|
|
|
|
EXCHANGE WITH MR. E. CALVIN BEISNER
PART 8
MR. BEISNER'S MATERIAL ON
"THE TRUE SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM"
Baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). Circumcision is a
sign and seal of the covenant relation of the Old Testament believer to God: the relation of justification, of
forgiveness of sins, of regeneration, in short, salvation (Romans 4:8-12). Simple physical circumcision did not
cause that relation to God (Romans 2:28-29). The one who entered that relation was commanded to be circumcised
as a sign of it (Romans 4:11). (The question of circumcision of infants is not related here. See J. Barton Payne,
The Theology of the Older Testament, pages 392ff for a discussion of that.) Not being circumcised did not
prevent salvation (Romans 4:10).
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, of regeneration, in short, of salvation (Romans 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.
MY REPLY TO MR. BEISNER'S MATERIAL ON "THE TRUE SIGNIFICANCE OF
BAPTISM."
Mr. Beisner has made some statements which are good and with which I agree one hundred percent.
For instance he said, "Simple physical baptism does not cause that relation to God (Romans 2:28-29)..."
and"...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 first statement is true because the act of baptism does not have efficacy
in itself-baptism that saves is that which is obeyed from the heart and in which the blood of Christ washes away
the sin. The second statement is true because faith is the basis upon which man responds in obedience to God and
"without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that
he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him," (Heb. 11:6).
However, there are other statements which are no more than assertions. As Mr. Beisner realizes, the easiest thing
in the world to do is to make an assertion and then list a passage as though the mention of the verses of scripture
proves the assertion. Mr. Beisner makes two assertions which he cannot prove: (1) "Baptism is the New Testament
counterpart to circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12);" and, (2) "...baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant
relation of the New Testament believer to God..." Earlier in his booklet under the title of "Colossians
2:12," Mr. Beisner said, "Therefore this cannot be a reference to literal water baptism, but rather a
use of the figure of 'baptism' as a picture of dying and rising with Christ, as in Rom. 6:3,4." But in this
section, he lists Col. 2:11-12, to prove that baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision.
The whole of Mr. Beisner's case is contingent on New Testament baptism being a counterpart to Old Testament circumcision.
To which I would simply reply that Mr. Beisner needs to prove it. And, keep in mind, that when he seeks to prove
that assertion he cannot use Colossians 2:12, because, to his own satisfaction at least, he has proved that that
passage is not even talking about water baptism. You, the reader, will need to realize, therefore, that if Mr.
Beisner has proved that Colossians 2:12, is not discussing water baptism, then he has annulled his own proof text.
However, the circumcision in Col. 2:12, does not refer to Old Testament circumcision but rather to circumcision
of the heart-the cutting off of the old man of sin. That is the reason that one who is a Jew now "is not one
outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly
and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of
God," (Rom. 2:28-29). In the figure of the circumcision of the heart, baptism would more nearly represent
the knife or instrument by which the old man was cut off. If Mr. Beisner can find a passage that says that baptism
is a sign of the New Testament covenant like circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant, then he can prove his
case, but I am unwilling to accept an assertion.
I am confident that Mr. Beisner is an honourable man and that he will seek to deal with the arguments I have presented
and questions I have raised in a forthright manner. This is the last in my series of answers and I am looking forward
to his rejoinder to my material. To God alone be the glory for ever more.
[Previous Article] [Next
Article]
[Debate Outline]
|
