This blog post will not focus upon peripheral problems, such as the poor English grammar evident in the fact that the organization’s name does not appear to understand the role of the apostrophe and the many grammatical errors in its statement of faith and other documents.
Nor will it focus upon the fact that the cult rejects the congregational church polity of Anabaptism for a form of hierarchicalism with a “Biblical presbytery rule [sic]” and “national bishops” and so is not Anabaptist, but would be better called Episcopalian than Anabaptist, although it may not even understand what episcopalian, presbyterian, and congregational church polity are.
Nor will it focus upon the fact that the cult does not understand that the church of the New Testament is not universal or invisible. Nor will it focus upon affirmations in its doctrinal statement such as that Christians are “at point [sic] of salvation baptized by the Holy Spirit of God into one body . . . and that body being not all [sic] figurative, but altogether real, physically . . . that body is Christ’s . . . each born again child of God is literally made to be . . . members of Jesus Christ’s body, of His flesh and of His bones.” The members of the organization do not, however, literally disappear into the ascended human body of Christ to become part of His literal bone marrow, and, remember, the statement is allegedly literal, “not at all figurative.”
Nor will it focus upon the cult’s extreme Ruckmanism, through which it denies Christ’s promises to preserve the Greek and Hebrew words which were dictated by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 5:18) and denigrates study of the preserved words of God in the original languages. Nor will it focus upon how the cult undermines confidence in the King James Bible through its extremism. Nor will it focus upon the bizarre idea in its doctrinal statement that the Bible actually is God in written form, an idea which the pseudo-Baptist cultist Steven Anderson has also adopted.
Nor will it focus upon the cult’s tendency to name-calling and careless study of Scripture, nor upon the fact that the section in its doctrinal statement on (the wicked sin of) sodomy adds ideas not present in the Bible; nor on the fact that the cult also follows Steven Anderson and rejects Scripture by teaching that sodomites cannot be saved (with the “Anabaptists Church” cult making certain qualifications to this), nor on the fact that it spends more time on sodomy than it does on the nature of God, and that only its statement on sodomy, but nothing else in its doctrinal statement, ends with the affirmation: “This section of the Articles of Faith of the Anabaptists Church [sic] Worldwide is not subject to revision, and shall never be changed by any presbytery without the dissolvement [sic] of the Church Worldwide.” Apparently even the bad grammar in this section of the cult’s articles of faith cannot be changed; but that is not the focus of this blog post.
What is the worst false doctrine of this cult? The worst false teaching is its rejection of the Trinity and of the incarnation of Christ in favor of a bizarre, blasphemous, and ignorant form of modalism. Its article of faith on the Trinity includes the following:
2.3 We believe that God is a spirit (John 4:24), and that the Holy Spirit is
that very Spirit of the Lord God (Isaiah 61:1, 10.11, 14), and was the very
breath of Life in Jesus Christ (Isaiah 11:4/ Job 33:4/ John 20:22).
2.4 We believe that Jesus Christ is God the Father (John 10:30) manifest in the
flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), and that Jesus Christ was and is the bodily
manifestation of God Almighty.
2.5 As a ghost is the spirit of a dead man (Luke 24:37/ Matthew 14:26), we
believe that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Jesus Christ which He gave up on
Calvary when He died for our sins (John 19:30/ Matthew 27:50/ Mark
15:37/ Luke 23:46), and as the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:2-8) is the Spirit of Jesus
Christ (Romans 8:9/ Philippians 1:19). These Three being One God, each
exists eternally as God, and as the manifestations of themselves in One as
distinguished from the Other. God is a spirit, and that spirit is the Holy
Spirit, who was the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) of Jesus Christ, who Himself
was the bodily manifestation of God the Father with the Holy Spirit
breathing within Him as the very Life of God. Though the Eternal God cannot
die, God the Father sent His Son into the world to do just that, yielding up
the ghost when He had finished His Father’s work; upon which the Holy
Ghost of God became the working manifestation of God the Father in
baptizing believers into the very body of God, Jesus Christ the Righteous (1
Corinthians 12:11-14/ Acts 1:5).
The statement that “Jesus Christ is God the Father” is modalist heresy and idolatry. It is a damnable false doctrine. It proclaims a false God, a denial and rejection of the true God. Jesus Christ is the Son, not the Father. By teaching that Jesus Christ is God the Father, this cult shows that they are antichrist, denying the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22).
The affirmations in 2.5 make a crazy confusion of Christ’s human spirit with the Holy Spirit. By denying that Christ’s human soul and spirit were separated from His body at His death, instead claiming that the Holy Spirit was present instead of Christ’s human spirit, the “Anabaptists Church Worldwide” cult denies the true humanity of Christ. Only if Christ had a true and complete humanity, body, soul, and spirit, could He represent and save sinful mankind. Section 2.5 denies Christ’s true humanity by claiming that the Holy Spirit replaced the Lord Jesus’ human spirit, something similar to the ancient heresy of Apollinarianism (although if the cult’s members cannot even write in English properly, and think Anabaptists held to presbyterian church polity, it is not likely that they have much understanding of early Trinitarian controversies). By denying the true and complete humanity of Jesus Christ, the “Anabaptists Church Worldwide” cult shows itself to be of the “spirit of antichrist,” and its members to be deceivers and antichrists (1 John 4:3; 2 John 7).
