Study of Denomintions 05/30/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week

Creeds

Overview
Many denominations hold to creeds, or statements of faith, written in ages past. Many feel that these creeds represent a summation of the faith outlined in the Scriptures, or a concise statement of their belief system. While many denominations have their own creeds, we will now examine three creeds more universally used among denominations, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

The reason for creeds was to defeat error that was not in line with “common thought” without using the Bible or being familiar with the Bible. The following are two "errors":
+++++++
Arminianism, which takes its name from Jacobus Arminius (Jakob Harmensen), is a moderate theological revision of Calvinism that limits the significance of Predestination. Arminius (1560 - 1609) was a Dutch Reformed theologian who studied at Leiden and Geneva. He became a professor at Leiden in 1603 and spent the rest of his life defending against strict Calvinists his position that God's sovereignty and human free will are compatible. He sought without success revision of the Dutch Reformed (Belgic) Confession; nevertheless, he was very influential in Dutch Protestantism.

A Remonstrance in 1610 gave the name Remonstrants to the Arminian party. They were condemned by the Synod of Dort (1618 - 19), but later received toleration. English revisionist theology of the 17th century was called Arminian, although possibly without direct influence from Holland.
++++++++
Pelagianism is the name given to the teachings of Pelagius, a British Christian active in Rome in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Often identified as a monk but probably a layman, Pelagius was a biblical interpreter (he wrote a commentary on Paul's letters) and theologian who stressed the human ability to fulfill the commands of God. In Rome he became the center of a largely aristocratic group whose aim was to pursue the most rigorous form of the religious life in contrast to the indifferent morality of other Christians. Pelagianism may thus be considered a reform movement within late Roman Christianity. Its doctrine, however, was condemned as heresy.

Under the threat of the Goths' invasion (410) of Italy, Pelagius joined other Roman refugees who traveled to North Africa. There his teaching was opposed by Augustine, the leading figure in the North African church. In claiming that humans can do what God requires, Pelagius had emphasized the freedom of the human will and the ability to control one's motives and actions under the guidance of God's law. In contrast, Augustine insisted that no one can control his or her own motivation and that person requires the assistance of God's Grace if he or she is to will and to do good. Only with the help of divine grace can an individual overcome the force of sin and live rightly before God. In the resulting controversy Augustine's views prevailed and became dominant in Christian teaching.

Pelagius was excommunicated (417) by Pope Innocent I, and his views were condemned by a series of church councils. For another century, however, his theology found support in areas of North Africa, Italy, southern France, and Britain; and the issues of human freedom and divine grace have remained central topics of debate throughout the history of Christian theology.

Sections
● The Apostles' Creed
● The Nicene Creed
● The Athanasian Creed
● Conclusion


The Apostles' Creed
Even though many may believe legends that the Apostles' Creed was developed by the Apostles themselves on the Day of Pentecost or some such time, this is not so. The earliest complete text of the creed is from the eighth century; many believe that it has its origins in certain litanies performed in the second century. Regardless of its historicity, many denominations accept it as a concise summation of the Gospels; Luther went so far as to declare it the statement of faith. The following is the text of the Apostles' Creed, with notes describing the variants in the text:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
He was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried.
He descended into Hell [VARIANT - Anglicanism (original is also used, but this variant is accepted): "...was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead."
Calvinism: "...was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell.].
On the third day He rose again [VARIANT - Calvinism adds "from the dead.] .
He ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church [VARIANT - Lutheranism: "the holy Christian church."], the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
Amen.

As we have seen, many consider the Apostles' Creed to sum up the message of the Gospel. There is one aspect of this creed that does not entirely fit the message of the Gospel, however-- the idea that "He descended into Hell." Those who adhere to the creed say that this is in conformity with the teaching in 1 Peter 3:18-19 :

Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.


Does Peter say that Christ descended into Hell? By no means! Peter is saying that Christ preached to those "now" in prison; Peter makes no comment as to where they were when Jesus preached to them.

We can be sure that Christ did not descend to Hell proper, but to the grave, during His time between the crucifixion and the resurrection because David prophesied the following of Him in Psalm 16:10 :

For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption. (ASV)

For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (KJV)

How could Jesus descend to Hell if He is prophesied to not be abandoned to Sheol, or Hell? The Apostles' Creed would have Jesus not fulfill prophecy! Therefore, we can see that the Apostles' Creed does not entirely sum up the Gospel.

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed is a specific statement of faith that had a specific purpose. In 325, the Roman emperor Constantine called together a council of all the bishops in the "catholic" church to come together in the city of Nicaea in modern day Turkey to resolve the conflict that had begun concerning the relationship of the Father to the Son. The Arians had determined that the Son was always subservient to the Father, yet the majority of the "catholic" church held to their equality, in nature and in position. This is the creed determined by this council:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all there is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us men and our salvation He came down from Heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures;
He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.[VARIANT - The Roman Catholic church and the denominations of western Europe add: "...and the Son."]
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.


Such is the Nicene Creed, a summation of faith, but as we will see in the conclusion, is it necessary?

The Athanasian Creed

The name of the Athanasian Creed is derived from Athanasius, "bishop" of Alexandria in the mid-fourth century CE, yet the creed itself was most likely written sometime during the seventh or eighth century CE, likely in Spain. This creed is also written against Arianism.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith.
Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal.
As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one
Incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say,
There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another;
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.
He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His
manhood;
Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ:
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

The Athanasian Creed would seem to negate the many statements of Jesus showing that there is some aspect of hierarchy in the Godhead, the Father, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit ( John 14:16-17 , 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 ). How meaningful such a "hierarchy" is when God is One in essence and purpose is of course worthy of discussion, but it is present within the Scripture. The Athanasian Creed also affirms Jesus having gone into hell, discussed above. These issues, therefore, lead us to question the legitimacy of such a creed.

Conclusion

There are many other creeds, conciliar decisions, and confessions made that denominations hold to, but these three are the most common. What do we learn from them?

We can see that they are not the inspired Word of God, for not one of them comes with any authority from God at all. This is clear in how the wording is changed in them: Luther changes the Apostles' Creed to sound less Roman Catholic, and the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches are still divided over the former's addition of "and the Son" to the Nicene Creed. No one believes that any of these creeds actually go back to the Apostles; they are all additions of men.

We must ask the question: why creeds? We see a great emphasis placed on such statements of faith within denominations, and yet the Scriptures never provide us with any explicit examples of them. Granted, many members of denominations who believe in creeds find creedal statements all over the place in the New Testament, but such represent interpretations of the data; we must wonder if they would "see" these creeds in the text if they themselves did not hold to creeds. Why are creeds even necessary? If they represent in substance the message of the Gospel, are God's words in the Scriptures not sufficient enough to speak and to which we can adhere? If they are not substantively within the Scriptures, but represent our interpretations of various doctrines based upon what the Scriptures say, on what basis can we formulate them into statements and require universal adherence to them? How can we be sure that such statements are approved by God? Creeds, in the end, are entirely unnecessary; adherence to the Word of God as revealed in the Scriptures should be sufficient ( 2 Timothy 2:15 , 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ). We must remember the words of Paul in Galatians 1:6-9 , and always make sure that we hold to the Gospel which he delivered along with the other Apostles:

I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another gospel, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.

Let us hold to the true Gospel, delivered to us in the Word of God, and not to the creeds and confessions of men.

*****************************

Study of Denomintions 05/23/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week
--Baptism--

Argument: Baptism requires a baptizer. If you make baptism a requirement for salvation, you also require a baptizer, adding someone to the salvation that comes through Christ alone.

Answer: First of all, we should note that the term "baptizer" is foreign to the New Testament after discussion of John the Baptist. The focus is never on the baptizer, but that one is baptized.

Nevertheless, the foundation of this argument-- the idea that needing a baptizer adds a person to salvation-- is undermined by Romans 10:14:
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Every group recognizes the need for belief, and Paul says that belief can come only when one "hears" the Word of God. Is Paul "adding" someone to the salvation that comes through Christ alone by positing that someone must preach the Word? Absolutely, because it makes little sense to posit that the understanding and eventual salvation through Christ is done in a vacuum, without any human intervention. If the Word is spread through the preaching of men, then there is no problem with men baptizing others so that they can be saved.

Argument: Well, if baptism is what gives remission of sins, wouldn't you need to be baptized every time you sin?

Answer: Baptism is a one-time act that transforms the individual into a new creature, described as being "born again of the water" in John 3:4 . After being born again, we must confess our sins, and by doing so, we are forgiven, as John says in 1 John 1:9:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The Scriptures do not require continual baptism for remission of continual sin.

Argument: What if an airplane crashes into the desert, and a Christian on that plane converts everyone but cannot baptize them, and they all die without water. Are they saved?

Answer: This is one of many kinds of such arguments: it may involve different details, but the idea is the same: a person is hindered from being baptized and dies.

All of these arguments are really argumenta ad absurdum. They posit unlikely situations, and are really self-defeating. One could simply change some of the details and return the argument, using belief, repentance, or something else of the sort. "Well, what if someone is hearing the Gospel, sees that Christ is Lord and that He died for his sins, but just before he could repent, he is struck by lightning and dies. Is he saved?"

The answer, invariably, is, "God will decide." If that is true in the circumstance of one before repentance, so it is with the one before baptism. God said that we should be baptized for remission of sins, and that is the rule. We are to preach the rule, not dwell on some ludicrous exceptions. After all, it is likely that the one with whom you speak is near plenty of water, and the only hindrance would be a lack of faith or understanding in his or her need to be immersed in water for the remission of their sin.

Study of Denomintions 05/16/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week
--Baptism--

Argument: 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 shows that baptism is not valid for today: Paul did not baptize, and Paul said to imitate him as he imitated Christ.

Answer: We can see here a classic example of inferring an answer despite the fact that one has been given. Let us consider 1 Corinthians 1:14-17:
I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

It would be rather odd to try to argue here that Paul does not value baptism, considering that he confesses that he baptized no fewer then three persons in Corinth. The reason for his hesitance in baptizing people is found in verse fifteen:
lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name.

Paul had a peculiar problem when preaching to the Gentiles; they had a tendency to worship a man with supernatural powers as a god. Consider what occurred in Lystra in Acts 14:11-18:
And when the multitude saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, "The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury, because he was the chief speaker. And the priest of Jupiter whose temple was before the city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the multitudes. But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude, crying out and saying,
"Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and bring you good tidings, that ye should turn from these vain things unto a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is: who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways. And yet He left not himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness."
And with these sayings scarce restrained they the multitudes from doing sacrifice unto them.

We can see, then, that Paul has previously been elevated beyond his position. Even in Corinth, there was division over to whom people owed their allegiance- to Apollos, Cephas, Paul, and/or Christ (1 Corinthians 1:12). Paul did not wish to baptize the Corinthians so that no one would think that there was any power in Paul, since the power was in Christ. Paul asked the Corinthians in verse 13, just before the discussion of baptism, the following:
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?

The difficulty, then, is not that the Corinthians were baptized or not baptized, or that Paul was to baptize or not to baptize, but the attitudes of the Corinthians and their tendency to exalt the men who worked with them. The fact that so many Corinthians were said to be baptized confirms the need for all to be baptized.

Argument: The thief on the cross was saved, and he was not baptized.

Answer: The thief on the cross died with a special promise from Jesus:
But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss."
And he said, "Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom."
And he said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise," (Luke 23:40-43).

Christ had not yet died, nor was raised; the work of salvation had not yet been completed (cf. Psalm 22, Isaiah 53). The thief died under the old covenant with a personal guarantee from Christ, realities that are not present for us today. We could say in response, "If Christ comes down and says to you that He will see you in Paradise today, then good, you do not need to be baptized. Otherwise, the need for baptism still stands."

Retort: The thief died after Christ did.

Answer: While it is probably true that the thief outlasted Jesus, the full redemptive work (let alone the inauguration of the Kingdom) required the resurrection, and it is certain that the thief was dead by then. As it is written:
After two days will he revive us: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him, (Hosea 6:2 ).

Likewise, Paul establishes that if the resurrection is not true, then our faith in Christ is in vain, and we are still in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:12-18). The resurrection, therefore, is as important as the cross in our salvation, and no change in covenant occurred before that point.

Argument: Romans 10:9-10 says that belief and confession save. Belief and confession, then, and not baptism, save.

Answer: Romans 10:9-10 does indeed say that belief and confession are necessary:
Because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

As good students of God's Word (2 Timothy 2:15 ), we must always remember that the sum of God's Word is truth (Psalm 119:160 ), and we ought not introduce contradiction into the text. Note that Paul does not say here that belief and confession "alone" save. Consider Luke 13:5:
I tell you, "Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

Would we say that this verse denies the need for belief and confession, because it only mentions repentance? By no means! We learn that belief and confession are necessary for salvation in Romans 10:9-10 and repentance is necessary for salvation in Luke 13:5 and Acts 2:38. If Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-7, and 1 Peter 3:21 affirm the need for baptism to be saved, we recognize that all of these aspects, not just one or two, are necessary. Therefore, the absence of the term "baptism" in Romans 10:9-10 does not negate the need for baptism.

It should be noted that this same type of argument will also use belief from Acts 16:31 or another passage, and one can respond in a similar way as above.

Argument: Jesus did not baptize anyone; therefore, why don't we follow His example?

Answer: As seen from John 4:1-2 above, the disciples did baptize people as disciples of Christ with Christ present. If Christ disapproved of this example, would He not have stopped it then? This is actually a confirmation of the need for baptism: Christ used Himself as an example for baptism and people were baptized in His name with His approval while present on the earth.
++++++

Study of Denomintions 05/09/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week
--Baptism--

Furthermore, God is the only one who administers the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and is done not by the intent of man but by the intent of God, as seen in Acts 2 and 10. Therefore, other examples in the Scripture when persons submit to baptism (cf. Acts 9:18, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 , Acts 18:8 , etc.), all indications show that they were baptized in water, not in the Spirit.

We can see, then, that even if immersion in water is not explicitly mentioned, all evidence points to that conclusion in all the passages cited.

Retort: 1 Corinthians 12:13 indicates that we are all baptized in the Spirit.

Answer: Let us consider 1 Corinthians 12:13:
For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

The question we must ask is whether Paul is trying to show that our baptism was in the Spirit or whether our baptism in water was done in accordance with the one Spirit. The context demonstrates that Paul's point is about the unity of Christians, how Christians are to work together in one body; therefore, Paul is not speaking about the nature of baptism per se, but that when we were immersed in water, we did so by one Spirit and were brought into one Body. We cannot understand this verse to be in contradiction with the mountain of evidence for immersion in water (cf. Psalm 119:160 ).

Argument: The Apostles were not baptized, yet they were certainly saved.

Answer: This argument presupposes that since the baptism of the Apostles is not revealed in the Scriptures that it did not happen. Such is not a wise presupposition; we are told that not everything that was done during Christ's ministry is revealed, nor could it really ever be (John 20:30-31, 21:25 ). It is entirely possible, therefore, that the Apostles were baptized and yet such was not revealed.

Furthermore, the idea that the Apostles were baptized is rendered more plausible by the evidence in John 4:1-2:
When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples).

If the disciples were out baptizing people during Christ's ministry, it is very likely that they had already been baptized as well.

Argument: Cornelius was saved before baptism. Baptism, then, is not necessary to be saved.

Answer: Since no statement to this effect can be found in Acts 10 or any other passage, to understand and respond to this argument, we must understand the underlying assumption driving it: if one has the Holy Spirit, one must be in a saved state. Is this assumption true?

While this assumption may have merit in the majority of cases, nevertheless, there are times when the Holy Spirit is upon a person who is not saved so as to effect God's will. As it is written in 2 Peter 1:21:
For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

Peter makes no exception: if a man provides a prophecy, it is not by his will, but by God through the Holy Spirit. Having understood this, let us see what John says regarding Caiaphas in John 11:49-52:
But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, "Ye know nothing at all, nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."
Now this he said not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad.

John clearly says that Caiaphas "prophesied" regarding Jesus, since he was High Priest that year. Since no man can speak of himself when prophesying, but is guided by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), Caiaphas must have spoken by the Holy Spirit, and therefore the Holy Spirit was with him. Yet who would claim that Caiaphas was saved?

It should be manifest, then, that God can provide the Holy Spirit to a person, even if not saved, to fulfill His purposes. Since God desired for Peter and the other disciples to understand that Gentiles were to hear the Word of life, God poured out His Spirit onto Cornelius and his men to be a sign for Peter, and Peter then understood and had divine testimony to prove it to others (Acts 10:44-47, Acts 11:15-18 ).

In reality, the fact that Peter's immediate response was to baptize Cornelius and his men after God poured out His Spirit out onto them indicates the importance and need for baptism (Acts 10:47 ). Cornelius and his men, in truth, show that we do require immersion in water!

Argument: Baptism in water was only under John the Baptist, and was for repentance; Christ's baptism is "with fire."

Answer: This argument attempts to make a firm distinction between the natures of the baptisms of John and Jesus (Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5). This argument would perhaps have merit if it were not for Paul's discussion with some of John's disciples in Acts 19:1-6:
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: and he said unto them, "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?"
And they said unto him, "Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given."
And he said, "Into what then were ye baptized?"
And they said, "Into John's baptism."
And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Jesus."
And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

We can see, then, that the issue was not the nature of the baptism but the purpose of the baptism. John's baptism was for repentance; the baptism in the name of Christ is for the remission of sin through His blood. We see that the disciples of John were baptized again, this time in the name of Jesus, and then they had hands laid on them and received the Spirit. There is no reason, then, to allege that Christ's baptism is not in water.
******

Study of Denomintions 05/02/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week

Now that we have looked at the Scriptures, let us look at other arguments that are used against baptism:

Argument: Jesus, and only Jesus, has performed the work of salvation. We cannot add to His work, and baptism is an addition to His work.

Answer: No one would deny that the agent of salvation is Jesus the Christ. However, the letter to the Hebrews makes it clear that Jesus took our sins upon Him on the cross (Hebrews 9:12-15). Paul says this much about Christ's actions,

Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, (Philippians 2:5-11 ).

Therefore, we see that Christ died on the cross for our sins and to perform the Father's will, which was for His Son to humble Himself so that He may be exalted and given all authority. This is important; since He has this authority, the terms of salvation come through Christ. Paul continued in his letter with Philippians 2:12:
So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

After a discussion of Christ's authority, Paul says that we must continue to obey! Obedience is central to the reception of the work which Christ has done; we are only able to receive the salvation that comes through Christ when we are obedient to His will, as said in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9,
If so be that it is a righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you, and to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

Without obedience, one is lost. Baptism is submissive obedience to Christ, commanded by Him, and we must follow through. To deny the need for obedience for salvation is to deny the New Testament plan of salvation.

Argument: Baptism is symbolic. Since God symbolically remits your sin, baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Answer: We recognize that the power in baptism is not in the water, but in the appeal in faith to God for the cleansing from sin (cf.1 Peter 3:21 ). We also recognize that the New Testament provides illustrations of the significance of baptism, as can be seen in Romans 6:3-7:
Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto 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. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin.

Baptism is likened to a death and resurrection, the end of the man of sin and the raising of the new man. Does the fact that baptism can be understood in symbolic terms mean that we can dispense with the actual physical baptism? An appropriate parallel is the Lord's Supper: the bread and the fruit of the vine represent the body and blood of our Lord, but no one would say that we are not to physically partake of these emblems because they have symbolic value. As with the Lord's Supper, so with baptism: both of these events are rich in symbolic value, but we nevertheless need to physically engage in them.

Argument: Baptism does not automatically mean that one is immersed in water; it can mean, and does for Christians, that one is baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Answer: Much is said regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Pentecostalism/The Charismatic Movement: What is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?. There the evidence for the baptism of the Holy Spirit is considered: it is seen that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is only mentioned in connection with two specific events for two specific purposes, and both times it was done by God alone: on the day of Pentecost, as a fulfillment of the prophecies of Joel (cf. Acts 1:4-5, Acts 2:1-36, Joel 2:28-32 ), and when God showed Peter that Gentiles were to receive the Word of life Acts 10:44-45, 11:15-16 ). It is also seen that the usual means of receiving the Holy Spirit was to have the "laying on of hands" from an Apostle (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:1-6).

Baptism in water, however, is explicitly identified in Acts 8:36-39 and also in Acts 10:47-48, right after Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit. Since baptism in water was the standard form of baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only given in special circumstances by God for specific purposes, we can see clearly that baptism in water is the "one baptism" in Ephesians 4:5 .

Retort: Many times baptism is mentioned without water.

Answer: Indeed, many times we read of someone being baptized with nothing stating that it was "in water". The passages likewise do not state that they were baptized in the Spirit, either. We must look at the passages and see if there are any indicators regarding what is under discussion.

In many passages it is clear that baptism in the Spirit is not under consideration. In Acts 2:38 , baptism precedes the "gift of the Holy Spirit", and therefore the baptism is not in the Holy Spirit. The Samaritans in Acts 8:5-17 and the disciples of John in Acts 19:1-6 are said to have first been baptized and then later had hands laid on them so as to receive the Holy Spirit, demonstrating that their baptism was not in the Spirit.