1 Cor 6:11
The next passage in 1 Corinthians we should consider is not necessarily a baptism passage —
(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.
“Wash” is used of baptism in —
(Act 22:16 ESV) And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
The verb in 1 Cor 6:11 is aorist, referring to a point-in-time action. Paul is therefore, I believe, referring to baptism.
“Washed” is parallel with “sanctified” (made holy) and “justified” (declared holy) — and this is all “by the Spirit of our God.” As always, consideration of the Spirit isn’t far from consideration of baptism. We’ve seen this repeatedly in the Gospels and Acts, and we’ll find it many times in Paul.
The active agent in our washing is not the water but the Spirit. And, plainly, Paul teaches that something happened in baptism that washed us. Immediately preceding v. 11 is —
(1Co 6:9-10 ESV) 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Our baptism washes us from our former sins — indeed, from our former sinfulness. Paul’s point isn’t so much that we are forgiven as we are changed. We no longer act that way! He wants us to understand that the soteriology — the means of our salvation — tells us how to live. Our lifestyle is driven by how we’ve been saved.
1 Cor 12:13
(1Co 12:13 ESV) 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Again, we see baptism tied to the work of the Spirit. Our baptism is “in one Spirit” so we will “drink of one Spirit.” Indeed, the only reference to water — “drink” — is a reference to what we receive from the Spirit.
Paul mentions the Spirit twice. The Spirit places in the body, and once in the body, we drink of the Spirit.
“Drink” makes us think of —
(Isa 44:3 ESV) 3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.
Of course, “drink” also brings to mind Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman. Paul is speaking of living water.
The main point of the verse, however, is the “one body.” This is, of course, the body of Christ, and so fits well with the imagery of Rom 6 — we’ve been baptized “into” Christ and so we are part of his body. It’s a theme found throughout Paul’s writings. Having been added to the one body, we are united, indeed, part of the same person.
Paul’s argument proceeds from irony. The Corinthians are arguing that the diversity of their gifts are grounds for division. Paul asserts the opposite. The gifts are from the Spirit, and the Spirit’s work is to unite the body.
Baptism is, obviously, part of the thought, but water baptism is incidental. Here, the emphasis is on what the Spirit does in baptism.
Now, there are those who argue that the emphasis on the Spirit shows that “baptized” is a spiritual baptism separate from water baptism. But that’s truly a forced argument. Paul had earlier written,
(1 Cor 1:14-17 ESV) I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in [into] my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
And this passage is an obvious reference to water baptism. And, of course, in 1 Cor 15:19, Paul again uses “baptize” to refer to water baptism. We can’t just assume that Paul used the word in a different sense just to suit our theology.
Conclusion
Hence, in 1 Corinthians, Paul repeatedly refers to baptism as effecting a change of status, from outside of Christ or the name of Christ or the body of Christ to inside. But it’s also true that Paul’s stress is on our relationship with Christ and the working of the Spirit. He doesn’t address any of the issues we are so obsessed with: the convert’s understanding of baptism, the amount of water used, or such like. Indeed, although he is certainly speaking of water baptism, his focus is on the meaning of baptism for the convert and how he is to live his life after his conversion.
I believe "washed" is speaking about the all sufficient blood of Jesus Christ, the only way by which we ALL are saved.
Hebrews 10:19"Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus."
Hebrews 13:12 "Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate."
Revelation 1:5 "To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own bloode saved."
My computer is acting up this morning.
Revelation 1:5 "To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood."
Jay said "“Washed” is parallel with “sanctified” (made holy) and “justified” (declared holy) — and this is all “by the Spirit of our God.”'
Jay, I am not questioning what you said here, but what is it that is "sanctified, and justified" the body or the spirit?
Jay,
I appreciate how you are relating baptism in one Spirit to baptism in water. There is one baptism – but two "elements." I also appreciate that you said
"Paul’s point isn’t so much that we are forgiven as we are changed. We no longer act that way! He wants us to understand that the soteriology — the means of our salvation — tells us how to live. Our lifestyle is driven by how we’ve been saved."
If baptism does not result in a change of life, it has failed in its purpose. In 1967 I wrote my Master's thesis on "The Use of Baptism in Exhorting Christians." In the epistles, every reference to baptism is in a hortatory context. As such, it is linked with the cross and the Spirit in pleas for Unity, Purity, and Assurance for the child of God.
If you would like to have a copy of this, please contact me privately.
Jerry
The holy blood of Jesus takes away sins, the holy blood of Jesus has justified and santified us (made us holy), we are given the His Holy Spirit that continues sanctifying us by the power of Jesus' holy blood that covers us. We have faith that His holy blood is all powerful and all suffient!! A pool and a preacher does not save people!! It is only the blood of Jesus that saved me!!!
Laymond,
In baptism, the washing is twofold: in water and in Spirit. It's not that two things are washed but that two kinds of washings occur.
There are other verses using "wash" to refer to water baptism (together with Spirit baptism) —
(Heb 10:22 ESV) let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
(Tit 3:5 ASV) not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
(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.
The verbs are related to the ones discussed in the post but not the same (louo vs. loutron).
Heb 10:22 is the one most unambiguously referring to baptism. The other two, like most baptism passages, are sometimes interpreted as referring solely to Spirit baptism — which only make sense if you accept the division of water and Spirit baptism as normative in NT times, which is a very unlikely premise.
But it's not time yet to exegete our way through all these verses.
Titus 3:5 is speaking of the washing that the Holy Spirit does to us, not water.
Ephesians 5:26 is speaking of the washing that the word does to us, not water.
People can exegete from the word wash as they want it to be, but the truth shall reign. Jesus finished it with His Holy blood for all who are saved from Adam to us, there is no difference to those who have faith that God is our salvation!!
Gracethrufaith,
What is your exegesis of wash in Acts 22:16? Paul was already believing Jesus, so to what does wash refer?
Did Paul have faith in Jesus, or was he struggling with the idea at the time still…had he called on the Lord to save him as the Scriptures told him to do, Psalm 145:18-19 "The LORD is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth. He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He also will hear their cry and save them.", 2 Timothy 3:14-15 “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
Dear Gracethrufaith
I've been of the same conviction as you, but I – very reluctantly! – had to change my mind. For years I debated my brother on the issue of baptism … until I had to give in to God's Word.
The word "washing" (bath) is highly significant, because it – by its very nature – needs water. But water alone does only wash our bodies, but cannot cleanse us from sin. This happens through the blood of Christ. In this I agree with you.
But HOW is the blood of Christ applied to our sinfulness so we can be "washed"? As an Evangelical I thought and taught: The Sinner's Prayer is all we need. But then I slowly realized: This is not the way people in the NT were taught to repent and become Christians. The Apostles said: Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). And this, brother, does NOT mean "because of the remiossion of sins" as some try to understand this verse for the sake of their theology. We can discuss that later, if you'd like …
Now, if we – just for a moment – take the "Sinner's Prayer" as the means to become born again. I which way is this prayer less a "work" we do than baptism. Is it more effication because no "earthly element" is involved? Be serious about it: If it is the prayer that "prompts" God's Spirit to regenerate me and Christ to cleanse me: Isn't that a kind of "work"-salvation as well? I pray and God works!
But the problem is, this is not the way the scriptures tell us to become Christians: We are to be cleansed and regenerated by repentance in baptism. THat's the "mode" HOW we apply the blood of Christ to our sinfulness. It is not the water that saves, but Christ is at work in us, when we repenet and go down into the water. In this way baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21) inasmuch as it is a covenant of a good consience through the resurrection of Christ.
(to be continued)
(Part II)
Let me exegete from this word – for the sake of undersanding and better discernment. Stubbornness does not lead to truth, but patience, the will to listen carefully and the humilty to allow God's Word to corect me (this applies to me, too, of course).
????????? = sanctify is the aorist, referring to a certain one-time event in our biography.
?????????? = cleansed is also in the aorist – obviously speaking of the same one time event in our biography.
So what is Paul speaking about? About the time, when Christ cleansed and sacrificed us. The next part is about HOW He did it:
???? ???????? ???? ?????? = (by) the washing of water. Here Paul speaks about water and of a washing therein, a bath. This can be understood literally (baptism) or figuratively. But it is tied to the one time event: So ask yourself: What stood at the beginning of a Christian life in the NT? Baptism as the way people expressed repentence and asked for the remission of sins.
??? ???????? = in or with the word describing the power behind the washing. So this may mean that the washing is simply metaphorically pointing to the word; or that the word is the power that makes the washing efficatious. The word ?????? BTW does mean (Strong) an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically); by implication a matter or topic (especially of narration, command or dispute). Thus it can refer to several things, such as the preaching of the Gospel, the calling upon the name of the Lord, a word of prophecy or affirmation …
Let's look at a few other passages with similar words and phrases:
John 15:3 Joh 15:3 ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ????.
Here Jesus uses a different word and a different structure: He does not mention water here, and He uses ?????? as the means for cleansing, which is also a spoken word – in the case of the disciples: It was the call: "Follow me" which they did. Their following Christ actually also started with baptism, at least the baptism of John – but maybe also a second baptism in the presence of Christ, because in John 3 we see Christ and His disciples baptizing even MORE people than John (John 4:2).
Anyway: ?????? or ??????, a spoken word, a calling, the Gospel preached are essential to our cleansing. Did you realize: We are not cleansed by the Blood of Christ only, but by the spoken word of Christ and the ones teaching us repentance! This spoken word kakes known to us Christ and His Blood, and even more: His Kingdom and authority.
Now to John 3 – a very intersting verse (to be continued):
(Part III)
Joh 3:25 Now a discussion arose between some of John's disciples and a Jew over purification.
Joh 3:26 And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness–look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him."
The word for purification – again – is ???????????, to be translated as cleansing, ablution or washing off – and it is evidently tied to the baptism. THe question that obviously arose: "Whose batism is the valid one?"
So batism is calles a ??????????? a purification, a cleansing, a washing off.
Now back to Eph 5:26 – This makes it quite clear that the one time event of being sanctified and cleansed by the means of of washing with water based on the preached Gosepl, the calling of Christ or an invocation of His name MUST refer to baptism. In the light of these and many other texts, the way Chrsitians became Chrsitians in Acts, this is the way we are saved.
Well, you pointed to Adam and other pre-CHristian Saints that were saved without baptism as well. But what was the difference: Were they born again? Did they receive the Spirit of God as we do? NO, this is a clear distinction between the old covenant and the new one: The Spirit being poured out over all believers. This is a new dispensation, Gracethrufaith, that requires a new way of becoming part of it:
We don't circumcise or penis anymore, but our hearts! And – imagine – this circumcision of Christ is synonymous to the new birth and tied to baptism:
It is not the water alone – don't misunderstand it – but the word, the Spirit, the blood working togerther with our faith at the time of our baptism.
I tell you: It took me some time to grasp this, and to accept thios as the true meaning of baptism. I had to change my doctrinal system – along wioth some other errors I held to as an Evangelical. But it was truly liberating.
God bless you in your quest for the truth
Alexander
Jay, that does not answer the question I asked, does baptism work on the spirit or, the body of the person being baptized.? or do you even believe a person has a spirit before baptism?
Does the spirit control the body, or does the body control the spirit.?
Why should I think that your interpretation of Hebrew and Greek is better than those who I study Scripture with?
I have asked some people, who I didn’t really know well, to forgive me of things I have done, they didn’t tell me if you wash my car I will forgive you or if you walk my dog I will forgive you, no they freely forgave me. While many people will look at you and expect you to do something to deserve their forgiveness. There is nothing we can do to deserve God’s forgiveness. God does not throw out a bargaining chip (baptism) when we turn to Him and ask Him to forgive us.
To believe or have faith in Jesus means to trust that He is powerful enough to save us from our sins. The free gift of God’s grace is Christ’s Sacrifice, the One and only unblemished, sinless, holy Sacrifice sufficient to take away sins.
Jesus’ primary objective was to make forgiveness of our sins a reality, not just for us, but also for those before He came to the earth. When the angel explained Mary’s conception to Joseph, he declared, “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”(Matthew 1:21). Jesus forgives me the same as He forgave people from the Hebrew Scriptures and as He forgave people when He walked on the earth, by His grace and mercy, I am covered by His holy and righteous blood.
No man has the power to condemn another person, for there is only One who knows the deepest of our hearts. There are people walking around who have been baptized who put on all kinds of fake masks pretending to be a follower of Christ, when they’re really in darkness not letting anyone else see. All the hidden things of darkness will be brought to light when the Lord comes. 1 Corinthians 4:5 “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.”
I don’t believe God needs a person to prove to Him whether they are His or not. Does God not know His own…really?? God wants us to believe that He is the One and only True Living God who came in the flesh and died to save us from our sins, that His worth and work, shedding His holy blood on the cross, is the only way we are saved, no other act is greater than that my friends! Praise God who did it all on the cross, “It is finished”(John 19:30), Paid in Full!!
God bless
Is that all? Really, that's not even half the truth!
First this faith does not even require repentance, does it?
Because repentace includes (or better: IS) change of attitide and behavior not just admitting one's sinfulness, John could say:
And that was a condition for baptizing people! Paul taught the very same message:
So your faith – according to your own definition – is nothing but illusion if you don't have these fruits and deeds of repentance.
Second: Your Gospel message only speaks about a sacrifice and forgiveness of sins. But not of a King demanding obedience, not about the Kingdom of God having rules and a law to live by.
The great commission says:
How do we become disciples? By after having heard the Gospel of the Kingdom (! – Mat 24:14) being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit and being taught henceforth to walk obediently in all the commands of Christ. Cut out baptism, and you are not a disciple of Christ!
And baptism, as is said repeatedly in the NT (!) is the way HOW we are being cleansed from our sins and regenerated.
If you don't like my understanding of Greek, let me tell you: Language is n ot a matter of personal interpretation but of proper translation. You may ask your friends about the points I made; but – be sure – as long as you stick to such a shallow understanding of saving faith, you won't understand it. You won#t want to understand itm, that's why.
Alexander
Have we met, I don’t believe we have. Hmmm, so you don’t know the fruits I bear since I’ve come to have faith and repented. Repentance and faith go hand in hand, you cannot repent unless you have faith.
Performing righteous deeds cannot eternally save anyone. Performing righteous deeds as
an effort toward justification before God man’s deeds are insufficient to atone human sins. The church is where people go to get healing and many churches have become a place where people do their best to discourage and destroy them! The church is a hospital for sinners. Many churches hang a sign up saying “only perfect people allowed!”
Man is to keep two greatest commandments and all the others hang on them, Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
God’s requirement of perfection is, Matthew 5:48 “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” We are commanded to be perfect and the measure of that perfection is God Himself.
Not only do we sin by breaking God's commands (sins of commission), we also sin when we don't do the things God commands us to do (sins of omission), James 4:17 “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
We sin unintentionally and it is still sin, Numbers 15:29 “You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.” Leviticus 5:15-17
When we do something good so we can make ourselves look good, we sin. When we do something because refusing it would make us look bad, it is turned into sin. We may be able to fool others, sometimes ourselves, but God knows it.
Anything we think makes us significant other than the Lord Jesus Christ is an idol. A career can be an idol, a home, a person, a car, money, even ourselves can be an idol. Anytime we say I worked hard to get my money, or I worked hard to get my house, or I worked hard to get my car we take the glory away from God.
We sin not only when we murder, but when we are unjustly angry. Even if this anger takes no action. If we feel a flash of anger it is still a sin against God. Resenting someone, even only for a moment, because they took the parking spot you were going to pull in, is a sin, When we yell angrily at someone at home after it’s been a hard day at work, we sin. Sinful action doesn’t have to occur, we have still sinned against God.
Do you always love your neighbor as you should, do you always keep what you say to someone, do you always help someone you see needing help, do you ever see someone with something and want it too and covet, do you ever eat in excess which is gluttony, do you ever hear another person gossip about someone and have even a little interest, are you ever lazy, have you not given a deserved compliment to someone out of pride.
The greatest command is to love God, completely, continuously, with every part of our heart, soul, and mind. When we fall short of this, we sin. When we are distracted by this world and what is in it, we sin. When we take God for granted, we sin.
How many times do we break the commandment “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”? Anytime we are not content with what He has given us. Anytime we are angry about what life has dealt us. Anytime we fail to give God the glory. Anytime we want control over our lives instead of searching out what God has for us. Anytime we rely on man’s understanding instead of on God. Anytime we sin we rebel against God and break His command.
When we cut a person off in traffic, rather than letting him in, we sin. When we fail to offer help to a neighbor, we sin. When we shun people not wanting to be bothered by them, we sin. When we consider the command to “love our neighbor as ourselves” we must consider our sins of omission. The command is not “When you interact with your neighbor treat him with love”. This command is broken many times by omission for every time by commission.
Other commands are “do not steal”, “do not bear false witness”, and “honor your parents”. When we get creative with our tax report, or bring the office’s supplies home to use, shave a little time off the clock by leaving early or taking long breaks, or don’t tell the clerk about an error, we commit the sin of stealing. We can steal not just money and valuables, but also time, privileges, and honor.
We sin when by our silence we fail to stick up for someone. When we pay a person false complements, exaggerate qualifications, or hide faults, resulting in a false representation of a person, we bear false witness and sin.
“Honor your father and mother” is more than just a command for children to obey their parents until they become adults. When we fail to respect our parents, we sin. When not listening to our parents, we sin. When we hold resentments, we sin, if they have hurt us through their sin and we fail to forgive our parents, we sin. When we place ourselves above our parents, we sin.
Jesus is our perfect standing before God, 2 Corinthians 5:21 “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ did not deserve death, we do! It is only the righteousness of Christ that can satisfy the perfect demand of God’s law, Romans 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” I am a sinner saved by God’s grace, the blood Jesus shed for me!! Praise God!!
Why do folks like you always focus so much on sin?
You call church a hosüpital for sinners, but somehow you convey the message: "You will always be a sinner" – what kind of healing is this?
Alexander
Gracethrufaith,
I appreciate you quoting OTHER scriptures and reminding us the Bible needs to harmonize. However, you have, yet again, failed to engage in conversation about Acts 22:16. I am sure you find the conversation to be difficult when you ask for exegesis of Rm. 4:3-4 and someone says, “well, Acts 2:38…” Therefore, what is your exegesis of “wash” in Acts 22:16, and to what does wash refer?
—-
aBasnar, It’s good to see you around my brother. I figured you would save some of your thoughts until Jay posted on Ti 3:5, but I am sure you will need to post again (ha ha).
The word wash is speaking about the blood of Jesus. It is only the blood of Jesus for all who are saved from Adam to us.
David used the same kind of symbolism, Psalm 51:7 “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” Jewish people understood and used symbolism when they spoke. Performing rituals are symbols, they do not take away sins from anyone, Jesus’ blood is sufficient to take away sins.
No doubt we who claim to be followers of Jesus ought to be faithful in every way. We ought to be engaged in every good work. However, if someone here believes works of righteousness are required to become saved or remain saved would that person please let me know which works and how many of them are required? Obviously this cannot be answered and it exposes the faulty foundation upon which that platform rests.
It also seems that the word "regeneration" gets tossed around with some abandon. Surely being born again – born from above – born of God means more than being immersed in water. Outside3 the CofC many believe it means one was formerly dead spiritually (as in no life at all, none, nada, zip) and has received spiritual life where none existed. How could that happen except by the work of God? It seems that in the CofC many think there was an impaired spiritual life that was improved (as a result of coming to faith, repentance and baptism) rather than that there was a dead man and then a new creation.
Hesed,
Randall
Gracethrufaith,
I agree the blood of Jesus is the true saving element of all time, but again, lets limit our conversation to Acts 22:16. Though some see these as a unit, for our conversation and point of identification Paul is to do 3 “things” that have not YET occurred: (1) be baptized (2) wash away sins (3) calling on name of the Lord. Wash is something Paul needed, but was lacking. Since you say that wash is a reference to the blood of Jesus that saves us when we believe, how does your view avoid the conclusion that even though Paul believed in Jesus, he was not saved, because he had not washed away his sins?
In my understanding of Soteriology elsewhere in this blog, I have affirmed justification by faith, but avoided your dilemma. I am interested in your answer.
Randall,
I am a with the COC, but I am Classical Arminian who affirms justification by faith, apart from works, but our works have consequences and one can fall away if they “stop believing in Christ.” In this understanding, a sinner is totally depraved and dead, but fully able to respond to the gospel [for salvation] of his own will. Thus regeneration [born again] is a making the creature new, etc.
I believe most in the COC are either fully or Semi-Pelagian. In Semi-Pelagianism, the affects of sin are generally not as extent, and the reason that one can respond is different. However, all non-Calvinistic views believe the sinner can respond of his to the gospel with a true [libertarian] free will.
You seem to posit a Calvinistic view of regeneration, which means your use of outside CofC is probably within a limited circle of Reformed thought, perhaps Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian. Within this system of thought, regeneration occurs before faith, since God, by his grace, chooses within himself [not the sinner], to whom he is going to give saving life. Therefore, God regenerates the dead sinner, and then gives him faith, repentance, baptism, since the dead sinner could NOT respond to the gospel without first being born again [regenerated] to life.
Some don’t fully understand these views of salvation, so they mix and match, which leaves them with major inconsistencies. I have chosen not to debate the merits of these systems of thoughts, but I hope you find them explanatory as to why some are using regeneration differently.
Dear Gracetrhrufaith
No one (I hope) in the CoC would deny that it is the blood of Christ that cleanses us. But we believe with the scriptures, that faith must work in order to receive the promise.
Abraham did not simply "believe" that he would become a great nation and that would receive the land of the Canaanites. No he left Chaldea in order to obtain the promise, and he fulfilled his duty with his wife Sara in order to become a father of a multitude. Still it was against the possibilities of human nature that this should happen.
There are two true conclusions in this example:
First: We are unable to do anything to make God's promise happen.
Second: We have to do everything anyhow so that God makes His promise happen through our faithful obedience.
We must not misunderstand the first truth in a way that says: "We can't do anything, so we need not do anything."
And we must not misunderstand the second truth in the sense of "We did it, so WE did it."
It is the same with forgiveness and salvation. Actually your pointing to hyssop is quite fitting. Hyssop was dipped into blood and then the blood was sprinkled onto the tent or persons with the hyssop. This was for cleansing.
See, the blood of animals is a type of the blood of Christ. But the hyssop shows HOW we apply the blood to us. HOW does CHrist's blood cleanse us? In OT times it was by the hyssop. So unless a person in the OT followed the prescribed mode(s) of cleansing, he was not regarded as clean. Unless it is sprinkled unto us, the blood of the sacrifice remained separated from the unclean person. He could have faith that the boold was mighty to cleanse him, but this faith is of no effect, since the blood is still in the basin, but not yet sprinkled upon him with hyssop.
So hyssop was not a symbol it was a means or a tool. It is the same with baptism: It is the means to apply Christ's sacrifice to us.
Please remember how strict God is, when things are not done according to the prescribed modes. They transported the ark of the covenant in an unlawful way, and a person had to die; the wrong persons wanted to burn incense, and they had to die. Priests brought a wrong fire and they were burned. Our God has not changed his nature, but He has changed the way in which we approach Him. He is still as holy as ever, still a devouring fire … BUT we can come near him through the blood of Christ which is cleansing us in baptism. THat's why it is said in Hebrews:
Baptism is the mode of the New Covenant to be cleansed by the blood of Christ. So, back to the two principles from the beginning:
The water alone works nothing. But that does not mean that we don't need the water.
We are sved in baptism. But that does not mean that baptism alone or in itself saved us.
Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16) is as clear a verse as we could wish for. It is bad theology if we start complaining and explaining away what is written in order to save our theology.
Alexander
If you go to someone you have wronged and ask for their forgiveness, I think you hope to get an answer from them that they forgive you. That is what baptism is; the answer that you are forgiven. One is washed from sin by the blood of Christ, he is pronounced washed from sin by baptism in water. This is where I think Jay is going with this discussion.
@History Guy – or anyone else.
In the explanation above you said "Thus regeneration [born again] is a making the creature new, etc."
In practical terms what is the difference between one who is born again and one who is not. Your statement that one is a new creature is taken from scripture and I accept it, but what does it mean? Does one that is born again have a new life where there was none, or an improved quality of life? Does one see, hear and understand what was once incomprehensible to the natural man, or see, hear and understand more clearly than previously. Is one enabled by the Spirit to do what s/he previously was unable to do in the power of the flesh?
I don't mean to be coy or lead you to think I am altogether ignorant regarding the issue. I do have a reformed understanding of the term that I learned outside the CofC. When I was in the CofC being born again was never discussed other than simply to equate it with being baptized i.e. it meant one was saved or at least headed in that direction if they remained faithful.
I wonder how people in the CofC understand the term today. I even wonder how a classic Arminian understands the term if they believe they enjoy a free (libertarian) will rather than a will encumbered by sin.
I don't want to argue or debate the issue and I know you don't either. I simply want to understand this one specific issue – not to spread the discussion to other aspects of the Calvinistic – Arminian issue. I really wonder how a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian understands the term as they generally don't view man as being all that fallen to begin with.
Peace and Grace,
Randall
Laymond,
You are presuming a dualistic view of the nature of man: body and spirit. Of course, we have bodies and we have spirit, but the scriptures don't present them as a duality so much as aspects of a common, singular being. We aren't two natures existing in one person.
Generally speaking, the "spirit" is a person's life. "Spirit" also can be translated "breath."
(Jam 2:26 ESV) 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
If the body ceases to breathe, it is dead.
Does man have a spirit? Of course, if he's alive.
The spirit is not our eternal existence that will live after the body is dead. Rather, at the end of time, the body is resurrected.
"Spirit" can also mean a person's heart or will.
(Mat 26:41 ESV) 41 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
Of course, "spirit" is also a reference to the nature of divine beings and demons.
And occasionally a person is referred to as a "spirit" even though quite alive —
(1Jo 4:1 ESV) Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Only rarely is a dead person referred to as a "spirit" —
(1Pe 3:18-20 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.
And this is one very difficult passage.
It's a category mistake, I think, to ask whether our bodies or our spirits are forgiven. It makes no sense, because my spirit isn't what will be with God forever. My body will be — and it will be alive. Thus, it will have a spirit.
Therefore, I am forgiven. That which is forgiven is the person, not some aspect of the person. (When you forgive a friend, do you forgive his body or his spirit? You see, it doesn't really make sense. You forgiven him.)
You see, many reject baptism because it's physical — washing the body, whereas they see salvation occurring at the spiritual level, apart from the baseness of material things. Therefore, baptism can't be part of the process.
But this is Gnostic. It's a false, Greek dualism quite foreign to the scriptures.
When a Christian is baptized, it is normatively both in water and in Spirit and all at the same time. The person baptized is forgiven and his forgiveness allows him to receive the Spirit in a profoundly personal way — creating a relationship with God that could come about no other way.
The Holy Spirit is, of course, quite different from the human spirit. It makes a spirit-ual person into a Spirit-ual person. As Christians we have a new nature, a nature formed by God's hand through the Spirit.
And at the end of time, the Christian's body will be resurrected and will be with God forever.
Randall wrote,
It seems that in the CofC many think there was an impaired spiritual life that was improved (as a result of coming to faith, repentance and baptism) rather than that there was a dead man and then a new creation.
Randall,
Amen.
And I think what you said can accepted whether or not one is a Calvinist, classical Arminian, or semi-Pelagian.
Jay,
I think that the classic reformed view is that a woman or man was dead spiritually speaking and that the person was made spiritually alive and thus able to act in a way in which the natural woman or man can not act i.e. after regeneration they can see, hear and act towards God in a way in which they were previously incapable. It is not merely being improved – it is being capable of something that one was not previously capable of doing b/c spiritual life now exists in an important sense in which it did not previously exist.
I think the classic Arminian position is that the person was indeed totally depraved but God, through prevenient or prevailing grace, enabled the person person to be able to overcome their totally depraved state and respond to the gospel.
A classic Pelagian doesn't believe the woman or man was fallen to begin with so no rebirth was even necessary. Adam's sin only impact on the race was to set a poor example. And the semi-Pelagian view is that the person was fallen, but not fallen so far (not totally depraved, just somewhat fallen) as to prevent them from being able to respond on their own to the gospel, after which God helped them.
So I disagree with your assessment that all of these perspectives think that a person is merely improved rather than being a new creation. You have said a number of things on this particular issue and I find myself confused as to which position you now profess. Of course it is always okay to change one's mind or rethink their understanding of this issue. I don't want to leave the impression that I have a problem with that, but I am curious as to what your understanding of regeneration is – if you care to share it.
However, it is important to note the differences. I would like to know what the current thinking is in the CofC regarding the meaning of regeneration or being born from above/born again. Any help you could provide would be appreciated.
Peace,
Randall
Randall wrote,
Randall,
That's not what I meant to say. My view is that what YOU said can be agreed with from all three perspectives. That is, there are those in all three perspectives (and others) that agree with you regarding regeneration.
For example, NT Wright, who fits none of those categories, would agree that conversion entails regeneration and that "It is not merely being improved – it is being capable of something that one was not previously capable of doing b/c spiritual life now exists in an important sense in which it did not previously exist." His recent book on Justification presents a view of the Spirit's work very similar to my own.
Now, while I'm no Calvinist, your statement is much the same thing I taught over 15 years ago in The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace — that the Spirit begins a transforming work in the Christian."
I'm inclined to the classical Arminian view that, through the word, the Spirit opens the hearer to faith but the hearer has the ability to reject what's been opened to him. (But the question is not near the center of my soteriology.)
Moreover, as I posted in the recent article on Brokenness, I agree that 20th Century Church of Christ preaching most definitely failed to adequately present the depravity of the convert, not in the sense of needing to be elected to be saved, but in the sense of being deeply sinful and in great need not only of salvation but divine help to be transformed into the image of Christ.
This has resulted in a deeply flawed focus on the wrong things.
@ Randall,
I don’t believe that you are being coy and appreciate your questions/comments. It’s a challenge for me to respond and be short because you have asked for a reply from two different perspectives in contrast to Calvinism. Allow me to begin with the Crux of the issue-
Do we believe to become born again or must we first be born again before we can exercise true, saving faith? This is the Crux of the issue. — Dr. James White
So we can all be on the same page:
(1) Pelagian, Semi Pelagian, Arminian, Classical Arminian, Calvinism are different.
(2) There are two worlds, Calvinist and non-Calvinist. There is no middle ground when answering – “which comes first, faith or regeneration?”
Four questions from Randall about regeneration:
(1) What does new creature mean?
(2) Does one that is born again have a new life where there was none, or an improved quality of life?
(3) Does one see, hear and understand what was once incomprehensible to the natural man, or see, hear and understand more clearly than previously.
(4) Is one enabled by the Spirit to do what he previously was unable to do in the power of the flesh?
COC, past present:
It is hard to say today. In the past, most followed Alexander Campbell who was Semi-Pelagian. One is not sinful until they personally sin. The only affect of Adams sin is inclination towards sin. Spiritually dead would not be pressed like physical death, since in death nothing good or bad happens. Dead means spiritually wounded, where one can search and obey God without divine assistance, though it’s still of grace. Regeneration: Faith precedes regeneration, which is a two step event, compared to the natural birth with a phase of conception, growth, and birth from womb [Christian System, pg. 173]. The Spirit plants the word in the person like conception, and baptism is the culmination of the new birth. This allowed Campbell to accept the unimmersed as saved, though not fully Christian, without affirming justification by faith. There are some today who claim that if you are not baptized, you’re going to hell, but they are late comers to the CoC, admittedly seem prominent, and I pray will study the issue. Regeneration is seldom defined within a “point in time” because it is not understood as a singular event, as taught in other systems, like Arminianism and Calvinism.
Answered Questions: (1) Born again means completely new unwounded spiritual life from God, different than the old creature. (2) The born again has new life, where the old life was wounded and partially depraved (3) Their interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:14 would not lead to your question. Still, they would answer that the old spiritually dead sinner was only partially depraved so new or old hear and understand the same, but he relationship and ability to fight sin is different. (4) Yes & No. No, in the sense that the will was always intact enough that the wounded sinner can respond to God on his own, without the need for any divine assistance, sin the will is not fully incapacitated by sin. Yes, regarding some issues after regeneration. I would need to know the verse you are referencing to give a specific reply.
Most in Classical Arminianism…
Believes sinners are totally depraved, and dead spiritually. These terms are mostly, but not always used in the same sense as Calvinist. Therefore, the rub with Calvinism is over the nature of election and the order of salvation, which involves regeneration. Regeneration: In Calvinism, God chooses who he will MAKE a believer; A sinner is regenerated to new life, and given faith because the sinner is unable to believe. In Arminianism, God foreknows the elect, which includes who WILL BELIEVE; God graciously deals with spiritual depravity through several proposed possible methods (natural, restored, prevenient grace), which allows every person to make a choice to reject or respond to the gospel in faith when they hear, though they are spiritually dead. In all non-Calvinistic thought, faith precedes regeneration, which is why a believer can be justified, but not regenerated. There are surface level as well as very technical uses of justification and regeneration. At the risk of over simplification… Justification deals with the legal change, while regeneration deals with ones condition, i.e. nature and character. I reject decisional regeneration. Regeneration is a work of God, that he does – not the person, which makes the spiritually corrupted sinner or spiritually dead sinner, a spiritually new creature who is different.
Answered Questions: (1) Instead of death in Adam, the born again have a new spiritual nature from above, now dead to sin, empowered to fight the flesh, and alive to God. (2) Born again is spiritual life in contrast to spiritual death, where there was no life. (3) There are various explanations about how, but one sees what was once incomprehensible. (4) Yes, though there are various explanations about how the Spirit does this.
I am happy to explain a particular point, but had to end at 850 words.
History Guy,
Thanks for taking the time and dealing with the issue honestly with no attempt to deflect or dodge. I appreciate your time, effort and willingness to converse without guile.
I find myself pretty much in the Calvinist camp although I must admit it is the worst understanding of the sovereignty of God regarding regeneration and salvation in general. I accept it simply b/c it makes more sense and seems more consistent with scripture than any of the other perspectives with which I am familiar. TULIP makes more sense to me than DAISY – that's a joke I won't get in to.
I feel the same way about the hypostatic union with regard to the nature of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. — Finite mind trying to contemplate the mind and nature of an infinite being —
Hesed,
Randall
Randall,
Hypostatic union and the Trinity… l love it and was going to use it as an example if pressed to hard on some chronologies (ha ha). I now realize that I could have just answered the questions (lol). I agree that we need to leave room for mystery because something’s have not been revealed (Dt. 29:29). Have a great night.
@History Guy,
I am sure you realize the quandary is in determining whether blind, deaf, dead and at enmity with God mean that a person is w/o ability to discern spiritual truth or merely impaired in recognizing these truths. If really dead then regeneration (logically) must precede faith – if impaired (blind, deaf, dead and at enmity are hyperbolic but not to be taken too far) then I suppose one could come to faith and consequently be regenerated.
The concept that one could be justified but not yet regenerated is new to me. I think have to mull that over for a good while.
Hesed,
Randall
@ Randall,
I know we are itching to debate the doctrines of grace, but I would like to avoid it. I will simply say that there is no more of quandary in how a spiritually dead man can hear the gospel call [previant grace] than how a how a spiritually dead man can continue to sin. Calvinism is committed to regeneration before faith because it requires it for the system to be true. However, in Scripture, regeneration never precedes justification, which is through faith.
The ordo salutis in Calvinism:
regeneration > effectual call > conversion: repentance/faith > justification > sanctification
The ordo salutis in Classical Arminianism:
calling with previant grace > conversion: repentance/faith > justification > regeneration > sanctification
I hope this helps.