Resolving the paradox
So let’s be clear here. There are a bunch of verses that speak in terms of salvation occurring when we’re baptized. And there are a bunch of verses that say all people with faith (in the sense of submissive faith) are saved. And when these verses were written, both statements were generally true, because — generally — people submitted to baptism when they came to submissive faith.
There are, of course, exceptions recorded in the scriptures — such as the apostles (no water baptism into Jesus) and Cornelius (Holy Spirit received before baptism). But the Epistles in particular speak of salvation ordinarily coming with baptism.
Baptism but not for salvation
But beginning with Zwingli, baptism and salvation began to be thought of as distinct events. Zwingli helped begin the Reformation, and he wrote —
From this it follows (as I willingly and gladly admit in regard to the subject of the sacraments) that the sacraments are given as a public testimony of that grace which is previously present to every individual. Thus baptism is administered in the presence of the Church to one who before receiving it either confessed the religion of Christ or has the word of promise, whereby he is known to belong to the Church. Hence it is that when we baptize an adult we ask him whether he believes. And only when he answers “yes,” then he receives baptism. Faith therefore, has been present before he receives baptism, and is not given by baptism. … By baptism, therefore, the Church publicly receives one who has previously been received through grace. Hence baptism does not convey grace but the Church certifies that grace has been given to him to whom it is administered.
Zwingli denied the sacramental character of baptism, believing that salvation arises at the moment of faith (a submissive faith, of course), and baptism is merely the church’s recognition that the convert has been saved. And this approach thereby found its way into the Reformed/Calvinist tradition — but not into the Lutheran, Anglican, or Methodist traditions. The Baptists, descended from the Puritans and Congregationalists, inherited their view of baptism from Presbyterianism, which traces back to Calvin and Zwingli.
Of course, the Reformed and Baptist chuches have had great success and are a major influence in American evangelical circles, leading to the increasingly Zwinglian approach to baptism in America today.
Baptism by pouring or sprinkling
Baptism in the early church was by immersion — likely following the Jewish practice of ceremonial washing in a mikveh. Much of the washing practices of the day were not found in the Bible at all, but rather derive from a desire to take every precaution to be ceremonially clean. Hence, many synagogues had mikvehs, even though the synagogue is a man-made institution, not found in the Old Testament, and so there was no biblical requirement to be washed before entering the synagogue.
Around 100 AD, the church came to accept sprinkling and pouring as acceptable alternatives in the case of an emergency, such as a person too bedridden to be taken to water for immersion.
However, there is evidence that the early church sometimes poured or sprinkled in non-emergency cases. For example,
Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.
Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person.
See the detailed discussion of the archaeological evidence in Baptism and Christian Archaeology. (The evidence is, of course controverted by Baptists and Restoration Movement churches.)
Ben Wetherington has noted,
‘Baptidzo’ for example in the Didache is used to describe the practice of pouring water over someone’s head, not immersion. This verb does not necessarily imply the ancient equivalent of a watery slam dunk 🙂
Wetherington is referring to this passage —
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
The Didache is dated to the late First or early Second Century.
He has written elsewhere,
Here is a marvelous shot of the room in the church part of this house in Dura where baptisms were undertaken. You can see the font in the top left of this picture, and as MacMullen rightly points out, there could have been no immersing of persons here– unless we are talking infants! Only sprinkling or pouring took place here. This conclusion is reached not only because the font or tub is much too shallow for dunking, but also there is no evidence of there ever being pipes in or out of this tub. As the picture above indicates, they water would have been brought in in amphorae or jars. Note that this church is right next to the Euphrates so if the congregants or ministers had wanted to do baptism by immersion, all they had to do was go outside!That they built a purpose built structure in a home for baptism tells us a lot about the third century church, and perhaps the second century church as well, because the practice here comports with what we read in the Didache– a first or second century document which tells us about using running water and sprinkling or pouring water on the baptizands. Not for them the practice of John the Baptizer.
Now, I say all this not to argue against immersion or for sprinking. Rather, the fact is that the evidence isn’t univocal — the argument that only immersion will do is not as strong as we sometimes claim — and it’s easy to see how an honest, thoughtful student of the Bible and history might become persuaded that pouring or sprinkling is approved by God.
We cannot claim that all who pour or sprinkle do so out of a hard or rebellious heart. It’s just not true. Nor can we argue that they ignore the evidence. No, they ignore what I believe to be the weight of the evidence — but there is evidence in favor of sprinking and pouring.
Now, Wayne Jackson is correct to argue that archaeological evidence and the early church fathers can’t add commands not found in the Bible (I just wish he’s make the same point regarding instrumental music!), but — again — the point is that the evidence isn’t as clear as we’d like it to be. Indeed, we can’t pass this way and not pause to consider —
(Luk 11:37-38 ESV) 37 While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. 38 The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner.
“Wash” translates baptizo, but we really can’t translate “he was not baptized before dinner,” which would be quite literal. The reference is to the traditional practice of hand washing to avoid accidentally consuming something that the hands touched that’s unclean. Some have suggested that the Pharisees expected Jesus to be fully immersed before dining. In his Commentary on the New Testament
Was Palestine full of baths, in which all the Jews submerged themselves before each meal of the day, villages, farms, places along the road for travellers, too? Think of the floods of water this required?
He then refers to John 2:6, where John mentions the presence of stone jars kept in the house for “the Jewish rites of purification.” In fact, the rules for washing before a meal are found in the Mishnah (Yadaim 1:1ff). See here. They involve pouring water over the hands.
A Mikveh
Therefore, baptizo plainly includes the sense of pouring to wash. But it’s also true that the baptisms we have recorded in the Bible — where the mode of bapism is recorded — are immersions — more like the mikvehs than the hand washings.
Nonetheless, we can hardly escape feeling less sure of our definition of baptizo when it plainly can take the meaning of “wash,” which is surely close to the symbolism of the practice.
(Acts 22:16 ESV) And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
(1Co 6:11 ESV) 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
(Eph 5:25-27 ESV) 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
(Tit 3:5 ESV) 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Again — my point isn’t that pouring or sprinkling is permissible. Rather, I’m just saying that the argument that only immersion is permissible is simply not as clear as we’d like to think. You see, it’s hard to be fair to the other side if you’ve never seriously studied the other side’s arguments.
You see, we like to pretend we live in a world where our answers are clear and indisputable and our opponents are not only wrong, but foolish to even believe as they do. Indeed, we rather like to imagine that our opponents are willfully ignoring plain, unambiguous evidence, whereas we have the courage to stand for what is obviously the truth.
But the real world is a bit more complex. And this tells us a lot about the world, ourselves … and God. God is, after all, at least as aware of the ambiguity of the evidence as we are.
We’d like to think that “baptize” is a hard, sharp-edged word that is utterly unambiguous to the First Century ear, but it’s just not true. The word is a bit fuzzy. And the scriptures don’t offer a precise “how to” guide — nothing remotely like the details we find in the Didache, for example.
But I do believe the converts at Pentecost were immersed in the mikvehs that surrounded the temple. And I’m confident the Ethiopian eunuch was immersed as well. And I’m sure John the Baptist used a river because a river worked well to immerse — not to mention the deep symbolism of passing through the Jordan River, a symbol that requires immersion.
I think immersion was the practice and the teaching. I just don’t think those who disagree with me are idiots, rebellious, or ignorant. They might even be right. They might. But I don’t think so.
Next: Infant baptism; Conclusion
Jay:
Is your "We’d like to think that “baptize” is a hard, sharp-edged word that is utterly unambiguous to the First Century ear" putting its full weight on apostolic teaching? Do you believe apostolic teaching is the work/Word of the risen Lord?
Similarly, has Satan influenced people's conclusions regarding doctrine, i.e. what they believe? Let me offer that one aspect that needs to be part of your essays has to do with the influence of the dark lord. I am aware that in postmodern America "Satan is Dead" and evil redefined to "whatever I say it is" (i.e. almost nothing) is closing in on being truth for much of the nation — and even some followers of Jesus. I continue to hear folks talk about departures from apostolic teaching as if it is a casual exercise versus an example of evil (i.e. they know what the apostles taught; they have concluded otherwise). Do you believe Satan can influence what people believe about baptism (and other subjects) with the result being that the beliefs become examples of evil?
What? Evil religious beliefs?! How could I be such a blind fundamentalist?! (See Jennifer Geddes, editor, Evil After Postmodernism (New York: Routledge, 2001). I must be whacked to believe such nonsense!
Everett Ferguson's new Baptism in the Early Church provides important information and key challenges to Part 4 and a conclusion of ambiguity. So, let me suggest it for a reading and a future book review and forum topic.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Thanks Jay. I hadn't heard some of those rationales for baptism by pouring before.
To me, Romans 6 is pretty clear that baptism was by immersion in Paul's time:
Baptism was a burial. Now, it is apparent from the evidence you gave above that the church started to accept other modes fairly early. But I also agree that post-biblical writing is not authoritative. We must get our doctrine from scripture.
I find myself at ease with the conclusion to which Jay comes, in part because of his concurrent writing regarding the "Post-Denominational World." I also find it helpful to look at archeological findings and a revisitation of the origins and uses of baptizo.
I also find it difficult to swallow that because someone believes differently than I do, I must be right and they must have been deluded by satan's trickery. Personally, I am aware that I can be duped, but when the plain teaching of Scripture leaves room for interpretation, then let's wait until we are gathered around the throne before we assume those with whom we disagree hold to "beliefs [that] become examples of evil."
(baptizo)
"This word should not be confused with baptô . The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change."
To me it seems correct to say Christian baptism is like making pickles. The water cleanses us from sin and prepares us for Jesus to change us permanently. It seems to say Jesus does not baptize sinners with the spirit, he baptizes cleansed followers with the spirit. Looks like to me water baptism is important in this process. It is said Jesus adds you to the church, seems right to me that Jesus finds us at our cleanest point (while still immersed) and adds sinless people to his church.
Is it possible that baptism is a duel action event, we are (dipped – baptô) " to prepare us to be (baptised – baptizô ) changed.
Is this pickel making, what Jesus refers to here.?
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Laymond,
The context is critical here. Jesus was asked, "Do I have to be physically reborn?" Jesus was saying that unless you have been born of a woman, and born of the Spirit. He was anwering a specific question.
Bruce,
You are headed down a very different path. You seem to argue: Let's figure out what's right and conclude that all who are wrong are damned (or else that they have no promise of salvation, just might be saved by God's grace, but must be treated as damned by the church).
My approach would be more along the lines of: Let's figure out what's write and so teach and practice exactly that — but not be so quick to damn those who disagree. After all, those who disagree teach baptism, seek to honor the scriptures, and — most importantly — have genuine faith and repentance. They believe themselves baptized — and they have the vast majority Christian scholarship on their side. This doesn't make them right. It doesn't. But it doesn't put them in rebellion or make them impenitent.
They were "baptized" into the name of Jesus, have faith, and are penitent — and God has repeatedly promised to save all who come to him with a submissive faith in Jesus — which they plainly have.
This is not about Post-modernism. It's about our view of the nature of our God — a God who'd rather die than see us go to hell. Is it about rules or the heart, shaped by a genuine, submissive faith in Jesus. And the scriptures are plain that Jesus came to free us from law so we can be saved by faith.
The Pharisees condemned Jesus' disciples for dishonoring the Sabbath — God's own law, very much in effect at the time. Jesus urged them to look beyond the letter of the law to the heart of God, who wrote the law. After all, the Pharisees
You see, it's entirely possible both to honor the scriptural teaching of baptism — by teaching and practicing what we believe the Bible says — while understanding that God's grace covers those who wrongly believe themselves to be baptized as the Bible teaches — just as it's entirely possible for those who insist on women wearing head coverings in the assembly to teach and practice what they believe while understanding that God's grace covers the error of those who disagree.
So, yes, we need to get this right and teach and practice correctly. But, no, that doesn't mean that those who make a mistake along the way but who have a genuine, submissive faith in Jesus will be lost or should be treated as second-class citizens of the Kingdom. The Kingdom has no second-class citizens.
Indeed, we tend to make the objective form of baptism (immersion of an adult) more important than the subjective purpose of the baptism (misunderstanding the receipt of the Spirit is forgiven by grace, even though taught in Acts 2:38). We have no trouble seeing that God will forgive those who misunderstand the indwelling — one of the essential differences between the baptisms of John and Jesus — but can't imagine that God will overlook the failure to use enough water.
But that interpretation is not consistent with the nature of God as revealed in Jesus. Indeed, clearly the heart of the convert is of far greater significance than the form of the baptism. And we don't insist on perfect understanding — and so we shouldn't insist on a perfect mode.
That's how I understand the John 3 passage too, Jesus was contrasting a physical birth with a spiritual birth.
I find the story of Jesus healing/cleansing the leper to parallel "baptism". Jesus (God) did the healing, but then instructed the leper to go and participate in the cleansing ritual administered by the priests so that the leper could be associated with God's community.
Pastor Mike:
Please give Everett Ferguson's thorough study a look. He maps out clearly why the diversity of belief — and how the diversity departed from clear apostolic teaching and its meaning. That is part of why we should NOT be at ease with Jay's conclusions.
Yes I know. This is America, land of the "your belief," "my belief," and by all means do not bring up Satan and the possibility that folks really have been deceived in their conclusions about baptism! Please know that I believe my conclusions about who has been tempted and how are unimportant compared to the supernatural reality that it happens — that the NT reveals that people indeed embrace evil beliefs even in the name of Jesus (e.g. as Ephesians reveals).
My hope and prayer is that people get beyond the "my belief" and "your belief" discussions and spend time looking at the Scriptures together. May seem almost impossible in melting-pot America where evil is a vanishing concept and most cannot fathom such unity. But with Jesus' desert war with Satan as a guide (Jesus: "It is written"), any post-denominational Christian faith will be a deception unless folks together devote themselves to the Word of the risen Lord.
Please read Titus 3:4-7 and Ephesians 5:26. Let me ask that you/I focus on what the risen Lord is teaching. Not where has church history wandered, but what were the apostles teaching (and what is the Spirit teaching). And is the risen Lord expecting us to believe and accept what He is teaching? Unify based on what He is teaching? Yes He is.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Laymond, on June 26th, 2010 at 8:26 am Said:
"To me it seems correct to say Christian baptism is like making pickles."
"Is it possible that baptism is a duel action event, we are (dipped – baptô) ” to prepare us to be (baptised – baptizô ) changed."
I think you may have something there. Jesus plainly said in
John 3:5, "Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." If water refers to Baptism, could also the Spirit be in reference also to Baptism as in Acts 2:39, "…And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." ?
Hmmm
Jay:
You are reading into my writing what I have not said. My focus has not been on "damning" but on teaching what the apostles taught.
Your previous writings about baptism have been confusing (and as you said once emotional for you). The "imperfect baptism" and what you have written recently has further confused.
So, let me ask:
Did the apostles teach baptism as immersion?
Did the apostles teach that in baptism (immersion) our sins are washed away as the action of God's grace (not a work by us)?
Do you want to suggest that "faith" covers all deception? What about the acquaintance of mine who argues he has faith in Jesus — but does not believe in "Christ" (i.e. he is a pastor who does not believe the resurrection of Jesus actually took place, and he believes you do NOT need to believe Jesus is "Christ." He has become a "Wiccan pastor," of sorts). Extreme? I do not think so. That is part of the shadow that is ever so gradually covering our nation. Post-denominational Christianity may look more like Wicca/New Age in the early twenty-first century than we ever imagined — unless we take seriously a spiritual war and how it can separate us from the mercy of God (cf. Eph. 2:1-2). We can come to believe we have "faith" when in actuality we live in rebellion — and we do not even see it! Why? How? We have stopped listening to the risen Lord. That is the character of spiritual war.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
I am in agreement with you over the frustration at those who would say that whatever you believe is fine. There are things that are true, and there are things that are false. I also quite agree that satan can easily confound the most sincere unless they remain diligent in their study of the Word out of a devotion to Christ.
Titus 3:3-7
4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
This tells me that we are saved because of His mercy, not by any merit we think we may have earned.
Ephesians 5:25-26
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
Translating prepositions is one of the harder parts of translation, so "cleansing . . . by , , . through" gets sticky to deal with, but as I understand it, Paul is telling husbands that we are to love self-sacrificially in the same way that Jesus loved the church. Jesus loved the church so much that He died for her to make her holy. (I can't imagine what a difference it would make in our families and our churches if men were to really love their wives that much.)
The second clause must be somewhat figurative because I don't recall Jesus baptizing anyone, but whatever it means, cleansing by washing with water would seem to have a significant relationship to the word. For the time, I'm not going to go into a full blown study of the grammar, but I'm pretty sure Paul was suggesting that for their to be holiness, there must be some connection to the Word of God.
In the Master's Service,
Pastor Mike
Pastor Mike:
I appreciate your post re the texts. As we wade in, let me suggest that "washing of rebirth" and "renewal of the Holy Spirit" are joined (by Gk. kai) so as to show a parallel.
That is why I will share that (some) churches of Christ (and other groups) that have taught that immersion is a "work" have missed the meaning of Paul's teaching in Titus 3:4-7. Baptism is not a "work" by people. It is an action of God's grace. I am passive in the event; I am receiving the grace of God in the event, by faith (cf. Eph. 2;1ff.).
Enough for now. Enjoying with you.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Well Paul, I can't accept that Jesus was talking of physical birth In that verse, It would be kinda obvious that if we were never born, we wouldn't stand much of a chance to be saved, wouldn't it? I think he is speaking of the two steps of complete baptism.
I can't see Jesus adding sinners to his church, cleansing before adding seem reasonable to me.
Quite a discussion is going here! That is a beautiful thing.
Points of interest to note:
The Mishnah is not considered an inspired text by the Jews, but is considered authoritative in the sense of offering practical and praticable commentary on how to do what God requires. That should give even scholars some pause when considering whether it is actually to be considered equal to or lesser than the inspired scriptures.
Also, the second century BC/BCE usages of the word most often transliterated (NOT translated) 'baptidzo -> baptize' was understood in the first century as a plunging, or submerging. There are very specific words for sprinkling and pouring that are used in the inspired scriptures. Had either of those actions been under consideration when the instructions were given by either Jesus or the apostles, the appropriate words were certainly available. Cheo and rhontidzo are NOT baptidzo. That much is clear.
Along these same lines, it would be good to note also that the Didache also has not been included as an inspired text in any collection of inspired books since the earliest organized councils on the subject. And, rather than what Jay presented (which was at the very least a severely truncated summary), the Didache clearly teaches that immersion is to be at the very least the 'preferred' method employed – and in 'living water' (i.e., a stream or spring-fed pond or lake, or a river, or a sea). Anything less is clearly included only as a contingent suggestion (using stagnant water, as in a mikveh or pool or bathing tub, or in extreme circumstances the substituting of pourong – cheo- or sprinkling – rhontidzo – for immersion ONLY under the most severe lack of water available circumstances ). Such a complete view of what is contained in the Didache is critical, lest we cherry-pick as some are sometimes inclined to do.
If one is seeking to use the historical information that is available, one should at least give what is available both a fair reading and a fair summation in one's considerations.
Let's try to avoid the extremes that have too often characterized the past discussions of this subject, but let us also not seek to be so moderate that the only thing that determines where we stand is where-ever we can find a middle place between ever-shifting extremes regardless of the evidence…for there is no glory nor any honor in pretending to stand while actually jockeying about for 'middle ground'. Jesus said, 'Seek and you WILL find…' Pretending that this is not relevant truth will not lead you anywhere profitable.
Blessings,
Grizz
If we seek light on the mode of baptism, we do well to look in the inspired writings rather than elsewhere. It's made clear in the INSPIRED writings that the baptism commanded by Jesus was a burial in water from which the new Christian was raised to walk in new life. Why do we want to search through history to find out what others thought on the subject? Must we ask the better-known preachers what THEY think? What's to be gained?
Paul writes, Jesus plainly said in John 3:5, “Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'” If water refers to Baptism, could also the Spirit be in reference also to Baptism as in Acts 2:39, “…And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” ?
Well, it could, but that would be considerably changing what Jesus said. Looking closer, within the verse itself we see two elements, water and spirit. The human spirit which is called to repentance and the water which is used in baptizing as Jesus commands.
Folks who want the Spirit to be involved before Peter says He is involved try hard to pretend that Peter said, "Repent for the remission of your sins and the Spirit will baptize you." But that is NOT what Peter said.
The Spirit FOLLOWS rather than being a part of the new birth. Sinners cannot be saved without them first repenting of sin. Repentance is not a gift of the Spirit. It's an internal change. It doesn't happen by God doing something to MAKE you repent. It happens when you fall in love with Jesus and want to make Him your Lord. You resolve to turn away from sin. That's repentance. You change your mind!
Did I understand you correctly to be saying you don't believe the apostles were baptized? Upon what do you base that conclusion? That there is no account of it? Curious. History and ecclesiastical evolution don't trump baptism. Also, to suggest that a "loophole" (my term, granted) that excludes immersion for the remission of sins is not part of the agenda of these comments doesn't cause us to miss that you are doing just that. You are saying, are you not, that historicity finds "the church" moving away from immersion for remission of sins. You can't promote that and then claim not to do so. By the way, I am probably considered a flaming liberal by Wayne Jackson. Smile. If I have misunderstood you, which is highly possible, I offer my apology.
Jay wrote, So let’s be clear here. There are a bunch of verses that speak in terms of salvation occurring when we’re baptized. And there are a bunch of verses that say all people with faith (in the sense of submissive faith) are saved. And when these verses were written, both statements were generally true, because — generally — people submitted to baptism when they came to submissive faith.
There are, of course, exceptions recorded in the scriptures — such as the apostles (no water baptism into Jesus) and Cornelius (Holy Spirit received before baptism). But the Epistles in particular speak of salvation ordinarily coming with baptism.
—
Jay lists two exceptions, he says, to salvation coming AFTER baptism. I think it strange that anyone would claim the apostles were saved without baptism after Jesus had selected them and called them and trained them to be the ones to first baptize sinners into Him. We do not do well to think of them as patterns for OUR salvation. Jesus did not select, call, and train US. We are one of the bunch, not its leaders. We do not qualify as apostles. What's to be gained by pointing to how the apostles became part of the Lord's church?
As for the first Gentiles. It's presumptuous to claim they were saved prior to immersion into Christ. Luke says nothing to that effect. That's a human opinion if there ever was one! Gentiles needed Jesus for salvation. The plan was for them to receive Jesus and to be received by Jewish Christians. But Jews hated Gentiles. Their law forbade them entering a Gentile house or eating with a Gentile. Jewish Christians still had the idea that they were better than Gentiles, and that Gentiles were not good enough to become Christians. Jesus changed their minds.
But Peter still (inspired as before) called for the Gentiles to be baptized INTO Christ. They weren't considered suitable candidates for baptism until God made clear by several miracles that they WERE to be baptized. They were saved as a result of being born again of water and spirit just as anyone else was or ever will be. They are NOT exceptions.
Enjoyed the article and all the discussion. I am looking forward to the next article in the series.
Bruce,
I agree that baptism is not a work in the Pauline vocabulary. The whole faith vs. works debate usually offered in the context of baptism is shallow and unhelpful, as the Baptists want to argue baptism is a work just because it involves a physical action (pretty shallow analysis) and many of the CoC actually concede the point and respond by arguing salvation is based on works — thus committing the Galatian heresy in spades (even worse).
