Greetings -- At a recent area ministers meeting, one of the pulpit ministers related an account that sparked his asking for some help.

A young man (with what sounds like reformed theological background) approaced him and asked his pov re: baptism and salvation. He explained the standard RM pov, and the visitor accused him of being a heretic, having a view of "baptismal regeneration."

Now, I understand that this young man's view would include those of us of the RM background as regenerationists ... with his pov. What we want to discuss at the next meeting is just what baptismal regeneration really is, and how that might affect us in the RM background.

If anyone has any lesson material that could be attached via email, that would be cool. And any thoughts here on the board would help. I can cut-and-paste some stuff to copy and present to the guys at the next meeting.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2001

Answers

Lee.....allow me to "cut and paste" from my post on the "George Bush" thread......

"Calvinistic scholars with any scholarly integrity readily admit, however John, that "because of" is not the most consistent translation of that text. I will look it up for sure....but I believe of the hundreds of times "eis" is used in the N.T.....the number of times it is translated "because of"......is indeed rare.... (we are talking 1 or 2 times.)

In fact, the same construct of Acts 2:38 is also used in Matthew 26:28.....where Jesus during the Last Supper said this concerning the cup...."for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

Now is there anyone here who really wants to suggest that the blood of Jesus was poured out BECAUSE OF THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN??

DBVZ....that's the problem with viewing the Bible through Calvinistic eyeglasses. To quote you directly...."that interpretation is consistent with my views."

That's called the false hermeneutic of reading the Bible "apologetically"...i.e., reading the Bible to support ones views....as opposed to reading the Bible to get ones views.

I'll follow up later with the exact numbers on the translation of "eis."

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

CG White....

You sir....are exactly right....and for the most part have articulated well the Restoration Movement position.

Most noteable is your comment concering baptism as the "appropriation of the gift."

Thank you for your comments.

I will follow up as soon as I can on the numbers of "eis."

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

DBVZ....

You said..."Baptism doesn't save you."

That's interesting in light of 1 Peter 3:21 which states..."And corresponding to that (i.e., the fact that those who were in the ark were saved by passing through water)....BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU..."

Now....do your little "Calvinistic dance" for us on that one.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

And a one two...and a one two...aaaaannnnd....dip!!!

Or should I say....plunge or immerse!!

Again DBVZ.....I really don't care "what you read" when you see baptism. I'm more interested in what the people of the first century saw.

Question DBVZ....if God is ultimately responsible for the gift of faith.....is He ultimately responsible for sending people to hell??

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

Christ only set one condition for salvation :

4) Jesus may not have lived a "perfect "(sinless) life. Matt 19:16 Now behold, one came to Him. "Good teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life ?" (17) So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good ? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the ten commandments ."

While this is not an EXPLICIT denial , of His own perfection , it makes room for legitimate inquiry . I mean , He could have simply let the remark pass . But, He didn't . HE pointed it out . Interesting .

I THINK it is not possible to be both human AND good. I THINK that is His point . Other bibles quote Him as saying , " How DARE you call Me GOOD ! !"

All other conditions of salvation have been tacked on by organized denominations of religions (men) .

Full article : (copy and paste link) http://www.themestream.com/articles/72309.html or, if it works , clic link Christianity - Misconceptions

-----russ

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Excuuuuuuuse Me! I think I hear the theme song for the Twilight Zone playing somewhere in the background. What in the world does that post have to do with the original question?

Darrell

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

From the George Bush thread. Are you saying that the concerns whether immersion baptism is what saves? See the comments below.

Mr. Allen, I repost from above: In fact, some of the respondents to the current question would apparently not accept Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, Raccoon John Smith, and Walter Scott as Christians. A. Campbell led us to the discovery that baptism is for the remission of sins, but many of his theological benefactors--including writers in this forum-- would apply the doctrine in such a way as did Dr. Thomas of Virginia in Campbell's day. Regarding such an application, Campbell wrote that any who take such a restrictive view of baptism have abandoned the principles of the movement.

-- C. Ermal Allen (ErmalAllen@juno.com), January 30, 2001.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What you say is so true. I've read short accounts by some of these men and they were in no way as restrictive as some on this forum.

Sad. They are teaching something that the founders didn't teach.

In Christ,

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), January 30, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

C. Ermal Allen, What would the Campbells have said about the idea that if someone is baptized in the name of Jesus with faith in Christ, he cannot be saved unless he believes that baptism remits his sins?

There seem to be two RM views, at least- one that those who have faith in Christ and are baptized (by immersion) can be saved. Another is that one must believe his baptism saves him in order to be saved in additionto the above. What would the Campbells and Sone have said about this.

-- Link Hudson (LinkH@bigfoot.com), January 30, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Link, regarding your posting, dated January 30, in which you asked what the Campbells and Stone would have said about (the matter you raised) -- First, although it's nice to be able to claim that some of the "bigwigs" of the Movement held the same position you do, in my opinion, and probably that of most of the other "RM" people in this forum, what really matters is NOT what Campbell and other "Founding Fathers" of the "RM" taught, but what the Bible teaches.

Second, you really shouldn't be surprised that there are two views on this matter -- or a number of other important matters. We are NOT a denomination, and we have "no creed but Christ; no book but the Bible." Although there is a broad consensus on a number of important issues (especially, it seems, issues where we tend to differ from "other Evangelicals"), there is no one at all who can decide what the "RM position" is, or can "speak for the Movement" in defining doctrine. Although you might feel that we are very "closed" - - mainly because most of us don't agree with some of your positions -- historically, our movement has included a much broader spectrum of different opinions on a wide variety of different topics than most other "movements" and "denominations."

That may be one reason why some of the discussions in this forum get so heated. We have no one to "lay down the law" and say "this is our official position" -- all we have, when we think something is important but people don't agree with us, is the force of persuasion through logical arguments based on the Scriptures.

We are also not the only ones to find it hard to FULLY accept people whose views on certain key issues differ too widely from our own. If I'm remembering correctly from my "Restoration History" class, though the Campbells eventually came to positions that took them out of the existing denomations and into a new "non-denominational" movement, initially it was the Presbyterians and the Baptists who kicked them out because they (the Presbyterians and Baptists) couldn't tolerate the Campbells' "inclusive" (rather than "exclusive") view of what it meant to be a Christian.

As a personal example, I have been a member of the Hong Kong Evangelical Fellowship for more than 20 years, and was its Chairman for about 5 years (2 years and then later 3). I did this with a clear conscience, as did a couple of other of "our" missionaries, though some others chose not to, for reasons I never asked. However, we had some good friends who were Baptist missionaries, and their mission would not allow them to join HKEF or any other co-operative organisations or endeavours.

My primary allegiance is to Jesus Christ, but I also bear a certain allegiance to this movement (as long as it follows Christ). There are a lot of reasons for my feeling this way, but probably chief among them is the fact that I believe in the ideals of the movement, including that of testing all beliefs and practices not by "the historical position of the RM", but by Scripture itself.

-- Benjamin Rees (rees@hkstandard.com), February 02, 2001.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

So , Hey Darrel ! ! (opening poster) AREN'T YOU GLAD YOU ASKED ! ? ! ?

Christianity - Misconceptions

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

I was surprised to see something from me posted in this thread. I had thought about submitting something, but didn't think I had yet -- and didn't think that the above posting was particularly relevant to the question asked. On closer examination, I see that DBVZ has simply copied it over from another thread. I wonder why, since none of what he copied over seems relevant.

I have been accused a couple of times, in conversations with various people, of believing in "baptismal regeneration". The first time, I was taken aback and didn't know how to answer. I'd always heard the term used in a negative sense, as something the Roman Catholics and perhaps some cults believe, but not as something that anyone who was a true Bible believer would seriously contemplate. Yet when I reflected on the words, taken at "face value", so to speak, and in view of this person's accusation that this is what I believed, it did seem as though the term MIGHT be applicable to our position. This prompted me to do further study -- and I am still studying -- not only on what the term "baptismal regeneration" means, but also just what the Scriptures teach about baptism and what it does, and how this fits in with other doctrines about salvation by faith and not by works, and with the teachings of other churches on the matter.

"Baptismal Regeneration" is actually a pretty "slippery" term, which means different things to different people. Rather than argue with someone on whether or not we believe in "baptismal regeneration", I'd much rather talk to them about our respective understandings of how salvation is achieved and what part the Bible teaches that baptism plays in this process.

If you are interested in knowing more about various interpretations of this term and various positions on what baptism "does", I'd recommend the classic 1939 edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, if you can get hold of it. There are three lengthy articles on "Baptism" itself -- giving "The Baptist Interpretation", a "Non-Immersionist View", and the "Lutheran Doctrine". This is followed by another lengthy article, specifically on "Baptismal Regeneration", which has a general introduction, followed by sections on "Anglican (High Church) Doctrine" and "Lutheran Doctrine." The introduction also refers to yet another lengthy article on "Sacraments." Interestingly, ALL of these articles and sections of articles (including the High Church Anglican view) are very careful to say that baptism, IN AND OF ITSELF, does not save -- or "regenerate" -- but only as it is associated with faith. Some, however, are willing to state that in their view regeneration is "associated with" baptism, while others try to separate the two completely.

By the way, in my experience, the accusation that we believe in "baptismal regeneration" is almost always made either by those who are simply ignorant about what our position really is, or by those who have the most extreme positions on salvation by "faith ALONE", to the exclusion of ANY human act -- or even human decision! The most rabid defenders of that position are often extreme Calvinists (like DBVZ), whose theology cannot entertain the idea that faith must be put into practice in order to be "saving faith", since, in their theology even the decision to believe cannot be made by man: the "election" is up to God alone. Interestingly, judging from some things I've read, Calvin himself seems to have believed that baptism was necessary for salvation -- he simply believed that only "the elect" would do it. His followers are sometimes more extreme (or more consistent? -- but misguidedly so) than he was himself.

For a final, and totally irrelevant, P.S., I recommend taking a look at Russ Connor's website -- but only if you have a good sense of humour!! I don't think I've seen such ludicrous "proof texting" except, perhaps, a time or two in jest! Perhaps he's not serious either, though, if he isn't, he does a good job of appearing serious.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Benjamine Rees,

I copied the material because it seemed to center around this point:

"There seem to be two RM views, at least- one that those who have faith in Christ and are baptized (by immersion) can be saved. Another is that one must believe his baptism saves him in order to be saved in additionto the above. What would the Campbells and Sone have said about this.

-- Link Hudson (LinkH@bigfoot.com), January 30, 2001."

Your response to that point was a reasonable position, and I must say your explanation of the RM position on most issues is usually more reasoned than some of the others.

As for your criticism of me as an extreme Calvinist, thank you. I am a very committed Calvinist. However, you misstate the position we take on faith, and putting it into practice. We certainly agree that faith must be put into practice, and if it is not lived it is evidence it is not real. Humans are not in a position to judget the heart of another, but it is quite clear that those who say "Lord, Lord" but do not obey are not true Christians and have not been given true faith. Faith without works is dead, actually means that true faith necessarilly results in living in obedience.

The issues are: Where does true faith come from? If it comes from God, as Calvinists believe, then who can resist the Holy Spirit in that work? If none can resist that God calls to himself, then can any be lost once they have been given true faith by God? If none can be lost that have true faith, what else is NECESSARY for someone to be saved? We have no disagreement that obidience is required, and a necessary consequence of salvation. The disagreement we have is on the point where salvation is assured. It is an important disagreement.

The most important consequence of this issue is that for a Calvinist, the assurance of salvation is entirely in God's hands. We can't lose it by some human error in the translation of a text, or by some misinterpretation of biblical truth. Obedience is required, but that is not a condition of salvation. It is the consequence of salvation. Obedience is not expected to be perfect. That is what salvation is all about. Obedience is not a part of what saves us. It is a part of what Christians do in service to God and in gratitude for the salvation freely given by God to those he has chosen.

The concern I have stated several times about the RM position on immersion baptism, is that the physical actions of baptism done by the humans involved are placed on the same level with the act of God in bringing them to a true faith. You seem to believe that if the humans get it wrong somehow, by misinterpretation or by reading a translation that is unclear, humans can cause salvation to be lost. They don't need to be knowingly disobedient. They may just understand the requirements of obedience a little differently, and if they don't get it "right" according to the RM interpretation they are not saved. No matter how I work through the issue, that seems to be clearly a works based condition on salvation, that the bible was very clear to reject.

The issue of how baptism ought to be done is the clearest example of how this disagreement works itself out in the lives of Christians. If Salvation is through faith, the gift of God, and obedience follows; then the manner of baptism is less important than being obedient in submitting to baptism. Getting the manner exactly right is not a matter on which my salvation depends. It is something I try to get right in obedience and gratitude for the salvation I already have by the act of God in giving me faith through the work of the Holy Spirit. If you are correct, and those of us who have not been baptized by immersion did "get it wrong", and even if getting it wrong in some details were a sin; we can ask for forgiveness for whatever we may have done that is contrary to the will of God and trust in the finished work of Christ and his sacrifice on the cross to be sufficient for ALL my sin.

I believe that more clearly states the Calvinist position.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

Benjamin: For a final, and totally irrelevant, P.S., I recommend taking a look at Russ Connor's website -- but only if you have a good sense of humour!! I don't think I've seen such ludicrous "proof texting" except, perhaps, a time or two in jest! Perhaps he's not serious either, though, if he isn't, he does a good job of appearing serious.

Thanks for the plug ; glad You got a laugh or two .

But . . . I am serious . Read the words of the bible ; look around ; think . Read what Christ said ; read what He did . - - Look at what He didn't . . . SAY and DO. Christ was baptised . Doesn't mean You have to be . He never baptised anyone , nor did He ever instruct anyone to be baptised . "Go and sin no more." , "Follow the ten commandments." , "Give all that you have to the poor and follow me ." , " Believe on me .", "For those who believe that You sent me ."

Christ went to the cross . Doesn't mean You have to . - - Although , ya know , I think maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if being crucified was part of the curriculum of Theological courses . Like , part of the 'Graduation Ceremony' , you know . One little Phillipino guy has been crucified every easter for the past twenty years . He does it because , twenty-odd years ago , he cut a deal with God to heal his wife . - - - Talk about OVERKILL ! !

I find ALL ministries today the same as they were in Christ's time , where He said something to the effect that , "Your traditions void the will of God ."

But , as you rightly point out , I got a lot of goofy ideas . Unanswered Prayers

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

P.S.

Romans and Galatians, etc. are all of help on these issues; but perhaps John 10:25-30 is most interesting since the words of Jesus are recorded.

Why do the jews, and any unbeliever, not believe? "because you are not my sheep."(26)

Who are his sheep? "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all..."(29)

Can any be lost who are his sheep? "no one can snatch them out of my hand."(28) and "no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."(29-30)

What do his sheep do? "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."(27)

So I ask you, do the sheep decide who they belong to, or does God? Do we obey in order to become his sheep, or do we obey because we are his sheep? If we are his sheep as determined by the Father, can anything change that? At least half of the central points of Calvinism are found in these few verses. As I noted before, they are reinforced throughtout the Bible. I am not a Calvinist because I believe in Calvin. I am a Calvinist because it is a shothand way of stating that I believe in an accurate presentation of the truth of the Bible.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

russ conner wrote, "... nor did He ever instruct anyone to be baptised."

What then is the Great Commission all about? "Go ... and make disciples ... baptizing them." Sounds like an instruction to baptize to me.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Thanks, John . Now that you say it , it rings a bell somewhere in my head .

Where is it ? I'd like to go read it. ----thx , russ

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

DBVZ,

I don't think I mis-stated your position. I never said that you would not believe that baptism is good or even "necessary". What I said was that your "theology cannot entertain the idea that faith must be put into practice in order to be 'saving faith', since, in [your] theology even the decision to believe cannot be made by man: the 'election' is up to God alone." The key is in the clause "faith must be put into practice in order to be 'saving faith.'"

What I've always understood from you and other Calvinists I have talked to -- and what you confirm again in what you said in your last couple of postings -- is that you view baptism as an act of "obedience" that occurs AFTER someone is already saved, and therefore is, at best, one piece of evidence that the person HAS ALREADY BEEN SAVED, rather than, as most of "us" view it, a God-given condition for salvation.

I initially wrote "one of the conditions" for salvation, but that is misleading. I think God has ALWAYS (in both O.T. and N.T.) required ONE thing for salvation, and that is FAITH. But it is faith that is not mere mental assent, nor is it some kind of fuzzy warm feeling of closeness to God, but it is the faith to step out and DO what God commands. It includes a DECISION (repentance), finds its initial "test" in a one-time act of obedience (immersion), and proceeds to a life of trust and continued obedience.

I'm really surprised that you, as a Calvinist, would raise the particular objection that you do to our emphasis on "baptism" by immersion (a tautology, since "baptise" means "immerse", but perhaps necessary for clarity).

You said, "You seem to believe that if the humans get it wrong somehow, by misinterpretation or by reading a translation that is unclear, humans can cause salvation to be lost. They don't need to be knowingly disobedient. They may just understand the requirements of obedience a little differently, and if they don't get it 'right' according to the RM interpretation they are not saved. No matter how I work through the issue, that seems to be clearly a works based condition on salvation, that the bible was very clear to reject."

Even if that were an accurate portrayal of the totality of "our position" (which for me it isn't), what makes that any more arbitrary or unfair than the Calvinistic position that God alone unilaterally selects some individuals to be saved AND SOME TO BE LOST, irrespective, not only of what "method of baptism" they choose, but also irrespective of any decision, wish, or desire on the part of the individual person?

Out of curiosity, how do you deal with the common question/objection: "What about those who haven't heard?"

Calvinism is extremely logical, but is it Biblical? It puts together, in a logical "system", a number of "proof texts." But the same can be said of most cults. Most are very logical, and most are based firmly on the APPARENT meaning of a few texts. But Scripture must be understood IN ITS ENTIRETY, because many passages are only dealing with one aspect of a situation, and they need to be taken together with other passages that tell us the other aspects.

ALL of the "proofs" of Calvinism turn out not to mean what Calvin and Calvinists say they mean when you examine them in the light of the Bible as a whole. Many fall apart when you look merely at the immediate context. Take, for example, the verses you quote from John 10. Taken at face value, they SEEM to say that the non-believing Jews could not believe because God had not given that "gift" to them. But look down at verses 37 and 38, which are part of the same incident.

Jesus: "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the evidence of the miracles ...." (NIV).

Here he calls them to believe in him because of the evidence -- an instruction that would be pointless and cruelly misleading (indeed, impossible) if ONLY those to whom faith was given were capable of believing and none to whom faith was given were capable of resisting. You mentioned Romans as a book that supports the Calvinist point of view. Where does Romans 10 say that faith comes from? "Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (vs. 17, NIV). The following chapter, chapter 11, is VERY damaging to the Calvinist point of view.

In John 10:38, Jesus continues, "... even though you do not believe me, believe the evidence of the miracles, that you may learn and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (NIV).

Here he says that *IF* they choose to believe the evidence of the miracles, they will then "learn and understand ...." The whole thing is something like a spiral -- upwards or downwards. If we exercise the free will God gives us to choose to believe, on the basis of the evidence He also gives us, we find that the more we exercise our faith in obedience and in CONTINUING to "hear" His voice (N.B. "listen" or "hear" in John 10:27 has a continuous or "durative" meaning in Greek), the more we become enlightened. The more we refuse to believe, the more we are "hardened" or "darkened in understanding" and the harder it is to believe.

We shouldn't be surprised at this. It happens even with mundane things. Witness the long debate between Danny and me in the "Second Amendment" thread. I doubt if either of us will change the other's mind because we have different preconceptions, which in turn cause the "evidence" we have each presented to mean something different to the one hearing than to the one presenting it.

If that is true with this sort of thing, how much more true is it going to be regarding belief in Christ, where (I believe, notwithstanding Lee Saffold's different views) we Christians have the assistance of the Holy Spirit, while incorrigible unbelievers may find their hearts "strengthened", like Pharaoh's, to resist even more forcefully what they had already decided to resist anyway.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Benjamin Rees, you wrote, "I initially wrote "one of the conditions" for salvation, but that is misleading. I think God has ALWAYS (in both O.T. and N.T.) required ONE thing for salvation, and that is FAITH. But it is faith that is not mere mental assent, nor is it some kind of fuzzy warm feeling of closeness to God, but it is the faith to step out and DO what God commands. It includes a DECISION (repentance), finds its initial "test" in a one-time act of obedience (immersion), and proceeds to a life of trust and continued obedience."

We are so close to agreement on this, but yet so far apart on what it means. I agree with almost every word of your statement, but as I indicated I disagree on the biblical teaching on the point at which salvation is assured, and the nature of obedience in baptism and the "life of trust and continued obedience."

I also fully agree with you that biblical proof must take the totality of the Bible into account, and that is precisely why I believe calvinism is an accurate presentation of the gospel. It DOES take into account the entire scripture, and the nature of God as he has revealed himself, and the logic of the situations and examples presented. Even you admit that calvinism is extremmely logical.

You asked why I, as a calvinist, object to your position on immersion. It is actually quite simple. It conflicts with some basic principles and understandings of the nature of the transaction that is the heart of salvation. It actually conflicts with just about all of TULIP, explained in more detail in the Conons of Dort. Total depravity, man can not choose to turn to God unless God is first at work within through the Holy Spirit. Unconditional election, God has chosen those he will save from before the creation of the universe. Limited atonement, only those elect unto salvation have had their sins paid for on the cross. Irresistable grace, once God draws his elect to him they are powerless to resist. Perseverance of the saints, those that are saved will end up in heaven. When your theology leaves humans in charge of the critical action that results in salvation, you have a situation that is inconsistent with T, U, I and P.

As for why the RM position is less acceptable than the elect being forced ito eternal bliss by soverign election, I guess I never considered the alternative as in any way attractive. We all deserve eternal damnation. As one who believes in God and the saving work of Christ, I am just living in gratitude and service for being saved from that fate. Other options, including the RM position, infringe on the soverignty of the creator of the universe and are in conflict with the Word of God regarding election unto salvation.

As for those who have not heard, that is no real objection. As I noted before, we all deserve damnation. Every one. Those who remian condemed for their sins can't complain that God is unfair in a penalty they deserve. Those who are saved certainly ought to be grateful, rather than critical. Several of the parables are about how God is entitled to reward those he has chosen to reward.

As for John 10: 37-38, it is in the same conversation but on another point. He is speaking of why they ought to believe he is the son of God, since he has shown them by his actions. That does not conflict with 26 where it is clear they are not his sheep. It is also written that the demons believe, but are not saved by that acknowledgement.

As for Romans and Galations, all I can say is you need to read the whole of the books. It is getting late and I will get back to this again tomorrow; but it is very clear throughout these books that no condition can be placed on salvation but faith, and that is the gift of God. I will finish that thought when I have more time.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2001

Back again:

As I said, your position on baptism conflicts with T, U, I and P. So what should we believe about these points? Just a few texts on the subject may help, but these are by no means the only "proof texts" on these points.

Total depravity is addressed in several places including Rom. 3:19, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23.

Unconditional election is addressed in several places including Eph. 1:4-6, Rom. 8:30, Eph. 2:10,Rom. 9:11-13, Acts 13:48, Rom. 11:7.

I will pass over Limited atonement for now, though it is closely related to the above.

Irresistable grace is also related, and addressed in several places including Matthew 24:24, John 6:39, Rom. 8:30.

Perseverance of the saits is addressed in several places including, John 10:25-30, Rom. 8:35,I Cor. 1:8, Rom 5:8-9, John 5:16-18 (regarding sin against the Holy Spirit), Rom. 8:39, 1 John 3:24, 1John 3:2-3, 1Peter 1:23

You wrote about Romans 10 and 11, but missed the point entirely. Certainly we are told to bring the gospel message, but look at Rom 10:18-21. The message does not result in faith IN EVERY ONE THAT HEARS IT. True faith results in those who hear, and are also elect unto salvation. We are back to John 10 again. They heard Jesus, but they were not his sheep. In Rom. 11:4-8, it is clear that among the chosen people only those selected by God did not bow the knee to Baal, and that "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so they could not see and ears so they could not hear." He left them in their sin, since they were not the elect. In Rom. 11:28, it is clear that Israel is still God's chosen people. This seems to indicate that at some point the Hebrews will be saved, but we are not given an explanation of how or when but only that, "as far as election is concerned they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." None of that conflicts with the calvinist position on anything.

You seem to be confusing instruction on what we are to do, as our charge here on earth, with what God has done in his eternal good pleasure in the election of his people. We are instructed to bring the message, but God has already determined those he will cause to respond and be saved. In fact, from the point of view of God (if I can presume to immagine it) it already is. He is the creator of time itself, and can not be understood to have the same limits we do of seeing history unfold moment by moment. Those he has chosen will end up in heaven.

I have already commented on how your position on the additional condition of obedience in baptism conflicts with that. I agree baptism is required, but required as a consequence of salvation and not a condition of salvation. If man can change the outcome by "gettng it wrong", even if a believer has been given a true faith by the Holy Spirit, it is contrary to everything I know to be true about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2001

Some final comments about Romans:

This is a book intended to present the essentials of the gospel to the church at Rome. Does it bother you that the only mention of baptism is in chapter 6; and even then it is the context of rejecting sin, being dead to the lusts and sins of the flesh? It is not in the context of salvation, but of the life of obedience that follows.

In every place where salvation is summarized, it is conditioned on faith alone throughout the book. See Rom. 3:21-31, Rom. 4 (all), Rom. 1:17, Rom. 5:etc. Baptism isn't even mentioned.

Did you notice that in the section on Abraham, the issue of faith is desribed in relationship to circumcision? In Rom. 4:9-12 it is clear that his faith was creditied as righteousness before circumcision; and baptism is the NT sign and seal of the new covenant. Faith, not the obedience that must result, are the central issue that will produce salvation.

As for those not selected for salvation, Romans very clearly dismisses that arguement in chaper 9, particularly 18-21. If you read nothing else, read Rom. 9:18, "Therefor God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." and v.20 "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it 'Why did you make me like this?'"

The essentials of salvation are clearly taught, and faith is the only essential.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2001

DBVZ,

I DID NOT ASK "why [you], as a calvinist, object to [our] position on immersion"! I have studied enough about Calvinism and argued with enough Calvinists (including you) to understand that pretty well.

What I actually said was, "I'm really surprised that you, as a Calvinist, WOULD RAISE THE PARTICULAR OBJECTION THAT YOU DO to our emphasis on 'baptism' by immersion (a tautology, since 'baptise' means 'immerse', but perhaps necessary for clarity)."

In case you have forgotten what you said, it was, "You seem to believe that if the humans get it wrong somehow, by misinterpretation or by reading a translation that is unclear, humans can cause salvation to be lost. They don't need to be knowingly disobedient. They may just understand the requirements of obedience a little differently, and if they don't get it 'right' according to the RM interpretation they are not saved. No matter how I work through the issue, that seems to be clearly a works based condition on salvation, that the bible was very clear to reject."

If you can believe that God is so arbitrary that he selects a few to be saved and most to be lost, based on nothing at all apart from what amounts to a celestial throw of the dice, giving the pre-selected ones what they need to be saved and refusing it to everyone else, then WHY should the idea that baptism -- and a particular "method" of baptism -- is part of the same package, be so unpalatable? After all, if you are correct, requiring (but at the same time causing) people to be immersed is no more or less meaningful than requiring (but simultaneously causing) them to have faith. Your above argument loses all its meaning in the light of your own theology.

I said that Calvinism is extremely logical. I should have qualified that. It is extremely logical as long as it remains a closed system. It is logical within itself. It becomes extremely illogical when it attempts to deal with those scripture passages that plainly contradict it!

Also, even though my theology is based on the Bible, rather than on human experience per se (since what we perceive or deduce about our experience may be flawed), I also find the way I understand the relevant Bible passages to be much more true to human experience than Calvinism, which basically hss to deny or re-interpet so much of what we commonly understand about belief, trust, decision making, will, etc.

You keep telling us that faith is a gift of God, and that we can only have faith in God if God gives us this gift. A great deal of the weight in your Calvinistic house of cards rests on this point. But where do you find this in the Bible?

I know of a few verses that talk IN THE CONTEXT OF A DISCUSSION OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS about a gift of faith or about faith being "given" or of doing things according to the measure of faith we are given (e.g. I Cor. 12:1-11; 13:2; Rom. 12:3, 6). However, these do not seem to be talking about "saving faith", since in these passages faith is one gift of many -- unless you want to argue that the other people, with these other gifts, were able to have and use spiritual gifts but were not saved because they had DIFFERENT gifts and not this one.

That leaves us with basically one passage, and since one or two of your statements have been near quotations of this verse, I assume it is the one you mean. It is Eph. 2:8: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast."

As this is rendered in most English translations* it is ambiguous as to what the "gift of God" is, and while it COULD conceivably be taken to be faith that is the gift from God, I don't think this is the "natural" sense, even of the English, i.e. the sense in which most people would understand it when first exposed to it. I personally was very surprised when I first heard this view. But IN ENGLISH it COULD be read this way.

Not so in Greek. First, there is no "it" (or even "is") in "it is the gift of God. That clause simply reads "of God the gift**." What the gift is refers back to the "this" of the previous clause, "THIS not out of yourselves." Just realising this point makes it seem, to me anyway, less likely that the "gift" could be faith, but a further point makes that identification grammatically impossible. Greek nouns and pronouns have not only number, like English ones, but also gender, and a pronoun must agree, in both number and gender, with the thing it refers to. The "this" in this verse is neuter, while "faith" is female. Whatever the gift is, it cannot be faith. Unfortunately for anyone trying to be too dogmatic about this point, the same applies to the two most likely alternatives: "grace" and "salvation." They too are feminine. Paul may simply be anticipating the "gift" in the next clause, since the Greek word for "gift" is neuter -- but that doesn't help in identifying what the gift is.

What seems most likely is that the "this", which is not of yourselves but is the gift of God, refers to the whole "package" of "salvation by grace through faith and not through works."

(*Kenneth Taylor's "Living Bible" paraphrase renders it explicitly as faith: "Because of His kindness you have been saved through trusting Christ. And even trusting is not of yourselves: it too is a gift of God." But in this he is explaining his theology, rather than really translating what the verse SAYS. The "Amplified Bible" renders it explicitly otherwise: "For it is by free grace (God's unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ's salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves -- of your own doing. It comes not through your own striving -- but it is the gift of God.")

(**One commentator (Francis Foulkes, in the Tyndale commentary series, published by Eerdmans, 1963, 1978) suggests that the best way to translate the "gift" clause would be "God's is the gift." The whole verse would then read something like this: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves -- God's is the gift -- not by works, so that no one can boast.")

SO .... WHERE do you get your frequent and dogmatic assertion from that faith itself is a "gift" and that we cannot have faith unless it is "given" to us? While the Bible does show that those who REFUSE to accept the evidence and believe will gradually be hardened until they find it impossible to believe, the general teaching is that faith comes from hearing the word of God, and is based on evidence. IF one cannot believe without being given faith as a gift, and cannot believe if one has not been given this gift, then evidence is even more irrelevant than baptism.

There is a lot more I could say -- every one of the five pillars of Calvinism has similar flaws and is contradicted by plain Bible teaching -- but this is long already and is probably more than enough for one sitting.

Sorry, Darrell, that we seem to have strayed from the immediate question about baptismal regeneration per se, but this is the way these discussions often go, and at least this is somewhat related, which is more than what sometimes happens.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Benjamin,

No time to respond in detail, but I will begin. You wrote, "You keep telling us that faith is a gift of God, and that we can only have faith in God if God gives us this gift. A great deal of the weight in your Calvinistic house of cards rests on this point. But where do you find this in the Bible?" The short answer is everywhere, paricularly in most of Romans. I note you did not respond to most of what I wrote, but have picked on one point to dispute. While your comments on the interpretation of Eph 2:8 is of interest, that is just one place the fact that salvation is the gift of God, and faith is the means used to give that gift, is stated on one way or another.

You close by stating that the other points of calvinism are similarly flawed, when you have not pointed to any flaw at all. You seem to have asserved you do not accept that faith is the gift of God, but even that is not clear from your comments.

As for what is wrong with the stating baptism as a condition of salvation, as compared with the soverign election of God, I have already covered that in detail above. Read Romans 9, to discover why the soverign election of God is true; and why we have no right to dispute with God on his selection of who will be saved. As for why that is acceptable, and a condition of baptism is not; God's soverignty is biblical and true, and baptism as a condition of salvation is not biblical and untrue.

Baptism is a requirement, but it is an obligation of obedience after salvation through faith. In every verse you can use to justify baptism as a requirement for salvation, it can be read in just that way every time. First comes faith, which enables you to trust God for your salvation through Christ. A real baptism can not occur without that. Without faith the baptism is no more than a bath. With faith, it has meaning as obedience.

More later when I have more time.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

See, I gots this one problem. Say a guy has a particular aversion to water. Maybe a physical problem or fear so great that even a splashing on the forehead sends him awry or inflicts great emotional pain. Can such a guy enter into heaven?

I know this question sounds silly, but I think it is valid.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

These two, in the end , are just funny. They remind me of two puppies in the yard , each with one end of a washcloth in their mouths.

Neither is 100 % right, and only one thing is sure : when they get through , the winner will carry away a rag .

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

"dodgedillon" --

IS IT a valid question? Do you KNOW personally of any ACTUAL cases like the ones you describe, or are these only hypothetical?

I do know of actual cases where people were very afraid of being submerged in water, but prayed to God to help them and then went through with it -- without problems or panic attacks. I even immersed someone like this myself, although she didn't tell me the problem until AFTERWARDS. Then she confessed that she had been extremely fearful, but felt she had to do it, did, and found it wasn't bad at all.

I don't have first-hand experience with people with medical problems, etc., but I've known others who have. In some cases people prayed for them to recover enough to be allowed to be immersed -- and they did and were. In other cases they were immersed "against doctor's orders" -- sometimes even lowered into the water in wheelchairs or on stretchers. Although I've heard of numerous cases like this, I've never heard of anyone suffering harm from being immersed in obedience to the commands in the Bible.

IF it ever were actually IMPOSSIBLE to immerse someone because of medical (or psychological) reasons, my own belief is that God would understand and take the situation into account. I have personally known of one or two cases (not a lot of cases -- really just one or two in my whole life!) where someone decided to have faith in Christ on his deathbed, and would have been immersed except that he died before it was possible. In such cases, I don't think there is a clear Biblical promise that such a person will be saved, but I personally think it would be consistent with God's nature, as shown in other situations in the Bible, for Him to make an exception to the general rule, for such people as these.

DBVZ,

You said, "I note you did not respond to most of what I wrote, but have picked on one point to dispute. ...."

You wrote three lengthy submissions, which, printed out, would take several pages. I feel I actually responded to TWO points you have made, but I won't quibble. To have responded to everything you said would have taken more time than I had. I'm willing to deal with more, but it will have to be in pieces, because I simply don't have time to do it all in one sitting. (In fact, it will probably be spread out over several weeks, since I doubt if I have time to do it all in one week.)

You also unfairly took one thing I said completely out of context to make it appear as though I am not able or not willing to back up what I said. You said, "You close by stating that the other points of calvinism are similarly flawed, when you have not pointed to any flaw at all."

What I said, in full, was "There is a lot more I could say -- every one of the five pillars of Calvinism has similar flaws and is contradicted by plain Bible teaching -- but this is long already and is probably more than enough for one sitting." It was to say, in effect, "sorry I don't have time to debate every point in one sitting, but there's more to come."

I don't know how long it is worth pursuing this discussion, since I don't know how open you are to changing your views if a contrary position is proven. I'm willing to stick with it for awhile, as long as the discussion remains civil and seems to be going somewhere. But it will take time.

How long? I don't know. On my shelves I have two whole books dealing with evidence contrary to the Calvinistic position on unconditional election, and another whole book (which I've just finished reading) dealing just with evidence contrary to the Calvinistic position on eternal security. (I also have a similar number of even thicker books, plus several pamphlets, supporting Calvinism, so my library and my reading is not all one-sided. Can you say the same?)

I don't think I have time THIS YEAR to go into things in that much depth, but I will stick with it for a reasonable time. So don't talk as though I can't answer your case just because I haven't answered EVERY point of yours in one sitting.

Speaking of not responding to things the other party has said, you STILL haven't given a specific answer to my question about why you find it so objectionable that we believe that the "method" of "baptism" is important, when someone who truly believes might theoretically choose the "wrong method" and therefore might theoretically miss out on salvation. I asked why you would find this so objectionable, when your own view makes God even more arbitrary in his actions, not just deciding how our faith is to be demonstrated but choosing who is able to believe and who isn't.

I've asked this twice now, and each time you have responded with OTHER reasons why you do not accept our belief that immersion is necessary for salvation (most of which I had already anticipated in what I said), but you have NOT yet dealt with this particular question. Do you now withdraw that particular objection -- you can still hang onto your other objections, of course -- or are you willing to explain yourself?

You also said, "You seem to have asserved [? -- sic] you do not accept that faith is the gift of God, but even that is not clear from your comments."

One of the most fundamental principles of hermeneutics is that all words should be understood according to their normal meanings in normal useage unless there is compelling evidence in the text itself that the intended meaning is different to that. In that case, we understand it according to the meaning given in the text.

How do we normally use the words "faith", "believe", etc.? For now I won't try to distinguish between noun and verb and the many related words and phrases we use in English -- faith, belief, believe, have faith, trust, trust in, etc. -- the spectrum of meanings covered by these words seem equivalent to the Greek verb PISTEUO and the noun PISTIS.

We normally use these English words in two different but related senses, and Greek lexicons and the way the words are actually used in the New Testament show us that the same is true of Greek.

(1) A belief that a fact is so. This may be something we just take for granted as a "given", or it may be a conclusion that we have reached after due consideration, but we believe (or we may even say that we "know") that such is the case. This is the sense in which the demons are said to "believe -- and tremble" (James 2:19). Usually we "believe" in this sense because we think the "facts" support our belief. When we have come to a particular belief after "due consideration", it is usually based on "evidence" and/or reason and logic. The Bible often talks about faith coming out of what one has been told or out of evidence that has been demonstrated. See, for example, Romans 10:14-17; John 6:38; John 20:30-31, Luke 1:4, to name only a few such passages.

(2) Trust that arises out of our belief in certain facts. Because we believe that some person or thing is trustworthy, we "put our trust" in that person or thing. This kind of faith also is based on evidence (see the same passages as above). This kind of belief or "faith" is also commonly demonstrated (see, for example, Hebrews 11 and James 1 and 2). When it is not demonstrated by actions we commonly feel there are reasons for doubt that this "faith" really exists.

One thing both these aspects of belief/faith have in common (besides the fact that one arises out of the other) is that they are both considered, in normal usage, to be a matter of free will. You can "believe it or not." In fact, in normal usage, one thing we do NOT include in our definitions of faith is any idea of coercion. In fact this is often specifically denied. "You may force me to DO this or that, but you CAN'T make me BELIEVE such and such."

Calvinism turns the normal usage of these words on its head -- and without good reason in the Scripture! We normally speak of belief/faith as something that is based on perception and on evidence -- and the Bible tells us that faith is based on what is heard, and on the preaching of the gospel, and are told that evidence has been given so that we can believe, and are exhorted to accept the evidence. We think of the "trust" aspect of faith as being something that we have a choice about -- to trust or to withhold trust -- and the Bible exhorts people to put their faith in Christ and to trust in him.

All this evidence, and all these exhortations to examine the evidence and to put our faith in Christ are not only irrelevant but cruelly misleading if, contrary to the normal understanding of the word, we have no choice whether or not to believe, but simply have "faith" inserted into some -- so that some have no choice but to believe, while others have no choice but to not believe, regardless of the evidence or the exhortations.

It is true that there are some passages that talk about faith being strengthened, or of some people having an extra measure of faith, while others are "hardened", etc. But most, if not all, of the same passages that speak of being hardened also include exhortations to believe, to not be like those who were hardened, etc. Why exhort them in this way if they have no choice in the matter? I'd give references, but I'm rapidly running out of time again. Maybe next time. However, you can find them easily yourself by looking at the context of any of the proof texts you have offered to show that God has unilaterally chosen some for salvation and some for damnation.

Anyway, I don't see any incompatibility with the concept of free will in the idea that God may strengthen our will, helping us to either follow Him more closely or to resist Him more strongly -- AFTER we have made the basic choice for ourselves. But Calvinism is not only incompatible with the idea of free will, it is incompatible with the NORMAL understanding of the words "belief" and "faith" -- and that without any Biblical foundation for changing the meaning.

Another part of the flimsy foundation in the house of cards that is Calvinism is your concept of what it means for God to be "sovereign". What you have said, and the Calvinistic view in general, reminds me of the riddle we sometimes used to play around with when I was in high school and college: "If God can do absolutely anything, can He create a rock that is so big He can't move it?"

Actually, I don't recall anyone ever attempting a serious answer. We would just raise the question, nod sagely over it, and move on to other conundrums of life.

Another riddle that is more serious, and is also more closely parallel to the situation we have in Calvinism, is this one: "If God can do absolutely anything, can he do evil?"

One answer to this riddle sort of "begs the question." It says that since God is the one who defines what is good and evil, then anything He chooses to do must be good, and whatever he defines as evil must be evil -- no matter what the deed is -- simply because God creates the definitions.

The other answer amounts to the same thing in some ways, but is more satisfying to those who believe that God really IS good rather than merely defining Himself as "good". It says that God cannot violate His own nature (which is inherently good), and cannot and will not do anything contrary to what He has revealed to and promised to His creation, i.e. to mankind. And there are verses in the Bible that confirm this view, though I don't have time to look them up right now.

Can you see how this applies to the Calvinistic idea of "unconditional election"? If not, I'll elucidate another time, since I really am out of time now.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

To the original poster, you might ask the Reformed fellow to recite the last line of the apostle's creed. Luther, though he believed in infant baptism, said some Roman Catholic Sounding things about baptism and the remission of sins, I've read.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Hey Ben R., didn't mean to sound disrespectful up there. It was kind of a silly question, but I did actually believe it to be a valid point to debate. Anyway, I'm sure that since you didn't get ruffled enough in the 2nd Ammendment thread to keep you from coming back, that you, most likely, weren't offended - but just in case. I do find many of your posts insightful (and lengthy :).

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Benjamin,

You asked again, "I've asked this twice now, and each time you have responded with OTHER reasons why you do not accept our belief that immersion is necessary for salvation (most of which I had already anticipated in what I said), but you have NOT yet dealt with this particular question. Do you now withdraw that particular objection -- you can still hang onto your other objections, of course -- or are you willing to explain yourself?"

I have already responded to that with, "As for what is wrong with the stating baptism as a condition of salvation, as compared with the soverign election of God, I have already covered that in detail above. Read Romans 9, to discover why the soverign election of God is true; and why we have no right to dispute with God on his selection of who will be saved. As for why that is acceptable, and a condition of baptism is not; God's soverignty is biblical and true, and baptism as a condition of salvation is not biblical and untrue."

That seems clear enough to me. If God had intended for baptism to be a condition for salvation instead of a result of salvation, He could have constructed a creation where that was true. In fact, something like that was the case for Adam and Eve except the condition of obedience was not eating of the tree instead of baptism. What happened as a result was that man died, as Romans and elsewhere makes clear. God provided another means for salvation that does not depend on human actions. You may consider that something objectionable, in terms of our human ego and our human belief we can do what God wants done. I thank God that when leaving it up to us didn't work, He provided a means we can not "get wrong".

I have to say I am not very open to being convinced of your position, as I see you are not open to being convinced of mine. I always have hope that some on this forum will see that a condition of salvation that depends on us is both unbiblical; and contrary to reasonable inference from the nature of God, the fallen nature of man, and the fact that any are saved. In many ways, a civil debate makes us stronger.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

I must agree with dbz's position. Isn't it amazing how, even using the Bible, seek to keep others out of the Kingdom? It seems that there is nothing concrete that anyone can point to that stresses the need to be physically immersed in water on earth that will keep someone that has accepted Christ as their Lord out of heaven.

Almost takes me back to the days of my youth where the talk of the church in that day was how many stars you'll have in your crown and the unspoken rivalry of how some would get more than others.

You guys seem very educated and deeply steeped in theology, I am learning a lot and am so glad to have found you here. I prefer not to get caught up in dogma, but I do have a simple question from a purely lay point of view. Isn't there a passage that says "No one can come to the Father except through Me?" Was that merely referencing prayer or did that mean heaven too?

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

To dodgedillon,

I wasn't really offended, so I apologise if I sounded impatient. It's just that while I OFTEN hear similar objections, actual cases seem very RARE, and I have NEVER encountered or even heard of a case where such problems actually prevented someone being immersed. Even the people who raise this objection can seldom offer a real case for examination. At best, it is a case of, "I once knew someone who knew someone ...."

Thank you for the compliment -- that you find many of my posts "insightful." I'm sorry if the length is a problem. I think it was Mark Twain who once wrote something like this to a friend: "I'm sorry to write such a long letter; I don't have time to write a short one." If I had unlimited time, I could probably edit and condense what I say, making it more concise, and possibly more incisive at the same time. Unfortunately, I only have limited time, so things tend to be somewhat wordy. At least I'm not the one with the longest posts in the forum. That "honour" belongs to someone else.

To DBVZ,

Thank you for clarifying your objection to our stress on "baptism by immersion" (a tautology, but unfortunately a necessary one). To restate it slightly and somewhat baldly, you like the Calvinistic point of view because you are convinced that you are one of the "elect", and therefore this saves you from any worries about whether or not you have "got it right" about anything else.

I'm sure that's a very comforting doctrine -- if it's true! But I have two major questions.

First, how can you be so absolutely sure that you really are one of "the elect"?

Second, if you can somehow put your thinking "on the outside", so to speak and consider this as at least a hypothetical possibility and not just reject it out of hand because it would not be possible according to your theology .... IF you were NOT among the "elect", who could do no wrong because you are already pre-selected, which would you rather have -- the knowledge that you can "do no right", so to speak, i.e. that no matter what you do you are eternally damned because you are pre-selected to be damned, or the opportunity to make the choice, even if there was some risk you might get something wrong, since you would also have the opportunity to "get it right"?

By the way, with regard to this "straw man" of the possibility of "accidentally" getting things wrong, let me state my personal conviction about this. I can't point to any specific Bible verses to state clearly that this is so, but to me it seems consistent with what teachings there are and also seems to be borne out by some of the history of God's dealings with the world. (And if this is true, perhaps it is just as well that it isn't stated clearly, otherwise there might be even more people than there already are who say, "Who cares? It doesn't make a difference anyway.")

I believe that there is ONE thing on our part that saves us, and that is FAITH. "Saving faith" (as opposed to the "faith" of the demons) MUST be demonstrated through obedience in order to be "effective" and to save, and faith that does not result in obedience, STARTING WITH immersion, does NOT save. But it is faith that is primary. That being the case, I believe that "accidentally" missing the way because of mis-reading key verses is not possible. I believe that if someone's FAITH is "really real", then God will either enable him/her to find the right path and do whatever things are necessary, or will extend mercy if he/she does "accidentally" get it wrong. But that doesn't excuse people from searching the Scriptures and genuinely trying their best to find out what is required and to do it. Part of what true faith includes is the urgent desire to find out and to do what God requires and what pleases Him.

As for how open I am to being convinced of your position, I TRY to keep an open mind at all times with regard to all things. My library is very eclectic, with books on both sides of all kinds of issues. Sometimes I choose books to read for no other reason than that they present views contrary to my own opinions. I am always willing to alter my position on any issue IF I can be convinced from the evidence (particularly Scriptural evidence) and by logic that my original position is wrong and this other one is correct. In fact, I recently changed my opinions slightly with regard to the Second Amendment (which I debated at length in another thread) -- though Danny and Mark should not find any comfort in this since I still don't agree with their view. I have even changed my opinions recently about one thing I had been teaching for years about the Holy Spirit.

However, there are some subjects where the more I study (on BOTH sides) and the more I debate the issues, the more firmly convinced I become that my views are correct. This happens to be one of them.

Regarding all the chief tenets of Calvinism, if you are honest, and if you have seriously looked at the evidence on BOTH sides rather than only one, I'm sure you are aware that there are "proof texts" that, if taken in isolation, seem to confirm BOTH sides. If we ONLY had texts on one side or the other, the situation would (or should) be quite clear. But there are texts which can be used to support both sides.

So the question is, what do you do with the texts that seem to support the "other" side and contradict your own? Calvin, following Augustine, who perhaps was prejudiced by his own conversion experience, chose one way. He emphasised one side of the picture to the exclusion of the other. Passages on the other side are basically ignored, denied, or "explained away" with some very convoluted reasoning. Some on the other side have gone to the opposite extreme, ignoring the passages that Calvinism emphasises. (And most people don't consciously think about the problem at all -- they simply accept the position they have been taught and may not even be aware of the evidence on the other side.)

I think my position, which I think is also that of most other "RM" scholars who have given the matter serious consideration, takes both sides seriously and is able to harmonise "both" sides simply (as per Ockham's "razor") without having to resort to the complicated mental gymnastics that Calvin and Calvinists must to "explain" the evidence against their position.

Since you say you are probably not open to changing your position, you may not be interested in the following, but I'll give the information anyway, just in case you would like to study the issues further.

I recommend the following books which challenge some of the basic tenets of Calvinism:

Elect in the Son, by Robert Shank (regarding election).

Life in the Son, by Robert Shank (regarding eternal security).

God's Strategy in Human History, by Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston.

Amazon.com lists both of the first Shank books as available -- although they also have a second listing for Elect in the Son as "out of print." The Forster and Marston book is listed (3 times!) by Amazon.com as out of print, but a review says that Roger Forster's home church in London, England, has copies available and can be e-mailed at .

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

I did put the e-mail address for Roger Marston's church in my last posting, but forgot that the programme that handles these submissions automatically edits out anything enclosed in "angle brackets", even though that is the standard way of denoting e-mail addresses, website addresses, etc. Here it is again, without the offending brackets -- media@ichthus.org.uk. Unfortunately, I don't know enough "html" to make it "clickable", so anyone interested will have to "cut and paste" or simply re-type.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Ben,

Not a bad post this morning. I think I may can supply the scriptures you needed:

You said, "By the way, with regard to this "straw man" of the possibility of "accidentally" getting things wrong, let me state my personal conviction about this. I CAN'T POINT TO ANY SPECIFIC BIBLE VERSES TO STATE CLEARLY THAT THIS IS SO, but to me it seems consistent with what teachings there are and also seems to be borne out by some of the history of God's dealings with the world. (And if this is true, perhaps it is just as well that it isn't stated clearly, otherwise there might be even more people than there already are who say, "Who cares? It doesn't make a difference anyway.")

I believe that there is ONE thing on our part that saves us, and that is FAITH. "Saving faith" (as opposed to the "faith" of the demons) MUST be demonstrated through obedience in order to be "effective" and to save, and faith that does not result in obedience, STARTING WITH immersion, does NOT save. But it is faith that is primary. That being the case, I believe that "accidentally" missing the way because of mis-reading key verses is not possible. I believe that if someone's FAITH is "really real", then God will either enable him/her to find the right path and do whatever things are necessary, or will extend mercy if he/she does "accidentally" get it wrong. But that doesn't excuse people from searching the Scriptures and genuinely trying their best to find out what is required and to do it. Part of what true faith includes is the urgent desire to find out and to do what God requires and what pleases Him."

How about using this verse, "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). In fact, that whole passage between vss 14-26 explain that saying "I believe" don't get the job done. We must show our Faith by our works, otherwise our faith has no effect.

As I see it, Jesus told us himself what these works of Faith were to be. It wasn't just feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. He said, "if you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). One of His commandments was:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)

"He who has believed AND has been Baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16) Notice here the reverse inference that failure to be obedient in Baptism is equated with Disbelief.

dodgedillon,

Maybe the above answered your question: "It seems that there is nothing concrete that anyone can point to that stresses the need to be physically immersed in water on earth that will keep someone that has accepted Christ as their Lord out of heaven."

When Jesus says "CANNOT" I have to figure that He means it (and I'm sure not willing to question what He said).

Also, you asked, "Isn't there a passage that says "No one can come to the Father except through Me?" Was that merely referencing prayer or did that mean heaven too?"

That is an all-inclusive statement.

Jesus said, "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture" (John 10:9) - this is obviously a reference to salvation & heaven.

And if you go back to John 14: 13-15 Jesus says to ask (pray) in His (Jesus) name - even though the model prayer (Matt. 6:9-13) makes it clear that prayer is to be addressed to God (Our Father, who art in heaven).

The book of Hebrews sums these thoughts up thusly, "Hence, also, He is able to save forever those you draw near to God through Him (Jesus), since He always lives to make intercesion for them.(Heb 7:25)

Hope this helps,

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Ben,

Not a bad post this morning. I think I may can supply the scriptures you needed:

You said, "By the way, with regard to this "straw man" of the possibility of "accidentally" getting things wrong, let me state my personal conviction about this. I CAN'T POINT TO ANY SPECIFIC BIBLE VERSES TO STATE CLEARLY THAT THIS IS SO, but to me it seems consistent with what teachings there are and also seems to be borne out by some of the history of God's dealings with the world. (And if this is true, perhaps it is just as well that it isn't stated clearly, otherwise there might be even more people than there already are who say, "Who cares? It doesn't make a difference anyway.")

I believe that there is ONE thing on our part that saves us, and that is FAITH. "Saving faith" (as opposed to the "faith" of the demons) MUST be demonstrated through obedience in order to be "effective" and to save, and faith that does not result in obedience, STARTING WITH immersion, does NOT save. But it is faith that is primary. That being the case, I believe that "accidentally" missing the way because of mis-reading key verses is not possible. I believe that if someone's FAITH is "really real", then God will either enable him/her to find the right path and do whatever things are necessary, or will extend mercy if he/she does "accidentally" get it wrong. But that doesn't excuse people from searching the Scriptures and genuinely trying their best to find out what is required and to do it. Part of what true faith includes is the urgent desire to find out and to do what God requires and what pleases Him."

How about using this verse, "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). In fact, that whole passage between vss 14-26 explain that saying "I believe" don't get the job done. We must show our Faith by our works, otherwise our faith has no effect.

As I see it, Jesus told us himself what these works of Faith were to be. It wasn't just feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. He said, "if you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). One of His commandments was:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)

"He who has believed AND has been Baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16) Notice here the reverse inference that failure to be obedient in Baptism is equated with Disbelief.

dodgedillon,

Maybe the above answered your question: "It seems that there is nothing concrete that anyone can point to that stresses the need to be physically immersed in water on earth that will keep someone that has accepted Christ as their Lord out of heaven."

When Jesus says "CANNOT" I have to figure that He means it (and I'm sure not willing to question what He said).

Also, you asked, "Isn't there a passage that says "No one can come to the Father except through Me?" Was that merely referencing prayer or did that mean heaven too?"

That is an all-inclusive statement.

Jesus said, "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture" (John 10:9) - this is obviously a reference to salvation & heaven.

And if you go back to John 14: 13-15 Jesus says to ask (pray) in His (Jesus) name - even though the model prayer (Matt. 6:9-13) makes it clear that prayer is to be addressed to God (Our Father, who art in heaven).

The book of Hebrews sums these thoughts up thusly, "Hence, also, He is able to save forever those you draw near to God through Him (Jesus), since He always lives to make intercession for them.(Heb 7:25)

Hope this helps,

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Sorry about the double post - my server is somewhat afflicted today.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

It's ok Mark - it was worth reading again. That does give me something to think about. BTW - I have been baptized - just was always taught that it is more of a public affirmation type of thing rather than a prerequisite for walking through the pearly gates. I 'spose I've at least covered all the bases. (Now doesn't that sound cynical :)

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Benjamin,

I appreciate your comments, and the further explanation. I was particularly appreciative of this:

"I believe that there is ONE thing on our part that saves us, and that is FAITH. "Saving faith" (as opposed to the "faith" of the demons) MUST be demonstrated through obedience in order to be "effective" and to save, and faith that does not result in obedience, STARTING WITH immersion, does NOT save. But it is faith that is primary. That being the case, I believe that "accidentally" missing the way because of mis-reading key verses is not possible. I believe that if someone's FAITH is "really real", then God will either enable him/her to find the right path and do whatever things are necessary, or will extend mercy if he/she does "accidentally" get it wrong. But that doesn't excuse people from searching the Scriptures and genuinely trying their best to find out what is required and to do it. Part of what true faith includes is the urgent desire to find out and to do what God requires and what pleases Him."

I agree with almost every word. Faith is what is essential. Obedience is required, and we must search the scripture to know what is required. If we "get it wrong", the grace of God is sufficient to cover all my sin. Those that are elect unto salvation will obey, and will not get anything so wrong they will not end up in heaven. I already referenced James, as Mark did - "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). In light of the rest of scripture that should be understood as, true faith will necessarilly result in living in obedience. Faith is still what saves, but obedience is a necessary result of true faith.

I noted that Mark wrote, ""He who has believed AND has been Baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16) Notice here the reverse inference that failure to be obedient in Baptism is equated with Disbelief." That is not actually what is written in the text. It states that belief and baptism results in salvation, and disbelief (no mention of baptism) results in condemnation. The inference I get from that is that faith saves, and that those with true faith will necessarilly be obedient in baptism. You can't conclude that failure to be immersed is equal to unbelief, from the text.

More when I have more time.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Mark,

Thanks for the assist. However, I think my posting must not have been as clear as I thought it was when I wrote it. What I meant when I said I couldn't "point to any specific Bible verses to state clearly that this is so" was not the part about true faith needing to be demonstrated through obedience. I have given numerous Bible verses in past debates to demonstrate that fact -- not only the ones you offer, but others as well. The part that I meant, when I said that about not having "specific verses", was my personal belief that God would not allow someone to simply "accidentally get it wrong" because of a mis-translation, etc., but would either enable a sincere seeker to find the truth or would have mercy if he/she failed.

One verse you quoted does SUGGEST this. Mark 16:16 gives a clear promise that those who believe AND are immersed will be saved. It gives a clear warning that those who do not believe (who "disbelieve", as you put it) will be condemned. But what about people who believe but are not immersed?

One could infer that such people don't exist. You equate failure to be immersed with disbelief. One of the possibilities I suggested was that God might enable those whose faith is genuine to see clearly what they need to do, so that they would then be immersed. If that were the case, then all who truly believed would realise the need for immersion and do so, and the only ones who did not do this would be those whose faith was not genuine. Unfortunately, human experience shows us many who SEEM to believe as strongly as I do -- some who even SEEM to have stronger faith than I in some respects -- but who somehow seem unable to accept what seems, to me, clear Bible teaching that immersion is necessary. This would SEEM to indicate a considerable number of people who believe but are not immersed. What about them?

DVBZ makes a different inference -- that this verse shows that ONLY faith is the REAL requirement, and that while true faith would normally result in baptism (though not necessarily immersion, according to some of his other postings), it is a RESULT of being saved rather than a condition for being saved. But in that case, why state it as though it is a condition? (The Greek construction clearly makes believing and being baptised CO-EQUAL CONDITIONS for being saved.) In fact, why even mention it in this context? Why not leave it out? Or, if it is a RESULT of being saved, rather than a condition for it, why not say something like this: "The one believing will be saved and will be baptised"?

I think there is a third possible inference, which is one that I like better. This is that God reserves to himself the right to be the judge of any (if there are any) who fall into this middle ground -- who believe but are not immersed. As far as we are concerned, immersion is a CONDITION. We are PROMISED that whoever does both -- who has faith and then, as a result of that faith, is immersed -- WILL BE SAVED. We are warned that whoever resists even faith WILL BE CONDEMNED. But for those who "believe", from our human point of view, but for some reason are not immersed, God reserves for Himself the right to judge, according to their hearts, how genuine their faith really was. And He is able to see whether someone only "accidentally got it wrong" or was actually resisting God.

Dwight, in some ways our views seem very similar; in other ways they are miles apart. We differ on every "petal" of Calvin's "TULIP", but I suspect that the really key issue is whether or not individual people have enough free will to choose God. I think we agree that, for whatever reason (and many different reasons have been proposed and debated for centuries), as long as we exist in this world, people are incapable of simply not sinning. We also both agree that because we have all sinned, we cannot save ourselves. We can only be saved if God saves us, through Jesus Christ.

But can we choose for ourselves whether or not we want to be saved, so to speak? The strict Calvinist position, which you plainly adhere to, is that we cannot. My position is that God grants enough in the way of "common grace" to enable us to make the choice for ourselves -- not enough to save ourselves or to become sinless on our own -- the Bible says those things are impossible -- but enough to DECIDE for ourselves whether or not we want to accept the gift that God offers. If we "believe" the evidence of who God is and who Jesus is and that He offers us this gift, and if we decide that we want it, we put our "faith" or "trust" in Him.

This view --

-- uses the words "faith" and "believe" in the normal senses of the words, without having to radically re-define them to mean something they never mean in ordinary usage;

-- takes due account of verses that speak of believing on the basis of the evidence, and exhortations to believe (all passages that become meaningless in the Calvinistic scheme of things, since individuals have no choice);

-- takes due account of verses that speak of God having "chosen" those who believe (we are not chosen TO BELIEVE, but are chosen by God BECAUSE we ourselves CHOOSE to believe);

-- takes due account of verses that indicate that we are "saved by baptism" WITHOUT accepting the un-Biblical view that we are saved by "works" or "save ourselves" or anything like that.

Baptism, as you yourself seem to accept, is required by God, and is a sign that we believe. So if we REFUSE to do it (as opposed to the hypothetical idea that we might "accidentally get it wrong" -- which I've dealt with elsewhere), is our faith real? If our faith is not real, are we saved?

Naaman was told to dip himself seven times in the River Jordan to be cleansed from leprosy (II Kings 5). He did, and he was. Did the water cleanse his leprosy? Plainly not. Did his own works cleanse his leprosy? Again, plainly not. But when was his leprosy cleansed? When he went to Elisha? No. When he decided to do what Elisha prescribed (you could say that this is the point when he first really believed in Elisha and Elisha's God)? No. Then when? As I understand the story, he was cleansed BECAUSE he trusted in Elisha's God, but he was NOT cleansed UNTIL he had done what he was instructed to do.

WHEN was Saul/Paul saved from his sins? "And now, what are you waiting for? Get up, be immersed and WASH YOUR SINS AWAY, calling on his name." Did the water save him? No. Did he save himselve by his works? No. But WHEN were the sins taken away? What did Ananias tell Saul in this verse?

WHEN are our sins taken away? "... and this water (the water that lifted Noah and his family above the devastation wreaked on the world) symbolises baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge/response/appeal of/for a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (I Peter 3:21.) Does the water itself save us? No. (You could say that it did save Noah, but the same water also destroyed everyone who was not in the ark. However, we are told, regarding ourselves, that we are NOT saved by the "removal of dirt from the body", i.e. not by the water itself.) Do our works save us? No. (We are saved "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.) But WHEN is this effective? WHEN are we saved? "Baptism now saves you also." And "IT (i.e. baptism) SAVES YOU by (or because of) ...." We are saved WHEN mere mental assent to the facts turns into actual FAITH, which is demonstrated first of all by our yielding to baptism.

If we have free will (which I personally believe the Bible teaches that we do), then some people might (and do) quibble with the above definitions of baptism on the basis of differing definitions of what constitutes a "work", but there really isn't any MAJOR contradiction or inconsistency in it. But if you don't believe people have free will, the whole argument simply becomes meaningless anyway -- as do most of the exhortations in the Bible. So why are the exhortations there, if your view is correct?

A closing thought. The book of Romans not only doesn't support Calvinism: when taken as a whole it is extremely damaging to the view of unconditional election. And the book of Hebrews is extremely damaging to the view of eternal security.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

P.S. My apologies for the great length of my last posting. I didn't realise just how long it really was until I had submitted it and then came back to this thread to see how it looked.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Ben,

I have to say that I pretty much agree with your assertion, "This is that God reserves to himself the right to be the judge of any (if there are any) who fall into this middle ground -- who believe but are not immersed. As far as we are concerned, immersion is a CONDITION. We are PROMISED that whoever does both -- who has faith and then, as a result of that faith, is immersed -- WILL BE SAVED. We are warned that whoever resists even faith WILL BE CONDEMNED. But for those who "believe", from our human point of view, but for some reason are not immersed, God reserves for Himself the right to judge, according to their hearts, how genuine their faith really was. And He is able to see whether someone only "accidentally got it wrong" or was actually resisting God."

I have heard that thought put as "living up to the Light that they have been given". And you're correct in the fact that there really are no direct references in Scripture to back that type of thinking up, although maybe some concepts along those lines can be drawn - such as Jesus pardoning the thief on the cross (even though that did occur under the old dispensation).

I have many friends who would fall under this category, who might be referred to as un-immersed believers. It is my sincere desire to see them again at the Wedding feast of the Lamb but, after I have made my beliefs known to them, it is out of my hands - it is between them & God.

Now, here's the kicker in this matter: We can't preach this concept! It is not verbally supported in Scripture, therefore at best, it is merely speculation; and at its worst it could be downright heresay. Paul told the Galatians that, "even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed"("consigned to Hell" in the Greek)(Gal 1:8). Under this constraint, preaching & teaching anything OTHER than immersion as a requirement for Salvation will have disastrous consequences for myself and any other who preaches contrary to the verses I quoted above (along with quite a few more that show Immersion as a requirement).

It's no small wonder then why James wrote, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment". (James 3:1) That's a passage I remind myself of every day.

So you want to be a Preacher, eh?

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Now, here's the kicker in this matter: We can't preach this concept! It is not verbally supported in Scripture, therefore at best, it is merely speculation; and at its worst it could be downright heresay. Paul told the Galatians that, "even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed"("consigned to Hell" in the Greek)(Gal 1:8). Under this constraint, preaching & teaching anything OTHER than immersion as a requirement for Salvation will have disastrous consequences for myself and any other who preaches contrary to the verses I quoted above (along with quite a few more that show Immersion as a requirement).

One of my approaches to this issue with people who disagree about baptism is to say something like, "Here is God's plan clearly stated. If you want to try and make some other deal with Him, that's your business, and I sincerely hope it works out for you. But the Bible says this . . ."

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

I had a conversation with some who believed in 'once-saved-always- saved' the other night.

In the end the main spokesman said he didn't understand how all the verses fit together. In Indonesian, herbew 3:14, I think, seems to say that ye are made partakers with Christ IF ONLY you hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast until the end. i suspect that might be the idea in Greek, but I got as far as I could with Greek tools without being able to draw a conclusion. I don't know the language.

There are different varieties of Calvinists. Some believe that the stony ground hearer who believed for a little time and the thorny hearer weren't really saved. Calvinits believe in the preserverence of the saints.

Jonathan Edwards, a Congregationalist Calvinist considered some people's conversions not be fake, and not truly 'gracious.' As an OT example, he considered Saul's short-lived 'repentence' over persecuting David to not truly come from grace.

What do you guys think about God raising up Pharoah and hardening his heart? What do you think about the verse in Romans 9 about the Lrod hardening whom He will?

Btw, I heard someone asked Marx about Marxists. Marxsaid he knew one thing- he wasn't a Marxist. Some would say that Calvin was not a Calvinist, either.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Link,

Concerning the hardening of one's heart, here is the best analogy I ever heard:

The same hot water that boils an egg, softens a potato! God brings about a certain set of circumstances (the hot water) and it is up to the individual (the egg or potato) to respond to those circumstances according to their nature.

God raised Pharoah up to demonstrate His power (according to Rom. 9:17), but He didn't force Pharoah to respond against Moses, He just presented him with a choice and pharoah responded out of the true nature of his heart.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Quoted from Benjamin Rees:

WHEN are our sins taken away? "... and this water (the water that lifted Noah and his family above the devastation wreaked on the world) symbolises baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge/response/appeal of/for a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (I Peter 3:21.) Does the water itself save us? No. (You could say that it did save Noah, but the same water also destroyed everyone who was not in the ark. However, we are told, regarding ourselves, that we are NOT saved by the "removal of dirt from the body", i.e. not by the water itself.) Do our works save us? No. (We are saved "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.) But WHEN is this effective? WHEN are we saved? "Baptism now saves you also." And "IT (i.e. baptism) SAVES YOU by (or because of) ...." We are saved WHEN mere mental assent to the facts turns into actual FAITH, which is demonstrated first of all by our yielding to baptism.

Quoted from Mark Wisniewski:

I have to say that I pretty much agree with your assertion, "This is that God reserves to himself the right to be the judge of any (if there are any) who fall into this middle ground -- who believe but are not immersed. As far as we are concerned, immersion is a CONDITION. We are PROMISED that whoever does both -- who has faith and then, as a result of that faith, is immersed -- WILL BE SAVED. We are warned that whoever resists even faith WILL BE CONDEMNED. But for those who "believe", from our human point of view, but for some reason are not immersed, God reserves for Himself the right to judge, according to their hearts, how genuine their faith really was. And He is able to see whether someone only "accidentally got it wrong" or was actually resisting God."

Can a Quaker weigh in here? There is a sense in which one can embrace both perspectives. I am confortable with the idea that there is no salvation apart from baptism. But the 1 Peter text is pretty clear that baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with water. "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge/response/appeal of/for a good conscience towards God." The true baptism which is necessary for salvation is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which happens when we have faith. Surely no one would agree that immersion in water is the ONLY way that faith is evidenced.

In Eph 4 Paul speaks of "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" but this baptism is the one of which John the Baptizer spoke when he said:

(Luke 3:16 NRSV)"I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

The baptism of the Holy Spirit (which has nothing to do with tongues) superseded water baptism, which is now passe'. That is why Peter in reporting to the church on going to the home of Cornelius said:

(Acts 11:15-17 NRSV) And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. {16} And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' {17} If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?"

People have debated why in this instance the Spirit came upon them BEFORE they were immersed. The simple answer is that Peter realized later that this was the true baptism and water was not necessary.

So Paul could say:

(1 Cor 1:17 NRSV) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power.

If water baptism is essential, Paul could not say this, because by not baptising he would be undercutting the very gospel he proclaimed.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Gee whiz Doc., that was as good as Mark's. Filling and chock full of scriptual goodness. What's a guy to do when faced with two factions equally well versed and articulated in biblical thought? You guys are swell. Anyone who thinks Christians are ignorant would surely have their opinion swayed upon visiting this forum.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Dr. White,

I think we are in essential agreement on salvation; that the critical element is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is the act of God that makes it possible for us to have a saving faith. We may be seeking, and learning, and attending church, etc.; but the Holy Spirit must be at work in us to move us to accept and believe all we have heard. That has been my concern with the immersion baptism condition on salvation all along. If the critical act is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, an act of God we can not control or get wrong, then salvation is entirely in God's capable hands and all the verses supporting the eternal election of God make sense.

Benjamin,

I still don't see how you can consider Romans to be in conflict with soverign election. Again, I suggest reading the entire book and especially Romans 9. No mention of baptism except in chapter 6, and then it is about how to live (obedience). How can a book clearly intended to present the gospel, leave out what is an essential and critical condition of salvation? How can an apostle preach faith, and mention that he does not baptize but on rare occasions, when salvation depends on immersion baptism as well as faith? The first century was not a time when life was very secure, so at any time his converts could face the judge of heaven and earth. How could Paul omit immersion, if it is so necessary?

As for obedience in being baptized, I certainly agree we are comanded to obey. I even agree that most first century Christians seem to have been baptized by immersion. I am not convinced that only immersion was used. Again, if baptism is symbolic of the work of Christ which is what really saves us, and the symbol does not save us, how the symbol is interpreted is less important than obedience in being baptized by some mode. The real issue is living in obedience.

I know you are convinced that immersion is equal to baptism. That is clearly not a universal interpretation of the meaning of the words. My greatest difficulty with your position is that throughout church history, many believers were baptized by using other modes. They had faith, submitted to the baptism they understood and were taught, and died trusting God for their salvation. You are critical of me for my belief that God has made the decision for us in his soverign election, as if that understanding of God was unacceptable. What about your position, that God would let believers live a life of obedience, and perhaps even die for the faith trusting in God for their salvation, and yet not be saved? Is that an understanding of God you are comforable with? If true faith is the important issue, as you have stated earlier, does that make any sense to you?

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Dr. White (and DBVZ),

I often see or hear Paul's words in I Cor. 1:17 -- "For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the gospel ...." -- used in this way, i.e. to try to "prove" that baptism is not important and that Paul did not consider it important.

To make this claim basically requires two things -- both of them faulty methodologies (and/or dishonest methodologies). (1) You must ignore the real point of what Paul was trying to say here, which means totally wrenching it out of context, treating is as nothing but a "proof text". (2) You must ignore everything else that Paul said about baptism in his letters (and testimonies, as recorded in Acts).

What was the "point" of what Paul said in I Cor. 1:17? To find out, you must start with verse 11 and then read on through the rest of the book. Here is a brief paraphrase, with comments, of Paul's arguments in I Cor. 1:11-17.

Paul appeals to the Corinthians to agree together and be united, saying that he has heard that there are divisions in the church. They have split into various factions, claiming allegiance to Paul, Apollos, Cephas (Peter), and Christ. (Whether they actually formed these particular parties, or Paul is just using these names as examples has been much discussed but is probably not important here.)

Paul then asks three rhetorical questions: "Is Christ divided?" "Was Paul crucified for you?" "Were you baptised into the name of Christ?" A couple of things seem note-worthy here. First, even though he says a moment later that he himself did not baptise more than a handfull, he takes it for granted that they ALL were baptised. Second, the juxtaposition of baptism with these two other matters shows how important Paul considers baptism to be. Baptism is "right up there" in importance along with Christ himself and Christ's crucifixion. This is somewhat reminiscent of Paul's list in Ephesians 4:1-5. There the Ephesians are likewise exhorted to unity, and Paul lists seven things that are all "one" and that therefore should keep them united. One of them (along with one Spirit, one Lord, and one God)? Right! One baptism!

Having made the point, through his rhetorical question, that WHEN they were baptised, they were not baptised into these various factions, Paul then makes a parenthetical statement which deals with a related point. Even though none would claim to have been baptised "into the name" of Paul or any of these other men, it is possible that some might still lay claim to special status on the basis of WHO it was that baptised them. And Paul says that he is glad (for this reason) that he didn't baptise more than the mere handfull that he lists.

Paul then concludes this section by saying that he was not sent to baptise, but to preach the gospel, "not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." From here he moves on to discuss how the Gospel does not conform to man's expectations, but is, nonetheless, God's way and reflects God's power.

TAKEN IN ITS CONTEXT, is Paul saying that baptism is unimportant? On the contrary, he lists it along with Christ himself and Christ's crucifixion as things that should unite them, and assumes that all of them have been baptised -- by someone. So what does he mean when he says that he was not sent to baptise but to preach the gospel? Simply that he was not sent to be the "agent" of baptising someone. He was to preach the gospel, but he assumes that hearing and accepting the gospel will result in them being baptised -- by someone, though not necessarily by him personally.

To use this verse to denigrate baptism is also to ignore the "content" of the gospel Paul preached, as revealed in his testimony, his interaction with the people he preached the gospel to, and his letters.

I've already mentioned Paul's testimony where he says that Ananias told him to "Get up and be immersed and wash away your sins."

Baptism is not mentioned in EVERY case where Paul preached and people accepted the gospel message, but this doesn't mean it didn't take place -- it could as easily mean that it was simply taken for granted, and probably does mean this in view of the way it is obviously taken for granted in many things the Bible does say about baptism. A few cases where it is mentioned, the circumstances seem significant.

Acts 15:15 says, "When she (Lydia) and the members of her household were baptised, she invited us to her home. 'If you consider me a believer in the Lord,' she said, 'come and stay at my house.' And she persuaded us." When did she make this statement about "if you consider me a believer ...."? AFTER her baptism!

Acts 16:16-40 tells of the imprisonment of Paul and Silas in Philippi. After their miraculous release because of the earthquake, the jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul's immediate answer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" is often taken out of context to indicate that ONLY faith is necessary. But read on. The next verse says that "they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house." And what was the result of them speaking "the word of the Lord" to them? They were all baptised "the same hour of the night." No protracted baptism classes to make sure that they understood everything -- just a rush to make this visible commitment as soon as possible!

In Acts 19, Paul encounters some "disciples" -- but note that while "disciple" is often used interchangeably with "Christian", it does not NECESSARILY mean a Christian or prove that someone is saved. In fact the strong suggestion here is that they were not. Something about their situation apparently raises Paul's suspicions, and he asks, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" No, they had "not even heard that the Holy Spirit has been given." So what is his next question? "Then what baptism did you receive?" Acts 2:38 gives two conditions (repent and be baptised) to achieve two results (remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit). They don't have the Holy Spirit, so there must be something wrong with their baptism. Paul instructs them concerning baptism, they are baptised "into the name of the Lord Jesus", and, after Paul lays his hands on them, they receive not only the indwelling presence of the Spirit but the gift of tongues to demonstrate conclusively that they now do have the Spirit in them.

In Paul's letters, Romans 6 has already been mentioned, but I think you (DBVZ) missed the point of what he says about it. Yes, it is about how to live, but the argument runs roughly as follows: We died to sin, so how can we live in it any longer? What is the evidence that we died to sin? (And when did it happen?) WHEN we were baptised, we were buried with Christ -- our old person being gotten rid of once and for all -- and when we were raised from the water we were resurrected as new people in Jesus Christ. That being the case, we should consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to Jesus Christ -- not offering our bodies any longer as slaves to sin, obedient to it, but as slaves to righteousness and to God.

Besides the passage we've already discussed above, I Corinthians also has another significant reference to baptism. I Cor. 12:13 says, "For we were all baptised by one Spirit into one body -- whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free -- and we were all given one Spirit to drink." Note what this has to say about how we come INTO Christ's body, the church. We are BAPTISED INTO it. I know Dr. White will want to say this proves his point -- that the baptism that counts is not water baptism but Holy Spirit baptism -- but that is not how most people understand the word, even here. Even MOST of those who do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation do, paradoxically, assume that it is water baptism that is mentioned here.

(I do have things I would like to say in response to Dr. White's arguments, but I'm already out of time, even before I finish my remarks on the other subject, so that will have to wait for another session.)

In Galatians 3:27, Paul clearly connects being baptised with being united with Christ and becoming "sons of God through faith." Note that while the reason and/or means of us becoming "sons of God" is faith, baptism is the time when we are united with Christ and clothed with Christ.

Well, all the time I could afford today for this forum is long ago used up, so I'll have to say good-bye for now. There are several other points I could respond to in both DBVZ's and Dr. White's postings, but I hope maybe others can deal with some of them. If not, I'll probably be back in a few days with more.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

DBVZ,

Since I don't have time for a proper exposition of Romans, let me just say one thing. If you start with Calvinistic pre-suppositions, then you are obviously going to see Calvin's ideas confirmed since it uses many of the words Calvin does in his system. But if you can open your mind to three small adjustments in your thinking -- three alternative possibilities -- and re-read Romans with these in mind, I think you will see that far from confirming Calvinism, Romans is actually quite damaging to it.

1) The possibility that men do have free will.

2) The possibility that when Paul talks of "faith", he is using the word in the way we NORMALLY do in everyday speech -- as something we decide to do/have or not to do/have, based on the evidence of how "trustworthy" we think the person is.

3) The possibility that when it talks of election and God "choosing" us, it is speaking corporately, rather than individually. Note carefully -- does it say we are chosen "IN Jesus Christ" (i.e. those who are in Jesus Christ are chosen -- which leaves open the question of how we come to be "in Jesus Christ") or that we are chosen (individually) "TO BE IN Jesus Christ"?

Try it!

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Benjamin Rees writes:

I often see or hear Paul's words in I Cor. 1:17 -- "For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the gospel ...." -- used in this way, i.e. to try to "prove" that baptism is not important and that Paul did not consider it important.

To make this claim basically requires two things -- both of them faulty methodologies (and/or dishonest methodologies). (1) You must ignore the real point of what Paul was trying to say here, which means totally wrenching it out of context, treating is as nothing but a "proof text". (2) You must ignore everything else that Paul said about baptism in his letters (and testimonies, as recorded in Acts).

CG writes:

I am not saying baptism is not important, nor am I taking anything out of context. I believe in baptism with my whole heart--but the whole of the NT makes it clear that it is something which happens "within" us and not "outside" us, and therefore whatever baptism is, it is not a matter of immersion in water.

Benjamin writes:

TAKEN IN ITS CONTEXT, is Paul saying that baptism is unimportant? On the contrary, he lists it along with Christ himself and Christ's crucifixion as things that should unite them, and assumes that all of them have been baptised -- by someone. So what does he mean when he says that he was not sent to baptise but to preach the gospel? Simply that he was not sent to be the "agent" of baptising someone. He was to preach the gospel, but he assumes that hearing and accepting the gospel will result in them being baptised -- by someone, though not necessarily by him personally.

CG writes:

That is reading into the text. It does not state that he makes any assumption. And yes, baptism is what unites us, 1 Cor 12:13 states we are baptised by one Spirit into one body. It is just that, if we exegete soundly--we have to at least allow for the possibility that this "one baptism" is not water baptism. The word "baptism" itself is used in other ways. Jesus said, "I have a baptism to be baptised with, and I would that it were already accomplished", AFTER his water baptism.

I am not at all against water baptism--I just want to suggest that it is erroneous to make it part of the "plan of salvation".

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Ben,

You're still right on the money here about Baptism (if I could just get you to "see the light" on the Second Ammendment.....sorry, couldn't resist taking a "shot").....(giggle)

C G

As I see it, you're close, but no cigar as of yet. You admit that Baptism is necessary, yet see no reason for water. I can only assume that you do know that the Greek "baptizo" really only allows for total immersion in a substance. And that every New Testament account of Baptism occurs in water.

As Peter explained in 1 Peter 3:21, there is nothing miraculous about water - all it does, by itself, is wash off some dirt and make your palms and soles of your feet wrinkley. The key point is obedience. Noah wasn't saved because he believed - he was saved because he believed AND was obedient in building the Ark exactly according to God's plan. If he had only believed, but built no Ark, he would have drowned along with everyone else. If Noah had decided on a different type of hull or different building materials for the Ark, he would have drowned. Only TOTAL Obedience, based upon faith, got the job done.

So we are to be immersed, not because the water does something to us, but because God does something to us WHEN we are immsersed. What He does at baptism is:

1. Give us the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 and others). Notice how Jesus links the Spirit & water in John 3:5. Without the water, the Spirit does not indwell, why else was both Paul & Cornelius Commanded to be Baptized AFTER their experiences? (According to Acts 10:44, Cornelius had the Spirit come UPON him, not IN him when the tongue speaking began - and there is a difference between ON & IN.)

2. Clothes us in Christ (Gal 3:26-27)

3. Circumcise our hearts (Col. 2:11-14, Rom 2:28-29)

I say all of this to point out that New Testament Baptism (in water) causes a variety of things to happen - all of which secure our Salvation. It would be beneficial to give up the idea of "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" as the Spirit does not indwell UNTIL the water has been applied (according to Peter). Notice that only John the Baptist mentioned a Baptism WITH the Holy Spirit and the Greek wording in that instance allows for the translation of "with", "by", or "in" (a little bit shaky for me to base my Salvation on).

Sure, water baptism is not the ONLY way in which faith is evidenced, but it IS one of the specific things that we are commanded in Scripture to do (along with repentance & confession).

Oh, by the way, welcome aboard CG - I enjoyed your comments on the "Tolerance" thread.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Mark, you write:

As I see it, you're close, but no cigar as of yet. You admit that Baptism is necessary, yet see no reason for water. I can only assume that you do know that the Greek "baptizo" really only allows for total immersion in a substance. And that every New Testament account of Baptism occurs in water.

First, the "No cigar" is OK, I am a non-smoker:)

I do know the word "Baptizo". I have a doctorate in hermeneutics. And I know, as you correctly state, that every NT act of baptism involves water--but not every NT reference to baptism involves water.

(Mat 3:11 NRSV) "I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

(Mark records this at 1:8, Luke at 3:16) I do not understand how baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire can involve immersion in water. Here the reference is obviously a figure of speech.

(Acts 1:5 NRSV) for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Here I know of no reason to believe the disciples were immersed again in water, so Jesus is talking about something other than immersion in water.

(Rom 6:3-4 NRSV) Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? {4} Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

This one probably refers to water baptism, although I do not think that is the only possible interpretation here.

(1 Cor 10:1-5 NRSV) I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, {2} and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, {3} and all ate the same spiritual food, {4} and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. {5} Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness.

I know there is the imagery of the sea here and that ties in to immersion, except they were not immersed, the waters were parted. And the reference todrinking from the spiritual rock (Christ) suggests that here Paulis using figures of speech, as he ties the rock to Christ.

Let me also say--I mean no disrespect. To me this is "iron sharpening iron." I also happen to think RM folks are the ONLY ones I know who have church government right. If I could resolve the baptism thing I would consider joining a RM church.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

CG,

Your final comments: "Let me also say--I mean no disrespect. To me this is "iron sharpening iron." I also happen to think RM folks are the ONLY ones I know who have church government right. If I could resolve the baptism thing I would consider joining a RM church" Sound a lot like what Agrippa said to Paul in Acts 26:28, "thou hast almost persuaded me to be a Christian"

You are obviously well-versed in the Scriptures and see a need for baptism, otherwise you would not have submitted to it yourself. Keep studying and stay with us on the Forum, maybe something someone says here will help bridge that gap that will get you to join with us in this issue and many others - obtaining that cigar so to speak (which of course is made of bubble-gum).

Unfortunately, I will have to abandon my participation here for a while as my father just passed away and I have to make arrangements to get to Texas post haste.

Peace be to you,

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Mark,

And with you. May God sustain and uphold you and your family as you deal with your loss.

CG White,

I appreciate your comments very much. I suspect we have some differences on other issue, but our understanding of the nature of water baptism seems to be in full agreement.

Benjamin,

Your suggestion about how to read Romans can as easilly be turned around. If YOU read Romans as the gospel message, without such a confirmed misunderstanding (IMHO) of baptism, you you would not understand baptism the way you do from a reading of Romans. Remember that the Bible was not assembled yet, and Paul can't assume they have read all his other letters. What he writes to the Romans is what he knows they need to understand about salvation.

I certainly agree baptism is commanded, and important, as I have repeatedly stated here. That is not the issue we are debating. The issue is whether it is God who saves us through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, as the Bible explains in every gospel message; or is it obedience in immersion as an additional condition that saves us. An obedience condition, even that of baptism, is a works requirement similar to "do not eat of the tree".

I note that you have not yet addressed my question of February 15:

"I know you are convinced that immersion is equal to baptism. That is clearly not a universal interpretation of the meaning of the words. My greatest difficulty with your position is that throughout church history, many believers were baptized by using other modes. They had faith, submitted to the baptism they understood and were taught, and died trusting God for their salvation. You are critical of me for my belief that God has made the decision for us in his soverign election, as if that understanding of God was unacceptable. What about your position, that God would let believers live a life of obedience, and perhaps even die for the faith trusting in God for their salvation, and yet not be saved? Is that an understanding of God you are comforable with? If true faith is the important issue, as you have stated earlier, does that make any sense to you?"

As CG White points out, the most you can say is that references to baptism in the Bible almost always involve water in some respect. The I Cor. 10 verse is interesting, in that the "cloud" could imply sprinkling, and the "sea" may be a reference to being in the midst of the water but yet not wet.

In all the descriptions of NT baptism, you say the word means to be immersed. You conclude that from how the word is used, but not everyone had reached that conclusion. Just as we have a slightly different understanding of words today as compaired to 100 years ago, the precise meaning of the word as writen 2000 years ago is subject to some speculation and interpretation. Water is clearly involved, and most first century people may have been immersed; but my reading of each event does not rule out stepping down into the water and having water sprinkled or poured over the one being baptized. I agree with you that it is the obedience that is important, but if it is obedience then one who obeys and is baptized in another mode is still obedient when that is the mode they understand is required. They are certainly not being disobedient, and refusing to obey. That brings us back to my question about the kind of understanding of God your position requires.

My understanding of God acknowledges his eternal soverignty in all things, that not a hair can fall from my head without it bing within the will of God. His eternal election of some leaves others in their sin, which is entirely consistent with both his love and his justice. Again, read Romans 9.

Your understanding of baptism and free will requires that God is not in control of who will enter heaven, much less which hairs fall out. It assumes that God will damn faithful believers who (according to you) misunderstand the baptism command. It assumes that God would cause them (or allow them) to have faith and believe, and still consign them to hell. If you believe in free will, then those that have made the free decision to have faith are yet rejected by God according to your understanding of the requirements. In fact, many thousands of those who died for the faith throughout history would be in hell now. It requires that faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ is not enough, contrary to the gospel message.

I have used the salvation of the thief on the cross on this forum before, and have again seen it referenced and dismissed as under the old covanent. This seems to be an entirely unsupported assertion. The thief was saved because he had faith in Jesus Christ, and trusted him for his salvation. Nothing else. No baptism. No old covanent sacrifices and obedience to the law. Nothing but a confession of faith, and forgiveness through Christ. This was after the institution of the new covenant, and the first Lord's Supper. His salvation was realized at his death, which was after the death of Jesus. Remember that everyone was surprised that Jesus had died as quickly as he did, and they used a spear to verify it was true; which leads to the conclusion the thieves were not yet dead. Unless you count the sweat on his brow, the thief was not baptized at all, much less by immersion. Yet he was not disobedient by refusing to be baptized, and it is clear that his faith (the gift of God) was enough to save him.

God is soverign. Faith comes by the work of the Holy Spirit, and we are incapable of true faith in God without the work of the Holy Spirit in us. Once we have recieved that faith, and the Holy Spirit is in us, we are his forever. Obedience follows, including obedience in baptism. You cannot be truely obedient until you believe, because until you have faith any "obedience" is from a human outlook rather than as submission to God. No one can submit to God unless they first have faith. God's grace is sufficient for ALL my sin, including any error (which I do not concede) in the interpretation of the requirements of baptism. As you are convinced that I can not be saved without immersion; I am convinced that when you rely on anything in addition to the finished work of Christ for your salvation, you don't have what I understand as a true faith in his death and resurection for our sins.

Several on this forum have made it clear they rely on the work of Christ for their salvation, and I don't want my comment above to be understood as an assertion that none who believe immersion is required can be saved. I believe God knows the heart, and who are his own. A few here seem to place their trust in their immersion, as much as or perhaps more than their faith in Christ. Those are the ones I am concerned about. We are certainly required to be obedient, and obedience builds our upon our faith and confidence; but obedience, even obedience in baptism, is not what saves us. The verses you use that seem to say baptism saves, must be understood in the context of the entire gospel; and refer to the work of Christ symbolized in baptism.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

As an example of what I mean, this is from another thread:

"The words "for the forgiveness of sins" may refer to the result rather than the motive. God’s purpose is to forgive sins, but our motive may be obedient faith to his command. The word "for" (eis) would certainly lend itself to this view, that Peter is describing the effects of the repentance and baptism more than the motive of the believer.

I understand that the word "for" (eis) can perhaps better be translated in this passage "because of" ["in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past" - Thayer], which would make the passage read, "Repent and be baptized .... because of the remission of your sins." Meaning that it was their faith and repentance that actually produced the remission, not the physical act of baptism, but that the act of baptism immediately followed as a proof (a "pledge", as Peter puts it in 1 Peter 3:21) of their repentant heart and the remission of their sins.

-- John Wilson (mrbatman@earthlink.net), February 17, 2001."

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

Brethren;

I have a few things to say to DBVZ and I asked that you take note of it.

DBVZ:

You have said in reference to the word of God as preached by the inspired apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 the following:

“I understand that the word "for" (eis) can perhaps better be translated in this passage "because of" ["in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past" - Thayer], which would make the passage read, "Repent and be baptized .... because of the remission of your sins." Meaning that it was their faith and repentance that actually produced the remission, not the physical act of baptism, but that the act of baptism immediately followed as a proof (a "pledge", as Peter puts it in 1 Peter 3:21) of their repentant heart and the remission of their sins.”

Now, I am convinced that you have misquoted Thayer as I will quote his exact words on this subject and give the exact page reference where all can read what he actually said. It would have been helpful for you to give the exact page reference for what you claim that he has said about this subject. It would have allowed us to examine it in its entire context if such words from him could actually be documented. However, you may have been quoting from memory and making this comment rather “off the cuff”. I know of no place where Thayer said this concerning the translation of the Greek word “eis”. And if he ever said such a thing his scholarship would then be in question for he would have severely contradicted himself.

Joeseph Henry Thayer, who was the Bussey Professor of the New Testament in the Divinity School of Harvard University says concerning this Phrase, “for the remission of sins”, found in Acts 2:38 and I quote him as follows:

“ eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the remission of sins, Acts 2:38.” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Page 94). There is no doubt that this eminent scholar believed that “eis” in Acts 2:38 means, “ to obtain”. Now, that is actually what Thayer had to say about it with the exact reference from his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament with the exact page number where even those who do not understand Greek can find his words and read them. Now in this quotation it is obvious to any reader that he gives the meaning of the Greek word “eis” a sense completely contrary to what you have claimed. In other words he says that it means “to obtain” while you quote him, without giving a reference to prove that he said the words that you quote, as supporting the idea that the word means “because of”. Now either Thayer did not say what you claim he said or he has severely contradicted himself. Now, if you have a different quotation from him on this subject we would like to know the exact reference so that we can read it for ourselves. And if this is true then at best his scholarship can be called into question because of such a severe contradiction. But before we question his noted scholastic authority we would rather question your apparently “off the cuff” quotation of him. I do doubt very seriously if Thayer can be justly accused of saying the words that you claim he has said of this subject. So we wait for you to give us the exact location of these words which you claim he has said of this matter before we believe them. We do this simply because they are diametrically opposed to what we know for a fact that he said of this matter in the quotation given above.

Thus far all we have is your word that the Greek word “EIS” in Acts 2:38 can be “better translated” "because of" instead of “to obtain”. Yet is strange that in our day of modern translations which have “better” translations as their purpose no scholar has been willing to put his reputation on the line and give us this “better” translation that DBVZ would like so much to have. Does it make you wonder why? As far as I am aware there is not even a Calvinist Scholar that is willing to attempt such a translation. It does make one wonder why, doesn’t it?

The exact same words and grammar and syntax found in Acts 2:38 is also found in Matthew 26:28. In Matthew 26:28 we are told, “For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many unto (eis) the remission of sins.” In Acts 2:38 we read, “Repent ye and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto (eis) the remission of sins.” Anyone can see that the two phrases “unto (eis) remission of sins” are identical in English. They are also identical in the Greek. In Greek both passages read, “eis apheisen harmartion”. It is exactly the same and the word eis has the same meaning in both passages. In Matthew 26:28 we are told that Christ blood was shed “unto (eis) the remission of sins.” Now who is ready to claim that Christ shed his blood “because” our sins were already remitted? Christ shed his blood clearly “in order to obtain” remission of our sins and this exact same phraseology is used when speaking of repentance and baptism. We are to repent in order to obtain remission of our sins not “because “ our sins have been remitted without repentance. And we are also to be baptized according to this verse for the same reason. We are baptized “to obtain” to use Thayer’s exact words, the remission of sins. And while you claim that the word “eis” can be translated “because of” in Acts 2:38, it is indeed interesting that you cannot find a single reputable translation that so translates it. And you have not given any reputable scholars that define this word so as to justify such a translation.

Yet, we are just supposed to take your word for it. Do tell us how you would translate this Greek word “eis” in Matthew 26:28? And if you would translate it differently than the way you claim it could be translated in Acts 2:38, please explain the reason since both phrases are exactly identical in the Greek and English New Testaments. If you believe that Matthew 26:28 means, “to obtain” and Acts 2:38 means “because of” please explain why.

The phrase under consideration is, “eis aphesin hamartion” It is exactly the same words, syntax, tense, mood, and grammar in both places. There is no difference whatsoever but unless you translate it the same way in both passages you will have it as a "causal" sense in one place and a “resultant" sense in the other. And if you translate this word differently in these two verses we will expect you to explain how you arrived at completely different conclusions concerning the exact same phraseology in two different places. I am placing the two passages parallel to each other so that all can see that they are identical. Matthew 26:28, “ for (eis) remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion) Acts 2:38, “ for (eis) remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion)

Same phrase, same grammar, same syntax, and same words, but different meanings? Many people would translate the word differently for absolutely no better reason than the simple fact that in one place it does not fit their favorite theology and in the other place it does. So do tell us DBVZ, which way is it for you? Do you translate “eis” in Matthew 26:28 the same way that you would like to have it translated in Acts 2:38? In Acts 2:38 we read, “repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (Eis) the remission of sins and ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. The Greek word “kai” is a coordinating conjunction. And functions like our English word “and” which connects items of equal rank in a sentence. Whatever “eis” means in reference to baptism it also means in reference to repentance. Now no one is told anywhere in the New Testament to repent “because” his or her sins have been remitted. But if your view of “eis” in this passage were correct then it would be necessary to conclude that are to repent “because” our sins have been remitted. Which is contrary to the teaching of Acts 3:19 which says, “ repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out.” Thus we repent in order to have our sins blotted out. So which is it? Does “eis” mean “because of” in reference to baptism and in the exact same time and place and grammatical construction does “eis” mean “in order to" in reference to repentance? For this word cannot have two meanings in the same place and grammatical connection.

Do you believe that these Jews on the day of Pentecost were told to “ REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” for (eis) because their sins were remitted or do you believe that they were told to “REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” “in order to obtain” the remission of sins. Or is it possible that you are asking us to believe that they were told to “repent” in order to the remission of sins AND be baptized “because of the remission of sins?" Pick one. For surely it must be at least one of these three cases. Which one do you believe is the truth using the Greek words, syntax, and grammar of this sentence? It is definitely true that whatever “eis” means in reference to “repentance” it also means in reference to “baptism.” It cannot GRAMMATICALLY have one meaning in reference to “REPENTANCE” and a completely opposite meaning in reference to “BAPTISM” in the same sentence and the same connection using the same rules of grammar.

The great scholars who have translated the word of God for us just did not hold your view of the use of this word in its grammatical connection in Acts 2:38.

I have only a short time but here are some quotes from various recognized scholars for all to consider when studying Acts 2:38 and the meaning of the Greek term ‘eis’ in relation to repentance and baptism for remission of sins.

Joseph Henry Thayer, who was the Bussey Professor of the New Testament in the Divinity School of Harvard University says concerning this Phrase, “for the remission of sins”, found in Acts 2:38 and I quote him as follows:

“ eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the remission of sins, Acts 2:38.”(A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Page 94.) There is no doubt that this eminent scholar believed that “eis” in Acts 2:38 means, “ to obtain”.

In his “Commentary on Acts” Hackett, who was a highly regarded scholar among the Baptist, has said the following concerning the phrase “for remission of sins” in Acts 2:38: “ Eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28; Luke 3:3), we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object, which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.”

Dr. J. W. Wilmarth, another Baptist scholar of high reputation among the Baptist, says concerning those who interpret the Greek word “eis” as “on account of” which is equivalent to those who translate it as “because of” the following:

“ This interpretation compels us either to do violence to the construction or to throw the argument or course of thought in the context into complete confusion. Indeed, we can hardly escape the latter alternative, even if we chose the former. (a) For those who contend for the interpretation “on account of remission” will hardly be willing to admit that Peter said, “repent” as well as “be baptized on account of remission of sins.” This is too great an inversion of natural sequence. Yet to escape it we must violently dissever “repent” and “be baptized”, and deny that “eis” expresses the relation of “metanoesate” as well as “baptistheto” to “eis aphesin hamartion”. But the natural construction connects the latter with both the preceding verbs. It “enforces the entire exhortation, not one portion of it to the exclusion of the other,” as Hackett says.”

According to D. A. Penwick, Professor of classical languages, University of Texas, says, “ Normally ‘eis’ looks forward, and I know of no case in the New Testament where it looks back”

Robinson says, “ with adjuncts marking the object and effect of the rite of baptism; chiefly ‘eis’ c. acc/ to baptize or be baptized into a thing…”

Mr. Winer recognized as being one of the greatest Greek grammarians who ever lived: “ the purpose and end in view” Acts 2:38.

H. A. W. Meyer, a German scholar, “Eis denotes the object of the baptism which is the remission of guilt contracted in the state before repentance.”

Charles B. Williams, Baptist Translator of the New Testament and student of Edgar J. Goodspeed, had this to say in the Williams translation of the New Testament, “ that your sins may be forgiven” Acts 2:38.

Olshausen says, “ Baptism is accompanied with the remission of sins, ‘eis aphesin hamartion’ as a result.

Carl H. Morgan, who was Dean of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary said, “ I do not know of any Greek Lexicon which gives to ‘eis’ the meaning of ‘because of’.” Now can anyone bring a single, recognized Greek – English Lexicon, which gives to ‘eis’, Acts 2:38, the meaning of “because of”?

Now, the above quotations are just a few of many scholars that tell us that the Greek word ‘eis’ DOES NOT MEAN “because of”. But DBVZ, with no better reason that the fact that the word in Acts 2:38 does not fit his Calvinistic theories, wishes that it could be translated “because of”. He does this to avoid the inescapable conclusion that Peter told us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that baptism had equal standing with repentance in the plan of salvation. This is a fact that DBVZ is unwilling to admit but his attempt to avoid it is feeble and without the slightest support from reputable and objective scholars who do not have his Calvinistic bias. There is little doubt among the objective and candid observers that “eis" was and is used in the New Testament to convey the idea of “to obtain” remission of sins rather than DBVZ’S "highly desirable" but extremely doubtful idea of “because our sins were remitted”.

But there is a Greek word that can be and is often translated “because”. And that Greek word is “gar”. WE find it in Galatians 3:26,27 where we are told, “For we are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For (gar) as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal 3: 26, 27). But DBVZ did not want to talk about the “because” in this verse for that is diametrically opposed to his Calvinistic Theory. For here in this verse we have Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, saying that we are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus BECAUSE we have put on or been clothed with Christ in baptism. And if this was the Greek word “eis” instead of (gar) we would probably hear all sorts of excuses about why it should not be translated “because” in this verse. Just as I predict that DBVZ might like do in reference to the use of the word “eis” in Matthew 26:28 where it is likely that he will not give “eis” the same meaning as he wants to give to it in Acts 2:38. Because doing so would put him in the absurd position of claiming that Christ died “because our sins were already forgiven” rather than in order to obtain the remission of our sins for us. If our sins were already forgiven then there would have been no need for the death of Christ.

I predict that we will soon move away, as most knowledgeable Baptist and Calvinist have seen the need to do, from this absurd view that the Greek word “eis” can be translated “because”. No one has ever so translated it and it is never used in this sense in the New Testament as far as any reputable, unbiased scholar is concerned. And Thayer definitely is not in support of this false view even though DBVZ has sought his support by what appears to be nothing more than an “off the cuff” quotation that has not been documented as having actually come from Mr. Thayer.

Brethren, remember, “Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good”.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

I believe Danny and E. Lee are correct in their syntax here, but I am uncomfortable saying anything humans do "produces" remission of sins. We may appropriate that, and baptism, it can be argued, is how we appropriate it. But the remission of sins is produces by the shed blood of Christ alone. Nothing we do produces remission.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

Brother White:

I appreciate your following words:

“I believe Danny and E. Lee are correct in their syntax here, but I am uncomfortable saying anything humans do "produces" remission of sins. We may appropriate that, and baptism, it can be argued, is how we appropriate it. But the remission of sins is produces by the shed blood of Christ alone. Nothing we do produces remission.”

I appreciate very much your words in this last post. Indeed, you have hit upon the heart of this matter. I am equally against any doctrine that would teach that anything we do “produces” salvation. Salvation from sin was made possible by the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. And with out the shedding of His blood there is no remission of sins. And since He is the one that shed his blood he is also the one who will decide when, where and under what conditions he will dispense the benefits of his shed blood. These conditions are not something that we have made up ourselves. Rather they were delivered as a part of the gospel of Christ that was preached and confirmed by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. (Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3,4). Christ has the right to place the requirement of faith between the sinner and the obtaining of the benefits of his precious blood. He also has the sovereign right to place the condition of repentance prior to the obtaining of the remission of our sins by the shed blood of Christ. And he also has the sovereign power to place between us and the remission of our sins his requirement that we submit to His lordship through obedience to the gospel of Christ in the humble, submissive act of baptism. These conditions are not by any means a method of “producing our own salvation” rather it is a yielding to the conditions of pardon laid down by the one who died for us to procure our forgiveness. We are not directly saving ourselves. WE are doing nothing more that accepting the terms of the salvation produced or procured by the shed blood of Christ upon His own stipulated conditions. Now, we do have an admonition given by Peter on the day of Pentecost wherein he said to them, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” (Acts 2:40). But we only save ourselves by accepting the salvation offered upon the terms of the “author of our salvation”. We are told, “And he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him”. (Heb. 5:8,9). He promise salvation to any others.

If a man were drowning and some one swam out to him with a life ring. And they placed it within his reach and said if you grab hold to this ring you will be saved. None but a fool would ever think that the grasping of that ring would in anyway be a “producing of his own salvation”. No one would come out of that circumstance boasting of how he had saved himself or herself. But the one giving this person the life ring could very easily say, “grasp the life ring”. And if there was any hesitation to do so because of fear of the swift and rising waters, It would not be out of order for the rescuer to shout, “save yourself from this raging current or you will drown”. But accepting the salvation by grasping the ring would not in the least cause one to “lose his salvation” because he thought that he had to do something in order to be saved. God has every right, because he offered His only begotten son to save us, to require obedience as a condition of granting them forgiveness and salvation in His name. And just because we obey God doe not give us the least bit of reason for boasting as if we in some way earned our salvation. For we could obey God all day long and that obedience would not remove any of our past sins from our souls. Once sin is committed no amount of obedience can wash it away. Only the blood of Christ can cleanse us. Without the shed blood of Christ no amount of obedience could help us obtain forgiveness from God. But, because of the shed blood of Christ God has agreed to forgive us upon the condition of our being “obedient to his son” (Heb. 5;8,9).

Since disobedience is the very essence and nature of sin it is not in the least unreasonable of God to require that we repent of those sins before He grants the forgiveness that the shed blood of Christ procures for us. And because disobedience is the very essence of sin it is also very reasonable that our sovereign God has the right to require an initial act of obedience prompted by absolute faith in Him before he should grant that forgiveness to us. That is the forgiveness that the shed blood of His only begotten Son procured for those who OBEY him. This is the reason that we are told that Christ is the “author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him.” (Heb. 5:8,9).

Forgiveness of our sins takes place in the mind of God and not in the heart of man. And God’s word has told us at what time and under what conditions God promises to forgive us because of the shed blood of Christ. He has done this for our benefit for He needs no such conditions of pardon for Himself. He has done this so that we can say with assurance that we are forgiven by God. God revealed through His inspired apostles that when we through faith obey the gospel of Christ we are saved. (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Now this is completed after we repent of our sins (die to sin), confess our faith in Christ as the Son of God and are buried and raised with Christ in baptism (Romans 6:3-6,17) through “faith in the operation of God that raised Him from the dead”. (Col. 2:11,12). Then and only then are we raised to walk a new life. Then and only then are we forgiven in the mind of God according to what he has revealed in His word. Thus we can all throughout our lives look back on the point in time where were turned from our sins. And we can know that we surrendered to the Lordship of Christ and know that God has kept and will continue to keep His promise to forgive us of all our sins. And he will continue to keep His promise so long as we continue to submit to the Lordship of Christ who shed His precious blood for us. For Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9).

My favorite passage of scripture is, “If we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us of all sin.” 1 John 1:7-9. And though this is conditioned upon our “walking in the light” it in no way implies that my doing so in any manner earns or produces such cleansing. It only shows that our sovereign God has promised to continually forgive me of my sins if I continue to walk in the light. But my so walking in that light does not FORCE God to forgive me. He continues to forgive me as I walk in the light and will cease to do so when I chose to become “shipwrecked concerning faith” and to trod underfoot the Son of God and counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing and put him to an open shame.”

Some times I believe that we are often confused by thinking of salvation as some kind of mystical mysterious magic that takes place at some point after we come to believe in Christ. Instead we should realize that salvation is just another way to say that God has forgiven us of our sins. For it is sin that God is saving us from and this is accomplished by His gracious forgiveness of those sins because of the shed blood of His Son. And the fact that God requires us to repent of those sins before he forgives us for Christ sake is not by any means a “production of salvation” on the part of the penitent sinner. And the fact that God requires us to submit to and obey his commands and to obey the gospel by being immersed with His Son Jesus the Christ. And the fact that he requires these things of us before he actually forgives us in His mind for Christ sake in no way whatsoever indicates a “production of salvation” on the part of the one submitting to the commands and will of God.

We are indeed saved by the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and God does not forgive us of our Sins in His heart for any reason other than that shed blood but He can require these other things for our sake if he so chooses. And this explains why we are told that Christ is the “author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him.” WE must turn from being servants of Satan and yield ourselves to the service of God and then God will forgive us for the sake of Christ shed blood. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Gal. 3; 26,27; Acts 8:35-40).

These facts make Paul’s reply to the question of the Philippian Jailer understandable to us. He said to them, “what must I do to be saved”. And he was told to believe and taken the same hour of the night and was baptized immediately he and all his family. (Acts 16:31-34). It is interesting to note that Paul did not say what many modern preachers would have felt compelled to say to this question. He did not say to the Jailer, “salvation is a free Gift of God, Mr. Jailer, and there is nothing whatsoever that you can do to be saved. It is a gift and therefore you cannot obtain it in any way.” No, Paul wasted no time with such “theological” hair splitting! He simply told him what God expected for him to do and lead him to do it the same hour of the night. It was done and he obtain God’s forgiveness because of the shed blood of Christ in His turning from sin and submitting to the commands and will of God the initial act of obedience which was to be immersed with Christ.

I believe that it is indeed the shed blood of Christ our Lord that is the only reason that God forgives us in his heart of our sins. And I also am convinced that He, in his infinite wisdom has every right to demand that we meet certain conditions before he forgives us because of the vicarious death of Christ. And the meeting of those divinely inspired conditions do not in the least change the simple fact that he forgives us because of Christ shed blood and not because of our obedience to his conditions. What God does is forgive us because of Christ blood. When He does it is when our faith in him prompts us to turn from serving Satan and humbly yield our lives to His service by repenting of our sins and being immerses in the name of Jesus Christ through whose shed blood we are pleading for God’s mercy.

I hope that this will help clarify this matter, Brother White. WE are not advocating forgiveness by works but rather forgiveness because of the suffering of Christ upon (or at the time designated by God) our submitting to conditions laid out by the very God who has agreed to forgive us for Christ sake.

For the above reason, I am convinced that you have said it far better than I have when you said, “We may appropriate that, and baptism, it can be argued, is how we appropriate it. But the remission of sins is produces by the shed blood of Christ alone. Nothing we do produces remission.”

Indeed nothing convinces God to forgive us of our wretched sins other than the precious shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one who arranged that the suffering of the innocent and sinless Son of God should take the place of the punishment due to the guilty and sinful sons of men. Therefore God has arranged, for our benefit, a means whereby we can know that he has forgiven us by laying down conditions whereby we can “appropriate”, as you so ably put it, His divine pardon and forgiveness for our sins.

Your Friend in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

E. Lee Saffold, Danny Gabbard, and any others,

You seem to have missed the point of my post again, in your zeal to criticize the calvinist position on almost anything. The quote you are attacking is not from me. It is from John Wilson from another thread, posted on Feb. 17 (clearly shown since I posted the entire item). I did not indicate I agreed entirely with the interpretation of the specific text by posting it here, The "example of what I mean" comment as a reference to the last paragraph of my post just above, and submitted the same day - actually just a few minutes before:

"Several on this forum have made it clear they rely on the work of Christ for their salvation, and I don't want my comment above to be understood as an assertion that none who believe immersion is required can be saved. I believe God knows the heart, and who are his own. A few here seem to place their trust in their immersion, as much as or perhaps more than their faith in Christ. Those are the ones I am concerned about. We are certainly required to be obedient, and obedience builds our upon our faith and confidence; but obedience, even obedience in baptism, is not what saves us. The verses you use that seem to say baptism saves, must be understood in the context of the entire gospel; and refer to the work of Christ symbolized in baptism."

Mr. Wilson is one who indicated a reliance on the finished work of Christ, as opposed to reliance on anything we do including baptism. The same can be said for CG White, who wrote, "I believe Danny and E. Lee are correct in their syntax here, but I am uncomfortable saying anything humans do "produces" remission of sins. We may appropriate that, and baptism, it can be argued, is how we appropriate it. But the remission of sins is produces by the shed blood of Christ alone. Nothing we do produces remission.

-- CG White (Whitecg@juno.com), February 19, 2001."

As criticism of the interpretation of the specific verse, you have made several points that may be of interest to Mr. Wilson and Thayer. That was not what I copied it for. The issue I am concerned about, and will remain concerned about, is that some (not all) on this forum seem convinced that it is immersion that saves them. Please go back to my posts of Feb. 17, and address what I wrote on THAT subject.

Actually, this thread is getting so long it may be better to start over if the conversation is going to continue much longer.

Just an aside: I note that Dr. White rates a "Brother" from Saffold, though Dr. White and I are in close agreement on the issue of baptism. I take it that is because he HAS been immersed, though he indicated in another thread that he no longer considers that essential for salvation. I don't need the approval of Saffold, but it is interesting the extent to which this issue of immersion is used to identify those he would consider saved. It doesn't seem to matter what you believe, but whether you have "done it". No one has yet addressed the issue I presented about the nature of God the RM position implies, considering all the Christians throughout history that were not immersed - some of which died for the faith.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

From the George W. Bush thread again. This time it is my quote.

Danny, See my comment on the other thread. I am not saying I entirely agree with the interpretation, but that the interpretation indicates a proper understanding of the relationship between faith and baptism taught elsewhere and throughout the Bible including 1 Peter 3. Your reading of the text, to imply that baptism is what produces the remission, conflicts with nearly every clear presentation of the gospel message. Baptism is a symbol of the finished work of Christ, which is what provides remission for all my sins.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), February 19, 2001.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

No, dbvz,

I think dear E. Lee doles that out capriciously.

He never called me 'sister' in my entire time accessing this forum (almost a year) and I've been immersed TWICE.

He used to insult Nelta regularly but still called her, "Sister".

Go figure.

It's good to see you 'fighting the good fight'.. I'm sure there is a crown stored up for you in heaven.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

DBVZ:

You have said:

“The quote you are attacking is not from me. It is from John Wilson from another thread, posted on Feb. 17 (clearly shown since I posted the entire item). I did not indicate I agreed entirely with the interpretation of the specific text by posting it here, The "example of what I mean" comment as a reference to the last paragraph of my post just above, and submitted the same day - actually just a few minutes before:”

Let us not be too quick to overlook the fact that you quoted it and thus far have given no indication whatsoever that you did not agree with it.

I take it then, from your above statement that you did not agree with Brother John’s quotation stating that the Greek word “eis” actually can be “better translated” as “because of” instead of “unto” the remission of sins. Is that correct? Are you now telling us that you do not accept that position or are you simply trying to avoid admitting that Brother John did somewhat express your view of the meaning of the Greek word “eis” in this passage? You have not exactly disagreed with his statement, now have you? So do tell us DBVZ, do you believe that the Greek word “eis” can be “better translated” with the words “because of” instead of the word “unto” or “in order to” or “to obtain”? Or do you agree with your quotation from Brother John? If you do not believe that the Greek term “eis” should be translated “because of” in Acts 2:38 then I will consider this issue settled. And that we are in agreement that it is correctly translated with the words “unto the remission of sins” and meaning that we are to “repent and be baptized” in order to obtain the remission of our sins. If you agree with that translation then the matter is settled as far as I am concerned. For we would then agree with each other on the translation of the Greek word “eis” in this passage and that repentance and baptism are therefore placed on an equal level in Acts 2:38 and both have the same object in view. That object being the remission of our sins.

Then you have an aside that I should notice:

“Just an aside: I note that Dr. White rates a "Brother" from Saffold, though Dr. White and I are in close agreement on the issue of baptism. I take it that is because he HAS been immersed, though he indicated in another thread that he no longer considers that essential for salvation.”

Now you should read my words to Brother White in another thread on this matter and you would not make such ridiculous statements. I now quote my words to him on this matter from the “Vice of Tolerance” thread as follows:

“I am fully persuaded by the scriptures that all who have been obedient to the gospel of Christ are thereby in Christ Jesus (2 Thess. 1:8,9; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6,17; Gal. 3:26,27; Heb. 5:8,9) and are my brothers and sisters in the Lord. And all, who have not been obedient to the gospel, are my brothers and sisters in Adam our common grandfather and God our Creator but they are not in Christ. (2 Thess. 1:8,9; Heb 5:8,9). Inasmuch as there is no salvation outside of Christ (Acts 4:12) and knowing the “terror of the Lord” we must persuade men to surrender to and obey Him (Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:8,9; Luke 6:46). To those we have been commanded to preach the gospel and urge their submission and obedience to it that they might be saved from their sins. (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16; 15,16; 2 Thess 1:8,9). Thus, as you can see, I am convinced that if you have been obedient to the gospel of Christ you are my brother in Christ even if you have never heard of the group of Christians with whom I worship and serve God. And if you have not been obedient to the gospel of Christ you would still be my brother though you would not be in Christ and therefore you would be one of my LOST brothers. And with all of the love and strength that I have within me it would be my duty to do and say all that is true to convince you to be obedient to the gospel which is God’s power to save. (Romans 1:16). But by no means would I ever lose sight of the simple fact that you are in any case my brother.”

Now, any thinking person can see that I have made it abundantly clear in my statement that all who have been obedient to the gospel are my brothers and that this would include many who do not agree with me on other things. And I have also pointed to the fact that if any man has not obeyed the gospel, he would still be my brother in Adam, though he would be my “lost brother” because he has not obtained the forgiveness of his sins and is not in Christ at all. And I have brothers in Christ who no longer believe the truth of the gospel and some of them have even left the faith altogether. But they are still my brothers (though lost because they have left Christ and have become shipwrecked in their faith). And I entreat them every time I see them as brothers to return to Christ our Lord for they are lost if they do not return to Christ for forgiveness of their sins.

Now, in the case of Brother White, when I wrote these words to him I had no way of knowing if he had obeyed the gospel. And the only indication I had from him was that he had been immersed and had also immersed his wife and I had no information from him to indicate whether he had in fact obeyed the gospel and I was not sure of it. And for that reason I mentioned that he would be my brother in Adam and by virtue of the fact that he was created by God even if he had not obeyed the gospel so I have no problem with referring to him as “brother”. I said this because he stated that some in the RM movement would not consider him a brother. I was simply stating to him that I was not one of them. I will continue to call him brother in accordance with the words that I used in explaining this to him.

Now, if he had been teaching the false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” I would deliberately make a point of the fact that he is not my brother in Christ though he would still be my Brother in Adam. But I have not heard him teaching any such doctrine.

Now, he and I both saw this as a minor matter of little consequence. And I remember a time in this forum when everyone became angry with me because I would not refer to certain people as brothers or sisters in Christ if I suspected that they were not Christians. I have not changed my position on this in the least. But I have sought to find ways that would be less offensive to others in this forum. But as you can see, no one is really as interested in my not being offensive unless it in some way allows him or her to avoid my arguments. Now, you are trying to use the fact that I have called Brother White my brother as a means of avoiding the issue at hand.

I will call someone brother anytime I please but I will only call them brothers in Christ if I am convinced that they are in fact IN CHRIST. If you would feel better, DBVZ, I would call you “brother” but I will not call you a brother in Christ. For I am convinced from your doctrine that you have never obeyed the gospel of Christ from the heart or understanding Romans 6:17) and are therefore not in Christ at all. I suspect that it is possible in brother Whites case that he may have obeyed the gospel of Christ, which includes faith, repentance, and confession of Christ and immersion. And until I know otherwise I have no problem with referring to him as my brother. And even if he is not in Christ he is my brother through Adam for we are all members of the same human race and we all trace our lineage back to Adam the first man. Now, if a man can be my brother in Adam and if he becomes a Christian in obedience to the gospel he is also my brother in Christ there is not a person living that I cannot in some sense refer to as my brother or sister.

If an issue is at stake and calling a person Brother would further the cause of error I will not call that person my brother. If one is not a Christian and my referring to him as my brother would hinder him from becoming a Christian by leaving him with the false impression that he is a Christian when he is not I will not call such a one my brother in Christ. I have no such fears concerning Brother White. He does not appear to be one who is apt to deceive himself with such courtesy.

Now, just because you do not like the fact that I call Brother White my brother is no good reason for me to cease doing so. And you can rest assured that should I ever call you brother it will be because I accept that you and I have Adam as our father. But unless you submit to and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ I will not call you my brother in Christ. And your assertion that “baptism” is the only criteria that I have for considering someone a brother in Christ is surely wrong and all who have read my words over the last year in this forum know that such an assertion is false to the core. I have mentioned faith, repentance, confession and baptism together so many times that none can safely or honestly argue that I am teaching salvation by baptism alone without faith in Christ, confession of Christ and repentance of our sins.

And Connie is proof positive that baptism in itself is not a consideration in my mind when I determine to call some one my brother or sister. She has also given evidence that the fact that I disagree vehemently with someone is also not a factor in my considering them my brother or sister. Notice that she said:

“He never called me 'sister' in my entire time accessing this forum (almost a year) and I've been immersed TWICE.”

Now Connie has indeed been immersed twice but, according to her own words in our previous discussions, not once has she been immersed in obedience to Christ or (in his name and by his authority). She has still not answered my question when I asked her what command of Christ did she intend to obey when she was immersed. And she is not likely to answer that question any time soon. Though I wish she would do so.

And she further says:

“He used to insult Nelta regularly but still called her, "Sister".”

Nelta, on the other hand has in fact obeyed the gospel of Christ and does not believe in the false doctrine of salvation by faith only. Though I disagreed with her often and it is only Connie’s opinion that I insulted Nelta, She is still in Christ and my sister because of her obedience to the gospel of Christ. I therefore consider her as a sister in Christ and therefore referred to her as such. Which was not an insult in the least.

Then she recommends that you “go figure”.

That would be a good idea. Go figure out what these things mean and you will find that there is scriptural substance to them though we will not waste too much time on them in this thread. If you consider this matter an important issue then start a thread related to that matter and we can discuss it there.

Then she consoles you with these words:

“I'm sure there is a crown stored up for you in heaven.”

If you do not obey the gospel of Christ, as she has not obeyed the gospel of Christ, I do not recommend that you accept her consolation and expect a “crown to be waiting for you in heaven”. For we are told, “For the time is come when judgement must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God?” ( 1 Peter 4:18). And the answer to that question is given by the inspired apostle Paul. He said, “And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power;” (2Thess 1:7-9).

Anyone who has not been obedient to the gospel of Christ cannot expect a “crown” to be waiting for him or her in heaven. And no amount of earthly consolation and self-delusion will change that fact in the judgement.

But, you can try to avoid the issue as much as you like and notice of this side matter of my calling Brother White my brother is not going to help you to further your assertions that baptism is not for the remission of sins. Because Acts 2:38 is an insurmountable obstacle for you in this matter and it is not likely that you will be able to honestly get around what it teaches.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

E. Lee Saffold,

You wrote, "If you do not believe that the Greek term “eis” should be translated “because of” in Acts 2:38 then I will consider this issue settled. And that we are in agreement that it is correctly translated with the words “unto the remission of sins” and meaning that we are to “repent and be baptized” in order to obtain the remission of our sins."

I thought I had made myself clear, but I will state it again. This verse needs to be interpreted in light of the entire scripture message, and in that light it is clear to me and to most others outside the RM pov that baptism is symbolic of the work of Christ in whome we have our remission of sins. As a result of that understanding of the gospel, as I have stated repeatedly, I understand baptism to be required in obedience (just as obedience to the law is still required) but a missunderstanding or error of some kind (in your opinion) regarding baptism is not proof someone is not saved - just as a Christian caught in a lie can be forgiven through the work of Christ and his substitutionary sacrifice on the cross for all my sins.

You wrote, "Because Acts 2:38 is an insurmountable obstacle for you in this matter and it is not likely that you will be able to honestly get around what it teaches." I have no intenetion of gettng around what it teaches. I believe you have misstated what it teaches.

The three issues about baptism we differ on can be summarized as:

1. Baptism as a condition for salvation is contrary to the gospel of Christ as presented throughout the Bible. (at least the thief on the cross is one clear example)

2. The conclusion that immersion is the only form of acceptable baptism is contrary to #1, and the understanding of many faithful Christians throughout history.

3. The conclusion that no one who has not been immersed can be saved is contrary to #1 and #2, and any reasonable understanding of the nature of God; given that faithful Christians throughout history have lived and died without being baptized by immersion.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

DBVZ:

I asked you these questions:

“I take it then, from your above statement that you did not agree with Brother John’s quotation stating that the Greek word “eis” actually can be “better translated” as “because of” instead of “unto” the remission of sins. Is that correct? Are you now telling us that you do not accept that position or are you simply trying to avoid admitting that Brother John did somewhat express your view of the meaning of the Greek word “eis” in this passage? You have not exactly disagreed with his statement, now have you? So do tell us DBVZ, do you believe that the Greek word “eis” can be “better translated” with the words “because of” instead of the word “unto” or “in order to” or “to obtain”?

You did not answer them at all. In fact it is incredibly obvious that you are deliberately ignoring those questions.

I then said:

"If you do not believe that the Greek term “eis” should be translated “because of” in Acts 2:38 then I will consider this issue settled. And that we are in agreement that it is correctly translated with the words “unto the remission of sins” and meaning that we are to “repent and be baptized” in order to obtain the remission of our sins."

To which you replied:

“I thought I had made myself clear, but I will state it again.”

No, the only thing that you have made very clear is that you are avoiding a response to the questions that I have asked you. It is obvious that you intended for your quotation of Brother John’s error concerning the meaning of the Greek word “eis” to have an impact on this discussion. And now that you have been held to account for the falsity of this error concerning the meaning of the Greek word “eis” in Acts 2:38 you can do nothing more than avoid talking about it altogether. I have asked you to clarify what is not clear to us in your post and you only come back ignoring our request for clarification of this matter and say that you thought that you had made yourself clear. No, you have not been very clear or forthcoming on this matter at all and everyone that can read is able to clearly see that you are avoiding the matter completely and deliberately. Therefore I will ask you again. Do you believe that the Greek word “eis” in Acts 2:38 can be “better translated” with the words “because of” instead of the way it is currently translated in all reputable translations with the words “unto” “For” and “to obtain”? Now we wait to see if you will answer that simple and forthright question or will you simply continue to deliberately ignore a question that is difficult for you to answer.

Then you say:

“ This verse needs to be interpreted in light of the entire scripture message, and in that light it is clear to me and to most others outside the RM pov that baptism is symbolic of the work of Christ in whome we have our remission of sins.”

Indeed this verse as well as all verses in the Word of God should be interpreted in the light of what all of the scriptures has to say about that same subject. But it does no good to talk of interpreting any verse in the scriptures if you are unwilling to discuss the meanings of the actual words found in those verses. We have shown ourselves more than willing to discuss not only Acts 2:38 and it’s bearing on the subject of Baptism but every other verse in the scriptures related to this matter as well. But you have shown a complete unwillingness to discuss the meanings of the specific words found in these verses and especially are you trying to avoid discussing the meanings of the words in Acts 2:38. You are especially avoiding the meaning of the Greek term “eis” in Acts 2:38 simply because its actual meaning and import is contrary to your theory that baptism has nothing to do with the remission of sins. Peter plainly told his audience on the day of Pentecost to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (or unto) the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38). And you say that baptism cannot be “for or unto” the remission of sins but rather it MUST be symbolic of sins already remitted before and without baptism. And you tried to leave the impression that the Greek word “eis” supported your notion by quoting Brother John’s error concerning the meaning of that word in the text. And now that the error of John’s post has been made evident for all to see you want to go to other verses and forget all about Acts 2:38 and the meaning of the Greek term “eis”. It does certainly appear that you regret bring that matter up, doesn’t it?

Then you said:

“You wrote, "Because Acts 2:38 is an insurmountable obstacle for you in this matter and it is not likely that you will be able to honestly get around what it teaches." I have no intenetion of gettng around what it teaches. I believe you have misstated what it teaches.”

Now, there is no doubt that you are doing your best to avoid talking very much about the actual meaning of the very words of this text. In fact you are not trying to “get around it” you have simply put your head in the sand and are hoping that it will just go away and leave you alone. And you have said nothing about its immediate context and we do not doubt that you will ignore everything it its larger context that does not agree with your view that baptism is not “for the remission of sins”. This verse says plainly that baptism along with repentance of those who have faith in Christ is for the remission of sins. Now this is a fact that you are doing your very best to ignore and avoid. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you would at least attempt to get around it. It was my expectation that you would at least try. But you have not even attempted to explain these facts to us. Do tell us just how it is that Peter could say that repentance and baptism was for (or in order to obtain) the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and at the same time MEAN that repentance and baptism had nothing to do with the remission of sins. You are clearly running from that issue, now aren’t you?

However, if you believe that I have misstated what it teaches why don’t you prove that I have done so. You are avoiding any discussion of the very meanings of the words in that text yet you are confident that I am misstating what it is teaching. Why not just show how I have misstated what it is teaching and prove from the words in the text that it is teaching something other than what it plainly says with those words. How can you be sure that I have misstated what it is teaching when you are avoiding discussing with us the actual meanings of the words in the text.

Then you want to get away from Acts 2:38 by talking about three issues as follows:

“The three issues about baptism we differ on can be summarized as:

“1. Baptism as a condition for salvation is contrary to the gospel of Christ as presented throughout the Bible. (at least the thief on the cross is one clear example)”

You and I have discussed this matter months ago. The “thief on the cross” is not a “clear example” of one who was saved without being baptized. You still have never proven that the “thief on the cross” was not baptized at the baptism of John. And unless you can prove conclusively that the thief had never been baptized you have no argument. In fact there is as much evidence to support the idea that the thief could have been baptized at the baptism of John by John’s disciples or by the disciples of Christ, as there is that he was never baptized ever in his life. How did the thief know that Christ was “Lord” and how did he know that He was coming into a kingdom? And what made him even think much less believe that he could expect Christ to remember him when he came into his kingdom? If one reads what was being preached by John the Baptist he sees that he preached “repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand”. (Mark 1:14,15). And that baptism was also “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). In fact the Lord Himself preached these truths and it is possible that the thief heard these things. And we do not know but that he may have submitted to this baptism by John or even one of the Lord’s disciples for the whole region around Jordan was going out to be baptized of John. And a thief would have been in the very class of those who heard John and our Lord. It was the religious leaders of that day that resisted the teaching of Christ. And it is possible that the thief had either been arrested for a Crime committed before he had heard John and Jesus Preach or he may have backslid into his old ways and was caught. But the assumption that because this man was a thief he could not have ever heard the teaching of John or Christ. And the assumption that without any doubt whatsoever he could not have been baptized by the disciples of either John or Jesus, as most of the people in the region where he lived had been is a very large assumption. It is an assumption that cannot be proven to be the truth in the least. And then to tell people that they can be saved just like the thief on the Cross without being baptized when no one knows whether he was ever baptized or not is the height of arrogance and ignorance. And people are being asked to let their eternal salvation rest on such flimsy evidence, which is contrary to the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to preach the gospel. They are being asked to ignore the plain teaching of the word of God in the easy to understand language of verses like Acts 2:38 where they are plainly told to repent and be baptized FOR THE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS. They are being asked to exchange these truths for an assumption that can never be proven to be the truth.

And beside this the New Testament of Christ that requires baptism was not in effect until after the death of Christ. (Hebrews 9:15) And the Thief on the cross lived during a time prior to the New Covenant of Christ becoming effective upon the death of the testator who was Christ. (Heb. 9:15). The Gospel of Christ, which began to be preached with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven on the day of Pentecost required repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. The thief died long before this was preached by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So, your argument from the thief on the cross has no real bearing on this subject at all. And Peter did not stand up on the day of Pentecost and tell everyone that wanted to know what to do to be saved that they could expect to be saved without repenting of their sins. Nor did he tell them that they could be saved without being baptized for the remission of their sins and point to the thief on the cross as an example of how they could expect to be saved. Instead he plainly said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38).

Then you say:

“2. The conclusion that immersion is the only form of acceptable baptism is contrary to #1, and the understanding of many faithful Christians throughout history.”

Now this is the point over which we are in controversy. The truth is determined by what is taught in the word of God. It is not determined by what anyone throughout history believed. You assume that those who believed that there was another “form” of immersion were faithful Christians. But you have yet to prove that they were Christians at all much less faithful ones. Many throughout history may have been deceived into believing that there is more than one form of baptism as if baptism could be anything but immersion. Though I doubt if they saw these matters exactly as you see them. But the simple fact that they believed these things would not prove that they were right about the matter now would it? In fact, if they had not believed that baptism was for the remission of sins none would have ever invented the idea of “immersion by sprinkling”. Because they combined the false doctrine of “Total Hereditary Depravity” with the truth that baptism was for the remission of sins and felt strongly that infants must be baptized to have all their “inherited sins” forgiven. Since they did not find it safe or convenient to immerse children they devised a substitute for immersion. In fact they knew that it was not immersion. They just assumed that God would accept the substitute. And it is your assumption that they were Christians without having ever obeyed the command of Christ given through the Holy Spirit in the apostle Peter to repent and be immersed for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38). Thus you would have them being Christians without ever having received the remission of their sins.

In fact, we have no example of anyone being “immersed” by some different “form” in the scriptures. There are many examples of immersion in the New Testament but there is one very clear and unmistakable example of Baptism in the New Testament book of Acts and there is no doubt but that the “form” as you would put it was immersion. It is the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:35- 40. Read it. It is instructive to all intelligent readers concerning just what the term "immersed" means. In fact the Greek term “Baptizo” means the equivalent of our English word immerse. And to talk of different modes of baptism is just as ignorant as talking of different modes of immersion. There is no such thing in either the Greek or the English language.

No, we do not agree that there were any “faithful Christians” in all of history who had not obeyed the gospel of Christ by faith, repentance and immersion. And you have not proven otherwise. This is the matter over which we are having this controversy. You are doing nothing more with these statements than assuming the issue to be settled while we are yet debating it. You cannot find a Christian in the New Testament after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and the first preaching of the gospel on the day of Pentecost that had not been immersed. And if you cannot prove from the scriptures that anyone was ever a Christian without being immersed then pointing to someone outside of the New Testament who were deceived into thinking that they could be Christians without obeying the Gospel of Christ which includes immersion proves nothing at all.

Then you say: “3. The conclusion that no one who has not been immersed can be saved is contrary to #1 and #2, and any reasonable understanding of the nature of God; given that faithful Christians throughout history have lived and died without being baptized by immersion.”

Well, DBVZ this is the issue we are debating now isn’t it? It seems that you think that the matter has been settled when everyone reading this discussion can see that it hasn’t. The conclusion that many faithful Christians throughout history have lived and died without being baptized (which means immersed) by immersion (a clear tautology in usage) is false to its very core and you have not even attempted to prove that it is the truth. The fact is that no one who has not been obedient to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which can only be done through faith by “repenting and being immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) is not a Christian at all. (2 Thess. 1:7-9). And your notion that it is a “given” that faithful Christians throughout history have lived and died” without being immersed has not been proven to be the truth. It is not a “given”. Who has “given” that this is true? It is not a “given” in the word of God. I have not conceded or “given” this point to you nor has any other Christian who knows the word of God. And your notion that it is a “given” truth is contrary to the teaching of the word of God in these verses. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Ephesians 5:26; Heb. 10:22; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:14-40; Acts 16: 9-11; Gal. 3:26,27; 1 Peter 3:20,21).

You simply want us to accept it as a “given” or as being axiomatic in order to avoid your responsibility and obligation to prove that your assertion is true. Well, your assertion that many “Christians” have lived and died without being immersed has definitely not been proven. In fact, you have not even remotely attempted to prove from the word of God that anyone can even be a Christian without being obedient to Christ by repenting and being immersed for the remission of their sins. For you see, if it is true according to Peter, an inspired apostle of Christ, that we must “repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ “FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Acts 2:38). Then it would be impossible for one to be a Christian without doing these things that Christ commanded through Peter. For if they could become Christians without repenting and being immersed we would then have people that were Christians without receiving the remission of their sins. So, the issue of what Peter meant when he told his audience on the day of Pentecost to “repent and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) is crucial to our becoming Christians. For no one can become a Christian without first receiving the remission of their sins. And if Peter meant to convey that repentance and immersion were FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS then one would have to repent and be immersed in order to receive the remission of sins according to Peter’s inspired words.

But this is the very issue that you are deliberately avoiding isn’t it? You are refusing to even discuss what Peter meant by what he said. You are refusing to answer our questions concerning the meaning, intent and force of the use of the Greek word “eis” in this passage which is translated by competent scholars as “for”, “unto” and “to obtain”. Now if Peter mean that we are to repent and be immersed “to obtain” remission of our sins. If he meant that we are to repent and be immersed “unto” the remission of our sins. If he meant that we are to repent and be immersed “for” the remission of our sins then anyone can see that we would have to repent and be immersed in order to obtain the remission of our sins. It is that simple and you are avoiding the meaning of Peter’s words because they do not fit your preconceived ideas about the matter.

The issue we are discussing is whether one can obtain the remission of sins without “repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Peter by inspiration of the Holy Spirit announced this when he preached the first Gospel sermon offering remission of sins in the Name of Jesus Christ for the first time in History. And thus far the evidence found in the entire teaching of the New Testament, and especially Acts 2:38 is contrary to your assumptions. This verse and many others are contrary to your so-called “given” that one can even be a Christian without obtaining the remission of their sins by faith in Christ, repentance, and immersion for the remission of their sins. Now this matter you have thus far simply refused to discuss and therefore you have most certainly not proven your case. And we are not willing to accept it as a “given” just to absolve you of all responsibility to prove what you say to be the truth.

Even you have said:

“We certainly agree that faith must be put into practice, and if it is not lived it is evidence it is not real.”

Though I am curious as to why you “certainly agree” that faith “MUST BE PUT INTO PRACTICE”. According to your doctrine, which seems to be clearly stated by the Presbyterian Confession of Faith as follows:

“By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto eternal life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestined and foreordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can neither be increased or diminished.” (Presbyterian Confession of Faith chapter 3 sections 3,4,5.)

Since the number of those who are predestined to eternal life is already set and their number cannot be increased or diminished then why is it that you think that faith MUST be put into practice? Even if it is not put into practice it would not, because it could not according to your Calvinistic doctrine, diminish or increase the number of those who are saved or lost. Why then MUST faith be put into practice? What are the consequences if it is not? Will the person who does not put his faith into practice be lost? If he would then he is already one of those who are among the lost and he would not become saved even if he did put his faith into practice. If one is lost and decides to put his faith into practice what will be the consequence? Well, he would only prove that he was among the saved and he would not be lost even if he did not put it into practice. It is really hard to understand why you say that you certainly agree that faith MUST be put into practice. When the truth is, according to Calvinism, it cannot matter in the least whether one practices faith or not. For if he is numbered among the lost he will remain among that number no matter how much faith he manages to put into practice for that number cannot be diminished. And if he were one of the saved he would remain saved even if he never manifested any faith in God. For according to your doctrine the number of the saved and lost can not be increased or diminished and faith has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Rather the arbitrary election of God is the whole of the matter.

I suppose that among Calvinist the only reason that they consider faith being put into practice so important is that it is the only means they have of satisfying that nagging question that probably never leaves them alone. I am sure that many of them know exactly what I am talking about. I speak of that terrible question, “Am I among those God has chosen to be saved? Or am I among those that he has chosen, before I ever even had the opportunity to chose to serve him or ever do anything right or wrong, to condemn? And that cannot be changed no matter what I do. So they feel that they MUST put their faith into practice in order to prove to themselves that they are among God’s elect. For if they practice their faith it is proof positive to themselves only that they are among those who God has chosen to eternal life. Even though practicing their faith is not really essential to their salvation according to their doctrine. For that matter it is not even essential that they have faith. For God decided before they were even born that they would be lost or saved and nothing can change his decision and should they grow up to be atheist they would still be saved because the number of those so selected to salvation cannot be changed. And this would be true even if they never came to even believe there is a God.

So I am surprised that you, as an avowed Calvinist, would even consider faith necessary to salvation. Rather, it seems, that Calvinist consider it necessary to their knowing within themselves that they are saved. Why, for all DBVZ knows he might be talking to some of God’s elect in this forum who do not accept his doctrine as true in the least. And according to his Calvinistic notions we do not have to accept his Calvinistic views to be among the unchangeable numbers of those who are elect. So why would it even matter to him if never accepted his nonsense that baptism is not necessary to the remission of sins? But this might explain his strong aversion to anyone intimating that we must obey Christ in order to be saved (Heb. 5:8,9) for if he ever accepted such an idea without completely giving up his Calvinism he would never be sure if he was among the elect. And he just has to know that he is one of those fortunate souls that God arbitrarily chose to eternal life and he cannot bear the thought that he just might possibly be among that other unchangeable number of the arbitrarily damned.

Be all of the above as it may, according to your own words, DBVZ, if a person’s faith does not lead them to obey Christ it is “evidence” or proof that their faith is not real and without “real faith” they would be among the lost. And if they are among the lost they cannot become saved. For those numbers cannot be diminished or increased, according to your Calvinistic doctrine. And since Christ commanded repentance and immersion for the remission of sins through the Holy Spirit speaking in Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). Then those who do not obey him in these two matters are simply, according to you, proving that they do not have “real’ or saving faith. And therefore they would be proving that they are not Christians. And worse than that they would be proving that they could never become Christians. For the number of the saved cannot increase or diminish. And once they have proven that they are not saved by failing to practice their faith in these matters they are forever lost since they have proven that they are among those whom God chose before the foundation of the world to condemn no matter what they do. Now that is the real consequence and final outcome of believing this Calvinistic nonsense. I for one cannot comprehend how any man with the slightest bit of common sense can believe such a doctrine.

Thus, according to your own words those who, throughout history have not obeyed Christ by repenting and being baptized simply proved without question that they were among that unchangeable number of the lost. And that they were not Christians at all and could never have become Christians no matter how hard they tried.

While this does not put you in agreement with what the word of God teaches which is that one cannot become a Christian without repenting and being immersed for the remission of sins. It does at least put you in the position of admitting that those who have not repented and been baptized have given irrefutable evidence, by not “putting their faith into practice” that they are not Christians and are not numbered among the saved.

So, I have answered your questions and you have again ignored mine. I now ask you again to answer the questions that I put to you above.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Saffold,

I have noted before it is pointless to discuss anything with you. Where I read baptism, you read immersion. Where I read that baptism is a symbol of the work of Christ (in every case), you read it as an act of man required as a condition for salvation. Whatever questions I write that you don't want to respond to, you ignore. Whatever responses I give, you do not consider them responsive to your question as you interpreted your question. You are as free to hold your opinions as I am free to hold mine. Perhaps we should agree to disagree and let it go at that.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Did Peter "agree to disagree" on the day of Pentecost?

Or did he preach exactly what the Spirit wanted him to preach?

There is no difference between the 2 if "right" is actually "right".

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Mark,

Peter wrote by the inspiration of the Spirit of God, exactly what he should have written. It is no short comment, but a long passage - much as Saffold wrote a long post - and no verse should be taken out of context as Saffold seems intent on doing. Peter also said the following:

"And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Acts 2:21 Now, does that mean that everyone who calls on the Lord (relies on Jesus Christ for their salvation) will be saved, or only those that are immersed?

"The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call" Acts 2:39 For all the elect, that God will call; or do those words mean something else to you?

In the same chapter we read, "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." Acts 2:47 Now, did those saved add themselves to the number saved, or did the Lord add them? If the Lord determined who was being saved, is that not the soverign election of God?

And in Acts 2:38, what does it actually say? "Repent and be baptized, every one of you" certainly. Christians are required to do that in obedience to the commands of God, in both service to Him and in gratitude for the salvation we have in Christ. Note that repentance comes first, and that requires recognition of sin and a reliance on (faith in) Jesus Christ for forgiveness of those sins. But the next phrase is, "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". The distinction being made here is that it is Christ in whom we have our forgiveness of sins. In His name we have forgiveness, not "in baptism we have our forgiveness" as Saffold would have your read it.

But that is the heart of the disagreement I have had with most on the forum of the RM pov. Where I see the symbol, and the references to the work of Christ; many here see the human actions, and fixate on the symbol rather than the substance.

Penticost was not the first time the command was given, though when the Holy Spirit was poured out in full measure the disciples were better prepared to carry out the task. They were told to wait until it happened, but in Matthew 28:18 - 20 we read Jesus words, "All aurhority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I will be with you always to the very end of the age." Making disciples comes first; and that requires the call of God, faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance. Baptism and obedience follows. Who would baptize unbelievers? What would it mean if you did, beyond a bath?

Saffold can misrepresent calvinist positions in long posts all he likes, but Calvin understood the gospel message. Jesus Christ saves. Nothing else. Those in the RM that I am concerned about, are those that put anything between us and our salvation in Christ - even baptism.

"Right is actually right". Jesus saves, not baptism.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

Danny,

I will just re-post what Dr. White wrote above:

"Can a Quaker weigh in here? There is a sense in which one can embrace both perspectives. I am confortable with the idea that there is no salvation apart from baptism. But the 1 Peter text is pretty clear that baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with water. "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge/response/appeal of/for a good conscience towards God." The true baptism which is necessary for salvation is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which happens when we have faith. Surely no one would agree that immersion in water is the ONLY way that faith is evidenced.

In Eph 4 Paul speaks of "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" but this baptism is the one of which John the Baptizer spoke when he said:

(Luke 3:16 NRSV)"I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

The baptism of the Holy Spirit (which has nothing to do with tongues) superseded water baptism, which is now passe'. That is why Peter in reporting to the church on going to the home of Cornelius said:

(Acts 11:15-17 NRSV) And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. {16} And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' {17} If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?"

People have debated why in this instance the Spirit came upon them BEFORE they were immersed. The simple answer is that Peter realized later that this was the true baptism and water was not necessary.

So Paul could say:

(1 Cor 1:17 NRSV) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power.

If water baptism is essential, Paul could not say this, because by not baptising he would be undercutting the very gospel he proclaimed.

-- Dr. Clarence White (Whtecg@juno.com), February 15, 2001."

Where you read baptism as the action of men in immersion, I read the action of the Holy Spirit who enters in, convicts of sin, and (through the instument of the Word) brings us to a faith and trust in Jesus Christ as the only source of our salvation. Water baptism remains a sign and symbol of that indwelling of the Spirit; and the water of the flood was an OT symbol foreshadowing what was to come, as John the Baptist was a foreshadow of the Truth.

Did the baptism of John the Baptist save anyone? Were any in the OT saved by the sacrifice of goats and sheep? No. If they were saved it is because these symbols point to the one all sufficient sacrifice of Christ; and if the actions were taken in obedience to God, trusting in Him for their salvation, Jesus saves. The NT symbol of the saving work of Christ(baptism)is in the same relationship to the substance, which is Christ.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

Danny

I am not sure that even what the first century believers thought is the main thing...it is more what God thinks...

Greetings to all from Hillsboro, Oregon. I get to the Arctic tomorrow!

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

DBVZ:

You have said:

“I have noted before it is pointless to discuss anything with you.”

I cannot imagine how you have reached such a conclusion when thus far in this matter you have failed to even attempt to discuss anything with me. For a discussion of any substance requires honest and candid mutual responses to whatever is being said. As I predicted you have completely refused to discuss the questions that I have asked you. In particular, I have directed the following very specific question to you and you have said nothing about it. My question was a simple one.

I asked, “Do you believe that the Greek word “eis” in Acts 2:38 can be “better translated” with the words “because of” instead of the way it is currently translated in all reputable translations with the words “unto” “For” and “to obtain”? Now we wait to see if you will answer that simple and forthright question or will you simply continue to deliberately ignore a question that is difficult for you to answer.”

And it is as obvious as the noonday sun that you are deliberately avoiding any attempt to answer that question, now aren’t you? And your real reason for avoiding it is equally obvious. You are not avoiding it because it is “pointless” to discuss anything with me. Rather you are avoiding it because it is often very sharp and “pointed” to discuss matters with me. This question has a sharp and “pointed” edge to it and you are avoiding the clear point and impact of it for you do not want to “get the point” so to speak. You are all too well aware that if the Greek term “eis” means “unto” or “for” or “to obtain” as it is currently translated by the competent scholars of the most reliable translations available. Then the passage would plainly be telling us that we must “repent and be baptized” in order to obtain the remission of our sins. A fact that you just cannot accept even if it is proven beyond doubt to be the truth. For it flies boldly in the face of your Calvinistic presuppositions and assumptions.

Then you say:

“Where I read baptism, you read immersion.”

No, DBVZ when you read “baptism” you also read immersion but you do not like it because it goes against your theories concerning “modes of baptism”.

Now just because you ignore the clear and accurate definition of a word does not mean that you have simply “read it differently” than the rest of the scholarly world. It simply means that you are deliberately perverting the use of a word and hammering it and shaping it to fit your own personal theories. The English word “baptism” comes from the Greek term “baptizo” which means to immerse. So, when you read baptism you are reading immerse for that is what it means in the Greek language from which it was merely transliterated and deliberately given a meaning that it never had in the New Testament. And it is obvious that you would not enjoy a discussion of this matter. Especially since you are being called upon to PROVE, with sufficient evidence from the reliable, reputable and scholarly lexicons of the Greek language, that they support your “invented” meaning for the Greek term “eis” and the Greek term “baptizo”. The fact is that your imaginary definition of this word is not to be found in any of those lexicons. You thought that you had found some support for a newly invented meaning for the Greek word “eis” in Brother John’s egregious error that you quoted but that tactic did not work so well for you, now did it? Thus, when you see the words of Scripture it is your desire to reserve for yourself the right to give them any meaning that you need to give them in order to maintain your false system of Calvinism, even if those meanings are not true or in the least accurate. And therefore you cannot bear a discussion that “points” out the truth that your imaginary meanings of words cannot be found in the real world of a serious and scholarly Greek lexicon. You do not want to be placed into a position where you must honestly and objectively face those hard to accept truths and facts therefore you find it “pointless” to discuss them, now don’t you?

Then you say:

“ Where I read that baptism is a symbol of the work of Christ (in every case), you read it as an act of man required as a condition for salvation.”

Now, we are ever willing to examine your assertion that “baptism is a symbol of the work of Christ (in every case)”. But we have not heard you prove that there is a single case in the New Testament where we're told that baptism is nothing more than a mere symbol of the work of Christ. We are shown rather that it is a COMMAND OF CHRIST (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:35-40). But you have done nothing more than assert that it is a “symbol of the work of Christ”. You have not shown where the scriptures ever say that it is such. And you do not like it when we do not allow you to just write your own scriptures instead we call upon you to prove what you say from the inspired word of God.

Then you deliberately seek to mislead others with these words:

“Whatever questions I write that you don't want to respond to, you ignore.”

You have not directed any questions to me that I have not answered. If you have any questions that you have asked generally that you would like for me to answer I will be happy to do so if you will but list them and I will take them up one by one. But for now you have not asked me ANY questions that I have ignored and even the casual reader of this forum can see that this is the truth.

Then you say:

“ Whatever responses I give, you do not consider them responsive to your question as you interpreted your question.”

You have not responded to the questions asked of you. You were asked, “Do you believe that the Greek word “eis” in Acts 2:38 can be “better translated” with the words “because of” instead of the way it is currently translated in all reputable translations with the words “unto” “For” and “to obtain”?

TO which your only reply was,

“I thought I had made myself clear, but I will state it again. This verse needs to be interpreted in light of the entire scripture message, and in that light it is clear to me and to most others outside the RM pov that baptism is symbolic of the work of Christ in whome we have our remission of sins.”

Now anyone with half a brain can see that my question asked you what you believe concerning the meaning of the specific word “eis” in this verse. I did not ask you what you thought concerning how this verse should be “interpreted” generally. I asked you about the meaning of a specific word in that verse a word that you yourself brought up as if it had some significant bearing on the meaning of the verse under discussion. But when the error that you borrowed from Brother John concerning the meaning of that word was shown without doubt to be completely false, wrong and far off the mark you did not want to be held accountable or responsible for the egregious error. But you also did not want to admit or accept the meaning of that word and its true impact on the interpretation of the verse. So now you want to avoid that discussion altogether. But it is obvious that you have deliberately refused to answer that question, now isn’t it? For we have not asked you how this verse should be interpreted in the light of the rest of the entire Bible, though we are more than willing to consider that wise suggestion. But we cannot interpret any verse in the light of the rest of the scripture if we insist upon perverting the meaning of the individual, specific words that are found in the specific verses we would consider in order to suit our preconceived notions, now can we? So, I have asked you concerning the meaning of the specific word “Eis” and you tell me how you would like to generally view the who matter and thereby you deliberately are attempting to side step that “pointed” question for it does not fit your Calvinistic notions, now aren’t you?

Then you make the follow ignorant remark:

“ You are as free to hold your opinions as I am free to hold mine.”

Now, DBVZ, no one, least of all me, has even remotely attempted to take away your freedom to “hold to your opinions”. And the only reason that I can image that you think otherwise is that you are feeling the weight of the arguments pressing against your opinions to the point that you do not feel honest in holding to them any longer. And instead of realizing that you should leave them for the truth you simply sense that we are in some way actually trying to force you to give up your opinions. WE are doing no such thing. I am simply challenging your doctrine because it is not according to the word of God. If you do not wish to accept the truth of God’s word no one here would even think of forcing you to yield your false doctrine for the truth. But we will forever resist the teaching of false doctrine so that others can have the opportunity to chose between truth and lies. This is our responsibility before God and we will not cease until our work on this earth is done.

Then you say:

“Perhaps we should agree to disagree and let it go at that.”

Now those who already disagree have no need to strike up an agreement with each other to do what they have been and are continuing to do. WE are disagreeing, DBVZ, and I need no agreement from you to do that. And we most certainly will not simply “let it go” at that. If you teach that which is false we will not “let you go” as if it is perfectly all right for you to do so. No, your request for a compromise and a truce is denied!

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

Saffold,

Your long post makes it clear again it is pointless to continue a discussion with you. Is I wrote some time ago, I did not quote the post of John Wilson from Feb. 17 to make any point concerning the interpretation of "eis", but as an example of one who indicated by his comments that he relies on the finished work of Christ for salvation. I may be wrong, but that is what his post indicated to me. As for "eis", I don't read greek and my opinion on that issue would be entirely based on the opinions of those who do. In any event, even using the interpretation of "eis" you want does not change the meaning I get from the passage. As I have commented before, "repent and be baptized" assumes that some other things have already occured - like recognition of sin, belief that God exists and will forgive, and faith in Jesus Christ. No one truely repents who does not believe, and baptism follows as a symbol of the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ.

You truely state that baptism is a command of God, given through Christ and his apostles. I have never disputed that or that baptism is required. The issue that is critical is whether salvation results from this human action of baptism, putting it in the control of men; or whether salvation results from the soverign act of God of which baptism is the symbol. If it results from baptism, it is works-dependent just as the command not to eat of the tree in eden was. If it results from the soverign act of Gos it is provided freely, by grace, to all who believe as Romans 3:21-24 clearly states.

One step follows another. When you recognize that baptism is a symbolic washing, the mode is less important even though I agreed with you that the word originally included the meaning "to dip" or "to immerse". When a word has several possible intended meanings, it is not always clear which one is specificly intended in each case. Where you read a full body immersion I read we are to get the one baptized wet as a symbolic washing. The point is, baptism itself does nothing. It is symbolic, and after salvation by grace through the work of the Holy Spirit which has brought about faith. We are called to obedience in baptism, but those who are baptized in another mode are being obedient.

In a prior post, you wrote, " Well, DBVZ this is the issue we are debating now isn’t it? It seems that you think that the matter has been settled when everyone reading this discussion can see that it hasn’t. The conclusion that many faithful Christians throughout history have lived and died without being baptized (which means immersed) by immersion (a clear tautology in usage) is false to its very core and you have not even attempted to prove that it is the truth. The fact is that no one who has not been obedient to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which can only be done through faith by “repenting and being immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) is not a Christian at all. (2 Thess. 1:7-9). And your notion that it is a “given” that faithful Christians throughout history have lived and died” without being immersed has not been proven to be the truth. It is not a “given”. Who has “given” that this is true? It is not a “given” in the word of God. I have not conceded or “given” this point to you nor has any other Christian who knows the word of God. And your notion that it is a “given” truth is contrary to the teaching of the word of God in these verses. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Ephesians 5:26; Heb. 10:22; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:14-40; Acts 16: 9-11; Gal. 3:26,27; 1 Peter 3:20,21)."

So it is clear that your understanding of God is that it is not faith in Jesus Christ that saves, contrary to scripture. Throughout history many hundreds of thousands (millions!) of faithful Christians have lived and died believing God, trusting in Jesus Christ and his shed blood for their salvation, but were baptized by sprinkling or pouring water over. They died in with their faith in God intact, and in some cases because of thier faith. Your resolve is to simply say they misunderstood, got the mode of baptism wrong, and are damned. Sorry, you goofed. Faith is not enough, you need to do the works part right or you go the hell. Is that how you understand the Good News?

You quoted a list of passages out of context, but I will state again that in every case when you see them in context it is clear that baptism followed faith, and that it is faith that is the measure of who are saved, and that we are brought to faith by the work of the Holy Spirit. Eph. 2:8-10 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Certainly those who were baptized as a result of their faith were saved, but it is the faith that saved them and that was the gift of God.

I will suggest again, that if this is to continue a new thread should be started to avoid the long load time. Perhaps Baptismal Regeneration Two. We are still on that subject. I contend the RM position as expressed by Saffold is essentially the belief that immersion is the act (of man, not God)through which sins are forgiven. I believe that is what was intended in the original question, and why a calvinist properly identified it as heretical.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

DBVZ:

You will find my response to your above post in a new tread entitled "Calvinism VS the Scriptural Design of Baptism".

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001