(1Pe 3:18-22 ESV) 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 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, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
This is a famously controversial passage. I’ve always wanted to look more closely at v. 19 (“in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison”), but we’re here to talk about baptism. It’s not really all that hard. Well, the baptism parts aren’t that hard. V. 19 is a little more challenging.
(1Pe 3:21 ESV) 21 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 …
To what does baptism correspond? Well, the most recent antecedent is “the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.” Now “brought safely through” is translated as “were saved” in the KJV, which sounds very Christian, but the Greek word is never used in the New Testament to refer to salvation in the Christian sense. It refers to escape or rescue. The ESV seems to have this right.
Thayer’s defines the word —
in Greek writings from Herodotus down; often in the Septuagint … to preserve through danger, to bring safe through; to save, i. e. cure one who is sick (cf. our colloquial, bring him through): Luke 7:3; passive Matt. 14:36; to save i. e. keep safe, keep from perishing: Acts 27:43; to save out of danger, rescue:
God did not provide Noah and his family eternal salvation through the waters of the flood. Rather, he rescued them from the destruction suffered by everyone else.
So how does baptism correspond to rescue from destruction? Well, obviously, those not saved by Jesus are destined for destruction. The difficulty is that, in the case of Noah, the water was the agency of destruction, whereas in baptism, the water is the agency of rescue. It doesn’t seem all that parallel, you know.
But reflect on —
(1Co 10:1-4 ESV) For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
Paul compares the crossing of the Red Sea to baptism, but the children of Israel weren’t saved by the Red Sea until the Red Sea collapsed on and killed the Egyptian army. The sea was both the path of escape and the destroyer of the enemy.
Baptism is easily enough seen as the path of escape. But the visible expression of God’s work in us — the water — demonstrates not only that the convert is saved, but that he needs to be saved. There is no cleansing unless there is something to be cleansed from.
Just so, the outpouring of the Spirit on the convert demonstrates not only his acceptance by God and entry into God’s spiritual family, it also demonstrates that we need the Spirit to be added to God’s family.
While baptism is not the destroyer of the damned, baptism is a declaration that the damned need a Savior. It’s a separation of the saved from the lost, just as was true of the Flood and the Red Sea.
It’s easy to be baptized if baptism just means I’m joining your church or want to go to heaven. It’s harder when baptism also proclaims the damnation of the damned. In today’s culture, that’s a hard thing to say.
Baptism … now saves
(1Pe 3:21 ESV) Baptism … 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,
Here “saves” is sozo, the word customarily used in the New Testament for salvation, but it’s used in parallel to a word meaning to escape. The emphasis is as much on what we’re saved from as what we’re saved to.
Now, some very questionable arguments get made in internet forums (and commentaries). Some want to argue that “not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience” means that we aren’t saved by baptism at all but by an appeal to God, such as the sinner’s prayer. But you really can’t just ignore “baptism … now saves you.” It’s there, too.
Just so, some argue that Peter is referring to baptism with the Spirit, separate from baptism with water, due to “not as a removal of dirt from the body.” But the parallel with the Flood and the express reference to removing dirt clearly indicates that water is involved here. In v. 20, Peter refers to the Flood as “though water” not “through the Flood” or “through destruction,” because he wants to make a point about water.
No, the natural interpretation is that, yes, water baptism is under consideration, but that Peter wants to make clear that the saving comes not from the water but the “appeal to God for a good conscience” — not because there’s no water, but because the power is in the heart of the person being baptized and God’s response to this appeal. Thus, Peter argues against a strictly sacramental view.
Does this mean that God wants us to appeal to him for a good conscience? Absolutely. Does this mean he wants us to do this separate from baptism? No. Peter wants us to flee any notion that baptism is magical and forgives sin by the mere execution of a rite. No, the rite works because the convert asks God for forgiveness and God grants the request “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
The sinner’s prayer
Some argue for the effectiveness of the sinner’s prayer by citing this verse. The argument is that the sinner’s prayer is the “appeal to God for a good conscience.”
No, the text says, “Baptism … now saves you .. as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” The appeal is the baptism. The sinner’s prayer is the baptism. When we submit to baptism, we are appealing to God for salvation and removal of the stain of guilt. That’s what the grammar says, whether it fits our preconceptions or not.
Jay,
I am only days new to your site and I want to say how much I am enjoying your discussions. I, myself, was raised in one of the Yankee Churches of Christ, and might still be there today, if I there had been a few more people with your passion, sensitivity, love for Jesus and honesty. I hold no animosity toward the Church of Christ, although I have been drummed out of a couple for having not passed their landmark tests and have seen the destructive powers of sectarianism in a few others. I still desire for the unity of Christ to be expressed regardless of heritage, creed (or non-creed), denomination (or non-denomination), gender or nationality. In many ways I am a sympathizer with the earliest voices of the Restoration Movement but have had problems with some of the later voices. Your voice strikes me just right and I pray for your impact throughout the Churches of Christ.
As to the question at hand, I think that your assessment is sound. In my current understanding of God and his plan. The waters of baptism are an ordained rite of passage into the New Covenant, but it is Christ and his blood that actually makes the appeal for forgiveness and a new kind of relationship with God through faith. The waters of Noah's day were the danger to the damned but the vehicle of salvation for those being saved from a world ruled by rebellion into a world with new opportunities for living in righteousness. Similarly, Christ transports us from an existence in sin, rebellion and death into an existence in faith, forgiveness and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is easy to see how Peter would have seen the similarity and beauty of water being part of God's plan for salvation for those being transported from a world doomed to destruction into a new world of opportunities for life and godliness. But the water does not do the saving, that is done by something else: the ark for Noah (and the Noahic Covenant) and the cross for us (and the New Covenant).
Jay, good job as always! Here's another point of view. 1 Pet 3 says that the Noah family was "saved through/by water." Saved from what? From their identity and corporate solidarity with a wicked and divinely-judged generation. The WATER "saved" them from that crooked and untoward generation.
In the same way, baptism (water baptism) "saves us". In fact Peter (who later wrote 1 Pet) urged the individuals who made up the Pentecost crowd — who as a "generation" group was responsible for aiding in the murder of the Messiah — "save yourselves FROM THIS CROOKED GENERATION."
Acts 2:38 is all plural except the words "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." Putting the plural verbs and substantives together without the singular phrases gives: "Repent (y'all) … for the forgiveness of (y'all's) sins and (y'all) will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." That was the GROUP remedy for the GROUP crimes. (It also fits Luke's version of the gospel commission from Jesus in Lk 24:46-47).
Each INDIVIDUAL however was called on to stand apart from the wicked generation, by INDIVIDUALLY being baptized in the name OF JESUS CHRIST, the very Messiah the crowd had helped to murder. So doing, the water "saved" that individual from identification and corporate solidarity with the crowd — "save yourselves from this wicked generation."
Good article and comments. Consistent with the previous post —
Vs 20-21 …days of Noah ark being constructed into (eis) which (i.e., the ark) eight souls were saved (aorist) through water, the representation of which, baptism, is now saving (present active) you….
(Interpretative Paraphrase) They were transported from the world into the ark (God shut the door) and they were separated (specific time in the past) from the world through the agency of water which destroyed the world, and they were then released to walk in a newness of life. This same action of death to the world and sin, represented by baptism, is now in a process of saving you by a good conscience …. (which I would take as similar to sanctification).
Paul also expresses this same idea: You were transported from darkness to the kingdom of light; put to death therefore, acts of the sinful nature. Once you were …..but now you are.
BTW, doesn’t Steve’s comments give a sense of urgency to those who are still within the organization of the CoC to continue the campaign of putting to death the sin of idolatrous legalistic thinking so that people do not have to leave the CoC to find freedom in Christ?
OK…Here come a few " Lay " questions or statements that I hope you can answer or clarify…Thanks everybody for helping out….
First of all I find no saving quality to the water at all in either example of Noah or Moses. The Water simply destroyed. The Ark Saved Noah, not the water. Hebrews 11:7 clearly confirms it was the Ark that saved..It was by Faith that Noah built it….The analogy I see between what Peter says about the nature of baptism and what Noah did is that by Faith we plunge themselves into the water by Faith and with the full assurance that God HAS SAVED us….not the water… Once Noah got in the boat by Faith…he was saved…it took the water a while to arrive and destroy but Noah was safe and secure from all alarm..:) There just any reasonable way to explain the water being salvific..in my simplistic way of thinking… Is that way off base ??
Secondly, if you back up in Peter's letter to more near the beginning, he says something interesting that might have some bearing..I don't know for sure so I'm asking…I Peter 1:22 Having purified (Gr:hagnizo-ceremonial cleansing) your souls by your obedience to the truth ………..What is the "obedience to the truth"…is that baptism? It seems that perhaps Peter has said that we have gone through this ceremonial cleansing as an obedient response to the truth…Is that how he now views baptism ??
In verse 2 of this same chapter he starts out the letter by saying we are Sanctified by the Spirit for Obedience to Jesus Christ and the "sprinkling of HIS blood".. Hate to use the " S " word but I'm just quoting what Peter said… Isn't this the same idea…saved by the Spirit, obedience via baptism ??
From just reading the letter as a whole rather than pulling out just one passage the message seems pretty clear to me… We are saved by Grace through Faith and in obedient response to that we surrender ourselves in Baptism for the ceremonial cleansing of our whole soul…Our act of baptism is a statement of faith that we believe in God's saving Grace as did Noah when he, by faith, got in the boat….
I think we are all in agreement here.
This is one reason why the Word of God is called “living.” Many of the passages have meaning deeper than we can delve. God is unchanging, but the application and understanding of His Word increases as we seek it out. Many passages have both physical and spiritual meanings, so that the process of understanding them takes our thinking from the physical into the spiritual realm. Baptism (water and Spirit) is one of these areas.
(Disclaimer: The following is classified between interpretative and speculative.) The world was pressing upon Noah. In a physical sense, the ark saved Noah from the water, but in a spiritual sense, the water saved Noah from the world by putting away the world. If we have world, water, ark, and Noah, what if one element (water or ark) were hypothetically eliminated? Without the ark, Noah would have physically died but spiritually saved by faith and obedience (maybe he built something else?). Without the water, Noah would have been saved physically but not spiritually. Why? If Noah & family had entered the ark and stayed there over a year with no flood, they would have come out to the same old corrupt world. Noah & family were protected by the ark from the destruction of the water which saved (separated) them from the world. The prepositions fit – Noah was saved through (dia) the agency of water destroying the world of sin, but Noah & family were protected from that process, themselves, by going into (eis) the ark. Eis – one state into another – like Acts 2:38, from being in sin into the forgiveness of sins. Post-Pentecost baptism (both Spirit and water) represents that process. Buried with Christ in baptism, putting away the sinful nature, effected by immersion within the Holy Spirit and represented by immersion within water, into the safety of the ark of remission of sins, which because of the blood of Jesus is continuous (1 John 1), like the present tense of “is saving” in 1 Pet 3:21. It is based on the resurrection of Jesus (1 Pet 3:21) as raised to walk in newness of life. Thus we have “save yourselves from this corrupt generation” (Acts 2:40) and “escape the corruption of the world” (2 Pet 1:4). Paul, in Romans, Ephesians, Colossians says essentially, “Look, you’ve gone through this process and made this declaration, now live in a manner consistent with it.”
Just my speculation.
I think we are all expressing the same thing in our own words, which may appear to be more different than they are. I think we are so close in interpretation and meaning of this passage that we could touch fingers on this one.
That may not be uniformity, but it is unity because we travel together in the same direction. Praise God.
What a wonderful disclaimer! I wish we heard it more often.
Dr. T… you are probably right…I just see the Ark as being symbolic of Jesus…By Faith we ENTER into his rest..We are IN Him…He is what protects us from the disaster around us… Paul does refer to being "buried" with him which again represents death (Rom 6:4) and it is by "the glory of the Father" that we are raised…seems again here that water destroys or at a minimum symbolizes death and God saves…Just trying to get my head around it..not trying to argue over insignificant issues…Thanks for taking the time to input your thoughts…
Our often mis-quoted and unfairly criticized friend Al Maxey who Jay has a web site link to has a Reflection on this very passage… # 217 in his Reflection Archives…
Was it the ark that saved Noah? Was it the water? Or was it the Lord who shut the door and used the water to lift the ark with him and his family to safety while the rest of the world perished?
Is it the faith that leads the person to the water that saves? Is it the water that washes the sin away? Or is not Peter specific in saying that our immersion is an appeal to God to cleanse away our sin and (God again) doing the work of applying the saving sacrifice of Jesus to transform us from death to life?
It seems to me that God did the saving work for Noah and does the same for each of us. Noah still had to build and get into the ark, just as we still have to trust Him as we go to the water to do something for us which the water alone cannot do. The ark was God's vehicle, without which no one was saved. Peter seems to be saying the same about submitting to immersion. Immersion is God's vehicle, through which God works to save us.
Asking whether we can be saved without immersion is asking if we can be saved without submitting to the work of God to save us. The answer to that is, or should be, very clearly "No."
Blessings,
Grizz
By the obedience to the truth 1 Peter 1:22 " Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart," But Do you know from where did we borrow the word " Sacramental" and " Rite"?
This is a famously controversial passage. I’ve always wanted to look more closely at v. 19 (“in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison”)
Jay,
We don't need to speculate about that passage because "the bible interpret the bible" and the anwer is in the same book in the first Chapter 1 Peter 1:10-11. The parallelism of chapter 3:19-20 has to be with those souls with spirits in prison (Sin) that heard the message of salvation during the time of Noah. The Spirit of Christ was in Noah preaching them for 120 years. some have speculated about it " Saying : That Jesus when he was in hades preach to those souls in hades" but It does not fit because that will say: That some of the souls in tartarus (Prison) will be save because Jesus was there ( But Jesus was in the paradise where Abraham and all the faithful are waiting for the Judgement). by the way in hades there is not spirits just "souls".
Ecclesiastes 12: 7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
And the spirit (men spirit) will return to God who gave it.
When I was stationed at Ft. Benning and still attending the Church of Christ, I found myself in a rather awkward situation. I had been very effective as a Sunday School teacher for teens in a small congregation, but then I said something heretical. I said that sometimes we push the Bible into saying things that it does not explicitly say, such as the idea that drinking alcohol will send you to hell. I explained that there was wisdom in abstinence and that obeying the law of the land on the matter was certainly supported by Scripture. However, saying that a person of legal age who drank a beer was going to go to hell was pushing the Bible to say something that it simply did not say.
I know now that I had stumbled into a hornet's nest that a few more years and a bit more wisdom would have allowed me to easily avoid. However, at that time my only recourse to the furor that I had unwittingly unleashed was to resign my position and start attending a larger Church of Christ where I could sit in a back row and leave quickly after the service. Months later the Elders of the church that I left took me out to coffee to finally speak to me directly. They put to me the old question of a man accepting Christ and then getting hit by a train before being baptized. I didn't realize that this was a classic landmark question and I tried to dodge it by saying that I was in no position to know. They pushed the issue and I said that the poor man would probably go to hell, having failed to be properly baptized by immersion for the remission of sins.
Now, almost 30 years later, I hope that I am both wiser and bolder, but perhaps not. It just seems to me that saying that a person would be sent to hell for practicing the wrong form of baptism, or for using the right form of baptism but failing to use the right terms (like remission), or for being baptized by the wrong organization, or the wrong person in the right organization all amounts to pushing the Bible to say something that it simply does not say. The Bible is fairly explicit that a person without faith can not be saved. It is also fairly explicit in saying that baptism was and is the sanctioned first act of obedience that serves as a beautiful and powerful rite of passage into a New Covenant with God through Christ. However, extending those two explicit points to insist that failing to do it exactly right will condemn a person to hell is from beyond Scripture at best, divisive amongst people of genuine faith at least and demeaning to the character of God and the effectiveness of the blood of Christ at worst.
I understand the desire to "get it right" because faith and obedience are serious business. This is why I am enjoying this site and forum so very much. However, the desire to prove that someone else "has it wrong" usually does more harm than good. It leads to sectarianism, judgmentalism and other nasty isms, like I-think-that-I-can-take-the-place-of-the-Holy-Spirit-ism. Let your superior understanding of truth be demonstrated through your superior ability to love and exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. If that is done then in time, even I might be convinced to return to the fold.
The ESV translation of how Noah was delivered through water is an apt reference to how baptism may be viewed as a "trial by ordeal." There was a procedure in the OT Law of how a woman accused of adultery could drink bitter water and how her body responded to it would show if she were guilty or innocent. That was one form of a trial by ordeal.
In baptism, one goes down into death by entering the water. Unless you come out of the water, you are dead. The connection with the resurrection of Jesus points to the fact that we come through the trial by ordeal safely – and are thus pronounce innocent. I'm not sure I accept that as the rationale for baptism, but I have seen it so described (based on this text). It at least gives one something to think about….
Jerry
Thank you for the information that we do not need to speculate about the meaning of 1 Peter 3:19. To help in understanding what you said, I wonder if you could clarify a few questions using specific scripture references concerning the parallel between 1 Peter 1:10 and 3:19-20.
Where does the scripture say that "the message of salvation during the time of Noah" was heard? Hebrews 11:7 says Noah preached of "things to come;" are you saying this refers to salvation in Christ as opposed to God's pending judgment? Where is the biblical reference to Noah preaching for 120 years? 1 Peter 1:10 says that "prophets" spoke of the grace to come by the Spirit of Christ. Where is the biblical reference for Noah being called a prophet or that Noah had "the Spirit of Christ?" By what book/chapter/verse does 1 Peter 1:10 apply to Noah? What reference states that no "spirits" are in hades, and what reference clearly distinguishes between "spirit" and "soul?" Where is the reference that states "some of the souls in tartarus (Prison) will be saved?" Verse 19 said "preached to spirits in prison," but you use the word "soul." That''s a bit confusing.
All of your points may be totally correct. However, it would be very helpful in your explanation of the meaning of 1 Peter 3:19 to include specific scriptural references for the above questions so the "bible can interpret the bible" without human logic of "this is parallel" or other speculations.
Thanks.
The traditional understanding – going back to the earliest references to this text in the ECF (2nd century) – understands it differently:
Those who die, don't go immedieately to heaven or hell, but to Hades where they await the resurrection. This region has two parts: A place of torment and a place called "Abrahams Bosom". The Lord referred to this place also as Paradise. THe most detailles description of this is found in Luke 16 about the Rich Man and Lazarus.
I don't want to make this two long. When the Lord died, he also went to Hades, as all do. That's even part of the "Apostle's Creed": "He descended into Hades" (often mistranslated as He descen ded into Hell).
It is a neglected and forgotten teaching, to be sure; but it has some thrilling aspects to it, on which the ECF meditated.
Alexander
In other words: Historically you understanding of this passage is rather young …
aBasnar,
We estudy the whole book of 1 Peter verse by verse (Textual Study) and we disscuse the context about that passage and we conclude that the Spirit of Christ has been working since the creation througn men (Hebrews 1:1) according to God's Word the (Holy Spirit) was helping the prophets mainly the Spirit of Christ (God). If we read carefully the context of 1 Peter 3:19-20 " by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison (in Sin) (Not in Hades), 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water." The question here is: When Jesus preached to the spirits in prison "in their sins"? (Gen.6:11-12). The inspired writter wrote in the same text in 1 Peter 1:10-11 " Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow." God gave 120 years to repent from their sins (Gen.6:3) but they did not pay attention to Noah preaching (Spirit of Christ in Noah) , when peter was writting his first epistle he declare something about Jesus and in verse 20, explain when that happen. So, the answer is in the same book. And thak you aBasnar for explaining clearer about Hades, We can not imagine or expeculate beyond that has been written. "The Bible interpret the bible" God gave us the anwers in the same text. What I told was that some people try to fit that teaching to teach that after death there is opportunity to be save. but it does not fit their imagination.
Jay:
Your exposition on this passage is amazingly good. Let me echo Steve Wilson's comment as my own. He wrote: "In many ways I am a sympathizer with the earliest voices of the Restoration Movement but have had problems with some of the later voices. Your voice strikes me JUST RIGHT [emphasis mine] and I pray for your impact throughout the Churches of Christ." And I will continue to pray for you and other commenters here (even those with whom i disagree) who have significantly impacted my discipleship of Jesus.
Dear: Teaophilus Dr,
Thank you for helping to understand the teaching of 1 Peter v.19, I was looking for that passage in my concordance, but Thank you for helping to understand the scriptures!!
When we study the Scriptures we use The 5- W's of each Passage, to get in the text Who: Who wrote the passage under consideration? Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ ,When: When did the author write the passage? aproximately 60 or 65 AD ,Where: was the author when he wrote the text? (Not sure maybe in Rome) ,Whom: To whom did the author write the passage? To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (Christians in persecussion) ,Why: Why did the author write the passage? To give comfort to the persecuted Christians.
Question # 1 Where does the scripture say that "the message of salvation during the time of Noah" was heard? Hebrews 11:7 says Noah preached of "things to come" That is right!
Question # 2 are you saying this refers to salvation in Christ as opposed to God's pending judgment? No, I am not sayign that.
Question # 3 Where is the biblical reference to Noah preaching for 120 years? That answer is by implication after God shorten the life of Human being and give us enough information and we do the inference (Deduction) Since God spoke about his Spirit (Holy Spirit) during the patriach age, The book of Hebrews share more light about it in Hebrews 11:7 while he was building the Ark God gave 120 years to that generation to live since they were living sinful Genesis 6:3 , They use to live more than 120 years until 979 years (Gen.5:27) and Noah lived until 950 years (Gen.9:29) after the great flood. The new Generation after the flood lived until 205 or less the example isTerah were two hundred and five years (Gen.11:32) it was not 120 years as is mentioned in Gen. 6:3 but just doing the paralellism from that message in Gen. 6:3 until the Great flood we understand that with Heb. 11:7. "The bible interpret the Bible".
Question# 4 1 Peter 1:10 says that "prophets" spoke of the grace to come by the Spirit of Christ. Where is the biblical reference for Noah being called a prophet or that Noah had "the Spirit of Christ?" By what book/chapter/verse does 1 Peter 1:10 apply to Noah? Hebrews 1:1
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets" Since the creation God spoke with the patriachs like Adam,Noah,Abraham,Joseph until moses. Noah was not a prophet but, He spoke by God through the "Spirit of Christ also know as the Holy Spirit (Godhead)" 1 peter 1:11.
Question # 5 What reference states that no "spirits" are in hades, and what reference clearly distinguishes between "spirit" and "soul?"
Ecclesiastes 12: 7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
And the spirit (men spirit) will return to God who gave it. In the N.T we found in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit (Gr.Psuke), soul (Pneuma "the person himself"), and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We sometime call: Hades as the region of the spirits but the most correct thing is called : The region of the souls. Jesus came to save our "pneuma" soul (Mt.10:28,Mt.16:26;Hebrews 10:39;) We found in the same book talking about the false teaching going on around and The apostle peter mention 2 Peter 2:4 "4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell (Gr. Tartarus) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;. (Angels = celestial beings or preachers "messangers" ) 2 Peter 2:3 "By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber. Hades is call the place of the spirits "because you can not see them" but mainly is full of the eternal part of man (souls) the person himself. When we die we still remember everything as is mentioned by aBasnar.
This anwer is in 1 Peter 1:10
Clarification:
Sorry my confusion about saying "We found in the same book talking about the false teaching going on around" that was in the 2 epistle of peter" The correct phrase should be " We found in the second book of peter talking about the false teaching going on around" Explaining Question # 5.
Guestfortruth
Thank you for your time in answering these questions. If I may make just several observations.
You might want to double check your the Greek words you assigned to "spirit" and "soul." You have "….spirit (Gr.Psuke), soul (Pneuma)…" You have them reversed: the Greek word for spirit is pneuma and for soul is psuche.
Almost all of the passages you refer to have no direct reference to Noah preaching for 120 years or that his message was about Christ rather than about pending judgment (flood), or that Noah was a "prophet" therefore included in 1 Peter 1:10 and that he has "the Spirit of Christ" in him (vs 11).
You present a logical case for the points you make, but your case relies on your interpretation of meaning of verses when a direct reference is not there. If one strings a logic of interpretations between verses from different places, none of which contain a direct reference, that is likely categorized as "speculation."
This is not to say that "speculation" is bad. We all have to do that when trying to interpret what passages mean so we can understand their relevance to us. We all have to arrive at our best idea based on our experience, training, and leading from the Holy Spirit. But let's not overextend the label we place on that. Let's call "speculation" what it is, but not call it "truth."
But, you, brother, are speculating, and you are representing your speculations, interpretations, and opinions as "I speak the truth and only the truth" and "the bible interpret the Bible." You tell Jay that he doesn't have to speculate about 1 Peter 3:19, and you proceed to explain it all with links between interpretations that are more speculative that anything Jay said.
Your explanations and reasoning are certainly appropriate to do, although I don't agree with much of it, which doesn't matter. But you vastly overextend your authority in proclaiming the result of speculation. I hope you understand this message is meant to help you, because when someone overextends themselves as much as you have done, they lose credibility on everything. Do you see that?
You open yourself for questions like, 'What else do you overextend; what other speculations do you claim as "truth" or as "the bible interprets the Bible?" What other Greek words do you not understand?"
Do you see the problem? Gain credibility in what you say by making comments that are more accurate and precise and by showing that you understand the difference between truth and your speculation.
Otherwise, people will just dismiss what you have to say.
My offer of this observation is from experience, brother. I have "been there, done that" myself. And we all have to watch out lest we overextend our opinions.
I think that in citing both Noah and Moses, the metaphorical point being made is that water is intrinsic to salvation. By drowning and destroying evil, the waters preserved the lives of Noah’s family and escaping Israel. In baptism, we seek to “drown” the old man of evil and self, and emerge drenched in the life-giving Spirit of the Christ, resurrected to a selfless way of living.
That washing away of sin, filth and death itself is what’s being pictured.
I think that in citing both Noah and Moses, the metaphorical point being made is that water is intrinsic to salvation. By drowning and destroying evil, the waters preserved the lives of Noah's family and escaping Israel. In baptism, we seek to "drown" the old man of evil and self, and emerge drenched in the life-giving Spirit of the Christ, resurrected to a selfless way of living.
That washing away of sin, filth and death itself is what's being pictured.
I don't want to go into too much detail here, just briefly:
a) 1Pe 3:19 was undetrstood by the ECF as being a reference to CHrist's decent into Hades – we may disagree with them, but that#s the oldest interpretation of this text we have, and the ECF were inanimous about this. That#s why this topic made it into the Apostle's Creed.
b) If "prison" is not Hades, what else could it refer to? Were the people in "prison" while still being alive ("in their sins")? or does the structure of the sentece indicate that Christ preached to those who came into a prison after they sinned?
Let's look at this closely:
Christ suffered and died
In the spirit HE went to the spirits in prison
Why were they in prison?
Because they formerly (!) did not obey (in the days of Noah)
So being in prison is a result of disbedience, not the state of disobedience.
c) The Spirit of Christ in the prophets of Old. That's no contradiction, it's just a different topic. There is a similarity in words, but the wording in the text I quoted points to people who already died.
d) I have made quite an exhaustive study on the bodily resurrection last year, and my impression is that the words sould and spirit are sometimes used interchagebly. Paul himself speaks one passage of spirit, soul and body, but in another passage he "simplifies" it to the "inner man" and the "outer man". According to Hebrews we have fellowship with the spirits of the perfected saints, but in REv 6 we see the souls of the saints beneath the altar awaiting their resurrection.
e) According to contempory Jewish spiritual literature (esp Henoch) the place where the angels who were disobedient in the times of Noah are kept, is called "prison" as well – Jude 1:6 alludes to this and in Jude 1:14-15 Jude quotes from the book of Henoch directly (which shows that this book was highly respected among the 1st century church).
So – all in all – I stick with the way the Early Christians understood this text.
Actually it is such a simple image that even children could understand it:
It's like a bath – the dirt of your sins must be removed.
And theologians (and wannabes) write volumes and volumes and volumes about a simple offer of cleansing by a gracious God …
Alexander
Alexander,
Thank you for this timely and excellent post – a "textbook" presentation. Clear, logical, and well-documented. Guestfortruth, please take note and learn something from this model. (I could learn, as well).
Above someone said: "That washing away of sin, filth and death itself is what's being pictured."
This sounds like a characterization of the "natural" man that Paul (or another Calvinist) might use. Yet it comes from many who I suspect do not hold to this description of the natural i.e. unregenerated man. And if this is the condition of the unregenerate how do they come to see and hear and act if not for the intervention of God?
I never cease to be amazed at how Calvinistic the CofC is when it wants to be (really this is true of nearly all Christians who deny Calvinism) and how quickly they back off it to their semi-Pelagian position when it is pointed out that this description is at odds with their usual way of thinking/speaking.
In our hearts we all know this is an accurate description of the natural woman or man. There is no hope for us apart from the work of the HS in our lives; and there is a sure hope for those of us who, through the grace of God, have been made alive and come to know Him.
Hesed,
Randall
Paul a Calvinist?
That would take prophecy to a whole different level!
Calvin may have gotten it from Aquinas who got it from Augustin who got it from Paul who got it from … Moses. In any event, they seemed to think mankind was depraved and God was his savior, in spite of man's rebellion – not because of his innate goodness. Thank God for grace and
Hesed
Randall
Actually that would make Calvin, a Pauline-ist 🙂
Randall, I can’t speak for Moses, Paul, Calvinists or the vast majority of members of the Church of Christ. I don’t believe people are totally depraved. But people do sin. Good people sin. Bad people sin. God gets to sort out which is which.
