We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
Everyone — the readers, me, Garrett — all agree that faith in Jesus and repentance are boundaries of the Kingdom. We further agree that baptism is a boundary marker, but disagree as to just how scrupulous someone’s adherence to the practice of baptism must be in order for God to save.
So we now need to consider the salvation those who have genuine faith, repentance, and a sufficient baptism — however that may be defined. At this point, nearly all would agree that someone meeting those three tests would be saved. But what happen after he steps out of the baptistry? What if an organ is playing? What if communion isn’t served for another 90 days? What if his congregation doesn’t wear a “scriptural” name? Is he damned, faith, repentance, and baptism notwithstanding? Many would say so. Indeed, many would argue that worshiping God with an instrument casts one out of the Kingdom and into the realm of Satan.
Now, the question has to be wrestled with is simple enough: According to the Bible, when does someone fall away from grace? That’s it. And — very obviously — not every sin causes one to be damned. Here’s my own conclusion — what I would call the “Major Premise” — and it’s not complicated.
You leave salvation by crossing the same lines by which you entered salvation.
What are those lines?
Faith
Repentance
Trust
Baptism
But I don’t know a way to be un-baptized, and so we can reduce to the standard to the first three. And, of course, the first two are found explicitly in the traditional Five-Step Plan of Salvation. Trust in Jesus is also part of it because all three are elements of the meaning of “faith” as used in most of the New Testament. Rather, as I’ve often taught, pistis (the Greek word for “faith”) in Paul’s writings, carries three elements –
* Belief that certain things are true, in particular, that Jesus is Lord and the Messiah (faith)
(Rom 10:9 ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe [accept as true] in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
* Belief that God will keep his promises (trust or hope)
(Rom 6:8 ESV) 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe [trust] that we will also live with him.
* Faithfulness to Abraham’s covenant to do righteousness and justice, to be restored to the image of God and so act toward people as God acts (love).
(Rom 3:3 ESV) What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness [pistis, and meaning “failure to do righteousness” in context] nullify the faithfulness of God?
(Rom 12:1 ESV) I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Now, Romans 12:1 fits here, even though it doesn’t use the word “faith,” because of what it says. The logic is that if we believe that Jesus died for our sins, then we should die for God. Faith in the death of Jesus leads to such faithfulness that we die with Jesus for God.
You’ll immediately notice the double use of “faith.” In James, the author condemns those with first kind of “faith” who fail to combine faith with love to have true, saving faith. But “faith” can also take on the much broader meaning of “trusting faithfulness.” Context matters.
Therefore, when we read Romans with a Reformation bias, wanting “faith” to mean nothing but “accept as true,” we miss much of what is being said and we risk sucking the ethical elements out of the gospel. We, like Abraham, are saved to do righteousness and justice.
And so, we easily see how the scriptures can repeatedly and emphatically teach that faith in Jesus is sufficient to save. Those passage don’t deny the ethical obligations of the Christians at all!
Now, notice that the three elements of “faith” can also be expressed as faith, hope, and love. After all, we only have hope because we trust God’s promises! And Christian ethics derive from the command “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
(Rom 13:8-10 ESV) 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
And so, you see, it all fits together elegantly and beautifully — and that’s an essential test of sound doctrine.
Now, it’s interesting that our Plan of Salvation omits trust as an element. We must repent and we must believe Jesus to be the Christ, but we seem to have overlooked the necessity of trusting in God’s promises — especially in his promise to count our faith as righteousness (Romans 4). Now, it’s kind of implicit in the fact that we expect God to honor his promise to save us when we’re baptized, but in many Churches of Christ the promise to count faith as righteousness is ignored if not outright preached against.
(Gal 3:5-11 ESV) 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith — 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Paul is not speaking only of our initial justification, but our good standing before God between baptism and death. We’ll return to this very troubling omission.
If we enter the Kingdom via faith — which consists of faith (more narrowly defined, of course), hope, and love — how do we leave the Kingdom? If all three of these elements are required to be saved, it would seem that loss of any of these three would be sufficient to fall away. And, indeed, that proves to be true.
* Loss of faith
(1Jo 4:2-3 ESV) 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
A loss of faith in Jesus as the Messiah come in the flesh — a denial that God took on human form — is a heresy John fought against in 1 John and 2 John.
* Loss of love
(1Jo 4:20 ESV) 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
(Heb 10:26-27 ESV) 26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
Now, the first passage obviously teaches the necessity of love. The second doesn’t even mention “love,” just the price of continuing to sin deliberately, elsewhere referred to in Hebrews as rebellion.
But what is sin? Well, we just read Paul’s declaration in Romans 13:8-10 that all God’s ethical commands are found in the command to love. He says the same thing in —
(Gal 5:13-14 ESV) 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
We must pause to reflect closely on the meaning of Hebrews 10:26, which summarizes a teaching the author stresses throughout the book, that rebellion damns. But he’s not saying any sin damns or even that any deliberate sin damns. Rather, the teaching is that continually deliberately sinning damns. He is speaking of a heart blackened with rebellion against God, not the believer who is occasionally overcome by temptation. Thus, he also damns those who rely on grace as a license to deliberately sin.
Notice the necessity of deliberate sin. Sins committed in ignorance are sin, of course, but for those in grace, they are covered. Indeed, Romans 5 teaches that God doesn’t count sins committed in ignorance even against the damned! (Rom 5:13).
* Loss of hope
We’ll take this one up in the next post. It’ll require several words because it’s a teaching even more unfamiliar to members of the Churches of Christ than this lesson.
God knows and has known since before the foundation of the world those individuals who would finally be saved.
The Father has given to Jesus those who are in that number. (John 17:1b,2, 24-25) He keeps those who are his, they don’t keep themselves.
Probably 99.9 percent of church of Christ people believe a person can be saved and then lost. And a large percentage believe that same person can then be saved again, lost again and then saved again.
I, along with maybe a hand full of people believe the opposite. Though few, I am in good company. http://www.edwardfudge.com/gracemails/uncertainty_of_salvation.html.
I once identified scores of Bible promises that cannot possible be true if I’m wrong. Well, the debate will not be settled here. Both sides of the issue can agree that we should live our lives in thankful obedience to the one who died for us and if we do that not one of us on either side has a worry about our eternal future.
When given the opportunity, I teach that we should be baptized … on that point, the Text is clear.
However, when it comes to judging whether someone is “right” with God, whether baptized or not, I choose to leave that judgement to God.
I continue to fail to understand the need so many people have to condemn others who claim to be following God, according to their own conscience.
God is the only judge.
David,
With that thinking would come unity.
That is the message and belief we must constantly teach and preach and hope to have understood.
If only we could!
Its so much easier to have that believed in other places we teach than the church and that is such a shame and so sad..
Royce said, “God knows and has known since before the foundation of the world those individuals who would finally be saved.”
Royce I don’t know that understanding what you read in the bible is required for salvation or not,( actually I don’t believe it is) but where did you get what you said out of scripture. It sure didn’t come from John 17. where Jesus is speaking of the apostles God gave him to help with his work. You could make an argument that he was speaking of all Christians if it were not for one small defining verse in his prayer that those of your belief seem to overlook, by carelessness or on purpose I don’t know. But it knocks the legs right out from under your stool.
Jhn 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Do you still believe Jesus said this whole elaborate plan was worthless/ not needed, that those who are not predestined have no chance of being saved.
David said, “When given the opportunity, I teach that we should be baptized … on that point, the Text is clear.”
I don’t see where scripture says ” we should be baptized” I believe it says we are to follow Jesus, therefore we “must be baptized” and we must insist on it as Jesus did.
If you want to pick at words, Laymond, “who are you to judge another’s servant?”
You’re avoiding the point of my post. I’m not disputing doctrine on baptism. I disputing the proper role of those who judge the faith of others.
David, I believe words are what we live by, anyway that is what Jesus said. and the way we use them determines their meaning. I am not going to Judge anyone Jesus has already determined what will do that , I believe he said we will be judged by words. So yeah, I do pick my words, I plead guilty.
Well Jay, it appears as though you have given more credit to “your readers” than they actually desrve. For. You wrote:
“Everyone — the readers, me, Garrett — all agree that faith in Jesus and repentance are boundaries of the Kingdom. We further agree that baptism is a boundary marker, but disagree as to just how scrupulous someone’s adherence to the practice of baptism must be in order for God to save.”
It is more than obvious the many of your most zealous readers (and commentors) do not believe that “baptism is a boundary marker” at all. In fact, as I write this, EVERY ONE of the guys who have commented on this very thread (saving Laymond) all here deny that baptism is any real “boundary marker” at all. Just ask them….
No, Hank, that’s not the question — at least for me — the question is who enforces the boundary? God or you?
I think it’s God.
But David, if God teaches that baptism is a “boundary marker” (and he has), we will you ignore it and consider people your brothers and sisters in Christ who have not been baptized?
Or do you not?If God has declared a certain thing, why will you brush it aside and treat a one as your brother when God declares the same is on the other side of the boundary marker you claim to believe in?
Do you honestly believe that baptism is a boundary marker like Jay assumed you do? If so, then you must be willing to admit that whoever is not baptized, are not in the kingdom. You have to pick a postition here. Or. Be inconsistent and contadict yourself.
I’ve already stated what I believe about baptism. What I don’t believe is that I’m the judge or guardian of doctrine.
God did not save me in order that I would be come the judge of someone else’s salvation.
My responsibility is to love others, the way Jesus loved me. In response to that, I will forgive, as best I can, everyone of everything (remember the 70×7 line), teach others about Jesus when I have the opportunity, and leave the judging to God.
I was relieved of a great burden, when I finally discovered, I’m neither judge of, nor ultimately responsible for any person’s salvation.
David, it is not that you used the word “should” instead of “must” that gives both Hank and I the impression that you don’t believe baptism is necessary to become a member of the “church” It is the whole thought you project . You will teach baptism if you get the opportunity— seems to me, when you meet someone who is not baptized, the opportunity has presented itself.
In my experience, which is certainly limited (by definition), when people understand the gospel about Jesus, baptism has never been an issue to which they objected.