Much more helpful would be to ask WHY faith saves and works do not. WHY is it so deadly to insist on salvation by works? What is the problem with works salvation? And perhaps most importantly, what does the whole faith/works conversation in scripture tell us about God? It's not just a bunch of arbitrary rules.
Jhn 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
As I read this, it seems to me that the translators , believed the apostles were baptized by Jesus.
I believe the "but" in Jn. 4:2 means except. just as the "but" in 1Cor. 1:14 means except.
1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Bruce wrote, "You are reading into my writing what I have not said. My focus has not been on “damning” but on teaching what the apostles taught." But the result of your teaching is to damn those imperfectly baptized. Whether you reach that conclusion reluctantly or not, you have to own the result.
Now, let's start with a fundamental —
Now, I accept this as truth because I find it in the scriptures. But to be a good exegete, I have to interpret the words — particularly, "faith," "faith in him," and "believed in the name of the only Son of God." Manifestly, not all that is called "faith" is faith (as James teaches), but neither must we be experts in the meaning of "faith" to be saved.
Now, to a First Century Jew, "Son of God" was a technical term for the Messiah.
And it is, of course, fundamental to NT teaching that "faith" refers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
Paul summarizes his gospel at —
There is, of course, an important difference between faith and baptism. The scriptures repeatedly declare that faith is sufficient to save — and that faith is defined repeatedly in scripture. "Christ" appears 524 times in the NT. No one claims that baptism is by itself sufficient to save. Thus, faith is an absolutely necessity.
The rules for what constitutes are sufficient baptism are not found in scripture. There is much stated about what baptism accomplishes — but it's hard to tell at times whether the scriptures are even speaking in terms of water baptism, as baptism with the Spirit is, of course, much more the focus than baptism in water.
Consider —
Notice John's contrast of water with Spirit. It's baptism with the Spirit that saves. /2010/05/the-holy-spirit-th…
The scriptures thus emphasize the role of the Spirit in baptism, but not the quantity of water or even the subjective intent of the convert. It's God's work, even though, by design, it should normally coincide with water baptism.
Here, Paul credits the Spirit with the washing, the sanctification, and the justification. Thus, the critical question in baptism is whether the Spirit is active to do his part. That's the test of whether a "baptism" has occurred.
And I agree with Stone's analysis. The true test of salvation is receipt of the Spirit — and that is tested not by how much water was used but by whether we see fruit of the Spirit in the convert.
Which brings us to another reason why the 20th Century Churches of Christ got this wrong: they denied the personal indwelling, and thus came to see baptism as mainly about the water and the intent of the convert — not about God's work through the Spirit.
We need a fully Trinitarian understanding of baptism.
Laymond,
The verse reads,
I'd agree with you if it read "(although Jesus himself was not baptized, but only his disciples)."
Or I'd agree if the verse was "(although Jesus himself did not baptize anyone, but only his disciples)." — which would be much like 1 Cor 1:14.
I think it strange how close the last phrase in both scriptures are, in the KJV, and in the Esv they are so different.
KJV
Jhn 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
John 4:2 (ESV)
2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),
1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1 Corinthians 1:14 (ESV)
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
Did you notice in the 1 Cor statement only one word was changed, the word "but" was changed to except.
But the Jn. 4 was changed so that even the meaning could be changed. but even after the change it takes a little twist to get any meaning except, Jesus didn't baptise anyone except his disciples.
The scriptures repeatedly declare that faith is sufficient to save — and that faith is defined repeatedly in scripture. Thus states Jay. And I deny. The Scriptures do not even once say that faith is sufficient to save from sin. This implies "faith alone." And faith alone is not mentioned in even one of the lengthy lists Jay has provided where it is asserted that faith is essential for salvation. Words mean something. They don't mean whatever we choose to want them to mean. I repeat: The scriptures do not even once declare "that faith is sufficient to save."
If I instructed a friend to drive to the grocery store to replenish something needed and stated that first he must put the ignition key in the ignition for the car, would I have stated that inserting the key was all it took to drive to the store? Neither is it claiming that faith is SUFFICIENT to save when I assert repeatedly that faith is essential for salvation. The long list proves nothing except that we can't be saved by Jesus without believing in Him! Why would anyone claim that faith ALONE was sufficient to save? That is NOT what the Bible teaches.
Jay points out, "No one claims that baptism is by itself sufficient to save." Exactly. Just as no one claims that faith by itself is sufficient to save. Or didn't someone just make that claim, that faith IS sufficient? I must have heard that somewhere else! Surely not on this blog.
Jay, if Jesus did not baptize, please explain the following.
Jhn 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
And if he did baptize, with what baptism did he baptize?
Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Jhn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Speaking of on this blog or some other, Jay wrote "it’s hard to tell at times whether the scriptures are even speaking in terms of water baptism, as baptism with the Spirit is, of course, much more the focus than baptism in water."
I've read foolish claims before, of course, so shouldn't be surprised to read such nonsense here. Who baptizes with the Spirit? Jesus, according to John's prophecy, was the one who would baptize with the Spirit.
Luke records twice when Jesus DID baptize with the Spirit.Twice in recorded history. Once to empower the apostles. Once to convince Jewish Christians that the gospel was for Gentiles also. That's two times.
Every mention in the epistles of baptism other than in reference to these two baptisms IN the Spirit are in reference to the baptism Jesus commanded that His disciples were to perform. That's immersion in water. Every time. No exceptions.
But what did Jay say? Not the truth at all. For shame! We can know assuredly that when the apostles spoke of baptism of sinners, they were talking about. immersion in water. Just as Jesus was when He conversed with Nicodemus as recorded in John 3. Else Peter was mistaken in inviting sinners to enter the kingdom through repentance and baptism in water! Shall we believe Peter or Jay? I vote for Peter.
Laymond wants to imply that Jesus DID baptize–with His Spirit. No, that's not what the scriptures say. The baptizing done by disciples of Jesus was with JOHN's baptism of repentance. It was enlarging the ministry of ministry to which John had been called. And the "but" is certainly an "except." It's just pointing out that the baptizing was NOT done by Jesus "but by his disciples." The baptism was in water. It was the same baptism of repentance which John had been sent to call all Jews to accept. It was NOT Christian baptism. Only Jews were baptized with John's baptism. This was to signal the repentance of Jews and their desire to be prepared when God's kingdom actually began which John said would be "very soon."
So fire my proof-reader. In the note of 4:09 p.m. the sentence should read "It was enlarging the ministry to which John had been called." For some reason my computer wants to accept only some of the characters my fingers type. So I'm having to go back often to correct a typo which I typed correctly but which didn't find its way correctly.
Laymond,
In John 4:2, the "but" or "except" (alla) modifies its antecedent — "Jesus." Therefore, the carve out created by alla is that Jesus was the person doing the baptizing.
In 1 Cor 1:14, the alla modifies the direct object — "none of you".
Ray,
If heaven is going to be filled with people displaying the attitude shown in your posts, I'm sure that I don't want to be there. I hope you aren't as rude and abrasive in person as you are online. You've called Jay (and others) liars, false teachers, and accused other commenters of ignoring the scriptures. Even if I were convinced by your argument (which I'm not), your attitude would drive me away from any sort of agreement with you on anything.
What do you care, though? I'm just some guy who you'll never see, so it doesn't really matter in the long run, does it?
Jay, I'm sorry. Put me on moderation if you must. I just couldn't swallow it anymore.
Ray,
You deny the obvious. In part 2 I listed dozens of verses that declare faith sufficient. You insist that they must say "faith alone." But there's more than one way to say something.
If you tell you son, "Whoever goes to the grocery store has a $5.00 tip" and your son goes to the store, could you then say, "Well, 'goes to the grocery store' is only one of many requirements and I skipped the rest. You should have been here last week when I covered the necessity of also going to the Post Office'"? You are not being fair to text.
Just so,
Could you say, "Son, hear me and believe me when I tell you that if you go to the grocery store you will have a $5.00 tip" and then refuse because he failed to go to the Post Office? No. God keeps his promises. All of them.
And consider —
Call me crazy, but this seems to say that "all who believe" are saved "through faith in Jesus Christ."
Now, I have to point out what I've said many, many times —
"Faith" in John and Paul is a submissive faith. It therefore includes obedience — but not necessarily obedience to each and every command. Rather, it includes an obedient heart, which leads to obedient behavior – but imperfectly obedient behavior.
"Faith" in John and Paul therefore includes hearing (how else might one come to faith?), repenting (deciding to follow Jesus, that is, to begin a life of submission to his commands, that is, obedience as defined above), and confession (how do we know to consider you a Christian, admit you to church, or even baptize you if you've not told us that you believe?). "Faith" subsumes repentance — indeed, repentance in the Acts 2:38 sense is to change from your old views to the new teaching that Peter had just preached —
Peter wasn't asking them to become good, moral people — they were observant Jews. He was asking them to accept that Jesus is the Messiah and Lord — and to change their lives accordingly. "Repent" in context is thus to come to faith — a faith that includes faithfulness to God. And faithfulness to God includes both believing Jesus to be the Messiah and submitting to him as Lord. That's what Peter preached.
Hence, John and Paul do not teach the peculiar notion that "faith" is mere intellectual acceptance of the proposition that Jesus is the Christ. It's much, much more than that. James rightfully teaches against such a misunderstanding.
So the actual scriptural teaching that faith in Jesus is sufficient to save does not deny the necessity of obedience. It affirms the necessity of obedience, because "faith" includes the sense "faithfulness."
But the word "faith" does not include baptism — other than in the sense that it includes obedience, which does not and cannot be perfect obedience.
Jay makes clear his belief that sin is washed away by faith in Jesus, by faith alone. But the scriptures would be saying such a thing only if they did not make clear that more is required than faith alone. And it couldn't be more clear. MORE is required than faith alone. What is required is not works. It IS obedience to the gospel. And what is this obedience? It's no mystery. It's plainly stated in Acts 2:38. Why do some want to not believe it? Jay makes clear that he does not believe it. Or do all his words not really mean that?
If we state that salvation is "through faith" and make no reference to how sinners were brought into the church as recorded in Acts, we at best are implying a lie. I hear Jay saying that he disagrees with the apostle Peter's Way of salvation. I wish it were not so. If we shy away from new birth of water and spirit being repentance and being baptized, we're making clear that we don't believe in the new birth Peter proclaimed on Pentecost. I will state again that there is no scriptural teaching that faith in Jesus is by itself sufficient for salvation. Those who walk all around Acts 2's offer of salvation and manage to leave out baptism are verbal magicians. And false teachers too, of course.
And Laymond doesn't seem to want to see that what the Scriptures report is that John's baptism was being performed later on by the disciples of Jesus, but that Jesus Himself was not doing the baptizing. This has nothing to do with whether or not the apostles were baptized. And it's clearly stated that Jesus Himself was baptized with John's baptism, by John himself.
Jay, i would appreciate it if you could diagram the two sentences for me, maybe I could better understand. 🙂
in other words, I think you are mistaken.
What about the other two questions, that arises from John about Jesus baptising, and with which baptism .
Alan on Jun 26, 2010 at 7:48 am said:
"But I also agree that post-biblical writing is not authoritative. We must get our doctrine from scripture."
Alan,
I'm, curious what do you think was/should have been considered authoritative in the period after the apostles/Bible writers all died and the compilation of the scriptures. What would be authoritative for a group that did not have access to the roman letter?
Thanks,
Brian B.
Jay,
The passage quoted from the Didache says:
"But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."
I am curious about this and wonder what your thoughts are. If the writer and other Christians at that time were so convinced of a strong link between salvation and Baptism, why make a baptismal candidate wait a day or two before being baptized? Where is the urgency if salvation is dependent on the act?
Thanks,
Brian B.
Jay,
On the heels of your comment to Bruce,
What about a person who "imperfectly believes/has faith"? You have criticized Bruce's position for implying that the imperfectly baptism (whatever that means) are condemned. Does that mean you find equally worthy of criticism any position that implies a person with imperfect faith is condemned?
Here i mean to reference whatever minimum set of facts you do think a person needs to know in order for faith to be produced. So take your pick about what is omitted. Jesus' resurrection? Lordship? If a person believes the list of things you think he needs to minus one, is he still okay as he is? minus two?
If Bruce had insisted that a person believe that Jesus was raised from the dead in order to be saved, and you knew of a significant group of people all who claimed to be Christians and who did great works and all who seemed to have good hearts but none of whom believed that Christ was raised from the dead, would you have found such a teaching from Bruce equally worthy of criticism?
–Guy
Jay – I have been following this discussion and I appreciate your honest, logical and (for the most part) very clear presentation.
Having reviewed all the comments, it seems to me that most have (once again) turned this into a debate over baptism — when (as I see it) it is really about the boundaries of fellowship and where do I sit on the spectrum between "I'm right about "what do I do to be saved?" and anyone who disagrees with me is lost to the ultimate Jesus died for all and all will be saved (universalism) —
While I am personally convicted by faith that I could not face God in judgement with an expectation of His recognizing me as His faithful child if I were NOT baptized I also am convinced that I personally don't have to "be right (about everything) to be righteous" and I extend that grace to others. I think the basic flaw in the teaching I was exposed to as a child which is taking a "lifetime" to undo is 2-fold
a) ignorance is no excuse (imperfect understanding is no excuse (this lowers God to the level of human reasoning and human justice rather than leving him a God of Grace and mercy who can see the heart)
b) a) doesn't really apply to everything and we know which ones it applies to (this seems to be blatant arrogance of saying I have a perfect insight into the mind of God and what he intended when he spoke through his Son and when the Spirit inspired writers spoke to the early church,
I don't know where I "hit the wall" in terms of saying – no Ican't accept that this person has a "reasonable" basis for their claim to be Christian and I can line up with them in proclaiming Jesus to the world and embrace them as a brother or sister in Christ. I know it is not at either of the "extemes" I listed above and yet I I haven't been able to move as far as you are suggesting even though intellectually your arguments are compelling — (I'd take you as my defense lawyer anytime!!!).
May God bless you in your efforts to promote a different approach to unity —
Ray,
How can you say that there are only two instances of Jesus baptizing someone in the Holy Spirit when Paul clearly says otherwise in 1 Corinthians 12:13?
You may read my detailed comments on that here.
Jerry
Brian wrote:
There were inspired prophets in the churches for maybe 50 or more years after the last apostle died. By that time the inspired writings were widely circulated and well established, as is evident from how often they were quoted by the early church leaders. A statement from the inspired writings settled the matter in those leaders' minds.
Jerry Starling asks how we can understand that Jesus baptized in the Spirit only twice when Jerry's excellent blog claims that baptism which brings us into the body is performed BY the Spirit. It's easy. Paul never said such a thing as some translators mistakenly quote him as saying.
If there is for Christians only ONE baptism, which Paul clearly states is the case, would he in another verse create a third baptism? Of course not! So Paul did not teach that there is a baptism performed by the Holy Spirit. The discussion can start from that point. There is ONE baptism.
John prophesied that JESUS would baptize in the Spirit. At the time the apostles were teaching truth, Jesus had baptized the apostles in the Spirit. That was past. It was done. Jesus was not baptizing everyone in the Spirit. Far from it. He was gifting the Spirit to everyone being baptized in water as He had commanded men of faith were to perform. Are we agreed that Jesus included baptism in His commission to the apostles, which we see being carried on by all who were taught by th apostles?
If this is agreed, then we have found the ONE baptism which Paul was teaching. It was in water. It was a burial and bringing forth into new life of a previous sinner. It was burying in water a believer who wanted to join the army of Jesus. That's the ONE baptism for the Christian age.
Baptism in fire will occur at the end of time as we know it. That's future. Baptism in the Spirit was a one-time event in the past as Paul was writing this note to reprove and exhort Corinthian Christians. Paul knew of the ONE baptism, as is made clear by his writing to Ephesian Christians appealing for unity based on ONE Lord, ONE God, ONE church, ONE body of belief, and ONE baptism.
Now would an inspired apostle come along in this ONE place and create a third baptism to mock his appeal for unity because of ONE baptism? How could he? His topic was unity–oneness in Christ, not marred by people wanting to create division. Paul believed in ONE faith, that is, one body of teaching which was always true and completely true. That ONE faith included the teaching and practice of ONE baptism, according to Paul.
What did he think of those who brought in false teaching to disrupt the ONE faith? He did not admire them and rejoice in their convoluted reasoning. He sujggested they needed to go to Hell. Would this strong-minded apostle who was led by God's ONE Spirit then introduce a third baptism to confuse the people he was urging to remain in the ONE faith?
The idea is repugnant. If there is ONE baptism, Paul would NOT, could NOT possibly then try to convince his friends in Corinth that they had all received a third baptism they had never heard of before. Note that this third baptism is NOT the baptism IN the Spirit John had prophesied that Jesus would perform. This is an immersing BY the Spirit we've never heard of in any previous or further teaching. It's mentioned only in this one verse if ever.
Which is why I suggest that Paul would never have said what the translators say he said (wrote). If he had said this, he would have been condemning hnimself to anathema. Either Paul was wrong (if the translators are right) or the translators are wrong (if Paul is truly inspired, as we think is the case). I am sure the translators are wrong in making Paul create a third baptism when he has clearly taught and practiced only a baptism in water to bring sinners into salvation.