Various parts of their doctrinal statement also teach the idolatrous idea that God is body, soul, and spirit like people are–the Holy Spirit is allegedly God’s eternal spirit part, based on a confusion of the use of the word Spirit for the third Person and also for the human spirit. The words for spirit, ruach and pneuma, are also used for the wind in the Bible, but the Holy Spirit is not God’s eternal wind. God’s eternal body part is allegedly the Son, denying His true incarnation in time (1 John 4:1-3) and thus evidencing itself as antichrist. God’s eternal soul part is allegedly the Father, something for which Scripture gives not a scintilla of evidence. The cult claims Biblical support for its idolatry by assuming that since man is in the image of God, God must be body, soul, and spirit, ignoring the fact that the image of God in man is “righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:24) and that the image is being progressively renewed in believers through progressive sanctification (Colossians 3:10), so the image of God in man has absolutely nothing to do with the wicked blasphemy that God is an eternal Son-body, spirit-Holy Ghost, and soul-Father.
There are a number of things that a born-again child of God, and a member of one of Christ’s true Baptist churches, could find attractive about the “Anabaptists Church Worldwide” cult. It claims to stand for the KJV; it believes in modesty and gender distinction; it (pretends) to be part of the Anabaptist/Baptist line of true churches; it takes a strong stand against sins the world is promoting, such as homosexuality; it claims to be fearless and bold in its preaching; it practices street preaching, which is very good, and so on. One can hope that perhaps some of the members of this cult are too ignorant to realize that their articles of faith deny the Trinity and the true humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ in favor of modalism and a form of Apollinarianism. Regrettably, none of the above nice things justify its wicked rejection of the true God and of the incarnate Christ. Who cares if you are modestly dressed if you are a blasphemer and idolator? Those that actually believe its doctrinal statement will find themselves in hell with the Antichrist. Those that are too ignorant to understand its heresies have no business preaching to anybody (1 Timothy 3:1) until they learn the rudiments of Christianity on the nature of God.
If you are a member of the “Anabaptist Church Worldwide” and “Street Preacher Fellowship” cult, I call on you to repent of your idolatry and other sins, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and be saved (Mark 1:15), and then separate yourself from this cult and join one of Christ’s true churches. Learn more about Christ’s true gospel and His true church here.
Satan is real. What about COVID-19? We have seen lockdowns. We have seen trillions in new debt. We have seen new drugs created by Big Pharma. Videos saying it is a “Plandemic,” something taught by the great scientist Judy Mikovitsc until she was shut down by the communists who control the government, have gone viral.
At work a few months ago I had to do a report because someone identifying himself as “Freekshow” had put graffiti up stating “There is no coronavirus. The government lies to us every day.”
Maybe that is the truth, no? Is Freekshow right and the CDC wrong?
Churches need to take a stand! They need to not wear masks! They need to stop social distancing! Hand sanitizer and gloves are actually bad for you! They need to resist the Red Chinese who are taking over our country using COVID! Forget PubMed–they need to get everyone to watch Plandemic and get medical information from other reliable sources, like videos random people put on the Internet! It is only the Demoncrats, like Senate leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Mike Pence, who believe in any of this mask wearing stuff! Baptists, fundamentalists, and evangelicals need to show that they are not gullible enough to believe the CDC and Dr. Fauci when there are videos on YouTube and graffiti artists who show that they are wrong. RESIST!
Satan is real–he has a purpose here to hurt the church of God and take away our liberties and constitutional rights!
The REAL COVID-19 Conspiracy and Satan
So let’s say your church goes this route. They stop preaching and applying the Bible alone and start preaching on conspiracy theories, giving them the imprimatur of “thus saith the LORD” from the pulpit of the Lord’s church. Maybe you are a church member who is pushing for this to happen and are promoting these theories to others in the congregation. Maybe you are a church leader who wants to do this. Here are some things you should consider.
What if the conspiracy theories you are having Christ’s church promote violate basic laws of science–for example, what if carbon dioxide molecules are simply far too small to not pass through masks, while viruses and water droplets composed of thousands of H20 molecules together are much larger?
What if the people who you are calling out as communist agents, or as who knows what else, are not actually agents of communism, even if you disagree with their political perspective? Isn’t slander still a sin, even if you are slandering someone who takes a different political position? Should the pulpit be a place for people to hear the Triune Jehovah’s truth, or slander?
What if we are commanded to be “afraid to speak evil of dignities” and not to “despise government” (2 Peter; Jude), so we don’t actually get to rail against governmental officials, since Michael the Archangel did not even revile Satan? What if Romans 13 actually means what it says and those magistrates have authority from God, as even the wicked ruler Nero did? What if you are guilty of the sin of evil-speaking? What if when Christ exposed the Pharisees in Matthew 23, every single thing He said was 100% accurate, but your accusations are not? What if, unintentionally perhaps, you are spreading lies? Do you remember who the father of lies is (John 8:44)?
What if you destroy Christian liberty by binding the consciences of the saints to conspiratorial beliefs and practices for which you have no authority from the great Head of the Church? What if He whose eyes are like a flame of fire, whose feet are like burning brass, who took a whip and drove out people from His Father’s House who were perverting His truth, and who killed people in Corinth for unworthy practices (1 Corinthians 11) does not like it when you tell His espoused bride (Ephesians 5) something other than what He, her great Husband, commands?
What if you are now feeding God’s sheep junk food instead of giving the hungry children of God the milk and meat of the Word? What did Jehovah do to the shepherds who would not “feed the flock” (Ezekiel 34:3; 1 Peter 5)?
What if, after you stand against masks and against social distancing, COVID spreads through your church like wildfire? What if some of God’s saints die because you failed to practice sound reasoning–which is commanded in Scripture (Isaiah 1:18) and is part of the greatest commandment, to love God with all your mind as well as your affections (Mark 12:30)? What if you are an awful testimony to your community as your church becomes known as the place, not where God’s truth is spread, but where disease is spread? What if your church spreads COVID to people in the community who then die and go to hell?
What if your church leads to many church members losing thousands of dollars since they can’t go to work because you exposed them to COVID? What if your church temporarily shuts down community businesses by infecting them with COVID? Do you think those people will listen to your church when it proclaims the gospel?
What if people leave a strong independent Baptist church for a weak or false “church” because the strong church is such a rotten testimony through getting side-tracked with conspiracy theories? What if you are no longer able to effectively fulfill the Great Commission because people who are not conspiracy theory addicts think your church is full of disease-spreading nut cases? You bear no sin if people are turned off because of Biblical truth, but what if you do bear sin if they are turned off because you are promoting conspiracy theories?
What if people follow your COVID conspiracy theories and get into other conspiracies, with the result that they die of forms of cancer that are actually easily treatable because they opt for New Age or other unconventional “medicine” instead of treatments that actually work?
What if people are not willing to believe actual Biblical truth you preach to them because of the conspiratorial lies you were mixing in with God’s truth?
What if preaching conspiracy theories actually helps destroy religious liberty and weaken constitutional freedoms? What if by going nuts you provide a great argument for secular rulers keeping churches closed? What if by rejecting masks or other CDC guidelines you distract from real and wicked violations of religious liberty, such as Nevada guidelines that favor casinos and discriminate against churches or the unrighteous restrictions on churches in California? What if by making conspiratorial nonsense a hill to die on, you strengthen the hand of Satan and those in government who actually do despise Christ, His churches, and His people, and make it harder for Christians to really take a stand over what actually does matter?
What if the real conspiracy of Satan is not found in the misinformation in Plandemic and other online videos, but Satan’s real goal is to get you to believe unscientific lies online, stop preaching the Bible, commit the sins of slander and evil-speaking, contribute to the death or sickness of some of the saints and some in the world, destroy your testimony, hinder the Great Commission, and contribute to the destruction of religious liberty by being a nut-case?
What if you may have good intentions, but there is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is still spiritual death and destruction (Proverbs 14:12)?
Please carefully apply Biblical principles, employ logic–the way God thinks–use reason–as He commands His people to do–cry mightily to God for understanding, and put feet to those prayers by doing careful research, before you promote conspiracy theories to fellow saints in the Lord’s church, and especially consider the above, if you are a church leader, before you bring any conspiracy theories into the sacred pulpit of the Lord’s NT temple. Maybe you should even evaluate whether the time you spend watching YouTube videos on this stuff would be better employed studying Scripture or even reading a textbook on biology to make sure you understand basic scientific facts.
Be careful you are not advancing Satan’s cause when you think you are opposing it by proclaiming conspiracy theories.
By the way, if you think I must have been paid off by Big Pharma to write this, please make sure that they have my correct address–the checks haven’t been coming, and I have been waiting and waiting and waiting.
If you feel personally offended by this post, or if you think that the proper response to it is to ignore its arguments and attack is author, I would suggest that you meditate upon Isaiah 1:18 and, instead of judging based on feelings, think dispassionately about whether your response is logical or rational.
In previous weeks I have posted Bible studies #1-3 and 5A-B in the series of evangelistic Bible studies. This week I have posted the final part of study #5, namely, what saving faith is not and what it is. I believe that a lost person who goes through these studies honesty should be illuminated by the Holy Ghost as to his spiritual condition. In our day when anyone who can walk down an isle and shake the hand of someone at the front is assumed to be genuinely converted, a careful presentation of what falls short of saving faith and what it involves is, I trust, something the Lord can use for His glory and which can help the lost, and which can also assist the saints in carefully helping the unconverted with the spiritual needs of their souls.
Please watch the embedded video below or watch the video on YouTube, and please feel free to share your comments here and there and to “like” the video if you believe it is valuable.
Bible Study #5C: Saving Faith, what it is not and what it is,
Have you ever truly repented, or have you been satisfied with a counterfeit that falls short of true conversion?
I would encourage you to consider training people in your church to use these Bible studies in their gospel preaching, and to share the videos on YouTube or at FaithSaves
with others. Some have also said that they have used these in their family devotions. Please watch the embedded video below or watch the video
on YouTube, and please feel free to share your comments here and there
and to “like” the video if you believe it is valuable.
Much of the material on repentance in study #5 comes from Joseph Alleine’s Alarm to the Unconverted, a Puritan evangelistic work that received very widespread distribution and which has been reprinted over 350 times. It is not faultless (it tends towards preparationism), but it is far better than the shallow “1-2-3 pray after me” evangelism that almost leaves repentance out entirely and just about never carefully contrasts true faith and repentance from their non-saving counterfeits.
Someone who goes through study #5 honestly should be illuminated by the Spirit through the Word as to his spiritual condition and will understand what the response to the gospel–repentant faith–involves. Those who are wondering if they have ever truly repented and believed should also be helped and should be able to rejoice with a “yes” answer or see their danger as they answer “no.” Cultural “Christians” should also see the difference between mental assent to gospel truths and genuinely coming to the Lord, Jesus Christ.
On the last few Fridays I have posted Bible study #1: “What is the Bible?” (part 1B) and study #2, “Who is God?” The video for part 3, “What does God want from me?” is embedded below. The studies can be accessed on the Bible studies page on my website here or on YouTube (link to part 3) as well as through the embedded video. I would encourage you to “like” the video on YouTube as well as commenting on it both there and here if you believe it contains good content.
Studies #1 and #2 are often viewed as interesting and informative by the lost. Study #3 is where things start to hit home and “get personal,” as it were. The Bible study defines sin, goes through the Ten Commandments and other commands God has given men, explains the sin nature and the imputation of Adam’s sin, explains what God promises for perfect obedience–the kind only Christ has ever rendered–and any disobedience–the state into which all the rest of mankind falls–and then explains why the attempts people make to get out of the threatenings of God’s law fail. The study is designed to be used by the Holy Spirit to produce conviction of sin in the unconverted, and prepare them to hear the glorious gospel, the saving work of the crucified and risen Lord, Jesus Christ–in study #4.
Following Bible study #1 on the character of Scripture as inspired and preserved, Bible study #2, on the most important Being, covers the nature of God, discussing His incommunicable attributes such as omnipotence, self-existence, His character as a Spirit, and so on, as well as communicable attributes such as justice, love, holiness, etc. The meaning of the names Jehovah, Eloheim, and Adonai is explained, and God’s Triune character set forth.
An important truth too often left out in fundamental Baptist circles are the nature of the relations that eternally distinguish the Trinitarian Persons, as explained, for example, in the 1689 London Baptist Confession:
In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.
Bible study #2 does explain this important aspect of God’ Triune character.
Years ago, as a member of Lehigh Valley Baptist Church, I was introduced to the Scriptural pattern of doing evangelistic Bible studies with the lost as well as simply preaching the gospel to them at their doors. There are a number of good evangelistic Bible studies that have been written; the ones available here are in use in a number of churches in the United States and internationally. Video presentations of these Bible studies are now becoming available. If you use these studies in your church already, the video presentations can help people become skilled in teaching others one-on-one. They also can help with those who you may not be able to do one-on-one studies. If you use different evangelistic Bible studies, these video presentations may serve as a supplement that you can offer seekers after truth.
To that end, please note the video for study #1: “What is the Bible?” Study #1A deals with the inspiration of Scripture while 1B deals with preservation and canonicity. Part #1A had an issue and is getting reprocessed to go live, so part 1B is here first; you will survive if you view them in the reverse order. The studies can be accessed on the Bible studies page on my website here or on YouTube (link to part 1B) as well as through the embedded video below. I would encourage you to “like” the video on YouTube as well as commenting on it both there and here if you believe it contains good content.
is a useful test. I do not endorse Credo House, which produced the test, because of its new evangelical character and compromise to the point where it will produce material by “evangelicals” who are willing to entertain the possibility that the Bible contains some errors, despite the fact that God himself testifies in Scripture to his own infallible truthfulness and that the Lord Jesus Christ clearly affirmed the infallibility and inerrancy of the verbally, plenarily inspired Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16; John 10:35; Matthew 5:18; 24:35, etc.) I believe I became acquainted with their organization after finding out about a free course on the resurrection of the Lord Jesus by Gary Habermas that contained useful information despite the shortcomings of Credo House.
So please feel free to spend a handful of minutes taking the theological knowledge test. You can let me know your thoughts about the test and about how you did in the comment section below. (Don’t read the comments of other people until after you take the test yourself.) How would the men in your church, who are responsible to lead their families in the knowledge of God, do on the test? How about the ladies? How would your Sunday school teachers do? How about your Bible college graduates? (I recall a statement by a IFB seminary graduate who evidenced, in his official statement of faith at his ordination council, great Trinitarian ignorance, that would be serious heresy if he knew what he was talking about, but the false teaching was never even brought up by any of the pastors there. Many Independent Baptist schools do a poor job teaching people the Bible and consequently produce preachers who have a very shallow understanding of Biblical teaching or even of how to study the Bible.)
If you did not already watch the debate, you can do so on YouTube by clicking here or by watching the embedded videos below. The questions we did not get to answer commence after the videos.
Debate part 1, “We are born again before baptism” (Ross affirmative, Jacoby negative):
Debate part 2, “We are born again in baptism” (Ross negative, Jacoby affirmative):
Questions from the debates we did not get to answer in the Q & A session. Last time we put Thomas Ross’s answer first, so this time we will put Douglas Jacoby’s answer first.
8.) Isn’t it clear from John the Baptist response to the people coming to be baptized that he didn’t consider baptism as a work when he stopped them from being baptized by telling them to go and produce works in keeping with repentance?
DJ (Douglas Jacoby): Neither John nor Jesus nor any apostle ever designated baptism as a “work.” If we insist on calling it a work, we would only be correct that it is a work of God. After all, he is the one forgiving us! You are right to observe that the works follow baptism. Again, baptism itself was never called a work in the Bible, nor was it called a work in the course of the history of the church, until recent centuries.
TR (Thomas Ross): Matt. 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
This passage says absolutely nothing about baptism not being a good work, a work of righteousness that is pleasing to God. The word “work” in Scripture is not bad, it is good. God has ordained that Christians do good works:
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)
But those very good works do not save:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
9.) If you never had a doctrinal position on salvation, or if you had never read the scriptures – (or didn’t know Greek)What would you believe about how to become a Christian if you read through the gospels and Acts for the very first time?
DJ: Well, reading the gospel we learn a lot about the life to which we are called, but not so much about how to become a Christian. (After all, these were still the last days of the Old Covenant, which was in effect until Acts 2. In other words, the New Covenant is powered by Jesus’ death [Heb 9:15-17], though it doesn’t come into effect formally until Pentecost, 30 AD.) Many people are saved in the gospels, in the context of Judaism. For example, assuming he was a Jew, the thief on the cross (Luke 23:40-43) was saved as a penitent member of the Old Covenant people of God. There was no time to be baptized, nor any need—since baptism is a participation in Jesus’ death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-4), and Jesus had not yet been raised from the dead.
Acts is the book of the N.T. where we see people becoming Christians (present tense). The gospels anticipate Christian conversion; the letters assume and reflect back on it.
So let’s say we hand the book of Acts to a literate child, perhaps a 9- or 12-year-old. (It’s been done many times!) They read Peter’s Pentecost message (Acts 2:14-35). They hear the question asked by the crowd, “What shall we do?” (v.36). They listen to Peter’s response, “Repent and be baptized” (v.38). Finally, they note that those who accepted this message were baptized (v.41). Children grasp the connection between repentance and baptism and salvation. Unless they have been otherwise indoctrinated. This should not be controversial—but it is, since few churches really expect initial or ongoing repentance of their members, and entire denominations have lost their grip on Christian baptism.
TR: You would believe:
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:14-18).
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24).
“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43)
“And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:39)
“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31)
Baptism as the point where sin is taken away is adopted because of religious tradition and a misinterpretation of a very small number of verses, while ignoring the huge numbers of verses that teach one receives eternal life at the moment of faith before baptism.
10.) I know many people whose life are godly and righteous but without an experience of baptism. If God is looks at the heart 1 Sam 16:7, then what heart issue is involved in getting baptized?
DJ: Sounds like we both know persons evidencing Christ in their lives, yet who have not been baptized. Of course, you are right: God looks at the heart. When I see Jesus in another believer, I am hesitant to write that person off simply because of a misunderstanding on some point of doctrine or practice. This perspective is consistent with biblical revelation. 2 Chron 30:18-20 and Rom 2:25-29 support such a perspective.
However, that doesn’t undo the command to be baptized. It’s one thing to be ignorant or misinformed, quite another to reject a divine command! So I still teach that people should understand baptism—this is always desirable—even though, as you note, judgment is up to God.
As for the heart (see the chart on salvation in the Ross-Jacoby debate), this is more connected with faith than with baptism. Hearing the Word changes our knowledge (and in a receptive heart, leads to faith—Rom 10:17). Faith is connected with a change of heart (Acts 15:9; Heb 10:22). Repentance (in a way, the other side of faith) leads to life changes (things we give up and things we begin to do). And baptism changes our relationship with God (rebirth, becoming his son or daughter).
As I reasoned in the debate, baptism is the normative point at which the rebirth takes place. I will let the Lord handle the exceptions.
TR: While baptism is not the point at which sin is removed, there is a heart issue involved in baptism. Someone who is not willing to identify with Christ through baptism has a very serious heart problem. The New Testament records many examples of people who were justified before baptism, but the New Testament records no examples of people who were born again who stubbornly and willfully refused and rejected baptism. God expects you to reject false religion and follow Christ in His church after believing (Mark 16:16).
11.) You brought up early church teaching that mentions baptism. Today, we have more translations, more books, and more teaching. Why has it gotten foggier with time? Were there errors? New realizations? Contradicting material discovered?
DJ: I wouldn’t say this is quite right. When more ancient manuscripts are discovered, our translations become better—either by a more certain knowledge of the originally wording, or by improvements in translators’ understanding of the biblical languages. This is not to say you aren’t on to something. There are tens of thousands of church groups, each claiming to be authentically representing pristine, apostolic Christianity. Not everyone can be right. Dr. Ross and I both agree that the “new-fangled doctrine of 1835,” the Sinner’s Prayer—embraced by most of the evangelical world—has caused much harm. It’s not only unbiblical, but tends to actually dilute commitment to Christ.
At the same time, to be fair, I know of a number of evangelicals who are coming to a high regard of baptism, viewing it within the process of salvation. (Ironically, some groups with an historically high view of baptism are giving in to subjectivism, even accepting the Sinner’s Prayer.) So there is a lot of confusion. In the pages of the New Testament, as in other documents produced by the early church (esp. the first three centuries), the murkiness is absent. Repentance and baptism were regarded as the last actions of a non-Christian—essential to the process of salvation.
TR: While I did not have time to deal extensively with the patristic material in the debate, please note that I supplied significant evidence at the end of debate #2 that the idea that people were lost before baptism was far from the universal teaching of early Christianity. Nor, for that matter, should the sources Dr. Jacoby cited be assumed to be advocates of baptismal regeneration (see, e. g., the article here and the further sources cited in it.)
Furthermore, we would trace the true churches to the dissenting movements that were the minority rather quickly in church history rather than to the majority that became the Roman Catholic religion, e. g.:
1.) Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, a member of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1560): “If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished.” This Catholic prelate, living at the time of the Reformation, admitted that the Baptists had been around since A. D. 360.
2.) Mosheim (Lutheran, A. D. 1755), said, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the name of Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion . . . is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained.”
3.) Dr. J. J. Durmont & Dr. Ypeig (Reformed writers specifically appointed by the King of Holland to ascertain if the historical claims of the Baptists were valid), concluded in A. D. 1819 that they were “descended from the tolerably pure evangelical Waldenses. . . . They were, therefore, in existence long before the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. . . . We have seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists . . . were the original Waldenses; and who have long in the history of the Church, received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the Apostles; and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.”
4.) Alexander Campbell (founder of the “Disciples of Christ” and “Church of Christ” denominations, A. D. 1824): “I would engage to show that baptism as viewed and practiced by the Baptists, had its advocates in every century up to the Christian era . . . clouds of witnesses attest the fact, that before the Reformation from popery, and from the apostolic age, to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists, and the practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced.”
5.) Reformed writer Leonard Verduin stated, “No one is credited with having invented the Anabaptism of the sixteenth century for the simple reason that no one did. . . . There were Anabaptists, called by that name, in the fourth century.” pg. 189-190, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965).
If a person repents and has faith in Jesus as the Lord and Savior prior to baptism, must they also be aware of what is happening at the moment of their baptism to be born again? Put another way, can someone hold Dr. Ross’ position yet still be receive the forgiveness of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism? Please explain your reasoning.
DJ: While it’s always ideal to know what we’re getting into, we aren’t saved by comprehensive doctrinal understanding. (Joseph Harris and I flesh this point out in our book,Informed: Untangling Harmful Interpretations of Scripture.) Consider marriage. It is certainly possible to underestimate the energy and discipline it will take to be a godly wife or husband, and many enter marriage without having prepared themselves emotionally and spiritually. Nevertheless, if they have exchanged vows and complied with the law, they are married all the same.
Please see my response to [Q14], which overlaps your question. Note also that in our debate, while Thomas indicated he believed I was a non-Christian because I did not share his view on baptism, I did not follow suit / deny that he is a genuine believer in our Lord.