But He has provided the gift of baptism as a way to accept His grace; communicate with each other our desire to be washed from sin; to die to it and be raised to a new and forgiven life; to live that Christ-like life, working in partnership with Him through His Holy Spirit.
Randall, I can't speak for Moses, Paul, Calvinists or the vast majority of members of the Church of Christ. I don't believe people are totally depraved. But people do sin. Good people sin. Bad people sin. God gets to sort out which is which.
But He has provided the gift of baptism as a way to accept His grace; communicate with each other our desire to be washed from sin; to die to it and be raised to a new and forgiven life; to live that Christ-like life, working in partnership with Him through His Holy Spirit.
Hi Keith,
If people are not totally depraved i.e every aspect of their being (heart, intellect, will, body, etc.) has been touched by sin (it does not mean man is as bad as he could be) then why oh why do people choose to sin? And not just choose to sin, but to do it in every imaginable (and unimaginable) way and do it over and over – every last one of them w/o exception save the God-man Christ Jesus. And we do it b/c we WANT to – no one forces us. And we do it as soon as we are developed enough to begin to behave for good or evil. No one ever had to teach their child to misbehave.
When man (Jew and Gentile) encountered God in the flesh why did they (Jew and Gentile) choose to kill him?
What does Moses say about the condition of man? Why the flood? What do the first few chapters of Romans say about the condition of all mankind?
In Romans 7 Paul describes himself as doing what he would not do and then states that it is sin which indwells him.
In short, what do the scriptures say about the nature of man // condition of the natural man?
I'm sure you recognize the questions are rhetorical.
Pelagius taught that when Adam sinned only Adam sinned. The fallen nature was not imparted to the entire human race. Pelagius was wrong!
That's why I am dependent on God's hesed,
Randall
Hi Laymond,
I doubt we agree on Christology (and maybe another issue or two) but I do enjoy your comments from time to time. In this case we definitely agree that it would be quite fair to call Calvin a Pauline-ist even though the sovereignty of God is clearly taught long before Paul.
Cheers,
Randall
Randall, we are not fallen just because Adam fell and passed his fallen nature to us. We are fallen rather….because we are like Adam….each of us. No one disagrees with you on that. Yes my nature is to sin and your nature is to sin…but we don't get to blame sinful ole Adam for it. If I had been the first man created, the outcome would not have changed,,,because I am like Adam. But I am not depraved because of Adam. I don't owe my sinful nature to Adam.
Brent,
Thanks for your comment. I am sure you recognize I was responding to a comment that included the following sentence that I disagree with: "I don't believe people are totally depraved."
You said: "We are fallen rather….because we are like Adam….each of us. No one disagrees with you on that." — I (Randall) wish to point out that there are people that disagree on that particular point. In fact there are a lot of them and the CofC is full of them.
I don't blame Adam for my sin. I blame myself. However, I recognize it began with Adam. I do believe Adam was created good and not at all predisposed towards sin. I also believe that everyone since Adam was born predisposed towards sin; so it is hard to leave Adam out of it altogether.
Pelagius taught that all Adam did was set a poor example for the rest of us that followed. Pelagius was wrong!
Hesed,
Randall
"…sin entered the world through one man…"
Romans 5:12-21 seems pretty relevant to this discussion.
I understand the theological implications of Adam's sin but I DO appreciate an attitude of taking personal responsibility rather than saying that it was Adam's fault..or in the words of Flip Wilson…"the devil made me do it." 🙂 I can't do anything about what I don't take responsibility for…
Agreed. Certainly, Paul didn't say that his sin was Adam's fault.
Adam must have been created good because initially he had fellowship with God. However, Adam and "the woman" (not named "Eve" until later) must have had a capacity for sin (sinful nature) or else there wouldn't have been anything for the serpent to appeal to. Adam lost fellowship when sin entered, because God can't abide sin, and with no available atonement, they had to leave the Garden with only a prophecy of man's future return to fellowship with God (through Christ). Adam is the type for the sinful nature and Christ for the spiritual nature (1 Corinthians 15:21-22; Romans 5:12-21), which Paul said battled for control of his behavior (and also ours). God offers the means to choose spirit control (Romans 7:7-28; 8:2), but we have to make that choice. This offer of choice (of salvation through Christ) was made throughout the book of Acts, and many accepted the offer by calling on the name of the Lord, but some did not. It was their choice and their consequences.
The battle for control of who is on the throne of our lives continues as long as we abide in the fleshly tabernacle. We continually have to "put to death, therefore… " the works of the flesh. (Ephesians 4:25ff; Colossians 3:5ff).
Through Christ we have access to the tree of life, denied to Adam because of his choice of sin, available to us through our choice of putting on the Lord Jesus Christ. The tree is symbolized by the cross of Christ, and we are reminded of that fellowship as we proclaim the Lord's death in the Lord's Supper, until He comes. That time is depicted in Revelation 22:2 as the tree of life, which is beside the river of life in the New Jerusalem.
[When I started I really didn't intend to intrude on your discussion. Sorry.]
Sometimes people choose not to sin. Sometimes people choose to serve others and serve God. If they were totally depraved, they would never choose to do what pleases God. The admonitions in scripture to do so would be pointless; repentance would be piintless if God made all the choices and mankind were simply His puppets acting out His pre-written script. Instead, scripture calls believers partners or fellow-laborers with God, working side-by-side with His Spirit; working with His Spirit within us and we in Him.
Keith,
When people do things that are truly good don't you think that is b/c God has enabled them to do those things? Perhaps there is some confusion over the meaning of total depravity. It does NOT mean man is as bad as he could be nor that he will never do anything that appears to be good.
Here is a summary from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are wicked to God to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passion, and will and are not done to the glory of God…
Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise. All good, consequently, is derived from God alone, and in no way through man.[5]
This idea can be illustrated by a glass of wine with a few drops of deadly poison in it: Although not all the liquid is poison, all the liquid is poisoned. In the same way, while not all of human nature is depraved, all human nature is totally affected by depravity.
I (Randall) hopes this may help clear up any confusion that may have existed.
Hesed,
Randall
Oh, I'm fairly familiar with the doctrine, Randall. Just don't see the value of superimposing it on the scriptures. If it isn't a doctrine of man, why is it named for one instead of being called, I don't know, "The Way" or something.
Keith,
Thanks goodness no one associated with the CofC has ever come up with a doctrine of man nor superimposed it on the scriptures.
By the way, do you affirm the doctrine of the Trinity which could just as easily be called a doctrine of man? Shall I name others e.g. the hypostatic union – I won't go on and on.
You may be more familiar with the concept of total depravity than I am, but when you referred to it and denied it I could have sworn you were not addressing the doctrine as it is understood by those that do understand the doctrine. You really fooled me.
Please play fair with me,
Randall
I believe I said I can't speak for churches of Christ. Just me. (And I'm sure we can all be grateful for that.)
I don't know what to make of the doctrine of the Trinity. Scripture speaks of God as Father, of Jesus as God and of the Holy Spirit as both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Scripture also speaks of God as One. I don't know how that works. I just believe both to be true – and given God's conversation with Job, it doesn't seem particularly crucial that all of my questions be answered in order to be in a relationship with God through Christ, sustained by the Holy Spirit.
I understand enough of the doctrine of total depravity – and the other leaves of the Calvinist TULIP – to see that it leads to conclusions which do not agree with the totality of scripture. Rather that fashioning a box and trying to make God fit within it – which I believe men's doctrines do – I find it generally wiser to let God be God as revealed in scripture; to let man be man as revealed in scripture; to not make broad and sweeping generalizations which have to be explained, defended and argued about.
Calvinism's respect for God's sovereignty is applaudable. So is Arminianism's respect for God's gift of choice. What is absurd is that neither point of view can yield a micron to the common understanding that God desires partnership with man, working through man to achieve His holy purposes.
Keith..I may have missed your point but I didn't see where you refuted the idea of total depravity by either scripture or logic…you sort of skipped over it to go on to a general rejection of Calvinism and ism's in general…was that your intent? Even though I might not agree with any ISM in totality, I get the total depravity thing and believe it is quite clearly confirmed by scripture…
Dr. T…no intrusion…I agree with you 100%..I was just making the point that I find that at least for me personally, the issues that I show the most growth over are the issues with which I take personal responsibility. At this point in my life, for me personally, there is little if any real life impact on blaming "the woman" later called Eve.. I'm a totally new creation and I need to man up and stir up the Spirit of God in me as Paul told Timothy, to deal with the challenges I face if I'm ever going to have victory. Adam is old news. The New Adam kicked butt.
The tincture metaphor, however charming, proves nothing. Light and darkness have no fellowship; like oil and water, yhey do not form a solution.
God created all things good and pronounced them so. Evil entered creation with Satan, not man.
The doctrine of total depravity is used to remove the natural innocence of babies in order to defend the practice of their baptism withiut deference to their yet-unformed will.
It is not scriptural, and saying that it doesn't mean "total" when it's called "total" is hardly a defense for it.
That would be my quick refutation, and I see little point in pursuing it further as the points of Calvinism have been argued for hundreds of years by smarter folks than me, and all to no discernible benefit to the Kingdom of God.
Keith,
I'm disappointed – I've read comments you have posted here and on other CofC blogs and it is evident that you are an educated, intelligent guy. Why are you making an exception in this case? You are capable of understanding what the terms mean but you are refusing to do so. Saying that the word "total" is not being used in the sense in which you want it to be used really is just a cop out, at least in my opinion.
As has been mentioned previously, both here and elsewhere, Calvinism is often reviled, feared and misrepresented. To the extent that you refuse to attempt to understand it you are likely to continue to misrepresent it.
I don't expect you to become a Calvinist, but I do expect you to be fair and not misrepresent the doctrine though willful ignorance.
You also copped out regarding the Trinity. I think most people recognize there is a problem with saying one plus one plus one equals one, rather than three. However, many people are also capable of acknowledging this is an instance of a finite mind trying to grasp and explain an infinite being. I have no problem affirming the doctrine while acknowledging the explanation (and my understanding) will necessarily fall short of what we hoped it would be.
The same holds true for the nature of Jesus. Is he fully man? Is he fully God? Is he both God and man at the same time? Yes, I believe he is and I also know my understanding falls short of the reality. I will still affirm it as the best explanation I have heard.
So your argument that the doctrine of total depravity has been misused by some and is difficult to understand so you won't try to understand what people mean when they use the term – well, that is just disappointing. Especially if plan to continue to misuse the term and misrepresent what it means.
Hesed,
Randall
As I understood your explanation of depravity, it sounds pretty "total" to me. If my best-intentioned and seemingly selfless acts are suspect – no, totally indefensibly wrong – then what is the point in trying to please God, help others, give His name glory? Why should anyone trust anyone in this world, ever? How can one trust even one's self?
It's not copping out to say, "I don't know how, but I believe." If I understand you correctly, that's what you're saying about the humanity and divinity of Christ.
Your response, Randall, continues to be personal criticism to me rather than based on the points exchanged. How does my response misrepresent your view? At what point am I mistaken? Does light and darkness have fellowship of which I am not aware? Did God not declare all that He had made "good," including man? Has the doctrine of total depravity never been used to justify infant baptism? What am I misrepresenting? Can an infant with no sense of right and wrong be guilty of sin?
I'm not revikung your belief; I'm refuting it. I am sorry to have disappointed you, but disagreeing with a doctrine of man is not the same as failing to understand it.
If it gives you comfort to think that the good motives of all the people around you are selfish, evil and distorted at their very hearts, please feel free to buy all the stock you can afford to in the doctrine.
To me, it's the most frightening and depressing thing I can fathom, because it doesn't make God any greater and it makes what He has created far less than what He's capable of doing.
Sorry; that odd word was "reviling." Working with an iPhone, here.
I appreciate that you had confidence enough in my intelligence to think I might understand the complexity of your explanation. You may have overestimated me, though; I can't always plumb the depths of Wikipedia.
(Did you know that when you're curious about the origin of text – triggered, perhaps, by an unrelated "[5]" or something within it – you can copy and paste it into Google and if it originally comes from Wikipedia, that will almost always be the first search link returned?)
Keith,
Now I am really confused, almost amazed. I do not think I am the only one here that has indicated you have not addressed the actual doctrine, either from logic or scripture.
You claimed that you understood the doctrine and I felt that your characterization of the doctrine made it clear that you did not understand it – at least as it is understood by those that teach it. I think you claimed it was a misuse of the word "total" i.e. that the word total could not be used in that way – and I think you are confused as many words are used in a particular theological sense. Your view seems to conform to the caricature that has been often presented by many in the CofC – and others.
If you wish you say that you do not understand the doctrine of total depravity that is one thing; and you are most certainly under no obligation to affirm (or deny) the doctrine. However it is important that you understand the doctrine if you are going to either affirm, deny, or drop back and punt. Simply presenting a caricature and then denying it is something that I believe you do not want to do. If the doctrine has been abused by some then so what. Many doctrines are abused and misrepresented by some. I am sure you understand that none of us get to make the rules about how many words are used – especially in this type of focused (theological) sense.
I think I have made it clear from the outset that total depravity does NOT mean that man is as bad as he could be – just that every aspect of his being has been touched/infected by sin to the extent that he would not choose all by himself (unaided by the HS) to serve God rather than himself. I think Wikipedia does a fairly accurate job of representing the doctrine. If you disagree your argument is with the general theological use of the term, not with me.
If there is anything personal in my comments it is your continued misrepresentation of the doctrine. Nothing is gained by presenting a straw man and then blowing it down. You are well educated (I really doubt Wiki is too much for you) and it doesn't take much research to gain sufficient understanding of a document to deal with it honestly – rather than the caricature that has been popular in the CofC. This is not the first time it has come up on this website or other CofC sites that I have seen your comments on.
If you want to see the footnote "[5]" simply go to Wikipedia and clink on the link – I think I provided the link when I first quoted it. If you want to say total depravity is bunk that is okay, but please deal with the real teaching on the subject and not the straw man. I don't think that is asking too much of a person that claims to understand the teaching well enough to express an opinion on it. I've read enough of your writing to believe you are capable of better and would expect the same of others.
I do not understand your take on this. I do not wish to attack you and at the same time I do not want the caricature to be taken as the real genuine teaching. Please deal honestly with me. I don't think that is asking too much for myself and others that take the time to read these comments.
Thanks,
Randall
Avoiding the questions, Randall. I've asked to be shown where I'm in error.
You began by quoting me and making disparaging remarks about my faith and fellowship. Has anything changed in your approach, brother?
Brother Keith,
I do not believe I have ever questioned your faith nor called our fellowship into question. If I am confused about either of these points please cut and paste from one of my previous comments to demonstrate that is what I have written.
Our fellowship is not dependent on precise theological thought or accuracy, but on the grace of God and our faith in Jesus. I actually think I am united with all those with true faith whether that unity is recognized by others or not.
I have pointed out that I believe you have misunderstood and misrepresented the doctrine of total depravity – and apparently have a limited desire to understand it as it is taught by those that espouse the view. I have encouraged you to come to an understanding of the doctrine as it is taught by those that believe it; and, I have requested that if you do not understand the doctrine that you do not misrepresent it. Apparently you do not wish to do that. I recognize I do not have the right nor the ability to force to you do that.
Hesed,
Randall
Keith,
Thanks for reposting the portion of my initial comment in which I reacted to a comment you had made regarding the sin, filth and death associated with a natural man. It was your statement indicating that man in baptism was washing away sin, filth and death itself that brought to mind the concept of total depravity (TD). I was a little surprised b/c folks in the CofC tend to deny rather than affirm TD. However, many in the CofC and other denominations will speak like Calvinists until someone points out they sound like a Calvinist and then they back off of it. I think you did this as you denied total depravity in your next comment or two and also misrepresented the doctrine.
What I do not understand is why you reposted my previous comment above. In my comment above I did not call your faith or our fellowship into question. All along it has been my point to urge you to understand the actual doctrine of TD.
Could you please explain yourself so I understand your point?
Thanks,
Randall
If I came to a Web site of Calvinist persuasion and made a comment that the poster(s) sounded just like members of the Church of Christ, except that they were inconsistent … how would you react, Randall?
In fact, I don't think you believe what you think you believe. The Wikipedia article describes total depravity. When you say, "It does NOT mean man is as bad as he could be nor that he will never do anything that appears to be good," you describe semi-total semi-depravity, to dip into the nomenclature that you seem to appreciate. That seems inconsistent to me.
Ah, but you asked, "When people do things that are truly good don't you think that is b/c God has enabled them to do those things?" Then all we disagree about is the date when God did so. Perhaps you're saying at some point in their lives after Adam's original sin, and I'm saying that Pelagius was right and we are born innocent and do have free will which enables us to choose right from wrong once we recognize the difference.
If you have a doctrine of total depravity that somehow does not involve the concept of original sin, then the Wikipedia article seems unaware of it. That's why I asked questions about it. And I have more.
If Pelagius was wrong about original sin, what leads you to believe so? Was Noah not righteous (Genesis 6:9)? Was Abraham not righteous (Romans 4:3, etc.)? Was Job not blameless (Job 1:8, 2:3)? Was John the Baptist not filled with the Holy Spirit from before his birth (Luke 1:15)? Are those exceptions which prove or disprove your rule? If they prove it, how does scripture say so?
David was under the impression that God knit him together in the womb (Psalm 139). Did God create him there imperfect, already tainted by sin?
That's just a sample.
Now, I'm going to shock you. I agree that members of Churches of Christ are inconsistent regarding your beliefs. We're inconsistent regarding our own beliefs, as I am persuaded that Calvinists are about theirs. Neither overlapping group is a uniform bloc of lock-step faith on every point within Christianity. That's not necessarily a bad thing. When we have dialogue, we learn more about each others' points of view. You seemed to be avoiding it – to the point where I wanted to ask you, "Randall, do you want to win this fight or do you just want to go on picking it?"
But given the complexity of Calvinist beliefs, I can understand your hesitancy.
The basis of our faith needs no such complexity – no such "system" – not from Calvin nor Arminius nor Campbell nor Stone. Faith in God's grace expressed in Christ saves. Baptism is the way He urges us to initially express that faith. It has deep meaning, meaning which is lost on an infant and that is why I take exception to some of the directions in which Calvinist beliefs have taken baptism.
That is why I objected to your comment, and to your characterization of Paul as a Calvinist in a jest which clearly makes the effect precede the cause.
As I said, these matters have been churned for centuries now, and I have yet to see the benefit of it to the Kingdom.
If anyone is not interested in the discussion Kieth and I have had regarding total depravity the you might want to ignore this comment as it is looooong.
Hi Keith,
Thanks for the reply and the amount of information you supplied. Now I think I have a better idea of where you are coming from. I may try to copy your statements and intersperse by responses after yours.
Keith said: If I came to a Web site of Calvinist persuasion and made a comment that the poster(s) sounded just like members of the Church of Christ, except that they were inconsistent … how would you react, Randall?
Randall's replay: I am unashamed to identify myself as a Calvinist – not b/c the doctrine is w/o problems but b/c I believe it presents fewer problems that any of the other positions I am familiar with such as Arminianism, semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism. I also hold a significant CofC pedigree; and the CofC has had not only Calvinists (Thomas Campbell being one of the best known) but also Pelagians, those that deny the Trinity, the divinity of Christ etc. and some of each can be found among those that comment on Jay's blog. So it should be no surprise to find a few Calvinists here, though most prefer not to label themselves as such. (Labels don't bother me much if they help communicate.) If I was on a Calvinist web site and someone said I sounded like a CoCer I would ask them to tell me what they meant/why they thought that way and I would attempt to respond to it with what I believe and how I found it consistent or inconsistent with CofC theology – and this is important: I would try to be accurate and fair in the way I presented CofC theology and not make a caricature of it. I do think Calvinists can be inconsistent but a shortcoming they may have is being systematic in their theology at times at the expense of being biblical. It is kind of the opposite of what I find in the CofC where I think folks will throw out a proof text to support a point of view w/o recognizing that point of view is in conflict with another point of view they claim to hold. I recognize systematic theology has its limitations but I'll take it over bible hopscotch any day. If you have not already read them, I would recommend the several series John Mark Hicks has on his blog regarding hermeneutics; one series deals specifically with hermeneutics in the SC Movement. If you read it you'll get a good flavor of what I mean by bible hopscotch, though JMH does not use that term.
Keith said: In fact, I don't think you believe what you think you believe. The Wikipedia article describes total depravity. When you say, "It does NOT mean man is as bad as he could be nor that he will never do anything that appears to be good," you describe semi-total semi-depravity, to dip into the nomenclature that you seem to appreciate. That seems inconsistent to me.
Randall's response: I think it seems inconsistent to you b/c you do not understand it as well as you might. The Wiki article I quoted contains the following sentence: "Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible." Randall thinks that is the equivalent of saying it does NOT mean mankind is as bad as he could be. And the Wiki article describes total depravity not "semi-total semi-depravity." It really is as simple as that. The Wiki article I quoted also said: Even religion and philanthropy are wicked to God to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passion, and will and are not done to the glory of God. Randall adds that there are some things that may appear to be good but are not truly good e.g. a man gives a lot of money to build a hospital and then requires that he hospital be named after him as he is a prideful person. Now back to terminology: These are not terms that I invented. I am simply using the terminology of the subject matter. If we were talking football and I wanted to use terms like touchdown, illegal man down field, off sides etc it would be b/c that is the terminology the the game – not b/c I invented it. I think you are accusing me of using terminology differently than you use the term so that means I have changed the meaning. I am suggesting it is the other way around. If we both used the same generally accepted terminology we could communicate more easily. If you don't like Wikipedia perhaps we could use another source, perhaps a systematic theology. I simply chose Wiki b/c it is readily available to cut and paste and provide a link if a reader wants to read it first hand.
Keith said: Ah, but you asked, "When people do things that are truly good don't you think that is b/c God has enabled them to do those things?" Then all we disagree about is the date when God did so. Perhaps you're saying at some point in their lives after Adam's original sin, and I'm saying that Pelagius was right and we are born innocent and do have free will which enables us to choose right from wrong once we recognize the difference.
