| IS BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION? |
For a PDF copy of the entire debate, click here Don't have Acrobat Reader? Get it FREE
|
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE ESSAY
William J. Stewart
I pray that the readers have benefited from this conversation, and appreciate the importance of baptism to the salvation of souls. Also, I thank Mr. Peacock for his participation in this discussion. Before coming to the issue of baptism, let me address Jason's introductory remarks from his last essay.
Jason said, "...my goal in my first rebuttal was not to show the view William holds is contradictory to Scripture..." Surely it was! In negating my position, Jason's duty is to show that I have misapplied the Bible, and am teaching error. To simply "...demonstrate that the texts...used to show the necessity of baptism do not need to be taken as such..." merely makes room for alternate positions. The Bible is truth (John 17:17). Truth is absolute. It is not possible for two contrary positions to both be correct. Thus, it is Mr. Peacock's responsibility, if I am teaching false doctrine to illustrate such, or if not, to submit to the truth.
My friend cannot understand why I believe Christ's law replaced the old law. The Bible says so (Hebrews 8:13; 10:9). He makes reference to 2 Corinthians 3:6. The "letter" is in reference to the law of Moses, the "Spirit" in reference to the law of Christ. Paul makes the contrast:
| "...the letter..." (v 6)
| "...the Spirit..." (v 6)
|
| "...the ministry of death..." (v 7)
| "...the ministry of the Spirit..." (v 8)
|
| "...written and engraved on stones..." (v 7)
| "...tablets of flesh, that is, the heart..." (v 3)
|
| "...ministry of condemnation..." (v 9)
| "...ministry of righteousness..." (v 9)
|
| "...had glory..." (v 9)
| "...exceeds much more in glory..." (v 9)
|
Mr. Peacock says, "The law as well as Jesus' additions to it (Matthew 5-7) is in full affect today..." If that is the case, we must not wear clothes of cotton and polyester mix (Deuteronomy 22:11). We must have tassels on our clothing (Deuteronomy 22:12). We cannot sow two kinds of seed in a field (Deuteronomy 22:9). We must not eat bacon, ham, sausage, lobster, shrimp, crab, etc.. (Leviticus 11:4-7, 9-12). However, these have all been nailed to the cross (Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14).
Jason is in err, assuming that God gave an old covenant "...we could not keep..." How just would God be to condemn us, if He (our Creator) did not give us the ability to keep His law? Jason's doctrine makes God out to be a monster! Suffice it to say, several times God commanded the children of Israel through Moses, "...be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes..." (Deuteronomy 17:19). Perhaps we can address this issue in more detail some other time.
Jason tells us that he "...cannot keep..." the Lord's words in Matthew 5-7. 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). Again, he says, "...whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and DOES them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock..." (7:24). Jesus indicated not only that we CAN, but that we MUST keep His word if we are to have the hope of heaven.
MARK 16:16
Jason inquired why I "felt it necessary to give...a lesson on the manuscript and ancient text transmission..." Though Mr. Peacock says, "...I don't object to William's use of Mark 16:16...", comments from both his essays say otherwise. He tells us that "...it is suspect, and should not be used to teach..." He calls the text a "...questionable passage..." However, he cannot show Mark 16:16 to be contrary to any Bible text, so now he focuses his attack on Mark 16:12. I write a weekly article, Answering The Atheist. Jason's doubt regarding Mark 16:12 prompted me to write a recent article on this supposed discrepancy. Jason must assume that Mark is describing a bodily change in Jesus' appearance. The text does not say that. Is it not possible that Mark describes how the two on the road to Emmaus perceived Him? Luke says the men did not know the Lord for "...their eyes were restrained..." Certainly, if they were withheld from recognizing Him, it would appear to them that Jesus was in another form. There is no contradiction between Mark 16:12 and Luke 24:16.
Jason takes exception to my use of secular examples to illustrate the structure of Mark 16:16. Jesus used secular examples to explain spiritual truth, as did the apostle Paul. Even Jason has used non-Bible examples to explain Bible teaching. All Bible teachers do. Mr. Peacock does not like the examples employed in my second affirmative essay because they prove his position on the text false.
Mr. Peacock says I must explain why Jesus added "he who does not believe will be condemned." Seems to me the statement is self-explanatory. Faith is the primary element to lead us to life. If we will not believe, then we cannot be saved. What he really wants me to explain is why Jesus did not say "he who is not baptized will be condemned." Since the unbaptized are not condemned directly, Jason assumes that baptism is not essential. Must Jesus provide a negative warning to validate His positive command? I invite Mr. Peacock and the reader to review my comments on Mark 16:16 in the first affirmative essay. It is unnecessary to speak condemnation to the unbaptized; it is inferred by the positive command of the verse. If the Lord has commanded baptism (and He has), and has linked it with man's salvation (and He has), then it is my friend's obligation to prove that the unbaptized individual is saved.
ACTS 2:38
Mr. Peacock defends his twisting of Acts 2:38 by stating that Peter did not write in English. Indeed, our English versions are translations of the inspired text, and therefore subject to error. I do not defend any English version as a perfect rendition of the original. Yet, I do not believe such blatant error as Mr. Peacock supposes is present.
My friend calls it an issue of "...Greek grammar and word meaning..." Yet, Mr. Peacock admits, "I am not a Greek grammarian..." Why then are you retranslating the text? If 'his' re-translation is correct, then the translators of EVERY English version I have seen are wrong! He assures us "...the people I quoted are..." Greek grammarians. Notice though, if we combine Jason's translation of the text, along with his 'Greek grammarian' quotes, we would have, "...Repent because of the remission of sins, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Will you espouse that? You now have people forgiven of sin before they repent of sins! Using the Bible so carelessly, we might expect people to accept "...He who has an opinion and is sprinkled shall be pickled..." as a valid translation of Mark 16:16! Stop playing with the text, and deal with what it says.
Again, I bring the reader's attention to Mr. Peacock's agreement with A.T. Robertson's argument that Acts 2:38 and Matthew 12:41 are parallel in their usage of 'eis'. I believe that a reasonable person can see the differences in both the English and the Greek. Furthermore, I believe that it is evident that Matthew 26:28 is a parallel, not Matthew 12:41. Consider:
- Matthew 12:41 ......................... eis ho kerugma ionas ................. at the preaching of Jonah
- Acts 2:38 ................................. eis aphesis hamartia ................... for the remission of sins
- Matthew 26:28 ......................... eis aphesis hamartia ................... for the remission of sins
Remember the matching games from Kindergarten and Grade 1? Which two are the same? You need not be a Greek scholar or grammarian. One needs to honestly look, and it will be evident which two are alike. If we are baptized 'because of' (ie. because we already received) the remission of sins, then equally, Jesus' blood was shed 'because of' (ie. because we already received) the remission of sins. Whether Jason likes it or not, that's where his argument leads. I know of no one who would espouse such an obviously false doctrine.
ACTS 22:16
It seems that my friend does not believe we can know what the Bible says unless we are capable of reading Greek. According to Mr. Peacock, the translators have messed up Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21. Again, he gives us his custom-made version of Acts 22:16: 'Rise, having yourself baptized, and allow your sins to be washed away by calling on the name of the Lord.' Again, I ask, where in the Greek text are the words "allow", "to be" and "by"? Please tell us. If your translation is literal, what Greek words have you derived these words from?
Again, to call on the name of the Lord is more than a vocal cry or appeal to the Lord. 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." (Matthew 7:21). Again, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord', and do not DO the things that I say?" (Luke 6:46). To call on the name of the Lord requires DOing. It involves obedience.
ROMANS 6:3-4
Apparently I overlooked Romans 6:2 in my reading of Romans 6. Let's see how it fits in the context. Paul asks whether we can continue in sin after coming to Christ (v 1). His answer, NO, we died to sin (v 2). How did we die to sin? Paul explains in v 3-4, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, 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." I have not overlooked verse 2; Jason simply does not accept Paul's explanation (v 3-4).
Mr. Peacock cannot believe in the necessity of baptism since "...at least one human is jointly responsible for my salvation." He inquires, "Does God need man to help Him save me?" Certainly not! God is capable of saving man without man's assistance. The question is not "Does God need...", but rather "Does God use man to help Him save me?" Certainly does! The Scriptures tell us in many places that God employs men to affect the salvation of others (Ezekiel 3:18-19; Romans 10:14; 16:25; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Titus 1:3; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2). Will Jason tell God how He ought to bring salvation to men?
COLOSSIANS 2:11-13
Jason continues to reject Paul's words. He is unable to reconcile in his mind that baptism is God's work and yet requires a man; therefore, he refuses to believe what Paul wrote. Though a man 'dunks' the body, it is God who cuts off the sins of the flesh. Whether Mr. Peacock can understand this or not does not change what the apostle wrote.
Rather than dealing with Colossians 2:11-13, my friend turns our attention to 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:28. These texts in no way nullify what Paul wrote in the text under consideration. The simple fact remains that Paul said our sins are removed through the "...circumcision of Christ...", which he identifies as being "...buried with Him in baptism..." We are told it has nothing to do with the one who baptizes us, but we are "...raised with Him through faith in the working of God..."
1 PETER 3:18-21
Rather than dealing with what Peter writes, Jason made an unsubstantiated claim in his first essay, "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..." I asked him to support this statement, but rather than do so, he chose to ramble about the supposed failure of my logic. Jason, you still haven't answered my question. What Bible verse teaches that a Christian's suffering and baptism are linked? Book, chapter and verse. And why bring this up in a conversation about 1 Peter 3:21, except to evade what the text teaches? Peter does not speak about a link between suffering and baptism in 3:18-21. He does speak about a link between baptism and salvation.
Again, Jason would have us consider how careless the Greek scholars who worked on the myriad of English translations must have been! And yet, after all his talk about the Greek, he states, "...the water of Noah's day is a type of baptism." AMEN!! That's what I've been affirming! Now notice, "...eight souls, were saved through water..." (v 20). If the water of Noah's day is a type of baptism, and Noah was "...saved through water...", Then it follows that we are now saved through water, even baptism. And that is exactly what Peter said.
Now, Jason cautions us about 'baptismal regeneration.' Peter's words do not support 'baptismal regeneration'; neither have I, nor will I espouse such a doctrine. 'Baptismal regeneration' assumes that we are saved by baptism alone, apart from faith, confession of Christ, and repentance. Saying we are saved by baptism alone is as false a doctrine as saying we are saved by faith alone.
Mr. Peacock gives us a couple of alternate translations of 1 Peter 3:21, Wuest and the New Jerusalem Bible. These teach the necessity of baptism, just as every other translation does.
- * There is also an antitype which now saves us - baptism... [NKJV]
- * ...which also after a true likeness doth now save us, even baptism... [ASV]
- * The life figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us... [KJV]
- * Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you... [RSV]
- * And that water is like baptism that now saves you... [NCV]
- * This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you... [WEB]
We could keep going, but I am sure the reader gets the picture. Regardless what translation you read, baptism and salvation are directly linked.
Jason tries to make this text more difficult than it is. According to him, the ark is in reference to salvation; and baptism is "an analogy to Noah's deliverance through the suffering and judgment of his day." I don't know where you got that, but it certainly was not from this text. Peter has shown that our salvation is an antitype of Noah's salvation. Noah was saved through water (by his obedience to the Lord's command). We are saved through water (by our obedience to the Lord's command).
Using the latter portion of 3:21, Jason tells us "Peter isn't saying that baptism brings about forgiveness of sins (removal of dirt)..." I challenge you to show me one instance in Scripture where the word "dirt" is used to describe sin. He's telling us that it is not the outward removal of dirt (real dirt) that cleanses us, but the response of our conscience to God's command. Did Peter believe that baptism affected the forgiveness of sins? He sure did! "...Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS..." (Acts 2:38). Does he specifically identify that purpose in this text? NO, but he does acknowledge that baptism "...now saves us..." If we are being saved from our sins, then I suppose it is understood that baptism affects the forgiveness of sins.
OTHER MATTERS
Jason speaks of my 'often appeal' to the primitive church, supposedly quoting me as saying, '...they believed baptism was required for salvation.' Please, Mr. Peacock, where have I said this? The only reference I have made to the 'primitive church' in our present discussion is quoted from Irenaeus, wherein he confirmed the authenticity of Mark 16:19 (and thus 9-20). You make the unsubstantiated statement, "...the early church did not believe baptism is an essential act for salvation." Would you care to support your claim?
Quotes from the 'primitive church' are not authority for us, but do help us understand what they believed. Here are a few to chew on:
- This class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole faith.
(Irenaeus, ca. 120-205 A.D.)
- The prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none' chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, 'Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'
(Tertullian, ca. 140-230 A.D.)
- As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord...even as the Lord has declared, 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'
(Irenaeus, ca. 120-205 A.D.)
- Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect, being made perfect, we are made immortal... This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing. Washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly.
(Clement of Alexandria, ca. 150-220 A.D.)
- Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins.
(Tertullian, ca. 140-230 A.D.)
Jason makes the statement regarding the early church, "...there was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian." AMEN! Neither is there such a thing today. To exclude baptism because he can find passages dealing with salvation that do not mention baptism is poor reasoning. If there is one passage which links baptism to salvation, then it is essential. The fact is, there are many such passages.
CONCLUSION
The Bible clearly teaches that baptism brings about salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21); results in the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16); is the point at which we become dead to sin (Romans 6:1-4); is the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11-13); and is how we put on Christ (Galatians 3:27). Throughout Mr. Peacock's argument, he has not sought to discount the proposition, but has attacked the Scriptures. But when we look past the theological and grammatical smokescreen he has set up, the Bible still declares 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."
PEACOCK'S QUESTIONS & STEWART'S ANSWERS
Question 1.
William, I have been baptized by immersion. I was not baptized in the name of Jesus alone, rather, "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19). I understood it as a public confession of Christ, and an outward sign, which represents the inward soul washing of the blood of Christ. I believe the inward part was done at the point I received Christ and trusted, relied and depended on him alone for the salvation of my soul, this happened in February of '99. Now I know the way I was baptized is not how William and the Church of Christ say it ought to be done (not the right formula), moreover according to William, I had a false understanding of what baptism brings. So, William, am I saved? If you say yes William, then you must grant that baptism is not essential, at the very least, not in the way you say it must be done, and I have accomplished my goal as negator in this debate. If you say no, I'm not saved, then in effect you are eternally condemning me. If you do not know, then your view on baptism being essential for salvation may be in error, and I have accomplished my goal as negator in this debate.
I am not sure where Mr. Peacock got the idea that I believe there to be a formula that requires baptism in the name of Jesus alone. I have said no such thing, nor do I believe such to be true. Baptism "...in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit..." is equally valid to baptism "...in the name of Jesus Christ." It is a statement of authority, not a formula.
So far as the details of Mr. Peacock's baptism, I would ask him where the Bible says baptism is a "public confession." If that is the case, the eunuch's baptism was invalid (Acts 8:37-39). Mr. Peacock indicates that he received Christ and was baptized at different occasions. You cannot receive Christ without receiving His word (John 12:48). Those who received the word were baptized and then added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47).
I am not the eternal judge of any man, yet Mr. Peacock compels me to judge the present condition of his soul. Since the tool of the eternal Judge is the Word (John 12:47-48), I appeal to the Word. By his own admission, Mr. Peacock has not been baptized "...for the remission of sins..." (Acts 2:38). He muddles the symbolism which exists between our death to sin and the Lord's death (Romans 6:3-4), saying that he had life before he was buried. He believes he was forgiven of his sins without receiving the "...circumcision of Christ..." (Colossians 2:11-13), wherein sin is removed. By his own confession, and the testimony of Scriptures, NO, Mr. Peacock, you are not saved.
Now, of my "NO" response, Mr. Peacock cautions, "...you are eternally condemning me." Certainly not, my friend. Throughout this debate, you have had the opportunity to learn the truth, and so long as there is breath in your being, you have the opportunity to obey that truth. I have not eternally condemned you, I have explained the way of the Lord to you "...more accurately..." What you do with it will determine whether you stand eternally condemned or not.
Question 2.
The Philippian jailer's question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So Paul and Silas said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." If salvation were gained only after baptism, the why would Paul and Silas leave out this vital part. Yes, he and his family were baptized, but only after they believed and were taught the message.
It would have been useless for Paul and Silas to respond to the jailer's question by saying "You must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Baptism alone affects nothing. Before baptism would benefit him, he had to believe in Christ. Why did Peter not give the same response to the same question in Acts 2? Simply, you must begin where a person is. The people at Pentecost believed Jesus to be the Christ (it was this conviction that prompted their iniquity in v 37). Thus, they were commanded to repent and be baptized. The jailer needed to establish faith in Christ first. Therefore, he was commanded to do so. Does that exclude baptism? Certainly not. Notice from Acts 16:
- 1) "What must I do to be saved?" (v 30)
- 2) "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." (v 31)
- 3) "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him..." (v 32)
- 4) "Immediately he and all his family were baptized" (v 33)
- 5) "He rejoiced, having believed in God..." (v 34)
Jason would have us believe that the man was saved before him. The text certainly does not support such a notion. There was no reason to rejoice until after his sins had been remitted through obedience to the Lord's command.
|
