|
|
|
|
REPLY TO MR. E. CALVIN BEISNER'S REJOINDER
Indeed, Mr. Beisner's task has been a somewhat simpler one than the one I have had to pursue --
I do not complain of my plight but rather recognize the difference in the tasks that each of us has in this exchange.
On several occasions Mr. Beisner has offered, at least, two possible explanations to passages without really committing
himself to either one. However, when he has been willing to take one particular position on a passage I have sought
to make him stick with that defense. In doing so, it is not that I do not wish him to change upon learning truth.
It is rather that I do not wish for him to change to another of his possible explanations denying that baptism
relates to one's salvation from sin so that I must chase him all over creation. Therefore, my undertakings have
been to reply to all of his suggested exegeses. He would not hesitate in concurring that it is easier to suggest
something than it is to examine all facets of the suggestions and demonstrate their fallaciousness. Mr. Beisner,
then, occupies a position which gives him great latitude-if I prove the position he has taken to be erroneous,
he can readily suggest another.
On the occasions when Mr. Beisner has now been agreeable to take a firm stand on the meaning of a passage, I rejoice
that the exchange has progressed to that degree. My whole desire in the exchange, however, has been that Mr. Beisner
will restudy his basic theology which has caused him to deny the scriptures' teaching about baptism being for the
remission of sins. I want all of the readers to notice that throughout this exchange Mr. Beisner has always
stood concretely against the discussed, controverted passages teaching that water baptism is even remotely related
to man being saved from his sin, even though that is the simplest, most straightforward interpretation of the Bible's
statements.
Therefore, to clarify the point further, I want all of you to remember that Mr. Beisner's charge against those
who believe that the scriptures teach that water baptism is for the remission of sins is one of "teaching
another gospel" which means that we are accursed (Gal. 1:6-8). Furthermore, we who have "obeyed from
the heart that form of doctrine" are charged with believing in salvation by "meritorious works,"
even though I have stated quite emphatically the opposite: "At which time his eyes will be opened to the truth
that baptism is not a work of righteousness which earns or seeks to earn salvation, nor is it an act having efficacy
in itself. Baptism is simply submitting to a God-given condition of grace by which man is cleansed by the blood
of Christ," (The Preceptor, May, 1983, p. 4(196), under title "Discussion of Baptism.")
But why? Why has Mr. Beisner set his course, with mast full, in that stream of thought? I do
not examine his motives for I have not that right, nor do I desire to attribute to him some ulterior motive of
greed, pride or dishonesty. His own answer to that question is that in the larger context of scripture, man is
saved by grace alone. Therefore, the reader should not be deceived into believing that Mr. Beisner is merely offering
alternate views on passages dealing with water baptism-he is also affirming that man is saved by grace alone.
When I said 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 sought to reduce our differences to the lowest, common
denominator. Mr. Beisner says I am mistaken and then states the same thing I said, except in different terms. I
realize that Mr. Beisner is not a Presbyterian; hence, does not, at this point in time, embrace all of Calvin's
tenets, and I did not mean to imply that he did. However, in my judgment, religious people who accept parts of
Calvin's doctrines (actually, Calvin's theology is a product of Augustine's, whose influence was exerted on religious
thinking before Calvin was ever born) hold a Calvinistic view of salvation. For instance, Baptist churches generally
teach Calvin's doctrine of "irresistible grace" and "perseverance," but reject "total
depravity" and "limited atonement, "while some Primitive Baptists accept the whole package. All
of which is to say that in order to be historically and technically accurate my choice of the term "Calvinistic"
was inaccurate, even though it may have expressed basic, philosophical differences.
To express our differences in non-historical and non-traditional terms, let me put it another
way. I believe the scriptures teach that not only did God form Adam as a unique creation in His own image with
the power and right to choose between good and evil, but that every individual is born with the same image of God
and with the same power to choose; therefore, becomes a sinner when he, himself, chooses to sin. God's love and
grace sent forth His son to redeem man from sin and He would have all men to be saved (2 Tim. 2:4-6), so that the
Gospel is for all men (Mk. 16:15-16), but He still gives man the freedom to choose. Therefore, salvation involves
not only God's will but man's as well. Notice the difference between that statement and Mr. Beisner's. He said,
"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. Rom. 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." The conclusion to which is that even faith is something God must give man directly, because
man is incapable of choosing any good thing; therefore, salvation would be a result of the sovereign and monothetic
will of God.
Here is the root of our disagreement. Mr. Beisner sees man as incapable of doing anything good and whatever choices
he makes are only choices between evils. Yet, Mr. Beisner quotes a command from God to man to "believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." (Acts 16:31), of which man is not capable of performing
unless, according to Mr. Beisner's stated view, God sends His spirit into the man and internally effects his repentance
so he could choose to trust God. To follow Mr. Beisner's reasoning, then, if the Philippian jailer chose to believe,
it would be choice to do evil. Therefore, God is commanding something which it is impossible for man to perform.
Furthermore, as long as Mr. Beisner holds the convictions he does, he will always oppose water baptism as a God-given
condition for salvation because that is something man does and to him anything man does is a "meritorious
work." All of which means that a discussion of baptism is merely a superficial treatment of our real differences.
