Romans 5:12 and "Born in Sin"

Back in about 1992 I had a debate with Pat Donahue (we had several over the years) of the "Church of Christ" on the doctrine of "original sin" and whether all are born in sin. Pat has been sending me e-mails of some of his arguments he is still using with others in debate over this subject. Several of them have been on this issue. In his latest Donahue wrote:

""Born In Sin" Proponents’ Proof Texts Turn On Them: One of their primary proof texts in my “born in sin” debates is Romans 5:12. It is true the first part of the verse teaches sin was introduced into the world through Adam; we can read about that in Genesis 3; before Adam and Eve’s first sin, there was no sin in the world. But that has nothing to do with what is at issue. The second part of the verse has everything to do with it. It reads “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” and proves conclusively the “born in sin” concept is dead wrong. According to Rom 5:12b, we don’t die spiritually because of Adam’s sin; each man spiritually dies because each man sins. We all die because of our own sin. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Ezek 18:20a)."

From these words I see that Pat is still arguing that the "death" of Romans chapter five does not include physical death, but is strictly dealing with spiritual death. That is one of his errors. He has to take that position, which was the position of the heretic Pelagius, who said that physical death was a natural and inevitable part of biological life, not a punishment for Adam's sin. But, that view is very far removed from what the Bible teaches. Pat believes that the reason infants die in infancy is not because they are judged as guilty of Adam's sin. He believes they are born without sin, and therefore need no salvation. This error led him into many tight spots theologically. 

First, because he must exclude all who die in infancy or as small children from "the world" that Christ came to save, and yet he often defined "world" as the whole human race. So, when Paul speaks of "the world" being "guilty before God" (Rom. 3: 19) Pat says this is not the whole human race. When he argues against "limited atonement" or the idea that Christ did not die for all men he will mention texts such as I John 2: 2 where it is said that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the "whole world." In debate with him on this I mentioned how he himself limits the atonement and the meaning of "whole world" by excluding all who die in infancy.

Paul teaches that all human beings are born in sin and under guilt and condemnation as a result of Adam's sin, his sin being imputed to all his posterity, for they were all "in him" seminally and representatively. Paul also says that this paradigm operates in justification, that just as all who Adam represented sinned in him when he sinned, so all who Christ, the second Adam, represented were justified in him. Just as Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity, so Christ's righteousness is imputed to all the elect or all who he represented. In I Cor. 15: 22 Paul says "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." This death cannot exclude physical death because physical death is what is focused upon in that chapter. 

The text in Romans five says "death passed upon all men for all have sinned." Death passes upon all human beings, including those who die as infant children, and so they must have sinned in some way, and that way was by sinning in Adam. Pat wants to say that infants die even though they are not sinners. He wants to say that "for all have sinned" means all have personally sinned, but that is a mistake. One proof of this is in Paul's words in II Cor. 5: 14 where he said: "if one died for all, then all died." That verse says that when Christ died, all he represented died in him. More on that shortly.

Simply put, Paul teaches in Romans chapter five that just as all who Adam represented are condemned and die by Adam's one act of disobedience, so all who Christ represented are justified and live by Christ's one act of obedience, and that as all have Adam's sin imputed to them so all have Christ's righteousness imputed to them. Pat's paradigm is different. He says that just as all are condemned as sinners and die by their own individual transgressions so all are justified and made righteous and live again by their own individual obedience and righteousness. Paul taught that we are condemned by the act of another and are justified by the act of another. Pat teaches that we are condemned by our own acts and are justified by our own acts. Two totally different paradigms. I'll take Paul's over Pat's.

Exegeting the Text

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned."

In Romans 5:12 Paul begins a long continuous comparison (known theologically as the "Adam-Christ typology"). The Protasis (The Condition/Action) is in verse twelve: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man [Adam] and death through sin..." The Apodosis (Consequence) is in verse 18 where Paul says: "...so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." Verses 13-17 are generally put in parenthesis by translators for good reason (although in the Bible there are no parentheses) because in those verses Paul offers explanatory comments about the protasis. 

Paul's design is to show how sinners are justified from sin by showing how they were made sinners and condemned, for he believes the modus operandi is the same in both cases. His thesis is: as all who were represented in Adam are condemned and die (both physically and spiritually) as a result of the one act of disobedience of that one man, so all who were represented in Christ the Second Adam are justified and made alive (both physically and spiritually) as a result of the one act of obedience of the one man Christ.

He also says that though the modus operandi is comparable in regard to the way all come under condemnation through Adam's transgression and come to be justified through Christ's righteousness, yet he also points out areas where they are not exactly the same, and is why he says "But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." (vs. 15) The dissimilarity is seen in the fact that what Christ accomplished by his obedience does "much more" good than what evil consequences Adam's disobedience brought to pass. Paul also points out some other dissimilarities in verses 16-17 when he wrote:

"And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."

Again, the good that comes from what Christ did far exceeds the evil that comes from what Adam did. But, the similarities are the focus. After all, Paul's thesis is that "Adam is a figure of him who was to come" i.e. Christ. Now let us read the words without the parentheses.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." (vs. 12, 18-19)

Notice the words "as" and "even so" and "as" and "so also." Notice also the fact that it is the one sin of the one man that brings death, condemnation, and guilt, and which constitutes all men as sinners. Likewise it is the one righteous act of the one man that brings life and justification and constitutes all believers as righteous.

Pat Donahue's interpretation, and that of his "Church of Christ" brethren, is that Romans chapter five simply tells us the fact that all men are condemned and die by Adam's sin but not how they come to be condemned by that sin. After saying this they will then say that all die because all imitate Adam by personally sinning and it is by imitating Adam that they become sinners. But, if that is true, then we must say that all live again and are justified by imitating Christ. Or, to express it another way, people are condemned by their own acts of disobedience and are saved and justified by their own acts of obedience. But, this imitation view is incorrect for several reasons.

First, Paul says that many die as a result of Adam's sin who did not sin as Adam did. Said he:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam."

Pat's view is that death reigns over those only who sinned like Adam.

Second, such a view destroy's Paul's purpose and design, which is to demonstrate that just as people are condemned because of what someone else did (Adam), so people are justified because of what someone else did (Christ, the second Adam). 

Third, Paul says it is by the disobedience of one man that all are made sinners, but Pat's view is that it is by two men's sins that a person is made a sinner, by Adam's sin and the individual's sin. Likewise, Paul says it is by the obedience of one man that any are made righteous, but Pat's view is that it is by the obedient acts of two that a person is made righteous, by the obedience of Christ and by the obedience of that person. 

Fourth, Pat says that Adam simply showed us how to sin and be condemned thereby, and says that Christ simply showed us how to do right and be justified thereby. So, just as we are not condemned by what Adam did, so we are not saved by what Christ did.

Fifth, Pat's view that "all men" who die as a result of Adam's sin are really not all human beings, for he does not believe that physical death is a result of sin, and though many die in infancy it is not because they are sinners, for they are not sinners and need no salvation. So, he does not believe that "all men" means "every human being." Yet, if you debate him on the extent of the atonement, he will say "all men" and "whole world" means "every human being." That being so, he thereby admits that Christ died for those who die in infancy and that fact destroys his idea that infants are not born in sin, for Christ died for sinners. If "all humans have sinned" then this would include infants. But, many infants die without having committed any sin. So, the only way they could have sinned is by sinning in Adam, their representative or proxy.

Sixth, Pat's view denies that a person can be said to have acted in the person of another. He denies that when Adam sinned that all his posterity sinned in him. Yet we read: "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham." (Heb. 7: 9) If Levi can pay tithes in Abraham, then people may sin in Adam. Further, scriptures plainly say that when Christ died, every believer died, and when he was resurrected, every believer was resurrected. (II Cor. 5: 14; Eph. 2: 4-7) Further, Paul says: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 22) Also, as said before, this is in the context of physical death and resurrection. "In Adam" means all who were represented in Adam and who sinned and died when Adam sinned. Likewise, "in Christ" means all who were represented in Christ and who were punished in Christ as their substitute.

Seventh, the Bible says that "all are under sin" and "all have sinned." (Rom. 3: 9, 23) In the same context the apostle says "all the world" is "guilty before God." (Vs. 19) He also said: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6: 23) If we say, as Pat does, that the death of this text excludes physical death, then the "eternal life" of the text must exclude the physical body. Hebrews 9: 27 says that "man" (all human beings) have been "appointed" to die and then after death comes "the judgment." This cannot be spiritual death to the exclusion of physical death. "After that" means "after dying physically." It cannot mean "after dying spiritually." And, the appointment to death is by God and for sin. Further, Paul wrote: 

"So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." (I Cor. 15: 54-56 kjv)

These verses plainly show that physical death is a penalty for sin. Anyone therefore who dies, or is dying, is a sinner. Therefore, infants, since they often die in infancy, die because they are condemned by the sin of Adam. "This corruptible" means "this corruptible body"; And, "this mortal" means "this mortal body." The "death" therefore of the text is physical death. This is further confirmed by the fact that we see the word "grave" in the text. Further, when the text says "the sting of death is sin" he shows that the death of the body is because of sin. Paul also wrote: "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Rom. 8: 10 kjv) Many commentators agree that by "the body" Paul means the physical body. Paul is saying that since Christ is in the believer's spirit and soul, they have eternal life and will never die, but the physical body will still die, and that "because of sin" yet remaining in the body till the resurrection.

Eighth, we are not our own saviors. If we are damned only by our own sins, then we are saved only by our own righteousness. The scriptures however teach that we do what we do because of what we are. We commit personal sins because we are born in sin and under condemnation and we work righteousness because we have been born again in righteousness and are justified. 

Ninth, it cannot be that Adam is the cause of all being sinners because he showed people how to sin and people follow his example for most sin who know nothing about Adam. It cannot therefore be said that Adam's sin made all men sinners by all men imitating him.

Tenth, if all men are born innocent and pure of sin, it seems as though some would not imitate Adam and sin. The fact that all men sin shows that there is a universal cause bringing about that effect. 

Eleventh, in Romans 5: 15 Paul says it is by the "trespass of one that the many died" and not "many are dying" (linear present tense/action). "Many died" is a Greek aorist indicative which almost universally refers to a past event. The same construction is in II Cor. 5: 14 (which I alluded to previously) where Paul says "if one died for all, then all died." "Died" is also aorist indicative in both cases, in "the one" (Christ) who "died" in the past and the "all" he represented in his death also died when he died. Pat's view, the Pelagian view, does not allow that all men died when Adam sinned and was pronounced dead nor does it allow for the fact that when Christ died all those he represented died.

Twelve, the text plainly says that the one sin of the one man was "unto condemnation" (vs. 16, 18), but Pat's Pelagian view says that Adam's sin was only unto his own individual condemnation. In verse nineteen Paul says - "by the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted (made) sinners." The Greek word "κατεστάθησαν" may be translated as appointed, constituted, or made. It is also an aorist passive verb and this goes against the view of Pat for if people are made sinners by their own acts, an active verb would be used and not a passive verb. 

I suggest that Pat read the excellent commentary on Romans 5: 12-21 by Dr. Charles Hodge (here).

 

Planned Debates

November 8, 9, 11, 12, 2010

at Crossroads Baptist Church in Monroe, N.C.

"The scriptures teach that God chose, before the world began, a definite number of people to be saved, without respect to any act on their part as a condition."

Affirm: Stephen Garrett
Deny: Bruce Reeves

"The Scriptures teach that God's election to salvation is of a class of persons and not specific individuals."

Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Stephen Garrett

August, 2011 (exact dates to be announced) at the "Church of Christ" in Conway, Arkansas. See this link:

http://www.hwy65churchofchrist.org/

"The scriptures teach that it is impossible for the child of God, one born again, to sin so as to be eternally lost."

Affirm: Stephen Garrett
Deny: Bruce Reeves

"The scriptures teach that it is possible for the child of God, one born again, to sin so as to be eternally lost."

Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Stephen Garrett

I am also working on another debate for the Knoxville, Tennessee area. Details to be announced in the near future.

Campbellite Doctrine

In an oral debate held in November, 1873, in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, between Hardshell Elder, J. A. Thompson, and Benjamin A. Franklin, of the "Church of Christ," a remarkable admission was made by the Campbellite. On page 215, Franklin said:

"To whom did Paul say, "Work out your own salvation?" Was it sinners? No. To whom did he say, "It is God who works in you?" To alien sinners? Not a bit of it. But to saints in Thessalonia and Ephesus, he said, "It is God that works in you." He was not working in them to make them Christians."

This is a grand admission by the Campbellite! If a man gets saved, he cannot affirm that it is due to God working in him to save him! Thus, the man cannot thank God, or credit God, for it! What blasphemy!

Audio of Debate Online

John Gentry has informed me that the audio of our recent debate on the purpose of water baptism is available online.

See here

Debate Announcement

Dates: Thursday and Friday, Nov. 5-6, 2009
Time: 7.00pm (EST)

Location: Alumni Memorial Chapel, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Rd., Louisville, KY 40280

Propositions:

The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, can so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.

Affirm: John R. Gentry (church of Christ)
Deny: Stephen Garrett (Baptist)

The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, cannot so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.

Affirm: Stephen Garrett (Baptist)
Deny: John R. Gentry (church of Christ)

I hope all who are in the Louisville area and hear of the debate will be led to attend. Pray for good to come from open discussion.

Stephen

Eternal Security Debate

As previously announced, John Gentry of the Galena, Indiana "Church of Christ," and I will have our second debate on "eternal security," or "once saved always saved" (OSAS) on Thursday November 5th and Friday November 6th at 7 PM. It will be held on the campus of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. I will announce the specific place on campus in a few days when I receive official confirmation from SBTS.

The proposition for Thursday Night

The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, can so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.

Affirm: Gentry

Deny: Garrett

The proposition for Friday Night

The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, cannot so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.

Affirm: Garrett

Deny: Gentry

When John and I were discussing propositions through e-mail exchanges, I said "I have no problem with the propositions you offered on the eternal security topic, although I would have worded it differently. But, we won't squabble over semantics." It is not technically "apropos" to affirm a negatively worded proposition. But, I decided it was not worth the squabble and is the opposite of his proposition.

I am preparing the material for the debate and am looking forward to it. I pray God gives us a safe journey to the debate. Dr. Griffin is planning to go with me and be my moderator and some other brethren from the local area may be also going.

It is my hope to be able to spend some time in the SBTS library hunting for info for my historical studies on the Hardshell Baptists.

Gentry-Garrett Debate on Baptism

Debate with John R. Gentry of the "Church of Christ." John pastors a church in Galena, Indiana.

Debate in Monroe, N.C. at the location of Emmanuel Theological Seminary and Crossroads Baptist Church at 3300 N. Rocky River Road.

Thursday Night - August 13th, 2009

The Scriptures teach that water baptism is essential for the alien sinner to obtain the forgiveness of his past sins.

Affirm: Gentry
Deny: Garrett

Friday Night - August 14th, 2009

The Scriptures teach that the alien sinner is forgiven of his past sins by faith, before and without water baptism.

Affirm: Garrett
Deny: Gentry

The following posts contain materials used in this debate.

Debate Questions

Here are the questions I asked John on the first night of our discussion, when I was in the negative.

Question # 1

1. "What change of heart, soul, mind, or spirit, takes place in water baptism that has not already occurred at the point of penitent faith?"

I felt that this was the single most important question asked during the debate. It is the pivotal question to be asked in the discussion over what is the nature of the salvation or conversion experience. This question helped draw the line of distinction between what Baptists and what Campbellites or Restorationists believe about the nature, causes, and effects of the salvation experience.

In my second and third speeches on the second night, I summed up this difference by pointing out the condition of John (by his own admission) before he walked down into the waters of baptism. But, I will save narrating this summation in a separate posting.

Question # 2

2. Is water baptism essential for circumcision of heart and for entering the kingdom of God?

This too is an important question. It causes us to focus on what is denoted by "circumcision of heart." Those who are saved are the same as those who have experienced a "circumcision" in their inner beings, in heart, soul, spirit, or mind. This circumcision, I argued, is not primarily an external or legal action, non-experiential, but an internal or character transforming experience, describing the same phenomenon that is elsewhere described, in scripture, as being a rebirth, and resurrection, or new creation, and other such terms. I showed that these terms for conversion denote what occurs in coming to evangelical faith and repentance and, by their very nature, are experienced before water baptism. I argued that all believers, no matter when they lived, had experienced this inner circumcision. Abraham experienced circumcision of heart, but not because he had been baptized in water. The thief on the cross, who believed and turned to the Lord, and to whom Christ promised eternal rest in paradise, also experienced this inner circumcision, but not because he had been baptized in water. I gave other examples.

Question # 3

3. If being baptized is equated with being "begotten" of God, then how could Paul consistently say that he had "begotten" the Corinthians, while saying at the same time, that he had only baptized few of them? (I Cor. 1: 14-16; 4: 15)

I think this argument is irrefutable and speaks for itself. John's oral handling of this question was no better than his written answer which said - "He taught them they must be baptized. Such teaching is an essential part of the begetal process." I really need not say more.

Question # 4

4. If one loses salvation, does he become an "alien sinner" with need to have his "past sins" forgiven?

This question was a "hot potato" for John as it is for all his brethren. He at least must acknowledge that some "alien sinners" (those who lost their salvation) may be cleansed and forgiven apart from water baptism. I also argued that the baptism of the soul, mind, or spirit, into Christ and his blood preceded the baptism of the body, the latter being a symbol or outward expression of the former.

Question # 5

5. How were sinners saved under the Old Testament?

John's written answer - "By obedient faith" (Romans 4: 1-8)." l showed throughout the debate that obedient faith existed before water baptism and did not depend upon it for its creation, as John affirmed.

Question # 6

6. Was your faith living or dead before baptism?

John did not deny that his faith was "dead" before water baptism. This is the position of the "Churches of Christ" that John represents. Their faith, they say, was "dead" until they came forth from the waters of baptism. But, more on this point in other postings.

2nd Night's Questions for John Gentry

Question # 1

1. Did the thief on the cross contact the blood? If so, when and how?

He argued that the thief could "contact the blood" without water baptism because he was getting saved before the death of Christ, which is the precise point when water baptism would become a sine qua non of salvation. This would later become a problem for him for these reasons (expressed in rhetorical form):

1. Why is Nicodemus being told that he must be "born of water" (which to John meant water baptism) when Christ's death was years away? Shouldn't he be telling him simply to believe and repent? Or, does it not prove that "born of water" cannot be the result of John's baptizing?

2. Is John the Baptist preaching baptism "for the remission" of sins, then, or not?

3. Then none of the spiritual and salvation blessings enjoyed by O.T. believers was because of the New Covenant?

Question # 2

2. When and how does one eat Christ to life and salvation?

His written answer was - "When you believe and obey - John 6: 63 & Mark 15: 15, 16 for those who live under the Great Commission."

Thus, according to John, one does not ingest Christ into himself when he unites his heart to him in faith and repentance, but when you are baptized in water. Baptism becomes the true Lord's
Supper! The point when one eats the bread of life!

Question # 3

3. When do the spiritually dead hear the voice of the Son of God and live?

John said when they obey the word (final step), which is the act of water baptism. I showed that such a position affirms that the sinner was not obeying when he believed, repented, confessed, or came to love and know the Lord. According to John, all this occurred in the act of water baptism. This is when and where they heard the voice of the Son of God and came to "life." I thought this was such an outstanding absurdity that needed but exposing.

Question # 4

4. Is obeying God in water baptism a good work or work of righteousness?

John wrote - "Neither, the Bible says it is the work of God. Col. 2: 12"

I later made an argument where I said "I think John agrees that it is a good work and work of righteousness," but John later accused me of saying that I "misrepresented him." He argued that baptism was a "work of God." In taking this position, John was put in the position of 1) affirming that baptism is not a "good work" nor a "righteous work," and 2) of affirming that baptism is what God does, and not what we do. Thus, it is not a "work of righteousness which WE HAVE DONE," but a "work of righteousness which GOD HAS DONE."