TR: It seems that Dr. Jacoby recognized that people can indeed be born again before baptism, although he stated that this was an exception. I appreciate his concession here, one which fits with the early history of his denomination, e. g., as cited in our debate, the questions below that I asked him:
Do you agree with Alexander Campbell’s statement:
“I observe, that if there be no Christians in the Protestant sects . . . and therefore no Christians in the world except ourselves [in Campbell’s new sect] . . . for many centuries there [would have] been no church of Christ, no Christians in the world; and the promises concerning the everlasting kingdom of Messiah [would] have failed, and the gates of hell have prevailed against his church! This cannot be; and therefore there are Christians among the sects[.] . . . [W]ho is a Christian? I answer, everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. . . . There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of the faith, absolutely essential to a Christian-though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort. . . . [There are] Christians in all denominations[.] . . . [Among] the different Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodistic, and Baptist sects . . . [t]here are, no doubt, many . . . disciples of Christ.”
(“The Lunenburg Letter: An Incident in the History of the Interpretation of Baptism,” Glenn Paden. Restoration Quarterly Vol. 2:1 (1958) 13-18 for original sources. cf. http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1950s/vol_2_no_1_contents/paden.html#).
Do you agree with Alexander Campbell’s statement:
“But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to the measure of the knowledge of his will. . . . I cannot, therefore, make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in infancy without their own knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ and the well-grounded hope of heaven. . . . Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith [Campbell’s new sect], I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians. . . . I do not substitute obedience to one commandment [baptism] for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or Pedobaptist more spiritually minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former, rather than the latter, would have more cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. . . . There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of the faith, absolutely essential to a Christian.”
(Millenial Harbinger, September 1837, pgs. 411ff., acc. pgs. 133-135, The Millenial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell, co-ed. W. K. Pendleton, A. W. Campbell & Isaac Errett. Bethany, VA: Pub. A. Campbell, 1862. Series V, Vol V. elec. acc. http://books.google.com. cf. “The Gospel and Water Baptism: A Study of Acts 2:38, Lanny Thomas Tanton, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 1990) pgs. 27-52).
At Douglasjacoby.com the following appears, written in March of 2015:
F. LaGard Smith . . . states that those who are baptized even without the knowledge that they are baptized for the forgiveness of their sins are still saved in God’s eyes. So what if a person fully repents but believes he is saved by grace and he gets baptized as symbol of his commitment biblically, is he saved? . . . [D]espite their misunderstanding of baptism’s purpose . . . believers who are immersed in order to obey the command to be baptized might nevertheless be regarded in God’s eyes as saved believers. If so, of course, they would not have been saved at the point of faith (as they, themselves, think) but only at the point of their baptism–an odd situation, to say the least. . . . I am inclined to agree with LaGard Smith on this. I am fully cognizant that this has not been the stand of the churches of Christ in recent times. In fact, when a preacher back then took the position that those who did not have “baptismal cognizance . . . must be “rebaptized,” Alexander Campbell disfellowshipped this person for being divisive. The group known today as the Christadelphians resulted from this split. It is ironic that the Church of Christ now takes the view which Alexander Campbell once viewed as divisive. (https://www.douglasjacoby.com/qa-1349-what-about-baptismal-cognizance-by-john-oakes/ Accessed on 5/2/2020.)
Should the COC follow the practice of Alexander Campbell and place under church discipline/ separate from those who believe that one must either believe that his baptism is administered in order to obtain forgiveness or must submit to rebaptism?
Does the dominant COC view today that one must believe baptism remits sin when one is dipped mean that Alexander Campbell and other COC founders are in hell, for neither Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell, Barton Stone, nor Walter Scott believed that baptism was the point at which sin was remitted when they were immersed?
While I appreciate Douglas Jacoby’s concession here the new birth before baptism is hardly an exception. On the contrary, it is the plain teaching of huge numbers of verses of Scripture. Those verses must control our understanding of the handful of texts—about 0.019% of the Bible—that even comes close to looking like it might contradict justification at the moment of faith before baptism.
12B.) This question is primarily for Dr. Ross (though both parties may respond):
How do you understand baptism in relation to the Suzerain-Vassal treaty? Was this type of treaty considered ratified when the two parties began the covenant making process or only after they had completed all aspects of that process?
DJ: No comment — although it does seem a stretch to posit a connection
between Ancient Near Eastern treaties and baptism. (Which isn’t exactly a treaty.) I’d be interested in what Dr. Ross says.
TR: The suzerain-vassal treaty format is more relevant to the books of Moses than to the New Testament teaching about baptism (see, e. g., the study on archaeological evidence for the Old Testament here). However, since there has always been only one human response God required of man in order to receive forgiveness—faith in God and His coming Messiah (Old Testament) or faith in God and His crucified and risen Messiah, Jesus (New Testament), one can still learn something about what God requires today from the pattern set millennia ago by Moses, e. g., God is in charge and we, as His vassals or servants, submit to Him and enter into covenant with Him. I believe we would do better, however, to get our answer to the question of whether one is justified at the moment of faith or lost until baptized from careful exegesis of Scripture rather than from looking at details of ancient treaties that certainly provide useful background to the Old Testament but are only valuable insofar as they illuminate the meaning of the Biblical text itself. In relation to the specific second question above, it is reasonable to conclude that a treaty was not ratified when two parties only began initial negotiations, but that does not correspond to saving faith, for when one entrusts himself to Christ as Lord and Savior he does enter into covenant with the Lord at that time. I think it is very possible that such treaties were formally ratified at a time before a ceremony solemnized them took place, but the plain statements of Scripture on baptism are going to (and ought to drive) our view of what significance such a treaty format might have on our theology of conversion.
13.) Given that, in the three days beginning with his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, that Saul of Tarsus believed in Jesus, that he called Jesus “Lord,” that he changed his life and began obeying Jesus, that he spent three days praying and fasting, that he saw a vision from God (of Ananias), that he was healed of his blindness; Why did Saul/Paul preach these things to a crowd he was trying to convert and then conclude that his own sins were not yet forgiven (Acts 22:16)?
DJ: It would be good to go back and reread the passage in full (Acts 22:1-16). Paul doesn’t “preach” prayer, fasting, healing, etc.—he only tells his story. And he wouldn’t have been saved by going through a checklist of activities or experiences anyway!
It is clear that the Lord had been working in his life, especially from the time of his Damascus Road experience. The text doesn’t address his inner thinking during those first couple of days after he realized he had been opposing the Lord. Once Ananias told him to be baptized and wash his sins away, any lingering confusion would have been cleared up. Saul/Paul needed divine forgiveness; it’s through faith, repentance, and baptism in the Lord’s name that this is freely offered.
[Technical point: It is true that the imperative verb is in the middle voice. That could mean that Saul should get himself baptized, or “wash off” his own sins, as Dr. Ross claims (an idiosyncratic translation). The first possibility makes sense—but not the second one. Nowhere are we told to wash off our own sins. Jesus takes care of everything in the sin department! Once we are reborn, there are no sins to wash away; we are pure.]
14.) If those who believe that sins are forgiven apart from baptism turn out to be wrong; What would you expect to happen to them on Judgement Day?
DJ: The second question I thought I squarely addressed in my presentation. I emphasized what is normative (not exceptional– and of course the Lord can make any exceptions he likes), as well as the hope that God’s grace may cover not only moral errors
but even doctrinal ones.
Surely lives of faithful discipleship speaks louder than technical correctness. Still, to know the Scriptures but then ignore what seems distasteful or inconvenient is not wise.
TR: Christ plainly preached, and His Apostles recorded under the control of the Holy Spirit, over and over again, that one receives eternal life at the moment of faith:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (John 6:47)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)
If one is not forgiven at the moment of true faith, then the Lord Jesus Christ is not God’s final Prophet, not the Messiah, and not the risen Savior. Then at Judgment Day we would have to see what Allah or Vishnu or Zeus or Baal or whatever god of the religions of the world turns out to be true wants to do with Bible-believing Christians who are trusting in the death and blood of Jesus Christ. However, since Christ has risen from the dead and He is the Savior, people are justified at the moment of faith before baptism. It is as certain as the infallible words of God’s final Prophet and God’s ultimate Revelation, His incarnate Word Himself, can make it.
15.) How important is it for our salvation that we fall on the right side of the debate, whichever side is the “right side”? For example, if I believe in baptism in terms of an “outward sign of an inward grace,” believing baptism isn’t necessary for salvation but believe every Christian should be baptized, does that negate my salvation?
DJ: This is a great question. Please see my comments on question 11. It’s always good to strive for biblical understanding. And we always need to be open to truth—to be rethinking, open to what the Lord is showing us. Yet the Bible never says perfect understanding is essential for us to receive God’s promises.
[Interested readers, please see my short technical paper “Greek Grammatical Structures Similar to Eis Aphesin… in Acts 2:38.” Here is the link.]
TR: In Acts 15 and in Galatians if people add even one thing to faith as the means through which we appropriate God’s grace, they are fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) in that they turn away from the only way to receive salvation:
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9).
What was Paul’s message? No law of any kind has ever been given which can give life, and justification is through the sole instrumentality of faith in Christ:
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Galatians 3:21-22)
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)
Being on the wrong side of this question means one is “accursed”—under God’s anathema, His eternal judgment. It might seem to us as mere mortals that this is too severe, but that is what God says in His Word, and He is right, so we need to agree with Him, reject all false gospels, embrace the true gospel, and show love to those who do not believe the truth by plainly warning them about the error of their way and having no Christian fellowship with them, since they are not Christians. If we truly love God and love them, we will respect them as human beings but we will recognize that affirming that people are Christians who believe a different gospel is actually the most unloving and cruel thing possible that we could do to them, for by so doing we are encouraging them to continue to believe a lie that will lead to their eternal torment separated from God and cost them the eternal joy of His blessed everlasting smile and presence. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11).
Recent Comments