In the "Be DIPPED or be DAMNED?" thread, one of the arguments put forward against the idea that full immersion was an actual requirement for salvation was that if this standard were strictly applied, it would eliminate, as "damned", a very large number of people today and many more in centuries past whose faith appears to have been genuine to our human eyes, but who were not immersed. This even includes famous theologians, great apologists, martyrs, etc. I think Dwight van Z. (dbvz) was the main one who raised this point, and I don't know if he is still around or not. But there may be others who subscribe to this argument, and there may be some of "us" who find it hard to answer.

Recently, in sorting through some old papers I ran across some articles I had saved from THE RESTORATION HERALD for February 1995. One was an article by Roger Chambers, published (or republished) posthumously, entitled "Restoring Movement to the Restoration Movement." In it he included the following historical account, which has a bearing on this matter:

"At the Leipzig Debate (July, 1519) the Roman Catholic scholar Eck disturbed Martin Luther with the question, 'Except for you, is all the church in error?' Eck operated from the medieval assumption that is [sic] was _impossible_ for one man to be right if he rejected the tradition of the church, i.e. that which had been believed for so long by so many. Luther had to think it over. Before he could decide that his theology was the right one, he had to convince himself that it was _possible_ for it to be so.

"Many in the Movement have succumbed to a kind of medieval intellectual pressure. .... Humble folk are often stampeded into apologizing for the Restoration Plea, unconsciously assuming along with the questioner that the mere breadth of denominational variety makes it impossible that the Restoration Movement, outnumbered as it is, could represent apostolic Christianity to this generation. Like Luther, we must first decide whether it is possible for us to be right in the face of multiple alternatives. ....

"At the Diet of Worms (April, 1521) Luther again faced the issue. Eck announced that Luther could not say that the church, speaking through traditions and councils, was wrong and this one man right. He then called upon Luther to repudiate his writings. Luther replied that he could not recant unless convicted by Scripture and plain reason. He had the right of it, and there we must stand. If we surrender any part of the Restoration Plea, let it be because it has been disproved by Scripture and plain reason, not because so many believe otherwise. Doctrine stands on hermeneutics. If I'm wrong and narrow and legalistic and divisive, show me in Scripture; don't tell me how many spiritual people disagree with me."

With this I wholeheartedly agree. Dwight and others may not agree with the conclusions I/we have reached about baptism, but I hope they will at least have the integrity to stand with Luther rather than Eck on the matter of how the question should be decided.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2000

Answers

Benjamin.....

I had the priviledge of studying under Roger Chambers for a number of years....and specifically had the priviledge of studying "Western Civ. III Protestant History" under him. I remember those class discussions quite well that are outlined in the article you quoted.

Thanks for sharing it.....more importantly....thanks for believing it.

I trust your ministry is going well.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2000

Brother Ben:

I do not have much time at the moment to express in detail my agreement with your post. For now I will just simply say AMEN AND AMEN! Truth is not measured by how much or how many of our fellow men agree or disagree with us. Rather it is measured by whether we are in harmony and agreement with our Lord Jesus Christ and the truth that he delivered through the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostles and the other inspired writers of the New Testament. To the degree that we agree with the truth spoken by Christ in that degree and that degree only are we "right". The creeds and doctrines that originate from men will never lead us to the truth. The church is the body of Christ and the entire body is guided by the head which is Christ. (Col. 1:18,24; Eph. 1:22,23; Eph. 4:4). When we search for the truth we must always and forever appeal to the head for the answer. And the hands and feet cannot just go their own way because they have the majority over the single head. There are more hands and feet than heads on the body of Christ but they do not control the body. In the body of Christ the majority does not rule but the head. Christ is the head let us all agree with Him in all things. (Eph. 1:22,23).

"God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets hath in these last days spoken unto us through his son whom he hath apointed heir of all things, through whom he also made the worlds." (Heb. 1;1,2). Let us all agree with Christ.

If we were all perfectly united with Christ we would all be united with one another. The reason for our lack of unity is our failure to be one with Christ and in agreement with the doctrine of Christ.

I appreciate very much your pointing to this important fact. For we often hear the charge that we think that we are right and everyone else is wrong when in truth we are saying that truth proceeds form Christ and any and all who disagree with Him are wrong and we include ourselves in this assertion. If it can be shown that the things which we believe and teach as Christians are contrary to the doctrine of Christ then we will, because we must, yeild to His teaching and agree with him in all things for He is the head of the church. But popular opinions and the status of those who have gone before us to the bar of God's justice believing less than the truth are not a means of determining truth. The doctrine of Christ in the is the final arbiter of all differences among the saints.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2000

Ben,

Indeed, let one show me through the Holy Scriptures that I am not a Christian the moment I asked Jesus to be my best friend. I was six years old standing in a small grove of trees and I knew Jesus had taken up residence the moment I asked.

So, in the "spirit" of "narrowness" you are wrong and I am right….( If I'm wrong and narrow and legalistic and divisive, show me in Scripture; don't tell me how many spiritual people disagree with me.)

I was born again without the assistance of water or man.

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2001

Amen, Barry!!

Good to see your name again.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2001

Mr. Hanson:

You have said:

“I was born again without the assistance of water or man.”

Jesus said concerning being born again:

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, 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 3:3-5).

Mr. Hanson obviously is saying the direct opposite to what Christ taught Nicodemus when he asked how a man can be born again when he is old. If we were to ask Mr. Hanson to tell us how a man can be born again when he is old can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born Mr. Hanson would tell us the exact opposite of what Christ told Nicodemous. For Mr. Hanson would leave the comments about water completely out of his answer.

Mr. Hanson says a man can be born again when he is old and thereby enters the kingdom of God by this New Birth without water.

Jesus said concerning being born again when one is old that, “except a man be born of WATER and the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

Jesus said it cannot be done without water and Mr. Hanson says it “happened to him” without water. Now all of you can chose, which of these two you will believe. As for “me and my house” we will believe the inspired words of Jesus Christ the Son of God over the self styled “Reverend” Barry Hanson.

Compare also, for those of you who care, Mr. Hanson’s description of his conversion at the age of six with the examples of Conversion in the New Testament. Especially the example of the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:35-40. There we are told that all Phillip preached to the Eunuch was Jesus. “And he bagan at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus”. Then as a result of hearing Phillip preach nothing but JESUS they came to a certain water and the FIRST thing on the Eunuch’s mind was “see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized”? One could hear the “reverend” Hanson preach for eternity and it would never cross their minds that there is any “water” in the plan at all. No, the inspired Preacher Phillip did not have this “no water” attitude. In fact, he shows that when one preaches Jesus water is connected with that preaching. And anyone preaching Jesus as the inspired Evangelist Phillip preached Jesus will not leave water out of the sermon! But the “Reverend” Hanson, if he mentioned water at all, would be to make sure that everyone understood that it has nothing to do with conversion contrary to what both Jesus and the inspired Phillip plainly taught.

For Christ and those faithful to His teaching,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 29, 2001

For your further consideration I will now catalog a few verses concerning baptism in water in the New Testament. I will simply quote them with a few brief comments and later return to discuss some of them in detail for I am pressed at the moment for time. I only thought that these other verses should be in our minds as we think about this important subject.

Mr. Hanson would like for you to believe that water has nothing to do with our salvation in Christ. But just for you to keep in mind there are numerous verses that connect water with Christianity but Mr. Hanson will have none of it. Look at these verses.

The apostle Paul tells us that the church was “sanctified and cleansed by water”.

“That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,” (Eph. 5:26) But Mr. Hanson claims to be a part of the church of Christ that was cleansed and sanctified by water but he has not been cleansed and sanctified by water. It is clear as crystal that if he has not been cleansed and sanctified by water that he is not a part of the church, which Paul describes as having been so cleansed.

The inspired writer of the book of Hebrews reminds the saints could draw near to God with assurance because their hearts had been sprinkled and their bodies had been washed with pure water.

“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”(Heb. 10:22).

But Mr. Hanson claims that he can approach God with assurance even though his body has not been so washed as the Hebrew writer explains.

And as we noticed in my previous post the Example of the Eunuch’s Baptism was one of water baptism.

“And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (Acts 8:36). If you have not been baptized in water you should ask this same question the next time you see water. What hinders you from being baptized? Be sure that it is not false doctrine being taught by men like this “Reverend Hanson” that prevents you from doing as Christ commanded you to do. (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:16).

The baptism of John was not only for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4) but it was also, like the baptism that put us into Christ (Gal. 3:26,27) a baptism in water.

“And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.” (John 3:23).

And Peter clearly refers to water baptism and uses the salvation of Noah by water to illustrate its purpose.

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience by the ressurection of Christ. (I peter 3:20,21).

Peter claims that “baptism doeth also now save us. But the “Reverend Hanson” says the direct opposite of the inspired apostle Peter by claiming that baptism doeth NOT also now save us. I will believe the inspired apostle Peter, how about you?

Mr. Hanson says water has no importance but read these verses:

“This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.” (1 John 5:6)

“And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (1 John 5:8)

Now these two verses obviously put “water” on a much higher level of importance than the “Reverend” Hanson would like for it to be placed.

The baptism of Christ was in water and we should “walk in his steps.

“And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him”. (Mark 1:10)

It is interesting indeed that Jesus Christ submitted to baptism in water to fulfill all righteousness but M. Hanson will not submit to baptism in water. I suppose that he thinks that he is above our Lord Jesus Christ himself. Mr. Hanson will not follow even Jesus Christ the Son of God into water.

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. (John 1:33)

John 3:3-5 Jesus answered, 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.

Even the house of Cornelius though baptized into the Holy Spirit we COMMANDED and could not refuse baptism in water.

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized.” (Acts 10:47,48)

Mr. Hanson would have been the very first one to “forbid water” saying that it was not necessary. But Peter COMMANDED IT.

Then Paul says:

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5).

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:21

Tell us which baptism is spoken of in these verses in water or the Holy Spirit? On the day of Pentecost we read:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41)

Mr. Hanson would never “gladly receive” any words that were leading him to be baptized in water. But those who received Peter’s inspired word were baptized IN WATER.

Then we are told, “and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). But Mr. Hanson claims that his sins were washed away without water. Yet even the apostle Paul had to be baptized in water for this purpose. Surely Mr. Hanson is a “special” man. Maybe this is the reason that he refers to himself as “Reverend”. For not one single person in the New Testament ever called himself “Reverend” and never were called “reverend” by men. But since he is so special that he does not have to do the things that Christ and the apostles all did he must feel the need to make himself distinct from all of the rest of us who simply obey Christ by designating himself as a “Reverend”. While he seeks to have us ignore the plain teaching of the scriptures about water.

There are many more passages that Connect water with Christianity and salvation in Christ but these are sufficient for now to cause those interested in the truth to “pause” and think about it more deeply.

For Christ and those faithful to Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 29, 2001

my my my but you do get defensive and touchy when your hobbyhorse of baptism saves is threatened, don't you "dragon" boy?!

Dragon?!? for a Christian to ignore Scripture's teaching about "avoiding even the appearance of evil" you sure picked a ...uh...'satanic' moniker.

Perhaps truth sneaks out in various ways in your life...if not from your keyboard, then your subconscience.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Mr. “Yap, Yap, Yap”:

You have said:

“my my my but you do get defensive and touchy when your hobbyhorse of baptism saves is threatened, don't you "dragon" boy?!”

No, I think not. I cannot see that I have been defensive of myself so much. If you think otherwise and would like to convince me of it you will need to offer some PROOF. So, far you have failed miserably to do that, haven’t you? And there is nothing that would indicate to any thinking person that the subject of baptism is a “horse” at all much less a “hobbyhorse” any more than your false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” might be such for you. And just because your false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” is a “hobbyhorse” for you and we respond to you when you pathetically attempt to teach it is no evidence that “baptism” is a Hobbyhorse” for us.

But I can see that I have defended the truth of the gospel of Christ. And that is a scriptural thing to do isn’t it? For we are told, “To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” (Gal. 2:5). And again, “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14). “Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.” (Phil. 1:7). And again, “But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.” (Phil. 1:17). So, yes, I am set for the defense of the gospel and if you wish to assault the gospel of Christ with your deceptions and lies you will find me ready to defend it. And there is just nothing in the world you can do to stop it, now can you?

Then you seem concerned about my email address as follows:

“Dragon?!?”

Yes, but it is not “dragon” but gdragon007”. I spent some time in China and my wife is Chinese and my Chinese friends and family have given me a Chinese name and “dragon” forms a part of it. And, just like most people who make up their own email addresses I have had some fun with my Chinese name in the process.

Then you say:

“ for a Christian to ignore Scripture's teaching about "avoiding even the appearance of evil" you sure picked a ...uh...'satanic' moniker.”

There is simply no appearance of evil about my email address. And therefore I have not failed to “avoid” the appearance of evil as you assert but do not prove. And there is surely nothing “Satanic” about this email address. And this Christian does not “ignore” any of the scriptures and you cannot prove otherwise can you? But we have shown that you ignore completely the commands of Christ Jesus himself. For he said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16:16. And you ignore the Scriptures that say, “baptism doeth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21) and that baptism is for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and that baptism is connected with “washing our sins away” (Acts 22:16). You completely ignore the truth about the teaching and commands of Christ on this subject yet you hypocritically complain about my email address. Ha! Such hypocrisy is pathetic indeed.

Then you say:

“Perhaps truth sneaks out in various ways in your life...if not from your keyboard, then your subconscience.”

Truth, as anyone who has read what I have had to say in this forum can see, does not “sneak out” it issues forth from the word of God in the things, which we write concerning His word. And truth is surely firmly implanted in my sub-conscience. And we have proven that the scriptures teach that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and therefore essential to salvation (Mark 16:16; 1Peter 3:21). That frustrates all false teachers such as yourself and therefore the only thing these helpless souls can do is "whine" about our email address. I suppose that you must do something since you cannot answer our arguments.

For Christ and those who love the truth in him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002