Truth Magazine

By Milburn Cockrell, editor the Berea Baptist Banner

“The Bible teaches that a sinner is saved at the point of faith in Christ before baptism in water.”

The proposition for this debate is: “The Bible teaches that a sinner is saved at the point of faith in Christ before baptism in water.” As the man who has the affirmative position it is my duty to define the proposition for our readers. By “the Bible” I mean the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. By “teach” I mean the Bible imparts or conveys the thought of my proposition. By “at the point of faith in Christ” I mean that when a person trusts in Jesus Christ with all his heart for salvation. At the point of faith the believer experiences a peace of mind and conscience which goes out of the knowledge of sins forgiven by the merits of Jesus Christ. By “before water baptism” I mean that faith comes before water baptism, and the sinner is saved without water baptism.

We are not debating over whether or not baptism is a command, for we both agree that it is. The question is: for what is baptism commanded? Is it the means of obtaining salvation, or is it to declare that one is already saved? The Bible teaches and Baptists believe that baptism is to declare that a believer in Jesus Christ has already experienced salvation.

The debate is not over whether or not men are commanded to repent, for we both agree they are. Repentance is a prerequisite to faith in Christ. Jesus Christ said: “For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him” (Matt. 21:32). Furthermore, when the New Testament speaks of repentance and faith together (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21; Heb. 6:1) repentance is always mentioned before faith. Repentance and faith are inseparable graces, but repentance always precedes faith.

The real issue between Mr. Donahue and me is this: “Is a man saved at the point of faith in Christ, or at the point of baptism?” The Bible teaches and I affirm that a man is saved at the point of faith in Christ. My opponent affirms a person is saved at the point of baptism. If Mr. Donahue and his people are correct in their contention, there should not be even one verse in the New Testament which predicates salvation on faith, for faith always comes before baptism. But the New Testament mentions often that salvation is predicated on faith in Christ. This is enough in itself to devastate Mr. Donahue’s dogma of baptismal regeneration.

Mr. Donahue and I have spoken over the phone and by correspondence, but we have never met face to face. Therefore, we do not have any personal axe to grind. I feel sure from what I have heard of my opponent that he is an honorable and sincere man. He is one of the most able debaters of his people, and he is qualified to defend the position of his people. We will no doubt hear from him the best defense that they can offer the Baptists.

An error as to the way of salvation is soul-destructive. Therefore it behooves me to defend by Holy Scripture the old landmark of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. This I must do in the interest of truth and for the well being of men’s souls.

In English the noun “faith” has no verb form. When it takes the verb form it is the word “believe.” Hence I shall appeal to verses in the Bible which use both “faith” and “believe.”

Argument One: Salvation in the Bible is said to follow faith immediately. In the parable of the sower Jesus said: “Those by the way side are they that hear: then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved” (Luke 8:12). Here faith in Christ is seen to be the sum and substance of salvation. Satan, the enemy of souls, does all he can to hinder men from believing in Christ and being saved. According to Jesus Christ, a man has only to believe in order to be saved. My friend and his people must add baptism to these clear and plain words of Jesus Christ, and the Bible condemns those who add to it (Rev. 22:18).

Argument Two: Jesus Christ told a woman that she was saved by her faith. In Luke 7:48 Christ said to a woman who was a sinner: “Thy sins are forgiven,” and then added: “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace” (Luke 7:50). Here faith is linked to forgiveness. According to Jesus Christ, this woman had received salvation through her faith. Nothing is said about her being baptized. She was saved by her faith without water baptism. My friend and his people would never say what Jesus Christ said here. Let us see if Mr. Donahue can cite a verse which says: “Thy baptism hath saved thee: go in peace.”

Argument Three: The believer has eternal life: “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:15). According to Jesus Christ, faith in him brings certain and instant healing to a perishing soul. Nothing is said about water baptism. A believer in Christ is not in the half-way house to being saved; he is saved at the point of his faith in Jesus Christ.

In John 6:47 Christ said: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” We know that eternal life is ours as soon as we believe in Jesus Christ, who is eternal life himself. Mark the present tense “hath,” not “shall have.” Note also that Christ confirmed this truth by a species of oath: “Verily, verily.” My opponent disagrees with these words of Christ, for he denies that the believer has eternal life. He and his people contend that spiritual life comes at the point of baptism, not faith.

Argument Four: The believer is not condemned. Jesus Christ said: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). According to our blessed Lord, the believer shall never enter into condemnation (Rom. 8:1) because he has already passed from death unto life (John 5:24). My friend holds a believer in Jesus is still under condemnation and must remain condemned until he is baptized by one of their preachers.

Argument Five: Faith in Christ prevents one from dying in his sins. In John 8:24 Christ said: “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that lam he, ye shall die in your sins.” Men must believe that Jesus is the true God and the glorious Messiah. This belief prevents one from dying in his sins. Nothing is said about the need of baptism to prevent spiritual death, for salvation comes before baptism. Where is the verse that says: “If you are not baptized, you shall die in your sins”?

Argument Six: The believer has passed out of a state of spiritual death into a state of spiritual life: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life; and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). Mr. Donahue and his people teach that a man remains in a state of spiritual death until he is baptized by one of their preachers. Their teaching of baptismal regeneration is in opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Argument Seven: The believer shall never hunger or thirst: “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). This verse shows that to come to Christ is the same as to believe on Christ. The one partaking of Christ by faith has a life-long feast and source of immortal strength. Those who believe in Christ have an abundant supply of the water of life and enjoy the deepest soul satisfaction. Nothing is said here about baptism. Where is the verse that says: “he that is baptized shall never hunger or thirst”?

All the verses that I have cited are the very words of Christ. He repeatedly declared that the believer in him is saved at the point of faith, and he made no mention of water baptism in the texts that I have cited. We Baptists have the very words of Jesus Christ to prove our position. We take our stand with Christ. We do not dispute or doubt the words of him who cannot lie. Since faith in Christ precedes baptism in water, our Lord would have never been guilty of saying that a man was saved by faith unless he was really saved at the point of faith.

Mr. Donahue and his people teach two different ways of salvation, but often they refuse to admit this is so. They teach that a man is not saved until he is baptized by one of their preachers. But after he is baptized for the remission of his sins he can be lost. Then he is saved the second, third, etc., time by repentance and faith like the Baptists teach. The fact that they do not baptize him again shows that they really know that a man can be saved by repentance and faith without water baptism as we Baptists teach. It would seem that logic would demand that they admit a man can be saved the first time the same way.

My questions for Mr. Donahue are as follows:

1. Whereas you teach baptismal regeneration, why do you not baptize a man in order to save him after he falls from grace?

2. How do you unbaptize a man and get him unsaved?

3. Since you do not rebaptize apostates, does this not after all prove that you believe a man can be saved by repentance and faith without water baptism?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 16-17
March 3, 1994

By O.C. Birdwell

Since January of 1977 James Yates has been a dedicated, loyal, and loved member of the board of directors of the Guardian of Truth Foundation. At the annual board meeting for 1993, he asked to be relieved of his duties on the board. He has given 16 years of work that has been far beyond the call of duty. His work has been a labor of love. James retired from his business in Houston, Texas, and for the past two or three years has often expressed the need to leave our board. Because we encouraged him to do so, he stayed on until this past year. We reluctantly give him up. His kind is difficult to find.

James and his good wife Mildred are well known by many Christians throughout the world. The apostle Paul said, “But let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things” (Gal. 6:6). The Yates do just that. Many gospel preachers have enjoyed their friendship and hospitality. Harry Pickup, Jr. said, “James Yates is a preacher’s friend.” He loves the truth and encourages and supports those teach the truth. For a number of years, he was an elder in the Fry Road congregation of Houston, and is also on the Akin Foundation Board.

It is no wonder that his good friend Roy Cogdill wanted him on the board of the Cogdill Foundation, which is now the Guardian of Truth Foundation. He had something to offer. He has provided his considerable expertise, who encouragement, and support in many ways. I remember once when a questionable proposal was made and encouraged upon the board, James said, “That would be the greatest possible conflict of interest.” His observation moved the board in the right direction, for which we all are thankful. In January of 1984, a decision was made to move the business to Bowling Green, Kentucky in the month of June of that ho year. As late as May not have a building we did business. Mike Willis said, “Call brother Yates.” I immediately got him on the phone and said, “James, we need you to come to Bowling Green. We have gotten exactly nowhere in getting a building that we can afford.” His answer was, “This is the busiest time of the year for me and I do not need to be away from my business. However, if you insist, I will come to Bowling Green.” I insisted. He was in Bowling Green the next day and stayed two days. When he left we had bought a building with a monthly payment we could afford. He took three or four days from his work, paid his own air fare from Houston, Texas, bought his own food, and paid for his own motel room. James Yates has done this type of thing over and over again.

James became one of the directors of this foundation at a critical time. It was at a time of conflict and controversy relative to what was called the “grace-unity movement.” The Truth Magazine editor, associate editors, and writers had taken a firm stand against the false teaching of that movement. Subs had been canceled and criticism abounded. Soon after James come on the board, decisions had to be made about securing a new editor for the paper, revising classroom material, printing a commentary set, moving the business to Bowling Green, and many other vital issues that related to the continued existence of the business. James was equal to the task and entered into the long hours of discussion and decision making with helpful input and enthusiasm. No one on this board has been more highly regarded than James Yates. He not only talked about our needs; he put his money where his mouth was. When the decision was made to publish a commentary set that would cost a large sum of money, James agreed to give several thousand dollars toward the printing. Because of this work we hope to soon have a good, dependable set of commentaries on the New Testament.

I do not want to conclude without a personal observation or two that comes from the very depth of my heart. It is an honor for me to believe that James Yates is my friend. No one’s friendship is regarded more highly. Ten years ago, I, with the able assistance of my son Alan and the co-labor of my wife Frances, agreed to manage the business of Guardian of Truth Foundation. The success we have had has not come just from our labors, but from the cooperative planning and unwavering support given to Alan and me by our president, Fred Pollock, our editor Mike Willis, and for the past eight years, every other member of our board. James Yates has been a vital part of that board. He is not a “yes” man. He would be rightly offended if he were so regarded. I forth-rightly say, however, that I have never had, and never expect to have, greater support and encouragement than what he has given Alan and me in managing the business of this company. James, one reason we love you is for what you have done for us. May God bless you and your lovely wife, Mildred.

This plaque was presented to James and Mildred Yates by the Guardian of Truth Foundation in a private ceremony in Tampa, Florida.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 14-15
February 17, 1994

By Harry R. Osborne

An interesting debate is raging in modem society over animal rights. It has promise of being a virtual “theater of the absurd.” On the one side, the animal-rights activists are claiming the use of animals to benefit humans is “morally wrong.” Among those on the other side are a group of scientists doing medical research using animals. Many of these scientists accept the theory of evolution and are trying to justify the use of animals to benefit humans as “morally right.”

Now, here is the problem  the animal-rights advocates accept the implications of the general theory of evolution which say that humans and animals are equally the mere chance results of the evolutionary process. Thus, these activists say it is just as immoral to kill or harm an animal as it is to kill or harm a human because there is no discernable difference in them as living creatures. Many of the scientists in medical research accept the same theory regarding the origin of all life and have scoffed at Bible believers who view man as uniquely created with supremacy over the animals by God. How can these evolutionists show the moral right of one product of chance to kill another product of chance? Indeed, this debate will test the very basis of how a secular society can establish what is morally right and wrong while denying the existence of a divine Creator with a revealed will in Scripture.

A few years ago, the focus was on the cruelty of trapping animals to satisfy the extravagant desires of the fur consuming public. Now, the vocal animal-rights cause is denying that man may legitimately use animals for any kind of clothing (including leather shoes), for food, in medical research or in medical treatment that saves human lives. Many animal-rights activists in recent years have clearly stated the basis for their objections to the use of animals in satisfying human need. They have also made clear the extent of their aims.

Gary Francione is a law professor who files suits in animal-rights cases. He views medical research resulting in animal suffering as unjustifiable even if the research brings a cure for cancer in humans. He concludes, “I don’t believe it is morally permissible to exploit weaker beings even if we derive benefits” [quoted in Christianity Today (June 18, 1990), p. 19].

The most well-known name in the animal-rights movement is probably Ingrid Newkirk, director for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Newkirk founded PETA together with Alex Pacheco in 1980. In 1985, the organization had only 8,000 members. Over the next five years, membership exploded to a level of about 300,000. Newkirk unashamedly declares that there is no moral difference in taking the life of an animal or a human, exclaiming that all have the same feelings. She said, “When it comes to feelings, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” [Forbes (March 20, 1989), p. 44]. Newkirk and a staff of 65 self-proclaimed “vegans” run PETA. They are radical vegetarians who abhor the use of all animal products including leather, meat, wool, milk, or medicine derived through animal research. Newkirk’s edibility test is, “If it screams and runs away when you go after it, don’t.”

Among that staff is Mary Beth Sweetland, an insulin-dependent diabetic, who takes insulin containing animal products twice a day. She defends this seemingly hypo-critical practice by saying, “I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.” How about that for logic?

In August 1988, Harper’s magazine printed the record of a forum on animal-rights (43-52). When the hypothetical possibility was raised of implanting a pig’s heart to save a human baby’s life, one activist abruptly rejected such as wrong. The activist said the baby’s parents should be made to care about the pig and child equally. Another person in the discussion said, “I don’t want to change [the parents’] reaction. I want human beings to care about babies!” Ingrid Newkirk (head of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) responded, “Like racism or sexism, that remark is pure speciesism!” In recent years, the implanting of baboon hearts to save humans has taken this discussion out of the theoretical realm and into open discussion.

The term “speciesism” was coined by Peter Singer in his book, Animal Liberation, which is the foundational treatise of the animal-rights movement. It argues that there is no logical basis upon which to contend human beings are more important than “other animals.” Singer said, “It can no longer be maintained by anyone but a religious fanatic that man is the special darling of the universe or that other animals were created to provide us with food, or that we have divine authority over them, and divine permission to kill them.” Such ridicule for biblical principles is typical of the leaders in the animal-rights cause.

Michael Fox (director of the Center for the Respect of Life and Environment at the Humane Society of the United States) expressed it this way:

There are no clear distinctions between us and animals. Animals communicate, animals have emotions, animals can think. Some thinkers believe that the human soul is different because we are immortal, and that just becomes completely absurd [quoted in Christianity Today (June 18, 1990), p. 19].

The Humane Society with which Mr. Fox is associated previously centered on the worthy goal of preventing needless cruelty to animals, a goal well in keeping with the principle of humans as good stewards of the animal world. Now, however, it has been caught up in the extremes of animal-rights activism recently going so far as to denounce bacon and eggs as “the breakfast of cruelty” [Forbes (March 20, 1989), p. 43].

Ironically, the animal-rights activists tell us that humans are not to assume a special place with respect to animals, yet their solutions demand that we do so. It is clear that animals eat other animals without being accused of “speciesism” or “cruelty.” However, they say we must step in with the unique responsibility of treating animals better than they treat each other. Why?

Instead of raising the status of animals to the level of humans, why would it not be just as logical to lower the status of humans to the level of animals? If there is no distinction between humans and “other animals,” why react with any more concern when one “human animal” kills another “human animal” than to “other animals” killing each other? In The New Republic (March 12, 1990), Robert Wright noted this saying, “. . . the logic used by the animal rights activists turns out to play into the hands of the Adolf Hitlers of the world no less than the Albert Schweitzers” (26).

How have we gotten into such a confused mess? Our secular society has largely rejected the authority of God as revealed within the Scriptures. Many people are left with an emotional reaction that values human life and purpose over animal life and purpose, without the basis for the logical foundation of that reaction. When the biologist who believes that all species are merely the chance products of evolution tries to justify the use of “other animals” by humans, what rational basis can he give? He says that animal research must be allowed to benefit man, but that merely begs the question. If both humans and animals are chance products of evolution, the value of one can be no greater than the other. The consequences of the evolutionists’ argument has come back to haunt them.

The Bible has the only rational basis for such values  they are the result of divine order in creation. They were dictated from the owner and creator of all life, God, to his creatures. Thus, God had the right to impose his law. God clearly dictated his order:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (Gen. 1:26).

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas (Ps. 8:5-8).

This movement is based upon the rejection of God’s order revealed within his word. Given the radical bent of the current administration in Washington, the effects of this movement are sure to grow stronger. It threatens values clearly taught by God. Attempts to answer it through the presuppositions of secular humanism will prove futile. An answer is clear, however, in Bible-rooted truth!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 12-13
February 17, 1994

By Dan Madrigal

Recently, pro basketball star Michael Jordan’s father James was murdered by two young men. Needless to say this event became the impetus for much talk and analysis about a great many things. I want to take the opportunity to do the same, but also to make some biblical observations as well.

The Rise of Violence

Many people have grown concerned about the rise of violence in our society and rightfully so. No one with his eyes open could deny that we live in a time where becoming a victim is a very high possibility no matter where you live. Mr. Jordan was murdered while resting in his car on a rural North Carolina road. I don’t know what it’s like generally speaking in rural North Carolina, but I do know what it is like in Chicago having worked with an inner-city Chicago church for the past four years. I know that there is no way in this world that I would pull my car over and park it to rest on any Chicago street. I don’t even like stopping at some street corners for the red light because of what could happen. Yet, I would probably be comfortable doing so in rural North Carolina. At least I would have been a few weeks ago. Murder, car-jacking, and general all around mayhem is par for the course these days. You probably already know what the lead stories were on this evening’s local news. You got it, murder. If you think car-jacking is bad consider that the twelve-year-old son of one of our members was approached at gun point the other day by another boy, who demanded that he give up his bike.

We know that it is no surprise to us that more crime exists in this country now than at any other time. It is probably no secret as to the root causes. The philosophy that we must use non aggressive methods to deter aggressors has become the practice of choice by many sectors of our society. For example, during the recent basketball championship games in Chicago, Chicago Police Superintendent Matt Rodriguez went on television in public service announcements pleading with the fine citizens of Chicago not to do bad things when the Bulls win the final game. Rather, he should have demanded peaceful celebrations and strongly warned that offenders would be prosecuted swiftly and decisively. Then he should back it up with swift and decisive prosecution. The problem is that even the Superintendent of Police is constrained by legal technicalities that handicap the police.

Consider that God said, “For, the lips of a ruler are to speak the Word of God; and his mouth should not betray justice” (Prov. 16:10). Judges are rulers who are to “detest wrongdoing,” for government is “strengthened through righteousness” (Prov. 16:12-15). “When a ruler, executes judgment, he scatters away all evil” (Prov. 20:8). In the New Testament we are told that “governors … are sent . . . to punish those who do wrong” (1 Pet. 2;14). And rulers do not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13:1-4). That is if they use it at all.

The Sanctity of Life

There no doubt will be countless people asking the age old question of “why?” Why did this have to happen to Michael Jordan’s father. I have had to do so too. I also wonder if these two young men who snuffed out Mr. Jordan’s life would have actually done so had they known who he was. I have to believe that these young men were probably Michael Jordan fans. They probably have Michael Jordan paraphernalia, or at least Chicago Bulls souvenirs in their homes. Yet, when they were able to detach and disengage themselves from the person that they were killing, it made it easier to carry out their evil deed. It seems that we are increasingly attempting to put a price tag on life. If the person is popular, rich and attractive it is a worse crime than if the person was obscure and unattractive.

The act of random murder, as it contributes to the rise of violence is in itself symptomatic of something very wrong in our society. When we do not punish by death those who snuff out another’s life, as a society we are sending the signal that human life is no more valuable than a loaf of bread. When we as a society begin to marginalize the value of human life, it sends the signal that some human life is more important than other human life. Which is exactly what has occurred with abortion, and now euthanasia ala Dr. Death, Jack Kevorkian. The arguments used for abortion often take on monetary terms. It costs less to abort than to support another person on the public dole. At this rate, we may well improve our economic mess by euthanizing the children that are on public assistance. The devaluing of human life is at the center of the storm of violence and until we as a society repent and turn back to the Bible as the basis by which we view life, things will not improve much. Job stated it well while praising God, “Have you not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? You have clothed me with skin and flesh, and have fenced me with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and favor, and your visitation has preserved my spirit” (Job 10:10-12).

Parental Influence

Perhaps the most talked about aspect of Mr. Jordan’s death was his life; particularly as he influenced his son Michael. There was immediate commentary by most people in the media about how influential he was in shaping and molding his famous son. The Chicago Sun Times reported how Mr. Jordan years ago built a half basketball court and later a whole court to provide a place for his son and other neighborhood boys to play where he could “keep an eye on him.” What I believe is significant about this is that you just can’t argue with what works. I wonder how careful the parents of Mr. Jordan’s killers were in watching them? I believe that it is safe to say that they didn’t give the same care and attention to their sons as Mr. Jordan did to his. Can we not agree that this is one of the major causes of rising crime. Parents are just not engaged with what their children are doing, and are ignorant of what influences are at work in their children’s lives.

Many social engineers have for years ridiculed parents who are too much of an influence on their own children. They say that children should be reared with as little parental manipulation as possible. According to the “Educators” children need to become autonomous. You see, according to the “experts” too much parental “control” can stifle psychological growth. Parents who strongly influence their children are labeled as misfits. They call this “indoctrination.” One of Donahue’s shows last fall at-tempted to do just that. He had several families on, all from deeply religious and traditional backgrounds. One family was orthodox Jew, another Mormon, and still another “Fundamentalist Christian.” Of course he also had avail-able his expert who normally deprograms cult members. During one of the exchanges Donahue’s expert asked the Fundamentalist’s son to name him one area in which he was different than his dad. This exchange was preceded by footage of the father preaching, and then the son preaching on a street corner. The intent was obviously to suggest that something was “dysfunctional” in this family if the son was just like his father. Yet, the comparisons between Michael Jordan and his father waxed eloquent. Recently, the cable channel VH 1 has been urging its young viewers to “Don’t Be Like Your Parents.”

Brethren, we can be doing everything that is within our power to bring our children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We can be striving to heed Leslie Diestelkamp’s warning to “Be careful, you’re bending that twig.” We can be striving to mold our children into responsible, God fearing people, but there are other forces working in the opposite direction. Do not fail to consider your children’s classroom either. Nevertheless, we must be true to God in our responsibilities as parents. We must be vigilant in this responsibility, even if it means being viewed as radical. We must take the reigns of influence away from the humanist and social engineers and educators of our children and become godly parents.

My children may never grow up to be superstars. They may never succeed at obtaining great wealth and popularity either. I only pray that my children will grow up to be super in the eyes of God. I pray that they know God and that God knows them. I pray that they are rich toward God and lay up treasures in heaven. And if this is what becomes of my influence over the heritage that God has blessed me with, then praise be unto God and not unto men.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 1
March 3, 1994