The third of Rubel Shelly’s seven lessons in this series, “Adult Immersion,” was delivered on June 20, 1999. It begins with a lengthy testimonial about Rubel baptizing a woman who had come to realize the destructive role that sin had played in her life. He read Romans 6 to the woman and baptized her in a lake, emphasizing the burial aspects of the passage. He says he “immersed her in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of her sins.” “How marvelous!” some are undoubtedly thinking. “Rubel still teaches the truth regarding salvation.”
Does he? He continues: “One of the things that makes us who we are is our affirmation of the importance of water baptism to the salvation process.” He also affirms that, when people ask what they should do, he answers “the same way Peter and the other apostles answered it on the day of Pentecost,” citing Acts 2:38. [Will he give that same answer when the Woodmont Hills congregation works with the Billy Graham Crusade? When people come forward and ask what they should do, will Rubel be allowed to give that answer?] Rubel writes: “I don’t want to say less than he [Peter, gws] said or more than he said.” [Will Billy Graham allow him to reply in that manner to those who respond to Graham’s “preaching”?]
Thus far Shelly has taught what the New Testament teaches concerning the role of baptism in salvation. However, he then makes statements that belie the essentiality of baptism in the process of salvation. First, he affirms that he has “no fear of damnation from a merciful God” with respect to the proverbial penitent who “dies on the way to the baptistery.” Shelly, apparently, is more confident than the rest of us regarding someone whom the blood of Christ has never cleansed. We are not arguing that it is within our jurisdiction to make this judgment, either (since all judgment is God’s), but we do wonder, “How can people be saved when the blood of Christ has not washed away their sins?” We would all mourn the loss of such a person in that situation, and we would all like to think that his intentions saved him; but we do not have the right to make that decision for God and depart from His Word because we are overcome by emotion. If Shelly really believes in the essentiality of baptism, how can he make the judgment that there is even one exception (and if one, then how many more?) to God’s process of salvation?
Shelly also refers to baptism “as the rite of initiation into the Christian community.” From what Scripture does this doctrine originate? What apostle or evangelist ever referred to baptism as a rite of initiation? Shelly may have obtained this “terminology” from denominational theologians, but he did not obtain it from the New Testament.
“So what would I say to people who were not immersed but who had water sprinkled or poured on their heads as infants?” Shelly asks of himself. After all, since he is advocating that people be immersed, it is natural to wonder about those who claim to be Christians who were not immersed. Rubel “recommends” that people make their own “personal, adult commitment to Jesus Christ in believer’s baptism….” Now who could argue against such “wisdom”? Who would not be quick to follow this suggestion?
Shelly has presented his material on baptism in such a way as to offend no one either in or out of the church. The word slick comes to mind. Following are some questions he could have answered but did not deal with.
1. Is the individual who has never been baptized saved anyway, if he calls God his Father and believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?
2. Is the individual who was “sprinkled” as a child and refuses to be baptized by immersion lost?
3. Although Rubel likes to say what Peter did in Acts 2:38, what about the doctrine of salvation that Billy Graham and countless others teach? Are they wrong? Do they preach a false “gospel”?
4. Can we fellowship spiritually those who teach a false “gospel” (such as saying the so-called “sinner’s prayer”)?
5. Can we fellowship spiritually those who have been taught that they were saved from their sins even though they have never been baptized?
Shelly did not give a definitive answer on these points. His actions, however, speak for themselves. He meets with and worships with those who have never been baptized for the remission of their sins. In other words, his actions do not conform to his high-sounding speech.
One other thing should be noted. In times past he has excluded “for the remission of sins” as the purpose for baptism. In the 1984 Joplin Unity meeting, this writer was present to hear the report that Rubel Shelly’s group offered the entire assembly. They took it upon themselves to define who is a Christian. Although baptism was included in their final definition, “for the remission of sins” was not. In the Harding Graduate School of Religion Workshop on Grace in 1994, Shelly once more affirmed that baptism is essential to salvation. Once more he did not include “for the remission of sins.”
In this sermon presentation, he does include the phrase, but he does not mean it. No one who understands that baptism must be by immersion and for the remission of sins could fellowship Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or Billy Graham. Shelly only affirms baptism in his public speaking. In practice, he fellowships as “Christians” all who claim to be such–regardless of whether or not they have been immersed.
Rubel Shelly cannot, of course, be held responsible for the statement made by the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, for whom Max Lucado speaks. There is a lot of agreement between them, however.
Concerning one who died before being baptized, for example, Oak Hills’ reply is similar to Shelly’s: “Would a God of love reject an honest heart? Would a God of mercy and kindness condemn any seeking soul? Absolutely not.” The elders at Oak Hills are confident, as is Shelly, that God can save honest, sincere people apart from the blood of Christ. Of course, if He can make this exception to what He teaches in the New Testament, then perhaps He can make other allowances (for people who just cannot see that baptism is necessary?).
Notice the two responses offered to those baptized as infants.
Shelly: “I would encourage you to be thankful that your parents cared enough about you to pledge you to Christ and dedicate your life to him as an infant.”
Oak Hills: “First, you should be grateful that you had parents who cared enough about you to set you apart for God.” [By the way, Oak Hills believes that it “is appropriate to dedicate a baby.” “On a regular basis we offer parents of newborns an opportunity to come forward with their children for prayer and consecration. But these are dedication ceremonies, not baptisms.”]
Oak Hills also refers to communion and baptism as “two God-ordained sacraments.” For all their emphasis on what the Bible teaches, where do Oak Hills and Rubel Shelly come up with terminology such as sacraments and rites? These words come courtesy of the Roman Catholic Church and religious denominations begun by men rather than the New Testament.
The Oak Hills’ elders go further than Shelly in their statement. In answer to the question, “Does it matter where I was baptized?” they say:
No. If you were baptized in a Baptist church or Pentecostal camp or in the lake at a family reunion, that doesn’t matter. What is important is that you knew that you were a sinner and Jesus was your Savior.
Obviously, according to their teaching, one does not need to comprehend that he is lost and that Jesus will save him through His blood in this act of obedience. He needs only to understand that he is a sinner and that Jesus is a Savior at the time of baptism; the two concepts need not be connected! Such a position might explain why Max fellowships Baptists and Pentecostals, but it provides no clue for the basis of fellowshipping those who have not been immersed.
Coincidentally, Shelly’s fourth topic (delivered on June 27th, 1999) concerns that second “sacrament”–“Weekly Communion.” Shelly knows (the reader knows not how) that using leavened bread for the Lord’s body is acceptable, as well as alcoholic wine. He writes:
There are so many things about the Lord’s Supper that are “accidental,” that don’t really matter. Use wine or grape juice. Let the bread be unleavened or pieces from an ordinary loaf. Serve the bread first, or the wine. Use a single container of wine, or distribute the fruit of the vine in individual cups. Have separate prayers for the two elements, or have one prayer and pass both simultaneously. Have the worshipers come to the bread and wine, or distribute the elements among the worshipers. I have participated in communion in all these ways–without ever feeling “cheated” of its content or meaning. Details such as these are not of the essence of the event.
There are several questions that come to mind. Could not Shelly have just as blithely said: “Use grape juice or apple” or “Use wine or soda pop”? What would be the difference with this line of reasoning? Imagine Moses saying, “Use unleavened or leavened bread; it really does not matter!” How does Shelly know that all the details he pooh-poohs are insignificant? He is certain because he never felt cheated. Ooh! That should convince us all. How do we know that having only one prayer is acceptable to God when every account mentions one prayer for the bread and another for the fruit of the vine? Shelly feels that such a practice is all right. Apparently, all Christendom should substitute Shelly’s feelings for Biblical authority!
But Shelly gives up just about everything he once believed on the Lord’s Supper. He now argues that no one has “the right to restrict its observance to Sunday and to say that its celebration on another day of the week is sinful.” “No one” apparently includes the Lord Himself and the Holy Spirit Who inspired the Word and provided us with principles of interpretation. We might paraphrase Hebrews 7:14 and say that concerning the other days of the week the New Testament speaks nothing (in regard to observing the Lord’s death). It is true that Jesus showed the disciples the way to observe His death on a Thursday evening, but the church has always practiced this memorial ONLY on the first day of the week, which constitutes a Biblical precedent, Shelly’s feelings notwithstanding.
Concerning weekly remembrance of the Lord’s death, Shelly asks:
Again, however, one is hard pressed to make a case that one sins by monthly or quarterly observance of this communion rather than weekly participation. Where is the biblical precedent for such a judgment?
The man has lost his rationality. Imagine an Israelite arguing with Moses: “Well, sure, God commanded us to keep the Sabbath day, and historically we have done so every week, but one is hard pressed to make a case that one sins by monthly or quarterly observance of the Sabbath day.” Shelly’s insipid question is the same as saying, “God does not really care how often we remember the death of Jesus. He really had nothing in particular in mind.” Why not do it once every decade, then? What Biblical precedent would allow us to condemn such a practice?
It is sad indeed to see a man give up the truths that he once knew. Shelly, however, also inspires anger with his compromise of the Truth and his adoption of denominational practices. He closes his lecture on “weekly communion” by saying that, since we do observe the Lord’s Supper each week (even though it would not be a sin to omit it), we try to keep the observance fresh. One of the ways he has of keeping the Lord’s Supper fresh is to have the congregation participate in a responsive reading. There is a leader who says some words, and then the church responds by saying such things as:
Hosanna in the highest!
This practice continues for two pages of his manuscript. The church closes its portion of the reading by asking God to strengthen them to bear faithful witness to our Savior, by both word and deed. Bear faithful witness? Shelly does not explain how Christians can be witnesses to Jesus.
But then neither does he give the origin of responsive readings. Having grown up outside the church, this author knows (as do many others) that this custom is part and parcel of denominationalism! Never have we ever visited a church of Christ that engaged in such a practice. It smacks of ritualism, vain repetition, and formalism–although it is possible that Shelly feels it is the meaningful thing to do.
One more point should be mentioned. How many times in the New Testament does the Holy Spirit refer to the contents of the cup as wine? The answer is: “Not once.” Although the word wine is used many times in the New Testament by both Jesus and others, it never once is used to refer to the blood of Jesus. The phrase fruit of the vine was chosen by the Holy Spirit.
Yet in the first four pages of Shelly’s presentation on “Weekly Communion” he uses the word wine to refer the fruit of the vine nine times. The phrase bread and wine appears four times. And when the “leader” is reciting his words concerning this event, he says, “After supper he took the cup of wine.” What translation was used for that statement? Even the NIV did not dare mistranslate that one so flagrantly. In all of the New Testament there are ZERO references to the contents of the cup as WINE, but in four pages of Shelly’s “sermon” there are TEN. Why?