Ketcherside - no man will be saved who...

[Mere Nick]

Back to Ketcherside's statement which makes the claim as if nothing one gets wrong condemns a person.

Ok.  You don't get that he sees a difference between the gospel and doctrine, which was the whole point he made in that chapter.  And he made it well.

For those interested, here is the chapter Lancelot quoted very briefly from.

Here's the section in it's entirety:

The careful student will also detect at once the connection between Romans 1:16 and Mark 16:16 with which we began this chapter. In the commission Jesus sent the apostles into all the world to proclaim the gospel to every creature. He declared that those who believed the Message and were immersed would be saved. Now, Paul affirms that the Message is God's dynamic unto salvation to all who believe, whether Jew or Greek. Thus, the gospel is God's unitive force for mankind. It is the gospel which brings Barbarians and Greeks, wise and unwise, together in one body.

     It is a tragedy to interpret the apostolic epistles in such a manner as to negate the apostolic gospel. It is a travesty on the spiritual walk to interpret the apostolic doctrine in such a way as to divide those who are united by the gospel of Christ, and thus make the cross of Christ of none effect. Orthodoxy has exacted a fearful toll on the body of our Lord, and will face a frightful responsibility for hacking the body to bits with the axe of partisan animosity.

     It is belief of the facts about Jesus by which all of us are saved, if saved at all. This belief acknowledges His lordship over our lives, and thus commits us to acceptance of all the truths by which we grow as we become aware of them. No man will be saved who deliberately rebels against any doctrinal truth which he understands and apprehends. No one will be lost because of merely mistaken views or human inability to grasp all of these doctrinal truths. The basis of our hope lies in sustaining a right relationship with God through Christ Jesus. If one is right about Jesus he may be wrong about a lot of things and still be saved; if he is wrong about Jesus he can be right about everything else and still be lost. The gospel is the Word of life put into words of life!

     Many in our day are not actually proclaiming the gospel of Christ as the hope of salvation. They are projecting a system composed of traditional interpretations, opinions and ideas, often conflicting with each other, and demanding conformity to this system as the gospel. Such a course will always be divisive and schismatic. It contains the germ of strife implanted within it. It is non-unitive and disruptive by its very nature.

     This is not to say that apostolic doctrine is not important. It does not argue that we should not seek to agree upon interpretation. It does mean, however that our hope of life is not contingent upon arriving at such harmony of understanding, and that it is, and always will be, an ideal toward which we must strive. Our differences about doctrinal matters that do not relate to the facts of the gospel, are occasions for discussion, and not for division. Until we learn what is the content of the gospel we shall lose the learned and confuse the unlearned.

     Not one of the apostolic letters was written to bring men into the fellowship. They were all addressed to those who were in it. Never an admonition to live in harmony or to be of one mind was written to bring men into the fellowship. Indeed, it was because they were in the fellowship that these exhortations were invariably given. Harmony is not essential to entrance into fellowship, but fellowship is essential to any satisfactory striving toward harmony. It is because we have a common relationship that we labor toward a better understanding.

     To condition fellowship upon conformity in all of these phases is not to encourage unity, but division. To attempt to force conditions of growth as conditions of family relationship is to defeat the purpose of the Son of God and to disturb the peace of the one body. This is the indictment of that species of orthodoxy which blinds men and makes them think they are loyal to Jesus when they are chipping, chopping and carving His body to bits.

     Our brethren need that gift of grace which enables them to "distinguish between things that differ." The cause of pure Christianity suffers among the masses because men who pose as teachers, and even would-be theologians stand before audiences and make disparaging remarks about any distinction in such words as "gospel" and "doctrine." If the only harm done was to prove the immaturity and mediocrity of their own scholarship one might keep still and allow them to bask in the feeble glow reflected and diffused through the veil which they wear in their reading of the Word, but they hinder the progress of reformation and remove the contest from the arena of universal thought to confine it to their own restricted corrals where none dare question and all must conform. It is for this reason that an examination of the scriptures in objective fashion is long overdue. There is a difference between the authority of the sacred scriptures and the authority of human interpretations placed upon them to maintain a traditional pattern and to perpetuate a partisan program.

     The time has come to summarize what has been written. It is my conviction that God has designed and revealed two related but distinct messages, adapted to the needs of two divergent groups as pertains to the kingdom of heaven--aliens and citizens. The first is called "the gospel of Christ," the second "the apostles' doctrine." Both are of divine origin. Both consist of the words of God. Both are authoritative because of the author.

     The word gospel is our English equivalent for a transliterated term, the Greek evangel. It means good news, glad tidings. The gospel is composed of seven historical facts about Jesus of Nazareth. It was fully proclaimed upon Pentecost. Nothing was ever added to it afterwards. The same identical message was heralded or announced to every creature under heaven. The intent of the good news is to convert aliens into citizens. It is a message to the unsaved and never to the saved, for the simple reason that the saved have already fully embraced its every requirement and demonstrated obedience to its every demand, and are no longer aliens. Only the lost are subjects of an evangel, and saved persons cannot be evangelized.

     The "doctrine of the apostles" consists of a course of instruction designed to bring citizens of the kingdom to a constantly increasing sense of maturity and responsibility. It is those who have been immersed in obedience to the claims of Jesus upon their lives who continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine. Fellowship results from the gospel, growth within the fellowship is the aim of doctrinal development. The gospel brings men into Christ, the doctrine helps them grow up in Him.

     So long as men seek to make fellowship in Christ Jesus contingent upon conformity of opinion, deduction, understanding and apprehension of apostolic doctrine, rather than upon faith in Him through the facts of the gospel, that long will they be purveyors of partisan loyalties and fomenters of factional strife. The gospel needs to be proclaimed to the whole world, the doctrine needs to be taught to the whole church, and every truth should be accepted as it becomes known.

[mandalee65]

Thanks for posting that, Nick. Good stuff.

[Mere Nick]

Thanks for posting that, Nick. Good stuff.

It was Ketcherside, more than anyone I suppose, that taught me how to stay in the brotherhood without keeping a Prozac prescription.  Teaching me the difference between "gospel" and "doctrine" was one of the kindest and loving things any mere mortal has ever done. 

[mandalee65]

Thanks for posting that, Nick. Good stuff.

It was Ketcherside, more than anyone I suppose, that taught me how to stay in the brotherhood without keeping a Prozac prescription.  Teaching me the difference between "gospel" and "doctrine" was one of the kindest and loving things any mere mortal has ever done. 

I'd never heard of him until this particular thread, but I think I am going to have to check into that book now. My curiosity is piqued :)

[Mere Nick]

You can read lots of his stuff on line.  I link to a chapter in "The Twisted Scriptures".

[Lee Freeman]

No one has argued that we should throw the Bible out. Campbell's point was that a just God would not hold a person responsible for being immersed if they really didn't know they were supposed to do so. Campbell talks about people acting on the available light they possess.

As for those who never hear about Jesus, as CS Lewis said, everyone who is saved will only be saved through Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, but there may be people God chooses to save who, though ignorant of Christ would've believed had they had the opportuinty. They'll still be saved through Christ's death and resurrection, even though they aren't consciously aware of it. But these people are the possible exception, not the rule. God will have to sort that out. I mean, if you're going to make people responsible for a certain level of knowledge, where does it end? As Bro. Jimmy Allen asked in his book, just exactly What Must One Know to be Saved?

But what are we to do with "the pious unimmersed," those people who seek to follow Christ to the best of their ability and yet don't understand the necessity of baptism? Do we treat them as we would heretics like the Gnostics or as pagans? Do we shun them as unbelievers? Campbell didn't think so and neither do I. Campbell was a big proponent of baptism (and so am I)-he argued and debated for it-and so have I. However he also knew that there was much more to being an authentic Christian that just obeying one command, even one as necessary as baptism, and that authentic Christianity was much more than merely getting all your doctrinal ducks in a row. And so do I.

I'm tired of deifying and worshiping baptism. Christ and salvation is the end-baptism is simply the means to that end. Christ saves us, not baptism. Baptism is how we appropriate the salvation that Christ offers.

Pax.

[Livelysword]

Both men held out the hope that a merciful God would take their ignorance into consideration.

Ah, so you're saying that faith is a litmus test, but baptism is not.
Why can't God allow for ignorance that causes a man to be in unbelief if He allows for ignorance that causes a man not to be immersed?

Lively:  what did Paul preach on Mars hill?   The time of ignorance is past...


Act 17:22  Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
Act 17:23  For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Act 17:24  God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25  Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28  For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Act 17:32  And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.


Why the assurance that God has raised Christ from the dead?  So we can know in our baptism, that we are raised with him...


1Co 15:12  Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13  But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Co 15:14  And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
1Co 15:15  Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
1Co 15:16  For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
1Co 15:17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
1Co 15:18  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
1Co 15:19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
1Co 15:20  But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24  Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25  For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26  The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27  For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28  And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
1Co 15:29  Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?


We are baptized for the dead to be raised with Christ...


Rom 6:3  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4  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 6:5  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6  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.
Rom 6:7  For he that is dead is freed from sin.


Col 2:12  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 2:13  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

[Lee Freeman]

Willful ignorance and accidental ignorance are two different things. Campbell's point was that a merciful God would take unwitting ignorance into account. No one who knows the truth yet willingly ignores it can be saved. But again, that's different from honestly not knowing the truth. Campbell thought it was at least theoretically possible for a person who mistook the "outward baptism" to possess the "inward baptism."

Where does our accountability stop? Just exactly what will God hold us all accountable for knowing? For example, will he hold members of Churches of Christ who deny or are ignorant of, the Spirit's indwelling accountable for not believing in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Isn't requring anything beyond belief and a willing obedience to the truth as far as a person understands it, just works-righteousness? In other words saying, if you believe and obey all of the right doctrines (who decides which ones?), God will save you. Beyond requiring the belief in Christ and his sacrifice, isn't saying that just a kind of works-righteousness?

As for unbelievers, God will have to deal with them. Perhaps God will be merciful to sincere people who would've believed yet never had the chance. I don't know. I'm content to leave the judging up to God. My job is to preach Jesus and his sacrifice for sin to whoever will listen and teach them how to live as a Christian after they respond to him in faith. Beyond that it's God's job.

Pax.

[Livelysword]

Willful ignorance and accidental ignorance are two different things. Campbell's point was that a merciful God would take unwitting ignorance into account. No one who knows the truth yet willingly ignores it can be saved. But again, that's different from honestly not knowing the truth. Campbell thought it was at least theoretically possible for a person who mistook the "outward baptism" to possess the "inward baptism."

Where does our accountability stop? Just exactly what will God hold us all accountable for knowing? For example, will he hold members of Churches of Christ who deny or are ignorant of, the Spirit's indwelling accountable for not believing in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Isn't requring anything beyond belief and a willing obedience to the truth as far as a person understands it, just works-righteousness? In other words saying, if you believe and obey all of the right doctrines (who decides which ones?), God will save you. Beyond requiring the belief in Christ and his sacrifice, isn't saying that just a kind of works-righteousness?

As for unbelievers, God will have to deal with them. Perhaps God will be merciful to sincere people who would've believed yet never had the chance. I don't know. I'm content to leave the judging up to God. My job is to preach Jesus and his sacrifice for sin to whoever will listen and teach them how to live as a Christian after they respond to him in faith. Beyond that it's God's job.

Pax.

Lively:  One still has to come to faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God to be saved... no matter who they are in this dispensation...  the only exemption from such that I see are those who are not of the age of accountability... who are by their age and understanding not able to come to faith in Christ...  the rest who are able will be held accountable... period... all have sinned and come short of the glory of God... and there really is not anyone on the planet who has not heard of Jesus Christ and that he is the savior of the world...  even if they do not fully believe or hold to such... they have heard it... all the Muslims have heard of Christ and reject him...  fact is... they have made Muhammad their savior...  but I have yet to hear where God by signs and wonders made Muhammad the savior...  I have yet to hear where Muhammad is at the right hand of God making intercession for the faithful Muslims...  Jesus told the Jews... unless you believe that I am he... ye shall die in your sins... well the same goes for the Muslims too... except you believe that Jesus is the Christ the son of God and the savior of the world... they too will die in their sins... as well as every man on this planet who is of the age of accountability... He has appointed a day in which he shall judge the world by the gospel... not the Koran...

[lancelot]

As for those who never hear about Jesus, as CS Lewis said, everyone who is saved will only be saved through Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, but there may be people God chooses to save who, though ignorant of Christ would've believed had they had the opportuinty. They'll still be saved through Christ's death and resurrection, even though they aren't consciously aware of it. But these people are the possible exception, not the rule.

So much for going by what the Bible says.   Let's just follow Lewis and what WE think.

God will have to sort that out. I mean, if you're going to make people responsible for a certain level of knowledge, where does it end?

As far as being saved initially, it ends on understanding the gospel, believing it, and obeying it.   Of course, you've thrown that out above.

As Bro. Jimmy Allen asked in his book, just exactly What Must One Know to be Saved?  But what are we to do with "the pious unimmersed," those people who seek to follow Christ to the best of their ability and yet don't understand the necessity of baptism? Do we treat them as we would heretics like the Gnostics or as pagans? Do we shun them as unbelievers? Campbell didn't think so and neither do I. Campbell was a big proponent of baptism (and so am I)-he argued and debated for it-and so have I. However he also knew that there was much more to being an authentic Christian that just obeying one command, even one as necessary as baptism, and that authentic Christianity was much more than merely getting all your doctrinal ducks in a row. And so do I.

So, we're back to tossing out baptism as being necessary to be saved.  Well, we can toss out faith also then.  Oh, you've already done that too, above.

I'm tired of deifying and worshiping baptism.

Well, the easy solution is for you to stop since I don't know of anyone else who does that.

Christ and salvation is the end-baptism is simply the means to that end. Christ saves us, not baptism.

You: Baptism doesn't save.
Peter: Baptism now saves you (I Pet.3:21).

Baptism is how we appropriate the salvation that Christ offers.

No, you've already said that one can be saved without it, without even hearing the gospel, without believing in Jesus.  You've tossed it all out, one way or another.

Lancelot

[Mere Nick]

As for unbelievers, God will have to deal with them. Perhaps God will be merciful to sincere people who would've believed yet never had the chance. I don't know. I'm content to leave the judging up to God. My job is to preach Jesus and his sacrifice for sin to whoever will listen and teach them how to live as a Christian after they respond to him in faith. Beyond that it's God's job.

Well said, coming from a facing of the reality of it.  

[lancelot]

Willful ignorance and accidental ignorance are two different things. Campbell's point was that a merciful God would take unwitting ignorance into account. No one who knows the truth yet willingly ignores it can be saved. But again, that's different from honestly not knowing the truth. Campbell thought it was at least theoretically possible for a person who mistook the "outward baptism" to possess the "inward baptism."

Where does our accountability stop? Just exactly what will God hold us all accountable for knowing? For example, will he hold members of Churches of Christ who deny or are ignorant of, the Spirit's indwelling accountable for not believing in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Isn't requring anything beyond belief and a willing obedience to the truth as far as a person understands it, just works-righteousness? In other words saying, if you believe and obey all of the right doctrines (who decides which ones?), God will save you. Beyond requiring the belief in Christ and his sacrifice, isn't saying that just a kind of works-righteousness?

As for unbelievers, God will have to deal with them. Perhaps God will be merciful to sincere people who would've believed yet never had the chance. I don't know. I'm content to leave the judging up to God. My job is to preach Jesus and his sacrifice for sin to whoever will listen and teach them how to live as a Christian after they respond to him in faith. Beyond that it's God's job.

Pax.

There is no inward baptism in scripture.

Your second paragraph absolves the gnostics, those in I Tim.4:1,2, the Galatian heresy, etc.  You have lost all your standards.

Lancelot

[Mere Nick]

Why am I not surprised to see Lee's words twisted beyond all recognition, again?