Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The apostasy of the Christian Church can be studied from the standpoint of the American Christian Missionary Society and the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the church. These were but symptoms of a liberal mindset that had developed in the people. This mindset is reflected in the papers that were circulated among brethren.

Among the conservatives of that day, the American Christian Review, edited by Benjamin Franklin, was the most popular. To the liberals, this paper was unacceptable. The following two accounts of the founding of the Christian Standard, a paper that still has wide circulation among the Christian Church, reflect the change in mindsets that developed among brethren. It is instructive for us to read this material so that we can identify the development of a liberal mindset among us today. The two accounts are taken from two different authors and persepectives. The first is from J.S. Lamar’s two volume work entitled Memoirs of Isaac Errett, a sympathetic account of his life’s work. Errett was the first editor of the Christian Standard. The second account of the midset that called for the creation of the Christian Standard is taken from Earl West’s Search For the Ancient Order, reflecting a more conservative assessment of the changes occurring among brethren. Later, a third description of the liberal mindset from the pen of Moses E. Lard, editor of Lard’s Quarterly, is given.

Note the description of the need for a new paper by J.S. Lamar:

The story of the founding of the Christian Standard is known to very few, and it will be read with interest. It became such a power for good; its influence was so conservative and so elevating; in matter, in tone, in spirit, it was so admirable; and continuing to this day to be recognized as one of the ablest and most influential of the religious journals of America every one will be glad to know its origin and early history. Moreover, it was through this great channel that, for the rest of his life, Mr. Errett poured forth the fullness of his vast intellectual and spiritual resources — gladdening and blessing hundreds of thousands wherever the English language is spoken.

As we have more than once pointed out, such a paper was repeatedly called for. The best, the wisest, the purest Disciples, all over the land, deeply felt the need of it. It is true, the Millennial Harbinger, now edited by Prof. Pendleton, was most ably conducted, and was always freighted with matter that commanded the thoughtful attention of the more intelligent and influential brethren. But it was a monthly, and most of its contents were of a character that would have graced a quarterly — deep, learned, weighty — and hence not well suited to the popular taste. There were several weeklies also, among them the Review and the Gospel Advocate, but these were not satisfactory. They were regarded as being narrow in their views on Scriptural truth, essentially sectarian in spirit, and, in many respects, hurtful rather than helpful to the great cause which they assumed to represent. I would say nothing here derogatory of the editors of these papers. They represented and fostered that unfortunate type of discipleship to which allusion was made in, a previous chapter — a type with which the leading minds among the brotherhood could have no sympathy. We may credit these writers with sincerity and honesty, but we can not read many of their productions without feeling that we are breathing an unwholesome religious atmosphere. They seem to infuse an unlovely and earth-born spirit, which they clothe, nevertheless, in the garb of the divine letter, and enforce with cold, legalistic and crushing power. The great truth for whose defense the disciples are set, demanded a wiser, sweeter, better advocacy — an advocacy that should exhibit the apostolic spirit as well as the apostolic letter (I:299-301).

The Christian Standard went through some difficult times in its beginning. Lamar explained these difficulties as follows:

The “Standard” had not yet, in 1867, become self- supporting. Certainly it had, for a new enterprise, a fair circulation, and its subscribers were more than pleased with it. In every sense of the word, it was an excellent periodical — strong, versatile, wide-awake, abreast with the times, its editor thoroughly well informed, not only in theology and religious literature, but in the current questions of the day. His corps of correspondents and contributors were intelligent and able, adding largely to the interest and variety of every issue. In short, it was a paper that gave pride and pleasure to its patrons. They felt that it represented all that best and worthiest in the great cause of restoration, advocating and defending the doctrine of the Disciples with dignity and courtesy, and setting forth their great plea with delightful clearness of statement and uniform strength of argument.

Still, the brotherhood as a whole had not, at this time, been educated up to this high standard. Their leading weekly, before the appearance of Mr. Errett’s paper, was the “American Christian Review,” edited by B. Franklin, of Cincinnati — which, though in some respects strong and influential, was run on a lower plane, and catered to a lower taste. Its readers, therefore, missed in the “Standard” the tone to which they had become accustomed, and that slugging sort of belligerency which had been weekly exhibited for their delectation and applause. Many, consequently, who most needed the blessed influence of Mr. Errett’s gentler and sweeter spirit, had to be trained and schooled to appreciate it. This was necessarily a slow work. It required time and patience. Men had to grow to a loftier stature; their finer sensibilities had to be cultivated, and their “senses exercised,” before they were capable of discerning the essential excellence and incomparable superiority of the “Standard.” When we add the influence of secret and unworthy efforts of rivals and others to forestall its popularity, and to prejudice the public mind against it, we are not surprised to learn that, though its patronage increased steadily, it increased slowly (I:333-334).

The liberal mindset was also reflected in what was wanted in the pulpit. Lamar continues:

. . . Among the more spiritually minded there had grown up longings for the attainment of a higher life, and ear- nest desires that the work and worship of the church might be so directed as to be more helpful towards this end. It was felt that a new era had dawned: the past was not to be reproduced; the old time sermons, so valuable and necessary in their day, had lost their original flavor, and had ceased to be interesting. All the ordering and exercises of the Lord’s house called for a change, at least in tone and spirit; and yet it was not readily apparent in what particulars this change was called for. Something was wanting — in almost every phase and aspect of the general subject, there was room for improvement; and Mr. Errett’s wise and well-considered presentation and discussion of these points were welcomed everywhere, and were productive of much good (I:356-357).

The liberal mindset that called for a gentler gospel and more loving presentation reserved its bitterest words to describe those who opposed their innovations. Here was Lamar’s assessment of the Gospel Advocate and American Christian Review’s work:

. . . To enable the reader to appreciate the situation, it should be stated here that the Disciples were a free people. They called no man master. They were bound by no dictum that could not be clearly supported by the Word of God. Even the utterances of the greatest names among them, their chosen and honored leaders, were freely brought to the standard and test of the Scriptures. These alone were authoritative, and these were final. But it is easy to see that, with such postulata, men who were imperfectly equipped, or who were ambitious for place and power, might plausibly, and sometimes unintentionally, pervert the Scriptures from their legitimate purpose, using them as a sort of compelling force, as though man were to be driven rather than drawn to Christ. This, in fact, was done, it could not fail to lead to harshness and bigotry in the advocacy of truth itself, degrading it into a mere partisan badge, and exciting intense and bitter opposition. Those who caught this dogmatic (not to say Pharisaic) spirit began to assume that they were par excellence the friends of the truth and the representatives of the cause; and if any man failed to fall into line and follow this lead, he was looked upon with suspicion, and perhaps held up before the public as being tired of “the good old way.” Now this evil and ruinous perversion of the Disciples’ true position was as yet just beginning to manifest. It was in the bud — it might possibly be nipped. While the great masses of the brotherhood felt that something was wrong, they were not able to detect it. They were faithful in heart to God and his Word, and yet somehow that Word had seemed of late to lose it loveliness to them. As it came from many pulpits, the gospel itself appeared to be clothed in the habiliments of a stern and harsh and inflexible Mosaism (I:193-194).

The Search for the Ancient Order

The second assessment of this development of the new mindset among the disciples comes from Earl I. West, author of the four volume work, The Search for the Ancient Order. Brother West is writing from the more conservative perspective of the churches of Christ, although he committed himself to institutionalism, the sponsoring church, and church fellowship halls in the late 1960s. Despite the developments of liberalism in his own fellowship, he never made a decision to disassociate himself from that fellowship. His assessment of the change in mindset that resulted in the publication of the Christian Standard is given below:

But why was the Christian Standard established? Was there a particular need for the paper? That certain brethren felt there was a need for the paper is obvious else it never should have been started. But as to what that need was is a different question. Lamar pointed out the inadequacy of the currently published religious papers. He writes:

There were several weeklies also, among them the Review and the Gospel Advocate, but these were not satisfactory. They were regarded as being narrow in their views on Scriptural truth, essentially sectarian in spirit, and, in many respects, hurtful rather than helpful to the great cause which they assumed to represent. I would say nothing here derogatory of the editors of these papers. They represented and fostered that unfortunate type of discipleship to which allusion was made in, a previous chapter — a type with which the leading minds among the, brotherhood could have no sympathy. We may credit these writers with sincerity and honesty, but we cannot read many of their productions without feeling that we are breathing an unwholesome religious atmosphere. They seem to infuse an unlovely and earth-born spirit, which they clothe, nevertheless, in the garb of the divine letter, and enforce with cold, legalistic and crushing power. The great truth for whose defense the disciples are set, demanded a wiser, sweeter, better advocacy — an advocacy that should exhibit the apostolic spirit as well as the apostolic letter.

Thus Lamar assures the reader that the Christian Standard  was needed because the Gospel Advocate and the American Christian Review were edited by men of “unlovely and earth-born spirits” who were cold, and legalistic. Now the fiction in this is easily discernible. Plans for starting the Standard were under way by 1864. The Gospel Advocate had appeared as a small, monthly paper from 1855 to 1861, having ceased because of the war. The first issue of the Advocate as a weekly did not appear until January, 1866. In April that year Isaac Errett wrote to David Lipscomb requesting back copies of the Advocate saying he had not yet seen an issue of it. Yet this paper which Errett had not seen was the occasion for starting the Standard. To state that brethren were influenced to establish the Standard because of the “earth-born spirit” of the Advocate but betrays the prejudice Lamar felt and shows the undying contempt in which he held the Advocate. This is the element to which Bittle referred when he accused Lamar of resorting to imagination — not to facts.

The American Christian Review was being printed as a weekly before this time by Ben Franklin. It was widely received: indeed, it was the most popular paper in the brotherhood, and it was this fact that worried an element of prominent men in the brotherhood. Franklin, on almost all issues before the church, stood opposed to Errett, Pendleton, and preachers of kindred thought. The editor of the Review, they considered “narrow” and “bigoted.” Knowing Franklin’s popularity with the majority of the brethren, it was their constant fear that Franklin’s “narrowness” would fasten itself upon the brotherhood, and prevent the restoration movement from following along more “liberal,” “progressive” lines. No person can go back to the study of this period and fail to see that the chief reason for the establishment of the Christian Standard was to kill the Review, and lead the brotherhood away from Franklin’s influence into these more liberal channels (The Search for the Ancient Order II:29-30).

Brother West’s assessment of why the Christian Standard was formed is succinct: “The plain truth of the matter is that Ben Franklin was the man of the people. There were a few men with both money and position who disliked Ben Franklin’s close adherence to the scriptures, and who were determined to sell the church over to their liberal ideas” (II:35). These men were determined to kill the influence of Benjamin Franklin and the American Christian Review (II:32).

The spirit of liberalism divided the church, taking with it those who thought that the church must make adjustments in its preaching and work to accommodate itself to the changing times in which those men lived. The concept of a pattern for the church was too legalistic for their palate. The sermons preached by a former generation were not suited for the new age in which those in the late 1800s were living. This liberal mindset developed into the Christian Church.

Moses E. Lard — Warning Those Who Would Hear

A third voice to give his assessment of the liberal mindset that developed into the Christian Church comes from Moses E. Lard, editor of Lard’s Quarterly. Lard lived during the time these changes were coming and wrote to warn brethren of the change in mindset in an article entitled, “The Work of the Past — The Symptoms of the Future.” He introduced his article as follows:

The prudent man, who has the care of a family, watches well the first symptoms of disease. He does not wait till his wife is helpless, and his children prostrated. He has learned that early cures are easy cures, while late ones often fail. On this experience he resolutely acts, and the world applauds his wisdom. Why should not the same judicious policy be acted upon in the weighty matters of religion? All must say it should (II:251).

After assessing the unique position of the Lord’s people in reference to several matters, Lard warned brethren of a change in attitude toward the need for vigilant examination of false doctrines. He said, “As long as error is possible, investigation should be free” (II:257). He then described some “ill-omened symptoms in our ranks.” One of the developments he decried was this: “Effeminate sentimentalism, and a diluted, licentious charity, are the carbonic acid gas of the kingdom of Christ. No soul can live in them or with them. The truth itself dies under their blight, while the church grows cadaverous and lean. Sound men in the pulpit, sound men at the press, sound men in the field, with hearty elementary teaching and preaching — these are what we now need; and what, by the Lord’s blessing, we must have” (II:258). What kind of preaching did Lard have in mind which he described as “effeminate sentimentalism”? Is he describing that kind of preaching that is full of stories and anecdotes that warm our hearts, but has scarcely any Scripture in it? Note his assessment of its effects on churches: “No soul can live in them or with them. The truth itself dies under their blight, while the church grows cadaverous and lean.”

He also lamented the following: “neither do we want men who erect their morbid sympathies into a standard by which to pronounce their brethren heretics, and the sprinkled sects around us saints” (II:258). Apparently some were so enamored by the denominations around them that they could refer to them in  glowing terms, but only had reproach for their brethren who opposed denominationalism.

Lard was concerned about a unity-in-diversity attitude that developed toward using mechanical in the churches. He wrote:

. . . Editors and preachers may write and preach against organs till the last trump shall sound, but while they countenance the churches in which they stand, visit them,  and suffer the machines to be cracked over their heads, they are but whistling idly in the air. There is but one way to cure the spirit in question — crush it. When a church learns that no preacher will set foot within its doors while it holds an organ; when it sees that its members are abandoning it; that it is fast coming to naught; and that unless it gives up its unholy innovation it is destined to ruin — then will it kick out its organ, not before (II:260).

Lard also described the “spirit of innovation” in his day.

The spirit of innovation is a peculiar spirit. While coming in it is the meekest and gentlest of spirits; only it is marvelously firm and persistent. But when going out, no term but fiendish will describe it. It comes in humming the sweetest notes of Zion; it goes out amid the ruin it works, howling like an exorcised demon. At first it is supple as a willow twig; you can bend it, mould it, shape it, to anything; only it will have its way. But when once it has fully got its way, then mark how it keeps its footing. It now calls for reason, for argument, for Scripture; but no more has it an ear for reason, argument, or Scripture than has the image of Baal. Argue with the spirit of innovation indeed! I would as soon be caught cracking syllogisms over the head of the man of sin. Never. Rebuke it in the name of the Lord; if it go not out — expel it. This only will cure it.

I know that I am accused of writing too severely on these matters. It is idle to so accuse me. I cannot change. Others may do as they see fit; but by the Lord’s help I will never tamely submit to these innovations. My whole mind, and soul, and strength shall be spent to check them. It is high time that manful and outspoken voices were lifted against them. They are the insidious leaven of Satan, and, for one, can get no countenance from me. If I go down, if my humble paper goes down, be it so. I am immovable. Defeat with the truth is better than victory with error. Give me the Saviour and a cross rather than the Enemy and a crown.

He is a poor observer of men and things who does not see slowly growing up among us a class of men who can no longer be satisfied with the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things. These men must have changes; and silently they are preparing the mind of the brother- hood to receive changes. Be not deceived, brethren, the Devil is not sleeping. If you refuse to see the danger till ruin is upon you, then it will be too late. The wise seaman catches the first whiff of the distant storm, and adjusts his ship at once. Let us profit by his example.

Let us agree to commune with the sprinkled sects around us, and soon we shall come to recognize them as Christians. Let us agree to recognize them as Christians, and immersion, with its deep significance, is buried in the grave of our folly. Then in not one whit will be better than others. Let us countenance political charlatans as preachers, and we at once become corrupt as the loath- some nest on which Beecher sets to hatch the things he calls Christians. Let us consent to introduce opinions in politics as tests of fellowship, and soon opinions in religion will become so. Then the door of heresy and schism will stand wide open, and the work of ruin will begin. Let agree to admit organs, and soon the pious, the meek, the peace-loving, will abandon us, and our churches will become gay worldly things, literal Noah’s arks, full of clean and unclean beasts (II:261-262).

Conclusion

Are there lessons we can learn from this? Surely we can see that men’s clamoring for a gentler and sweeter presentation of the gospel, a rejection of the “old worn out sermons” of the previous generation, a repudiation of men who defended the cause of Christ as legalistic and Pharisaical, and the desire for a more sophisticated presentation of the gospel in terms more appealing to the age are but symptoms of a liberal mindset. The issues may differ but the end results are the same.

In every person’s life comes the moment when he or she faces the question of motivation — why do I do what I do? Every Christian needs to ask and answer this question frequently. Those who take on special roles such as elders, deacons, preachers, teachers, etc. should ask and answer this question even more frequently. It is a question that was recently driven home to me when studying 1 and 2 Peter.

Warren Wiersbe, in his Biblical Exposition Commentary, interestingly observed: “Some writings are manufactured out of books, the way freshmen students write term papers; but this letter (1 Peter,  rb) grew out of a life lived to the glory of God. A number of events in Peter’s life are woven into the fabric of this epistle” (II:388). It was from this new perspective that I studied 1 and 2 Peter and gleaned more from them than I ever had before. This also gave me insight into Peter’s motivation.

2 Peter 1:12-15 says, “Therefore, I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know them, and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover, I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.” It is from this text that we focus attention on why we do what we do, especially in teaching the gospel of Christ.

To Avoid Negligence (v. 12)

Evangelists are specifically instructed not to neglect the abilities they have in preaching and teaching, to “fulfill your ministry” (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; 4:5). We should develop and be encouraged to develop every strength we have for use in the kingdom, as well as strengthening our weaknesses.

Peter’s reference to negligence, however, is the failure to teach all that needs to be taught. Plainly speaking, there is nothing that can be left out of our teaching (Acts 20:27). No passage or biblical subject is exempt. When we leave something out, or are encouraged to leave certain subjects alone, be sure that Satan will rear his head and take advantage of that area of weakness. His prey are those who are untaught, thus unstable (1 Pet. 5:9; 2 Pet. 2:14; 3:16-18). Negligence in balanced teaching opens doors for departures from the faith.

To Remind Those Already Established in the Truth (vv. 12, 13, 15)

In the four short verses of our text, “remind” is mentioned three times. That tells us something about human nature — we are forgetful. We can forget instruction not heard in a long time, or our ability to connect passages on a given theme becomes rusty — all because we were/are not periodically reminded. To hear first-principle lessons, perhaps those we’ve heard many times, can reinforce sound teaching, and may even open new doors of thinking and application.

Lessons on the inspiration of the Bible, its theme, the identity of Christ, authority, the church, etc., are needed lest a generation arise which is untaught on these vital points (cf. Judg. 2:7ff). All it takes is one untaught generation to cause serious internal problems. A vital part of the work of a local church is the repetition of fundamental themes and teaching.

To Establish Others in the Truth (v. 12)

Though not specified in the text, a by-product of repeating established points is the benefit to those not yet established in truth. Any general audience will have unbelievers who are willing to consider evidence, young Christians who need to be strengthened, those who have never matured as Christians, and mature Christians. This opens the field considerably when contemplating the potential for good (or evil) that we have. Not only can we influence the mature, but the unbeliever and immature can be tremendously helped by fulfilling the respective areas of service we have.

It Is Right (v. 13)

By their very nature, there are some things that are just right to do, and we should want to abound in such things (cp. 2 Pet. 1:13; Eph. 6:1). One of those things is to continue to teach, as Peter did, because “it is right.”

