header image
Home arrow Writers arrow Nichols-Holder Debate arrow Second Night: Holder's First Affirmative
Second Night: Holder's First Affirmative PDF Print E-mail
Written by Holder/Nichols   


HOLDER’S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE


Brethren Moderators, Mr. Nichols, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am delighted to come again before this splendid audience and to continue to affirm the proposition we affirmed last evening.

Indeed it is (and should be) a great encouragement to the speakers to have such a large audience. There is much interest in the discussion, else there would not be so many here as have assembled. We will try to make it just as interesting for you, and try to confine (or, I shall try to confine myself) as directly and plainly to the question under discussion as I possibly can.

I wish to notice some things which were brought up in the closing speech last evening, which it becomes my duty at this time to reply to; then I shall take up and go ahead. Two-thirds of the statements he made with reference to my positions were far from the mark—far away from even what I believe (and sometimes where I said nothing!)—far away from anything connected with the position that I might take on the particular points he mentioned. That is not taking up and following after an opponent! We had much of this to contend with in the discussion I had with him in south Alabama. (He said last evening that I said I had met him in debate; and then he said, “And I MET YOU in debate!” See? That works both ways! We each had half the time, and we occupied it then, and we shall try to occupy it this time.)

On last evening Mr. Nichols made the statement: “Mr. Holder‘s position was that the anointing was the shedding of blood.” I shook my head, and he said, “He’s taking it back!” I had not started to say it! When I rose to my feet, I did not rise to correct him for violating a rule; I rose to correct him for the misstatement, not stating my position. Of course, I should have kept my seat; and that will possibly clarify that—I hope it will.

Now then, he wants to take the position here that there is a difference in Jesus’ being anointed, and shedding his blood for the remission of sins. Why, sure. Jesus was anointed and then shed his blood: so then the anointed One, when he hung on the cross, shed his blood. And he said (Mt. 26:28), “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.” Friend Nichols does not believe he remitted sins. But he will come over to Acts 2:38 and take the identical little phrase, and the same preposition, and he will stand before his audiences all over this country and tell them, “If you will repent, and if you will he baptized, your sins will be remitted.” See? When Jesus shed his blood, he didn’t do that: but when you repent and you are baptized, then this happens! See? Now, where is his faith? He does not have faith in Christ on that lesson! Not willing to risk him! Faith has to take its object. The object of his faith in Acts 2:38 is repentance and baptism, no matter how much he says he believes that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of sinners. If he would stick to that, we could shake hands, and this debate would be over. He is not willing to risk Him, and turns to something else.

Now, he calls up Thayer. But, Brother Nichols, I have Thayer, and you didn’t read the printed page last night like it reads. And here it is: “Christ and its meaning. Now he read last night, and the way he read it (and I would like to have his little book—if you will hand it up here); I will read it just like Thayer gives it. Here is what Thayer says: “Of the Messiah, used in his generic aspect, the word, that is to say, being used as an appellative.” Now, he read that much; and he said then, “and refers to the proper noun.” He wanted to put over that it was a proper noun! Well, he exposed his scholarship! And he goes absolutely contrary to every standard Greek Lexicon I have noticed. He can read any of them he wishes. NOW, I am going to read it like it is here: “Of the Messiah, viewed in His generic aspect, the word, that is to say, being used as an appellative rather than a proper name.” (Page 672.)

Let us go back and review Acts 2:38. I have him in a tight on Acts 2:38; I know where I am, and I know where he is! He cannot take Acts 2:38. He is debating with a Primitive Baptist! He takes some of our other neighbors and wears them out on the account of that coordinating conjunction “and” in the text. But he is tied, and there is nobody in this audience that knows it better than my friend Nichols. He is absolutely tied—and he cannot budge an inch! I know where I am on Acts 2:38. Now, let us take it again, as we went over it yesterday: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus, the anointed one for the remission of sins.” You remember I told you the word “Christ” is not a translated word. Translating it, as the Greek lexicons hand it to us, George flicker Berry (a Ph.D., Professor of the University of Chicago, and the one who gives us the interlinear translation of the Greek-English text) says this very word here is “a verbal adjective.” And I have the book over there on the table, if he wants to refer to it. All right. “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (“Eis aphesin hamartion” in the Greek.) “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (“Eis aphesin hamartion.”) The very identical phrase in both the Greek and the English! Then Mr. Nichols says that this preposition here has reference to, and refers to, and is “unto,” or it is ‘‘in order to,” remit sins. That is his position. Repentance and baptism are verbs showing action toward the “remission of sins.” If it read, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins,” I could agree. And how many times I have heard Acts 2:38 quoted and this other left out! I am giving you the text: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins.”——“In the name of Jesus, the anointed one for the remission of sins.” The ‘anointed One” for what? “For the remission of sins.” He does not believe it; I do!

