|
|
|
|
EXCHANGE WITH MR. E. CALVIN BEISNER
PART 7
MR. BEISNER'S MATERIAL
1 PETER 3:19-21
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once
the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight
souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of
the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Besides Acts 2:38 this is the next text most strongly depended on by those in favor of the idea
that baptism is necessary for salvation. The reason is obvious. This text includes the striking phrase, "baptism
doth also now save us." But is this surface understanding the correct understanding? I will give several reasons
why it is not.
Peter immediately gives a carefully devised explanatory phrase with the sole purpose of avoiding a misunderstanding
of the words "baptism doth also now save us." In reference to baptism he writes, "not the putting
away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." Now the physical baptism
is a "putting away of the fiIth of the flesh" (Hebrews 10:22, washing the body in pure water). But what
actually saves is "the answer of a good conscience toward God."
This shows the close connection between this verse and Hebrews 10:22. There is another careful distinction between
outward cleansing of the body in pure water, and inward cleansing of the conscience. The same distinction is made
here in II Peter 3:21 (sic), and shows that it is not the outward act which saves but the inward change which is
signified by the outward act. Thus Peter refers briefly to the sign of clear conscience, the submitting to baptism,
as a short way of referring to the actual thing, the clear conscience. But then for clarification he explains that
it is not the sign which saves, but the thing signified: the clear conscience saves, not the physical baptism.
In this context, then, "baptism" is used metaphorically to symbolize a conscience clear before God. It
is not said that it is the outward, physical act of baptism which saves, but that it is the good conscience which
baptism signifies which saves. This good conscience is achieved by the washing of the conscience by the blood of
Christ (Hebrews 10:22; Titus 3:5; Revelation 1:5, 1 John 1:7), and is acquired entirely by faith (Romans 3:28;
Ephesians 2:8-10) before baptism in water is practiced as a sign of that good conscience (Romans 4:8-11, remembering
that baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision; Colossians 2:11-12).
It is not said in 1 Peter 3:21, therefore, that it is the outward, physical act of baptism which
saves, but that it is the good conscience which baptism signifies which saves. This good conscience is achieved
by the washing of the conscience by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22; Titus 3:5; Revelation 1:5; 1 John 1:7),
and is acquired entirely by faith (Romans 3:28, Ephesians 2:8-10) before baptism in water is practiced as
a sign of that good conscience (Romans 4:8-11).
Thus we see that it is deceiving to refer simply to the phrase "baptism doth also now save us" without
taking it in context with the very careful explanatory phrase which Peter uses, that is, that it is not the outward
and physical act which saves, but the inward testimony of a cleansed, a good conscience before God, which saves,
(Cf. 1 John 3:21.)
1 Peter 3:21, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.
This concludes the comments on texts purported to support the doctrine that baptism in water is necessary for salvation.
It has been shown that there is no text in the Scripture which proves the necessity of baptism for salvation. We
should be careful not to fall prey to the old argument, "Well, no one of them proves it, but if you look at
them all together, if you take them in combination, they give such strong evidence of the fact that you really
can't deny it." This is the old "leaky bucket" argument. What it really says is, "Well, if
one leaky bucket won't do the job, let's use ten!" But of course ten leaky buckets will carry water no further
than one. If none of the texts prove the doctrine, then all of the texts do not prove the doctrine. Water baptism
is not necessary for salvation.
There remain two questions to be asked. The answers to both have been touched upon in the foregoing discussions,
but they have not been systematically presented. First, if baptism is not the means of our salvation, is not the
means of our coming into Christ, is not the means of regeneration or new birth, is not the means of remission of
sins, then just what is and why is it commanded and is it important? Second, if baptism is not necessary for salvation,
how are we saved?
MY REPLY TO MR. BEISNER'S MATERIAL ON 1 PETER 3:21
I have already replied to Mr. Beisner's argument that man is saved by faith alone; hence, will
not duplicate that material here. And my next reply will be to his attempted parallel of circumcision and baptism;
therefore, I will not deal with that subject matter in this section.
Mr. Beisner has said, "Now the physical baptism is a 'putting away of the filth of the flesh'..." Mr.
Beisner knows better than that. Does he practice physical baptism as a putting away of the filth of the flesh like
taking a bath when he is dirty in order to remove the dirt from the body? We both know that he does not. Next,
Mr. Beisner has said, "But what actually saves is 'the answer of a good conscience toward God.' " No,
Mr. Beisner, you left the proper subject out of that statement and thereby perverted what Peter said. Contextually
and grammatically you should have said, "the baptism that actually saves is 'the answer of a good conscience
toward God" because "baptism" is the subject of the sentence. And if the baptism is water baptism,
and you will have to agree that it is, then water baptism that saves is not the putting away of the filth of the
flesh but is an answer of a good conscience toward God.
In paragraph four of his material, Mr. Beisner says that "baptism" is used metaphorically to symbolize
a conscience clear before God." By using quotation marks around the word "baptism," it would appear
that, grammatically, he is calling attention to the word as a word. If the word "baptism" is used metaphorically,
then it is not talking about water baptism. The word "baptism" may be used figuratively but when it is
used thusly, it cannot apply to physical baptism in water. Furthermore, if the word "baptism" is used
metaphorically, then one can substitute the meaning in place of the word. Mr. Beisner says " 'baptism' signifies
the good conscience." If it does, then the passage would read, "The like figure whereunto the good conscience
saves us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience..." That would
make Peter guilty of tautology. Very subtly-whether consciously or unconsciously I know not, the Lord knows-Mr.
