One of the favorite go to arguments it seems when baptism saving grace passages are quoted, besides claiming those refer to waterless Spirit baptism, is to throw out texts on faith or believe in Christ claiming no mention of baptism at all so baptism must not be saving.
The more common texts folks like to throw out are John 3:16, Ephesians 2:1-8, and Romans 10:9-13. The irony is each of those three texts are in the same writings of which baptismal saving texts are most commonly referred to.
Take for example John 3:16. That passage is part of an ongoing lesson Jesus was giving Nicodemus that started at the beginning of John 3. And the first thing Jesus taught him was to be born again- of water and Spirit. That text historically (see for example, Irenaeus’ Fragment 34) as well as today is cited by those who affirm baptismal saving grace or regeneration. So the argument Jesus mentioned nothing about baptism in John 3:16 fall flat to those who see John 3:3-8 as reference to baptism. (Not to mention Christ spoke of faith in sacramental language in verses 14-15 referring Moses lifting up the snake.)
With Romans 10:9-13, that text follows several chapters after Paul spoke of us being buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life in Romans 6:1-4. So those then reading his epistle would have known about baptismal saving grace by the time they get to being told to confess Jesus is Lord and called on His name to be saved. Not to mention the fact Paul spoke of his own baptism as means of calling on Christ’s name to have his sins washed away in Acts 22:16.
And when folks throw out Ephesians 2:1-8, where we are told God made us alive with Christ when we were dead in sins as His grace to save through faith, they ignore Colossians 2:11-13 say exactly the same thing but added that being buried with Christ and raised with Him to new life is means to that end. Even aside from that, it is not like Ephesians is lacking in baptismal references we can point out. Ephesians 4:4-6 states there is only one baptism, not two, while Ephesians 5:25-27 says Christ washes us with water through the Word.
So in regards to go to passages some folks like to throw out as argument from silence, the response is that it is not accurate to say the passages when taken in context are silent. Either they are linked to an ongoing baptismal discussion, as in the case of John 3:16, or they are in the same writing that does state baptism is means of saving grace through faith as in the cases of Ephesians 2 and Romans 10.
Now to dance around these points, they go to their other favorite argument: such texts refer to waterless Spirit baptism or rebirth. Besides the fact Acts 2:38 states we receive the Holy Spirit upon repentance and being baptized, and the fact Paul says there is only one baptism, not two, there is a serious side effect as a real result of their argument from silent tactic, that kills even their own only waterless Spirit baptism saves or gives rebirth claim.
People can make Scriptures say what they want Scriptures to say using this horrid method. If they want to deny need for repentance, then they can say John 3;16, Mark 16:16 or Ephesians 2:8 doesn’t mention repentance. Also, passages like 1 Peter 3:21 doesn’t use the words faith, believe or repent. So does that mean by their logic we don’t need to repent and believe to be saved?
Ultimately, this argument from silence also kills their view of only waterless Spirit baptism or rebirth saves. Remember they argue the word baptism isn’t used in their prooftexts so it isn’t needed. By such rationale, baptism of any kind (if we assume their premise of waterless Spirit baptism saving) is not needed. And not even their waterless Spirit baptism saves using this methodology.
Guess what other word(s) is not mentioned in texts like Romans 10:9-13? Rebirth (or born again). So guess we don’t need rebirth, right?
That is only if we play by their rules of arguments from silence.
At the end of the day, this horribly flawed method violates a cardinal biblical interpretation rule: the clear passages interpret the less clear passages. Taking passages, that are silent, to cancel out passages that aren’t silent at all blatantly breaks that rule.
Here we stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment