From a Facebook exchange:
Michael
What's the symbolism in Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, and Acts 8:36-39?
Hays
i) The long ending of Mark is probably a scribal interpolation, so it doesn't even figure in the discussion.
ii) It's unlikely that Jn 3:5 even refers to the Christian rite of baptism. For one thing, that's anachronistic. It would be incomprehensible to Nicodemus, since Christian baptism hadn't be instituted at that point. The imagery evokes OT passages about water as a spiritual metaphor, and it's an emblem for the renewal by the Spirit. Jn 4 & 7 provide other examples where water is a spiritual metaphor.
iii) Regarding the passages in Acts, I think you failed to grasp my point. If A is a symbol of B, then what is said of B can be said of A, even though it's not literally the case.
A classic example is how the NT talks about salvation through the cross of Christ. But literally speaking, the cross is just a piece of wood. It doesn't actually save anyone. Rather, to say people are saved by the cross is shorthand for people are saved by the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. The cross is being used as a verbal substitute.
Michael
Oh yeah, let's just discredit entire parts of the scriptures because we don't like them.
John 3 being anachronistic does not change that it is very explicitly about baptism. Very explicitly.
No one is claiming that baptism saves. Grace saves, through faith. True Faith always leads to baptism. The apostles believed and practiced this, Paul believed and practiced this, and the early church believed and practiced this. You think you understand the commands of Jesus better than they did?
Hays
i) Your first statement is nonsense. Have you studied textual criticism in reference to the long ending of Mark?
ii) The fact that the baptismal interpretation is anachronistic is quite germane to the correct interpretation. Jesus upbraids Nicodemus for failing to understand what he's referring to, but if he's referring to the Christian rite of baptism, then it's impossible for Nicodemus to catch the reference since that would depend on knowledge of the future, which Nicodemus isn't privy to.
I gave reasons why it's not about baptism. You did nothing to refute my reason. You just reasserted your indefensible claim.
iii) Your third statement ignores the OP. The question raised by the OP is whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation.
You then change the issue by talking about the command/practice of baptism. But that wasn't the question.
iv) Christians can't just shrug off textual criticism. The Bible you use, the translation you use, is based on a critical edition of the Hebrew text and the Greek text. Scholars make text-critical decisions for you. The Bible you hold in your had is the product of decisions they made regarding the best MSS and variant readings. So you're trusting in their scholarly judgment calls. The edition/translation you use didn't just come straight from Bible writers, but from scribes. And there are different critical editions, based on different MSS and different textual variants. Absolutizing the edition that comes down to you, one which, say, contains the long ending of Mark, is an arbitrary sample.
That doesn't require sheer trust in scholarship. A Christian can learn the rudiments of textual criticism, so that he knows the general lay of the land, and how these decisions are arrived at.
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
ReplyDelete15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.- 1 Cor. 1:14-17
If the reception of the saving power of the Gospel were inextricably linked with baptism, Paul would never have contrasted baptism with the preaching of the Gospel in verse 17. He says Christ did NOT send him to baptize. He's of course being hyperbolic. Christ did send him to baptize. His point was that even more important than baptism, was the preaching and reception of the Gospel which is what really saves a person.
For the Catholics out there, it seems to me personally that the only slightly possible passage suggesting baptismal regeneration is Titus 3:5. But even there, it's not clearly taught. Catholic interpretation of the passage (IMO) commits the Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy [with this, therefore because of this]. We know that in the book of Acts regeneration sometimes preceded baptism [e.g. Acts 10:44-48]. So, regeneration and baptism aren't intrinsically linked.
Pinoy,
DeleteAs one ignorant of the exact meaning of
baptismal regeneration, I wonder if Acts 2:38 is relevant when it states baptism results in forgiveness of sin and receiving the Holy Spirit. Also, Col. 2:12 says that baptism is a burial followed by being raised up again like Christ. Those certainly sound to me like baptism is part of a regeneration in our life.
As to Acts 10:44-48, it's my understanding that the gift of the Holy Spirit here was a sign of God's approval. After all, these were the first Gentiles to become Christians. Why would a sign be needed? Well, it seems it had taken Peter himself to see a vision from God three times before he understood God was approving of Gentiles becoming Christians! This sign was further supernatural confirmation for all to see. Yes, I would say it was out of order, but God has the final say.
And, just in case you missed it, Peter then "ordered" them to be baptized. Apparently he considered it to be important. Does immersion in water itself save you? Of course not! But clearly it is an important action included in the process of salvation.
Is baptism intrinsically linked to salvation? It seems to me that there is a significant link, and choosing to discount it or deny it is something to be done at one's own peril.
I'm a Calvinistic and continuationist Baptist. I've never denied the importance of baptism. It's divinely commanded. The question at issue is whether it's absolutely necessary for salvation. I addressed that when I commented on 1 Cor. 1:17. Paul would not have contrasted baptism and receiving the Gospel if they were inextricably [keyword] linked. They are linked, but are they INextricably so? What of people in prison who believe the Gospel but are prevented from being baptized because the warden and guards won't allow it and people are in separate cells? Or what about those who die before they can be baptized? Or a single person stranded on a deserted island who gets converted reading a Bible and there's no one to baptize him?
DeleteIt then seems to come down to obedience. Obeying the command to be baptized. BTW, I've been baptized as an infant in Roman Catholicism, and a second time as an adult disciple in an Evangelical denomination. But is perfect obedience necessary for salvation? IF so, then no one can be saved since we still all continue to sin. The Greatest commandment which is to Love God with all our hearts/minds/souls/strength must be greater than the commandment to be baptized, yet who of us does that 100% of the time 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
The same type of questions must be raised regarding Communion. Jesus' statements in John 6 regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood do not directly refer to communion, since the ordinance had not yet been instituted. But I think there's some truth to their having a secondary application to communion. If so, then that would imply that you cannot be saved without partaking of communion. But what if there isn't wheat or grapes around to make bread and wine because you live in Eskimo territory? Or you're a prisoner who isn't given bread and wine?
What of the laying on of hands? The Apostles seemed to have done that to confer the Holy Spirit. Must hands be laid on you for you to receive the Holy Spirit? Must they be the hands of someone who also had hands laid on them, and so on and so forth in an unbroken chain going back all the way to the Apostles? Taken to an extreme, this type of thinking can lead to the Catholic understanding of Apostolic Succession and sacramentology whereby the sacraments are the primary conduits of salvation.
//Is baptism intrinsically linked to salvation? It seems to me that there is a significant link, and choosing to discount it or deny it is something to be done at one's own peril.//
DeleteThat's true for all God's commandments. Including the Greatest Commandment to love God entirely. As well as the command to obey God PERFECTLY (Matt. 5:48). Does anyone of us obey the commandment to be perfect and to obey perfectly?
Professing Christians are either true believers or false believers. False believers will generally not get baptized. So, we'll set that group aside. I would suspect that most true believers who don't get baptized aren't hostile to getting baptized. Most probably wouldn't mind being baptized, but haven't because it's inconvenient for them or because they're under the impression that it's not important and/or necessary (I agree it's important, but not necessary).
Let's apply Rom. 2:25-29 to baptism.
25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, WILL NOT HIS UNCIRCUMCISION BE REGARDED AS CIRCUMCISION?
27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.
28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.- Rom. 2:25-29
Will a nominal professing Christian who got baptized end up in the Kingdom of God, while a serious Christian who didn't get baptized fail to enter? In light of the above passage, it would seem to me that the serious Christian who [for whatever reason] wasn't baptized before he died will be the one who gets into heaven.
The essential/necessary baptism is the internal baptism with the Holy Spirit which the physical water baptism is only symbolic of. This internal baptism is the anti-type and corresponds to Old Testament physical circumcision. Which is also referred to as the circumcision of the heart, which is contrasted with mere physical circumcision (Col. 2:11-12).
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.- Col. 2:11-17
So, if obedience to the "weightier matters of the law" overrides a lack of physical circumcision (Rom. 2:26; Matt. 23:23), then by parity of argument, it only makes sense that that would also be true with baptism. Both of which point to the essential and necessary baptism/circumcision of the heart with/by the Holy Spirit.