Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

(Editor’s Note: This is the first of a series of articles that is a textual examination of Romans 14. Many of our readers know that Romans 14 has been used to justify a broader fellowship  a fellowship that is ex-tended to those who continue in the practice of their sin. This series of articles will contend that Romans 14 does not give instructions to receive into the fellowship those who continue in the practice of sin, regardless of how sincere the individual may be. Rather, this passage is limited in its application to things that fit into the category described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:8  “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” We encourage our readers to follow in the discussion and invite responsible reply to it.)

There are only three alternatives available to us with reference to the interpretation of Romans 14. They are:

Proposition 1: Romans 14 includes all matters of the faith.

Proposition 2: Romans 14 includes some matters of the faith.

Proposition 3: Romans 14 includes no matters of the faith.

The third proposition will be defended in this series of articles. How-ever, before moving forward to defend this position, I want to dispose of the other two alternatives.

Proposition 1 Is False

The first proposition, “Romans 14 includes all matters of the faith,” is generally rejected among us. As a matter of fact it is rejected by every-one except the rankest universalist. If the principles of Romans 14 applies to every doctrinal item, we are to receive the rankest atheist just as we are to receive the person who eats meats. To do this would put one in violation of other passages, such as the following:

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2 John 9-11).

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple (Rom. 16:17-18).

Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners (1 Cor. 15:33; this passage forbade an association with those denying the resurrection).

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (2 Cor. 6:14-18).

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican (Matt. 18:15-17).

The list of passages could be multiplied to show that God demanded that some people not be received into the communion of the saints. The very fact that even one per-son is not to be received into the communion of the saints demonstrates that this first proposition is false.

Proposition 2 Is False

The second proposition states, “Romans 14 includes some matters of the faith.” This proposition stumbles in a number of areas:

1. A list is needed to designate which matters of faith are included in Romans 14. Sometimes a criticism is made that proposition 3 requires that someone make a list of matters of faith to distinguish them from matters of indifference. If this is judged a problem for proposition 3, it is a double problem for proposition 2. Proposition 2 also demands that matters of faith and indifference be distinguished, for all agree that matters of the faith and matters of indifference are to be treated differently. However, it goes another step and postulates that some matters of faith are included in Romans 14 and some are not. Therefore, a second list is needed to discriminate which matters of faith are included in Romans 14 and which are not.

2. Criteria are needed to make that list. Furthermore, someone needs to produce the criteria used to determine which matters of faith are included and which are not. (a) Are we to accept everyone’s ipse dixit with reference to fellowship to allow every man to become a law to him-self? In that case, there is no right and wrong committed in the realm of fellowship and all practices with referenceto fellowship are equally valid (a position shown to be false by John’s condemnation of the conduct of Diotrephes [3 John 9]). (b) Do we appoint some man (a pope) to make that decision for us? (c) Are there some discernible rules that can be formulated that will neatly separate Bible doctrines into two groups? Those who take proposition 2, opt for a set of rules (c) to distinguish which matters of faith fit in Romans 14.

The most complete set of rules to determine which matters of faith are included in Romans 14 lists the following criteria:

a. It is limited to brethren.

b. It is an individual issue.

c. It is limited to those who are “fully convinced” in their own mind. This logically excludes:

(1) Those who are rebellious.

(2) Moral issues (because morality is innate to a man).

d. It is not applicable to those who promote error or are factious.

e. It is limited to areas in which there is no joint participation in the sin.

For the moment, let us accept these rules in order to make application. Let’s apply it to a man who conscientiously believes that the body will not be raised from the dead. He only discusses his position when brethren ask him what he believes, but somehow the whole congregation of which he is a member has learned his position.

Will the List Work?

The instructions of Romans 14 demand that the following conduct be shown toward the man involved in the issues under discussion:

1. Receive the brother just as Christ received you (14:1; 15:7).

2. Do not engage in doubtful disputations (14:1).

3. Do not set at nought your brother (14:3).

4. Do not condemn him (14:4, 13).

5. Those who are strong should not be an occasion of stumbling for the weak brother (14:13).

6. The matter should be kept to oneself and not preached (14:22).

Now apply these instructions to our brother in Corinth who denied the resurrection. He is to be received, even though 1 Corinthians 15:33 expressly commands that he not be received (`Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”). We are forbidden to do what Paul did under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15  to engage in disputations with him. We cannot set at naught or condemn him, although Paul does both in 1 Corinthians 15. Those who are strong (those who believe in the resurrection) should do nothing that would create and bring grief to the weak (the one denying the resurrection). Surely preaching on the subject would inflame the problem for the weak. Both parties would be obligated to keep their respective beliefs to themselves, although Paul violated his own principles by teaching what he did in 1 Corinthians 15. Brethren, this chapter just will not work when matters of the faith and practices of sin are included.

Examining the Criteria Used

Having shown this inconsistency, let us now examine the principles used to limit which items of faith (or when items of faith) are to be treated according to the principles in Romans 14:

1. It is limited to a brother. This limitation is inserted to exclude the conscientious alien. By limiting it to “brethren,” one excludes including issues relating to baptism (action, purpose, or subject). While I agree that a person who is not scripturally baptized is not a brother, brethren surely realize that not everyone is willing to make that con-cession. This criterion hinges upon universal agreement on what is required to become a brother. However, universal agreement on this does not exist, not even among us. Some of our brethren are arguing that those who are baptized “to obey God” are just as certainly brethren as those who are baptized “for the remission of sins” (this is argued by brother Jimmy Allen in his recently published book Re-Baptism). These brethren say that Baptists are our brethren. Further-more, the evangelicals say that anyone who believes in Christ is a brother (Carl Ketcherside called these our “brothers in prospect” at one stage in his spiritual evolution). To these people, the exclusion of issues relating to “baptism” is absolutely arbitrary. There is nothing in the text to exclude baptism from the matters under discussion in Romans 14 except one’s ipse dixit. By limiting the application of Romans 14 to “brethren,” one eliminates some very crucial issues relating to baptism, but only for those who accept his definition of what constitutes a “brother.” Without a means of limiting this to “brethren,” Romans 14:1 and 15:7 obligate us to receive those who are teaching that baptism is not essential to salvation; that sprinkling, pouring, or immersion is scriptural baptism; and that infants are suitable candidates for baptism. There is no logical basis to exclude the application of this chapter to baptism if one grants that it applies to matters of revealed faith.

