Anne asked,
I’m kind of wondering why we don’t just cut baptism out of the Bible since it evidently isn’t necessary for anything.
I’m responding to Anne’s question here because it reaches to the core of what grace means. The same questions have been asked going to back to Paul, who repeatedly had to explain why his view of grace doesn’t lead to lawlessness and license, that is, antinomianism.
And this is one of the key forks in the road between conservative and progressive theology — the conservatives insisting that the progressives repeal commands when they find grace for violating those commands.
I’ve concluded that the differences in approach to the scripture reflect two attitudes toward human nature and the work of God in the human heart. You see, the conservatives assume that Christians will not do good unless there are penalties for not so doing. And since the only penalty that matters is hell, then any error is damnable. After all, if violating X isn’t damnable, why bother to obey and why not just cut it right out of the Bible?!
It has a certain logic, but God is higher and wiser than human logic. After all, he made us, and he knows that we are not really logical beings. Rather, we actually behave based on our hearts.
Therefore, in Romans 5:13, Paul writes that “sin is not counted where there is no law.” In other words, ignorance of the law really is an excuse! Of course, Paul spends chapters 1 and 2 demonstrating that we all know enough of God’s law to be justly damned. But we’re damned only by that portion of the law we’re accountable for. (This is covered in detail in the “God is Not Fair” series.)
Now, let’s consider how grace works in action. Why does someone in grace bother to obey God?
1. Because he responds to God’s love with love for God. It’s the reason we adults obey and serve our elderly parents — not for fear of a whipping or even to earn an inheritance, but out of love.
2. Because he responds to God’s love with gratitude. See 1.
3. Because God plants his Spirit in his heart, transforming his heart “both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phi 2:13 ESV).
4. Because, by God’s Holy Spirit, God “will put [God’s] laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts” (Heb 8:10 ESV).
5. Because if he deliberately continues to sin, he’ll fall from grace (Heb 10:26-27). But sins committed in ignorance or by occasional weakness do not damn.
A husband and wife love one another deeply. She asks him to take out the garbage. He is bigger than her. He is financially independent. He knows she’ll never, ever divorce him for not taking out the garbage. And yet he takes out the garbage. Why?
Well, he loves her so much that her pleasure becomes his pleasure. He enjoys the chance to make her happy. Sure, sometimes it’s a pain in the neck and he does it out of duty or fear of making her mad, but most of the time, it’s to see her smile.
Why does he care about how she feels? He’s not her! Well, because that’s the nature of love — real, honest-to-God love, not the counterfeit kind some churches sell — you know, the kind where if you don’t love God he’ll torture you forever! If your only reason for loving God is to avoid hell, well, the only person you really love is you.
If I worship only to avoid eternal damnation, then the center of worship is me. I’m not honoring God. I’m acting solely out of self-interest — which is not worship.
Here’s the amazing irony of Christianity. God cannot command love and worship. Nor can I command my children to love me. Well, I can try, but the reality is that if they only come to visit out of fear, they don’t love me. I’m just deluding myself.
Of course, God does state exactly that command. And when my kids were two years old, I taught them to love by command as well. It’s appropriate for children. And some days, they only acted out of fear! But that’s the nature of childrearing — you build a temporary scaffolding of discipline in hopes that they’ll soon not only obey but have the hearts you want — without the scaffolding.
Indeed, if your 30-year old son has to be commanded to love you, well, it just doesn’t work on adults. Too late
Just so, God commands love, but that for the immature. He expects that we’ll learn to love him, not out fear of hell, but for who he is, what he’s done for us, and what he’s doing for us — for his character as revealed in Jesus.
And those who live in a state of grace can see Jesus and God very well, because their hearts are more closely attuned to God’s and Jesus’ hearts. And the deeper we understand them, the more we love them. And the more we love them, the more we obey.
Crazy, isn’t it? Hard to believe, I know, but it’s a testable hypothesis.
Test case: the Baptists.
Southern Baptists uniformly believe in the perseverance of the saints, that is, that all saved people will make it to heaven. In their minds, they cannot fall away. And they believe baptism is an act of obedience not necessary for salvation. And guess what? They still go to church. They still baptize their converts. And they still send missionaries. And do benevolence. And evangelize their neighbors.
Did you ever ask a Baptist why? After all, according to the thinking of many of my Church of Christ brothers, there’s no reason. They should just tear all these commands out of the Bible, since they’re going to heaven anyway. Why on earth obey commands that have no penalties?
Well, because they love Jesus.
(Rom 5:5 ESV) 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
That kind of love comes by the Spirit. And, as I said, from understanding grace, because you can’t really understand God — and appreciate how very much he deserves our love — until you grasp grace.
Test case: my congregation
My church is not perfect, but it’s the church I know best. And I must say that I know that many, many other churches are experiencing the amazing work of God that I see in my church. We have no monopoly on God’s power to transform hearts.
When I moved to Tuscaloosa and joined my congregation in 1975, we were pretty much a mainstream, conservative church. But that changed, and in the 1980s, we experienced many lessons on the Spirit and grace. And the more the church understood those lessons, the more committed and obedient the church became.
It’s now been decades, and we freely preach grace and the Spirit in the pulpit. Grace is in our DNA. And God has had time to work on our hearts. And it shows.
We’ve gone from supporting zero missionaries to six. We’ve gone from no involvement in the lives of the poor to having members move into low-income neighbors so they can serve those communities. An adoption ministry has grown that supports couples adopting domestic and foreign children, including children with Downs Syndrome or HIV positive. And I can think of no greater act of grace than bringing an incurably diseased child into your family just because that’s how much you love God.
I could go on, but I’d quickly become pretty obnoxious as I brag on — not our members — but what God is doing through our members. You see, when we understand the Spirit, we’re able to see God’s hand powerfully at work in the church.
No one figured he’d go to hell if he didn’t adopt a sick child or move to a poor neighborhood. No one “guilted” these members into such radical service. Rather, these fine disciples love God so much that they couldn’t do otherwise.
You see, grace causes people to do more for God than legalism. And it really is for God — not to avoid hell. Grace is a far more powerful motivator. Indeed, the combination of grace with the Spirit is the only combination powerful enough to transform people into the image of Christ.
Amen. It is the grace of God that teaches us to say no to unrighteousness.
Jay, I have heard this statement more times than I can count. ” God is higher and wiser than human logic.” then they go on to explain “God’s Wisdom”
What they should say IMO, ” God is higher and wiser than human logic.” except mine, unless they intend to say what they are teaching, is not logical.
Royce actually the bible says it is a good conscience given by God.
“A husband and wife love one another deeply. She asks him to take out the garbage. He is bigger than her. He is financially independent. He knows she’ll never, ever divorce him for not taking out the garbage. And yet he takes out the garbage. Why?”
Because it is your Job? unless you can get a grandkid to do it . DUH !
God gets to give mercy to anyone he wishes. Both progressive and conservative have trouble with that.
Conservatives struggle with that principle because they want God’s discretion taken out of the formula. It makes them uncertain who is lost. They are certain they are saved and they want to be certain about everyone else too. They prefer a clear cut rule that anyone can apply and that leaves nothing to wonder about.
Progressives struggle with that principle because they don’t want to wonder about any gray areas, too. They want all the people “in the gray area” to be saved. In part they want that because they sometimes think they are in the gray area themselves.
But the truth is that God has complete discretion.
He can have mercy on an unbaptized person if he wishes. And he can withhold mercy from a baptized person if he wishes. His patience is great, but there is a limit. (Jer 15:6)
Bulls Eye !!
Bobby Valentine has a blog called Stoned-Cambell Disciple. His most recent post deal primarily with J.W, McGarvery and his views on the ending verses of Mark’s gospel. Towards the end of the post Bobby writes about McGarvey’s view on baptism. I’ll quote it here and hope you can tell which part is a quote of McGarvery and which part is Bobby. And yes, I do understand that neither McGarvey nor Valentine are inspired in the sense that Mark was.
“Second, it is most fascinating that Jackson uses McGarvey in the manner he did. Why? Because McGarvey did not believe that baptism (immersion) was absolutely, necessarily, essential to salvation on that glorious day of reckoning. He declared this very clearly in the Gospel Advocate in reaction to some he believed were taking extreme views on the issue,
“Dear Bro.:
Replying to yours of the 15th, I have no doubt there are pious persons who have never been immersed. It would be absurd and ridiculous to deny it in the face of what we see and know of thousands of persons living and dead who have exhibited self-sacrificing love of God and man, which puts to shame all common disciples. I have as little doubt that many unimmersed persons will be saved in the final day. It is not necessary in order to contend for scripture teaching on the subject of baptism to take the ground that God has tied his hands and put it out of his power to grant mercy to any who have been misled in regard to that ordinance. He has bound us, but he has not bound himself; except that he is bound to do what he has promised. He has not bound himself to do no more than he has promised. Don’t injure the cause of truth by taking positions which rob God of the power to be merciful.
Yours fraternally,
J.W. McGarvey”
(Gospel Advocate [vol 37 [December 12, 1895], 790).
Now I wonder if McGarvey is one of those “apostate change agents” that Jackson was talking about “brother …” But I think McGarvey has some pretty wise words here. We do not have to become folks who rob God of mercy in order to present the biblical theology of baptism. Baptism is, after all, about God’s mercy and grace — to present it as otherwise is to present an untruth.”
I recommend Valentine’s blog to all here. He has many interesting and insightful posts.
Hesed,
Randall
Randall, excellent comments. McGarvey was a giant in his day, the very embodiment of othodoxy in a cappella churches of Christ of that day, and definitely not a progressive change agent. His comments speak volumes about what has happened in the conservative wing since then.
Well, Jay, I have a hard time finding anyone in this Blog debating this way. But you ignore the “moderate” position by putting folks like me in the “conservative” box – and in the end, you fail to understand my position and almost always miss my point.
The plain fact is: Leroy and you cut out baptism from the “formula of unity” in Eph 4:4-6 in order to have fellowship with Methodists and Presbyterians. And by this you take away from scripture, which one can hardly call a spiritual virtue …
And THAT was Annes’s point if I got it right.It was not about being “ultraconsservative” or the like. It is not about this controversy, but imply about the strnge feeling, that we have to take something out of scripture inorder to create unity.
I you want to be one of the least in the Kingdom, go ahead (Mat 5:19)!
Your “Grace Approach” does not solve the dillemma of unbaptized Presbyterians. They suffer from being misled by a faulty theology, they are in bondage of denominational traditions and thus they are blind and deaf to wht the scripture teaches on baptism. Hard as it may sound: They have heard an insufficient teaching of the Gospel, and therefore – put very carefully – lckl a part of the conditions necessary for salvation. We – who boast to know better – have the obligation to take them aside and explain the way more thoroughly than the Presbyterian theologians – a precedent for this was how Aquila and Priscilla took aside Apollos in Acts 18:24-26
That’s our responsibilty! We do have a better understanding of baptism, and we cannot just do as if we hadn’t just forthe sake of unity – which means: leaving them in their unbaptized state with an uncertain status of salvation (to say the least).
And furthermore: We don’t embrace denominations! They are a result of sin, and therefore Christians sshould repent from the schisms by either: changing an denominational congregation to a Christian congregation, or by leaving the denomination in order to become one with a body of Christians.
But this wide opaen approach to unity is not creating unity, but confirming the schisms. It’s ecumenism.
BTW: I fully Agree with the statement in Randall’s post:
THat’s why I hesitate to make promises beyond what has been enjoined to us in scripture. If the Bible says (and so it does) that we must be baptized for the remission of sins, then so be it. We won’t add to it nor take away from it. God is free to extend his mercy to the above mentioned Presbyterians – but it is not up to us to foresee God’s final word on their (or even our) lives. We are bound by scripture. What you actually do by playing around with such possibilities: You speak where the scriptures are silent and you are silent where the scriptures speak.
Alexander
Alexander, I think you’ve made valid points. Surely we are responsible to teach what we know but that our religious neighbors do not yet understand. I don’t think anything Jay has said contradicts that. Our responsibility is clear. The question is, what will God do in the end with the people we don’t get around to?
As Randall (actually McGarvey) said, God has not bound himself to do no more than he has promised. He may very well give grace to some who have not met the stated conditions. But that doesn’t give us a license to remove baptism from our teaching and practice. God’s prerogative to go beyond what he has promised doesn’t transfer to us. We can only promise what God promised — because, after all, we’re just the messengers.
Alexander said: “The plain fact is: Leroy and you cut out baptism from the “formula of unity” in Eph 4:4-6 in order to have fellowship with Methodists and Presbyterians.”
Thomas and Alexander Campbell had no problem enjoying fellowship with the Presbyterians, even after they were no longer Presbyterians. Many others in the Stone Campbell tradition thought the same way, though some were more narrow.
Why is possible/probable for the CoC/CoC to be okay in spite of (perceived) significant theological faulty thinking and not okay for others to be (perceived) faulty in some of their theological thinking. Are we saved by being theologically correct or are we saved by God, and that, while we were/are still sinners?
This idea of you have to do baptism the right way and for the right reason but can mess up a whole lot of other stuff doesn’t seem in accordance with scripture as a whole.
The Presbyterians and Methodists ARE baptized, just not in what our tribe considers to be the right way and for the right reason.
How do you determine which doctrine a person can be confused about and which one a person may not be confused about? Does scripture say this is a line drawn in the sand, but that is not? Aren’t we all shipwrecked, hopelessly, helplessly lost to the uttermost – “4 But [1] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” From the ESV Bible Online
Hesed,
Randall
abasnar:
You said in part; “They suffer from being misled by a faulty theology, they are in bondage of denominational traditions and thus they are blind and deaf to wht the scripture teaches on baptism. Hard as it may sound: They have heard an insufficient teaching of the Gospel.
Statements like this make me wonder if you know what the gospel is. The gospel is the good news about Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished for ungodly sinners. The gospel is not water baptism. Baptism is “one” response to the gospel. You see, the reason Jay is posting these installments about baptism is that many people have elevated baptism so that some insist a candidate for baptism must have the correct theological understanding of baptism, and have faith in it, to be saved. Essentially, baptism is in competition with Jesus for the affection and trust of those who repent.
Baptism is clearly associated with salvation but it is not the gospel. It has been taught by our most conservative people as the gospel but in truth has become “another gospel” just a surely as the circumcision requirement was another gospel in the churches of Galatia.
We have two clear choices. We can believe that Jesus fully paid for our sins by his sacrificial death, that He himself reconciled us to God, and that no further payment is necessary for God to declare sinners like you and me just, and still himself be just.
Or, we can believe that Jesus almost paid for our sins, that he almost reconciled us to God, that he almost fulfilled all the requirements of the law for us but we must fill in what He did not accomplish by our personal goodness and the act of being immersed. So, salvation in the second case is due to the worth and work of Jesus, good works, and baptism. The result is heresy.
I like Alan’s line that we can’t change the plan, we are just messangers. Even better is Paul’s “we are Christ’s ambassadors, reconcilling the world”
What ambassador can rearrage his nations principles, wishes, etc? Instead we must present God’s word in its best light to the world. Guess what an ambassador must do? Understand what God wants, and how best to present it to the world. That’s why the avoid hellfire is a bad tool for us ambassadors, that’s for the military.
That’s why I like, let’s be baptised like Jesus was, like the Pentecost crowd, like Cornelius, etc. Bury death and rise to life sounds good to me. If we consistantly state our God’s will, and realize He can judge the imperfect responces, misuderstandings, and even His represenitive’s imperfections.
Alexander is right that we must represent the normalitive will of God, i.e. the scriptures as we best understand them, and let God handle the special cases. No ambassador can rewrite his nation’s intent or for the sake of unity (reconcilliation) drop his nation’s requirements, those changes (grace) are for our leader, God, to handle.
Randall it was very kind to make notice of my blog. thank you for that kindness.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
I have to disagree, Royce:
The gospel includes water baptism from the very first pages of the NT.
Baptism is not just “one” response, but THE response to the gospel.
Therefore: Whever cuts out or belittles baptism, cuts out and belittles partofthe gospel.
Alexander
Oh, and another point, Royce:
The only thing Christ called “gospel” was the Kingdom of God – all other aspects of it (such as forgiveness and reconciliation) are to be understood in the light of God’s Kingdom. And no one can see or enter the Kingdom, unless …
And these two aspects of our new birth – water and spirit – are the two aspects of our baptism. That’s how the Early Church always has understood it, anyway; and I agree with them.
Alexander
abasnar,
You believe baptism is not only a response to the gospel but the ONLY response to the gospel and in fact IS the gospel.
Do you believe Peter did not preach the gospel to the 3,000 + who heard and were cut to the heart and and asked “what must we do?” He didn’t preach baptism, he preached Jesus.
Paul said the gospel is of “first importance” thereby leaving everything else of less importance. Paul said this is the gospel I preached, you received it, you believed it and in it you now stand.. He went on to describe it in detail. Here are his words, I’m sure you know them well.
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”
The gospel is about Jesus and his work.
You say that baptism is the ONLY response to the gospel. Wow, you aren’t serious are you? Believing is not a response, repenting is not a response, confession, is not a response, loving God and others is not a response, meeting with other Christians is not a response, observing the Lord’s Supper to remember the Lord is not a response?
In your view is Jesus any more important than water baptism?
absnar,
You should have kept reading in John 3. Jesus told Nicodemus how to be born again.
“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16″For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world(AF) to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Royce, you’re employing the “last verse read” argument. Sure you can keep reading from John 3:5 to John 3:18. That doesn’t refute 3:5. Both are equally true, regardless of which one is read last.
Alan, You are making the traditional coc conclusion that “water” in vs 5 is baptism. It could be but in context is not likely.
It seems to me (and many Bible scholars, which I am not) that Jesus went on to explain the meaning in the following verses.
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
He is contrasting natural birth and the new birth. He goes on to say,
“Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Clearly, the new birth (being born again) is by the Spirit. In keeping with this view and John’s understanding consider his statement in the 1st chapter.
11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:11-13)
Those who “received Him” are the same ones who “believed in his name”. They were born (again) not by natural birth (blood/water), nor because of human nature, nor of human will, but of God.
About 90 times in the New Testament alone are statements that teach God saves those who believe, have faith in, trust, in God/Jesus. Our salvation is not owing to our merit, or goodness, or our acts. Salvation is of the Lord who draws sinners to himself, convicts and convinces them of the truth about Jesus and his work, grants repentance, and freely gives eternal life by the presence of the Holy Spirit as a promise of the completed transaction.
In baptism, just as in the Lord’s Supper, we look to Jesus, his worth and work, and in baptism we reenact his death, burial and resurrection. For a moment in time we give up completely into the hands of another symbolizing our submission to the Lord, acknowledging that we have died with him when He died, and that when he arose we too rise from death to live only to him. We also identify with the saints of God and formally join the community of the faithful making a public show of whose side we are on. We have thus saved ourselves from a perverse people.
Jesus did absolutely EVERYTHING God requires to declare sins forgiven and to make a sinner righteous in his sight. We can’t add one tiny thing to His once for all, once for all time atonement.
Jesus is either enough or he is not. We should everyone accept that he is.
Absolutely not. I’m standing on the ground of the early church (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others). It is quite unlikely that the modern day disciples of Martin Luther have greater insight into what Jesus meant than those who lived only a generation or two after the apostles. It is you and not I who are making the highly unlikely traditional argument of a modern denomination.
There are plenty of clear passages about baptism, that show baptism as the formal entry into the kingdom without inserting into a passage where there is no need to do so.
Jesus had not done his cross work when he spoke to Nicodemus and had not given the command for Christians to baptize disciples. That would come later.
Royce, you are making a quite modern innovative argument against an ancient teaching that has stood for many hundreds of years dating back to the earliest days of the church.
Jesus had not given the Holy Spirit yet either. But he clearly makes being born of the Spirit equally mandatory. He’s not talking about how to be saved under Law. He’s describing Christian conversion.
Alan, There is nothing modern about God saving by sinners by faith. Abraham is the example Paul used.
That we see things differently does not make us enemies, if we are brothers. Sadly, some people set up artificial dividing lines and exclude everyone who doesn’t see things their way.
In many of these discussions about who is right and who is wrong and who is in and who is out and why…Jesus does not get top billing and that fact troubles me. He alone can give eternal life. He lived, He died, He was crushed by the Father for sinners. He must have top billing.
Royce…doesn’t the John 1 passage you quoted when it says that we aren’t born “by the will of the flesh, or the will of man” remove even from possibility baptism as a salvific act ?? I mean one is hardly baptized against their will, right ? We speak about being “born again Christians”…if I am unable to do that on my own, the I don’t see how baptism is tied to salvation other than the outright refusal to be obedient to the command to be baptized…Or, am I misunderstanding it ??
Royce, we’re talking past each other. I’ve said nothing to contradict that God saves sinners by faith.
The modern argument being made here is that “water” in verse 5 can’t be baptism because salvation is by faith. Can you show me a single example of someone making that argument prior to Luther? Since his time, people have used some pretty extreme logical gymnastics to get around the plain meaning. But it’s not just the churches of Christ who hold that it refers to water. John Lightfoot, Albert Barnes, John Wesley… just to name a few. Faith does not exclude the necessity for obedience. So it does not exclude the possibility that Jesus may have given a command to be obeyed in John 3:5.
Alan,
The bottom line of what Jesus taught Nicodemus is hard to miss. And, it is consistent with Jesus’s teaching. The man who puts his trust in Jesus will have eternal life, will not be condemned, will not perish. On the other hand, those who do not believe are already condemned, and will perish.
I see no value in reading into a passage something that “might” be there at the expense of missing what is clearly there, and Jesus could not have been more clear about his purpose and how sinners pass from sure perishing to eternal life.
Thanks for the discourse. You are a good man and I appreciate your efforts for the unity of believers. On this one passage we just disagree. I’m sure that we agree on far more than we disagree about, so I’ll drop off here and wish you well.
Royce, thanks for your kindness. I agree with quite a bit of what you have said — just not with the suggestion that “water” doesn’t refer to baptism in John 3:5. People have disputed this for about 500 years and I’m sure I won’t be the one to finally settle the question. As I said in my first post on this thread, God can forgive anyone he wishes, and it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if he were to forgive a lot of folks who never understood and practiced baptism correctly.
Jay:
Hmmmm…. Seems like you have done it again (i.e. you’re consistent!). Baptism isn’t an expression of God’s grace too? (Titus 3:4ff.)
Oops, I know we dare not “go there” for fear of better understanding both grace and immersion into Christ.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
No, baptism is not the Gospel;but YES, baptism is the only scriptural response to it – and of course it is inseparably linked with faith in the gospel.
So, to illustrate: Peter preached the Gospel at Pentecost. It was a Kingdom message, culminating in this tremendous statement:
This led to a serious question:
in other words: What is our proper response to the Gospel? And Peter gave the answer:
So, Royce, Baptism (linked with repentance and faith) is THE answer to the Gospel. And that’s why our Lord in John 3 said we must be born again by water and Spirit – speaking of the two aspects of baptism – in order to see and enter the Kingdom.
Of course our Lord stressed faith ion the following verses, but does faith rule out baptism? Can we say: I have faith in Christ, therefore I am saved without baptism? Clearly: This is not the way it is soelled out in the book, Royce. If we dare to invent outr own ways ocf salvation, we might as well create our own churches. And where we go – Hoorray! – give everyone a church and gospel to his or her own taste! That’s the way to split churches, not to unite them.
Alexander
BTW:
a) Book, chapter, verse
b) Assuming you will quote 1Co 1:17 I’ll call you to quit taering verses out of context.
Evangelicals sometimes speak of 150 verses, Royce. But you know what? In each and every instance, if you read the whole paragraph in which these 90 or 150 verses appear, faith is always linked with an action, such as
faith and repentance (Mar 1:15)
faith and works (Jas 2:22-24)
faith and baptism (Mar 16:16)
faith and confession/witnessing (Rom 10:8-9)
faith and perseverance (1Pe 1:5-6)
faith and love (1Co 13:2)
faith and obedience (Rom 1:5)
I wrote a whole book on this terrible theology of “faith alone” that pulls out these 90/150 verses out of their contexts with the result that obedience, baptism, perseverance, … all become something between optional and obsolete.
Alexander
Book, chapter, and verse; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 “First importance” would necessarily mean everything else is not “first importance”.
And I have never said or implied that faith does not include obedience. In fact I am on record here and on my blog as saying over and over again that biblical faith always obeys.
You should perhaps know more about someone before you become their critic and you will be more accurate in your criticism.
I was only correcting your statements that baptism is the gospel and the only response to the gospel. You proved it yourself by quoting Peter who answered the question “REPENT and be baptized…” That’s two things, not one thing.
Last, why do you find it necessary to be rude?
But you cannot say: “Hey, I repented, so baptism is optional!” In fact they belong together like two sides of one coin.
Why am I rude? If this sounds rude, then it sounds rude, though not against persons but arguments. It is a sign of despair, of sheer disbelief how people can separate what God has united.
Coming from an “once-saved-always-saved-grace-rooted-evangelical” background I most likely reasponse stronger to any hints of that kind of theology than approppriate. But I know where that leads and why I left the Evangelical movement to join the chuch of Christ. I read the founding documents and a good deal of the Restoration Movement’s history bevore I made this decision. Hearing now from teachers within this movements statements that I immediately connect with my background troubles me. In fact this series of Jay is one of the worst I participed in.
And your statement of 90 verses that teach salvation by faith just gave me the rest. You did not answer to my objections, did you? It is good that you repeatedly teach that faith is always expressing itself in works. OK, now why shall we then say: One can be saved without being baptized? This was the key-question. And this is my main isue with Jay in this thread: How can we have fellowship with Presbyterians when they are not baptized? How can we take one of the 7 ones out of the boundaries of unity?
All of this has been ignored so far, not really answered nor refuted. And so here I stand again. As long as Eph 4:4-6 gets bypassed I will always come back to it. Pointing to these 90 veres (or 150) was bypassing the unity of the Spirit. And thus there will be no unity that comes close to what God has in mind. And because this is very important, I write with passion – which may sound rude, but it is not rude against persons, but against insufficient arguments.
Alexander
Jay,
In the below, I am lost as to which “he” is “he” and which “his” is “his.” Would you please revise and put “God” or “man” or whomever in place of the “he” and “his.”
Thank you
1. Because he responds to God’s love with love for God. It’s the reason we adults obey and serve our elderly parents — not for fear of a whipping or even to earn an inheritance, but out of love.
2. Because he responds to God’s love with gratitude. See 1.
3. Because God plants his Spirit in his heart, transforming his heart “both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phi 2:13 ESV).
4. Because, by his Spirit, God “will put [his] laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts” (Heb 8:10 ESV).
5. Because if he deliberately continues to sin, he’ll fall from grace (Heb 10:26-27). But sins committed in ignorance or by occasional weakness do not damn.
I grew up Baptist and we were taught ‘faith alone’, but we still baptized, went to church, tithed, etc. Jay makes an excellent point in this post—he has hit the nail on the head—for the fundamental difference I see in the coC assembly that I now attend is that people don’t seem to WANT to do the right thing, they instead seem more focused on just doing what they feel they HAVE to do. It is a deep irony. And I miss being with people who focus on seeking the heart of God evinced throughout scripture and who worship in fear and trembling seeking to be transformed by his truth and who then attempt to reflect this to the world around them…
Certainly the church must be united in Eph 4:4-6 or else we are nothing. However, let’s not quibble over all the various modes and timing on baptism. While it is helpful to encourage a better way, it is toxic to argue in a manner that refuses to listen to the reasons and justifications of how other communities understand and apply baptism. Compared with my upbringing, I find much of what I see in the coC as heretical—for aside from people being baptized in a name other than into the name of Jesus (and I have never heard of such a thing), or failing to receive the Spirit, or even perhaps if they felt it was not their choice, I see all other rebaptisms as blasphemous!!
Perhaps Bobby Valentine’s quote from J.W. McGarvey is apt here: “Don’t injure the cause of truth by taking positions which rob God of the power to be merciful.”
http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/2011/08/jw-mcgarveys-evolving-relationship-with.html
Agreed. All I wanted to hear was a clear statement that infant baptism is no baptism at all. Because Leroy’s (and Jay’s) position towarts Methodists and Presbyterians shows a good deal of indifference in this matter.
Alexander
BTW: We in Vienna accept baptisms by Baptists as fully valid – we don’t rebaptize (anymore). But without baptism we cannot pronounce assurance of salvation to anyone.
If God forgives a Methodist or a Presbyterian, it won’t be because they obeyed the command to be baptized (they didn’t). It will be because God decided to be merciful. If he does so, who can say what his thought process was that led to that decision? Certainly I can’t. But it wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
God clearly wants to be merciful. But just as clearly, not everyone will receive that mercy.
That is the thorny point. I doubt any of us had a “perfect” baptism. Where to draw that line? We do need a working principle for deciding who is our brother. It’s just not as cut and dried as we would like it to be.
I am not talking about a “perfect baptism”.
And I am not talking about what God may or may not do.
I am talking about what God has revealed in His word concerning
a) becoming a Christian
b) what Christian Unity consists of
In both instances we have to deal with baptism. Therefore it is not right to speak of “what if-scenarios”, because this is all speculative. We shall not be concerned with exceptions to the rule, but first of all with the rule. It is God who may grant grace outside the rule – and I also assume that He will. But it is not up to us to speak for God in this regard.
We can only speak what God has spoken. And this is very clear and unambigious:
a) We become Christians by responding to the Gospel in faith, repentance and baptism
b) Christian unity therefore includes (with six other essentials) baptism
We cannot substract baptism from either of the two without being unfaithful to God’ Word.
Alexander
I am certainly okay with our not pronouncing assurance on people who differ in their articulations of baptism. But that is not usually where this ends. It usually becomes an issue of fellowship. The issue of infant baptism is a very sticky issue–and again we have no biblical accounts to follow in how to baptize the next generation of believers. I agree with Jay that we should not teach infant baptism–but I will not say that they are always invalid.
You, Alexander, have argued many times that we need to look at historical context as well as scriptural context. I see little evidence that the early church pronounced infant baptisms as invalid (perhaps we see some rhetoric to this effect in Tertullian). While we can say they were not the majority, we ought not paint those early Christians who were baptized as infants as invalid!
Alexander, I also feel your frustration that one of the greatest entire Bible themes – faith and action – is being shoved aside for our ‘new’ understanding of grace. Grace is being stretched to fit all gaps left by omitting plain teaching. To a degree some are becomining modern day Gnostics; doesn’t matter what you do, grace will cover.
The Sprit came on Saul and he was a prophet. The Spirit left when he took spoils of battle. God had told Saul not to, but he rationalized that a sacrifice would take care of it. Rather than obey, he went for grace! The sadness of it all is not only is it disobedience but a break of faith. If Saul had really beleived and trusted God……
Paul began this with Abrabam and faith credited as righteousness. Its Word and its true, however faith like Abraham is not the faith many are practicing. Abraham always did God’s request. The credited as righteousness is the beleif that the sacrifice of Isaac was God’s command. It’s an illogical command. But Abraham got ready for the journey to the altar, and raised the knife. God gave Saul a logical command; completely destroy – no spoils, but God’s command to Abraham was contra promises previosly made. If anyone should explain away God’s command it would be sacrificing Isaac.
Let’s have the faith of Abraham not Saul’s. Let obedience flow so predictably that our faith can be credited as righteousness. Unfortunately, with our explain away what we don’t want ourselveves or others to do, we cheapen faith to beleif like the demons, who beleive in God but disobey.
Alexander’s concern is very real.
Alexander, I agree completely. Again, the thorny point is how do we relate to people in this life, given the variety of views and practice of baptism? How do we decide whom to treat as a brother, and how do we relate to people just slightly on the other side of that line? Especially in view of the fact that we too are fallible….
Larry:
I appreciate your comment regarding “modern day Gnostics.” Interestingly, it is exactly John MacArthur’s point in his The Truth War. He chastises Evangelicals… and others who strive with all of their hearts to ignore apostolic teaching in their quest for unity and peace. As I read The Truth War, I thought, “This sounds like Restoration thought.” He does not forget grace exists. Instead he courageously recognizes that “grace” does not abolish a commitment to teach and act on the truth we know (The Truth War is NOT a postmodern book :-).
Remarkably this chain of posts is bringing us to where the Reformers found themselves centuries ago. Do we listen to apostolic teaching and act on it in love as the Word of the risen Lord or do we believe sola fides sufficit (Faith and good intentions is enough.” Louis de Montfort, Secret of the Rosary)?
As for me I choose to continue to teach what the apostles taught, that immersion into Christ is an expression of God’s grace.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Honestly, respectfully, in love … any better suggestions? But this includes telling then the truth or at least our understing thereof.
By going according the scripture. E.g. We therefore tell every visitor that the Lord’s Suopoer is only forthose who have been baptized. We say this before the worship service in private when explaining what they will expect the next 90 min.
On woman who attended aour meetings regularly and partook was spoken to about this one sunday after the assembly. At first she was a bit angry, but the next week she was baptized.
And when we attend e.g. a Lutheran Church (where my mother in Law attends) we don’t partake of communion there. I explained that to the pastor who noticed of course, but he could understand our position and we are still good friends.
Alexander
Alan, I have symphy for misunderstanding, as I have got it wrong before. However, Alexander has the test of unity right. The (dying per Jay) moderate in me is slipping out, but unity does not include styles of music, words said at baptism, how many songs before the prayer, and even how often we commune.
Style of baptism is slightly different because if translated its immersion, but because King James wasn’t, finishing the translation was skipped. Ofcouse eveyone doesn’t know this. (By the way is any infant baptism immersion?)
To any defects in unity or understanding, we should teach. It’s not a good teaching technique to condemn your pupil to hell for not understanding first thing!
That over-trivializes a complex question. Do they have to understand all 20+ purposes of baptism at the time of their baptism in order for it to count? If not, which ones do they have to understand, and how do you justify the distinction between those that must be understood and those that must not?
And what about other prerequisites for baptism? Do you verify that they repented before baptism? (Matt 3:7-8) Were they even aware of their sin when they were baptized? etc…
Specifically what do they have to understand about Jesus (in whose name they are being baptized) before baptism? Do all of us really all have the same list?
So, bottom line, precisely how many things do they have to get right “according to scripture” before you embrace them? And is your list the same as all other true Christians’ lists? It’s a serious question.
Aside from all of that, how do you know you are right about all those things? Are you really that confident in your reading comprehension of a book written in another language thousands of years ago? Or, maybe instead, you might have the wrong idea about one or two of the points. At what point does humility enter into your judgment on these questions?
Interesting… What is your scriptural basis for that?
Challenging the epistemological deficiencies of our age and attending to the gaping holes that divide the Lord’s church today are both good and worthy tasks—and this does mean challenging error. But simply pointing out the holes and drawing a line around our little group is not the same thing. To me, this is the spirit of the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son—so busy doing what he thought the Father wanted him to do that he was completely at odds with the very heart of the Father on the younger brothers return. Many non-coC churches are returning to a fully-orbed, biblical view of baptism—but the coC, by and large, won’t back down off their battle lines in opposition to these assemblies…
Do you have any complaints about this Reformed gospel preaching and baptism: http://marshill.com/media/easter/easter-celebration-2011-full-service
Or how about this recent teaching from a Mennonite assembly in my home town: http://www.waterloomb.org/messages/detail/522
Come on…tell me why these people are not your brother and sisters!
Alan, don’t make things more complicated than they are. If all these questions you ask are really worth asking then none of the Apostles would haver ever be really confident on the conversion of their converts.
Look at the baptism of the Eunuch:
Philip explained the gospel acording to the scripture, in this case starting at Isaiah 53. Obvieously he also mentioned nbaptism in the gospel-presentation, because the eunich took the first opportunity when they came to water.
What was required of the eunuch? A simple confession that Christ is the Son of God, and – goinbg back to Isaiah 53 – a basic understanding of sin, atonement and repentence.
As for the Lord’s Supper being only for baptized Christians:
And the same day there were added about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they were continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, and in fellowship and in the breaking of the loaves, and in prayers.
Aside from this logical course of events (yes, a “pattern”) one must also think of veres such as:
There is an identification between the church and the loaf of bread, the “body of christ” in its two aspects. One cannot partake ofthe Lord’s Supper unless he is a part of the body. We become one body this way:
Given that water- and spirit-baptism are a unity, it is clear that the Lord’s Supper is only for those who have been baptized into the body. We also have to be part of the New covenant for which the cup stands in order to partake of the cup.
These things are so self-evident tht I am always quite surprized when someone questions them …
Alexander
Of course, they are! Last year I was invited to a Mennonite Church to preach there, and I have dear relations to many other Christians in other groups. This does not mean that I see no problems in denominationalism (which should and will be overcome at least at Christ’s coming), but as to our spiritual unity I see no difference. Difference in opinions, yes (I don’t agree with Calvinism), but not in Christ – again Eph 4:4-6 and 4:11-16 are a good balanced approach to this.
Alexander
Sorry Randall, I see now that you already quoted Bobby on McGarvey.(I should have read the whole thread)
That was my point. When we demand precision on a certain aspect of baptism, we open Pandora’s box. Why only that aspect? It’s not the way to go. I certainly wasn’t trying to get you to try to answer each question!
When you try to identify the aspects of baptism that must be understood, there’s not much to go on. We have an assortment of examples but they aren’t all identical, so you can’t really say a certain piece was present every time. And even if you could, you would have to make a logical inference to say that piece is mandatory for all conversions. And that inference may or may not be valid. We just don’t have a command about how many aspects of baptism must be understood for it to count.
Your argument about communion also hangs on inferences. Scriptures just don’t tell us that an unbaptized visitor can or cannot take communion.
When we start binding inferences, we’re headed down a path that leads to many divisions. Your inferences may be different from mine. Really, inferences are opinions. When we bind an inference we are binding an opinion. That’s why churches of Christ have been among the most splintered groups of believers.
@Konastephen,
No problem – Bobby and McGarvey are worth being quoted twice.
Hesed,
Randall
Are you sure? If you look for a express statement, you may be right. But if you dig a little deeper, you’ll see that parallel between Passover and the Lord’s Supper. Was it for no reason that a person partaking of Passover had to be circumcised first (Exo 12:43-48)? And who was allowed to eat of the sin offering – why only the priests (Lev 7:1-7).
Is it not forthis reason that Hebrews says:
Hebrews made it clear all the way through that you cannot live both covenants, the old one and the new one – and here you have it: Those who still serve the tent are excluded from our altar (i.e. the Lord’s Supper).
Many important truths we don’t notice, because we are not really paying attention to the OT types – the Apostles on the other hand taught primarily from the scriptures of the Old Testament revealing their New Testament significance.
Therefore I would not call this an infernce, but a consequence of understanding types and antitypes.
I can agree with you here, given that we at least have the bare minimum of a gospel preached, heard and agreed on – even though not fully understood. I think most of us came to a better understanding of the Gospel and of Christ many years after their baptism, and still we are surprized regularly by what we have missed so far. Our faith in the beginning is always incomplete – but there must be faith.
The only thing I categorically rule out is infant baptism, all other baptism based on this mustard-seed-faith I do accept, however insuficient the theology behind it may be or the mode of its performance. I might ask us church of Christers for instance, why we don’t lay hands on after baptism and ask for the Spirit to come (see acts 19:1-7)? Especially for the CENI-brothers it should be enough that this is an example/pattern that we ought to follow. But somehow we all are inconsistent …
You, why I think this is the case? Because we tend to go forthe minimum: What is the minimum that is required of us to be saved? This leads to such distorted theology as “faith only” and “once saved always saved” … Why don’t we striove for the maximum? Each and every time we do and imitate what is laid out before us in the scriptures I am convinced that we will be blessed, enriched and grow in our understanding of God.
But as long as we go for the minimum we disagree and pick and choose … Is it forthe Glory of God when we say: “Lord, these words of yours are not essential!”?
Alexander
Whether you personally call it an inference or not, it is still an inference. Your conclusion is not stated in scripture. To get there, you extrapolate from things that are stated, applying your own judgment. That’s an inference, and really it is no more than an opinion. You might be right or you might not be.
I’m not far from you on this. But what you and I “rule out” is based on our fallible judgment looking at what is revealed in scripture, trying to discern what isn’t explicitly revealed. We might not have it exactly right.
And even if the baptism is not good enough to satisfy you and me, God is free to forgive anyway if he chooses. I just don’t think we should go around telling people what God will do in those cases. We really don’t know.
Amen!