What is the truth about baptism?

“Taking The Whole of Scripture”

By Tom Wacaster

 

“Hermeneutics” is the science of interpretation. The word is derived from the Greek mythological character, “Hermes,” the messenger of the gods and the interpreter of Jupiter. Through the years there have been a number of Bible scholars who have taken the time and effort to set forth, in writing, a systematic approach to the study and interpretation of the scriptures. The most notable works are D.R. Dungan’s Hermeneutics, and Clinton Lockhart’s Principles of Interpretation. Both of these books are still in print, and I recommend them for your consideration.  Hermeneutics, then, is the science of interpreting the Scriptures. When one properly studies a particular passage in God’s word, he is said to “exegete” the passage.  “Exegesis” simply means to lead out, or draw out of. It is the application of the principles of hermeneutics in bringing out the meaning of any particular passage. We could very likely write on the science of interpretation with all its varied principles and take a year or more to do so. But there is one important principle we want to address in this week’s article.  The Psalmist put it this way:  “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God!  How great is the sum of them” (Psalms 139:18, emphasis mine, TW).  A fundamental principle involved in the interpretation of the scriptures is the need to take the whole of God’s word into consideration in our search for truth. It is the “sum” of God’s word which must be obeyed, not just a portion thereof. Call it what you will, whether a “balance” of Scripture, or as Paul put it, the “whole council of God” (Acts 20:27), the end result is that we cannot pick and choose from scripture as we would food from a cafeteria line.

 

Now, let’s apply this principle to the scheme of redemption. God’s plan for man’s salvation is not to be found in any single passage of scripture. If I would learn what I must do to be saved, I must carefully examine the whole of God’s word to determine what it takes to receive forgiveness of sins. To take any single passage to the neglect of others will certainly spell doom for the sincere but misled soul. The late William Cline once wrote, “The Bible does not lend itself to false doctrine for it is balanced in its content, complete in its message, and perfect in every way.” The mistake of isolating one passage and pressing it to the exclusion of others is a failure to respect the truth presented by the Psalmist.

 

The Bible plainly teaches that men must “hear” the word. “How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard?” (Rom. 10:14). The Bible also teaches that men must “believe” (Heb. 11:6, Jno. 3:16, Jno 8:24). But the Bible likewise teaches that men must repent (Acts 2:38, Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30-31). In addition, the Bible teaches that men simply must confess, with the mouth, that Jesus is the Son of God (Rom. 10:9-10, Matt. 16:16-18). Finally, the Bible teaches that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). In view of the obligatory nature of each of these commands, why is it that most of the protestant denominational world elevates “faith” above, and often to the exclusion of, all other commands? Is there not some way we can “harmonize” these passages, and, by taking the “sum” of God’s word, come to a conclusion that does not “pit” one passage against the other? Indeed there is.

 

If “faith” saves, and most certainly it does, then what role does “repentance” play in the process of salvation? Is it essential? To deny its essentiality is to indict our Lord and Master, for He Himself stated, “except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish” (Lk. 13:3). The question we must ask, therefore, is “What KIND of faith saves a man from his sins?” Taking the “sum” of God’s word, we can only conclude that the faith that saves is a faith that INCLUDES repentance. Men have sought to “get around” the force of this argument by suggesting that repentance precedes faith. But if repentance is produced by godly sorrow (2 Cor. 7:10), how can repentance be generated without faith in God?

 

What about confession? If we must confess “with the mouth Jesus as Lord” (Rom. 10:9-10), what is the relationship between saving faith and this “good confession”? Once again, the faith that saves is a faith that INCLUDES the good confession.

 

What, then, shall we do with baptism? If baptism “doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21), what relationship does faith sustain to this act that “also now saves us”? Before you ignore, dismiss, or reject the words of Peter, ask yourself this question. When Peter said that “baptism doth also now save us,” what was he saying it, baptism, saves us from? The context shows that just as the water saved Noah from the wrath of God against a sinful world, so also baptism saves us from God’s wrath. The KIND of faith that saves is the KIND of faith that INCLUDES baptism.  If not, why not?

