As I said, just going by ability, Stephen is a much better debater than me, but I still wouldn't want to be in his shoes tonight. Because I've got this big advantage. All I've got to do is read Bible verses and say, you know, they mean what they say. And then I can just sit down. Stephen's got a much harder job. He's got to struggle, struggle, struggle, struggle, struggle to try to convince you that these verses don't really mean what they say. So I've got a much easier job. I don't envy his job, even though he's very capable. I predict that that's what's going to happen. Now you watch and see. If it isn't just really when it boils down to it tonight, I'm going to give you these verses and ask you to accept what they say. And Stephen's going to say, no, don't do that. Don't do that. Here's why they don't mean what they seem to be saying. You see, in fact, that prediction doesn't come true. OK, for example, a good example of what I just said is Mark 16, verse 16. My proposition tonight is basically that a person has to be baptized to be saved. Isn't that what Mark 16, 16 says? He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned. I think that's simple. When my dad told us when I was little, he that picks a bucket of weeds in the lawn and hoes a row in the garden can go swimming, we knew we had to do both things. We knew. And if we didn't, we went swimming without doing both things. We were going to have a sore bottom that night. We knew. Here's another illustrative sentence. He that eateth and digesteth his food shall live, but he that eateth not shall die. Isn't that easy to understand? I believe it's so easy to understand that if I said to this audience tonight, he that comes to the podium and shakes my hand, I'll give you a thousand dollars. I believe every one of you would come up here and shake my hand and get that thousand dollars. Not a single person here would misunderstand that and say, no, all I have to do is come up there. I don't have to shake your hand. Every one of you shake your hand and get a thousand dollars. Yet that's what Stephen is going to say tonight. Oh, all you have to do is believe. You don't have to be baptized. Even though Jesus said, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He said you had to do both. Now, why is it so hard? Why is it that if I offered you a thousand dollars, you would understand it and come and do both of them? But we're talking about salvation, something much more important. You would try to get around one of the conditions that Jesus laid forth. Terry. Now, the next passage I want to mention is John chapter 3, verse 5, where Jesus said, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Now, it doesn't make any difference to me what the Reformed Orthodox position was, but Rick pointed out to me in the last day or so, that on these passages, Stephen, like John 3 and Galatians 3 and Colossians 2 Romans 6, that the standard reform orthodox position is that all of these were talking about water baptism. And I think you take some stock in that. Now, I don't. But I would like to know if you claim to have the standard reform orthodox position, why are you going to try to claim that these passages like John 3, 5 and Romans 6, Colossians 2 and Galatians 3 are not talking about water baptism? Now, water baptism is the only thing I know of of spiritual significance in the New Testament that involves water. So it looks like to me that Jesus is saying, except a man is born of water, that is baptized in water, he will not enter into the kingdom of God. Now that's plain, isn't it? That proves that you have to do this to be saved. Terry, next I would like you to turn to Acts chapter 2 verse 38. Peter then said there, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Notice Peter said they had to do two things in order to get two things. Repent and be baptized And they would get the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now notice, Stephen, it's repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. The prepositional phrase for the remission of sins modifies both repent and be baptized. Similar to Acts 3 verse 19, which says, repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out. Notice that your sins may be blotted out is conditioned upon both commands, repenting and being converted. It's the same in Acts 2. It's the same. We are to be baptized Eight, four, into the remission of sins, which implies necessarily that until you're baptized, you don't have the remission of sins. Now, let me point out something important here. Stephen asked me this a few, six weeks ago. We were talking about having this debate. We've had a number of conversations over the phone, email. Pat, do you believe that a person that has to believe what you believe or be baptized for that reason, for the remission of sins to be saved? Yes. If you're here and you're a Baptist, most likely you've been immersed. You have been baptized in that sense. But you know, you've never been baptized for the remission of sins. You thought you already had the remission of sins and maybe two or three weeks later, you got baptized. It wasn't for the remission of sins. You really haven't ever done what Peter said to do here, be baptized for the remission of sins. So though you're sincere, you've never received the remission of sins from God. You've never been saved. You not only must be baptized, you must be baptized for the remission of sins. That's one of the reasons I want to do this debate, to let you know that you need to obey what Peter said for the reason he said do it. Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Now, you repented for the remission of sins, no doubt, in order to get the remission of sins. Not because you already had it, but in order to get it, you need to be baptized for the remission of sins or you don't have it. All right, Terry, next chart. Next, let's turn to Acts 22, verse 16, where Ananias told Saul, Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. This word, and, here is actually in the Greek, chi, and it indicates dependence. It's be baptized and wash away thy sins. In other words, the second thing, the washing away of the sins is dependent upon the being baptized. Like when I was young, Stephen probably did too, we cut grass to get money. The person might say to us, cut my yard and receive your $5 pay. To get the $5 you had to cut the yard. James 4 verse 7, resist the devil and he will flee from you. See, the fleeing of the devil is dependent upon us resisting. Matthew 7, 7, ask and it shall be given. The giving from God is dependent upon us asking. Seek and you shall find. Knock and it shall be opened to you. And then Jesus said, In Luke 10, 28, thou hast answered right, this do, and thou shalt live. In other words, you have to live, you're going to have to do. That's the point. It's the same in Acts 22, 16. Be baptized and wash away thy sins. In other words, you have to be baptized to get your sins washed away. Now, what washes away our sins? The book of Revelation says the blood of Christ does. That's not an ed question. Stephen and I agree on that. It's the blood of Christ that washes away our sins. But the question is when? When were Paul's sins washed away by the blood of Christ? when he was baptized or before when he believed on the road to Damascus which was at least three days before. No, he was still in his sins at this point, and he needed to be baptized to have his sins washed away. Now, on this point, turn quickly to Romans 10, verse 14. Don't think here, when it says to be baptized and washed away by sins, calling on the name of the Lord, that this calling on the name of the Lord is belief, and that's when you receive the washing away of the sins. Calling on the name of the Lord is not belief, because Romans 10, verse 14 makes it clear that calling on the name of the Lord occurs after you believe. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? That's past tense in the Greek, just like you see in English. In other words, you cannot call upon somebody until you have believed first, past tense. If you were to continue reading, it says, how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? In other words, you have to hear first, and then after that comes the believing. And how shall they hear without a preacher? How shall they preach except it be sent? Going backwards, the preacher has to be sent first. After that, they hear. After that, they believe. And after that, they call. The calling in Acts 22-16 is something done after you believe. It is, basically what it is, is asking God to save you from your sins. But it's not in prayer. He's already told us. You don't need to pray to be saved. He said, the way you be saved is you do what I said to do. Believe, repent, confess, and be baptized. So the way you call upon God to save you of your sins, from your sins, is by meeting those conditions. Saul had already believed, he had already repented, and so what he needed to do to call upon God to forgive him of his sins, to wash away his sins based on the blood of Christ, was to be baptized. And that's what this is saying here. An honest examination of Acts 22-16 will show that the following three things happen together. Baptism, the washing away of thy sins, and calling on the name of the Lord. That's what we need to do, and that's clear. Now, you can go ahead and put up the next chart, Terry, but before we go to Galatians 3, I want you to briefly look at Romans 6, because Romans 6 and Galatians 3 and Colossians 2 would have a connection. Romans 6, verse 3 says, "...know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?" Again, it's baptized ace into Jesus Christ, into a fellowship with Christ, into a saved relationship with Christ. We're baptized into His death. That means we're baptized into the benefits of His death. How do you get there? Baptism. Now, Stephen and I have talked on the phone, and he agrees with me that Romans 6, 3 and following is a good passage to use with the Methodists when you're trying to show them that water baptism is emerging. Because if you notice from a verse like verse 5, it says, For we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. We could use the word picture or likeness. The baptism here is a picture or the likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The Holy Spirit doesn't fit that. Holy Spirit baptism is not a likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. But water baptism is. You go down into the water and you come up up. Come up out of the water. That's just like Christ going down into the grave and coming back up. Stephen agreed with me that this was an effective passage to use to prove to a Methodist that sprinkling just would not cut it. In other words, Romans 6 is talking about water baptism, and it says that we're baptized into Christ, that is, into a saved relationship with Christ, and we're baptized into His death, that is, the benefits of His death. You cannot be saved without being baptized in water, according to this passage. Now turn to Galatians 3, 26 and 27. Now again, Stephen and I agree tonight and tomorrow night that a person is saved by grace through faith. So we're saved by faith. We're saved through faith. Notice Galatians 3.26 says, "...for you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." We're agreed on that point. The part we're not agreed on is the very next verse. It says, "...for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." This little word, for, here in the English that begins verse 27 means to introduce the reason. In other words, the reason you're a child of God by faith is because you've been baptized into Christ. Again, into a saved relationship with Christ. And when you've done that, you have put on Christ. You become a Christian. Do you see that? The way you become a child of God by faith is not by faith only. Or at the point of faith, the way you become a child of God by faith, according to Paul, is you become baptized into Christ. Now again, this is talking about water baptism. How do I know that? Because it's baptism into Christ. That's the same as Romans 6, 3, baptism into Christ, which we know is talking about water baptism because Stephen agrees with me that's an effective passage to use to show that sprinkling is not valid water baptism. Romans 6 is talking about water baptism. Galatians 3 is talking about water baptism because they're both talking about baptism into Christ. And Galatians 3 is saying that you have to be baptized into Christ, that's water baptism, in order to be a child of God by faith. Now, the next verse I would like you to look at is 1 Corinthians 1, verses 12-13. Now, I want you to hang with me here and look at this carefully because a lot of people haven't actually considered this passage in this light before. They have considered these other passages, but hang with me here on 1 Corinthians 1, 12 and 13. Now, what's going on here, as most of you already know, is a bunch of division. People were saying in verse 12, I am of Paul, I'm of Apollos, I'm of Cephas, I guess that would be Peter, and I'm of Christ. It was like they were saying I'm a follower of Paul or I'm a follower of Apollos. Paul is trying to counteract this division among the Corinthian brethren. And what he does was, he argues a couple of facts that should prove to them that they could not be of Paul. See, some of them are claiming to be of Paul, but he says in verse 13, is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Now, if I understand the English language, what that is saying is that Paul is making this argument. You cannot be of Paul unless Paul was crucified for you and you were baptized in the name of Paul. But since neither of those are true, then you cannot rightfully say you were of Paul. Do you follow? That's Paul's argument. Now, here's the extension of that argument, what would have to be true. If to be of Paul you'd have to be baptized in the name of Paul, then it would have to be true that to be of Christ, you'd have to be baptized in the name of Christ. Do you see that? Now that's Paul's argument. It can't be that you're of Paul because you haven't been baptized in the name of Paul. Well, then this would be true if that's his argument, and it is his argument. This would be true. To be of Christ, that is to be a Christian, you would have to be baptized in the name of Christ. And again, Stephen would agree with me, this is called that water baptism. He would. You have to be baptized in the name of Christ, that is, be baptized in water to be of Christ, to be a Christian. You can't be saved without it. That's an inescapable conclusion from Paul's argument here. Now, in Colossians 2, I want us to read verses 11 through 13 together. Now, remember, before we read that, I want you to notice this is talking about being buried with Christ, verse 12, buried with Christ in baptism. Now that's basically saying the same thing as Romans 6, which we've just been over. In other words, it's talking about water baptism here. Buried with Christ in baptism. It uses that same terminology in Romans 6. It's trying to let us know that water baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Now that won't fit Holy Spirit baptism, but it does fit water baptism. Now let's look at verses 11 through 13. 11 says, "...in whom also you are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands." We have an analogy here, an analogy to Old Testament circumcision here. He says, "...in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." Here's the analogy. In the Old Testament, the physical circumcision was the cutting off of the foreskin. Now here, don't get it wrong, you're close, but you're wrong if you say baptism is the New Testament circumcision. No, this circumcision is done without hands. It's not baptism, it is the putting off of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. The cutting off of sins. Old Testament, cutting off the foreskin. New Testament, cutting off of the sins. You follow me? Alright. Now if you look down at verse 13, it says, And you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath the quicken, that is made alive or forgiven, having quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." So New Testament circumcision is the cutting off of our sins in the mind of God, the forgiveness of sins. Now the question is, when does that occur? Paul is talking about the forgiveness or the cutting off of sins in verse 11. Paul is talking about the circumcision, the cutting off of the forgiveness of sins in verse 13. And what's right back in the middle of those two concepts? buried with him in baptism, wherein you are also risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead." He's talking about the forgiveness of sins in verse 11, verse 13, and he tells us when that takes place in verse 12. Again, that should prove to you that baptism is necessary to salvation. Baptism is not New Testament circumcision, but New Testament circumcision is the cutting off of our sins. It occurs when you're baptized, not before you're baptized, as the Baptists teach. But when you're baptized, that's the point of that passage. Terry, next I would like you to turn to 1 Peter 3, verse 21. Five minutes. In 1 Peter 3, verse 21, I believe what I have on the screen is the New American Standard version of that. It says, and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, possibly I should have verse 20 on that chart also. It helps you to read verse 20 in introducing verse 21. It says, "...which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a-preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water." Underline that word, water. There was a physical salvation during that time of eight souls. And the Bible says, by water. Now remember the word, water. And so in verse 21, New American Standard Version says, and corresponding to that, baptism doth now save, excuse me, I'm getting the King James, let me read it in the King James this time. The like figure wherein to even baptism doth also now save us. Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now let me read it out of the New American Standard Version. And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There's a type and an anti-type here, a figure and a real. Just as in almost every case or every case I know about, the figure is the Old Testament. Okay, in the old, like the animal sacrifices was the figure, the death of Christ was the real. Here we have the eight souls being saved by water, Noah and his wife, three sons, their three wives. That's the figure. That's the type. The real or the anti-type is baptism to also now save us. Now, how can one correspond to the other? How? There are two things that correspond. Both of them involve water. And both of them involve a salvation. In the Old Testament, it was a physical salvation, and the New Testament is a spiritual salvation. How do I know that? He explains it. It's not the removal of dirt from the flesh. It's not a physical cleansing, but it's a spiritual cleansing. So, the bottom line on this verse is, if you don't get all of that, just remember the Bible says, baptism, death also now save you, and that's enough. Like I said, if you'll just accept what the Bible says, that's enough. That proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have to be baptized. That doesn't mean that baptism earns your salvation. Far from it. The death, the blood of Christ does that. It just means it's a condition. Water baptism is a condition you have to meet in order to receive the forgiveness provided for by the blood of Christ. Now, I want to go through the verses one more time briefly and again appeal to you to look at these simply and just accept what they say. Jesus said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Isn't that easy and clear? He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. John 3, 5, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Acts 2, 38, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. They told him to repent and be baptized, both of those, and he told them the reason. In order to get the forgiveness or the remission of sins. Ananias told Saul, Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins. In other words, he had to be baptized so that God would wash away his sins. Galatians 3, for you're all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The way you become a child of God by faith is by being baptized into Christ. Colossians 2, we're buried with Him in baptism, having forgiven you all trespasses. And 1 Peter 3, 21, baptism doth also now save us. Now, it looks like to me it's an open and shut case. It's just a matter of whether or not you love God more than a system of a theology that you might have. OK? You may have this system of theology that you may have some allegiance to. Please don't. Have your allegiance to what Jesus actually said plainly and clearly. Thank you very much and I encourage you to listen with all attention that you can muster to Stephen. Some of these things are hard to follow along and to keep up. And I know that you've come here, most of you, to engage your mind and your hearts with the discussions. I, like Pat, am very appreciative for the friendship that we have and the interaction that we have with one another. And I'm very thankful to see such a good showing tonight on an issue, which I certainly believe is very important. Let's give just a moment here. Yes, go ahead. Yes, come in. If any of you perhaps can squeeze together a little bit, or we can make some seatings for some folks who are needing to come in a little bit late. No, that's all right. We're glad to have you all. Let me say, as one of the elders of the Reformed Baptist Church of Nashville as well, we're very glad to be able to host this one. The Hillview Church of Christ was able to host the previous one, and it's our privilege to host this one. And we're very, very glad that you're all able to make it here tonight. Well, let me take just a few minutes, if I may, to discuss what it is we are not debating and what it is I believe that we are debating tonight. First of all, we are not debating the issue of whether baptism is commanded in the New Testament. We're not debating whether it is under the New Covenant each child of God, everyone who claims to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, to be one who follows the Lord in baptism. And to not do so, I believe, as a Baptist, is disobedient. So we're not here debating whether it's commanded as the appropriate response to the reception and belief of the Gospel. Secondly, we're not debating tonight whether baptism is by immersion. Again, I am a Baptist, and therefore I do believe in baptism by immersion. Nor tonight are we debating the issue of whether it's paedo-baptism or believer's baptism. Again, I'm a Baptist. I believe in credo or believer's baptism. Now, I, like Pat, believe this is a very important subject. And I, like Pat, though he may not believe this, want to believe what the Bible says. But even beyond that, I want to look at what the Bible means. Because there are a lot of things, aren't there, in the Bible that if you look at in what they say, we have to ask the question, what do they mean in the context of the rest of Scripture? And that's what I'm going to seek to do tonight. I appreciate Pat, as well as his friends who want to take a very simple reading of Scripture. I appreciate that. And that's the way to read the Bible, to look at it, to see what it says, to accept it in simplicity, if you will. But I think there's a difference between being simple and simplistic. That we have to continue to look at the Scripture, to continue to hone our minds and see all of what God says in these things. Pat has somewhat embraced you to tell you that if I say these don't say what they mean, then I just don't believe the Bible. And I don't want you to believe the Bible. But that's not at all the case. I want to see not only what these passages say, but exactly what they say and what they mean. I hope it's not going to be too tedious tonight as we look and consider even some of the Greek of these passages. I believe that the original inspired scriptures was found in the Greek, not in the English. The English are good Bibles. We've got good translations. We can have confidence in them. But when it comes down to matters of doctrinal distinctives, it's important to be able to look at the Greek, because that's the original language, and sometimes the English does not properly convey that. So I want to take some time tonight to look at, in a simple way, the Greek of these passages, and the original language which God inspired them, and ask, is what Pat is saying about it exactly what the Holy Spirit said in those passages? Now my primary argument tonight, or for what I'm denying tonight, is all of tomorrow night. Justification by faith alone in Christ alone is what I'm going to be defending tomorrow night. And if I could, I would take all of that three hour debate tomorrow and put it and insert it right here and play it fast forward and let you listen to it all. But I don't have that luxury. I'll just have to say, if you can't make it tomorrow night, get to that and listen to it. That is my primary argument because of what the rest of the scripture says, justification by faith alone in Christ alone. But let me begin tonight by making several observations about what we know for sure about baptism in the New Testament. First, not all baptisms spoken of in the New Testament are water baptisms. And I know that Pat would agree with this. Not all baptisms spoken of are water baptisms. The essential idea in baptism has nothing to do with water. It means to be dipped, to be covered, to be overwhelmed with, to be covered with something. It is to be buried in something that when you see the word baptism and you immediately import the word water, you're making an exegetical mistake. Okay, so that is the first point here, that not all baptisms spoken of are water baptisms. The idea of water is not essential to the word baptism, though we often simply associate that. Notice several examples. Luke 3.16. The prophet John the Baptist said, saying to all, I indeed baptize you with water, and there is water baptism, but one mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose, he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. So there is at least one example of a baptism that is not by water, in contrast, but by or with the Holy Spirit. Secondly, there's the baptism of fire found also in this passage, Luke 3.16. The baptism of fire, I think in the context of Luke there, as well as other passages, that that's a baptism of judgment. It is an immersion of the world into a final judgment. And then likewise, number three, there's a baptism of suffering, found in Mark 10, 38 and 39, where Jesus said, you do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? We are able. And he said, you will indeed drink of the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with, that you will be baptized. And then Luke 12, 50, I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am. He's not going to be water baptized again. It is a baptism of suffering and of trial as he goes to the cross so that simply to make the point that when you see the word baptism it's a mistake to automatically assume it's water and physical baptism. That's just by way of observation. So in this being the case we need to be very careful when we see the word baptism not to import that. Now the second thing I want us to consider is that baptism is a term used to demonstrate a commitment to be a follower or a disciple particularly of a prophet. that one of the essential meanings of being baptized is to identify yourself with a prophet. Notice 1 Corinthians 10 and verse 2. All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Now, they were somehow baptized? Were they literally baptized? No. But it was through the sea that they went through, and that identified them, that they believed Moses was the true prophet, that they identified themselves with him, and they said, we are going to follow this prophet wherever he goes. So there it's seen that baptism, Paul even uses New Testament terminology to describe something that wasn't even found in the Old Testament. Why? Because in Paul's mind, baptism identifies somebody with a prophet. Notice secondly with John the Baptist, Luke 5.33. Then they said to him, Why do the disciples of John fast often and make prayers? Why were they disciples of John? Because they had been baptized by John. Because they had become followers of John as a prophet, as a forerunner of Jesus Christ. And therefore they were of John. Does that mean John was crucified for them? No. But they were disciples of John. Now, the third thing I want us to see then is, of course, Jesus as the great and final prophet. The final name in which somebody is baptized. John 3, 26. They came to John and said to him, Rabbi, who is with you beyond the Jordan to whom you have testified, behold, he is baptizing and all are coming to him. They say, John, aren't you jealous? Because they're becoming followers of him as a greater prophet. And John says, you guys got it all wrong. That's exactly what's supposed to happen. They're following after Him and becoming disciples of Messiah, and that's what should be, because He's the greatest and the final prophet. So we see here, secondly, baptism is a demonstration, if we could say, faith in the prophet. That the prophet is the one that they are following. In the case of Moses, in the case of John the Baptist, in the case of Jesus, that it identifies someone as saying, I, being baptized in the name of that prophet, or following that prophet, identify myself and follow them as the true teacher. This explains 1 Corinthians 1.15. In neither of these cases, with Moses nor John, does it imply what Pat assumes here in 1 Corinthians 1.15 that it means somebody was crucified for them or died for them. It means I identify myself as a disciple of this prophet and ultimately I identify myself as a follower and in the name of Jesus Christ. Now third, and finally here by way of introduction, baptism is a public confession of one's sinfulness and repentance. That's what the Bible says baptism is. Notice Mark 1.14. John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching, and notice again the construction of the words here, a baptism of repentance. It's a baptism of repentance, and what is it? for the remission of sins. Now here, even in the English language, it can be seen that the for the remission of sins is not tied with baptism, it's tied to repentance. And we'll see that's exactly what Peter says in Acts 2.38. It's a baptism of repentance, but it's repentance for the remission of sins. So when they were doing that, they were saying, I have repented of my sins, therefore I have remission, and I confess publicly that I'm a sinner, and by God's grace I'm being saved. Notice in Acts 13.24. Acts 13-24. After John had first preached before his coming, the baptism of repentance. They drop out the phrase at this point for the remission of sins. It shows that baptism of repentance is essentially what he's speaking of here. What John is preaching is not baptism that brings about forgiveness of sins, but baptism as a public testimony of true repentance. It is the confession. Notice again in Acts 19.4, Paul said, John indeed baptized with a baptism notice of repentance, saying to people that they should believe on him who would come after him, that is on Christ. And in Matthew 3, they were baptized by him in the Jordan, not washing away their sins, confessing. their sins. That's what the Bible says about those verses. This is seen even more clearly in John's perplexity at Jesus coming and he says, why would I baptize you? You're not a sinner. And he says, to fulfill all righteousness. John understood it. It was a public confession of sinfulness. And he says, I shouldn't be baptizing you. So that's my way of introduction. I want us to see those things in overall theology from the New Testament about baptism. Not all baptisms are water baptisms. Baptism is a term to demonstrate one's faith or commitment to follow after a prophet, particularly now the prophet, the great prophet, the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, to identify myself with Christ. That's an expression of faith. And then thirdly, baptism is a public confession of one's sinfulness. It is a confession of one's repentance. And there we're going to see again and again tonight, tomorrow night, it is an expression of repentance and of faith. Now, let's get to the several texts that, and I won't be able to get to them all in this section. My time is already half over. But I want to spend a bit of time with, I think, four frontline soldiers that Pat has brought up before us. And the first is Mark 16, 16. It is correct. He said to them, go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved, and he who does not believe will be condemned. And I want you to believe exactly what this verse says. I want you to believe exactly, but I don't want you to go beyond what the verse says. Okay? There's a difference there. I don't want you to make false inferences from the passage, but I do want you to believe exactly what the passage says. He lays out two possibilities for the reception of the gospel. What happens when people hear the gospel? The first is someone believes they're baptized and the result is salvation. The second is someone does not believe and is not condemned. And I believe that's exactly what the Bible teaches throughout. That if you believe and are baptized, you will be saved. That is an absolutely true statement. Now, the first thing I want us to see under this is this verse, as it stands in the Bible in plain English and in the Greek, is a factual, not a conditional statement. Now, Pat will say, well, sometimes conditional statements like his dad telling him to do this and to do this and so on, that's true. It could be a conditional statement. But to him, salvation on it when it doesn't say if, and the Greek has a perfectly good way of expressing that. The Greek has a very perfect way of saying if and then a conditional statement. It is a factual statement and I believe if you believe and if you are baptized you will be saved. I also believe if you do not believe you will be condemned in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now the second thing I want us to see about the verse is that it's not a comprehensive verse about salvation. In other words, it doesn't cover every possible issue. For instance, I believe Pat would agree. This does not say he who believes and is baptized, even if he stops believing later, will be saved. There's a condition there that Jesus does not even cover. There are those who believed, it appeared for a time, and then fell away. And do we believe that they're saved? No. Jesus doesn't cover that. He doesn't deal with that group. It is a necessary inference that if someone is not baptized, or does not believe, they will not be saved, because Jesus explicitly states it. Now let me look thirdly, very quickly here, and I'll explain what I mean by that more under this point. That grammatically nor logically does this verse have to say what Pat says. It may say what Pat says. I'll grant that. But let's grant for a minute that it is conditional statement. He used again the two, do this, do this, and therefore this will happen. That's true. But in conditional statements, in plain English, there are some conditions that are essential. There are others that what we would call accessory. There are some that are absolutely essential, basic or indispensable. There are some that are accessory that are not essential to the outcome. Let me give you a very simple syllogism or simple statements here. He who enrolls at UT and lives in the dorms will be a UT student, right? That's a true statement. That's absolutely true. Statement number two, he who does not enroll at UT will not be a UT student. Is that true? Oh, yeah, that's true. They're both absolutely true. Now, is it a true inference or a false inference that if you don't live in the dorms? That you can't be a student. Because one part of it is essential, the other is accessory, it's a statement. Is it not true he enrolls and lives in the dorms of a UT student? Yes. But is it a conditional statement to say, if both of those things, absolutely, otherwise you can't be? No. That is called the fallacy of false inference. That is not logically nor grammatically what this passage says. We've already seen he doesn't cover all the bases. What about he who believes and is baptized and later doesn't believe? Pat will admit it doesn't cover that issue. He won't be saved. Pat would admit that. You've got to continue to believe. By that, he admits that it's not comprehensive. It doesn't cover every base. And I'm saying that one of the bases not covered here is what happens if the person believes and then is not baptized. Do I believe you ought to be baptized? Absolutely. Do I believe it's disobedience to not be baptized? Absolutely. Does that mean if somebody physically and possibly can't do so, they are beyond God's grace? I don't think so. Any more than Romans 10 that says, if you confess with your mouth, neither do I believe that a person who cannot speak is beyond God's grace. Those are the normal expressions and they ought to be done. And if that's not done, there's disobedience. Does that mean that a person who cannot is beyond God's grace? I don't believe so. Now, the larger issue here with Mark 16, since, and I hope Pat will be able to agree with this, this conditional statement, even if we grant a conditional, does not seal the case. It's not as confident and sure, I think, as he presented it here. With basic logic and grammar of the text, it can say more than what it just simply says here. I hope Pat will agree with that. And I hope if he doesn't, you see through that, that it's a false inference. It's not what's stated in the passage. Now, let's come quickly to Acts chapter 2. Acts chapter 2. Did I say you shouldn't believe Mark 16? No. I'm saying you ought to believe exactly what it says, but don't go beyond what the passage says. That's what I'm saying. Acts chapter 2. It is true there are two commands here. The first is to repent. To change your mind. The first command is what's known as a second-person plural. It's like me saying, you all baptize or repent. The second command in the passage is, be baptized. But in the Greek, it's different. It's not, be baptized you all, but be baptized every single one of you. It is a third-person singular. Now, I've tried to diagram up here very simply. Where you have the for the remission of your sins, yours, the pronoun, is second person plural. Now you see how I have it diagrammed here? In the Greek, one of the great things about Greek is you can almost chop up a sentence and scramble it and still put it back together because of the cases. It's got nominative and genitive and accusative because of the various prepositions. You can almost put it back together. Well here we have repent all of you, second person plural, be baptized every single one of you, but it's baptism or repent for the remission of your all sins. Now very simply, second person plural, which one do you think it goes with grammatically? I want you to believe exactly what Acts 2.38 says. Exactly! And it says, repent. every one of you, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins." If being baptized was connected for the remission of sins, you know what that would mean grammatically? That if any one of you are baptized for the remission of your sins, then the sins of all of you are washed away, because that's second-person plural, their diagram. I want you to see that exactly. I know that's a hard argument to follow, but we have to be that particular when we address the Greek. Now, when we consider other parallel passages throughout the Gospel of Luke, which Luke also wrote, and the Book of Acts, notice these several passages. Luke 3, 3. He went into all the region around the Jordan preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. That's what I've just said with this previous illustration, with the previous diagram. It's repentance for the remission of sins. That's exactly what Peter says. Notice in Acts 3, 19. Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out. What is essential? Repentance. He doesn't mention baptism. Third, him God exalted to his right hand to be Prince and Savior to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. Acts 1043, to him all the prophets witnessed that through his name whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins. It's repeated over and over again and never is it again repeated in that same way as Pat is suggesting. You'll see Acts 13.38, everyone who believes is justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. Acts 26.18, Paul's call to turn them from darkness to light. I don't have time to get into it. I've only got about 18 seconds left. But I hope you see how careful I'm trying to be with these texts. I don't want to just gloss over them and just... Acts 2.38 as well as Mark 16 are not conclusively what Pat has said. I hope we can see that and wait to deal with some of the other text in the next section. Appreciate the very good job Stephen is doing. I'm glad he's here to defend his position. He began by talking about that the idea of water is not essential in the word baptism. That's right. Baptism just means immersion. But I want you to notice something I think you'll agree with this point. I asked him in a question over email, do you agree that words or phrases in the Bible are to be understood with their primary, normal, and literal meaning unless the context or some other verse demands that we take them in a secondary, unusual, and or figurative sense? And he basically said a few things and he said very simply, yes. And that's kind of the question I have at the top. And I want you to notice, first of all, as we go on in this discussion, is that when you read about baptism in the New Testament, yes, sometimes you'll read about Holy Spirit baptism, which is a figurative use of baptism, not literal. Water baptism is a literal immersion. I believe what we have up here is about 68 times over here on the left that Stephen and I would agree where the word baptism is mentioned 68 times is referring to water baptism. He would agree it's water. Then there are six times over here that where the word baptism is mentioned that both he and I would agree with Holy Spirit baptism. Now right up in here are the ones we disagree on. So let's just throw those out. He would probably say Holy Spirit on those and I would say water. Let's throw those out. So 68 times we would agree it's water baptism and 6 times Holy Spirit baptism. Yes, baptism can refer to Holy Spirit baptism, but he's already admitted in this question that you should take, unless something dictates otherwise, the normal or the literal meaning, unless something dictates otherwise. So since we're looking at Galatians 3 and Colossians 2, And the other one was Romans 6, where we would dispute. The first thing I'd like you to think about is what is the normal, literal meaning, because that's the one that we should take unless you could prove otherwise. Okay? Put it at number 7. And then he mentioned Luke 5, 33, for example, that these people were disciples in the name of John, but they weren't baptized in the name of John. That's right. Paul's argument, and my argument, is not that every time in the history of the world somebody was a disciple of another, that they had to be baptized in the name of that person. For example, Confucius or somebody like that. If you were a disciple of him, you wouldn't have to be baptized in the name of Confucius. That's not Paul's argument. But Paul's argument was That's his argument, now, Stephen. Remember, not my argument. His argument was that to be of Paul, you'd have to be baptized in the name of Paul. Now, he's not talking about disciple of just anybody, but he says to be of Paul, disciple of Paul, you'd have to be baptized in the name of Paul. Why is that true? Because he has in mind trying to get these people to quit being a follower of Paul and to start being a follower of Christ. And so the implication is that to be a follower of Christ, to be of Christ, you'd have to be baptized in the name of Christ. knowing the truth that to be of Christ, you have to be baptized in the name of Christ. That's why Paul can make the argument. You're not of Paul because you weren't baptized in the name of Paul. That's Paul's argument, Stephen, not my argument. In this case, his argument is either valid or invalid. That's not necessarily valid about any disciple of anybody, but it's valid in this case, and he has in mind being of Christ. After all, that is the goal there, right? For these people to be of Christ. And so the argument still stands, Paul's argument, not mine, that to be of Paul, you'd have to be baptized in the name of Paul. That's what he said. And the conclusion would be, since the goal is to be of Christ, you'd have to be baptized in the name of Christ. That is clear, a valid argument, a true argument, an indisputable argument. And then Stephen mentioned that John the Baptist's baptism was not for the remission of sins. Now I don't agree, but I'm going to ignore the point because I don't think it's essential to this discussion. And the reason is, if you read Acts 19 verses 3 through 5, you'll see some people that were baptized by John's baptism, yet to be saved, they had to be rebaptized in the name of Christ. So John's baptism and Jesus' baptism are two different things. So we're not discussing John's baptism. It could have been baptism in grape juice, but it wouldn't matter. Jesus' baptism was in water for the remission of sins, regardless of what John's baptism was. Put up number 14. Then Stephen got to Mark 16.16, so I'd like you to turn back there. First, Stephen said that the first part of Mark 16.16 is factual, not conditional. That's not true. You don't have to have an if word to be conditional. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved is of a grammatical form where it is conditional. And I gave you some examples before. Now, let me give you either those examples again or to give them to you in more detail. For example, he that eateth and digesteth his food shall live, but he that eateth not shall die. Is that just factual, he's saying, or is it conditional? It's conditional, isn't it? Both he eateth and digesteth are absolutely necessary. He that eateth not shall die does not comment upon whether or not digestion is necessary. So Mark 16, 16b actually does not comment upon whether or not baptism is necessary. All it does is say that if you don't believe, you won't be saved. Here's another one. He that plants and picks corn will have corn to eat, but he that doesn't plant will not have corn. Both planting and picking are absolutely necessary to getting corn to eat. It is not necessary to say, and doesn't pick, in the second clause of the sentence. If a man doesn't plant any seed, there isn't any reason for saying, and doesn't pick. For a person to be scripturally baptized, he has to believe first. Acts 8, verse 36. And so the reason, verse 16b, it doesn't have to mention baptism again, because if a person doesn't believe, baptism isn't even applicable anymore. If you don't plant the corn, you don't have to talk about picking it. It's not going to be there. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. That's what you have to do to be saved. He that believeth not shall be condemned. If you don't believe, you don't need to talk about baptism. It wouldn't even be applicable. He that plays Major League Baseball and bats for the highest average will win the batting title, but he that doesn't play will certainly not win. Is that just factual or is it also conditional? Everybody here can see it's conditional. Both playing and batting for the highest average are necessary to winning the batting title. It isn't necessary to say he does not bat with the highest average in the B part of the sentence. If a man doesn't play the game, his batting average isn't applicable. Put up number 17. Now, Stephen says, well, suppose it is conditional. Well, it is. He says the second part is not necessarily essential. Sure it is. Stephen gives an illustration. I want you to notice the illustration carefully. He that enrolls at UT, University of Tennessee, and lives in the dorm will be a UT student. Now it is true that living in the dorm is not necessary to being a UT student. That's true. But the sentence itself is illogical. If you came up to me and said that, I would immediately say that's not true. You don't have to live in the dorm to be a UT student. All of you Baptists here. If Steven came up to you and said, he that enrolls at UT and lives in the dorm will be a UT student, wouldn't you immediately stand up and say, Steven, you're wrong. You don't have to live in the dorm to be a UT student. That is what we call a false sentence. He's got the words right, and he's right the second part is not essential, but he's wrong. He's implying that you have to live in the dorm to be a UT student, and that is absolutely not true. Let me give you something that Roy Deaver, how he responded to this same argument. Now, the way this argument usually goes, and here's a good illustration that you could have used, Stephen. He that getteth on the train and is seated shall go to Dallas. It's like Stephen's thing. Well, the seated part is obviously not absolutely essential to getting to Dallas. Now, here's how Roy Deaver responded to that, and he's right. In English class, it is often pointed out that we must be careful to see to it that our sentences are true sentences. There are true sentences, Stephen, and there are false sentences. If the blessings or benefits contemplated in the sentence can be had without one's meeting the conditions specified in the sentence, then the sentence is a false statement. And that's what's going on here. You don't have to be seated to get to Dallas. That sentence is false. And if somebody said that at the train station, I would jump immediately up and I would say, no, that's wrong. You don't have to sit down to get to Dallas. You could stand up in the train to get to Dallas anyway. That sentence is just wrong. But you know, Jesus didn't say things that were wrong. He didn't say false sentences. He that getteth on the train and is seated shall go to Dallas. And if, in fact, one can get on the train and go to Dallas without being seated, then the sentence is a false sentence. The Lord gave no false sentences. Every condition that He mentioned is necessary to the receiving of the promised blessing. Mark 16, 16, condition salvation upon belief in baptism. Both conditions must be met. It is that simple. Now, let me give you a couple of other illustrations. Just see how logical they are. Think of this. This is really what Stephen did. Listen to this sentence. He that buys a ticket and gets on the train and stays with the relatives in Atlanta shall make it to Atlanta. Is that illogical? No, it's true that that last condition isn't necessarily the result. That's why it's illogical. Everybody here knows you don't have to stay with your relatives in Atlanta to make it to Atlanta, even though that sentence tries to imply that you do. Isn't it illogical? Can't you see it? Tell me if this sentence is logical or not. He that, talking about the presidential race, he that enters the race and gets the most votes and lives in the White House shall be elected president. That sentence doesn't make any sense, does it? What doesn't make sense about it? Because it does, Stephen, imply that you have to live in the White House to be elected president, and that's not true. So the sentence does necessarily imply something that's not true. And your sentence does too. Your sentence, he that enrolls at UT and lives in the dorm at UT will become a UT student, is a sentence that implies something that's not true, so it's a false sentence. Everybody here can see that. Everybody here can know that Stephen's sentence is false. It's illogical. Everybody could have just jumped up right when Stephen said that and said, no Stephen, you don't have to live in the dorm to be a UT student, yet your sentence implied that you do. Now, let's go back to my original prediction. Mark 16, 16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Didn't I just ask you to accept the plain meaning of that? And didn't Stephen struggle, struggle, struggle, struggle to try to get you to accept something that wasn't the plain meaning of that sentence? Isn't that really what happened? I think that it was. Next, he went to Acts 2, verse 38. Put up number 41. Stephen, had a diagram of that sentence. Unfortunately, the diagram is wrong. It's not a correct diagram, and your English teacher would have corrected you if you'd have brought that to us. Here's the way that Dr. DiSeggio at MTSU, who taught there for 40 years, here's how he diagrammed the sentence. Peter said unto them, and watch this, If every one of you shall repent, for the remission of sins goes with repent, and for the remission of sins goes with be baptized. Not either or. The way that it's diagrammed by a Ph.D. at the universities is that for the remission of sins goes with both. Do you see that? Repent for the remission of sins. Be baptized for the remission of sins. Now I had diagramming sentences in the 8th grade and that's the way they would have taught me to diagram that sentence. Now put up number 36. Stephen's argument here is that repent is second person plural and that be baptized is third person singular. And that for the remission of sins is third person singular, so it, excuse me, it's second person plural, so it has to go with repent, cannot go with be baptized. That argument won't work. First of all, let me say this. Stephen, if that argument were so, what would be the big deal? Because we've already been over Romans 6 verse 3 that says you're baptized into Christ. And that's the same word as for the remission of sins, ace, remission of sins. What's the difference when baptism, ace, Christ, and baptism for the remission of sins? There is no difference. So this is taught elsewhere the same thing. But what is the rule of grammar, Stephen, that says that a prepositional phrase that has second person plural in it cannot modify the phrase be baptized which is third person singular? We have not found any rule of grammar that says that. Now, everybody look at the verse. Did you notice, Stephen, in Acts 2, verse 38, in the audience, I want to invite you to look at the verse. It says, Repent and be baptized, every one of you. Did you notice that was second-person plural? So when we get to the remission of sins, for the remission of sins, going backwards, what is the last second-person plural we have? Remember, he says, for the remission of sins, because it says, for the remission of your sins, second-person plural can't go with be baptized. But the last second-person plural we have going backwards is not repent, it's be baptized every one of you, second-person plural. Do you all understand that? For the remission of sins, second-person plural. Going backwards, what's the last second-person plural? It's in the phrase be baptized every one of you, second-person plural. So why would you make for the remission of sins, go back and modify repent, but not be baptized every one of you when you have second-person plural In that phrase, be baptized every one of you, second person plural, for the remission of sins, second person plural. Now everybody look at Haggai 1 verse 9. Now I want you to notice this, Stephen, the audience, raise it up. This has similar to construction to Acts 2.38, Stephen, and this is, I'm mainly making these points from the Septuagint, but you can see it from the English. So it's from the Greek, Stephen. Haggai 1.9 says you run, second person plural, unto, and there's your word ace, unto his own house. Unto his own house, that's third-person singular. Now remember, Stephen's reasoning was you can't have that prepositional phrase if it's second-person plural going with the third-person singular verb. Well, here we have the verb, second-person plural, we have the prepositional phrase, third-person singular. According to Stephen's reasoning, unto his own house cannot modify ye run. And so when it says ye run, we have no idea where they're running to. Because one is second-person plural, the other is third-person singular. So the second cannot modify the first, so according to Stephen's logic, we don't know where they were running to because unto his own house cannot modify ye run, because they're a different person and number. No, we can see right through that. Can't we all see that? That even though second-person, ye run is second-person plural and unto his own house is third-person singular, unto his own house modifies ye run, and it's telling exactly where they ran to, unto their own house. It doesn't matter that one is second-person plural and one is third-person singular because there is no rule of Greek grammar that says third-person singular prepositional phrase cannot modify second-person plural verb. And there is no rule of grammar that says for the remission of sin second-person plural prepositional phrase cannot modify the verb be baptized every one of you because it's third-person singular. Now I don't have time but the next two charts I will show you the Greek scholars that say not only does for the remission of sins can go with be baptized, but that it does. Thank you very much. Before I go on to some of the other passages such as Acts 22, let me just go back and make a couple brief comments. I stand on the things that I said previously, which doesn't mean that I don't think they could be defended again, but I don't want to waste your time. I think it's very plain to see that when I make the statement, he who is a UT student and stays in the dorms, or he who enrolls at UT and stays in the dorms is a student, that's a statement of fact that you would not jump up and go, wait a minute, that's false. Did any of you do that? Did any of you go, wow, man, that was so false, how could you make a statement? Of course not. Because it's not a conditional statement, it's a statement of fact. And Pat is right. It could be a conditional. I tried to grant that as a possible conditional statement. But that doesn't necessarily make it a conditional statement. Again, I was trying to prove from that passage. And he used a lot of examples that I simply didn't use. But if I say to you, he who enrolls and stays in the dorms is a UT student, that is not illogical. Pat with great fervency said that that's false. That's not a false statement. Isn't that a true statement? If I said, only those who stay in the dorms, then that would be a false statement. Okay, so I hope that's understood clearly. Acts chapter 2, it's the normal usage of grammar that the pronoun and the verb agree. I don't have to quote a bunch of Greek scholars to prove that. Most of you know that. Haggai 1.9, all of you all run into each of your houses. What he's not saying is, all of you all run into all of all of your all's houses, of course, and there's no problem with the grammar there. But it is a problem to say, each one of you be baptized for all of your all's sins. That's a horrible theological problem. If so, Pat's already done it for me. Right? If he can be baptized individually for the remission of all of our sins, then it's by proxy. Actually, had a fellow, well, I won't get into that, but that's just not a problem. OK, that's the normal usage of the grammar. I don't want to waste your time. I urge you to go and listen to those arguments. Think about what Pat is saying. And if it's worthy, then listen to it. Otherwise, I just stand where I stand. I don't want to waste a lot of time on that. Acts 22, verse 16, another key passage in Pat's understanding. And again, I want you to believe exactly what the passage says. and what it means. Acts 22 16. Why are you waiting? Ananias speaking to Paul, arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Yes, it's true you can have two things on the opposite sides of ands and both of them be connected. There's no question. All the examples he used, that's perfectly fine. But the question is, is that what Paul says here? Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what Luke writes, is this what is written? I agree with all of his examples, but does the example apply to this particular passage grammatically? Now, first of all, in most of the English translations that I've consulted, it looks like there are three commands. There are not three commands in this verse. There are two what are known as imperatives. There are two commands. The first is, be baptized. That's the first command of what Ananias tells Paul. Saul at this time. The second is, wash away your sins. And those two commands are separated in the middle by an. In the Greek, it is, be baptized as one imperative to Paul, and secondly, wash away your sins. Now, if you could view these two verbs on each side of the an. The an's in the middle, here are these two verbs. At the opposite ends in the sentence are participles. Participles, when they stand next to verbs, modify the verbs nearest to them. So literally, if you'll show the next one, Gary, please. It's literally, arising, be baptized. That's the command. How am I to be baptized? Well, he says, by arising. You can't do it here. You've got to go find some water, of course. The participle, which modifies baptized, at this end of the sentence, it's arising, be baptized, chi, and there's the conjunction. Secondly, here's the second thing you do. The second command is, wash away your sins. Then the next participle, modifying, wash away your sins. How are the sins washed away? The participle is not being baptized. The participle is calling on the name of the Lord. So the grammar of the passage itself is simply what that says. Arising, be baptized. And then the second thing you need to do, Paul, is wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. The grammar is very simple. The grammar is very clear. Now, we find that this agrees with the rest of the Bible because the Bible speaks in harmony. When you look at Psalm 86.5, for you, O Lord, are good and ready to forgive and abundant mercy to all those who call upon you. Joel 2.32, whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. It's quoted again in Acts chapter 2. And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10.9, if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, believe in your heart that God is raised from the dead, you will be saved. that is calling upon the name of the Lord. Romans 10, 12-13, there's no distinction between Jew and Greek for the same Lord. Overall, it's rich to all those who call upon Him. For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Paul does not, or Ananias does not add another condition for salvation here. It agrees with the rest of the scripture. Paul, get up and be baptized and wash away your sins. How? Calling on the name of the Lord. I think it's simple grammar. I think everybody here can see that. And if you don't know Greek or you don't trust me, go look it up, take a little bit of Greek and look at the text itself and you'll see that's exactly then what it says. Now, the last passage I would like to look at in some detail is 1 Peter chapter 3. 1 Peter chapter 3, I admit, is a difficult passage. And Pat would say, well, it's not difficult if you just take it for what it says. But it's difficult in a couple of ways. One is the overarching context of 1 Peter 3 and how it deals with Jesus and how He went either by the Spirit back to the days of Moses or did it while He was dead. The commentators, you've got to know, are just not all agreed in exactly what that means. It's just not nailed down. At least the commentators that I've read and been exposed to, it's a difficult passage to look at the context. There's disagreement between good, solid commentators on what this passage actually says. So the context makes it somewhat difficult. Another thing that makes the passage difficult is there's at least one hypoxilogomena, which means a Greek word that is used one time in the New Testament and nowhere else. And the word that's used here and nowhere else in the New Testament is what Peter writes here as the answer of a good conscience toward God. Some of the lexicographers, those who write Greek dictionaries, they say that it means something like an answer or even a demand of a good conscience. Others say that it is a pledge, but quite frankly, it's a toss-up because there's no other example in the New Testament where this word is used. It makes that part of the text difficult to understand. Then the other word that is used only one other time in the New Testament is the antitype. And most, again, of the lexicographers and the commentators that I've read admit that the way the writer to the Hebrews uses the word antitype is different from the way that Peter uses it here. So it makes the passage difficult, even grammatically. That's just one of the basic rules. You can't just make up meanings for words or pick and choose one. So when it's ambiguous, it's a hard text to look at. So now here is the antitype, which is clearly baptism. Now here's what I want you to consider. And that is, what is baptism now doing? And he writes to New Testament Christians who are presently believing that it is now saving you. Or some of the textual variants say, now saving us. And I asked Pat at one point, how is your baptism now saving you? And I think that's a key issue. It doesn't say that one time saved us or one time and now has benefits for us, but in some way the baptism Peter is speaking of is now, and it's a present active verb, is now saving you. And that's, I think, a very important issue. It is now saving you. The question is, it is now saving you in what way? Does it mean justification? Does it mean salvation? Does it mean forgiveness of sins? Does it mean, as it says in Matthew, he will save his people from their sins? Does it mean salvation from the perverse generation in which we are in? That's where I lean with the passage. that even as the Noah, the Noahic and the flood and all that happened was a salvation through temporal judgment and the sins of the world, that did not mean Noah and his sons were saved. but it was an illustration of how they were saved through temporal judgment. In the same way, I can just say to a Christian that your baptism is now saving you. In what way? Well, notice again what it says here. How it is doing it? Negatively, the baptism is not that which is physical, the removal of the filth of the flesh. He doesn't want them to misunderstand. Well, does that mean the baptism, the water baptism, the physical baptism? And Pat doesn't believe that it's actually the washing of the way of the sins in any way. He doesn't believe that. That's a straw man. I don't want to use that against him. But I think Peter is making the point, it's not physical. It's not the removal of the filth from the flesh, but it is, secondly, positively, it has something spiritual to do, which is either an answer of a good conscience toward God, or I prefer, a pledge of a good conscience toward God. So here's basically the construct. that by baptism, when somebody commits themselves and pledges to the Lord, I will walk with a good conscience before you. I am dead to myself through my baptism. I'm demonstrating to other believers and other unbelievers that I am dead to myself and I'm raised in the newness of Christ, I will walk according to His ways, that that baptism continues to save because it is the reminder of the pledge I've made to keep a good conscience. Paul says in Acts chapter 26 that I do always strive to keep a good conscience before God and before man. There are a number of times that this good conscience is tied not to water, but to faith. 1st Timothy 1.5, now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith. I don't think I have this one, Gary, so I'll just read these passages. Thank you. 1st Timothy 1.19, having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck. 1st Timothy 3.9, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. And then Hebrews 10.22, let us draw near with a true heart and full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. There, it's obviously in that connection, physical, or not physical things, but spiritual things, and the conscience is not a physical thing, it is a spiritual, it is the issue of what God gives us in order to walk with Him according to His words. Let me go on, as I've addressed some of those major texts, let me go on and deal with some secondary things. One of the concerns that I have with Pat's view of baptism, and I've asked him this before and I believe it's still the case, that he believes baptism is essential to the gospel. Well, the problem I have with that is that I don't believe the gospel is changing. For instance, there's the problem of baptism not being essential to the unchanging gospel because the gospel was preached in the Old Testament and there was no baptism. Notice in Galatians 3 and verse 8, the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith preached the gospel to Abraham before. Now, if baptism is essential to the unchanging gospel, he had to have preached baptism to him as well. If not, it's not the, in logical terms, sine qua non, that without which you can't have. That without which, if it is essential to the gospel, we either have a gospel that is changing, and I hope that Pat's not going to say that, but if we have the same gospel preached to Abraham as preached to us, then the essence is the person and work of Jesus Christ, not baptism. Also in Hebrews chapter 4 it tells us that the gospel was preached, verse 2, was preached to us as well as to them, speaking of the people of Israel. I believe the gospel was preached both to Abraham and to the people of Israel. And was baptism a part of that? Of course not. It was not the sine qua non. It was not that without which you couldn't have. So we either have an evolving kind of gospel that you can add and take away things from, or if it's not essential to the gospel, under the old covenant, it's certainly not under the new covenant. Paul's description of his own call in 1 Corinthians 1.17, For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel. There he separates the two. Mark 16, 16, Jesus says, preach the gospel, he who believes and is baptized. Baptism is a response to the gospel. It's not a part of the gospel. It's proper obedience to the gospel. To put baptism into the essential nature of what must be believed to be saved is making baptism an object of our faith. Pat will say, you must not only believe in that when you're baptized, but be baptized for the remission of sins. If you're sincere, you look back, the sincere disciple of Jesus Christ who doesn't understand Pat's particular view, which is by way, by far the minority view in church history, which that doesn't account for a lot in some of your views, but that's just a simple fact, But there's a problem with faith and baptism. I would challenge Pat to show me a passage that says you must believe in baptism in this way. Now if the scripture reveals it, surely you must believe it. But in the way he's defining it, it makes it the object of faith, not Christ and his person and work, which is part of the unchanging gospel, Abraham through Israel under the new covenant. Galatians 1 warns us against somebody bringing another gospel. And I would ask Pat, is the baptism essential to the gospel? If so, do you have a changing gospel between the Old and the New Covenant? I believe that there is only one baptism that is salvific. And is the baptism spoken of in the book of Ephesians 4 and verse 5? There's one body, one spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. There's one saving baptism, which Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 12, 13 as baptism by one spirit into one body, both of which are spiritual.