2. It is limited to individual (not congregational) issues. Most of us have conceded this point on one thing or another, but a second examination of it may be necessary. I can understand why this should be limited to congregational matters if matters of sin are under discussion. Otherwise a person would have the situation of Paul teaching joint participation in sinful activities. However, if one understands that sinful matters are not under discussion, to limit the application of this chapter to personal matters significantly reduces the application of the chapter. This chapter would teach us nothing about how a church should handle matters of authorized liberties, such as using literature, an overhead projector, multiple cups, and such like things. But this is the main thrust of this chapter  to teach brethren how to work together in matters of personal judgment when strong consciences disagree. To limit this chapter to matters individual in nature is to “gut” the chapter of its application.

Collective action, by its very nature, contains some principles that limit the application of this chapter (for example, a congregation cannot use one-cup and multiple cups at the same time, allowing each person to exercise his own judgment). However, the principles enunciated in this chapter do have applicability: (a) the weak brother must not bind his conscience on others as if it were divine law (Rom. 14:22; 1 Tim. 4:1-3); (b) the weak must not condemn those who disagree (Rom. 14:3, 13); (c) the strong must not cause his brother to sin (Rom. 14:13); etc. There are principles in this chapter that do have applicability to congregational action. Therefore, we cannot arbitrarily limit Romans 14 to individual issues.

Furthermore, applying this chapter to individual sins also brings us trouble. If an individual is committing idolatry in his home, does Romans 14 teach us to receive him? If he is committing blasphemy against his fellow man or God, should he be received? And if our brethren are unable to sustain their contention that moral matters are excluded (as is examined below), should the person who is practicing fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and such like acts of immorality be received because this is “individual,” rather than “congregational,” sin? The limitation of Romans 14 to individually committed sins has significant problems.

3. It is limited to those who are fully convinced in their own mind. This criterion excludes those who are rebellious from being received according to the instructions of Romans 14. How does one reach the conclusion of whether a man is a sincere zealot or rebellious? Paul wrote, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” (1 Cor. 2:11) A person is not qualified to judge another’s heart, yet this position demands that one become a judge of another’s heart. How else can we know whether or not to follow the instructions of Romans 14?

4. Moral departures are excluded. By what verse in Romans 14 are they excluded? The only verse that is cited is this: “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5).One has argued that a person cannot be “fully persuaded in his own mind” while committing moral sins. On what basis does he reach that conclusion? Here is his argument:

Romans 1 affirms that the knowledge of God’s power and nature which the Gentiles knew (v. 21) came from the things that were made, the wonders of creation (v. 20). This source would not provide them with knowledge of the moral principles for which Paul says they are accountable in chapter 2. These principles were written in their hearts. Their conscience accused when they violated them (v. 15). We are not told how they came to be written there. Certainly, the Word is the absolute standard by which every thought must be measured. However, I see no supplanting of the word in the view that we have embedded within us the confirming awareness that some things are wrong, the things for which the Gentiles, with-out revelation, were held accountable in Romans 2 (emphasis mine).

My point is, no matter how this knowledge got in their hearts, it was there. It is unreasonable to assume that it was in the Gentile’s heart but not in the truth-loving brother of Romans 14. If the same things that were in the Gentile heart were in his heart, he could not conscientiously engage in the practices for which the Gentiles were condemned in Romans 2. Therefore, those issues violating fundamental principles of morality would necessarily be excluded by the Holy Spirit’s requirement that he be “fully convinced” (NKJV); “fully assured” (ASV).

Whether or not this argument is valid is paramount. If this argument is shown to be fallacious, there are no grounds for excluding moral sins from Romans 14. Let us consider these replies:

a. Another list is needed. Remember that those taking proposition 2 need two lists: (1) to distinguish matters of faith from matters of opinion; (2) to distinguish which matters of faith fall into Romans 14 and which into 2 John 9. Now a third list is needed to tell us which “fundamental principles of morality” are excluded from Romans 14 and which fundamental differences of morality are included.

b. Romans 1 is not limited to moral sins. The first apostasy of the Gentiles that is mentioned is their rejection of God and acceptance of idolatry. Hence, Romans 1 is not limited to moral sins. The same innate knowledge that exists in the heart of the Gentile to know that immorality is wrong also exists to show him that idolatry is wrong. One could just as reasonably argue that doctrinal matters pertaining to worship are innate (and therefore excluded from application of Romans 14) as he could acts of immorality.

c. Some of the moral sins for which the Gentiles were held accountable were specifically stated to be known only through revelation. Included in the list of sins in Romans 1 is covetousness. However, Paul said, “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7). This is a significant problem for this position. The argument asserts that the Gentiles knew without the law by innate knowledge that coveting was sinful, but Paul said such knowledge was only learned through revelation. The argument said, “It is unreasonable to assume that it was in the Gentile’s heart but not in the truth-loving brother of Romans 14.” Thus, he argues that coveting was innate to the heart of the Gen-tile of Romans 1, but Paul said such knowledge was excluded from him before he read the Law (Rom. 7:7). This evidence alone demonstrates that moral knowledge is not innate to man. Man learns to distinguish good and evil through the study of God’s word (see Heb. 5:13-14).

d. Some moral sins have been committed in ignorance. Paul committed his offences in sincerity. He participated in the murder of Stephen (a moral offense) in ignorance and sincerity (Acts 23:1; 26:9). He was guilty of being a blasphemous person, an injurious man, and a persecutor, although he acted ignorantly in unbelief (1 Tim. 1:13). Apparently, these moral sins were not innate to Jewish people. Those Jews and Gentiles who participated in the murder of Christ (a moral offense) acted in ignorance (Acts 2:23; 3:17). Peter attributed the lusts of the flesh (moral offences) to the Gentiles’ ignorance: “As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance” (1 Pet. 1:14).

e. It is also contrary to our experience. I know God-fearing, conscientious brethren who see no sin committed in social drinking, dancing, wearing swimsuits in mixed company, using euphemisms, and such like acts of immorality. These moral principles are not innately in the hearts of believers or unbelievers. Some Christians commit these offences in the sincerity of their heart.

As much as one would like to exclude immorality from Romans 14, there is no logical basis for doing so. I recognize that some would like such sins excluded, but the compelling power of truth gives no legitimate basis for excluding immorality. When one opens the door for sinful matters to be included, he cannot close the door to exclude any sinful matter. His efforts to exclude acts of immorality from Romans 14 will not stand under the searchlight of truth. Therefore, if Romans 14 includes matters of sinful conduct, there is no logical or biblical reason to exclude acts of immorality from those things that are included.

5. It is not applicable to those who promote error or are factious. Here some try to close the gate on those who wish to teach what they are fully convinced is right. If such a brother starts teaching that his sinful practice is a right practice or presses it to the point of creating a division, then he is not to be received. However, so long as he believes and practices his sin without “promoting error” or becoming “factious,” the local church is to continue receiving him. Some wish to grant to this brother the right to express what he believes. But how can he express what he believes without teaching and promoting error? And when enough brethren are influenced by his expressing what he believes that a distinct group in a local church has accepted and begun to practice the same sinful conduct, albeit none of them is factious in spirit, we still have the same problem: Sin is being committed and a faction is involved. In this manner, the leaven of sin spreads through the congregation (see 1 Cor. 5). This interpretation of Romans 14 is flawed by the application of its principles to matters of sin.

6. It is limited to areas in which there is no joint participation in the sin. One correctly concludes that Christians cannot jointly participate in the sin of another. However, this interpretation of Romans 14 stumbles on this point: one is obligated by the teaching of Romans 14:1 and 15:7 to receive that brother who practices his sin, whereas 2 John 9-11 expressly condemns receiving those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2 John 9-11).

We simply ask, “Does one who practices sin `abide inthe doctrine of Christ’?” Can one stay in the doctrine of Christ while continuing the practice of his sin? If not, then 2 John 9-11 absolutely forbids a Christian to do what Romans 14:1 and 15:7 command be done to the subjects under discussion in that chapter. This forces us to the conclusion that sinful matters cannot be included in Romans 14.

We appreciate that some have labored to limit the number of sinful matters that can be included in Romans 14 and recognize the distinction between what they believe and what those believe who apply the chapter to all matters of sin. However, we reject this interpretation of the chapter based on the reasons given above.

Proposition 3 Is True

This leaves us with but one interpretation of Romans 14  “Romans 14 includes no matters of the faith.” Sinful practice is not under discussion in this chapter. The chapter is limited in its application to matters of indifference (authorized liberties).

There remain two jobs to sustain that proposition 3 is true: (a) to examine the two arguments cited to prove that sinful matters are included in Romans 14; (b) to examine the internal evidence in the chapter that shows that Romans 14 is limited in application to matters of indifference. Stay with us for the examination of these matters.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 19, p. 2
October 5, 1995

By Kenneth D. Sils

Within each community in America, there seems to be some type of church building at every major intersection. There are well over 2000 differing denominational churches across the land. If one would look hard enough, he could really find “the church of his choice.” There was one particular denominational church in my area which advertised for men and women to come and worship with them for just half an hour one Thursday night because they knew people didn’t like to sit for an hour on Sunday morning!

With all of this religious confusion and competition how can people distinguish a “godly church” from an impostor? How can people know which church is pleasing God by their activities and functions? How can I be sure that the church I belong to is one which is in God’s good graces? Many people have simply given up amidst the confusion, thinking one church is just as good as another, and have their religion at home with TV evangelists as their guides. Some, instead of contributing to denominational churches, are giving money to various “good” causes because of their distaste for man’s religious divisions. It is a proven fact that leading atheists, evolutionists, and humanists developed their ungodly theories because of denominational doctrines, prophets, and problems that led to one division after another.

The only way to solve all of these problems and divisions created by modern denominationalism is to return to the old paths of God, the Bible. The Bible, God’s word, gives us the instruction needed to find the church which Jesus purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28). Paul wrote to Timothy and told him the value of God’s word by saying in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for re-proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Friends, God has supplied all “the doctrine” or teaching necessary for us to find the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. He has given us the Scriptures to serve as a blueprint for the building of the church. For us to please God, we must study the Scriptures and use only its instruction concerning what the church is, who is to control the church, how one enters the church, how the church is to worship and function, and what is the relationship of the church to the world. Throughout the next several articles, I will attempt to give book, chapter, and verse answers to these very important questions with a plea for you to “ex-amine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Prove yourselves” (2 Cor. 13:5). John also instructed us to “test the spirits, whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone into the world” (1 John 4:1). Knowing this admonition, I will “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2). Only the word of God can lead us from the confusion of error to the old path, the path of truth on this issue or any other spiritual matter.

To begin understanding the church, we must first under-stand who it belongs to. In Matthew 16, we are invited to read a conversation that Jesus had with his chosen few. He asked them in verse 15, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter responded by saying, “You are Christ, the son of the living God.” As a result of this confession, Jesus told him in verse 18, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” Nowhere in this passage is Peter called a pope, nor was he ever bestowed executive headship over the church. Jesus told us plainly that, “I will build my church.” Jesus was going to build his church. The church we read about in the Bible is Jesus’ church. It belongs to him, hence it is the church of Christ. The apostle Paul tells us, “And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that is all things he may the have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18).

The church of Christ is content with Jesus being the only head. It has no earthly headquarters, for Jesus, our only head, lives and reigns in heaven at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33). Jesus is the head of the body, the church. According to the Bible, the church is not a brick and mortar structure, but it is the people who are, “as living stones, being built up a spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5). The apostles of Jesus were members of his body, the church. Today, Christians are members of his body, the church. Paul told the church of Christ in Corinth, “Now you are the body of Christ and members individually” (1 Cor. 12:27). In the first century, men and women accepted God’s conditions for one’s soul salvation and God added them to his church (Acts 2:47). Jesus came to this world, not only as Savior but also as the Lord of men. He told the apostles in Mat-thew 28:18, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.” Man must respect his authority to be a part of his church, his body, which avails them the opportunity to come into contact with his soul saving blood. Remember, Jesus purchased the church with his blood (Acts 20:28). Friend, this is where all of us need to be, in the blood bought body of Christ, his church.

To help us understand the basics of the church of Christ in the Bible, consider what Paul told the Ephesians, “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the house-hold of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:19-22). This section of inspired Scripture makes it very clear that Jesus is the chief and his apostles and prophets were the rest of the foundation for his church. This being the case, there is no room for the doctrines, dogmas, creeds, and theologies of uninspired men in the church of Christ. The foundation of the church has been laid just as God wanted it; to add or take from this foundation laid in the first century is to reject the very headship of God.

Peter tells us, “His divine power has given to us all things for life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). Can man add any teaching for godliness if God gave all things for godliness to Peter and the rest of the apostles in the first century? No. Things added by men to build churches of men are an anathema to God. To understand the church that Jesus built, we must rest upon the fundamental instruction for its building, the gospel of Jesus Christ, as revealed for us in the New Testament. Paul told Christians in Galatians 1:8-9, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”

To build a great house, one needs to follow a great blue-print. To build on the house of God today, we must completely follow the only blueprint with God’s hand- writing, the New Testament Scriptures. Any other direction, my friend, will take us down the paths of modern division and denominationalism. Before Jesus died, he prayed to his Father for the apostles and us, “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word” (John 17:20). The church of Christ can be found today if we will believe and accept the apostles’ word as God’s building blocks for his church. Search the Scriptures for only within them lies the true foundation for the building of the church of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 19, p. 12-13
October 5, 1995

By Larry Ray Hafley

Under the title above, editor Bob Wilkin wrote the article which appears on the opposite page. It was published in The Grace Evangelical Society News (Vol.10, Number 3, May-June 1995, pp. 2-4). Before reviewing the article, a few preliminary comments may be in order.

First, the wise man was right when he said, “There is no new thing under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9). As we shall presently see, Mr. Wilkin makes the same worn and weary arguments that gospel preachers have answered over and over again. Second, those who say (1) that denominational preachers are not making such arguments anymore, and (2) that answers to them are unnecessary, ought to reassess their assessment. Such arguments are being made, and they will continue to be made. They must be answered. “Let us not be weary” in doing so. Third, we are not angry at editor Wilkin. My heart’s desire and prayer to God for him is that he might be saved. I bear him record that he has a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. He is ignorant of God’s plan of making men righteous, and, going about to establish his own righteousness, has not submitted himself to God’s plan of making men righteous (Rom. 10:1-3, 8-10, 16). Fourth, if Mr. Wilkin is free to attempt to refute what he believes is a perversion of Mark 16:16 without being labeled as a “contentious, argumentative writer” who is “just out to make a name for himself,” are we not also free to do the same without being similarly maligned and criticized? Fifth, and finally, Mr. Wilkin boldly asserts his position, but is he willing to publicly debate it? We do not know, but here is why some will not agree to a public discussion of biblical issues:

“For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God” (Jn. 3:20, 21).

Prior to publication of this review, a copy was sent to Mr. Wilkin. Propositions for debate were also enclosed. Mr. Wilkin was asked to deny the following proposition: “The Scriptures teach that water baptism, to the penitent believer, is for (in order to) the remission of sins.” I have signed to affirm it. Will he agree to deny it in a fair, open, honorable Bible discussion? Mr. Wilkin was also invited to affirm the following proposition: “The Scriptures teachthat alien sinners are saved by grace through faith alone, before and without water baptism.” Will he agree to de-fend it in an open, public study wherein his views would be examined with all candor? Surely, he will. What does he have to fear, if he has the truth?

Perhaps some of our readers will want to make the propositions above available to their preachers, too. Surely, there is a preacher of Mr. Wilkin’s persuasion who will have the faith and courage to accept our sincere appeal for an open Bible study of these important matters. If there is such an individual, please put him in touch with me so that we may make the appropriate arrangements.

Review Of Bob Wilkin’s Article On Mark 16:16

While I cannot presume to speak for the “students” to whom Mr. Wilkin’s spoke, their contention should have been over whether or not baptism is one of the conditions of pardon from past or alien sins (Lk. 24:47; Eph. 2:12; 2 Pet. 1:9b). One is saved from his past sins when he believes and is baptized (Mk. 16:16). He is “purged from his old (or past) sins” when he believes and is baptized (Mk. 16:16; 2 Pet. 1:9). He obtains the remission or forgiveness of his past sins when he believes and is baptized (Mk. 16:16; Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Mr. Wilkin’s purposes and proposes to “explain why this verse can’t be teaching salvation by baptism.” We could have saved him a lot of time, ink, and space. The passage does not teach “salvation by baptism.” It teaches that “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Baptism is but one of the conditions of pardon from one’s past sins (Mk. 16:16). Faith, or belief in Christ, is another condition. That is what the passage says, hence, that is what it teaches. Mr. Wilkin’s says, “this verse can’t be teaching salvation by baptism.” He says that it teaches “salvation by faith alone.” However, if baptism is not a condition of salvation in the passage, neither is faith. Both are joined by the coordinating conjunction, “and.” Faith and baptism are of equal rank. If one is a condition of salvation, so is the other. If one is not a condition of pardon, neither is the other.

In a nutshell, here is the gist of Mr. Wilkin’s introduction: “Though the Lord said, `He who believes and is baptized shall be saved,’ I am going to try to convince you that it is not so.” Friends, Mr. Wilkin does not believe Mark 16:16. He does not believe that in order to be saved one must believe and be baptized. He does not believe what the Lord said. No matter how you slice and dice it, that is the essence of Mr. Wilkin’s article. When he has finished with his comments in denial of what the Lord said, the passage will still say, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Mr. Wilkin is “sure that Mark 16:16 isn’t teaching that water baptism is a condition” of salvation. He cites four reasons. Let us examine them with all care, caution and candor.

“Condemnation Is For Unbelief Only”

Let us effect parallels to Bob Wilkin’s statement in this section, using Luke 13:3, 5  “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” First, in commenting on the passage, suppose I said: Jesus didn’t say, “Except ye do not believe, you will perish.” Neither did he say, “He who does not believe and repent will perish.” Rather, he said, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” By this our Lord made it clear that repentance alone was necessary to avoid eternal condemnation. Would Mr. Wilkin accept that conclusion? No, he would not. When he explains that condemnation based on a lack of repentance does not exclude the essentiality of faith as a condition of pardon, then we shall explain how that condemnation based on a lack of faith does not exclude baptism as a condition of pardon.

Second, Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32, 33). Reasoning like Bob Wilkin does, and commenting on this text, suppose I said: Jesus did not say, “He who does not confess will be denied.” Neither did He say, “He who does not believe and does not confess will be condemned.” Rather, He said, “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” By this our Lord made it clear that confession alone was necessary to avoid eternal condemnation. Would Mr. Wilkin accept that conclusion? No, he would not. When he explains that condemnation based on denial of the Lord does not exclude the essentiality of faith as a condition of pardon, then we shall explain how that condemnation based on a lack of faith does not exclude baptism as a condition of forgiveness.

Ironically, Wilkin’s citation and quotation of John 3:18 helps to explain why the Lord did not say, “He who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.” Truly, “he who does not believe is condemned already.” So, in Mark 16:16 when the Lord said, “He who does not be-lieve will be condemned,” he did not need to say, “and is not baptized,” because the man who “does not believe is condemned already.” Consider these parallels:

(1) “He that enrolls and attends class shall be educated, but he that does not enroll shall be uneducated.” There is no need to say, “He who does not enroll and does not at-tend class shall be uneducated,” because he that does not enroll is “already uneducated.” Obviously, if he is not en-rolled, he will not attend class.

(2) “He that eats and digests shall live, but he that does not eat shall die.” There is no need to say, “He who does not eat and does not digest shall die,” because he that does not eat is “already condemned” to die. Obviously, if he does not eat, he will not digest.

(3) “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” There is no need to say, “He who does not believe and is not baptized will die,” because “he who does not believe is condemned already.” Obviously, if he does not believe, he will not be baptized.

Bob says, “see also John 5:24; 6:47.” He made no argument on those passages. Neither of them mentions baptism. If his inference from that is that baptism is not essential because it is not mentioned, then the same is true of repentance. Repentance is not mentioned in either of those passages. Is repentance, therefore, not a condition of forgiveness?

