|
|
|
|
A REJOINDER TO JIM EVERETT ON BAPTISM - Pt. 3
E. Calvin Beisner
Romans 6:3-4
Mr. Everett rejects A.T. Robertson's statement regarding the meaning of these verses on the basis
that Robertson says Paul was "not a sacramentarian." Mr. Everett takes "sacramentarian" to
mean someone who believes "baptism was an act which, when performed by an authorized (?) person, had saving
power within itself." Since this understanding of "sacramentarian" is not Mr. Everett's own position,
but rather he believes baptism has saving power only when accompanied by faith, he believes Robertson sets up an
improper either/or proposition.
However, Robertson's text does not indicate he views sacramentarianism as a belief that baptism saves apart from
faith. He simply says, "the translation 'into' makes Paul say that the union with Christ was brought to pass
by means of baptism, which is not his idea, for Paul was not a sacramentarian."
Robertson apparently used "sacramentarian" as synonymous with "sacramentalist." "Sacramentalism,"
in turn, is "the doctrine that the sacraments are necessary to salvation" (Webster's New Twentieth
Century Dictionary, Unabridged, p. 1593). Within the context of his commentary, this understanding of the word
makes better sense than that which Mr. Everett pins upon it.
What Robertson was saying, then, was that Paul did not believe there was any saving power in baptism even in combination
with faith, i.e., that Paul did not believe baptism necessary to salvation. Thus Robertson rejects precisely the
position which Mr. Everett takes.
Mr. Everett agrees that baptism is a symbol of our death, burial, and resurrection. But he believes our death,
burial, and resurrection occur only when we undergo baptism, not before. I believe baptism symbolizes the death,
burial, and resurrection we experience at the moment we trust Christ, which must come before baptism. I argue that
since the act is a symbol, not a cause, baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Mr. Everett responds, "Non Sequitor-(slc)! But follow his logic and see where it leads. In Acts 14:26, (sic;
actually 27), Paul used the expression '...opened the door of faith...' This is a figurative expression, If it
is a figurative expression, then, according to Mr. Beisner's logic, faith is not necessary to salvation."
Quite the contrary. The "door" is a symbol of the entrance we gain into the new life through faith. The
door, not faith, is symbolic; just so, baptism is symbolic, not our spiritual death, resurrection, and burial.
If we insist, as Mr. Everett does, that the symbolic must be used in order to have the reality, then we must add
the ordinance of opening a physical door to that of being baptized in order for us to be saved. But just as no
physical door is necessary for us to be saved, so no physical act of baptism is necessary for us to be saved.
Mr. Everett insists that the symbol is a necessary part of the cause of the reality when Paul speaks of our being
"baptized into his death." But is he willing to be consistent in his insistence on the necessity of the
symbol for the reality? Paul says we are "buried" by baptism--then are we to dig graves and bury people
in them? Shall we perform a funeral service for everyone who is to be baptized? Paul says we "have been planted
together" in the likeness of Christ's death. Should we dig holes and plant candidates for baptism in them?
Paul says we are "crucified" with Christ; shall we erect crosses and nail candidates for baptism on them?
Paul says we are "dead with Christ" (v. 8); shall we kill all candidates for baptism, as Christ was killed?
These ideas are absurd. But they are unavoidable if Mr. Everett wants to be consistent in his insistence on acting
out the symbol in order for the reality to take place. If, instead, we believe the reality can take place without
the symbol--i.e., if we let a symbol be a symbol and not a cause--then we may understand all these figures of speech
which Paul uses in the same manner without going to the absurd.
Mr. Everett says that in my summary of the context of Ro. 6:3-4 I "conveniently changed the wording of chapter
6:17-18" to have us "made free from sin as a result of Christ's obedience and apart from our own obedience
from the heart." He is mistaken. I summarized 5:16-17, something quite clear in the context of the booklet.
Mr. Everett picks up on my statement that water baptism signifies or symbolizes our identification with Christ
in His death, burial, and resurrection, then quotes my statement that "when we are identified with Him, we
too are 'dead to sin' (verse 2)," and then writes, "Does language mean nothing? If water baptism is 'identification
with Christ,' and when we are identified with Christ we too are dead to sin, then it necessarily follows that in
water baptism we become dead to sin!" But to make this argument, he has to change from my wording that baptism
is "a symbol to paint a vivid picture of what happens when one is identified with Christ" and "Baptism...symbolized
identification with Christ" to "baptism is 'identification with Christ."' The symbol is no more
the thing symbolized than a painting is the thing represented in it. I can only plead that Mr. Everett let a symbol
be a symbol, not force it to be the thing symbolized.
Galatians 3:27
Mr. Everett believes it inconsistent to write both "Baptism in Galatians 3:27 does not refer
to physical baptism in water, but is figurative of our identification with Christ" and "But even if it
did refer to water baptism, it would not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation, for it specifically speaks
of it as an outward sign." He writes, "I find that quite perplexing, for I would like to know how it
speaks of water baptism specifically as an outward sign, if it is not talking about water baptism at all?"
But of course my "even if" indicates that I don't think it does both at once. There is no inconsistency.
I was making a point that whichever way one took "baptized" in Gal. 3:27, either as purely figurative
and not denoting the physical act, or as denoting the physical act, one would not be forced to the conclusion that
baptism is necessary for salvation. If one took the word as purely figurative, not denoting the act, then the verse
was irrelevant to the question whether the act was necessary to salvation. But if, on the other hand, one took
it as denoting the physical act, one still could not conclude that the act was necessary for salvation because
Paul's use of the special term "put on" indicated that the act, if under consideration at all, was considered
only as an outward sign (cf. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, IV, 298).
Mr. Everett writes, "Mr. Beisner must affirm that the baptism in these texts is either water baptism...or
he must affirm that the word 'baptism' stands for identification with Christ. Both cannot be true at the same time."
This is a false dichotomy. Both can be true at once, just as "cross" can signify the wooden object
on which Christ died and the sufferings He bore and the death He died and the service which We owe to others; and
the wooden object itself can symbolize Christ's sufferings and death.
He writes, "Mr. Beisner's position at times is that water baptism is only a symbol of our salvation from sin.
Mr. Beisner's position at other times is that the word 'baptism' is equivalent to 'identification with Christ'..."
But I never take the word "baptism" as "equivalent to" identification with Christ; "to
signify" and "to be equivalent to" do not mean the same thing.
He writes, "Now, if both positions are true at the same time, then 'identification with Christ' is only a
symbol of our salvation and not the real thing; therefore. 'identification with Christ' is not necessary to salvation."
He misrepresented my position by saying I believed sometimes the word "baptism" is "equivalent to"
identification with Christ. If that were what I believed, then he would be right: identification with Christ would
be unnecessary for salvation, according to my view. But that is not what I believe. I believe baptism signifies
our identification with Christ, and as the reality can exist without the sign, so identification with Christ can
exist without baptism and without its being referred to metaphorically by the word "baptism." That a
symbol is not necessary for salvation does not mean the thing symbolized is not necessary for it.
Mr. Everett appended three questions to his discussion of Gal. 3:27, and requested that I answer them .
- "Did that moving and journeying involve any physical Act?" He refers to the moving
and journeying Abram did in obedience to God's call in Gen. 12:1-3. Yes. This does not mean, of course, that the
physical acts Abram did caused, or were part of the cause of, his justification before God. According to Eph. 2:10,
the good works which follow upon faith are part of the goal of God in saving us, not part of the cause
of our salvation.
- "Was Abraham a sinner and lost before Gen. 15:6?" Certainly he was, as are all human
beings. Perhaps Mr. Everett meant not simply "before" but "prior to and until." This would
mean that a "yes" answer would indicate that Abraham was lost up to the immediate moment described in
Gen. 15:6. If that was Mr. Everett's intent in the question, my answer has to be, "I do not know." There
is no clear indication ascertainable by exegesis or contextual analysis, that I can discover, whether Gen. 15:6
is best understood as describing an event punctiliar in nature and simultaneous with the events described in Gen.