Randall's reply: Perhaps we do disagree about the date when God first enabled fallen man to do something good. I believe every truly good thing done by man since the fall was b/c God enabled him to do so. I believe God could do that whenever/where ever he wanted. I do not believe it could not have been done before Jesus came in the flesh. If Abram was in Ur of the Chaldees worshiping the moon like his ancestors and God called him and enabled him to have great faith that is OK with me. You said Pelagius was right and that stuns me. Yes, I know there are still Pelagians in the CofC but I didn't think you were one of them. I presented a number of rhetorical questions in a previous comment. They included asking why man (ALL men and women) choose to sin, why mankind (both Jew and Gentile) chose to crucify God when they met Him in the flesh? Why the flood? What does Paul say about the condition of all mankind in the first few chapters of Romans? Someone else brought up Romans 5 where there is a discussion of Adam's sin being imputed to the race. In his letters to the Corinthians Paul says a lot about the natural man including that he is not even able to understand the things of the Spirit. I thought these were merely rhetorical questions b/c I felt the answer was obvious: Mankind is horribly fallen. The Pelagian notion that all Adam did was set a poor example for mankind strikes me as nonsense and contradictory to a great deal of scripture. Why did Jesus have to be crucified to save us? If we are basically good then why don't we just be good and save ourselves? Instead we begin to chose sin over good as soon as we are developed enough to make those choices and as we develop further we made even more evil choices. This is not to say that a baby is guilty of any particular act the moment he is born but it speaks volumes about the human nature of the baby. See how Paul addresses it in Romans 5. I am simply amazed every time I encounter a Christian Pelagian. I hardly think the position needs to be shown to be false.
Keith said: If you have a doctrine of total depravity that somehow does not involve the concept of original sin, then the Wikipedia article seems unaware of it. That's why I asked questions about it. And I have more.
Randall's reply: I do think that total depravity DOES involve the concept of original sin, though not necessarily in the Roman Catholic sense of that term. Here is a Wiki link to the topic if you care to read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Keith said: If Pelagius was wrong about original sin, what leads you to believe so? Was Noah not righteous (Genesis 6:9)? Was Abraham not righteous (Romans 4:3, etc.)? Was Job not blameless (Job 1:8, 2:3)? Was John the Baptist not filled with the Holy Spirit from before his birth (Luke 1:15)? Are those exceptions which prove or disprove your rule? If they prove it, how does scripture say so?
Randall's reply: Noah was righteous relative to those he lived around but not righteous in the ultimate sense. I think Noah did drink a bit too much on occasion. Job was blameless in some sense just as was Paul who called himself the chief of sinners, even though he also says he was set apart from his mother's womb. I am sure you recall a the man that approached Jesus and called him "good teacher." Jesus relies "Why do you call me good seeing none is good but God alone." So yes, some men are good relative to other men, but not good in comparison to the holiness they are called to – they are not good compared with an absolutely holy and righteous God.
Keith said: David was under the impression that God knit him together in the womb (Psalm 139). Did God create him there imperfect, already tainted by sin?
Randall says: Yes, God did knit David in the womb for God is sovereign over all things. But didn't David also commit adultery and conspiracy to murder. He also said that he was conceived in sin in Psalm 51. I guess we will have to consider all of what the bible says rather than just a proof text here or there. All that bible hopscotch gets tiresome. We could focus on substantial passages of scripture that do address human nature – that man is a mess, utterly broken and lost and that only God can fix him seems to be one of the over riding themes of scripture. Wouldn't you agree?
That's just a sample.
Keith said: Now, I'm going to shock you. I agree that members of Churches of Christ are inconsistent regarding your beliefs. We're inconsistent regarding our own beliefs, as I am persuaded that Calvinists are about theirs. Neither overlapping group is a uniform bloc of lock-step faith on every point within Christianity. That's not necessarily a bad thing. When we have dialogue, we learn more about each others' points of view. You seemed to be avoiding it – to the point where I wanted to ask you, "Randall, do you want to win this fight or do you just want to go on picking it?"
Randall's response: I really didn't want to fight. I did want to point out that many in the CofC (and elsewhere) talk just like Calvinists until it is pointed out that that sounds like Calvinism, and then the Cocer backs off his position. You have demonstrated that by beginning by saying "That washing away of sin, filth and death itself is what's being pictured" and flipping to saying Pelagius was not wrong when he said mankind is not fallen. So are we in sin, filth and death or are we basically good? You have claimed that I misrepresented the doctrine of total depravity while it is still doubtful in my mind that you understand it even now. Calvinists rarely if ever talk like Pelagians.
Keith said: But given the complexity of Calvinist beliefs, I can understand your hesitancy.
Randall's response: Yes, Calvinism is complex. It is a whole view based on the scriptures and the sovereignty of God. It has been ridiculed and misrepresented in the CofC all of my lifetime and seems like that is still going on.
Keith said: The basis of our faith needs no such complexity – no such "system" – not from Calvin nor Arminius nor Campbell nor Stone. Faith in God's grace expressed in Christ saves. Baptism is the way He urges us to initially express that faith. It has deep meaning, meaning which is lost on an infant and that is why I take exception to some of the directions in which Calvinist beliefs have taken baptism.
Randall's response: Scripture and Christian doctrine are shallow enough for a child to wade in and deep enough for an elephant to drown in – that's not original with Randall. It is great to begin with a simple faith in Jesus and I hope we all do. It is also OK to move beyond milk sometime before we die. And yes, Keith you are entitled to take exception with some/any/all of Calvin's beliefs. It is my hope that you would not misrepresent them. By the way, penal substitution atonement as we see it in Isaiah 53 is one of Calvin's beliefs.
Keith also said the following: That is why I objected to your comment, and to your characterization of Paul as a Calvinist in a jest which clearly makes the effect precede the cause.
As I said, these matters have been churned for centuries now, and I have yet to see the benefit of it to the Kingdom.
Randall's response: I am tired. This was a lot of writing. I wish you well and hope that as the years go by you will find a place for more substantial theology in your walk with Christ. It is not required, but it can be helpful. If the depth of the theology in Romans was not written for our encouragement, edification and sanctification then why did Paul write it?
Hesed,
Randall
On the off chance that anyone might be interested, here is the Wiki link to Pelagius and Pelagianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism
All due respect, Randall: When I find a place for a more substantial theology in my walk with Christ – which is frequently – I'll let you know the first time I discover it in a doctrine which depends solely on man's interpretation of some scripture but at the cost of other scripture.
http://keithbrenton.com/2010/06/23/man-says-chris…
Keith,
Perhaps all Christian doctrines, especially any one of them that may be regarded as controversial such as:
nature and attributes of God (theology proper)
the Trinity
the human/divine nature of Christ
pneumatolgy
the atonement
moment when our sins are forgiven
God's sovereignty vs human's will
eschatology
nature of the church and church governance (ecclesiology)
add an almost endless list of other issues
depend on man's interpretation of some scripture. We all place more emphasis on some passages of scripture than others. You're a smart guy and have the wisdom to know this.
Some think these issues would not be controversial if it was all that clear in scripture. Even when one thinks the issue is more than obvious from scripture another disagrees. Just look at the literally hundreds of comments generated in just the last 30 days on this blog alone that deal with perspectives on what scripture says and means about baptism and instrumental music.
May God give us the grace to study and understand His written word as the HS illuminates it in our hearts.
Hesed,
Randall