A Published Debate "Pinches" A Baptist Preacher -- No. 3-- Warren - Ballard Debate
(Note: This is the concluding article in a series of three in review of an article by Mr. L. S. Ballard in the Independent Baptist Voice, December, 1953 issue.)
In paragraph six of his article, Mr. Ballard says:
"First, he tried to impeach the Emphatic Diaglott by saying that it was the product of the Jehovah Witness movement and that it denied the doctrine of eternal hell. Both statements are false."
Again, Mr. Ballard has misrepresented what I said. I did not say, "The Emphatic Diaglott is a product of the `Jehovah Witness' movement." I said that it taught their doctrine about hell. I didn't know then, and I still do not know, what religion Benjamin Wilson, the "author" of the Emphatic Diaglott, espoused. It seems very likely, however, that he was materialist of some kind.
At this point in his article, Mr. Ballard makes a very vague statement about the Emphatic Diaglott and challenges me to debate on the subject. I accept his challenge and at the end of this article will set forth the proposition which I am sending to him. "Now, watch him back down." During the debate, Mr. Ballard refused to sign his name to a statement affirming that he would defend every doctrine he espoused, as a Baptist, by both the Emphatic Diaglott and the 'Concordant Version. He said he would use them "only so far as they taught the truth." If they are as good as he SAYS they are, he would use them to defend EVERYTHING he believes. The above mentioned "dodge" showed his lack of confidence then. Let us see how confident he is now.
Also in paragraph six, Mr. Ballard says that he used the Concordant to show: ". . . that the only way to get into Christ is by believing into him."
Mr. Ballard might now undertake the task (which he failed to do in the debate) of showing why the Concordant Version itself says that that which is in lightface type may be omitted and that the "to" part of "into" is in lightface type. Again, he might tell us whether the faith with which one believes "INTO" (even should we grant, for sake of argument, that such is a true translation) is a "dead" faith or a "live" faith.
In paragraph seven, our Baptist neighbor has this to say:
"The only way that Mr. Warren could save his hide before his own brethren was to make the false charge that the Concordant Translation was an Adventists translation."
To answer this, I have only to quote my own words from the debate, p. 115:
"I didn't say that the men who translated it were Adventists. I wrote and asked them what their religion was, but they would not say. They wouldn't say. But I said that the version taught the Adventist doctrine of meeting on the sabbath day. When they say 'one of the Sabbath Days' they tell what they mean by that: one of the Jewish Sabbath Days — Saturday, or the Seventh Day of the week."
To any candid reader, the difference between saying that a version teaches Adventist doctrine and saying that the translators were Adventists is too readily apparent to need further explanation.
Also in paragraph seven, Mr. Ballard quotes a letter from the Concordant Publishing Concern, signed by a Mr. E. O.Knoch. He quotes from the letter in an attempt, I suppose, to show that the Concordant Publishing Concern has "no connection with" the Adventist Church. This is a useless effort since I have never said it did have. But, if I have understood the letter, it is worthy of note that Mr. Knoch did not say what the religions of the various INDIVIDUALS who translated the Concordant Version were. It could be that the publishing house has no official connection with the Adventists while the individual translators were members of the Adventist Church. I am not saying this is so, for I do not know. But I am simply pointing out the possibility of such. I wonder if Mr. Ballard will defend all of the booklets and tracts which this firm publishes So Mr. Ballard's charge that I misrepresented two translations is not true. Mr. Ballard knew that he was "gone" unless he could find some way of refuting the scriptural statement that one is "baptized into Christ," where salvation is. Realizing that the standard translations completely refuted Baptist doctrine at this point, he based his hope of sustaining his doctrine on these two versions. Really this was unfortunate for Mr. Ballard and the Baptists, for in doing so, he did at the least the following: (1) manifestly proved that he recognized that the standard translations do not sustain Baptist doctrine on the plan of salvation, (2) lined himself up with translations which will not sustain OTHER Baptist doctrines, as set forth by the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
In acceptance of Mr. Ballard's challenge for debate, the following proposition is being mailed to him:
Proposition No. 1
Resolved: That both the Emphatic Diaglott and the Concordant Version are superior translations to the King James, English Revised, and American Standard Versions, and, as such, are in doctrinal harmony with one another, and both teach Baptist doctrine, as set forth by the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, at every point, and especially on "hell," "the spirit of man," and "the Lord's Day."
L. S. Ballard, Affirms Thomas B. Warren, Denies
In addition to the above proposition, I am sending Mr. Ballard the propositions stated below. I learned from Mr. Ballard and his brethren that when one is challenged for debate, it is the obligation of the challenger to furnish the place in which the debate is to be held, and it is the obligation of the one challenged to submit tentative propositions and rules. In accordance with that, I am submitting the following propositions to him.
Proposition No. 2
The scriptures teach that it is possible for a child of God to so act as to finally be lost in hell.
Thomas B. Warren, Affirms L. S. Ballard, Denies
Proposition No. 3
The scriptures teach that a child of God is eternally saved and can never so sin as to finally be lost in hell.
L. S. Ballard, Affirms
_____________
Thomas B. Warren, Denies We await developments.