Explaining Baptism (Part 2)
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
Last week's articles consisted of explaining various aspects of the importance of baptism to a woman who had sent inquiries via e-mail. The conclusion this week will show the way she responded. First of all, she stated that she had not read all three e-mails (which were sent to her on Saturday, December 1st). All three of these were recorded in last week's bulletin and would have taken, perhaps, fifteen minutes to read. Instead of doing so, she decided to respond even though much of what she said had already been addressed.
So, what did she say about the e-mail she had read? She made only a few comments. (This first e-mail dealt with the list of things by which a sinner becomes saved\grgrace, the gospel, the Word of God, repentance and water baptism—and then examined Acts 2.) Part of her answer is recorded below:
What I believe that you may be doing (but I'm not sure because I need to re-read it first) is taking these one or two verses and putting all your weight on them, when there are many more verses and axioms put forth in there that say otherwise. I know that place in Acts to which you refer. It's heartbreaking to imagine being in their shoes—suddenly realizing that you've just killed the true Son of God. I bet they panicked and wondered what on earth can we do now?? They would have been desperate. Don't they say to Peter, "Men and brethren, what can we DO?" Emphasis on the word 'do'. They'd already felt 'pierced in their hearts' thereby they've already been saved, as it were. They were (in the flesh) desperate for a way to feel better about it.
(I suspect that being baptized would have made THEM feel better a little bit, by feeling like they DID something). But the repentance was the real deal.
Could I read that, and then legitimately come back and say, "Yeah, but Peter was just talking to the Jews who had been directly responsible for crucifying Jesus, that wouldn't apply to us, we didn't do that." Of course not. There are so many little traps and pits in there if you look at things that way.
Such a response is incredible in its inability to deal with the text. She totally ignored the significance of Peter's answer and concluded that the people were already saved. More than that, they just wanted Peter to tell them something so they would feel better, which is utter nonsense! (No, I did not tell her that.) She also overlooked that repentance (the real deal, according to her) and baptism (not the real deal, according to her) are connected by the conjunction and. Either both of them are the real deal, or neither one is. Her views are not governed by the text—but by what she thinks the text should say. And what about the list of things that saves us that were presented in the first e-mail that I sent her? She disagreed with it!
You mentioned that the Word of God is a prerequisite and in one of the two books to the Corinthians Paul says they are saved by the gospel—well, that depends on what you mean there. Can I just OWN a Bible and qualify? Can I just have read it with no particular reaction and pass muster?
The way this woman views the Bible strains one's credulity. Early on, she sounded like she totally respected it as inspired. But then she writes words like these! Although I mentioned what Paul said about being saving by the gospel, it was Paul who actually wrote it (1 Cor. 15:1-2). Nothing depends on what I mean; but what Paul wrote is crucial. Her quibble is what Paul penned by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Her complaint is truly ludicrous.
But it gets worse. Imagine someone having a Biblical discussion and proclaiming the following sentiment:
When you said, "We are saved by many things," I totally disagree with that. The gospels and the epistles discuss plenty of ways in which one demonstrates one's faith, and makes God happy, and exhibits a good role model for others to see, but it's not stated that they are necessary for salvation. You can't take a statement that Paul or Matthew Mark Luke or John says and just because it's stated presume it's necessary to be saved.
There is TOO much emphasis on the simplicity of qualifying for salvation and then going on to prove that by saying it's doable simply by 'believing' in Christ (which, if it's actually truly done, necessarily leads to repentance and studying the Gospels, etc. etc. ).
How could you actually believe that salvation is such a multi-faceted, ambiguously-defined and kind of a moving target, per your statement that all those different things are necessary for salvation? That's not God, it's not Christ, it's not New Testament, it's not Biblical. What about your definition of salvation makes that attractive to a non-believer? It sounds darned near impossible by your definition. I'd have a hard time witnessing that to someone.
She totally disagrees with the Scriptures. Once again, I am not the one who said we are saved by the Word, by the gospel, by faith, by repentance, by baptism. Apparently, she did not even take enough time to read each verse. No one who claims to believe the Bible was given by inspiration of God can read a Bible verse and possibly say, "I totally disagree with that." The rest of this portion of her e-mail is mostly gibberish; she merely rambles about what she did not take the time to consider. Furthermore, being saved by water is not ambiguous—either in 1 Peter 3:21 or in connection with Acts 2:38. Being saved by the Word of God simply means that a person must read it and abide by what it says. The fault lies not in the Bible but in her refusal to consider the truth.
After stating that she totally disagrees with the Scriptures she did not even bother to read, she had the temerity to say: "You have a great deal of expertise in the Scriptures. But you must use some wisdom to understand them." Apparently, she has a high opinion of herself but little confidence in anyone else. Part of her problem stems from her view of Biblical interpretation. She gets her wisdom from the Holy Spirit (in other words, herself). She wrote
It's important to apply the guidance of the Holy Spirit to Biblical interpretation, otherwise you get into arguments with people about stuff like WHICH dictionary are YOU using, etc, etc.
No, I had not cited any dictionary and have no clue as to what she meant, but it is helpful to define words and find out the meaning of a Greek word on occasion. But her point is that we should get our wisdom from the Holy Spirit, which is a legitimate thing for which to pray (James 1:5), although she did not cite the passage. But what is the correct interpretation of that verse? Shall we assume that, if we pray for wisdom in understanding the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit will directly put interpretations into our minds? A number of people argue this point; the only trouble is that none of their interpretations agree with each other, which points out a flaw in their thinking.
First of all, wisdom is the ability to use the knowledge we have gained through study, yet many confuse the two. Second, what she is expecting from the Holy Spirit is not wisdom but knowledge. To be able to understand what the Scriptures teach involves the Bible student putting forth the effort it takes to come to a correct understanding of a passage of Scripture, which means looking at the definitions of the words and comparing other verses. But some want to take the lazy way out and have the Holy Spirit tell them what it means. Third, that others have different interpretations means nothing to them because they cannot bring themselves to doubt that the Holy Spirit revealed the truth to them. She added further relevant statements:
But it gets to be a very thin tightrope that one has to walk between literal and figurative interpretation if you don't have a Spiritual Guide like God's Spirit when you open the Bible.
Do you know how long I've been studying the Bible? Maybe 20 years. Yet I still couldn't consider myself an expert at it. It's only with the direct assistance of the Holy Spirit that it's possible to get anywhere with it, at least in any way that God likes.
It is a fact that, when a person holds views similar to these that the conversation is going nowhere. She actually thought she did a wonderful job of answering my first e-mail when she did not touch top, side, edge, or bottom of anything I had tried to get her to see. She basically ignored any sort of objective analysis and just brushed it all away because those Scriptures did not fit her theology. She continued:
I would consider myself saved quite nicely even if I'd never been baptized…and I heavily considered saying that, and I really mean it.
If you had never been baptized, BUT considering who you are now and what your heart tells you, wouldn't you still know you were saved too?
Just THINK about that for a moment...please [emph. hers).
In other words, her salvation is totally subjective. It does not matter what God commands; it is what the Holy Spirit tells her and how she feels about it. And that is precisely the place where many people are today. Has she never read that Jesus said we shall be judged by "the word" that He had spoken (John 12:48)? He did not say we would be judged by our hearts or by some "guidance" of the Holy Spirit, but by the objective standard of His Word.
To have replied to all of these matters would have required doing pretty much what has been written above, which would have meant another lengthy e-mail, and she still had not responded to the other two; so I sent a brief reply covering two points.
Apparently, you have never been taught the significance of there being two different covenants. May I suggest you ponder that? It will clear up some of the misconceptions that you have. Read Ephesians 2:12-16 and Colossians 2:11-14. The book of Hebrews also spends most of its time comparing and contrasting the two covenants.
Please heed this warning. Do not contradict the Scriptures. I am not the one who wrote we are saved by the gospel, the word, faith, repentance, baptism. If you read these verses and object to them despite the fact that they come from God, I'm not sure where we can go from there. You gave me the impression that you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but if you are going to contradict it, what am I to think?
Her reply was unresponsive. In fact, she made it clear that she had nothing to learn and that I should listen to her wisdom (no doubt coming from the Holy Spirit). Consider these two statements:
I don't want to keep doing this if there is no possibility of your accepting that there's just a chance that you're not totally correct about this debate. If it's just an exercise in futility then I do have other things to do…. I happen to KNOW that I'm right.
Also, you really need to address one of my most important points—and that's the fact that the act of baptism is NOT described in detail anywhere in the Bible. That's absurd if it's so essential for salvation. Would God leave that up to HUMAN interpretation if one's eternal life is dependent up on it? If you know God, you know better. He includes all we need to know in His word. That would be a dirty trick if He's left such an essential thing up to human interpretation. That's not His way.
Two comments merit expression here. The first is that I had never made the claim, "I KNOW that I'm right." If I had, however, it would have been made on the basis of investigation and analysis—not on what the Holy Spirit allegedly guided me to believe. Putting one's views at risk is the point of discussion.
The second observation is that this is the first time she had made her "important point" regarding this aspect of salvation. The reply is below:
You seem to think there that if baptism were that important, it would be defined better. This is presumptuous on your part. God said that it was essential (1 Peter 3:21). If that does not want to make you do a little digging to find out more, then there is something wrong with your attitude toward what God considers essential. If baptism means eating a peanut butter sandwich, we have the obligation to find that out. Of course, it does not mean that. But what it does mean is easily discernible to anyone who reads the New Testament.
1. The fact that people went out to the Jordan River to be baptized by John indicates that it requires a great deal of water. If a few drops were being sprinkled on a person, a river would not be needed. John could have used a waterpot of stone like one of those in John 2:6 and baptized thousands of people. Furthermore, John 3:23 names a particular place where John was baptizing because "there was much water there."
2. Have you never read Acts 8:38-39? The eunuch and Philip both went down into the water, where he baptized him, and then they both came up out of the water. Here is a Biblical example of immersion, but there is NO example of any other mode of "baptism."
3. Paul refers to baptism as a burial (Rom. 6:3-5), which no one could say of sprinkling or pouring. Just as Jesus was buried in a tomb, so the sinner is buried in water.
4. I notice that you did not hesitate to go to definitions when you thought it helped your case; so why did you not look up the word baptism in a Greek lexicon? You will find that the Greek verb, baptizo, means "to dip, to plunge, to immerse." (Or did you look it up but just do not want to admit it?)
5. Historical data confirms (and even pedobaptists acknowledge this) that immersion was always used in the New Testament era and for several decades afterward.
At this point she made a personal attack, used profanity, and cut and pasted several passages of Scripture. What she did not do was answer the material provided for her above. I wrote a brief response about the inappropriateness of her language, as well as the futility of pasting in huge quantities of the Bible when I already have 30 or more translations, all of which I have read. She could not answer a single point, but she undoubtedly thinks she did a superb job since the Holy Spirit guided her.