All right. Friend Nichols will round up the good people, and tell the good people that I am just losing my prestige with you, and he is sorry to see me do that! I will let the audience stand on my prestige and my honor, before you, any time he wants to take a vote on it. I think I know how to behave myself; I was trying to get him to look at me. How do you like Acts 2:38?

I am not here to appeal to the prejudiced mind. The Christian religion is the most kind and gentle thing you can think about. It seeks its kind; it seeks receptive minds and hearts. That is the sort of minds I make my appeal to. Now, if you came here prejudiced, or if I came here prejudiced, both you and I are wrong. Let us leave that out, and meet these issues like men. I am not trying to make a display, in order to win my way through, and by evading the arguments that are presented—and I shall not when he gets in the affirmative.

He says that Christ became captain by bringing many eons to glory. But, he became the perfect captain, Elder! And in becoming a perfect captain, in order for him to be a perfect captain, he must not lose a soldier. That is the reason why the word “nian” is not in Heb. 2:9. It is a supplied word. And there is a rule, in the proper interpretation of supplied language, that you must interpret it according to the context of the lesson. And the context of the lesson tells us that it means the ones he brings to glory. The ones who are set apart, and he set apart, to do the work for them. And the ones who shall finally be brought to him. And the ones who will he set in the midst of the church: “I will sing praises unto thee; and again, Behold, I, and the children whom thou hast given me.” Now, I know I’m right about this; and I have gone over, just quoting one of the best Greek and Hebrew scholars a preacher ever read after on Heb. 2:9—I have it right over there on the desk.

All right: Lk. 24:46-47, “Repentance and remission of sins” is to be preached. And the one who remits sins. If we remit sins by faith, repentance, confession, and baptism, we should preach in the name of the individual that repents, confesses, and is baptized. But Jesus Christ shed his blood to remit sins, therefore the gospel should be preached “in the name” of the one who remitted sins! And Jesus did that when he shed his blood. (Lk. 24:46-47.) “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.” (Heb. 9:22.) Therefore the remission of sins is in the blood, and the shedding of the blood.

He said, “No, I do not believe that—I do not baptize children of God.” Put your finger on him there: He said last night, “No, I do not baptize children of God.” I ask you the question again, Elder Nichols: Do you baptize a man who is dead in sin? or do you baptize one who is dead to sin? When he says he baptizes one who is dead to sin, I have him tied! Just let him take either horn of the dilemma he pleases.

“The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached and every man presseth into it.” Did King Herod press into the kingdom of God? Did those who rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not entering into the kingdom, “press into the kingdom of God?” Did those who went about to crucify and to kill our Lord, “press into the kingdom of God?” The truth of the matter is, Mr. Nichols teaches they could not any of them “press into it,” because it did not exist until the day of Pentecost! But since the days of John the Baptist, “Every man presseth into it.”

Then he uses that expression, “Behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy which shall be to all people.” Was it glad tidings to King Herod? Was it glad tidings to the ones that killed all the babies in Judea, seeking the life of Jesus Christ? What is the man going to do next? This simply has reference to the gospel in its setting: as time goes on, after while Jesus will hang on the cross, the middle wall of partition will be broken down, and both Jew and Gentile will have the same approach to the heralds of the gospel as it goes to the nations. And that is what it means when it says, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” This is a statement of fact; and I believe the fact—but he believes some of them fall from grace and go to hell!

Nichols goes wrong, and he is ridiculous, on the kingdom, when he takes the word “every man.” ‘‘Every man,” Sir, there simply means Gentiles as well as Jews. Like, “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams,” and so on. “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,” means on the Gentiles as well as the Jews. And he would agree with me on that, and reduce it even more than I would, because he thinks it was just the twelve apostles!

“The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” He stopped at the comma last night when he quoted that. How is the heathen justified? That little word “before” there says “before the gospel.” And you cannot have faith without the gospel—that is his position: how in the world, then, could they be justified “before the gospel,” justified by the faith “before the gospel,” when the gospel must be preached in order that they might have faith? The last part of that text tells: it comes through the promise that God made unto Abraham, saying, “In thee and in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed.” That is, Gentiles as well as Jews, in the fulfillment of that promise, are blessed; as in Acts 2:39, where it says this: ‘‘The promise is unto you, and to your children, to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Then with many other words did he testify unto them, saying, Save yourselves from”—hell? No; “save yourselves from this untoward generation.”

Now, I want to take about five minutes in review on some things that I went over last evening. And I would like to call your attention to the first proof that I introduced, where the Saviour said, “I lay down my life for the sheep.” Then I went to Mt. 25, verses 31-34, “When the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and all nations shall be gathered unto him. He shall separate the righteous from the wicked, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats, placing the sheep on his right hand, but the goats upon the left. Then he shall say to those on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” That little personal pronoun “you” takes the noun “sheep” for its antecedent. The noun “sheep” is equal to the number that shall be on the right hand at the second coming of Christ. The noun “sheep” is equal to the number he laid down his life for. Now, things equal to the same things are equal to each other—and that being true (and that is a mathematical rule), as Jesus laid down his life for the “sheep,” the “sheep” shall be on his right hand at his second coming; therefore all for whom Christ died shall he saved, and shall enter into the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world.

Again: I called his attention last night to the fact that the “ransomed of the Lord” or the “redeemed of the Lord” (Isaiah uses both those words—in one place he says the “ransomed” of the Lord; in another place he said the “redeemed” of the Lord)—-“The redeemed of the Lord shall return—and come to Zion, with singing and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.” How many did he redeem? Every one that shall come to Zion. And the gentleman cannot refute this position. His position is that he redeemed all of Adam‘s race! If he redeemed all of Adam’s race, then he has that part of Adam’s race not brought unto that heavenly Zion, down in the lower regions, having “everlasting joy,” and they are singing down there! And I told him last evening that. I thought that place was a place of punishment.

He tried to dodge around-—he tried to get away from the lime. But I headed him off—and here it is: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12.) Let that be all of Adam’s race: if all of Adam’s race was eternally redeemed when Jesus Christ shed his blood, he has the damned in hell with everlasting redemption, or redeemed from the bondage and guilt of sins! Here it is: Isa. 51:11.

Now, we shall go over here to another strong argument I made. He said, “Mr. Holder, these people will not think well of you if you get up there and say I did not answer your arguments.” He has not answered one argument I made! Not one argument has he answered! He has complained; he is a good complainer! That’s right! Did you know, these men have quit answering these arguments! They will not dare answer them. And I know why: you have got that intellectual power of any other people—I am not putting him below the average; he cannot do it, nor no man on earth can do it! They are the eternal truths of God, and the reasoning on them in their divine setting cannot be overthrown.

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more than being justified—being then, more than this, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more than being reconciled, much more, then being reconciled we shall be saved by his life.” I asked him last evening to notice those personal pronouns. And I gave him a task; he did not undertake it. Here is what I said: “Watch these personal pronouns: ‘Christ died for US.’ ‘WE were enemies to God.’ ‘WE were sinners.’ ‘WE shall be saved through him.’ ‘WE shall be saved by his life.’ Who shall be saved? Those that Christ died for. That is language.” It is established, and there is not a man in the world who can overthrow it!

Let us turn over here now: I call your attention—He asked me something about the heathen yesterday. Well, here it is: There is a book sealed, which could not be opened and looked upon and read. So were our sins; the Lamb of God left his throne and came to earth. By a perfect sacrifice, his death, shed blood, and resurrection, and back to the Father as mediator, the seven seals were loosed, and the law, with its authority, was satisfied. This Lamb, by so doing, redeemed his people “out of every nation”—not “all of the nations,” but “out of every nation.” Let us see what we have here: “And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven nor in earth, nor under the earth was able to open the book, neither to look thereon; and I wept much because no man was found worthy to read the book, neither to look there on. And they sang a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every nation, out of every kindred, out of every tongue, and people, and nation. And hast made us unto our God, kings and priests; and we shall reign on the earth.”

