|
|
|
|
A REJOINDER TO JIM EVERETT ON BAPTISM
E. Calvin Beisner
In beginning this rejoinder to Jim Everett's response to my booklet on baptism, I wish to express
my thanks to Mr. Everett and to Danny Brown, editor of The Preceptor, for allowing me space in the magazine
to reply. While many exchanges in religious controversy generate more animosity and heat than friendship and light,
this exchange has been conducted graciously.
Clarifying the Point
Let me clarify precisely what is taking place in our debate. Some years ago I wrote a booklet, Is
Baptism Necessary for Salvation?, designed to answer arguments that baptism in water is necessary in order
for men to be saved. Among others, Mr. Everett took exception to my arguments and conclusion. He replied in a series
of eight articles in The Preceptor. His reply has consisted, in the main, of attempts to prove the interpretations
I offered for certain New Testament passages inaccurate. He has attempted to show that the passages must mean that
baptism is necessary for salvation.
Thus there is a great difference not only between the conclusions Mr. Everett and I attempt to support by our writing,
but between the accompanying difficulties of our tasks. His goal, in each case, is to show that the text in mind
has only one possible meaning, either directly stating or logically implying that baptism is necessary for salvation.
My goal is a simpler one: to show that, in each case, there is at least one other interpretation of the text, permissible
in terms of the principles of Biblical interpretation.
Clarifying Terms
Anyone who has read the complete exchange heretofore will recognize that Mr. Everett's and my uses
of the words "metaphor," "sign," and "symbol" are hardly the same.
A metaphor is "a figure of speech in which one thing is likened to another, different thing by being spoken
of as if it were that other; implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one
thing is applied to another (e.g., screaming headlines, 'all the world's a stage')" (Jean L. McKechnie, Gen.
Ed., Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, Second Edition; Collins
World, 1977, p. 1132).
A sign, in the context of our discussion, is "that by which anything is shown, made known, or represented;
something that indicates a fact, quality, etc.; a mark; a token; an indication" (Ibid. p. 1687, def. 1].
A symbol, in the context of our discussion, is "something that stands for or represents another thing; especially,
an object used to represent something abstract; an emblem; as, the dove is a symbol of peace, the cross
is the symbol of Christianity" (Ibid., p. 1847, def. 1).
In many cases these words are interchangeable. All metaphors, for instance, are signs, though not all signs are
metaphors. All signs are symbols, though not all symbols are signs. Since all metaphors are signs and all signs
symbols, all metaphors are symbols, but -not all symbols are metaphors.
Some signs and symbols are words, others physical objects, others actions. All metaphors, though, are words. A
word may be a symbol of a physical object which itself is a symbol of some concept. The word "cross,"
for instance, is a symbol. It stands for a wooden object on which people were crucified. We also have physical
objects-crosses on church steeples, on jewelry, etc.-which are symbols of a particular cross on which Jesus was
crucified. We can speak of that cross on which Jesus was crucified as a symbol itself-a symbol of the sufferings
of Christ by which He bore the penalty for our sin. Thus we can speak of the other physical crosses-on steeples,
etc. -as symbols also of Christ's sufferings, though we recognize that they are indirect symbols. Finally, we can
speak of the word "cross" as a symbol of Christ's sufferings, though it also is a symbol of the cross
on which He died, of the crosses we use to symbolize His cross, and of the sufferings. There are, as it were, numerous
levels of symbols.
We will see later how important this understanding of metaphors, signs, and symbols is, when we discuss alleged
uses of "baptism" the word as a symbol and baptism the act as a symbol.
Introductory Remarks
In the first installment of Mr. Everett's reply to my booklet (May, 1983), Mr. Everett tells us
that "our real difference was not over baptism but rather was over the 'sovereign' and Monothetic will of
God as that relates to the free will of man."
I believe Mr. Everett is mistaken. I believe man is so utterly sold to sin that without the powerful work of the
Holy Spirit in calling man and working internally to effect repentance, no man would ever choose to trust in God
(cf. Romans 1-3). Thus I believe a person's salvation is entirely due to the gracious work of God, not to any meritorious
choice made apart from God's grace. I believe therefore that God is sovereign in saving man (i.e., that
man contributes nothing to his own salvation). Nevertheless I do not believe this is the root of my opposition
to the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation. Indeed, millions in Christianity outside the "Calvinistic"
traditions (Anglicans, Methodists, and all others whose positions approximate that of Arminius) do not believe
in God's sovereignty regarding salvation, yet do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation.
For those troubled by the problem of God's sovereignty and human free will: I believe Scripture teaches that prior
to regeneration it is impossible for man to do anything but sin (Ro. 3:9-20). Therefore to speak of human "freedom
of will" is only to speak of freedom to choose among various sorts of evil. It is what Martin Luther called
The Bondage of the Will, the title of a book he wrote in response to the humanistic philosopher Erasmus.
If, then, to cling to human "freedom of will" is to cling only to slavery to sin, I am happy to abandon
all claim to freedom when it comes to whether I was to turn to Christ. Without His powerful grace wrenching me
from the sin into whose bondage I had been sold, I should never have come to Him.
As to God's sovereignty, I must simply ask you to read Ro. 9-1 1.
Now let us consider the passages in dispute.
Mark 16:16
Mr. Everett says, "in the whole verse 'believeth' and 'is baptized' are joined by the coordinate
conjunction 'and;' therefore are equally related to 'shall be saved."' Mr. Everett's "therefore"
does not follow logically. This is easily shown by examples of grammatically identical constructions in which the
members connected by "and" obviously need not bear the same relation to a designated effect.
Let us take, for instance, the sentence, "Whosoever runs to the top of the hill and eats an ice cream cone
will be at the top of the hill." Obviously running to the top of the hill is considered, here, the cause of
one's being at the top of the hill. But eating the ice cream cone needn't be. One could run to the top of the hill
without eating an ice cream cone, and would be just as much at the top of the hill as one who did eat the cone.
Just the same, let us see what happens if we add other descriptions to those who are "saved" in a sentence
like that found in Mk. 16:16. Suppose we say, "Whoever believes and is baptized and owns Dalmation dogs will
be saved." Certainly the sentence is true; but not every part of it is necessary to the conclusion.
One might just as well believe and be baptized but not own Dalmations, and still be saved. The point is
that the grammar of the sentence, by itself, is insufficient to tell us which, if any, of the descriptions
of persons is necessary to the conclusion, and which, if any, might not be.
The answer to that question, insofar as we are given one in the context of Mk. 16:16, comes in the clause, "he
that believeth not shall be damned." Here we have positive proof that believing is necessary to salvation.
But we are left with an unanswered question as to whether being baptized is necessary.
Logicians call Mr. Everett's mistake here the fallacy of affirming the consequent. This fallacy mistakenly
holds that the truth of a consequence requires the truth of a certain cause for that consequence, while
in fact other causes might have been the case.
Stated in the form of a logical syllogism, Mr. Everett's argument regarding Mk. 16:16 would run as follows: "if
Mr. Brown believes and is baptized, then he will be saved. Mr. Brown is saved. Therefore Mr. Brown believes and
was baptized." The fallacious reasoning here fails to consider the possibility that there are several ways
of being saved. In the most broad sense, they could be spoken of as four possibilities: 1) believing and not being
baptized; 2) being baptized and not believing; 3) neither being baptized nor believing; 4) both believing and being
baptized. We know that options two and three cannot be true, for we read that whoever does not believe will be
damned. That leaves options one and four as possibilities.
My point is simply that number one, believing and not being baptized, is, taken only the text of Mk. 16:16, a grammatically
possible option. Of course, so is option four.
If, then, we are to know whether being baptized is necessary to being saved, we must look elsewhere than Mk. 16:16.
Mr. Everett, however, draws our. attention to a verse with the same sort of construction grammatically: Jn. 5:24,
where Jesus says, "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life......
He suggests that for illustration we inject "He that will not hear is damned." "Then," he writes,
"to follow Mr. Beisner's reasoning we would have to say, 'There is no negation of the group of those who hear
but do not believe. Thus while the verse as a whole does teach that hearing is essential to salvation, -it does
not teach that believing is.'"
I would be quite happy with such a statement, for it is true. The verse does not tell us that either of the conditions
named is a necessary condition; it tells us only that they are sufficient conditions. It leaves unanswered
the question whether there might be other sufficient conditions.
As with Mk. 16:16, we must turn elsewhere for that sort of information. Is believing a necessary condition to being
saved? Mrk. 16:16b, "he that believeth not shall be damned," gives a clear answer to that: it is. Is
hearing the Lord's Word necessary to being saved? Ro. 14:14, with its clearly-implied negative answer to "How
then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have
not heard?" gives us a clear answer to that: hearing the Gospel is necessary to being saved (whether that
"hearing" be hearing an audible - preacher, reading silently or aloud to oneself, or "hearing"
the message declared by the heavens and all God's handiwork).
