Baptism, An Exploration: Al Maxey’s Latest Reflection

125 Responses to Baptism, An Exploration: Al Maxey’s Latest Reflection

1. Edward says:

   January 10, 2011 at 9:06 am

   Jay, since you mentioned me in your remarksabout brother Al, I trust it is not inappropriate for me to add a distinction. Brother Al is particularly gifted to write detailed, exhaustive articles, while my assignment is to offer truth in small bites. For links to brief gracEmails on this subject, please go to http://www.EdwardFudge.com/links_to_gracEmail.htm… and look down the first column to the headings:
   GOSPEL BAPTISM
   meaning
   outward form
   candidates
   salvation
   fellowship
2. Jay Guin says:

   January 10, 2011 at 10:08 am

   Edward,

   It will always be appropriate for you to say whatever you wish here.
3. Ben says:

   January 10, 2011 at 11:43 am

   This subject has been on my mind a lot lately, and this discussion has been both fascinating and profitable for me. Jay, I look forward to reading the rest of your posts in the series, and I hope you'll continue to post the perspectives of others you run across that add value to the conversation.
4. aBasnar says:

   January 10, 2011 at 2:01 pm

   First, I do not (never have, never will) endorse salvation by faith ONLY. That is a false doctrine. Nor do I believe there are any meritorious WORKS that any of us can do to be saved. Eph. 2:8-9 says it best: saved by grace through faith, not by human initiative or effort. A GIFT can’t be earned, it can only be received.

   The general Protestant misunderstanding of works leads to the general Protestant misunderstanding of baptism.

   Works is NOT anything we do, but is referring to the works of the Mosaic Law (the same is true for Galatians, Jay) – any application to any other context is mireading the text.

   Thus Al is plainly wrong! He's heading the direction I came from. What brother Al says is no different from the Evangelical-Baptist view I held to for 20 years. I won't condemn him for that, because He stands before Christ and not me (Jas 3:1).

   Still: He went wrong at the first turn: Misunderstanding the works-faith controversy Paul was engaged in. As long as we don't understand what they were debating, we'll end up with a wrong understanding of "saving" faith opposed to "meritorious" works (pardon: WORKS). Then we'll call baptism a "WORK" (show me ONE verse where baptism is called a "work" in the scriptures! Only ONE!) which cannot possibly save us (in spite of Mark 16:16 or 1Peter 3:21).

   Maybe Al is a victim of mainline-protestant influences …

   Alexander
5. Nancy says:

   January 10, 2011 at 2:32 pm

   Many of Maxey's thoughts on baptism resonate with me. When I read the story of Jesus healing the leper, I note that Jesus healed the leper and THEN told him to report to the priests for the traditional healing ritual. That man walked away from Jesus completely and thoroughly healed/clean. The ritual was just to demonstrate to the community that he was healed. Jesus (God) did the healing.
6. Mark says:

   January 10, 2011 at 3:15 pm

   Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." The phrase “ the believers who belong to the party” is very interesting. The problems with baptism in modern times is very similar issue. Faith is more in the spirit of being compulsive than required. It is God working in us just like Acts 15 says, “8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

   The letter written to the Gentiles was not a creed it was a request to let the world know who we are! Not people who debate about religious things but rather spiritual things that speak to the nature of Gods love. There is a small portion of the churches of Christ a (party of pharisees) who are believers who need to take heed. Baptism when it becomes a yoke is the wrong vision for obedience. Faithful people go into the water with purified hearts not purified practice of baptism.
7. Grizz says:

   January 10, 2011 at 5:09 pm

   Alexander makes some points we ought not gloss over or ignore. It is amazing how many otherwise thorough and conscientious students of the scriptures and of our Lord stop investigating the scriptures when something as basic as baptism comes along. Preconceptions and popular characterizations abound where studious attention to the study of the word of God once reigned.

   Al and Jay, it would seem, are no different from many others in this regard. And that should raise a humongous red flag of warning for the rest of us.

   Some day we will return to the scriptures on matters in which we consider ourselves to have already attained understanding with the kind of fervor we had when we first began to sense that Christ could satisfy our spiritual longings for redemption. Until then, until we regain the undying and unrefined hunger for the truth we had back then, we open ourselves to the plague of preconceived notions and popularized positions that too often substitute for true scholarship and seeking of the truth by humble seekers and disciples of the Lord.

   Who knows? Maybe the writer exists already among us who can throw off the terminological baggage we too often accept in order to humbly pen something that helps to actually resolcve this issue instead of just choosing a side.

   For now, though, we still wait.

   Grizz
8. Larry Short says:

   January 10, 2011 at 6:42 pm

   Hebrews says that the Jewish sacrifices never bought salvation. All those laws & regulations well kept and the temple sacrifices did not merit salvation. Actually, neither does our faith! Its not our faith that buys salvation but Jesus' sacrifice.
   How do we connect to that sacrifice? By being Christians, that is Christ like. He was baptised, confessed the Father, was obedient in HIs mission, prayed regularly, took communion, etc. Working faith, living faith is our acceptance of the gift. Live like you accept the gift and honor the giver!
   The belief only idea is like the light under the bushel basket: if your faith doesn't show, its like the demons who also beleive in God. The works problem has grown stale in 500 years.
   What moment are you saved? Is there any scripture that gives this? Baptism? The believer's prayer! Confirmation! Actually, the question is Biblically reversed; you start out saved, and lose it by sin. The dramatic moments are fall, not the constantly 24x7x365 God who redeems.
9. BurntRibs says:

   January 10, 2011 at 8:54 pm

   Jay,
   I guess I'm just nit-picky, but the 2cnd and 3rd quotes about Al's position are from the same author and the 4th and first paragraph of the 5th are from the same author. The last paragraph about baptism not being a work is from another author and it looks like it is from the same author as the the "God Loving Baptist Mother" writer.

   Josh
10. Terry says:

    January 11, 2011 at 5:47 am

    You may be interested in evangelical leader Francis Chan's sermon on baptism at http://westcoastwitness.com/2010/11/23/more-from-….
11. Anonymous says:

    January 11, 2011 at 6:26 am

    Where is the "Church of Christ Bible discussion forum" you mentioned? Thanks
12. Bob Brandon says:

    January 11, 2011 at 7:14 am

    One problem I have with Al's conclusion is that he seems to begin with the premise that recognizing baptism and communion as sacraments means a commitment to "work-righteousness." There's nothing from the text that suggests that Jesus submitted to baptism because he needed good works or that the early church participated in the weekly meal celebrating the Lord's sacrifice to merit divine favor. Yet there is no doubt that the Lord established both practices and as practices associated with faith. Sacrament is a theological term "we" in Christendom invented as a form of shorthand: among others, "a sacrament is commonly defined as having been instituted by Jesus and consisting of a visible sign of invisible grace."

    Are there those who abuse the sacraments? Or, to restate, are there those who abuse the institutions of baptism and communion? We all know those answers, and many bear the scars for getting both right.

    I think the real problem with Al's campaign against "sacrament" is a further privatization of faith, after all, both baptism and the Lord's Supper are at their core communal and corporate gracious acts, by necessity – and not demand – practiced by the Church in fellowship together, in thankfulness. And has the likely unwanted side-effect of moving believers away from the practice of the early Church, a practice originally pursued not to gain God's favor but to more adeptly discern God's grace.
13. ClydeSymonette says:

    January 11, 2011 at 7:22 am

    Jay:

    I agree with Alexander’s comment.
    “Works is NOT anything we do, but is referring to the works of the Mosaic Law (the same is true for Galatians, Jay) – any application to any other context is mireading [misreading] the text.”

    As I stated in my Wineskins article:
    “The words of Scripture have meaning only as they are used in context. How we interpret a passage of Scripture must be informed by the larger historical and cultural setting. That setting shapes and informs the communicator, what is being communicated, and the perceptions of those receiving the communication. If the historical context is not understood, then an incorrect interpretation is likely to be injected into the interpretation process.
    In other words, reading the Scriptures with 21st Century eyes likely will result in incorrect (albeit innocent) injections of modern views into the text. If a message is directed to a First Century audience, living in a First Century setting, doing the things that First Century people do, then interpreting the words directed to them without understanding the specific historical context will veil the original message.”

    The following passages establish that Paul’s “WORKS of the law” referred to the old Mosaic Law:

    -Romans 2:14–15 (ESV) 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

    -Romans 3:19–20,28 (ESV) 19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. … 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

    Scriptures make is clear that the Gentiles were being compelled to obey the law. Jewish Christians had a theology that exalted Jewish identity and marginalized or otherwise excluded Gentile Christians unless those Gentiles conformed to Jewish teachings. Luke tells us: Acts 15:1 (ESV) that: “… some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.” That, specifically, is what Paul addressed; the suggestion that salvation is based on works of the law – i.e., the law of Moses as indicated by the context.

    The Galatians were affected by this teaching. So Paul interjects common sense teaching to address it. He said:

    -Galatians 2:15–16 (ESV) 15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

    -Galatians 2:15–16 (ESV) 15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is NOT JUSTIFIED BY WORKS OF THE LAW but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

    -Galatians 3:1–3 (ESV) O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

    From my readings, I get the impression that Reformation theology demands Bible students choose between justification by faith and obedience in baptism. Notice how Gal 3:26,27 harmonizes both: “We are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of us has been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” So, it is wrong to compare baptism (a work of faith which Paul upholds) with a work of the law (which Paul, rejects as able to justify). Further, in Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells us how his disciples are made. Two participles follow the imperative a) baptize them and b) teach them. An “outward sign” it may be, but it is a sign to God (i.e. obedience), not man. As in the case of Abraham, who was justified by faith, God deemed him faithful on the basis of what he DID or how his faith was manifested in obedience, these cannot be separated.

    Finally, I add that the Church of Christ has added some stipulations to baptism with which I disagree:
    1. I a person must be baptized FOR the remission of sins. That is not what the Bible says. Acts 2:38, Peter told the people that forgiveness of sins is the RESULT of repentance and baptism.
    2. Non-salvation until the tip of the nose descends beneath the water. I believe that the same thinking is what made the Pharisees the subject of Jesus’ stern condemnation. Matt 23.
    3. Unless we deem that a man is saved, then he is not.
    All of the above are formed by twisting scriptures. Let’s be careful not to do nullify what God clearly commands, by supporting a popular belief that is foundationally weak.
14. Larry Short says:

    January 11, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Thanks Clyde. Confusion on this has run for centuries.
    Years ago, I went to "The Children of God" Christian commune in Thurber, Tx. Speaking with on their leaders, they proudly pointed out a passage in KJV that said work is bad. Due to that, they concluded that a lifestyle with jobs is antiChrist.
    With us was a Greek major, with his Greek Bible, who listened quetly, then explained that the Greek did not have the word "work" at all. As it turned out it, the KJV stood alone using work in the passage. You can build a movement on bad scholarship. Let's try to do better.
15. Rich W says:

    January 11, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    The early church certainly understood the essential importance of baptism. So much so that they eventually over emphasized it to the point of requiring baptism without faith (infant baptism). The reformers understood the essential importance of faith to the point of overreacting and stressing faith only leaving out the requirement of baptism.

    In scriptures, faith and baptism are combined when it comes to becoming a Christian. After that point, it is faith. Most of the New Testament was addressed to existing Christians. Of the course the emphasis was on faith. But there is plenty to tell us the entry point to Christ.
16. Keith Brenton says:

    January 11, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    Baptism fits well in my "just do it" approach to scripture and discipleship.

    Just do it and let the depth of its meaning and simple beauty of it grow on you year by year.

    Let other people worry about the when and the whether and the whatever.

    Just do it and trust God. He will do right by you; do your best for Him.

    I am an unabashedly simple-minded person and generally no fun in comments or on bulletin boards.
17. Larry Short says:

    January 11, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    Thanks Keith, and Larry the cable guy could be an evangelist.
    My most common remark to nitpick faithers is "are you better than our Lord?" Jesus didn't need baptism, and his baptizer protested doing it! For that matter, Jesus did not need to come or die for himself. He did it in obedience to God's will. Should we obey the will of God or men?
    If God had a Son, He would be baptised. For us, just do it. Amen!
18. Anonymous says:

    January 11, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    Catholic theologians insist that their veneration of Mary is not idol worship. Nevertheless, most Catholics worship Mary. Church of Christ leaders and theologians should evaluate their claim that baptism is not a “work of the law” by how their teaching is understood by Church of Christ members. Most Church of Christ members insist on baptism because they view it as a work. Many opponents of the Church of Christ reject baptism because they view it as a work.
19. Norton says:

    January 11, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    I agree with you Bob that we shouln't be afraid of the word "sacrament" You put it well. "Not to gain God's favor but to more adeptly discern God's grace." That pretty much sums up the definition of baptism as expressed by Luther, Calvin, Wesley, A. Campbell, and many of the early Restorationist. I agree with most of Al's reflections, but his emphasis of baptism as a SHOWN faith would seem to me as little different than acquiring salvation by a work of obedience.
20. Jay Guin says:

    January 11, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    Bob wrote,

    "I think the real problem with Al's campaign against "sacrament" is a further privatization of faith, after all, both baptism and the Lord's Supper are at their core communal and corporate gracious acts, by necessity – and not demand – practiced by the Church in fellowship together, in thankfulness."

    Bob,

    That is a very keen insight — and one rarely noted. I think the issue isn't so much faith/works or Reformation theology but, as you suggest, community.
21. Jay Guin says:

    January 11, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    Clyde,

    While I agree with much you say, I have to note this: In Galatians (and Romans), Paul not only says work of the Torah don't save but that faith does. It's not enough to show that baptism isn't a work of Torah (it isn't). You have to also fit it into the many passages showing that faith is sufficient.
22. Jay Guin says:

    January 11, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    DWilhoit,

    You are quite right that the 20th Century Churches of Christ find baptism to be a work and therefore teach a works salvation (a profound, unspeakable mistake).

    And you are right that Calvinist traditions, including the Baptists, teach that baptism is a work, and therefore consider it mere obedience to an ordinance (command). But Paul plainly doesn't see it that way — otherwise never could have written Rom 6:1-6 and Gal 3:25-27, which appear in exactly the wrong places for Calvinist theology.

    Lutherans at least try to make sense, in seeing baptism as an act of faith but not a work.

    According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T1147), the Lutheran perspective is —

    "Christian baptism, as now practiced, is a sacred ordinance of evangelical grace, solemnly appointed by the risen Christ, prior to His entering into the state of glory by His ascension, and designed to be a means, until His second coming, for admitting men to discipleship with Him."

    But there aren't many Lutherans here in the Sunbelt, so this perspective rarely makes it into the conversation.
23. BurntRibs says:

    January 11, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    dwilhoit asked:
    "Where is the "Church of Christ Bible discussion forum" you mentioned?"

    I believe it is the Yahoo email group called Berean Spirit. I think Jay has a link in his Jobs, Blogs, & Churches section.

    Josh
24. aBasnar says:

    January 12, 2011 at 1:19 am

    Most Church of Christ members insist on baptism because they view it as a work.

    I doubt that they would call it a work, though (because of the "bad taste" this word has even among us). From the outside it may look like some treat it like a work. But try to preplace the term "work" by "step". This makes it sound a little more "neutral".

    At the time I was baptized (in 1987) an older woman was baptized, too. She told of a dream she had: There was a boat, and a voice told her to step into the boat. In her testimony this was tied to "entering" the faith in Christ. That's why she was baptized that day.

    If we think of baptism as a step, we can avoid the faith-works-confusion and see it as it is: A step to enter the saving boat.

    Those who hold to the "sinner's prayer" as the point of conversion (virtually all "faith-only"-brothers), actually treat this in the same manner as we treat baptism. They believe (as I once did) that as soon as a person asks Jesus into his heart he is born again. They use the sinner's prayer as a "sacrament". When they accuse us of bolding to a "baptismal-regeneration-doctrine", they actually believe in "sinner's-prayer-regeneration-doctrine". In essence there is no difference. When they call baptism a work, the sinner's prayer is as much a work.

    The only difference is that baptism is mentioned over and over again in the scriptures as the step into the saving faith in Christ, while the "sinner's prayer" was not around until the time of the Great Awekenings.

    Alexander
25. aBasnar says:

    January 12, 2011 at 1:37 am

    I just wrote a book (got printed two days ago) in German titled "Faith plus …" (Glaube und)

    In this I show that there is not a single verse that contains faith and only together as saving (the opposite is true according to Jas 2:24). But there are plenty of texts that link faith with an "and" to another word, saying that faith together with e.g. repentance, baptism, confession, works ,,, result in salvation.

    So what saves us in the end is "faith plus …"; faith alone is not sufficient; but without faith all these things mentioned profit us nothuing either. Of course we can say: "Faith plus" describes what faith really means, but the scriptures themselves don't say it this way. they call the faith of the demons faith (the same word) but not saving. Paul (in Rom 10:9) adds to the faith in the resurrection of Christ (an inward conviction of an outward fact) the confession of the Lordship of Christ with the lips (an outward act of this inward faith). One without the other is incomplete – both are conditions/requirements for salvation (the same is true for faith and baptism in Mark 16:16). So "Faith plus" is scriptural and to the point.

    Or as Peter said:

    "ADD to your faith (or supplement your faith) with virtue, … For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2Pe 1:3-11)

    In the end, the "Sola Fide" of the Reformation is proved to be an unbiblical and misleading doctrine.

    Alexander

    P.S. Did you know that Christ could preach the Goseple without ever using the word Grace?
26. ClydeSymonette says:

    January 12, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Jay:

    You said, “It's not enough to show that baptism isn't a work of Torah (it isn't). You have to also fit it into the many passages showing that faith is sufficient.”

    Ok.

    First, let me restate my understanding of Paul’s use of the term “justification by faith” by expanding it to “justification by faith in Christ vs. obeying the law (Torah).” The expansion conveys the context of Paul’s use of the statement in his letters. It shows the dichotomy of justification by faith and salvation by law. Note how Paul contrasts these two in Philippians. Paul wrote (Philippians 3:8–9) 8 … NOT HAVING A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF MY OWN THAT COMES FROM THE LAW, BUT THAT WHICH IS THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST.” In the context Paul is discussing his B.C. days vs. “law” days.

    So the contrast is between obeying the law (Torah) and justification by faith (In Christ). The crux of Paul’s argument is “in Christ” vs “Torah. If we agree on that, then your “faith is sufficient” statement is equated with “faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation.” So if you suggest that I “have to also fit it [baptism] into the many passages showing that faith is sufficient [over the law],” then that is not hard to do. In fact, Paul has done that beautifully; he did it in Romans 6 and Gal 3; both expositions on justification by faith. I’ll being with Galatians.

    Paul says (Galatians 3:29) “IF YOU BELONG TO CHRIST, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Faith in Christ, as used by Paul, is not something that we DO for salvation per se. It describes or relationship to Christ and the avenue (Way) of our salvation. In the NT, faith is equated with being in Christ, so “saved by faith” is the same as “saved by Christ” or “saved in Christ.” Paul says as much: Gal 3:26,27 “We are all sons of God though faith in Christ, for as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” We are saved by faith, because we are in Christ by baptism or “belong to Christ” by baptism as he said in v29.

    Some were instructing the Galatians to obey the law of Moses in order to be saved (Acts 15:1). In contradiction to that teaching, Paul is saying: “You are in Christ and therefore saved through Christ. You do not need the law. When you were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ and therefore are saved through faith in Christ alone.” Paul clearly describes their “in Christ” status through their baptism into Christ. Baptism is NOT AN ADDITON to faith; it is a step into faith. Remember; Abraham’s belief was confirmed in his obedience; as is ours.

    In Colossians 2:11–13, Paul again ties faith and baptism together, over against, observance of the law. He writes: 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 HAVING BEEN BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM AND RAISED WITH HIM THROUGH YOUR FAITH in the power of God, who raised him from the dead [i.e. Jesus’ resurrection].

    Now; incorporating baptism into Paul’s message of Justification by faith in Romans.

