Hello all,
I just wanted to let everyone know that the debate that took place a while back at Tabor College between myself and Mr. Garret Boyer is now available on DVD. The cost to receive a copy is $10.00 which includes shipping to anywhere in the US. If you are outside the US I will have to check on shipping cost's to your area and get back with you.
For those who might not remember, the debate was over the topic of "Is Baptism a Necessary Condition for Salvation?" Garret Boyer is a member of the Church of Christ and contended for the position that it is indeed a requirement for salvation. I of course took the traditional protestant/Baptist view that it is not, rather it is By faith alone we are saved. The debate is just a bit under 2 hours long.
If you are interested in receiving a copy of the debate please contact me by email at jacob@nailmark.org, and I will work out the details with you as far as shipping address and payment options. Hopefully after the new site is finished being constructed this will be a much simpler process with the store that will be built into the site.
Sola Deo Gloria,
Jacob Allee
Showing posts with label Baptism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baptism. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Saturday, December 1, 2007
1 Peter 3 and the issue of Baptism
Finally I have some time to work on posting about key verses and passages used in the baptism debate. Now begins our series on difficult passages regarding baptism and how to refute claims that various groups make about water baptism being necessary for salvation.
Today we will start with a commonly used passage found in 1 Peter 3:21. Baptismal regeneration advocates love this passage for obvious reasons. Admittedly, if you just casually read the verse without allowing the context to speak to it's meaning, it sounds like it is saying that baptism is necessary for salvation. Church of Christ, Roman Catholics and other groups who champion baptismal regeneration have made this one of their hallmark passages to make their argument along with Acts 2:38, John 3:5, and Mark 16:16. We will go through each of these passages and show how they can be understood, consistently interpreted, in context, with what Scripture teaches about salvation by faith alone.
Let's go right on ahead and jump into our first passage, in it's surrounding context.
1 Peter 3:20-22
"20because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."
Now clearly verse 21 is the focus of baptismal regeneration proponents, however the context of the passage is crucial to a proper interpretation of the verse, especially that which immediately precedes verse 21 in verse 20. What is brought into the context of this passage is the familiar story of Noah and the ark. We are told that by the "ark" God brought 8 people "safely through water." Immediately after we are told "baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you."
Now a pertinent question to ask here at this point is, "what is it that baptism corresponds to?" Is it the water, or is it the ark?" The context tells us that it was the ark that brought Noah and his family safely through the water, it is the ark that saved Noah and his family, certainly it is not the water that saved them.
So the first important thing to understand in this passage is that baptism corresponds not to the water, but to the ark that Noah and his family entered.
Secondly, and equally important, we want to direct our attention to what the Scripture says next. "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
This is very important to note because it's a clarification that Peter gave to us about what he means by what he has just said. It is not that baptism saves a person in the sense that it actually cleanses a person from something, rather, it is saves as "an appeal to God for a good conscience." Baptism is a work that expresses faith, it is a way of gaining "a good conscience" before God.
This is exactly the type of thing that James 2 talks about in verses 14-26.
"14What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."
Christian good works are not something that justifies a sinner, rather they justify a sinner's faith. It is faith and faith alone that saves, but as James eloquently points out if a person says that they have faith but they do not have works, can "that faith" save them? The point being that genuine faith produces good works and obedience to Christ's commands. Good works are an assurance of genuine, saving, faith.
Baptism is a perfect example of this, and this is the same principle that Peter is using in 1 Peter 3:21, it saves not in the sense of justifying or cleansing from sin, but rather as a work that justifies our faith, gives us a good conscience before God, an assurance of salvation by obedience to God's command to be baptized. Genuine faith produces good works, obedience to Christ.
This is very clearly what Noah himself did by believing God's word about the coming flood and building and boarding the ark. Look at what Hebrews 11 tells us about Noah's salvation.
Hebrews 11:7
"By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith."
As is clearly stated by this verse in Hebrews 11, it was not the work of building the ark that made Noah righteous before God, but it was his faith that God counted as righteousness, this faith was demonstrated by believing God's warning and constructing the ark. Baptism corresponds not to the flood waters, but to the ark that Noah built because of his faith in God, and Noah was saved by that faith.
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ."
I think that in this case, as is probably always the case, when we allow the context of Scripture to inform our interpretation and draw from relevant texts from the whole of Scripture that speak to the one we are studying, much clarity is brought to our study. And in case there be any confusion about who really matters in our salvation, we are told this appeal to God for a good conscience is rooted not in the work of baptism but the resurrected Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
I hope this study is helpful to everyone. Stay tuned for more studies of passages that are used to try and teach baptismal regeneration.
Serving Christ,
Jacob Allee
Today we will start with a commonly used passage found in 1 Peter 3:21. Baptismal regeneration advocates love this passage for obvious reasons. Admittedly, if you just casually read the verse without allowing the context to speak to it's meaning, it sounds like it is saying that baptism is necessary for salvation. Church of Christ, Roman Catholics and other groups who champion baptismal regeneration have made this one of their hallmark passages to make their argument along with Acts 2:38, John 3:5, and Mark 16:16. We will go through each of these passages and show how they can be understood, consistently interpreted, in context, with what Scripture teaches about salvation by faith alone.
Let's go right on ahead and jump into our first passage, in it's surrounding context.
1 Peter 3:20-22
"20because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."
Now clearly verse 21 is the focus of baptismal regeneration proponents, however the context of the passage is crucial to a proper interpretation of the verse, especially that which immediately precedes verse 21 in verse 20. What is brought into the context of this passage is the familiar story of Noah and the ark. We are told that by the "ark" God brought 8 people "safely through water." Immediately after we are told "baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you."
Now a pertinent question to ask here at this point is, "what is it that baptism corresponds to?" Is it the water, or is it the ark?" The context tells us that it was the ark that brought Noah and his family safely through the water, it is the ark that saved Noah and his family, certainly it is not the water that saved them.
So the first important thing to understand in this passage is that baptism corresponds not to the water, but to the ark that Noah and his family entered.
Secondly, and equally important, we want to direct our attention to what the Scripture says next. "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
This is very important to note because it's a clarification that Peter gave to us about what he means by what he has just said. It is not that baptism saves a person in the sense that it actually cleanses a person from something, rather, it is saves as "an appeal to God for a good conscience." Baptism is a work that expresses faith, it is a way of gaining "a good conscience" before God.
This is exactly the type of thing that James 2 talks about in verses 14-26.
"14What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."
Christian good works are not something that justifies a sinner, rather they justify a sinner's faith. It is faith and faith alone that saves, but as James eloquently points out if a person says that they have faith but they do not have works, can "that faith" save them? The point being that genuine faith produces good works and obedience to Christ's commands. Good works are an assurance of genuine, saving, faith.
Baptism is a perfect example of this, and this is the same principle that Peter is using in 1 Peter 3:21, it saves not in the sense of justifying or cleansing from sin, but rather as a work that justifies our faith, gives us a good conscience before God, an assurance of salvation by obedience to God's command to be baptized. Genuine faith produces good works, obedience to Christ.
This is very clearly what Noah himself did by believing God's word about the coming flood and building and boarding the ark. Look at what Hebrews 11 tells us about Noah's salvation.
Hebrews 11:7
"By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith."
As is clearly stated by this verse in Hebrews 11, it was not the work of building the ark that made Noah righteous before God, but it was his faith that God counted as righteousness, this faith was demonstrated by believing God's warning and constructing the ark. Baptism corresponds not to the flood waters, but to the ark that Noah built because of his faith in God, and Noah was saved by that faith.
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ."
I think that in this case, as is probably always the case, when we allow the context of Scripture to inform our interpretation and draw from relevant texts from the whole of Scripture that speak to the one we are studying, much clarity is brought to our study. And in case there be any confusion about who really matters in our salvation, we are told this appeal to God for a good conscience is rooted not in the work of baptism but the resurrected Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
I hope this study is helpful to everyone. Stay tuned for more studies of passages that are used to try and teach baptismal regeneration.
Serving Christ,
Jacob Allee
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Baptism Debate Saturday
Well, it's the week of the big debate! I'm excited for this opportunity to share the truth of God about baptism and what it is for (and what it is not for). It's a real privilege to defend what Scripture teaches especially given an issue that centers around the genuine gospel of Christ verses a perversion of the gospel.
I met today with Garret Boyer, whom I'm debating, and Dr. Richard Kyle (the moderator) and we discussed the final details of the debate. We scaled the time back a bit so it wouldn't run as long. Unfortunately people don't always want to listen to a full 2 1/2 hours of theological debate, so it's now closer to only 2 hours.
Mr. Boyer is a sharp guy, I look forward to hearing how he decides to approach the debate and which passages he hones in on. I of course expect Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:20-21, John 3:5, and a few others to be used, but nonetheless it will be interesting to see how well and in what way he presents them.
He has my respect for being willing to debate this issue in an environment that is by far predominantly against the view of baptismal regeneration. Hillsboro is a predominantly Mennonite area (Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Mennonite, Alderman Mennonite). Tabor college where I'm at currently is a Mennonite Brethren School and this is where the debate is going to be held.
Some Mennonite's do not practice full immersion for baptism and some do, but none (insofar as I know) hold to baptismal regeneration and all of them, I believe, hold to believers baptism as a sign of salvation. So Mr. Boyer is the one holding the unpopular opinion here which I would think would make it even a bit harder (something like when James White is on the radio in Salt Lake City, Utah). So he does have my respect in being willing to stand up for his conviction even though it is wrong and extremely dangerous to ones soul.