From Eph. 2: 8-10 I showed how "good works," like water baptism, follow faith and the new creation, and thus his proposition is false, if baptism is a "good work." From Titus 3: 5 I showed how water baptism could not be equated with the "bath of regeneration" because this would contradict the part of the verse that says "not by works righteousness which we have done."

Question # 5

5. Does the word "baptize" always denote immersion of the whole person in water?

John said "no." This was later quite important, because, sometimes "baptized into Christ" simply means "placed into Christ" and this, I showed, occurred at the point of faith. I later showed how there are more passages that speak of sinners "believing into (eis) Christ."

Question # 6

6. Is Christ's baptism part of the "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5)?

John said "no."

Garrett's First Rebuttal

The following is part of what I presented (or intended to) in my first negative rebuttal.

"There are only a little more than a half dozen verses in the New Testament that are used to prove the necessity of baptism for salvation. This limited number is an argument against the essentiality of baptism for salvation.

Were water baptism essential, a sine qua non of salvation, then we would expect it to be abundant in scriptural testimony, and certainly more clearly stated.

When the terms of salvation were given to sinners, in the scriptures, they never excluded penitent faith. Yet, with regard to water baptism, we find it excluded in nearly all instances where an evangelist is giving to sinners the terms of pardon. For instance:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19 KJV)

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)

"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 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 KJV)

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16: 30, 31 KJV)

Here are four passages in the Book of Acts that are central to this debate. In all four passages the terms of pardon and salvation are clearly given. In each of them the terms are the same. Whoever believes and repents, or whoever has penitent faith, is pardoned and saved. There is no mention of water baptism.

If baptism is essential, then faithful evangelists and soul winners would never omit announcing all the essential terms of pardon. To omit one of the essential terms would be a crime.

Suppose a doctor were to give you a prescription for healing. Suppose this prescription had three conditions to it. Now, further suppose, that in giving this life-saving prescription, the doctor omits one of the necessary conditions. Would that not be criminal? Would that not doom the patient?

Certainly if it were not criminal, it would at least be negligence of the worst sort.

In each of the four scriptures I have cited, from the Book of Acts, where the evangelists are giving sinners the terms of pardon, they leave out water baptism. I argue that this omission of water baptism, rather than demonstrating criminality or negligence on the part of the first apostolic evangelists, rather demonstrates that they did not believe that water baptism was one of the essential conditions for pardon and salvation.

I dare say that my opponent and his brethren, who believe in the essentiality of baptism for salvation, never omit water baptism, when giving to sinners the terms of pardon. Do they not show how unlike they are to the apostles? Does it not show how they have added conditions to the conditions given by God through the apostles? Do evangelists with the so called Church of Christ give invitations where faith alone is mentioned and baptism is omitted?

I believe we have hundreds of verses in the Bible that state that penitent faith is essential to pardon. But, my opponent can only find a half dozen or so verses that we might say come close to affirming his proposition. This I believe is a weighty evidence against the essentiality of baptism for salvation.

Further, in the scriptures, we have an observable rule concerning the essential elements of pardon. It is this. For every thing necessary for salvation, we have both the positive and the negative statement.

For instance, is faith necessary for salvation? Do we have any positive statements for affirming faith as necessary? Certainly we do, and not only a half dozen, but a hundred or more. But, do we also not have the negative? Yes, in many places. For instance, John 3: 36 - "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."

What about repentance? Are there positive statements affirming its essentiality? Yes, many. But, are there not also negative statements? Yes, Jesus said - "if you do not repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13: 3)

Now, I challenge my opponent to point to one verse where it is said - "he who is not baptized will be damned," or some other similar negative.

I not only find that there is no negative statement regarding baptism, but I can't even find a clear positive statement. My opponent has brought forth those famous few verses that seem to teach baptism is required for pardon, but, as we shall show, do not teach it.

This issue concerning the purpose of baptism is important. The consequences are enormous, in either case, whether the proposition of my opponent is true or false. If my opponent is correct, then every unbaptized believer is doomed. That person who believed on Christ and yet, through no fault of his own, is suddenly killed before baptism, is doomed if my opponent's proposition is true. No hope for anyone dying like the thief on the cross! Besides, seeing that the only proper baptism in the New Testament is done by immersion to penitent believers, a proposition on which my opponent and I agree, then his proposition, if true, dooms every believer in Jesus who was only sprinkled.

