|
 
October 15, 2005, Vol.4, No.20. Baptism Part 4 Keith Sharp The Samaritans But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. (Acts 8:12-13) Turning to the conversion of the Samaritans, recorded in Acts 8:5-24, Mr. Lane teaches: The incident in Samaria is interesting and important for the additional factor of the exposure of Simon as an unregenerate man even after he had ‘believed’ and had been baptised. This makes it clear that not all professions of faith are genuine and that baptism in and of itself does not give divine grace. (68) Why does Mr. Lane have "believed" in quotation marks? Is it not because he doesn’t think Simon really believed? The passage says not one word about a "profession of faith" by Simon. The writer, inspired by the Spirit of God, states that Simon "believed" and "was baptized." (Acts 8:13) Mr. Lane simply denies a plain statement of Scripture. Why? Because this example plainly contradicts his theory that a saved person cannot so sin as to be lost. The Lord promised, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Luke records that "both men and women" of Samaria, hearing Philip preach "Christ" (Acts 8:5), "the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12) "believed" and "were baptized." (Ibid) No one denies the genuineness of their faith or the reality of their salvation. But "Simon himself also believed" (not professed faith but "believed") and was "baptized" (verse 13). By what rule of logic, grammar, or exegesis would one come to the conclusion that Simon was at this point "unregenerate"? In fact, more is said of Simon’s faithfulness than of the other Samaritans. He "continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done." (Ibid) The word translated "continued" is the same Greek term rendered "continued steadfastly" in Acts 2:42 as a description of the faithfulness of the disciples in Jerusalem. They "continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine," and Simon "continued with Philip," an inspired evangelist. Only unreasonable adherence to a humanly conceived theory would blind one to the incontrovertible fact that Simon was saved, because he believed and was baptized, but afterward fell from grace through sin (Acts 8:14-24). The Ethiopian Eunuch Mr. Lane denies the genuineness of Acts 8:37 and comments: It would be tempting to think that Philip, after his experience with Simon in Samaria, decided to examine his candidate for baptism and obtain a confession of faith from him. But it is more likely that this kind of examination came in after the apostolic age, accounting for its appearance in the writings of the fathers - Ireneaus, Cyprian, etc. (71) It is most certainly true that the so-called "Apostolic Creed" that mainline denominations require comes from the traditions of the "fathers" rather than the apostles (cf. Matthew15:9). It is also true that the practice of requiring the recitation of an "experience of grace" and a vote by a local church before baptism is a much later human tradition. What church voted on the eunuch when he was baptized in the wilderness on the road "from Jerusalem to Gaza"? (Acts 8:26) But, even if Acts 8:37 is left out of consideration, the truth it teaches is implied in this and other passages. The treasurer asked Philip, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36) Would unbelief hinder his being baptized? How would Philip know whether or not he believed? How can we determine whether or not a person requesting baptism is a believer? We must confess with the mouth our faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved (Romans 10:8-10). Without reference to Acts 8:37, what should we confess before baptism and in order to be saved? Simon Peter confessed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16), and the Lord blessed him as the result (verse 17). Paul taught "that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Philippians 2:11). Obviously the exact wording may vary, but to be saved and to be baptized in the name of the Lord, one must confess his faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the Lord. After Philip baptized the eunuch, "the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:39). Here Mr. Lane comments: The commission of Christ is binding, but is not to be applied rigidly. Because the Ethiopian could not be received into a church or along with others formed into a church did not prevent him receiving baptism. Baptism is normally the rite of initiation into the church - but exceptions must be allowed for. (71) Mr. Lane is confused and confusing in his usage of the word "church." We are baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27), into His body (1 Corinthians 12:13) the church (Ephesians 1:22-23). This is the universal body of the saved (Ephesians 5:23), and there is but one (Ephesians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 12:20). We join a local church (Acts 9:26-28), a local group of disciples (1 Corinthians 1:2). When the inspired writer turns his attention away from the eunuch, he is a member of the universal body of the saved, the one church belonging to Christ, but he has not joined a local church. The text does not say what he did afterward, and, in respect for the silence of the Scriptures, we must not speculate (Deuteronomy 29:29). Saul of Tarsus Of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, Mr. Lane writes: Here we have a case even more extraordinary than the last one, for there is a complete absence of the preaching of the gospel and of any response of faith and acceptance of discipleship. (71-72) Once again, the only reason Mr. Lane reaches such a conclusion is the blinding effect of a human theory, salvation by faith alone. Saul’s case is indeed unique, in that Jesus appeared to Saul after the Lord’s ascension into heaven (Acts 9:1-6). Mr. Lane correctly states the significance of this special, miraculous event. Here we have a unique situation - the only man to be called to the apostleship directly by Christ himself since his ascension to heaven. It is this that explains the unusual features of this case. (72) This is precisely correct, for Jesus appeared to Saul, not to save him, but to call him to and qualify him to be an apostle (Acts 26:15-16; cf. Acts 1:21-25; 10:40-42) . Saul was not saved until three days after this miracle, and his salvation was due to his response of faith as the result of hearing the word. When, at the time of the miraculous vision, Saul urgently inquired, "Lord, what do You want me to do?" (Acts 9:6), Jesus would not tell him. Saul had to be saved the same way all people must be saved, by hearing the gospel (Romans 1:16-17; 10:17). The Lord directed him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." (Acts 9:6) Notice, Jesus didn’t say, "should do" or "could do." He said, "must do." What Saul would be told to do was essential to his salvation. He waited three days in physical blindness and in prayer, too anxious to eat or drink (Acts 9:8-11). If he was saved, he was certainly a miserably anxious saved man. When Ananias came to Saul, he commanded him, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Baptism for salvation is certainly a part of the gospel message (Mark 16:15-16). Thus, Ananias preached the gospel to Saul. When Saul was baptized (Acts 9:18), his sins were washed away by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22; 9:13-14), and he was saved (Mark 16:16). His baptism was his response of faith (Galatians 3:26-27).
|
