Frank Jamerson
(This is a copy of the letter I wrote the Courier Journal Editor in response to Adventist, Buddy Mauldin’s letter trying to answer one of our ads.)
I would like to respond to some of the things Mr. Mauldin asserted in his criticism of my article on the gifts of the Spirit.
He said the baptism of fire (Mt. 3:11) refers to the tongues of fire on the apostles (Acts 2:3). First, Acts 2 says nothing about the tongues of fire being a baptism. The apostles were “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5), not with fire. Notice the context of Mt. 3:7-12. Some of John’s audience were a “Brood of vipers” and he warned them to change (v. 7). He said he could baptize with water, but Jesus had greater power and would baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire” (v. 11). Then, Matthew explained that Jesus would “gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire” (v. 12). In describing the judgment, Jesus said the wheat and tares would be separated and the tares will be burned (Mt. 13:30). That’s what happens to the chaff, not the wheat! The parallel account in Luke is even plainer (Lk. 3:7-9,16,17). Luke said the tree that does not produce good fruit “is cut down and thrown into the fire” (v. 9), and Christ “will gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire” (v. 17). To say the Apostles received the baptism of fire is to call them chaff or unfruitful trees!
Mr. Mauldin claims there is a contradiction between being washed in baptism and being washed in the blood of Christ. Revelation 1:5 does say we are “washed from our sins in His own blood.” When does that happen? When a person simply believes, or when he obeys Christ? Saul of Tarsus was told to “arise and be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16). Is that two contradictory ways of having sins washed away? Certainly not! Paul explained that he had been “baptized into His death,” or “buried with Him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:3,4). Christ shed His blood in His death, and we are baptized into His death and “raised to walk in newness of life.” Mr. Mauldin has a person walking in newness of life before he was buried into the death of Christ.
Then, he tries to nullify the promise of Christ: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk. 16:16), by the dilemma of a person in the desert with no water to be baptized. By the same reasoning, I will deny the other requirement Christ gave. Another man, who was an atheist, is in the desert but someone convinces him that God exists. He does not believe Jesus was raised from the dead, but is on the way to study with someone about Jesus. He was too far away, had no water to survive and perished in the desert, therefore belief in Christ is not essential! Neither of these approaches is an effort to understand what Jesus taught. It is not my responsibility to judge the eternal destiny of either man. The Judge was crucified and raised from the dead (Acts 17:30,31). It is just as much a judgment to consign a person to heaven as it is to consign him to hell. Neither Mr. Mauldin nor I, have the responsibility to try to act in this capacity. It is my responsibility to teach what Jesus said, and leave the judging to the true Judge.