The first two blog posts responding to Matt Slick's article "Acts 2:38 and Baptism" can be found here:
http://g2witt.blogspot.com/2017/05/response-to-matt-slick-on-acts-238-part.html?m=1
http://g2witt.blogspot.com/2017/05/response-to-matt-slick-on-acts-238-part_11.html?m=1
As in these previous posts, Slick's words will be in quotes followed by my responses here.
"On the contrary, baptism is excluded from the gospel message. Paul said that he came to preach the gospel--not to baptize: 'I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else). For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel...' (1 Cor. 1:14-17)."
Except that Slick totally missed Paul's point here. The apostle's point wasn't that baptism doesn't save, but that Paul didn't save anybody, and the fact Paul didn't baptize hardly anyone proved that.
If baptism isn't salvation, using the argument he didn't baptize but a few would be immaterial to his point salvation wasn't of Paul. The context of the whole passage wasn't dealing whether or not baptism saves but dealing with cliques in the church where some were saying they were saved by Paul, Apollos, or Peter.
For context, back up to verse 12: "What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, "I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas[b]'; still another, 'I follow Christ.'"
And Paul responded in verse 13: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius."
The context wasn't Paul didn't baptize because baptism doesn't save anyone but he didn't baptize to keep folks from thinking Paul did the saving. He was trying to show that they weren't saved by the name of Paul in baptism. In fact, he said just as he wasn't crucified for their sins, baptism wasn't administered in his name. If Paul not baptizing in this context meant baptism doesn't save, by that logic, the fact Paul didn't die for our sins meant what was done on the Cross wasn't saving.
The text is saying the exact opposite of what Slick wanted it to say. More, it is fallacious to make the claim just because Paul didn't baptize, that meant they weren't baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The apostle wasn't minimizing the role of baptism in our salvation but was minimizing his own role.
In fact in the same epistle (chapter 6, verse 11), he would go on to say they were washed in the name of Jesus and by the Holy Spirit. Throughout Acts, they were baptized in Jesus' name (that isn't denial baptism is done in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, by the way). Paul indeed was alluding to baptism in saying it is the Visible means God used to wash away sins by joining those baptized to Christ, by the Holy Spirit.
That is seemingly the usual go to passage folks use to try to explain away many other baptismal texts that say baptism is indeed God's grace to unite us with Christ and His forgiveness, through faith. Sad.
"Likewise, Paul told us exactly what the gospel that saves is; he said in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, 'Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.'
Note what Paul states in the gospel, and that he did not include baptism in the definition of the gospel."
Paul did in 1 Corinthians 6:11 (and other places) include baptism in his definition of the gospel. And he did so blatantly, but not in the way Slick caricatured baptismal regenerationists. It isn't grace plus baptism. Nor faith plus baptism. But God's free and pure grace of baptism that delivers Christ's forgiveness to us and delivers the faith to receive that forgiveness.
And as pointed out repeatedly, Slick refuted himself earlier in the article when he said to be baptized means to passively receive.
And, yes, Paul did use the word "receive" in the text he cited here. So, if we go by what he said baptism really means which is to receive in passive way (and Slick was more right then he realized), then the Pauline passage does tell us of baptismal grace which means passive receiving of the good news that Christ died for us.
Not to mention Paul spoke of baptism in terms of gospel as in regards to Christ crucified and His forgiveness many times: Acts 22:16 (in regards to in a speech recoded by Luke describing his own baptism washing away his sins while he called on Christ), Romans 6:1-4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Galatians 3:26-29, Colossians 2:11-13, Ephesians 5:25-27 and Titus 3:4-7.
Not to mention other parts of the New Testament treat baptism, not law and not our works: 1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16, Hebrews 10:22, 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 22:17.
"So, we must ask if baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation."
Paul didn't downplayed baptism but downplayed himself in regards to our salvation. That is like saying he downplayed the role of the Cross when he denied he died for us in same context he denied we were baptized in the name of Paul.
So he didn't exclude baptism from salvation. He excluded himself from the one who did the saving. At no point did he denied they got baptized in saving manner, but simply denied he was the one who administered it so no one can say, "Paul's the Savior."
"Further proof that baptism is not a requirement of salvation can be found in Acts 10:44-46. Peter was preaching the gospel, people became saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-48 says,
'While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.' NIV).
"These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles, and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved, and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn't an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation, and that Acts 2:38 is not teaching it is necessity either. But, if it isn't saying that, then why is baptism mentioned here?"
Except that this isn't the only baptismal example in Acts, is it?
To simply use this one example then say that proves in every case in Acts and everywhere else in the Bible, reception of forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit precedes baptism so as to say baptism has nothing to do with any's salvation is not only unsound but very highly irresponsible use of the passage. It is simply flat out not true.
All this passage shows is that not in all cases does rebirth occurs in baptism. The vast majority of those who affirmed baptismal regeneration don't even hold to regeneration must always take place in baptism, so Slick was arguing against a strawman.
Let's cite two examples that show Slick was wrong to make it out as if regeneration and reception of the Holy Spirit only takes place prior to baptism
One example actually had faith receiving baptism prior to reception of the Holy Spirit:
Acts 19
5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[b] and prophesied.
Another example had the washing away of sins and even faith itself in Christ taking place in baptism:
Acts 22
14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’"
So pretty much Slick had to pick and choose from Acts to the exclusion of all other baptismal examples and then passed it off as the same rule for all of them when that wasn't the case.
Another examples prove him wrong.
Acts 2:38 still meant what it says.
Baptism is a means of grace by which we receive Christ alone for our salvation. Such passages were never intended to add works to our salvation but show us how we can be objectively sure in real time and in real place by grace alone through faith alone, we are joined to Christ and His forgiveness alone.
Here we stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment