A false reality

Not long ago, a friend and I went to get a bite to eat.  My friends chose his food based on the picture of the meal that he saw at the restaurant.  When the order came out, my friend did a double-take as the meal didn’t exactly match with the meal photo.  He felt let down, and claimed the eating establishment had falsely advertised their product.

Similar to my friend’s experience is the advertising campaign by a local atheistic group in the Northwest.  Seven billboards have been purchased in Spokane, Washington to try and promote the message of atheism.  The ads feature smiling individuals and you get the sense the ads are not much different in their presentation then what you would see in church advertisement, minus the message.  The ads are nicely done and attractive, but it is evident the message of the ads do not conform to reality.

Two of ads are particularly interesting in their presentation and message.  The first ad features a cute elderly couple, while the second presents an ex-clergy man.

Both evidence and science are trumped in the first ad to make a statement that theism is a false idea.  It is interesting that the ad assumes theism is relegated false by evidence and science. Actually, there is a lot of evidence and science that supports theism and denies an atheistic worldview.  Surely, the FFRF realizes that evidence and science cuts both ways?  Besides, how can you honestly make a logical statement concerning science and evidence when the statement itself is not supported by either evidence or science!  Theism being equated to myth is nothing more than a red herring.

The second ad tries to play on the heart of individuals by featuring a man, who in the past was involved in the clergy.  Like the first ad, the man emphasizes that reason trumps theism.  Again, this argument fails, because it too, is nothing more than a red herring.  Anyone could just as well state that they are “Now preaching REASON not atheism.”  The statements are nothing more than unjustified beliefs.

Dialogue in regards to truth is not what is being promoted in the FFRF ad campaigns.  What is being sold is similar to my friends experience at the restaurant – false advertisement!

How to destroy Christianity

Christianity is a worldview that has been in existence for around 2000 years.  During those years many have attempted to discredit the Christian message.  The attempt to discredit Christianity began early, but how does one destroy Christianity?

The earliest attempt to destroy the Christian message came from the Jewish community.  Upon discovery of the empty tomb the Jewish leaders spread the story that the followers of Jesus stole the body.  This attempt to destroy the early Christian message failed, for many claimed to have encountered the resurrected Jesus.

The next attempt to destroy Christianity was wrought by the Roman Empire through persecution.  According to the Roman method, all you need to do is simply murder and suppress all Christians. Persecution of Christians by torture and killing also failed to stop the movement.  As early Church Father, Tertullian, once said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

Many years passed until the Age of Enlightenment.  At this time and prior, people were starting to question long held beliefs of God and the Christian worldview.  Science and reason was pushed to the forefront as to how one acquires knowledge and answers to life's big questions.

Some in the scientific realm came to believe that it was the holder of all knowledge that could known.  Theories started to develop and still do today to try and explain away the existence of God. Science was seen by many as pitting itself against the Christian worldview, primarily because the supernatural realm can't be investigated by way of scientific testing.  Therefore, on this view, the supernatural must not exist, nor miracles which operate outside of natural explanations.  The route of the naturalist was simply to destroy God, and then Christianity and all other religions would fall.  However, this approach failed to destroy Christianity.

Also, during the "Enlightenment" alternative theories developed to explain away the empty tomb.  The disciples belief they had encountered Jesus after his death is part of historical bedrock belief  by most scholars whether they are Christian or not .  "Not a few, but rather a majority, of contemporary scholars believe that there is some historical kernel in the empty tomb tradition." [1] Some of the counter theories to explain away the empty tomb include: the Swoon Theory, Hallucination Theory, Twin Theory, Myth Theory, Spirit Body Theory, and others failed to explain with more explanatory power than the bodily resurrected Jesus.

The Apostle Paul has provided the best method for the destruction of the Christian worldview by saying, "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.  For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.  If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men (1 Corinthians 15:13-19)."  


Paul is absolutely correct when trying to destroy Christianity.  Science can never come close to destroying the Christian worldview, for science is limited to the natural answers.  If Christianity is ever to be destroyed it will be by debunking the empty tomb message of early believers.  Some will say, people will always be willing to believe a lie, and most would agree with that, but the early followers of Jesus actually believed they had encountered the risen Jesus, and therefore, were willing to die for what they thought was true as opposed to a lie.  


To destroy Christianity, the resurrection story must be shown untrue and false.  Evidence must be given to show that the bodily resurrection of Jesus did not happen.  This means that arguments that tip the scales against the bodily resurrection must be weightier that what the Christian worldview proclaims.  It is one thing to believe in any thing, but can your belief be justified?  When someone can show that Jesus never rose from the dead, then Christianity is officially dead.   The burden lies directly at the hands of those who want to destroy Christianity, and even Jesus offers a challenge to those opposed to the Christian worldview, when speaking about the Church, by saying, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it (Matthew 16:18)."  


If the bodily resurrection theory cannot be destroyed, then perhaps it is true.  Until the resurrection story is destroyed it offers the best explanation as to what happened to a dead Jesus three days after the fact.  The burden of proof falls directly in the lap of those who believe otherwise.


[1] Habermas, Gary as quoted in "The Resurrection of Jesus" by Michael Licona, p. 461, 2010

Antitheism and Krauss' Wager

Here is a great blog by Luke Nix of "Faithful Thinkers"

Antitheism and Krauss' Wager

Laurence Krauss- The Antitheist
Recently in a discussion with Justin Brierly (Unbelievable?) and Rodney Holder, Lawrence Krauss made an interesting statement (podcast: 58:01):

"You talk about this god of love and everything else. But somehow if you don't believe in him, you don't get any of the benefits, so you have to believe. And then if you do anything wrong, you're going to be judged for it. I don't want to be judged by god; that's the bottom line."

Earlier in the program Krauss also described himself as an antitheist and made a distinction from being called an atheist. Taken in the context of the quote above this distinction and title makes a lot of sense. As apologists, it is not enough to address a worldview as a whole, we must look into the specific views of an individual to appeal to them on both an intellectual level and an emotional level. I have a few thoughts that I would like to draw out of this.

To finish the blog click here.

The God particle and the trump card

The recent discovery of the "God Particle" has been a major breakthrough for science across the globe.  Not only has the scientific community promoted the particle, but the media has hyped it as well.  The "God Particle" is known properly as the Higgs boson particle and the quest for this particle was pursued for many years.  Why all the hype and what are the implications of this newly discovered particle?

One of the main reasons for the hype is the discovery of the most fundamental piece of the universe's beginning that has ever been discovered.  According to the scientific community, this particle is so important that it is responsible  for springing the universe into existence after the "Big Bang"  and giving mass to all particles of matter.  It is so named because it helps us to understand the process of the universe's earliest stage of development.

It is interesting that the Higgs bosen is refereed to as the "God Particle."  The "God Particle" reference is used because of the fact that God has traditionally been understood as the creator of the universe.  However, some might be willing to say that this discovery explains away the existence of God, hence the name - "God Particle."  But does the particle really render God useless?

A couple of points need to be made to counter those who would say that God is now officially dead.  First, The "God Particle" did not create the universe, for the universe was already in existence, according to the "Big Bang."  And, secondly,  for those who still want to hold on to the universe from nothing idea, a scientific explanation must be given to explain the origin of something from nothing.  This last explanation will never be given, because science is unable to address this point.

Why all the hype?  For many, there is always a quest to try and disprove the existence of God.  Scientism claims that science is the trump card of explaining away the universe, but is it?  Science ultimately fails, because as it has already been stated, explaining something from nothing is not something science can do.  Science assumes only the material universe and tests within that realm, therefore, the something from nothing question is relegated to philosophy.  Philosophy is the field that possesses the real trump card.  The "God Particle" may have made many delight in the possibility of destroying God, but in the end, no evidence from a scientific perspective can accomplish this task.

Line em' up

In taking a few months off in blogging, I was somewhat surprised at a couple of atheist comments that I received.  One of the comments made the point that my apologetics were no different than rehashed Josh McDowell arguments.  Evidently, this person does not think highly of McDowell.  The other comment referred to Master's in Christian Apologetics as a mail-in degree. I wish he could of helped me with this mail-in degree financially.  Both comments were deleted because I refuse to dialogue with ad hominem attacks.  Name calling is easy, but it proves absolutely nothing.

How do individuals get past the extreme differences they have?  Can differences be overcome?  As already mentioned, in order to have meaningful dialogue the first thing that cannot take place is name calling or ad hominem attacks.  Nothing does more to close the debate door than to rely on name calling.  This form of speech is arrogant and in no way opens individuals up to any ideas you may want to put forth.

One way to dialogue is to try and be as open-minded as possible.  Being open-minded is difficult, but not impossible.  Sure, all individuals come with preconceived ideas, but trying to see and understand your opponents point before dialoguing with them is a good way to start.  Practice empathetic consideration.  Take time to chew on others ideas that are different from your own.  Again, all individuals do not have a monopoly of being absolutely indifferent when it comes to worldview questions, but openness can be achieved to a high degree.

One of the worst arguments that I have heard from Christians is: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"  This settles nothing except closing conversation for someone's worldview that doesn't believe in God.  On the flip side, many atheist thinkers, like the ones I mentioned earlier, do a disservice to dialogue by simply name calling and assuming that their view does not need to be debated.  In other words, some atheist thinkers seem to think that have a cornered the market of truth.  Some even refer to themselves as "Free Thinkers" as if theism is relegated to the community of "Closed Thinkers."  Part of open-mindedness involves humility in knowing that you are coming from a position of certain held presuppositions.  Being unable to truly consider the others argument does nothing to help dialogue out.

Perhaps the best method of dialogue is to argue solely based on the specific points of difference you have with your opponent.  It is good and necessary to present your arguments for others to view.  Likewise, it is meaningful for discussion and ultimately to discover truth to argue your differences with your opponent based on specific points of difference that you have.  You may not solve the point at hand, but at least dialogue is free and you can line up your points to try and sway individuals toward truth.  Ultimately, truth is what any argument is based upon (or it should be).  When individuals argue, they are trying to sway individuals to what they believe is true.  In other words, when you line up your points, do they have more weight than your opponents?  Which argument(s) tip the scale of truth? 

Many of the arguments need to address specific points with cumulative evidence, because it is impossible to have 100% proof.  For example, the question of the existence of God cannot be proved with 100% certainty from either camp (Christian or Atheist).  A cumulative way of argumentation is helpful in providing evidence that can lead to an inference of best explanation. 

The best way to dialogue/argue is simply to line em' up.  Put your cards on the table and make your points.  When addressing your opponent, point out why he/she is incorrect.  Be willing to think outside of your own worldview box and follow the evidence wherever it goes.  This type of dialogue brings true enlightenment to the big questions of life.  By the way, if my arguments are just rehashed Josh McDowell comments, does that mean my arguments were wrong?  Actually, I take that comment not as an ad hominem attack, but as a complement.  Thank you my atheist friend!

Bell's Hell - Another look at "Love Wins"

Much has been said about Rob Bell's controversial book "Love Wins."  Also, much has changed recently for Rob Bell, as he is now moving out of pastoring a mega-church to do more writing and concentrating on various speaking engagements.  In reviewing his book, I'm sure I will add nothing new since its release in March of 2011.  Having said that, I wanted to share some thoughts on my impression on not just Bell's views, but on the "Emergent Movement" in general.

Before reading "Love Wins" I had an impression of Bell already formed.  I had read some of his Internet articles and viewed some interviews, and so I had formed some opinions of him beforehand.  I must say that my impression of his views did not change after completing the book.  I have had the opportunity to visit with many Rob Bell-like people.  What I mean by Rob Bell-like people pertains to individuals who fall in line with the "Emergent Movement."  Maybe, fall in line is not a good description of the "Emergent Movement", because nothing with in the movement is perfectly lined up.  A friend of mine once said that the "Emergent Movement" is like trying to nail jello to the wall.  This is what bothers me and others who try to assess individuals within the movement.  The problem with the movement centers on the lack of answers or conflicting answers given, but more on this later.

Bell's book opens true to "emergent" form, with a barrage of questions.  It was almost like the serpent questioning Eve, "Did God really say?"  I am not comparing Bell to the serpent, only saying that all traditional beliefs (according to Bell) need to be questioned.  I am not arguing against questions.  Questions are good and necessary.  However, Bell doesn't seem to question for the sake of dialogue, but to deconstruct everything for the sole purpose of his own agenda.

Much of the book Bell raises some good points.  Although I disagree with much of his exegesis, he does rightly point out some of the problems with the church today.  He does a good job highlighting the need to have a heart for serving people, although at times his political beliefs seem to match a "Wall Street" protester.  He addresses legalism within the Church, as this too is a necessary point that constantly needs to be raised.

Now to a few points about his overall beliefs concerning hell.  Bell's biggest hangup with hell seems to be how a loving God could punish people for finite sins.  For Bell this seems insurmountable.  For God is not God if this is how God is to be seen.  Bell would see the traditional view of an everlasting hell being contra the nature of God.  Bell cannot even conceive how God would allow individuals to be eternally separated from a holy God.  For Bell, God is a monstrous being if this is reality.

Bell seems to believe that heaven and hell exist side by side.  According to Bell, "heaven and hell are at the same party." [1]  He never clarifies how this is or what justifies this position.  He does use the "Prodigal Son" of Luke 15 to relate the side by side nature of both realities, but to my knowledge this story has never been used to justify the duel realm of heaven and hell.  Bell's duel realm view is bizarre at best.  What is also bizarre is how this works out on Bell's view, for no other explanation is fleshed out to support this idea.

Trying to wrap my mind around Bell's views is a tremendous struggle.  One of the disturbing views of Bell is how all are eventually saved.  I say disturbing, not because his ideas conflict with mine, but disturbing because he doesn't seem to justify why his views should be seen as conforming to reality.  For example, it seems clear to me that Bell feels all will eventually be saved, hence forth, love wins.  The overall theme of the book is that God's love will win out and all will be saved.  Bell can say he is not a universalist, but the book is clear that this is not what is promoted.  It is Bell's view that all will be saved, however no explanation is given as to how this will work, except that God's love wins in the end.  Bell even seems to promote that post-mortem sanctification will take place.  Bell is adamant that only the nature of God's love is what counts and His love trumps all.  In other words, God's hands seem to be tied on Bell's view.

The final comment about Bell's view revolves around his view of God.  The most disturbing aspect of Bell's view is his lack of interaction with the tradition view of God's judgment.  Bell tries in a way to address the traditional view of God as a God of judgement, but he falls short in providing any scholarly argumentation to show why this aspect is not part of God's makeup.  The traditional view of the God of judgement that I am referring to is that God does judge individuals and separate them throughout eternity.  Bell seems closed to this aspect of God's nature.  If God saves all in the end because love wins, then Bell needs to leave the business of trying to lead individuals to Jesus, because salvation is guaranteed.  The need for responsibility in this life is unnecessary, because on Bell's view nothing really matters.  If God is not a God of judgment and his hands are tied in having to save everyone, then Bell's God turns out not so much a God of love, but an amoral being at best.


[1]  Bell, Rob, Love Wins, p. 176

• A great article dealing with the exegetical problems of Love Wins.
• A short debate revealing Bell's view of God and hell.

Dr. Jeffress, Mormonism and dialogue

A few weeks back,  Dr. Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas caused a stir by calling the Mormon religion a cult before the national media.  Was this the correct avenue to take?  I took a survey shortly after Jeffress statement with a group of men, and half said Jeffress did the right thing.  Being a pastor in the same denomination, I will have to disagree with Dr. Jeffress and the men in my survey.  I could never match the intelligence of pastor Jeffress, but believe he was mistaken by stirring the pot in this way before the national media.  I am not disagreeing with Dr. Jeffress theological assessment concerning  the differences between Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity, but feel his branding of Mormonism before the national media does nothing but kill all possible dialogue between Mormons and those who fall within the Orthodox beliefs of the Church.

The Apostle Paul when dialoguing with others was conscious of his audience and tailored his discussion so that dialogue could take place.  In Acts 17, while speaking to the Greek philosophers, Paul never once mentions Scripture, but instead addresses the people on their level.  In fact, Paul's knowledge of the Greek thinkers allowed him to connect with the people by quoting two poets that the philosophers would have known about.  Paul said nothing offensive to block dialogue, but went out of his way to present the gospel such that people could respond.  In dialoguing in this way Paul gave freedom to the Holy Spirit to convict the hearts of the Greek thinkers, and this is exactly what happened.

When engaged with others, it is my opinion that dialogue needs to be open and free.  Anytime, dialogue is hindered by personal blocks, it makes the spread of God's Good News that much more difficult.  Paul stated, "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some (1 Cor. 9:22)."  For Paul, the truth of God would never be compromised, but at the same time he realized the importance of keeping the communication lines open so that people could come to know the Messiah.

Two weeks ago, some Mormon missionaries came to my door.  We had a wonderful conversation.  I was asking a lot of questions and am praying that we can further the discussions in the future.  I realize that my worldview and the Mormon worldview are worlds apart on many different levels.  I choose to dialogue with my Mormon friends, because I believe so strongly that they are not in line with God's truth.  Because of my belief, it is important to keep the dialogue lines open, and not shut them off in any way.

Die for a lie?

One of the arguments given for the Christian faith deals with the statement that individuals would not be willing to die for a lie.  In general this is true, but many recognize that this argument by itself is incomplete.  Besides, couldn't any religion make this claim as their own?  However, the not dying for a lie argument does have credibility when considering evidence that supports the statement.  In other words, dying for truth is a whole lot different than dying for what one thinks to be true.  There are three solid reasons that support the fact that disciples of Jesus did not die for a lie.

1.  Early source material

The writings of Jesus were produced early.  All of the New Testament documents were produced and circulated within the first century.  You simply don't find this early source material from other religious movement.  Not only were the stories told by his followers, but other secular writings exist to corroborate the stories of the followers.  Again, secular stories of Jesus appear early and often to verify that the followers of Jesus were not following invented stories.  Probably the best evidence of early source material comes from Paul's letter to the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 15:3-7).  This early story is recognized by the majorly of scholars as being a very early story of the resurrection of Jesus.  Many would say that the story goes back to the resurrection event itself.  If this early story was true, then the disciples of Jesus did not die for any type of invented story or lie, but they died for something they knew to be true.  From the inception of Christianity, the early and numerous source material concerning Jesus only validates that the followers of Christ did not die for a lie.

2.  Evangelistic

When considering all religions around the world, none compares to the evangelistic outreach of Christianity.  Of all the religions, only Islam can match the fervor of Christianity in spreading its message.  However, the big difference in how the message is spread between Islam and Christianity is stark.  From the beginning Christianity was spread peacefully with a message of hope.  Jesus can never be accused of inciting the spread of his message by force.  Islam, on the other hand, was initially spread, in many cases, in a non-peaceful manner. 

Christianity's belief in the resurrected Jesus put people in the position of having a target on their back, but this did not deter their passion in spreading the news of Jesus as the resurrected Messiah.  The initial spread of Christianity was done without the taking up of arms.  The early followers of Jesus were willing to spread the Christian message, knowing they might forfeit their lives, because they were convinced that it was truth they would be dying for.

3.  Eyewitness accounts

No evidence is better attested to than the evidential truth of the eyewitness accounts.  Many in the first century could have debunked the resurrection story by explaining away the empty tomb.  To date, no sufficient evidence has explained otherwise.  Within the first century, many individuals witnessed the resurrected Jesus.  These were not hallucinations or invented stories.  People do not die for such visions.  The early followers of Jesus had first hand knowledge that they encountered the bodily resurrected Jesus.  Because of this encounter, their lives were never the same.

The difference between the eyewitness claims of the resurrected Jesus and other religious claims is enormous.  All religions outside of Christianity are based on statements of their leaders without anyway to know if the statements are valid or not.  In other words, all religions except Christianity offer possible truth claims, but you can never know for sure if they are in fact true.  Christianity rests on a historic story as told by eyewitness of the the person of Jesus. 

No other religion deals with reality like Christianity.  The eyewitnesses were willing to die, because they knew not only Jesus, but had encountered the bodily resurrected Christ.  This reality is what caused future believers to be willing to die.  The deaths of Christians throughout time has always been based upon reliable historical evidence as opposed to guessing if the religion is question deals with actual truth.

Apologetics in the church

Here is a great article from a former professor of mine.

