It would be possible to continue for weeks reviewing this tract by Ben M. Bogard. It contains so many allegations without proof, insults, and misrepresentations that a thorough refutation in this format is impossible. However, we would like to treat the subject of salvation as presented in the tract because it is still crucial to all of us. First we will look at Bogard’s teaching regarding salvation and then consider the fault he finds with the doctrine taught in the Scriptures.
“25. Campbellism ridicules weeping and mourning on account of sin” (26). We begin once again by mentioning that ridicule is the tool of Bogard. For that reason he insists on calling members of the churches of Christ “Campbellites” though we do not follow Campbell and never have. Bogard tells us that Campbell founded a church and that we are members of that “denomination” though there is no such church and we oppose the very concept of denominationalism. The fact that we disagree with Campbell on a number of issues does not bother Bogard, who insists on things being the way he sees them, regardless of reality.
Bogard does not cite any incidents of the alleged “ridicule” we have given of “weeping and mourning on account of sin.” In fact, we wish there were more of it; in today’s world most people are not even mildly upset about their sins, let alone weep over them. All that we have ever said, however, is that mourning alone will not save anyone. No one mourned more than Saul of Tarsus, but he was told to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins. Mourning is an evidence of faith and repentance, but sins are washed away in baptism.
“38. Campbellism denies the right and need of a sinner praying” (32). Bogard thinks that “God’s Word teaches those in need of salvation to pray for it,” and he cites Romans 10:13: “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” No one denies “the right” of a sinner to pray. But the Bible does not say that praying is the means of obtaining salvation. Romans 10:13 is obviously correct, as all Scriptures are, but it does not specify a means of being saved. How does one call on the name of the Lord? Saul of Tarsus was praying while he waited for someone to come to him, but no verse says that Saul was saved by praying.
If Bogard could find one passage that gives a “sinner’s prayer” or that says a person is saved by praying, he would have put it in his tract. Such a verse or passage does not exist! But one does exist that explains how to “call upon the name of the Lord” (as mentioned in the one verse Bogard did cite), which we now examine.
When Ananias came to him, Saul was yet in his sins. His intense mourning and praying had not saved him. No one would ridicule Saul or tell him that these things were unnecessary; they demonstrate his sincerity. But these acts alone could not save him; Ananias told him how to complete the process: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). When one believes and repents of his sins, he is ready for the final step–baptism for the remission of sins–which is God’s plan of salvation and His means for calling on His name. Not one account of salvation in Acts has a person “praying through”; all are baptized.
So what does Bogard say about Acts 22:16? He avers that Paul’s “baptism washed away his sins, not in reality, but symbolically” (37). Why then did not Ananias say, Arise and be baptized, and symbolically wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord”? Would not the calling on the name of the Lord then be symbolic, too? Bogard obviously has a problem here that he did not see.
His proof that Saul was already saved is, first, that Saul was a “chosen vessel” before he was saved (Acts 9:15). If God is not omniscient, Bogard has a good argument. But God knew that Saul, even before Jesus appeared to him, would obey Him; He chose Saul for this work while he was still persecuting Christians. Was Saul saved at that time? Of course not. People are frequently chosen for tasks before they are fully qualified to do them. This argument lacks validity.
Equally powerless is the second reason offered, which is that Ananias called Saul “brother.” Since both men were Jews, this greeting is hardly surprising. Can Bogard prove Ananias meant it in the Christian, rather than the Jewish, sense? Years later Paul would desire that he could be accursed from Christ, if it were possible, for his brethren, whom he further defined as his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). Bogard has found no ironclad proof here.
The third argument is that Saul was fit to be “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17). Bogard infers that Saul’s regaining of his sight and his being filled with the Holy Spirit occurred one right after the other; however, one should read verse 18: “Immediately, there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.” Why is nothing more said about Saul being filled with the Spirit? Perhaps the reason is that Luke knew that his readers would remember Acts 2:38, that the Holy Spirit is received AFTER baptism. To say, then, that Saul was baptized was to imply that he then received the Holy Spirit.
None of Bogard’s arguments prove that Saul was already saved when Ananias came to him or that baptism is a “symbolic” washing. In fact, if Saul was already saved, we do not know precisely when or at what moment his salvation occurred because no verse so indicates. The text indicates that he was saved when he arose and was baptized, and his sins were washed away, as he called on the name of the Lord.
Needless to say, Bogard also tries to explain away Acts 2:38. His argument is that for means “because of”: “We have the remission of sins first and are baptized for it afterwards” (37). For means “because of” at times in English, but it does not in the Greek. Bogard does not comment on the fact that the identical phrase is used in Matthew 26:28–in the Greek and in the English: “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Will those who have republished Bogard’s tract affirm that, on the basis of his “logic,” Jesus died because the world already had remission of sins? Then Bogard writes:
“Repent” in Greek is second person plural, active voice. “Be baptized” is third person, singular passive voice. Now, there is a rule in all grammars that “verbs must agree with their subjects in number and person.” But “repent” and “baptize” are not of the same number and person, hence they cannot have the same subjects. So a correct rendering is: “Repent all of you, and each one be baptized for the remission of your sins” (38)?
What? Does anyone see a point here? Is the fact that Peter switched from direct address (you) to third person (each one) supposed to prove something? Is he not still talking to the same group of people? Repent is active because it involves making a decision. Be Baptized is passive because it is an act of submission. Could not a drill sergeant similarly address his new recruits, “Report (you, plural) to the base barber shop, and let each one of you receive a haircut.” Are not all of the men to report? Are not all of the men to receive a haircut? The fact is that, regardless of the shifts in person and voice, the same actions are bound upon all in the group. Bogard has no point at all here.