 

A further examination of what baptism accomplishes should prove to any honest soul that a man is not saved from his past sins until he is immersed into that watery grave “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Please take a close look at Romans 6:3-5.  When a person is baptized he enters “into Christ” (verse 3), he enters into the “death” of Christ (verse 3), he is “buried…into death” (verse 4), we are “raised to walk in newness of life” (verse 4), and the “body of sin might be done away” (verse 5).

 

If men would put aside their bias and human opinions, and make an honest effort to study and apply some of the fundamental principles of interpretation, much of the division could be resolved. Unfortunately, false teaching will always exist, and error will continue to take its toll upon the religious world. Peter has warned us, “But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1). Jesus warned us to “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15). Such errorists will always exist; hence the ever increasing need to not only study, but to “handle aright” the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). The American Standard Version of 1901 has this interesting foot note on this passage.  It reads, “holding a straight course in the word of truth.” The only safe course to follow is to take the sum of God’s word.  Anything else is wrought with danger and destruction.   Think about it.

 

Glenn Duhigg, an ex-lawyer who worked as the stand-in for Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 2

Our Stand-In

 

Bryson Smith recalls reading an article about movie stand-ins.  They’re the people who replace movie stars in scenes that are dangerous or just uncomfortable.  An example is Glenn Duhigg, an ex-lawyer who worked as the stand-in for Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 2.  Glenn reckoned, “It sounds very glamorous saying you’re the stand-in for Tom Cruise, but I don’t think many people realize the long hours and constant demands that deflate your ego very quickly.  The days are long.  Whatever scene Tom was in, I would be the one standing there, being him sometimes for ages as the crew set up the shot – getting the lighting just right and the props just so.  I’d be standing there for hours out in the weather, getting drenched in the rain or sun stroke out in the heat.  And then Tom would just walk on the set from his air-conditioned caravan or out of his beautiful sports car once the scene was ready.”  As one of the other stand-ins said, “I realized very quickly the difference between being a star and being a stand-in.” *

 

We all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).  Because of our sins, we deserve sin’s punishment: “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).  Imagine being convicted of a capital crime in the 1st Century in the Roman Empire and being sentenced to death by crucifixion.  The criminal would be nailed to a wooden cross through his wrists and his feet.  The cross would be dropped into a hole so that the victim would literally hang on that cross in utter agony until death, usually by asphyxiation because he would be unable to push and pull against the nails in his hands and feet in order to exhale.  This is what we deserve because of our sins.

 

This is exactly what Jesus, the Son of God, did for us.  He died, not for His own sins, but for the sins of the world, for your sins and for mine (1 John 2:2).  He did this because He loves us and in order to save us, for only He – the sinless Son of God – could pay the price for our redemption (Ephesians 1:7).

 

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18).

 

On the cross, Jesus Christ was our stand-in.  He endured the pain and the punishment from God, all in our place.  He suffered the full wrath of God against sin on our behalf so that we can be saved and receive the gift of eternal life.  Then, having died for our sins and being buried, He victoriously arose again on the third day, defeating Satan and death (Hebrews 2:14-18).

 

God will save and give eternal life to those who place their faith and trust in Jesus (Acts 16:30-31), turn from their sins in repentance (Acts 17:30-31), confess Jesus before men (Romans 10:9-10), and are baptized (immersed) into Christ for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).  He will continue to cleanse from sin those who continue to walk in the light of His Word (1 John 1:7-9).

 

Jesus, the sinless Son of God, the King of kings and Lord of lords, was our stand-in.  He died in our place so that we might live.  “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by His wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24).

 

He did it for YOU.  Won’t YOU accept His offer of salvation and eternal life on His terms?

 

-- David A. Sargent

 

* Source: “Standing In” by Bryson Smith, as published on www.perspective.org.au.  Perspective Vol. 8, No. 4, 2001, from an article published in the SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, Sunday Life Section, Sept 17, 2000.

 

Free sermons on Hebrews 7

Hebrews:  Run With Perseverance                                     David Owens

Sermon #12:  “The High Priesthood of Jesus”                                         

Text:  Hebrews 7:1-28

 

Introduction:

A.      This chapter is one of those “meat” chapters of the Bible that you have to chew on a while in order to grasp.

1.       You might even need a little tenderizer to help soften the meat a bit.

2.       For those of us who live on this side of the cross, Melchizedek and Abraham can seem a long way off.

3.       What happened in their lives might seem to be insignificant to ours, but the Hebrew writer thinks otherwise.

4.       He wants to show us something about Jesus through Melchizedek that we really need to know today.

 

B.      This chapter isn’t really about Melchizedek any more than the previous chapters have been about angels, Moses, Joshua or the Sabbath.

1.       All of the chapters have really been about Jesus.

2.       For the Hebrew writer and for us, everything is about Jesus!

3.       He is greater than all and he is the only one we need.

4.       By the skillful use of a couple of OT texts, the Hebrew writer is going to supply one more reason for his readers to take heart and to hold on.

5.       If we can grasp his points today, then we too will be encouraged by this chapter.

 

C.      Chapter six ended with the statement that Jesus has been made a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.

1.       This priesthood in the order of Melchizedek is the most characteristic thought in the book of Hebrews.

2.       There are only three verses about Melchizedek in the book of Genesis and one verse about him in the Psalms.

3.       So, until we get to the book of Hebrews, Melchizedek is at best a shadowy figure who emerges out of the Judean hills, offers his blessing to Abraham, and then as quickly as he arrives, he’s gone.

4.       Gone, that is, until we get to the NT book of Hebrews where this first-century writer uses seven times the amount of space on Melchizedek than was used on him in the OT.

 

D.      One of the few things we know about Melchizedek is that he is a priest of the Most High God.

1.       The Latin word for priest is “pontifex” – which means bridge builder.

2.       Priests were bridge builders who built bridges between humanity and God.

3.       But Melchizedek was a priest like no other priest until Jesus came.

 

E.      Now the reason that we need to understand the priesthood of Melchizedek is because Jesus is a priest in the ancient order of Melchizedek, and so are we.

1.       We, Christians are a royal priesthood in the order of Jesus and in the order of Melchizedek.

 

F.       Now that fact is very exciting for us, but consider how it was a difficult one for the early converts to Christianity.

1.       Most of the early Christians were Jewish.  They knew and loved the priestly system of Aaron in the Jewish faith.

2.       As you know from our study of Hebrews up to this point, they were at a very dangerous place in their spiritual pilgrimage.

3.       They were being tempted to defect from their commitment to Jesus and go back to the security of their former religion and lifestyle.

4.       But the lesson of Melchizedek is the Christianity supersedes Judaism.

5.       Going back to Judaism would be like exchanging a diamond for a piece of coal.

 

G.      First generation Christians have always faced the temptation to go back to their former ways.

1.       When the Jews came out of Egypt under Moses’ leadership, many wanted to return to Egypt when they faced suffering in the desert.

2.       How quickly they forgot how awful their life had been under Egyptian slavery!

3.       Now these recipients of this letter are considering doing the very same thing – leave the promise land for slavery under the Law of Moses.

4.       We, too, face a similar temptation to turn back from Christ to our former lives, even though we know those lives were full of emptiness and hopelessness.

 

H.      So, what then is the message of Hebrews 7?

1.       The message is that the High Priesthood of Jesus is not really a new way but is actually the oldest way.

2.       The line and order of Jesus’ priesthood goes all the way back to Melchizedek, who goes back before Judaism even began, before the Law of Moses was even given.

3.       Let’s notice the points that the Hebrew writer makes as he presents the idea that Jesus’ priesthood is superior to the old priesthood of Aaron.

 

I.        First, the new priesthood is superior because Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.

A.      It must have really stung those early Jewish converts to have read verses 6 and 7, “This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.  And without a doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater.”

1.       All their lives they had been taught to revere the Jewish priesthood, and now to discover that a Gentile priest was superior to their own father, Abraham, must have been quite a shock.

2.       Why is Melchizedek greater than Abraham and Aaron?

 

B.      First, the Hebrew writer points out that Melchizedek has no genealogy.

1.       The fact that his mother and father were not named, or that his birth and death dates are not cited, does not mean that he was without any of these.

2.       Nevertheless, the writer’s focus on Melchizedek, a priest without a genealogy, is very important.

3.       If you have ever spent much time in Genesis, you know that genealogies are a feature of Genesis.  There we find long lists of a man’s ancestors, but not so with Melchizedek in Genesis 14.

4.       Far more important, though, is the fact that the Aaronic priesthood depended entirely on descent.

5.       Under Jewish law a man could not under any circumstances become a priest unless he could produce a certified pedigree going back to Aaron.

