Boasting
Because we’re boastful people, we rarely hear lessons on the theology of boasting. But the scriptures say a lot on the subject.
(Jer 9:23-24 ESV) 23 Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD.”
(Rom 3:27-28 ESV) 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
(Rom 4:2-3 ESV) 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
(Gal 6:13-15 ESV) 13 For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
(Eph 2:8-10 ESV) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
These include some of the great passages on God’s grace. And over and over, we are told that part of God’s great system of grace is that we are not given any grounds for boasting.
But if we’re saved by our doctrinal expertise, we have grounds for boasting. I can boast that my baptism saves me because I didn’t content myself with English dictionaries — I read the Greek dictionaries and found out that baptism is immersion! (Does anyone doubt that such boasting happens?) Of course, we could be humble about it, and many are. But Paul’s point is that if we truly understand grace, there are no grounds for boasting. We couldn’t boast even if we wanted to!
Paul sees that we can boast in “works” but not in “faith.” After all, while faith is sufficient to save, faith doesn’t merit salvation. Indeed, the whole point of a faith-based system is that faith is not enough — not even close. We aren’t saved by the excellence or perfection of our faith. Simple, childlike faith is quite enough.
Thus, when a person who is saved by faith compares his salvation to those outside faith, he considers himself far from superior. Rather, he sees himself as among the fortunate, the blessed who have received “unmerited favor,” that is, undeserved forgiveness. Indeed, the biggest flaw in 20th Century Church of Christ theology is how far removed it sometimes is from a true appreciation of this very thing.
So what of baptism? If baptism were something we could boast in, it would be a work. The Jews evidently boasted in their circumcision, believing that their circumcision demonstrated God’s approval of them and thus their election and salvation. Do we think of baptism the same way?
To me, this brings us to a very subtle but essential distinction. Although Jewish babies had no choice whether to be circumcised, the Jews as a people saw circumcision as something that earned God’s favor. God commanded it, and therefore circumcision marks the obedient from the disobedient, the righteous from the unrighteous, the elect from the unelect. And yet circumcision is far removed from the center of God’s relationship with the Jews.
(Rom 2:25-29 ESV) 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
In verse 26, Paul seemingly contradicts himself. After all, how could someone keep the Law and not be circumcised? It seems Paul is speaking more to the moral law than the positive commands. Paul asserts that the state of our hearts is far more important than obedience to positive commands from God! After all, what God truly wants from us is a changed heart.
(Mic 6:7-8 ESV) 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
(Deu 30:6 ESV) 6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
(Psa 51:16-17 ESV) 16 For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
That being the case, how is it that baptism isn’t a work? If it’s something I do or which I count on as helping to merit my salvation or which demonstrates my superior scriptural understanding, I can certainly boast in my baptism — and many do just that. But Paul declares we live under a grace system in which there are no grounds for boasting.
I should add that the “sinner’s prayer” and “going forward” and any other similar practice is also something that we do. They are all decisions — decisions that preachers beg us to make. Indeed, if anything, the sinner’s prayer is more the doing of the convert than baptism is.
Here’s how I’ve got it figured. Baptism is designed for new converts — people who know only the rudiments of Christianity. Indeed, it’s enough to have faith and confess Jesus as Lord —
(Rom 10:9-10 ESV) 9 [I]f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
There are no grounds for boasting in faith or confession — which is simply telling the church that you have faith.
You see, baptism is not an action taken by the convert so much as an action taken by the church. Baptism is never done alone. Indeed, contrary to Jewish mikveh practice, baptism is received whereas the old mikveh washings were performed alone. People went to John the Baptist to be baptized in part because they couldn’t baptize themselves.
Baptism, therefore, is (among other things) the declaration by the church that this person has faith and is a part of the community called “church.” Baptism is a corporate rite. That’s why we announce baptisms in our bulletins and to our congregations. Baptism is about (among other things) being incorporated into the church by the church.
Let’s look at those baptism passages again —
(1Co 12:13 ESV) 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
It could hardly be plainer that baptism is about being added to the body. We want to read: “into salvation.” But the text says: “into one body.”
(Mat 28:19-20 ESV) 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
The thought plainly is that those who’ve been baptized will be included into a teaching community that will mature the converts in the faith. And “baptize” is in the active voice. The evangelists are commanded to baptize. They are the objects of the command.
(Act 2:41-42 ESV) 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Again, baptism incorporates the converts into the church community.
(Gal 3:27-28 ESV) 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
As we considered earlier, Paul’s point in Galatians 3:27 is that the convert’s baptism illustrates and even demonstrates his salvation and therefore offers assurance of salvation and thus eliminates the need for further “tests of fellowship” or “marks of the church” such as circumcision or feast days. But he also argues that the one baptism demonstrates the unity of the church. Baptism into Christ means baptism into a single body, a single community, and therefore there must be no barriers of ethnicity, social class, or gender. We are one because we received the one baptism into the one Jesus.
In this sense, we can see that baptism is nothing to boast in. Rather, if it’s a human work at all, it’s the church’s work, because the church decides whom to baptize and by what mode. In fact, the typical convert is far too immature in the faith to do research into the Greek lexicons or to exegete Acts 2:38 from the Greek in light of the latest research on the meaning of eis. They submit to baptism in whatever form and with whatever instruction their instructor offers. After all, gospel preaching is about Jesus, and they are only required to have faith in Jesus and to confess Jesus. They aren’t required to have faith in baptism or to confess their understanding of baptism.
(Jer 9:24a ESV) 24 let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me
Our “boasting” is in God as revealed through Jesus — not the excellence of our baptismal theology. We boast in what God has done and is doing for us, not what we’ve done for him.
Now, of course, baptism is about more than inclusion into the church — but it’s unquestionably that. And that means it’s a work of the church — and if it’s done incorrectly, it’s the church that erred. It’s a huge misapprehension of God’s gospel to imagine that those who come to him with a penitent faith in Jesus will be denied because they were taught incorrectly on baptism. We’re not Gnostics, and so we don’t teach we’re saved by the excellence of knowledge. We’re saved by God because we’ve been blessed to understand and know God through his self-revelation in Jesus. And that is a gift.
Jay said
…baptism is not an action taken by the convert so much as an action taken by the church… and if it’s done incorrectly, it’s the church that erred…if it’s a human work at all, it’s the church’s work, because the church decides whom to baptize and by what mode…Baptism, therefore, is …declaration by the church that this person has faith and is a part of the community called “church” ….being incorporated into the church by the church.
This is target center! Print this and nail it on the door to the bapistry.
We have had it backwards! Baptism is a command and an act of obedience, but it is an act of obedience required of the church, not of the believer!!
This is what the account of Cornelius clearly shows, once we get past the idea that this conversion was an exception to the "rule." No, it IS the rule. There is no conversion in Acts that is provided in more detail, repeated twice, and more relevant to us as Gentiles than Cornelius.
Cornelius was baptized within the Holy Spirit at God's timing and not man's. It is God's salvation, and we are not the gatekeepers of when it happens. What unbelievable arrogance to think we have the final approval to the salvation of the Creator God. They received the gift of the Holy Spirit. They spoke in tongues as a sign to the Jews to accept them, not to save them. How did they accept the Gentiles? Two things .. baptize them in water and eat with them. (Maybe Cornelius' wife made the casserole.)
Peter went back and had to explain things in Jerusalem. They didn't complain about Peter water baptizing Cornelius, but about eating with them. Peter went through the scenario and said (paraphrased), "since God had already accepted them, who was I to withstand God, or oppose God?" They had the sign of manifestations, what could the Jews say? They gave glory to God for having granted the Gentiles repentance into life. Not water baptism into life.
The Jews complained about eating with the Gentiles not baptizing them. Baptism was the accepted thing to do, eating with Gentiles was not. But they both were done for the same reason. Both eating with the Gentiles and baptizing the Gentiles were public demonstrations that the Gentiles were part of the body of Christ and were accepted into fellowship by the other members of the body, the Church.
By baptizing them, Peter was saying (paraphrased), "Jesus has baptized them within the Holy Spirit into one body, we must show that we (church) recognize that and will act accordingly by extending fellowship." God saves them; the church accepts and fellowships them.
So, Cornelius was saved before water baptism? Yes. So, water baptism isn't important? Think some more. Peter said for him to not act would have been opposing God. What were those action? Again, water baptism and eating with them. Both acts of the church extending the hand of fellowship to someone God has added to the number and making a public announcement that the church is submitting to God's sovereignty. If a believer is not water baptized, THE CHURCH opposes God, not the believer.
Note what the Jews said in response to Peter's comments, or better yet, note what they didn't say. They recognized the sovereignty of God in saving them, but they didn't say, "Oh boy, now we get to fellowship with the Gentiles." No, what the legalists did was to go a different route and put circumcision as a roadblock to having to fellowship the Gentiles. Thus the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15, where the Cornelius conversion is told a third time in a consistent manner down to the same Greek words.
The consequences of this realization are enormous. Who is my brother? Some say it is someone who has been water baptized in the right way and with the right understanding and saying the right words. What does Cornelius say? It is the sovereign right of God alone to say who my brother is, and it is my command to accept them as a brother and into Christian fellowship. That means UNITY based on God and not based on our doctrine.
If we hold up interpretative doctrine as a barrier of fellowship to those who God has already accepted into HIS church, we are opposing God !!
What is God going to do with people who put a physical requirement in front of people who have been accepted by God before they will consider them saved or worthy of their fellowship? What are the consequences of opposing God??
This impacts unity, acceptance into fellowship in the body, and makes one of the above questions incorrectly stated. It is not "Who is my brother?" as if they have to qualify. The question is, "Am I going to be a brother to them, or am I going to oppose God?"
Thank, Jay. (Jay is not responsible for my comments).
It is interesting that the "washings" prescribed by the O.T. law do seem to be communal concerns. Uncleanliness of many descriptions were indeed followed by some sort of water cleansing to protect the community at large from the spread of possible disease. While the thought of Baptism being a "work of the church" is a new thought for me I can see the correlation from Old Covenant to New…I don't personally have any issue whatsoever with the concept of Faith being an immersion into God's Grace and Water Baptism being an immersion into the Body of Christ… Faith is a decision made personally in the privacy of one's own conviction of heart, soul and mind while Baptism is a public affair which actually must include a member of the church participating in the action.
This idea also seems to come alongside the comments of Paul in I Corinthians 1 in which he is speaking about the unity of the body of Christ and in verse 10 speaks of the church ideally being "perfectly joined together'…then in verses 12-17 he fusses at various individuals for "boasting" or causing divisions based upon who baptized them…Paul responds with "is Christ divided"…seems to me, IMHO, to be a reference to the church and the ideal of being "perfectly joined together."…Paul even goes on to say in verse 14 that was glad that he baptized very few…and in 17 says that Jesus didn't send him to baptize…(??) but rather just to preach the good news…
Perhaps….Paul here was affirming this concept that it was the local body that should baptize as it is in fact a work of unity for the local body of Christ? Interesting and thought provoking Jay. Thanks.
Jay, Theophilus Dr,
So, you want to ignore "washing of regeneration" that points us to baptism as an action of God, an action of His grace? And you think the example of Cornelius "voids" apostolic teaching in Titus 3? Let me offer that if we will grab hold of what Paul writes (in many places) that points to baptism as God's work, then the narrative of Cornelius' salvation becomes clearer. I would be glad to dive in further, but will hold off now and let folks mull. Self-discovery is also a good thing.
And I will offer that if folks will just take some time to let immersion baptism as an act of God's grace soak in a little more, the Lord will guide us re unity far more than by our struggling with the teaching.
I pointed Price to an excellent study (outside of the Restoration Movement). I commend to you as well, as it further emphasizes how the earliest Christians heard apostolic teaching. I believe you will find eye-opening. See S. R. Llewelyn, "Baptism and Salvation," New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published 1984-85, 8:176-79, ed. S. R. Llewelyn (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1998).
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Thank you, Bruce.
Speaking just for myself, the biggest thing I have had to "ignore" is the old learned behavior of interpretatively adding "water" into the text every time the word "baptism" or "baptize" is used, when the word is not there in the Greek. It was only when those scales of eisegesis fell from my eyes did I see the the narrative of Cornelius' salvation more clearly. Those scales had "voided" about 75% of the revelation from the apostolic teaching, including Titus 3. Self-discovery is indeed a good thing. It is often the only way we can "hear."
Jay – a question,
In your recent posts on this you argue that baptism isn't a work, without explicitly solving the problem as to what baptism actually is. I appreciate the ambiguity here, as Paul is ambiguous as well. I think, though, that you present the clear case that, whatever baptism is, it isn't a work.
In this post, however, you are saying that baptism is, indeed, a work – just not one of the individual but one of the church. Does this not weaken your previous argument as well as possibly ignore some of what Paul says on this topic?
Asked a different way: Your solution seems to be that when Paul says baptism isn't a work, he only means that individually, not corporately. When we link baptism with the community – the body – (which is right to do), the act becomes a work of the church. Why, then, does that not become something of which the church can/should boast?
From Alexander Campbell…. To come to the point at once, what are the principles of union and communion advocated in this work? Has not the one foundation which the apostle affirmed was already laid, and besides which no other can be laid, which will stand the test of time and of critics, which is the only one on which all Christians can unite, and have "full communion," and against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail; I say has not this been the only bond of union which the "Christian Baptist" ever advocated? And what is it, but a sincere and hearty conviction, expressed or confessed by the lips, that Jesus is the Christ: and this belief, exhibited by an overt act of obedience which implies that the subject has put on Christ, prepares him, or qualifies him, if you please, to be saluted as a brother. So long as he confesses with his lips that he believes in his heart this truth, and lives conformably to it. and…
As to "the purblind Pharisee who strains out a gnat and swallows a camel," because he will not have full communion with all the evangelical sects in the mass, I have to remark, that it is not optional with me or you whether we would have christian communion with them.
Dr. T… it seems that the heritage of the CoC had in its original core belief the principal of unity that you suppose except that they made baptism a condition of fellowship. I prefer Peter's approach as you explained, that whoever the Lord accepts, I have no choice to accept. I think AC got it almost right and certainly more right than those claiming to be a part of the CoC heritage today. The current rhetoric of defining those of the "denominations" and dis-fellowshipping with them is a Progressive addition to the faith heritage.
Is baptism a command ? if it is, then obeying that command is a work.
Price, I agree. We (humankind) have a tendency to want what we perceive to be order and structure, but that is an illusion which in the natural realm translates into definitions, rules, creeds, doctrine, binding hermeneutics, etc. In the spiritual realm it is chaos. The Pharisees did this when they made specific interpretations of the Law and formed rules that actually insulated themselves from the spirit of the Law. What is proclaimed today as restoration doctrine isn't the same as when it started, as you have pointed out. For lack of a real term, I call that "legalistic drift." It takes spiritual energy from the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome natural legalistic drift and grow into the likeness of Christ. Combine that realization with a group that has traditionally claimed most of the power of the Holy Spirit ceased after the first century, what else could be expected to happen? I personally feel that I am still power-challenged. Change is a process.
Many doctrinal interpretations need to be revisited, and a lot of them travel together in the same bus. The bus may not have much more time to run around in the wilderness before it runs out of gas. I pray that we can have the faith to enter the spiritual battle to conquer the promised land and not murmur to return to the bondage of Egypt. That didn't work too well for the Israelites (1 Cor 10).
To God be the glory!
Thanks, Price. I appreciate you.
Theophilus Dr:
Want to make sure I understand as I listen. So do you believe "washing of regeneration" is baptism as an action of God's grace or no? Do you believe the narrative of Cornelius is guiding us to different conclusion other than immersion as a washing away of sin?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Dr. T…at least they had good shoes..
Brother Morton…Not to interfere with Dr. T's response to your question but I would ask you a question so that as I read I can more appropriately understand you question and Dr. T's response…
The question to you…What theological significance do you believe that the indwelling of Cornelius and all his household by the Holy Spirit had relative to their salvation….really, more simply, at the moment they received the indwelling Holy Spirit, were they saved? If so, then it seems their sins were forgiven, or how else might one be saved? If they were not saved, how would one explain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ?
It seems to me that how one addresses that question is the foundational premise for one's belief…
Thanks…enjoying the exchange reasoned positions…!!!!
Jay — this post was phenomenal! Your best I've read in a while, IMO. It really challenged me to think about a few things differently, which I always appreciate.
Also want to mention that I equally appreciate Dr. Theophilus bursting onto the scene — I've really enjoyed your responses over the last couple weeks. This is an amazing site and I'm blessed every time I read!
i'm not sure Cornelius wasn't saved even prior to the outpouring of the Spirit. Maybe, maybe not. Not sure how relevant it is to Luke's point. But generally, i don't see why God's Spirit operating on individuals in every case necessarily means they are "in Christ" at that point in time. Why can't it just be like God enabling Saul to prophesy? i don't want to say Saul's prophecy meant he was okay with God. i'm more inclined to say God can work through or on whoever He wills.
Do you think Acts 8 means that the Samaritans weren't saved even when they were baptized?
–guy
Bruce asked, (1) So do you believe "washing of regeneration" is baptism as an action of God's grace or no?
Absolutely YES. Nothing other than the grace of God through Jesus Christ can effect forgiveness of sin, baptism within the Holy Spirit, rebirth (born from above), renewal, sanctification, etc. I just no longer read "water" into these verses if the word is not there in the Greek.
(2) Do you believe the narrative of Cornelius is guiding us to different conclusion other than immersion as a washing away of sin?
NO. But their sins were washed away in the baptism within the Holy Spirit so they could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (accompanied by speaking in tongues as a sign to the Jews of God's authority in this matter). Because Jesus had immersed Cornelius, et al., within one Spirit into one body (1 Cor 12:13), Peter had to accept them into the fellowship and water baptize them. To not do this would be to oppose God. God saves, the church fellowships and promotes unity.
Price, although Luke doesn't specifically identify the indwelling Holy Spirit by name, I believe it is part of the "gift of the Holy Spirit," and Luke does identify when that was received (Acts 11:15-17); it was when they were baptized within the Holy Spirit. However, I believe the "gift" encompasses an even greater blessing than we have realized. Maybe the subject will come up on another post, but it is absolutely jaw-dropping what God has done.
JMF, I agree that this is a great site with some great contributors. I have enjoyed and appreciated everyone's comments. People show a lot of patience.
Guy, The Samaritan conversion is interesting; each conversion account presents its own information and challenge to interpretation. Frankly, we have to guess a bit, but in a later post I'll explain why I think they had the indwelling spirit and salvation at their immersion (spirit and water, probably) and not the laying on of the apostles' hands. It's in Luke's choice of Greek words.
Price:
From what I can tell much of the believing world has frequently landed on the example of Cornelius and looked at it from an Evangelical perspective: "See, water baptism and salvation are separated!"
A look at "pouring" (Gk. ekcheo) helps. It is a rare word — in Acts and elsewhere, but that is not material, only that it frames what we should see in Acts 10:45. And let me suggest that Titus 3 represents a powerful summary by the apostle to the Gentiles. We are right to give attention to reading and soaking up what Paul says there. Paul's use of "poured" (Gk. ekcheo) in Titus 3:6 provides important guidance.
I believe Paul is summing up a great deal by his use of the word. The prophecy of Joel included (cf. Acts 2:17ff.). Titus 3:6 provides us with a window for seeing the narrative of Cornelius. God's saving action is not divided in the way we think in the narrative. Not an either/or, but a both. God is in charge; a washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit are woven together. To the Creator the water baptism and the "pouring" onto Cornelius are one. That is what we should see from Titus 3:4-7 and Acts 10:44-48.
No doubt I have brewed a time-space discussion. But I will stop here and let folks consider.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Theophilus Dr:
Quite a surprise for someone to separate "washing of regeneration" from water baptism. But I understand clearly now that you have. I can point you to numerous studies, if you wish, beyond Jay's (including non Restoration Movement studies; e.g. G. R. Beasley-Murray's).
If you do a word study on "washing," you will see that the use in the NT is not figurative, but concretely about a washing — a literal washing (cf. Eph. 5:26). This is consistent with extra-biblical literature as well; the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon provides a thorough look, as one source. "Washing" is always literal, i.e. a bath. The ancient world was full of "washings" (literal) for ritual/lustration purposes.
Think I should stop at this point.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Twistersinbama,
Let me suggest this as a working hypothesis —
1. The Jews 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 it 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 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.
Bruce…Not sure exactly what you were trying to say but I'm sure you did.. I certainly admit to not having an intimate knowledge of the ancient word for "pouring" but if it is used in the same way that Joel's prophecy is to be understood then my working definition of the word includes the Spirit being "poured" out on the Apostles without the presence of water. It was baptism for sure..but with the Spirit and not with Water… It seems that Peter's experience as described in Luke 10 and 11 is consistent with the outpouring of the Spirit described by Joel and experienced by the Apostles. Water Baptism seems to be a consequent action but it also appears to be an action of ultimate importance to Peter. It never seems to occur to him NOT to baptize them in water even though it was obvious to all that the Holy Spirit had already been given to them.. I find it odd that he DOESN'T say why he did it…It would have cleared this whole thing up.
Jay…I don't know that I appreciate anything more about your character, other than your love for the Lord, than your search for unity within the churches of Christ and between them and the Church universal. It is a daunting task for sure but one that should be given every chance to succeed. I for one would be willing to welcome any brother or sister into my fellowship who by faith accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. For, if they do, then I would assume they would have been taught the importance of baptism from some point of view and if it is the wrong one, then I'll be more than happy to allow the Lord to sort it out. I've been given the opportunity to see and judge the fruit that one produces but I have yet to be able to look into the heart of a man to know his private belief and intentions… Only God is allowed that privilege and since He's the One that saves..it's good that He maintains that privilege. I'd probably screw it all up. Besides, Price Almighty just doesn't roll off the tongue and, my wife would never go for it. 🙂
Most Protestant churches who baptize infants have always seen baptism as a work of the church, and not a work of the one baptized. How could they see it any other way? I do think they mistake in what I would consider separating salvation from faith. When they teach about baptism of more mature believers, their teaching runs fairly close to what Jay has said in this series.
Jay said: "1. The Jews 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."
Perhaps the Jews saw circumcision the thing one did to be, or have one's child (if the child were male) included as part of the covenant community. Perhaps those churches that practice infant baptism see it the same way.
Hesed,
Randall
I said I would try to answer Guy’s question about the conversion of the Samaritans.
Analysis of baptism, salvation, external manifestations of the Holy Spirit, Samaritans, Acts 8. This would be easier to communicate with a markerboard. Note this analysis is very abbreviated and is composed of some data, a lot of interpretation, and combined with a lot of speculation.
Acts 8:5 Phillip preached and performed signs (simeion, miracles to confirm the message was from God). (Vs 12) They believed Phillip’s message concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized. This was a salvation message and a salvation response. I believe the baptism specifically referred to here is water. Luke didn’t record receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit, because that was not itself associated with external manifestations. However, I think it most likely the believers were also baptized within the Holy Spirit at the time of water baptism. We know it occurred at some point because it was part of the Promise (Acts 1:4 & 2:39) to everyone. (Vs 13) Simon believed and was baptized, but for reasons given later, I think this was water only – no repentance, no Spirit. That is conjecture. (Vs 14) The apostles heard Samaria had received (accepted) the word of God (to me, this verse confirms the Samaritans had been baptized within the Holy Spirit, saved, and accepted by God). Jerusalem send Peter and John to check them out – pray that they might obtain Spirit Holy (in the Greek) for He had not yet fallen upon any of them, having been baptized, (vs 16) they belonged into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus. Note the Samaritans had been baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus, as in Acts 2:38 baptized into (eis) the forgiveness of sin. To me, this confirms they had been saved before this time, probably associated with the timing of water baptism, in this case. So what is explanation of the Holy Spirit? The key is the verb translated “fallen upon,” which is derived from epipipto, meaning “to seize with more or less violence; to take possession of.” (Other uses see Luke 1:12; Acts 13:11, 19:17) It is an action coming upon from the outside which controls the person, their behavior, or their controlling circumstances. It is only used in reference to the Holy Spirit when the operation produces external manifestations (Luke doesn’t say here, but probably tongues) as a sign to the Jews. So, this reference cannot be to the indwelling Holy Spirit which is given at salvation. (Vs 17) The manifestations came upon then when the apostles laid on hands, in contrast to Cornelius when it occurred directly. (There’s a reason for that.) Simon wanted to buy the power from the apostles, and, from Peter’s response, I believe Simon was asking to be made an apostle, not just the ability to do better tricks. (Vs 21-23) Peter said Simon’s heart was not straight before God and that Simon was into (eis) the bile of bitterness and bond of injustice. Peter tells Simon to pray for forgiveness, and Simon didn’t do that, but instead asked Peter to pray for him. This doesn’t describe someone with a saving relationship with God, so I think at baptism Simon just got wet.
The best interpretation I have derived is that the Samaritans were baptized within the Holy Spirit, saved, and received the indwelling Holy Spirit sometime during the time of “believed-accepted-baptized in water” stage. External manifestations were separated from baptism within the Holy Spirit for reasons given above. This means external manifestations were for signs to the Jews and not associated with the baptism within the Holy Spirit. There are other denominational interpretations that would strenuously object to that, but I hold to the interpretation given here as the most supported. Manifestations were not recorded to occur at all with the Ethiopian later in chapter 8, as well as the jailer (Ch 16) and other conversions.
Why did Peter and John have to go to Samaria and why were manifestations given only after they had prayed and did the laying on hands? (Doesn’t mean the power of the Holy Spirit died out with the apostles). This was the next phase of Jesus’ command (Samaria, Acts 1:8) and the Jews had to have this confirmed before they could accept the Samaritans into fellowship. This was a big step, although not as big as Cornelius. This was a sign by which God confirmed to the Jews that the Samaritans were to be in the body of Christ. Did Peter and John get the message? They apparently came directly from Jerusalem to Samaria, but on their return they brought the message to many Samaritan villages (vs 25). I think they got it. The Samaritans had to get a message also – that the authority of the logos of God rested in the church in Jerusalem. That is where the message was monitored and sent out. God was saying — One body, one church, no denominations – not a church in Samaria and another one in Jerusalem that do not fellowship one another.
God had a stronger message for the Jews with Cornelius because there was a larger cultural discrimination. God showed the Jews He was in charge and He didn’t need Peter to touch anything or anybody – just stand back and look in amazement.
Thanks to everyone who made it though all this.
Dr. T said before this answer " This is what the account of Cornelius clearly shows, once we get past the idea that this conversion was an exception to the "rule." No, (it IS the rule). There is no conversion in Acts that is provided in more detail, repeated twice, and more relevant to us as Gentiles than Cornelius" Is this true?
In your answer to Bruce Morton , You Said "NO. But their sins were washed away in the baptism within the Holy Spirit so they could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (accompanied by speaking in tongues as a sign to the Jews of God's authority in this matter). Because Jesus had immersed Cornelius, et al., within one Spirit into one body (1 Cor 12:13), Peter had to accept them into the fellowship and water baptize them. To not do this would be to oppose God. God saves, the church fellowships and promotes unity
Is that a Genuine NO? When we hear the word "But" usually there is an argument opposite to what has been ask? Usually when you hear a but, or read a But is because you are refusing to accept that answer.
Are you sure their sins were washed away by the Holy Spirit Baptism?
so, this is the rule? How many times in the New Testament do you find the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Did the members of the church at Corinth were baptized with the Holy Spirit baptism as cornelius? were in the whole N.T do you find another event as the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
The word “baptism” used in Acts 1:5 is surely figurative. The word literally means to dip, plunge, overwhelm. So, the apostles were immersed in, overwhelmed, by the Holy Spirit. They were completely influenced by and directed by the Holy Spirit.
Did you read this before?
3.- The Baptism of the Holy Spirit ( Mattew 3:11 b; Mark 1:8b; Luke 3:16b; John 1:33b; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16). This was a promised baptism that was fulfilled in the apostles (Acts 2 ) and to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10) At no time was anyone ever commanded to be baptized in the Holy Spirit nor is it ever said a Holy Spirit baptism would put one into Christ. When the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit, things Jesus taught were brought to their remembrance (John 14:26), and they were guided into all truth (John 16:13). At the household of Cornelius Holy Spirit baptism was to convince the Jews present that God accepted the Gentiles to be fellow heirs in the family of God (Acts 11:14-18). Holy Spirit baptism was not designed to continue through the centuries. Is this Baptism still in effect?
Guestfortruth: Are you sure their sins were washed away by the Holy Spirit Baptism?
Read Acts 10:44-48 and observe the order of events. Peter speaks, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message, the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out, and they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then they were water baptized.
Read Acts 11:15-17 and see how Peter identifies what happened. Peter speaks, the Holy Spirit came on then as He did on us, it was identified as baptism within the Holy Spirit, and God gave then the same gift. Peter doesn't mention speaking in tongues or water baptism in these verses.
So what occurred at the same time? Holy Spirit comes on all who heard, they were baptized within the Holy Spirit, they were given the gift of the Holy Spirit, then they spoke in tongues as an external manifestation to the Jews that God was doing His work on the "inside" of the Gentiles.
THEN they were water baptized.
If the Gentiles did not receive forgiveness of sin when they were baptized within the Holy Spirit, then how did they receive the gift? If their sins were not forgiven until they were water baptized, then God gave them the gift of the Holy Spirit, which includes His presence, inside their dead-in-sin hearts. God cannot abide with sin, which is why Jesus had to die so the sins of the Gentiles could be forgiven. So how could that happen?
What is the order of events? The Gentiles are baptized within the Holy Spirit and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit which only comes after the forgiveness of sin. Because God had accepted them into His fellowship (baptized within one Spirit into one body 1 Cor 12:13), Peter would have opposed God if he had not signified acceptance into the church by water baptizing them.
This is the same order of Acts 2:38-42. Repent and be baptized into the forgiveness of sin …. receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And they were baptized (likely referring to water) and they had fellowship in the church. This is part of the Promise (which involves baptism within the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5,8), and the Promise is for all (2:39).
I was freed to read the Cornelius account for what it said after I stopped quoting CoC interpretations that only reinforced what I already knew the passages said based on my presuppositions. It was cyclic, and it was wrong.
I suggest you try the same.