|
IS
THERE POWER TO SAVE IN THE TUB What we have here is a Campbellite, Chapter 12 Baptism and
the Blood of Christ
(1 Pet. 3:21) The discussion of the relation
of baptism to the blood of Christ has not been reserved
to the end of the book out of arbitrary reasons of organization,
but rather because the passage
which most directly bears upon this
phase of the subject is the last passage
in the New Testament on baptism. Rom 6:3 -7 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized
into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore
we are buried with him by baptism into death:
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by
the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life. For if we have been planted
together in the likeness of his death, we shall
be also in
the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that
our old man is crucified with him,
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth
we should not serve sin. I happen to be one of those that regard First Pet 3.21 is the passage
they want. 1 Pe 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: -- LAM No, that is the passage that Cambellites
want to prove water salvation. – Herb Evans What
1 Pet 3.21 has to do with the blood
of Christ is not apparent from this
verse alone but appears from a comparison of I Pet
3 21 with its parallel statement in Heb 9.13 14. These
two passages, taken together, effectively eliminate any consideration of a conflict
between the blood of Christ and baptism for
forgiveness such as some
men claim to see. -- LAM It certainly is not apparent from 1 Pet
3:21. The water did not save these eight souls – THE
Heb 9:13, 14 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and
the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth
to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall
the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit
offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience
from dead works to serve the living God? Surprise! There is no parallel statement in Heb. 9:13, 14.
Campbellites try to mix and match passages that
have nothing to do with one another – The hop, skip,
and jump method of interpretation. Heb. 9 proves that
the blood of bulls and goats only sanctify to the
purifying of the flesh, but in another place tell
us that it is not possible that they can take away
sin (Heb. 10:4). Sanctification is not salvation or the temple
vessels would be saved. – Herb Evans Peter speaks of the time
. . . when the
longsuffering of God waited in the
days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few. that It,
eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth
now save you, (even) baptism, not the putting away
of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of
a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection
of Jesus Christ;
-- LAM Mr. Mott quotes from
the ASV perversion here to buttress his water salvation.
The word “true” is not in the Greek.
You don’t interrogate God; you do not question
God. Some earlier English Bibles say request or ask
God in the sense that the believer is seeking a good
conscience from God THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
CHRIST but NOT through the water. We understand the
word DIA here as VIA as in the JSOC where we are saved
BY or VIA fire. Perhaps, Mr. Mott prefers being saved
“through” fire at the JSOC. Still, neither water nor
fire saves the believer. It is mercy that saves. – Herb Evans "Saved through Water"Noah
and his family, says Peter, "were saved through
water” The Greek preposition
is dia, the one just met at Tit.
3:5; it is used "of the Means or Instrument by which anything is effected" (GT, 133) Water,
then, was the
means or instrument by which the salvation of Noah
and his family was effected. -- LAM Tit 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; Campbellites are noted for their use of prepositions
upon which they try to build a whole doctrine of baptismal
regeneration. Mr. Mott shoots himself in the foot
here for the ASV says through the washing of regeneration
(not water) in Titus 3:5. But either way (by or through),
it is not BY works of righteousness that the believer
is saved but BY Holy Spirit regeneration (not baptismal).
Plainly,
his proof text says NOT BY WORKS OF RIUGHTEOUSNESS;
water baptism is a work of righteousness. – Herb Evans The
question of how water served as the means of the salvation can only
be determined from Gen. 7.13-24. "And the waters increased, and
bare up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth." Thus the water was at once the means of the destruction of the wicked and the means
of deliverance
for Noah. -- LAM Well, with this Campbellite
interpretation, we would expect the water to lift
up the Baptismal candidate above the earth. And we
would expect the ark to be submerged first if it is
the kind of LIKE figure to which Campbellites allude.
The 8 souls were saved physically through the flood
not spiritually. Campbellites have the baptismal candidate
saved spiritually by water baptism. The parallel in
the types are the safety in the ark versus the safety
in Jesus Christ. Christ is the 'The Like Figure" The KJV's "the like figure whereunto" is based upon an
inferior reading23 as respects the whereunto
connecting verse
21 with verse
20. A literal
translation of the true reading would be something
like which also, an antitype, now saves you, baptism.
The antecedent of which would be water. Peter has
just said that Noah was saved through water, and now adds, which also, in an antitype,
or as an antitype, i.e., "a true likeness"
(ASV), now saves you, (even) baptism. Baptism at the
end of the clause explains the water which now saves.
"The like
figure" (KJV)
or "a true likeness" (ASV) is from antitupos which only appears in two New Testament
passages.
At Heb. 9.24 the ASV translates it like in pattern.
GT gives its meaning there as "a thing
formed after some pattern (tupo*)." As to its
application in 1 Pet. 3.21 this authority says it
refers to ...a thing resembling another,
its counterpart; something In the Messianic times which answer to the type prefiguring it in the O. T., as baptism corresponds to the deluge (GT,
51). All the translations the writer has seen agree with
this definition.
The NASB has "corresponding to that"; the
RSV, "which
corresponds to this"; George Swann, "which
resembles this"; Williams, "which corresponds
to this figure";
Goodspeed, "which corresponds to it." –
LAM Cults, apostates, and heretics can’t wait
to get their hands on a bible perversion to back up
their doctrines. Mr. Mott’s ASV doesn’t even render
the word anti-type as such. Neither does the ESV,
the ISV, Tyndale’s Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, the
This word,
then, simply expresses the thought
that a likeness"
or similarity,
or resemblance
— obtains between
Noah's salvation
and ours. One corresponds to or resembles the other. Some preachers, zealous to
defend a church
tenet, have tried to find in this word the idea that
baptism
only saves us in some figurative sense. They are wrong
about the significance of the word; theirs is a zeal
which is
"not according to knowledge” -- LAM WRONG! Absolutely NOT! Noah was saved by grace before the
flood ever occurred (Gen. 6:8). This
word, then, simply expresses the
thought that a
likeness or
similarity
or resemblance or similitude or pattern or correspondence
between Noah’s ark of safety and Christ and water baptism and Christ’s death, burial, and
resurrection. – Herb Evans Albert Barnes analyzes this resemblance
between Noah's
salvation and
the salvation
of the sinner from sin, and makes three points: 24
1 There is salvation in both cases. Noah was saved
from death; the sinner is saved
from sin and condemnation. 2. Water is used in both cases 3 The water is in each case a means or instrument of
the salvation. Peter does not say that water saves the sinner today
in the same way as it saved Noah,
but only that water is the means of salvation
in both cases. The resemblance extends no further
than that. -- LAM I have no problem with Barnes here, bu no problem with
Barnes here, buamplification and Campbellite twist
of what Barnes says. Water is not the means of salvation
in either case as we have shown. That is a figment
of Campbellite imagination. – Herb Evans "Which Also . . . Doth Now Save You" Water, says Peter, "also doth now save you."
-- LAM Peter said nothing of the sort. Peter said the LIKE FIGURE
doth now save you. Campbellites argue in a circle.
Evans He then explains
the water which now saves the sinner by adding the word baptism at the end of the clause. It is the water of baptism which now saves the sinner. -- LAM Believe that and it will end you up in hell. There is
no power in the tub and your “be dipped or be damned”
doctrine. It is Christ that saves to as many receive
HIM. – Herb Evans One may do as one lady is said to have done and remove this statement with the scissors.25 One may take the
stand of the late nineteenth century preacher who began, a debate of thus issue by saying. “My opponent will
tell you
that
'baptism now saves us I do not believe a word of it."26
Nevertheless the word of God remains Baptism saves! The unbelief of some — yea, even of
all will not disturb the truth of God's word in the least. Unbelief only
makes liars of the unbelievers ( Cutting
out parts of God's word is not the only problem that
folks have. Campbellites twist the threads of the
fabric of God's word to make it of none effect. In
unbelief, Campbellites hate the doctrine of grace
and mercy for salvation apart from works. - Herb Evans Peter does not, of course, intend that baptism be thought of as the saviour
or the originating cause of salvation. – LAM Well,
thank you for that, so why do the disciples of Alexander
Campbell make the water the Saviour? – Herb Evans Some men would do better to cease wasting their time ridiculing that idea,
as if anybody believed it,
and spend their time seeking out what Peter did mean.
-- LAM Well, I have sought out the meaning and still must ridicule
the notion that there is power in the tub. – Herb
Evans The context leads to the answer. In the
first place Peter has said
that Noah was saved through or by means of water;
i.e., that water was the means or instrument
of his salvation. -- LAM Peter
says no such thing any more than the fire at the JSOC
is a means to our salvation by virtue of the word
“BY.” Peter told us that there was no name by which
we could be saved other than Christ. – Herb Evans In the second place he has said that
sinners are saved by the water of baptism today. --
LAM No
he didn’t. That is a twist of Peter’s words by a Campbellite
that is caught up in this be dipped or be damned doctrine.
– Herb Evans In the third place he has indicated that a true likeness, a resemblance,
or a similarity exists between the deliverance of
Noah and the salvation of the sinner today. -- LAM So
far, so good, but you have failed to recognize what
delivers a sinner and gives him salvation -- the ark
of safety, Jesus Christ, and His death, burial, and
resurrection for our sins. Water does nothing but
get you wet. – Herb Evans This resemblance between Noah's deliverance
and the salvation of the sinner from sin helps to define the sense in which baptism saves.
-- LAM Yes
it does. It points to Christ in both instances, the
Author and Finisher of our faith. – Herb Evans Of course baptism is not the saviour.
-- LAM Well,
that is good of you to say so. In my vocabulary, whatever
SAVES is the SAVIOUR. And Campbellites say that the
water saves, which contradicts this statement. – Herb
Evans. No one has said it is. Baptism saves as being a means or instrument of salvation
— just as Noah
was saved through or by means of water. -- LAM No! Baptism is NOT a means or even an instrument of salvation.
It is a picture of salvation by someone who has experienced
it. Noah was saved by means of the The
Place of Baptism
So far this passage corresponds to the main theme of
Part One of this book. What follows is more in
line with the purpose of Part Two.
Peter has given baptism a place in the
plan of salvation. Now he goes beyond that and defines
that place more particularly. -- LAM So far, all we have seen is Campbellite pontification. The
place for baptism is AFTER salvation not BEFORE. –
Evans He has stated that baptism saves us. -- LAM No, he did not! That is your editorializing of what Peter
said. – Herb
Evans Now he explains the exact sense in which baptism is
a means of salvation. – LAM
(Pages 54, 55) Baptism is a picture of salvation – not a means. – Herb
Evans Peter’s
explanation of how baptism saves, as the
KJVputs
it, is,
'not the putting away
of the
filth of the flesh.
but the
answer of a good conscience toward
God " The ASV has,
"not the putting
away of the
filth of the flesh, but
the interrogation
of a good conscience toward God," with
"inquiry" and "appeal"
given in the
margin as alternates
for "interrogation." The Greek noun which is
rendered "answer" in the
KJV and
"interrogation" in the ASV is eperotema.
"Answer" is a secondary meaning of this word,
if indeed it is a meaning at all.
-- LAM I find this comment very surprising. Shall
we understand primary definition as always the best
definitions? I don’t believe that it is a good idea to interrogate
God. The implication is
that the baptismal candidate is possessing
or seeking or looking to have a good conscience through water baptism toward
God, but must we ignore the fact that it is not the
sins of the flesh that are in view here. – Herb Evans Of the translations consulted
by this writer, the
KJV is the only one which renders it "answer.”
None of the lexicons to which the writer has
had access give
"answer" as a meaning. Most of the versions
render as does the ASV, "interrogation," "appeal,"
etc. This is also
the meaning given
by the lexicons. For example, AG defines the
word, "request, appeal," and translates the whole clause, "an appeal to
God for a clear conscience" (AG,
285). – LAM We understand the
reasoning refers
to similar Greek words that involve appeal or inquiry
or request or question, but they all are different
words than what we find in 1 Peter 3:21 , namely,
ἐπερώτημα,
which is used but once
in the New Testament. George Ricker Meaning of "the Interrogation of a Good Conscience toward God Other translations give "an appeal to God for
a clear conscience" (HSV),
"an appeal to God for a good conscience"
(NASB), "the craving for a clear conscience toward God"
(Williams),
"the craving for a conscience right
with God"
(Goodspeed).This Greek noun does not occur elsewhere
in the New Testament. So, "running the
references" to arrive at the meaning is not possible
so far as the noun is concerned. However, this noun
has two verbs which are related to it. The simple verb erotao occurs
about 58 times in the New Testament with translations
in our versions such
as to beseech, to ask, to pray, etc. The compound
verb eperotao
occurs about 59 times and is usually rendered to ask. -- LAM Well, which is it an interrogation of God or
a desire or a craving or an appeal to God or a request
or an inquiry. The various translations do not seem
to know for sure, and neither does Mr. Mott. Whatever
the correct view, none of these solve Mr. Mott’s problem
of baptism saving anyone. It is just an exercise in
questionable semantics that muddies the water. – Herb
Evans Thus
even
though no parallel New Testament uses of the noun are available for study and
comparison, the uses of
its kindred
verbs lead to its
meaning Since the verbs
mean to beseech, to ask, to pray, etc , the noun must mean an appeal or u request. And from
the quotations above the
reader can see that
this is also the conclusion of the
authorities
on New Testament Greek. -- LAM Luke
3:14 and Luke 17:20 come closer with the verb ἐπερωτάω
as a kindred verb and yet “demand” God seems to harsh
to us. But That is what As
will appear before the whole study is over, the best
renderings
of the clause in question are those which agree most
closely with the RSV and the NASB. -- LAM Well, anyone that would
gravitate to the RSV perversion is not worthy of an
audience, and the ASV and NASB are not much better.