    Because appreciation for what Paul wrote in his letter is directly correlated with an understanding of the history of the church at Rome, an abbreviated version may be helpful.

    As an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul’s consistently addressed the issue of Gentile Christians being forced to live like Jews who obligated the Gentiles to obey the law. Additionally his letter addresses the related issue of disunity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The book of Romans is Paul’s exhortation to unity.

    In the years following its inauguration the Roman church grew in great numbers while steadily maintaining a Jewish face. With the growth of the non-Christian Jewish community, and the steady increase in size of the Jewish church, the influence of the Jews in Rome grew. Fearing that influence, the Roman Emperor Claudius accused the Jews of proselytizing and in AD 41 he placed restrictions on Jewish assemblies. (Under Roman rule, Jews were allowed to practice their religion, but not proselytize.) Shortly thereafter (AD 49) he expelled the Jews (including Jewish Christians) from Rome.
    The expulsion of the Jews from Rome changed the face of what once was a Jewish dominated church to Gentile.
    Now; after Claudius died (AD 54), the Jews were permitted to return to Rome. On their return, however, Jewish Christians encountered a Gentile dominated church. Problems!
    As I stated earlier, Jewish Christians exalted Jewish identity and marginalized or otherwise excluded Gentile Christians unless those Gentiles conformed to Jewish teachings.

    But that was not the only problem. The Gentiles were boasting in a theology which taught that God had rejected the Jewish people. They believed that Jews were unnecessary (Romans 11:11-24) and, therefore, UNWELCOMED.

    So, Paul was addressing a segregated church—a divided people—much like the church is today.

    He address his letter to “all [Jew and Gentile] in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints” (Romans 1:7).

    He then advances a number of highly developed arguments methodically outlining the foundation for unity. I’ll focus only on justification by faith and how baptism relates to it. It is, however, the same point that he made in Gal 3:26,27.

    First, (Romans 1:18–4:25) Paul pointed out that Jews and Gentiles were no different because all were sinners, and all were in need of justification. He said that as sons of Adam, all are equal in Adam’s legacy (ch. 5), i.e., equal in sin and death (3:9-18, 23); and all are equal in Christ since it is THROUGH CHRIST, not works of the Law, that all are made alive. In Romans 3:21–24, he speaks about “…a righteousness from God, APART FROM LAW [i.e. righteousness by faith], has been made known … 22 [it] … comes THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST TO ALL [Jew or Gentile] WHO BELIEVE [in Christ] … 23 for all have sinned and … 24 and are JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE THROUGH THE REDEMPTION THAT CAME BY CHRIST JESUS.” He went on to say that Jesus was “delivered over to death for our sins and WAS RAISED TO LIFE FOR OUR JUSTIFICATION.” Romans 4:25. He said, “Therefore, since we have been JUSTIFIED THROUGH FAITH [apart from the law], we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access BY FAITH [not the law] into this grace in which we now stand.” (Romans 5:1–2). Even without my insertions, the context draws out the dichotomy.

    Further, Paul writes: “… Where, then, is boasting [about righteousness]? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is JUSTIFIED BY FAITH APART FROM OBSERVING THE LAW [of Moses – note “circumcised” below]. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will JUSTIFY THE CIRCUMCISED BY FAITH AND THE UNCIRCUMCISED THROUGH THAT SAME FAITH. [bingo! This represents the sum of the argument that Paul makes for Jew/Gentile unity] 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:25–31)

    Having established that all were lost [including the lawmen] and unable to save themselves [powerless], Paul added, (Romans 5:6–9) 6 … when we were still powerless, CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY. … 9 Since we have now been JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! Note “justification by faith” is equated with “justification by Jesus’ blood.” He adds: “IF YOU DIED WITH CHRIST … you will also live with him (Romans 6:8–9). However, just before he wrote those words, he described how they died with Christ and were consequently justified through or by Christ. He wrote: (Romans 6:3–8) “3 … all of us who were BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST JESUS were BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH 4 We were therefore BURIED WITH HIM THROUGH BAPTISM INTO DEATH in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 IF we have been united with him LIKE THIS in his death, WE WILL CERTAINLY also be united with him in his resurrection.

    Now, if I read that verse and conclude that I died, was buried or raised with Christ aside from baptism, then I am also suggesting that there is an alternative to what Paul (correctly or incorrectly) taught about baptism. Did he “fit it [baptism] into the many passages showing that faith is sufficient? [so law is unnecessary]?” Absolutely.
27. Royce Ogle says:

    January 12, 2011 at 11:33 am

    The proof is in the pudding. Poll your Church of Christ congregation and ask them two questions.

    1. How does God save sinners?
    2. How do you know you are saved?

    The answers will tell you what your church's teaching on baptism is. Is there anyone here who honestly does not think many of our dear people are trusting their baptism and how good they live for their salvation? In that we are no different than our Catholic friends who are depending mostly on what they do rather than what God has done in the person and work of Jesus.

    Thankfully, even among Catholics, there are a few who have seen through the ritual and rite and are fully trusting Christ alone and rejoice when a sinner turns to Him in any church tradition.

    Not once in Scripture are disciples commanded to preach baptism to sinners. They are commanded to baptize. The good news is the teaching about the person and work of Jesus for sinners, baptism is ONE response to that message.

    The way many of our more "traditional" people teach baptism is that it is almost mechanical. That is as we put someone into the water God is obliged to make them a child of God and give the Holy Spirit. That is why the objective of our teaching is to get the person to the baptistery. I believe the biblical way to evangelize is to preach the gospel of Christ and then when God has done his blessed work and the hearers ask "What must we do?" only then is it time to say "Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins…".

    Sadly, as a result of unbiblical teaching, there are thousands who believe they are going to heaven because they have been immersed, believe and practice the right pattern in the right church, and hopefully live good enough to be accepted by God in the end. That is not Christianity, that is religion.
28. Robert Prater says:

    January 12, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Jay,

    I have never met Al Maxey, I am familiar with his writings on Reflections and many of his views. And it’s no surprise to many of you that I disagree with much of what he writes and the direction he wants to radically take churches of Christ. It doesn’t come as a shock to me that Al no longer believes that baptism is indeed essential for salvation (i.e., that a lost person must be baptized for the remission of sins to be saved) .

    And it may seem more than a little presumptuous to offer an opinion about his motives. I leave judgment to God, who will judge us all. But I suspect his changing views like so many other progressives in churches of Christ over the years (i.e., Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado) regarding the essentiality the essenailty of baptism is driving by the factor of can and should we ultimately accept the unimmersed into the fellowship of the saved.

    Al makes the very telling statement:

    “Maybe we should cease trying to impose a time/space perspective on God. God sees the HEART. God knows when we are His, and I doubt he waits for some precise split-second in time to confer His grace.”

    Now in my opinion, I believe we’ll see in the coming years that many progressives in the church will begin to argue more and more that God will grant salvation, i.e., forgiveness of sins based upon the intent of his heart, rather than their completing the necessary act of obedience. That one can possibly be saved before baptism if their heart is right, as God looks at hearts, not necessarily obedience. It seems to me this position of Al that he “does not know exactly where one becomes saved” is quite frankly just a “smokescreen.”

    I have expressed many times here at oneinjesus that I believe instrumental music is JUST the starting point. I have always believed the real battle and fight will end up at…..baptism and whether or not it is essential, absolutely necessary in order to be saved, i.e., forgiven of sins.

    Folks keep in mind the issue is not what God COULD do, but what God said He WOULD do. (cf. Mark 16:15-16)

    Al further writes:

    “The precise point in time when God imparts eternal salvation to a believing, penitent disciple of Christ, although I DO firmly believe that God has ordained water baptism as a visible manifestation and proclamation of one’s faith, and thus He expects us to submit to His expectation in this matter.”

    He later says, “When Paul wrote of being ‘buried with Christ’ in baptism, he certainly meant that this visible rite demonstrates our spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.”

    This sounds very similar to the false ideas that “baptism is a mere symbol” (i.e., an outward sign of an inward grace)

    Notice how Al also very carefully worded this statement:

    “Willful refusal of one to submit to any of these commands of our Lord reflects, in my view, an absence of saving faith.”

    Key word being willful. But not the soul who is merely ignorant; or misinformed or sincerely wrong regarding the essentiality of baptism.

    Thus in my view Al negates baptism's necessity for some, which if you follow his line of reasoning you could make it apply to just about everyone who is sincerely religious and unbaptized in the denominational world.

    Where in the New Testament do we ever get the idea or example that God made baptism a necessary condition for salvation, and yet will bend the rules for some whose hearts are sincere or who have been taught improperly.

    Acts 10:34 “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.”

    You have to be in Christ to be saved and baptism is the entry point for being in Christ. If you don't enter into Christ through baptism you cannot be saved according to the New Testament.

    My dear progressive brethren in churches of Christ, do you really believe you can’t say you don’t know where we become saved?? Do you really think nothing happens in baptism in allowing us to identify that as the place where we cross the line from being unsaved to becoming saved. Is baptism just an example for the world of obedience, a mere symbolic act, an outward manifestation of inward faith…an event where nothing happens to us. By doing so I believe you make it become questionable in its value and so it can be minimized as not being essential or absolutely necessary for salvation. That God will make exceptions to the rule based on the sincerity of the person’s heart.

    My dear friends, we can clearly know that baptism is the place where we come into contact with the blood of Christ and our sins are washed away (Mt. 26:26; Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38, Rev. 1:5); where we get into Christ (Romans 6:3, Gal 3:27); where we become new creatures raised in Him, hidden in Him to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4, Col 3:1-3); it is the place where we become members of (by being conveyed by God into) the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13); and it is the place where we receive the gift and sealing of the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption (Acts 2:38, Eph. 1:13 & 4:30). The word of God tells us that spiritual actions take place when one is baptized, and just because you cannot see what is going on does not mean they are not happening. Baptism is the place where our obedient faith and the crying out for a clean conscience meets the grace of God and we become saved (1 Peter 3:21).

    Again, I think much of this comes from the motive of desiring (albeit sincerely) to broaden the borders of fellowship. To include those who either have never been immersed into Christ or have been immersed without proper understanding.

    One of the ways to make fellowship more inclusive is to “reexamine” or question or even eliminate what the entrance requirements into the kingdom are.

    Thus I think we’ll see more and more statements by many progressives along the similar thoughts of Al about whether baptism is essential for salvation.

    I remember Keith Brenton asked me several months ago when we were having a discussion, “Is there anyone still engaged in this conversation who believes that baptism is NOT what God wants us to have done to us in order to accept and receive His grace, forgiveness, salvation and Holy Spirit?”

    I say yes there are! Al Maxey would seem to be such one. He’s most certainly not alone in the progressive camp who believe the same. I’ve read many progressive blogs and comments on blogs and had many discussions with some in person to believe such. Again, we’re not about whether baptism is ‘necessary” or important, but is baptism essential before a person is saved.

    The winds of change are drastically blowing on baptism.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Prater
29. Norton says:

    January 12, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Some have already commented on the fact that many CofC and most Evangelicals define baptism, one way or another, in terms of a work that the one who is being baptized does. And, In some sense, baptism is a work that one does, as is also hearing the word, a work that one does. But we should not focus on what one "does" to obtain salvation, seeing that faith is sufficient. We have access to grace by having faith, not by showing that we have faith. Baptism is simply having your sins pronounced forgiven through the work of Christ. Jesus told the apostles that if they forgave anyone their sins, he was forgiven. Did the apostles actually forgive sins? I don't think so, but they pronouced sins forgiven when they baptized. Of course, as Mark 15:16 states, those baptized must believe. Baptism is not necessarily the exact moment when one is saved, it is the moment when he is pronouced saved, and when he proceeds to live a life in good conscience and good works toward God.
    his sins they were forgiven.his their sins
30. aBasnar says:

    January 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    It would be helpful to have book, chapter and verse for the phrase "he is pronounced saved". I know of no such text in the scriptures (in the context of baptism).

    Alexander
31. Norton says:

    January 12, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    aBasnar

    There is no BCV for one being "pronounced saved by baptism", no BCV for one "contacting the blood of Christ" in baptism, for one meeting a "requirement of obedience", for one making a "proclaimation of faith" in baptism, or most other theories about what is the essense of baptism and how it saves. If you believe baptism is for/unto remission of sins, then some of those theories must be thrown out because, in my mind they contradict plain Scripture. "Contacting the blood of Christ" is perhaps a good man-made metaphor, but how do you actually contact the blood in baptism? Basically, I settle for "pronounced saved" by default, because it is the only one that "fits" with all the other passages on baptism and does not contradict the principle of sufficiency of faith laid down again and again in Scripture. Having sins pronounced forgiven saves in that it imparts saving faith (a good conscience} . I agree with you on that.

    Clyde_symonette says:

    January 12, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Alexander:

    I don't want to be a trouble maker; but when I was asking for book, chapter and verse during our IM series, no one was prepared to give it… Instead, you all pointed to "other sources." Perhaps Norton has an early source for "he is pronounced saved." Let's see

    🙂
32. HistoryGuy says:

    January 12, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    @ Clyde Symonette

    … I don't want to be a trouble maker; but when I was asking for book, chapter and verse during our IM series, no one was prepared to give it

    HA HA, I love it, my Friend – Touché, and quid pro quo!

    At least you and I tried to give “implicit” Scriptural teaching, though from opposing views. — Okay, moving on!
33. HistoryGuy says:

    January 12, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    Everyone,
    I would like to encourage clarification on the following two points (1) confusion of Law or law system (2) failing to understand the difference between justification, sanctification, and regeneration.

    The context of Romans 3:21-30 when discussing Justification by faith, apart from works of law makes it clear that this is works of any law system, not Torah. Neither a law on the Gentile heart [Rm. 1] nor the Law of Jews [Rm. 2] can save anyone because all fail every law system so every human is under sin [Rm. 3]. Therefore, in Romans 3:21-30 Paul is discussing justification by faith, apart from any law system, since God is the God of both Gentile and Jew. Paul reaffirms this use of any law system with the example of Abraham [Rm. 4:1-5] who was justified by faith apart from works, which was before the Law/Torah [Rm. 4:13-16].

    At what point is one declared Justified? Romans 4:3 In the Christian age, when is one normally regenerated? Water baptism by the power of the Spirit (Titus 3:5, Acts 22:16) as a promise (Acts 2:38). Can God regenerate one in a different chronological order as long as he still calls them by the Gospel and they respond freely in faith (Rm. 10:17; 2 Thess. 2:13-14)? Yes, as exemplified by Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48), and those baptized in water, but without the Spirit (Acts 8:16).

    In the latest baptism series of Jay’s blog I have affirmed my high view of [regeneration by God] in baptism while defending justification by faith from both the Scriptures and ECFs [Didache, Ignatius, Irenaeus, et al]. However, one must understand the difference between justification, regeneration, and sanctification. ~~ The progressives will tell you… I am no progressive.
34. aBasnar says:

    January 13, 2011 at 1:41 am

    You are right, Nortom, and that was my point with this question.

    As an Evangelical I viewed baptism simply as an act of obedience – no BCV calls baptism this way.
    We also said it is a symbol of detah and resurrection – but we won't find any BCV containing the word symbol for baptism.
    We can pronounce a couple man and wife at a wedding – but we won't see that in scripture, also not in the context of baptism.
    "Contacting the blood of Christ" – if you are referring to me – was an analogy from the OT: the blood is in the vessel, but it is sprinkled with Hyssop unto the unclean person – but you are right, there is no BCV that uses this phrase for baptism.

    So what are we doing here? These are all rationalisations trying to fit baptism into our understanding of faith.

    What do the Bs, Cs and Vs say concerning baptism?

    1) Salvation

    Baptism is saving (in union with faith) – Mark 16:16
    Baptism is saving and a plead for a good goncience (many translate "answer", but the Greek is more sort of a "formal request", or an "application" … the context is coventant- or treaty language) – 1 Peter 3:21
35. aBasnar says:

    January 13, 2011 at 1:43 am

    (Part II in Reply to Norton)

    So let’s simply say: Baptism alongside with faith saves. Both faith and baptism are necessary for salvation. Or don’t these verses state this?

    2) Remission
    Baptism is for the Remission of sin – and requires repentance from sin. This is true for the baptism of John and for the Christian baptism – Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38
    OK, this is actually self-explanatory. Our sins are forgiven, when we are baptized. We should not reduce the meaning of these verses, nor add explanations to this. It’s actually very simple.

    3) Cleansing
    Baptism is called a cleansing (or purification) in John 3:25
    In Baptism our sins are washed away according to Acts 22:16
    Naturally, because we are stepping into water and are bathed … actually plain reading does not need any clarifications.

    4) New Birth
    Together with the Spirit baptism is the New Birth John 3:3-5
    It is also called the bath of the New Birth in Tit 3:5
    … OK may say, the word baptism does not occur in these verses; but the “bath” links Tit 3: to the above section, and the connection of “water and spirit” at least remembers of John’s prophecy concerning Jesus who would baptize with the Spirit. Christian baptism clearly has these two “elements”: Water and Spirit (Acts 2:38)
    Anyway, Romans 6 shows clearly that in baptism our old self becomes one with Christ’s death and burial so that we arise anew with Christ to a new life – this is the new birth.
    The same is repeated in Col 2:11
    Believe it or not: The New Birth is tied to baptism according to these texts. Actually straightforward reading dioes not create any problems here, so we should not create problems by adding multiple theories.

    I’ll leave it with these few examples. There are reasons why we create so many myths and theories about baptism.

    It is a historical consequence of infant-baptism and the Awakenings. Infant baptizing churches rediscovering the Gospel sort of “invented” (out of necessity) conversion by a simple prayer instead of baptism. There is no scriptural basis for that, but it creates “experience”. So a “conversion experience”, the joy that goes with it, is called the “New Birth” today.

    So our experience stands against the plain words of scripture. Thus we try to reconcile scripture with our biography. When I “converted” in June 1987 I felt a change in my heart, developed a hunger for God’s word and started following Christ. I called myself “born again” – but I was not baptized until November 1987. When I began questioning this theology, I had to choose who or what I am going to believe: My experience or my Bible. I chose to accept the word of the Bible and had to find an answer to explain my feelings and experiences between June and November.

    The solution is actually pretty simple: While the New Birth is by definition a one time event (you don’t get born over a period of months or years), there is a time of “spiritual pregnany” that preceeds the birth. A time, when we seek the Lord, try to understand his word, listen and meditate on the Gospel and make not one, but many decisions one after the other over a period of time: The decision to visit this Bible study again, the decision to start with some changes in behaviour and attitude, the decision the start believing that the Bible is trustworthy, the decision to recognize Christ as the risen Lord … in this period we say our first prayers, we open the Bibels in private for the first time, we make steps of faith …
    Conversion is a process that can last for months or even years. But then we step into the water and become Christians and disciples. That’s the point when we are truly born again.

    The time before that is a time where God’s Spirit is at work with us. So, divine experiences should be natural; the joy that goes along with this, too. But this is not the “New Birth” when we suddenly feel touched by God. The New Birth is tied to and occurs in baptism.

    So we have a messed up terminology to deal with, our own experiences and a historical misunderstanding that permeates Protestant thinking even today. This mixture is contradicting the plain reading of God’s word, and we have to choose who or what to believe. It was ahard decision for me to set a new date for my New Birth, to call my feelings and experiences what they are: (good) feelings and (good) experiences, under the guidance of a good God – but not the New Birth.

    Can we agree, that the Bs, Cs and Vs on baptism are easy to understand?

    Alexander
36. Norton says:

    January 13, 2011 at 10:57 am

    aBasnar
    Those were good and thoughtful posts. I actually don't see that much difference in our views of baptism.
    No, the word "symbol" is not used in reference to baptism in Scripture, but in Rom 6 when Paul said we died and were buried with Christ, shouldn't we take that as symbolic rather than a literal or miraculous death and burial? Baptism is not a mere symbol, but it is still a symbol with sacred promises attached to it. Yes, and baptism is a "formal request" for a good conscience, but is it a request that goes unanswered until the next life? That is one of the main reasons I would say that it is also a "formal pronounciation" that ones sins are forgiven. The Pentecostians were in agony of conscience. I think Peter gave them the answer they were seeking. The same with Saul of Tarsus
37. Norton says:

    January 13, 2011 at 11:33 am

    aBasnar
    I have trouble with the reply box so I am breaking up my posts. If you have only been in the CofC since 1987, you probably don't completely understand what Al Maxey is preaching against. I can remember in the 1950's when it was fairly common to see baptism as something you did to get rid of your past sins. And you had better get the ritual right or it didn't work.If you committed other sins after baptism, you had to do something else, repent and pray. You had to pray for forgiveness for every sin after baptism, or it was not forgiven. Salvation was based on something you did, not faith in what Christ did. There are still some remnants of that kind of thinking in the CofC today.
38. Keith Brenton says:

    January 13, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Robert, I think you've gone beyond what Al has said to reach that conclusion (that he "believes that baptism is NOT what God wants us to have done to us in order to accept and receive His grace, forgiveness, salvation and Holy Spirit.")

    Why not just stick to what he said?
39. aBasnar says:

    January 13, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Dear Norton

    Actually – and this might be shocking for some conservative brethren – I was baptized in an Evangelical church, and served there also as teacher for about 20 years befire my fanmiliy and I joined the church of Christ – without being rebaptized. The Vienna CoC is fairly conservative, though, but we don't think we are the only Christians around, and we don't believe that you have to have a pefect understanding of baptism in order to make that baptism valid. You have to have faith in Christ.

    So when I read what the conservative churches (or some of them) teach, it always surprized me a little. Especially when I think, that Alexander Campbell had a Baptist understanding of baptism at the time of his baptism …

    Alexander
40. ClydeSymonette says:

    January 13, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Alexander,

    Have'nt you heard from the conversatives that you cannot "join" the church. You must be added? That may account for why, "No one else dared JOIN them, even though they were highly regarded by the people." (Acts 5:13)

    k, I hope I won't be tempted to post anymore remarks like this 🙂

    PS: I would like a copy of your "Faith Plus"
41. aBasnar says:

    January 13, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    PS: I would like a copy of your "Faith Plus"

    Can you read German? I'd send it to you – or maybe you find someone to translate it for you? Write to [email protected]
42. aBasnar says:

    January 13, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    Haven't you heard from the conversatives that you cannot "join" the church. You must be added?

    Let's put it this way: I was added to the ONE church at the time I was baptized, but later in time I joined a more consistent local congregation (which is still far from being perfect, but we are striving for perfection in Christ).

    Alexander
43. Robprater says:

    January 13, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    Keith,

    I certainly do not want to mispresent Al’s position or put words into his mouth or assign beliefs to him he doesn’t hold. If I have I want to repent of such activity.

    But, again, notice Al’s own words,

    “I do not believe that we can dogmatically affirm that one’s baptism is the precise point in time when God imparts eternal salvation to a believing, penitent disciple of Christ.”

    Now, words do matter and mean something right?

    Is he or is he not saying that baptism is NOT the point in time in which forgiveness of sins takes place? When exactly does Al believe the precise point in time is when God imparts eternal salvation, i.e., forgiveness of sins?

    I take his words at face value and believe he has made himself clear; he doesn’t believe that it is at the precise moment of baptism, thus he must be saying that God’s grace and forgiveness of sins come before baptism.

    The inital point of faith??

    My progressive friends, is that not what Al is saying? Am I completely wrong and misunderstanding what Al is saying?

    Is he not clearly saying that he doesn’t believe baptism is the moment, point in time when we saved, to again, use his words “God imparts eternal salvation.”

    The question seems to be my progressive friends: Is baptism essential as a condition in order for a person to receive salvation from sin, or is it simply a sign that one has already been saved?

    Al apparently trying to clarify the confusion he knows his new views will raise simply muddies the water further by confusingly saying:

    “At which specific point in which specific evidentiary act does God “confer His gift of salvation”? Repentance? Confession? — Rom. 10:10 – “With the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” Is THAT the point? Does THIS come BEFORE baptism? Is it baptism? Is it calling on the Lord? Etc.

    Al continues,

    “Maybe we should cease trying to impose a time/space perspective on God. God sees the HEART. God knows when we are His, and I doubt he waits for some precise split-second in time to confer His grace. Are they points in time necessary for US? Absolutely. There are evidences of faith that we will be showing throughout our journey — repentance, confession and immersion being among the first. But the point I sought to make is that we must not make SACRAMENTS of any of these, and suppose that at some precise point in time God confers grace THROUGH THE SACRAMENT. His grace is conferred through Christ when we BELIEVE.”

    Notice his statement, “His grace is conferred through Christ when we BELIEVE.”

    As opposed to when we by faith are baptized into Christ.

    Right?

    Al goes on to further justify his position by the following:

    “If baptism is a sacrament through which God imparts the gift of His saving acceptance, then the Cornelius account in Acts 10-11 makes no sense whatsoever!! In this historical narrative we find God pouring out His Spirit upon this man and his household, thus demonstrating powerfully for all to see His divine acceptance of them, just as He had accepted the upper room disciples in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Just like their brethren in Jerusalem, these were "speaking in tongues and exalting God" (Acts 10:46). Peter then says, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (vs. 47). Yes, Cornelius and his household were all expected to comply with this command of God the Father, just as believing disciples have for the past two millennia.

    "Did they comply in order to receive God's acceptance? NO! THEY HAD ALREADY RECEIVED THAT BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH (emphasis mine, rp) But, as a visible expression of that faith, our God has ordained baptism. No disciple with genuine faith will refuse it, and Cornelius and his household most certainly did not. The message they proclaimed in those "visible words" (baptism) was then taken back to Jerusalem and shared.

    Now, on a side note, I have noticed that both History Guy and Edward Fudge make the same argument using the example of Cornelius and his household receiving the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit before baptism as proof that salvation sometimes occur before baptism.

    But that whole scenario with the miraculous measure of the Holy Sprit given to Cornelius and the other Gentiles enabling them to speak in tongues was played out not to show that one could be saved before baptism. Rather to prove to the Jewish brethren that the Gentiles were to be accepted and that they were proper candidates to enter the kingdom of God.

    It is hardly legitimate to use the example of Cornelius to prove that salvation occurred before baptism. Nothing about salvation changed, no order was reversed. Cornelius was saved in the same way as everyone else. There is only one baptism and one new birth.

    But I digress. Back to Al Maxey’s new view of baptism.

    Al continues to talk about both baptism and the Lord’s Supper:

    “Are there actual blessings associated with both of these symbolic representations in which we, as true believers, participate? Absolutely! They each imprint upon our hearts and minds, far better than mere words, the powerful realities of our Lord's atoning work. As one is buried in the "watery grave," and then is "resurrected" from that tomb, one cannot help but be personally impacted for life by the experience; it is one that the participant will never forget, nor will those who witness this powerful declaration of faith, hope and love.”

    Notice clearly when Al raises the question: “Are there actual blessings associated with both of these symbolic representations in which we, as true believers, participate?”

    Notice how he fails to clearly mention salvation, i.e., having our sins forgiven, blotted out, being made alive together, having the old man of sin put away, being added to the kingdom of God, receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

    The natural progressive logic of Al’s new position would also lead me to believe that he would say these are not received precisely at the moment of baptism, but rather again at the point of inital "saving" faith?

    Thus Al just seems to make baptism all “symbolic.” (i.e., an outward form of an inward grace, forgiveness that has already occurred).

    Keith,

    As further evidence of Al Maxey’s view rejecting forgiveness of sins occurring at the moment of baptism, take in a recent issue of Reflections, under the heading, “Tiresome, Tendentious Tug-of-War”, Al answers an email question from one of his readers about whether a person is saved before or after baptism answered in the following manner:

    Al says,

    “Is immersion essential to the salvation process? Absolutely. Is it the "precise point of entry" into a saving relationship with our heavenly Father? No, I do not believe that it is.”

    Keith, let’s just “stick to his words" right? He plainly and clearly says that baptism is not the precise point of entry into a saving relationship with our heavenly Father?

    Al goes on to obviously cover himself by saying,

    “However, if one REFUSES to be immersed, then that one is NOT in a saved state, for he/she is in rebellion against God, and such is not consistent with a profession of faith. If we say that we have faith, says James, then Show It. If you refuse to show it, however, then you don't have it.

    He speaks the language and theology of double talk “nonsense” by proposing that we are saved before baptism, but if we then refuse to later on be baptized, then we really weren’t saved in the first place!

    QUESTION:

    Here’s a thought I’ve been pondering the past few days in light of Al Maxey’s new view on baptism.

    Since so many now in churches of Christ so readily accept the notion that it is not necessary for a person to having any understanding about remission of sins at baptism, i.e., that they are lost and need to obey the gospel in baptism in order to be saved……..and now the very denial of the Biblical truth that forgiveness of sins occur at the point of baptism.

    Any connection? Will this become a new trend in belief among the progressives in churhces of Christ??

    I suspect we'll see more of this. I fear we are moving from the issue whether one must having any understanding about “for the remissions of sins” at baptism………."to one is baptized because sins are already forgiven.”

    A move from “into Christ” to “because I am in Christ.”

    Too many are now equivocating when asked whether baptism is absolutely essential, necessary, i.e., the point in time when sins are forgiven.

    Only time will tell. But I’m fearful Al’ new position will influence others down the same path of thinking concerning baptism in the coming years. I hope and pray I am wrong.

    In my humble opinion, Al Maxey’s new understanding about baptism and the point of salvation is a theological mess and gymnastics of logic.

    What is even sadder is that he is apparently attempting to teach this same error to so many people.

    I pray for him to come back to the truth and “sounds words” of the New Testament concerning saving faith and baptism.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Prater
44. HistoryGuy says:

    January 13, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    Robert,
    I believe Al is working through his theology, and the way he currently describes it seems inconsistent. Edward and I describe Acts 10 a bit differently, but I wish to focus solely on what I have written, for the sake of time. In my last post [Jan 12, 2011 4:09pm] I tried to present a very clear and consistent message about this conversation and the support for my view in both Scripture and Church history. Even the non-inspired 1st century church distinguished between relative and absolute necessity of immersion. I could say more regarding the difference between a prophecy from the Spirit, like in Caiaphas, and the indwelling of the Spirit as a seal of Sonship, like in Cornelius, but instead would like to understand your position on the point of justification and baptism.

    According to your understanding of Scripture (1) Does justification and regeneration happen simultaneously? (2) Can you give me a short definition of justification and regeneration so that I can understand how you use the terms? (3) Does one who truly trusts Christ for salvation, but dies before immersion spend eternity in heaven or hell? [I don’t know is not an answer sin God punishes sinners in hell]. If hell, what verses lead you to this conclusion? If heaven, what verses lead you to this conclusion, and how do you avoid God showing partiality to that sinner? I sincerely appreciate your response
45. JMF says:

    January 13, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Robert,

    If you take a legal position and offer up a *precise* moment at which one is saved (baptism), then the onus is on you to specify exactly *when* during that event the person becomes saved. Once the body is fully immersed? Once the first millimeter of flesh exits the water? Once ALL of the flesh exits the water?

    Because many of us have some hard questions to ask you, like: What if Edna has a heart attack right before the tip of her nose goes into the water and she dies?

    And, no, the response, "I'll trust in a loving God to deal with that" is not good enough. If it's law, then it's law. If it is a heart thing, then "leaving it up to that person and God" is a reasonable answer.

    Now, what if you take a stand on my above question? What if you definitively say, "It is the MOMENT when the nose crests the water!!" You'll need to teach that with conviction to your congregation — and if anyone wasn't aware of that when they were baptized, you'll need to re-baptize them.

    You will also need to break fellowship with anyone that disagrees with you on this. Because otherwise, if someone thinks the salvation occurs once the body is immersed, then according to your definition, they'd be supporting the "baptism is an outward expression of one's salvation."

    Does any of this sound insane? It shouldn't. It is the end result of legalism. Personally, I find the mainstream conservative COC's flavor of "legalism lite" to be more disturbing than just some good old-fashioned CFTF full-bore legalism.
46. Jay Guin says:

    January 13, 2011 at 11:01 pm

    Readers,

    Some of you appear to compose your comments in MS Word and then paste them here — which is entirely sensible (I wish I'd thought of it). But the curly quotes and curly apostrophes gunk up the DISQUS emails. Apparently the code for curly quotes isn't recognized in unformatted emails. This leads to junk characters in emails — making for very difficult-to-read emails.

    You've obviously put a lot of thought into these comments and would like email subscribers to follow them.

    Here's the cure per MS Word's Help feature —

    "1.Click the Microsoft Office Button , and then click Word Options.
    2.Click Proofing, and then click AutoCorrect Options.
    3.In the AutoCorrect dialog box, do the following:
    Click the AutoFormat As You Type tab, and under Replace as you type, select or clear the "Straight quotes" with “smart quotes” check box.
    Click the AutoFormat tab, and under Replace, select or clear the "Straight quotes" with “smart quotes” check box."

    That's for Word 7.0. If you use another version, enter "curly quotes" in the Help search box for guidance.

    Here's an easier cure —

    Type the document in Notepad (Click Start button or equivalent; Go to All Programs/ Accessories Folder )

    Unlike Word, Notepad defaults to old-fashioned, ugly straight quotes. And that'll make for much better emails.
47. HistoryGuy says:

    January 14, 2011 at 12:15 am

    Jay,
    I needed all the help I could get to look smart. I will paste into notepad in the future. Thx for the update.
48. Jay Guin says:

    January 14, 2011 at 12:47 am

    HistoryGuy,

    If you start in Word and then copy to Notepad, the curly quotes remain. You have to start in Notepad and copy to the comments from there to avoid the problem.
49. aBasnar says:

    January 14, 2011 at 1:24 am

    Dear JMF

    Although Robert's words sound a bit "technical", I do agree with him. Of course you may take his approach to the extreme (as you do in this):

    If you take a legal position and offer up a *precise* moment at which one is saved (baptism), then the onus is on you to specify exactly *when* during that event the person becomes saved. Once the body is fully immersed? Once the first millimeter of flesh exits the water? Once ALL of the flesh exits the water?

    But this is not really fair. If you see conversion as a process, then baptism is what finishes this process. As long as we are not baptized, we are still knocking at the door but haven't entered yet. Now, we may ask, when have we fully entered through that gate? When our right foot is through, or not before the tipp of our left heel is through, also. If you have common sense, you can answer that for yourself.

    The only problems than may occur: What if a person dies midway in baptism or jumps out of the baptistry because the water is too cold … Try to envision how God does look at these two (quite different) situations.

    But in general, the letter of Barnabas (dated by some as early as 70/80 AD) puts it in straightforward words:

    (Barn Ch XI) We indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit.

    So this is the ancient and original understanding of baptism. We find the same in the scriptures in similar clearness.

    I do agree with Robert that Al Maxey's theology on baptism is moving away from the origin to a more "wishy-washy" Evangelical/Baptist understanding that in the end stands in conflict with the Scriptures. Maybe Al Maxey is a fine scholer in other fields, but here he is definitely wrong, and this should be pointed out to him.

    The way new teachings spread through the internet has to make us even more careful. This is like a thief entering through the chimney while the guard is standing at the door. As teachers and (as some of us are) elders or leaders we are to guard the flock of God from false teaching. But we cannot guard every possible entrance, so we have to teach even more diligently what is right and pleasing to God, so the flock learns to hear the difference between the voice of the shepherd and the howling of a wolfe.

    We also should be aware that wolves may come from the midst of a church's leadership (Acts 20:29+30). This means I and you can also become a wolfe and the cause of division. This should keep us humble and make us cling to God's word even stronger.

    All definitions and rationalisations on baptism that don't follow the clear wording of scripture, but add or take away from it, lead us astray. The same is true for any other doctrine. Let's stick with the Word therefore and fight against our pride that wants to explain baptism better that God's Spirit. We cannot improve doctrine with theology – we can only corrupt doctrine, when we add our own thoughts. (You may send my regards to the Christian Universities from whence so many new thoughts spring up, creating dissent and confusion …)

    Alexander
50. HistoryGuy says:

    January 14, 2011 at 4:50 am

    Alexander,
    We generally have much in common, though we may arrive at it through a different method. I only wish to comment on your use of history. I agree the portion of the Epistle of Barnabas that you cited is authentic and 70-130ad. It agrees with Scripture, as all other ECFs of the time believed. However, I would like to submit to you and others that the Didache Ch. VII, which is an authentic portion of the document from the same period as Barnabas, more clearly addresses what the ECFs believed about the finer points that we are discussing.

    Didache, Ch. 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

    Everyone,
    All the ECFs said forgiveness and regeneration occurred in baptism, but they considered other circumstances as an extension of the blood of Jesus, not an exception. ECFs believed forgiveness was given to several classes of unbaptized believers, but I am not aware, though I am still searching, of any ECF calling an unbaptized believer regenerated. Regeneration benefited the life of the believer, but forgiveness kept the believer out of hell.

    Irenaeus was debating the Gnostics and heretical views. He is not just an early source, but it's important to remember that he was a church leader who had a large amount of authority. In fragment 34 and Against Heresies 1.21, baptism is for the remission of sins and rebirth. However, in Against Heresies 4.27.2, he says remission of sins is received by those who believed in Jesus, which context shows are those unable to be baptized. While Origen did have a Universalist tendency, he believes baptism is regeneration and forgiveness of sins, but believes one can receive the forgiveness of sins through: baptism, martyrdom, almsgiving, forgiving others, converting a sinner, love, and repentance [Homilies on Leviticus 2.4.4-5, Commentary on Romans 2.1.2, or see Ferguson – Baptism in early church – pg. 419]

    I am pointing out these ECFs and others who could be cited to demonstrate that the church has always respected justification by faith and the normative case of regeneration by the Spirit in baptism. This is why they did what they could to immerse believers, but knew those desiring, but unbaptized were justified and not going to hell.
51. Price says:

    January 14, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Jay said that the Holy Spirit is given only to those that are saved…Is that correct ??
52. Jay Guin says:

    January 14, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    HistoryGuy,

    "Regeneration" is uniquely found in —

    (Tit 3:4-7 ESV) 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 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, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

    The flow is: saved us … by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit … so that being justified … we might become heirs.

    Washing/renewal -> justification -> saved -> being an heir (anticipates the end of time)

    "Regeneration" is literally a rebirth but is often used metaphorically to refer to a new beginning. In fact, the Greek is palin (renewed or again) + genesis (beginning or birth).

    Now, commentators disagree as to whether, in this verse, baptism or the Spirit regenerates. I think it would be fairest to Paul to concede that he means both, but that's a discussion we'll get to. Water baptism does not, by itself, make us new. That's the Spirit's work, first received at Spirit baptism.

    I've never been comfortable with the idea of strictly separating justification, salvation, and regeneration. To me, these are all facets of the same jewel.

    When we are saved, many things happen —- by the hand of God, empowered by the work of Jesus, mediated through the Spirit. Among these is forgiveness. Another is receipt of the Spirit, which begins a work to transform us into the image of God and his Son.

    (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.

    The washing, the sanctification, and the justification (all in the aorist indicative — referring to a point in time) are all by the Spirit, by the power of Jesus.

    Thus, we are cleaned (forgiven = washed), made holy (sanctified), and declared innocent of all charges (justified) at the same point in time, by the same means, all concurrent with an event referred to as a washing.

    Yes, there are occasions where the events aren't concurrent, but this passage — also an important Trinitarian passage — gives the normative sequence.
53. Robert Prater says:

    January 14, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    JMF (and HistoryGuy)

    Been a busy day, had a funeral, finishing up sermons for Sunday, and attended my daughter's basketball game.

    And now to the end the evening sitting here and continuing this discussion with my good sincere internet progressive friends:)!

    To both JMF and HistoryGuy, I hope you are asking these "what if" a person dies before they are baptized in complete honesty and sincerity and not pretense. Because there are some, who ask these type of questions to disprove the need for baptism: “What about the guy who dies on his way to be baptized; is God going to condemn him to hell?”

    We need to always keep in mind that attempts to imagine a situation where the rule might be broken does not invalidate the rule. People imagine the possibility of a person believing in Christ but before they can act on it are killed. "What will happen to the poor man?" they moan. They want someone to say, "he will be saved," so that they can say, "See, you can be saved without baptism!"

    I believe God did not command us to do something that can't be accomplished.

    To say that God is incapable of making a way for people to submit to a commandment that He instituted is to limit the ability of God. Those who make these hypothetical arguments to me are saying that they don't trust God to be able to keep that which they have committed unto him. (2 Tim. 1:12)

    You may not realize my friends, is that you are diminishing the power of God. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9). If a man turns his heart to God, God is not going to take his life at the last second so as to prevent his salvation. The Lord God is not like that.

    I often ask such people who ask these type of “what if” questions: "Can a person be saved with confessing Christ?" (Rom. 10:8-10)

    "But what," I then ask, "will happen to him if he dies before he has a chance to open his mouth and make a confession?"

    And what about repentance? Can a person be saved without changing their life? (Luke 13:3,5, Acts 3:19-20)

    Ultimately baptism isn't a question about the ability to perform it. The question is whether someone is willing to obey to Jesus' commandment and submit to the will of God.

    This is exactly what happened in the Garden of Eden. God gave a commandment and the serpent asked, "Did God really say that?"

    The answer is simple. Yes. God did say that. He expects us to obey it. He makes every means available to obey it

    But I guess the closest I can come to answering your question, “What if someone decides to be baptized, but dies before he gets into the water? Is that person lost forever?”

    The only way I can answer these questions is to repeat that God says… “if anyone speaks, let it be as it were the very words of God.” (1 Peter 4:11)
    God has clearly said that baptism is the point at which sins are “washed away” (Acts 22:16), and forgiven (Acts 2:38). If God is willing to violate His law in certain cases, it is His law to do with as He wishes.

    Again, as I’ve already said, I personally believe that God will always make sure that someone who wanted to be baptized would survive until he could be. It would probably be easier for God to arrange that survival than it would be for Him to violate His own laws.

    The answer is, if it ever did happen (and I have more confidence in God than that), then it would be God's decision, and fortunately not mind.

    But in the meantime, I must teach the will of the Father and He says that hearing the word, faith in Jesus, confession of Christ, repentance from sins, and washing away sins in baptism are all necessary to be saved from sins.

    Frankly, when people truly believe God and are willing to do as He commands, the gap between belief and baptism isn't all that great. The possibility of dying before obeying is slim, and I'm confident that the Lord watches over those who are His.

    When the Ethiopian asked, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" The answer was, "If you believe with all your heart, you may" (Acts 8:37-38). There is nothing preventing salvation but a person's own heart.

    I will post some additional comments related to our discussion after awhile.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Prater
54. Robert Prater says:

    January 14, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    HistoryGuy,

    You asked me,

    “Does justification and regeneration happen simultaneously?: (2) Can you give me a short definition of justification and regeneration so that I can understand how you use the terms?”

    I will answer your questions which in essence gives my theology on the subjects. It won’t be “short” though for those who've read my comments before:)

    The Bible teaches that one is justified once they trust in Christ through faith (Rom. 3:24-25; 4:5;5:1,l8).

    Justification speaks of a legal declaration that gives one a right standing before God. It is a one time event. It involves an imputed righteousness of Christ in which we, although we are sinners, are pronounced "not guilty" of sin as in a court of law.

    We are cleared of any charges against us. Christ's sacrifice means He was punished in our place, satisfying the demands of the law, and God's justice upon sin. (cf. Rom. 3:21-28; 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:19-21)

    There is just one way for a SINNER to be justified: by THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, Rom 5:9.

    There is just one way to be under His blood: BY FAITH. Rom 3:28; 5:1. This is what it means to be “justified. Because the salvation which Jesus brings depends upon the blood he shed in his death as an atoning sacrifice, Paul described that justification which comes through trusting in Christ as being “faith in His blood.” (Romans 3:25; 5:9) To be a Christian involves depending upon Christ’s blood to justify us, and not ourselves.

    Now, a critical understanding is whether or not we are the words ‘by faith’ include the obedience to that faith, or are we justified the moment we believe, i.e., faith only.

    Does this phrase ‘by faith’ include Christian baptism or is this just faith alone?

    Paul says, “Therefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal 3:24 )

    Paul implies here that we need to be brought unto Christ so that we can be justified by faith. He then continues, “For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:26 )

    He then explains why we are children of God ‘by faith’. He says, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal 3:27 )

    The word ‘for’ means that this is the reason as to why, and in this case he tells us in verse 24 that we need to be brought up to Christ so that we can be justified by faith. He then proclaims that we are children of God by faith, because ‘by faith’ we were baptized into Christ and had put on Christ!

    The little word "for" in this verse is the Greek word gar. Thayer defines the word and says "it adduces the cause or gives the reason of a preceding statement" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, p. 109).

    The word gar is sometimes translated as "because" or "since." So Paul, in Galatians 3:27, is saying we are the children of God by faith because we have been baptized into Christ

    So contrary to the common though in most religious camps, Paul never uses the phrase ‘by faith’ to ever mean faith only but has in all his other writings to show that it includes the actions of that faith.

    Let us all be as Abraham and be obedient to faith and be saved by faith.

    Regarding, regeneration

    I believe regeneration is the rebirth or the new birth (being born again of water and Spirit according to John 3:5) by faith in Christ. That is having "newness of life,” is the final act of the process by which we attain this is clearly shown in Romans 6:4.

    All the "salvation terms" (washed, justified, regeneration) are heavily related, and although there are some differences, these like justification and regeneration are essentially the same concept referring to the same saving event process of the obedient believer who turns to Christ for salvation.

    IS THERE A MIDDLE GROUND?

    Now, maybe in all our discussions about the precise moment and time of salvation, there can be some common understanding between us.

    I do believe that we BEGIN to be justified, i.e., we initially come under the blood of Jesus, BY FAITH and this takes place in baptism: (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:12)

    However, "by faith" is not the same as "as soon as you have faith." There is a difference between the MEANS to receiving something and the TIME for receiving it. It’s like having in your possession a gift card for a restaurant or a ticket to some event (i.e., the MEANS) does not mean that you will have immediate access to the food or the event.

    I believe a similar idea of this is when in John 1:11-12 we read how Christ "came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name."

    This passage plainly affirms that all believers have the right to become the children of God, but it does not tell us how they can exercise that blessed right.

    It says that believers have the right (authority and liberty) to become the children of God. John is not saying that all “believers” are automatically the children of God, but rather they have the right to become His children.
    We know this from John’s own gospel because he credits the Pharisees with believing in Christ, but since they would not confess Him they were lost. (John 12:42-43; cf. Mattt. 10:32-33).

    Paul called King Agrippa a believer, but even Agrippa himself realized he was not a Christian (Acts 26:27-28). Agrippa was a believer who did not exercise his right to become a child of God.

    We read of believers in the Book of Acts who exercised their right to become children of God by their obedient faith in repentance, confession and baptism.

    But even in baptism, the main thing God looks for is FAITH. Col 2:12: Dying with Christ and being raised up with him take place IN BAPTISM, but only THROUGH FAITH in God’s working. (cf. Col. 2:11-12) They were "raised" with Christ through faith in God's power to raise them from spiritual death, just as He had raised His own Son from the grave.

    That's always what baptism is about – not a "meritorious work," but a declaration of faith in God! And Paul explains the result of this
    spiritual circumcision.

    Friends let's speak in Bible language, showing that baptism is a logical act of faith, and of course that baptism without faith is useless.

    Sincerely your
    Robert Prater
    (or according to JMF, "you mainstream conservative" brother:)lol!!
55. HistoryGuy says:

    January 14, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    Jay,
    Thanks for the comments. In my view, justification and sanctification are both singular points in time, but also continuous lifelong actions for active believing ones. Regeneration is a singular point in time when the spiritually dead believer is made a new creature/changed by God through the Spirit.

    I see justification as a judge's declaration and regeneration as a surgeons operation. One declares, the other touches and changes. How do you understand these terms and what does it mean to you practically? I am aware that when I say one is justified by faith, I am saying the unregenerate believer is at that time seen as forgiven by God. God then works to crucify the old sinful nature making the believer a new creature (regeneration).

    This is consistent with justification in the OT and NT, and avoids God showing partially by making exceptions and saving people in different ways. It is one matter to say God draws us using method X, but normally does XX or at times YY. However, it is another matter to say God normally saves through X, but in ZZ case, he saved them through XX. The first is faith, with a change in required response, but the second is truly two different ways of salvation. God justifies everyone through faith.

    You gave a chronological order from Titus 3:4-7, but I don't see from the text what supports that order. In my view, Paul affirms salvation as a gracious gift of God, not a chronological order. Still, I see Paul saying grace > [faith – implied] > justified > washing of regeneration/baptism/Spirit > ultimate end time salvation

    Saying that one is regenerated before justification creates problems with other Scriptures, somewhat like Calvinism, and makes a believer regenerate before he is declared forgiven. I do see chronology in other verses. Eph. 2:8-10 is thought progression of grace > faith > unto good works. Romans 3:30 lists one God who declares both Jew and Gentile justified [through] faith. Rm. 8:29-30 foreknew > predestined > called > justified > glorified/end time salvation.

    Regarding 1 Cor. 6:11, Paul begins with – and such were some of you (group). He then tells the group why they are now different from the past. It is true that the washing, sanctification, and justification are all in the aorist indicative — referring to a point in time. However, the singular point in time does not describe each individual conversion in chronological order or require [was/sant/just] to occur at the same time. Instead, the aorist indicative clarifies the point of past conversion of the group in contrast to the present. Specifically, though each person converted at a different time, Paul could say that in the past they (group) were all washed, sanctified, justified, so they (group) should now live like it in the present..

    I have some questions for you that I am struggling with, but I’m trying to stay at 500 words. I’ll post later.
56. HistoryGuy says:

    January 14, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Robert,
    I am thinking about your latest post.
57. Robert Prater says:

    January 15, 2011 at 12:02 am

    HistoryGuy (and my progressive friends),

    Please forgive and allow me one last lengthy comment which goes along with much of Jay’s recent comment about 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

    But as I’m thinking about Al Maxey’s new view regarding baptism that he does not “believe that we can dogmatically affirm that one’s baptism is the precise point in time when God imparts eternal salvation to a believing, penitent disciple of Christ.”

    I think no passage is more clear than 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Paul’s statement, “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"

    Most remember how during Paul's ministry at Corinth he had spent a year and a half teaching the word of God (Acts 18:11).

    "And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized" (Acts 18:8). This exactly parallels the great commission (Mark 16:15-16).

    Three terms are used by Paul to show the completeness of their change from their old character to their new character; from their former lost condition to their present place among the saved. "…but were are washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified . . ."

    These terms do not indicate three unrelated actions. Neither do they show successive stages over a period of time. Instead the apostle points to a specific point in their history when a great transformation occurred.

    The expression, "you were washed," deserves particular attention. At first glance one might assume that there is reference to being washed, cleansed, by the blood of Christ. Certainly the blood washes from sin (Rev. 1:5; 7:14); but the use of the term here applies to baptism, as it does in several comparable passages. (See Acts 22:16; Eph. 5:26; Ti. 3:5; Heb. 10:22.)

    Especially significant is the fact that all three verbs–washed, sanctified, and justified–are in the Greek aorist tense, which is used to indicate a specific point in the past when these things simultaneously took place.

    lt was accomplished in a single act. While, however, these verbs are all in the aorist tense, they are not in the same Greek voice. This distinction is remarkable in that it demonstrates both the human and the Divine involvement in conversion.

    G. R. Beasley-Murray, citing other scholars, shows that the verb for "washed," in the middle voice, implies voluntary action, and that literally the clause should be rendered: “But you had yourselves washed…" He calls attention to the coincidence of languages in Acts 22:16, where Saul is told to "Get baptized and wash away your sins…" (pp. 162ff)

    Being "washed" was something the Corinthians themselves had done. That is, they had submitted to baptism.

    Their being "sanctified" and "justified," however, is expressed in the Greek passive voice, indicating something that had been done for them–the Divine action in conversion. The point made, therefore, is that when they had (by faith) voluntarily had themselves washed (baptized), they had at that point been sanctified and justified by the power of God.

    Emphasis on the Divine involvement in baptism as the rite of sanctification and justification is seen in the way being washed, sanctified, and justified are all three said to be "in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

    This is the same emphasis found in Colossians 2:12. "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God…"

    The case for the washing of 1 Corinthians 6;11 being water baptism is further strengthened by a comparison of Ephesians 5:25-26. The "church of God" at Corinth was composed of "them that are sanctified" (I Cor. 1:2). Those that were sanctified were those that had gotten themselves washed.

    According to the same writer, the church is sanctified and cleansed "with the washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5:26).

    I submit to you that salvation is in fact preceded by both faith and baptism, according to the precise language of Mark 16:16. The Greek text literally suggests and listen to these past tense verbs: “He who has believed (past tense) and has been baptized (past tense) shall be saved (future tense)….”

    In a parallel passage, baptism is viewed as the culminating act by which one is acknowledged as a disciple (Mt. 28:19)

    Paul describes baptism as a “washing of water,” or a “washing of regeneration,” in connection with which the sinner is “cleansed” or “saved” (Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5). A.T. Robertson, a Baptist scholar, even conceded that both of these passages allude to water baptism.

    I do agree with the part Al Maxey is saying about about making baptism into simply a "sacrament."

    But one does not have to believe in the Catholic concept of “baptismal regeneration”, that there is some kind “sacramental” power intrinsic to the water of baptism.

    We still can acknowledge that there is a relationship between water immersion and forgiveness.

    Even when one has done precisely as the Lord commands, he has merited nothing; he has earned nothing. The fact that we are saved by God’s grace does not negate human responsibility in accepting Heaven’s gift, and one’s refusal to do what is clearly commanded by the Son of God, or to assign it a subordinate status, is not justified

    I thank all for you time and willingness to for us to think and reason together.

    Your brother in Christ,
    Rober Prater
58. HistoryGuy says:

    January 15, 2011 at 3:34 am

    … washed, sanctified, and justified–are in the Greek aorist tense, which is used to indicate a specific point in the past when these things simultaneously took place… lt was accomplished in a single act.

    Robert,
    I agree that this verse refers to immersion. However, please review [G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pg. 164-167] again. He does not believe this verse shows that washed, sanctified, and justified were accomplished at the exact same time because Paul is using the terms flexibly as opposed to a tight chronology. Beasley-Murray also notes that Paul is using this teaching to address a sin problem in Corinth, but expounds on the specific connection between justification and faith in other epistles like Romans. I will add that in the verse, you is plural meaning Paul is addressing the group as a whole. The group would have had different individual conversion dates. By using the aorist tense while addressing the plural group, Paul is contrasting the fact that the group had all been changed in the past, so they should now live according to their calling in the present.
59. aBasnar says:

    January 15, 2011 at 3:56 am

    God has clearly said that baptism is the point at which sins are “washed away” (Acts 22:16), and forgiven (Acts 2:38). If God is willing to violate His law in certain cases, it is His law to do with as He wishes.

    I am also bothered by hypothetical question trying to make command appear an option rather. But exceptions to a rule actually confirm the rule.

    A different example comes to my mind: When David ate the shewbread he in fact broke a clear command of God. Still Christ takes this a s an example that saving life is of a higher priority than keeping a law, when this keeping would destroy a life. With the same reason he justified healing on a Sabbath or releasing a donkey (which the Essenes strictly forbade to do on a Sabbath).

    But this example is not an invitation for everyone to come to the temple and beg for a chunk of shewbread! It was unlawful to eat it (unless you were a priest) before and after David's transgression of this Law which he survived through the grace of God – not because God lowered the standards.

    Now if there is a mute Christian who cannot confess Christ with his lips, he – according to the standrads of the New Testament – is not meeting a specific condition for salvation spelled out in Romans 10. I think we can infer from God's character that He will acknowledge the person's muteness and save him anyway, if his heart is truly fixed on following Christ, if he repented, got baptized and expresses his faith by other means than speaking and in good works.

    This does not mean, that because the mute does not have to move his lips, that we are free to ignore this condition for ourselves. Got the point?

    You can take any situation: The criminal on the cross was saved, though (probably) not baptized (not even with John's baptism). If you would like to take this situation as an excuse not to be baptized, I'll go and fetch some boards, nails and a hammer and see that you are in the same situation as your situation matches his. Otherwise your excuse would not count.

    See, this makes no sense.

    But there are and were situations, where sincere Christians were put to death before their baotism. In the Early church the catechumens spent some time in classes to learn the faith and to count the cost prior to their baptism. And it happened quite often that they were captured in times of persecution and martyred together with baptized believers. This raised a serious question for them: Were they saved or not? And this is how Cyprian (250 AD) answered it:

    (Cyprian Ep. LXXII to Jubaianus, Ch 22) Some ask, "If one of these (catechumens) – before he is baptized – is arrested and slain after confessing the Name, does he lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, since he had not previously been born again of water? … They certainly are not lacking the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood. Concerning this baptism, the Lord also said that He had "another baptism to be baptized with." The same Lord declared in the Gospel that those who are baptized in their own blood and sanctified by suffering are perfected. Thex obtain the grace of the divine promise. He showed this to the thief who believed and confessed in His very passion. Jesus promised him that he would be with Him in Paradise.

    We may also note in this quote, that Cyprian still acknowledges that prior top baptism of water a person is not recognized as being born again. But he also states that a natural death may serve as an alternative baptism – which does make sense, because baptism is our death in union with Christ's death.

    But more important: This was not a hypothetical situation in order to explain away the necessity of baptism, but a real and serious situation they had to answer. May our questions be real and serious, too.

    Alexander
60. HistoryGuy says:

    January 15, 2011 at 4:50 am

    Alexander,
    Good point about David and the showbread. I would also add that on another occasion, he received forgiveness apart from mandatory animal sacrifice (2 Sam. 12:13). Thank you for posting the direct quote from Cyprian. I raised some eyebrows when I listed and agreed with some ECFs who believe you could be forgiven apart from water baptism, but not regenerated. I personally find fewer problems with justification by faith and regeneration in baptism than other explanations. Again, though we arrive at the same conclusion, we often do so through different means. Irenaeus baptized all that he could for the forgiveness of sins. However, he also said –

    Irenaeus: Against Heresies 4.27.2 …Now all those believed in Him who had hope towards Him, that is, those who proclaimed His advent, and submitted to His dispensations, the righteous men, the prophets, and the patriarchs, to whom He remitted sins in the same way as He did to us…For “all men come short of the glory of God,” and are not justified of themselves, but by the advent of the Lord,— they who earnestly direct their eyes towards His light…
61. HistoryGuy says:

    January 15, 2011 at 4:54 am

    Robert,
    I am sorry for your loss [funeral]. Thank you for your response. In short, I promise God is powerful enough to save every believer of Christ (Acts 17:26-28; Romans 8:29-30). Though I would like to address all of our differences in detail, I will try to summarize them in the order that you made the points within each post. You seem sincere, but there are many inconsistencies with your views. ~ I am on your team 🙂

    People imagine the possibility of a person believing in Christ but before they can act on it are killed… I personally believe that God will always make sure that someone who wanted to be baptized would survive until he could be… The possibility of dying before obeying is slim, and I'm confident that the Lord watches over those who are His

    I was not undermining God, but I am questioning your interpretation. You seem oblivious to the fact that many have died for various reasons before they could be immersed, while believing Jesus was their only Savior. Your interpretation of the fate of such ones stands opposed to the entire 1st-3rd century church and Scripture. Strangely, these were the ones who walked with the apostles, died gruesome deaths for their faith, and preserved the Scriptures from corruption. Clearly, they should know the fate of such ones without undermining God. They affirmed immersion, and justification at faith.

    God did not command us to do something that can't be accomplished

    First, this has nothing to do with the question of their fate. With the infinite number of free choices in the world, surely God foreknew one believer who would not be able to be baptized. Second, God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:2, 9-12, 16), but he was prevented from finishing the command. Yet, God considered the command “completed” (v16) and provided a lamb. Thus, when faith prompts the desire to obey, but one is unable to fulfill the action, God does not count the situation as disobedience. James uses this scenario as an example of obedient saving faith (Jm. 2:21-23; Rm. 15:4) because Abraham was credited righteousness at the point of faith (Rm. 4:1-2, 13). We are justified at faith.

    If a man turns his heart to God, God is not going to take his life at the last second so as to prevent his salvation

    There are 3 concerns in that statement: Man turns, God kills, God prevents. Sympathy for the sinner who turns to God can only be sustained if accepting justification at faith, which you currently deny. In your view, an unimmersed believer who turns to God is just as rebellious and lost as a frolicking Stalin. God sets our boundaries to draw us to him (Acts 17:26-28) even though he foreknew the date of our death, and if we would be able to be immersed (Ps. 139:1-8). Real believers do die before baptism, and God knew they would. He is not unable to save them. We are justified at faith (Rm. 4:3).

    Can a person be saved without confessing Christ… or repenting

    Absolutely NOT! Repentance is an attitude on a 2 way street. One is either turning to God or turning away from God. These are more than verbal communications. These are turning to & agreeing with God that Jesus is savior of sins. Confession and repentance don’t mean perfection, have been required of every believer since Adam, and most importantly are attitudes between the believer and God. Baptism merges physical and metaphysical, which is a relative rather than an absolute necessity.

    …If God is willing to violate His law in certain cases, it is His law to do with as He wishes… It would probably be easier for God to arrange that survival [of the unimmersed] than it would be for Him to violate His own laws… it would be God's decision, and fortunately not mind…

    God is perfect so his characteristics prevent him from violating his law. A violation would make God an unjust judge, show partiality, and a sinner. Thus, it’s impossible for God to violate his law. We have also seen that believers who want to obey God have died before they could be immersed. Unless you accept justification at faith, they will go to hell. Sadly, many unbelievers will go to hell, so this is not an appeal to emotions. God foreknew and chose to save believers, believers are justified at faith, all believers [who God foreknew would not fall away] will receive end time salvation (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14).

    The possibility of dying before obeying is slim, and I'm confident that the Lord watches over those who are His

    You have an interesting view… I believe it was Tertullian who said, "the more you kill the more we are. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

    I asked if the believing unimmersed who die spend eternity in hell. You used to 780 words to tell me that you don’t know after I asked you not to tell me that you don’t know (ha ha ha). I will have to reply to the second part of your post becuase I need to return to some other work.

    grace and peace
62. Price says:

    January 15, 2011 at 9:51 am

    The difficulty that many have with the baptism debate is the depth to which the insight seems to travel is a little intimidating. Those with considerable education in the ancient languages and theological training at respected universities and institutions often have an advantage but in this instance they even seem to have significant areas of disagreement. So where does that leave the lay Christian? Did God really intend to make it that difficult to understand a basic tenet of Christianity and the process by which one is to obtain eternal salvation? Seems improbable and highly unlikely.

    So, rather than attempting to parse Greek grammar most people just look at scripture for specific examples of what WAS done in order to be saved. There are at least two examples of people being saved at the very beginning of the early church: Cornelius and his household (Acts 10-11) and the Samaritans (Acts 8). Often times these two examples are kicked aside for reasons which the lay Christian doesn’t understand.

    Cornelius is instructed by God through an angel, that he will hear a MESSAGE by which he will be SAVED (11:14). What is that message? Peter preaches the good news and then says in verse 43 of Chapter 10 …To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who BELIEVES in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. Then the narrative says that immediately the Holy Spirit fell upon all that were listening…Cornelius, who was listening, was saved. He was now indwelt by the Holy Spirit…According to the narrative it is obvious that he must have BELIEVED. Baptism hasn’t yet happened. Peter, as he’s telling the Jerusalem group about his experience in Chapter 11 remembers the prophetic words of Jesus who had told him that John baptized with WATER but you will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Cornelius was baptized OK but it wasn’t water baptism that saved him: Just as Jesus had prophesied. Certainly, he and his entire household were baptized with water but only after he was already saved. It seems doubtful at this point that either Cornelius, Peter or those that were witness to this event now believe, if ever they believed, that immersion in water is necessary to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a seal of their salvation.

    In Acts 8 the Samaritans HAVE been baptized in water in the name of Jesus but have NOT received the Holy Spirit…Have they been saved? In the book of Romans, chapter 8 verse 9 Paul says that ANYONE who does NOT have the Spirit of Christ DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. If we accept that as truth then these Samaritans that have been baptized in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins were NOT saved. That’s staggering. Only after the Apostles laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit did they belong to Christ. Here again, water baptism seems to have no bearing whatsoever on SALVATION.

    The question that is constantly asked by those that haven’t been privileged to be educated in the ancient languages and institutions of higher learning is this: Why would God in the very beginning of the church show by example that salvation has nothing at all to do with water baptism if it is the only means by which one can be saved? One would think that if water baptism was the only way that one could be saved that it would have been highlighted to the nth degree…not totally discounted for its salvific value. For some to suggest that these were exceptions to the rule does nothing to strengthen the argument for the necessity of water baptism for salvation. In each of these two examples given to us by divine inspiration, water baptism WAS involved but NEITHER was an example of it being used as a means to salvation.

    If we back up even more and look at the day of Pentecost, there is considerable debate about Acts 2:38…Some say the Greek shows definitively that baptism is required for salvation. Others, such as some respected persons here on this blog, have suggested that the proper interpretation of the Greek suggests that their baptism was in appreciation for sins already forgiven. The later interpretation seems to the lay Christian to be consistent with the narrative of the Samaritans and the household of Cornelius just a few chapters following…

    So, as the debate continues to focus on the minute detail of the Greek, what IN Christ and other symbolic language suggests and requires of us who want to do what is right, please don’t insult the intelligence of the majority and suggest that the examples given us by God Himself are to be disregarded or discounted. Rather, show us with your great learning and training how the examples God chose to give us are consistent with your interpretation and opinion. That would be helpful to the discussion for those of us who do not have your ability or advanced training.
63. Jay Guin says:

    January 15, 2011 at 10:30 am

    1. A Little League coach tells his charges: "Play the entire season, play hard, and if you come to the awards banquet, you'll receive a trophy."

    After the end of the season, his shortstop dies in a car wreck on the way to the awards ceremony. He brings the trophy to the child's funeral and leaves it on his casket.

    Is the coach a respecter of persons? Does he break his own rules? Is he somehow immoral? I don't think so. I think he's a good coach.

    2. Same story except one child misses the banquet because he was given bad directions by an assistant coach. He tried to get there but was on the wrong side of town when the awards were given out.

    The head coach visits the child at his home and gives him his trophy, even though the child broke the rule and there was plenty of good guidance available for how to find the banquet hall.

    Is the coach a respecter of persons? Does he break his own rules? Is he somehow immoral? I don't think so. I think he's a good coach.

    Of course, had either child dropped out of baseball and not played the season, most would agree that the kid won't get a trophy. We recognize instinctively that for a baseball team, playing baseball is more important than attending the awards banquet. Not every requirement is the same — even though all requirements are requirements.

    We also recognize that there's a difference between not bothering to show up for the banquet (bad attitude) and being misled by someone in authority. A child ought to be able to rely on advice given him by the leadership structure of the team. There's a difference between having a bad attitude and being misled by the leaders of the team.

    We try to make salvation into something like the law of gravity. It's not math. It's not law. It's relational. It's about a change of heart that leads to a certain relationship with our Father, and he will treat us as a father treats a child — which is at least as well as a Little League coach treats his players.
64. HistoryGuy says:

    January 15, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    Jay,
    I love this conversation! Thank you for your illustration. We agree on the conclusion, and I love your final thought about relationship, but we arrive at it differently. I see God calling people to faith, declaring [justification] them forgiven at faith [absolute], and then working in different ways to change [regenerate] and use the believer regardless of time/space [relative]. I wonder if you want to call things an exception to feel more comfortable. It took time and study for me to accept justification by faith – I fear this term is not being understood.

    In my view, your illustration does not use an exception; it actually uses an extension of the relative necessities. The coach required [in an absolute sense] each player to believe his word, desire to obey, and play hard. For the believing team, the coach made a promise to those who came to the banquet (Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5), but didn’t restrict himself from giving a trophy at other times (Acts 8:16; 10:47). The coach had Divine foreknowledge (Rom. 8:29-30) of every player, made faith an absolute necessity of every player, and used different relative necessities to give them a trophy throughout his career [history]. The coach would never, after the team has been chosen, make an exception and give a rebellious non-player a trophy.

    I have a very high view of baptism. However, baptism is not an absolute necessity. Faith is an absolute necessity. God cannot violate absolute necessities. If God made an exception to an absolute necessity, he would go against his character, sin, and violate clear Scripture. Such examples are God not punishing sin, or God saving an unbeliever after he committed himself to the creation event. God cannot lie, so he will absolutely punish sin and save believers.

    In your view, would God make an exception and save an unbeliever?
65. Bruce Morton says:

    January 15, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    Jay:
    As I have been following your look at baptism, I have noticed you have referred to Al Maxey and others, but not the extensive study of the subject by Jack Cottrell. Seems to me that Jack Cottrell's thorough look at baptism deserves more attention from One in Jesus than you have given it. Your thoughts?

    And I believe you/et.al. would see some important study regarding some of the issues folks have wrestled with — e.g. the example of Cornelius (i.e. I do not find in the account any suggestion that God "accepts" Cornelius in the sense of "acceptance" being "salvation.") Otherwise, why is the Spirit leading him to baptism? Indeed, what is happening in baptism?

    Have you looked at baptism as an action of God's grace and I missed the discussion (and that does not necessarily mean "sacramentum" in the sense of the word used by some ancient writers — the water was not "magical")? Titus 3:5ff. continues to represent a clear teaching by the apostle to the Gentiles and further emphasizes what he is announcing in Ephesians 2.

    In Christ,
    Bruce Morton
    Katy, Texas
66. Jay Guin says:

    January 16, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Bruce,

    I'm familiar with Jack Cottrell's book and have a copy on my shelf. It would be helpful to me and, I'm sure, to the readers to know which particular points he makes you think would be helpful to the discussion.

    Cottrell does not address Cornelius, saying on p. 67 that the passage does not address the meaning of baptism. Of course, by limiting his survey to traditional Restoration Movement proof texts, he avoids some very hard and very instructive questions.

    You argue that Cornelius' receipt of the Spirit does not necessarily imply God's acceptance of Cornelius. I think the text is plainly to the contrary.

    (Act 10:44-48 ESV) 44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

    In v. 47, Peter argues that the gift of the Spirit requires that Cornelius be baptized. Why? Plainly because the Spirit's presence shows God's acceptance.

    In c. 11, Peter makes that argument —

    (Act 11:16-17 ESV) 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"

    "Stand in God's way"? Why would refusing baptism stand in God's way? Because the outpouring of the Spirit shows God's acceptance.

    (Rom 8:9-11 ESV) 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

    Plainly, Paul teaches that if we have the Spirit, we will be resurrected to join Jesus.

    Was God pointing Cornelius toward baptism? Well, yes. But why? Why did Peter find it necessary that someone who already had the Spirit be baptized? If we are to believe Paul, Cornelius was already saved.

    In this case, baptism plainly had the significance of showing the church's acceptance of Cornelius as not only saved but also part of the church.

    That's not to say that baptism is normally limited to that purpose, but in Acts 10 – 11, the decision whether to baptize was the church's (as is ALWAYS true), and God wanted the church to make the correct decision, as that would cause the apostles and other Jews to take action to accept the Gentiles as fellow saved people.

    It wouldn't have been enough — not nearly — for Cornelius to be saved. He had to be incorporated into the living body of Christ on earth, into the Christian community.

    God broke from his usual practice of giving the Spirit concurrently with baptism in order to vividly demonstrate the necessity of the church taking steps to admit Gentiles into its community.

    By the way, this also shows how very wrong it is to segregate congregations by race. When we do that, we stand in God's way. Indeed, we show how very worldly we are by our blindness to God's pattern: a single community made up of all nations and all races. It's not enough that blacks or Hispanics be saved. They must be added to the community.
67. Bruce Morton says:

    January 16, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Jay:
    Yes, certainly there is a sense of God's "acceptance" regarding Cornelius. I gather we are seeing it here — the entirety of all that you have argued? Everything leads up to Cornelius; you have wrestled with baptism as you say, but seem to have "landed" along with Al at this point. God has poured out the Spirit on Cornelius; and the conclusion, therefore, is that Cornelius is free from sin, "washed clean" prior to baptism. Correct?

    And therefore baptism is (no more than) a sign of the church's "acceptance." (And we therefore are to jettison the idea that baptism is an action of God's grace). That is what you are saying, correct? Just want to confirm with clarity before we take a next step regarding this text/et.al.

    Note: Jack Cottrell has discussed the example of Cornelius, but not in his primary baptism volume.

    In Christ,
    Bruce Morton
    Katy, Texas
68. aBasnar says:

    January 17, 2011 at 1:30 am

    I think it is shortsighted to assume that just because a person rceived the Spirit that he received all promises of salvation.

    That the Spirit – in general – is given in the course of baptism, which is the bath of regeneration and renweing of the Spirit, does not mean that if the Spirit comes before baptism that this gift is somehow disconnected from the baptism in water which immedieately followed. Since Baptism also includes more promises than "just" the "gift of the Spirit", we cannot reduce it to a mere symbol once a person got "saved" before his immersion.

    Forgiveness of sins is tied to baptism, not to the outpouring of the Spirit or the manifstation of Spiritual gifts.

    The New Birth is tied to baptism and is something different than becoming filled with the Spirit ore receiving a gift of the Spirit. We see it often, that people were filled with the Spirit on different occasions for different purposes. Stephen was a man filled with the Spirit when he became one of the sven servants, and he was especially filled with the Spirit again when he was martyred. Or: Saul prphesied in the Spirit – as did David – but neither of them was born again, since the New Birth is a sign of the New Covenant.

    So, to conclude that Cornelius was saved merely because he spoke in tongues is not correct. He was – to be more to the point – in the process of being saved.

    We may also ask similar question about the Samaritans, who believed and got baptized but did not receive the Spirit. Were they saved prior to the laying on of hands through Peter and John? Since we are to be born again by water AND Spirit, I give the same answer: They were in the process of being saved.

    Cornelius and the Samaritans show me several things:

    1) Receiving the Spirit alone does not save
    2) Faith in Christ and Water-Baptism alone does not save

    So both "anomalies" help us to see that we must beware of any "this or that only" theology. We have to see and keep in mind that salvation is a rather complex and definitely "mysterious" event, that involves several "ingredients" and God's work in our hearts. We can and have to provide the ingrediences, but can only ask God through the name of Christ to receive us in Grace.

    As an analogy: Bread consists of flour, in fact this is the main ingredient. But in order to make bread you need at least water and heat, too (which makes our unleavened bread). Faith indeed is the main ingredient, but without water and fire (Baptism and Spirit) it won't save (become bread).

    Evangelicals make the mistake to focus in the "flour" or the "Spirit" "alone". They have theologically disconnected the New Birth from Baptism and tied it to the unscriptural "Sinner's Prayer". In their view this simple prayer (which, of course is not evil in itself, but rather good as one step toward God) is the "precise time" when we are born again. We were taught to remember this date as our "new birthday". Somehow their "Faith Only" is expressed by "One Prayer only". When I discovered the complexity of conversion and salvation I was shocked! How untrue, how misleading is this "monistic theology"!

    Thus I am not happy at all when I can sense a move towards this kind of theology among churches of Christ. I know that Jay does not think this way, but disconnecting salvation from baptism and tieing it to "faith only" is a step in this wrong direction. But it is equally wrong to tie salvation to "baptism only" or to the precise mode or understanding of baptism. It needs more than just faith and definitely more than just water.

    Just as a reminder: This is all about the "initial" salvation, about haow we are born again and become citizens of God's Kingdom. But in order to stay saved we have to remain in Christ through obedient love. Salvation in the end is a result of perseverance in the power of His Spirit.

    Alexander
69. Price says:

    January 17, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Clyde, just noticed your remark concerning "for" in Acts 2:38…There seems to be disagreement on this word in this passage… What gives you the confidence that this word should be interpreted as you suggest. I'm not disagreeing, just wanting to understand how you came to your conclusion…Thanks.
70. Robprater says:

    January 18, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    Jay,

    Here’s is where I think yourself, Edward Fudge, History Guy, Price and other progressives are going wrong in using the example of Cornelius to show the people can be saved prior to baptism nod also using the example of the Samaritans to attempt to prove that being saved is achieved in different ways for different ways, i.e., with Cornelius he received the Spirit (saved before baptism at the point of faith alone), and the Samarians who were baptized, then later received the Spirit.

    Here’s where I believe you are greatly mistaken.

    THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SPIRIT HIMSELF AND THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT

    The Bible speaks of the "gifts" of the Spirit (miraculous ability), which is not the same as the "gift" of the Spirit. (Non-miraculous personal indwelling)

    F.F. Bruce notes:
    “We must distinguish the gift of the Spirit from the gifts of the Spirit. The gift of the Spirit is the Spirit himself, bestowed by the Father through the Messiah; the gifts of the Spirit are those spiritual faculties which the Spirit imparts, 'dividing to each one severally even as he will' (1Co 12:11)." – (Commentary on the Book of Acts, p. 77)

    Richard N. Longenecker writes,
    "We need, however, to distinguish between 'the gift' of the Holy Spirit and what Paul called 'the gifts' (ta pneumatika, 1Co 12:1;14:1) of that self-same Spirit. 'The gift' is the Spirit himself given to minister the saving benefits of Christ's redemption to the believer, while 'the gifts' are those spiritual abilities the Spirit gives variously to believers 'for the common good' and sovereignty, 'just as He determines' (1Co 12:7,11). Peter's promise of the 'gift of the Holy Spirit' is a logical outcome of repentance and baptism." (Expositors'
    Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, p.283)

    CORNELIUS

    Let’s look at first the example of Cornelius and his household.

    We need to ask: “Why was the Spirit given to Cornelius and the other Gentiles to enable them to miraculously speak in tongues?”

    God's purpose in this was to show the Jews who were present that He wanted Gentiles to be taught the same plan of salvation as they.

    Remember God had to convince Peter in a vision to even have contact with the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-16,24-29; 11:4-10).

    According to Acts 11:15, it was when “Peter began to speak that the Spirit fell upon the Gentiles. “ This would have timed nicely with Peter's beginning words as he realizes:

    "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." (Acts 10:34-35).

    What a demonstration to the Jews! Those with Peter were "astonished…because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also." (Acts 10:45). After his sermon and after continuing to listen to these Gentiles "speak in tongues and magnify God," Peter said to his Jewish brethren: "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10:47).

    Peter understood clearly what God wanted Him to do next: Command the Gentiles to be baptized (Acts 10:48). None of the Jews present who had witnessed these things dared dispute this conclusion. Peter knew he must do what God wanted and not "stand in God's way" (Acts 11:17, NASB).

    When Peter later told about this event to other Jews, their immediate reaction was stunned silence, then praise. They rightly concluded: "God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." (Acts 11:18).

    So then, the purpose for pouring the Spirit on Cornelius and company was to convince the Jewish Christians beyond doubt that Gentiles should be taught the same plan of salvation; and when the Gentiles obeyed, they would be saved and have life, too. Jews and Gentiles could now be equals in God's kingdom.

