Reliance on baptism
Of course, the role of baptism in bringing converts into Christian community is not all that happens in baptism. There are many other blessings associated with baptism.
There’s forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of Spirit —
(Act 2:38 ESV) 38 And Peter said to them, “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.”
Newness of life, resurrection —
(Rom 6:4-5 ESV) 4 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. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
“Made alive together with” Christ, forgiven, debt canceled —
(Col 2:11-14 ESV) 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
In fact, there’s not much associated with conversion that isn’t tied to baptism in the scriptures. Does this mean the church holds a veto over salvation? That God only saves those approved by the church? No, of course, not. But the ordinary practice was (and is) that a convert confesses his faith to the congregation of God’s people, who respond with baptism.
So what happens if the church messes up and does it wrong? What if we refuse to baptize someone we shouldn’t? What if we wait to long and the convert dies in the meantime? What if we don’t use enough water? What if we teach our converts they’re already saved? Or that they won’t receive a personal indwelling of the Spirit?
Well, that’s a critically important question, for lots of reasons. First, the answer will tell us whom to treat as brothers and sisters in Christ. Second, our answer will tell us whether we teach a works-salvation.
Here’s how I’ve got it figured —
1. The Judaizing teachers considered circumcision as an absolutely essential requirement to be a Jew and among the elect. It didn’t earn salvation (God’s unmerited election of the Jews through Abraham did that), but it was an essential mark of Jewishness. Thus, an uncircumcised man was no Jew and not right with God, no matter what.
2. If we teach that a properly executed baptism is absolutely essential to salvation — faith, penitence, and love notwithstanding — then we’ve made baptism into a work.
However, if we teach that in the normal case baptism is the moment of salvation and receipt of the Spirit, entry into the body and family of Christ, but that God will accept all with faith in Jesus, who come to him obeying what they know to obey, then baptism is not a sine qua non for salvation. It’s God’s plan and desire — and his command to the church for its converts; but it’s not the ultimate mark of salvation. Only faith is.
That does not for a moment excuse a church from teaching and practicing baptism (as though there were any real risk of that). We know God’s will on the matter and therefore that’s what we must teach and practice. But that does not justify damning those who somehow made what we consider to be a baptismal mistake.
When does salvation occur?
It’s a not a trivial question, but it doesn’t merit the importance tied to it by so many. You see, the “when” question often presents itself as a proxy or substitute for the deeper question of Calvinism versus other theories of salvation (soteriologies). Baptism seems to be a favorite battle ground over the doctrine of unconditional election and irresistible grace, and the argument is so often couched in terms of “faith” vs. “works” with, frankly, very superficial, clichéd answers being given by both sides. It gets old.
Just so, the Churches of Christ and Baptists have swapped members back and forth for two centuries, and the Baptists also baptize believers by immersion — but they have a more Calvinist slant on the meaning of baptism than the Churches of Christ. And since we are so similar in so many ways, we focus on the few differences — to the point of obsession. We sometimes define our own teachings by contrast to the Baptists.
[My brother-in-law once said in a sermon that he was glad the members of his church didn’t know the Baptists entered their church building through the doors, or else the good Church of Christ membership would insist on entering through the windows!]
But in a more objective analysis, the fact is that the question of when someone is saved is hardly central to the gospel. I mean, if God were to reveal tomorrow that he saves at the moment of faith and not baptism, we’d still baptize our converts by immersion on a confession of faith in Jesus. Jesus would still be Jesus. The gospel would still be the gospel. Church would still be church.
The only truly practical questions that arise in this context are —
* Will God save someone who dies after coming to faith but before baptism? Answer: Of course. (All those revival sermons claiming to the contrary preached a false, graceless God to manipulate people into the baptistry through fear. It was wrong to do.)
* Should we treat as saved someone baptized imperfectly — by the wrong mode or as an infant — but who otherwise evidences the work of the Spirit in his heart? Answer: Of course. (The scriptures are very clear that the ultimate test of salvation is receipt of the Spirit.)
* Should we baptize our converts with water, by immersion, into the remission of sins? Answer: Of course. (We’re commanded to baptize our converts in Matthew 28:19. Acts 2:38 is still in the Bible.)
* Is it inconsistent to insist on baptism by immersion into forgiveness of sins while accepting those who received sprinkling or baptism as an act of obedience? No. Rather, it’s a matter of accepting God’s promises —
(Mark 9:23) “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for him who believes.”
(John 1:12-13) Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
(John 3:14-18) Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
(John 3:36) “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
(John 5:24) “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
(John 6:29) Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
(John 6:35) Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
(John 6:40) “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
(John 6:47) “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.”
(John 7:38-39) “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
(John 11:25-26) Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
(John 12:46) “I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.”
(John 20:31) But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
(Acts 10:43) “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
(Acts 13:38-39) “Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.”
(Acts 16:31) They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
(Rom. 1:16-17) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
(Rom. 3:22-24) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
(Rom. 3:25-28) God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
(Rom. 4:4-5) Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(Rom. 5:1-2) Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.
(Rom. 10:4) Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
(Rom. 10:9-13) That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(1 Cor. 1:21) For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
(Gal. 2:15-16) “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”
(Gal. 3:2) I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
(Gal. 3:22) But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
(Gal. 5:6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
(Eph. 1:13-14) And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
(Eph. 2:8-10) For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
(2 Thess. 2:13) But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
(1 Tim. 1:16) But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.
(Heb. 10:39) But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
(1 John 3:23-24) And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
(1 John 4:2-3) This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
(1 John 5:1) Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
(1 John 5:3-5) This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
(1 John 5:13) I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Unity over water baptism??
Thank you, Jay. When it comes to salvation and water baptism, sometimes I wonder if we should just think less and just do it. The early church examples were to present the gospel – Jesus Christ, forgiveness of sin, an opportunity for a new life, rejoice with the angels when they accept it, water baptize them, then fellowship, teach, disciple them. Maybe the example of the NT church is don't make a dogma of water baptism and discuss whether or not we've done the right thing, but just do it, and move on to discipling that person and preaching to the next person. Quit going in a circle.
I am preaching to the face in the mirror here, but it's difficult to keep eyes on one other and their view of water baptism and "discuss" their view while guarding ours and also go full speed preaching the gospel to the lost and water baptizing them without question – apparently the second approach is what the NT church used. This two alternatives are almost an either/or more and not a both/and.
Do we abuse the grace of God ourselves by using the freedoms we have to microscopically dissect the exact role of water baptism instead of just doing it?
Is it like the people in the trenches and foxholes who have more important things to do than to argue about whether the bullets overhead sound like "zing" or "zang?" Isn't it the people who are on the sidelines of the spiritual battle who have time to argue about that?
What is the result? (1) We expend our energy "internally" rather than toward outreach to take the saving gospel to the lost. We guard the living water to prevent someone else of different interpretation from contaminating it while people around die of thirst. (2) The world does not see unity in Jesus among His believers. Instead they see arguments over who can impose a uniformity in the approach to Jesus, according to their opinion.
If we have time and resources to toss down this pit, why shouldn't God give us something else to occupy our attention…. like loss of freedom and persecution? There is ample precedent for that.
We need to glorify Jesus and not water baptism, which we do by both arguing it is necessary for salvation or that it is not. Don't argue; just do it.
Preach Jesus and not water baptism. Don't teach that water baptism is necessary or is a gate for God's grace. The NT doesn't authorize that. Preach Jesus and water baptize the believer. Just do it.
Stop using water baptism as a test of fellowship. The NT doesn't authorize that, in spite of prominent scholars who still believe that and write to the contrary. The Restoration movement theme is – silent where the Bible is silent. "Silence screams." Let's be consistent and stop making a binding requirement out of something the NT church didn't ask about, so it is not in the scripture. Silence screams, "Don't argue, just do it." If we quit water baptizing out of the pride of our CoC doctrine and interpretation and let God work through the church to show the fruit of that obedience, other Christians will see that and incorporate water immersion also. If that doesn't happen, we have nothing of substance to talk about anyway and we should be "silent where the Bible is silent." But just do it.
By their fruit you shall know them, not by their argumentation.
Someone responds to the gospel message and repents and accepts Christ — offer a prayer of thanksgiving for their salvation and head for the baptestry. "But I thought I was already saved." "Yes, but the NT church water baptized converts, Jesus was water baptized, to not water baptize is to oppose God, and we water immerse as an act of obedience to God. This way, please, the baptestry door is to your left."
Paul taught about the significance of what believers had done after they had been baptized. That's part of teaching, not the gate for salvation.
We have the same anointing of the Holy Spirit that Jesus did in Luke 4:18-19 and the same charge to continue carrying out the same mission He stated. Spending time and energy over doctrine that divides the body isn't time well spent.
Just do it.
Theophilus Dr:
While I believe there is great value in people understanding immersion as a portrait of Jesus' death and resurrection, I appreciate your "Nike" message :-). We do indeed need to focus on Jesus.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
If A.L.Williams can just do it…we can, right !!
Interesting analysis about the CoC and the Baptists…I wonder how much more good could be done in the name of Jesus if we united our efforts, spit out the bones of our differences, and put forth a unified front to the world…
Wasn't it Jesus who prevented his disciples from stopping the teaching and works of power by one that "was not following us" by saying.."For he who is not against us is for us." It wasn't the picky differences that God Incarnate focused on but the larger picture…Perhaps that's a good lesson for us today.
Years ago I lived overseas (far east) and attended a Baptist church (SBC) as they had an English language service. One of the pastors there always gave the same talk before he baptized someone. He emphasized that baptism had "nothing to do" with salvation for a minute or so – long enough to make his point. He would than baptized "John" or "Susie" and as he put them down he said I now baptize you "John" and as he raised them up he would say "I raise you up my brother/sister in Christ." I may not have the quotes exactly right but the clear implication was that "John" was not his brother in Christ until after he was baptized. That seemed inconsistent with saying baptism had nothing to do with salvation.
No doubt he must have meant that baptism is not causal regarding salvation. All the Baptist pastors that I knew in the far east readily acknowledged the Christian church at large (regardless of denomination) was much larger than the Baptist church, but you had to be baptized the Baptist way to be in full fellowship with the Baptists. They had no problem acknowledging the Baptists church excluded many that Christ accepted and they seemed content with that position.
FWIW,
Randall
Randall
You are correct. I think that the Baptists also have some things to learn about the scriptural meaning of water baptism, fellowship within the body of Christ, and "Who is my brother?"
Any action or teaching that separates, elevates, excludes, or prioritizes with the body of Christ should be examined carefully for hidden prideful motives.
I don't know how many out there recall the name Ben Bogard, but he was a very well known Baptist preacher and debater with, what is now known as, the Missionary Baptist church in Arkansas. He passed away in the early 1950s.
As a child in the 1950s and 60s I heard Church of Christ ministers speak of him often. They would compliment him in his debates with others, such as Pentecostals, but would, with great pride, speak of how he could never hold his own against true Gospel preachers; meaning Church of Christ, of course. However, I recall being with my father, when I was about 12 years old, when he was talking with Baptist friends, and they made the comment of "how brother Bogard won every debate about baptism with the Campbellites". My father smiled politely . I asked him later how these Baptist folks could ever believe that Bogard won. His comment was, "Son, they like to believe he won; but we know that Baptist baptism is not the truth, don't we".
Later, when in my twenties, I thought back on that conversation with my father. It struck me that there could have easily been another child of 12 or 13 about that time asking his father how those Church of Christ folks could ever believe that their preachers could ever beat brother Bogard in a debate. To which his father would reply, "Son, they like to believe they won; but we know that Campbellite Baptism is not the true Gospel, don't we".
Many, still, within the Church of Christ, and within the Baptist church, need to be reminded, often, that it is not the 1950s anymore. That was a time of battle and pride, when the entire world to many was only as large as the Bible belt. Today, I am thankful for people like Jim Woodruff, preacher for the College church in Searcy, Arkansas in the 1970s, who told us that it was time we looked at the Gospels, at Jesus. I have gone through a number of changes since then; but that admonition by Jim, made for me, baptism into something that swells the heart, not the mind.
John, a great story and a profound lesson. Thank you.
We talk all around it but I have to just ask outright: if there is anything God asks of me that I am not willing to do as soon as I know God wants it, exactly where is my faith?
The only answer I can find is that my faith is in my own judgment about what is good enough.
If it was faith in God, I would have no cause to hesitate.
If it was faith in whatever works I might be asked to do, I would parse out all the works I could think of and … oh my! That sounds way too familiar, does it not?
If it was faith in Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I could not bear to hesitate.
So…exactly where is my faith?
My faith is in Jesus when I do whatever He asks, whenever He asks, just because He asks it of me. Anything less is displaced faith.
So, with regard to baptism, does Jesus ask it of me? Absolutely. If I then have faith in Jesus, I submit to it and move on to the next question. Period. No ifs, no buts, no hesitation. No what ifs, no what abouts, no how old is. I just do it.
I appreciate Jay's long walk through the water with us. I just do not find anything of the sort in the scriptures. The closest thing I can find to this is Job's lengthy discussions with his friends and with God. Job was not seeking to be saved. Job was seeking to come to grips with the devastation in his life and how that related to his Lord and God.
Just saying,
Grizz
Jay,
I apoligize in advance for such a lengthy reply. Thank you for allowing me this forum to express a counter-view to yours. It speaks to your gracious and open minded spirit which I appreicate and admire greatly brother.
Here are some critical statements I observed from what you wrote. It must be pointed out that they greatly differ and go in a complete different direction from most mainstream churches of Christ.
(1) “The fact is that the question of when someone is saved is hardly central to the gospel."
(2) “Will God save someone who dies after coming to faith but before baptism? Answer: Of course.”
(3) “Should we treat as saved someone baptized imperfectly — by the wrong mode or as an infant — but who otherwise evidences the work of the Spirit in his heart? Answer: Of course. (The scriptures are very clear that the ultimate test of salvation is receipt of the Spirit.)
Jay,
First of all, I have appreciated your clarity in writing recently regarding your position and views on baptism. Much like Al Maxey’s recent statements regarding his new views on baptism, I would describe it as a “coming out statement.” 🙂
To begin, I want to first appeal to the wise words and observations of F. LaGard Smith in his book, “Who is My Brother?” that I think pertains to our discussion.
LaGard suggest that it is the possibility that:
“Despite their misunderstanding of baptism’s purpose–believers who are immersed in order to obey the command to be baptized might nevertheless be regarded in God’s eyes as saved believers.” (p. 130)
Yet, Smith goes on to express concern that accepting this idea could lead some to abandon the accurate teaching about the purpose of baptism:
Smith writes,
“My great concern is that, in trying to correct any mistakes we may have made in this shadowy area, we don’t begin promoting a clearly unbiblical view of baptism. It is one thing to give someone the benefit of the doubt in terms of fellowship; it is another thing to give that doubt doctrinal legitimacy. It is one thing to honor a fellow believer’s incorrectly understood obedience; it is another thing altogether to think that God will honor us for our own quite well-informed disobedience.” (p. 130)
Smith continues with some very important observations regarding all this as it pertains to unity and fellowship with such people.
“With that translates into, I think, is an obligation to be as vocal regarding baptism’s true significance and purpose as we might be vocal in calling for fellowship with those who have been baptized under the mistaken illusion that they are already saved. Not wholly unlike what has come to be known as ‘tough love,’ call it ‘tough fellowship.’ If there is to be more than faith fellowship with these baptized believers, then let it not be without corrective confrontation.” (p. 130-131)
Then, please read carefully what Smith concludes:
“Is there any bottom line to all this? At the level of current ecumenical dialogue it surely means never talking about brotherhood with immersed “faith-only” believers without at the same time insisting that salvation prior to the point of baptism is an unbiblical notion which must be abandoned once and for all.”
Smith continues,
“On the congregational level it undoubtedly means that extending the right hand of fellowship must be made conditional upon an Apollos-like re-education regarding this crucial issue. Anything resembling a “Don’t ask; don’t tell” policy will be a leaven of doctrinal error that will corrupt any congregation it touches.” (p. 130-131)
Pretty powerful stuff.
Now, it must be noted in this whole discussion regarding baptism and the moment when we are saved is that we must recognize the difference between actions that must take place at a single point in time and actions that are, by their very nature, continuous.
Belief, repentance, confession, loving God and loving others are all linear actions that must continue throughout the Christian’s life.
Baptism is a point in time that only takes place once in a Christian’s life.
Jay what I fear is that yours and Al Maxey's recent words will lead to far too many members glossing over the meaning of baptism as if it was not essentially connected to the gospel and our salvation.
Now, you stated that, "The fact is that the question of when someone is saved is hardly central to the gospel."
I strongly beg to differ my progressive friend.
Probably more than any other passage, Colossians 2:11-13 identifies Christian baptism as the point in time when a person is saved and connects it to the gospel. Verse 11 indicates that it is at a specific point in time that Christ changes a person’s heart by a spiritual circumcision made without hands. Verse 12 identifies that specific time as being “in baptism.” Verse 12 also identifies baptism as the point in time when a person is buried with Christ and raised up with Christ. Verse 12 calls baptism “the working of God” indicating that God is doing His redemptive work when a person is being baptized. Verse 13 identifies this event as the time when transgressions are forgiven.
Jack Cottrell writes about this passage:
“When Colossians 2:12 says this takes place “in baptism,” it is affirming what the whole New Testament assumes and teaches, namely, that baptism is an act of salvation. It does not say this happens “before baptism” or “after baptism,” but specifically and clearly in baptism. This shows that we must at least say that baptism is the time or occasion during which God bestows salvation upon the sinner. [26]
Cottrell continues,
“The “with Him” in this passage is not the phrase that indicates the timing of the event. The phrase, “with Him” indicates the identification or connection that takes place between the convert and Christ “in baptism.” Baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. “In baptism” the convert identifies with each of these aspects of the gospel. Paul specifically states that this burial takes place “in baptism.” He does not say “in faith and repentance.” Then Paul specifically states that “in which” (in baptism) the convert is raised up with Christ. He does not say that “in faith and repentance” he is raised up with Christ. This text identifies beyond dispute that baptism is the point in time when a person receives forgiveness and spiritual regeneration. It is obvious that this new life starts “in baptism.” (Jack Cottrell, The College Press NIV Commentary: Romans Volume 2, 1998; p. 129)
Me thinks few things could make the devil happier than to take the focus off the fact that we are baptized into the death of Christ. He hates anything that has to do with the blood of Christ.
Jay, let me address the issue regarding the pious unimmersed or sprinkled believers.
The question is often raised: “What about the Christ-like, centered lives and evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives?” Isn’t this prove of that they are indeed our brethren in Christ regardless of whether they have been properly immersed?"
I say fruit includes hearing and obeying the word of Jesus (Matt 7:24-28; Luke 6:46). Beware of judging what is a sheep on the basis of the wool coat it wears (Matt. 7:15).
Failure to obey is failure to love (Jn. 14:15; 23, 24; I Jn. 5:2). We know whether we know him by whether we obey (I Jn. 1:3-6; 3:10,24; 4:6). After discussing the purpose of baptism, Romans 6:17 tells us we are made free from sin by obey¬ing that form of teaching which was delivered to us.
Now, of course, it is true as one older gospel preacher said, “God owns the bank of grace. He can give to whomever He chooses. I am just a “teller.” My job is to tell it like He said.”
Friends God’s word informs us of His will. He can make allowances or exceptions as He sees fit. He says, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy” (Ex. 33:19). His choice was to overlook the trespass of David and his men in eating the showbread (Matt. 12:4). However, no one else had the right to make that exception grounds for everyone to eat. Exceptions do not void God’s rules.
God can do as He wishes, whether or not we like it. He took the life of Uzza who sought to keep the ark from falling in spite of the fact that it made David angry (I Chron. 13:10, 11). God has the right to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor (Rom. 9:21).
On the other hand, if He chooses to “count uncircumcision for circumcision (Rom. 2:26), that is His privilege. He could save people who were not circumcised, but when Moses ignored circumcision of his son, it almost cost his life (Ex. 4:24,25).
