BALLARD/STROM DEBATE ON BAPTISM

 
 
The Scriptures teaches that obedience is from the inside out. We are first changed 
in the inner man via the new birth and then the outward "good fruit" of obedience 
including Baptism results.
 
Thus we are born-again/saved/forgiven at the moment we confess our sins and 
accept Christ as our savior - believing in Him as our Savior is the moment of 
salvation" 
 
Affirm: Bob Strom 
Deny: Voyd N. Ballard 
 
I have reached the place in this debate to where I am wondering if the truth I am 
teaching is being seriously considered by Bob Strom. He has jumped from one 
thing to another until it is impossible to know what he believes. He changed the 
wording of his proposition without any authority whatsoever and he continues to 
tell one lie after the other until I am actually wondering if he is responsible to 
God. It doesn't seem to bother him one whit to misrepresent his opponent, claim 
he has answered all of my arguments, and deny what he himself has written. He 
does NOT believe that the Bible only is inspired of God. In addition to the Bible 
he believes that the writings of Ellen G. White. the founder of Seventh Day 
Adventism, is inspired by the Holy Spirit just as the Bible is inspired, and if he is 
like most Seventh Day Adventist, he has more confidence in the writings of Ellen 
than he does of the Bible. This may be one reason he twists, squirms, and 
"wiggles" when he is faced with Scriptural arguments. At any rate I would like to 
hear from the members of this List as to whether or not you think it is profitable 
to continue this discussion with Strom. It is clearly evident that he does not 
believe the Bible, and that he will make any false charges to keep from answering 
my arguments. In view of this I am wondering if I am furnishing him a medium to 
spew forth his false doctrine, and am therefore wasting my time with him. I have 
made scriptural arguments that he knows he cannot refute, so he has not so much 
as even referred to them. Instead of advancing more arguments I now insist that 
Strom get down to business and pay his attention to the following: 

1. Bob is supposed to be affirming that the sinner is saved by faith only, but he 
sent in a long drawn out statement that is not a distant cousin to a proposition.  He 
claims to have had experience in written debating, but either he does not know 
how to word a proposition or else he does know what he believes about this 
subject. I suspect it is the latter, since he has taken several positions on when and 
what saves the sinner. One time he has him saved by "faith only" then he has him 
saved by "grace only" and in his last negative he said, "The mere act of accepting 
Christ is ITSELF obedience-faith completed". But he is contending that the sinner 
cannot even hear and believe until God sends the Holy Spirit into his heart. He 
keeps quoting John 6: 29-"This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom 
he hath sent." saying the only work the sinner has to perform is believe in Christ, 
but he says the sinner cannot believe in Christ until and unless God sends him the 
Holy Spirit to enable him to believe. This makes God responsible for every lost 
soul. Just take a look at the tangled mess Bob has made:

1. The sinner is saved the moment he believes. 
2. He cannot be saved without belief in Christ. 
3. He cannot believe until God sends him the Spirit. 
4. If God does not send the Spirit he is forever lost. 
5. God and God alone is responsible for his lost condition! 
This is the mess he is in and he will never be able to "wiggle" himself out of it. 
 
Now he comes along and says that he finally got me to accept John 6:29 when the 
truth of the matter is that I introduced this passage in my very first Affirmative to 
show that faith is a WORK which Bob now admits, but which he claims the 
sinner cannot perform until God sends him the Holy Spirit. Realizing what a mess 
he is in on the above, he tries to get out of it by saying that God "draws" the 
sinner so he can hear and believe and cites John 6:44 to prove his assertion, but 
that passage is against him. No one denies that God "draws" the sinner to him, but 
the question is HOW? And the answer is in the very passage Bob cited, Jno.6:44-
45: 
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I 
will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all 
taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father 
cometh unto me." 
So how does God "draw" the sinner to Him? 
By TEACHING - HEARING - AND LEARNING, so Bob is now driven from his 
"Drawing" argument because he says the sinner is so dead that he cannot even be 
TAUGHT! God's plan is: TEACHING-HEARING-LEARNING-BELIEVING- 
and OBEYING, but Bob says he can do none of these until and unless the Holy 
Spirit performs a miraculous operation on his heart. Christ says he can be taught, 
hear, learn, believe, and obey. Bob and Ellen say he cannot. I'll take Jesus Christ 
because he knew what he was talking about---Bob and Ellen do not! 

I have emphasized in every post I have made on this proposition that I accept in 
advance every passage Bob may introduce that teaches salvation by faith, but I 
deny that there is even one passage that teaches "faith alone." I repeat what I have 
said in every post:
 
"There is not one place anywhere in the Bible where anyone was ever said to be 
saved or justified by his faith until that faith acted in obedience to God." 

I have called on Bob again and again to produce such a passage if there is one. He 
has not produced it, and he will not produce it because it is not in the Bible. Now, 
I demand that he stop this "wiggling" around and misrepresenting what I have 
said and deal with this argument. 

"What a tangled web these false teachers weave, when with their false doctrine 
they attempt to deceive."
 
2. What did Bob say about the following argument I made? Something about how 
he would not rush to be baptized in order to receive the Cadillac if General 
Motors added something else to their promise.
 
"When Jesus commanded the Apostles to go into all the world and preach the 
gospel He said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16) 
No statement could possibly be plainer. Belief + Baptism = Salvation. Belief 
minus Baptism is DEAD being alone (Jas.2)
 
If General Motors should announce that "He that believeth and is baptized shall 
receive a New Cadillac" there would be such a stampede to the creeks, rivers, and 
baptisteries as the world has never witnessed, and Bob Strom would lead that 
stampede, and right behind him would come every Sectarian Preacher in this land. 
Not a one of them would claim the Cadillac on his faith alone without baptism." 

Now, quit "wiggling" around about something being added to the promise.  Be a 
man and face up to what the Lord said. You won't it in Ellen's Great Controversy, 
but You will find it in Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved" You will not find it in the writing of Ellen, but you will find it in the 
teaching of Jesus, and if you just can't understand it, you don't have anything to 
worry about. Your ticket is already punched.  Nothing has been added. Here it is 
plain and simple, and the readers can see it, and you can too Bob: "He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Faith + Baptism = Salvation from past 
sins.
 
"He that believeth & is baptized shall receive a New Cadillac." 
Faith + Baptism = New Cadillac 
No honest person could possibly fail to see this. 
 
3. Matt.28:18-20 is a parallel passage to Mark 16:16. I pointed out in my last 
affirmative that no one can be saved until and unless he comes INTO relationship 
with God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. 
 
Bob says, 
"Ooops! Mistake again. Matt.28 tells us to MAKE disciples Then to Baptize." 

Now Bob answer a simple question: Can anyone be saved WITHOUT being in a 
relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit? You can answer that question 
with a "Yes" or "No" Will you do it? 
 
Well, You Readers can see he did not do it. What do you suppose it the matter 
with him, that he will dance all around, misrepresenting me, but refuse to answer 
a simple question? He claims to be a debater, and every debater knows that the 
Affirmative is obligated to answer the questions of the Negative. Well I am asking 
the question again. Lets see what he does this time. 
 
4. What did Bob do with my argument on Acts 2;38? He observed the passover on 
that one. He simply passed over it!! But that will not get the job done, so here it is 
again:
 
"Turning to the 2nd. chapter of Acts we find the Apostles preaching the dead, 
buried, and resurrected Christ. When the people realized they were guilty of 
crucifying the Lord they cried out to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, "Men and 
brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said unto them, "Why, there is not a thing 
in this world you can do. just believe on the Lord and you will receive the 
remission of your sins." EH? Is that what Peter said? That is what Bob would 
have said had he been the preacher there; That however, is a far cry from what the 
inspired Peter told them. He said, "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)
 
The English word "For" in Acts 2:38 is from the Greek word "Eis" and is found 
1447 times in the Greek New Testament. The word is never translated "because 
of" but in all 1447 times is translated "Unto", "In order to", "toward" etc., and is 
so translated in Acts 2:38.  Whatever repentance is "for" in this verse baptism is 
"for" in this verse. The word "and" (Repent AND be baptized) is what we call a 
"copulative conjunction".  A copulative conjunction joins (or couples) together 
words and phrases of equal rank and importance, so when Peter commanded them 
to "REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED, Baptism is just as important as repentance, 
and both are "for" "in order to" the remission of sins.. Eliminate baptism and see 
the command, "Repent everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins." What does "for" mean--does it mean "because of"?  Repent 
because your sins have been forgiven, or repent in order to have them forgiven? 
Will Bob or any one else take the position that the sinner repents because his sins 
have been forgiven? Now put baptism back into the command, as the Bible has it-
-"Repent and be baptized everyone of you for the remission of your sins." Does 
baptism in the passage change the meaning of the word "for" in the sentence? Of 
course not! So REPENTANCE and BAPTISM are FOR the remission of sins, and 
my proposition is proven, and Bob and all the rest of the denominational 
preachers combined cannot disprove it, and they may as well try to turn the Rocky 
Mountains over with a broken cornstalk as to try it. 

Well, there is more, but I will not discuss them until Bob deals with these 
arguments in this rebuttal. I have given them to him before, and so far he has not 
touched them.
 
I was born and raised on the farm and my father taught me, when feeding the 
mules, to give them three or four ears of corn and if they ate them, to give them 
some more. I have given Strom the arguments in this negative and he has not 
touched them; So until he does I do not plan to give him any more.
 
Voyd-THE OLD TIMER