Truth Magazine

By Tim Mize

Let us think for a moment about this truth and its significance, that Christ died for our sins “according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).

This stress on scriptural backing goes back to the earliest gospel preaching. Those early audiences were skeptical. As they saw it, this Jesus was a nobody, a peasant man from a peasant town. He had wandered about as a popular preacher and healer, and had raised the hopes of some, but he had died a failure, executed by the Romans on a cross.

One might wonder how the apostles were able to persuade anyone. And yet they were, and with great success. They were able to show that a humiliated, dying Christ was actually the will of God. This they did by pointing to two things, that God had raised him from the dead, and that the scriptures themselves teach that the Christ must suffer.

Those first hearers accepted the authority of scripture. And they believed already in its promises of a blessed hope for Israel. More surprising would have been this suggestion that according to the scriptures, these hopes are fulfilled through so humbled a Christ as this. The apostles encouraged them to search the scriptures to see that it is so (Acts 17:2f, l Of).

To what scriptures did they point in their support? They pointed to those that depict the righteous in their sufferings (such as Pss. 22 and 69). If such things are true of the righteous, how much more of Christ, the Righteous One? They pointed to those that foretell specific episodes surrounding his life and death (for example, Zech. 11:12-13; 12:10; Ps. 69:21; Isa. 53:9). They held up Isaiah 53, which prophesies clearly of the suffering and dying of the Servant of God. And they cited those that speak of the resurrection of Christ (Ps. 16:10).

Truly, Christ died “according to the scriptures.” Let’s understand not only the fact, but the significance of this. If Christ died according to the scriptures, then God must have a plan that he has been working out through the ages. God does have a plan. It involves a blessed destiny for us, his people. It is a plan that is often hidden in its workings, but that he has always had, has always been working out, and even now pursues. From time to time God has uncovered it and allowed humanity to see it at work. The death and resurrection of Christ, foretold and testified of in scripture, stands as the supreme and climactic exhibition of God’s on-going, redemptive work for us (Acts 2:23; 4:28; Gal. 4:4f).

In a world of whirlwind change and unrelenting trouble, we need to hear this gospel. We need to hear that God has a plan that overarches and overrules all things. And we need to be reassured that this same divine plan that displayed itself in the cross is governing all things toward our happy end.

The death of our Savior was no accident, no mistake, and no afterthought. It was planned and worked out by God to demonstrate his love and work for our redemption. We can only wonder at what further demonstrations lie ahead.

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

By Pat Donahue

After defining his proposition, Mr. Cockrell begins his first affirmative article by asserting “that baptism is to declare that a believer in Jesus Christ has already experienced salvation.” I’ve heard many Baptist preachers assert this same thing, but I haven’t heard one (including now Mr. Cockrell) give a verse that substantiates the assertion. Mr. Cockrell, could you please give us a verse in your next speech that teaches that baptism only shows that one is saved? I am not asking for one that teaches that works demonstrate our faith (James 2:14-26), but for one that teaches that baptism demonstrates that we are already saved.

Mr. Cockrell’s Prevailing Argument

Mr. Cockrell presents seven arguments to prove his proposition that salvation occurs at the point of faith before water baptism. Most of these arguments can be summed up by the argument that he makes in the fourth paragraph of his article. The argument is basically: (1) salvation is predicated upon faith; (2) faith precedes baptism; (3) therefore, salvation precedes baptism. I will deal with this argument in two ways.

First, I will show that if this argument were true, then by the same reasoning, salvation could be shown to precede faith, and even repentance, therefore ruling out these two conditions as being necessary to salvation. The reader should notice the following parallel argument: (1) salvation is predicated upon repentance (2 Cor. 7:10; Lk. 13:3; Acts 2:38; 11:18; 17:30; 2 Pet. 3:9; Lk. 15:7); (2) “repentance always precedes faith” (according to Milburn Cockrell, paragraph 3); (3) therefore salvation precedes faith (and is therefore not at the point of faith). Similarly: (1) salvation is predicated upon hearing (Jn. 5:25; Isa. 55:3); (2) hearing precedes faith and repentance (Rom. 10:17); (3) therefore salvation precedes both faith and repentance, and occurs at the point of hearing the gospel!

Mr. Cockrell’s application of this argument using Luke 8:12; John 3:15; 6:47; 3:18; 8:24; 5:24; and 6:35 contradicts the many plain passages teaching that baptism is necessary to salvation, for example, Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21. After showing clearly that his argument cannot be true in the previous paragraph, now let me explain what Mr. Cockrell’s verses are saying in a way that doesn’t contradict the baptism passages. The Bible frequently uses a figure of speech called a “synecdoche.” The Random House College Dictionary defines “synecdoche” as “a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part.” An every day example of a synecdoche is if a farmer were to say that he had “twenty `head’ of cattle,” he would not mean that he just had the heads of the cows, but that he had twenty whole cows (the word “head” would be a part of the cow standing for the whole cow).

Biblical examples of synecdoches include Acts 2:42, where the phrase “breaking of bread” refers to the whole of the Lord’s supper (both the eating of bread and the drinking of the fruit of the vine) and Genesis 46:27, which uses the word “soul” (“all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten”) to refer to the whole of the person: body, soul, and spirit. Some biblical examples important to our discussion are Acts 11:18 and 2 Peter 3:9, which both use repentance as a synecdoche, for the whole of man’s required response to the gospel (repentance is also used in the non-synecdoche sense in Acts 2:38 and 3:19), and John 5:25 which uses hearing as a synecdoche for the whole of man’s required response to the gospel (or else all a person has to do to be saved is hear the gospel).

This figure of speech, synecdoche, is found in Mr. Cockrell ‘s proof texts: Luke 8:12; John 3:15; 6:47; 3:18; 8:24: 5:24; and 6:35. The word “believeth” in these verses stands for more than just mental belief (“to think to be true; to be persuaded of; to credit, place confidence in” Thayer), it also stands for the other things that “confidence in” would demand (like repentance and baptism). This is complete faith (James 2:22) or “saving faith.” Complete faith includes everything that the Bible states as being necessary to being saved, or as one Baptist put it, “If Scripture speaks of something as necessary for eternal life, that `something’ must be part of true belief.”

Luke 7:48, 50

This principle learned answers all of Mr. Cockrell’s seven arguments, except argument 2. In argument 2, Mr. Cockrell claims that since the woman who washed Jesus’ feet in Luke 7:36-50 was forgiven of her sins without baptism, the same will be done for us today. First of all, we don’t know for sure that she hadn’t been baptized by John the Baptist. But even if she hadn’t been baptized (I assume she had not), that still wouldn’t help Mr. Cockrell, because this lady lived under a different covenant than we do. Notice that this pardon occurred before the “great commission” of Mark 16:16 (requiring baptism) was even given. This lady didn’t need to be baptized for basically the same reason that Moses and a host of other Old Testament children of God didn’t need to be baptized; that is, the New Testament law had not come into effect yet. Hebrews 9:15-17 reads, “And for this cause he (Jesus) is the mediator of the new testament. . . For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator (Jesus). For a testament is of force after men (Jesus) are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator (Jesus) liveth.”

1 Peter 3:21

In connection with Luke 7:48, 50, Mr. Cockrell asks “if Mr. Donahue can cite a verse which says: `Thy baptism hath saved thee: go in peace. ‘ How would 1 Peter 3:21 do, Mr. Cockrell? This verse reads, “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.” This verse shows that the physical salvation of eight souls by water prefigures our spiritual salvation by water baptism. This verse does not teach that baptism is the earning basis for our salvation (the death of Christ is the earning basis), but it does teach that our salvation is conditioned upon baptism. This verse says that “baptism doth also now save us.” My opponent teaches that baptism does not save us. Who will the reader believe, the Bible or my opponent?

Baptism Of Erring Christian Not Required

Mr. Cockrell’s last argument is that since the Bible teaches that once a person is born again, if he sins, he can be forgiven without being rebaptize, why can’t he be forgiven without baptism the first time? I can answer that argument by simply asking Mr. Cockrell, “Could God require different conditions for the alien sinner to be forgiven than the erring Christian, if he wanted to?” Certainly he could. God can do anything he wants to, and that is exactly what he has done, require “water” baptism to obtain the forgiveness of sins in connection with being “born again” (Jn. 3:3,5), but not require it on the part of the erring Christian desiring forgiveness (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9).

Does Salvation Come at the Point of Faith?

After finishing up his seven arguments, Mr. Cockrell states that Christ “repeatedly declared that the believer in him is saved at the point of faith.” This is the crux of the proposition. Where does Jesus state that salvation is at the point of faith? We agree that salvation is by faith. But saying that salvation is by faith, and saying that salvation is at the point of faith are two very different things. The proof is Hebrews 11:30: “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.” Did you notice that the walls fell down by faith, but they didn’t fall down at the point of faith. They fell down only after the Israelites met God’s conditions by faith? Similarly, we are the children of God by faith after we meet God’s condition of baptism (Gal. 3:26-27). The question is not, “Are we saved by faith?” The question is, “When are we saved by faith?”

After answering Mr. Cockrell’s arguments in defense of his proposition, I will now present three arguments that prove conclusively that salvation does not come at the point of faith, but instead, comes afterwards. These arguments deny any argument that says that passages like John 3:36 and John6:47, for example, show that salvation occurs at the point of faith, thereby excluding baptism.

Romans 10:13 undeniably teaches that salvation is conditioned upon calling on the name of the Lord, which, according to v. 14, clearly comes after the belief spoken of in the context. Since a person must “call on the name of the Lord” to be saved, and since calling on the name of the Lord comes after believing in Jesus, then salvation comes after a person believes in Jesus.

Romans 10:10 teaches that salvation is conditioned upon a “confession” with the “mouth” (“with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”) which, of course, comes after the belief of the context. Again, salvation comes after belief.

Notice also that Acts 9:5-6 shows that Saul believed on the road to Damascus (something I don’t think Mr. Cockrell will deny), but Acts 22:16 (“… and be baptized, and wash away thy sins. . .”) clearly shows that Saul was still in his sins at least three days later (Acts 9:9). This again shows that a person’s sins are not washed away the moment he believes. In this case, the forgiveness of sins occurred at least three days after Saul believed in Jesus.

Besides teaching that the washing away of Saul’s sins occurred after he believed, Acts 22:16 also teaches that the washing away of sins occurred when Saul was baptized, and not before. Indeed, this passage teaches that if any alien sinner wants his sins washed away, he must be baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:12-13

Another passage that proves that baptism is necessary for salvation is 1 Corinthians 1:12-13. Paul teaches in vv. 12-13 that for a person to be “of Paul,” Paul would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would have had to have been baptized in the name of Paul. This implies that for a person to be “of Christ” (that is, to be a Christian), Christ would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would have had to have been baptized in the name of Christ. There is no way around this. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 proves that to be “of Christ,” to be saved, one would have had to have been baptized in the name of Christ.

Conclusion

The Bible clearly teaches that salvation does not come at the point of faith, but that instead, it comes when one is baptized. The question becomes, “Are we willing to accept the plain import of the Bible passages?”

Answers to Mr. Cockrell’s Questions

1. The Bible does not instruct us to rebaptize one who is in sin, but who is already born again; instead it instructs the erring Christian to repent and pray (Acts 8:22). We are only born again once, and “water” baptism is connected with that process (Jn. 3:5).

2. You don’t “unbaptize” a Christian when he sins, but his sin does cause him to be separated from God (Isa. 59:1-2; Rom. 6:23), that is, to fall from grace (Gal. 5:4).

3. A person who is already born again can be forgiven without baptism (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9), so the answer is “yes” to your question if you mean “a man” who has already been born again. But the answer to your question is “no,” if you mean by “a man,” one who has not already been born again.

Questions for Mr. Cockrell

1. Why does John 5:25 not prove that all an alien sinner must do in order to be saved is “hear” the gospel?

2. Do Acts 2:21 (“And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved”) and Romans 10:13 teach that it is necessary for a sinner to “call upon the name of the Lord” to be saved, that is, to become a Christian? _ Yes _ No

3. Does Romans 10:9-10 teach that a sinner must “confess” Christ to be saved, that is, to become a Christian? _ Yes _ No

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 18-20
March 3, 1994

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