Wilkin’s assertion is that these passages make “it clear that faith alone (is) necessary to” salvation. Note, “faith alone.” He cited passages that ascribe salvation to faith, but none of those verses say that salvation is by “faith alone.” There is no such passage (see also Acts 2:38; 22:16; Heb. 11; Jas. 2:14-26).

The Apostles Preached Salvation By Faith Alone

Did “both” Peter and John teach “that the only condition of eternal salvation was trusting in Christ and him alone,” as Wilkin’s asserts? If so, neither taught that repentance and confession are essential to salvation, for if “trusting in Christ” is “the only condition,” then repentance and confession are not required in order to be saved.

First, did Peter, having heard the Lord say, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved,” preach “salvation by faith alone”? Wilkin says he did. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Peter, having heard the Lord in Mark 16:16 and Luke 24:47, taught that both repentance and baptism were conditions of salvation. But there is more from the apostle Peter: “Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth” (1 Pet. 1:22).

“Then Peter. . .said. . .he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34, 35). “And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you  not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience  through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21, NASB). Yes, Peter “heard Jesus say the words recorded in Mark 16.” Wilkin’s is right about that, but Peter did not teach that “trusting in Christ” is “the only condition of’ salvation as Wilkin says he did. Why? Because he heard the Lord say, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”

Second, did John, having “heard Jesus say the words recorded in Mark 16,” preach “salvation by faith alone”? John recorded these words of Jesus, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). (Despite this, Wilkin says “water baptism is not even mentioned in John’s Gospel.”) John said, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected” (1 Jn. 2:3-5). “He that doeth righteousness is righteous” (1 Jn. 3:7). When any man, including Bob Wilkin, says that one may “know” Jesus as his Savior “by faith alone,” he “is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” John said, “Every one that doeth righteousness is born of him” (1 Jn. 2:29). John said, “Whosoever shall confess Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God” (1 Jn. 4:15). John wrote these words of Jesus, showing that he (John) did not teach “salvation by faith alone.” “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death” (Jn. 8:51). “If ye love me, keep my commandments. . ..He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me” (Jn. 14:15, 21). Mr. Wilkin says John taught “that faith is the only condition of eternal salvation.” Whose word will you accept, Mr. Wilkin’s or John’s?

Bob refers to the case of Cornelius and says Cornelius and his family “were saved and baptized by the Holy Spirit” before water baptism. Cornelius was “baptized by the Holy Spirit” before he was baptized in water, but he was not saved before he was baptized (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 10:48). Cornelius was “baptized by the Holy Spirit” be-fore he believed. Cornelius was to hear “words” which would save him (Acts 11:14). The Spirit fell upon those Gentiles “as” Peter “began to speak” (Acts 11:15). Since “faith cometh by hearing” the word, Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he believed (Rom. 10:17). Does Mr. Wilkin conclude from this that belief in Christ is not essential since Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism before he believed? No, he does not. However, if the fact that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism before water baptism proves that water baptism is not essential, then the fact that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism before he believed would prove that faith is not essential. If not, why not?

Peter “commanded them (Cornelius’ household) to be baptized in the name of the Lord ” (Acts 10:48). What is the purpose of baptism “in the name of the Lord”? What is it “for”? Let Peter himself tell us, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized.. .in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Hence, when Cornelius was baptized “in the name of the Lord,” he was baptized `for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; 10:48).

In this same connection, Wilkin says Peter “led them to faith in Christ before he even mentioned baptism.” Of course, he did, for the Lord said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Naturally, therefore, one is “led to faith in Christ” before he is baptized. “When they believed. . .they were baptized” (Acts 8:12). “And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). When the Ephesians “heard” and believed “on Christ Jesus,” they were “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; 19:4, 5). One must be “led to faith” before he may be baptized (Acts 8:35-39). Hence, there is no need to “mention” baptism until one is “led to faith.”

The Gospel Never Changes

No, Bob, those students were not telling you “the Gospel had changed.” They were telling you that “a testament is of force after (not before) men are dead,” and that “it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Heb. 9:16, 17). Jesus was alive on the cross. His testament was not “of force” at that time. Before his death, men were to be obedient to the law of Moses (Matt. 23:2-5). His testament and its forgiveness was yet to begin at “Jerusalem” (Lk. 24:47; cf. Isa. 2:3).

No, the thief was not baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins. Neither did the thief believe in his heart that God “hath raised” (past tense) Christ from the dead (Rom. 10:9). Now, however, we must believe that “God hath raised him from the dead” in order to be saved. Since the dying thief did not believe that “God hath raised him from the dead,” while we must believe that “God hath raised him from the dead,” are you telling us, Bob, that “the Gospel has changed”?

Regarding the thief, Wilkin says, “Before Jesus’ resurrection and the coming of the Spirit a person was saved without water baptism.” Well, Bob, before Jesus’ resurrection and the coming of the Spirit, a person was saved without believing that “God hath raised” Christ “from the dead.” Does that mean that one today can be saved with-out believing that “God hath raised” Christ “from the dead”? Will Bob tell us? When he does, will he be able to do it in such a way as to show us “that the Gospel (has not) changed”? When Bob answers that with respect to the necessity of believing that “God hath raised him from the dead,” he will answer his own argument concerning baptism.

In Luke 7:29, 30, “the people. . .justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.” Those who were “not baptized of him” “rejected the counsel (or purpose) of God against themselves.” Yet, in Acts 19:1-5, the baptism of John was no longer sufficient. Those who had received John’s baptism “after Pentecost” now had to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; 19:5). Given his reasoning along this line, Bob needs to explain whether or not “the Gospel had changed.” He says that if the thief was not baptized and was saved, and if we have to be baptized to be saved, then the gospel has “changed.” Well, if the reception of John’s baptism was a sign of justification before God at one time, but later it was not, would that not mean, according to Wilkin, that “the Gospel had changed”? When he clarifies the one he will have explained the other, also.

If the contention that “water baptism is required. . .is an impossible position to defend,” is true, will Mr. Wilkin agree to discuss it? If one truly believes that his opponent has “an impossible position to defend,” he surely will not refuse to meet the indefensible position when it challenges him. But will Mr. Wilkin refuse? Do you think he really believes that the “position” is as “impossible. . .to defend” as he says it is? Me, neither. But if he does so think, then “what doth hinder” us from having a Bible discussion of our differences?

If “the apostle Paul clearly indicates that we are saved in this age the same way Abraham and David were saved in their age,” why did the Hebrew writer speak of “a new and living way” (Heb. 10:20)? Paul said that through Christ one can be “justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38, 39). “Righteousness. . .without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets” (Rom. 3:21). Mr. Wilkin, have ye never read that there is “a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12)? While it is true that salvation is by grace through obedient faith, the specific conditions or terms of pardon and salvation have not been the same in every age (cf. Heb. 1:1, 2; 2:1-3; 10:28, 29; 12:25).