Mr. Beisner refers to Rom. 3:9-20, as a proof text for his belief that prior to regeneration it is impossible for
man to do anything but sin. Then with reference to God's sovereignty, asks that one read Romans 9-11. Time and
space prohibit exegeses of those passages to show his assertions to be erroneous but I would not be opposed to
discussing the "sovereign" and "monothetic" will of God versus the free will of man.
Signs, Metaphors and Symbols
Here, Mr. Beisner treats us to a study of "semantics" of which we are not totally ignorant
and which can always be beneficial in communication. Truly, in communication, words are merely signs of the objects
and ideas being discussed. Obviously, then, the word "baptism" as it applies to water is not itself a
physical act-it only causes our minds to visualize the immersion of an individual in water, so that when that word
is used in its most basic form, it conveys that idea. The word "baptism" does not always refer to immersion
in a physical substance. For instance, John used it in reference to Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit. However,
Mr. Beisner would have one believe that since words are signs of ideas, he is at liberty to switch from the application
of the "word-sign" conveying the physical substance and act to a symbolic use of the "word-sign."
Then, at other times, he takes the position that the "word-sign" "baptism" refers to the physical
act but is only metaphorical, that is, it is no more than a symbol of our salvation.
Who gave Mr. Beisner this liberty? No one. In fact, a basic rule for interpreting any kind of language is that
"word-signs" are to be understood literally unless the context demands otherwise. With reference to the
subject of baptism, Mr. Beisner violates that rule over and over again.
After receiving Mr. Beisner's rejoinder to my material, I wrote and asked him if he would, for the sake of clarity,
insert in each of his sections of material on different, controverted passages one of the two following statements-"This
scripture is discussing water baptism" or "This scripture is not discussing water baptism." He declined
to do so saying, "You have suggested that I indicate at the beginning of each section whether the passage
in question deals with water baptism. I think it should be clear to any careful reader of my discussion of metaphor,
sign, and symbol that whenever the word 'baptism' appears, there must be at least a tangential reference
to the physical act itself, for the use of the word as a metaphor stems from the use of the act as a symbol, and
the meaning of each comes from the actual thing signified, i.e., our spiritual death, burial, and resurrection
in Christ. For this reason, I decline your request to make the alterations you suggested," (reply to my letter
dated March 16, 1984). Mr. Beisner would have you believe that our whole problem is that I just do not understand
signs, symbols and metaphors and that the real difference between us centers around my inability to understand
fully metaphorical language. That raises an interesting situation. Let us explore it for a minute. Mr. Beisner
says, at times, that the physical act of baptizing in water symbolizes our salvation, so I will grant that for
the moment to see if this is where our real problem lies. Visualize that when one is baptized in water that at
that point in time God forgives man. Therefore, God commands the physical act as a condition of receiving His
grace and this act symbolizes what actually takes place in the mind of God in washing away sins. This fits Mr.
Beisner's use of baptism as a sign but- Mr. Beisner will not accept that. Why not? Because Mr. Beisner believes
in salvation by faith only and at the point of faith. Our differences relate directly to the exact point
in a man's life when God forgives a man's sins. God determines that, not man. Forgiveness takes place in the mind
of God and man is conscious of forgiveness by that which God has revealed through His word.
Do you not see? The problem is not over signs, metaphors and symbols at all. The problem is that Mr. Beisner wishes
to take plain language and reduce it to sign language, thereby escaping the force of God-given conditions for His
grace.
Mark 16:16
Notice carefully Mr. Beisner's attempted parallel sentence-' "Whoever runs to the top of the
hill and eats an ice cream cone will be at the top of the hill." It is an axiomatic truth that whoever runs
to the top of the hill will be at the top of the hill. It is not axiomatic that whosoever believes is saved
(note James 2:21; John 12:42, et. al.). In his comparison, running to the top of the hill, like eating the ice
cream cone, is not stated as a condition to getting to the top of the hill. Mr. Beisner, if someone offered you
$10,000 to run to the top of a hill and eat an ice cream cone, do you think you would have problems understanding
what he said?
Next, his insertion of owning "Dalmation dogs" into the sentence injects something of a different classification
than believing and being baptized. The import of the passage in the context of scripture necessarily limits it
to things of the same spiritual nature.
On this passage, Mr. Beisner charges me with the fallacy of "affirming the consequent," then changes
the argument I made and puts it into his own form in attempting to verify his accusation. I call Mr. Beisner's
attention to the statement I made. With reference to Mk. 16:16, I said, "The negative conclusion from that
clause is that he that is not saved did not believe and was not baptized." Those are my exact words. Now,
I do not know from which logicians Mr. Beisner has studied and to whom he has reference, but in my limited study
of logic, logicians said that in an "if-then" proposition, logical conclusions could be drawn only by
affirming the antecedent or denying the consequent. Which did I do, Mr, Beisner? I am grateful that Mr. Beisner
put the passage in an "if-then" form. It helps to make the teaching of the context clearer. Notice the
conclusions drawn from the proposition in Mk. 16:16.
"If Mr. Brown believes and is baptized, then he will be saved."
Mr. Brown believes and is baptized (affirming the antecedent)
Therefore, Mr. Brown is saved (the logical consequent).
AGAIN
"If Mr. Brown believes and is baptized, then he will be saved."
Mr. Brown is not saved (denying the consequent, which is exactly what I did)
Thereford, Mr. Brown did not believe and was not baptized.
Now tell me, Mr. Beisner, where am I guilty of the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
Suffice it to say that the information I gave in my rebuttal to Mr. Beisner's textual criticism stands, except
for those who do not like the teaching of Mk. 16:9-20. While Mr. Beisner did not say so, I doubt that he is so
ready to cast aspersions at the other passages I related which are omitted from the Vaticanus and Sinalticus MSS.
Based on the evidence of textual critics available, it is my conclusion that his rejection of Mk. 16:9-20, is not
so much a problem of textual accuracy and authenticity as theological commitment.
John 3:1-7
Since Mr. Beisner has come to think it more likely that his interpretation of "born of water"
is a figurative way of saying "born of the Spirit," for the sake of time and space I will address my
attention primarily to that position. Simply pointing out first that when I said that " 'except' and 'must'
relate to that which is imperative and conditional," I did not seek to convey that those statements were in
the imperative mood. Mr. Beisner is not ignorant of the truth that a condition stated implies the necessity of
conformation in order to receive that which is conditional. If one seeks that which is offered, he understands
the necessity of meeting the condition; hence, it is understood in this passage that if Nicodemus would enter the
kingdom, it is imperative that he be "born again." When Mr. Beisner lends his efforts to supporting his
second view, he must agree that "born of water and the Spirit" is not only stated as a condition to entering
the kingdom, it takes the form of a necessity! It is necessary that man be born again and that is what I meant
by imperative. Mr. Beisner is also aware of that for he referred to v. 7, where Jesus puts it, "Marvel not
that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." What Jesus had expressed in v. 3, as conditional, he now states
as an imperative.
Second, Mr. Beisner paid no attention to the fact that Nicodemus did not ask how a child is born into the
world but rather asks, "How can a man be born when he is old?" Jesus answered Nicodemus's question
about how a man can be born when he is old by saying, "Except a man be born of water and of
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," (v. 5).
You will also notice that Mr. Beisner paid no attention whatsoever to the fact that only one birth is under
consideration. "Born again" (v. 3) is explained in Jesus's answer to Nicodemus's question as "born
of water and the Spirit" (v. 5). While one may offer alternatives in views on a passage, it is not logical
to hold conflicting views on the same passage. Mr. Beisner is now affirming what I affirmed-there is only
one birth under consideration. We surely have made some progress in this discussion. Based upon that, most
of his material in this section is inapplicable to the difference between us. That difference is not over what
is conditional and imperative but rather is over, on the one hand, whether water is water or, on the other hand,
whether water is Spirit.
Mr. Beisner charges that if I say that "water" is not used metaphorically, then I have proved too much
for my own position. He says, "for water itself (the chemical compound) is not baptism. Mr. Everett's
own position demands on seeing 'water'as a metaphor, signifying the physical act of baptism." That is a false
charge and either Mr. Beisner does not read carefully or he seeks to cloud the issue. I said: "The ancient
fathers of his denominational background seemed to have no problem in understanding the 'water' in Jesus's statement
but Mr. Beisner does because he realizes that if 'born of water and the Spirit' refers to baptism, then he has
to surrender his position." Understand this clearly, neither the words "water" nor "Spirit"
are used metaphorically here. The metaphor is in the phrase "born of water and the Spirit" which is the
new birth as opposed to a fleshly birth. Mr. Beisner takes that metaphor and then makes the water of the metaphor
another metaphor while affirming that the "Spirit" is used literally. One might just as well affirm that
the word-sign "spirit" is used metaphorically.
Mr. Beisner says, "Thus, when I say I trust for 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." That is true and I agree because that thought is conveyed by Paul in 1 Cor. 1:18-ff.
However, Mr. Beisner, the words cannot be separated from the act of Christ's dying. Christ did not merely
act out a part or die metaphorically. In the same way the physical act of being baptized in water is something
to which a believer submits with the understanding that there are metaphorical expressions connected to the physical
act such as "washing away sins," "buried with Christ," "raised to walk in newness of life,"
etc., but the truth you refuse to see is that God associates those things with the act of being baptized and they
actually, though not physically, happen in the process of forgiveness by the blood of Christ.
Mr. Beisner constantly implies that I believe baptism to be the means of salvation, even though I have stated
the exact opposite on more than one occasion. He will not face the statements I have made about the Bible's teaching
that baptism is not a meritorious work, nor does it have efficacy in itself. It is not the means or cause
of our salvation Christ is the cause of our salvation but he is the cause or author of salvation to all who
obey Him (Heb. 5:8-9). Scriptural baptism is the submission of one's will and life to his saviour who has the
power to save. As an act, by and of itself, it does not save.
[Previous Article] [Next
Article]
[Debate Outline]
|
