I received an email from a complete stranger, Ron Boatwright, wanting me to evaluate his website on what he views as being incorrect Baptist doctrine.  While I had some reservations, I looked into it and saw what he was writing.  I cannot speak for other churches calling themselves Baptist.  There are 50 different flavors of Baptist churches out there and they rarely agree on all things all the time.  However, I can speak for what Hope believes, some of which is indicated in our Statement of Faith.  Over the next few weeks I will endeavor to take the words of Mr. Boatwright as he wrote them and defend our beliefs, which derive not from a man-made system but from a plain reading of the Scriptures.  This week I will focus on the topic of Baptism.

Mr. Boatwright comes from a Church of Christ background.  The belief and focus of that particular denomination, and the Restoration Movement that it sprang from, is a focus on the New Testament over the Old.  While they hold the Old Testament to be inspired, we are no longer under the Old Covenant and thus should focus on this New Covenant that we find ourselves under.  For the purposes of this “debate”, I will limit myself to the New Testament to show to Mr. Boatwright the error from Scripture of his doctrine.

Boatwright opens his discussion of Baptist doctrine with the following paragraphs: “Most Baptists teach that all one must do is "accept Jesus as your personal Saviour" and say the "Sinner's Prayer" in order to be saved and have your sins forgiven.  They say that baptism is not essential to salvation and not essential for the forgiveness of sins.  They claim that they are saved and their sins are forgiven before and without baptism.  But where in the Bible is any of this found?  It is not there because men, with the help of Satan, have come up with these false ideas.

But what does the Bible say?  Jesus says in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned".  But just as 1+1=2, Jesus says belief + baptism = saved.  One needs help to misunderstand Jesus.  How much clearer could Jesus have said it?  People are given a simple choice: they can believe and be baptized in order to be saved, or they can disbelieve and be condemned.  One who is not baptized in order to be saved shows that he does not really believe Jesus and because of this he will not be saved, but will be eternally condemned to Hell.”

I will leave the topics of accepting Jesus as Savior and the “Sinner’s Prayer” for another day.  Our stance here at Hope is that water baptism by immersion is not essential for salvation.  It is clearly defined in Point #14 of our Statement of Faith along with the corresponding verses that support that position.  It is not a false idea and can be plainly supported by the Bible.

Boatwright’s main contention for his position is found in the following verses:
·        Mark 16:16- He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

At issue with this verse is the definition of baptism.  There are two Greek words used for baptism in the New Testament, bapto and baptizo.  The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is from the Greek poet and physician Nicander.  He wrote a recipe for making pickles that is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptized' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. The first is temporary, while the second, the act of baptizing the vegetable, produces a permanent change.  Boatwright confuses the dipping of our bodies in water during a temporary ceremony with the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit that produces a permanent change in us.

            Another point we must consider is the second clause in this verse.  Jesus states that whoever does not believe will be damned.  Baptism is not a consideration here.  Faith is the issue.

·        Acts 2:38- Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

At issue here is the definition of for.  In the original Greek, eis or for could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past.  We have already been forgiven our sins and baptism is a public recognition of that.

·        Acts 22:16- And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Once again, baptizo is the Greek used here, and denotes a permanent change, not a temporary dipping.

I will even add another verse that would seem to support his position:

·        John 3:5- Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Water is used symbolically in the Scripture many times.  In Revelation it refers to the Gentile world.  However, Jesus refers to Himself as the Living Water.  Consider John 7:37-39: 37- In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.  38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39  (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)  With that in mind, consider these verses:

o       Ephesians 5:26- That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

o       Hebrews 10:22- Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

The water being referenced in these verses is not baptismal waters in a river or baptismal font (which will never be considered pure), but Jesus Himself.  Unless we are born again by our faith in Jesus and the imbedding of the Holy Spirit, we will not be saved and we cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

At a surface level, these verses would seem to overwhelmingly support his contention that baptism is essential for salvation.  However, sound doctrine must always be based on the whole teaching of the Bible, not just on verses here or there that we pick to support our position.  Those verses must be understood in context and with an understanding of the original language.

I want to leave you with three verses that show that faith and faith alone produces salvation.  The first is Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.  Mr. Boatwright makes baptism a work necessary for salvation, and this verse clearly shows that that is not the case.  The second is Titus 3:5: Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.  This verse again stresses our works are meaningless to salvation, and the baptism described here is that of the Holy Spirit, not a ceremony.  Finally, Paul lists two conditions for salvation in Romans 10:9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  The two conditions here are belief and confession by mouth.  Nowhere does Paul mention baptism.  Indeed, in the Book of Romans, Paul’s treatise on salvation, baptism is mentioned only in two verses (6:3-4) and those two verses are spiritual in nature, not physical.

Finally, let us consider Luke 23:39-43: And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.  40  But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?  41  And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.  42  And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.  43  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The Thief on the Cross destroys so many man-made systems.  He was degenerate, worthy of death by his own admission.  Yet the only thing he did was confess Jesus as Lord, and he was saved.  The Thief was never baptized, never took communion, never did anything but place his faith and trust in Jesus.  Mr. Boatwright, who treats our position as man-made, must explain this passage away and he cannot do so.

              Salvation is by faith alone.  In no way should this post lead you to not consider baptism.  We are commanded in several places to do so.  It is a commandment from our Lord.  But it is separate from salvation, and something that should only be done after a genuine baptism by the Holy Spirit that leads to regeneration and a new life.  That is the baptism referenced in these passages, and the only answer to wash away our sins and begin a new life in Him._
 


Comments

Nicholas Price
01/26/2012 15:48

Hello, my name is Nicholas Price. I am a Latin Rite (commonly referred to as 'Roman') Catholic. This blog was brought to my attention last night, by one of your congregants, charitably challenging my beliefs. In light of 1 Cor. 9:16 (For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!), and 1 Pet. 3:15,16 (But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.), I feel that it is my duty to comment. For the record, I believe that we are saved by faith and works, through grace. In my faith tradition, this includes baptism. The Catholic doctrine of the mode of salvation, is summed up nicely, in Gal. 5:6 (For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.). I would also like to state that I have, and will continue to quote only the 1769 King James Version of the Bible, out of respect, and intellectual and theological integrity.



I will start by commenting on the argument, using the story of The Good Thief. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that the Bible does not say, anywhere, that The Good Thief had not been baptized. Secondly, Jesus uses the word 'paradise,' and not 'heaven.' Lastly, Scripture tells us, that Jesus does not ascend into heaven, until long after 'this day.'



I would like now, to discuss the use of the Greek words 'bapto,' and 'baptizo.' I would like to draw your attention to Luke 11:38 (And when the Pharisee saw [it], he marvelled that he had not first washed [from the root - baptizo] before dinner.) In this verse, 'baptizo' causes no permanent change, but a temporary one (clean hands). We can see, then, that 'bapto,' and 'baptizo' can be, and often are used interchangeably. This is not to say that all water baptisms are valid, and cause a permanent change. There is such a thing as an invalid baptism. If a baptism were to be performed in the name of Buddha, or the Islamic Allah, then it would not convey salvific grace, whereas if one is baptized as is instructed in Matt 28:19 (Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:), then the baptism is valid, and does effect a permanent change, conveying salvific grace.



Now that we have discussed the definition of the word, I would like to talk about Mark 16:16 (He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.) This, according to a full understanding of the Greek, does mean that there is a requirement for salvation, in baptism since bapto and baptizo are interchangeable, as I have demonstrated. I will then, pose this as a mathematical equation, in various forms: baptism + faith = saved; baptism - faith = not saved; faith - baptism = not saved



I would also like to state, that I have attended several services at Hope Baptist Church where people were baptized. There is no doubt in my mind that these baptisms which I witnessed, were entirely valid, and conveyed God's saving grace.



Lastly, I would like to bring your attention to 1 Peter 3:20, 21 {Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:}. In verse twenty, the focus is drawn, specifically, to water baptism. That being said, 'baptism doth also now save us,' could not be any clearer of an indication, that valid water baptism does in fact, convey saving grace.



Thank you for taking the time to read this, and God bless you all.

Reply
Jason Beasley
01/27/2012 13:59

Nick,
I appreciate your input and would like to answer each assertion here point by point:
- I would use the verses you opened with to explain my desire to start this conversation. We both believe what we both believe. One of us must be wrong (no postmodern thinking here). I am convinced I am right on this topic, as are you.
- It is ironic that you argue for faith+works yet give a verse (Gal. 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love) that makes no mention of works and is indeed critical of them.
- On to the Good Thief. You are correct in saying that the Bible is silent regarding whether he was baptized or not. Are you making the assertion then that he was? If he had been baptized by John the Baptist (a major leap of unfounded faith given his chosen profession) his actions since showed that he had returned to sin. Also, you argue that any baptism performed in an incorrect manner is not valid. The evidence we have from the Bible would indicate that John the Baptist did not use that formula, so even if the thief was baptized (an argument I reject) by your argument it would not be valid.
- Yes, the thief did not go to Heaven. No one did at that point because Jesus had not prepared the way yet. Old Testament saints all went to Paradise, which is also called Abraham's Bosom. The thief had been declared just as righteous as Abraham or any other saint. And he did so without baptism, the eucharist, or any other work. The only thing he did was make a profession of faith.
- Speaking of John the Baptist, let's look at what he said on the topic: Luke 3:16 "John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." There are indeed two baptisms, one spiritual and one physical. This is vital to understand, especially in light of Mark 16:16. False faith, or no faith, produces no spiritual baptism. That is why the second clause makes no mention of baptism, since a spiritual baptism is impossible without faith. We are using the same term but have different meanings attached to it. I argue for the baptism of the Holy Spirit and you argue for the physical water baptism. One is an immediate baptism as a result of faith (spiritual) and the other is a ceremony commanded by Jesus as a profession of faith and a means of identifying with His death, burial and resurrection.
- Thank you for the kind words on how our church practices baptism. My question to you then is is our congregation still saved since we do not practice Mass, confession, or any of the other Latin Rite sacraments?
- Finally, 1 Peter 3:20-21: First I would argue that 20 does not point to water baptism. Noah and his family were saved FROM water, namely God's judgment on the world in the form of the Flood. God delivered them from the water. The water here is an analogy for the Word. Noah was saved FROM the water because he heard God's commandments and followed them by faith. That faith necessitated action, but the faith is the important part.
The baptism he refers to in 3:21 is not water baptism but an immersion into union with Christ as an ark of safety from the judgment of God. To make sure people understood this, Peter goes on to say that this baptism is not physical (putting away the filth of the flesh) but spiritual (the answer of a good conscience toward God).
- I will leave you with one thought. I have been able to answer each assertion you have made in a consistent manner. How would you reconcile Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, and Romans 10:9-10 with your faith+works system? I did not even mention Genesis 15:6, whereby Abraham was declared righteous by his faith alone.
Each verse does not stand alone and by itself. You must reconcile verses that seem opposed to another somehow. When we develop doctrine (which is vitally important) we must take the whole council of the Bible. I believe that God has given us enough information in the Bible to do so, and I believe that the consistent theme of the Bible is that reconciliation and salvation is achieved by faith alone.

Reply
Nicholas Price
01/29/2012 01:26

Brother Jason,

I appreciate the time you took to answer me point by point. I have therefore, returned the courtesy. I have inserted your last statements (preceded by a bullet and a divider, and followed by a divider) before my own.
-------
-- It is ironic that you argue for faith+works yet give a verse (Gal. 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love) that makes no mention of works and is indeed critical of them.
-------
I would like to start out by addressing the terms 'faith,' and 'believe,' briefly before continuing, in order to illustrate what I believe that Gal. 5:6 is saying about "faith which WORKETH." Many books have been written on the subject, so rather than going too deeply into a Biblical defense of the Catholic Doctrine of faith and works at this time, I will give you an example of what I mean.

An archer held a demonstration of his skills. He started by placing a watermelon twenty yards away. He asked his audience "Do you believe that I can hit my target? Do you have faith in me?" The crowd responded by saying "We believe in you! We have faith in you!" The archer drew his bow, released his arrow, and hit his target. The crowd cheered. The archer then repeated this with a grapefruit, and then with a strawberry. Each time, he asked "Do you believe that I can hit my target? Do you have faith in me?" The crowd responded each time by saying "We believe in you! We have faith in you!" Those of you who have ever shot a bow, know that to hit a strawberry at twenty yards, is quite a feat. The archer then stated "I will now shoot a strawberry out of somebody's mouth, from twenty yards." He then asked "Do you believe that I can hit my target? Do you have faith in me?" Once again, the crowd responded by saying "We believe in you! We have faith in you!" Finally, the archer asked "May I now have a volunteer?" The crowd was silent. No one was willing to volunteer. Does this mean that they did not believe that the archer could hit his target? Did they not have faith in the archer and his skills? Of course not. But, the archer's ultimate feat remained unfulfilled, because no one was willing to act on their faith. Faith alone was insufficient for the final act to be performed.
-------
- On to the Good Thief. You are correct in saying that the Bible is silent regarding whether he was baptized or not. Are you making the assertion then that he was? If he had been baptized by John the Baptist (a major leap of unfounded faith given his chosen profession) his actions since showed that he had returned to sin. Also, you argue that any baptism performed in an incorrect manner is not valid. The evidence we have from the Bible would indicate that John the Baptist did not use that formula, so even if the thief was baptized (an argument I reject) by your argument it would not be valid.
-------
I am not at all suggesting that the Good Thief had been water baptized. I am only asserting, that one cannot clearly and assuredly make a statement that an event did occur from the Bible alone, when the Bible is silent on this event. Regarding John the Baptist, I would have to say that the baptisms performed by him were of valid formula, given what God had revealed to him at the time, since the events between then, and the events in Matt 28:19 had not yet occurred.
-------
- Yes, the thief did not go to Heaven. No one did at that point because Jesus had not prepared the way yet. Old Testament saints all went to Paradise, which is also called Abraham's Bosom. The thief had been declared just as righteous as Abraham or any other saint. And he did so without baptism, the eucharist, or any other work. The only thing he did was make a profession of faith.
-------
I would beg to differ, in that the Good Thief did in fact, perform a work, in faith. When someone is crucified, do you know how death comes? A crucified person, suffocates to death. To make a declaration of faith is a work in and of itself, but to do so, while suffocating? That, my friend, is a faithful act.
-------
- Speaking of John the Baptist, let's look at what he said on the topic: Luke 3:16 "John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." There are indeed two baptisms, one spiritual and one physical. This is vital to understand, especially in light of Mark 16:16. False faith, or no faith, produces no spiritual baptism. That is why the second clause makes no mention of baptism, since a spiritual baptism is impossible without faith. We are using the same term but have different meanings attached to it. I argue for the baptism of the Holy Spirit and you argue for the physical water baptism. One is an immediate baptism as a result of faith (spiritual) and the other is a ceremony commanded by Jesus as

Reply
Nicholas Price
01/29/2012 01:32

(continued)...a profession of faith and a means of identifying with His death, burial and resurrection.
-------
Two seperate baptisms, you say? You claim that there is a spiritual baptism, and a physical baptism, which are totally seperate. Are we seperated into spiritual selves, and physical selves? If not, then to say that baptism by water and spirit are two different baptisms, makes no sense. In Gen. 1, when God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void, and WATER covered the earth, the Spirit of God hovered over the water, in one unified event. Later in Genesis, when the floods came, and Noah and his family were "saved by water," the floodwater was accompanied by a dove; the symbol of the Holy Spirit. When Moses led Israel through the Red Sea in Exodus, what led them through the water? A pillar of fire by night, and a pillar of cloud by day! The Spirit of God! Once again, water is accompanied by the Spirit. God is consistent. Why, if in all of these events of new creation, water and spirit come in one unified event, would it stop with baptism?
-------
- Thank you for the kind words on how our church practices baptism. My question to you then is is our congregation still saved since we do not practice Mass, confession, or any of the other Latin Rite sacraments?
-------
You are very welcome, and I would not say what I did, if I did not believe it. To answer your question: YES! I believe that your congregants are SAVED! Non-Catholics often get the wrong idea about what the Catholic Church teaches about the sacraments. The Church does not teach, nor ever has it taught, that participating in the sacraments is like the earthly tail, wagging the heavenly dog. We don't believe that God is bound to transmit His grace through the sacraments. We do believe that Jesus instituted the sacraments, as an accessible avenue for Christians to receive grace, but we don't believe that it is the only way.
-------
- Finally, 1 Peter 3:20-21: First I would argue that 20 does not point to water baptism. Noah and his family were saved FROM water, namely God's judgment on the world in the form of the Flood. God delivered them from the water. The water here is an analogy for the Word. Noah was saved FROM the water because he heard God's commandments and followed them by faith. That faith necessitated action, but the faith is the important part.
The baptism he refers to in 3:21 is not water baptism but an immersion into union with Christ as an ark of safety from the judgment of God. To make sure people understood this, Peter goes on to say that this baptism is not physical (putting away the filth of the flesh) but spiritual (the answer of a good conscience toward God).
-------
I would have to simply disagree with your interpretation of the story of Noah. I believe that Noah was not saved FROM the water, but that the water saved Noah FROM destruction when God chose to recreate the world. Further, I would like to revisit what I said a few paragraphs ago, that the floodwater was accompanied by the Holy Spirit, in one, single, unified event.
-------
- I will leave you with one thought. I have been able to answer each assertion you have made in a consistent manner. How would you reconcile Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, and Romans 10:9-10 with your faith+works system? I did not even mention Genesis 15:6, whereby Abraham was declared righteous by his faith alone.

Each verse does not stand alone and by itself. You must reconcile verses that seem opposed to another somehow. When we develop doctrine (which is vitally important) we must take the whole council of the Bible. I believe that God has given us enough information in the Bible to do so, and I believe that the consistent theme of the Bible is that reconciliation and salvation is achieved by faith alone.
-------
I really do enjoy it when people use Eph. 2:8-9 (For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.) to define Sola Fide, because it gives me the opportunity to show them something which they had probably overlooked, every single time that they looked at these two verses beforehand, and that is Eph. 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.) Anything good that I do, is not of myself, so I cannot boast; rather, it is by the Grace of God that I do, so that I may glorify Him.

In response to Titus 3:5 (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;), I would say that we are indeed saved by works, and not by faith alone, according to James 2:24 (Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.) James 2:24, by the way, is the ONLY place in the entire Bible, where the word 'faith' can be found combined with 'alone,' or 'only.'

R

Reply
Nicholas Price
01/29/2012 01:35

(continued)... Rom. 10:9-10 says: (That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.) Amen! I believe every word in these two verses! However, there is nothing in these verses, which suggests that this is all that one has to do, in order to be saved.

In Gen. 15:6 (And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.), Moses was counted righteous. Does righteousness automatically equal being saved? I thing that James 2:21 (Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?) spells it out quite clearly.

I agree with you, that consistency throughout the Scriptures, is important, so the last thought that I would like to leave you with, is a thought about God's judgement. When the Bible mentions eternal Judgement, nowhere does it say that we will be judged by our faith alone. It does, however, say that we will be judged by what we do, fail to do, say, fail to say, by our deeds, works, and so on, and so on.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read this, as it is a labor of love for God and neighbor.

Reply

Comments are closed.