Response to a Baptist Preacher

INTRODUCTION
I was recently introduced to an internet tract written by “Pastor” David Martin of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Bartlett, Tennessee. The title of his tract, as is mentioned in the title of this tract, is “Common Sense Questions A ‘Church of Christ’ Preacher Cannot Clearly Answer.”

Mr. Martin does not offer anything “new” in the questions that he sets forth. In fact, he offers the exact same arguments that most Baptists have been leveling at the Lord’s church for years. However, since he does offer “the same old thing” I thought that is would be a good idea to list all of his questions, along with their answers, in a single work; thus the production of this tract. My hope is that it will provide a good source of reference material for faithful Christians when they come in contact with friends, family, or acquaintances who may be Baptist. Also, to our Baptist’s friends, my prayer is that this tract will cause you to examine the Scriptures a little more closely as you note the answers given in response to Mr. Martin’s questions. Remember, in the end it must be to the Scriptures we turn in seeking our answers to spiritual questions, not a mere man.

The introduction to Mr. Martin’s tract, which I will not list here for the simple interest of space, is interesting in that it is filled with sarcasm. In it he refers to many of “our” doctrines as “aberrant”, calls us a “deceptive and dangerous cult”, speaks of our “screwball theology”, claims that we must hop “all over the pond” so as not to “sink in the mire” of our “false doctrines”, warns his readers not to “wind up being baptized in the Lake of Fire by accepting a waterworks based plan of salvation and rejecting salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ.” You know, it has been my experience that when a person needs to resort to insults and name-calling before he ever begins his teaching in an effort to prejudice the minds of his readers, then you can generally rest assured that he does not have much truth in his arsenal. We will find such to be the case in this situation as well.

Through these questions Mr. Martin refers to members of the Lord’s church as “Campbellites.” Many members of the Lord’s church have been called by this name before. I remember many years ago when my father was doing a “call-in” radio program in Louisville, Kentucky, a man referred to him as a “Campbellite.” Dad asked him to name just one thing that he teaches or practices that originated with Alexander Campbell. The man responded with Acts 2:38! Let me assure you that if you are a member of the church Jesus died to establish nothing that you teach or practice originated with man. Rather, it is of Divine origin. If this is not true of you, then you are not a part of our Lord’s church.

I can think of three reasons why a person would refer to us by that name. First, they honestly and truly believe that we receive our teaching and doctrine from the writings of Alexander Campbell. I have known folks who believed this and, when shown the truth of the matter, readily accepted it and stopped. Secondly, they have been taught that one’s who hold to certain doctrines (such as baptism for remission of sins, the possibility of falling from grace, a working faith, etc.) are known as “Campbellites.” I have also met these folks. They too, if they are honest, will stop when shown the truth. Third, and by far the most sinister, there are those who call us this for no other reason but to stir up prejudice in the minds of their hearers. Generally the term is used condescendingly and sneeringly. Unfortunately, they are not usually all that concerned with the truth of the matter and will continue to refer to us as “Campbellites” in this prejudicial way even when they know that they have no right to do so. I will leave it up to you to decide how and why Mr. Martin uses this term throughout his writing.

In the interest of fairness, and so as not to misrepresent Mr. Martin in any way, I will be listing his questions precisely as he wrote them in his tract. The entirety of his questions will be italicized so as to distinguish them from my responses. Also, he has used bold letters for certain phrases in his questions. Please understand that I make these words bold only because he did and, as was previously mentioned, I am recording his questions exactly as he wrote them.

RESPONSE TO MR. MARTIN'S QUESTIONS

Question 1- “According to the history of the ‘Church of Christ,’ God used certain men to ‘restore’ the New Testament Church in the early 1800’s. Where was the true New Testament Church before then? Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?"

Let us understand something at the outset: the New Testament church has existed since the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 when Peter exercised his right to be the first to use the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:19) in the first gospel sermon preached in Jerusalem. The church has been in existence since then and was found wherever a group of Christians agreed to gather together to worship and serve the Lord the way that He instructed in the pages of Scripture.
One thing that I think people tend to forget is that the Lord never promised an unbroken string of success for the church. He never promised that it would continue to flourish as it did there at the very beginning and He never promised that there would not be dark and difficult days for His people. In fact, some things jump out at you as you read the words of the Holy Spirit to Christians. For instance, “In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” (Hebrews 12:4). Consider also Jesus’ words to the church in Pergamum: “I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you hold fast My name, and you did not deny My faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.” Clearly it was not all going to be sunshine and smooth sailing for the church and such has been the case throughout the years. However, where did Jesus every promise that it would be these things? He did, however, promise that His word would never pass away (Matthew 24:35). The church has and always will exist within the seed of the truth, which is the Word of God. Mr. Martin writes from a very sectarian standpoint when he speaks of the “history of the Church of Christ.”

