This file is available in Adobe Acrobat format.
|
BAPTISM AND THE TIMING OF SALVATION Michael Kennedy
A term paper submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the
February 2003 This paper is a response to a booklet
written by Ron Edson entitled Repentant Faith and Baptism. This booklet
can be viewed or downloaded from the following web site: http://www.geocities.com/sotsip/index.html. For many years Ron Edson believed that
Salvation came to the individual believer at the point of baptism. Edson held
this view as late as February 23, 1997, when he preached a sermon entitled
“Baptism Now Saves Us.” Edson said,
However, because of his recent studies, Edson
now believes that salvation comes at the point of faith and repentance. Edson
now teaches that baptism is a work of obedience that every Christian should do
after he has already been saved. Edson’s booklet is a defense of his new view
concerning the timing of salvation. Edson writes, “One of the many issues that
divide us is the timing of salvation, i.e., do we receive God’s gift of
forgiveness at the time of our commitment of repentant faith in Jesus or not
until that commitment is followed up by baptism?”[2]
It is very important to notice that Edson recognizes the timing of
salvation as the main controversy his booklet is attempting to address.
However, throughout his booklet, Edson fails to recognize the difference
between the timing of salvation and the means of salvation. The Importance of Proper Hermeneutics Edson believes that the Bible student who
wants to learn about the timing of salvation should first consult the Gospel of
John, Romans 1-4 and 10, and 1 John. He holds these texts as normative on the
subject of conversion.
It
is necessary to have a starting point in any inductive investigation. In this
case, a study of what the Bible says about the timing of salvation is no
different. And some texts will carry greater weight because of the purpose for
which they were written. However, it is inappropriate to form conclusions until
all the data has been examined. Edson gives conclusions about the timing of
salvation based only upon his interpretation of his “primary” passages. He also
seems to imply that the reader will not be able to accurately interpret all the
New Testament passages about baptism until he first accepts the previously
stated conclusions. However, many of the New Testament passages
about baptism provide crucial information about the timing of salvation. If a
person really wanted to know what the Bible says about the timing of salvation
in the process of becoming a Christian, what better place is there to begin
than at the beginning of Christianity? The beginning of Christianity is
recorded in the second chapter of Acts. There, the first Christian sermon was
preached and the first invitation was given. Throughout the book of Acts, the
Bible student finds examples of conversions. Many times these conversion
accounts record instructions given to people who were asking what they must do
in order to be saved. Many of the New Testament Epistles discuss
the purpose of baptism and how it relates to salvation. Even though the purpose
of those passages may not be to convert unbelieving readers, the information
given about baptism and salvation is still true. When commenting on Colossians
2:11-12, Edson writes, Development of the purpose
of baptism was not Paul’s aim in this passage.
While this in no way means that information about baptism in this
passage should be ignored, it certainly means that our interpretations of it
concerning the role of baptism or how to become a Christian should be
subservient to teachings in passages that are expressly dealing with the
subject of justification, salvation, and eternal life. This is the same as the main point of
chapter 3. Secondly, if we keep in mind that the purpose of baptism is to serve as an authentication of our repentant faith through which Christ saves us, the passage aligns perfectly with all other Scripture.[4] Here he urges the reader to accept his view
of baptism before he attempts to explain a key passage about baptism and the
timing of salvation. The Bible student must gather and examine all of the
biblical data before he comes to any conclusions about baptism or the timing of
salvation. There is another hermeneutical problem with
Edson’s starting point. Edson makes an assumption about the purpose of the
Gospel of John, Romans 1-4 and 10 and 1 John that is based on incomplete data.
His implied conclusion is that the timing of salvation was the purpose (or at
least closely related to the purpose) for which these texts were written. By
making this assumption, Edson is neglecting the hermeneutical Law of Frame of
Reference. The Law of Frame of Reference refers to the necessity of asking
questions about the context of any given passage before determining its meaning
or purpose. This
is sometimes called the Law of Opposition (Negation) and might well be denoted
as the Law of Context. It has to do with the frame of reference of a speaker or
writer so that his statements are given the proper construction within the
boundary of his meaning.[5] The Gospel of John, Romans and 1 John were all
written to Christian communities who were already saved. John and Paul were
writing to specific Christian communities with specific problems. The early
Church never had disputes about the timing of salvation. However, there were
many other doctrinal disputes in the early Church. Some of these disputes
centered around heresies that were attacking the faith of Christians and
actually causing some Christians to lose their faith in Christ. If a Bible
student is trying to determine the purpose for which an author wrote a book or
a passage he needs to consider what that author was writing in opposition to. The
Gospel of John Edson believes that the Gospel of John was
written to serve as an evangelistic tract with the sole purpose of converting
people to Christianity. He then concludes that faith is the time of salvation
since faith is the only prerequisite mentioned in John 20:31 for receiving
eternal life. According
to these verses he wrote “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” In other words, he wrote it as a gospel
tract to lead people to Jesus and enable them to have life, to be saved.[6] Edson fails to consider the necessary
ongoing nature of faith in the life of every Christian. In order to “have life”
a Christian must maintain his belief that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God.” Edson is assuming that John 20:31 is telling the reader (a potential
convert) how to receive eternal life. However, this verse does not necessarily
tell the reader how or when to receive eternal life. The statement in this
verse says nothing about the timing of belief or salvation. It is written in
such a way that it could very well be referring to Christians who are being
deceived by false doctrines about the identity of Jesus. Edson dismisses this
possibility. Others
say that John was written to Christians to counteract the attack against faith
in Christ coming from Gnosticism and so should only be used to deal with
remaining a Christian, not to determine how to become a Christian. Regardless of to whom it was written and the
situation that prompted its writing it is still true that John 20:31 says
“these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” If you want to know God’s will about
receiving eternal life, the Gospel of John will tell you.[7] However, it is improper hermeneutics to
just ignore the situation of the Church at that time and the intended audience to
which the Gospel was written and just assume from John 20:31 that this book was
an evangelistic tract used to teach people how to become Christians. There is
nothing in this verse that tells the reader how or when to “receive” eternal
life. The condition for having life is simply belief in two facts about
Jesus. First, Jesus is the Christ. Second, Jesus is the Son of God. If Edson is
right about the purpose of this Gospel, then shouldn’t the unbelieving reader
simply read John 20:31 and decide to believe those two facts and instantly
receive salvation at that very moment? There is nothing in this verse to
indicate that John was talking about the point in time when a person first