Wilkin cites Romans 4:1-8 and Galatians 3:6-14 to prove that we are saved “the same way” Abraham and David were. Indeed, we are to “walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham,” but the terms of pardon are different for us than they were for Abraham and David (Rom. 4:12; 6:3, 4, 17, 18; Gal. 3:26-29). Today, one must believe with all of his heart that God hath raised Jesus from the dead, and he must confess that Jesus is Lord (Rom. 10:9, 10). Did Abraham do that in order to be counted righteous? Did David? If not, has “the Gospel changed,” Mr. Wilkin? Wilkin surely admits that they did not have to believe and confess the same things we do today. He says that the conditions of Romans 10:9, 10, do not result in a “change” of the gospel. Therefore, he ought to be able to see that though water baptism is required of us today, it does not “change” the gospel, either (cf. Rom. 6:3, 4, 16, 17; 10:9, 10).

Abraham and David lived under the covenant of circumcision. Even Jesus who was “born under the law,” was circumcised (Lk. 2:21). Today, however, those who would say, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved,” “are fallen from grace” (Acts 15:1, 24; Gal. 2:3-5; 5:1-4). With respect to circumcision and the approval of God, are we accepted “the same way” Abraham and David were? Since circumcision was bound upon them, but not upon us, does that mean “the Gospel has changed”? According to Bob, that is what it would mean. When he explains that the gospel has not changed though circumcision once was bound, he will explain how that the gospel has not changed though baptism is now a condition of salvation. Physical circumcision once was something important (Gen. 17:9-14). Now, it is “nothing.” “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” in view of the cross is everything (1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 6:14).

Our circumcision today is a spiritual one, “in the heart” (Rom. 2:28, 29). The circumcision of Abraham and David was made with hands upon the flesh. The “circumcision of Christ” is “made without hands.” Old Testament circumcision cut off excess flesh. The New Testament “circumcision of Christ” cuts away and puts “off the body of the sins of the flesh.” This spiritual surgery is performed by the Lord when one is “buried with him in baptism” (Col. 2:11-13).

Paul did not preach that salvation is “by grace through faith plus nothing.” If he had, he would have excluded repentance. However, Paul taught that men “should repent and turn to God” (Acts 26:20; Cf. 20:21). Paul preached salvation “by grace through faith,” but he did not preach salvation “by faith only,” as Bob Wilkin says he did (Rom. 1:5; 3:24; 5:1, 9; 6:17, 18; 10:9, 10; Eph. 2:8, 9). Yes, indeed, the Ephesians were saved “by grace through faith,” but has Mr. Wilkin forgotten that these Ephesians were “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; 19:5; Eph. 2:8, 9; 5:26)? It was only “after” their baptism that Paul said they were saved “by grace through faith.”

Wilkin refers to Genesis 3:15, 15:6, and Revelation 22:17 and says those verses prove “The Gospel has al-ways been, and always will be, by grace through faith plus nothing.” Those verses say nothing like that. Read them and see. Revelation 22:17 mentions those who “hear” and “come” and “thirst” and “take” of the water of life freely. Sounds like a lot more than “faith plus nothing.” Three verses earlier, in Revelation 22:14, we find this, “Blessed are they that do his commandments that they might have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” So, if verse seventeen says, as Wilkin says it does, that salvation is “by grace through faith plus nothing,” it contradicts verse fourteen! When Mr. Wilkin, gave those passages, did he never think that someone might check up on his (mis)use of them? In a public debate, such things are not allowed to slide by. That is why that men who hold a false position often will avoid open discussion. They can see that in this written review. They do not want their errors to be exposed. They do not want to be exposed. Hence, they will not engage in fair and honor-able controversy when they are challenged to do so. Do you blame them?

“The NT Gives Examples Of Salvation Before Baptism”

John 11:25-27 does not show that Martha was “saved without being baptized,” as Mr. Wilkin alleges. (1) It says nothing about her being saved at that time. (2) It does not say she was saved, nor that she was saved “without being baptized.” (3) If Martha had not received John’s baptism which was “for the remission of sins,” she would have “rejected the counsel of God against” herself (Mk. 1:4; Lk. 7:29, 30). (4) If the fact that baptism is not mentioned means that Martha was “saved without being baptized,” then the fact that her repentance is not mentioned would prove that she was “saved without having repented.” If not, why not? If she was saved without repenting, may we be saved without repenting of our sins (Acts 2:38; 17:30)?

Acts 10:43-48 does not show that Cornelius and his household “were saved the moment they heard Peter tell them that all who believe in the Lord Jesus receive the remission of sins.” Note the text cited by Mr. Wilkin. Acts 10:43 says “that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of sins.” Salvation is “in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:12). We are baptized “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19, ASV). Cornelius was “commanded” to be “baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48). What is baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ for”? It is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Hence, one is not “into” the name of Jesus Christ until he is baptized “into” it. One does not receive remission of sins “through his name” until he is “baptized into” his name “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 4:12; 10:43, 48).

Acts 10:43-48 says nothing about Cornelius’ household being “baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.” However, if they “were,” as Wilkin’s asserts, then they were “in the body of Christ” without faith! Faith comes “by hearing” the word of God (Rom. 10:17; Eph. 1:13). But Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy Spirit be-fore he was told to believe, for the Holy Spirit fell upon them “as (Peter) began to speak” (Acts 11:15). Since the Spirit came on them “as” Peter “began to speak,” and since Wilkin says that “At that very moment” they were placed “into the body of Christ,” and since faith does not come until one hears the word of God, the irresistible conclusion is that they were in the body of Christ before they believed!

If, according to Wilkin, they were saved without baptism because they were in the body of Christ before they were baptized, then they were saved without faith because they were in the body of Christ before they believed. Wilkin’s reasoning not only eliminates baptism, it also eliminates faith. In a discussion, he would have to explain these contradictions. Though it would be far easier for him to refuse to debate our differences, perhaps he will be eager to have the opportunity to explain such things and will agree to it.

Cornelius was to “hear words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:14). “As” Peter “began to speak” those saving words, “the Holy Spirit fell on them.” “At that very moment,” Wilkin says they were placed “into the body of Christ.” So, according to him, they were saved in the body of Christ before they heard the words that were to save them! At this point in a public discussion, Mr. Wilkin would have quite a mess of his own making to clean up.

The truth is this: Cornelius was saved by grace and justified by faith when, after having heard the word of God, he believed, repented, and was “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” “for the remission of sins” (Acts 10:43, 48; 11:14, 18; 15:7-11).

