Dissolving a Few Aspirins
The doctor prescribes aspirins. The prescription does
not call for either "Bayer's" or St. Joseph's" aspirins
but for Dr. Garner's aspirins. "Doctor Albert Garner,"as
he calls himself, is a young Baptist preacher of Jackson-
ville, Texas. Recently he published a booklet which he
entitled: "A Few Aspirins For Campbellism." Aspirins are
pain-relieving tablets. They are often taken for head-
aches and other aches and pains. The aspirins prescribed
by "Doctor Garner" are not for the relief of those whom
he calls "Campbellites." He would in no way want to relieve
them of anything they might suffer. But "Camp-
bellism," accordingù to the "Doctor's" diagnosis, has
caused many headaches among the Baptists. The "Doctor"
wants to give them some relief and, accordingly, prescribes
"A Few Aspirins" for his own brethren. "Doctor Garner's
Aspirins" are highly recommended--by Doctor Garner.
According to his advertisement of the booklet, if Baptists
will devour and assimilate these aspirins, they will have
no further dread of "Campbellism." There will be no danger
of their joining the ranks of the "Camp-bellites," so many
Baptists have done, because of becoming doctrinally upset
as a result of an epidemic of "Campbellism."
From the way the "Doctor" advertises his aspirins, it:
appears that they will not only relieve "Baptist head-
aches" brought on by "Campbellism" but mill actually
make them immune to any further attacks. "Doctor
Garner's aspirins" are very potent pills.
But sometimes Aspirins are easily dissolved. They do
not have to be dissolved in the system of the patient, but
they may be dissolved before they are taken. If you
dissolve a "Bayer's" or a "St. Joseph's" aspirin before the
patient swallows it, the aspirin will in no way lose its
effectiveness in relieving the headache. But this is not
true of "Doctor Garner's aspirins." If they are dissolved
before the patient swallows them, they lose their power to
give relief. Furthermore, they will likely become so bitter
that the patient may refuse to swallow them at all. I wish
therefore to spend some time, in a series of articles, in
"dissolving a few Baptist aspirins."
Aspirins usually come in containers that have not less
than a dozen tablets. However, "Doctor Garner's aspirins"
come in a package of only eight tablets. According to the
page of "Contents" of his booklet there are eight chapters.
These chapters, though, are divided into a number of
sub-headings, and without the use of the "contents" page it
is difficult to tell just where one chapter ends and
another begins. There is no chapter division in the booklet
itself. It appears, therefore, that each of these eight
aspirins is broken into a number of pieces. This, I
suppose, as long as they are not actually dissolved, will
make it easier to swallow them. Yet with so many pieces of
aspirins jumbled together it may be difficult for the
patient to tell just when he has swallowed one complete
aspirin. But this should not matter, as long as he actually
gets relief for his headache--unless he should happen to
take an overdose. With the tablets already broken into
pieces the matter of dissolving them becomes an easier
undertaking.
In this review of Garner's booklet I shall let him
speak for himself. I shall not publish the booklet in its
entirety. This would be totally unnecessary, as there is
much repetition in it. Often the same point is repeated a
number of times. Certainly it is not necessary to give in
full all these repetitions. But I shall let him present
each point in his own words. Quotations lengthy enough to
give his complete arguments will be made from his booklet.
In that Ray we shall have the "Doctor's" prescription in
harmony with his own diagnosis. Let us begin the easy task
of "dissolving a few Baptist aspirins."
The "Faith Only" Aspirin
The first aspirin prescribed by the "Doctor" is for the
relief of that form of headache that is produced by the
charge made by the "Campbellites" that Baptists teach
that one can be saved by "faith only." Judging by the way
the "Doctor" raves about this, I would say that the
"Doctor" himself seems to have quite a headache over this
matter. Perhaps it would be well for him to swallow one
of his own pills. But let us hear his own words about this.
"Among the falsehoods usually circulated by
Campbellites to dune their victims and keep them from
attending other churches is the falsehood
that Baptists and others teach that one is saved
by 'faith only. When you hear the charge that
there are those who teach that one is saved by
'faith only,' you should take special notice. They
make such claims either through ignorance or dis-
honesty. This you will find to be true: the fellow
who makes such claim will cite no representative
man of any faith as having ever made such a
claim. So far as I have been able to find there
has never been any recognized minister of ANY
RELIGIOUS FAITH OR GROUP who has ever
taught that one is saved by 'faith only'." Page 1.
Evidently the "Doctor" has a nervous headache from an
upset nervous system caused by "the falsehoods usually
circulated by Campbellites." Of course, when you come
down to facts there is no such thing as "Campbellism." It
exists only in the distorted imagination of sectarian
preachers like Mr. Albert Garner. A "Campbellite Church"
is unknown anywhere in the world. But the thing that he
calls "Campbellism" does exist. In fact, it existed for
about 1600 years before anyone ever heard of a Baptist
Church. This nickname is given to the New Testament
Church and to the gospel system revealed in the New
Testament. People who refuse to accept anything else have
given the Baptists a lot of trouble. And "Doctor" Garner
is having his share of it. To charge "that Baptists and
others teach that one is saved by faith only" is declared
by Mr. Garner to be :. "falsehood." He even declares that
such claims are made "either through ignorance or dis-
honesty." This would make the "Campbellites" a dis-
reputable set. They are either too "ignorant" to know
that neither Baptists nor others teach salvation by faith
only, or they are too "dishonest" to tell the truth about
it.
But I wonder if the "ignorance" and dishonesty" can
truly be charged against the "Campbellites" in this case.
Perhaps, it is somebody else that is "ignorant or
dishonest."
Could it be that the "Doctor" is the guilty man' He states
that as far as he has "been able to find there has never
been any recognized minister of ANY RELIGIOUS FAITH
OR GROUP who has ever taught that one is saved by
faith only." Maybe his "research" has not been exhaustive
enough. If he had made even a small percent of the re-
search that he claimed to make in his tract on Instrumental
Music (which, for the most part, was copied from O. E.
Payne's book), he might have "been able to find" a
"recognized minister:' of some "religious faith or group"
who has taught this theory of salvation by "faith only."
And he might have saved himself the embarrassment of
having to take the role of being "either ignorant or dis-
honest." This statement made by Mr. Garner simply shows
how reckless a "Doctor" can become when he starts pre-
scribing "a few aspirins" for Baptist headaches.
Forgetting for the time what Baptist preachers have
said about the matter, let us see if "any religious faith
or
group has ever taught" this theory. A little later I shall
present what Baptist preachers themselves have said
about it. I wonder if the Methodist Church would qualify
as a "religious faith or group"? Can any "representative
man" of this faith be cited who has "ever made such a
claim"? In the Methodist Discipline can be found about
twenty-five "Articles of Religion." These can be found in
any Methodist Discipline. Not only is this true of the
Discipline of the present united Methodist Church, but it
is true of the Disciplines of the various groups of
Methodists before the union was consummated. I have before
me the Methodist Discipline of the year 1896 of the
Methodist Episcopal Church;. Also the 1914 edition of the
Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The
first of these has attached the names of eighteen
outstanding ministers of that group. The latter has
attached the
names of twelve outstanding ministers of that group.
Surely these were "representative men." But what does
the Methodist Discipline say about salvation by "faith
only"? The ninth Article of Religion reads like this: "We
are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for
our works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified
by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full
of comfort."
Notice how definite this statement of doctrine is-
"that justification by faith only is a most wholesome
doctrine, and very full of comfort." Therefore, when
"Campbellites" say that this "religious group" teaches
salvation by "faith only" they are neither "ignorant" nor
"dishonest,." They are simply stating what the Methodists
have plainlysaid in their own Disciplines for many, many
years. So if there is any "ignorance" or "dishonesty" about
this matter, it cannot be charged to the people Garner calls
"Campbellites." How can Mr. Garner, in the face of this
Article of
Religion in the Methodist Discipline, say that "no repre-
sentative man of any faith" has " ever made such a
claim"? Is he so "ignorant" that he did not know this is
published in the Methodist Discipline? Is it true that in
all his research that he has not "been able to find" a
copy
of the Methodist Discipline? When he charged "Camp-
bellites" with "duping their victims" with "falsehoods"
when they say that some religious groups teach salvation
by "faith only," the "Doctor" simply displayed his own
ignorance. He will have to admit that he was so ignorant
that he did not know that this statement about
"justification by faith only" is in the Methodist
Discipline, or he
will have to say he "is downright dishonest when he made
the charge. If he fails to admit such, the reader will
know it anyway.
But that is not all. In 1947 I engaged Mr. Glenn V.
Tingley in a six nights' debate in Birmingham, Alabama.
This debate was recorded and has been in book form about
four years. Mr. TingIey represented the "religious group"
known as "The Christian and Missionary Alliance." The
last proposition of this debate, which Mr. Tingley
affirmed the last two nights of the discussion, reads:
"The scriptures teach that alien sinners are saved by
faith alone before and without water baptism." Can it be
that Mr. Garner did not know that this book is in print?
I do know that he has been in audiences where the book
was advertised for sale. Mr. Tingley definitely affirmed
that "sinners are saved by faith alone." Was Mr. Tingley
a "representative man" of this "religious group"? If not,
then they have no representative men. But if he was, then
Mr. Garner was woefully ignorant when he said that no
"recognized minister" ever "made such a claim." If he
was not ignorant, then he was dishonest when he pre-
scribed his "faith alone" aspirin for the relief of
Baptist headaches.
Continuing the dissolution of "A Few Aspirins For
Campbellism" that were prescribed for Baptist headaches
by "Doctor" Albert Garner of Jacksonville, Texas, I ask
the reader to remember the statement already quoted from
the booklet: "So far aù I have been able to find there
has never been any recognized minister of ANY RELIGIOUS
FAITH OR GROUP who has ever taught that one is saved
by 'faith only'."
This "faith only" aspirin is really proving to be very
inadequate. I have already shown that the "Doctor's"
research has not been very exhaustive, as the Methodist
Discipline definitely teaches "justification by faith
only" and that Glenn V. Tingley, in the Porter-Tingley
Debate, affirmed that sinners are "saved by faith alone."
These were representative men of different religious
groups. To charge the "Campbellites" with being either
"ignorant or dishonest" when they say that people teach
such, as "Doctor" Garner did in his little book, but
demonstrates his own ignorance-or dishonesty. I was
recently amused at the "Doctor" when his attention, from
another source, was called to this statement in the
Methodist Discipline. Garner writes an article, "The Fat;
Is In the Fire," in two Baptist papers--the Sword and
Trowel, and the Missionary Baptist Searchlight. In this
article he says concerning this quotation from the
Discipline: "The quotation is exact, but the
interpretation of it is a plain misrepresentation of
the teachings of Methodism." O the meanderings of a
Baptist "Doctor"! When "Campbellites" declare that the
Methodist Discipline says that "justification by faith
only is a most wholesome doctrine" the "Doctor" says the
"quotation is exact." But when they believe Methodists
teach what they say in that "exact quotation" and pass
the word on to others, such is a "plain misrepresentat-
ion" of Methodism. In other words, the Methodists do not
mean what they say. They say one thing, but you must
interpret it to mean something entirely opposite; if you
don't, you are misrepresenting them. Perhaps that is also
true of "Baptist Doctors" -they say one thing but it must
be "interpreted" to mean something else. That, I suppose,
explains the many inconsistencies of Baptist preachers.
No wonder that "Campbellism" produces so many head-
aches in the Baptist ranks.
But have any "representative men" among the Bap-
tists ever taught salvation by "faith only"? On page 4 of
"Doctor" Garner's booklet we have this statement:
"Next time you hear the chant of 'faith only'
charged against, Baptists, stick this article under
their noses; ask them if they can produce any
authoritative evidence that any one believes he
can be saved by 'faith only'."
Well, while "this article" is "under my nose" I shall
see if I can find some "authoritative evidence" that any
Baptist ever believed he could be saved by "faith only."
Of course Mr. Garner says that no Baptist has ever taught
such a thing. But the only way I know to determine what
men believe is by what they say. If they say one thing
but believe something else, that is their inconsistency.
I proceed on the basis that men believe what they say. So
if I can produce "authoritative evidence" that Baptist
preachers have said that men are saved by "faith only,"
such becomes evidence of the fact that they believe it,
unless they are either too "ignorant or dishonest" to say
what they believe. Let us look at a few instances.
We shall first notice some statements made by Mr. A.
U. Nunnery. Mr. Nunnery has been preaching since 1895.
During that time he has been pastor of nearly a hundred
Baptist churches an engaged in more than thirty debates.
I suppose, therefore, that he is a representative man.
Take a look at the following statements from him:
"An alien sinner is saved with out baptism, with-
out the merits of baptism. Without anything save
trust in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Woods-
Nunnery Debate, page 122.
If an alien sinner is saved "without anything save
trust," would that be faith only? But read again:
"And notice here again, in John 3:15,'Whosoever
believeth in him should not perish but have eternal
life." If this man has to do one thing in the world
beside believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that scrip-
ture is not correct." Woods-Nunnery Debate,
page 114.
Is that plain enough? If a man does not "have to do
one thing in the world beside believe," would that not be
"faith only"? But if any one needs it any plainer, read
the next statement:
"Jesus said to the woman,'Your faith hath saved you'!"
Luke 7:50. Was that the truth or not?
Was there any baptism there, there was not'! He
said faith did it! If that's not enough, what more
could Jesus have told her, any man could have
told her, that she's saved by faith only." Woods-
Nunnery Debate, page 109.
Well, here is one Baptist preacher who said sinners
are saved by "faith only," even though "Doctor" Garner
says no Baptist ever made any such claim. But we have
mole. I recently debated Mr. John L. Causey, another
"Doctor" among the Baptists. When I made the charge that
he believed in salvation by "faith only" he denied it
and said that originated in my little brain. So I
proceeded to read from one of his published debates. The
following statements need no "interpreting." (And, since
thinking about it, he must I;e a "representative man," as
he is editor of one of their papers, The Sword and
Trowel, at Little Rock, to which Dr. Garner sends
articles.)
"Eph. 2:8 tells 1.13 that we are saved by faith only
which is grace." Goodwin-Causey Debate, page 58
"Thus we are saved by faith only and you deny
the word of God in Eph. 2:8." Goodwin-Causey
Debate, page 76
When these plain statements were introduced Mr.
Causey was unable to interpret them to mean anything
else. So he just accepted them and proceeded to try to
prove that sinners are saved by faith only by appealing
to Luke 8:50. The case he cited was the raising of the
daughter of Jairus from the dead on the faith of her
father, but that did not bother him any, for he boldly
declared it meant salvation of the soul from sin. Before
"Doctor" Garner repeats the statement' that "no Baptist
ever said such a thing," it might be well to check with
"Doctor" Causey. Then his utterance could be charged to
his "dishonesty' instead of his "ignorance."
But we have a statement from another man that might
be considered "authoritative evidence" as to what
Baptists believe. The man is Ben M. Bogard. He had 237
debates during his lifetime-more than any other Baptist
preacher who ever lived. He was also editor of the
Missionary Baptist Searchlight. Furthermore, he was the
founder of the Missionary Baptist Seminary at Little
Rock, Arkansas. it n-as this Baptist Seminary that
conferred on Mr. Garner the degree of "Doctor." It was
there, evidently, that he got his authority to prescribe
aspirins. So Mr. Garner will surely consider Mr. Bogard
a "representative man" among Baptists.
It might he well, however, to tell you that the Semi-
nary that bestowed upon Mr. Garner the "Doctor's" degree
is not even an accrcdited school. This is admitted by
their own men. In the Sword and Trowel, edited by John L.
Causey, June 15, 1961, Mr. J. O. Phillips has an article
on "Christian Education." In this article, on page 1 of
the paper, Mr. Phillips says: "The Missionary Baptist
Seminary in Little Rock is the only school in Arkansas
that teaches what Missionary Baptists believe." But on
the same page he also sags: "There is not an accredited
school on earth today that teaches what Missionary
Baptists believe." But that is the school in which Albert
Garner became a "Doctor." Let us get the following
statement from Mr. Bogard relative to salvation by "faith
only."
"I am going to maintain that there is no act at all
that any man In the Old Testament time or the New ever
had to perform in order to be saved. Salvation is
received by faith, and faith is the only thing you can
do without doing anything." Hardeman-Bogard Debate,
page 93.
It does not take a logician to see that if a sinner is
saved without performing any act at all, but by faith,
and that faith is the "only thing you can do without
doing anything," then such means salvation by faith only.
If man does anything else, salvation would depend on
performing some act. So Bogard simply said that a man is
saved by "faith only." His language cannot even be
interpreted to mean anything else. All these statements
from "representative men" among Baptists show that
"Campbellites" are neither ignorant, nor dishonest when
they say that Baptists have taught salvation by "faith
only." The charge must be placed somewhere else.
But "Doctor" Garner says that Baptists teach that
sinners must hear the word and repent of their sins in
order to be saved, and that this would not be "faith
only." He might say he can find statements made by the
men mentioned that repentance and hearing the word are
necessary. I do not doubt that in the least. The only
thing that proves is that Baptist preachers contradict
themselves. It has often been said that no Baptist
preacher can preach Baptist doctrine without contradicting
himself at almost every turn. So any effort the "Doctor"
might make along that line will simply prove the charge
to be true.
In an effort to give us "the truth about this 'faith
only'
way of salvation" the "Doctor" makes the following state-
ment in his booklet:
"Baptists do teach that it is at the point of faith
that one is saved, but not by 'faith only.'...These
same sectarians teach that one is saved AT THE POINT
OF BAPTISM. Baptists do not lie on them and tell that
they believe one is saved by 'baptism only.' We could
charge them with teaching salvation by 'baptism only'
as honestly as they do Baptists and others by 'faith
only,' but we refuse to lie on them. Their doctrine is
bad enough without having to lie about it." Page 2.
This fragment of the "faith only" aspirin appears to
be interesting, but it may prove to be a bitter dose if
the "Doctor'' should be made to swallow his own medicine.
It would be a lie, the "Doctor" says, to charge the
people whom he calls "Campbellites" with teaching
salvation by "baptism only." But if he could produce
statements from the published works of representative men
of that group that say men are saved by "baptism only," I
have an idea Mr. Garner would be ready to proclaim such
statements to the world. Since he cannot find any such
statements made by such preachers, I am inclined to agree
with him that he would be lying to make such a charge
against them. If Baptists "refuse to lie on them," as Dr.
Garner says, then of course he would not be guilty of
making such a charge. He would not damage his reputation
for veracity by telling such an enormous lie.
However, in September, 1950, 1 met Vernon L. Barr,
Missionary Baptist, in a debate at Center, Texas. The
young "Doctor" from Jacksonville, Texas, was present for
this discussion. He published a report of the debate in
the Missionary Baptist Searchlight, October 10, 1950,
under the heading: "Parr-Porter Debate As I Saw It." In
this report Albert Garner said:
"Vernon Barr established indelibly that Campbell-
ites teach salvation by 'baptism only'."
Vernon Barr had tried to prove that we teach salva-
tion by "baptism only" because we teach that salvation is
not reached at the point of faith, or repentance, or con-
fession, but at the point of baptism. Now, Mr. Garner
comes along in his booklet and says that Vernon Barr lied
on the "Campbellites" when he made that charge--that
they teach no such thing. So, according to the "Doctor,"
Vernon L. Barr is one Baptist who did not "refuse to lie"
about it. But that is not all of it. Mr. Garner, in his
report of the debate, says that Barr proved it--
established it indelibly. Therefore, he indorsed the
charge made by Mr. Barr, and in doing so, Mr. Garner
admits that he lied himself when he sent that report to
the Missionary Baptist Searchlight. To make such a charge
against the "Campbellites," he says, is to "lie on them."
Both he and Vernon Barr made the charge. So the "Doctor"
declares that both of them lied on these "sectarians." I
did not say they lied about it--the "Doctor" himself said
so. But I am not inclined to dispute with him about it.
It is still amazing how Baptist preachers continue to
contradict themselves at nearly every turn. This "faith
only" aspirin, when thus dissolved, turns out to be a
very bitter dose to the "Doctor" who prescribed it. It
has lost its power to relieve the headaches that his
brethren are suffering, and he will need to prescribe
something else.
The "Non-Essential" Aspirin
As I continue to dissolve "a few Baptist aspirins" that
were prescribed by "Doctor" Albert Garner, a Baptist
preacher of Jacksonville, Texas, I come next to his "Non-
Essential" aspirin. This refers to the second chapter in
his booklet, which makes it the second aspirin in his
box, and like the one already considered, it is broken
into several pieces by the "Doctor" himself. I should
like for you to see the "prescription" written by the
"Doctor" in his own bitter style. For the heading of the
first two paragraphs in this chapter of his booklet, he
asks the question: "DO BAPTISTS TEACH THAT BAPTISM IS
'NON-ESSENTIAL'?" And the following are some of his
dignified words as he makes his desperate attack on the
people who, to him, are a bunch of despicable
"Campbellites."
"This article is written to answer the notorious
lies that are being told on Baptists, circulated by
the so called Church of Christ people, better known
as Campbellites. In a recent public discussion, Mr.
Charles Holt, Jr., of Mt. Pleasant, Texas, was very
brazen in charging, "Baptists hate baptism, they
teach it is non-essential, they hate it." This is a
plain falsehood, used to prejudice their own peo-
ple against Baptists, to keep them from learning
what Baptists do teach about baptism. Mr. Holt,
as a young Campbellite preacher, was possibly
ignorant of what Baptists teach about salvation.
He was either ignorant or dishonest. If he was
ignorant, he is excusable, but not worthy of
leadership among their brethren. If he is dis-
honest, knows Baptists do not teach baptism is
non-essential, then he is certainly unworthy of
being a leader among his people." -- A Few
Aspirins For Campbellism, p. 4.
The "contemptible Campbellites," according to "Doc-
tor" Garner's expert and elegant diagnosis, are a group
of deluded ignoramuses or notorious liars. I have an
idea, however, that it is not their dense stupidity or
their notorious lying that is causing him so much
trouble. Likely they are too well informed about Baptist
teaching and are too exact in their reporting of it to
allow the gentleman to have much comfort. And brother
Charles Holt, Jr., it seems, has been a "pain in the
neck" for Mr. Garner. The charge that brother Holt was
"ignorant of what Baptists teach about salvation" or that
he was dishonest in his dealing with it will have little
weight with people who know brother Holt. Furthermore, I
predict that the "Doctor's" headaches are not over if he
has further discussions with brother Holt. He will need
some one to prescribe some better aspirins for him for he
will find the ones he has prescribed to be very
inadequate and ineffective.
That you may get a better view of the "Doctor's"
vituperative bombast I give the following quotation from
his booklet:
"A Challenge To These Notorious
Ignoramuses and Liars
"Next time you hear one of these religious bigots
blaze out the charge that Baptists do not believe
BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL, GET THIS ARTICLE
AND STICK IT UNDER HIS NOSE. Then do this: ask the
said fellow if he can show you one line or one
statement where a Missionary Baptist has ever said
that baptism was not essential." P. 5
Whew! The "Doctor" really seems to think that the
"blazing" of "religious bigots" can be snuffed out by
merely holding one of his aspirins under their noses.
What pills these are to have such potency! But if either
the "Doctor" or any of his patients should stick this
article under your nose to prove that you are a
"notorious ignoramus or liar," then you might respond by
sticking the following statement under his nose:
"So then, I want to tell you that baptism is not
essential. It's not essential and God says that; in
what I said this morning." Mr. A. U. Nunnery in
Woods-Nunnery Debate, p. 122.
Mr. Garner claims that any man is a "notorious
ignoramus or liar" who charges that any "Missionary
Baptist has ever said that baptism was not essential." He
calls for "one line or one statement" ever uttered by a
Missionary Baptist to that effect. Well, we have accommo-
dated the "Doctor." Mr. A. U. Nunnery is a Missionary
Baptist. Furthermore, he is a Missionary Baptist preacher
and debater. He has had many debates with our brethren.
His debate with brother Guy N. Woods, held near Parsons,
Tennessee, in 1946, was published in book form. The above
quotation is taken from that debate. So I have given both
the "line" and the "statement" in which a Missionary
Baptist preacher and debater said that "baptism is not
essential." When, therefore, the "horrid Campbellites,"
who seem to be such a nightmare to "Doctor" Garner, say
that Baptists have taught that "baptism is not essential"
they are neither ignorant nor lying. So this fragment of
the "Doctor's" aspirin dissolves into thin air. And,
incidentally, I wonder if Mr. Garner knew that A. U.
Nunnery had made the above statement. If he did not know
it, then perhaps he is the one who is the "ignoramus." If
he did know that Nunnery made that statement, yet claimed
that no Missionary Baptist ever did, who would be proven
to be the "notorious liar" in that case? So if some
Missionary Baptist sticks Garner's article "under your
nose," you have nothing to fear. All the vapors of that
dissolving aspirin can be inhaled without any danger
whatsoever.
But Mr. Garner may claim that Mr. Nunnery simply
meant that "baptism is not essential to salvation." The
fact remains that Mr. Nunnery said that "baptism is not
essential" and used no qualifying terms. Mr. Garner says
that no Baptist, that is, no Missionary Baptist, ever
made such a statement. Therefore, following his own line
of reasoning, he is proven to be either ignorant or
dishonest. And using his own words, "If he was ignorant,
he is excusable, but not worthy of leadership among their
brethren. If he is dishonest"--knowing that a Baptist did
say that baptism is not essential--"then he is certainly
unworthy of being a leader among the people." No one
would dispute, of course, that Mr. Nunnery meant that
"baptism is not essential to salvation." But when the
people of the church of Christ, considered by Mr. Garner
to be "ignorant and dishonest Campbellites," make that
statement about Baptists, they mean the same thing.
The following quotation from Mr. Garner's booklet will
give you what he thinks Baptists actually teach about
baptism. Read it and marvel.
"Baptists teach that baptism is essential. Baptists
even teach that baptism is essential to salvation.
Baptists do not teach that baptism is essential to
acquire salvation, but they do teach that BAPTISM IS
ESSENTIAL to demonstrate salvation."
Page 5.
Now, how does that look for a "Baptist Doctor" who is
able to prescribe "Baptist aspirins" for a "Baptist head-
ache"? Notice that he says that "Baptists teach that bap-
tism is essential" with emphasis on the last two words.
Not only so, but he actually says that "Baptists teach
that baptism is essential to salvation." If this is so,
then he could not interpret Mr. Nunnery's statement to
mean that "baptism is not essential to salvation." for in
that case, he would not be teaching that "baptism is
essential to salvation." In view of what Mr. Garner says
about it, for any one to charge that Baptists teach that
"baptism is not essential to salvation" is to be guilty
of inexcusable ignorance or downright dishonesty. Could
it be, after all, that Baptists have always taught that
"baptism is not essential to salvation" and that the
"Doctor" is the one who is lying about it? I use the
words "ignorance" and "lying" because they are standard
equipment in the "Doctor's" pill bag. The use of these
terms seems to be
his weakness, and they have become some of the funds-
mental ingredients of his powerful aspirins. But let us
see what some other Baptist preachers have said about
this matter. Before giving the quotations, however, let
us remember that the two words "essential" and "necess-
ary" are synonyms. If a thing is "essential," it is
"necessary;" if it is not "necessary," it is not
"essential."
The first witness will be the late Mr. Ben M. Bogard.
Mr. Garner will certainly recognize him, for it was ill
Bogard's school that Garner became a "Doctor" and got
his authority to prescribe aspirins. Read the following
statements by Mr. Bogard:
"I object to the idea that baptism is necessary to
salvation because, if true, it makes God dishonest."
Bogard-Warlick Debate, p. 45.
"Either way you take it, we see that baptism is
not necessary to salvation." Bogard-Warlick
Debate, Page 83.
"The doctrine you are preaching that baptism is
necessary to salvation is Roman Catholicism, and
you borrowed it from Rome." Hardeman-Bogard
Debate, p. 136.
Now, compare this with Garner's statement. He says
that Baptists teach that baptism "is essential to
salvation." But Bogard says "baptism is not necessary to
salvation." Furthermore, to preach that it is, he says,
"makes God dishonest" and "is Roman Catholicism."
"Doctor" Garner, therefore, got some of the ingredients
for his aspirins from Rome!
But let us hear some other Baptist preachers speak.
Mr. J. W. Kesner of Fort Smith, Arkansas, made the
following statements:
"I believe Mark 16:16 just as strong as my friend
believes it, but BAPTISM IS NOT essential to
salvation." Hogland-Kesner Debate, p. 39.
"Now my friends if baptism IS ESSENTIAL to
salvation, as we have been debating the four
nights it CONTRADICTS A GREAT BODY OF
SCRIPTURES." Hoffland-Kesner Debate, p. 127.
Next we will read from D. N. Jackson:
"Paul said . . I have begotten you through the
gospel, and since he did it, and yet didn't baptize
them, therefore, baptism is not essential to being
brought into life." Cogdill-Jackson Debate, p. 81.
"The fact that there are New Testament cases of
people being saved apart from baptism shows that
baptism is not essential to salvation." Supplement
to Jackson-Smith Debate, P. 99.
G. E. Jones may speak next:
"Baptists do not teach that baptism is non-
essential. It is not essential to salvation, but like
the Lord's supper it is essential to declaring some
things." Jones-Wilhite Discussion, p. 60.
The next statements will be from J. E. Cobb:
"Without entering into an extended discussion of
this passage we say Acts 2:38 does not teach that
baptism is, in any sense, essential to the salvation
of a soul." A New Manual For Baptist Churches,
pp. 44 and 45. "Baptism is the performance of a good
work, therefore, it is not essential to salvation." A
New Manual For Baptist Churches, p. 45.
In the foregoing statements these Baptist preachers
and debaters, Ben M. Bogard, J. W. Kesner, D. N. Jackson,
G. E. Jones and J. E. Cobb, declare plainly that Baptists
teach that "Baptism is not essential to salvation." But
"Doctor" Garner, probably because he was in a tight spot,
says that "Baptists even teach that baptism is essential
to salvation." Well, it is Garner against all the rest of
them. When, therefore, the poor wretched "Campbellites"
state that Baptists teach that baptism is not essential
to salvation they are neither ignorant nor lying but are
stating what Baptist preachers have always taught. It
will not do Mr. Garner any good to reject the testimony
of D. N. Jackson, G. E. Jones and J. E. Cobb on the
ground that a split has come within Baptist ranks, a new
Association has been formed, and that these men are
identified with one Association while Garner and others
are with another Association. The statements quoted from
these men were made before the division ever came. They
were all lined up in the same Association with Garner,
Bogard and Resner. And they simply stated what Baptists
have always taught--that baptism is not essential to
salvation. We would have to decide, from reading Garner's
booklet, that they were all out of step except the
"Doctor."
But even Mr. Garner reveals his inconsistency--if not
his ignorance-in the matter. You will notice that he said
that "Baptists even teach that baptism is essential to
salvation." But he went on to explain that it is not
essential to secure salvation but that "baptism is
essential to demonstrate salvation." A "Doctor" who does
not know that the two statements, "Baptism is essential
to salvation" and "Baptism is essential to demonstrate
salvation," are not identical is not qualified to pass on
the intelligence or ignorance of any man. How can a man
who thinks that these two expressions mean the same
boldly pronounce any man an ignoramus? If "baptism is
essential to salvation" means it is "essential to
demonstrate salvation," then when the "Doctor" teaches
that repentance and faith are necessary, or essential, to
salvation, he simply means they are "essential to
demonstrate salvation." And thus he would have salvation
before repentance and faith, without any conditions at
all, and that would be worse even than the doctrine of
"salvation by faith only."
But if "baptism is essential to demonstrate salvat-
ion," what is essential about such a demonstration? Will
a man's Christian security in this world be any greater
or his eternal life in the world to come be any more
certain because he "demonstrates" his salvation in
baptism? Just what is essential in such a demonstration
anyway? The matter resolves itself into this: The only
way in which Baptists teach that "baptism is essential,"
according to the great "Doctor" Garner, is that it is
essential to a non-essential. No wonder that he has a
case of hyper-acidity and endeavors to vent his spleen on
the poor deluded "Campbellites."
The "Church Vote" Aspirin
People who are familiar with Baptist theology and pra-
ctice know something of their voting on people who apply
for membership in the Baptist Church. The opposition to
this practice by the people who are ignorantly or
maliciously called "Campbellites" has caused many head-
aches in the Baptist ranks. It therefore became necessary
for "Doctor" Garner, while prescribing aspirins for Bap-
tist headaches caused by opposition from other angles, to
prescribe one for this particular type of headache. And
this he does in his booklet, "A Few Aspirins For
Campbellism," under the heading, "Why Are People Voted
Into the Baptist Church?"
In his attempt to answer this question Mr. Garner makes
the following statement:
"The only way any human being can get into
any institution, any church, of the Lord or of the
devil, is to be voted into it. One can not become
a member of any institution on earth except by
some kind of a vote. This is a principle that holds
true with clubs, fraternities, and churches of all
orders, GOOD OR BAD." Pages 6 and 7.
It is evident, of course, that if the only way any
"human being" can get into any church, "of the Lord or of
the devil," is to "be voted into it," then you would have
to get into the Baptist Church by that method. Certainly,
it is either "of the Lord" or "of the devil." Regardless
of which it is, according to "Doctor" Garner, a man has
to be voted into it. There is no other way to get into
one. If this is true, the "Doctor" has shown as clear as
noon-day why people are voted into the Baptist Church.
And this ought to relieve the headaches among his
brethren. At least, it ought to relieve those which are
brought on by being harassed on the voting question by a
bunch of "Campbellites."
It becomes evident, however, that "Doctor" Garner's
idea of "voting" is a very far-fetched one. While any
good authority on the meaning of words will tell you that
a vote is "a wish, choice, or judgment, of a person or a
body of persons, formally expressed, as by a ballot or
with the voice," or "the expression of the judgment or
will of a majority by means of votes," yet "Doctor"
Garner makes a "vote" mean "any sort of decision"
rendered by any one about anything. If some "club"
requires the payment of a ten dollar fee to become a
member of it, and someone applies for membership in the
club, the secretary or treasurer who is careful to see
that the application for membership is accompanied by the
ten dollars is "voting" that prospective member "into the
club." Such is the basis on which he claims that "one can
not become a member of any institution on earth except by
some kind of a vote." Thus he tries to make every other
church just as guilty of voting as is the Baptist Church.
But if that is what voting means, then everything that
a man does is by means of a vote. When the alarm clock
goes off in the morning, the man "votes" as to whether he
will get up and shut it off. When he starts to dress he
has to take a "vote" on the matter, and even decides,
according to the "Doctor," by means of a "vote" as to
which shoe he will put on first. He "votes" on washing
his face before breakfast, and when he goes to the table
he "votes" on whether he will have toast or cereal. This
certainly shows the absurdity of his basic claim that the
only way a man can get into any church "is to be voted
into it."
In an effort to soothe the pains of his brethren
"Doctor" Garner declares there are "three kinds of
vote"-- the preacher vote, the elder or presbytery vote,
and the congregational or democratic vote. To get before
you his claim on these I shall give his statement
regarding the first one:
"1. THE PREACHER VOTE. The church is
an institution of the Lord, in the world. No one
can become a member of any church without
someone's voting upon him. In some churches the
preacher passes on, votes on, determines the
worthiness, sincerity, or qualifications for mem-
bership in the church. In such churches the
preacher or elder asks public questions to the
candidate offering himself for membership and
fellowship in the local congregation, to determine
for himself the sincerity of the candidate in his
request. IF THE PREACHER OR ELDER is satisfied HE
PASSES ON OR APPROVES the candidate for church
membership. THIS IS THE PREACHER VOTE, the sorriest
kind of a minority rule. Please excuse me from this
vote." p.7.
Mr. Garner follows a similar course in explaining the
"ELDER OR PRESBYTERY VOTE." Thus you are able to see what
he actually calls "voting" where other churches are
involved. Inasmuch as the Bible requires a man to
"believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" before he is baptized,
if the preacher asks the candidate for baptism "if he
believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," he is
"voting the man into the church." That is what he calls
the "preacher vote." That is parallel with the secretary
of a club who asks the applicant for membership if he has
the ten dollar
22 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS
fee. Both of them, according to the erudite "Doctor," are
voting the men into the respective organizations. Such a
display of learning baffles the imagination! He presents
these in contrast with the "CONGREGATIONAL 0R DEMOCRATIC
VOTE." But in each case, he asserts, a "vote" is cast,
and consequently one cannot get into any church without
being voted into it!
But the absurdity of his claim is seen when it is
remembered that in his "congregational vote" no effort is
made to find if the candidate has met the requirements
thus far for membership in the Baptist Church. That
matter is brought out by the preacher in charge, and
after the preacher has secured the candidate's experience
of grace, the matter is then placed before the church for
them to vote on whether they will receive him for
baptism. The cases are therefore not parallel. The vote
of the congregation is taken after the preacher has
secured the evidence that the man is a believer. A
parallel of this would be found in club membership if,
after the applicant pays his ten dollar fee, the members
of the club would then vote on him to see if they would
accept him for membership.
And the strange thing about all of this is that the
course which "Doctor" Garner calls "the preacher vote,
the sorriest kind of a minority rule" is the course
followed by preachers in the New Testament. In the eighth
chapter of Acts we have the conversion of the Ethiopian
officer. Philip preached Christ to him. When they came to
a certain water the eunuch said: "See, here is water;
What doth hinder me to be baptized." Acts 8:36. Philip
said: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou
mayest." Verse :17. He confessed his faith in Jesus as
the Son of God, and Philip immediately baptized him. If
Philip had been following the prescription given by
"Doctor" Garner and Baptist practice, he would have said:
"We will have to go back to Jerusalem and put the matter
before the church for their vote. If they vote in favor
of your being baptized, then I shall be glad to baptize
you." But no such course was followed. No such vote was
taken. Philip followed the course that "Doctor" Garner
asks to be excused from. We shall excuse him, for it is
evident that he does not want to follow Bible examples.
If he did, he would not be a member of the Baptist Church
in the first place.
To soothe the headaches of his brethren the "Doctor"
endeavors to prove that preachers and churches of the New
Testament followed the "democratic vote" as practiced by
the Baptist Church today. A further dissolution of his
"church vote" aspirin nùill be accomplished by consider-
ing his proof for this. He seeks to prove that the apos-
tle Paul obtained membership in the Baptist Church by
majority vote. We shall let him tell of it in his own
words:
"Paul was converted on the road to Damascus,
baptized into the fellowship of the church at
Damascus, returned to the church at Jerusalem
and 'assayed to join himself unto them.' (Acts
9:26) There was considerable objection when Paul
tried to 'join' the Jerusalem church, but Barnabas
stood up, vouched for Saul's conversion, assured
the church that he was not a traitor, then he was
with them 'coming in and going out'." Garner's
Booklet, Page 8.
You will note that Mr. Garner says that Paul was
"baptized into the fellowship of the church at Damascus."
I thought, according to Garner's previous statement, that
the only way a man can get into the Baptist Church is to
"be voted into it." But he tells us that Saul was "bap-
tized into it." And how about the voting preceding his
baptism? Does the record say that Ananias called the
church together to vote on Saul for baptism? There is not
a word about such a thing. No vote was taken to determine
his fitness for baptism. It was another case of the pre-
acher baptizing the candidate without the vote of the
church-- "the sorriest kind of a minority rule,"
according to Mr. Garner. But "there was considerable
objection" when Saul later "assayed to join himself to
the disciples" at Jerusalem. Certainly so. But the
objection was not raised for the purpose of forcing the
matter to a "vote of the church." The objection was
raised because "they were all afraid of him, and believed
not that he was a disciple." Acts 9:26. They knew of his
former persecution of the church; they knew that he had
been guilty of killing disciples; and they had not learn-
ed of his conversion to the truth. So "they were all
afraid of him." But when Barnabas told them of his
conversion and of his preaching Christ at Damascus, their
fears were allayed. But did they then take a vote on him?
This is what the "Doctor"
claims. But I would like to see the verse in which one
word is said about such a vote. It is not found in the
New Testament record. It must be found in the ferthe
imagination of a Baptist "Doctor" who is trying to
relieve the headaches of his brethren.
The next example of the democratic vote on those to
be baptized, as given by "Doctor" Garner, is found in the
conversion of Cornelius and household in Acts 10. Here is
what the "Doctor" says about it:
"He (Peter) took with him the church at
Joppa, six men on this Genthe mission... Peter
took a vote on receiving these Gentiles into the
fellowship of the church at Joppa. His words
were, 'Can any man forbid water that these
should be baptized, which have received the Holy
Ghost as well as we?' (Acts 10:47) ... There
would have been no virtue in Peter's raising such
a question if those present, members of the church
at Joppa, had not had a RIGHT TO OBJECT."
Page 9.
This is quite interesting. When Peter took six Jewish
brethren with him, "he took with him the church at
Joppa." Was the membership of the church at Joppa made up
of six Jewish men' Such is the claim of the great "Doc-
tor.'' But I know that Dorcas was a member of that
church. She had been raised from the dead by Peter. Acts
9:36-41. Also there were "the saints and widows" to whom
Peter presented her alive. Verse 41. As a result of this
miracle, "many believed in the Lord" Verse 42. So the
"six Jewish brethren" were only a few of the "many"
disciples at Joppa. Therefore, Peter did not take "the
church at Joppa" with him. And if they voted on the
baptism of Cornelius, it was not the "vote of the church"
but only a "vote of a small minority." And "Doctor"
Garner says that the vote of "minority groups" is
"neither the Bible way of government; the American way of
government; nor the Baptist way of government." Page 7 of
his booklet. If, therefore, the six Jewish brethren voted
on Cornelius, it was not according to the "Baptist way"
and can give no relief to Baptist headaches. But there is
not a word said about their voting. Yet the "Doctor"
tells us that Peter would never have raised the question
if these men "had not had a RIGHT TO OBJECT." In other
words, the Lord
had given them the miraculous outpouring of the Holy
Spirit to prove that he had accepted them, but these six
men had a RIGHT TO OBJECT to this divine evidence and to
veto the whole matter by their vote. God's whole plan of
making the Gentiles members of his body could have been
discarded by the vote of four men. To what extremes a
Baptist "Doctor" will go in his effort to justify an
unscriptural practice!
But let us look at another case of voting by the
church, as given by Mr. Garner:
"Rom. 14:1 reads,'Him that is weak in the
faith receive ye but not to doubtful disputations.'
The 'ye' is plural and shows that every member
of the church at Rome was commanded to receive
any that they believed to be in the faith'." P. 9.
I would have to agree that men who seek membership
in a Baptist Church by means of vote, or otherwise, would
certainly be "weak in the faith." But is there any voting
here? The church was told to "receive" but was it told to
"vote"? Not unless "receive" means "to vote"? If such is
the meaning of the word "receive" then Jesus said: "He
that receiveth (voteth on) you receiveth (voteth on) me,
and he that receiveth (voteth on) me receiveth (voteth
on) him that sent me." Matt. 10:40. Was every member of
the church at Rome commanded to vote on both the Son of
God and the Father?
Mr. Garner refers to Acts 1:26 that tells of the sel-
ection of Matthias, by casting lots, to take the place of
Judas Iscariot. He refers to this as "the practice of the
democratic, congregational vote, just for the world like
Baptists do it today." Yet he does not even know what
their method of "casting lots" was. How does he know it
was "for all the world like Baptists do it today"?
Besides this was the selection of an apostle--a thing
which is never done by any Baptist Church today. And in
making this selection one was chosen (Matthias) and one
was rejected (Barsabas). It was the selection of one out
of two. Is that the way Baptists vote on candidates for
baptism. Do they accept one for baptism and reject
another at the same time? If this is "for the world like
Baptists do it today," that must be true.
He also thinks the selection of the seven in Acts 6:5
was by majority vote. Since the command of the apostles
to choose certain men to look after the daily ministrat-
ion "pleased the whole multitude" the "Doctor" thinks the
"deacons were elected by the vote of the church." But,
according to his reasoning, if fifty-one percent of the
"whole multitude" had not been pleased with the plan
offered by inspired men, they had a perfect right to veto
it and vote it down by a majority vote. Thus they would
have determined by a "democratic vote" whether they would
follow the plan offered by the apostles of Jesus Christ.
According to this, a church would have a right to deter-
mine by majority vote whether it would obey ally command-
ment given by the apostles. Perhaps that is the
reason the Baptist Church will not baptize people "for
the
remission of sins" according to Acts 2:38. They have
voted it down by democratic rule.
The following is another statement made by the
"Doctor" :
"Acts chapter 13 tells of the first CHURCH
ELECTION and sending out of foreign mission-
aries ... The Holy Ghost called the men to the
work, then the church by vote of endorsement,
sent them out, under the call of the Holy Ghost."
Page 9.
If this was the "first church election," as the
"Doctor" says, 1 wonder what became of the election of
Matthias in Acts 1:26. He gave that as an example of
voting in the church "for the world like Baptists do it
today." But now he says "the first church election" was
held in Acts 13 when Paul and Barnabas were sent on a
missionary journey. I am afraid the ingredients of this
aspirin are bound to clash. With such self-contradiction
so plainly evident, how can the "Doctor" expect his
patients to get much relief from this aspirin? You will
notice also that "the Holy Ghost called the men to the
work" but the church "by vote of endorsement, sent them
out." Here again, we find, according to the "Doctor's"
prescription, that the church could have vetoed the call
made by the Holy Ghost. Although the Holy Ghost called
the men for the work, the whole thing could have been
thrown aside if a majority of the members of the church
at Antioch had voted against it. This certainly shows the
absurdity of
the "democratic vote" as practiced by Baptists today, and
the "church vote" aspirin prescribed by "Doctor" Garner
has dissolved into harmless and helpless vapors.
The "Baptismal Salvation" Aspirin
Some of the ingredients of this aspirin, prescribed by
"Doctor" Garner for the relief of headaches among his
Baptist brethren, are found also in his "faith only" and
"non-essential" aspirins. He has the broken pieces thrown
around in such manner that it is a little difficult to
tell to which aspirin the different fragments belong. But
dissolving them, by using the word of the Lord, is such
an easy matter that it makes little difference as to
where in his package we find the fragments located.
Besides this, he has ingredients in these aspirins that
actually clash with one another to such an extent that
little effort is necessary to bring about their complete
dissolution. About all that is necessary is just to
unwrap them, lay the pieces beside each other, and let
the vapors from one annul and dissolve the other. This
clash between the ingredients will become manifest as I
point out the self-contradictions found in the prescript-
ion written by the "Doctor's" own hand.
The chapter heading for this aspirin reads like this:
"HOW DOES BAPTISM BRING OUR PRESENT SALVATION?" Is that
not rather a strange label to be found on a box of
tablets prescribed by a "Baptist Doctor"? If there is any
one thing, as already shown in this review, that Baptist
preachers do not believe, it is that baptism brings our
present salvation. Since they deny that such a thing is
possible, why ask "how" it is done? But the question is a
further and more complete revelation of Baptist incon-
sistencies.
The first paragraph of this chapter is in direct con-
flict with the heading of this chapter. You will notice
this contradiction in the "Doctor's" own language that
follows :
"1 Pet. 3:21 reads,'The like figure where
unto baptism doth also now save us. Baptismal
regenerationists twist this and a few similar pas-
sages from their setting and use such to assure
people that one must 'be-dipped-or-be-damned."
Page 10.
It is evident to any intelligent reader that if baptism
"brings our present salvation," as is clearly indicated
in the chapter heading, then one cannot have present
salvation until he is baptized. That would mean, if
language means anything at all, that one is damned until
he is dipped. To conform to Baptist teaching and to give
any relief whatsoever to Baptist headaches, the heading
of the chapter should read: "Our Present Salvation Brings
Baptism." But the "doctor" did not write it that way. I
am afraid that the language used by the "Doctor" will not
only fail to relieve headaches among his brethren but
that it will be the cause of a bunch of headaches for
them that they might have escaped had it not been for the
"Doctor's" prescription. In fact, it is likely to cause
the "Doctor" himself to have an epidemic of headaches
before the matter is ended. Remember then, that if
"baptism brings our present salvation," we are not saved
till we are baptized-- we are damned till we are dipped.
Yet Mr. Garner says that any man who says you must
"be-dipped-or-be- damned" is "twisting" the scriptures
from their setting" and places himself among those whom
he calls "baptismal regenerationists." "Doctor" Garner
has therefore landed right in the middle of that
"heretical bunch." How much relief can his Baptist
brethren expect to receive from a prescription that is so
self-contradictory.
But this is not all. Let us take a look at two more
fragments of these aspirins as I place them side by side.
On page five of his booklet Mr. Garner says:
"Baptists teach that baptism is essential.
Baptists even teach that baptism is essential to
salvation."
This language of the "Doctor" might be easily under-
stood if he said no more about it, but on page three of
his booklet he makes this statement:
"Surely baptism can be found in the means,
instrumental, or agency case of the preposition
if it is necessary to salvation."
In one statement he says that "baptism is essential to
salvation," but in the other he says it is not "necessary
to salvation." Would a "Doctor's" prescription,
containing such clashing ingredients, likely be a
"headache reliever"
or a "headache producer" for his Baptist brethren? But
take another look at his prescription. On page 10 he
says:
"Do Baptists believe that baptism saves
them? Indeed they do!"
But on page three we read:
"Try to find where one IS SAVED BY BAPTISM! OR
THROUGH BAPTISM!"
These statements are self-contradictory-one says
that baptism saves, and the other says it does not save.
I am afraid the "Doctor" may prove a big disappointment
to his suffering brethren. He may become as big a head-
ache to them as "Campbellism" has been for all of these
years. It is too bad to have to expose a great "Doctor"
in such fashion, but if his prescription is any indicat-
ion of his qualifications as a "Doctor," he should be
dubbed a "quack" by his own brethren, and his license
should be taken away from him. Otherwise, he may drive
his suffering brethren, like many of them have done in
the past, to seek relief from some other source.
These self-contradictions may seem strange and start-
ling to people who are not accustomed to reading the
rantings of a Baptist "Doctor." If so, we might take a
look at another statement. It is found on page eleven of
Mr. Garner's booklet and reads like this:
"Unless one is convicted of the Holy Spirit,
repents of his sins, and becomes a child of God
by faith in Christ Jesus before he is baptized,
baptism does not save."
This simply says that unless a man is already saved
before he is baptized, baptism does not save him. Of
course, according to this gem of logic from this super-
intelligent "Doctor," if a man is already saved, he may
then be saved by being baptized. In other words, "baptism
does not save" the lost man, the unsaved man, but it
saves the man who is already saved! If you can figure how
a "Doctor" with such scholastic attainments that his very
person reflects scholarship and brilliancy could make a
statement like the preceding one, you deserve some sort
of degree in higher mathematics.
Commenting on 1 Pet. 3:21 Mr. Garner makes this
declaration :
"Baptists have always taught that baptism
saves them, just for the world like this passage
of scripture says. Baptism does NOT SAVE US,
IN A FIGURE. That is, baptism paints a picture
or symbolizes the crucified, buried, and risen
Christ who does save." Booklet, page 10.
But it so happens that Peter in this passage does not
say that "baptism saves us IN FIGURE." Baptist preach-
ers constantly assert that Peter declares that "baptism
saves us in a figure" and that "baptism is a figure of
our salvation." But neither of these is even remotely
hinted at in the passage. Peter says that Noah and family
were saved in the ark by water and that our salvation by
baptism is "the like figure," or "true likeness," of
that. Noah was transported in the ark by the water from
the old world to the new. So we are translated by baptism
from a state of condemnation to a state of justification.
One is a true likeness of the other. But nothing is said
about baptism being a "figure of our salvation" or about
being saved by baptism "in a figure." What if baptism
does "paint a picture of the crucified, buried and risen
Christ"? Does that change the language of Peter? Not in
the least. That thing that "paints a picture of the
crucified, buried, and risen Christ" is the thing that
Peter says "now saves us." So all this painting, figur-
ing, and symbolizing, accomplishes nothing for my
friend's false doctrine. Baptist headaches are not so
easily figured away, and the "Doctor's" aspirin dissolves
without any damage to the truth of God.
After asserting that "Baptists have always taught
that baptism saves them," Mr. Garner proceeds to try to
prove that it is not so by discussing the matter of "FOL-
LOWING JESUS IN BAPTISM." Relative to this point he says:
"No one can follow Jesus in baptism unless
he is first a child of God. Jesus was the Son of
God first; then he was baptized to make manifest
to the world that he was the Son of God (John
1:31-33), just for the world like Baptists do it
today." Page 10.
This system of reasoning is very unfortunate for Bap-
tist doctrine. When Jesus was a little child, Herod, in
his effort to slay him, had all children, two years old
and under, slain that were in the region of Bethlehem.
But Joseph had been warned by an angel "to take the young
child and his mother, and flee into Egypt." (Matt. 2:18)
In this way the life of Jesus was protected from the ven-
geance of the ruler. Later, upon the death of Herod, an
angel told Joseph to "take the young child and his
mother, and go into the land of Israel." (Matt. 2:20) In
this return from Egypt Matthew says the prophecy was
fulfilled: "Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matt.
2:15) Since this was accomplished when Jesus was still a
"young child," he was the Son of God while he was a young
child. In fact, he was just as much "the Son of God" one
minute after he was born as he was when he was baptized.
Does this prove that nùe are children of God while in a
state of infancy? Not according to Baptist doctrine, for
Baptists say that little children are born "the children
of wrath"--not children of God.
Furthermore, in order to be saved, Paul teaches us
that "our old man" must be "crucified with Christ." (Rom.
6:6) This process is referred to in Gal. 2:20 as being
our crucifixion--"I am crucified with Christ." And in
Gal. 6:14 Paul refers to the cross of Christ "by whom the
world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." As
Jesus was put to death on the cross, so must we have the
old man crucified, the old manner of life put to death.
This is our crucifixion--in this way we are crucified
with Christ. Consequently, we are to follow Jesus in
crucifixion. But how can we do it, according to "Doctor"
Garner? Jesus was the Son of God before he was cruci-
fied, but we must become crucified in order to become
sons of God. If we must be sons of God before we are
baptized, because Jesus was God's Son before his baptism,
then we must, for the same reason, be sons of God before
our crucifixion.
On page six of his booklet Mr. Garner makes the fol-
lowing statement:
"Baptists 'follow Jesus' in baptism. We teach that
people should be baptized, just for the world like
Jesus was baptized. He was the Son
32 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS
of God first, then he was baptized to make this
manifest to the world...Baptism did not make
Jesus more righteous or wash away his sins. It
only demonstrated to the world that he was the
Messiah."
The "Doctor" claims in this statement that we should
be baptized "just for the world like Jesus was." Since he
was "the Son of God first" and then was baptized "to
make this manifest to the world," he reasons that we must
be the sons of God first and then be baptized to manifest
it to the world. Of course, there is a vast difference
between his being "the Son of God" and our being "sons of
God." But to allow the "Doctor" to have every advantage
possible we will let him assume that they mean the same
thing. But you must not forget, as Mr. Garner himself
admits, that Jesus was not only baptized "to make mani-
fest to the world that he was the Son of God" but also in
baptism he "demonstrated to the world that he was the
Messiah." Now, following Mr. Garner's method of reason-
ing, we would have to say: 1. Jesus was baptized to
"demonstrate to the world that he was the Messiah." 2.
We must be baptized "just for the world like Jesus was
baptized." 3. Therefore, we must be baptized to "demon-
strate to the world" that we are Messiahs. This argument
furnishes quite a promotion for Mr. Garner--it lifts him
from the position of "Doctor" and makes a "Messiah"---a
Savior--out of him. Perhaps in this new role he may be
able to give greater relief to Baptist headaches.
In an effort to get baptism out of the plan of sal-
vation and to bring relief to his suffering brethren, Mr.
Garner makes an argument concerning the "MEANS AND
INSTRUMENTS OF SALVATION." Under this heading his pre-
scription for this aspirin reads this way:
"There are prepositions of 'means' and
'instrument' in our English language. The most
common are 'by' and 'through.' These two prep-
ositions of 'means' or 'instrument' are used in
showing how people are saved ...'Ye are all the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.' (Gal.
3:26) Faith is an instrument or means of salva-
tion. 'In whom we have redemption through his
blood.' (Eph. 1:7) Then his blood is an instru-
ment or means of salvation. 'For by grace are ye
saved through faith.' (Eph. 2:8) Then both faith
and grace are instruments or means of salvation.
"BAPTISM IS NEVER USED IN THE 'Instrumental,'
'Means, or 'Agency' case as a means of procuring
salvation. Let the honest, the sincere, the
investigating consider well. If the Lord had meant for
people to understand that the only way people could be
saved was by or through baptism, WHY DID HE NOT USE
BAPTISM IN THE INSTRUMENTAL, OR MEANS CASE EVEN ONE
TIME when speaking on how to be saved?" Page 11.
Here again we find the "Doctor" woefully lost in the
fog of Baptist doctrine, for he had just used his
"baptism in a figure" argument, which he based on 1 Peter
3:21, to prove that men are both saved and not saved by
baptism. In verse 20 of this chapter Peter referred to
the ark built by Noah "wherein few, that is, eight souls
were saved by water." Since Peter says they were saved
"by water," I wonder if this was the "instrument, means,
or, agency case" that Mr. Garner talks about. The word
"by" is one of the specific prepositions mentioned by the
"Doctor" to Drove his "agency case." Very well, then,
verse 21 tells us: "The like figure whereunto," or as
some translations give it, "After a true likeness,
baptism now saves us." Since "water" was a "means" by
which Noah and family were saved, and since baptism saves
us "after a true likeness," I wonder how he will manage
to rule out baptism as a "means" of our salvation.
While Mr. Garner says that "baptism is never used in
the 'instrumental,' 'means,' or 'agency' case as a means
of procuring salvation," we have two passages in the New
Testament that definitely put baptism in that case. Read
them: "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26) "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." (Tit. 3:5) Here we are said
to be cleansed "with" the washing of water and saved "by"
the washing of regeneration. These are the prepositions
that are never used, according to the "Doctor," to pre-
cede baptism. These passages definitely refer to baptism,
for it is only in baptism that "water" has any relation
to the church of the Lord. Chas. B. Williams, Baptist, in
his New Testament translation, renders the
words in Eph. 5:26, "in the water bath." And in a foot-
note he says, "Referring to water baptism." Tit. 3:5 he
renders, "through the bath of regeneration." Edger J.
Goodspeed, Baptist, in his translation, renders the first
passage, "with the bath in water," and the second pas-
sage, "through the bath of regeneration." The Bible
Union Version, a translation made by T. J. Conant, H. B.
Hackett and A. C. Kendrick, all Baptist scholars, renders
the first passage, "by the bathing of water," and the
second passage, "through the bathing of regeneration."
In both of these passages the word "washing" of the Ring
James Version is translated from the Greek "loutron."
Thayer's Lexicon defines this word, "a bathing, bath,"
and he says that it is "used in the New Testament and in
ecclesiastical writers of baptism." Page 382. He refers
to Eph. 5:26 and Tit. 3:5 as uses in the New Testament.
In facts, these are the only two instances of its use in
the New Testament. There is nothing beneath the stars to
which these passages can refer but to baptism. Since one
of them says we are cleansed "with the washing of water,"
and the other says we are saved "by the washing of regen-
eration," we have both the prepositions "with" and "by"
that show baptism to be a "means" of salvation. The
"Doctor" is wrong, his aspirin is gone, and his brethren
must continue to suffer their headaches caused by New
Testament teaching on baptism.
The "Sunday Lord's Supper" Aspirin
In the Missionary Baptist Searchlight of December
25, 1951 Mr. Garner refers to this review that is being
made of his booklet. He says: "These fellows seem to he
woefully ignorant of the fact that the better aspirins
are dissolved the more they do." However, "these fellows"
are not as "woefully ignorant" as the "Doctor" tries to
make himself believe. At the very beginning I gave a
reason why this was not true with "Dr. Garner's
aspirins." We may grant that aspirins retain all of their
potency after being dissolved, but to have any effect on
the patient they must be swallowed. And tablets may
become so bitter after being dissolved that it is diffi-
cult to get one to swallow them. If the "Doctor" can get
his brethren to swallow his tablets after they are
dissolved, some sooth-
ing effect might be had on them, but when the ingredients
are exposed by dissolving them, it will likely be a very
difficult matter to get his brethren to swallow them at
all. In this case, their effect is completely lost.
Furthermore, if the "Doctor" really believes that this
review of his booklet will make his aspirins more effect-
ive, he will have a chance to prove his faith by his
works. This review will be printed in booklet form.
"Doctor" Garner, therefore, should buy an abundant supply
of them, and every time he sells one of his brethren one
of his booklets, he should also give him a copy of this
review that his aspirins might do more for his brethren.
I wonder if he will try such an experiment. Will some one
please inform me if Mr. Garner proves to be that "woe-
fully ignorant"?
Relative to the Lord's supper, Mr. Garner states in
his booklet, that he has been asked the question: "WHAT
ABOUT TAKING THE LORD'S SUPPER EVERY SUNDAY?" This quest-
ion has been asked, because of "Catholics and Campbel-
lites, who teach that the Lord's supper should be taken
on Sunday and EVERY SUNDAY." Regarding these two relig-
ious groups the "Doctor" says:
"One believes in the doctrine of transub-
stantiation and the other in consubstantiation.
One believes that after the priest's blessing the
bread and wine such becomes the literal body and
blood of Christ to remove the sins of the one eat-
ing the same; while the latter believes that the
bread and wine blessed by their minister has
Christ, through the individual's obedience of
taking it, to go with them and keep their sins
rolled ahead one week at a time." Page 12.
In this statement Mr. Garner displays something
besides knowledge when he defines "consubstantiation" to
mean that if men eat the Lord's supper, it will "keep
their sins rolled ahead one week at a time." He might do
well to check his dictionary to find the meaning of the
term. And he also displays something besides honesty,
unless he is "woefully ignorant," when he makes the
charge that the headache-producing people whom he calls
"Campbeilites" believe any such stuff. We do not believe
that eating the Lord's supper on Sunday will "keep sins
rolled ahead one week at a time." In fact, we do not
believe that anything under the gospel ever "rolls sins
ahead." Under
the Old Testament there was a "remembrance again made
of sins every year." (Heb. 10:3) But under the gospel
there is complete forgiveness and such sins are remem-
bered no more. (Heb. 8:12) We therefore teach that sins
are forgiven the children of God when they comply with
God's law of pardon, but eating the Lord's supper is not
even one of the conditions of that law. The charge made
by the unreliable "Doctor" is an unadulterated misrepre-
sentation. The ingredients of this aspirin begin to look
suspicious.
Answering the question, "HOW IS THE LORD'S
SUPPER TAKEN ON SUNDAY?", Mr. Garner says:
"The Lord's Supper is taken on Sunday by
custom and tradition and not by New Testament
command! There is not a command in the Bible
for the Lord's Supper to be taken on Sunday at
all, much less to take it EVERY SUNDAY. There
is NEITHER A COMMAND FOR NOR AN EX-
AMPLE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER BEING
TAKEN ON SUNDAY AT ALL IN THE EN-
TIRE NEW TESTAMENT." Page 12.
I have not heard of any one who claims the Lord
specifically commanded the Lord's supper to be eaten on
Sunday, but the claim that there is not "an example of
the Lord's supper being taken on Sunday at all in the
entire New Testament" is just another wild blunder of a
misguided and misinformed Baptist "Doctor." In Acts
20:7 the divine record reads: "And upon the first day of
the week, when the disciples came together to break
bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the
morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." There
can be no question that "the first day of the week" is
the day we call Sunday. This meeting of the disciples,
therefore, was held on Sunday. Furthermore, they came
together on Sunday "to break bread." This could not be
the breaking of bread in a common meal, for the disciples
did not meet together in public assemblies to eat common
meals. In fact, Paul, who was one of the men present at
this break ing of bread, on another occasion said:
"Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat,
tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat
at home." (1 Cor. 11:33, 34) The breaking of bread in
Acts 20:7 is therefore the Lord's supper--the communion
of the body
and blood of the Lord as mentioned in 1 Cor. 10:16. Thus
we have an approved example in the New Testament of the
disciples coming together on Sunday to eat the Lord's
supper. "Doctor" Garner deliberately denied there being
any such example in the New Testament. This is another
thing that will make it hard for his brethren to swallow
this aspirin after it has been dissolved.
Since Jesus commanded his disciples to take the Lord's
supper, it must be done at some time. If they partook of
it annually, the record would tell of their meeting on a
certain day of a certain month to break bread. But no
such reference is found in divine history. If they kept
it as a monthly service, a certain day of the month would
have been the time mentioned on which they came together
to break bread. But no such service is mentioned. If they
partook of it as a weekly service, a certain day of the
week would be specified as the time on which they assemb-
led to break bread. And this is exactly what the record
says-"the first day of the week." We have therefore
divine authority for a weekly service--not only a service
for Sunday but for every Sunday.
Would you like to know what the "Doctor" has to say
about this inspired example. When you have read it you
will begin to see why he styles himself "Doctor Garner."
But here it is:
"If you will read Acts 20 chapter carefully,
you may even as I have done, come to the con-
clusion that the only effort ever made in New
Testament time to pin the law of the Sunday
Lord's Supper on the church caused a fuss in the
church at Troas. Paul preached on the subject--
objected to taking the Lord's Supper on Sunday,
as a matter of law--argued with the church until
midnight, when they had met together to take the
Lord's Supper on Sunday. A young man in the
upper chamber got tired of the discussion,
dropped off to sleep fell out of the upstairs win-
dow and killed himself. Paul went down, picked
the boy up, restored him to life and then, early
Monday morning he took the Lord's Supper with
them. Thus Paul broke up this first effort to
legalize this Sunday Lord's Supper law." Page 13.
Talk about Catholicism! What Pope of Rome ever dared
to make a greater revision of the divine record than
"Doctor" Garner has made of the 20th chapter of Acts to
suit his theological dogma? He has assumed for himself
the prerogative claimed for the papal chair--the right to
change the word of God to suit his own ideas. Yes, you
can begin to see why he is "Doctor Garner"-he has
"doctored" the divine record to uphold Baptist doctrine
and to relieve Baptist headaches. "The conclusion" that
Mr. Garner reached in the above quotation was reached
because he "read carefully" the twentieth chapter of
Acts. Have you read it "carefully"? Did you see anything
in it that remotely resembled the "conclusion" of Mr.
Garner? If you did, I am not surprised at your "seeing" a
"Baptist Church" in the Bible. A man who could see what
Mr. Garner saw in Acts 20 could see anything he is
looking for.
Did you find the "fuss in the church at Troas" that Mr.
Garner talks about? Mr. Garner "came to the conclusion"
that there was one, for how else could he uphold Baptist
theology? And did you read that "Paul preached on the
subject" of the Sunday Lord's Supper? Well, it must be
there somewhere for Mr. Garner "read it carefully." Did
you notice in Acts 20 that Paul "objected to taking the
Lord's Supper on Sunday" and "argued with the church
until midnight" about it? If you didn't see that, you did
not read it as "carefully" as the "Doctor" did. Take an-
other look-maybe you missed something. And did you
discover that the young man who fell out of the window
had gone to sleep because he "got tired of the discuss-
ion"? Well, that is why it happened, according to the
"Doctor's" conclusion.
Besides this, where does the passage say "early Mon-
day morning he took the Lord's Supper with them"? In
verse 11 we learn that Paul broke bread after midnight,
but it does not say "with them." No one can definitely
prove that this breaking of bread by Paul was the Lord's
Supper. But suppose Mr. Garner could prove it, or suppose
we just grant it without such proof, it would still re-
main for him to prove that this occurred "early Monday
morning." How does Mr. Garner know that they did not, on
this occasion, follow the Jewish count, reckoning the day
from sunset to sunset? If they did follow this count,
then this breaking of bread could have occurred before
day-
light on what we call Sunday morning. The only thing
"Doctor" Garner could do in this case would be to assert,
but having doctored the passages as he has otherwise, we
should not be surprised at any assertions he might see to
make.
But "WHAT IS WRONG WITH TAKING THE LORD'S SUPPER EVERY
SUNDAY?" This question Mr. Garner uses for the heading of
another paragraph. He declares that "in the letter" there
is nothing wrong, but "in the spirit" of the matter
"there is much wrong." Then he goes on to say:
"I think there would be nothing wrong with
taking it seven days a week, if it could be taken
in the right spirit." Page 14.
The reader will notice that Mr. Garner continually
links "Catholics" and Campbellites," claiming both groups
teach that the Lord's supper must be taken every Sunday.
He evidently hopes, by classifying the people he calls
"Campbellites" with the Catholics, to arouse prejudice in
minds of his Baptist readers and to soothe, to some
extent, their aching heads. He knows his brethren have
little respect for the Catholic religion, and if he can
make them believe that the despicable "Campbellites" are
identical in teaching with the Catholics, he will likely
cause them to close their ears against the truth taught
by them. But it so happens that the "Doctor" is either
"ignorant or dishonest" in his dealing with the Cath-
olics, for they do not teach any such thing. They teach
that holy communion must be taken once a year, that good
Catholics will try to take it once a month, and that the
more devoted may take it weekly or daily. Note the fol-
lowing statements from Catholic authorities:
"The church enforces the command of Christ
by requiring Catholics under pain of grievous sin
to communicate at the Easter time. This is called
the Paschal Communion."-Religion : Doctrine
and Practice, by Francis B. Cassilly, page 230.
"More frequent Communion however, is
ardently desired by the church. As a rule, good
Catholics try to receive it once a month and
many fervent Christians practice even daily
communion." Religion: Doctrine and Practice, page 230.
"By a law of the church Catholics are
obliged to receive Holy Communion during the
Easter time. Perhaps most communicants ap-
proach the sacred banquet every month; while
multitudes of pious souls receive our divine Lord
sacramentally weekly or even daily." Catholic
Religion, by Charles Alfred Martin, page 199.
These authentic statements from Catholic authorities
show that Mr. Garner is as far wrong about what Catho-
lics believe as he is about what the troublesome "Camp-
bellites" believe. According to these quotations, all
Catholics take "Communion" yearly, many of them take it
monthly, others take it weekly, and some of them daily.
You will notice that two of these quotations speak of
their "daily communion." And similar statements can be
given from other Catholic authorities. In their time for
communion, then, do the Catholics look like the people
Mr. Garner dubs as "Campbellites"? Do they not rather
look like Baptists? You will remember that Mr. Garner
says, "I think there would be nothing wrong with taking
It seven days a week." Thus he indorses "daily commun-
ion." And that is exactly what the Catholics say. They do
not require it to be taken every Sunday but actually urge
that it be "taken seven days a week" if it can "be taken
in the right spirit." They could well adopt Garner's
statement as their own, for in their own language, when
referring to daily communion, they say:
"One who practices frequent Communion,
however, should be very careful to do so from
a right intention, and not merely as a matter of
routine, or because others do so." Religion:
Doctrine and Practice, page 230.
How much difference is there between this statement
and the one made by "Doctor" Garner? They are identical
in principle. Instead of getting the "Campbellites" he
got himself in a corner with the Catholics, both of them
teaching that the Lord's supper can be taken daily.
The final stroke of the "Doctor's" pen, as he pre-
scribes this aspirin for his brethren, is shown in the
concluding statements of this chapter of his booklet. The
statements are as follows:
"But the NEW LAW, unknown to the New
Testament, provided by Campbellism and Catho-
licism, TO TAKE IT EVERY SUNDAY, TO
ROLL AWAY ONE'S SINS FOR A WEEK, is
the same kind of hypocrisy demanded by the
formalism of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Bap-
tists beg to be excused from such religious 'tom-
foolery'." Page 14.
But the "Doctor," as a representative of Baptists,
does not "beg to be excused" from misrepresenting both
religious groups to which he refers, for neither of them
teaches the thing that he attributes to them. Can this he
charged to "woeful ignorance" or"downright dishonesty"?
He raises a loud cry about somebody's 'lying on the Bap-
tists," but he might do well to have a little private
talk with himself about how he deals with other religious
people. Or would he rather be classed with "notorious
ignoramuses" ?
Instead of telling Baptists to "hold this aspirin under
the noses of Campbellites," now that the aspirin is dis-
solved and its ingredients revealed, it may become
necessary for the "Doctor" to start "holding Baptist
noses" in an effort to get them to swallow the stuff.
The "Absolute Infallibility" Aspirin
Misrepresentation is the ally of a weak cause. When
men must misrepresent religious people in an effort to
arouse prejudice against them, the cause which they
represent is badly in need of support that cannot be
obtained otherwise. Certainly "Doctor" Garner falls
within this classification. The people whom he calls
"Campbellites" are people who are determined to be guided
by the unerring word of God. They simply ask for a "thus
saith the Lord" for the things they do in religion. They
want to be nothing in religion but Christians, to follow
faithfully the divine standard of eternal truth. But such
a desire and effort on their part arouses the hatred of
Baptist "Doctors" like Mr. Garner, who cannot meet them
on the basis of the teaching of the word of the Lord and
must, therefore, try to arouse prejudice by base misrep-
resentations. He may talk about "notorious liars" who
"peddle falsehoods" and seek "through chicanery and
deception" to create prejudice in the hearts of people
toward the Baptists, but when he does so he gives a
vivid description of his own efforts to destroy what he
calls "Campbellism." This is manifest in his first para-
graph of this chapter of his booklet as he presents to
his brethren his "absolute infallibility" aspirin that he
hopes may be swallowed by them before they have time to
look at it. He says:
"There are two religious sects in the world
that claim infallibility--the Roman Catholics and
the Campbellites (choosing to fly their religious
kite under the guise of church of Christ). Of
these two sects, the Campbellites have become the
most sectarian. The Catholic Church lays claim
of infallibility for their pope only and that only
when he speaks on matters of their church. The
Campbellites 'Out-Pope' the pope of Catholicism
and CLAIM ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY for their entire
church or sect." Page 14.
There you have it in the "Doctor's" own language!
Poor, deluded "Campbellites"! They are worse than the
Catholics ever dared to be. The "Doctor" still thinks he
can get Baptists to swallow his aspirins if he can keep
them thinking that the Catholics and "Campbellites" are
Siamese twins. But the people whom Mr. Garner hates so
desperately have never made any claim to infallibility.
This is another of those things that have originated in
the fertile imagination of this Baptist giant.
But upon what does he base this reckless charge? He
bases his whole contention upon the slogan we often use
that "we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent
where the Bible is silent." Read it in his own words as
he endeavors to soothe the headaches of his suffering
comrades:
"I have charged that these people CLAIM
ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY. Sane people can
see through the claim when they have it called
to their attention. If one believes that the Bible
is inspired and infallible, then 'to speak where it
speaks and be silent where it is silent,' is to be
infallible. Baptists do not claim to do this. The
Catholics do not even claim not to err, but these
people, dubbing themselves 'church of Christ,'
do." Pages 14, 15.
Let us dissolve this aspirin a little at a time and let
Baptists see what its ingredients really are. There are
many honest people among the Baptists, and when they see
the stuff that "Garner's Aspirins" are made of, they will
refuse to be "doped" with any such "drugs." You will
notice, in the first place, that the "Doctor" says that
"Baptists do not claim to do this"--to "speak where the
Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent."
This is quite an admission to be made by a "Baptist
Doctor," but I have been fully aware of this truth for
many years. This fact accounts for the things that Bap-
tist preachers preach and the things they do in relig-
ion...This explains, in the first place, why such a thing
exists as the Baptist Church. If men had been willing to
"speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where it
is silent," there never would have been one, for the
Bible in no way authorizes the existence of one. It is no
where named in the Bible. Neither is there any statement
made in the Bible that would lead to a scriptural con-
clusion that any such church has any right to exist. Men
had to depart from Bible teaching in order to establish
any such institution. Furthermore, men cannot be governed
by the Bible as their rule today and become members of
the Baptist Church of any style or description. "Doctor"
Garner is a member of the Baptist Church today, and he is
a Baptist preacher, because "Baptists do not claim" to
speak where the Bible speaks. Upon this same ground you
can account for their false doctrine of "salvation by
faith only." The Bible says that men are "justified by
works and not by faith only." (Jas. 2:24) But Baptists do
not claim to speak where the Bible Speaks. They, there-
fore, can say, as I have shown by many quotations from
them that men "are justified by faith only." If you
wonder why Baptists teach that sinners may "pray through
to salvation" at the mourner's bench, you don't need to
wonder any longer. In the Bible, of course, inspired men
told sinners, who were praying, to "arise, and be bap-
tized and wash away thy sins." (Acts 22:16) But Baptists
do not claim, according to Garner's admission, to "speak
where the Bible speaks." So you should not be surprised
that they make statements in direct conflict with Bible
statements. If you have been puzzled as to why Baptists
teach that baptism is "non-essential to salvation," your
puzzle has been solved by the "Doctor." The Bible tells
men to
"be baptized for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), and
it informs us that men are "baptized into Christ." (Gal.
3:27) But you don't need to expect to hear Baptist
preachers repeating these statements- "Baptists do not
claim to do this." Therefore, they can be expected to say
that "baptism is not for the remission for sins" and that
men get "into Christ before baptism." The course one fol-
lows depends entirely on his attitude toward what the
Bible says. If you have been trying to figure out why
Baptist preachers teach "once in grace, always in grace,"
you have the solution to your problem. Paul in Gal. 5:4
actually said, "Ye are fallen from grace." But since
"Baptists do not claim" to speak where the Bible speaks,
you can understand why they teach otherwise. And if you
have ever wondered why they are willing to wear the name
"Baptist" instead of the name divinely authorized, you
can now relax. "Baptists do not claim" to speak where the
Bible speaks. The "Doctor" says so. The Bible says "the
disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" (Acts
11:26) and "the churches of Christ salute you." (Rom.
16:16). But these modern day "Doctors"of religion of
Garner's type say that "the disciples should be called
Baptists" and that "Baptist churches should send their
greetings." Is there any Bible for it? Oh, no. They don't
need any, for "Baptists do not claim" to speak as the
Bible speaks.
After saying that "Baptists do not claim to do this"
the "Doctor" goes on to say, "The Catholics do not even
claim not to err, but these people, dubbing themselves
'church of Christ,' do." Since the poor, deluded "Camp-
bellites" claim to "speak where the Bible speaks and to
be silent where the Bible is silent," but neither the
Baptists nor Catholics make such a claim, then I wonder
who is more like the Catholics--the "Campbellites" or the
Baptists. Here again the brilliant "Doctor," while trying
to hem the "Campbellites" in a corner with the Catholics,
finds himself in the corner with them. Does he think
that "sane people' 'among the Baptists will not be able
to "see through" this claim "when they have it called to
their attention"? The truth of the matter is that Bap-
tists have many things in common with the Catholics.
Both of them claim to be able to trace a succession back
to the apostles; both of them wear sectarian names un-
authorized by the Bible; both of them teach the doctrine
of inherited depravity; both of them claim not to go by
the Bible in many particulars; both of them use instru-
mental music in their worship; both of them substitute
human traditions for the word of God. Who is the great
"Doctor" Garner to try to create prejudice against the
"Campbellites" because he thought he found a similarity
between some of their teaching and the teaching of the
Catholics? "They who live in glass houses should not
throw stones."
Then, too, I might inform Mr. Garner that Baptist
preachers do not seem to be agreed about this matter. In
a recent debate which I had with Mr. Hoyt Chastain in
Memphis, Tennessee, Mr. Chastain repeatedly said that
"Baptists speak where the Bible speaks and are silent
where the Bible is silent." But Mr. Garner says that
"Baptists do not claim to do this." It might be well for
these two men to get together on this matter. Both of
them attended the same school and got their "doctoring"
authority from the same source. But "Dr." Chastain says
one thing; and "Dr." Garner says the very reverse. Well,
the difference was that "Doctor" Chastain was on the
spot in a public discussion, and he had to make some ef-
fort to justify his doctrine by the Bible, but "Doctor"
Garner was in his room, with no one to disturb him, while
he prescribed his aspirins. Likely, if he changed places
with Mr. Chastian he would want to change doctrinal po-
sitions also.
But does the claim, "to speak where the Bible speaks
and to be silent where the Bible is silent," mean
absolute infallibility? Hear Mr. Garner as he rants and
raves about it:
"If the church does what it claims in the
slogan then it is infallible; if it does err even
in one point, then its slogan contains a PLAIN
FALSEHOOD. To believe that the Bible is in-
fallible, then to 'speak where it speaks and be
silent where it is silent' is to be infallible. If
this sect (known to history as Campbellites) has
an infallible church as they claim in their slogan,
it follows that EVERY MEMBER OF THEIR CHURCH MUST BE
INFALLIBLE." Page 15.
This sort of profound reasoning, which is character-
istic of the great "Doctor," puts the apostle Peter in a
tight place. He said one time: "If any man speak, let
him speak as the oracles of God." (1 Pet. 4:11) I sup-
pose that "Doctor" Garner, with all of his medical skill,
and with all of his authority to prescribe aspirins,
would not deny that "the oracles of God" simply means
"the word of God" --the Bible. Then Peter simply said
that "if any man speak, let him speak as the word of God
speaks --let him speak as the Bible speaks." And notice
that he said, "If any man speak." That simply means, "Let
every man speak as the oracles of God." "Let every man
speak as the word of God speaks." It is too bad that
"Doctor" Garner was not present when Peter wrote that
statement. He could have straightened him out on the
matter. He could have said, "Now, Pete, I know that you
are one of the apostles chosen by Jesus and that you are
inspired by the Holy Spirit, but you don't realize just
what you are saying. If you could have had a course in
the Missionary Baptist Seminary at Little Rock, Arkansas,
founded by the great Ben M. Bogard, and if you could have
obtained a 'Doctor's' degree from this non-accredited
institution, which would have given you the authority
I have--the authority to prescribe aspirins--you would
be able to see that you are suggesting ABSOLUTE IN-
FALLIBILITY for EVERY MAN IN THE CHURCH. Don't you
believe, Peter, that the oracles of God are infallible?
If you do, then to 'speak as the oracles of God' is to be
infallible. And since you tell every man to speak in this
way, you are suggesting that 'every member of the church
must be infallible.' So if the men to whom you are
writing even claim to do what you are telling them to do,
they are claiming absolute infallibility. And 'if any
local congregation has one member that is not perfect,
infallible, then their claim contains a plain false-
hood.' Be careful, Peter. You are lining up with these
'arrogant, religious bigots and persecuting zealots', who
are 'known to history as Campbellites,' constituting 'a
sect that claims a franchise on the gospel of Christ'."
Yes, it is too bad that Mr. Garner was not there to
set right the apostle Peter when he said: "If any man
speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." He could
have told him that this sort of language was calculated
to give Baptists a throbbing headache. But Peter rushed
recklessly on, according to the "Doctor's" blusterings,
and suggested the very thing that would cause the "Doc-
tor" to raise the charge of absolute infallibility for
all members of the church.
Mr. Garner might have told him also that this "idea"
did not originate with God but with an unbaptized man.
Such is his language as found in his booklet, according
to the following quotations:
"In the first pace this slogan: 'Speaking
where the Bible speaks and silent where the
Bible is silent, is a statement originated by
Thomas Campbell, a man who had not even been
baptized." (Page 14)
"Just be reminded that their slogan that
lays claim to infallibility was originated by
Thomas Campbell and not by the Lord. It was
made by Mr. Campbell and is the idea of an
uninspired, unbaptized man." (Page 2)
One might well admit that the exact expression was
framed by Thomas Campbell. Certainly, they are words
that were spoken by him. But to say that the "idea"
originated with Campbell is as far from the truth as
is most of the other statements of the deceptive "Doc-
tor." The words of the apostle Peter, which have already
been given, contain the same idea that is expressed in
the words of Thomas Campbell. The idea, therefore, did
not originate with man, but the Holy Spirit revealed it
to Peter and directed him to write it in the divine
record. I am not surprised that it causes headaches among
Baptists who do not claim to speak where the Bible
speaks. And it will take more than any aspirin yet
prescribed by the "Doctor" to bring them much relief.
The dyspeptic "Doctor," made bitter by a long spell
of nervous headache, gives expression to his acrimonious
feeling in the following elegant style:
"I ask myself,'Why do they require the
HOLY CRACKER episode every Sunday if they
are, as a church, infallible as the Scriptures?"
(Page 16)
The "Doctor" might well examine himself on other
points. He might ask himself' "How can a man with a
HOLY CHARACTER speak of the Lord's supper as 'the
HOLY CRACKER episode'?" If, as Jesus says, "from
the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh," we
can have a pretty good idea as to what is on the inside
of Mr. Garner's heart. A heart and mouth given to such
blasphemy as to call the Lord's supper "the holy cracker
episode" needs something more than a few aspirins. A
good gospel purgative that will cleanse the inner man
of his corruption and depravity is the kind of prescrip-
tion the "Doctor" sorely needs for his own malignant
malady. We would be exceedingly glad if someone should be
able to induce him to try a little of it. I feel sure it
would do him good.
The final strokes of the "Doctor's" pen, as he fin-
ishes his prescription for this aspirin, spell out the
following words:
"If you are persecuted by these conceited,
arrogant, religious bigots, stick this article un-
der their noses and let them smell of it." (Page
16)
We gladly admit that this aspirin has a "smell' all
right, but the odor is that of the infernal regions, the
smell of brimstone, indicative of the place from which
the "Doctor" got the ingredients for this potent little
pill. But the people who take their stand on the rock of
eternal truth, maliciously called "Campbellites" by Mr.
Garner, are not likely to be put to sleep by the vapors
of a dissolving aspirin that came from the lake of fire
and brimstone. Having imbibed the essence of divine truth
they will likely be immune to the "smell" of an aspirin
prescribed by a Baptist "Doctor," and the headaches
of Baptists will continue unabated.
The "Plain Forgery" Aspirin
The prescription for this particular aspirin is intro-
duced by "Doctor" Garner in the following words:
"I do not write this to insult or offend or for
the particular benefit of Campbellites themselves,
but to open the eyes of true Christians concern-
ing Campbellism and her mischievous and wicked
claim of a franchise on salvation and that one
must be a member of their particular little sect,
known to them and dubbed by them, "The church
of Christ,' or go to hell." Booklet, page 16.
I feel certain that no one who has read the first fif-
teen pages of Garner's booklet would ever decide that he
prescribed his aspirins "for the particular benefit of
Campbellites themselves." His fondest hope, of course,
was to benefit his own brethren whose splitting headaches
are produced by the arguments of "true Christians,"
dubbed "Campbellites" by Mr. Garner, as they expose the
fallacies of Baptist doctrine. But if the "Doctor" had
not written the preceding paragraph, somebody might have
decided that he intended to be insulting and offensive by
indulging in such dignified discourse and by using such
sublime sentences and lofty language as are character-
istic of the contents of his booklet. It was "mighty
thoughty" of him to include that statement so that no one
would be misled about the matter.
A paragraph under the heading, "CONCERNING RELIGIOUS
FORGERY," is presented, and Mr. Garner presents his
charge in the following fashion:
"To use the name of another for personal
profits or benefit, without due legal authorization
is called forgery. Campbellism has done this in
this century, by assuming the name of Christ,
without scriptural authorization. No local New
Testament church ever wore the name of Christ
or was named, "the church of Christ.' The name
for a local church was forged by Campbellites
about fifty years ago." Page 16.
On the next page of his booklet "Doctor" Garner
admits that "the local churches were called "the churches
of Christ" in Rom. 16:16. In view of this admission and
the New Testament statement, how can Mr. Garner con-
tend that "no local New Testament church" was ever
called "the church of Christ"? If "the local churches"
were called "the churches of Christ," then certainly "the
local church" would be "the church of Christ." Yet the
"Doctor" would have you believe that "the name for a
local church was forged by Campbellites about fifty years
ago." This shows something of the nature of the ingre-
dients that went into this "aspirin for Campbellism," for
if a plural number--local churches--were divinely called
"the churches of Christ," would that not be sufficient
scriptural authority for one local church to be referred
to by the singular number of the same expression?
The "Doctor" declares, however, that "to use the name
of another for personal profits or benefit, without due
legal authorization is called forgery." By "due legal
authorization" Mr. Garner means, as is shown in the
next sentence of the quotation, "scriptural author-
ization.' Therefore, to use the name of another for
personal benefit, without scriptural authorization, is
plain forgery. Evidently the "Doctorù" is allergic to his
own pills, for he gets a very unfavorable reaction from
them. Mr. Garner wears the name "Baptist." He evidently
wears it for "personal profits or benefit" that he hopes
to get from it. But this is a name taken from the title
given to John, the forerunner of Christ-John the Baptist.
To wear this name "without due legal authorization" is to
be guilty to plain religious forgery. Mr. Garner says so.
But does he have any "due legal authorization" to wear
this name? Does he have any "scriptural authorization"
for it? If there is any scriptural authority--any "due
legal authorization"-- for any man to wear this name in
religion today, let Mr. Garner produce it. If he cannot,
let him call in all the "Doctors" in Baptist ranks to
help him find it. On page 20 of his booklet Mr. Garner
says that "the name 'Baptist' was given in derision to
churches that were followers of the Lord, during the
protestant reformation for the first time." Since the
name "Baptist" was given "to churches," according to Mr.
Garner, "for the first time during the protestant
reformation," that was sixteen hundred years too late for
his "due legal authorization." There is not even a state-
ment anywhere in the Bible that would authorize, by any
method of teaching, any church to wear the name of
"Baptist." But "Doctor" Garner and his brethren wear it.
As they wear it "without due legal authorization," the
"Doctor" being the diagnostician, they are guilty of
"plain religious forgery." Thus you can see how this pill
reacts upon the man who prescribed it.
In an effort to explain the "MEANING OF THE TERM 'THE
CHURCHES OF CHRIST SALUTE YOU'," the author of "A Few
Aspirins For Campbellism" says:
"Romans 16:16 reads, 'The churches of Christ
salute you." This is a statement of fact. Paul
wrote this letter to the church at Rome, from
Corinth in Achaia, where there were several local
churches located. The churches of Achaia and
Macedonia were all churches that belonged to
Christ, but none of them WORE HIS NAME, OR
ASSUMED TO FORGE IT. Churches of New Testament days
were named in keeping with their localities as the
church of Galatia, Ephesus, Colosse, Corinth, seven
churches of Asia, etc., all of them belonging to God
and to Christ, but never did one of them assume to
forge the name of Christ to its congregation or any
minister or pastor presume to name any congregation by
the name 'the church of Christ'." Page 17.
This paragraph is quite revealing. If it is "a state-
ment of fact" that "Paul wrote to the churches in Rome,
from Corinth in Achaia, where there were several local
churches" and that he referred to them as "the churches
of Christ" in Achaia, why would it not also be "a state-
ment of fact" to refer to the church at Corinth, where
Paul was, as "the church of Christ" at Corinth in Achaia?
If it was a fact that " several local churches" were "the
churches of Christ" in that region, it is also a fact
that "one local church" was "the church of Christ" in the
locality. And if Paul could call the "several local
churches," as Garner admits that he did, "the churches of
Christ," without forging the name of Christ and without
being guilty of any form of presumption, then why could
not "one local church" be called "the church of Christ,"
without being guilty of forgery and presumption? It would
be interesting to hear the "Doctor" try to explain his
inconsistency on this point. Furthermore, if "several
local churches" were called "the churches of Christ" by
Paul, why does Mr. Garner say that "no local church" was
ever called "the church of Christ"? It is impossible to
apply the plural form of the expression to several of
them without applying its singular form to one of them.
But he tells us that "churches of New Testament days
were named in keeping with their localities," as the
church of Ephesus, the church of Corinth, and such like.
Yes, sometimes the locality was mentioned, but Mr. Garner
would not be willing to take the name of the location as
the name of the institution that is located there. Be-
sides, we remember that Paul referred to "the church of
God which is at Corinth." (1 Cor. 1:2) He did not always
say "the church of Corinth." And he mentioned "the church
of the Lord (Acts 20:28, R.V.) at Ephesus, and not simply
and always "the church of Ephesus." But if Mr. Garner
thinks he should name the church after its locality, why
does he not practice what he preaches? Do Mr. Garner and
his associate "Doctors" in the Baptist ranks simply refer
to their congregations as the church of Jacksonville, the
church of Henderson, and such like. Absolutely not. But
they often designate them as the Bethel Baptist Church,
the Berean Baptist Church, the Calvary Baptist Church,
the Antioch Baptist Church, the Unity Baptist Church, and
such like terms. What connection do the words, Bethel,
Berean, Calvary, Antioch, Unity and Baptist have with
their location? Not one bit in the world. You would never
get the slightest idea as to their locality by reading
such names. So they go contrary to the "Doctor's" pre-
scription. Besides, did you ever read anything in the
Bible that has the slightest resemblance to the Bethel
Baptist Church at Corinth, the Berean Baptist Church at
Ephesus, the Calvary Baptist Church at Thessalonica, or
the Antioch Baptist Church at Colosse? Neither the term
"Baptist" nor any of its qualifying terms is found in the
divine record as designations of the New Testament
church. No Baptist Church, therefore, of any type has
ever been "located" in the Book of Almighty God.
But let us listen again to the limping logic of the
great Garner:
"The term 'churches of Christ salute you'
indicated that these churches belonged to Christ
and not that they more the name. The term
'church of Christ' means the church that BE-
LONGS TO CHRIST. lust like 'the car of Smith'
means THE CAR THAT BELONGS TO SMITH.
The 'car of Smith' might be a pontiac or ford or
chevrolet by name." Page 17.
In language as I have studied it, the words Pontiac,
Ford, and Chevrolet should begin with capital letters,
but since the brilliant "Doctor" wrote the prescription,
I have just copied it as he wrote it. He tells us that
"the church
of Christ" is "just like" the other expression, "the car
of Smith." One means that the church belongs to Christ;
the other means the car belongs to Smith. But "the car of
Smith" is not the name, he says, for Smith's car may be a
"Pontiac, Ford or Chevrolet by name." So if the other is
"just like" that, then "the church of Christ" may be a
Baptist, Methodist or Presbyterian by name. Will the
"Doctor" have this? Oh, no, for in the next paragraph he
says, "I believe the Baptist Church to be 'the church of
Christ'." If the Baptist Church is "the church of
Christ," then it cannot be "just like" the "car of
Smith." To make his parallel stick, he will have to admit
that the Methodist or Presbyterian may be "the church of
Christ." He would not do this for he believes the "church
of Christ" is the Baptist Church. I don't suppose anyone
ever denied that "the church of Christ" denotes ownership
--that the church belongs to Christ. But since the New
Testament church was always called by such terms, why
would it not be better to call it what it is called in
the New Testament than to call it "Baptist Church," a
term that is never found in any sense in all the Bible.
If it is "the church of Christ," why would it be forgery
to call it what it is? It appears to me that the man
guilty of forgery is the mall that tries to forge for the
church a designation that is never mentioned in the
divine record. Can we be guilty of forgery if we call it
just what the New Testament called it? If so, why were
not the writers of the New Testament guilty of "plain
forgery" when they used such terms to describe it?
Mr. Garner undertakes to answer the question, "WHAT IS
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?" It is interesting and amusing, if
not amazing, to read what he says:
"What church today is the church of Christ,
the one that belongs to Him? I believe the Bap-
tist Church to be 'the church of Christ,' and the
local congregations 'the churches of Christ,' the
churches that BELONG TO CHRIST. Then why don't
Baptists wear the name,'the church of Christ'? you
ask. The answer is WE DO NOT WEAR THE NAME OF CHRIST
BECAUSE AS A CHURCH, AS AN INSTITUTION WE ARE NOT
MARRIED TO CHRIST! ... It is forgery for an unmarried
young lady to wear the name of
54 DISSOLVING A FEW BAPTIST ASPIRINS
one to whom she is not married. Whatever the
New Testament church should be named, one
thing is certain, and that is it should not wear
the name of Christ, which neither He nor any of
the apostles ever gave to any local congregation.
The New Testament church is referred to as the
bride of Christ, the marriage of which is to be
in the future, at the second coming of Christ.
Today the church is engaged to Christ, espoused,
and is to be married to him in the future." P. 17.
In the first place, I would have you to notice Mr.
Garner's use of the expression, "the church of Christ,"
in the universal sense. This is contrary to the general
teaching of Baptist preachers. They often say that the
word "church" is used only in the local sense--that you
can say "the churches of Christ," referring to local
congregations, but you cannot say "the church of Christ"
and mean the church universally. But "Doctor" Garner has
prescribed a new aspirin for them that may change all of
that--it is guaranteed to ease their headaches, or make
them worse. You will notice that he speaks of "the
Baptist Church" as being "the church of Christ" in
contrast with "the local congregations, the churches of
Christ." So he uses "churches of Christ" to refer to
"local congregations" but he uses "the church of Christ"
to mean "the Baptist Church" in a sense that is not
local. We shall let him and the rest of the Baptist
"Doctors" fight it out on this line. And, actually, if he
believes the Baptist Church to be the church of Christ,
he should call it that, unless he thinks he should not
call it what it is.
He tells us why the Baptist Church, which he believes
to be the church of Christ, does not wear the name of
Christ. It is "because as a church, as an institution,"
they "are not married to Christ." The marriage ceremony,
according to the "Doctor," is to take place in the future
when Christ comes. During the present age the church is
only engaged to Christ. No woman has the right, during
the period of engagement, to wear the name of her pros-
pective husband. Hence, Mr. Garner says, "It is forgery
for an unmarried young lady to wear the name of one to
whom she is not married." I would have to agree, as far
as ages of churches are concerned, that the Baptist
Church is just a "young lady," with emphasis on the word
"young." She was never heard of till sixteen hundred
years this side of Christ. No Baptist Church can be found
in the history of the world till the seventeenth century.
And every one knows she is not mentioned in the Bible.
Hence, she fits "Doctor" Garner's description-- 'an un-
married young lady."
But that does not prove that the New Testament church
is an "unmarried young lady." Paul, in Eph. 5:23, said:
"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ
is the head of the church." Now, if Christ is the head of
the church "even as" the husband is the head of the wife,
the marriage relationship does exist-Christ is the hus-
band and the church is the wife. They are married now.
Consequently, the New Testament church has the right to
wear the name of Christ now, even if the "unmarried young
lady," the Baptist Church, does not have that right.
Another thing I would like for you to notice is that
Mr. Garner reasons that it is forgery for a young lady to
wear the name of a man to whom she is not married. But
what name does the "young Baptist lady" wear? She wears
the name "Baptist." Where does she get this name ? It is
derived from the designation given to John--John the
Baptist. Therefore, one of two things must be true: The
Baptist Church is married to John, or she is guilty of
"forgery" for wearing the name of a man to whom she is
not married. I wonder which of these the "Doctor of
Aspirins" will accept. Will he say that she is married to
John? If so, then she is not "an unmarried young lady."
Furthermore, she would be married to one man and en-
gaged to another--married to John and engaged to Christ
--at the same time. (No Baptist headache will ever he
relieved by this aspirin.) If the church is married to
John now but will be married to Christ when he comes,
when will the first marriage relationship give way to
make room for the second? Will the church be forced to
divorce John, the first husband, and become a "grass
widow" that she might be married to Christ when he comes?
If the marriage is not severed before the second takes
place, there will be a case of bigamy of eternal durat-
ion--the church will have two husbands throughout
eternity, John
and Jesus. The whole thing, therefore, will be an eternal
relationship of spiritual adultery. And furthermore, be-
fore this second marriage takes place, I would like to
know what right a woman has to be engaged to a second
husband while married to a first husband. What estimate
would "Doctor" Garner place upon a young lady who would
tolerate such an arrangement? But that is the very course
he has mapped out for the church if she is married to
John now.
Very likely, then, Mr. Garner will be forced back to
his original position that the Baptist Church is not mar-
ried to John--that she is "an unmarried young lady." Then
I want to know what right she has to wear the name "Bap-
tist." Remember that Mr. Garner says,"It is forgery for
an unmarried young lady to wear the name of one to whom
she is not married." The Baptist Church--not the people
dubbed "Campbellites" by the "Doctor"--is the one, there-
fore, who is guilty of forgery. I wonder how his Baptist
brethren like the "smell" of this dissolving aspirin. In
view of Mr. Garner's claim that an unmarried lady has no
right to wear the name of a man to whom she is only
engaged (and I shall indorse that claim as legitimate), I
want to know if she has the right to wear the name of a
friend of the prospective husband during her period of
engagement. John declared that he was not the bride-
groom but "the friend of the bridegroom." (John 3:29)
Does the church, during the time she is engaged to
Christ, have a right to wear the name of his friend?
Would Mr. Garner permit his fiancee, or if he is already
married, would he have permitted his fiancee, to wear the
name of a friend of his during her engagement to him. I
wonder if, under such arrangements, the ceremony would
ever take place.
But let us look at some more of the mixed meander-
ings of "Doctor" Garner with reference to the marriage
question:
"As individuals we are now married to Christ
and should produce spiritual fruit for Him. (Rom.
7:4) But the church of Christ is not married to
Him, has no right to forge His name, as an insti-
tution. We are not warranted as individuals to
wear the name of Christ, be called Christians,
followers of Christ, BUT THE CHURCH IS
NEVER REFERRED TO AS BEING NOW
MARRIED TO CHRIST, NOR AUTHORIZED TO
BE CALLED, AS A CHURCH, BY HIS NAME
Until we are married to Christ, as a church,
it is well that we be called Baptists as a church
and Christians as individuals. To demand that
our church wear the name 'the church of Christ,'
and that before marriage, is engaging in spiritual
fornication. Baptists and others beg to be excused.
We refrain from religious forgery and such forni-
cation." Page 18.
If Baptists "beg to be excused from such fornication"
as to wear the name of Christ before they are married to
him, I wonder why they don't "beg to be excused" from
wearing the name of John. They will have to admit that
they are not "refraining" from "such fornication" or
they will have to admit that they are married to John. I
am afraid the "Doctor" will be unable to help them any
in deciding which position to take.
Yet we are told that "as individuals we are married
to Christ," but as a church we are "not married to Him."
Then it must be purely an individual relationship, and
each Christian is the "individual wife" of Christ. Con-
sequently, Christ has as many wives now as there are
Christians. If there are a million Christians in the
world, Christ has a million wives. This mould be polygamy
with a vengeance. Furthermore, if ten million individuals
have become Christians during this age, then when Jesus
comes to marry the church he will have clinging to him
ten million wives as he marches to the altar to take the
church as his bride. Then throughout eternity He will
live in spiritual adultery with ten million wives plus
one. I think the Baptists would be in much better
condition if they "beg to be excused" from swallowing
such an aspirin prescribed by "Doctor" Garner. In fact, I
doubt if an honest person among them could be forced to
swallow this aspirin after it has been dissolved so they
can actually see its contents.
The "Name Wearing" Aspirin
This is the last aspirin in "Doctor" Garner's pill box,
and it is very much like the "Plain Forgery" aspirin that
has already been dissolved. But I shall let Mr. Garner
tell
you about it as he endeavors to answer the question,
"WHAT ABOUT 'WEARING THE NAME OF CHRIST'?"
"There is a modern sect of religion that
makes 'much ado' about wearing the name of
Christ. 'Why don't you Baptists wear the name
of Christ?' they often ask. The answer is, Christ
is not our Savior's name. His name is JESUS.
(Matt. 1:21) "Thou salt call his name JESUS.'
The term 'CHRIST' is a title given our Savior.
The word 'Christ' comes from a Creek word that
means 'christened' or 'anointed.' Hence the term
'Christ' is the title of our 'anointed King' who is
yet uncrowned. We should not presume to wear
his title 'Christ' and call it 'wearing the name of
Christ.' Such is plain ignorance, unwarranted,
and unauthorized." Page 18.
While in many respects this aspirin and the one that
went before it are alike, yet they have some ingredients
that are in direct conflict with each other. In this
quotation the "Doctor" argues that "Christ" is the title
of the Savior but "Jesus" is his name. Therefore no one
is "wearing the name" of Christ when he wears his title.
Upon this point he further elaborates in the next para-
graph:
"To my knowledge there is only one religious
group that wears the 'name' of Jesus: that is a
religious order called the 'Jesuits.' The modern
demand of a few religious sectarians, who place
much stress on 'names,' is given very little respect
by thinking and sincere people. Until they learn
that Jesus never demanded that his name be worn
by his followers, and then learn that 'Christ' is
not our Savior's name, but His title, Christian
people will do well to avoid and ignore their sec-
tarian demands ... It is well to suggest that they
call themselves 'Jesusites.' This would at least be
wearing, as they demand, the NAME OF JESUS
instead of his title." Pages 18 and 19.
Thus you will see that to accept either the term
"Christ" or "Christian," according to Mr. Garner, would
not be "wearing the name of Christ." It would simply be
wearing his title. In order to wear his name we would
have to call ourselves "Jesuits" or "Jesusites. But in
his prescription for the preceding aspirin the "Doctor"
talks out of the other side of his mouth or writes with
his other
hand. You will recall that he said he believed "the
Baptist Church to be the church of Christ." Then if some
one should ask him why Baptists do not wear the name,
"the church of Christ," he states that his reply would be
that "we do not wear the name of Christ because we are
not married to Christ." Furthermore, he said, "To demand
that our church wear the name 'the church of Christ,' and
that before marriage, is engaging in spiritual fornica-
tion." (Page 18) So in this prescription for that aspirin
he said that to wear the name, "the church of Christ," is
to wear the name of Christ before marriage and makes us
guilty of "spiritual fornication" and "religious forg-
ery." Yes, those who wear the name, "the church of
Christ," are wearing the name of Christ by forgery. But
in his prescription for this aspirin he says it would not
be wearing the name of Christ at all but his title. And
even to call it "wearing the name of Christ" is an evi-
dence of "plain ignorance, unwarranted, and unauthor-
ized." But in the preceding chapter he called it "wearing
the name of Christ." Then he was guilty of "plain ignor-
ance, unwarranted, and unauthorized," according to his
own diagnosis. This is quite a confession for such a
brilliant "Doctor" to make. Some "plain ignorance" is
manifested somewhere, for the two groups of statements
are in plain conflict, and one aspirin actually cancels
the effect of the other.
But me are told by the befuddled "Doctor" that to
wear the name "Christian," derived from the title of
Christ, and to call it wearing his name is nothing but
plain ignorance. This causes me to wonder about those
who wear the title of John. If they claim to be wearing
a name when they are only wearing a title, does the same
charge of "plain ignorance" hold true? But who is doing
that? Mr. Garner and his brethren. Note what he says
about it himself:
"The term 'Baptist' like 'Christ' was first
given as a 'title.' John the Baptist was named
'John.' (John 1:6) His title was Baptist, because
he had authority and was authorized to baptize."
(John 1:31-33) Page 20.
That ought to settle it. Baptists claim to be wearing
a "name" but it is the "title" of John that they are
wearing, and in so doing, they are manifesting what the
"Doctor" calls "plain ignorance." I wonder if this will
relieve Baptist headaches. If wearing the term "Chris-
tian" is wearing a title instead of a name, then wearing
the term "Baptist" is wearing a title instead of a name.
Such is the predicament of Baptist "Doctors" when they
start prescribing aspirins to destroy "Campbellism" in an
effort to soothe the throbbing heads of their brethren.
The "Doctor of Aspirins" (His scholastic degree should
be D.A.) informs us that "the modern demand" made by a
"few religious sectarians, who place much stress on
'names,' is given very little respect by thinking and
sincere people." Then I wonder why he ever prescribed his
aspirins in the first place. Does he not think his
brethren are "thinking and sincere people"? If they are,
and if they give but "very little respect" to the "modern
demand" made by "Campbellites" to wear a scriptural name,
there was little occasion to spend his time and effort to
write his booklet. But Mr. Garner was more uneasy about
the matter than this statement would indicate. He knew
that many of brethren leave the Baptist Church, with its
unscriptural name, and take their stand with the people
who wear the name of Christ. So he wrote his book in an
effort to slow down the exodus.
The "Doctor's" logical discrimination is further re-
vealed in the following quotation:
"Those who cry so much about 'wearing the
name of Christ,' whose name is Jesus (Matt.
1:21), also teach that one can not be a Christian
unless he 'wears the name of Christ.' This being
true, one would have to be called a 'Jesuit' or a
'Jesusite' in order to be saved and this whole feud-
ing clan, who demand that one must wear the
name of Christ, ignorantly wear the 'title' of
Jesus, which is 'Christ,' then call it 'Wearing His
Name'." Page 19.
It is thus that we are again informed by the deluded
"Doctor" that those who wear the name "Christian" and
call it "wearing the name of Christ" are ignorantly wear-
ing the "title" instead of the name. If they want to wear
the name, they must call themselves "Jesuits" or "Jesus-
ites." It is also true that the term "Christ" given to
him means the "anointed." But it is likewise true that
the term "Christ" became a part of his name and is so
recognized by divine writers. And they also declare the
name "Christian" to be "the name of Christ." Let us
examine a passage and see if this is not true.
In 1 Peter 4:14-16 the apostle Peter says: "If ye be
reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the
spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their
part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is
glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or
as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other
men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let
him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this
behalf." Two expressions of this passage, one in verse 14
and the other in verse 16, are used interchangeably.
Verse 14 says,"If ye be reproached for the name of
Christ." Verse 16 says, "If any man suffer as a Christ-
ian." These two expressions mean exactly the same thing.
What Peter calls "being reproached for" in verse 14, he
calls "suffering as" in verse 16. What he calls "the name
of Christ" in one verse, he calls "a Christian" in the
other. Therefore, to "be reproached for the name of
Christ" is to "suffer as a Christian." In other words,
the man who "suffers as a Christian" is "being reproached
for the name of Christ."
Thus Peter shows that the name "Christian" is "the name
of Christ," and the man who wears the name "Christian"
is wearing "the name of Christ." It is too bad that
"Doctor" Garner was not present when Peter wrote that
passage. He could have informed him that it is "plain
ignorance" to think the name "Christian" is "the name of
Christ." But as there were no Baptist "Doctors" in those
days, Peter "ignorantly" thought that those who suffered
as a "Christian" were suffering for "the name of Christ."
However, according to Mr. Garnet, no one in the days
of the apostles ever was "reproached for the name of
Christ." For such to be possible a man would have to
"suffer as a Jesuit" or "as a Jesusite." But the Bible
never makes any reference to "suffering as a Jesuit." In
fact, the words "Jesuit" and "Jesusite" are not even
mentioned in the Bible. Can it be that no one was ever
"reproached for the name of Christ" in those days? It
must be true if we can rely upon the "Doctor's" diagnos-
is. And Peter was simply wasting his breath when he pro-
nounced a blessing upon those who were "reproached for
the name of Christ."
But let us get another statement from Mr. Garner's
booklet:
"If no one could be saved without wearing
the 'name of Jesus,' or the 'title of Christ,' which
is 'Christian,' then it would follow that there were
no Christian until A.D. 41, some eight years
after Pentecost, (Acts 11:26), where they were
'first called Christians at Antioch." Page 19.
Upon the basis of this argument Mr. Garner im-
mediately consigns to hell Peter and all of the apostles
and "the 3,000 converts at Pentecost" because the name
"Christian" had not then been given. Certainly, no one
had any responsibility to wear the name before it was
given and revealed. But for a man to refuse to wear it
after the revelation was made and the name given is an
entirely different matter. Even a man who is qualified
to prescribe aspirins ought to be able to see this.
We are further told by Mr. Garner that:
"The term Christian originated in heathen-
ism and was given in derision to those who were
followers of our Savior. The term was used only
three times in the New Testament. Acts 11:26;
Acts 2(;:28; 1 Peter 4:16. Christ never commanded
saved people, His disciples, either to wear his
name or his title, neither did His apostles." P. 20.
That "the term Christian originated in heathenism"
is another inaccurate idea that "originated" in the be-
fuddled brain of a deluded "Doctor." In Acts 11:26 it is
said, "The disciples were called Christians first at
Antioch." The words "were called" are from the Greek
"chrematizo," which means, according to Greek lexicons, a
"divine calling." There Luke said, "The disciples were
divinely called Christians first at Antioch." Since they
were "divinely called" Christians, I know the term did
not originate in heathenism. Furthermore, Isaiah prophes-
ied of "a new name" to be given after "the Gentiles"
would see "God's righteousness" that would be given by
"the mouth of the Lord." (Isa. 62:2) The name "Christian"
was given at the right time--the Gentiles were converted
to God's righteousness in the preceding chapter, it was a
"new name," for this was the first time it was ever used,
and it was given by "the mouth of the Lord," for they
"were divinely called Christians." Mr. Garner, therefore,
is as far from the truth of the matter as is possible for
one to be.
Is it true that none of the apostles ever commanded
saved people to wear this name? Peter told them to
"glorify God in this name." (1 Pet. 4:16, Revised Ver-
sion) Could they obey this injunction without wearing the
name? How would the Lord's disciples "suffer as a Christ-
ian" and "glorify God in this name" if they did not wear
it?
It is true that the name "Christian" occurs only three
times in the Bible, but one time the disciples "were
called" that by divine authority, another time Paul
"almost persuaded" Agrippa to become that, and the third
time the Lord's people mere told to "glorify God in this
name." How many times must the Lord say a thing to make
the "Doctor" believe it? And in this connection I wonder
how many times the name "Baptist" was ever applied to the
disciples of Christ. Do you ever read, "The disciples
were called Baptists at Antioch"? Or did any apostle
"almost persuade" any man to "become a Baptist"? Or were
the Lord's people ever told to "glorify God in the name
Baptist"? There are no such statements on record, but the
"Doctor" has no scruples against wearing that name. How-
ever, he admits there is no scriptural authority for his
use of this term, for he says on this same page of his
booklet, "The name 'Baptist' was given in derision to
churches that were followers of the Lord, during the
protestant reformation for the first time." He also says,
"The term 'Christian' was applied to individual followers
of Christ A.D. 41, in derision for the first time. The
term: 'Baptist' was popularized during the protestant
reformation." Thus he declares that the term "Christian"
was applied to the followers of Christ sixteen hundred
years before the term "Baptist" was. "Thanks a million,"
Mr. Garner.
There is still something in this paragraph of Mr.
Garner's that I want you to see:
"Those he (John) baptized, by God's com-
mand, authority, became Baptists, just as those
who accepted Christ and became his followers
were Christians." Page 20.
It is amazing how a Baptist "Doctor" will make
admissions. He distinguishes between those who became
Baptists and those who became Christians. Those who
accepted John, or were baptized by him, "became Bap-
tists," according to Mr. Garner. But those who "accepted
Christ and became his followers" became Christians.
Therefore a "Christian" is one who becomes a follower of
Christ, or one who accepts Christ; a "Baptist" is one who
becomes a follower of John, or one who accepts John. A
man does not become a Baptist by accepting Christ---a
Baptist is not a follower of Christ. If he accepts Christ
and becomes his follower, he is a Christian. He must
accept something else and become a follower of someone
else to become a Baptist. Well, I am content to be "a
follower of Christ" and wear the name "Christian." Mr.
Garner can be a "Baptist" if he wants to. Those who are
content to follow Christ "beg to be excused."
The nest paragraph of Mr. Garner's booklet is given
to an effort to Drove there mere "BAPTISTS AND BAP-
TIST CHURCHES IN EVERY CENTURY." But he has himself
blocked before he starts, for he has already admitted
that "churches" were called "Baptist" for "the first
time" during "the protestant reformation." So he knocks
himself out of about sixteen centuries before he gets
started. He appeals to Alexander Campbell, who, as
recorded in the Campbell-McCalla Debate contended that
"the sentiments of Baptists and their practice of baptism
have had a continued chain of advocates" in every century
"from the apostolic age to the present time." And also to
his hook on baptism that "The Baptist denomination in all
ages and in all countries has been, as a body, the con-
stant asserters of the rights of man and the liberty of
conscience." But Mr. Garner's application of these
quotations from Mr. Campbell is a base misrepresentation
of Campbell's position. Campbell had no such idea that
"the Baptist Church" as now exist, and to which Garner
belongs, could trace its way back to the apostolic age.
When Campbell used the term "Baptist" he simply meant
people who
held to believers' baptism by immersion. Any one who
held to the baptism of believers and practiced immersion
Mr. Campbell listed among those whom he called "Bap-
tists." This is shown in a statement from Campbell, from
Ford's Repository, published in the Tennessee Baptist of
December 22, 1883, and republished in Orthodox Baptist
Searchlight, August 25, 1943. In this document Mr. Camp-
bell said, "The Baptists can trace their origin to apos-
tolic times and produce unequivocal testimony of their
existence in every century down to the present time." But
whom did he mean by "Baptists"? He goes right on to show
beyond any doubt. He said he referred to those who "re-
quire faith and repentance, as previous to baptism, and
to immerse the subject professing faith and repentance in
water." Then he said, "All that believe and practice in
this way are Baptists; and all that do not are not Bap-
tists. I now proceed to show that the Baptists have ex-
isted in every century from the Christian era to the
present day." Any one who can read this statement from
Campbell and then claim that Campbell means the "Baptist
Church" as exists today would not be immune to making
any sort of claim. He simply referred to men who taught
believer's immersion, regardless of the church they might
be members of. The "Doctor" loses his witness. Further-
more, Campbell's Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 5, No. 9,
1841, carries the statement, "The Baptists, as now dis-
tinguished from other protestant parties, began since the
Protestant Reformation... From this document and its
history we can give to the Baptist denomination a habita-
tion and a name two hundred years old." Campbell's
statement thus agrees with other men who have spoken--
that the Baptist Church, as it is now existing, began
about the seventeenth century and now would be a little
more than three hundred years old. But Mr. Garner's kind
can't begin to go back that far.
The last fragment of the final aspirin prescribed by
"Doctor" Garner now comes up for dissolution. He refers
to "THE GREATEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED BEFORE CHRIST." He
quotes the language of Jesus, "Among them that are born
of women there hath not risen a greater than John the
Baptist." Then he refers to Noah, Abraham, Moses, and
Solomon as great men, but he says:
"John the Baptist was the greatest man, in
the estimation of our Lord, who had ever lived
on the earth in 4,000 years of history." Page 21.
This shows how far a Baptist "Doctor" will go in order
to try to give importance to his "Baptist" name. Jesus
did not say that John the Baptist "was the greatest man
who had ever lived" prior to his time. Mr. Garner mis-
represented the words of Jesus, just as he did the words
of Campbell, and as nearly all others with which he
deals. To say what Garner attributed to him, Jesus would
have to say, "There hath not risen one as great as John."
But Jesus did not say "none as great as John" had ever
risen, but "none greater." This meant there were others
just as great, but none that were greater. This does not
make John "the greatest man" who had "ever lived on the
earth in 4,000 years of history." Mr. Garner was either
ignorant or dishonest, as he has said about others, when
he made that statement. If he was ignorant, it would not
be safe to follow him as a leader; if he was dishonest,
he is totally unworthy to occupy the position of leader
among his brethren.
The aspirin box is now empty, the aspirins are all dis-
solved, Baptist headaches are unrelieved, the aspirins
are too bitter to be swallowed now, and his suffering
brethren are sorely in need of a better physician than
"Doctor" Garner proved himself to be, while the church
of Christ, dubbed "Campbellites" by Mr. Garner, standing
on the undying principles of eternal truth, goes marching
triumphantly on to greater victories for the Lord.
W. CURTIS PORTER
P. O. Box 195
Monette, Arkansas
|
Lyrics & Chord Charts
Children's NT Studies