When he refers to the 1800’s he is, as many know, referring to what has come to be known as the Restoration Movement. A desire to accept the Bible alone as the sole authority for all things religious swept across the country. Many churches abandoned their creeds and rules of faith to return to that sacred ground found only within the Scriptures. This led many to go back to the church of the first century. However, this movement certainly did not create the church of Christ. Yes, many churches were restored to New Testament Christianity in the 1800’s but the church was not established in the 1800’s.

Question 2- “If a “Church of Christ” elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will? Do I need Jesus and a Campbellite ‘Preacher’ in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus is not the only Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Corinthians 12:13) of salvation—the ‘Church of Christ’ preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus and the Holy Ghost?”

It is generally a very good idea to get your facts and information straight before you take on writing a tract that you intend for many to read. Mr. Martin seems to be having just a little difficulty making up his mind whether a person needs to be baptized by a “Church of Christ” elder or a “Campbellite preacher.” We will not waste time discussing the term “Campbellite” again. Let me just say that I have “grown up” in the church and have yet to come across the preacher or elder who makes the argument that unless baptism is administered by one of them it is not valid. Baptism is not about the one administering it.

I find it interesting that Mr. Martin claims, as many Baptists do, that to be baptized for the remission of one’s sins makes the one administering baptism a Mediator for that person’s salvation. Where in the entire Bible is such a thing even hinted at? Of course Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man because the Bible says that He is. However, the Bible does not say a thing about one taking the place of or joining Christ as Mediator when he administers baptism. Instead, we must rely on Mr. Martin and those like him to insert that little nugget of information. In fact, Scripture makes it quite clear that Deity is doing the operating in baptism (Colossians 2:11-13; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Peter 3:21).

As far as the Holy Spirit being the only Administer of salvation, I must admit that I am not wholly sure that I know what Mr. Martin is getting at. Since he did not explain and I do not intend to put words in his mouth, let me simply explain the verse that he used. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” “In one Spirit” means under the influence of one Spirit. That influence is found within the pages of Scripture.

Something else to chew on: why is it that the person who is baptizing becomes a Mediator and the one who delivers the Word, which must be believed if man is to be saved, is not? Mr. Martin claims that the “Church of Christ preacher” is performing a saving act on someone when he baptized them. In John 6:29, Jesus said, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” So if belief is a work that God requires, and Mr. Martin’s preaching causes someone to believe, has Mr. Martin performed a “saving act” as well? If one is a “saving act”, why isn’t the other? The truth is that the preacher of God’s Word (Romans 10:14-15) is no more replaces or joins Christ as Mediator then the one who administers baptism for the remission of sins. The simple fact is that such an argument requires man to insert into Scripture what God never put there. That is certainly not a business man needs to involve himself with (Revelation 22:18).

Question 3- “If the water pipes broke and the baptistery was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up? If I were to die before then, would I go to hell? If obedience to water baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, then I would.”

In Acts 8, beginning in verse 25, we have recorded for us the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. Verses 35-39 say: “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.” Surely Mr. Martin is aware of this account and must know that baptism in the first century was done in whatever body of water happened to be available for their use. Should we come to the building one day and an individual was there prepared to obey the gospel, yet a glance into the baptistery showed that it was “bone dry”, we would simply head directly to the first available body of water. I can think of several that are more than sufficient for the task within walking distance from where I sit right now. Let us be eternally grateful that our obedience to God does not rely on the schedule of our plumber!

Perhaps you have heard the question phrased something like this: “What if there just isn’t any water around them?” It is amazing that some can become so subjective and prejudiced in their thinking that common sense seems to flee them at times. How, it may be asked, are those people living of there is not any water? Water is an essential element of life. There is no doubt but that this is the reason God has given us so much of yet. Certainly some places have it more abundantly than others but there is not a people anywhere in this world living without water nearby. Remember, Philip and the eunuch were traveling through the desert and they found water.

As far as Mr. Martin’s last statement is concerned, in which he stated that if baptism were necessary for the forgiveness of sins then not to receive would consign one to hell; let me simply say that I have absolutely no intention of ever finding that out! That very fear is one of the reasons I was baptized in the first place. In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter said: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” If this statement of Peter is true (and it most certainly is for he spoke through inspiration), then would not the opposite be true as well? If baptism “now saves you”, wouldn’t that mean that not being baptized does the opposite? If not, why not? Instead of trying to find a way out or around clear teaching of Scripture, why won’t people just stick with what it says? We know that is a safe course.

I would like to mention one other thing before moving on to the next question. Obviously the question that we have just discussed is a question founded on emotion and not Scripture. Doubtless Mr. Martin finds it horrifying and unthinkable that a person who claims to believe in the Lord could be lost eternally because he died in some horrible accident before he could reach the waters of baptism. I will not presume to speak for God in that instance and I will never dare claim that such a soul is safe. I hope and pray that it is but I cannot make that call. First of all, I am not God to say whose soul is safe and whose is not. Mr. Martin appears to have very little problem taking on that role and will, as we examine a later question, almost demand that we speak for God. (Question 8). Secondly, the only soul that I can really speak for is my own. Third, the Scriptures just do not deal in hypothetical situations. I did not find myself in that situation. Mr. Martin did not find himself in that situation. Thus, let us not worry about what God will do in whatever wild and unusual circumstances we can create. I see what God has told me to do and I am going to do it. That person who dies in an accident, though tragic, is not my responsibility—he is God’s. I am my responsibility.

Question 4- “If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to “lose my salvation” and go to hell after I have been baptized, the wouldn’t my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistery?!!—before I had a chance to sin so as to be lost again? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of heaven, isn’t that my best opportunity?”

Since the majority of these questions deal with baptism and will be answered fully as we continue, I will simply deal with the losing one’s salvation aspect of this question. Is it possible for one to fall away from Christ after their initial salvation? Yes (Read Hebrews 2:1-3; 3:12; 6:4-6; 10:26-32 as just a few examples).

Mr. Martin and those like him have it in their mind that if it is possible for one to fall from grace (The exact phrase found in Galatians 5:4, by the way) then a Christian can never know at any given time whether or not they are saved and what a terrifying life that must be. Once again we must rely on them to insert that into the Scriptures because God certainly never did. In fact, in 1 John 2:3-6, John said: “And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. Whoever says, ‘I know Him’ but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in Him: whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked.” Mr. Martin implies that we can never be absolutely sure of heaven unless we drown in the baptistery! If that were the case, I suppose that the Holy Spirit forgot to mention it to John! On the contrary, he asserts that we can know that we are saved and that by keeping His commandments and walking as Christ walked.

Mr. Martin may say, as some Baptists have said in the past, “That means that we have to walk sinless as Christ did and we cannot do that! Thus we are right back where we started. It would be best to drown in the baptistery!” Fortunately for the Christian, provision is made for those occasions when he sins and falls short of the glory of God. The Christian can receive forgiveness of his sins by repenting and confessing them to God. Is this something that we simply make up? On the contrary, it is precisely what the Scriptures teach for the Christian who has sinned. Acts 8:22 and 1 John 1:9 make this quite clear. Keep in mind that Simon was already a Christian (Acts 8:13) when Peter commanded him to repent of his sin there in Acts 8. What a truly wonderful thing that we can know whether or not we are saved and we can receive the forgiveness of our sins after baptism by repenting of them and confessing them to God!

Question 5- “If as a Christian I can so sin as to ‘lose my salvation,’ just what sin or sins will place me in such danger? Is it possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin, and become lost again? Please be specific and give clear Bible references.”

To answer this question we shall read 1 John 1:5-10. “This is the message we have heard from Him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with Him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.”

John really sets forth for us in plain language a simple way for us to know whether or not we truly are in fellowship with God. First, John reminds us that God is light and there is no darkness in Him at all. In other words, God is truth, pure and undefiled. Those who would proclaim doctrine contrary to this truth or those who live their lives contrary to this truth are in error, plain and simple. However, not even the most miniscule amount of error resides in God. In order for a person to have fellowship with God, and also with their fellow Christians, they must first understand this essential nature of God.

In verse 6 John said: “If we say we have fellowship with Him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” I have heard this verse explained before by those whose reasoning is similar to Mr. Martin’s that John, by beginning this verse with the word “if”, is simply setting forth a hypothetical situation that could never really happen in the case of the Christian. If that were true then I cannot help but wonder why the Holy Spirit would have wasted the space required to insert it? In fact, what John is doing is showing the impossibility of maintaining an intimate relationship with God while at the same time living a life characterized by sin, for “walk” here speaks of the one’s habitual practice in life.

As we move on to verse 7, we read: “But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” I do not question the idea that Christ’s blood continually cleanses the Christian. I believe that it is what the Scriptures teach, as seen here in verse 7. However, the Scriptural teaching about the continual cleansing of the Christian by the blood of Christ and what much of the religious world teaches concerning it are two very different things. Judging from the tone and content of Mr. Martin’s questions it is apparent that he would take the position that when one becomes a Christian not only are his past sins forgiven, but his future sins are forgiven as well before he ever commits them. Thus, in a very real sense, it is no longer really even possible for the Christian to commit sin. That is certainly not the position that John takes, not even in this very verse. John makes it clear that walking (lit. “keep on walking”) in the light means living a life of purity and holiness (1 John 2:15-17). It means living our lives within the parameters of the truth and God’s will for us (1 John 2:5-6). We do not have time or the space to discuss it, but all of 1 John is about this very thing!