believes those two facts. This verse can be read as an exhortation for Christians
to continue to believe these two facts about Jesus regardless of what others
were teaching about Him. This interpretation is far more reasonable given the
historical and cultural situation and the way the Gospel of John was used by
the early Church. Altogether like others, he relates for the
sake of strengthening the faith of the Church, first in the Messiahship, then
in the divinity of Jesus . . . We maintain the truth, with certain limits, of
the polemic aim attributed to our Gospel by several Fathers, and by a
considerable number of modern scholars. The first epistle of John
incontrovertibly proves that the author of our Gospel lived in a region in
which many false doctrines had already arisen in the bosom of the Church.[8] After appealing to several salvation
passages in the Gospel of John, Edson concludes that the main message of the
book is that people receive salvation when they believe. “To summarize, the
main message of John is that all believers receive the gift of salvation when
they believe.”[9] However,
none of the passages quoted by Edson identify “when” a person is saved. The
First Epistle of John Edson
makes a similar assumption about the first epistle of John. He believes that
John wrote this letter to give Christians assurance of salvation and therefore
the Bible student should be able to examine this letter and discover everything
that is necessary for salvation as well as the precise timing of salvation. There are some who object
that the reason I John does not include baptism as a requirement to be met
before salvation is received or assured is because it was written to Christians
who already understood the requirement to be baptized and indeed had been
baptized. Based upon this line of
reasoning it is concluded that one cannot go to I John to learn how to become a
Christian. This sounds good on the
surface but when carried to its logical end it becomes ridiculous. It would also be true that John would not
have written about the need for faith because the recipients of this letter, as
disciples of Jesus, understood that faith was a requirement and indeed had met
that requirement. And of course, they
could not have become Christians without hearing about and following through
with repentance so John would not have written about that quality either. Come to think of it, you can say the same
about confession and loving your brothers in Christ. It sounds like, according to this line of reasoning, that John might
as well have not written at all. Too
bad he didn’t know that; he could have saved himself a lot of effort.[10] Edson fails to recognize the difference
between actions that must take place at a single point in time and actions that
are, by their very nature, continuous. Belief, repentance, confession, loving
God and loving others are all linear actions that must continue throughout the
Christian’s life. Baptism is a point in time that only takes place once in a
Christian’s life. A study of the Apostle John and the people he was ministering
to in last part of the first century would give Edson a more accurate picture
of John’s purpose in writing this letter. The false doctrines that John was
arguing against were having a negative effect on the beliefs and behaviors of
the Christians. These false doctrines did not attack the meaning of baptism or
the timing of salvation. John was addressing a pre-Gnostic heresy dealing with
dualism and the nature of Christ. The
purpose and themes are probably the most important of the four areas as an aid
to interpretation. We should not study any passage without a basic knowledge of
the problems and situation addressed in the book and the themes with which the
writer addressed those problems. Without realizing that John was fighting an
incipient Gnosticism in his first epistle, one could easily misread the
polemical tone of 1:8-10.[11] The
Book of Romans Edson also makes false assumptions about
the purpose Paul had for writing the book of Romans. Edson writes, “The main
theme of Romans 4 is that we are reckoned as righteous when we believe, as was
Abraham.”[12] Notice that Edson specifically writes, “when
we believe” not “because we believe,” indicating that he believes the
purpose of Romans 4 is about the timing of salvation rather than the means
of salvation. When the Bible student examines the main controversies in the
early Church he will see that the timing of salvation was never held in
question. However, Paul was constantly arguing with the Judaizers about the means
of salvation. All of the Christians believed that a person was saved when they
were baptized into Christ but some of the Jewish Christians were teaching that
the means of salvation was by circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses.
Many Jewish Christians did not believe that Gentiles could become Christians
unless they also became Jews. This was a big part of the controversy in Acts
15. Because this was a common misunderstanding in the early Church, many of
Paul’s epistles, including Romans, emphasize grace through faith in Christ as
the means of salvation as opposed to works of law as a means of salvation. It
is important to notice that Paul did not write about this issue because the
timing of salvation was in question. Paul wrote about this issue because the
means of salvation was in question. The Difference
Between The Time and The Means Edson claims that the Gospel of John, Romans
1-4 and 10 and the first epistle of John stand in stark contrast to the verses
that are used to teach that baptism is the point in time when a person is
saved. “These scriptures stand in stark contrast to those used to defend the
position that one is not saved until he is baptized.”[13]
However, the New Testament does teach that salvation comes at the point of
Christian baptism and the entire New Testament is in perfect harmony with
itself concerning the issue of salvation. The problem occurs only when the
Bible student makes no distinction between the means of salvation and
the time of salvation. Throughout his booklet, Edson is constantly
appealing to passages that focus on the means of salvation and he is assuming
that they are teaching the timing of salvation. Romans
4 Edson writes, “Again, Romans 4:1-5 and
23-25 teaches that Abraham was reckoned as righteous when he believed God’s
promise without performing any work or obedience of any kind and that we are justified
in the same manner.”[14]
Edson specifically writes “when he believed” not “because he
believed.” This passage was written to emphasize grace through faith as the
means of salvation as opposed to what the Judaizers were teaching as a means of
salvation. Abraham had faith in God’s promises and that was the means of his
justification. The point of this passage is to show how Christians are
justified not when they are justified. Christians are justified in the
same “manner” as Abraham but not in the same timing as Abraham.
This passage says absolutely nothing about the timing of salvation for the
Christian. Many scholars, those who follow Huldreich
Zwingli and his teachings of Covenant Theology, insist that Romans 4:10-11
indicates that the time of salvation is prior to the time of Christian baptism.
Edson does not mention these verses, however, since they do refer to the timing
of Abraham’s justification they should be taken into consideration. Romans 4:10
includes the present participle “onti”
which the New American Standard translates “while he was.” This is a temporal
participle. The
participle itself, just like the subjunctive, optative, imperative, and
infinitive, is timeless. Its time is relative to that of the main verb.
Generally speaking, however, the present participle will be translated by using
“while” or “as,” the aorist participle by “when,” “since,” or “after.” pwV oun elogisqh; en peritomh onti h
en akrobustia; (Rom. 4:10) How
therefore was it reckoned? While he was in the state of being
circumcised or a state of not being circumcised?[15] The Bible student should notice three
things about this passage. First, the participle is present not aorist. If Paul
wanted to contrast the point in time when Abraham was justified to the point in
time when Abraham was circumcised he would have used an aorist participle.
Paul’s point was to show that Abraham’s justification came prior to the
continuous state of being in circumcision. He used this argument to show that
being a Jew was not a prerequisite for justification by faith. Second, the first question Paul asks in
verse 10, “How then was it reckoned?” shows that he is talking about the
means of justification not the timing of justification. If Paul wanted to talk
about the timing of justification he would have asked, “When then was it
reckoned?” The only reason Paul mentions the timing of Abraham’s justification
is to show that being a Jew or being circumcised is not a prerequisite to
justification by faith. This was in opposition to what the Judaizers taught. Third, Paul makes no connection between
physical circumcision and Christian baptism. Many scholars in Reformed Theology
insist that this passage supports the idea that Christian baptism has the same
purpose as physical circumcision of the Old Testament. This doctrine has
absolutely no Scriptural support. It
has neither a sound exegetical basis nor a solid theological rationale. It is
an inference drawn from a faulty concept of covenant unity, which itself was
created by Huldreich Zwingli in 1525 in the midst of his controversy with the
Anabaptists regarding infant baptism. The bottom line is that Romans 4:11 has
nothing whatsoever to say about the meaning of Christian baptism.[16] Romans
10 Edson also confuses the timing of salvation
with the means of salvation when he attempts to explain Romans 10. Those
who believe that a person is not saved until he is baptized will often point
out that these verses do not literally mean that salvation comes at the point
of faith because they include confession as an additional step to be taken
before one is saved. Therefore, they
reason, baptism cannot be ruled out as a prerequisite for salvation
either. Adding additional steps to
faith, such as confession or baptism, to be accomplished to receive eternal
life contradicts the main theme of the passage, i.e., that Paul’s desire for
the salvation of Israel thus far had been thwarted because they didn’t realize
they couldn’t establish their own righteousness, that the righteousness of God
is attained by everyone who believes.[17] Again, the Bible student should recognize
the Law of Frame of Reference. Edson is correct when he writes that this
passage was based upon Paul’s desire for the Jews to be saved. However, if that
is true, why would Paul focus on the timing of salvation rather than the means
of salvation? What was the real stumbling block for many of the Jews in Paul’s
day? Why did many Jews reject Christianity? Were the Jews opposed to baptism?
No, both the Bible and extra-biblical literature record the fact that many Jews
practiced baptism in the first century. Were the Jews opposed to repentance?
No, the Jews of the first century were constantly quoting the Old Testament
exhortations to repent. The reason the Jews rejected Christianity was because
they were opposed to the very things Paul mentioned in Romans 10:9. The
majority of the Jews rejected Christianity because they could not accept the
fact that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead. The precise
nature of the faith Paul describes in this passage should indicate that he is
addressing a specific stumbling block in the Jewish mind rather than providing
a comprehensive list of the requirements for salvation. We
cannot assume that any one NT passage includes the entire list of conditions
for salvation – not even this one. In fact, this verse contains something that
shows us that it was not intended to include all the conditions necessary for
salvation, namely the limited nature of the content of the faith specified
here. Paul says if you believe “that God raised him from the dead,” you will be
saved. But virtually all Christians agree that the content of faith must include
more than this; it must especially include “faith in his blood” (3:25). Thus
the abbreviated content of the faith described here shows this verse is not
intended to be a comprehensive, exclusive list of conditions.[18] Edson ignores this and assumes, from this
passage, that being justified by faith means being justified at the time
of faith. Such
simultaneity, however, is not inherent in the preposition “by” in the phrase
“justified by faith,” and this verse is evidence of it. The fact that another
separate act besides faith (i.e., confession) is also a condition for receiving
salvation shows that one does not receive it as soon as the faith is
present. This same logic also shows that justification by faith does not
exclude from the salvation package the act of baptism, which in other texts is
shown to be the precise time when the salvation is received (e.g., Col
2:12, “in baptism”).[19] Edson tries to get around this by saying
that the natural result of saving faith is a desire to call out to God. He implies
that faith and confession are so closely related that they must take place at
the same time. Faith
is the atmosphere of confession. This
conclusion is also supported by Romans 10:13, “Whoever will call upon the name
of the Lord will be saved.” Is calling
upon the name of the Lord to be viewed as yet another step that must be taken
to attain salvation? Of course
not! Can you imagine anyone becoming a
Christian without calling out to God?
Again, it is preposterous!
Saving faith moves one to cry out to God through Jesus Christ, our only
means of salvation.[20] Nevertheless, believing and confessing are
two different things that do not happen simultaneously. If Edson is truly
concerned about the timing of salvation, he cannot say this passage
supports the theory that salvation comes as soon as a person believes.
In fact, this passage may be teaching that the occasion of Christian baptism is
the point in time when a person receives salvation. One
thing about this verse suggests that baptism may not have been absent from
Paul’s thinking after all, even though it is not specifically mentioned. That
is the fact that the verbs “confess” and “believe” are aorist tense, which
suggests that Paul had in mind a specific past act that was associated with the
sinner’s initial and decisive confession of faith. In early Christian practice,
this act was baptism. Bruce says, “If we are to think of one outstanding
occasion for such a confession to be made, we should more probably think of
that first confession – ‘the answer of a good conscience’ (I Pet. Iii.21) –
made in Christian baptism” (205).[21] Beasley-Murray comes to the same conclusion
about this passage. Notice the clear distinction he makes between the time
of salvation and the means of salvation when he writes, In
the baptismal passage of Rom. 10:10 it is said: For with the heart faith is exercised for
righteousness (eiV dikaiosunhn), And with the mouth confession is made for
salvation (eiV
swthrian). Here
it is evident that faith is directed to the Lord for the purpose or with the
result of receiving righteousness, and confession is made in order to receive,
or with the effect of receiving, salvation: the point of time of the bestowal
of the gift is not mentioned, but it is not needful to do so; faith turning to
the Lord receives the grace sought, just as confession made in baptism receives
the salvation of God.[22] Faith is listed as the means of salvation
and confession at the time of baptism is listed as the time of salvation. Paul
does not mention baptism as the time of salvation because he was not trying to
establish the time of salvation. Acts
22:16 In Acts 22:16 Saul is the subject of four
actions. All four of these actions are in the aorist tense indicating a
specific point in time. “Arise” is an aorist participle. “Be baptized” and
“wash” are both aorist verbs in the imperative mood. And “calling” is an aorist
participle. Edson rejects the idea that this verse shows Christian baptism to
be the time of salvation. Instead, he believes that this verse indicates
that calling on the name of the Lord is the means of washing away sins. What
did Ananias say? He gave two commands;
“be baptized” and “wash away your sins” followed by one explanatory phrase,
“calling on His name.” Does he say that
since both baptism and washing commonly involve water that they are the same? No, he does not. Is it possible that Ananias meant that the washing was done by or
during baptism? Most assuredly that is
a possibility when only this text is considered. Another reasonable option is that calling on the name of the Lord
is the means of washing away sins. This
is consistent with Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 both of which promise that
“everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”[23] Edson believes that “calling on the name of
the Lord” is the means of washing away sins but he refuses to add
“calling on the name of the Lord” to his list of requirements for salvation.
Edson believes salvation comes at the point of faith and repentance and that
faith and repentance are the only requirements for salvation. If that is true
then he should not say that calling on the name of the Lord is the means
of washing away sins. And if salvation comes at the point in time when a person
believes and repents why did Ananias command Saul to be baptized and wash away
his sins without saying anything about faith or repentance? Is it likely that Saul
would just automatically know that the command to wash away his sins was really
a command to believe and repent and it had nothing to do with the command to be
baptized? In addition to the fact that both “be
baptized” and “wash” are aorist imperatives, the order of these two commands
indicate that baptism is a prerequisite to the forgiveness of sins. But does the use of two imperatives in itself
mean that baptism is a condition for the washing away of sins? Not necessarily.
Both could be imperative, with baptism still being just a symbolic picture of
the prior inner cleansing. But in this case, the imperatives would have to be
reversed: “wash away your sins and be baptized.” In fact, only if they
were in this order could we say that baptism just pictures the prior cleansing.[24] Edson objects to the argument based upon the
word order in this verse. The baptism accompanies the repentant faith
that cries out to (calls on) the name of the Lord for relief from the guilt of
sin. The only meaningful objection to
this interpretation is that baptism is listed before both “wash away your sins”
and “calling upon the name of the Lord.”
This is supposed to prove that baptism comes before forgiveness. My main question would be; “are those who
use this argument willing to stick with it consistently?” For instance, Romans 10:9 says “if you
confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God
raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.”
With the above rule of interpretation we would have to conclude that
confession must precede belief. Do you
believe this is getting silly? If you
do, you get the point.[25] There are two major problems with Edson’s
argument. First, Edson is comparing apples and oranges when he suggests that
these two passages have similar grammatical constructions. Romans 10:9 is a
conditional clause with the conjunction ean.
The two conditions listed are aorist, subjunctive verbs (omologhshV and pisteushV) and the promised effect is a future indicative verb (swqhsh). Acts 22:16 is not a conditional clause. It
is a command in the imperative mood and both verbs and both participles are in
the aorist tense. Second, Edson misunderstands the common
objection based on the sequence of commands in Acts 22:16. The objection is
based on a cause and effect sequence. Salvation or “wash away your sins” is the
effect or the end result. The things necessary for salvation must take place
before that end result. In Romans 10:9-10 both “believe” and “confess” are
conditions that are listed before the end result of “salvation.” In Acts 22:16
“wash away your sins” is equivalent to “salvation” in Romans 10:10. It is the
effect or the end result. Saul is told to do two things before the end result
will take place: he must “arise” and he must “be baptized.” “Arise” and “be
baptized” both come before “wash away your sins.” This passage clearly teaches
that Christian baptism is the time when a person’s sins are washed away. Colossians
2:11-13 Probably more than any other passage,
Colossians 2:11-13 identifies Christian baptism as the point in time
when a person is saved. Verse 11 indicates that it is at a specific point in
time that Christ changes a person’s heart by a spiritual circumcision made
without hands. Verse 12 identifies that specific time as being “in baptism.”
Verse 12 also identifies baptism as the point in time when a person is buried
with Christ and raised up with Christ. Verse 12 calls baptism “the working of
God” indicating that God is doing His redemptive work when a person is being
baptized. Verse 13 identifies this event as the time when transgressions are
forgiven. When Colossians 2:12 says this takes place
“in baptism,” it is affirming what the whole New Testament assumes and teaches,
namely, that baptism is an act of salvation. It does not say this happens
“before baptism” or “after baptism,” but specifically and clearly in baptism.
This shows that we must at least say that baptism is the time or occasion
during which God bestows salvation upon the sinner.[26] However, since Edson confuses the time
of salvation with the means of salvation he rejects the obvious meaning
of this passage. He writes, “Verse 11 says our circumcision is one made without
hands by Christ. This of course demands
that we are speaking of Christ’s redemptive work in and for us, not of baptism
that is done by men’s hands.”[27]
The means by which a person experiences this inner change is certainly
the redemptive work of Christ. However, the time when this takes place
is at baptism when a person receives the gift of the Holy Spirit for
regeneration and sanctification. Edson identifies the change described in this
passage as taking place when a person exercises faith and repentance. However,
it is important to recognize that repentance and regeneration are two different
things. Repentance is a change that a person makes in his own life.
Regeneration is a change that only God can make in a person. The change
described in this passage is clearly the work of God. Edson continues, Regardless of one’s view of the purpose of
baptism, the middle phrase of verse 12 (“in which you were also raised up with
Him”) must be interpreted figuratively.
Just as one is not literally buried with Christ, so one does not
literally come up out of the waters of baptism with Christ. (If “raised up with Him” means a person is
with Christ as a new Christian, then “buried with Him” would also have to mean
he is with Christ as a Christian. This
runs counter to the view that a person doesn’t become a Christian until he has
been buried in the waters of baptism.
If the “with Him” phrases indicate any thing concerning when a person is
saved, they would tend to support the view that a person is saved when he has
repentant faith.) In either case,
“raised up with Him” is figurative of starting to live a repentant, Christ-like
life. It is obvious that this new life
starts when one makes a decision of repentant faith.[28] The “with Him” in this passage is not the
phrase that indicates the timing of the event. The phrase, “with Him” indicates
the identification or connection that takes place between the convert and
Christ “in baptism.” Baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. “In baptism” the convert identifies with each of
these aspects of the gospel. Paul specifically states that this burial takes
place “in baptism.” He does not say “in faith and repentance.” Then Paul
specifically states that “in which” (in baptism) the convert is raised up with
Christ. He does not say that “in faith and repentance” he is raised up with
Christ. This text identifies beyond dispute that baptism is the point in time
when a person receives forgiveness and spiritual regeneration. It is obvious
that this new life starts “in baptism.” Edson makes another mistake that is closely related to the issue of time and means. On several occasions Edson overlooks the difference between linear action and punctiliar action. A person is saved by faith. But faith is continuous throughout a Christian’s life as is repentance. A person is saved at a specific point in time, “in baptism.” Baptism is a point in time. It only happens once and then its over. Edson believes that baptism is a testimony of repentance as if repentance only happens once and baptism proves that it happened. He quotes Galatians 3:27 and connects it to Romans 13:14 to support this view. We have already noted that the purpose of
baptism is to denote or testify of repentance.
In Romans 13:14 Paul said “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no
provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.” The Greek word for “put on” is the same one as for “clothed” in
Galatians 3:27. Romans 13:14 could very
well be translated “clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ.” What did Paul mean in Romans 13:14? His use of the phrase “make no provision for
the flesh” indicates he was speaking of repentance. In verse 12 he said “lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on
the armor of light” and in verse 13 he said “let us behave properly as in the
day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality,
not in strife and jealousy.” He then
continued by saying “but put on (clothe yourselves with) the Lord Jesus
Christ.” There can be no doubt that in
Romans 13:14 clothing with Christ is repentance. Although this doesn’t prove that “clothed yourself with Christ”
in Galatians 3:27 means “repentance” it at least shows that this is a very
reasonable and scriptural interpretation.[29]
However, the context of Romans 13 clearly
indicates that Paul is talking about the repentance that takes place throughout
the Christian’s life. Galatians 3:27 mentions the starting point (baptism) when
each Christian first puts on Christ. One begins the process of “putting on Christ”
at baptism (Gal 3:27), but the process is only completed upon Christ’s return.
And here the “putting on” of Christ is synonymous with the final conformity to
his image or form. The processes begin at baptism when the believers not only
die with Christ and believe that they will also live with him (Rom 6:8), but
they also from that moment participate in the power of life manifested in his
resurrection.[30] Baptism is the
point in time when a person is saved. Repentance is a decision that continues
to take place in the Christian’s life as he grows in sanctification. An ongoing
attitude of repentance is necessary in order to maintain faith.
The Difference Between Faith and Repentance Edson wants to use the passages that only
mention faith as a requirement for salvation to prove that baptism is not a
requirement for salvation. But he does not want to drop repentance from his
list of requirements so he is forced to merge faith and repentance into one
idea. Edson is not the first person to struggle
with the harmonization of the passages that promise salvation by faith with the
passages that emphasize a need for repentance. Currently, there is an
Evangelical debate going on over this very subject. Some scholars, like Zane
Hodges, teach that faith is the only requirement for salvation. Others, like
John MacArthur, teach that faith must be accompanied by sincere repentance.
Millard Erickson makes some interesting observations about the hermeneutical
methods used to solve this problem. The difficulty appears to stem in part from
the fact that the Bible gives different formulas for conversion, different
responses to the query, “What must I do to be saved?” Some passages, emphasized
by Hodges, specify that faith is necessary for salvation, but make no mention
of repentance. Other passages specify repentance, but make no mention of faith.
The question is, How are we to interpret and integrate these passages, which
ultimately is systematic theology’s task? There are various possibilities: a. We might regard one of the two sets of
passages as primary from a hermeneutical standpoint and interpret the other set
in that light. This appears to be the technique which Hodges has followed,
elevating the passages where faith is mentioned to a position of normativeness. b. We might conclude that there are
multiple (or at least dual) ways of salvation. One may be saved by faith or by
repentance. The method varies with the individual, so that some need to believe
and others to repent. Whatever a given individual lacks is what he or she must
exercise. c. We might conclude that both faith and
repentance are necessary to salvation. In those biblical passages where only
one is mentioned explicitly, the other is implicit. Repentance and faith would
then be complementary aspects of a whole conversion.[31] Edson uses the method described in point
“a” to exclude baptism from the plan of salvation but he refuses to use that
same method to exclude repentance from the plan of salvation. In fact Edson
uses a unique method that neither Erickson nor any other Bible scholar has used
to include repentance in the plan of salvation. He redefines both repentance
and faith to mean the exact same thing. When he writes about Romans 1-4 he
claims that the Abraham was justified at the point of “repentant faith.” Abraham
believed God’s promise and his belief was reckoned to him as righteousness. Had
Abraham been obedient? Was he obedient in the future? Definitely! The type of
faith referred to is a repentant faith. This has been the main subject of the
previous chapters of Romans. But the stated point of Romans 4:1-3 is that he
was justified (reckoned as righteous) at the point of faith, not after the
completion of some work or obedience.[32] Edson claims that Abraham was justified by
both faith and repentance. He combines these two distinct responses into one
single event that takes place at a specific point in Abraham’s life. However
faith and repentance are two different things with different definitions. Faith
is a decision people make about God. Repentance is a decision people make about
sin. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as “the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:6 mentions the object of the
faith that is pleasing to God. “And without faith it is impossible to please Him,
for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a
rewarder of those who seek Him.” A further examination of the definitions
offered by major lexicons and dictionaries will confirm the fact that faith and
repentance are two different things that rarely take place at the exact same
time. The Greek word for faith is pistiV (PISTIS). W.E. Vine gives the following
definition. “Pistis (pistiV, 4102),
primarily, ‘firm persuasion,’ a conviction based on hearing (akin to peitho,
‘to persuade’), is used in the NT always of ‘faith in God or Christ, or things
spiritual.’”[33] Joseph Henry Thayer writes, 1.
conviction of the truth of anything, belief, . . . in the N.T. of conviction or
belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with
the included idea of trust and holy fervor born of faith and conjoined with it
. . . a. when it relates to God, pistiV
is the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things,
the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ . . . b. in
reference to Christ, it denotes a strong and welcome conviction or belief that
Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom
of God.[34] Walter Bauer identifies the faith of
Abraham in Romans 4 as faith in God without mentioning the repentance of sins
as a necessary part of faith. “pistiV
can also be characterized as faith in God by the context, without the addition
of specific words; so in connection with OT personalities: Abraham Romans 4:5,
9, 11-13, 16, 19f.”[35] None of these definitions include
repentance as a necessary part of faith. The object of saving faith is always
God and His promises. The object of repentance is always sin. Edson even gives
a definition of pistiV in an
attempt to prove that baptism cannot be included as a part of faith. It
doesn’t take a very thorough research of the Greek word pistis, which
has been translated into English as “faith” or “belief,” to conclude that faith
means faith-not faith plus baptism.
This is especially obvious in Romans 4:2-5 where insertion of “baptism”
with faith lowers Bible hermeneutics to all-time new depths. While a main point of verses 2-4 is that
Abraham didn’t earn his justification, verse 5 becomes contradictory to
that example and to itself with the insertion of “baptized.” Such a step makes it read “to the one who
does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly and is
baptized, his faith and baptism is reckoned as righteousness.”[36] Of course the same argument could be made
for excluding the command to repent from the concept of faith in Romans 4.
However, Edson does not play the same word games with “repent” that he does
with “baptized” because that would “lower Bible hermeneutics to all-time new
depths.” The Greek word for repent is metanoew (METANOEO). Bauer points out that the
emphasis of metanoew is on the negative. “Since in metanoew the negative impulse of turning away is
dominant, it is also used with apo tinoV: repent and turn away from something.”[37]
Vine writes, 1.
metanoeo (metanoew, 3340), lit., “to perceive afterwards”
(meta, “after,” implying “change,” noeo, “to perceive”; nous, “the mind, the
seat of moral reflection”), in contrast to pronoeo, “to perceive beforehand,”
hence signifies “to change one’s mind or purpose,” always, in the NT, involving
a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Luke 17:3, 4, of
“repentance” of sin.[38] Vine
does not suggest what he thinks the object of repentance is in Luke 17:3-4, nor
does he explain why the object of repentance in that passage cannot be sin.
