Archived
Post
|
This
essay was written in response to an argument by
"J. P. Holding" (real name "Robert Turkel") against
the salvific efficacy of baptism. That thesis
(available here)
runs to more than 4,500 words in its original
form, and is therefore highly unsuited to the
standard "line by line" rebuttal format. Consequently,
the reader will see that I have chosen to address
only the essential points of Turkel's argument.
Turkel begins:
| QUOTE
|
|
"What must I do to be saved?" The question
receives a different answer in every conceivable
religious faith, and in this essay, we will
pursue a single question: What is the Biblical
view of the relationship between faith and
works? |
The Biblical view of the relationship between faith
and works is that both are necessary for salvation.
That is made abundantly clear by (a) the teaching
of Jesus in the Gospels, and (b) the epistle of
James.
| QUOTE
|
|
Christian apologists rightly point to numerous
verses that declare that faith alone is what
saves, and not any external act (John 3:16,
18, 36; 11:25-6; Acts 16:31; Eph. 2:8-9; 1
John 5:1). |
Christadelphians agree that no "external act" can
save, so no objection to our soteriology can be
advanced on this point. Moreover, none
of these verses (above) say that "faith alone is
what saves." Indeed, this was Luther's dilemma;
he could find not a single verse in Scripture which
credits faith alone
with the power of salvation, and so found it necessary
to rewrite a critical verse in the Pauline corpus.
That verse was Romans
3:28, which appears in Luther's translation
as follows:
So halten wir nun daf|r, da_ der Mensch
gerecht wird ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein
durch den Glauben.
The guilty interpolation here is allein
("alone.") Rather than adding it to their own translations
(as Luther did), modern Christians simply prefer
to read it into the text, as if it was already there.
This is a classic example of eisegesis, and we shall
see more of it from Turkel as my essay continues.
In the preface to his work, Turkel defines the "Semitic
Totality Concept" (a principle to which he frequently
appeals during the course of his argument) as the
Jewish belief that thought and action are intrinsically
united.
Thus:
| QUOTE
|
Applied to the role of works following faith,
this means that that there can be no decision
without corresponding action, for the total
person will inevitably reflect a choice that
is made. Thought and action are so linked
under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark
warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the
Sacraments, 10]:
The Hebraic view of man as an animated body
and its refusal to make any clear-cut division
into soul and body militates against the making
of so radical a distinction between material
and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects.
Thus, what we would consider separate actions
of conversion, confession, and obedience in
the form of works would be considered by the
Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the
act and the meaning of the act mattered --
the two formed for the first Christians an
indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament
Doctrine of Baptism, 111] |
But of course, Christadelphians agree
that in the context of works following faith, there
can be no decision without corresponding action.
This is amply demonstrated by (a) the response of
Peter's audience in Acts
2, (b) the record of the faithful (Hebrews
11), and © the epistle of James.
If there is any argument to be made from the "Semitic
Totality Concept", therefore, it can only
be that a corresponding action
(in this case baptism) must follow the personal
decision of an individual to accept Christ and confess
his or her sins. This, in turn, merely serves to
demonstrate that baptism is
essential for salvation. Indeed, a profession of
belief and a public confession of sin would account
for little unless they were acted
upon.
Turkel therefore undermines his own argument by
an appeal to the "Semitic Totality Concept", and
(consequently) reaffirms the salvific efficacy of
baptism.
| QUOTE
|
|
We will see that the answer to the question,
"Is baptism necessary for salvation?", is
that the question is out of order. If there
is any question that needs to be asked, it
is this: "If you are saved, and you know what
baptism means and that it was commanded by
Christ, why would you not be baptized?" One
does not become baptized to be saved; one
is saved and is therefore baptized. |
Notice that the very first thing Turkel does is
to present us with a false dichotomy. He places
salvation before
baptism, thereby eliminating any need
for it. (It will be interesting to see if he offers
any proof texts to support the idea that salvation
precedes baptism.)
For those of us who support the salvific efficacy
of baptism, the argument begins with the clear evidence
of Scripture:
Acts 2:37-38.
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in
their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest
of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall
we do? [to be saved]
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins, and ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Very simple.
| QUOTE
|
|
Faith that is true inevitably manifests itself
in obedience, and being that baptism is the
first act declared for the believer by Christ,
the true believer will gladly undergo baptism.
|
Both of these statements are true - but notice that
Turkel avoids the essential question: "Why
are we baptised?" Indeed, he will avoid it for as
long as possible, because he is effectively presenting
us with a redundant theology. For if baptism is
non-essential, there is no need for it whatsoever.
And yet, since we know that baptism does
take place in the New Testament, he must try to
explain why
- without surrendering his initial premise. The
only way to do this, is to pretend that baptism
is nothing more than a gracious courtesy on behalf
of the believer; an essentially meaningless ritual
which has no theological value whatsoever. It will
be interesting to see how he will argue his point.
| QUOTE
|
Mark 16:15-16 And he said unto them, Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel
to every creature. He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned.
This passage may be dispensed, in my view,
without discussion of baptism. The evidence
is strongly against its inclusion (and that
of Mark 16:9-20 as a whole) in the text: |
Similarly, we may dispense with Turkel's rebuttal
without discussion. The argument for salvic baptism
does not rest entirely on this verse. We may use
it in discussion with those who accept it, but those
who do not accept it, gain nothing by excluding
it. Indeed, they merely delay the inevitable.
Meanwhile, those who are interested in confirming
(or denying) the long ending of Mark
are invited to click here.
Contrary to Turkel's claim, the evidence is
strongly in favour
of the long ending.
| QUOTE
|
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I
say unto thee, Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God.
Some would claim that the phrase "born of
water" clearly refers to water baptism. While
many see an allusion to baptism here that
Christian readers would recognize, there is
a serious problem with seeing a reference
to baptism that cannot be controverted, and
that is that Nicodemus would not have the
slightest idea that Jesus was referring to
it. How could Nicodemus understand a reference
to "an as yet nonexistent sacrament"? |
The sacrament of baptism was by no means non-existent.
John the Baptist had been performing it for years
- even before Christ began his own ministry.
| QUOTE
|
The correct interpretation of this verse is
found in light of the intimate connection
of water, spirit, and cleansing in Judaism.
As Beasley-Murray observes, "The conjunction
of water and Spirit in eschatological hope
is deeply rooted in the Jewish consciousness."
This motif is found in Ezekiel 36:25-27:
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you
will be clean; I will cleanse you from all
your impurities and from all your idols. I
will give you a new heart and put a new spirit
in you; I will remove from you your heart
of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And
I will put my Spirit in you and move you to
follow my decrees and be careful to keep my
laws. |
Sprinkling is not
the same as baptism. The word "baptism" comes from
the Greek baptizo,
meaning "to dip or plunge." There is no way in the
world that sprinkling can be equated with dipping
or plunging. The language of cleansing found in
Ezekiel 26
is reminiscent of the Law of Moses, in which the
ritual sprinking of both blood
and water accompanied the sacrifice
for sin. There is absolutely nothing to link it
with baptism, except for the fact that a ritual
cleansing is here referred to.
| QUOTE
|
Similar sentiments are found elsewhere in
Jewish literature. Here is another passage
from the Qumran material (1QS 4:19-21):
He will cleanse him of all wicked deeds by
means of a holy spirit; like purifying waters
He will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth.
|
This passage is useless as a proof text against
the salvic efficacy of baptism, since it appears
to teach that it is the Holy
Spirit which purifies and saves us. Only
those who subscribe to the most extreme forms of
Pentecostalism would accept such a doctrine. Moreover,
the citation (above) is taken from the writings
of the Essenes, who were clearly unorthodox by 1st
Century Jewish standards. Turkel's argument
from the Qumran material is therefore irrelevant.
| QUOTE
|
|
While John's readers would undoubtedly
recognize the baptismal "freight" the word
water carried with it in this context, is
improper to read this passage as though the
freight had been loaded before the train got
to the station. At the core of John 3:5 is
the metaphorical use of water in Judaism as
a symbol of interior cleansing -- not a declaration
that baptism is required to enter the Kingdom
of God. [See for these points commentaries
of John by Brown (141-2), Morris (193), Beasley-Murray
(49), and Borhcert (111, 173).] |
A few points:
- Where
is the proof that "the metaphorical use of water
in Judaism" is "a symbol of interior cleansing"?
- If
baptism is not required to enter the
Kingdom of God, why does Jesus refer to it (albeit
indirectly) in his discussion with Nicodemus?
And what does he mean when he refers to being
"born of water"? He cannot refer to the ritual
cleansing of the Law of Moses, since this was
no longer necessary under the new covenant.
He can only refer to our "new birth in
Christ", which occurs as a result of "dying
to sin" (with the metaphorical "death of the
old man") and "living in Christ" (with the metaphorical
"resurrection to life" that only baptism can
symbolise.)
- Recalling
the fact that John's "baptism of repentance"
was still taking place at the Jordan river every
day (indeed, the narrative takes us immediately
to John the Baptist, right after the interview
with Nicodemus), we may ask ourselves "Would
Nicodemus honestly fail to miss an indirect
reference to baptism?" We know that he does
not fully understand Jesus, for he grapples
with the phrase "born again" as he attempts
to reconcile it with the reference to water
- but let us also remember that this phrase
is not the language of John, who simply called
for "baptism unto repentance", without any references
to "new birth." If Nicodemus is confused at
all, it is the birth analogy that is
confusing him, not the alleged "freight" which
is allegedly encumbering the word "water."
Since Turkel's argument appears to rely heavily
on the commentaries of Brown, Morris, Beasley-Murray
and Borhcert, it would probably be quite instructive
to read them - but since they are not presented
here, we must make do with greater luminaries.
Thus:
Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Jesus does not reply directly to the question
of Nicodemus, but proceeded to give a more explicit
statement concerning the new birth. One must be
born of water and of the Spirit. This may mean,
it will be admitted by all, (1.) That no one is
a member of the kingdom of God until he is born
again; (2.) That the Savior declares the impossibility
of one entering who is not born of water and of
the Spirit. One cannot enter by being born of
water alone, nor of the Spirit alone, but must
be born of water and of the Spirit. Otherwise
he cannot enter.
What, then, is the meaning of these two words?
Concerning the birth of the Spirit we need say
little, as there is little controversy about it.
Concerning born of water we agree with Alford
that it refers to baptism, while "of the Spirit"
refers to the inward change. He adds: "All
attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have
sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which the
views of expositors have been warped."
Abbott says: "We are to understand Christ as he
expected his auditor to understand him. The Jewish
proselyte, as a sign that he had put off his old
faiths, was baptized on entering the Jewish church.
John the Baptist baptized both Jew and Gentile
as a sign of purification by repentance from past
sins. Nicodemus would then have certainly understood
by the expression, born of water, a reference
to this rite of baptism."
Milligan, of Scotland, says: "John said: I baptize
with water; the One coming baptizes with Spirit;
but Christ says: The baptism of both is necessary.
One must be born of water and of the Spirit."
See also Titus 3:5 and Rom. 6:4. (Joh 3:6.)
Johnson, Barton W. (1886), New Testament
Commentary, Vol III: John.
See also Johnson's analysis of John
1:25-26:
25. Why baptizest thou then?
This question shows that John's baptism was,
to them, a new rite. They could understand that
Christ, or Elias, or "that prophet" might establish
a new ordinance by the divine authority, but if
John is none of these, why does he do so? Their
perplexity shows that, in some way, the baptismal
rite was new to them. It is claimed that Gentile
proselytes to the Jewish faith were baptized (immersed
according to all the Jewish authorities) before
this time, but the only proof offered is the testimony
of the Talmud, written two or three centuries
later. Even if proselyte baptism had been instituted,
John's rite presented the new feature of baptizing
Jews, those who considered themselves God's
people. In that it called the chosen people to
baptism it was a new rite. (Joh 1:26.)
26. I baptize with water.
The correct rendering is in water, and
the preposition en is thus rendered by the American
Committee of the Revisers, as well as by Canon
Westcott of the Church of England and the most
judicious scholars. Even in the Common Version,
out of 2,660 times that en occurs in the Greek
of the New Testament, it is rendered by "in" 2,060
times. There is no good reason why it should not
be so rendered every time it occurs in connection
with baptism. The translators of the Catholic
Bible in English, the Douay Version, were more
honest than King James' revisers, and have
always so rendered it. John does not answer the
question of the Pharisees directly, but points
to one already standing among them. The baptism
of water connects itself with that pre-eminent
being.
Ibid.
Johnson quotes his own Commentary
in his People's New
Testament (1891), which includes the
following addition:
All agree that the birth of the Spirit refers
to the inward, or spiritual change that takes
place, and all candid authorities agree that
born of water refers to baptism. So Alford,
Wesley, Abbott, Whitby, Olshausen, Tholuck, Prof.
Wm. Milligan, the Episcopal Prayer Book, the Westminister
Confession, the M. E. Discipline, and M. E. Doctrinal
Tracts, and also the writers of the early Church
all declare.
Let us now test the veracity of Johnson's claim
by a direct appeal to the writings of the Early
Church Fathers:
- JUSTIN
MARTYR (inter AD 148-155.)
Whoever is convinced and believes that what
they are taught and told by us is the truth,
and professes to be able to live accordingly,
is instructed to pray and to beseech God in
fasting for the remission of their former sins,
while we pray and fast with them. Then they
are led by us to a place where there is water;
and there they are reborn in the same kind of
rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In
the name of God, the Lord and Father of all,
and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy
Spirit, they receive the washing with water.
For Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
...The reason for doing this, we have learned
from the Apostles.
The First Apology, 61.
- THEOPHILUS
OF ANTIOCH (c. AD 181.)
Moreover, those things which were created
from the waters were blessed by God, so that
this might also be a sign that men would at
a future time receive repentance and remission
of sins through water and the bath of regeneration
-- all who proceed to the truth and are born
again and receive a blessing from God.
To Autolycus, 2:16.
- IRENAEUS
(c. AD 190)
"And [Naaman] dipped himself...seven
times in the Jordan" [2 Kings 5:14].
It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when
suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his
being baptized, but [this served] as
an indication to us. For as we are lepers in
sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred
water and the invocation of the Lord, from our
old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated
as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared:
"Except a man be born again through water and
the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom
of heaven."
Fragment 34.
- TERTULLIAN
(inter AD 200-206.)
A treatise on our sacrament of water, by
which the sins of our earlier blindness are
washed away and we are released for eternal
life will not be superfluous.....taking away
death by the washing away of sins. The guilt
being removed, the penalty, of course, is also
removed.....Baptism is itself a corporal act
by which we are plunged in water, while its
effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from
sins.
On Baptism, 1:1; 5:6; 7:2.
...no one can attain salvation without Baptism,
especially in view of the declaration of the
Lord, who says: "Unless a man shall be born
of water, he shall not have life."
On Baptism, 12:1.
- CLEMENT
OF ALEXANDRIA (ante AD 202.)
When we are baptized, we are enlightened.
Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted
as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect,
we become immortal...."and sons all of the Most
High" [Psalm 82:6]. This work is variously called
grace, illumination, perfection, and washing.
It is a washing by which we are cleansed of
sins; a gift of grace by which the punishments
due our sins are remitted; an illumination by
which we behold that holy light of salvation
-- that is, by which we see God clearly; and
we call that perfection which leaves nothing
lacking. Indeed, if a man know God, what more
does he need? Certainly it were out of place
to call that which is not complete a true gift
of God's grace. Because God is perfect,
the gifts He bestows are perfect.
The Instructor of Children, 1:6:26:1.
- RECOGNITIONS
OF CLEMENT (c. AD 221.)
But you will perhaps say, "What does the
baptism of water contribute toward the worship
of God?" In the first place, because that which
has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second
place, because when you are regenerated and
born again of water and of God, the frailty
of your former birth, which you have through
men, is cut off, and so ...you shall be able
to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible.
For thus has the true Prophet [Jesus] testified
to us with an oath: "Verily, I say to you, that
unless a man is born again of water....he shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Recognitions, 6:9.
- CYPRIAN
OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 - 258 AD.)
But afterwards, when the stain of my past
life had been washed away by means of the water
of re-birth, a light from above poured itself
upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards
through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven,
a second birth made of me a new man... Thus
it had to be acknowledged that what was of the
earth and was born of the flesh and had lived
submissive to sins, had now begun to be of God,
inasmuch as the Holy Spirit was animating it.
To Donatus, 4.
[When] they receive also the Baptism
of the Church...then finally can they be fully
sanctified and be the sons of God...since it
is written, "Except a man be born again of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God.
Letters, 71 [72]:1.
[It] behooves those to be baptized...so
that they are prepared, in the lawful and true
and only Baptism of the holy Church, by divine
regeneration, for the kingdom of God...because
it is written, "Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God."
Letters 72, [73]:21.
- LACTANTIUS
(AD 310.)
But you will perhaps say, What does the,
baptism of water contribute towards the worship
of God? In the first place, because that which
hath pleased God is fulfilled. In the second
place, because, when yon are regenerated and
born again of water and of God, the frailty
of your former birth, which you have through
men, is cut off, and so at length you shall
be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it
is impossible.
For thus hath the true prophet testified to
its with an oath: 'Verily I say to you,
That unless a man is born again of water, he
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Therefore make haste; for there is in these
waters a certain power of mercy which was borne
upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges
those who are baptized under the name of the
threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future
punishments, presenting as a gift to God the
souls that are consecrated by baptism.
Betake yourselves therefore to these waters,
for they alone can quench the violence of the
future fire; and he who delays to approach to
them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief
remains in him, and by it be is prevented from
hastening to the waters which confer salvation.
For whether you be righteous or unrighteous,
baptism is necessary for you in every respect:
for the righteous, that perfection may be accomplished
in him, and he may be born again to God; for
the unrighteous, that pardon may he vouchsafed
him of the sins which he has committed in ignorance.
Therefore all should hasten to be born again
to God without delay, because the end of every
one's life is uncertain.
Divine Institutes, 5:19.
- HILARY
OF POITIERS (AD 359.)
We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision
but with the circumcision of Christ, that is,
we are born again into a new man; for, being
buried with Him in His baptism, we must die
to the old man, because the regeneration of
baptism has the force of resurrection.
Trinity, 9:9.
- ATHANASIUS
(AD 360.)
And with reason; for as we are all from earth
and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above
of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all
quickened.
Discourse Against the Arians, III:33.
- EPHRAIM
SYRYUS (ante AD 373.)
The baptized when they come up are sanctified;--the
sealed when they go down are pardoned. They
who come up have put on glory;--they who go
down have cast off sin.
Hymns for the Feast of the Epiphany, 6:9.
- BASIL
(AD 375.)
And in what way are we saved? Plainly because
we were regenerate through the grace given in
our baptism.
On the Spirit, 10:26.
This then is what it is to be born again
of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead
being effected in the water, while our life
is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three
immersions, then, and with three invocations,
the great mystery of baptism is performed, to
the end that the type of death may be fully
figured, and that by the tradition of the divine
knowledge the baptized may have their souls
enlightened. It follows that if there is any
grace in the water, it is not of the nature
of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.
On the Spirit, 15:35.
- GREGORY
OF NYSSA (AD 382.)
[T]he birth by water and the Spirit, Himself
led the way in this birth, drawing down upon
the water, by His own baptism, the Holy Spirit;
so that in all things He became the first-born
of those who are spiritually born again, and
gave the name of brethren to those who partook
in a birth like to His own by water and the
Spirit.
Against Eunomius, 2:8.
- JOHN
CHRYSOSTOM (AD 387.)
For if no one can enter into the kingdom
of Heaven except he be regenerate through water
and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the
flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded
from eternal life, and if all these things are
accomplished only by means of those holy hands,
I mean the hands of the priest, how will any
one, without these, be able to escape the fire
of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved
for the victorious? These verily are they who
are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail
and the birth which comes through baptism: by
their means we put on Christ, and are buried
with the Son of God, and become members of that
blessed Head.
On the Priesthood, 3:5-6.
- GREGORY
OF NAZIANZEN (AD 388.)
The Word recognizes three Births for us;
namely, the natural birth, that of Baptism,
and that of the Resurrection...
Oration on Holy Baptism.
- AMBROSE
(AD 390.)
And that the writer was speaking of baptism
is evident from the very words in which it is
stated that it is impossible to renew unto repentance
those who were fallen, inasmuch as we are renewed
by means of the laver of baptism, whereby we
are born again, as Paul says himself: 'For
we are buried with Him through baptism into
death, that, like as Christ rose from the dead
through the glory of the Father, so we, too,
should walk in newness of life.'
Concerning Repentance, 2:8.
Therefore read that the three witnesses in
baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit,
are one, for if you take away one of these,
the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For
what is water without the cross of Christ? A
common element, without any sacramental effect.
Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration
without water: 'For except a man be born
again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God.'
On the Mysteries, 4:20.
Examples could be multiplied.
| QUOTE
|
Acts 2:37-8 Now when they heard this, they
were pricked in their heart, and said unto
Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men
and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter
said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins, and ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost.
A key here is the word "for" (eis) - a word
that can mean for or because of. If eis is
taken to mean "for" then it is taken to mean
that baptism is essential to salvation; if
it means "because of", then it is not. |
Here we see a classic example of an outdated argument.
The "causal eis
in Acts 2:38"
defence was refuted decades ago by commentators
and lexicographers. It relies on an insupportable
rendering of the Greek - a rendering that not even
Daniel Wallace was able to justify.
Thus, William Arnold III, in answer to correspondence:
Concerning Acts 2:38, the grammar actually
requires that Peter is saying be baptized "for"
the remission of sins. The use of the preposition
eis demands this meaning. Concerning this specific
verse, BAGD, the most authoritative Greek lexicon
in English says, "to denote purpose / in order
to, to . . . for forgiveness of sins, so that
sins might be forgiven Mt 26:28; cf. Mk 1:4; Lk
3:3; Ac 2:38."
Seeing the plain implications of this passage,
some scholars have jumped through hoops to try
and explain it away. Once again I call attention
to Wallace's highly acclaimed Greek grammar.
Wallace (who does not believe baptism is essential)
has a discussion about this verse specifically
under his treatment of the preposition eis:
"An interesting discussion over the force of eis
took place several years ago, especially in relation
to Acts 2:38. . . .
J. R. Mantey argued that eis could be used
causally [which would mean baptism "because of"
remission of sins] in various passages in the
NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38...
On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey's
nonbiblical examples of a causal eis so that in
his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after
a blow-by-blow refutation): 'It is quite possible
that eis is used causally in the NT passages but
the examples of causal eis cited from non-biblical
Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making
this possibility a probability. If, therefore,
Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation
of various NT passages on baptism and repentance
and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons
that are non-linguistic.'
Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic
evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof.
. . . adjusting the grammar to answer a backward-looking
'Why?' has no more basis than the notion
that anti ever meant mere representation (see
prior discussion)."
He also discusses the shift from second person
plural to third person singular and then back,
which you mentioned.
But notice even some other passages: "Arise,
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,
calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16);
"baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21);
"He saved us not by works of righteousness that
we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through
the washing of the new birth and the renewing
of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5, NET, see also
John 3:3-5). Coupled with Acts 2:38, these
passages clearly connect baptism with the remission
of sins and even with salvation.
Full
text available here.
In the wake of this exchange, Wallace dropped the
argument from eis
in Acts 2:38
- a fact which was clearly demonstrated by the 1996
publication of his Greek
Grammar Beyond the Basics. Here, in his
discussion of eis,
Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, but
“causal” is conspicuous by absence. While it is
true that he still believes baptism to be non-essential
for salvation, he admits that no such argument can
be proved on the basis of the grammatical construction
in Acts 2:38.
Additionally, it is significant that the premier
lexical work of Liddell and Scott does not even
list any causal
uses of eis.
| QUOTE
|
|
However, "into" is the closest approximation
of eis in this verse, so that Peter tells
the crowd to be "baptized into the remission
of sins." |
This argument is not just insufficient - it is totally
spurious. Turkel relies too heavily on "If" statements,
and vain suppositions. Instead of presenting mere
conjecture
about the text in question, why does he not parse
it? Why does he not at least break it down into
its component parts?
Perhaps a visit to Mr Johnson is in order...
37. When they heard this.
The conclusion, supported by such convincing demonstration.
Before Peter began to speak they did not understand
the signs; but now it was clear to them that they
had rejected and crucified the Lord.
Pricked in their heart.
Convicted of their sins, and pierced with sorrow.
They believed Peter's affirmation; their faith
revealed their sin in rejecting Christ. Overwhelmed
with sorrow, they ask,
"What shall we do? Is there any way that such
sinners can be pardoned?"
38. Repent, and be baptized.
For the first time the terms of pardon under the
New Covenant and the Great Commission are given;
given once for all time, and always the same.
The convicted, broken-hearted, sorrowing sinner,
believing that Jesus is the Christ, is to repent
and be baptized.
Repent.
Not sorrow. They already sorrowed; but a change
of purpose; the internal change which resolves
to serve the Lord. The Greek term [metanoeo] rendered
"repent," means a change of mind. The act of
obedience in baptism is an outward expression
of both faith and repentance.
In the name of Jesus Christ.
"Upon the name" (Revised Version). Upon the ground
of the name. In submission to the authority of
Jesus Christ.
For the remission of sins.
Thus, by complying with the conditions just
named, they shall receive remission of sins. No
man can receive pardon without faith and repentance,
nor can he without submission to the will of Christ.
"Eis (for) denotes the object of baptism,
which is the remission of the guilt contracted
in the state before metanoia (repentance)."
-- Meyer.
"In order to the forgiveness of sins we connect
naturally with both the preceding verbs. This
clause states the motive or object which should
induce them to repent and be baptized."
-- Prof. Hackett.
The gift of the Holy Spirit.
Promised as a comforter to all who obey Christ,
but whom "the world cannot receive" [Joh 14:17].
Johnson, B. W. (1891), The People's
New Testament.
| QUOTE
|
|
Read in light of the Semitic Totality Concept,
it indicates that believers will practice
this behavior to validate their commitment
to Christ. Baptism is just one part of that
behavior is inextricably linked to repentance
and salvation. Does the lack of the behavior
mean one is not saved? No, but one does have
to ask why anyone would not produce the validating
behavior. Do they understand the command?
Are they hydrophobic? Why would they refuse
baptism if they knew that Christ had commanded
it? Can we picture someone hearing the preaching
of Peter and saying, "Peter, that's good
news, I'll repent as you say, but I'm
definitely not being baptized, even though
I know it was commanded by the one I now call
Lord." ? |
The only problem with this argument is that it proves
nothing at all. Not once does Turkel attempt to
explain why
a redundant baptism is performed. Indeed, the very
best he can offer us is an inverted statement...
I'll repent as you
say, but I'm definitely not being baptized,
even though I know it was commanded by the one I
now call Lord
...which merely begs the question yet
again:
For what purpose are
we baptised at all?
It is all very well to protest against those who
will not obey Jesus' commandment to baptise.
It certainly sounds
very pious and wholesome. But what does it achieve?
Nothing. For unless he who is baptised can give
a sound theological reason for doing so, his submission
to the act is pointless. What does it signify? He
does not know. What is its effect? He believes it
has no effect.
Why then was he baptised in the first place? Simply
because Jesus commanded it. No other reaon. "Just
because."
Turkel therefore presents us with a redundant, meaningless
ritual, which must nevertheless be performed...
"Because Jesus said so!"
...and not because it has any significance of its
own.
Does this empty rhetoric frustrate the reader? It
certainly should, for it makes a total mockery of:
- The
baptism of John.
- The
Great Commission.
- The
commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- The
believer's symbolic enactment of death,
burial and resurrection, as expounded by the
apostles Peter and Paul in their epistles.
| QUOTE
|
|
Baptism, like any validating behavior, is
"essential to salvation" only in the sense
that if you don't want to go through with
it, and there is no barrier to understanding,
then it is clear that you do not possess salvation.
|
Notice the complete lack of proof texts. Where
are the Scriptures to support this bold conclusion?
If they exist, why have they not been advanced?
If they do not
exist, on what basis does Turkel maintain his
argument?
| QUOTE
|
|
Thought and action are expected, under the
Semitic Totality paradigm, to correspond.
The conversion and the baptism are regarded
as one process, not because the latter is
required for salvation, but because it is
expected in light of salvation. |
This is a somewhat tortuous argument. Not only does
it carefully avoid any reference to the possible
meaning and significance of baptism (yet
again!), but it also attempts to separate the
act of baptism from the concept of salvation.
The argument thus proposed by Turkel might
carry weight if:
- The
text gives us good reason to believe that baptism
and salvation are not related in some way.
- Salvation
can be proven to be an instant occurrence,
rather than the result of a lifelong process.
Let us test #1 - does the text support the idea
that baptism is not necessary linked to the
concept of salvation? Acts 2:38 is the verse
in question; eis is the word in question.
What do we find in our Bible translations?
- New
American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version,
New International Version, Douay-Rheims Bible:
...for the forgiveness of your sins.
- American
Standard Version:
...unto the remission of your sins.
- New
King James Version, King James Version:
...for the remission of sins.
- New
Revised Standard Version:
...so that your sins may be forgiven.
- Young's
Literal Translation:
...to remission of sins.
- Contemporary
English Version:
...so that your sins will be forgiven.
- God's
Word:
...so that your sins will be forgiven.
- International
Standard Version:
...for the forgiveness of your sins.
- World
English Bible:
...for the forgiveness of sins.
- Green's
Literal Version:
...to remission of sins.
- New
American Bible:
...for the forgiveness of your sins;
What do we find in our commentaries?
- Abbott
(Church of England), Commentary on Acts:
...for the putting away.
- Alexander
(Presbyterian), Commentary on Acts:
...for, to or toward.
- Axtell
(Baptist), Shepherd's Handbook:
...unto, for, in order to.
- Benson
(Methodist), Commentary on Bible:
...for, unto.
- Bickersteth
(Church of England), Commentary on Acts:
...for, unto.
- Butcher
(Presbyterian), Shepherd's Handbook:
...end toward which.
- Adam
Clarke (Methodist), Commentary on Bible:
...in reference to.
- Dill
(Baptist), Shepherd's Handbook:
...unto, to.
- Godet
(Presbyterian) Shepherd's Handbook:
...aim, purpose.
- Goodwin
(Congregationalist), Shepherd's Handbook:
...purpose.
- Harkness
(Baptist), Shepherd's Handbook:
...in order to.
- Harmon
(Methodist) Shepherd's Handbook:
...the object to be obtained.
- Harper
(Baptist), Shepherd's Handbook:
...unto, in order to receive.
- Hovey
(Baptist), Commentary on John:
...unto.
- Jacobus
(Presbyterian), Commentary on Acts:
...unto, to this end.
- Meyer
(Lutheran), Commentary on Acts:
...denotes object.
- McLintock
(Methodist), McLintock & Strong Encyclopaedia:
...with a view to.
- Schaff
(Presbyterian), Shepherd's Handbook:
...unto.
- Strong
(Methodist), Shepherd's Handbook:
...in order to.
- Summers
(Methodist), Commentary on Acts:
...unto, to the end.
- Thayer
(Congregationalist), Greek-English Lexicon:
...into, to, toward.
- Willmarth
(Baptist), Baptist Quarterly, 1878:
...in order to.
The text clearly does not support the idea
that baptism and salvation are distinct from one
another. On the contrary, the use of eis
confirms that baptism is essential if we
desire to have our sins forgiven - and, consequently,
our salvation achieved.
Now let us test #2 - is salvation an instant occurrence?
Well, we know that grace comes as a result of justification,
and justification comes by faith and works. Salvation
(the result of grace) only comes at the Judgement
Seat. It cannot possibly come any earlier. Until
we are there, facing Christ after the resurrection,
we cannot know whether or not we shall be saved.
Even Paul - who freely confessed that there was
laid up for me a crown of righteousness, and
not for me only, but to all those who love his
appearing
- never once claimed to have been "saved" in the
sense of having received immediate salvation on
this side of the Kingdom.
Indeed, he specifically stated that
every one of us shall give account of himself
to God
and
we labour, that,
whether present or absent, we may be accepted
of him.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat
of Christ; that every one may receive the things
done in his body, according
to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
which would seem to be very clear indeed.
See also:
- The
parable of the talents, in which the lord
(Christ), gave talents (personal abilities)
to his workers (ourselves), and required them
to produce more talents (obedience), rewarded
the faithful workers with positions of honour
commensurate with their achievements (degrees
of reward in the kingdom of God), but rejected
the man who was given a talent and did nothing
with it.
- The
parable of the workers in the vineyard,
in which the husbandman (Christ), calls idle
men into his vineyard (ourselves), who work
(obedience), but all receive the same salary
(salvation), regardless of how long they have
worked. And how can they all receive
the same salary, regardless of how long they
have worked? Because we are saved by grace,
not by works, lest any man should boast. Notice,
however, that obedience came before
the grace. It is impossible to receive the latter
without the former.
- The
parable of the sheep and goats, in which
the lord (Christ) accepts the sheep (obedient
Christians) on the basis of their faith and
works (demonstrated by their Christlike attitude
to others), but rejects the goats (disobedient
Christians) on the basis of their negligence.
| QUOTE
|
|
(Hence it is off the mark to make much of
that Peter commanded the baptism, and thereby
conclude that baptism is a "necessity" rather
than an inevitable result. |
But where is the Biblical evidence to support this
argument? Thus far, we have seen a brief reference
to the Greek word eis,
a bit of empty speculation on its possible
meaning, a refusal to explain the reason
for baptism, and a deliberate attempt to mislead
the reader. The crushing weight of the Biblical
evidence cannot be brushed aside with a few "What
if..." statements.
| QUOTE
|
|
A command is often needed simply because the
person being commanded has no idea what they
should do next (as would have been the case
with the Pentecost converts), having no knowledge
of what the process is; and it could hardly
be phrased in any less demanding language.)
|
This is a redundant argument. The author has already
agreed that
Jesus commanded his disciples to baptise, and his
followers to submit to baptism. Now he is attempting
to reduce the force of this injunction by claiming
that it wasn't really
a commandment at all! This is mere rhetoric.
It proves nothing.
| QUOTE
|
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise,
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling
on the name of the Lord.
Some argue that this verse teaches that Paul's
sins would be washed away following his baptism,
and thus indicates the necessity of baptism.
|
Such a one is Johnson, who cites Howson and Hackett
in support of his interpretation:
16. Arise, and be baptized.
Dean Howson (Acts, p. 501) says that the verb
"baptize" in the Greek is in the middle voice,
and that a more accurate rendering would be, "Have
thyself baptized."
Wash away thy sins.
This language shows that Ananias thought that
the penitent sinner was to be baptized for the
remission of sins (Ac 2:38), and that Paul held
the same view. Compare Tit 3:5.
Hackett says: "This clause states the result of
baptism in language derived from the nature of
the ordinance. It answers to eis aphesin hamartion
(Ac 2:38), that is, submit to the rite in order
to be forgiven. . . . There can be no question
of the mode of baptism in this case, for if it
be held that be baptized is uncertain in its meaning,
wash away is a definition that removes the doubt."
As the final act of conversion, baptism symbolically,
is said to wash away sins.
Johnson, B. W. (1891), The People's
New Testament.
| QUOTE
|
|
But under the Semitic Totality concept this
is simply not the case. |
Alas for Turkel, any appeal to the "Semitic Totality
concept" can only reaffirm that this is precisely
the case. For if (as Turkel insists) the Jews saw
decision and action as two parts of a united whole,
baptism necessarily
becomes an essential part of the salvation process.
| QUOTE
|
|
Moreover, if one wants to read this verse
as a chronology, rather than as a totality
expression as we would read it, one wonders
why calling on the name of Jesus is done last.
|
Firstly, even if "calling on the name of Jesus"
was "done
last", there would be no theological impact. The
procedure would still be legitimate. Secondly, Turkel
has not represented this passage accurately.
Observe:
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of
the Lord.
This is simply what was
said. It does not specify an order in
which things were done. Even a casual reader will
realise that the phrase "calling on the name of
the Lord" indicates something that is performed
concurrently
with the act of baptism. Once again, Turkel has
attempted to baffle his reader with a false dichotomy.
| QUOTE
|
|
It is more in line with the anthropological
data to read Paul's quote of Ananias as
a summary of a total commitment process which
involved confession, obedience, and regeneration,
and the "calling on the name of the Lord"
as the "overarching term" in the passage.
[For points in Acts, see commentaries by Polhill
(461) and Kistemaker (790).] |
This is the proposed "solution" to a "problem" which
did not exist in the first place. Nobody would deny
that "calling on the name of the Lord" is not "the
overarching term in the passage." The author has
merely attempted to divert our attention from the
necessary process of baptism, which accompanied
this event. Notice that he has spent no time on
it whatsoever - he has not even attempted to explain
why it is performed, or what its significance might
be. Thus, the proof text remains unchallenged. Turkel
has failed to present any evidence which might refute
the claim that baptism is essential for salvation,
and he has deliberately ignored the reference to
the washing away of sins, despite the fact that
this is the very idea he is supposed to be refuting!
I leave the reader to decide whether or not this
constitutes a thorough approach to exegesis...
| QUOTE
|
Gal. 3:27 For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Although some indeed have taken the "for"
here to "indicate that the status of divine
sonship is contingent upon the ritual of water
baptism" it is difficult to find this point
in a letter in which Paul spends so much time
trying to show the Galatians that they do
not need to be circumcised. |
Notice the formula? Distract the reader's attention
from baptism by introducing a totally irrelevant
issue - circumcision. The comment
...it is difficult to find this point in a
letter in which Paul spends so much time trying
to show the Galatians that they do not need to
be circumcised
is nothing more than a carefully loaded statement,
designed to shift the focus from baptism
(the issue which this entire essay is supposed to
be addressing) to circumcision
(an issue which is not even relevant to the discussion.)
Our suspicions are confirmed by the next two sentences,
in which we read:
| QUOTE
|
|
If baptism had replaced circumcision as an
initiatory rite, then why does Paul not simply
point to baptism over and over again? (Note
that Paul in vv. 3:2-3 asks if they received
the Spirit -- not if they were baptized!)
|
Here it is necessary to make a few points:
- Paul
does not say that baptism has replaced circumcision
as an initiatory rite. This is another attempt
to mislead the reader.
- There
is no need for Paul to "point to baptism over
and over again", because (a) Paul was not trying
to convince the Galatians that baptism has replaced
circumcision, and (b) the question facing the
Galatian ecclesia at this time was "What
role does the Law now play in salvation?"
- Paul
has already contrasted the works of the Law
against the grace of God under the new covenant.
Now he wishes to show that all Christians are
equal in the sight of God. No distinction
is to be made between Jew and Gentile.
Thus:
Galatians 3:24-29.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by
faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer
under a schoolmaster.
For ye are all the children of God by faith
in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's
seed, and heirs according to the promise.
It is therefore dishonest to suggest that Paul was
equating the significance of baptism with the rite
of circumcision. He was doing no such thing. We
may dispense with the citation from Longenecker,
as it is totally irrelevant. Instead, let us move
on to the next point of contention.
| QUOTE
|
|
What is represented is an inward decision,
and thus those who are "clothed with Christ"
have made the inward decision which baptism
is the corresponding action for. One no more
obtains a position in Christ via baptism than
a Roman child could have become an adult by
donning an adult's clothing. {See Galatians
commentaries by George (276) and Longenecker
(156).] |
Here Turkel deliberately confuses the literal with
the figurative. His argument (illogical in the extreme)
is that since the literal donning of a garment cannot
change a child into an adult, neither can the figurative
donning of Christ grant us a position in Christ.
This merely serves to demonstrate the arrogance
of the author, who, in a vain attempt to defend
Sola Fide,
concludes that Paul's analogy is meaningless,
and its literal counterpart useless. For if we do
not receive
a position in Christ as a direct result of being
baptised into him,
then Paul has erred, and we have no hope of salvation.
That is the necessary conclusion of the author's
argument. Does he realise it? Alas, he does not.
By contrast, B. W. Johnson (citing Schaff) gives
a clear and consistent exposition:
27. For.
He now shows how their faith acted to bring
them into Christ.As Dr. Schaff says, "Faith
always implies surrender." Faith leads to obedience.
The believer is baptized into Christ, and being
found in him has put on Christ. Being in Christ,
a member of his body, a part of the Son, the believer
becomes a child of God. Compare Rom. 6:3;
1 Cor. 10:2, and Matt. 28:19.
"The baptized is surrounded by Christ and covered
by his merits. . . . The figure of putting on
Christ as a new dress afterwards gave rise to
the custom of wearing white baptismal garments."
--Schaff, in loco. 28.
There is neither Jew nor Greek.
In Christ the old, worldly lines of separation
are all blotted out. All one. One person, as it
were, "one new man" (Eph. 2:15), of which Christ
is the head. All, without regard to race, blended
into one whole.
29. If ye be Christ's.
As Christ is the seed of Abraham, all in Christ
become the spiritual seed of Abraham, and hence
heirs of the promise to Abraham's seed.
NOTE.--
In the study of this Letter, it is well to keep
in mind that the term faith is used by Paul often
in a sense that means more than the act of
belief. When it is put in contrast with the
law, it is used in the sense of The Faith, that
is, The Gospel. It comprehends what is believed,
believing, and the results of believing. The fact
that the apostles so often places the definite
article before the word faith, so that in the
Greek he speaks of The Faith, leaves no doubt
of his meaning. It is unfortunate that the translators
have obscured the meaning by omitting the article.
Thus in this chapter the Greek gives the definite
article before the word (the faith) five times
where it is omitted in the Common Version. The
examples are verse 14, verse 23 (twice), verses
25 and 26.
Johnson, B. W. (1891), The People's
New Testament.
Observe Johnson's warning in the footnote. It
has especial relevance to us. Those who advocate
the extreme forms of Sola
Fide will argue that faith itself is
a supernatural gift from God. But Johnson observes
that this is often the result of a superficial reading.
When we read of faith "coming" to a believer (as
in verse 25) Johnson reminds us that this is in
fact The Faith
(i.e. the Gospel.) A reference to translator's
bias is implied by Johnson's lament that
...the translators have obscured the meaning
by omitting the article.
His point is an excellent one. The astute reader
will immediately realise that the significance of
verses 14, 23, 25 and 26 has been totally overlooked
by Robert Turkel's superficial analysis.
| QUOTE
|
|
In light of this passage, we also see that
once the Semitic Totality concept is understood,
other passages become more clear in their
meaning as well. |
It has already been demonstrated that the "Semitic
Totality Concept" supports the Christadelphian view,
rendering the argument of Turkel both irrelevant
and meaningless.
| QUOTE
|
|
Romans 6:3-4 ("Or don't you know that
all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus
were baptized into his death. We were therefore
buried with him through baptism into death
in order that, just as Christ was raised from
the dead through the glory of the Father,
we too may live a new life ") and 1 Corinthians
12:13 ("For we were all baptized by one Spirit
into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, slave
or free - and we were all given the one Spirit
to drink") show not that baptism is the point
at which we connect with the cross, and are
saved, but that it is the inevitable expression
of one who has indeed connected with the cross.
|
Here again Turkel falls back on his erroneous definition
of "saved" (no true advocate of baptism would ever
claim that we are saved at the instant of immersion),
and deliberately ignores the clear references to
death, burial and resurrection, in connexion with
which, Johnson (citing standard authorities) writes:
3-5. So many of us as were baptized into
Christ, etc.
The fact that every follower of Christ has died
to sin is shown by his baptism. All its symbolism
points to death. To be baptized into Christ means
to enter into a vital union with him, so as to
be found in him (Gal. 3:27). But this baptism
into Christ implies death, for it is a baptism
into the death of Christ. That the subjects of
baptism are partakers of his death is shown by
the form of baptism. It is a burial.
4. We are buried (Revision) through baptism
into death.
The argument is that a burial implies death. Baptism
is a burial, therefore its subject has died. As
Christ died through sin, we die to sin; as the
Crucified Christ was buried, we who have died
to sin through the gospel are buried with him.
As death and burial separate from the natural
life, so death to sin and burial into Christ should
completely sever our relation to sin. That like
as Christ was raised up from the dead. The glorious
power of the Father lifted up Christ from the
tomb. So we, too, rise from the watery burial,
with death and burial between us and the old life
of sin, in order to walk in newness of life.
"This passage cannot be understood unless it is
borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by
immersion."
--Conybeare and Howson.
"That the custom of baptism by immersion is alluded
to is generally admitted, but the emersion is
as significant as the immersion."
--Dr. Philip Schaff.
"It seems to us very probable that the apostle
alludes to the external form of the baptismal
rite in the primitive church."
--Godet.
"The apostle alludes to the ancient manner of
baptizing by immersion."
--John Wesley.
5. For if we have been planted together in
the likeness of his death.
As the seed, planted, buried out of sight, rises
again in a new life, so we are planted in the
likeness of Christ's death when we are buried
in baptism, and rise in the likeness of his resurrection,
when we are lifted out of the water, and are found
henceforth to have a new life. Compare Col. 2:12:
"Buried by baptism, wherein ye are also risen
with him."
Johnson, B. W. (1891), The People's
New Testament.
We can defend this interpretation by an appeal to
Reformed scholars:
- J.
P. Lange (Lutheran), Commentary on Romans
6.4:
Buried in death, an oxymoron, according to
which burial precedes and death follows, as
is illustrated in the immersion into the bath
of baptism.
- William
Sanday (Episcopalian), International Critical
Commentary:
Baptism has a double function. (I) It brings
the Christian into personal contact with Christ,
(2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts
corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ:
Immersion = Death.
Submersion = Burial (ratification of Death.)
Emergence = Resurrection.
That plunge beneath the running waters was like
a death; the moment's pause while they swept
overhead was like a burial; the standing erect
once more in air and sunlight was a species
of resurrection.
- J.
B. Lightfoot (Episcopalian), Commentary on
Colossians 2:12:
Baptism is the grave of the old man, and
the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the
baptismal waters, the believer buries there
all his corrupt affections and past sins; as
he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened
to new hopes and a new life.
- A.
S. Peake (Methodist), The Expositor's
Greek Testament:
The rite of baptism in which the person baptized
was first buried beneath the water, and then
raised from it, typified to Paul the burial
and resurrection of the believer with Christ.
One might ask the anti-baptism advocate how we might
be expected to identify so intimately with Christ's
death unless
baptism is performed. One might further ask how
we might be expected to be "in Christ" without being
baptised into Christ, and so enacting his sacrificial
passion. Can anyone explain how "the baptism of
the Holy Spirit" might be used as a substitute for
believer's baptism by full immersion into literal
water? Let him first prove that the typology can
be fulfilled by such a deed!
| QUOTE
|
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which
we have done, but according to his mercy he
saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost...
Some argue that "washing" means baptism, but
it is better understood as a figurative term
for the regeneration process of cleansing
from sin (in line with the Jewish allegory
of water noted above). |
We may dispense with the bulk of Turkel's argument
here, since he has very little to go on, and makes
even less of it. A brief rebuttal is all that is
required.
First, Johnson:
By the washing of regeneration and renewing
of the Holy Ghost.
Two elements enter into the saving; these are
referred to in John 3:5 as the birth of water
and of the Spirit. God's spirit effects the
renewal of the spirit of man by bringing him to
faith and repentance through the preaching of
the gospel; thus the renewal of the Holy Spirit
is begun, and the gift of the Holy Spirit is promised
as a sequence of baptism. Romans 6:1-8 shows that
the sinner dies to sin, is buried by baptism,
rises to a new life, and is a new creature.
Washing of regeneration.
Literally, "Bath of regeneration." All commentators
of reputation refer this to baptism, such as Meyer,
Olshausen, Lange, Plumptree, Schaff, Canon Cook,
Wesley, etc. Regeneration is due to the Holy
Spirit, but baptism is an outward act that God
requires to complete the fact. The term "regeneration"
only occurs here and in Mt 19:28.
Johnson, B. W. (1891), The People's
New Testament.
Johnson's view of the relationship between the
Spirit and the believer may be a trifle obscure
to those who have not followed him closely. In previous
citations, he clearly stated that we obtain faith
as a result of hearing
the Gospel, rather than by any supernatural
means. This recent quote might appear to contradict
his former statements - but if we are careful, we
shall not lose track of his argument.
He makes reference to the "renewal of the spirit
of man" which "brings him to faith and repentance
through the preaching of the Gospel." Notice the
emphasis - it is still on the
hearing of the Gospel. It has not switched
to the Spirit alone; Johnson reaffirms the apostolic
teaching that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the Word of God." It is through
that same Spirit-breathed Word that our minds are
renewed. (See also Adam Clarke's analysis of
I Peter 3,
in which he explains the reference to Christ "preaching
to the souls in prison." The same form of argument
is employed here, to great effect.)
With reference to Titus
3:5, see also LSJ:
loutron loutron, ou, [louô]
I. a bath, bathing place, Hom.; mostly
in pl., therma loetra hot baths, Il.; attic
therma loutra Aesch., etc.; also called loutra
Hêrakleia Ar.; hudatôn loutra water for bathing
or washing, Soph.; lousai tina loutron to
give one a bath, id=Soph.
II. in Poets, = spondai or choai libations
to the dead, id=Soph., Eur.
Full
text available here.
A vague reference to "washing" would not be sufficient
to prove the type. But the undeniable reference
to a bath
is clear enough. We can be sure that baptism is
here referred to.
| QUOTE
|
1 Peter 3:20-21 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. 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...
We have noted that the Semitic Totality concept
radically affects our understanding of verses
concerning the interrelation of faith, works,
and particularly baptism. |
As I have
noted, the "Semitic Totality Concept" is clearly
antithetical to Turkel's own argument.
| QUOTE
|
Is there any evidence that the early Jewish
apostles as Christians had difficulty in communicating
this difference in anthropological view to
their Gentile converts? I believe that there
is, and that this passage serves as an example
of how they coped with the problem. But we
need to first look at a parallel from corresponding
Biblical and secular sources.
And so John came, baptizing in the desert
region and preaching a baptism of repentance
for the forgiveness of sins. (Mark 1:4)
From this verse there emerges a puzzle, for
while Mark says that John preached "a baptism
of repentance," we find what appears to be
the opposite proclaimed of John's baptism
in this passage from Josephus, who said that
John called for his converts:
...to lead righteous lives, to practice justice
towards their fellows and purity towards God,
and so doing to join in baptism. In his view
this was a necessary preliminary if baptism
was to be pleasing to God. They must not employ
it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed,
but as a consecration of the body implying
that the soul was already cleansed by right
behavior.
Critics of the Bible often assume that either
Mark or Josephus are in error. But I believe
that Peter and Josephus are actually explaining
to their Gentile readers--those who do not
think within the paradigm of Semitic Totality--what
the role of baptism is, in their terms as
opposed to Semitic terms. |
Another false dichotomy is presented for our inspection.
We are at liberty to ignore it, should we choose
to do so - but instead, let us indulge Turkel for
a moment, and address his "evidence."
He has attempted to use Josephus (himself a non-Christian)
in order to "prove" that baptism has no salvic efficacy,
nor any relation to the remission of sins. The author
wishes us to believe that our options are limited
to the following:
- Mark
and Josephus are correct.
- Mark
and Josephus are in error.
But there is a third
possibility which the author has neglected to present
- that Josephus is in
error, while Mark is correct! Without
pausing to meditate on this scandalous attempt at
elevating Josephus' works to the same level
of infallible Scripture, let us read the analysis
of mainstream theologian Greg Herrick (Ph.D.), who
concludes that Josephus must
be at fault:
d. Josephus says that John’s baptism was not
for the remission of sins, but was for the purification
of the body due to the fact that the soul was
already purified by the people’s return to righteousness
prior to coming for John’s baptism. The Gospel
writers appear to unanimously indicate that John’s
baptism of repentance was for the remission of
sins and Matthew and Mark state that people were
confessing their sins to John, meaning they had
no previous righteousness per se, at least as
Josephus seems to indicate.
[...]
Point (d) above, where Josephus says that John’s
baptism was for the purification of the body and
not for the remission of sins, seems to be
at odds somewhat with the Gospel accounts. Given
the accuracy of the Gospel accounts, it would
seem that Josephus was not entirely accurate in
what he thought about John’s ministry. Whatever
sources he used, they seem to represent a slightly
different tradition than the Gospel writers. The
fact too, that Jospehus records only general statements
with regards to John’s ethic and the Gospel writers,
on the other hand, record detailed descriptions
of his injunctions, makes me think that the Gospel
writers were privy to the actual details of the
message. Of course, Jospehus was not even born
when John preached, yet the Gospel writers may
have indeed listened to John firsthand.
Full
text available here.
| QUOTE
|
|
As for the phrase, "the filth of the flesh,"
it does not of course mean to say that baptism
isn't for washing--who would think that
it was? Why should Peter have made such a
banal point? |
The objection is easily refuted. It is not mere
washing to
which Peter refers, but ritual cleansing,
of the type that was common under the Law of Moses.
(Remember that the emphasis of Peter's preaching
campaign was largely Jewish; he had been sent to
the Jews, while Paul had been sent to the Gentiles.)
Peter wishes his audience to understand that baptism
is not a return
to the Law - nor even a part of it - but a new ritual
for a new covenant.
Having realised this, we may freely dispense with
the unnecessarily convoluted argument which follows
(by means of which Turkel attempts to prove that
Peter's reference is not literal, but figurative.)
Rather than allowing ourselves to become enmired
in this unhealthy speculation, let us turn instead
to the helpful commentary of our good friend B.
W. Johnson:
21. The like figure whereunto.
Literally, "the antitype now saves us, Baptism."
Says Alford, "Water saved them, bearing up the
ark; it saves us, becoming to us baptism." As
they entered the Ark, we are "baptized into Christ,"
the Savior. See Galatians 3:27.
Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.
Not as a Jewish ceremonial washing, which was
only a purification of the flesh, but it is the
answer of a good conscience. The Revision says,
"the interrogation of a good conscience." "Inquiry"
would be still better. The soul seeking the forgiveness
of sins "inquires" What shall I do to remove the
sense of unforgiven sins and make my conscience
void of offense? The answer is "Repent and
be baptized," etc. See Ac 2:38. He who obeys
the word of the Lord has the "inquiry" answered
in baptism.
Through the resurrection.
Baptism would be meaningless and vain were
it not for the resurrection of Christ. It points
directly to the burial and resurrection of
the Lord. See Romans 6:1-6.
22. Who is on the right hand of God.
Christ's exaltation followed his death and
resurrection. See Eph 1:20-23.
Johnson, B. W. (1891), The People's
New Testament.
Here Johnson presents his most powerful argument
for the salvific efficacy of baptism.
Let us hear it again:
Baptism would be meaningless and vain were
it not for the resurrection of Christ. It points
direction to the burial and resurrection of the
Lord. See Romans 6:1-6.
This argument is utterly devastating to those who
advocate the replacement of water baptism by "spirit
baptism."
Observe the consistency of the symbolism in Romans
6:
Romans 6:3-4.
Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized
into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were buried therefore with him through baptism
unto death: that like as Christ was raised
from the dead through the glory of the Father,
so we also might walk in newness of life.
This is a clear reference to water baptism. "Spirit
baptism" is not
the "baptism" here referred to. How can we be sure?
There are several clues:
- Paul
has used the Greek word baptizo, meaning
"to dip or plunge." Now, is water something
that you can "dip or plunge" people into? Indeed
it is! (But how might we be expected to
"dip or plunge" somebody into the Holy Spirit?)
- We
have already seen that baptism involves dipping
or plunging - for which a literal liquid is
required. (In the case of baptism, this is water.)
Can you "dip or plunge" someone into the Holy
Spirit? No, you cannot. The Holy Spirit is only
ever said to be "poured." This makes
it an "annointing", not a baptism. Now,
if this is what Jesus had meant, he would have
said "annoint them in the name of...
etc." But he doesn't. He says "dip or plunge."
Ergo we require a liquid for baptism
- and that liquid is water.
So the apostle Paul clearly states that the baptism
of which he speaks, is symbolic of death
and resurrection - and only water baptism
can fulfil this typology. But how can we be so sure?
Could "Spirit baptism" ever
fulfil the necessary symbolism of death, burial,
and resurrection?
Let us compare the two:
- Are
there three stages to "Spirit baptism"? (There
are with water baptism.)
- Is
there a stage in which death is represented?
(There is with water baptism.)
- Is
there a stage in which burial is represented?
(There is with water baptism.)
- Is
there a stage in which resurrection is represented?
(There is with water baptism.)
Observe:
- We
descend into the water (death.)
- We
remain under the water for a moment (burial.)
- We
rise from the water (resurrection.)
- None
of this occurs in so-called "Spirit baptism"
- which is why the only baptism by which
we can be "buried with Christ", is water
baptism.
Identification with Christ - his death, burial
and resurrection - is made possible by the two
simple rituals that he instituted. One of these
was the partaking of the memorial emblems - bread
and wine.
The other was water baptism in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for
the remission of sins.
Let
us be very clear about this: the Christadelphian
position is not new. It is, in fact, the original
position of the Christian religion.
The salvific efficacy of baptism was...
- Fully
supported by the Church Fathers.
- Defended
by the Catholic Church throughout her entire
history.
- Confirmed
by Luther and other Protestant Reformers.
- Brilliantly
articulated by such mainstream luminaries as
Johnson, Clarke, Lange, Peake (and many, many
others.)
By contrast, it is Turkel's illogical and legalistic
"you're saved, so you'll want to get baptised"
theology which - with its view of baptism corrupted
by a hopeless misinterpretation of Luther's
soteriology - simply cannot be found before the
reinvention of Christian soteriology by various
theologians in the 19th Century (and subsequently,
the early 20th.)
Turkel has attempted to get a name for himself by
taking on prominent opponents; and of course, I
am flattered to find myself included among this
honoured company. (Turkel would not bother to rebut
me if I posed no threat to his theology.) For my
own part, I have merely chosen to rebut him as an
exercise in Christadelphian apologetics - which
is precisely why I see no need to respond to his
latest effort. There's no meat here; just a
repetition of the same old theme.
Turkel's quoting is deliberately selective,
his arguments frequently dishonest, his approach
to Scripture haphazard, his exegesis amateurish,
and his formal training in the fields in which he
attempts to dabble, totally non-existent (by his
own admission.) It is true that he has a tremendous
supply of evangelical zeal and a well-thumbed library
card - but sadly, these are not good enough for
the job. More refined tools are needed, and Turkel
simply does not possess them.
For a classic example of the high esteem in which
Turkel is held by his many of his fellow Trinitarians,
see here.
Intelligent critiques of his style (and its many
shortcomings) can be found here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
and here.
For the record, I would like to point out that Turkel
himself provided me with most of these links to
atheist Websites. I found the others by following
links on the pages to which Holding referred me.
So for all those Turkel fans out there, please don't
accuse me of trying to "dig up the dirt" on him.
It's simply not true. |
