Perhaps, we are sometimes led to believe it doesn’t matter what we do at all, even in regard to our soul’s salvation, but the sentence of Christ surely emphasizes it is more blessed to do well than to work iniquity. There are many spiritual blessings to be found in Jesus, but those that are eternal are the ones that only the worthy obtain–not by worth of personal merit, but by the interaction of faith and grace. Heaven is a prize, a gift, a reward, an inheritance and a a treasure. Thus it is an objective worth striving after and one which only the faithful and few will attain.

While God has not given to us every material thing we may want and while we may never attain the earthly prosperity of our neighbors, God has blessed us with access to every kind of spiritual blessing that exists, and that is true, lasting wealth (Ephesians 1:3-6). As his elect, we are adopted children enjoying the good pleasure of his grace and acceptance, and nothing that would elevate our spirits is withheld from us. “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God” (First John 3:1)!

We are richly blessed with the greatest gifts:

• With salvation, “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:9).
• With forgiveness, for “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7).
• With guidance through “the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory” (1 Corinthians 2:7).
• With fellowship, “and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).
• With burden-sharing, “For [his] yoke is easy and [his] burden is light” (Matthew 11:30).

All these blessings are to be found in and only in Christ (Galatians 3:26-29); in science, philosophy, atheism, carnality, there is no such blessing and no such promise, so that entrance into the body of Christ through faithful baptism gives our lives eternal purpose–an objective. We mean to gain heaven, understanding our sins make it impossible to earn our way there, but that God’s grace invites us to become worthy of eternal life through obedient, trusting faith and forgiveness.

When asked about the resurrection, Jesus replied that some would be “counted worthy” to attain that age and the resurrection from the dead to life, becoming equal to angels and sons of God (see Luke 20:35-36). Although we comprehend that humility requires us to understand our own personal unworthiness, the extension of the gospel invitation gives us the opportunity to become worthy by grace through faith when we obey the call and submit to Jesus (see 1 Corinthians 6:11).

That is what justification is all about and it is nothing about which we should be ashamed, nor should we deceive ourselves into thinking that our lifestyle and decisions about sin have no effect upon it (see Galatians 2:17).

Eternal Spiritual Blessing Is A Prize

Even in the technologically advanced twenty-first century, rural counties still have fairs in which people submit their produce or crafts with the hope of winning a prize–usually a blue ribbon or some other sign of victory. And believe it or not, eternal life is designated a prize in the New Testament:

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:12-14 ESV)

Paul is using the footrace as an illustration for what the Christian is trying to accomplish in his rededicated life–to run the course of human experience with endurance in order to enjoy the ultimate prize (see Hebrews 12:1-2).

When he wrote the Philippians, he did not yet imagine himself to have reached the finish line and so he was deeply focused upon his training, self-discipline, and even the rules of setting aside sin and pressing forward. Paul was not bashful about encouraging other Christians to run in such a way that they might win rather than lose (First Corinthians 9:24-27). Salvation is a prize–it is the only prize that matters in life and we should never be any more ashamed than the Holy Spirit about presenting it in those terms. “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it” (First Corinthians 9:24 ESV)!

Eternal Life Is A Gift

Yet not only is salvation a prize, but it is also a gift, which implies different things, for even with all our effort, eternal life is the gift of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, something we could never earn by virtue of personal merit: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23 ESV).

This gift of God is like a supply of running water that is never exhausted (see John 4:10)–a stream of mercy that washes away the iniquities of the past and which provides mercy for the sins we repent of in the future (see Acts 2:38). It is an indescribable gift of righteousness (see First Corinthians 9:15, Romans 5:17), because, on our own, we could never attain self-rightness or legal justification (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Some may imagine a conflict in the images of salvation variously as a prize or a gift, for one seems to be based on merit, while the other is not, but there is no conflict, especially in light of the last verse read.

Salvation is a prize after which we strive, all the while understanding that we could never attain it on our own–seizing that victory is wholly dependent upon the gift of God’s merciful assistance. That is where God strikes the balance between his grace and our faith.

Eternal Life Is A Reward

More often than any other image, eternal life is described as a reward. Great is the reward in heaven for those saints who are persecuted like the prophets (see Matthew 5:12), but that reward is forfeited by those who fast, pray and donate just to be seen of men (see 6:1-18). Jesus promised that showing hospitality to a prophet or righteous man would bring reward (see Matthew 10:41-42), a reward, then, obviously connected to our behavior (Matthew 16:24-27).

It cannot be denied that judgment is according to works, nor that God intends to reward the faithful on this basis (Colossians 3:23-25). Just as the prize was yet to be obtained fully, so this reward can be forfeited; “Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward” (Hebrews 10:35). “Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind” (Colossians 2:18).

As Moses looked to the reward, we gain ours the same way–by esteeming even the reproach of Christ greater riches than all the treasures of Earth (see Hebrews 11:26). We want a full reward and not to lose the things we have worked for (see Second John 8), for when Jesus comes again, it will be to reward every one according to his work (see Revelation 22:12).

Eternal Life Is An Inheritance

The notion of a heavenly reward is even balanced when we realize our reward is an inheritance–wealth created by someone else and willed to us as his beneficiaries. It is God “who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light” (Colossians 1:12 ESV).

We are heirs according to the same promise made so long ago to Abraham, and the estate of our benefactor is beyond comparison (First Peter 1:3-5). Our reward is an eternal inheritance which cannot be used up or stolen away; it is wealth that we could never accumulate on our own because sin precludes it (see Hebrews 9:15).

Eternal Life Is A Treasure

It is truly a treasure which we store up in heaven when we decide to invest our hearts and lives with God and when we submit our will and ambitions to his (see Matthew 6:19-21, 19:21). Heaven is a spiritual place, described for us in terms we can understand so that its worth becomes clear–streets of gold, gates of pearl, walls of precious stones.

Every faithful deed is an investment in the extra-real estate in which Jesus has gone to make our reservations among the many rooms of his father’s house (see John 14:1-6). Eternal life in that kingdom is a pearl itself of great price, for which we ought to be willing to save and sacrifice.

Worthiness

There is a reason the Holy Spirit used such disparate terminology to describe eternal life in Heaven. It is important to our motivation and humility that we maintain the balance of divine grace and human faith, so that we do not become spiritually slothful or excessively self-reliant.

We must never forget that all men sin and the wages of sin is death and because of the first sin we commit, we are forever incapable of self-righteousness and independent justification (see Romans 3:23, 6:23). We learn to lean on God for grace and mercy, but never do we throw up our hands and slip into spiritual complacency, for we were recreated by God to be his workmanship and to prove his will in the Earth (see Ephesians 2:10).

Thus we are saved by grace through faith–God shows the grace and we respond by faith, for no man is justified by faith only or by personal perfection, but by a faithful and daily response to the gospel call (see Ephesians 1:18).

Personal unworthiness understood, we can be counted worthy of Christ when our faith becomes active and obedient. When we love him enough to take up his cross and follow (see Matthew 10:37-38). When we heed his invitation rather than dismiss it or make excuses (see Matthew 22:8). As in the parable of the prodigal son, it is when we acknowledge our own unworthiness to be God’s son that he embraces us and grants us reconciliation (see Luke 15:21).

That is the reason that Paul beseeches “you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called” (Ephesians 4:1), to strive together for the faith of the gospel in a way that is worthy of it (see Philippians 1:27) and pleasing to God (see Colossians 1:10) who calls you into his own kingdom and glory (see 1 Thessalonians 2:10, 2 Thessalonians 1:5).

That is the delicate balance between prize and gift, reward and inheritance. We seek treasure in heaven which we do not deserve on our merit, but which requires us to exert the effort of faith. We strive after God so that we can walk with Jesus in white, having become worthy on his terms and by his blood (see Revelation 3:5). At the end of the day, even when we have walked worthy and done well, we are but unprofitable servants who have merely done what was our duty, but that is all that God expects of us (see Luke 17:7-10).

Conclusion

There are so many spiritual blessings in Christ, but those that are eternal are the ones that only the worthy obtain–not by worth of personal merit, but by the cooperation of faith and grace. Heaven is a prize, a gift, a reward, an inheritance and a a treasure. It is an objective worth striving after and one which only the faithful few will enjoy (see Matthew 7:21-27).

This rule of thought has been passed down through the centuries and is now a staple of the knowledge taught by most religious folk. The problem that has arisen though, is that people are not just leaving the false thinking that man has no free will to be saved or not, but are also initiating that Jesus Christ Himself had no free will…Now, this is only one part of a more major issue known as “The Deity Issue”, but we will just focus on this part for the time being.

We know that when it comes to man’s salvation, that there is a part that God provides, and there is a part which man provides. God’s part consists of that He sent His Son to give His life a ransom for many, (Matthew 20:28). Paul tells us in Ephesians that “For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8). So God, by His grace, sent His Son to be the forever sacrifice for sin, that man (God’s creation) might have the opportunity to become holy and righteous in God’s sight. As for man’s part, there is an obedience required of the terms which God has laid forth to man. In the conversion of Saul, Ananias speaks to him and says, “and now why are you waiting, arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) Romans chapter 10 speaks how we are to believe and confess Jesus as Lord unto salvation. So these terms are what God has said for man to do to receive salvation.

Man now has a choice to either obey or to not obey what has been laid forth by God. God forces no one into salvation. (John 12:48) But did this same pattern of choice apply to Jesus Christ? I am not asking whether Jesus had sin or not, as the scriptures clearly state that Jesus was a sinless soul. (Hebrews 4:15) Rather, the question is; did Jesus have the choice to obey the Father’s will or disobey? Was there in fact a free will in Christ?

The scriptures speak very openly about how Jesus was indeed a man, however He also was Deity. This was His nature, both man and Deity. One cannot deny that Jesus Christ was Deity. The scriptures state, “being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of me.” (Philippians 2:6-7). There are certain attributes that Christ did while on this earth that are limited only to the power of God. Jesus could read the hearts and thoughts of men. (Matthew 9: 3-4). We also learn from this same passage that He had the power to forgive sins, a charge which He backs up by proclaiming it again on the cross. (Luke 23:41-43). We also know though, that Jesus also showed the attributes of the flesh. When He came out of the wilderness after being there fasting for 40 days, He was hungry. (Luke 4:2) When Jesus was with His disciples on the boat, we find Him sleeping. (Matthew 8:23). At the death of Lazarus, before Jesus raised him from the dead, He wept for him. (John 11:35). So Christ showed characteristics of being both man and God in nature. This is something that none of us have experienced, therefore it can be a hard concept to grasp for us. But we must not overshadow one over the other, but rather look at each equally.

So now we come to answering the question, was there a free will in Christ? The answer is simply, yes. Jesus had the free will to do what He wanted, but it was that He chose Himself to do the Father’s will. God did not force Jesus to the cross. This is not because of what I say, but rather of what the scriptures say. We read in Philippians 2:8 that Christ “humbled Himself” and was obedient even to the point of death. That phrase “humbled Himself” shows us that Christ chose to obey God. Jesus, though he was the Son of God, learned obedience by the things that he suffered. It was something that He had to learn. It was not automatic. Several times throughout the gospels, Jesus makes reference to the fact that He came not to do His will, but the Father’s will. When He was in the garden, Jesus prayed, “…..nevertheless not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42), “…..I do not seek My own will, but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5:30), “For I have come down from Heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent me” (John 6:38). All of these scriptures establish there was a choice involved with Christ, to obey the Father’s will, or to seek out His own will, and Jesus chose to do the Father’s will.

So then, the next question that is posed is this: Could Jesus sin? Not that He did, however we want to examine if He had the capacity to sin. When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness by Satan, He did not give in to any of the temptations, but countered back with scripture. But the very fact that Jesus was tempted shows the possibility of Him sinning. Otherwise, it would cease to be a temptation, and the devil wasted his time.  If this was impossible for Christ, then it would have been pointless for Satan to do so. But then God’s word reveals something else to us. In Hebrews 4:15, the scripture reads this; “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” When we are tempted, can we sin? Yes, if we give into the temptation. So it also was with Christ, as He was tempted as we are. Christ could not mediate for us, as our High Priest, if He did not know what it was like to suffer as man. But He can mediate for us, because He felt things as we feel things. We are told that Christ became our perfect example in all things, but if He could not sin, then the credibility of that example is useless, as we cannot be like that.

Jesus Christ came to this earth to do all His Father’s will that was commanded Him. When He accomplished this by His own free will, He became the “author and finisher of our faith”. Christ was not God’s puppet, being controlled with every move, but rather was a man with a choice and made the choice, (as we should too) to follow the Father in all things.

This can be demonstrated anecdotally.  We see it every day, even recognize it in our own lives.  If our consciences are tender, we strive always to do good.  However, from time to time we choose wrongly, and our conscience is pierced with guilt.  Those who choose to do evil again and again have their consciences hardened (seared), and feel guilt no longer.  Regardless, we always maintain the ability to choose.

Our judicial system is based upon this ability to choose.  If a man takes the life of another, the law of the land recognizes it as a choice made, and punishes him accordingly.  He knew what he was doing.  He could have chosen not to commit the crime.  He chose to do it, and must endure the consequence of his decision.  If on some rare occasion the man is determined by authorities to be insane or mentally incompetent, exceptions may be made; but these occasions are rare rather than the rule.

The Bible explicitly and implicitly reveals both the ability of man to exercise free will, and that God holds him accountable for his choices.  In fact, every time obedience is demanded in scripture (and the Bible is replete with such demands), there is the implicit assertion that men have the freedom to choose whether they will or will not obey God.

Consider how ridiculous the following passage from Ezekiel 18:4-9 would be if man was not a free moral agent:

“Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.  But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right;  If he has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife, Nor approached a woman during her impurity; If he has not oppressed anyone, But has restored to the debtor his pledge; Has robbed no one by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase, But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man; If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully-He is just; He shall surely live!” Says the Lord GOD.

If a man’s actions are predetermined, it would be unfair of God to condemn the sinner and bless the just.  After all, the man who sins is doing only what he is compelled to do, he has no choice.  In fact, this is the exact issue that God addressed in Ezekiel 18.  The Israelites had adopted a proverb to explain away their responsibility for their own sin.  The proverb (vs. 2) states, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge.”  We hear similar sentiments expressed in our time.  A man can’t be held responsible for his bad choices because of the way he was raised; i.e., the sins of his father.

While it can be said that some have an advantage in the way they are raised, we are all capable of overcoming evil influences to serve God acceptably.  And God expects exactly that.  Consider young king Josiah, son of the evil Amon, and grandson of the despicable Manasseh of whom it was written, “he has acted more wickedly than all the Amorites who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols” (2 Kings 21:11).  Despite the abominations committed by both his father and grandfather, Josiah ruled righteously in Judah.  “And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (2 Kings 22:2).

The Jews of Ezekiel’s day did not appreciate the Lord’s admonition, and cried out, Not Fair!  Their view was that they were not responsible for their sin, their fathers were the culprits.  Therefore, it was unfair of God to condemn them for their actions when they had no personal responsibility.  God’s answer:

“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies.  Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive.  Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.  Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?”

“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin.  Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?  For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!” (18:25-32).

Put simply, the fault was their own, not their father’s.  It is fair to hold a man responsible for his actions.  If a man chooses to sin, he will be condemned.  This is fair.  If a man repents of that sin, he will be forgiven.  This is fair.  God does not deal capriciously with men.  He does not condemn them for choices for which they are not responsible.  He does not arbitrarily condemn some and save others.  He deals with men fairly.  “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, says the Lord God.”

Calvin’s Fallacy

This simple and plain understanding of free will is contradicted by the predominant theology of John Calvin.  Most prominent denominations have been influenced by his teaching, and his misconception of God’s sovereignty.

Calvin’s theology issues from his view of God’s sovereignty.  Notice a quote from his pen, taken from his tract, The Eternal Predestination of God, dedicated on January 1, 1552:

…the hand of God no less rules the internal affections than it precedes the external acts, and that God does not perform by the hand of men those things which he has decreed without first working in their hearts the very will which precedes their acts.”

Calvin’s view is that if God is sovereign then everything that happens on earth must be His will.  Nothing is the result of choice, even our own wills are molded by Him.  In effect, we are but puppets to the Divine.  Notice the following from his seminal work, The Institutes of Christian Religion.

“God’s eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man” (Inst., Book III, Chapter 21, Section 5).

Again, put simply, if you act in a righteous way it is because God has made an agreement with Himself that you would act righteously, and therefore would gain Heaven.  Conversely, if you act in an evil way, it is because God has agreed with Himself to condemn you for eternity.

This theology does violence to the entire context of Ezekiel 18, where God clearly states that His condemnation or acceptance is not based upon His agreement with Himself, but upon the choices made by man.  That is the very reason why God is fair!

But what is Calvin’s answer to the claims that his theology makes God capricious and arbitrary in his dealing with man?  Note the following quote:

“Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must answer, Because he pleased. But if you proceed farther to ask why he pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God, and nothing such can be found. Let human temerity then be quiet, and cease to inquire after what exists not, lest perhaps it fails to find what does exist.”(Inst. III, 23, 2).

In effect, Calvin has no answer.  Rather than answer the question, he squelches it.   He says, “I don’t know, and you should not ask!”

While we agree on the importance of limiting temerity when it comes to questioning God, we are more bold to question the bankrupt and destructive doctrine of Calvin.

Sovereignty and Free Will

First, it is important to define the term sovereign as it relates to God.  The word is not found in the King James translation of the Bible, though the word “sovereignty” is found a single time in the New King James version.  It is taken from the Hebrew word lakad and is found in 1 Samuel 14:47.  It relates to King Saul’s consolidation of his rule over all Israel.  “So Saul established his sovereignty over Israel.”  The word is defined by Strong’s:  “to capture or occupy; to take” and is most often translated “took” in the Old Testament.  In fact, the KJV reads as follows in 1 Samuel 14:17, “So Saul took the kingdom over Israel.”

Though the word sovereign is not used in the Bible with respect to God, the concept of sovereignty is certainly present.  Webster defines sovereign:

1a: Possessed of supreme power <~ruler>  b: unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE  c: enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT.  (New Collegiate Dictionary)

From this definition we find that sovereignty relates to power and position.  God is sovereign because He is powerful.  Because His power is supreme (greater than the power of any other), no one can challenge His standing and will.  Therefore, whatever God wants, He gets.  This, in essence, is what it means to be sovereign.

In fact, God’s power is not only without equal, it is without limit.  He is omnipotent (all powerful).  This truth is demonstrated in His creative work, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).  It is also directly declared, “And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, ‘Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!’” (Revelation 19:6).  The consequence of God’s omnipotence is simple, no one can override His will.  He is sovereign!  This is why it is such a blessing that our God is benevolent and full of grace.

There are many examples in scripture where men (and nations) have this lesson demonstrated to them.  Remember the words of Pharaoh? “And Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the LORD, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, nor will I let Israel go’” (Exodus 5:2).  For his impudence he saw his land plagued, his firstborn die, and his army drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar learned the lesson as well.  He had exalted himself, and proudly proclaimed, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty power and for the honor of my majesty?” (Daniel 4:30).  Because he did not acknowledge that he had been blessed by God, he had his kingdom taken from him, and was “driven from men and ate grass like oxen; his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws” (vs. 33).  Nebuchadnezzar learned the lesson well, and when God granted him his senses once again, he proclaimed, “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth.  No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’” (vs. 35).

The Difference Between the Possession of Power, and the Exercise of that Power

While it can rightly be said that God’s sovereignty assures that He can control every aspect of man’s existence, it is going too far to say that His sovereignty demands that control.  Man has free will precisely because the sovereign God of heaven granted it.

This can be illustrated simply.  As parents, though we are not omnipotent, it can be said that we have control of our children.  We make decisions for them, forbid certain behaviors, determine where they will live, and generally regulate their lives.  We also often allow our children to make choices for themselves.  In fact, we recognize it to be beneficial to the maturation process, and get great satisfaction when our child, when given the ability to choose, makes a proper choice.  We set guidelines, give our children liberty, and if those guidelines are ignored, we mete out appropriate punishment.  This is good parenting.  And yet, we deny God the same privilege.

Consider the events in the Garden of Eden.  God created Adam and Eve, imbuing them with a privilege unique in creation; the right to choose.  Man is different.  “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).  God set the guidelines (what He required) when he told Adam, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16b-17).  Man chose to ignore God’s instructions, and suffered the consequence.  “So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life” (Genesis 3:24).

Calvin’s fallacy is found in his failure to understand that sovereignty does not require the exercise of omnipotence, only the possession of the same.  He is not the only one who makes that mistake.

The Atheist’s Folly

A favorite argument of the atheist is centered in what he considers to be an unexplainable paradox.

The Christian asserts that God is both wholly good and omnipotent.  However, evil exists in the world.  Therefore, one of three possibilities exists.  1) God is not omnipotent; 2) God is not wholly good; or 3) God does not exist.  Otherwise, evil would not exist.

Consider the following quote attributed to philosopher Robert Maynard Hutchins,

If it is heresy to deny God’s omnipotence and omniscience, then nothing remains outside the all-encompassing scope of divine providence, nothing happens contrary to the divine will, no future contingency is or can be unforeseen by God.  If, on the other hand, to deny that man sins freely means that God must be responsible for the evil that man does, then it is a heresy to deny free will, for that imputes evil to God.

Many philosophers thus contend that God’s sovereignty and evil can not co-exist.  The fact that evil demonstrably exists proves that an omniscient righteous God does not.

Again, however, these secularists do not give sufficient weight to the concept of free will.  When God granted man free will, He gave him a wonderful gift.  What parent does not thrill to hear a child refuse a sinful choice – not by saying, “My parents won’t let me” – but rather, “I choose not to because it is wrong.”  God created man to be worshipful and obedient.  These things would be meaningless – both to God and man – if God had not granted man the freedom to choose.  This is most certainly a part of God’s creating man “in His own image”, and separates man from the rest of God’s created universe.

However, there is a logical and necessary consequence to free will.  It is the ability (and inevitability) to choose wrong over right.  Sin and evil are not in the world because of something lacking in God.  Sin and evil exist because man chose not to obey Him.  “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

Truly we must, “Beware lest anyone cheat [us] through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

Conclusion

The theories and philosophies of men have conspired to make the simple, difficult; to make the plain, obscure.  Both Bible and logic present the same truths concerning God and man:

1. God is sovereign.
2. God is good.
3. God gave man free will.
4. Man sometimes chooses to do evil rather than good.
5. Evil is the result of man’s disobedience, not a failing or limitation of God.

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.  But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.  Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death (James 1:13-15).

Two observations suffice as we seek to apply these truths.  First, God will hold you accountable if you live your life as an evildoer.  Second, God will reward you if you choose to follow His will.  The apostle Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica, seeking to comfort the disciples during a time of persecution.  He noted that they would be protected by God, and those who persecuted them would be judged.  Consider his words, “It is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.  These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed” (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10).  The choice is ours:  To obey, or not to obey.  God be praised that He has given us such a wonderful blessing.

Dear Larry, I have a question.  Is salvation based on being faithful? If so, how faithful?

— William

Dear William,

"How faithful" does your wife expect you to be to her?  That is what the Lord expects, too — "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:2).  Your wife would not like it, if, after telling you that she has been faithful to you, you were to ask her, "How faithful?"

"How faithful?"  Children of God are to "cleanse (themselves) of all filthiness of the flesh and spirit," and be "blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke in the midst of a crooked generation among whom (they) shine as lights in the world" (2 Corinthians 7:1; Philippians 2:15).

You asked, "is salvation based on being faithful?" "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life" (Revelation 2:10).  Will Christ give a man a crown of life, even if he is not faithful?  Further, "it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful" (1 Corinthians 4:2).  The key word in that passage is, "required."  What does "required" mean, William?  It means "necessary," or "essential," does it not?  Thus, to be saved, to have a crown of life, it is "required" that a man be found faithful.

How will Christ reward a steward who does not do that which is "required"?  The answer to that question is found in Luke 12:42-46:

"And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?  Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.  Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.  But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers."

Observe that the "blessed servant" is the one who is found doing as instructed.  If the Lord’s servant becomes an unfaithful steward, he is appointed a "portion with the unbelievers."  What will happen to all "unbelievers"?  They "shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).  That is, they will go to hell.  That is where unfaithful stewards are going, too, for the Lord will appoint them a portion "with the unbelievers." Even though Baptist doctrine says that an unfaithful steward is saved just as well as the faithful one, the passages above show that doctrine to be false.

"Be thou faithful unto death," for it is only the faithful who will hear the welcome words, "well done, thou good and faithful servant" (Matthew 25:21).

I have a question, Is there any condition, when somebody has been saved, and they are a Christian, can that person get unsaved?  Thank  you, William

Reply:

Thanks for your question, William.  I shall seek to answer it with Scripture.  I will also send you some articles which apply to your question.  

First, there are those who believe there is not "any condition" which will cause a saved person to become lost or unsaved.

"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 its 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….Salvation is settled once and for all when we believe….The way I live has nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of my soul" (Sam Morris, "Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul"?). 

William, do you agree with that statement?  Do you agree that "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 its soul"?  I do not.  Do you?

Second, note that some who were "saved" in the Old Testament were later "destroyed."  I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not" (Jude 5; Cf. 1 Cor. 9:24-10:13).

Third, Simon, who had been lost, was saved when he believed and was baptized (Mk. 16:16; Acts 8:9-13).  Later, however, (a) his heart was not right in the sight of God; (b) he was guilty of "wickedness," and (c) he was said to be "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity" (Acts 8:21- 23).  That does not sound like a description of one who is saved, does it?  So, Simon, who had been saved, was then lost, or unsaved.

Fourth, consider the following passages which show that those who have been saved may become lost, or unsaved.

(A) "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Pet. 2:1).  Note that the Lord had "bought them," which means they were saved, for one is "purchased" with the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19).  Next, they denied the Lord who bought them.  "If we deny him, he also will deny us" (2 Tim. 2:12; Cf. Matt. 10:33).  "Then, when they denied him, they brought upon themselves "swift destruction."  Those who had been bought by the Lord now deny him and "bring upon themselves swift destruction."  Thus, those who had been bought and saved became lost and unsaved.

(B) "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.  For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them" (2 Pet. 2:20, 21).  Observe that they had escaped the pollutions of the world.  They knew the Lord.  Then, they were "again entangled therein and overcome."  One could not be "again entangled," if he had never been disentangled to begin with, so they were saved.  When they were "again entangled," they were also "overcome."  That does not sound like they are still saved, does it?  No, "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

(C) "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God" (Heb. 3:12).  These Hebrews had been saved, for Jesus was "the Apostle and High Priest of (their) profession" (Heb. 3:1).  Too, they could not "depart" or leave "the living God" if they had not been in him.  The apostle says there could develop in them "an evil heart of unbelief," and that this would result in their departure from the living God.  That does not sound like they were still saved, does it?  So, those who are saved may depart from the living God and be lost.

William, below is some material which you may study.  Please write again if you have further questions.

Baptist Doctrine And Galatians 6:7, 8
Larry Ray Hafley

Do you believe Galatians 6:7, 8? "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting" (Gal. 6:7, 8).  The text does not say that the principles of sowing and reaping only apply to alien sinners, to unbelievers.  No, the laws of sowing and reaping are universal and eternal.  Thus, whatsoever any man sows, whether he be a Christian or not, "that shall he also reap."

Do you believe that "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap?" Do you believe that "he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption?"  Do you believe that only those who sow "to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting?" If your answer to the questions above is, "Yes, I believe Galatians 6:7, 8," then you are not a Baptist, or if you are, you do not believe the Baptist doctrine of "once saved, always saved."  See what Sam Morris, a Baptist preacher, said in his tract entitled, "Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul?"

"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 its 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….Salvation is settled once and for all when we believe….The way I live has nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of my soul."

Sam Morris’s statement denies what God said in Ezekiel 3:20, "When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity…he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered."  It also contradicts Ezekiel 33:18, "When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby."

One must decide whether he shall believe the word of God or the word of men.  Condemning me for pointing out the contrast between Baptist doctrine and Bible doctrine will not do away with the irreconcilable differences between the statements cited above.  Does ridiculing this article make Baptist doctrine any less contradictory of the word of God?  Does it make Sam Morris’s statement true?  Is it right for Baptists to teach that one may commit every sin "from idolatry to murder" and still go to heaven, but wrong for me to point out how their belief makes void the very word of God itself?

We appeal for honest hearts to reject the errors of men and to receive the truth of God.  One’s refusal to do so will not do away with God’s immutable, irrefutable law that "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Hebrews 7:25 & "Once Saved, Always Saved"
Larry Ray Hafley

"Rev. Mack Jones," of Baytown, Texas, writes a weekly column in his church bulletin entitled, "From Your Pastor’s Heart."  From it, we extract the following:

"We are often questioned about the eternity of our belief.  People want to know if God will disown them.  The emphatic answer is, no!  By no means will God ever disown one of his children.  Heb. 7:25 states this very clearly; ‘Hence, also, he is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them’ (NAS).  We are saved forever.  We draw near to God through Christ, and He makes intercession for us.  This gives us great assurance of our faith in Christ" (Wooster Baptist Church Messenger, Vol. 29, Number 8, 2/20/01).

Review Of Mack Jones’ Remarks

It is to be doubted that folks question "the eternity of (their) belief."  Faith, like hope, is not eternal.  Both shall be swallowed up in the possession of "life and immortality" brought to fruition and completion.  However, we shall let that pass and deal with the main thrust of Mack’s message.

(1) Observe this stark contrast between the word of the spirit of Jones and the word of the Spirit of Jesus:

Mr. Jones said, "People want to know if God will disown them.  The emphatic answer is, no!  By no means will God ever disown one of his children."

The Bible says, "I will smite them…and disinherit them" (Num. 14:12). "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered: and men gather them, can cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (Jn. 15:6).  "If we deny him, he will also deny us" (2 Tim. 2:12). "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off" (Rom. 11:22).

God will "Disinherit, cast forth, deny, and cut off" some of his children.  This cannot be speaking of the unsaved, for they have no inheritance and are already denied and cut off (Jn. 3:18).  Thus, God will, contrary to Mr. Jones’ claim, "disown" his disobedient children.  Jones says, "He won’t." God says he will.  Whom do you believe?

(2) As proof of his contention that God will never "disown one of his children," Mr. Jones refers to Hebrews 7:25, "Hence, also, he is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them."

The passage is not disputed, nor is its teaching denied.  It is certain that God will "save forever those who draw near to God through Him" (Christ).  With that we are in complete agreement.  There is no difference between us on that point.

However, that is not the question at issue.  Mr. Jones believes, and Baptist doctrine teaches, that God will "save forever" those who cease to "draw near to God."  He says that God "By no means will ever disown one of his children," even if they quit drawing near to God.  Hebrews 7:25 makes no such promise to such people.

It is indeed possible for one who once drew near to God to depart–"many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (Jn. 6:66).  "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God" (Heb. 3:12).  Remember, there is absolutely no way that a child of God who draws near to God will ever be disowned.  Jones is right about that, but what of those who, instead of drawing near, turn and "draw back, or fall away?  What of them?  "Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.  But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of  the soul" (Heb. 10:38, 39).

Conclusion: Those who "draw near," God will "save forever," but those who "draw back" do so "unto perdition," or destruction.

(3) Other passages in the book of Hebrews show that Jones is wrong when he says that a child of God will not be disowned, no matter how he lives.  Even if we did not know how to explain Hebrews 7:25, we would know that the Baptist doctrine of "once saved, always saved," is false.  As proof thereof, note the following passages in Hebrews.

"Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.  For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" (Heb. 2:1-3).

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God" (Heb. 3:12).

"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" (Heb. 4:1).

"Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief" (Heb. 4:11).

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.  But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.  He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:26-29)?

"Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled" (Heb. 12:15).

These passages show us that Hebrews 7:25 does not teach that a child of God cannot, under any circumstances, be disowned.  There is perfect harmony between these texts and that of 7:25.  As long as one draws near to God, he is "saved forever," but if one ceases to believe, departs from God and is "defiled," a punishment worse than death awaits him!

To say that this passage has been the occasion for much debate is an understatement. The fact that it is a difficult passage, regardless of the interpretation defended, is a truth to which all serious students would readily agree. In this brief study, we cannot raise all of the questions posed about this text, much less take the space required to reason towards answering all of those questions. We will, however, try to lay a foundation needed to properly understand the main points. For a detailed study, Whiteside’s commentary gives an excellent examination of this text.

The apostle Paul began the epistle to the Romans by affirming that the Gospel is God’s power to save those who respond in faith to that message. He then shows that all are in need of that salvation because all have sinned beginning with the Gentiles and then concentrating on the Jews (Romans 1:18 – 2:20). The next two chapters emphasize the themes of faith and grace as they relate to the justification of the sinner through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This point is also made with special emphasis to the Jews. Up to that point in the book, the writer stresses the need for, and nature of God’s action in salvation.

With the beginning of chapter 6, the apostle spends three chapters mainly concentrating on the proper response from man to God’s grace in salvation. Paul affirms that "we" (Christians) cannot say that we may sin the more since God’s grace takes care of sin. Instead, we must see our baptism as a death to or separation from sin that we might live in "newness of life" (Romans 6:1-11). He views that point of obedience from the heart as the time we were freed from the dominion or mastery of sin and brought under the control of the Lordship of Christ being made servants of righteousness (Rom. 6:12-23). Those figures of death and dominion continue to reappear throughout this section of the book.

In the seventh chapter, those figures are pulled together in the first six verses as the writer uses them to picture the freedom "we" have from the old law as analogous to the wife released from the dominion of her husband upon his death. Paul shows the need for that change in dominion by noting "our" condition under the law. He notes, "For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death" (Romans 7:5). Paul is not saying that the old law created the sinful passions of man, for sinful passion predated that law. The law, rather, was the means by which the one living under dominion of the "flesh" identified his passions as sinful because the law so defined them as sinful. Such a person also learned through the law that the fruit of his sinful passions when acted upon ("wrought in our members") was "the fruit of death." Obviously, the main audience the writer addresses with this point is those of a Jewish background.

This line of reasoning was sure to raise a question in the mind of the reader. It is that question which initiates the context with which we are concerned. Paul answers by more fully explaining that the law was not sinful, nor was it the originator of sinful conduct. The law merely defined sin and made its nature clear to those it addressed. The identity of the law under consideration is made certain when the writer says, "Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" (Romans 7:7). "The law" being considered obviously included the ten commandments for it is only in the two times those commandments are given that we find the phrase quoted by Paul, "Thou shalt not covet" (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21). Through that commandment, Paul first learned that coveting was sinful. That understanding came solely from the old law. Though men today may learn not to covet through the Gospel, such was not available to Paul when he learned the nature of coveting. In dealing with the context, let us remember that Paul introduces the teaching which follows by using himself as an example of those under the old law who discovered their sin by means of that law. Up to this point, he has tailored his teaching to those of a Jewish background.

It may also be noted that from this point forward in the context, the sin of which the writer speaks is that practiced by one who knows that his actions constitute sin. Thus, those who seek to use this passage to illustrate the Christian’s battle with sins of ignorance pervert the context. As we will see, this passage does not have primary application to the Christian’s struggle with sin much less his battle with sins of ignorance. It deals with the dilemma faced by the sinner who came to understand his sinfulness by the old law and found himself unable to escape sin’s dominion over him apart from the deliverance found in "Jesus Christ our Lord."

The problem was not with any inherent evil in the law. Paul affirms that "the law IS holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good" (Romans 7:12). This use of the present tense gives us our first clue about how Paul uses the present tense in this context. Though the apostle writes this at a time after that law had been done away, he further portrays that law as presently working "death" in him "through the commandment" (Romans 7:13). How could that be literally true at the present time since Paul could only be condemned as a violator of the law he was presently under – the Gospel. He clearly speaks of a past time in the present tense just as the Hebrew writer does in saying what Jeremiah "saith" (present tense) even though Jeremiah spoke such in the past (Hebrews 8:8-13).

The pattern of the context would lead us to the conclusion that Paul is also using the present tense to describe a past state when he says, "I am carnal, sold under sin" (v. 14) and later exclaim, "Wretched man that I am!" (v. 24). Not only would the consistency of context suggest this conclusion, but so would other passages which plainly state the manner of Paul’s life. In speaking of his present conduct as a Christian, Paul says, "Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and righteously and unblameably we behaved ourselves toward you that believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:10). Which was it? Was Paul presently carnal, sold under sin and wretched or was he holy, righteous and unblameable? It cannot be both ways at the same time, but it could have been both ways if the two passages speak of different points in his life.

Some have suggested that any casual reader of this context would automatically think that Paul was speaking of his present struggle with sin in verses 14 to 25 and that only those seeking to make an argument against Calvinism would view it otherwise. Such reasoning assumes what is to be proven. In the first place, the careful reader of the context will see that Paul has consistently spoken of a past time in the present tense and should reasonably expect that he is doing the same in these verses. Secondly, various commentators throughout history have defended the view that Paul here speaks in the present tense of a past point in time. Macknight shows the diversity of those so viewing the passage as he comments on verse 14 by saying:

"Because the apostle in this passage uses the first person, ‘I am sold,’ etc. Augustine in the latter part of his life, and most of the commentators after his time, with many of the moderns, especially the Calvinists, contend, that in this, and in what follows, to the end of the chapter, the apostle described his own state at the time he wrote this epistle, consequently the state of every regenerated person. But most of the ancient Greek commentators, all the Arminians, and some Calvinists, hold, that though the apostle speaks in the first person, he by no means describes his own state, but the state of an unregenerated sinner awakened, by the operation of law, to a sense of his sin and misery. And this opinion they support by observing, that in his writings the apostle often personates others. See Rom. 13:11-13. Wherefore, to determine the question, the reader must consider to which of the two characters the things written in this chapter best agree; and in particular, whether the apostle could say of himself, or of other regenerated persons, that ‘they are carnal, and sold under sin.’"

Examination of Terminology

The terms Paul uses to describe his thoughts and actions are the strongest argument for understanding his statements in this text to illustrate the confusion experienced by the sinner condemned through the law. Often, a close scrutiny of the words used will help us better comprehend the idea stated by the writer. For example, if one reads Galatians 6:1-5 not knowing two different Greek words are both rendered "burdens" in the English translation of verses 2 and 5, the reader is likely to be confused. However, when he understands that the word in verse 2 refers to a heavy load which must be shared while the word in verse 5 refers to a personal load, the meaning becomes obvious. Let us look at the terms in Romans 7:15-21 to see if we can get similar help.

Paul says, "That which I do I know not" (v. 15). Is he suggesting that he is not conscious of his actions? If so, his mental competence to stand accountable may be in question. Such is surely not the case with an apostle chosen by God to spread the truth and inspired to write these words by the Spirit. The word translated "know" is the Greek word ginosko which carries with it the significance, not just to being conscious of a fact, but of growing to understand the nature or comprehend the result of something. Whiteside commented on this word by noting:

"It does not mean simply to be conscious of the particular act one is performing, but also to grasp the nature and consequences of what one is doing. No sinner does that. When Paul was persecuting Christians, he was conscious of his acts, but was utterly ignorant of the nature and consequences of his deeds. ‘Howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief’ (1 Tim. 1:13). He did not know that every act he performed in persecuting the church was a crime against God and man; he thought he was doing right. He, therefore, did not know what he was doing – what he was accomplishing. When Jesus was on the cross, he prayed: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’ These men knew they were engaged in the act of crucifying a man called Jesus; they did not know that they were crucifying the Son of God. They did not know what they doing. ‘And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers’ (Acts 3:17). ‘For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory’ (1 Cor. 2:8). Now, these men were not demented. They knew they were putting a person to death; yet they did not know what they were doing. If a sinner really knew the full nature and awful consequences of the life he is living, he would quickly turn away from it."

Three Words Describing Action

Three Greek words rendered "do" or "practice" in our English translations of the context also bear examination. All three words are used in verse 15 providing us an opportunity to examine their use and relation. Notice the passage:

"For that which I do (katergadzomai) I know not: for not what I would, that do I practise (prasso); but what I hate, that I do (poieo)."

Why are three different Greek words translated with two English words, both of which may convey the same meaning? When we define the words, we are aided in understanding the text. Let us define them:

According to lexicographers Arndt and Gingrich, the Greek word katergadzomai carries the idea of achieving or accomplishing something. It does not describe a mere action, but connotes action towards an accomplishment. It could be illustrated by that which an artist ultimately "does" – not just making strokes of paint, but accomplishing the desired end of his expression.

In contrast, the Greek word prasso describes one engaged in some action. It is mostly used of being involved in action which is not praiseworthy, thus rendered "commit" in many cases.

The last word, poieo, is used to signify the making, manufacturing or producing of something. It is used to describe the action of Aaron in producing the golden calf (Acts 7:40) and of God in creating the earth (Acts 17:24). It carries the connotation of action done to make an end product.

The sinner does not fully comprehend what he will achieve as a result of his participation in sin. Instead, the sinner merely lives for the moment, satisfying his lusts. But what happens when he has time to think about the direction of his life? At such times, he surely longs for a different life than is characterized by his action of committing sin. Yet, he keeps on doing the same thing. In the end, he hates the end product of his life being produced by his actions. In paraphrased form, that is Paul’s point in verse 15. The same points are made repeatedly as Paul elaborates on this theme using the same terms throughout the text to describe the captivation of the sinner who realizes his sinfulness through the old law, but has no deliverance without Christ.

What is the solution? Paul says deliverance for such an one was found only "through Jesus Christ our Lord" (v. 25). What was true for the one who came to understand his sin by the old law is also true of the one today who comes to understand his sin by the new law. There is deliverance available, not by submitting to the dominion of the flesh, but by submitting to the Lordship of Jesus as an obedient servant of righteousness who has found newness of life in Christ.

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.]

I. Tips and Tactics

• 1. Neo-Calvinists are notorious for saying one thing when they mean something else entirely
  2. Make certain that terms such as “law,” “grace,” “imputed righteousness,” are clearly defined and that they stick with the definition
  1. Neo-Calvinists don’t want to admit we must believe to be saved, or that we must accept God’s grace, or that man must do anything to be saved.
  2. Make them say it!
  1. Legalism – “You’re a modern-day Pharisee, legalist, etc.”
  2. Ignorance – “Do you know everything?”
  3. Unrighteousness – “All our works are as filthy rags.”
  1. A great deal of Neo-Calvinism comes from perverting Romans.
  2. You must know what is taught before you can know error when you hear it!

A. Define all terms. Watch for “term jumping”B. Make them say “Must.”

C. Get ready to be charged:

D. Know the book of Romans

I. Error

• 1. “We are under grace, not law. We must not depend on what we do, but on God.”
  1. Romans 6:14-15
  2. Galatians 3:11

A. Neo-Calvinists say:B. Passages Misused:

II. Truth

• • a) Ephesians 2:8-11
    b) Romans 3:23; 10:5
    a) 1 Corinthians 9:21
    b) Romans 8:2
    c) Galatians 6:2
    a) James 1:25; 2:12
    b) Romans 8:2, 16-17

  1. We are not under a law system whereby man works and earns his salvation:2. However, we are under law:

  3. This law is the Gospel, with all its accompanying commands, privileges, and provisions:

  1. Neo-Calvinists confuse basis for salvation (Christ) and the conditions for salvation (obedience).
  2. Is any really teaching, “I go to services three times a week and have been baptized and so I do not need Jesus”?
  3. Man must obey the Gospel, the law of Christ!when you hear it!

A. Bible teaches we are under law and graceB. Confusion about Grace

I. Error

• 1. “Some sins don’t separate us from God. Christ’s blood automatically covers sins of ignorance or inadvertence.
  1. 1 John 1:7-9; 5:16-17
  2. Romans 4:8
  3. 2 Corinthians 5:19
  1. Using a hypothetical situation to make you play God.
  2. “A man is a faithful saint for 50 years, gets splashed by mud on the street one day, curses, and then is hit by a bus. Will he be lost or saved?”
  3. Don’t play God! Clemency is up to the Judge. All we can do is quote the law!

A. Neo-Calvinists say:B. Passages Misused:

C. Favorite Tactic:

II. Truth

• • a) we walk “as He is in the light” (1 John 1:7)
    b) did Jesus sin when He walked? Neither can we!
    a) such is impossible – 1 John 1:5
    a) just compare your life to the record left by the Holy Spirit and see if you measure up – Romans 8:16
    a) all questions such as, “Do you know everything?” are just a smoke screen to cast doubt in one’s mind.
    b) we may not know everything about everything, but does that mean we know nothing about anything? Hardly!
    c) we know what we must do to be saved and to continue in the light — be assured in the practice of that knowledge!
    a) Luke 18:13-14
    b) if Jesus says the man “went down to his house justified” after confessing general sin then who can disagree?

  1. Walking in the light does not allow for sin2. Every sin separates man from God, or else God would be in fellowship with sin.

  3. Assurance is possible:

  4. We can know the truth, and thus be free – John 8:32

  5. Specific confessing of every single sin is not a part of this position

  1. If one man can be saved with unrepented sin in his life, then why can’t we all be saved that way?
  2. Could a man be an ignorant adulterer? An inadvertent liar?
  3. Which sins can man commit and not be lost? List please!

A. Walking in the light gives assurance, when properly understoodB. Questions for the Neo-Calvinists:

I. Error

• 1. “Gospel is the good news about Christ, and nothing more. Gospel cannot be preached to saints. None of the epistles are Gospel. We must agree on Gospel, but not on doctrine. Fellowship should be extended to all who accept the Gospel.”
  1. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

A. Neo-Calvinists say:B. Passages misused:

II. Truth

• • a) 1 Timothy 1:8-11
    b) Philippians 1:27
    c) 2 Corinthians 5:14
    a) Romans 1:5; 2:8; 6:17; 10:16; 16:21
    a) Romans 1:15
    b) 1 Peter 1:25
    c) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3
    a) Where is this list of “gospel facts” that all agree on?
    b) Some have 5 facts, others 12, some 7 — this is unity?

  1. “Gospel” and “Doctrine” are used interchangeably2. Gospel must be obeyed:

  3. Jesus preached the Gospel (Matthew 4:23) also called doctrine (Matthew 7:28).
  4. Gospel can be preached to saints

  5. Who will get to decide what is gospel?

  6. Why were the epistles written if they don’t really matter?

A. Neo-Calvinists could not have missed it farther!

III. Additional Problem Area: Examples and Inferences

• • a) Lord’s Supper only on Sunday
    b) frequency of Lord’s Supper, once a week
    c) elders in every church
    d) how churches cooperated
    e) how spiritual gifts were imparted
    f) a church treasury
    g) duration of miracles
    a) Where is the background command for taking the Supper every week?
    b) Where is the background command for appointing elders in every church; why not Metropolitan bishops?

