“Pastor” David Martin of Bartlett, Tennessee fancies that he has put together questions that are so difficult that no one in the churches of Christ can possibly answer them. He is as ignorant of our history as he is in comprehending the Scriptures, or he would know of the numerous debates that brethren have had with Baptists over the decades (the Moody-Harding Debate, the Warren-Ballard debate, and dozens of others).
Speaking of debates, Martin claims that he had one in 1997 in Memphis with “a Church of Christ evangelist.” Although he says that 250 people attended within a 300-mile radius of Memphis, he does not provide the precise dates of the debate, its specific location, who his opponent was, or what church he was affiliated with. Neither did he provide the propositions of the debate. I e-mailed him to find out this information and whether the debate was taped or published, but to date he has not responded. At any rate, he does not mention the results of the debate, either (conversions). There remain four more “unanswerable” questions.
10. If the “Church of Christ” claims to worship God only as “authorized” by scripture [sic] because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the “authority” to use hymnals, pitchpipes, pews, and indoor baptistries in their worship services? If the answer is that they are “aids to worship,” where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitchpipe 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?
It would be difficult to find a mind more muddled on something that should be easy enough for anyone to comprehend. The New Testament does indeed authorize singing. Thus, we sing. Does having the words in a hymnal alter the command to sing? No, singing is expedited when everyone knows the words. Does a pitchpipe alter the command to sing? No, it expedites it so that we all know what note to begin singing with. A cappella singing is still a cappella singing. An expedient merely expedites keeping a commandment. Jesus told His apostles to go into all the world. He did not tell them how to go. They may have walked, but to cover longer distances, they might have ridden an animal. When Paul and Barnabas boarded a ship to sail to Cyprus, would Martin ask them, “Where’s your authority?” All of these are legitimate means of going.
Likewise, a pitchpipe or a songbook facilitates singing; they do not alter it. Adding instruments of music however, changes the singing; it is no longer a cappella at that point. We suspect that Baptists can sing as well as anyone else; the instrument does not aid them; it adds to their voices—perhaps in some cases, drowning them out.
Where is the authority for pews? They are an expedient. When Jesus spoke, people sat upon the grass. Whether people stand or sit, it does not change the presentation of the Word of God. Visual aids, PowerPoint, or information sheets are all aids and are authorized under preaching the gospel. A baptistery is a body of water close by for convenience. People were baptized for centuries without them in other bodies of water—rivers, lakes, streams. The place of the baptism is not important—the fact that it involves water is. A baptistery does not change the command or action of baptism, it expedites it. Most people can understand this concept even if it is too difficult for Martin.
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; et.al.) 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 they had been forgiven all through 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 and 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 a blood sacrifice (Heb. 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 (Heb. 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 Heb. 9:12-15). When Jesus said, “It is finished,” (John 19:30), all sin – past, present and future – was paid for…. [This paragraph is true; what precedes it and follows it is not.]
…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 Saviour and Lord. Friend, heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this.
Well, Martin said they were common sense questions—not simple ones. He obviously likes to preach in the middle of his questions. Once again, he does not understand us well enough to know that an “elder” is not required in order to baptize someone. Congregations that lack elders would not be able to save sinners. Preachers, deacons, and other members have been known to baptize those who were ready. Paul baptized Crispus and Gaius, yet he was not a Campbellite elder. One can only wonder where Martin (who never cites a source) gets his information.
He vainly argues that baptism is “because of” the forgiveness of sins. Really? So John going out to preach “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4) means that he baptized people because they were already saved? A baptism of repentance means that, when they repented of their sins, he baptized them for the forgiveness of their sins.
At the outset he accused us as dodging all over the place, but no one has ever danced and leapt so vigorously as he trying to provide an explanation for Matthew 26:28. Jesus said: “For this is My blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Forget Martin’s incomprehensible explanation. Did Jesus intend to say that He went to the cross to shed His blood because people were already saved or in order to obtain forgiveness for them? Anyone with common sense can answer that question. He admits that those in the Old Testament were not saved until Jesus shed His blood on the cross. In other words, He obtained forgiveness for them then. But previously, through the use of convoluted reasoning, he tried to make it sound like Jesus went to the cross because God had already forgiven them. Well, which is it? He had forgiven them on the basis of the fact that Jesus would shed His blood to obtain their forgiveness in the future.
Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sins is linked with water baptism? Is he kidding? Has he never read that Saul of Tarsus was told to arise and be baptized so that his sins might be washed away (Acts 22:16)? Has he never read 1 Peter 3:21, where the apostle clearly says that baptism now saves us? We have no disagreement with passages that emphasize faith and repentance; Martin has problems with those that teach the necessity of baptism.
12. If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and baptism is a work of “righteousness,” then how can water baptism be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16). In the Bible, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and grace does not involve human effort or merit—grace is grace and work is work! (Just read Ephesians 2:8,9 and Romans 11:6.)
Many of us memorized Ephesians 2:8-9 long ago. Furthermore, unlike Martin, we know what it means. It is not in a passage telling a non-Christian what to do to be saved, as we find in the book of Acts. It is found in a passage that emphasizes that we are all saved as the result of God’s grace. God originated the system whereby we can be saved, but He does not save us against our will or in our indifference. He provided a way for us to respond, but Paul does not deal with the particulars of the response because that is not his purpose at this point. It is also true that we cannot save ourselves by doing many good works. On the basis of our own goodness and our own works we all fail. Baptism, however, is not us working—it is the working of God (Col. 2:12), in which He takes the blood of Jesus and washes away our sins. Why anyone would want to designate what God does as a work of man is unfathomable. There is no human effort in the passive act of baptism. The effort and working is God’s.
13. The “Church of Christ” teaches that “obeying the Gospel” includes being baptized in water in order to be saved. If this is true, then how is it that the converts of Acts 10 were saved by faith before and without water baptism? The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost – so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved? In the light of Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:14-18, and Acts 15:7-11, how can anyone honestly believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation? Simon Peter said their hearts were “purified by faith” (Acts 15:9) and that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were (Acts 15:11); that is, before and without water baptism! We know that unsaved people do not receive or have the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; Romans 8:9). We know that the Holy Spirit is given only to those who have believed on Christ (John 7:39). We know that the Holy Spirit seals the believing sinner the moment he puts his faith and trust in Christ as Savior, before he is ever baptized in water (Ephesians 1:12,13). How does the warped theology of Campbellism explain away these clear passages of Scripture without “muddying the waters” of truth and drowning its members in eternal damnation?
In this case, the only thing that needs to be done is to show that the entire question is based upon a faulty premise. Once that is done, the remainder of the question becomes irrelevant. First, it is the Bible that teaches that baptism is part of obeying the gospel. Members of the churches of Christ simply present what the Bible teaches. Baptists are the ones who have manuals containing doctrines that Baptists must subscribe to. We only call people to study and accept what the Bible says. Peter, through the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, told people to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38).
Second, Martin assumes that Cornelius and his household were saved when they received the Holy Spirit; he has not read carefully the text. Where does it say in Acts 10 that Cornelius was “saved by faith before and without water baptism”? The words save, salvation, or saved do not occur in Acts 10. Peter had just begun speaking (v. 34) when the Holy Spirit “fell upon all those who heard the word” (v. 44). Notice that at this point Peter had not asked any of them if they believed or were willing to repent of their sins. The Holy Spirit fell on them in the absence of any discussion about salvation.
Now what was the reaction? Those Jewish Christians (“the circumcision who believed”) “were astonished.” Why? Were they surprised to see these Gentiles saved? No. The text says they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God, which is the way they knew the Spirit had fallen upon them. That fact is what astonished them (vv. 45-46). Not a word was spoken about Cornelius and the others being saved!
Before finishing Acts 10, we ought to notice other passages that are relevant. First, up to this point much has been made of the fact that no Gentiles were yet Christians. Peter had to be shown that Gentiles were no longer to be viewed as common or unclean (Acts 10:1-20). God proved to Peter, through the means of commanding him to kill and eat foods that were unclean according to the Law of Moses, that he could now accept and partake of all meats. The application of this point was that God accepted all men and that Peter should go and preach to Gentiles. God knew that Peter and the rest of the Jews would have a difficult time accepting the Gentiles into the body of Christ.
Second, the truth of this assessment is seen immediately upon Peter’s entrance into Jerusalem afterward. The apostle was criticized for eating with Gentiles (11:1-3). Thus he recounted to them all that led up to the visit with Cornelius, including the Lord’s command to eat previously unclean food (11:4-12).
Third, Cornelius had been told by an angel that Peter would come to him and tell him words by which he and his household would be saved (vv. 13-14). Notice that Cornelius was not told that Peter would come and speak to him but that he would be saved by the Holy Spirit falling upon him. The gospel message is communicated through words. They would need to hear the message and obey what Peter told them.
Fourth, Peter recounts what happened: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as upon us at the beginning” (v. 15). Peter had not finished speaking, he had only begun to speak. He had not had time to explain yet what Cornelius needed to do to be saved. Why did the Holy Spirit come upon them if they were not yet saved? Consistent with everything in Acts 10-11, He came upon them to prove that they were acceptable to God. Peter was reminded of the way the Holy Spirit fell on them at the beginning (on the Day of Pentecost) (v. 16). If Cornelius and the others received the same gift as the apostles had received (speaking in tongues), then how could Peter deny them the opportunity to be saved? When those who had criticized Peter heard this explanation, they silenced their opposition and glorified God, concluding that Gentiles could also be saved (vv. 17-18).
Now that we know the purpose of the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentiles was to demonstrate God’s acceptance of them and not to save them, let’s return to Acts 10:47-48, where Peter asks: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Then they were baptized in the name of the Lord. They were saved by being baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, just as those on Pentecost were (Acts 2:38).
Martin’s questions have been fully answered His understanding of the Bible has been shown to be lacking. Neither does he understand us. Perhaps he should spend less time boasting and more time studying. He issued a challenge with his alleged unanswerable questions. Now we will see how he deals with the answers.