Sawyer Hudson Cross Examination

Below is a transcript of the cross examination against my position in the discussion on baptism occurring on Marlon Wilson's YouTube Channel "The Gospel Truth" on June 24th, 2021. Everything quoted herein is, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate transcription of what was said during the discussion sans some unnecessary interjections like pause fillers, discourse particles, stutters/false starts, etc. Points of information will be bracketed and any commentary will be indented and italicized like this paragraph. For a video of the entire discussion, please click here.

J. D. - Okay, all right, so the first thing that you said––wait, Sawyer… Wait a second, what was your view again? Sawyer you're not the Lutheran, you're the Church of Christ. All right, Church of Christ, all right. So your view is that it is necessary for someone to be baptized in order to be saved, right? Is that correct?

Sawyer - Correct. Normatively, correct.

J - Yes, okay. So, when you are using the word normatively, okay, what are you trying to exclude? I mean, it seems to me it's either necessary or it's not necessary, so where is this normative language coming from?

S - Okay, sure. I think one obvious example would be children. I think another example would be those who have some sort of mental handicap that are mentally incapable of not only having faith but expressing faith in Jesus Christ. And I also permit some room for God's mercy, I think that God judges based on knowledge and I think that–– [Technical Difficulties] ––as he wishes, so if God wished to, you know, save someone who was alone on an island and had a Bible dropped, you know, and had no opportunity to ever reach another person to be baptized, I think that there is grace in that, and mercy.

One issue J. D. seemed to take with my view throughout the discussion was that I chose to ascribe the “normative” label to it. I understand why this may have seemed pedantic to him, but I try to be very careful with my words and I’ve had experiences in the past where, especially within the baptism discussion, my tradition has been misunderstood or mischaracterized. Over time, I’ve learned to be more deliberate with the words I use and how I phrase things in order to be most effectively understood. It’s part of the reason why I prefer written mediums (in addition to my infinitely fewer “um”s).

J - Okay, so let's experiment with that. So, if someone's on an island and they have a Bible drop, they read John 3:16, it says that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life, right, is God going to make an exception to that person that they actually must believe? Is that person going to conclude that I might be saved even if I refuse to obey this passage and don't believe? Would you agree that that passage is so crystal clear that you must believe in order to be saved? Right, that's what John 3:16 says.

S - Correct, and that person has been given the knowledge that that is something that is required of them that their God is calling them to believe.

J - Okay, so let's go a different place. Let's go to the homeless shelter that I preached, because I certainly do not believe that we're saved by baptism in any way. So, I go and preach to them and tell them John 3:16, that they need to trust in Jesus Christ and if they do, they will be saved, quoting the very scriptures that I quoted. Let's say somebody responds in faith, believes, and then is baptized six months later, or let's just say he dies in between his scheduled baptism six months later. According to your view, is that person going to go to hell because they were not baptized?

S - If they had full cognizance that they were––that was something that was required of them and they did not do it, then I would say that they are not, and in a similar sense, I would say that if someone knew that belief was required of them and they did not believe, they are not saved.

J - Okay, so that's interesting. So, what if somebody doesn't know that faith in Jesus Christ is

required of them just like they didn't know that baptism required to them? Then it sounds like to me you're opening the door for this “C. S. Lewis” kind of view that God will save this person based on their ignorance of the requirement of faith. And, in this case, you're placing it with the requirement of baptism but is that is that kind of am I is that an inference that is appropriate that I'm getting from you?

S - Not entirely, I take a Craigian, “William Lane Craig” type view that it is logically possible for someone to be saved, but that it is extremely difficult for someone to be saved by their conscience like it's talked about in Romans 2; to be saved by the revelation through natural theology.

If I may clarify a bit, I don’t think it’s enough that someone just “doesn’t know,” but that they were not striving to know by faith. In other words, only God knows if someone has put forth a reasonable effort to fulfill their duty to him. Exactly where that line is, I’m afraid I cannot say, but the Bible gives adequate instruction to the reasonable reader/hearer.

J - So, well I guess we're getting off here, but you're saying that not only is faith––let's just go back to the baptism thing. So, somebody is believing in Jesus and this is––this happens probably in every Baptist church––they believed in Jesus, they were told that baptism is a symbol, and they need to make sure, you know, they go through more discipleship before they are baptized. You're saying that in between that time that they believed and are baptized, they're actually not saved? Is that what you're saying?

S - Correct.

J - Okay, and so let me ask you this real quick. So I––that happened to me six months later. Why did I not get baptized? Because nobody told me; I did not know. Okay, I was not trying to be disobedient, I did not know. I know for sure that I was born again, regenerated, living a godly life in between that time. How do you explain that if I needed to be regenerated in the waters of baptism?

S - Marlon, would you like me––do I have time to answer that?

Marlon - Yeah, you can answer it, if you want, you can answer it.

S - Okay, I would just say that the psychological high of being in that experience could definitely replicate the same type of feeling that one may have when they are truly regenerate. I mean, I think there are a lot of people who might think that they are saved: they're in other religions, they think that they're saved, but they're not. I think that that's entirely plausible within this view, so.

I guess I was not very surprised that J. D. took this approach in his cross-examination, even if my response was not as rehearsed as I’d have liked. He really tried to push the limits of my dogmatism and I appreciate that, especially for the sake of the discussion (a shame we only had five minutes!).

It was odd that this was the only line of reasoning he tried to explore in this time, however. I think the Church of Christ-Baptist debate on baptism is one rich with battlegrounds much more interesting than this one. But I can definitely see the emotional appeal of sticking with this one.

Initially I thought I didn’t respond forcefully enough here, but in retrospect, I feel like I covered the main points adequately enough. While I understand his concerns about the practical application of the necessity of baptism, this line of argumentation does not combat the foundation of my position. Just because this view might seem odd to implement practically, it does not mean that the view is false. Normative baptismal necessity could easily be true and awkward.

Having said that, I think I’ve accounted for the awkwardness by using normative language. In extreme exceptions, God may act. It may seem too convenient that I worded my position in such a way, but I did so purposely to try to parry worn rebuttals like this one.

Before I move on, might I also say that J. D.’s view suffers from the same deficiency, and it’s one that no soteriology can escape. What happens to someone who only ever hears he/she must believe that Jesus existed and was raised on the third day but never is told to change his/her life from evil actions? Or what of the person who has been given almost every fact of the gospel, but whose life is cut short immediately before hearing the final part concerning Christ about whom he/she must believe (imagine Cornelius dying the day––or even minute––before Peter visited in Acts 10!)? These questions are of the same vein and highlight the futility of such attempts. The fact of the matter is that we must do our best to keep his commandments and trust that God will take care of the rest, even when we want it to be simple or black-and-white.

M - All right, cool, all right. Gregg, it is now your time for five minutes of cross-examination.

[Technical Difficulties]

Gregg - Okay, Sawyer. First of all, I agree with the strong view of the efficacy of baptism. That's what I would call it. So, I think that's true. With regard to the kind of necessity of bordering on a kind of rite of salvation, you say that's unreasonable. Now, you seemed to pull back from that idea, like, yeah there may be exceptions and so forth. I've heard the story that a guy believed, he wanted to be baptized in a Church of Christ, and on the way, he died in a car accident. I don't know if you're familiar with that story. Would you say that guy went to hell?

S - I didn't know that––first off, I didn't know this was gonna just turn into me just making judgments on everyone's salvation and their lives. But, I mean, to that point I do not have the knowledge of that person, I don't have the intimate knowledge of their heart like God would.

G - Hold on, hold on, hold on. You have made a position that says baptism is so necessary––

S - Right.

G - Now, my view, Westminster Confession and other documents, says baptism is not so annexed to salvation, it's not so connected to salvation, that a person's gonna go to hell without baptism. So, what you seem to be saying is, “Yeah, there may be some, you know, ‘special cases.’” I'm giving you an example case which I understand to be an actual case. Here's a person who repents, believes, all the stuff that we would all say, I'm sure.

S - Well, if you want my––

G - And he dies before he can be baptized, okay. If he dies before he's baptized, what happens to him?

S - If you want my personal opinion, my personal conviction on it, that is that he is saved. I know Catholicism has a doctrine of baptism of desire; I think that that is a plausible doctrine, that someone who, they have heard the word, they are convicted, they are––they have a repentant heart, and they are prepared immediately to go straight away and get baptized, and something happens and they die, or maybe they go in the water and lightning strikes and kills the person, you know? I think that there is, again, grace and mercy in that. But I also think that there is providence in God allowing people to fulfill their obligations to him.

G - Okay, thank you. I appreciate your reasonable point of view on that. I agree, again, with kind of a strong view of baptism being necessary and it should be done and all that stuff.

S - I might not make any friends with certain people in my tradition with that view, but that is the view that I hold.

It was interesting that he continued the approach of J. D. I guess he did not feel I adequately addressed it, which is fair given the time constraint. But my initial cheeky response does still resonate: why is my duty to play judge instead of defend the arguments I made in my opening statement? Obviously, I’m happy to give my opinions (as I proceeded to do in the discussion), but its relevance seems secondary or tertiary to the main impetus of the dialogue.

I appreciated that he appreciated my attempt to be reasonable in this view. I really did take a lot of time with how I phrased things so that my bases would be covered, and I didn’t want my interlocutors nor the audience to think that this was not a well-fleshed-out view.

Regarding the final comment above, there are some who might say that baptism is so inextricably linked to salvation that such a person would not be saved. However, this is an extreme view and should not be recognized as the norm for the Church of Christ.

G - Okay, now so let's go after kids, okay?

S - Okay, let’s do it.

I think I laughed more rehearing this than I did in the original discussion.

G - So listen, just explain this to me, explain this to me: nine cases of baptism. Nine. Six are household cases, two don't have households, and Simon the sorcerer––are you betting your luck on Simon the sorcerer who clearly believed––he believed––he also tried to buy the Holy Spirit with money? So, how could the New Testament represent this radical discontinuity that you seem to be assessing with that? I mean, that's not a promising set of statistics for the Christ––for the Church of Christ view, it seems to me. 9, 6, 3.

S - Oh man, I can't believe I'm about to do this, but listening to your debate with James White, you brought up the same question to him and he brought up that 3,000 were saved at Pentecost and I really liked his statistical analysis there, that 3,000 kind of outweighs the three there. But, of course, that's just a joke. But in all seriousness, I do think that these household cases were exceptional in that sense. They were instances where the gospel was preached, everyone in the household was capable of belief, and they expressed belief and were baptized.

Perhaps bringing up the James White debate was unwise and a mild digression, but I did think it was an interesting point. If Gregg is so committed to a comparison of numbers, then it is germane to note that those numbers are not on his side if one is looking for total explicit household baptisms in the NT.

However, my issue here is with his entire approach to the baptism question. “Cases of baptism” is a very ambiguous and borderline disingenuous term that does not seem to accurately represent the circumstances/portrayal of baptism in the NT. This method appears to give undue weight to scenes in Acts naming specific people, not giving proper consideration to the group baptisms in Acts that mention no such household baptism. It would seem that, if one wished to develop a systematic view of baptism in the NT, that all of its depictions would need to be taken into account equally, not just a select few that happen to be honed in on one person and his/her family. In fact, I believe their scarcity is enough to give someone pause who may believe them to be the rule and not the exceptions.

Let me also clarify that when I say that these cases were exceptional, what I mean to say is that not every baptism that occurred in the first century was one of the entire household and so these cases function to highlight a few of these where the gospel had such a powerful effect that it was able to sway the entire household. I don’t intend to say that these outcomes were wholly unique or unheard of but that they featured something either relatively uncommon or praiseworthy given that they were told the message would divide households (Matt 10:34-36).

G - Can I stop you there and just say––so you're saying that Luke who represents the gospel going from Jerusalem to the end of the earth presents anomalous cases?

S - He definitely presents anomalous cases. I mean, look at Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit

gets––I mean, of course, I know this is not about baptism necessarily but the Holy Spirit––but he presents countless anomalous cases where––one in which the Holy Spirit is poured out and everyone starts speaking in tongues and no one knows what's happening and the gospel’s preached for the first time, one where the Holy Spirit's withheld from the Samaritans, one in which the Holy Spirit comes before anything happens, so I think that the Acts, as well as––

I will be the first to admit I was quite inarticulate here, but I think I got my primary point across. Luke certainly presents anomalous cases; if every case he presented was identical to the previous, his account of the apostles’ activities would get quite monotonous! Instead, one finds unique and noteworthy conversion narratives that strengthen one of Luke’s major themes of unity through diversity.

One might find fault with the fact that I used the reception of the gift of the Spirit as my qualifier for uniqueness when the discussion was on baptism. However, Gregg’s question seemed more focused on the fact that I suggested anomalous conversion cases were present in any sense, which is demonstrably true. If his challenge is instead aimed at the fact that I believe that household baptisms are anomalous, then I might be willing to concede that point. I did not intend to claim that household baptisms are extremely rare, but, as I mentioned above, that they were not the overwhelming majority of first-century baptisms as Gregg might suggest, and not even a considerable portion of those we have record of in Acts!

I really wish Gregg and I could have discussed this more, as I really think his “household” argument is lacking. Perhaps there will be more opportunities in the future!

M - Yeah, that's time right there. All right, Noah. Noah, it's your turn for five minutes.

[Technical Difficulties and Marlon Discussing It]

Noah - Okay, sounds good. So, from a confessional Lutheran perspective, you have the idea that baptism is in a sense necessary for salvation, but that we're also saved by faith alone because we view the sacraments as God's works, not our own. So, coming from a Church of Christ perspective, how do you relate what is happening in baptism to the individual's faith and/or if you affirm some idea of Sola Fide?

S - I believe that the efficacy of baptism is grounded in the faith that the baptizand has going into it. So, I definitely think that it's obedience to God that is how our souls are purified as 1 Peter says. That that is––what we're doing there is we're submitting to God through baptism and he's the one who's working on us, he's the one who is regenerating us. And that is because of our faith in God, because of our faith in Jesus Christ, so.

N - Okay, so baptism is not something you're doing, but it is something that God is doing based upon these promises in Scripture.

S - Definitely, yes.

N - Okay, great. So, that would, you think, line up with a Sola Fide perspective?

S - Yes, I think so, because faith is, I believe, completed through obedience. So yes, in that sense.

N - Awesome. Cool. So, kind of wanted to not press a lot on the whole infant baptism thing, but I talked a little bit about the objectivity of the sacrament and the sacrament lasting through the Christian life. Does your theology have any place for that type of concept or is baptism a simple cleansing, an entry that doesn't stick with the individual?

S - That's an interesting question because I've not necessarily heard that perspective before, I mean, or at least I've not heard it phrased that way before about it, like, sticking with you. I mean, I look back at my baptism and I still see that as, you know, something that was the moment that I was washed, justified, sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, you know. Like, that has a lot of significant weight to me. I don't––I mean, I don't really know what to say beyond that. I mean, it's not––is there any more elaboration that you can give on that to where I can, kind of, better understand the nuance there?

N - Yeah, let me get a little more specific.

S - Or you can move on. Yeah, it doesn't matter.

N - Okay, fair. So, with the question of, “does our baptism carry with us?” the two main things with that is, one, it's the power of the word, so the word is always with us. It's through the power of the Spirit, things of that nature. But the other thing is in a moment of spiritual crisis or doubt, do you view baptism as something you can return to that says, “I belong to Christ, this is an objective––this is something objective that I can return to, that I belong to Christ in a time of doubt,” or is it just that you rely on just the strength of your own faith, or something like that.

S - Okay, interesting. I mean, I would say that there's plenty of room for that in my theology to where you can return to your baptism in acknowledgment that you are in Christ and belong to Christ. I think that that seems innocuous enough. You know, it's taught in different words, but yeah, so I would agree with that.

N - Okay, great. So, do you see any connection between baptism––and I'll keep this brief––baptism and communion, as baptism being the entry to the sacramental life that we live after?

S - Yeah, so I do think that since baptism is this entrance into the––into Christ, into the Christian community as part of its multifaceted nature, I do think that that is when––that is to whom communion should be reserved: to baptized individuals. So, I do think that there's a connection there that––in that sense for baptism.

N - So it, real quick, if we can sneak this in.

S - Yeah, of course.

N - Some churches bar the table, so if someone is baptized, would you argue that there is more of a knowledge on the behalf of the minister that they should give communion to this individual?

S - You mean knowledge in the sense of obligation? That they see that person as baptized so they ought to? Sorry.

N - No, I'm not saying just because they're baptized but I'm saying if the minister is going to withhold that––sorry––withhold the elements of the table, it would make sense for someone who's not baptized, but if someone is baptized, yes there is also other things that would have them bar the table but the minister can be more bold in giving communion to someone baptized.

This section just goes to show how good of friends I think Noah and I could be. I was looking forward to the cross examination from Noah because he’s very cordial and we have a lot in common theologically (though I was surprised he focused his time mainly on finding how similar we are rather than highlighting our differences). Nevertheless, none of the points he brought up in this section seemed very consequential for the debate except, perhaps, to show a bit of camaraderie and unity. I slightly wish he would have challenged me more here, but we’ll save that for another discussion, I suppose.

M - Alright guys, alright, we’re gonna change this to Will Duffy. Will, you’ve got it for five minutes.

Will - Hey Sawyer, I'd like to start off by saying that of the four “opponents” tonight, I believe you have the most consistent biblical position.

S - I appreciate that.

Fun fact, I believe that, too. But, in seriousness, I was very happy to receive this remark from Will.

W - And all of the verses you stated in your opening statement with the exception of the Pauline verses I agree show baptism for salvation. Now, with that said, I believe that baptismal regeneration essentially transitioned away starting in Acts 9 and 10. And I think that Cornelius in Acts 10 is definitely a huge issue for your theological position. Do you agree that Cornelius was saved and received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized?

S - So, I was prepared that you would probably ask this question and apparently God saw the need to prepare me a year in advance. I actually wrote my thesis, my master's thesis, on the topic of, “what is the gift of the Holy Spirit and how does it relate to the believer,” and then this––I don't want to get too far in the weeds with this, but I do believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit was empowerment for ministry and not necessarily––or not even not necessarily just not––regeneration in the book of Acts. When it's presented by Luke, I believe that it has to do with empowerment for ministry, miraculous empowerment for ministry, so I would say that no, Cornelius was not saved when he was given the gift of the Holy Spirit, that he was saved after he believed and repented and was baptized.

W - Why would Cornelius get the Holy Spirit if he was not saved?

S - To show Peter and his companions that the Gentiles were clean and that they were––and that God was recognizing them as able to be granted community and fellowship with the organization of believers.

W - Okay, in Acts 11, Peter is recounting what happened with Cornelius and he said that the Lord told him––that the Lord told Cornelius that Peter would tell him words by which he would be saved, and then Peter says in the very next verse, which is verse 14––sorry––verse 15, he said, “and as I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell upon them as upon us at the beginning.” So, he's saying that this is the same Holy Spirit that they had. Then he says that he remembered the word of the Lord who said, “John indeed baptized with fire but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit,” then he says, “If therefore God gave them the same gift as he gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” and the reaction is verse 18, “When they heard these things, they became silent and they glorified God saying, ‘then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.’” So, I think your position unfortunately doesn't work because Peter claims that this Holy Spirit is identical to the one that they received and that it was that that led them to their salvation.

S - Is that a question?

I promise I wasn’t trying to be snarky here, I just didn’t know if he wanted me to treat that as something I should respond to or if he was making a comment and was going to move forward from it or phrase it interrogatively. My understanding is that we were supposed to treat this as primarily a question-asking period so I wanted to respect that if Will had been trying to utilize his time for more explicit questions. I’ll remark on the actual content in the next comment.

W - Yeah, I think it's difficult for your position.

S - Yeah, I would say that it's not extremely difficult in the sense that the Holy Spirit

in verse 15 is presented as falling upon them as he begins to speak. This seems to be before they even have the opportunity to hear the words that are to be granting them eternal life and to be saving them. So, I think that they were granted, again, the same Holy––same gift of the Holy Spirit that the apostles were given on the day of Pentecost, and that Holy Spirit was one that empowered them to speak in tongues and spread the gospel and that it was through this sign that it was shown that, again, that they were clean.

I made a slight blunder here in my response, in my opinion. I focused on the timing aspect of the reception of the gift when I should have kept my focus on his unfounded remark that Peter claimed their reception of the Holy Spirit “led them to their salvation” (which I interpret to mean that the Spirit caused it, not that it started a chain of events that eventually led to it, because I believe this is Will's view). Although it is true that the timing of the reception of the gift is awkward and provides grounds for supposing that the Spirit fell before belief could be conceived, I should have held his feet to the fire regarding his supposition about the nature of the Holy Spirit instead. I do not believe the Spirit received at Pentecost was salvific and so I don’t think the comparison between the reception for Cornelius and the reception for the Jews and Pentecost is problematic.

W - In Acts 10, Sawyer, we actually have what Peter said and it only took Peter 30 seconds to say this in verse 39, “And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree, him God raised up on the third day.” So, the gospel was preached in the first 30 seconds, so I think the Holy Spirit falling upon them right as Peter began to speak aligned with them believing the gospel.

S - Well, I mean, what about verses 34 through 38?

Yeah, this is why I think taking this approach was a blunder. This point is meant to be a secondary reinforcement and should not take the bulk of the weight of the position because it is built on less probable premises than my other responses. Duffy makes a great point that it probably would not have taken Peter very long to get to the core of his message that might have granted belief and, on his view, salvation. I still have issues with this view (it seems to still conflict with the teaching the Spirit fell as Peter "began to speak" and seems to assume mental assent to historical facts as sufficient for salvation), but it is a good point nonetheless.

Regardless, were one to grant Duffy’s interpretation that the reception of the gift of the Spirit in Luke-Acts is salvific in spite of my argumentation elsewhere, it still would not be a full defeater for my view. My view permits a fringe case such as this where something so soteriologically revolutionary occurs that it demands special action from God––something like the acceptance of the Gentiles for entrance into covenant with God. So, if the Spirit would appear out of the normative order anywhere, this would have been the best situation in which to do it.

But, this is why I argue so adamantly that the gift of the Holy Spirit is not salvific and that the burden of proof is on Will to demonstrate that Luke intends it to be interpreted as such. I think this is the strongest line of defense against seeing the Cornelius narrative as troublesome and I’d be interested to see how Will would defend this view.

Also, if you’re reading this, Will, don’t think I didn’t see that smirk at the end of your cross examination.

M - Guys, okay. All right, we're good to go all right. Noah, you're up next in the hot seat, man.