Posted on 03/26/2004 7:14:07 AM PST by xzins
Nice try. But the KJV word "straight-way" does not mean "straight-up, perpendicular." It means "immediately." Hence the New American Standard Version's translation: "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and, behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting upon him" (Matt. 3:16). See also this article: Why Baptize By Pouring and Baptize Infants
I didn't mangle Acts 2:38 to take baptism out of it. You stated that it was necessary to reinterpret the Greek, in order to make sure salvation was not a work (in disagreement with the preponderance of scholars who have translated that word the same way in a variety of translations.)
I merely challenged you to produce a "work" that the baptized person does at baptism which you believe would constitute "earning their salvation." So far you keep stressing the passive nature of baptism, meaning the person being baptized does nothing.
So lets get this straight 1) when you are baptized, you don't do anything yourself. 2) It is necessary to reinterpret nearly every major translation in order to make sure we don't associate remission of sins with the (nonexistent, see 1 ) work of baptism.
Huh? How can not doing anything be a work that earns your salvation?
Actually, as I pointed out, there was no "reinterpreting" going on. The word in the Greek can be translated "for." In English, "for" can mean either, "because" (For unto us a child is born...Because unto us a child is born) or "in order to" (he got a grant for studying medicine...he got a grant in order to study medicine). As far as your "preponderance of scholars," that's a red herring, since the English word "for" can mean either "because" or "in order to." Just because people commit eisegesis by taking 'for' as 'in order to,' does not mean that the word 'for' is out of place in that passage.
I merely challenged you to produce a "work" that the baptized person does at baptism which you believe would constitute "earning their salvation." So far you keep stressing the passive nature of baptism, meaning the person being baptized does nothing.
Actually, I stressed the passive nature of infant baptism. But I'm not the one saying that infant baptism saves the infant intrinsically. As far as adult baptism, I said of its nature that they submitted to, or permitted (or, if you think those words too passive, sought out) the baptism. The problem with the interpretation that you are arguing for (which I will call 'your interpretation' henceforth, though whether you believe this doctrine or are just disagree with my argument is besides the point), is that taking "be baptized for the remission of sins" to mean "be baptized in order to gain the remission of sins" is that it goes against the tenor of the New Testament: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved," the Evangelists write, "But he who believes not is damned already." There is no mention of baptism as a condition of salvation here. Baptism may have a rightful place in Christian symbolism and ritual, but the Bible makes quite clear that it is "by grace through faith that you are saved," not by "grace through faith and baptism."
So lets get this straight 1) when you are baptized, you don't do anything yourself. 2) It is necessary to reinterpret nearly every major translation in order to make sure we don't associate remission of sins with the (nonexistent, see 1 ) work of baptism.
See above.
Huh? How can not doing anything be a work that earns your salvation?
It's a matter of where the faith is. If you expect Jesus to save you because you have faith that he will, that is Biblically-placed faith. But if you believe that Jesus will save you because you have faith that he will--and because you were baptized (which is the natural interpretation of Acts 2:38 if one views it as "be baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins")--then you are relying on your own actions in seeking out baptism, as well as on Jesus' atonement, to save you, and hence looking to "dead works" for your salvation.
But the bible does not say seeking to be baptized remits your sins. The act of seeking baptism is not what we are discussing. You say that baptism is a work, therefore not required for salvation. I have asked again and again what that work is, since you insist that the correct definition of "for" is arrived at based on the premise that baptism is a work.
If it is a work, surely you can provide the actual action taken by the person during baptism? Hint: It is the same as any person being buried.
but the Bible makes quite clear that it is "by grace through faith that you are saved," not by "grace through faith and baptism."
That sort of absurd reductionism can take you any place you want to go. Besides, Paul was addressing Judaizing teachers when he spoke of salvation by faith. You should read James, who was speaking to the original adherents of "faith alone." Hint: The only place the words "faith alone" are found in the bible, they are preceded with "not by."
But the bible does not say seeking to be baptized remits your sins.
Nor does it say that baptism itself remits your sins. Hence the note about the meaning of the word 'eis' in Strong's Greek Lexicon, specifically referring to Acts 2:38.
The act of seeking baptism is not what we are discussing. You say that baptism is a work, therefore not required for salvation. I have asked again and again what that work is, since you insist that the correct definition of "for" is arrived at based on the premise that baptism is a work.
The rite of baptism itself is a ritual. In assuming that Peter commands, "Be baptized for the remission of sins," by which you mean, "Be baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins," you are saying that baptism is required in order to be saved. This, in and of itself, means that you are trusting a "dead work" (the term the author of Hebrews, in particular, uses to describe rituals), at least in part, for your salvation. You want my definition of a 'work'? It is trusting in anything other than Jesus' atonement for your salvation, even partially. It is faith in anything but the blood of Jesus to save you from your sins. As it relates to Biblical theology, salvation by works is believing that anything else than "grace through faith" saves.
If it is a work, surely you can provide the actual action taken by the person during baptism? Hint: It is the same as any person being buried.
The Bible says that the "actual action" of a baptismal candidate is precisely that of being baptized--that is, washed. The symbolic action of water baptism is being baptized by the Holy Spirit.
but the Bible makes quite clear that it is "by grace through faith that you are saved," not by "grace through faith and baptism."
That sort of absurd reductionism can take you any place you want to go.
Heh. It's not reductionism when it's spelled out in the following verse ("not as a result of works, that no one should boast").
Besides, Paul was addressing Judaizing teachers when he spoke of salvation by faith. You should read James, who was speaking to the original adherents of "faith alone." Hint: The only place the words "faith alone" are found in the bible, they are preceded with "not by."
Just because the exact words are not there is no excuse for a total excision of that doctrine from your creed. There is a maxim that many different men have held to, that "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." Your problem is that you are confusing "dead works," that is, rituals, with "good works," which is to say, the fruits of the Spirit.
Paul says quite clearly that "[B]y grace are you saved; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9). And James never disagrees. He sets up what he means by "works" at ch. 2:14 of his epistle when he says, "What use it it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?" (James 2:14-16.) First off, note that he does not say that the man actually has faith, only that he "says he has faith." As vv. 15 and 16 show, when he explains what he means by works, they are moral actions, "good works" that come from a heart filled with God's love. This has nothing to do with baptism, since there is no ethical character to the action. You are not helping others by being baptized; you are only, on even the most outlandish Baptistic scheme, identifying yourself with Christ's death.
In fact, James' main point is spelled out in verse 22, "You see that faith was working with his works [Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac], and as a result of the works, faith was completed." James is not saying that faith and works are both the grounds of salvation. He is saying that faith isn't complete without works (which, as the incident with Abraham and Isaac shows, was a natural extension of trusting God, that is, having faith in him).
It says exactly that in Acts 2:38 and many other places. I have posted lists many times, for all the good it does. Each and every case is deconstructed so Mr. Faith Alone can say, "see, this verse doesn't mean what it says" in the same way you have deconstructed Acts 2:38 to mean the opposite of what it says.
Baptism is not a work, because it is a burial. No corpse ever works at its burial, it is an inert thing. Likewise, the person being baptized does not "work." There is nothing for him to do!
But what about the baptizer who works? Nowhere in scripture is any significance placed on the baptizer. His work is merely incidental and physical.
So where is the work? This is where the faith-aloners miss the boat. The work of baptism that saves was accomplished by Christ on the cross. Paul says that if we have been baptized, we have been baptized into the death of Christ, and being buried with Christ we are raised with Him. It follows then that if we have not been baptized, we have not been buried with Christ and therefore have not been raised to walk a new life!
"Faith alone" distorts Paul's rejection of the dead rituals of Judaism into rejection of the living rituals of Christianity, commanded by Christ Himself! Christian rituals such as baptism do not save by the action of the Christian, but by the action of Christ. No one who believes baptism is necessary believes that it is anything without Christ. No one believes that baptism "earns" your salvation for you. Those are straw men.
James flatly and directly rejects salvation by faith alone. No amount of deconstruction can change the clear and simple meaning of James 2.
Being baptized in a river does not prove that they were immersed in a river. As the author of the article that you apparently failed to read puts it, ""In the river Jordan" has no more significance than the other phrase ("in Jordan"). I washed my hands "in the river Jordan" and "in the Dead Sea" but I did not go under the water. Jesus "sat in the sea" but not under the water. "The ship was in the midst of the sea," but not under water. I live in Tennessee but not under dirt. "Paul stood in the midst of Mars Hill" but not under that great rock. "John did baptize in the wilderness," but not under the ground. Jesus "abode" at the place "where John at first baptized" (John 10:40). Did Jesus live under water?"
Since you fail to recognize that there is more than one grammatical function for the word 'for' (and to the word from which it is translated), I am unsurprised that you choose to label my exegesis as "deconstruction." Not only that, but I find it pointless to continue this particular argument, since we no longer have any common ground to work from--and I'm not sure you could continue it, either, since you've already resorted to groundless assertions ("you have deconstructed Acts 2:38") and not facts.
Baptism is not a work, because it is a burial. No corpse ever works at its burial, it is an inert thing. Likewise, the person being baptized does not "work." There is nothing for him to do!
Baptism is a ritual. The word is used metaphorically to describe inclusion into a common group or experience in several places of Scripture, including the one place that it links baptism and burial (Col. 2:12, "having been buried with him in baptism..."). However, the Bible also describes the significance of baptism in the following ways:
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death? (Romans 6:3)For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, etc. (1 Corinthians 12:13)
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Galatians 3:27)
It should be pointed out that there is no clear evidence in any of these passages that what is meant here is water baptism. It is a groundless assumption to believe that any or all of these instances refer to water baptism. Further, in our argument over the point of baptism being a work, you switched terms on me, dodging the issue. I have been arguing that believing that baptism remits your sins is trusting a work to remit your sins and save you. Your response was to argue that baptism itself is not a work (rather than the believing it remits your sins), which is 1) not an answer to my argument, and 2) nonsense. Baptism is something you do or have done to you, which makes it a work. There is nothing wrong with that. It is also commanded of by the Lord. However, when we get to the real argument, it is not that baptism is a work, but that trusting in baptism to have some part in our salvation means that we are looking for salvation to be by what we do--being baptized, a work. And not only salvation by a work, but not even the same type of work that James talks about in declaring that "faith without works is dead."
But what about the baptizer who works? Nowhere in scripture is any significance placed on the baptizer. His work is merely incidental and physical.
Irrelevant.
So where is the work? This is where the faith-aloners miss the boat. The work of baptism that saves was accomplished by Christ on the cross. Paul says that if we have been baptized, we have been baptized into the death of Christ, and being buried with Christ we are raised with Him. It follows then that if we have not been baptized, we have not been buried with Christ and therefore have not been raised to walk a new life!
See above about the other meanings behind the rite of baptism. That said, your contention that baptism is required because it, by some merit intrinsic to itself, raises us to walk a new life, does not follow.
"Faith alone" distorts Paul's rejection of the dead rituals of Judaism into rejection of the living rituals of Christianity, commanded by Christ Himself!
Actually, no. "Faith alone" places the "living rituals of Christianity," as you put it, where they belong: as things that the Lord has commanded, and that even offer a channel of grace, but that do not save.
Christian rituals such as baptism do not save by the action of the Christian, but by the action of Christ. No one who believes baptism is necessary believes that it is anything without Christ. No one believes that baptism "earns" your salvation for you. Those are straw men.
I wonder about that, since you are believing that you must be baptized to be saved. You aren't trusting in Jesus Christ alone to save you because of his sacrificial death; your faith isn't in him alone. Your faith is also that your having been baptized has a hand in it. You say that baptism saves because of the action of Christ, not because of the action of the Christian; but the problem is that you make baptism save, and not Christ. Christ's death is the meritorious cause of our salvation (he is why we merit being saved) under your scheme (as he should be), but baptism is the instrumental cause of our salvation (baptism is the method Christ uses to save us). The Bible does not exalt baptism so highly. "It is by grace through faith that you are saved," Paul writes in Ephesians 2. The key word here is 'through.' By God's grace we are saved, and grace saves us using faith as its instrument, as its conduit. NOT baptism.
James flatly and directly rejects salvation by faith alone. No amount of deconstruction can change the clear and simple meaning of James 2.
Another groundless assertion.
So when a dead body is buried, it is working? I guess if they can vote democrat, why not.
Once again, the work that saves in baptism was done on the cross. I keep pointing out that no one believes dunking itself is intrinsically salvific. But you insist that must be the case. It is no wonder you labor in error, since you feel the need to define what those you disagree with believe over their strenuous objections to the contrary.
By the way, "baptism" is a religious weasel-word, the more correct word is immersion or dunking. By using "baptism" rather than "immersion", all sorts of chicanery can be accomplished because it isolates the ritual from everyday life. "Baptism" has become something with infinitely variable definition. For example, you claim that most of the places "baptism" is used, it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When Paul penned the Greek word for immersion, it was plain to see that he was talking about water immersion because that is the understood context of immersion in everyday life. That is why the bible explicitly says "baptism (immersion) of the Holy Spirit", because the immersion is in a different medium than would be otherwise assumed.
So when a dead body is buried, it is working? I guess if they can vote democrat, why not.
You weren't paying attention. Ritual=work. Baptism=ritual. Therefore, baptism=work. Trusting for your involvement in a ritual (baptism or otherwise) to save you is what is commonly called "salvation by works," and is unbiblical.
Once again, the work that saves in baptism was done on the cross. I keep pointing out that no one believes dunking itself is intrinsically salvific.
Like I said, you make baptism the instrumental cause of salvation, a place that the Bible gives to faith (Eph. 2:8,9).
By the way, "baptism" is a religious weasel-word, the more correct word is immersion or dunking. By using "baptism" rather than "immersion", all sorts of chicanery can be accomplished because it isolates the ritual from everyday life. "Baptism" has become something with infinitely variable definition. For example, you claim that most of the places "baptism" is used, it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When Paul penned the Greek word for immersion, it was plain to see that he was talking about water immersion because that is the understood context of immersion in everyday life. That is why the bible explicitly says "baptism (immersion) of the Holy Spirit", because the immersion is in a different medium than would be otherwise assumed.
Several points here:
1) "baptizo" does not translate properly as "immerse". The early (pre-Vulgate, second-century A.D.) Latin translation, the Itala, does not translate "baptizo" as "immergo" (the Latin word for immersion), but leaves it as "baptizo". Not only that, but in several places in the New Testament, the word "baptizo" cannot be translated as "immerse", as in Mark 7:4, "And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not." Likewise in Luke 11:38, "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner."
2) I nowhere claimed that the majority of places where the word "baptism" occurs, it refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit--only that it is not incontrovertibly used to refer to water baptism in the places I cited. What I did say is that in the passages I cited that give the significance of baptism, they do not refer to the significance of water baptism itself, but instead to what water baptism itself is supposed to symbolize: the baptism of the Spirit.
3) It should also be pointed out that Peter equates the "baptism of the Spirit" with Joel's prophecy, "In the last days, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." It is difficult to immerse someone by pouring liquid on them, since immersion necessarily implies completely covering the subject all at once, i.e., dipping.
Repeating it endlessly does not make it so. A funeral is a ritual, but the body being buried does not work. A burial is a ritual, but the corpse does not work. A baptism is a ritual, but the person being baptized does no work.
The idea behind salvation by works is that you can "pay up" your debt of sin to God. That is what the Jews of the first century thought they could do. That is what some tried to teach the early Christians.
But we know no matter what you do, you can't atone for your own sin. No one who believes baptism is essential believes that it earns their salvation. To earn something, you have to do the work required. The work required for salvation was done on the cross, and no matter how many times you accuse baptizers otherwise that remains the case.
only that it is not incontrovertibly used to refer to water baptism in the places I cited
The bible does not entertain sophists and those who approach it with a mind to distort. Washing, immersion, dunking, dipping all occur in water typically, and if you want someone to draw the conclusion some other media is involved you have to specify it. When Inspiration wants to refer us the the baptism of the Spirit, that is what is cited.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.