Good day to all our readers. I must once again beg your indulgence for the
delays that I have caused this debate to suffer. My wife went into the
hospital last week with what turned out to be a very, very nasty virus. She
went into the hospital at 1:00 AM on 10-19-02 and was not released until
2 PM on 10-25-02.
While running back and forth between the hospital and home I myself became
ill and spent several days in bed when not at the hospital. My wife
finally went to work yesterday, but I woke up with a very severe sinus
headache and ended up spending another day without accomplishing much at all.
At last however we are all well . . . and hopefully will remain healthy for
a while. I really feel that we have already had our share of fall/winter
illnesses.
Anyway, thank-you for your patience and tolerance of the delays and
hopefully we will complete this debate this week so that those waiting so
patiently can proceed with theirs.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE
I have determined from brother Maxey's arguments, both while he
was in the affirmative, and especially in his recent negative response to
my article, that I really do not need to write this article at all. I have
intended to do it the entire last week and a half, however have been
prevented from being able to do so by any number of circumstances
completely and entirely beyond my control. Since my intentions were real
and sincere and it was not my fault it is still just the same as though I
had already written the article! Hard to believe? Brother Maxey says it
is so! Look at paragraph's five and six of his first negative. He states
that, "Thus, in a way, one can correctly declare that the act itself has
ALREADY been performed WITHIN THE HEART . . ."
Now, since this is the case, then I am not really late with an
article at all! Nay! In fact, I really didn't need to write it at all,
because Al should have known what I was going to say and should have
already written his response last week. Then, since my intent would still
have been what it ought to be, and I was still prevented from following
through with my intent, then Al should have just written his final negative
since, once again, It was just as though I had already written my final
affirmative, thus the delays are not my fault at all they are really
Brother Maxey's!
Now there is not a reader one that doesn't recognize the above for
what it is which is a complete farce. This is, however, exactly the
argument that Brother Maxey has made in regards to the necessity of being
baptized. He has ridiculed this necessity as merely "getting wet" (see his
statements in paragraph thirteen of his negative) without realizing that it
is "the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ." Remember 1 Peter 3:21 where we are told that "baptism doth
also now save us" and that it is NOT merely "the putting away the filth of
the flesh." It is not merely getting wet, yet that is how Brother Maxey
refers to it.
He says that I am preaching to the choir, that I spent a
considerable amount of time and space demonstrating the need for
baptism. He says that he concurs with me. (Note paragraph
twenty-two). Readers, Al does NOT concur with me. He spent three
affirmative articles trying to prove that God would save without immersion
and in his response to my affirmative he flat out denies the
necessity. Note the following statements. "It is simply a fact that the
outward demonstration is merely a refection of the already present inner
reality." (Paragraph 17).
"Baptism is not a work that must be accomplished so we can earn or merit
our salvation. Baptism is a response of faith. It is a demonstration of
faith. It is a manifestation of faith. But, it is our FAITH, in
conjunction with His grace, that saves us, not the demonstration
itself. Immersion is merely a visible manifestation of that saving faith."
(Paragraph 18)
Does that sound like someone that believes that baptism is a
necessary part of God's plan of salvation? It does not to me. It sounds
like that Baptist doctrine of salvation by faith only! Every Baptist I know
would shout Amen, Hallelujah, to that statement. How in the world one can
claim to believe that baptism is a necessary part of salvation (and Al,
that is too what this debate is EXACTLY about) and then turn around and
make the above statement is an absolute amazement! I am reminded of the
words of James once again. "A double minded man is unstable in all his
ways." James 1:8 KJV. With that, also the admonition, "Draw nigh to God, and
he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your
hearts, ye double minded." James 4:8 KJV. Don't you suppose part of the
drawing near to God, cleanse your hands and purifying your hearts would
consist at least in part of teaching ONLY that which is contained in the
word of God without giving contrasting opinions based on feelings and
emotions? I would think so.
Now, before I proceed to my affirmative arguments, I feel that I
must first deal with some statements of Al response to my affirmative,
which actually turned out as more of a continuation of his affirmative
argument than a response to my affirmative. However I do feel there are
some items that need to be addressed.
In paragraph two Al makes an argument based on Matt. 12:34-35. He
states that the fruit is merely a reflection of the tree. The fruit is good
because the tree is good. We need to recognize that Al is arguing from the
perspective that one is already right simply because his intent is good,
but do you remember the fig tree? There was a tree that gave every
appearance of being a good tree, yet it was without fruit. What
happened? Was the appearance sufficient? If it were, then why did Christ
curse it so that it withered and died? (Lk. 11:12-23).
What about the branch that does not bear fruit? What occurs to
it? It is cast out! John 15:2. But what if it intended to bear fruit and
simply was not able to because it was prevented by circumstances beyond its
control? Would it not then, at least according to Al, be a "foul and
fiendish" (para. 11) husbandman (which by the way represents the Father)
that cuts that branch off?
Al states in paragraph five that "Obedience to the Lord is a
demonstration of a heart already committed to such obedience. Compliance
flows from an established commitment of heart. The former will never truly
occur without the latter." I have no disagreement with this
statement. Never have. In fact, as Al noted, much of the definitions of
my terms points to this very fact. The difference that Al and I have is
this. The latter (commitment of the heart) will never be acceptable
without the former (compliance). This my friends is what Al does NOT
believe. He believes that commitment without compliance is
sufficient. That one can be saved because they have faith whether they
have obeyed the Gospel command to be baptized or not.
Now, he wants to qualify that with special circumstances, or at
least what he defines as special circumstances, by saying the person has to
be actually standing in the water or is under the water, but not yet risen
up out of the water, but suddenly dies. These circumstances claims Al are
sufficient for us to teach that God will save that individual even though
he has not complied with the commands of Christ.
I am aware that I am having to make negative arguments here, but
the style of Al's response to my affirmative requires it, but consider
this. If Al is indeed correct then we are obligated to assume, believe,
and teach that God will save that individual. He would, according to Al,
be a "foul and fiendish Father," if He did not. If that is the case, then
God has to also save the one that is on the way to the baptistery. He has
to save the one that cannot make it on that day, but has every intention of
doing it Sunday, but dies prior. If he does not, then he is a "foul and
fiendish Father" as well as a respecter of persons. Since He makes one
exception, then why not another. Since He knows the heart of every person
then He would have to save the one that has died never having heard the
gospel, because he knows that person would have obeyed if he had heard.
I once had a young man come to me that was concerned about his
Uncle. He had been talking with him, but the man had committed murder and
did not think God would forgive him. The nephew asked me how he could
possibly reach him. I gave him several passages about Paul and the
promises concerning forgiveness. It was perhaps two months later that I
happened to ask the fellow about his Uncle and how things had gone. The
young man was devastated. He told me that he really believed that those
verses would have reached his Uncle, but he had been prevented with one
thing and another and had never gotten the chance to talk to him. Several
weeks before his Uncle had died in a fire in his home. The young man had a
real difficulty dealing with and told me that he would never ever delay
talking to a soul again. I told him that we learn from what mistakes we
make, but that sometimes we are not responsible. I also told him that his
Uncle was responsible for his soul regardless of whether or not he got to
him with those additional verses. According to Al's doctrine I should have
told him that things were fine that God knew his Uncle's heart and if he
really would have responded to those verses then He was saved even though
he didn't ever actually obey the gospel.
Dear readers, you must recognize that this is the impact and
implication of the doctrine that Al Maxey is promoting. When he denies
that a person will be lost that has under "special circumstances" not
obeyed the gospel then he HAS to also defend the salvation of every other
circumstance as well. It would never end. He states that I must prove
that there is not an exception to the rule (paragraph 22) to prove my
proposition and that I have not done so.
I will tell you flat out that the proof that there is no exception
is that God did not give us an exception! When there were exceptions God
noted them in His word. Ye shall perish . . . except ye repent (Lk.
13:3). Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another
committeth adultery . . . except for the cause of fornication (Matt.
19:9). Ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven . . . except ye be
converted and become as little children. (Matt. 18:3) No man can come to me
. . . except the Father draw him. (John 6:44). A man cannot see the kingdom
of God . . . except he be born again. (John 6:3) A man cannot enter the
kingdom of God . . . except he be born of water and of the spirit. (John 3:5)
There Al, readers, there is the only exception that you will find
in the Bible regarding baptism and salvation. "Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God." John 3:5 KJV
Now, what are you going to do Al? Are you now ready to argue that
there is an exception to the exception? Perhaps, to deny this argument you
are prepared to argue that there are those in heaven that are not in the
kingdom?
The silence of the scriptures is deafening. God gives exceptions
to a number of things. He has told us what those exceptions are as noted
above. What stands out, glares, shouts its absence is an exception to one
needing to be baptized to be saved. It is no where to be found. I do not
have to prove what God will not do. I have already proven in my first
affirmative what God said he will do. Now I have proven that God has not
provided anywhere an exception to what He has said in this regard even
though He has provided exceptions in other matters.
In affirming my proposition I have offered proof of what God said
he would do. Al says he concurs, but denies it. Now in my second
affirmative I have shown what God has NOT said He would do, Al will have to
deny it or concede. In my final affirmative I will show why God said what
He said. I will, of course, show this by what God has said concerning it.
Before I conclude I would like to remark on one other thing that
Al offered in his "negative" arguments. In paragraphs fifteen and
seventeen, he attempts to bolster his intent about intent being sufficient
by giving the example of adultery in the heart and one dying while in the
process of undressing a woman. In the case of the latter he asks if the
sin of adultery would be counted against him. Fornication certainly would
be, wouldn't Al? Do you think that God really is concerned with the
specific sin involved? The man is committing sin regardless of what you
wish to call it. I would call if fornication, which by the way is
sufficient to permit his wife grounds for divorce.
In the former case however, Jesus never says that adultery
actually, literally occurred. He said that it occurred only in the
heart. Nowhere is there evidence that adultery in the heart is sufficient
grounds for divorce. There is an obvious difference between the
two. However, even should you want to argue the point, it is moot. I do
not think that you want to go to the extent that you are about to extend
yourself to here. If thinking about having sex with a person (looking upon
her with lust) is adultery, literal and actual and is a parallel to baptism
and salvation then you must be ready to argue that simply thinking about
being baptized is sufficient for one to be considered saved. The fact that
there is no literal adultery occurring by the way does not negate the sin
involved. We are responsible for what we think as well as what we say as
well as what we do.
Thank-you once again for your attention.
 |