Was King Josiah Saved?

By A. Christianson

[Page 121]

     It is easy to prove that a man cannot be saved in this New Testament era unless he is baptized. A number of other verses could be used, but for our present purpose Acts 2:38 is sufficient. Here is our proof: ,

     (Step A) Peter said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Step B) Mr. X has not been baptized. (Step C) Mr. X's sins have not been forgiven and he does not have the gift of the Holy Spirit. The case seems watertight. There is no possible refutation or loophole.

     But wait a minute. By the same process we could prove that Josiah, king of Judah, was not a saved man, at least for the first seventeen years of his reign. Here is our proof. (Step A) Numbers 9:13 says, "The man that...forbeareth to keep the passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people (by excommunication, or perhaps, by execution); because he offered not the oblation of Jehovah in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin." (Step B) Josiah did not keep a passover until the eighteenth year of his reign (2 Chron. 35:1, 19). (Step C) Therefore, Josiah was not a saved man during his first seventeen years as king, but was a guilty sinner, under God's condemnation, and should have been cut off from God's people.

     That case seems watertight too, does it not? But the conclusion is entirely false. For 2 Chronicles 34:1, 2, summarizing the entire life of Josiah, says, "He did that which was right in the eyes of Jehovah,

[Page 122]

and walked in the ways of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left." Likewise, 2 Kings 23:25 says, "Like unto him there was no king before him, that turned to Jehovah with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him."

     Confusing, is it not? Which was he, a sinner deserving to be cut off because he disobeyed God's command to keep the passover, or a righteous man walking wholeheartedly with God? God's recorded verdict is the latter.

     Since our "proof" in the case of Josiah turns out to be disproved, could it be possible that our "proof" in the case of unbaptized Mr. X might also be inadequate? Might our verdict on his standing with God be wrong? Maybe our formulae prove too much. Maybe we are overlooking something important Perhaps God's logic does not square with ours. Maybe he is more willing to allow exception to his commands on the part of those whose hearts are right but whose minds are not fully enlightened, than we think.

     But how could such a thing be possible. Does not God give his commands to be obeyed? Of course he does. We may not pick and choose among his commands and obey only the ones which appeal to us, may we? Certainly we cannot, if we are Christians indeed. Perhaps we can solve our dilemma by examining the life of Josiah more closely. We discover from 2 Chronicles 29-35 that ignorance of God's law was widespread. Idolatry was common. The temple services had declined and the temple itself had fallen into disrepair. No observance of the passover is mentioned between the reign of Hezekiah and the feast instituted by Josiah, perhaps a century later. The Lord made allowance for this ignorance. He judged Josiah not for his omission but how he responded to the truth he knew. Chapter 34 reveals how zealous and obedient the king was when the opportunity presented itself.

     God still reads not only men's actions but their hearts. He knows the ignorance and misinformation about baptism. Will he not react today as he did in Josiah's time? There is not one ounce of comfort in this for the person who knowingly, and wilfully disobeys the Lord. But I believe it should cause us to be more hopeful and charitable than we often are toward those disciples of Jesus who are unimmersed.

     (2) The middle view says, "People in other churches are saved too, if they trust in Christ and are immersed." (3) At the other end of the spectrum are those who say, "all who truly repent of sin and trust in Christ, turning to him as Savior and Lord, are Christians even if they are not immersed (although they should be immersed)."

     Though doctrine is not decided by beliefs of men, even great ones, but by the inspired word of God, yet it is profitable to notice what various leaders in the restoration movement have believed on this issue. It is remarkable that Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, Walter Scott, Benjamin Franklin, Isaac Errett, and David Lipscomb all disagreed with the first view listed above. Not one of them believed that only members of the restoration movement are members of the body of Christ.

     Most of them, if not all, straddled the fence between answers 2 and 3. For while they taught baptism is for the remission of sins, and that immersion is the only valid form of baptism, at the same time

[Page 123]

they taught there were truly saved persons among Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians (those who were unimmersed because inadequately informed). Here are a few typical quotations.

     Alexander Campbell: "I suppose there are many consecrated, moral and Christian Presbyterians; and that, although our Savior has no Presbyterian church in heaven or earth, yet I doubt not but that he has had many, very many that loved and honored him in that worldly church, whom he will honor in the world to come." "I will be asked. How do I know that anyone loves Christ but by obedience to his commands. I answer, in no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience to one command for general obedience. It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as it is known. John Bunyan and John Newton had very different views of baptism; yet they were both disposed to obey, and to the extent of their knowledge did obey the Lord in everything." (This second quotation is only a small part of the "Lunenburg Correspondence" in which Campbell discussed at length the question of unimmersed disciples. The entire correspondence is important. It may be found in Attitudes and Consequences, by Homer Hailey, pages 116-131.)

     David Lipscomb: "There are persons in the Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian Churches who were 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 non-sectarian churches that they think they are all alike."

     Isaac Errett: "Corruptions crept into the church because of popery, and have scattered the people of God into various sects. Our plea is for a reunion of the people of God. While our plea does not recognize these sects as of divine origin, yet it recognizes a people of God among them. We are compelled therefore, to recognize as Christians many who have been in error on baptism, but who in the spirit of obedience are Christians indeed."

     The second line of Bible teaching is seen in the following facts: (1) Repentance and faith have always been essential for salvation in all ages, from the time of Adam until now, but the outward expression of these has differed from one era to another. (2) A man's heart-attitude toward God may be right even if the outward expression of it is unknowingly deficient. "If a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?...For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly real circumcision is a matter of the heart" (Romans 2:26-29).

     (3) God gave Cornelius and his household the gift of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized (Acts 10:45-47; 11:17). Even though that was an exception to his usual practice (according to Acts 2:38), surely the Lord is free to repeat the exception as he sees fit. We realize exceptions do not overthrow a general rule. But if God's word records that he has made exceptions to his rules on a number of occasions, we do well to realize that fact also.

     Here are some examples of his exceptions, besides those of Josiah and Cornelius. Rahab the harlot (Joshua 6:25 ver-

[Page 124]

sus Deuteronomy 20:16-18); Naaman's religious practices (2 Kings 5:17-19); the conditions for keeping the passover in Hezekiah's day (2 Chronicles 30:13-20 versus Numbers 9:1-13); God's forgiving David though he committed adultery and murder, each of which deserved the penalty of death according to God's law (2 Samuel 11 versus Leviticus 20:10 and Numbers 35:30, 31); David's eating the temple shewbread (Matthew 12:1-7); and such passages as Isaiah 1:11-15, Amos 5:21-24, and Malachi 1:10, where the Lord decries and condemns the feasts and offerings he had commanded the people to observe.

     Turning to church history we notice a number of people who loved God, repented of sin, trusted in Jesus as redeemer, and demonstrated in their lives the fruit and power of the Holy Spirit, although they were never immersed. Think of Luther, Whitefield, Wesley, Finney, Moody, Livingstone, and Hudson Taylor. These were mighty men of God. Think of John Newton, Horatius Bonar, Fanny Crosby, and others whose hymns of warm devotion we love to sing. For us to consign such followers of Christ to outer darkness because they were not immersed seems the equivalent to accusing Josiah of great wickedness because for years he kept no passover. Will not God's verdict contradict ours?

     In teaching followers of his who are not baptized it is not necessary to try and prove they are lost. I find the best passages to use with them are Matthew 28:19, 20 (Christ's command that they should not only be baptized themselves but also baptize their converts); Act 10:47, 48 (Peter's command to Cornelius after he had received the Holy Spirit) and John 14:15 ("If you love me, you will keep my commandments"). This seems to be a valid approach.