    So in this context, the coming of the Spirit upon Cornelius’ house reminded Peter of Pentecost when he and the other apostles received the Spirit (2:1-4). Notice how Peter drew “a parallel” (vs. 47) between the household of Cornelius and the original disciples rather than between the household of Cornelius and the three thousand who believed on the day of Pentecost. (cf. 11:15; 15:8)

    The baptism of the Holy Spirit was not to show that Cornelius and his household had already been saved. Again, the purpose of the event was to prepare Jewish Christians to accept Gentiles. We can know the purpose of a thing by the use made of it. The example can be given that even if a person had never seen a chair before, he could quickly know its purpose by seeing how it was used.

    Likewise, on three separate occasions (Acts 10:47, 48; 11:17; 15:8, 9) Peter used this incident to prove that God was willing to accept Gentiles, and for that reason the church should also be willing to accept them. That was the purpose of the miracle!

    Now, what about Peter’s statement in Acts 15:8 about God “purifying their heats by faith.” Was he saying that Cornelius had his sins forgiven before he was baptized in water, by faith alone.

    Peter is saying in this statement that God made no distinction between Jew and Gentile, implying that He also purified the heart of the Jew by faith also. In fact this statement is true of everyone. God cleanses everyone’s heart by faith. This same Peter also said, “since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren” (1 Peter 1: 22) showing that faith and obedience are not in opposition. Faith is perfected by the obedience to the truth.

    Our faith becomes alive and useful when we obey God.

    This verse shows that there are NOT two ways of salvation, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile. It also contrastrrated the message of the Judaziers that their hearts had not been cleansed by faith, not by being circumcised and keeping the Law.

    My dear progressive friends,

    The primary purpose of events surrounding the conversion of Cornelius was not to show “salvation before baptism” but to convince the Jewish
    This whole scenario was played out not to show that one could be saved before baptism but to prove to the Jewish brethren that the Gentiles were to be accepted and that they were proper candidates to enter the kingdom of God.

    It is hardly legitimate to use the example of Cornelius to prove that salvation occurred before baptism. Nothing about salvation changed, no order was reversed. Cornelius was saved in the same way as everyone else. There is only one baptism and one new birth.

    SAMARITIANS

    Now, about the Samaritans in Acts 8 and how “the Spirit” was received following baptism in water.

    This is can be easily explained and understood.

    The Samaritans believed and were baptized (Acts 8:12), so they were saved (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; etc.). When they were forgiven, they immediately received what we often refer to as the personal “indwelling of the Holy Spirit.” (i.e., the ordinary measure of the Holy Spirit, i.e., “the gift of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:38; 5:32; 1 Cor. 6:19-20)

    However, the text tells us the “Spirit had not yet fallen on them.” (v 15,16). The Spirit was indwelling them, yet in another sense they did not have the Spirit. They received this when the apostles came and laid hands on them (vv 14-19).

    The fact is and other examples show how the laying on of hands show that this involved bestowing miraculous powers, tongues, etc. (Acts 19:1-6; 2 Tim. 1:6; Rom. 1:8-11).

    This ability of the apostles to pass forward the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, seems to have led Paul to have formed a particular habit when he traveled. Apparently, whenever Paul met a group of disciples, he would ask them if they had received the Spirit. If they had not yet received the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, he would then lay his hands upon them. (In Acts 19:1-7, Luke records that this custom of Paul brought him into a surprising situation).

    What type of reception of the Spirit was being given in Acts 8 to the Samaritans through the laying on the apostles' hands? Was this the indwelling Spirit or were they receiving the powers of the Spirit?

    Since Romans 8:9-11 teaches that all Christians must have the Spirit of God or they do not belong to Christ and if people become God's children as a result of the trusting in Christ involved in baptism (Gal. 3:26-27), then upon being baptized a person must be receiving the Spirit. Otherwise the impossible scenario is created of someone being a child of God without possessing the Spirit of God or belonging to Christ!

    In Acts this phrase of the Spirit’s “falling” on certain indivuald is not ordinarily used in connection with the reception o the indwelling Spirit when one is baptized. On the other hand, it is wording sued to refer to the Spirit’s coming upon individuals and enabling them to perform miracles (cf. Acts 10:44; 11:15).

    In Acts 8:16 Luke was saying that until Peter and John came, none of the Samaritans had the ability to perform miracles.

    Notice how Luke refereed to the bestowal of miraculous abilities is emphasized by the language of verse 18, “Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed….” The bestowal of the indwelling Spirit would not have been accompanied by special signs that could be seen. The bestowal of miraculous abilities would.

    QUESTION: Why did Peter and John have to go all the way to Samaria to impart the power of the Holy Spirit? Philip was already in Samaria and had baptized the people there. Philip had the power of the Holy Spirit as seen by the signs, miracles, and wonders he was performing. Why did not Philip simply give the Samaritans the power of the Holy Spirit?

    The answer should be logically obvious to us: Philip could not impart the power of the Holy Spirit to others. Only the apostles had the ability to impart the power of the Holy Spirit.

    Friends, this is one reason (not the only reason) why we do not see miraculous powers at work today. Those given the power of the Holy Spirit could not lay hands on another pass the power on. Only the apostles had this ability and it is an ability that Simon wants to have. The miraculous powers ceased to continue once those who had been given this power died.

    I agree in a secondary point, that it may also have been the case that by Peter and John bestowing the ability to do miraculous gifts, this could be seen, and show that the Samaritans were indeed God-approved. This would again, also demonstrate that God had accepted the Samaritans. Had the apostles not authenticated the work in Samaria, people would have thought that the works in Samaria were disconnected with those in Judea, that the work among the Samaritans was different from the work among the Jews. Such thoughts would have only fostered the centuries old wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles (see Ephesians 2:11-22). Instead, we find that they are explicitly connected and are both of the same Spirit working throughout the book of Acts.

    My progressive friends, if these two examples can be understood in this light, do you have any other example from Book of Acts that show people being saved in different ways?

    Apparently only Cornelius and the Samaritans.

    Which can be explained and understood when making the distinction between the Spirit Himself and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

    Friends, these passages in Both Acts 8 and Acts 10 don’t teach that water baptism is unnecessary for salvation. It teaches the very opposite.

    It clearly and loudly affirms the essentiality of baptism. Baptism is a command God wants both believing Jews and Gentiles to hear.

    May God bless us all in the study of His Word.

    Robert Prater
71. HistoryGuy says:

    January 18, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Robert,
    If you think that I have built my entire case on Cornelius, then you have not read the bulk of what I have written regarding the definition of imputed justification, Scriptures on justification by faith, Biblical illustrations of justification by faith, and the entire testimony of the 1st-3rd century church. Only a small handful of folks, though with a sincere but misinformed view, have made baptism an absolute necessity. I am not sure how you can call me a progressive when I hold a historical view about baptism.

    I humbly believe that you completely misunderstood the text about Cornelius and will explain it in a moment. However, please know that I don’t teach the sinners prayer. I hold a very high view of baptism and teach immersion to everyone who believes.
72. Price says:

    January 18, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    @ Robert…Yeah, I'm there with History Guy…I'm trying to hold true to what the Bible says not what I want it to say and that by definition should be the conservative position. Jay has responded elsewhere to the gifts vs the Spirit thing you suggested regarding Cornelius. The clear indication of Scripture is that the Spirit was anticipated and had not yet been received. I think Jay does an honest job of addressing this in his latest post on Baptism…If I read Jay's remarks correctly then what you say it says it what you wish it said versus what it actually says. I grant that it may be a total exception to the general understanding but that doesn't mean we should treat it unfairly. It is what it is.
73. HistoryGuy says:

    January 18, 2011 at 7:51 pm

    Robert,
    Thank you for your post. I will answer your questions:

    There is a distinction between the spirit himself and the gifts of the spirit… FF Bruce notes…

    To properly quote Bruce in regards to Cornelius, you need to present what he says on the exact topic, which is Acts 10. Please note that FF Bruce plainly says that Cornelius in Acts 10:44-48 received the indwelling Spirit [himself] before baptism, not just the gifts… [FF Bruce, NICNT: Acts. 1988, pg216-217.] Bruce contradicts your view.

    Notice how Luke referred to the bestowal of miraculous abilities is emphasized by the language of verse 18…. Why did Peter and John have to go all the way to Samaria to impart the power of the Holy Spirit?… Why did not Philip simply give the Samaritans the power of the Holy Spirit?

    Jay has addressed this, but I will answer from my study. You answered by saying the Spirit is not the indwelling Spirit, but rather the just the gifts. Contra your view, the logical answer is given in Acts 8:15-16, which is the Spirit himself. The indwelling Spirit did not come through baptism in Acts 8 because God was going to use the means of the Apostles. The Apostles had to go because God was not only reconciling Samaritans and Jews, but only the apostles could impart the Holy Spirit and his gifts. The Spirit had not yet fallen, is directly opposite of the Spirit falling, which was the Spirit himself, not just his gifts. The inward reception of the Spirit was simultaneously outwardly made known by the miracles. Since we accept baptism as a gracious act of God, it is no more of a problem to say the apostles gave the indwelling Spirit, than it is to believe the Spirit can be given through baptism.

    Two quick questions for you-

    Since Romans 8:9-11 teaches that all Christians must have the Spirit of God or they do not belong to Christ and if…

    Acts 10: v34- God does not show partiality; v44- the Spirit fell [came upon] Cornelius; v45 – the same gift of the Spirit from 2:38 [after baptism] has been poured out on the Gentiles before baptism [10:47]; v47/48 – Cornelius was commanded baptism , though he already had the same Spirit as Peter and other Christians.

    The Bible draws a clear distinction between the Spirit giving the lost and the saved a prophecy, and one having the indwelling Spirit. Only Children of God have the indwelling Spirit. Cornelius did not just have a gift from the Spirit, but rather he clearly had the indwelling Spirit. Therefore, Cornelius was a child of God before baptism.

    Which position do you take, 1 or 2?:
    (1) Cornelius did not have the indwelling Spirit, but instead only had a gift of the Spirit, which creates at least 3 problems (a) it says Acts 2:38 is not the Spirit himself, but rather miraculous gifts (b) it denies a natural understanding of the prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit, not just his gifts (c) it says Peter received the indwelling Spirit, but Cornelius only received the gifts, even though they both received the same Spirit in the same way (v47). — From Acts 10, this is an indefensible view.

    (2) Cornelius had the indwelling Spirit and was a child of God before baptism.

    I clearly and loudly affirms the essentiality of baptism….

    Is that essentiality of baptism – absolute or relative?
74. Keith Brenton says:

    January 18, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    But Al saying that baptism is not the "saving point" of one's life is still a far cry from Al saying that he "believes that baptism is NOT what God wants us to have done to us in order to accept and receive His grace, forgiveness, salvation and Holy Spirit."

    I just think that when people try to make points toward their argument, they're more credible when they stick to what has actually been said. I was tracking with your argument, Robert, and had to concede it well-constructed until I came to that exaggeration – which had a bit of the odor of straw and man about it.
75. HistoryGuy says:

    January 18, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    Everyone,
    Sorry about the formatting problem earlier. Also, if it helps, Everett Ferguson believes that Cornelius received the indwelling Holy Spirit before he was baptized [Ferguson, Baptism in the early church, pg.177].
76. Price says:

    January 18, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    In regard to the "sinners prayer"….How would you describe the difference between a "sinners prayer" and what is said in the baptistry prior to going under? Don't most ministers say something along the line of "upon your confession faith, I now baptize…." Isn't that confession of faith what is essentially what one might refer to as the sinners prayer? Aren't they both an appeal to God? Are they not both generally followed through with baptism? Just curious. Thx.
77. HistoryGuy says:

    January 19, 2011 at 12:10 am

    Price,
    Are you asking me or somebody else?
78. ClydeSymonette says:

    January 19, 2011 at 6:47 am

    Price:

    "I wrote: a person must be baptized FOR the remission of sins. That is not what the Bible says. Acts 2:38, Peter told the people that forgiveness of sins is the RESULT of repentance and baptism."

    I'm happy that you brought it up, the statement cries out for clarification, for indeed, Acts 2:38 reads:
    Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    My statement is not questioning what acts 2:38 appears to be teaching about baptism and repentance. It is contradicting how COC uses it to test the legitimacy of another’s baptism.

    Consider the typical COC approach to "studying" with someone who says he is saved although he is not a member of COC:

    COC "So, tell us why you were baptized?" (Last words were "hellos!")
    Prey: "The Bible says I should be."
    COC: "What happened when you were baptized?" (Notice how COC ignores what Prey said.)
    Prey: "Well, I was wearing a white rob and the water was cold…"
    COC: "Where your sins forgiven before or after you were baptized?"
    Prey: "Before…"
    COC launches attack.
    I have been on hundreds of these so-called studies.

    Peter did not say: "Repent and "be baptized for the remission of sins" – every one of you, for the forgiveness of your sins," Peter is telling them what happens in repentance and baptism. So the wordings of the questions make them irrelevant.

    Look at what Peter is doing in his message before the baptism; he is preaching the exalted Christ. "Did you have your faith in Jesus when you were baptized?" Mk 16:16; Act 8, et. al., is a better question.

    PS: I've been very busy with a series of lesson, so forgive my last response. I'll be so for a while yet.
79. Price says:

    January 19, 2011 at 9:03 am

    This is purely conjecture but thought I would throw this out there….I find it interesting that AFTER Pentecost, AFTER his visit to Samaria to lay hands on the baptized in order that they could receive the H.S., THEN AFTER the H.S. falls on Cornelius and his household…does Peter recall the words of Jesus, "John baptized with water but will baptize with the Spirit." It seems to me that Peter admits at this point that his focus has been on water baptism. It is what he knows. It is what John the Baptist did. It is what he and the other disciples went out and did with Jesus…There was no indwelling of the H.S. until Pentecost…Now, certainly, there are times recorded in scripture where Peter just didn't catch on…perhaps the first well documented case of ADHD…but here after He and whoever else it was in the upper room that received the H.S., he was still preaching water baptism in 2:38. I know there are those who are more highly educated than I but the "eis" (for) is debated intensely and it's not clear that it is either (in order that) or (because) but I contend..(like I know anything) that Peter was still in his water baptism mode. It wasn't until he had to go to Samaria to see water baptized people who did NOT have the Spirit, and then to Cornelius to witness the H.S. being given out to NON-water baptized people that the words of Jesus made sense to him…I think Peter changed his mind from it was all about the water to it was all about the Spirit…I've never heard that argument put forth so I immediately began to discount it but I was curious what might be your thoughts…Anybody..
80. guy says:

    January 19, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    Jay wrote:
    Stand in God's way"? Why would refusing baptism stand in God's way? Because the outpouring of the Spirit shows God's acceptance.

    (Rom 8:9-11 ESV)

    Again, this assumes that words and phrases of different authors are interchangeable or meant to be interchangeable, and it assumes the readers of Luke are intended to depend on Paul's writing to understand what Luke means.

    i really don't think either of those assumptions is true. And it has always seemed to me that your case depends on them.

    –guy
81. guy says:

    January 19, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Clyde,

    i just want to say, i am so glad i didn't miss out on your comment about faith/works of the law/baptism throughout Paul's letters. Very enlightening and concise. i saved it for myself and emailed it to someone else. Do you have an expanded version somewhere? i'd love to read it.

    –guy
82. JMF says:

    January 19, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    Guy: Can you share the date/time of Clyde's post that you are referencing? Or a link if in a different thread? Thanks.

    Pierce: I think your argument about Peter is very interesting. I'll be anxious to hear what Jay or some of the other walking Concordance's have to say about it, but I find it an intriguing argument.
83. aBasnar says:

    January 19, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    "I wrote: a person must be baptized FOR the remission of sins. That is not what the Bible says. Acts 2:38, Peter told the people that forgiveness of sins is the RESULT of repentance and baptism."

    I have heard this explanation from Evangelicals before and I think it is wrong. The Greek sentence is exactly the same as in the record of John's baptsim. Let me bother you with some detail:

    Act 2:38 ??????? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ????????????, ???? ??????????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????????, ???? ???????? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????????.

    Mar 1:4 ????????? ????????? ????????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ??????????.

    ???? ?????? ?????????? means (literally) INTO the forgiveness of sins. This makes sense both for John's and the Christian baptism. Both "enter" forgiveness from a position of wrath and condemnation. THey epent from that state and go "through the door" of baptism into the realm of grace.

    You are not baptized because you are already forgiven (a result), but in order to receive forgiveness (for). Those who are not baptized are not forgiven. As jesus puts it (concerning John's baptism):

    Luk 7:29 When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John,
    Luk 7:30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

    So unless a person is baptized the blood of Christ is of no effect for the sinner.

    Please let me restate or confirm: This is not about extraordinary circumstances like being hindered from being baptized, because you are unfortunately nailed to a cross and cannot enter the pool. I am talking about the normal course of things.

    This explanation "baptism as a RESULT of forgivness" is not fitting to Jesus' words at all. Why? Because the pharisees rejected the forgiveness by not being baptized. If forgiveness came prior to baptism, then baptism could neither add nor take away from it, could it? Christ did not bemoan their lack of repentance (which was obvious as well), but their not being baptized! This is not strange at all when we consider that baptism was also called a cleansing or purification, and act that actually cleanses (John 3:25 – a very important verse on this subject BTW).

    And by this I do NOT defend the kind of questions some among the CoC ask other Christians in order to make any other baptism in the name of Christ based on a sincere confession of faith (Christ is Lord – that's all we need to know!) invalid.

    I just confirm the literal understanding of baptism FOR the remission of sins.

    Alexander
84. Wendy says:

    January 19, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Price, that is great thinking (I like it!) and exemplifies why a theology of baptism should NOT pivot on one verse (Acts 2:38) nor should it be based on ONE example from one of the "history" books of the Bible.
85. guy says:

    January 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    JMF,

    i refer to the comment on this thread stamped:

    01/12/2011 10:13 AM

    –guy
86. Gerry Parker says:

    January 19, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Jay,

    I am just now looking into this exchange. Good stuff.

    But I often wonder, couldn't some of this be semantics.

    Use the term Grace Only or Faith Only and some people become Mr. Hyde! Use the phrase Jesus Only and they do not know how to react or they are okay with that. I admit, I do cringe when I hear someone say they are saved by grace plus something. But saved by Jesus plus something is not going to be said very often…I hope. :>)

    Gerry Parker
87. Price says:

    January 19, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    One other thought about the progression of Peter's understanding of baptism (theory)….

    I Peter 1:2 He refers to his audience as those who were the Elect or Chosen, those who had been
    Sanctified (Grk. Haglasmos – Consecrated, Purified) by the Spirit……and then in
    1 Peter 1:22 he speaks to those that have purfied (Grk. Hagnizo – Ceremonial Purification) their souls by OBEYING the Truth

    Just thinking out loud here so don't go throwing things…but 30 years after his experiences at Pentecost and with the Samaritans and Cornelius Peter now refers to the actual Sanctification being a work of the Holy Spirit and the act of Obeying the Truth as a Ceremonial Purification…The thing I don't know for sure but what the passage seems to imply is that Peter's referral to Obeying the Gospel is baptism and he categorizes it as a ceremonial activity of water purification,which any Jew would have clearly understood, Which is much different from his initial understanding of baptism as he was first taught but later was experientially corrected with the Samaritan and Cornelius experience..
    thoughts ??
88. ClydeSymonette says:

    January 19, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    Guy:

    I appreciate your kind remarks. No, I do not have an expanded version – not in print 🙂
89. ClydeSymonette says:

    January 19, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    Alexander:

    I think you have missed what I said. Consequently, you are arguing against what I am not saying. Read my post again. If it is still not clear then I'll try to explain it all over again.
90. aBasnar says:

    January 20, 2011 at 1:46 am

    Dear Clyde, I am with you in the critical remarks on some theological exaggeration within the CoC. Still, you cannot translate ???? ?????? ?????????? with as a RESULT of forgiveness.

    Maybe I am moe picky on words, since I come from the opposite direction (former Evangelical). On the day I decided to leave my former congregation, there was a baptism. And the brother giving the address on baptism started with: "1st Peter 3:21 is my favorite verse on baptism." Mine, too. So I was eager to learn whether he also started reading and understranding the text or not. What came, was disillusioning.

    The text reads: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," This "appeal" was my eye-opener to understanding the necessity of baptism. Now the preacher was not satisfied with this translation, and he pulled out a "better" translation that read "a TESTIMONY of a good conscience." From this he argued: "First your sins have to be forgiven, then you should testify to this in baptism"

    That's why I react to your paraphrase "RESULT of forgiveness. This sermon really bothered me a lot. And I did some research on this word and asked some Greek scholars to explain the key word to me. ??????????? can be translated both with "appeal/inquiry" (ESV) and "answer" (KJV), but not really with "testimony". All agreed that "testimony" is a wrong choice for this word.

    But why appeal and answer at the same time? I learned that ??????????? is from "legal language", it is like entering a covenant on which two parties have to agree upon. We apply for a good conscience and God grants us a good conscience – in this sense "answer" in the sense of confirmation is correct. Old German translations had "Covenant of a good conscience". which is quite to the point. ??????????? BTW is derived from ?????????? which does not have the meaning of answer, but only of to desire, to ask for, to seek, to question, to demand …

    What is the conclusion? Baptism is the way we eneter God's New Covenant. Here we make our appeal and here we receive our confirmation. That's why we should not even start to question the necessity of it. Of course – as it is in real life, too – normally you agree on the covenant before you sit down and sign it. Faith precedes baptism, it is not created by baptism. Repentance precedes baptism, how else could John demand fruit of repentance before he baptized people? But does that question the necessity of baptism? By no means, because we are taken in to the covenant through baptism. This is when our sins are washed away and we receive a good conscience because of this cleansing. And so we can enter God's presence and temple (Heb 10:22).

    To say that because someone received the Spirit before he got baptized does not mean he already has entered the covenant. God showed His favor in an extraordinary way and made clear He wanted these people in His Kingdom. It was more a sign for the "unbelievers" (1Co 14:21-22 – in this case Jewish Christians who were slow to believe that God loves and invites the uncircumcised pagans) – it was certainly not meant to say: See, receiving the Spirit is all that is necessary.

    If a man and a woman sleep together without being married – as is very common today – they by the Law of Moses have to marry (Exo 22:16). "Becoming one flesh" is not all that constitutes a marriage, but it is resercved for marriage. So if we ignorantly or willfully break the order and become one flesh before we enter the marriage covenant, we must be still marry; otherwise our relationship is unlawful.

    It is similar with baptism. The Spirit and the New Birth are tied to the New Covenant we enter through baptism. If for any reason God chooses to reverse the order, this does not mean that Spirit baptism replaces water baptism.

    Alexander
91. ClydeSymonette says:

    January 20, 2011 at 7:46 am

    Alexander

    You said:
    You are not baptized because you are already forgiven (a result), but in order to receive forgiveness (for).

    I agree

    You quote me as saying "baptism as a RESULT of forgiveness." I had to go back and check what I wrote. You are quoting what you THINK I am saying. Unlike the subject of IM, we have very little, if any difference over the interpretation of Acts 2:38.

    My point is simply this, if one does not SAY that his sins were forgiven when he was baptized, does not suggest he was NOT forgiven WHEN HE WAS BAPTIZED. That's the only point that I am making. Your penultimate paragraph is a summary of my point. Relax Bro – you are preaching to the choir here!
92. Jay Guin says:

    January 20, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    Alexander/aBasnar,

    I agree that EIS in Acts 2:38 is best translated "into" and neither "for" nor "because." Nor would it be well translated as "in order to" per A. Campbell, as that's not even good grammar — "in order to" has to be followed by a verb, not a noun, such as "forgiveness" (http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/oracles4th/acts.html#s2).

    "Baptize" means to immerse or dip. EIS means most literally "into" but, as in English, can take other meanings depending on context. But as in English, "into" following "immerse" just has to mean "into" because that's what "immerse" means.

    Just so, the combination "BAPTIZO EIS" is routinely translated "baptize into" in other places in the NT.

    (Act 19:3 ESV) 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."

    (Rom 6:3 ESV) Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

    (Rom 6:4 ESV) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

    (1Co 10:2 ESV) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

    (1Co 12:13 ESV) 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.

    (Gal 3:27 ESV) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    Therefore, it follows that —

    1. Acts 2:38 addresses the result of baptism, not the required subjective intent of the person being baptized. That's not to argue for a sacramental view that intent is unnecessary. The intent of the convert matters quite a lot. But baptism isn't dependent on the faith of the convert in the effectiveness of baptism! It depends on his faith in Jesus. And if he misunderstands the effect of baptism, it still "takes."

    After all, untold thousands have been baptized in the Churches of Christ denying that they would receive a personal indwelling of the Spirit. And yet the baptisms took — even though they misunderstood the effects of the baptism.

    2. God intends that in the normative case, forgiveness, the Spirit, and salvation all be received at water baptism. How else could it be "into" forgiveness?

    But demonstrating that baptism is, by design, into forgiveness of sins hardly means that God will therefore damn someone who is not baptized for entirely non-rebellious reasons.

    If someone dies on the way to the baptistry, God isn't bound to damn the convert by some cosmic rule that only the immersed can go to heaven. Rather, if anything, God is bound by his own promise to save all with faith in Jesus.

    If someone is baptized with the wrong amount of water, it's still into the forgiveness of sins, although I'm confident God intended an immersion not a mere sprinkling.

    God keeps his promises.
93. Jay Guin says:

    January 20, 2011 at 11:12 pm

    History Guy asked,

    "In your view, would God make an exception and save an unbeliever?"

    Jay answers,

    No.

    I've read the arguments for universalism and find them unpersuasive. I'm also not persuaded by the "available light" argument that those who've never heard the gospel will be saved if good, moral people. /index-under-construction/t…

    On the other hand, I am persuaded by Edward Fudge's arguments regarding conditional immortality. /index-under-construction/e…

    In short, the more I study the scriptures, the more convinced I am of the necessity that we send missionaries.

    (Rom 10:14-17 ESV) 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
94. ClydeSymonette says:

    January 21, 2011 at 6:14 am

    Jay:

    Both responses. Excellent. Excellent. I'm keeping those

    Clyde
95. Royce Ogle says:

    January 27, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    Peter, in Acts 15, makes crystal clear what had happened with Cornelius. All one must do is read the text. In chapter 10 Peter says these Gentiles received the spirit just like "we" did, when they "believed".

    Peter's own words clarify this question if folks will just read them.
96. Royce Ogle says:

    January 27, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    I would be interested on what you think Peter meant when in Acts 15 he said in defense of baptizing Gentiles that God "knew" their hearts and had cleansed them by faith. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2015:6-11&version=ESV)

    The criteria has not changed. Phillip replied to the official from Ethiopia when he inquired about baptism "if you believe with all your heart you may". Baptism is for believers, not sinners. According to Jesus, Paul, and Peter, by definition believers are saved and unbelievers are not.
97. Royce Ogle says:

    January 27, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%… This passage blows your teaching out of the water. no pun intended.
98. Robert Prater says:

    January 28, 2011 at 11:53 am

    Royce,

    I'll come back to this passage you cite that you believe "blows my teaching out of water."

    But let’s try to reason together to answer the question: "Why did the Holy Spirit fall upon the household of Cornelius?"

    I believe this is clearly answered for us in Acts 11:14-18 and 15:7-9.

    Let's start with Acts 11.

    After the events of Acts 10 (at a gentile's house), Peter is questioned about his contact with Gentiles by his brethren in Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-3). In order, Peter examples what happened which caused him to be there, preaching the gospel to them (Acts 11:4-14).

    Peter's assessment of why the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius et al. is stated in Acts 11:17: "If therefore God gave them the same gift (the Holy Spirit, RP) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" So, the presence of the Holy Spirit was assessed by Peter as DIVINE EVIDENCE (in a series of evidences, cf. 11:5-14; 10:1-35, esp. v. 34-35) that God accepted Gentiles as worthy to hear and be saved by the gospel.

    This is also the reason his Jewish brethren gathered from the event according to Acts 11:18: "When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.'"

    So, Acts 11:14-18 teaches the reason for the Holy Spirit falling upon Cornelius was to CONVINCE THE JEWS (cf. 10:45 and the astonishment of the Jews who were present) that the gospel was to go to Gentiles, too. This has to the proper understand before we go any further.

    Now, Acts 15:7-9: Again, Peter defends his presence and preaching among Gentiles (v. 7). Peter's assessment of the Holy Spirit event on that occasion is unambiguous: "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" (v. 8-9).

    God bore witness or provided testimony that He is no respecter of persons by sending the Holy Spirit upon those Gentiles on that one occasion (Acts 10:34-35).

    I should also note that the miraculous presence of the Holy Spirit on that occasion was not a fulfillment of the promise given in Acts 2:38, for the "gift of the Holy Spirit" in that passage comes after water baptism (cf. Acts 3:19). The presence of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 occurred before water baptism (10:44-48).

    Again, the coming of the Spirit upon Cornelius’ house reminded Peter of Pentecost when he and the other apostles received the Spirit (2:1-4). Notice how Peter drew “a parallel” (vs. 47) between the household of Cornelius and the original disciples rather than between the household of Cornelius and the three thousand who believed on the day of Pentecost. (cf. 11:15; 15:8)

    Royce,

    Here's an important point in thinking about the order of events and when Cornelius was saved. Keep that in mind according to Peter’s rehearsal of these events, which is more chronological than is Luke’s original record (cf. 11:4), the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius just as the apostle “began to speak” (11:15).

    Look at the details of the narrative. An angel told Cornelius that he would hear words from Peter by which he would be saved (Acts 11:14). The angel said to Cornelius that Peter would tell him what he must do (Acts 10:6). Upon the arrival of the apostle, Cornelius acknowledged, “We are all present before God to hear all the things commanded you by God” (v. 33).

    What did he look for in these commands? “Words” which he “must do” (obey) (10:6) in order to be “saved” (11:14). But according to Acts 11:15 at this point, Peter didn’t get the message out before the Holy Spirit fell on him. If Cornelius had to hear Peter’s message to be saved, then he wasn’t saved when the Holy Spirit fell on him. But what message or command did Peter finally give Cornelius? That he had to be baptized in water. When Cornelius did that along with his household they were saved.

    Now, what about the statement that God “purified their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:9) Was he saying that Cornelius had his sins forgiven before he was baptized in water, by faith alone.

    Peter is saying in this statement that God made no distinction between Jew and Gentile, implying that He also purified the heart of the Jew by faith also. In fact this statement is true of everyone. God cleanses everyone’s heart by faith. This same Peter also said, “since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren” (1 Peter 1: 22) showing that faith and obedience are not in opposition. Faith is perfected by the obedience to the truth. (cf. James 2:22) Our faith becomes alive and useful when we obey God.

    This verse shows that there are not two ways of salvation, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile. It also contrast rated the message of the Judaziers that their hearts had not been cleansed by faith, not by being circumcised and keeping the Law.

    What my progressive friends seem to fail to grasp is that this event did not repent itself. One such event was (and continues to be) sufficient proof that God approved of taking the gospel to the Gentiles. No other similar event is subsequently recorded in the New Testament.

    Our faith is assured and comforted to know that God, is this astonishing event, bore powerful witness that the gospel is for all mankind (Acts 10:45; Rom. 1:16).

    Let us bear in mind that the same man who was sent to Cornelius’ house later wrote in an epistle that baptism now saves us, and years earlier had taught that one must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 2:38). Would he bring a different plan of salvation to Cornelius?

    The use of Cornelius in Acts 10-11 and Peter’s statement in Acts 15 that Cornelius was saved immediately upon receiving the Holy Spirit and believing is simply an unproven and unwarranted assumption.

    Royce

    Do you believe baptism is essential as a condition in order for a person to receive salvation from sin, or is it simply a sign that one has already been saved?

    In other words, do you believe a person is saved (sins forgiven) prior to baptism?

    May we consider these matters humbly.

    Robert Prater
99. Almaxeyisafalseteach says:

    March 5, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    http://executableoutlines.com/ba.htm <—Excellent study on baptism.
100. Todd says:

     March 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm

     Somehow I think the very name chosen for posting here violates what we are trying to accomplish. If you really feel this way have the basic Christianity to put YOUR name on the line with majority of the rest of us.
101. Jay Guin says:

     March 5, 2011 at 8:02 pm

     AMIAFT,

     The readers here need to be able to address you by name, but to do so might imply agreement. And I and many others here don't agree that Al is a false teacher.

     I'm very glad to have you participate in the discussion here, but please find another name.
102. Theophilus Dr says:

     March 5, 2011 at 10:17 pm

     Thank you, Jay, and I agree with what Todd said. I think the use of that name goes beyond offensive; it might even approach slander. Poster using that name, check out 1 Cor 5:11, 2 Cor 12:20, Jas 4:11, and many others.
103. Raymond Elliott says:

     August 8, 2011 at 6:39 pm

     For whatever it is worth, here is an article of mine concerning the faith that saves. R.E. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH AS FOUND IN THE BOOK OF ACTS

     Raymond Elliott

     During the years that I worked with one congregation of the Lord, there was a group of brothers and sisters that sang for a local nursing home once a month. The residents enjoyed singing with us some of the old favorites songs found in the book we used that was published by our brethren. One of the most requested hymns was Amazing Grace. One of the stanzas of this song is as follows: “Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved. How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believed.” However the publishers of this particular song book we were using took the liberty to change the last phrase of that stanza to “The hour I first obeyed.” Now I understand perfectly the reason for this change and I do not doubt the motive of these brethren. We have heard so much from our denominational friends that we are saved by “faith only”; however, we must not avoid scriptural terms simply because of the misunderstandings regarding the biblical theme of justification by faith. There is a vast difference between the doctrine of “faith only” and the Bible based doctrine of salvation by faith. In fact the expression that these brethren wanted to avoid is actually found in Romans 13:11: “And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than WHEN WE FIRST BELIEVED” (Emphasis mine, RE). The apostle Paul asked the disciples of John, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed” (Acts 19:2). Of course Paul had much to say about being justified by faith in Jesus Christ. In Romans 5:1, 2, we read, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” Thus it is scriptural and right to say that we are saved by faith but we must understand all that is included in that statement.

     Now I want us to go to the book of Acts and investigate whether or not the doctrine of justification of faith is found in the writings of Luke (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3). When speaking of the number of conversions listed in Acts, preachers and teachers are most likely to state that there are nine examples found therein. For most of my preaching experience I have used a chart showing the conversions of the people on Pentecost (Acts 2); the Samaritans (Acts 8:5-12); the nobleman from Ethiopia (Acts 8:26-40); Saul (Acts 9; 22; 26); the household of Cornelius (Acts 10 & 11); Lydia and her household (Acts 16:13-15); the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:25-34) the Corinthians (Acts 18:8) and the twelve men in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7). Sometimes the statement has been made that these are the only examples of conversion mentioned in Acts. Also I have taught that while faith, repentance and confession of our faith have not always appeared in each case, the fact is that baptism is mentioned in all of them. As students of the Bible we have emphasized the importance of baptism in the plan of salvation that Jesus Christ has given (Matthew 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:47). And this is as it should be because our religious neighbors have taught for so long that baptism has nothing to do with our salvation. The story is told about a Christian lady who lived alone and late one night while she was in bed she heard a noise in her house. She got up and quietly went to her bedroom door and when she saw a man standing in the hall she became so frightened that she couldn’t scream or say anything until she remembered a scriptural reference that she had heard so many, many times in worship and so she shouted very loudly ACTS 2:38! The intruder froze in his tracks. She called 911 and soon the police were at her residence and arrested the man. As he was being led away the arresting officer asked him why he did not run before they arrived. His answer was, “I thought she said she had an axe and two thirty-eights.” We can rest assured the Holy Spirit had every reason to have Luke record these nine examples in the way that he did and that should be sufficient for us. I can understand that the Holy Spirit wanted to make it very clear as to how we are saved by a faith that obeys all the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ. However we must understand that there are other references made of individuals and groups of individuals in Acts being saved from their sins by God’s grace and the blood of Jesus Christ. But the phraseology that Luke used was different in that he often used a part to represent a whole. There is a figure of speech that is called a synecdoche, which is, “a term denoting a part of something is used to refer to the whole thing…” (Wikipedia Dictionary). In this specific case Luke would simply say that individuals believed and that meant, by faith, they submitted themselves to the Lord’s every command in order to be saved. The author of Acts recorded words by different men who were inspired of the Holy Spirit to show beyond a doubt that sinners are justified by faith. It was the apostle Peter at the household of Cornelius who said; “To Him all the prophets witness, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins” (Emphasis, mine, RE, Acts 10:43). The apostle Paul declared, “Therefore let it be known to you brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses” (Emphasis, mine, RE, Acts 13:38, 39). It was at the council in Jerusalem where we read the words of Peter, “And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Emphasis, mine, RE) (Acts 15:7-9). These passages clearly teach that when a person believes in Jesus Christ he receives remission of sins, is justified and his heart is purified by faith.

     Let us now observe the following passages that refer to cases of conversion mentioned in the book of Acts that we normally do not use and that do not specifically mention baptism. (Emphasis in the following passages, Mine, RE):
     1. Acts 5:14: “And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitude of men and women…”
     2. Acts 6:1: “Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying…”
     3. Acts 6:7: “Then the word of God spread and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.”
     4. Acts 9:31: “Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.”
     5. Acts 9:35: “So all who dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.”
     6. Acts 9:42: “And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed on the Lord.”
     7. Acts 11:21: “And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.”
     8. Acts 11:24: “For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.”
     9. Acts 11:31: “Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.”
     10. Acts 12:24: “But the word of God grew and multiplied.”
     11. Acts 13:12: “Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.”
     12. Acts 13:48, 49: “Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout the region.”
     13. Acts 14:1: “Now it happened in Iconium that they went together to the synagogue of the Jews, and spoke that a great multitude both of the Jews and of the Greeks believed.”
     14. Acts 14:21: “And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch.”
     15. Acts 16:5: “So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.”
     16. Acts 17:1-4: “…And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.”
     17. Acts 17:11, 12: “…Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.”
     18. Acts 17:34: “However, some men joined him and believed…”
     19. Acts 19:18, 19: “And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds…”
     20. Acts 18:28: “…And when he (Apollos) arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace.”

     Please note that in these passages, Acts 5:14:9:42; 11:21; 13:12; 13:48, 49: 14:1: 17:11, 12: 17:34: 18:28; 19:18, 19, Luke simply says that these individuals believed. Are we not to understand that they were saved just like the approximately three thousands were saved on the Day of Pentecost when they were instructed to “repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remissions of sins…”? If not, why not. But let us examine more closely what is involved in the statement that various ones believed and were saved from their sins. It was Peter who said in his lesson to the household of Cornelius, “To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43. In verses 47 & 48 of this same chapter, the apostle asked, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” We must conclude that the faith that saves includes the command to be immersed in the name of the Lord. In Acts 18:8 we read, “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” We understand that many of the Corinthians did just as the Lord had commanded and were saved from their sins. But what of Crispus since it is written that he and his household simply “believed on the Lord.” Were they saved from their sins like the Corinthians? The apostle Paul, in First Corinthians spoke of Crispus in chapter 1:14, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.” We must come to the inevitable conclusion that when the expression is used that the people “believed” it was all inclusive; that is, this active faith embodied all the commands that the Lord required in order to be saved from past sins, namely the commands to repent and be baptized. The example of the conversion of the jailer and his household as mentioned in Acts 16 is one of the most abused and misused passages that so many religionists use to show that a sinner is saved by ‘faith only.’ But when closely examined we can readily see that this is not the case. Beginning in verse 23, we learn that Paul and Silas were beaten and placed in prison with their feet in the stocks. An earthquake caused the doors of the prison to be opened and the chains of all the prisoners were loosed. The jailer awaking from his sleep thought the prisoners had escaped was about to take his life when Paul told him not to harm himself for all were still present. It was then that the jailer called for light and fell down before Paul and Silas and asked them the question, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved” (v. 30)? He was instructed to “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” It is at this point that most religious leaders will teach that the only requirement of a sinner to obtain salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ. But verse 31 does not teach that the jailer believed, it simply states what he was to do in order to be saved. There is no evidence that the jailer had any knowledge of Jesus as being the divine Son of God and that He had been crucified for the sins of the world. In order for the jailer to obtain faith in Jesus, he had to be taught of Him. That is why Paul and Silas “spoke the world of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” The apostle Paul later wrote in Romans 10:17, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. In Acts 16:33, we learn that the jailer and his household were baptized. It was then Luke recorded that the jailer and his family “rejoiced, having believed in God…” It is in this verse and at this point of time that it is stated that the Jailer and his household believed on the Lord and rejoiced because they were saved from their sins. We must conclude beyond a shadow of doubt that the faith that saves is the faith that obeys all the commands of the Lord. This characteristic of faith has always been true. Take for example the patriarch Abraham. Paul wrote in Romans 4:3, “For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now what kind of faith did Abraham posses that pleased God? In Hebrews 11:8-10, we learn, “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” The writer James in chapter 2:21-24 also contributes to our understanding of the kind of faith that saves when he wrote, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (Emphasis, mine, RE).