Concerning the noun he writes, Metanoia
(metanoia, 3341), “afterthought, change of mind,
repentance,” corresponds in meaning to A, No. 1, and is used of “repentance”
from sin or evil, except in Heb. 12:17, where the word repentance seems to
mean, not simply a change of Isaac’s mind, but such a change as would reverse
the effects of his own previous state of mind.[39] Thayer defines the verb metanoeo as, A
change of mind: as it appears in one who repents of a purpose he has formed or
of something he has done . . . the change of mind of those who have begun to
abhor their errors and misdeeds, and have determined to enter upon a better
course of life, so that it embraces both a recognition of sin and sorrow for it
and hearty amendment, the token and effects of which are good deeds.[40] None of the lexicons ever combine faith and
repentance as the same thing. And there is absolutely no evidence to suggest
that these two things must take place at the same moment in a person’s mind.
Usually a person has faith in God before he decides to repent of sins. However,
sometimes people repent of sins before they put they faith in Christ. Cornelius
displayed actions of repentance long before he put his faith in Christ. A
careful study of the life of Abraham shows that he displayed actions of
repentance in Genesis 12:4 long before the statement of faith in Genesis 15:6
(which Edson points to as the time of Abraham’s justification). Edson redefines the word repentance and
even applies it to Jesus at His baptism. All
this confusion goes away when we recognize that repentance is a decision to do
the Father’s will. Jesus made that decision of obedience (Hebrews 5:8, though
not talking about this event, would support the conclusion that Jesus decided
to be obedient.) and his baptism fulfilled all righteousness by testifying or
authenticating that decision or repentance. For those who are offended at the
thought of Jesus repenting because repentance means a decision to turn around
or away from evil, just remember that for children who grow up loving Jesus and
wanting to obey him their repentance is not one of turning but one of deciding
to continue to try to do what is right.[41] Edson seems to say that
Jesus repented or made a decision to follow the Father and that was equivalent
to putting faith in God. But how does Jesus use the word “repentance”? In Luke 15:7 Jesus said, “I tell you that in the same
way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than
over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” If a righteous
person “needs no repentance,” it is inappropriate to suggest that Jesus
repented and His baptism was to authenticate His repentance. The Difference Between Faith and Works One of the biggest misunderstandings about
Christian baptism is based on the assumption that baptism is a “work” in the
context of Paul’s discussion of “faith” and “works” in Romans 3-4, Galatians 3
and Ephesians 2:8-9. Since Paul teaches that people are saved by grace through
faith and not by works, and since baptism is an act of obedience and therefore
a work, then it stands to reason that baptism cannot be the time or the means
of salvation. This argument is dependant upon the assumption that the time of
salvation is the same as the means of salvation. But this argument is also
based on the assumption that baptism falls into the “work” category in those
passages rather than the “faith” category. Edson believes that there is no valid
reason to exclude baptism from the works class. “Since circumcision, like
baptism, is also passive but is still considered a work, there is no valid
reason to exclude baptism from the works class.”[42]
Edson is correct when he states that appealing to the passive nature of baptism
is not a valid reason to exclude baptism from the works class. However, just
because one suggested reason is not valid that does not mean that there is “no”
valid reason to exclude baptism from the works class. The key to understanding the relationship
between Christian baptism and Paul’s discussion of faith and works is found in
the contextual meaning of faith and works. In the context of these passages
Paul uses the words “faith” and “works” in opposition. However, the basic
lexical definitions of these two words are not opposites. And there are places
in the New Testament where these two terms are used in harmony rather than in
opposition. John 6:28-29 says, “Therefore they said to Him, ‘What shall we do,
so that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He
has sent.’” The Bible student must discover the contextual meaning of these
words by examining the frame of reference in these passages. Edson tries to come up
with a definition for “works” that will include baptism but exclude faith and
repentance. However, his definition comes far short of accomplishing this goal.
Edson’s definition for “works” is simply “obedience.” When
one faces instructions or commands from God, he is facing law. Acts 10:48 certainly places baptism in the
law or obedience category with Peter’s words “and he ordered them to be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
In chapter 10 we will see that the Lord’s instruction that baptism is to
be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit certainly makes it a
matter of obedience.[43] When Edson discusses Matthew 28:19-20
he indicates that it is a command given in the name of the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit. The implication is that it must be a work. He writes, “The necessary implication of the above
paragraph is that baptism is to be done in the authority of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit. This places baptism
solidly in the ‘obedience’ category as also mentioned in chapters 4 and 9.”[44] Edson makes similar comments in his
exposition of the third chapter of Galatians. Verse
11: “Now that no one is justified by
the (“the” is not in the original) Law before God is evident; for, ‘the
righteous man shall live by faith.’”
Again, unless one takes the position that baptism is not obedience and
therefore not a part of law, this verse might as well say “no one is justified
by baptism.”[45] However,
even Edson cannot remain consistent in his application of his definition for
“works of law.” Many times the New Testament records the command “believe” in
the imperative mood (Acts 16:31). This is a command that must be obeyed. And
this places faith “solidly in the obedience category.” Edson recognizes this
when he quotes Acts 6:7. Acts
6:7 informs us that “the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the
disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the
priests were becoming obedient to the faith.”
That last phrase is certainly indicative of repentant faith.[46] Edson also admits that faith is an act of
obedience when he writes, “God does not withhold the gift of salvation until
some other obedience such as baptism is accomplished; it is the
immediate result of repentant faith.” However, faith is just as much an act of
obedience as baptism. If
baptism is a work, so is faith. In fact, the word work is never used in
connection with baptism, but it is used pointedly in reference to faith.
Remember what the crowd from Capernaum asked Jesus? “What must we do to do the
works God requires?” Jesus answered, “the work of God is this: to believe in
the one he has sent” (John 6:28, 29).[47] Remember, that Edson also wants to include
repentance as a part of “faith” rather than “works.” The New Testament gives
the command to repent in the imperative mood no less than ten times. When that
is compared to the two times in the New Testament that the imperative command
to “be baptized” is given, it seems obvious that repentance is just as much, if
not more, a matter of “obedience” as baptism. When Paul talks about works of
law in opposition to faith he must be talking about something other than just
“obedience.” When the Bible student takes into
consideration the Law of Frame of Reference he will see that Paul was arguing
against a specific heresy in the early Church taught by the Judaizers. These
Judaizers were teaching a way of salvation that was not dependent upon the
grace of God through faith in Christ. Paul presents two ways of obtaining
salvation: the way of grace through faith and the way of law through works. Theoretically, these are both legitimate ways
of salvation (Rom. 10:5). The way of salvation by law through works is to live
by God’s law perfectly from the cradle to the grave. In this context works of
law represents how people as God’s creation respond to the laws of the Creator.