6.       Character and ability had nothing to do with it; the one essential was that pedigree.

7.       So then, the first important difference between the two priesthoods was that the Aaronic priesthood depended on genealogical descent and the priesthood of Melchizedek depended on personal qualifications alone (the Hebrew writer calls it the “power of an indestructible life”[vs. 16]).

 

C.      Second, we also note that the Hebrew writer points out the significance of Melchizedek’s name and title.

1.       The name Melchizedek literally means “king of righteousness.”

2.       The word “Salem” means “peace.”  (Salem is a place we know today as Jerusalem.)

3.       So, Melchizedek is the king of righteousness and the king of peace.

4.       Did the priesthood of Aaron ever lead to righteousness and peace?  Not like Melchizedek’s priesthood through Jesus.

 

D.      A third thing the Hebrew writer notes about Melchizedek is that he is “without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever” (vs. 3).

1.       Therefore, Melchizedek had no beginning and has no end and his priesthood lasts forever.

2.       That certainly makes his priesthood superior to that of Aaron.

 

E.      Next, the Hebrew writer makes three points from the story in Genesis 14 that show the superiority of Melchizedek.

1.  First, he points out that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe.

a.       The Aaronic priests also exacted tithes, but there are two differences.

b.      The Aaronic priests exact tithes from their fellow Jews according to the Law, but Melchizedek exacted a tithe from Abraham without any racial connection or Law requiring it.

c.       Melchizedek exacted the tithe because of an unquestionable personal right.

2.  Second, the Hebrew writer points out that Melchizedek blessed Abraham.

a.       It is always the superior one who blesses the inferior one.

b.      Therefore, Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, even though Abraham was the founder of the Jewish people and the unique recipient of the promises of God.

3.       Third, he points out that because Aaron and Levi are descendants of Abraham, when Abraham gave the tithe to Melchizedek, then Aaron and Levi also paid the tithe because they were to be the offspring of Abraham. (They were still in the body of their ancestor).

 

II.        Second, the new priesthood is superior because the new priesthood was promised by an Oath.

A.      If the old priesthood had fulfilled the function of bringing men to God then there would have been no need for any other.

1.       But there was a need for a new priesthood and the new priests could come out of a tribe other than the tribe of Levi.

2.       This showed that the whole old system was superseded.

3.       Someone and something greater than the Law had come.

4.       And all of this came along with an oath from God, Psalm 110:4 says, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”

5.       Clearly God does not swear lightly.

6.       He did not introduce the Aaronic priesthood with an oath, so clearly something new and better is happening in Christ.

 

III.       Third, the new priesthood is superior because it is a perfect and forever priesthood.

A.      Jesus the new priest offered no sacrifice for himself.

1.       The ordinary priests always had to make sacrifices for their own sins before they could do so for the sins of the people.

2.       But Jesus Christ, the new High Priest, was sinless and needed no sacrifice for himself.

 

B.      Jesus the new priest was and is forever.

1.       Under the old system the priests died and there was no permanency.

2.       But Jesus lives forever and therefore can serve as a priest forever.

 

C.      Jesus the new priest did not need to endless repeat the sacrifices.

1.       Jesus made the one perfect sacrifice, which never needs to be made again because it has opened the way to the presence of God.

 

Conclusion:

A.      Let me summarize the ideas that the Hebrew writer has made as he points to Jesus the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek:

1.       Jesus is the High Priest whose priesthood depends not on any genealogy but on himself alone.

2.       Jesus is the High Priest who lives forever.

3.       Jesus is the High Priest who himself is sinless and never needs to offer any sacrifice for his own sin.

4.       Jesus is the High Priest who in the offering of himself made the perfect sacrifice which one and for all opened the way to God.  No more sacrifice needs to be made.

 

B.      Ultimately, the Hebrew writer wants us to conclude that there is no better high priest than Jesus.

1.       Why in the world would anyone leave Jesus and tie himself or herself to anyone else?

2.       Jesus is perfect, sinless.

3.       Jesus is faithful.  He has been tested, but has passed with flying colors.

4.       Jesus is merciful.  He is merciful beyond comprehension.

 

C.      Two reassuring truths that provide stability for our hearts arise from this study.

1.     Through Christ alone we are able to know God.

2.     Through Christ alone we are able to reach God.

3.     The Hebrew writer tells us,

a.         “A better hope is introduced by which we draw near to God.” (vs. 19)

b.        “Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.” (vs. 25)

c.         “Such a high priest meets our need.” (vs. 26

 

 

 

 

Sweet Music

“Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.” ― Plato

Bill Parenteau was an amazing musician.  He could play several instruments, but he is best known for the music he played on the piano.  I describe him as an amazing pianist because he received no formal training; he could play by ear.  My mother is a piano teacher.  She taught me to read music.  When I attempt to play the piano, I look at a sheet of music and try to get my fingers to play the notes that are on the page.  For someone like Mr. Bill who didn’t have to look at the notes on a page but could play beautiful music by ear, that is truly amazing to me.

He blessed many with the music from a piano.  He would occasionally play the piano in a local hospital lobby.  People would stop and listen.  Through his music, he likely calmed and warmed some troubled hearts that were at the hospital visiting sick relatives and friends.

He would often play his piano for guests in his home.  Nelly Eddlemon wrote about a visit with Bill and his loving wife, Pat: “The last time I got to see him, I asked this talented man if he could play a song on the piano for my mom and me.  Despite his illness, he did.  He played 3!  I told him how much that meant to me, how much I love them both and that I will always, always treasure what he did that day.  That memory will forever live in my heart.”

As long as he was able, Bill would play his piano every night for his loving wife of over 60 years.  “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” and “Danny Boy” were two of his regular selections.

He was a wonderful musician and he blessed many lives with his music.  But his music was more than what came from the piano; it was his life.  He played beautifully the music of family, of friendship, of faith and faithfulness.  He adored his family and was adored by them in return.  He was a friend indeed.  He was a faithful servant of God and the church.  He was a Christian.

I believe the ability that Bill Parenteau had to bring music into our lives was a blessing from God.  Whether it was the sounds that he produced from the piano or the music from his life, he was a blessing indeed.

What made the music of Bill Parenteau’s life so rich, so fun, and so heartwarming?  I suggest it was because of qualities like faith, hope and love.  Faith: confidence in a God who keeps His promises.  Hope: expectation of greater things to come because Jesus lives.  Love: the bond of perfection (Colossians 3:14) that originates from God who loved us enough to give the very Best He had to offer.

God loves you, me, and Bill so much that He gave His one and only Son to die on the cross for our sins (John 3:16).  “We have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7) and “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

God will save and give eternal life to those who place their faith and trust in Jesus (Acts 16:30-31), turn from their sins in repentance (Acts 17:30-31), confess Jesus before men (Romans 10:9-10), and are baptized (immersed) into Christ for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).  He will continue to cleanse from sin those who continue to walk in the light of His Word (1 John 1:7-9).

Jesus brings some “sweet music” into your life.  No, you may not be able to play the piano as beautifully as Bill Parenteau, but you will find great comfort and joy in the “music” of peace, joy, and eternal life.  Bill did.  You can, too; if only you’ll submit your life to Jesus.

Let the music play on.

-- David A. Sargent

P.S.  In loving memory of William L. “Bill” Parenteau, October 15, 1935 – March 29, 2019.  May his music bless our lives for an eternity.

For more free Bible study information, check out the free daily devotional available through Google Play.

What does baptism now saves you in 1 Pet. 3:20-21 mean?

1 Peter 3:21 – “Appeal,” “Response,” or “Pledge”

There are a wide variety of translations for 1 Peter 3:21, the differences of which truly change the meaning of the text. Notice the following differences:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience,through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (ESV)

And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you–not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NRSV)

Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn’t save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life. (God’s Word)

Notice that the previous three translations picture baptism as asking God for a good, clear, or pure conscience. An appeal pictures a legal procedure, formally asking (or appealing) to the judge. Therefore, baptism saves because we are appealing to God to cleanse our conscience based upon the resurrection of Christ. Now consider some other translations.

There is also an antitype which now saves us–baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NKJV)

And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (NLT)

The above two translations picture baptism as a response or answer to God from an already cleansed conscience. Consider the final two translations.

And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.  It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (TNIV)

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (HCSB)

The HCSB and TNIV (also NIV) depict baptism as a statement or a commitment to God from an already cleansed conscience.

So which of these is correct? In my opinion, these three concepts are entirely different. The first group of translations shows baptism as asking God for a clean conscience. The second group pictures baptism as a response of an already cleansed conscience. The third group of translations show baptism as a statement to God from an already cleansed conscience. Or put another way: Does baptism ask God for a clean conscience? Is baptism an act responding from a cleansed conscience? Or does baptism declare to God and others that we have a cleansed conscience?

The Greek word that is translated “appeal” by the ESV, “response” by the NLT, and “pledge” by the TNIV is eperotema. Below is what the scholars say:

NAS Greek: an inquiry, a demand:

Thayer: “1. an inquiry, a question. 2. a demand.”

Mounce: “an interrogation, question; in NT profession, pledge.”Â

Vine: “eperotema, 1 Pet. 3:21, is not, as in the KJV, an “answer.” It was used by the Greeks in a legal sense, as a “demand or appeal.” Baptism is therefore the ground of an “appeal” by a good conscience against wrong doing.”

In looking closely at the text, doesn’t the first group of translations make more sense? Baptism saves you, not by washing the body, but by appealing to God (asking God) for a clean conscience. How could Peter say essentially “baptism saves you because it is a response of an already clean conscience?” Or how could Peter say essentially “baptism saves you because it is a statement or pledge to God/others from a clean conscience?” The sentence does not work from a logical standpoint the way the NKJV, NLT, TNIV, and HCSB read. Baptism saves because baptism is your already clean conscience responding to God??? This does not make sense. Then baptism actually does not save because the conscience is already clean. Therefore, Peter was wrong to say that baptism saves and was being nonsensical.

I know that this may fly in the face of some belief patterns and what not, but I think we have to take this text in the way that makes the most sense. The scholars argue that eperotema means “an inquiry, an interrogation, and an appeal.” Therefore, the most logical reading is that baptism is asking God for a clean conscience, as the ESV, NRSV, and NASB translate.

http://christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/1-peter-321-appeal-response-or-pledge/

Learn more at https://abiblecommentary.com/newtestamentchristianity.htm today!

 

David Carr

The All Seeing Eye

"For the eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth that he may strongly support those whose heart is completely his. You have acted foolishly in this. Indeed, from now on you will surely have wars" (2 Chronicles 16:9).

 These words were spoken to Asa, King of Judah after he had foolishly trusted in the King of Syria to protect him from King Baasha of Israel rather than trust in the Lord to protect Judah from their enemy as he had previously done for them (2 Chron. 16:1-9). We should be deeply impressed with the truth that the prophet Hanani spoke when he told King Asa that "the eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth". Listen to the writer of Hebrews as he tells us: "And there is no creature hidden from his sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do" (Heb. 4:13). If this great truth from God's word does not make us sit up and take notice, then we do indeed have a cold, cold heart of stone. You cannot hide from God (Psalms 139:1-12).  We may be able to deceive each other but we will never be able to deceive God.

 Take notice from this passage that the Lord is looking for those who have given their heart completely to him (Proverbs 23:26). No doubt all of us have in days gone by played the childhood game of hide and seek. While someone counts to a set number, all others seek to find a hiding place and then at just the right moment run to home base and shout "home free" Tragically, many are the people who are foolishly trying to play a game of hide and seek with the Lord. One day they foolishly hope to shout "home free" without having given their hearts completely to him while living on this earth (Luke 10:37).

 These words from a grand old song say it so well: "All along on the road to the soul's true abode, There's an Eye watching you; Every step that you take this great Eye is awake, There's an Eye watching you. Watching you, watching you, Every day mind the course you pursue, There's an Eye watching you" (J.M. Henson). There has ever been and ever will be the need for us to learn the lesson of Hebrews 4:13, "all things are naked and open to the eyes of him with whom we have to do".  Believe it my friend, believe it.

 I wonder, as that all seeing eye beholds us, does he see a heart filled with his word, a heart being molded in the way of truth, a heart being guided by him? If that is what he sees, then he will support and take care of us by providing whatever we need to sustain and keep us safe on this journey of life (Romans 8::28; Romans 8:35-39; Isaiah 40:31).

Charles Hicks