Questions to the Editor

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 177]

     In our previous issue we attempted an answer to a number of questions related to the plea which we have been making for the unity of the believers in our Lord Jesus Christ. We have deemed it appropriate to continue this form of writing that we may publicly reply to other questions which we frequently hear. Our purpose in doing so is simply to clarify our own viewpoint. We have no intention of being arbitrary or dogmatic. We do not seek to bind these ideas upon others. They represent our individual approach to some of the problems of our day based upon our feeble knowledge of the inspired word. That we will give an account for what we write we do not doubt and so we speak in reverence for God and with utmost respect for those who differ with us.

     1. What do you believe about the constituency of the church?

     The word "church" is a translation of ekklesia, a combined form which means "called out." The church consists of all who are called out of a life of sin and into Christ. Anyone who has heard the call and responded to it is in the church. The call is issued in the form of Good News or Glad Tidings. The term generally used to designate it is "the gospel." Paul declares that "God chose you from the beginning to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 2:13, 14).

     Everyone who is called is a member of the one body. "And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body" (Col. 3:15). Because the one body consists of the called ones it is the ekklesia, the called out, the church. The church is composed of all the "holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call" (Hebrews 3:1). Every saved person on earth is in the church, being added to it in response to the call of God. The church is not an organization but a divine organism created by God. It is the corporate existence of God's own people who have been called out of darkness. "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). Every person who has forsaken the realm of darkness and crossed the frontier into the domain of light in response to the divine call is in the church. All such persons are God's own people.

     2. Do you make a distinction between the church and "The Church of Christ"?

     It is regrettable that such a distinction is necessary but in this age of sectarianism it must be made. The term "Church of Christ" in many localities is applied only to those of God's people who do not use instrumental music. It is an exclusive

[Page 178]

title adopted to distinguish its adherents from other members of God's family. The word "church" as used by the Holy Spirit was never so employed. In a universal sense it was used to include every sincere immersed believer on earth. In a local sense it was used to include every such person in the city or district. These might be divided and fall short of God's ideal but they still constituted the church of God. As defective in principle and practice as were the members at Corinth they were still "the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2).

     "The Church of Christ" is a twentieth century outgrowth of a nineteenth century restoration movement. Originally, the members engaged in the movement were known simply as Christians, reformers, or disciples. They were designated by those around them as the Christian Church. When division occurred among these as a result of the introduction of the missionary society and instrumental music, those who opposed these things began to use the term "Church of Christ" to distinguish themselves from the others. This was given official recognition for the first time in the government census of 1906. It is evident that not all of those called by God are in "The Church of Christ" but they are all, without exception, in the church of Christ. When I speak about the church in Saint Louis I include in my concept every sincere immersed believer in the Lord regardless of the unfortunate circumstances which have divided us. The church of God is the kingdom of heaven on the earth and it is much larger than any segment, splinter or portion of our tragically divided world.

     3. Do you consider that there may he Christians in the various sects?

     Indeed I do. God's sheep still constitute a scattered flock insofar as physical unity is concerned. They have not all been gathered into one corral. A Christian is one who is "in Christ" and those who have been immersed into Christ are in him. Unfortunately, not all of them are Christians only. Some are "special brands" of Christians. God no more wants us to be "Church of Christ Christians" than any other kind. It is because of our sectarian and exclusivist attitude that we have not been more successful in uniting all of God's people in a working relationship.

     David Lipscomb said, "There are some in sectarian churches who will obey God and follow him in spite of the churches in which they find themselves. As examples, there are persons in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches who are baptized to obey God rather than to please the sects. In this they rise above the sectarian spirit, despite the parties in which they find themselves. They ought to get out of the sectarian churches, but they see so much sectarianism in the nonsectarian churches that they think they are all alike."

     None of the early leaders of the restoration movement doubted that there were Christians in the sects. Alexander Campbell called it "a project to unite the Christians in all the sects." Benjamin Franklin wrote, "That there are Christians among the sects, a people of God in Babylon, we have believed and admitted, and committed to print many years ago, and we believe the same now. That these have a right to commune and enjoy in common with all Christians, all the blessings of the house of the Lord, we presume is not doubted by any brother."

