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

NICHOLS’ SECOND NEGATIVE

Mr. Moderators, Honorable Opponent, Ladies and Gentle­men: It affords me great pleasure to reply to my friend. It seems that he is sweating under the collar, and I don’t know how to make it easier for him. I am sorry he is fretted like this. He is not getting along very well—and he knows it! He has not failed to show it tonight. When a man is making good headway in debate, and is satisfied with his efforts and be­lieves he is winning, he does not fret like that! Do you think he would? I think he is showing conscious defeat by the way he is fretting and fussing. He is not satisfied with my speeches! Well, I did not expect him to be satisfied with my teaching of the truth.

Now he comes back to Berry’s Lexicon and says I did not read it correctly because I left out the words . . . (“see” cer­tain references) after the definition which I correctly gave. I read every definition of “Christos”—read that it is a “proper name,” and Mr. Holder denies that it is a “proper name “— denies that “Christos,” the Greek word for “Christ,” is a “proper name.” I gave the full definition—all the meanings given by Berry. I only left out “see . . . “(certain references), where other writers had thus used the word.

My friend says God did not unconditionally foreordain the damnation of anybody before the world was—and he never taught that. He is trying to hide his doctrine! He does say that before the world was, God foreordained the unconditional salvation of ONLY A FEW, AND LEFT THE OTHERS OUT—LEFT THE OTHERS WITH NO PURPOSE TO SAVE THEM! God did not love them, Christ did not come to die for them, there was never any good news for them, and when they were little babies they were ‘non-elect ‘—from infancy; and he admits all that. But then, to hide the ugliness of it, he says they are lost because of their own sins and are responsible for their own damnation. How could they be lost because of their sins committed in life, when they were born “non-elect’? He will not say that all babies are ‘elect’ babies, and that Christ died for all babies. You know, he speaks up, and he would do so now, if I were misrepresenting him. He knows he teaches that some infants were born ‘elect,’ and some ‘non-elect.’ He teaches that God ‘elected’ and selected some, and just left the others to die eternally—left them to be born in sin and die in sin and go to a devil’s hell, WITHOUT ANY PROVISIONS FOR THEIR SALVATION. Now, he knows that he teaches that. See his proposition.

Again, are all babies ‘elect’ babies? I want him to bring his doctrine out in the open! I am not ashamed of a thing I teach. I will tell you frankly in a moment where I stand on any religious question. Did Christ die for all babies? Did he die for all the heathen? I answered his questions (though he is in the affirmative); he is supposed to answer, yet I have asked him a number of questions and he has paid no attention to them thus far in the debate.

Rom. 10:1-4, “My heart s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted them­selves unto the righteousness of God.” That is why they were still lost, and why Paul prayed that they might be saved. He knew that their salvation was conditional, and that they would have to submit themselves to the righteousness of God in order to be saved. Therefore he was praying that they might be saved! I replied to him on this last night, and he paid no attention to it. Then, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (v. 4.) Not, “to those without faith, provided they are of the ‘elect’.” Why, no. But, “to every one that believeth.” That makes it conditional, and it is obedient faith under consideration when it is “faith” that saves.

Again: “Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doc­trine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.” (Rom. 6:17-18.) That is the way the Romans had become Christians. Before their bap­tism they were out of Christ; after their baptism they were in Christ and saved. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” (Rorn. 6:3.) I showed last night that “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” (2 Cor. 5:17.) He has paid no attention to these arguments!

He used Gal. 5, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision . . .” Well, then, what does avail? My friend would say, “Foreordination and un­conditional election of God are the only things that avail.” But Paul did not say that; Paul said, “Faith which worketh by love.” My friend does not think faith avails, or can save. His proposition makes it without faith “or any condition” on the sinner ‘s part. He affirms that God saves “all for whom Christ died,” and gives them remission of sins “without the preached or written word, or any condition on their part.” That is his proposition. Salvation is without faith, he thinks.

Jn. 1:4, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men.” he misrepresented me, saying I deny having life. I do not deny it. We rise in baptism to “walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4.) I quoted that last night, and commented on the “form of doctrine:” that (1) as Christ died for our sins, we die to the love and practice of sin, and I quoted verse 2, “How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (2) Then as Christ was buried, ‘‘we are buried with hint in baptism,” verse 4. And then (3)—“like as Christ was raised up,” we rise from baptism to ‘‘walk in newness of life,” verse 4. When one “obeys” that “form of doctrine” he is "then made free from sin,” (verses 17-18). Thus we have life—rise to walk in newness of life—--when we are “baptized into Christ” where life is. (Jn. 1:4.)

He wants to know what sort of man I baptize, a live one? or a dead one? I baptize one who is dead to the love and practice of sin, and while he is dead (properly so) I bury the dead—just as all intelligent people do all over the land, bury (baptize) the dead. Then in baptism one enters “into Christ” where life is, and he becomes alive, and walks a new life. My friend waits till one becomes alive by some unconditional decree of God before the world was, and then baptizes a live man, so he says. That is no “form” of the doctrine—death, burial, and resurrection——of Christ. Christ did not rise to life first, then be buried after he rose from the dead, like my friend would have it.

Last night when he said I had not answered a single argu­ment that he made, I warned him that if he continued to make reckless statements like that, he would lose the respect of the people. I still think it was reckless, and he needed the warning given. I repeat it now. If he does not think he will lose the respect of this intelligent audience, let him keep on saying I have not answered his arguments—not a one. The people know I am answering everything he puts forth. When I asked him last night which one I had overlooked, he said I took them all up and “complained!” He says it is “complaining” for me to quote the Scriptures, and so forth, in answer to his arguments. I don‘t mean to “complain,” but to really expose his argu­ments and his logic. I like and appreciate him very much, God is my witness. I don’t have any ill-will against him per­sonally. But I am going to expose his doctrine.

Mr. Holder said “predestination” is mentioned four times in God’s word. Yes, but God has not unconditionally predes­tinated any one to salvation, he has not found that a single time in the Bible. Not one of the four times says anything about God unconditionally predestinating any one to be saved—not one.

Mt. 1:21, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus.” My friend says this is the name of our Lord, and so “Christ” could not be a part of his name, in Acts 2:38. But the Lexicon right there before his eyes says it is “a proper name.” He denies his own Lexicon that he introduced, and its definition of the Greek word for “Christ.”

He then referred to the Scripture that some were “chosen in Christ before the world.” (Eph. 1.) This does not mean that we were “in Christ” before the world. God made the choice back there that a certain type of people would be in Christ, and says it is the kind of folk who will “be holy and without blame before him in love.” (Eph. 1:4.) It means people who would live right, as the context shows.

But how does God choose people? Paul says, “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sancti­fication of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” (2 Thess. 2:13-14.) Note that we are “chosen . . . through sanctification of the Spirit,” — and this depends upon faith. I showed last night that Paul says we are “sanctified by faith. “(Acts 26:18.) So, it is “through” sanctification which is “by faith” that God “chooses” or elects us. This text says it is also “through belief of the truth.,” (2 Thess. 2:13-14.) That makes the choice or election conditional on our part.

My friend seems to think that we were “in Christ” before the world was. If this were true, how could we be baptized “into” Christ? “Know ye not, that so many of us as were bap­tized INTO Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3.) If they were already in Christ before the world was, how could they have been “baptized into Christ?” Again, “If any man be in Christ he is a new creature.” (2 Cor. 5:17.) Now, if they were already and always in Christ, then they were always “new creatures;” then when did the new birth take place?

Rom. 16:7. My friend thinks all got into Christ before the world was—if of the ‘elect.’ But Paul says, — (A bug flew right into Nichols’ mouth, and he tried to spit him out, saying: “He was a stranger, and I took him in.”

Audience:  (Roared with laughter.)

Nichols:  (Succeeded in spitting out the bug.) “But he was lukewarm, and I spewed him out.”

Audience:  (More laughter.)

Nichols: Now listen to this passage: “Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen, . . . who also were in Christ BEFORE ME.” (Rom. 16:7.) What about these, Paul? He says they “were in Christ before me.” Well, if all the saved were “in Christ” before the world was, how could these two be “in Christ” BEFORE Paul? The answer is: they were baptized before Paul—obeyed the gospel ahead of Paul. Let my friend find where God has ever unconditionally chosen all saints “in Christ” before the world!

Gal. 5:22, “Faith” a fruit of the Spirit. The American Standard Version says “Faithfulness” is the fruit of the Spirit, here. It has reference to the faithful life of a Christian in particular. But there is a sense in which “faith” is a ‘‘fruit of the Spirit.” It is a product of the word of the Spirit. “The seed is the word of God.” (Lk. 8:11). When it falls on way side ground, “then cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.” (Lk. 8:12.) “Lest they should believe “—there is faith by the word; in that sense it is a fruit of the Spirit. But it is not an unconditional something. “Faith” refers to something man must do; hence the Bible says, “He that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mk. 16:16.)

Eph. 1:3 says, “All spiritual blessings” are “in Christ.” Yes, but Paul also says, “We were baptized INTO JESUS CHRIST.” (Rom. 6:3.) Then we are where the blessings are. And faith, repentance, and baptism are not the spiritual bless­ings; rather, they are the conditions upon which we are to re­ceive the spiritual blessings. It looks to me he could see that!

