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


Mr. Moderators, Honorable Opponent, Ladies and Gentlemen: It affords me great pleasure to reply to the speech to which you have just listened and further my affirmative. I want to notice what he said about the prodigal son first. In reply to Mr. Weaver, I said: “He reminds us that the prodigal son was not baptized when he was forgiven by his father. No, for this is a parable, and not a case of conversion. He was a son when he went away, and primarily represents the restoration of a backsliding child of God.” Why did you leave out the word “PRIMARILY”? I did not say he only represented a backslider, but “primarily” does so. You left the impression that I said he represented only a backslider; he does “primarily,” but also represents anyone who repents. Like the parable, there is joy over any sinner that repents. I challenge you to deny it.

My friend charges that I do not know where a comma is. I have not said anything about a comma. If I had been writing, he might criticize my punctuation. But let us see if he knows where to place a comma. In his little booklet, page 13, he says, “Repent,” — comma there of course, where printers put it — “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus,” — my opponent put a comma to separate “Jesus” from “Christ” in the passage. I challenge you, Sir, to find a translation on earth that puts a comma after the word “Jesus” in the passage — between the word “Jesus” and the word “Christ.” You forged it! YOU FORGED IT! YOU FORGED IT, Sir! You did it to get rid of the fact that the word “Christ” is an appellative, or title, and that it is “a proper name.” That’s what you did. He forged it. Here it is, on page 13 of his little booklet. “Repent, (comma) and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus,” (comma). No translation puts a comma there; I have examined some fifteen or twenty of them, and did not find it in a single one. He forged the comma and put it in there to try to make it appear that Jesus was “ANOINTED” for the remission of our sins. He says “Christ” means anointed, here; and Peter was just saying Jesus was anointed “for the remission of sins.”(Acts 2:38.) Yet, last night he denied the anointing of Jesus was the shedding of his blood, thus lost the point! I showed last night that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:38; Lk. 4:18.) I challenged him to show that that remitted our sins. The Bible nowhere says it was for the remission of sins. But if it were, why did he later have to shed his blood for the remission of sins? (Mt. 26:28.) Are there two atonements thus? If the anointing were for our remission, then there was no need for the blood as a later sacrifice to be made. That makes him shed his blood in vain, for he had already been anointed. Well, then, he is not the right fellow to talk about commas, is he? He forges them right into the Bible text when quoting it—and so as to make a point, too, when he did it!

He complained that I use too many Scriptures, and so on. Well, that is none of his business. I am conducting my side of the debate. I did not expect him to be satisfied with my speeches. He would like it much better if I would get up here and stutter and stammer around, use no Scripture, and sit down.

He brought that same objection up in our former debate, and I told him then that the Germans thought we were using too many soldiers, too many bullets, too many airplanes, etc.; but that was none of their business; it was our side of it. I think a debater is suffering when he complains at the number of arguments and Scriptures used by his opponent. I have made arguments, too. But he said he was not intending to follow me and examine my arguments. No, he is not going to obey the rules, is he? One of the rules says, “Whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor.” He signed the statement agreeing to be governed by these rules. Now he gets up and says he is not going to do it—not going to follow me—not going to examine my arguments!

He wants to know if infants have to believe, repent, and be baptized, and if they will be lost in hell if they don’t do these things. My proposition says nothing about infants doing these things. He thinks they are sinners if Christ died for all the sinful race of Adam. I am affirming: “The Scriptures teach that Christ died for all the sinful race of Adam . . .” His blood is ready for whoever needs it. Did my opponent need it before he was born? Did you need it two thousand years ago when it was shed on the cross? Was it not shed for you nearly two thousand years before you needed it? If so, he could have added a few more years to it, till you became a sinner and needed remission of sins. Did you need it when you were first born?  That very minute? Were you born on the way to hell so you would need it then? Were you in danger of damnation that very minute? He thinks the blood was only shed for the ‘elect’ infants. (He sits over there and winks at me, tries to intimidate me—I wish the audience could see how he tries to intimidate me when I am speaking! If I ever look at him he winks at me! Is that honorable discussion of God’s word???) “he offers the remission of alien sins, or salvation, to all alike—” that is, to all sinners alike, all the race needing remission— it was provided for all. It takes in the infants when they become sinners and need it. Does he think the little fellows are lost? IF SO, DID CHRIST DIE FOR ALL BABIES ALIKE? You watch and see if he ever answers these questions! He won’t do it. Mr. Holder, I am going to give you this one-doller bill if you will answer that question? Did Christ die for all babies alike? Did he? Take the dollar. (I have to hire my opponent to answer my questions.)

Audience: Laughter.

Nichols: Here it is. (Offering it to Holder’s moderator, who said: “I don’t want it.”)

Holder‘s Moderator: “You fellows do your debating to the audience. What do you say, fellow moderator?”

Nichols’ Moderator: “I will leave that up to you, and your debater.

Nichols: I accept that rule if Mr. Holder does.

Holder: (Agrees.)

Nichols: I appreciate that: that has been my rule of debating all my life, until my friend started this the other night wanting me to look at him, and pressing me to answer from my seat. He is the one that started it the first night, and the printed book will show that.

For an illustration: If some rich man makes a will providing hospitalization for his children and grandchildren, with medical care in case of illness, and provided it for all of them alike, my opponent thinks that would have to mean they collect while well, and that it is for them, sick or well, all the time. I want him to answer this question, too: Were you a sinner when Christ died on the cross? Did you get remission of sins two thousand years before you were born? Did he get the new birth back there at the cross, or did he get it since he became a sinner? Did you get the new birth before you got the old birth—the fleshly birth? I have to hire him to answer questions, he says he is not going to follow me and answer my arguments!

Well, I have run him out of the Bible, and to talking about Methodists, Missionary Baptists, and others. Yet he said last night: “I have not come here to appeal to prejudice!” He has gone back on it, and is doing everything he can to set some of the audience against the speaker on the ground of prejudice. He started it the first night, by wanting to know if the heathen could be saved by the gospel. And so I shall follow him to expose him in all such. I have got him out of the Bible! He talked about Alexander Campbell, when he admits he has not answered thy arguments. I am not following Alexander Campbell, or any other man; I am interested in what God says. I do not teach a thing which I can not read in the Bible. I CHALLENGE HIM TO SHOW ONE THING THAT I TEACH OR PRACTICE IN RELIGION THAT WAS NOT IN THE BIBLE EIGHTEEN HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CAMPBELL WAS BORN!

2 Thess. 1:7-9, “Taking vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel.” He says Paul knew God and prayed before obeying the gospel, and had faith, etc. Well, he was not saved by faith when he said, “Who art thou, Lord?” and at the same time he said, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do ‘1” (Acts 9:5-6.) His faith had not saved him then. Three days later, and in answer to his question, the man sent to tell him said, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16.) He was not in Christ before, for he said, “Know ye not, that so many OF us as were BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3.) He was not in Christ until he was baptized, three days after he saw the Lord.

Mk. 16:15; when he came to this passage he criticized us for not having more missionaries in foreign lands—and we are not doing enough. But I am doing all I can about it—teaching my brethren to do more, etc. But since he brought that up, and I have run him out of the Bible, and he is trying to create prejudice, I would like to ask him how many missionaries the Old Baptists ever sent into foreign lands? See if he remains silent about it. I dare say the church of Christ at Lubbock, Texas — just one of our congregations — has spent more money, and sent more missionaries to foreign countries, than the whole Primitive Baptist fraternity in the United States!

Concerning the promise made to Abraham, Paul says the promise, “in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed,” referred to Christ. (Gal. 3:16.) God said, “In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 28:14.) Hence, Christ died for “all families of the earth.” If you find a family for whom Christ did not die, and for whom there are no blessings provided in Christ, you make the Bible false. Acts 3:25 puts it “all the kindreds of the earth.” If you find a man that blessing is not for, you find a man who is no “kin” to the rest of us! Hence, he died for all the sinful race of Adam. Acts 3:24, “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.” (Acts 3:25.) Peter said we are the children of that covenant. In the next verse he says, “God sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26.)

Gal. 3:8 says, “God would justify the heathen through faith.” This involved preaching. Paul says, “Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved.” (1 Thess. 2:16.) My friend does not believe it; he thinks they were already saved without speaking to them. The word “salvation” does not mean much to him unless it has the word “grace” connected with it. “He shall tell thee words whereby thou, and all “thy house shall be saved”—does not mean much to him. (Acts 11:13-14.) He tries to get rid of such with a jest or a laugh.

He says Cornelius prayed before baptism. But he has paid no attention to my reply that he was still not saved. (Acts 11:13-14.) I begged him to notice Eph. 3:6, but he has not done it. Will you do it tonight? WILL YOU DO IT? You will examine it? I will give you another dollar! (I am going to hire him to notice my arguments in this debate, and that is a shame!) Eph. 3:6 says, “That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ BY THE GOSPEL.” If you ever get God’s promise in Christ, you must get it “by the gospel.” That is the promise that God made, taking in Gentiles, saying, “In thy seed shall ‘all the families’ or ‘all the kindreds’ of the earth.” Paul bases his argument on that, that the Gentiles are ‘‘fellowheirs.” (Eph. 3:6; Gal. 3:8) “That the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” (Acts 15:7.) Gal. 3:8 says they would have to be justified “by faith” and that put the gospel in the plan. “Who shall tell thee words whereby thou, and all thy house shall be saved.” (Acts 11:13-14.)

Eph. 2:8, “By grace are ye saved through faith.” He gets into trouble when he tries to answer arguments, and he wants to stay out of trouble! He said this passage tells how man is saved—present tense. But Acts 11:14 says, “Who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved?” This is future tense. Who “shall tell thee”—future tense—”words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved?”—future tense. He could not be saved until he heard the words, and be saved “through faith.” (Eph. 2:8.)

He spoke about the anti-Christ. It means those who are against Christ, and deny him. He tried to make something ugly out of it against his opponent.

I Jn. 4:14, “The Father sent the Son to be the saviour of the world.” His reply was that that did not say anything about faith, repentance, confession and baptism. No, but it does prove that Christ came in behalf of “the world.” It shows that, and my friend made a miserable dodge on it!

1 Jn. 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” he wanted to know whose sins are meant by “our sins.” All right, let us go back to the first chapter and trace it on down, and see who they are. In v. 6 he speaks of "our fellowship with him—Jesus Christ, the Son." (That is Christians.) Then, v. 7, “If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin”—Christians being cleansed along the way, as they walk in the light, present tense. Then v. 8, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” And v. 9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive vs our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Then v. 10, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (That is the last verse of the first chapter.) Next: (2:1), “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Then v. 2, “And he is the propitiation for our sins”—the sins of Christians. My friend emphasized the “us,” “we,” etc., in Rom. 5:8-10—argued this was the ‘elect.’ All right, then this would be the ‘elect’ according to him. “OUR SINS.” Then the apostle says, “And NOT FOR OURS ONLY, but ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.” (1 Jn. 2:2.) “Whole world”—I challenge you to show that the ‘elect’ is ever called the “whole world” in the Bible. “The whole world lieth in wickedness.” (1 Jn. 5:19.)

1 Jn. 4:1-6, “Try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” He gave the rule to “try “those claiming to be inspired: “He that knoweth God heareth us”—the apostles. If he would not hear them he was not inspired—but a false prophet. He was talking about trying those claiming to be inspired and endowed with the Holy Spirit. They had no written New Testament then to try them by, but they had the inspired apostles. If a prophet would not hear them, he was exposed as a false teacher. My opponent wants to apply this to all alien sinners, instead of, to false prophets. I showed last night that my friend had perverted the passage, and he has not noticed my argument on it.

Acts 10:43, “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” My opponent said that means remission of the sins of Christians, over and over along the way; that the prophets all give witness that “through his name “the believer would get remission as a Christian—but not salvation to begin with. “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12.) So, “remission of sins” through “his name” (Acts 10:43), is the same as “salvation” in his “name.” (Acts 4:12.) And thus “through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43.) Not just Christians. It means salvation. Yet he pretends that I make no arguments. The audience understands my points, the things presented.

“Can the heathen be saved without the gospel?” There is no promise of it. I will be fair with you in debate. I am not appealing to prejudice. “Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved” (1 Thess. 2:16), and “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would JUSTIFY THE HEATHEN THROUGH FAITH.” (Gal. 3:8.) He pays no attention to this argument, and this is the third night; now he says he is not going to follow me!

He says the Greek for “man” is “Anthropos.” Well, that just shows how little he knows about it. The word “man” is also from “Aneer”—and there are some others.

He says repentance and baptism are not for the remission of sins, in Acts 2:38, but that Jesus there was said to be “anointed” for the remission of sins. Well, if Jesus was anointed for the remission of our sins, why did he later have to shed his blood for the remission of sins? “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb. 9:22.) My friend has denied that the anointing was the shedding of his blood. One time he says he was anointed for the remission of sins, and another time says it was the blood that was shed for remission. Why would Christ be anointed for remission, if he knew it would not obtain remission, and later he would have to shed his blood for remission? He says “Christ” means anointed; but that is not the primary meaning of the term. It means Messiah. In his last speech Mr. Holder said it meant the “anointed One.” “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus, the Anointed One, for the remission of sins.” So, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and do it in the name of Jesus “the anointed One.” That is according to my friend’s last speech.

He said the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all for whom it was shed. Yes, but he denies that it was shed for all. Let us see if the blood will save all for whom it was shed. “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” (Rom. 14:15.) Christ died for the man who could be destroyed. Was he one of the ‘non-elect’? If so, Christ died for the ‘non-elect,’ too. It says, “for whom Christ died.” here is a man who could be “destroyed” “for whom Christ died.” Yet, my friend says the blood will save all for whom it was shed, and all for whom he died. But if Christ died only for the ‘elect,’ then one of the ‘elect’ might be “destroyed” for whom Christ died. “Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.”

1 Cor. 8:11, “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died.” Here it is again: one for whom Christ died could perish. “Perish” is from the same Greek as in Jn. 3:16, “Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

My friend said Christ remitted our sins when he paid the sin-debt and shed his blood. He has committed himself to the position that sins were remitted and we were saved 2,000 years ago—before we ever lived—our sins were remitted back there! Why, that is not the case: John preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mk. 1:4.) Lk. 3:3 teaches the same. It says, “He came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” They were not remitted back at the cross before we ever lived. Rom. 3:25, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.”

Speaking of baptism, my friend called it being “ducked.” That shows how much reverence he has for the sacred names in the great commission connected with baptism: “Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Mt. 28:19.) “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.” (Mk. 16:15-16.) Baptism is the only command that God ever coupled to the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In order to show his contempt for it Mr. Holder called it being “DUCKED.”

We are saved by the gospel. He paid no attention to these passages. My arguments still stand.

And we must “hear” to be saved He hardly touched these also. I have answered what he did say in reply.

Faith is necessary, as already established. Jn. 3:16 shows faith to be necessary to salvation. And if it is, my friend is gone, world without end! "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (Jn. 3:16.) If the “world” here is the ‘elect,’ then “whosoever” of the ‘elect’ who would believe would not perish, but have life; but those `elect' who would not believe would "perish." That would make salvation conditional to the 'elect!'

Acts 16:30-34. He has tried to make this a case of being saved from physical death at the hand of the Roman law. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." No prisoner had escaped, and there was no death sentence applicable in this case. Paul says "we are all here." Guards were put to death in Peter's case; but Peter, the prisoner, had escaped in that case. (Acts 12.)

Eph. 2:8, "By grace are ye saved through faith"—he has never noticed my argument here that it is through faith." And in Rom. 5:1-2, "Justified by faith" and "have access by faith into the grace' --so when a sinner by faith obeys the gospel he comes into grace and is saved, then stands in the grace, etc. My friend thinks he has access into grace WITHOUT FAITH, or anything on his part. But it can't be by grace unless it is by faith. Paul says, "It is of faith that it might be by grace." (Rom. 4:16.) "Justified by faith." (Rom. 5:1.) Mr. Holder says it is without faith, that you don't have to believe.

Gal. 3:26, "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Where is the Scripture that says any one was a child of God without faith in Christ Jesus? 1 Tim. 1:16, "Believe on him to life everlasting." John says, "These are written that ye might believe . . . and that believing ye might have life e through his name." (Jn. 20:31.) Again: Jn. 3:18, "He that believeth not is condemned." He did not say he is saved if he is one of the `elect'—and saved 2,000 years before he was born —had remission of sins ever since the cross—John did not say that; but John said, "He that believeth not is condemned already "—and then he tells us why: "Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (Jn. 3:18.) My friend says no one is condemned "because he has not believed. " "He that believeth not the Son shall not seed life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." (Jn. 3:36.)

Conversion and the blotting out of sins are conditional on the part of the sinner.

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." (Acts 3:19.) Again, Jesus upbraided cities—whole cities—BECAUSE THEY REPENTED NOT. (Matt. 11:20.) Why did he do it if they were `non-elect,' and no provisions were made for them? "I am not come to call the righteous, but, sinners to repentance." (Matt. 9:13.) And remember, repentance is "UNTO LIFE." (Acts 11:18.)

Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." I have proved, my friends, that salvation is conditional on man's part. Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation unto all THEM THAT OBEY HIM." (Heb. 5:9.) And he said, "He that BELIEVETH and IS BAPTIZED shall be SAVED." (Mk. 16:16.) That is the provision for the whole world.

(A little time was lost, but I shall not count it, to keep my watch straight. Thank you.)

< Previous   Next >


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.