In Acts 2.38, Stephen replied asking about the rule that would say that for the remission of sins couldn't go with be baptized. He said it's the normal rule of grammar. Pronoun agrees with the verb. Well, let's go back to Haggai 1.9, Stephen. And we have countless of these examples, but I'll have to go through. This is a very common thing where you have the plural, and then you say each one of you or every one of you to emphasize the individuality of the command. Haggai 1.9 is a good one. The Greek here knows the Greek and he had his Septuagint with him. So he gave us the literal translation of Haggai 1.9. Ye run each to the house of him. Now in English it says his own house, but if you just take the words in the Greek of the Septuagint, ye run each to the house of him. Now Stephen agreed with me that you could tell where the people were running to, to the house. That unto the house of him, modified, that prepositional phrase, modified ye run. Yet, Stephen, remember to the house of him, that's him, a pronoun which is third person singular, Now you just told us that the rule is that it can't modify the verb if the second person plural. But that's what we have in Haggai 1.9. That's what I brought up in the debate. That's why. You run second person plural, each to the house of him, third person singular, and he says it can't modify. Yet he knows that it does. You run to the house of him, third person singular, it modifies. There's no problem with Acts 2.38. For the remission of sins, a prepositional phrase can modify be baptized. There is no rule that says that it can't. No rule. Now, here's what I have. I'm not very good at the Greek, but I've got some Greek scholars here. And here's a list of Greek scholars, and it's probably too faded for you to see it, but I can show it to you afterwards. I did this chart probably ten years ago, Stephen. Greek scholars that say this phrase, for the remission of sins, can go with be baptized. Actually, they're saying it can go with both of them. I'm going to read one of them, Gingrich. F.W. Gingrich. The question is asked, Mr. Gingrich, is it grammatically possible that the phrase, ace, aphasen, harmaton, for the forgiveness of sins, as used in Acts 2.38, expresses the force of both verbs, repent ye and be baptized every one of you. Even though these verbs differ in person and number. So that question was raised. He says, yes, the difference between repent and be baptized is simply that in the first the people are viewed together in the plural, while in the second the emphasis is on each individual. So he says, there's no problem for the remission of sins, can go with both of them. Now if there was a Greek rule against that, Stephen, You'd think these Greek scholars, and there's three of them, would say it can go. But they were asked, and they said it could. Now, the only difference between this chart and the next one is these quotes are saying that it could. The next chart, I have about six or eight scholars saying not only that it can, but that it does. That is, that for the remission of sins goes with both repent and be baptized. Okay? Let's look at what Thayer said. He's about the third one down, since everybody's heard of Thayer. Thayer says the ace, that is, that would be for and for the remission of sins, expressing the end aimed at and secured by what? By repentance and baptism just previously enjoined. Thayer says that for the remission of sins goes with both repentance and baptism. Now J. W. Wilmarth, an outstanding Baptist scholar, he's about to fourth or fifth one down, I won't read the whole thing, but what he's talking about is that how that it can go with both He says that people try to sever this, try to sever for the remission of sins from either repent or be baptized. He says yet to escape it we must violently dissever, repent, and be baptized, and deny that Ace expresses the relation of repentance as well as baptism through forgiveness of sins. But the natural construction connects the latter with both preceding verbs. He's saying that for the remission of sins naturally connects with both preceding verbs, repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other. Then he says he agrees with Hackett, which is right above him. Metzger, many of you would have heard of Metzger, he says, may I say that it seems to me that the phrase ace, aphason, harmaton, I can't pronounce that Stephen, please excuse me, but that's for the remission of sins. in Acts 2.38 qualifies both of the preceding verbs in this verse, both of which are imperative. Both verbs repent and be baptized. Pendleton, the writer of the manual, which is the basis for almost every orthodox Baptist church, I'm sure you all have heard of J.M. Pendleton, he said it is as clear as the sun that both repentance and baptism are connected and are modified by this phrase, for the remission of sins. Now I asked Stephen in a question over email, if I can find that real quick, What ace means in Acts 2.38? And he says, Stephen says, that ace in the case of Acts 2.38 means in order to obtain in that verse. That's what it means. Now these scholars say that for the remission of sins goes with both repent and be baptized. Stephen is saying that the for there, the ace means in order to obtain. So that clearly proves beyond any shadow of a doubt, no doubt, that repentance and baptism are both in order to obtain the remission of sins, which proves my proposition tonight. Now, Stephen made this argument on Acts 2.38. He says, since it says, be baptized, and that's singular, for the remission of sins, of you, plural, he says, that would mean, Pat, if Pat's right, one person could be baptized for the forgiveness of everybody. I'm not saying Stephen is not sincere. He is sincere. But I don't think he really believes this argument. Everybody turn to 1 Timothy 3, verse 12. While you're turning there, I'll give you a couple of illustrative sentences. If I said to some people, maybe my family, my kids, there's four of them, y'all eat your lunches, plural. That makes sense, right? What if I change that to y'all eat your lunch? Would that mean that I meant there's only one lunch there and they're supposed to all four pick from the same lunch? No. Y'all eat your lunches and y'all eat your lunch means exactly the same thing. Okay? It's a distributive kind of plural, Stephen. It means there's four lunches there. Y'all eat your lunch. 1 Timothy 3 verse 12 will sort of make Stephen's argument look absurd. And that's what I intend to do. It says, Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife. According to Stephen's reasoning, since it's singular, one wife, but deacons is plural, that would mean that I'll have to be married to the same woman. That's just funny to me, Stephen. The fact that it says be baptized is singular, for the remission of sins is plural. One person can be baptized for all of them. All of them will get the remission of sin. No? You know, it wouldn't matter if it says let the deacons be the husband and one wife? Or let each deacon have a wife? The deacons should have wives. If you're talking about distributive, one wife for each deacon is what that's talking about. But according to Stephen's reasoning, this would mean, let the deacons, plural, be the husband of one wife, singular, that they all have to be married to the same woman or they won't be qualified. Next, let's go back to Acts 22, 16. I'll just go back to one of my examples I gave. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. is that and their chi is in the Greek. It's not the word that's translated and most of the time in the Bible. It's translated and a good bit, but it's a little more unusual. There it is, chi, just like in Acts 22-16. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Is the second thing dependent upon the first? It is, isn't it? Now go to Acts 22-16. Just use your own reasoning. Ignore all the complicated things that he said. Be baptized and wash away thy sins. Isn't it clear? that Ananias is telling Saul that the second thing, the washing away of the sins, is dependent upon the first, be baptized. It's clear. I believe it's very clear. I believe it's another one of those cases of where I'm telling you to accept exactly what the passage means plainly, and Stephen is struggling, struggling, struggling to try to persuade you to accept something different than what the passage says. Now, after I've asked you just to accept what the passage says, let's talk a little bit about what Stephen's view of the passage is, even if he were right. Because Stephen's view of the passage, even if he were right, disagrees with Stephen's position. Stephen's view is that be baptized and wash away thy sins. That's two completely different things. They're not connected at all. Well, you know what that would mean? That would mean that a person's sins are not washed away until after they're baptized. So a person believes, he repents, and then he's baptized. That's the order. You cannot be baptized unless you believe. Remember, he's not a pedo-Baptist. Acts 8, the unit was told he had to believe first to be baptized. Now he's got the washing away of the sins happening after baptism, which has to be after belief. Is that Stephen's position? No, his position is you get the washing away of the sins when you believe. At the point of faith is in his proposition tomorrow night. But the way he's viewing Acts 22, 16, he got to wash away the sins after he was baptized. So put up number 132. Let's talk about what calling on the name of the Lord means just briefly. And we're going to move in some things here. How much? Five minutes. Calling on the name of the Lord. You remember in Acts 2.21, which he brought up, it says, whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Well, that's explained by verse 38 in chapter 2. Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. The way you call upon the name of the Lord is by doing what God said to do in order to be saved from your sins. Acts 22.16. Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins. Calling on the name of the Lord. Baptism, there is the calling upon the Lord to wash away your sins. That's what calling upon the name of the Lord means. And so put up number 133. 130. Next, I would like you to show you that Paul was saved after he believed, and that's the point we're making on Acts 22, 16, even if his view was correct. Everybody knows that the Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. And Paul said, Who art thou, Lord? He said, I am Jesus. And then he told him that he had chosen him to be a preacher and so forth. Those are those verses up there. Paul believed on the road to Damascus. Then at least three days passed. He went into Damascus and then he was there three days. So we don't know how long it took him to get in there, but supposing it was one day, then four days passed. The indication is that Paul had repented during those three days because he was praying in Acts 9, verse 11. He was fasting. These are all indications that he had repented. In Acts 22, 16, Paul was told to be baptized, not to believe or repent. That's another indication that he'd already believed or repented because he was told to be baptized. So Paul had already believed. He had already repented. And three days later, he was told to do something to get his sins washed away. That's not Stephen's position. Stephen's position is that you get your sins washed away when you believe. Three days later on the road to Damascus. You see, his position on Acts 22.16 doesn't even fit his own position. Put up number 136. Now, we mentioned that Acts 2.21, Romans 10.13, they had to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. Stephen agrees with that. But do you remember that we mentioned in Romans 10.14 that it says, how can you call upon the name of the Lord except you believe? Let me read that. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And that's past tense in the Greek. You can tell it from the English, but it's past tense in the Greek. That is saying that you cannot call upon the Lord unless you believe first. Yet Stephen agrees with me. You've got to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. That's in verse 13. Again, contradicting his own position that you're saved at the point of faith. No. Even if you didn't know this was talking about baptism, which you do if you turn to Acts 22-16, even if you didn't know it was talking about baptism, you could at least conclude that you're not saved at the point of faith because you have to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, and that, according to verse 14, has to come after belief. That's what Paul's saying. It's impossible to call upon the name of the Lord unless you believe first. And then 134. Another point I'd like to make from Romans 9 and 10 is that, If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For where the heart man believeth unto righteousness, with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. You have to confess with your mouth to be saved. Yet, you cannot truthfully confess Christ unless you believe in him first. Again, you have to confess to be saved. That comes after belief. Therefore, you're not saved at the point of faith. Now, Stephen mentioned in 1 Peter 3.21, he wanted to know how is baptism now saving you? Well, it's obvious from the text. He had just got through saying Noah, the eight souls, had been saved by water at that time. Baptism doth also now save us. That's in contrast to them being saved by water then. That's the contrast. They were saved physically by water then. Now, baptism doth also now save us. That's the contrast. It's now as opposed to then. That's the point of that. And then Stephen says what it says, not the removal of the flesh, so it must not be physical. That's my exact point. It's not the removal of the flesh. It's not a physical cleansing. Not a physical saving like Noah and the eight souls. It's a spiritual cleansing. Baptism doesn't save you or cleanse you physically. It's not putting away the filth of the flesh. It's by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's a spiritual salvation. You see that? Baptism saves you. Now the bottom line, what does the verse say? Go back to what I said in the very beginning. Who's telling you to believe what the verse says and who's telling you to believe not what the verse says? The bottom line is the Bible says in this verse, baptism saves you. Now is that what Stephen is saying? No, he says baptism does not save you. That's kind of similar to what Satan said when God had told Adam and Eve, the day you eat of that fruit, you shall surely die. And Satan said, no, you shall not surely die. That's exactly what Stephen is doing with this verse. And then Stephen said, I'm making the gospel different from Old Testament to New Testament because I've got baptism necessary now, but not then. Well, you know, Hebrews 7.12 says, for the priesthood being changed, there's made a necessity to change the law. So God said there was a change in the law. And then I asked you on question number 11, Stephen, I said, was Moses ever baptized in water like Acts 2.38 instructs? And you said, to my knowledge, Moses was not baptized with water because God had not ordained that that would be the expression of his faith. So you've admitted that the expression of faith is different. Moses didn't need to be baptized, but we do now because the expression of faith is changed. So your accusation about me changing the gospel comes right back to haunt you, doesn't it, Stephen? Put up number 10. Mark 16, 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. That's very simple. Acts 22-16, arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins. If God wanted to tell you that you had to be baptized to be saved, how could He have said it any clearer? Acts 2-38, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. He couldn't have said it any clearer than that. Baptism doth also now save you, 1 Peter 3-21. What would God have to say to convince you of the truth of this matter? What would He have to say different than what He's already said? Thank you very much. It's not often in a debate like this that you can pause for a minute and say, you know what, I exactly agree with something that you said. There is something I exactly agree with what Pat said in his last presentation. And notice the words that he even used when he talked about the gospel under Abraham and Moses. And even in the asking the question, what is that? Why wasn't Moses baptized? And I answered, because it was not what God revealed to be the expression of his faith. And Pat affirmed that. Because that is the expression of the faith. And that's exactly what I've been asserting all night. If baptism is essential to the gospel, not the expression of one's faith in the gospel, but to the gospel itself, we either have a changing gospel, the sine qua non of the gospel. What is the sine qua non? That with which out you cannot be saved. I'll seek to demonstrate tomorrow night, from beginning to end, Genesis to Revelation, it is faith. And it is not faith just in that I believe something, but it is a repentant faith. And it is a repentant faith that has as its sole object, not baptism, believing that baptism saves me, but solely in the person and the work of Jesus Christ, plus nothing, minus nothing. Now, you'll notice in a setting like this that we're kind of in a courtroom. I mean, we've got our guys here and their guys there. We're coming up and there's interrogation and so on. And that's kind of what's going on here. Let me give you a little insight of how I'm even looking at tonight. My responsibility tonight is to kind of deconstruct and put serious doubt in your mind. I'm not setting the positive case. As I said in my introduction, the positive case and my strongest argument is what the Bible says about salvation, particularly justification, being by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That is my strongest argument. In a sense, I hope you come back tomorrow night and hear that because I'm withholding that, in a sense, because that's not the topic of debate tonight. But tomorrow night we'll deal with that subject itself. My responsibility tonight is to seek to cast serious doubt on the things that Pat has said. And I think that for most of you, I hope, or many of you, it has caused serious doubt. Pat is right that grammatically some of the things can mean other things. It can mean what he says. It can mean what I say. He can quote Greek scholars from Acts 2.38, and I could grant that and say these Greek scholars agree with that. I could also say that grammatically it could be the other way. Neither one is conclusive. They said it can be that. Some of them go so far as to say it must mean that. And if I had the time, if I had my resources with me and I should be better prepared on that, I would show you that not all agree with that, including including AC Robertson. So my responsibility is to demonstrate that. that there's serious doubt and there's a possibility of looking at the passages differently. It's not only the grammar of those passages, but as I sought to deal with each one, it's not only those passages, but what the rest of the scriptures say. For instance, again with Mark 16, I hope that you have not bought in to the idea that my statement about somebody being enrolled and being in the dormitory, I hope you don't believe that's a false statement. I hope you've not bought into that. In the midst of the heat of some of that, I hope that that hasn't convinced you of itself. I hope the logic of it has demonstrated that it makes plain sense. Now we can again look at Mark 16. We've come back to that. We come back to that again. I stand on the arguments. It does not have to say logically nor grammatically what Pat says. He can use hundreds and millions of illustrations for this passage as well as Acts 22 and others and show a parallel grammar parallel things that are grammatically constructed the same that can mean something else, I could do the same thing tonight. And I've sought to do that a little bit, but I'm at least passing the shadow of the doubt that it does not have to say that. It's not those passages alone, but it is those passages together with all that the Word of God says about justification and all the passages say about salvation. Now, First Timothy 3.12 I think is a good example of something that you simply don't have the same grammatical construction. Let him eat the deacons, be the husband of one wife is not the same exact construction of Acts 2.38. I could show some examples if I took the time how doing that same thing makes horrible sense. But the point is, you can't just construct something that's not grammatically the same and say, this is absurd, therefore that's absurd. That would be kind of like the fallacy of false inference or the fallacy of false association. It just doesn't say the same. You have to come up with the same sentence structures. He does the same thing, I believe, with Acts 22 and verse 16. Again, you have two commands there. It's clear there are two imperatives. There one is to be baptized, the other is to wash away your sins. I saw it to show that the participles modify those verbs closest to them. There are two commands. Now regarding Paul's conversion, like a number of conversions, when was Paul converted? I don't necessarily grant that he was converted, that he believed on the Lord Jesus. I think he was slapped upside the head something awful on the road to Damascus. And it took time to figure some things out. I don't think it was instantaneous conversion. I know it was not instantaneous forgiveness. Now, he says, well, because there's two things that refute Stephen's idea. I don't say that arising, be baptized, and wash away your sins were chronologically different. Logically, they're different. But they can happen at the same time. Can somebody call upon the name of the Lord as they're being told to be baptized and be simultaneous? Absolutely. There's nothing illogical about that. There's no problem with that. That doesn't refute what I'm saying. He was told two things. You need to be baptized. How do you do that? Arise and be baptized. What's the second thing? Wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. And he was to do just that. And if he didn't do that, then he was disobedient. And certainly if he did not do that with such a clear revelation, then he would not be seen to be one who had a heart for God. Now, again, Paul's conversion, using that as a paradigm, as Pat sought to do it, I think there are just so many assumptions you have to make. When was he converted? When was there faith? Because he says, Lord, who are you? And he says, I am Jesus who you are persecuting. And he calls him Lord with the Shekinah glory of God shining upon him. Does that necessarily show that he was converted? No, I don't think so. I think that's a false assumption. Now again, I say that the Gospel and the essence of the Gospel is found throughout the New Testament. It is faith in the person and the work of Jesus Christ. first revealed in Genesis chapter 3 of the seed that will crush the head of the serpent. That was the object of faith for Adam and Eve. When it comes to Abraham, the things that were revealed to him that through his seed many nations will be blessed, the person and work of Jesus Christ is the sole object of his faith. And he believed that before circumcision, he believed that before the law as we'll get to tomorrow night, and Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. To give you a little bit of foretaste of what we'll be looking at tomorrow that shows again that what we're going to be dealing with as far as baptism is at work, let me read simply Romans chapter 4, the first several verses. Romans chapter 4, what shall we say then that Abraham, our father, has found according to the flesh, and Pat admitted earlier there's some parallels between circumcision and baptism in the New Testament, not exact parallels, but some analogous things there. If Abraham was justified by works, that is, by anything that he did, any manifestation of those things, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the scripture say, Abraham believed God and it was accounted for righteousness. Now, notice that the passages that Pat has quoted this evening are passing references to baptism, which doesn't make them false, it doesn't make them unsure, but they're passing references primarily in narrative passages or in the epistles. Romans 3, 4, and 5 is an extended thesis on the doctrine of justification and what that is. And I think that's incredibly important, because Paul's not making a passing reference to justification, he is opening it up and unfolding it. And he says here, in Romans 4, verse 3, what then does the scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Now notice the shocking thing. Pat wants us to believe that part of justification is baptism. He wants us to believe that it's not a work, but yet it's a work. It doesn't justify in the sense that it's a work done on our own, but it is a work of obedience. But we're going to see tomorrow night that Paul excludes necessarily any human work. any outward response, what is required is repentance and faith that then manifests itself outwardly. And it always manifests itself outwardly. But repentance and faith is what God grants to the unbeliever through the preaching of the gospel. He goes on to say, verse 4, Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace, but as debt. And then verse 5, But to him who does not work, but justifies him who believes on Him, who justifies the ungodly. My friends, that's my hope tonight, is that God justifies not the godly, but the ungodly. That's my only hope as a sinner. My only hope is that it's not by works, including baptism or anything else, but it is He who believes on Him who justifies the ungodly. And we'll spend a lot of time on what is justification? What does justification do? What is justification? What do I mean by justification? How do we harmonize Paul and James in James chapter 2? How do we harmonize that? I believe it can be harmonized. but it's him who justifies the ungodly. His faith is accounted for righteousness. We'll go on to see that this is the exact same thing that David says, blessed is the man to whom the Lord will literally in no way ever impute iniquity. My hope is not only that my sins can be forgiven in Christ, but that all of His righteousness is imputed to my account. That all of it is given to me, so that when God looks at me, I don't just barely meet up or I'm at zero because I've repented, but that the righteousness of Jesus Christ has been imputed and accounted to me, that when God looks at me judicially, He doesn't see my unrighteousnesses, He doesn't see my repentances, He sees the righteousness of Jesus Christ. That's what I'll be arguing tomorrow night. OK, I said I'd say my argument, strongest argument for tomorrow night. I went ahead and brought it out. So please forgive me for that. But don't not really. But that's the strongest argument. OK, so that's what we're dealing with. I've got to stop now because I didn't start my watch when I started. This is why I should have a timekeeper. I don't know how long it's been. OK, four more minutes. All right. Well, quite frankly. I don't know what else I'd say right now. I've dealt with the passages, I've laid them before you, I've sought to show grammatically how they do not necessarily show and demonstrate what Pat has said. Seeking to cast reasonable doubt, again, we'll deal with the doctrine of justification by faith alone tomorrow night. So I'll go ahead and bow out and take the extra minutes. Stephen, again, the little translation of Haggai 1.9, you run each to the house of him. In the Septuagint Greek, and you can see it from the English, the hymn there is third person singular, the U-run, the verb is second person plural. Does that mean that that prepositional phrase, under the house of hymn, cannot modify U-run? Not necessarily. Okay, so, I thought you said in your first speech in Acts 2.38 that it could not because they were a different person's number. Now you're saying that can or it can't, you're not sure, is that right? Black's 238, the reason that I believe it doesn't modify is because there are two verbs there and the persons are different. And the modifier, as opposed to Hegea 1-9, where there's one verb and one modifier pronoun, there's a difference there, and I think Paul's making a difference. If you parallel that with Luke chapter 24, verse 47, there's a parallel statement where he also speaks of repentance under the remission of sins that should be preached. There, baptism is not named, and therefore, I think that's the parallel Luke wrote both Luke 24 and Acts 2. But, you know, there are other passages that say belief, ace. Christ, that wouldn't rule out repentance, would it? And so, therefore, if you see a passage that says, repent for the remission of sins, that wouldn't rule out baptism for the remission of sins, would it? No. No, it won't. So there's really no reason why for the remission of sins cannot go with that, but I'm really not supposed to, I don't know if I can make comments, but let's go to Romans chapter 6. Didn't you tell me on the phone that Romans 6, 3 and following It's a good passage to use against the Methodist position that sprinkling is a valid water baptism because Romans 6, in particular 3 through 5 and thereabouts, where it says it's the likeness of the... I have to go there. The resurrection is the second one, and the first one is the likeness of his death. That shows that water baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection, which would argue for immersion as opposed to sprinkling. Didn't we agree with that on the phone? I believe that immersion is the most correct expression of what it means to be baptized into Christ. Okay. Okay, so there was a lot of words there that confused what you just said, but did you just say that the most correct understanding of Romans 6-3, baptized into Christ, would be water baptism? I believe that baptism is the proper expression, because of burial, of what it means to be baptized into Christ. Sprinkling, I don't think, represents that, but water baptism and immersion does. Yes. So we're agreed this text is talking about water baptism. That's incorrect. You told me on the phone this text was talking about water baptism and that's how you could use it. I'm talking about Romans 6, 3 and following. What's talking about water baptism And that's why you could use it against the Methodists to help prove that water baptism was immersion because it depicted the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Did you tell me that on the phone? What? I can't remember the exact words. I'll tell you now that I believe that Romans 6 demonstrates that it's to be baptized or buried into his death. Therefore, baptism is a proper expression of what Paul's talking about here. Whether he's looking back to the baptismal commitment, covenant, and pledge, as I think 1 Peter 3 is speaking of, that's debatable. But in the very least, immersion, I think, properly expresses what it means to be baptized into Christ. Okay, so this passage is talking about Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism, or Holy Spirit baptism only, or water baptism only? To be baptized by one spirit into one body, 1 Corinthians 12 and verse 13, is the essence of this text. I believe the Christian can look back to that baptismal pledge as what the spiritual reality was. Okay. By your answer, I believe you answered this as talking about Holy Spirit baptism here. Yes. Essentially. Okay. But there's a parallel in physical baptism which we are to also look back to. But tell me then how Holy Spirit baptism, how that pictures It's a likeness of Jesus' death and it's a likeness of His resurrection, in verse 5. Well, by one Spirit we were baptized into one body. And it is the putting into Christ, walking, as he says later in the passage, having died with Christ, we also live in newness of life. And that's the picture of the Holy Spirit. There's the crucifixion of the old man and the walking in the newness of life. Okay, so you would say that the Holy Spirit is the element of this baptism, like the water baptism waters the element, that Holy Spirit baptism The Holy Spirit is the element, right? You're immersed in the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12, 13 says it is by one Spirit you've been baptized into one body. There is the body, the mystical body of Christ, the one who does the baptizing, according to that verse, is the Holy Spirit. That's right. And I would like the audience to see the distinction there. 1 Corinthians 12, 13, it says the Holy Spirit is the one doing the baptizing, not the element of the baptism. Just like Hebrews 10, 8 would say, by the law, sacrifices were made. In other words, the law taught the sacrifice, it's not that it was the element. But anyway, back to my question here. If this is talking about Holy Spirit baptism, that means you're saying that Holy Spirit is the element of the baptism, right? It's baptizing with the Spirit or by the Spirit. Those are the two phrases used in the Scripture. Okay, so with the Spirit means like when you baptize with water, that means water is the element. You go down the water and come back out. So if Holy Spirit is the element and it's with the Spirit, then what does that mean when it says you come back out of this element, the Holy Spirit. So a Christian goes into the Holy Spirit, he's immersed into it. Think about how it would be if it were water. You go into it, and then you're raised to come up out of it. That would be the picture of his death, burial, and resurrection. Now that fits water, but you come up out of that element, out of the Holy Spirit. How does that work? What happens when the Christian comes up out of the Holy Spirit? What does that mean? Well, it doesn't imply that we come out of the Holy Spirit. We are baptized with the Spirit. We receive the Holy Spirit. We're not literally physically in this, as if the Spirit is a physical entity, but rather is to be immersed into Christ, into the one body, and to be raised in newness of life. Notice further on in the chapter, notice verse 17 and 18. It says, But God be thanked that you were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then, underline the word within, made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness. Aren't those two verses saying that you're made free from your sin when you obey from the heart that form of doctrine? Sure, that's the result of being freed from the slavery to sin, is to walk in obedience. No, that's not what I asked. I said, isn't this saying, when it says being then made free from sin, isn't it saying that you're made free from sin when you obey the doctrine? My version says, but God bethank that though you were slaves of sin, Yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And so there is the freedom or entrusted into... The idea here is you were slaves of sin, but now you've obeyed from the heart, as we saw in our last debate, that the way that that comes is by the work of the Holy Spirit that opens our eyes, that raises us from the dead, that makes us new creatures in Christ. I don't think that answers my question. Notice verse 18 says, being then made free from sin. That's referring to when you obeyed, right? Having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. It's not until you're set free from sin you can become a slave of righteousness. And according to the text, when were you made free from sin? Well, you can't make yourself free from sin because then you're not a slave. It's what God does when you... I'm not asking who, I'm asking when. Okay. Not who. I didn't say you could do it yourself. I said, according to the text, when are you made free from sin? Is it not when you obey the doctrine, in that what verse 17 and 18 is saying? Well, I don't see when there. I would have to look at the Greek. I don't have the Greek for me. But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet when you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which you were delivered, you became. The passage doesn't say that. It's a simple statement of fact. Since you agreed with me that Holy Spirit baptism is a gift to be received, not a command to be obeyed, like water baptism. Since you agreed with me on that, and I have that question. And if this were saying, as it looks like it's saying, to me, that you're made free from sin when you obey. Wouldn't that prove, then, that Romans 6 is talking about water baptism, since that's something you obey, whereas Holy Spirit baptism is something you receive? Again, the parallel in the passage in the imagery is using, though you were a slave of someone, yet you obeyed because you were freed. You have to be freed first in order to obey, to be set free from the slavery in order to obey. So it doesn't mean that I obeyed and therefore I became free. Then slavery doesn't mean anything. How much time do I have? What is the connection in Colossians 2 between the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh in verse 11, I believe that is, and verse 12, baptism? What is the connection, mate? It's talking about the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, verse 11, and then it immediately says, buried with him in baptism. What's the connection between those two? It is again, it's not speaking of the physical, it's speaking of what there is the one baptism that Ephesians 4 speaks of. It's a baptism by one spirit into one body and just as when we believe in Christ our sins are forgiven, they were also set free to righteousness. We put off the old man by faith in Christ. You and I agree, from James chapter 2, that a passage like verse 19, Thou believest, there is one God, thou doest well, the devils also believe and tremble, that just a surface belief in Jesus is not good enough, that you have to have a true or complete faith, whatever you want to call it. Look at James 2.22. Isn't James 2.22 saying that our faith is made complete or perfect by our works? See how faith wrought with his works, Abraham's works, by works, was faith made perfect or complete? Would you agree then that works make our faith complete? Sure, absolutely. And so would you agree then that we can't be saved without a complete faith, without work? No. Okay, thank you. Appreciate your answers. You're setting your watch, okay. Yeah, I've got it going this time. All right, Pat, does someone have to believe in your particular view of baptism, what you believe is the biblical view, in order to be saved? Yes, I mentioned that in the first speech. Why? Acts 2.38, you have to repent for the reason for the remission of sins. And that's why you have to do that. If you don't be baptized for the remission of sins, then all you've done is got wet. So does that imply in any way faith or belief in baptism for salvation? Not anymore that you believe you have to have faith in your faith. to be saved instead of faith in Jesus. It's exactly the same thing. You have to believe, not only do you have to believe in Jesus, you have to obey what He says. Why call you me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say. Luke 6, verse 46. Can you think of an explicit passage that says you have to believe in baptism to be saved? No, but I can show you one to be saved to get the remission of sins. You have to be baptized for the remission of sins. Peter commanded it in Acts 2, verse 38. In your view, has anyone been saved throughout the history of the Christian Church apart from belief and obedience and water baptism as you define it? No. Not a single person? Well, we could talk about infants, but we talked about that in our last debate. So I don't think you're including them this time. Not responsible people, no. Are you aware of anyone prior to the mid-1800s who taught and practiced water baptism in the way that you define it? Well... You know, whether I can find somebody, and I will answer your question directly in a moment, whether I can find somebody in the 1600s or 1500s, it wouldn't make any difference. All that matters is what the Bible says. But yes, I can find plenty of people that taught it this way. Jesus taught it in Mark 16, 16. Peter taught it in Acts 2, 38. Ananias taught it in Acts 22, 16. Peter taught it again in 1 Peter 3, 21. Between the time of the apostles and the writing of the New Testament up until the mid-1800s, Do you know of anyone who, in the entire Christian church... I don't study that, so I couldn't be able to comment. All I do is try to study the Bible and accept what it plainly says. If that was the case, that you could not find anybody, would that assume an overthrow of the church? That the church had been overcome temporarily? No. If someone cannot be baptized in water by immersion for physical reasons, are they beyond God's grace? No, but they can't be saved. until they're baptized, so they're not beyond God's grace. If you're asking can they be saved without baptism, no. But are they beyond God's grace? No. Including the physically unable, the providentially unable, the prisoner who cannot be, you would exclude... I don't know of anybody that can't physically be baptized. Okay, well I didn't ask if you knew anybody, but if they couldn't physically be baptized, are they beyond God's saving grace? Well, if they couldn't be baptized. Could you explain how somebody couldn't be baptized? I have a friend named John Freese that I believe could not be physically baptized. He is, through a number of diseases, shriveled up to the point where he cannot even breathe nor move, and I believe that physical immersion would kill him. I believe he could be baptized. But if he could, that's not the question. Even if that threat of death, so death doesn't have anything to do with it. Now, if a person who wasted all his years living righteously, got out in the desert, and then wanted to try to accept God. And he died of thirst before he could get back some water to get baptized. And his problem should have been solved before he went out in the desert. He had plenty of opportunities. If someone cannot physically confess with their mouth, as Romans 10 says, are they beyond God's saving grace? You have to confess to be saved. That's what Paul said in Romans 10, 9, and 10. He said, Confession is unto salvation. And so that means you have to. Now, as a matter of fact, that shows your application of not by works is wrong because you believe that that's a work, yet Paul clearly says you have to confess to be saved, and so evidently your application of Romans 4 is just wrong. If a woman never bears children, can she be saved? Yes, because the last verse in 1 Timothy 2 is a synecdoche for the woman's role. It's saying that she can be saved in her role, and it names one of the things that women generally do in her role, childbearing, but it's not saying that she has to bear children. 1 Corinthians chapter 7 says you can remain single and be saved. You don't have to get married or bear children. So you interpret that passage with the rest of Scripture, not plainly what the Scripture says in that place. Nevertheless, she will be saved in childbearing. It'd be like if you said you had 20 head of cattle on your farm. I would accept the plain meaning of that, and that is there were 20 cows walking around, not heads rolling on the ground. But nevertheless, she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness. According to that plain meaning of the passage, you wouldn't accept that. You would go to other scripture to show that that's not the case. I can do it right there. It's saying her role in that she should not speak, teach, or usurp authority over the man. That's her role. She will be saved in childbearing. It'd be like taking John 3.16, for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. It is accepting the plain meaning of the passages to understand that repentance is also necessary because you see that from other passages. To take belief there is a synecdoche for the whole role and that is the plain meaning of it. In what way is your baptism now saving you from 1 Peter 3.21? Well, as I said in my speech, the contrast there, the now, is the contrast between Then, years ago, the eight souls being saved by water physically. Now, as opposed to then, baptism saves us spiritually. And it has to be water baptism because why else would he have said it at the last part of the verse? Eight souls were saved by water. So here you have a clear case of water baptism that says it saves you. So in other words, it's not presently actively saving you. It's something that saved you under this dispensation. But it's not something that's actively now saving you. It saves Christians. People were being saved presently at that time by baptism. All right. Can someone receive, according to Acts 238, if you repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, would you agree that the gift of the Holy Spirit is one of the fruits, if you will, of repentance and baptism in that passage? Is that one of the consequences? Yes. You have to repent and be baptized to receive, as you call it, the normal gift of the Holy Spirit. That is, as you and I would agree, it's not the miraculous gift, because we both agree that miracles are gone. The miraculous gift is something different altogether. But this, yes, this gift, you have to repent and be baptized in order to get it. And again, that proves you have to be baptized to be saved. Because you can't get this gift of the Holy Spirit without being baptized. Pat, are you aware that the only other place in the book of Acts that the phrase gift of the Holy Spirit is used is in Acts 10? Yeah. That wouldn't prove anything. Like if I gave Papa here a gift of money of $1,000 and I gave you a gift of money of one cent, that wouldn't make them exactly the same gift even though the same phrase was used. But according to Acts 10 verse 41, they believed and they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. That's the only other time that phrase is used by the Holy Spirit in all of the book of Acts. Where does it say they believed in Acts 10 verse 41? In Acts 10.45, those of the circumcision who believed were astonished. I'm sorry, back to verse 44. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard. And then down in verse 11.17, if therefore God gave them the same gift as he gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who is I that I could withstand them. Right, but it doesn't say they believed before they received the gift of the Holy Spirit, right? So you think the gift of the Spirit was received before they believed? Could have been. Balaam's donkey received it without believing. Saul of Tarsus in 1 Samuel 19, him and his messengers were plotting to kill David, God's anointing, laying down naked, plotting to kill it. And the Bible says the Holy Spirit came on them and they prophesied. So just because you received a miraculous marriage with the Holy Spirit wouldn't prove that you're saved. Can you justify the use of this phrase, the gift of the Holy Spirit, in Acts 2 and the only other place in Acts 10 as being different things? Yeah, there's no rule in the Bible that says two words have to refer to the same thing. No, but it's a specific phrase, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. They both are the gift of the Holy Spirit. They both receive the Holy Spirit. The difference is, get this, in Acts 10 and Acts 2, they both receive the Holy Spirit. And Greg, I'll call that the personal indwelling over here. But they both received the Holy Spirit itself. The difference is in what they could do. Those people could speak in tongues and prophesy. But the one that we're talking about, Ephesians 1, 13 and 14, that's given in the earnest. Ephesians 1, 13 and 14, we get that today, doesn't enable them to speak in tongues. So the gift of the Holy Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit receiving it. That's the same. It's just the difference in what they could do. Is water baptism essential to the gospel? The Bible says in Mark 16, 15, and 16, Jesus said, Go preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. So preaching that baptism is necessary to be saved is essential to preaching the gospel. So is baptism an essential part of the gospel? The gospel is the good news about Jesus Christ and it includes All the commands of the New Testament, if that's what you're asking, the broad thing, then everything in the New Testament is essential to the Gospel. If you're talking about the broad sense. Then under that assumption, to preach the Gospel to Abraham and to Israel would have to include everything in the New Testament. Gospel just means good news. The good news is not exactly the same in the Old Testament as the new. In the Old Testament, the good news was that Jesus would come. In the New Testament, as you would agree, to believe the good news and be saved, you have to believe as an accomplished fact that Jesus was raised from the dead, Romans 10, 9 and 10. Yet Abraham couldn't have believed that, yet you agree that you have to now. In Stephen's last speech, I was presenting him with a dilemma in my speech before that he would have baptism and then the washing away of sins after that, and that wasn't according to his position. And here's how he answers that. He says, no, I believe that in that case you had baptism and the washing away of the sins and the calling on the name of the Lord all simultaneous. That's what I've been trying to prove tonight. That you received the washing away of sins simultaneous with being baptized. Isn't that what you said, Stephen? I presented you with a dilemma. You got the washing away of sins occurring after baptism, which is after belief. You said, no, I believe they occurred simultaneous. That's what I wrote down. Washing away of sins occurred at the same time as baptism in the colony. That's exactly, audience, what I've been trying to prove tonight. That Saul of Tarsus received the washing away of sins when he was baptized. And the way he called upon the name of the Lord, he said, Lord, save me. He didn't do it through a prayer. He said, Lord, save me by being baptized, because the Lord has said, if you'll be baptized, I'll save you. And so the way you call upon God to save you is by being baptized. I agree with Stephen that his sins were washed away simultaneously with baptism. Now, he went into tomorrow night's argument in Romans 4. Let's look at number 93 here. Did y'all know in Joshua chapter 6, verse 2, God said, I have given you the city of Jericho given grace. Hebrews 11 verse 30 says, By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were compassed about. So, the walls of Jericho fell down by grace I have given unto thine hand Jericho. By faith. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were compassed about seven days. You see that? The walls of Jericho fell down by grace through faith. And I'll submit to you that it was not by works. Not by works in this sin. When they walked around those walls, it wasn't that they knocked the walls down. It's not that they caused a little earthquake by all the stomping and the walls just crumbled down. No, all they did was meet a condition that really had nothing to do with knocking the walls down except that God had said to do it. And when they did it, God knocked the walls down. That's what Romans 4 is talking about. That's what Ephesians 2, 8, 9 is talking about. We are saved by grace through faith. The walls of Jericho were knocked down by grace through faith. And it was not of works. Not of works. In other words, not of works. They didn't do it. God did it. Do you see that? What is the earning basis for our salvation? It's not baptism. It's not going to church. Those things you have to do to be saved. But the earning basis is the death of Christ. And that's what Romans 4 is talking about. It's by grace through faith, not of works. The very fact that we get baptized, we're admitting that we can't do it on our own work. We're admitting that. We're admitting that we cannot live perfectly. our whole life without sin, or that we do not, and therefore, and that's the only way you could earn your salvation, is by living perfectly. I believe I have a quote here from Stephen on that, if I could find it. Here's what Stephen said in the sermon I listened to over the Internet. In his sermon, Justification by Faith Alone, he says, all you have to do is keep all the commandments perfectly, never failing. That's what I'm agreeing with. If you want to have your salvation by works and earn it, all you have to do is keep all the commandments perfectly, never failing. But since we don't do that, we need to get the forgiveness, which is mentioned in Romans 4, verse 7. We need forgiveness. And when we're baptized, we're asking God to forgive us. We're saying we can't do it on our own. We need your forgiveness now. How much time, Papa? Everybody go back and look at the verses on baptism. Please, I encourage you, just accept the plain meaning. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned. Now, let me ask you something. He did what I'll call a lot of finagling about, well, is it conditional? Well, is it necessary? When you get to the judgment day and you face God in judgment, and you know that verse said, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, are you going to come up to God and say, well, I wasn't sure that was a conditional statement? Or even if it were, I wasn't sure the second thing was necessary. Are you feeling comfortable right now knowing that you're going to have to face God and tell Him those little flimsy little arguments? You know, when my dad told me, he that picks a bucket of weeds and hoes a row in the garden to go swimming, do you think at the end of the day, if I'd gone swimming and I'd left off the part about hoeing the row in the garden, do you think I'd have felt comfortable facing him? I said, well, I wasn't sure that was a conditional statement, daddy. Pow! You know what my dad would have done to me. I wasn't sure that second thing was necessary. Everybody here knows I would have got a whipping. I would have got a spanking. Everybody knows it. Stephen knows I would have got a spanking. Everybody knows it. If you want to face God in judgment with those little flimsy things, instead of just accepting what it says, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Acts 2.38, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. The scholars, all the Greek says for the remission of sins can go with both. All of them. There's no rule that says that it can't. As we demonstrated from Haggai 1.9, all the scholars, for the remission of sins, that's what you have to be baptized for. Acts 22.16, as Stephen said, the washing away of sins occurs simultaneous to when you are baptized. 1 Peter 3.21, baptism doth also now save us. How could God have made it any plainer? Please let me know how He could have made it any plainer. To go back to my opening statement, there is no question that the Bible and the New Testament He commands Christians to obey by way of baptism. And I don't want to make any flimsy arguments. I don't want to give any of you any reason for not obeying what God says in His Word. And if you're using that, and you're using me, and I'm your champ tonight because you refuse to be baptized, then you're using me wrong. But that's different than saying that in the act of baptism, or that the act of baptism is necessary for justification, that any work is necessary for justification, as we'll look at tomorrow night, is to add to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is the same, and the sole object of our faith, from the Old Testament all the way through to the New and the Book of Revelation, the sole object of our faith and belief, even in the midst of ignorance, And I've been in a lot of ignorance sometimes as a new believer. And I believe in a Heavenly Father that pities His children, that He knows we are but flesh. And I've been ignorant of some real important things in the past. Perhaps it will sound to you like an argument of sentiment, but I do believe that there are true children of God throughout church history, who even if Pat is right, have been ignorant of the gospel and of justification as he defines it and as of baptism, who've had a sincere love for the Lord Jesus Christ, and who have trusted in Him for the salvation from all of their sins, and have trusted in an alien righteousness that is not their own. I believe that ordinarily baptism is The appropriate response, I do believe there are some who cannot physically be baptized. I do not believe they are beyond God's grace. Because salvation is by faith alone and Christ alone. And those kind of questions, I think, reveal what Pat's position is. Does someone have to confess with their mouth? Well, you better not witness to anybody who's aphonic. Someone who cannot speak. Because if they cannot confess with their mouth, They cannot be saved, and you're wasting your time. 1 Timothy 2. In childbearing, well, he qualifies it. Why doesn't he, like he urges me, take the plain meaning of the text? She shall be saved in childbearing. Why not take the plain meaning of the text? The same thing I'm doing, saying that that text is interpreted by the rest of Scripture, and the rest of Scripture, including Mark 16, Acts 2, Acts 22, 1 Peter 3 and all the other passages we looked at, I sought to demonstrate, perhaps not conclusively in your mind, but perhaps has cast a shadow of doubt to say, what does the Bible say specifically about how I, as a sinner, cannot only have my sins forgiven, but to be told I am declared as righteous. Not only of having now been forgiven of sins, but of having kept the whole law of God. And some of our discussions part, if you could pull back the veil, it's not only baptism that is necessary in Pat's system for salvation, but it's everything in the Bible that applies to you. You cannot be justified and you will not be saved unless you have repented of every single one of your sins. And there is no room, and Pat has told me this, for any ignorance. If you die ignorant of a single sin, you are as damned as if you were never lost. And if that's not salvation by works, I don't know what is. There's a lot here behind the veil that if God would grant us life, perhaps we'll get into some debates in the future to deal with some of these other issues. But you need to know that Pat's system is a package deal. Once you include one work, he can say that about every work. Well, obedience to this command and that command and that command. Well, everything's by grace. He's going to say that justification is indeed by works. Works of grace upon the foundation of Jesus Christ. But once you crack that door open and move from the sole object of your faith being the person and work of Jesus Christ, you've cracked the door open to works righteousness. I don't think Pat believes that, but I believe his system teaches that. Again, I'm hopeful and encouraging that tomorrow, as I take a more positive stance and look at the Scripture and these things, that perhaps some of you will come back who are wrestling through the issues. Some of you have just been firmed up tonight. Pat really showed him, or Stephen really showed him. But my hope is, whatever your view of baptism is, whatever your view of these other things, that your sole object of faith, is the person and the work of Jesus Christ plus and minus nothing. And if I'm in ignorance, and if Pat's in ignorance, or if anybody here is in sincere ignorance, there is grace and mercy. It's not a refusal to obey, but boy, we can sure be ignorant sometimes. May God grant us mercy in looking to his son alone for salvation.