Wilkin concludes his four points, saying that they “prove that Mark 16:16 is not teaching that one must be water baptized to go to heaven.” In our introduction, we said that Bob does not believe what Mark 16:16 says. The statement above proves our contention. But there is this: If “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” does not prove that water baptism is essential to salvation, then it does not prove that belief is essential, either. According to the text, “who. . .will be saved”? Answer, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” If the “he who. . .will be saved” does not need to be baptized, neither does he need to believe. But if the “he who. . .will be saved” is the one “who believes and is baptized,” then both belief and baptism are required to be saved from past sins.

Mark 16:16 Is Teaching That All Who Respond To

The Great Commission Will Go to Heaven

Bob Wilkin does not understand “the Great Commission” any more than he understands the place of water baptism in the scheme of redemption. He says that “All Who Respond to the Great Commission Will Go to Heaven.” Earlier, he said that going to heaven is “by grace) through faith plus nothing.” Now, he refers to the fact that one must “Respond to the Great Commission.”

What is included in one’s response “to the Great Commission”? Let us allow “the Great Commission” to tell us. First, according to the Great Commission, one must believe the gospel that is preached (Mk. 16:16). Second, according to the Great Commission, one must repent in order to receive the remission of sins (Lk. 24:47; cf. Acts 2:38). Third, according to the Great Commission, one must be baptized “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38). Please read those passages.

Referring to Mark 16:15, 16, Wilkin says, “Baptizing those who believe (v. 16) is the first step in discipleship.” Friends, read the text! It absolutely does not say that baptism “is the first step in discipleship.” It says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Even if Mr. Wilkin were right, he would be wrong. Let us explain. He says, “The Great Commission in Mark 16:15-16 includes both evangelism and discipleship.” He does not say that it “includes” any conditions of salvation from sin, just “evangelism and discipleship.” Then he says, “baptizing those who believe. . .is the first step in disciple-ship.” No, according to Bob, belief, not baptism, is the “first step in discipleship,” for he says the passage speaks of “evangelism and discipleship.” He makes no mention of any conditions of pardon. So, if the passage is speaking of “evangelism and discipleship,” as he affirms, then where does faith fit in? If baptism is the “first step,” where would he put belief? Mr. Wilkin would have to answer questions like these in a discussion. Rather than having to face questions which pin-point his confusion, he could simply refuse to accept our proposal for an open Bible study.

The truth is that baptism is a part of the process whereby one is made a disciple. “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38).

Bob Wilkin Says: “What Jesus is saying in Mark 16:15-16 is this:.. .

Those who believe and are baptized will be saved.” What Bob Wilkin Believes and Teaches Is This:

He who believes is eternally saved the very moment he believes, whether or not he is ever baptized.

One may believe Bob Wilkin, or he may believe Jesus the Christ.

(1) If one is saved “the very moment” he believes, disobedient children of the devil are saved (Jn. 8:30-32, 44). (2) If one is saved “the very moment” he believes, those who refuse to confess him are saved (Jn. 12:42, 43; cf. Matt. 10:33; Rom. 10:9). (3) If one is saved “the very moment” he believes, he is saved before he has turned to the Lord (Acts 3:19; 11:21; 26:20). (4) If one is saved “the very moment” he believes, he is saved before the Lord said he would be, for the Lord said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”

Bob refers to some who “have died” immediately after believing in Christ and thus were unable to be baptized. Will such people be saved? “They will,” he says. This is an emotional argument which has deceived many and caused them to deny that one must believe and be baptized to be saved (Mk. 16:16). All we know is what the Lord said  “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” However, if an untimely death negates what the Lord said regarding the necessity of baptism, consider the following scenario:

There is an unbelieving farmer out in his field plowing. He has never taken the time to reflect seriously about his soul. However, he sees the wonders of creation on his farm. One day he decides that there has to be a God who provides such life in the seeds he has sown. So, he determines that he will talk to someone about his soul’s salvation. That evening, he sees an advertisement in the paper for a meeting where Bob Wilkin is to speak about “trusting in Christ” for salvation. Being an irreligious man, he has never heard the gospel story, but he decides to go and hear Mr. Wilkin. He arrives at the building. He meets Mr. Wilkin and a host of friendly people. The service begins. He en-joys the singing. Mr. Wilkin is introduced, and he cordially welcomes the audience before beginning his lesson. Suddenly, as Bob is about to begin his sermon, the farmer clutches his chest and dies immediately. Before the man could be led to believe in Christ and to confess him as Lord, he is dead.

Question, please: Will he be saved without faith in Christ? Remember, Jesus said that one must “believe” in order to “receive the remission of sins” (Mk. 16:16; Acts 10:43). However, because he was sincere and because he was so close to doing what the Lord said, can we say, “He was saved”? No, we cannot, “for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24). Emotional arguments do not determine truth, nor do they make void the word of God. When we dry our tears over the fate of the poor fanner, the word of God will still say, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” However, if we can use death to invalidate the necessity of baptism, then we can use it to deny that faith in Christ is essential. The plain, sad truth is that we can do neither (Jn. 12:48).

Finally, Mr. Wilkin says that Mark 16:16 affirms “salvation by faith alone.” There is only one place in the Bible where the word of God mentions justification “by faith only,” and in that place, the Spirit says it is not so (Jas. 2:24)! Does Mr. Wilkin understand the definition of the word, “alone”? If a farmer raises corn only, or corn alone, does that mean he also raises soy beans? If salvation is “by faith alone,” that excludes repentance and confession of Christ. If Bob says that repentance and confession are included in justification by faith, and that is what he means “by faith alone,” then upon the very same basis and through the very same door that he brings repentance and confession, we shall bring baptism (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 22:16; Rom. 10:9, 10).

Wilkin’s Holy Spirit Baptism Footnote

Mr. Wilkin is correct in his assessment of Mark 16:16 with respect to its being a reference to water baptism and not to Holy Spirit baptism. Baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” occurs in the element of water (Acts 2:38; 8:12, 35-39; 10:47, 48). Men perform the act of water baptism (Matt. 28:19; Acts 8:36-38). The Lord is the one who “baptizeth with the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 3:11; Jn. 1:33; Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:4, 5, 8).

The Bible nowhere says that Holy Spirit baptism puts one “into the body of Christ.” (The “body of Christ” is the church  Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18, 24). If it did, and if Holy Spirit baptism were necessary for one to be “in the body of Christ,” that would mean that there are two baptisms, one in water and another in the Holy Spirit. However, the Spirit himself says, “There is. . .one baptism” (Eph. 4:4, 5). But that is not all:

If Holy Spirit baptism places one “into the body of Christ,” what does water baptism do? Baptists have taught that water baptism makes one a member of a Baptist Church. They do not teach that the Baptist Church is “the body (or church) of Christ.” So, if Holy Spirit baptism (that is one baptism) puts one “into the body of Christ (that is one church),” and if water baptism (that is a second baptism) makes one a member of a Baptist Church (that is a second church), then it follows that there are two baptisms and two churches. However, that is one too many, for the Spirit says, “There is one body and. . .one baptism” (Eph. 4:4, 5).

If Wilkin believes that 1 Corinthians 12:13 is a reference to Holy Spirit baptism, then for one to be in the body or church of Christ and for one to be able to drink in the fellowship of the one Spirit, one would have to receive both Holy Spirit and water baptism (Acts 2:41, 47; 18:8; 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:11; 12:13; Eph. 5:26). But that cannot be true today, for Paul says, “There is. . .one baptism.” The truth is this: By the teaching of the “one Spirit” in the word of God, penitent believers are led to be baptized in water “for the remission of sins” and the Lord adds them to his body, the church (Acts 2:4, 38, 41, 47; 10:47, 48; 18:8; 19:5; 1 Cor. 4:15; 6:11; 12:13; Eph. 5:26; Col. 1:13, 18; 2:11-13). In other words, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 18, p. 17-23
September 21, 1995

By Bob Wilkin

The Grace Evangelical Society News X:3 (Used By Permission)

From 1974 to 1978 I was involved in evangelistic out-reach ministry at two universities: Arkansas State University (1974-76) and North Carolina State University (1976-78). I often ran into students who believed that in order to go to heaven you had to be baptized. One of the passages they cited was Mark 16:15-16.

“And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

In this article I will explain why this verse can’t be teaching salvation by baptism and then show what it does mean.

Mark 16:16 Isn’t Teaching That You

Must Be Water Baptized To Go To Heaven

There are a number of clear and compelling reasons why we can be sure that Mark 16:16 isn’t teaching that water baptism is a condition of eternal salvation:

 The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.

 The apostles did not preach that you must be baptized to go to heaven.

 The Gospel never changes.

 There are NT examples of people who were saved before they were baptized.

 Let us briefly consider each of those points in more detail.

Condemnation Is For Unbelief Only

Jesus didn’t say, “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” Neither did he say, “He who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.” Rather, he said, “He who does not believe will be condemned.” By this our Lord made it clear that faith alone was necessary to avoid eternal condemnation. He said the same thing in John 3:18: “He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (see also John 5:24; 6:47).

The Apostles Preached Salvation By Faith Alone Two of the disciples in the inner circle were Peter and John. Both of them heard Jesus say the words recorded in Mark 16. Yet both of them taught that the only condition of eternal salvation was trusting in Christ and him alone.

Peter proclaimed the Gospel to Cornelius and his family. He led them to faith in Christ before he even mentioned baptism (cf. Acts 10:34-44). Only after they were saved and baptized by the Holy Spirit did Peter mention Christian baptism and give them the opportunity to be baptized (Acts 10:45-48).

The apostle John wrote an evangelistic book that we call the Gospel of John. He repeatedly indicated that faith is the only condition of eternal salvation. Yet not once in all of John’s Gospel, written after the event recorded in Mark 16:16 occurred, did John condition eternal salvation upon water baptism. (In fact, Christian water baptism is not even mentioned in John’s Gospel.)

The Gospel Never Changes

“What about the thief on the cross?” I would say. “Jesus said he would be with him that day in Paradise, yet he was never baptized.” The response I would get was inevitably this: That was before Pentecost. After Pentecost, you have to be baptized in order to be saved.

What these students were telling me was that the Gospel had changed. Before Jesus’ resurrection and the coming of the Spirit a person was saved without water baptism. After that water baptism is required.

That is an impossible position to defend since the apostle Paul clearly indicates that we are saved in this age the same way Abraham and David were saved in their age (cf. Rom. 4:1-8; Gal. 3:6-14). We find this in the first book in the Bible (Gen. 3:15; 15:6) and in the last book of the Bible (Rev. 22:17).

The NT Gives Examples of Salvation Before Baptism

In addition to the thief on the cross, there are other NT examples of people who were saved without being baptized. Martha (John 11:25-27) is one. Another is Cornelius and his household. According to Acts 10:43-48, they were saved the moment they heard Peter tell them that all who believe in the Lord Jesus receive remission of sins. At that very moment, before they were baptized with water, they were baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.

These four points prove that Mark 16:16 is not teaching that you must be baptized to go to heaven. However, the question still remains as to what Mark 16:16 does mean.

Mark 16:16 Is Teaching That All Who Respond

To The Great Commission Will GoTo Heaven

The key to understanding these verses is to recognize that they are a summary statement of the Great Commission. Mark is not reporting everything that Jesus said about the Great Commission. He is recording one summary statement that Jesus made of it.

The Great Commission was communicated by the Lord on five different occasions (once each in the Gospels and Acts). There is a lot of variety in the way the Great Commission is expressed in these instances. In some of those statements only evangelism is mentioned (e.g., Luke 24:47, though it could possibly be dealing with both evangelism and discipleship, and Acts 1:8). In some only discipleship is mentioned (Matt. 28:18-20; John 21:15-17). The Great Commission in Mark 16:15-16 includes both evangelism and discipleship. Preaching the gospel to every creature (v. 15) is evangelism. Baptizing those who believe (v. 16) is the first step in discipleship.

What Jesus is saying in Mark 16:15-16 is this:

 

• Preach the gospel to everyone on earth (v. 15).
• Tell people to believe in him and to be baptized (implied in v. 16).
• Those who believe and are baptized will be saved.
• Those who don’t believe will be condemned.

It is, of course, true that all who believe and are baptized will be eternally saved. That is not to say, however, that those who either refuse to be baptized or who fail to be baptized through ignorance, or lack of opportunity (for example, some people have died immediately after trusting in Christ) will not be saved. They will. At the very moment they believe, they are saved from the penalty of sin, eternal condemnation.

We must be careful not to read into Scripture. Jesus does not say or even imply that the one who isn’t baptized won’t be saved. We know that is not true from other Scripture, and even from the second half of v. 16.*

Conclusion

Mark 16:16 does not contradict salvation by faith alone. Rather, it affirms it. Jesus clearly and unmistakably indicates that the sole basis of eternal condemnation is unbelief. The sole basis for eternal salvation is believing the Lord Jesus, and him alone, for it.

*Another understanding of Mark 16:16 is that it refers to Holy Spirit baptism (see, for example, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 6, p. 150). Except for some exceptional cases in the Book of Acts, Holy Spirit baptism has always occurred at the point of faith. Compare 1 Cor. 12:13. While that view is possible, I don’t believe it fits the context as well as the one I have articulated here.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 18, p. 16
September 21, 1995