|
Two new articles every two weeks. Bible Question? E-mail us. THIS ISSUE: "Baptism (part 2 of 4)" (see below) and "Natural Attributes of God" This is part two of a review of the evangelical book, I want to be baptised, by the British author Eric Lane. For part one, go here. Mr. Lane denies the genuineness of Acts 8:37 and comments:
But, even if Acts 8:37 is left out of consideration, the truth it teaches is implied in this and other passages. The treasurer asked Philip, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36) Would unbelief hinder his being baptized? How would Philip know whether or not he believed? How can we determine whether or not a person requesting baptism is a believer? We must confess with the mouth our faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved (Romans 10:8-10). Without reference to Acts 8:37, what should we confess before baptism and in order to be saved? Simon Peter confessed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16), and the Lord blessed him as the result (verse 17). Paul taught "that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Philippians 2:11). Obviously the exact wording may vary, but to be saved and to be baptized in the name of the Lord, one must confess his faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the Lord. After Philip baptized the eunuch, "the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:39). Here Mr. Lane comments:
Mr. Lane is confused and confusing in his usage of the word "church." We are baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27), into His body (1 Corinthians 12:13) the church (Ephesians 1:22-23). This is the universal body of the saved (Ephesians 5:23), and there is but one (Ephesians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 12:20). We join a local church (Acts 9:26-28), a local group of disciples (1 Corinthians 1:2). When the inspired writer turns his attention away from the eunuch, he is a member of the universal body of the saved, the one church belonging to Christ, but he has not joined a local church. The text does not say what he did afterward, and, in respect for the silence of the Scriptures, we must not speculate (Deuteronomy 29:29). Of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, Mr. Lane writes:
Once again, the only reason Mr. Lane reaches such a conclusion is the blinding effect of a human theory, salvation by faith alone. Saul's case is indeed unique, in that Jesus appeared to Saul after the Lord's ascension into heaven (Acts 9:1-6). Mr. Lane correctly states the significance of this special, miraculous event.
This is precisely correct, for Jesus appeared to Saul, not to save him, but to call him to and qualify him to be an apostle (Acts 26:15-16; cf. Acts 1:21-25; 10:40-42) . Saul was not saved until three days after this miracle, and his salvation was due to his response of faith as the result of hearing the word. When, at the time of the miraculous vision, Saul urgently inquired, "Lord, what do You want me to do?" (Acts 9:6), Jesus would not tell him. Saul had to be saved the same way all people must be saved, by hearing the gospel (Romans 1:16-17; 10:17). The Lord directed him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do" (Acts 9:6). Notice, Jesus didn't say, "should do" or "could do." He said, "must do." What Saul would be told to do was essential to his salvation. He waited three days in physical blindness and in prayer, too anxious to eat or drink (Acts 9:8-11). If he was saved, he was certainly a miserably anxious saved man. When Ananias came to Saul, he commanded him, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Baptism for salvation is certainly a part of the gospel message (Mark 16:15-16). Thus, Ananias preached the gospel to Saul. When Saul was baptized (Acts 9:18), his sins were washed away by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22; 9:13-14), and he was saved (Mark 16:16). His baptism was his response of faith (Galatians 3:26-27). "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." The author comments on Acts 22:16:
No, baptism "of itself" cannot wash away sins. Yes, only the blood of Christ can cleanse us from sin. But, when "our bodies" are "washed in pure water" (in contrast with the water, scarlet wool and hyssop of the law), "our hearts" are "sprinkled from an evil conscience" by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22). It's not a choice of blood or water. We reach the blood through the water. There is not one passage in the entire Bible that even remotely hints that water baptism "signifies Spirit-baptism." Once again, his evangelical theology blinds Mr. Lane to clear statements of Scripture. Acts 22:16 is so clear and simple it takes the help of a theologian to misunderstand it. The order is "Arise," "be baptized," "wash away your sins," "calling on the name of the Lord." Evangelical theology teaches, Call on the name of the Lord, your sins will be washed away, you should (not must) then be baptized, and then arise. Evangelical theology is precisely backward to the Scriptures. Water won't wash away sins, but the blood of Christ won't cleanse your soul of the stain of sin until you are baptized. Concerning this case of conversion, Mr. Lane comments:
Of course they were brought to repentance and faith by the work of the Holy Spirit. But how does the Holy Spirit bring people to repentance and faith? Evangelicals assert that faith is given directly by a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer. Thus, they teach sinners to pray for faith. But without faith our prayers are vain (James 1:5-6). Thus, evangelical theology places sinners in the unfortunate circumstance of a vicious cycle. Sinners must pray for faith, but unless they already have faith their prayers are vain. Such is the vanity of human philosophy. The simple truth is that the Holy Spirit revealed the Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; Ephesians 3:1-7). When this word is preached, those who are noble of heart are led to believe and repent (Acts 17:10-12). The Word of God revealed by the Spirit of God has divine power to save the soul (Romans 1:16-17; James 1:18,21; 1 Peter 1:22-25). There is no evidence whatsoever that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit led Cornelius and his household to faith and repentance. Rather, Peter later explained of this very case, "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe" (Acts 15:7). As Mr. Lane recognizes, as the result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the household of Cornelius spoke in tongues (Acts 10:46). Unless one is willing to teach that all saved people should speak in tongues as evidence of their salvation, he should not use this as an example of how to be saved. Rather, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentile household of Cornelius as divine proof that God accepts Gentiles on an equal basis with Jews (Acts 11:15-18; 15:7-9). This was a unique, non-repeatable event. Cornelius and his household were saved in the same way all people must be saved: they heard Peter preach the gospel (Acts 10:36-43; 15:7), believed (Acts 15:7-9), repented (Acts 11:18) and were baptized (Acts 10:47-48). Cornelius and his family were saved, not by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but by hearing the Word of God (Acts 11:13-14). Of this case, Mr. Lane asserts, "Not that baptism brought them salvation - it hardly needed to, since they were already saved." (75) But then he recognizes, "To refuse baptism is to refuse a command of Christ" (Ibid). You mean one can be saved while refusing a command of Christ? (1 Peter 2:7-8) "And he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household." Mr. Lane reasons:
