A Response from a Brother in the
Church of Christ who disagrees with us.
Mr. Evangelist, et.al. -
Thank you for your interesting and challenging articles
concerning instrumental music in worship and baptism published on the
Love of the Truth web page. I appreciate your
study of these subjects and your willingness to publicly proclaim your
convictions. Please allow me to answer your exhortations by commenting
on several points made within the articles.
First, the church of Christ of which I am a member is not a
denomination. Denominationalism (denomination: a unit in a series -
Webster) is a concept foreign to scripture and contrary to the Lord's
(and his apostles') teaching. Jesus stated, "Upon this rock I will
build my church." Note the singular church and the possisive my. It is
that church with which I desire to be and am associated. Paul chastised
the Corinthians in his first epistle to them for their sectarianism as
they aligned themselves and called themselves after other mere men. As
Paul told the Ephesians, there is one body (Ephesians 4). The challenge
for a seeker of truth in a century which hosts over 300 so-called
Christian sects is to be able to recognize the distinguishing marks of
the church Jesus built and join themselves to that body. I am sure that
you would agree that not all "Christian" groups are acceptable to God.
Therefore, by what measuring stick do we evaluate these to determine
which is of the "one body?" To accomplish this in my life, I have
studied to find descriptions of the work, worship and organization of
the New Testament church. If a person reads the New Testament and does
what it says, what does that person become? A Baptist Christian? A
Lutheran Christian? A Catholic Christian? No. That person becomes a
Christian. Period. Which church was the Ethiopian eunich a member of
when he went on his way rejoicing? The church of Christ. It is that New
Testament church, the church of Christ, of which I am a member. We are
simply Christians.
Having arrived at the account of the Ethiopian eunich, what do
you propose prompted him to ask Philip, "See, here is water. What
prevents me from being baptized?" What did water have to do with his
baptism? Of course, the answer is made clear as we read of Philip and
the eunich going down into the water. Let's take your arguments against
water baptism being necessary for salvation and provide answers to
each. The indented paragraphs in this letter are taken verbatim from
your article.
The word "baptize" (greek "baptidzo") was commonly used in
the Koine Greek (the entire New Testament was written in this
language) as a euphemism or figure of speech to mean the same thing
as our english word, "overwhelm" which when taken literally means to
submerge or thoroughly wet. It (overwhelm) no longer is used this
way. It now means to be "deluged" (another formerly "wet" word) by
intolerable or unbearable circumstances. The same is true for the
greek word "baptidzo" which in our english bibles is translated
"Baptize"....The classical greek scholar Plato has many writings
which have come down to us. One of these is "Euthydemus" in which he
employed the word "baptidzo" to describe his being "deluged" with
questions. (Euthydemus, 277 D)...As you can see, when the idea of
being baptized into the faith occurs, it does not mean dipped into
water, but into the faith, that is, the Person and Work on the cross
of Jesus Christ.
As you infer, baptidzo was a common Greek word meaning
immersion without any inherent religious meaning. Fire, water, the
Spirit and suffering are all referred to in scripture as elements of
certain baptisms. The challenge is to determine which element is under
consideration in any given context. Sometimes the element is provided
(as in the case of the Ethiopian eunich), other times it must be
inferred from the specific or general context. Note that Paul does not
say that we are baptized in Christ, but that we are baptized into
Christ. Your conclusion that baptism into Christ is not baptism in
water is not proven by your argument that many different types of
baptism can occur. We must search elsewhere for the element under
consideration. There are plenty of scriptures which can be used to
establish that it is water baptism which puts one into Christ,
including the one to which you refer in your next argument.
One does not become a christian when one is dipped into
water. As a matter of fact, Peter called the act of baptism the
proof that a miraculous change has occurred in the heart. Paul wrote
of unbelievers in Romans 3:12 "There is none who does good, no, NOT
ONE." So, if wet baptism were the instrument through which we were
saved, a depraved UNgood person would go beneath the surface and a
Good regenerated new creation would come up. But as Peter said, that
is NOT what happens:
"There is also an antitype which now delivers us, namely
Baptism (NOT the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the ANSWER
of a GOOD conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ." This "Good conscience" is there BEFORE baptism. Baptism is
not the vehicle of salvation, but the FIRST ACT OF OBEDIENCE of a
New Creation created by the resurrection power of Jesus Christ!
Found in the above paragraph is a major mistake in your
reasoning concerning water baptism. You concede that it is water
baptism which is under consideration in Peter's epistle when you state
that this baptism is "the first act of obedience of a new creation."
Yet you ignore the fact that the passage states that this water baptism
"delivers us", or as the KJV and others state, "saves us." Thus
scripture itself invalidates your conclusion that water baptism is
post-salvation. Peter is affirming here the same truth as Paul -
baptism puts us into Christ, baptism saves us. If you belatedly attempt
to deny that water baptism is under consideration in 1Peter 3:21, you
must deal with the type revealed in verse 20 which states that Noah and
his family were saved through water, of which baptism is an antitype.
If water baptism plays no part in our deliverance or salvation, what
does the first phrase in 1Peter 3:21 mean?
Another clear indication that this is water baptism is Peter's
statement that he is not talking about the removal of filth of the
flesh. Baptism is not just getting wet. Baptism is an honest response
to hearing the command of God. You may recall the account of Naaman the
leper in 1Kings. He was told to dip in the Jordan River seven times to
be cleansed of his disease. Initially he balked at this condition to
his cleansing, opining that the waters of Jordan could do nothing to
rid him of his leprosy. He made the mistake many make today in
objecting to water baptism as a condition of salvation. Just as there
was nothing magical about the water itself in Naaman's case, there is
no inherent miraculousness in the waters of New Testament baptism. The
regenerative power, as Peter affirms, is in the resurrection of Jesus
Christ. However, the baptism is still necessary. When he dipped seven
times (not 4, 5 or 6) in the Jordan (not the Euphrates or Nile),
Naaman's leprosy was washed away. When he arose and was baptized,
Paul's sins were washed away. "Why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)
If Paul was already saved, what were these sins which needed to be
washed away? Only those who have heard and believed the word of God,
have repented of their sins and have confessed Jesus as Christ (i.e. -
those with good consciences which respond positively to the gospel) are
proper subjects of saving baptism.
You make the mistake here of equating a good conscience with
the state of being saved. Paul told the Sanhedrin, "I have lived in all
good conscience before God until this day." Would this not include his
tenure as the chief persecutor of the saints? Paul, acting on his good
conscience, wreaked havoc upon the church. We can all agree that
although he possessed a good conscience, he fell far short of being
saved as he murdered innocent men and women. A good conscience is not
necessarily one which is in agreement with God. Rather, it is one which
is tender enough to be pricked when it realizes that one's life is not
aligned according to what one believes to be true. Consciences can be
seared over and become unresponsive to inconsistencies. Consciences can
also be un- or mis-trained. Paul said that his Jewish brethren
(physically speaking) had a zeal for God but not according to
knowledge. Was their zeal an indication of their salvation? No more so
than conscience. So, having a good conscience does not automatically
put one into Christ. Either Paul lied to the Sanhedrin or one can have
a good conscience without being saved.
"Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized
who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" ACTS 10:47 Note
in this verse that the Holy Spirit was not given DURING the act of
baptism, but the presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the
believer PRECEDED baptism by water!
Once again, you have made an unsubstantiated leap from the
miraculous working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Cornelius and his
household to the assumption that they were saved at that point. Do you
not believe that God can work miracles through whomever he wishes,
saved or unsaved? What of the witch of Endor who called forth a spirit
from beyond the grave (to her own amazement)? What of Balaam who,
though he attempted to curse Israel, was forced by God to prophecy only
good of Israel? What of Balaam's donkey, for goodness sake, through
whom God performed the same miracle he performed through Cornelius -
speaking in foreign tongues (Canaanite would be a foreign tongue to a
donkey, wouldn't it)? The context of Acts 10 and 11 shows that this
miracle was not performed to prove salvation on the part of Cornelius.
It was performed to prove acceptance by God of men from all nations.
Peter himself has to be convinced of this. Then after baptizing
Cornelius, Peter used this manifestation of God's power in the lives of
Cornelius as proof that "God also to the Gentiles [hath] granted
repentance unto life." As we see from the account, despite the miracle,
Cornelius and his household were still commanded to be baptized. (Acts
10:48)
Another interesting aspect of this account is the description
of Cornelius found in the opening verses of Acts 10: "A devout man, and
one that feared God and prayed to God always." If your contention is
correct that no good can be done by a lost soul, then you must believe
that Cornelius was already saved. I believe Cornelius was the kind of
person described in 1Peter 3:21 - one with a good conscience who, once
he learned the truth, responded positively by obeying the command of
God to be baptized for salvation.
"Baptism" is the greek metaphor which speaks of being
immersed into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It means to completely submerge yourself into Him. The act of water
baptism is a symbol of your acceptance of these facts. The thief on
the cross next to Jesus professed faith in Jesus. He was never
baptized, yet Jesus said to Him, "This day, you will be with me in
Paradise." If the thief were to survive, certainly in obedience to
his new Lord, he would have been immersed in water as a symbol of
his acceptance of the terms of salvation, but instead, he shared in
the death of Christ, dying right next to the Lord he had come to
love, and who was dying for Him and countless billions of others.
Your lack of scriptural references in support of your
contention that "water baptism is a symbol" is telling. Nowhere is this
taught in scripture. Contrary to your position, 1Peter 3:21 states that
water baptism saves us. Do you still acknowledge 1Peter 3:21 refers to
water baptism, or have you changed your position?
The case of the thief on the cross is simply understood in the
dispensation under which it took place. Jesus had not yet died for sin
therefore the thief was subject to the Law of Moses, just as Moses,
Joshua, Gideon, Saul and David were. No one ever complains about these
never having been baptized for the remission of sins. The thief was
never commanded to be baptized, but the Jews on Pentecost were,
Cornelius was, the Ethiopian eunich was, the Philippian jailer was,
Paul was. And you and I have received the same command, so why point to
the thief for relief from obedience?
Paul, the apostle used the word Baptism to describe his
many trials taking the gospel to the "Dead" ("and you He made alive
who were DEAD in trespasses and sins" Ephesians 2:1) He was trying
to show to those who denied there would be a resurrection, that
enduring all of these trials to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to
the dead would be futile and stupid if there indeed were no
resurrection. "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized on
behalf of the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are
they baptized on behalf of the dead. And why do WE stand in jeopardy
every hour?" 1CORINTHIANS 15:29-30 Paul asks why those who are
taking the gospel to the dead would put their lives through this
"deluge" of suffering if indeed there is to be no resurrection. He
then moves to himself and his entourage when he says, "And why do WE
stand in jeopardy every hour." The phrase "baptized on behalf of the
dead" is analogous to "stand in jeopardy on behalf of the dead."
As you state, Paul is attempting to show that if there is no
resurrection of the dead then people of faith are to be pitied. But
there is nothing in the context to disprove that the baptism presented
is not water baptism. Note that Paul uses the pronoun they when
referring to those who baptize on behalf of the dead. Otherwise he uses
the pronoun we. Scholars are divided on exactly what is under
consideration, but they generally fall into two categories. Either Paul
was referring to proxy baptism practiced by the heathens or the phrase
"on behalf of the dead" is a reference to those who were prompted to be
baptized by the shining example of those who gave their life for the
faith (whether faithful Christians or Christ himself). Your unsupported
claim adds a new wrinkle to this difficult passage, but not one which
mitigates the part water baptism plays in salvation.
The Church of Christ teaches that one is saved in the act
of water baptism, by the ritual of being immersed in water. Peter says
on the contrary that water baptism is the answer of an already good
conscience. If the conscience were good previous to baptism, then there
would be no need for baptism since Paul, quoting the prophet Isaiah
said "There is NONE who seeks after God." "They are ALL gone out of the
way." "There is NONE who his good, NO NOT ONE!" If one has a good
conscience, it is evidence of his already having been born of God.
This argument has already been disproved above. Paul is
attempting to show the Romans in 3:9-20 that all men - Jew and Gentile
alike - are guilty of sin and that possession of the law by the Jews
does not justify them in God's sight. Paul starts by asking, "Are we
[Jews] better than they [Gentiles]?" He concludes in verse 19 that
since Isaiah was talking about Jews, all the world stands guilty before
God. Does this pronouncement of guilt mean that only saved people can
do good works? If so, then we have to wonder about Cornelius. We have
to wonder about Muslims, Hindus, etc., who work in hospitals or give
alms to the poor. Good deed can be done by all - even Jews who had the
law of Moses. However, none of these good deeds can solve the problem
of sin and death. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the solution.
Scripture attests that God desires that all be saved and that Christ
died for all mankind (John 3:16). But only those who respond positively
and obey the gospel (2Thessalonians 1:8) will be saved by that
sacrifice.
All believers are to be baptized. If one refuses to be
baptized, it is the proof that regeneration has not occurred, since
the New Creation dwelling in each believer desires to obey the Lord,
and this is His first command. Note even the Gospel of Mark makes
this fact plain: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but
he who does not believe will be condemned" MARK 16:16 Note the
conspicuous absence of the word "baptized" from the second part of
this warning. There is no reason to suppose that water baptism is
being referred to here, since the Baptism with which Paul was
concerned in his great exposition of the mechanics of the gospel,
Romans, was the baptism into his death, burial, and resurrection.
(See ROMANS 6:4)
Once again, as in your 1Peter 3:21 arguments) you are mixing
scriptural water baptism and your "non-water" baptism in a confusing
manner. First you say that Mark "makes this fact plain." What fact?
That believers are to be baptized and that if one refuses to be
baptized regeneration has not taken place. Entering into Mark 16:16 you
sound like you believe Mark is referring to water baptism. However, as
you exit out the other end of the Lord's words, you state that this is
not water baptism. If you would make up your mind about Mark, I could
answer your argument more exactly.
Let me say this about Mark 16:16, though. The structure of
Mark 16:16a is this: believe + baptism = saved. Trying to take baptism
out of that equation puts one in conflict with Jesus' teaching on the
matter. Why did Jesus not refer to baptism in Mark 16:16b? I have
already stated that it is believers who are proper subjects of baptism.
Therefore, as Peter indicates in 1Peter 3:21, one can get wet all they
want, but that's not what baptism is about. Baptism is the answer of a
good conscience toward God. One must hear the gospel, believe it and
respond positively to it in order for scriptural baptism to take place.
So, as Jesus says in Mark 16:16, disbelief by itself is a killer.
Paul even downplayed the importance of water baptism in his
own ministry in 1 CORINTHIANS 1:14-17 "I thank God that I baptized
none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I
had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of
Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. FOR
CHRIST DID NOT SEND ME TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel, not
with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no
effect." What must the Church of Christ think of this verse. My
Goodness, doesn't Paul realize that he is downplaying the importance
of the very ritual by which the Corinthians could be saved? How
could Paul preach the gospel and then forbear to perform the action
which would save them!!!!!
Paul did not downplay the importance of baptism in
1Corinthians 1:14-17. He did, however, downplay the importance of the
person who administered the baptism. Since, as you obviously agree,
this is water baptism, it is interesting to note that the Corinthians
understood that water baptism was important enough for them to
participate in it. Paul was dealing with the problem of sectarianism in
Corinth. Some said they were of Apollos, others of Paul and others of
Peter. Paul's point in verses 13-15 is that he is glad that there
weren't many of the Corinthians who could lay claim to being baptized
in the name of Paul because he didn't baptize very many of them
himself. But rest assured, they were all baptized, and that for the
remission of their sins.
Paul knew, as the bible teaches plainly, we are saved by
faith in Christ. That is, by making a personal choice to rely
EXCLUSIVELY upon Christ's FINISHED work on the cross to be TOTALLY
SUFFICIENT to pay for my sins.
And we all know that same fact to be true. We are saved by
faith in Christ. We are also saved by preaching (1Corinthians 1:21). We
are also saved by repentance (2Corinthains 7:10). We are also saved by
the grace of God (Ephesians 2:8). We are also saved by confession
(Romans 10:10). We are also saved by the word of God (James 1:21). We
are also saved by water baptism (1Peter 3:21). If faith alone is the
answer then what happens to confession, repentance, even God's grace?
In the only verse in the Bible which uses the term faith only, James
tells us that man is NOT justified by faith only (James 2:24). One
wrests the scriptures to their own damnation who takes one set of
passages which mention only faith and contend that faith is the only
condition of salvation.
A famous proverb states, "You have to crack a few eggs to make
an omelet." Does this mean that the full recipe for omelets is "break a
few eggs?" No, other ingredients are necessary: a pan, fire, a spatula,
some intellegence (ham and cheese in mine). In the same way, by taking
all of scripture we see all of the ingredients of God's plan of
salvation: God's grace, Christ's blood, God's word, man's belief,
repentance, confession and water baptism.
You state that man must make a "personal choice" in order to
be saved. Is this not a condition of salvation? We seem to agree that
it is. I will present more on this later.
The following verse is the hinge upon which the erroneous
teaching of the Church of Christ turns. "Then Peter said to them,
"Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit." ACTS 2:38 What does Peter mean here when he uses
the word baptized? Does he mean the "wet" baptism, that answer of a
good conscience to which he referred in the letter he wrote many
years later, or is he referring to the baptism about which Paul
spoke when he described the new birth in Romans chapter six? Note
that they are to be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ, just as
Paul spoke about in Romans 6. To be baptized into His name means to
be immersed in His Person, and His work on the cross, that is, His
death, burial, and resurrection! The following verses should serve
to illuminate this issue for us.
Despite your straw man to the contrary, no single verse in
scripture is a hinge upon which any teaching about baptism turns. I
take the whole word of God as my guide. It is you who hinge your
"non-water" baptism on one verse (Romans 3). And we have already shown
that Romans 3 states that we are baptized into Christ, not in Christ.
We can just as well turn to Acts 8 and show that when Philip preached
Jesus, that preaching had to include the necessity of water baptism,
for it was the eunich who saw the water and said, "What doth hinder me
to be baptized?" We can show that Philip baptized the eunich in water
upon the eunich's confession that he believed that Jesus was the Son of
God. Since the baptism of Acts 8 is most obviously water baptism,
cannot baptism in Acts 2 also be water baptism. Cannot Acts 2 be the
fulfillment of Matthew 28:19 wherein Jesus tells the disciples to
"teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost?" The honest seeker of truth sees that the
baptism of Acts 2 is the same baptism as is found in Acts 8:2 (the
Samaritans), Acts 8:38 (the eunich), Acts 9:18 and 22:16 (Paul), Acts
10:48 (Cornelius), Acts 16:15 (Lydia), Acts 16:33 (the jailer), Acts
18:8 (Crispus), Acts 19:5 (disciples of Apollos). The evidence from
scripture is overwhelmingly in the favor of all of these being water
baptism.
"Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be
blotted out so that times of refreshing may come from the presence
of the Lord." ACTS 3:19 Note the absence of the word "baptized" from
Peter's message here. Is he failing to inform them of the need for
this instrument without which they cannot be saved, or is the same
concept presented here which before was presented by the word
"baptized"? Yes, the words "be converted" are analogous to being
baptized into the name, person, and work of Jesus Christ. When you
are baptized into His death, burial and resurrection, you are
converted by reason of the New Birth! "To Him all the prophets
witness that through His Name whoever believes in Him will receive
remission of sins." ACTS 10:43 Note the reference to the term
"remission of sins", "that your sins may be blotted out" in these
verses. Note that in the previous verse used by the Church of Christ
above, that it is through this baptism that we receive "remission of
sins". Yet here in this verse and in the one previous, our sins are
remitted, not by water baptism, but by "repentance", "being
converted" and "believing in Him through His Name". The reason there
seems to be an apparent discrepancy is that the word Baptism is not
implicative of water! It is being used by Peter in its common
euphemistic form as an analogy for being submerged in Christ, His
Name, His Person, His Death, Burial, and Resurrection, having
"repented" and being thus "converted".
Note the absence of the word faith from 1Peter 3:21 - "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." I promise
not to use this verse to discredit faith if you promise not to use Acts
3:19 to discredit baptism. Rather, let us seek the whole counsel of God
on this matter, as we have previously implored.
Why is the doctrine of "Baptismal Regeneration" so
dangerous? What is the harm of holding to this belief? The harm is
answered in the question to which all of our beliefs must be
subjected. "How does this belief affect the Glory of God, and does
it conform to His Word?" The belief that salvation is imparted
during the act of water immersion is a symptom of our carnal desire
to participate in our salvation. We could make the claim that there
were some good in us that made us desire to come to Christ. We know
that there were "NONE good". We are not saved on the basis of our
being good enough to desire to come to Him. We were saved on the
basis solely of what Jesus Christ did for us on the cross. The
Corinthian assembly had perverted baptism to the point that they
were exalting themselves in the assembly on the basis of what great
teacher baptized them. Paul said he thanked God that he baptized
few.
That the condition of water baptism is part of the gospel is
no more a challenge to God's grace than are the conditions of faith,
repentance and confession. I would not have known anything about any of
these conditions had not God graciously revealed them in His word. None
of these would avail had Christ not died and arisen. None of these
would be pleasing to God had he not commanded them. I believe, not God.
I repent, not God. I confess, not God. I am baptized, not God. But the
fact that I can do any of these is a gift from God for which I am very
thankful. If "baptismal regeneration" (to use your words) is "so
dangerous", why isn't "belief regeneration" or "repentance
regeneration" dangerous? You have already admitted that " faith in
Christ is a personal choice." Does this mean that by personally
choosing Christ we are "attempting to participate in our salvation?"
Does it not take "some good in us" for us to believe?
How will this affect the Glory of God? It will give you a
wrong understanding of what you are in Christ. What you believe the
Bible says about you is the engine of your sanctification. James
said that we come to the mirror of the word to find out what we are
in Christ. The one who is successful in living a Godly life is the
one who doesn't forget what the Bible tells him about himself.
(JAMES 1:22-25)
This paragraph presents me with the opportunity to challenge
your understanding of the nature of man. Although you do not come out
and say it, you seem to hold to at least some of the tenets of (for
lack of a better term) Calvinism. By that term, which I confess is a
bit loaded, I intend the following basic doctrines:
