[Editor’s Note: Last week, e-mail correspondence was set forth between myself and a person we gave the pseudonym of Swagger to—partly because of his initials and partly because of his attitude. Although in his first two communications he vowed “love” for me, it becomes increasingly obvious that there is no love expressed at all; he just wanted to vent his feelings. We left off with his comments relating to baptism last week; following is my response to them. The claim that he is not listening is not intended to be a derogatory statement (although I occasionally do make some); it is factual. He ignored many of the points made.]
Gary: 1. What we have here is a failure to communicate. You are not listening. Part of your problem is that you are placing the writings of men above the Holy Scriptures. You highly esteem Max Lucado, the Webster, www.Answers.com, and a book by Dr. Larry Dyer, but you do not value the Scriptures. You quote what others say about the Scriptures as valid—even when they do not cite a single Scripture to demonstrate the validity of their views. Where does the BIBLE call baptism a ritual? It does not, and you should not, either. It is an unwarranted assumption on your part (and the part of others).
2. Are you refusing to acknowledge the context of the Judaizing teachers, for which I supplied you abundant evidence, which you ignored? This indicates you are not willing to study the Scriptures for what they say—but for what you would like them to say.
3. No, but I will admit that you lack a great deal in knowledge. The correct application of John’s promise was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, a chapter you really do not want to study. Jesus repeated John’s promise to the apostles in Luke 24:49. They received that promise in Acts 2:1-4. Baptism in the Holy Spirit was given to very few. Baptism in water has always been the baptism associated with salvation.
a) John 3:5. It is part of the new birth.
b) Mark 16:16. It is required along with faith.
c) Acts 2:38. It is required along with repentance.
d) Acts 8:35-39. The eunuch was baptized in water.
e) Acts 10:47. Peter commanded water for Cornelius.
In short, water baptism is always part of the salvation process. And, in fact, after Paul wrote Ephesians 4:4-6 around A.D. 64, there was only that one baptism. The one in Colossians is water baptism, also. The circumcision of sins from our souls corresponds to the circumcision of the flesh from the Jews—except that it is without human hands. God does the cleansing with the blood of Jesus. You might want to compare Revelation 1:5 with Acts 22:16. The blood of Jesus cleanses—not when a person believes nor when he repents—but when he is baptized in water.
4. I’m sorry; I can’t follow you on Acts 2. They were pricked in their hearts, and they asked what they should do. If I understand you correctly, you think they were already saved at that point—and then accuse me of using assumptions! Exactly when did they determine that they were saved? What in the text indicates that? Nothing is said about it in the text. The question is asked with the intent of learning what they should do in order to be saved. So you’re saying that now that they are saved, they should repent? Earlier you said that repentance came before faith. Your position is quite confusing. Just read the text for what it says and try to put your theology aside.
5. What Scripture says that baptism is a sign?
As I mentioned in my first response, is there someone discounting our need of grace? Is there someone arguing that we do not need faith? BTW, since the word grace does not appear in Acts 2, is God a legalist, also? Faith leads a person to repent, to confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and to be baptized in order for his sins to be washed away. You said that man must accept God’s gift. All I am saying is that God says this is the way to accept His gift. Acts 2:38 supports it—even if 15,000 theologians disagree. Why can’t you just study the text?
Swagger: (1) It is not true that I place the writing of men before the Scriptures, I test both. But you on the other hand have your own way-out opinion of what the scriptures say and fail to heed to men of greater learning, which is foolish on your part. I hear and read what other men say, and I am confirmed by their writings. You seem to be out there in the ‘twilight zone’. You have confused the real baptism of the holy spirit with the ritual of men. It is clear to me that you think there is some work you must do to ‘save yourself’. Again, below is from Bob Luginbill, who answered the question, “Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?” His answer is: “Absolutely NOT”:
Salvation comes “by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8-9). And whatever is of faith is by definition not of “works”, that is, not as a result of something we have done (Rom.3:28; cf. Gal. 2:16; Eph.2:9). God calls upon sinful, unsaved mankind to repent of dead works of the flesh (Heb. 6:1; cf. Matt.4:17) and turn to Him by putting our faith in the person of the Son of God and in His work on the cross for us, dying for us and thereby cleansing us from our sins. So to add water baptism or any other condition to salvation by definition makes the process one of works rather than of grace. In fact, anyone relying as a guarantee of salvation on the fact that they were baptized with water is badly mistaken. Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, pure and simple, not by any ritual or organizational membership. Whenever anyone attempts to add to God’s requirements for salvation they are putting those who listen to them at risk, because anyone who thinks they are saved because they have been baptized is wrong according to scripture, and if such a person is not a believer in Christ, then it is not only a matter of having a warped view of salvation but of not having salvation in the first place.
(2) Ditto on this point. Are you ignoring hundreds of statements by the Apostles that salvation comes from believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior, with no mention of Baptism? Are you blind to this simple truth?
(3) You seem to ignore my point about ‘Circumcision made without hands’. Col 2:12 is speaking of the spiritual acts of circumcision and baptism, not the physical. And, baptism with water is DEFINITELY not always associated with salvation. See the following scriptures: (John 3:16, John 3:18, John 6:29, John 8:24, John 11:25, John 12:36, Acts 15:6-11, Acts 21:25, Rom 4:24, Rom 6:8, Rom 10:9, Rom 10:14, I Cor 1:21, Gal 3:22, I Tim 4:14, Heb 11:6, I Pet 1:21, I John 3:23). Do you totally ignore the most important and recognized scripture in the entire Bible; John 3:16?
You seem to follow a doctrine that is totally at odds with mainstream Christianity, and it is dangerous to make such interpretations that are not coherent to other believers. I don’t see any point to continuing this argument.
I’ll challenge you to find three respected well known theologians who would agree with you that:
1. Water baptism is not a ritual which symbolizes the spiritual baptism of Jesus upon a new believer.
2. When one truly accepts Jesus as his Lord and savior, that it does not mean the person has repented.
3. That more than believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior is required for Salvation per the Bible.
Good luck, and I hope you don’t find many followers.
[Editor’s note: You will notice the increased hostility as the correspondence continues; Swagger is no longer expressing any love, and he increasingly ignores any arguments that I bring up.]
Gary: After denying that you vaunt men above God, it is amazing that you turn right around and quote from men again! Then you challenge me to find three theologians (presumably that you would accept as such) who would agree with me. The irony is probably lost on you, but I’m lol.
What good do you think it is to throw out four thousand Scriptures as if I would disagree with any one of them? My disagreement is not with the Scriptures but with you. You cannot explain Acts 2, so, like JWs, you wander all over the place and throw up as many red herrings as you possibly can.
I could quote myself from many of the books where my chapters appear, or I could quote dozens of other books from those who acknowledge the truth that you cannot stomach and refuse to see, and many of them are denominationalists (Dr. George Beasley-Murray, for example), but what good would that do? To paraphrase what Abraham told the rich man, you would not change your mind if one arose from the dead to tell you.
The point is not what others say. Do you think Christians do not know Ephesians 2:8-9? It was one of the first Scriptures I memorized. Do you think we do not believe in faith? We spend a great portion of our time setting forth Christian evidences in order to help people believe. And I am the dangerous extremist? Your attitude seems to be: “If you don’t agree with me and my friends, you’re a nut.”
Why don’t you try coming to grips with the text—regardless of what anyone else has written or said on the subject? Let me make it easier for you. Answer the following questions true or false, based on Acts 2:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41.