That's why I affirm that Paul's words are in harmony with his thesis. The baptism which all his readers had submitted to was equal for every one of them. None were better than the other. None had been immersed better than the other. They were all equal. They all had had to put pride aside and submit in humility to the same experience of being lowered helplessly into water and then raised by other hands out of that water. They were baptized in ONE spirit of humility and love and faith.
No, Paul did not teach a baptism BY the Spirit which no one had ever heard of before. He did not teach a baptism IN the Spirit which was for every new Christian. 1 Corinthians 12:13 must harmonize with all the other teaching by apostles and by Jesus concerning baptism. Creating a third baptism is the last thing Paul would have wanted to do! He was appealing for UNITY. Jesus had taught ONE baptism. Paul would not have taught another baptism, thereby creating confusion and disunity. Thanks for asking.
Jerry, your lengthy writing on the subject is very well done. It just assumes that Paul was not inspired and therefore taught in this one verse about a baptism never before known of (so far as the record knows) but that he expected all his Corinthian readers to know about.. And Paul thought that his new and different teaching would create the unity he longed to see among Corinthian Christians. No, he was speaking of the ONE baptism they all had experienced and knew they had experienced. That was immersion in water and being raised up into new life because of their faith in Jesus who had commanded the water baptism.
Brian B,
Obviously, the author the Didache did not teach what the revival preachers teach today! I think the purpose behind the fasting was to assure that the convert was willing to make the commitment required by Christianity. After all, there were times the price of wearing the name of Jesus was very high.
So I don't see this as supporting the Baptist notion that baptism can wait because the convert is already saved. Rather, I see the writer being concerned that converts were taking conversion too lightly.
In Apostolic Tradition, a second century work, Hippolytus outlines a requirement of 3 years of study and 2 days of fasting before baptism. So we see a trend toward making conversion more and more difficult — which I suspect was due in part to persecution and the level of commitment expected of a convert.
And I'd point out the transition from conversion of Jews and God-fearing Gentiles, who were already outside paganism, in Acts (not entirely, but mainly) to the conversion of Gentiles with no prior connection to Judaism — which would have been a much more difficult transition, I would think.
It's interesting how contemporary fundamentalism and evangelicalism want to push for an immediate "decision" or baptism, whereas the early church increasingly made conversion a much more deliberative process.
oh, oh…speaking of fasting. Maybe you could opine on fasting. It would seem that Jesus considered fasting a foregone conclusion. But, oddly enough there isn't really that much teaching on it today. Wonder how imperfect fasting (or no fasting at all) is viewed?
Jay:
You asked me about reconciliation of the proposed paradox regarding “salvation by faith” and apostolic teaching about baptism.
No paradox exists regarding “salvation by faith” and apostolic teaching about baptism as an act of God’s grace. Why would there be one? I hope that someday down the road we get rid of thinking that holds us back (along with some Southern Baptists) from seeing that we are saved by grace through faith — and what that means. Correct? (Ephesians 2:8)
And how are we saved by grace, i.e. “made alive with Christ” (Ephesians 2:5) through faith? The answer penetrates Ephesians (5:26; 4:5; Markus Barth may be correct in his suggestion that Ephesians was a baptism manual of sorts for Roman Asia — and beyond). Paul answers unmistakably in Romans 6:1ff. The letters we are seeing summarize apostolic teaching — such as occurred for days/weeks/months in the lecture hall in Ephesus, and other locations. But we are being shown what the risen Lord is directing.
Titus 3:4-7 and Romans 6:1ff. announce that we are washed clean by the grace of God as we are immersed — actually taking part in the death and resurrection of Jesus with Him!
And as I also posted in Part 5, this is not about “perfect understanding.” It is about depending on the grace of the Lord — including in baptism, The very thing that OneinJesus.info has been emphasizing. And we need to halt the thinking that teaching what the apostles taught then “damns” others. I, for one, refuse to determine how folks will respond to the Word of the Lord.
But we also need to stop allowing the Satanic deception that has suggested we close up Bibles, stop talking about baptism with folks, and everyone decide to just avoid the discussion.
Jay, I am praying you take up Everett Ferguson’s new study for a book review. Leaves no stone unturned. He has penned a full-fledged look at the first 400 years that will be the standard for generations. Why? First, he believes apostolic teaching and teaches it. Second, that frees him to assess and draw correct conclusions regarding post-apostolic teaching (some of which purposefully leaves behind apostolic teaching; i.e. the Gnostics being one example). Ferguson sees with clarity that not every expression of “faith in Jesus” historically was true. Some were lies — even when folks were blind to such. Their faith was seduced into becoming rebellion.
We need to kindly, patiently, lovingly help when we see spiritual lies being expressed, not sit back and hope folks will read the Word. That is not the example of apostles and other early disciples in the middle of spiritual war. And yes, that is one of the significant differences between the 21st century U.S. and the first century Mediterranean. Greeks, Romans, Asian, and Jews did believe in evil. They could understand the Gospel more easily than can many in our time for which the word “evil” is perhaps almost meaningless (I am sad to say that I believe Andrew Delbanco’s look at the U.S. in The Death of Satan is on target; evil has become social/cultural only, no longer metaphysical and theological, for most of the U.S. — and perhaps for some followers of Jesus).
We desperately need to grasp the example of apostolic action and teaching as we reach out to love, help, and teach others — remembering that a spiritual war is real for us and for them.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Nancy,
I'm no expert in fasting — but you're right that the NT assumes fasting as normal. We read about fasting in the early church fathers as well.
I admit to some perplexity, because Paul repeatedly teaches against asceticism — and fasting is an ascetic practice. There is no merit in making yourself miserable for the sake of the misery.
I see Christian fasting as having little to do with asceticism. Rather, fasting appears to be a means of growing closer to God.
They weren't trying to earn God's favor by proving their willingness to suffer. They were seeking his will. I imagine that Jesus' 40 days of fasting was much the same — not self-punishment but a means of getting close to the will of God through prayer and fasting.
It's not commanded, but the discipline has merit for the modern church — and I'm see more and more of it as we get away from a word-only attitude and instead see God powerfully moving among and within us.