Here is a post I pulled from another site: This is pretty much what Johnny and company believe. We will use the comment section to present possible rebuttals.
“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.” Misconception #1: “Baptism Is Only a ‘Figure”‘ The first misunderstanding is that n’ that one has already” Baptism is only a figure; it is merely a ’sign that one has already been saved.” As we have heard others also say, who believe that baptism is irrelevant to salvation, “Baptism is just an outward showing of an inward grace.” It’s true that the Bible does use many figures, shadows, or types that represent things of a much greater nature: Romans 5:14, for example, speaks of Adam as “a type of Him [Jesus] who was to come.” But what is this “figure” of 1 Peter 3: 21 referring to? To find the answer, we need to back up to the previous verse, which speaks of the flood of Noah’s day. It is the flood that is the figure for the water of Bible baptism. The New International Version makes this very clear: “…eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you…” (vv. 20,21). The New American Standard Bible says, “and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. …” Corresponding to what? Again, it is referring back to the flood of Noah’s day, as mentioned in the previous verse, in which eight persons “were brought safely through the water.” Baptism, therefore, is not the type; but rather it is the antitype. It is what the shadow ( of the flood) is pointing to. The New King James Version, incidentally, states, “There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism…..”Just as the eight souls in the ark were separated from the world of sin by the waters of the flood, which eliminated that sinful world, the waters of baptism separates a person from his own sins and brings him out from a sinful realm into the righteous kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col. 1: 13) because baptism (along with faith and repentance) puts one into contact with the blood of Christ and the benefits of the Lord’s atonement (cf, Rom. 6:3,4). Misconception #2: “Filth” Means “Sin” A second false notion many have about 1 Peter 3: 21 is that “the filth” spoken of is referring to sin; and then they continue by saying that “Since baptism does not remove the filth of the flesh, then it doesn’t remove sin.” Again, though, using other Bible translations will be helpful to better understand what this “filth” is standing for. The Revised Standard Version and the New International Version refer to “the filth of the flesh” as ” dirt from the body. “ The New American Standard says, “dirt from the flesh.” Therefore, this “filth is not sin; but, rather, it is dirt”; and the point being that baptism saves–but not merely by getting clean in the water It saves as an appeal to God for a clear conscience. When Ananias told Paul in Acts 22: 16 to wash away his sins through baptism, it wasn’t the water that could literally do that; it was the blood of Jesus. But even the concept of being washed by the blood of Christ is figurative, for the forgiveness actually takes place in the mind of God when we meet His righteous demands that will enable us to benefit from the Lord’s atonement. Still, though, water baptism is one of the steps necessary to benefit from Calvary . We can also liken this to Naaman’s need to dip seven times into the Jordan River to be healed of his leprosy (2 Kings 5). Surely, it wasn’t merely the water of this muddy river that healed him; but, nevertheless, it is what the Lord required of him to be healed–just as God requires of the alien sinner to be baptized into water to have sins forgiven. Misconception #3: “Answer” Lastly, many people have misunderstood I Peter 3:21 on the basis of the word “answer.” As part of the verse says, “the answer of a good conscience toward God. “ Perhaps they feel that by “praying a sinner’s prayer,” the answer” they receive will result in a good conscience and their salvation. We need to point out, however, what this term ” answer” really means. For many who use only the King James Version and have never heard this term defined before, it might come as a surprise. According to Vine, the Greek word for “answer” “was used by the Greeks in a legal sense, as a “demand or appeal.” Bullinger defines it as “a question, an asking; enquiry after, seeking by enquiry .”It, therefore, appears to be just the opposite ( an enquiry) than how many would view it (as an answer). Baptism, therefore, is “an appeal to God for a clear conscience,” as the Revised Standard Version states. The New American Standard Bible and the New English Bible also use the term “appeal.” The New Berkeley Version has “earnest seeking,” and The American Standard Version has “interrogation.” So baptism saves as a means whereby one is making his “appeal to Go for a clear conscience”; and since “appeal” also means ” a call for aid, support, mercy, etc. , an earnest request or entreaty, ” then we can conclude that baptism is part of the means whereby one “calls” on the Lord. As Peter had stated many years prior, in quoting Joel’s prophecy, “…everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). They called in Acts 2 by believing, repenting, and being baptized (vv. 36-38). And this is also why Paul was told by Ananias to “…Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22: 16). The good conscience, which has been cleansed by the blood of Jesus ( cf, Heb. 9: 14), comes after one has been baptized into Christ to then rise to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3,4); and 1 Peter 3: 21 certainly makes it clear that this salvation is not possible until one is first baptized.
March 17, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Dont use the “eis” argument that I heard on Sundays program with Johnny. These guys know this argument quite well. Here is more on the greek word eis and why this argument will not hold water
when calling in on their shows.
Meaning of “eis” in Acts 2:38
Some, in wishing to deny the importance and purpose of baptism, claim that the original Greek word eis in Acts 2:38 means “be baptized because you already have remission of sins.” But such a translation and interpretation cannot be supported with a responsible study of Scripture and the Greek language.
In Acts 2:38 (KJV), Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR (Greek eis) the remission of sins.” According to one source, eis is translated in this way in the King James Version:
Into – 571 times
To — 282 times
Unto — 208 times
In — 131 times
For — 91 times
On — 57 times
Toward — 32 times
That — 30 times
Against — 25 times
Upon — 25 times
At — 20 times
Among — 16 times
Concerning — 5 times
“because of” – 0 times
According to Thayer’s lexigon, eis means “entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among.” The majority of the words listed above are consistent with that meaning. Many wish to believe/teach that Peter said repent and be baptized “because of” the remission of sins. There is, however, not a single instance of the Greek word eis in the KJV ever translated as “because of.” Nor is there apparently any version of the Bible that translates Acts 2:38, “Repent, and be baptized . . . because of the remission of sins.”
To better understand the meaning, consider the entire phrase “for the remission of sins.” In the original Greek it reads: eis aphesin ton hamartion humon. That phrase is also found in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 where John preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Did John preach and baptize because they already had forgiveness, or was it leading up to that time of forgiveness through Christ?
The real test, though, is found in Matthew 26:28. There Jesus said His blood “is shed for many for the remission of sins.” What did He mean by that? Would He shed His blood because people already had forgiveness or in order that they might obtain it?
If Jesus used the word/phrase to mean “in order to receive remission of sins,” then is it not reasonable to conclude that Peter, by inspiration of the Spirit sent by Jesus, would mean the exact same thing when he used the exact same phrase? Surely Peter’s command to be baptized in Acts 2:38 means what it clearly says: baptism is for/in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins.
See what I mean, they have you covered on this argument, so dont watse time trying the “eis” greek word argumant on them.
March 17, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Dont use the baptism is a work argument either – see below
First, we must consider what the definition of a “work” is that we are using. If one defines baptism a “work” then we must also label believing a “work”. We must also label repenting a “work”. Believing and repenting are both things we must DO as a prerequisite to salvation. They are both things that require human action. Baptism is merely the last part of that equation. James tells us he will show us his faith by what he does.
Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. -James 2:17
It must be remembered that although baptism is something we must do (like believing and repenting), baptism is an act of faith, not a “work.” It must also be noted that the one at “work” when we are baptized is God, not us. See Colossians 2:12. Just as we must report to the hospital before a surgeon can operate on us, so too, we must “report to God’ in the waters of baptism, submitting to God and claiming His promise so that our sins will be forgiven. Just as it is the surgeon who is the one who is at work when we are operated on, so too, it is God who is the one who is at work when we undergo baptism.
Baptism is a once-in-a-lifetime event. It is our birth (John 3:3-5). Baptism is not an on going process such as feeding the poor, or clothing the homeless or offering sacrifices as they did under the Old Covenant. Doing good deeds cannot earn us eternal life.
Baptism is a manifestation of faith. It is not Man who is at work in baptism; it is God. Baptism is not a “work of righteousness.” On the contrary, if anything, it should be considered a work of UNrighteousness. We are baptized because we are corrupt, unrighteous and spiritually dead in sin. This is why we are buried with HIM into DEATH as explained in Romans 6. It is the DEAD that are buried, not the living.
But God has always measured faith by our actions, as James 2:17-26 tells us:
Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. But, someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder. But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith apart from works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Do you see how faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and he was called Friend of God. You see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous, and not out of faith only; And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way? For as the body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
It is faith (or belief) that causes us to respond to God’s Word–the Gospel message. It is faith in God’s Word, that tells us Christ died in our place and rose again, that causes us to believe. It is our belief in God’s Word that causes us to turn from our sins and repent. It is our belief in God’s Word that causes us to go into the water in repentance for the purpose of having our sins forgiven and “washed away.” And it is in this manner that it can be said we are saved by faith. If we believe God’s Word about His salvation plan and respond accordingly, only then it can be said we are saved by our faith—because it is faith that acts as the catalyst to our response (repentance and baptism). If we do not believe, then we will not repent, nor will we go down into the water for the purpose of having our sins forgiven.
It must always be emphasized that baptism is an act in which God works, not Man. This happens through faith in God’s Word—His Son. In baptism we, the dead, are joined with Christ into His death. Then, being united with Him together in this death and burial, just as Christ arose from the dead, so too, He brings us up, still unified as one, with Him to resurrected life.
Those that have been misled into thinking baptism is a “work” and one only need say a prayer to be saved, must realize that baptism is no more a “work” than is saying the “sinner’s prayer” or “praying Jesus into your heart.”
Furthermore, it must be clarified what is meant by the term, “work”. And we must define the phrase– “not saved by works” if we are going to debate it. Few would argue the work of the cross saves us. However, no work of ourselves can save us. Only the work of God can do that. So in the argument –“we are not saved by works…” it must be clarified that what is really meant is– “we are not saved by works of ourselves”. But the Word of God does not ascribe baptism to that as being a work of man. The Scriptures credit baptism to that as being the work of God. Accordingly, we ARE saved by works—it’s just that the “work” isn’t ours; It’s the work of God!
Colossians 2:12
and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
March 17, 2008 at 8:17 pm
The argument that Paul was not sent to baptize is also covered by these men. I know I am presenting a lot to read, but its well worth knowing, if one wishes to know what these men believe and why.
1Corinthians 1:10-17
10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel–not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
“In 1 Corinthians 1:10ff, Paul condemns the Christians at Corinth for their division. Apparently many were holding an improper allegiance to the one who baptized them (verse 12). In verse 14, Paul stated that he was therefore thankful that he had baptized only a few there in Corinth. He did not seek any particular status in the minds of those who were baptized; it made no difference to him who actually did the baptizing. He says in verse 17 and in Acts 9:15 that Jesus had called him to preach. Others could do the baptizing as well as Paul, but not necessarily the preaching. Remember John 4:1-2 says that Jesus made and baptized many disciples, but it was His disciples that actually did the physical act of baptizing.
Was Paul saying that baptism is not important? Certainly not. Remember it was Paul who said that we put on Christ in baptism (Galations 3:27). Actually, the passage is very consistent in showing that baptism is very important. It is obvious that the Christians in Corinth had been baptized; this is inferred in 1 Corinthians 1:13 and stated in Acts 18:8. And Paul, in this passage, actually indicates that two things are required before a person may call himself after another person. First, Paul would have to die for that person; and second, that person would have to be baptized in the name of Paul. This actually parallels perfectly with Biblical teaching that Christ has died for us, and we rightfully call ourselves Christians when we put Christ on in baptism.”
The divisions that were occurring with the Corinthians apparently got started because they were placing improper importance and significance on who baptized them. Whether it was Paul or some other teacher, it did not matter.
But notice something very important about Paul’s words that actually demonstrate the necessity of baptism:
To re-state, according to verse 13, in order to be called after Christ, at least two things must happen:
1.) Christ must die for that person (which He did)
2.) That person must be baptized into the name of Christ!
If one has not been baptized into Christ, one cannot rightfully call themselves a Christian.
Even though Paul may have only baptized a few of the Corinthians himself, personally, they ALL were baptized!
1Corinthians 12:13
For we were ALL baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
For additional consideration: When Paul says, “Not to baptize but to preach the gospel,” he is using a common element of Greek syntax, the “ou . . . alla (not . . . but) construction. There are a number of places in the NT where not… but does not negate one of the two items under consideration. Instead, it prioritizes them. For example, Peter tells Ananias, “You have not lied to men but to God. Of course He had lied to men, but most importantly he had lied to god.
In a similar way Paul is saying, “I came first and most importantly to preach the gospel, then to Baptize.” This further emphasizes that faith and repentance are to precede baptism.
By now you probably wondering if there is any way to refute their teachings on baptism – not to the degree you would like. You can try, but they have everything covered, even other things I havent covered here. So, next we will present some things you can use that most do not. This will be presented within the next few days to give people time to digest the comments above.
March 18, 2008 at 11:10 am
I know some are wondering what about the thief on the cross – okay, here is another one where they have it all covered. Below is their case in point.
1. Baptism is s symbol of the death burial and resurrection (Rom 6:3-7) How could the thief do something that imitates something (death and resurrection) that had not yet happened? Our confession of faith for salvation as Christians requires us to believe God raised him from the dead: Rom 10:9
2. How do you know the thief wasn’t baptized years before by John or Jesus? Mk 1:5; Mt 3:5-6;4:25
3. Rather than viewing the thief as a sinner coming to first time repentance, could we not view the thief as a former believer who fell away and was restored?
4. Evidence the thief had prior contact with John or Jesus:
Knew there was a God V40
Knew God was to be feared v40
Knew Jesus was associated with God v39; Jn 13:20
Knew something to answer for beyond death v40; Mt 10:28; Heb 9:27; Rom 2:1-2,6
Recognized a principle of right and wrong v40-41
Knew Christ was innocent perhaps sinless v41
Knew who was dying next to him was Lord v42
He understood the concept that the king had to die to become the king
Knew in spite of Jesus dying, that He would still establish His kingdom v42
Knew that although about to die, Jesus could help in his circumstance v42
Where did he get this understanding? The preaching of John the Baptist or Jesus
He appears more like a fallen disciple than an alien sinner coming to Christ for first time.
5. The thief died under OT law and was saved before NT came into effect Col 2:14; Heb 9:16-17
6. He died 40 days before Mark 16:16 was first commanded! How could he obey a command not given?
There is something that could be asked of these local legalist – has Christ love for the sinner changed since he rose from the dead? Is not Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever, meaning His character and who He is never changes. Can Christ love the dying thief and pardon him, but not pardon a dying sinner today apart from baptism? Jesus seen the thief and knew his heart and didn’t hesitate to tell him “this day you will be with me in Paradise” will the same Jesus now hesitate and say ” well, if you were before the cross, I would have loved you enough to save you, but since I died and rose again, I just don’t love people the same and now you must follow the 5 step formula to be saved – see one of the church of Christ preachers, they will tell you the 5 steps. Folks, this is down right silly when these local legalist Johnny, James, and Norm attempt to take the place of God and make eternal judgments upon sinners. I think it’s best they preach the cross and allow Jesus Christ to be Lord, God and savor. I’m not saying there isn’t a connection between baptism and salvation – I am saying that Christ showed us an “example” of His love towards a sincere sinner on his death bed – the thief on the cross, and we shouldn’t play God and try to act as if Jesus love for the sinner has changed.
March 18, 2008 at 12:02 pm
God has never demanded from one what it is not humanly possible to do. If the person can hear the gospel, can believe the gospel, confess Christ Jesus as his Lord, but it is impossible for him to fulfill the command to be baptized in water, then God’s grace and mercy comes into play.” Several readers quoted Romans 9:14-16 — “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” Do we believe this? Do we trust our God in this matter? If so, can we not pass along this divine assurance to those dying disciples willing to be immersed, but who are incapable of the effort?
Does this conviction imply we no longer acknowledge the place of immersion in God’s plan for our salvation? Does this imply we have rejected it as a visible response of faith for those capable of making it? In Paul’s words, “May it never be!” It simply means that in special circumstances in which the desire is present but the ability is not, we trust in a gracious, merciful, loving, compassionate God to demonstrate divine fairness
March 18, 2008 at 1:43 pm
When cornered by these local legalist keep the statements below in mind.
First of all, forgiveness of sins is not man’s design for baptism but God’s design for those who are baptized. Forgiveness of sins is a judicial act. It is an executive act of pardon. It takes place in heaven in the mind of God. It is not something to be secured by purchase or barter. One does not obtain it by trading off or swapping any act or deed. It is not, therefore, the exclusive design of baptism and may not be the most important motivation.
Secondly, there are at least nine “designs” for baptism set forth in the new covenant scriptures and the selection of one of these as the specific or superlative design which must be understood and recognized to establish the validity of obedience, to the exclusion or ignoring of the others, does not speak well for those who profess to revere all that the Spirit has spoken.
When a man is baptized to obey God, he is led by a proper motive; and I believe when he does this to obey him, God will forgive his sins, whether he knows the act in which God forgives or not. Man cannot be led by a holier or more acceptable motive than the desire to obey God and so ‘fulfill all righteousness.’
Men may be told that they were justified and forgiven upon the basis of personal faith and at the very moment of trustful surrender. They may accept it as factual and rely upon it, but there is nothing in this to motivate them to be immersed. Intellectually and philosophically, those who are immersed, believing their sins have been forgiven, are led to obedience for another reason. When sifted down it will generally be found that their desire is to obey God, to do his will, or to follow the example of Jesus.
They may be mistaken about the time when the forgiveness of God was accorded and when the pardon was decreed. They may be the victims of theological error in that respect, but such a mistake will not cancel God’s gracious promise. It is not conditioned upon being correct about every theological point at the time of obedience. I do not serve the kind of God who bestows his love only upon those who have an intellectual key honed down until it fits every slot in the keyhole of mental correctness. This would deny grace, which, I suspect, is the real problem of all too many of us.
This is the end of this study on baptism and we will move on to other teachings of our local legalist Johnny, James, and Norm.