Quotes on Mark 16:16; Baptism, Salvation

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.  -Mark 16:16 NKJV

Mark 16:16 is probably the second favorite verse of those who believe baptism is a part of salvation.  But while the verse at first glance seems to say you must be baptized to be saved, a closer look dispels the problem. 

And, remember the many, many verses that teach believing in Jesus is what saves (John 3:15-18; John 3:36; John 5:24; John 20:31; Acts 2:21; Acts 10:43; and many more). 

The following quotes easily explain Mark 16:16. 

H. A. Ironside

On Mark 16:16, “Those who received the message in faith were to witness to it by being baptized, thus declaring themselves openly as His disciples.  There was no saving virtue in the ordinance itself, but it was the expression of subjection to Christ.  Those who refused to believe would be judged (see R. V.).  Note that He did not say, He that is not baptized shall be judged.”  -H. A. Ironside, Mark, Loizeaux Brothers; 1948, 1973. 

Bob L. Ross

“You will notice that while Mark 16:16 speaks of one who believes and is baptized and of one who believes not, it does not have anything to say about the person who believes but has not as yet been baptized.  There is an intermediate period between faith in Christ and baptism.  Mark 16:16 does not mention this period; it has nothing to say about he that believes but has not yet ben immersed.  Can we find the answer as to the condition of such a person?  Yes, we read in John 3:18: ‘He that believeth on him (Christ) is not condemned.’”  -Bob L. Ross, Campbellism, Pilgrim Publications, Pasadena, TX; 1962, 1981. 

Warren W. Wiersbe

“A superficial reading of Mark 16:15-16 would suggest that sinners must be baptized to be saved, but this misinterpretation disappears when you note that the emphasis is on believing.  If a person does not believe, he is condemned, even if he has been baptized (see John 3:16-18, 36).  It was expected in the early church that believers would be baptized (Acts 2:41; 10:44-48).”  -Warren W. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, David C. Cook; 2003, 2007. 

John R. Rice

“Christians are supposed to be baptized as soon as possible after they are saved.  In Bible times they were usually baptized the same day, oftentimes the same hour of their conversion, even if it were midnight, as in the case of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:33.  In fact, baptism is a public profession of faith.  One can see baptism; one cannot see faith in the heart.  It is natural to think of baptism following salvation, and Jesus said that those who believed and were baptized should be saved.  He did not mean to contradict the rest of the Bible, though, as you will see from the following words in the same verse; for He added, ‘But he that believeth not shall be damned.’  That makes it clear that the matter which settles it is believing, just the same as is taught in John 3:18:

‘He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.’

The above verse, John 3:18, settles it that the man who believes in Christ is not condemned, whether or not he has been baptized.  It also settles it that a man is condemned ‘because he hath not believed.’  Salvation is settled by belief in Christ, and only by that.”  -John R. Rice, Bible Baptism, Sword of the Lord; 1943, 1971.  Rice (AD 1895-1980) was an independent Baptist preacher, evangelist, author, and founding editor of the Sword of the Lord. 

B. H. Carroll

On Baptism:  “The church authorizes; the subject must be a disciple, and the act is immersion. The purpose is to make a public declaration, or confession, of faith in Jesus Christ, to symbolize the cleansing from sin, a memorial of Christ's resurrection, and a pledge of the disciple.”  -B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible. 

“‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’; that is true. He that endures to the end and is baptized shall be saved; that is true also. But when the negative is stated, it does not say, ‘He that believeth not and is not baptized shall not be saved, or shall be condemned.’ When you put it negatively it has no reference to baptism. It does not say, ‘He that is not baptized shall not be saved.’ It does not make any difference how many things one may put in – believe, be baptized, keep the law, go to church – with salvation, it does not affect salvation. If the first one was to secure salvation, it will be true if you put all of them in. That will not take away from the truth. He that believeth hath everlasting life; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Some would make it read: ‘He that believeth and is baptized and goes to church every Sunday, etc., etc. etc., hath everlasting life.’ You can put in as many as you please and they all follow from the first one. But to put it negatively, you could not say, ‘He that does not go to church every Sunday will be lost.’ And in negation it does not say, ‘He that believeth not and is not baptized’ – it stops at the believer.”  -B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible, Broadman Press; 1938.  Carroll (AD 1843-1914) was a pastor, author, and founding president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, TX. 

J. B. Jeter

“There is perfect accordance between this promise [Mark 16:16] and the plain, literal declaration of Jesus, that ‘He that believeth on the Son is not condemned.’  Certainly, if he that believes on the Son is not condemned, he who not only believes in the Son, but, in submission to his authority, is baptized, is not condemned.”  -J. B. Jeter, Campbellism Examined, Sheldon, Lamport, & Blakeman; 1855.  Jeter (AD 1802-1880) was a Baptist Pastor, author, and editor of the Religious Herald, Virginia. 

Jerry Vines

“The main thought in that verse [Mark 16:16] is not baptism.  Jesus was not teaching that you have to be baptized to be saved.  The crucial word is believe.  Baptism does not confer salvation; it confirms it.  Baptism is an outward act that demonstrates an inward experience.  Jesus did not say, ‘He that believeth not and is not baptized shall be condemned.’  It is he that believeth not who is condemned; that is, he shall be under judgment.”  -Jerry Vines, Exploring the Gospels: Mark, Loizeaux Brothers; 1990. 

Robert L. Sumner

“Mark 16:16 says ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’!  Exactly!  But it does not say, ‘He that believeth and is baptized THEN shall be saved!’  This verse most certainly does not say that a man is not saved until he is baptized with water. 

Perhaps by giving a parallel sentence I can make clear the fact that ‘shall be saved’ does not depend upon ‘and is baptized.’ 

For example, take this sentence: ‘He that boards the bus and is seated will arrive at Los Angeles.’  Obviously, the man who gets on a bus bound for Los Angeles will arrive in that city, regardless of whether or not he is seated.  No doubt he would sit down if a seat were available – it would be so much more comfortable riding that long distance to do so – but even if he remained standing all the way, he would arrive in Los Angeles IF HE GOT ON THE BUS!  In exactly the same way, a man who gets on the salvation vehicle – the man who believes  - will get to Heaven whether he sits down or not, whether he is baptized or not. 

Now, wait a minute!  If he doesn’t sit down he’s going to be mighty uncomfortable!  If he disobeys one of God’s commands – baptism or any other – the Lord will chasten and divine blessing will be withheld from his life.  BUT THAT WILL NOT EFFECT HIS ARRIVAL IN THE GRAND CENTRAL STATION OF HEAVEN IF BY FAITH HE GETS ON BOARD THE GOSPEL EXPRESS!  So I say unto you, ‘Get on board, get on board!’  Then, after you are on the bus, sit down!  Enjoy the blessings of the Lord in their fullest measure!  But the thing that damns is not failing to sit down, it is failing to get on board.  ‘He that believeth not shall be damned’ (Mark 16:16).”  -Robert L. Sumner, Does the Bible Teach That Water Baptism Is a Necessary Requirement for Salvation?, Biblical Evangelism Press; 1970.  Also in Biblical Essays, Biblical Evangelism; 2013, by Sumner. 

Be sure to check out other articles here on salvation and baptism.

Note:  Mark 16:9-20 involves a Textual issue.  See footnote in NKJV.  But we will save that issue for another day. 

-David R. Brumbelow, gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com, September 2, AD 2019. 

Articles:

What the Bible Teaches About Baptism

Quotes on Acts 2:38, Baptism, Salvation

James 2; Faith Without Works is Dead

Baptismal Regeneration; Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation? Part 1

The Christian Work Ethic

Wine for Your Stomach's Sake; 1 Timothy 5:23

Adrian Rogers on "Wit & Wisdom of Pastor Joe Brumbelow"

Other Articles in lower right margin. 

Quotes on Acts 2:38, Baptism, Salvation

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  -Acts 2:38 NKJV

There is an old joke, told by Baptists and others, of a country Church of Christ.  Just behind the church building was a frog pond.  Because they heard it so much, instead of saying “ribbit,” the frogs would croak, “Acts 2:38.” 

Acts 2:38 is a favorite among those who believe you must be baptized to be saved.  Baptists and many others, of course, believe baptism is a symbol or picture of salvation, but is not a part of salvation.  I thought it might be helpful to give a few outstanding quotes on Acts 2:38 from various authors: 

Warren W. Wiersbe

“It is unfortunate that the translation of Acts 2:38 in the King James Version suggests that people must be baptized in order to be saved, because this is not what the Bible teaches.  The Greek word eis (which is translated ‘for’ in the phrase ‘for the remission of sins’) can mean ‘on account of’ or ‘on the basis of.’  In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist baptized on the basis that people had repented.  Acts 2:38 should not be used to teach salvation by baptism.  If baptism is essential for salvation, it seems strange that Peter said nothing about baptism in his other sermons (Acts 3:12-26; 5:29-32; 10:34-43).  In fact, the people in the home of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized (Acts 10:44-48)!  Since believers are commanded to be baptized, it is important that we have a clean conscience by obeying (1 Peter 3:21), but we must not think that baptism is a part of salvation.  If so, then nobody in Hebrews 11 was saved, because none of them was ever baptized.”  -Warren W. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Commentary, David C. Cook; 2003. 

John R. Rice

“It is clear from the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15[-16] and the universal practice of New Testament Christians, that converts ought to be baptized.  Baptism was not essential to salvation, but it was essential and is essential to obedience.  Baptism did not procure salvation, but it declared salvation one had already received. 

Since many Scriptures expressly declare that one who trusts in Christ for salvation instantly has everlasting life (John 3:15,16,18,36; John 5:24; John 6:47; Acts 13:38-39), then the one who has trusted Christ is immediately saved and the baptism which followed could only declare that which had already occurred. 

Baptism is a work of righteousness (as Jesus stated in Matthew 3:15).  But Titus 3:5 declares, ‘Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.’ Salvation is ‘not of works, lest any man should boast’ (Ephesians 2:9. (See the author’s book, Bible Baptism, Sword of the Lord.)

Jesus never needed to repent.  He could not repent as our example.  Jesus never was in unbelief and never needed to come trusting for forgiveness.  He needed no forgiveness.  If baptism were a way of securing salvation, then Jesus could not be our example in baptism.  But since baptism is a token of heart surrender to the soul-saving work of the Lord and pointing toward the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, then Christ could be our example in baptism.  So He was baptized and immediately the Holy Spirit came on Him in an anointing for His ministry and so we may be baptized like Christ and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, as Acts 2:38 says.”  -John R. Rice, Filled With the Spirit, The Book of Acts: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary, Sword of the Lord; 1963, 1973. 

Paige Patterson

“Unfortunately, some read the verse [Acts 2:38] to mean that obedience to the act of baptism somehow brings about salvation.  But neither this verse, nor the New Testament as a whole, assigns saving efficacy to the waters of baptism.  The misunderstood term in the verse is the preposition ‘for’ in the expression ‘for the remission of sins.’  This preposition has various nuances in English.  If you were asked, for example, ‘Did you go to the store for your wife?’ there are several conceivable meanings.  Did you go to a store to select your wife?  Or did she, as your wife, call from the store for you to come and get her?  Or did she simply request that you go to the store in her place and fetch a loaf of bread? 

The Greek preposition eis, translated here as ‘for,’ also has numerous nuances.  Does the verse mean that a person is to repent and to be baptized for (i.e., in order to obtain) forgiveness of sin?  Or does the verse mean that forgiveness of sin is the provision that leads to repentance?  Then the word ‘for’ would be read ‘repent and let everyone of you be Baptized for (i.e., because of) the remission of sins already fully provided by Christ on the cross.’  This last sense is the proper understanding.  For example, in Matthew 12:41, the men of Nineveh are said to have repented ‘at (in Greek the same word eis) the preaching of Jonah.’  They repented because of the preaching of the prophet!  In the same way, because of the atonement of Jesus, all are called to repent and to follow Jesus in baptism.”  -Paige Patterson, What Is Baptism?, Seminary Hill Press, SWBTS; 2011. 

John B. Polhill

“The connection of baptism with the forgiveness of sins in v. 38 [Acts 2:38] has often been a matter of controversy.  A literal rendering of the verse runs:  ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for/on the basis of the forgiveness of your sins.’ The disputed word is the preposition eis, which could indicate purpose and thus be taken to mean that baptism is the prerequisite for the forgiveness of sins.  There is ample evidence in the New Testament, however, that eis can also mean on the ground of, on the basis of, which would indicate the opposite relationship – that the forgiveness of sins is the basis, the grounds for being baptized.  Perhaps more significant, however, is that the usual connection of the forgiveness of sins in Luke-Acts is with repentance and not with baptism at all (cf. Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31).  In fact, in no other passage of Acts is baptism presented as bringing about the forgiveness of sins.  If not linked with repentance, forgiveness is connected with faith (cf. Acts 10:43; 13:38f.; 26:18).  The dominant idea in [Acts] 2:38 thus seems to be repentance, with the other elements following.  Repentance leads to baptism, the forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Spirit.  The essential response Peter called from the Jewish crowd is the complete turnabout that comprises true repentance, to turn away from their rejection of the Messiah and to call upon his name, receive baptism into his community, and share the gift of the Spirit they had just witnessed so powerfully at work in the Christians at Pentecost.  Peter concluded his appeal with a promise, the promise of Joel 2:32 (cf. v. 21): ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’  The universal scope of the promise is emphasized.  Salvation is not only for the group of Jews present at Pentecost but for future generations (‘your children’) as well.  It is not only for Jews but for Gentiles, for those ‘who are far off.’  -John B. Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary, Broadman Press (B&H); 1992. 

Bob L. Ross

“Only a baptismal remissionist thinks that Acts 2:38 means a literal baptismal remission.  The evangelical, holding that literal remission came in the death of Christ, and that experimental remission comes by faith (Acts 10:43), stands on the ground that the only remission to be found in baptism is a declarative, ceremonial, representative one – the same sense as the body and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper.”  -Bob L. Ross, Acts 2:38 and Baptismal Remission, Pilgrim Publications, Pasadena, TX; 1976, 1987. 

J. B. Jeter

“That baptism is for the remission of sins none will deny.  But the import of the passage turns on the force of the term ‘for.’  In Greek the preposition eis is used.  Every scholar knows, and every intelligent reader may learn from unquestionable authority, that it bears in the New Testament various meanings.  It is sometimes, but rarely, rendered for, in the sense of, ‘in order to.’  Its usual rendering is into.  A regard to the context, the sense of the passage, and other considerations, must determine its import in any particular place.  It is only necessary to show that on sound principles of hermeneutics, it may be fairly understood in harmony with what I have endeavored to prove is the plain doctrine of the Scriptures, and this can easily be done. 

In Matthew 3:11, we have these words – ‘I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance.’  Here the term cannot without gross impropriety be rendered for, or in order to.  We know that John did not baptize his disciples in order that they might repent.  He demanded of them not only repentance, but fruits meet for repentance, before he admitted them to baptism.  He baptized them, not that they might obtain repentance, but as a sign, or acknowledgment that they had repented.  Matthew 3:8-9. 

Now, in the very sense in which the Harbinger baptized his disciples (eis) unto, for, into repentance, did Peter command his Pentecostal hearers to be baptized (eis) for, unto, into the remission of sins – that is, not to procure, but as a sign, or acknowledgment of, this privilege, which God has graciously and inseparably united with repentance and faith.  I could produce many similar examples, but this will suffice to show how fairly the passage harmonizes with the symbolic theory of baptism.”  -J. B. Jeter, Campbellism Examined, Sheldon, Lamport, & Blakeman; 1855.  Jeter (AD 1802-1880) was a Baptist Pastor, author, and editor of the Religious Herald, Virginia. 

B. H. Carroll

“We will now consider a frequent meaning of eis, also determined by local context, in the following still more pertinent passage, for in it we have the verb, baptize, as well as the preposition, eis (Matt. 3:11): ‘I indeed baptize you in water eis repentance.’ All the context shows that John required repentance, and even its fruits, as a condition precedent to baptism. It would be foolish to render it, ‘I baptize you in order to repentance.’ Here the preposition has not its ordinary meaning, in order to, nor its rare meaning, because of, but its frequent meaning, with reference to – a repentance that they had exercised. ‘I baptize you with reference to that exercising of it,’ is what John means. Or, as Tyndale, in his version (it was a very fine version for his time) says, ‘I baptize you in token of repentance.’ That makes fine sense… 

We may apply the ad hominern argument to our Campbellite brethren. They evade the many cases of remission through faith and without baptism, in the life of our Lord, by saying, ‘The law of pardon was not given till Pentecost.’ How, then, do they dispose of Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, paralleling remission under the preaching of John the Baptist with the preaching of Peter at Pentecost in Acts 2:38? John baptized eis aphesin hamartion, exactly paralleling what Peter did in Acts 2:38. Then, briefly, the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38 is this: Repent ye – plural, and a strong imperative – ‘and let every one of you who has repented be baptized’ – a mild imperative – ‘in the name of Jesus Christ eis aphesin hamartion’ – with reference to remission of sins.”  -B. H. Carroll (AD 1843-1914), An Interpretation of the English Bible, Broadman Press; 1948. 

B. H. Carroll has an excellent, extensive discussion of Acts 2:38 in his An Interpretation of the English Bible, Edited by J. B. Cranfill, Broadman; 1948.  It is available both in book form and on the internet. 

http://sglblibrary.homestead.com/files/BHCarroll/Volume_12.htm#vii

To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. -Peter; Acts 10:43 

-David R. Brumbelow, gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com, August 12, AD 2019. 

 Other Articles: 

Baptismal Regeneration; Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation? Part 1

Baptismal Regeneration; Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation? Part 2

What the Bible Teaches About Baptism

James 2; Faith Without Works is Dead

Why We Don't Use Alcohol For The Lord's Supper

The Roman Road of Salvation

More Articles in lower right margin. 

God Let Me Be A Preacher; B. H. Carroll

"I magnify my office, O my God, as I get nearer home. I can say more truthfully every year, 'I thank God that He put me in this office;' I thank Him that He would not let me have any other; that He shut me up to this glorious work; and when I get home among the blessed on the bank of the everlasting deliverance and look back toward time and all of its clouds and sorrows, and pains, and privations, I expect to stand up and shout for joy that down here in the fog and mists, down here in the dust and struggle, God let me be a preacher. I magnify my office in life; I magnify it in death; I magnify it in heaven; I magnify it, whether poor, or rich, whether sick or well, whether strong or weak, anywhere, everywhere, among all people, in any crowd. Lord God, I am glad that I am a preacher, that I am a preacher of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.” 
-B. H. Carroll, Belton, Texas; 1892. Carroll (AD 1843-1914), was a pastor and founding president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. 

I recall Evangelist Tom Clawson printing this statement by B. H. Carroll and handing it out at a state convention.

My dad, Joe Brumbelow, used to say he would not step down from the office of pastor to be the president of the United States of America.

Pastors, remember your high calling.

-David R. Brumbelow, Gulf Coast Pastor, March 16, AD 2015.

How To Keep Your Pastor
Random Advice to Pastors, Part 1
The Girl Who Saved His Ministry
How to Get a Life When Ministry Drains it Out of You
More articles in lower right margin. 
 
 

B. H. Carroll on the Gift of Tongues

Benajah Harvey Carroll (AD 1843-1914) was born in Mississippi, a veteran of the Civil War, and was pastor of First Baptist Church, Waco, Texas. 
B. H. Carroll was the founding president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas (swbts.edu). His sermons and writings have been influential in the Christian world.

Following are some of Carroll’s quotes on the Gift of Tongues:

The next question: Was the gift of tongues a power to speak in other languages, or a mere ecstasy, unintelligible to other people, and that the man himself oftentimes did not understand?,,,

Now, was it the power to speak in other languages? Certainly it was, or I have to take back what I said about Pentecost reversing the incident at Babel. Let the record answer whether this was a mere ecstasy, or actual power to speak in different languages:

"Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying, Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we, every man in our own language wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:5).

That does not describe mere ecstasy, but the power to speak in the different languages; and the record goes on to specify the nations from which they came:

"Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and Proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God."

While they were all Jews, yet Jews of the dispersion, who had ceased speaking the Hebrew tongue, they spoke the languages of the country where they lived, and what amazed them – the thing that startled them – was to see these ignorant Galileans, having a corrupted dialect of Aramaic, speaking better than they could these words in their own languages, to which they were born.
-B. H. Carroll, Interpretation of the English Bible, Acts 2.

Let me show that this speaking in tongues meant to speak in a language that a man had not acquired, and had not studied. Turn to Acts 2, where this gift is first manifested and commence at verse 6:

"When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying, Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we, every man in our own tongue wherein we were born? Parthiana and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God."

A man must have more brass on his face than was ever in the brazen gates of Babylon to assume that that doesn't refer to speaking in different languages.

Here came a man from Cyrene over in Africa; there came a Roman; here a Cretan; there an Arabian; and they heard these men under the influence of the Holy Spirit speaking in the tongues in which they were born.

My second argument is based on 1 Corinthians 14:14: "If I pray in a tongue . . . my understanding is unfruitful." I don't know what the words mean, but if it was an ecstasy that language would not be so applicable. I have no doubt that when God gave power to Balaam's beast to speak audibly, his language was not understood by him. He spoke in a language that he himself didn't understand….

Let us advance again in the argument in this issue. Paul says, "If I speak in an unknown tongue which the people cannot understand, what good will it do unless I translate?" That shows that it was an unknown language. If we send a missionary to a foreign country and he does not know their speech and they don't know his speech, and a particular man knows both theirs and his, that man is asked to be an interpreter. The missionary says a few words, and then the interpreter speaks these words in the language of the people addressed. He understands. "Now," says Paul, "what good does it do to speak in unknown tongues unless you interpret?"

He shows again that this is the thought. He says, "If you give thanks in an unknown tongue, how shall he that is unlearned say, 'Amen,' to your giving thanks, since he does not understand what you say?" And how powerfully the reformers quoted that against the Roman Catholics whose public services were conducted in Latin whether anybody understood Latin or not. The reformers quote this passage and say, "How is that going to help the people? Speak it if you want to, but tell them what the Latin means.”…

I used to be a soldier, and every morning there was a certain bugle-sound called "reveille," which means "get up quick"; then a certain other sound of the trumpet meant, "saddle up," and a certain other sound meant, "mount," another very lively one meant, "Forward march." "Now," said Paul, "if a man just gets up and blows a noise out of a trumpet that doesn't signify anything, how can anybody prepare himself for battle?" Therefore he says, "I would rather speak five words to the church with my understanding than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."
-B. H. Carroll, Interpretation of the English Bible, 1 Corinthians 14.

-David R. Brumbelow, Gulf Coast Pastor, June 25, AD 2013.

B. H. Carroll on Inspiration of Bible
B. H. Carroll on Pastors and Alcohol
L. R. Scarborough on Soul-Winning
Ancient Wine Production and the Bible
Other articles in lower right margin.

 

B. H. Carroll on Drought in Texas

Texas has been going through a serious drought, the worst in many years.

Back in the 1950s we had a bad drought. Stories have been told of how back then South Texas ranchers would use blow torches to burn the thorns off prickly pear cactus so the cows would have something to eat. The grass was long gone and when the cows would hear the sound of the torches they would come running, knowing the sound meant food.

Today many ranchers have had to sell all their cattle, they have nothing to feed them. The large round bales of hay are expensive and few and far between. God bless those Baptists from other states who have trucked some donated hay into Texas. Farmers have watched their crops dry and wither away. Many trees have died; it’s amazing that any un-watered trees have survived the drought. A meteorologist recently said this part of Texas would need 15 to 20 inches of rain just to catch up.

As the old saying goes, “It’s so dry the Baptists are sprinkling and the Methodists are using a damp rag.”

B. H. Carroll, founding president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, was known as an eloquent preacher. He knew well the Texas droughts of the late 1800s. He described it well:

“I have witnessed a drouth in Texas. The earth was iron and the heavens brass. Dust clouded the thoroughfares and choked the travelers. Water courses ran dry, grass scorched and crackled, corn leaves twisted and wilted, stock died around the last water holes, the ground cracked in fissures, and the song of birds died out in parched throats. Men despaired. The whole earth prayed: ‘Rain, rain, rain. O heaven, send rain.’ Suddenly a cloud rises above the horizon and floats into vision like an angel of hope. It spreads a cool shade over the burning and glowing earth. Expectation gives life to desire. The lowing herds look up. The shriveled flowers open their tiny cups. The corn leaves untwist and rustle with gladness. And just when all trusting, suffering life opens her confiding heart to the promise of relief, the cloud, the cheating cloud, like a heartless coquette,* gathers her drapery about her and floats scornfully away, leaving the angry sun free to dart his fires of death into the open heart of all suffering life.”  -B. H. Carroll, founding president of SWBTS. 

O Lord, please send us rain.

-David R. Brumbelow, Gulf Coast Pastor, September 14, AD 2011.

* Coquette - a woman who endeavors to gain the admiration and affections of men for mere self gratification; a flirt. -Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language; 1980.

B. H. Carroll on Hyper-Calvinism
B. H. Carroll on Inspiration of Bible
B. H. Carroll on Pastors and Alcohol
Global Warming, Global Cooling, & Climate Change

B. H. Carroll on Inspiration of Bible

Following are quotes from B. H. Carroll on biblical inspiration from his book, Inspiration of the Bible, Southwestern Library of Centennial Classics, 1930, 2008.

“It has always been a matter of profound surprise to me that anybody should ever question the verbal inspiration of the Bible."

"The whole thing had to be written in words. Words are signs of ideas, and if the words are not inspired, then there is no way of getting at anything in connection with inspiration. If I am free to pick up the Bible and read something and say, ‘That is not inspired,’ and someone else does not agree with me as to which is and which is not inspired, it leaves the whole thing unsettled as to whether any of it is inspired."

"What is the object of inspiration? It is to put accurately, in human words, ideas from God. If the words are not inspired, how am I to know how much to reject, and how to find out whether anything is from God? When you hear the silly talk that the Bible ‘contains’ the word of God and is not the word of God, you hear a fool’s talk. I don’t care if he is a Doctor of Divinity, a President of a University covered with medals from universities of Europe and the United States, it is fool-talk. There can be no inspiration of the book without the inspiration of the words of the book.”

“The inspired word is irrefragable, infallible; that all the powers of the world cannot break one ‘thus saith the Lord.’”

“Let me say further that only the original text of the books of the Bible is inspired, not the copy or the translation.”

“The inspiration means that the record of what is said and done is correct. It does not mean that everything that God did and said is recorded. It does not mean that everything recorded is of equal importance, but every part of it is necessary to the purpose of the record, and no part is unimportant. One part is no more inspired than any other part.”

“It is perfectly foolish to talk about degrees of inspiration. What Jesus said in the flesh, as we find it in the four Gospels, is no more His word than what the inspired prophet or apostle said.”

“What Jesus said after He ascended to heaven, through Paul or any other apostle, is just as much Jesus’ word as anything He said in the flesh.”

“Here are some objections: First, ‘only the originals are inspired, and we have only copies.’ The answer to that is that God would not inspire a book and take no care of the book. His providence has preserved the Bible in a way that no other book has been preserved.”

“We do not find that verbal inspiration stereotypes the style, even in the case of a single man. It is nothing mechanical like that, nor does it in the least destroy the individuality of the inspired man. When Paul writes, he writes in Paul’s style; when Peter writes, he writes in Peter’s style.”

“The Holy Spirit inspires the penman and not the pen, and we must not be disturbed when we find Paul’s style, when he is writing spiritual things in spiritual words, or Peter’s style in his writings. We should accept that fact as we go along.”  -B. H. Carroll, Inspiration of the Bible, Southwestern Library of Centennial Classics, 1930, 2008.

 "The modern cry: 'Less creed and more liberty,' is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy - it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly."

-B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible, Ephesians 4.   


Benajah Harvey Carroll (AD 1843-1914) was born in Mississippi, a veteran of the Civil War, and was pastor of First Baptist Church, Waco, Texas.

B. H. Carroll was founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. His book, Inspiration of the Bible, has been influential among Baptists. It was reprinted and promoted during the SBC Conservative Resurgence and was reprinted again in 2008 in a set of books commemorating the Centennial of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Note: Plenary Verbal Inspiration means every word of all 66 books of the Bible is inspired by God and is therefore the inerrant, living, authoritative, sufficient Word of God.
Plenary - all
Verbal - every word
Inspiration - God breathed. Divinely inspired in such a way that no other book is inspired by God.

