|
|
|
|
MY REPLY TO MR. BEISNER'S SECOND SECTION OF HIS REJOINDER
Acts 2:38
Since Mr. Beisner has put so much emphasis on the Greek grammar and construction and appears
to believe that this is one of his stronger arguments, I am going to press him hard in dealing with his fallacies.
I think that Mr. Beisner will understand that I do so in the interest of truth and I trust that the readers will
also understand that the pointedness of the language I use expresses no animosity toward Mr. Beisner. He has maintained
a very good attitude throughout the discussion and I commend him for that.
In the context of our discussion, I had assumed that when I said that there was no problem with the Greek of Acts
2:38 (as I quoted from bro. E. V. Srygley, Jr.) that Mr. Beisner would understand that there was no problem as
far as the grammar of Acts 2:38, being translated in English, as it is in most all English translations with both
repentance and baptism being connected to the "remission of your sins." My point was that "hekastos"
(Gr. word which is translated by "each" or "every one") is a distributive pronoun and quite
correctly can be associated with both the singular and plural. I illustrated this with a parallel English construction
and gave two contexts in scripture which also conveyed the interplay between "hekastos" and the
plural. No doubt Mr. Beisner recognized the accuracy of the English sentence which illustrated such an interplay
but he took issue with the two passages since they were not exactly parallel to Acts 2:38. Notice again 1 Cor.
16:1-2. Verse 1 gave a command in the second person plural--"...so do ye." Then verse two speaks to the
same group of people considered distributively by "hekastos" but Mr. Beisner completely ignored
that interplay and demanded that my point could be proved only if the passage read "...let every one of you
lay by them in store." That kind of interplay can also be demonstrated from the Greek construction.
Will Mr. Beisner accept that or will he simply make another demand?
In trying to escape the force of Acts 11:29-30, he says that the "they" relates not to "every one"
but to "disciples." A literal translation of the Greek text looks like this: "So as anyone of the
disciples was prosperous, they determined each of them for ministration to send to the brothers dwelling in Judaea..."
Notice, Mr. Beisner that "each of them" ("hekastos auton") is related to the
plural verb "they determined." It could be read just as well as "each of them as they determined"
in the Greek construction.
Mr. Beisner says that "hekastos" cannot be connected with the "remission of your sins"
because "hekastos" is singular and "humon" is plural. That observation will be
the crucial, turning point in the consideration of his argumentation on Acts 2:38, but let me make some observations
before getting to that part of his rejoinder.
When Mr. Beisner claims that "in the light of the accurate grammar, then we are forced to conclude...",
he is necessarily arraying himself against hundreds of scholars who have never so translated Acts 2:38. Furthermore,
his claim would elevate him above his own, most highly respected, A.T. Robertson who took a different position
on Acts 2:38. It would be interesting for Mr. Beisner to have told us if Mr. Mantey was a greater, more widely
recognized scholar than Mr. Robertson. Was Mr. Robertson ignorant of the construction and significance of "hekastos"
in this passage? Surely not, for I quoted from Mr. Robertson's comments on the passage which Mr. Beisner ignored.
Furthermore, Mr. Beisner should feel sheepish, if he should completely reverse himself after claiming an "accurate
understanding of the grammar" so proves his case. His claim for a "careful study of the Greek" and
"in the light of accurate grammar" necessarily means that the hundreds of scholars who translated our
major, English translations were inaccurate. That raises two important questions: (1) Is Acts 2:38, correctly
translated from the Greek by, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins... (KJV) and "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto
the remission of your sins..."? (ASV); and (2) Does not his position demand that a person must understand
Greek in order for him to be saved (because the English translations are not accurate'?
Notice also that Mr. Beisner's own avowed position that salvation is by "faith only" and at the point
of faith is contradicted by his interpretation of this verse. Mr. Beisner does not seem to realize that by his
admission that these believing Jews were commanded to "repent for(i.e., in order to have) the remission
of sins" necessarily means that they were not saved when they believed. Repentance is not faith, Mr. Beisner.
To press the point further, repentance is something they were commanded to do and since Mr. Beisner would have
to agree that repentance is a righteous thing which they were to do, then neither could Peter be commanding them
to repent in order to have the remission of their sins, for repentance then would be condemned by Mr. Beisner's
position on Tit. 3:5. If they were saved when they believed, then they did not have to do anything else. In his
zealousness to disassociate baptism from the forgiveness of sins, Mr. Beisner has committed himself to a position
on Acts 2:38, which puts him at odds with himself. Since, in his own thinking at least, he has disassociated baptism
from the remission of sins, his only solution now is to find some way to disassociate repentance from salvation
from sin.
That brings me to the main thrust of my reply, for there are two basic fallacies in Mr. Beisner's rejoinder. His
first basic fallacy is seen in the following quotation of his grammatical rule which he seeks to bind upon the
inspired writers: "The number (singular or plural) of all relative pronouns must agree with the number of
the subject(s) which are their antecedents, i.e., to which they relate." If his rule were absolutely true,
it is inapplicable to Acts 2:38, because "humon" is not a relative pronoun! Several times
in his reply, Mr. Beisner refers to it as being a relative pronoun, so I know that it is not a typographical error.
It may be that in his zeal to relate "humon" (your) only to "repent ye" while disassociating
"hekastos" (every one) from "your sins" that he wanted it to be a relative pronoun,
because that would agree with his rule but it is not a relative pronoun; therefore, his own rule does not apply
to what he is trying to prove.
His second fallacy is his misunderstanding of "hekastos," for he maintains that "hekastos"
must be used with parts of speech which are singular in nature. If he had taken the time to read
the quotation I gave him from J.H. Thayer (p. 192), he would have known that that is not true. Thayer states that
it is common for "hekastos" to be used with plurals of all types. That is true because "hekastos"
is used in apposition to these as a distributive; hence, it necessarily will not match in number because it gives
distributive information about the class.
I will now proceed to give Mr. Beisner sufficient evidence to illustrate that he is wrong about his conclusion
on "hekastos." First, notice that Luke has no superior in the New Testament in reference to his
style and use of Greek grammar and he uses plural pronouns with reference to "hekastos." An illustration
of this can be found first in Acts 2:8: "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"
In the Greek, "hear" is plural, while "each" [hekastos) is singular but it is used with
"our own" which is plural. According to Mr. Beisner's rule, Luke could not have done this and he would
have had to have said, "...how hear we each man in his own dialect..." In Acts 3:26, Luke records
Peter as saying, "...in turning away each one of you from your iniquities (Greek text). Mr. Beisner's rule
would make the text wrong for, according to him, it would have to read, "...turning away every one
of you from his iniquities."
In Rev. 2:28, John records Jesus's words thusly: "...and I will give unto every one of you according to your
works" (KJV). Contrary to Mr. Beisner's rule, the text does read, "...and I will give to you each one
according to the works of you (humon, plural). In Rev. 20:13, John says, "...and they were judged every
man according to their works" (KJV). In the Greek text, "every man" (hekastos) is singular
but the works "of them" (auton) is plural.
In the Septuagint (LXX, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament dated about 300 B.C.) which was accepted
and used by both Jesus and his apostles, "hekastos" appears frequently with plurals. For instance
in Ex. 1:1, Moses says, "...they came in each with their whole family"--"each" is from "hekastos"
(singular) but "their own household" is plural. In Ex. 7:12, "every man (i.e. each one) cast down
the rod of them"-"every man" (hekastos) is singular but "of them" is plural.
More? Look at Jer. 18:11-12: "...And now say to the men of Juda, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Behold,
I prepare evils against you, and devise a device against you: let every one turn now from his evil way, and amend
your practices..." The command for each to turn from his evil way is third person, singular imperative but
the "amend your practices" is second, personal plural. Again, "Turn ye every one from his evil way
and from your evil practices..." (Jer. 25:5). In Ezek. 1:9 another interplay is seen: "And the faces
of them four turned not when they went; they went every one (each one) straight forward."
There is a saturation point of information, beyond which further evidence will not convince a person, it matters
not how much one may present. I believe the evidence I have given is sufficient; however, I will list several other
passages which illustrate the same interplay between "hekastos" and plurals, for the sake of those
who may not have access to a concordance to the LXX. These are from the "Hatch-Redpath Concordance to the
LXX, pp. 418-420, and the following are only a few of the many instances: Ex. 35:21; 36:4; Lev. 10:1; 19:3; 25:10;
Num. 2:34; 26:54; Zech. 8:16; Mal. 2:10;
Finally, let us take a look at Acts 2:38, in its context. First, let it be noted that Peter affirms four points
in his speech: (1) Jesus was approved of God by miracles; (2) these Jews killed him; (3) God raised him up; and
then (4) Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God. It was obvious to the listeners that miracles had been performed
and they could not deny that they had killed Jesus, but the resurrection and ascension needed some proof, so Peter
spent most of his efforts in those areas (vv. 24-32; 33-36). Many of those who heard Peter's words were convinced
that they had crucified Jesus who was the promised messiah.
Upon being pricked in their hearts, they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do? Do for what? Why do
anything at all? Think about truth in the context of scripture, Mr. Beisner. They had been convinced by the
evidence of Peter's preaching that they had murdered Jesus who was the messiah and Son of God. They now believe
what they previously did not believe. Their consciences were stung by that conviction. Peter's answer points them
toward how they can have "the remission of their sins, which obviously is what they are asking. By disconnecting
repentance and baptism, as Mr. Beisner does, baptism no longer makes any sense in the context. Baptized? For what?
It might just as well have been left out of Peter's answer according to Mr. Beisner's logic. Common sense would
demand that the commands Peter gave must answer the intent and content of the question they asked. Repent and be
baptized are connected by a coordinate conjunction "and" and both are directed toward that for which
Peter understands they are asking-"What must we do to be forgiven of our sins?"
(A note of personal thanks is due both bro. Jay Bowman and bro. E.V. Srygley, Jr., for their help on the Greek
of this passage).
Acts 22:16
Mr. Beisner felt the pinch of the dilemma in which he found himself by his previous position on the passage
and has been honest enough to admit a mistake--that is honorable. But his attempt to escape that dilemma, only
puts him in another one. He argued so strongly that a proper knowledge of the Greek associated "washing away
sins" with "calling on the name" of the Lord but not with Saul's being baptized. Now he would have
us believe that a proper translation from the Greek would make Ananias say "having called" on
the name of the Lord, rather than "calling on the name of the Lord." Thus, he now says that "calling
on the name of the Lord" refers to what Saul did when he believed and repented on the road to Damascus but
is disassociated with being baptized and washing away sins.
Why was the first imperative, "be baptized," followed by a second, "wash away your sins," if
baptism had nothing to do with the removal of sins? That is the question Mr. Beisner cannot and will not answer.
Mr. Beisner labored so hard, in his first answer, to disassociate the phrase "be baptized" with "wash
away thy sins," by saying, "First a careful study of the Greek text shows that 'wash away' is coordinated
with 'calling.' That is, it is by 'calling on the name of the Lord' that Paul was to 'wash away' his sins, not
by being baptized. Even the English does not say, 'be baptized washing away your sins, 'or' wash away your sins
being baptized, but rather 'be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' This shows that
washing away the sins was done by calling on the name of the Lord," -(Beisner's comments on Acts 22:16, The
Preceptor, Vol. 32, No. 10, p. 4). As before, his must not have been a careful study of the Greek text, because
what he previously denied, he now affirms, but he has only jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Before, he
denied that the grammar of the Greek connected "baptism" with "washing away sins." Now, he
affirms that baptism is connected by symbolizing the washing away of sins. To say the least, it makes one suspect
of Mr. Beisner's Greek for he appears to appeal to it for his advantage and not to understand truth--taking whichever
position best fits his theology. He conveniently and unashamedly arrays himself against the scholarship and of
the translators of the King James Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, Revised Standard
Version, et. al., as he has also done previously, because all of those scholars translated "epikalaesamenos"
(calling on) in the same time reference as "arise," "be baptized" and "wash away thy sins."
By such a translation, they make "epikalaesamenos" simultaneous with the other aorists in the
sentence.
When I said, "Tell us Mr. Beisner, when was Saul saved? You cannot have it both places. If you affirm that
he was saved when he believed, and you must do that to be consistent with your stated conviction, then you must
surrender your argument about Saul being saved by calling on the name of the Lord," that was based upon Mr.
Beisner's attempt to make "calling on the name of the Lord" something Saul did in Damascus. Consistently
he could not maintain both of his positions at the same time. Mr. Beisner was faced with one of two choices: (1)
giving up his position that man is saved by faith only and at the point of faith; or (2) denying his argument that
"calling on the name of the Lord" was associated with "washing away sins" but not, with baptism.
Mr. Beisner chose the second alternative in order to maintain a degree of consistency and re- defined "calling
on the name of the Lord" to make it "having called on the name of the Lord" so as to apply to Saul's
believing.
Mr. Beisner's argument for "epikalesamenos" being translated "having called" would have
more semblance of reason if it actually stood, in location, at the beginning of the sentence rather than at the
end, but it does not. He would like for it to read, "having called on the name of the Lord, arise and be baptized
and wash away thy sins," but it is really recorded as, "arise, be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling
on the name of the Lord." In location, at the end of the sentence, as a participle, it is describing the action
of the previous verbs of being baptized and washing away sins, that is, that being baptized and washing away sins
is calling on the name of the Lord. Mr. Beisner understood this coordination in his previous answer, in part, at
least, by connecting "calling on the name of the Lord'' with "washing away sins."
Then, in seeking to explain how "arise" (Greek word, anastas), the other aorist participle in
the sentence, should be translated present tense while "calling" (epikalesamenos) should be translated
past tense, Mr. Beisner says, "(It is true that the first participle, anastao, is also aorist. But
as it precedes the two commands instead of following them, the time frame it connotes is governed by their tense
rather than its own. It therefore is properly translated into the English present tense participle, rather than
into the past as is the case with epikalesemenos.)" Mr. Beisner still appears somewhat confused about that
which is a "careful study of the Greek, because both commands (baptisai and apolousai)
are in the aorist tense! Therefore, if his reasoning be true, that an aorist participle takes the tense
of the following verbs, then "anastas" would have to be translated in past tense.
Why did not Mr. Beisner quote from his most highly respected Greek authority, Mr. A.T. Robertson on this matter?
Because Robertson says, "Burton5 (N.T.M. and T. p. 59) has it more nearly correct when he insists
that the aorist participle conceives of the event indefinitely or simply. So Blass6 (Gr. of N.T. Gk.,
p. 197) denies that the aorist tense implies antecedent action. It is usually assumed that the proper use of the
aorist participle is antecedent action and that only certain verbs (as exceptions) may occasionally express simultaneous
action. But this is a misapprehension of the real situation. While this came to be the more common idiom from the
nature of the case, the original use of the aorist participle for simultaneous action continued. One has no ground
for assuming that antecedent action is necessary or an actual fact with the aorist participle.1 (Moulton,
Prol., p. 131) The aorist participle of simultaneous action is in perfect accord with the genius and history of
the Greek participle...Moulton (Prol., p. 131) observes that when the verb precedes the aorist participle it is
nearly always the participle of coincident action," (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, A.T. Robertson,
pp. 1112-1113). To apply the above quotation, it should be noted that both verbs in Acts 22:16, precede the -aorist
participle (calling on) hence, according to Mr. Beisner's own authority should be simultaneous action and not antecedent
action.
Mr. Beisner's present position better fits his theology but still does not come to grasps with some facts from
the context. You will remember that I said, "When Ananias told Saul to 'arise and be baptized and wash away
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,' the necessary conclusion is that Saul had sins which needed to be washed
away; hence, was not saved before arising and being baptized." Mr. Beisner's dilemma is still very real, though
it has taken a different turn, and it matters not how much he may try to squirm out of it, as long as he affirms
that Saul was saved on the road to Damascus, he has Saul saved while still having his sins and needing those
sins washed away. Mr. Beisner, it was imperative that Saul arise, be baptized and wash away his sins--Jesus
had told Saul that he was to go into Damascus and there it would be told him what he must do. It would be
totally incongruous to say to a man who has just been saved, "be baptized and wash away your sins," because
a man who has just been saved does not have sins. The condition of being saved is equivalent to having sins removed,
as you have previously admitted .
I agree with Mr. Beisner that the blood of Christ is what truly washes away sins and not the water used in baptism,
because this is what the scripture plainly teaches. Surely, after all that I have written Mr. Beisner should understand
that the water used in baptism has no cleansing power in itself; however, he still seeks to imply that I believe
in some mystical power in the water. The act of baptism is not sacerdotal and baptism, separated from grace; love,
the sacrifice of Christ, his resurrection, etc., does not save.
