Reeves-Raines Debate, K. Sharp
On the nights of April 23, 24, 26, and 27 Bruce Reeves, evangelist of the Highway 65 North Church of Christ in Conway, Arkansas, debated Dr. Steve Raines, Professor of History, Central Baptist College, and Dr. Ron Mitchell, Professor of Theology, CBC, in the Central Baptist College auditorium in Conway. On Monday and Tuesday nights Reeves and Raines debated the purpose of water baptism, and on Thursday and Friday nights Mitchell and Reeves discussed the possibility of apostasy. I moderated for Bruce Reeves, and Dr’s. Mitchell and Raines moderated for one another. Don McClain, who worked closely with Bruce for a year in preparing arguments and charts, was Bruce’s chart man. There were around 300 people present each night. A number of CBC students were present and paid careful attention during each session.
This odd arrangement, in which Bruce debated two men in one debate, came about at Dr. Mitchell’s request. He was too busy as a college teacher to devote the time necessary to prepare to debate two subjects, so he requested that Dr. Raines handle the subject of baptism and that he debate the apostasy issue.
It is significant that both Raines and Mitchell are Calvinistic in doctrine, while most modern Missionary Baptists have left their Calvinistic roots and would be theologically classified as Arminian. CBC is associated with the Baptist Missionary Association of America, historically traceable to D.N. Jackson. Bruce Reeves gently but firmly pressed this matter, and his opponents, particularly Mitchell, reacted with angry, personal attacks. The Baptist debaters clearly, repeatedly declared their unwillingness to allow the theological underpinnings of their beliefs to be examined. Obviously, this is a sore point at Central Baptist College.
A detailed review of this debate would make an unreasonably long report. Thus, I’ll confine my comments to arguments that, in my opinion, are especially important or unusual.
On Monday night Steve Raines affirmed, “The Scriptures teach that the alien sinner obtains the forgiveness of his past sins by faith only, before and without water baptism.”
In answer to Reeves’ question if there are any conditions for regeneration, Raines replied it “is an act of God,” “you don’t pick your parents,” and “it is a work of God the Holy Spirit.” He declined to be drawn into a discussion of “monergism” (salvation effected entirely by God with no human effort) versus “synergism” (man must cooperate in his salvation). Reeves pointed out that Raines’ answer implied regeneration is unconditional, and this implies God does not redemptively love all men. Thus, Raines’ position on salvation is based on his belief in unconditional, particular election, i.e., the position that God , before the world began, unconditionally chose certain individuals to be saved and that all others will be lost. Of course, this is Calvinism.
In response to the question about the definition of “works,” Raines replied, Work is “something you do.” Reeves showed this definition included obedience to the gospel. He then substituted the phrase “obedience to the gospel” for “works” in Romans 4:4-6 and pointed out this would promise blessedness to the one who refuses to obey the gospel. Later Reeves noted the several different ways in which the New Testament uses the term “works” (Works of God - John 6:28; Works of Faith - 1 Thessalonians 1:3, Works of God’s Righteousness - Acts 10:35, 1 John 2:29; 3:7; 3:10, Good Works - Titus 3:8-14, Works of the Law of Moses - Romans 3:28; 4; Galatians 2:18, Works of Merit - Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8, and Works of Our Own Righteousness - Titus 3:5).
Bruce asked if Abraham’s justification in Romans four and James two was before God or man, and Raines replied that in Romans four it was faith versus works, whereas in James two Abraham was justified before men. He identified Isaac and those who read of Abraham’s obedient faith in the Bible as the ones before whom he was justified. He contended that Revelation 14:13 teaches that works follow salvation. Reeves pointed out that the “works” of James two are not the same “works” as Romans four. Both passages affirm Abraham was justified before God, and both refer to Genesis 15:6, which was Abraham’s justification before God. But Romans four affirms Abraham was justified apart from works, whereas James two teaches he was justified by works. Romans four has reference to a system of works demanding sinless obedience, whereas James two contrasts faith only with obedient faith. James two does not refer to justification before men, for the context is of salvation (verse 14).
Raines claimed that the controversy over circumcision was the first century equivalent to our disagreement over the necessity of baptism (Acts 15:1). He claimed that to teach the necessity of baptism for salvation was to teach “priestcraft,” which he defined as needing someone else to help us be saved. He asserted we have to have a “qualified” person to baptize us properly. He differentiated between acts of obedience that sp ring from a regenerated heart and regeneration itself. Believing, he asserted, does not involve a conscious decision, whereas being baptized does.
Dr. Raines also argued that the reception of the Holy Spirit by the house of Cornelius prior to baptism proved they were saved before baptism (Acts 15:7 -9). Reeves showed that Peter told Cornelius words by which he was saved (Acts 10:6, 22, 32; 11:14), and the only thing he told him he didn’t already know was to be baptized (Acts 10:37, 48). The reception of the Holy Spirit by Cornelius’ house was a unique, nonrepeatable event (Acts 10:45; 11:15 -17). The Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles to provide undeniable evidence that the Jewish Christians were to accept them when they complied with the words Peter was sent to speak (Acts 11:17 -18; 15:8). The Lord opened the mouth of Balaam’s donkey (Numbers 22:28), Balaam spoke as directed by the Lord (Numbers 23:5, 12, 26), Saul had the Spirit of God upon him and spoke by the Spirit of God (1 Samuel 19:21-23), and Caiaphas the high priest prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation (John 11:51), but that doesn’t prove any of them were saved.
Dr. Raines asserted that baptism is important as a means of identification and that most passages speak of baptism “in a matter of fact way” rather than “salvifically.” Reeves pointed out that a number of passages, such as1 Peter 3:21, speak of baptism “salvifically.” Raines then employed the argument that things essential to our salvation are stated both positively and negatively, the one who does them is saved, and the one who does not do them is lost. He placed hearing, repenting, and believing in this category. He said that no passage condemns the one who is not baptized; thus, baptism is not a condition of salvation. Reeves answered that John 3:3,5 teaches that the one who is not baptized is lost.
Steve Raines argued that grace and works are mutually exclusive and that, since salvation is a gift, it cannot be earned, which he equated with requiring works for salvation. Reeves in turn argued that conditions of salvation - hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, being baptized - were not meritorious works. He analyzed Ephesians 2:8 by showing that grace is the basis of our salvation, salvation - the gift of God - is the goal, and faith summarizes the conditions. He asked Raines if believing is something we do. Do we have a choice? If not, this implies God does not “redemptively” love all people. Reeves exemplified this by the story of God giving Israel Jericho by His grace, whereas they took it by an obedient faith (Joshua 6:2,15 -16; Hebrews 11:30). He appealed to Galatians 3:1-2,10-11,14,23-24, 26-27) to show that baptism was included in salvation by faith rather than being a part of the works by which we cannot be saved. Bruce showed from Galatians 3:26-27 that, rather being a work in the sense of Ephesians 2:8 -10, baptism is the how and when we by faith contact the grace of God. Faith gives us the right or power to become sons of God (John 1:12), but baptism actually makes us so.
Raines asked when the Israelites were delivered from Pharaoh, and Reeves replied it was when they were baptized unto Moses (Exodus 14:30; 1 Corinthians 10:1-2). Raines insisted that Exodus 12:27 teaches Israel was delivered before they were baptized but never dealt with Exodus 14:30. In reality, Exodus 12:26 refers to deliverance from the death of the first born, whereas Exodus 14:30 speaks of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. It is to this deliverance Paul appeals in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2.
In his second affirmative Raines appealed to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 to argue that, since Paul did not mention baptism in summarizing the gospel in this passage, baptism is no part of the gospel. He asserted without proof that to “obey” the gospel (Romans 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17) means to “hearken” to it. Bruce demonstrated from Mark 16:15-16 that baptism is indeed part of the gospel.
Dr. Raines contended Paul contrasts preaching the gospel with baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:17. He argued the context (verses 14-16) bear this out, since Paul had baptized few Corinthians but had begotten them through the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:15). He concluded that, since God saves men by the gospel (Romans 1:16), he saves them without baptism.
Brother Reeves countered that 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 actually proves the necessity of water baptism, since it teaches we must be baptized in order to belong to Christ. The point of the passage is that Paul didn’t baptize in his own name. We can’t be saved apart from Christ, and baptism is how we get into Christ (Romans 6:3-4).
Perhaps Raines strangest argument, which undoubtedly sprang from his college teacher background, involved a statistical comparison of the biblical uses of the words “grace,” “faith,” “trust,” “repentance,” and “believe” with “baptize” and “baptism.” He contended that since all forms of the words “grace”(found in 47 biblical books, 23 New Testament books, used 205 times, all statistics from Raines), “faith”(41, 25, 359), “trust” (36,16, 189), “repentance” (28, 10, 11 1), and “believe” (38,21,322) each are used more than all forms of the word “baptism” - “baptize” (114 occurrences in 12 New Testament books), baptism is relatively unimportant. Bruce chided him for trying to determine if something God commands is necessary by counting the number of times it’s mentioned. How many times did God command Noah to build the ark (Genesis 6:14 - 7:1; Hebrews 11:7)?
