|
|
|
EXCHANGE WITH MR. E. CALVIN BEISNER
Baptismal regenerationists often refer to this as proof that baptism is necessary for "washing away sin," that is, for regeneration, for remission of sin. There are several reasons why this cannot be the case. First a careful study of the Greek text shows that "wash away" is coordinated with "calling." That is, it is by "calling on the name of the Lord" that Paul was to "wash away" his sins, not by being baptized. Even the English does not say, "be baptized washing away your sins," or "wash away your sins being baptized," but rather "be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This shows that washing away the sins and being baptized were separate acts, and that the washing away of the sins was done by calling on the name of the Lord. Second, being baptized was not a part of the Gospel which Paul preached. We know this for two reasons. a) Paul carefully distinguishes baptizing from preaching the Gospel in I Corinthians 1. There he writes, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (verses 14-17a). Baptism, then, cannot be part of the Gospel. But the Gospel is the "power of God unto salvation" (Romans 1:16). The Gospel tells us what it is necessary to know in order to be saved. Paul leaves baptism out of the Gospel. Therefore Paul did not consider baptism necessary to salvation. b) Acts 22:15 says Paul would be Chrlst's "witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." Paul did not preach baptism (I Corinthians 1:14-17) as a part of the Gospel. Hence we must see Acts 22:16 as telling us simply of an historical fact. Ananias told Paul he should be baptized, and Paul was baptized. But the grammar does not support the idea that his baptism was the washing away of Paul's sin: it shows instead that his calling on the name of the Lord brought forgiveness (Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31). Baptism was not incorporated into what Paul considered to be the Gospel. Therefore Acts 22:16 does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures In the New Testament, Vol. III, pages 391-392, admits the grammatical possibility that this could be interpreted as teaching baptismal regeneration, or baptismal remission. But grammatical possibility is far from actuality. There is also the grammatical possibility, and the stronger one in fact, that washing away is accomplished by calling on the name of the Lord. The grammar alone, therefore, cannot settle it, and discussions such as those above are necessary to clarify the matter. Robertson does write, however, "It is possible ... to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so in my opinion is a complete subversion of Paul's vivid and picturesque language. As in Romans 6:4-6 where baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way (verse 10). Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ." Comments are in order here. It is possible, by isolating this verse from its context and from other New Testament teaching on the subject, to take this as teaching baptismal regeneration, but again this is only one way to understand it. It has already been shown that this would not fit the context, it does not fit the most clear understanding of the grammar, and most important, it is contrary to Paul's entire teaching of what the Gospel is (I Corinthians 1:17; Galatians 1:11,12; Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9,10). Possibility must not be confused with either probability or actuality. Acts 22:16 does not teach the necessity of baptism for salvation.
REPLY TO MR. CAL BEISNER'S MATERIAL ON ACTS 22:16
No less than five times in his booklet Mr. Beisner uses 1 Cor. 1:17, and always with the same thought in mind – "Baptism cannot be a part of the gospel." He uses it again here and obviously believes it to be a strong proof against baptism; hence, it becomes necessary to deal with that material first in this section. There is no contradiction between this context and the other passages which I have used and shall use to teach the necessity of baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The contradiction exists in Mr. Beisner's thinking because he misunderstands this passage in its context Read the entire context of 1 Cor. 1:1-17, for yourself. Notice first that Paul did baptize people - namely, Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus, and possibly others. Notice second the central idea of the context. Division existed in Corinth and that schism was a result of teacher loyalty rather than loyalty to Christ, but they had not been baptized by a teacher's authority - they had been baptized in the name of Christ. Why was Paul thankful that he had baptized so few? Not because baptism was not a part of the gospel, but rather "lest any should say I baptized in my own name," (v. 15). His statement, "For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel," follows the same vein of thought, (v. 17). The contrast in this verse is made to show the greater importance of preaching the gospel as compared to baptizing those taught. Notice also that the contrast is not between the gospel and baptizing - it is between preaching the gospel and baptizing. This passage is no different from many others which employ the "not ... but" rule. In a "not ... but" construction it is a wrong conclusion that seeks to restrict totally the first part of the sentence associated with the "not." For instance, total restriction of that which follows the "not" here would make Paul say, "Christ sent me not to baptize at all." That would make Paul condemn himself - because he had already admitted baptizing some in Corinth. The "not" is followed by a "but" in which preaching the gospel is obviously greater than baptizing for without the preaching of the message of Christ no one would know about a savior or what the savior commanded men to do to be saved. Christ also used this form of expression in John 6:27: "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life..." Jesus was not saying it was wrong to work for perishable meat-the Bible also teaches that men should labor for their meat or they do not have the right to eat (2 Thess. 3:10). Rather, this form of expression is elliptical and Christ is saying, "Labour not so much for the meat that perisheth..." The Semitic Idiom is also found in many other passages such as John 12:44,47. Therefore, the truth of the matter is that Paul is saying, "For Christ sent me not so much to baptize as to preach the gospel..." Mr. Beisner's conclusion that baptism is not a part of Paul's gospel is washed out.
As in other instances, Mr. Beisner appeals to the Greek text and would have us believe that a careful study of the Greek makes his conclusion so clear as not to be misunderstood. However, you will notice that Mr. Beisner admits, in his use of Mr. A.T. Robertson's statements on the passage, the grammatical possibility of understanding the passage to mean that scriptural baptism washes away sin. If Mr. Beisner's use of the Greek is so clear, then there could be no allowability for any other understanding. Obviously, Mr. Robertson's opinion, as Mr. Beisner quotes it, is going to be different from that which he must honestly admit, as a Greek scholar, to be an allowable interpretation. That is true because his theology, and not the construction, demands his interpretation. Surely, Mr. Beisner realizes that when he says a "careful study of the Greek text" shows his point, then admits that the "grammar alone cannot settle it," he annuls his proof. Furthermore, Mr. Beisner uses his own authority, as he has before, in a way which is contrary to his own conclusions, for Mr. Robertson admits the connection between baptism and washing away sin-however, he sees baptism and the washing away as only a symbol of what was supposed to have transpired on the road to Damascus, while Mr. Beisner sees the washing away being done in Damascus by "calling on the name of the Lord." Yes, Acts 22:16, is an historical statement of an event which had transpired earlier in Paul's life and was recorded by Luke in Acts 9:1-ff. Here, In Acts 22, Paul rehearsed the events of his conversion in a defense before the Jews in Jerusalem to demonstrate why he had become a disciple of Christ. There are two important questions which arise from an analysis of this context: (1) when were Saul's sins washed away?; (2) how were they washed away?
Most Calvinists (religious people such as Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc., who hold to some form of John Calvin's teachings) adopt the view that Saul was saved on the road to Damascus when he believed that the voice he heard was that of the Jesus he was persecuting. That is Mr. Robertson's position. Furthermore, I suspect that this is really what Mr. Beisner believes, if he will honestly and consistently maintain his convictions, for Mr. Beisner believes that a person is saved at the point of faith-"We are saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Cal Beisner, Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation, A Critical Analysis, under topic "How Then Are We Saved?"). Saul believed on the road to Damascus! Was he saved then? Tell us, Mr. Beisner, when was Saul saved? You cannot have it both places. If you affirm that he was saved when he believed, and you must do that to be consistent with your stated conviction, then you must surrender your argument about Saul being saved by calling on the name of the Lord. Now, Mr. Beisner did not say what "calling on the name of the Lord" was. He only said that it could not be baptism. On the other hand, if his argument is true that Saul was saved when he called on the name of the Lord in Damascus, then he must deny his stated conviction that man is saved by faith only. The question, "When was Saul saved?" can be answered from the information available to us in the text. When Ananias told Saul to "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the necessary conclusion is that Saul had sins which needed to be washed away; hence, was not saved before arisirg and being baptized. When Mr. Beisner affirms that Saul's sins were washed away when he called on the name of the Lord, he must logically conclude: (1) that Saul was lost before this time; and, (2) that baptism preceded his being saved. If this is not true, then the order and structure of the sentence means nothing.
Mr. Beisner says, Paul was saved by "calling on the name of the Lord." I agree and if he accepts the conclusions to that, we are not far apart. However, contrary to what Mr. Beisner says, there is nothing in the Greek text which shows that "calling on the name of the Lord" refers to "wash away thy sins" but not to "be baptized." Actually both aorist imperatives are causative middles and the action covered by the aorist participle, "calling on his name," is simultaneous with that of the aorist imperatives. Everyone understands the flexibility of language whereby the same thought may be expressed in different ways. Mr.Beisner would have us conclude that since Ananias did not say, "arise and be baptized washing away thy sins...", then baptism and washing away sins cannot be connected together. Not so. For instance, if a judge said to a man convicted of a crime, "Arise, receive your sentence and be incarcerated, conforming to the law's requirements," we would have no difficulty understanding the meaning. The commands make perfectly good sense the way Ananias put them to Saul and the simplest understanding of the commands is that arising and being baptized would wash away Saul's sins and that this was invoking the authority of the Lord. If Mr. Beisner will look at how the passage must read to fit his explanation, he will realize how much he is distorting it. To fit his doctrine, it would have to read like this: "...arise and wash away thy sins by calling on the name of the Lord and then get baptized." I challenge Mr. Beisner to preach the same message that Ananias brought to Saul, Will he tell people that they must do what Ananias, by the authority of Christ, commanded Saul to do? He cannot without changing his theology. Saul had to be baptized to wash away his sins and this passage clearly demonstrates the necessity of baptism for salvation.
[Previous Article] [Next Article]
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Created on 12-Aug-98 |
Page last updated |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