He adds, "We may be sure the gaoler and his household were in a state of salvation when Paul proceeded to baptise them" (80). As before, the writer's theology causes him to bring confusion into a clear passage. Certainly we must do something to be saved. "And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, Be saved from this perverse generation," (Acts 2:40). Why exhort people to be saved if there's nothing they can do to be saved? If our salvation is entirely up to God, and there's nothing we can do to be saved, why isn't it God's fault if we're lost? In fact, faith itself is a work we must do (John 6:28-29). Of course, if the jailer and his household were saved at the point of faith, it was "putting the cart before the horse" to speak the Word of the Lord to them after having already called on them to believe. But the problem is with Mr. Lane's theology, not the Scriptures. The jailer urgently asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30) In reply, Paul and Silas told him, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (verse 31). Now, that certainly proves that faith is essential to salvation. But why would his household be saved as the result of his believing? The fact is, they have not finished answering his question. In further reply, "they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house" (verse 32). What did they tell them to do? It doesn't say. How can we know? Look at what they did in response to the word of the Lord spoken by Paul and Silas. "And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household." (verses 33-34). He and all his household were baptized. That's how all his family were saved. Only after his baptism did he rejoice in his salvation. Only after they were baptized is it said they believed. The saved believer is the baptized believer. "And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' So they said to him, 'We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said to them, 'Into what then were you baptized?' So they said, 'Into John's baptism.' Then Paul said, 'John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.' When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Now the men were about twelve in all." Mr. Lane entitles this section "The baptising of certain Christians in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7). (page 83) He assumes without proof that they were Christians before Paul baptized them (Although in a footnote on page 84 he acknowledges the possibility they were unsaved due to deficiency of faith). Mr. Lane comments on this case:
Mr. Lane contradicts himself in these comments. This is the only passage in the New Testament which teaches whether or not people who have received a baptism other than that in the name of the Lord (by His authority - Colossians 3:17; Acts 4:18) need to be baptized in the name of the Lord. These people needed to be and "were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5) Mr. Lane recognizes this and then turns around and questions whether this is always so. He allows human reason to negate the only divine teaching on the subject. The simple truth is anyone who has not received the one New Testament baptism, the one authorized by Jesus Christ, needs to receive it, even if they have been baptized a dozen times with baptisms authorized by mere men. More good can be said about the baptism of John than about any denominational baptism. The baptism of John was authorized of God (Luke 7:30), was administered to responsible people upon their repentance (Luke 3:1-14) and was immersion in water for the remission of sins (Matthew 3:5-6; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:16). But John taught them to believe in a Christ who was yet to come (Acts 19:3; Matthew 3:11-12; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:15-17). Thus, one who knew only John's baptism did not believe Christ had died, been buried and raised from the dead the third day. Can anyone be saved in this age without believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) Paul first asked these men, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" (verse 1) When the Ephesian men professed no knowledge of the Holy Spirit, Paul inquired, "Into what then were you baptized?" (verse 3) Paul obviously equates being a believer with having been baptized. Once again, the saved believer is the baptized believer. Even though they had to be baptized to become saved believers, the Ephesians were saved by grace through faith rather than by boastful works (Ephesians 2:8-10). Paul thought these men were already believers in Christ, yet he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit (verse 1). Why ask such a question if every believer receives the Holy Spirit directly and supernaturally? In order for them to receive the Holy Spirit, Paul, an apostle of Christ, had to lay his hands on them (verse 7). They evidenced the reception of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues and prophesying (Ibid). Mr. Lane recognizes "He had to confer on them the gifts of the Holy Spirit by laying hands on them" (verse 6). (Ibid) Thus, it would take the laying on of hands by an apostle of Christ for one to receive the Holy Spirit directly and supernaturally, and the evidence of such a reception would be miraculous, spiritual gifts. Those things were for a time when divine revelation was incomplete, and no one today receives the Holy Spirit directly and supernaturally (1 Corinthians 13:8-13). After studying the examples of baptism in Acts, the book contains a section entitled The apostles, theology of baptism. In the introduction to this section the author asserts:
The gospel the Lord Jesus Christ commanded His apostles to preach in all the world is, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16) Is baptism part of the gospel of Christ? The Ephesians were saved by grace through faith, but they had to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Ephesians 2:8-10; Acts 19:1-5). Jesus is the way of salvation (John 14:6), but we must be baptized into Him (Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27). Mr. Lane then comments, "For while it is true that our main motive in being baptised must be obedience to Christ, God has never demanded blind obedience." God demanded blind obedience of Abraham. He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the son of promise, though He did not tell Him why (Genesis 22:1-2), and Abraham through faith obeyed though he did not understand why God made such a demand (Genesis 22:3-12; Hebrews 11:17-19). Our main motive in being baptized is to be saved (Mark 16:16), that is, to receive the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). And we cannot be saved apart from obedience to Christ (Hebrews 5:8-9).
|
BACK
TO MAIN PAGE
|
It
is most certainly true that the so-called "Apostolic Creed"
that mainline denominations require comes from the traditions
of the "fathers" rather than the apostles (cf. Matthew
15:9). It is also true that the practice of requiring the recitation
of an "experience of grace" and a vote by a local church
before baptism is a much later human tradition. What church voted
on the eunuch when he was baptized in the wilderness on the road
"from Jerusalem to Gaza"? (Acts 8:26)