Review Of Wilson - Chisum Debate
A public discussion was held in Carmichael (Sacramento area), California, between brother Gordon Wilson, preacher for the Carmichael church of Christ, and Mr. Berl Chisum, Baptist, the nights of November 3, 4, 10, 11, 1960. It is not possible to be more definitive concerning Mr. Chisum's religious connections other than to state "Baptist." Actually he is a follower of Maurice Johnson ("dry-Baptist"), and preaches for a group in Carmichael, California, which as a group, wear no religious name of any kind. (Incidentally, they do wear a religious name as individuals but not as a group — now where have I heard that "why, the individual and the church are the same....etc.," — from my own brethren? This group at least recognizes that there is a distinction between the individual and the church and they evidently know the difference between the individual and the church — even if some of my brethren don't.) In any case, it was a good debate. Brother James M. Lynch served as Moderator for brother Wilson with the writer filling in during his absence the last night. There were no signed Propositions (which was the only way Chisum would agree to debate), but the agreed upon subjects were "Baptism" and "Salvation." Actually, however, the discussion embraced the subjects of the Holy Spirit (Chisum affirming the necessity of Holy Spirit baptism for conversion), and the Future Kingdom Theory (Chisum contending for Pre-Millennial doctrine). The subject of "Baptism" would naturally admit discussion on the operation of the Holy Spirit (considering Chisum's position doctrinally), but the discussion on Pre- Millennialism was abruptly introduced by Chisum the last night of the debate and was the entire substance of his first affirmative, even though he had given no prior intimation that he intended to discuss the same. None-the-less, Gordon Wilson was up to the occasion and successfully deflated and defeated every argument advanced, though he had made no previous preparation on this subject inasmuch as there was no agreement or indication that it would be discussed. In any event, this was a somewhat unique, but highly interesting debate (though Chisum refused to call it a debate), and following are some of the high-points of the discussion:
Baptism
The first night of the debate Wilson affirmed the necessity of water baptism. He first introduced the Great Commission, Matt. 28:18-20, tied with Eph. 4:5, showing that (1) this instruction "go....teach....baptize...." was to last until the "end of the world" (2) There was only one baptism per Eph. 4:5 (3) Jesus commanded the disciples to "perform" baptism — therefore it was a baptism they could administer — men can not administer Holy Spirit baptism — there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5) — to administer it till the "end of the world" — men can administer water baptism and hence water baptism is what Jesus is speaking of in Matt. 28 and Paul is speaking of in Eph. 4:5.
Acts 2:38 - Acts 10:47, 48: From Acts 2:38, Wilson pointed out that Peter commanded guilty sinners to be baptized "....in the name of Jesus Christ...." and then asked the question "what does it mean — involve — to be baptized in the 'name of Jesus Christ'?" Let Peter himself tell us — and he does — Acts 10:47, 48 "....and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord...." Peter was most definitely not speaking of Holy Spirit baptism here for they had, in this special case, already received the Holy Spirit. A most unique and interesting point developed from this — we shall mention it a little further on.
Acts 8:35-39: From this case of conversion, Wilson showed that they "went down both into the water...." etc. What for? The baptism of a sinner "....and he baptized him." For some reason (?), at least to the best of this writer's memory Chisum never did reply to Acts 8, though pressed by Wilson to do so.
Acts 22:61 - Eph. 5:25-27: Wilson of course pointed out that Ananias commanded Saul to "....arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,...." connecting this with Eph. 5 to show that the element of washing was water.
Rom. 6:4, 5: Here, Wilson emphasized the fact that baptism is a burial AND a resurrection. He pointed out that baptism is NOT just a burial — a resurrection also and that whatever a man is buried in, raised in also and if the Holy Spirit, then buried in Holy Spirit, and then raised out of the Holy Spirit. He asked Chisum: "Do you want the consequences?"
John 3:5 -I Pet. 1:22: Brother Wilson here showed that one who becomes a child of God is born of the water and the Spirit. Also, he declared that Chisum could not read a passage explaining what the birth of water is without it pertaining to baptism. He challenged Chisum to do so, but needless to say he did not.
Seven Requirements Of New Testament Baptism
Wilson affirmed that water baptism is a part of the new Covenant (per passages already cited etc.) and pointed out these requirements of New Testament Baptism:
(1) Can be administered by man. (Matt. 28:18-20) Man cannot administer Holy Spirit Baptism.
(2) A command that believers can obey. (Acts 10:48) Cannot render a voluntary obedience to Holy Spirit Baptism.
(3) Is unto remission of sins. (Acts 2:38) Holy Spirit Baptism is not — not to save.
(4) Is likeness of Death, Burial, Resurrection. (Rom. 6:35, and Rom. 6:17, 18 — "....that form of doctrine.") How can Holy Spirit Baptism be a likeness of the Death, Burial and Resurrection?
(5) Baptism of the New Testament is one which man can receive and yet NOT receive the Holy Spirit. Proof — Acts 8:12; 14-17.
(6) Baptism of the New Testament is a baptism which is administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19)
(7) Baptism of the New Testament is a baptism which requires water. (Acts 10:47)
There were many other interesting points, of course, Chisum did not deal with these requirements point by point but made some rather interesting "quibbles." Following are some of them:
Rom. 6:4ff - Col. 2:12: Wilson had stated that baptism is a burial and a resurrection per these passages. (See above) Chisum's rejoinder was: "Were the apostles on the day of Pentecost raised out of the Holy Spirit?? Was Cornelius??" Wilson answered "No," pointing out that while the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit they were not raised out of the Holy Spirit and so this could NOT be the baptism of Rom. 6 and Col. 2:12 — not the baptism which makes Christians.
Matt. 28:18-20: Chisum argued that men CAN perform Holy Spirit Baptism and cited Acts 10:28-48 as proof stating that when Peter taught the Gospel, the Holy Spirit came upon them — i. e. he taught, baptizing them with the Holy Spirit. Wilson obliterated this argument by referring to Peter's rehearsal of the matter in Acts 11 and noting that in verse 4 he ".... expounded it by order unto them.. .." and in verse 15 he said: "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the, beginning." Thus, Peter said that the Holy Spirit came on them as he began to speak, not his preaching a sermon and the Holy Spirit coming on them through his teaching as Chisum argued. The audience could perceive this truth, though Chisum pertinaciously clung to the position he had adopted, which only served as a detriment to him.
Peter Made A Mistake!
Perhaps the most signal thing which occurred during the debate was Chisum's affirmation that Peter wasn't really too sure what he was to say when he went to Cornelius' house and further that he made a mistake in commanding water baptism. (Acts 10:47, 48) When Wilson took the floor following the speech in which Chisum so affirmed, he asked Chisum if he had heard him correctly — that Peter had made a mistake? He told Chisum in a very kind way that he did not wish to misrepresent him and that he would allow Chisum enough of his time to answer whether or not he had heard him correctly. Chisum spoke up from his seat in the affirmative — "Yes," Peter had made a mistake. Wilson then showed how fool-hardy this affirmation was — an inspired apostle baptized with the Holy Spirit making a mistake in telling men what to do to be saved! He then pressed him further; how do you know the writer or apostle who penned your proof text didn't make a mistake? This was a real thorn in the flesh of Chisum throughout the remainder of the discussion and it became almost ludicrous when Wilson would reply to his arguments and then on occasion add: "of course, the apostle here could have made a mistake...." It had a telling effect to say the very least.
Conclusion
There are many other interesting points, of course, which arose during the discussion. Chisum advanced a number of passages (Rom. 4:1-8; Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5 et al) in an attempt to show that water baptism could not save inasmuch as it was a work and we are not saved by works. He had the above passages (& others) printed on large cards which he proudly displayed ("pride goeth before destruction...." Prov. 16:18), and indeed Solomon's words came to pass. Wilson took all his arguments away in the first five minutes of his reply by (1) pointing out that faith itself is a work (John 6:29) and (2) stating that we believed every passage Chisum had advanced — i.e. passages teaching we are saved by faith, and showing that this was not the question. The question is when does this faith save. Chisum argued that the individual is instantly baptized into Christ when he believes in the Death, Burial and Resurrection — or in other words at the point of faith. Wilson showed that only when faith acts or works is it saving faith. He also (3) pointed out that Chisum has James contradicting Paul (Rom. 4:lff - Jas. 2).
One of the outstanding traits of Wilson's opponent in this debate, was his preciosity — i.e. he makes a very good appearance before an audience and speaks in a very soft-spoken, mild manner. Throughout the discussion he appeared very sincere and though his reasoning was fallacious, it was well presented. He was a good opponent, but no match for the truth as Wilson presented it. Though a young man, Gordon Wilson has wonderful knowledge of the scripture, and the ability to present it. Under the constant barrage of truth he presented, Chisum one night of the discussion suddenly lost his mild manner and became a bit caustic, which was evident to all even though he did regain his composure the following evening. However, Wilson was unperturbed throughout and a Christian gentleman at all times. He pointed out to the audience that his prayer was that they might remember the arguments long after they had forgotten whether they were presented in a mild manner or an aggressive manner. In sum, it can truly be said that this was a good discussion and that the truth prevailed.