Part One
Proposition: “The New Testament Scriptures teach that, for the penitent believer, water baptism is for, unto, or in order to the remission of sins.” Allan Turner affirms; Keith Saare denies.
Saare’s Second Negative (posted 07/28/06): As discussed at the end of my first negative, I now resume focusing on pertinent baptism passages to show the proper relationship that baptism has with the remission of sins and/or other salvation blessings. But first, since Mr. Turner now claims to be an advocate of literal interpretation, we will consider further examples of his un-literal use of “literal” to characterize his method of hermeneutics.
Literal Interpretation vs. Non-Literal Interpretation
For the reason that literal interpretation is the grammatico-historical method, one cannot have literal
interpretation if he is oblivious to the principles of grammar. My opponent has
again demonstrated in his second affirmative for this proposition that he is
not bound by the principles of grammar when he desires to make a point based
upon his presupposition in favor of baptismal regeneration. His interpretation
of Acts 10:43 bears this out in
which he stated, “Therefore, I believe that Acts 10:43
is teaching that whoever truly believes…will
receive the remission of sins” (emphasis Turner’s). A side-by-side
comparison, however, exposes his subtle attempt to tamper with the word of God
by changing a key verb tense from the present into the future:
Is this what Mr. Turner deems as “literal interpretation”? I
call it exegetical gymnastics. Because the context of Acts 10:43 in which
Cornelius and the Gentiles immediately received the Holy Spirit upon hearing
these words of Peter, there is no reason to believe Acts 10:43 utilizes a rare
futuristic present tense that seldom appears in Greek grammar. By inserting the
English word will, he is able to make
room for applying the remission of sins at a later time for the believer who
gets baptized. Does Mr. Turner believe the Bible is fully inspired? His method
of playing fast and loose with it causes me to doubt. I choose to let the
authority of God’s word drive my theology—he chooses to let his theology drive
the authority of God’s word. The quality of his interpretive method is no
different than the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ technique to render John 1:1c as “the
Word was a god.”
In another break from literal interpretation, Mr. Turner assigns
a double meaning for “in the name” as appearing in Matthew 28:19. Literal
interpretation, however, only accepts one true meaning for Scripture, but here
he finds liberty to accept multiple, conflicting interpretations.
According to his first affirmative of this proposition, “ ‘into the name’…is...a statement about baptism’s goal—namely,
to put one into a relationship with
the Godhead” (emphasis mine). But in the next paragraph, “baptism that is in
the ‘name’…is nothing other than baptism by the authority of Christ” (emphasis mine). These are not statements
building upon a single unified theme; rather they are completely at odds with
each other. I am reminded of James 1:8:
“A double minded man is unstable
in all his ways” (KJV). Since Mr. Turner has not settled on a single
interpretation for Matthew 28:18-20, in essence I can stand aside and let him
refute his own self. (For the record, I happen to believe that “in the name” just
means “in the authority of.” The concept of name equaling authority or power is
well attested in Scripture. Acts 4:7: “When they had placed them in the center,
they began to inquire, ‘By what power, or in what name, have
you done this?’” [emphasis mine])
I do not take joy in pointing out Mr. Turner’s exegetical
fallacies. They interfere with me trying to deny this proposition. But because
baptismal regeneration is supported by non-literal interpretation as Mr. Turner
has shown, it is necessary for me to address these things to make an apologetic
in favor of biblical baptism. It grieves me to see Mr. Turner attack baptism so
fiercely by giving it such unbiblical power so as to nullify the blood of
Christ and the concept of grace (cf. Galatians 2:21 & Romans 11:6).
Water Baptism: a Symbol of Salvation
The logic underlying the Scriptural concept of baptism’s symbolism
is mortifying to Mr. Turner’s sacramental theology in every respect. Simply stated, a symbol cannot be the
reality which it symbolizes. This truth is the inherit nature of all
symbols. Take for example the flag of the United
States, a piece of cloth with fifty stars
and thirteen stripes. The flag represents a nation of people with a massive
span of land reaching from the Atlantic Ocean to the
Pacific. The flag of course is not the nation or its land mass, but it is a
graphic representation that brings to mind the United
States of America. Since the Scriptures
teach that baptism is but a mere symbol, it cannot accomplish anything literal—otherwise
it would be the reality that it is supposed to symbolize.
In a Scriptural example of how symbols function, my Lord Jesus
spoke of the bread and wine as being His body and blood. Though He explicitly
stated, “this is My body…this is My blood,” the
symbolism is obvious because Jesus was physically present in His literal body
when He made these declarations recorded in Matthew’s gospel. Apparently He
felt at ease to speak of a reality in terms of symbolic language without fear
that His disciples would be confused. Likewise, Scriptural affirmations
attributing salvation blessings through baptism simply speak of reality in
terms of symbolic language. Unlike Jesus’ true disciples, however, Mr. Turner
is confused.
The clearest evidence regarding the symbolic nature of
baptism is 1 Peter 3:21, for in it baptism
is explicitly identified as an “antitype.” If Mr. Turner refuses to accept my
commentary below about this, I hope he will at least do his own homework to
research several lexicons to find out what an antitype is. At the end of his
first affirmative, he spent some attention defining the word eperōtēma,
but he neglected to address the more important term antitupos (“antitype”) which appears in the Greek text modifying baptism. In essence he majored on a minor point
in the text and ignored its major point. Perhaps he was simply unaware of antitupos, or he purposely
appealed to selective evidence hoping that the readers and I would not notice.
We will have to await his explanation in this regard, but for now it is my
pleasure to take up the responsibility of explaining it.
The King James Bible translates the term antitupos as “the like figure.”
Mr. Turner, however, does not consider baptism to be a figure, rather in his
system it is a wooden-literal means to obtain salvation. This is Roman Catholic
sacramentalism in its purest form. His exegetical
blunder herein is the figurative fallacy—he confuses what is figurative (namely
baptism) for something that has literal merits. This is yet another example
where the grammatico-historical method has become his
stumbling block.
Since Mr. Turner has demonstrated a working knowledge of
Thayer’s lexicon, he should recognize that antitupos according to Thayer
means “a thing resembling another.” Could
there possibly be a clearer definition of symbolism than this? Liddell and
Scott understood the term to mean “figuring or representing”—both of these
concepts militate against the idea that baptism results in literal salvation. Wherefore,
the emphasis of baptism in 1 Peter 3:21
is upon the efficacy of what it represents, not upon what baptism is because it
has no efficacy.
Interestingly, baptism’s symbolism in 1 Peter 3:21 is in harmony with the only other place where
antitupos appears in the New Testament. In
Hebrews 9:24, the holy place of Herod’s temple is called an antitupos of the spiritual temple
in Heaven. In the sense of Hebrews 9:24,
an antitupos
is therefore nothing more than an earthly picture of a heavenly reality. For
the sake that baptism is an antitype, Baptists and other evangelicals are fond
of saying that baptism is an outward expression of an inward reality. They have
very good justification from the Bible for doing so.
The Picture of Baptism’s Symbolism
If, as I claim, water baptism is a symbol, then just what
does it symbolize? I believe the answer is found in Acts 22:16—namely, a
cleansing from sin. Whereas Mr. Turner views Acts 22:16 as a literal means to obtain remission of sins, I
believe the comprehensive evidence pertaining to Paul’s conversion speaks
otherwise.
To see the symbolism in Acts 22:16,
it is necessary first to consider the evidence that Paul was already saved by the time of his baptism. Since he was already saved and received
the literal remission of sins, Acts 22:16
could be nothing more than a symbolic representation of his prior remission of
sins (e.g., one cannot receive two pardons for the same crime). This evidence is
revealed in Galatians 1:11-12 where Paul recounts his conversion experience
with additional insights not explained in depth by Acts 22:
For I would have you know,
brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor
was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of
Jesus Christ (emphasis mine).
According to Paul who wrote Romans 1:16, the gospel is “the power of God for salvation.”
Hence using the language of Galatians 1:11-12, to receive the gospel is to
receive salvation. Ananias, who baptized
Paul, was a man. But Paul explicitly denied receiving the gospel from man in the passage quoted above.
Wherefore, I understand that Ananias did not have a role in bringing salvation
to Paul, whether through baptism or preaching. This salvation—via the gospel—came
to Paul three days prior to his baptism when Jesus revealed Himself to Paul on
the road to Damascus. That is when
Paul received the gospel, was saved, and received the literal remission of sins
(cf. Acts 3:19; 10:43). The washing away of sins described in Acts 22:16 could be nothing more than a mere
symbolic act of cleansing therefore.
What about Baptism in Romans 6:3-4?
The question might arise, “If water baptism pictures a washing
away of sins, then what about the concept of Christ’s death, burial, and
resurrection described in Romans 6:3-4?” I readily admit that all too often my Baptist
brethren and other Christians hasten to find a link between water baptism and
the metaphorical baptism of Romans 6:3-4. When they do this, it is because they
are searching for the spiritual significance that water baptism pictures. I
find this approach problematic and therefore break ranks from many of my
brethren over this matter. But before we go any further, let us review what the
text states:
Romans 6:3-4: Or do you not
know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized
into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into
death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the
Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
If water baptism pictures the death and resurrection of
Christ Jesus because of Romans 6:3-4, then why not assign it the additional
significance of wearing Jesus Christ like a garment because of Galatians 3:27?
Why not also link Christian water baptism to picture the sufferings of James and
John because of Mark 10:39, or the exodus of Israel
because of 1 Corinthians 10:2? Should not these other baptism verses carry
equal weight for determining the significance of Christian water baptism? Why
do so many Christians give Romans 6:3-4 preference to connect with water
baptism over other equally viable verses mentioning metaphorical baptisms? The
logical conclusion to this approach concerns me. Water baptism thus is subject
to take on too many competing images that clash and are not easily harmonized.
The truth of the matter is that strict literal interpretation
of Romans 6:3-4 reveals there is not a single drop of water to be found
anywhere in the context of Romans 6. The baptism of this passage is not immersion
into water—rather it is baptism “into Christ Jesus,” baptism “into His death.”
These are metaphors in the most basic sense. Because of 2 Corinthians 5:14-15,
it is best to understand that this metaphorical baptism was done by proxy; it
is not something the believer accomplishes through water baptism:
For the love of Christ controls us,
having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and
He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but
for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Corinthians
5:14-15).
Therefore, by strict literal interpretation, I reject the
notion that Romans 6:3-4 explains what water baptism symbolizes. In Acts 22:16 we do find water baptism and symbolism, hence
there is no need to go elsewhere to look for what the symbol of water baptism
pictures. The baptism of Romans 6:3-4 is nothing more than an act accomplished
on behalf of Christians by Jesus Christ and that is all. Though Romans 6:5
calls this baptism a “likeness,” there is good reason to believe this “likeness”
refers to the manner in which Christ Jesus died and rose again on behalf of all
believers per 2 Corinthians 5:14-15.
Looking Ahead
With my final 1,000 words to deny this proposition ahead next,
we will look at Mark 16:16 and I will complete my discussion of eis aphesin hamartiōn from Acts 2:38. With John 3:5 being
strong support of sola fide, I will
incorporate it in favor of my proposition to affirm afterwards.
Allan Turner has two weeks to post his response. As soon as he does, a link to it will be posted here.
Go To Turner’s Third Affirmative
Back To Saare’s First Negative
Back To Turner’s Second Affirmative
Back To Turner’s First Affirmative
Return to Debate Propositions.
|