     We must not separate acceptable faith from scriptural works. Faith without works ordained of God cannot save; and, works not founded on biblical faith is unacceptable to God. For many years I used the illustration of a man in a boat with two oars that represented faith and works. When the man used only one oar (whether it be faith or works), the boat simply would go in a circle; but, when he used both oars (faith and works), he would be able to proceed toward his desired destination. But in using this illustration, I was separating scriptural and acceptable faith and works in a manner that did not portray the oneness of the two found in the word of God it was not until our daughter married a gentleman who enjoyed riding in his kayak that I noticed he used only one paddle in maneuvering his boat. It was then that I learned the illustration best used in revealing scriptural faith and works is found in one paddle and not two oars. Acceptable faith and works should not be separated. As Paul would say in Galatians 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love” (Emphasis, mine, RE).

     Biblical faith is foundational. All that we do to please God and to experience salvation is based upon and motivated by faith, otherwise, our actions will profit us nothing. And it is this kind of obedient faith that saves us by the grace of God (Romans 5:1, 2; Ephesians 2:8).
104. gary says:

     August 19, 2013 at 7:25 pm

     Your comments reflect a major misconception that evangelicals and the Reformed have of orthodox Christians. Lutherans do not believe that baptism is necessary (mandatory) for salvation. Not even the Roman Catholic Church believes this. All the saints of the Old Testament, the thief on the cross, and thousand of martyrs down through the centuries have been saved without Baptism. Baptism is not the “how” of salvation!

     Lutherans believe that baptism is one of several possible “when”s of salvation, it is not the “how” of salvation. The “how” of salvation is and always has been the power of God’s Word/God’s declaration of righteousness.

     A sinner can be saved by the power of God’s Word when he hears the Word preached in a church, preached on TV or radio, reading a Gideon’s Bible in a hotel room, or reading a Gospel tract that contains the Word. Salvation is by God’s grace alone, through the power of his Word alone, received in faith alone. In each of these situations, the sinner is saved the instant he or she believes. Baptism is NOT mandatory for salvation to occur.

     However, the Bible in multiple passages, also states that God uses his Word to save at the time of Baptism.

     It is the work of the Holy Spirit, using the Word of God, that works salvation in the sinner’s spiritually dead soul, according to the second chapters of Ephesians and Colossians, and the third chapter of Romans. Your “decision for Christ” does not save you, neither does your decision to be baptized.

     God saves those whom he has elected, at the time and place of his choosing. Sometimes God saves them while hearing a sermon in church, sometimes at home reading the Word, and sometimes by the power of his Word spoken during Baptism.

     God does 100% of the saving. The sinner is a passive participant in his salvation. There is no passage in the New Testament that asks sinners to make a decision for Christ. The Bible states that God quickens sinners, gives them faith, and they believe and repent.

     The sinner does not decide to be saved. God decides to save the sinner!

     Gary
     Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals
105. Jay Guin says:

     August 19, 2013 at 8:47 pm

     gary (little “g”) — there’s already a Capital G Gary commenting here. It would be helpful if you picked a different name, since you and he come from very different places.
106. Larry Cheek says:

     August 19, 2013 at 11:04 pm

     gary,
     Do you realize that if your statement is true then anyone that is lost or not saved has been placed in that condemnation by God? You say that he does it all.
     God does 100% of the saving. The sinner is a passive participant in his salvation. There is no passage in the New Testament that asks sinners to make a decision for Christ. The Bible states that God quickens sinners, gives them faith, and they believe and repent.

     The sinner does not decide to be saved. God decides to save the sinner!
     If God left any soul unsaved he would become a respecter of persons.
     Peter said of God, (Acts 10:34 KJV) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
     Act 10:34 ESV So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,

     (Mark 8:34 KJV) And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

     (Mark 8:35 KJV) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.

     Would you allow Jesus to give you an answer to your statement about making a decision for Christ?
     (John 12:47 KJV) And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
     49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

     (Luke 14:25 KJV) And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

     (John 5:39 KJV) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

     (John 6:35 KJV) And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

     (Mat 11:28 KJV) Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
     29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

     You may decide to modify your statement to better reflect your concept, but the statement that you made does not agree with many statements in scripture, and I did not even draw attention of the prophesies in the OT about Christ.
107. Charles Mclean says:

     August 20, 2013 at 11:27 am

     I am compiling a list of the “Top Ten Most-Abused Bible Phrases”– that is, snatches of scripture long ago removed from their context and re-purposed for distinctly different or more general use. So far, “God is no respecter of persons” is #3 on my hit parade, well behind the number two contender, from Malachi 3: “…bring the tithe into the storehouse”.

     The clear top-ranked abused passage is from Revelation 22: “If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life…”

     1 Corinthians 14:40 holds the fourth spot, while 2 Timothy 3:16 comes in at #5.

     Please feel free to suggest additions to the list…
108. Monty says:

     August 21, 2013 at 9:40 am

     Baptism from everything I read in scripture is pre-salvational (not post), but leads a person into salvation,(that is, from without to within)along with believing, repenting and confessing. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, not already are saved, as some would contend. That is, that salvation is contingent on those two things mentioned in that verse, 1.believing and 2. being baptized. Or consider this, “With the heart man believeth “unto” righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made “unto” salvation.” Unto means towards something, not coming out of something. That is, in the direction towards salvation. Or, to put it another way, they(repenting and confessing) are pre-salvational but leading to salvation. It’s the soul that will repent that receives forgiveness, it’s the tongue that confesses Jesus is Lord that will receive salvation, and it is the soul that will believe and be baptized that “shall be” saved. All are prerequisites or none are. You can’t just arbitrarily pick and choose.
109. gary says:

     August 31, 2013 at 6:35 pm

     Why is the New Testament silent on Infant Baptism?

     Baptist/evangelical response:

     The reason there is no mention of infant baptism in the New Testament is because this practice is a Catholic invention that developed two to three centuries after the Apostles. The Bible states that sinners must believe and repent before being baptized. Infants do not have the mental maturity to believe or to make a decision to repent. If God had wanted infants to be baptized he would have specifically mentioned it in Scripture. Infant baptism is NOT scriptural.

     Lutheran response:

     When God made his covenant with Abraham, God included everyone in Abraham’s household in the covenant:

     1. Abraham, the head of the household.
     2. His wife.
     3. His children: teens, toddlers, and infants
     4. His servants and their wives and children.
     5. His slaves and their wives and children.

     Genesis records that it was not just Abraham who God required to be circumcised. His son, his male servants, and his male slaves were all circumcised; more than 300 men and boys.

     Did the act of circumcision save all these people and give them an automatic ticket into heaven? No. Just as in the New Covenant, it is not the sign that saves, it is God’s declaration that saves, received in faith. If these men and boys grew in faith in God, they would be saved. If they later rejected God by living a life of willful sin, they would perish.

     This pattern of including the children of believers in God’s covenant continued for several thousand years until Christ’s resurrection. There is no mention in the OT that the children of the Hebrews were left out of the covenant until they reached an Age of Accountability, at which time they were required to make a decision: Do I want to be a member of the covenant or not? And only if they made an affirmative decision were they then included into God’s covenant. Hebrew/Jewish infants and toddlers have ALWAYS been included in the covenant. There is zero evidence from the OT that says otherwise.

     Infants WERE part of the covenant. If a Hebrew infant died, he was considered “saved”.

     However, circumcision did NOT “save” the male Hebrew child. It was the responsibility of the Hebrew parents to bring up their child in the faith, so that when he was older “he would not depart from it”. The child was born a member of the covenant. Then, as he grew up, he would have the choice: do I want to continue placing my faith in God, or do I want to live in willful sin? If he chose to live by faith, he would be saved. If he chose to live a life of willful sin and never repented, and then died, he would perish.

     When Christ established the New Covenant, he said nothing explicit in the New Testament about the salvation of infants and small children; neither do the Apostles nor any of the writers of the New Testament. Isn’t that odd? If the new Covenant no longer automatically included the children of believers, why didn’t Christ, one of the Apostles, or one of the writers of the NT mention this profound change?

     Why is there no mention in the NT of any adult convert asking this question: “But what about my little children? Are you saying that I have to wait until my children grow up and make a decision for themselves, before I will know if they will be a part of the new faith? What happens if my child dies before he has the opportunity to make this decision?” But no, there is no record in Scripture that any of these questions are made by new converts to the new faith. Isn’t that really, really odd??? As a parent of small children, the FIRST question I would ask would be, “What about my little children?”

     But the New Testament is completely silent on the issue of the salvation or safety of the infants and toddlers of believers. Another interesting point is this: why is there no mention of any child of believers “accepting Christ” when he is an older child (8-12 years old) or as a teenager and then, being baptized? Not one single instance and the writing of the New Testament occurred over a period of 30 years, approximately thirty years after Christ’s death: So over a period of 60 years, not one example of a believer’s child being saved as a teenager and then receiving “Believers Baptism”. Why???

     So isn’t it quite likely that the reason God does not explicitly state in the NT that infants should be baptized, is because everyone in first century Palestine would know that infants and toddlers are included in a household conversion. That fact that Christ and the Apostles did NOT forbid infant baptism was understood to indicate that the pattern of household conversion had not changed: the infants and toddlers of believers are still included in this new and better covenant.

     Circumcision nor Baptism was considered a “Get-into-heaven-free” card. It was understood under both Covenants that the child must be raised in the faith, and that when he was older, he would need to decide for himself whether to continue in the faith and receive everlasting life, or choose a life of sin, breaking the covenant relationship with God, and forfeiting the gift of salvation.

     Which of these two belief systems seems to be most in harmony with Scripture and the writings of the Early Christians?

     Gary
     Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals
110. Larry Cheek says:

     August 31, 2013 at 10:07 pm

     gary,
     I believe you are inquiring in the wrong places for the answer to your questions. You are searching through the teachings of different denominations observing their interpretation of what the Bible says and asking others to pick and chose which of those interpretations match the message portrayed in the scriptures. In reality the message that is conveyed in scriptures does not match either of the examples that you have presented.
     One of the first major flaws in this thinking is considering that a child of a believing household is saved until the child chooses to continue in the faith or chooses a life of unbelief or rebellion to God.
     The problem here is that this message is linked to a believer’s family, and excludes children of families that are not believers. I believe that it is very easy to determine in the scriptures that all children are safe from being condemned until they have chosen to be disobedient to God’s Word. Therefore if a child never matures to the ability to understand right from wrong God will not hold them accountable for sin. Even our own societies apply this concept to some children continuing into their adult life.
     All children that attain the ability (including those that are not able to learn this on their own but are taught to understand) right from wrong must also be taught that they must chose to commit their lives to the Savior to continue the salvation they previously had.
111. Charles Mclean says:

     September 1, 2013 at 10:59 am

     Larry, this is an interesting view. Any biblical basis for it? You are presenting the old “age of accountability” theory, and you say it is very easy to determine it from the scriptures. I don’t see it there. Can you show me? “Very easily?”
112. Nancy says:

     September 1, 2013 at 8:09 pm

     Larry wrote: ” I believe that it is very easy to determine in the scriptures that all children are safe from being condemned until they have chosen to be disobedient to God’s Word.”

     I’ve looked and looked too, where is this in scripture?
113. laymond says:

     September 1, 2013 at 10:36 pm

     Exd 30:14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.
     Exd 30:15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when [they] give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

     Seems plainly stated that the age of atonement is twenty years old and above,
     not ten, not twelve, but twenty.
114. Larry Cheek says:

     September 2, 2013 at 12:43 am

     Charles, Nancy and others,
     I’ll point you to a communication by Jesus describing children.
     To keep this post shorter I used references from KJV knowing that all of you can synchronize that version with your favorite translations. While reading the messages from Jesus you will notice that humbleness and belief were the only attributes of the children mentioned by Jesus. He also mentioned about children that, “of such is the kingdom of heaven” He mentioned that adults have to, “be converted” but never said the same of children.

     Why would a humble and believing adult have to, “be converted” remember Jesus said, “Except ye be converted”, “ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
     Converted from what? There has to be something that resides in the adults which was not part of the children. Notice the approximate age of the children as Jesus takes them up into his arms, and in Luke 18:15 KJV calls them infants. Yes there is one thing that adults have that these children do not have that is “Sin”. They are not yet accountable for disobedience to God. They have not inherited the sins of their fathers as some have taught.

     Deuteronomy and Ezekiel addresses this very point. This I’ll also provide in NIV because it conveys the message clearer.
     (Deu 24:16 KJV) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
     (Deu 24:16 NIV) Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

     (Ezek 18:19 KJV) Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
     (Ezek 18:19 NIV) “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
     21 “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
     22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.
     Children cannot inherent the sins of their fathers. If they did Jesus could not have used them as he did in his examples in his teachings concerning the Kingdom.

     Since God removed himself from man after man sinned and sacrifices had to be made to roll the sins of man forward until the perfect sacrifice which paid the price (blood) for sins, those children that Jesus spoke of were not sinful at that point in their life. That was the difference between them and the adults. The scriptures state that, “all men have sinned” but never states that about children.

     (Mat 18:1 KJV) At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
     3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

     (Mat 19:13 KJV) Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
     15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

     (Mat 21:15 KJV) And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased, 16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

     (Mark 9:35 KJV) And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. 36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, 37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

     (Mark 10:13 KJV) And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
     15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
     16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

     (Luke 9:46 KJV) Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.
     47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, 48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

     (Luke 18:15 KJV) And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
     17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
115. Charles Mclean says:

     September 2, 2013 at 4:55 pm

     And salvation is half a shekel…

     A bargain at almost any exchange rate.
116. laymond says:

     September 2, 2013 at 5:16 pm

     Charles, I do believe somewhere it was said that the first covenant had been replaced with a new one. But I have yet to see where the age of atonement had been changed. Maybe you can show me where to look, if you know.?
117. Larry Cheek says:

     September 2, 2013 at 9:26 pm

     Laymond,
     I know that you have addressed Charles for an answer, but I am sure that his answer will not address my understanding of your comments. Am I understanding you to say that you believe that all children under the age of 20 are not held accountable for sins? Therefore, have no need to repent of sins.
118. laymond says:

     September 2, 2013 at 11:14 pm

     Larry, I don’t pretend that I am God, I only repeated what I read, and if you know of another place in the bible where it defines the age of accountability please feel free to point it out. As we all recall Jesus was thirty when he was baptized, twenty, even thirty years to God is like a flash in time as I understand it. If a thousand years is like a day, I can’t imagine what twenty years is like.
119. mark says:

     September 3, 2013 at 8:32 am

     Then has anyone ever considered rethinking the pressure applied, including full threats of hell, to get 9-12 year olds to hurry up and get baptized?
120. brianbergman says:

     September 3, 2013 at 10:30 am

     Mark,

     I have found it interesting the last few years that we in the CoC argue so vehemently against infant baptism, but we so readily accept adolescent (and really, pre-adolescent) baptism. When I was growing up (I’m 38), middle school was the common time that baptism took place. 12-14. If you got to high school without baptism, the parents and adults were concerned. If you graduated high school without baptism, the parents and adults were apoplectic.

     In my current congregation, I have seen the age of baptism creeping down into the 4th-6th grades. We have a class for girls in the age group and invariably, it seems that they all get baptized before graduating from that class. We had a similar class for boys (we are going through a season where there are very few boys that age, so no class right now) that generally had the same results. Each year, it takes one or two courageous ones, then the dominoes fall for a few months, if you know what I mean.

     My son is five. I can’t imagine him having the pressure to be baptized in just a few years. My wife and I have had many discussions regarding how we are going to talk to him about baptism and how we are going to handle it when he starts asking to be baptized. Of course our hope is that the he will profess faith and be baptized and be a part of the church. But we also hope to delay him until he is a little more mature and has a fuller understanding of what it means rather than simply doing it because his friends are doing it and adults at church are subtly pressuring him to do it.
121. mark says:

     September 3, 2013 at 6:29 pm

     I wonder if boys who are bar mitzvah at 13 really understand the ramifications of “today I am a man” that begins the traditional speech. However, that age is codified in the Torah. Younger is questionable.

     I guess another cofC rethink is due.

     This is when a good elder or two should go to the pulpit and not preach a sermon on baptism but tell the congregation that they have noticed the age creaping downward and that they think that no one younger than some age should be baptized, even if he or she has confessed their faith.
122. Jay Guin says:

     September 3, 2013 at 9:57 pm

     mark,

     The Torah sets the age of accountability at 20 —

     (Num 32:11-12 ESV) 11 ‘Surely none of the men who came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, because they have not wholly followed me, 12 none except Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have wholly followed the LORD.’

     (Num 14:28-31 ESV) 28 Say to them, ‘As I live, declares the LORD, what you have said in my hearing I will do to you: 29 your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me, 30 not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. 31 But your little ones, who you said would become a prey, I will bring in, and they shall know the land that you have rejected.

     (Deu 1:39 ESV) 39 And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

     The Torah plainly teaches that God treated only those Israelites 20 years old and older as accountable, but those 19 and younger as having “no knowledge of good or evil.” And they were allowed to enter the Promised Land, whereas all Israelites 20 years old and older when they refused to enter the Promised Land the first time (when the spies scouted out the land) died in the desert for their lack of faith and rebellion.

     Now, you can’t help but notice the parallel of “knowledge of good and evil” in Deu 1:39 with Gen 2:17, 3:5, and 3:22. God seems to be clearly comparing the non-accountability of the children of the Israelites to the innocence of Adam and Eve before the Fall.

     This seems surprisingly old to us because we equate “age of accountability” with “old enough to be baptized.” But old enough to have faith in Jesus is not necessarily the same thing at all.

     And in US law, we generally treat people under the age of 21, 20, or 19 (depending on the state) as legally incompetent to make contracts (technically as “infants” — really). And incompetent to vote. And incompetent to choose to drink. You can’t consent to sexual relations until age 16 to 18 (varying with the state), even though ancient Jewish girls typically married shortly after puberty (and hence we understand arranged marriages!)

     So it’s a much more interesting question than most would admit.
123. Jay Guin says:

     September 3, 2013 at 10:06 pm

     Brian,

     A. Good to hear from you! It’s been a while.

     B. See my earlier comment to mark re the Age of Accountability. I’d be interested in your take.

     It concerns me that —

     a. We’ve decided that the AOA is uncertain

     b. If a child reaches the AOA and commits but a single sin and then dies, that child will be damned to an eternity of perpetual conscious torment.

     c. A child can’t be baptized until reaching the AOA.

     I’m not sure any of those beliefs is true. It does seem a truly fearsome doctrine when all three are combined.
124. mark says:

     September 4, 2013 at 5:36 am

     My mistake. I was thinking Talmud and wrote torah.

Comments are closed.