The Instigator
annanicole
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Water baptism, to the penitent believer, is unto - to obtain - the forgiveness or remission sins

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
annanicole
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,179 times Debate No: 21981
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

annanicole

Pro

My position is that the New Testament teaches by command, example or necessary inference that immersion in water is a prerequisite to the forgiveness of past sins of a penitent believer. During each round, each party will be permitted to ask five questions which are to be answered by the respective opponent in his next reply.
KeytarHero

Con

I accept the debate and the terms. To be clear, I believe that immersion is the proper way to be baptized, but I don't believe that it is the method through which sins are forgiven, nor do I believe it to be a prerequisite for forgiveness of sins.

I look forward to the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
annanicole

Pro

Hello, and thank you for accepting and participating. I suppose I should clearly define the proposition, so by "New Testament", I mean the twenty-seven books from Matthew to Revelation, inclusive, as found in the KJV, ASV, or equivalent versions. By "teach", I mean "to set forth the concept as true", whether by direct command, approved example, or necessary inference. By "baptism", I mean "immersion" - the baptism of the Great Commission. By "unto", I mean "in view of an as-yet unreached end." "Remission or forgiveness of past sins" is, I think, self-explanatory.

Questions/requests:

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. Is the figure of speech "synecdoche" utilized in the New Testament?

3. Please place the following in order of occurrence: believing, loving God, repenting, confessing faith, being baptized, and receiving forgiveness of sins.

4. Were the chief rulers of John 12: 42 saved men at the point of John 12: 42?

5. 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."

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 Mark 16: 16 is only English sentence in the entire world in which the (b), the this case "is baptized", is 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", and 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. Thus, 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.

I see that I have about 1,000 characters remaining, so I'll leave Acts 2: 38 and await your reply before elaborating more on the passage.

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 at least 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). I am out of space and await your reply. Thanks.
KeytarHero

Con

KeytarHero forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
annanicole

Pro

After thinking about it, I believe it would be decidedly unfair (or at least in poor taste) to advance two or three more pro arguments as well as five more questions; therefore, I will let stand the arguments and questions put forth previously: (1) that any verses which predicate salvation upon faith does not necessarily mean "faith only", (2) that Matt 28: 19, Mark 16: 16, and Luke 24: 47 are parallel accounts (even if they weren't spoken at the same time) and support the pro position, and (3) Acts 2, an account of the first sermon in the name of a risen saviour, bears the query, "What must we do?" and the answer in verse 38 supports to pro position. The conversion of Saul/Paul was mentioned but not elaborated upon, and five questions were asked. I will simply let the prior post stand pending your reply. I was never a fan of quoting/citing so many passages that the other disputant could never really catch up: it's an old trick frequently employed by dishonorable disputants.
KeytarHero

Con

Unfortunately I'm going to have to forfeit the debate. I didn't read closely enough, which is completely my fault. I was expecting to have three days instead of just two to reply. So as a result I didn't do a very good job of rationing my time. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
annanicole

Pro

Ok, maybe later when things slow down a little for you. I'll try again on the same topic and see if anyone accepts. Good luck to you.
KeytarHero

Con

Thanks. To speed things up a bit, I'll just officially forfeit.
Debate Round No. 4
annanicole

Pro

Ok, maybe later when things slow down a little for you. I'll try again on the same topic and see if anyone accepts. Good luck to you.
KeytarHero

Con

Once again, I must forfeit. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Oh, no wonder I forfeited the last round without realizing it. I was expecting to have more time. I didn't realize I only had two days to reply, I was expecting the standard three days. Unfortunately I've just been too busy and will probably have to forfeit this debate. Hopefully you can try again and find someone who has more time.
Posted by annanicole 5 years ago
annanicole
Ok, I will. I'll continue probably this afternoon.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Great. Sorry about the forfeit, I've been very busy preparing for a performance tomorrow. If you'd like, you can extend your arguments and I'll respond to them in the next round.
Posted by annanicole 5 years ago
annanicole
No offense taken. I am new to the site, but not new to the subject matter. Ha, you drew a "reasonable inference", but not a "necessary inference." I can see how people sign up, present ridiculous arguments on this and that, then leave. I look forward to your reply.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Anna, I apologize if I offended. I meant new to this site. The people here on DDO have developed a term "noob sniping," and I just didn't want to give off the impression I'm looking for new people to debate as "easy wins" (not that I'm saying a win against you would be easy, it's just the sentiment). I will go ahead and accept the debate.
Posted by annanicole 5 years ago
annanicole
Haha @ "new debater"
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
What do you mean, it's not a debate? Baptism is not necessary for the remission of sins. I'd take this debate, but she's a new debater. I don't know if it'd be fair for me to take this.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 5 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
Nope, not at all.
Posted by beatmaster2012 5 years ago
beatmaster2012
Not really a debate, is it?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
annanicoleKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
annanicoleKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF