Tuesday, May 5, 2009

The Baptism Controversy

The Lord left the church two ordinances, rites, sacraments depending on your church affiliation for the purpose of comforting, uniting and proclaiming who we are and who we serve. Sadly both have become a source of confrontation and separation and at times down right discord. The first I will address is baptism. There are nine instances of conversion in the book of Acts and all nine include baptism. To consider conversion apart from baptism is simply not biblical. The last words of our Lord recorded in the gospels concerned the Great Commission, in which Jesus told the apostles to go into all the world and make disciples. Disciples are students or learners which is what we all are. The master teacher is the Lord Himself. The way they were to accomplish this was "…baptizing them… and teaching them all that I have commanded you"

At the very onset, at Pentecost in Jerusalem, Peter preaches the first church sermon, and the result is that a question is asked after the listeners have been convicted that what Peter preached was true (they were cut to the quick). The answer came immediately: Acts 2:38 (NASB) 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me unthinkable that Peter speaking by way of the Holy Spirit would have gotten it wrong on the very first occasion but some seem to think he did. At the very least they think it is merely a misunderstanding of a word Peter said that day.

Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; the word in question is "for". Are we baptized for (in order to receive) forgiveness of sin, or are we baptized "for" (because we have already received) forgiveness of sin? Opponents of baptism for the remission of sin will say the later is what Peter meant in the same way we take an aspirin "for" a headache. Not to receive a headache but because we already have one. In the same way wanted posters would say, "Wanted, Billy the Kid for bank robbery". They do not want Billy so that he can rob a bank but because he has already robbed one. But this is a limited view of the Greek word "eis" (for) as can be seen by comparing how it was used with the same end in mind.
Matthew 26:26-29 (NASB)
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."
At the Last Supper Jesus says that the cup, representing the new covenant in His blood was for the forgiveness of sin.

Opponents say baptism does not wash away or forgive sin and so Peter had to mean we are baptized to symbolize that our sin has already been washed away. But then wouldn’t the same hold true for what Jesus said that evening? His blood poured out for (eis) the forgiveness of sin would then mean that our sins were forgiven at some earlier point and Jesus shedding His blood was only a symbol of what has already taken place? even the opponents would reject that as do we.

The problem has been the argument over "what saves" us. Scripture is clear on this point and I think both sides can agree. We are saved by grace through faith as Paul tells us. But that is really an over simplified statement. It neither tells us how, or by who or from where. The who is obvious from taking the whole of scripture into account and it is God who saves us. The how is by the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. But the "from where" is where the two sides part waves. Some think this can be accomplished while driving your car, standing in the line at the supper market or just about anywhere you make that decision to accept and follow Jesus. But there is little if any scripture to support that position.
I am not a fan of names or titles so please do not take what I am about to say the wrong way. The position of anywhere by accepting Jesus through faith has been called the "Faith Alone" position. Let my first response be this. The words faith and alone only appear once together in all of scripture and they appear in the negative.
James 2:24 (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
That is the only time the words appear together.
Contrary to popular belief we are not saved by faith alone. As Paul tells us we are saved by grace through faith. But this grace as undeserved does not mean without any participation on our part.

Example: Noah believed God was about to destroy the earth and that he and his family would be saved. But would simply believing this have been enough had he not obeyed God and built and entered the Ark?
How about Abraham? He believed God was going to establish him in a Promised Land and give him more descendants then could be numbered. But would Abraham have been so blessed had he not obeyed and left Ur?
A negative example would be Israel who were told the Promised Land was theirs. God had already given it to them. But because of fear they refused to enter in and so were marched around the wilderness until that generation died.

While the water of baptism is nothing more then water. The place itself is where we are told to be so that God may bestow the grace through faith already mentioned. It is not a "by what" argument but rather a "from where" argument. Only from within that water grave, where Paul tells us we must die to self and be joined to the death of Christ, are we told we are raised to new life in Christ. We can say this is symbolic or a type but then we have to show where the reality takes place and scripture shows only one place this occurs. It is also the only place from where we are told we are clothed with Christ, and where our sin is washed away calling on the Lord. Yes we are saved by grace through faith but from where God said He would bestow such grace and not where we choose.

John

No comments:

Post a Comment