Every so often along comes some midget suffering from a “giant” complex. He makes boasts concerning things about which usually he has no clue and then proclaims himself the triumphant victor. He may even convince those who agree with him, but most others do not share his enthusiasm about his own abilities.
One such legend in his own mind is “Pastor” David Martin of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Bartlett, Tennessee. It ought to be noted that no church designating itself as “Baptist” is anywhere near the solid rock of truth. The church was bought and built by Jesus (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28), and He never once referred to it as “Baptist.” Neither did Paul or any of the other apostles. Martin’s reasoning ability is about as sound as the name of the church he works with.
According to the introduction to the questions, the reader of the website finds this bodacious claim:
This is one of the most controversial articles on the church of Christ you will find anywhere. No church of Christ preacher can satisfactorily answer any of the questions posed by Pastor Martin.
Of course, the loophole in anyone’s answers will hinge on the word satisfactorily. All he has to say is, “I wasn’t satisfied.” Personally, this answerer does not care how he responds; the important thing is that others see the validity of the answers.
He claims that the church of Christ is a cult (wow, that’s original). He challenges members of the church, after they read these questions, to get out their King James Bible and ask the Holy Spirit to show them the truth (John 16:13). Are you impressed yet with his wondrous knowledge? Jesus did not make the promise of John 16:12-13 to everyone—but to the apostles. Martin does not even understand context!
He also assumes that brethren only use the King James, which is erroneous. Many do, of course, but many also read the New King James or the American Standard—all legitimate translations, unlike the NIV.
One point of clarification is in order before answering Martin’s questions. He says these are for Campbellites. This responder has never been a Campbellite; he has never known anyone who claimed to be a Campbellite preacher. He has never known of any group who referred to themselves as Campbellites. Does not being one disqualify someone from answering the questions? Theoretically, anyone could probably supply Biblical answers, since the questions are not that difficult anyway. From reading Martin, however, one would think they were more difficult than the Riddle of the Sphinx. Consider some of his remarks.
If you ask one of these “preachers” any of the questions in this tract, you won’t get a straight answer due to their “screwball” theology. You’ll have them in “hot water,” “swimming in circles,” trying to explain their heretical positions. They’ll be “hopping all over the pond” because they can’t stay too long in one spot without sinking in the mire of their false doctrines.
Martin certainly stands confident in his own abilities, does he not? He apparently believes his own press. The first of these monumental questions follows.
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?
First of all, according to what history? Would it be too difficult to cite a source or a quote? The churches of Christ are not a denomination, and we do not have official publications outlining our history. Some individual writers have written various types of histories and biographies, but these are independent efforts with which others may or may not agree. Martin makes it sound as if there is an official church history, which is certainly not the case.
Was there an effort to restore the church that we all read about in the New Testament? Yes. This means that some things were not right with the predominant religious practices of the day. What is wrong with trying to restore what the New Testament teaches? Of course, Martin does not care about restoration. If he did, he would want to be known as a Christian rather than a Baptist, which lacks New Testament authority.
Just because there was a time period in which men made greater efforts than before does not imply that the church was totally lost or that there were no Christians. Martin assumes more than he can prove. Where was the truth? It is precisely where it has always been—in the Word of God (John 8:31-32). Just as the Word was hidden (in the house of the Lord, no less) in the time of Josiah (2 Chron. 34), so likewise, since it was primarily only available in Latin for one thousand years, most people did not have access to it.
Martin has already referred to the Catholic Church as a cult; perhaps he could explain where all the Baptists were for one thousand years. If the Catholic Church and the Mormon Churches are cults, the reason is that they go by something other than the Bible. The Catholic Church abides by the decisions of various councils over the centuries, not to mention what the pope legislates. The Mormons abide by the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others who have received “revelations.” How ironic that he calls us a cult when the Bible is the only source of authority we claim! Martin does not know anything more of the history of this period than we do. Is he willing to say that the Catholic Church followed the New Testament? Martin’s first question, then, is based upon faulty premises and fraught with difficulties that he himself would have trouble in answering “satisfactorily.”
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 Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 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 Christ and the Holy Ghost?
Where did Martin form the opinion that baptisms must be done by elders? He really does not know much about the subject in which he claims to be an expert. Furthermore, his reasoning winds all over the place; it is no wonder if people ignore his ranting. All that a person needs is the truth. Paul says that he had baptized Crispus and Gaius (1 Cor. 1:15). To paraphrase Martin’s question: “Did Crispus need Jesus AND Paul in order to be saved?” Well, then, by his own scrambled logic, Paul was a second mediator and usurped the Holy Spirit’s role of Administrator. Martin does not see the fallacies in his own question, and we await to see if he accuses Paul of having his own cult.
