Study of Denomintions 04/25/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week


Tripartite Baptism
In some denominations, baptism is administered in three parts: one is dipped three times under the water, once each in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

While there is nothing particularly wrong with baptizing in this way, the Scriptures nowhere demand it. By all accounts, baptism was a singular immersion done in the name of (or by the authority of) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18-20). Sometimes baptism is mentioned as done in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38), and therefore it is entirely possible that some were baptized with only Jesus' name mentioned and therefore one immersion.

Baptism in Running Water
There are some who would claim that baptism is only legitimate if it is done in running water. The fact that Jesus and many others were baptized in rivers and other such sources of moving water is cited as evidence (cf. John 1:30-34, John 4:1-2).

While there is certainly nothing wrong with being baptized in running water, we see no such requirement in the Scriptures. Furthermore, it is likely that the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:36-39 was baptized in some pool of water in the desert that would not really be "running water". The only requirement in the Scriptures is for a person to be immersed in water-- it is a liberty as to whether one is immersed in moving or non-moving water.

Baptism is for Remission of Sin and Necessary for Salvation
The major difference between New Testament teachings and the teachings of many denominations concerns the nature of baptism. Most do not believe that baptism is the act that causes the remittance of sins and allows one to be saved; more often than not, denominations teach that believing--or believing and repentance, or some other action– allows one to be saved. Let us examine these arguments, beginning with disputations about the Scriptures involved:
Mark 16:16:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned."
Argument: Mark 16:16 does not say that you must be baptized to be saved; after all, it only says that those who disbelieve are condemned. Nothing is said about those who believe yet are not baptized.

Answer: This argument "does not follow" (the official term used for this is non sequitur). Why would someone who disbelieves be baptized? They would not consider it! Furthermore, why would anyone who believed not be baptized? Every detailed account of conversion in the book of Acts includes a baptism. Ultimately, we are not out to speculate about what the text does not say, but to establish what the text does say is necessary: belief and baptism. To "believe and not be baptized" is to tread in very dangerous water.

Argument: Mark 16:16 is invalid because textual evidence shows the text to possibly be a later addition.

Answer: It is true that a few very old manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark do not include Mark 16:9-20 ; many important witnesses, however, do contain the passage, and the passage is questioned more on subjective grounds. Furthermore, the antiquity of the text is verified by its use by Irenaeus in the late second century (Apostolic Constitution, 6.83). The feeling that it should be omitted comes, on admission, only on doctrinal evidence from scholars, that, "well, baptism for salvation is not spelled out anywhere else, hence, this is a later addition." In the end, all New Testament textual critics will be forced to admit that the argument against the text is without sufficient evidence, and that there is little reason to believe that the text is false.

Acts 2:38:
And Peter said unto them, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Argument: Luke uses the Greek word eis in Acts 2:38 . This word does not necessarily mean "for;" it could also mean "since," and thus read, "be baptized since you have been forgiven of your sins."
Answer: Greek prepositions can mean a whole host of possibilities based on context and usage. The above is highly unlikely, especially in view of Matthew 26:28 :
"For this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins."

"Unto remission of sins" in the above is the exact same phrase as used in Acts 2:38 , and eis is indeed the preposition rendered "unto". No one would argue that Jesus is saying here that His blood is shed "because your sins have been remitted." Why, then, should Acts 2:38 be any different?

It is also telling that every single translation, even the interpretive translations, translate Acts 2:38 as "for" as a statement of purpose. The argument does not stand.

Argument: Peter is preaching to the Jews, and his message is only relevant for the Jews.

Answer: While it is true that Jews are the direct audience of Peter in Acts 2, the conclusion is not valid.

Peter's message is directed towards the Jews, yes, and uses themes familiar to the Jews. The Scriptures do show that the presentation of the Gospel varies based on the audience: consider Paul's preaching in Acts 13:16-41 to a Jewish audience versus Acts 17:22-31 to a Gentile audience. The substance of the message, however, remains the same, and Paul affirms that he preaches the same message as Peter in Galatians 2:6-9:
But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision.

If the message is the same, so would be the response to the message. Furthermore, the idea that baptism was required for Jews but not for Gentiles is at odds with Acts 10:47-48, Acts 16:31-33, and 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 , all of which show that Gentiles also were baptized.
1 Peter 3:21:
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Argument: Peter does not say that baptism saves you, but your clean conscience is what saves you.

Answer:1 Peter 3:21 is yet another explicit statement showing the need for baptism, therefore, to refute it, one must turn to the manipulation of the text.

Peter here is saying that baptism is not a bath. Its intent is not to purge someone of dirt, but to clean one's conscience; after all, immediately after baptism, one is sinless. This clean conscience is the direct result of the remission of sin granted in baptism. Peter in fact affirms the efficacy of baptism. No one believes that there is any power in the water, the ad hominems constantly used against us notwithstanding; the power is in Christ's blood and the appeal being made to God by being immersed in water for remission of sin. This is the immersion that saves.

Study of Denomintions 04/18/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week

"Original sin," then, is not consistent with the entire witness of the Scripture ( Psalm 119:160 ). The main justification of infant baptism, then, is without Scriptural merit. When, then, should one be baptized? The Scriptures testify that one submits to baptism having believed in Jesus Christ, confessing His name, and repenting of one's sins (cf. Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9 , and Acts 2:38 ), and that one is baptized for the remission of one's sin (Acts 2:38). A person must be baptized when they have sinned, are separated from God (cf. Isaiah 59:1 ), and come to the realization of their need for salvation in Christ Jesus. As we have seen, in order to sin, one must need to know the difference between good and evil and choose the evil. Only then is one under the sentence of judgment. This moment varies by the individual, and some who have mental handicaps may never reach that moment. Baptism, then, should be done when one is mentally capable of doing so, realizing one's sin and need for salvation in Christ.

It should also be noted that since "infant baptism" is indeed of no value, since an infant has no sins to remit, infants are not really baptized proper but simply get wet. The Scriptures give no reason for confidence for anyone who would rely on their "baptism" as an infant. Such persons ought to consider the Scriptures discussed in this lesson and be immersed in water for the remission of their sin.

Baptism is Immersion

Many in denominations teach that baptism need not be immersion, but can be sprinkling or pouring; all three are considered "modes" of baptism.

The main difficulty in this argument is found in the meaning of the Greek word baptizo:

to immerse, submerge, to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet) (Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew/Greek Words).
to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk); to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe; to overwhelm (Thayer's Greek Lexicon)

The definition of "baptism" then, according to its use in the New Testament, does not allow for the idea of "sprinkling" or "pouring" or any idea of "modes" of baptism. Baptism is immersion. This reality is illustrated, in particular, by Paul in Romans 6:4:
We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

While we realize that Paul is using the metaphor baptism as burial, the metaphor only makes sense if we realize that baptism is immersion. When we bury bodies, we do not sprinkle or pour dirt on them; we cover them in dirt. Baptism cannot be a burial unless one is covered in water. It is clear, then, that New Testament baptism is immersion

Study of Denomintions 04/11/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week

Many will then cite Psalm 51:5:
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

When we look at the evidence we have seen above from Jesus' words in the Gospels, we get the strong impression from the whole of the Scriptures that children do not inherit sin proper. Since we know that the sum of God's word is true (Psalm 119:160) and without contradiction, we must consider the context of the passage and see whether there are some mitigating circumstances. Psalm 51 represents a psalm, a form of poetry, and a psalm which was written by David after his sin with Bathsheba had been made known (cf. 2 Samuel 12). His great grief, no doubt, led to the use of hyperbole, thinking himself so sinful that he was born that way. As we will see, many other passages that are not written in poetry declare children to be without sin. It is also possible to read "in iniquity" and "in sin" in Psalm 51:5 as David saying that he was born in a sinful world, not that he him self actively had sin against him from birth.

NOTE: Most if not all references to or in the Psalms are hyperboles to make a point, which is made clear by reading the context.

It is also argued when people read the declarations of Paul in Romans 3:10 and 3:23 that because "all" are not righteous and "all" have sinned, therefore, children are also a part of this group:
as it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one."

for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.

Do these verses teach that children are sinners? Let us examine the passage that Paul quotes in Romans 3:10ff, Psalm 53:1-3:
The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek after God. Every one of them is gone back; they are together become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

We see here that not only do none do good, none even know God. Do children "know" God? Can children understand fully the precepts of the Lord, especially infants? By no means! They are not capable of understanding such things. Therefore, are we to believe that God includes them in the category of those who choose to not do God's will nor to know Him?

We can understand, then, that Paul uses a bit of hyperbole to make his point. The "all" of Romans 3:10 and 3:23 refers to all people who are capable of knowing good from evil, and not every creature. This is comparable to Matthew's use of "all" in Matthew 3:5:
Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan.

Shall we believe from this that every single inhabitant of Jerusalem, Judea, and the Jordan river area came to John? That is not the intent; the point is to show that a large number of people came out to see John. We use the term in the same way today. Therefore, considering the evidence in Matthew 18:1-4 and Mark 9:35-37 , we can see that Paul is not referring to every single human ever but all who are capable of knowing good from evil.

Romans 5:12-17 is often used to try to show that we have inherited sin from Adam:
Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned or until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come. But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many. And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification. For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ.

While this passage in Paul’s Justification Section may give the impression that we inherit sin from Adam, when we read it closely, we see that Paul says no such thing. The text never says directly that anyone inherits actual sin from Adam; it does say that sin entered the world because of the transgression, and that death (spiritual not physical?) was its consequence, but never that we actually inherited sin. Yes, we die (spiritual not physical?) because sin entered the world through Adam, but that does not mean that we actually inherit Adam's sin. We can read this passage consistently with the rest of Scripture: sin is not only present but also permeates the world, death (spiritual not physical?) is present in the world, and the climate of sin will compel all capable persons to sin, but sin is not inherited, i.e. one does not “have to” sin.

Study of Denomintions 04/04/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week

Baptism
A Study of Denominations

Statement of Belief
The Scriptures say that baptism is a commandment of God,
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16 ),

being the immersion in water for the remission of sins,
And Peter said unto them, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38 ),

that allows one to be buried with Christ,
having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead (Colossians 2:12 ),

and leads to salvation,
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21 ).

Sections

● The Need for Baptism
● Infant Baptism and "Original Sin"
● Baptism is Immersion
● Tripartite Baptism
● Baptism in Running Water
● Baptism is for Remission of Sin and is Necessary for Salvation

The Need for Baptism
There are some denominations today who teach that baptism is not a physical action that should be performed; instead, they teach that when Jesus and the Apostles mention baptism, they are speaking about a "spiritual" act. This "spiritual" act is not physical nor has any form of physicality. Do the Scriptures teach that baptism is only a "spiritual" action?
Let us consider the example of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch from Acts 8:38:
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

By all accounts, Philip physically went down into the water with the eunuch and the eunuch was physically baptized. The example of Peter in Acts 10:47-48 is also telling:
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"

If Peter were speaking about a "spiritual" baptism that does not involve one getting into the water, why would he speak about the physical substance into which one is baptized? How could water factor into Peter's mind if baptism were simply some "spiritual" act? Further, what need would there be for any Christian to assist another in some "spiritual" act, yet we see in the Scriptures countless times that a Christian baptizes someone into Christ (cf. above, Acts 16:31-33, Acts 19:1-9 , etc.)?

Therefore, we can see from the Scriptures that baptism is a physical action that takes place when one desires to become a Christian.

Infant Baptism and "Original Sin"

Many denominations today teach that children and even infants must be baptized in order to be cleansed of sin. Let us examine the progression of this belief and to see what the Scriptures teach.

The first premise for baptizing infants is an inference based on the content of some of the Scriptures. The argument, generally, goes as follows:

Argument: When Cornelius and the Philippian jailer believed, their whole households were baptized. Thus, children were probably baptized also.

Answer: This argument is based upon an assumption about the term "household." Within the texts in question, Acts 10 and Acts 16:24-38, we also read the following about these families:
a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always (Acts 10:2 ).

And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house."
And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately (Acts 16:31-33).

We can see in Acts 10:2 that "all the house" of Cornelius is said to fear God. Regarding the house of the jailer in Acts 16:31, we can safely say that the jailer's household also must believe if its constituents will be saved, considering that no other Scripture witnesses that an entire family can be saved on account of the belief of one member. This evidence allows us to reach two possible conclusions:

1.Everyone in the households of Cornelius and/or the jailer were old enough to understand the Gospel and believe in its message, and therefore every single person believed and was baptized.
2.Luke expects his audience to understand that his use of the term "all" involves some hyperbole: he is not trying to say that literally every member of the house of Cornelius and/or the jailer believed and were baptized, but that everyone in those houses who were of sufficient age to understand the Gospel believed in it and were baptized.

Either option demonstrates that the inference made concerning these two texts is not valid: just because a "household" is baptized does not mean that any and all children present are baptized.
As the years progressed, it became clear that a compelling reason needed to be found to justify the baptism of infants, and the doctrine of "original sin" fit the bill. "Original sin" is defined somewhat differently by different denominations, but the basic idea is that sin is inheritable. Most denominations do not teach that individuals inherit specific sins from their parents, but instead believe that children are born with a sinful nature and therefore are sinners requiring baptism.
The main difficulty with "original sin" is found in the way Jesus speaks about children in Matthew 18:1-4 and Mark 9:35-37:
In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

And he sat down, and called the twelve; and he saith unto them, "If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and minister of all."And he took a little child, and set him in the midst of them: and taking him in his arms, he said unto them, "Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me."

Jesus indicates that if anyone desires to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, he or she must be like a little child. It is well-known that if an example is not valid, an argument cannot be supported by it. Therefore, if children have sin against them that requires baptism, how can it be that Jesus presents a child as an example of one who would enter the Kingdom of Heaven? If we are to aspire to be as a child, but a child is still in sin, how can we enter the Kingdom? How can it be that receiving a little child is as receiving the Son and the Father if the little child is in his sins? The conclusion is clear: children do not have sin against them. They are in a state of innocence.

Nevertheless, to defend original sin, many will first turn to passages describing how God will visit the iniquity of fathers upon children (cf. Exodus 20:5 ). Regardless, the Scriptures show also that the punishment of sin is only for those who sin:
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" ( Deuteronomy 24:16 ).

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" ( Ezekiel 18:20 ).


It would appear on the surface that we have a contradiction between these passages: some say that sons suffer the iniquities of their father, and some say that each soul suffers for their own sins. We can, however, reconcile these passages in one of two ways:

1.God perhaps does not visit the iniquity on the first generation of sinful people, but perhaps on a later generation of sinful people. Notice, for instance, that the exile of Israel and Judah are carried out not under faithful kings like Hezekiah or Josiah, but unfaithful kings, Hoshea and Zedekiah (2 Kings 17-18, 25).

2.God describes the propensity of children to follow in their parents' footsteps. Do we not even today say, "The apple does not fall far from the tree?" If the fathers involve themselves in some sin, it is very likely that children will also. This is not an absolute and hard and fast rule, but nevertheless often accurate.

Regardless, we do not need to infer from these passages that there is some form of "original sin" that each generation inherits from their forefathers.