|
|
|
EXCHANGE WITH MR. E. CALVIN BEISNER
First, the Greek word here translated "into" would be translated better "in" or "unto" (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, IV, pages 361, 362; see also his Grammar, pages 591, 593), rather than "into." Thus Robertson writes at Romans 6:3, "Better, 'were baptized unto Christ or in Christ.'The translation 'into' makes Paul say that the union with Christ was brought to pass by means of baptism, which is not his idea, for Paul was not a sacramentarian ... Baptism is the public proclamation of one's inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism. See on Galatians 3:27 where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform, Into his death ... So here 'unto his death,' 'in relation to his death,' which relation Paul proceeds to explain by the symbolism of the ordinance." There we see that the Greek grammar itself does not teach that the baptism here spoken of is actually the means of getting "into Christ." Second, Paul is speaking in figures and symbols throughout the first half of this chapter. Would the proponents of baptismal regeneration take "our old man is crucified with him" in verse 6 literally, or will they recognize it as symbolic? It is symbolic, and it paints a vivid picture of dying to self and being alive to Christ. But this gives us precedent to interpret "baptism" in this passage as symbolic, too. Another key to the fact that this passage is to be interpreted symbolically is "reckon ye also yourselves to be dead..." (verse 11). All along, it is this "reckoning" that is emphasized. The "also" tells us that we reckon ourselves not only dead to sin, but also reckon other things of ourselves. These are expressed in the two symbols of being baptized in Christ and being crucified with Him (verses 5, 4, 6). Thus Paul is simply using baptism as a symbol to paint a vivid picture of, what happens when one is identified with Christ; that is, "when one has "put on Christ," has been "born again." Baptism gives an excellent picture of what is to become a Christian, for it pictures the burial and the resurrection. But the baptism itself is not that burial or resurrection. As Robertson puts it (on verse 4, "...a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality." Baptism, therefore, symbolized identification with Christ. Third, that baptism symbolizes identification can be shown by two studies. a) In 1 Corinthians 10:2, Paul writes that the Israelites "were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." This clearly shows that "baptism unto Moses" was a symbolic way of speaking of their identification with him: they ate the same meat, and drank the same drink; they were identified with him. b) A careful reading of Romans 5:12-6:11 shows clearly that identification with Christ, on the one side, or with Adam, on the other, is Paul's theme. It is by our identification with Adam that death passed upon all men (5:12); it is through his offense that the many be dead (5:15); and by the judgment of him that all stand condemned (5:16); and because of his offense death reigns over all men (5:17) until they are saved (7:25, 8:1); by his offense judgment came on all (5:18); by his disobedience many were made sinners. But on the other hand, it is by our identification with Christ that we have life: Adam prefigured Christ in this sense, that identification with him brings on us the things which apply to him, and identification with Christ brings on us the things which apply to Him (5:14). Yet the benefits of identification with Christ far outweigh the tragedies of identification with Adam (verse 15); by identification with Him God's grace, which is given to all, abounds to those who are identified with Him (verse 15); by identification with Him the gift of justification comes to us (verse 6); identification with Christ brings abundant righteousness in life (verse 17); identification with Him brings justification and righteousness unto life (verse 18); identification with Him applies His obedience to us (verse 1 9). Paul uses baptism often as a symbol of identification. He does it in 1 Corinthians 10:2. He follows the tremendous passage on identification with Christ on the one hand and with Adam on the other with a more in-depth passage on identification with Christ, Romans 6:1-11. As Christ died for our sins, and "became sin for us," (2 Corinthians 5:21), so He died to sin because He had taken on our sins (Romans 6:10). Thus when we are identified with Him, we too are "dead to sin" (verse 2); we are identified with His death (verse 3), with His burial and resurrection (verse 4), with His newness of life because of this resurrection (verses 4,5), in His crucifixion (verse 6), in living with Him (verse 8), and in dominion over death forevermore (verse 9): "...in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:10,11) The entire passage of Romans 5:12-6:11 is concerned with our identification first and naturally with Adam, and second and by spiritual rebirth (John 3:3-6) with Christ. It is correct, therefore, especially in the light of Paul's usage of the term in 1 Corinthians 10:2, to understand "baptism" in Romans 6 as symbolic of identification. Therefore it is not water baptism which actually puts us "into Christ" or is necessary for our salvation, but "identification with Christ:" dying with Him to sin, rising with Him to life, living with Him to dominion over death and sin. Romans 6:3,4, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.
I fear that Mr. Beisner has been adopting Mr. A.T. Robertson's arguments without understanding their consequences, for Mr. Robertson was not a pedo-baptist. Again, as on the other passages examined, it is essential that the reader notice carefully the positions taken by Mr. Beisner on this context. Mr. Beisner has affirmed that the baptism of Rom. 6:3-4, is water baptism but that it is used in a symbolic sense. It is good that he understand the passage to mean water baptism because that is the truth of the matter. Note well Mr. Beisner's admissions for he may want to shift to another position when he sees the consequences to his arguments. You see, if the passage is talking about water baptism, and Mr. Beisner agrees that it is, then there are some logical conclusions which are inescapable. By virtue of his admission, one can supply "water baptism" to each of the statements made by Paul in the text and understand what Paul meant. These are plain statements with which Mr. Beisner must contend and he has labored at length to make the clarity of them befuddled.
Mr. Beisner has changed "eis" (Greek word for "into") into that which fits his theology. In essence, he tells us that "eis" (into) should have been "en" (in); however, Paul by the inspiration of the Spirit, used the word "eis." Now the word "eis" has been translated in some contexts by "in" but it is rare and not the normal nor most basic use of the word. Thayer gives the basic definition thusly: "eis, a prep. governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit; into, to, towards, for, among," (p. 183). An etemological study of prepositions, and specifically 'eis", might be interesting and profitable under other conditions but suffice it to say that we are dealing with what 'eis" meant in the Koine Greek when Paul wrote Rom. 6:3-4. The Greek prepositions "en" and "eis" are two different prepositions which take two different cases, in the same way that "in" and "into" are two different English prepositions. I have photostated here for your observation a page from Dana & Mantey's Greek Grammar which illustrates the different Greek prepositions. Diagram of the Directive and Local Functions of Prepositions
Mr. A.T. Robertson, while observing that "eis" probably resulted from "en-s", recognizes the difference in "eis" and "en". Mr. Beisner also recognizes this difference for in the very next section of his booklet, under the caption of "l Corinthians 12:13", he correctly uses "eis" (English translation, "into"). Mr. Beisner says that it is by being baptized by the Holy Spirit that we get in the body of Christ, then he observed, "Paul goes on after saying that we are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ to say that we also all drink of one Spirit," (Emphasis mine, JRE). While his interpretation of the passage may not be correct, he clearly understands the significance of "into" in this context and it is the same word that appears in Rom. 6:3-4. Consistently, from language construction and meaning, Mr. Beisner should conclude that it is by water baptism that we get in Christ because we are baptized into Christ. However, he concludes that "...the Greek grammar itself does not teach that the baptism here spoken of is actually the means of getting 'into Christ."' Mr. Beisner concludes that but the Greek grammar does not conclude that, because the Greek grammar uses the word "eis"-translated by Greek scholars by "into."
Did Paul believe that baptism was an act which, when performed by an authorized (?) person, had saving power within itself? This appears to be Mr. Robertson's use of "sacramentarian" and therefore his objection to Paul saying that we are baptized "into Christ," but that is a smoke screen set up by a supposed either-or proposition presented thusly: either one believes that baptism is an act having saving power in itself or he must believe that baptism merely symbolizes our salvation. Is there no other choice? You mean that's it? What if I believe, as the scriptures teach, that baptism predicated upon faith and repentance, is where God forgives the sins of one who lovingly obeys His conditions for salvation, hence one is baptized into a relationship with Christ? What if I believe that it is in baptism that Christ becomes my savior and my spiritual leader? Now that is not being a sacramentarian! Neither is that relying on my own goodness but rather on God's mercy. What if I believe that? It surely does not fit into Mr. Beisner's either-or situation, but it does conform to all that scripture says.
Is baptism a symbol? Yes. But is baptism a symbol of our already having been saved? NO! A thousand times, no. There is not one passage in all the New Testament which makes baptism symbolize our salvation from sin. It is one thing to affirm that baptism is a symbol, as Mr. Beisner does, but it is an entirely different position and subtle transition when he concludes that baptism merely symbolizes our salvation, that is, that it depicts to the world that we have already been saved before we are baptized. The context does not support that view at all. Mr. Beisner's conclusion is that since baptism is used symbolically or figuratively, then it is not necessary to our salvation from sin. Non Sequitor! But follow his logic and see where it leads. In Acts 14:26, Paul used the expression "...opened the door of faith..." This is a figurative expression. If it is a figurative expression, then, according to Mr. Beisner's logic, faith is not necessary to salvation. The symbolism here is that of comparing Christ's death, burial and resurrection to our death, burial and resurrection in baptism-our baptism is a form of that which Christ did. In baptism we die and we are buried and from baptism we are raised to walk in newness of life because we are forgiven. We are then new-born babes in Christ. Mr. Beisner says this only happens in figure-Paul says it happens in reality. Should one doubt that this is the way our baptism figures Christ's death, burial and resurrection, note v. 5-"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection..." It is the likeness of His death and the likeness of His resurrection.
Mr. Beisner puts a great deal of stock in his interpretation of 1 Cor. 10:2, to prove that which he calls "identification." Paul said the children of Israel "were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." His point is that they were baptized into the leadership of Moses. However, it is not identification with Moses that Paul established when he said, "and did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all..." for the "all" is the same as those of v. 2, who were baptized unto Moses. Rather, he is showing that while all Israel received God's provisions and even accepted the leadership of Moses, who was appointed by God, God was displeased with many because of their unbelief and sin and consequently destroyed them. Let us also be warned (vv. 6-12). Mr. Beisner says, "Paul uses baptism often as a symbol of identification," then lists only one verse, 1 Cor. 10:2, and misinterprets that one. Mr. Beisner weakens Paul's arguments by his use of "identification." "Relationship", in my judgment, better depicts Paul's thoughts. For instance, we are naturally related to Adam because of our flesh-all of us are descendants of our original parents. Furthermore, like our natural parents we choose to sin ourselves; hence, death passed upon all men because "all have sinned," (5:12). To put it another way, we do not die spiritually because of another's sin-all men die because of their own sin. Since all men have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), there was a need for a new spiritual relationship. Therefore, when Paul wrote Rom. 6:1-ff, he was reminding these brethren of what had transpired when they had been baptized. Paul's points immediately following 6:1, are answering the question, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" The first emphatic answer is, "God forbid." Then the series of arguments following that statement are designed to show what took place in their baptism and the total incongruity of one who has died to sin, who has been crucified with Jesus, who has been raised to walk in newness of life and. thereby beginning a new relationship to a new master, still being the slave of sin. "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body..." (6:12). "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey ... ?" (6:16). In Mr. Beisner's summary of the context, he conveniently changed the wording of chapter 6:17-18. No wonder, because Paul says, "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness," (6:17-18). Mr. Beisner has us being made free from sin as a result of Christ's obedience and that separate and apart from our own obedience from the heart. Paul says these brethren in Christ were made free from sin when they obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine delivered them. Mr. Beisner has said: "Thus when we are identified with Him, we too are 'dead to sin' (verse 2)". Does language mean nothing? If water baptism is "identification with Christ", and when we are identified with Christ we too are dead to sin, then it necessarily follows that in water baptism we become dead to sin! Mr. Beisner's final conclusion that water baptism is not necessary to salvation does not follow from his arguments and finds him contradicting himself. Mr. Beisner's theology dictates that he must seek to explain away any act of obedience on man's part, for when he conceives of salvation from sin, he automatically rejects anything that man does. He must, therefore, wrest every passage that teaches that man has a responsive part in his own salvation-for which he must give an account to God.
[Previous Article] [Next Article]
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Created on 12-Aug-98 |
Page last updated |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