3. If the water pipes broke and the baptistry [sic] 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.
No one needs to wait for a baptistery to be fixed in Florida. Bodies of water are numerous. We will follow the lead of Jesus on the question asked in bold letters. Mister Martin, if you were scheduled to meet at someone’s house to teach them to “accept Jesus,” and you had a flat tire on the way there (and no spare), would his salvation have to depend on a tow-truck? What if he inadvertently drank arsenic while he was waiting and died? Would he go to hell because you did not get there in a timely fashion? We can play “What If” games all night, but it still boils down to what the Scriptures teach. Do they teach that Jesus is the only name whereby we must be saved? They do (Acts 4:12). Without the man doing so, he would be lost. He would also be lost if he died before repenting of his sins and having them washed in the blood of Jesus.
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 being baptized, then wouldn’t my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry [sic]?!!—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?
How about if we let the man arise to walk in newness of life first (Rom. 6:3-5)? Then, if God wants to induce cardiac arrest and take him to heaven, He may. The implication of this question is the doctrine of “once saved, always saved.” But Paul told the brethren he baptized in Galatia that, if they tried to be justified by the Law of Moses, they had fallen from grace (Gal. 5:1-4). That Christians can be lost is the subject of a great portion of the book of Hebrews, not to mention several other passages, such as James 5:19-20.
5. If as a Christian I can sin so 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.
Any time someone ignores what the Scriptures teach, he stands in jeopardy. No human being needs to know the exact moment that someone crosses over from saved to lost, but the Scriptures teach that it does occur. For example, if a Baptist in Martin’s congregation decided to live with his father’s wife, would that be wrong? If he persisted in it, would he be lost? Can Martin pinpoint the precise moment when the man becomes lost and in need of spiritual correction? Paul commanded that the church withdraw fellowship from the sexually immoral (1 Cor. 5:11). We also know that fornicators and adulterers God will judge (Heb. 13:4). Or is that principle only for those not saved by a Baptist preacher? Revelation 21:8 says that all such have their place in the lake of fire. Are these references specific enough?
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?
When Simon the Sorcerer sinned in desiring the gift of laying hands on others to impart spiritual gifts, Peter told him: “Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you” (Acts 8:22). What happens if a sin is not forgiven? Will Martin argue that people who are not forgiven of sins can enter into heaven? Simon stood in need of forgiveness, and Peter told him how to get it—by repentance.
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.
Would having a conscience that is “past feeling” qualify? Paul discusses this type of hardness of heart in Ephesians 4:17-19. Martin has evidently never read that even God had no remedy for the people of Israel—except captivity and death because of their hardened hearts (2 Chron. 36:15-16). Why does he assume that there is only one sin that can doom someone? The hardening of the heart leads people to turn away from God, thus committing a number of sins. Has he never read 1 John 5:16—about not praying for a brother committing a sin unto death? These are clear and specific references.
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, don’t just say that it’s up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference.
Presumably, the grace of God would cover such a situation (although we are not the judge); the important thing is that we are not constantly thinking in such rebellious ways against God. There is a difference between an inadvertent sin or one committed in a moment of weakness (1 John 5:14-16) and living one’s life in rejection of God. Suppose one of Martin’s members quits attending worship and buys a local strip club. So here he is, selling alcoholic beverages and encouraging lewd and lascivious behavior. Suppose he has a heart attack while with a prostitute. Will Martin argue that this man will be saved because he once stood in a saved state? Now, there’s a common-sense question, and we await his answer (with specific references).
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”?
Apparently, Martin has run out of serious questions and is resorting now to silly ones. Paul sent greetings from the churches of Christ. He may recall being taught about singulars and plurals in grammar school. In order for there to be churches of Christ (plural), there must be a church of Christ (singular) in several locations. When Paul wrote to “the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 6:2), everyone understands that there was an individual church in each of several cities. “Church of God” is a scriptural designation, and we have always said so. However, a group subscribing to the Pentecostal philosophy has adopted that name; so we do not use it to avoid misconceptions. The bigger point for Martin is, “Where does the name Baptist Church occur anywhere in the Scriptures?” We await an answer to that question also.
Furthermore, if Martin had ever read a Bible commentary by even denominational scholars, he would have noticed that it is common for the phrase, the Church of Christ, to be used. Possibly, they refer to the church in this manner because Jesus shed His blood for the church and is head over the church, which is His body (Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). To the few and considerably less complicated questions we have asked of Martin, we add this one: “What does Paul mean in Ephesians 4:5 when he says there is one body (church)?”
Most students are also taught about possessives in grammar school. The church of Christ refers to Christ’s church. Since He is the church’s builder (Matt. 16:18) and the church’s purchaser (Acts 20:28), as well as its head (Eph. 1:22-23), then it makes sense to refer to the church of Christ (in the universal sense) or the churches of Christ, referring to each one in a particular area.
Mr. Martin has not provided questions that are difficult at all to answer. He does not see that the ones that may have an edge of difficulty to them are ones that he cannot answer, either. Five questions remain, which will be answered (Lord willing) next week. His slurs will not avail him anything; our answers will remain based on the Scriptures.