The lady said, "Oh, I believe we need to be baptized." I said, "Yes, Ma’am, but that was not the gist of the point you were making." I then reminded her that she had contended that since the thief on the cross was not baptized that we need not be baptized to be saved, either. I repeated the parallel argument, "Now, if that is true, and if the thief was saved without being baptized, may we today be saved without confessing that God has raised Christ from the dead since the thief did not confess that, either."

The ladies, it appeared to me, were not sure how to answer the reply to their argument on the thief on the cross. With that, the ladies turned and were gone. As we parted, all of us expressed mutual good wishes with the hope that we each would continue to study the Bible so we could go to heaven when we die. The counter point I made to their argument went unanswered.

Tim, if you would like to answer the argument I made, I would be happy to consider it. If you have an answer, surely you will not leave me in error. If you have the truth, and I am teaching false doctrine, I beg you to show the fallacy of my reasoning from the Scriptures. I am sure the ladies would like for you to show me the answer since they were not able to do so. Will you give me your answer to the argument, Tim?

I was careful to speak quietly and kindly. I believe those ladies will tell you that my manner was not out of place, and that I was not ugly or unkind to them in any way. There were no accusations or recriminations between us. There were no frowns, nor was there any "body language" that indicated the least bit of rudeness or unfriendliness. Before God, Tim, that is the truth. That is what happened on my front porch, on or about June 20^th, 2003.

Coming "To Know Christ"

Tim, you asked, "How many people have come to know Christ because of you?" Since Paul said that it is God, and not we ourselves, who "giveth the increase," I think we may safely ignore the question with respect to numbers (1 Cor. 3:6). Let us, rather, focus on the issue of how one comes "to know Christ."

First, we both agree that one must know the Lord before he can be saved. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (Jn. 17:3). Second, knowing God requires our obedience to the gospel. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death" (Jn. 8:51-Note that "life eternal" in 17:3 is equal to "never see death"). "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Heb. 5:9-Observe that "eternal salvation" is equivalent to "life eternal" and "never see death" mentioned in the two previous passages).

Therefore, if I would come "to know Christ" and have "life eternal," I must "keep (his) saying," and "obey him," for only those who do so are said to have "eternal life." Further, the Holy Spirit said, "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments" (1 Jn. 2:3). I cannot "know Christ" and come to him if I do not keep his commandments: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 Jn. 2:4). Only those who "keep" or obey his commandments truly may say that they "know the Lord." Only those who "keep" or obey his commandments truly may know that his love has saved them: "But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him" (1Jn. 2:5).

One of the Lord’s commandments is that men repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 10:48). Peter "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." That baptism "in the name of the Lord" is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 10:48). Or, as Ananias told Saul of Tarsus, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Tim, do you do as the apostle Peter did? Do you "command" men to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins? Remember, "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 Jn. 2:4).

"About Baptizing Someone Into (My) Church"

Tim, you spoke of some who are not truly converted and "about (my) baptizing someone into (my) church." Let me address that. First, I do not have a church. It is not mine; it is the Lord’s. He built and purchased it with his own blood (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28). May I say with all kindness that the church he built and bought with his precious blood was not a Protestant denomination. It was neither Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, nor any other kind, for those churches were unknown before the 17^th century. In fact, there is no mention of any Baptist Church of any kind in any literature written before 1600 A.D. However, we can read of "the churches of Christ" (Rom. 16:16).

Second, no one is ever baptized into the Lord’s church who remains unconverted (Acts 2:38-41, 47; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:16; 3:6; 5:23). The Lord does the adding to his body when he saves and sanctifies them "with the washing of water by the word" (Acts 2:38-41, 47; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 5:26).

Third, let us see what a "real conversion" includes. Certainly, we agree that one cannot be saved apart from the death of Jesus (Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19). The endless love and boundless grace of God is the basis of all hope for eternal salvation (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:5, 8, 9). "Real conversion" requires that we not simply say, "Lord, Lord," but that we actually do his will. We learn this by comparing Matthew 7:21; 18:3; and John 3:3, 5. In these passages, the object is to "enter into the kingdom of heaven." Jesus says that one must "do the will" of the Father, that one must be converted and become as a little child, and that one must be born again. In other words, with child-like obedience, one must consent to do the will of God before he can be converted, changed, or born again.

If one has not done the will of God, that is, if he has not done what the Lord says he must do, he cannot be converted, changed, or "born again." He cannot enter the kingdom. "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say" (Lk. 6:46)? "He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life" (Jn. 3:36, ASV, NASB).

In Acts 3:19, the sinner is told to "repent…and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." In Acts 11:24, some "believed, and turned unto the Lord." In Acts 26:20, Paul said that men should "repent and turn to God." Observe, please, that "turning to the Lord," follows both belief and repentance. When one believes and when one repents, he has not yet been turned to the Lord, for Scripture says there is something following both repentance and faith which is called, "turning to the Lord." They "believed, and turned." Their turning or conversion did not occur when they believed, for after they believed, they "turned to the Lord." Their conversion did not occur when they repented, for they were urged to "repent and turn." What is it that follows both faith and repentance that results in one’s conversion and in his "turning to the Lord"?

"Repent…and be converted that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19).

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16).

"Repent, and be baptized…for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).

Tim, if that is not a scriptural description of "real conversion," please explain why it is not. Surely, Tim, if I am not truly converting people but am only "baptizing them into my church," as you imply, please point out to me how I have misused the Scriptures so that I may understand what "real conversion" is. Will you do that for me, please?

About That "Church of Christ Cultist" on Osage St.

Tim, this is one of the nicer things you said about me, though I know you did not mean it to be so. In general, a cultist is defined as one who "shows devotion" to a religious cause. Indeed, I am devoted to the church of the Lord, the one we can read about in the Bible. Since it is possible to "despise the church of God," it is also possible for men to love the church, the blood bought, Spirit filled, heaven bound body of the Son of God (1 Cor. 11:22; Eph. 5:25).

Through the years, many like yourself, have attacked and belittled the church–"concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against" (Acts 28:22). Still, it remains as "the pillar and ground of the truth," "a spiritual house," "a glorious church" (1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:5). Jesus is the Savior of his body, the church (Eph. 5:23). Tim, I would just as soon be the man who drove the spear into the body of the Son of God as he hung there, bleeding and dying upon the cross, as I would to be the man who would denigrate and castigate his spiritual body, the church. If you feel comfortable speaking of the Lord’s church in that manner, indirectly calling it a "cult," that will be your decision. As for me, I dare not (Cf. principle of Acts 10:15).

When Saul of Tarsus persecuted the church, he persecuted Christ (Acts 8:1, 3; 9:5). Likewise, when you (or any other man) speak against the church or body of Christ, you are persecuting the Savior. (Cf. Ex. 16:2, 8, 9-those who murmured against Moses, murmured against God).

Before I close this section, did one of the ladies tell you "she was confronted by a Church of Christ Cultist on Osage St.," or are those your words? Your letter indicates that one of the ladies said it ("One of our young ladies said she was confronted by a Church of Christ Cultist on Osage St.") I am curious. Did she actually say that to you in those words, or is that your description?

About My Being A "Stumbling Block"

Of course, no one should be an impediment or a hindrance to those who are sincerely striving to go to heaven and who are seeking to save others also (Prov. 28:10; Rom. 14:13; 1 Cor. 8:11-13; Thess 2:16; 2 Thess. 3:1, 2). So, if I am guilty of being a "stumbling block," I should be rebuked. However, Tim, you cited no proof of your allegation. What did I do or say that was a "stumbling block"? Be specific. Cite Scripture. Show how I was a "stumbling block" to the young ladies.

(1) Was I a "stumbling block" when I gave them passages from the word of God to read? (2) Was I a "stumbling block" when I sincerely and kindly challenged their conclusions and understandings, as described above? (3) Was I a "stumbling block" when I told those young ladies that there is no passage in the Bible which tells us to say a little prayer and ask Jesus to come into our hearts as our personal Savior? (Since there is no such passage, how was I a "stumbling block" to them?) (4) Was I a "stumbling block" when I had them to read Acts 2:37, 38 and 22:16-"Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said to them, Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit….And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name"?

Tim, please connect points numbered "3" and "4" above. In point number 3, I told them the truth. Contrary to their assertion, there is no such passage. In point number 4, I simply had them to read the word of God. Think about that, Tim. How does that make me a "stumbling block"? Now, had the situation been reversed, then, yes, I would have been a "stumbling block" to them. For example, if there were a verse which says that in order to be saved, "thou shalt simply pray and ask the Lord to come into thine heart," I would have been a "stumbling block" when I denied it. Too, if the Bible said, "Repent and be baptized because you already have been forgiven," I certainly would have been a "stumbling block" had I denied that and said the very opposite. But, that is not what occurred, is it? No, I spoke the truth and tried to correct their sincerely held error, yet you revile me as a "stumbling block" because I corrected their incorrect assumption and cited plain passages of Scripture.

Tim, if my insistence on obedience to the word of God makes me a "stumbling block" to your cause, then, yes, I confess, I am, and always will be, a "stumbling block."

A Plea For An Open Bible Study

Both of us cannot be right before God. If I am teaching a "works" oriented salvation, as defined in Ephesians 2:8, 9, and Titus 3:5, I cannot be saved, nor can those who hear me be saved (1 Tim. 4:16). On the other hand, if you are not submitting to God’s plan of making men righteous, then you are in danger of the judgment as are those whom you are misleading (Rom. 10:1-3; 2 Jn. 9). "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" (Matt. 15:14).

Accordingly, Tim, I want to extend to you a cordial invitation to address the church which meets at the corner of Pruett and Lobit here in Baytown. We would be happy for you to come and express what you believe the Bible teaches, especially concerning how men are saved by grace through faith, or any other Bible subject in which you believe we need instruction. Or, if you prefer to show them what an awful, sorry fellow I am, that will be fine, too. The church needs to know if they are harboring and protecting such a man as you described me to be (2 Tim. 2:16-18; 4:14; 3 Jn. 9).

I suggest that you come and speak to us on the following topic:

The Scriptures teach that salvation is by grace through faith alone, before and without water baptism. (Though one should be baptized, he should be baptized after he is saved, not before.)

I know I dare not ask, but if it would be agreeable, I would be happy to come and speak to you and your brethren at Victory Baptist on this subject:

The Scriptures teach that water baptism, to the penitent believer, is "for the remission of sins."

Tim, even if I am not welcome to address your brethren, you are still welcome to speak to us on the themes noted above, or on any other teaching wherein you believe us to be in error. We have nothing to hide and are open and receptive to those who would instruct us in "the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26). It should not be difficult to find a mutually agreeable time for you to speak to us. (Should you, Tim, not feel qualified for such an effort, we will grant the same privilege to other evangelists, pastors, or teachers at Victory Baptist.)

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Larry Ray Hafley

(P.S. Copies are being sent to Jennifer Spell, Victory Baptist, and to the members at Pruett & Lobit.)

"I have surely seen the oppression of my people," said God to Moses while the bush burned. Thus begins the greatest rescue operation ever conducted on Earth as thousands upon thousands of slaves are removed from one nation to begin a journey to the land of promise.

The Bible contains a number of type and antitype situations. Isaac is a type of the antitype Jesus, as his father was willing to let his only son die. The salvation of Noah and his family through water is a type of the water baptism involved in the salvation of modern men (1 Peter 3:20-21).

In the exodus of fleshly Israel, the Lord provides us a type of the sinner’s departure from his own slavery to iniquity and the most wicked Pharaoh of all, Satan. God’s desire on either side of the Red Sea is answered in Exodus 6:6-7: "I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, I will rescue you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. I will take you as my people, and I will be your God."

"[I] have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows. So I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and large land, to a land flowing with milk and honey" (Exodus 3:7-8).

This deliverance was no simple operation. Moses reasoned with Pharaoh and then plagued him with all manner of inconvenience and infestation, before the death angel slew all Egypt’s firstborn and Pharaoh relented. Even then, his mind shifted again and he sent his armies to pursue Israel and bring them back to slavery.

God led the people along a more circuitous route that they might avoid the way of the Philistines and the rigors of battle. They arrived at a great obstacle, therefore, in the Red Sea, but Moses was able to part it so that they could walk through and escape. As the last little one reached the far bank, the waters crashed back upon themselves and the pursuing Egyptians were swallowed up.

The journey from Egyptian slavery to Canaan’s cusp ordinarily would have taken eleven days (Deuteronomy 1:2). Instead, Israel wandered about the wilderness between them for 40 years. Forty years of grumbling, complaining, rebellion and apostasy. Thus many that would have spent most of their lives in Canaan died before they ever saw it. Only a few, that is, two, made the entire journey successfully.

Sinners Are Slaves

The devil is the most villainous slave owner the world has ever known. Through the enticements of uncleanness and lawlessness, he is able to enslave the expanse of mankind to wickedness. God’s creatures actually sell themselves into his chains. "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered" (Romans 6:16-17).

So insatiable is the appetite of our Pharaoh that he is not satisfied that a single soul should see its liberty, but through cunning devices, deceives the hearts of the simple (2 Corinthians 2:11).

Hunger and Thirst

God’s attention was garnered by Israel because he heard them groaning in bondage and decided to show them mercy by deliverance and redemption. Jesus taught likewise that sinners could only be rescued from the devil’s chains if they hungered and thirsted after righteousness (Matthew 5:6).

A passing, momentary interest in freedom will not effect a conversion for Jesus came to save the heavy-laden laborer in search of rest for the soul (Matthew 11:28-30). "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you" (Matthew 7:7).

Few there are these days whose consciences afflict them so deeply while in sin that they diligently yearn for God’s grace and mercy. But without that gasp for pity, man cannot be saved. "But without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

God’s Plan of Redemption

Just as easily, Jehovah could have instantly transported all Israel to Canaan, without afflicting the Egyptians or bothering with Moses. Instead, he mapped out a detailed plan of redemption.

It is a source of constant humility and gratitude that his plan to redeem me from slavery to sin required the precious blood of his own son, the one man since Adam that had no need of mercy.

In the original exodus, God delivered those in Egypt who had been instructed to smear sacrifice blood on their doorposts and lintels. That blood was a sign to the death angel to pass over to the next house — that of an Egyptian.

In our exodus, God passes over our sins only when the blood of Christ is sprinkled upon the doorposts of our hearts and souls (Hebrews 10:22). "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

By faith, Moses and all Israel kept that first Passover, obeying God’s instructions and finding his grace (Hebrews 11:28). By faith, sinners today must obey the gospel of Jesus Christ to find God’s grace (1 Peter 4:17).

The Pursuit of the Adversary

But Israel’s vengeful adversary was not patient to let God’s people go, but pursued them with great force, intending to make them slaves again and forever. Likewise, our adversary, the devil continues prowling about the souls of the redeemed, seeking to devour them anew (1 Peter 5:8). "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil… above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one" (Ephesians 6:11, 16).

The devil attempts to prevent or mitigate the liberating effects of salvation by misunderstanding, tribulation, persecution, worries and covetousness (Matthew 13:18-22). No stratagem is too dishonorable for the former Pharaoh of spiritual Israel, marching to Canaan. The devil wants you back.

He will constantly remind you of the fleshly pleasures of your sinful life before Christ. As the Israelites longed for the leeks and onions of Egyptian bondage, so Satan will try to introduce in the liberated sinner nostalgia for the passing pleasures of iniquity (Hebrews 11:15-16).

Baptism

As they passed through the Red Sea and journeyed beneath God’s cloud, Israel was baptized into Moses and his delegated authority from God (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). This baptism evidenced the deliverance from slavery to freedom.

In a like figure, the sinner is baptized today into Jesus Christ for the remission of his sins. Christian baptism is a washing of water by the word (Ephesians 5:26) whereby the sinner comes into contact with the redemptive power of the Lord’s shed blood (Romans 6:1-4).

A Covenant Relationship

The exodus of Israel was predicated upon a covenant God made with Israel, to be their God so long as they were his people. His blessings and guidance were conditional upon the terms of that covenant. Moses brought down the 10 commandments from Sinai and then the additional tenets of that law that are recorded in the book of Exodus. Old Israel was a covenant people.

Spiritual Israel is also a covenant kingdom. It is a better covenant than Moses to which we belong (Hebrews 7:22), having taken the place of the former covenant (Hebrews 8:6-13), and owning Christ as its mediator (Hebrews 12:24). We are added as parties to that covenant when we begin our exodus out of sin, by obeying from the heart that form of doctrine to which we are delivered (Romans 6:17).

This covenant requires faithfulness on the part of each side. God is faithful in all things and we are challenged to craft our hearts after the example of His son. "Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, ‘Be holy, for I am holy’" (1 Peter 1:13-16).

Strangers and Pilgrims

Israel’s conquest of Canaan made them strangers in a foreign land, whatever soil they marched upon. They were feared and loathed by the residents of the Promised Land. Their God was different and they lived by a different law.

The saints of today’s world are no less strangers and pilgrims along life’s journey. Despite the fact that so many call themselves Christians, it is always evident that the number of the faithful is truly small. "Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation" (1 Peter 2:11-12). "They think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation" (1 Peter 4:4).

God’s people continue to be peculiar (1 Peter 2:9), salt in an unsavory dish and light in a darkened room. We avoid conformity to the world, instead desiring transformation by the word (Romans 12:1-2).

Possibility of Apostasy

Paul writes of the original exodus that "with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness" (1 Corinthians 10:5). Indeed only Joshua and Caleb survived the entire 40-year journey. Even Moses was permitted only to gaze upon Canaan from afar due to his one act of rebellion. Paul says the wanderers fell because of lust for evil things, idolatry, sexual immorality, tempting Christ and complaining.

Perhaps it is not difficult to see these same temptations to apostasy present among us today. Teaching among God’s people is constantly softening in some places in order to accommodate yearning for evil things like lewd dancing, immodest clothing and social drink. The idol of covetousness grows more beloved year by year as God’s house goes neglected by carnal Christians. The explosion of errant doctrine regarding divorce and remarriage is a compromise in favor of sexual immorality. God’s people tempt him day by day as they continue in such hypocrisy. And all the while, we are heard to complain that the church is just not what it was fifty years ago. Perhaps that has more to do with us than with God?

We are warned along our journey to look "carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled" (Hebrews 12:15). We are reminded of Esau who sold his birthright and then wanted it back when the day of accounting came. It was too late. The journey is long and the saints must possess the ability to see beyond instant gratification to the promise of our heavenly country (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).

Reaching the Land of Promise

The Hebrew writer tells us that there remains a rest for the people of God (Hebrews 4:9). It is "an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:4-5).

It was the minority that reached Canaan and it will be the minority that reaches heaven. "Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:13-14).

Our Canaan is a land of eternal milk and honey and no price should be too great to make our reservations there.

Conclusion

Christ’s Jewish audience was composed of slaves of another sort. They were oppressed by the Roman government that had conquered Palestine years before. He told them on one occasion, "If you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31-32).

The freedom he had in mind had nothing to do with the Romans, but everything to do with the devil and sin. It is freedom from slavery to sin and its consequences. The journey to our Canaan begins with blood and water and ends in milk and honey. Along the way, Pharaoh Satan will attempt to lure the pilgrim back, but abiding in Christ’s word will lead to the Promised Land.

"The Bible speaks of two baptisms – baptism with water and baptism of the Holy Spirit. Both are referred to on several different occasions, so both are essential (a few examples include Matt. 3:11, John 1:3, John 3:4, Acts 10:34-38).

"Ephesians 4:5, however, speaks of there being one baptism. Since the Bible actually mentions two of them, then this must mean that one of the baptisms takes precedence over the other. …which baptism is referred to here? Explain what it means to have [either] one superior to the other."

Baptisms Of The Bible

Actually, the Bible speaks of more than "two baptisms." It speaks of a baptism of suffering (Mk. 10:38, 39; Lk. 12:50), "the baptism of John" (Matt. 21:25), a baptism of fire (Matt. 3:11), and a baptism "unto Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2), as well as the aforementioned baptisms of water and the Holy Spirit.

Neither the fact that these baptisms are mentioned, nor that some of them were once essential for certain ones, means that they are authorized today. Too, the fact that a baptism might be demanded for some does not mean that it was essential for all others. The baptism of John is an example. It was not for the Gentiles. It could not be said of the procurator Pontius Pilate, as it was said of certain Jews, that he rejected the counsel of God by not being baptized of John (Lk. 7:29. 30). Also, by its very nature, the baptism "unto Moses," while essential to those who would escape Egypt, was not one in which every Israelite of every generation could participate (Ex. 14:29-31; 1 Cor. 10:1, 2). An Israelite in Isaiah’s day could not "claim" the baptism of Moses for himself; he could not declare that since his fathers "experienced," or received it, that it was for him and his brethren. Hence, the fact that a baptism is "referred to" does not make it essential to all for the same purpose. This is true, as we shall see, of Holy Spirit baptism.

Note that while an Israelite in David’s day could not receive the baptism "unto Moses," he could receive the benefits of it. That is, he was not a slave, but was in the mighty nation of Israel. Likewise, though one is not baptized with the Holy Spirit today, he still receives the benefits of that baptism under the gospel (Eph. 3:3-5, 8-11; 1 Pet. 1:10-12).

It is not a matter of whether one baptism is "superior" to another. Each baptism is paramount in its own time and place with respect to its purpose and function. So, when we say there is "one baptism," it does not mean that one baptism is better or superior to another, but that one exists in this age because its purpose continues.

Holy Spirit And Water Baptism

(1) Elements: Yes, there were two baptisms in Acts 2, and in Acts 10, one in the element of water (Cf. Acts 2:38; 10:47, 48-baptism in the name of Christ is in water) and the other in the Holy Spirit (Cf. Acts 1:2-8; 2:1-4; 10:44-46; 11:15-17). Thus, there are two separate elements, water and the Holy Spirit. Two separate elements demands two separate baptisms. If one were baptized in water and also in oil, the fact that there were two elements would mean there were two immersions. Thus, water and Holy Spirit baptism are two separate baptisms and not a combination wherein they both together constitute one baptism. (2) Persons: Water and Holy Spirit baptism were not for the same persons (Acts 1:2-8; 2:38). Holy Spirit baptism was promised to the apostles (Cf. Matt. 26:20 and Jn. 13:1; Jn.14:26; 15:26, 27; 16:13; Acts 1:2-8). Though Cornelius and his household received it, it was never promised to anyone else. (3) Purposes: Water baptism is "for the remission of sins" (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). That is never said of Holy Spirit baptism. The apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit that they might "receive power" and be guided "into all truth" (Jn. 14:26; 15:26, 27; 16:13; Acts 1:8). Cornelius and his household received it that it might be clearly seen that the Gentiles were subject to the gospel (Acts 10:47, 48; 11:18; 15:7-11). Holy Spirit baptism was never given or promised to save anyone, but water baptism is essential for one to be saved or forgiven (Mk. 16;16; Acts 2:38). (For a detailed study of this point, see, my book, "The Christ, The Cross, And The Church," pages 136-138, 142-145). (4) Administrators: Men are authorized to baptize penitent believers in water (Matt 28:19; Acts 8:38; 1 Cor. 1:14, 15). Men, therefore, are the administrators of water baptism. However, Jesus is the one who baptized with the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11). Men cannot perform, cannot administer, Holy Spirit baptism.

Now, Though, "There Is One Baptism"

As noted, there are several baptisms mentioned in the Bible. Now, though, Paul says, "there is…one baptism" (Eph. 4:4, 5). He did not say "there has always been one baptism," neither did he say, "there will always be just "one baptism," but he said, "there is…one baptism." That being true, which baptisms have ceased? Obviously, we are not under John’s baptism today (Acts 19:1-5). Certainly, we all realize that the baptism of Moses does not continue (1 Cor. 10:1, 2). The Lord and his baptism of suffering does not continue today. The apostles received it, but it is not for believers today as it was for them. It has been "accomplished" (Lk. 12:50). The baptism of fire has not yet occurred (Matt. 3:7-12). No one should desire it! That baptism of fire is in an "unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:12). It is, therefore the baptism of fire in hell, that is, "into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched" (Cf. Matt. 3:12; Mk. 9:45, 46).

Since there is now, in our age, "one baptism," which of the two, water or Holy Spirit, has ceased? When the purpose of the baptisms that have ceased was fulfilled, the baptism ceased. For example, when the baptism "unto Moses" achieved its purpose, when Israel was finally separated from Egyptian bondage, that baptism was never repeated. When the baptism of John accomplished its purpose, it, too, was terminated (Acts 19:1-5).

Thus, of the two, water or Holy Spirit baptism, which has fulfilled its purpose, its mission? Is the word of God incomplete? Do men today need to receive more truth? No, for we have "all truth," "the perfect law of liberty," "all things that pertain unto life and godliness," "the faith once (one time for all time) delivered" (Jn. 16:13; Jas. 1:25; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3). The Scriptures are able to furnish the man of God completely unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Hence, we do not need to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit as the apostles received it. The purpose has been fulfilled. We have all truth, the whole and complete truth of God.

The household of Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism. Do men today still need to be convinced that Gentiles are amenable to the gospel? No, all recognize the universal nature and appeal of the gospel-"teach all nations," "into all the world," "in every nation," "whosoever will." Holy Spirit baptism is not required in our day to demonstrate that Jesus died for all men and that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Its point and purpose has been attained.

When the purpose of the baptism of Moses was met, it ended, never to be repeated again. When John’s baptism met its goal, it was no longer valid. Likewise, since the purposes of Holy Spirit baptism have been fulfilled, it is no longer being employed. Jesus is not baptizing people in the Holy Spirit as he once did.

What of water baptism? Does it continue? If so, why? Well, water baptism in the name of Christ is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Men must be baptized in order to be saved (Mk. 16:16). Do men today need the forgiveness of sins? Do men today still need to be saved? If so, then water baptism continues. It will exist as long as there are men who need to be forgiven of their sins and saved. So, since there is "one baptism," which one is left? Which one, of all the baptisms previously cited, which one has a purpose that is still necessary? Which baptism is needed with respect to its purpose as stated in Scripture? Why, water baptism, of course.

Now, if ever there comes a time when everyone is saved, if there were ever a time when there were no lost sinners, if every man were forgiven, would water baptism continue? No, for its purpose would no longer be necessary. That is why the other baptisms ceased. So, water baptism would end and would no longer be practiced if everyone were saved. Obviously, that has not happened, and water baptism continues. It is, therefore, the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5.

By Pastor David Martin
Solid 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.]

"For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words." (1 Corinthians 2:10-13, NASB)

From this passage we learn that God has revealed Himself through the work of the Holy Spirit to the chosen apostles of Christ. The apostles are said to teach in words, “…not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit.” It is only reasonable to assume that the revelation of the mind of God in words are words that man can understand, and understand these words in the same way that God understands them. The issue of understandable language gets to the very heart of the issue of faith. Do we believe the Bible? Is it God’s word? Is the Bible God’s complete and final revelation of God to man? Does Hebrews 1:1-2 mean what it says about God’s speaking to man in these last times? "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world" (NASB). When you break down this statement without all the modifiers it says that God has spoken, that God has spoken to man, and that God has spoken to man through His Son. What do we believe?

"For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles– if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (Ephesians 3:1-6, NASB) The primary focus of this reference is that Paul said that when we read we can understand. What do we understand when we read? Paul said it was the revelation made known to the holy apostles and prophets of the Lord. Is there confusion in this revelation? Is it possible to understand the words? Does God speak to us in His Son in words which are not understandable?

I want to look at some words and just see if God understands language and see if we can’t understand also the language of the words God has revealed.

Tabernacle. There is nothing inherently religious about a tabernacle. It is a tent. One could speak of the great tabernacle God commanded Moses to build according to the pattern revealed to him on God’s mountain, or of a tent that teenage boys might pitch in their back yard under which to sleep after an adventurous night in the neighborhood among their friends. A tabernacle is merely a tent. God utilized the word to describe the portable structure the children of Israel were to use as a place of worship as they wandered.

Church. Again, there is nothing inherently religious about the word church. As it is translated from the Greek ekklesia, it is nothing more or nothing less than an assembly of people called out of where they were into that assembly for a particular purpose. The Greek word was a common word to describe an assembly or meeting of people. Jesus used the word to describe His people. “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it” (Matthew 16:18, NASB). That over which the gates of Hades would have no power was not the ekklesia which was dismissed in Acts 19:41. That ekklesia was a riotous mob in the city of Ephesus protesting the preaching against idolatry which Paul and his company were doing.

In order to make the proper application of the use of the word church, or any other word for that matter, there are certain rules of language to which we must adhere. One of the primary rules is to view the word in context. A serious word study of the word church will bear out that when the word is used to describe God’s people, it is used in either a local sense, as in a congregation (1 Corinthians 1:2), or in the universal sense to describe all the saved (Acts 2:47). The church of God at Corinth to which Paul addressed himself was an identifiable known entity. It was a finite group at any given time. When the incestuous fornicator was ordered to be marked in chapter 5, Paul spoke of his readers as being “assembled together.” The specific audience of this writing was the local church at Corinth. It was this finite identifiable church which had to deal with the sinner.

God understands language, and we have an obligation to do the same. The worn out claim that “the church is the people and the people are the church” that many use today to cloud the work of the local church is in direct violation of the uniqueness of the membership of a local church. When you have a group of Christians who all meet under a tree some place when they are all on vacation, you do not have a church. There is an assembly, but it is not a local church and it certainly is not the universal church. It is nothing more than a group of Christians.

Baptize. Here is a word that is used in the Bible that is real easy to define. The word means to bury or immerse. When I would visit friends who lived in the country, by that I mean outside the city, one of the common chores was to take the perishable garbage away from the house and bury it in the ground. By definition, it could be said that we were baptizing that garbage. The illustration is clear. If we were to sprinkle or pour a little dirt on the garbage, it would not be a burial and it would only take a few days before our noses would fully comprehend that there had been no burial of the garbage.

The religious use of the word baptize and its various forms has reference to the burial in water of a sinner in order to have his sins washed away. Neither the sprinkling nor pouring of a littler water could be called a baptism just as in the garbage illustration. Baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) is the act of burial in water (Acts 10:47-48; Acts 8:38) of the sinner to be raised from that water, just as Christ was raised from the dead, to live a new life (Romans 6:3-4). Baptism is not inherently a religious act, thus the reference by Peter in 1 Peter 3:21 to the putting away of the filth of the flesh. One could be buried in water to wash away dirt. One could be buried in water in some sort of water sport. But in order for ones sins to be washed away, baptism must be an act of faith by the authority of Christ, in water, for the remission of sins, an act of obedience in submission to the will of God (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 22:16).

Day. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:1-5, NKJV). Why do we now have a problem in the church understanding what a day is? What an evening and a morning comprise? Is this word so hard to understand? “You shall march around the city, all you men of war; you shall go all around the city once. This you shall do six days” (Joshua 6:3, NKJV). How long did the children of Israel march around the city? The command was to do it once for six days. For the seventh day there was a different command. For the six days, the command was the same: “march around the city … once.” Does anyone have a problem with how long the people marched? No. There is no problem as this record does not infringe on the faith or claim of any group of people, be they scientists, religious leaders or academic leaders. Why do we now in the church have such a controversy over Exodus 20:11? "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it" (NKJV).

God understands language. If He wanted us to believe that the “days” of Genesis 1 were eras, God understands enough about language to tell us that the evening and the morning were the first million years. Give God enough credit to give us the words by which when we read we can understand (1 Corinthians 2; Ephesians 3; see above).

If sprinkling were sufficient, He would never have said to baptize. If any group of Christians, with or without any organization or definition could do the work the Lord specified for the local church to do, He could have told us in language clear enough to understand. If He intended to allow us to play an instrument of music as we sang praises in worship, God is sufficiently skillful in language to have included some reference in the New Testament to the playing of a musical instrument. He included no such reference, thus we are not at liberty to assume He approves of the playing of an instrument in worship (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Colossians 3:17; Ephesians 2:10).

The plea is for simple adherence to just what the Bible says. We do not have to change the words, the meanings nor the applications. Provide book chapter and verse authority for all we do, and with that, God will be pleased (Matthew 28:20).

Due to the fact that you believe that you are saved in part or wholly by baptism, I must mark you as one still in darkness and as one who has not seen that we are complete in Jesus Christ and his finished work. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves. What is it about that that you don’t understand? Paul said if it be works it is something that God owes us but grace is the gift of God which is faith. Larry, due to the fact that the Bible says that we are saved by grace through faith, and you say that it is by some work that we do like baptism, or any other thing, I would bid you to repent and trust in the finished work of Christ and nothing else but Christ and God will save you. I hope you will take this as a letter of love and may God have mercy on you.

