Born of Water
A book length series of essays–in 13 chapters with discussion questions–on whether baptism is essential. First essays in favor of its being essential, and then essays on against its being essential. And then I offer what I think is the answer. Born of Water.pdf
Jay,
I certainly haven’t reviewed all of this material, I’m working my way thru it. And ultimately, I’m going to leave the decision about immersion to God.
But here is an interesting analogy — which may or may not be completely applicable.
When Gerald R Ford granted a pardon to Richard M Nixon, the pardon did not take effect until Richard M Nixon signed the pardon. So, without Nixon’s signature, the pardon had no effect. Was Nixon’s act of signing the pardon, an act which warranted the pardon? No, of course not. But the signature was necessary to indicate Nixon’s acceptance of the conditions of the pardon.
I think there is an interesting parallel between Nixon signing the pardon, and immersion.
I will always teach immersion, because Jesus did. And ultimately, there is no real reason to object to immersion. But nor do I feel compelled to condemn people. It’s a great relief to let God be the judge of such matters.
David,
I think a better analogy would be to ask whether Nixon would have been pardoned had he misspelled his name when he signed the form or if he’d accidentally signed the wrong blank.
As the signature requirement comes from the requirement that the person being pardoned must accept the pardon, unquestionably the courts would overlook such an error, as his intent would be obvious despite the mistake.
Just so, an error in baptism where the intent to accept God’s grace and to yield to Jesus’ Lordship is evident hardly voids the baptism. God judges the heart.
Baptism is not a test; it’s a gift that God wants us to have.
Jay
We do know that whatever God decides on judgement day will be right and holy. How can you say that a man, if he is mistaken in the necessity of baptism for the forgiveness of sins and decides by ignorance that the blood of Jesus will save him anyway, how will he be saved without coming into contact with the blood? If that is the case, then man doesn’t need the blood at all. All spiritual blessings are in Christ.
We are baptised into Christ. Salvation is a spiritual blessing.
al
Allen,
In all seriousness, have you read Born of Water? It answers your questions in detail.
I know this is not totally on the subject, but are you sure that it’s a minority of CoCers that believe what you quoted on the first page? That is, that a church must have the correct “marks” in order for its members to be saved? In my experience, I have found it’s probably at least half. Of course, I’ve always lived in a pretty conservative area. Just seems kind of an optimistic estimate to me.
I also noticed your quote: Some will note that I’ve skipped Mark 16:16: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” As just about every translation made after the King James Version notes, this verse does not appear in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, and so it was evidently added by a scribe some time after Mark wrote it.”
I have never heard this before. What does this mean, exactly, about the legitimacy of the verse?
Hi, Summer.
Most in the CoC believe in the “marks” teaching, or at least most congregations are led by preachers who believe this. But what I said is a minority position is that the congregation “must have the correct position on all key doctrines for its members to be saved.” The idea that we have to get everything right is growing but still a minority viewpoint.
Regarding Mark 16:16, the Wikipedia has a good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
A great introduction to textual criticism is Neil R. Lightfoot’s How We Got the Bible. http://www.amazon.com/How-Got-Bible-Neil-Lightfoot/dp/080101252X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203650309&sr=1-1
There is very serious doubt regarding whether this verse was in the manuscript Mark wrote because the oldest manuscripts we have omit it. There are arguments both ways, but it seems likely that the verses were added by a scribe later. The verses on snake handling and drinking poison fit in the same category, so I’m quite okay with the conclusion!
Hi Jay,
I’ve only read the first few pages of your book so far. But your response to David P Himes (on Nixon’s pardon) sums it up for me.
Thanks,
Vicki
I have a lot to say, but I will refrain because I don’t think the page can hold it all. Besides, you already know my view on baptism from the little debate between Mark and myself. But I do want to respond to the argument you set forth that a certain minister was asked “Would you be disappointed if, when you get to heaven, you find the Baptists there?” and that he answered “Absolutely, I’d be disappointed! It would mean that God had broken his promises!” This answer you censure, saying that “Job teaches us that we have no business judging God, especially for his extraordinary generosity.”
Now, I would ask a similar question, or series of questions:
What if I got to heaven and the very Catholics who had sent my brothers and sisters in Christ in the first few centuries of our era into the coliseum to be eaten by lions were there in heaven? And I don’t mean that they were there in heaven because they had been remorseful and converted in bitter tears and sackcloth and ashes and all that, but because God (as you so eloquently put it) had chosen to show them “extraordinary generosity.” What would I think? and what would it imply about God?
Or again, what if I found the Beast and the False Prophet in heaven? By your argument, I couldn’t judge God. Even though Revelation 14:11 promises that they go to hell “and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever” and then verse 12 referring to this, that is referring to the expectation that the Beast and False Prophet go to hell, says “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” The patience of the saints is that we expect the Beast and False Prophet to go to hell? Apparently that is part of it. Why? Because we expect God to keep his promises. We don’t expect that when we get to heaven we will find Satan there sitting on God’s throne or that God will allow him to jab us with his pitchfork! Nor do we expect to find that everyone has made it to heaven. Not after all that business about “strait is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it.” Not after Paul was thrice beaten with rods, once was stoned, thrice suffered shipwreck, and a night and a day was in the deep! After Isaiah was sawn asunder and John was thrown off the temple to splatter in the street just because he was a Christian.
In other words, if God’s plan is to put us through things like this, just to at the end say “Surprise! I decided to save everyone! Aren’t I so great?” then doesn’t that strike you as a tad sadistic? Can the foolishness about judging God or putting God in a box. When we expect the Almighty who saith of himself that he cannot lie, to abide by his own word, we are neither judging him nor putting him in a box, but rather are having FAITH in him. And isn’t faith of great important to you, Jay?
Why, in other words, would God instruct us to “contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” if people who spit on that faith and defecate on the Bible are going to be in heaven? Or if those who trample the Son of God under foot their whole lives make it to heaven, why is it a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God? How can God say, as in Malachi, “I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen” if he allows all the heathen into heaven in their heathenism? And why, if the words of Hymenaeus and Philetus eat as a canker, do they make it to heaven?
I dare assert that the All-Wise and Almighty God has a weakness, but only because Paul himself has first asserted it int he Scriptures, when he says in 1 Corinthians 1:25 that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” What is God’s foolishness and what his weakness? Both are simply that he is Perfect in Honesty and cannot lie. God will not contradict the Scriptures. As Jesus interjects in John 10:35 “the scripture cannot be broken.”
Now I will close my brief comment on this matter with this. Jesus says “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” He says not “Sanctify them with wishful fancies and old wives tales.” We can’t stake our eternal souls on the wishes and wouldn’t-it-be-nices of dreamers, but only on the word of God.
[...] Born of Water [...]
[...] Born of Water [...]