BAPTISM DEBATE | Is Water Baptism Necessary for Justification? @TheProgressivePrimitivist

We have sound now.

Is that correct?

Adam, could you check that out for us and make sure that we have audio on the live feed.

We want to make sure that those of you that are watching online, you want to be able to hear what these guys have to say.

You may not want to know what I have to say, but you're going to hear them.

So we'll double check before we move forward here and make sure the sound is working.

Is it working?

All right, we got the thumbs up.

All right, well I'm gonna start over here.

The proposition put forward tonight is water baptism is necessary for

justification before God, whereas we have in the affirmative Mike Hysaw and

in the negative Pastor Jeremiah Nortier that serves here at 12 -5.

And so we are going to, without any more delay, we are going to

go ahead and get started, get all the introductions out of the way.

Well tonight's debate will be starting out with opening statements.

Each gentleman will be given 20 minutes to state their case in each of their stated positions.

We will start with the affirmative.

Mike, the floor is yours.

I will start the clock as soon as you begin your opening statement.

Well, appreciate everybody for.

Being here tonight and appreciate everybody who's watching on the live stream.

And this is such an important topic both to Jeremiah and me.

We're on opposite sides of the question, but I think we both view this as an equally important topic.

And so I'll begin by defining my proposition.

It is that water baptism is necessary for justification before God.

So by water baptism, what I mean is immersion in water.

Of course, I think we're all in agreement that it would be better for the word baptizo to have been

translated rather than transliterated.

That would have avoided a lot of unnecessary confusion.

But when we talk about water immersion, I'm not talking about just any and

every form of water immersion being necessary for justification before God, but I'm talking about the water

immersion that Jesus commanded in the Great Commission.

And so that's a great text to start with.

So let me just elaborate on Matthew chapter 28 verses 18 through 20 before I continue defining

the proposition.

So Jesus said to his disciples that all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy

Spirit, teaching them to obey all things whatever I've commanded you.

And behold, I'm with you always even to the end of the age.

So notice Jesus prefaced this commission on his universal

authority.

And so this is to be considered in the weightiest light possible.

And so Jesus, based on his universal authority, commands his disciples to go and make

more disciples.

Now what's very interesting is the fact that the verb there in Matthew chapter 28 verse 19,

mathetusata, which is an imperative, Jesus tells us how that verb

is to be carried out.

And so he follows up that imperative verb with two participles, baptizantes

and didoskentes, baptizing and teaching.

And as Daniel Wallace says in his Greek Grammar Beyond Basics, these are participles of

means.

So they express how the command to make disciples is carried out.

And the way that it's carried out is with a taught baptism.

The disciples are to go out and they're to be teaching.

They're to be teaching people to obey everything that Jesus commanded.

But of all the things that Jesus commanded, there is one commandment that is singled

out and that is separated from the rest.

And that's the commandment to be water baptized.

And Jesus says that this water baptism is to be done in the name, literally, ace ta

onima, into the name.

And in BDAG, which Jeremiah agrees is the highest lexical

source for understanding what Greek words mean, in BDAG, when he deals with this under

the entry on onima, he makes the point that this expresses how someone

enters into the possession of the Holy Trinity.

How one enters into the possession of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

It's by baptism.

So moving on to the proposition, when I say that water baptism is necessary, what I mean is water

baptism is a stated condition that God makes in his Word.

By justification before God, what I mean is that it's necessary in

order for God to declare someone to be cleared from the guilt of their sin.

And justification and forgiveness of sins is referring to the same thing.

For instance, you might look at Acts chapter 13 verses 38 and 39, and there Paul says that through

this man is proclaimed to you the forgiveness of sins and a remission, or excuse me, a

justification from sins from which you could not be justified under the law of Moses.

And so forgiveness of sins and justification refers to one of the same thing.

So my proposition is that water baptism is commanded by

Jesus' supreme authority for a person to obtain that

justification before God, for God to declare someone to be clear and forgiven of the guilt of their sins.

Now when I think about how to prove this from Scripture, I think that I could turn to probably

15 passages, and working through those passages I think that I could establish this proposition.

But rather than just running through all 15 passages, I think that our time, because we don't have much time, 20

minutes, I mean I can barely clear my throat in 20 minutes.

So I think that the time is best spent by really getting into one passage, developing it,

and seeing that it does make this point.

So I want us to consider Acts chapter 2.

And of course I think Jeremiah is in agreement with me that Acts chapter 2 is the beginning of the New

Covenant age.

It is the day that the Holy Spirit is poured out upon the

apostles, and the apostles for the first time after Jesus' death and resurrection and his

session at the Father's right hand, that the apostles declare the saving message of

the gospel.

And so as the crowd has gathered because of the ruckus that the apostles are making and speaking in all

these different languages that these ignorant Galileans have never learned, Peter begins to preach to the crowd.

And Peter comes to the climax of the sermon in verse 36 when he says, therefore let all the

house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified

both Lord and Christ.

And what a piercing message that was.

In fact the very next verse says that as they heard these things they were cut to the heart and they cried out to

Peter and the rest of the apostles, men and brethren what shall we do?

And so they recognized that they are guilty of the worst sin imaginable for having

crucified their Messiah that they've been waiting for for

centuries.

And so as they stand trembling before God, pierced in their heart, they want to know what they have to do to make

it right.

And so this question that they ask, what shall we do?

Tipu eisomen.

This is a question that we find other places in Scripture.

This is the very question that was asked by three groups inquiring of John the Baptist in Luke chapter

3 as to what they need to do in order to bring forth fruits meet for repentance.

This is the same question in essence that the jailer will ask Paul and Silas, men and brethren,

what must I do to be saved in Acts chapter 16 and verse 30.

This will be the same question that Saul of Tarsus will ask the resurrected and glorified

Jesus as he's being confronted on the road to Damascus in Acts chapter 22.

And so notice what Peter says.

Peter says to them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ

for the forgiveness of your sins, or as it's translated in the New Revised Standard Version, so that your sins may be

forgiven.

And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the promises to you and your children and to all that are far

off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him.

Now I think that it's almost as instructive to consider what Peter doesn't say as what it

is to consider what Peter does say.

Notice that Peter does not say to those who ask him what must we do.

He doesn't say, well there's nothing that you need to do because the fact that you are cut to

the heart and you're crying out before God, that shows that God has already worked a heart change in you.

That shows that you already believe in Him.

And there's nothing that you have to do to have your sins forgiven because God has sovereignly wrought forgiveness

for you.

That's not what Peter says.

And notice Peter does not say, well believe.

Peter does not respond in the same way that Paul will respond to the Philippian jailer.

In Acts chapter 16, you know, after the jailer asks, sirs what must I do to be saved?

Paul says, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved, you and all your household.

In Acts 16 verse 31.

Now we wonder, well why does Peter not respond in that way?

And it's clear why.

It's not because the terms of justification have changed between Acts chapter 2 and Acts chapter

16.

It's because they already believe.

If they didn't already believe what Peter had said, that God has made that Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ, they

wouldn't have cried out, men and brethren, what must we do?

But notice, even though they already believe, even though they are pricked in their heart, it shows

that God has been working in their heart.

They're not saved.

Peter says, repent in answer to their question.

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven.

Now, Jeremiah and I are in agreement on what it means to repent, and so I don't think that there's need for

me to elaborate on that.

That's not the point of debate.

But notice, Peter doesn't just say repent and you'll be saved.

Rather, he says, repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your

sins may be forgiven.

Now, what does it mean when he says, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?

Well, in the Greek text, if you look at it closely, you'll see that it's epito -anamati.

And it could mean, be baptized with the name of Jesus Christ being pronounced

over you.

So, in other words, this could be shorthand for the larger formula that we find in Matthew chapter 28,

verse 19, be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

That's possible.

It may be the case that the two prepositions in the formulas, ace in Matthew 28, 19, epi in

Acts chapter 2, verse 38, it could be the case that there's a distinction without a

difference in meaning.

But I tend to believe that what's being referred to here is, be baptized upon a confession

of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In fact, I think that Peter is linking this back to what was said back in verse 21, where Peter

says, and it will be that whoever shall call, epikalasitai, notice the epi,

epikalasitai, whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved.

And so I think that that's what Peter is more likely getting around to, be baptized upon a confession of

the Lord Jesus Christ.

And this would be the same thing then that Ananias would say to Saul in Acts chapter 22,

verse 16, when he says, and now what are you waiting for?

Get up, get yourself baptized, and get your sins washed away, calling on the name of the Lord.

Or it could be translated, having called on the name of the Lord, having confessed the name of the Lord.

And then notice, Peter gives the purpose for repentance and baptism.

They've asked, what must we do?

And clearly what they meant is, what must we do to be saved?

Because that's the question that Peter answered.

And Peter says you need to repent and you need to be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.

Eis aphesenton hamartion humon.

Now, I might point out to you that that is the same phrase that we find in Matthew chapter

26 and verse 28, where Jesus is instituting the Lord's Supper.

And he says, this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many, eis aphesenton

hamartion, so that sins may be forgiven.

If it doesn't mean so that sins may be forgiven in Acts 2 .38, when it's connected with baptism, it

does not mean so that sins may be forgiven in Matthew chapter 26, verse 28, when it's connected with the blood of

Christ.

We all recognize that it must mean so that sins may be forgiven in Matthew 26, 28, when it's connected with the blood of

Christ.

And so it must mean that in Acts 2 .38, when it's connected with baptism.

And so here, when we put the two passages together, we see the how and we see the when

of forgiveness of sins.

And remember, Acts 13 .38 and 39, forgiveness of sins and justification, one and the

same thing.

The how of the forgiveness of sins is the blood of Christ.

It's not baptism.

It's the blood of Christ.

There is no merit in baptism.

Physical water cannot wash away spiritual guilt.

The how of forgiveness is the blood of Christ.

But the when of forgiveness is water baptism.

Why?

Because Jesus commanded it.

Because Jesus has connected water baptism and his blood.

We go on, and there's a purpose given for baptism so that sins may be

forgiven, but there's also a promise connected with baptism.

And that is, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And so it is very clear that Peter says another purpose for being baptized,

a promise connected with baptism, is the reception of the Holy Spirit, without whom no

one can be saved.

We need the Holy Spirit to relate us to God.

He is the Holy Spirit of adoption, Romans chapter 8 and verse 15.

Paul says in Romans chapter 8 and verse 9, you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the

Spirit of God dwells in you.

If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

You have to have the Holy Spirit to belong to God.

The Holy Spirit is our seal, Ephesians 1 .13.

It marks us off as God's own.

The Holy Spirit is our down payment of our eternal inheritance, Ephesians chapter 1 and verse 14.

He's the guarantee of eternal life.

And one does not get the possession, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until baptism.

Might I remind us again, Matthew chapter 28 verse 19.

Baptism is eis taonima, into the name, into the possession of, into a

relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In water baptism, one is born again and becomes a child of the Father.

In water baptism, one is redeemed through the mediatorial work of our high priest Jesus Christ.

He becomes our Savior.

And in water baptism, we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

and we're related to God.

Then verse 39, Peter says, this promises to you and your children and to

all that are far off.

And the phrase that's used there, tois eis makron.

We find that same language, makron, those who are far off.

In Acts chapter 22 verse 21, whenever Jesus says to Paul, I'm sending you far off to the

Gentiles.

So in other words, this is God's plan of salvation for the Jews.

And this is God's plan of salvation for the Gentiles.

And in fact, this is God's plan of salvation for every single person, for it is, to as many as

the Lord our God shall call.

It's God's plan of salvation for those of us who are in Jonesboro, Arkansas on April

5th, 2024.

And so I think we need to point out that since Luke is placing this at the very beginning of

the book of Acts, and Luke quotes these words of Peter.

We know Luke didn't quote everything that Peter said in these sermons.

It's selective.

He quotes what he wants his readers to know, what he views through inspiration, his readers to know as

important.

And he quotes these words.

So we'll know at the beginning of Acts that this is the normative pattern for justification.

Those who believe are to repent, and upon their confession of Jesus Christ, they're to

be baptized, so that their sins may be forgiven, and so that they may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And so he intends for every person, as they read through the later chapters of Acts, to read what

they find there in light of what they read here in Acts chapter 2.

That's how any good writer writes his book.

Now, in the time that I've got remaining, I want to anticipate

what Jeremiah is likely to do.

I think that Jeremiah is going to come, and he's going to try to

separate repentance and baptism.

I think that he's going to try to come along, and he's going to say, well, you know, repentance and faith, they're two sides of the same

coin, and so that's justification.

And I think he's going to turn, he's going to say, well, baptism, okay, that's sanctification.

And I think he's going to want in some way, I don't know how he's going to do it, but I think, because he's been playing his cards pretty close to

his chest, he's a shrewd opponent.

Which, by the way, I like this guy.

I think that we'd be friends if we were closer.

And, well, we can be long -distance friends, can't we?

But anyway, I think he's going to try to connect forgiveness of sins with repentance, and

separate it from baptism, but you can't do it.

The text won't allow you to do that.

In fact, look at verse 40.

With many other words, he testified, and he exhorted them, saying, be

saved.

It's an imperative, it's a passive, but it's imperative.

Be saved from this crooked generation.

All right, so he's exhorting them, obey the message that I gave you.

And notice the next verse, verse 41.

How did they obey Peter's exhortation, be saved from this crooked

generation?

Well, verse 41 says, those who received the word, his word, were

baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about 3 ,000 souls.

And so the way that they obeyed this command to be saved, they received that word, the way that they obeyed that command to

be saved, was that they were baptized.

And so here, Luke explicitly lets us see, the way you obey the command to

be saved is to be baptized.

Now, I don't think that it'll work for Jeremiah to come up and say, well, yeah, but you understand, when it

says, those who received his word, that's when

they were saved, and then after that they were baptized.

Because if you notice what verse 41 continues to say, it says, only after they were baptized were there

added to their number about 3 ,000 souls.

Because, you see, they were to be saved from that crooked generation, that adulterous

generation of Jews that had crucified their Messiah, and that would soon experience God's judgment

through the hands of Rome.

They were to be saved from that generation, and it's only after they were baptized that they were added to their number.

That is the number of those redeemed Jews by Jesus who were saved.

And just to add to that, drop down to verse 47, and I've got to say this quickly, last part of verse 47, the

Lord added those who were being saved to their number daily.

So verse 47, who is it who's added?

It's those who are being saved.

Verse 41, who is it who's added?

It's those who are baptized.

And so who are those who are baptized?

Those who are being saved.

Water baptism is necessary.

For justification.

Thank you.

Mike, thank you very much.

We will now hear from the negative, as Jeremiah also has 20 minutes for his

opening statement.

Jeremiah, the floor is yours.

I will start the clock as soon as you begin speaking.

All right, testing, testing, can y 'all hear me?

Hello?

Is it on?

All right, so the proposition is, is water baptism necessary for our justification

before God?

I believe the Scripture is really clear in saying no, because our justification is by faith alone,

in Christ alone, and God gets all the glory alone.

And the Scripture is actually very clear that this is apart from any works that we accomplish, and that

includes our participation in ceremonies like baptism.

There are six key terms that I appreciate my interlocutor bringing up, but he simply begged the

question.

He did not define his terms.

We're gonna do that.

I want us to define six terms, so please make special note.

Number one, faith.

Two, works.

Three, justification.

Four, sanctification.

Five, baptism.

And number six, obey.

Because faith and works are related, but they are different.

Justification, by definition, is not sanctification, and the ceremony of baptism

is a work of obedience that we participate in.

So let's go back to number one, faith.

As BDAG defines, is from pistis, is trust.

This is reliability or commitment.

The writer of Hebrews, in Hebrews 11, 1, says,.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

So the writer of Hebrews mentions two important words, assurance.

This means firm trust in something that is real, even though you haven't seen it with your physical eye.

And then he uses a parallelism with conviction.

This is an inward assurance that produces an outward effect, like your works.

Saving faith that is pleasing to God is internal, it's of the heart, and doesn't just merely know facts,

but it trusts in the unchanging promises of God.

Saving faith that brings conviction to live out your life to the glory of God is by your good

works.

And so let's talk about works, number two.

Works can be translated from the Greek ergon, as the noun, or ergodzimi, as the verb.

This literally means, and we'll get into this definition, that which displays itself in

activity of any kind in deed or action.

Or the verb form simply says, engage in activity that involves your effort.

Works are all -encompassing in the human life.

It is everything that we do and participate in.

But what about the works of God, Jeremiah?

Does God work?

He does, way differently than how man works.

Ephesians chapter 1 says, it is God who works all things together after the counsel of his will.

The writer of Hebrews says, God upholds the universe by the word of his power.

Hopefully it is painfully obvious that the way God works is categorically different than how human

beings work.

And so we don't get to say works of God is somehow code for your obedience and your

participation to a list of commands.

Faith and works are related, but they are different by definition.

Faith is internal.

Faith is of the heart and trust, not in your own works, but the Savior's finished work.

Now your works are external.

They're expressed in all human efforts, the things that you accomplish and participate.

So number three, let's define justification.

This literally means to be declared right before God, no longer condemned, free of all charges,

just as if I never sinned.

And so the context of the book of Galatians talks about our justification before God.

It's vertical.

And please hear me on this.

Justification is by faith apart from works.

Romans chapter 4, starting in verse 2 says, for if Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to boast

about, but not before God.

For what does the scripture say?

That Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.

And to the one who works, er gods am I, his wages are no longer counted as grace or

a gift, but as his due, he earns it.

Now to the one who does not, er gods am I, work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly,

his pistis, his faith, his heart that's trusting in the finished work of the Savior.

On that basis, he is counted righteous, just as King David also speaks of the blessing of the one whom God

counts righteousness apart from works.

So what is Paul's conclusion in Romans 5, 1?

This is the moment when you're justified.

He says, therefore, since we have been justified by, not baptism, not works of law,

not your accomplishments, but by firm trust in the Savior's finished work.

The reason why Paul is doing this is he's combating all different kinds of legalism.

All legalism of all stripes.

And then in the book of James, he combats a different enemy that wars against the gospel called

licentiousness.

James chapter two famously says that you see that a person is justified by works and not by

faith alone.

Who is James talking about when he says you see?

Follow the pronouns.

Go earlier in the context and he's talking about before other men.

And his whole point is that a mere said faith alone, that is a dead faith and is useless

before men.

If it's useless before men, it is definitely useless before God.

Number four, let's define sanctification.

This means literally to be set apart for special use, to make holy.

We are made holy by walking in obedience to Christ.

These are sanctifying works of obedience that conform us into Christ's image and makes us less

and less like the world.

The Old and New Testament declares this reality, that the just shall live by faith.

That means those who are justified by faith before God now live out that faith in good works

to glorify God.

Jesus famously said in the Sermon on the Mount, let your light shine before other men that they

may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

The point is justification, well, that is by faith, a faith apart from works.

But then when we are declared right before God, we live out that sanctification with our works.

Though one of those sanctifying works that Christians are commanded to obey and participate in

is baptism.

So number five, let's define baptism.

This is really core to this debate.

BDAG defines baptizo as a ceremonial rite in water that

signifies a relationship with God.

Baptism is a human work by definition because we are participating.

But baptism is one of many good works for believers that God has prepared beforehand that we

should walk in them.

Ah, but Jeremiah, the scriptures say that baptism is the powerful working of God.

Yes, baptism is a work of God because the Holy Spirit is at work in our sanctification.

Baptism is not faith.

It is an act of faith.

Therefore, it is faith being demonstrated by being worked out.

And so a person cannot merely be passive in baptism because it would no longer be an act

of faith.

And notice the baptismal ceremony, according to BDAG, signifies.

That word means it's a visible sign.

It's a symbol, a picture or representation of.

And so I have a picture of my beautiful family that God has blessed me with.

And if I were to say, is this my family?

You would say, of course.

And then I would say, but is it literally my family?

And you'd say, no, that would be absurd.

You're confusing the representation for the reality.

And for all those who think that their working participation in a baptismal ceremony literally washes

away your past sins, well, you too are confusing the representation for the reality.

You're confusing the map for the place and you have distorted the only gospel that can save.

And so for the sake of argument, I believe I could grant all the baptismal proof texts could

hypothetically mean a ceremonial right in water.

And that would not change the fact that justification is by faith alone.

You might say, well, all of us have been baptized into Christ, Jeremiah.

And I would say, yeah, by sign or likeness.

Yeah, but you gotta go back to Acts 2 .38.

Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

And I would say, yeah, by representation.

Baptism now saves you.

That would be by type or picture.

However, when the New Testament does talk about the word baptism, I believe oftentimes

it is not referring to a baptismal ceremony made with human hands.

Rather, these verses refer to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Why?

Because the new covenant is better than the old covenant in every way.

The old covenant had the sign of circumcision.

This was only for males.

And this was performed by human hands.

And that sign of circumcision symbolized perfect obedience to the law of Moses from the heart.

That's a problem.

Because every human being born in Adam could not fulfill the law's demands.

That is why the old covenant is called the ministry of death, because it demands perfection.

And that only condemns man.

This is a covenant of works that could only be fulfilled by the God -man, the perfect Savior,

Jesus Christ.

The new covenant is better.

It is the covenant of grace that saves to the uttermost.

And the sign of baptism is better than circumcision because it's not just for males only, but females and for

all believers.

The baptism that seals believers in the new covenant is not a baptism made with human hands like the

old.

It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is the powerful working of God in regeneration.

The members of the new covenant are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, for we are by one spirit, we

were all baptized into one body.

And so the ceremony of baptism beautifully signifies all of these realities and truths.

And that is why Christians are commanded to obey this sanctifying work.

And so I wanna talk about that word obey or obedience.

Number six, obey means to be subject to, full surrender, to listen, to follow instructions.

And please hear me, obedience typically refers to a person's accomplishments or efforts or their works and

rightly so.

That is the context oftentimes.

However, there are many commands in scripture that demands our obedience, but our response is not to be

one in works.

For example, 1 John chapter three, verse 23 says, and this is his commandment that we, not

your works, but believe in the name of his son, Jesus Christ.

Jesus famously said in Mark 115, the time is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Our salvation is at hand.

Repent and believe the gospel.

The two commands to repent and believe, that's not your works.

This is indicative of a heart of faith, a loving heart that looks to Jesus Christ

alone to save.

That's the gospel.

The gospel has always been that forgiveness of sins, our justification before God is by

faith apart from works.

That is the pattern of the gospel, that form of doctrine that God has revealed from faith to faith to his

covenant people.

Paul says in Romans 6, 17, but thanks be to God that you who are once slaves of sin have

become obedient from the heart to that standard of teaching.

What is it?

The gospel.

And so how do you obey the gospel?

It's from the heart, trusting alone in King Jesus.

You have disobeyed the gospel if you believe that your works are necessary for your justification

before God.

Why?

Because he is holy, holy, holy.

In the book of Galatians, Paul condemned the Judaizers, not for just believing in a wrong system of

religion.

No, they were trying to add the ceremonial work of circumcision to the gospel of grace.

And the principle for us today is true for anyone who tries to add the ceremonial work of

baptism.

Water baptism, is it necessary for our justification before God?

Absolutely not, because it is by faith apart from works.

And so if you have your copy of God's word, I'd like to invite you to turn with me to Luke chapter 18.

I want us to consider a parable that Jesus gave about a Pharisee and a tax collector.

And you may be thinking, does Jeremiah not realize this comes way before Acts 2 .38?

Does he not realize that this comes before Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection?

I want you to ask yourself something.

Can we learn anything from Jesus and his parables for us today?

And if the answer is yes, then please pay careful attention to what Jesus says.

Verse nine says that he also told this parable to some, here in verse nine, who trusted in

themselves that they were righteous and treated others with contempt.

Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

The Pharisee standing by himself prayed thus, God, I thank you that I am not like other men,

extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.

I fast twice a week.

I give tithes of all that I get.

But the tax collector standing far off would not even lift his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast

and said, God, be merciful to me, a sinner.

Jesus says, I tell you this man, the tax collector, he went down to his house justified, just

as if I never sinned.

And he said, God, I thank you that I am not

like other men,

extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector, who trusted in themselves that

they were righteous.

And treated others with contempt.

The Pharisee standing by himself prayed.

Thus, he went down to his house justified, just as if I never sinned.

And he said, God, I thank you that I am not like other men, who

trusted in themselves that they were righteous

and treated others with contempt.

He went down to his house justified,.

Just as if I never sinned.

The Pharisee standing by himself prayed thus, just as if I never sinned.

And he said, God, I thank you that I am not like other men, who will either hate the one and love the other.

He says, you cannot serve God and money.

Money represents all of what the world has to offer, all the things that perish, including your

righteousness.

He says, for where your treasure is, there your heart, your faith will be also.

And no doubt the Pharisees could say, well, we're not trusting in our own righteousness, but you must obey.

You must obey the righteous requirement of the law.

And you know what Jesus would say to the Pharisees?

He would say, yeah, this is a people that honors me with their lips.

They know what to say, but I know the heart, and your heart is far from me.

In vain do they worship me.

And notice how trusting in your own obedience, trusting in your own righteousness, how this will affect how

you treat other people.

Look at verse nine again.

He also told this parable to some who trusted themselves that they were righteous and treated others with contempt.

Other good translations say they despised others.

They looked down on everyone else.

Why?

Because legalism produces pride and arrogance.

When you're trusting in your own accomplishments, whether you admit it or not, you're gonna look at other people and say, man, if they could just

obey like me.

This kind of thinking produces a cold deadness towards others, no love, no grace, only

heavy -handed legalism that says, do better, try your best, obey this five -step formula, bring

your muscle and a shovel for some really hard work.

We learn more about the attitude of the Pharisees in the next verses.

The Pharisee prayed thus, God, I thank you that I am not like other men.

I fast twice a week.

I give tithes of all that I get.

This is not a prayer.

This is someone boasting in their own accomplishments.

And he says fasting, and he talks about giving tithes.

Surely, these are synecdoches that represent the entirety of God's law.

Ceremony after ceremony after ceremony.

Understand the Pharisees of the Second Temple, Jews, they were the most obedient that anyone in the whole

world could ever do.

They are way more obedient than anyone today, and yet they were lost.

Verse 13, Jesus says, but the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift his eyes to

heaven, but beat his breast and said, God, be merciful to me, a sinner.

This man knew that his obedience could never make himself right before God.

This man knew that his righteousness were like filthy rags.

This man knew that he was not a good person, but a wretched man in need of saving grace.

How did he respond?

Not with pride, not with arrogance, but with the heart of faith and humility.

He said, God, be merciful to me.

That word merciful is only mentioned two times in the New Testament.

It means to make propitiation.

He's saying, God, you have to be the one to accomplish the work of salvation.

You have to do it on my behalf.

I can't add any sin -tainted works of obedience on my end.

That's why Jesus says in verse 14, I tell you this man, the tax collector, he went down to his house

justified rather than the Pharisee.

The tax collector was justified before God, not trusting in his own works of obedience, not trusting in his own

righteousness, but putting his faith alone for God to make atonement.

This is a beautiful picture of Jesus Christ when he would one day say to Telestin, it is finished, paid for in full.

Now the Pharisee was justified, just not before God.

Jesus earlier in Luke's account says, you are those, the Pharisees, that justify yourself before

men, but God knows your hearts.

And so my question for everyone listening is which individual are you?

Are you the Pharisee that is trusting in your own righteousness, your own obedience to a ceremony, believing

that that is the thing that is necessary to declare you right before God?

Are you the person that looks down on other people, thinking, man, if they could just trust and obey

like me.

Maybe you're in a church context where you know the leadership looks down on you because you're not obeying like them.

Or are you the one who knows you are a wretched sinner resting in the truth, that justification is by

grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ's finished work alone?

And so with my remaining time, you notice Mike and I approach this from different angles.

I wanted to address more of the foundations of the definitions of terms and to be consistent with those as we

look at proof text and context is always king.

I have a question I would love for you to answer some of these in the rebuttal time.

How is baptism a work of God and somehow not also a work that humans participate in?

I gave you six definitions.

Time would you think, do you agree, disagree?

And please tell me why.

I appealed to Romans chapter four and how Paul is referring, maybe you can explain how maybe he's referring to the works of

the law and not other ceremonial rights like baptism.

Please tell me how I misunderstand the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee and how maybe that

only refers to wayward Jews and no one else.

Thank you.

Thank you, Pastor Jeremiah.

If you're watching online, I just wanna thank you for joining us and remember to like and

subscribe for the channel and also don't forget about the Q &A at the end of

tonight's debate.

You'll be able to ask questions online.

We're gonna have some in person also, but if you are online, if you could preface your question with a Q so that

we know you're asking the question and then who you would like to ask the question to, either Mike or

Jeremiah.

But if you wanna be sure that your question does get asked, you can support the ministry through a super

chat with your question.

And so now we will continue on.

We will transition into your rebuttals.

Each of you will get 15 minutes to respond to each other's opening statement and we will start with the

affirmative.

Mike, the floor is yours.

I will start the clock with 15 minutes as soon as you begin.

Well, with all due respect for an opening statement on the topic of water

baptism, that was awfully dry.

Yeah.

No, I appreciate Jeremiah.

So I'll get to his questions at the end and probably we'll address some of them along the way.

But I do wanna start with something that he did say at the end.

Referring to Luke chapter 18 and verse one, or verse one, verse nine,

where Jesus said that, or where Luke wrote that Jesus said to certain ones who were

trusting upon themselves that they were righteous and were despising others this parable.

The idea that someone who believes that water baptism is necessary for justification

means that someone who submits to water baptism under those terms is

trusting upon themselves that they are righteous is something that

is totally foreign to what I preach.

Luke chapter 17 and verse 10, and I believe Adam and I talked about this a little bit before the debate.

Luke 17 verse 10 says that when you shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say,

we are unprofitable servants.

We have done that which was our duty to do.

And no one who is water baptized, believing that that is a condition for justification,

thinks that they are being such good boys and such good girls that they are

meriting their justification before God.

No, they all understand that they are only doing that because Jesus has commanded it and they are

only doing it relying wholly upon him and upon his death and his

resurrection to save them.

So I think that that really is mischaracterizing the position.

Notice what he said about Acts 2 .38.

Before we get into some of his definitions, notice what he said about Acts 2 .38.

Now remember that the exegesis that we did, I mean, we drilled down and we looked at the words in Acts 2 .38.

And again, Peter says, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ

so that your sins may be forgiven and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And he's saying that there that just means as a sign that your sins have been forgiven.

Really, is that what the language is communicating?

As a sign that your sins are being forgiven?

As a sign that you've already received the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Is that what the language is communicating?

And for Peter to then follow those words by saying verse 40 of Acts 2, save

yourselves from this corrupt generation.

And how did they obey that command to save themselves from this corrupt generation?

They were water baptized and only then were they added to the number of the apostles those who had been saved from

that crooked generation.

Now, is it really dealing honestly with the text?

And I'm not accusing Jeremiah of being a dishonest person.

I think Jeremiah is a very, very sincere person.

But I don't think he's dealing fairly with this text.

Because I think that what Jeremiah has done, and notice how he went about his opening statement.

He basically got into his categories of systematic theology.

And I am not opposed to systematic theology.

I am all in favor of systematic theology.

Because systematic theology believes that God's Word, every word of the 66

books, though written by about 40 different human penmen, ultimately have one divine mind behind them.

And so there's a consistency.

Truth doesn't contradict.

Truth is consistent.

And so systematic theology tries to find the consistent truth across the whole canon

of Scripture.

And I think that's a wonderful thing.

That is what I try to do.

But, how do you arrive at systematic theology?

The way that you arrive at your system is by going verse by verse by verse by

verse, and you do careful exegesis.

And so I want you to see that what Jeremiah is doing is arriving at his view of these baptismal verses

from all the verses that don't talk about water baptism.

And only after he's looked at all the other verses that don't talk about water baptism, does he then come back and look at the water baptism

verses and think, well, how can I make this fit?

And again, I'm not accusing Jeremiah of being a bad person or being a dishonest person.

I believe he's a very sincere person.

But I think it's kind of like, you know, are y 'all like me?

You've got a cabinet full of all these Tupperware containers and over time you lose the lids.

You don't know what lid goes with what.

And so you get out a Tupperware container and you look for a lid that matches and you put the lid on it and you push

it down and it works except for one corner.

And I mean, you struggle.

You just try to force it.

You try to force it.

Well, listen, if the lid doesn't fit over the whole lip of the container, it's

the wrong lid.

If it won't go over one corner, it's the wrong lid.

And I would suggest to you that the systematic theology that Jeremiah is using, it's the wrong lid.

Because it's hanging up on this corner.

It doesn't deal fairly with the text.

Okay, so Jeremiah has taken us to Romans 4.

And Romans 4 is a great verse.

And I don't have a whole lot of time to do this, so I'm sure we'll get into more of this in the cross -examination.

But he's taken us to Romans 4 and he has given us his definition for

faith and works in Romans 4.

And, you know, we're justified by faith.

We're not justified by works.

And he has come along and he said, well, you know, water baptism is a work

that Paul is saying has nothing to do with our justification.

Now, I would suggest, and we may, I'm sure in the cross -examination we'll do this, I would suggest

that the works that Paul is saying has nothing to do with justification in

Romans, chapters 3 and 4, are works of the law of Moses.

And I want to prove that to you tonight.

I'm not just trying to make that assertion.

I think that I can prove that to you tonight.

And I believe that when Paul says that we're justified by faith, I believe that in Paul's definition of faith,

he's including water baptism.

Now, I want to get into Romans 4, but right now I want us to look at a couple of baptismal texts.

And I just want you to see that in Paul's thinking, he is excluding

baptism from the category of works that have nothing to do with salvation.

And he is including baptism in faith.

Consider, for instance, Titus chapter 3.

Titus chapter 3.

And we want to look at verses 4 to 7.

We're told, but when the kindness and philanthropy of God our Savior appeared,

not by righteous works which we had done, but according to His mercy He

saved us through the washing of regeneration, dia lutru palingenesios.

And we want to come back and look at that.

And renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ

our Savior.

In order that being justified or having been justified by grace, by His

grace, we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Now, you may be wondering, well, where is baptism in that text?

Well, I believe baptism is in that text.

Remember that phrase that I asked you to look at, lutru palingenesios?

That word lutru, it's a word that meant

bath.

That's what it meant is bath.

And in the ancient world, it was a synonym for baptism.

In fact, I'd like to read for you from the book of Sirach, chapter 34,

verse 25.

And here's what Sirach writes.

When someone is, and the word is baptized, when someone is washed, it's baptiz

aminos, from touching a corpse and again touches it,

what is he profited by his bath, or excuse me, and touches it again?

What is he profited by his bath?

And the word translated bath there is lutru.

And so in that passage, Ben Sirach is using baptiz

aminos, baptizo, baptize, as a synonym with lutron,

with bath.

And that is the very word that we find here in Titus chapter three and verse five.

And if you look at scholarly lexicons like BDAG, Jeremiah acknowledges BDAG,

BDAG defines this as a baptismal text.

And so what Paul is saying here is again, not by works which we have done in

righteousness, but according to his mercy he saved us through the bath of regeneration,

through baptism and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured upon us richly through Jesus Christ our

Savior, in order that having been justified by the grace of that one, we should become heirs according to the

hope of eternal life.

Now notice, Paul explicitly excludes baptism from that

category of works that have nothing to do with our salvation.

Paul explicitly associates baptism with God's mercy and with God's

grace.

And he says that it is when we are water baptized, when we go through the bath of regeneration and renewing of the Holy

Spirit, that we are made new, that we are justified, that we become heirs according to the

hope of eternal life.

And so however you want to define works in Romans chapter four, that Paul says we are not saved

by, that category of works, that definition of works cannot include baptism.

Because Paul explicitly excludes baptism from the category of works.

And Paul explicitly includes baptism with faith.

Consider Colossians chapter two.

Colossians chapter two.

And with four minutes, I'm not going to have time to really dig into this deeply.

And so I know some questions are going to be remaining that Jeremiah is not going to let pass.

So he'll hold me accountable.

But in Colossians two and verses 11 through 13, we're told in whom

you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands in the putting off of the body of the flesh in the

circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which

also you were raised with him through faith in the working of God who raised

him from the dead.

And you being dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he

made you alive with him for giving all your trespasses.

Now, Jeremiah is going to come along and he's going to say, well, baptism in verse 12 is not

water baptism because he's going to associate it, he's going to identify it, I should say.

He's going to identify it with circumcision in verse 11.

And circumcision in verse 11 is explicitly that which is done without hands.

I don't have time to really prove all this now fully, but I would say that the

circumcision in verse 11 and the baptism in verse 12 they're associated.

Because the verb, you were circumcised, an aorist verb, verse 11,

and having been buried, which is an aorist participle in verse 12, there's a relationship between the two.

Circumcision happens when you're baptized.

But I would say that the circumcision of verse 11 is not identical to the baptism in verse 12.

It happens when you're baptized.

But the circumcision in verse 11, as Paul will also say in Romans 2, verses 28 and 29,

it is the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart.

It is regeneration being wrought in your heart.

And it's simultaneous with baptism.

It happens in baptism, but it is not baptism.

So arguing that the circumcision is without hands cannot disprove that this is water baptism in verse 12.

He'll also try to argue that the word, the noun that's used here, baptism, in verse 12 is

baptizmos.

And he's gonna argue, well, you know, that refers to Jewish immersions because the noun in the New

Testament for Christian baptism is baptizmah.

But listen, those terms are, they're different, but

there's a distinction without a difference.

Bedak will define baptizmos in this text to be Christian baptism.

And in fact, if you go to Josephus, Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, when

he talks about the ministry of John the Baptist, he uses baptizmos and

baptisis for John's baptism.

And in the New Testament passages like Mark 1, 4, Luke 3, 3, the word that's used there is baptizmah.

So the terms are used interchangeably.

This is water baptism.

And by the way, what in the text would make us think this is not water baptism?

When they heard this, they would think water baptism because that's what they all experienced.

Colossians and Ephesians are sister epistles.

And Paul makes the point that a source of our unity is that there's one baptism, that baptism that Jesus

commanded in the Great Commission necessary to become a disciple last to the end of the age.

This is water baptism.

And notice what Paul says about water baptism.

Having been buried with him in baptism, in which

also you were raised through faith in the working of God who

raised him from the dead.

So Paul explicitly associates baptism with faith.

And he explicitly excludes baptism from that category of works that have nothing to do with our salvation.

So if you take Paul's epistles as a whole, Jeremiah's argument from Romans

chapter four, it doesn't work.

It cannot work.

Or Paul is contradicting himself.

Now, I wanna answer your questions, Jeremiah.

Drill me later.

Mike, thank you.

We are going to now move to the negative as Jeremiah has 15 minutes

for his rebuttal.

Jeremiah, the floor is yours.

I'll start the clock as soon as you begin.

Okay, this is so exciting.

This is where it's fun, because it's kind of freehand.

You know, you take notes, and then you get to address what was brought up.

And Mike, I just wanna tell you, thank you for being respectful.

This is, I actually really enjoy this.

We get to see where clash comes into effect.

And so I wanna try to follow the flow from his opening into some of his rebuttal.

When he addressed the Great Commission, there's actually a lot of agreement there.

Yes, Jesus has been given all authority on heaven and earth and he is commissioning his apostles to

go and make disciples, no dispute.

The presupposition though is what a disciple is, right?

It's a learner.

We see throughout the Gospels, there are disciples that are fake, right?

They're just kind of externally following along and it's nothing for them to follow him no more.

In John chapter eight, we know what true disciples look like, right?

They abide in the word of God and they trust Jesus from the heart, not just merely externally.

There was not a lot that I have to say with the Great Commission other than the presupposition that he

made that this is actually talking about the wind justification happens.

We didn't get a lot of terminology defined from Mike with all due respect.

You begged the question.

You associated certain meanings to words and then just read the proof text and said, see, it's right there.

This has to be talking about the ceremony of baptism.

You gotta demonstrate that.

You do that by starting with words in their immediate context and then you look at progressively the next amount of the

context and then you do weigh that in with canonical context.

Paul would say the whole counsel of God.

I wanna spend most of my time addressing Acts 2 .38.

I liked the passage that he started with.

We'll just say Peter preached his sermon, right?

The scathing rebuke too of how this Jewish audience killed the

Mashiach, right?

They killed the Lord of glory and so, of course, they were going to be cut to the heart,

right, in verse 37.

And then they say, brothers, Adelphos, what shall we do?

This is where we begin to part ways with the context because this is a Jewish people.

This is important for the context.

It's not the Gentiles that come later in Acts chapter 10.

Why is this important?

Because they're not happy and skippy saying, oh, how can we be saved?

We're so happy now even though we killed the son of glory.

This declaration of saying, what must we do?

They are saying all is lost.

All hope is gone.

We deserve the fullest amount of cursings from the Torah.

Okay, they are not happy.

They are actually pronouncing judgment on themselves.

And so Acts 2 .38 is so beautiful because Peter is letting know, these Israelites

know that there is hope in what they should do in response to the sermon that was preached.

Now, we're gonna get into the verb tenses, and I love it.

And he's actually challenged me through social media and us interacting.

And I wanna go all the way into the Greek here.

I wanna tell you on the surface level, gotta define our terms.

There are two imperatives that mean two different things.

It's not hard to do when you know what repent means and when you know what be baptized means.

And so he is saying, repent.

What does that mean?

Change your mind.

It's not just a mere assent to facts.

Remember how I defined faith earlier?

That's one of those terms that he begged the question, right?

He read some verses, didn't tell you what faith means.

I did.

Faith is internal trust from the heart that God knows, right?

Man, we don't know if someone has real trust even when they say it, but it has to work out.

And we can judge somebody based on their works.

God knows that way before that actually takes place.

So when he says repent, this is where it gets really good because there is so much context with how the

author Luke is using the word repent.

When you look back in his gospel in Luke 24, verse 47, he associates repentance with the forgiveness of

sins.

And that's without the context of baptism, okay?

We can appeal to synecdoches and it doesn't say that, but we're supposed to speak where the Bible speaks.

I'm saying, let Luke build his argument.

Repentance is the thing that is always associated with forgiveness of sins.

Why?

Because we are justified by a repentant faith, a loving faith apart from our works.

And so another way of demonstrating this is look in Peter's second sermon in chapter three, verse

six, look at verse 16.

He says, in the name, right?

The author of life whom God raised from the dead in his name by faith in his name.

And if you look down to verse 19, he says, repent therefore and turn back that your sins may be

blotted out.

As we continue to make our way along the book of Acts, it's always repentance that's associated with forgiveness of sins.

And what do people do in light of repentance?

They get baptized.

Yes, this is a command for our justification.

Repent, be justified, have your sins forgiven.

And another assumption that he has is it's your past sins.

Last time I checked, Jesus is a perfect savior.

God sees the entirety of your life.

And when you look to Jesus in repentant faith, all of your sin, past, present, and future goes back in time to the

cross and he forgives it in full.

And in exchange, you get the righteousness of Jesus covering your account, okay?

We see this being demonstrated in the book of Acts.

Repentant faith, they're two sides of the same coin.

Like he knows, we've been actually a little transparent.

I've had content online and he knows that that's a strong case, right?

And so we'll look at the Gentiles in a minute because we know there's gonna be strong continuity between the Jews and the

Gentiles later with Cornelius.

And so with the repent command, we already know this entails forgiveness of sins.

And then he gives a second kind of command that is different.

What is baptismus, right?

What does that mean?

You can say, is this really a picture?

Go look at BDAC.

Go look at the lexicons that say this signifies a relationship with God.

What is a picture?

It's not the actual thing.

It represents the actual thing.

So I'm not saying baptism is just a mere picture.

No, this is a sanctifying command, right?

That unifies the body, that grows us in our holiness with the triune God.

It's beautiful, it's wonderful for the one who has already been justified by faith.

And it's a repentant faith.

And so yes, there are different kinds of commands.

And so it's not hard to show you, Peter used different words.

Look him up.

Look at this holistically with the entirety of scripture.

I want us to continue to make this down or go down Acts 2 .38 into 39.

But he says, for the forgiveness of your sins.

Now, as Mike knows this, this is an adverbial modifying phrase.

You have to develop from the context, which independent clause is this modifying?

Is it the first independent clause where it's repent, right?

In this second person plural?

And I would say, yes, we know this with the overwhelming context.

That's what this would be modifying like a parenthetical thought.

Repent, be baptized, right?

And as he gets into the third clause, the purpose clause, he says, for the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That's having your sins washed away.

That happens when you have faith, a repentant faith in the perfect Savior.

And what should you do?

It's as though Peter is saying, be justified, repent.

And if you do that sincerely, here's what you ought to do.

Jews, you ought to be baptized.

Like he brought out, I actually really appreciate this point.

There is a understanding of what ceremonial baths already looked like in the Old Testament.

I wouldn't just appeal to the intertestinal period with the book of Sirach.

I think this proves my case.

This goes back further into the Torah, being bathed in water.

This always signified you do something physically to represent spiritual

realities.

When you go back to Yom Kippur in Leviticus chapter 16, the Levites, they were to be

bathed in water.

How?

Well, this signified the spiritual reality that they need forgiveness of sins.

That's why they sacrificed a lamb.

That didn't actually forgive sin, right, the book of Hebrews tells us.

And what else did they do?

They sent the goat into the wilderness to represent the removal of sins.

That's the context.

And so when Peter gives the second command to be baptized, the Jews already knew what that

meant.

Their identification in the name of Jesus Christ meant they were forsaking their Second

Temple Judaism.

That's why there's an apologetics with the book of Hebrews saying, don't neglect such a great salvation.

Don't neglect the new covenant that the old covenant promised and pictured and pointed to.

So it's not hard to say two different commands, two different effects.

Be justified, be sanctified, because if you love Christ, that's what you desire to do.

And so that's the major thrust.

I do wanna jump down to verse 41 and we can get, well, you know what, verse 40, he says, save yourselves.

Well, of course, he's saying this should be your response from this crooked and evil generation.

How do you respond?

Be justified by faith, a repentant faith.

What should you do next?

Be baptized, right?

This ceremonial work of obedience.

And then verse 41, I know he doesn't like this, but it says, so those who receive the word, how?

By repentant faith.

What was indicative of those that receive King Jesus by a repentant faith?

Well, they identify with him in being obedient to works.

And so maybe I didn't address all the things that you brought out there.

Tried to.

And so I wanna argue real quick, though.

When we look at Acts chapter two, turn with me to Acts chapter 10, because we have to see these as

strong continuity.

You're not gonna have a divided church with the Jews.

And then on the other hand, have a different systematic or a different understanding with the Gentiles.

This is why it's easy to show it's a repentant faith that produces or initiates the

forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter preaches another sermon at Cornelius' household at the very end, verse 43.

He says, to him, Jesus, all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes, this is a

repentant faith, I remind you, that receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

Did he really forget to mention and be baptized?

No, that's important for a Jewish settings with mikvahs.

They don't understand a pool of water signified and pictured these spiritual realities.

The Gentiles don't have that background knowledge.

And so he tells them the thing that forgives your sin in a moment.

And Paul would say, oh, well, that's by faith.

That's not by your works.

And he goes in, I want you to pay attention to how the Holy Spirit moves about.

As Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit was already at work convicting their heart and fell on those

all who heard the word.

Remember, received the word how?

By believing.

And what happens as a result, we're about to see.

And the believers from among the circumcised had come with Peter and they were amazed because the gift of the Holy

Spirit was poured out even on Gentiles.

I would submit to you in the same way.

How do you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Repentance and the perfect Savior.

What do you do in light of your repentant faith?

To get baptized.

That's what believers do.

You're justified by faith apart from works.

And then you live your life in sanctification for the rest of the world to see that we are disciples of Christ.

And notice how they respond.

They were extolling God, right?

Speaking in tongues, praising him.

And notice, you don't have unbelievers being able to praise God.

God would not receive that, right?

And yet Luke is saying they're extolling God.

An already heart change happened.

They are believers.

They are justified, declare right before God.

And now they can truly praise him.

And then Peter says, can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people who received the

Holy Spirit just as we have?

They had the Holy Spirit.

They had forgiveness of sins.

They have not been baptized yet.

So I'm wanting you to see, Luke is actually saying that there's a strong continuity between Acts chapter two and Acts

chapter 10.

But you gotta understand context.

That Jewish audience matters.

When he says be justified and sanctified, he is showing them how they must count the cost.

And so with about two and a half minutes left, I wanna address some of the things that he said in Titus

chapter three.

So if you look at Titus chapter three, we already know that this is being addressed to Christians.

And at the tail end of chapter two, talking about Jesus Christ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all unlawlessness,

to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Look at chapter three, verse one.

Reminding them to be submissive to the rulers and authorities, to be obedient, right, in our sanctification, ready for every

good work.

Notice the charge.

Do good works, be sanctified, obey.

Why?

Not to earn salvation or to keep your salvation, but to declare it to the world.

This is a little bit of that context as we look at verse four.

But when the goodness and the loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not

because of works.

I would like for him to define that.

Ergon, ergodzami, activity of any kind, deed, action, displayed, your effort.

Tell us what that means.

Done by us in righteousness.

What is righteousness?

Moral, upright behavior.

Was Jesus' baptism righteous?

Yeah, he fulfilled all righteousness.

Baptism is an act of righteousness.

Guess what?

That tells us that that is not the mechanism that declares us right before God.

That's a part of your works of righteousness and obedience.

But according to his own mercy and washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.

I get that BDAG says that this is a ceremonial bath.

But in what context?

I say, yeah, it's a bath by the Holy Spirit.

That's the context.

We are in the new covenant made with better signs and better seals than the old covenant.

I don't think he likes me appealing to systematic and biblical theology.

Sorry, we have to look at all this in context.

Paul's not going to contradict himself.

And so I can mention just kind of in closing, Colossians chapter two.

I'm really glad that he brought this up because once again, you cannot beg the question, right?

This is a Jewish converted audience, right?

So when he says baptisma or baptizmos, he is talking about Jewish washings.

They would have understood the point that Paul is making.

I think baptism is relevant.

And they're realizing that's not the thing that washes away your past sins.

So time is running out.

Hopefully the cross -sects will get a little fiery, but a good fire.

And hopefully we get down to the bottom.

Let's define terms.

Let's not beg the question.

And let's look at proof text in light of context.

Thank you so much.

Well, thank you, Jeremiah.

We are getting ready to go into a five minute intermission, but I want to remind those of you that are

online, this is a great time for you to go into the chat, put a cue in front of your question and

the name of who you want to ask the question to.

And we will try and get to as many of them as we can at the end during our Q &A.

And just so you know, a super chat question will be preferred and we will make sure to get

to your super chat question.

That's a good way to be able to support the apologetic dog and to be able to get your question answered.

And those of you that are here with us in person, we're gonna have mics up at that Q &A and you will also have a

chance.

So if you have questions as we go throughout, write those down, remember them, come up and

be ready to be able to ask each of them a question.

So we are now gonna go into a five minute intermission.

There is coffee available.

We also want to say a special thank you to the Bearded Sergeant Coffee for providing coffee for us tonight.

For everyone that is in person, if you're online, you missed out.

So you're just gonna have to go to the link that Pastor Jeremiah has and the apologetic dog on his channel for them

and every time you buy there, the Bearded Sergeant Coffee, you're supporting the apologetic dog but they are

also supporting veterans every time you purchase from them.

So I encourage you to go and do that.

And for those of you that are here, you get to enjoy it.

Let's go ahead and take a five minute break now.

Alrighty, we're getting ready to begin again.

And we're going to go into our section of the cross examinations and each gentleman will get

25 minutes to ask questions to their opponent.

They can use their allotted time however they see fit but it goes without being said, I know

you will but keep it cordial gentlemen, you have thus far.

This has been a great start for this.

We will start with the affirmative.

Mike, you may begin and as soon as I get the clock up and ready, we

will be ready to go and I will start as soon as you begin.

Testing.

This is my phone too?

My phone.

Now it's on.

I muted it during the, I saw a naked gun and so I don't like to leave my mic

on.

I understand.

During break periods, you know, so anyway.

So a lot of questions that I'd like to ask.

Let's begin.

I gave you a list of copies from BDAG.

Thank you.

And I've got BDAG in the car if you want to just verify that this is BDAG but I think you'll trust that this is

BDAG.

So I've got the pages numbered and for those who don't know, BDAG stands for

Bauer, Denker, Art and Gingrich.

It is the most respected lexicon of the Greek New Testament and early Christian literature.

It's used by everybody.

I mean, regardless of denomination, regardless of whether it's in a secular

university setting, BDAG is the standard.

And so both Jeremiah and I have referred to BDAG.

So if you would, Jeremiah, look at page three and I've got it numbered.

And you can take the clip off if you want to take the clip off the top.

It might be easier to turn.

But page three is a copy from BDAG of their entries on Baptizo

and on the second page, Baptisma and then Baptismus.

Yep, yep, yep, there.

And so, yes.

So multiple times you have

made the point that baptism cannot be necessary for salvation because works.

Yes, sure.

So the reason why I didn't want to do a debate that says, does baptism necessary for our salvation?

Because that's ambiguous.

Oh, sure.

And so that's why for justification.

Yes.

So, but that's where me and you know where our disagreements are.

But I believe baptism is salvific in terms of our sanctification, just

not justification.

Sure, no, I appreciate you pointing that out.

And I apologize for being unclear on the language because in my circles,

when they think of baptism necessary for salvation, they mean initial justification.

So anyway, so you've said several times that baptism cannot be necessary for initial justification

because it is by definition a ceremony and thus a work.

All right, so here's BDAG, which you've used to gain that definition from.

And so number two definition defines Baptizo as to use water

in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God, plunge,

dip, wash, baptize.

And then we go through -.

Real quick, what does it continue to say?

Could you keep reading it?

The transliteration baptize signifies a ceremonial character.

And that's where I would emphasize.

It signifies a ceremony character.

And so that's my whole core of my rebuttal.

Awesome.

Is it signifies these realities.

Sure.

And I don't want to eat up your time.

So you just cut me off.

No, no, you're good.

You're good, please.

I actually, when you referenced Sirach, we do see coming out of the intertestinal period,

proselyte baptisms, which presupposes the Jewish understanding of mikvahs, pools

of water.

And so I'm saying when you go back to Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, we see the ceremonial

nature signifying spiritual truths that aren't true in the moment themselves, like

at Yom Kippurim, where there's multiple ongoing days of fulfillment because they cannot actually forgive sin.

That's when we get the Levitical priest being totally bathed into water.

So on your point about proselyte baptism coming out of the intertestinal period,

your information's a little bit off there because there's no firm evidence of that until after the New Testament time.

That's why I would.

I'm not arguing about ceremonial.

It's interesting because I wouldn't appeal to that to make my case.

Now there are a lot of scholarship that would strongly make that case.

That's why I would go to the Torah to show that there's a backdrop even to John's baptism.

Right, but I'm talking about proselyte baptism.

There's no documented evidence until after New Testament times.

But to your point, you're right.

So BDAG does point out it signifies the ceremonial character,

right?

So the question is, what does BDAG mean when it says that?

So this is where I would contend.

They're talking about, yes, typically, baptizo means to be immersed into water.

And I would say context always gets to determine how and when that looks like.

We'll essentially make it to Acts 2 .38.

But I'm saying that magnifies the reality that that bath is not merely an empty sign

and symbol.

Something is happening, but in the context of a believer's sanctification.

So we look for our definitions here, but we have to look at the context of how the New Testament utilizes this

definition.

And if it uses the Holy Spirit, we have to talk about what that means.

You know what I mean?

So that's, I don't wanna preach.

No, no, very good.

So we continue on in the entry, because if we wanna know what BDAG means,

whenever it says that baptism signifies the ceremonial character,

we need to continue reading the definition, right?

And so we go down, you work through the definitions, and at C, you come to

a definition of baptism in the context of the passages we're looking at, right?

So it says, of the Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus' death.

Could you define sacrament for me?

Yeah, so typically this means a means of grace, but you have to establish what that

means.

I would deny that this is a regenerating means of grace or justifying means of grace.

It would be a sanctifying means of grace.

So do you know who is responsible for BDAG?

The four gentlemen that you talked about?

Bauer, I struggle saying the names, that's why I did the shorthand, but Bauer, Art, Art, Ganger, Gingrich,

something like that.

Forgive me.

No, no, you're awesome.

Yeah, Bauer, Ganger, Art, and Gingrich.

Okay, so Bauer is the one who initially came up with the lexicon, right?

He's the German gentleman.

And then in the 19, in 1947, I believe it was, the 100th anniversary

of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, the Lutheran Church commissioned

Art and Gingrich to translate Bauer's work into

English, okay?

So Bauer is a Lutheran and -.

Hey, you gotta watch out.

Gingrich is a Lutheran.

You gotta watch out for the Lutherans.

Right, and Danker, who's responsible, initially it was BAG,

because Danker wasn't involved, and then it was BAGD, because Danker

stepped in, and then, now it's BDAG, Bauer, Danker, Art, and Gingrich.

Danker is a Lutheran.

Okay, so from a Lutheran's perspective, understanding that Lutherans primarily are the ones, and a Lutheran had

his fingers on this last, what does sacrament mean to a Lutheran?

Baptismal regeneration.

That's why I would say, every time you appeal to the Greek lexicon, you're taking your worldview with you,

including Lutherans, and everybody has presuppositions and traditions, and so I'm able to ask,

okay, a ceremonial bath into what context?

And I would say, God, who has the sole infallible rule, his word gets to contextualize

these definitions.

Does that make sense?

So I get that he's Lutheran, and I'm saying he's wrong, not on defining the ceremonial bath.

I think he's wrong about the immersion of the Holy Spirit with the ceremony, because that contradicts so

many scriptures.

So we can't trust Pete Agden, because it's Lutheran in this regard?

Okay, so forgive me if I misspoke.

I think he's doing good on the definitions.

It's his systematic theology that he's presupposing with these terms.

So when we look at this, we interpret it different.

I'm saying it's a good definition, but what they already said is it signifies.

Okay, so to a Lutheran, though, sacrament doesn't mean the grace of sanctification, it means the grace of justification.

And regeneration.

And regeneration.

To which we both would reject their entire theology, right?

Okay.

As a whole.

You wouldn't be Lutheran.

No, no, I'm not in favor of Lutheran theology.

I am in favor of regeneration happening in baptism.

And justification.

And justification, yes.

And I'm saying, and there's many things that you would reject with Lutheran theology.

Well, of course, of course.

But to a Lutheran, sacrament here means the grace of justification.

And regeneration.

And regeneration.

Yeah, absolutely.

In which I believe my position, I mean, I haven't been able to state it fully because we only have so much time, but it's that

justification and regeneration happen in baptism.

But BDAG, according to the meanings of the ones who wrote this,

say not only that baptism, it signifies the ceremonial character, et

cetera, but also that it's a sacrament, meaning by that, that it is the means

of regenerating and justifying grace.

So what's the Lutheran fellow in the acronym?

What's his name?

Well, Bauer, Arndt, and Danker.

I'd have three of them sitting right here.

I'd say, fellows, I have a question.

I wanna go back earlier to your definition that it signifies, right?

And I'd say, let's go to Ergon, and then Garza, or Garza Mai, will you tell me?

We will in a minute.

Well, I'm saying to the Lutherans, I would say, you have to harmonize these things within a systematic biblical

theology, and I don't think they could do that consistently with their own definitions in BDAG.

Okay, well, we'll go to BDAG's entry on Ergon here in a moment.

And maybe the verb, too.

Yeah, do you believe that those men are reliable in their analysis

of the Greek New Testament?

They're reliable, but not infallible.

Absolutely.

And I know you would agree with me, and that's why we don't both just say, hey, let's be Lutheran, right?

You know what I'd say?

So we'd say, hey, they are reliable to a degree.

And how I look at it is, they have really good definitions that have to be understood in the context of various passages of

Scripture.

But you understand, when you pull out definitions in BDAG, it's not enough just to read the head definition,

because they go and they give contextual definitions.

That's why I had you keep reading.

Because usage is key, right?

It's not that these words are floating out here with just intrinsic values.

It's how people use them.

So you go to the place where they mention these words in these passages

and see what they say there.

Okay, so let's drop that.

In principle, we agree.

Okay.

In principle.

Sure, sure.

So, and by the way, you criticized my use of Syrac, slightly,

but how do we arrive at the meaning of words?

Yeah.

It's by usage, right?

Yeah, it was a slight critique of saying we can go deeper with the Torah to get that understanding.

So honestly, I'm over here saying there is a rich history and domain of baptizo.

So it was a slight, little bit of sauce, but honestly, there is usage, and we do look at extra -biblical sources,

just not as infallible, which you would agree with.

But you look at them to see how the words are used, to help understand the meanings of words.

And then you carry that information over to these other texts.

And I wanna compliment you, because usually my interactions with Church of Christ, tell me what the Bible

says, it means what it means, don't give me the Greek, don't give me the history, give me Acts 2 .38.

And you're not doing that, and I really appreciate it.

But I will say, I'm not worthy to loose the sandals of many of our men in Churches of Christ,

who just have absolute expertise with the original languages.

Like I said, I appreciate the type of dialogue we have, because here in the South, I don't get that.

And so, through our interaction, you've made me take a pause and say, I do want to distinguish, kind

of, in the four different sects of the Church of Christ, that you're a moderate right -leaning.

I wanna honor that.

I just wanna make it clear, I just spilled water on myself, so when I stand up, Jeremiah didn't make me pee myself.

Okay, so just make sure that's clear, okay?

All right.

That's never happened in the debate, Deborah, has it?

Hey, did you get immersed in it?

Yeah, no, no.

No, we're reading a Lutheran here.

I just, man, I just got sprinkled.

All right, but it is interesting, though, that a Lutheran, even though a Lutheran's writing this, defines baptism as plunge, dip,

wash, baptize, and we'll, in other places here, we'll talk about it being immersion, so that's significant.

And tells us that it signifies a relationship with God.

So, let's keep on going down here, okay?

Because we're getting to the point.

So, I got something highlighted, okay?

And could you read what's highlighted there?

Yes, so we're talking about the word ice, right?

What he says.

No, no, we're talking about the word baptizo.

This is the entry on baptizo.

Okay, but talk, getting to Acts 2 .38, though, that's highlighted?

Yes.

Okay, so I'm reading, I was just saying that this is ice, in Acts 2 .38, when it says, for the forgiveness of sins, what's highlighted

is the purpose given.

Is that it?

Yeah, read the whole entry, please.

Or, I mean, I will, if you want me to.

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

With the purpose given, eis aphesin, and then he just gives the T for the, or the

tau for the article, ton hamartium, Acts 2 .38.

Okay, now, what does he mean by that?

So, this gets into the word ice, which I'm really glad you printed off like this, because I have the PDF of this saved.

This is how it looks.

I'm like, ah, it's familiar, you know what I mean?

And so, we're asking the question, in what way does baptism serve a

purpose in the context of forgiveness of sins, sticking with the definitions that

BDAG gives us?

And so, you know just as well as me that when you look at the full phrase of Acts 2 .38, there's

three clauses, right?

I've been working on my Greek a little bit to your recommendation.

I was like, he's right.

I gotta look this up, but there's three independent clauses.

Fair, right?

All right, yeah.

Yeah, three independent clauses, and then we get an adverbial modifying phrase, which is, do you

know? For the forgiveness of your sins.

That is a preposition, but it's an adverbial modifying

preposition.

And so, when we look at the definition, yeah, what's the purpose?

What's the context?

What is it modifying?

Because it cannot be both commands.

Now, I wanna offer something to you, and you just cut me off, right?

I'm saying, since it cannot be both independent phrases, where we're looking at the word repent all, like you said in some of your videos,

or the next phrase that in some way is indicative of the first, it's being drawn out of the group.

So, the question is, is for the forgiveness of your sins, the purpose given, the purpose of, which is it

modifying?

Either repent or baptism.

This is what I'd like to offer.

The context in Luke 24, Acts chapter three, Acts chapter five, Acts chapter eight,

Acts chapter 10, and many more, show us that it's always repentance is

what is associated with forgiveness of sins.

And I would say that's a strong case where this modifying phrase is for the first independent clause.

I would continue to build that argument to say the third clause that stands on its own, and you will receive the

gift of the Holy Spirit.

You and I agree, that's the forgiveness of sins.

So, you're saying that what Peter is meaning is repent for the forgiveness of

your sins, and every one of you be baptized.

A little bit different.

I would say it's more like a parenthetical thought.

He's saying repent.

And if we're getting into the meaning, he's saying for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

and you need to be baptized, because that's a sanctifying word.

But, for the forgiveness of your sins, Asa, Fess, and Tona, Mardion, Humon, goes with Metani, Sata.

Yes. Okay.

Is that the way that Danker took it?

As a Lutheran, of course they wouldn't want to take that,.

But I would say this.

It's just telling us the purpose given.

Right.

It's a modifying phrase.

They don't give it, they don't tell us which independent clause.

So he does, I believe I've got in here, too, his entry on Metani, Eo,

which is the word translated, you know, Metani, Sata, repent, okay?

And you know what he doesn't do in the entry on Metani, Sata?

Say, with the purpose given, Asa, Fess, and Tona, Mardion, Humon.

So he wouldn't have to for me to make my case.

Okay, but here, this is the entry on what?

Baptizo?

Yes, and its connection with Acts 2 .38.

And what does he say.

The purpose of Baptizo is here?

He tells us for the purpose given, but he doesn't tell us which clause

that's modified.

But he includes it with Baptizo.

Yes.

So what is he including the purpose, the purpose of the prepositional phrase with?

He does not tell us where in Acts 2 .38, even though he's talking about Baptizo, it also talks about repentance.

This is what you can't do to grammar.

You have to go to the context of Acts chapter two.

You can't tell me a Lutheran would have meant it this way.

This is the entry on Baptizo.

This is not the entry on Metani, Eo.

And he says here in the entry on Baptizo that with purpose given

for the forgiveness of sins.

Asaphesin, tonemarti on humo.

So if you heard in my opening statement, even though I think I'm making a strong case that within the semantic range of

Acts 2 .38, this is a modifying phrase, which I think you can clearly show that it's tethered to repentance.

But for the sake of argument, and I don't think it works, because if you say it can't

be both clauses, and if it goes to Baptism, then you can have people that don't repent,

that obey the second command, and it doesn't work.

But here's what I would say.

Even if I concede that, even if I concede that to these Lutherans, I would say it signifies a

relationship with God.

Yeah, and for them, what they understand by signify is it's a sacrament, and the Lutheran understanding of a

sacrament is that it conveys the grace of regeneration and justification.

And I would take them to their own definitions of terms and show how they're being inconsistent.

So BDAG, I mean, just for the record, it's clear, BDAG says the purpose of Baptizo

is eis a phesantona marti on humo.

Right, they believe, as Lutherans.

And that means so that your sins may be forgiven.

Right, and I would say they, as Lutherans, not in terms of just the bare definitions here,

prove my case, that Baptizo signifies a relationship with God.

What you're presupposing is that's the win.

And I'm saying this is a different command, this is a modifying phrase, and I do not believe, because of what the Scripture tells

us, that it modifies baptism.

It's modifying the repentance.

So, okay, so just for clarity, are you saying that

BDAG has just totally miscommunicated, and they've included with Baptizo.

The purpose for Baptizo is so that your sins may be forgiven, eis a phesantona marti on humo.

Or are you saying that Danker is wrong in including this with Baptizo?

No, I think you're wrong with applying their definition.

I think you are wrong.

I think if I was talking with them, me and the Lutheran would find a lot of common ground with saying, hey, do you agree

that this is an adverbial modifying phrase?

You would have to demonstrate this definition which signifies, which I'll reemphasize because you're

not representing what I'm saying when I say it signifies that reality.

It's indicative of what repentant believers do.

What do they do?

They get baptized.

Like later in the text says, in Acts chapter two, they were baptized, right?

And the indicative.

And let me just, let me just, I mean, I wanna stay here for a second because you're stumbling on it.

But I want us to understand, because he doesn't define what eis a phesantona

marti on humo means here, okay?

So go to page five.

Okay.

And now this is just a partial part of the entry on ace because you understand it occurs over 1 ,700

times in the Greek New Testament, so you can't print it all out.

Okay, but notice under number four, a marker of goals involving effective

abstract suitability aspects into two, okay?

And then we, I've got this highlighted.

You drop down to F to denote purpose in order to two, okay?

And then I've got this highlighted.

You want me to read it or would you like to read it?

I'll read it this time.

For the forgiveness of your sins so that sins might be forgiven.

And he gives the Greek phrase and then read all the passages, please.

Matthew 26, 28, Mark, or yeah, Mark 1, 4, Luke 3, 3, Acts 2, 38.

Okay, so what Danker means here then in baptizo with eis a phesantona marti on

humo is just what he said right here, right?

Which is for forgiveness of sins so that sins may be forgiven.

Okay, again, back to baptizo.

It's the same point.

I understand, I understand, but you're stumbling over it.

Well, I appreciate your opinion on that.

And I mean that in good Christian love.

Oh, yeah, yeah, well, I can't imagine we would agree on this.

Right.

You know what I mean?

But just to be clear, Danker does not give in his intro on metanoeo

the purpose as so that your sins may be forgiven.

I believe you have to repent for your sins to be forgiven.

But he does give the purpose for baptizo in Acts 2, 38 as so that your sins may be

forgiven.

Now, how grammatically do you make that break?

Because, I mean, the passage says, again, repent and be baptized every one

of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So how do you make the break and try to find that for the forgiveness of sins, which Danker links up with

baptism, how do you say that it's not linked to baptism?

From the text.

Don't give me systematic theology.

I love systematic theology.

I forgive you.

But from the text, grammatically.

Give it to me grammatically.

Grammatically, it signifies.

And you have to prove contextually what that's modifying.

And that signify is Danker's word.

And we see that Danker, by using the word signify and ceremony,

associating it with sacrament and saying it's for the forgiveness of sins, he doesn't mean that

it's an empty ceremony that can convey no grace.

Right, which is a presupposition that says that it's an empty ceremony.

If the Holy Spirit indwells a believer, it's not an empty ceremony.

And I would point out that I agree that this is for the forgiveness of sins, but you have to make the

biblical case in the context of what that is modifying.

And I would say, so when we're talking about baptism, it signifies these beautiful realities that believers

repented and are demonstrating that repentance before the apostles.

So grammatically, how do you get asa, fesen, ton, hamartion, humon,

separated from its nearest verb, baptistheta, and you get it all

the way back to the first verb in the statement, metaniaseta.

How do you separate it from baptism and you get it all the way back to repentance when it's right there near

it and denker?

Very easily, when you understand that it's not an independent clause, it's modifying something.

You have to make the case biblically with the definitions that they give.

That signifies repentance.

So it just can't mean that.

There's nothing grammatically in the text.

No, that's your presupposition.

I think.

What -.

What grammatically in the text makes you separate it from baptistheta.

I've said this many times and you just don't like it because this is your slam dunk case.

I'm saying repentance and baptism, definitionally, going to these same definitions, mean different

things.

You have to prove from the context what this is modifying.

You can't just say, well, it's the nearest verb.

It might do that.

Language is flexible.

And so what I'm saying is, in the context, it's always repentance.

And so what's gonna hurt you later is in other contexts where baptism comes way later, you have to throw up

the get out of jail free card with synecdoches.

That don't work.

Justification has always been by a repentant faith.

This is an attempt to shoehorn works into being made right before God.

So there's nothing, there's no grammatical point.

It's just, you're assuming that by Danker's definition of baptism,

signifying the ceremony, that it can't convey the grace of justification.

There's nothing in the text that,.

Can I answer that briefly?

Go ahead.

Yeah, ask the question.

No, it's interesting.

We spent 15 minutes.

Same question.

And so what's beautiful is we did look at definitions and the definitions don't give you what you need.

And so I would appeal not to just baptizo that shows that in some way, there's a purpose for the

forgiveness of sins.

And I'm saying twofold.

Not only does BDAG tell us that it signifies these reality, but I'm willing to give you the biblical support

that says Jews would have understood that these mikvahs, these pools of water,

these signify truths that don't take place in that moment.

That's the four -orbed understanding of the context of Acts chapter two.

You're cherry picking one verse saying it must mean that you get regeneration and justification and baptism.

And I would argue that BDAG doesn't give you that they just give you the bare definitions.

You have to build your case.

That's the one thing, not in reference to that.

So we're done with your process.

I just wanted to say, we disagree, but I like you very much.

I like you.

That's all I have to say.

I was like, quit talking at me.

Okay.

No, I'm kidding.

This is the nicest engagement of conflict.

No, great job guys.

We're gonna go ahead and jump into the negative cross X.

We will start the timer 25 minutes now.

Okay.

My first question is, do you believe that Mark 16, 16 is inspired?

No, I believe that the textual evidence for Mark 16 verses eight through, or nine through 20 is

lacking.

I think that it was an attempt to complete Mark's gospel.

And I believe that they tried to summarize what was found in other gospel accounts.

So I think Mark 16, 16 is a summary of Matthew 28 verses 18 through 20 by

the person that wrote it.

I think it's very early though.

Yeah, I appreciate it.

Cause I just, I was just waiting for Mark 16, 16 to get thrown at me.

So I just, I appreciate it.

We actually agree.

I don't think it's inspired.

My next question is Colossians 2, 12.

You knew that I was gonna go back to Colossians 2, 12.

That verse says, having been buried with him in baptism, Jewish context, in which you

were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God who raised him from

the dead.

My first question is, is baptism a work of God because it's a command that we must obey

in order to have our past sins forgiven?

Yes.

I got a yes.

I'm going somewhere with it though.

So, okay.

So let me shift gears to James chapter two.

James 2, 21, referencing Abraham.

I wanna see how much continuity, our justification, which sounds like the works of God being

obedient to command.

It sounds like I'm gonna get another yes here.

I'm hoping.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works?

And so I think, tell me if I'm understanding your interpretation.

This would be the works of God because he was being obedient to God's command when he offered up his son Isaac.

Yes, it says obedience to the command to offer up his son Isaac.

That's the works in that particular passage.

So we're justified like Abraham because we have an obedient faith.

When God gives a command, we respond in obedience.

In your position, it's not a human work.

It's the working of God or the works of God, right?

Yeah, you can give that definition, sure.

All right, this is where I need you to really help me out on James chapter two, verse 25.

In the same way, was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works

when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

Now, here's my big question.

Can you show me anywhere, James chapter two, Joshua chapter two, what

command did God give Rahab for her to respond in obedience so she could be doing the works of

God to be justified?

Well, I mean, of course, the men, the spies, their lives were

in danger.

They were being hunted by the King of Jericho and she's a Gentile.

But a part of the law of the heart, Romans two, verses 14 and 15, is to not murder.

That, I mean, that goes back to, you know, the command given after Noah exited the

ark.

You know, whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed from the image of God and made he man.

So the command from God to Rahab was the law written on her heart?

In that case, yeah, she protected life.

Because there is no other command by God to Rahab for her to obey, is there?

Well, at that time, she was a Gentile.

Right.

And God had dealt specially with the Jews in revealing his law to them in a way that he hadn't dealt with other nations.

Psalm 147, with the last two verses, 19 and 20, or 18 through 20, makes that point?

So the works of God is the law written on the heart.

It's not just what he tells us in his word, from your position.

At that point in time, it included that.

You know, just like in Genesis chapter 26, I don't remember the passage, but

Abraham kept my, I think verse five, Abraham kept my commandments, obeyed my laws, my statutes, et cetera, et cetera.

And, you know, there wasn't a written.

Command from God.

Yeah.

So you would say she was just obeying the command from God that was written on her heart.

So it wasn't a verbal command.

She just should know to be loving and to receive the spies.

So I've heard -.

And she was convinced, of course, that Yahweh is the one true God and that Israel was on a mission from

God.

So, you know, her faith moved her in that way.

Yeah, no, where we're close, what's interesting about that is what you're saying is a command

doesn't have to be actually given, like we see with Abraham.

I would actually say, and I'd like your response.

I gotta frame this in a question.

So with Abraham, he was given a command to offer up his son Isaac, and

Christians are given a command to obey.

And you're saying there's actually discontinuity with Rahab because God did not give her a command to obey.

It's gotta be something else, maybe a necessary inference, like, well, God wrote his heart on the law of man, and that's the

command that she really had to obey, right?

I mean, he did give her a command that she knew from her heart.

Right, so he didn't give her a verbal command like Christians have and like Abraham has.

Correct, yeah.

Right, so there's major discontinuity.

It's not just her living faith being demonstrated before man, right?

I mean, it's a command that was written on her heart.

Okay.

They show the work of the law written on their hearts.

Appreciate that response.

Okay.

You don't wanna talk about the nature of justification there?

Yeah, we were talking about James chapter two with her being justified by her works.

And so earlier when you said, I was talking about baptism, I was talking about justification.

You went to the baptismal proof text.

So I have another question.

We've already affirmed that we must be justified like Abraham because he had an

obedient faith, right?

So help me out with this.

Romans four, verse nine says, this is the blessing then, is this blessing then only

for the circumcised or also for the uncircumcised?

My question is, what is the blessing that Paul is referring to?

Well, if you drop back, let's see, if you drop back to verse six,

it says just as David also speaks of the makarismon,

the blessing of the man to whom God reckons righteousness

apart from works, and then verse seven, he says, blessed makarioi, whose

sins are forgiven, et cetera.

And then verse eight, makarios, so forth.

Yeah, so what's the blessing?

The blessing is justification.

Sure.

I would have accepted forgiveness of sins are kind of righteous, but his justification.

So was Abraham doing the works of God when he obeyed the command to get circumcised?

He was, yeah.

Yes.

So was Abraham justified, counted righteous, forgiven of his past sins over there by obeying this command

to be circumcised?

Well, the text never explicitly says that.

Really?

Read for me verse 10 and tell me if he was justified before or after his circumcision.

So if you would, please read verse 10.

Okay, so, well, to be clear, what I just said was, he wasn't,.

Do you mind to read verse 10 real quick?

Sure, sure, but just to clarify what I said, what I said, I think, make sure I didn't misspeak,

the text doesn't explicitly say that he was justified when he was circumcised.

Is that what I said?

That's what you said, and I'm saying, will you read verse 10?

Because it's gonna tell us when he was explicitly justified in relation to circumcision.

Sure.

How, therefore, was he justified?

When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision?

Not in circumcision, but in the uncircumcision.

So that was Romans 4, verse 10.

Yeah, in my Bible.

Okay, let me make sure I heard it right.

In the Greek New Testament.

How then was it counted to him?

Was it before or after he had been circumcised?

It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

Yeah, I may have said justified rather than reckoned, because it's, well, I guess they,

yeah.

So the point is, he was clearly justified before the ceremony of circumcision.

Yes, that's what I said.

Okay, so is your position to say, Abraham was justified before

the ceremony, before a ceremony, but for Christians, even though we're supposed to be justified like Abraham, our

point of justification is not until we participate in the ceremony of baptism.

Is that a fair representation of your view?

Yes. Okay.

Do you wanna defend that a little bit?

Sure.

So there's, what you're emphasizing is a radical disharmony and discontinuity.

Abraham, not justified by ceremony.

Christians, supposed to be justified like Abraham, later in verse four.

It's not just for his sake only, but for ours.

We are justified the same way.

I agree, it's an obedient faith.

He was not justified by ceremony.

Do I have time to unpack a little bit of this?

You do, but I may cut you off.

Okay.

Let me just say this much.

What type of faith was it that Abraham had?

Obedient faith.

Yeah, look at verse 12.

He was father of the circumcision to those who were not of the circumcision only, but

who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that he had

in uncircumcision.

So Abraham's faith was a faith that took steps.

Did.

I would say he took steps.

And so from Paul's standpoint here.

The gesture.

I live by faith, right?

And there's a reason why he's bringing up circumcision because there's an influx of Jewish Christians coming back into the church in Rome.

And so that creates controversy concerning whether or not Gentiles have to be circumcised.

So let me pause you real quick.

Okay.

Because it's my time to lead.

Oh, sure.

So this proves that Abraham had an obedient faith.

We use different terms when we say that because my position is an obedient faith is a real trusting faith

from the heart.

Sure.

Abraham was justified.

I just want an affirmation on this or not because we do need to move on.

Abraham justified before a ceremony.

Christians are justified when they participate in a ceremony.

But Abraham was not justified before.

Is that a yes.

And then the explanation?

I'm not gonna give a, let me.

Oh, I want the yes.

I'm not to give yes or no.

I want that.

I'm not at this point.

Okay, okay.

I'll behave.

Paul's argument is at what point was Abraham justified?

Before or after circumcision?

What was the point in Romans 5 .1?

And at what point was Paul, at what point was Abraham justified?

Before or after he walked from Ur of the Chaldees.

He took those footsteps of faith that God commanded him from Ur of the Chaldees and came to the promised land.

I'm glad you said that because I do think he was, this demonstrates that he was justified, took

steps of faith in sanctification because the judge shall live by faith and he was not justified by a ceremony like Christians.

My next question.

But he wasn't justified, Genesis 15 .6 explicitly until after he took those footsteps of faith.

Romans 3 .28.

I'd like to shift gears a little bit.

We know it says, for we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of

the law.

So the phrase works of the law is an example of a kind of work that's presupposing the definition

for works.

What is that fundamental definition for the word works?

These are works.

Works commanded by the law of Moses and that's where it is in BDAG.

And you've got the pages there.

Right, so what's the, okay, without begging the question of works, it's works of the law.

So that's an example of a kind of work.

What's the principal definition of ergon?

Well, the way that you use a lexicon is you don't just look at the head definition, but you look at the

contextual meaning.

How are the writers using the word?

Oh, yeah.

And in BDAG, when BDAG defines ergon as it relates to Romans chapters three and four.

So can you give me.

That principal definition?

It defines those as works of the law of Moses.

Can you give me?

Okay, but that's an example of a kind of ergon in ergod's mind.

That's how BDAG defines it.

That's how BDAG defines ergon in this passage.

What's that definition that they first give before they start relating it?

That's not the definition they give for here.

What is it?

You're misusing the lexicon.

What's the definition of ergon?

The way the lexicon works is it gives contextual meanings and the contextual meaning that BDAG gives.

For ergon nominum is works of the law of Moses.

Let's take a step back.

I am.

It's right there in BDAG.

It's works of the law of Moses.

The principal definition, we don't know where we're about to go yet in Romans.

Let's take a step back from Romans, okay?

You're misusing the lexicon.

I appreciate your opinion.

When we take a step back from the book of Romans and I were to ask you to define works, what would you say?

Take a step back.

From Romans.

Okay.

From Romans and I said, what does the word works mean?

It always has to have a context.

So you wouldn't give me a definition.

You always have to have a context.

Right, so you wouldn't give me a definition for what works means.

I mean, it's something done.

Something done?

Okay, let's roll with that.

Okay.

So maybe you can help me with this scenario.

A person hears the gospel, they believe it, they repent, they confess, and

there's something done that they do.

They obey the command of baptism.

Does this person receive anything in exchange for something done, like their participation in baptism?

Well, yes, they've met a condition.

They haven't merited that.

They haven't merited the blessing, but there is a condition that they've met.

That's the thing in dispute, because you have to say that, right?

Even the Pharisees said, we're not trusting in our own righteousness, but Jesus says, you honor me with your lips.

So that's the thing in question.

I appreciate you having to say that, but you agree that you receive something in

exchange based on your interpretation of Acts 2 .38, right?

Because your baptism, you would say you get in exchange forgiveness of sin.

Is that your position?

So I would say that that is a blessing received when you meet the condition, yeah.

In the same way that I would say, when Jesus says in John 6 .27, don't labor

for the meat that perishes, but labor for the food that endures to eternal life.

Labor for the food that endures to eternal life.

We would differ on the context there that Jesus is talking about with those people that they all cared about their tummies being full with food.

And Jesus says don't labor for that,.

But labor for the food that endures to eternal life.

Your definition of the word works in some context is something done.

And so when we go back to Romans 4, verses four and five, the verses say now to the one who

works are gods of mine.

And there's a question mark.

What's the context?

And me and you agree in principle, that has to be defined within a context, and that's good.

But the full verse says his wages are not counted as a gift, but as his due, and to the one who does not work,

but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.

If the word works here in this passage is not referring to works of the law,

would that undercut your interpretation of Acts 2 .38?

Well, Acts 2 .38 says what it says.

Well, I get it says what it says, and it means what it means, but I'm saying your interpretation.

In context, works here means works of the law, Moses.

So if it didn't, would that undercut your position?

But it does.

It means works of the law, Moses.

So you can't concede that point because it would undercut.

I'm not gonna concede that point because that's not what it means here.

Tell me if this is what you're implying.

If you did concede that point, then there's no way you could harmonize Acts 2 .38 with what Paul is saying here in Romans 4,

yes?

Well, Acts 2 .38 clearly says what I asked you to say.

It says what it says, and it means what it means.

You're still interpreting it.

You know how I know you're interpreting it?

Because you don't baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, do you?

Well, remember what I said.

It says what it says.