But nor do I think baptism is the first question to ask. You may be correct, that I do not subject people I meet to a doctrinal inquisition to insure they believe everything as I believe it.
I believe doctrinal error is as forgivable as any other kind of error. And that view is just another reason I choose to leave the judging to God.
God will be the judge of my heart, and yours, and everyone else’s. I want to be as forgiving as Jesus was and as loving as God is.
It’s a struggle.
That’s fine David. Just know that we can all see you trying to have your cake and eat it too. My only point here is that you obviously do .not really believe that baptism is a boundary to the kingdom. Jay was wrong and you (and many others here) represent proof of that.
You providing a good example of what I seek to avoid, Hank. Judging what I believe, when all you have is a few words on a blog.
You are not in an adequate position, or have adequate knowledge, to judge what I believe. Or, whether I agree or disagree with what Jay wrote.
[deleted]
Hank,
Watch your choice of words. No personal attacks will be allowed.
Hank, I’m really confused by your comments. We all agree that faith, repentance, and baptism are boundary markers. We all also agree that perfect faith and perfect repentance are not boundary markers. Some of us say perfect baptism is not a boundary marker either, others of us say it is. That’s where the disagreement lies. That was the whole point of Jay’s previous post. He’s merely transitioning from that in his first paragraph above.
The question is whether these are real questions. Real question deserve real answers; but if such questions are asked with an answer such as “OF COURSE these won’t harm our salvation!” then we don’t really discuss them.
Our answers are to be found in the Bible. It’s as simple as that:
Q: But what happen after he steps out of the baptistry?
A: Teach them to obey/observe all that Christ has commanded (Mat 28:20)
Q: What if an organ is playing?
A: Then an organ is playing – there are no organs mentioned in either the OT or NT. So the scriptures are silent concerning organs. Whatever we make of this silence …
Q: What if communion isn’t served for another 90 days?
A: And why only once a week? The first church of Christ in Jerusalem – and following their example many churches in the early days – had daily communion (Acts 2:46-47). Weekly communion is not a command, but an example that is as much confirmed as daily communion. Less than what is exemplified in the scriptures is always insufficient.
Q:What if his congregation doesn’t wear a “scriptural” name?
A: Then we have a situation as in Corinth (1Co 1-3). Bad and wrong as this is, they are still a church of Christ as the Corinthians still were.
Q: Is he damned, faith, repentance, and baptism notwithstanding?
A: If we willfully sin we will be in trouble (Heb 10:26). But on the other hand all of these differences are also a part of our growth in faith and knowledge – we will always be incomplete (Eph 4:11-16)
See, Jay it is not that difficult; and I really dont think we will ever understand these topics, as long as we paint he conc´servatives as black as possible in order to make the light of progressivism shine. Let’s hold fast to Christ and His Word without belittling or fighting the other party.
Alexander
Ao says,
“Hank, I’m really confused by your comments. We all agree that faith, repentance, and baptism are boundary markers.”
But really, you don’t (or you don’t understand what the term “boundary marker” implies).
Are you willing to admit that all sinners who are not baptized are not in the kingdom?
If not, then you DO NOT agree with Jay when he says that “we all agree that baptism is a boundary marker to the kingdom of God.”
Truth be told, I suspect that most of the people here (at least of those that submit comments), do not agree with what Jay has asserted.
We generally ask a person certain questions before baptizing: Do they believe Jesus is the Son of God,that he died for their sins, was buried, and that he rose from the dead? And then we ask for their good confession, “Jesus is Lord.” That’s a pretty good summary of what we expect from a person in order to be baptized into Christ.
So, if leaving Christ means crossing that same boundary inthe other direction, it would involve losing faith (ie, ceasing to believe those basic gospel facts in some sort of “permanent” way), or deciding to stop submitting to Jesus as Lord.
Sure, Hank. Only those who are baptized into Christ will be in the Kingdom of God.
Hank —
Even if I agree with you that baptism is a cut-and-dry boundary, then I imagine we’d immediately disagree on the fact that my baptism isn’t “perfect” enough for you.
Will you accept my infant baptism? Will you accept my Baptist baptism (understanding of saved before baptism)?
If you accept, fine. If you don’t accept, then you are now saying that baptism isn’t a boundary marker — *perfect* baptism (however you interpret the bible to define that) is a boundary marker.
JMF wrote:
“Even if I agree with you that baptism is a cut-and-dry boundary, then I imagine we’d immediately disagree on the fact that my baptism isn’t “perfect” enough for you.”
But, you don’t agree, so all the other nonesense is irrelevant. And all this talk about “perfect baptism” is just silly.
Alexander,
The conservatives, on the whole, do not agree with what you just wrote. Around here, instrumental music is argued to be a salvation issue by many. That’s the position of nearly every conservative print periodical. It’s the announced position of the Bible faculty of Freed-Hardeman University.
I can’t speak to the situation in Europe, but in the US, the conservatives continue to damn and disfellowship those who don’t kowtow to the prohibitions they find in the silences of the scriptures.
I greatly appreciate that you agree with me on those points, but that means, as I generally use the term, you are not a conservative, because you aren’t conservative on the “marks of the church” or CENI issues. And I say that even though you find commands in the scriptures that I don’t find. Even though we disagree on a number of issues, we don’t damn each other — and that makes you a progressive in my mind. (Even if you don’t want to wear the label.)
Indeed, if the Churches of Christ would adopt your attitude, most of the division would no longer exist — even though we’d all still disagree on many issues.
Jay,
Will you at least admit that you were way off the mark in claiming that all of the readers here agree that baptism is a boundary marker to the kingdom? That was a very surprising statement considering how that most of the people who comment here deny and refuse to treat baptism as ANY type of a boundary marker.
It seems as though you are giving WAY too much credit to your (our) non conservative brethren. Making untrue statements regarding them and then refusing to hold their feet to the fire when such becomes clear. Rather, you seem to prefer pushing forward in nailing the conservatives for actually doing the very thing you claim that “we all” are doing, and should be doing.
Having said that, perhaps I am missing something? What did you mean by the term “boundary marker” when you wrote that. “We all agree that baptism is a boundary marker to the kingdom”?
Thanks
Hank,
According to the website of the Southern Baptist Churches,
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
Ask any Baptist (or any other Zwinglian-influenced believer) if the moment of salvation should be marked by baptism, he’d most assuredly say yes! He just wouldn’t agree that the believer is un-saved between coming to faith and baptism. But Baptists insist that their salvation be marked, symbolized, or signified by baptism.
Just so, those in the Churches of Christ, all infant baptizers, and all other non-Zwinglians would consider baptism the very moment of salvation. But the salvation comes from God via the Spirit at the moment of baptism. The water is still symbolic, but it’s also the time God chooses to baptize. The water does not save, of course, but is symbolic (a mark of) our participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It’s a symbol, but more than a symbol. Of course, it is God who spiritually incorporates us into Christ’s body in a mystical union that allows us to share in his victory over death as well as his mission on earth.
You see, both camps would think of baptism as a boundary marker. We in Churches of Christ just think the marker is exactly on the boundary, whereas the Baptists see the marker as not necessarily exactly on the boundary it marks.
I grew up in the Baptist Church, and anyone who said they desired to be a follower of Christ, said they repented of their sins and said that they confessed Jesus as Lord, who then refused to be baptized would promptly be sent back to their seats after being told that they obviously did not understand what Confessing Christ as Lord meant. A person who claims to have faith in Jesus, but who’s first action after confessing that faith refuses to be baptized has no understanding of what submitting oneself to the Sovereign God means. Baptist and CofC have about 30 feet apart. Baptist when one agrees to submit to baptism, and C of C when they actually emerge from the water.
Thanks, Johnny,
I’m squarely in the camp with Alexander Campbell and David Lipscomb, who stoutly maintained that baptism as taught by the Baptist Church is sufficient, despite the imperfection of the doctrine. Indeed, Campbell branded those who demanded that Baptists be re-baptized “heretics” because they divided the church that denying a place to those who have faith in Jesus and a perfectly sufficient baptism!
Walter Scott was sent as a missionary to teach the Five Step Plan of Salvation by (are you ready?) the Mahoning Baptist Association! (http://www.christianchronicler.com/History2/walter_scott.html) Most churchs in the association were Baptist in theology. Campbell’s church was, of course, somewhat different. Fortunately, those Baptists were willing to fellowship Campbell! (who was never baptized for remission of sins. Neither was Lipscomb.)
It wasn’t until Austin McGary began teaching that Baptists must be rebaptized in the Firm Foundation (which he founded in 1884, well after Campbell’s death) that that view gained much traction in the Churches of Christ. He was a controversialist (http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/mcgary-on-rebaptism-reason-to-divide/, for example). For many years, his views were referred to as the “Texas heresy” — but later the Gospel Advocate adopted his views (when Foy Wallace took the editorship, if memory serves) and the original view was soon forgotten by most. Indeed, considering a Baptist baptism as sufficient was itself deemed heretical by many by the 1950s and even today.
Amazing, isn’t it, how my conservative brothers revere and praise men such as Campbell and Lipscomb in one breath and then damn them to hell in the next.
Jay,
With all due respect, you are still avoiding the question.
You said that “we all agree that baptism is a boundary marker to the the kingdom”. Didn’t you? If so, doesn’t that mean that that the unbaptized are outside of the kingdom??? Are you willing to affirm as much?
Please explain what you meant by “boundary marker”. Did you mean that all of the un-baptized are outside of the kingdom?
If not, what did you mean when you wrote “boundary marker”? Do you really believe that baptism is a “boundary marker”? Because if if you do, then you must believe that all of the un-baptized are lost…..
Please clarify.
Of course there are other kinds of Baptists as well. Free Will Baptists are very close to us on baptism and other things as well. That “free will” thing makes them a lot less inclined to reject the biblical purpose of baptism as “salvation by works.”
And there are many more types of Baptists. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_sub-denominations
Isn’t the real boundary marker of a person being in the Kingdom or not whether they are living by the Spirit? If a person tries to live a life acceptable to God without the Spirit and therefore by their own Spirit, they will surely fail. Now God can pour out His Spirit on whomever He pleases but the one sure time it is given to a person is at their baptism. It becomes a bit more difficult to define that boundary marker when the possession of the Spirit is the boundary marker because although the Spirit does leave His mark on a person, His mark isn’t a wet head but rather a changed Spirit.
I associate every week with a group of people. All of them consider themselves to have been baptized although some of them were not baptized by immersion. If questioned about baptism by immersion, I defend it and explain it. But, I see the evidences of the Spirit in the lives of these unimmersed persons and I accept them as my brothers. It may turn out I was wrong but I’ve done my best to explain my views on baptism by immersion and it seems unloving to now just turn my backs on them and tell them despite all the evidence to the contrary that they aren’t saved. I assure you that my doing that would not change their minds about their baptism… it would just alienate us.
Hank,
A boundary marker and a boundary are two closely related but different things. As noted in my previous comment, a boundary marker does not always sit directly on the boundary. But sometimes it does. I continue to hold the statement to be accurate.
I can’t answer your question without you defining your terms. In particular, when you refer to the “un-baptized,” to whom do you refer?
Doug,
I have to agree. John the Baptist told us that he will baptize with water whereas the Messiah will baptize with Spirit.
The text says “with Spirit.” I don’t understand how our baptismal theology got rewritten to take the Spirit out of the equation!
Barton W. Stone would have agreed with you, as he considered “fire unity” — unity from the shared Spirit — the highest and only form of unity that would last.
Doug,
AMEN and AMEN!
Jay, read what you wrote:
“Everyone — the readers, me, Garrett — all agree that faith in Jesus and repentance are boundaries of the Kingdom. We further agree that baptism is a boundary marker, but disagree as to just how scrupulous someone’s adherence to the practice of baptism must be in order for God to save.”
Notice that you said that we all agree that baptism is a boundary marker to the kingdom. You did in fact say as much in writing the above, right?
But, now you want to talk about how “a boundary marker does not always sit directly on the boundary. But sometimes it does.” Huh? So basically, by “boundary marker” you mean something that does not necessarily mark where a boundary is? Do you believe that faith in Jesus and repentance are “boundary markers” to the kingdom? Doesn’t that mean that before and without faith in Jesus and/or repentance, one cannot be in the kingdom? Or by “boundary”, did you mean “not a boundary”?! You are the one who made the statement. And when you said that “we all agree” that baptism is “a boundary marker”, why would we think that you meant that in any way different than you did regarding faith and repentance?
You ask to whom I refer when I speak of the “un-baptized”. By the “un-baptized” I mean those who have not been baptized.
Let me ask you, when you say “we all agree that baptism is a boundary marker to the kingdom”, what is it YOU mean by “baptism”? Is it not those who have been baptized.
I have a feeling that you are going to next say that there are scores and scores of people who are “baptized”, even though they have never even been baptized? Like those who believe and teach that as soon as one has faith in Christ, he or she is at that point “baptized” even though they have not yet been baptized. Is that so?
Does the boundary marking baptism of which you say “we all agree” at least necessitate water?
I mean, you write about “boundary markers” that don’t actually mark any real boundaries and now you seek to muddy the waters regarding baptism. I say that because we all thought you had water in mind when you wrote that “we all agree” that baptism was a boundary marker. I thought that ever since Paul penned Ephesians, that there is only “one baptism” which remains?
And, you say that I need to define my terms?
At least answer this: do you believe that there are members of the church who have never been baptized with (or in, or having anything to do with) water?
Do you believe that there are people in the church who after putting their faith in Jesus, were “baptized” without even realizing that they were?
That seems like a fair and simple question and I believe we deserve to know how you would answer that.
Hank, I’ll let Jay handle the question you asked him. In the meantime, could you please answer this question for me:
Do you believe that there are people in the church who, after being baptized in water for the forgiveness of sins, received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit without even realizing that they did?
Do you believe there have been members of churches of Christ who have been “scripturaly baptized” who are not saved?
Ao asks,
“Do you believe that there are people in the church who, after being baptized in water for the forgiveness of sins, received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit without even realizing that they did?”
I believe that after being baptized in water for the forgiveness of sins they received the “gift of the Holy Spirit”. I believe that the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians in the same exact manner that Jesus dwells in us now and in the same exact way that Jesus dwelled in his disciples before the day of Pentecost. I don’t see a need to believe that different persons of the Godhead dwell within us in different ways.
But if you want me to answer whether or not I believe that people have received “the gift of the Holy Spirit” without even realizing it, I suppose that has happened. But, the difference between being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is clear.
1. Baptism is a command we are to obey – and we can’t obey the command to be baptized without realizing it.
2. The gift of the Holy Spirit is a promise that God gives – and it is possible to receive a blessing (promise) of God without realizing we have been given it.
Royce asks:
“Do you believe there have been members of churches of Christ who have been “scripturaly baptized” who are not saved?”
Yes. I know that there are.
Interesting, Hank. So baptism is a command to obey. And we can receive the blessings of baptism without even realizing it, because it’s God who gives the blessings and we who do the obeying.
Acts 2:38 says that when we repent and are baptized, God blesses us with the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. So by your logic, as long as someone is baptized because they’re obeying a command, God will give them those blessings, even if they don’t realize it.
If that’s the case, then that means that virtually all Baptists who were baptized out of obedience to God obtained forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit when they were baptized, whether they realize it or not. Right?
What’s confused me about the conservative CoC interpretation is that we demand that candidates for baptism know that God will forgive them of their sins when they’re baptized, but we do not demand that they know that God will give them the gift of the Holy Spirit when they’re baptized. Indeed, we shy away from even mentioning the gift of the Holy Spirit and its association with baptism because conservatives have numerous disagreements among each other as to what the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is. You see, even we conservatives allow an imperfect understanding of the effects of baptism, because we know that God is powerful enough to do what he says he’ll do.
To be honest, I have absolutely no idea how you can believe your #1 and #2 without conceding that forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit must be treated the same way–God gives them when people obey him in baptism, whether they know it or not.
“To be honest, I have absolutely no idea how you can believe your #1 and #2 without conceding that forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit must be treated the same way–God gives them when people obey him in baptism, whether they know it or not.”
When or where did I refuse to concede as much? I have not been arguing that those who are baptized to obey God (immersed in water after expressing faith in Christ) do not all receive God promises. But, what I HAVE been arguing here is that nobody has received those same promises that have not been baptized (immersed in water after expressing faith in Christ). Is that fair?
So again, I have no problem with the idea that there are actually tons of people in the church who associate themselves with the Baptists. Now, what God will do to them for denying and rejecting what the Bible really teaches about baptism and exchanging as much with the “sinner’s prayer” is up to God. I do know that the Bible clearly teaches there will be many in the church who will be lost as well.
But, this discussion has to do with those who have not been baptized at all. Can they still be members of the church? Or, is baptism an actual “boundary marker” to the kingdom? Are the untold millions of people the Baptists teach to be saved after praying the SP and without being baptized actually still lost?
Ao, do you believe that the promise(s) God makes to those who believe and are baptized will be given to those who believe but are not (yet) baptized?
I have answered every question you have asked of me (as far as I know)…
To obtain the unity which progressives like Leroy and Jay claim to be after, they must either:
1. Deny the fact that baptism is point at which God adds penitent sinners to the church.
OR
2. Refuse to admit the fact that the baptism God commands us to administer to penitent sinners is immersion.
Because, as soon as they acknowledge the fact that baptism is the point at which God adds penitent sinners to the church AND acknowledge the fact that the baptism God commands us to administer to penitent sinners — they will immediately isolate the vast majority of the “Christians” of whom they seek to unite.
Because as soon as they acknowledge the fact that baptism is the point at which God adds penitent sinners to the church AND acknowledge the fact that the baptism God commands us to administer to penitent sinners is immersion — they will immediately isolate the vast majority of the “Christians” of whom they seek to unite.
After Acts 2:38:
the gift of God (holy Spirit) is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23.
Exactly
Hank,
The message I’m receiving from you is that those who were “baptized” in a manner other than immersion are “unbaptised”. That’s the boundary that you wish to impose.
Suppose your mother, who professed faith and trust in Jesus and exhibited all the Christian virtues and many of the gifts of the Spirit, was not an immersed believer and is now dead. How difficult would it be for you to pronounce her outside the boundary of the Church and therefore unsaved? That’s what your boundary would force. How would you feel about someone else who had that belief and told you of that belief. We just don’t need to go to that place, in my opinion. You might have that belief but when it comes to soul saving, you will lose souls in professing that belief as your “boundary”.
AJ and Hank, the gift Peter talks about in Acts 2:38 surely can’t be the same gift Paul speaks of in Romans 6:23, how do I know? I have been told by the “New church of Christ” many times I didn’t know what I was talking about, how else could they be indwelled by “The Holy Ghost” if not through baptism.
So absolutely, Peter’s gift is different than Paul’s gift. has to be.
Although I still agree with you.
Doug, If your mother or mine died in willful disobedience to God, I would be sorry, but the bible says, what it says.
The rules don’t change just because your kinfolks broke them, sorry.
Another “if” scenario– If your brother committed murder , and you were the judge he was brought before, and you dismissed the case on grounds of kinship, how long do you suppose you would remain a judge.
That is why we are not the judge, we have human failings, God does not.
Doug,
If the Bible teaches that sins are forgiven after a person believes and is baptized, and if my mom hadn’t been baptized at the point of her death, I would have to say that she died without her sins being forgiven.
Which is why it is so wrong for people and churches to go around actively denying what the Bible actually teaches regarding the purpose of baptism. Which is also why it is so sinful to replace the Biblical teachings on baptism with the made up sinners prayer.
It says what it says, whether our moms have obeyed or not…
Exactly. But… if we teach a made-up doctrine, that’s our sin, not the sin of those we teach.
We can’t offer God’s promise on terms different from what God stated. But that doesn’t mean God can’t grant the same gift to some who didn’t meet those terms. We can’t go around teaching that he will do that… but neither can we go around teaching that he won’t.
Laymond and Hank,
I stated that the Mother “professed faith and trust in Jesus and exhibited all the Christian virtues and many of the gifts of the Spirit”. There was no willful disobedience exhibited. The only difference between this Mom and you was that she was probably raised and taught in a different religious environment.
The main attribute of a Christian should be a loving nature and I’m sorry to say that the words of both of your posts don’t convey that nature. You words and positions force people to take a position that is necessarily unloving if placed as a condition of fellowship. I, along with you, teach immersion baptism but I allow the Jesus to set the boundary and declare final judgement. Your willingness to make the statments such as you just made are a clear indictment on the brand of Church of Christ that feels that it must declare “boundaries” and are why some people are now wondering if that Church can be saved. When this boundary is put in place along with all the other boundaries that represent the multiple divisions within the Church of Christ… one must wonder if the Church of Christ can be saved.
Alan, I do believe Paul addressed this problem, when he was speaking of the liar, lying for good. how can God be the perfect judge if he makes exceptions.?
If God doesn’t make exceptions, explain the covenant terms on which the thief on the cross was saved.
“Your willingness to make the statments such as you just made are a clear indictment on the brand of Church of Christ that feels that it must declare “boundaries”…”
And your willingness to make statements such as you just made are a clear indictment on the brand of Chuch of Christ that feels that it must declare “NO BOUNDARIES”…
And when and where the book of God spells out particular boundaries, “your brand” is super-fast to talk about all of “the exceptions” God should be willing to make. Especially for our moms.
But, don’t fault us for expecting God to actually go by the boundaries he himself has proclaimed as the truth and standard.
And what “execption” do you believe it is that God made concerning the thief anyways? I don’t believe God made any exception with/for him at all.
He did not meet the conditions of the Law of Moses. And he was not baptized in the name of Jesus for forgiveness of his sins. Is there some third covenant you have in mind that he satisfied?
Maybe the conservatives are not conservative enough for me 😉
Indeed, I think we could meet somewhere in the middle of the road without damning each other and allowing one another the freedom and time to learn and to grow.
One observation from an outsider: In your struggle to free yourself from some extreme positions among the conservative camp, you/the progressives tend to go to the opposite extreme. And this makes all of our discussions a bit difficult, because your main focus seems to be to refute conservative ideas, but you are slow to realize that there is a “moderate” position as well. Sometimes I shake my head or scream inside my heart, because we actually want the same, but since we are coming from opposite directions we also head into opposing directions. I come from a Grace-Faith-Only theology and realized the flaws and errors therein, and I see you heading to where I come from. To be sure, I have no desire to join the conservative camp in their exaggerations; but I hold fast to essentials that you seem to let go of (such as unity by dying to denominationalism, the importance of the 7 ones including baptism, the role of women in the church, …).
I think I understand quite well why we disagree so often, and I am very unhappy about it …
Alexander
Please read John 13:35 and decide for yourself if you want to be a disciple who, because of self imposed boundaries, fails to love or act in a loving manner to another one of Jesus’ sheep. Or even worse, a disciple whose self imposed boundaries cause a sheep to go astray. There are many former CofC people who are struggling spiritually because of these CofC inflicted wounds. You can read their stories on various websites on the internet. I expect that their stories will be heard again on that great and terrible day of the Lord.
Great point.
I once heard of a unique debating / arguing approach where each of the two sides takes turns trying to write statements the other side would agree with. That might at least lead to better understanding of each other and better respect for the integrity of the opposing side. And it might lead to broader areas of agreement.
Hank,
You set up a classic false dichotomy — creating a false choice between two extremes. It’s a device that’s been used to reach many false conclusions in 20th Century Church of Christ theology, but it is, of course, a logical fallacy. Indeed, to set up your two supposedly exclusive choices, you must ignore what I’ve written here.
You see, another choice is that (a) God fully intends that penitent believers become saved at the moment of baptism and (b) God fully intends that we administer baptism by immersion to believers in Jesus who come to him with penitence, but (c) God’s grace will inevitably save those who are imperfectly baptized but who come to him with genuine faith in Jesus and submission to him as Lord but who fail to have a perfect baptism out of ignorance.
I’ll not repeat the many scriptural grounds for believing (c) here as they will be found in the main text. And more are to come.
Jay:
Welcome to classic seventeenth century Catholic theology and sola fides sufficit. You are there. Goodbye apostolic teaching; hello arranging Scripture to fit our day’s desire for a mystical “everyone is included.” That is exactly what the response was to the Protestant Reformation by the Catholic Counter-Reformation.
In short let’s forget about immersion as the certain teaching of the apostles and let’s assume that the Lord’s grace will cover every expression of faith (including no baptism). Right? Sola fides suffcit. We cannot know that… though I, like you, desire such to be the case.
Jay, you are sounding less and less like a Reformer….
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
It seems like my more conservative brothers, which I believe includes yourself, are more interested in judging the salvation of others rather than “loving one another, as Jesus loved us.”
Is there something Jesus would not forgive you of?
I’m content to let God be the judge, why do you insist on rendering that judgement yourself?
David:
Like so much of this discussion, it seems you, Jay and others work very hard to allow only two options here: either “judgement” (i.e. “Everyone is going to hell if they do not believe what I believe.” Right?) or sola fides sufficit (i.e. Everyone is fine if they believe in Jesus; sola fides sufficit. Right?).
Not the only options in the discussion. So please stop trying to “box” my historical example and posts so that they will “fit” into the (crafted) progressive vs. conservative discussion better.
I.e. Do you believe people can be spiritually deceived in our day? Is all that talk by the apostles about a spiritual war and the threat of false teaching pure nonsense? Do we automatically render eternal judgment when we talk to people about their being deceived? Seems to me Paul’s letters reveal an option re this discussion which has received too little attention.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
David:
I wanted to post as a separate note. Let’s take my last paragraph and apply it in Jay’s direction for a moment. Has Jay been wrong to note the spiritual deception of legalism that any congregation can face? Has he automatically “judged” people by raising that issue for discussion? NO.
Then why are my posts “automatic” judgements when I suggest that you and Jay have been urging a different kind of deception?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
Without any doubt, there are people who are spiritually deceived today. You and I may have different views of who those people are. And as is abundantly clear, people of goodwill and good intentions can read the Text and come to different conclusions. So, who is to be the judge of who is spiritually deceived?
You should teach what you understand to be the message God intended for us. I should teach what I believe that message should be. Those who hear us must make a decision about what they will believe. And only God will know who got it correct … At least until the final judgment.
Can it be any other way?
I not find it objectionaable that you seem things differently than I, but I do object to being condemned by any man — because we are all saved by God’s grace alone, whatever the criteria He applies. None of us is worthy of salvation.
please forgive the typos, I’m ping on my iPad
“…because we are all saved by God’s grace alone….”
David, the above statement is just not true. Think about it:
1. If the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared unto all men (which it has – Tit. 2:11)
And
2. We are all saved by God’s grace alone (without anything else required)
Then
3. All men would be saved.
However, there are scores of things the Bible says that saves us, all of which are absolutey required and essential.
Things like – belief, hope, repentance, obedience, baptism, etc.. the Bible just does not teach that we are saved by anything “alone”. It doesn’t
Hank,
Please quote the complete sentence, “we are all saved by God’s grace alone, whatever the criteria He applies”
In my view, if one has a more complete view of grace or faith, it is proper to say we’re saved by God’s grace alone. For example, even if baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation, it is only by God’s grace that something as silly as immersion in water would create a righteous relationship with God and result in our salvation.
so, however you understand the criteria for salvation, if God was not gracious, those criteria would not exist and neither you nor I could be saved.
With that background, it’s perfectly proper to say, we’re saved only by God’s grace.
Bruce,
I regret if I left the impression I think all your posts are automatically “judgmental.” They are not.
However, many do seem to focus on drawing a line between the righteous and unrighteous in a way, which, at least to me, is not consistent with the Text.
“No one can saw Jesus is Lord, except by the Spirit.”
Many in Protestant denominations say Jesus is Lord, and by their actions and lives, appear from all external criteria they are seeking to follow Jesus.
When you seek to draw a line of salvation between your doctrinal understandings and people like I just referred to, it does, to me, seem to be seeking to condemn them and negate a relationship with God, that neither you nor I can concretely say they have or do not have.
The Methodists, Baptists, et al, have the same Text as we. They see different things somethings that we see. It’s not a threat to my beliefs that they disagree with me, any more than it’s a threat to my beliefs that you disagree with me.
But I also think it’s more important to do two things: [1] reach those who disbelieve (as opposed to those who disagree doctrinally), and [2] love one another the way Jesus loved us.
David:
I appreciate your candor regarding the issue of spiritual deception. I am more optimistic regarding people reading the Scriptures together. I believe that people can do find unity.
Let me confirm that I have never condemned (to hell) you or another. That is the Lord’s business. However… neither am I willing to act out Leroy Garrett’s suggestion and welcome all to lead our worship assemblies, etc. anymore than Paul would have welcomed Judaizers to have full-reign of early congregational pulpits.
That is why I am speaking up within Jay’s chain of essays. I believe he and Leroy Garrett face the danger of embracing the very thing the Reformers, for example, were attempting to challenge: “faith and good intentions are enough.” It was deception in the seventeenth century; it is deception today. In summary it is not what the apostles taught.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
Whether I agree or disagree with an obscure 17th century Catholic writer is quite beside the point — unless your argument is that any agreement with any Catholic on any premise damns. The issue remains whether I agree with scripture, and I invite you to return to the scriptures for this discussion.
Bruce,
As I recently posted, challenging a participant’s honesty is not permitted. Many would read “it is deception today” as suggesting an intent to deceive. I have no problem with you alleging that I or any other mortal is in error. I’ll not allow any intimation that challenges the integrity of participants here.
Jay:
You do a good job of avoiding a question put to you — that is saturated with Scripture (as Alexander points out). So, please stop with the “return to the scriptures” comment.
As to your charge…. “It is deception today” is a challenge to honesty? Whoa, brother! Is it a challenge to honesty when you argue that legalism is a spiritual wrong, spiritually deceptive? (and you are correct) Are you calling legalists dishonest by their teaching in those essays? No, have not seen you do such. Because the two things do not automatically connect. A person can teach with sincerity and be deceived by Satan in what they are doing. Right? So… please do not suggest that the two are automatically connected in my posts either, oh editor of the weblog. You are way off base here, Jay.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas