By: Nana Yaw Aidoo

If you are reading this, you will likely have read Brother Bless Bugre’s 3^rd August 2024 Facebook post titled “THE ‘SANKOFA’ DOCTRINE.” Brother Bless Bugre seems a fine man. I don’t know him personally but I have always been an admirer of his online work. However, I read the afore mentioned Facebook post with great sadness for in it he takes a position that if believed would lead to the destruction of precious souls. According to the brother, since the Scriptures teach that at the point of baptism, a person becomes a new creature with the old state of things having passed away, then baptism sanctifies the union of a person who has divorced their spouse without cause and remarried another person, as to make such a union legitimate in the sight of God. He wrote:

The phrase ‘OLD THINGS HAVE PASSED AWAY’ in the above scripture signifies that the old life and it’s [sic] sinful ways have been forgiven and forgotten by God. Every sin that was previously committed is forgiven and forgotten if one comes into Christ. Yet for some brethren, every sin is forgiven and forgotten except the sin of ‘DIVORCE’… Repentance means going forward, a person has changed his/her ways. So if a person was used to divorce in the past and is now in Christ, going forward, divorce is no more part of that person.

Now note that according to Brother Bugre, this divorced and now remarried person is “in Christ.” That is, he or she has been baptized. And by virtue of his or her having been baptized, “going forward, divorce is no more part of that person.” In other words, this person is not bound by God’s word to sever the union, which Brother Bugre at least admits was a sinful union prior to the baptism.

There’s another thing that I found not only disturbing but also quite confusing. He not only takes the position that a person need not “go and make ‘RESTITUTION’ before he/she can be baptized” he also seems to completely take out that option even after the person has been baptized, for he writes, “if a person was used to divorce in the past and is now in Christ, going forward, divorce is no more part of that person” (emphasis mine). So not only must restitution not be made before the act of baptism, but it is not required either even after baptism.

I can affirm the first part of the brother’s argument. Indeed, repentance, in and of itself, does not equal restitution or the fruit of repentance. Repentance leads to fruit which includes restitution or a changed life but in and of itself is not a changed life. John the Baptizer implied this when he spoke of “fruit that befits repentance” (Matt. 3:8 RSV). Moreover, we see this in Jesus’ parable in Matthew 21:28-29. In speaking of the first son Jesus said that “afterward he repented and went.” Notice that Christ did not say merely that the first son repented. Neither did he say merely that the son went. Rather, Jesus said that the son repented and went. The son eventually going was not the act of repentance itself. Repentance occurred before the son went. A changed life is the result or effect of repentance. It is something that befits repentance. It is not repentance itself.

That this position is correct is seen in the fact that a person can reform his or her life without having repented of sin. Take, for example, the case of an atheist who quits visiting the brothel so he can save money to take care of his ailing mom. This person doesn’t believe that grand story of the old rugged cross, yet for his mother’s sake, he quits fornicating. Has he reformed his life? Yes. But has he repented? Certainly not. His changed life did not flow from genuine remorse or godly sorrow. He quit fornicating not because he felt sorry for sinning but only so that he could take care of his mother and he likely would return to the lifestyle once the mother gets better because he never repented of the sin. [I have a detailed article on repentance at Repent of Your Sins – La Vista Church of Christ].

Hence, as far as baptism is concerned, I take the view of my teacher and long-time preacher, Brother Kojo Acquah-Beenyi, that the prospect must at least “show penitence” (Acquah-Beenyi’s words) or indicate that after baptism he or she is willing to make certain changes. That is to say, as in the case of one who has divorced without cause and remarried, I have no problem baptizing that person even though at the point of baptism he had not yet returned to his wife. However, I will baptize him only when he indicates that after baptism, he will make that change. This is not “progressive repentance.” Repentance properly understood and truly done is not progressive in nature [except in the sense that it leads to a changed life] for it is a change of the will or mind (Matt. 21:28-29). Foy E. Wallace Jr. correctly noted that “When a man who is living in sin determines to abandon his life of sin, when he says, ‘I will quit sin—I will sin no more,’ he has repented” (196). After baptism, the new Christian is no longer required to repent (contrary to the claims of some brethren) but is now required to bear “fruit that befits repentance.”

I am however bothered by the fact that a man of Brother Bugre’s talents would intimate that, even after baptism, a person who has divorced without cause and has now remarried is not required to make restitution or any changes to that union because “now in Christ, going forward, divorce is no more part of that person.” Those of us who insist that in keeping with true repentance, the person must return to his or her original spouse or else stay unmarried are accused of teaching “the ‘Sankofa’ doctrine.” The obvious implication is that the person’s past marital record, even if he had divorced and remarried ten times, was sanctified at the point of baptism and for that reason God allows him or her to continue in the present relationship without sin. This is painfully false and not well thought through by Brother Bugre and those who think like him. What follows are four reasons why Brother Bugre’s view is erroneous.

First, it is erroneous because it assumes that baptism cleanses every single sin. I’m sure that when pressed further, Brother Bugre would deny that he so teaches, yet, this view of baptism is nonetheless implied in the position he defends. The view that baptism cleanses every single sin is a patently Roman Catholic view. According to Roman Catholics, baptism is the first of seven sacraments with each, in and of themselves, providing the one who worthily participates in them “with the life of God in our soul” (Richert). It is for this reason that Catholics baptize infants for they teach that all, including infants, are stained with “the guilt and effects of Original Sin.” Hence, since according to them baptism is a “sacrament,” then infants ought to be baptized to be cleansed of original sin in order to be saved. This sacramental view of baptism is implied in Brother Bugre’s rejection of what he calls the “Sankofa” doctrine. This view of baptism, also known as baptismal regeneration, makes merely being immersed in water some sort of magic potion with sin-cleansing properties. But is this view biblical? No. It isn’t. While the Bible teaches that baptism saves us, this is not without regard to other considerations. For example, since the Bible teaches that “He who believes and is baptized will be saved,” baptizing an atheist will not lead to the atheist receiving salvation from his or her sins. Would Brother Bugre argue that since this person has been “baptized,” now “going forward, unbelief or atheism is no more part of that person?” Of course, he won’t, since it is so plainly wrong. Baptism, in this case, would not be effectual in the life of the one baptized for the simple reason that he failed to meet other requirements. Hence, we see that baptism saves us only when we meet certain conditions. One such condition is repentance. Just as Scripture requires faith before salvation, it also requires repentance before salvation. If a person never changed his mind and will as far as a certain sin is concerned, or never determined to turn from sin and return to God, by what rule of interpretation and reasoning do we conclude that such a person would be saved except that we believe that baptism in and of itself is a sacrament? Obviously, just as the baptizing of an atheist will not result in salvation, so the baptizing of an impenitent will not result in salvation. Brother Bugre must either believe that baptism cleanses sins without any other considerations or that just as faith is required to be saved, repentance is also required to be saved. If he truly believed the latter proposition, he wouldn’t hold the view he holds.

Second, Brother Bugre’s doctrine is erroneous because it assumes that repentance does not lead to or require reformation or a change of life. When he wrote that “now in Christ, going forward, divorce is no more part of that person,” he “dumbed down” reformation or a changed life as a consequence of true repentance. However, a truly repentant person will “bear fruit that befits repentance” with restitution, where possible, part of that fruit. The thief who stole his friend’s car must not merely feel remorse for stealing. He must demonstrate his repentance by bearing fruit that befits his repentance. Since the car was never his to begin with, he must give it back to its owner. This was the case with Zacchaeus who restored the goods of those he had defrauded (Luke 19:8). Zacchaeus did that because he had met the Lord and having come face to face with his guilt was truly penitent. Likewise, the person in a sinful or adulterous “marriage” must give up his or her partner for the partner was not his or hers to begin with (cf. Mark 6:17-18; John 4:16-18). The polygamous man cannot return to his many “wives” merely because he has been baptized. That is not repentance. The homosexual cannot return to his partner merely because he has been baptized. And certainly, the one who has divorced and remarried without cause thus creating a sinful or adulterous union, cannot return to that union merely because he or she has been baptized. There is no true repentance that does not bear fruit that befits repentance or demonstrate itself in some way.

Third, Brother Bugre’s doctrine is erroneous because it is illogical. It is axiomatic that any doctrine that implies a false doctrine, is itself false. To see the error in Brother Bugre’s reasoning, consider the case where only one of the couple ends up getting baptized. Now remember that Brother Bugre admits that before baptism, divorce and remarriage without cause is a sin. What else did he mean by “the sin of ‘DIVORCE?’” The question that begs asking is this: Is the baptized partner living in a legitimate marriage while the unbaptized partner is still living in sin? No one who claims to believe in a God who does not author confusion would profess such a ridiculous view of baptism.

Fourth, Brother Bugre’s view is erroneous because it requires more of Christians than it does of alien sinners. If a Christian divorces without cause, remarries, leaves the church, and returns after many years, would the church forgive him and restore him to the fellowship of the church if he says he wants to be part of the fellowship again? Would he not be required to repent and demonstrate his repentance by discontinuing the adulterous union? If yes, then does Brother Bugre’s doctrine not require less of alien sinners than it does of Christians since it doesn’t require a demonstration of repentance?

Conclusion

In view of the foregoing, it is plainly evident that Brother Bless Bugre is in error. Personally, I do not believe this is a matter that should be glossed over because it has serious implications for true gospel obedience. I truly believe that it is a matter of heaven and hell. It is indeed a salvation issue. While I do not fear successful refutation of any position that I have taken in this article, you would have done me a world of good if you could show me the error in my reasoning and handling of Scripture.

Finally, this article is not an attack on Brother Bugre’s person. I pray that he or anyone else does not see it that way. I’m sure that he knows more than anyone that as Christians and especially as gospel preachers, we have so great a responsibility to ensure that we do not accommodate the requirements of the gospel to people’s sins (Jam. 3:1). Let us, therefore, teach all that the Bible says about repentance and let the chips fall where they may.

Works Cited

Bugre, Bless. “THE ‘SANKOFA’ DOCTRINE.” Bless Bugre, 3 Aug. 2024, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/8tbEyNt69e9UTWUT/?

Richert, Scott P. “The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church.” Learn Religions, 19 July 2024, https://www.learnreligions.com/sacraments-of-the-catholic-church-542136.

Wallace Jr., Foy E. The Gospel for Today. Foy E. Wallace Jr., Publications, 1997.

Published 19 August 2024