15:1-21, or as describing a general attitude present in Abram for some time previously and clearly evidenced in
his response to God's promises in that context. He may or may not have exercised saving faith in God prior to Gen.
15:6; neither the verse itself, nor anything that I can discover in Abram's story, answers that question clearly.
What is clear, from Paul's treatment of the verse in Ro. 4:1-11 and Gal. 3, is that it was on the basis of Abram's
faith, not on the basis of his works, that he was declared just be God.
- "Did Abraham believe before Gen. 15:6?" As I have noted already, the relevant texts
themselves do not provide a clear answer to this question. It might be assumed that because Abram obeyed
God's call to the journeys he made, he must have "believed." But all of us are familiar, surely, with
those who, with no trust in the grace of God, attempt to please Him through their own obedience,
to earn their own salvation by their works, rather than receiving it gratefully as a gift from God. While there
is some reason to think, therefore, that Abram's actions were indicative of true faith prior to Gen. 15:6,
we cannot hold such a view as conclusive.
James 2:24
In the course of commenting on my treatment of Ga1.3:27, Mr. Everett argues that our salvation
is not by faith alone but by faith, grace, and works. I grant that faith and grace both are required; but the grace,
after all, is on God's part, not ours. But I do not grant that works are necessary to gain salvation.
To substantiate his position, he cites Jas. 2:24: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not
by faith only." Clearly Mr. Everett considers baptism a work: otherwise it makes no sense for him to bring
up Jas. 2:24 in the context.
The context of Jas. 2:24, however, indicates that James speaks not of justification before God, but of justification
before men (cf. vv. 14-18). James does not teach that works contribute to one's salvation, but that they are an
invariable result of real faith. God knows before works ever are done that real faith is there, and thus
can justify us on account of faith "apart from the works of the law" (Ro. 3:28); men cannot see into
each other's hearts; they need to see outward evidence that faith is there.
An old saying of the Reformers was that "faith alone saves, but true faith is never alone." The Bible
presents faith as the cause of both our good works and our salvation: "For by grace are ye saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For
we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should
walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10. The idea that we are saved by both faith and works contradicts Paul's words. We
do not do works in order to be saved, but are saved in order to do good works. Prior to salvation we are capable
only of sin, for we are its servants (Ro. 6:17); afterward, we are "made free from sin" and have become
"the servants of righteousness" (Ro. 6:18). The idea that we could do works to get saved ignores the
Biblical teaching that the unsaved cannot please God (Ro. 1:18-3:21). Again, the message of Titus 3:5 rings clear:
God did not save us because of righteous things we did, but because of regeneration through the Spirit.
Abraham, Faith, and Justification
Mr. Everett argues that Abraham's faith was·not counted to him for righteousness until
he obeyed God. But this is precisely the opposite of Paul's argument in Romans 4, for there Paul says Abraham "received
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he
might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised" (v. 11). For Mr. Everett's position
to be true, Paul would have to have written, as his explanation of Genesis 15:6, "Now to him that worketh
is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is not counted for righteousness." But Paul did not write that. He wrote, "But
to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"
(Ro. 4:5). Paul would have to have written, "How was (Abraham's faith) then reckoned? when he was in circumcision,
or in un- circumcision? Not in uncircumcision, but in circumcision." But that is not what Paul wrote. He wrote,
"How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in
uncircumcision" (v. 10).
Mr. Everett would have us believe that James 2 presents an explanation of Gen. 15:6 which holds that Abraham was
not justified before God until his faith and his works joined together. But that would be to make James contradict
Paul. Rather, James 2:24-26 must be understood in context with vv. 14- 23, which indicate that James writes of
the manner in which we are justified before men, not before God. If was not in God's understanding that, when Abraham
offered Isaac, Scripture was fulfilled which declared that Abraham believed God and that belief was counted to
him for righteousness; it was in man's eyes.
Mr. Everett writes that the "works" condemned as means to salvation in Gal. 3:6; Ro. 4:lff; Col. 2:8-
9 are "works of the law or perfect works." But Titus 3:5 mentions no such restriction on the sort of
good works it says are not part of the cause of our salvation. It simply tells us that God has not saved us because
of "any righteous thing" which we have done but because of the washing which is regeneration and renewal
by the Holy Spirit. Either baptism is a "righteous thing" which we do, or it is not; if it is not, then
we ought not to do it; if it is, then it is not part of the cause of our salvation.
1 Peter 3:21
In his response to my treatment of this verse, Mr. Everett simply will not let a symbol be a
symbol. He writes, for instance, "By using quotation marks around the word 'baptism,' it would appear that,
grammatically, he (Mr. Beisner) 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." This simply is not true, as my earlier discussion of the words
"metaphor," "sign," and "symbol" showed.
He then writes, "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." But we cannot
simply substitute the thing signified for the metaphor and continue to have the sentence make sense. The whole
point of using metaphors is to express a thought in a manner which sheds a different light on it than one would
get simply from expressing the thought in the most direct manner possible.
Mr. Everett himself must recognize this when he writes, "Everyone understands the flexibility of language
whereby the same thought may be expressed in different ways" (cf. his discussion of Acts 22:16). He believes
that in Acts 22:16 "be baptized and "wash away your sins" express essentially the same thing: the
act of baptism symbolizes the washing away of sins, and, he believes, it causes that washing away as well when
combined with faith. But if we use his method as he does above, then we can say that his interpretation of Acts
22:16 could just as well be either "be baptized and be baptized" or "wash away your sins and wash
away your sins."
If Mr. Everett would simply let metaphors and other sorts of symbols do what they are designed to do the matter
would be clear. Metaphors and symbols are not the same as synonyms.
I have no problem with the idea that Peter writes here of baptism in water, calling it "the answer of a good
conscience" toward God, and saying that that baptism "saves us." My assertion is simply that the
act itself is a symbol, and here is taken as a symbol of the answer of a good conscience toward God. It is not
the symbol, but the thing signified, which saves us. If Peter viewed the act of baptism here as a symbol (as is
clear from the text), and thus used the word "baptism" metaphorically, then for him to have written "baptism
doth now save us" is perfectly consistent with the belief that it is not the act but the thing signified by
the act which does the saving. Otherwise, we'll simply have to abandon the idea of using metaphors and other symbols
in language.
It ought to be clear by now that the great dividing point between Mr. Everett's and my understandings of the Biblical
doctrine of baptism is our understanding of whether, and in what sense, the act and the word can be spoken of as
symbols. He writes, "I challenge Mr. Beisner to show just one instance in which water baptism is ever
referred to as an outward sign of our salvation." I believe Ro. 6:3-4 is such an instance, and that most of
the passages we have discussed in this controversy are in that category. Whether our salvation is spoken of as
"the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1 Pet. 3:21), or "washing away of sins" (Acts
22:16), or spiritual death, burial, and resurrection (Ro. 6:3-4), or putting on Christ (Gal. 3:27)--whatever one
of these ideas is used to denote our salvation, in each of the contexts "baptism" the word is used as
a metaphor to refer to our salvation, and the physical act of baptism is viewed as a symbol of our salvation.
Mr. Everett says, "water baptism that saves is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh."
I agree. But Peter's point is to contrast that water baptism which is without faith and thus might just as well
be a mere putting away of the filth of the flesh, with that baptism which truly signifies the answer of a good
conscience before God. If we are allowed to see baptism as a symbol of our regeneration, then we may recognize
that it is regeneration which saves, and it is therefore legitimate to speak metaphorically of that regeneration
simply by using the term "baptism" or to symbolize that regeneration in the act of baptism.
The True Significance of Baptism
Mr. Everett writes that I cannot prove the assertion that "Baptism is the New Testament
counterpart to circumcision (Colossians 2:11- 12)...." I believe the parallelism in the verses cited is sufficient
proof. Uncounted numbers of commentators take the same view. Even Paul King Jewett, who in his book Infant Baptism
and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978) argues against infant baptism, acknowledges
that he is forced to see the connection between baptism and circumcision because of the structure of Paul's argument
in Col. 2:11-12; yet most who argue against infant baptism find that they must deny this relationship.
Mr. Everett also writes that I cannot prove that "baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant relation of the
New Testament believer to God...." But if baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision, then this
point follows logically, for it is what we learn from Romans 4:11. Circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant
relation Abraham had with God, and functioned as that sign and seal for all old covenant believers; as its counterpart
in the New Testament, baptism has the same function.
Mr. Everett believes it inconsistent for me to have written in my discussion of Col. 2:12 that "baptism"
there "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 Ro. 6:3,4," and then to have listed Col. 2:11-12 later to prove that
baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision. Again, this ignores the fact that a word can symbolize
something which itself is another symbol: the baptism wherein we are "buried" with Christ and are "risen"
again with Him is a symbol; both the word and the act symbolize the fact of our dying, being buried, and rising,
all with Christ--i.e., our regeneration. What I meant by writing that Col. 2:12's use of "baptism" was
"not a reference to literal water baptism" was that it did not refer simply to the act as a bare act,
but to the thing the act signified, seen through the symbolism of the act. Perhaps I chose a clumsy way to communicate
this idea, and if so I must beg my readers' pardon.
Mr. Everett writes that "circumcision in Col. 2:12, does not refer to Old Testament circumcision but rather
to circumcision of the heart...." But Paul refers to circumcision in two ways: first by implication, the circumcision
made with hands, and second, explicitly, the "circumcision made without hands." Circumcision made with
hands is physical; it is a symbol of the cutting off of sin in the heart and establishment of a covenant relationship
with God. Circumcision made without hands is spiritual, and is that actual cutting off of sin and establishment
of a covenant relationship with God. Paul's point here is that in Christ we do not receive simply the bare, empty
symbol of circumcision, we receive what it signified.
Paul then presents baptism in a manner parallel with that in which he treats circumcision. When we receive the
"circumcision made without hands" we are "buried with him in baptism, wherein also (we) are risen
with him through the faith of the operation of God..." Just as in the Old Testament it was not the physical
act which constituted one's right relationship with God, but the thing signified by it, so also it is not the physical
act of baptism which constitutes our right relationship with God, but the thing signified by it: the release from
sin, the "washing of regeneration" or the "washing away of sins" or the "answer of a good
conscience toward God" or our spiritual death, burial, and resurrection with Christ.
I do not deny that the physical act of baptism is included in the idea Paul expresses in Col. 2:12; rather, I assert
that just as he had pointed out that it was not the physical act of circumcision which saved one in the Old Testament,
but the thing signified by it, so also when he writes of baptism he has in mind not that the physical act constitutes
our death and rising again with Christ but that the thing signified by the act does: namely, the cutting off of
the sinful nature and our dying spiritually with Christ and rising again with Him to life.
Conclusion
Our disagreement clearly hinges on the concept of whether and how words and acts can be metaphorical
and symbolic and on the application of our thoughts about this to the relevant passages regarding baptism in the
New Testament. Each of us will answer to God for his answers to these questions. I believe the explanations above
are consistent with Scriptural usage. Our readers will have to judge for themselves whose arguments are the stronger.
I only ask Mr. Everett four questions: 1) When you referred to Jas. 2:2, did you believe baptism is one of the
works which is there said to cooperate with faith in justifying men? 2) Did you believe the justification there
mentioned was justification before God or before men? 3) If you believe baptism is a work that contributes to our
justification before God, do you believe it is a righteous work or an unrighteous work? 4) If you believe baptism
is a righteous work, how can you reconcile your position with Titus 3:5, which says God has saved us "not
by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy...by the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified
by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life?"
Undoubtedly baptism is important, and I would never stand in the way of someone's being baptized if he were a believer
in Christ. It is a sin for believers to refuse baptism. But baptism is not a means of salvation.
Jesus says in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "Whosoever" is modified by only one word:
"believeth." There are no exceptions: whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, whether baptized or not, has
everlasting life.
[Previous Article] [Next
Article]
[Debate Outline]
|
