I'm working up a reply, to start in a day or two. It'll take more than one post to fully respond.

BTW, Luther taught that salvation occurred at the moment of baptism. Check out his Large Catechism. This is true of Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, and many Pentecostals. It's mainly those in the Calvinist tradition that separate salvation from baptism.

Are the Calvinists wrong? Yes. And yet … and yet the Bible repeatedly says that all who have faith are saved. We have to respect those verses, too.

Response is coming. Timing is a bit up in the air as I have some lessons to prepare for church on eschatology.

We have a history of making our doctrine of baptism as fellowship boundary issue. Would it surprise any of us to know in the 2nd and 3rd centuries as some of the form practices of baptism were changing, neither Orgin, Tertullian, or Irenaeus seemed to get to excited to rally against these changes. However, as some were beginning to make "false" claims regarding the nature of the Trinitarian Godhead, our three post-apostolic brothers in Christ went to a great effort to counter such teachings.

What does this mean? First, it must be addressed as to whether Origin, Tertullian, and Irenaeus were right or wrong? Perhaps they were wrong and 1) the doctrine of the Trinity was not as important as they made it out to be and/or 2) the form of baptism is more significant than they treated it as. Or perhaps they were right! I am somewhere between the two options. But my point is to question why in our movement, we have a history of making our doctrine of baptism as essential fellowship issue while at the same time we have been tolerant of some less than correct views regarding the doctrine of the Trinity?

Secondly, has anyone read the Didache? It was written in the late 1st century and in it, we certainly see some divergence from the form of baptism in special circumstances (such as a sick person in the winter time who could not be immersed). Was this right or wrong? Only God knows the answer to that question but one must wonder why someone like the Apostle John (who wrote some of our NT pretty late in the 1st century) did not address this "false practice" (as we would call it) but paid significant attention whether people 1) confess Jesus is the Christ, and 2) do not live in a life of sin.

What should we make of all this? I obviously do not want to suggest that we treat the doctrine of baptism as a trivial matter that makes no difference as to what we believe about it. Likewise, I do believe what we confess regarding our Trinitarian God is pretty important. But perhaps, knowing church history a bit would keep our Fellowship from (as I borrow/adapt from Scott McKnight) reading the NT "though" our Restoration history and instead read scripture "with" all of Christian history. Perhaps then we would not have an unwritten credo of fellowship issues (i.e., a capella/instrumental worship), many of which are at best only derived by proof-texts along with the addition of hermeneutical principals from rather modern philosophy instead of scripture. Perhaps then I would not have had the past experience of serving in a congregation who spent every waking minute treating such issues as dammable practices while tolerating racism and blantent mistreatment of the poor/homeless and teaching that the Holy Spirit is nothing but the word of God (scripture).

Our methods for determining fellowship issues has been tried and found in severe wanting. The proof is in the pudding. We, in the Restoration Movement, stand in line with Protestant Christians, all of whom have claimed to follow scripture alone. We, along with our Protestant bretheren, have used the scripture to argue over every conceivable issue. At best, the results was one division after another. At worst, confessing Christians killed other confessing Christians over such issues. Somehow, we found a way to justify ourselves and justify ways very far from the way Jesus lived and treated others.

Somewhere along the line, we missed Jesus!

Grace and peace,

Rex

One my thing, I too I'm glad about your conversations/dialogue with Phil and Greg and Tood and will be trying to "keep up" with the discussiosn there. Again, time is precious and it's hard to respond to everything in an appropriate way that you'd like.

I'll be posting hopefully some comments over there as well.

Thanks,

Robert Prater

First of all, I thank for taking the time to so graciously respond to my post from a week or so ago. I know you are, as I am, a very busy person with much to be done each day. Your efforts are appreciated. At the moment I don't have the time to comment on hardlly much of what you wrote. I like you, ask for patience to be able to get back with you.

However, I was taken back myself and must ask you about your comment against my opposition to "faith alone." Are you saying with your response that a person is saved/justified/forgiven of their past sins at the precise moment that they have mental assent/belief/faith in their mind before/without baptized into Christ? Before/without confession? Before/without repentance? Before/without baptism. Pleae answer specifically and clearly. And really, not only that, but saved/justified/forgiven solely on the basis of mental faith alone/only. Of course you know I'm asking in light of the most basic understanding of Luther, Calvin, and most mainstream denomations: that a person is saved/justifed/ forigvien of sins only and precisely at the point and on the basis on mental assent/faith/belief and NOTHING else. Thus, the doctrine of "faith alone."

If you take such position that a person is saved/justifed/forgiven of sins on the basis of faith alone/only without its inclusion of further acts of obedience which demonstrate/define, etc. true "faith/belief" (i.e., confess, repentance, baptism), then I fear we debating the wrong topic/issue/question and need to immediately shift focus to how a person, according to the N.T., is saved.

By the way, I think I might know what you are saying (maybe). I agree with the proposition and every one of the passages you sited concerning this point and have no problem with the proposition that we are justified/saved by faith in Christ Jesus. We are saved by grace through faith. (Eph. 2:8) And if a person properly understand the nature of true, saving faith, then I guess we might be able to say and undersand "faith alone." But I completely oppose such terminogly due to such the large scale accetpance of the otherwise false doctrine known as "faith alone." I reject completley this denomintional view of "faith alone/only."

You see, I've heard all the verses you quoted above in my years of trying to help lead people out of the "faith alone" doctrine and then show them that not only single verse like the ones you quoted, has the words "faith alone/only." As you probably know, the only time that phrase "faith alone/only" appers in the Bible, it is condmened and not put forth as true faith (i.e., faith without works/obedience) – James 2:24, 26.

Sincerely,

Robert Prater

Verses come to mean something different to folks who have had a certain interpretation of them drilled into them for many years.

For instance, the story of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10) takes on a meaning – not just about disobedience – but about disobeying "God's silence" with fatal consequences – even though one must assume that God was silent about "strange fire" simply because the writer of scripture did not previously mention any warning about it.

To the un-indoctrinated reader, it may be clear that God simply intended to provide His own fire as he had in the previous, closing verses of Leviticus 9 and Nadab and Abihu (possibly inebriated (10:8-11), showed the poor judgment to do something contrary to God's command – whether it was shared with the reader or not. Message: Don't disobey God.

But to the indoctrinated reader, the passage makes a whole different point on which an entire hermeneutic depends. Message: Don't do anything God hasn't specifically authorized, or you're disobeying God.

All based on an assumption.

> (T)here is nothing wrong with
> crediting the Spirit with the
> understanding we’ve been promised.

> If I (Jay Guin) read the Bible to conclude
> that multiple cups are permissible in the
> communion, I may certainly say that
> after prayerful Bible study, the Spirit
> has helped me so conclude.

An interesting perspective which I have informally addressed elsewhere on this blog.

Perhaps such an approach will help to expedite the resolution of the discussion with Phil, Greg & Todd.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty