Written Discussion Arising From Jerry Fite Video

Is The church of Christ A Cult?

Jerry Fite

(evangelist, Parkview church of Christ)

&

Stephen Anderson

(Calvinist Teacher)

(Stephen Anderson)

 

The question I would ask is: do the churches of Christ preach the true Gospel? In a small Illinois town where I was serving as a pastor, I heard the non-instrumental CoC was teaching that if you have a piano in your church, you are going to hell.  Finding that difficult to believe, I asked their minister and I was told "basically, yes".

That my friends, made that church a cult, for it was not only not abiding in the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles but had corrupted the Gospel and they were "cut off from Christ" just as surely as Galatians were.

In several instrumental CoCs I have heard not the Gospel of Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone but rather the "gospel" of baptism. And one of these ministers declared all those not immersed "for the forgiveness of sins" are  going to hell.  Apparently, it is not enough to be baptized into Christ as an expression of faith in Christ, one must be baptized explicitly for the purpose of "the forgiveness of sins".  Yet these churches are stone cold dead and have no experience of the new birth.  They are as lifeless as JWs. The Bible says "Salvation is of the Lord" and His supernatural work, but Campbell and Scott turned it into a five finger exercise.

An elderly lifelong CoC member told me he expects that God will receive him because he always went to church.

Salvation is the work of God.  He chooses, He calls, he regenerates, He justifies, He sanctifies and He glorifies.  Even faith is the gift of God. And He and He alone gets the credit.

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen, Since you are responding to the video, the real question for discussion is whether or not the evangelist in this video preached the true Gospel.  He showed in Scripture how Salvation of men is connected with Christ, grace and faith.  Surely those who preach salvation is "by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone" understand that these three identities must work together to save, not literally by Grace only, or Faith only or even Christ only.    

Salvation is indeed of the Lord, but the inspired apostle Peter instructed the multitude of people to “save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40).  The question is, how is salvation of the Lord, yet we are to do something to save ourselves from the out- of- step- world in which we live?  Peter helps us answer this scripturally.  Peter commanded the same people, who already believed his preaching regarding Christ’s death and resurrection, and their own condition before God as sinners (Acts 2:25-37), to “repent and be baptized …unto the remission of your sins…” (Acts 2:38).   God is saving them through His grace and Christ, but man must “save himself” by repenting and being baptized unto the remission of sins, which is “obedience of faith”, the only type of faith that saves in the Bible (James 2:14, 18, 21-22, 24,26; Romans 1:5, 16:26, Acts 6:3)

Stephen, will you condemn Peter for “explicitly” saying to a multitude of people that the purpose of baptism is for the remission of their sins?  He said it.  Will you for a moment deny Peter preached the true Gospel because he connected repenting and being baptized into the name of Jesus Christ with the remission of their sins?   He said it without negating the fact that we, in this one baptism, are also baptized into Christ, which is how we are sons of God through faith, as Paul said (Galatians 3:26-27).  Is it not possible to be baptized into Christ who shed his blood for the remission of our sins (Matthew 26:28), in order to receive the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)?  It is not only possible, it is exactly what Paul says occurred when the Romans became Christians (Romans 6:3-4, 17-18).

Salvation is the work of God.  Yes, He chooses, but only “in Christ” are the chosen found, according to His eternal plan (Eph. 1:4); He calls, but only through the Gospel (2 Thess.2:14); He regenerates, but this new birth is not separated from baptism, for Paul tells us it is the “washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5; Acts 22:16); He justifies, but not by faith only , but by obedience of faith (example of Abraham – James 2:21-22); He sanctifies, but not apart from justification and being washed by the blood of Christ in baptism (I Corinthians 6:11); He glorifies,  and we, as believers, look forward to this promise connected with Jesus Christ returning again to redeem our body from the grave, and glorifying us with a glorified body fit for eternity with Him in Heaven (Romans 8:18, I Cor. 15:43, Phil. 3:21).

In the video, no one is pitting repenting, confessing who Jesus is with our mouth (Romans 10:9-10), and being baptized, against salvation being of the Lord, in Christ, by grace, through faith.  The video is offered to help people see how all of these work together in man’s salvation.  This is what the evangelist in the video sincerely is trying to accomplish, with a hope of having an honest conversation with those who differ.

Thank you for your response,

Jerry Fite

(Stephen Anderson)

 

“Stephen, will you condemn Peter for “explicitly” saying to a multitude of people that the purpose of baptism is for the remission of their sins?” That is not what what Peter said.  "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Act 2:38 KJV) Why do the CoC people always ignore "in the name of Jesus Christ" and why do you ignore that the word "for" - eis is literally INTO as in INTO the forgiveness of sins. As the Scriptures consistently teach, forgiveness, is IN Jesus Christ and through faith.  Peter's call to baptism was a call to believe in and commit to the Messiah Jesus. Water does nothing.  Go and learn what baptism meant to the Jews of Jesus day. And just as the gentiles in Acts 10 received salvation and forgiveness before baptism so did I.

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen, No one is ignoring “in the name of Jesus Christ” as it pertains to baptism.  His “authority”, which is emphasized in the phrase “in the name of”, is the whole basis for our trusting that our sins are forgiven.  His authority to save is based upon not only his death – when he shed his blood, which redeems us from sin (I Peter 1:18-19), but also His resurrection which gives us the basis for our faith that we are saved from our sins (cf. I Cor. 15:17).  Through Jesus’ death and resurrection He was given “the name which is above every name”; the only name or authority by which man must be saved (Acts 4:12).

Being baptized in or into the name or authority of Jesus Christ is entering into a saved relationship with Him through our faith in His authority to save us from our sins.  Again we “are baptized into His death” (Romans 6:3-4).  Because we “believe” God raised up Jesus from the dead, we are baptized with Him into death believing when we are raised up from the water of baptism we are saved from our sins (Colossians 2:12).

Baptism into the name of Jesus Christ is water baptism, not Holy Spirit baptism.  In Acts 10, Holy Spirit baptism came upon the Gentiles.  But they needed to be baptized in water following the Holy Spirit coming upon them miraculously.   What baptism was connected with “in the name of Jesus Christ”?  Being immersed in the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit or being baptized in water?  Let Peter answer this for you: “Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Acts 10:47-48).  Being baptized into the name of Jesus Christ is connected with water in Acts 10, distinct from Holy Spirit baptism.    

The apostles being baptized or immersed in the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was a sign directly from heaven that salvation was being offered to the Jews.  The Gentiles being likewise baptized in the Holy Spirit was a sign that “…to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18).  Holy Spirit baptism was not a sign that one is saved, but that people could now be saved in the name of Christ.  Stephen, the Jews in Acts 2 and the Gentiles in Acts 10 needed to be baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.  There is now only one baptism (Ephesians 4:5).   In both places (Acts 2 and Acts 10), they submitted to this baptism for the remission of their sins, following Holy Spirit baptism.  If Holy Spirit baptism is the one baptism, why is it that baptism in water in the name of Jesus Christ was commanded and obeyed after the Holy Spirit baptism? 

I am not ignoring the pointer of the Greek word “eis”.  I am using it exactly like Jesus did when he spoke of the cup which “…is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many “eis” or “unto the remission of sins” (ASV).  This exactly is the structure in the Greek in Acts 2:38 – baptism (in the name of Jesus Christ) “unto the remission of your sins” (ASV).   This conjunction is always pointing “toward” something.  Was Jesus’ blood shed, pointing into sins already forgiven?  Or, was His blood shed, pointing “toward” our “unto” sins being remitted?  Surely no one believes Jesus shed his blood because sins were already remitted.  The same is true regarding when we are baptized in water into the name or authority of Jesus Christ – it is pointing toward or unto our own sins being remitted based upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ – not some magical or superstitious view of water.  

Thank you again for responding. 

Jerry Fite

(Stephen Anderson)

 

Water baptism is merely symbolic, an act of faith.  A person must be regenerated before they can have faith that is acceptable to God.  Faith in baptism is not acceptable, for baptism does not remit sins, God does through faith alone in Christ alone.  "The flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit that gives life."

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen, Being baptized for the remission of the sins is not symbolical, but is a command of God that one must obey.    You assert baptism is “merely symbolical”, but Jesus stills says that it stands between one who “believes” and being “saved”.

The saving response to the preached gospel is “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16)

Notice, Jesus does not say “he that believeth is saved and should be baptized”, nor “He that is baptized is saved, and should believe; but, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved”.  All the examples in the book of Acts of people submitting to the necessary conditions of salvation harmonize with Jesus’ statement of when people are saved. 

I do not know anyone who “believes in baptism”, but in baptism we certainly believe in the Lord’s death and resurrection as the basis for our salvation (Romans 6:3-4).   Paul expresses how baptism, faith and Jesus’ death and resurrection work to together in our salvation:

“…having been buried with Him in baptism, where ye were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God who, who raised Him from the dead.  And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.” (Colossians 2:12-13).

Notice we were dead in our trespasses before we were made alive together with Him.  We are “made alive together with Him” when we are first “buried with Him”, which occurs when we are baptized into His death. We have forgiveness from our trespasses when we are made alive together with Him.  We are made alive together with Him in the same baptism to then walk in the newness of live, being now a servant of righteousness  (cf. Romans 6:17-18). 

God’s grace of Jesus’ death and resurrection works together with our obedience of faith (submitting to being baptized) believing God raised Jesus from the dead as we are baptized into Christ and His authority for the remission of our sins  (Acts 2:38; Colossians 2:12-13; Romans 6:3-4, 17-18; Galatians 3:26-27). 

Thanks for viewing and responding,

Jerry Fite

(Stephen Anderson)

We are not baptized for the remission of sins.  We are baptized into Christ in who is the remission of sins.  Water baptism is only an outward sign for our benefit and in no way is the cause of the remission of sins.

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen, As Jesus shed His blood, pointing toward (“eis”) the remission of sins which had not occurred yet in time before the shedding of his blood in death; our repentance and baptism in the name of the Lord point toward (“eis”) remission of sins, which does not occur for the believer before repenting and being baptized in the name of the Lord. 

“…for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto (“eis”) the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28) (ASV)

“And Peter said unto them, ‘Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto (“eis”) the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 2:28) (ASV)

No one is saying baptism is the cause of the remission of sins; it is one of the conditions met in faith unto the remission of sins. When the gospel of Christ is believed, anchoring our faith in the name or authority of the Lord to save us, we must confess Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9-10; Acts 8:35-37).  It is a condition demanded by the Lord before we are saved just as faith is not the cause for the remission of sins, but a necessary condition demanded by the Lord in order to be righteous before Him – “For with the heart man believeth unto (“eis”) righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto (“eis”) salvation” (Romans 10:10) (ASV).    

If believing is “unto” (“eis”) righteousness, and means one is not made righteous before believing; then confessing Jesus as Lord, which is “unto” (“eis”) for salvation, means the believer is not saved before confessing Jesus as Lord.   In the same light, repenting and being baptized in the name of the Lord is “unto” (“eis”) the remission of sins, and means the believer does not have the remission of sins before repenting and being baptized.

The blood of Christ and believing in Christ do not point to the remission of sins and righteousness as blessings already possessed before Jesus shed His blood, and one believes.  Neither does repenting, confessing, and being baptized in the name of the Lord  point to the remission of sins and salvation already possessed before the conditions are met.     

They all combine, manifesting how one is saved by grace through faith. 

Thank you again for your response,

Jerry Fite

(Stephen Anderson)

You are wrong about your understanding of "eis".  The fundamental meaning of eis is "into", not "pointing toward", which would be "pros". 

Salvation is in Jesus Christ Himself.  We are "baptized" (immersed, plunged, dyed, washed) into Him by the Holy Spirit.

The Jews practiced and still practice water baptism as part of conversion but never ascribe to the idea that the act of being immersed in water actually effects conversion or forgiveness.  Water baptism is nothing but a testament to and confession of faith in Christ.

Actual regeneration most precede proper administration of water baptism because Man is his fallen state does not have saving faith.  As Paul said, " For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing..." (Rom 7:18) And Jesus said, "that which is born of flesh is flesh". Faith is manifestly a good thing and is pleasing to God and hence is not present in fallen Man.  Man must therefore be born from above before he has saving faith and repentance unto life.  Even in the CoC faith and repentance precede water baptism.

Was Abraham reckoned as righteous by God before or after he received circumcision?

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen, The fundamental meaning of “eis” is “direction toward a goal”.  You are right in that “eis” is sometimes used emphasizing “location” as “in” or “into”, because “location” can include “direction” or “goal”.  But this use does not exclude its fundamental meaning.  Balz, commenting on the preposition writes, “It is an indicator of direction toward a goal, not as an indicator of location without direction”. (Balz, p. 398) (Balz, Horst and Gerhard Schneider. 1978. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI).

Jesus said “And whosoever shall give a drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you he shall in no wise lose his reward” (Matthew 10:42).  The preposition “eis” is used here by our Lord, and translated “in”.   When I understand the fundamental meaning of the preposition “eis”, I can make sense of this passage.  We are giving a cup of cold water pointing toward the fact that such recipients are disciples.  The idea of “eis” being merely “in” or emphasizing location fails to bring out Jesus’ meaning.  For what purpose are we giving a cup of cold water “in” the name of a disciple, without pointing toward the goal – the fact they are disciples? 

Even the Baptist scholar A.T. Robertson had to admit that the use of “eis” in Matthew 26:28 was pointing toward the goal of remission of sins. 

“The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins” (210). Robertson, A. T. 1919. Historical Grammar. Hodder & Stoughton: London, England).

I believe we should be as consistent in our interpretation of Acts 2:38 when the same Greek construction appears.  As the “purpose” of Jesus’ shed blood was “precisely to remove (forgive sins)” in Matthew 26:28, so repentance and being baptized into the name of Jesus Christ is “precisely to remove (forgive sins”. 

The Holy Spirit did not baptize in Acts 2 or Acts 10, but Jesus baptized the apostles in Acts 2 and the Gentiles in Act 10 in the Holy Spirit.  This was the fulfillment of John’s prophecy and Jesus’ promise: “He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 3:11, Acts 1:5).   And while the Holy Spirit’s miraculous power came on believers through the laying on of the apostles’ hands in Acts 8, Peter went back to the beginning (Acts 2) and John’s prophecy (Matt. 3) to connect with what occurred in Acts 10 (Acts 11:16).  From heaven, Jesus directly immersed the Gentiles in the Holy Spirit to show that salvation was now being offered “in the name of Jesus Christ” to the Gentiles, just as it was offered to the Jews in Acts 2.    Holy Spirit baptism was not baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, water baptism was in or into the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:44-48).  Directly from Heaven, Holy Spirit baptism was simply manifesting that people were now granted life through their repentance, just as the Jews were commanded to do in Acts 2:38. 

Stephen, the Bible actually teaches “regeneration” or “the new birth” takes place in baptism, not that which precedes it.  “...but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Titus 3:5).  The washing of regeneration takes place in baptism (Acts 22:16).  The renewing of the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ emphasizes the Spirit’s work through the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is what Paul is referring to when He says Jesus cleansed His church “by the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 5:26).  It is not the washing of water apart from the Spirit’s word but the washing in baptism in connection with the Spirit’s teachings.  This is the point when Jesus says, “Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). 

Jesus is teaching Nicodemus that he is not merely “flesh” the result of physical birth, which is all Nicodemus is currently thinking about (John 3:4). Jesus wants him to know there is a “spiritual” component of his being that needs to be brought to life.  This is why Jesus says, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). 

He is distinguishing between physical flesh, and the spirit within us which connects us with God’s image. Jesus is not describing the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit when He says, “The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth...” for he explains, “so is every one that is born of the Spirit”.  His analogy of the wind blowing is pointing to the person, “so is he” not Holy Spirit baptism.  Nicodemus needed to understand that though he cannot see the spirit within him, it is present, and we see its effects in our life.  This spiritual part of man needs to be renewed, for Nicodemus is dead in sin, even though he is alive physically.    

Paul, in Romans 7,  is describing himself – a Jew- who is under Law and without Christ.  He divides himself into “flesh” (a spiritual component in man – not the outward material flesh) –the fleshly mind -in contrast to the spiritual component of man, which is his “spirit.”  By dividing himself up this way, he can emphasize what takes place within us regarding sin and our pitiable condition under the system of the Law of Moses.  The law, he says is “spiritual”, but “I am carnal sold under sin” (Romans 7:14).   The problem is not with the law of God, but Paul, when he gives into the flesh, is now under sin. The law, never given to save him, places him in this pitiable condition of condemnation before God when he transgressed the law.    This is why we are thankful for Christ and the relationship of salvation in Him through the system of faith – in Him is no condemnation (Romans 8:1).

Paul is not saying there was no good thing in him when he was in an un-regenerated state, but in that part of him, the fleshly mind-set that always opens the gates for sin to enter his life.  For he, in his un-regenerated state, still willed and desired to do “good” (Romans 7:19). In his un-regenerated state he stilled willed not to do “evil”.   Are these not “good” things that are present in fallen man? 

Paul does not convey the teaching that man is born depraved, for in Romans 7 he speaks of the time when he was “alive apart from the law” (Romans 7:9).   Since the law was given long before Paul was born, he could only be alive apart from the law in the sense of being born in a safe condition before God, in an innocent state, not tainted by Adam’s sin.

Paul was not so dead in sin that he could not at the same time desire to do “good” and will not to do “evil”.   Nicodemus, certainly dead in sin, and in need of the new birth, believed that Jesus was from God (John 3:2).   Dead in sin does not mean therefore there is no good thing in fallen man.

Abraham was reckoned righteous before God because he believed, and this was indeed BEFORE he received circumcision (Genesis 15:6, 1:1-27, Romans 4:3).  But James describes the character of that faith as being “an obedient” faith, submitting to God’s commands.  For when Abraham carried out God’s commands to offer up Isaac, “...faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, ‘and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness’; and he was called the friend of God” (James 2:22-23).

Like Paul, we should always “preach the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).   

Thank you for your response.

Jerry Fite

(Stephen Anderson)

Sorry, did not get past your first line.  I suggest you read some Greek Lexicons and Basic Greek textbooks.  You can also simply look at how the word is used.  "Eis" means into and can be translated that way everywhere it is used and make sense.  It does not mean "toward", that is "pros".  Words have meaning. The English "toward" does not mean "into", does it? Until you can agree that "eis" means what it means there is no purpose in discussion.

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen, I must have missed it when you wrote out Acts 2:38 in an earlier post, but I did not see you take the King James translators to task for translating “eis” as “for” the remission of sins, instead of its meaning of “into”.  The English word “for” does not mean “into” does it? 

I assumed we both were wanting to know the true meaning of passages as they occur in their context in Scripture.  Yes, words have meaning. But the context in which we find these words often determines the intended meaning. 

A.T. Robertson in discussing the meaning of prepositions writes, “The scientific method of studying the Greek preposition is to begin with the case idea, add the meaning of the preposition itself, then consider the context.  The result of this combination will be what one translates into English, for instance, but he translates the whole idea, not the mere preposition.”  P. 568 (Grammar of the Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, 1915). 

In my last response to you, I agreed with you regarding the meaning of “eis” as being “into”.  But where I respectfully disagree with you is that no other word can be used in English to better bring out the true meaning of the passage in which we find “eis”.

A.T. Robertson understands this principle: Giving the meaning of Matthew 26:28, He writes: “The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins” (210). Robertson, A. T. 1919. Historical Grammar. Hodder & Stoughton: London, England).  

He also uses the word “purpose” for giving the meaning of “eis” in the context of 2 Cor. 2:12 – “eis” connected with its object, “the gospel”.  I understand Paul is saying that he came to Troas for the purpose of preaching the Gospel.  How does “into” work here in understanding the truth?     Robertson then includes Matthew 26:28 and adds, “One may not doubt also that this is the idea in Mt. 26:28.”    (p. 595)   (A.T. Robertson Grammar of the Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, 1915). 

Jesus said “And whosoever shall give a drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you he shall in no wise lose his reward” (Matthew 10:42).  The preposition “eis” is used here by our Lord, and translated “in” (…the name of a disciple).  I ask you again, could you explain for me the meaning of the passage by supplying the word “into” as it occurs in this context? 

Jesus, prior to this verse said, “He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward: and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous shall receive a righteous man’s reward” (Matthew 10:41). The preposition “eis” is translated “in” regarding its respective object- a prophet and a righteous man.  Please explain how using the word “into”, which is its precise meaning, conveys the true meaning of this passage. 

A.T. Robertson in explaining the truth of this passage gives “eis” the meaning of “because of” and adds this caveat: “It is not proper to say the eis has always to be translated “into” (A.T. Robertson; Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 85).

My use of the word “toward” in pointing toward the fact that one is a prophet, righteous man or a disciple is the true meaning of these passages.  It would include one saying “because of” - the fact that one is a prophet or a righteous man. “Eis” is still pointing “toward” the same fact.

Balz, commenting on the preposition writes, “It is an indicator of direction toward a goal, not as an indicator of location without direction”. (Balz, p. 398) (Balz, Horst and Gerhard Schneider. 1978. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids: Mi.).

With the Grammarian Balz on the preposition “eis”, all agree that “eis” is an indicator of direction – “into” certainly indicates direction, so does “toward”, the word Balz uses next.  Commanding one to go “into” the house would not exclude “toward” because both terms are direction indicators.  You are not “into” the house yet, as you go “toward” the house, or why the command? 

I have found in investigating the various passages in which “eis” is found, the word “toward” works in conveying a proper concept of the preposition without ignoring its basic meaning of “into”.  Since “eis” is a direction indicator, the word “toward” works in all cases.  It does not contradict the words “into” (Galatians 3:17) “for”(Acts 2:38)  or “at” (Matt. 12:41) or “on” (Acts 19:4)  or “in” (Matthew 12:41,42)  but allows a better understanding of those passages, especially in their context in which “Purpose”  is being emphasized with the word “eis”.

When I use the word “fundamental” to describe my use of the word “toward” in regard to “eis”, I am looking at what is “essential” in having a true concept of the preposition in all cases found in the New Testament.  Other words besides “into “can be used in certain passages to bring forth the truth God is conveying in a particular passage while still honoring “eis’s” meaning as a preposition.    

In hope of eliminating barriers,

Jerry Fite

(Stephen Anderson)

  

T. Robertson was just wrong and biased arguing that "eis" can mean "because of".  He was not above changing the Scripture when he didn't like it.  "Eis" can be translated as "for the purpose of" if the context requires it as that is consistent with the basic "into". You can't simply build a doctrine out of an historical event in Acts.  Peter was speaking to a particular audience who had a Jewish understanding of baptism.  You have to remember that Alexander Campbell was anti-Calvinist and a recovering Calvinist.  His reaction against hyper-Calvinism and his education in Locke biased his understanding. The CoC traditional understanding of baptism is a throwback to Roman sacramentalism. If water baptism was required for salvation and the forgiveness of sins we can be sure that God would have made it crystal clear in the Epistles. "Spiritual things are spiritually understood."

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen,

So, now you acknowledge that A.T. Robertson is right when he says “eis” can denote “the purpose of” if the context requires it, as he says it does in Matthew 26:28.   I have asked you now twice to give your wording to explain the meaning of “eis” in Matthew 10: 42.   Now for the third time, how does “into”, or now “the purpose of” correctly explain the action of giving a cup of cold water “in the name of a disciple” without the concept of “because of”? 

Oh for consistency of truth to be seen in both you and A.T. Robertson to acknowledge that repentance and baptism is for “the purpose of” remission of sins in Acts 2:38.  This is exactly the truth the Holy Spirit is revealing through the Apostle Peter.  Since you now admit that “the purpose of”  and “Into” are compatible  for the meaning of “eis”, maybe we are making progress in you coming to the knowledge of truth regarding baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

I have been offering you Scripture and the detailed explanation of their meaning throughout this discussion.   I assume you are not able to expose my explanations as error, or maybe you are not of the disposition to discuss Scriptures in their context, for you have not replied to the Scriptures offered and my explanations of them.  You just continue to pile up more false assertions.

Now, you feel the need to lump me with Alexander Campbell and Roman Sacramentalism.  I deny both as the basis for my belief.  Stephen, I am a Christian not, a “Campbellite”.  Mr. Anderson, I am a Christian, not a Roman Catholic.  The church of which I am a member has never believed baptism is a sacrament of the church.  That is Roman Catholicism.  Since you believe that baptism is “an outward sign of inward grace”, you may be closer to baptism as a sacrament than I or the church revealed in the New Testament ever professed.     
    

You tried to lump me with “Roman Sacramentalism” earlier when you assumed I “believed in baptism”. I denied it then, but you continue to assert that I am still connected with Roman Sacramentalism.   Give it up Stephen.  To attribute to a man that which he has denied, and has never manifested a basis for the   false charge, is not honorable for one professing to be a Christian.

No one is building a doctrine based upon the history in Acts, but simply acknowledging in Acts the doctrine of Christ as it unfolds in time.  Jesus promised the apostles that the Spirit of truth would come after Jesus ascended to heaven, and He “will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatsoever He hears, He will speak, and He will disclose to you what is to come.  He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you” (John 16:13-14).    The doctrine revealed in Acts is the “apostles doctrine” (Acts 2:42), not doctrine based upon Jewish tradition.  This is the doctrine revealed through the Holy Spirit - that which belongs to Christ and the Father. 

The doctrine of Christ regarding baptism is consistent with Christ in the gospels, with the apostles in Acts and with the apostles in the Epistles.  Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).     Peter, in Acts, says to a multitude of believers that they must “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).   Since Jesus said baptism is between a believer and salvation, Peter is not establishing anything different when he says that repentance and baptism stands between these convicted believers and remission of sins, which is an essential condition for salvation.   Peter in his first epistle says “…baptism now saves you- not removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (I Peter 3:21).

Peter makes it “crystal clear” in his Epistle:   Baptism doth now save you! 

Sincerely,

Jerry Fite

(Stephen Anderson)

It is crystal clear that we are saved by the grace of God (alone) through faith (alone) in Christ (alone) and not of ourselves. Your concept of baptism is not the 1st century Jewish understanding.  You hold to the later gentile-sacramental-catholic understanding which is rooted in ignorance. Read 1Peter 3:21 again:  "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1Peter 3:21 KJV)

1) Baptism is a "figure" (antitype)

2) It is not the water or the act but the "answer of a good conscience".  The answer or appeal OF a good conscience (genitive case).  The most natural reading is that baptism is the response of a conscience already purified by regeneration and already justified through faith.

3) Noah and his family were saved by the grace of God alone, when He chose to preserve them from the flood.  Peter's point is not that baptism saves, but that God saves.

4) Since the churches of Christ deny original sin and human depravity they will never understand the grace of God.  They will remain Pelagians.

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen,

Let us put I Peter 3:21 in the context of I Peter 3:20 to make sure we are not overlooking the truth the Holy Spirit is revealing through Peter regarding baptism and salvation.  Since you are using the KJV for verse 21 we will also use it for v. 20.

20  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

In these two verses we have not only an “antitype”, but also a “type”.  The type prefigures, and in some way “strikes – against” the more permanent “antitype.”  “Water” (in Noah’s day) (v.20) - (the type), is the element under consideration which “strikes against” (antitupos) the water of baptism, which is the antitype.   “Water’ in verse 20 corresponds to water baptism in verse 21, which naturally leads to baptism being the antitype in this verse.  

The like figure analogy allows us to see the parallel in Noah’s day with saving baptism in our day.  As eight souls were saved by water – or through (dia) the medium of water; in like manner, water in baptism is the medium through which we are saved today.  As eight souls were saved by or through (dia) water, which was the dividing line separating the sinners from the righteous in Noah’s day; the water of baptism is the dividing line between the sinner and the righteous person today (cf. Romans 6: 17-18, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38).

 

Peter reveals “water” as the element in verse 20, making baptism the “antitype” in verse 21.   Stephen, you deny it!

Peter states clearly that baptism saves us, but Stephen, you deny it!  Instead, you assert that an already “cleansed conscience - born again- already justified through faith”- Christian is responding to baptism.  Were the multitude who had just been convicted of their sin by Peter’s preaching in Acts 2:36, and told to repent and be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, just responding to baptism in Acts 2:41 as “cleanse conscience- born again- already justified through faith” Christians?  When were they born of water and the spirit before water baptism in the name of the Lord in vs. 41?    Was it when that “Pelagian” Peter had the audacity to tell those still lost in sin to save themselves from the crooked generation in verse 40?  No, people enlightened by the preaching of the Gospel (cf. Acts 26:17-18), and told of the conditions of being saved by God’s grace which had been provided through Jesus’ death and resurrection, responded with an obedient faith in repenting and being baptized for the purpose of the remission of their sins.  Stephen, do you really think they never understood the grace of God, when their preacher said to them to save themselves and they responded to the word by being baptized (v. 41)?  

  

Stephen, it is amazing that you cannot see water in Peter’s claim of baptism being an antitype, which is in the text, but see so clearly Calvinism which is not in the text.

Peter is revealing that our flesh is not being cleansed from filth as our bodies are immersed into water, but baptism is an appeal, or inquiry toward God regarding a clean or good conscience. If we follow the KJV lead, we see water baptism is God’s “answer” to our inquiry regarding a clean conscience.

You take too much liberty with the genitive case to try to establish your Calvinism.  The genitive case is simply connecting “conscience” with “good”, not telling us that such has already occurred. 

 

Stephen, the cleansed conscience cannot be cleansed apart from the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14). Such “conscience cleansing” occurs when one is baptized into the death of Jesus, where he shed his blood (Romans 6:3-4).  Regeneration or being born again occurs when connected with the word revealed by the Spirit, and water, not apart from them (I Peter 1:23, James 1:18, Eph. 5:26, John 3:5, Titus 3:5). And Jesus connected faith and baptism as conditions necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16).

 The Greek word translated in our Bibles “answer” or  “appeal” or “inquiry” is the word “eperotema” (only found here in I Peter 3:21),   Its root is never used in the New Testament as an “answer”, but always denoting “asking” or “inquiring”.   So, the one being baptized is not answering anyone, but is pointing toward God in seeking a good or clean conscience. 

 

On what basis does water baptism save us?  Peter takes us to the resurrection of Jesus Christ for the answer.  Water is not the basis for our salvation; that foundation is the death and resurrection of Christ which gives Him the name or authority to save all men (Acts 4:12, Philippians 2:9).  But water is the dividing line in baptism between death and the new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4, 17-18) Just as water was the dividing line in Noah’s day, so water baptism is today.  As eight souls were saved through water, (not because of water); so water baptism saves us today.

Stephen, Noah and his family were not saved “only” by God’s grace for they were also saved by faith” (Hebrews 11:7).  This faith did not save until Noah obeyed God and prepared an ark to the saving of his house.  We are saved today by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), and this is an obedient faith in baptism, a faith trusting in the resurrected Christ for salvation (Colossians 2:12-13).    It is when we are raised from the water in baptism, not before, that we begin to walk in the newness of life (Romans 6:4). 

Stephen, what you say about I Peter 3:21 is not an “exegesis” of the passage, but another sad example of “eisegisis”. You inject into the text Calvinism, and out pours error!   Honest hearts can clearly see that you certainly have not brought out the meaning of I Peter 3:21 when you deny water has anything to do with baptism being an antitype, for Peter clearly connects verses 20 and 21 with “water”. And, you certainly are not expressing Peter’s thoughts, when you boldly deny what he by divine inspiration affirms:  “Baptism doth now save you”!

Stephen, for the sake of your precious soul, take off your Calvinistic blinders and accept the harmonious truth of God’s word.  You will not have to be in the embarrassing position of ignoring the context of Scripture, and believing the opposite of what is written.  

Sincerely,
Jerry Fite

(Stephen Anderson)

First, 'figure' (kvj) is the word antitupos from anti (against or another) and tupos(type).  Tupos appears 14 times in the NT in four forms.  It is used in Romans 5:14 of Adam being a 'type' of Christ.  We often use the word 'shadow' or 'picture' to convey a similar idea.  The point being that Peter is speaking spiritually and of Christ.  Water baptism is a figure of regeneration.

Secondly, the Epistles never explicitly teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation.   And the word 'baptism' does not always mean water baptism.  The churches of Christ have traditionally been like the Pharisees in washing the outside of the cup and not the inside.  If water baptism was what you all say it is, the Holy Spirit would have explicitly and repeatedly stated it.  And Paul would never have written "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel".

Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott and their followers have never understood the Scriptures because they were probably not born of the Spirit. They all confused the type or pattern with the real substance. The Restoration Movement was built on and by the flesh.  It is a restoration of Pelagianism.

I was a pastor for a few years in a church that had restoration roots.  I was friends with a Campbellite pastor.  I have honestly sought to understand the movement.  I have seriously considered joining a few of those churches.  In hindsight and with a few more years under my belt and a more mature understanding of the Scriptures I can say what I have said above.

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen,

Do you ever have a shadow without the substance that casts the shadow?  The “type” is still prefiguring the more important and permanent “antitype”.  For example, Moses’ tabernacle was the shadow of the “pattern” or antitype holy place of heaven (Hebrews 9:24).   Peter is speaking of water in Noah’s day (the type in Peter’s analogy) prefiguring the antitype – water of baptism.    Water baptism is the antitype to the water of Noah’s day which in accordance to the meaning of the preposition “dia” divides into two.  In this context, the water in Noah’s day divided the saved from the lost.  The water in baptism today is God’s dividing line between the saved and the lost. 

Water baptism is not a figure (antitype) of regeneration, but it is where regeneration or the new birth takes place.  Again, there is no new birth apart from the water of baptism (John 3:5, I Pet. 1:23, Titus 3:5, Romans 6:3-4).  Acknowledging antitype in I Peter 3:21 and then going off into your Calvinistic “figurative” land will not cut it Stephen.      

You say, the Epistles never explicitly teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation; Yet Peter explicitly says “baptism now saves you” (I Peter 3:21).  You could see this if you stayed true to the antitype analogy offered in the text.  Water baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (outside of the cup) but is obeying from the heart that form of teaching whereunto we were delivered, and receiving the cleansing of the conscience (inside of the cup) (Romans 6:17-18, I Peter 3:21). 

Water baptism is what Peter explicitly says it is – baptism does now save you, and the examples of people being converted in the book of Acts harmonize with its necessity unto salvation, just as water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ harmonizes in God’s eternal plan to save us by grace through faith. 

For example, when Philip “preached Jesus” to the traveling Eunuch (Acts 8:35), he included the necessity of baptism.  We know this because when preaching Jesus, the Eunuch in the very next verse said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (NAS).   When did he see the necessity to be baptized in water? Of course, such was contained in preaching Jesus and offering God’s eternal plan for man to be saved by Jesus’ death and resurrection.  Such plan included the necessity of being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ through the medium of water, which is God’s dividing line between being lost and saved (I Peter 3:21)   Stephen, when you preach Jesus you preach water baptism for here is where the appeal regarding a clean conscience is answered (I Peter 3:21); this is where the inward man is cleansed by the blood of Christ (Heb 9:14,  Heb. 10: 22, Romans 6:3-4).   

When the Eunuch heard the preaching of Jesus, confessed his faith that Jesus is the Son of God, which was necessary before he could be baptized, was baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ, and went on his way rejoicing, he was saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8).  The ones who deny it are those who through the influence of John Calvin, pride themselves in their theological statement of “salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”.  Those who accept the clear teaching of the Gospel message rejoice in the harmony between the Gospels, the book of Acts and the Epistles when directing our minds in God’s plan for salvation.

Where does God explicitly say that we are saved by Grace “alone”? 

Where does God explicitly say that we are saved by faith alone?  Scripture does explicitly say that we are not justified by “faith alone” (James 2:24).  By the way, where do Christians establish the doctrine “it is more blessed to give than receive”, if not from the Book of Acts (cf. Acts 20:35)?  How many times must it be repeated before Stephen believes such a doctrine is important? 

Paul is not saying baptism is not necessary for salvation by saying God “did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel…” (I Corinthians 1:17).  He is simply saying that preaching the gospel was his mission before Christ, not being the one who actually immerses one in water. He is not saying that baptism is not part of the plan of salvation, for he preached it and administered it (Acts 18:8, I Corinthians 1:16).   Does “work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which endures to eternal life” (John 6: 27) mean that working for your food is not necessary (cf. 2 Thess. 3:10)?  Neither does Paul’s statement regarding being the one who physically  administers baptism  as being not as important as preaching the gospel  (which we know is part of the gospel plan of salvation (Acts 8:35-38)  negate baptism as being essential to salvation.   

I hope God gives you more years under your belt to study the Scriptures with an open mind so you can come to the understanding of Truth.  Your constant lack of presenting specific scriptures to establish your belief, and your continual ignoring the context of those specific scriptures you do offer, tell me that you are not there yet.

Sincerely
Jerry Fite

(Stephen Anderson)

You're doing a lot of writing.  Are you seeking to convince me, or yourself? Would presenting specific Scriptures make you change your mind?  The problem lies in your heart. The reason people go for a legalistic gospel of works is because it is compatible with their proud heart which "is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked."   Scott's 5 finger plan of salvation requires no humiliation of self and no divine work of the Spirit.  It is a proud  man centered gospel that is no gospel at all. Until your heart is transformed by the Spirit of God, all the Scriptures in the Bible will fall on deaf ears.

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen,

Presenting specific Scriptures that clearly in their context show that I have contradicted Scripture is the only reason why I must change my mind.  The lack of Scriptural evidence combined with false assertions will not do.   I was hoping a man who viewed our video and took the time to respond was noble -minded and honest in heart enough to examine the Scriptures to see if the things presented to him were so (Acts 17:11).

 

Instead, I am communicating with a man who apparently is feeling the weight of Scripture as it is presented for consideration.  Instead of diligently showing how my statements on how we are saved by grace through faith contradict what God has actually revealed, you take the dishonorable and lazy road of just lumping me in with those possessing a desperately wicked mind, seeking a legalistic gospel.   God praised the Bereans for their noble heart. He did not say such examination and application of Scripture is “ seeking a legalistic gospel ” motivated by a “ desperately wicked mind. ”

Do you really believe simply pointing out that all man must repent implies that there is no humiliation over our sin?  Godly sorrow works the repentance that we will never regret (2 Corinthians 7:10).  Are you so ignorant of the Scriptures that inform us that faith is the result of hearing the Spirit ’ s work in revealing the mind of God through the Word  (Romans 10:17, 2 Timothy 3:16)?  The Philippian jailor did not have saving faith by his experience, but by hearing the word preached to him by Paul. (Acts 16:31-32).  In fact, hearing God ’ s word, believing the Gospel of Christ (Rom. 10:17) confessing one ’ s belief that Jesus is the Son of God (Romans 10:9-10) repenting of one ’ s sins (Romans 2:5) and being baptized (Romans 6:3-4) are all taught and demanded in the Book of Romans.  Did Paul, in pointing out these five things as being essential to our salvation prove that he has no gospel at all, but is offering the gospel that only proud men seek? 

Will you determine to remain deaf to Scripture, proving to all, but more importantly to yourself that you have not yet been transformed by the Holy Spirit?

Sincerely desiring your transformation,

Jerry Fite

(Stephen Anderson)

"You must be born again."

(Jerry Fite)

Hi Stephen, Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say unto you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). (NAS)

(Stephen Anderson)

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."  (John 3:6-8 NAS)