In discussing the aftermath of the Restoration Sum-mit that took place August 7-9, 1984, one more occurrence is of interest. After I reported on the Joplin Unity meeting published in the Southside Mirror (October 20th and 27th, 1984), I wrote an open letter to Rubel Shelly and printed it the following week (November 4, 1984). I sent it to him, along with the two articles printed prior to this one (duplicated in Spiritual Perspectives, September 7 and 14, 2014).
This letter began with a summary of the various times our paths had crossed. Not only had several members from Southside in Peoria attended a gospel meeting where Shelly did some excellent preaching at a sister congregation, but I had heard him speak at the Freed-Hardeman lectures. I received the sermons he mailed out when he worked with the Getwell church and told him how much I enjoyed three of his books: Young People Make Moral Decisions, The Lamb and His Enemies, and Liberalism’s Threat to the Faith. I reminded him of what he wrote in chapter three of that book, in which he dealt with the ecumenical movement:
Among other things it says “spiritual fellowship depends on something more than an individual’s personal feelings toward men around him” and “…unity with one another that does not grow out of a unity with God is not a valid unity” (16:45).
Shelly was absolutely Biblical in these comments. The unity that prevailed after Pentecost was based on everyone continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42). Those who are in fellowship with God must be in fellowship with one another. Those who are not in fellowship with God cannot be in fellowship with those who are. But Shelly had violated his own writings at Joplin. The fellowship that had been arrived at during those three days was not based at all on doctrine but solely on personal feelings. In fact, developing those feelings seems to have been the goal.
Next, I showed to Shelly what an outstanding job he had done in his debate against Dwayne (also spelled Duane and Dwaine, depending on the source) Dunning on the topic of instrumental music. I reminded Shelly:
You made some comments about that debate at Freed-Hardeman in 1977. But before we look at that, brother Shelly, it’s time to ask, “What has happened to you? Why have you changed? I knew of no one in the brotherhood your age who was more solid in the faith! What awesome power moved you from the truth we all thought you were grounded in? Only two years younger than you, I could identify with you and dare to become like you. That is the one desire I no longer experience.
In reporting on the Joplin Unity Meeting (I was there, also—uninvited, but asked to participate), you recently wrote, “It is simply incorrect to say (as I have!) that the use of instrumental music among them stems from a lack of respect for authority of Scripture. Their use of instruments and our non-usage of them relates to a hermeneutical method rather than a difference of view concerning sufficiency and authority of the Bible.”
You certainly have changed your tune. You used to explain the difference between the Christian church and the Lord’s church much more simply and understandably. Now you apologize for their confusion, but on page 312 of the 1977 Freed-Hardeman lectureship book, you told us how your 7-year-old daughter and your 3-year old son could easily understand the difference between sing and play in the “Simon Says” game. You wrote:
When the instruction was to sing, she never once went to the piano! Children can understand the authority principle in their games. Why can grown people not see it in relation to the Word of God?
Yet now you’ve apparently become one of the “grown people” who fails to understand, or at least you seem to be able to accept those who can’t understand—or won’t understand (16:45).
Before continuing with this article and the next point that concerns salvation itself, a further comment about instrumental music might prove helpful. Shelly was wrong to say that those in the Christian Church just have a different hermeneutical method than we do. To say it this way is to imply that we have different methods, but they are both valid. They are not. The Christian Church has a wrong hermeneutical method, which we have demonstrated to them over and over in debates; they simply refuse to accept it.
Colossians 3:17 makes it clear that we must have authority for whatever we teach and practice. Asking where something is condemned is the wrong approach; whatever we do must be authorized—by the New Testament, which is the covenant that Christians are under. Many immediately appeal to David and the use of musical instruments in the Old Testament. Those were authorized (2 Chron. 29:25). In the New Testament, however, no authority for their use in worship is provided. Furthermore, neither Jesus nor His disciples ever used them. God is interested in true worshippers, who worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). True worshippers are those who do only what is authorized. Adding a piano, an organ, stringed instruments, or percussion (including the clapping of hands) lacks authority and does not fit the category of true worship. Having dealt with Shelly’s new view on instrumental music, we examine his view on salvation.
Salvation
But it gets worse. I heard your group’s definition of, “Who is a Christian?” in Joplin, which was absolutely unbelievable! You know, when you first started to knock the “sectarian” spirit in the churches of Christ, I felt I knew what you meant, and I was with you. Never did I imagine that you were about to attempt to broaden the limits of fellowship beyond what the Bible authorizes.
I refer to your article, “Baptism: What Must One Know?” which appeared on April 22 of this year [1984, GWS] in your church bulletin, The Ashwood Leaves. You wrote:
One is a candidate for New Testament baptism if he knows (1) he is a sinner and lost, (2) Christ is the only Savior, and (3) Christ saves those who obey Him in sincere faith. One who knows this much of the will of God is in position to be instructed to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Do you realize that according to this definition that our brethren would include the Baptists, many Pentecostals, the Mormons, and Jehovahs’ Witnesses?! Brother Shelly, it is strange indeed for one who has learned so much from you, admired you, and is no doubt intellectually inferior to you to have to inform you that your position is wrong!
You used to quote John 8:31-32. We once had brethren who gave up the church for the charismatic movement. When asked how the Spirit of the Lord could dwell in those who were not baptized, they said that many Pentecostals were baptized. “Not for the forgiveness of sins,” I hastily pointed out. They replied, “If people are baptized to obey Jesus, that is sufficient.” Is that any different from what you’re saying? I cited John 8:31-32. All those who are saved must obey in response to the truth. The only alternative is to argue that people can be saved accidentally.
The Ethiopian eunuch understood the gospel message and how to obey it. Peter announced that baptism was “for the remission of sins.” Sure, the Bible teaches more about baptism, but how can anyone be saved from his sins without knowing why he is being baptized? Saul wasn’t told to arise and be baptized to obey Jesus—but to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16).
Let’s take a Baptist who is “saved” (the way Baptists teach it) in the month of February. In June he is immersed in order to obey Jesus, and in October he learns that one purpose (in fact, the major purpose) of baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. So, when is he saved?
- Before baptism?
- At baptism?
- When he understands what baptism is for?
Surely, you would not advocate alternative A. If you say B, then here is a person saved before he knows the truth (John 8:31-32; Rom. 6:17-18). If you choose C, you must conclude that either salvation is retroactive or that he is saved apart from baptism.
Instead of debating the spiritual state of such people, why don’t we just teach them the truth and ask them to be baptized for the right reason? That would remove all doubt and bring about true unity. Your current position will produce division.
Brother Shelly, we don’t want to desert you, but when you desert God and wander outside of the boundaries of truth, you give us no choice. We pray that you’ll be restored to the Word which you once knew and were proficient in defending (16:45).
- W. Summers
Response
Rubel Shelly did send a return letter. I searched in vain for a rationale for his changed positions; none could be found. In fact, just about everything was ignored. In fact, he accused me of having impure motives, hinting that having written the letter to him would score well among some brethren and would, perhaps, help me make a name for myself.
To be sure, I did share the information about the Joplin Unity Meeting with some brethren, and they were interested in it—but because of the subject matter, not because of me. In the fall of 1986 I entered graduate school and did not write many religious essays for another three years. Visits to various lectureships were limited during this time period. From 1989-1991, I taught at the junior college near Peoria, which is scarcely the way to make a name for oneself in the church. Shelly obviously misread my intentions in writing to him, or he simply wanted a way to deflect attention away from himself. What better way to defend yourself than by attacking the one who is calling you to account? Ahab accused Elijah of being the troubler of Israel when it was the idolatry and ungodliness of Ahab and Jezebel that was the real problem.
Shelly moved on to fellowship just about anyone who calls himself a Christian (thus violating his own earlier views that he had both written and spoken), but I am still where I was thirty years ago, advocating that a person can only be saved by knowing and obeying the truth (John 8:31-32). Must a person know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, as Peter confessed (Matt. 16:16)? Yes. Unless anyone believes in God and Jesus as His Son, he cannot be saved. Those who only want to call Jesus a prophet or a great man have not believed the truth.
Does a person need to repent of sins in order to be saved? Yes, the hundreds and thousands who have been told to pray, “I am a sinner and I now receive you Jesus as Lord and Savior,” have not repented of their sins. Perhaps that is the reason that so many of them continue in sin. They have been deluded—and usually quite willingly so. How attractive salvation is—if I can be saved and continue sinning, also! This is the equivalent of having your cake and eating it, too.
For those who believe and have repented of their sins, confessing the name of Jesus is not especially difficult to do (unless it is in a Muslim environment). And that brings us again to baptism. Is a person saved before being baptized (as so many teach)? If so, then why be baptized at all, since the purpose of baptism is to wash away sins? Are there two ways to remove sins? Can one be saved merely by asking Jesus to be saved? If so, then baptism is superfluous, because no one can be saved-er than saved. Are some saved without baptism and some saved by baptism? If so, then there are two plans of salvation instead of one, and this idea violates what Paul wrote of in Ephesians 4:1-6.
If one’s sins are removed by simply asking Jesus for forgiveness, then that individual is already born again, and a living child of God is then buried with Christ (Rom. 6:3-5). But we do not bury one newly-born. We bury the dead—the dead in sin. After the blood of Christ washes away their sins (Rev. 1:5) in baptism, then they are born anew and arise to walk in newness of life. It is the one coming forth from the waters of baptism who is born again—not the one entering into them.
If one is saved by merely asking Jesus for salvation, then why didn’t Peter say that on Pentecost instead of, “Repent and be baptized”? And why did Peter later write that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21)? The answer is easy: God gave only one way that anyone can be saved, and that is through immersion in water for the right reason—to obtain forgiveness of sins.
If someone wants to have fellowship with all of those who claim to be Christians, then both the purpose and the mode of baptism must be discarded. Ignoring the purpose of baptism would allow us to fellowship anyone who has been immersed (Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al.) Ignoring the mode of baptism (immersion) would allow us to fellowship all who sprinkle and call it baptism (Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, et al.).
Do we care what the Bible teaches, or are we more interested in the approval of men? Most people definitely fit in this latter category. Political correctness demands that all men be saved—not only those who have never been baptized for the forgiveness of their sins—but those who do not even believe in Jesus as the Son of God. No one can say that Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or any other group will be, lost. We will all be saved, don’t you know? Even the evil people in the world will not be punished much, if at all. Universalism is the destination of all those who reject the truth concerning salvation.
The Broader Response
The Joplin Meeting was successful. Prior to 1984, congregations of the Lord’s church did not add instruments of music (and had not since the split several decades earlier). But now they have—perhaps not as the direct result of Joplin but certainly as a result of the mindset that led to Joplin. Two congregations of some size within 50 miles of South Seminole have already added it, and it is expected that another one will soon.
Compromise on worship, salvation, or doctrine in one major point serves as an invitation to further departures. Consider all of the examples the past has to offer, beginning with Jesse B. Ferguson, a popular preacher in Nashville around 1850. According to Wikipedia, he “became convinced of the eventual salvation of all souls through divine grace, the doctrine of Universalism, and was active in the Universalist faith in his later years.” Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and Rubel Shelly have all marched off in that direction. We must remain with the Scriptures and not follow such deceived men.