What Must One Know About Baptism for It to Be Valid (3)?
Modern Day Departures (1984 to 1996)
During the sixties and beyond, Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett encouraged a broader base of fellowship than that of unity based on baptism for the remission of sins. Besides Ketcherside\&r... Mission Messenger and Garrett\’s Restoration Review, there were other journals devoted to uncertain sounds, such as Mission and Integrity (a misnomer involving wishful thinking). There have always been some waiting to lead brethren across God\’s boundaries of salvation and fellowship, who apparently crave their own followings. But to effect the changes that have occurred in the last fifteen years, we must begin with Rubel Shelly, who has transformed himself from \“defender of the faith\” to \“destroyer of the faith.\” Most people rejoice to leave spiritual darkness for the marvelous light of the gospel (1 Pet. 2:9), but some get blinded by it.
\“Rubel Shelly probably bears the greatest responsibility in our day for opening the floodgates of affiliation with and endorsement of the denominations...\” says Dave Miller. From Shelly\’s book, I Just Want to be a Christian (which would have been more appropriately titled, I Just Want to be a Liberal) come these words:
There are sincere, knowledgeable, devout Christians scattered among the various denominations. \… I see no reason to think one has to understand \“for the remission of sins\” in order to be baptized scripturally, for I do not think there is one right reason for being baptized. I would say that one must be baptized for a right reason in order for his baptism to be acceptable....
The first quote is predicated upon the second: the only way to ascribe salvation to those in denominations is to first question and then eliminate baptism \“for the remission of sins.\” If baptism can be just as powerful and effective in removing sins even when people have no idea that it is serving them in that way, then the door to apostasy has not just been opened a crack; it has been ripped off its hinges.
Shelly also published a tract titled, \“Christians Only,\” which echoes the thoughts and sentiments of the book previously mentioned. Goebel Music reports how well some of the lesser known liberals received Shelly\’s new tract. Buff Scott, a kindred spirit to Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, encouraged his readers to buy the tract:
Some of us have been saying for 30 years what Rubel is saying so well now. But his saying them will probably have more of an impact for he is considered to be \“in fellowship\” with the mainline churches. Those of us who have been saying what he is now saying have been labeled heretics.
Shelly found a number of \“brethren\” willing to be co-heretics. Alan Highers showed that what Shelly was now teaching were the same doctrines as Ketcherside\’s, Garrett\’s, and Scott\’s \“old\” ones on a variety of subjects. The fire of apostasy had been lit; stoked by the fuels of cultural influence and modernist theologians, plus the desire for \“change,\” it would develop into a blaze and then a devouring conflagration.
During the eighties, Max Lucado became a popular author\—especially with denominational people. Not only did he neglect mentioning the Bible\’s doctrine on baptism; he gave it up altogether. He praises denominational folk and counts them all brethren.
Where there is faith, repentance, and the new birth, there is a Christian. When I meet a man whose faith is in the cross and whose eyes are on the Savior, I meet a brother.
I have brothers and sisters with whom I do not agree on the role of women, the meaning of baptism, the place of millennialism. But our uncommon ground is a barren island compared to the great continent of common ground we share. If we can agree on the majestic uniqueness of Christ, don\’t we share enough to accept one another?
Baptism is obviously not necessary to salvation a la Lucado. In fact, brothers and sisters can disagree over its meaning, as far as he is concerned. Max has proved by his actions that what he writes does not fall in the realm of the hypothetical; he practices open fellowship with Catholics and Protestants alike. In fact, to paraphrase Will Rogers, he could probably adopt as his motto: \“I never met a \‘Christian\’ I couldn\’t fellowship.\”
The \“scholars\” among us have weighed in against the Biblical purpose given for baptism, confidently confounding faithful brethren with their considered and collected conclusions, which consists of little more than a cacophonous chorus of \“Me, too\’s.\” Following the deplorable Derrida and his deceptive \“deconstructionism,\” they are willing to change paradigms and pattern themselves after Barth, Bultmann, and Tillich. Carroll Osburn has captured with precision (whether he intended to or not) the position of all those who began this departure just over a decade ago. Their ideas have culminated in the following paragraph which he wrote.
There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who differ on...whether instrumental music is used in worship. There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who believe that Christ is the Son of God, but who differ on eschatological theories such as premillennialism, ecclesiological matters such as congregational organization, or soteriological matters such as whether baptism is \“for\” or \“because of\” the remission of sins.
Put aside for the moment that Osburn has discounted acceptable worship (John 4:23-24). Disregard the fact that he left the door ajar for the eradication of congregational autonomy. Pay no mind to the fact that doctrine is disparaged (at least as it regards the various fanciful and unscriptural millennial theories). Notice that he has given up the discussion of the purpose of baptism. For years we have debated and defeated those teaching the false doctrine of \“baptism because God, for Christ\’s sake, has forgiven me,\” but Osburn just carelessly tosses it aside as a matter of no consequence! We must realize that the broadening of baptism\’s purpose is the gateway to open fellowship. Brethren, this is rank!
Arguments and Refutation
Five years ago Jimmy Allen put together a book which presented various arguments discouraging those who had been \“baptized\” already from doing so again. His basic arguments were: 1) Obedience is a sufficient reason to be baptized; 2) \“For the remission of sins\” is a promise, not a command. The first point is made repeatedly throughout Allen\’s book.
If he is convinced he was baptized to obey the Lord, I do not insist that he go to the water again.
I believe the one reason which includes all the others is obedience to God. Jesus was baptized to obey the Father (Mat. 3:15-17), and no one can have a higher motive for being baptized than did he [sic].
Is the assertion that no one could have a \“higher motive\” Scriptural? Jesus\’ motives and ours for being baptized are entirely different. The Lord\’s purpose was \“to fulfill all righteousness,\” and ours is \“for the remission of sins.\” Where is the passage of Scripture in which Jesus taught, \“Be baptized to obey Me\”? Allen has done nothing more than offer his opinions of the matter. We showed earlier that people knew the reason for being baptized who were taught by John, Jesus, and the apostles. People would know the reason for baptism today also\—if those who taught them spoke as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11).
Allen makes several statements relevant to the \“promise\” argument, two of which are given below.
Obedience is the key. Man must obey God\’s commandments but, in the nature of the case, he cannot obey what God does.
Neither \“remission of sins\” nor \“the gift of the Holy Spirit\” is part of the baptismal command. Both are consequences which follow obedience to the command. One will never find an explicit statement from the Lord saying people must know that God grants forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism or be denied either or both benefits.
While it is true that man cannot obey what God does, he can obey Him for the reason that God said to do so. Trying to link \“for the remission of sins\” to receiving \“the gift of the Holy Spirit\” is fatuous. Anyone who is not trying to prop up a false doctrine will be able to see that the verse does not read: \“Repent, and be baptized every one of you, whereupon you shall receive the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost.\” That hypothetical rendering is precisely what Allen (and many others) would apparently like Acts 2:38 to say, but it never has (and never will in the hands of reliable translators).
J. W. McGarvey, a usually outstanding scholar, also held the \“promise\” view; Allen takes great delight in presenting his medicine analogy, which first appeared on page 9 of the January 1885 Firm Foundation:
It is because God has not made the blessing attached to baptism dependent on our understanding the design of the ordinance. The blessing of taking proper medicine follows whether we understand it or not. So, if God promised pardon to the penitent believer, who is baptized, the blessing comes whether the sinner expects it or not.
How does McGarvey know that the blessing is totally detached from \“our understanding\”? No one would obtain such an impression from Acts 2:38. The comparison of baptism to medicine was not thought through very well. Suppose a person is sick. The doctor says, \“Take this medicine.\” The patient asks, \“Why?\” The doctor answers, \“It will make you well.\” The patient takes it on that basis, knowing that it will make him well. He does not understand everything there is to know about the disease or the ingredients that comprise the remedy, but he knows that if he takes the medication as prescribed, he will be made well.
Likewise, a person may not know everything about sin or everything about the components of salvation, but he knows that if he takes his medicine (is baptized), his soul will be made well. Now that explanation constitutes a true analogy. Naaman took his medicine when he dipped in the Jordan River seven times; he did not see any relationship between those actions and the healing of his leprosy, but he knew the purpose for doing so. For baptism to be baptism, we must know the reason for submitting to it; otherwise, we just get wet. Guy N. Woods commented on this subject as follows:
It is by some among us alleged that it is possible to \“obey God\” in baptism though wholly in error regarding its divinely designated purpose, and under the mistaken notion that one is in possession of salvation before and without it.
(Continued on page 4)
Obedience requires us to do what the Lord said, in the way the Lord said do it, and for the reason or reasons that the Lord said do it.
Foy Wallace also believed what Woods did:
The basic principle of all obedience is understanding. \“He that heareth the word and understandeth it\”\—Matthew 13:23.... It is said that \“to obey God is the main purpose of baptism.\” Then why is that purpose never stated? Is it not singular that the New Testament failed to mention the main purpose in connection with the command, but on the other hand emphasized the non-essential purpose? It takes more than the right act to constitute valid baptism. [It takes, gws] The right act based on the right belief: Error preached, error heard, error believed, is error obeyed. Truth preached, truth heard, truth believed, is truth obeyed.
(To be concluded)