Anyway, it should be a fun time (yes, I think debating is fun.) I appreciate your prayers as I finish up my preparation for the debate Saturday and as I attempt to communicate God's truth in a way that brings Him glory and hopefully convicts sinners of their need to trust in Christ Jesus alone for salvation. If you live anywhere in the area of Hillsboro I'd love to see you this Saturday at 2pm in the Tabor College Chapel.
Sola Fide,
Jacob
I met today with Garret Boyer, whom I'm debating, and Dr. Richard Kyle (the moderator) and we discussed the final details of the debate. We scaled the time back a bit so it wouldn't run as long. Unfortunately people don't always want to listen to a full 2 1/2 hours of theological debate, so it's now closer to only 2 hours.
Mr. Boyer is a sharp guy, I look forward to hearing how he decides to approach the debate and which passages he hones in on. I of course expect Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:20-21, John 3:5, and a few others to be used, but nonetheless it will be interesting to see how well and in what way he presents them.
He has my respect for being willing to debate this issue in an environment that is by far predominantly against the view of baptismal regeneration. Hillsboro is a predominantly Mennonite area (Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Mennonite, Alderman Mennonite). Tabor college where I'm at currently is a Mennonite Brethren School and this is where the debate is going to be held.
Some Mennonite's do not practice full immersion for baptism and some do, but none (insofar as I know) hold to baptismal regeneration and all of them, I believe, hold to believers baptism as a sign of salvation. So Mr. Boyer is the one holding the unpopular opinion here which I would think would make it even a bit harder (something like when James White is on the radio in Salt Lake City, Utah). So he does have my respect in being willing to stand up for his conviction even though it is wrong and extremely dangerous to ones soul.
Anyway, it should be a fun time (yes, I think debating is fun.) I appreciate your prayers as I finish up my preparation for the debate Saturday and as I attempt to communicate God's truth in a way that brings Him glory and hopefully convicts sinners of their need to trust in Christ Jesus alone for salvation. If you live anywhere in the area of Hillsboro I'd love to see you this Saturday at 2pm in the Tabor College Chapel.
Sola Fide,
Jacob
Sunday, October 7, 2007
My First Debate is in the Works!
Well it looks like I'm going to have the opportunity for my first live, moderated debate. My opponent will be Garret Boyer, a sophomore at Tabor College. We don't have an exact thesis for the debate yet, but basically the debate will be over the issue of whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. Mr. Boyer will take the affirmative and I will of course take the negative.
I'm excited for this opportunity to defend the gospel of Christ in a public, acedemic setting. This issue is an old debate amongst various denominations of protestants and Roman Catholics. I'm glad to stand for the gospel of Jesus Christ and declare that salvation is by God's grace through faith alone.
There are still a lot of details to be worked out like when and where, finding a moderator, agreeing on the format of the debate and so on. I appreciate your prayers as I begin to study the issue in depth and prepare for this defense of the gospel.
I'll inform you of the details as they come together.
God Bless,
Jacob
Ephesians 2:8-9
I'm excited for this opportunity to defend the gospel of Christ in a public, acedemic setting. This issue is an old debate amongst various denominations of protestants and Roman Catholics. I'm glad to stand for the gospel of Jesus Christ and declare that salvation is by God's grace through faith alone.
There are still a lot of details to be worked out like when and where, finding a moderator, agreeing on the format of the debate and so on. I appreciate your prayers as I begin to study the issue in depth and prepare for this defense of the gospel.
I'll inform you of the details as they come together.
God Bless,
Jacob
Ephesians 2:8-9
Monday, April 23, 2007
No More Limbo? What Does This Mean?
For centuries now the Roman Catholic Church has taught "unofficially" a doctrine called "Limbo." Limbo being a place where unbaptized infants went if they died in that state. The Romans Catholic Church has always taught that baptism is necessary to wipe away the stain of original sin, and is therefore a prerequisite to salvation. And the logic goes, if an infant dies before baptism then they could not enter Heaven because they still bore the stain of original sin, yet they had not committed any sin themselves because they are incapable as infants of doing so, therefore they can't go to Heaven, but shouldn't go to Hell, so, well....err, I guess they go to Limbo. What is Limbo one might ask? Limbo was taught to be a place of pure happiness and bliss but apart from God's presence.
There are of course many things wrong with this doctrine. The one that stands out first to me is the idea of a place, not mentioned in Scripture, that is a place of eternal bliss apart from the presence of God. Being apart from God's presence is the biblical definition of Hell. I mean I understand that Hell is a place of weeping an gnashing of teeth and eternal burning, the Bible does not so shyly speak of these things as well. But the point is, God is not there, and that is the real punishment of Hell. So Limbo isn't such a good thing as far as Scripture is concerned, again never mind that Scripture never mentions Limbo (or purgatory for that matter).
Another issue is the assumption that an infant needs to be baptized. This of course is a fundamental difference between those who hold to believers baptism as I do and those who believe in infant baptism as Roman Catholics and various protestants do. But even the protestants (true protestants) who hold to infant baptism reject the notion that it is salvific or that it wipes away original sin. I feel quite confident in saying that infants who die are safe in the arms of God and do gain entrance into Heaven. Because whenever we see God's judgement against man it is against his lawless deeds, his actual sin, not the fact that man is born with a sin nature or in the flesh, but judged by his transgressions.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
"9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? (Who are called unrighteous?) Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (Emphasis mine)
There are of course many things wrong with this doctrine. The one that stands out first to me is the idea of a place, not mentioned in Scripture, that is a place of eternal bliss apart from the presence of God. Being apart from God's presence is the biblical definition of Hell. I mean I understand that Hell is a place of weeping an gnashing of teeth and eternal burning, the Bible does not so shyly speak of these things as well. But the point is, God is not there, and that is the real punishment of Hell. So Limbo isn't such a good thing as far as Scripture is concerned, again never mind that Scripture never mentions Limbo (or purgatory for that matter).
Another issue is the assumption that an infant needs to be baptized. This of course is a fundamental difference between those who hold to believers baptism as I do and those who believe in infant baptism as Roman Catholics and various protestants do. But even the protestants (true protestants) who hold to infant baptism reject the notion that it is salvific or that it wipes away original sin. I feel quite confident in saying that infants who die are safe in the arms of God and do gain entrance into Heaven. Because whenever we see God's judgement against man it is against his lawless deeds, his actual sin, not the fact that man is born with a sin nature or in the flesh, but judged by his transgressions.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
"9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? (Who are called unrighteous?) Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (Emphasis mine)
Point being, those who are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom are those who are sinners by their actions and transgression, not those merely born sinful. An infant cannot be sexually immoral, a thief, etc.
Now I will say that as to when a person becomes conscious of their ability to choose right from wrong is hard to decide, and it may be fairly young. Bur it is sinners who need saving, not just those inclined to sin from birth. This is a difficult issue because Scripture doesn't spell it out totally black and white, but the assertion that an infant could not be with God because they were not baptized is foolish, and has no scriptural support.
And finally the problem with this doctrine is the assumption that human being can merit for themselves God's grace through works (Ephesians 2:8-10). A fundamental difference between Roman Catholics and protestants.
All that said, I am happy to hear that recently the Roman Catholic Church has denounced the teaching of Limbo. As well they should since there is no scriptural support for it. In a report from Yahoo News written by Nicole Winfield we read:
"Benedict approved the findings of the International Theological Commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing traditional teaching on limbo in light of "pressing" pastoral needs — primarily the growing number of abortions and infants born to non-believers who die without being baptized."
And the Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is the commission's secretary-general said:
"We can say we have many reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies,' the Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is the commission's secretary-general"
I find this very interesting myself. This teaching is one that the Catholic Church taught very widely for a long time. And while it was never (I'm told) part of the churches official doctrine, there have been many who have taught it, and many who have believed it. But now, this commission has found that it is not to be taught, and that there is hope that infants might go to Heaven when they die, and the Pope has agreed with the finding of this commission. So by default the Roman Catholic church has just said that baptism may not be necessary for salvation, at least for infants.
Now obviously, I have stated my position on why infants don't have to place their faith in Christ to go to Heaven. Because they are unable to do, and they have not wilfully sinned against God and do not know right from wrong. And if the Roman Catholics want to agree with that, then that's fine. But I am trying to figure out what this does to their theology. Because my understanding has always been that from their perspective baptism must occur for original sin to be taken away. And if original sin isn't taken away then there is no chance for salvation period. What about the doctrine of purgatory? Do babies have to suffer purgatory if they die without baptism?
It seems to me that the Roman Catholic church keeps taking steps towards universalism. I know this isn't true across the board. I know Catholics who are certainly not universalists, and there are many who are not. But Rome's gospel seems to be ever widening to be more inclusive. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that the Roman Catholic Church is doing away with an unbiblical doctrine, but what is the motivation?
I would genuinely love some Roman Catholic feedback on this post. I truly am not trying to stuff words in the mouth of Roman Catholics or the Pope, or anyone else, but I'm sharing my thoughts and perspective on this matter. While I certainly disagree with many things that are taught in the Roman Catholic Church, I think any honest person can admit that this "ruling" if you will, has to have an effect on the way Catholics think about infants that die and salvation in general.
What are your thoughts?
-Jacob
Here are two links to news articles covering this topic:
Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_limbo
National Post: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=367fb6df-eaff-46a2-897b-66eabe94b850&k=31248
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