All right: now I want to notice some things with reference to the other part of the proposition. My friends, I have sustained, and I have gone through, and I have given ample proof—and I have plenty more here if time would afford—to prove abundantly (even three times more proof than I have had time to get to) that all for whom Christ died will be saved. Let me lay down a principle here: this man I am debating with said last night that He died “for all the race alike.” That is exactly his words. (I played back your speeches today, Elder Nichols.) “That Christ died for all the race alike.” All right: that being true, Jesus did exactly the same thing for the damned in hell us he did for the saved in heaven!!! Now, you get this reasoning: (and he will not overthrow it!) he did just the same thing for the damned in hell as he did for the saved in heaven! Let that be whatever it might be. By and by, those who go to hell, what Jesus did for them did not carry them to the other place—that is, it did not carry them and finally land them in heaven. I do not care, Mr. Nichols, what you say puts people in heaven, seeing that which he did for the damned in hell did not save them in heaven: then, what he did for those that are in heaven did not carry them there either! Because if it had carried them there, it would have carried those that are damned in hell there also, seeing the work for them is the same. But bye and bye,—that is the reason why he is on something else: that is his Saviour! That is his God! And listen, Elder Nichols, in debate with the Holiness preacher in Alabama, you said this in answer to his question, “Is it a known fact that any thing or any person one puts the most trust in, that thing or person is his god?” and you said, “Yes.” All right: I will put you to the test, now: which do you have the most confidence in, the shed blood to remit sins? Or repentance or baptism? Put your finger on him!

Must be born again to see the kingdom of God.” Last night he said, “Holder, if you would preach the gospel like deuce in: the shed blood to remit sins?

My next argument is this: The work of salvation is declared to be a “creation.” Those thus saved are said to be “new creatures” in Christ. God does not employ human means in the creation of the universe nor of any living creature in the universe—any living creature. Now, he will come back and make a play on that. I am not talking about what people do in the realm of nature that have life. That is not it. I am not talking about what man has the ability to do, who has life. I am not talking about that. I am talking about someone who does not have this new creation doing something to bring about his creation. Now you can understand.

I am tied here by this “halter” (referring to the lapel microphone), but I want to get to this chart next.

“Created in Christ Jesus unto good works, Eph. 2:10.” “For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” That is, the good works that ye should walk in them. Now this creation is UNTO good works; and it is a good work to repent—that is, under the evangelical effect of the gospel of Jesus Christ, to “repent.” He quoted the text last night where it is said, “God is not slack concerning his promises as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Pet. 3:9.) Well, that is restricted there; if he knows the use of language (and I suppose he does): “God is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any (of us) should perish, but that all (of us) should come to repentance.” (2 Pet. 3:9)

“Translated into kingdom of God’s dear Son.” “Who hath translated us into the kingdom of God ‘s dear Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” That is the work of God, and it is not the act or the conditions performed by man. (Col. 1:12,13.)

“Must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.” Last night he said, “Holder, if you would preach the gospel like I do—. Let us see: Does the world “see,” and does the world hear, and does the world understand, and does the world believe, what you preach?  they of the world, and the W-O-R-L-D heareth them.” (1 Jn. 4:5.) Now, let us go to the next text: “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome the world. For greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. He that knoweth God, heareth us; and he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 Jn. 4:6.)

“Justified by faith, have peace with God.” He quoted that half-way last evening. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by whom we have access by faith into this grace wherein ye stand and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.” (Rom. 5:1,2.) Alien sinners have access unto this grace, wherein they stand—alien sinners stand in grace! (Rom. 5:2.) And alien sinners rejoice in the hope of the glory of God! Why, he has that fellow happy on the outside, and he makes light, sometimes, of folks who get happy on the inside!

“Faith is the fruit of the Spirit.” You know, sometimes they say that this direct operation of the Spirit is false. Say, Elder: did you ever see a peach grow on a tree without direct contact? Did you ever see the fruit grow on a fruit tree, and that fruit not have direct contact? Did you ever see fruit that did not come out of the nature of the tree from which the fruit is borne? All right: we are told here in Gal. 5:22 that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, meekness, temperance, brotherly kindness, faith,” and so on. “Faith” is a fruit of the Spirit.

Here is one: (I am going to nail you to the wall! I am going to nail you to the wall on it!) I want you to answer: “All spiritual blessings.” “All spiritual blessings are to be had in heavenly places IN CHIST.” Now, here is what I want you to do: you made a great noise last evening about faith; I want your man that has faith, out of Christ! Will you bring him up here? I will deal with him. I want your man possessing faith, out of Christ! When you do, I will take your little word “in Christ”—“in Christ”—. Faith is “in Christ;” “faith is in Christ;” and never out of Christ! Individuals must be brought “into Christ” where that faith is.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

< Previous   Next >

Purpose

The Primitive or Old School Baptists cling to the doctrines and practices held by Baptist Churches throughout America at the close of the Revolutionary War. This site is dedicated to providing access to our rich heritage, with both historic and contemporary writings.