     Jesse P. Sewell, in a speech entitled "Our Plea Stated" made at the Abilene Christian College Lectures said, in reply to the accusation that we claim to be the only Christians in the world, "We do not; we claim to be Christians only, and our plea is that all believers should be Christians only, and not denominational Christians." We quote from these men, not because we recognize them as authorities in religion, but for two very good reasons. In the first place, they were qualified to state the purpose and attitude governing our brethren in the inception of the restoration movement; in the second place, they prove that the modern, novel and unique view that there are no Christians in the sects is a development of late twentieth century Church-of-Christ-ism. Incidentally, it is proof of how far we

[Page 179]

have come in the acceptance of a sectarian attitude.

     4. Does the new testament ever imply that anyone who was a member of the church of Christ belonged to a denomination at the same time?

     Yes, indeed it does. Nothing is more clearly taught. Of course such action was condemned as it ought always to be but it shows that one can be in the one body while in a denomination. We ought to distinguish between "a denomination" and "a sect." Our English word sect is probably from the Latin secta, which is derived from sequi. This is the root word from which we get "sequence" which means "to follow." In our Bibles the word "sect" is a translation of the Greek hairesis, a party. The word "denomination" is from the Latin denominare, to name, to give a title to, to denominate. Any religious group which adopts a specific name or title as a means of distinction is a denomination.

     There were four denominations among the saints in Corinth. There were parties of Apollosites, Cephasites, Paulites and Christ-ites. That these called themselves after the names of men, and were therefore denominations, is evident from the question, "Were you baptized in the name of Paul?" The Christ-ites formed an exclusive party to separate themselves from the other saints but it is just as sinful to create a sect under the name of Christ as any other name. It was to the members of this party that Paul wrote, "Look facts in the face. Someone is convinced, is he, that he belongs to Christ? Let him think again, and reflect that we belong to Christ as much as he does" (2 Cor. 10:7).

     Now all of the members of these denominations were in the church of God (1 Cor. 1:2) and constituted the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27). They were saints of God (1:2); brethren (1:10, 11); beloved children (4:14); and Paul's "workmanship in the Lord" (9:1). They were babes in Christ (3:1); God's field and building (3:9): the temple of God (3:17); and they were Christ's (3:23). They had received the gospel (15:1); they had been called into the fellowship (1:9); and they were inside the church (5:12). The apostle commended them for remembering him in everything and keeping the traditions he had delivered to them (11:2), and at the same time condemned them for their schismatic state and sectism (11:17).

     It should be noted that in 11:18 the apostle says, "I hear there are divisions (schisms) among you," while in the next verse he says, "For there must be factions (sects) among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." The members of the church of God in Corinth were in denominations of their own creation and these denominations were sects. They were trying to divide Christ up and parcel him out among themselves. The apostle asks, "Is Christ divided?" The word "divided" is from meros which means, "to apportion out, to distribute, to share with." It is used in Hebrews 7:2, "And to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything." Since Jesus is the head of the one body he cannot be made a tribal chieftain or party prince. The denominational attitude of the saints in Corinth reflected their immaturity and sensuality (3:1-4).

     There is one good accruing from sects in the church of God--those who are genuine among you may be recognized. Who are the genuine ones in the midst of a sectarian condition? I take it that Paul would be one of these and from him we learn that to be genuine is simply to ignore the party walls and barriers and to recognize all of the members of the church of God as beloved children and brethren. Paul did not ally himself with any of the denominations among the saints at Corinth. He remained free of all of them. He did not allow one party to pit him against another. That is exactly my position and I intend to adhere to it by the help of God. I will commend what I can among all the brethren. What I cannot commend I will not. But I will not allow myself to be separated from any of God's children and my brethren, regardless of what sect or denomination they may be in.

[Page 180]

     5. What must one do to become a child of God?

     He must be born again. We have already said that the ekklesia is composed of the "called out ones." The call is issued through the gospel and when one hears the gospel and responds to it, he becomes one of God's people, a child of God. The proper response to the gospel is the same as it has always been to any divine message--faith and obedience. The fact which one must believe is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Belief of this fact enables one to enter into that state where he has life through the name of Jesus (John 20:30, 31). The one act of obedience required to validate that faith and transfer one into that state is immersion in water. Thus when Jesus commissioned his envoys to take the Good News to the world he declared, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

     It seems to me that Galatians 3:26, 27, is very explicit as to what is required to be a son of God. "For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." I accept this at its face value and must conclude that as many as have not been baptized into Christ have not put him on. To think otherwise would be to deny the very force of the language employed by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, I am obligated to accept as a son of God every person who by faith in Jesus is led to be immersed into him. I dare not deny either the necessity or the validity of baptism conditioned on faith in Jesus. To do the first is to become broader than God's word; to do the second is to become narrower than his word. I accept the fact that "by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:12) and I regard as a member of that body every sincere immersed believer who has been baptized because of his faith in Christ, regardless of who baptizes him. Such a person has "obeyed the gospel."

     6. Do you regard as in the fellowship those who have been sprinkled under the sincere conviction that this is scriptural baptism?

     No, I do not. This problem never occurred in the primitive ekklesia. It is post-apostolic and is the result of substituting the authority of man for the revelation of God. I have a very deep love and respect for all those who are earnestly seeking to do the will of God and have mistaken views about the implementation of that will. I do not say that all of these will be lost for I do not know how God will judge those who are walking in the light that is presently available to them. I hold some opinions relative to the matter. If God sees fit by extension of mercy to grant unto all of them an eternal abode with him I shall rejoice with joy exceeding and full of gladness.

     However, all that I say and do must be under the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). He has conditioned discipleship in him upon belief and baptism. It is one thing for God to receive a person into heaven, a wholly different thing for us to receive him into the fellowship on earth. Baptism was not announced as a condition of entrance into heaven but as a means of access to the one body. The record says, "So those who received his word were baptized...and they continued devotedly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship..." (Acts 2:41, 42). I shall recognize as in the fellowship all who have been baptized upon reception of the Message. Since these all continued in "the breaking of the bread and in the prayers" I will break bread with the baptized believers and pray with them and call upon them to pray.

[Page 181]

     Now when I speak of baptism I mean identically what Jesus meant when he enjoined faith and baptism. I mean exactly what Peter meant when he told those who heard to repent and be baptized. I mean precisely what Paul meant when he said we were buried with Christ in baptism. If I mean something else then it is not baptism at all, but something else. Sprinkling is not baptism. Baptism is from baptizo; sprinkling from rantizo. One who is sprinkled is not baptized at all. He is rantized, and nowhere are we instructed to receive those who believe and are rantized as being in the fellowship.

     I do not wish to be harsh and uncharitable. I love every sincere soul who is seeking to do the Master's will but I do not believe that we can do his will by doing something else. I do not believe that time sanctifies error nor that confusion transmutes wrong into right. The will of God is precious to mc and I would gladly recognize as his children all who have not been baptized if I became convinced that he did so. I know his will by his word. It seems to teach plainly that only those who are baptized into Christ are sons of God. I accept that humbly and sincerely.

     7. Is it possible that a sincere person who is sprinkled in the belief that it is baptism is a Christian in essence?

     Obviously the answer would have to depend upon the meanings attached to the words "Christian" and "essence." One of the tragic things about our age is that we have taken the vocabulary of the Spirit, and modified, amended and extended it until we have attached ideas that are utterly foreign to the words used by the Spirit. It is not enough to recapture the language but we must also restore the meaning conveyed in such language by the Spirit. A good example is the word "Christian" which we use so freely as a modifier. We talk glibly about a Christian nation, Christian schools, Christian baptism and Christian commitment. To imply, therefore, that a sincerely religious person may not be a Christian is an insult and an affront. We equate the term with a certain kind of character or life. God forbid that I should be discourteous or uncivil to any person who seeks to follow my Master.

     But the word "Christian" in a scriptural sense refers to one who is in Christ. It designates a citizen of the kingdom, one who has been naturalized and adopted into that relationship which is called "the fellowship." No one was ever regarded as a Christian in the new covenant frame of reference except an immersed penitent believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. If we are to apply the term to any others in any fashion we must do so without scriptural sanction. It is a grave question with me whether we can be true to our commitment to the Master if we "water down" the language of His word in order not to appear tactless or illiberal. We should follow "the pattern of sound words."

