| IS BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION? |
For a PDF copy of the entire debate, click here Don't have Acrobat Reader? Get it FREE
|
SECOND NEGATIVE ESSAY
Jason J. Peacock
I appreciate William's second affirmative; I also disagree with William's stance on baptism. That without it we cannot be saved, I very much believe it doubts the finished work of Christ on the cross. However my goal in my first rebuttal was not to show the view William holds is contradictory to Scripture; it can be argued that baptism is essential. My goal was simple, to demonstrate that the texts which William used to show the necessity of baptism do not have to be taken as such. The wedding ring analogy fails, because if you take your wedding band off, for whatever reason, you still remain married. Or, as Tom Cruise said in A Few Good Men, "You don't need a badge on your arm to get respect." In the same way, salvation is not what you do, but who you have (1 John 5:11).
As far as the law of Christ, I do apologize to William for my false assumption. 1 Corinthians 9:21 talks of Christ's law, but is Christ's law regulations to replace the old regulations? Not that I can see. As for the New Covenant which came with Christ, I certainly hold to that, and I base my hope in it. But I cannot understand why William thinks that this covenant includes a law to replace the old law, when 2 Corinthians tells us the ministers of this new covenant -- not of the letter (implying law), but the Spirit, and why? Because the letter (implying law) kills, but the Spirit gives life. The Old Covenant was rules and regulations which we could not keep, but God in His mercy gave us a new covenant. It makes no sense to give another law that God knows we cannot keep.
William believes he can keep the teaching of Jesus concerning His sermon of Matthew 5-7. Well what can I say, William is a better man that I am, because I cannot keep it, thank God for His Son Jesus, I sure need Him. On a more serious note though, William, I think you're missing the point of Matthew 5-7, what did Jesus say? He said that unless our righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, we will not enter heaven (5:20). we know they weren't saved; yet they were considered the most righteous in all Israel. Now we know how hypocritical the religious leaders were partly because they believed that their righteousness was enough for them to reach God, Jesus said no. That's the purpose of the law to reveal sin, Romans 7:13. The law as well as Jesus' additions to it (Matthew 5-7) is in full effect today, for those not in Christ, with all of its written code, of course it is to drive us to Christ. And God is hardly unjust to give it (Romans 9:14-16), William knows this, I know he does.
MARK 16:16
I wonder why William felt it necessary to give me a lesson on the manuscript and ancient text transmissions of the Bible. This debate has absolutely nothing to do with this. However, I do study both of them extensively, and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not the earliest manuscripts found, nevertheless, I don't object to William's use of Mark 16:16 on the basis of the 16:9-20 disclaimer. Nonetheless, the disclaimer is there and trying to use this questionable passage as a proof-text to validate the doctrine of baptism essentialness is suspect, whether William likes it or not. As said though that disclaimer is not my sole reason for suspecting this passage. My main reason is found in Mark 16:12, Jesus appeared in a different form to the two on the road. Red light number 1, Jesus resurrected in the same body, so this contradicts the four empty tomb accounts. Red light number 2, Mark 16:12 contradicts Luke 24:16, where they were merely kept from Jesus' real identity, which is in line with the resurrection accounts.
ACTS 2:38
William says I'm re-writing Scripture, after all Peter wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I'm a mere human, correcting Peter, a God inspired apostle of Christ, what utter and complete blasphemy. There is one problem with William's conclusion on what I'm doing. Peter, the inspired apostle, was not writing in English, what did I say William, in my first rebuttal? "...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." Why, not because I re-write the text, but because the original is in Greek, not English. What I did William was purely rebut you, I gave an alternate meaning to the text.
I simply would request William, please respond to my argument, not me, by saying I use theological babble. Since I do not agree with William's interpretation of the Bible, I'm employing the use of theological babble. Then I guess the majority of theologians employ theological babble as well. And William I'm not a Greek grammarian, but the people I quoted are. And they think eis ought to be because of rather than for. Also William why tell me how you interpret eis, I already know how you interpret it.
And I did not say that eis needs to be translated as because of in every place in the New Testament, and Matthew 26:28, a verse I did not even use in my first rebut, says Christ's blood is shed for the remission of our sins, but not baptism. Obviously a place were eis is better to be understood as for the purpose of.
ACTS 22:16
William, what you're doing here is very subtle, so much so, that you might not realize it. I said the Greek is difficult to express in fluid English. William countered me here by quoting Young's Literal Translation, which is English, not in Greek. Furthermore, I said those who hold to the essentialness of baptism interpret this verse as though it said, "Arise, and wash away your sins by being baptized and call on the name of the Lord." But the NKJV says, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." William, simply because I used the verse out of NKJV to show what Acts 22:16 says does not mean I disagree with it, after all I did say I'd use NKJV in my first rebuttal. Actually I very much enjoy using NKJV personally. Nevertheless NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, Amplified, Young's Literal... are all translations from the Greek, and a literal rendering of the verse, from the Greek, not English, 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 baptism act would be a visual sign that one is calling on the name of the Lord and becoming a Christian.
ROMANS 6:3-4
William completely overlooks Romans 6:2 in favour of his interpretation that it is because we have been baptized that we're dead to sin. But verse two tells us that we're dead to sin so how can we live in it? Then three tells us that baptism signifies this death, and verse 4 explains to us how this is done. But it does not say that this death to our sins, and thus salvation happens precisely when one is baptized or baptism precedes salvation.
I have two problems with Mr. Stewart's interpretation, firstly baptism cannot be done without at least one other human, for example I cannot baptize myself, therefore, at least one human is jointly responsible for my salvation. Does God need man to help Him save me, William? Logically it is that way isn't it? Secondly, saying the outward act of baptism and the inward soul washing of Christ's blood is co-equal contradicts many verses in the book of Acts which tells us, they received Christ's Holy Spirit prior to baptism.
COLOSSIANS 2:11-13
The inspired apostle tells us that the circumcision of the heart is totally done by the operation of the Holy Spirit. William affirms that, but he's inconsistent in his interpretation. Why? Well, because if Paul is correct, and circumcision of the heart is an operation done by the Holy Spirit and not at all man, why does at least one human need to be present in my baptism. So vital is that one human presence that if not, then according to William, this Holy Spirit operation cannot happen. Hmmm, who is not carefully considering the apostle's words?
Moreover, 1 Corinthians 12:13 speaks not only of being baptized into one Spirit, but also drinking into the Spirit, both of which symbolically refer to the individual's participation in the life of God. When a person is baptized, he or she comes into unity with all other believers in Jesus Christ. This unity transcends social distinctions (Galatians 3:28).
1 PETER 3:18-21
William, you asked me to tell you which verse tells us a person baptized as a Christian would suffer, thus they were linked? I hope you're kidding! But I doubt you are. You can read about it in Acts. I'm left wondering where Mr. Stewart is coming from here. If we follow his reasoning to its logical outcome, since it is not expressly said, baptism is a public symbol or a way to be identified with other Christians, it cannot be taught. I tend to wonder if William applies the same line of reasoning to other doctrines of Scripture. Like the nature of God? Since the term "trinity" is found nowhere in the Bible, it cannot be a reality?
William, I'm willing to grant that the wording of 3:21 does seem to support baptismal regeneration, but a careful look at the parallels Peter uses, and the Greek syntax, will show that his typological comparison points in another direction. The Greek unlike English has what is known as a concord, in which a modifying word will agree in gender and number with its antecedent.
The first word in verse 21 is the neuter pronoun translated "which" referring back to "water" a neuter noun, not to "ark" which is a feminine noun. Wuest translates this verse "which (water) as a counterpart now save you, (namely) baptism." [1] Thus the water of Noah's day is a type of baptism. From the New Jerusalem Bible, "It is the baptism, corresponding to this water which saves you now - not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience given to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The ark would more accurately refer to salvation, since the ark delivered Noah and his family as it was lifted by the flood waters, but Peter was centering upon the issue of water, to use baptism as an analogy to Noah's deliverance through the suffering and judgment of his day. [2]
The apostle Peter continued in this vein by stressing that baptism does not save through the removal of dirt, but rather as an appeal to a good conscience before God, or as Bo Reicke translates it, "a pledge of good will to God." [3] David Hill expresses the sense of the Greek word eperoteime as meaning, "a response or assent to a Covenant obligation, an agreement to maintain righteousness, through obedience, in the future... The characterization of baptism in 3:21 would then be as follows: not so much the abandonment of the moral failures of the pre-Christian life as a firm response to God, a commitment to maintain an upright life of which one need not be ashamed." [4] In other words, Peter isn't saying that baptism brings about forgiveness of sins (removal of dirt), but rather it is the initiation of a life of obedience that demonstrates true conversion and salvation.
Allow me to appeal to the primitive church, many people who believe it is necessary to be baptized in order to be saved, which William does often appeal to the primitive church, saying "they believed baptism was required for salvation." However, there are three problems with that. First of all, the Bible is the "measuring stick" which ought to define any Christian issues, especially those of salvation, and nothing else! Secondly, baptism by immersion, which is the only true way people who believe baptism is an absolute necessary act for salvation can be done, and generally done in the primitive church, but nonetheless, cannot be done in all parts of the world. Thirdly, the early church did not believe baptism is an essential act for salvation.
No doubt about it, baptism played an integral role in the overall experience of becoming a Christian in the early church. It's associated with being united with Christ (Romans 6:3-4), putting on of Christ (Galatians 3:27), and even the forgiveness of sins (associated not responsible), because it serves as the external statement of that internal event of the inward soul washing of the blood of Christ. It's also very likely that baptism served in like manner in becoming a member of the New Covenant, and a member of the community of believers, a counterpart to the Old Covenant of circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). The term "baptism" seemed to be used as a short form for the gospel, in which faith and repentance were expected (Matthew 28:19). However it is not ancillary to the gospel, but a very real part of it. There is no doubt baptism was not optional for those who named the name of Christ, and it was virtually the first thing the believer did once they responded in faith to the gospel (Acts 2:38; 8:34-38; 10:45-48; 16:31-34).
With all of its importance, baptism was never absolutely necessary for salvation. The Scripture is very clear that the only necessity for one's salvation is the internal working of the Holy Spirit (John 3:15; 5:24; Acts 2:21; 10:43; 15:9). This requisite is given at least 60 times in the New Testament with no mention of baptism. [5]
The role of baptism in the modern day church has not changed, the Biblical text never once says that baptism will lose its importance. Baptism in the New Testament was much like circumcision in the Old Testament, which never saved anyone: nonetheless, it was not optional for one who wanted to be part of the Covenant with Abraham and a part of the Israelite community. Baptism to faith is like words are to ideas. One can have an idea without putting it into words, but not doing so makes the idea an invisible reality to others. In like manner, one can have faith without baptism, but then that faith has no external reality. An evangelical preacher may give an alter call to come forward and believe and repent, as a visible sign of a confession of faith, nothing wrong with that, but many get a false understanding that this replaces baptism, and that's rather unfortunate. In the early church the person was called forward to be baptized. It was in the act of baptism that repentance and faith in Christ were externally proclaimed, and without baptism there was no divinely recognized outward first Christian act. To the early Christian there was no alternative, and there was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian.
What I've done William, is simply shown that the verses you and others use as proof-text to say baptism is necessary for salvation do not require that interpretation. William, you might as well accuse me of being a heretic, if my view is so contrary to the doctrine of the Bible, but its not the Bible friend but your view. The thing is William, if what you say is absolutely true, that baptism is essential to salvation, then the New Testament ought not to be filled with verses which tell us we can be saved, but apart from baptism. And you call what I am doing theological babble, well, it is theological William, but to assert that it is babble simply because it is not in line with your view is not good reasoning friend. The Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) saves us, water baptism is not part of the gospel.
This gospel can be proclaimed separate of water baptism (1 Corinthians 1:14-17), "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." Scripture teaches that our souls can be saved through the agency of the Holy Spirit working through His word, apart from the reception of water baptism.
(John 15:3) "You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you" (1 Peter 1:23) "For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." (James 1:21) "Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you."
Scripture teaches one is saved the moment we place faith in Christ as our Saviour (John 5:24). "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."
Scripture teaches certain individuals were saved without baptism (Luke 23:42-43). Scriptures teach certain people were saved before baptism (Acts 10:44-47).
Your conclusion William, "The New Testament Scriptures teach that the penitent believer must be baptized in water for the remission of sins to be saved." Are you absolutely sure friend? I just don't see it.
I cannot respond to William fully, as my character count is approaching 15,000 rather quickly. William though accuses me of using smokescreens when he used them throughout his initial statement. Something quite evident in his answers to my questions. They're questions William, answer them!
|