Beisner makes a change in the wording of Peter's statement from "the answer of a good conscience" to
"a good conscience." Three times he says that the good conscience saves us when Peter says it is water
baptism which is the answer of a good conscience that saves. I would like to know how a good conscience
can save one anyway? I can understand how faith can save and I can understand how baptism can save but how can
a good conscience save? A good conscience, rather than saving, is the result of something having taken place in
the consciousness; consequently, is an appeal, answer or interrogation to God but the good conscience is not said
to save.
I do not think that Mr. Beisner means that the word "baptism" is used metaphorically, even though that
is what he has said. Rather, I think that he is trying to say that water baptism is only 'a sign of our salvation,
a sign of a good conscience; for in the next section of his booklet, in which he seeks to parallel water baptism
with circumcision of the Old Testament, he lists 1 Peter 3:21, alongside Rom. 6:1-5; and Gal. 3:26, as proof texts
of his statement that "baptism (and he means water baptism here) is a sign and seal of the covenant relation
of the New Testament believer to God." It is becoming somewhat tedious, both to me and perhaps -to Mr. Beisner,
to keep challenging his - dichotomal reasoning but Mr. Beisner is truly a man of a divided mind.
Exegetical Analysis
Let it first be determined if the baptism under consideration here is water baptism or not. That
can be answered from the context, for v. 21, of 1 Peter 3, is not isolated from other verses in the context. Read
the text for yourself. Verse 20, says, "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
Water is the connection made between v. 20 and v. 21. Noah was saved by water-we, in a like figure to his salvation,
are saved by water baptism. Why would Peter, in one breath, talk about water and in the next breath talk about
baptism, if there was no connection in thought between the two? If you have difficulty understanding the connection,
notice that water was the dividing line between Noah and the old, evil world and that baptism is the dividing line
between us and an old world of sin. Water washed the old world clean-baptism washes us clean from sin.
Grammatically speaking, the subject to the whole sentence is "baptism." The simple sentence is, "Baptism
saves us." Is "water baptism" the subject, Mr. Beisner? If it is, then water baptism saves us by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That means that the power by which he was raised also raises us to newness of
life. Note again Rom. 6:4-6: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if
we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth
we should not serve sin." Furthermore, if water baptism is the subject, then water baptism that saves is
not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but it is the appeal of a good conscience toward God.
How is a good conscience an appeal or answer to God? God promised to forgive sins when man believes, repents and
is baptized. When man has been baptized, his conscience is aware that he has done what God commanded; hence, is
an appeal to God to perform his promise of forgiveness. If Mr. Beisner will keep the subject of the sentence the
same throughout, as it ought to be, then he will see how he twists the passage.
Notice the difference between Peter's statement and Mr. Beisner's. Peter says, "...baptism (which is the answer
of a good conscience toward God) doth also now save us." Mr. Beisner says, "it is the answer of a good
conscience which is signified by baptism, which saves." Now if the first statement above, which contextually
and grammatically is what Peter said, is a "surface understanding" and the second statement which is
made by Mr. Beisner is a deeper understanding, then we will have to equate depth of understanding with confusion
and a denial of what the scripture actually says. In the face of that choice, let me be superficial.
Would it not have been easy for Peter to have said, "Water baptism is an outward sign of your salvation but
does not save at all," if that was what he had intended to say? In his rebuttal, I challenge Mr. Beisner to
show just one instance in which water baptism is ever referred to as an outward sign of our salvation.
Hebrews 10:22, Paralleled?
On this passage Mr. Beisner assumes what he is trying to prove. First, he is trying to equate
Peter's statement, "...the putting away of the filth of the flesh" to the one in Heb. 10:22 - "the
washing of the body with pure water," which he sees as referring to physical baptism. Each phrase must be
understood in its own context. May I again remind Mr. Beisner that he has used 1 Peter 3:21, with reference to
physical, water baptism; therefore, by virtue of that admission he must agree that "water baptism" is
the subject of the sentence in 1 Peter 3:21. Since that is true, Peter is saying that water baptism that saves
is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. Note that well, Mr. Beisner. I want you to understand
it-water baptism that saves is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.
If Heb. 10:22, is an allusion to cleansing baptism, then the writer says it is a washing of the body but, obviously,
its design would never be to wash away the dirt from the body. Washing away the dirt from the body will never touch
the sins of the soul. Baptism as a washing can be understood only in the sense that the obedient believer is willing
to be baptized because this is where God forgives sins. The body comes in contact with the water while the guilt
of sin is removed from the soul to present a complete cleansing of the whole person.
Second, Mr. Beisner assumes that the cleansing of the conscience does not occur at the same time as the washing
of the body here. Is there something in the context that would indicate that conclusion? No: He just assumes it.
The truth of the matter is that they occur at the same time for when a man's sins are forgiven, his conscience
becomes a clean conscience because sins are washed away when one is baptized (Acts 22:16).
Mr. Beisner has sought to drill holes in God's buckets. Upon analyzing his drilling expeditions, it can be seen
that his bits are dulled and broken, but not one of the buckets has a hole in it and the accumulative evidence
from all of these passages overwhelms Mr. Beisner and leaves him floundering as he fights against God's Spirit.
I implore of him that he cease his futile efforts and humbly submit to God's will to teach God's word. I genuinely
care about you, Mr. Beisner.
[Previous Article] [Next
Article]
[Debate Outline]
|