-David R. Brumbelow, Gulf Coast Pastor, July 12, AD 2011.

Related Articles:
Southwestern Centennial Classics; B. H. Carroll, L. R. Scarborough, T. B. Maston...
B. H. Carroll on Hyper-Calvinism

B. H. Carroll on Pastors and Alcohol

Alcohol Condemned in the Bible

See other articles in lower right margin. 

B. H. Carroll on Pastors and Alcohol

A question has recently been asked about B. H. Carroll and what he believed about drinking. B. H. Carroll (AD 1843-1914) was the famous founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas (swbts.edu). He has been very influential in Southern Baptist history. George W. Truett, L. R. Scarborough and many other leaders looked to Carroll with great admiration.

The brief quote below pretty well sums up Carroll‘s view on drinking.

“No man should be made the pastor of a church who drinks intoxicating liquors as a beverage.” -B. H. Carroll, Interpretation of the English Bible.

-David R. Brumbelow, Gulf Coast Pastor, June 21, AD 2011.

Note: Just before the quote above, Carroll said he was not going to raise the issue of “total abstinence.” Some have been confused then by his following statement. The answer is simple. While most today would use “total abstinence” to refer to not using alcohol as a beverage, Carroll was using the term to refer to no use of alcohol period, even as a medicine. Alcohol was viewed back then as an important medicine; it is not viewed that way today. For those wanting more evidence, they should also be aware that Carroll was a strong advocate for Prohibition. But he, like most abstainers today, would recognize a possible legitimate use of alcohol for medicinal reasons.

Related Articles:
Ancient Wine and the Bible - the book (includes more quotes by B. H. Carroll)
2006 SBC Resolution on Alcohol Use in America
Preserving Unfermented Wine in Bible Times
Acts 29, Alcohol, and the Southern Baptist Convention
B. H. Carroll on Hyper-Calvinism
Other related articles in Gulf Coast Pastor Articles (Labels) in lower right hand column.

B. H. Carroll on Hyper-Calvinism

In 1900 B. H. Carroll preached a sermon on Baptists 100 Years Ago. It was a historical message telling of Baptist leaders and work in the era around 1800. Carroll (AD 1843-1914), was founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Following are a couple of his comments about some Calvinists of those days who went to the extreme.

“It was a time of strong doctrine, and many Baptists were hyper-Calvinists in their view. But Leland himself tells us how, one day while preaching, ‘his soul got into the gospel trade-winds,’ which so filled his spiritual sails that he forgot about election and reprobation and so preached Christ to sinners that many accepted him as their Saviour and Lord. And oh, I would to God that the preachers of this generation, like old John Leland of long ago, would now get into the gospel trade-winds and bear away with flaming canvas the everlasting gospel to earth's remotest bounds!”
-B. H. Carroll, Baptists 100 Years Ago.

“And here is another lad who will stir up things mightily later on. He will come from the frontiers of Georgia, without education, small in person, slovenly in dress, unprepossessing in appearance, with shriveled features and small piercing eyes. So J. M. Peck describes him.

He is an Antinomian of Antinomians, assuming to speak from immediate inspiration. He will uproot the tender missionary gardens like a wild boar. He will oppose missions, education, Bible and temperance societies, prayer meetings, Sunday-schools and all other evangelizing agencies with indescribable fury.

He will take advantage of the prejudices of ignorance and the prevalent hyper- Calvinism and push his war into all the Southwest until in many associations of Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, Georgia and Tennessee the late-blossoming gardens of missionary work shall be as if a cold, chilling frost of death had been breathed upon them. Who is this man? His name is Daniel Parker.

In 1826-7 he will publish his notorious ‘two seed’ pamphlets, that will become his winding sheet and cause his memory to rot.”
-B. H. Carroll, Baptists 100 Years Ago.

-David R. Brumbelow, Gulf Coast Pastor, May 16, AD 2011.

See related articles under Gulf Coast Pastor Articles (Labels) in lower right hand margin.