• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CAMBELLITE BAPTISM What we have here is a Campbellite , L. A. Mott, who believes that there is “Power in the Tub.”On top of hid “Be Dipped or Be Damned” doctrine, he is a Bible Corrector, who loves to run to the Greek and correct the King James Bible, My criticue is as follows. – Herb Evans Mott, Chapter 12 -- Baptism and the Blood of Christ ( 1 Pet. 3:21) Mott: The discussion of the relation of baptism to the blood of Christ has not been reserved to the end of the book out of arbitrary reasons of organization, but rather because the passage which most directly bears upon this phase of the subject is the last passage in the New Testament on baptism. Rom. 6.3-4 is often regarded as the passage dealing with baptism and the blood. Those who so regard it are mistaken about the emphasis of that passage. LAM Evans: Rom 6:3 -7 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. I happen to be one of those that regard Rom. 6:3 -7 as being buried with HIM and planted in the LIKENESS of His death. We are dealing with a symbol or a metaphor here and not a means of salvation. It, however, is the PICTURE of salvation. No wonder that Campbellites are unable to deal with it and wish to avoid it. Being buried or planted in water is a picture or figure of Christ death, burial, and resurrection portrayed in water. Mott: First Pet 3.21 is the passage they want. 1Pe 3:20, 21 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: -- LAM Evans: No, that is the passage that Cambellites want to prove water salvation. Mott: What 1 Pet 3.21 has to do with the blood of Christ is not apparent from this verse alone but appears from a comparison of I Pet 3 21 with its parallel statement in Heb 9.13 14. These two passages, taken together, effectively eliminate any consideration of a conflict between the blood of Christ and baptism for forgiveness such as some men claim to see. -- LAM Evans: It certainly is not apparent from 1 Pet 3:21. The water did not save these eight souls – THE ARK SAVED them. We are surprise that this Campbellite did not run to the Greek like others and change the word “by” to “through.” But then, that would not help his view of water salvation. The ark is a figure of salvation just as water baptism is a figure of salvation, a like figure or type. Surprise! There is no parallel statement in Heb. 9:13, 14. Campbellites try to mix and match passages that have nothing to do with one another – The hop, skip, and jump method of interpretation. Heb. 9 proves that the blood of bulls and goats only sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, but in another place tell us that it is not possible that they can take away sin (Heb. 10:4). Sanctification is not salvation or temple vessels would be saved. Heb 9:13, 14 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Mott: Peter speaks of the time . . . when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few. that It, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, (even) baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; -- LAM Evans: Mr. Mott quotes from the ASV perversion here to buttress his water salvation. The word “true” is not in the Greek. You don’t interrogate God; you do not question God. Some earlier English Bibles say request or ask God in the sense that the believer is seeking a good conscience from God THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST but NOT through the water. We understand the word DIA here as VIA as in the JSOC where we are saved BY or VIA fire. Perhaps, Mr. Mott prefers being saved “through” fire at the JSOC. Still, neither water nor fire saves the believer. It is mercy that saves. "Saved through Water" Mott: Noah and his family, says Peter, "were saved through water” The Greek preposition is dia, the one just met at Tit. 3:5; it is used "of the Means or Instrument by which anything is effected" (GT, 133) Water, then, was the means or instrument by which the salvation of Noah and his family was effected. -- LAM Evans: Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Campbellites are noted for their use of prepositions upon which they try to build a whole doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Mr. Mott shoots himself in the foot here for the ASV says through the washing of regeneration (not water) in Titus 3:5. But either way (by or through), it is not BY works of righteousness that the believer is saved but BY Holy Spirit regeneration (not baptismal). Plainly, his proof text says NOT BY WORKS OF RIUGHTEOUSNESS; water baptism is a work of righteousness. Mott: The question of how water served as the means of the salvation can only be determined from Gen. 7.13-24. "And the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth." Thus the water was at once the means of the destruction of the wicked and the means of deliverance for Noah. -- LAM Evans: Well, with this Campbellite interpretation, we would expect the water to lift up the Baptismal candidate above the earth. And we would expect the ark to be submerged first if it is the kind of LIKE figure to which Campbellites allude. The 8 souls were saved physically through the flood not spiritually. Campbellites have the baptismal candidate saved spiritually by water baptism. The parallel in the types are the safety in the ark versus the safety in Jesus Christ. Christ is the ARK of safety.

'The Like Figure" Mott: The KJV's "the like figure whereunto" is based upon an inferior reading23 as respects the whereunto con- necting verse 21 with verse 20. A literal translation of the true reading would be something like which also, an antitype, now saves you, baptism. The antecedent of which would be water. Peter has just said that Noah was saved through water, and now adds, which also, in an antitype, or as an antitype, i.e., "a true likeness" (ASV), now saves you, (even) baptism. Baptism at the end of the clause explains the water which now saves. "The like figure" (KJV) or "a true likeness" (ASV) is from antitupos which only appears in two New Testament passages. At Heb. 9.24 the ASV translates it like in pattern. GT gives its meaning there as "a thing formed after some pattern (tupo*)." As to its application in 1 Pet. 3.21 this authority says it refers to . . . a thing resembling another, its counterpart; something In the Messianic times which answer to the type prefiguring it in the O. T., as baptism corresponds to the deluge (GT, 51). All the translations the writer has seen agree with this definition. The NASB has "corresponding to that"; the RSV, "which corresponds to this"; George Swann, "which resembles this"; Williams, "which corresponds to this figure"; Goodspeed, "which corresponds to it." – LAM Evans: Cults, apostates, and heretics can’t wait to get their hands on a bible perversion to back up their doctrines. Mr. Mott’s ASV doesn’t even render the word anti-type as such. Neither does the ESV, the ISV, Tyndale’s Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, or Webster’s Bible. Whether types, figures, similtudes, resemblances, correspondences, counterparts, or patterns, the ark represents Christ, the ark of safety; water baptism represents the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection are the true; the symbols are the types or symbols. The antitypes are what the types represent. Noah was saved by the ark not the water, the water is NOT a TYPE of Christ; Christ is! Water Baptism is a TYPE of the death burial and resurrection of Christ and is a representative likeness in symbol in Romans 6. It is the LIKE figure of the ark TYPE of Christ– Herb Evans (pages 52-53) Mott: This word, then, simply expresses the thought that a likeness" or similarity, or resemblance — obtains between Noah's salvation and ours. One corresponds to or resembles the other. Some preachers, zealous to defend a church tenet, have tried to find in this word the idea that baptism only saves us in some figurative sense. They are wrong about the significance of the word; theirs is a zeal which is "not according to knowledge” -- LAM Evans: WRONG! Absolutely NOT! Noah was saved by grace before the flood ever occurred (Gen. 6:8). This word, then, simply expresses the thought that a likeness or similarity or resemblance or similitude or pattern or correspondence between Noah’s ark of safety and Christ and water baptism and Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Mott: Albert Barnes analyzes this resemblance between Noah's salvation and the salvation of the sinner from sin, and makes three points: 24 1 There is salvation in both cases. Noah was saved from death; the sinner is saved from sin and condemnation. 2. Water is used in both cases 3 The water is in each case a means or instrument of the salvation. Peter does not say that water saves the sinner today in the same way as it saved Noah, but only that water is the means of salvation in both cases. The resemblance extends no further than that. -- LAM Evans: I have no problem with Barne’ point 1 and 2 here, but I do have a problem with point three. Water is not the means of salvation in either case as we have shown. That is a figment of Protestant and Campbellite imagination.

"Which Also . . . Doth Now Save You" Mott: Water, says Peter, "also doth now save you." -- LAM Evans: Peter said nothing of the sort. Peer said the LIKE FIGURE doth now save you. Campbellites argue in a circle. Mott: He then explains the water which now saves the sinner by adding the word baptism at the end of the clause. It is the water of baptism which now saves the sinner. -- LAM Evans: Believe that and it will end you up in hell. There is no power in the tub and your “be dipped or be damned” doctrine. It is Christ that saves to as many receive HIM. Mott: One may do as one lady is said to have done and remove this statement with the scissors.25 One may take the stand of the late nineteenth century preacher who began, a debate of thus issue by saying. “My opponent will tell you that 'baptism now saves us I do not believe a word of it."26 Nevertheless the word of God remains Baptism saves! The unbelief of some — yea, even of all will not disturb the truth of God's word in the least. Unbelief only makes liars of the unbelievers (Rom. 3:3, 4). One may hate the truth. He may ignore it. He may cut it out. He may deny it. It remains the truth Baptism saves! No man can destroy the truth. A man only destroys himself by denying the truth. – LAM Evans: Cutting out parts of God's word is not the only problem that folks have. Campbellites twist the threads of the fabric of God's word to make it of none effect. In unbelief, Campbellites hate the doctrine of grace and mercy for salvation apart from works. Mott: Peter does not, of course, intend that baptism be thought of as the saviour or the originating cause of salvation. – LAM Evans: Well, thank you for that, so why do the disciples of Alexander Campbell make the water the Saviour? Mott: Some men would do better to cease wasting their time ridiculing that idea, as if anybody believed it, and spend their time seeking out what Peter did mean. -- LAM Evans: Well, I have sought out the meaning and still must ridicule the notion that there is power in the tub. Mott: The context leads to the answer. In the first place Peter has said that Noah was saved through or by means of water; i.e., that water was the means or instrument of his salvation. -- LAM Evans: Peter says no such thing any more than the fire at the JSOC is a means to our salvation by virtue of the word “BY.” Peter told us that there was no name by which we could be saved other than Christ. Mott: In the second place he has said that sinners are saved by the water of baptism today. -- LAM Evans: No he didn’t. That is a twist of Peter’s words by a Campbellite that is caught up in this be dipped or be damned doctrine. Mott: In the third place he has indicated that a true likeness, a resemblance, or a similarity exists between the deliverance of Noah and the salvation of the sinner today. -- LAM Evans: So far, so good, but you have failed to recognize what delivers a sinner and gives him salvation -- the ark of safety, Jesus Christ, and His death, burial, and resurrection for our sins. Water does nothing but get you wet. Mott: This resemblance between Noah's deliverance and the salvation of the sinner from sin helps to define the sense in which baptism saves. -- LAM Evans: Yes it does. It points to Christ in both instances, the Author and Finisher of our faith. Mott: Of course baptism is not the saviour. -- LAM Evans: Well, that is good of you to say so. In my vocabulary, whatever SAVES is the SAVIOUR. And Campbellites say that the water saves, which contradicts this statement. Mott: No one has said it is. Baptism saves as being a means or instrument of salvation — just as Noah was saved through or by means of water. -- LAM Evans: No! Baptism is NOT a means or even an instrument of salvation. It is a picture of salvation by someone who has experienced it. Noah was saved by means of the ARK not the water. The Place of Baptism Mott: So far this passage corresponds to the main theme of Part One of this book. What follows is more in line with the purpose of Part Two. Peter has given baptism a place in the plan of salvation. Now he goes beyond that and defines that place more particularly. -- LAM Evans: So far, all we have seen is Campbellite pontification. The place for baptism is AFTER salvation not BEFORE. Mott: He has stated that baptism saves us. -- LAM Evans: No, he did not! That is your editorializing of what Peter said. Mott: Now he explains the exact sense in which baptism is a means of salvation. – LAM (Pages 54, 55) Evans: Baptism is a picture of salvation – not a means. Mott: Peter's explanation of how baptism saves, as the KJV puts it, is, 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. but the answer of a good conscience toward God " The ASV has, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God," with "inquiry" and "appeal" given in the margin as alternates for "interrogation." The Greek noun which is rendered "answer" in the KJV and "interrogation" in the ASV is eperotema. "Answer" is a secondary meaning of this word, if indeed it is a meaning at all. -- LAM I find this comment very surprising. Shall we understand primary definition as always the best definitions? I don’t believe that it is a good idea to interrogate God. The implication is that the baptismal candidate is possessing or seeking or looking to have a good conscience through water baptism toward God, but must we ignore the fact that it is not the sins of the flesh that are in view here. Of the translations consulted by this writer, the KJV is the only one which renders it "answer.” None of the lexicons to which the writer has had access give "answer" as a meaning. Most of the versions render as does the ASV, "interrogation," "appeal," etc. This is also the meaning given by the lexicons. For example, AG defines the word, "request, appeal," and translates the whole clause, "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" (AG, 285). -- LAM Evans: We understand the reasoning refers to similar Greek words that involve appeal or inquiry or request or question, but they all are different words than what we find in 1 Peter 3:21 , namely, εε περωτημα, which is used but once in the New Testament. George Ricker Berry has its rendering as the “demand” of a good conscience toward God; surely, this is better than the “question” of a good conscience toward God. Methinks that Campbellites are the ones with questionable consciences. Meaning of "the Interrogation of a Good Conscience toward God Mott: Other translations give "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" (HSV), "an appeal to God for a good con- science" (NASB), "the craving for a clear conscience toward God" (Williams), "the craving for a conscience right with God" (Goodspeed).This Greek noun does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. So, "running the references" to arrive at the meaning is not possible so far as the noun is concerned. However, this noun has two verbs which are related to it. The simple verb erotao occurs about 58 times in the New Testament with translations in our versions such as to beseech, to ask, to pray, etc. The compound verb eperotao occurs about 59 times and is usually rendered to ask. -- LAM Evans: Well, which is it an interrogation of God or a desire or a craving or an appeal to God or a request or an inquiry. The various translations do not seem to know for sure, and neither does Mr. Mott. Whatever the correct view, none of these solve Mr. Mott’s problem of baptism saving anyone. It is just an exercise in questionable semantics that muddies the water. Mott: Thus even though no parallel New Testament u s e s o f t h e noun are avai l ab l e for study and comparison, the uses of its kindred verbs lead to its meaning Since the verbs mean to beseech, to ask, to pray, etc , the noun must mean an appeal or u request. And from the quotations above the reader can see that this is also the conclusion of the authorities on New Testament Greek. -- LAM Evans: Luke 3:14 and Luke 17:20 come closer with the verb εε περωταω as a kindred verb and yet “demand” God seems to harsh to us. But That is what Berry’s interlinear has, and he is somewhat of an authority. Mott: As will appear before the whole study is over, the best renderings of the clause in question are those which agree most closely with the RSV and the NASB. -- LAM Evan: Well, anyone that would gravitate to the RSV perversion is not worthy of an audience, and the ASV and NASB are not much better. Mott: Baptism saves us - and the way in which it saves is in being "an appeal to God for a good conscience." -- LAM Evans: Now, we have seen double talk before but this takes the cake. We have to appeal to God to save us? Or get baptized to register our appeal? No thanks, we believe we have good conscience by being baptized AFTER we are saved by grace through faith and get a cleansed conscience. If you do not mind, we shall keep our KJB. Mott: As noted above, even the Baptists Williams and Goodspeed are in substantial agreement with this rendering. The Greek word for "conscience" is in the genitive case. A literal rendering would be "an appeal of a good conscience." But this genitive is similar to the one in the following sentence: "A man made a request of a loan to the bank." The loan is the request -- the thing requested. So here, the good conscience is the request — the thing requested. The clause is properly translated, "an appeal, or request, to God for a good conscience." The scriptural concept of baptism thinks of the person being baptized as on his knees, beseeching God, begging God, praying to God for a good conscience. That is why the Baptist Alvah Hovey, in his discussion of this passage, speaks of baptism as "an embodied request or prayer unto God "27 -- LAM Evans: Well, why do we feel like we are playing Bible version Scrabble and Commentator Hockey. Mr. Mott still has not established that the word is a request and proceeds to argue in a circle that makes no sense. Hey, we’ll stick with the KJB, thank you! Which is it? Get saved by baptism or request a good conscience? "A Good Conscience" Mott: The book of Hebrews reflects light on the expression "a good conscience." It speaks of "an evil conscience" (10.22). The evil conscience exists when the guilt of sin is present — the "conscience of sins" (10.2). But a person can have his conscience cleansed (9.14). The good conscience, then, exists when its owner has no conscience of sin (10.2), either because he is not guilty of sin, or because the conscience has been cleansed of sin. The latter is the case under consideration in both Hebrews and I Pet. – LAM (End LAM Pages 56, 57) Evans: I had this when I got saved before my water baptism. Water baptism was a bit late in clearing my conscience of sin. Now, in regard to not obeying my lord in Believers” baptism is a different story. The need to be baptized is ever present with a saved believer. I had to twist the pastor’s arm to baptize me as soon as possible. When I did my conscience was satisfied in that respect. The Blood of Christ and the Good Conscience Mott: The book of Hebrews teaches t hat the conscience is cleansed of sin by the blood of Christ In one of its most conspicuous passages on the subject a remarkable parallel w i t h 1 Pet. 3:21 is found These two passages, being taken together, define completely the relation between baptism and the blood of Christ The passage in Hebrews is at Heb 9:13, 14: For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall (he blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? -- LAM Evans: Your proof text passage tells us that baptism could not put away the filth of the flesh. But the blood of animals were able to sanctify to the cleanness of the flesh. Ah . . . but perhaps there is the answer in a conscience cleansed of “dead works.” Mott: The reference to "the ashes of a heifer" sends one to Num. 19 for the background of verse 13. That chapter deals with the cleansing of a person who had become unclean by coming in contact with a dead body. Anyone who came in contact with a dead body was to be regarded as unclean. But let the reader understand it. Touching a dead body was not a sinful act. When Joseph of Arimathaea buried Jesus he became unclean according to the law, but that did not make him a sinner. Only a bodily uncleanness — an uncleanness "of the flesh" was involved. Evans: Irrelevant to our issue. Mott: A red heifer was to be killed, burned, and its ashes mixed with water. This "water for impurity" was to be applied to a person who became unclean due to contact with a dead body. He would then be clean again. The uncleanness was an uncleanness of the flesh; the cleansing was a cleansing of the flesh. Evans: So, we are talking about the cleansing of a conscience. Mott: The author of Hebrews asks, “how much more shall the blood of Christ . . . cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Evans: Ah . . . yes . . . the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience not the baptismal water. Good point! Mott: The uncleanness of the sinner does not come from touching a dead body; he has touched dead works i.e., sin. And his defilement is not just "in the flesh", he is guilty of sin and it is his conscience which is defiled. The blood of animals and the ashes of a heifer sanctified unto the cleanness of the flesh. The blood of Christ cleanses the conscience from sin. Evans: Again, I commend you for saying that it the blood of Christ that does this and not the water. You are doing a better job than I in proving your self in error. Thank you Jesus! Hallelujah! Praise de Lawd! Does I have a witness? Baptism and the Blood of Christ Mott: Now return to 1 Pet. 3.21. Some hold that baptism is merely a "ceremonial" matter; that the salvation effected by means of baptism is merely an outward, bodily, cleansing comparable to certain Old Testament rituals which just dealt with the flesh. That is exactly what Peter says is not so! Evans: Well, you have caught up with yourself and admitted that it was not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, and you are correct about what Peter says but you do not go far enough. It is also not a cleansing of one’s filthy sins. But yes, it is merely a ceremonial matter, symbolic in essence and not sacerdotal in the least. Mott: Baptism saves us, says Peter, and then he explains the nature of this salvation, or how baptism saves us. -LAM Evans: No, Peter does not make that unqualified pontification; that is a condensed Campbellite twist and editorial of what Peter said. Mott: It is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh - or sanctification "unto the cleanness of the flesh." It is the appeal to God for a good conscience. --LAM Evans: You keep going in circles and arguing in circles. Someone must have nailed one of your shoes to the floor. Mott: Baptism deals with the very same thing that the blood of Christ deals with – i.e., the conscience and the guilt of sin. -- LAM Evans: Oh, no! They do not deal with the same thing in the same way. Just because you say it, does not make it true. The blood of Christ does one thing, and water baptism does another. Blood and water are not the same. If you want water for your salvation, you will have to go to Jesus pierced side for the double cure. Mott: Heb. 9.14 teaches that the conscience is cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ. -- LAM Evans: Yes, that is true! Mott: But 1 Pet 3.21 teaches that baptism saves as being an appeal to God for a good conscience— i.e., a conscience cleansed from sin by means of the blood of Christ. -- LAM Evans: NO! That is not true. Water baptism does not save anyone. Mott: Baptism is the way God has appointed for the believer to make his appeal to God for the cleansing of his conscience by the blood of Christ. -- LAM Evans: Well, making a definition and forcing your doctrine into it does not attract real born again believers, who had their guilt of sin erased by the blood of Christ when they were saved by believing. Nothing said about cleansing your conscience in the passage that you have been belaboring. Mott: The scriptural conception of baptism is that a person is in that act making an appeal to God — requesting of God, beseeching God, begging God, praying to God -- for the cleansing of his conscience from the guilt of sin by means of the blood of Christ. How dare any man deal lightly with this act of faith, submission, and prayer by scoffingly rejecting it as "water salvation"! How dare one! -- LAM Evans: Your imagination has run away with you. You have not established any of this. I reject water baptism as having any saving virtues. I accept water baptism as an answer of a good conscience towards good in obeying the command to do so. This is why we call Campbellites Southern Catholics due to their baptismal regeneration. Mott: For anyone who understands the place assigned to baptism in the plan of salvation a conflict between baptism as a condition of pardon and the cleansing by the blood of Christ is inconceivable. I see no conflict, for I understand baptism’s place in God’s plan. It is water dogs that do not understand. Baptism is the way God has appointed by which a person is to seek the cleansing by the blood. -- LAM Evans: Not hardly. A person can go directly to the blood of the cross by repentance and faith with ever seeing water. The thief on the cross did. Mott: That is the place of baptism in the scheme of redemption. The person who submits to baptism according to the scriptures is the person who is relying upon the blood of Christ for pardon. -- LAM Evans: The person who relies on water for salvation goes directly to Hell. Do not pass GO; do not collect $ 200.00.

= compiled by Herb Evans

Load more

  6

Copy Link