Is It The Same Old Slander
Reprinted from The Carolina Messenger
David R. Pharr

It is not a new thing for those who uphold truth to be misrepresented and even slandered. Paul's defense of justification by the gospel of grace was misrepresented. He protested that his teaching was not: ". . . (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come?" (Rom. 3:8). In our own time enemies of the truth have—either wittingly or unwittingly—perverted our position by false statements. One of the most unfair slanders is that we believe in "water salvation," or that we believe in baptism as a meritorious work. It is frustratingly sad that such charges must be answered when they come from uninformed (or even malicious) people outside the church. It is all the more sad when the misrepresentation comes, as they sometimes have, from within the body.

The July Christian Chronicle carried an interview with Max Lucado ("A Conversation with Max Lucado"). Interviewer Scott LaMascus reminds of Lucado's influence in various circles and then explains:

"Yet Lucado's name is absent from any lectureships and publications among churches of Christ. Why? . . . Perhaps it's envy. Perhaps fear. Some say he doesn't teach baptism correctly."

If indeed any envy him over his ability and publishing success, they ought to repent. That some might fear his influence is justified, because there is evidence that "he doesn't teach baptism correctly."

This is a notion of dispensationalism and the language of sensationalism.

In naming some things which he believes, brother Lucado includes "the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and his imminent return" (emphasis added). Though we do not know what he intended, reference to Christ's return as "imminent" is usually understood as meaning in the very near future. This is a notion of dispen‑sationalism and the language of sensa‑tionalism. Many popular denominational preachers assert that there are signs to indicate the second coming is imminent. There is no Bible basis for the signs they imagine, and we trust our brother knows this (see Matt. 24:36, 44; I Thess. 5:1‑3; et al).

As mentioned by the interviewer, it is his position on baptism that has especially concerned so many of us. By now his infamous radio remarks in which he denies the necessity of baptism are widely known. In appealing for sinners to accept the invitation, he said all they needed to do to pray and ask God to accept them. He then compounded the error by saying:

I want to encourage you to find a church. I want to encourage you to be baptized. I want to encourage you to read your Bible. But I don't want you to do any of that so you will be saved. I want you to do all of that because you are saved . . . (Radio program, 1996).

The Chronicle interview may be an effort for him to redeem his image. His explanations in the interview are carefully worded and many of his points are well stated. However, while we do not want to infer anything he did not mean to imply, it would have been good if he had been more forthright in taking a stand for what is clearly Bible truth. He says correctly, "I believe that baptism is essential for obedience." But the question is, does he believe it is essential obedience for the forgiveness of sins.

The interviewer (whether intentionally or unintentionally) implies an erroneous concept by asking, "Does accepting a Christian before baptism pose difficulties in teaching baptism (emphasis added, DRP)?" Does he mean to imply that the Bible admits of any as Christians who have not been baptized? We would have thought the staff of the Chronicle would have avoided such a slip.

Lucado, however, says nothing to correct the implied error. Instead he cites a "position paper" which is given to "prospective members" to explain that "once a person admits sin and trusts Christ for salvation, a step must be taken to proclaim to heaven and earth that he/she is a follower of Christ. Baptism is that step." Unless there are clear explanations otherwise, such a statement may be sufficiently inexplicit to allow one to believe he is saved before baptism. I much favor the wording of God's inspired "position paper," that demands baptism "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).

To his credit, he does say that "Scripture provides us no example of an unbaptized heaven‑bound soul." In the context of the Christian age, that is a correct and very significant statement. It ought to be so declared often, giving texts to affirm it. What is troubling, however, that he tries to counter the force of his own statement with the tired old argument that the thief on the cross is an exception. Here is his full statement:

With the exception of the thief on the cross, Scripture provides us no example of an unbaptized heaven‑bound soul. "The thief, however, is a wonderful exception. His conversion forces us to trust the work of Christ and not the work of baptism. . . .

This is the same argument made by Baptists and others. When faced with the plain truth of passages such as Mark 16:16, they claim the thief as an exception. If Lucado had to defend Bible teaching on baptism against such teachers, this very statement would be turned against him.

Bible students realize that the thief is not an exception, that is, not an exception to the New Testament requirement of baptism. His encounter with Jesus took place before Christ's death and before the gospel requirement of baptism in the name of Christ became of force (Heb. 9:16‑17).

If we want to name exceptions among those who were saved prior to the inauguration of the New Testament system, we need not limit it to the thief. Perhaps our brother spoke without thinking when he ignored the cases of all the worthies of the ages past. The fact is, however, that no example prior to Pentecost can successfully contradict what was preached on Pentecost. (See Luke 24:46f.)

He says, "His [thief] conversion forces us to trust the work of Christ and not the work of baptism." Earlier in the interview he had said, "At the same time I strongly resist any effort to trust the act of baptism to save." No scripturally sensitive person would disagree. We all know that "in the end it is Christ who saves." But it does not require the case of the thief to teach us this.

What is especially disturbing is that this strong affirmation that it is Christ that saves and not the "act of baptism" is in response to the following question in the interview: "How is this vision of baptism different than how baptism has been used by our movement?" Are we to infer that in "our movement" brethren have trusted the act of baptism instead of Christ? That is the very slander that so often circulated against the church. Such a charge parallels the ridiculous accusation that we have not preached grace. No doubt some few have been so scripturally ignorant that they thought to trust baptism instead of trusting the Savior, but it is a slander against faithful men of God to suggest that they have ever taught people to trust the act of baptism. Such maligning of good men plays well among the denominations and among compromising brethren.

Back to Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword