|
|
|
|
EXCHANGE WITH MR. E. CALVIN BEISNER
PART 6
MR. BEISNER'S MATERIAL
GALATIANS 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Williams and Dykes (op. cit., page 32) argue that this proves the necessity of water baptism
for salvation, because it is by that that one gets "into Christ" and "puts on Christ." But
there are reasons why this is not the case.
a)We have already seen that Paul often used "baptism" as a symbol for identification. This usage here
would fit the meaning of the text. If it is symbolic of "identification," the meaning would be as follows:
"For as many of you as have been identified in Christ have put on Christ." We have good reason from Paul's
other writing, as shown above, to take this figuratively, and it fits the context that way. Therefore the figurative
is the most likely meaning.
b)The verb in Greek translated "put on" has the meaning of putting on a badge or uniform of service "like
that of a soldier. This verb is common in the sense of putting on garments (literally and metaphorically as here).
See further in Paul (Romans 13:14; Colossians 3:9f; Ephesians 4:22-24; 6:11, 14). In 1 Thessalonians 5:8 Paul speaks
of 'putting on the breastplate of righteousness.' He does not here mean that one enters into Christ and so is saved
by means of baptism after the teaching of the mystery religions, but just the opposite. We are justified by faith
in Christ, not by circumcision or by baptism. But baptism was the public profession and pledge, the soldier's sacramentum,
oath of fealty to Christ, taking one's stand with Christ, the symbolic picture of the change wrought by faith already
(Romans 6:46)." (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, IV, 298)
In other words, even if "baptism" is taken as referring to water baptism, the language which Paul uses
shows it to be an outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly, The baptizing itself then would
be an entirely outward event, with no spiritual effect, but only a spiritual significance. Hebrews
9:13ff reminds us that no outward ceremony has a real effect on the heart.
c)The word "into" in the A.V. would, again by Robertson's principle quoted earlier, be better translated
"in" or "unto," meaning "in reference to" Christ, thus showing that the baptism itself
is not the means of getting to be "in Christ."
d)Galatia stood in the middle of an area infested with the mystery religions, and these bodies made much of outward
acts. Paul was refuting the teachings of these religions, and so there is the initial probability that he did not
want "baptism" in 3:27 to be taken as the literal, outward act. Baptism in water was a common initiatory
rite in the mystery religions, and Paul knew that from his own travels in the area. It would be extremely unlikely
that he would speak of it in the same way they did.
e)It is by the receiving of the Holy Spirit that we know we are saved. In fact, those who have received Him are
saved (Romans 8:1-16). But Paul in Galatians 3:2,3 points out specifically that it is by faith that the Galatians
received the Holy Spirit. To say then that Galatians 3:27 teaches baptism as the means of regeneration would make
it contradict verses 2,3.
f)In verse 6 Paul quotes the fact that Abraham was justified he believed God; that is, when he had faith. But Genesis
15:6 shows that this justification came before any physical act, specifically that of circumcision. Now the fact
that Abraham was justified by faith without works is proof that he was saved (Romans 8:29-30; cf. Romans 3:1-5,
28). Circumcision is the Old Testament counterpart to baptism in the New Testament (see on Colossians 2:12 later).
Therefore we can be saved before and even completely without being baptized in water. (The use of Abraham as an
example of the manner of our justification is supported in Galatians 3:28-29. and by Paul's whole argument in Romans
3-4.)
Baptism in Galatians 3:27 does not refer to physical baptism in water, but is figurative of our identification
with Christ which is achieved by faith (John 1:12-13), as was the case in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Romans 6:3,4.
It cannot be used as proof that baptism is necessary for salvation. But even if it did refer to water baptism,
it would not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation, for it specifically speaks of it as an outward sign,
we know that outward signs do not affect the heart’s relation to God, and we know that there are those who were
saved before they were baptized in water (Cornelius and his friends, Acts 10) or were circumcised (Abraham, Genesis
15).
Galations 3:27, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.
MY REPLY TO MR. BEISNER’S MATERIAL ON GAL. 3:27
Reply has been made to Mr. Beisner’s arguments on "into" and "baptism being used
figuratively" already; hence, I will not duplicate that material here. Note the previous article on Rom. 6:3-4.
I seem to be having some difficulty understanding which position Mr. Beisner wants to take on Rom. 6:3-4; Gal.
3:27; Col. 2:12; & 1 Pet. 3:21. At first it seems that Mr. Beisner is affirming the same position taken by
Mr. A.T. Robertson. Mr. Beisner surely understands that Mr. Robertson, as a Baptist was saying that baptism in
water is "the public proclamation of one’s inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism";
not that the word "baptism" was used figuratively. It is illogical, as well as being confusing, to quote
from someone as an authority and then draw a conclusion which is contrary to what the quoted man says. Mr. Beisner
quoted Mr. A.T. Robertson to prove that baptism was to be taken symbolically, then proceeded on the basis that
the word "baptism" was used as "identification with Christ."
Furthermore, he has used quotation marks around the word "baptism" indiscriminately so that it is impossible
to fathom if he is talking about the word as a word with its meaning or if he is talking about baptism in water.
I had asked a friend to read his material on Rom. 6:3-4, and he concluded the same thing from that section that
I did – that Mr. Beisner was using "identification with Christ" in reference to what took place when
a person was baptized in water. In this section, Mr. Beisner speaks somewhat clearer by saying, "Baptism in
Galations 3:37 does not refer to physical baptism in water, but is figurative of our identification with Christ…",
but then he says, "But even if if did refer to water baptism, it would not prove the necessity of baptism
for salvation, for it specifically speaks of it as an outward sign…" I find that quite perplexing, for I would
like know how it speaks of water baptism specifically as an outward sign, if it is not talking about water baptism
at all?
Mr. Beisner must affirm that the baptism in these texts is either water baptism, and according to Mr. Robertson
is a symbol of our own salvation, or he must affirm that the word "baptism" stands for identification
with Christ. Both cannot be true at the same time. Let me show you why. Mr. Beisner’s position at times is that
water baptism is only a symbol of our salvation from. Mr. Beisner’s position at other times is that the word "baptism"
is equivalent to "identification with Christ" and this is when one has "put on Christ" or has
been "born again." (Note previous article on Rom. 6:3-4, Paragraph 5). Now, if both positions are true
at the same time, then "identification with Christ" is only a symbol of our salvation and not the real
thing; there, "identification with Christ" is not necessary to salvation. But Mr. Beisner has already
affirmed that "identification with Christ" is when one has been born again which would necessarily mean
that being born again is not necessary to salvation. Again, Mr. Beisner has said, "Therefore we see that the
Greek grammar itself does not teach that the baptism here spoken of is actually the means of getting ‘into Christ,’"
Now, if he believes that the baptism spoken of in Rom. 6:3-4, is "identification with Christ" which is
when one has "put on Christ" or has been born again is not the means of getting into Christ.
And, as if Mr. Beisner’s contradictory positions are not confusing enough thus far, read the following quotation
from his booklet:
Therefore baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant relation of the New Testament believer
to God: the relation of justification, of forgiveness of sins, or regeneration, in short, of salvation (Rom. 6:1-5;
1 Peter 3:21; Galatians 3:27). It signifies the identification of the believer with Christ in His Death to sin
(Romans 6:10, 11), in His burial (Romans 6:3,4), and in his Resurrection to victorious life (Romans 6:4-5). Simple
physical baptism does not cause that relation to God (Romans 2:28-29; also Simon Magus was baptized, but did not
have or receive that relation - Acts 8:10-24; Romans 9:13ff, proving that an outward ceremony does not affect the
relation of the heart to God); the one who is baptized but does not have faith is not by the mere baptism placed
in the relation to God which we call salvation. The one who enters the relation of justification, of forgiveness
of sins, of regeneration, that is, of salvation is commanded to be baptized (Acts 10:48) as a sign and seal of
his relation to God (Romans 4:11; 6:3-11; Galatians 3:27). Not being baptized does not prevent salvation (Acts
10:47-48, Cornelius and friends were saved before baptism), even though it is a sin not to be baptized." (The
True Significance of Baptism).
Before the above quotation in his booklet, Mr. Beisner had already said that Rom. 6:1-5; 1 Pet.
3:21, Col. 2:12; and Gal. 3:27, do not refer to water baptism at all. But what does he do now? He lists
those very same passages to argue that physical baptism in water is parallel to physical circumcision and now
they are discussing water baptism.
Tell us plainly, Mr. Beisner, what do you believe? It would certainly clarify the issue if you could decide which
position is the truth of the matter. Common sense and reasoning will not allow a context of scripture both to teach
water baptism and not to teach water baptism at the same time. Now if Mr. Beisner understands his conflicting usage
of these verses, then he has been intentionally deceptive-I do not believe Mr. Beisner to be such a man as to
do that. I think, rather, that in his zeal to refute what he calls "baptismal regeneration" he studied
and adopted two different theological lines of reasoning and incorporated both into his material without realizing
that they both cannot be true at the same time.
Under his point "b", Mr. Beisner appeals to the verb "put on" and makes some observations from
Robertson's "Word Pictures in the New Testament." And yet, only Mr. Robertson so defines the word as
putting on a badge or uniform of service like a soldier; hence, was the soldier's sacramentum, oath of fealty,"
etc. Not in Thayer, Vine, Liddell and Scott, the Analytical Greek Lexicon, nor any other work I have seen is such
a definition given. This verb does not mean to play a role as an actor being dressed up as Christ. Nor does it
mean a "badge" so that it is a soldier's "sacramentum" as Mr. Robertson says. Rather, from
the physical idea of getting into clothes, it conveys the idea of being clothed of Christ. Furthermore, when one
puts on "the breastplate of righteousness," it is not merely symbolizing something-he is not just acting
righteous-he clothes his spiritual self with righteousness.
Are faith and baptism mutually exclusive? Mr. Beisner has stated, on more than one occasion, that baptism cannot
be necessary to salvation because we are saved by faith. His conclusion is that salvation by faith excludes baptism
and, by implication, that the belief that baptism is necessary to salvation would exclude saving faith. I would
suggest for Mr. Beisner's consideration, that in his own mind, when he sees "faith" in the Bible, he
automatically thinks "faith only"-that is the fallacy in his reasoning. He does not so reason on other
subjects. For instance, he realizes man is saved by grace but grace does not exclude faith. Furthermore, man is
saved by love but love does not exclude grace. Also man is saved by the blood of Christ but that does not exclude
love, etc. In the same way, man is saved by baptism and that does not exclude, faith, grace, love nor the blood
of Christ. In fact, man is saved by everything by which God has said he is saved and not one thing excludes
any of the other. One's personal salvation does not occur at the point when God loved, nor at the point in time
when God gave his son. Neither does it occur at the point when he believes-it occurs when God forgives.
Yes, the scripture many, many times emphasizes the need for faith in God and in Christ. Also there are many passages
that speak of our being saved "by faith" or having eternal life "by faith," but there is
not one passage in all the Bible which declares that man is saved by faith only. In fact, there is only one
passage in the whole Bible which connects the word "only" with "faith." That connection can
be found in Jas. 2:24-"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
In being baptized, man is not working perfect works or putting trust in an outward sign-he puts his trust in God's
grace and the saving power of Christ's blood to forgive sins. The person who obeys the truth from the heart is
purified by God (Rom. 6:17-18; 1 Pet. 1:22), not by his own works (Col. 2:89). It was God's plan that faith
and repentance lead man to be baptized wherein God's forgiveness takes place. God owes man nothing but he has promised
forgiveness when man truly believes, repents and is baptized-God promised; God cannot lie.
Under point "d", Mr. Beisner refers to the "mystery religions" and says that Paul could not
have been talking about baptism in water in Gal. 3:26, as an "initiatory rite" because he was refuting
their teachings. So what? If Mr. Beisner had researched the subject as he ought, he would have known that Christians
do not believe baptism to be an "initiatory rite." I would agree that Paul was not teaching such, but
what was Paul teaching? Read the text. The text of the book tells us of a Jewish-Gentile problem which involved
some in embracing another gospel-a gospel combining faith in Christ with keeping the law of Moses. Paul makes extensive,
powerful argumentation to show that justification came as a result of the seed promise to Abraham and the law was
merely added to the promise because of transgression. Therefore, the design of the law was never forgiveness (ch.
2:16, 21; 3:1-25; 4:1-30).
Gal. 3:27, follows ch. 3:26, which follows ch. 3:25. Now, I know that that is rather obvious, but I put it that
way to Impress the contextual sequence. When the system of faith in Christ came, they were no longer kept in bondage
under the trainer (v. 25). Because they were sons of God through faith (literally "the faith") in Christ
Jesus, they were free. In v. 27, Paul is not telling them what to do to be saved nor is he teaching them about
the true significance of baptism as though they did not understand. Rather, he is telling them that in being baptized
into Christ, they put on Christ. Now, they will have to accept the conclusion to that which is that in Christ "There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one
in Christ Jesus, and if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," (vv.
28-29).
Mr. Beisner's conclusion that Paul was refuting the teaching of the mystery religions and, therefore, could not
be talking about water baptism is a figment of his imagination. The context shows that Paul was dealing with the
perversion of the gospel by Jewish influence.
Under point "e", Mr. Beisner asserts that "it is by the receiving of the Holy Spirit that we know
we are saved. In fact, those who have received Him are saved (Romans 8:1-16)." That statement is rather all
inclusive and as it stands is false. I will illustrate by scripture that his basic premise is wrong but my denial
of his assertion is not a denial of the Spirit's operation in regeneration. That has already been covered in my
material on Jno. 3:1-ff. However, Mr. Beisner's statement about the Galatians being saved by receiving the Holy
Spirit indicates a misunderstanding of this context (Gal. 3:2-5) and the miraculous function of the Holy Spirit
in the first century.
Let him apply his argument to Acts 8:5-25. The Samaritans heard Phillip as he preached Christ to them and they
gave heed-they believed Phillip's message of Jesus Christ and were baptized (v. 6, 12). What is more astonishing,
Simon himself believed also (v. 13). But Peter and John came down from Jerusalem that the Samaritans might
receive the Holy Spirit "for as yet he was fallen upon none of them," (Acts 8:16). Now, if Mr. Beisner's
reasoning be true, then here are believers (and according to his stated conviction, were saved by their faith)
but since they had not received the Holy Spirit, they were not saved.
The truth of the matter is that the Spirit's operation in miracles, wonders and signs did not relate directly to
people's salvation but was a manifest proof of the system of the faith of the Messiah. Therefore, when Paul questioned
the Galatians about whether they had received the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing of faith (v. 2,3),
he was still pursuing the central theme of the book. Note v. 5, "He therefore that ministereth to you the
Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"
Salvation came through the system of the faith of Christ not by the law of Moses and he uses their reception of
the Holy Spirit in the miraculous way to demonstrate that truth.
Mr. Beisner seeks to make the Spirit's operation in our salvation exclusive of baptism but it has already been
shown that we are begotten by the Spirit, and the process of the new birth involves both the Spirit and water-"born
of water and the Spirit" (Jno. 3:1-8). Therefore, "being baptized into Christ" is not contradictory
to the Spirit's work in the new creation for it is from baptism that we are raised to walk in "newness of
life," (Rom. 6:4).
After the same fashion, Mr. Beisner misuses Acts 10 (Cornelius and his friends) when he speaks of some who were
saved before being baptized in water. The text shows that Cornelius knew he was to hear words by which he could
be saved-he was not told to receive the Holy Spirit to be saved-and that the design of the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit was an evidence of the acceptance of Gentiles for salvation (Acts 11:14-18) for they also had received the
promise of Joel 2:28-32. The giving of the Holy Spirit here was not for their personal salvation and the command
to be baptized carried the same design it had from the beginning-it was "for the remission of sins" (Acts
2:38), or as Jesus put it to be "saved," (Mk. 16:16).
Under point "f", Mr. Beisner appeals to Abraham and equates baptism with circumcision. Reply will be
made to that argument later. In the meantime, I ask that you give careful consideration to the statement Mr. Beisner
makes about Abraham for it signifies the preconceived idea common to Calvinists. He says, "In verse 6 Paul
quotes the fact that Abraham was justified when he believed God; that is, when he had faith." The scripture
does not say that. It says, "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Mr.
Beisner reads it to say that Abraham was saved when he believed God in Gen. 15:6, not before, and he was
saved by faith alone without doing anything. Such an argument ignores the historical account in Genesis; distorts
the purpose of the Apostle Paul both here and in Rom. 4:1-ff, and denies further information given by the inspired
writer James.
Three questions, Mr. Beisner, and I expect you to answer them. Please do not neglect to give an answer to them.
Abraham believed God, left his home and moved to Haran and then journeyed In Canaan. (1) Did that moving and journeying
involve any physical act? (2) Was Abraham a sinner and lost before Gen. 15:6? (3) Did Abraham believe before Gen.
15:6?
Heb. 11:8-9, says "By faith Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive
for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of
promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same
promise." Abraham believed in God and believed God, and was a servant of God for several years before the
events of Gen. 15:6, to which Paul refers in Gal. 3:6. Gen. 15:6, was only one instance which illustrated a life
of trust in God-it is not the point in time of Abraham's conversion. Abraham's obedient faith was a way of life.
It is upon that basis that James can refer to the same scripture (Gen. 15:6) and say, "Was not Abraham our
father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with
his works and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God,
and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the friend of God." (Jas. 2:21-23)
Conclusion
Mr. Beisner sees condemned works of Gal. 3:6; Rom. 4:1-ff and Col. 2:8-9, as "anything man does," when
contextually the works condemned are works of the law or perfect works in which many Jewish Christians had so much
confidence. They even required Gentile Christians to be circumcised and keep the law (Acts 15:5). Those who had
embraced this "different gospel" (Gal. 1:6-8), misunderstood that the law was merely an adjunct to the
promise and that no flesh could be justified by the law because no man could keep the law perfectly.
Salvation by grace does not exclude faith which is a work given by God (Jno. 6:28-29), nor does it exclude repentance
which is commanded by God. in the same way, man relies on God's unmerited favor when faith moves him to accept
God’s forgiveness by the blood of Christ in being baptized. Such action can never earn salvation nor do those who
humbly submit to God's will conceive of an obedient faith trying to earn God's grace.
[Previous Article]
[Next Article]
[Debate Outline]
|