Please hear me my progressive friends: I wish only good towards those in the denominational world. I do not wish them to be lost. Like Paul concerning the Jews (Rom 10:1) it is my prayer that multitudes will be saved.
However, I cannot assume that because God sometimes made exceptions, that I can ignore or change the standards on my own. “There is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12).
That is why we have sprinkling, infant baptism and countless other false doctrines.
Our judgments and desires must not take precedence over the commands of God (Prov. 3:5).
Acceptance of what God says is necessary. Jesus is not Lord of those who will not believe him. Throughout the New Testament, those who would be saved were told the purpose (or result, if you will) of baptism. Nothing could be plainer. There is no more excuse for ignorance on this than denial of the resurrection or that Jesus is the Christ. This is “God’s part” but it was clearly intended to be believed. It is not my job to invent some way around the Word to get people in who will not accept what God says.
So yes I am greatly concerned about the direction and future of churches of Christ in regard especially to baptism. I’m concerned that if it does not make any difference why we are baptized the next logical conclusion is that it makes no difference how we are baptized. And next, if it makes no difference when we are baptized (infants or adults) that ultimately it makes no difference whether we are baptized.
Many in the Restoration Movement fell into that error (ever heard of the Disciples of Christ??) and only those already drifting into advanced stages of spiritual denial will doubt that it can and will happen again unless we wake up and stand firm against this trend.
To illustrate it’s like the fabled experiment on frogs where, if the temperature is gradually raised it will eventually be cooked without ever realizing what is taking place and jumping to safety. I do not mean to be abusive. I am just warning of a trend that in the past has been a disaster.
Yet thankfully, I do see some hope. Many have recognized the danger. I’m thankful to report I have received several emails from readers of oneinjesus thanking me for speaking up here and not allowing some of Jay's words to go unchallenged. (Not that I'm somebody, I'm a nobody special local preacher)
Others I’m convinced are open to hear. All they need is an opportunity to see the issues and dangers and time to think them through. It may even take some testing for them to see the truth of what we as more moderate and conservative preachers are saying about some of the directions progressives want to take the church.
Now, lest I be misunderstood or falsely branded as a divisive brother. I want to be clear.
Even though I strongly disagree with Jay and many of my progressive brethren about the direction they want to take churches of Christ, in any case, it is important without question that we deal with this matter with patience and love for each other.
Fear often turns to anger. However, getting into a war will not resolve the problem. It will only polarize and shut down dialogue. Hostility and bitterness turns people off and undermines rather than furthering our efforts.
If I have contributed to any of this, I repent and ask for my progressive brethren’s forgiveness.
I do agree that what we need is open and respectful discussion. People need to be informed–not attacked. We must not sit and do nothing but neither must we turn it into a battle of personalities. Honest people who love God will more likely come to a scriptural conclusion than shouting insults. We must speak the truth, but it must be “in love” (Eph. 4:15).
May God help us all to this end.
Humbly,
Robert Prater
Jay said :"
[My brother-in-law once said in a sermon that he was glad the members of his church didn't know the Baptists entered their church building through the doors, or else the good Church of Christ membership would insist on entering through the windows!]
Unfortunately, some Baptist have enter in our Christian Colleges and from there all this confusion comes by members not founded in the truth (Word of God)..
But in a more objective analysis, the fact is that the question of when someone is saved is hardly central to the gospel. I mean, if God were to reveal tomorrow that he saves at the moment of faith and not baptism, we’d still baptize our converts by immersion on a confession of faith in Jesus. Jesus would still be Jesus. The gospel would still be the gospel. Church would still be church.
What happen if the preacher add to the Gospel or take away ? The answer from God is this, Gal. 1:9, Jesus still the same Heb. 13:8 the messenger may change by Jesus Don’t.
Will be the church of Christ the same? Mt. 16:18, Rom. 16:16. As the bible talk about it?
Are you waiting for that revelation Jay? Because, we have all the revelation given in the Scriptures. 2 Peter 1:3, 2 Tim. 3:16
The only truly practical questions that arise in this context are –
* Will God save someone who dies after coming to faith but before baptism? Answer: Of course. (All those revival sermons claiming to the contrary preached a false, graceless God to manipulate people into the baptistry through fear. It was wrong to do.) Where do you support that conclusion? There is any Scripture that teach that we are save by faith only? Because, there is a passage that says that we are not Save by faith Only. James 2:24 “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
* Should we treat as saved someone baptized imperfectly — by the wrong mode or as an infant — but who otherwise evidences the work of the Spirit in his heart? Answer: Of course. (The scriptures are very clear that the ultimate test of salvation is receipt of the Spirit.) Is this answer supported by Scripture? Did the Denominations receive the same Spirit as Us? Are they part of the True One Body “The church of Christ? Matthew 15:13,14, Psalms 127:1.Hebrews 3:6.
* Should we baptize our converts with water, by immersion, into the remission of sins? Answer: Of course. (We’re commanded to baptize our converts in Matthew 28:19. Acts 2:38 is still in the Bible.)
