The Bible teaches that water baptism is for - to obtain - the remission of sins.
Debate Rounds (5)
Bible or New Testament: the 66 or 27 books in the Protestant Bible. Since Christian baptism is a New Testament proposition, the 27 books therein contained are meant.
Teaches: conveys the concept with by direct command, approved example, or necessary and proper inference.
Water baptism: Immersion in water
For: for the purpose of, unto, to obtain
Past sins: Prior transgressions of God's law.
5 rounds, 24 hr response time, each disputant may ask up to three questions of his peer which are to be answered in the succeeding post. First round acceptance only. If any questions, ask in the comments section, and I'll respond.
The Bible would have to teach something at all for it to teach that water baptism takes away sins. For anybody that isn't a member of the Christian faith water baptism, as written in the New Testament, teaches absolutely nothing. One must believe in the words of the Bible in order to believe that submerging oneself in water will cleanse your soul. Even for many members of the Crhistian faith, worship is a superficial act which lacks meaning, significance, or educational value.
2. Immersion in water
My opponent is effectively asserting that swimming is a holy act. Even if we assume that the Bible is completely true, my opponent is still stating that "immersion in water" results in a remission of sins. As long as one is penitent while doing so. Which is in no way difficult. As this definition of baptism is meant to "avoid any confusion" it is completely acceptable to interpret my opponents argument in exactly this fashion. I am not misrepresenting my opponents case in any way, shape, or form as explicitly stated by my opponent. Penitence while standing underneath a waterfall, or in heavy rain could qualify as baptism according to my opponenet. I am not intimately familiar with all of the New Testament, but I'm fairly certain that occurences of that nature do not result in a remission of sins.
1. Please provide one grammatically-parallel sentence in English to Mark 16: 16 in the form, "He that (a) and (b) shall (c) receive $1,000, but he that does not (a) shall not (c) receive it", that you believe supports your position.
2. Please place the following in order of occurance: believing, loving God, repenting, confessing faith, being baptized, and receiving forgiveness of sins.
3. Do you accept the ASV translation of 1901 with reference to Acts 2: 38, "...Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the NIV (1973) ""Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven. …"?
Alright, with that out of the way, I shall begin by introducing a negative: what the issue is not. The issue is not, "Are men saved by faith?", but, rather, the issue is, "When are men saved by faith?" And I submit an example, Heb 11: 30, "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down ..." So the walls fell by faith. I do not deny that. When did they fall by faith? At faith's inception, before obedience? At faith alone or faith only? No, "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days." This introductory example sets forth my contention: the walls of Jericho fell by faith - an all-inclusive faith, a working faith, a living faith - that obeyed whatever God had instructed in order to receive the reward. The same concept is suggested by the healing of Naaman the Leper with which I am sure you are familiar and many other examples.
1. Mark 16: 16. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." (ASV). Jesus Christ, just prior to his ascension to the right hand of the Father, spoke these words along with the parallels Matt 28: 19, 20 and Luke 24: 46, 47. I have requested a grammatically-parallel English sentence in the form described, with $1,000 as the reward, which lends support to the negative, and I will submit that no such sentence exists. It would indeed be strange if the only English sentence in the entire world in which the (b), the this case "is baptized", were not necessary to the (c). Further, both "believeth" (or "having believed") and "is baptized" (or "having been baptized") are aorist participles, the action of which may be described as follows:
"The kind of action in the aorist participle is punctiliar, i.e. finished action. The time of the action is antecedent to the action of the main verb; therefore, the time of action is a relative matter." (Summers, Ray, Essentials of New Testament Greek, 1950, p. 94)
The "leading verb" of Mark 16: 16 is the future passive indicative "shall be saved." The "shall be saved" in Mark 16: 16 is equivalent to the "remission of sins" in Luke 24: 47. The action of the two aorist participles, "believeth" and "is baptized" is, to use Dr. Summer's phraseology, "antecedent to the action of the main verb." There is positively no way, in Greek or English, to translate the verse, "He that believeth shall be saved, then be baptized"; there is no way in Greek or English to invert the position of "shall be saved" and "is baptized": such is not possible grammatically nor logically, and no translation thus translates the passage. Therefore, baptism is placed squarely between an unsaved person and salvation, and, in all candor, about the only way I've ever seen of so-called "answering" the passage is simply to deny the authenticity of the verse, and thereby try to force the affirmative to launch into a tangential defense of Biblical credibility and authenticity. I trust such will not be the case here.
2. Acts 2: 38. The entirety of Acts 2 teaches salvation by faith, not faith only, but nonetheless by faith: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that this same God hath made that same Jesus, who ye crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter .... 'What shall we do?' " (Acts 2: 36, 37) I'll ask: "What shall we do for what?", and submit the answer, "to get the penalty of this awful crime off of our hands, now and eternally, if at all possible." Were those "devout men" who had crucified Christ, either literally or by association, believers in Him at the point of verse 37, "What shall we do?" Certainly they were. They had faith, but the penalty for their sins was still upon them. Now if Peter had been a more modern preacher, he would have said, "Well, you've been pricked or cut to the heart. Just trust in Christ, pray about it, and we'll put your case before the brethren, and you can relate your experience. We'll vote on it, and baptize you in a month or two when we get a group together."
"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2: 38). Please note that the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit occurs after baptism, also, yet a common order of events is "repent, remission, gift of the Spirit, then baptism."
What do grammarians and lexicographers say? "In order to the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26: 28, Luke 3: 3) we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the exhortation, not one part to the exclusion of the other." (Hackett, H. B., Commentary on the Acts, 1882, p. 53) In fact, Dr. Thayer says, "eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the forgiveness of sins" and specifically cites Acts 2: 38 as the example. (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1977 ed, p. 94). "To obtain the forgiveness of sins." Thus, Acts 2: 38 parallels Mark 16: 16 which parallels Matt 28: 19, 20 and Luke 24: 46-47. Any passage which predicates salvation upon "faith" without a specific mention of repentance and baptism necessarily includes repentance and baptism; the synecdoche is employed in which "faith" or "belief" is the "part for the whole", an all-inclusive living, acting faith, and repentance and baptism are necessarily implied, even if each is not specifically stated. Thus, when the Bible speaks of walls falling by faith, we cannot really tell by that alone just when the walls fell. That they fell by faith is certain. What kind of faith? When? Those walls fell by a living, acting, inclusive faith after - not before - but after that faith led the people to do exactly what God had commanded.
3. Acts 22: 16, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." I'm quite sure we'll discuss the middle voice and present and passive participles, but I'll briefly point out that, according to most Protestant doctrines, Saul or Paul shouldn't have at that point, the point of arising, has any sins left to "wash away" in the first place, but atleast Paul had to act "so as to participate in some way in the results of the action." (Summers, Essentials of NT Greek, p. 38, in speaking on the force of the middle voice) So there is Paul. His soul is in agony, so much so that he will not eat or drink. But Jesus had to told him to "go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do." I submit that Ananias came along and did just that: Ananias told Paul what he "must do." "What are you waiting for? Get up? Get yourself baptized and wash away your sins, calling upon His name." Paul could not have his sins remitted, forgiven, "washed away" in obedience to the will of God, unless he still had his sins upon him.
Thank you. I await your answers to the three questions, and your analysis of Mark 16: 16, Acts 2: 38, and Acts 22: 16.
Idauntiles forfeited this round.
Anyways, back to the debate.
As to your requests:
1. As I don't know what Mark 16:16 is, I'll go with the quote from (1.) and hope that it is what you're referring to. "He that eats and sleeps shall be saved; but he that doesn't eat shall be condemned." This supports the negative in a sort of roundabout way, which I'll go into later. By the way, I knew what you meant, but what you were really asking for was, "He that___ and___ shall___ receive $1,000, but he that does not___ shall not___ receive it."(I would've filled the blanks with fights, wins, immediately, fight, immediately)
2. Being baptized, receiving forgiveness of sins, confessing faith, believing, loving God. I only put baptism first because children are usually viewed as incapable of sin and baptism most often occurs during early childhood.
3. I'll accept the translation, but truthfully I haven't made enough of a study of the Bible to be able to quote verses off the top of my head.
My sentence that you asked for supports my position in the following manner. Anybody that eats and sleeps will be saved from death. Anybody that doesn't eat will die, and as they aren't eating anything(and presumably not drinking either) they will lack the stimulants necessary to stay awake long enough to die from sleep deprivation, only from starvation. I postulate that maintaining life functions is more critical than baptism, as suicide is sinful. Even if starving yourself to death is an incredibly slow and stupid way to kill yourself, it's still suicide, which is a mortal sin. As a person who isn't particularly religious, I say that staying alive until one meets death from some uncontrollable factor will probably matter more than whether or not one was baptized.
I have absolutely no intention of having a discussion on Biblical grammar. Past, present, and future participles will find little welcome in my end of the argument. I'm accepting the quotes as they are presented to me as I have no Bible to reference, but make no mistake I'm not having an argument about grammar.
1.So, what are we arguing? We are arguing that baptism, with the use of water, is meant to cleanse the souls of men in some fashion. My opponent, however, simply launches into a long and confusing discussion on grammar, which has coincidentally backfired. He says, "there is no way in Greek or English to invert the position of 'shall be saved' and 'is baptized': such is not possible grammatically nor logically, and no translation thus translates the passage." If there is no way to reverse the position of being saved and baptism, that immediately disproves my opponents point. If salvation is irrevocably before baptism, then there is no debate. The statement, " Therefore, baptism is placed squarely between an unsaved person and salvation..." is completely incorrect according to the interpretation of the grammatical structure of the verse presented by my opponent. The use of the word "Therefore" implies that my opponent has played some kind of logical trump card, which my opponent has not. Other than a grand pronouncement that it is absolutely NOT possible to translate the verse which he has clearly supplied a translation for, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the entire first section of my opponents argument does anything but support my position.
2. Once again, my opponent argues my point for me. If the entirety of Acts 2 teaches salvation by faith, even if not faith exclusively, then the Bible is clearly placing a heavier emphasis on the act of belief rather than the ritual of baptism. Just because baptism is mentioned, doesn't mean that it is the primary delivery system of salvation.
3. I once again submit to the clearly superior Biblical knowledge base that my opponent is arguing from, but here I choose to insert my heathen interpretation. There are some historical records which show stories from the Bible actually happened, and others that do not support such claims. For the sake of argument, let's assume that Paul is a real person. He has met Christ, and believes in his word. My opponent implies that Paul has found faith, but the guilt of his sin still weighs on him. So Paul seeks a more physical affirmation of his faith. His sin is gone, but it's like an amputated limb. He can sense it, but it isn't there. So he partakes of a ritual which removes his doubt. Basic psychology. Christ was divine, but his followers mere mortals with all the limitations of mortal men. Unless our ancestors had a sixth sense for sin that we've lost, then there's no reason why this should be implausible.
Back to what I was saying, my opponent has made no response to my claims that swimming is now a holy act. Furthermore, my opponent implies that baptism is meant to repeatedly remove sins. If something is done for the remission of sins, why would it be possible to only do it once? I further my earlier argument by stating that baptism has absolutely nothing to do with being forgiven. If it did, it would be a common practice to carry some holy water rather than subject oneself to the tedious process of confession. In terms of actual practice, and arguably in terms of Biblical events, baptism is meant to formalize entry into the church/faith of Jesus Christ. Take note of the fact that nobody is ever repeatedly baptized. By stating that the ritual of baptism exists for the purpose of removing sin from a soul then there would be some mention of somebody doing it again. But there isn't. The only purpose I can see in baptism is to perhaps wash away the sin of not being a member of the church/faith, in which case baptism only removes one sin in the first place not multiple sins as implied by the resolution. Two of the three main Biblical references made by my opponent support my position and the statement I made in that last sentence.
Thank you. I eagerly await your response.
1. "As I don't know what Mark 16:16 is." I'll whole-heartedly agree.
2. "I'll accept the translation, but truthfully I haven't made enough of a study of the Bible." Agreed.
3. "I have absolutely no intention of having a discussion on Biblical grammar." Agreed.
4. "There are some historical records which show stories from the Bible actually happened" True
5. "I am not intimately familiar with all of the New Testament". Agreed.
Well, onward and upward - or downward:
1. "My sentence that you asked for supports my position in the following manner." Well, in giving a grammatically-parallel sentence to "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he the disbelieveth shall be condemned," you give ""He that fights and wins shall immediately receive $1,000, but he that does not fight shall not receive it." So, according to you, a fella that just shows up and fights and loses still gets the one grand." So if you'd stepped in the ring with Ali and found yourself on the mat within 15 seconds, you'd have gotten up (if you could), and asked for your cash. I don't think so.
2. ""He that eats and sleeps shall be saved; but he that doesn't eat shall be condemned." Well, since I asked for $1,000 as the reward, I'll take the liberty of altering it: "He that eat and sleeps shall receive $1,000, but he that doesn't eat shall not receive it." A child that eats all his lunch, for instance, then doesn't take his nap still gets the cash? He could just finish up his sandwich, be wide awake, get up from the table and request payment? Hmmmmm. And you said, "My sentence that you asked for supports my position in the following manner." Why launch into a drawn-out explanation? You have two conditions, eating and sleeping, and you wanna give away the thousand bucks after the person stuffs his stomach? That does not support your position at all - assuming you have a position.
3. "I have no Bible to reference" Bibles are available online.
4. "But make no mistake I'm not having an argument about grammar." I actually didn't anticipate that you would, but I did as the pro. If you choose not to dispute it, then it will stand. It was gonna stand, anyway, though.
5. "We are arguing that baptism, with the use of water, is meant to cleanse the souls of men in some fashion." No, we're not. The proposition reads (and the definitions imply) that water baptism is unto - to obtain - the remission of sins. "Unto" means "in view of an as-yet unreached end." Literal water cannot "cleanse" a literal soul, and I never stated that it did.
6. "If there is no way to reverse the position of being saved and baptism, that immediately disproves my opponents point. If salvation is irrevocably before baptism, then there is no debate." Well, not much of one. The verse reads, "He that (1) believeth and (2) is baptized shall (3) be saved." If there is no way to reverse that order, then my point is proven - not disproven. And I presented the argument from English and Greek grammar that "is baptized" and "shall be saved" cannot be inverted. You are "not discussing grammar", so the point holds.
7. "The use of the word "Therefore" implies that my opponent has played some kind of logical trump card, which my opponent has not." It's a "trump card" until to you successfully disprove it.
8. "If the entirety of Acts 2 teaches salvation by faith, even if not faith exclusively, then the Bible is clearly placing a heavier emphasis on the act of belief rather than the ritual of baptism." And the point? I'm not arguing relative "emphasis" of this or that - I never implied it.
9. "but here I choose to insert my heathen interpretation." LOL
10. "Furthermore, my opponent implies that baptism is meant to repeatedly remove sins." No, sorry, I didn't even hint at that concept.
11. "If something is done for the remission of sins, why would it be possible to only do it once?" Because that's what the Bible teaches, maybe?
12. "Just because baptism is mentioned, doesn't mean that it is the primary delivery system of salvation." Never said it was. Baptism alone is for nothing - other than getting wet.
13. "So Paul seeks a more physical affirmation of his faith." Who said that, other than you? Whoever said that Paul was runnin' around and lookin' for a "more physical affirmation" of anything? Bibles are available online: why don't you familiarize yourself with Acts 22?
I will not introduce any new arguments. I'd hate to see what he would type in response to them. I presented Mark 16: 16; he has no Bible and can't even remember what it says after I quote it. I noticed grammatical arguments which sustain my position, but he righteously ignores them: "I have absolutely no intention of having a discussion on Biblical grammar." Well, then the grammatical line of argumentation stands, and baptism stands between the believer and salvation. Both of your sentences simply bolster my position.
Oh, I get three more questions (lucky me):
1. What must a person do to be saved?
2. Please provide one grammatically-parallel sentence in English to Mark 16: 16 in the form, "He that (a) and (b) shall (c) receive $1,000, but he that does not (a) shall not (c) receive it", that you believe supports your position. Try it again - those first two simply proved my contention.
3. You said, "The Bible doesn't teach anything." Then why are you worried about the subject enough to debate it? Are you debating what the Bible teaches, yet the Bible teaches nothing?"
By the way, you said, "Back to what I was saying, my opponent has made no response to my claims that swimming is now a holy act." Nope, I didn't even acknowledge it. Please note that your remarks along that line were in the 1st round. This was one of the terms: "First round acceptance only. If any questions, ask in the comments section, and I'll respond." That means I define the terms in the first round; I do not open with a list of statements or questions. You accept in the first round, you do not open with a list of statements and questions.
I guess I'll respond by point, as there isn't much else to do.
I agree with pro on every point with "Agreed" next to it, but I'd like to point out that (4.) was followed by the statement that there are also records which show nothing of the sort. Just thought I should clear that up.
1. First, the sentence about fighting was what I would have said if I had a furious desire to troll you. You said later in your argument that the confusing bit about the $1,000 was supposed to mean that you would give me a $1,000 reward for coming up with such a sentence. According to you, $1,000 wasn't supposed to factor into the sentence. Also according to you, no such sentence was supposed to exist, hence the $1,000 reward. And yes, I am saying that in my own peculiar little religion, if you get into the ring with Ali at all and get knocked flat you shall be rewarded. You said provide a grammatically parallel sentence, not a situationally parallel sentence. Structure, not content. By the way, that first sentence you quoted should have been put under (2.).
2. You have no idea what you are talking about, as firmly evidenced here. I was trying to be a clever agnostic child and say that staying alive is more important. Your alteration with the money is not applicable as you implied later in your argument that your question was flawed. I would have just stuck with the fighting sentence but your grammar was confusing and led me to believe I was supposed to put something else.
3. That's great. Also irrelevant.
4. What I meant was that I wasn't going to follow along with your certainty that we would be discussing participles and such. Which you explicitly stated you were sure we would be. So yes, you did fully expect me to do so by your own admission.
5. I meant holy water. Also, why is it that everything except "water" can be viewed as a literal truth? Everything happened in the Bible, but there was never any water. Also, you both implied and directly stated earlier that baptism washed away the sins on what's-his-names soul. Also, you imply by the affirmation, as out of context as it may have been, of my statement that the Bible may be a historical record that you believe that water can cleanse the soul. Holy as the water may be, at the end of the day it's still water.
6. I shall concede obscure points of English and Greek grammar, mostly because I don't speak Greek, but I refer back to a statement I made earlier. Faith is more important than the meaningless ritual of baptism. The baptism itself serves no function other than as a physical representation of an inward change. I apologize for the confusion on this, I simply read the second half of your (1.) more carefully than I did the first half.
7. Refer to (6.). Last sentence. I was more intently looking at the second half, as in on the other side of your definition. You seem to be taking one refutation and turning it into several.
8. Once again, disjointed attacks. Remission of sins and salvation are nearly identical concepts. As terms they are basically interchangeable. If faith is what saves you, then it stands to reason that baptism is not what saves you. Process of elimination. Sort of. Not really. Close enough.
9. Well. That was polite, also not in any way relevant to anything except your continuing loss of conduct points.
10. Yes, you did. The resolution. Also, my earlier question. "If something is done for the remission of sins, why would it be possible to only do it once?" Your definitions and resolution seem to imply that the only purpose of baptism is to remove the stain of sin from a human soul. So it might perhaps follow that one might want to do it again. In case they did something that might condemn them to the most particularly unpleasant corner of Hell. You quite flagrantly hinted at that concept.
11. Maybe that's what the Bible teaches, but your definitions, which you stated were meant to remove all confusion, take us away from it a bit. Also, beyond the fact that nobody ever did it twice, when in the Bible was there ever any mention of a taboo against doing it more than once? Besides the fact that you say so.
12. Sorry, I'm reading these as I go. You say that the Bible teaches that baptism is for removing sins, for the remission of sins, whatever synonymous term you choose to insert. Yet here you say that baptism is just for getting wet. You blatantly stated by the simple act of affirming the resolution that baptism is the primary means of sin removal, salvation, assorted synonyms.
13. Quotation marks denote quotations. This is what should have been put towards the end of (9.). I was interpreting this particular section of the Bible as the dramatized search for higher meaning and forgiveness of one individual. I needn't familiarize myself with anything. You have provided me with all the familiarity I need. You acknowledge that the Bible may be some kind of historical document, and then refuse the possibility that the people in it acted like real people. I stated that he was, essentially, being psychologically manipulated by Jesus. Which isn't as bad as it sounds.
My opponent is taking my confusion over Mark 16:16, which was created by the awkward attempts at showing that the order of the words in the sentence couldn't be altered, and is using it to blatantly insult my intelligence throughout. My sentences, which you also asked for in a somewhat awkward manner, don't bolster your position at all. As the $1,000 was supposed to be a part of my sentence, then the fighting one goes along with parts of what I'm saying quite nicely. Believe in yourself, step into the ring and fight. You go in expecting to be thrashed and win or lose, you still walk away richer. The fight is the journey, the money the reward. Baptism would be like if there was an awards ceremony during the fight. Which in this one there is not. Onward and downward, you state that baptism stands irrevocably in between some person and salvation. Justify then your statement about just getting wet. Also, Harriet Tubman could easily be a saint and was never baptized. She's even listed on the Wikipedia list of 20th century women saints. Justify her current address in Hell.
My opponent seems to be refusing to believe that the Bible could be trying to say something more. That maybe the Protestants were right to dispute the endless ritual of Catholicism, and maybe it's the faith and not the ritual that saves us. Maybe the Bible is, just maybe, trying to teach a real lesson with some fake things to drive it home. I believe I already said this, but faith, not baptism, saves the soul.
You don't get three more questions, you're just taking advantage of one round of silence on the question front. I'll humor you anyways.
1. Have faith.
2. No. They proved nothing. You were looking for a sentence following that format. You asserted that both of those sentences couldn't possibly exist. I have defied the laws of probability twice. I just wanted an excuse to say that last sentence. Oh yeah, one more thing, my explanation worked fine. As the middle part wasn't necessary, I showed that baptism, the middle part of Mark 16:16, is also unnecessary. Since we're doing things like that. It didn't really support my position that well, but you were still wrong to attack it in the fashion that you did.
3. Since you ignored that the first time, I figured I may as well go on ahead. The Bible would have to mean something to me for it to be teaching something, but you are clearly getting incredibly worked up over this, so I'm assuming the Bible is teaching something.
I really, really need to emphasize the fact that I'm not an idiot just because my opponent says so. I slipped one time. One. My opponent has been extremely rude throughout the entirety of that refutation. I don't want an apology, but at least try to be subtle in the future. I'm out of characters. I can't put any more.Sorry
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: ff