Formal Debate - Baptism for the Remission of Sin

Status
Not open for further replies.

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
144,666
17,340
USA/Belize
✟1,738,735.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
  1. Title: Formal Debate -- Baptism for the Remission of Sin
  2. Topic: A discussion of baptism and if it is for the remission of sin
  3. Participants: @aggie03 who will be advocating that it is for the remission of sin and @Cuddles222 who will be denying it is for the remission of sin; aggie03 will open the debate with cuddles222 replying.
  4. Number of Rounds: There will be three alternating rounds (three posts each).
  5. Maximum time between posts will be one week.
  6. Maximum length of each post will be varying as per this: First Affirmative Constructive: Cuddles222 (4000 word limit)
    Negative Cross-Examination: Aggie03 (up to 10 questions, no word limit)
    Affirmative Response: Cuddles222 (No limit, but may only address and answer questions from cross-examination)
    First Negative Rebuttal: Aggie03 (4000 word limit)
    Second Affirmative Constructive: Cuddles222 (3000 word limit)
    Second Negative Rebuttal: Aggie03 (3000 word limit)
    Third Affirmative Constructive: Cuddles222 (2000 word limit)
    Third Negative Rebuttal: Aggie03 (2500 word limit)
    Affirmative Closing: Cuddles222 (1000 word limit)
  7. Outside references will be allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule.
  8. The regular rules of Christian Forums apply to everything not covered by these stipulations.
  9. Start Date: Any time.

For those not directly involved in this debate, but wish to discuss or debate this topic or the progress of the debate the Peanut Gallery Thread can be found here:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ery-baptism-for-the-remission-of-sin.7931043/
 

aggie03

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Jun 13, 2002
3,031
92
Columbus, TX
Visit site
✟19,529.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for getting this started. The first post will be coming shortly, Lord willing.

There are a couple of minor updates that need to be mentioned to help with those who will be reading along:

The first affirmative will be by Aggie03 with the format listed above with the following resolution:

"Baptism is commanded by God for the remission of sins. Baptism plays a critical part in salvation and is something all who would become Christians must do."

After the discussion is completed over this resolution, a second resolution will be discussed with Cuddles222 as the affirmative:

"Those who come to faith in Christ have no need of water baptism. Baptism plays no role in the salvation of lost people and is something that is not required of all who become Christians."
 
Upvote 0

aggie03

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Jun 13, 2002
3,031
92
Columbus, TX
Visit site
✟19,529.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Resolved: “Baptism is commanded by God for the remission of sins. Baptism plays a critical part in salvation and is something all who would become Christians must do.”

Terms defined:

Baptism: The Greek word βαπτίζω (baptizō) appears frequently in the NT text with primarily the two following definitions. Firstly, it is used to refer to the ceremonial washings of purification rooted in Israelite tradition, e.g. when the Pharisees washed cups and bowls before meals to cleanse them ritualistically. Secondly, βαπτίζω refers to the “use of water in a rite for the purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God” (BDAG). As the method of baptism (sprinkling, pouring, dunking) is not under consideration, I will confine the discussion to the above resolution.

Commanded: When Jesus was leaving final instructions for this disciples, he told them to “Go therefore…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:18-20). The word “command” is the Greek word ἐντέλλω (entellō), and means to “give or leave instructions” or to be “commissioned by a ruling authority” (BDAG, TDNT). “Faith is always man’s reaction to God’s primary action.” For us to be following something that God has commanded, the Lord must first have commissioned, ordained, instructed or indicated in a direct way His desire for something to take place. The question that will be addressed here is, “Did God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) indicate in some way their desire for people to be baptized, and did they give a specific purpose for this baptism?”

Remission: The act of freeing from an obligation, guilt, or punishment: forgiveness, pardon, cancellation. The apostle Paul defines redemption as “the forgiveness of sins” in Colossians 1:14. This forgiveness is only found in Jesus.

For: A preposition that, when used with an accusative, denotes an extension toward, movement into or in the direction of some place, goal, or state. In Acts 17:10, Paul and Silas traveled to Berea and went “into” or εἰς (eis) the synagogue. For the purpose of this discussion, I affirm that baptism is part of the process that moves one from a lost state into a saved one; it is part of the process by which one receives purification, forgiveness or remission of sins by the grace of God. It is not a standalone action and mere baptism does nothing.

Mere baptism: As in Mere Christianity where C. S. Lewis talked about Christianity without any trappings or other additional traditions, mere baptism refers to the simple act of dunking someone under water. Merely going under water, no matter the kind of water or the person doing the dunking, does not save anyone and is not part of a salvific process. Other things, like belief and repentance, must be present or there is no power in the action of baptism. Paul makes a distinction between a mere act (circumcision) and the spiritual changes accompanying true baptism, which unites faith and obedience (Colossians 2:11-12).

The Necessity of Obedience

When God tells us to do something, it’s not optional. We have to be obedient to all of the things that God commands, but we should never misunderstand that obedience as earning salvation in some way (cf Luke 17:10). Should thieves stop stealing? Yes, because they are told to work with their hands instead (Ephesians 4:28). Is this optional? No, it must be done. Can it be done to hoard wealth instead of sharing with others? No, it must be done so that the former thief has something to share with others. Obedience is not merely performing an action but also having the right reason for the action (cf Hosea 6:6).

What if the thief decided that he wasn’t going to work but continue stealing and he didn’t care what God said? Remember, Ephesians is written to Christians, so we’re talking about a Christian thief. Can such a person exist? Is this faithfulness to God? Is this repentance and a willingness to submit all things to God? No, and the person who rejects the word of God finds themselves in rebellion against the Lord.

1 Samuel 15:22-23: “And Samuel said, ‘Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.”

King Saul thought he had better ideas than God. The Lord commanded all of the Amalekites to be destroyed. Every person and everything they owned was to be set apart for destruction. However, after defeating the enemy, Saul kept the choice spoils, in defiance of God, and thought he could honor God with his disobedience. Samuel rebukes Saul, telling him that willful rebellion deserves death (divination carried a death penalty). Paul will say the same thing in the New Testament in Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death.”

Saul presumed that God would be willing to change his commandment, or that God would accept his half-way obedience so long as lip service was paid to God. Samuel corrects this and says the only service that God accepts is complete submission to God’s will, total obedience. If we truly love God, then we will be willing to obey his commands (John 14:15).

If baptism is commanded and we refuse to accept it or say baptism is unnecessary, we find ourselves in the same position as Saul: guilty of rebellion and presumption. Some presume they can undo the commandment of God to keep their tradition; this is unacceptable. If God has commanded baptism, and we will see he has, then baptism is something that must be obeyed for the reasons God has given.

Luke 17:10: “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’ ”

John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

Note that in this passage, John the Baptizer equates belief with obedience. Despite being translated in some versions as belief, ἀπειθέω (apeithéō, bold above in John 3:36) means “disobedient” (WSDNT) or “to disobey” (BDAG). If we are not willing to obey the Lord, then we don’t really believe him or in him. Jesus would pose a similar question and tell a story about faith and obedience in Luke 6:46-49:

Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.”

Building our house on the rock includes not only believing that Jesus is the Christ but also the willingness to do what he says. If we will not obey, then we don’t really believe. The apostle Paul would preach the gospel in order to bring about “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5). This does not indicate a perfect life is necessary to serve Jesus, but a changed life is. We must be willing to change our hearts and minds, conforming them to the will of God and transforming ourselves through the word of God (Romans 12:1-2).

Baptism is Commanded by God

We’ve seen that we have to obey the commands that God gives; obedience isn’t optional in a faithful life. So, if God commands baptism, likewise it is something that must be done; it is not optional but something that all who would be Christians must do.

Mark 16:16:Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

Matthew 28:19-20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

To deny that baptism is commanded by God is to deny the plain words of the Bible. For someone to say that baptism is not commanded, they must argue with the words of Jesus Christ. If Jesus has commanded something, then it is also the Father’s will (John 7:16). Additionally, the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father, and taught all the same things that Jesus taught (John 16:13-15). The command to be baptized is then given by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Apostles Taught Baptism as a Command of God

If Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize people, then we would expect to see baptism as part of their teaching in the New Testament. If the apostles preached baptism, then we can have even greater confidence in our understanding that baptism is commanded by God.

On the day of Pentecost, roughly ten days after the ascension of Jesus, the apostles were gathered together when the Holy Spirit fell upon them. Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, preached the first recorded sermon of the gospel in its fullness. He proved that Jesus was the Christ and that the nation of Israel had rejected their Messiah and was deserving of punishment from God. The Jews, upon hearing his words, asked in Acts 2:37: “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter’s response mirrors the teaching of Jesus in Mark 16:16:

Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Peter told the people in the audience that they should repent of their unbelief. The focus of his sermon was on the role of Jesus as the Messiah; Israel had rejected Jesus as coming for that purpose and crucified him. Peter calls upon them to change their minds and accept Jesus as the Messiah, to put their trust in him, and to follow him. In addition to this repentance, Peter tells them to be baptized.

There are other places in the New Testament where the apostles will talk about baptism:

Acts 10:47: “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

Acts 22:16: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”

Romans 6:3-4: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

These verses clearly prove beyond doubt that baptism was taught by the disciples of Jesus in the first century, and therefore is a command given by God. Baptism, as a command from God, is something that all Christians must do. It is not optional. None of the things that God commands are left to mankind’s choice; we only have the choice as to whether or not we will obey.

Biblical Reasons for Baptism

Since the reason God commands something is important, now having shown that baptism is a commandment of God for all people who would become Christians, we will turn our attention to the purpose or reason behind the command. We must be obedient not only to the command that God gives, but also the reason behind those commands.

John 14:15, as already mentioned, clearly indicates that love is the motivation for being obedient to God’s commandments. Whether we consider it big or small, every act of obedience is important because it stems from our love for God, our willingness to put his will over and before our own. If this is not the primary motivation for our obedience, no matter the command, then we’re not properly motivated.

It is our desire to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength that drives us forward in our search for Biblical truth (Deu 6:4; Mk 12:30). We should strive to hide the word of God in our hearts, yearning for the light of God’s wisdom, so that we might not sin against him (Psalm 119:11). As our love and desire to please God drives us forward, what other things do the Scriptures teach about the role of baptism?

Baptism is Part of the Salvific Process

Baptism is part of the process of salvation, but does not achieve salvation by itself. There are some who believe and teach that the mere act of baptism is salvific; the Bible does not teach this. Most groups that baptize babies believe that the act of baptism itself, apart from faith or willingness to submit to Christ, bring about the forgiveness of sins. This error is what many people are really trying to refute when they argue that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. I iterate: the Bible does not teach nor am I advocating that forgiveness is associated with the mere act of baptism.

Peter does clearly state, on two occasions, that baptism is part of the salvific process:

1 Peter 3:21:Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:38: Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

If we reduce 1 Peter 3:21 to its simplest form, we have the following sentence: “Baptism now saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This is a very straightforward statement about the connection baptism has with the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Paul will make the same connection in Romans 6:3-11:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Baptism unites the believer with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul would say in Galatians 2:20 states that he was crucified with Christ. How are we united with his crucifixion, i.e. his death? Paul and Peter agree that baptism is what unites us with the death of Jesus. More than that, baptism unites us with the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. In all of the Scriptures, this is the only process described as uniting believers with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul clearly states these things in Romans 6:3-4.

Baptism is for the Remission of Sins

That baptism is for the remission of sins is most specifically stated in two places: Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16.

Acts 2:38: “And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 22:16: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’”

In one place, Paul is told to wash away his sins with baptism, in another Peter informs a crowd of Jews to be “baptized…for the forgiveness of sins.” These are very straightforward passages of the Scriptures which clearly, explicitly, and deliberately link baptism with the forgiveness God offers to all people; baptism is clearly part of the salvific process.

Though the English text is clear enough, the Greek text is even clearer. The Greek preposition εἰς, as stated earlier, means “for the purpose of” or “in order to” and is used with the “implication of expected result” (Louw Nida 89.57). Interestingly enough, while some have argued based on the English word “for” as meaning “because of”, the Greek word εἰς is never translated as “because of” in the entire New Testament. This is significant because it appears 1,762 times, and not in one of those places is εἰς ever translated as “because of”. Not ever. Not once. Major, scholarly lexicons do not even offer this as a definition. To suggest otherwise in the face of such strong evidence is to be grasping at straws to support a tradition rather than the plain teaching of the New Testament.

Again, it should be noted, that baptism in and of itself is not capable of achieving salvation. It is not a work of the law. If it was the mere act of baptism that saved people, then preaching the gospel would not be necessary; we would be better served by lifting weights and traveling the world forcing people under water.

Baptism was Preached as Part of the Gospel

In addition to the very explicit passages already mentioned, there is even further evidence that baptism is part of the salvific process. In the New Testament, the gospel of Jesus is sometimes presented in very generic terms. By examining these places, we can deduce that baptism is necessary even if there were no explicit passages, which, again, clearly indicate that baptism is something that must take place.

We can do this because the Scriptures are logical; they have to be in order to properly and adequately convey information. The more logical a document, the most efficiently and accurately it conveys information. Jesus not only instructed his disciples to preach and teach baptism (cf Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:18-20), but we can see them actually teaching such things.

In Acts 8:26ff, Philip is introduced to a man from Ethiopia by the Holy Spirit. During their meeting, Philip would preach “the good news about Jesus” to him (Acts 8:35). We aren’t told what the content of his teaching was, but we can see the man’s reaction. When he saw water, his response was, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36) Why would he ask this question if baptism was not being discussed. While baptism is not the sum total of the gospel message, it is certainly part of it.

Another example occurs in Acts 16:25-34. A jailor in Philippi asked Paul what needed to be done in order to be saved. Paul told the man to believe in the Lord Jesus and he would be saved. But what does that mean? What needs to be believed? The jailor didn’t know anything about Jesus, and to believe in someone as Lord (ruler) besides Caesar was treasonous. When Paul “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house” they were all “baptized at once” (Acts 16:32-33). Why would they be baptized at once, unless baptism was part of the message about Jesus? Getting dunked in water is not a natural response to hearing good news, unless baptism is PART of the good news.

There are very explicit places in the New Testament where baptism is commanded. However, even if they didn’t exist, we could still deduce from these passages, and others like them, that baptism is something commanded by God, taught and believed by the disciples in the first century, and something that all who would become Christians must do.

Summary

So, the summary of what the New Testament clearly teaches about baptism is that it connects the believer with the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the “regeneration” of the sinner, or the “new birth” in which one is “born again”; Paul clearly states that baptism brings us into a newness of life, and what is that other than a rebirth? Additionally, Peter says quite clearly that baptism is part of the salvific process.

It Does Not Earn Salvation

There is nothing that can be done to earn our salvation. Period. This truth does not, however, mean that there is nothing God requires of those who desire salvation. Repentance is something that God requires; we must change our mind about who Jesus is and begin to follow him. We must repent of our unbelief to the point that we’re willing to obey and follow Jesus. Without this repentance, one cannot be saved. Does repentance earn salvation? No, it doesn’t.

Assume that someone is giving you a birthday present. You have done nothing to earn the birthday present, but there are still some conditions before you can have the present. First, you have to show up to your party. If you don’t go, then you won’t get the present. Secondly, you have to accept the gift. Your friend might bring you a gift, but if you refuse it, then you certainly won’t receive it. Thirdly, you have to open the gift. If you leave it unopened on the table, then you never get to experience or use the gift. Do any of these conditions earn the present? Of course not, but they certainly must be met before you can enjoy the gift you’re being given.

None of the conditions that God has placed on salvation earn the free gift; just like the example above, they are merely steps to receive the gift that God so graciously gives. Belief is required to be saved, but believing certainly doesn’t earn God’s favor. Repentance is required, but that doesn’t earn God’s favor. Baptism is required, but does not earn God’s favor either; one will not be able to boast about being baptized because it is no way earns or sets one apart as special (cf. Luke 17:10).

Based upon the above evidence, is it necessary and right to conclude that “baptism is commanded by God for the remission of sins. Baptism plays a critical part in salvation and is something all who would become Christians must do.”

I am looking foward to the questions @Cuddles222 may have about these things.
 
Upvote 0

Cuddles333

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2011
1,103
162
65
Denver
✟30,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Negative Cross-Examination

1. Most Christians are not aware that water baptism has it's origin dating back to the 2nd and 3rd millennium performed upon initiates relating to spirituality within their cults. Is it your understanding that even many Bible Scholars are not aware of this?

2. The ending of the book of Mark beginning at verse 9, was only included into the New Testament canon in the 4th century because it was popular, not that it was suspected to have been hinted at in the 2nd century by a writer using only a few words out of order that were in a verse in the long ending?

3. Do you agree that both John the Baptist and Jesus (and his disciples) baptized with the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins and this lasted until the last disciple with miraculous power had died?

4. Do you know why the Apostles would not pass on the gift of the Holy Spirit to a disciple who was only baptized by John the Baptist?

5. Is it your understanding that when Saul/Paul was told to rise up and be baptized washing away his sins, that by calling on his God's name was the most significant of those actions in that time period of Acts 22:16 ?

6. Is it your understanding that the teaching of Rom.6:3-4 was not taught until years after Christ's resurrection?

7. Is it your understanding that Salvation is a process involving the initiate's being able to understand each step thoroughly, no matter how long he/she takes, and it is not at the instant he/she comes to true belief in Jesus Christ?

8. The letters of Peter are questionable in some Bible scholars opinion and perhaps in yours, such as when the readers are reassured that their persecutors are going to be punished for what they were doing to them just as Noah's were when he preached to them during the 120 years that he was building the Ark, in which he and his family were saved....by the weapon of water that destroyed his hecklers. Do you not agree that this was the most painful twist by the writer to get the water to be the salvation of Noah and his family?

9. Is it your understanding that speaking a deity's name was as important to initiates entering into their pagan cults, as it was to initiates of the 1st century physical cult? (church)

10. Since you implied that there are no physical works that can obtain Salvation, but there are physical works that are required, does this not leave open that the instant the person comes to true belief to have obtained Salvation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

aggie03

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Jun 13, 2002
3,031
92
Columbus, TX
Visit site
✟19,529.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. I’m not saying that history is unimportant, in deed I think the whole of early Christians history is on my side of the matter, but ultimately it doesn’t matter what people have done throughout religious history, nor what any people, scholars or otherwise, may be ignorant of concerning archaic, pagan beliefs. What matters is what God has communicated through the Scriptures. If we begin to denounce any teaching that has some parallel in other religions, soon there will be nothing left to teach. The fact is, Satan is a liar and has been from the beginning. He has made it his mission to convolute the truth and deceive. If the Scriptures teach something, then it is something we must believe, regardless of who has or hasn’t believed it in the past or any apparent connection to other religions.

2. I’m not sure of the question here, but you seem to be intimating that the Scriptures were changed to fit a popular belief. I disagree with your synopsis and I would issue a stern warning here: claiming that someone has changed the Bible when it doesn’t fit with a current belief system is a serious accusation (which must be accompanied by overwhelming evidence) and is a tenuous position at best.

First, the evidence against the ending of Mark is relatively small, primarily it’s being absent two codices (both from around the 4th century). However, there is evidence for the long ending in many textual witnesses that are older (some dating back to the 2nd century). Additionally, the long ending to Mark is quoted by Justin Martyr, Tatian and Irenaeus. It’s also interesting to note that the same approach to other passages is not taken as some do with the ending of Mark. For example, the ending of Mark 16 is not included in the Codex Vaticanus, and this causes some to question its validity. Now, let’s be consistent and question everything not in that codex – that’s fair, right? If we throw out everything not included in that Codex, then you need to get rid of the entire book of Revelation. Editors love to put footnotes at the end of Mark, but no one ever puts a note about Revelation. Regardless, even if Mark ended at verse 9, it doesn’t change what is written in other places, e.g. Matthew 28:18-20. Rather than arguing that the Bible was changed in antiquity due to a popular doctrine, I argue the abundance of evidence shows that people are trying to alter the Scriptures today because they don’t like what it teaches.

3. No, I do not agree to that. I believe that the baptism of John and the baptism Jesus commanded were different. The baptism that John commanded was not “into the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:18-20). The baptism of John did not connect the person receiving it to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as does baptism as commanded by Christ. Though there may be similarities, they are not the same thing. When Paul encountered people who had been baptized by John, he had them baptized again into the name of Jesus (Acts 19:1-7)

4. The passing of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit were not done at the whim of the apostles. The Scriptures clearly state “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good…All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). As indicated above, the baptisms of John and Jesus are two different things.

5. No, that is not my understanding of Acts 22:16. In the passage, when one carefully examines the grammatical structure of the sentence, it becomes clear that baptism is how one calls upon the name of the Lord. Paul believed when he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul prayed for three days without food and water. Yet, through all of this, Paul was still in his sins, otherwise, why would Ananias, at the command of Jesus, tell Paul, “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins…” If he was already saved, there would be no sins to wash away. Baptism was an essential part of the salvation process and it could not willfully be omitted. This is also seen in 1 Peter 3:21 in that baptism is how we make our appeal to God. Baptism, according to Peter, is how we ask God for a clean or good conscience. We ask God to save us when we are baptized into Jesus Christ.

6. It is my understanding that Romans 6 was not written until approximately 30 years after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This, however, certainly does not mean that the teaching was not present. Just because something was not recorded immediately doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist at the beginning of the faith. The gospel of Mark was not written until about 20 years after the resurrection of Jesus. Following any logic that discredits Romans 6 based on the passing of time, then the entire gospel of Mark – indeed all of the New Testament writings – become suspect. As it stands, there is more evidence for the continuity of Christianity and its doctrines than any other ancient information we have. If we can’t trust the New Testament, then we can’t trust anything when it comes to historiography. To deny something because it wasn’t immediately present in writing necessitates the denial of the entire faith.

7. No, I don’t believe it necessary to understand each step of the process thoroughly, only trusting that God will do exactly as he says. There is certainly information that must be known, but to say that one must know it thoroughly would certainly mean that no one could every be saved. Regarding true belief, the demons truly believe. However, they refuse to act on their belief. If we are to be saved, there must not only be the mental ascent to Biblical truth but also the willingness to act upon it. James would say that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). To deny that one must be willing to act upon what God has said is to say that demons are saved (cf James 2:19).

8. I don’t believe the letters of Peter are questionable. I believe they are inspired by God and their teaching is plain. When Peter plainly declares that baptism is part of salvation, I believe what he says. One must either deny or twist the words of Scripture to come away with an understanding other than the necessity of baptism when Peter writes “Baptism now saves you…” It’s quite plain.

9. Actually, I don’t believe that God has a “name”, at least not one that must be spoken in order to be saved.

10. It is clear that God has laid out a rule of faith, a process by which salvation occurs. This process involves things like hearing the gospel (Rom 10:17), repenting of unbelief (Acts 2:38), and being baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3-4). This is the rule that has been laid out, plainly, in the Scriptures and all people should strive to follow it. Might there be an exception to the rule? Surely one would not deny the right of a Sovereign God to do whatever he pleases. However, rather than undo the rule, any exception strengthens it. If there is to be an exception, it means that there is a prescribed, standard process put in place. Any exception which then exists only serves to prove and provide credence for the rule.

However, I would advise caution in this line of thinking. What if you didn’t get the chance to be baptized? Only God truly knows whether the person literally never had the opportunity. Putting too much emphasis on this or using this as an excuse for disobedience to plain Bible teachings creates a slippery slope via which we can excuse any kind of responsibility on our part: what about people who never had an opportunity to believe? Clearly, then, we don’t need to believe, right? Jolly good for all the atheists out there, they’ve been all right all along. All joking aside, it’s a serious matter to start undoing clear Biblical teaching because of hypothetical happenstances. We are not to sit as judges over the word of God, but to be obedient servants of it (cf James 4:11-12; Luke 17:10).

***

I'm looking forward to reading @Cuddles222 first negative rebuttal :)
 
Upvote 0

Cuddles333

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2011
1,103
162
65
Denver
✟30,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1st Negative Rebuttal


1. [Most Christians are not aware that water baptism has it's origin dating back to the 2nd and 3rd millennium performed upon initiates relating to spirituality within their cults. Is it your understanding that even many Bible Scholars are not aware of this?]



1. I’m not saying that history is unimportant, in deed I think the whole of early Christians history is on my side of the matter, but ultimately it doesn’t matter what people have done throughout religious history, nor what any people, scholars or otherwise, may be ignorant of concerning archaic, pagan beliefs. What matters is what God has communicated through the Scriptures. If we begin to denounce any teaching that has some parallel in other religions, soon there will be nothing left to teach. The fact is, Satan is a liar and has been from the beginning. He has made it his mission to convolute the truth and deceive. If the Scriptures teach something, then it is something we must believe, regardless of who has or hasn’t believed it in the past or any apparent connection to other religions. aggie03

Your affirmation on the question, I think is very significant. I know of no church that practices water baptism, of teaching it's members that the practice extends much further back than the Bible.






2. [The ending of the book of Mark beginning at verse 9, was only included into the New Testament canon in the 4th century because it was popular, not that it was suspected to have been hinted at in the 2nd century by a writer using only a few words out of order that were in a verse in the long ending?]


2. I’m not sure of the question here, but you seem to be intimating that the Scriptures were changed to fit a popular belief. I disagree with your synopsis and I would issue a stern warning here: claiming that someone has changed the Bible when it doesn’t fit with a current belief system is a serious accusation (which must be accompanied by overwhelming evidence) and is a tenuous position at best.

First, the evidence against the ending of Mark is relatively small, primarily it’s being absent two codices (both from around the 4th century). However, there is evidence for the long ending in many textual witnesses that are older (some dating back to the 2nd century). Additionally, the long ending to Mark is quoted by Justin Martyr, Tatian and Irenaeus. It’s also interesting to note that the same approach to other passages is not taken as some do with the ending of Mark. For example, the ending of Mark 16 is not included in the Codex Vaticanus, and this causes some to question its validity. Now, let’s be consistent and question everything not in that codex – that’s fair, right? If we throw out everything not included in that Codex, then you need to get rid of the entire book of Revelation. Editors love to put footnotes at the end of Mark, but no one ever puts a note about Revelation. Regardless, even if Mark ended at verse 9, it doesn’t change what is written in other places, e.g. Matthew 28:18-20. Rather than arguing that the Bible was changed in antiquity due to a popular doctrine, I argue the abundance of evidence shows that people are trying to alter the Scriptures today because they don’t like what it teaches. aggie03

A detailed church history study reveals that there was a division in the church in the second through the fourth century, between the Eastern and Western churches. The Western churches supported Peter as the leading Bishop and water baptism as the entrance into the earthly Kingdom of God....His church. They would not tolerate a church female (Mary Magdalene) having any possible favor over their leading man...Peter. Do to political conditions in the East, the Western churches won this 'long-ending' doctrinal war. It is my understanding that if verses 15-16 did not read the way they do, that those who practice (water baptism unto the remission of sins) would be screaming false doctrinal murder, with the sensationalism of the 'long-ending'.



3. [Do you agree that both John the Baptist and Jesus (and his disciples) baptized with the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins and this lasted until the last disciple with miraculous power had died?]

3. No, I do not agree to that. I believe that the baptism of John and the baptism Jesus commanded were different. The baptism that John commanded was not “into the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:18-20). The baptism of John did not connect the person receiving it to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as does baptism as commanded by Christ. Though there may be similarities, they are not the same thing. When Paul encountered people who had been baptized by John, he had them baptized again into the name of Jesus. (Acts 19:1-7) aggie03

Are we not reading the same Bible versions? They all say that both John and Christ's disciples practiced the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. Before John was imprisoned, he referred all people to Jesus, and Christ's disciples baptized them under the authority of (in the name of) Christ, but it was still the water baptism unto the remission of sins....same water baptism as John's.


4. [Do you know why the Apostles would not pass on the gift of the Holy Spirit to a disciple who was only baptized by John the Baptist?]

4. The passing of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit were not done at the whim of the apostles. The Scriptures clearly state “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good…All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). As indicated above, the baptisms of John and Jesus are two different things. aggie03

The scriptures say that the reason why the Apostles would not pass on the gift of the Holy Spirit to disciples of John the Baptist was because these disciples were not aware that the one John preached who was coming after him, the Messiah, had already come. Therefore it would have been counterproductive for the Apostles to have passed on this gift to them. (Acts 19:1-6)


5. [ Is it your understanding that when Saul/Paul was told to rise up and be baptized washing away his sins, that by calling on his God's name was the most significant of those actions in that time period of Acts 22:16 ?]

5. No, that is not my understanding of Acts 22:16. In the passage, when one carefully examines the grammatical structure of the sentence, it becomes clear that baptism is how one calls upon the name of the Lord. Paul believed when he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul prayed for three days without food and water. Yet, through all of this, Paul was still in his sins, otherwise, why would Ananias, at the command of Jesus, tell Paul, “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins…” If he was already saved, there would be no sins to wash away. Baptism was an essential part of the salvation process and it could not willfully be omitted. This is also seen in 1 Peter 3:21 in that baptism is how we make our appeal to God. Baptism, according to Peter, is how we ask God for a clean or good conscience. We ask God to save us when we are baptized into Jesus Christ. aggie03

The how Paul 'called' upon the Lord in the Koine Greek does not agree with you. The word in Acts 22:16 is howdiyah which means to verbally invoke the divine name. It is evident that you thought that the Koine Greek word in Acts 22:16 was klesis which means to embrace the calling.


6. [Is it your understanding that the teaching of Rom.6:3-4 was not taught until years after Christ's resurrection?]

6. It is my understanding that Romans 6 was not written until approximately 30 years after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This, however, certainly does not mean that the teaching was not present. Just because something was not recorded immediately doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist at the beginning of the faith. The gospel of Mark was not written until about 20 years after the resurrection of Jesus. Following any logic that discredits Romans 6 based on the passing of time, then the entire gospel of Mark – indeed all of the New Testament writings – become suspect. As it stands, there is more evidence for the continuity of Christianity and its doctrines than any other ancient information we have. If we can’t trust the New Testament, then we can’t trust anything when it comes to historiography. To deny something because it wasn’t immediately present in writing necessitates the denial of the entire faith. aggie03

This teaching is what gave the Western churches even more leverage after the miraculous age had ended. Since believers would no longer have any miraculous evidence to prove their faith, this gave them the psychological and spiritual strength to carry on. It would have been illogical for the Rom.6 teaching to have even existed before Jesus went back to claim His throne.



7. [Is it your understanding that Salvation is a process involving the initiate's being able to understand each step thoroughly, no matter how long he/she takes, and it is not at the instant he/she comes to true belief in Jesus Christ?]

7. No, I don’t believe it necessary to understand each step of the process thoroughly, only trusting that God will do exactly as he says. There is certainly information that must be known, but to say that one must know it thoroughly would certainly mean that no one could every be saved. Regarding true belief, the demons truly believe. However, they refuse to act on their belief. If we are to be saved, there must not only be the mental ascent to Biblical truth but also the willingness to act upon it. James would say that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). To deny that one must be willing to act upon what God has said is to say that demons are saved (cf James 2:19). aggie03

Ok, so you understand that certain steps (5 I think) are necessary to obtain salvation, but the initiate need not understand each one thoroughly. As long as they are eager. That must be the faith in action I presume.


8. [The letters of Peter are questionable in some Bible scholars opinion and perhaps in yours, such as when the readers are reassured that their persecutors are going to be punished for what they were doing to them just as Noah's were when he preached to them during the 120 years that he was building the Ark, in which he and his family were saved....by the weapon of water that destroyed his hecklers. Do you not agree that this was the most painful twist by the writer to get the water to be the salvation of Noah and his family?]

8. I don’t believe the letters of Peter are questionable. I believe they are inspired by God and their teaching is plain. When Peter plainly declares that baptism is part of salvation, I believe what he says. One must either deny or twist the words of Scripture to come away with an understanding other than the necessity of baptism when Peter writes “Baptism now saves you…” It’s quite plain. aggie03


In this scripture verse, we find what the writer meant by being saved from. It is not salvation from divine retribution. The Koine Greek reveals that it is salvation from spiritual impurity. The Koine Greek word is sozo in 1Pet.3:21 . The word you thought was in 1Pet. 3:21 is actually diasozo which means to be saved, preserved, rescued, and it is found in verse 20.


9. [Is it your understanding that speaking a deity's name was as important to initiates entering into their pagan cults, as it was to initiates of the 1st century physical cult? (church)]


9. Actually, I don’t believe that God has a “name”, at least not one that must be spoken in order to be saved. aggie03

We have already established that the divine's name must be invoked in order for initiates to enter the religious corporate from question #5.


10. [Since you implied that there are no physical works that can obtain Salvation, but there are physical works that are required, does this not leave open that the instant the person comes to true belief to have obtained Salvation?]

10. It is clear that God has laid out a rule of faith, a process by which salvation occurs. This process involves things like hearing the gospel (Rom 10:17), repenting of unbelief (Acts 2:38), and being baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3-4). This is the rule that has been laid out, plainly, in the Scriptures and all people should strive to follow it. Might there be an exception to the rule? Surely one would not deny the right of a Sovereign God to do whatever he pleases. However, rather than undo the rule, any exception strengthens it. If there is to be an exception, it means that there is a prescribed, standard process put in place. Any exception which then exists only serves to prove and provide credence for the rule.

However, I would advise caution in this line of thinking. What if you didn’t get the chance to be baptized? Only God truly knows whether the person literally never had the opportunity. Putting too much emphasis on this or using this as an excuse for disobedience to plain Bible teachings creates a slippery slope via which we can excuse any kind of responsibility on our part: what about people who never had an opportunity to believe? Clearly, then, we don’t need to believe, right? Jolly good for all the atheists out there, they’ve been all right all along. All joking aside, it’s a serious matter to start undoing clear Biblical teaching because of hypothetical happenstances. We are not to sit as judges over the word of God, but to be obedient servants of it (cf James 4:11-12; Luke 17:10). aggie03


I do not see the gift of salvation as a process to be followed such as a number of steps. If one or two steps are missed, the process is null and void and the initiate must start over until they get each step (in order too) correct in order to obtain the prize. I do see in the New Testament that salvation is a sudden occurrence. Then followed by works-Negative such as Ps.1:1 and Positive works described in the New Testament.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.