Leroy Garrett, Alexander Campbell: Saved by Faith?

No. Leroy Garrett: Alexander Campbell said that "No relation can be changed by believing, apart from the acts to which that belief, or faith, induces us" Martin Luther said the same thing, quoted below. I will shortly add direct quotes from the Christian Baptists and the Millennial Harbinger-- with honest links -- so you can judge Leroy's rewriting of the Bible and Restoration history.

It is popular Anti-ism to claim that the Church of Christ invented all of the false teachings.  Therefore, we will show from the Bible and historical scholars that the Campbells followed what had always been taught but was being twisted by frontier evangelists out on the prowl.

See the somewhat arrogant proposal of "union" with what was claimed to be the "ugly ducklings" and Alexander Campbell's absolute denial that there could EVER be any union with the "Christians." Of course, Leroy Garrett and his dupes propose exactly what Alexander Campbell denounced:
Having now attended to all the reasonings of our friend Archippus, we shall hear him assign what reasons he has to offer why sentence of heresy should not now be passed upon him. EDITOR.

Barton W. Stone led a group of Presbyterians to seek physical demonstrations that the Spirit was confirming that they had been elected; such proofs were hard to come by among the Calvinists.  His group called the Christian Church established an organization and a plan to ordain preachers to establish congregations. These were quite charismatic.  At the same time others such as Thomas and Alexander Campbell worked as Reformed Baptists but taught what none of the denominations would accept about the church, baptism and church organization.  Because both groups were popular and Campbell's views were sweeping out Baptists preachers to the point that he was forced out, Barton W. Stone claiming priority, proposed a merget with the Reformers but COULD not "join" until the Christian's views were adopted.


Further Fodder

It Was Barton W. Stone Who wanted to UNITE all of the groups.
The Christian Messenger 1826 the Family of God MUST be the CHRISTIAN CHURCH--not disciples
Also notes and approved of 60 Methodist preacers from DESECTING the Methodists

Objections to Christian Unity Dec 1826

Listing some important doctrints which could NOT be fellowshipped. This would included teaching ANY of the views of the Trinity which would disfellowship the East wing of the Church of Christ and the Christian Churches.

He had sected out of the Presbyterians and applauded some Methodists Preachers for splitting:

With much pleasure and profit, we have lately perused a work recently published, entitled, "An apology for withdrawing from the Methodist Episcopal Church," by J. & J. Gregg, of Indiana

Objections to Christian union II

Believed that he was leading the church out of the wilderness after 1260 years of Catholics and ALL protestants.

Again insisted that everyone unite under the title CHRISTIAN

In 1831 Without invitation offered UNION between the Christian Church and the Disciples.

Cound not fellowship the Disciples
        as long as the Disciples refused to fellowship the UNBAPTIZED
        and unless they used the name Christian Church instead of Disciples of Christ.

Earlier under Archippus the Christian Messenger had promoted the notion of TWO GOSPELS claiming that the Gentiles were never commanded to be baptized. He was forced by events to claim that he always believed in baptism. Therefore, Garrett is a two centuries behind to promote the Stone-Campbell Movement.

In the Lunenburg Correspondence: 

1. Let me ask, in the first place, what could mean all that we have written upon the union of Christians on apostolic grounds, had we taught that all Christians in the world were already united in our own community?

2. And in the second place, why should we so often have quoted and applied to apostate Christendom what the Spirit saith to saints in Babylon--"Come out of her, my people, that you partake not of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues"--had we imagined that the Lord had no people beyond the pale of our communion!

3. But let him that yet doubts, read the following passages from the Christian Baptist, April, 1825:--"I have no idea of seeing, nor wish to see, the sects unite in one grand army. This would be dangerous to our liberties and laws. For this the Saviour did not pray. It is only the disciples dispersed among them that reason and benevolence would call out of them, "&c. &c. This looks very like our present opinion of Christians among the sects!!! 2d ed. Bethany, p. 85.

4. Again, speaking of purity of speech in order to the union of Christians, we say, "None of you [Christians] have ever yet attempted to show how Christians can be united on your principles. You have often showed how they may be divided, and how each party may hold its own, but while you pray for the visible unity of the disciples, and advocate their visible disunity, we cannot understand you." March, 1827, vol. 4.

The Stoneite views were rejected and the Disciples virtually took over. That does not stop modern agents such as Leroy Garrett and a few disciples from trying to shame churches of Christ into going beyond what the Christian Churches or Churches of Christ ever believed. Churches of Christ would have to IMPOSE musical instruments and REJECT the clear Biblical and historical view that Christ choose water baptism as the time and place to regenerate their spirit by washing away their sins. It is easy to quote the real historic literature to prove that Leroy Garrett is a selective picker of proofs. Therefore, in the interest of honesty we will direct you to the REAL Alexander Campbell's views.

DENYING BAPTISM AS A STONEITE REVIVAL IS A LIE.

Here is the HERESY of Leroy Garrett's invention of the Stone-Campbell Movement published by Stone

Our Review of No. 4 (April 1831). Gentile Baptism, by Archippus (James Fishback), pp. 156-159. From Christian Messenger. 

When these subjects are fully understood, all the difficulties that now seem to present themselves will disappear.

In the next number of the Messenger, I will adduce my proof before its readers, 
        that the New Testament does not authorise the belief,
        that the sins of the Gentiles are remitted in baptism at all.

In the mean time I hope your readers will examine the scriptures with honest and untiring care, by reading the Old and the New Testament, so as to be able to satisfy themselves truly and scripturally, in reference to the subjects on which I have propounded the above questions.

Archippus James Fishback Speaking for Barton W. Stone denies Baptism is for the Gentiles.
Archippus, Fishback, Stone complain that Campbell has misrepresented them.
Alexander Campbell proves from their statement that he was not lying.

On the other hand, Barton W. Stone speaking for himself in 1840--after having to confess that he always believed that baptism was FOR the remission of sins but didn't preach it because it "chilled" the audience. All of the charismatic derangement of preaching and singing invented to try to create proof that one was predestinated failed to work especially among the more literate of North Alabama.  However, when they began to preach baptism the "mothers" much smarter than the preachers and others were baptized in masses and the  hysteria of uncertainty faded away. The Stone preachers became Gospel preachers. 

B E T H A N Y, VA. OCTOBER, 1840. MH Vol IV.NoX

ATONEMENT--No. IV. Barton W. Stone
2. Another design of the death of Jesus was to bring in and establish the New Testament, or to bring in everlasting righteousness to all the nations of the world. Gal. iii. 8-14. "Christ has redeemed us (Jews) from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, (by dying on the cross)--That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Now the blessing of Abraham was the gospel, preached to him 430 years before the law; which gospel is, that "in thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."

Before his death he forbade his disciples to preach the gospel to the Gentiles; but after his death and resurrection he gave them a new commission--to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Now "where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force when men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Heb. ix. 16, 17. A man may make his last Will and Testament years before his decease, in which he bequeaths certain portions of his estate to his children; but they have no right to the bequests while the father lives; but as soon as he, the testator dies, every legatee has a full right to the bequeathed inheritance.

So while Jesus the testator lived, the blessings bequeathed in his last Will and Testament to the Gentiles could not be given to them; but after he died every creature of the human family has a right to all the blessings of the everlasting covenant. But, alas! how many, like Esau, sell [467]  their birth-right to such a rich inheritance for one morsel of vanity! Yet let all know that the New Testament is dedicated by blood, and now in full force.
The Only Spiritual Covenant was made by God in Christ to Abraham long before the Law upon which the Jews depended.  The Jews and Gentiles were under the same direct commandment: the Great Commission was to ALL NATION.

Here is the way Jesus Christ disposes of His propherty.  

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

A. Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
B
. but he that believeth not shall be damned. 

Pistis , persuasion of a thing, confidence, assurance, Faith GIVES CREDIT TO CHRIST
b. of things, credence, credit, “tan p. smikran par' emoig' ekheiE.El.737 (lyr.); “pistin ta toiauta ekhei tinaArist.EN1179a17; “p. labeinPlb.1.35.4.
b. position of trust or trusteeship, en pistei klēronomos apoleiphtheis left in trust, as guardian, Plu.Cic.41, cf. 2c supr.; “en pistei ōn basileiIG22.646.11.
Believeth
or Pistis is the opposite of Apistos:

Apisteo (g569) means to be unbelieving, meaning to disobey
Apistos
(g571) disbelieving, i.e. without Christian faith, a heathen, untrustworthy (person), faithless, infidel.

Pist-euô A. pepisteukein Act.Ap.14.23 : ( [pistis] ) :--trust, put faith in, rely on a person, thing, or statement, tini Hdt.1.24; tôi logôi Id.2.118

2. comply, OPPOSITE to APISTEO 

Those who COMPLY NOT 

apistos , on,

I. Pass., not to be trusted, and so:
1. of persons and their acts, not trusty, faithless
II. Act., mistrustful, incredulous, suspicious,
b. in NT, unbelieving, 1 Ep.Cor.6.6, al.
2. disobedient, disloyal, S.Fr. 627: c. gen., A.Th.876; ekhein apiston . . anarkhian polei, i.e. anarkhian ekhein apeithousan polei, ib.1035, cf. E.IT1476.
2. Act., distrustfully, suspiciously, Th.3.83; “a. tina diatheinaiD.20.22.
b. treacherously, Ph.1.516.

apist-eō
, fut. Pass.
II. = apeitheō, disobey,tiniHdt.6.108, freq.in Trag.and Pl., A.Pr.640, S.Ant.381 (lyr.), Tr.1183, 1224, Pl.Ap.29c, al.: abs., to be disobedient, tois apistousin tade in these things, S.Ant.219, cf. 656; ēn d' apistōsi but if they refuse to comply, E.Supp.389, cf. Pl.Lg.941c.
2. to be faithless,ei hēmeis apistoumen, ekeinos pistos menei2 Ep.Tim. 2.13.
4. abs., to be incredulous, Hdt.8.94, cf. Ev.Marc.16.16, etc.; “naphe kai memnas' apisteinEpich.250; “epi tois legomenoisPh.2.92.
Hdt. 8.94  They reckon the affair to involve the gods because when the boat came near the ships, the people on the boat said,“Adeimantus, you have turned your ships to flight and betrayed the Hellenes, but they are overcoming their enemies to the fulfillment of their prayers for victory.” Adeimantus did not believe them when they said this, so they spoke again, saying that they could be taken as hostages and killed if the Hellenes were not seen to be victorious. [4] So he and the others turned their ships around and came to the fleet, but it was all over. The Athenians spread this rumor about them, but the Corinthians do not agree at all, and they consider themselves to have been among the foremost in the battle. The rest of Hellas bears them witness.

Apistia
 
A. unbelief, distrust, pisteis . . dmōs kai apistiai ōlesan andras beliefs and disbeliefs, Hes.Op.372; “pistei khrēmat' olessa, apistiē d' esaōsa
II. want of faith, faithlessness,thnēskei de pistis blastanei d' a.S.OC611; treachery, And.3.2, X.An.2.5.21; “blepein apistianEup.309.

Hes. WD 372 Let the wage promised to a friend be fixed; even with your brother smile—and get a witness; for trust and mistrust alike ruin men. Do not let a flaunting woman coax and cozen and deceive you: she is after your barn. The man who trusts womankind trusts deceivers.

apeith-eō , Att. form of api^theō (though even Trag. preferred apisteō, q.v. 11),

A. to be disobedient, refuse compliance, A.Ag.1049; opp. peithomai, Pl.Phdr.271b: freq. c. dat., disobey,ouk apeithēsas theōE.Or.31; “a. hama nomō kai theōPl.Lg.741d, etc.; ta megala a. tini in great matters, Id.R.538b; a. tais enekhurasiais not to abide by them, Id.Lg.949d: later c. gen., “psaphismatosGDI3705.111 (Cos); “entolōnLXXJo.5.6.
2. of animals, X.Cyr. 7.5.62; of ships, “tois oiaxin a.D.S.13.46.
3. of a woman, refuse compliance,

To disannul that covenent has the same meaning as BELIEVETH NOT which means to comply not with the association Jesus set up as an article of faith:

Athet-eô (A. set at naught a treaty, promise, etc., “pistinPlb. 8.36.5; “thusianLXX 1 Ki.2.17; “diathēkēnEp.Gal.3.15; “theon1 Ep.Thess. 4.8;

2. c.dat., refuse one's assent,tois hupo Timaiou eirēmenoisPlb.12.14.6.
3. deal treacherously with, break faith with , “tinaPlb.9.36.10, LXX Is.1.2, Ev.Marc.6.26; “eis tinaLXX 3 Ki.12.19; “en Israēl4 Ki.1.1: abs., IG12(5).129 (Paros).

But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. Heb 6:8

Sophocles, Trachiniae 1221
You know her. Just this is the command that I impose upon you, my son: when I am dead, if you wish to show your piety by remembrance of your oath to your father,
        make this woman your wife and do not disobey [apistēsēs] your father. [1225]
Let no other but you take her who has lain close at my side. You, my son, make that marriage-bond your own.
        Obey [
peithō]; for although you were obedient  [Pisteuo]; in great affairs,
       your disobedience [apistein] in small ones cancels the gratitude already won.

peithō
A. Act., prevail upon, persuade, usu. by fair means, I persuade myself, am persuaded, believe,
2. peithesthai tini listen to one, obey him, I

Apisteo I. disbelieve, distrust,
II. = apeitheô, disobey, but if they refuse to comply, to be faithless.


Only those who OBEYED that form of teaching are THEN FREE FROM SIN.  Only THEY can serve Jesus Christ in an acceptable way.
Titus 2:11 For the [1] grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Titus 2:12
[2] Teaching us that,
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
[3] denying ungodliness and worldly lusts,
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
[4] we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Titus 2:14
[5] Who gave himself for us,
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them Repent,
[6] that he might redeem us from all iniquity, [Lawlesness]
      Lutron redeem, Luo lavo , cleanse or wash, bathe,
      lave. 
louôpurify, tina ek tôn hamartiôn  
Col. 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood,
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins,  
Redemption or Remission happens ONLY after BAPTISM
even the forgiveness of sins:
        [7] and purify unto himself a peculiar people,
                zealous of good works.
and ye shall receive the gift of A holy spirit

THOSE WHO FIGHT BAPTISM REJECT GRACE: THAT FORM OF DOCTRINE (BAPTISM) IS A TUPOS WHICH MEANS INSTEAD OF. BAPTISM IS SOMETHING YOU CAN OBEY INSTEAD OF DYING FOR YOUR OWN SINS AND BE ETERNALLY LOST. THAT IS HOW PAUL DEFINES THE ONLY GRACE YOU ARE GOING TO GET.

Of course, anyone who had read Christ in Isaiah or the Great Commission could believe that.

So, beware that anyone promoting Leroy Garrett is promoting something that almost no Church of Christ or Christian Church would accept IF they knew what they were buying.

Garrett, in his bulletin, mentions his 1960 visit to ACU in company with Carl Ketcherside. They went to the campus, according to Garrett's report, to hold underground meetings with the students and an occasional faculty member.

See the Stone Campbell "unity" movement debunked as POOR HISTORY.
See Leroy Garrett on the Restoration Movement
See the Stone Campbell Movement as new SECTARIANS.
See how Max Lucado follows the leader in distorting Campbell....And Baptism JUST a pledge of salvation by Faith Only

Jesus said that without being born AGAIN of Water and Spirit or Water and the Word you CANNOT, SHALL NOT enter into His kingdom or rule which is the Ekklesia or Christian synagogue or school of the Bible. 

The seven "spirits" of Isaiah 11:1-4 which would rest on the BRANCH are all related to forms of spiritual knowledge. Jesus said "My Words are Spirit and Life." Therefore, you might join a venue for Rock and Roll peddled as "worship" but Jesus Christ WILL NOT be your free-of-charge Teacher until He washes your spirit or mind. Only then do you have access to the seven spirits represented by the Menorah or Candlestick which gave LIGHT to the Holy Place along with the table of bread and the incense altar. Each Christian "priest" must look into the Most Holy Place with their own prayers. Then, you can enter into the Most Holy Place to meet God. Jesus said that the ONLY new PLACE is the human spirit as it gives heed to the Spirit of Truth through the Word. Don't believe the lie that "musical teams" lead you into the presence of God: that makes them claim to be God standing in the Holy Place. Not in the vilest pagan temple could singers and musicians enter into the holy precincts on the penalty of death. Don't follow people making "Christianity" viler than paganism. If you are part of the 5 out of 13,000 congregations then you have become a laughing stock just like the musical idolatrs at Mount Sinai which forfeited and continues to forfeit the Covenant of Grace.

People who refute this have a "spirit" which intends to hurt you real bad.

On the one hand, Alexander Campbell is denounced for teaching baptismal regeneration. On this hand, we have Alexander Campbell claiming (?) that we are saved by faith. Our review or other quotations in Black and blue as we review Leroy Garrett on baptism for remission of sins. When large bands of people believe what is not true we are called upon to set the record straight.

Whatever Alexander Campbell might have said at one time must be understood by what he ultimately believed. For instance, Baptists claim Alexander Campbell as their own. However, Campbell claimed that his views changed as he saw the Biblical church unfold. Click for his Baptist views.

BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS -- IN A SENSE

Leroy Garrett: Our people in Churches of Christ and in the Restoration Movement generally have always emphasized Acts 2:38 as teaching that baptism is for the remission of sins. It is, after all, a straightforward passage: "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
All of the Bible and most recorded history including those claimed to preach "faith only."  No one ever said that baptism does not save without also saying "without faith."  Eis is translated

Against -- 25 times
Among -- 16 times
At -- 20 times
Concerning -- 5 times
For -- 91 times
In -- 131 times
Into -- 571 times
That -- 30 times
On -- 57 times
To -- 282 times
Toward -- 32 times
Unto -- 208 times
Upon -- 25 times
BECAUSE OF: never in recorded history.

No credible theologian denies that EIS means INTO or IN ORDER that:
As to the propriety of my rendering eis INTO, in the commission, I discovered yesterday in the 4th volume of Dr. Dwight's Theology, page 318, that even this learned writer vindicates the same rendering, and has used almost my own reasoning to prove that all persons should be immersed into, and not in the name, &c. This only by the way. [See my note on this passage, New Test. 2d ed. p. 452. Alexander Campbell

Alexander Campbell states: "The preposition [FOR] "eis" here means in order to - in order to the remission of sins." (Campbell, Walker debate, 1823 p.124)

Justin Martyr Chapter LXI.-Christian Baptism.

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 127 Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all.

And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; 128 he thus speaks:

"Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet,

I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." 129

Well, not too straighforward for people to claim, as Leroy apparently believes, that "for" means "because of." That is, we are baptized because we are already saved by faith only. This was the UNIVERSAL understanding of baptism as proven by the Church Fathers until Zwingli invented FAITH ONLY in the year 1525. Zwingli claimed that NONE OF THE DOCTORS who lived before him (B.Z.) had ever understood "faith only." Martin Luther who used the term Sola Fide agreed that Zwingli INVENTED the idea and repudiated it. John Calvin calls the idea INSANE.
Martin Luther
John Calvin
And EVERYONE contrary to the untruth about churches of Christ.
Leroy Garrett: But we have had some difficulty in harmonizing this verse with other equally clear passages, such as "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).
No, we absolutely had no trouble. Only people who hate baptism have trouble. Apparently Lydia's heart was opened when she listened to Paul's message and the RESULT was that she was baptized. Only AFTERWARD is she called a BELIEVER.

THE CONVERSION OF LYDIA

Can any person remove sins from their soul which they cannot even see? Of course not. It is the gift of God. Paul has been sent out to preach the gospel and has specificially been called into Macedonia through a vision. The "man" turned out to be a "woman" who was a God-seeker whom God does not dissapoint.

And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. Acts 16:12

And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. Acts 16:13

Paul MINISTERED the SPIRIT when he spoke the WORD to people:

And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God,

heard us:
whose heart the Lord opened

Paul didn't open her WOMB to give Birth. The other meaning is that Paul

expounded or preached the gospel to her. This is the ONLY way to open hearts outside of a somewhat distorted Calvinism?

Dianoigo (g1272) dee-an-oy'-go; from 1223 and 455; to open thoroughly,

LITERALLY as a first-born or

FIGURATIVE to expound: - open.

that she attended to Paul

Prosecho (g4337) pros-ekh'-o; to hold the mind (3563 towards, i.e. pay attention to, be cautious about, apply oneself to, adhere to

Jesus showed how God opens the heart:

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? Lu.24:32

Calvin though fanatic those who thought that God produced faith apart from the Word or that the Spirit taught apart from the Word.

If Lydia was saved by a supernatural act then she was saved before the Lord opened her heart by Paul's speaking to her:

unto the things which were spoken of Paul. Acts 16:14

And when she was baptized... (Acts 16:15)

One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. Acts 16:14LNIV

And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. Acts 14:27

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Acts 10:17 

Paul commanded Lydia to do something; Lydia adhered to that command; Lydia was baptized.

Remember, that we saw above that Jesus created spiritual "heart burn" when He opened the Scriptures to them by preaching the gospel. Now, Lydia's heart is opened in the same way.

Preaching the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus does not call for any action whatsoever: it is just the statement of facts.

  1. God opened Lydia's heard by having Paul preach the gospel to her.
  2. As a result, Lydia applied herself to, or adhered to what Paul told her to do.
  3. What did Lydia do? "And when she was baptized"
  4. Her applying herself to or adhering to the teaching by being baptized proves that Paul preached baptism. 
  5. What was Lydia's first question? "If you have judged me faithful."
  6. How had she been faithful? She was trustworthy because of her obedience to what Paul told her to do!

When Paul preached the gospel he was obedient to Jesus in Mark 16:16 and commanded her to be baptized. She was faithful because she attended to what Paul told her to do and she "did not reject the counsel of God for her life" -- she honored God by being baptized.

To attend to Paul's preaching means more than just listening: it means to become an adherent to his gospel teaching. Attend is:

Prosecho (g4337) pros-ekh'-o; from 4314 and 2192; (fig.) to hold the mind (3563 impl.) towards, i.e. pay attention to, be cautious about, apply oneself to, adhere to: - (give) attend (-ance, - ance at, -ance to, unto), beware, be given to, give (take) heed (to, unto) have regard.

And said unto them, Ye men of Israel,
       
take heed to yourselves
       
what ye intend to do as touching these men. Acts 5:35

Lydia took heed to what Paul told her to do and she was baptized.

And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. Acts 16:15 Only then could Paul judge Lydia as faithful to the command of the Great Commission by being baptized.

LOOKING AT THE CONTEXT

Acts 16:16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer,
        a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us,
        which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

Acts 16:17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.  

G4436 Puthōn poo'-thone From Puthō (the name of the region where Delphi, the seat of the famous oracle, was located); a Python, that is, (by analogy with the supposed diviner there) inspiration (soothsaying): divination.

Some links need updating. 

Puthiazô , to be inspired by Apollo, prophesy, St.Byz. s.v. Puthô.
Puthô Pytho, older name of that part of Phocis at the foot of Parnassus, in which lay the city of Delphi, Hom., etc.
A. Puthoi eni petrēessēIl.9.405; “P. en ēgatheēOd.8.80, Hes. Th.499, etc.; of Delphi itself, Pi.P.4.66, 10.4, Hdt.1.54, etc. (Acc. to the legend, derived from the rotting of the serpent, h.Ap.372.)

Used With:

Thei-azō , (theios A)
A. to be inspired, frenzied, hoposoi autous theiasantes epēlpisan as many as made them hope by divinations, Th.8.1; th. kai theophoreitai is divinely inspired, Ph.1.479; hoposoi teletais etheiazon obtained inspiration through ritual, Philostr.Her.5.3.
2. prophesy, “hoti stratopedeusoitoD.C.Fr.57.48:—Pass., [“logos epi teleutē tou Alexandrou etheiasthēArr.An.7.18.6; “logion hupo tou homilou theiasthenD.C.62.18.
II. worship as divine, Id.59.27; “Puthagoran kai Platōna

Aoidos  singer, MINSTREL, bard, goôn, chrêsmôn aoidos, E.HF110, Heracl. 403; pratos a., of the cock, enchanter

And when Jesus came into the rulers house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, Matt 9:23 Auletes (g834) ow-lay-tace'; from 832; a flute- player: - minstrel, piper. 

And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; Re.18:22

Auleo (g832) ow-leh'-o; from 836; to play the flute: - pipe.

And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 1Co.14:7

2. fem., songstress, poluïdris a. Id.15.97 ; of the nightingale, Hes.Op.208; of the Sphinx, S.OT36, E.Ph.1507 (lyr.); aoidos Mousa Id.Rh.386 (lyr.).

Mousa 1 [*maô]

I. the Muse, in pl. the Muses, goddesses of song, music, poetry, dancing, the drama, and all fine arts, Hom.: the names of the nine were Clio, Euterpe, Thalia, Melpomene, Terpsichore, Erato, Polymnia or Polyhymnia, Urania, and Calliope, Hes.,

II. mousa, as appellat., music, song, Pind., Trag.:--also eloquence, Eur.:--in pl. arts, accomplishments, Ar., Plat.

Melôid-ia , hê, singing, chanting, E.Rh.923, etc.  
II. chant, choral song, melôidias poiêtês Pl.Lg.935e , cf. 812d; lullaby, ib.790e: generally, music,  

FUTURE TENSE FOR THE JAILER

Let's look at the whole story:

And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Acts 16:30

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Acts 16:31

Now, Leroy would have you believe that this is the terminus of the process. However, believe is more than an intellectual assent to facts: it is putting your trust in someone. It is the Greek:

Pisteuo (g4100) pist-yoo'-o; from 4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by impl. to entrust (espec. one's spiritual well-being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

My father used to say, "I believe in the Boing 747 but I just don't believe on the 747." See the difference? He believed that the plane existed but he wouldn't trust his life upon it. To get to the destination you have to believe in the plane and you have to put yourself into the airplane. In the same way, you have to believe in Jesus, but Paul in Galatians 3:27 said that we are baptized into Christ.

So, Paul knowing that "faith comes by hearing the words of Christ" began to preach the 'gospel' of salvation to him:

Belief is the fundamental wall which stands between a person and salvation. Belief is like the soil which takes in the seed, the seed sprouts but then dies because the soil saw the life but couldn't provide the soil. Or faith is like a drowning man grasping a life preserver: he has moved into a "safe" zone but still not saved until the ground hits his feet.

And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. Acts 16:32

The gospel is not a few facts ABOUT Jesus Christ: the gospel is the gospel OF THE KINGDOM or Church. The only way to be added to the church is to be baptized.

Something funny happened: when Paul preached the word of the Lord, the jailer repented and wanted to be baptized. Where, oh, where did he get any hint of baptism if Paul was not sent to baptize? Well, you see, Paul could still preach the word of the Lord and let someone else do the baptizing:

PRESENT TENSE: NO COMPLIANCE MEANS NO FAITH 

Acts 16:33 And he (jailer) took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

After the Jailer and his inmates heard the GOSPEL they were baptized INSTANTLY without joining a church: only Jesus can ADD you to the church AFTER He has cleansed you.

PAST TENSE FOR THE JAILER

Now, after baptism he is a BELIEVER and he HAS been saved:

Acts 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

He is not a BELIEIVER until he has been baptized. There is no such thing as an UNBAPTIZED believer.

Notice that this is not the"core gospel" of "just the facts about" Jesus. Rather, to be faithful Paul had to preach the word of the Lord. The question was, "What must I do to be saved?" The word of the Lord was:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15

He that believeth and is baptized shall be (future tense) saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

Leroy Garrett: There are many such passages, such as "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life" (Jn. 3:36).

John was looking backward and recording the events of the life of Christ.  John undoubtedly still remembered what he had written in th first of the chapter:
Jn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him,
Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
    Except a MAN be born AGAIN
    he cannot see the kingdom of God.

It is not possible to miss what Jesus said:
A MAN must be born AGAIN to SEE the kingdom.
The parallelism is
A MAN must be [future] born of H20 and Spirit.
Jn 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him,
        How can a MAN be born when he is OLD?

        can he enter the second time into his
        mother's womb, and be born?
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered,
Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
    Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
    he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God.
It insults Jesus to have him say that you cannot enter the kingdom until you are BIRTHED

See Jack Cottrell on Born Again

Born:

G1080 gennao ghen-nah'-o From a variation of G1085 ; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother);
figuratively to regenerate:--bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

AGAIN rarely means FROM ABOVE but AGAIN as in the word AGAIN.

G509 anothen an'-o-then From G507 ;
        from above;
        by analogy from the first; [nativity, REgeneration]
        by implication anew:
            from above, again, from the beginning (very first), the top.

KJV (13) - again, 2; from above, 5; from the beginning, 1; from the first, 1; not tr, 1; top, 3;
NAS (12) - above, 5; again, 2; all over, 1; beginning, 1; long time, 1; top, 2; 

Anôthen 3. over again, anew, afresh, philian [friends] a. poieitai [make] J.AJ1.18.3 , Artem.1.14, cf. Ev.Jo.3.3; palin a. Ep.Gal.4.9,  anadikoi kriseis; ktistês [judgment of court, turning point of a disease] anôthe genomenos IG7.2712.58.

Josephus 1. But Abimelech, thinking in opposition to him, while their living made them suspicious of each other, and retiring showing a secret enmity also, he was afraid that his former friendship with Isaac would not secure him, if Isaac should endeavor the injuries he had formerly offered him; he therefore renewed his friendship with him, Philoc, one of his generals.

Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,
        how turn ye again to the weak and
beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

G1994 epistrephō ep-ee-stref'-o From G1909 and G4762 ; to revert (literally, figuratively or morally):come (go) again, convert, (re-) turn (about, again).

Palin 1. of Place, back, backward, give back, restore, II. of Time, again, once more,
This speaks of "returning to one's nativity."

Palig-genesia  A. rebirth, regeneration, of the world, palingenesias hêgemones, of Noah and his sons, metempsuchôsis [transmigration of souls]

Col. 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, 
and hath translated [g3179 methistemi
us into the kingdom of his dear Son

II. in Roman Law, = restitutio natalium, (“reinstating”). A term applied by the Romans to the cancelling of a legal decision, especially to the restoration of rights of citizenship forfeited by condemnation in a criminal court. Under the Republic this restoration could be legally obtained only by a vote of the people. Under the Empire, the emperor alone possessed the privilege of granting it.

III. in NT.,

1. resurrection, Ev.Matt.19.28.
2.r egeneration by baptism, dia loutrou palingenesias Ep.Tit.3.5 .

Justin Martyr FirstApology Chapter LXI
 
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making.

As many as are
persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true,
and undertake to be able to live accordingly,
are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting,
for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them.
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all.
And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks:
"Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet,
        I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." 
        And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance,
  1. but may become the children of choice and knowledge,
  2. and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed,
  3. there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe;
  4. he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washedcalling him by this name alone.
  5. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness.
  6. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings.
  7. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

TERTULLIAN (inter A.D. 200-206) Chapter 12-13

When, however, the prescript is laid down that "without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life" (John 3:5) ),

Here, then, those miscreants provoke questions. And so they say, "Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith."

But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent.

Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord.
But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which
believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added in the sacrament, viz.,

the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense,
of the faith which before was
bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law.

For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

The comparison with this law of that definition,

"Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit,
he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,"
has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.

Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers used to be baptized. Then it was, too, that Paul, when he believed, was baptized; and this is the meaning of the precept which the Lord had given him when smitten with the plague of loss of sight, saying,

"Arise, and enter Damascus;
there shall be demonstrated to thee what thou
oughtest to do,"
to wit-be baptized, which was the only thing lacking to him.

That point excepted, he bad sufficiently learnt and believed "the Nazarene" to be "the Lord, the Son of God."

ORIGEN (post A.D. 244)

Baptism is the indispensable first stage in the journey to God. It purifies, regenerates, initiates one into Christ, and endows with the Holy Spirit. But as the Homilies on Exodus and the Homilies on Joshua make clear, baptism and its preparations are the fledgling stage of a long and dangerous journey.

The benefit from baptism depends on the intention of the person baptized. If he repents he receives it: if he comes for baptism without repenting the benefit becomes a judgment. 

John 3:36 has some preamble with which to harmonize and make sense:

He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. John 3:33

For he whom God hath sent

speaketh the words of God: for God
giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. John 3:34 (Words = spirit John 6:63)

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. John 3:35

John didn't say: "He that believeth shall receive everlasting life" because he is looking backward. Rather, he wrote:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:
and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

Jesus used these words in Mark:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

Believeth not is APISTOS. It does not mean a FAITH which demands OBEDIENCE but it means that

If you deny that "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" as the purpose of the preaching

Then you are an APISTOS which means a treacherous enemy of Christ.

The word "hath" denotes potential:

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. Mt.9:6

Remission of sins, Campbell notes, does not even ultimately rest on the blood of Christ. Rather, it rests upon God's decision to make blood and water his power. The "wage" has been earned and paid long before we believe. Therefore, one who believes has a connecting length to that work of Christ.

Jesus had made salvation rest on faith but we might say that people are saved in purpose when the blood was shed -- or when God decreed both blood and water. Therefore, faith has no more intrinsic power than water. Christ then made salvation depend on faith and baptism: those who did not believe were already lost and so needed to do nothing to receive the wrath of God.

The word "hath" or the Greek echo includes ability, relation, being able. Faith gives one the possession of or the power to become children of God.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power (strength, influence) to become the sons of God,

even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12

Consistent with Acts 2-3 and the example of the Jailer, one who believeth is a baptized believer. John immediately implicates Jesus with baptism in the past:

WHEN therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, John 4:1

Leroy Garrett: We answer this by saying that one is to consider all the verses related to salvation, and when one does this he will come up with some such order as faith, repentance, baptism, salvation.
While this has merit, we are to realize that in the early church, or when these documents were first read, the people had no way of turning from one book/letter to another, as we can do, for the documents circulated separately. Reading about faith in John and then turning to Acts to read about baptism just didn't happen.

Isaiah DSS

They didn't need books although as soon as the apostles began to preach they began to write. And "scribes" crawled all over the ancient world and copied speeches and sold them. Lucian of Samosata explained how Philo made copies of speeches or his histories, attended the grand "Jubilee-like" festivals of preachers, book-sellers, poets and dance masters and made lots of money. Every action of Jesus would have been noised abroad.

Any one who obeyed the gospel would have been preached the gospel "of the kingdom." The object was that a convert would be able to tell others exactly what to do.  In the era of oral tradition anyone competene of being a teacher would have memorized large bodies of information. Furthermore, Timothy had been made wise unto salvation. How?  Any Jewish kid would have heard the prophets read over and over: they would have known the meaning of the true REST Jesus came to give us.

From the example of Heredotus and many others we know that as "scribes" and story tellers they attended the main events, recorded the events, made copies and sold them on the spot. It would have been the exception to the rule if there were not many records made of what happened at Pentecost. For example, we know that the events from the creation onward were recorded on clay tablets up to two thousand years before the time of Abraham. Abraham would have known these stories and may have had written accounts. When the Israelites fell into musical idolatry at Mount Sinai, Moses was inspired to write a CORRECTED copy to warn against the false Babylonian, Canaanite and Egyptian religions in Canaan. Most of the Bible seems written to correct an existing myth or legend which was destructive in nature.

We know that pericopes or major statements were circulated long before the Epistles were put into their existing form.

We don't look to individual statements about faith; we look at the command of Jesus and the explicit application of that command which always involved baptism.

They could read about FAITH in acts: why would the people be pricked in their heart if they had not believed that God in Christ has walked in their midst. Because they believed, Peter would demand that they change the direction of their lives and be Baptized. In Acts we know that they were then identified as BELIEVERS and that they were added to the church.

Leroy Garrett: In fact they didn't read at all, not for a long time, for they didn't have copies of the New Testament as we have. They heard the books/letters read in assembly as they began to circulate. When those in Rome, believers and unbelievers alike, heard Romans 10:9- 10 read ("If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved") would they not have concluded that those who believe in and confess Christ are saved 
Not if the truth is known. Note above. Most of the people at Pentecost would have heard the gospel message in its fullness. Because they were Jews about all Peter had to do was to convince them that "this is that" which they were anticipating. Whole Bibles had been published in Greek up to 250 years before the time of Christ. This proves that at Alexandria and other places they had copies of the Old Testament books. We also know that they had synagogues around the world and they DIDN'T PREACH. Rather, synagogue was a school of the Bible and they read every Sabbath and teaching went on all during the week.

Literally hundreds of synagogue existed in and around Jerusalem and other places. Boys especially were taught to read, write and do some math. They would have known the Scriptures better than a Phd.  Books were hand copied and widely circulated. Any one could go to a synagogue and copy some text or buy copies.  Synagogues in the Roman empire had Bibles and people paid a small fee to come and read. Synagogues were centers of learning and NOT similar to a modern "worship center."

If they had read Malachi they would understand Mark's statement that the beginning or MOST IMPORTANT part of the Gospel commanded in Matthew was to be explained by the baptism of John and the disciples of Jesus. They knew several prophecies that God would WASH them of their sins much like a fuller immerses his clothing and finishes them by making "them white as snow." See some labored comments here.

The people in Rome would have read the only logical conclusion to the preached sermon which many of them had heard and perhaps recorded at Pentecost.

Before he began writing Paul heard:

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Ro.10:14

The readers in Roman, many of whom were baptized believers, would not follow Leroy Garrett: they would read the whole "chapter." Furthermore, they would have read Romans 6. The FACTS of the Gospel which only God in Christ could perform is called the PROTOS or prototype gospel. Paul in Romans 6--which commeth before Romans 10--says:

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Rom 6:2

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom 6: 3

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Rom 6: 4

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Rom 6: 5

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Romans 6:6

Repeating the deadness to sin, Paul concludes this section:

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Rom 6: 17

Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness Rom 6: 18 .

Remembering that those being baptized at Pentecost and following were ADDED to the church. Being sanctified meant that they had received A new or holy spirit. There is no other way to be added to the church and to receive A holy spirit;

Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: 1Co.1:2

The Pentecost Peter later wrote:

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

"Answer" never means anything but ASKING or REQUESTING that God give them A good conscience which is A good consiousness or A holy spirit.

Again, looking at what the Spirit Jesus of Nazareth commanded Paul, even among secular people, one became a disciple of a master teacher by calling upon his name and identifying with him. And that often included a washing of baptism.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16

Calling upon is the Greek:

Epikaleomai (g1941) ep-ee-kal-eh'-om-ahee; mid. from 1909 and 2564; to entitle; by impl. to invoke (for aid, worship, testimony, decision, etc.): - appeal (unto), call (on, upon), surname.

When Peter defined baptism he wrote:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3:21

This appeal or calling upon is similar:

Eperotao (g1905) ep-er-o-tah'-o; from 1909 and 2065; to ask for, i.e. inquire, seek: - ask (after, questions), demand, desire, question.

Not even a preacher can list the conditions of salvation in one verse. However, when we look at the entire chapter we must conclude that to be faithful to the Great Commission or what the believers heard on the day of Pentecost they would understand Paul's later letter by what they already understood. In that period "books" were easily placed in the memory because from youth the boys had been taught to memorize. They could go to the next town and read you the "Gospel according to Mark."

Leroy Garrett: To put it another way, those who heard Paul preach to the jailer in Phillipi ("Believe") had no way of knowing what Peter had said on Pentecost ("Repent and be baptized"). There was no such thing in the early church as "Now turn to Acts 2:38." They had nothing to turn!

Absolutely, 100% wrong! When Philip preached Jesus the Eunuch wanted to be baptized. When Paul preached the Lord, the Jailer wanted to be baptized. According to Mark 16:15-16 neither Philip nor Paul would have been faithful preachers if they had not commanded baptism.

Paul's first task was not to baptize the jailer but to qualify him for baptism. His mission was to preach the gospel because only faith "gives one the power to become a child of God."

When the jailer heard the "word of the Lord" he believed and repented by washing their stripes. However, we have no mention of baptism. Where did the jailer get the idea?

Well Jesus said "go, preach and baptize believers and they will be saved" (Mark 16:15-16). And on Pentecost the people asked the same question. So preaching the gospel is preaching the Lord is preaching baptism: In fact, Mark begins the gospel and almost immediately mentions the Baptism John had been commanded to preach.

First, we should not that RECEIVED does not mean FAITH ONLY or TRUST ONLY. Received is the Greek:

Paralambano (g3880) par-al-am-ban'-o; from 3844 and 2983; to receive near, i.e. associate with oneself (in any familiar or intimate act or relation); by anal. to assume an office; fig. to learn: - receive, take (unto, with).

And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, Matthew 20:17

The Jailer RECEIVED the gospel of Christ and therefore RECEIVED His messengers. His result was to show the fruit of repentence and OBEY their direct command to be BAPTIZED. Washing their wounds did not save him or remit his sins:

What did the jailer understand?

"[Paul and Silas] said to him, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved - you and all the people in your house' " (Acts 16:31).

How does faith come?

And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. Acts 16:32

We noted above that ONE of the facts to be believe and acted on IF you have faith is that "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" as the purpose of the preaching.

The enuch responded WHAT DOTH HINDER me from being baptized. Philip said that the HINDERANCE to being baptized is that you DON'T believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

By making that confession Philip understood that HE grasped that the "believe and be baptized" was the OPERATIVE point of being saved

How did the Jailer respond?

"At that hour of the night the jailer

Repented: took Paul and Silas and washed their wounds.

Baptized: Then he and all his people were baptized immediately" (Acts 16:33).

When the process was over -- just as in Acts 2-3 -- the jailer and the other inmates were believers:

And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. Acts 16:34

No one is called a believer who is not a baptized believer. Jesus said to make DISCIPLES of the believers by BAPTISM and continuing teaching of what CHRIST taught or inspired.

These disciples were called Christians: no other people were called Christians.

Therefore, a Christian is a baptized Disciple.

Paul repeated what Jesus commanded and Peter and all of the others obeyed. Therefore there is no difficulty in harmonizing Acts 2:38 and Acts 16:31.

Many of the Phillipian Jews would have been in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Since then, many would travel over the known world and hear the message. We cannot exclude "pericopes" or even complete letters being circulated by the early "publishing houses" or preachers.

Leroy Garrett: We may rightly wonder why the New Testament writers did not line it all up the way we do, such as Paul in Rom. 10:9-10, especially since he was there giving the essence of what is involved in being saved: "The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart, the word which we have preached to you." Then he tells them who are saved: those that believe and confess. Had we been in Paul's place would we not have included baptism?

Well, he DID line it up: calling on the name of the Lord is done ONLY when you are baptized REQUESTING that God give you A holy spirit or A good conscience.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16KJV

Or: And now, why delay?
        Go and be baptized and be cleansed from your sins,
        calling on the name of the Lord.' Acts 22:16LIV

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Acts 2:37

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the
name of Jesus Christ (calling upon the name of) for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Philip lined it up to the enuch and the he WANTED to be baptized. He CALLED upon the Name of the Lord by his confession that Jesus was the Son of God. Philip then baptized him and he went on his way REJOICING. He had assurance and rejoiced only after he had been baptized. There could not have been any assurance if he had not responded to the gospel which INSISTS on baptism as the "last chapter."

The Jailer heard the whole process and we cannot wriggle out of it by saying that Paul didn't have a baptism tract to hand to him..

Being saved by faith means being saved by what the system of faith teaches. For instance, Paul will speak of calling upon God but not before one is ready.  The word of faith proves

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; Romans 10:8

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,

thou shalt be saved. Romans 10: 9

All who believe and confess SHALL BE saved. Believing and confessing did not remit sins and therefore did not save.

Justification and Belief

Inward toward God; One who believes that Jesus is the Son of God is justified in the sense that one "has the power to become a child of God." By declaring God righteous in his demands we have access by this faith into sallvation.

Outward toward Mankind: If we confess God then God will confess us and if we deny him the He will deny us. Inward conviction is ascribed to the demons but they were ready to be baptized as their confession.

Paul then goes through the process of one who is QUALIFIED or HAS THE POWER to become the child of God:

For with the heart man believeth unto (not because of) righteousness;
........... and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10: 10

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified,
........... and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. Rom 10:10NIV

Other versions to prove that FOR does not mean 'BECAUSE OF' but to reach some result.

for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. Rom 10:10NAS

For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. Rom 10:10RSV

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Rom 10:11

Jew and Gentile are the same in this respect: they all have the same Lord who generously gives his riches to all those who ask him for them. Rom 10:12LIV

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Rom 10:13

These were already baptized believers. Throughout our life, like that of Abraham, in all of our actions we are justified by our faith which works (Genesis 26:5)

Paul had told them about baptism in chapter 6. Paul then preached the word of the Lord which caused people to want to be baptized. I suspect that Paul was not unfaithful to the command but preached baptism.

Calling on the Lord in Romans 10 is explained in Acts 22 where "calling on the name" is at the time and place of water baptism. Peter in 3:21 said that baptism is the time and place where we call upon God for a clean consicience.

Calling on the name of the Lord happens ONLY at water Baptism.

Being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ meant that the candidate declared that he was trusting in the name of Jesus Christ. It did not mean that they believed that Jesus Christ lived.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, 
        Repent, and be baptized every one of you
        in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
        and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In acts 22 Peter had a miracle performed on him but this was not to save him. He was BAPTIZED which was CALLING ON THE NAME

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and
........... be baptized, and wash away thy sins,
........... calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16

1Pet. 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us 
        (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
        but the REQUEST FOR a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Leroy Garrett: Are people saved when they believe or when they are baptized? Yes!

We can say both if the apostles used "saved" in different senses. The difference may be stated this way: One is really saved (by the blood of Christ) when he believes; he is formally saved when he is baptized.

One is saved by the blood of Christ when one believes, repents and is baptized: so saith the Lord. There is no such idea as "informal" and "formal" salvation. The Jewish scholars believed but they were not baptized: they rejected the counsel of God for their lives informally and formally.  Leroy Garrett and his disciples must deliberatley twist Alexander Campbell.

Leroy Garrett: Alexander Campbell made this distinction when he began debating about baptism: "Paul was actually pardoned when he believed, and formally pardoned when he was baptized." It is a distinction, if valid, that could free us of our sometime "ultraist" view of baptism, again one of Campbell's words.
Alexander Campbell in the preface to The Christian System said clearly:

"It is curious to observe how extremes begot extremes in every step of the reformation cause, to the dawn of the present century. The penances, works of faith and of supererogation, of the Roman church, drove Luther and Calvin to the ultraism of 'faith alone.'"

However, faith alone did not exclude baptism because Luther saw it as a fundamental fact of Biblical faith and command.

Isn't that interesting that the "faith only" advocates turn history upside down! Garrett says that Campbell taught informal pardon when he believed; Campbell, on the contrary, claims that faith only is the ultraism of faith only which was not theology but anti-catholic or the extremism of the opposite polarity. 

In his Stone-Campbell Movement folly. Garrett attempts to restore that which was repudiated by both the church of Christ and the Christian churches: that's why most of Stone's preachers left him.  In defining Stone as a heretic in the discussion about "union" in 1831 Campbell refuted Stone and Garrett a Stoneite:

Stone proposes union and Campbelll disposes for good and sufficient reasons.

There are two passages in the New Testament on which Archippus and his brethren are not a little perplexed. The first is, that in which Paul is commanded by the authority of the Lord "to wash away his sins." This, say they, is a figurative expression. So say we. But wherein is the figure? In the water of baptism. In submitting to immersion he washed away his sins. 

If before his immersion he had received literal remission, in immersion he could not be figuratively remitted. To suppose the contrary is to destroy the figure: for a figure implies something corresponding which is real. If there was no correspondence, there was no figure. If there was no real washing away of previous sins at that time, there could he no figurative washing of sins in that ordinance. 

I am as much astonished at their want of reflection as they are perplexed in evading these decisive testimonies of the sacred scriptures. 
        Archippus might say that Paul received a real remission through faith, 
        and a figurative remission in baptism,
        provided he could show that remission was not granted through faith only
        when accompanied by baptism.


But to argue that Paul was literally forgiven three days before by faith, destroys the possibility that he was figuratively remitted in immersion.

Denying the value of Garrett's faith only, Alexander Campbell really said:

Now we confess that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses from all sins.

Even this, however, is a metaphorical expression. The efficacy of his blood springs from his own dignity, and from the appointment of his Father.

The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin.

Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins !"

The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes awny our sins. [But the Mind of God REALLY cleanses us]

Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed,

yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquital,
no formal
purgation of his sins, until he washed them away in the water of baptism.

However, Garrett does not use the "formal" statement correctly.  The distinction is betwee a PROCURING CAUSE and a FACTUAL CAUSE for anyone who has any faith in the PROCURING CAUSE.

Campbell on Baptism Book IV 

The influence which baptism may have upon our spiritual relations is, therefore, not because of any merit in the act as our own; not as a procuring cause, but merely as an instrumental and concurring cause,  

by which we "put on Christ," and are united to him formally as well as in heart, entering into covenant with him, and uniting ourselves to him in his death, burial, and resurrection. Hence, said the Apostle, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death"--"have put on Christ."  

While, then, baptism is ordained for remission of sins, and for no other specific purpose, it is not as a procuring cause, as, a meritorious or efficient cause, but as an instrumental cause, in which faith and repentance are developed and made fruitful and effectual in the changing of our state and spiritual relations to the Divine Persons whose names are put upon us in the very act.

It is also a solemn pledge and a formal assurance on the part of our Father, that he has forgiven all our offences--a positive, sensible, solemn seal and pledge that, through faith in the blood of the slain Lamb of God, and through, repentance, or a heartfelt sorrow for the past, and a firm purpose of reformation of life, by the virtues of the great Mediator, we are thus publicly declared forgiven, and formally obtain the assurance of our acceptance and pardon, with the promised aid of the Holy Spirit to strengthen and furnish us for every good thought, and word, and work.