* Is it inconsistent to insist on baptism by immersion into forgiveness of sins while accepting those who received sprinkling or baptism as an act of obedience? No. Rather, it’s a matter of accepting God’s promises –
John,
what do you think about this passage 1 Cor. 14:15 "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. "
@ John…My grandmother lived caddiecorner across the street from the College church of Christ in Searcy. Attended there many times…Good people..Small town. 🙂
Hey, Price. Thanks for mentioning Jay's blog here on our discussion board yesterday. BTW– went to the College Church myself while a student @ H.U. Have read some of his things before here and over at Wineskins.
If a person comes to our church and wants to be a member, they must first have been immersed and say the confession of faith. If they have been immersed at another church we accept them with the right hand of fellowship and have the say the confession. If they really didn't understand why they were immersed, then typically they will come forward to be obedient.
I've found that arguing over this with the "denominations" does very little good. The best is to make your point in a very loving and sincere way and listen to the others point and sincerely dis-agree in a very loving way.
Never give up telling the why or how of Baptism, keep it fresh and clear for the whole congregation. The Holy Spirit will convict the person who needs it, if the person refuses, they refuse.
I have followed many of the thoughts posted on the “What must the Church of Christ do to be saved?” and at your request Jay, I went looking for a post that would explain your view of “imperfect baptism”. Based on this post, I take it to mean, a sprinkling or pouring and also includes a baptism done for some other reason than ‘remission of sins” such as to join a particular fellowship. The baptized can have faith later (after the baby baptism) or simply believe that they are already saved and baptism is just something you do…at some point. (Jay if I am wrong, just point me to the post(s)…cuz yeah, retyping it over and over is hard. I understand.)
Robert Prater’s comments on this post were very insightful and I appreciate his thoughts on Col 2. An excellent passage and he said it, or quoted those who did, very well.
In this post you said:
“In fact, there’s not much associated with conversion that isn’t tied to baptism in the scriptures. Does this mean the church holds a veto over salvation? That God only saves those approved by the church? No, of course, not. But the ordinary practice was (and is) that a convert confesses his faith to the congregation of God’s people, who respond with baptism.”
That there is not much associated with conversion that is not tied to baptism is true. It appears together with passages that talk about faith, repentance, washing away sins, salvation, circumcision of the heart and more. However, when you ask if the ‘church’ holds veto over salvation, you set up an obvious question and the easy “NO” appears to bolster your argument. Of course we know that since God saves, who is the church to stand in his way? (Acts 11) However, How God saves is by the Gospel. Rom 1:16-17. And apart from the Gospel, if God chooses to save someone, is not something that I can affirm (or deny) based on the Scriptures.
You write: “So what happens if the church messes up and does it wrong? What if we refuse to baptize someone we shouldn’t? What if we wait too long and the convert dies in the meantime? What if we don’t use enough water? What if we teach our converts they’re already saved? Or that they won’t receive a personal indwelling of the Spirit?”
I assume you mean “church group” such as Baptist, Catholics, and perhaps even “Church of Christ”, etc. Those who practice a different form or purpose…
You say “Well, that’s a critically important question, for lots of reasons. First, the answer will tell us whom to treat as brothers and sisters in Christ. Second, our answer will tell us whether we teach a works-salvation.”
I agree that it is a critical question and at least for the first reason you give, though I am not sure about the second.
The question of who my brother is, in a spiritual sense, is an important one. However, if the conclusion is that ‘only a baptized by immersion person who has faith in Jesus BEFORE his baptism” is a brother AND that conclusion is what the word of God teachers….then it does not follow that such a conclusion is a works-salvation view point.
Assuming that we both agree that we are not saved by works then we should look to see what the Scriptures teach and whatever they teach is not a works based salvation, regardless of the conclusion. I will explain why I think baptism (I guess you would say “perfect” baptism in contrast to “imperfect”) is not a work later…though I think you might know what I will say, perhaps.
So you continue:
“Here’s how I’ve got it figured –
1. The Judaizing teachers considered circumcision as an absolutely essential requirement to be a Jew and among the elect. It didn’t earn salvation (God’s unmerited election of the Jews through Abraham did that), but it was an essential mark of Jewishness. Thus, an uncircumcised man was no Jew and not right with God, no matter what.
How does your understanding of the Covenant that God made with Abraham work into that statement. God said that it was a requirement and if you don’t do it, you will be cut off. It may have turned into a sense of “Jewishness” or pride (to that I would agree) but it was nonetheless a requirement to maintain the covenant relationship that the Israelite was born into. As you said, circumcision didn’t earn it. I would also suggest that Proselytes to the Jewish faith were accepted and they did have to be circumcised.
2. If we teach that a properly executed baptism is absolutely essential to salvation — faith, penitence, and love notwithstanding — then we’ve made baptism into a work.
However, if we teach that in the normal case baptism is the moment of salvation and receipt of the Spirit, entry into the body and family of Christ, but that God will accept all with faith in Jesus, who come to him obeying what they know to obey, then baptism is not a sine qua non for salvation. It’s God’s plan and desire — and his command to the church for its converts; but it’s not the ultimate mark of salvation. Only faith is.
That does not for a moment excuse a church from teaching and practicing baptism (as though there were any real risk of that). We know God’s will on the matter and therefore that’s what we must teach and practice. But that does not justify damning those who somehow made what we consider to be a baptismal mistake.
When does salvation occur?
There is a lot in here that needs to be looked at. “First, if we teach…..then we’ve made baptism into a work” is just not true. Baptism is what it is. It is either a work or it is not. We have not “made” it anything. Please, don’t misunderstand me, I need to state what should be understood: There are works that are done because of commandments and works that are done to earn. The first one is simply done due to the command; the second entitles you to whatever you have earned. The first can be a condition and the second although a condition carries with it, once done there is an obligation on the part of another. To say that baptism is a work in the sense that it is an act we do (or better yet, submit to) is true enough. To say that once you come out of the waters you can shout “God you now owe me based on what I did” is completely another thing and false as it can be.
Jesus’ death on the cross was necessary for our salvation to be purchased. (ok. the whole death, burial and resurrection was necessary) But what does he ask of us? Anything? Certainly there is the life we are to live after we have peace with God through faith but at what point does he own you? (both in the sense of purchase and in the sense of “I will own him before my Father”)
I think the question needs to be worded not just to ask about baptism but about faith. You posted many Scriptures that show that faith is what it takes to be in a relationship with God. This is good since it lets out those who have no faith, as is proper. But it might be a better question to ask: “What is Faith?” James I think answers this question well when he ties faith to something deeper than just a belief that acknowledges a fact but is not moved to do anything about it. I believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States but that faith does not motivate me to change my life in any real way nor does it need to. There is no consequence to not believing it. However, to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, does affect my life and to not do so also affects an eternal destination. Still, belief alone when there are no works is insufficient.
However, the works of James are not works that EARN anything. They confirm the faith, this is true and yes, the faith already has to exist to be confirmed but without the works, there is no confirmation. A neat little circle, it is. Hebrews deals with this in chapter 3 and 4. Disbelief and disobedience are linked together but it was because the good news they had preached to them was not united by faith. (4:2)
Now, to be clear, I understand you to think and teach a ‘perfect’ (my term, I think) baptism is what people should do and should be taught and that if the Scriptures were left to speak for themselves, is exactly what would happen. You also think that those who have not been baptized ‘perfectly’ are ok if they have faith. However, There is a problem in viewing baptism as not necessary, which I don’t think you do, but in talking with those who do (Baptist are only one small group), if they are going to teach someone how to become a Christian, they do not include baptism in that discussion, at least not until after a Sinner’s prayer.
The problem is, that if one does not view it as essential, then they will not teach as essential. And why should they? If the disciples are saved because God credits the faith of the individual not the doctrine of the teacher, then there is no need to change. (Of course, there might be a danger to the teacher but that is not who we are talking about) However, does this view of Baptism happen in a vacuum or does it result from a view of Scriptures that create other views even more contrary to the doctrine of faith?
You say “It’s a not a trivial question, but it doesn’t merit the importance tied to it by so many.” You see, the “when” question often presents itself as a proxy or substitute for the deeper question of Calvinism versus other theories of salvation (soteriologies). Baptism seems to be a favorite battle ground over the doctrine of unconditional election and irresistible grace, and the argument is so often couched in terms of “faith” vs. “works” with, frankly, very superficial, clichéd answers being given by both sides. It gets old.
How can a question be ‘not trivial” yet too much emphasis is put on it? The virgin birth is not a trivial question either and some are not putting much emphasis in that but should. That gets more toward the nature of the One in whom we have put our faith.
Yet Baptism is an important topic but is it the crux of the issue against Calvinistic teaching? Both the extreme of Salvation by God’s work alone, even sans faith by the person and a ‘works based’ salvation more prevalent to Catholic teachings are wrong. Baptism is not the crux to their teaching; it is the crux to being born in OUR TEACHING.
If baptism is not something necessary to obey then why teach it? If one who only has faith can be saved then why not teach only that? Because there is a command to teach baptism? Is that the only reason? So if we follow the command then are we teaching works based salvation? God forbid!
The reason why we baptize people may be based in the command of Jesus to do so (and we should do that) but the purpose of the command is more fully explained in the epistles. And unless you think that Paul could have said ‘by faith” every time he expounded on Baptism, then there is a specific purpose and reason for baptizing. I would ask you to look at Romans 6 and Colossians 2, and see if faith is interchangeable with baptism and then see if we can find a passage that says faith does what Paul says baptism does?
You also say:
But in a more objective analysis, the fact is that the question of when someone is saved is hardly central to the gospel. I mean, if God were to reveal tomorrow that he saves at the moment of faith and not baptism, we’d still baptize our converts by immersion on a confession of faith in Jesus. Jesus would still be Jesus. The gospel would still be the gospel. Church would still be church.
The only truly practical questions that arise in this context are –
I do not know why the question of “when” would not be central to the Gospel since it is the whole purpose of the Gospel is to save people. It being the power of God for salvation. I mean, what good would it be to preach the Gospel and not know when a person was saved, or IF a person was saved? Again, what does baptism DO? Anything or nothing? As I read that, it sounds like baptism is just something the God threw in there.
* Will God save someone who dies after coming to faith but before baptism? Answer: Of course. (All those revival sermons claiming to the contrary preached a false, graceless God to manipulate people into the baptistry through fear. It was wrong to do.)
“Of course”? Book, chapter, and verse in context please.
Now I do believe that a person who heads towards the baptistery in faith and gets run over by a car is likely to go to Heaven. However, this is belief is neither provable by scripture nor is it a foundation for adding further delays which we could avoid (such as waiting till spring or Sunday or whatever) As to your suggestion that people were manipulated into the baptistery through fear was wrong, I think manipulating through any means is wrong whether through fear or love or other actions that do not appeal to the rational part of a man’s soul that can reason and draw a conclusion that they honestly believe. It is not a manipulation to teach the Gospel and exhort people to respond. (acts 2:40)
* Should we treat as saved someone baptized imperfectly — by the wrong mode or as an infant — but who otherwise evidences the work of the Spirit in his heart? Answer: Of course. (The scriptures are very clear that the ultimate test of salvation is receipt of the Spirit.)
If this were a case of eating of meats where one’s conscience were being offended and where some have knowledge but not all do (I cor 8) then I could agree with that and even your position. However, if the Scriptures speak to the efficacy of baptism (not by itself but rather as an action taken by a believer and only powered by the resurrection of Christ, not the water itself) to put one into Christ, and wash away sins then that alone makes a difference that is vital. One view says by being baptized one becomes a Christian and the other says baptism did not make one a Christian.
What does the Bible say? Let’s make up our mind and not go limping between two opinions.
* Is it inconsistent to insist on baptism by immersion into forgiveness of sins while accepting those who received sprinkling or baptism as an act of obedience? No. Rather, it’s a matter of accepting God’s promises
Yes, it is inconsistent to insist for those we teach and not to insist for those that others teach. See Paul in Acts 19. While circumcision is not a precise parallel to baptism, there are passages that bring the two together.
Now having defended this view through this post, I would like to say that I have learned a long time ago that I can learn from others. So let me ask a question that might help me understand your view better or perhaps motivate me to change mine. “What benefit is there to accepting imperfect baptisms as valid?” Is it simply a means to have peace? Is there something in the scriptures that you see which I don’t? It can’t be all those passages about Faith because faith properly defined would have someone being baptized. The trust and obedience that go along with it. Romans 6:17-18
Pingback: Progressives’ Confusion over Baptism and Salvation | Seeing God's Breath
It’s good to read comments by two who see through incorrect teaching. Jay wrote,
“Should we treat as saved someone baptized imperfectly — by the wrong mode or as an infant — but who otherwise evidences the work of the Spirit in his heart? Answer: Of course. (The scriptures are very clear that the ultimate test of salvation is receipt of the Spirit.)
Translators have much to answer for in capitalizing “spirit” when the inspired writer was speaking of “spirit” but not “Spirit.” Galatians 5 is one of the passages. Paul contrasts works of the spirit with works of the flesh. He is NOT speaking of works of the Spirit. Of course he is not. But the translator capitalizes it and wrong thinking follows. Some see people who do good things and suppose only the Spirit can cause the good things. But many who are not “in Christ” are good people and do good things which Paul describes as works of the spirit.
Jay is judging that the “good” person is a Christian because of the good deeds the person has done and is doing. Yes? Is he right? No. Not at all. Even very wicked people sometimes do good deeds. Paul’s appeal is for us who are in Christ to do good deeds. He is not affirming that all who do good deeds are in Christ. Yet that’s what Jay seems to see in the passage. Am I understanding him correctly? I hope I’m wrong, but I think I’m right.
And the error of capitalizing “spirit” when the human spirit is the author’s intent is not confined to Galatians 5. It happens in John 3 and in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and great mischief follows. I urge all to read my study on this matter on the internet at missionoutreach.org/OwensMaxey.pdf.
Ray is apparently both a mindreader and a spiritualist, able to know Paul’s intent after the poor fellow has been dead a couple of millenia. Shucks, even the witch of Endor had a relatively fresh dead prophet to call up for questioning. Old Saul of Tarsus is long gone to dust, and thus is much tougher to get on the phone, one would think.
Those poor saps who errantly translated the scriptures — which scriptures up until now were described as INerrant — apparently did not have Ray’s powers. We’re not told whether these scholars and linguists were trying to foist a mystical agenda off on the church or if they merely flipped a coin and got heads when Paul really said tails, but that is of no further consequence. We now have a better source. Ray, you clearly put to bed that sad argument that Paul was speaking of works of the Spirit when you said, “Of course he’s not.” Had you only said, “He’s not,” I might have remained in doubt, but when you said, “OF COURSE he’s not,” well, that is enough to win over the most hardened skeptic.
I do have one concern, now. I wonder how many OTHER errors Ray will find in our Bibles as he continues his reading? Ray, could you perhaps send out updates if you continue to find corrections to be made to our Bibles? I have several versions on hand, so I have bought extra White-Out. Once we get your updates, THEN the scriptures we read will truly be inerrant.