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.)

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.]

"University Baptist Church in Austin, Texas, has notified the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) that they are pulling out of the national group because of its policy against homosexuals, according to a report in The American-Statesman.

"The CBF’s policy prohibits the hiring of non-celibate gays and lesbians, bars them from missionary work and does not allow the organization to give money to homosexual groups or causes.

"’We most deeply regret the condemning message you have sent in the name of Christ to all gay and lesbian persons by your action,’ wrote the Rev. Larry Bethune in a letter from the church Aug. 16. ‘Because it is God’s call for our congregation to minister with gay and lesbian Baptist Christians and their families, we cannot in good conscience support an organization which discriminates against our brothers and sisters in Christ … any more than we could do so if the CBF discriminated on the basis of race or gender,’ Bethune wrote.

"This isn’t the first scrape University Baptist has had over its policy of welcoming homosexuals. The Austin Baptist Association voted to oust the church in 1995 after University Baptist ordained a gay deacon. The Baptist General Convention of Texas’ executive committee voted to end its affiliation with University Baptist in 1998. University Baptist is a member of the American Baptist Churches, U.S.A., a Baptist denomination that continues to debate whether to take a stand on churches that allow non-celibate homosexual members."

Candid Comments

First, how does the average Baptist regard the spiritual status of "the Rev. Larry Bethune" and the "University Baptist Church in Austin"? Are those who endorse and sanction homosexual behavior, such as they do, still in a saved state before God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)?

It will not do for a Baptist to say that he does not want to answer the question lest he be "judgmental." No, he cannot take that route. He says homosexuality is wrong. That is a judgment. Baptists "judge" that homosexuals are practicing sin. Now, are their brethren, such as "the Rev. Larry Bethune," who equate the acceptance of homosexuals with the acceptance of blacks and other minorities, approved in the sight of God (Ephesians 4:17-19)? When they fellowship the homosexual and withdraw from their brethren who stand for the truth against that sin, are those erring Baptists in a saved condition before God? Since the average Baptist has "judged" the homosexual as being contrary to Scripture, surely he can tell us what he thinks of the spiritual condition of his brethren who support and sustain the sin. Since he has "judged" that the homosexual is in sin, he cannot say that he will not answer a question about his brethren who accept it lest he be "judgmental."

Since "The Austin Baptist Association" voted to "oust" "University Baptist" because they ordained a "gay deacon," we know that Baptists cannot plead that they are "non-judgmental." So, we want to know if a thing is bad enough to get a church kicked out of "The Austin Baptist Association," is it bad enough to keep one from heaven (1 Peter 2:11)? Some Baptist needs to tell us.

Baptists believe in "once saved, always saved." Because of that, they do not believe their sinful brethren are "fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:4). Indeed, Baptists not only cannot condemn those like "the Rev." who welcomes the homosexual brother, neither can they condemn a saved individual who turns to the sin. To do so would be to deny their doctrine of "once in grace, always in grace."

Second, if I were a black Baptist, I think I would resent comparing the acceptance of homosexuals to the acceptance of others without respect to "race or gender," as did "the Rev." Bethune. Is the acceptance of a racial minority on the same moral and spiritual level as the acceptance of homosexuals (Cf. the principles of Romans 1:24-32 with James 2:1-5)? Perhaps a black Baptist ought to address that issue.

Third, what shall be said of pedophiles (sex with children)? Does "the Rev." Bethune "discriminate" against them by refusing them fellowship in his church? Does he see it as "God’s call for our congregation to minister with gay and lesbian and pedophile Baptist Christians and their families" on the same basis as he accepts others without respect to "race or gender"? If not, is he guilty of "discrimination" when he refuses the impenitent, practicing pedophile? He says that to refuse to fellowship homosexuals is to be guilty of "condemning" them. Is the same true of him? Is he "condemning" the pedophile when he rejects him?

If "The Rev." could appoint a "gay deacon," perhaps he could anoint a pedophilic presbyter. Let him tell us whether or not he could and why.

Fourth, are "Baptist Christians" who turn to pedophilia still saved when they do so?

Fifth, what are "Baptist Christians"? Where could I find one in the New Testament? Whether heterosexual or homosexual, where could we find one in the Bible?

Sixth, again we see the danger of ecclesiastical organizations. "The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship" has a "policy against homosexuals." This time their "policy" was correct as they dictated it to the churches, but what right do they have to exercise this power over the churches? Indeed, where is such an arrangement, such a fellowship of churches, found in the New Testament (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2)? The churches of the New Testament were never bound in such "church-hood" associations. They were not linked together to set standards of moral and spiritual conduct and to issue policy statements for the churches. If they were, where is the organizational apparatus of a combination of churches to be found? What are its qualifications? Who decides who shall oversee and lead? "It is voluntary," you say? Well, what Scriptures say anything about a "voluntary" confederation or association of churches (Colossians 3:17)?

There was no combination or amalgamation of churches in the New Testament. Neither were there Baptist Churches (nor Baptist Christians) in the first century, either.

Concluding Comments

It is to be hoped that "honest and good hearts" will be made to reflect on the conflict and confusion created by denominational doctrines and organizations. The pure plan and pattern of the New Testament, when faithfully followed, will never lead Christians into such contradictory positions as have been unmasked above. Surely, that ought to cause one so ensnared to pause and ponder the cause and course of the system of religion which he has espoused.

Ironically, a few who agree that homosexual acts are sinful will criticize our remarks. Somehow, in the minds of some, the exposure of evil and the pointing out of the logical inconsistencies of religious error is the greatest sin. However, since Ephesians 5:11 says that we are "to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them," we shall neither apologize nor be much dismayed by those who want us to do so.

First, it matters not at all how the Baptists or any other sect votes on any issue or doctrine. All the edicts of all the ecclesiastical bodies of the all the earth count for nothing and mean even less. What is changed by their vote? Are the resolutions of men bound upon the word of God? Can they alter what God has said? No, not one syllable! As Jeremiah said when men sought to challenge and change the word of God, “all…shall know whose words shall stand, mine, or theirs” (Jer. 44:28).

Second, does Ephesians 5:21-33 still teach that men are to unselfishly sacrifice themselves for the good of their wives and to love their wives as their own bodies (5:25-28)? Does the text still say that men are to love their wives and surrender their lives on her behalf (5:25-29, 33)? Does the passage say that the wife is to submit to her husband “as unto the Lord” (5:22)? Do those verses still say the wife is to be subject to her husband as the church is subject to Christ (5:23, 24)? If so, what does the Baptist vote mean with respect to our duty before God (“Study to show thyself approved unto God,” not unto the Baptists!)?

Third, if Baptists can veto, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” and can alter it to mean, “He that believeth is saved and should later be baptized,” why should we be surprised at their revolt against another portion of Scripture (Cf. Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16)?

Fourth, what do Baptists who still hold to the subjection of the woman believe about their erring brethren? Those Baptists who believe the wife is to be subject to her husband are in a quandary with respect to their doctrine of “once saved, always saved.” Their Baptist brethren have denied a portion of the very word of God. What is the condition of one who does so? When one denies the doctrine of Christ, “he hath not God” (2 Jn. 9). When one “errs from the truth,” as these Baptists have, their soul is in a spiritual state of “death” (Jas. 5:19, 20). See also Mark 8:38 and John 12:48. To “vote against” the word of God is sure way for one to lose his “election” (2 Pet. 1:10, 11; 2:20-22).

So, let our Baptist friends tell us whether their brethren who deny the word of God are saved or not. If they are, one can deny the word of God and go to heaven! If they are not, down goes their doctrine of “once in grace, always in grace.” Which is it? Will a Baptist tell us?

Dear Mr. Hafley, Thank you for responding to my article. I will get right to the point. I know all about what you teach and believe. I was raised in the Church of Christ; I was baptized at Cedar Bayou when I was 11 by a man named Roy Calma. I have attended your church as well as Missouri Street. All of my family is Church of Christ. My parents are members of Lakewood. I said all that to say this: It is a wicked and false doctrine in which you are involved. My Bible tells me in 2nd John, v. 9, 10, how to deal with people who teach false doctrine.

I believe water baptism is very important in a Christian’s life, but it plays no part in salvation. I know the moment I was born again, and water baptism had nothing to do with it. It is an act of obedience, an external picture of what happened to you on the inside when you get saved.

The difference between us is what Christ did at Calvary. For me, the blood he shed is sufficient to take me to heaven. My salvation is done. For you, he had to die that awful death, and then you have to get baptized, and then you have to work to keep your salvation. You teach that man has a part in God’s plan of salvation. Man never has and never will have a part in God’s plan of salvation.

My objective is not to argue and debate, because nobody will get saved. I am not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change my mind. My objective is to see lost sinners come to Jesus. Will you join me in telling as many as we can that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, (and) that the only way to heaven is through the blood of Jesus?

Mr. Hafley, you are not my enemy. I love you and so does Jesus. Please ask him to show the truth before it is too late.

God Bless You,

Bro. Tim

Paul spoke of “the meekness and gentleness of Christ” immediately before employing words which describe the militant nature of gospel warfare (2 Cor. 10:1, 3-5, 11). The Spirit of God was able to direct men to be “gentle” while, without contradiction, he used harsh words to identify errorists and their error (2 Tim. 2:24; Cf. 2:16-18; 3:1-8, 13; 4:2-4, 10, 14-16). On the one hand, the Spirit could speak of walking “in love” “as dear children,” while at the same time exhorting us to “expose” “the unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph. 5:1, 2, 11; Cf. 6:10-20).

However, it is apparent that at least one of us is an enemy of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18). We both may be wrong, but it is certain that we both cannot be right before God. Obviously, as your citation of 2 John 9, 10, reveals, you believe I am wrong and unworthy of both your fellowship and God’s.

I wonder, Tim, if you truly believe 2 John 9 (“Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God”) applies to saved people. The text must refer to the saved, for the lost “have not God” to begin with. If one of your fellow Baptists should “err from the truth,” that is, transgress and not abide in the doctrine of Christ, would he “have not God” (Jas. 5:19, 20; Cf. 1 Jn. 2:24)?

Now, since you have cited 2 John 9, 10, I want to know if you apply it. Will you please tell me what happens to the saved who do not let the word abide in them and who “abide not in the doctrine of Christ” (1 Jn. 2:24; 2 Jn. 9)? Tim, in light of your use of 2 John 9, you will have to give up the clear implication of the passage, or you will have to surrender your Baptist doctrine of “once saved, always saved.” Which will you do?

Without surprise, but with regret, I note that your response did not address a single issue nor answer any of the questions which were submitted to you in the review of your article. You must know that your position was brought into serious question by the review. Why, then, did you not address the challenges to your doctrine? Was it because you could not harmonize Baptist doctrine with the Bible? If not, why did you not attempt to help me learn the truth? You say I need to know “the truth before it is too late.” Why, then, did you not show me the error of my ways?

You do greatly err when you say, “I am not going to change your mind.” That is not only an assault on my integrity, it is a false charge. If I am shown by the Bible the error of my ways, I will change. Accordingly, you do yourself no favor when you say, “You are not going to change my mind.” Tim, that smacks of stubbornness. Surely, if you were convinced by the word of God that you were wrong, you would change your mind. I would. That being so, you need to deal with the issues and questions in my review which severely challenged the very base and heart of your teaching. Since we are to be “set for the defense of the gospel,” and to “give an answer,” surely you see that both duty and honesty demand that you not ignore the refutation of your doctrine (Phil. 1:17; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3). Some day, my friend, you and I will have to answer for how we have handled the word of God (Mk. 8:38; Jn. 12:48).

Too, what of your parents and family who are members of the church? If, according to your use of 2 John 9, 10, I am unworthy of your fellowship and “have not God,” is the same true of your loved ones? Why not? Do you think that they, like me, need to learn “the truth before it is too late”? Everything you say of me, every charge you make against what I have taught, applies with equal force against all your family.

Tim, this exchange has been broadcast in this country and in the Philippines. It is all over the internet. It has been sent to some of your Baptist brethren. Many are likely to be appalled when they see your failure to respond and at least attempt to salvage your position.

Naaman had to perform “an act obedience” before he could be healed of leprosy (2 Kgs. 5:1-15). His dipping in the Jordan River did not mean he had healed himself, but he could not be healed without submitting to that “act of obedience” (2 Kgs. 5:13, 14). Likewise, the blind man in John 9 was healed by the Lord but not until he went and washed in the pool of Siloam (9:1-7). He had to perform “an act of obedience” before the Lord healed him. We, too, must submit ourselves to the Lord’s commands, to his plan of making men righteous (Rom. 10:3, 16). One of those commands is baptism in his name “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; 10:48).

It is only when we “obey” that we are made free from sin (Rom. 6:17, 18). It is only the obedient who are given eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9). It is only those who “do” the will of the Father who are saved (Matt. 7:21). Therefore, the fact that baptism is, as you say, “an act obedience,” does not mean that it has “no part in salvation.” As the illustrations show, the fact that it is “an act of obedience” rather serves to enforce its necessity (1 Pet. 1:22).

The Corinthians had been “washed” in the name of the Lord and by the Spirit. They had been “baptized” (Acts 18:8; Cf. 1 Cor. 12:13). The new birth is “of water and the Spirit.” The Corinthian’s conversion involved the Spirit and water baptism, but yours, you say, did not. Hence, your alleged new birth is not like that of the Bible.

What is that “washing of regeneration”? There is a washing, a cleansing involved in the process of regeneration. It is not our own works. It is the work or operation of God when one is baptized (Col. 2:12). It is “the washing of water” (Eph. 5:26). The Ephesians had been baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” “for the remission of sins” (Acts 19:5; 2:38). Like Saul, they were to be baptized as the Lord “washed” away their sins by the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:7; Acts 19:5; 2:38). Despite all this, “water baptism had nothing to do with” your being “born again.” Tim, the Scriptures above show that your new birth is not the new birth of the New Testament.