In verse 8 we read: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” It is beyond argument that John is writing to Christians. Since this is the case, those to whom John wrote had already had their past, alien sins forgiven when they became Christians, thus he cannot be referring to their past state of guilt prior to his conversion. He must be referring to present sin, sin at the time that he wrote. Because of the weakness of our flesh, sin will always be a present concern and something we will always have to fight against. Sin will continually force us to look to the cleansing power of Jesus’ blood. Aware of this, John write, in 1 John 2:1: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

1 John 1:9 says: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Mr. Martin wonders what sin(s) will cause a person to lose their salvation. The answer is that any sin in which a person refuses to repent and lives a life characterized by that sin will cause them to fall and lose their salvation. We know this because we have seen that God is pure, unadulterated truth and there exists no darkness in Him at all. We know this because John told us that in order for Christ’s blood to cleanse us from all sin we must first walk in the light as He Himself is the in the light. Christ did not walk in the light sometimes; He walked in the light all the time.

As we conclude the answer to this question, let me say that this very cavalier approach to sin can only be maintained by those who stubbornly shut their eyes to the plain teaching of Scripture and experience, both their own and others. In fact, this erroneous position causes them to misunderstand and ignore the very nature of the One with whom they claim fellowship and communion. In Isaiah 59:11-12 we come across a people who were pleading for salvation. The problem was that these people were sinful and sinful people do not receive salvation. “We all growl like bears; we moan and moan like doves; we hope for justice, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far from us. For our transgressions are multiplied before You, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and we know our iniquities.”

Sin must never be treated as unimportant or, even worse, a non-issue. It separates a Christian from His God. It’s seriousness and importance is seen is God’s instructions to the Christian to separate from those who choose to walk in sin (2 Thessalonians 3:6-7, 14-15; 1 Corinthians 5:4-11), and to treat them like the rebellious sinners they have become.

Question 6- “If as a Christian I can fall and ‘lose my salvation,’ is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God ‘takes away’ my salvation, doesn’t that make Him an ‘Indian giver”? How could I ever know for sure that I was saved or lost?”

Let’s begin answering this question by reading Deuteronomy 30:15-18. The children of Israel were rapidly approaching the time when they would enter the Promised Land. Notice God’s words to them: “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in His ways, and by keeping His commandments and His statutes and His rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess.”

God had promised to give Israel the land of Canaan. This He did and they eventually possessed everything that He had promised to them (1 Kings 4:21). Later, however, the children of Israel would have taken from them what God had given due to their unbelief and disobedience (2 Kings 17:23; 25:21). I suppose that in Mr. Martin’s reasoning this would make God and “Indian giver.” I must admit that I am embarrassed for Mr. Martin that he would use such a phrase. His irreverent use of the term indicates pretty plainly that Mr. Martin considers the thought of giving only to take back entirely unfair. However, what Mr. Martin and those like him seem to always fail to realize is that God’s promises have been conditioned upon the continued belief and obedience of His people. While Mr. Martin may very well admit this as far as the Old Testament is concerned, his words in this question show plainly that he does not believe such to be the case as far as the New Testament and salvation is concerned.

Is it possible to fall away from God after one’s initial salvation? The Hebrew writer certainly thought so and actually used those very words in Hebrews 3:12. “Take care, brothers. Lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” It would be very interesting to hear Mr. Martin explain why this verse does not actually mean what it very clearly says. One cannot fall back on the old “hypothetical situation” argument for the writer begins by urging them to “take care.” There is absolutely no reason to “take care” that something doesn’t happen to you if it cannot happen in the first place. Also, the Holy Spirit uses the third chapter of Hebrews, beginning inverse 5 and gong through the remainder of the chapter, as an illustration of the punishment for unbelieving and disobedient Israel to warn the Hebrew Christians that the very same thing could happen to them if they did not straighten up. If it was not possible for them to fall away in the first place then it certainly appears that the Holy Spirit once again wasted a good of space for no apparent reason. It could also very well be that Mr. Martin may argue that the folks under consideration here were “never really converted in the first place.” In other words, they were never really Christians. That explanation will not hold up either for the verse warns against falling away from the living God. Let us use some common sense here: how would one go about falling away from the living God if they were never with the living God to begin with? As a parallel, how do you fall off a chair you were never standing on in the first place? No, the verse means precisely what it says and an individual with a true and honest heart unfettered by prejudice can see that.

The remainder of this question we discussed in some detail in answering the last question. If a Christian wishes to be forgiven of sin then that Christian need only repent and ask God for forgiveness of that sin (Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9). God not only can forgive, but He wants to do so. Some have referred to this as the “second law of pardon.” Once more Mr. Martin falls back on the “If one can lose their salvation then they can never truly know that they are saved” nonsense. I call it nonsense because the Bible simply does not teach it. In fact, as we noted a few questions ago, the exact opposite is true. Would you know that you are saved? The Holy Spirit, working through John, gives us a very simple way to determine that in 1 John 2:3-5. Keep God’s commandments! Regardless of what Mr. Martin and those like him claim, it truly is that simple.

Question 7- “After becoming a Christian, are there any sins that will put me beyond the ‘point of no return’ so that I cannot regain salvation? What sin or sins will put me in such jeopardy, so that, after becoming a Christian, I would be doomed to hell without any recourse? Please be specific and give me clear Bible references.”

As we have noticed several times already, any sin that a Christian refuses to repent of (1 John 1:5-10) would cause them to stand condemned before God and, were they too rebelliously refuse to repent of that sin all of their lives, certainly seem to doom them to hell (Hebrews 10:26-31). Such irreverence and rebellion toward God would make them, just as Samuel said that it did of Saul, God’s enemy (1 Samuel 28:16).

Question 8- “If I committed some sin—whether in thought, word, or deed, one minute before a fatal car crash—would I go to hell if I did not have time to repent of it? And, please, do not just say that it is up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference.”

This question could very easily be turned right around on Mr. Martin. If a person were to die in some horrible accident one minute before he could “accept Jesus into his heart as his personal Savior”, would he go to hell? I have very little patience for such silly hypothetical questions like this. And Mr. Martin’s arrogance is stunning in his statement, “And, please, don’t just say that it’s up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference.”

I’d like to say something at this point: How often have Baptist preachers been asked to show just one passage that says anything at all about “accepting Christ into your heart as your personal Savior and you will be saved?” These responses have been sent to Mr. Martin some time ago with a request to show me that passage. Not surprisingly, no response has been forthcoming. Thus far, not a single Baptist has ever been able to find such a verse. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for verses to prove one’s position; in fact, one should demand such verses (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1). However, one ought to be willing to provide what he demands of others. If he cannot provide them, then he ought to stop teaching what he cannot prove.

Now let’s get back to yet another hypothetical situation presented by Mr. Martin. I have absolutely no problem at all in leaving this question entirely in God’s hands, despite Mr. Martin’s request, for a couple of reasons. First of all, I simply do not have the power or authority to send a person to their ultimate reward, be it heaven or hell. Let me also say that I do not have the courage(?) to presume to do so. Secondly, there is a specific passage that shows that such a question is, in fact, entirely up to God. Psalm 3:7-8 says: “Arise, O Lord! Save me, O my God! For you strike all my enemies on the cheek; you break the teeth of the wicked. Salvation belongs to the Lord; Your blessings be on Your people.”

The simple fact is that it is time for Mr. Martin and those like him to put away all of these hypothetical situations. Not only can they be thrown right back at them as we demonstrated at the beginning of this answer, but God has simply does not deal in hypothetical situations. Also, Mr. Martin and those like him need to stop “playing judge” in the place of God. Do what He says to do the way that He says to do it and stop trying to find ways around His Word.

Question 9- “Why does the ‘Church of Christ’ insist that their name is scriptural when it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible? The church is referred to as the ‘Church of God’ eight (8) times in the Bible, but never is it called the ‘church of Christ.’ The verse they use is Romans 16:16, but it doesn’t say ‘church of Christ.’ Where does the Bible call the church the ‘church of Christ?’"

The verse that Mr. Martin refers, Romans 16:16, says: “Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.” I am not sure whether or not Mr. Martin intends this question be a serious one. Yet there are those who have wondered the same thing so we will take a few moments to answer it. “churches of Christ” is the plural form of “church of Christ” just as “Christians” is the plural form of “Christian.” Thus, “church of Christ” is quite obviously a scriptural designation and a person would have to be just plain dishonest to deny that.

Is this the only scriptural designation for the church? Certainly not. Mr. Martin pointed out the designation “church of God.” He also could have mentioned the “church of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:29) and a few others. Perhaps Mr. Martin has come in contact with one of those members of the Lord’s church who claims that “church of Christ” is the only scriptural designation of the church. These folks, and you do run across them occasionally. Are just plain wrong and cannot in any way uphold such a claim from Scripture.

Now, having seen that “church of Christ” is a scriptural designation for the church, why would the church bear that name in the first place? The Bible sets forth many reasons but we will simply mention two. First of all, the church belongs to Christ. It is His church as is so clearly seen by His referring to it as “My church” in Matthew 16:18. Secondly, it is designated as the “church of Christ” because He is the Head over all things having to do with it. In Ephesians 1:22-23, we read: “And He put all things under His feet and have Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” The church that the Lord purchased with His blood is not a denomination. Because of this, it does not have any earthly headquarters as many denominations do, including many sects of the Baptist denomination. In a very real sense, one could say that the Lord’s church has its headquarters in heaven with the Lord Himself.

Why do you suppose the Baptist’s would style themselves after that moniker? It has been reasoned to me by various Baptists that John the Baptist baptized many of Jesus’ disciples and even Jesus Himself, thus they were made Baptists. If that were the case then they were made Baptists before there was ever a Baptist church! The fact is, every single time the term “Baptist” is used it always refers to John and no one else. It was clearly not used the way that Baptists use it today in referring to their denomination and its members. The truth of the matter is that followers of Christ were never called Baptists and the followers of John were never called Baptists. In fact, the Bible actually condemns human names for Christ’s church and its members (1 Corinthians 1:12; Acts 4:12). The term “Baptist” does not in any way exalt Christ. If the church was not established by John and it does not belong to John then why in the world would anyone want to call the church by his name?

Though it has never been argued to me specifically, I have been told that some Baptists claim that name because they practice baptism. If such is the case, it wouldn’t seem to make any more sense in naming a church after one of its practices then in naming it after John the Baptist.

Having said all of that, if a person joins a group whose teaching and practice is different from that found within the pages of Scripture, then I suppose that it does not really matter what they call themselves. After all, if you refuse to practice and teach what the Bible tells you to practice and teach, calling yourself after the name of Christ makes you no more a part of His church then it would if the atheist made the same claim.

Question 10- “If the ‘Church of Christ’ claims to worship God only as ‘authorized’ be scripture because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the ‘authority’ to use hymnals, pitch pipes, pews, and indoor baptisteries in their worship service? If the answer is that they are ‘aids to worship,’ where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitch pipe can be an ‘aid to worship’ for the song service in the ‘Church of Christ,’ then why can’t a piano be an ‘aid to worship’ for Baptists who may need more help in singing?’

This is a good and important question and I am glad that Mr. Martin asked it for it is one members of the church receive fairly often. Why doesn’t the Lord’s church use a piano, or any other mechanical instrument of music for that matter, in worship? Simply because the New Testament tells us to worship with the fruit of our lips and we are content to leave things where God left them (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 13:15; etc.).

Yet that is not really the question that Mr. Martin is asking, is it? He speaks of “aids to worship” which is a term that we use quite often. It is not a biblical term yet it is very much a biblical concept as we will demonstrate. Mr. Martin’s question delves into the realm of authority. Unfortunately, I do not have the space to present a detailed treatise on such a deep topic.However, a few words will be more than sufficient to answer Mr. Martin’s question.

He asks for authority for such things as hymnals, pitch pipes, pews, and indoor baptisteries. The answer is that the authority for these things is inherent in the command to worship (Hebrews 10:25), the command to do all things decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40), and in the fact that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Mr. Martin will doubtlessly deny all of this yet let’s take a moment and put a little thought into it. Where did the early church find authority to worship in people’s houses (Romans 16:5), in a school (Acts 19:9) in the Temple, etc.? They found it within the command to assemble and worship! The fact is that it does not matter where we worship, provided that it’s not in ungodly location, as long as we are doing it. Let me give you an Old Testament example most will be familiar with that really demonstrates how authority works. When Noah was instructed to build the ark he was told the type of wood to use, the breadth, height, and width is should be, and a few other details (Genesis 6:14-16). Yet the types of tools that he could use were left entirely up to him. Mr. Martin may as well ask where Noah found his authority to use any of his tools, as to ask us where we find our authority for pews and indoor baptisteries. The answer will be the same in both cases—they are but aids.

Let’s look at another example, this time from the New Testament. Usually when a question of this nature is asked people also mention lights. Let’s notice an event that took place in Acts 20. Paul arrived at Troas and, upon the first day of the week, gathered with the Christians there to worship and partake of the Lord’s Supper. He prolonged his speech until midnight and it became quite dark. How were the people to see Paul? How were they to follow along with him, perhaps even take notes? Verse 8 tells us how. “There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered.” They could see Paul and follow along with him because they were using lamps. These lamps in no way changed the nature of their worship. That, Mr. Martin, is an aid to worship.

What about pitch pipes and hymnals? Once more I would suggest to you that we find the authority for them within the command to sing in praise and to do so decently and in order. How are hymnals aids to worship? Suppose that the song leader stood up before the congregation and started singing a song that none of us knew the words or tune of. The whole thing would be a mess and serve no purpose but to confuse everyone in the assembly. What about the pitch pipe? The pitch pipe serves but one purpose and that is to make sure that the song leader knows the key note of the song. These things merely aid in worshipping decently and in order.

Mr. Martin claims that the piano does the same thing as the pitch pipe. Is there a difference? Well, the pitch pipe is used once by the song leader before the singing begins to get the correct note, the piano plays a melody throughout the entire course of the singing. One aids in worship while the other completely changes the nature of God’s command from sing to sing and play.

I’d like to make one more point in regards to this question. It doesn’t particularly matter how well a congregation sings. God is not looking for professional singers who never miss a note and always stay perfectly on pitch. He is looking for those who worship Him in song to do so with grace in their hearts. Fortunately for us the things that so impress man (the beauty of someone’s voice) do not impress God. Just as it was so many years ago in the case of David, God is concerned with the heart of man. If the heart is right, God is pleased.

Question 11- “The ‘Church of Christ’ teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder. Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one’s sins forgiven? Every time the phrase ‘for the remission of sins’ occurs it is speaking of the fact that sins have been forgiven previously! The Bible plainly teaches that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned upon repentance of sin and faith in Christ—never upon water baptism (Matthew 3:11; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 20:21; Romans 1:16; Romans 4:5; etc.). Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sin is linked with water baptism? When Christ made the statement in Matthew 26:28, ‘for the remission of sins,’ it had to be because sins had been forgiven all throughout the Old Testament! Christ shed His blood because God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before the Son of God came to ‘take away’ sins and to redeem us an pay the sin-debt with His own precious blood. How can one say that ‘for the remission of sins’ means ‘in order to obtain’ in light of the fact that God never uses the phrase in that sense? In the Old Testament God forgave sin on the basis of blood sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22)—the Old Testament saints had their sins remitted (i.e. forgiven) but they were not redeemed until Christ came and shed His blood at Calvary. Their sins were covered (Romans 4:7; Psalm 32:1), but the sinner was not cleared of his guilt (Exodus 34:7) until the Cross (Hebrews 10:4). Before Calvary, the sins of believers were pardoned, but they were not paid for (i.e. redeemed) until the crucifixion (see Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:12-15). When Jesus said, ‘It is finished,’ (John 19:30), all sin—past, present, and future—was paid for, and the plan of salvation was completed, so that ‘whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins’ (Acts 10:43). In Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven (at Calvary when Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them,) and they received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ and accepted Him as their Savior and Lord. Friend, heaven and hell depends on what you believe about this.”

Talk about a mouthful! Once again, in his very first sentence, Mr. Martin attributes a belief to the church that we simply do not hold and he throws in another “Campbellite” reference for good measure. This has already been discussed, shown not to be the case, so we will not have any more to say about it at this time.

The remainder of this particular question is so convoluted that is rather difficult to determine where to begin. Let me say that I believe Mr. Martin has mixed some truth with quite a bit of error here and that is a very deadly combination. He asks two questions early on that we will answer first. He asks in one place: “Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one’s sins forgiven?” A bit later, he asks the same question in this form: “Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sins is linked with water baptism?” I’m sure that Mr. Martin will be happy to know that there is a verse that says it in almost the same words he used in his second phrasing of the question. When Ananias came to Saul in Acts 22:16, he said: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” We could also mention Acts 2:38 here but we will be discussing that verse a bit later in this answer.

Mr. Martin uses the typical Baptist tactic of getting out his concordance and listing numerous passages that have in them the words “belief” and “repentance” and connect them to salvation. I would imagine that he would be surprised to hear me say that I agree with every single passage that he mentioned. Yes, repentance is certainly a condition for salvation. Yes, belief is certainly a condition for salvation. I believe and accept this. However, I can also play the concordance game with Mr. Martin and list every passage that deals with baptism, but I will not do that. Instead I will simply mention two of them. Most Baptists like to talk about Galatians 3:26 because they like what it says but very rarely are they willing to examine the next verse. The two verses say: “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The word “for” at the beginning verse 27 shows that verse 26 is true because of what verse 27 says. I would imagine that Mr. Martin would admit that a person must “put on” Christ in order to be saved. Well, verse 27 shows us how to do it.

The second passage I want to mention is 1 Peter 3:21. It says: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the flesh but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” How can anyone who claims to teach the gospel of Christ say that baptism does not now save when the apostle Peter, speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus Himself sent, says that it does save in words that could not be made any more clear? This is a simple thing, my friends: if someone tells you that baptism for (“in order to receive”) the remission of sins is not a necessary step in one’s salvation then that person is a liar and will answer to God for it.

So what does all of this mean thus far? It means that if one has Bible faith (and all that goes along with it), is willing to repent of his sins, and is willing to submit to baptism for the remission of his sins then he will be saved. All of these go together; they do not contradict one another! Mr. Martin makes the plan of salvation so subjective. He is willing to accept belief as a condition for salvation. He is willing to accept repentance as a condition for salvation. Yet he is not willing to accept baptism as a condition for salvation when Peter says that is now saves! What!? Why he and those like him try to play one verse of the Bible against another, instead of taking it all together, is simply beyond me.

He goes on to mention that whenever the phrase “remission of sins” is used in the Bible it refers to “the fact that sins have been forgiven previously.” He is then forced to engage in a long, disjointed ramble in an effort to force his position into the Scriptures. The passage that haunts the Baptists is Acts 2:38, which says: “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Does the word “for” in this verse mean “in order to receive” or does it mean “because of”? Mr. Martin claims the latter and that Peter told them to be baptized because their sins were already forgiven. This interpretation must be rejected for several reasons. First of all, the foremost authorities in the Greek language, of whom I am not one but I do have their work at my disposal, affirm that the word translated “for” (eis) does not mean “because of.” Instead, it looks ahead to a result. Mr. Martin will even have to contend with some of his own on this point. The noted Baptist scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed translates the verse, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to have your sins forgiven…”

Secondly, the very same phrase appears in Matthew 26:28, where Jesus says, “For this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” I will give Mr. Martin credit for the fact that he at least remains consistent on this point for he happily takes a position that most Baptists shy away from because of its utter ridiculousness and claims that Jesus shed His blood because men’s sins were already forgiven! Now he starts tossing around words like “redeemed,” “covered,” “cleared,” “pardoned,” etc. without giving any definitions for them. I will not venture to “guess” at his definitions for I do not want to put words in his mouth. Yet after all of his talk the question still remains: why would Christ come and die for man’s sins if man had already been forgiven of those sins?

Thirdly, if Peter meant that they needed to be baptized because their sins were already forgiven, then repentance would also have to be done for the same reason. Here is where Mr. Martin’s consistency flies right out the window for he says that “they received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ…” If what Mr. Martin says about baptism in Acts 2:38 is true then what he says in this quote about repentance cannot be true. Baptism and repentance are in the same context and must refer to the same thing. They stand and fall together, so to speak. Since Jesus said “No, I tell you, but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3), it is clear that repentance proceeds remission of sin. Thus, baptism does the same.

Fourth, think of the people’s question in verse 37. They asked “what shall we do?” These people were pricked to their heart, not because they were rejoicing that their sins had already been forgiven, but because they were feeling for the first time the weight and guilt of their sins and had no idea what to do about it. They wanted to know what they needed to do in order to receive forgiveness of their sins and Peter gave them the answer.

Finally, where is the passage that teaches that baptism is something that is to be done after a person is forgiven? Actually, the exact opposite is true. We learn that it is done in order to be saved (Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21). We also learn from passages like Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27 that a person is outside of Christ before they are baptized. Thus, it is abundantly clear that “for the remission of sins” does not mean “because your sins have been forgiven.”

At the end of this question Mr. Martin once again mentions the idea of “accepting” Christ as Savior and Lord. After playing the concordance game to come up with verses using the words “belief” and “repent” he has yet to produce a passage that says anything at all about “accepting” Christ as one’s Savior and Lord. Since the Bible does not talk about anything like that I am not sure I know what he means by it. If he is referring to a prayer of some sort then I’d like to know where the Bible says anything about saying a prayer in order to be saved. He may very well search through his concordance once more to find all the times the phrase “calling on the name of the Lord” is used and claiming that they teach prayer for salvation. Do they really? Of course, asserting a thing is far from proving it. Also, what exactly are the words to such a prayer? Would one simply say, “Lord, I call on Thee?” For some reason, Mr. Martin would never tell me what prayer he tells people to say and the verses that demand or allow for it. A bit disappointing coming from a man who has demanded verses from me, isn’t it? Perhaps he is referring to simple mental consent to the reality of Christ and His redemptive work in which case I would simply like to know where the Bible says anything about simple mental consent to the reality of Christ and His work in order to be saved. After all, do not the demons themselves offer mental consent (James 2:19). Perhaps, if Mr. Martin is ever willing to defend his teaching, he can explain the process of “accepting” Christ as one’s Lord and Savior since the Bible has not.

CONCLUSION

There were two other questions that Mr. Martin asked but they have been dealt with in the other questions so, for the sake of space, I did not insert them. I have corresponded with Mr. Martin several times and have sent him my answers, along with a challenge to defend his teaching publicly or in writing. In his own words, he considers such “a waste of time” at this point while referring to me as a “damned heretic.” All the while he has refused to answer even a single argument.

As we conclude let me once again state my purpose for writing this tract. To my brethren, I hope that this little booklet will be a good source of reference material for you when you find yourself in a discussion with someone of the Baptist persuasion. It is always helpful to familiarize yourself with the thinking and reasoning of those with whom you wish to speak whose religious affiliation is different then your own.

To my Baptist friends, I hope that what you have read has encouraged you to study the Scriptures a little more closely and carefully. I also hope that it has encouraged you to speak to those in positions of authority within your congregation. Make them explain the verses that I have used (particularly dealing with baptism) in these answers. Carefully examine their answers from Scripture and, if you find that they are wanting, I pray that you have the courage and conviction to seek out a group people doing all that they can to worship exactly as the first century Christians did. I realize that some of my answers may have forced you to think about some things you have never considered before, perhaps even made you angry. In the words of Paul as found in Galatians 4:16: “Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?”

God bless you and give you wisdom in your continued study of His Word.