Mr. Everett is correct when, in response to my discussion of the authenticity of Mk. 16:9-20, he says neither of
us is an authoritative textual critic. He cites in favor of the passage Dr. Philip Schaff, author of the great
History of the Christian Church (8 vols.) and president of the 1901 American Standard Committee. Dr. Schaff
was a great historian, but he was not a professional textual critic; to quote him as an authority on textual criticism
is improper.
One, however, who is a textual critic by profession, and a devout Christian believer as well, is Dr. Bruce M. Metzger,
co-editor of the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament and author of the Society's A Textual Commentary
on the Greek New Testament. In the latter, Metzger points out that the best textual evidence is against the
authenticity of Mk. 16:9-20. He adds that while the traditional ending is present in a vast number of Greek manuscripts
and other versions, it is absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus); from the Old
Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest
Georgian manuscripts. "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses;
furthermore, Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known
to them."
Metzger points out that the manuscript evidence for one shorter ending is "additional testimony supporting
the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses
9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and
generalized summary." (Textual Commentary; cf. pp. 122-126; United Bible Societies, 1971.)
My point here is not that this ending is not genuine. I myself have not made up my mind. It is simply to note that
a text over which textual critics are themselves in such debate regarding its authenticity is a precarious branch
on which to hang a doctrine of salvation.
John 3:5
In my booklet, I contested the idea that "born of water" refers to baptism in water, and
argued that if it does not mean that, the passage cannot be used to support the idea that baptism is necessary
for salvation. I offered as alternative meanings for "born of water" the ideas of the natural birth,
on the one hand, and of being born of the Spirit, on the other.
Mr. Everett replies first, "I would like to know which position he believes to be the truth, and if he does
not really know what the passage is saying, how he can charge those who believe it is teaching baptism with preaching
another gospel." The reply indicates some misunderstandings I should clarify.
First, let me answer the question which idea I believe the passage holds. When I wrote the booklet, I believed
that, as I wrote then, "The context ... seems to favor the understanding of 'born of water' as meaning the
natural birth." I granted at the time that other symbolic use of "water" appeared to support better
the idea of its being a metaphorical way of saying "born of the Spirit."
Since then, with more study, I have come to think the latter alternative more likely. Thus, in answer to Mr. Everett's
question, I believe "born of water" is a metaphorical way of referring to being born of the Holy Spirit,
and thus speaks in metaphor what Jesus immediately clarified by explicit language.
However, I recognize that the contextual and comparative arguments are not sufficiently compelling to warrant a
dogmatic, unquestioned commitment to that position; there are good arguments, presented by various commentators,
that it may refer to being born physically. I am willing to accede the possibility of this option to those who
think it more persuasive than the one to which I hold.
But how can I "charge those who believe it is teaching baptism with preaching another gospel?" First,
I only charge that those who hold that it teaches the necessity of baptism for salvation are preaching another
gospel; there are many who believe this refers to baptism but who do not infer from that that baptism is necessary
for salvation.
But in addition, admitting that one does not know for sure what a passage means is a far cry from saying one knows
nothing about it, or that one cannot rule out any possibilities for its interpretation. Surely Mr. Everett would
not protest my saying that while I was unsure of its meaning, I was sure it did not mean "blue elephants fly
over Los Angeles with pink cherries in their trunks." Disclaiming certitude as to the meaning of a text is
not a disavowal of all right to criticize some interpretations which I think inaccurate.
Mr. Everett refers to "most denominational creed books" which he says admit that "water" in
Jn. 3:5 refers to baptism. I request the same liberty from the rule of denominational creed books which he enjoys.
The Bible is the supreme authority in all doctrine, not creed books.
Mr. Everett says it "would be totally ridiculous to say to a man who had already been born naturally and who
was standing before him, 'You must be born of the flesh and then born of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God.'
" I agree completely. But as Mr. Everett himself recognizes, this is not what I said the passage meant (if
it does refer metaphorically to physical birth). He objects to my using the words "not only" to clarify
what I said. Thus, in my view in the booklet, Jesus'words would be understood to mean, "...a man must not
only be born naturally, but spiritually as well." His objection is based on his saying that "except"
and "must" "relate to that which is imperative and conditional." Not so. They do relate to
that which is conditional, but not to that which is imperative. The imperative mood in language is the mood used
for commands. The conditional mood is something different. A condition is not a command. While it is silly to command
someone to do that which he has already done and which cannot be repeated, it is not silly to point out to him
that while he has fulfilled one condition for gaining something, he has yet another to fulfill.