It is right and proper for one to want to teach as many people as he can. Not only can we influence by teaching, but also by our example (read 1 Pet. 2:12, 14-16; 3:1-2,16; etc.). We do so, when properly motivated, because it is simply the right thing to do.

The Reality of Limited Opportunities (vv. 13, 14)

Let’s face it, folks — we won’t be here forever. Peter realized this in our text — “as long as I am in this tent . . . knowing that shortly I must put off this tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.” He knew that opportunities were limited, thus more precious.

Similarly, whether shorter or longer, our time and opportunities are limited. That is why we must take advantage of every opportunity that we have to teach and influence people with the truth in whatever scriptural means we can. How many times have we put off taking advantage of opportunities because of inconvenience, only to lose them? I shudder to answer that question! Why should we be “fervent in spirit, serving the Lord” (Rom. 12:11)? Because we won’t live on this earth forever. May God help us to take advantage of every opportunity that we have to faithfully serve him, and thereby serve others.

To Stir People Up (v. 13)

Sometimes we use this term “stir” to mean “rile.” No, I don’t mean that we should try to “anger” people! However, we should strive to “stir” people — to rouse from sleep, kindle, etc. (Vine). To waken people out of lethargy can be done in any combination of three ways: instruction, correction, and encouragement. Nehemiah 8 is a good ex- ample of being stirred to responsibility as people of God. As one brother said years ago, “The greatest problem in the church is not that of winning others to the kingdom, but that of arousing those who are already members to a sense of their responsibility.” I am convinced he’s right; if we can accomplish that, then the work of evangelism will be accomplished.

To Leave A Faithful Legacy For Future Generations (v. 15)

Nearing the end of his life, Peter wanted to ensure that Christians of the next and subsequent generations would have the necessary reminders on proper living when he was gone. He, by his own example and epistles, left just such reminders — for centuries to follow.

Surely, each us wants to leave a faithful example and reminders about godly living for our children and grand- children, even generations beyond. We can do that with our lives (example) and by the pen (instruction).

Think about those who “being dead still speak” (Heb. 11:4). We have the writings of the Bible, numerous uninspired works which direct us to the Bible, personal letters and cards of encouragement, etc. We can reflect on these years after they were written and glean much from them. “But I’m just one person, I can’t make that much difference.” Do you really believe that? Consider the following example.

Jeroboam was just one man, but his departures from truth impacted an entire kingdom for 200 years (1 Kings 12:25-33; 16:30-33; 2 Kings 17:16). It is said or implied about every king in the Northern Kingdom that he “walked in the ways of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” Can one man leave a legacy? You better believe it! Just think about what Israel might have been had they not departed from the truth. One’s legacy for good can be equally strong, even stronger, than one’s legacy of apostasy. Case in point: Abraham — the father of all who believe (Rom. 4:11-12,16-17).

Conclusion

In 2 Peter 1:12-15 we have insight into the mind set and motivation of Peter. It is encouraging to study why he did what he did. As long as we keep his motives in mind and serve based on these, we will do well. Any motive less than these — and there are some (see 1 Cor. 4:3-4) — is dishonorable for a Christian and injurious to the cause of Christ.

 

This article is a review of the debate that took place on March 12-13 at the Gainesboro Missionary Baptist Mission between Mr. Roger Holland and me. Our propositions were: Friday night — “RESOLVED: The Scriptures teach that one is saved by grace through faith alone, before and without water baptism.” Mr. Holland affirmed, I denied. Saturday night — “RESOLVED: The Scriptures teach that baptism, to the penitent believer, is for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins.” I affirmed, Mr. Holland denied.

Overall, there are some things that became apparent as we met this second time. Mr. Holland made many of the same arguments as before. Both nights, pleas were made for him to deal with specific passages and specific arguments, and he refused. He chose to ignore those pleas and preach what he wanted. Now, let us consider some specific points about this debate.

Courtesy

Once again, the debate was held in a very courteous manner. Mr. Holland and this author talked with one another both before and after the sessions. The people of Gainesboro, as well as others who came, saw that people can debate and still maintain courtesy toward one another. This author referred to Mr. Holland as “Mister Holland,” “Sir,” or similar respectful terms. He referred to the author in a similar manner. Often, he called me “brother,” but this author did not call Mr. Holland “brother” because he is not a brother (Matt. 12:48-50; 2 John 9-11). Courtesy prevailed not only from the disputants, but also by the audience. There were no outbursts, and nothing demeaning was spoken to either man. This says something good! It is possible to disagree on matters of doctrine, be blunt and courageous in defending the truth, and still show common courtesy.

Arguments

Mr. Holland made several arguments from the book of Romans. He tried to affirm “faith only” from such places as Romans 3:21, 26-28; 4; 5:1; and chapter 11. He maintained that we could be “saved like Abraham.” He also read 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and declared that since the Old Testament was inspired, that we could “take it all” and indeed needed to in order to please God. Unlike the first debate, Mr. Holland began by asking this author five specific questions, per our agreement. A major part of his first speech was taken up in trying to prove that Cornelius was saved when he was baptized of the Holy Spirit, before baptism. He attempted to use Acts 15:7-11 to bolster this point. Mr. Holland spent a little time in Ephesians 2:8-9, claiming this verse excluded baptism, as well as “any works of exertion.”

Mr. Holland shocked this author when he said that he did not agree with his own proposition! He was reminded that no one forced him to sign that particular proposition. He also said that the “18 Articles” (Baptist creed) said that they ought not say we are saved by “faith alone.” He was reminded of two things. First, that his proposition begins with “The Scriptures teach . . .” not, “The 18 Articles.” Also, his proposition used the phrase “faith alone,” and he had signed it. By signing his proposition, he was saying he agreed with that statement; yet he said before this group that he didn’t believe it!

 

Saturday night, this author began by using 1 Corinthians 1:11-13 to show that we must be baptized to be “of (or belong to) Christ.” Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 were also used to show in no uncertain terms that the Bible says that baptism saves. Mr. Holland was asked by the author to tell us whether “baptism doth also NOW save us,” or “baptism doth also NOT save us.” He never told us directly, though of course, his proposition said it.

We went into great detail with 1 Peter 3:21, showing that Peter was definitely teaching that baptism saves. Not only this, we brought out many translations that consistently showed this truth. The final blow, was in using a Baptist Bible, called the “Common English Version.” It was put out by the American Bible Union in 1864-65. This Bible states plainly, “which in an antitype, immersion, now saves us also (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the requirement of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Mr. Holland was shown that the Baptist scholars who translated this Bible from the original Greek were those who would not compromise their scholarship for their theology! The author also asked Mr. Holland five questions. They were the same five that were presented at Dickson. Also, we asked Mr. Holland what baptism was “for”? Since he claimed baptism was not “for the remission of sins” in contradiction to Acts 2:38 says, then what was it “for”? In four speeches, Mr. Holland never told us.

One argument made that this author believes helped to show people the meaning behind Mark 16:16 was the following. After reading Mark 16:16, this author said, “He that believeth and sticketh his arm out, shall receive $20.00.” With this, the author waved a $20.00 bill in the air and said it again, putting the bill close to Mr. Holland. He refused to take it, and with that, it was declared, “At least Mr. Holland is consistent, he doesn’t believe Jesus, either!” Another thing that drove the point home was that brother Loren Stephens from Cookeville, Tennessee stuck his arm out, and received the $20.00! Those present got the point, and could see the parallel, including Mr. Holland.

Quibbles Answered

For those unfamiliar with this term, a quibble is “a use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue” (Webster’s). Certainly, Mr. Holland tried to evade the issue of baptism on several occasions. A few quibbles he made are below.

1. Mr. Holland made the statement, “Faith has no ‘I’ in it.” His point being that we do not earn this, and we cannot in some way boast about faith. (Of course, implying that baptism was such a work!) He was then asked, since faith has no “I,” then who does the believing — us or God? Our Primitive Baptist friends teach that man is so depraved that he cannot even believe, but God must do it all. Therefore, the author asked Mr. Holland if he was taking that position, and that God must do it all for us, including give us faith?

2. Another quibble Mr. Holland made was about a show he saw. He said he watched some news show where our government is working to send people to Mars for about two years. One of the comments he heard was that Mars has a very small amount of water on that planet. Upon explaining this, Mr. Holland said, “I just thought, well, I guess since there is so little water on that planet, that when they leave earth to go to Mars, salvation will be far away for them.” This author replied by showing him that baptism is required to be a Baptist, so therefore, they’ll be far away from the Baptist Church when the people are on Mars, too!

3. Mr. Holland also made the same quibble that he had made in Dickson, Tennessee. He tried to compare Mark

16:16 with the following statement: “He that getteth on the train and sitteth down shall arrive at his destination.” He was making faith equal to getting on a train, sitting down equal to baptism, and arriving at the destination equal with salvation. He said, “You must get on the train, but you’ll get to the destination whether you sit down or not!” This was answered by showing that according to Mr. Holland’s doctrine, a man is saved the moment he believes; therefore in his supposed parallel, the minute a man gets on the train, he’s already at his destination and doesn’t have time to sit down! A second point shown was that a person can get to his destination without taking a train, so that would cut out faith as easy as he cuts out baptism!

4. Mr. Holland said that he had been married to his wife for 24 years. He said when they met, he fell in love with her, and died to the other girls he had dated in the past. He said he died to them, then loved, and trusted his wife completely. His parallel was to try to say you die to this world of sin, then put your love, and trust in Christ, and that alone saves before and without baptism.

This author responded by asking that when he died to those other girls, and loved, and trusted his wife, was he married, yet? You see, marriage changes the relationship from boyfriend/girlfriend to husband and wife. In like manner, baptism is what changes the relationship from being outside to “in Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Mr. Holland had the last speech Saturday night, and responded to my argument by saying “marriage didn’t change anything”! Dear reader, read Hebrews 13:4 for yourself and see whether or not a marriage changes the relationship of a man and woman.

5. Mr. Holland also made the false claim that there was no difference between the Old Law and the New Law. He read 2 Timothy 3:16-17, noted the phrase “All Scripture. . .” and ridiculed the idea of there being different dispensations in the Bible. He was shown that there has been a “change of the law” (Heb. 7:12). This author also suggested several things Mr. Holland needs to do if the Old Law is still in force! Of course, it would be impossible to keep both Old and New Laws today, which was the point!

Results

What will be the results of this debate? Only God knows that answer! We know that his word will not return to him void (Isa. 55:11), and that he gives the increase when men plant and water the seed (1 Cor. 3:6)! Let us strive to have more debates with false teachers and denominational folks. When people are allowed the opportunity to study the Scriptures, and see them laid out side-by-side with error, good will come!

Conclusion

Victory does not come by truce. God’s terms are unconditional surrender. We are in a fight for the truth and the cannon-fire cannot cease until the enemies of the church stack arms.

The church grew when the fight was waged and the battles raged. When the let-up came in the fight, the let-down came in the church. It is said that the denominations do not fight any more. That is because the church has quit fighting and they have nothing to fight. If gospel preachers will fight now as gospel preachers fought then, the denominations will fight now as they fought then — and truth will triumph now as it triumphed then. Shall we yield to the line of least resistance, or shall we challenge error in its strongholds and citadels? (Quotes from The Gospel For Today, by Foy E. Wallace, Jr.)

The words of brother Wallace ought to mean something to us. It is not enough to say we know the differences be- tween the church and denominations. Let us stand strong and fight for the truth every day! Souls are at stake. “Who is on the Lord’s side?”