|
|
|
|
MY REPLY TO MR. BEISNER'S THIRD SECTION OF HIS REJOINDER
Romans 6:3-4
The main thrust of Mr. Beisner's rejoinder centers around his use and misuse of metaphorical
language; hence, it really does not matter what Mr. Robertson meant by "sacramentalist" nor do Mr. Robertson's
comments on the passage carry any more weight than that of any other commentator. My reply to Mr. Beisner and Mr.
Robertson is still the same-God saves us from sin when we "obey from the heart..." (Rom. 6:17-18).
Mr. Beisner says, "Mr. Everett agrees that baptism is a symbol of our death, burial and resurrection."
Not so! Mr. Beisner, you did not read very carefully. I said, "The symbolism here is that of comparing
Christ's death, burial and resurrection to our death, burial and resurrection in baptism-our baptism is a form
of that which Christ did. In baptism we die and we are buried and from baptism we are raised to walk in newness
of life because we are forgiven. We are then new-born babes in Christ. Mr. Beisner says this only happens in figure--Paul
says it happens in reality. Should one doubt that this is the way our baptism figures Christ's death, burial and
resurrection note v. 5--'For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in
the likeness of his resurrection...' It is the likeness of His death and the likeness of His resurrection."
(The Preceptor, Vol. 32, No. 11, p. 7- (327), Sept., 1983). Contextually, whatever can be said about our
baptism being a likeness to anything is said only of it being a likeness to Christ's death and resurrection.
In a discussion such as this one, the central and primary difference between disputants may get hazy to the readers.
In seeking to keep those differences clearly in focus, I beg the readers' indulgence to state our differences as
lucidly as possible.
(1) Mr. Beisner believes God saves man at the point of faith -- I believe man is saved by God when he obeys from
the heart all of the conditions God has established for receiving His grace (cf. Rom. 6:17-18; Heb. 5:8-9;
namely; faith, repentance and baptism).
(2) Mr. Beisner believes that the act of being baptized in water merely symbolizes our salvation and that my rejection
of that position means that I must believe in baptism as a "cause" of salvation. Reply has already been
made to this charge in the August, 1984, edition under "Causal Agency." Suffice it to say that Jesus
is the cause of our salvation (Heb. 5:8-9) and that conditions can be spoken of as "causes" only
in a secondary sense by which they are a part of the gospel scheme of redemption. Therefore, Mr. Beisner's position
that one must believe baptism to be either merely symbolic or a cause of salvation is an improper either-or proposition.
As I examine Mr. Beisner's material on Rom. 6:3-4, let each understand that he has affirmed that water baptism
is the baptism under consideration here. That means that he understands the word "baptism" literally--he
is not arguing that the word "baptism" is metaphorical; he is rather arguing that the act of baptism
in water is metaphorical. Why is that observation important and why do I emphasize the difference? For the following
reasons. Mr. Beisner would have you believe that since I do not take the act of baptism in water symbolically,
then I must believe in a physical burial in the earth, killing people and literally crucifying people on wooden
crosses. However, we both agree that physical crosses, killing people and burials in the earth are not under consideration--the
words are used metaphorically and spiritually. But keep in mind that we both agree that the word "baptism"
in Rom. 6:3-4, refers to the physical act in relation to the substance of water.
What, then, is the difference between us? The difference can be seen in the subtle transition Mr. Beisner makes
in his reasoning, for he smoothly slides from the use of the words "buried," "death,"
"cross," and "crucifixion" being used metaphorically to the physical act of baptism
in water as metaphorical--he switches horses in the middle of the stream, or to put it another way, his conclusion
does not follow from his premise. Consistently, he should have maintained that since the words "buried,"
"death," etc., are used metaphorically, then the word "baptism" is used metaphorically and
does not refer to water baptism at all. Therefore, all his talk about my having to believe in killing people,
hanging them on crosses, and burying them in the earth, etc., because I understand the passage to be speaking of
baptism in water is so much nonsense--Mr. Beisner also believes the passage to be using the word "baptism"
in a literal sense.
I made the observation in my first reply to Mr. Beisner on Rom. 6:3,4, that "...if the passage is talking
about water baptism, and Mr. Beisner agrees that it is, then there are some logical conclusions which are inescapable.
By virtue of his admission, one can supply 'water baptism' to each of the statements made by Paul in the text and
understand what Paul meant. these are plain statements with which Mr. Beisner must contend and he has labored at
length to make the clarity of them befuddled," (Vol. 32, No. 11, p. 6-(326), Sept. 1983). To illustrate that
point further, note carefully the necessary conclusions based upon Mr. Beisner's agreement that the baptism here
is literal baptism in water.
(1) Water baptism puts us into Christ.
(2) We are baptized into his death.
(3) In water baptism we are buried with Christ.
(4) From water baptism we are raised to walk in newness of life.
Mr. Beisner, you are forced to admit that at some point in time these Christians in Rome literally, though not
physically, began a new spiritual relationship with Christ; were buried with him; received the benefits of his
death; and were raised to walk in newness of life. You have affirmed that water baptism is the baptism under consideration
here; hence, logically and consistently you must accept the truth that Paul is saying that all these things happened
when these people were baptized in water, or the Holy Spirit's language means nothing.
I must apologize to Mr. Beisner for having picked up chapter 6:17-18, instead of chapter 5:17- 18. 1 falsely accused
him there of changing the wording of the text and the mistake was mine. However, it would have been enlightening
for Mr. Beisner to have explained Paul's statement that these Christians were made free from sin when they
obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine delivered them (Rom. 6:17-18).
Galatians 3:27
I have no desire to misrepresent Mr. Beisner and do not believe that I have but what is Mr. Beisner's
position? To see if each reader is able to determine what Mr. Beisner really believes and is affirming, permit
me to conduct a short survey by listing two possibilities and asking that each reader place a check mark in the
appropriate space which he believes correctly represents what Mr. Beisner believes.
YES NO
o --- o 1. This passage is not talking about water baptism at all.
o --- o 2. The word "baptism" is a metaphorical way of saying "identification
with Christ."
Based upon what Mr. Beisner said in his tract and in his rejoinder, I checked the boxes for both "yes"
and "no" for both propositions. Mr. Beisner, in a process of reasoning when one begins with a proposition
and reasons along a line toward the exact opposite, then he reasons logically from the thesis to the antithesis.
Therefore, logically, he cannot affirm that both the thesis and the antithesis are true at the same time. Mr. Beisner,
you cannot affirm reasonably that Gal. 3:27, is not talking about water baptism at all and then list Gal. 3:27,
under a category of baptism relating to water.
In seeking to escape his dilemma which makes him affirm that "identification with Christ" is not essential
to salvation, Mr. Beisner says, "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." That is merely an evasion for
if a metaphorical word signifies a concept, then the metaphorical word is merely a different way of saying the
same thing. Mr. Beisner has already affirmed that this is the very function of metaphorical language. To illustrate
the point consider Jesus's statement to his disciples in Mt. 20:22-23: "Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able
to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with..."
Here the word "baptism" is used metaphorically to describe Jesus's suffering and does not refer to an
act in relation to water. Now, if the word "baptism" signifies the concept of being overwhelmed in suffering,
then it is equivalent to saying "overwhelmed in suffering" and the difference lies, not in the concept
conveyed but the distinction in terms to express it. Therefore, I did not misrepresent his position by saying that
he uses "baptism" as being equivalent to "identification with Christ." If the word "baptism"
in Galatians 3:27, is not a metaphorical way of saying "identification with Christ," then Mr. Beisner's
whole argument here means nothing. Just in case you do not understand your own argument, Mr. Beisner, you are not
arguing that the physical act of baptism in water is metaphorical in Gal. 3:27. You are arguing that the word
"baptism" is used metaphorically and signifies "identification with Christ," for you have plainly
said that the passage "is not talking about water baptism at all."
To illustrate the point further, let me call attention to Mr. Beisner's comments under Gal. 3:27-- "a)We have
already seen that Paul often used 'baptism' (i.e., the word "baptism," - JRE) as a symbol for identification.
This usage here would fit the meaning of the text. If it (i.e., the word "baptism," - JRE) is symbolic
of 'identification,' the meaning wouId be as follows: 'For as many of you as have been identified in Christ have
put on Christ.' " (The Preceptor, Vol. 32, No. 12, p. 3-(355), October, 1983). Whether or not Mr. Beisner
is conscious of it, when he substitutes "identified in Christ" for "baptized in Christ" he
is saying that the expressions are equivalent. Therefore, according to him, the word "baptism" expresses
a concept metaphorically while "identified with Christ" expresses it simply. Since I did not misrepresent
his argument, by his own admission, he must be saying that "identification with Christ" is not necessary
for salvation. To say the least, Mr. Beisner is going to have to recall his tract, recant some of the arguments
made in it and revise it. I would rather - that he accept plain Bible teaching about God's purpose and revelation
about baptism in God's scheme of redemption.
