My favorite conservative preacher and newly minted editor of the Gospel Advocate, posted a comment that prompted a response from me too long for the comment section.
Greg describes a visit to a progressive congregation 30 years ago.
“Just a minute,” cried a voice from the back of the room. “I don’t think we should say that.” It was one of the elders of the congregation. “Many of us have come to believe in the grace of God, and who am I to say that a Jew or Hindu or Muslim is not right with God.”
Greg,
I, of course, readily agree that Christians cannot treat those who lack faith in Jesus as saved or as in any sense right with God. Yes, Hindus and Muslims and unbelieving Jews are not saved, not Christians, and not part of Christ’s church. I think my views are very representative of progressive Church of Christ thought.
I have the great pleasure of speaking and corresponding with members of the Churches of Christ from across the globe on a daily basis. My church is in the process of interviewing preacher candidates, and as a result, I’ve participated in interviews with many progressive Church of Christ ministers from across the country. And I attend and sometimes speak at lectureships from coast to coast. I think I have a better knowledge base than most from which to evaluate the progressive Churches.
The view you heard expressed is not remotely representative of the progressive Churches of Christ. Indeed, I find the movement to be moving in a deeply Christ-centered direction. The overall direction is evangelical, that is, gospel- and Christ-centered, rather than universalist.
You wrote,
This travesty, in my view, is the end result of “unity at any cost.”
Why is “unity at any cost” in quotations? No one here has ever said such a thing. Nor is it a fair characterization of what is preached from the pulpits of the progressive Churches. I know, because in our preacher search, I’ve listened to a lot of sermons! (If sermons can make one holy, I’m among the holiest people on the planet, having heard so very many sermons these last few months!) What we do teach is “unity in Jesus.”
The comment you heard is, however, the natural consequence of what some scientists call “liminality.” Liminality is about how people react to dramatic change in their lives. When a man loses his wife of many years, he’s in a “liminal” state, that is, he’s lost his bearings and looking for a new grounding, a new way to be. And people in a liminal state often find themselves veering between extremes, searching for a new grounding.
This is from Wikipedia –
The liminal state is characterized by ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy. One’s sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about disorientation. Liminality is a period of transition where normal limits to thought, self-understanding, and behavior are relaxed – a situation which can lead to new perspectives.
Thirty years ago, many in the Churches of Christ found themselves unhappy with 20th Century Church of Christ theology and went looking for a better, truer gospel. Some leaders went in unfortunate directions. Many headed into Pentecostalism. Many headed into the ICOC. A very few experimented with universalism. But that was then.
A generation later, the progressive movement has appeared, and it is much less liminal and much more Christ-centered. I believe that after experimenting with the Church Growth Movement, with secular politics, and other mistaken directions, the progressive Churches are, on the whole, finally finding themselves and their long-term direction.
And so, yes, it’s a disturbing, sad anecdote, but it’s not representative of today’s progressive Churches. Indeed, you see me as an outlier, but I find that I can talk to preachers across the country and immediately share vast amounts of common ground. I see the Spirit as alive, well, and thriving in many Churches of Christ and the progressive Churches moving in a healthy, Christ-centered direction. I’m excited about what I’m learning about our sister congregations across the country.
You also wrote,
We are, as Jay has noted, at a “Fork in the Road.” I have taken the right turn that seeks “precision obedience” (realizing all the way I will never live up to the absolute ideal of the Gospel). My Progressive friends have chosen the left turn. But look down the road and ask, “Where will we be when we get where we are going?”
“Precision obedience” is a new term to me, but “obedience” is not. We differ little in our desire to be obedient. Rather, our differences are in our understandings as to what obedience truly entails. I would argue that my views lead to a much more difficult kind of obedience, a kind of obedience that can only be accomplished by the power of God’s Spirit within us.
Anyone can refuse to sing with an instrument. It’s not hard. However, if you’ll recall my recent sermon, the standard I urge — and that I hear being urged across the country in progressive pulpits — is the service, submission, and sacrifice of Jesus. And the goal, therefore, is to focus our preaching and teaching on what that really means, which is a standard vastly different from Five Acts of Worship.
Now, one can certainly do both, and I’m sure you feel that you do both, but you can’t preach both as essentials. You can’t simultaneously contend that boundaries of the Kingdom are defined by Five Acts of Worship and by conformity to the image of Christ. The church can’t go but in one direction at a time, and many will choose the easy path — Five Acts of Worship.
And the truth of that is evident from observation. If you were to consider the local congregations here in West Alabama, the ones with the reputations for serving the needy and caring for the unfortunate are Jesus focused. The congregations with the reputations for arrogance and condemnation are CENI/Five Acts focused.
We’ve been effectively disfellowshipped by another Church of Christ in town because we clap. The preacher complimented us on our community service and hearts for the needy, but said, “95% right isn’t right.” In short, regardless of how Christ-centered we are, how much good God does through us, clapping damns us. And yet he obviously considers himself and his church among the 100% — those who get everything exactly right. You see, they measure themselves, not by Christ on the cross, but by the Regulative Principle, and they find themselves in 100% compliance.
It’s not that avoiding instrumental music makes one arrogant. My own church remains a cappella. No, it’s taking those kinds of things and turning them into the very definition of Christianity and of obedience. When we define our relationship to God by whether or not we use an instrument, clap, or refuse to re-affirm elders, we cheapen the gospel and, all too often, take pride in our supposedly superior obedience — substituting the cheap and easy for the challenge of the cross.
When the cross is held up as the exclusive standard, well, that attitude evaporates, because no one can feel all that superior in the shadow of the cross.
Thus, central verses — preaching verses — become such passages as —
(Eph 5:1-2 ESV) Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
(2Co 3:17-18 ESV) 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Therefore, yes, I’m entirely for precision obedience, but I define obedience as being submission to the image of God as revealed in Jesus — and most fully revealed on the cross. I don’t need the Regulative Principle or CENI to understand and teach this. And where this is taught, I find the Spirit acts powerfully on God’s people to lift them into incredible acts of sacrificial service. Good God things happen.
But the challenge of the cross is so great that the Christian walk requires Divine assistance.
(Phi 2:12-13 ESV) 12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
This is not license. It’s not liberalism. It’s not disobedience. Rather, it’s precision obedience viewed through a lens that I believe is much truer to the Scriptures.
This approach to Scripture imposes no obligation to use an instrument, but it does require that we view one another as brothers even if one of us does. After all, the goal is not to adhere to a Calvinist abstraction found in the silences … but to Jesus, the Messiah. And so we gain the freedom and inestimable joy of seeing Jesus in each other — because of our shared faith and commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom. It’s a wondrous, glorious thing to experience.
But, as I began, there are boundaries, and the boundary is faith, that is, a genuine, penitent faith in Jesus as Lord and Son of the Living God.
Jay…. clap, clap, clap, clap, clap….well said.
We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ;we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him……C.S.Lewis
Lately I have been prepping my office computer for the big move – transferring everything over to a new computer. As such I have been reviewing my sermon files and teaching files and I have noticed something odd. As a progressive I am supposed to have a dim view of the Text and yet fully 90% of my lessons are in depth, section by section studies of the Text and the emphasis seems to be on how to live out what is written there. The sermons are even worse – fully half of the series mention Jesus in the title by name or role, a significant portion of the remainder concern themselves with holy living, the rest with various aspects of leadership and there are a handful on essential doctrinal issues such as baptism and unity. This is the sum of the past eleven years of my ministry as far as my teaching goes. Each lesson is Scripture intensive with an emphasis on how a singular verse fits into the context of its passage. Other than my views on the indwelling and ongoing work of the Holy Spirit I don’t read anything that any of the preachers and teachers who raised me would actually disagree with. The only difference is what is lacking – there is absolutely no reinforcement of the “traditions of the Fathers.” Few mentions of denominationalism at all, few of why we do what we do the way we do it every Sunday, very few taking other groups to task for our disagreements unless those disagreements actually concern the person and work of Jesus in which case I go after the false doctrine with hammer and tongs. I stress discipleship, prayer, Scripture study, unity despite differences, good works in the community in the Name of Christ and fulfilling the greatest commands. I emphasize living counter culturally and a focus on the Kingdom and eternity instead of being comfortable in this world.
Really, which traditional congregation could I not be productive in if they were willing to let God’s Word simply be God’s Word?
(By the way if anyone needs to borrow any of this stuff you can find me online working with Valley Church of Christ in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Freely have I appropriated, freely shall I distribute.)
As someone pointed out in a previous thread, one hindrance to arriving at a mutual understanding is that we mean different things while using the same words. “Obedience” is such a case. Now we have the addition of “precision” to the mix. The use of that term says a great deal about a certain mindset – the belief that one has come to a “precise” understanding of what “truth” is. This leads to condemnation, not merely of sin, but of “error”. And so long as one is unwilling to even contemplate the possibility that he/she might actually be in error, there is no room for disagreement. The only remaining possibility is that those in “error” are lost. Thus, congregations that clap are condemned because clapping is an error, etc… Let’s read Romans 14 & 15 again.
I also think that what Greg experienced and described was extreme – but what you experience and describe sounds extreme to me, too. Such extreme cases are not really helpful.
I do have my issues with the progressive movement, that I can list here – and IM is way at the bottom of the list.
a) The inerrancy of scripture is debated. Maybe not by you personally, but I could not always follow your definition of inerrancy, either.
b) The blend of evolution and creation (theistic evolution / Old-earth scenarios) is one of the consequences of this “redefintion” of inerrancy, I will not accept as a “doctrinal position”. It does not fit scripture at all.
c) That women are allowed to teach and preach and become elders is more than disturbing, it is really divisive.
d) The debates on the importance of baptism were also quite revealing here …
e) Unity is more defined in terms of ecumenism, leaving out baptism on ohne hand, accepting denominations on the other hand.
f) letting go of our non-denominational approach by seeing churches of Christ essentially as a denomination.
g) Evangelical erors are creeping in like “faith only” and “once saved always saved”.
h) First steps into historical criticism become more and more accepted on the Christian Universities aspviated with the Progressive movement.
i) Indeed there are necessary changes, but the change is not pursued by continue the “restoration of the Ancient Order”, but by adapting church to the culture ofthe 21nd century (making culture more or less a norm/standard).
j) last not least: The way IM is debated shows a man cenetered approach to truth that I cannot follow.
I do admit that the progressive movement is all but unified (so it can hardly be a voice for unity itself!), and probably all would deny different points on my list.
Please let me underline, that I don’t refer to CENI nor the RPW here; and I don’t damn to hell anyone. But I do say that what I listed makes it very hard for me to fellowship/cooperate with churches that are on this road. I have to, because Christ even was in union with Laodicea! But I will not say that I like or commend the changes, and certainly I will resist them in our congregation best as I can with God’s help.
Let me close with a serious warning:
It does not convince me when one party points to the other one, saying: “These are the dissenters that caused the division!” The developments push all of us into extreme positions (as said above), and this is building up walls that become higher and harder to overcome.
Alexander
Having grown up in the “main-line Church of Christ” (whatever that is), having attended church related schools from 1st grade through a B.A. degree plus 2 years at the Sunset School of Preaching, and having been in ministry for 50+ years, I believe I know the basics of the doctrine as taught.
Over the years, however, I have found myself diverging from my brethren in much of my understanding of Scripture. In each instance where I diverge, it is because I applied principles on which our movement is based and which I had been taught as I grew up. In applying these principles, I found that my thinking about many things was changing – and came to be frustrated because so few could accept my concerns with the dominant thinking.
In the past few years, I have discovered this and other “progressive” blogs – and discovered that there are many who are moving in the same direction as I. What a relief! However, I repeat that I have changed my mind only when my principles (those I learned when young) conflicted with my opinions (also learned when I was young). Put another way, I changed only when the Scriptures pushed me into the change.
As I have often said, “I believe my opinions are the best ones in the world – because when I am convinced another one is better, I adopt it.” What convinces me? A better understanding of the way of the Messiah as taught in the Scriptures.
Alexander,
These are your issues with progressive churches?
a) The inerrancy of scripture is debated. Maybe not by you personally, but I could not always follow your definition of inerrancy, either.
IT HAS BEEN CONSERVATIVES WHO ON THIS BLOG CALL PAUL INTO QUESTION BECAUSE THEY INCORRECTLY BELIEVE HE TAUGHT LICENSE TO SIN AND CHEAP GRACE. CAN YOU NAME ON COC PREACHER WHO DISPUTES THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE?
b) The blend of evolution and creation (theistic evolution / Old-earth scenarios) is one of the consequences of this “redefintion” of inerrancy, I will not accept as a “doctrinal position”. It does not fit scripture at all. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ONE PROGRESSIVE COC THAT HOLDS THIS VIEW. CAN YOU NAME EVEN ONE?
c) That women are allowed to teach and preach and become elders is more than disturbing, it is really divisive. WHERE ARE THOSE WOMEN PETER MENTIONED IN ACTS 2? I ALSO KNOW OF NO COC CHURCH WITH WOMEN ELDERS OR PREACHERS. DO YOU?
d) The debates on the importance of baptism were also quite revealing here …
YES, ON THIS WE AGREE! THEY ARE QUITE REVEALING.
e) Unity is more defined in terms of ecumenism, leaving out baptism on ohne hand, accepting denominations on the other hand. BIBLICAL UNITY HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT DENOMINATIONS OR A PRECISE VIEW OF BAPTISM. DO YOU KNOW A CHURCH OF CHRIST THAT DOES NOT BAPTIZE?
f) letting go of our non-denominational approach by seeing churches of Christ essentially as a denomination. AHA! BY ALL ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS OF LOGIC AND HISTORY AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE IT IS A DENOMINATION.
g) Evangelical erors are creeping in like “faith only” and “once saved always saved”.
I DON’T KNOW ANY CHURCH OF CHRIST THAT TEACHES THE DREADED DOCTRINE OF ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED. CAN YOU NAME ONE?
h) First steps into historical criticism become more and more accepted on the Christian Universities aspviated with the Progressive movement. AND REVISIONIST HISTORY IS QUITE COMMON AMONG CONSERVATIVES.
i) Indeed there are necessary changes, but the change is not pursued by continue the “restoration of the Ancient Order”, but by adapting church to the culture ofthe 21nd century (making culture more or less a norm/standard). IN MY VIEW WHAT MOST CONSERVATIVES CONSIDER TO BE RESTORING THE ANCIENT ORDER IS THE ORDER OF THE 1950’S CHURCH OF CHRIST IN AMERICA.
j) last not least: The way IM is debated shows a man cenetered approach to truth that I cannot follow. IT WAS MEN WHO DECIDED THAT IM IS A DAMNING SIN, NOT THE BIBLE.
Alexander… you often have some interesting and thoughtful posts but I have a hard time understanding you at times…Are you saying that one of your major gripes about the “progressive” (not like me) movement is the possibility that someone would think that the universe is actually older than 5,000 years old ?? That’s a silly reason to object…. There is more than sufficient biblical support in the word itself to allow for that possibility… Is that really a conservative position ?? What has that got to do with Jesus ??
And what do you mean by letting go of your “non-denominational approach?” The only people that don’t think of the CoC as a denomination is the CoC…What good is that ?
What church in the CoC faith heritage do you know that believes in “faith only.” Who doesn’t speak to the importance of baptism ? And once saved always saved works pretty well until somebody no longer wants to be saved…Huh ?
And the IM debate isn’t all that hard to grasp… The only people who don’t get that God didn’t ban IM nor demand it (in the new covenant) are those that are just determined to be man centered and hold to their personal opinions… The only divisiveness results from pride in which side of the debate one is on…both err in application at times.
My guess is that when held up to the light, or perhaps to the cross, this list is not worth considering for the most part… Certainly not worth causing the strife and division that exists within the CoC “faith heritage” …Which terminology is acceptable because we haven’t been condemning faith heritages but rather denominations…
It’s of little use to the unity of the church to categorize believers into anything other than “in need of Grace.” I just don’t understand the need to perpetuate division among ourselves but it seems folks are determined like crazy to make their little group within the group the best one…Pride cometh before the fall…
I am very pleased to read the testimony of Jay Guin as to his understanding of the way in which we today are to live as Jesus did in His life on earth. He revealed the Father then. We do well to seek to reveal to others today the Father of Jesus. Alexander feels that he is defending the faith when he opposes use of instrumental music in Christian assemblies. We all must live according to what we understand to be God’s will for us. We serve Him best when we don’t judge others by our own consciences.
I’m sure that God LOVES instrumental music and those He makes able to play them pleasingly. How much we do need to let the written Word guide us in both our beliefs and our practices. And how little do we need to let human worship laws cause us to fail to love one another.
God can speak plainly. Any instruction to guide our lives which is given by God will be in simple and easily understood words. Laws based on what God did not say are not God’s laws. One thing plainly taught is that we who love Jesus are all to love one another and not judge one another. In what he says above, Jay points us rightly.
aBasnar/Alexander wrote,
I don’t have a definition of “inerrancy.” I’m not sure I need one. This much I know: I submit to and honor the scriptures because they are from God.
I’ve not addressed the question here but once, and not at any great length. I don’t think it’s something we need to be fighting over. Rather, I see it through this scriptural lens —
In short, the Creation reveals God to us, just as do the Scriptures. They cannot contradict. Therefore, I delight in the study of science — from nuclear physics to cosmology and all in between, because the study of what God has made for us teaches us about God.
I even enjoy paleontology. After all, those fossils are from God.
No, it’s not divisive. What is divisive is the anti-gospel teaching (of some, not you) that we cannot be brothers and disagree on this issue.
I try to be completely transparent.
In the American Churches of Christ, “ecumenism” is associated with efforts to negotiate concords among church leaders, hiding real disagreements in political language. No, I’m not ecumenical.
I am, however, very much in favor of the unity of the household of faith.
In this country, the Churches of Christ have a rhetoric of nondenominationalism but act in every way like a denomination. We even list ourselves in the Yellow Pages as “Church of Christ” rather than “Nondenominational”!
The “non-denominational” approach of some is to claim to be the only people going to heaven and damn all others. I can’t go along with that agenda.
As you know, I really don’t care for Calvinism. We have some Calvinistic and Calvinistic-leaning readers, and they are certainly really good people, but I’m just not sold on the whole agenda.
But it’s not a salvation issue. Therefore, I gladly call such Calvinist teachers as Thomas Campbell “brother.”
Nonetheless, my observation is that Calvinists preach like Semi-Pelagians. They urge the lost to make a decision to accept the gospel and urge the saved to persevere to the end. So it seems to me like reaching around your back to scratch your ear. I suppose you can do it that way, but it greatly complicates something that doesn’t have to be that hard.
I don’t know if that’s true, but let’s suppose it is. There are different kinds of historical criticism — some of which contradicts the inspiration and authority of scripture and some of which does not. Some is responsible, and some is not.
As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. Are the universities turning out liberal, humanistic preachers or are they turning out devoted, Christ-centered preachers. And having just interviewed a BUNCH of them, I’m convinced our pulpits are in very good hands.
Not sure I follow you here. The “Ancient Order” is the caption of a series of articles by Alexander Campbell on the acts of worship and church organization. It was a study in eclessiology. And it was not a particularly scholarly one.
He imposed rules that are just not found in scripture, filling in the silences from the Early Church Fathers — as though the Holy Scriptures are insufficient to guide us and we need to find the rules somewhere else. But, at least, he was clear that his teaching is not a creed or test of fellowship — a teaching flatly contradicted by the 20th Century Churches of Christ.
Here’s where we differ. As a matter of missiology, I believe the gospel must be taught in its pristine, First Century form but in terms that are understandable in the cultural context. Just as the NT was translated into the vernacular almost immediately, so must we today speak the pure gospel in contemporary language. We shouldn’t speak in Jacobean English nor should we praise God as though we were 16th Century Calvinists.
Most Churches of Christ come far closer to emulating the worship of 16th Century Geneva than First Century Jerusalem. I give you props for at least being serious about First Century eclessiastic practices. You come far closer than most! But you are not remotely typical of the conservative Churches of Christ. You really are an outlier.
ECF and Calvin’s practices are not a pattern binding on us today. Rather, the Scriptures show us (but don’t command) the gospel as contextualized in the First Century culture.
A cappella singing is not comprehensible to many — especially as practiced in many churches. Indeed, it creates a barrier to finding Jesus, and that is not right.
“Truth” is the gospel. That’s how the NT uses the word. IM has nothing to do with truth.
That’s not a quibble. Rather, it’s to point out that the Scriptures makes some things much more important than others. The Truth is non-negotiable. Insistence on a cappella music is a teaching from man, using hermeneutics created by man, and therefore can only be discussed in humanistic terms.
I agree. I’d rather talk about the Bible.
Royce,
There are a handful of Churches of Christ with female elders. I know of two, both in domestic mission fields. It’s not exactly a trend, even among church planters, but it’s not unheard of.
Then again, I know plenty of very conservative Churches of Christ where the church is run by the wives of the elders, who can’t make a decision without going home to consult with the rulers of their households.
Following up on the comment by Emmett — We often get cross-ways with one another over word definitions. This is especially true when one formulates a new word or phrase that carries theological implications, such as “precision obedience.” I think the following critique will be more relevant to life than nitpicky on minutia.
People confuse “precision” (precise) with “accuracy” (accurate). Think in terms of four results of shooting six shots at a target with a rifle. (1) All six holes are tightly clustered in the upper left quadrant, almost to the edge of the target. This reflects high precision, but low accuracy. The shots are very reproducible, but they are far from the standard — target center. (2) All six shots hit the target, but the holes are varied around the bulls-eye. None hit the center, but they are spaced evenly at 11 o’clock, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1. If plotted, the vector sign (+ or -) cancels, so the mean of all the shots gives a coordinate located on the bulls-eye. The mean of the shots is accurate, but not precise. (3) All six shots are tightly clustered at the center of the target. The result is both accurate and precise. (4) Nothing even hits the target.
So, in case (1), one might assume the shooter is skilled but the gun sight needs to be adjusted, because even when the shooter takes careful aim, his eye is not on the center of the target, even when he thinks it is. Because his method is inaccurate; it does not point to the standard, the target center. He does the same thing each time. In fact, each person who uses that rifle gets the same result. Because the shots are precise for everyone, as a group they convince themselves that their rifle must have an accurate sight – how could everyone be a bad shot? They check their targets; they find they have fooled themselves. In an experiment, data with a mean and a small standard deviation are considered good, but these data are validated only by comparison to the standard. Precision in data is good to determine if there is a statistical difference between the experimental mean and the standard. Precision doesn’t necessarily equal accuracy and compliance with the standard.
“Compliance with the standard” — can we call that “obedience?”
Can you see the application coming? Many years ago, I used to surround myself with people who thought the same as I did, who knew they were right as I did, who had the right methodology of Biblical interpretation as I did, and in my little limited universe, everything lined up in a seemingly consistent manner. So, I thought I had an accurate view of God and exactly what He wanted. And I was in compliance. My doctrinal viewpoint had precision, but I didn’t know that it was inaccurate. Then I escaped the box by the grace of God, and I have found the universe of God is infinite.
What is doctrinal accuracy? That which is centered on Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord and on nothing else. What is precise but inaccurate? That which is centered on human effort and mechanics which are interposed between the church and the true will of God. CENI, RP, or RIP are all like rifles with faulty sights. They give seemingly precise results (as long as one’s universe is limited), but they are inaccurate because they are centered on sincere but humanly derived methodology more than on the target center, Jesus Christ. Keep your eyes on CENI, the author of your faith?? What do you mean — doesn’t CENI point the way to Jesus? Sorry, it points the way to the upper left quadrant of the target. CENI and RP need to have their sights recalibrated.
“Precision obedience?” Actually, I think that is a good description for a well-intentioned but faulty hermeneutic. The benefit of a precise result is derived only when one can recognize the significant difference between the result of that methodology and the standard of “the apostles’ doctrine.” — which is “Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord.” (see latest post on http://www.createdtobelikegod.com)
Before I had the veil of legalism removed, I would have been “gnashing my teeth” about this comment. I could have seen snowballs without a chance melting all around it. I am thankful for the spiritual maturation that has occurred in the church over the last 40 years. But, after 2000 years, shouldn’t the church be further along growing into Jesus?
Let’s be both precise and accurate and keep our eyes on the Lord Jesus Christ and keep searching, rather than protecting.
“Unity of mind and purpose.” Jesus Christ left a job for the church to do, and it’s not RIP.
Jay wrote “A cappella singing is not comprehensible to many – especially as practiced in many churches. Indeed, it creates a barrier to finding Jesus, and that is not right.”
How does a cappella singing create a barrier to finding Jesus?
Nicely put!
Singing a cappella does not create a barrier to finding Jesus, of course. We misspoke. The barrier is the insistence that ONLY a cappella singing is acceptable to God. I personally know no brother or sister who insists that a musical instrument is necessary when any group of Christians sing. We who sing with accompaniment are making no laws. We’re just observing the freedom to do what seems natural and good and pleasing to God. We find no apostolic warning against singing with accompaniment or of praising God ON a musical instrument. Some of our brothers have created a law, then demanded that everyone must obey their law. That is the barrier to finding Jesus and pleasing Jesus.
Nicely spoken Dr. is what I should have said.
Great post Jay. I would add my sermon text for tommorrow to your verses Ephesians 5:1-2 and 2 Corinthians 3:17-18.
1 John 4:10, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (ESV)
Jay;
Just a personal note. While you and I have very different perspectives on the direction of the churches of Christ, I appreciate the gracious and respectful way in which you have always engaged our differences.
I feel quite passionately about the divergence of teaching represented by the Progressive movement. I believe souls hang in the balance.
In the give and take of our discussions, let me be clear, I have never questioned your sincerity or commitment. I take no joy in our estranged fellowship, rather I am grieved not to have someone of your ability and character working on (what is in my view) the right side.
Best Always,
Greg
Greg…the right side ?? seriously? You’re piloting a sinking ship brother… God doesn’t have but one church and dividing it into sects probably isn’t what He considers conservative…sad
Jonathan and OutreachRay,
I agree that making AC a salvation issue is a far, far greater barrier to finding Christ, I would argue that, on the whole, even insisting that IM is sinful is also a huge barrier. How do you explain that except that having your convert learn the Regulative Principle, CENI, and Clement of Alexandria — all of which take the conversation away from Jesus.
Now, it’s one thing to say, “We do this because it’s traditional in our denomination, and you’re welcome to worship God in your small group with a guitar” — so it’s not doctrinal but choice — and quite another to say “Instrumental music is sinful.” Then you have to defend it — and it’s a tough sell to those not raised on CENI.
I can remember a conversation I had at age 23 where I observed that you had to use “our” hermeneutic to arrive at IM being sinful – but at the time I did not question the hermeneutic. It was only later that I began to question the hermeneutic – when, in a discussion about hermeneutics, someone observed, “But if you accept that as the hermeneutic principle, you cannot defend our position on IM.” That observation threw up a red flag. that ultimately let to my rejecting CENI as the basis of my understanding of hermeneutics.
I am not of the ed-u-macated as the likes of all you so I have some questions. What is the CENI, IM that you all are speaking about? Help please!
IM refers to “instrumental music” one of the big issues that divided the RM (Restoration Movement) in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and the opposition to which still defines the Church of Christ in the minds of most Bible believers in the American Southeast. (I was reminded of this just last week when a visitor to our area from Little Rock ended our conversation when he found out I was a Church of Christ minister. He said he had had too many fights with such folk and that was that.)
CENI is anagram for a method of interpreting the Bible’s instructions on how o do church that has been popular in many circles since John Calvin and is prevalent in the otherwise not very Calvinist Restoration Movement.
C = command, E = example and NI = necessary inference.
C is usually easy to figure. The Bible either commands a practice or it doesn’t. E gets a bit more hairy. Was this example the norm, was it intended as binding and permanent or was it related to temporary cultural expectations? NI is where most of the fighting takes place. Having no express command and no clear example we have to make guesses about what God wants – necessary inferences. I can almost guarantee that your guesses won’t be mine.
not anagram- CENI is an acronym. Late nights and pain killers, sorry.
Pingback: The Fork in the Road: “The Way of UNITY between “Christian Churches” and Churches of Christ,” Part 6 | One In Jesus
That’s the opposite of what I see. I see the apostolic ordinaces as transcultural and transhistoric, applicable and binding in all cultures everywhere. I think this lies at the root of our differences – and (in fact) that’s an example of where I see historical criticism as having crept into the movement. I understand that you don’t see it this way, but the method is the same. In the end it is OUR culture that shall the determine application of the gospel – which leads to conformity rather than separation. Hence your frequent mentionings of the 21st century.
Alexander
But Alexander to a certain point, even a strong one, our culture will determine the “application” of the Gospel. It will not however alter the meaning of the Gospel. Acts itself testifies to how the application of the Gospel changed between the Jewish culture and the Gentile culture. The central Truth of Jesus and God’s grace did not change, what that looked like in the life of the believer did. And so it will today.
Our culture will determine whether we meet in a house or in a tent, but not whether we meet.
Our culture will determine whether we eat hamburger or pasta, but not whether we eat together.
Our culture will determine whether women wear scarves or hats, but not whether they cover their heads in worship.
Our culture will determine whether we speak with hands and feet or with no gestures at all, but not whether we speak ….
The problem I see and cannot cope with: Many NT commands are being regarded as “contextualization” and only valid in the 1st century; one of the big issues is women and submission. Each “command and approved precedent” (Th Campbell) should be viewed as binding – I really don’t understand how Jay can be so impressed by the “Declaration and Address” and yet be in favor of teaching women. This does not fit together. Here is a fork in the road that made the progressive movement a split, a schism.
Ironically they still call for unity! I cannot deal with such statements as Jay’s:
Of course the progressives are my brothers, but this action still is divisive! They are erring brothers (in this point), going against the consent of the whole church of Christ in the last 2000 years following a theological innovation that is contrary to scripture. Let me say it this clearly, Todd: It’s is schismatic – such people cannot be recognized as “prophets” (1Co 14:36-37), because the loosen a command of the Lord. They lack any authority in this point.
How can this produce unity, tell me, Todd?? Taking a “bold step” against not only tradition but the clear words of God and expecting the others to “disagree to disagree” since we are all brothers anyway? This is contrary to reason and contrary to brotherly love! It’s utterly disturbing.
Alexander
Todd, I think you bring up an excellent point… The cultural differences of the Jew and Gentile were not insignificant…At least in the mind of the legalistic Jew… And, it seems to me that the teaching of the NT was that we need to try and let go of our legalistic interpretations and rules and move toward loving one another… I mean, when Paul says that for the sake of unity don’t ask where the meat came from because you might find out it came from idol worship…He didn’t say be sure to ask and find out…he said just don’t ask..sit down, eat your meal and fellowship… Imagine how the legalistic Jew reacted to circumcision being no longer required… Wow…this command had been a part of the Jewish identity for 2,000 (?) years ?? As some were still teaching it had to be done… Some things are difficult to embrace…especially for the legalistic mind set.
Of course we didn’t suddenly begin killing and stealing, and all that sort of thing…there are fundamentals of the faith…but I believe there are far fewer than we put forth as fellowship issues.
As to CENI, I would have to disagree with Todd that it is easy to determine what actually constitutes “C”. The very rules which are used to determine this are in and of themselves extrabiblical. Do we play all those instruments in Psalm 150? Do we use Paul’s tummy-ache cure? Do we smooch the brethren? Do we desire to prophesy? Do we cut off a hand or an eye that gives us trouble? Do we decline to forbid speaking in tongues? I ask someone, “How do we know which of these is a ‘command’?” Ten times out of ten, the next explanation will be entirely composed of disputable human opinion. It is this total and unspoken dependence on human opinion to provide the necessary underlying structure which makes CENI so incredibly untrustworthy.
I do not doubt that our brother Greg is a good brother and a lover of Jesus Christ. What is somewhat disappointing is that Jay’s pointing out of errors and hyperbole and misattribution and weak reasoning in Greg’s posts appears to have no hope of creating the least chance that Greg might reconsider even one of his positions. It’s rather like grading papers for a student knowing that he will never consider changing any of his answers.
I used to mystified by Greg’s inhuman standard of “precision obedience”. I thought it was a different view of obedience or of how we seek to model Christ. Then I realized that this is nothing new. It is the doctrine offered to us in scripture by the Pharisee who prayed thus to himself, “I thank you that I am not as other men are.” The Pharisee recounted the precision of his obedience in glorious detail, while the far less precise sinner went home justified. When I read Jesus’ words, I realize that he has already revealed what He thinks of such a position, and of those who claim it for their own.
I have many brothers who say that they are open to changing their views if such a change is proven to them by scripture to be appropriate. This sounds great, but it is most often offered by people with no track record of any change of any significant position. There are many who once held such views as Greg holds, and have changed one or more of those positions. When THEY say they are open to learning and change, I believe them. But as to my brothers who say they are open to change but have never actually done it, I am left in doubt.
“I do not doubt that our brother Greg is a good brother and a lover of Jesus Christ. What is somewhat disappointing is that Jay’s pointing out of errors and hyperbole and misattribution and weak reasoning in Greg’s posts appears to have no hope of creating the least chance that Greg might reconsider even one of his positions. It’s rather like grading papers for a student knowing that he will never consider changing any of his answers.”
I think you have summed up how the GraceConversation.com exchanges ended. Essentially the right-wing walked away from the dialogue when they realized that they had not only become unconvincing to any onlookers but potentially unpersuasive even to their own.
Charles you raise a valid point. Perhaps I should have said that if CENI were a valid tool for understanding the text then the C should be the easiest part. I have to confess that most of my frustration with folks on CENI is a willingness to fight and die and condemn for their NI conclusions while ignoring clear C statements by submitting them to human reason. We conclude that my reasoning and those who agree with me is superior in every way to the reasoning ability of those who see things differently. Seems to be an ultimately unworkable self worshipping standard.
The serious problem with CENI is that nearly all of it is “NI”, and frequently much of that “NI” is directed at clear “Cs”. For example: Rom. 14. Accept Rom. 14 at face value, and there is very little for a mature Christian to get worked up over.
Bob…thanks for mentioning the graceconversation link…went back and read some of the exchange…. Gotta admire the willingness of at least some to put it down in writing for others to mull over… Except that Hester dude… I’m always wary of people who don’t want to have their opinions written down so that they can be examined…
It is sad to see folks walk away from the discussion… One has to wonder on whom or what they gave up…
Pingback: The Fork in the Road: “The Way of UNITY between “Christian Churches” and Churches of Christ,” Part 7 | One In Jesus
Personal notez;
Just for the record, at the time I dropped out of the Grace Conversation dialogue I was dealing with a confluence of personal difficulties.
Making several emergency trips to Nashville due to the health of my mother, the time in the car and plane left me with a series of blood clots in my leg. Confined to bed with deep vein thrombosis, under the care of a vascular surgeon, I had to cut back on extracurricular activities.
I appreciated the graciousness of those who continued on in my absence.
GA Tidwell
Todd, I think you have “pinned the tail on the donkey”, as it were. Ultimately, the working of CENI comes down to my depending on what I think. (Or getting you to assume the validity of what I think.) What I think is TRUE, and then I apply this “truth” without reservation (or examination) to scripture and to the views of others. This reality gets submerged by rhetoric, and layers of inductive reasoning, but when those layers are carefully peeled back, the core of human opinion remains. The fact of the matter is that some of these opinions may be indeed accurate, as far as they go. But such limited accuracy may serve to blind us even further to the fundamental source of the wisdom we are employing.
At the core of our belief must be the revelation of God, the Holy Spirit performing his own delegated task in our own spirits. I am the first to admit that the faith that springs from this may not be explicable in sound reasoning terms. But in my experience, the difference between a core of inexplicable faith and a core of indefensible opinion can readily be discerned in the Spirit. In fact, the former seems to have the peace of God at its center, and is humble enough to be open to examination. The latter is never at rest, always on the lookout for opposition and ready to rebuff it, often with preemptive strikes at those we are called to love.
Charles wrote, very appropriately:
When I first read some of the Mishna and Talmud, I was impressed with how the Jews reasoned. For example, they ultimately decided that to walk across a field of grass (or weeds) would violate the Sabbath.
How? Well like this:
–The Sabbath forbids “work” so they sought a precise definition of work and came up with a number of “categories” of work.
–Among the categories were “reaping” and “threshing.” So far, so good. But then they had to become more precise and analyze just what was involved in “reaping” and “threshing.” Among the things they decided reaping involved was to separate seeds from the stalks on which they grew.
–Voila! To walk across a field of weeds would likely knock some “seeds” from their stalks (many of which might even stick to your clothing). Hence, you had better not walk across a field or you would be likely to violate the Sabbath.
It was the same style of reasoning that led to their rules regarding washing of hands, etc. Of these, Jesus said, “And many such things you do” to replace the Word of God with your tradition. (See Mark 7:1-15.) We see the same style of reasoning in our court system, where the precedent of one decision becomes the rule added to the actual law (or constitution) that will determine the course of future decisions.
In reading from the Jewish discussions of the Sabbath, I was impressed with how like them we have become. God says “A.” Since He said “A,” “B” must of necessity follow as being true (necessary inference). Now if “B” is true, then “C” must also follow “B” – and the chain of “logic” (inference) of what God meant by “A” grows longer and longer, as we continue to add “D,” “E,” and “F.” By the time we get to “F,” what God said in “A” is no longer recognizable. It’s become like that old game of “Gossip” we played in youth meetings when I was a teenager. Someone would whisper something in the ear of the first person, who would repeat it to the next, and so on around the room. By the time it had passed through a dozen or more repetitions, the message had no resemblance to what was originally said.
That sort of reasoning led to the Pharisees of Jesus day – and to leads to similar people today.
The further we “reason,” the further our “logic” takes us from what God actually says.
What is the solution? First, we must each take his own logic with a grain of salt. Second, we need to be skeptics where the logic of others is concerned. We need to learn to stick close, verrry close, to the text of the Scripture, paying close attention to context and circumstances. This will help us to rely more on the Word of God than on the conclusions of Man.
And just like the Pharisees of old we become totally unable to realize it is our reason we are worshiping instead of God and we become thoroughly insulated from union with what God is actually doing in the world around us.
Todd,
And that is why worshiping our hermeneutic is idolatry.
It’s good to see some recognition that CENI is totally non-Christian. It’s an attempt to change the gospel of grace into a law code. The apostles made NO laws. Jesus made NO laws. CENI is seeking laws. They’re not there. CENI is an enemy of gospel grace.
We do want unity. Jesus wants us united. CENI requires separation from all who don’t agree on what laws they want to obey. So unity will come only when CENI is not any part of the discussion. Alexander loves laws, as I read his writings. And gladly debates what those laws mean in the Way of the Christ. But the laws themselves are ungodly, however well intentioned the people were who created the unscriptural laws.
Thanks for the article. Very well put, and every response is very kind from you. Just as a reference, I’m 27.
I long for unity, and unity in Christ alone. I believe we will unite when we unite not through politics or councils or ecumenism – it’s all human. Jesus Christ will unite his church, amen? And we as people who claim to follow Him must let Him strip away all that comes from us, and put our focus solely on Him. When He is lifted up, He’ll draw all men to Himself.
He is the Head of the Church, the Bridegroom, and He is alive. He will do this great work of washing His bride with the Word and purifying us for Himself, no? God has a habit of purifying His people, sifting them, disciplining them. He will do this great work.
A brother wrote: What church in the CoC faith heritage do you know that believes in “faith only.” Who doesn’t speak to the importance of baptism ? And once saved always saved works pretty well until somebody no longer wants to be saved…Huh ?
——-
And I have to unhappily point out that the present teaching of my good friend and brother AL MAXEY is that salvation usually comes prior to baptism into Christ and does not depend on a new birth of water and spirit. He bases his opinion on the wrong translation of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Translators have put words into Paul’s mouth that Paul would never have uttered or written. The translators create a second baptism which brings sinners into the body of Christ. It’s a baptism by the Holy Spirit. Such a baptism is never spoken of in any other passage. It’s never prophesied. It’s never reported to have occurred. Yet they figure that Paul would in this one verse speak of such a thing as being known by everyone who had ever been baptized into Christ.
So Al is writing that salvation comes to sinners when the Holy Spirit baptizes them. This may occur, he figures, even without the sinner having heard of Jesus in some cases. Yet he clearly teaches that it’s when the sinner first fully believes in Jesus as Lord of all that the Spirit steps in and “baptizes” the sinner and thereby ushers the sinner into the church of God.
And Al in responsive notes quotes many who say they now agree with this teaching. It’s faith alone in the sense that it’s not related to repentance and baptism as part of conversion. So shall we say that all in Church of Christ congregations do believe in salvation as taught in Acts 2:38? It’s no longer true. I invite anyone interested to read about the problem (it’s a serious problem as I see it) by viewing on the internet http::/missionoutreach.org/OwensMaxey.pdf. If this link doesn’t work for anyone, by going to the web site of missionoutreach.org and clicking on “Baptism by the Holy Spirit?” you will be directed to the file. It now includes writings by Al himself as well as rebuttals by Marion Owens and me.
Will the link work if enclosed in ? .
No, that just made it disappear? <>
http://missionoutreach.org/OwensMaxey.pdf
Third times a charm!
How great is the need for us all to love one another and seek to work together to accomplish what Jesus wants us to be doing for Him on earth today. And particularly members of Church of Christ congregations and members of Christian Churches/Churches of Christ should be together as the one body of Christ seeking unity with every other sincere disciple of Christ. Tulsa on March 21-24 is a time when we would be blessed by inspiring appeals to unity. I’m glad that Jay and Al and Patrick and many others plan to be there.
outreachdownenray,
The majority view of Bible scholars would disagree with your assumption that “water” in John 3 is a reference to water baptism.
Three times Peter said in Acts (chapter 10, 11, and 15) that he received the Holy Spirit just like the Gentile house of Cornelius, when he believed. It is odd to me that so many people ignore the words of the fellow who is quoted in Acts 2 when he continues to be quoted in the same book on the very subject of the Holy Spirit. It is not good scholarship to cherry pick passages that support your (or my) view of a thing.
You will find agreement with your view mainly with Roman Catholics and orthodox churches who view water baptism as a sacrament.
Royce,
I don’t quite understand your statement. Were you trying to say, the minority view of Bible scholars would disagree with outreachdownenray?
From a purely historical viewpoint, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and numerous Post-Reformation non-Catholic groups have always believed water is water baptism. While some of the groups see it as a sacrament and others do not, even most Evangelical Bible scholars admit that water is water baptism, though it should be interpreted to symbolize Spirit baptism (the outward sign of the inward reality). That said, the minority view among a very small group within Christendom denies water in John 3:5 is water baptism and instead interprets it is as a reference to physical birth, or something else other than water baptism.
I am always interested in what you have read that would lead you to another conclusion. I welcome your constructive criticism of my understanding.
It is suggested that Peter was mistaken when he urged seeking sinners (Acts 2:37,38) to repent and be baptized in order to receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. If some imagined “majority” wants to disagree with what Peter is quoted as having said, they are welcome to be wrong. And for others to think that Peter didn’t mean what he said as quoted in Acts 2:38 because he later links believing with having been baptized with God’s Spirit (Acts 2), once again I don’t mind at all their being wrong. Many in this world have wrong ideas. Wrong ideas lead to wrong actions. Will wrong ideas save sinners? I think not. But it’s not up to me to judge them. Jay is urging us to think about unity between us who freely use musical instruments in God’s service and others who don’t choose to do so. I’m with Jay in knowing that all who love Jesus should be in unity with all others who also love Jesus. But I realize that we can love all we are able and still not find harmonious unity with everyone. It’s still our job to seek unity in Christ, and to seek to serve Him as best we each know how.
That is the one thing I think we do have unity in, love for Jesus.
Lots the other man made positions that cause division, especially while sitting in comfortable pews.
Let a catastrophe or a real problem confront us and seeking and accomplishing unity among Christians and COC becomes a natural thing.
How we seek and lean on each other and Jesus forgetting our petty, pretty dumb differences when we need comforting and help from God.
God knows this, and we wonder why bad things happen. God is ringing our bell and getting our attention and any observers around us. After all, He loves us all and wants us all with Him for eternity. He does not want to lose a single one and that means me and you.
HistoryGuy That said, the minority view among a very small group within Christendom denies water in John 3:5 is water baptism and instead interprets it is as a reference to physical birth, or something else other than water baptism.
I must confess that in my 50 years of life I have never heard anyone other than a CofC church member interpret is as water baptism. Not from any mainline protestant denomination, I cant speak for Catholics. In fact after I was first introduced to the thought I went back and read it and read it, and it appears obvious to my uneducated mind that the text refers to physical birth.
I am willing to be convinced but the language in any translation I have read appears to clearly indicate physical birth to someone taking it at face value and not going at it with a preconceived opinion
Johnny thinks that the new birth of water and spirit spoken of in John 3:5 is a physical birth. In the next verse physical births are spoken of as of the “flesh.” And that accurately describes the physical birth. There is no water involved in physical birth except for washing up afterward. Anyone could read about the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus forever and would never find Jesus describing the physical birth as a birth of water and spirit. At least that’s how it seems to me. John 3:5 is linking as new birth two elements which are water and spirit. The new birth is of water and spirit. I invite readers to visit my study on the subject at http://missionoutreach.org/Raysed1.html.
The early church fathers spoke of baptism as the new birth. Here, I am speaking specifically of those in the 2nd & 3rd centuries. Most of Christendom, except for those in the “Reformed” tradition of Calvin and Zwingli also see the new birth as baptism. Similar language is used in Titus 3:4 as “the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” Also, a comparison of 1 Peter 1:3 and 1 Peter 3:21 with attention to the connection of the resurrection of Jesus with both being born again and with baptism suggests a connection between baptism in water and the new birth.
Applying 1 John 3:5 to baptism is not a minority view among Bible scholars – unless you are very selective about whom you judge to be a “true scholar.”
Ray wrote: “John 3:5 is linking as new birth two elements which are water and spirit.”
In this, he is correct. Yet, he has denied that 1 Corinthians 12:13 speaks of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. (Though he is correct also in pointing out that many translations make this baptism by the Spirit instead of in the Holy Spirit. When we correctly understand Paul to say that we are baptized in one Spirit, which in the context is the Holy Spirit, we can understand that the one Christian baptism has two elements: water and Spirit (cf. Ephesians 4:4-6).
I’m curious, what do you brothers think Peter meant when he said he received the Spirit just as Cornelius and his house, when they believed?
It is quite obvious to me that the reason Peter baptized those gentiles was that they had obviously received the Holy Spirit. I’ll just let him say it.
Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:46b,47)
15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:15-17)
7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m only trying to understand why these clear statements by Peter only bring silence when I mention them? I think it would be good to read the whole context so you can see that I am not trying to make the text say something it does not say. Acts 10, whole chapter. Acts 11:1-18, and Acts 15:1-21
Royce, you ask a good question. I’m not sure I can answer it, and I’m pretty sure that my answer would not agree with many of my brethren.
First, I do not believe that Peter meant that Cornelius had the same gifts from the Spirit that the Twelve had. I believe he spoke of receiving the same Spirit that all of the believing Jews had received, not of the same gifts from the self-same Spirit.
Second, I believe he meant that Cornelius received the Spirit in the same manner that the Twelve (and the 120?) had received it. He did not receive the Spirit by the laying on of hands (as in Acts 8), nor did he receive the Spirit by being baptized in the name of the Lord (as in Acts 2:38 and Acts 19:1-6ff). The Spirit was given directly by God with no human intervention of any kind – except that Peter “began” to speak to them. That the Spirit came as he began to speak, to me, means that we cannot even say the Spirit fell on them because they had heard the Word of God.
Had Peter baptized Cornelius without his having received the Holy Spirit (and demonstrated that by speaking in tongues), the Jews would likely have been even more intransigent in receiving Gentiles as equals in the kingdom. He knew his brethren – and so took six (double or triple the “two or three witnesses” required for every word to be confirmed!) good brothers with him to “testify” when he would be called on the carpet as I am sure he knew he would be when he returned to Jerusalem (see Acts 11). He went back to this same event when some wanted to insist that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved. Peter said they were saved the same way the Jews were: by faith.
I do not know if these reasons will satisfy you – or any one else, for that matter – but as of now, these are my reasons and answers. At least they are until someone can show me better reasons for what Peter said and did.
Royce and Jerry, I will go ahead and toss something out for discussion.
The English translation “baptize within the Holy Spirit” does not have the definite article in the Greek. It is literally “baptize within Spirit Holy.” The gift of the Holy Spirit does have the definite article and it is “the Holy Spirit.” Reference to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:33 is a double definite article “the Spirit the Holy” in the Greek. In Acts 10:44 “the Spirit the Holy” came upon (fell on) Cornelius et al and in vs 45 “the Holy Spirit” had been poured out. The verb for “came upon” in vs 45 is the same word in Acts 8:16 – only places used in reference to the Holy Spirit’s operation.
There are two expressions in the Greek for the Holy Spirit which are associated with two operations – one, “the Spirit the Holy” came upon (actually, “seized”) Cornelius et al and they had external manifestations (tongues) in vs 44, and two, “the gift of the Holy Spirit” was poured out. Please note the separation of “the gift” from the manifestation of tongues. “The gift” is the same as in Acts 2:38. Tongues were a sign to the Jews, as in everywhere else in Acts. That is how the Jews knew the gift had been poured out, because the gift itself does not produce external manifestations. Also note that “the gift” is not charismata – Luke does not use that word.
The gift of the Holy Spirit is given to people redeemed by the blood of Jesus. In Cornelius’ case, the gift was received and the manifestations came upon at the same time. After that, Cornelius and his household, who had been baptized by Jesus Christ within Spirit Holy, had been washed of their sins by the blood of the Lamb, and who had received the gift of the Spirit dwelling within, were water baptized. After.
I used to think Cornelius was the exception. If that is so, why is more precise detail given by Luke than any other example of salvation, and why is it repeated two times, in case we missed it? Once one understands that Cornelius is “the rule,” then the other conversion accounts fall into place.
The Samaritans received the gift when they were baptized (God said so Acts 2:38-39) but the manifestation occurred when the Spirit seized them with apostolic laying on of hands. So the events were separated. The Holy Spirit interrupted Peter’s sermon and seized Cornelius directed and the gift and the manifestations occurred simultaneously. Every conversion account is a little different and adds information to complete the picture. But there are common denominators to them all.
(1) God is in charge of His salvation; we are not. God determines when a person is saved by baptism within Spirit Holy; we do not. There is nothing that humans can do to stand in the way of a person’s salvation, no classes, no memorization, no recitation, no human interventions, including water baptism. The Cornelius account is clear. God has turned me 180 degrees on that one.
(2) Peter said in Ch 11 that he could have “opposed God.” It was in answer to “why did you eat with them.” Peter did two things after God had given the gift to the Gentiles – he ordered them water baptized and he ate with them. Basically, that means welcoming them into fellowship. He would have opposed God had he not fellowshipped them, including water baptism. That means water baptism is a command for existing believers to perform on new converts, and the believers (the church) will oppose God if water baptism is not done. It is a command to the church, not to the believer.
(3) God saves people, we water baptize and fellowship those whom God has saved. If God saves people and we refuse to fellowship them because they haven’t been water baptized and therefore we say they aren’t saved — we oppose God. The account of Cornelius is clear. God has turned me 180 degrees on that one, too.
1 Cor. 12:13 – For within one Spirit we have been baptized into one body. (en – within; eis – into, same as Acts 2:38). Baptism is not by the Spirit; the Spirit doesn’t baptize; Jesus is the baptizer; the Spirit is the medium within which we are immersed. Baptism within Spirit Holy into one body. Done by Jesus. It is God’s salvation. God add to the number; we do not. God saves; we fellowship.
Once, I would have laughed if someone said Jesus was talking about amniotic fluid in John 3:5, but that’s what it is. It is a parallel between a physical and spiritual birth. As a natural birth is out of the surrounding water of birth (within water), so is the spiritual birth out of the surrounding Spirit Holy. Born again is also translated born from out of above. The new birth involves being generated from out of the throne room of God, having been surrounded within the Spirit Holy as immersed by the Lord Jesus Christ.
One Lord, one faith, one baptism. If there is one baptism —
John or humans water baptize, Jesus baptizes within the Holy Spirit, choose one.
Acts 19 – Water baptism doesn’t give the Holy Spirit, Spirit baptism does, choose one.
1 Cor 12:13 – Baptism within the HS into the body, choose one.
Gift of the HS – with either water baptism or baptism w/i the HS, choose one.
There is one baptism. Cornelius conversion says one saves and the other doesn’t. Choose one.
Why then do we read “water” into the text every time the word “baptism” is used?
And there is a lot more — which has been hidden behind a water baptistery.
Jerry…curious…why do you believe that Cornelius didn’t have the same gifts as Peter and the “others in the beginning” ??
Dr. T.. Man, the whole Corinthian church was operating in Spirit.. I’d say that confirms your thoughts about it being the rule, huh? In your opinion, was it JUST for the first century church ?
In each case of external manifestations in Acts at a conversion, it was a sign to the Jews of God’s authority and approval of the gospel going into the next evangelistic phase (Acts 1:8). Gifts at Corinth (and Rom 12 and 1 Pet 4) were to build up the church. Paul said specifically that tongues in the church assembly were not to be used as a sign, and the Corinthians were using tongues as a sign of “I’m better than you.” That’s the wrong use of gifts, and if an unbeliever comes in and sees gifts used in the wrong way (as signs) in the church, he says, “You’re crazy; I’m outta here.” But if he sees gifts used correctly, he is convicted of sin, which Jesus said the Holy Spirit would do. Immaturity in the church quenches the work (fire) of the Spirit. It’s like an unbeliever coming into a church meeting where everyone is arguing about instruments and water baptism. Try going somewhere else where the name of Jesus Christ is lifted up.
There are two parts of getting the meaning from Acts – (1) is in the details of the meaning of the text, and (2) what does it mean for us. Too often we take the details in Acts, as we understand them – which is usually incomplete – and make a doctrine out of our marginal interpretation which is academically deemed to be binding and worth fighting for. In so doing, we lift the flag of doctrine and miss the spiritual principle in Acts. The principle of Cornelius is that God is sovereign over His salvation and the Holy Spirit operates consistent with the will of the Father, just as Jesus did. God did not make humans the gatekeepers to His salvation, or to the operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither are subject to our interpretations. Tongues may have been a sign to the Jews in Acts, but there is no basis to rationalize that signs will not be used again, at any time, at any place, without our sanction or permission or even our understanding for that matter. We’re not in charge. We say that we know we’re not in charge, but then we act like we’re in charge of what the Spirit does and doesn’t do today. Spiritual gifts operated in the early church according to the will of the Holy Spirit, and they will continue to operate until the church has fully matured into the fullness of Christ (the perfect has come). And that is not CENI. There is no valid construction of passages into a house of cards to conclude that tongues, healing, or anything else cannot occur or will not occur today. There is abuse of gifts, sure. But defining spiritual gifts out of existence does not make us mature Christians. It’s the opposite – it makes us weak in power and immature. There are a lot of reasons why gifts and miracles (physical) do not occur today like we read in Acts, but the lack of power is based on a fragmented church, not on scripture.
I noted a quote in Jay’s text above from Greg T., “unity at all cost.” That is a statement from a human perspective, not God’s. I would respond, “No, it’s at the cost of the blood of Jesus Christ so that we could set aside our private interpretations. and keep the unity in the bond of peace.” Fulfilling the unity that Jesus prayed for is at the cost of my doctrinal pride.
It’s good that many have expressed opinions on this matter of baptism by the Holy Spirit. I repeat that Paul would never have said that baptism into the body of Christ was performed by or in the Holy Spirit. Paul didn’t write such a blasphemy. Translators did it to him. The Holy Spirit is given by God to each convert who is born again of water and spirit. That’s how and when the Spirit is given. It’s AFTER the new birth. Baptism into the church and into Christ is in water. Period. The new birth is not of physical birth and the Spirit as some have written. It’s as Peter is quoted. New birth of water and spirit is repenting and being baptized in water. That’s all. And it’s done because the sinner who is to be baptized now believes in Jesus as Lord. Anyone who is already in Christ should never be baptized.
As to baptism by the Spirit. There’s absolutely nothing whatever to it. It’s all a figment of human imagination. Baptism IN the Spirit was promised to the apostles, and was performed as promised. To the apostles as promised. The signs, or at least enough signs to convince Peter and the other Jewish Christians, were repeated in order to open the Way to Gentiles so that they also could be baptized in water into Christ. The purpose of baptism in the Spirit was not at all to cleanse from sin. That’s done by the new birth of water and spirit, by repenting and being baptized in water.
All this foolishness of deep meanings in the Greek does not in fact enlighten us as to simple Bible truths. The Bible books were not written for scholars, but for common people. Shall we suppose then that only scholars can understand it? I think not. The translations may mislead. Certainly they do in 1 Corinthians 12:13. So if a translated verse seems to some to change the meaning of other verses, why would we not question the one verse rather than saying the other verses need to be understood differently than they say when understood in their simple meanings?
When Paul clearly and simply states that there is ONE baptism for us, how dare some assume he would in another passage speak of a baptism which is NOT the one commanded by Jesus, and claim that other baptism is the one which brings us into the church of God? And how strange it is to assume that baptism which is to be performed by humans as Jesus commands is somehow performed instead by the Holy Spirit. No, it wasn’t the apostle Paul who created a baptism “by the one Spirit.” He wrote simply of the baptism which brings us into the church because each person baptized in water has first repented of sin. The convert has turned away from self-love and now loves Jesus. EVERY person baptized into Christ has done this. We have all repented of sin. So Paul urges us to love one another and work together for Jesus. And in the verse in question he reminds that we all then did receive the gift of the Spirit as a result of our having been born again of water and spirit.
If the goal of this blog is to work toward unity of all who are in Christ, it is good that we seek to agree on how sinners are converted and added to His church. The “great commission” tells the tale. We who know Jesus as Lord are to tell others everywhere we go about Him. Those who believe the gospel we share are then to be baptized by us if indeed they are turning to Jesus as Lord. Peter understood the commission. So he told inquirers in a gathered “multitude” (he and the other apostles did the telling) what they needed to do in order to have their sins cleansed and in order to receive the Holy Spirit.
The apostle Paul would not come along later and say there was a different way to enter the Way. That should tell any seeker after truth whether or not the apostle would say that baptism which brings sinners into the body of Christ is performed by the Holy Spirit. But that’s what some are now claiming that Paul did. It’s nonsense, but that is what they’re claiming.
Price,
I looked back to see what I had written. I said:
I was making a distinction between the Spirit Himself as a gift from God and those gifts that the Spirit gives according to His will (see 1 Corinthians 12:11). The gifts the Spirit gives differ from person to person. Now Cornelius did speak in tongues, as did at least the Twelve, perhaps the 120 as well, on Pentecost. But the tongues were a sign that Cornelius had indeed received the Spirit. In writing that paragraph, I was thinking of what Paul called “the signs of an apostle” (2 Corinthians 12:12). Even though the outward manifestation of tongues was the same, I do not believe that Cornelius was thereby made an apostle.
Jerry…If I understand Romans 8:9 correctly, either we have the Spirit Himself in us or we don’t belong to Jesus… So, it seems to me that Paul is teaching that we each have the Spirit…if He chooses to gift us in some way, the gifts themselves may vary according to His design… Are you saying that an Apostle is gifted above and beyond the normal….if normal could be applied to any divine gift..:) Don’t know that I disagree with that…it seems even in the OT that certain prophets and men of God were given abilities beyond their contemporaries… Probably gave them credibility when God need them to be listened to… I can see a consistency with that in the NT… However, I believe that some confuse this special empowerment with the other gifting that was so wide spread throughout the churches… Just because God chooses not to empower someone to perform out of this world, made for TV miracles doesn’t mean that someone might be encouraged to speak to another brother or sister at a time when they most need to be encouraged…Or a teacher suddenly gets some new insight to share… or you wake up in the middle of the night with a sudden and clear need to pray for someone only to find out the next day they were in the middle of some crisis…
Price,
That is essentially what I am saying. ALL Christians receive the Spirit, usually concurrent with baptism in water. Cornelius was an exception in this, as the Holy Spirit fell on him and he spoke in tongues prior to Peter’s command for him to be baptized. In this, he was like the Pentecost experience.
When we receive the Spirit, the Spirit gives gifts according to His will. It is in these gifts that I doubt that Cornelius was like the apostles, other than the gift of tongues exercised when the Spirit fell on him and his household. We simply do not know what gifts Cornelius may have exercised following his baptism in water. There is nothing, however, in his conversion story or elsewhere to suggest that he was able to perform the signs of an apostle such as Paul spoke of in 2 Cor 12:12.
Royce or anybody,
If Cornelius was a faithful God fearing Gentile who worshiped God to the best of his ability prior to Pentecost, do you believe he would have been in a saved state then (before Pentecost)?
Do you believe that every Gentile, pre-Pentecost, was lost? Regardless of what they believed and how they lived?
If faithful Gentiles (like Cornelius) could be saved before Pentecost as the “other sheep” (Jn. 10:16), when do you believe they became lost?
If the HS falling on Cornelius proved that he then went from being lost to saved…… did the apostles then also go from being lost to saved at the moment the HS fell on them?
I keep reading statements that the conversion of Cornelius is an “exception.” I used to think that, also. Then I was led to see the passages differently.
Why would the Holy Spirit (1) direct Luke to write, (2) historically intervene to have the writing survive, and (3) guide people to include it in the canon for us — a significant number of verses in Acts, carefully documented in grammatical precision, all to be an exception that brings about confusion, so we have to contrive some way to ignore them? What else in the book of Acts is an exception? What about Acts 2:38? What is an exception and what is not? Do we pick and choose based on what conversions cannot be explained in terms of a traditional doctrine of water baptism? That’s eisegesis.
I submit that the Holy Spirit brought all of the words in Acts to us for our instruction. All the verses have important and relevant meaning. I submit that there are no exceptions in any conversion account, and that we should let the scripture interpret our doctrine rather than our doctrine interpreting the scripture. And when a passage is so explicitly clear that we can’t get around what it, someone says, “It’s an exception.” Something that appears to be an “exception” means that we need to study some more until it is clear. God is a God of order, not chaos.
The “exception” approach doesn’t hold water. That baptistery leaks.
outreachdownenray,
Really? Do you really believe this? “He wrote simply of the baptism which brings us into the church because each person baptized in water has first repented of sin. The convert has turned away from self-love and now loves Jesus. EVERY person baptized into Christ has done this. We have all repented of sin.”
Every person baptized has truly repented? So that would mean that every single person who was baptized in a church of Christ was truly saved. Wow, that is strong! Makes me wonder why such a high percentage of my brothers and sisters have been baptized more than once.
You also said, “Anyone who is already in Christ should never be baptized.” Hmm. So only the lost should be baptized? That just seems odd to me. You referenced the “great commission”. Do you believe unsaved people are disciples.
I think only people who have confessed that they believe the gospel and are trusting Jesus should be baptized. And, according to Jesus, that sort of person has eternal life. That is if you believe what Jesus himself said, not once, not twice, but several times.
I suppose where you and I really disagree is that with all my being I believe Jesus is enough. Unless I completely misunderstand you, you don’t believe he is enough.
Maybe I just have a twisted mind. I think about a God who spoke and things lept into existence. I think about Jesus who was God in flesh who said he had all power in heaven and on earth. And, I have to wonder how anyone could think that omnipotent God can’t save a sinner, since the death burial and resurrection of Jesus, unless we help him. Before the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus he could sinners any time and anywhere he chose to. And, God saved our father Abraham before he did any of the exploits he is famous for.
Sorry, I can’t imagine God giving his only son for sinners like us, to crush him like a common thief and then decide to make it more difficult than ever before to save the sinners for whom he paid the awful price.
John’s baptism was “for repentance”. The baptism itself was not repentance, it was to signify repentance, an act identifying with others who had repented.
Today, Christian baptism (not sinner’s baptism) is “for the remission of sins”. The act doesn’t forgive or take away sins, only God can do that. When we surrender our bodies into the hands of another and reenact the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, we are making a visible confession that we are identifying with Jesus and his people, that the old man died with Christ and that we desire to live the new life. Unless the person we immerse is trusting Christ the best he or she knows how baptism means nothing.
Most Christians believe the words of Jesus to his inner circle are for us today. We make disciples (by telling the good news about what Jesus has accomplished for sinners). We baptize those who believe. And we teach them all we can about what Jesus taught with his own words and through the words of inspired men like Peter, Paul, and John.
Phillip replied to the Ethiopian official when he wanted to be baptized, “if you believe with all your heart you may”. I think that is a good plan. The overwhelming weight of New Testament teaching is that a person “who believes with all his heart” is justified.
Hank,
What we call good moral people are lost without Christ. About Cornelius, Peter said this about his conversion. ” And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, (Cornelius and other Gentiles) by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.”
God save Peter and Cornelius because they put their trust in Jesus.
Hank….Acts 11:14 says that the angel told Cornelius that he was to seek out Peter and that Peter would tell him “Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” I guess if he were already considered saved then the angel probably would have had a different message……
Dr. T….great post… the only “exception” that Cornelius presents is when salvation is received outside of water… It’s not an exception to salvation by Faith… The water sacrament person HAS to say that it is an exception for the purpose of letting the Jews know that the Gentiles were accepted…Strange thought actually…since the Gentiles were already allowed to be accepted if they met certain requirement under Jewish law…The Gentiles, if I understand correctly, already had means to graft into the vine…so to speak… But, if it is truly by Grace through Faith that we are saved…and that baptism is an outward and visible proclamation for the benefit of those of us who can’t read minds, then Cornelius is, as you correctly stated, not an exception… It’s interesting that the 3,000 were added to the “Church” by baptism…one has to wonder if they had already been added to the Kingdom by Faith…
Jerry…thank you for taking the time to clarify my understanding of your post… Question… what do you think WERE the signs of an Apostle since they weren’t named…and, do you think that the term “sent out” or however it might be translated without an “office” might apply here ? I constantly hear of awesome acts of God in the mission fields, both domestic and foreign…I sometimes wonder if God gives men/women special abilities who risk it all for the sake of spreading the name of Jesus… Being “sent out” may not entitle one to the “office” of Apostle but it sure gets God’s attention…and perhaps divine support.
It is certainly true that one does not need to be a Greek scholar to understand enough to be saved, and that is a good thing, or else I wouldn’t make it. However, there is another higher level of accountability, and that is the one who teaches others. The one who teaches others will answer to God for what he says, because a teacher exercises authority over the learner. With that responsibility, I will leave no stone unturned or no Greek word unexamined or no plea for the guidance of the Counselor unbreathed in the quest to find the meaning of God’s revelation exactly as He intends. I suggest everyone who teaches or makes public comments on a web site or blog should consider this level of accountability to the Holy Spirit. This not only applies to matters of salvation, but also to matters of fellowship and unity. The scripture is clear: Those who divide the church do so at their own great peril — based on their doctrinal interpretations or anything else. Many Christians need to greatly expand their definition of the borders of the kingdom.
“….they had already been added to the Kingdom by Faith…”
Price, you are definitely “on to” something and closing in.
The outpouring of the Spirit happened to the Gentiles in Cornelius house showing Gods mystery (salvation is for Jew and Gentile) Both are required to repent and be baptized to receive the indwelling of Christ. Sealed and adopted as Sons of God. Can’t be added to the kingdom without the indwelling of Christ received through the baptism in the name of Jesus. The outpouring promised to all people (spoken in acts 2 quoting Joel and prophesied by Isaiah , Ezekiel and other prophet) is received by all. This does not mean that your added to the kingdom or that you are saved, sealed, or adopted at this point. It means the the Spirit is at work encouraging, empowering, protecting. One still has a baptism to undergo to obtain the seal, or become marked by Christ without his seal or mark you have not been adopted as a Son of God.
Robert
Royce and Price,
You guys avoided the questions. Here they are again:
If Cornelius was a faithful God fearing Gentile who worshiped God to the best of his ability prior to Pentecost, do you believe he would have been in a saved state then (before Pentecost)?
Do you believe that every Gentile, pre-Pentecost, was lost? Regardless of what they believed and how they lived?
If faithful Gentiles (like Cornelius) could be saved before Pentecost as the “other sheep” (Jn. 10:16), when do you believe they became lost?
If the HS falling on Cornelius proved that he then went from being lost to saved…… did the apostles then also go from being lost to saved at the moment the HS fell on them?
Uh, Robert… Cornelius received the HS BEFORE he was baptized…you’re argument might be better suited to a different example…
Hank…worshipping to the “best of your ability” wasn’t the system prior to Pentecost…It was be 100% obedient to the Law or else make the appropriate sacrifices… Was a Jew covered by covenant with God… of course… We’re the Gentiles grated into the covenant…i believe they were if they did certain things… All we know from the Cornelius passage is that God told him that if he’d go listen to Peter that he would be saved… Anything other than that is speculation… But I believe you assume too much by thinking Cornelius was Saved if in fact God told him he had to go do something else to BE SAVED…
As unpopular as it may be, I’m more of an “available light” kind of guy… Paul seems to suggest that those without the Law would be judged based on the law of their conscience. (Rom 2:15). Cornelius is an example of a man who got God’s attention by prayer and giving to the poor…It doesn’t say that God noticed how good he followed the Law. Who knows whether all Gentiles went to hell for being ignorant of the Truth.. I hope God gave them a chance. But, once again, your assumption and last two questions seem to be based on the fact that Cornelius was saved prior to his hearing the truth from Peter… I think that’s an incorrect reading of the passage and therefore makes your last two questions moot.
Hank,
Price makes an important point. Read Romans 2:12-16, 25-29 and 3:9 as reflecting pre-Pentecost and Romans 3:21-31 as after. Seems to suggest faith could be counted as righteousness. God was in charge of His plan to righteousness both pre- and post-Pentecost. Salvation is God’s call, not ours to make. We are to be obedient and submit to God’s will. That is no different OT or NT.
Robert, (1.15.12:30am)
How do you explain Galatians 4:6?
This is just a few verses after he had written:
If God sends His Spirit because we are His Sons, and we are sons of God through faith for we are baptized into Christ and have put on Christ, where does that leave us with Cornelius?
I am beginning to think that the precise moment of salvation, becoming God’s child, and receiving the Holy Spirit is in God’s hands, not ours. I want to let God be God, for I am not. We can discuss these matters until Christ comes – when we will likely discover that we were debating the wrong issues. I can know some things:
*We are God’s children by faith.
*This involves being baptized into Christ.
*God sends His Spirit into our hearts because we are His children.
*The Pentecostals were to repent and be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit.
I can promise these things to all penitent believers who are baptized: remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, becoming a child of God, being clothed with Christ, being one in Christ, being an heir of the promises to Abraham.
If I never know until I reach glory, I can teach and practice these things – without having to know if a person is saved before his nose breaks the surface of the water of baptism or not. I will make no promises to those who chose not to be baptized. I can only let penitent believers know that God instructs them to be baptized. What God does with those who decline baptism is in His hands, not mine. I cannot tell Him what to do.
Jerry, I totally concur with your observation that we might be arguing over the silliest things in God’s opinion…In fact, the degree to which we argue, divide and divide again may cause God to be angry… so, I’m avoiding throwing rocks at anybody for disagreeing with me and in fact, in many things it might be best to disagree…
Couple of things… first I always find in curious that the folks who believe we are saved at the moment we first believe by amazing grace are assumed to reject baptism by those who think water immersion is a salvation sacrament… I don’t know of a single person who believes we are saved by Grace through Faith that doesn’t acknowledge that baptism is a command to be obeyed…
Secondly, your Galatians chapter 3 passage doesn’t support baptism as a salvific moment… verses 24 and 26 clearly say that we are Justified and made children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus… Not Faith plus…just faith… Putting on Christ isn’t salvation… We symbolize the death, burial and resurrection but we aren’t saved by this symbolic act of obedience any more than we are saved by taking the Lord’s Supper…IMHO… It IS HOLY and special..no doubt…But, there just isn’t any getting around the clear and unambiguous statements that we are saved by Faith…Romans 4…Abraham wasn’t justified in what he did…or it would have been something that was due him as a wage is due the employee…it was Grace that extended justification to Abraham based on God’s seeing into his heart and knowing that he believed… Faith and Trust bring forth obedience but it isn’t the obedience that saves…It is God who saves and it’s clear to me that Faith is what he is looking for… In fact, I don’t see the 5 acts either…I just see that he heard, he believed….he was justified by God. Hebrews 11 even credits his obedience to faith…It doesn’t leave obedience as the key factor…it is the Faith that promoted the action that the author of Hebrews highlights in this chapter… But, she may have been mistaken…
Price,
I appreciate your comment and the spirit in which it is offered. However, Galatians 3 is not “my passage.” It belongs to the whole church. I offered it because it says, “we are children of God by faith for as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
There is a connection between baptism and faith, a connection we seem intent on breaking (at least in our discussions about them). As true “Moderns” we want to define every thing precisely and logically. Hence, we look at “faith” and at “baptism” as two different things. Yet Paul could say you have been saved by faith for (because) you were baptized into Christ. To Paul, faith and baptism are two parts of the same thing. It is not “faith in Jesus plus something else.” It is “faith in Jesus in action.”
The Holy Writ has joined faith and baptism. Let’s not, as mere men, attempt to put them asunder.
I say this without in any way attempting to make baptism a sacrament that works by the thing it’s self. I do not make any judgment about a person who believes but is not yet baptized. I do know Paul apparently assumed that all to whom he wrote in Rome had been baptized (Romans 6:3-4) and that this action was a symbol of their death with Jesus in His death and resurrection with Him in His resurrection. As such, it is not to be dismissed lightly – any more than the bread and the wine of the communion supper is to be dismissed lightly, even though that should not be viewed as a sacrament either (though it often is treated that way by my brethren).
Jerry.. undoubtedly you are a good man.. much better than me…but I couldn’t disagree with you more… Not only does Paul not combine baptism and faith he goes to a great deal of trouble to separate them… Eph 2:8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” Not of your own doing… Seems to be consistent with Romans 4… Nope baptism is not a savific function…it is a symbolic function… the cross was symbolic… it was real…Jesus did all that was necessary to save me.. He condemned sin… I believe…I trust…I’m saved… As a result of my belief and faith and trust in things I can’t explain or define, I am saved… Therefore, I try my best to do what I know to be the right thing to do… Baptism is my outward commitment as seen by the church…It’s a public thing… you don’t baptize yourself in the shower… It’s for the church… God has already saved me… But here again, I agree with your earlier statement…As long as both are done everybody is happy… so I see it only as an exercise in theological debate… If others wants to divide the body of Christ over these technical issues, they risk more than being right or wrong in my opinion… I’m saved by Grace through Faith and because of that I go through the baptismal process as an obedient act….if someone else believes they are saved by baptism then so be it… I still pass you the communion plate.
Price,
I have never, ever denied that we are saved by grace through faith. In fact, I believe that with all my heart. I have shown you, though, where Paul links faith and baptism. What is the nature of that link? Galatians 3 says we are sons of God by faith for we have been baptized into Christ. Are you suggesting that Paul contradicts Paul? I accept that salvation by grace through faith includes a trusting obedience. Are you saying that the New Testament teaches that people can easily be mature or maturing children of God while refusing baptism? Or by treating it lightly and insignificant? I am not denying that God may save some people without baptism under some unknown circumstances, unknown because God has not revealed them to us.
While we may quibble about the exact moment of salvation, we tend to focus on one small part of what God teaches on the entire subject: I have been saved; I am being saved; and I shall be saved. Scripture puts salvation in all of these tenses, for it is a movement from a man in rebellion to a man fully redeemed and glorified. In one sense, it is fully accomplished in what Jesus has done at the cross. (I do not believe you really meant to say that the cross is symbolic, did you? Surely you meant to write that baptism is symbolic of the cross!) Yet, in another sense, we are charged to “work out” our salvation – while the very next verse says that it is God who works in us to desire and to do His will (Philippians 2:12-13). Baptism is a part of that “working out” – but Colossians 2:12 says “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” Here again, Paul joins faith and baptism – as he describes baptism as our participation in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Paul’s theology of baptism was not the same as that of the Roman Catholic Church – nor that of Zwingli. He presents it as a beautiful picture of the gospel – and of our participation in the gospel event and our trust in God. Now, you may say that it is a mere symbol. I do not read that in Scripture, though you may infer it. I see in baptism my taking on myself His crucifixion, just as in His crucifixion He took on Himself my sin. Symbolic? Perhaps – but more than a symbol, it becomes, by faith, a reality of our participation with Him.
Is it a declaration of commitment? Absolutely. Jesus’ baptism was that as well, and He had no sin of which to be forgiven. Does it accompany the receipt of the Holy Spirit? The baptism of Jesus did – and there are many passages in the New Testament that link our baptism with reception of the Holy Spirit as a newly born child of God. Is it a public act connected to the fellowship of the church? Yes again.
But in and of itself – apart from the grace of God given in the death of Jesus and our faith in that great event – it is merely getting wet. There is no power in the water; the power of the gospel is in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Nor is there any power in our faith to save us. Faith is our access into God’s grace, which saves us. That faith in and of itself is powerless to save does not mean we can be saved without faith. Nor does the fact that baptism is powerless in and of itself to save us mean that God promises salvation to one who refuses it.
Please forgive me for my passion on this point – but it frustrates me to see people trying to use Scripture like cards in a game – to use one text to trump another. The Bible is not to be interpreted in such a fashion, but all that is said must be given due weight – including those passages that seem to be observed in the breech more than with full acceptance.
Jerry…I definitely meant to say that the cross is NOT symbolic…like baptism and the Lord’s supper…
but, you still are using your logic to try and equate baptism in significance to the Cross…If Jesus didn’t do enough for us and now we have to save ourselves by being immersed in water… I don’t see those verses…I see baptism as symbolic…I see the Lord’s Supper as symbolic… I read where it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God without Faith… I read where we are saved by Faith… I read where all our effort amounts to is a pile of nasty filthy rags… Sorry, but you can be passionate all you want about your ability to save yourself through baptism but except for one disputed “for” in Acts 2:38, baptism for salvation purposes is totally missing from the text… the symbolism is all over the place but salvation is left to Faith… John 3:16..
Price,
Did you read the post wherein Jay covered the scripture which has Peter telling the lost sinners “save yourselves”? Jesus died for everybody and is THE author of eternal life, but in a very real way, the only ones who will enjoy said salvation, are those who will save themselves (by repenting and being baptized).
Jerry put it well when he wrote – “Please forgive me for my passion on this point – but it frustrates me to see people trying to use Scripture like cards in a game – to use one text to trump another. The Bible is not to be interpreted in such a fashion, but all that is said must be given due weight – including those passages that seem to be observed in the breech more than with full acceptance.”
When one is looking for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he will accept ALL of the verses which talk about what saves us… faith, Jesus’ blood, hope, baptism, believing, confessing, ourselves, repenting, God’s mercy, etc.
Like Jerry, it frustrates me to see so many seeking to deny ANY of of things which the book of God so clearly declares to be what saves us. Why not just believe it all?
Hank… finish the verse…what are they saving themselves from…Judgement ? Hell ? No, not at all…they are saving themselves from a corrupt generation…they are separating themselves from that just as Noah separated himself from his generation…I Peter 3:21.. The idea that a man can save himself is a different gospel and needs to be rejected… Salvation is by Grace, which means it’s free…not something that God is obligated to do because you did something… Salvation isn’t a wage that the employee earned… see again Romans 4
Price,
Clearly, in obeying the command of God to repent and be baptized, they were “saving themselves” from the consequences of their sin. Saving themselves from the crooked generation had everything to do with receiving forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit. To argue that saving themselves from that crooked generation DID NOT entail the remission of their sins is a desperate attempt to reject the meaning and purpose of baptism. In fact, can you name ONE solitary respected commentator to suggest that being saved from that crooked generation in repenting and being baptized meant something (anything) different than receiving forgiveness from sin?
Again, its much easier to just accept and believe ALL of the things that God says saves us, actually does save us.
And, you STILL have not addressed the questions regarding Cornelius. IJS
BTW, I just stumbled onto this short article by Jim McGuiggin wherein he too explains how and why Cornelius was save BEFORE HE EVER MET PETER. I think he nails it!
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=Acts&id=314
Many interesting comments have been sent to this blog. One read: * I don’t know of a single person who believes we are saved by Grace through Faith that doesn’t acknowledge that baptism is a command to be obeyed…” I am a single person. I don’t believe we are saved by grace through faith alone. I’m positive that faith alone is dead and of no benefit at all unless it leads to obedience. But there is no command for anyone to be baptized. The command is that we who tell others are to baptize them.
Faith is not given to sinners by God or by His Spirit. It’s gained by hearing the gospel and believing it. It’s not just magically put into a person’s heart. And the Spirit of God is God’s gift to those who HAVE heard and obeyed the gospel by repenting and being baptized. All comments to the contrary are hereby annulled. The truth has been spoken. Acts 2:38 is key to salvation. Only those who have heard and believed the gospel and then repent and accept baptism are saved by having sins remitted and by their THEN receiving the Holy Spirit.
All other passages which deal with conversion and salvation must be understood in the light of these simple truths seen in Acts 2:37,38. God’s part in salvation was done through the many years of preparation and then the dramatic deeds of Calvary where the Lamb of God was sacrificed. Salvation now is free for the taking. But it’s not given to those who only believe but do not obey the gospel. It’s not given by the Holy Spirit plunging us into the body of Christ. That’s foolishness. Conversion is a sinner changing into a “saint” (sanctified person) by obeying the gospel. Peter explains it very simply.
Were Gentiles saved before or after Calvary without knowing of Jesus and obeying the gospel? No. Not a one. Good living is fine, but it doesn’t save from sin. It never has. Prior to the events of Acts 2, the only way a Gentile could be saved from sin was by becoming a Jew and then perfectly obeying the Law of Moses.
Price wants conversion to be totally done by God rather than by human obedience to the gospel. He writes *Author: Price
Comment:
Hank… finish the verse…what are they saving themselves from…Judgement ? Hell ? No, not at all…they are saving themselves from a corrupt generation…they are separating themselves from that just as Noah separated himself from his generation…I Peter 3:21.. The idea that a man can save himself is a different gospel and needs to be rejected… Salvation is by Grace, which means it’s free…not something that God is obligated to do because you did something… Salvation isn’t a wage that the employee earned… see again Romans 4*
Peter was asked by new believers, “What must WE DO?” (Or “What shall we do?”) Do we hear Price saying there’s nothing they could have done? Peter’s reply tells sinners what they can do to enter the kingdom of Christ, which is to be saved from sin. Having to DO something doesn’t imply that the sinner must earn salvation. But to receive it, the sinner MUST do what Peter speaks of. Earn it? Of course not. Accept it by doing something? That’s what Peter says is the way to receive both remission of sins and the gift of God’s Spirit. That’s what the seekers wanted. Peter told them what they MUST do to receive it. Is not Price disagreeing with Peter?
RAY: We are just reading Acts 2:37,38 and seeing what Luke said there. The apostles had just preached about the risen Lord, pointing out that some hearers were personally guilty in bringing about the death of the Lord Jesus. When the apostle was asked what the sinners could do about their sinful actions, they were told what they could do to receive two blessings from God. These were remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. They could either act as directed or they could continue in sin. 3,000 chose to act as directed. So they were baptized, and then GOD added their names to the Lamb’s book of life.
The 3,000 had saved themselves by doing what they were told they had to do to save themselves. This has nothing to do with a definition of “for.” It has everything to do with the actual occurrences and their results. Faith alone is dead. Paul later points out that only those who obey the gospel will be saved (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10). 3,000 on the day we speak of DID obey the gospel and were saved.
Ray…in order to base one’s theology on ONE verse in the entire Biblical text that contradicts all other verses which clearly indicate that we are saved by Faith and that our salvation is not at all based on what we do is precarious… I believe Al Maxey just recently pointed that out very succinctly…
Hank, if Cornelius was saved before he was able to here the message from Peter then why would the Bible itself say in Acts 11:14 these words… Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” Are you saying that Cornelius was actually saved and that the passage just quoted is in error ??
The 3,000 were saved or else they were not saved. I see that Luke thinks they WERE saved and that very day were added to the Lord’s church. It seems surprising that anyone would suppose later verses could contradict Acts 2:38 and yet the Bible be an inspired book. None of the verses supplied make claim to opposing the way conversion was thought by Peter to occur. When they speak of salvation by faith, they never once add “alone” to claim that salvation is by faith alone. Only if they did so would their writing contradict Acts 2:38.
Peter had just preached about Jesus and had stated clearly that Jesus had risen from the dead. Only ones who believed what they had heard cried out, “What must we do?” Faith alone is dead. Conversion to Christ is never spoken of in inspired writings as being by faith alone. That Bible students today would speak so is surprising. They can’t believe in the Bible being accurate and then suppose that other verses will contradict a verse such as Acts 2:38. I do believe the Bible.
Ray.. You continue to discard the teaching of Romans 4 … and there just is scant teaching on baptism saving anybody…you have to use Acts 2:38 as the only reference you have and that is debated by conscientious Christians, even within the CoC, meaning because of… All the rest of the passages are symbolic in nature, whereas the passages stating clearly that we are saved by Faith…not Faith Plus… You just don’t have that clarity for baptism… perhaps if you did, the whole of Christianity would agree with you …whereas the overwhelming large majority of protestants agree that baptism is not a sacrament… it it is an act of obedience..
Price suggests that a brother we both respect and love disagrees that baptism is essential for salvation. I’m well aware of what that brother teaches. He is often right. In his thinking about conversion he is as wrong as wrong can be. He imagines that the baptism which saves is performed by the Holy Spirit. Peter didn’t know that. Jesus didn’t know that. God doesn’t know that. The Spirit doesn’t know it or do it. Even good people can be wrong. In this situation, we do well to believe the written Word rather than what anyone else may believe. His false teaching is based on a mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 12:13. Paul would never have said what the translators say he said. Paul knew how sinners are saved. He knew how HE had his sins washed away. He mentions in Galatians 3:27 that it’s by the baptism commanded by Jesus that we enter His church. He would never then say elsewhere that it was through a baptism NOT commanded by Jesus, never mentioned by any inspired writer, nor known to anyone. The baptism Paul wrote about was one known by everyone who had received it. That was without doubt the baptism commanded by Jesus to be performed by those who carried the gospel with them throughout the world. Our brother has a different idea. He is wrong.
Price says that Paul in Romans 4 contradicts the plain teaching throughout the book of Acts that baptism was performed in water by human hands. And apparently Price has never read and understood the teaching in Romans 6 which speaks of baptism which results in saved sinners now being raised into new life AFTER the immersion (burial) in water where sin was washed away. Price thinks the only verse which speaks of baptism for the remission of sins is Acts 2:38. But for us to baptize new believers is a clear command of Jesus. It is recorded, but not in Acts 2:38. Peter is simply doing what Jesus said was to be done. And all these verses Price likes which speak of salvation through faith never once speak of salvation by faith alone. Yet Price wants us to believe in salvation by faith alone if I’m hearing him correctly. If not by faith alone, what is to be added, Price? And which examples of conversion in Acts shall we point to in order to understand what sinners then were called to do in order to be saved? I point to them all to call to every student’s attention that baptism, clearly baptism in water by human hands, was always part of conversion of sinners in the apostolic age. What Acts 2:38 speaks to is a need for sinners to both repent and be baptized. Who dares to claim that Peter was wrong in teaching as he did? Several on this blog dare. They are to be congratulated for extreme bravery in daring to dispute with God.
It would be good for Price to point to the command for anyone to baptize him/herself. The command is for us who share the gospel to baptize. And the command is from the Great Commander. It’s not a church ordinance. It’s not a sacrament in any sense. But we who love Jesus are told that WE are to baptize every new believer. The one place where it’s made clear how baptism was performed is in Acts 8 where the baptizer and the one being baptized both went down into the (body of) water in order to there do the baptizing. That’s how it was done. That’s how it IS done. But it’s not done by the one being baptized. It’s done TO the one being baptized, who is immersed in the water, then raised up out of the water. Could those who teach conversion by faith alone point to even one example in the history book of the apostolic age where that was the way conversion occurred. In my RAISED INTO NEW LIFE book I suggest the many examples and the considerable teaching on conversions in the apostolic age. It’s at http://missionoutreach.org/Raysed1.html. What the Bible teaches is clear and simple. Do I hear some disputing with what the apostles actually taught and practiced?
Ray says “the 3000 were either saved, or they were not saved”. Even if that is the case, it does not prove his point about salvific baptism. The 3000 were also all Jews; was that also needed to save them from the penalty for their sins? I think it is safe to assume that they all read the Torah. Was that also needed to save them? Ray, if one is going to make an argument that one does not receive eternal life until he is baptized, one has to leave Acts 2, for it simply says nothing of the sort. As usual, it takes more than repetition to make something true.
Ray, as you recall in Acts 1:5 Jesus contrasts the baptism of John by water with being baptized with the Holy Spirit… He doesn’t say both will happen but rather the Holy Spirit in contrast to water… at least that’s the understanding that most have…
Peter doesn’t even recall these words…according to Peter… .until After the conversion of Cornelius… He then recalls it because Cornelius receives a baptism with the Holy Spirit before his baptism in water… I assume from your comments that you believe that Cornelius was damned until he came up from the water ?? It’s my contention that Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit and was saved as a result of his belief in what Peter was telling him… That was what the angel said would happen…according to Peter….that he and his entire household would be told things by which he would be saved… Peter says that the gift was given because he believed…not because he was baptized in water… the whole point was not the water but the Spirit… It’s hard to imagine that God would choose to Save someone as a sign by doing it in a completely different fashion than He expected everyone else to do ? If water baptism was THE point of salvation, then why did Jesus contrast water with Spirit ? Why was the example to the Jews of Gentile conversion (highly speculative) done in a completely different way ? Is it not somewhat dishonest to say that one must be baptized in water to be saved only to turn around and allow a Gentile to be saved without it ?? What kind of example does that set ?? It would be like sharing the Lord’s Supper with a new Gentile convert using ham and cheese…
And, once more I point out that “walking in newness of life” is not salvation… Putting on Christ is called putting on Christ instead of “saved” because it’s not the same… And, while you wish to point out that Brother Maxey is wrong, simply stating so doesn’t make it so… Dogmatic attitudes are what have sent the CoC into a tail spin… each camp insisting the other is totally wrong rather than just saying “in my opinion” or “as for me and my house”… but for some reason it seems easier for people to judge, condemn and castigate others rather than just hold an opinion… Why do you suppose that is ?
Price (or Jay),
1. Do you believe that it was impossible for ANY faithful, just, and God fearing Gentile (non-Jew) to be saved (to be in a right relationship with God) prior to the day of Pentecost? Or, do you believe that EVERY non Jew was lost and headed for hell back then?
2. If there were ANY saved Gentiles (non Jews) prior to Pentecost, do you believe that they all went from being saved to being lost and headed for hell as soon as the day of Pentecost arrived?
Your choices are:
1. Claim that EVERY faithful and God fearing Jew was lost and headed for hell leading up to Acts ch 10.
or
2. Give up you argument about Cornelius going from lost to saved once the Holy Spirit fell upon him.
or
3. keep refusing to answer these type of questions.
Price,
What did I say that you took to mean that I equate baptism in significance to the cross?
Quite the contrary! Baptism derives all of its significance from the cross. As I wrote in the post to which you were replying:
I also said that just as Jesus took my sins on Himself at the cross, so in baptism I take His death and resurrection for myself in baptism. My baptism means nothing without the cross – nor does it mean anything without my faith in what happened at the cross. Furthermore, I also stated that faith is meaningless without the cross. Unless the Christ actually died and was actually raised again, your “faith” is empty and meaningless. In the same way, baptism is empty and meaningless without the cross.
So, please let me know what I said that made you believe that I am trying to use logic to equate baptism with the cross. I agree with K.C. Moser who wrote, “Baptism is not for the remission of sins in the same way that the cross is for remission of sins.” Rather, rightly understood, baptism exalts the cross.
Likewise, please let me know what I wrote that led you to say that I am saying we have to save ourselves by being baptized. Actually, Peter’s language in Acts 2 could certainly be construed that way. He exhorted the people, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” The next verse states that those who received his words were baptized. Yet, I certainly do not look at baptism as working for my salvation – and if it were my work, it would indeed be filthy rags. But baptism is not my work; there I trust in the working of God (Colossians 2:12).
You wrote, “I read where it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God without Faith… I read where we are saved by Faith” Continue reading that statement in Heb 11:6. “…for he who comes to God must believe that he is and that he rewards those who diligently seek him.” Can you not understand baptism as an appeal to God for a good conscience? Someone even once called baptism “the sinner’s prayer.” That is in keeping with what Paul said Ananias told him after his experience on the Damascus road: “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) A symbolic washing? Yes, for it is the blood of Jesus that truly washes us from our sins – but a symbol that needs to be recognized and not spoken against as you have spoken against it.
Can people go to the other extreme and make baptism just about all there is in our salvation? Perhaps some do. Please do not number me with them as you appear to me have tried to do in you latest response to me.
My bad….
I meant “Gentile” not “Jew” under choice #1.
I’m with Jerry (and the Bible), on this…
Jerry,,, I started out in the standard CoC view that baptism saved…then I moderated to where it seems that you are in your understanding…that is, that I still wanted to maintain baptism as a moment of salvation but I didn’t want to make it equal to the sacrifice and atonement of Christ… It can’t be free if I have to earn it right ? So, like you I liked deciding that something I did (baptism) isn’t really something that I do (because that makes it a work) and so I just say that it isn’t a work… it really is but because I say it isn’t, makes it not… I personally think that’s just legalism light. I finally decided that nothing I do saves me.. It’s all about Jesus… to make anything that I do a part of my salvation was unacceptable to me…
Is it an appeal for a good conscience…I absolutely believe that… but seeking a clear conscience isn’t the same as saving myself from hell.. I also accept Peter’s statement that it isn’t the removal of dirt (sin)… One really has to turn that passage upside down to make it say what most people try to use it to say… I hate to beat the Al Maxey drum but he does a super job of going through that passage…If one disagrees with him perhaps they will argue the point and not just say he’s wrong…
I, appreciate your sincerity…I do… I just don’t agree… but for all the division that a few moments between faith and water baptism has caused, I can’t believe that Jesus is pleased… Again, I don’t know of anyone that believes Faith and Faith alone saves, who doesn’t also believe in the special holy moment of baptism and the clear command to do so… I also don’t know of many Christians who insist that a loving and gracious God would damn to hell a person who has declared to God his faith, and God knowing the truth of that commitment, before he was able to be baptized…
Hank…you may wish to continue the conversation with yourself and answer your own question but my answer was clear…the scripture says that the angelic representative told Cornelius what he would need to do to be saved.. If one needs to be saved then they are not presently saved.. Unless there is some rule that Gentiles need to be saved twice…
Price,
Are you aware of the fact that the ONLY time the Bible ever says “faith alone” it says that man is NOT saved by faith alone, right?
Again, the Bible talks about many things that save — faith, baptism, confession, ourselves, hope, grace, mercy, Christ’s blood, obedience, etc. But it never says that we are saved by any of these things alone!
Why do you insist on believing some but denying others? why not just believe it all bro? Why not accept the WHOLE truth?
(and why not answer whether or not you believe EVERY faithful and God fearing Gentile was lost and headed for hell leading up to Acts 10).
Outreach asked – “Is not Price disagreeing with Peter?”
Yes, he is.
Price,
I understand your point about Cornelius hearing word whereby he “shall be saved”, I really do. However, what you need to keep in mind is the fact that back in the 1st century, many people who “were saved” in actuality, merely kept on being saved. Not everybody who was saved were lost right before.
Let me prove as much…
Consider John 1:11-12 “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right TO BECOME children of God”
Now, think about the most faithful of Jewish people who did receive him and were given the right TO BECOME children of God. Take Zechariah and Elizabeth for example. They no doubt received Jesus and were therefore given the right TO BECOME the children of God. Of course, they already were the children of God and merely KEPT ON being as much by receiving Jesus.
The same concept would have applied to Cornelius. If not, why was he lost? Was he lost before Jesus was born? Or was he lost once the day of Pentecost came? Were there NO Gentiles saved before Acts 10?
You are right in suggesting that I am having this conversation by myself, but I would rather have it with you. But, to do that, you need to address these questions about the Gentiles.
Again, do you believe that EVERY faithful and God fearing Gentile (like Cornelius) was lost and headed for hell prior to Acts 10??
Yes or no?
Hank…I’m amazed at the interpretative ability that you have that I don’t… When something says by Faith and doesn’t include any other thing…It’s clear to me that it means that’s all that’s necessary… I don’t need the passage to list all the things that DON’T count toward my salvation… If 2 + 2 = 4 then I don’t think I have much of a leg to stand on by claiming that the answer might also be 5 because it didn’t say 4 and 4 alone…
I would like to see the verse that says “man is not saved by faith alone” as you stated above. I missed that one…
Hank, you have not addressed your questions to me. However, I have been made a part of this because I am having to continue reading repetitive comments that are juxtaposed to centrality.
———-
Hank: “But it never says that we are saved by any of these things alone!”
Acts 16:30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
This is what the jailer was told. This was the recorded sermon. This was the inspired answer to the question. To get anything more, you have to go and impose your doctrinal interpretation on the next three verses and add to what the Bible says.
“Speak where the Bible speaks,” Hank.
———
Hank: “(and why not answer whether or not you believe EVERY faithful and God fearing Gentile was lost and headed for hell leading up to Acts 10).”
Could you please quote the Biblical passages that give any human the authority to make the above statement? In light of this, explain your justification for asking the question.
Hank… Yes, I believe that a faithful Jew or Gentile convert was accepted by God… But, the problem I have with your idea is that A) we don’t know how faithful Cornelius was to the Jewish faith…We know he prayed and gave money to poor people… I know many people who pray and give money to poor people that are lost as a goose… so you really have to fill in the text to assume Cornelius was saved already…. B) The passage says that if he did what God wanted him to do he would be SAVED…not saved again, or continued in his salvation… the idea of some sort of ongoing salvation is new to me but perhaps you are correct… I’m aware of being continuously “filled with the Spirit”….Obviously, the pious Jews at Pentecost were saved and saved again that day as well… if I understand you correctly… ?? In fact, all good Jews and Gentile converts went through this process of continuing their salvation but we don’t have any text to clearly state that… At some point the passage that says no one “comes to the Father except by Me” would seem to kick in… when did that happen ? Because at that point, even a good Jew much less a good Gentile would be lost if they didn’t believe… Right ? So, when was that magical moment in time and how long did it last ?
Price, here is the only verse that says anything about “faith alone” (the one you say you must have missed)
James 2:2 – You see that a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone.
Again, the Bible does talk about a lot of things that save us – faith, baptism, confession, hope, ourselves, obedience, the blood, etc… but it never ever says we are saved by anything alone. Rather, all of the things that God says saves us really does. Why not just take and believe them all brother? Geez…
Hank: “Are you aware of the fact that the ONLY time the Bible ever says “faith alone” it says that man is NOT saved by faith alone, right?”
James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
What sort of “deeds” is James talking about? Water baptism?
James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Are these verses talking about initial response to the gospel message or whether or not you carry out the mission of Christ in your life? The examples James gives of Abraham and Rahab indicate it is the mission.
I don’t see water baptism in these verses. How are these verses in James related to Acts 2:38? How are they related to Cornelius? How are they related to anything you said?
Is this exegesis?
James 2:24
My only point is that the Bible talks a lot about a lot of things that save us. Like, faith, hope, baptism, the blood, ourselves, obedience, grace, confession, etc. But it never says we are said e by ANY one thing “alone”. And I just think it’s best to belive all of the verses. Why deny any of them.
As far as Cornelius, you can read the point I am making about him above.
And whatever it was James had in mind in 2:24, it remains the only verse that says “faith alone” and it says what it says.
There is more to this discussion than having a water fight in the baptistery. It is common in these posts for one person to address another as “brother,” and appropriately so. I hope that, even through we may disagree on the meaning of some scripture verses, everyone would still consider the others as “brothers.” But why should we accept one another as “brothers?” I would hazard a guess that all the discussants on this string of comments have been water immersed for the forgiveness of their sins. Whether or not they still think water immersion is necessary for salvation, they have been water immersed in the past.
Is that the basis for our brotherly acceptance? Are we calling one another “brother” because of having been water baptized OR because they believe and confess with their lives that Jesus Christ is Lord and they have the Spirit of God? “So what …. it’s the same thing.” No, it is not.
If there were someone who had believed but had not been water immersed in a manner satisfactory to some people posting on this string, would you consider them a “brother?” Why not? Because they haven’t been water baptized correctly? If that is the case, you are holding an “approved” water baptism as a test of fellowship.
If water baptism is held as a necessary action for a believer to be saved – a command, a deed, a response to faith (necessary) – it doesn’t matter when one puts it — if it is held as necessary then water baptism is defining the limits of the saved, the limits of the church, the limits of the kingdom of God, the limits of Christian fellowship, and the limits of unity. Either water baptism occupies that position or it does not. No foot peddling, no straddling the fence, no faith saves you….. but … you also need to … Is water immersion necessary to be in the fellowship of the church or is it not.
I submit that if someone holds water baptism up as a test of fellowship in the body of Christ, as being necessary in order to be accepted as a brother or sister in the Lord, they are dividing the body of Christ. God is quite clear what He thinks of division in His church. Unity based on the Lord Jesus Christ is not the same as uniformity based on doctrinal interpretation. Unity is of the Spirit and uniformity is of the flesh.
Why deny any of them.
It’s not the verses that are being denied. To hold anything of human performance as necessary for God’s salvation to occur is to deny the adequacy of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is idolatry.
theophilus.dr,
You said, “It’s not the verses that are being denied. To hold anything of human performance as necessary for God’s salvation to occur is to deny the adequacy of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is idolatry.”
I completely agree with that statement. And do most other people. That is why they insist baptism is not a work. But saying that doesn’t make it so.
A “work” is anything we do expecting to be rewarded favorably by God for having done it. It’s the basis of the classic “God’s part and man’s part” in salvation. Of course those who hold the high view of baptism some of our friends here do certainly expected something when they were baptized. They expected God to save them and give them the Holy Spirit. (that is for those who believe there is a Holy Spirit lol) No person can deny this with a straight face. How then could it not be a “work”?
I believe with all my heart that “most” candidates for baptism are already saved before they get into the water. For sure all of those who have repented (changed their minds about the direction of their lives) and put their whole trust in Jesus are justified, made righteous.
I want to hear Ray and Hank reply to the question of Gentiles saved or not before Acts 10 by giving the answer YES!
Hank…the James passage isn’t saying what you wish it to say… According to Wayne Grudem in his massive work, Systematic Theology, pg 731, James is using the term “justified” in a different sense than from Paul… Paul uses the term to “declare as righteous”…James uses it to “demonstrate or show one’s righteousness.” He gives many examples from scripture of the common use of the word as James is using it… Luke 16:15, Luke 10:28, Matt 11:19, Luke 7:35, Romans 3:4… in these passages, particularly the first two, the context is clear that the persons were attempting to “justify” themselves but that they were trying to make a declaration of righteous FOR God of themselves. Rather, they were trying to make a public “showing or demonstration” of their faith…
If you’ll note in the James passage, Abraham is said to have “justified” himself by offering up his son Issac, right ? The difficulty with this passage lies in how James is using the word… If he uses the term as a legal and binding righteousness before God, he is suggesting that Abraham did something to declare himself Righteous, Justified which in my opinion no man can do unless he IS God… Also, Abraham was already Justified by God and declared righteous, many years before he offered Issac… See Romans 4 once again… Who “un-justified” Abraham? Who forced God to declare him no longer righteous ?? Doesn’t make sense does it ?
Obviously…unless the book of James contradicts the grace of God, the “justifying” was a “demonstration” of ones faith and not a wage that was earned that required God to do anything… An obvious confirmation of this line of reasoning is in James’ own words… verse 18….”show me your faith”…. How can one show another a THOUGHT ? They can’t…they can only demonstrate or give an example of it…
James does NOT teach a works based salvation… It does teach that a real faith produces fruit.. Big difference… We are saved by Grace through Faith, and that “not of yourselves.” Brother.
Royce says that a work is anything we do expecting to be rewarded favorably God for having done it. Then he turns right around and claims that men are justified after they repent, obviously contradicting his own statement about a work being anything we do expecting to be rewarded. Seeing how repenting is something we must do.
Further, he obviously is forgetting that Jesus considers belief to be a work. It for sure is something we must do. So is confessing with our mouths. See the pile of problems these brothers have when making up their own definitions in order to deny the verses in the way of their doctrine?
Again, the Bible says that there are MANY things which save us. It does. Things like faith, baptism, hope, the blood, ourselves, confessing, obedience, repenting, etc. Most of which are things WE must do. Either way, the book of God plainly says all of these things save us.
I still say that we should just accept them all, the whole truth on the matter, instead of getting all upset and trying to deny some of what God says about some of the things which save us.
Price,
My point about Jas 2:24 is that it is the only verse that talks about “faith alone” and it actually says not. The only time the Bible ever says faith alone, it says not faith alone.
Which makes sense because the Bible actually says there are a lot of thhings which save us. Things like faith, baptism, hope, obedience, confession, ourselves, the blood, grace, etc.
I still say we should just accept and believe them all and believe the whole truth about ALL of the things which God says saves us.
Hank…also, I may have incorrectly stated a position which I didn’t intend to state…I don’t believe we are saved by Faith… I believe we are Saved by Grace… through Faith…
Hope is a component of Faith and not a separate function (heb 11:1). The atonement of Christ (blood) is certain what we have Faith in…so that doesn’t seem to be a separate item either… My guess is that if we went through your “list” we might find similar inconsistencies… Anything other than the Grace of God as saving us, is in my simple-minded opinion, a false teaching… but, that is what I hold for myself…I cannot and would not attempt to hold an opinion for you…And as many times as I’ve been wrong about things, I try not to judge…
Hank,
I respect someone who holds a position different than mine. I am a flawed man who often is wrong. I do not respect trying to use the debate tactics of little children. My appraisal of your notion that faith and repentance are works is…goofy.
Both faith and repentance happen in the mind, the seat of one’s emotions, or in the heart. Thinking is hardly a work By any biblical or theological standard I am aware of.
The question remains, is the offering of Christ enough to satisfy God’s justice? I say yes and you say no. It’s that simple…and sad.
Royce you said a work is anything we to expecting God to reward us. Well repenting and confessing are things we do and so your definition of a work does not work. You need to rework it.
Royce you are the 1 that said a work is anything we do seeking to be rewarded by God. Well, consider this:
Acts 16:30-31 ESV
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
So either belief is a work or your definition does not
Royce…agreed.. Hebrews 11:1 defines what Faith is and confirms, at least to my satisfaction, that the reasoning that takes place in our minds… hope, assurance, conviction, trust…. is not a work but an ingredient of what Faith is… So, when Paul says that we are saved by Grace through Faith, not by works….he is contrasting our reasoning with our physical actions… Baptism is without a doubt something that we do… It is not something that we think…
Except for jesus himself caled Belief a work in john 6. And technically baptism is something that is done to us not something we do
Are you guys just trying to be opposite of the bible? The bible does actually say that belief IS a work and you say it’s not. And although the Bible NEVER calls baptism a work, you say it is?!
Seriously? ?
Hank… we either have a contradiction in the Bible or somebody isn’t using good judgment with the passages… Paul contrasts works with Faith… He explicitly states that we are saved by Grace through Faith, not by works… That would, according to you, contradict what Jesus said if faith is indeed a work… right ? Unless you come up with a definition of Faith that allows it to be a work that is somehow mysteriously excluded from Paul’s statement… It’s obvious, at least to me, that the passage in John 6 is comparing the actions of men required under the Law to that of a new covenant wherein we no longer have to DO but rather only Believe…I believe that is the context of that passage… Jesus is telling them they no longer have to DO anything… salvation isn’t earned.. it’s by Faith…and according to Paul, Faith isn’t a work… Do you have another way to reconcile these two passages ??
Where does it say that baptism is Faith ? Because whatever is not Faith is technically a work, is it not ?
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—”
>>>
This simple sentence makes it hard for me to see salvation as a quid pro quo for something– anything– that I have done.
This idea of salvation consisting of “God’s part and man’s part”? I would suggest that one Man already did our part. He was the only one that could. Me, I was not even fit to approach the table, much less have anything to bring to it. We are the third-party beneficiaries of this exchange.
Even our faith does not begin with us, but is initiated by God himself. (Romans 10:17)
This is a hard teaching, because we want to be more important than we are, and at the very least, more important that that publican over there.
Price, I do believe that there is another way to reconcile all of this and I believe that the solution is to understand that the word “works” is used throughout the NT. For exaw, in Romans, we are told that to the one “who works” his reward is not of grace but it is actually owed to the one who works. Romans also says that the one who “works” had something to boast about. Now, as far as I can tell, the ONLY one who could ever boast about and be actually owed his reward is the hypothetical guy who never ever sinned. Therefore, in Romans 4 at least, “works” must mean sinless perfection. Its the ONLY way that section makes sense. Surely, he did not mean that God OWES a reward to whoever obeys a particular command of God. Surely the Guy who does a thing God commands can’t boast in his salvation.
Now in James, works cannot refer to sinless perfection because there we are told that faith with out works is dead.
This view reconciles James with Paul and is the only one that makes cohesive sense. Plus, it allows us to understand and accept the passages which say baptism saves us. AND it allows us to believe and accept that Jesus DID call belief a “work”. He did not mean that it was perfect obedience (wherein a man is slowed his reward and can boast) but merely a thing we must do to be saved. Just like repenting and confessing with our mouths.
But again, something is wrong when we end up denying any of the things which the Bible does in fact say saves us. Like baptism, confessing, repenting, ourselves, the blood, or any of the other things.
At least, this understanding does not contradict anything at all and is cohesive. Doss it make sense to you? If not, how will you explain it all?
Hank….I’m not convinced at all that the “boasting” that you mention from Romans 4 has anything to do with this discussion… It says very clearly that if there is any value to boasting it isn’t to God… I may be able to say hey Hank, I just went over to this homeless mission and gave them some food and money…I could boast about that to you but before God my boasting isn’t even considered… If we are discussing salvation then God isn’t at all impressed with whatever we’ve done if we submit it to him for consideration of His Grace…
Regarding the James passage, I think I presented a clear outline of the different use of the word “justified” which differentiates between Paul’s use of the word and James’…One is by God through Grace, the other is an outward expression that People can see… Big difference…
At this point, we just have to disagree…that’s OK… I understand that you love the Lord and you are doing your best to follow after the Lord…So am I..We just see Grace differently…
Price, fair enough. Just remember that whatever Paul meant by the “the one who works ” in Romans….he says that that person is OWED his reward! That is why I say that by “works” right there, he must have in mind sinless perfection. Bcause to whom else would God owe a reward, other than the one who never sinned.
And just know that you are the one left with the contradictions and denying of verses.
Jesus called belief a work and you say it is not.
Peter said that baptism saves us and you say it does not.
Peter exhorted people to save themselves and you say they cannot.
When the jailor asked what he must do, Paul told him to believe and you say that believing is not something we do” but only something we “think”… well, is confessing with our mouth something we “do” or merely something “we think”?
We can agree to disagree, but do know that you are the one with all of the loose ends, contradictions, and denying of verses…
Having said that Price, I do believe you love the Lord and are seeking to do hos will. I assume you are my brother as well. I just believe you need to reevaluate you position. I am sorry if I came off as a jerk there. I need to work on that bro. Have a great day
Hank: “Are you guys just trying to be opposite of the bible? The bible does actually say that belief IS a work and you say it’s not. And although the Bible NEVER calls baptism a work, you say it is?!”
Hank, please specify the exact verse(s) in John 6 you are referring to — (“Jesus said belief was a work). I have to check you out, because you have established a history of verse misinterpretation.
Jesus did say in John 6:65, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
To me, Jesus is saying that belief is NOT a work. Anything and everything we do should be out a response to the love of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Even “works” are done out of this motivation. Jesus said to love one another as I have loved you. That is a response on our part to the love of Christ. Forgive, as God in Christ has forgiven you. That is a response from what God has done for us. Faith motivates the responses to what God has done. James said if faith doesn’t do that, the faith is not genuine. So, does that make faith, love, and forgiveness a “work?” That word is encumbered with centuries of inaccurate denominational definition. Faith, love, and forgiveness are responses to the love of God. The differentiation between faith and work is artificial and not scriptural, so to line up all these words in a list under a heading of either faith or works is not scriptural, either.
It is a fine line of distinction, but a genuine “work” of the Spirit is not with an expectation of reward. A genuine “work” of the Spirit is out of a response to the love of God. Love is its own reward, another’s highest good irregardless of my outcome. Jesus dying for us is the example. There is a reward, but it isn’t based on what we have done or what we deserve, the reward is also out of the grace and love of God and is out of the promise of God. If I “work for the reward” then I am not truly motivated by love. And if the reward I seek is human approval (like Pharisees) then Jesus said when I find the reward that I’m after – that’s the end of it.
Much of the discussion and “back and forth” on this thread has been so tangential that it is scripturally “off base.” There is a permeating leaven that continues to work the whole lump, and the resulting natural olfactory sensation is sufficient for me to want to put the lid on the can.
“May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” 2 Cor 13:14
John 6:29 ESV
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
And if you want to differentiate between works of God verses works of man, I will ask which you which consider baptism to be…from heaven, or of man?
Bottom line is that when the Bible says that we are saved “not of works” if does not mean “not by obeying God” for Jesus is the author of eternal life unto all them “that obey him”.
Again, ALL of the things which God says saves us really does save us. Be it the blood, repenting, hope ,baptism, confessing, ourselves, obedience, mercy, etc. The Bible says that each of those things save us. We should just believe all of the verses there…
Hank,
What does it mean when the Bible says “not by works”, “not by works of righteousness we have done”, etc?
Hank,
You have referenced John 6:29 several times trying to prove faith is a work. Have you read the whole chapter? What do you have to say about this section. I certainly doesn’t fit the theology of most of us here.
“35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
I know fellows who what is the opposite of much of this teaching by Jesus. By the way, this isn’t the only time he said some of these things.
You see, for many years I had my own theology with it’s predetermined boundaries, pieced together from things I had been taught and books I had read with great portions of the Bible to prove up my beliefs.
I can’t tell you how it happened, or even why, but a few years ago (maybe when I started writing more than I had in the past) I started reading the Bible. Not just proof texts, not just running cross references, and not following anyone’s notes. I’d start, for example, with the book of Galatians. I would read it and read it and read it with notes and cross references turned off. I would try to determine what the writer meant considering the context of history, geography, and culture. I would write some notes stating what I found the meaning to be. Only then did I turn on notes, cross references, and read commentaries.
What I discovered was a God much bigger than I had thought. I also discovered how little and insignificant I am and that God’s grace is so much richer and fuller than I had ever dreamed. I was dead, God made me live! I was an ungodly sinner, God made me righteous. I had no hope, Jesus is my hope. I had no peace, Jesus is my peace. I was an alien to God and his people. Now I’m adopted with the rights of a first born son, a member of the household of God. I was not looking for God, He was looking for me.
The assurance of my salvation is not baptism, church membership, good deeds, or correct theology. My assurance is the Christ of God. While He lives I can’t die because I am in Him and He in me. Jesus himself is eternal life and there is no eternal life apart from him. The only way to have it is to get if from Him and He gives it as a free gift to those who look only to him and believe the record God has given about him.
So, all of the haggling, debates, lectureships, books, sermons, and every invention of man can’t get my sight off the Savior. If I’m wrong about some things (and I probably am) that’s OK. But one thing is not negotiable. Passages like the one quoted above in John 6 are absolutely true and I have staked my soul on those promises and will go to my grave believing them with all I am. I am expecting to be “raised up” one great day through no merit of my own but wholly upon the merit of Jesus Christ my Lord.
Royce,
What a great and encouraging testimony! Thank you for sharing it.
This is the mark of maturity, growing out of the uniformities of Heb 6:1-2 into the unity of the Spirit. This perspective places opinions and interpretations about doctrine in submission to the central importance of the Lord Jesus Christ. My experience is similar. On one hand, I wish I had known these things many years ago; on the other hand, I am thankful I can understand them now so that I can rejoice even more when seeing Him face to face. But it took reaching this point before I could realize in retrospect how much I had approached the Lord through my doctrine instead of through the Spirit – and did so without realizing it and while denying that I was doing it!
It’s hard to see the way to unity in the body without being freed to see Jesus.
We should get some brothers and sisters, of similar youthful vintage to us, together and write a book about discovering Jesus, based on our actual testimonies of how the grace of God never gave up on us, to encourage younger generations to find the real Spirit of Jesus at an earlier time in their life. Maybe title it something like, “The Lifting of the Veil.”
(Jay’s has probably already written a whole series of 12 posts on this two years ago).
This is how the church grows into maturity of the Lord when one generation helps the younger generations grow beyond. Children honor their parents by learning what the parents know and building on that to grow beyond them. My children honor me by growing more like Jesus than I am.
It would be fun to meet you sometime and have an opportunity to share in the Lord.
David
Royce,
I am convinced that the term “works” is used with more than one meaning in the NT. And sometimes, it means “sinless perfection”. For example, in Romans 4, Paul said that to the one “who works”, his reward is not a gift or grace, but that his reward is actually due him. It is owed. He earned it. Now, the ONLY person to whom a reward (heaven/salvation) is owed or due to him would be the hypothetical person who never ever sinned. Remember, Romans 4 DOES say that to the one “who works” his salvation (his reward) is due him. Just try to think of another person (besides the hypocritical guy who never sinned) to whom his reward would be DUE him? For EVERY other person, for all who have sinned, their salvation is not due, but must come via forgiveness. By grace through faith. And so, clearly, when Paul wrote of “works” in Romans 4 he meant “sinless perfection” because again, the one “who works” is OWED his reward. The Bible says that. Your mistake (as well as many others) is to miss that and make the one “who works” to be anybody who believes he must believe and be baptized to be saved. BUT, believing and being baptized does not make one OWED his reward. Why would it?? No, the only one owed his reward is the one who works (is sinless). You need to really look at all of this and try to make sense of Romans 4 and understand who it is who has his reward DUE him. Of course, other passages use “works” to mean simple acts of faith, like feeding the poor. But that is not what Paul meant in most of his writings. Think about it. But, if you understand Paul to be saying that “works” means “anything one does in obedience to God” you make a big old mess bro. And it leaves you denying many passages. Like where we are told that baptism saves us. You say it does not but the Bible says that it does. Not that it saves us ALONE (nothing alone saves us). Again, the Bible says that there are many things that save us.
Again, the Bible says there are a lot of things which go into saving us – faith, baptism, repentance, confessing with our mouths, ourselves, hope, the blood, mercy, obedience, etc. They are all true and should all be believed as things which actually save us. We should just believe all of the verses about the things that God says saves us. That’s better than picking one ore two and denying one or two. The WHOLE truth is where its at brother…
Hank,
None of the “works” that I have ever done could ever convince me to be in the presence of the Lord God Almighty and to ask him to give me what I am owed. I know what I am owned and quite frankly, I don’t want it because it scares the dickens out of me. When I read Romans 4, I read that God in His mercy has totally on his own decided to count my faith in His son Jesus as worth something, actually worth a lot. Faith in Jesus is the only thing that I will have going for me on the day I stand before God. My puny actual works aren’t worth mentioning to Him. But my faith in Jesus will sustain and save me. Proof text me all you want Brother but I’m counting on my faith in the Shed blood of Jesus.
In World War 2, Germans and Americans facing each other on the front lines, on their own, quit fighting and exchanged rations, medicine, and helped each other.
Hard to believe when just a few hours ago, they were trying to kill each other.
What brought this act of kindness and UNITY of spirit?
It was each side hearing the other side singing a familiar hymn, even though it was in a language they didn’t know, each sung the hymn in his own language.
Interesting that regardless of our denomination, we can easily join and sing together Gods word and His lessons put to song.
Maybe this is a place to start in our quest for UNITY !
Doug,
The Bible says that for the one “who works”, his reward (his salvation) is DUE him. His reward is owed to him – Romans 4:4 ESV “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.”
1. Why do you believe it says that to the one “who works” his wages (his reward), IS DUE HIM?
2. What do you think Paul has in mind when he says that the one who works is owed his reward?
3. Do you think he might mean “sinless perfection”?
4. Just who exactly do you think it is who “works” and why do you think he is owed his reward?
5. Don’t you think you might need to take a closer look at how you are defining the word “works” since Paul says that his wages are DUE HIM?
Think about it…
Hank,
I wont answer for Doug. I will suggest you read the rest of the context.
Paul is making a contrast. He is not hinting that one who works will be approved by God. Did you read these verses?
“1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but NOT BEFORE GOD.” (Romans 4:1,2)
There is a great big “IF” at the beginning of verse 2. “IF” he had been he could boast, but God isn’t buying it! Don’t you see that? Paul is showing the futility of depending on what you do, contrasted to what Christ has done and trusting him.
Now the verse you have quoted so many times here.
” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.” (Romans 4:4)
You see Hank, God’s righteousness and eternal life is always a gift. One who depends on works will not receive a gift, for he depends on himself. Do you see anywhere where the one who works will be approved by God, at least in this context? No you don’t. What people who depend on themselves will get as a reward for their self righteousness is rejection by God. He makes an offer of salvation as a gift and the one who depends on himself says, no thank you I’ll work my way in. “But, NOT BEFORE GOD!”
All that string of stuff you have listed over and over are worth absolutely nothing, unless they spring from faith, and they do spring from faith for those who are truly trusting Christ alone. Abraham’s faith was counted, or credited to him, as righteousness. It was his trust in God’s promises, not his mighty exploits that caused God to declare him “not guilty”. And the section goes on with the good news that the blessing of righteousness by faith is not just for him, but for those of the law (Jews) and those who only have faith (Gentiles) so that both receive righteousness as a free gift. Context Hank, context.
I suggest you, and anyone else who thinks his works matter to God as far as salvation is concerned, read Ephesians 2:1-10. If you want God’s perspective on the value of works. People who are dead in their sins are made alive based on grace through faith, they are saved without good works because sinners can’t please God. Now, after God saves there are pre-planned works to be done. God created every Christian “for good works”.
Picking a verse here, another there, is like trying to follow a map from New York City to Houston with only a few pieces of a map. I suggest you take your own advice and learn “the whole truth”.
Royce,
The Bible says that for the one “who works”, his reward (his salvation) is DUE him. His reward is owed to him – Romans 4:4 ESV “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.”
1. Why do you believe it says that to the one “who works” his wages (his reward), IS DUE HIM?
2. What do you think Paul has in mind when he says that the one who works is owed his reward?
3. Do you think he might mean “sinless perfection”?
4. Just who exactly do you think it is who “works” and why do you think he is owed his reward?
5. Don’t you think you might need to take a closer look at how you are defining the word “works” since Paul says that his wages are DUE HIM?
Think about it…
After all this runaround, folks are still gonna have to make up their minds for themselves. What CANNOT be denied though is the FACT that the Bible says there are MANY things which save us. It just plain does do that. Here is a partial list of things which the Bible actually does in fact say saves us (it says that we are saved by each of these things) – faith, the blood of Jesus, baptism, hope, ourselves, confessing with our mouths, repentance, obedience, etc.
The honest observer will easily see that while I am fine with believing in as true and accepting EACH of the things which God actually says save us….others here, deny and simply rufuse a couple.
That much, is obvious…
Hank,
What Royce said, I agree with. All of those things you list have as their root… Faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God. When you boil in down to the basic element, faith is what is at the base of of your “works” or it should be.
Doug
Doug,
Even if all of the things on the list of the things which God says saves us stems from faith… God still says that they save us. Take repentance for example – just because repentance stems from faith does not mean that it isn’t required of all who will be saved. The same would hold true of confessing with our mouths and being baptized. Even though both of those things stem from faith, God still says that they too are things that save us.
Again, the Bible says there are a lot of things that save us (including baptism), and we should just believe and accept it. Even if the thing which God says saves us has as it’s root…faith.
Hank…Hank,
You are still making a list and checking it twice. My faith is in Jesus… Not a list. Not that I am going to dismiss what the bible says but if I do miss something that’s on YOUR list, faith will fill out the list. I know that’s hard for a list keeper to accept but what a relief it is when you can accept that you don’t have to do everything perfectly. Jesus has already done everything perfectly for you.
Doug
Doug,
You may reference Santa and call the list mine amake funll you want, but unless you cut it out, even you’re Bible includes baptism as one of the things that God says saves us.
Yours does still say that baptism saves us, doesn’t it?
Call me a list maker and/or legalistic if you must, but we both know that you’re the one wishing certain verses were on the list…..err….in the Bible.
It’s interesting to read how some imagine that faith alone saves. It’s too bad that faith alone is dead. It’s curious that some are unwilling to notice that in every recorded conversion, the candidate was immediately baptized in water by human hands. Just as Jesus commanded should be done. I marvel that no one has noticed that the apostle Paul, whom some suppose teaches that salvation is by faith alone, mentions that sinners who have repented are baptized INTO Christ and saved by faith which is obedient. And that this same apostle Paul mentions in writing to Thessalonian Christians that none will be saved who have not OBEYED the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10).
Not once is it stated in inspired writings that salvation is by faith alone. It is clearly stated that faith alone is useless and dead. So some of us think we know more than the inspired writers did, it appears. I invite any reader to comment on my book, RAISED INTO NEW LIFE, which can be read at http://missionoutreach.org/Raysed1.html. In it I point out why it is necessary to OBEY the gospel in order to be saved, which is to have sin remitted and receive the Holy Spirit.
No, Gentiles were not saved apart from the gospel. Not then. Not now. If you won’t believe that Peter was inspired when he told sinners how to be saved (Acts 2:38), is it profitable to point you to 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 where it is very clearly taught by Paul that only those will be saved who obey the gospel? Or do you want to continue to suppose that there’s nothing a sinner can do toward becoming saved?
The fact is that God did all that He needed to do to make salvation possible. But now it’s entirely up to each individual to become saved by actually obeying the gospel. Some suppose they know more than Peter knew or Paul knew or Jesus taught. They say a sinner is saved by praying to let Jesus know they want to be saved. But that’s a human idea, totally foreign to apostolic Christianity. And some on this blog list are sure that there’s nothing at all that a sinner needs to do in order to be saved except to think that for some reason they now have been saved since they now understand mentally that Jesus is Lord of all, risen from the dead, ruling now in a spiritual kingdom. But of course believing is also a “work,” isn’t it? So are we to suppose that God just picks out someone and saves them because He wants to and now they’re saved? Regardless of what they think, say, or do? Please don’t think that God gives faith to some while not giving it to others. Please don’t suppose everyone will be saved because God loves us all. We really need to believe what is taught rather than what we might assume from mixing our desire with a few verses where faith is mentioned in connection with salvation.
Is faith in Jesus as Lord necessary for salvation? If yes, then Gentiles were NOT saved and are now NOT saved apart from obeying the gospel. And that’s precisely what Paul affirms is the case. It’s also what Jesus implies by His commission to the apostles as He prepared to return to Heaven after being raised from the dead. Why would anyone suppose He would tell “us” to carry the gospel everywhere and baptize everyone who believed unless it was necessary to obey the gospel in order to be saved? He didn’t say the message was that the hearers were already saved by what Jesus had done on Calvary. And did Peter understand Him or was it entirely Peter’s idea to call for new believers to repent and be baptized?
