Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

Writers for Ensign delight in attacking “the orthodox positions of mainline Churches of “Christ” while taking the unorthodox position on nearly everything. But it may just be -that once in a while the orthodox position is the right one – a thing they would hate to admit. Michael Hall, a regular writer for Ensign, has an article on hell in the May, 1980 issue. Ensign is dogmatically opposed to dogmatism, yet brother Hall’s article is titled “The Truth About Hell.” That sounds pretty dogmatic to me.

How He Arrived At The “Truth”

The writer’s new found truth about hell was a result of “intensive personal study” because “we’ve allowed the portraits drawn by fire and damnation preachers of Calvinism to dominate our theology of hell. ” Writers for such papers as Ensign are in no position to accuse anyone of being influenced by Calvinism. However, it appears that he has allowed teachers of Russellism to dominate his theology on hell, as his position can be found in nearly any Watchtower publication. The article should serve as a warning that such brethren are not just off on a point or two regarding fellowship but are crusading for many other falsehoods.

True to Watchtower form, the article tells us that “Biblical terminology for `hell’ is vague and nebulous” and that it “probably has no other function than to arouse you emotionally. ” Hall admits that hell is horrible but then attempts to remove nearly everything that makes it horrible. We are told that hell is “absolute destruction annihilation, non-existence – the end.”

Figurative Language

In spite of the Lord saying, “everlasting punishment,” Hall says it will end. In spite of the Lord saying “unquenchable fire,” Hall believes it will be quenched. He thinks it is a mere figure of speech “to arouse you emotionally.” It may be a figure of speech, but is not a mere figure of speech. If the terrible description we have is figurative, it does not mean things will not be quite as bad as the figures used, it means they will be worse! Bad things described figuratively are worse than the figures used, just as good things described figuratively are better than the figures used (heaven – gates of pearl, golden street, etc.). The zenith of human language is reached in describing the glories of heaven! And human language is stretched almost to the breaking point to convey the awful judgment for the wicked. The Biblical description of hell is God’s way of telling us that hell is far worse than anything we could imagine. But brother Hall believes Jesus was exaggerating and that hell is merely non-existence.

“Destruction”

The article uses the word “destruction” and tells us it means “non-existence – non-being.” Is that what Jesus meant when he used the word apollumi? Vine says “the idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being. This is clear from its use, as e.g. of the marring of wine skins, Lk. 5:37; of lost sheep, i.e. lost to the shepherd, metaphorical of spiritual destruction, Lk. 15:4, 6, etc.; the lost son, 15:24; of the perishing of food, Jn. 6:27, . . . of the loss of well-being in the case of the unsaved hereafter, Mt. 10:28. . ., ” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine, p. 302). To utterly destroy does not mean “non-existence.” Jesus said, “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt. 10:28). Citing this passage and Jas. 4:12, Thayer says apollumi means “to devote or give over to eternal misery” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, J. Henry Thayer, p. 64). Now, did the wineskins, lost sheep, and the prodigal son all go out of existence?

“Eternal”

The writer says, “`eternal’ does not mean forever’ in an unqualified sense, ” but means “age-lasting.” That is true when referring to things of this life. But it is not true when referring to things beyond this earthly existence. Incidently, brother Hall misunderstands one of his references. He says: “Aionos means `age-lasting.’ The determining factor therefore becomes `how long does the age under consideration last?’ And that forces us to look at the context. In Philemon 15, Philemon was to receive Onesimus back :forever.’ Do you mean he would be a slave in the eternity of heaven? Of course not. But throughout the age of his life on earth, throughout that whole age, he would always be back, not to run away anymore?”

I am amazed. The writer says we are forced to look at the context (his emphasis). Then he forgot to look at it! He needs to read the next verse. Verses 15, 16 say “For perhaps he was therefore parted from thee for a season, that thou shouldest have him forever; no longer as a servant, but more than a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but now much rather to thee, both in the flesh and in the lord.” Plainly, Paul says Onesimus would not be Philemon’s servant forever, but there was a sense in which he would have Onesimus forever – as a brother beloved in the Lord! Yes, Paul was speaking of an eternal relationship. This is what the context shows.

What About Heaven And God?

However long hell is, heaven is the same length for both are said to be eternal (Mt. 25:46). Is heaven just age lasting? Will it end like the article said about hell? We are told that “the punishment . . . is eternal `destruction. “‘ (He means one “ceases to exist.”) But taking all that the Bible says, we learn that the destruction is eternal punishment – “not the loss of being, but of well-being.”

While we are on the subject, let brother Hall tell us how long God will last. The same word that describes hell also describes God. He is said to be eternal (Rom. 16:26). Vine tells us that aionos “describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom. 16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the N. T. ” (Ibid., p. 43).

In discussing with JW’s on this subject, I usually ask them a question which brother Hall also needs to attempt to answer. The question is this: If God had intended to say that the wicked will be punished eternally, what words would He have used to describe it? Hall and the JW’s make it impossible to convey the idea in human language! If we cannot use the very words that are used in the Bible then the thought cannot be expressed at all. There are no better words or other words to describe it than “eternal punishment,” “everlasting fire,” “unquenchable fire,” “tormented day and night for ever and ever,” etc.

This brother says it is “blasphemous and slanderous” to believe in eternal punishment and that the only purpose God would have in so doing would be “to sadistically enjoy giving pain.” For shame! Hall is guilty of judging God. Only the person who knows all and is a possessor of a perfect sense of justice is in a position to even contemplate whether God is just in punishing the wicked. Who would that be? “Who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his counselor?” (Rom. 11:34). Not Michael Hall. None of us know the total situation, so we have no right to judge on the matter of whether God is just. It is not as though God is saving hell to spring on us as a surprise on judgment day. Man has been thoroughly and lovingly warned (Lk. 12:4, S). No one will go there by accident. Jesus talked about hell more than anyone in the Bible. Yet we are told that God would be a torturor. The Bible does say weeping, gnashing of teeth, torment, punishment, etc. Let this scholar tell us at what point such things become torture.

Is Hell “Physical”?

The writer says “whatever `hell’ is, it is not physical!” Like the JW’s he steers clear of Mt. 10:28. Jesus said, “fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” What part of man is the body? It is the physical part. Hell will be the ruin of both the spiritual and physical part of man. Brother Hall will not take everything the Bible says on the subject.

Brother Hall’s Human Reasoning

Hall asks, “Now tell me, how long did Jesus suffer on the Cross? . . . How long did he experience that hell (a nonBiblical usage of the word hell, DB) for you and me? . . . If his destruction (note that word, DB) was less than what one person will have to bear individually, then how could his atonement fully . . . atone for everyone’s guilt? . . . If Jesus . . . had to suffer an unending torturous hell, he would still 6e there. ” The writer’s question backfires on his position. Since he believes destruction is “non-existence” and that one becomes a “non-being,” then he must believe Jesus went out of existence and became a “non-being,” for he uses the word “destruction” to refer to what happened to Jesus. Actually, brother Hall slipped up and used the word correctly here. Jesus did not suffer loss of being, but of well-being. But if we go by brother Hall’s definition of destruction then Jesus did become a “non-being” – went out of existence. If that happened then He wasn’t really resurrected; He was re-created! Brother Hall eliminates the major event of the Bible with his definition of destruction.

The truth is, one perfect innocent person (God’s only begotten Son) died for all the world. The Bible says nothing about His suffering having to be worse than what one person will have to bear in hell. That is Hall’s human reasoning. Taking his reasoning, one could as easily argue that Christ’s suffering would have to be worse than that of all humans combined since He died for all. Both ideas are foolishness.

Mortal Soul?

As could be expected, the Ensign writer takes the position that man does not have an immortal soul. [Quote: “But where did the idea of an `immortal soul’ come from? Certainly not from the Bible. It came from Plato and the other Greek philosophers . : . Read your Bible and try to find one place where the Bible says that an unconverted man has an `immortal soul.’ ‘I Like the Watchtower, he wants itemization. Again his argument proves too much for his position, for where does the Bible say “mortal soul” (for which he contends)? It does not say that either. He got that from the Sadducees. So which is it? (1) Paul taught that all men are the offspring of God (Acts 17:28, 29). (2) Since the offspring partake of the Father’s nature (like begets like) and He only has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16 – a spirit has not flesh and bones, Lk. 24:39) then, (3) all men have immortality. However, this is clear from such expressions as “everlasting punishment,” etc. It is not punishment or torment if one is unaware (unconscious) when it happens.

Conclusion

Notice the conclusions of brother Hall’s intensive personal study. (1) He believes at death that the soul sleeps. (2) In hell, “the ‘self”‘ ceases to exist. (3) The unconverted are not immortal. When he says “the fire will utterly consume the body,” keep in mind that this is said in light of his belief that the imagery is to arouse you emotionally and that is is not physical.

The consequence of brother Hall’s theory is that it offers little incentive to do good. I have known people who would be satisfied if in hell one simply goes out of existence – in fact would welcome it considering the kind of lives they have lived. Today’s popular philosophy is that “You only go around once, so get all the gusto you can!” Millions are flocking to it.

The writer closes his article by saying “and now you know the good news.” Yes, hell is not going to be as bad as you thought it was. You won’t feel a thing. In fact, you will not even know it when it happens.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 38, pp. 616-617
September 25, 1980

By William V. Beasley and John Humphries

We left for India on April 21, 1980 for six weeks of teaching the word of God. We wanted to have classes with English-speaking Christians. By having the classes in English, we were able to cover much more material than having stop-and-go preaching using interpreters. Also, we knew exactly what was being taught – and how – in its entirety. Furthermore, we planned to concentrate on a few English-speaking churches in order to build some strong churches that could in turn sound out the Word.

We believe that we were able to accomplish our goal. We taught a series of lessons entitled “That Ye May Believe,” from the gospel of John and a series from 1 John, “That Ye May Know” (Beasley); and a survey of the Old Testament, “Established and Characteristics of the Church,” and “The Dangers of Apostasy” (Humphries). We believe that much good was done.

The first church where we taught was Malakpet in the Hyderabad/Secunderabad area. The second series of classes was at Kazipet. The church in Kazpiet, in our judgment, has great potential. The congregation is made up mostly of school teachers and railroad shift supervisors. These brethren are well educated and capable of becoming very good students of the Word. They all, including the children, speak fine English.

We had small classes in our hotel room when possible, and taught many evenings at little congregations in and around Hyderabad. Some of the village congregations (at least six) have been meeting regularly for five years (since being established on John Humphries’ first trip to India). These brethren pleaded with us to stay and teach them more. The great need and limited time are both heartbreaking and frustrating.

We took turns getting sick, but we managed by the grace of God to keep our classes going. We are most grateful for the prayers of the congregations which supported our efforts and the prayers of our home congregations.

The Lord willing, and if family conditions permit, we would like to return to India in the fall of 1981.

We noted some things which caused discouragement among the Indian brethren. First, some who preach regularly seemed a little discouraged when we did not jump at the chance to support their pet-project (most of the Indian brethren converted by our liberal brethren had a pet-project needing support). We taught, explained, insisted, re-taught, re-explained and re-insisted that it was not our purpose, nor the purpose for which our support had been given, to financially underwrite evangelistic, benevolent or building construction projects. This, of course, needed to be discouraged among the Indian brethren. Faithful brethren in India are holding the line against such and, in fact, refer to their liberal brethren as the “Denominational Church of Christ.”

Second, for one to come from America to “preach/teach Christ,” but, seemingly, be more concerned in proving that other brethren (American and Indian) are dishonest, untrustworthy, etc. was a source of some discouragement to faithful brethren. Also, a stay of only ten days or two weeks, unless seriously ill, seems hardly worth the expense, of the Lord’s money, to fly to and from India. We are not discussing those who become so ill as to endanger themselves and thus had to return to the U.S.A. Such has happened to good men. If one continually (two or three trips in succession) gets too ill or too discouraged (and there are many things in India to cause westerners to weaken) to do the work, it would seem a good idea to leave that particular work to the ones with `cast-iron” stomachs. It would not be amiss for congregations to ask “How long do you intend to stay?”, and, especially, “How long did you stay on your last trip?” when support is requested.

In spite of physical discomfort (the summer, we learned, is not the time to be in India), the discouragement caused by the death of the Indian preacher (who was making arrangements for our classes) and other relatively minor problems, we feel that much good was accomplished through teaching and through the encouragement of being with brethren-in-Christ. We were especially happy to see, as we have mentioned before, that congregations established five years before were still meeting to worship and praise our God. We were also encouraged to learn that preachers who had lost their financial support from America were still preaching. It was good to know that their faith did not carry a “For Sale” sign.

Brethren, we earnestly solicit your prayers on behalf of the saints in India.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 38, p. 615 
September 25, 1980

 

By Mike Willis

One of the distinguishing marks of those who contend for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3) is what they teach regarding the purpose of baptism. Whereas denominationalism generally teaches salvation by faith only, resulting in the dogma that one does not have to be baptized in order to be saved (i.e., to receive remission of his past sins), Christians have consistently taught that the purpose of baptism is to receive remission of one’s past sins.

Through the years since the beginning of the restoration movement in America, gospel preachers have met denominationalists in debate in more towns than I can name to discuss the purpose of baptism. Denominationalists of every hue have defended the doctrine that a person is saved by faith only, before and without baptism. Gospel preachers have affirmed that baptism is essential to salvation.

Another generation has grown up among us who apparently are unfamiliar with these debates. They are being spoon-fed by some infidels who do not believe that one must be baptized in order to be saved. Those men are historically associated with the churches of Christ, they do not believe what gospel preachers have been preaching through the years with reference to baptism. To demonstrate that these charges are not fabricated, I want to cite several sample quotations from the pen of some of the leading exponents of the grace-unity movement to demonstrate that they are ready to extend the right hands of fellowship to those who were baptized for some reason other than to obtain salvation. Keep in mind that most denominationalists teach that baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace, a testimony to the world that one has already been saved, or the door to enter a particular denomination. To such denominationalists, Garrett and others are now ready to extend the right hand of fellowship.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that many of us in the Churches of Christ have abused the scriptures in this way in reference to baptism . . . .

We have failed to relate baptism to the love and mercy of God, and folk really believe that we are saved only by the grace of God. We have left the impression that baptism is, after all, a work that we do in order to become righteous, thus denying the apostolic insistence that salvation is “not by works of righteousness which we have done ourselves” (Tit. 3:5), and so we have invited those endless debates on baptism that could have been avoided, for the most part, if we had always related baptism to the Cross. In depicting it as the response of faith, or as “the cultivation of grace,” to use Campbell’s expression, rather than as arbitrarily “essential,” the religious world would have been more impressed. Not only have we hammered away at the “something you have to do” bit, but we have made a big deal out of one’s proper understanding of the import of the act, which makes not only the act essential but a certain indoctrination as well.

This abuse of baptism is evident in the widespread practice of reimmersing people who are already immersed believers . . . . We are wont to re-immerse all Baptists that come our way . . . . (Leroy Garrett, “The Rebaptized Church of Christ,” Restoration Review, Vol. XVII, No. 4, pp. 62-63).

Notice the comments made by Garrett. We could have avoided all of those debates on baptism with the Baptists, Methodists, and other with whom they were held. He bases this conclusion on his own belief that one does not have to know the purpose of baptism before being baptized. I will concede that Garrett can avoid debates with Baptists because he sees no essential difference in what they are teaching on baptism and what he is teaching. Compare their “outward sign of an inward act” concept with these statements regarding baptism. The context of these comments is Garrett’s comments on Col. 2:11-12.

This “circumcision of Christ” is formalized in baptism. If something very significant has not happened in one’s inmost self, if he has not been “circumcised” by Christ, then baptism has little or no meaning. It may happen that a real transformation, a heart circumcision, does not come until years later. In such cases baptism would have a retrospective symbolic value, as if one would say, “I was baptized into Christ, but only now am I coming to realize its significance.” It is to overdo the symbol to be baptized again and again and again, even though it might well be true that we keep on experiencing now and again “the circumcision of Christ.”

We should see here the stark reality of circumcision as a symbol of what Christ does in us and for us. The mercy and severity of his truth, which may cut and hurt in its healing, removes that which separates us from God and sets us apart from a world that would otherwise hold us captive to sin. Baptism is our assurance that such surgery has been performed by the Spirit of Christ in our hearts (“Are We Hung Up On Baptism?, Restoration Review, Vol. XXI, No. 2, pp. 30-31).

Frankly, I see little difference in Garrett’s statement and that made by any other Baptist. Consequently, Garrett criticizes those who are “reimmersing” Baptist and writes,

I have long since quit looking upon people as Baptists, Methodists, or whatever, but as men and women for whom Christ died. If they share the faith in the risen Christ and have responded to the gospel, they are my brothers and sisters. Not Baptist brothers or Church of Christ brothers, but simply brothers (“Drama On Both Sides of the Border,” Restoration Review, Vol. XVII, No. 5, p. 97).

Another editor of a journal designed to propagate the peculiar tenets of the grace-unity sect among us, R.L. Kilpatrick, editor of Ensign Fair, wrote as follows:

Bro. Nichols says that one of the essentials for salvation is understanding the “purpose of baptism”. Again, we ask, to what degree? I cannot agree that the alien sinner must know that baptism is for the remission of sins before God will declare his baptism valid. What God does require is that the sinner submit himself to His will. Baptism, being a part of that will, and when submitted to, is just as efficacious and valid if he had graduated from Freed-Hardeman, regardless of his understanding of the subject (“Denominations,” Ensign Fair, Vol. VI, No. 1, p. 14).

In the July 1978 issue, the editor wrote on the thief on the cross to reach the conclusion that one can be saved without baptism. The material was so rank that Charles A. Holt felt compelled to respond to it, charging Kilpatrick with denying that baptism was essential for salvation; he wrote, “The question of the place (essentially) of baptism is where it all comes together; where the entire matter stands or falls. This (baptism) is the `stone of stumbling and the rock of offense’ for every position or doctrine on the salvation of the sinner” (“A Review of `Weightier Matters,’ ” Ensign Fair, Vol. VII, No. 10, p. 2).

Later, one of the readers wrote to Kilpatrick regarding this exchange with Charles Holt, stating that what Kilpatrick had written was “the same position I have heard Baptist preachers take in debate.” Kilpatrick took three full pages trying to distinguish his position from that of Baptists. If my assessment is correct, he was unsuccessful in making such a distinction.

These are the journals so highly commended by Arnold Hardin and Bruce Edwards. Articles written by brother Edwards are appearing rather regularly in Ensign Fair. Arnold Hardin frequently commends the writings of R.L. Kilpatrick. Yet, both Kilpatrick and Garrett are loose on the subject of baptism. If I correctly assess a recent article by brother Hardin, he is moving toward a position which will deny that baptism is always essential for salvation (8 June 1980 issue of The Persuader which is the bulletin which Arnold edits).

What Is The Purpose of Baptism?

The Scriptures are not so unclear that one has trouble determining what the purpose of baptism is. Rather denominational creeds and dogmas force people to deny the clear statements of Scripture with reference to baptism. Consequently, let us reiterate the purpose of Bible baptism.

1. Mark 16:16. In giving the Great Commission, Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). Jesus gave two conditions for salvation – belief and baptism. If one must believe in order to be saved, then surely he must also be baptized. Hence, baptism is a condition for salvation in exactly the same manner as belief is.

2. Acts 2:38. After Peter preached the first gospel sermon, the Jews who heard the sermon and were pricked in their hearts asked Peter and the rest of the apostles what they had to do in order to be saved. Peter said, “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). Repentance and baptism are here listed as conditions for receiving the remission of one’s sins. If an individual can understand that he must repent of his sins in order to receive the forgiveness of his sins, he can also understand that he must be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of his sins. Both conditions are named as being essential for remission of one’s sins.

3. Acts 22:16. When Ananias approached the believing and penitent Saul of Tarsus, he told him, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). This man had seen the resurrected Christ and believed on him; for three days he was in agony because of the sins which he had committed. Yet, he was not yet saved. Ananias told him that he must be baptized in order to have his sins washed away. Hence, baptism is essential to have one’s sins washed away.

4. 1 Pet. 3:21. Peter related how that the waters of the flood had saved Noah from the wickedness of the world in which he lived. He then added, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh; but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The plain statement of Scripture is that baptism saves us. Peter did not believe that baptism alone saved anyone; he is simply stating what Christ said in the Great Commission and what he also had said on the day of Pentecost, namely that baptism is a condition for salvation.

5. 1 Cor. 12:13; John 3:5. Another line of argument which demonstrates that baptism is essential to salvation is seen in these passages in which baptism is said to be necessary to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5) and to enter the church (I Cor. 12:13). There are only two kingdoms in this world – the kingdom of God’s dear Son and the domain of Satan (Col. 1:13-14); one is either a member of Jesus’ kingdom or he is a member of Satan’s kingdom, lost in sin, and doomed to hell. Yet, Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). One must be born of the water – be baptized – in order to become a part of God’s kingdom.

Similarly, one enters the church. The church is simply composed of the called out people of God; they have been called out of the darkness of sin into the light of God’s word. The saved compose the Lord’s church (Acts 2:47; Eph. 5:23, 25). One becomes a member of the Lord’s church by being baptized into it. Paul wrote, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Hence, one becomes a member of the called out people of God by being baptized into that one body. Hence, baptism is essential for salvation, for becoming a member of the kingdom of God or the church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

6. Matt. 28:19. In Matthew’s account of the Great Commission, Jesus said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” One translation reads like this: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . . .” This is more accurate than the AV. Jesus said to go make disciples; the participal- clause “baptizing them” explains how one makes disciples. Hence, in order to become a disciple of Jesus Christ, he must be baptized. Without becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ, one cannot be saved (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12).

Is Baptism A Work?

When one preaches that one must be baptized in order to be saved, Baptists have generally charged that one is teaching salvation by works. Now men such as Arnold Hardin, Bruce Edwards, R.L. Kilpatrick, and Leroy Garrett are saying the same thing. We, therefore, raise the question, “Is baptism a work of merit by which one earns his salvation?”

The answer to this question should be obvious without considering a specific Scripture. The New Testament frequently mentions salvation by “works” in the books of Romans and Galatians. In both contexts, salvation by works refers to a system of salvation through perfect obedience to a law of God. The man who is saved by works is saved, not on the basis of having had his sins forgiven, but on the basis of the fact that he has never sinned. Hence, he has earned his salvation through perfect obedience. Baptism can never be considered a part of a system of salvation by works so long as one is teaching that baptism is essential to obtain the forgiveness of one’s sins simply because, in the system of salvation by works, one has no sinsl Consequently, baptism is totally incompatible with the doctrine of salvation by works.

The Scriptures are, therefore, quite clear in distinguishing baptism from works. Consider the following verses to demonstrate this:

1. Tit. 3:5. Paul wrote, “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward men appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. 3:4-5). The reference to “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost” is very similar to “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). Practically every commentary which one can consult will identify the “washing of regeneration” with baptism. Notice that the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is carefully distinguished from works, it is a part of God’s mercy, kindness and love. Hence, baptism is not a work whereby man earns his salvation; it is a gracious act of God in which He pardons man of his sins.

2. Col. 2:11-12. This passage compares what happens in baptism with what happened when the Jewish man-child was circumcised. Paul wrote, “. . . in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith in the operation of God, who had raised him from the dead.” What happens in baptism is not man working to earn his salvation; rather, it is the “operation of God.” In baptism, God acts to forgive man of sin. Hence, baptism is not man’s work, but God’s work.

3. Gal. 3:26-27. The third chapter of Galatians consistently discusses two systems of salvation – salvation by works (through which one earns his salvation) and salvation by faith (through which one is saved because God forgives man of his sins). Significantly, in Paul’s contrast; baptism is put on the side of salvation by faith, not salvation by works. Notice that entire chapter with its contrast to grasp this point.

Baptism is not a work whereby one earns his salvation. When a man goes forward to be baptized, he does not state that he is already saved through his own perfect obedience. Rather, such a man openly acknowledges that he is a sinner doomed to hell on the basis of his own works. He then confesses that he believes that Jesus died on the cross to bear the punishment for man’s sins and to offer salvation for all men. He believes in Jesus, repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized in order that his sins might be washed away. He acknowledges that salvation is God’s gift of grace to him, received upon the conditions of faith, repentance, and baptism. Hence, baptism is most definitely not a work whereby man earns his salvation.

Conclusion

The grace-unity brethren consistently charge that brethren are separating baptism from the Christ. I deny that charge and defy them to produce the material which documents it. We are not reacting because brethren want to emphasize that salvation is of grace and through Christ; we are reacting to brethren who are teaching exactly what the Baptists have been teaching on the subject of baptism. We are opposing brethren who teach that one can enter covenant relationship with God without baptism. We are opposing those who teach that one does not have to know the purpose of baptism in order for it to be valid.

We are positively affirming that baptism is a condition in order to receive the forgiveness of one’s sins, the gift of God’s grace. We are basing this position, not upon the traditional teachings of members of the church of Christ (although this should have just as much validity as the traditional teachings of the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, and Catholic Church – churches which teach contrary doctrines to this but whose human traditions have the power to save, according to Leroy Garrett), but upon the plain statements of Scripture as cited in this article. We shall stand upon these plain promises of God.

Without any scriptural evidence, we shall not promise salvation to the unbeliever, the man who has not repented, or to the one who has not been baptized. We have no divine authority to indicate to anyone that a man can be saved before and without baptism. Until we see positive divine authority which so indicates, we shall carefully avoid leaving such a man with the impression that he stands approved before God. Instead, we shall labor to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, calling upon men to obey that gospel in faith, repentance, baptism, and faithful living.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 38, pp. 611-614
September 25, 1980

By B.G. Echols

Receiving the word of God must be accompanied or preceded by a putting away of all wickedness. “Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21). “Putting away” is the word used for taking off filthy clothes. Here it is used figuratively. A similar idea is found in 1 Peter. “Putting away therefore all wickedness, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation” (2:1, 2). Also Col. 3:8, “But now do ye also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth.”

“Filthiness” refers to moral uncleanness and vulgarity. Little contact with the world is needed to know that such filthiness is extensive. Vulgarity is so common as to be a way of life. The society reeks with its stench. With vulgarity finding its way even into the education of our children, it is no surprise that some Christians are filthy in mind. When James commands us to put away “all filthiness,” he means “each instance of” or “every trace of” it. There should not be even a trace of filthiness in children of God of any age. Any impure and unholy thought or deed pollutes the soul.

If you were to become entangled with a skunk in the woods, you could not hide your encounter. The only way you could remove the odor would be to “put away” your clothing and bathe your body in strong soap. Likewise, if your mind is filled with vulgarity, it will not be hidden. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34). The only way you can be a sweet savor to God or man is to put away “all filthiness” and then “receive with meekness the implanted word.” One cannot please God unless He makes no provisions to fulfill the lust of the flesh (Rom. 13:14). Anything less and we shall not see God (Heb. 12:14).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 38, p. 610
September 25, 1980