– Herb Evans Baptism
saves us - and the way in which it saves is in being "an
appeal to God
for a good conscience." --
LAM Now, we have seen double talk before but
this takes the cake. We have to appeal to God to save
us? Or get baptized to register our appeal? No thanks,
we believe we have good conscience by being baptized
AFTER we are saved by grace through faith and get
a cleansed conscience. If you do not mind, we shall
keep our KJB. – Evans As noted above, even the
Baptists Williams and Goodspeed are in substantial
agreement with this rendering. The Greek word for
"conscience" is in the genitive case. A
literal rendering would be "an appeal of a good
conscience." But this genitive
is similar to
the one in the following sentence: "A man
made a request of a loan to the bank." The loan
is the request -- the thing requested. So here, the good conscience is the request — the thing requested. The
clause is properly translated, "an appeal,
or request, to God for a good conscience." The
scriptural concept of baptism thinks of the person
being baptized as on his knees, beseeching
God, begging God, praying to God for a good conscience.
That is why the Baptist Alvah Hovey, in his
discussion of this passage, speaks of baptism
as "an embodied request or prayer unto God "27
-- LAM Well, why do we feel like we are playing Bible version
Scrabble and Commentator Hockey. Mr. Mott still has
not established that the word is a request and proceeds
to argue in a circle that makes no sense. Hey, we’ll
stick with the KJB, thank you! Which is it? Get saved
by baptism or request a good conscience? – Herb Evans "A
Good Conscience"
The book of Hebrews reflects
light on the expression "a good conscience."
It speaks of "an evil conscience" (10.22).
The evil conscience exists when the guilt of sin is present — the "conscience of sins" (10.2).
But a person can have his conscience cleansed (9.14). The
good conscience, then,
exists when its owner has no conscience of sin (10.2),
either because he is not guilty of sin, or because the conscience
has been cleansed of sin. The latter is the case under consideration in both Hebrews and I Pet. – LAM (End LAM Pages 56, 57) I had this when I
got saved before my water baptism. Water baptism was
a bit late in clearing my conscience of sin. Now,
in regard to not obeying my lord in Believers” baptism
is a different story. The need to be baptized is ever
present with a saved believer. I had to twist the
pastor’s arm to baptize me as soon as possible. When
I did my conscience was satisfied in that respect.
– Herb Evans The
Blood of Christ and the
Good
Conscience
The
book of Hebrews teaches that the conscience is cleansed of sin by the blood of Christ In one of its
most conspicuous passages on the subject
a remarkable parallel
with 1 Pet. 3:21 is found These two passages,
being taken together,
define completely
the
relation between baptism and
the blood
of Christ The passage in Hebrews is at Heb 9:13, 14: For
if the blood of goats and bulls,
and the
ashes of a heifer
sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify
unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall (he blood of
Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead
works to serve the
living God? -- LAM Your proof text passage tells us that baptism
could not put away the filth of the flesh. But the
blood of animals were able to sanctify to the cleanness
of the flesh. Ah . . . but perhaps there is the answer
in a conscience cleansed of “dead works.” – Herb Evans The
reference to "the ashes of a heifer" sends one to Num. 19 for the
background of verse 13. That chapter deals with the cleansing of a person
who had become unclean by coming in contact with a dead body. Anyone who came
in contact
with a dead body was to be regarded as unclean. But
let the reader understand it. Touching a dead body was not a sinful act.
When Joseph of Arimathaea buried Jesus he became unclean
according to the law, but that did
not make him a
sinner. Only a bodily uncleanness — an uncleanness
"of the flesh" was involved. – LAM Irrelevant to our issue. – Herb Evans A red heifer was to be
killed, burned, and its ashes mixed with water. This "water for impurity"
was to be applied to a person who became unclean due
to contact with a dead body. He would then be clean
again. The uncleanness was an uncleanness of the flesh; the cleansing was
a cleansing of the flesh.
– LAM So, we are talking about the cleansing of
a conscience. – Herb Evans The author of Hebrews asks,
“how much more shall
the blood of Christ . . . cleanse your conscience
from dead works to serve the living
God?" – LAM Ah . . . yes . . .
the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience not the
baptismal water. Good point! – Herb Evans The
uncleanness of the sinner does not come from touching a dead body; he has touched dead works i.e., sin. And his defilement
is not just "in
the flesh", he is guilty
of sin and it is his
conscience which is defiled. The blood of animals and the ashes of a heifer
sanctified unto the cleanness of the flesh. The blood
of Christ cleanses the conscience from sin.
– LAM Again, I commend you
for saying that it the blood of Christ that does this
and not the water. You are doing a better job than
I in proving your self in error. Thank you Jesus!
Hallelujah! Praise de Lawd! Does I have a witness?
– Herb Evans Baptism and the Blood
of Christ Now
return to 1 Pet. 3.21. Some hold that
baptism is merely a "ceremonial" matter; that the salvation effected
by means
of baptism is merely an outward, bodily,
cleansing comparable to certain Old Testament
rituals which just dealt with the flesh.
That is exactly
what Peter says is not so! – LAM Well, you have caught up with yourself and
admitted that it was not a putting away of the filth
of the flesh, and you are correct about what Peter
says but you do not go far enough. It is also not
a cleansing of one’s filthy sins. But yes, it is merely
a ceremonial matter, symbolic in essence and not sacerdotal
in the least. – Herb Evans Baptism saves us, says
Peter, and then he explains
the nature of this salvation,
or how baptism
saves us. – LAM No, Peter does not make that unqualified pontification; that
is a condensed Campbellite twist and editorial of
what Peter said. – Herb Evans It is not the putting away
of the filth
of the flesh - or sanctification "unto the cleanness
of the flesh." It is the appeal to God for a
good conscience. – LAM You keep going in circles and arguing in circles. Someone must
have nailed one of your shoes to the floor. – Herb
Evans Baptism deals with the very same thing that the blood of Christ deals
with
– i.e.,
the conscience and the guilt
of sin.
– LAM Oh, no! They do not deal with the same
thing in the same way. Just because you say it, does
not make it true. The blood of Christ does one thing,
and water baptism does another. Blood and water are
not the same. If you want water for your salvation,
you will have to go to Jesus pierced side for the
double cure. – Herb Evans Heb. 9.14 teaches that
the conscience is cleansed from
sin by the blood of Christ. -- LAM Yes, that is true!
– Herb Evans But
1 Pet 3.21 teaches that baptism saves as being an appeal to God for a good conscience— i.e., a conscience cleansed from sin by
means of the
blood of Christ. -- LAM NO! That is not true.
Water baptism does not save anyone. – Herb Evans Baptism is the way God has appointed for
the believer to make his appeal to
God for the cleansing of his conscience by
the blood of Christ. – LAM Well, making a definition and forcing your
doctrine into it does not attract real born again
believers, who had their guilt of
sin erased by the blood of Christ when they
were saved by believing. Nothing said about cleansing
your conscience in the passage that you have been
belaboring. – Herb Evans The scriptural conception of baptism is that a person is in that
act making an appeal to God — requesting of
God, beseeching God, begging God, praying to God --
for the cleansing of his conscience from the guilt
of sin by means of the blood of Christ. How dare any
man deal lightly with this act of faith, submission,
and prayer by scoffingly rejecting it as "water
salvation"! How dare one! – LAM Your imagination has run away with you.
You have not established any of this. I reject water
baptism as having any saving virtues. I accept water
baptism as an answer of a good conscience towards
good in obeying the command to do so. This is why
we call Campbellites Southern Catholics due to their
baptismal regeneration. – Herb Evans For
anyone who understands the place assigned to baptism in the plan
of salvation a conflict between baptism as a condition of pardon and
the cleansing by the blood of Christ is inconceivable. –
LAM I see no conflict,
for I understand baptism’s place in God’s plan. It
is water dogs that do not understand. – Herb Evans Baptism
is the way God has appointed by which a person is to seek the cleansing
by the blood. – LAM Not hardly. A person
can go directly to the blood of the cross by repentance
and faith without ever seeing water. The thief on
the cross did. – Herb Evans That
is the place of baptism in the scheme of redemption. The person who
submits to baptism according to the scriptures is the person who is
relying upon the blood of
Christ for pardon. – LAM The person who relies
on water for salvation goes directly to Hell. Do not
pass GO; do not collect $ 200.00. – Herb Evans (23)By 'inferior
reading’ is
meant a reading which has weak or inferior
support in the Greek manuscripts from which the original
Greek text is reconstructed.
– LAM (24) Barnes on the New Testament (James-Jude), 182 (25) Porter-Tingley Debate, 100 (26) B Moody in The Nashville
Debate, 16. (27)
Hovey, Op. Cit., 421 |
|
|
|