Ramblings From a Lawyer (Part 2)
For some reason, the lawyer we call Lawton seems to have Baptists on his mind a lot. Two of his three handwritten pages concern them. He says he does not like much about Baptist churches and that he believes that Baptist doctrine is in error, but then he says we should regard them as Christian. Lawton will just have to excuse us for not taking his advice, or if not, we will survive his criticism anyway.
Arrogance
First of all, he accuses members of the churches of Christ of being arrogant. As with most critics, it never crosses his mind that it takes a heaping helping of arrogance (on his part) to make that charge. He sets himself up as a judge over us, explaining everything that is wrong with us (in his opinion). He doesn ca single quote from any of us that would prove his case; we are just supposed to take his word for how bad we are. After accusing us of things which he did not bother to prove, he then thinks we will listen to his wonderful advice for how to correct things. It occurs to the reader that we are superfluous to his discussion. He has it all figured out.
Well, not actually. After defining the word arrogant, he says that too many leaders of the churches of Christ fall into this category. How does he know that? How many church leaders has he talked to? Did he conduct a survey? Did he read several tracts or books? What is the basis of his conclusion? Why did he not supply some quotes reflecting arrogance so we would know what he was speaking of?
He adds that we regard other groups, such as Baptists, as willful violators of Scriptures. Did someone say that? Could we have a quotation that someone made that charge? There may be some Baptists in that category, but we do not know all Baptists, nor would we accuse the majority of them as being willing violators of the Scriptures. It certainly is not our job to judge the hearts of men. God will take care of that and render perfect judgment in doing so; human beings would be of no help in executing that duty.
We can and do discuss a teaching in light of the Scriptures, but such is a different matter than what we have been accused of. Lawton furthermore asserts that we claim to be basically the only Christians alive today. Whether we think we are or not is irrelevant. We shall all be judged on the basis of truth not what we think about things.
At any rate, no one has given Christians the task of labeling everyone else as Christian or non-Christian as if our view of the matter made any difference whatsoever. If God counts someone as a Christian, it would not matter if every other person in the world did not. Those we regard as Christians God may not.
Therefore, our task is not to pronounce judgment but to get the gospel before all mankind in order to make certain that all have an opportunity to obey the gospel. And if we know that a religious group teaches error, we want to present them the truth, which is the only thing that can set anyone free (John 8:31-32).
Justifying the Baptists
The rationale Lawton provides to excuse Baptists from obeying the gospel is this:
They believe John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10 are controlling in the area of salvation and therefore the CC Scriptures must be read in a manner consistent with what they regard as controlling Scriptures. They do not agree with me that a specific Scripture should control over a general Scripture like John 3:16.
John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10 are marvelous verses, and we believe every word of what they say. But where in the Bible do we read about controlling Scriptures ? Does the Bible not say, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God\n (2 Tim. 3:16)? Such a statement does not seem to indicate that we must pay attention to some verses while ignoring others. For example, Jesus said, \nunless you repent you shall all likewise perish. Is Lawton suggesting that Baptists get to ignore Luke 13:3 because there is a controlling Scripture, whatever that means? If so, such is wrong.
We must strenuously object to certain verses being called CC (Church of Christ) verses. Neither our brethren in the first century nor we (both members of the churches of Christ) have any verses. We did not make them up; we did not put them in the Bible. The Holy Spirit did that, and therefore all of the verses are His.
Yeah, but you use them. So, should we ignore them because Lawton doesn like them or because Baptists don like them? We did not write the Scriptures, and we did not put all the verses about baptism in the Holy Book. Catholics may not like Matthew 23:9: Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Is that now a CC verse? To show a Jehovah s Witness that Jesus is eternal, as seen in Micah 5:2 (compared with Psalm 90:2), are those CC verses?
No, we study the Bible to see what it says. God put the answers to every false doctrine in His Book. Does He expect us to use those verses to teach the truth or keep them to ourselves? They are not our verses because we use them. Anyone could read the Scriptures and point out the application that certain passages have. Lawton is trying to prejudice the audience in favor of his viewpoint, but he is not succeeding. We see through his errors.
Interpretation
All Scriptures on a subject must be considered when studying the Bible. By what are men saved? The Bible gives us several answers.
We are saved by Jesus (Matt. 1:21; 18:11).
We are saved by preaching and faith (1 Cor. 1:21; John 3:16). The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to the believer (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-2).
We are saved by faith and confession that Jesus is the Son of God (Rom. 10:9-10).
We are saved by New Testament doctrine (1 Tim. 4:16).
We are saved by the engrafted word (James 1:21).
We are saved by believing and being baptized (Mark 16:16).
We are saved by baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
We are saved by hope (Rom. 8:24).
We are saved by grace (Eph. 2:5).
We are saved when we possess a love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10).
We are saved by God s mercy (Titus 3:5).
Furthermore, we cannot be saved without faith in Jesus as the Son of God (John 8:24) or repentance (Luke 13:3). James says that faith cannot save without works (2:14). He adds that a man is justified by works (obedience) and not by faith only (2:24). [Justification occurs at the same time as washing (1 Cor. 6:11).]
Can Lawton now tell us which of the above Scriptures are Baptist and which are CC ? Such would be preposterous; all of these verses are from God. Are there some that are Mormon, Catholic, or Calvinistic as well? Lawton has no argument whatsoever. These Scriptures belong to everyone.
The argument concerning controlling Scriptures also lacks merit. Do Baptists make that argument, or is Lawton making it for them? He really should learn to cite a source if he expects to be believed. However, it is the case that no one has the right to take one or two of the passages above and ignore the rest. The Holy Spirit inspired men to write that we are saved by all of those things. What man has the right to attempt to eliminate any of them?
Bible believers must subscribe to the belief that the Bible is harmonious. No one has the right to teach that man is saved by faith only when it is obvious that there are several elements that are involved in man s salvation. We cannot make the Bible contradict itself. If it teaches that all of the above precepts bring about salvation, we cannot begin to kick out some of them as unnecessary because we want to emphasize just one or two of them.
Purpose and Fellowship
Baptists err in thinking that they are saved without baptism, Lawton admits. They view baptism as a command but one that has nothing to do with salvation. He adds that upon being baptized a Baptist should be considered a Christian notwithstanding. What? Why? Are people set free from sin as the result of error or as a result of believing the truth (John 8:31-32)?
Lawton makes it sound as though members of the churches of Christ have the power to extend fellowship. No. We do not decide whom to fellowship; God already made that decision. If someone has obeyed the gospel (so far as we know), then we happily include him in the fellowship of the church just as in Acts 2. If we know that he has not obeyed the gospel, then we do not have the right to call him brother. The kingdom does not belong to us; Jesus is the Head of the church. What we do must be by His authority, and He does not authorize us to fellowship those who were immersed with the notion that they were saved beforehand.
The reader may have noticed that Lawton has only encouraged us to fellowship Baptists. What about all the religious groups that sprinkle in place of baptism? Why is he not encouraging us to fellowship them? Many raised in those religions have been taught that sprinkling is the same as baptism (although such an assertion is totally untrue). So, they have been taught error, but since they think they have been baptized, why should we not consider them as Christians? Lawton can choose to answer that question, if he so desires (he will be sent a copy of these articles).
He has said that we should not let instrumental music be a barrier to fellowship with those in the Christian Church. Then he advocates fellowshipping Baptists even though their understanding is wrong. Why stop there? Why don we fellowship just anyone who claims to be a Christian including Mormons who say they baptize for the remission of sins?
Even More Amazing
According to Lawton, Jesus never made the validity of baptism hinge on a correct understanding of its purpose\n. Does Lawton not realize that the confusion that exists in today s world was not part of the first-century world? People knew why John baptized and why Jesus baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Later, after the establishment of the church, when 12 men had not been baptized correctly, they were taught what they lacked and were baptized properly (Acts 19:1-7).
Amazingly, Lawton cites Matthew 25:31-46 to show what is really important (compassion) to Jesus. He adds that this passage does not say a word about invalid baptism or other doctrinal errors. Neither does the passage preceding it (Matt. 25:14-30) which condemns laziness. Neither does Matthew 25:1-13 mention baptism or error; it deals with being unprepared. These passages are dealing with other subjects.
This slovenly way of looking at the Scriptures would lead someone to say that, because repentance is not mentioned in John 3:16, it is not important or that, because love is not mentioned in Galatians 1:6-9 (which emphasizes that there is only one gospel and that those who preach another are accursed), it must not be that important even though loving God is the greatest commandment. All that Lawton is doing is trying to pit one passage against another as if one paragraph contains everything that is essential to salvation.
No one feels confident in claiming to know what is in someone else s heart (although Lawton does not hesitate to say that we lack mercy), but it seems as though he thinks we ought to broaden our base of fellowship to measurements that he has given us. Instruments of music in worship should not matter, neither should baptism for just any reason matter. He has concluded that these things are not important and that we should just take his word for it that it s all right. Following what the Scriptures actually teach would be a better option.