I’ve long been a reader of Al Maxey’s Reflections. I don’t always agree with Al, but he does make me think. One of his latest articles, however, was a real disappointment to me. I felt the need to analyze it a bit here, to get help from others as I try to see if I’m quarreling with his conclusion or how he arrived at that conclusion.
When I saw the title of Reflection #507, I knew what Al was going to say at the end of his article. Al spends a lot of time debating with some very conservative members of the Church of Christ; when I saw that he had written on: “Wash Away Your Sins:
Reflective Study of Acts 22:16,” I knew that he would somehow find a way to make the Bible say something these brothers would react to. And I was right.
In looking at this article, and at this passage, it’s important that we notice that Al basically lumps the theological world into two camps:
- Those who believe in “water regeneration,” the concept that the mere act of being baptized brings salvation;
- Those who believe in salvation by grace through faith.
That’s a useful technique for winning a debate. You state your position as being in contrast with a distasteful position (and in concordance with something attractive). Then you merely say, “You believe what I believe or you believe that abomination.” It’s called a false dichotomy.
It’s not a useful technique for Bible study nor theological understanding. I’m convinced that this basic error is what throws Al’s article out of alignment. I’ll look at the article more in depth, but I want to talk about this idea.
If someone truly believes that water itself cleanses of sin, they are as mistaken as anyone in the Old Testament who thought that blood did the same thing. Just as “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4), so it is impossible for water to take away sins. However, I’m convinced that just as God established, through his grace, a means through which men could obtain forgiveness through offering sacrifices, I’m convinced that God offers salvation to those who are willing to be baptized.
Each of these acts requires faith. Each depends upon the grace of God. Neither will accomplish anything if done as a work instead of as an act of faith. But belief in baptism as a part of the obedient faith that God looks for is not the same as belief in water regeneration.
There’s a bit of Platonic dualism that sees the act of believing as somehow more spiritual than other acts of faith. That dualism leads to a rejection of anything physical, seeing the physical as inferior to the spirit. The argument goes that God in the Old Testament wanted physical worship and in the New Testament wants spiritual worship. That argument not only misunderstands Old Testament worship (which was very concerned about the inward man), it also misrepresents what the New Testament says.
I’ll spend some time over the next few days looking at what Al had to say, for I think it’s very important. For now, I merely want to make this point: believing that faith must be obedient is not the same as believing that man can save himself via good works. Believing that baptism is something that God has offered to man as a means of obtaining forgiveness is not the same as believing that mere immersion in water washes away sins. Believing that there is regeneration at the time of baptism is not the same as believing in water regeneration.
Tim,
(1) It’s a strawman if ever i heard one. i can’t think of anyone who believes that *mere act of baptism* brings salvation–not even a Catholic. Surely Maxey was just careless in the wording there.
(2) i think you’re absolutely right on the dualism point. N.T. Wright has done well to combat this notion lately–that physical and tangible is somehow ‘bad’ or inherently ‘less-than’ or ‘deficient.’ Not according to beginning of Genesis it’s not.
(3) There’s another point to pick on i think, and that is the assumption that “belief” or “faith” in the Bible can only be referring to the initial point-in-time mental operation of assenting to a proposition or deciding to commit. i think the majority of occurrences of “belief” and “faith” in the NT are likely *not* used in that way. And if not, then it’s a revealing contrast between us and the NT if this is our primary or default conception of “faith” or “belief.” [And not to open a can of worms or assume too much, but analyzing the debate in the way Maxey has seems to take as a foregone conclusion the underlying legitimacy of Reformation readings of Paul and approaches to soteriology.]
–guy
I’m reading through N.T. Wrights “Jesus and the Victory of God” (volume 2 of his 5 volume project “Christian Origins and the Question of God”). It is causing me to rethink much of what I have thought about the idea of receiving the forgiveness of sins. It doesn’t negate the necessity of repentance and baptism but Wright, who does his homework well, grounds the promise of forgiveness in the Old Testament eschatological prophesies from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel that gave hope to Israel during and after exile. Wright believes the promise of forgiveness was more corporate than individual, being “a return from exile” (since even post-exilic, second-temple Judaism, did not believe they had been redeemed) which is a participation in the new eschatological community.
I’m still mulling all this over but if this is indeed the case, it would seem to eliminate much of the conversation regarding baptism and water regeneration since so much of that conversation is about personal salvation.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Thank you for the post, Tim. An excellent example of how if we develop our theology via points of debate, ultimately we are going to lose the breadth and depth of biblical truth. For Peter, Paul and I would also add James, it was not an “either-or” choice, but a “both-and” inclusion. To echo Guy’s point #3 above, Paul could speak both of the absolute nature of grace through faith (Eph. 2) and yet hold onto the absolute nature of the act of baptism (Romans 6, among others). I look forward to the rest of your observations on Al’s post.
Does regeneration occur at baptism?
That’s a good question. Looking at the baptismal passages in the New Testament, I don’t know how we could separate baptism from God’s saving work. Repentance, confession, and baptism are the response to the gospel. Yet I’m not sure can be answer the above question with such precision to say “yes, this is always the case.”
The New Testament affirms that we are saved by grace through faith. The point of Romans 4 is that faith has always been the means by which people belong to God. In that chapter, righteousness is credited to Abraham by faith *before* he was circumcised. This raises the question of whether baptism is the NT equivalent to circumcision in the OT. Some say yes and some say no. If we say yes, then Romans 4 presents an inescapable challenge to saying there is no justification from sin prior to baptism since Abraham was credited with righteousness prior to circumcision. If we say no, that the Holy Spirit is what marks us as the people of God (just as circumcision marked the Israelites as God’s people in the OT) then we are left with another question. In Acts the Holy Spirit is given in connection with baptism (2.38-39), prior baptism (10.44ff), and following baptism by the laying on of hands (8.14-16; 19.1-7). So which is normative and why? Or is scripture even concerned with such a question as we are?
I mention all that just to say why I have, for the most part, given up on trying to parse out exactly when a person becomes a Christians, receives the forgiveness of sins, etc… in relation to the time of their baptism. I believe the response to the gospel ought to be faith expressed in repentance, confession, and baptism but I also believe its quite possible that, in God’s economy of time, that God may have already credited those responding to the gospel as being righteous by their faith.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Rex,
I do think that we have failed to sufficiently stress the community nature of salvation, but that doesn’t eliminate the individual nature. I think it’s a both/and situation.
John Mark Hicks had some interesting things to say about all that a while back:
http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/a-comprehensive-perspective-on-salvation/
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
I agree that the individual does not get lost with the corporate (and I think N.T. Wright would too). I just mentioned Wright’s book because it has raised a lot of new questions for me and spurred on a lot of new thinking, which, I suppose, is a good thing. I just have more questions now than I have answers.
Any ways, I appreciate your post and look forward to reading more.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
I like what Rex said above about not being able to nail down when exactly one is saved. He draws out some good tension that we see in the text. With that, my view is that saving faith can and does often occur prior to real faith baptism. I would also say that saving faith can also occur post-baptism (particularly if we enter the discussion of covenant).
Tim wrote: “believing that faith must be obedient is not the same as believing that man can save himself via good works.” This is kind of the way Martin Luther put it. In his words, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.”
Here is the nuance I would put on your statement though. I would say that true faith *will be* obedient. Fruit and perseverance are the two signs the NT gives as identifiers that one has the Spirit and their faith is true. Bear fruit. Hold fast unto the end. No fruit = no real justification or salvation. Failure to persevere = same thing. We can fool ourselves and others all days long, but God will not be mocked.
We are saved by faith. And with this true faith we repent and are baptized, and we seek to please Him in what we do. We then obey in works because that is who we are; and it is Christ in us.
The dichotomy that many think the Reformers had regarding works and salvation only shows ignorance of what the Reformers believed. Luther, for one, never declined the necessity of works for salvation. His most famous quote that draws the appropriate distinction is: “Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.”
Grace be with you –
Jr
Pingback: Water regeneration | TimothyArcher.com/Kitchen – Kingdom of God Worship Blogs
Tim, was Noah’s family saved by faith in God, or by faith in Noah and obedience to the word of God.
I don’t recall God speaking to anyone in the family except Noah . Could baptism be the saving point by showing faith in Jesus Christ, and the word of God.
This is an excellent sentence, full of grace and truth. Willingness is an interesting category that I haven’t heard much use of in the baptism discussion.