     The word "essence" as used in this question is a term of scholastic philosophy derived from the Latin essentia. I must confess to a natural suspicion of such words because they are generally "plausible words of wisdom." Paul declared that his speech and message were devoid of these. "Essence is employed to denote the constituent qualities which go to make up an object or class of objects without which they would not be what they are. Hence it denotes the character which belongs to the class or common nature as distinguished from the accidents or individual varieties in the members of that class." Since fellowship in Christ is a definite state or condition into which we are called one does not enter it hy exhibiting a certain quality of character, but by obedience to a positive command. This in no sense undervalues such character but simply places it in its proper position. We should rejoice at every manifestation of the ethical and moral values announced and exemplified by our Lord. The fact that these are exhibited by those who are not in him only serves to show the universal recognition of the value of the life of the Son of God.

     An alien who resides in America may

[Page 182]

pattern his conduct after "the American way of life" and some may refer to him as "an American in essence." However, he is not entitled to the right of franchise nor to any other right or privilege accruing from citizenship. If, in his eagerness to become a citizen, and as a result of mistaken advice, he does something other than that required to attain unto citizenship, he still is not a citizen. He will never become one until he follows the procedure prescribed by the sovereign authority. It is not Christians in essence but Christians in fact who form the one body. It is a point worth considering whether one is a Christian at all who is not one in fact.

     8. Are you not inconsistent in drawing a line of fellowship at baptism?

     I am not drawing a line at all. I simply recognize the line which God has drawn. There must be a point at which one crosses the frontier from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son. It is my conviction that only God can specify that juncture at which sins are remitted and one is raised to walk in a new life. I have no right whatsoever to dictate or suggest where the crossing is located. It is the divine prerogative to do this and when it has been done all I can do is to point men to the place and conditions authorized by God. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Peter said, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins."

     I have never said there was no line at which fellowship begins. That would be ridiculous. I have only said that I would make nothing a test of fellowship which God has not made a condition of salvation. I believe that God has made baptism a condition of salvation from our past life of sin, otherwise the words of Jesus in the apostolic commission would be meaningless. I do not think there was a single unimmersed person in any congregation of the saints referred to in the new covenant scriptures. God has drawn a line between his children and the world. We need to recognize it and respect it. But he has forbidden his children to divide and draw lines against each other in Christ. For that reason I refuse to recognize or respect the validity of those lines which have been drawn by their various opinions and human interpretations. It is one thing to be separated from those who are not in Christ Jesus and a wholly different thing to be separated from those who are.

     9. How do you regard those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God but who do not as yet understand the necessity of being immersed?

     I regard them as having been begotten but not yet born. They are still "in the womb" but they have not yet been delivered. The gospel is the seed by which we are begotten and under the law of principal and agent one may be regarded as a father who first implants this seed (1 Cor. 4:14, 15). The offspring of God exist in embryonic and foetal form before they are children unless we conclude that belief of the gospel and baptism are one and the same act, or that they occur simultaneously in every case. All who believe the Message but have not yet been delivered through baptism, are God's children in prospect and my brethren in prospect. My work, as regards them, is to act as a spiritual midwife or obstetrician. I should stimulate and encourage their foetal growth until they reach the proper time for birth, and then aid in their delivery, through immersion, into the family relationship.

     I will gain nothing by assaulting them or abusing them because they have not yet been born. This might tend to an injury resulting in an abortion or miscarriage. I should admit their paternity and create a proper atmosphere of respect and love in which they may be gently led to fulfillment of God's program for our lives. They can no more participate in family activities, deliberations and decisions, than any other foetus, but they should be nourished and nurtured in kindliness and tenderness. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God and he that loves the one who begets loves those who are begotten of him" (1 John 5:1).

[Page 183]

     10. Does not the word for "begotten" in this verse embrace the whole process of birth?

     Not at all. Some superficial scholars of our day may so interpret it but the idea that one is "born of God" is not in the original Greek scriptures at all. In 1 John 2:29, the King James Version reads, "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him." Dr. James Macknight renders the passage, "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone who worketh righteousness hath been begotten of him." In explanation he says, "This is the literal significance of gegennetai from gennao, I beget. Accordingly our translators have so rendered the word, chap. 5:18. Besides, born of God is an idea nowhere else found in scripture."

     Consistent with this statement and proper Greek usage, he translates 1 John 5:1, "Every one who believeth that Jesus is the Christ, hath been begotten of God; and every one who loveth the begetter, loveth also the begotten of him." One is begotten by his father but not born of him and the begetting precedes the birth, else he is born dead. Birth does not confer life, it simply changes the state of the subject.

     The whole problem of exegesis stems from the fact that we have separate English words for two phases--beget and bear. The Greeks had only one word, gennao. But they did not use the word indiscriminately nor did they confound the distinctions as do a lot of casual readers today. The Holy Spirit used gennao 97 times and it is translated begat or begotten 49 times, and born 39 times. In Matthew 1:1-16 it is found 39 times and is translated begat in every instance. To substitute the word born in either of these would be to make the rendering absurd and ridiculous.

     The first place in the new covenant scriptures where it is translated born is Matthew 1:16, and the change is obviously necessary. In this verse gennao appears twice. Once it is rendered begat and once born and neither rendering can be substituted for the other. "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." It would be incongruous to read this, "And Jacob born Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was begat Jesus who is called Christ" One is not born of the person who begets him, nor is he begotten of the one who bears him. We should not confuse language in our zeal to uphold a partisan and traditional position.

     Since this matter seems of such interest in certain sections where men are laboring ardently to refute our position we ask your kind indulgence as we pursue it a little further. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea (Matt. 2:1) but he was begotten in Nazareth a city of Galilee (Luke 1:26). In Luke 1:57 we read, "Now Elizabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son." The italicized words are a rendering of gennao and it is evident that "beget" would no more apply than it would in Matthew 19:12, "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb." There is a difference in the time as well as in the act of begetting and birth, and the former always precedes the latter. One who is begotten and not yet delivered is a prospective child of the one who begets him and a prospective brother of all others who have been sired by the same father.

     A careful study of the implications of gennao in every occurrence of the term will enable us to enunciate proper rules of interpretation. These will be found to be three in number.

     a. When the word refers to the action of the Father, or to the inception of life, it cannot be rendered born and must be uniformly rendered by some form of beget.

     b. When the word refers to the induction into a state, condition or relationship, or when it has to do with bringing forth into a visible existence, it cannot be rendered begat or begotten and must be uniformly translated born, delivered, or brought forth.

     c. When the entire process, including both the phases of begetting and birth, is described by one word, the final or con-

[Page 184]

summating act may be put for the whole, as in John 3:5.

     The means employed in our salvation are defined in Titus 3:5, "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." I take it that the washing referred to is baptism, but this does not change the nature of the gospel subject. This is effected by the renewal of the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit operates upon and quickens the heart of the alien through the good news and leads him to repentance by testimony of the goodness of God through the Word, he is begotten of God. In order to change his state he must he led to the washing of regeneration which completes the birth process and makes him a child of God. Many who have been begotten will never be born into the fellowship because of our complacence and cruel disregard of their innermost feelings. I love every person who has been begotten of my Father. I long to see them all in the visible fellowship of the family. God help me to help them all to this end.

     11. Do you think that every person who has not been immersed into Christ will be lost?

     That is not for me to determine. God has revealed to us what we should proclaim to the world of mankind and the response we should make to those who enquire of us what they must do. He has not revealed what he will do in every case with reference to those who do not hear, or whose hearing may be impaired. He has forbidden me to judge those who are without. The apostle says, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? God judges those who are on the outside" (1 Cor. 5:12). Since judging has to do with rendering a decision or passing sentence, I would usurp the prerogatives of God if I were to pronounce a sentence upon others. It is one thing to instruct men what to do in order to enter the fellowship of the saints, a wholly different thing to decide the eternal destiny of those who do not enter. It is one thing to be assured of your own salvation and a wholly different matter to be just as sure of the damnation of all others.

     We operate under the authority of Christ Jesus but God is not under that authority (1 Cor. 15:27). We dare not bind him with the rules he gave to bind us. We cannot subject to authority one who is the source of, and superior to, all authority (Romans 13:1). God's grace existed prior to and is greater than the church. He is "slow to anger and full of mercy." He will judge each individual on his own merits, taking into account every longing, weakness, and yearning, as well as every motivation. He declares that "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." How he will regard those who do not know or whose perception is faulty, I cannot say. I do know that love for God will make up for deficiencies in knowledge and judgment. "If anyone fancies that he knows, he knows nothing as yet, in the true sense of knowing. But if a man loves, he is acknowledged by God" (1 Cor. 8:2, 3).

     I also know that it will be "more tolerable in the day of judgment" for some than for others, based upon opportunities afforded to acquire a knowledge of God and his will. One can only walk in the light available to him and defective vision may limit his scope and his ability to discern. We have no right to assume that all of God's children have 20/20 spiritual vision. There are some who are quite nearsighted. God will take all of this into consideration and will render a verdict of justice tempered with mercy, and mercy triumphs over judgment. The only man who cannot claim mercy is the one who has shown none. "In that judgment there will be no mercy for the man who has shown no mercy (James 2:13).

     12. Is this not the same as implying that God may save some in their disobedience?

     Of course not. A lot of people cannot make the distinction between failure to obey from lack of knowledge of what is required and wilful rebellion against God. There is a difference between one who wants to see but is blind and one

[Page 185]

who deliberately closes his eyes to keep from seeing. Not all lack of knowledge stems from deliberate or malicious resolution not to know. Voluntary ignorance is a sin but involuntary ignorance is merely a misfortune. If it were a sin we would all be lost because none of us know all there is to know. One is not saved in disobedience who is obeying all he knows to do. He is saved by obedience based upon present knowledge and that is the only way any of us can demonstrate faithfulness unto God. It is evident that a lot of people are about as much concerned with damning others as with saving them and take about as much delight in one as the other. It seems to me to be a dangerous tendency for us to search the scriptures in an attempt to find something by which we may condemn men. All of us will be saved by God's mercy and grace and not by our own perfection. We will fulfill our purpose on earth by proclaiming the Good News and offering salvation on the basis of the promises. If God wants to do more than he promised he has a perfect right to do it. Let His will be done!

     13. Do you think one must know at the time of baptism that it is for the remission of sins in order for it to be valid?

     I do not. When one believes that Jesus is the Christ and God's Son and is immersed because of that faith it is for the remission of sins, whether he knows it or not. Baptism is an act of transition in which one is transferred from one state to another. A proper subject complying with such an act is not only transferred to the new state but is made a recipient of all the blessings and privileges of that new state even though he may be ignorant of what they may all be. Remission of sins is a judicial act of divine clemency which takes place in heaven in the mind of God. A proper subject is a penitent believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. When such a person validates his faith by obedience to the command of baptism God awards him remission of sins. "For the remission of sins" is not a part of the command. It is a statement of the result accruing from obedience. The command is to "repent and be baptized." It is not faith in baptism but faith in Christ that saves. Our forgiveness depends not upon our knowledge of the blessings we will receive but upon our trust in Jesus as our Saviour.

     14. Is not "remission of sins" the design of baptism?

     It is God's design, not man's. It is man's design to obey God which prompts him to be baptized; it is God's design to forgive the sins of those who thus obey. David Lipscomb wrote: "I do not think anyone was ever baptized because his sins were remitted. They may have believed their sins were remitted before they were baptized, but the remission of sins was not the moving cause. There is nothing in remission of sins as a motive to prompt one to be baptized. They may have thought, inasmuch as God had forgiven their sins, they ought to obey his command to be baptized; but in that case the desire to obey God was the moving cause. When a man is baptized to obey God, he is led by a proper motive; and I believe when he does this to obey him, God will forgive his sins, whether he knows the act in which God forgives or not. Man cannot be led by a holier or more acceptable motive than the desire to obey God and so 'fulfill all righteousness.'"

     The truth is that there are at least nine designs of baptism. We are baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15); to enter into relationship with the Godhood (Matt. 28:19); to secure remission of sins (Acts 2:38); to obtain the gift of the indwelling Spirit (Acts 2:38; 5:32); to share in the likeness of the death of Christ (Rom. 6:3); to enter the one body (1 Cor. 12:13); to have the answer of a good conscience (1 Peter 3:21); to be saved (Mark 16:16); and to put on Christ as a garment (Gal. 3:27). On what ground do we select one of these and make it the criterion of validity? No man can baptize another for the remission of sins because he cannot read his heart and does not know his motives. It is absurd for one to raise his hand in priestly fashion and intone, "I baptize

[Page 186]

you for the remission of sins." He does not know whether the sins of the person will be remitted or not. All any of us can do is to immerse one upon his profession to us of his faith in the Lord Jesus. Only God knows whether he really believes or not. Too many preachers act as if they believe in baptismal regeneration and can personally perform an act which in and of itself secures remission of sins. This is clericalism and sectarianism gone to seed. It is time for us to grow up!

     When "The Church of Christ" began to exhibit symptoms of its growing sectarianism its members started to emphasize the doctrine of "knowledge of the design" instead of faith in the Lord Jesus as the ground of acceptability for baptism. This caused the preachers to hold a "coroner's inquest" over every case of baptism not performed by one of their number. Men were actually rejected who would not submit to re-immersion in order to please the party. This was not the attitude of the early reformers. Tolbert Fanning wrote, "If a Baptist were to present himself to me stating that he was satisfied with his baptism, but still would be baptized again to please the church, if required, I should be certain that man was a hypocrite, or lacked the gospel knowledge and faith."

     Those men saw the proper relationship of baptism to Christ Jesus and thus to salvation. A. T. Anderson, an eminent student, wrote in Christian Review as follows: "I can never believe that God will withhold the act of pardon because I may not have understood that my sins were forgiven in the act of baptism; knowing that my whole confidence was placed in his Son, and his death for my sins, at the time of my immersion. Christ is greater than immersion. Though I believe with all my heart in Christ, and have the disposition to do whatever he bids me; yet I cannot be saved from my sins, because I have not been taught that he will forgive me just at that time. If this doctrine be carried out, it would make baptism a savior, or I know nothing of reason. This makes immersion the greater and Christ the less. This makes our salvation to depend not on our faith and obedience, nor on the faithfulness of him who has promised."

     When a man is motivated by any of the "designs" of baptism to obey God, then Jesus is the "author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." There would be no more efficacy in "Church of Christ baptism" than in "Baptist baptism." Both would be for the purpose of pleasing a party. When a man is baptized to please God, or to obey a command of God, that is not party baptism at all. He has done what God requires and "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." A misunderstanding about God's part in the procedure will not negate the promise to one who has done his part as commanded.

     15. Can one become a child of God who does not believe God's word about baptism for remission of sins?

     The problem with those of whom we have been speaking is not rejecting of God's word. They love the Bible as much as any of us. It is not arrogant disbelief but misunderstanding as to when God grants forgiveness. The Bible does not teach that we receive life by believing that baptism is for the remission of sins but by belief that Jesus is the Son of God. If the opposite were true we would need to question each candidate, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that baptism is for the remission of sins?" It is not faith in the design but faith in the designer that makes our obedience effective. Every person on this earth who is immersed has many mistaken ideas but these do not invalidate baptism.

     God joins remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit as blessings conferred upon the obedient believer. Many have a false conception of the Holy Spirit and some even deny his personality. If they needed to be re-immersed every time they learned something new about this divine gift "the waters would be troubled" regularly. But mistaken views about the gift of the Holy Spirit do not render baptism useless. It is a dangerous tendency when people cease to trust in the

[Page 187]

living God and begin to trust to their own degree of knowledge and legalistic goodness. We need to quit accusing honest believers of being guilty of disbelief when they simply do not understand some things. This spirit of unjust criticism and censoriousness is not becoming in those who would lead men to a closer walk with God.

     16. What do you recommend we should do to restore a proper feeling of unity among the believers?

     We should confess to one another that we have been partisan and sectarian in attitude and pray one for another that we may be healed of the ravages upon our hearts of this work of the flesh. We should be brought to our knees in tears over our growing sectarianism. We should set the table of the Lord for every sincere immersed believer and invite all such to sit down around it as our brethren. We should call upon all of them, recognize and regard them as children of our Father.

     It is time for us to throw off the childish attitude which has characterized the brotherhood and start acting like men. The idea of categorizing those who differ with us as "brethren in error," with the implication that we are wholly free from error and know all there is to know, is a little silly when you think about it seriously. The truth is that we are all brethren in error. Not one of us is perfect in knowledge and we all have a great deal to learn. We do not accept one another because we are free from error but because we are free in Christ- -free to receive one another even while we try to work out our problems together and seek to arrive at a greater understanding. The brethren who accept me will have to overlook a lot of things just as God had to make allowances in order to receive me. I am willing to receive others on the same basis as he received me.

     17. Is it possible to retain one's spiritual integrity and participate in meetings sponsored by various factions?

     It is if you do not equate any faction as the church of God and keep your conscience pure by abstaining from that which violates your personal conviction. So far as I am concerned, none of our factions is "the loyal church." All of them have brethren within them who are as devoted to Jesus as they know how to be; all have some who are a disgrace to the Christian profession. I do not endorse any faction for I am opposed to factionalism as such, but I do recognize and regard as my brothers those who compose the various parties among us.

     I want to share with all of my brothers, not alone because of what little I may teach them, but because of the great deal which they can teach me. It has been a very ennobling experience to find that I can learn from all of my brethren. I am a Christian only. I bear no man's brand upon me. I belong to Jesus who bought me with His blood. I do not intend to sell out to any group or clique. This makes it possible for me to move freely among all of the brethren without having to look back over my shoulder to see how the party reacts to my freedom.

     I do not see how I could retain my spiritual integrity without regarding all of my brethren as brothers. If I began to measure our relationship to each other by an attitude toward various items and things I would become inconsistent. I do not regard brotherhood as a matter for political jockeying or pettifogging hanky-panky. I have resolved to never again allow any faction to entice me into a partisan corral where I will be loved by them only if I hate others. Wherever I go it will be as a disciple of Jesus and not as a dissembling partisan.

     18. Is this an indication that you have become "soft" and chosen the easy way out?

     Indeed not! This is the most difficult thing I have ever attempted in my life. It is not easy to love all of your brothers. The "soft" person should stay in the nice secluded shelter of a narrow faction. The high walls of exclusivism will protect him from contact with any alien element. He can hide in the shadows of his monastic structure and peer through little slits to watch the rest of the world go by.

[Page 188]

If he does sally forth he can challenge for debate and load the propositions, or make them so ambiguous that he can inwardly congratulate himself that he has won a battle when neither his opponent nor himself ever got within striking distance. He can draw himself up to the full height of his midget stature and declare that he is "just going to preach the gospel" and not become involved with the problems of a sick, sorrowful and saddened brotherhood. This is the easy way out and the easy way to stay in--with the faction!

     Have you ever tried to go wherever the Spirit opened up a door--to go by yourself into a strange environment where you stood alone and where your personal convictions were regarded as queer quirks or stubborn scruples? Have you ever submitted your views and opinions to open question in an audience where some had come merely to destroy your influence and assault your philosophy to protect their partisan programs? I hardly think this is an assignment for the timid soul, or for one who "holds with the hare and runs with the hounds." The strategy of love is the hardest of all to execute. It took the life of Jesus. It meant death to thousands of his saints. The easy way is the way of the contracted creed, the compressed compassion and the condensed concern.

     The Christian life was never intended to be staid, static or stagnant. It is an adventure of faith. It is a conscious risk of all that one has or is, in the firm trust that love is an unconquerable force against which no weapon can prosper and no power can stand. It is a firm commitment to the concept that love is imperishable and abiding. To invest one's whole hope of survival upon this principle in a world conditioned to strife and schism as the gateway to God's grace is not easy. It is no task for one who is soft and weak, or fragile and feeble.

     19. What do you consider to be our most serious, problem today?

     I have no hesitancy in saying it is the traditional misapplication of the scriptures to justify division in the family of God. When we interpret the written word to deny and defeat the prayer and purpose of the Living Word there is something wrong with our interpretation. Brethren are taking passages intended to enjoin separation from pagans and heathen and applying them to believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. They are quoting statements written to debar Gnostics who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh or affirmed he was a mere phantom, in such a manner as to proscribe honest saints who differ with them about instrumental music and the millennium.

     Such imperfection in scholarship and inadequacy of thought earns for us the disdain of thinkers who rise above the level of mediocrity. We need to restore the spirit of real research which delves for deeper truth and does not concern itself with parroting partisan phraseology. The age of crisis in which we exist demands that we offer more to the world which asks for the bread of life than the polished stones of factional controversy. It is because of this crying need for restudy that we propose to devote the next twelve issues of this paper to an examination of "the twisted scriptures."

     Ours will be a critical investigation of those loaded phrases which are glibly handed out to the unsuspecting masses as the answer to problems to which they are wholly unrelated. We will not be satisfied with the scriptures extracted from their setting, wrenched and wrested from their context, then bent and battered into place to sustain Church-of~Christism or any other "ism." We invite every honest soul who is concerned about truth to go on a scriptural exploration with us during the coming year. Invite your friends to accompany us on this reverent walk through the corridors of revelation. At the end of 1965 we shall gather our findings together in a book of explanation and exposition of "The Twisted Scriptures" which will be made available to you at moderate cost. In the meantime this concludes our theme for 1964, and all of the issues for this year will be issued in a book called "The Brotherhood of Faith."