Hi Pilgrim,
Thank you so much for your response. I am grateful for your input, and for the fact that you have not immediately dismissed me.
I fear, though, that you have almost entirely misinterpreted me (both with regard to Acts and Matt 28) and got the clear impression that I am “dispensational” – which is largely my fault. I see there is a serious need for a shift in emphasis, and much clearer terminology. I haven't had much time to edit the document, but I have added a number of changes shown in red (see new attachement). I affirm that
1. I do NOT believe that Acts as a WHOLE is transitory (not transitionary); more specifically, the
whole of Acts is NOT to be disregarded in all matters of faith and practice. However,
some things within Acts are to be disregarded.
2. I do NOT believe that Matt 28 is transitionary at all, but fully submit to the command.
3. I do NOT necessary advocate any other part of Luginbill’s theology, aside from this article (excluding the articles he references within it).
a. Perhaps I should get this one thing out of the way at the beginning and get done with it.
It is in regard to one of your sources, Dr. Robert D. Luginbill. He is a professor at Talbot Seminary. The seminary’s doctrinal position is antithetical and antagonistic to the Reformed churches and their theology, expressed in its various Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms. I cannot help but
assume that the school and Dr. Luginbill are ‘Dispensationalists’. Therefore, his paper holds very little weight for not only this reason, but it is evidenced in the paper itself, i.e., his approach to Scripture is not in accord with what I deem to be sound biblical exegesis. Yes, I read his paper completely and carefully.
I was vaguely aware of this when I quoted Lunginbill. As much as many of his views may be wrong, there is still a nugget of truth to be gained. Please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, as I know you won’t throw Augustine out with his font-waters of regeneration
. Luginbill may be dispensational in his eschatology, but I see no evidence from his article that he discards the whole of Acts as transitory in practice.
b. Your approach, unfortunately, is similar in kind to that of Dr. Robert D. Luginbill, i.e., a ‘Dispensational’ hermeneutic, not necessarily in the matter of its narrow definition commonly associated with the locus of Eschatology, but rather methodology. What I mean by that is that you clearly make radical distinctions and bifurcations of different parts of Scripture. This is evident in your determination that the book of Acts as a whole is ‘transitory’ in nature, thus concluding that nothing in the book of Acts can be taken as paradigmatic or normative for the Church as it developed thereafter. You simply state this fact without offering any substantial proof of its verity. That there are things that occurred in the book of Acts which were temporary in nature is certainly true, e.g., the ecstatic gifts of the Spirit whose main purpose was to show that Gentiles were to be admitted to Christ’s Church no less than their Jewish counterparts. But the practice of baptism cannot be shown to be a temporary practice due to its very meaning and purpose, which I shall expand upon below in the next section.
Pertinent observation. However, there is a serious misunderstanding because of my own error.
1. I should not have said, “Acts as a whole is transitionary,” (I did not use the word ‘transitory’, which has a different meaning,) since this can be misleading. It would have been more accurate to say, “some things that occurred in the book of Acts were temporary in nature.” I certainly do NOT discard the whole book of Acts as temporary/transitory, nor was it my intention to ever do so (as you will have read in answer 9). The Church was “transitioning” from an Old Testament state to a New Testament state. However, not all was “transitory” or “temporary,” including, for example, the Lord’s Supper.
2. “....Thus concluding that
nothing in the book of Acts can be taken as paradigmatic or normative for the Church as it developed thereafter. “ Untrue. Please read answer 9 again.
3. “You simply state this fact without offering any substantial proof of its verity.” Untrue. Assuming I am referring to baptism and the Holy Spirit only, I will summarise my argument in sections 3.2-4.1 as follows (which is by no means my whole argument).
(i) “The Apostles were living during a “time of transition between the old covenant work of the Holy Spirit and the new covenant work of the Holy Spirit.” [Grudem]. I have given abundant proof for this.
(ii) Consequently, the manner in which water baptism in Acts occurred was inconsistent, and the understanding of the early church with regard to water baptism was as yet inadequate. “Some automatically assumed the relevance of Old Testament washings in a New Testament context without being told (Acts 8:34-38), some did not know anything other than John’s Baptism (Acts 18:25); some were baptised before conversion or receival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:12, 17); some after (Acts 10:47); some were baptised twice (Acts 19:5), etc.” You yourself said that Acts 19:5 “should not be construed as a principle to be practiced by the Church.”
(iii) The disciples misinterpreted the first imperative in Mat 28 ("make disciples of ALL nations"), and were therefore likely to misinterpret the next ("baptising them").
(iv) We cannot therefore unreservedly apply their example without considering the rest of Scripture.
(iii) The writing of all the Epistles comes
after this transitionary understanding of water baptism.
(iv) Concerning the Epistles,
“After the Book of Acts ... water baptism is mentioned five times. In 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 Paul expressed his thanks to God that he water-baptized only a few, for Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the Gospel. In 1 Corinthians 15:24 Paul mentioned ... baptisms on behalf of the dead. In the epistle to the Hebrews (Jews) the writer urged those Jewish Christians to leave the principle or elementary teaching concerning baptisms (baptismos) (6:1-2), that teaching being that divers washings (baptismos) (9:10) were imposed only until the time of (the Messianic) reformation. And Peter wrote that baptism [into Christ] now saves us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh) that is, not water baptism.” [Bethel]
There is no command for water baptism in the Epistles, but much evidence against it. All verses other than the above are spiritual in nature. I have given
abundant proof from MacArthur and Grudem for this.
(v) Water baptism in superseded by spiritual baptism, in fulfilment of John the Baptist words.
c. There is misunderstanding of the “2” baptisms found prior to that commanded in Matt 28:19; baptism performed by John the Baptist and baptism performed by Jesus and His disciples. Both of these were preparatory, although the latter is far closer to that commanded by Jesus just before His ascension. Both of those two preparatory baptism were indeed temporary by design and pointed to something else and far greater. Thus Dr. Lunginbill’s attempts to refute the validity of the Church administering water baptism is moot.
“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Mat 3:11
Am I correct in saying you are referring to this verse? Yes, John’s baptism was temporary. Baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire is no way temporary (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 1:13; Titus 3:5;1 Peter 1:12, Acts 1:5, etc.). Which of Dr. Lunginbill’s words are you referring to?
d. In the ‘Baptism in the Epistles’ section, you make the following statement: “It is remarkable to note the shift in emphasis from water to spiritual baptism in the Epistles.” This was not proven, just stated. Firstly, I see no warrant nor justification upon which to base your conclusion. The record of Luke in Acts encompasses the time period during which the Epistles were written. One of the fundamental rules of biblical hermeneutics is: ‘The Epistles interpret the Gospels [and Acts]’. Thus, what we read in the pastoral Epistles of Paul are to be recognized as commentaries on what we find in the Gospels and the book of Acts. They expand upon many things which are briefly mentioned, thus giving us a clearer and deeper understanding. Secondly, if you dispense with baptism, then that which baptism signifies and seals is lost. Water baptism is pregnant with meaning, having various marvelous aspects to it which we read about in the Epistles. Paul’s explanations of these various aspects of water baptism aren’t to be a substitute for and thus a warrant to abrogate its practice. But rather a firm substantiation of not only its continued practice but of its fundamental importance to the Church and its individual members.
1. “This was not proven, just stated.” Untrue. In section 3.2 I showed that water baptism was practiced "inconsistently" by the early church. I then devoted 5 pages (9-14) to show that baptism in Epistles is "consistently" spiritual, and that water baptism is in fact argued against.
2. “The record of Luke in Acts encompasses the time period during which the Epistles were written.” Please read section 4.1
3. “The Epistles interpret the Gospels [and Acts]” I wholeheartedly agree. I believe that as Paul corrected Peter in yielding to the circumcision party (Gal 2:11), so he corrected the transitory view of baptism in Acts.
4. “if you dispense with baptism, then that which baptism signifies and seals is lost.” I disagree. The lesser gives way to the greater, thereby magnifying it.
5. “Water baptism is pregnant with meaning, having various marvelous aspects to it which we read about in the Epistles.” See (1.) above. I humbly believe that you yourself have applied one fundamental unproven assumption through your whole argument: that the Epistles are referring to water. I have proven (not I, but others whom I have quoted), that Paul is not referring to water. When he is, he is arguing against it.
e. Great Commission. In this section the statement is made: “The great commission has historically been interpreted with one fundament presupposition: water. Yet in the preceding context, we believe that it is clear that the Lord cannot be referring to water, but to the Spirit…. It seems far more consistent with the flow of Christ’s words to insist that He was indeed referring to spiritual baptism.” I have to strongly object to this proposition for it is clearly unwarranted from both the passage itself (Matt 28:19) and the eisogetical insertion of this idea of “transitory period”, as well as the idea that the passages cited from Luke somehow are to determine the meaning of ‘baptism’ in the text.
1) Christ asserts His supreme and universal authority in v. 18, upon which what He is about to command His disciples to do is founded.
2) The command is the universal making of disciples (not transitory). A disciple is one who follows a master. That master is Christ, the LORD of all. Thus this discipleship involves a total commitment and allegiance.
3) Baptism is inextricably connected to the making of disciples, i.e., it is a sign of both Christ’s lordship (not transitory) and of the recipient’s commitment to follow Him as a disciple (not transitory).
4) Therefore we would expect to find and we do find that the Gospel was preached, sinners professed faith in Christ and were baptized in water. Consequently, they were received into the Church as members who continued in the teaching of the Apostles, i.e., that which the Apostles taught and which was perpetuated through other teachers. (cf. Acts 2:38,41,42,44; 8:34-36,38; 10:34-47; 16:14,15,31-33.)
1. “This proposition for it is clearly unwarranted from both the passage itself.” In the scope of the rest of Scripture, it is far more unwarranted to hold that it refers to water.
2. “and the eisogetical insertion of this idea of “transitory period.” I hope that I am interpreting you correctly, but I did not once use “transitory” to describe the great commission. I was referring to baptism in Acts. I hold that Mat 28 is absolutely relevant for us.
3. The passages (Lk.4:18; 11:13; 12:12; 24:48; Jn.7:39; 14:15-26; 15:26; 16:5-15; 20:22; Acts 1:4-8) are used to show Christ’s emphasis (on the Spirit), which provide the background setting in which Christ spoke.
4. Christ’s understanding was transcendent over a “transitionary period” of water baptism in Acts. Consider, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” Why did they first only go to the Jews, regarding the gentiles as unclean? The Lord had to forcefully show Peter that he ought not regard any man as unclean, before he actually realise what Christ meant, by “all nations.” (Mat 28:19, c.f. Acts 1:8, “to the end of the earth.”). Yet through all of this, Christ’s meaning remained the same.
5. “The command is the universal making of disciples (not transitory).” Agreed. “Baptism is inextricably connected to the making of disciples, i.e., it is a sign of both Christ’s lordship (not transitory) and of the recipient’s commitment to follow Him as a disciple (not transitory).” Agreed. Yet, you assume water. If the disciples were confused about “all nations,” then will you assume that they were totally clear about water baptism (please read my red comments in the new document on this)? I believe you are “back-interpreting” Mat 28, with this assumption. “The assumption on the part of even the apostles in the early going that water-baptism is a natural thing to do for those who accept Christ proceeds from an as yet incomplete understanding of the new reality of the cross and resurrection on the one hand, and of the consequent baptism of the Spirit on the other.” Please read especially section 3.2 again, bearing in mind that I do not view the whole of Acts as transitionary.
6. “Therefore we would expect to find and we do find that the Gospel was preached, sinners professed faith in Christ and were baptized in water.” You have missed what I mentioned in point 4, and have assumed that the disciples were correctly applying Christ’s words. Please don’t shoot me down on this point, but consider... the disciples failed to grasp what Christ meant by “all nations.” In fact they blatantly [temporarily] disobeyed the command, by “speaking the word to no one except Jews.” (Acts 11:19). Now will we be so bold as to hold that the disciples, who misinterpreted Matt 28:19a, and who were yet submerged in an old testament understanding of things at this stage, who practiced baptism inconsistently in Acts, correctly interpreted Matt 28:19b? To unreservedly build a doctrine on a transitional era (I say this carefully, since we do indeed derive much doctrine from the book of Acts), without comparing it to the rest of Scripture, has been one of the pitfalls of the Pentecostals, and I fear, most of the Christian world to this day (regarding baptism).
(1) The new covenant sign has been changed from circumcision to baptism (Col 2:10-12) to reflect the fulfillment of all that the OT administration of the covenant pointed to and promised. (2) Water baptism is thus indispensible as some of the Puritans referred to the sacraments, as ‘visible sermons’. (3) Baptism’s significance and fullness of meaning cannot be dispensed with for it is the sign of the Covenant of Grace which is to last until the end of the age (cp. Matt 28:20).
Thank you for points IIa-c, which I dearly hold to. However, I must seriously differ on this point. I have labelled your sentences 1-3 in order to answer them.
1. (i) You have assumed (without proving) Col 2 is referring to water, when I have given evidence that it is not (Answer 8, and MacArthur’s comments). Applying water to Col 2 is by no means a natural consequence of points IIa-c.
(ii) The
seal of every believer is the Holy Spirit (“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph 1:13). The sign is also works and a confession with the mouth. The antitype (if I use the term correctly) of physical circumcision is the spiritual circumcision of Christ by the Spirit, which is a “matter of the heart, by the Spirit” (Rom 2:29), and “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” I deem it far worse biblical exegesis to apply water baptism to Col. I cannot possibly imagine how Paul could be glad of only baptising a few, or saying that he was not sent to baptise, if this were the case. To me, points IIa-c show more clearly that the Holy Spirit is the “fulfillment of all that the OT administration of the covenant pointed to and promised,” because he and his work
ARE are promise (Acts 2:33, Gal 3:14). We receive the Spirit through spiritual baptism (Mat 3:11).
2. I strongly disagree with this. Please see section 6.3.
3. Yes, but you have again assumed water.
d) God not only brings men and women into union with Christ as the embodiment of covenant grace at the zenith of its realization, He not only gives exceeding great and precious promises that are yea and amen in Christ, but He seals this union and confirms these promise by an ordinance that portrays to our senses the certainty of His grace. Depreciation of baptism insults the wisdom and grace of God and, more particularly, His faithfulness. He confirms to us the bond of union with Himself by adding the seal of baptism, to the end that we may be more firmly established in the faith of His covenant of grace.
I strongly disagree, and feel that this response is highly prejudiced. Rather, “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were
sealed with the promised
Holy Spirit” Eph 1:13. He confirms to us this union by pouring His love “into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us,” “by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” (Rom 8:15) and producing in us the fruit of the Spirit that shows that we are indeed united to Him. (Mat 7:16) “By this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3). “By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.” (1 John 4:13, etc.).
e) The person who refuses baptism and declines the reproach of Christ, which it entails, cannot be received as a member of Christ’s body. And the organization which discards baptism and thereby evinces its rejection of the authority and Lordship of Christ cannot be accounted a branch of the true Christian Church.
1. On the contrary, we submit more now to Christ’s authority and Lordship in Matt 28 with greater fervency than ever, knowing how far more glorious the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is.
2. Please consider the rest of my argument from 1 Cor 12:12, section 6.2.
I hope this has helped to make things more clear, and will provide a better platform for further discussion... I’ve tried to write this response with much reserve (having fought down much emotion!), knowing that both you and the Puritans who support you are much more Scripturally knowledgeable than I ... but my conscience forbids me to submit to something of which I am not persuaded from Scripture.