Nicodemus was confused by Jesus' first statement, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God." He understood that Jesus spoke of a condition for seeing the Kingdom. But the idea he struck
on was not what Jesus meant; he thought being "born again" referred to something natural, and thus asked,
"How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"
But, if the interpretation under consideration here is correct, Jesus' answer would have clarified the meaning
of being "born again" by contrasting this natural, physical birth with the supernatural, spiritual birth
of the Spirit. While He acknowledged the idea that a natural birth was necessary ("Except a man be born of
water") He added that a spiritual birth was also necessary ("and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God.").
Mr. Everett confuses a conditional sentence with an imperative one. But this is conditional. It fits perfectly
the grammatical construction of the Present General Condition (negative): the sentence begins with eau mh, has the main verb
in the first clause in the aorist subjunctive (gennhqh), and has the present indicative in the second clause (sunatai).
(See Alston Hurd Chase and Henry Phillips, Jr., A New Introduction to Greek, 3rd ed.;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 78, 188.)
The only command in this passage is "Ye must be born again" (v. 7). "Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit" is not a command but a statement of condition.
Suppose the passage does not refer to the natural birth. We are not required, still, to understand it as referring
to baptism in water. We are left with the alternative that "water" is metaphorical of the Holy Spirit-an
option to which Mr. Everett's objection is not, I believe, sufficient.
He tells us there are only two classes of metaphors: those which are obvious, and those which require explanation
in the context. He then says that "water" in Jn. 3:5 fits neither category. But if that is the case,
then he has proved too much even for his own position: for water itself (the chemical compound) is not baptism.
Mr. Everett's own position depends on seeing "water" as a metaphor, signifying the physical act of baptism.
But if "water" must be a metaphor, why not allow an interpretation consistent both with the metaphorical
usage in other Scriptures and with the context? In this case, we place this use of metaphor into the second category
Mr. Everett describes, believing that "of the Spirit" is the explanatory clause designed to clarify the
meaning of the metaphorical use of "water."
Would this commit me to saying "water" in Acts 10:47 or 1 Pet. 3:20 means "Spirit?" Certainly
not. For in those contexts the literal, as opposed to the metaphorical, sense of "water" is clearly intended.
But in this context, we already have observed that whether "water" refers to baptism, or to the Holy
Spirit, or to natural birth, it must be metaphorical. The question then becomes, "What does the metaphor signify?"
That question is answered by reference to the context. The difficulty of Nicodemus's understanding a reference
to Christian baptism, the inconsistency of verses 3, 6, and 7 with v. 5 if this stands for baptism, and the conceptual
consistency of making "water" refer to the Spirit and thus be explained by the phrase "and of the
Spirit" all militate against the idea that "water" stands for baptism. These considerations favor
the idea that it stands for the Holy Spirit. Further, the larger context of Scripture, which I contend shows that
baptism is not necessary for salvation (particularly through the positive statements that all that is necessary
is God's grace and our faith; cf. Eph. 2:8-10; Acts 16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt
be saved...... ), would also militate against understanding "water" in this verse as signifying baptism.
But suppose that "water" here is metaphorical of baptism-something I do not admit but am willing
to assume for the sake of argument. We noted above that words can be metaphors, and that physical objects and acts
can be symbols of things or ideas. The very act of baptism is, in Scripture, a symbol-a metaphor in act instead
of in word-of the spiritual death, burial, and resurrection to new life which the Christian experiences in conversion.
It is never the metaphor or symbol itself which is of great importance, but the thing signified. Granting that
the act of baptism is a symbol, we may recognize that just as it is not water itself but the thing signified by
water which is important, so it is not baptism itself but the thing signified by baptism which is important.
Thus, when I say I trust for my salvation in the cross of Jesus Christ, it is clear that I use "cross"
metaphorically to stand for the sacrificial death Christ underwent to pay the penalty for my sins. It is not the
word "cross" I trust; neither is it the physical object of wood; it is the great act signified by both
word and object.
Just so, even if "water" here is metaphorical of baptism, it is not the word "water" by which
we must be born again; neither is it water itself, signified directly by the word; neither is it the act of baptism;
but it is the great fact signified by this whole series of symbols: namely, our death to sin, the burial of the
sinful man, and the rising to life of the new man in Christ.
So even if "water" here is metaphorical of baptism we need not conclude that baptism in water is the
means of the new birth and therefore necessary to salvation: for it is not the means, but a symbol of the new birth.
[Previous Article] [Next
Article]
[Debate Outline]
|
