I know the following is lengthy reading. I answered some false doctrine I found on a friends page and thought I would share my answers on my page as well. I left his comments just as they were and they are included word for word in my response. His comments were in paragraph form and I left them that way. His paragraph will appear first and then my response. I hope you enjoy. Jeremy, I read your article and response to Remona and felt compelled to answer you and attempt to show where I think you are wrong. I will do this paragraph by paragraph. I am only interested in truth. I am not your enemy but I believe that what you have written is far from the truth and must be answered. Paragraph 1 Thank you for this, and I want to be a respectful nephew here, but its important that we understand this. We do not add anything to the work of Jesus and we cannot save ourselves. Saying that we must go through the ritual of baptism dangerously says just that, we save ourselves. Christs work on the cross wasnt enough. My first thought is what about the thief on the cross? He most certainly wasnt baptized. Ive got a few moments so lets look at these scriptures in context. Sorry this is long, but I know youll appreciate looking at the scripture as a whole, which we must do My response to the above paragraph. You are correct in that we cannot add anything to what Jesus has done for us. We cannot save ourselves in the sense of merit, but Peter said “Save yourselves” (Acts 2:40). “Yourselves” in (Acts 2:40) is translated from autous and is a 3rd person, plural, reflexive pronoun. Save is from sozo and means “To save or deliver”. We can never earn or merit our salvation, but doing what God asks (commands) us to do is obedience and not meritorious works, it is “Saving ourselves”! Baptism isn’t a “Ritual”. Please supply the verse that says it is. Baptism is a command (Acts 10:47-48). Does the fact that one “Must” believe or, “Must” repent say that we are saving ourselves meritoriously, and further, does faith and repentance say that what Christ did on the cross isn’t enough? What about the thief on the cross? To start with it cannot be proved that the thief wasn’t a baptized man. You say he most certainly wasn’t baptized. You couldn’t prove that statement if your life depended upon it. All of Judea went out and was baptized of John (Mark 1:4-5). I have known other men to be baptized and later become thieves. Nothing too awfully strange about that. Also, Jesus didn’t tell this thief to be baptized because this thief lived and died under another covenant (The Old Testament) which didn’t require baptism. Next, the difference between this thief and every man living today, is that, every man living since Pentecost of Acts 2 has been told to be baptized (Ax. 2:36-41; Rom. 6:3-6; I Peter 3:21). I would hate to think that I would stand before God on the day of Judgment and have my salvation pleaded on the case of a thief. By the way, Peter preached the finished work of Christ on the cross in Acts 2:22-36), and he didn’t think by commanding baptism that it meant that what Christ did on the cross was insufficient (cf. Acts 2:38; I Peter 3:20-21). Paragraph 2 One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesnt contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). My response to the above paragraph. One of the basic rules of Hermeneutics is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. One does not have the truth until he has all that God has said on the matter (Psalm 119:160, NKJV). You are correct to say that the Bible never contradicts itself. I agree that any interpretation of any passage that contradicts another passage must be rejected. I suppose the (Acts 15) reference is to the rejection of the early church of the Jews attempt to enforce circumcision as a requisite for salvation. Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant (Genesis 17), and has nothing to do with New Testament Christianity. It needed to be stopped. But because circumcision doesn’t belong to Christianity you cannot properly conclude that nothing else belongs. Also, you probably have (Acts 15:9) in mind as well where Peter said that God had purified their hearts by faith. Here is your challenge: you must find the verse that says, “Faith only”. I believe that we are saved by faith. No man can supercede my belief in that foundational truth. There is a lot of difference in saying “One saved by faith” and saying “One saved by faith alone”. All of the other references you listed is an attempt to show that we are saved by “Faith alone” or by “Grace alone” and they do not teach that. We are not saved by anything “Alone”. Faith alone would do away with grace. Grace alone would do away with faith. We are saved by hope (Romans 8:24). Should I say that we are saved by “Hope alone”? We are saved by “Repentance” (Acts 11:18). Should I start a “Repentance alone” church? We are saved by “Blood” (Romans 5:9). Shall I start a doctrine of “Blood alone” and cut out faith, repentance, hope, etc? We are not saved by anything alone. Paragraph 3 If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomons portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didnt Peter say so in Acts 3? My answer to the above paragraph. The truth is water baptism is essential to ones salvation. Jesus pointed a nail pierced hand to a world of sin and said, “Go preach the gospel, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:15-16). That should forever settle. And before someone says you didn’t quote the rest of the verse, “He that believeth not shall be damned”. First, one who does not believe will not be baptized. Our Lord wasn’t a redundant person. Second, the unbeliever is “Condemned already” (John 3:18). You say correctly that Peter did command baptism in (Acts 2:38). Then you conclude that baptism isn’t necessary because Peter didn’t command it in (Acts 3). I beg to differ. Let us parallel (Acts 2:38 with Acts 3:19) and see. If Peter said something different in (Acts 3:19) than he did in (Acts 2:38) then he is totally untrustworthy. Since he was inspired by God that would make God a respecter of persons and that isn’t a position that I would want to be in (Romans 2:11; Acts 10:34). Now to the parallel of the two stated verses. The “Repent” of (Acts 2:38) is parallel to the “Repent” of (Acts 3:19). The “Be baptized” of (Acts 2:38) is parallel to the “Be converted” of (Acts 3:19). The “Remission of sins” of (Acts 2:38) is parallel to the “Sins blotted out” of (Acts 3:19). Receiving the gift “of the Holy Spirit” of (Acts 2:38) is parallel to the “Seasons of refreshing” in (Acts 3:19). If Peter came to our town today he would say the same thing that is recorded in (Acts 2:38; 3:19). In answer to the question “What must I do to be saved” (Acts 2:36-37), he would say, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Paragraph 4 Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. My answer to the above paragraph. You say that Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations and you cite (I Corinthians 15:1-4). Do you believe that (I Corinthians 15:1-4) is all that Paul ever wrote? Before I answer that part of the paragraph, I want to start with Paul’s own conversion. His conversion happens in (Acts 9) and is retold in (Acts 22 and 26). Notice (Acts 9:1-6): And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. KJV In verse 5 Saul asked “Who are Thou Lord”? The answer came, “I’m Jesus whom thou persecutest”. Then in verse 6, Saul asks “Lord what would You have me to do”? The answer came, “Arise, go into damascus and it shall be told thee what thou MUST DO”. Not what he “Could do” “Should do” “May or may not do”, but what he “MUST do”. Saul does as the Lord commands and he fasts and prays for three days (Acts 9:9). God’s servant Ananias comes to Saul and says, “Saul, why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16). Jesus had told Saul that he would be told what he “MUST do” (Acts 9:6). God’s servant came to Saul and TOLD him to “Arise and be baptized” (Acts 22:16). So the baptism of (Acts 22:16) is the “MUST DO” of (Acts 9:6). To be an apostle one had to begin at the “BAPTISM” of John the Baptist (Acts 1:22), (by the way, he was the baptist, not a Baptist - it is what he did), and be a witness of the resurrected Lord (Acts 1:22). Saul (Paul) did not begin at the baptism of John, nor was he a believer when Jesus ascended to heaven (Acts 1:11). In (Acts 9) he saw the resurrected Lord, and in (Acts 22:16) he was baptized. Now to the statement that Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentation and you offer (I Corinthians 15:1-4) as your proof. We will look at that passage in a moment. First, we must consider Paul while in Corinth. Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized (Acts 18:8). In (Romans 5:1) Paul writes that we are “Justified by faith”. My religious friends run to this verse and scoot the word “Only” beside the word faith. But that is an addition (cf. Revelation 22:18-19). It says “Faith” not “Faith only”. What kind of a faith justifies? Let Paul answer, “Obedience to the faith” (Romans 1:5). He said in (Romans 16:26), “Obedience of the faith”. In chapter 5:1 when he says we are “Justified by faith” I know what kind of faith he is talking about - it is an “Obedient” faith. That is the kind of faith that he begins his letter with and ends the letter with. Then go over one chapter to (Romans 6). In (Romans 6:3-4), he says, “as many of US as were baptized”. He included himself. Paul and the Roman Christians had been baptized into the Lord’s death, they were buried with him in baptism, and raised with him in baptism. Then in (Romans 6:6) he says the old man, the old body of sin is crucified. Can you show me one other place in all of God’s revelation to mankind where the old man is crucified and put to death? I will await your attempt to do so. In the same chapter (Romans 6:17), Paul said that they had obeyed the “Form” (literally pattern. Gk. Tupon), of doctrine delivered them. What was the “Form” or “Pattern”? Back in verses 3-4 we learned that it was the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Then in the next verse (Romans 6:18), Paul makes a monumental statement. He says, “Being THEN MADE FREE FROM SIN”. When does the “THEN” (an Adverb of time) become operative? The answer, when they had obeyed from the heart that “form” of doctrine. When did they obey the form? When they were baptized into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ - they were “THEN” made free from sin - and not until! Now to the 2 scriptures of your example of proof? that baptism isn’t necessary. Lets start with (I Corinthians 15:1-4). Paul says that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection in this text. That is the gospel according to Paul in these verses. Peter asks, “What shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel” (I Peter 4:17). Remember Paul said the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ noted above! Paul answers Peters question in (II Thessalonians 1:8). He said the Lord would return “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that obey not the gospel”. I need to obey the gospel, (death, burial, and resurrection), just like Paul and the Roman Christians - and yea all Christians by being baptized into His death, burial, and resurrection. The other proof text offered to sustain the false position that baptism is unnecessary was (I Corinthians 1:17). Here Paul says that, “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach”. A few observations are in order to shed light on this verse isolated from its context. To help us see the context of Paul’s statement I will include the verses in this writing. 1 Cor 1:11-17 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. KJV There was division in the church at Corinth and Paul had heard of it (verse 11). Some were claiming to belong to Paul, others Apollos, others Cephas (Peter), and others Christ. For men to follow Paul, Apollos, Cephas, etc would mean that the body of Christ was divided. Some were saying I am a “Paulite Christian” etc. Then Paul asks two questions that will forever be the death nail in the false doctrine that baptism isn’t essential. He asked, “Was Paul crucified for you”? Or, “Were you baptized in the name of Paul”? Before they could belong to Paul at least two things had to happen. First, “Paul would have to have been crucified for them. Second, “They would have to have been baptized in the name of Paul” (verse 13). So to belong to Christ, He had to be crucified for them and they had to be baptized in the name of Christ. Now if Christ sent Paul not to baptize then Paul disobeyed the Lord because he did baptize (verse 14). Another thing needs to be noted about Paul’s statement in (verse 17), that “Christ sent him not to baptize...” is that Paul employs a figure of speech called an “Ellipsis”. An ellipsis is where a word is intentionally left out to make the reader stand up and pay attention. There are hundreds of them in the Bible. Let me share one other with you. It is (I John 3:18), “ My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” are we not to love in word or in tongue. According to John it would be a sin for one to tell others that he/she loved them. It is an ellipsis. A word is intentionally left out to make the reader read it again and ponder over it. The word “Only” is left out. “Let us not love in word ONLY, or in tongue ONLY, but in deed and in truth”. Back in (I Corinthians 1:17), Paul was saying “Christ sent me not to baptize ONLY, but to ALSO preach”. Did Paul obey the great commission? It commanded both preaching and then baptizing those who believed (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). Paragraph 5 Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way necessary for salvation. Certainly we dont rip out all of Pauls passages, do we? My answer to the above paragraph. Those passages make total sense if we don’t try to make them say something they don’t say. As I have explained them above they will fit every other teaching of the Bible in perfect harmony. There are no contradictions. God is not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33). Only when men go to the Bible and attempt to make it say what they already believe, instead of letting the Bible say what it says, there will always be confusion. We have shown conclusively that Paul submitted to baptism himself and that he preached and performed baptisms. Paragraph 6 Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). My answer to the above paragraph. Every verse you gave in the above paragraph is before the Pentecost of (Acts 2). The church was born and the gospel came into effect with the apostles preaching on that great day. From that day onward every man, (including all men living today), has been commanded to be baptized, (Peter’s sermon is the only one recorded for us, but all of the apostles preached). All of those people, including the thief (discussed above) lived and died under the Old Testament that did not command baptism. Now to your statement about there being no record of the apostles ever being baptized. Have you read (Acts 1:22)? To be an apostle, one had to begin at “The baptism of John”. Paragraph 7 The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peters message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47). My answer to the above paragraph. From (Acts 2) to the end of the Bible you cannot find a person that was saved without baptism. Cornelius is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. As Peter recounts Cornelius’ conversion, he said in (Acts 11:15), “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as it did on us in the beginning”. How does faith come? By hearing (Romans 10:17). The word “Began” (Gk. Archomai) means when Peter uttered the first utterance the Holy Spirit came. Since faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17), and since Peter was to tell him words whereby he might be saved (Acts 11:14), then according to you he was saved without and before faith. Next we need to consider that the Holy Spirit was a promise. It was called “The promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4-8). Holy Spirit baptism was not for salvation. Water baptism was and is a command (Acts 10:47-48). Water baptism “doth also now save us” (I Peter 3:21). Cornelius was saved when he obeyed the command to be baptized in water “For the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; 10:47-48). Paragraph 8 Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word baptism is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means to immerse. Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). My answer to the above paragraph. Then you are under obligation to tell us what Peter seems to be talking about in (I Peter 3:21). If Peter wasn’t talking about water baptism in (I Peter 3:21), then what is he talking about? If Peter wanted to talk about water baptism in this verse then how better could he say it? If Peter didn’t want to say that, “Baptism doth now also save us”, then why did he say it did. Lets not let what we want the Bible to say, stand in the way of what it really says! Again you isolated one verse and came away with a doctrine. Read verse 20 of (I Peter 3). 20 “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: In (verse 20), Peter mentions Noah, Ark, water. He even said that Noah and 7 members of his family were saved by water. Then he says, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...” Notice, water saved Noah, but water doesn’t save us - baptism saves us. I know that you say that baptism doesn’t save us. Peter says it does. I think I will stand with Peter. Peter says that baptism is a “Like figure” (Gk. Antitupon), meaning antitype of Noah being saved by the waters of the flood. There are several baptisms talked about in the Bible. But the one we are discussing is water baptism and it does save us! Paragraph 9 So Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase not the removal of dirt from the flesh indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christs death and resurrection through an appeal to God for a good conscience, or repentance. Again, it is not the outward act that saves, but the internal reality of the Spirits regenerating work (cf. Titus 3:4-8). My answer to the above paragraph. Peter is talking about water baptism. Every verse that you have mentioned about baptism you have begun to squeeze trying to get the water out. You can squeeze hard enough to get the water out of (I Peter 3:20-21). True we are baptized into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We learned that back in (Romans 6:3-6). Here in (I Peter 3:21) Peter is saying that baptism isn’t like taking a bath (removal of filth from flesh), but is an answer (and an answer is a response). In baptism we respond to God with a good conscience. Peter says, “Whereunto baptism doth also now save us”. Peter says “Now” and you say “Not”. Echoes of Eden. God said you shall surely die. Satan said “Not”. I think I’ll listen to Peter. Paragraph 10 Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. My answer to the above paragraph. I touched on this earlier in our discussion in paragraph 3. Lets just break the verse down. Jesus said, “He that believeth” (Gk. Pisteusas) is an “Aorist” meaning “Past tense” active, participle. More in a moment on this. “And is baptized” (Gk. baptistheis) is an “Aorist” meaning “Past tense” active, participle. More in a moment on this. “Shall be saved” (gk. Sothesetai), is a “Future tense” passive, indicative verb. Now lets put it together. In Greek the action of the “Past tense” participles must happen before the action of the “Future tense” main verb. That means the “believing” and the “baptism” must take place, (they are past tense), before the action of the main verb, (shall be saved), which is future tense. Now I didn’t say that - Jesus said that! If one looked for the rest of his life he could not, (and I challenge anyone), find a verse that says that baptism is an outward expression of an inward grace. Jesus didn’t have to say, “He that is not baptized shall be damned” because lack of faith is enough to condemn already (John 3:18). Paragraph 11 I will repeat what I originally said, water baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. Hopefully looking at the NT teaching as a whole instead of picking a few verses will help show this. God does the saving, not us. And if baptism were necessary, we would be saving ourselves. My answer to the above paragraph. I think that enough proof has been given to convince any sincere seeker that baptism is essential to salvation. Since Pentecost day of (Acts 2) no one could be saved apart from being baptized for the forgiveness of their sin (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-6; Galatians 3:26-27; I Peter 3:20-21). People continually say things like, “If you believe in water baptism, then you believe in works salvation”. Friends, nothing could be farther from the truth. Notice with me the constituent elements of the plan of salvation. Hearing is something the sinner must himself do - it is a work. Believing is something the sinner must do - it is a work (John 6:29). Repentance is something the sinner must do - it is a work (Jonah 3:10). Confession is something the sinner must do - it is a work (Romans 10:9-10). Baptism is something that the sinner has done to him - it is not a work. The Greek word for baptism in (Acts 2:38) is passive. It is done to you! It is not a work!!! In Christian love Robby Eversole
Posted on: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 06:05:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015