Chuck Slotter,
Welcome to our discussion on the necessity of baptism. I couldn’t help but notice that this is your first correspondence on Christianforums. Funny, how you just happened to find this website, and this particular discussion, just when you had all these points about baptism on your mind. Well, let’s get to work . . . shall we?
Your quote:
Someone needs to explain to me that if Baptism saves then how did the Ethiopian Eunich [sic – Acts 10 deals with Cornelius and his household, not the Ethiopian “Eunich”] receive the spirit before being baptized in Acts 10:41??? Especially when Acts 10:43 says “. . . that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”
My response:
1 Peter 3:21 “ . . . even baptism doth also now save us . . .” ( I will comment more on this particular scripture later.) The scripture is clear that baptism does save us. The chronology of events in Acts 10 is that Cornelius, a Gentile, was a devout, God-fearing man - - but outside of Christ vs.1-2. God sends a vision to Cornelius vs.3-6. NOTE: In the vision Cornelius is told to send men to Joppa for Simon. Cornelius sends for Simon vs.7-8. Peter receives a vision vs.9-16. Peter receives the messengers from Cornelius vs. 17-23. Peter comes to Cornelius vs. 24-27. Peter explains why that he, being a Jew, has come to meet with Cornelius, a gentile vs. 28. Cornelius explains his vision vs.29-33. Peter preaches salvation through Jesus . . . realizing that God is now extending the gospel to the Gentiles vs. 34-43. While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles (Cornelius and his household) vs. 44. The Jews were astonished vs. 45. The Gentiles spoke in tongues vs. 46. Peter asks a relevant question, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized . . . vs. 47?” Peter commands them (the Gentiles - - Cornelius and his household) to be baptized vs. 48. I believe that this sequence of events is an accurate assessment of the order of events. Correct? What is left to be determined is what the baptism of the Holy Spirit of Cornelius and his household means. While it is true that Cornelius (and his household) received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water, does that mean that they were saved before baptism in water? It does not? All that it showed was that God was offering salvation to the Gentiles, as well as the Jews. You quoted vs. 43 accurately, “. . . that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” This is the point of our real disagreement: what does it mean to have faith in the Lord? Consider Cornelius’ faith - - he obeyed God - - he sent men to Joppa vs. 5, 7-8; he listened to what he must do vs. 6,33; and he obeyed the command to be baptized vs.48. This is in agreement with Mk. 16:16 and Acts 2:38 (I will comment on both of those passages later also). Cornelius and his household were not saved by faith alone - - in fact, if you closely examine vs. 43, it does not say faith alone.
Your quote:
“Whosover believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). What this verse doesn’t say is “whosover does not get baptised will be condemned” but it does say, “whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
My response:
Look carefully at what you said. You never addressed what the passage plainly says. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. “And” is a coordinating conjunction that connects two equal parts. If salvation precedes baptism, then salvation also precedes belief. Are you willing to accept that conclusion? Faith is essential – Heb. 11:6. Baptism involves faith – Romans 6:3-11. Baptism alone, without faith, does not result in salvation. Likewise, faith alone, without baptism, does not result in salvation. Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Both faith and baptism are necessary for salvation. Simple as that!
Your quote:
Jesus referred to baptism as a work of righteousness (Matt.3:15). It is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.” (Titus 3:5) – Dr. Norman Geisler points this out and I haven’t heard any one refute it. I’ve only heard people ignore it.
Jesus was referring to his own baptism in Matt. 3:15. Consider: John’s baptism was for repentance and confession of sins vs. 1-6 of Matt. 3. Jesus had no sins to repent of or confess – Heb. 4:15. He was baptized to “fulfill all righteousness” – Matt. 3:15 - - to be a righteous example. Addressing the next point: Titus 3:5 & Eph. 2:8-9 are comparable passages. Salvation is by grace – ***. 2:11. In fact, it is extended to all men. But since all men will not be saved (Matt. 7:21-23), there must be other considerations. We are saved by faith (Eph. 2:8-9, Jn. 3:16, Mk. 16: 16, etc.). NOTE: These passages (and others) say salvation is by faith - - none of them say that we are saved by faith “alone” or by faith “only” - - no, not a single passage! What does it mean to have faith? That is the question? James 2: 14-26 answers the question. It also addresses the issue of “faith only” (vs. 24) while reminding us of the works that justifies a man. The problem with your position with ***. 3:5 is that you use it to say that no works are necessary. James 2:24 plainly says that works are necessary. You simply cannot accept what you think one passage says and ignore other passages. ***. 3:5 & Eph. 2:8-9 are discussing different works than James 2:14-26: human works (or works of human merit) vs. works of obedience - - the former works do not save us, but the latter works are necessary.
Your quote:
If baptism saves then Paul committed blasphemy because the Bible says: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17).
My response:
Consider 1 Cor. 1:10-17. There were divisions in the church at Corinth. These divisions were based on who taught or baptized the different believers vs. 12-13. Paul did baptize Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas vs. 14,16. Paul is saying that he baptized only a few of the Corinthians, “lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name” vs. 15. “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . .” is Paul’s reply to the division at Corinth - - it didn’t matter who baptized them, they were baptized into Christ (carefully consider the anwers Paul is seeking to this questions in vs. 13). Conclusion: Paul was baptized – Acts 22:16. He himself baptized some. And he taught the necessity of baptism – Rom. 6:3-11 & Gal. 3:26-27. Paul neither promoted division, nor blasphemed the salvation of the Lord!
Your quote:
This verse [1 Cor. 1:17] teaches that the Gospel saves and separates Baptism from the gospel.
My response:
Really? To save time, I’ll just direct you to Acts 8:35-39. Philip preached “Jesus” vs. 35. By necessary inference, it must be concluded that “preaching Jesus” contained teaching about baptism - - note the eunuch’s question in vs. 36 - - he learned of baptism from Philip’s preaching of Jesus! You have drawn the wrong conclusion from the 1 Cor. 1:17. The verse is putting the attention on the Lord, as does vs. 13, downplaying the importance of who did the baptizing.
Your quote:
Acts 2:38 may be translated, “Be baptized because of the remission of sins” – Dr. Charles Ryrie Acts 2:38 uses a causal resultant. Do you take aspirin “for” (to get a) headache? Or do you take an aspirin as a result of a headache?
Note: the Greek preposition (“eis” – “for”
in Acts 2:38 can actually have the meaning of “because of” as it does in Matt. 12:41.
My response:
The word “for” in Acts 2:38 is the Greek preposition “eis.” In our modern English language we frequently use the word “for” to mean “because of” I agree with your application of the modern English usage. However, I disagree with the idea that “eis” can mean “because of.” Consider Matt. 26:28 – “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many “for” the remission of sins.” The word “for” is the Greek word “eis.” To make the argument simple, if the remission of sins precedes repentance and baptism in Acts 2:38, then the remission of sins precedes the shedding of Jesus’ blood in Matt. 26:28. That conclusion simply won’t work when you look at Heb. 9:12. In the same way, Rom. 4:5 will present major problems. “. . . His faith is accounted “for” righteousness . . .” Can righteousness precede faith? The Greek word for “because” in Matt. 12:41 is not “eis!” It is “hoti.” Notice how the different Greek word carried a different meaning. Therefore, your conclusion about making "eis" mean "because of" is not valid.
Your quote:
Another point I want to make is I Peter 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 anwer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” – I Pet. 3:21
There are two things. (1) It plainly says that Baptism saves as an appeal towards God which is what faith is but it says that Baptism doesn’t wash your sins of the flesh away. Do you know why? Baptism is a picture of what has already happened. If you put Baptism in reverse order of salvation then salvation is a work. (2) I looked up the word “figure” and it means a representation, counterpart or like figure. Camera’s weren’t invented in the time of Christ so they didn’t have the word “Picture.” Pictures don’t create salvation. Pictures only capture what has happened. “The like figure” of “Baptism” is a picture and not the cause of salvation.
My response:
There is a sense it which baptism plays a part in salvation – “. . . even baptism doth also now save us . . .” That is clear. What is not clear is the fuzzy image you created with your camera. Let’s see if we can get the lens to focus a little better. Here goes. There is a comparison taking place: “eight souls were saved through water ” in vs. 20. In the “like figure” (KJV) baptism saves us. Eight souls being saved by water was a figure of baptism saving us - - that is the comparison! How does baptism save? The text says not by putting away of the filth of the flesh - - not by washing the dirt from the flesh, or the outer man: but by the answer of a good conscience - - by washing the inner man, resulting in a clean conscience!
Are there any other points that you would like to have answered about baptism?
If you choose to respond, why don’t we narrow the discussion down to one point at a time?
FC