There is one further consideration that should be pointed out about Acts 2:38–its context. Peter has been preaching to those assembled in an effort to convince them that Jesus is the Son of God, that they had crucified Him, and that He had arisen from the dead. With some of them he succeeded, and they asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (v. 37). If Peter is telling them to be baptized because they have already been saved, when did that salvation occur? They knew they were in need of salvation when they asked Peter the question; how is it that they were saved before Peter could give them an answer in the next verse? Bogard has Peter acting as though they were already saved even before the apostle gives his answer.
What men like Bogard need is for Peter to have said what they would tell people: “Just believe; you’ll be saved, and then you can be baptized as a symbol.” But Peter does not say, “Repent and you’ll be saved”; he does not say, “Repent and believe” (Bogard’s favorite formula); he does not even mention faith at all because they gave evidence that they believed him by asking the question. He says, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized….”
Bogard applies logic to us that he fails to use on himself. Consider that his 44th point is: “No Campbellite ever told an inquiring penitent sinner what the apostle Paul told the jailer” (34), referring to: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” That could be turned around easily: “What Baptist preacher ever told a penitent believer what Peter said in Acts 2:38?”
But the fact is that we would say precisely what Paul said if the circumstances were similar. When we talk to those whose knowledge of God and the Scriptures is very limited, we too start with the subject of faith. Apparently, Bogard thinks this is some kind of pat formula used to obtain salvation. The jailer had probably never even heard of Jesus before in his life, since Paul was just carrying the Gospel to this part of the world. Was there something magical in these words that caused him to drop to his knees and say, “I believe,” when as yet he had no idea about Jesus’ dying on the cross for our sins? Thus far he had only heard the Lord’s name.
Bogard hangs himself on his next remark: “If Paul had been a Campbellite preacher he would have never left baptism out of his instructions as to how to be saved” (34). Whoa! Paul did not leave baptism out. Behold, the danger of using Scriptures out of context; someone might read the next few verses:
Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized (Acts 16:32-33).
We know that the events just described took place some time after midnight; yet after Paul taught the jailer enough so that he could make an intelligent decision, he baptized him–even though it was in the silent and serene stillness of the night while the city slept. Now what Baptist preacher would do that? By Bogard’s own definition, Paul is a Campbellite preacher, a title which would insult Paul as much as it does us.
For most people Mark 16:16 is plain enough: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Bogard focuses all of his attention on the latter part of the verse in his 52nd point, asserting that to fit our theology it should read, “He that is not a baptized believer shall be damned” (39). This is fatuous and designed to do one thing–obfuscate the point made by the Lord. Following is the means that Bogard uses to obscure things:
Now, if nobody is saved except those who are baptized and nobody lost except the unbeliever, what will become of the man who believes yet has not been baptized? He can’t go to heaven because he has not been baptized. He can’t go to hell because he is a believer. So that reduces it to an absurdity.
Bogard’s “logic” is the absurdity. He has tried to insert another class of people into the text that the Lord does not discuss. The way Jesus describes it, there are two groups of people: believers and unbelievers. The believers are baptized and saved; the unbelievers are lost. This dichotomy is completely consistent with Matthew 12:30: “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.”
Although the Lord mentioned only two groups of people, Bogard seeks to make three categories: baptized believers, unbaptized believers, and unbelievers. He might have asked himself why Jesus only had two classifications, and he could have found a Scriptural answer: there are no unbaptized believers! The reason is that those who believed were baptized immediately (possibly because there was no one like Bogard around to tell them that they were already saved or that they did not need to be baptized).
Notice what happened after Peter told those on Pentecost to repent and be baptized: “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (Acts 2:41). As we have already shown, Paul baptized the jailer and his household the same hour of the night (Acts 16:31-33). The eunuch was baptized as soon as they came to some water (Acts 8:35-39). Cornelius and his household were likewise baptized immediately (Acts 10:47-48). When Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized, he too did not delay, protest that it was only symbolic, or whine that he was already a believer; he arose and was baptized. Neither Bogard, the current publishers of his tract, Max Lucado, nor anyone else can find a single instance in the Scriptures in which so much time as even ONE DAY elapsed before someone who was taught what to do did it. If one believes the Gospel message, he will obey it; Jesus’ two groups stand.
Bogard also errs in his attempt to nullify the force of Romans 6:3-5. Being baptized into Christ does not suit him; so he writes “The word ‘into’ is from the Greek word ‘eis’ and it frequently means ‘with reference to’ or ‘on account of.'” If this statement were true, then why do all the major translations (KJV, NKJ, ASV, NAS, RSV, NRSV, and even the NIV) use, without variation, into? If on account of is so interchangeable, one would think there would be at least one translation that would render it the way Bogard says it could be translated. Once again, however, the text foils him. How can we be raised from the dead with Jesus unless we are baptized into His death? This is the kind of folly that befalls someone who is trying to win an argument at all costs instead of honestly looking at the Scriptures.
As an example of the on account of idea he cites Matthew 12:41, in which Jesus said that the people repented at the preaching of Jonah. At first glance it does look as though on account of fits in this verse, but the same translations mentioned above all use at. Thayer has four pages of definitions on this preposition (183-87), but he begins with: “a Prep. governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among.” Context usually decides the best translation of a preposition. It is true that the people repented because Jonah preached to them, but the Pulpit Commentary says of eis here that it marks the direction of their faith: into or unto.
Bogard, then, has no valid argument on Romans 6:3-5 or any of the other passages mentioned. The reader is urged to do a study on the word eis. Bogard says that it frequently means on account of. Yet he knew better. He could not produce even one text in which eis was so translated. Prejudice will lead a person to the point of desperation; those who simply seek the truth can retain their honesty and integrity.