It’s interesting that Raines’ argument blows up in his face. According to his own statistics, all forms of the word “baptism”-“baptize” occur more times than all forms of the word “repentance,” even though baptism is never mentioned in the Old Testament, whereas repentance is prominently demanded there. Is repentance relatively unimportant? Is baptism more important than repentance? I don’t believe so, nor do I think Steve Raines so believes, but his argument implies a “yes” answer to both these questions. “Indeed, the legs of the lame are unequal.”
Raines apparently noticed this glaring discrepancy and arbitrarily eliminated “Baptist” (“one who baptizes,” a cognate of “baptize”) from his final total, to arrive at 99 uses of “baptism”- “baptize.” A Baptist professor must have gulped twice to eliminate “Baptist” from his list. If you can’t keep up with all these numbers, don’t worry. Raines was just behaving as a modern theologian, who foolishly confuse counting the number of times a word is used with scholarship. How many times must the Lord teach something is necessary to make it so?
He continued his foray into word games by contending that, although the Bible condemns “unbelief” and “unbelievers,” it never even uses the word “unbaptized.” That’s interesting. But try this - “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him” (Luke 7:30). Is “not having been baptized” different from “unbaptized”? Their refusal of John’s baptism was a rejection of the will of God for themselves. Are those who reject “the will of God for themselves” saved? Shall we argue over what the Bible doesn’t say or believe what it does say?
On Tuesday evening Bruce Reeves affirmed, “The scriptures teach that water baptism is necessary in order for the alien sinner to obtain the forgiveness of his past sins. Bruce appealed to just three passages: Mark 16:16 - the Great Commission given, Acts 2:38 - the Great Commission first preached, and 1 Peter 3:20-21 - the Great Commission explained.
Brother Reeves spent the majority of his affirmative on 1 Peter 3:20 -21 and introduced powerful argumentation I had not previously heard. He first employed Hebrews 10:1; Exodus 12:13; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 8:5, 2; and 9:13 -14 to explain type (Old Testament, fleshly foreshadowing) and antitype (New Testament, spiritual, fulfillment). Noah’s physical deliverance in the ark is the type, and our salvation in Christ through baptism is the antitype.
1 Peter 3:20 -21 teaches three things necessary to salvation: an Agent, an agency, and a vehicle. The Agent in both Noah’s salvation and ours is God. The agency in Noah’s salvation was water (“through water” - verse 20), and the agency by which God saves us is the resurrection of Christ (‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ - verse 21). Thus, the resurrection of Christ rather than baptism is the antitype of which the Flood of water is the type. Finally, the ark was the vehicle of Noah’s salvation, whereas baptism is the vehicle of ours.
Brother Reeves pointed out that the vehicle (ark, baptism) without the agency (water, resurrection of Christ) is useless, but, at the same time, the agency without the vehicle does not save.
Bruce then addressed the parenthesis of 1 Peter 3:21 - “not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.” He argued that this is not a reference to cleansing dirt from the body but to the distinction between the ceremonial cleansing accomplished through washings of the law (Hebrews 9:9-10) and the real cleansing of the conscience effected by the blood of Christ in baptism (Hebrews 9:13 -14; 10:22). In other words, the apostle Peter specifically denies baptism is what Baptists claim it is, a ceremonial washing that does not affect the soul.
He then pointed out that the word “answer” refers to an “appeal” (cf. , , ). This “answer” or “appeal” is to God rather than man. Thus baptism is the means by which the obedient believer calls on the name of the Lord to cleanse his conscience from sin (cf. Acts 2:21, 38; Romans 10:13, 16; Acts 22:16).
He finally challenged the audience, which do you believe, “baptism doth also save us” (1 Peter 3;21) or “baptism doth also save us’ (Dr. Steven Raines). I add, the first sin came into the world as the result of Satan interjecting the three letter word ” ” to deny the Lord’s warning of death.
Dr. Raines never made any attempt to deal with Bruce’s argumentation on Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; or 1 Peter 3:20 -21. Rather, he first reviewed argumentation from the first night, and then, on pretense of reviewing a chart Bruce had briefly shown Monday night that contained nine Baptism Reeves’ Affirmative NASB ESV ISV NOW NOT NOT passages teaching the necessity of baptism, spent the remainder of his time reading prepared material on these nine passages. Since he introduced most of this material in his second negative, Bruce never had the opportunity to respond.