Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

I want you to stay with me now, because this is going to take a while to develop. The Akron Beacon Journal (4-24-92) carried a front-page article entitled, “Scientists Discover Relics of `Big Bang. Scientists believe they have observed relics of the primeval explosion that created the universe 15 billion years ago. They believe this is “the strongest support yet for the controversial theory.” What is all of this evidence? They have found “massive wisps of gas more than 500 million light years long  about 59 billion trillion miles” which are believed to be “the largest and oldest structures ever observed.” These observations came from instruments aboard NASA’s Cosmic Back-ground Explorer (COBE), launched in 1989.

The scientific community is ecstatic. Physicist Joel Primack of the University of California, Santa Cruz says, “It’s one of the major discoveries of science.” Physicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago said the discovery is “unbelievably important!” The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the holy grail of cosmology. . . If it is, indeed, correct, this certainly would have to be considered for a Nobel Prize.” The researchers “are confident” in the accuracy of their measurements.

The “Big Bang” is designated as “one of the most difficult physics concepts for layman to accept.” Now I want you to notice this statement carefully: “Its chief assumption is that 15 billion years ago all matter in the universe was compressed into an unimaginably dense sphere smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. The ball exploded at a temperature of trillions of degrees, launching all the matter on the expansionary course it continues to follow today. Within the first millionth of a second after the explosion, quarks and other exotic particles combined to form protons and neutrons, most of which were just as rapidly annihilated by collisions with antiprotons and antincutrons, releasing their energy in the form of light waves.” Did you get all of that? They know all of this is true because they have found massive wisps of gas more than 500 million light years long.

Actually, what these scientists have found “are large regions of the sky in which the temperature is very slightly, as little as one-hundred-thousandth of a degree, from that of the areas around them.” I’m already convinced, aren’t you? Such evidence cannot be denied. It is extremely conclusive, except for a few unfounded assumptions.

1. Scientists have rejected the idea that God created the world. Furthermore, they have “assumed” that all living matter is traceable to a “Big Bang” in the distant past. Acting on this “assumption,” they have sought any evidence that might suggest they are right. And, they are not too terribly careful what evidence (?) they accept.

2. They have not arrived at the conclusion that the “Big Bang” occurred 15 billion years ago. Until recently they were equally convinced that it occurred 4.51 billion years ago. These “wisps of gas” have now enabled them to correct their 10.49 billion year error. I begin to wonder if this “gas” to which they have been exposed is not laughing gas.

3. Let me give you a hint of how certain they are about their findings. The article says, “It now seems clear” that they have found this evidence. Scientists are operating on their “chief assumption” that there was a “Big Bang.” They say that “If, indeed, this is correct” their assumptions are true. They “believe” that the “Big Bang” occurred with the explosion of particles of matter “smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.” I know better than that. It could not have been the size of a “.”, it had to have been at least the size of a marble. This was a “big” explosion. It set in motion billions of years of evolution. No, it had to be at least the size of a marble  maybe even the size of a walnut. Or, possibly as large as a physicist’s brain!

4. This assumed explosion occurred because the ball developed “a temperature of trillions of degrees.” They have omitted some key elements here. For instance, what caused it to get so hot? Did it happen quickly, or did it take billions of years to get that hot? Are they sure it was “trillions” of degrees? How do they know it was not “billions of trillions of degrees”? Who measured how hot it was? Does it not seem more likely that this whole business is nothing more than a wild guess made by an infidel? I find it easier to believe this to be the guess of an infidel than to believe a tiny speck of matter got hot enough to explode in such a way to finally form this universe and everything and everybody in it.

5. We are told that “within the first millionth of a second” protons and neutrons collided with antiprotons and antineutrons. How do we know it was the first millionth of a second? It might have been a billionth of a second. It might not have been protons that collided with antiprotons. It might have been antiprotons that collided with neutrons. Or, there might not have been a collision at all! I know the whole business had to take at least an hour.

6. But there is still a greater assumption that needs to be considered. These scientists believe there was some “matter” that existed 15 billion years ago, which ultimately exploded. Where did that matter come from? You cannot get something from nothing! How did they account for the presence of these life forms before the “Big Bang”? How do they account for the heat source that created the explosion? What other explosion have they ever observed which has produced such a marvelous result as this universe? I think the scientific community has been given so much rope that it has finally hung itself.

The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). It also says, “Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Ps. 90:1-2). Note what David said in Psalms 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” It seems to me that a good explanation for the expanse of the universe is found in Psalms 104:2: “Who coverst thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.”

I still find the explanation of the Bible about the origin of things to be more plausible than the assumptions of infidels, even infidel scientists. What about you?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 12-13
March 3, 1994

By Connie W. Adams

There is a growing agitation in some quarters to have the women present in business meetings both in places with and without elders. Some insist that they be silent observers while others argue that they may speak in the decision making process. One brother has argued that the women not only may be present and participate, but that they must or else the deliberations are unscriptural. Articles have appeared in some periodicals over the last few years advocating these views.

It is God’s plan that elders be ordained in every church (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). The qualifications indicate men for this work. They are to be husbands and rule well their own houses (1 Tim. 3:2,4). That precludes women. Deacons likewise are to be men, husbands, with wives who are faithful (1 Tim. 3:11,12). Elders have the oversight and deacons function as special servants of the congregation.

But congregations can scripturally exist and function before elders and deacons are appointed. The divine qualifications must be met. The churches in Asia Minor which were established by Paul and Barnabas functioned without elders until they came back through that region and appointed elders in every church (Acts 24:23). When a body of people meet together for worship and undertake the work God has assigned a local body of his people, some decisions have to be made. At what hour on the Lord’s Day shall the congregation come together? Who will see that the Lord’s table is ready? What place shall be secured and prepared for the purpose? Who shall teach? Who will lead singing? How many songs? Who will lead the assembly in prayers? How many? How shall the congregation proceed in relieving saints in need, or in choosing and supporting those to preach the gospel at home and abroad? Any congregation which functions scripturally, has business with which to deal.

A scripturally unorganized congregation, as well as one scripturally organized must work within certain divine precepts. “Let all things be done unto edifying” (1 Cor. 14:26). “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).

Limitations

Women were taught to “keep silence” in the assemblies and if they wanted to learn of things said by the prophets, they were to “ask their husbands at home” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). This was considered part of being “under obedience” and was consistent with what the law had said (“as also saith the law”). It was “a shame” to do otherwise (v. 35). Inspiration also taught, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12). He gave two reasons for this: (1) seniority rights (“Adam was first formed”), and (2) Eve was deceived in the transgression. Her judgment was flawed. She ran ahead of her husband and yielded to emotion and not reason.

Any argument from other passages which ignores these divine truths is misplaced from the outset. Men do not have infallible judgment, but there is a divine order which must be respected.

I am convinced that many are now feeling the pressure of society which has witnessed a great change in the roles of women and men. Confusing these roles has resulted in great damage to the family structure. Evidence of this is seen in the terrible divorce rate, in unhappy men, women and children. In many congregations many of the women work outside the home. This may be from economic necessity or else from choice to have more, to justify education, or to attempt to feel fulfilled. With this has come a changed attitude among some sisters in the Lord. Some are much more outspoken, some are used to giving orders, and some have a chip on the shoulder. Many are the product of the modern educational establishment. The entertainment media continually preaches along these lines. As we reach out and bring to Christ younger people whose minds have been saturated with these views, it is to be expected that there will be some tensions along these lines.

These tensions have been augmented by well-intentioned brethren who have encouraged a changed role for women in business decisions in congregations. Modern women (and men) do not like to hear about obedience, subjection, submission. After all, this is the age of “rights.” We must not be judged to be chauvinistic.

Acts 6 and 15

Those who contend that women should participate in business meetings hang their hats on Acts 6 and Acts 15. It is argued that in both cases the multitude of the disciples came together to consider the matters at hand. Let’s consider each passage.

In Acts 6 a problem surfaced having to do with benevolent distribution among some of the Grecian widows. This was a matter which had to be resolved. Divine revelation resolved it. Holy Spirit guided apostles called the church together and presented the will of God. It was first of all, a teaching situation, parallel to preaching and teaching on the work and qualifications of elders and deacons. The whole church needs to hear that instruction. Priorities had to be established. The apostles could not neglect their work of teaching the word of God (v. 2) to serve tables. Since they could not do that, then divine wisdom decreed that seven men (enough to handle the problem) be chosen who met the standards laid down. The apostles would then “appoint” them over “this business” (v. 3). The church gladly received this instruction and seven men were chosen. “They” (the church) made the choice. Right here it is assumed by some that there must have been some sort of business meeting which the women attended and had input in order for this to be done. Exactly how they arrived at the seven men is not spelled out. I have been involved various times in my life in the selecting of elders and deacons without ever having women present in a business meeting. Yet, we were always able to set forth a plan by which names could be submitted and time allowed to compare these men with the divine qualifications. Both men and women were permitted to submit names or submit objections to any whose names were set forth. Information must always be supplied in any congregation which works in harmony. But whatever process prudence may decide must not violate the limitations we have seen which must preserve the principle of obedience, submission and subjection. Who is prepared to take this passage and tell us the procedure followed including the role women played in a business meeting? Which sister spoke up? What did she say? Was this not a case of the church “continuing . . . in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42)? Advocates of women in present day business meetings must have a good imagination to find any justification for the practice from Acts 6. The church, in harmony with divine instruction, chose special servants, as churches down through the years since have chosen deacons (as well as elders) in harmony with the divine guidelines. Who is willing to contend that the limitations of 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 were set aside?

Acts 15 is another case where a problem was resolved by divine revelation. The issue of whether or not Gentiles converts to Christ had to be circumcised and keep the law had to be settled. Some had gone to Antioch and under-mined the work of Paul and Barnabas by insisting that they were teaching contrary to the apostles at Jerusalem. It was a matter of concern to the whole church. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem and they were all called together. Some spoke and defended the misguided Jewish position. Which of them were women? What did they say? Did a single sister there violate the limitations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12? Yes, they all came together to consider the matter. It was a serious doctrinal matter. We have had many others to surface through the years when we had to call whole congregations together to be taught the word of God on premillennialism, instrumental music, the nature, work and organization of the church and a number of other issues. All, men and women alike, needed to hear the teaching. Every one needed to make choices involving action consistent with the truth. When the debating was over, the apostles, with consent and approval of the elders, handed down an apostolic decision which they put in writing and sent to brethren elsewhere which showed that all the apostles, including Paul, were teaching the same thing. Did the women vote? Did anyone vote? This action “pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church” (v. 22). They were united.

I have seen a number of occasions when congregations were taught the truth of God and they were pleased with it and acted in harmony with it. I have seen other times when the saying did not please the multitude and they did not receive it or amend their practice.

The fact that the whole church came together to consider the matter in both Acts 6 and Acts 15 says nothing about business meetings in which judgments must be made touching the business aspects of a congregation. In both instances divine revelation resolved the problem at hand. All, men and women, were pleased with what the Lord revealed through his apostles and put into action what they taught.

Why would any sister possessed of a meek and quiet spirit, who honors what the Lord said about being subject and obedient, want to place herself in a situation where there is a great danger of violating 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12? Why would any brother want to encourage her to do so? God placed men in leadership roles in the family and in the church. Let there be communication, and understanding. Let the decisions be made in consideration of all involved, but let the scriptural limitations be respected.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 3-4
March 3, 1994

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Through the centuries, there has been continuing controversy about the nature of Christ. John and Paul had to deal with errors about it in the first century A.D. Men are fascinated about the incarnation and appear to have difficulty limiting themselves to revelation. Rather, some give themselves to philosophical speculations that treat matters beyond the pages of revelation. The question in this article deals with the nature of Christ. In response to it, I propose to limit myself to the revelation given in God’s scriptures.

Question: While on earth, did Jesus have a human spirit or a Divine spirit?

Response: The question is brief but it is clearly phrased. There can be given a brief and clear answer. However, it seems appropriate to supply the foundation or predicate for the response based on the scriptures before there is given this brief, simple answer.

The apostle John had to contend with false teachers who denied what the Lord said about his own nature and what the revelation of God says about it. In dealing with the state or condition of Christ before the incarnation, John made clear affirmations. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God” On. 1:1-2). This was Christ’s state and condition before time and matter existed. The Word was Deity. God is spirit On. 4:24) and accordingly one must conclude that Deity the Word was spirit. Accordingly, the Word is a Divine spirit. The preposition with indicates an association and communication. A similar use of the preposition is in Mark 6:3 when Christ was referred to as the carpenter’s son, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon, as well as his having sisters “here with us.” The idea was they were in association and communication with them. They were distinct individuals and so was the Word a person in the Godhead. Whatever the Word, Logos, was in the beginning that is precisely what the Word was in the flesh. The Deity, the Word, became incarnate, clothed in the flesh. What was in the flesh is not something different. John called one who denies this fact an antichrist (1 Jn. 4:1-3). He also said that that which was from the beginning, the Word of life, is that which was manifested in the flesh (1 Jn. 1:1-2). He did not divest himself of his Deity when he came in the flesh.

This same Word became flesh and dwelt among men. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:14). It should be observed that the same Word that was in the beginning is the one that came in the flesh; they are not two different persons. But the Word’s state or condition changed.

In the flesh, the Word revealed the Father: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (Jn.1:18). Prior to being on the earth, the Son knew the Father intimately as he did also in the flesh. Declared is a term that needs some consideration. It is translated from exegeomai which Vine states in this passage to mean “to unfold in teaching, to declare by making known.” Thayer gives essentially the same definition. The idea is that the essential nature and character of Deity are unfolded or brought to one’s intellectual understanding. The Son of God is the revelation of the Father.

When Paul said that the Philippians should have the mind of Christ, he explained what he meant and in doing so talked about the condition and state of Christ both before and after he became flesh. His statements appear particularly appropriate in our seeking the answer to the question before us. “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:5-9). We need to analyze what is said but the overview is that Christ was willing to renounce himself for the good of others and thus should the Philippians be in relation to one another. But the force of the argument is intensified if one clearly understands what is said about Jesus. Succeeding paragraphs will make clear what the passage says about his condition and state prior to his coming to earth, as well as his condition or state after he came in the flesh.

Existing has to do with his being. The term is translated from huparcho. Vine observes that it “denotes to be, to be in existence, involving an existence or condition both previous to the circumstances mentioned and continuing after it.” Christ was a being in the essential character and usual condition or state of Deity. The incarnation did not change the reality of the Deity of Christ as was pointed out in connection with John’s gospel considered in preceding arguments. Christ emptied himself but not of his Deity. Emptied is from kenoo which means the giving up of something so that the person does not have it. This does not refer to his Deity but to the prerogatives, honors, and glory that were his from the beginning, prior to coming in the flesh. On one occasion Christ implored the Father, “And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (Jn. 17:5). He had emptied himself of this in becoming incarnate.

Form is derived from morphe which has a consistent meaning in both instances of its occurrence in the passage under consideration. Morphe, Vine observes, denotes the characteristic feature of a person or thing. Vine quotes Gifford to the effect that nature or essence is under view and without this Christ would not exist. Consequently, he states that any “modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty” would not separate the person from his nature or essence. Form of God essentially means that Christ was Deity. The affirmation is the same as the one made by John.

In like manner, Christ took the form of a servant. The meanings of form is consistent: Christ was by nature or essence subservient. Servant is from doulos which means a slave and denotes one in relation to the master. In the remedial system, Christ became really and truly a slave and in this condition he was obedient even unto death. As a slave, Christ surrendered the prerogatives of the Father to whom he was subservient. His manifestation in the flesh did not, however, divest him of his Deity: Christ’s nature and essence were still Deity, but in this manifestation there was the releasing of the glory and majesty as his prerogatives before the incarnation.

Another term that deserves our attention is likeness which is from homoioma which means resemblance. Christ was truly man (Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5). He was a complete man. The writer of Hebrews is especially clear on this point. After stating that Jesus was not ashamed to call the sanctified his brethren, he quoted Psalm 22:22, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, In the midst of the congregation will I sing thy praise” (2:12). The writer further observed, “Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil” (Heb. 2:14). Accordingly, “It behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17). Without question, Christ shared humanity with men for he was in all points like his brethren. This kinship made him especially prepared to be aware of man’s infirmities. “For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). One of necessity must conclude that he was in the likeness of men, sharing the essential nature and quality of men. Whatever it is that makes one a man, that is what Jesus shared.

Another term that needs to be noticed is fashion which comes from schema which means essentially that Jesus shared “the state and relations of a human being” (Vine). Whatever would cause one to recognize a being as man is that which Christ possessed.

If he were not essentially and really a man, Christ could not be tempted in all points like as we are. Nor, on the other hand, would he be an example for men (1 Pet. 2:21). As a man, he showed men how they should live. Thus he demonstrated what men ought to be in relation to God. If this were not theoretically possible for men, then the example would be for naught. The fact that men may not, and do not, so live is not attributable to its impossibility but to the weakness of men. One must remember at the same time that Jesus did not surrender his Deity in the flesh. He was still omniscient, omnipotent, and had the power of being omnipresent. He knew men and what was in their minds which clearly indicates his omniscience On. 2:24-25; Lk. 5:22; 6:8; 9:47). He was able to walk on water (Matt. 14:25-27); rebuked the raging wind to still it (Lk. 8:24); and raised Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter from the dead On. 11:43-44; Mk. 5:35-42; Lk. 8:49-56). Numerous other miracles could be cited with these that demonstrate his omnipotence. The ability of his Deity to be as if he were everywhere is indicated by the fact that he saw Nathanael sitting under the fig tree before Philip reached him On. 1:48). When he came in the flesh, he did not divest himself of his Deity, but only the prerogatives including glory and equality in heaven.

There is much about Deity in the flesh, and Christ’s being fully and completely a human being that one may not be able to fathom, let alone explain. However, this should not blind us to the revelation of the scriptures about this phenomenon. Nor should it cause us to enter into harmful and fanciful philosophical speculations that really add no light to Divine revelation.

The simple answer to the question posed is that Jesus had a human spirit and while in the flesh he was Deity, and thus was spirit (Jn. 4:24, God is spirit and Jesus was God, Jn. 1:1-2).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 5-7
March 3, 1994

By Milburn Cockrell, Editor The Berea Baptist Banner

Progress is being made in this debate. My opponent has conceded that all people for the first 4,000 years of human history until Mark 16:16 were saved by repentance and faith like the Bible teaches and Baptists believe. Now if we can get him to concede that they have been saved this same way from Mark 16:16 until now this discussion will terminate.

In answering my three questions he has also conceded that a man spiritually born again cannot be unborn  that he is born only once. This is surely a move in the direction of the security of the saints. However, he has introduced to us a rather grotesque creature. He has a man spiritually “born again” and still “a Christian” who is “separated from God” and “fallen from grace.” It sounds like he has a person half saved and half lost  half a child of God and half a child of the Devil. I certainly want him to give me some more light on this person he has introduced to us.

It is good to note that he has also conceded that he has two ways of salvation in this age. The first time there is hearing, believing, repentance, confession, and being baptized in water. By admitting a man who has been saved can apostatize and yet be restored by repentance and faith he has come near our position. Pray for him. He may not be far from the kingdom. His gospel is that a man is saved by baptism and then when he becomes separated from God, he needs only to repent and believe. The first time you have to get wet, but after that a dry cleaning will do very well.

As often is the case with his people, he has tried to say that I believe that a man is not obligated to hear the gospel and repent. The reader knows that I do believe that a man must hear the gospel and repent. But a sinner is not saved at the point of the external hearing of the gospel or repenting. He is saved at the point of faith in Christ.

My seven arguments proved that Jesus Christ taught that a man was saved at the point of faith. But Mr. Donahue disputes this and says a person is not saved by faith unless his faith leads him on to baptism. It is sad to see a man who professes to be a follower of Christ and claims the true church of Christ is found among his people and no where else contradict the very words of Jesus Christ! Christ taught that salvation immediately follows faith (Luke 8:12), that faith saves (Luke 7:50), that the believer has eternal life (John 3:15), that the believer is not condemned (John 3:18), that faith prevents one from dying in his sins (John 8:24), that the believer has passed from death unto life (John 5:24), and that the believer shall never hunger (John 6:35).

Mr. Donahue does not believe any of these things which Christ taught. He believes that a penitent believer is a child of the Devil until the act of baptism is terminated. He has missed the point in the verses that I cited. The verses did not say that a man was on the way to being saved or at the half-way house of being saved. They said he was saved. Mr. Donahue does not believe that faith saves; he believes that baptism is man’s savior.

He did not try to explain the plain verses which were the very words of Christ. He put them all in the hat and went off on a figure of speech, a synecdoche. He labored hard to make faith include baptism. But he did admit that he had a problem with Luke 7:48,50, and finally conceded this woman was saved by her faith in Christ as were all the Old Testament saints up until Mark 16:16. Very well put, Mr. Donahue. Since all the verses I cited from the words of Christ were spoken before Mark 16:16, then you admit that a person was saved during these days by repentance and faith  like the Bible teaches and Baptists believe. Faith in none of these verses implied baptism, and down the drain goes his argument about the synecdoche. Thank you, Mr. Donahue, for refuting your own argument.

Mr. Donahue wants me to give a verse that substantiates that baptism shows that one is already saved. I need only to cite 1 Peter 3:21: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Mr. Donahue, the waters of the flood did not save Noah and his family. Those in the waters of the flood died as ungodly sinners (2 Pet. 2:5). The ark was a type of Christ and the flood a type of baptism. Noah and his family of believers (Heb. 11:7) entered the ark seven days before the flood came (Gen. 7:7,10), showing that a believer is safe in Christ prior to baptism. Only those in the ark were declared saved by the waters of the flood, disclosing how baptism declares a believer to be already saved by faith in Christ.

His passages about baptism (Mark 16:16; Jn. 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:26-27; Col. 2:11-13, and 1 Pet. 3:21) show how baptism symbolically saved. Baptism is a figure or likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It is by faith in the good news that men are saved. Mr. Donahue would make the symbol the savior. He would rob Christ of his savior ship and give it to the waters of baptism. Even Alexander Campbell wrote: “The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul’s sins were really pardoned when he believed” (Campbell-Maccalla Debate 135).

His comments upon 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 do not imply baptismal regeneration as he alleges. He should stay out of 1 Corinthians as it shows that baptism and the gospel are not the same thing (1 Cor. 1:17). In 1 Corinthians 4:15 Paul declares he was the means of begetting the Corinthians, but in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 he said he baptized but few of them. Hence, the new birth cannot be inseparably joined to baptism.

Argument Eight: Remission of sins comes at the point of faith: “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43). None of the prophets preached baptismal remission. They taught a man was saved by faith in Christ.

Argument Nine: Faith declares the sinner justified from all of his sins because Christ died for them: “And by him all that believe are justified from all things…” (Acts 13:39). It is not baptism which justifies here; it is faith in Christ.

Argument Ten: The heart is purified by faith in Christ: “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9). Faith contacts the blood of Christ which cleanses the heart from the filth of sin. Mr. Donahue believes that a believer has an impure heart until he is baptized. Where is it said that baptism purifies the heart?

Argument Eleven: Faith in Christ saves the soul: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). According to Paul, the person who believes in Christ is saved from all the miserable consequences of sin. Mr. Donahue would never answer the question in Acts 16:30 in the manner that Paul did here.

Argument Twelve: Faith sanctifies, or sets the person apart, as the holy property of God: “. . .them that are sanctified by faith that is in me” (Acts 26:18). A man is sanctified by faith, and faith comes before baptism. Hence, a person is sanctified by faith without water baptism.

Argument Thirteen: Faith in the gospel saves: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. . .” (Rom. 1:16). Paul tells us what the gospel is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, but he does not mention baptism as a part of the gospel. In Romans 10:16 he asserts that belief in Christ is what constitutes obeying the gospel.

Argument Fourteen: The sinner contacts the cleansing blood of Christ at the point of faith: “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood” (Rom. 3:25). One believes before he is baptized, hence he is cleansed by the blood of Christ before and without water baptism.

Mr. Donahue’s Questions

1. The person who hears the gospel in the sense that he understands and believes it (John 5:24-25) is saved.

2. The sinner who calls upon the name of the Lord is saved because it is a call in faith: “How then shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed?” (Rom. 10:14) I am surprised at this question. I thought Mr. Donahue believed in salvation by baptism, but maybe he holds to “praying through.”

3. Yes, the person who has become a Christian by believing in Christ with all his heart will confess Christ with the mouth (Rom. 10:9-10). Note the verse did not say confess by baptism, but with the mouth.

Questions for Mr. Donahue

1. Do you baptize a child of God or a child of the Devil?

2. Are all Christians not baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins going to Hell?

3. What about former “Church of Christ” members who have joined other churches?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 20-21
March 3, 1994