From his own concept, Mr. Beisner concludes, "The water symbolizes Christ's blood..." but that is nothing
more than; a bold assertion. He does not sustain that by scripture, because it cannot be sustained. Furthermore,
when he says that the blood itself cleanses, surely he understands, that "blood" is a metaphor which
stands for the sacrificial death of Jesus, i.e., the giving of his life to atone for sins. But that concept cannot
be separated from a literal act. Was Saul actually baptized in water? Mr. Beisner agrees that he was commanded
to do so and complied with that command from God. But Mr. Beisner says that since "washing away sins"
is a metaphor, then it did not really happen--Saul only acted out a picture of what had happened. That is about
·as sensible as saying that since "blood" is used metaphorically, then Christ did not actually
die, he only acted out a picture. Again, if I should grant that baptism is a metaphor, it would not diminish the
truth that God actually blotted out Saul's sins when he was baptized.
Saul's sins were washed away sometime! When did it happen, Mr. Beisner? Did it happen when Christ's blood was shed
on the cross? Did it happen when Saul believed that Jesus was the Lord?-- if so, how could Saul still have his
sins? Or did it happen when Saul was baptized as Ananias said it would? How would Ananias have had to have stated
it in order to convey to Saul that his sins would actually, and, in reality, be blotted out when he was baptized,
if not in the way which he did? I am content to stay with the words of the inspired writer, Luke, who records Christ's
messenger's words--"...arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,"
because that was exactly the message Jesus sent to him.
1 Corinthians 1:17
Mr. Beisner still completely ignores the context Cor. 1:1-17, and the purpose of Paul's statement, for he wants
to make Paul say that baptism is not a part of the gospel. Paul stated his purpose for his statement thusly: "...lest
any should say I baptized in my own name..." (v. 15). Mr. Beisner says, "But if baptism is part of the
gospel, I cannot see that preaching the gospel (which would include baptism) would be more important than baptizing.
The idea is self-contradictory.'' But it is self-contradictory if a contrast is made between "gospel"
and "baptize." Paul did not make that contrast-Mr. Beisner made that contrast. I pointed out that, "The
'not' is followed by a 'but' in which preaching the gospel is obviously greater than baptizing for
without the message of Christ, no one would know about a savior or what the savior commanded men to do to be saved."
In the first century there were no New Testaments as we have them today. The message was contained in a few earthen
vessels (ambassadors of Christ) whose responsibility it was to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mk. 16:15-16;
Mt. 28:18-20). Anyone could baptize those who believed the message but only a few were filled with the Holy Spirit-inspired
message and charged to reveal it. Later Paul said, "Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" You
will notice that Mr. Beisner again made a subtle transition in the last statement of his section on 1 Cor.
1:17, by contrasting baptizing, which he says is of temporary value, with gospel. He has to do that
in order to make what appears to be a point.
Mr. Beisner stated his agreement with the parallel construction in Jno. 6:27, but seeks to dodge the force of Paul's
real point in 1 Cor. 1:17, by saying that Jno. 6:27, is a comparison between that which is temporary and that which
is permanent and 1 Cor. 1:17, in like manner, is comparing the temporary with the permanent. His argument implies
that a "not-but" construction inherently contrasts or compares that which is temporary with that which
is of permanent importance. Such is not the case and Mr. Beisner knows that. Why did he not do the same thing with
Jno. 12:44, which I also gave?-"Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on
him that sent me." Surely Jesus is not saying that he is of temporary value while God is of permanent importance,
is he Mr. Beisner? The truth of the matter is that there are many "not-but" constructions in the N.T.
which contrast or compare several different things.
Titus 3:5
Mr. Beisner says, "For a believer to be baptized is a righteous thing. But Paul tells us God did not save
us because of 'righteous things we had done.' If it is a righteous thing for believers to be baptized, as am sure
Mr. Everett believes, then the act of baptism cannot be a part of the cause of their being saved."
First, let me turn the attempted dilemma back to him. For a man to believe is a righteous thing. If it is a righteous
thing for man to believe, as I am sure Mr. Beisner would have to say, then the act of faith cannot be a part of
the cause of his being saved.
Next, Mr. Beisner necessarily finds himself at odds with the apostle Peter who said, "Of a truth I perceive
that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted
by him," (Acts 10:34-36). However, Mr. Beisner must take issue with Peter's statement and, in essence, affirm
that he that fears God and does not work righteousness is accepted of God.
What does this whole line of reasoning prove? It only proves that Mr. Beisner's use of "works of righteousness
which we have done" is taken out of context and misapplied by him to baptism. Actually, in the context of
Tit. 3:5, "washing of regeneration" is that which applies to baptism and is used in contrast to "works
of righteousness which we have done"-God chose that in baptism man's sins would be washed away by the blood
of Christ.
Causal Agency:
Mr. Beisner confuses causal agency with God-given conditions for receiving grace; therefore, he has frequently
attributed to me a belief in baptism as being a "cause" of salvation. That position is neither mine nor
the scriptures, but exists in his own mind. Baptism is not a "causal agency" as faith is not a causal
agency. Jesus Christ is the author (cause) of eternal salvation to all those who obey him (Heb. 5:8-9).
The power to save resides in deity, not man; it is made effectual by the propitious death of Jesus, the lamb of
God; and is made available through the gospel (Mk. 2:7, 10-12; 1 Jno. 2:1-2; Mk. 16:15-16; Rom. 1:16). Mr. Beisner
would see no contradiction in the gospel being the power of God to save those that believe and God being the causal
agency of salvation--the power of the gospel does not exist separate and apart from the personal being of God.
Is that salvation conditional or unconditional, Mr. Beisner? He says that man is saved by faith but I do not think
that he would affirm that faith is the cause of our salvation. Then, why cannot Mr. Beisner see that repentance
and baptism are conditions of salvation but are not causal agencies? Such things can be considered causes of salvation
only in a secondary sense that they are a part of God's eternal plan to make man righteous through forgiveness.
Mr. Beisner's whole point in using Tit. 3:5, is that if arising and being baptized washed away Saul's sins, then
Acts 22:76, contradicts Tit. 3:5; therefore, we must interpret Acts 22:16, according to his view of Titus 3:5.
Indeed, scripture does not contradict scripture, but man's interpretation of one passage may bring him in conflict
with another scripture. This is where Mr. Beisner finds himself on Acts 22:16. Is Acts 22:16, so obscure and filled
with figurative language that one cannot understand it? Is there no figurative language in Tit. 3:5? What is "washing
of regeneration," Mr. Beisner? Mr. Beisner refers to baptism as being symbolic, but he does understand Acts
22:16, to be talking about physical baptism in water. The only true metaphor in Acts 22:16, is "wash away
thy sins" and that phrase is descriptive of the actual abrogation of sins. The fact that it is a metaphor
does not diminish what actually took place. Mr. Beisner would have you believe that I have all kinds of
trouble understanding metaphorical language but the problem is, in reality, his, for he appears to believe that
when a metaphor is used it destroys actuality. Such is not the truth at all.
The two passages do not contradict at all,-when one understands them both. What is Tit. 3:5, teaching? Plainly,
there is a contrast between "works of righteousness which we have done" and God's "mercy."
"Mercy," by its very definition, necessarily excludes "merit." Paul's point is that the only
way man could be saved is by mercy, because man does not deserve salvation, nor are there any works man can do
of himself to be righteous. Hence, the "works of righteousness which we have done" are the opposite of
mercy--such works would make us deserving. On the other hand, Mr. Beisner's position on the passage makes God-given
conditions for man's receiving God's grace fit into the category of "works of righteousness which we have
done." The conclusion to which he will be forced is that faith is a work of righteousness which we have done;
hence, faith is not necessary to salvation. However, the contextual classification of "works of righteousness"
here is qualified by "which we have done" and compares to Eph. 2:8-9, where the works are described as
"lest any man should boast." Such awareness makes one conscious that God's plan for making man righteous
is through forgiveness but it is essential that we understand that grace is conditional.
There is perfect harmony between Tit. 3:5, and Acts 22:16. Saul had been told by Jesus that he should go into Damascus
and there it would be told him what he must do. Must do for what, Mr. Beisner? What was Saul interested
in at this time? While Saul waited, he was fasting and praying--not at all the attitude and disposition of a man
who had just been saved, for saved men rejoice (cf. Acts 8:37; 16:34). When Ananias arrived, he told Saul,
a man with sins, what he had to do--"arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins." When Saul
did this he knew that he was not saved by any works of righteousness which he had done. In baptism he was washed
of sins and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
[Previous Article] [Next
Article]
[Debate Outline]
|
