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.