Tim, you may choose not to tell me where you learned that baptism is “an external picture” of our salvation, but you will have to answer to God for how you have handled his word in that regard. Now, you know better. Will you continue to teach your view anyway? “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing (that is, “handling aright”) the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

You see, faith, belief in Christ is a “work” (Jn. 6:28, 29). Repentance is something that man must do–”Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3). Now, to the strict Calvinist, those required “acts of obedience,” faith and repentance, demean the all sufficiency of the blood of Christ. They believe that man can do absolutely nothing, not even believe and repent, without denigrating the blood of Christ. They believe your insistence (as the tracts you sent me say), that the sinner must believe and repent undermines “what Christ did at Calvary.” Again, Tim, how do you answer their charge?

Christ died for Adolf Hitler, but so far as we know, Hitler was not saved. The blood of Christ was “sufficient to take (Hitler) to heaven,” yet he was not saved. Why not, Tim?

(3) In Christ (not out of him), the Ephesians had “redemption through his blood” (Eph. 1:7). The Ephesians “were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). Baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ (is) for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). So, the Ephesians were redeemed by the blood of Christ when they were baptized into him, into his name.

(4) The saints at Colosse were redeemed by the blood of Christ (Col. 1:14, 20). When they were “buried with (Christ) in baptism,” through faith in the working of God, they were forgiven (Col. 2:11-13; Cf. Rom. 6:3, 4, 17, 18).

Tim, as these passages reveal, the New Testament links salvation by the blood of Christ with one’s baptism into Christ. Why, then, do you separate the two?

Romans 2:6, 7–”Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.“ Tim, do we have to steadfastly continue in doing good and seek for glory and honor and immortality before we are given “eternal life”? Will you deny the word of the Spirit in Romans 2?

Philippians 1:27; 2:12–”Stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel….Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Tim, why did you say that one must do nothing to “keep (his) salvation”? Why would you speak in denial of the passages above?

1 Timothy 6:12, 19–”Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life….Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.” Tim, do we have to fight and lay up good works in order that we may lay hold on eternal life? Surely, you will not deny the word of God, will you?

2 Timothy 4:7, 8–”I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness.” Tim, the word, “henceforth” shows that because he had fought, finished, and kept the faith, “there is laid up for (him) a crown of righteousness.” Do you see how your words conflict with what Paul said?

Hebrews 12:14–”Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Cf. Titus 2:11-14; Jas. 1:27; 4:4; 2 Pet. 2:11). You say your salvation is “done,” and that you need not do anything. Must you, Tim, in order to “see the Lord,” “follow peace with all men” and live a holy, godly life? Can you “see the Lord” without living peaceably with all men and without living a pure life? Can you (Heb. 12:14)? If so, how can you say, in effect, “I don’t have to ‘work’ to keep my salvation”? You may not answer me, but you will face God in judgment with your words and these Scriptures!

2 Peter 1:10, 11–”Give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be administered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Tim, why should we “give diligence to make (our) calling and election sure” if there is no doubt about it? Why do you say it is “done,” and that you have no need “give diligence to make your calling and election sure”?

Revelation 2:10–”Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” Tim, in view of the statement above, why did you attempt to shame me for believing that one must be faithful unto death? If one is not faithful unto death, will the Lord give him a crown of life anyway? If so, why the warning?

Tim, how could these passages be true if, as you say, man has no “part in God’s plan of salvation”? How could one’s actions judge himself “unworthy of everlasting life” if man has no part in God’s plan of salvation? If man has no part in God’s plan of salvation, how could it matter whether or not they continued in the word of Christ, or whether or not they knew the truth? Tim, can you explain these passages since you say man “never has and never will have a part in God’s plan of salvation”? I do not think you can explain the difference between what you say and what these passages say. You may not give me an answer, but you will give an answer to Christ (Jn. 12:48).

Nearly every statement you made in your letter conflicts with the teaching of the Bible. Tim, does this not bother you? Does it not trouble you? If it does not, it should.

Yes, Tim, Jesus is, indeed, “the way, the truth, and the life.” (In fact, I have a video taped sermon by that very title which you ought to see.) However, I will not join you in your preaching of Jesus, for you do not present him as he presents himself in the New Testament, as we have abundantly shown.

Too, it is a bit confusing that you should want me to “join” you, especially since you earlier applied 2 John 9, 10, to me and implied that you could not receive me. Then, you say we together could tell “as many as we can that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.” Is our telling them essential to their salvation, Tim? I believe it is necessary that we preach and tell men about Jesus (Rom. 10:13-17; 1 Cor. 1:18). But, I do not see how you can believe it, especially since you said that “man never has and never will have a part in God’s plan of salvation.” If we must tell sinners that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life,” would that not make us a part of God’s plan to save them? If so, that would contradict your declaration that man has no part in the plan of salvation. Once again, Tim, you find yourself at odds with the teaching of the Bible. Does this not alarm you? It should.

Finally, you tell me to ask God to show me the truth before it is too late. Well, why do you not show me? That is your job! Just as you would have me to join with you in “telling as many as we can” about Jesus, why do you not tell me the truth about Jesus and show me the error of my way? Tim, do not try to avoid your duty here and place it in God’s hands. Hear what God said to Ezekiel, “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand” (Ezek. 3:18).

As noted, we both cannot be right before God. One of us is wrong, eternally wrong. We will be judged by the word of God. Accordingly, I am willing for that word to be the standard, the pattern, by which we are to live (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 1:13; Heb. 8:5). If you have the truth, you should have no trouble showing us the error of our ways. You are obligated to do so (Ezek. 3:17-21; Acts 20:26, 27).

I trust that your conscience will not let you rest until you resolve these matters in your mind. I will be happy to study with you privately or publicly. I have no interest but that of the truth and of your soul, my soul, and the souls of those whom we teach (Matt. 15:14; 1 Tim. 4:16). If I can be of help to you in any way, do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely,
Larry Ray Hafley

Jeremiah 6:16–”Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein.”

This great country is a mess today because Christians have traded in the old paths of old time religion for new paths that are not getting the job done. God said in the above verse to ask for the old way, for it is a good way, and walk in this way. The old ways are what made this the greatest nation in the world and is what made our churches Holy and different from the world. But sometime back in the 1960s, parents stopped passing down the old ways to their kids, and started giving them the new ways.

The new ways are driving this country away from God. Don’t tell me that things are wonderful in America today. We are reaping what we have been sowing, and it’s all because we have forsaken the old for the new.

We have some today who are taking new paths as far as who is called to preach. God never had and never will call a woman to preach. The high calling of God to lead his church is for specially called men only. You will not find a woman being called to preach in the Bible. The Bible ways that a woman is the weaker vessel and should be subject to her husband. God is not going to call the weaker vessel to preach his word. God definitely has a place for women, but it’s not behind the pulpit.

We have churches today that are taking new paths for preaching or lack of it. Many churches today have replaced red hot, sin hating, hell fire preaching with dramas, musicals, family life centers and a lot of other humanistic garbage that is not getting people to repent and turn to Jesus. It seems that all churches care about today is pleasing man and telling him what he wants to hear, not what he needs to hear. Paul told us in 2 Timothy 4 that this would happen in the day that we are living.

Churches today have taken the “new path” even in the songs they play. Songs should be about and give honor to our Lord Jesus. There is nothing Holy about Christian rock or Contemporary Gospel. Give me “At Calvary” and “How Firm a Foundation” and not the “new path” trash that is polluting our churches today.

Christians are taking the “new path” as for separation. Some people go to church on Sunday and still live like the devil during the week. They dress like the world. I do not believe a lady should show part of her body that should be reserved for her husband only. I believe that men should dress and act like men and not have long hair or earrings. Shame on you if you are a Christian that smokes, drinks, or cusses. The only Bible some will ever read is what they see in you. It’s time to get back to the “old paths” of separation and look and act differently from the rest of the world.

It’s time we get back to the “old path” of salvation.

Religious institutions today are telling people if they are good and come to church they will go to Heaven. This is a wicked path and it’s sending people to Hell every day. Some are telling folks that if they get baptized they are saved. The “water baptism path” is a lie straight from the pits of Hell. The old path and only path is true repentance; realizing you are a sinner, turning from your sins and accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior; believing that the blood he shed for you at Calvary is sufficient payment for your sin debt. It doesn’t matter what the world says or what the church says; the only thing that matters is what the Bible says. The Bible says in John 3:3 that you must be born again to see the kingdom of God.

You probably think that I’m a Neanderthal and am against everything. I am just against stuff that is causing our kids to kill themselves and each other. I’m against things that cause this great nation to crumble. I’m against the new ways that are poisoning our churches where people leave the same way they came.

I am for the old paths where people came to old path churches, heard old path singing, sat under old path preaching, got under old path conviction and got old path saved! It’s time for Christians to look around and see that the new paths are wicked and evil, and get back to the old paths while there is still time.

Too, we commend THE BAYTOWN SUN for publishing such a critical article. Though Mr. Cryer’s remarks were stinging rebukes to churches who employ and utilize women preachers and who have social and recreational facilities as a major thrust of their work, the editor allowed them to appear. We commend him for this openness and pray that it will continue (Jn. 3:20, 21).

Now, we shall respond Mr. Cryer’s article. We shall speak as plainly as did he and also in the same spirit of love. We ask that our readers objectively examine what is said in light of what the Bible teaches (Isa. 8: 20; Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15).

Third, we note that Mr. Cryer often failed to cite Scripture for his views. Rather, he relied on what “I’m against,” and “I believe.” To be fair, space limitations may hinder in that regard. Still, his words would have had greater effect had they been backed up by direct appeals to “the old paths” and less to his own personal statements (Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 4:6; Col. 3:17; 1 Pet. 4:11). We must all get back to “the old paths” of citing book, chapter, and verse and reject the “new path” of personal opinions and human traditions (Isa. 8:20; Gal. 1:8, 9; Rev. 22:18, 19).

Fourth, his comments concerning women preachers are in harmony with the word of God (1 Tim. 2:11, 12; 1 Cor. 14:34, 35). He was correct in his assessment of the social gospel and his caustic words against those who would substitute the “positive thinking” philosophy of this world for plain Bible teaching (Rom. 1:16; Col. 2:8; 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:7-10, 13; 4:2-4). Mr. Cryer decried the “new path” and the humanistic “songs they play.” In the New Testament, of course, songs were sung, not played (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). We shall pass that by and concur with the tenor of his remarks along that line. Likewise, Mr. Cryer’s rebuke of Christians who “dress and act” like the world was according to the “old paths” (Rom. 12:1, 2; Titus 2:11-14). We commend his appeal to Christians to be “separate” from the world (2 Cor. 6:18; 7:1; 1 Jn. 2:15-17).

However, his impassioned plea for Christians to “look and act differently from the rest of the world” is blunted and dulled by the fact that he does not believe a child of God who lives like the world will be lost (Gal. 5:19-21; 6:7, 8). Mr. Cryer acknowledges that a Christian may wear immodest clothing. He said, “Shame on you if you are a Christian that smokes, drinks or cusses.” So, he believes a Christian do those things; yet, he believes they will be saved even if they do! If Mr. Cryer denies this, he will truly stand in “the old paths,” and he will also contradict Baptist doctrine which says that a Christian may not fall away and be lost in hell.

Fifth, Mr. Cryer did not cite Jeremiah 6:16 in its entirety. He left off the last segment. The text says, “Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, we will not walk therein.” The italicized portion was omitted by Mr. Cryer. Again, space limitations could have been the reason for this omission. However, the text conflicts with Mr. Cryer’s stated views. Jeremiah’s words show that in order to find “rest,” one must “walk” in the “old paths.” This, however, conflicts with Mr. Cryer’s view. He does not believe that one must “walk” in the “old paths” in order to be saved. He says to so contend is a “wicked path” which is “sending people to Hell every day.” As we shall see later, Mr. Cryer’s Baptist doctrine does not allow him to teach that one must be faithful in order to find rest for his soul, for he believes that once one is saved, he is forever saved and cannot fall from grace.

“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” (“Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul?” Samford, TX, 1949).

While we applaud Mr. Cryer’s strong moral stand, the consequence of the Baptist doctrine of “once saved, always saved” is not only inconsistent with his call for purity of life, but it is also contrary to “the old paths” of the Bible. Fleshly lusts do “war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11). However, the consequence of Baptist doctrine is that “all the sins (one) may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger.” The old paths” say, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him” (1 Jn. 3:15). “Whosoever” includes Christians. Christians may commit murder. Those who do so do not have “eternal life abiding” in them. Mr. Cryer, if a Christian dies guilty of murder, does he have eternal life abiding in him?

Mr. Cryer spoke of those people who “go to church on Sunday and still live like the devil during the week.” Does Mr. Cryer believe that Christians who “live like the devil during the week” will be saved in heaven at last, or does he believe they will be lost because of their sinful, ungodly behavior? Again, we see that Mr. Cryer’s sincere appeal to holy living is muted by his Baptist doctrine which says that a saved person cannot fall from grace.

The “old paths” teach that we must be “faithful unto death” (Rev. 2:10). Godly living does not earn or merit salvation (Lk. 17:10). However, one cannot be saved if he turns back to the way of the world (Lk. 12:42-48; Heb. 3:12, 13; 4:1, 11; 12:15; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; 1 Jn. 2:15-17).

Since, according to Mr. Cryer, “the new paths are wicked and evil,” will Christians who follow those “new paths” fall from grace and be lost? If not, may they accept “the new paths,” preach “a lie straight from the pits of Hell” and be guilty of “poisoning our churches,” and still be saved in heaven at last?

The word of God says of some who had been saved by grace, “ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 1:6; 3:1; 5:1-4, 7). Baptist doctrine says, “Ye cannot fall from grace.” Which does Mr. Cryer believe? Does he believe “the old path” of Scripture, or the “new path” of error?

Which of those statements does Mr. Cryer believe? Which one does he preach? If the Lord had said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall receive a new car,” would Mr. Cryer say, “He that believeth shall receive a new car and afterward he may be baptized”? We could all understand the Lord if he had said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall receive a million dollars,” so why can we not understand him when he said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”?

Old Path Of God: “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 Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

New Path Of Men: “Repent for the remission of sins and later be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Which of those statements does Mr. Cryer believe? Which one does he preach? Which “path” represents Baptist doctrine?

Old Path Of God: “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

New Path Of Men: “And now why tarriest thou? Call on the name of the Lord, have yours sins washed away, and then arise and be baptized.”

Which of those statements does Mr. Cryer believe? Which one does he preach? Which one of those statements is most like what a Baptist preacher might say?

If the words of Mark 16:16 (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”) are not “a lie straight from the pits of Hell,” to what then were you referring when you said, “The ‘water baptism path’ is a lie straight from the pits of Hell”? If those words are not “a lie straight from the pits of Hell,” what “‘water baptism path’” did you have in mind that constitutes “a lie straight from the pits of Hell”? Surely, you know what it is, for you condemned it in the strongest of terms. So, again, if you were to preach “the water baptism path” of, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” and the “water baptism path” of, “Repent, and be baptized…for the remission of sins,” and “the water baptism path” of “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” would you then be preaching “a lie straight from the pits of Hell”?

I am…getting ready to send propositions to an Independent Baptist in Lewisburg, TN. He is on the radio station down there and has been preaching hot and heavy against baptism, saying it was “Satan’s doctrine”….He has said, “The Campbellites have sent more people to hell than any other group.” A fellow down there heard me in the debate in November and asked if I’d debate this fellow, and I said I would. Anyway, I’m planning on sending some propositions and then taking it from there.

The following is a quote from the Baptist. He has just finished saying we are saved “by grace through faith” and that we put on Christ the moment we are saved by grace through faith. He then said, “…You’ll want to be baptized because you are saved. I put on a ring because I did get married….”

Have you heard this one? It is similar to other arguments, I know, but am not able to put my finger on it right now….

He may also say that a person is married whether he wears a ring, or not (therefore, in his mind, excluding baptism completely). He says that ring shows the world he is married, and baptism shows the world you are saved.

Suggestions???

The argument assumes the point to be proven. One has to grant that salvation precedes baptism to parallel it with the wearing of a ring.

He says we believe, are saved, then are baptized; so, we are married and then wear a ring. Thus, he assumes the very point he is to prove. Grant him the assumption and his illustration is apt. However, we do not grant him the point. Let him prove it.

• But suppose the Bible said, “He that believeth and weareth a ring shall be married,” what then?
• Suppose the Bible said, “Repent, and wear a ring every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the reception of marriage,” what then?
• Suppose the Bible said to a man who loved his lady and wanted her to be his wife, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and wear a ring, and wash away thy single status, calling on the name of the Lord,” what then?
• Suppose the Bible said, “The wearing of a ring doth also now marry us,” what then?

Now, if the Bible said all those things, could one then use the gentleman’s ring argument? (No, he would be going around in circles!) Likewise, one cannot use his argument since the Bible says what it says about baptism.

Too, his illustration proves that one can be saved and never be a Baptist, for it takes baptism to make a Baptist. So, if one can be married without ever wearing a ring, then one can be saved without ever being a Baptist. Conclusion–one can disobey Baptist doctrine, never be baptized, and go to heaven at last; however, one cannot disobey the gospel and be saved (2 Thessalonians 1:8). So, the Baptist gospel is not the gospel of Christ. (Christ said preach the gospel to every creature–he that believeth not shall be damned–disobey Christ’s gospel and be damned, Mark 16. But one may disobey Baptist doctrine, never be a member of the Baptist church, and go to heaven at last, so Baptist doctrine is not Bible doctrine).

Since one can be married without ever wearing a ring, and if that represents baptism, what does that do to their old arguments about being baptized because Jesus was? What does that do with their protests that they believe in baptism but just don’t believe it is essential?

The Romans were married to Christ (Romans 7:4). They had been “baptized into Christ.” Suppose the Bible, in talking about marriage, said, that one who wears a ring “weareth it into marriage,” what then? Would the gentleman’s argument be valid then? Would it then be proper to say that one may be married without wearing a ring?

Second, according to the Baptist doctrine, how could the Campbellites send anyone to hell? They can’t send children of God, since, according to Baptist doctrine, once one is saved, he is always saved; so, children of God cannot be sent to hell by the Campbellites. Too, they can’t send the unsaved, unbelievers to hell, for “he that believeth not is condemned already” (John 3:18). Baptists teach that we are born in sin, totally depraved children of the devil. Campbellites cannot send such folks to torment, for they are “condemned already.”

Now, since the Campbellites cannot send even apostate children of God to hell, and since unbelievers are “condemned already,” just who is it that they are sending to hell? Our Baptist friend must know, for he says they are doing so. Will he tell us who it is that they are consigning to hell? If not, will he withdraw his charge and apologize for his false accusation against the Campbellites?

Finally, when our Baptist friend so charges those pesky Campbellites, is he, in effect, sending them to hell? He is certainly not recommending them for heaven; so, does his charge not show that he is condemning the Campbellites to hell?

Also, in this connection, when Baptists preach that men must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and trust in him for salvation, are they not sending all the souls to hell who refuse to believe? Might a Campbellite not charge that Baptists are sending every Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu to hell? Baptists demand faith in Christ, and teach that everyone who does not subscribe to their doctrine about belief in Christ is bound for hell. Thus, a wily Campbellite might just charge them with sending folks to hell, too!

(Addendum: Let none think that because we declare what the Lord said–“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”–that we are denying that salvation is by grace through faith [Ephesians 2:8, 9]. We are not. In fact, we accept the Baptist gentleman’s statement “that we put on Christ the moment we are saved by grace through faith.” If that last remark puzzles our readers, particularly our Baptist friends, let them write for explanation and clarification. See Romans 5:1; 6:3, 4, 17, 18; Galatians 3:26, 27; Cf. Acts 19:5 & 2:38 with Ephesians 2:8, 9.)

I. “How Can I Be Sure?”

Mr. Ellis is correct about two things. First, we can be sure that we have been saved. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). When we have done what the Lord said, we can know that we are saved (John 8:32). We can know that we have been forgiven of our past, or alien, sins. Obviously, if one may forget that he was forgiven, cleansed of his past sins, he must have known it to begin with, for one cannot forget what he has never known (2 Pet. 1:9). John wrote “that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (1 John 5:13; Cf. 1:7; 2:3-5, 25). Second, feelings, indeed, may be deceitful. Jacob “felt,” believed, that Joseph was dead (Genesis 37:33-35). Joseph was alive. Jacob’s feelings that Joseph was dead did not make it so. Saul truly “thought” that he “ought” to persecute the name of Christ, the disciples of Christ (Acts 26:9-11). His feelings, his murdering of the saints “in all good conscience,” did not make it right (John 16:1-3; Acts 23:1; 1 Timothy 1:13).

However, being sure and certain that one has been saved from his past sins is one thing. Being certain that one is saved thereafter is quite another (Acts 8:12-24). For example:

A. Paul wrote to the saved, the saints at Rome (Romans 1:6, 7). They had been forgiven, saved, when they obeyed the gospel (Romans 6:17, 18). Still, he urged them to live and do right and not to walk in sin, “for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed” (Romans 13:11). There was no doubt about their initial salvation from sin. That was an accomplished fact (Romans 5:1, 9; 6:3- 6, 17, 18; 8:16). Yet, Paul speaks of “salvation” being “nearer than when we believed.” Thus, after one is saved or forgiven, he must not allow sin to reign in his life; he must not use his body as an instrument to sin; he must not walk after the lusts of the flesh, for if he does so, he “shall die” (Romans 6:12, 13; 8:12, 13; 13:11-14).

B. The Galatians had certainly been saved, having been called “into the grace of Christ” (Galatians 1:6). They were children of God by faith, having been baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:26, 27). Of that they could be sure (Galatians 3:2)! Despite that certainty, despite the fact that they “did run well,” later there was doubt, uncertainty; they were troubled (Galatians 1:7). They were removed from him that called them into the grace of Christ (Galatians 1:6). They were not obeying the truth (Galatians 5:7). They had been

The Galatians had been made free from sin by the Lord (Galatians 5:1). That was a documented, verifiable fact (Galatians 1:4; 3:13, 26, 27)! In spite of that, Paul feared for them–“I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Galatians 4:11). (Would Mr. Ellis say, “That is a terrible way to live”?) Hence, after people are saved, fears and doubts on their behalf may arise. Those Galatians who trusted in the law for justification were “fallen from grace,” a thing which Baptist doctrine says cannot happen (Galatians 5:4). Those who walked in the lusts of the flesh could not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21; Cf. Romans 8:12, 13).

C. Peter wrote to those who had “obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). They were “partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 1:4). They had been forgiven of their “old,” or past, “sins,” and were “established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:9, 12). Surely, there can be no doubt or uncertainty about their salvation!

However, these same people were told to “give diligence to make your calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10). (Perhaps Mr. Ellis will tell us how they could “make … sure” that which was not in doubt.) Further, Peter said, “for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (2 Peter 1:11). What “if” they did not do those things? What “if” they refused to add to their faith, virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance, and to temperance patience, and to patience, godliness, and to godliness brotherly kindness? What would occur “if” they did not add these things (2 Peter 1:8, 9, 11, 12)? If by adding these things they would “never fall,” the implication is that if they did not add these things they would certainly fall!

Even though, according to Mr. Ellis, it “is a terrible way to live,” “let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12)! Even though Mr. Ellis says it “is a terrible way to live,” the Holy Spirit said, “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Peter 3:17). Even though Mr. Ellis says it “is a terrible way to live,” God says, “When I say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it” (Ezekiel 33:13).

Observe, please, that God said the righteous “shall surely live.” There was no doubt, no uncertainty. Yet, if he then committed iniquity, “he shall die for it.” Mr. Ellis may say that “is a terrible way to live,” but it is what the Lord said! Suppose Mr. Ellis is right. Suppose that is, indeed, “a terrible way to live.” Do you know what is worse than that “terrible way to live”? It is far worse for Mr. Ellis to tell the righteous man that he can never fall, that he need never fear, no matter what he does or how he lives, when God has said that it does matter. That is more “terrible,” for it causes a man to rest in a security God has not promised (Cf. Ezekiel 3:17-21).

Remember that we are not questioning or doubting one’s salvation from sin. Those who are made righteous through the blood of the cross are saved, forgiven (1 Corinthians 1:18; Colossians 1:20). They need have no fear of their status as children of God (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Galatians 3:26, 27; Colossians 2:11-13). We are speaking of the time after one’s obedience to the gospel. Should we have any apprehension or “fear” after we become children of God? “Let us therefore fear lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it” (Hebrews 4:1; Cf. 2:1; 4:11). (Mr. Ellis, is Hebrews 4:1 advocating “a terrible way to live”?) One must serve God “with reverence and godly fear” (Hebrews 12:28). It is true that perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:17, 18). That is, if we live obedient lives, we need not fear the judgment of God, but we must live in awe and fear “lest” we drift away and come short of the promise of eternal rest!

II. “What Can I Do To Be Sure?”

This is the question posed by “Pastor” Ellis. He answers it by citing Hebrews 6:18, 19. However, I am puzzled that he would even ask the question. According to Baptist doctrine, there is nothing one can do to make his salvation sure. Baptists teach that the moment one believes his salvation is eternally secured and that there is nothing he can ever do to lose it. If that is the case, why ask, “What can I do to be sure?”

One must flee for “refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.” That hope is “an anchor of the soul.” It is “both sure and steadfast” (Hebrews 6:18, 19). Of that, there is no doubt. Note that the hope is “both sure and steadfast.” It cannot be moved, but we may be “moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Colossians 1:23). Mr. Ellis and I agree that “the hope set before us” cannot be moved because it is “both sure and steadfast,” but does Mr. Ellis believe that one may be “moved away from the hope of the gospel? The Spirit says that we will be presented “holy, unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight if (we) continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Colossians 1:22, 23). What “if” we do not continue in the faith? What “if” we are moved away from the hope of the gospel? What then?

1 John 3:3 says, “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” What if one does not “purify” himself? What if one does not cleanse or purify himself “from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1)? What if one does not “abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11)? What then (Galatians 5:19-21)?

III. John 5:24, Condemnation, And The Judgment

Next, Mr. Ellis cites John 5:24, “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” He then concludes that “you will never stand before Him to be judged because Jesus was judged for you on the cross.”

Certainly, all who hear and believe “shall not come into condemnation.” No Bible believer doubts or denies that fact. As Mr. Ellis correctly observes, God cannot lie; thus, the promise is true. However, Baptist doctrine teaches that even if one should cease to hear and cease to believe that he is still immune from condemnation. No such promise is made in John 5:24. It is the hearing believer that is promised eternal life in the passage. It is the obedient believer who “shall not come into condemnation” (Matthew 7:21; John 3:21, 36; 5:24). Again, no one denies that, but what about the man who quits hearing, believing and obeying? There is no promise to that man; so, the question is, “May a child of God cease to hear and cease to believe?”

First, a child of God may cease to hear the word of God. Isaiah speaks of God’s “children that will not hear the law of the Lord” (Isaiah 30:9). Some children of God “turn away their ears from the truth” (2 Timothy 4:3; Cf. Acts 20:29-31; 1 Timothy 4:1, 2; 2 Peter 2:1-3; James 5:19). Second, a child of God may cease to believe. “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12). God spoke of some of his children in the Old Testament who had forgotten him, and he said that they were “children in whom is no faith” (Deuteronomy 32:18-20). Therefore, a child of God may quit hearing and believing.

Remember that the promise of John 5:24 that one “shall not come into condemnation” is made to the one who hears and believes. We are all agreed that the one who hears and believes “shall not come into condemnation,” but what of the one who ceases to hear and who ceases to believe? Is that man still saved? Baptist doctrine says he is! The Bible says he is not (John 3:36; Hebrews 11:6)! Since children of God may cease to hear and cease to believe, those who do so shall come into condemnation (Jude 5). James warned “brethren,” “lest (they) fall into condemnation” (James 5:12).

Despite the fact that the obedient believer, “shall not come into condemnation,” he will, contrary to Mr. Ellis’ assertion, “stand before” God to be judged, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10). Both the righteous and the unrighteous will “stand before Him to be judged” (Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:28, 29; Revelation 20:12-15). So, Mr. Ellis is wrong when he says the saved “will never stand before Him to be judged” (Romans 2:5-11, 16 — note “every man,” both the obedient and the disobedient, vv. 6- 8).

IV. The “Passover” Blood

Mr. Ellis speaks of a hypothetical case in the land of Egypt. The last plague was the death of the first born. God promised to spare Israel if they would place the blood of a lamb on the door post and lintel. When he saw the blood, he said he would “pass over” that house and none would die (Exodus 11 & 12). Says Mr. Ellis, “Now suppose after the blood was placed where God said for it to be placed the first born son had said, ‘Daddy, I am afraid. I fear I will be killed tonight when God does visit Egypt to destroy all the first-born.’ How could that boy be sure?”

Certainly, as Mr. Ellis correctly notes, the boy’s feelings do not determine what will happen. Further, as he also rightly says, the young man can be assured by the promise of the word of God. Since God said, “I will pass over you,” that ought to be the end of all fear and uncertainty once the blood was placed as God instructed. So, Mr. Ellis concludes, “Thank the Lord we have his word that because of the blood of Jesus He will pass over us. He said it. That settled it.”

Since Mr. Ellis has asked us to suppose, let us do some more supposing. It is undeniably true that all were safe who were in the houses with the blood appropriately applied. God told the Israelites not to leave their houses. “None of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning” (Exodus 12:22). Now, suppose that same little boy says to his daddy, “Daddy, since you have put the blood where God said to put it, I am going fishing with my friends, and we will set up camp down on the river.” If the boy’s dad told him to stay in the house and not “go out the door … until the morning,” suppose the boy said, “But, dad, we have the word of the Lord, and since the blood is on the house, it will be alright. I will not die. All we need is the blood, so it does not matter whether I am inside or outside the house. If you say I must stay in the house, you are making the house, and not God, my Savior. Dad, put your trust in the blood and not in my having to stay in the house.”

What then? Would that boy be saved outside the house? Let Mr. Ellis tell us. Though the blood was properly applied, would the boy have been spared if he had disobeyed the divine injunction not to leave the house? No, of course not (Deuteronomy 4:2)! He had to abide in the house (Deuteronomy 6:25). Yet, Baptist doctrine says that once the blood of Jesus is applied, it does not matter whether you abide in the house of God or not!

Yes, we have God’s word “that because of the blood of Jesus He will pass over us.” But, like Israel of old, we must abide in the house of God, the church (1 Timothy 3:16). The saved are the house of God; “whose house are we” (Hebrews 3:6; 1 Peter 2:5; 4:17, 18). Jesus is the Savior of the body, the church (Ephesians 5:23). We must remain in his body, in him, in his house, in order to be saved. If we leave, if we abide not in him, we will be “cast forth” and “spewed out” (John 15:6; Revelation 3:16). “He said it. That settles it.”

Now, we turn our attention to Mr. Ellis second article:

Jereboam’s corruptions of God’s pattern are parallel to the Baptist Church’s corruptions of the Lord’s church (1 Kings 12:26-33). Neither is “according to the pattern” of “the Divine architect” (1 Corinthians 3:10, 11).

Note some obvious Baptist perversions of the Bible pattern:

1. Weekly Lord’s Supper — The church of the New Testament broke bread “upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7). Most Baptist churches do not do so. Suppose Israel, who was commanded to, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” had kept the Sabbath day once a month, or once a quarter, and also at two annual feast days, like Christmas and Easter? Would they have been keeping the Sabbath as God’s “pattern” directed? No, they would have been guilty of violating the Sabbath. As they were to remember each Sabbath day, so we must do as the disciples did and break bread every “first day of the week” (Cf. Exodus 20:8; Acts 20:7).
2. Elders In Every Church — New Testament churches had a plurality of elders, or pastors, “in every church” (Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 5:2). Baptist churches are not organized “according to the pattern” of the New Testament. If Baptist churches can have one man as “the Pastor,” could the Jews have anointed and appointed two or more High Priests to serve at the same time? If Baptist churches can reduce a plurality of “elders (pastors) in every church” to one man, why could not the Jews have expanded the one High Priest into a plurality? The truth is, the Jews had no more right to expand the number of High Priests than the Baptists have to lower the number of pastors “in every church.” In both cases, neither is “according to the pattern” of “the Divine architect.”

   Mr. Ellis acknowledges that, “The local church is the only kind that can have pastors and deacons; and other officers and teachers.” Though he cites no Scriptures to prove a local church may have “pastors” (plural), he is correct to that extent. Now, let him find where “the local church” may have only one “pastor” (singular), as most Baptist churches have. Also, let him find Bible authority for pastors to serve under the jurisdiction and control of a “board of deacons,” as is done is Baptist churches. Can he find that arrangement “according to the pattern” in the New Testament? If he cannot, will he deny it and denounce it as being contrary to “the pattern” of “the Divine architect”?

   Too, Mr. Ellis mentions “other officers” in a “local church”. “According to the pattern,” we find “the bishops and the deacons,” “evangelists” and “teachers” in “the local church” (Philippians 1:1; Acts 13:1; Ephesians 4:11). Besides them, just who are these “other officers” in “the local church” to which Mr. Ellis refers? Who are they? What is their function? What are these “other officers” called? Since Mr. Ellis says “the local church … can have” them, perhaps he could cite an example of them in the New Testament. Can he produce them for us?

3. Adding Human Traditions — Jesus forbade the addition of man – made, human traditions in worship (Matthew 7:21-23; 15:8, 9, 13, 14; 28:20). The Jews in Jeremiah’s day wanted to add and mix human traditions with Divine service (Jeremiah 44:17-19; Cf. 1 Kings 11:1- 12). Likewise, Baptist churches add the human, pagan traditions of Christmas and Easter to their worship.

   Strangely, Baptists do not do as the early disciples did; that is, break bread upon the first day of the week, but they fervently and zealously observe an annual day, Easter, which the Lord never authorized! Baptists will not break bread every first day of the week, which, as we have shown, the Bible “pattern” authorizes, but they will celebrate an annual day to observe the birth of Jesus which neither the Lord nor the disciples ever did! Yet, Mr. Ellis speaks of building “The Lord’s Church” “according to the pattern”!

   We are to “hold fast” to the Divine “traditions,” or teachings, of “the Divine architect” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). We are to observe and do only those things that are “according to the pattern” of “the apostles’ doctrine” (Matthew 28:20; Luke 10:16; 1 Corinthians 4:6, 17; 14:37; Galatians 1:8, 9; Colossians 3:17; 2 John 9). Where does Mr. Ellis find “the Divine architect’s” design for the observance of Christmas or Easter? Again, will Mr. Ellis tell us?

   Baptist churches add mechanical instruments of music to their worship, which is another human tradition. They often justify this practice by what was done in the Old Testament (Psalm 149:3; 150:3). Well, they burned incense and offered animal sacrifices “according to the pattern” of the Old Testament, too (Exodus 31:11; Psalm 66:13-15). Should Baptist churches burn incense and offer animal sacrifices today? “According to the pattern” of the New Testament, Christians are to “sing” and make melody in their heart (not “on their harp”) to the Lord (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Still, Mr. Ellis speaks of making “all things according to the pattern.”

   Frankly, if a tailor began with a pattern for a dress for a petite lady and ended up with a circus tent, he would be about as much “according to the pattern” as Mr. Ellis is when he starts out to make “The Lord’s Church” “according to the pattern,” but winds up instead with the “First Baptist Church.”

4. The Baptist Name — Since Mr. Ellis quite correctly encourages us to construct “The Lord’s Church” “according to the pattern,” perhaps he could tell us where “the form (the mold, the pattern) of sound words” refers to “Baptists” or to “Baptist churches” (2 Timothy 1:13). We know that “The Lord’s Church” was referred to by a number of designations, including “the churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16). Where is there any reference to a “Baptist Church” or to “Baptist Churches”? We know that saved ones are referred to as “saints,” “disciples,” “brethren,” “children of God,” and “Christians” (Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Galatians 3:26; 6:1). Where were they ever referred to as “Baptists”?

   Surely, one of the first things to be done in identifying and constructing any organization according to its original pattern would be to refer to that organization by the terms that were initially used to describe or designate it and its members. Mr. Ellis needs to tell us what those terms were, and he needs to tell us why he wears and uses names that are nowhere found in the original pattern.

   Historically, it would be confusing to refer to a ruler of ancient Egypt as “Caesar,” or to call a leader of Rome, “Pharaoh.” Worse, still, it would be wrong to refer to them as “Mayors.” Why? Because that is not what they were. That is not what they were called. Likewise, to refer to those who are supposed to be representative of New Testament Christians as “Baptists” is not right, either, for that is not what New Testament Christians were. That is not what they were called (Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16).

First, after citing Acts 2:41, 47, concerning those that “were added,” Mr. Ellis says, “It was necessary for the church to be already existing to add to it.” This is Mr. Ellis’ proof that the church existed prior to Pentecost. Suppose 12 men, banded together as charter members, announced a meeting to begin an organization and invited all to join with them on the beginning day of their club. Others who came that first day would be invited to join and to be “added unto them.” That did not mean that the club existed before that day. It was purposed, and it was announced that on that day the new club would begin. Those who came would be invited to join and be “added” to the 12 men who gathered to initiate the organization. That would not mean that the organization officially and formally “existed” before that day.

So, the Lord purposed and promised to build his church. He did not say, “I have already built my church.” He said, “I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). With power and authority from heaven, the apostles were “set in the church,” which had its “beginning at Jerusalem” (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:8; Luke 24:47; Isaiah 2:2-4; 1 Corinthians 12:28). On the day of Pentecost, thousands were “added unto them” (Acts 2:41, 47). Peter refers to the events of Pentecost as “the beginning” (Acts 11:15). “The beginning” of what, Mr. Ellis?

Second, Mr. Ellis chides those who “talk about an invisible, universal church.” If there is no such thing as a “universal church,” just which “local church” was Jesus promising to build in Matthew 16:18? Jesus did not say, “I will build my churches.” He said, “my church.” Since, according to Mr. Ellis, he was not referring to a “universal church,” of which “local church” was he speaking? If a certain local church is named as the one Jesus built, how do we know that he built the others?

This same argument and the same questions can be asked regarding Mr. Ellis’ use of Ephesians 1:22, 23 and 5:25-32, which he cited to prove that there is no “universal church.” Christ is “the head” of “the church.” Which particular “local church” is that? Christ loved “the church” (singular), and “gave himself for it.” Which specific “local church” was that, since, according to Mr. Ellis, it could not be referring to the “universal church”?

There is a church, a body, in which Jews and Gentiles are to be “of the same body” (Ephesians 3:6). Jews and Gentiles are “reconciled unto God in one body” (Ephesians 2:16). Does that mean “in one” local church? If it is not “the universal church,” just which “local church” is it in which Jews and Gentiles are “reconciled” together? Mr. Ellis cannot say that it is in any local church, for Scripture says it is “in one body,” or church. So, if it is not in the one universal body, which local church is it? If he names a certain one, there can be no other local church in which Jews and Gentiles may be reconciled, for “there is one body” (Ephesians 4:4).

Jesus is “the Savior of the body” (Ephesians 5:23). “There is one body” (Ephesians 4:4). Of which local church is he the Savior? It will not do to say, “All of them,” for there is only “one body,” or church, of which Jesus is the Savior (Ephesians 1 :22, 23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23). If that “one body” is not “the universal church,” then Mr. Ellis has some explaining to do.

Further, all who are saved have been “baptized into one body,” or church (1 Corinthians 12:13). But not all are baptized into one local church. Therefore, the “one body” of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is not a reference to a local church. It is a reference to the “universal church,” which Mr. Ellis denies exists. Oddly, Mr. Ellis denies the existence of the universal body of Christ, which is mentioned in the Bible, but he declares the existence of local Baptist churches which are not found in the Bible.

Third, “The family of God and the church of God are two different things. Those in the family are not in the church just because they are in the family of God.” Did Mr. Ellis “slip up” here? What does he mean by “the church of God”? It almost sounds like he is referring to that thing which does not exist, “the universal church”! What does he mean by “the family of God”? Is “the family of God” a “universal” family, or must “the family of God” be a local family? If “the family of God” can be a “universal” unit, why cannot the church be also?

Those who are “of the household (or family) of God” are also “of the same body” or church (Ephesians 2:16, 19; 3:6, 15). The “house of God, which is the church of the living God,” is the “family,” or “household of God” (1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 2:19; 3:6, 15). “Family,” “house hold,” and “body” are simply figures of speech to describe the same group or collection of people, the saved, the church.

If some folks, as Mr. Ellis alleges, are in “the family of God” and saved, but are not in “the church,” they cannot glorify God, for “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:21). To be a fellow heir, to have fellowship with God, and to drink or commune with God in one Spirit, one must be “in” the “one body,” the church (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 3:6). Since, according to Mr. Ellis, some are in “the family of God,” but are not in “the church of God,” they have no inheritance and no fellowship with God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:16, 19-22; 3:6; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Since that is true, those in “the family of God” and who have no fellowship “through the Spirit,” are not of God. They are “none of his,” for if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, “he is none of his” (Romans 8:9). Mr. Ellis needs to tell us the plight and position of such people. He is the one who says they are in “the family of God,” but not in “the church of God,” so let him explain their status in light of his false dichotomy.

Fourth, Mr. Ellis correctly states, “There is no indication from the word of God that you are baptized into the church by the Holy Spirit.” Then, he says, “We all receive the Holy Spirit when we are saved ….” Let the word of God tell us when we receive “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” “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 Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Does Mr. Ellis believe that? Does he believe that one must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins before he receives “the gift of the Holy Spirit”? That is what “the word of God” says, but I would be surprised if that is what Mr. Ellis believes.

Fifth, “Only a saved person can receive baptism by the church.” Compare that statement with this one, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). If “only a saved person can receive baptism,” why did not Jesus say, “He that believeth is saved and “only” then can he, as “a saved person, receive baptism”?

• Mr. Ellis: “He that believeth and is saved can receive baptism.”
• Jesus Christ: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).

One cannot believe both Jesus Christ and Mr. Ellis. Whose word will judge us in the last day (John 12:48)? It will not be the word of Mr. Ellis.