An Apologist in Every Church

Posted on December 21, 2010 by clayjones

 

It is my heartfelt contention that every church in the world needs an apologist. Here’s why I say that. I have found that the average member of the average congregation is riddled with doubt. They hear The Da Vinci Code proclaim that the Council of Nicaea suppressed contrary gospels. They hear that James Cameron has discovered the Lost Tomb of Jesus. They hear from the Zeitgeist movie that Jesus is just a rehashing of a long line of pagan dying and rising gods. And so on and on.

The trouble is that these confused congregants often don’t know where to turn. Those who do seek advice will often go to their pastor whom they considered to be the wisest man they know. The problem with that is that the pastor is usually very busy! Not only is the pastor preparing Sunday’s sermon, he’s probably preparing the Wednesday night sermon too. Then there’s counseling to do, church administration, hospital visitation, meeting with his staff, etc. I used to be a pastor and I know from experience that most pastors are really busy. And, honestly, for most of them, reading The Da Vinci Code or watching the Zeitgeist movie (both were silly, by the way), can’t be that high on their list.

To finish the article click here.

L killers of Church

In a previous blog, I wrote concerning 10 reasons why the church is broken.  I'm sure many reasons exist that hinder God's people, but believe that three main reasons are wreaking havoc upon the Church of the West.

Liberalism

Liberalism can be viewed in many ways.  In fact, Christians are to be liberal in the giving of their time and means.  So, taking this definition of liberalism is a good thing, but how are we to see liberalism as a Church killer?  The liberalism that seems to be killing the Church today deals with individuals who don't hold God's word as inspired truth.  The postmodern push has crept into the Church today and many are questioning the truthfulness of God's word.  Renewed attacks are coming from within the Church upon orthodox beliefs.  Many, in fact, are claiming that God's word can not be seen as universal truth or an all-encompassing narrative.  What this means is that individuals or communities are deciding what is true for them and what is not.  The problem with this approach is the individuals or communities are the ones responsible for making universal ground rules, therefore contradicting that truth is not universal.

Liberalism is being twisted in the Western culture for the promotion of values that don't ring true with the message of the Bible.  One of the most glaring examples of this deals with many churches of the West acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.  This is an extremely sensitive subject, because as soon as one points out the contradictions of the homosexual lifestyle compared to God's Word they are almost immediately branded as intolerant.  The question that needs to be asked, that no one really does is, "Who is intolerant when the subject comes up?"  Many times the Church is guilty of being intolerant, but when the homosexual community demands that acceptance takes place over God's Word then it is the homosexual community that is intolerant.  Other cultural liberal issues that have been accepted by many in the Western Church includes: sex before marriage, acceptance of abortion, and many other issues that cut across biblical teachings.

Legalism

Legalism has existed before the time Jesus appearance on earth.  Plain and simple, legalism is a man-made set of rules that one uses to justify themselves from.  It is law-keeping that misses the heart of God's message.  Many in the church fall prey to the web of legalism.  Jesus was constantly dealing with the Pharisees legalism (see Matthew 23) and little has changed today.  Too many legalist are driving people off, because in their mind they have it all figured out.  In other words, you must go to the legalist for answers, and not God's Word. One of the major reasons why young people are leaving churches or not even considering meeting with the church deals with the heavy load that legalists put on the backs of individuals.  The sad consequence of legalism is that the love of Jesus is suppressed for individual hoop jumping laws.  Legalists are interested in works as opposed to the heart of Christ's message.  For the legalist, Christ's sacrifice is disparaged simply for the sake of personal control.

Laziness

Too many Christians are too comfortable on their spiritual lazy-boy chair.  For the lazy Christian, Christianity means nothing more than filling a pew on Sunday morning, if that.  Lazy Christians feel entitled, as if God owes them something simply because they mouthed the words, "I believe."  It's no wonder that the Church is exploding in non-Western countries while the Western Church relies too much on the comforts they have been blessed with.  If the Western Church would realize that location makes no difference in God's movement, it could recapture the culture that now sadly influences the Church more that the Church influences culture.  The Western Church seems content to mouth certain "special" words and show up at a building for a 2 hour stint and call itself Christian.  Maybe, the Western Church should read what Jesus has to say (Matt. 7:21-13, Rev. 3:16) before trying to justify their fat and lazy lifestyle.

The purpose of the blog is not to be negative toward the Church, but to point out real problems that hinder the Church in the West.  On many occasions I feel like Paul who said, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst (1 Tim. 1:15)."  No one has lived a perfect life, except Jesus, but the three L's defiantly are killers of the Church.

A personal note

Flatland Apologetics will soon be moving; moving to another state that is.  Flatland Apologetics is a personal ministry that was started in the high plains of Northwest Kansas.  My family and I will now be moving to the Northwest; Washington State to be exact. 

The name will remain the same, because I will be living in central Washington which is relatively flat.  I will be answering a call to pastor full time for a Southern Baptist Church.  Needless to say, my life is busy now and I have had little time to post.  I am looking forward to this new challenge and can't wait to settle in and get back to blogging on a more regular basis.  I also am looking forward to the apologetic opportunities in Washington.

My wife and I would appreciate prayers for our family as we transition.  This is Shelby Cade signing off until all the madness settles a bit.

The benefits of doubt

The apostle Thomas is most commonly known as "doubting Thomas."  Poor Thomas, is almost looked at in a negative light for that one incident of doubt.  Even though Thomas doubted, it was not a negative that impaired his entire life.  In fact, once Thomas encountered the risen Christ his life was never the same.  According to tradition, Thomas gave his life as a martyr in Northern India for the cause of Jesus.  Interestingly, Thomas is rarely given credit for recognizing the divinity of Jesus (John 20:28), shortly after his encounter with the risen Lord.

Is doubt only to be seen in a negative light?  Can doubt actually bring about benefits?  As a freshman in college  majoring in Geology, I came to believe in Jesus as the promised Messiah.  Everything about Christianity was new to me.  At the same time, I was receiving a lot of information from my science professors that seemed to cast a negative light on the existence of God and the Christian faith.  I can honestly say that that the first year or two of my Christian walk was one of the most doubt filled times I had as a Christian.  However, even though I had many doubts at the time (and still they surface), I can look back at the benefits of doubt.  I would like to suggest 4 benefits to having doubts in your life.

1.   Doubts keep individuals honest.

One of the charges that atheists lay at the feet of the Christian is that you are only a Christian because of the culture you grew up in.  While this is true to a certain extent, many atheists, I feel, fall victim to the same charge.  Having honest doubts about anything is actually beneficial for one to think outside the box, and not just accept the cultural narrative.

2.   Doubts can cause individuals to research.

Honest doubts can compel individuals to research the evidence of the subject being doubted.  A little research never hurt anyone, in fact, research can only lead to finding out if your doubts are justified or not.

3.   Doubts can bolster an individual's position.

One of the greatest benefits of doubts is that it can strengthen your worldview position.  Many of the past doubts that I have addressed have only increase my faith in the Christian Worldview.  In fact, I enjoy dialoguing with individuals who have a different worldview than my own.  I have found out, over time, that dealing with doubts is minimized the more you are able to address them in an honest way.

4.   Doubts can lead individuals to the truth.

An honest person, that does their own research can be changed to follow the truth.  Many people, such as C.S. Lewis, have faced their doubts head on only to be reached by the truth.  In reality, truth can't be doubted, because truth stands alone.

Not all doubts should be seen in a negative light.  Having doubts can actually be beneficial to the honest person.  Don't doubt me on this!

Is baptism necessary for salvation? - Closing statement

Thanks to both Jacob and James for their willingness to debate this issue.  I hope the arguments have been thought provoking from both sides.  I appreciate both opponents willingness to debate the issues in a respectful manner.  And now,  the closing statements.

Jacob

Closing Statement

As our moderator has noted, closing statements are a time for summarizing our positions, not further rebuttal. It is my desire to honor that even though it may leave a few challenges yet unanswered. I believe the weight of Scripture has fallen clearly on the side that baptism, while important, is not necessary for salvation.

(A quick side note: I will not be answering the true/false questions provided by James in his last rebuttal because 1.) It goes outside the moderators stated desire for a succinct summary of our position in this closing statement and 2.) The line of questioning is unfair. Demanding a simple true or false answer to questions worded in just such a way is not legitimate because there are several case where regardless of how I answer “true” or “false” I am in a catch 22. So I refuse to get caught up in clever word games of one word answers to rigged questions.)

Time and again my opponent, James, has seemed bewildered by the notion that baptism could be important and a command of our Lord and yet not be necessary for salvation, yet I fail to see what is so bewildering about this. An apple tree is an apple tree even before it yields its first fruit, is it not? In the same way a person is a Christian when they trust/believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior and they bear fruit in keeping with repentance/faith when they are baptized, when they give to and serve the poor, when they read their Bibles and pray, when they share the name of Jesus. James constantly confuses the fruit of salvation with the notion of meriting it. The reason I stated that a person who refuses to get baptized may not be a believer is not because baptism saves them but because a believer would have a changed heart that would want to obey Christ!

I have listed numerous passages that have illustrated that justification comes by faith in Christ and not by any works (such as water baptism or any other). There is no need to rehash them here once again, please go back and read them (John 3:16; Romans 3-4; Ephesians 1:13-14; 2:8-9, etc.). James’ position insists that water baptism is necessary or justification and yet, as I have shown, people were filled with God’s Holy Spirit prior to water baptism (see Acts 10). If James is correct and a person cannot be saved/justified apart from water baptism then you have a case of God pouring out His holy Spirit, filling unbelievers! Now that is truly an untenable position!

It is true that Baptism is necessary for salvation, but not water baptism. It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist prophesied Jesus would bring that is what applies the finished work of Christ to our soul. It is this baptism of the Spirit, brought about by faith in the message of the gospel, that seals us into our salvation. It is this baptism of the Spirit that Cornelius and those with him experienced by faith in the gospel when Peter preached to them in Acts 10 and Peter recounts this baptism of the Spirit in Acts 11. Such is truly the nail in the coffin for the view that water baptism is necessary for justification/salvation because it is the sealing of the Spirit by faith that saves us (Eph. 1:13-14) and the people at Joppa received the spirit prior to water baptism.

Much of James’ confusion about baptism seems to be a result of failing to recognize that the New Testament speaks of both water baptism and baptism of the Spirit. James constantly applies passages about baptism of the Spirit as if they were talking about water baptism which leads a person into serious error.

As I illustrated with 1 Corinthians, Paul makes a distinction between the gospel and baptism as a subsequent act. James scoffed at that but I believe that point stands alone pretty strong and I will leave you, the reader, to decide for yourself what Paul meant by “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” because it seems pretty straight forward to me. But if I did not make this point strongly enough, how about this. If water baptism is necessary for salvation, and therefore a part of gospel proclamation, then why is it that any mention of water baptism is absent from 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation? Yes, 16 of 27 books of the New Testament never once even address the issue of water baptism…16! Clearly there are not 16 books of the New Testament that fail to speak of salvation in Christ and yet there are 16 that don’t even brush the subject of water baptism. But how then could that be if water baptism is a part of the gospel proclamation?

I have dealt with the subject Acts 2:38 and the Greek word “eis” and clearly explained that the word can mean “for” or “because of.” I cited A.T. Robertson, an eminent Greek New Testament scholar who demonstrated that this passage could legitimately read either way and, therefore, does not prove that water baptism is necessary for salvation. James obviously misunderstood Robertson because Robertson was not saying that there are only three cases where “eis” means “because of” but that there are three places where in the New Testament where “eis” cannot mean anything but “because of”. Many passages with the word “eis” clearly mean “for”, several clearly mean “because of” and some of the passages are ambiguous and could read either way and therefore the meaning depends on the context and teaching of Scripture. Acts 2:38 is an example of the ambiguous use “eis” and therefore does not prove my case nor James. It could mean either, so this passage is not the proving ground.

As I have argued, every time the New Testament speaks of a person being justified it points to faith/repentance as what applies salvation to the believer, never water baptism. Yes it is true that justification is linked to grace and the blood of Christ, but we should not confuse the means of our justification (what Christ did on the cross) and the reason that anyone will be justified (God’s grace) with the thing that applies justification to us personally, namely, faith.

The passage in James that speaks about justification by works gives Abraham as the example and yet speaks of his offering up his son Isaac. However it was Abraham’s faith in God’s promise to make him the father of many nations through his own descendants (e.g. Isaac) that made him already declared righteous long before he ever even had his son. So then James speaks not of justification for salvation by works, but the justification of ones faith by works. In other words, like I have been arguing all the while, if a person really believes and is justified, there works will justify/prove that they have faith.

Faith is the trigger by which justification occurs in our lives. It is faith alone that applies salvation to us through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Faith alone is how we receive salvation, but that is not to say that God isn’t busy in our lives beforehand preparing our hearts and minds, but none of the things we do in life applies Christ’s sacrifice to us, no work, just trusting in Jesus and what He has done. It happens by God’s grace at a moment in time when we believe the gospel.

Many will expose themselves as false believers because they will not follow Christ and seek to obey him. James (the epistle writer) made clear that there is a faith that saves and a faith that does not save. Faith that leads a person to live a life of obedience is saving faith, faith that merely acknowledges propositions about Jesus as true but does not trust him and live in light of who He is does not save. But biblical faith, that which gives way to good works is the faith that we have been speaking of when I have said “faith alone” saves. Surely there will be people in hell who believed propositional truth about Jesus, but those who believed him in the sense that they trusted in Him will not see Hell.

I encourage you all to carefully examine the exchange that has taken place here, go to the Scriptures and search diligently everywhere it speaks of how a person is saved and decide for yourself what the Scripture teach. I stand on God’s word and declare that no one will enter Heaven believing that they had to accomplish a task in order to be justified. It is by faith in Jesus that we receive His righteousness and are justified by His grace as a gift.


James

Summary

I am grateful that I had the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am thankful to my opponent Jacob for his willingness to present his position on the subject. I am thankful to Mr. Shelby Cade for arranging the debate and taking care of posting the writings each week on his website. I am also grateful for anyone reading this debate now or in the future. I encourage anyone reading through this debate to study God's word with the full intent to understand, know and obey God's will (Eph. 5:17; Matt. 7:21ff). If you are a preacher or teacher, remember you have the responsibility to teach the truth of God's word (2 Tim. 4:2; Jonah 3:2; Gal. 1:6-9). Truth has the power to set man free (John 8:32).

As I mentioned previously, there are issues with a written debate that can be overcome in an oral debate. So, I hope and pray Jacob will arrange for an oral debate at a place of his choosing. I will gladly travel to any reasonable place to debate this subject. Prior to that occasion, both sides would agree on terms, pass questions and agree on a moderator, etc.

Again, both sides cannot be correct. I firmly believe Jacob is incorrect in his understanding as evidenced by his eliminating passages, twisting words, and misusing of texts. He has clearly stated, “I am a Baptist” so he must be careful to hold true to the teaching of that denomination. A.T. Robertson, a Baptist, also sought to find a view consistent with his Baptist theology as he stated in his Historical Grammar (see my 2nd rebuttal). However, one must remember not one person in God's word was a Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. It is imperative that we allow truth to trump denominational creeds and thinking. We must go forward, back to the Bible. As one preacher often said, “if its new its not true; it has to be two thousand years old”.

I am going to divide this summary into two parts. In the first part, I am going to go through Jacob's 2nd rebuttal answering his disagreements and showing further why his position is incorrect. In the 2nd part, I will revisit my introduction and summarize the debate.

Part I – A Careful Refutation of Jacob's 2nd Rebuttal

As suspected Jacob was unable to produce a passage indicating one is saved by “faith only” or “faith alone”. He writes, “you are right, the Bible doesn't coin it in that exact phrase.” He suggests that his inability to find the words “faith alone” or “faith only” is similar to a man's inability to find the word “Trinity”. The word “Trinity” is not found but the concept of the “Trinity” is found studying various texts across the whole Bible. Similarly, one searches throughout the New Testament to understand salvation. In so doing, one discovers that God expects more than just faith in becoming a child of God. So, not only is the phrase “faith only” or “faith alone” not found in the pages of God's inerrant word but neither is the concept.

Jacob states one is not saved by works (Eph. 2:8) and concludes that baptism is the kind of work described in that passage. One would be silly to imagine that he could somehow erase his sins by his own meritorious deeds. Our meritorious works are like “filthy sanitary napkins/ tampons” to God (Is. 64:6). In Luke 17:10, Jesus exclaimed, So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'”

Jacob has yet to prove that baptism is a work. In his introduction he wrote, “Baptism, which is something we must do willfully achieve, set out to get done, is a work.” Several times in this debate he has referred to straw-men, etc. However, I have yet to see a reference in God's word that says baptism is a work. I submit to you that baptism is not a meritorious work (i.e. to brag or boast) rather one who submits to it is trusting in the working of God (Col. 2:1112) who is able to remit sin. I have never known one person to brag or boast because he or she was immersed. Not one!

Jacob later ridicules my argument concerning Naaman (2 Kings 5:1); however, I was simply using his account to help show that baptism into Christ is not a work; its not a means to braggadocio. Paul used Moses (1 Cor. 12:13) and Peter used Noah (1 Peter 3:21) to teach on the subject of baptism. The Apostle Paul taught that the Old Testament could be used for instruction (Rom. 15:4).

Naaman had a horrible, disfiguring disease called leprosy. He heard words from God's prophet Elisha. His leprosy was not removed by faith only, rather it was only removed when he submitted to God's will by being immersed in the Jordan River. The cleaner waters in his homeland and four times would not suffice. It had to coincide with God's will. Once he obeyed God, his leprosy was removed and his skin was like a child. I do not recall any bragging or boasting on his part. If Naaman had boasted it would have been in vain. Also, there was nothing magical in the water. God did all the work but first set out the stipulations for Naaman to obey.

Similarly, a sinner comes to God. His sin is actually worse than leprosy and removal of it required the torture and subsequent death of the Son of God (Is. 53; Acts 8:26ff). His powerful, perfect blood was shed so that sin could be removed and God could be both “Just and the Justifier (Rom. 3:26)”. Those in Acts 2:37 heard the message of Christ and Him Crucified and they were cut to the heart (or pricked). They asked the Apostle Peter who was recently immersed into the Holy Spirit and guided into all truth (John 16:13; Acts 2:1ff), “brothers what shall we do?”. Peter tells them what they must do, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Act 2:38 ESV).” With further words Peter exclaimed, “'Save yourselves from this crooked generation.' So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” Those people were told to do something but it was not a work worthy of bragging, boasting, etc.

Again, as I stated in my 2nd rebuttal, Jacob grossly misuses 1 Corinthians 1:17 to try and prove that baptism is not part of salvation (or unnecessary). However, isn't it interesting that something not part of salvation and supposedly unnecessary found its way into the “summary” account of the first post-resurrection gospel sermon? Jacob wrote at the conclusion of his 1st rebuttal - “As Paul says so very plainly baptism is not part of the gospel message, it is subsequent to salvation”. The Holy Spirit, part of the “Trinity”, disagrees and places baptism right there on Pentecost Sunday during the 1st Gospel sermon.

Jacob says there is nothing you must do except have “faith only”. Those people in Acts 2 had incredible faith (2:47) and they still said, “Brothers what shall we do?” I am sure Jacob would reply, “well, they were baptized to obey God as just a declaration”. No, that does not fit the context of this passage. He has approached this passage believing in “faith only” just like A.T. Robertson (recall quote from my 2nd rebuttal) and just like many other people who believe and teach the same thing. Yet, it does not fit the context. Peter, a divinely inspired Apostle is commanding them to be immersed so that they might receive two specific blessings: the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (2:38; c.f. Eph. 1:13-14). You almost have to have help to misunderstand that.

There is something else here that has happened that has barely been mentioned in this debate. I mentioned it in my introduction only. In Acts 2, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ was established fulfilling the words of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:16-18). Three thousand souls heard the 1st post-resurrection Gospel sermon and they obeyed the Gospel and become God's people later known as Christians (Acts 11:26; 26:28). The church is the blood bought work of Almighty God (Acts 20:28). Sinners immersed were added to the church which is the Lord's body (Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 12:13). It is interesting to note that upon immersion, the individual is cleansed by blood and added to the blood bought church at the same time. Also, one cannot be saved unless he or she is in the church which is the kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; Matt. 16:19). Yes, there is a Kingdom today and Jesus is “King of Kings and Lord of Lords”. He was literally raised to reign! One day He will return to receive the Kingdom, the Church to Himself.

Jacob, it amazes me to hear you say “there is nothing you must do except have faith.” He also throws repentance in their suggesting it is the opposite side of a coin or something. Faith does not come by osmosis, otherwise everyone would be saved and Universalism would be true. Faith comes by hearing the truth of God's word (Rom. 10:17), accepting it and obeying it. Dr. Luke records, “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7 ASV; c.f. Rom. 1:5 & 16:26). Not everyone who hears has faith. One must choose to believe. Some refused to believe (Acts 5:33, 7:54, 13:46, etc.) and individuals refusing to believe would never be immersed (Mark 16:15-16). Remember, believing and refusing to obey is actually disbelieving - “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36).”

According to the biographical information, Jacob did something in view of his own personal salvation. He provided the information, just as I did, to Mr. Cade who recorded, “Jacob called out to God”. So, Jacob had to do something in order to accept the saving grace of God. To argue against that is to promote the erroneous position of “Universalism”. Now, he will water it down suggesting it is of the mind, etc. He can water it down all he wants but the fact is he did something to accept or receive it. It is interesting that no one in the book of Acts (the book of conversions) did what Jacob did to accept the saving grace of God. Personally, that would bother me as I contemplated my own eternal well-being.

Jacob then makes up a phrase “baptism is necessary for salvation” and concludes since that phrase is not in the Bible then James' argument is unbiblical and illogical.” Jacob, God's word clearly states that baptism is part of God's plan for saving man (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts). Again, it is ironic that you say it is unnecessary but necessary. In fact, several times you have suggested that one's salvation may be in question if they refused immersion. It is essential for salvation because God CHOSE that in that moment sins would be remitted.

Jacob's position on “eis” in Acts 2:38 is false. He even admits if he is wrong in his understanding on “eis” then his position is incorrect. Isn't it amazing that Jacob's whole position could crumble in the dust if his position on Acts 2:38 is incorrect and he admits it. It seems that Jacob has placed his faith in Robertson and not the Holy Spirit. Robertson even admitted that his view was based on his theological position as a Baptist.

Speaking of Acts 2:38 and Jacob's misunderstanding of eis. It will be interesting to see what he does (if anything) with Mark 1:4 and Matt. 26:28. In my 2nd rebuttal, I showed that those 3 passages are identical in the New Testament Greek. Yet even the esteemed A.T. Robertson left them alone. He only changed the one that immediately conflicted with his Baptist doctrine. It boggles my mind that Jacob is willing to fall in line with an individual who supposedly found 3/1773 where eis is used to indicate “because of”. Jacob wrote, “According to A.T. Robertson, this usage 'occurs at least three times' where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground.”

Also, note the following, Acts 2:38 says, "Repent AND be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (emp. mine).” Jacob says that repentance is basically faith - “Repentance and faith are like the opposite sides of the same coin and should not/cannot be separated from one another (2nd Rebuttal).” So, if he changes “eis” the meaning or the actual word from FOR to Because Of” he has some serious issues to overcome. Whatever he does to immersion he must also do to repentance. So, is he now suggesting that one REPENT and be BAPTIZED “because of” the forgiveness of sins? Is he willing to suggest that belief/faith occurs because one's sins have already been forgiven? If so, then Universalism is correct.

Jacob then writes the following concerning Galatians 3:27, “Now here James exposes a false assumption, namely, that this passage refers to water baptism. This passage actually does not refer to water baptism but to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Jacob says I am incorrect for assuming its water baptism but then turns and makes the assumption that it is actually Holy Spirit baptism. He then leaves the book and goes to Mark 1:8 and Eph. 1:13-14 suggesting that proves it.

Earlier, I wrote a few things concerning the blood purchased church (Acts 20:28) that began in Act 2 on the day of Pentecost. There were scores of people in Jerusalem, possibly millions, but only 3,000 people allowed the word of God to prick their heart to the point that they inquired, “brothers, what shall we do?”. Their faith moved them to action. Isn't that similar to the passage in Galatians 3:27?

The Apostle Paul wrote, Gal 3:25-29:

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, (The Faith vs. the Law of Moses) (26) for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through (dia:Strong A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through ) faith. (27) For (gar – seeing then) as many of you as were baptized into Christ (Matt. 28:18-20) have put on Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one (made up the churches in Galatia) in Christ Jesus. (29) And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Jacob repeatedly makes reference to Eph. 1:13-14 so let's take a look at what is happening or rather what has happened in those verses and notice how similar it is to Acts 2:1-41. Paul wrote, “in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation, - in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.”

• The people in Ephesus “heard the word of the truth”  
• The word of truth = the gospel of your salvation
• “having believed” (synecdoche: part put for a whole)
• “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise”
• praise of his glory
• All Spiritual blessings in Christ (Eph. 1:3ff): Holy, without blemish, forgiveness of sins, adoption, redemption through his blood, etc.

Those in Acts 2:1-41

• The people in Jerusalem “heard the word of truth”
• Gospel: death, burial, and resurrection
• Believed (pricked, cut to the heart)
• Inquired - “Brothers, what shall we do?”
• “Repent and be immersed”
• Blessings: Remission of sins and Gift of Holy Spirit

Jacob, based on his writing, believes that there is more than one baptism: Holy Spirit Baptism and Water baptism. Yet, Paul in the book of Ephesians says there is only one baptism (4:5). The baptism of the “Great Commission” is the baptism that will last till the end of the world (Matt. 28:20).  So, when Paul wrote the Ephesians from prision, he says clearly there is only one baptism. It is the baptism for the remission of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).  It is also the baptism that places one into the church of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 2:41; 1 Cor. 12:13).

 

Jacob has spent a lot of time in this debate referring to the conversion of the first Gentiles, Cornelius and those with him. Jacob, based on his observation of Acts 10 & 11 believes that at the moment of one's saving faith, the individual also receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I am pretty sure he would conclude the same event happens to people today. An individual hears some words about Christ, chooses to believe them, and then he or she is immersed into the Holy Spirit where he receives remissions of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc. I disagree.

Jacob makes a distinction between “Holy Spirit Baptism” and “Water Baptism”. However, God's word says there is just “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). It is that one baptism that will last to the end of the world (Matt. 28:18-20) – right? So, which baptism is it? Is it John's baptism, Holy Spirit Baptism, or the baptism in water that will last to the end of the world?

One needs to remember that it was always God's intention that the whole gospel would go to the whole world. Jesus indicated this in the “Great Commission” (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16. However, this was simply not done at one time. Bias and prejudice existed among the followers of Jesus and hindered the Gospel from going to the Gentile world (Acts 11:1-3). A vision is given to Peter three times (10:9-16) to convince him that the Gentiles were eligible to hear and obey the Gospel of Christ. Subsequent to the vision, the Holy Spirit spoke to Peter saying, “Behold, three men are looking for you” (10:19)

After the vision he travels with six Jewish brethren (11:12) and entered the house of Cornelius in Caesarea. He preaches the message “Christ and Him Crucified” to all those made present by Cornelius. “While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised (the 6 Jewish brethren who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles” (Acts 10:44-45).

The baptism of the Holy Spirit was given to them was not for salvation, rather it was to further show that the Gentiles were eligible candidates for God's mercy and forgiveness. Notice the words of Peter as recorded in Acts 11:15-18:

As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning (i.e. Acts 2:1ff) (16) And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' (i.e. Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5) (17) If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" (18) When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."

Jacob inquires, “I ask you did God give the Holy Spirit to unsaved people?” Was Cornelius lost? The descriptions concerning him show that he was a God-fearing man, etc. God listened to his prayers and even interceded with an angel, etc. Read Acts 10 & 11 and notice all of the references to who Cornelius was as a man. It is ESSENTIAL that one realize that a very unique time period is being dealt with in that passage. There is a transition of Covenants underway. If Cornelius had died the day before, would he have been lost? He had an obligation to God but it was not the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ had not been taken to the Gentiles. He was under a different law as a Gentile in which very little information Is given. Under that Law he was a God-fearing man.

Jacob quotes Act 11:15-18 just as I did above. Did you notice the gem of truth in 11:18? It says - When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." Jacob's position on Acts 2:38 has problems here. Here we see “repentance leads to life” not you have life so repent. Remember the conjunction AND in Acts 2:38 as discussed previously.

In reading through the remaining part of his rebuttal I see so many things that I would like to ask him questions to find out exactly what he means. It would be interesting to see his responses to some simple questions. I sent questions at the end of my 2nd rebuttal but I never received a response for them. I figured he would answer them in just a few minutes and send them back to me but he did not. If this turns into an oral debate, I would certainly have many questions for him to answer which would help greatly in this debate. His answers would help narrow down his position rather than jumping all over the place.

I could easily continue answering his questions about Apollos and his teaching, the Philippian Jailer, etc. However, I am already over 10 pages in this Summary and so I will stop for now. Again, I will gladly debate this subject at a reasonable time and place of Jacob's choosing.

Part II – Summarizing Things

Salvation is important to the “Trinity”; God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. That concept is taught from Bible cover to Bible cover. Many pages of Holy Writ are dedicated to showing God's great love and eternal purpose for man (John 3:16; Eph. 3:11, etc.). God supervised the divine plan through the Garden of Eden, the life of Abraham, the Law and life of Moses, through the sins and rebellion of men, etc. Satan himself could not thwart God's efforts to bring Jesus to the world. He tried but he failed miserably.

My sincere concern for souls was my motive for participating in this debate. I believe firmly that God's plan for saving man includes baptism (immersion) in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). God commanded baptism for the remission of sins (Lk. 3:2-3). Jesus observed and approved its practice while on Earth (Matt. 21:25; John 3:22, 4:5) and then commanded its practice prior to ascending to Heaven (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles to preach it and write about it (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13; Acts 2:38, etc.). Everyone that has ever become a Christian has submitted to it. Those that have refused it, post-resurrection, or still in their sins and lost.

One must remember that it was Jesus who commanded the baptism of what has become known as the “Great Commission”. Following Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:4), He walked on Earth for 40 days allowing His resurrected body to be seen by the Apostles and scores of other people (1 Cor. 15:4-8).

It was during this time that Jesus further instructed the Apostles to further prepare them for the work that they were about to begin. He carefully instructed them that He was going to leave but in His place the Holy Spirit would be sent to teach them all things and bring to remembrance the things taught to them by Him (John 14:26).

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit would testify of Christ (John 15:26) and guide the Apostles into “all truth”. This occurred in Acts 2 in the city of Jerusalem as the Apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4). The Apostles were the first, but not the last, to receive the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” (1:4-5, cf. 11:15-16).

Prior to leaving Earth, Jesus gave the Apostles their final instructions, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I havecommanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mat 28:18-20). In addition, Luke 24:46-47 - "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

And this is exactly what the Apostles did. They observed the ascension of the Lord into the clouds and then they went to Jerusalem and waited for the “baptism of the Holy Spirit”. Approximately, ten days later on the day of Pentecost the Apostles received it. The miraculous occasion and the subsequent speaking in tongues created a stir and allowed the Apostles to stand and preach the first post-resurrection message.

The thrust of their message was Christ crucified. They were witnesses of the events and they proclaimed them making reference to the Old Testament again and again to build their case. In the end, 3,000 precious souls were “cut to the heart” (Acts 2:37) and inquired “Brothers,what shall we do?” Peter simply told them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Act 2:38).

Jesus will be preached in Jerusalem and Judea (Acts 1-7), in Samaria (8), and finally to the uttermost parts of the world (13-28). The theme of their preaching was Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 6:14). And each time baptism played an essential part in the redemption of man (Acts 3, 8, 9, 16, 18, 22, etc.).

I am glad that Jacob and I can agree on the following things:

• The Godhead or Trinity  
• The Inspired Word of God, the Bible
• God's Desire to Save Us
• We Are Not Saved By Meritorious Works (?)
• Baptism is necessary (?)
• The importance of faith (?)
• The “sinner's prayer” as an invention of man
• Justification by God  
• The powerful work of the cross

These are problems I see in Jacob's Understanding on this subject:

• When he sees faith he almost always sees “faith only” - many of the passages he references he uses in that fashion. Faith is used in several different ways, sometimes the one word is used to describe the whole process of salvation.to describe the whole process of salvation.
• He believes baptism is an outward sign, a declaration of one's faith ONLY – that concept is not taught anywhere in God's word. He believes it so every time he sees a baptism he concludes it is a declaration of faith to others.
• His understanding of Acts 2:38 is flawed and based again on preconceived notions (i.e. Baptist theology). He even admits that if he is wrong on his understanding of “eis” then his position is false. His understanding of “eis” is based on one man and 3 supposed occurrences. I suspect, if Jacob changed his position on Acts 2:38 he would also change his understanding on faith, repentance, the outward declaration, etc.
• He believes baptism is a meritorious work. It would then be something to brag or boast about. He has not produced one passage to prove baptism is a meritorious work.
• A misuse of several texts that he believes solidifies his case: 1 Cor. 1:17 where he suggests baptism is not part of the Gospel and unimportant. Also, the account of Cornelius and the Philippian Jailer (Acts 10, 11, 16). God's word does not contradict itself.

In Conclusion, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I would like the opportunity to continue this study with Jacob in an oral debate at a reasonable time and place of his choosing. This written debate will help a lot in narrowing down the subject and therefore producing a quality debate where people can decide for themselves what the truth is on this very important matter.

Sincerely & Respectfully,
James Haynes Jr.