  1. Neo-Calvinists argue that human reasoning decides which examples to bind, and what is a “necessary” inference.
  2. If God wants to communicate by implication/examples can we limit Him?
  3. See how many things are changed when this part of biblical authority is discarded (this is only a partial list!):4. Don’t buy into “we accept examples with a clear ‘background command’.”

  5. This is just an effort to broaden fellowship!

A. Neo-Calvinism strips the Bible of authority!

I. Error

• 1. Galatians 2:17
  2. Romans 4:5-10; 5:1
  3. Hebrews 7:22
  4. Isaiah 64:6

A. Neo-Calvinists say: “Men are saved by His good works. Jesus is our substitute. We are accounted righteous because Jesus is righteous. The righteousness of Christ clothes the believer with the righteousness the law demands. Man is too corrupt — he can never be righteous on his own.”
B. Passages misused:

II. Truth

• • a) Words – just, justify, justification, right, righteous, righteousness are all from the same Greek word
    a) Acts 10:34-35
    b) Matthew 5:20
    c) Romans 6:13-16
    d) 1 John 3:17

  1. An attribute of God – Romans 3:5
  2. Salvation, justification – Romans 4:1-8; 10:1-10 3. What God declares right – Psalm119:172; Hebrews 5:13
  4. Righteousness is what a man does when he obeys God:

  1. Means to be forgiven, saved, justified
  2. That’s all — nothing more!
  3. No passage teaches Jesus’ righteousness is given to you, or that your righteousness can be given to anyone else!

A. Righteousness used in different ways B. What does “imputed righteousness” mean?

I. Error

• 1. “Salvation is by grace alone”
  1. Romans 4:1-5; 11:6
  1. Watch them say “grace only” whenever you talk about obedience, but then say “one must believe”
  2. Which is it – grace only or grace and faith?
  3. See John 6:29

A. Neo-Calvinists B. Passages Misused

C. Red Flag:

II. Truth

• • a) Hebrews 2:9
    b) Romans 3:24-25
    a) Titus 2:11
    b) 2 Corinthians 6:1
    c) Hebrews 12:15
    a) Hebrews 5:9
    a) Noah built (faith), but God had the plan (grace).
    b) Israel walked (faith), but God parted the Red Sea (grace).
    c) Israel marched (faith), but God destroyed Jericho’s walls (grace).
    d) Man is baptized (faith), but God saves (grace).

  1. Grace is all that God has done for us, that we couldn’t do ourselves 2. We must accept the conditions of His grace:

  3. God will not obey for you! He has done all He will, man must obey:

  4. Keep using the Old Testament examples of man cooperating with God’s grace:

A. What is grace really all about?

I. Error

• 1. “Justification is done by God, makes one right with Him. Sanctification is an ongoing process wrought by the Spirit.”
  1. Romans 5:1-5, 17; 8:1ff
  2. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4
  3. 2 Thessalonians 2:13

A. Neo-Calvinists: B. Passages Misused

II. Truth

• • a) 1 John 3:7
    b) Romans 3:24-26; 4:21-25; 5:1
    a) James 2:24-25
    b) Romans 3:26
    a) Luke 7:29; 10:29; 16:15

  1. Simply means to pronounce righteous. Comes from the same Greek root word as righteous (didasko).
  2. God pronounces righteous when we obey Him: 3. Word is used for saints and aliens – 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
  4. Justification is conditional

  5. “Justify” refers to man’s actions:

  • a) Acts 20:32
    b) 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14
    a) 1 Corinthians 6:11
    b) 2 Corinthians 7:1

  1. Means “separation, set apart”
  2. “To purify from sin” – 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26
  3. Sanctification happens at the point of salvation, and is an ongoing process 4. It is seen as completed action and a continuing process:

A. Justification B. Sanctification

The Seed of Calvinism

God’s Sovereignty Must Rule and Control Everything!

• • • Total Depravity
    • Unconditional Election
    • Limited Atonement
    • Irresistable Grace
    • Perseverance of the Saints

• Baptizing Babies and Infants (Total Depravity)
• Holy Spirit Conversion “Experience” (Irresistable Grace)
• Once Saved Always Saved (Perseverance)
• Predestination (Limited Atonement)

• Calvinism alone would never be accepted
• However, if it is modified and made more deceptive…
• Calvinism mixed with some truth equals new-Calvinism
• Neo-Calvinism is born!

• J ustification – Sanctification Difference
• O nly Grace
• R ighteousness Imputed
• D octrine – Gospel Distinction
• A ssurance – Security
• N o Law

Authors: Bobby Holmes and Mark Roberts

Naturally, the roots of Neo-Calvinism are found in plain vanilla Calvinism. This booklet attempts to briefly cover that ground before turning its attention to this “offshoot” of John Calvin’s original errors.

John Calvin made one wrong assumption, and it totally corrupted and destroyed everything he ever thought or wrote from then on. His decision that God controlled everything crept into his beliefs about salvation, redemption, etc. Look carefully at the TULIP and you will see his erroneous ideas about sovereignty behind every point.

The Neo-Calvinists among us make some similarly wrong conclusions, and then build a house of theology upon the shifting sands of error. May this booklet help you to destroy this pernicious teaching.

For additional information and help I would heartily recommend Neo-Calvinism in the Church of Christ (Tom Roberts, editor; Cogdill Foundation, publisher). The famous “green book” is the definitive work on Neo-Calvinism, in my opinion, and I am completely indebted to its writers. Thomas G. O’Neal’s little book, Set For The Defense (Cogdill Foundation, publisher) is also an excellent work that briefly sets for the error of Neo-Calvinism. Both of these books can be purchased from the Guardian of Truth bookstore.

Study carefully, think carefully, and then go forth boldly to refute error. May this work be of every assistance to you.

Calvin was born in 1509, and came to adulthood under the influences of the Reformation begun by Martin Luther. In 1536 he published the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which contain a systematic theology based on the premises of the total depravity of man, and the individual predestination of the saved. Though few Christian denominations can be said to be fully Calvinistic in their theology, Calvin’s writings have had a profound influence upon Protestant doctrine.

Calvin’s theology, when stated plainly, is hardly palatable. Notice the following quote from Sam Morris, a former Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Stamford, TX:

“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…”

“The way a man lives has nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul.”

While the quote sounds absurd on the surface, and indeed is, it is a simple, honest assessment of Calvinistic doctrine. The tenants of Calvinism can be concisely stated using the acronym TULIP. Each letter in the word TULIP stands for a foundational pillar of Calvinistic theology:

T otal Depravity

U nconditional Salvation

L Limited Atonement

I rresistible Grace

P erseverance of the Saints

Refuting Calvinism

Below we will concisely define each of the tenants of Calvinism, and refute them from scripture. It is important to note each of these “pillars” are interconnected. If any one of the five are disproved from scripture, the entire theology crumbles beneath its own weight. As stated previously, Calvin worked from the premise of the depravity of man. Calvin believed, as did others of his time, that we inherit the sin of Adam. In effect, that man is born into the world totally depraved. He rightly reasoned that if the depravity of man is total, he can have no part in his own salvation. His every thought and intent is evil. He is incapable of doing good. Even the attempts to do good are evil, as his depravity is total. Since this is the case, it is God alone who determines who will be saved and who will be lost. Never mind that this makes God a respecter of persons, and a capricious Being who condemns at His whim those who are not culpable in their sin.

This fatalistic attitude toward redemption has its comforts. After all, if God saves me, I am saved, and there is nothing I can do to invalidate my redemption. Conversely, if I am lost, I can do nothing about it, so there is no use in concerning myself with spiritual matters. Let’s examine the major tenants of the doctrine.

Total Depravity. The Calvinist teaches that the little child is born into the world totally depraved. This contradicts the statement of our Lord regarding the little children, when He said “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). Now, unless the Calvinist is willing to concede that the Kingdom of Heaven is made up of those totally depraved, he must admit to the purity of the little children, and the invalid nature of that tenet.

Further, rather than inheriting the sin of our forbears, the Lord informed Ezekiel that we are responsible only for our own sins. “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20). No, man is not born totally depraved. He is born with free will, and can choose whether he will or will not serve God. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

Unconditional Salvation. The belief that salvation is unconditional is a logical outgrowth of the assumption that man is born totally depraved. If one’s depravity is total, then he is incapable of doing anything to secure his salvation. If this is so, then the salvation of man is wholly dependent upon God’s choosing. He must do nothing. However, the Bible paints a different picture. One has only to read Mark 16:16, quoted above, to see clearly that our salvation is conditioned upon faith and baptism. The fact that Jesus demanded action on this occasion reveals clearly that there are conditions ascribed to a person’s redemption. Too, Peter indicated to the Jews on Pentecost that there are conditions attached to their escape from condemnation. When they asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do” (cf. Acts 2:37), he did not tell them that salvation was unconditional, but rather exhorted them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

Limited Atonement. This tenet of Calvinism is rather silly. It is necessitated by the belief that salvation is unconditional, and the reality that some will be lost. So, the logic is that Jesus only came and died for those predestined to salvation. His blood was shed only for a precious few. However, that plainly denies what Jesus said of Himself in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Clearly the redemptive blood is available not to only a few, but to whoever believes in Him.

Consider also the rather distasteful consequence of such a position. If God sent his Son to die only for the predestined few, then God has condemned for eternity the large number who, through no fault of their own, lay outside the scope of that redeeming blood. This makes God both capricious and unfair in His judgment.

Irresistible Grace. According to the Calvinist, if God chooses to redeem you, you can not resist his advances. Again, this is not born out in scripture. In fact, Stephen accused the Jews of doing exactly what the Calvinist says can not be done, “You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51). In scripture, the grace of God is always extended by invitation. No one is compelled to respond. In freely responding to the invitation, we are able to “…Be saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2:40).

Perseverance of the Saints. Finally, the idea is promoted that if salvation is solely the work of God, then once you are saved, you can not so sin as to be eternally lost. This is perhaps the most popular tenant of the doctrine, embraced even if other tenants are denied. The logic parallels the rest of Calvinistic theology, but again is not born out in scripture. The Bible is replete with warnings of the possibility of Christians losing their souls (cf. Hebrews 6:4-6; 2 Peter 2:18-22) and with actual names of those who have lost their redemption (Hymenaeus and Philetus come to mind, cf. 2 Timothy 2:16-18). Simon, a former sorcerer, is recorded in Acts 8 to have obeyed the gospel, thus becoming a Christian (vs. 13). When he sinned Peter said unto him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money!” The question obviously arises, why would Peter threaten Simon with condemnation when Simon was incapable of so sinning as to lose his soul? The answer is that Calvinism has it wrong on this point as well! As the Lord proclaimed to Israel, “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die” (Ezekiel 18:24).

Conclusion

In reality, the salvation of man is predicated both upon God’s extended grace, and man’s response to that redemptive work. In affirming this we do not state that man earns or merits his salvation. Salvation is the freely given gift of God. But, we must be willing to accept the gift. Salvation is conditioned upon our faithful obedience to the commands of God.

In affirming the fact that a man can lose his salvation we do not state that God is unable to secure our safety. Truly, “…He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). We do not doubt what God can do, we only realize that it is possible for a man to “concerning the faith… suffer[ed] shipwreck” (1 Timothy 1:19).

The theology of Calvin offers false comfort. The underlying assumptions have been long held, and the tenants have been accepted without sufficient examination. The doctrine fails the test of scripture, and should be rejected by all Bible believers. We should follow the example of the Bereans, who “received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

A verse often used in this context is 2 Corinthians 5:21: “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” The phrase “he made to be sin” is the controversial part of the text and one that is grossly misused. We need to understand in what sense God made Christ “to be sin.” Did God place our sins on Christ? Would that make Christ a sinner? Did Christ die a spiritual death as well as a physical death on the cross? Just what is meant? As in all studies, we need to consider all that the Bible says and not take one verse to mean something that would contradict other Bible passages.

First of all, we can clear the air considerably when we note that the Bible teaches that Christ was not a sinner. Our text states: “Him who knew no sin…” Additionally, we see 1 Peter 2:22: “Who did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” From these and other passages, it is clear that Christ did no sin on His own. So the question before us is: “Did Christ become a sinner by a transference of our sins to Himself?” I believe the answer to this is also “No.” There is not a single Bible passage which indicates that sin from one person (or righteousness) is ever transferred to another.

If we take the position that our sins were transferred to Christ, we are faced with the fact that Christ would have been a sinner. Isaiah 59:1-2 states that “sins and iniquities separate from God.” Romans 6:23 states that the “wage of sin is death.” We are being asked to believe that Christ actually “bore our sin” and died a spiritual death in our stead. Such a position falls short of the truth and would lead one into grave error on other points. Let us note carefully what the Bible teaches about Christ “being made sin on our behalf.”

Romans 8:3 puts it this way: “…God, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Friends, there is quite a difference in something being a likeness of something and actually being it. While Christ wore a human body, it was not stained by sin, either His own or of others. When Christ died on the cross, He died a physical death and this death was a punishment for sin (“…the soul that sineth, it shall die” — Ezekiel 18:4). But He took the punishment that was due to us. He did not die because He was guilty or because He took our guilt upon Himself. He took our punishment!

Isaiah 53 sheds light on the question. Isaiah says, “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (vs. 4-5). Now reason with me a little. If you can understand in what manner an innocent man suffers in the place of the guilty, you can see what this is teaching. Christ was “wounded for our transgression.” He was “bruised for our iniquities.” “Our chastisement” was upon Him. Jesus no more actually took our sins upon Him than He actually took our griefs and sorrows upon Him. Have all my griefs been transferred to Christ? Have all my sorrows been transferred to him? No, of course not; we can easily see that. And in the same fashion we can see that our sins were not transferred to Him but that He took the “stripes” and “bruises” that were due to us because we were justly guilty. He stood in our stead. This is what 1 Corinthians 15:3 means when it states that “Christ died for our sins,” and Galatians 1:4 means when it says Christ “gave himself for our sin.” He was a “sacrifice for sin” (Hebrews 10:12) and in that sense He “bare our sins” (1 Peter 2:24) just as He took our griefs and sorrows. He was “made to be sin” in that He took our punishment and was treated as or like a sinner even while He was innocent. He “suffered for sins” (1 Peter 3:18) not His own and in that fashion God “made him to be sin” (only from the punishment standpoint) and by that act He “purged our sins” (Hebrews 1:3).

We need to be extremely careful and not take a single passage of the Bible and stretch it to mean something that contradicts other passages. Doing such arrays passage against passage, rather than harmonizing them.

To teach that 2 Corinthians 5:21 portrays Christ as receiving the guilt of our sins rather than the punishment for our sins violates this very principle. I challenge anyone to produce the evidence that teaches that guilt (or righteousness) is ever transferred from one person to another. Adam’s guilt was “put to his account” because he was guilty. My guilt is put to my account because I am guilty. By the grace of God, Jesus Christ the Righteous exposed His back to the punishment which was rightly mine. “By his stripes, we are healed.” “He was bruised for our iniquities.” “He was wounded for our transgression” and it is in that manner that “our iniquities are laid on him.” Whereas I could rightly be condemned eternally for my sins, Jesus bore my punishment and “purged” my sins by His death. This is saving grace in action and we need not confuse the issue by injecting denominational ideas and concepts into it.

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

By his grace, Frank L. McClanahan

Dear Frank,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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.