| IS BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION? |
For a PDF copy of the entire debate, click here Don't have Acrobat Reader? Get it FREE
|
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE ESSAY
William J. Stewart
I appreciate Jason's response to my first affirmative in our present discussion of the necessity of baptism. I thank him for summarizing his position regarding baptism, though I believe his position is entirely contrary to the word of God. Rather than likening water baptism to a wedding ring, why will my opponent not use the types employed by the Bible writers? Paul compares our baptism to circumcision (Colossians 2). Peter likens our salvation through water to Noah's salvation through water (1 Peter 3). Notice that neither of these provide accommodations for those who desire to exclude baptism. Baptism is as necessary under the law of Christ as circumcision was under the law of Moses. We are saved through water today, even as Noah was saved through water in his day.
Before continuing in this discussion on the necessity of baptism for salvation, I first wish to clear up a misunderstanding that became apparent in my opponent's last essay. He referenced my use of the phrase "law of Christ", and wrongly assumed that I meant "..the sermon Jesus gave in Matthew 5-7..." Indeed, this sermon constitutes part of Christ's law, but by no means is it the entirety. In the Old Testament Scriptures we find the law of Moses and the prophets. In the New Testament Scriptures, we find the new covenant (Matthew 26:28; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8, 13, 9:15; 12:24). This new covenant has come through, and is Christ's law. When I say that we today are subject to the law of Christ, or that baptism is commanded in the law of Christ, it is the new covenant which is established in Christ Jesus that I refer to.
Regarding Jesus' sermon in Matthew 5-7, my opponent incorrectly asserts that Jesus "...gave us a law he knew we could not live up to..." Do you not see how unjust it would be to provide a law which man cannot keep, and punish him for not keeping it? In the text itself, Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord', shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who DOES the will of My Father in heaven." (7:21). It is not only possible to keep the law of Christ, we must do so if we are to have the hope of heaven.
MARK 16:16
Jason calls into question my use of Mark 16:16 on the basis that it "...is not found in most of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts." Indeed, two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) do not include Mark 16:9-20. However, one or both of these "reliable" manuscripts also omit Genesis 1:1-46:28; 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13; Psalm 106-137; Matthew 3; 16:2-3; Luke 6:1; 22:43-44; 23:34; John 5:4-5; 8:1-11; 9:38; 19:33-34; 21:25; Acts 8:37; Romans 16:24; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon; Hebrews 9:8-13:25; Revelation, and much more (ie. in the gospels alone, Vaticanus leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences). Is Jason willing to cut these from his Bible as well? [1]
Furthermore, these manuscripts do not agree with one another, differing in over 5,000 places in the New Testament alone. They were written in Classical Greek rather than Koine (common) Greek (which the original New Testament was written in). The Sinaiticus has at least 12,000 alterations throughout the text, made by ten different scribes. Noteworthy, Irenaeus, who lived from 120-205 A.D., Wrote, "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says, 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;' confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: 'The Lord saith to my Lord, sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.'" [2] Over 100 years before either the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus were written (mid-4th century), Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19. How then can Jason call these "...the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts."?
Much more time could be devoted to establishing the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, but I will leave further investigation to the reader. I call your attention to Mr. Peacock's avoidance of Jesus' words in Mark 16:16. Jason believes that baptism is not a condition of (prior to), but rather an evidence of (after) salvation. Thus, he has in his own mind changed the text to read, "...he who believes will be saved and baptized..." Who will you believe, Jason Peacock or Jesus Christ? Don't allow his theological smokescreen to hide from your eyes that Jesus placed faith ("believes") and baptism ("baptized") before salvation ("saved"). The "...canons of inductive logic..." employed by Milliard Erickson regarding Mark 16:16 amounts to nothing more than an attempt to defeat the word of God by means of human wisdom.
To illustrate the absurdity of Erickson and Peacock's reasoning, consider the following: in the statement, "He who exercises AND eats right will be healthy...", is eating right a condition to become healthy, or is it evidence that one is already healthy? Likewise, if we say, "He who runs the race AND crosses the finish line first will win...", are we to understand crossing the finish line as a condition of winning the race, or evidence that it has already been won? To be healthy, there are two conditions - exercise and eat right. To win a race, there are two conditions - running in the race and crossing the finish line first. To be saved, Jesus establishes two conditions - believe and be baptized.
ACTS 2:38
To avoid a supposed contradiction with Luke's writings, Jason justifies rewriting Scripture. Thus, he (not Peter) pens, "Repent for the remission of sins, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Do you not think that Luke (being the writer of Acts) would have noticed if his writings were self-contradictory? There is no contradiction between Acts 2:38 and the list of "repentance" passages presented. As I wrote in my first affirmative, "...the command was not, 'Repent for the remission of sins, and then be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ...' If Peter had meant that, he would have said that. Was Peter mistaken? If so, we must trash the entirety of Scripture...", for he spoke (and Luke wrote) as directed by the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1:20-21). Who are we to believe, Jason Peacock or the apostle Peter?
Mr. Peacock again turns our attention to theological babble rather than Bible truth. He tells us that "...several New Testament Greek grammarians..." say that the word "for" in Acts 2:38 should be understood as "because of". As support, he echoes A.T. Robertson's assertion that the "for" of Acts 2:38 "...should be understood as 'because of', similar to its reasonable usage in Matthew 12:41."
Using Matthew 12:41 to establish the usage of the Greek eis in Acts 2:38 is flawed. The phrases are in no way parallel, neither in the English nor the Greek.
- Acts 2:38.............................eis aphesis hamartia ("...for the remission of sins...")
- Matthew 12:41....................eis ho kerugma ionas ("...at the preaching of Jonah...")
Mr. Robertson and Mr. Peacock have ignored Matthew 26:28, which is an exact parallel in both English and Greek, in favour of Matthew 12:41. I wonder why?
- Acts 2:38.............................eis aphesis hamartia ("...for the remission of sins...")
- Matthew 26:28.....................eis aphesis hamartia ("...for the remission of sins...")
If Acts 2:38 teaches that we are baptized because we already have received the remission of sins, then consistency demands that Matthew 26:28 teaches that Jesus' blood was shed because we already had the remission of sins. You can't have it both ways! Which will you concede to? Baptism is unto the remission of sins, or Jesus' blood was shed because we were already saved?
ACTS 22:16
Jason takes exception to the NKJV rendering of Acts 22:16, stating that it "...would lead one to believe this verse has two conjunctions..." Thus, as he has done for Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, so he does for Acts 22:16 -- Jason provides his own version, "...rise, have yourself baptized, and allow your sins to be washed away by calling on the name of the Lord." Let me ask pointedly, where in the Greek text did you find the words "allow", "to be", and "by"? Such a rendering is nothing but a custom-made rewording of the text to suit a predisposed doctrinal preference.
Young's Literal Translation reads, "...and now, why tarriest thou? Having risen, baptize thyself, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." Ananias was not entreating a saved man to be baptized. Saul was still dead in sin, for they were not yet washed away. I am sure Jason and those who are likeminded would be delighted if Ananias had said, "...why tarriest thou? Wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord, and having risen, baptize thyself." However, he said nothing of the sort. He commanded Paul to arise (with haste), and to be baptized (to wash away his sins), and thus he would have called upon the Lord (Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:46).
ROMANS 6:3-4
As he argued in Mark 16:16, so he does in Romans 6, that baptism is a proof or evidence of salvation. Paul does not call baptism a proof or evidence, no Bible writer does. Jason calls baptism "...an outward sign of the inward soul washing and regeneration with the blood of Christ." Certainly, baptism is an outward action which signifies an inward cleansing (1 Peter 3:21), but realize that the inward cleansing occurs at the time of the outward action, not before. The Bible speaks of baptism as an event that precedes salvation. Further, Jason calls baptism a "...public declaration..." The Bible says nothing about a "public declaration". This is mere reasoning of men.
Consider closely the apostle's words. He writes, "...we were buried with Him through baptism into death..." Our death to sin is parallel to the Lord's physical death. The burial of our old man of sin (in baptism) is parallel to the Lord's burial in the tomb, "...that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Our rising from the watery grave is parallel to the Lord's resurrection from the tomb. Paul continues, "For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection..." (v 5). The Lord was buried while dead (we enter the watery grave dead in sin), His life was revived while in the tomb (our sins are forgiven, refreshing our soul), and He rose from the grave nevermore to die (we rise from baptism to newness of life). But, if we have not "...been united together in the likeness of His death..." (ie. are not baptized), how can we expect to "...be in the likeness of His resurrection..." (ie. be saved)?
COLOSSIANS 2:11-13
Mr. Peacock denies the words of the inspired writer, for he will not believe that baptism is God's work. Regarding our salvation in Christ, Paul stated we are "...buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God..." This is a parallel to Romans 6:4. As God raised Jesus from the dead, He raises us from the water alive in Christ. It is not man who performs the operation, it is the Lord. By Him, we are "...circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ..." What is the "circumcision of Christ"? How does this happen Paul? When? Where? "...Buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
Jason refers to baptism as a "covenant sign". He must have skipped over some of my first affirmative comments on Colossians 2. Recall that God established a covenant with Abraham, and provided circumcision as the sign of that covenant (Genesis 17:10-14). The Lord sternly warned, "...the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." The Lord has now established a "new covenant" in Christ Jesus. With the new covenant came a new sign; the circumcision made without hands. If the one who was not circumcised was not a partaker of the old covenant, how is it possible that the one who is not baptized can be a partaker of the new covenant? Jason's own words argue for the necessity of baptism.
1 PETER 3:18-21
Jason tells us that the letter of 1 Peter deals with the suffering of believers, which I wholeheartedly agree. However, he goes on to tell us, "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..." Interesting, unsubstantiated quote. What Bible verse teaches this to be true? Certainly not 1 Peter 3:21.
Mr. Peacock asked a few questions, the answers of which will supposedly show us the obvious problem with affirming the necessity of baptism for salvation. He inquires, "What was it that saved Noah and his family? The water or the ark? And did they enter the ark by faith?" Peter wrote, "...eight souls, were saved through water..." (1 Peter 3:20). The Hebrew writer penned, "By faith Noah...prepared an ark for the saving of his household..." (Hebrews 11:7). Noah's salvation required both the water and the ark. Take either away, and salvation would not have resulted. The Bible tells us that Noah built the ark by faith (Hebrews 11:7), and he entered it by faith (Genesis 7:1).
Jason, attempting to reject the necessity of baptism has inadvertently argued for it. Indeed, Noah had faith. Noah's faith prompted him to "...prepare an ark for the saving of his household..." On account of Noah's obedience to the Lord's command, "...eight souls, were saved through water..." In like manner, we must have faith. Our faith must motivate us to be baptized for the remission of sins. Due to our obedience to the Lord's command, we shall be saved. God's general pattern to save man has not changed.
OTHER MATTERS
It seems that Jason only read part of my response to his question about the thief on the cross. Indeed, I acknowledge the possibility that he could have been baptized. There is as much evidence to support the supposition that he was baptized as there is to support the supposition that he was not. Regardless, my conclusion was "...it is of no consequence." The thief was not subject to the law of Christ (which commands baptism for the remission of sins), for he lived under the law of Moses. Furthermore, Jesus promised him paradise before His death; before His covenant came into effect. The thief is not a pattern for our salvation; none of us are hanging on a cross beside the Lord as he was.
Jason's discussion of the Roman system of law is useless babble. When he committed his crime, whether he had been baptized before or after his crime, and how long it took the Roman authorities to prosecute him of his crime have nothing to do with his salvation. The fact is, he was saved because the Lord exercised His ability to "...give life to whom He will." (John 5:21).
Jason still holds that Cornelius and his household had to be saved before they were baptized because of the tongues which they spoke. He writes, "...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." With all due respect, it was explained in my response to the question about Cornelius. Mr. Peacock simply rejects the explanation on account of a preconceived idea. He assumes that only Christians can/have spoken in tongues; the Bible teaches no such thing. By such reasoning, Balaam's donkey had to be a Christian!
PUBLIC STATEMENT/PUBLIC DECLARATION
Rather than accept the Bible, which clearly states that baptism is necessary for salvation, Mr. Peacock refers to baptism as a public statement or a public declaration of our decision to follow Christ. He has made two false assumptions, 1) that baptism must be public. That would negate the Ethiopian eunuch's baptism (Acts 8:27-39), and 2) that baptism is merely a statement or declaration of that which has already happened. Such a thought denies what ever New Testament passage on the subject declares.
Where is the text which calls baptism a public statement or public declaration? How many people must be present for it to be public? Creed books of men might call baptism a public declaration, but no Bible writer has.
CONCLUSION
The fact that Mr. Peacock, in order to negate the proposition has had to rewrite Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 is revealing! With Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:11-13 and 1 Peter 3:18-21, Jason has done nothing but ignore the written word, and substituted it with his theological position. Jason's entire response to the Scriptures presented is a theological and grammatical smokescreen, but once the fog has lifted, the Scriptures still declare the necessity of baptism for salvation. The proposition stands, "The New Testament Scriptures teach that the penitent believer must be baptized in water for the remission of sins to be saved."
Endnotes
[1] Various web resources:
http://home.sprynet.com/~eastwood01/kjv03.htm
http://carlgraham.home.mindspring.com/Bible%20Roots.htm
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-4.html
[2] Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 426.
PEACOCK'S QUESTIONS & STEWART'S ANSWERS
Question 1.
Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his Saviour (Romans 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Saviour. Is that person saved?
"...Those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them ... and the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:41, 47). You cannot receive Christ without receiving His word. "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him..." (John 12:48).
Question 2.
Let's further suppose that this person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and received Jesus as Saviour and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell?
Jesus is the Judge of who goes to heaven or hell (James 4:12). You haven't been hit by a car. This is nothing but an empty argument to avoid the plain command of Scripture. If you want to receive Jesus, you need to be baptized for the remission of sins. By the way, what if your hypothetical man believes in Jesus, and just before he confesses, an airliner full of Islamic terrorists rams the building he's in? Why not set aside such nonsense and deal with the Scriptures?
|
