| IS BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION? |
For a PDF copy of the entire debate, click here Don't have Acrobat Reader? Get it FREE
|
FIRST NEGATIVE ESSAY
Jason J. Peacock
Considering I have some space here at the beginning of this rebuttal to William Stewart's first affirmative, I'd like to express my deepest sympathies for the victims' families and friends of the recent terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001, on New York City and Washington D.C..
On a second note, I'd like to thank William for his opening statement. I will briefly summarize my position regarding baptism and then move on to my rebuttal. I do believe the Scriptures place great importance on water baptism, but I believe the New Testament teaches that Christian baptism (water by immersion), is a sacrament - a physical manifestation of a spiritual reality. Spirit baptism is an anointing, possession, movement of God on a person. I guess I'd compare water baptism to a wedding ring, the wedding ring is a symbol to others, if you take it off, do you then become unmarried in God's sight? No, of course not. In the same way, not being immersed does not make one an un-Christian.
MARK 16:16
Okay, the obvious problem with using Mark 16:16 is Mark 16:9-20 is not found in most of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. Therefore its suspect, and should not be used to teach: the one who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, for the sake of argument, it ought to be dealt with. Within the Greek, there are two expressed conditions, "belief" and "baptism" (known as protasi). And the one statement to indicate the result of the fulfillment of these conditions (known as apodosis). However, the two conditions do not need to have identical relationships in regard to apodosis. One might be a cause and the other an evidence. [1] If this were the case then it would explain the statement, "He who does not believe shall be condemned." This analysis conforms to logical construction as Milliard Erickson says, "It is simply absence of belief, not baptism that is correlated with condemnation. According to the canons of inductive logic, if a phenomenon (salvation) occurs on one occasion but not on another, the one circumstance on which they differ is the case of the phenomenon."[2]
ACTS 2:38
I will be the first to admit Acts 2:38 in any translation does seem to teach that baptism does bring about forgiveness of sins, and thus salvation. The issue though is one of Greek grammar and word meaning, namely how the Greek words for repentance and baptism relate to the phrase "for forgiveness/remission of sins", and what the meaning of the preposition "for" (eis) is within the verse.
A view given by several New Testament Greek grammarians is that Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism brings forgiveness, because the Greek word eis should be translated "because of" rather than "for the purpose of." J.R. Mantey argued that eis could be used to express cause in various places in the New Testament, among them Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38. Mantey believes, as do many others, that salvation by grace would be violated if a casual eis was not true in Acts 2:38. [3]
Premier Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson also argued that eis in Acts 2:38 should be understood as "because of", similar to its reasonable usage in Matthew 12:41, "They repented because of [eis] the preaching of Jonah." [4] Kenneth Wuest contended the same, but mentioned a comment by Josephus that John baptized people only after they repented in Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5, section 2. [5]
Holding to a view that baptism brings forgiveness of sins flies in the face of Lucan theology (Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:28-32; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20).
One alternative is to re-punctuate the passage to read, "Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins" or "Repent for the remission of sins, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." If this were the correct understanding, the eis is subordinate to "repent" alone and not to "be baptized." Though this would be different from the word order in the Greek, the Greek language does not depend nearly as much on the order of words as English does in order to make sense.
What favours this interpretation is that "repent" here is a second person plural verb, which would be in proper accord with "remission of your sins", while "let each...be baptized" is a third person singular verb. [6]
Repentance and faith are opposite sides of the coin of conversion and are the internal workings of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the person who comes to God. In my opinion Acts 2:38 teaches: believe on the Lord Jesus and repent for the forgiveness of sins, then seal that confession of the heart with the outward confession of baptism.
The incident at Cornelius' house poses problems for those believing baptism brings salvation. Acts 10:44 reveals that upon hearing the gospel preached by Peter, the house of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 3:11; Acts 2:39). Reception of the Spirit showed Peter and his companions that God had already worked inwardly in the house of Cornelius. Demonstrating the legitimacy of baptism for these newly regenerated believers, when Peter recounted the event to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, the issue was faith, he did not even mention water baptism (Acts 11:15-18).
In Acts 16:30-31, when the Philippian jailer asked Paul what he must do to be saved, Paul told him to believe in Christ and he would be saved. Only later after the jailer had washed Paul and Silas's wounds did Paul baptize him.
ACTS 22:16
Some, those who hold to the essentialness of water baptism interpret Acts 22:16 as though it said, "Arise and wash away your sins, by being baptized and call on the name of the Lord." This English rendering of this verse would lead one to believe this verse has two conjunctions (kai in Greek) rather than one. However, this is very different from the actual Greek syntax. In reality, there are two distinct ideas being expressed in the verse. Acts 22:16 has two separate clauses, each with an imperative verb and its modifying participle. The Greek is difficult to express in fluid English, but a very literal rendering of the verse would be, "Rise, have yourself baptized, and allow your sins to be washed away by calling on the name of the Lord." Calling on the name of the Lord would be a confession of Christ like those found in Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, or Romans 10:13. The baptismal act would be a visual sign that one is calling on the name of the Lord and becoming a Christian.
Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation of the circumcised heart (Colossians 2:11-12), which means you are already saved, or is it by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 9:14; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7)? Obviously it is the blood of Jesus and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus' name.
ROMANS 6:3-4
The passage in Romans 6:3-4 is one such that speaks about being in Christ, or in his body, and some use this such passage to teach the necessity of baptism. It is often taken to mean that the component of water baptism is necessary, but does it? In Romans 6:2, Paul says that we have died to sin, then in verse 3, we have been baptized into Christ's death. He's saying that we are now dead to our old sinful ways, because we are in Christ now, and the proof of this is our baptism in water, an outward sign of the inward soul washing and regeneration with the blood of Christ.
It's not saying that baptism is what makes this dying to our old sinful self real, but that it is the public declaration and covenant sign of our identification with the death of Christ on the cross, his burial, and resurrection. It signifies our public death, going into the water; our death, under the water; and raise to new life, out of the water. This initially happens when one receives Christ, justified by faith in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 5:1).
It is said that baptism signifies our death, burial and resurrection, obviously we did not die literally; unless it is meant to be taken figuratively? Nevertheless, it's best understood in the covenant relationship with God, like communion is a covenant sign and the bread and win are the elements.
In his opening statement, William appealed to Romans 5:9-10, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." He says we make contact with the blood of Christ in the baptismal waters, thus justifying us. But all of Romans 5 is void of telling us we need to be water baptized to be justified. It tells us exactly how to be justified, "By faith we are justified and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:1). It does not say we receive this justification through the waters of baptism.
COLOSSIANS 2:11-13
Colossians 2:11-13, Romans 6:3-4, as well as Galatians 3:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 all speak of being in Christ. Some believe these verses mean we must be water baptized to be in Christ. In reality, they do not teach that salvation comes to us through baptism, rather, they convey to us an important symbolism that happens during baptism. It is the public statement of identification with Jesus Christ, and as in Colossians 2:11-13, it is the outward expression of the inward working done by the operation of the Holy Spirit and not by the hands of man.
As William said in his opening statement, he denies that baptism (in water) is a work done by man, rather God's work. The problem I see with that is baptism logically cannot be all of God, when man plays a part in it. Church authorities, congregations, so on... And as small as those holding that baptism is a necessary component to salvation say that part is, it is still a vital part, and so vital that if the church authorities, congregation and so on did not play that part, salvation could not happen. That takes the focus off God and puts it on man.
In his first affirmative, William used Titus 3:4-5 to substantiate an argument, but he did not exegete it, just said God saves us. Right, I totally agree. "But when the kindness and the love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:4-5).
In the context of Titus 3, "...washing of regeneration..." does not necessarily have to be baptism. Rather, it uses a common word for the cleansing process to express a spiritual reality. This is similar to the way water is used in Ezekiel 36:25-27. Joining the water and the work of the Spirit in the Ezekiel passage gives a possibility to another construction of the passage, "Washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." It may be understood in an appositional way. With the conjunction "and" (kai) being translated "even", the verse then reads, "Washing of regeneration, even the renewing of the Holy Spirit."
1 PETER 3:18-21
Many have viewed 1 Peter as a baptismal tract, which gives support to a high view of water baptism as being essential unto salvation. David Hill makes a simple observation, "That baptism only appears once in the letter 3:21, and virtually in a parenthetical way." In reality Peter's letter addressed the suffering of believers (1 Peter 1:6-7; 3:13-18; 5:10). A Christian's suffering and baptism were linked, by accepting baptism he or she was showing their willingness to share in the sufferings of fellow Christians, who commonly were treated with much suspicion and hostility.
What I see as an obvious problem with saying the water of baptism saves us the same way as the waters of Noah's day saved him and his 7 other family members can be borne out by asking three questions. What was it that saved Noah and his family? The water or the ark? And did they enter the ark by faith?
"By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." (Hebrews 11:7). Then they were saved by faith. That is why it says in the rest of 1 Peter 3:21, "...not the removal of the dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Peter is not saying that it was the water itself which saved Noah and his family, but an appeal to God that saves. The appeal is done by faith. Then baptism is actually an appeal to God, a trust in Him by faith, a dying to ourselves (Romans 6; Colossians 2), a public declaration of our identification with Christ.
OTHER MATTERS
William's answer to my first question, of the thief crucified with Jesus may have been baptized by John's baptism is number one, is an argument from silence. Whether or not the thief crucified with Jesus did receive baptism of repentance is inconsequential. John baptized Jesus at the beginning of his ministry. Shortly after Herod imprisoned John the baptizer, John was then murdered, so even if this thief was baptized then by John, obviously it meant nothing, but a cool bath. Certainly, he did not repent, as evidenced by his crucifixion. To think this man committed his crimes some 2 1/2 to 3 years earlier, then went through his baptism of repentance is to assume that the Roman system of law was extremely slow and inefficient. But is there a good reason to think that the Romans system of law was that inefficient? I really do not think so. The fact remains, if this man was not baptized, and we really do not have good reasons to say he was, Jesus answered him "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Then baptism is not essential.
Indeed, the Spirit did come on those in the house of Cornelius not till verse 44, Peter began to speak the message in verse 34. Acts 10:44, they are baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit. It was after they speak in tongues and glorify God. Tongues are a gift for the church, for church members, for the saved...then they were baptized.
If baptism is necessary, then that means those people were filled with the Holy Spirit, glorified God, and spoke in tongues, but they were not saved. This does not make any sense to me. If they were saved before baptism, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation, plain and simple.
POINT CONCERNING THE LAW
Often in the first affirmative, William referred to "the law of Christ." I assume he means from the sermon Jesus gave in Matthew 5-7. I get the impression that William believes that we should follow this to a 'T' as a Christian. True, this sermon does tell us how God intended things to be, but as you go through these chapters, if you're honest, you will discover just how impossible it is to follow it to a 'T' 24 hours a day, 7 says a week, 365 days a year! So what are we to do, try harder? Did Jesus come to tell us to bear down and do the best we can? NO way! Jesus as the God-man knew about humanities weaknesses, so he gave us a law he knew we could not live up to. He gave us himself though. Here's the point. Look at the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:18, "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
Nothing will pass from the law until all is fulfilled. Christ has fulfilled the law to perfection, because he was perfection, this is why Romans 7:4-7, "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another - to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit not the oldness of the letter." The Bible is quite clear; those truly redeemed by Christ do not live under the law, but under grace. Does this mean that I am giving us a license to sin? Certainly not. To echo the words of Paul.
CONCLUSION
In closing, in the same way that the Lord's supper is a representative of his body and blood, and is extremely important, however does not save us, but to reject the Lord's supper is a sign that we are not saved. In the same way, baptism represents so closely what it stands for, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and yes, refusing to be baptized once one receives Christ is a good indicator of not being saved. Scripture teaches certain individuals were saved without baptism (Luke 23:42-43). Then he said, "Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Scriptures teach certain people were saved before baptism (Acts10:44-47).
Endnotes
1. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics.
2. Milliard Erickson, Christian Theology
3. Wallace, 369-70.
4. Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 3. "The Acts of the Apostles", Nashville:Broadman Press, 1930, 35-36.
5. Kenneth S. Wuest, The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament: Prepositions and synonyms in Greek Exposition, Part III, Bibliotheca, July 1960.
6. Luther B. McIntyre Jr., "Baptism and forgiveness in Acts 2:38", Bibleotheca Sacra [Jan '96], 54-62.
|