Questions Asked Mr. Beisner And His Answers Considered
Some clarification may be necessary here lest someone get the wrong impression from Mr. Beisner's
wording. These questions were a part of my original reply to Mr. Beisner in the October, 1983, edition of The Preceptor.
However, when Mr. Beisner sent me his rejoinder, the questions were left unanswered, so I wrote him and requested
again that he answer the questions. He graciously responded and asked that his answers be inserted before the heading
of James 2:24. Attention is given to his answers here.
With reference to Abraham's obeying God's call and journeying to Haranthen to Canaan, my question was: "Did
that moving and journeying involve any physical act?" Mr. Beisner answers "yes" but qualified his
"yes" by saying that the physical acts were not "causes" of Abraham's justification. Who has
so affirmed that such were "causes" of justification? Mr. Beisner cannot think about obedience to God's
will without seeing something meritorious in anything man does. It is for that reason that he will always
use such words as "cause" or "gain" or "merit" when discussing obedience. He implies
thereby that those who believe that man's salvation is received when he obeys from the heart God-given conditions
must believe that such response is in some way meritorious and that the performance of such acts makes man deserving
of God's grace. Such is not the truth at all!
What was the purpose of the question? To get Mr. Beisner to come to grasps with the truth that Abraham had obeyed
God's call "by faith" and that his faith involved doing something physical before the events
recorded in Gen. 15:1-ff. Mr. Beisner used Gal. 3:6, and Rom. 4:1-11, and affirmed, in essence, that Abraham was
a lost sinner until the events recorded in Gen. 15:1-ff. His conclusion was that the passages tell us that this
is the exact time in Abraham's life when he was justified because this was when Abraham believed.
Therefore, his response to the second question is to say that he does not know when Abraham exercised saving faith
in God, even though he had previously used Gen. 15:1-ff to teach that this was when Abraham believed God
and was justified.
Then his response to the third question implies that what Abraham did in obeying God before Gen. 15:5, could have
been an attempt on Abraham's part to be justified by his own obedience and to earn his salvation by his works.
Mr. Beisner says that even though it might be assumed that because Abraham obeyed God's call he must have believed,
we cannot hold such a view as conclusive.
I think I can demonstrate that such a view is conclusive. In Heb. 11:8-10, God says of Abraham, "By faith
Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and
he went out, not knowing whether he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country,
dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city
which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." God calls what Abraham had "faith"
and from that faith Abraham obeyed God; and from that trusting obedience he has his name recorded in a list of
other heroes of faith who serve as encouraging examples for us. To deny that what Abraham had before Gen.
15:5, was true faith, is to fly in the face of God. Furthermore, to use Gal. 3:6, and Rom. 4:1-11, which refer
to Gen. 15:5, as the exact point in time when Abraham was converted from being a sinner to being saved is a misuse
of scripture, because this passage describes some events in the life of a man who had already been trusting in
God and walking by faith for several years before that which is recorded in Gen. 15:5.
James 2:24
Do the works of which James speaks gain salvation? No. However, if all works are things
men to do "gain" salvation and, according to Mr. Beisner, James is commanding works (even though they
are done to be justified before men, Mr. Beisner says), then James is commanding works done to "gain"
salvation. But if Mr. Beisner says "no" to that and admits that the word "works" does not inherently
convey the idea of something done to gain salvation, then he will quit injecting the words "gain," "merit,"
"earn," "cause" and "contribute to" every time he writes about works. Once he has
done that, he will be much closer to understanding the Bible's teaching on the correlation between faith and works.
Mr. Beisner responded to my argument on grace, love, the sacrifice of Christ, etc., not excluding faith and that
faith and baptism are not mutually exclusive by saying that grace, love, etc., are things God does, not man. So
I ask that Mr. Beisner consider whether or not faith and repentance are mutually exclusive. Repentance is
something man does. If man is saved at the point of faith, then passages such as Acts 2:38, which Mr. Beisner
has already affirmed relates repentance to "remission of sins," cannot be true. Now, if Mr. Beisner can
understand that repentance does not cause salvation nor does it earn salvation, he should also be able to understand
that baptism is not a meritorious work. A person being baptized trusts in God's mercy to save him and is not, by
any stretch of the imagination, trusting in his own works to redeem himself.
James says the scripture in Gen. 15:5-f, was fulfilled when Abraham offered Isaac. He also says that
this is when faith worked and thereby was made perfect. Mr. Beisner's position about salvation being by faith only
and at the point of faith contradicts the argument James makes. The very same passage (Gen. 15:5-f) is used by
both James and Paul. Do they contradict one another? Nay, verily a believer in God's word would not so argue. Martin
Luther allegedly resolved the difficulty in his own thinking by affirming that the book of James was not a part
of the canon of the scriptures. Mr. Beisner would not hesitate to do the same thing, if he deemed it feasible,
for he has done so previously on Mk. 16:15-ff. However, his defense here that James speaks of "justification
before men" not justification before God, annuls James's arguments. Mr. Beisner's argument is a broken reed"
and a feeble attempt to deal with the context. James is not talking about justification before men, he is talking
about an active faith. Anything less than an active faith is a dead faith. Answer a question for
me, Mr. Beisner-- at least in your own thinking--what men were present before whom Abraham needed to be justified
when he offered up Isaac? (Gen. 22:1, says, "God did prove Abraham." When Abraham was about to kill Isaac,
God spoke through his angel and said, "Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him; for
now I know that thou fearest God, seeing, thou hast not withheld thy son, thine Only son, from me."
In all the dust Mr. Beisner has stirred up he still has not found the passage I challenged him to produce. Mr.
Beisner produce one, just one passage, which says that man is saved by "faith only." The only passage
in all the Bible which connects the words "faith" and "only" says that man is not saved
by faith only.
Is James 2:24, talking about baptism? Not specifically but in principle, and that was how I used the passage.
Abraham, Faith and Justification or "Works Vs. Works" and "Faith Vs. Faith"
The clearest way to respond to Mr. Beisner's arguments here may be to get him to see that the
Bible uses the word "works" in different ways as it also uses the word "faith." Reference was
made to that point earlier in this material but I will pursue it with more detail here.' Mr. Baisner did not seem
to appreciate my argument about there being different kinds of works. 'However, Mr. Beisner does understand that
the word "faith" is used in different senses in the Bible, for when he talks of saving faith he says
that those who "truly believe" are saved. Therefore, according to Mr. Beisner there is one kind
of faith which is different from another kind. I might chide Mr. Beisner and say that faith is faith and he must
believe that they are all the same, but that would not be fair. Neither is it fair for Mr. Beisner to seek to saddle
me with saying something I do not believe about works.
In the same way that he understands that there are different kinds of faith, Mr. Beisner should understand that
the word "works" is also used in different ways. Sometimes it is used in a context of meritorious activity
which can be described as "perfect works" or "works of law" (Rom. 4:1-11; Gal. 3:6; Eph. 2:8-9).
Sometimes the word "works" is used in a context which expresses obedient faith with no thought of merit
or perfect keeping of law (James 2:16-24; Col. 2:12). In this sense faith itself is called a work (Jno. 6:28-29)
because it is commanded of God. The difference between Paul's use of the words and James's use of the same words
is in perspective. Paul does not speak of a faith that is inactive but as that which God has always expected of
men and he uses the system of faith in Jesus Christ in opposition to justification by perfect works in keeping
of law. Again, I remind you that the same Paul who wrote Rom. 4:1-11, also wrote Rom. 6:17- 18, and said that these
Christians in Rome were made free from sin when they had obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine delivered
them. This is also the same apostle who wrote Gal. 5:6, and said, "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision
availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; -but faith which worketh by love." Mr. Beisner's position on Rom. 4:1-11
and Gal. 3:6, not only has Paul against James but also Paul against himself.
When James speaks of faith and works he perceives faith that saves as always being active but he describes it by
joining the word "works" and proves his point by argumentation and scriptures which show that God does
not approve of a faith that does not move men to obey, but rather he accepts faith which is joined with doing.
Paul does not present salvation as being at the point of faith nor does James present justification on the basis
of works that merit. Both present faith that saves as being an obedient, trusting confidence in Christ to save
man who is underserving.
Mr. Beisner would like for you to think that I said that Abraham was not justified until he had obeyed God in being
circumcised. The truth of the matter is that I argued that Abraham was justified by God before the events
recorded in Gen. 15:1-ff. Mr. Beisner used Gen. 15:1-ff and Rom. 4:1-11, to teach that this was the exact point
in time when Abraham exercised saving faith and was converted from being a sinner to being a saved person. However,
in answering the question I asked him about this, he was forced to admit that he did not know the exact time when
Abraham was made right with God.
In Rom. 4:1-11, when Mr. Beisner reads "works not," he sees "doing nothing at all" and when
he reads "faith" he sees "only believe," but he sees what is not in the text. Paul had proved
in the first three chapters of Romans that both Gentiles and Jews are sinners, therefore are lost. In Rom. 3:23,
he says, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Since all are, therefore, violators of
law, upon what basis can man be saved? Not on the basis of perfect law keeping (perfect works), for that would
make man deserving. Rather, justification is on the basis of forgiveness made possible through Jesus Christ. Hence,
his use of Abraham in Rom. 4:1-11, is especially persuasive to Jews who had so much confidence in Moses's law,
but who, also, had so much respect for Abraham as their father. Abraham was justified before the law and without
circumcision. Contextually, the "works" are "perfect law keeping by which man would merit salvation"
and the action of believing is an obedient, active faith. Mr. Beisner's attempts to make me contradict Paul's statements
in Rom. 4:11, 5, 10, merely indicate his misunderstanding of the kind of works condemned and the kind of faith
that saves.
Mr. Beisner has used several "either-or" propositions. Perhaps one here will help clarify the text for
him. Mr. Beisner, would you say that Abraham was justified by an obedient faith or by a disobedient faith? Was
Abraham justified by an active faith or an inactive faith? It is my understanding that Rom. 4:1-11; Gal. 3:6, et.
al., reveal an active, obedient faith. If man is justified by a disobedient faith, then he may believe in God but
not obey him and still be just. If man is justified by an inactive faith then he can be justified by a dead
faith.
1 Peter 3:21
Mr. Beisner appears to have little respect for grammatical construction, for he turns Peter's
sentence around to make "the answer of a good conscience" the subject of the sentence. Permit me to point
out again, Mr. Beisner, that "baptism" is the subject of the sentence and you have agreed that water
baptism is the baptism of which Peter speaks; hence, the simple sentence reads, "...water baptism saves us..."
Now the modifying clauses and phrases do not change that truth, they merely give further explanation to the simple
sentence. You do not have the liberty, either grammatically or exegetically, to change that simple sentence construction.
What Mr. Beisner needs to find is just one passage which speaks of baptism in water as being an outward
sign of one's salvation from sin. I challenged him to produce just one and he gave Rom. 6:4, but he has assumed
what he was trying to prove. In his reasoning he shifted from the figurative use of the words "dead,"
"buried," and "crucified," to literal baptism in water being symbolic--one can prove(?) anything
by that procedure.
Since other scriptures tell us of God's love and grace; Christ's sacrifice for sin arid God's commands to believe
and repent; the simplest most straightforward interpretation of the language in 1 Peter 3:21, is that baptism in
water saves us. Peter does not say the good conscience saves us, he says "baptism saves us." He does
not say that baptism is a symbol of our salvation, he says "baptism saves us." However, when Mr. Beisner
finishes with the text, he makes Peter deny that statement and say that "baptism is only a picture of our
salvation."
Furthermore, if Mr. Beisner should succeed in finding one verse which proved that baptism was a symbol of one's
salvation, he still would not have proved what he needs to prove in order to annul the plain scriptural statements
made about baptism. Mr. Beisner's position demands that he demonstrate that man is saved at the exact point in
time when he believes and not when he has repented and been baptized. The real question is at what point in a persons'
life does God say that he is forgiven. God answers that only through scripture--not how a man feels about it--and
says that He forgives when faith moves a man to repent and be baptized.
Who Has Trouble With Figurative Language? Mr. Beisner or Mr. Everett?
I do not believe that it is I who has the difficulty with metaphorical language in this study,
though my understanding of scripture is certainly not infallible. Rather, I think that Mr. Beisner makes language
figurative and seeks to reduce baptism to a mere symbol in order that the controverted passages may agree with
the basic, theological premise from which he reasons. "Aha, but that is what you are supposed to say in a
debate such as this," someone says. But, would not all agree that the proof is in the pudding? Give it a fair,
testing taste and let each be convinced by the sampling.
Mr. Beisner gave us a treatise on "signs, symbols and metaphors" in his first section which contained
several definitions. To which I will add one he appears to have overlooked: "Metaphorical...of or relating
to metaphor; comprising a metaphor or containing metaphors; figurative; not literal..." (Webster's New Twentieth
Century Dictionary, p. 1132). May I point out very kindly that Webster uses the word "figurative" as
a synonym for "metaphorical" and gives as a negative "not literal."
One must be careful in reading Mr. Beisner's material because he makes transitions from a literal interpretation
to a figurative one and then back again. I illustrated earlier in this section the figurative use of the word "baptism"
in Mt. 20:22-23, and observed that when it is used thusly, it is not talking about water baptism at all. I had
also observed in my first reply to Mr. Beisner on 1 Peter 3:21, that when the word "baptism" is used
figuratively, it cannot apply to water baptism. To which he responded: "This simply is not true, as my earlier
discussion of the words 'metaphor,' 'sign' and 'symbol' showed." I have read and re-read that section but
found no evidence that shows that a word may be used literally and not literally at the same time.
What Mr. Beisner needed to do to clarify his position here was to affirm that the word "baptism" is used
literally in reference to baptism in the physical substance of water but the act only symbolizes our personal salvation.
However, if he should state his position so clearly, then he has surrendered the basis for his metaphorical interpretation.
He must attach "metaphorical" to the word "baptism" for his argument to have any semblance
of reason. Here, as with Rom. 6:4, he assumes what he needs to prove, for what he needs to prove is that
baptism in water is merely symbolic of one's personal salvation from sin. His conclusion, again, does not follow
from his premise.
Mr. Beisner's play on the words "signs," "metaphors," and "symbols" really proves
nothing about the use of the word "baptism" in 1 Peter 3:21, and only confuses the truth of Peter's statement.
With reference to 1 Peter 3:21, Mr. Beisner boldly asserts that the text makes it clear that Peter views the act
of baptism as a symbol. Who says so? Mr. Beisner says so. The text does not say that baptism is symbolic
of our salvation but rather it slays that baptism is a figure of Noah's salvation by water. I would really like
for Mr. Beisner to make an argument based on the word "figure" in 1 Peter 3:21, but he will not. Surely,
our readers can see what Mr. Beisner is doing.
I must point out here that Mr. Beisner, in his zeal to get me to agree with him, lifted a statement I made out
of context and made an erroneous application of it. I do not think that he did it intentionally but I must correct
what he said lest someone get the wrong impression from his quotation. In the August 1983, edition of The Preceptor,
p. 6-(204), I said, "Everyone understands the flexibility of language whereby the same thought may be expressed
in different ways. Mr. Beisner would have us conclude that since Ananias did not say, 'arise and be baptized washing
away thy sins..', then baptism and washing away sins cannot be connected together..." Mr. Beisner quoted the
first part of the paragraph and then says of me: "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." I did not say that but, rather, was replying
to Mr. Beisner's argument that in order for Ananias to have connected "being baptized" and "washing
away sins" together he would have had to have said, "be baptized washing away your sins." No, Mr.
Beisner, be baptized is one action and wash away thy sins is the resultant action. Mr. Beisner's charge is false
and his argument is false.
It is true that metaphors do give different light to the same truth conveyed by simple terms but the metaphor can
be replaced by the simple expression and still make good sense, contrary to Mr. Beisner's claim. For instance,
in 1 Cor. 1:28, Paul uses the word "cross" to stand for "the message of a crucified saviour."
One not only can, but here must, supply the simple expression for the metaphor in order to understand the message.
The True Significance of Baptism [?] Colossians 2:11-12
Mr. Beisner sees a parallel between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism. Granted
that O.T. circumcision was a sign of the covenant relationship with God because scripture plainly teaches that.
But where is the scripture that plainly says that baptism in water is a sign of the New Covenant relationship with
God? That is what Mr. Beisner cannot find--try as he may. He weaves a garment of "if-then" propositions
but it is threadbear because the very thing he wants to prove is an assumption. He says, "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." That is the big "IF" that Mr. Beisner leaves hanging.
With reference to Col. 2:11-12, 1 will grant him the liberty of changing his terminology to fit the intent of his
argument, even though it is not what he - said. And since this is the only passage that mentions "circumcision!'
and "baptism" in the same context, Mr. Beisner's parallel between circumcision and baptism stands or
falls with the proper understanding of these verses.
First, let it be noted that Mr. Beisner's statement that O.T. circumcision was a "...symbol of the cutting
off of sin in the heart" is false. Nowhere in the Bible can such a statement be found but this is typical
of Mr. Beisner's logic, for he will boldly assert something and then build arguments from that assertion.
I had made the observation in my first reply to Mr. Beisner that the subject of Paul's consideration in Col. 2:11-12,
was the circumcision of the heart not O.T. circumcision. Granted that there is an allusion to O.T. circumcision
in the statement "made without hands" which would imply that there was one made with hands, while it
is not the subject of his consideration. Now, I want Mr. Beisner to notice carefully the parallel between the two
circumcisions by implication: (1) the old was made with hands-- the new made without hands and is of the heart;
(2) the old was the cutting off of the foreskin of the flesh--the new is the cutting off of the old man of sin.
The parallel is between two circumcisions--not between circumcision and baptism. There is no intent by Paul
to base an argument on O.T. circumcision being a sign of the covenant so that a parallel would be drawn from that.
Further, no stretch of the imagination can make Paul say that baptism is a sign of the New Covenant in v. 12.
Now, if Paul had in mind here an argument that fleshly circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant, then he would
have had to have argued that spiritual circumcision of the heart is the sign of the New Covenant. Again, I remind
Mr. Beisner that in v. 12, Paul did not state or imply that baptism is circumcision, nor that baptism took the
place of Old Testament circumcision. If any connection between baptism and circumcision is made, it would be a
parallel between baptism and the instrument by which the foreskin of the flesh was cut off, whether it be by a
flint, knife, or whatever; because, in God's scheme of things baptism is His instrument by which the old man is
cut off; i.e., where he forgives man by the blood of Christ.
Besides the context of Col. 2:11-12, there are two other problems Mr. Beisner has with his at- tempted parallel
between circumcision and baptism. First, that every Jew who was baptized with Christ's baptism already had the
sign of circumcision which, according to Mr. Beisner, was a "symbol of the cutting off of sin and establishing
of a covenant relationship with God." Also, according to Mr. Beisner, the act follows and symbolizes the real
thing. If circumcision was a symbol of the real thing, Mr. Beisner, then circumcised Jews surely did not need another
sign of the same thing. Second, ac- cording to Mr. Beisner, baptism is a sign that follows regeneration
and merely symbolizes the real thing. Therefore, as a pedobaptist, he is forced to say that babies are born in
sin and regenerated before they receive infant baptism. That being: the case, he cannot maintain that man
is saved by faith only, since babies cannot have faith. On the other hand, if Mr. Beisner says that infants are
not sinners and, therefore, are not lost, then when he baptizes infants, he practices the symbol before
the real thing happens and it no longer can be spoken of as symbolizing that which was to have taken place in the
heart.
Conclusion
I have already given specific answers to Mr. Beisner's questions in other places; hence, there
is no need to duplicate them here.
So Mr. Beisner closes with Jno. 3.16 and says: " 'Whosoever' is modified by only one word: 'believeth.' There
are no exceptions: whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, whether baptized or not, has everlasting life." Can
the readers see the conclusion to Mr. Beisner's misuse of Jno. 3:16? The devils believe, therefore, they have everlasting
life-- there are no exceptions. Or, maybe Mr. Beisner just has the devils justified before men? Yes, I think see,
Mr. Beisner-"Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they
did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue," (J no. 12:42). There are no exceptions!
These unconfessing Jews have everlasting life?
Our real differences do not hinge on how words and actions are used metaphorically but rather hinge on basic concepts
of the monothetic will of God; the nature of man's free will; whether or not grace is conditional or unconditional;
and what those conditions are. Mr. Beisner believes that the unsaved can do nothing to please God and that whatever
choices man makes before salvation are only choices to do evil. It behooves Mr. Beisner, therefore, not only to
seek to explain away simple commands of God that require man to be baptized to be saved, but, also, if he should
seek consistency, to seek to annul God's commands to the unsaved to believe and repent as well.
Indeed, each of us shall give answer to God for what he has presented here for your consideration. Let each reader
read carefully with Bible in hand and head bowed before the Almighty God.
[Previous Article]
[Debate Outline]
|