Then he quoted that “all men have not faith,” and thought it meant “no man has faith.” If I say, “All men have not gold,” does it mean “no man” has gold? Certainly not. Paul meant some folk do not have faith, and he was praying for protection from unreasonable and wicked men—dangerous men. (2 Thess. 3:12).

“For by grace are ye saved “through faith.” (Eph. 2.8.) Yes, but I proved last night that it is “through faith,” not without it. I illustrated that if the water flows “through the pipe” into your home, the pipe has to be there for the water to flow’ “through the pipe.” And, “By grace are ye saved through faith”—the faith must he there for you to be saved “through” it. They were saved “through faith,” and faith is an act of man—it is conditional on man‘s part as to whether he is ever a. believer or not.

Eph. 2:9, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” But faith is not a work of “boasting”—not the sort of work referred to.

John 5:24, “he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me . . . “—according to my friend, that is not doing anything!”. . . hath everlasting life. “—Because he did not do anything? Of course not! “He that heareth”—that is doing something! “. . . and believeth”—that is doing some­thing! “. . . hath everlasting life.” It is a fact that one must “believe” in order to have life. I pressed him with it last night, that “He that believeth not is condemned already . . .” why? “Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (Jn. 3:18.) He is condemned “Because he has not believed.” But my friend denies it, and thinks one is con­demned because he is not one of the unconditional ‘elect!’ My op­ponent thinks unbelief does not condemn.

Jn. 3:36, “he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” But my opponent says one must receive life in unbelief—-without faith—before he be­lieves—in his unbelief; then he will become a believer because he has life, he reverses it, and is in opposition to God.

The Jailer again. I brought this up last night, and my friend practically ignored it. “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30.) My opponent would not want anybody to ask him this question. He would say that sort of question is out of order—you can‘t “do” anything. But Paul and Silas answered the question fairly and honorably. “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31) here is (1.) believe, and (2) saved afterward. My friend thinks this was not salvation from sin, but just meant if the Jailer would believe, he and his family would be saved from the Roman law—saved from being executed for letting the prisoners escape. But they had not escaped! He was in no danger of execution! That was trifling with the truth! According to that idea, Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”—from the Roman law! (Mk. 16:18.) If you get in danger of the law, believe and be baptized and you will escape!

1 Jn. 5:1, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” I pointed out the fact that the “believer” here is an obedient believer. This was written to Christians, and means if they believe that Jesus is the Christ, then their obedi­ence to the gospel (being from faith) was valid, and they were born of God. But if they do not believe in Christ, then their baptism and all else was vain, being only outward formality, and they are not born of God.

He wants to know if I baptize saved people? No, I bap­tize those who want to be saved. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized SHALL BE SAVED.” (Mark 16:16.) Peter, in telling believers what to do to be saved, said, “Repent, and he baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.’’ (Acts 2:38.) So, repentance and baptism are in the name of “JESUS CHRIST” and are “FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.” “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4.) He has paid no attention to this argument.

Gal. 3:26-27, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Then he tells us what kind of faith: he says, “For as many of you as have been baptized INTO CHRIST, have PUT ON CHRIST.” My friend says in his little booklet that this is “water” baptism. So we ‘‘are’’ (present tense) “children of God by faith” which led us to obey the gospel and be baptized “into” Christ. I exposed him last night on the tenses of the verbs here, and he ignored it. When his argu­ments are exploded, he just leaves them, and says I am ‘‘complaining” I am sorry that he does not know the difference! He says no man he ever met in debate misrepresented him in debate as I have. Friends, that is not true. What is making him gall under the yoke is the fact that he can’t meet my argu­ments, nor get by with hiding his doctrine and so he frets and fusses and sweats under the collar! I can‘t do anything for him, nor help him, unless he will get on the side of truth. Then he could ably defend that.

He spoke about his little booklet. Well, it says “water bap­tism, Gal. 3:26-27.” And Paul says it puts us “into Christ,” in the same verses. Yet Mr. Holder denies that water baptism puts us into Christ!

He says the Spirit is the agent in baptizing us into the one body. The Bible does not teach that—that is just what my op­ponent says! And it is contrary to the context! Verse 3 says, “No man can say that. Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” But one can know that Jesus is Lord by the Spirit’s teaching through inspired men: “Let all the house of Israel know assured­ly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36.) So then, just as we say Jesus is Lord “by the Holy Ghost,” when we say it by the teach­ing and revelation of the Spirit through inspired men,—just in that way, we arc baptized in water “by one Spirit” (by the Spirit’s teaching) “into one body.” (1 Cor. 12:3, 13.) The Holy Spirit leads us by his word to be baptized in water, and that is “for the remission of sins,” (Acts 2:38), or to be saved, and thus “into one body,” the church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I said we are not baptized “into” water, but we are “in” the water before the act. He made light of the fact, and says he supposes I don’t go down into the water then. Yes, but going down into the water is not baptism. Philip and the Eu­nuch both “went down into the water” before “he baptized him.” (Acts 8:38.) Baptism was a secondary matter—not in importance, but in the order of events. Going “into the water” was not the baptism-—it followed. We are baptized in water “INTO CHRIST.” (Gal. 3:26-27.) I illustrated it: a couple are married “in” the house “into” wedlock. In water we are baptized “into Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 6:3.) Water is the ele­ment, and as a result it is “into” Christ. CHRIST is not the ELEMENT of baptism.

He says the baptism of the Spirit is not given to sinners. But he paid no attention to my argument that the measure of the Spirit for Christians is given after faith, and not before it. “After that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” (Eph. 1:13.)

Cornelius’ case was an exception to the general rule. The gospel was just then being started to the Gentiles, and the bap­tism of the Spirit was a witness from God that Gentiles were gospel subjects, the same as Jews. (Acts 15:7-9.)

Saul of Tarsus said, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6.) My friend said this was a prayer. He was rather asking for instruction, just as on Pentecost they said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles: “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37.) “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6.) If it were a prayer, he was not saved by it; if he had been, your doctrine is false—for you don’t even believe a sinner must pray to be saved! Why did he get off on prayer? He claims one is saved without calling on the Lord in any sense, or doing anything. “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rum. 10:13.) He would say, “Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord HAS ALREADY BEEN SAVED!” But it’s more than mere calling: Paul says, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach ex­cept they be sent?”—And in verse 17 he says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10:13-17.) There is preaching, hearing, believing, calling, then salvation. Paul was not saved by simply asking what to do. Jesus said, “Go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” (Acts 9:6.) Being taught of Jesus, he went to the city, and the preacher who was sent to him said, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16.)

Again, he wants to know if God ever called a sinner to preach? God sent Judas to preach: “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach.” (Mt. 10:5-7.) He sent the “twelve” to “preach,” and Judas was one of them. (Verse 4.) Was Judas a child of God? He denies it. So, according to my friend, God sent Ju­das, a sinner, to preach.

But Paul did not preach until after he was baptized, after he obeyed the command to “be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” (Acts 22:16.) “Thy sins”—he still had his sins to be forgiven at baptism. Jesus had said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16), and Saul was no ex­ception to the rule.

My friend says Paul washed away his sins in a figure. But he is adding to the word of God! Did Saul only have sins in a figure? “Be baptized and wash away thy sins.” Did he have any sins? he had “sins” and had to wash them away—be forgiven—in the blood of the lamb. “These . . . have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” (Rev. 7:14.)

He said that I said God saved Saul before he was baptized. Why, I never said such a thing in my life, he said his ques­tion was tricky. If I misapprehended it, let him tell us whether God sent Judas to preach, and whether he was saved, or not!

He complained that I do not call him “Brother.” Well, does he always call me “Brother?” Does he not sometimes say “Mr. Nichols?” That is perfectly gentlemanly, and everybody knows it. When he obeys the gospel, I shall be glad to call him ‘‘Brother!’’

Acts 10:31. Cornelius prayed and was heard. Yes, but without being saved at that time. The angel who told him his prayer was heard, said, “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house SHALL BE SAVED.” (Acts 11:13-14.) Yes, Cornelius had had faith in GOD for a long time, “Prayed to God always;”—but he had to believe in CHRIST to be saved under the gospel. Peter later said that “God made choice among its, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, AND BELIEVE.” (Acts 13:7.)

My friend said Cornelius was already “cleansed.” Yes, in the sense that Jews can now associate with Gentiles. Peter said, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should call no man common or unclean.” (Acts 10:28.) In the sense that Cornelius was ‘clean’ all men (universally) are clean—”no man” is “un­clean.” Peter did not mean salvation. Scriptural cleansing is conditional: “Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken.” (Jn. 15:3.)

Acts 10:34-35. “In every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” The American Standard Version says, “Is acceptable to him.”

Acts 10:44-47. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost baptism before he was baptized. Yes, and before being saved. John the Baptist was “filled with the holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb” (Lk. 1:15.) Was he saved—born again—before that time?

I have followed him through his affirmative speeches and lacked only three or four minutes in which to have replied to every point he brought up. I got most of those on his chart in connection with other points, and without pointing to the chart at the time. Tomorrow night I shall be in the affirmative.

Moderator: Rapped for time.

Nichols: And I thank you very much. May God bless you every one.

< 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.