By his grace, Frank L. McClanahan

Dear Frank,

Thank you for your letter and for your clarity of expression. I appreciate your willingness to state boldly what you believe. I trust that you will grant me the same right to respond with equal directness to your arguments.

(1) Baptism And The Finished Work Of Christ: Frank, suppose I were to say, "Due to the fact that you believe that you are saved in part or wholly by faith, I must mark you as one still in darkness and as one who has not seen that we are complete in Jesus Christ and his finished work," how would you answer me? Primitive (Hardshell) Baptists make the same argument against you as you have made against me. They do not believe that faith is essential to salvation. Thus, when you say that one must believe in Jesus, they will accuse you of not trusting "in the finished work of Jesus Christ." Tell me, Frank, how you would answer their charge?

When you answer it, you will have answered your own protest against baptism. Faith, like baptism, is simply one of the conditions Jesus set forth and with which one must comply before he can be saved. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). Neither faith nor baptism undermines the completed work of Christ. Both are terms which one must meet before the benefits of the finished work of Christ are applied (Matthew 7:21; Hebrews 5:9).

Your objection against baptism could also be used against repentance. One must repent or perish (Luke 13:3, 5; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 11:18; 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). Surely, you believe that one must repent before he is saved by the finished work of Christ, for Jesus said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Now, Frank, if you believe that one must repent, as well as believe, are you not trusting "in part or wholly" in those things and not in the completed work of Jesus? If not, why not? If the command to be baptized nullifies the "finished work" of the Savior, why do not faith and repentance do the same?

Remember, now, Primitive Baptists say that none of those conditions are necessary. They disavow faith, repentance, and baptism. They say that if one has to meet any condition, then salvation is by works and not by grace. You want to include faith and repentance while excluding baptism. So, please explain how you would answer the Calvinist, the Primitive Baptist. How can you accept some of the conditions set forth by the Lord (repentance and faith), but not baptism, when all of them are clearly required (Mark 16:16; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38)?

(2) Salvation By Grace Through Faith: Yes, Frank, you are correct. The Ephesians were saved "by grace through faith" (Ephesians 2:8, 9). Neither they nor we can be saved by our own works of righteousness (Titus 3:5). However, the Ephesians were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5; Cf. Ephesians 5:26). The Ephesians were in Christ (Ephesians 1:7). They were in his body, the church (Ephesians 2:16; 3:6; 5:23-26). Hence, we know they had been baptized, for one cannot be in Christ, in his body, until he is "baptized into Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:41, 47; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Romans 6:3, 4; Galatians 3:26, 27). Their baptism, as noted, was "in the name of the Lord Jesus." Frank, what is the purpose of baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus," i.e., what is it "for"? The Holy Spirit says it is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Thus, the Ephesians who were saved by grace through faith, had been baptized "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; Cf. Matthew 26:28). All today who have been saved by grace through faith have also been baptized "in the name of the Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 19:5).

You are right when you say that salvation is not by works. However, you will note that faith itself is a work. Jesus said it was (John 6:28, 29). Baptism is not a work of men, nor a work of the law of Moses, nor a work of the devil, nor a work of which we may boast, but it, like faith, is a work "of God." Thus, if all works are excluded, then out goes faith as a condition of salvation, along with repentance and baptism (James 2:14-26).

Salvation is indeed a gift. "The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). However, that gift of salvation is not unconditional. If it were, all would be saved; none would be lost, for "the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11, 12). Now, if the gift of grace is universal and unconditional, all will be saved. No one will go to hell. That will suit me fine, but it is not what Scripture teaches. Since the grace of God is universal, since Jesus tasted death "for the sins of the whole world," "for every man," and yet some men will be lost, it follows that salvation by grace is conditional (Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2; Romans 2:6-9; 6:16-18). That is, it contains terms or conditions of pardon with which men must comply in order to be saved (Cf. Jeremiah 18:7-10; Ezekiel 3:17-21; Matthew 7:13, 14, 21-27).

One of those conditions is faith in Christ (John 8:24). Another condition is repentance (Luke 13:3, 5). Another is baptism, or so said the Savior, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16;16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

(3) "Repent And Trust In The Finished Work of Christ:" In your closing appeal to me, you said, "Larry, due to the fact that the Bible says that we are saved by grace through faith, and you say that it is by some work that we do like baptism, or any other thing, I would bid you to repent and trust in the finished work of Christ and nothing else but Christ and God will save you."

Frank, if, as you say, "we are saved by grace through faith," why do you also bid me to "repent and trust in the finished work of Christ"? If I have faith, why must I also "repent and trust"? Are you not adding to Ephesians 2:8, 9, when you say I must "repent and trust," as well as believe?

See the point, Frank? You believe that one must not only believe, but that he must also "repent and trust in the finished work of Christ" before God will save him. You believe one must do all those things to be saved, and when he does them, God will save him. He will not save himself, but God will save him. Well, can you not see that the same thing is true with respect to baptism? Yes, one must "repent and trust" in the death of Jesus (Acts 13:38, 39; Romans 2:4; 4:25; 5:9; 10:9, 10; Ephesians 1:7, 13). When he does so, he is not saving himself; he is not impugning the finished work of Christ. Neither does he do those things when he obeys the Lord in baptism. "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).

Frank, if you can add "repent and trust" to the finished work of Christ without discrediting it, why can I not also add what the Lord said about baptism without diminishing it (Mark 16;16; 1 Peter 3:21)? If you can add "repent and trust" to salvation by grace through faith in Ephesians 2:8, 9, why can I not also add the baptism of the Ephesians "in the name of the Lord Jesus" to salvation by grace through faith?

(4) "We Are Complete In Jesus Christ:" You are correct when you say that "we are complete in Jesus Christ and his finished work." How, though, does one get "into Christ"? Note that you have said that we are "complete in Christ," not "out of," but "in" Christ. How does one get "into Christ"? Only "in Christ" can one be "complete," so how do we get "into Christ"? "Know ye not that so many of you as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death" (Romans 6:3)? "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27).

The only way to be complete and to be saved by the finished work of Christ is to be "in Christ." Scripture says we are "baptized into Jesus Christ." If one is not baptized, he is not "in Christ," for we are "baptized into Christ." Thus, one must be baptized to be complete in Christ and to have the benefits of the finished work of Christ.

Conclusion: Frank, I would be happy to hear your reply to the points and questions I have raised. I trust that you, likewise, will take this as a letter of love and that you will weigh carefully the arguments I have made in light of the word of God (2 Tim. 2:15).

His Calvinistic "faith only" doctrine is coming back to bite him. Surely, he will admit that one needs to believe in order to be saved. Is belief a work that nullifies grace? Some of Christ’s followers asked him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?". Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent’" (John 6:28-29).

But the Calvinist will also agree that a little confession is good for the soul. He submits to Paul’s teaching in Romans 10:9 which demands that oral confession precede salvation: "[I]f you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus … you will be saved." The minimal effort required to articulate such a confession as the Ethiopian eunuch made in Acts 8:37 is a facet of faith, the Calvinist argues and thus is not really a work. Oh?

What then of repentance? Must one repent of sins in order to be saved? That is, must he be converted from the error of his way (Acts 3:19)? The Calvinist will admit that he must repent of his sins, but this too is relegated to "a feature of faith" and not really a separate consideration that we might label a work. But anyone who has witnessed a person repenting of alcoholism or any sin for which he has a particular affinity will quickly affirm that such requires diligent effort (Philippians 2:12-13).

If the Calvinist can accept that faith, confession and repentance are necessary to salvation, why is he biased against baptism? Even if he were to reason about baptism as he has concerning these other terms, would he not arrive at the conclusion that baptism is as necessary a "facet of faith" as confession and repentance?

How can he examine Acts 2:38 ("Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…"), and accept repentance while rejecting baptism?

Recently, this writer was involved in an Internet discussion with another Calvinist. He raised the possibility that I was preaching "another gospel" by espousing the necessity of baptism.

Based on what Christ said about baptism in Mark 16:16 — "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" — I drew him the following familiar chart:

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved"

• The Calvinist says, "He who believes is saved and then can be baptized."
• The Catholic says, "He who cannot yet believe and is baptized anyway will be saved."
• The atheist says, "He who believes and is baptized will not be saved."
• The universal salvationist says, "He who does not believe and is not baptized will be saved."
• I have said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

Who is preaching another gospel?

A mountain of evidence exists in the scriptures to suggest that baptism is a necessary precedent to salvation:

• In the great commission, Christ commanded the apostles to baptize believers as they converted them (Matthew 28:18-20).
• Paul appealed to the imagery of Christ’s death and resurrection to teach the importance of baptism (Romans 6:3-4).
• Peter taught that salvation is in Christ (Acts 4:12) and Paul taught that one gets in Christ by baptism (Galatians 3:27).
• Every record of conversion in the book of Acts includes the immediate baptism of the believer.
• Peter taught that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:20-21), not baptism alone, but immersion in water has its place as surely as belief, repentance and confession.
• James argues that faith alone cannot save us (2:14, 24).

The Baptist will argue that baptism is only necessary to gain admission to the Baptist church. To him, it takes more to be a Baptist than to be a Christian. And it is possible to be saved before and without becoming a Baptist, which renders the Baptist church unnecessary to salvation.

In fact, baptism upon a confession of faith, brings conversion to fruition and automatically places one in the church for which Jesus died (Acts 2:47). Paul called this assembly the church of Christ in Romans 16:16 and it is purely necessary to the scheme of salvation as the household of God in which the redeemed dwell while on Earth.

In May of 2001, a David Steinmann challenged Tom Roberts concerning what Steinmann called “baptismal regeneration”. Tom, of course, had only stood for the truth of God’s word that Jesus commanded and His apostles taught water baptism for the remission of sins. Both Stan Cox, editor of Watchman Magazine and myself, as Associate Editor supported Tom and answered Mr. Steinmann through several e-mails. In an e-mail of May 26, under the subject line “Pony Up Stan” Mr. Steinmann offered a challenge to a public debate. His challenge was very weak, but did produce a serious response from Stan Cox:

• 1) I will supply a participant (myself, or another gospel preacher).

  2) I will ensure that myself or another gospel preacher is able to travel anywhere in the United States

  3) I am willing to open the pulpit where I preach to one I believe to be a false teacher.  I do so with full confidence that I (or another gospel preacher) will be able to refute the false doctrine, and that truth will be exalted.

  4) I am confident that such an exchange will be of benefit to the brethren here, and strengthen their faith.

  1) You actually had the gall to ask for us to pay your expenses.

  2) You have indicated an unwillingness to travel to DFW.

  3) You have indicated a willingness to debate only in a Church of Christ building.

  4) You have indicated that the leadership of your congregation will not agree to endorse you in debate, nor to sponsor either half of the debate in their building, or to sponsor one of two debates in a “here and there” format.

“I clearly asked you if you were willing to defend your teaching in a public debate.  Initially you ignored my post as I set forth what would be needed for a debate to take place.

To summarize, we have the following:

I am willing to supply half of everything:

You, however, are willing to supply nothing:

And then you say that I seem to be unwilling to debate. Perhaps it is good that this exchange is through email.  I can’t imagine how you could say such with a straight face!

I may add to the preceding the fact that you make the claim to be a member of no denomination.  You have continually in your posts referred to the Lord’s church as a denomination.  You have done so knowing that the claim I make as a Christian is to be a member of the Lord’s church.  I too deny that I am a member of a denomination. I don’t fault you for the claim. I deny the truth of it.  However, you still have not told me what I was asking for, and you know it!  (Why the evasion?)

Second, you continually disparage the contention I make that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins by saying it is ” a works based teaching that merits salvation”.  This I deny, and you know it.  I teach and have always taught that a man cannot earn his salvation, and is wholly dependent upon the grace of God to be saved.  While I understand you feel my position to be otherwise, you are assuming what you must prove.  It seems to me a bit unseemly for you to be baiting me in this way.

Finally, evasion again as I asked if the leadership of your congregation would endorse you in open debate.  You did not answer the question.

My only conclusion is that you lack the integrity to pursue this matter further.  If it your intention simply to argue with me privately via email, I have no interest in continuing.  It is obvious, as you have debated the issues, that an attempt to convert you to the truth is futile.  I have others to teach who are receptive to the pure gospel of our Lord, I will concentrate my efforts on them.

I have no doubt that you will go chirping about, claiming that we were to afraid to discuss these issues with you.  I simply ask that if you feel that need, you share all of the correspondence with them.

I have no qualms with anyone reading our letters. I am confident that any open minded individual would say that you have not been forthright in these matters.

As I close our exchange, I will leave the following offer open to you in the foreseeable future.  If at anytime you truly want to debate these issues, and are willing to pony up and do your part to bring such a discussion to fruition, we will do our part.”

I am confident that Stan fully characterized Mr. Steinmann in that response. I however, was curious about just how serious Mr. Steinmann might really be in this matter of a public debate, so I wrote to him and asked where he lived, and if he might be willing to stage a debate in his hometown if a Christian would be willing and able to go there. As it turned out, his home was Cincinnati, Ohio, where a good and dear friend of mine lived, namely Matt Miller. It only took one request from me to Matt to get an immediate response from him, and it was an enthusiastic affirmative. I forwarded all the correspondence I had from Mr. Steinmann and Matt was on his way.

Stan was right about Mr. Steinmann. He apparently had no intention to debate. However, to his credit, he referred Matt to another man who held to the same false doctrine as did Mr. Steinmann who accepted the challenge to debate. Kurt Streutker by name, he corresponded with Matt and the debate was finally set for September 24 – 25 in Cincinnati.

As was the case with Mr. Steinmann, Mr. Streutker could offer nothing for the debate: no reciprocal building; no real substantial audience; no visual aid or recording equipment; not even a moderator. The elders of the Lockland church in the Cincinnati, Ohio area provided the building and all the needed equipment, and this reviewer served as the sole moderator.

God has blessed this writer with the opportunity to work with several young preachers. It has been one of the most rewarding aspects of my life in preaching. Though it is my belief that Stan Cox was and remains the most talented young preacher I ever encountered, (yes, even Stan used to be young) Matt Miller is right there with him. I was never so proud of an association as I was of Matt Miller in his defense of the truth of God’s word. He was prepared, well equipped in his knowledge and plans for his presentation in both the affirmative and the negative propositions. God has certainly blessed this young man with al the tools necessary to be an effective proclaimer of God’s truth.

The debate had simple propositions:

Proposition One:

• Affirm: Kurt Streutker
  Deny: Matthew R. Miller

“The scriptures teach that New Testament salvation occurs before, and independent of, water baptism.”

Proposition Two:

• Affirm: Matthew R. Miller
  Deny: Kurt Streutker

“The scriptures teach that New Testament salvation occurs at the point of, and dependant upon, water baptism.”

Mr. Streutker’s position was pure Calvinism. Salvation occurs at the point of faith and that faith and repentance are both gifts from God and that the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38, and Mark 16:16 is Holy Spirit baptism, also a gift from God. His repeated plea was for justification by faith only. He used that phrase 15 times in his 45 minute main affirmative speech. When challenged with the teaching of James 2, he could only say that salvation was by grace through faith only and thus no “works” could be involved no matter what the scriptures taught to the contrary.

What follows here is the working affirmative address by Matt Miller in its entirety. It is not a transcription from the tape of the debate but his written article which was the basis of his address:

Miller’s Affirmative

I.  Preface.   I thank my honorable opponent, the audience, and our moderator this evening for the chance to set forth my arguments that baptism is necessary for salvation.  This is, in essence, what we are debating this evening.  All I ask of the audience is that you clear from your mind any preconceived theology or beliefs, listen to what I say, and judge what I say on the merits of the scriptures themselves.

II. Argument Number One: Salvation Is Conditional.

• 1. This passage is crucial to understanding the nature of salvation.  It is a passage often used by those who, like my opponent, believe that salvation is not conditional.  It is often argued that this passage means that salvation has nothing to do with works and is thus unconditional.
  2. There are two elements of this passage that are both equally important.  The verse cannot be understood properly by ignoring either part.  The passage describes the nature of salvation.
  3. The first element of the passage is that salvation is by grace. This is the Dative of Means, which indicates that salvation comes on the basis of, or by means of, grace.  That is, salvation is totally and completely based on grace.  Man could not save himself, because he was dead in sin. God either had to do something to save man, or allow us to die in sin and be separated from Him for all of eternity. Because He is a loving God, He chose to save us.  So, the basis of salvation is 100%, totally grace, with no works whatsoever. Neither I, nor any of my brethren whom I know, teach any other doctrine than that salvation is completely and utterly based on grace.  Man could not have brought about salvation based on works, because we had already sinned, and had already fallen away from God.  In fact, in all of the passages that my opponent has, or will, refer to in Romans, this is exactly what Paul is teaching, and what I believe: that salvation came about, that Christ died for sin, not based on my works, but on His grace.
  4.  Yet the main disagreement between my opponent and me seems to be this: because salvation is based completely on grace, my opponent concludes that it must therefore be completely unconditional. He either must conclude this, or be inconsistent and say that salvation is only slightly conditional, faith being the one and only condition.
  5.  However, there is another element to this passage. Salvation is through faith. The preposition dia, when used with the genitive, as in this passage, indicates the medium through which a state is reached.  In other words, salvation is reached through faith.  This means that salvation, while being based completely upon grace, is nevertheless conditioned upon faith.  In other words, according to the grammar of this passage, God has extended salvation because He is gracious.  Yet man must enter that salvation through a medium, here being faith. Salvation is conditional.
  1.  Though this passage demonstrates that works do matter, I am drawing another, more basic principle from it, in the hopes again of convincing my opponent, and those who believe like he does, that salvation is conditional.
  
  2.  Christ clearly teaches in this passage that some people will go to heaven, and some people will not.  “Entering the kingdom of heaven” I am sure we all understand is equivalent to “being saved.”  So, some people will be saved, and some will not.  Now, the question under consideration for this debate is: Why will some be saved and some not?  What exactly is the differentiating factor between those who are saved, and those who are not?  We know that the lamb of God takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29); that Christ is the savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10); that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).  Yet we also know that not all men will be saved.  Thus, there must be some point at which men are saved.  Given these facts, then we may logically conclude this: If salvation is unconditional – that is, if salvation is not conditioned on anything that man does, if salvation is completely up to God and man has no part whatsoever in it – then there are only three logical options:

A. It is generally agreed by all professing Christians that God must save man from sin.  Many disagree as to man’s state both before salvation, and about the nature of salvation.  The actual process of salvation is almost always argued based on the nature of salvation instead of on the basis of the actual process.  It is my contention that my opponent and I, in terms of this debate, fundamentally disagree on the nature of salvation. That is, we have two diametrically different views as to the conditionality of salvation.  My opponent’s arguments come from the view that salvation is either completely, or mostly, unconditional, whereas my arguments shall come from the view that salvation is conditional.
B. It is my contention that my opponent’s objections to baptism are not so much because he is personally against baptism, or that he truly finds the scriptures dealing with baptism to be difficult or confusing.  In fact, I think my opponent, in his heart of hearts, probably sees how clear the baptism scriptures are. It is my contention that his real objection to baptism is that he cannot reconcile the scriptures about baptism with his belief that salvation is unconditional.  In fact, I believe that this is the case with most Baptists.  It is not that they object to the individual scriptures about baptism, but instead that they approach the scriptures with the theological idea that salvation is unconditional.  Thus, they cannot reconcile certain scriptures with their theology.
C. If salvation is indeed unconditional, then it would be a natural conclusion that it cannot be conditioned upon baptism. However, if salvation is conditional by nature, then it is not such a hard thing to accept the biblical conditions. Thus, the very first argument I wish to set forth is that of the conditionality of salvation.  If I can first convince my opponent, and those who believe like he does, that salvation is conditional, then I shall have overcome the first and greatest obstacle between us.
D. Ephesians 2:8,9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, that no one may boast.”


E. Matthew 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

• • a. Universal Salvation: If God desires all men to be saved, and salvation is completely unconditional, then God may save everyone, and everyone will go to heaven.
    b. Universal Damnation: If God desires all men to be saved, and salvation is completely unconditional, but all have sinned, then God may just allow everyone to go to hell.
    c. Arbitrary Predestination: If salvation is completely unconditional, yet some will go to heaven and some to hell, then it may be that God arbitrarily selects some for salvation and some for damnation, based on absolutely nothing that those people have done.  This is, in fact, exactly the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election.

  There are simply no other logical options, if salvation is unconditional.  If man has absolutely nothing that he may do in order to be saved, no condition to be met, then there is either Universal Salvation, Universal Damnation, or Arbitrary Predestination.  If my opponent believes that there is nothing man can do in order to be saved, then I ask him which of these three options he chooses.  Remember, there are no other logical options.
  3. If, however, salvation is conditional, then that does not, and cannot, contradict the fact that salvation is based upon grace. The basis and the conditionality of salvation are two different things; related, but different. An analogy would be: a man is drowning in the middle of a river.  He cannot save himself, so it cannot be said that he is saving himself by works. Another man on the bank sees him and desires to save him. The drowning man is utterly dependent on the salvation of the man on the bank.  Thus, his salvation is based 100% upon the kindness of the man on the bank.  If then the man on the bank throws the drowning man a life-raft, then are there any conditions of salvation?  Of course there are: the drowning man must 1) Reach out his hand, 2) Grasp the life-raft, and 3) Hold on to the life-raft while he is pulled to shore.  He must actually do three works or he will not be saved.  These are the conditionsof his salvation.  Yet, would this drowning man then argue that he saved himself, simply because he responded to the other man’s salvation by actually doing something?  If he had refused to grab the life-raft, insisting that it was salvation by works, would he have been saved?  Does the fact that he had to reach out and grab the life-raft somehow negate or contradict the fact that he was saved by the man on the shore?  Thus, conditionality does not negate grace. Because God may have ordained certain works of obedience cannot somehow negate His grace!  Let us remember that Christ, not I, commanded baptism.

  1. In order for salvation to be a salvation by works, people would have to be perfect.  That is the ONLY way that salvation could be by works.  For my opponent to argue that a sinner being baptized equals “salvation by works” is illogical.  The mere fact that the person is a sinner PROVES that his salvation cannot be by works – he has already sinned and can no longer be perfect. So, just because he obeys God does not, and cannot, mean “salvation by works.”
  2. Luke 17:7-10: “‘Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, “Come immediately and sit down to eat?”  But will he not say to him, “Prepare something for me to eat, and clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink”?  He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he?  So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, “We are unworthy slaves; we have done that which we ought to have done.”‘”  These words of Christ PROVE that obedience does not equal a works salvation.  Just because we obey Christ in baptism, and just because salvation is conditioned upon obedience, in no way means we are saved by works or even worthy of salvation.  One can both obey, and still be saved by grace: grace and obedience are not contradictory or incompatible!  Christ’s words prove it!  Let my opponent argue with Christ.
  1. He may admit that salvation is conditional, accept the scriptural condition of baptism, and concede the proposition.
  2. He may admit that salvation is conditional, but continue to deny that baptism is a condition.
  3. He may insist that salvation is unconditional and accept one of the three logical options listed above.
  4. He may insist that salvation is unconditional and inconsistently attempt to choose another option.
  5. He may redefine words like “faith” and “grace” and “repentance” and “obedience” in order to support his doctrine.
  We will see which option he chooses.
  1. God, based 100% on His grace, gives man a blessing or a state of blessing.
  2. God gives a law to be obeyed, thus setting forth a condition.
  3. If man obeys that law, then he enters into, or remains in, God’s grace.
  4. If man disobeys that law, then he remains outside of, or is cast out of, God’s grace.
  • a. God, based 100% on His grace, created man and put him in a paradise.
    b. God gave a law forbidding eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
    c. Man could have obeyed that law and remained in paradise forever.
    d. But man broke that law, and was cast out of paradise.
    a. God, based 100% on His grace, gave Cain and Abel the blessings of life: food, work, a family, etc.
    b. God apparently had some law dealing with sacrifice and worship, because God has never, and does not, condemn people arbitrarily without having some kind of law.  God also had a law against murder.
    c. Both Cain and Abel could have obeyed those laws and remained in their state of grace.
    d. Abel obeyed those laws and remained in God’s grace.
    e.  Cain disobeyed those law and was cast out of that grace, forced to become a cursed vagrant.
    a. God, based 100% on His grace, gave man the earth to live on with all the blessings of life.
    b. God gave man moral law.
    c. Man disobeyed God and became wicked.
    d. God destroyed man.
    e. Again, God, based 100% on His grace, offered man a way of escape from destruction, namely, the ark.
    f. Noah and his family obeyed, while the rest of mankind disobeyed.
    g. Noah and his family were saved, while the rest of mankind was destroyed.
    a. God, based 100% on His grace, gave Israel a law (the law of Moses) to guide them in righteousness.  He did not leave them without guidance on the world, but freely told them how to do right and go to heaven.
    b. Included in that law was the proper way to offer fire to the Lord (Leviticus 1:1-13, al.).
    c. Nadab and Abihu were priests, and thus were in God’s grace and blessed by God.  But they disobeyed God by offering fire that was not from the altar.
    d. God destroyed Nadab and Abihu.

  1. Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-7: 2.  Genesis 4:2-12:

  3. Genesis 6:5-8; 7:1:

  4. Leviticus 10:1,2:

  5. Joshua 6:1-5,20:
  a. God, based 100% on His grace, agreed to give Jericho into the hands of Israel so that they could conquer Canaan and live there. Note that God specifically said, “See, I have given Jericho into your hand.”  It was GOD, not man, who was the basis of this victory.
  b. God gave Israel a specific commandment to obey. They were to march around Jericho once a day for six days.  On the seventh day they were to march around the city seven times and the priests were to blow the horns.  Then, and only then, were the walls to fall down.
  c. Israel did exactly what God commanded them, and God destroyed the walls of Jericho.

  a. God, based 100% on His grace, saved Ananias and Sapphira through the gospel.
  b. God had clearly commanded that lying and greed were sinful.
  c. Ananias and Sapphira disobeyed God.
  d. God destroyed Ananias and Sapphira.
  a. God, based 100% on His grace, agreed to miraculously heal Naaman of his leprosy.
  b. God commanded Naaman to dip in the Jordan River seven times.
  c. At first, Naaman refused and God did not heal him.
  d. When Naaman finally obeyed, God healed him. Did Naaman heal himself? No!  Was God’s healing conditioned upon obedience?  Yes!
  e. What is the difference between God’s healing of Naaman through baptism, and God’s saving of sinners through baptism?  If He did it once, what prevents Him from doing it again?

F. Salvation by works:

G. The scriptures teach, however, that salvation is conditional.  Both of the passages already examined clearly offer a condition unto salvation – something that man must do in order to enter God’s grace.  I would venture to guess that, if my opponent is pressed, he will agree that salvation is conditional.  His only logical options at this point are as follows:

H.  Salvation has always been conditional upon obedience to God.  In every instance in the Bible dealing with man’s relation to God, the following principles have always been involved:

I.  Note the following examples from throughout the Bible, all illustrating that principle:

6. Acts 5:1-6:

7. 2 Kings 5:1,10-14:

The theme and point of all of these examples, and the dozens of others that could be found in the Old and New Testaments, is this: Salvation has always been conditioned upon obedience, from the beginning. God has never, does not, and never will save people who refuse to obey Him.  Thus, salvation is conditional.
J.  Because salvation is conditional, it is now not such a great leap to see baptism as a condition.  Baptism is not “works salvation,” but a condition of entering into God’s grace.

III. Argument Number Two: The New Testament Christians Practiced Baptism.

• • a. Baptism would not be a part of preaching the gospel. Baptists in general, and probably my opponent, do not include baptism in their gospel preaching, at least not at first. If grace alone matters, and baptism does not matter for salvation, then there is no need to preach baptism in gospel preaching: it would be a waste of time.

    b. Baptism would not be practiced at conversion, except as a nicety.  It would be relegated to several weeks later, if that, which is exactly what Baptist practice today.

    c. No great urgency or rush would be placed on baptism.  If it could be done later, more conveniently, then there would be no sense in doing it right away, at an inconvenient time.  If, as Baptists teach, baptism is not necessary, but is only “an outward sign of an inward grace,” then it would be preferable to baptize in front of as many people as possible, and baptizing late at night with only one or two people there would be inconsistent.

    d. Baptism would never be given as a condition of salvation.

    a. Baptism would be a part of preaching the gospel. Baptism would be taught in every case of preaching the gospel.

    b. Baptism would be practiced in every single instance of conversion.  Every record of conversion would somehow explicitly, or implicitly, include baptism.

    c. A great urgency and rush would be placed upon baptism.  People would be baptized immediately, no matter what the hour, no matter who is there, and no matter how great the inconvenience.

    d. Baptism would be given as a condition of salvation.

  1. My opponent’s model is that baptism is not necessary to salvation, is optional, and if performed, comes after salvation. He is arguing that “salvation is independent of baptism.”  Thus, according to his proposition, baptism is entirely optional.  There is no urgency or rush to preach or to practice baptism.  According to this model, certain things would be expected to be found in the New Testament records of First Century conversion:
  2. My model is that baptism is not optional, but is necessary to salvation, and must be performed at the moment of conversion. No conversion can take place without baptism.  According to this model, certain things would be expected to be found in the New Testament records of First Century conversion:

A. There are two models being offered in this debate about baptism, each of which predicts certain things.

B. When the New Testament is examined, and especially the book of Acts (which is a historical record of the early church), we find that the following factors exist:

• 1. Acts 2:38; 8:35-39; et al.: Baptism is indeed a part of preaching the gospel.  When Philip “preached Jesus” to the eunuch, the eunuch immediately wanted to be baptized.  Thus, we must conclude that preaching baptism was a part of “preaching Jesus.” On Pentecost, in the first gospel sermon after the Resurrection, Peter was asked what to do to be saved, and he answered to repent and be baptized.  In fact, in every single conversion in the book of Acts we find that baptism is either explicitly preached, or implied because the converts were immediately baptized.
  2. There are no less than at least eight specific conversions recorded in the book of Acts.  One would be enough to establish a principle, two to establish a pattern, but eight examples are irrefutable.  They are: Acts 2; Acts 8; Acts 9; Acts 10; Acts 16 (2 examples); Acts 22; and Acts 18.  Note: In every one of these eight examples the converts are immediately baptized.  Not one of these conversions leaves out baptism.
  3. Acts 16:28-33: In every single case of conversion in the book of Acts, baptism is always immediate, and done despite who is there, or despite how inconvenient.  The Philippian jailer was baptized in the middle of the night by wounded preachers.  The eunuch got his clothes wet.  This is the opposite of what one would expect if baptism were optional, and exactly the opposite of what Baptists practice.  There would be no explanation of the urgency and immediacy of baptism in Acts if baptism were “independent of” salvation.
  4. Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; et al.: Finally, baptism is indeed given as a condition of salvation in the book of Acts. My fourth argument will examine some of these passage more specifically, but a child can understand that these and other passages clearly teach that baptism is a condition of salvation.
  1. Romans 6:1-4: Christians are baptized into the death of Christ.  Paul implies that baptism is where one meets the death of Christ.
  2. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: The Corinthians had been sinners, but they were saved because they had been washed, sanctified, and justified.  What could washed mean but baptism?
  3. Galatians 3:26,27: This verse equates faith with baptism.  My opponent argues that faith is separate from baptism, but it has already been scripturally established that saving faith has always been conditioned upon obedience.  It was understood that the Galatians had all been baptized in order to clothe themselves with Christ, i.e. to be saved.
  4. Ephesians 4:5: There is one baptism.  Which is it?  It must be the same baptism that was practiced by the apostles and evangelists in every conversion in the book of Acts.  Paul here equates baptism with the body, the Spirit, the hope, the Lord, God, and the faith!  If salvation were “independent of baptism,” then baptism would be the one and only item here that had nothing to do with salvation.
  5. Colossians 2:12: The spiritual death, burial, and resurrection of the Christian with Christ (i.e. conversion), occurs at baptism.

C.    Not only in Acts, but in the rest of the New Testament, the writers either explicitly state, or implicitly state, that baptism is a part of conversion.

D. Therefore, in every single instance of conversion in the book of Acts, and in multiple references in the epistles, baptism is associated with conversion.  If baptism were “independent of” salvation, then it would not be included in these instances.  It has thus already been proven that salvation cannot be “independent of” baptism.  The fact stands that, if baptism is “independent of” salvation, then the New Testament Christians and apostles sure did not know it. Instead, they acted as if salvation were “dependent upon” baptism.

IV. Argument Number Three: Jesus Christ Commanded Baptism.

A. My opponent has spoken much about Jesus Christ and His propitiation for salvation.  He obviously places much weight on Jesus and who He is, as is right. But I would like to ask my opponent if he will place as much emphasis on what Jesus said and did?  I have thus far given much evidence that baptism is a part of salvation, and will give more evidence still.  Yet, even if every other argument that I have proposed this evening disappeared, and nothing else mattered, we would still have the example and words of Christ Himself.  This is a very simple argument: Christ commanded baptism: why then is my opponent arguing against it?  Should we not simply obey Christ and not question Him?

B. Matthew 28:19,20; Mark 16:15,16: Christ specifically commanded His apostles to go into the world, preach the gospel, and baptize.  Christ specifically stated that “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Now my opponent will probably argue that the second half of this statement somehow contradicts or negates the first, and thus accuse Christ of lying.  But the simple fact is that Christ commanded baptism, and was Himself baptized.

C. Christ commanded baptism, and He stated that belief plus baptism equals salvation.  My opponent argues that baptism is not necessary. Who is right?  Christ, or my opponent?

V. Argument Number Four: Specific Scriptures Teach that Baptism Is Necessary to Salvation.

• 1. Salvation is based 100% on God’s grace.

  2. Salvation has always been, and still is, conditioned upon obedience.  Conditionality does not negate or contradict grace.

  3. New Testament Christians, including apostles, practiced baptism at every recorded example of conversion in the book of Acts, and wrote about it in the epistles.

  4. Jesus Christ commanded baptism for salvation.

  1. Christ stated that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.  He stated that belief plus baptism equals salvation.  My opponent teaches that he who believes shall be saved, and may opt to later be baptized.  I teach that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.  Which is correct?

  2. Now my opponent may deal with this passage by arguing that the second half of the clause, “He who disbelieves shall be condemned,” somehow contradicts or negates the first half.  It cannot, for that would make Christ a liar.  What it means is: salvation requires belief plus baptism. Condemnation only requires disbelief, for one who does not believe will of course not be baptized.  Disbelief alone is all that is required for condemnation, but belief plus baptism equals salvation.

  1. Peter preached a gospel sermon.  He presented Christ as the Messiah who died for sin, and whom the Jews killed.  The people to whom he was speaking obviously believed what he said, for they were repentant, and asked Peter, “What shall we do?”  My opponent would have answered, “Do nothing, for you are already saved, because you are saved by grace alone.”  But Peter, an inspired apostle, answered: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Whom will you believe?  Kurt Streutker or Peter the apostle?

  2. It may be that my opponent will argue against this scripture by arguing that the Greek preposition translated for (eis) means because of.  However, I will pre-answer that argument by stating that this preposition simply does not, and cannot, mean because of in Greek.  Anyone who knows Greek knows this.  It is an accusative preposition, and no reputable scholar in the world translates it because of.  There is another Greek preposition, hoti, that means because of.  No English translation in the world to my knowledge translates this “because of the remission of your sins.”  Moreover, even my opponent believes that repentance is a condition of salvation.  In this passage, whatever repentance’s role is also baptism’s role, because of the construction (“repent and be baptized”).

  1. When Paul the apostle himself was told what to do in order to be saved, he was told to be baptized and wash away his sins. Clearly then, his sins were still with him until he was baptized.  It thus had to be that his salvation occurred at the moment of baptism, and contingent upon it, not unrelated to it and before it!  If Paul were already saved, then Ananias, God’s messenger, lied.

  2. There is really no argument my opponent can make against this verse except to twist the grammar of it or to ignore it.

  1. Paul states that Christians have been buried with Christ through baptism into His death.  One cannot be saved without the death of Christ (something my opponent strongly argued last night).  Well, Paul says that it is through baptism that we enter into that death.  Note: Christ died for the sin of the world, but not the entire world will be saved.  Thus, here is the condition of salvation: baptism.  How can anyone argue against Paul?

  2. The only argument my opponent can make against this passage is to either argue that Paul is not really talking about water baptism (but remember in Ephesians 4 that there is only one baptism); or to argue that the baptism here is only figurative. But note that Paul clearly states that we enter into Christ’s death – His blood – through baptism.  Let my opponent argue with the apostle Paul.

  1. Paul clearly states that a person is a son of God not only through faith, but also baptism.  To “put on Christ” or “clothe oneself with Christ,” depending on the translation, is to be saved, for we cannot be saved without Christ.  Paul clearly teaches that those who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ, meaning that those who are baptized are saved. Could it be any clearer?

  2. My opponent has argued that baptism is a work that somehow negates grace and faith.  Yet Paul the apostle equates faith and baptism.  Paul uses the two words in the very same meaning and context. Thus, apparently Paul saw no problem with baptism somehow negating faith or grace.  Again, let my opponent argue with the apostle Paul.

  1. Paul teaches that Christians were buried with Christ in baptism.  A person cannot be saved without being buried with Christ.  Therefore, a person cannot be saved without baptism.

  2. My opponent may argue that this baptism is not really water baptism, or is only symbolic.  But let us again remember that there is only one baptism (Ephesians 4).

  1. Peter states that Noah and his family were saved through water.  Now, no matter how my opponent may try to argue that Noah was not really saved through water because he was floating above it, the inspired apostle Peter says that Noah was saved through water.  I will let my opponent argue with the apostle Peter.  Then, Peter states that there is a modern antitype, meaning something today that is related to salvation through water. What is it?  Peter says it is baptism, and that it now saves you. Clearly, Peter taught that New Testament salvation was indeed dependent upon, and at the point of, baptism.

  2. My opponent cannot argue that Peter did not really mean water baptism, because Peter clearly calls baptism an antitype of souls being saved through water.  He cannot argue that Noah was not really saved through water, because Peter says he was.  What he may do is to argue that, because Peter says that baptism is not a washing of dirt from the body, that this somehow negates what Peter had already said. Not so.  Peter is stating that baptism does not save because the water somehow has mystical properties, or that the dirt on one’s body is sin.  Nor is it a common bath.  It is a spiritual thing.  Yet Peter clearly states that BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU.  Again, I leave my opponent to argue with the apostle Peter.

A.    Besides the arguments of principle and example that I have thus far set forth, all being necessary to lay a foundation, now we will examine specific scriptures which clearly teach that “New Testament salvation occurs at the point of, and dependant upon, water baptism.”  Just to remind ourselves, let us bring to memory the following summary points:

B. Mark 16:15,16:
C. Acts 2:36-38:
D. Acts 22:16:
E. Romans 6:3,4:
F. Galatians 3:26,27:
G. Colossians 2:12:
H. 1 Peter 3:20,21:
I. These seven specific scriptures each clearly teach that baptism is a condition of salvation.  They are easily understood unless their obvious meaning is twisted. Seven different times, baptism is taught as being necessary to salvation, and thus salvation is dependent upon baptism.  Let my opponent demonstrate to the audience why these passages do not really mean what they so obviously say!

VI. Summary Argument.

• 1. Salvation has always been based on God’s grace, but conditioned upon man’s obedience.  New Testament salvation, like all of God’s salvation, is conditional.

  2. The New Testament Christians, including apostles and evangelists, all taught and practiced baptism for the remission of sins. Moreover, when they baptized people, it was always at every conversion, it was always urgent, and it was always done immediately.

  3. Jesus Christ commanded baptism.  He specifically commanded his apostles to preach the gospel and baptize people, and that “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.”

  4. Finally, I listed seven specific passages which each teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

A. The following summarizes my affirmative argument, supporting the proposition that “The scriptures teach that New Testament salvation occurs at the point of, and dependant upon, water baptism.”  I have made four distinct arguments, and I ask my opponent, in his negative arguments, to demonstrate to the audience where he finds fault in the scriptures I used, and the arguments that I made.  His job in the negative is not to offer new affirmative arguments, but to logically demonstrate why my affirmative arguments are in error.

• 1. Negate my arguments: show why they are in error. Negate ALL FOUR, not ignoring any.
  2. Answer this: If salvation is unconditional, then which of the three logical options I presented do you believe: Universal Salvation, Universal Damnation, or Calvinistic Predestination?
  3. Answer this: If a person refused to obey Christ’s commandment to be baptized, then would he be saved?
  4. If not, then aren’t you really agreeing that baptism is necessary for salvation?
  5. If baptism is completely independent of salvation, then why did the New Testament Christians and apostles always baptize people at every conversion, with immediacy and urgency?
  6. If a group of people who believed in Christ and were repentant asked you, “What shall we do?”, what would your answer be?
  7. If your answer is different than that of Peter the apostle, then please explain to the audience why?

B. It was agreed before the debate that any specific questions to one’s opponent may not total more than ten, and must be presented before each speech begins.  I have handed my opponent a list of the following questions before this speech. These are the things I challenge my opponent to do in his negative speeches this evening

C. This is all I have.  I do not want to flood my opponent with questions to throw him off, because that is dishonest.  I only ask him to answer as many as he has time for, and to concentrate on negating my arguments, and not introducing new affirmative material, for this is what we agreed to.  I thank my opponent, the audience, and the moderator.

The interesting thing about this affirmative address, beyond the fact that it accomplished everything Matt intended it to accomplish, is that Mr. Streutker could not and did not really even attempt to answer any of Matt’s challenges. In fact, after the first negative speech, which was full of new material and new false charges, the moderator was forced to chastise Mr. Streutker for dishonoring his signed agreement which specifically prohibited the presentation of any new material in the negative. He further refused to answer the specific questions presented in writing by Matt to Mr. Streutker, under the rules of the debate, further manifesting his own lack of integrity and honor.

It was obvious that between Mr. Steinmann, who never made his presence known at the debate, if he was even there, and Mr. Streutker, that they had one and only one item on their agenda, and that was to gain an audience to further their false doctrine. In their dishonor, though, all they accomplished was the building up of the faith of a talented young preacher and the sound refutation of evil before a large assembly of true Christians and a relative few Baptists.

My personal thanks are extended to the elders of the Lockland church for the use of their facilities for this debate, to Paul Smithson, the preacher for the Lockland church, who served as Matt’s debate partner, and to the members of the Lockland church, the Fairfax church, where Matt preaches and several others who came from quite a distance to support the defense of the truth of the Word of God. To God be the glory in every defense of His truth.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the Prophets: "Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way before You. The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:1-4).

Hence, the following facts must be understood from the work of John the Baptist:

1. It was the beginning of the gospel of Christ.
2. John prepared the way for Jesus through his work and teaching.
3. The baptism John taught was based upon repentance. In other words, people were baptized as a result of having first repented of their sins.
4. When people responded to John’s teaching about repentance, they confessed their sins and were baptized.
5. The baptism was "for the remission of sins."
6. The record goes on to say that the baptisms of John’s work took place "in the river Jordan" (Mark 1:5). The reason John chose that place was "because there was much water there" (John 3:23). Therefore, the baptism under consideration is not sprinkling or pouring, but immersion.

Clearly, part of the message of John the Baptist was that people must repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. Lest anyone think this was merely John’s idea, Luke 3:2-3 says it was the "word of God" which came unto John. Thus, God commanded the repentance and baptism taught by John in laying the foundation for the gospel of Christ.

Jesus Comments On John’s Teaching

During Jesus’ ministry, He was asked a question regarding the origin of His authority (Matthew 21:23-32). He responded with a question of His own, alluding back to the baptism taught by John. He asked, "The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?" (v. 25). Both He and His detractors knew those were the only alternatives. If it was from men, it was vain (Mark 7:7-9). If it was from heaven, that would mean it was from God making it essential. Their reasoning to arrive at an answer is interesting. "If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’" (v. 25). They recognized that they could not say they believed one when they had not obeyed his message. If they really believed John’s baptism was from heaven, they would have been baptized! Jesus confirms their understanding of that which was involved in true belief. In Matthew 21:32, He contrasts the publicans and harlots who had believed John with the officials of Israel who did not believe him. How could it be known that one group believed while the other group did not believe? Simple, one obeyed and the other did not obey.

Starting in Luke 7:18, the text relates an indirect contact between Jesus and John. After that exchange, Jesus praises John as a great prophet who coming was foretold by Malachi. Notice the contrast in attitudes seen by different groups upon hearing Jesus speak of John as a prophet of God:

And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him (Luke 7:29-30).

If one had not been obedient to the teaching coming from God through John regarding baptism, they rejected God’s counsel! While some accuse those teaching the necessity of water baptism of being "Pharisees," the truth is that the Pharisees were those who did not view baptism as essential. So, when one says baptism is not necessary for remission of sins and salvation, he is in agreement with the Pharisees and their doctrine.

Today, we hear a number of people, including many preachers, saying baptism is not a part of the pattern revealed in the gospel of Christ regarding our salvation. They say one is saved at the point of faith alone, before and without water baptism. How would that have worked in John’s time? Jesus said that those who failed to obey did not believe. Might that be the problem with some today who do not obey? When we call the prophet "John the Baptist," is it not because he stressed the essential nature of baptism for the remission sins in his teaching? What a misnomer it is for one to be called a "Baptist" who does not believe baptism is essential! Yet, that is the common teaching heard in "Baptist" churches across the land, whatever variety they might be.

The Teaching Of Jesus Regarding Conditions Of Salvation

But what did Jesus teach in His gospel when He declared the terms upon which we may be forgiven of our sins? Did He state any conditions at all? How can we know the intentions of our Lord regarding this matter? Did He express His will and leave it behind as people today may leave their will behind expressing the conditions for inheriting of certain blessings?

The Hebrew writer speaks of Christ’s gospel as a "will" or "testament." As in all wills or testaments, the writer notes, "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives" (Hebrews 9:16-17). Thus, Christ’s will did not take effect until after He died. If we want to know the pattern for our salvation today, we do not follow the example of those saved before the death of Jesus. We would not look to Noah and build an ark. We would not look to Abraham and sojourn through Palestine. Nor would we say, "I want to be saved like the thief on the cross." All of those cases were before the death of Christ.

Jesus had a unique opportunity regarding His will. He was able to announce its conditions after He died! This was made possible because of His resurrection. But what did He say about the conditions of His will? The following three passages are parallel announcements of that will which, when taken as a whole, clearly define the conditions for our salvation:

All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:18-20).

Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned (Mk. 16:15-16).

Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Lk. 24:46-47).

When we gather the sum of the information, what do we find? One must hear the gospel, believe it, repent of his sins, be baptized and continue to do all things commanded by Christ through His apostles. The one who meets those conditions is blessed by God to be a disciple of Christ, saved and remitted of sins. Very simply, those are the conditions and blessings laid down by Christ in His will. None of us has the right to change that will. We cannot take part of it, reject the rest, and still expect the inheritance of salvation. We must look to the gospel as originally preached, believe it and obey it.

And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Let us now compare this account of conversion from the Bible with some commonly held beliefs in our religious world today.

1. The Character of the Eunuch Did Not Make Him Right Before God. He had traveled many miles to worship God and was reading his Bible as he returned home. This man was religious, sincere, and good. Some might wonder why Philip was sent to him. The reason is that, in spite of his good qualities, he was lost. He was not lost because he was religious or good; he was lost because of sin. Rom. 3:23 tells us that "all have sinned." It is widely believed today that if a person is religious, good, and sincere, he is right in the sight of God. The Eunuch possessed these qualities in a way that would surpass many today, yet he was not saved.

2. The Preacher Comes to Him. The Holy Spirit speaking to the Eunuch would be in harmony with many "conversion experiences" in our world today. Many people claim to have been converted by some direct, miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit. Here we have a case of conversion from God’s word where both the Holy Spirit and an angel are involved — and yet neither speak to the Eunuch. Why is this so? The Bible tells us that faith comes from hearing the word of God, not from miraculous workings or visits from heavenly beings (Romans 10:13-17; John 6:44-45). It was therefore important that Philip come and teach from God’s word. We see that that is exactly where he starts, by asking, "Understandest thou what thou readest?" The Bible tells us that his message to the Eunuch was simply "Jesus."

3. The Eunuch’s Response. We see the results of preaching "Jesus" when the Eunuch sees water and asks, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Beyond noting that baptism is included in preaching "Jesus," we see that the Eunuch wanted to be baptized right away. Why is this so? The Bible is clear in telling us the purpose of baptism:

   "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

4. "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…" (1 Peter 3:21).

   The Eunuch was lost in sin. The text he was reading from told of Jesus’ death for the sins of man (Isa. 53:6). The Bible teaches that it is at baptism – not at the point of faith as many modern religions teach – that one receives the blessings of the blood of Christ. Therefore the Eunuch sought to be baptized on the basis of his faith without delay. Many today tell us that baptism is not necessary, and that it is alright to delay being baptized. One could not prove such doctrine by the Eunuch’s response. He wanted to baptized immediately!

This case of conversion teaches us that it takes more to be right in the sight of God than just being a sincere, religious person. It also teaches us that if one is sincere and religious that person is well suited to obey the word of God in order to be saved from sin. Let us all remember as we go forth to teach others the gospel that many religions are preaching their own teaching on salvation in Christ. Stories of conversion, like that of the Ethiopian Eunuch, help us to show the lost the way of salvation in truth.

In the case of both circumstances where Philip preached, people were baptized into Christ (Acts 8:12, 13, 38). The record tells of his preaching “the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12) and simply preaching “Jesus” (Acts 8:35) both of which resulted in the baptism of those who heard him preach and believed what they heard. All of this was in keeping with the command of Jesus given first to His apostles to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and in baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16).

The conversions in Acts 8 under the preaching of Philip each lend their unique contribution to our understanding of the salvation or conversion process. This is vital, based on the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18:3; where He said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” In the conversion of the Samaritans, we see the role of the Holy Spirit in simply revealing and confirming the spoken word, not in the conversion process itself. God’s Spirit does not act in such a way as to fill a man to coerce him to do that which is against his own human will. God seeks those who will obey him from the heart (John 4:23-24; Romans 6:17). The conversion of the Ethiopian teaches us several things about baptism that I want us to consider in this article.

• “He was led as a sheep to slaughter; And as a lamb before its shearer is silent, So He does not open His mouth. “In humiliation His judgment was taken away; Who shall relate His generation? For His life is removed from the earth.”

But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “Arise and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) And he arose and went; and behold, there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship. And he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” And when Philip had run up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:

And the eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else?” And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing.”

Initially, let us consider the role of the preacher. The angel told Philip to go to the man, and the Holy Spirit specifically instructed the preacher to join the stranger in his chariot. Picture this in your mind. Two men are riding down a desert road of all things studying the Bible. Friends and brethren, we need to learn the importance of Bible study. Deuteronomy 6:6-9, “And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” While our judicial system is restricting the free access and posting of the word of God, the Bible tells us to put the word in out hearts, teach it to our children, and talk of it day in and day out in every aspect of life. We need to study the Bible. Philip, fully understanding his role in this situation, asked the man about his level of understanding. Teachers, learn this lesson as well. Find out where your students are in their knowledge and their ability to grasp and understand teaching, principles and concepts. Paul, the apostle, even found common ground in his pagan audience in Athens. Acts 17:22-23, “And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, ‘Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.” What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.’” Once Paul established the common ground, he proceeded to that which was Uncommon and preached the gospel to the people. Such is the nature of the work of Philip with the Ethiopian. Philip took his student from where he was and delivered him to where he needed to be, and he did it through preaching.

We are being told today that there are better ways to reach people with the truth of God’s word. There is not. So-called “scientists” among us are telling us that we can better understand the story of creation through the scientific method. I deny it. Philip took a heathen and “preached unto him Jesus.” Paul declared, 1 Corinthians 1:21, “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” Jesus said, in the great commission already cited to go “preach the gospel.” We need to cease with all the “modern” approaches and get back to preaching the gospel to a lost and dying world. It worked for Philip. It will work for us. It is the only thing that will work.

How is it, back in our text of Acts 8, that the Ethiopian could go from reading Isaiah to the waters of baptism only through the preaching of Jesus? Is it such a stretch to conclude that the preaching of Jesus not only suggests water baptism, but rather, demands it? After the Holy Spirit fell on those in the household of Cornelius in Acts 10, the record tells us that “And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). Baptism is the natural conclusion of the preaching of Jesus. Everywhere the apostles and prophets of the Lord went and preached the gospel found people who believed it being baptized. Of course, some did not believe the gospel and refused baptism, but every believer whose conversion is recorded in the Word of God is said to have been baptized. It all happened through the foolishness of preaching.

How did the Ethiopian react to the preaching? Or better yet, how did he not react? He did not react with any recorded opposition. He did not react with any recorded questioning of the authority by which Philip obviously commanded the water baptism to which he submitted himself. He did not react with any recorded reference to some ancestral tradition that may or may not have shed some negative light on a long deceased relative. He reacted with excitement! Preachers who simply read the words of Acts 8:36, “See here is water.” need to look at the New American Standard Bible and get a feel for the excitement in the voice of the eunuch. The translators there add exclamation points which lexicographers tell us actually belong. This man was excited to see the water, and not due to the dryness of the desert road. He was excited at the opportunity to be buried with Christ in baptism for the remission of his sins. No regrets! No rebellion! No self centeredness! No annoying questioning! He showed the attitude, “Lord, you speak and I will listen and I will do your will.”

It was the same attitude of Saul of Tarsus when the Lord knocked him on his face on a different road. Saul said, “Who are you, Lord?” Upon hearing what he did not expect to hear, that it was Jesus of Nazareth, Saul asked with full confidence concerning the One to whom he addressed his question, “Lord, what would you have me to do?” This question and the answer thereto provided the means whereby this heretic was saved. A preacher eventually went to him and told him to be baptized in order to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16).

All we need is preaching coupled with good and faithful hearts. The combination is unbeatable. It is the only scriptural combination that works. Shall we follow the example of this foreigner’s conversion and learn to put things in their proper place? May God bless you as you “study to show your self approved unto God” (2 Timothy 2:15).