1. Peter was addressing on the Day of Pentecost Jews who had crucified Christ.
2. Peter provided Scriptural evidence that the Messiah would be raised from the dead, along with eyewitness testimony.
3. They asked him, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
4. When they asked that question, the text makes clear they were already believers and saved.
5. When they asked that question, they wanted to know what they should do to make amends for having crucified Jesus.
6. Peter told them to do two things in order to receive forgiveness of sins: repent and be baptized.
7. Peter told them to save themselves from that perverse generation.
8. Telling them how to be saved (2:38) and that they needed to be saved (v. 40) means they were still lost.
9. Since Peter told them to do two things, Peter is a legalist who thinks salvation depends on what we do.
10. Since Peter told them to do two things, he did not believe all the passages that would be written about grace and faith.
Now, Swagger, looking at this text and facing it squarely will get us a lot further down the road than hurling passages of Scripture at each other.
Let the Word open your mind.
Swagger: I do see the Irony. You tell me not to rely on the interpretations of other men and to read the scripture myself; then you proceed to insist on your interpretation. I have read the text myself, all the text, and I believe you are wrong in your interpretation, dead wrong. But Oh, that’s not irony on your part is it; that’s hypocrisy! Probably lost on you, lol.
I normally do not take such advice to not include the interpretations of other men in my thinking: I.e. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise (Prov. 12:15). However, in your case, I will heed your advice.
As a check on sanity, I did ask two independent Dr’s of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary regarding your interpretation of Acts 2. They were in complete agreement with each other, and they agreed with my interpretation. Frankly, I was impressed. However, they did comment that even if your interpretation of Acts 2 was correct, that later, Paul corrected Peter regarding adding any act of the flesh to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone; and Peter succumbed to Paul’s correction. Therefore, your Acts 2 interpretation is a mute point regardless of how loosely you interpret the event.
Myself, I will cling to the grace of Jesus and salvation by faith in Him alone, and I will add nothing to that of my own works of the flesh (including the ritual of baptism, the sacraments, etc.) While these things are good and for the benefit of God’s kingdom, they have nothing to do with salvation. (Gal. 3:1-13). I will not allow Satan or anyone to rob me of that joy!
With your continued unstable interpretations and heavy attitude, I find the need now to end this by blocking any further emails from you.
Gary: It figures. You initiate contact, and when I ask you for some simple true-false questions to bring out the meaning of the text and help you clarify your thinking, you become abusive. Then you say, in effect, “I will take my marbles and go home.” I think anyone who reads this correspondence (and I do intend to publish it) will see who had the Biblical case and who just talked about having one.
[Thus the conversation came to an abrupt end. Swagger kept talking about “my interpretation,” but all I asked him to do was answer ten simple true-false questions. My answers are listed below:
1 – True 2 – true
3 – True 4 – False
5 – True 6 – True
7 – True 8 – True
9 – False 10 – False
All of these answers can be determined by reading the text; there is nothing difficult or mentally strenuous. It is not unlikely that Swagger realized that he could not answer these simple questions without giving up his position.
Swagger was both a bully and a coward. When he could not deal with one passage of Scriptures, he drove off in a huff (so to speak). My prophecy that naming an expert who held the same position that we do proved to be accurate. I mentioned Dr. George Beasley-Murray who wrote a well-known book on the subject of baptism a number of years ago. Although he is from a Baptist background, he was honest with the text and did not let his theology color his views. As predicted, Swagger passed right over the reference without comment. Either he is too inexperienced to be aware of the book, or he knows that it refutes his point. All he can do is claim that all his buddies agree with him. Such is hardly rare. I could provide all the references that agree with me, too, but what is the point? The only thing that matters is what the Bible teaches, and Swagger did not want to go there. He preferred to continually quote men rather than deal with the text.
If a Dallas Theology professor said that Paul corrected Peter over adding anything to “faith only,” he is more ignorant than Swagger. Paul rebuked Peter for his treatment of the Gentiles—not for any doctrine he taught—particularly one inspired of the Holy Spirit, as Peter was on Pentecost. Unfortunately, for Swagger, his professors will not be able to get him into heaven.]