These are all the laws the Creator gave His creation to live by. These
laws are laws concerning morality and worship. Jesus summed up these laws in
the commands: “love God” and “love your neighbor.” However, the way of
salvation by law through works is not practical or possible because “all have
sinned.” And Paul shows that it only takes one sin to disqualify a person from
this way of salvation. The good news is that Jesus provides another
way of salvation by grace through faith in Him. When God gives sinners
instructions or commands concerning how to be forgiven, redeemed, and saved.
These are not works of morality or worship. These are not commands that the
Creator originally wanted His creatures to live by. These are commands about
how to have sins forgiven. Cottrell gives a clear explanation of this in his
commentary on the book of Romans. Thus “works of law” cannot be broadened to
include “anything a person does” besides faith. We cannot posit two categories
of human acts, where faith alone is one category, with everything else
constituting a second category called “works of law.” Sinners are instructed,
yea, required to do other things that cannot be labeled “works of law,”
because they are not responses to the law given by God as Creator to man as
creature. The most obvious example of this is repentance, and an equally clear
example is baptism. Both repentance and baptism are the sinner’s response to
God as the Redeemer. They are neither “works” nor “works of law,” any more than
saving faith is. This does not mean that we are justified by
repentance and baptism, in the way that we are justified by faith. As
discussed above, faith alone is the sole means by which justification is
received. It does mean, though, that “faith” in 3:28 (as in 3:27) is an
abbreviated way of referring to the grace system as a whole, and that repentance
and baptism are legitimately understood within the grace system as conditions
for receiving justification that are fully compatible with faith. They are not
“works of law” any more than faith is.[48] When
Paul uses “faith” and “works” in opposition to each other these words are
abbreviations for two opposing systems of salvation. The “works” system depends
on the law, morality and justice. The “faith” system depends on grace and the
forgiveness of sins. When the Bible student examines everything the Bible says
about baptism it becomes very clear that baptism has nothing to do with
morality or justice but it is closely connected to grace and the forgiveness of
sins. Baptism belongs in the “faith” system of salvation not the “works” system
of salvation. It is important to remember that there is a
difference between the “necessity of means” and the “necessity of precept.”
Just because sinners cannot be saved by obeying the laws of the Creator that
does not mean that they no longer have an obligation to obey the laws the
Creator. There are many laws of morality in the New Testament that God expects
Christians to live by. Obedience to these laws is not a means of forgiveness or
salvation. But obedience to these laws is necessary simply because they are the
precepts of the Creator. Matthew 28:19-20 indicates that baptism is
not just a command that must be obeyed because of the “necessity of precept.”
The great commission indicates that baptism is unlike any other command that
Christians are taught to obey. The way the commission is worded suggests
that baptism has a unique importance in the process of disciple-making. We can
agree that the term “all things” (Greek, panta) does refer to the good works or
acts of obedience belonging to the Christian life; in other words it refers to
the whole scope of sanctification that follows conversion. But the term is
comprehensive (“all things”), and baptism is not included in it. The clear
implication is that baptism is not meant to be placed in the category of
Christian good works.[49] The Great Commission indicates that baptism
belongs in the category of “necessity of means” rather than “necessity of
precept.” Colossians 2:11-13 also indicates that
baptism is not a good deed that the convert performs. This passage calls baptism
the “working of God.” “Faith
in the working of God” also means that in baptism we must believe in what God
in His word promises to do for us at the very moment of baptism itself. The
work of baptism is truly God’s work. In it He has promised to forgive our sins
(Acts 2:38; 22:16) and give us the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39). In
it He has promised to put our old sinful nature to death, to remove it in a
kind of spiritual circumcision – a circumcision performed by Christ Himself
(Col. 2:11). In it He has promised to raise us up from the dead, to make us
alive again, to give us new life (Col. 2:12).[50] It is inappropriate to teach a new believer
to be baptized simply because it is a good deed that God has commanded him to
obey. Jimmy Allen takes a dangerous step toward a works oriented salvation when
he writes, It
is my belief that the New Testament teaches when a penitent believer in the
crucified and risen Savior is immersed in water to fulfill righteousness or
obey God, the Lord forgives his past or alien sins (although he may not know
that sins are remitted or that the Holy Spirit is given at the time). If the
thesis is correct, the key word is obedience.[51] This is the kind of teaching that gets people
like Ron Edson to think that baptism is a work of man rather than a work of
God. This is ego-centric rather than Theo-centric. It puts the emphasis on what
the person does rather than on what God does. This kind of teaching would leave
the implication that the new believer was saved by his own good deeds. However,
in God’s plan of salvation the key word is not “obedience” the key word is
“faith,” faith in what God has promised to do in baptism. If the new believer
is taught to believe in the good deeds that God has promised to do in his
baptism, then he will know that he was saved by grace through faith at baptism
and not by his own works. The Biblical Consensus of All Christendom Edson writes, For
those who believe that baptism precedes salvation there is a strong tendency to
conclude that it is better to be safe than sorry. The logic here is that if one believes, practices, and teaches
that baptism must be done before salvation is received, the “safe” course is
being followed. If it would turn out
that one is saved at the point of faith, he would still be saved after baptism;
but if baptism were necessary, some might end up eternally lost because they
had not taken the required step.
Therefore, to be on the safe side everyone should believe, practice, and
teach that baptism must be done before salvation is received. Please note that Scripture is very plain in
teaching and all genuine believers agree that our faith must be one that
produces obedience. But this “better
safe than sorry” approach is clearly not valid in light of Scripture’s teaching
against division. Not only did Jesus
pray for our unity in John 17, but also division is sternly rebuked in Romans
16:17, I Corinthians 1:10, and Galatians 5:20.[52] Edson assumes that the one who takes the
“better safe than sorry” stance is the one who is causing division. He is wise
to discourage readers from basing their doctrines on the subjective perspective
of what is safe or unsafe. However, it is also inappropriate to accept or
reject biblical doctrines because of their potential for division. Christian
leaders must accept and teach biblical doctrines simply because they are taught
by God’s word regardless of the division that might take place. It is ironic that Edson would make such a
strong appeal to unity in the defense of his position. He knows from experience
that his new view about baptism and the timing of salvation does not produce
unity. When Edson’s views were introduced to a congregation that had always
been unified on baptism and the timing of salvation, it did not produce unity.
It did not preserve unity. It did not prevent division. In fact this new view
about baptism and the timing of salvation caused a severe division in the
congregation. Anytime a Christian leader teaches the view that salvation
precedes baptism to a group of Christians who believe that salvation takes
place at the time of baptism he is creating a high risk for division. But perhaps Edson is referring to the
divisions that already exist in Christendom as a whole. Perhaps Edson is
referring to those first Restoration preachers who left the Presbyterian and
Baptist denominations and started preaching about the necessity of baptism. Or
perhaps Edson is referring to the small “minority” of Restoration churches that
have failed to reach out in a spirit of unity to the vast “majority” of
churches that do not teach the necessity of baptism. But is the view that
salvation precedes baptism really the majority view in all Christendom? And is
the view that baptism is the time of salvation really a split away from the
original teaching of the Church? The three oldest and the three largest
denominations in the world all teach that baptism is necessary and that it is
the time of salvation. These churches may not be in agreement about the mode of
baptism or the subjects of baptism but they have always taught the same thing
about the meaning of baptism as it relates to the timing of salvation. The
Roman Catholic Church has over 633 million members worldwide, and 57 million in
the United States.[53]
There are several Orthodox denominations worldwide all of which believe and
teach that baptism is the time of salvation. In the United States there are 3.5
million Eastern Orthodox members[54],
2.5 million Greek Orthodox members[55],
and over a million Russian Orthodox members.[56]
In addition to these Orthodox members there many more in other Orthodox
churches and there are several million more members worldwide. There are 9
million Lutherans in the United States and several million more worldwide who
believe that baptism is the time of salvation.[57]
Of course sound doctrine is not determined by a majority vote and those who
cause division are not always in the minority. However, it is a common
misconception that the Restoration Movement is all alone in its view of baptism
and it must, therefore, be the cause of the division. Such is not the case. Jack Cottrell has shown from a study of
Church history that the biblical consensus from the time of the Apostles all
the way up to 1525 has been that baptism is the time of salvation. We are referring here only to the meaning and
purpose of baptism, since the issues of its mode and subjects had been
compromised long before the Reformation. With regard to meaning and purpose of
baptism, since the issues of its mode and subjects had been compromised long
before the Reformation. With regard to meaning, however, there existed a
remarkably consistent agreement within Christendom for fifteen hundred years,
up to and including Martin Luther himself. This agreement consisted in two main
points: (1) baptism is a work of God, i.e., the main action in baptism is
something being done by God and not by man; and (2) the divine work
accomplished during baptism is the initial bestowal of saving grace upon the
waiting sinner, i.e., it is the point of transition from wrath to grace for the
individual.[58] There are absolutely no writings among the
early Church fathers that challenge the teaching that baptism is the time of
salvation. Barnabas was a Christian leader who wrote some time between AD 70
and AD 130. He believed and taught that baptism was the point in time when sins
were washed away. Blessed
are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water.
. . . We indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement. However, we
come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and the trust in
Jesus in our spirit.[59] Justin Martyr was a Christian leader who
wrote in AD 160. He taught that baptism was the spiritual circumcision. We
who have approached God through Him have received, not carnal, but spiritual
circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it
through baptism by God’s mercy, since we were sinners. And all men alike may
obtain it.[60] Irenaeus was a Christian leader who wrote
in AD 180. He believed and taught that baptism was the time of regeneration and
forgiveness. When
we come to refute them [the Gnostics], we will show in its proper place that
this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism
which is regeneration to God. Thus, they have renounced the whole faith. . . .
For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.[61] David Bercot lists over 80 quotes from the
early Church fathers about the meaning of baptism all of them are in perfect
harmony with the biblical teaching that baptism is the time of salvation.[62] At the time of the split between the
Eastern and Western Church both groups held strongly to the view that baptism
was the time of salvation. At
issue was how to deal with Christians who had received baptism in a heretical
or schismatic community, and now wanted to be received into the fellowship of
the Catholic Church. Above all Cyprian of Carthage spoke out against the
validity of heretical baptism. He argued that there is only one true church, only
one Spirit and one baptism (Ep. 71,1; 74,4); and there is no salvation outside
the church (Ep. 73,21). . . . Augustine’s dispute with the Donatists became
crucial for the whole further development of the West, and even the Reformers
of the 16th century. For him, validity of baptism outside the
Catholic church was based on the fact that the real bestower of baptism is
Jesus Christ himself (De bapt. IV,12,18; In Joh. VI,7; Ep. 93,47).[63] Martin Luther firmly believed and taught
throughout his entire life that baptism was necessary for salvation and that it
was the point in time when a person was saved. Many Restoration preachers have
defended baptism by unfairly and ignorantly attacking Martin Luther. One
Restoration preacher writes, We are indeed justified by faith (Romans 1:16, 17; Romans 5:1, 2). Paul’s great doctrine is central to the New Testament doctrine of salvation. The distortion is produced by Martin Luther’s elaboration of the idea into justification by faith alone.[64] This is unfortunate. If more Restoration
preachers would study church history they would discover that Martin Luther was
one of the greatest defenders of the necessity of baptism. Luther believed that
baptism was for salvation. When he wrote about baptism in The Babylonian
Captivity of the Church he clearly stated that salvation comes at the time
of baptism. Now, the first thing to be considered about
baptism is the divine promise, which says: “He who believes and is baptized
will be saved” [Mark 16:16]. This promise must be set far above all the glitter
of works, vows, religious orders, and whatever else man has introduced, for on
it all our salvation depends. But we must consider it as to exercise our faith
in it, and have no doubt whatever that, once we have been baptized, we are saved.[65] The first one to introduce the heresy that
baptism is not the time of salvation was a man named Huldreich Zwingli. Zwingli
even recognized that he was the first to teach this doctrine. Zwingli began his theological career
exactly where Luther and other Reformers did – as a true son of the Roman
Catholic Church. As such he first believed that the water of baptism washes
away sins, including the inherited sin present in infants. However, by 1523 he
had repudiated this understanding of baptism. Although he acknowledged that all
teachers before him had held to this view, he rejected it. “In this matter of
baptism,” he said, “all the doctors have been in error from the time of the
apostles.”[66] If Edson is going point a fingers at those
guilty of causing division over the issue of baptism and the timing of
salvation he needs to point to Zwingli and all those who follow his heresy. What Is At Stake? What is at stake? Why make such a big deal
about baptism and the timing of salvation? When Ron Edson told the elders of
the Minnehaha Church of Christ about his new view of baptism they asked him to
reconsider his views or resign as preacher of the church. Many people scoffed
at the elders’ decision. “How could they ask Ron to resign because of such a
silly little disagreement?” What is at stake? The
Unity of the Church If the leadership of a
church is divided it is just a matter of time until the church itself will be
divided. A leadership cannot be divided on crucial issues such as those dealing
with salvation. All the teachers in a congregation must be teaching the same
thing about salvation. 1 Corinthians 1:10 says, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no
divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the
same judgment.” An
Accurate Understanding of the Bible James 3:1 says, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” 2 Timothy 2:15 says |