| IS BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION? |
For a PDF copy of the entire debate, click here Don't have Acrobat Reader? Get it FREE
|
THIRD NEGATIVE ESSAY
Jason J. Peacock
No I meant what I said in my 2nd rebuttal "...my goal in my first rebuttal was not to show the view William holds is contradictory to Scripture..." Rather "...demonstrate that the texts...used to show the necessity of baptism do not have to be taken as such..." Aside from being told what my goal in this debate is, the definition of rebut is to disprove, is this not what I’m doing? My two rebuttals so far have shown that the verses that Mr. Stewart uses to say we must be baptized unto salvation, do not require his interpretation. But I wonder what brought about the change in policy? I quote the 2nd rule for this debate, "Each writer agrees that all negative rebuttals will be exactly that, a rebuttal of his opponent's position (not an affirmative of his own position). Any material presented in a negative rebuttal must be in direct response to the material presented by the affirmative debater." I fail to see the problem with what I said in the 2nd rebuttal?
Friend, I never said I couldn't believe that you could believe Christ’s law replaced the old law. I said, 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. That’s what I said, in context, William pulled a sentence out of that. All I was saying, was Christ’s law is not like the first law. That’s it that’s all.
When I said the law as well as Jesus' additions to it (Matthew 5-7) is in full affect today, I did not mean the ceremonial law... God forbid, Jesus fulfilled it! I meant the Ten Commandments and all of the additions and slight changes Jesus talked about. That law I think is absolutely impossible to keep unto perfection; this is why Jesus perfectly fulfilled it. And why Romans 7:4 says, "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." I'm not saying the law is not important or that we as Christians are free to go out and break God's commands whenever we feel like it. We mare to follow the Ten Commandments, along with the Lord's additions to them in Matthew 5-7. However I deny we can fulfill this law to 100% perfection as Christ did, therefore we must receive the righteousness of Christ. I know for a fact that the law does not bring about salvation. I suppose I can say it like this, we can't keep the law unto absolute perfection, and God will not accept a half-hearted job, so our only alternative is to run to the one who has fulfilled it to a 'T', and place our faith and trust in him alone.
I can almost agree with William on his next point, I'm just unclear on one thing. Yes, we as Christians are to do the will of the Father in heaven, and we are to build our foundation on the words of Christ, not merely hear his words, but do them. But William, I believe you're placing a heavy burden on the backs of the saints, furthermore I believe you're relying on your self-righteousness. Basically, you're saying you can keep all the words of Christ in Matthew 5-7 unto perfection, then logically William, if true, you'd be perfect and have no need for a Saviour any longer. Furthermore, you being perfectly moral as Christ was, then logically you'd be with Him. Moreover, we cannot obey these commands without the grace of God.
MARK 16:16
Friend, since these are our final essays, I'd only suggest when you debate in the future and quote you're opponent that you quote the immediate context, instead of your own three periods (...). Of course I object to your use of Mark 16:16. This is what I said, "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 the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not the earliest manuscripts found, nonetheless, 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 for what Mark (if it was John Mark) wrote in 16:12, where Jesus appeared in another form and Luke wrote in 24:16 that his true appearance was kept from the two disciples, my friend says, "Jason must assume that Mark is describing a bodily change in Jesus' appearance." Firstly, of course, why not, did Jesus not rise physically? Secondly, we haven't even established that John Mark, the companion of Peter wrote 16:9-20 in the first place. However, I will grant Mr. Stewart's explanation of why the endings of the two gospels really don't disagree, though I don't see how Mark knew what the two disciples were thinking. I'll even accept the assumption that Mark did write 16:9-20. Still though, I would think if Jesus was saying we must believe and then be baptized, then we're saved, it wouldn't matter if he said "he who does not believe will be condemned", because if William is right, then it does not matter if we believe, since we have not been baptized we are condemned anyway. William assumes Jesus is saying, "If you're baptized, but do not believe you will be condemned." True enough, but the historical context is important. Christian baptism then and now is a way of identifying yourself with Jesus, this deserting one's former faith... Early Christians were martyred for their faith in the Lord. No one would be, well, idiotic enough to be Christian baptized, and not believe in the Lord. This makes no sense.
ACTS 2:38
You know friend, you might get friendlier discourse with future debate opponents if you refrained from accusing them of twisting the text, because their interpretation is contrary to your own. Furthermore, it's not just because of the Greek grammarians that I disagree that Acts 2:38 teaches that we must be baptized to receive salvation. Even before I studied the Greek grammarians' interpretation of this verse, I still disbelieved it taught baptism is essential. Why? Because of the immediate context, and other passages of Scripture; however, due to rule # 6 for this debate, I will not enter any new material into this, my third and final essay. The order of words in Greek is not as essential as it is in English, so the wording can be changed around, one alternative for Acts 2:38 is "Repent for the remission of sins, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Or from the New Living Translation, "Peter replied, 'Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" Or like The Message renders the verse: "Peter said, 'Change your life. Turn to God and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus, so your sins are forgiven...'" "Repent" here in this verse 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.
In my first rebuttal, I said, "Holding to the 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)." Here's my point. I do not believe Luke is contradicting himself at all. I believe my friend's stance on Acts 2:38 contradicts Luke's theology on those other passages in Acts. Those verses mention repentance leading to forgiveness of sins and/or salvation, and baptism is not even mentioned. Friend, I know you do not agree with me at all regarding Acts 2:38, but at least I provide an alternative that is not contradiction Luke on other verses!
ACTS 22:16
Friend, this verse does not teach baptism washes away sin. For it to, it would have to say, "Arise, and wash away your sins by being baptized and call on the name of the Lord." But it doesn't. William, 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." Acts 22:16 in the New Living Translation, "And now, why delay? Get up and be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:16 in The New American Bible, "Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name." In the Contemporary English Version, "What are you waiting for? Get up! Be baptized, and wash away your sins by praying to the Lord." 1890 Darby Bible, "And now why linger thou? Arise and get baptized, and have thy sins washed away, calling on his name." The Good News Bible, "And now, why wait any longer? Get up and be baptized and have your sins washed away by praying to him." How are our sins washed away? By calling on the name of the Lord in prayer.
I agree with you friend, in that true discipleship of the Lord involves doing, or works of obedience, and yes, baptism is one of those works of obedience, but salvation from God is not conditional. In other words, it is not gained through our own meritorious works, and William, you need God's grace to obey. We don't do it under our own power.
ROMANS 6:3-4
William, friend, you would be correct if chapter six was really chapter one, but it is not. We have all these verses prior to chapter six, which tell us we are justified by faith; faith in Jesus Christ. But apart from myself affirming my own case, which is not my job as the one responsible to rebut, nevertheless, Romans 6:2, from NKJV says, "Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" Did you get that? "Who died to sin." When did we die to this sin? Obviously prior to Romans 6:3-4. Is it not possible that Paul was using this example of baptism as a way to signify this death to sin, and alive to Christ? I'd say that is the logical outcome.
Friend, I certainly do not deny the fact that God uses men as His vessels to spread His message. But God merely uses men to spread the message of His salvation. Man does not deal out this salvation; there is a big difference between a man proclaiming the message of salvation, and a man playing a paramount role in saving another man. Salvation is God's gift, not both God's and man's!
COLOSSIANS 2:11-13
Let's carefully go through Colossians 2:11-13 [are my insertions]. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, [without hands, certainly implying men] by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, [not of men, but of Christ] buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised [I'd think that this baptism, if water, the context is not clear, furthermore other dependable versions do not even use the word baptism. But if it is, I'd say it signifies, visibly, this spiritual circumcision] with Him through faith [through what?] in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses." [Who has made us alive in Christ? God has.]
Friend, did you not read what I said? The 1 Corinthians and Galatians verses were not meant to nullify what Paul wrote, they were meant to clarify. Here it is again, "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)." The circumcision of Christ is how God and only GOD saves people, and Paul uses the visible symbol of baptism to signify this salvation.
1 PETER 3:18-21
Very well friend, let's carefully go through 1 Peter 3:18-21, and see if it does actually teach that one receives salvation at the point when one is baptized? [These brackets are my comments]. I admit, a quick reading of 1 Peter 3:18-21 might lead one to believe baptism is necessary to be saved. "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit [this is the point of salvation, strangely however, baptism is not mentioned, but it more so has a spiritual meaning, we certainly did not die literally] by whom also the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared [in other words, Christ's Spirit spoke through Noah, preaching repentance and not baptism], in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. ["Through water", the question needs to be asked, what water? It cannot be the waters responsible for the destruction at that time, they were intended for judgment of the wicked in the ancient world, 2 Peter 2:5; 2 Peter 3:6. Clearly they were saved by the Ark. And how did they enter the Ark? Hebrews 11:7, By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.] There is also an antitype [Greek work 'antitupon'. It means, representation, etc. Therefore, the question then is, "Corresponding to what?" For that we need to look at the previous verses.] which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, [certainly implying sin, in other words, Peter is telling us this baptism does not remove our sin.] but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." [However, it represents this cleansing of our souls.]
Friend, we agree, the waters of Noah's day do represent baptism, but those waters were meant for destruction 2 Peter 2:5 and 2 Peter 3:6. Obviously the Ark saved them, and they entered the Ark by faith Hebrews 11:7. Baptism represents this. Friend, you tell us that you do not hold to baptismal regeneration. I'll agree with you, you don't, at least not the way it is defined in the Roman Catholic Church. However, you do hold to a sacramental view of baptism -- according to this belief, baptism is a means by which God conveys grace. The person baptized receives remission of sins, and is regenerated or given a new nature and an awakened or strengthened faith. Can you see why I believe, you believe, in baptismal regeneration? You speak out against it and yet affirm it at the same time.
PRIMITIVE CHURCH
Friend, you're absolutely right, you did not say that the early church believed baptism was necessary for salvation, but I did not say that you appealed often to the early church, neither did I say that I quoted you as saying that. I said this, "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."" I appealed to the primitive church, and then said, "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."" See it William? I did not say you personally said that, I simply assumed you also would believe the same, considering you also believe baptism to be essential unto salvation. Was my assumption wrong? Well, from the quotes my friend provided, obviously my assumption was not wrong, so I see no problem with what I said.
As far as the 5 quotes which my friend provided, impressive perhaps, but not convincing. Number one, Biblical truth is from "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture alone), and not the writing of various church fathers. Number two, I said primitive church, meaning the Apostolic age (Pentecost Acts 2; early persecution and growth Acts 8; Paul's conversion Acts 9; Paul's missions Acts 13-19), and the missions of other apostles, all this approximately 35-100 A.D.. My friend provided quotes from Irenaeus and Tertullian, two "Polemcist", purpose to attack those who attack the faith. Clement of Alexandria, a scientific theologian. Number three, this is not five early quotes from different church leaders, but three. Finally, number four, obviously we have three church leaders who, if they do not hold to baptismal regeneration, they certainly do to a sacramental view of baptism, and that is not too far from the tree of baptismal regeneration. In other words, I'm not impressed!
I'm not saying that baptism is not important, most certainly it is. Is it an act of obedience? Certainly it is. Is it a command by the Lord? Certainly it is. If you claim the name of Christ and refuse to be baptized, are you a Christ follower? I will not condemn anyone, but I will affirm that it is being disobedient to the Lord. But I am fairly sure of one thing, no friend, I'm not certain, I'm not omniscient, but I do have common sense. I'd venture to guess that there are those in this world which claim the name of Christ and would suffer and die for their Lord, but for certain reasons they cannot be baptized, let alone, by immersion. So, should it be concluded then that those people are excluded from salvation? Of course not! And this is why I find my friend's theology frightening, and why salvation can be gained apart from baptism.
Thank you friend for this debate, nice to have one with a considerate individual.
|