A History of the Baptists
The Schism of Alexander Campbell

Of the McCalla debate In this debate Mr. Campbell said little or nothing which differed from the ordinary views of the Baptists on the design of baptism. Of the Baptism of Paul he said:
The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins."
       The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins.
       The blood of Christ really washes away our sins.
Paul’s sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no formal pledge of the fact, no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed them away in the waters of baptism (Campbell and McCalla Debate).

Number 6. January 7, 1828, pp. 401-410.
Ancient Gospel.--No. I.: Baptism by Alexander Campbell, pp. 401-402
Ancient Gospel.--No. I.
Baptism.

IMMERSION in water into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the fruit of faith in the subject, is the most singular institution that ever appeared in the world. Although very common in practice, and trite in theory, although the subject of a good many volumes, and of many a conversation, it appears to me that this institution of divine origin, so singular in its nature, and so grand and significant in its design, is understood by comparatively very few. In my debate with Mr. Maccalla in Kentucky, 1823, on this topic, I contended that it was a divine institution designed for putting the legitimate subject of it in actual possession of the remission of his sins--That to every believing subject it did formally, and in fact, convey to him the forgiveness of sins. It was with much hesitation I presented this view of the subject at that time, because of its perfect novelty. I was then assured of its truth, and, I think, presented sufficient evidence of its certainty. But having thought still more closely upon the subject, and having been necessarily called to consider it more fully as an essential part of the christian religion, I am still better prepared to develops its import, and to establish its utility and value in the christian religion. I beg leave to call the attention of the reader to it under the idea of the BATH OF REGENERATION.
That would not let Leroy rest in peace since it is a fact that the sins of the whole world were atoned for by the Shed Blood on the Cross. Individuals have no "formal" purgation of sins until they "obey that form of doctrine" or "a pattern capable of being imitated. Only then says Paul are they  FREE FROM SIN.  Campbell was probably not agreeing with the Baptists: they just lacked the Biblical depth to understand the one atoning act and the individual appropriation.
In little or nothing did this differ from the view of the Baptists. It was very different from the later statement where he said "that sins are actually forgiven in the act of immersion" (The. Christian Baptist).
Is there really any difference between FORMAL forgiveness and ACTUAL forgiveness? Campbell said that he always believed that baptism was FOR the remission of sins as soon as he decided that he had to follow the Bible.

Did Alexander hold his Trump Card back to avoid trouble? Of course, no one ever believed that water sanctifies or gives the believer A holy spirit. However, no one is said to have their sins remitted who refused to obey the FORM or "pattern capable of being imitated."
Those who followed the lead of Mr. Campbell became exceedingly aggressive. In northern Kentucky thousands of people were immersed for the forgiveness of sins. In the meantime he had discontinued The Christian Baptist and founded The Millennial Harbinger.

The Harbinger Extra on "Remission of Sins" was published July 5, 1830, and this appears to have been the signal for a separation between the Baptists and the Reformers. When the Extra declared unequivocally that "immersion is the converting act"—that "immersion and regeneration are two Bible names for the same act" the Baptists thought the time had come for them to protest against such teaching. They protested not only verbally but practically.

The method of procedure between the parties was very different. The Baptists, whether in the majority or the minority, were in favor of a separation. The followers of Mr. Campbell, unless in the majority, were generally opposed to separation
Campbell notes that his views had not changed since the McCalla debate.  Therefore, while Alexander defined salvation at two levels the Baptists thought that he was agreeing with them. In response to a letter from a man who apparently thought that Campbell was defending the Baptist view:
 The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. I, No. III (1830), March, 1. 1830

The sprinkling of a speechless and faithless babe never moved it one inch in the way to heaven, and never did change its heart, character, or relation to God and the kingdom of heaven. But not so a believer, immersed as a volunteer in obedience of the gospel. He has put on Christ; and whatever belongs to the husband belongs to the wife: "You are Christ's property, and therefore all things are yours."

You and I agree that we have righteousness, or pardon; that we have all the blessings of salvation through Christ; that his blood cleanses from all sin; and that the reign of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in a holy spirit.
The question is, At what instant of time do we enter this kingdom, or come under this reign of God; and by what means?

I say, the moment we vow allegiance to the King in the constituted way--the moment we are naturalized--

the moment we are born of water and the Spirit--the moment we put on Christ--the instant we are converted, and not before...
The question between us is not whether the reign of God is not righteousness, peace, and joy in a holy spirit; but the question is, Do we come under that reign, or enter that kingdom, before or after immersion? This is the single question which embraces all the ground about immersion. After the most minute, patient, devout, and long protracted examination; after hearing all objections, and examining them with care,
        I am more and more confirmed in the conclusion
        to which I had come in my debate with Mr. M'Calla in 1823.
        I will, [136] however, examine, and regard, with all attention,
        whatever you may please to offer upon that question which
        embraces the whole subject.
This was before Issue Number 5 where Campbell removed all doubt

Alexander Campbell actually said vocally: "No relation can be changed by believing, apart from the acts to which that belief, or faith, induces us.  

Martin Luther wrote:

But as our would-be wise, new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer:

It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests.

Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it.

Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure?

Now, they are so mad as to separate faith and that to which faith clings and is bound though it be something external.

Martin Luther wrote of "faith only" which comes from "scripture only" and repudiates those who repudiate the epistles so they can be the authority.

Reason knows nothing about the wretchedness of depraved nature. It does not recognize the fact that no man is able to keep God's commandments; that all are under sin and condemnation; and that the only way whereby help could be received was for God to give his Son for the world, ordaining another ministration, one through which grace and reconciliation might be proclaimed to us.

Now, he who does not understand the sublime subject of which Paul speaks cannot but miss the true meaning of his words.

How much more did we invite this fate when we threw the Scriptures and Saint Paul's epistles under the bench, and, like swine in husks, wallowed in man's nonsense! Therefore, we must submit to correction and learn to understand the apostle's utterance aright.

True, this is an interpretation not directly suggested by the narrative and the text. Paul himself calls it an allegory; that is, a mystic narrative, or a story with a hidden meaning.

But he does not say that the literal text is necessarily the letter that killeth,
...... and the allegory, or hidden meaning, the spirit.

But the false teachers assert of all Scripture that the text, or record itself, is but a dead "letter," its interpretation being "the spirit."

Yet they have not pushed interpretation farther than the teaching of the Law;
and it is precisely the
Law which Paul means when he speaks of "the letter." 

A quote would help but if Campbell said this it was in the context of predestination and would utterly conflict with his views which we shall quote.

Leroy Garrett: I've searched for an illustration for this. Perhaps Richard Nixon's pardon will do. He was actually pardoned when President Ford issued the executive order, but he was formally pardoned when he signed the official papers. Before Nixon ever signed it was a done deal, he was pardoned!, but it was not formalized, certified, or legalized until he signed. He had to sign! If you recall, Nixon said that signing the pardon was the hardest thing he ever did.

I don't think so. If Nixon had balked, refused to sign the document he would have gone to jail or been impeached and found guilty. Your check will bounce without a signature however 'informally' you planned to pay my salary. Bad illustration.
And all the people that heard him, and the publicans,
        justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. Luke 7:29

        But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves,
               
being not baptized of him. Luke 7:30
Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him;
        but because of the Pharisees
they did not confess him,
        lest they should be put out of the synagogue: John 12:42

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 10: 11

Jesus said that those who believe AND are baptized are saved. This is because those who believe and are NOT BAPTIZED REJECTED THE COUNSEL OF GOD FOR THEIR LIVES.

Paul's that those who BELIEVETH ON Jesus shall NOT BE ASHAMED. Those who refused to be baptized will be damned and ASHAMED because their BELIEF was not faith ON Jesus.

The psalmist shows the meaning of being ASHAMED:

O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes Psa 119:5

Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments. Psa 119:6

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 1Pe.2:6

Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting. 2Co.9:4

All believers were informally pardoned in God's eyes when Jesus paid the price at Calvary. Like a check on the bank of heaven everyone is informally forgiven because there is nothing after the death of Christ which has any pardoning value. However, we are all formally pardoned when we follow the provisions of the Testator in His las Will and Testament.

If Leroy Garrett could find a hundred EXAMPLES to rationalize his views, he would still repudiate the Written Word of the Living Word. Nothing that comes into the mind of man can change what the Bible says. Christians are students or Disciples of that Word: there is no other resource which can be trusted. Therefore, one can be "saved by faith" and do anything they wish but they CANNOT thereby define themselves as a Christian.

Leroy Garrett: In saying Paul was really saved when he believed and formally saved when he was baptized, Campbell too searched out illustrations. The marriage ceremony was his favorite. The couple is really one when they give their hearts to each other, but they are not legally or formally one until the ceremony. The ceremony does not change their love and commitment to each other, but it does change their legal status.
Proving to Archiippus (James Fishback) or Barton W. Stone why in 1831 there could be no UNION with people who radically refuted all that the Reformers believed. That is why there was NEVER any union between the two groups.

I am as much astonished at their want of reflection as they are perplexed in evading these decisive testimonies of the sacred scriptures. 
        Archippus might say that Paul received a real remission through faith, 
        and a figurative remission in baptism,
        provided he could show that remission was not granted through faith only
        when accompanied by baptism.

But to argue that Paul was literally forgiven three days before by faith, destroys the possibility that he was figuratively remitted in immersion.

We shall seek an analogy in a parallel case. Suppose, for example, that a controversy had arisen among us moderns on what constitutes marriage, or rather on what gives a woman a right to the name, honors, fortunes, and relations of a husband. 

All parties agree that three things are necessary to a true and proper marriage--the head, the heart, and the hand; or, to speak plainly, 

the belief of the professed affection of the suitor, the yielding of the affections, 
and the giving of the right hand in the forms prescribed by law, 
as a public pledge of devotion to that person. 

But while all parties agree in each and every one of these as necessary to a full and perfect marriage, a question arises among the curious whether in law or reason it is the first or last act that secures to the woman the name, the honors, the fortunes, and the relations of her suitor. 

One party contends that the moment she believes the professed affection of her suitor, she is married and has all the rights of a wife: but at the same time admits that this is a very peculiar sort of faith, and implies in it or attaches to it both the giving of the affections and the tendering of the hand according to law. 

The other contends that although faith and affection are in the order of things necessary antecedents, yet it is not one or [406] both of these, but the actual giving the right hand before witnesses, and as prescribed by law, which gives her any right, title, or interest in the name, honor., fortune, and relatives of the suitor.

Again: The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. I, No. III (1830), March, 1. 1830 You and I agree that we have righteousness, or pardon; that we have all the blessings of salvation through Christ; that his blood cleanses from all sin; and that the reign of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in a holy spirit.
The question is, At what instant of time do we enter this kingdom, or come under this reign of God; and by what means?

I say, the moment we vow allegiance to the King in the constituted way--the moment we are naturalized--

the moment we are born of water and the Spirit--the moment we put on Christ--the instant we are converted, and not before...
The question between us is not whether the reign of God is not righteousness, peace, and joy in a holy spirit; but the question is, Do we come under that reign, or enter that kingdom, before or after
        I am more and more confirmed in the conclusion
        to which I had come in my debate with Mr. M'Calla in 1823.   
Naturalization was another Campbell illustration. The foreigner loves his adopted country no more once he takes the oath of allegiance, and in his heart he is already a "citizen." But an "ordinance" is needed to formalize or legalize his status. That is the oath he takes before the proper official, who in turn certifies his citizenship.
In the need to discredit clear direct commands of Jesus Christ, Garret has again missed the distinction between the procuring cause (the blood of Christ) and the instrumental or formal cause.  We are not saved by any procuring cause on our part but on a formal cause at baptism after which Campbell says that we have all of the qualities of salvation.  Our girlfriend was not ours by any procuring cause but because of her mercy and grace.  She became a bride in a formal sense by the instrumentality of the signed certificate after the ceremony.

No one is a citizen by any procuring cause but by the grace and mercy of our national laws.  They become a citizen in a formal sense only after they confess their vows and sign on as citizens as the instrumental cause.

I think Campbell has been wildly misquoted. For instance, in The Christian System, Proposition 7, he had an illustration:

"William Agricola and his brother Thomas, both Canadians, were once much opposed to the constituted government of New England. They both changed their views, and, as a matter of course, their feelings were changed.

William became a citizen of Rhode Island;
but
Thomas, notwithstanding his change of heart, lived and died a colonial subject of a British king.l....

"So in religion, a man may change his views of Jesus, and his heart may be changed towards him;

but unless a change of state ensures, he is still unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopted, and lost to all Christian life and enjoyment ... Alexander Campbell

Leroy Garrett: Baptism is like that, Campbell says. One is really saved by grace when he believes and commits his life to Jesus Christ. He is formally, legally saved when he is baptized.

No: Campbell in The Christian System actually said:

by these seven means--by Christ, his name, his blood, by knowledge, grace, faith, and by works. Are these all literal? Is there no room for interpretation here? 

He that selects faith out of seven must either act arbitrarily or show his reason; but the reason does not appear in the text.

He must reason it out; he must infer it.
Why
, then, assume that faith alone is the reason of our justification?

Why not assume that the name of the Lord alone is the great matter, seeing his name "is the only name given under heaven by which any man can be saved;" [Ac 4:12]

Leroy Garrett: It is here that Campbell sought to correct an error about baptism on the part many of his own people: baptism is not a procuring act but a certifying act. Have not we too left the impression that people procure or obtain pardon in baptism?

No one ever thought that their FAITH or their BAPTISM was the PROCURING ACT.  But, Campbell never called is a CERTIFYING act.  

For those making it their life's work and upon which they base their salvation, rejecting the clear prophecies, commands and examples of the Bible and most of church scholarship, on baptism just being an outward SIGN that we have been saved by FAITH ONLY.  Campbell denies that from the beginning of his writings to the end.  The blood of Christ is the PROCURING act.  Our faith in that and confessing it and turning our lives around and then being baptized is the INSTRUMENTAL or RECEIVING means: Campbell denies that faith without baptism has ANY merit: in fact it is a repudiation of Jesus Christ and calling Him a liar.

Campbell certainly denied that baptism was a
procuring act. We have never heard a follower of Campbell who believed that baptism was one's procuring work to pay for his own sins!!! Campbell firmly believed in grace. However, he saw baptism as more than a certifying act because a "certificate" certifies that you have complied with what you believe in. Baptism was and is the ultimate act of grace.

Ephesians 2 is the favorite "salvation by grace through faith." However, Paul proves that it is BAPTISM which is the ongoing SHOWING ACT of how God in Christ bestows Grace when we believe. But, begin earlier in the chapter.

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Eph 2: 4

Even when we were dead in sins, hath "QUICKENED" (regenerated) us together WITH Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) Ephesians 2:5

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal 3:25
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3: 26
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3: 27

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3: 28

And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3: 29

Suzoopoieo (g4806) sood-zo-op-oy- eh'-o; from 4862 and 2227; to reanimate conjointly with (fig.): - quicken together with.

This is promised only at water baptism:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 or A holy spirit.

The same Paul writing to the colossians identifies our being quickened to enlivened in the spirit at baptism:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col 2:12

Sustauroo (g4957) soos-tow-ro'-o; from 4862 and 4717; to impale in company with (lit. or fig.): - crucify with.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Ga.2:20

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Col.2:13

And hath RAISED us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places IN Christ Jesus: Ephesians 2:6

Sunegeiro (g4891) soon-eg-i'-ro; from 4862 and 1453; to rouse (from death) in company with, i.e. (fig.) to revivify (spiritually) in resemblance to: - raise up together, rise with.

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col.2:12

IF ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above,
where
Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Col.3:1

Egeiro (g1453) eg-i'-ro; prob. akin to the base of 58 (through the idea of collecting one's faculties); to waken (trans. or intrans.), i.e. rouse (lit. from sleep, from sitting or lying, from disease, from death; or fig. from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, non- existence): - awake, lift (up), raise (again, up), rear up, (a-) rise (again, up), stand, take up.

Leroy Garrett: Nixon did not procure his pardon by signing (baptism). It was procured solely by the president's (or the nation's) grace. It was certified by his signing (baptism). A married couple does not procure matrimony by going through a ceremony. It is solely by grace. But the ceremony (baptism) certifies it. Just so a foreigner doesn't gain, procure, or merit citizenship by taking an oath. It is all by grace. But the oath (baptism) certifies it.
In making this distinction Campbell used still other metaphors: "Baptism is a solemn pledge and a formal assurance (his emphasis) on the part of our Father, that he has forgiven all our offenses" (McCalla Debate, p.256).
We noted above that the Baptists THOUGH exactly what Leroy THOUGHT that Alexander was saying: If you read the statement is is perfectly clear.  However, when Alexander published his views they felt betrayed: why shouldn't anyone following Leroy also feel betrayed.

McCalla would say that baptism PROCURES the remission of sins WITHOUT FAITH.  Campbell would deny that baptism is the PROCURING ACT and therefore infants cannot be saved and do not need to be saved.

While one cannot PROCURE salvation by one's own action, it is certain that one can SELL their birthright by minimizing the last, great Command of God in Christ which shows that He disciples us unto Himself only after He gives us A holy spirit or A good conscience.

Again hear Leroy Garrett: It is here that Campbell sought to correct an error about baptism on the part many of his own people: baptism is not a procuring act but a certifying act. Have not we too left the impression that people procure or obtain pardon in baptism?

Now, see how Garrett missed it:

Christian baptism: with its antecedents and consequents
By Alexander Campbell [252-256]

While, then, baptism is ordained for remission of sins, and for no other specific purpose, it is not as a procuring cause, as a meritorious or eflicient cause, but as an instrumental cause, in which faith and repentance are developed and made fruitful and effectual in the changing of our state and spiritual relations to the Divine Persons whose names are put upon us in the very act.  

It is also a solemn pledge and a formal assurance on the part of our Father, that he has forgiven all our offences—a positive, sensible, solemn seal and pledge that, through faith in the blood of the slain Lamb of God, and through repentance, or a heartfelt sorrow for the past, and a firm purpose of reformation of life, by the virtues of the great Mediator, we are thus publicly declared forgiven, and formally obtain the assurance of our acceptance and pardon, with the promised aid of the Holy Spirit to strengthen and furnish us for every good thought, and word, and work.

Some have such a puerile and inadequate conception of Christian baptism, as to regard it as a mere ceremonial introduction into the church—a way of making a profession of the Christian religion—no way affecting the spiritual relations of the subject. This view of it ought to have been expressed by such a precept as the following:—" Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for admission into the church." But no such precept, in form, in substance, or in sense, is found in God's own book. As we have, then, but one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, and [257] that baptism is "for the remission of sins"—to give us, through faith and repentance, a solemn pledge and assurance of pardon, any other baptism is a human invention and of no value; wanting, as it does, the sanction of the Lord Jesus, who ordained it, and submitted to the baptism of John as an example to others to honour and obey every divine institution. But there are other passages of Sacred Scripture that both illustrate and confirm the views now presented.


Notes from the Campbell - Maccalla Debate:

In showing that "believer's baptism" always excluded infants but did not mean "baptize" those who are saved by faith only, Alexander Campbell wanted to point out-- 

p. 134. "the important place that baptism occupies in the Christian religion, and of its great significance. Im my last address I contra-distinguished its design from that of John's baptism. In exalting baptism to its proper place, I did not exaggerate its import, as Mr. Maccalla would have it.

Nor did I elevate it so as to displace hope and charity. These are graces, the fruits of true faith and true baptism. I know it will be said that I have affirmed that baptism "saves us," that it "washes away sins."  Well, Peter and Paul hare said so before me. If it was not criminal in them to say so, it cannot be criminal in me.

When Ananias said unto Paul, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," I suppose Paul believed him, and arose, was baptized, and washed away his sins.  When he was baptized he must have believed that his sins were now washed away in some sense that they were not before. For if his sins had been already in every sense washed away, Ananias' address would have led him into a mistaken view of himself; both before and after baptism.

Now we confess that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses from all sins.

Even this, however, is a metaphorical expression. The efficacy of his blood springs from his own dignity, and from the appointment of his Father.

The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin.

Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins !"

The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes awny our sins. 

Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquital, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed them away in the water of baptism.

From the context, it is clear that Campbell is recognizing that all are saved by the one act of Jesus Christ: there is nothing more you can PROCURE it.  However, Campbell says that baptism is the instrumental means of receiving it.  If someone gives me a gift of a million dollar check I am a millionare by pure grace. However, there is no money in the bank until I certify and cash it in as a FORMAL receiving of the gift.

          To every believer, therefore, baptism is a formal and personal remission, or purgation of sins.

The believer never has his sins formally washed away or remitted until he is baptized.
The water has no efficacy but what God's appointment gives it, and he has made it sufficient lor this purpose.

The value and importance of baptism appears from this view of it. It also accounts for baptism being called the WASHING OF BRGENERATION. It shews us a good, and valid reason for the despatch with which this ordinance was administered in the primitive church.

The believers did not lose a moment in obtaining the remission of their sins. Paul tarried three days after he believed, which was the longest delay recorded in the New Testament. The reason of this delay was the wonderful accompaniments of his conversion and preparation for the apostolic office. He was blind three days, scales fell from his eyes, he arose then forthwith and was baptized.

The three thousand who first believed, on the selfsame day were baptized for the remission of their sins. Yea, even the jailor and his house would not wait till daylight but the "same hour of the night, in which he believed, he and all his were baptized." I say, this view of baptism accounts for all these otherwise unaccountable circumstances.

It was this view of baptism misapplied that originated infant baptism.

The first errorist on this subject argued that if baptism was so necessary for the remission of sins, it should be administered to infants whom they represented as in great need of it on account of their 'original sin.', Affectionate parents, beieving their children to be guilty of "original sin," were easily persuaded to have their infants baptized for the remission of "original sin," not for washing away sins actually committed. But of this again.

Faith in Christ is necessary to forgiveness of sins, therefore, baptism without faith is an unmeaning ceremony. Even the Confession of Faith, or at least the Larger Catechism, question 185, says, "that baptism is a sign of remission of sins." How then can it be administered to those without faith? Is it to them " a sign and seal of engrafting into Christ, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit," as the answer to this question declares?

Our argument from this topic is, that baptism, being ordained to be

to a believer a formal and personal remission of all his sins,
cannot be administered unto an infant without the greatest perversion and abuse of the nature and import of this ordinance.

lndeed, why should an infant that never sinned, that, as Calvinists say, is guilty only of "original sin," uhich is an unit, be baptized for the remission of sins!


A thing can be both a symbol and a means: a check is a symbol that I can get a hundred dollars from the bank. However, I don't get the money until the "symbol" becomes the "means" when submitted at the bank. This argument will just get you tossed into prison if you demand money because of grace without submitting the symbol and means.

Leroy Garrett: In the same debate Campbell refers to 1 Pet. 3:21 ("baptism now saves us") and says that baptism is both a "sign" and "seal" of remission of sins. He adds: "In this sense only does 'baptism now save us. "One is actually saved at the point of faith, but it is not signed and sealed until one is baptized.

But Alexander Campbell in The Christian System really said:

"Yes, as God first gave the efficacy of water to blood, he has now given the efficacy of blood to water.

This, as was said, is figurative; but it is not a figure which misleads,
for the meaning is given without a
figure, [pg. 187] viz., immersion for the remission of sins.

"And to him that made the washing of clay from the eyes, the washing away of blindness, [John 9:6,7] it is competent to make the immersion of the body in water efficacious to the washing away of sin from the conscience. [resulting in A good conscience or A holy spirit in which God dwells by faith]

From the conscience, I say; for there its malignity is felt; and it is only in releasing the conscience from guilt, and its consequences--fear and shame, that we are released from the dominion of sin, or washed from its pollution in this world.

Thus immersion, says Peter, saves us, not by cleansing the body from its filth, but the conscience from its guilt; [1 Peter 3:21]

yes, immersion saves us by burying us with Christ, raising us with him,
and so our
consciences are purified from dead works to serve the living God. [Hebrews 9:13]

Hence our Lord gave so much importance to immersion in giving the commission to convert the world--"He that believes and is immersed shall be saved." [Mark 16:16]

Salvation or justification by "faith only" in Alexander Campbell's context always opposed the dogma that infants were predestinated and were therefore regenerated by God from all eternity. Their sign or seal was some supernatural exercise at a later date in which they put their assurance rather than in Christ and His promise.

"Our opponents contend for a regeneration begun and perfected before faith or baptism - a spiritual change of mind by the Holy Spirit, antecedent to either knowledge, faith, or repentance, of which infants are as susceptible as adults; and, therefore, as we contend, make the gospel of no effect.

By way of reprisals, they would have their converts think that we go for nothing but water, and sarcastically call us the advocates of "water regeneration."

They think there is something more sublime and divine in "spirit regeneration"; and therefore claim the title of orthodox." Alexander Campbell, Regeneration

Leroy Garrett: Campbell emphasizes the "assurance" that baptism brings. God ordained an act that provides assurance of pardon. Baptism is the assurance or "the answer of a good conscience" (1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism does not actually wash away sin, or "it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh," as the apostle Peter puts it, for only the blood of Christ does that. It is a sign, a seal, an assurance of what has already occurred.

Christ the Spirit refutes:

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

Campbell: But we noted above: "Thus immersion, says Peter, saves us,
        not by cleansing the body from its
filth,
        but the
conscience from its guilt; [1 Peter 3:21]

"This, as was said, is figurative; but it is not a figure which misleads, for the meaning is given without a figure, [pg. 187] viz., immersion for the remission of sins.

When one cashes an unearned check for a million dollars then one has ASSURANCE that the gift is theirs even though they did not PROCURE it by their own works. We have ASSURANCE by outward signs and inward grace. If a person has not obeyed the direct commands of God in Christ then they can have no assurance that God has saved them.

A holy spirit or A good conscience gives one DISCERNMENT. That does not mean to get A NEW REVELATION but to be able to read BLACK text on White paper. Paul PROVES this in 2 Cor 3 where he also identifies the LORD as THE SPIRIT. Only at baptism does THE Spirit of Christ reside in OUR spirits after HE has removed the obstacles which PREVENT reading black text on white paper. 

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

We have A holy spirit or A good conscience only after we REQUEST it at bapism.

To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all,
........... and to the Spirits of just men made perfect, Heb 12:23

Answer ALWAYS means REQUEST. A person who REQUESTS salvation at baptism DOES NOT demand it as a WAGE for works performed OF WHICH they can boast. Therefore, to accuse CHRIST OBEYERS as legalistic is the MARK of a false teacher who DOES NOT have A holy spirit.

Eperotema (g1906) ep-er-o'-tay-mah; from 1905; an inquiry: - answer.

Eperotao (g1905) ep-er-o-tah'-o; from 1909 and 2065; to ask for, i.e. inquire, seek: - ask (after, questions), demand, desire, question. Ask about a thing, 

A good conscience is:

Suneidesis (g4893) soon-i'-day-sis; from a prol. form of 4894; co- perception, i.e. moral consciousness; - conscience.

Suneido (g4894) soon-i'-do; from 4862 and 1492 [SPIRITUAL EYES]; to see completely; used (like its prim.) only in two past tenses, respectively mean. to understand or become aware, and to be conscious or (clandestinely) informed of: - consider, know, be privy, be ware of.

A GOOD CONSCIENCE is further defined:

Suneidêsis , knowledge shared with another, 

2. communication, information,

Heuresis: find that, find means, be able,
Eisenenkan: carry with one, sweep along, of a river,
2.
bring in for oneself, 3. bring in with one, introduce,

3. knowledge
4. consciousness, awareness... inner consciousness
5. consciousness of right or wrong doing, conscience

Contrary to Leroy Garrett and all of those simple souls he has led astray, BAPTISM SAVES US (instrumental act says Campbell) because that is the way Jesus Christ told us to ASK for A holy spirit or A good conscience.  ONLY those who have been baptized can read BLACK text on BROWN paper.

Leroy Garrett: Baptism is the assurance of pardon. It is a neglected concept. It reminds me of Luther's complaint: "The pope can't talk about me that way, for I've been baptized just as he has." He didn't say "I believe in Christ just as he." Baptism is the act that assures one he is a Christian.

Then is Campbell (and I) saying that baptism is necessary? Yes, of course, as necessary as signing a pardon, having a wedding ceremony, or taking the oath for naturalization.

But in what sense necessary? Certainly not in an absolute sense. Baptism is necessary as a sign, seal, and assurance of remission of sins.

There is actual remission when one believes, formal remission when one is baptized.

We have shown that Campbell would repudiate Garrett to his face: maybe he will get the chance.

Well, not even faith saves in an absolute but only the blood of Christ. But then the blood of Christ hangs on the grace of God.
Regeneration In The Christian System
The Bath of Regeneration Now in Separate Article
New Birth
Renewing of the Holy Spirit

Let's quote some specifics from Alexander Campbell to see that this is not what he said:

"VI. Baptism is, then, designed to introduce the subjects of it into the participation of the blessings of the death and resurrection of Christ; who "died for our sins," and "rose again for our justification."

But it has no abstract efficacy. Without previous faith in the blood of Christ, and deep and unfeigned repentance before God,

neither immersion in water, nor any other action,
can
secure to us the blessings of peace and pardon. It can merit nothing.

Still to the believing penitent it is the means of receiving a formal, distinct, and specific absolution, or release from guilt.

Campbell, like Jesus and Peter, said that baptism is the Christ-ordained means of receiving absolution and release from guilt. And furthermore, those who have not been baptized have no assurance of that pardon because they have not been pardoned:

"Therefore, none but those who have first believed the testimony of God and have repented of their sins, and that have been intelligently immersed into his death,

have the full and explicit testimony of God, assuring them of pardon.

This is not a SIGN: Baptism is the only reason ANYONE can have the testimony of Jesus Christ who will confess us to the Father.  Faith only does not give anyone this proof because only baptism is the INSTRUMENTAL act by which we reques Christ's PROCURING act. 

Therefore, Garrett is just mistaken by some pick-up debate comments. Baptism is not a sign, seal or assurance only.

FACT: "To such only as are truly penitent, dare we say, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord,"

ASSURANCE: and to such only can we say with assurance that,

"You are washed, you are justified, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God." The Christian System, Baptism

Among those who believe in "faith only" or predestination, there is a life-long struggle with finding the assurance that one is predestinated by God. Even an "experience" which proves it is doubted before the blood pressure goes down. However, faith trusts in Jesus to do what He promised; as soon as one has believed and obeyed in baptism the assurance of the fact is present.

Campbell held that baptism is the consumating act of the process. As spiritual conception takes place when the "seed" is emplanted and germinates, the believer has God's approval or the "right to become children of God." However, the embryo who does not come to full term and goes through the birth process will never be a citizen of the kingdom able to enjoy the benefits: they have no assurance because they have no citizenship:

"All the means of salvation are means of enjoyment, not of procurement. Birth itself is not for procuring, but for enjoying, the life possessed before birth.

"So in the analogy: - no one is to be baptized, or to be, buried with Christ; no one is to be put under the water of regeneration for the purpose of procuring (purchasing) life, but for the purpose of enjoying the life of which he is possessed.

"If the child is never born, all its sensitive powers and faculties can not be enjoyed; for it is after birth that these are fully developed and feasted upon all the aliments and objects of sense in nature.

Hence all that is now promised in the gospel can only be enjoyed by those who are born again and placed in the kingdom of heaven under all its influences.

Hence the philosophy of that necessity which Jesus preached: - "Unless a man be born again, be can not discern the kingdom of heaven," - unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into it.

"But let no man think that in the act of being born, either naturally or metaphorically,
........... the child purchases, procures, or merits either life or its enjoyments.

He is only by his birth placed in circumstances favorable to the enjoyment of life, and all that makes life a blessing. "To as many as receive him, believing in his name, be grants the privilege of being children of God, who derive their birth not from blood, nor from the desire of the flesh, nor from the will of man, but from God." (Christian System, Regeneration) Article on Baptismal Regeneration

Leroy Garrett: It is not unlike Abraham's circumcision. He was reckoned as justified when he believed and before he was circumcised. But the circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant, and it was necessary.

May be true but God said that Abraham was approved:
Because that Abraham
        obeyed
my voice,
        and
kept my charge,
        my
commandments,
        my
statutes,
        and my
laws. Genesis 26:5

Abraham did not "earn" or "merit" God's approval by obedience. Abraham received the free gift when his obedience showed his faith.

And Paul agreed that the act didn't earn anything but keeping God's commandments are absolutely necessary:

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. 1 Corinthians 7:19

Leroy Garrett: This harmonizes the passages on faith and baptism.

Is one saved when he believes? Yes, of course. Is one saved when he is baptized? Yes, of course.
Again, as Campbell put it in his great defense of baptism: "Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed them away in the water of baptism." 
We have proven above from Campbell that Garrett is wrong.

Because mankind cannot pay the price they are really saved by the blood of Christ when Christ shed it. However, salvation is specific to an individual in their own time and place. It is not available until after one is baptized.

Campbell understood that pardon is procured for all mankind, including Paul. Therefore, in God's purpose all have been redeemed by the one-time sacrifice of Jesus. However, that finished pardon is not Paul's until He is baptized.

Therefore, Campbell did not believe that one was saved by "faith only" in any sense except in the mind of God.

Leroy Garrett: This should have been our answer to the old trick question:

"Suppose a man believes in Christ, but on his way to be baptized a limb falls on him and kills him will he be saved?" That we've had to confront such a question shows that we've left the wrong impression about baptism, what Campbell warned against, that it is a procuring act instead of a certifying act. 

To ask the question would presume to be able to extend mercy: that would make a person God.  Garrett has heard the gospel and it is too late to suppose.

Suppose the man has inherited a million dollars and the will says: "John, if he conforms to the condition of this will, shall receive one million dollars." Now, suppose John has a stupid limb fall on him in the Lawyer's parking lot. Does John get the money? Nope.

That is the problem of constructing physical "idols" to explain spiritual principles which are not usually understood but accepted by faith.

The "procurement" was in the hands of the testator but the certifying act was in the hands of the grandson. The money goes to someone else. Bad analogy out of a human mind.

If God makes exceptions based on intent then we should leave the EXCEPTIONS to God. The problem with Garrett's trying to "fill in the hole in the donut" for God is that it ALWAYS and has no other purpose than to conclude: "Therefore, we SHOULD NOT preach baptism to anyone." See an example.

Whatever one can hallucinate the fact is that not one jot or tittle of Scripture or historical repudiation of Garrett is changed.

Leroy Garrett: The man on whom the limb fell was really saved when he believed, so of course he died saved.

That is an assumption and the proof-texts have been refuted. And Alexander Campbell did not say that people are saved by "faith only" but was refuting predestination. Calvinism, which informs this Baptist form of baptism, really says that one is saved before even faith. So we are arguing from unclear premises. A Calvinist would have the same objections to being able to believe by hearing the word that Brother Garrett has with baptism before salvation.

So, accapting a Calvinist-Baptist view of salvation by faith will not earn any "points" for the preacher. The Calvinist will move the target back and dare you to think that you can believe by hearing the word. The only end-game for Brother Garrett's form of baptism is a full-blown case of Calvinistic predestination.

The command of Jesus was to MAKE DISCIPLES. Disciples are MADE by baptizing believers and teaching them what Jesus taught and inspired. We should leave the final outcome to God because otherwise we minimize the Words of Christ which blasphemes the SPIRIT of the Living Word and there is no more forgiveness for sins.

Leroy Garrett: That he was on his way to be baptized evidences his obedient heart, and in the act of baptism, which is ordained of God, he would have enjoyed the sign, seal, and assurance of his salvation. That he did not live to see his pardon sealed does not take away the reality of the pardon.

Leroy is truly a Stoneite: Stone rejected the need for baptism based on all of those who were never baptized. However, it is to despise the Word of God to make it depend on people.
Stone stating why then nor ever did the Stone views ever get "united" with the Church of Christ. Working on projects does not make an INSTITUTION from which oen can sect out.


Objection 1st: That we have fellowship, and commune with unimmersed persons. They contend, (so we understand them) that according to the New Institution, none but the immersed have their sins remitted; and therefore they cannot commune with the unimmersed. 
        On this point we cannot agree with them, and the reason of our disagreement, is,
        that this sentiment, in our view, will exclude millions of the fairest characters,
        for many centuries back, from heaven
.

Alexander as he always mocked the idea that there was union based on a few handshakes.

IN speaking or writing on this subject of Union more than on most others, we deceive ourselves and one another, without knowing or intending it. The want of precision in the meaning attached to our terms may be the cause of this. It might appear hypercritical, or perhaps something worse, to ask the worthy editor of the Christian Messenger what he means by "union in form?"

Campbell goes on to charge Stone with putting words into his mouth.
What about the Jungle-Dweller who was a good guy, didn't eat humans and would, if he heard it, believe the gospel, be baptized and be saved. However, a week before the preacher got there the fellow fell into the pot of a neighboring tribe and fed the preacher during his visit. Does the fellow get his salvation? To ask the question is more judgmental than to try to give an answer.

Well, we just don't know do we? Therefore, it is always dangerous to try to interpret Scripture by "suppose so." Campbell was answereing the claim of baptismal regeneration. In baptism, one cannot procure his own remission of sins. However, baptism is still Christ's ordained means of accepting or enjoying the paid-for salvation:

"So in the analogy: - no one is to be baptized, or to be, buried with Christ; no one is to be put under the water of regeneration for the purpose of procuring (purchasing) life, but for the purpose of enjoying the life of which he is possessed.

Baptism does not speak of life but of DEATH. In the PROTOS gospel, Jesus was dead in the flesh but regenerated by the Spirit WHILE he was in the tomb. We then die and are burried and are baptized FOR THE DEAD: You don't bury living people. God gives us A holy spirit or regenerates our corrupted spirit and then raises us up to sit with Him. We are baptized for the purpose of enjoying the life which is possessed WHEN God in Christ regenerates our spirits.

The example of the flood and the ark proves that baptism COVERS those who are dead. Only in the grave was Jesus regenerated in the sense that His Spirit returned to His body. Therefore, we gain LIFE at our "resurrection." Therefore, there is no notion of a person who is SAVED BY GRACE and who is ALREADY alive being burried with Chrit.

A person is alive when it is conceived but it has no rights as a citizen or the power to use that life until it is born. Therefore, baptism is not the "sign" of the life but the empowernment.

Thomas Campbell notes the silliness of those who denounce "baptism regeneration" and defend "faith regeneration." Why is the command to believe any less legalistic than the command to be baptized. The fact is that this was not the issue within the context of Calvinism.

Baptism is not just for eternity but for time. While we are alive we have security and do not fear death because we know that our citizenship has already been transferred. Therefore, baptism is assurance during this life. One who is dead gets no such assurance.

Leroy Garrett: Nixon again. Had he died of a heart attack before he signed the pardon, he would have died a pardoned man. Grace!

No! The pardon was a leagal formality and Ford could not forgive him with a piece of paper. Like a murderer who dies on the way to the electric chair, the penalty is not exacted because one who is dead is freed from temporal punishment.

Leroy Garrett: So, turn to Acts 2:38. Is baptism for the remission of sins? Yes, in a very important sense, but not in an absolute sense. If it were in an absolute sense, then no one could be in heaven except the baptized. And none of us can really believe that.
Well, we just don't have any right to believe anything about what we have not been informed about. I can appreciate Bro. Garrett's attempt to extend grace to everyone but we just have to leave untaught questions with untaught answers.

No command of God applies to anyone who has not heard it. It is in God's hands and not in our determination what He will do with people who lived under a different condition. So, it is misleading to try to condition an alive believer by telling him that dead people might be saved. The alive person can easily get the impression that because I am not through sinning I can pospone baptism as many early church fathers taught. If I got get splashed in the face on my deathbed God will honor my good intentions.

Leroy Garrett: This more balanced view will save us from two extremes. One extreme is often heard from fundamentalist preachers (but not the scholars), that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Jesus would never have said "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16) and Paul would never have been told "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16) if baptism has nothing to do with being saved.
The other extreme is an absolutist or ultraist view of baptism that concludes that salvation is procured by being baptized. Or that it is absolutely necessary for going to heaven.
I am pretty sure that Leroy Garrett never heard any member of the Church of Christ say that their baptism PROCURED their salvation.

There is
another view which always lies between the extremes. That view is that baptism is the time and place to accept God's grace clearly understanding that one cannot procure salvation any more than they can resurrect their dead body.
The influence which baptism may have upon our spiritual relations is, therefore, not because of any merit in the act as our own; not as a procuring cause, but merely as an instrumental and concurring cause,

While, then, baptism is ordained for remission of sins, and for no other specific purpose, it is not as a procuring cause, as, a meritorious or efficient cause, but as an instrumental cause, in which faith and repentance are developed and made fruitful and effectual in the changing of our state and spiritual relations to the Divine Persons whose names are put upon us in the very act.
Scripture and Campbell say that anyone who neglects teaching baptism on their hunch that someone might be saved without baptism is beyond the pale of Christianity.

Leroy Garrett: The more balanced view recognizes that one is saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), and that baptism is a faithful response to that grace (Col. 2:12) "a work of grace" (not our work), to quote Campbell again.

When one is baptized she has the assurance that she has been saved by grace through faith. Just as she has the assurance that she's married when she receives her "Certificate of Matrimony" from the county clerk, signed and certified. She even frames it and hangs it in her den!

Paul repeats the same way of salvation by Grace through faith in several of his epistles. Paul said that we are not saved by grace through faith until we have OBEYED that "pattern capable of being imitated."
Leroy Garrett is again confusing, and implicating Alexander Campbell, in the "procuring means" and the acceptance means issue. No one believes that Baptism is our work. However, one cannot be saved without responding to grace in obedience. The Pharisees were worse than harlots because they "refused to accept the will of God for their lives" in refusing to be baptized.

See our look at Ephesians and salvation by grace through faith. If you will back up to the beginning of the chapter and even into Ephesians one you will see that salvation by grace through faith has a MEANS. That means is identical to other passages which the same Paul connects to water baptism. The Lord's Supper and Baptism both are SHOWING ACTS in our reasons for home. Baptism TEACHES salvation by grace through faith.

Leroy Garrett: That's what Luther was doing when he argued with the pope. He was showing the pope his baptismal certificate! It was his assurance that he was as much a Christian as the pope. Leroy Garrett

But we know that Luther stated that FAITH ONLY meant that one could have faith ONLY through the SCRIPTURES ONLY. Because the Bible commanded baptism for the remission of sins, salvation by FAITH ONLY demanded that we are saved by BAPTISM ONLY. The certificate proved nothing and Garrett misrepresents Luther. Click to see what Luther said and Garrett missed thereby making his NEW SALVATION PLAN as dangerous as giving a child a hand grenade.

But the Scriptures teach thus: Even though we collect in one mass the works of all the monks, however splendidly they may shine, they would not be as noble and good as if God should pick up a straw.

Why? Because the person is nobler and better. Here, then, we must not estimate the person according to the works, but the works according to the person, from whom they must derive their nobility.

But insane reason will not regard this, and
because Baptism does not shine like the works which we do, it is to be esteemed as nothing.

From this now learn a proper understanding of the subject, and how to answer the question what Baptism is, namely thus, that it is not mere ordinary water,

but water comprehended in God's Word and command, and sanctified thereby,
so that it is nothing else than a divine water; not that the water in itself is nobler than other water,
but that God's Word and command are added.

Therefore it is pure wickedness and blasphemy of the devil that now our new spirits, to mock at Baptism, omit from it God's Word and institution, and look upon it in no other way than as water which is taken from the well,  

Leroy Garrett: Leroy Garrett continues: We can understand Alexander Campbell's views about baptism by understanding Thomas Campbell's views. Campbell notes that those who do not know about baptism will not be judged by what they did not know. Therefore, the question about the little old lady falling dead on her way to baptism is an attempt to get into the mind of Christ in order to distort the actual writings of the apostles.

Both Campbell's only spoke of those who had heard the gospel and had a chance to obey it. There is no human imagination which can modify the word of God.

But, that isn't the truth either Thomas Campbell 

"Indeed, the typical meaning of baptism, as explained by the Apostle,

Rom. vi. 3-11. "Know ye not that so many of you as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; 6, 7, 8: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin; but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

goes to assure the genuine believer, that he was included with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection; consequently MUST be saved; seeing that he is one of those for whom Christ died: see again the above quotations from Luke and John.

"Some, however, neglect and despise baptism, because they can see no merit nor virtue in an immersion in water. "Why, is there not as much merit in a dip in water, as in abstaining from eating of the fruit of a certain tree?
........... Surely it is the divine command that, in either case,
........... gives importance to the action.

"And it is very remarkable, that in each, life and death are connected with the institution: compare

Gen. ii. 16,17 "And the Lord commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

with Mark xvi. 15, 16. "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

"The former says, "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." The latter, "He that believeth not shall be damned." That is; shall endure the second death:

Rev. xx. 14, 15. "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire: this is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire."

"These are also both primary institutions: the first given to man immediately after his creation; the second, immediately before his new birth into the family and kingdom of God:

John iii. 5, 6. "Jesus answered Nicodemus, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit."

In speaking of infants, Campbell noted:

"But you may possibly infer from these remarks, that I make immersion essential to salvation.
By no means; for
mistakes in such cases are pardonable:

Num. xv. 27-31. "And if any soul sin through ignorance, then be shall bring a she-goat of the first year for a sin-offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the Lord, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off: his iniquity shall be upon him."

"If Adam had not known that it was the forbidden fruit that Eve gave him, he, therefore, had not died for eating it; for he had not done it presumptuously.

But when we (adults) know that we have erred and done wrong, we should certainly repent, and do right if possible; as appears from the above quotation;

for genuine repentance always includes and produces reformation as far as possible: and such must necessarily be the serious intention of the real believer.

Again, in relation to this all-important subject, recorded Mark xvi. 16: "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved," is the very last sentence of the gospel, according to the commission given to the Apostles in the preceding verse.

So that when they had proclaimed the provisions of the divine love for the salvation of perishing humanity, through the sufferings and death of Christ, they concluded their discourse by assuring their hearers,

that whosoever believed in Jesus, according to their testimony just delivered,
and was baptized according to his direction; that is, "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, should be saved:"
........... that is, he should be pardoned, and should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit:

Acts ii. 38. "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

"Thus, in the first instance, always closed the gospel testimony to the present hearers; giving them the blissful opportunity of enjoying the divine assurance of the enjoyment of the proposed salvation from the guilt, the love, the practice and the punishment of sin, into the eternal enjoyment of an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading, reserved in heaven for all such:

1 Peter i. 3-5. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant mercy, hath regenerated us to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

"Now as closed the first gospel sermon,

Acts ii. 38, 39, and x. 43, 44. "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. To him give all the Prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these, words, the Holy Spirit fell on all that heard the word."

"with the blissful assurance of sin-pardoning mercy and sanctifying grace, to all that believed and were baptized; so, of course,

must every other, where the gospel was so fully proposed as to give the intelligent hearers a fair opportunity of understanding it:

that so they might be enabled to take home with them the blissful assurance of the eternal enjoyment of the proposed salvation:

for as many of them as believed and were baptized, had Christ's word for it; which, if they realized his character, could admit of no doubtful uncertainty; and this must all true believers most certainly have done. Thus was the gospel in its original purity and native simplicity divinely calculated to admit of no doubts nor discouragements, in the minds of those who realized it; and, of course, must be so still, where it is exhibited in its original purity and simplicity.

"Therefore, if we would enjoy it, we must take our seat at the Apostles' feet, whom Christ commissioned to evangelize the world. What think you? Had we been present on the day of Pentecost, and heard Peter's sermon,

and believed, as thousands did; had we not also been gladly baptized!
being
assured that in so doing we should be saved from the guilt and pollution of sin, by remission and sanctification through the blood and spirit of Christ?

which promise is still inseparably connected with the belief and obedience of the gospel to the end of time: see Acts ii. 38, 39, and x. 43, 44.

"In the latter of these, Peter proceeds in Cesarea, seven years afterwards in addressing the Gentiles, as he did the Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and the effect was the same: namely, remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So that wherever the pure apostolic gospel is believed and obeyed, as in Jerusalem and Cesarea, justification, adoption, and sanctification, are essentially and inseparably connected with it:

for every one who through the belief and obedience of the gospel is born of water and of the Spirit, and none. else, enters into the kingdom of God on earth: see John iii. 5, 6, quoted above.

"Indeed, no one can truly confess Christ but by the Holy Spirit:

1 Cor. xii. 3. "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed; and that no man can say, that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit.

"And baptism is the divinely appointed means for the primary confession of this divine faith, on the part of the believing subject; Christ confesses him as one of those for whom Christ died.

1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 26, 27. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been made to drink into one Spirit." "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."

"But, after all, you may possibly think, that I lay too much stress upon baptism. By no means. I just give it the place which it occupies in the Christian system:

Eph. iv. 4-6. "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

"Which is, indeed, a highly important one, as evidently appears from the place it occupies in the above quotation. For being immediately preceded by faith in the one Lord, and immediately succeeded by the one God and Father of all, it evidently connects the happy subject with both:

for by it he becomes one of Christ's brethren; and, of course, one of God's sons, being thus born into the divine family on earth: see 1 Cor. xii. 13, with John iii. 5, 6, above quoted.

Neither he nor Alexander given any reason for hope to those who have never heard the gospel nor sought the truth.

It seems clear that Leroy Garrett has scanned through some of Thomas Campbell and Alexander Campbell's writings to get proof-texts for the theology he has developed out of his own thinking. Most writers hostile to the Restoration Movement have the ugly habit of using the proof-text method they detest in others.

See Alexander Campbell's full views which were the universal views for hundreds of years after the time of Christ.

Restoration Movement

Baptism Index

Home Page

Counter added 1.18.05 7:19p 3642  + Counter 398 5.27.10  4.10.12 694