An Email Exchange Between
Al Maxey, Minister/Elder
Cuba Avenue Church of Christ
Alamogordo, New Mexico
and
David Martin, Pastor
Solid Rock Baptist Church
Bartlett, Tennessee
David Martin began his last post with this statement, "Al, you refer to the both of us as 'disciples.' If one of us
is saved, the other is lost and therefore not a 'disciple.'" The Greek word that we translate "disciple" simply
signifies one who is a "student; one who is learning, or being instructed." I consider us both to be students
of the Scriptures and of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Before one can become convicted of Truth,
one must be instructed in Truth. Those being instructed are disciples. Thus, one may very well be a disciple
and yet not have come to the point of saving faith & conviction. After coming to Christ one still continues to
learn of Him, thus one continues to be a student of the Word. Therefore, both saved and unsaved can be
disciples (in the true sense of the term) if they are seeking greater insight into the inspired Word of God.
Whether you are saved or lost is not my judgment to make, David. That rests in the hands of our God. Thus,
I will not be so bold as to take the throne of God with regard to your personal salvation. All I can justifiably do
is proclaim what I believe the Scriptures to teach and then allow you the freedom to examine yourself in that
light. It is only your TEACHING I seek to examine, David, not your HEART. The latter is God's business, not mine.
David wrote, "You call our dialogue a discussion of differences between 'brethren.' We are NOT 'brethren'
according to me or YOU, if we truly believe what we say we do." I will always seek to give another disciple
the benefit of the doubt, David. If you claim to be a child of the Father, I shall assume you are being truthful
until it is proved conclusively otherwise. Simply because two people differ over some matters of perception
or interpretation, does NOT automatically make one of them an apostate. A man can be my BROTHER without
being my TWIN.
Yes, David, you and I differ greatly on some issues. Does that mean one of us is "a wolf wearing wool"? I
would rather think perhaps we are both fellow sheep in the fold who simply have some major differences in
our understanding of the Word. This dialogue, therefore, is being approached by ME as a dialogue between
two persons purporting to be children of the Father, and until it is demonstrated otherwise I shall regard it as
such. This does NOT mean I endorse your personal beliefs, any more than you endorse mine. It simply
means I am unwilling to regard you as anything other than what you CLAIM to be until such time as the Word
demonstrates otherwise.
David wrote, "You also state that you cannot judge who is a heretic and who is not. Then it is impossible for
you to obey Titus 3:10,11. A heretic is one who holds views contrary to correct Bible doctrine, particularly in
regard to the fundamental doctrines, especially salvation. If you cannot discern heresy, then you cannot warn
those under your spiritual care, yet, you no doubt expose what you believe is false doctrine. As Mr. Spock
used to say, 'Illogical.'"
My only point, David, is that I am hesitant to judge the HEART of another. The TEACHING of another can be
evaluated easily. But, there is a vast difference between false TEACHING and a false TEACHER. One may
do the former without being the latter. I have stated, for example, that I believe some of your positions to be
false in light of the Word. However, I would hesitate to characterize YOU PERSONALLY as "false" because
that is a judgment on your character and motives. One may well be presenting false information, but NOT
doing so out of evil intent. It may just be ignorance. Apollos, for example, was a very devoted, spiritual man,
but he was teaching falsely with regard to baptism (Acts 18:24-28). Did that make him a heretic? Of course
not! It made him a devoted disciple of Jesus Christ, filled with the Spirit, who simply did not possess a full
understanding of Truth. Priscilla and Aquila took him aside and "explained to him the way of God more
accurately." That is all I seek to do with you, David. I do not seek to judge your heart, but merely to expose
what I believe to be incorrect teaching with regard to certain areas of God's Word.
Regarding Acts 10
David wrote, "The only Jews to speak in tongues on the day of Pentecost were the disciples gathered in the
upper room, and the apostles who preached in tongues to the Jews present that day. Those who repented and
were baptized that day are not said to have spoken in tongues at all."
I do not disagree with this at all. Indeed, I never suggested otherwise. When I spoke of the Holy Spirit being
poured out upon the Jews in Jerusalem on Pentecost, it was this specific group of whom I spoke. Perhaps I
did not make that as clear in my post as I could have, and thus apologize for any confusion it may have caused
you.
David seemed to think, as per his last post, that I am in a confused state as to whether I am "Church of Christ"
or "Baptist" in my perception of baptism. Actually, I seek to be neither. I merely seek to be biblical. Yes, I
believe baptism (immersion in water) is a required act of obedience if one would truly be clothed with Christ
Jesus (Galatians 3:27). I assume David would also like to stand before God one day "clothed with Christ."
Thus, when Paul writes, "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ," I
assume that David will want to comply.
When Jesus declares, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16), I assume
that David will want to do that which is specified here in order to acquire the specified result. Perhaps I am
mistaken in that assumption, and David only believes in doing the first of these two, but unless he specifically
states he will only HALF-obey his Lord here, I will assume he believes in full compliance. Do you, David?
Yes, I agree with David that immersion is "a demonstration (illustration & expression) of our faith in Christ." I
disagree with David, however, in his view that baptism is not related to our salvation. Jesus apparently also
disagrees with David --- "He who has believed AND HAS BEEN BAPTIZED shall be saved!" Now, if David wants
to argue with Jesus Christ over this statement, he is free to do so. I am not that bold. Apparently 3000 on the
day of Pentecost were not either. They repented and were baptized unto the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38).
Paul arose and was baptized, washing away his sins (Acts 22:16). Philip and the eunuch both went down into
the water where the latter was immersed (Acts 8:36-39). Apparently Peter saw some spiritual relevance to
immersion in water, for he ORDERED Cornelius and his associates to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
(Acts 10:48).
Such teaching is not "Church of Christ" teaching, nor is it "Baptist" teaching. It is simply what the Scriptures
teach. Immersion in water is never relegated to the realm of the optional. It is something commanded, and it
is something respondents immediately sought to comply with. It is linked with the forgiveness of sins, the
washing clean from sin, being clothed with Christ, and with salvation. I accept this as the teaching of God's
Word ..... David Martin apparently DOES NOT.
According to David Martin, one can be cleansed of his sins, he can be clothed with Christ, and he can be
saved even if he REFUSES to be baptized in water. David clearly declared in an email to me (quoted earlier
in this exchange) that if a believer ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to comply with the command to be immersed, that
person was still saved. Thus, David believes one can be eternally saved even though that person willfully
and obstinately REFUSES to obey the Lord with regard to this demonstration of faith. Jesus Christ has become
"to all those who OBEY Him the source of eternal salvation" (Hebrews 5:9). David disputes this passage of
Scripture. Again, I am not so bold.
David, I have at least twice in this exchange examined the Acts 22:16 passage in some depth and asked for
your response to that exegesis. You have yet to even mention it. I would be interested in your response to
my analysis. To refresh your memory, here again are my comments:
********************
As for the Scriptural connection between water baptism and the forgiveness of sins, consider the following:
This would literally be translated "Rise up, be baptized and wash away your sins." The word "apoluo"
conveys the concept of procuring cleansing through an act of washing. That washing would be a reference to the
act of baptism. Both "baptize" and "wash away" appear as 1st Aorist Imperatives (2nd person singular), and they
are connected by "kai." Thus, the two are inseparably linked together in this grammatical construction.
Paul is commanded to rise up and cleanse himself of his sins via the washing of baptism. It came as no surprise
to me that you conveniently left this passage out of your "exegesis of baptism" from NT sources.
********************
Once again, I challenge you to provide a reasonable and rational analysis of this passage in light of your
theology relevant to baptism in water. Thus far you have failed to do so. You wrote, "there is no way anyone
can find baptism preached as a means of receiving forgiveness of sins." David, perhaps you could simply
share with us how your statement compares to Acts 22:16 (not to mention Acts 2:38).
With regard to the Gentiles in Acts 10, David wrote, "IF the Gentiles WERE to refuse to be baptized, which they
DID NOT, but if they did, the fact is that THEY HAD ALREADY RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST according to the
text! And again, without obeying they would not have gotten the Holy Ghost (Acts 5:32). Therefore they MUST
have obeyed to receive the Holy Ghost, and this, according to the Bible in any version, including your NASV,
happened BEFORE they were baptized. So, to parrot your question: 'What was the point?'"
The Spirit was poured out upon them just as it was upon the group of JEWS at Pentecost TO FULFILL the
prophecy of Joel 2. This is clearly stated in the text. This was NOT the receiving of the Spirit that one finds
mentioned in Acts 2:38. This was a special outpouring for the purpose of demonstrating God's acceptance
of "ALL FLESH" into His family. This was done as much for Peter and his companions that day as it was for
Cornelius and his associates. This was NOT a demonstration of salvation, but a demonstration of acceptance
(representatively) of a group of people (the Gentiles). When Peter saw that THEY also had been approved by
God for inclusion into His family, he realized that NO ONE could possibly "refuse the water for these to be
baptized" (Acts 10:47), thus HE ORDERED THEM to be immersed.
David, you are confusing the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit in fulfillment of Joel 2 with the reception of
the Holy Spirit which each disciple receives who believes, repents & is baptized (Acts 2:38). These are not
the same event.
Regarding Acts 19
David wrote, "The Bible says in Romans 8:9 that if you do not have the Spirit of God, you are NOT Christ's. I
am only repeating what the Bible says. Again, Al is confusing ME with the BIBLE." No, David, there is no
danger of that!! I too believe what Romans 8:9 teaches. If we do not have the Spirit of God dwelling within
us, then we are not His. Again, however, you seem to confuse the reception of the Spirit into our hearts with
the special outpouring in fulfillment of Joel 2. They are two separate events.
With regard to Acts 19:1-7, we see some men who BELIEVED, but who had not yet received the Holy Spirit.
David would insist that without the Spirit in their hearts these 12 men were not yet IN CHRIST and thus not yet
SAVED. However, they BELIEVED. They had FAITH. If salvation comes at the point of FAITH, then they
SHOULD have been SAVED, right? But, something was obviously amiss. They DID have faith, but they
DIDN'T have the Spirit. Paul immediately questions them with regard to the nature of their baptism. Now,
David, why do you suppose he might wonder about THAT? Could it be that immersion into Christ had
something to do with their reception of the Spirit?
As soon as it was determined they had not yet been immersed into Christ Jesus, "they were baptized into the
name of the Lord Jesus" (vs. 5). Paul THEN (not before) laid his hands upon them and they received the Holy
Spirit. Why didn't Paul just lay his hands on them BEFORE they were baptized? What was the point of them
being immersed? They had already believed? They HAD faith! And if it was just the laying on of hands that
granted them the Spirit, then there was no need for immersion …. right, David?!!!
On the contrary. They OBEYED and THEN they received the promised Spirit. As a visible demonstration to
them that they would be receiving the Holy Spirit, Paul laid his hands on them. As a visible evidence to them
that they had now received this Spirit (remember, they did not even know there WAS a Holy Spirit ... vs. 2), they
spoke in tongues and prophesied. Why? As visible demonstration TO THEM that there WAS a Holy Spirit and
that they had now received Him. They needed this confirmation.
CONCLUSION
I think it is obvious that one of the major differences David and I have is over the significance of baptism.
We both regard it as a necessary demonstration of one's faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. We both apparently
agree that it is full immersion in water. The difference lies in its relationship to the cleansing of one's sin and
one's ultimate salvation. David believes it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the removal of sins or
salvation, whereas I believe it is vitally connected.
I do not believe baptism itself (the act) is some magical, meritorious WORK that has within itself the power to
forgive sins or save a sinner. Forgiveness of sin and salvation are both IN CHRIST JESUS. We are saved
by the grace of the Father through our faith in the Son. However, that faith MUST be demonstrated. David and
I both agree that baptism IS a demonstration of that faith. Our only disagreement appears to be over the
NECESSITY of that demonstration to acquire the gift of forgiveness and salvation. I believe a faith NOT
demonstrated (indeed, a faith one WILLFULLY REFUSES to demonstrate) is NOT a saving faith. David
apparently believes otherwise. He declares one can WILLFULLY REFUSE to demonstrate his faith and
STILL BE SAVED. I simply do not believe the Bible teaches this.
Demonstrating one's faith is NOT to be confused with seeking to EARN salvation via that demonstration (as
though it was some meritorious work). If I was to teach that the act of baptism in water IS WHAT SAVES YOU,
then I would be proclaiming false doctrine. Baptism is nothing more than a demonstration of our faith.
However, if I REFUSE to demonstrate my faith in the manner requested by my Lord, then I forfeit the GIFT
of salvation. David teaches otherwise. He says one CAN refuse to demonstrate his/her faith according to
the manner specified by the Lord, and in spite of that willful rejection of the Lord's command, that one will
STILL BE SAVED. That is false teaching, David. I am going to assume it is done in ignorance, and thus I
would not characterize you yourself as a teacher who is FALSE in nature. However, if you are knowingly
misleading people on this matter, THEN the label "false teacher" would apply. Again, I am going to take
the "high road" and assume the best of you, and that is that you are simply unenlightened as to the fullness
of God's Truth on this matter.
My prayer for you is for your enlightenment. Like some of Paul's contemporaries, you obviously "have a
zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge" (Romans 10:2). May God lead you to a more complete
knowledge of His Word so that you may cease from your teaching of falsehoods and begin proclaiming the
glorious Truth.
 |