On the other hand, if the Bible does teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation, we should not shun to declare it. Certainly, as I have said, we should never omit it from our witnessing to sinners about the way of pardon. To do so would be a case of criminal negligence.

Does God have different ways of salvation and rebirth for people under the Old and New Covenants? Does he create the new heart and spirit differently now than he did in the days of the patriarchs? How did Abraham experience circumcision of heart? Through water baptism? No! Ergo. Water baptism is not essential to the experience of circumcision. Did the thief on the cross experience inward circumcision of heart? Yes. But, he was never baptized in water. Yes, he was baptized in the blood, when he put his faith in the blood, but he was never ceremonially baptized.

In the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, wherein Christ spoke of salvation as being all the same as "entering" or "seeing" the eternal kingdom of God, Jesus said that being "born of water and spirit" was an absolute requirement. That is to say, all the privileged entrants into the "kingdom of God" have been "born again" of the Spirit. There are no exceptions. Now, if this is so, then we can say that every saved soul has been "born of water and spirit," no matter what dispensation of time he lived.

Is Abraham one who will "enter" the "kingdom of God"? Well, then he was "born of water and spirit." Is the thief on the cross one who will "enter" the "kingdom of God"? Well, then, he too was "born of water and spirit."

Now, it contradicts the teachings of our Lord to say that Abraham, or the thief on the cross, was "born of water and spirit" in a manner different from how people today are "born of water and spirit." Jesus said all are born again the same way. In verse 8 Jesus said - "SO is EVERYONE who is born of the spirit."

Water baptism is important. Simply because I reject the view of my opponent about it being a necessary condition of pardon does not mean I do not recognize its importance in the life of a believer in Jesus. I believe my opponent has greatly overemphasized baptism's importance. He has taken an ordinance of Christ, intended as it is for the edification of believers, and made it into an essential means of grace, and in so doing has given it a significance far beyond that which our Savior intended.

And now let me say a few things about Alexander Campbell, the man who supposedly "restored the lost gospel" by being the first to teach, in modern times, immersion in order to the remission of sins, and who is one of the founders of my opponent's denomination, or those today who call themselves "Church of Christ," or "Christian Church," or "Disciples of Christ."

Campbell was first taught wrong on the subject of baptism, being a son of a Presbyterian Pedo-Baptist, Thomas Campbell, and did not believe in immersion of believers only. When he "saw the light" on this topic, however, he became a Baptist and was baptized by Elder Luce. At this time he did not believe that baptism was essential for pardon of sin or eternal salvation; And, what he said at this time, is what Baptists believe. Yes, Campbell did later go into error on water baptism, after becoming Baptist, but it was away from the truth as he formerly expressed it.

Here is what Campbell said, in his debate with McCalla, about baptism's relation to "remission" or "washing away of sins," when he was "sound" on that point. Speaking of water baptism, he said:

"I did not exaggerate its import as Mr. McCalla would have it. Nor did I elevate it so as to displace hope and charity."

Campbell, at this time, did not exaggerate the importance of baptism, for he was a Baptist. He recognized, at that time, that the importance of water baptism may be "exaggerated" and so "elevated" as to "displace hope and charity."

Ironically, within a short time after his debate with McCalla, he came to believe that water baptism did not simply remove sin formally or symbolically, but really, thus contradicting what he said in his debate with McCalla. In teaching this view Campbell did the very thing he warned against! He "exaggerated" the importance of baptism and "elevated" it to a level where hope and charity were displaced! Sending many believers to Hell for not being properly baptized, consigning every person to torment who was not immersed, is the very displacing of hope and charity that Campbell warned against! Such a view of the place of water baptism takes hope away from millions of believers and is uncharitable to believers who have not been properly baptized!

One other thing I find ironic about Campbell is the fact that he never was baptized, after he came to believe in baptismal regeneration, for that reason. The only baptism he ever knew was the one he obtained from Elder Luce. He never was baptized "in order to the remission of sins"! And yet this is the man, who with Walter Scott and Barton Stone, supposedly "restored" the ancient gospel! Will my opponent's "exaggerated" and "elevated" view of baptism's importance displace hope and charity as regards the salvation of Campbell?

Campbell said further:

"The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token, of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins." The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquital, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washes them away in the water of baptism."

"The intelligent and well instructed Christian, however, is baptized to obtain the formal remission of his sins."

"He appointed baptism to be, to every one that believed the record he has given of his Son, a formal pledge on his part of that believer's personal acquittal or pardon..." (pg. 135-37)

See here

Baptism is by definition a ceremony. A ceremony involves what is formal. Baptism is a ritual, as the Lord's Supper is a ritual. It is part of a believer's protocol or convention. It is what he does once he becomes committed in heart to Christ, and is intended to formally or ceremoniously express the fact, or confess it.

Baptism is also a "sacrament," but not as it is understood by Catholics, but in its proper signification, that of it being a "badge."

Baptism is the way in which disciples make a formal "oath of allegiance" to Christ, where they solemnize the heart's commitment and dedication. What does sacrament mean? The English is simply a transliteration of the Latin word "sacramentum" which means an oath. That is the basic meaning of a sacrament. It means an oath, an obligation, a vow. In legal terminology it means a pledge. For example, it means money deposited by the parties before a legal suit. That is, you pledge by paying this money before a legal case.

It was used of a military oath of allegiance. A military oath of allegiance was called the sacramento, when the Roman armies made their oath of allegiance to their country and to their emperor. This they sometimes did by the raising of their hands as you see today when a president takes an oath, or when somebody takes an oath in a court of law, symbolizing that he or she is doing this in all honesty and truth, with a good conscience. "I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Baptism is intended to "solemnize," as I said, the previous confession and heart commitment. To "solemnize" means "to celebrate or observe with dignity and gravity. To perform with formal ceremony. To make serious or grave."

It is also intended to memoralize the heart commitment of the newborn Christian soul. Baptism, as Campbell said, is a "token" of salvation. It is a token in much the same way as is a wedding ring of a marriage. It is a symbol of salvation, a token of union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. Mind you that a wedding ring is not essential to the validity of marriage or to the union of hearts.

It is in baptism, as the scriptures show, that the believer receives his "badge," so to speak. He receives his symbol of authority. It is not what actually saves a man, but what publicly declares him to be so; much like a policeman does not become a policeman by his putting on a badge. The badge is the formal declaration of his already having been made a policeman. The badge has a purpose, but it is not what makes a person a policeman. Jesus was not baptized to make him "Son of God," but to declare it, or manifest it. So too with the believer. His baptism does not constitute him a "son of God," but formally declares it.

According to Galatians 3: 27 baptism is compared to putting on garments, especially symbolic garments, like, for example, a judge who puts on judicial raiment. The judge's raiment becomes symbolic of his position and status. It is not what makes the judge a judge, but it does have its purpose and effect. So too do Christians "put on" Christ in baptism, but it is not what makes them saved people but what demonstrates them to be so.

Baptism is also a personal testimonial. Recall the healing of the leper.

"And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." (Mark 1: 44; See also Luke 5: 14)

Notice that this man was healed and cleansed of his leprosy before the Lord orders him to "go offer for your cleansing" the specified Mosaic sacrifice. The offering was because of actual cleansing, but in order to ceremonial cleansing, or to formal declarative cleansing. The ceremonial cleansing had nothing to do with the actual cleansing of leprosy. It was intended to be a way of saying "thanks" to God, of "testifying to" of "confessing" God's graciousness in salvation."

Errors of Campbellism

What, in my view, are the errors of Campbellism?

1. Making water baptism a sine qua non of salvation.

2. Teaching that the new birth is accomplished by the "word alone" apart from the special working of the power of the Spirit.

3. Teaching that believers may lose faith and salvation.

4. Teaching pelagianism, to one degree or another.

5. Teaching that all are lost who are not members of Campbellite churches.

6. Teaching that justification before the law is by works.

7. Teaching "patternism."