It’s marvelous that some imagine that the 3,000 who were added to the church that first day (Acts 2) were saved and THEN baptized in order to have their sins remitted and in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The two gifts promised to those who did repent and who were baptized are exactly what is meant by being “saved.” And the gifts were promised to those who obeyed the gospel, and only those. Many who heard were NOT saved even though they had heard. In order to be saved, 3,000 were baptized because they had believed in Jesus and turned away from sin in order to serve “the risen Savior.” The salvation followed believing, repenting, and being baptized. No correctly understood other apostolic teaching will contradict the truth revealed in Acts 2.
Doug seems intent on dismissing obedience to the gospel as necessary for salvation. I surely hope he will read the note I sent moments ago to the blog. We notice that repenting is something anyone can do, and submitting to baptism doesn’t require a high school or college education prior to the act. Are repentance and being baptized works? Are they something one can do better than another can do them? Do those who oppose obeying the gospel consider the actions required by the apostles to be “works” which earn merit? Yes, each is based on faith. Yet they are not themselves faith. They are caused by faith. They are not faith. It is misleading for anyone to claim that sinners can be saved by faith alone. The claim is contrary to truth.
To “obey the gospel” is to believe it and to disobey is to not believe it. I hear folks use the familiar term so I was very surprised when I started looking at the Bible that not once is “obey”, “obedience”, or “obeyed” ever mentioned in relationship to water baptism.
People who hear the good news about what Jesus Christ has already accomplished for them and put their trust in him, have everlasting life. Those with true faith will with the same mind that embraced Jesus in faith immediately change their minds about the direction of their lives (that is biblical repentance) and want to do all they know to do that Jesus taught including being baptized in water.
In my view, water baptism should be public when it’s reasonable. In the time of Jesus, being immersed was not only an act of obedience it was an act of bravery. Many people (as it is today in much of the world) who were publicly baptized and identified as believing in Christ Jesus were shunned by their closest family members and friends.
In a post at GraceDigest ( http://gracedigest.com/2007/04/02/obey-the-gospel/) I tried to look honestly at every mention of the word “obey” and it’s derivatives in the New Testament. If you find one I missed please let me know.
A brother thinks that someone other than Jesus thought up a baptism to be performed by human hands. He bases his theory on not finding the word “obey” ever used in conjunction with “baptize.” But his theory doesn’t mean that Matthew didn’t quote Jesus as commissioning that those who tell others about Him are to baptize the ones who believe what they hear, which is the gospel. The gospel is defined for us as being all about Jesus. Oddly it makes no mention of the Holy Spirit. Yet some now are saying that the Spirit is the baptizer. And others imagine that the baptizer of each new Christian is Jesus who baptizes in the Spirit. I wonder what Bible these brothers are reading, if any.
Facts easily found in the inspired writings: Jesus commands that those who tell others about Him are to baptize those who believe. The Lukan history of the early church (Acts) reports that those who told others about Jesus did baptize the new believers. One example makes clear that the baptizing was done in a body of water. It was done by a man named Philip. The new believer was from Ethiopia returning from having worshiped as a Jew in Jerusalem. There are other examples, none of which say the baptizing was done by Jesus or by His Spirit.
It seems odd that some who claim to be Bible-believers want to ignore or contradict these simple facts.
Ray,
You thinking all are condemned to hell that have not heard of Jesus nor had the opportunity to obey the Bible is wrong.
You are including the mentally deficient, incapable of obey or knowing Jesus and most of the earths human inhabitants from the beginning of time up to today that never heard of Jesus.
That is not the God I would want to believe in. Makes those with the opportunity to hear of Jesus and be saved just the lucky ones born in the right place and time.
Just the luck of the draw or roll of the dice sorta salvation.
Who would honestly love a God like that? I sure couldn’t.
Instead, we all have a God of love that wants us all to spend eternity with Him. I thank God for having a judgment day and Him who knows all doing the judging. How awful it would be for most of this earth to have us humans doing the judging and especially if he was a conservative Church of Christ preacher. On the other hand, the judgment might not be so good for those, who like the Pharisees condemned everyone but themselves.
Like has been said on this site many times, LAW has excluded GRACE for many of us older folks and our parents, but its coming back into existence in the church of Christ, How I rejoice that I am allowed to see even a little of this change!
AL,
Assuming the “mentally deficient” are not even guilty of sin, they need no forgiveness. As far as the rest, for all who have sinned, they can ONLY be saved by believing in Jesus (which includes repenting and being baptized).
This is getting crazy now… I mean, its bad enough so many here are arguing that sinners are saved without being baptized (even though the Bible says that baptism saves us), but now we have people saying sinners can be saved without even ever believing in Jesus?!
And then to say you couldn’t even love a God who will not save those who never even heard of Jesus?! If so, then you must not love God because he certainly has made it clear that today, forgiveness comes ONLY to those who have heard of and believe in him.
Remember, he that believes and is baptized will be saved. But whoever does not believe, WILL BE, damned.
Thanks Hank, this is the very reason I have stopped posting lately.
outreachdownenray,
I assume you are talking about me in your last remark. If you are you either didn’t read my comments or you are purposely twisting what I said. I never hinted that Jesus didn’t commission that believers should be baptized. I have taught for 50 years that believers should be baptized and only believers. What I did say that being baptized and the term “obeying the gospel” are not connected in the Bible. Believing the gospel is being obedient and rejecting it is disobedience. I believe Jesus who said again and again that those who believe on him have everlasting life. And I believe they should be baptized “with human hands” in water.
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 ESV
in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
Also:
John 3:18 – 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.
The Bible also teaches that nobody can believe until they first hear, which is why the fewer of preachers are so beautiful.
Rest assured, any and every sinner who never hears of and believes in Jesus…will be lost and condemned by God because of their sin.
And you refusing love God for that wont change a thing….
Royce,
I notice you just said that “believing the Gospel is being obedient..”
Have you then changed your position? Because, unless Jay has removed some of your previous comments throughout other threads here, we can all check and see that you used to believe that sinners are saved before and without even “one bit of obedience”.
Don’t get me wrong, I am glad to see you now writing that in order to be saved, man must first be willing to obey. As the Bible teaches.
Its not their fault they have not heard of Jesus, but ours, if it comes down to who is really at fault on judgment day. Of course we for all our generations will say we didn’t even know these folks existed when the gospel was in the Mideast only and slowly spreading from there up until today. That can be our excuse for them not knowing of Jesus, but not theirs it seems. That is wrong.
Romans 2: 6-16 applies here, but I am specifically pointing out Romans 2:14-15. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another;
How severe we judge others, even the ones that had no chance to know of what we are judging them. I fear for those doing this harsh judging as they might be judged the same. Seems like the Bible says that somewhere.
Maybe those doing the judging should wear something on their sleeves and shoulders perhaps.
We agree on one thing though, this is sure getting absurd.
Hank,
You are mistaken. What I have taught is that men are not saved by their works, not by what they do, but rather they are saved by what Christ has done for them. To have his sins forgiven one must only believe on Jesus. (I could insert a dozen references here…).
When Peter preached to Cornelius and the crowd at his house he ended his sermon with these words. “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (Acts 10:43) And, that’s what happened. Peter preached the gospel, they believed it and were saved. This is the obedience of faith.
Later Peter said of this event, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:7-9)
The obedience of the heart can hardly be called a work for even faith and repentance are grace gifts from God. No one can come to God unless the Holy Spirit draws him. Those God has given to Jesus will come to him. In Acts 2 those who were saved were spoken of as having been “granted repentance”. Faith “comes” by hearing. Man is naturally at odds with God and God by his grace gives faith to some who hear the gospel and others are only hardened by the same message. Salvation is of the Lord and no man can claim any part of his own salvation, there is no room for boasting in self so that all boasting is in the Lord.
Jesus said to Martha after the death of her brother, “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25,26)
So, I ask you Hank and anyone else, Do you believe this?
AL,
The Romans 2 passage is speaking of the time when Jesus had “other sheep” which were “not of this fold”. It is speaking of the times of ignorance, wherein God allowed “the nations” (Gentiles) to walk in their own ways. Not to sin, but to come to God based upon the only light available to them. However, God has since then combined all of the children of God into one fold with one shepherd. There is no more “time of ignorance” with two folds of sheep being saved but now God commands all to repent and salvation is only in the church.
Just suppose you do stumble upon some person, tribe, or whatever who had were never fortunate enough to have ever heard of Jesus. What would you tell them (without masking the truth)??
1. That they are lost and need to be saved?
2. That they are already saved but now need to become Christians now that you have informed them of the truth?
3. If #1, why would they be lost?
4. If #2, why would your feet be a beautiful thing seeing how they were fine until you came?
Those are fair questions are they not?
Royce…Jay…. is there a source which would indicate what the majority of Protestant Theologians believe in regard to Faith Saves versus Faith Plus … I was just wondering if Faith plus Baptism is a majority view or extreme minority view… Is it something that most “denominations” accept or is it limited to the CoC ?? Not that majority/minority opinion indicates truth per se but it does reflect whether one might be digging in their heels against common sense…
Royce, you wrote:
“You are mistaken. What I have taught is that men are not saved by their works, not by what they do, but rather they are saved by what Christ has done for them. To have his sins forgiven one must only believe on Jesus. (I could insert a dozen references here…).”
See what I mean? You are going all over the place. Previously, you have said that we are save “without one bit of obedience” But now you are calling belief our “obedience to the gospel”. Which is it? Is believing something WE DO (in obedience to the gospel) or is belief something Christ has done for us? And since you say “to have his sins forgiven one must ONLY believe on Jesus” does that mean he must not also repent to be forgiven? Since repenting is different than believing? And is repentance something WE do or is it something Christ has done for us? You gotta deal with this stuff brother.
You add:
“The obedience of the heart can hardly be called a work for even faith and repentance are grace gifts from God. No one can come to God unless the Holy Spirit draws him. Those God has given to Jesus will come to him. In Acts 2 those who were saved were spoken of as having been “granted repentance”. Faith “comes” by hearing. Man is naturally at odds with God and God by his grace gives faith to some who hear the gospel and others are only hardened by the same message. Salvation is of the Lord and no man can claim any part of his own salvation, there is no room for boasting in self so that all boasting is in the Lord.”
I see you working. You appear to be suggesting that faith and repentance are not something “we do” but rather things that “God gives”, is that right? And all of this to distinguish belief and repentance from baptism. But concerning baptism, what do you say? Is if from heaven too, or from man?
Lastly, you write:
“Jesus said to Martha after the death of her brother, “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25,26)
So, I ask you Hank and anyone else, Do you believe this?”
Of course I do, absolutely! But believing that does not mean I must deny that in other verses we are saved by repenting. Nor does it mean that I must deny even other verses which say we are saved by being baptized! Again, the Bible says that we are saved by numerous things such as belief, baptism, repentance, confessing with our mouths, ourselves, the blood, mercy, etc. and I believe every one of them.
You can quote any verse(s) you wish about how belief (or anything else the Bible says) saves us, and I will agree with them all. Every time I will. But it never says that belief saves us without repenting and/or being baptized. Just because everything that the bible says that saves us isn’t included in every single passage does not mean that we get to pick one or to and forget about the others.
It would be like me quoting a couple verses where the Bible plainly declares that baptism now saves us and then asking;
“Royce, do you believe that baptism saves us?”
Hank,
Where does it say the mentally incompetent are not included, but, excluded in the verses you posted? Its not there. To condemn one, you would have to condemn all. The same judgment of innocence covers those even today that have never heard of Jesus the same as the incompetent mentally, or anyone else.
We make the at distinction because to say those not able to understand are among us, our kin, and friends children, not from the Bible.
We also make the distinction because that is the thinking of the God of love that we love, but, WE put conditions on not being able to know about Jesus, one group is OK and another group is hell bound. But, its all or none.
There is no time stipulation on Romans 2:6-16. We put the time limit to make it jib with our teaching, God and Paul didn’t.
Price,
Even though the Bible says that there are many things which save us, such as the blood, belief, baptism, repentance, ourselves, mercy, confessing with our mouths, etc….. the majority of “Protestants Theologians” refuse to accept the whole truth here. They still protest.
It would be so much better to just believe all of the verses about the things which God says save us. You know, the whole truth on the matter.
Hank….if the majority of people that love the Lord and study their Bibles to guide them form a majority opinion, (according to you without reference) why is it “better” to disagree with them ? Not sure that on the whole that is wise…Perhaps the minority is the minority for a good reason.
AL,
Assuming you will answer the questions I have already asked of you, I will answer yours.
“Where does it say the mentally incompetent are not included, but, excluded in the verses you posted? Its not there. To condemn one, you would have to condemn all. The same judgment of innocence covers those even today that have never heard of Jesus the same as the incompetent mentally, or anyone else.”
Those of “innocence” are, well….innocent. They have no sin and need no forgiveness. Just like an infant who does not believe.
“We make the at distinction because to say those not able to understand are among us, our kin, and friends children, not from the Bible.”
Not so, the distinction is in the innocence of infants and the mentally retarded.
“There is no time stipulation on Romans 2:6-16. We put the time limit to make it jib with our teaching, God and Paul didn’t.”
Sure their is. Jesus said there were once two folds but that there would end up only being one with one shepherd. Clearly, a reference to the church. See also Acts 14:16 and 17:30. There are scores of other passages which teach that the children of God scattered throughout the nations (non Jews) would all be brought into the one church. Outside of which, all sinners (not babies and mentally disabled) are lost.
Price,
“Majority, Smajority”!
The majority of Jews who “loved” God and studied the scriptures rejected and killed the Lord!
The majority have replaced the biblical purpose of baptism with the “sinner’s prayer.”
You wonder, “why is it “better” to disagree with them”? Because they disagree with the written word. That’s why.
But, I’m going fishing for bit and will catch up with you protestant majority later (try not to get TOO crazy)
Hank…. Your response is certainly the kind that one would expect from the minority but the majority would probably say the same thing about you…that you reject the teaching of the Bible… I just find it interesting that people of faith are so far split on this issue of baptism as a sacrament… Hardly any protestant group accepts that teaching based on their sincere study of the word…
Hank,
To answer your questions that I thought my comments answered:
I would choose number 2 but put a period at the end of saved. Leave off the NEED part.
Number 4 would be so they could know of our loving Father, His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit that they have missed out on knowing for so long. The irony is they have missed out on knowing the love of the heavenly bodies, but, the heavenly bodies including the angels have known them all along.
That relationship can’t be beat and I would be sorry they had missed it. That would be what I was bring, not salvation.
There is no distinction of innocents and who is and who is not any where I can find and both qualify in this case. We make the distinctions, not God. Interestingly, we, because of our love for God and our trust st in His judgment being fair and, well, just, as we all agree to exclude the mentally incompetent as innocent while there are now and in the past, many others just as innocent in their acts and practices but they still worshiped God in the manner that they inwardly at birth just knew. God put that knowledge at birth in them.
Interesting isn’t it that they all look upward in worship isn’t it.
Hank surely thinks and writes well. It’s good to hear comments from many on a subject of great importance such as how sinners are converted into disciples of Christ. It’s foolish for us to judge who can or cannot be saved. We are not the judges. Jesus will decide. But if we suppose we know how He will decide and then base our inaction on a think-so that He would surely NOT judge other than we would, then we assume too much. The commission given by Jesus to his apostles after His resurrection surely is the guide which we should follow. It calls for us to carry the gospel throughout the world. It calls for us to baptize those who believe the gospel. But some say baptism is unnecessary. They imagine that sinners will be saved by faith alone. They find many verses which speak of salvation by faith. Apparently each time they add an “alone” to the promise of salvation by faith.
It’s obvious that several who are contributing to this blog are unaware of the book of Acts where conversions are reported. Each time the convert is baptized, then added to the church of God as a newborn child of God. In my book, RAISED INTO NEW LIFE I point readers to each example of conversion to Christ before going on then to comment about various apostolic writings on the subject. I don’t want to write a book here. I do want to urge every reader to read my book. It’s available at no charge for reading at my web site. It’s at http://missionoutreach.org/Raysed1.html. I’d appreciate not being addressed on this blog by anyone who has NOT read that brief study (88 pages).
———————————————————————————-
Price deserves a response, I think. He writes *Hank…. Your response is certainly the kind that one would expect from the minority but the majority would probably say the same thing about you…that you reject the teaching of the Bible… I just find it interesting that people of faith are so far split on this issue of baptism as a sacrament… Hardly any protestant group accepts that teaching based on their sincere study of the word…
—————————
Neither Hank nor I suppose that baptism is a sacrament. We join you in realizing that baptism is NOT a sacrament. It’s simply a command by Jesus that we who love Him are to carry gospel truth throughout the world and then baptize those who believe it. A brief study (16 pages) contrasting views on baptism and new birth is available at http://missionoutreach.org/CD-D08.pdf. I hope you will read it!
Tell you what, Hank… Why don’t you write up your list and publish it here. But, make sure that it is a complete list because some of us who think that list keeping is not what Jesus was all about may be able to find some items omitted from your list and then you might have to conclude that your list was leading you to hell. Jesus came to give us life, not a list of obligations to keep.
Now, I freely admit that we may be talking past each other and I believe that we have more in common than you would probably believe but I see no merit in trading an old law list for a new law list. I desire the freedom that Jesus purchased for me on the cross.
Ray, you seem to be saying, “If you won’t let me preach to you for 88 pages, don’t talk to me at all!”
That seems a bit demanding, in my humble opinion. And setting such conditions is a perfect recipe for having one’s views ignored entirely.
Ray,
You and I, and Price by the way, agree that as you put it, “The commission given by Jesus to his apostles after His resurrection surely is the guide which we should follow. It calls for us to carry the gospel throughout the world. It calls for us to baptize those who believe the gospel.”
Where we disagree is when you said “It’s obvious that several who are contributing to this blog are unaware of the book of Acts where conversions are reported. Each time the convert is baptized, then added to the church of God as a newborn child of God.”
Cornelius and his family and friends are an exception. In Acts 10, 11, and 15 Peter is very clear in defending why he baptized those Gentiles. He did not baptize them so they would be saved. His testimony was that they had received the Holy Spirit just as he and the others, “when we believed”. Acts 15 records Peter’s statement about the conversion of Gentiles
“5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.”
Peter says there is “no distinction” or no difference between the Jews (Peter and others..) and Gentiles. All of them were saved by believing, their hearts were cleansed by faith and they all received the Holy Spirit when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter’s words in Acts 2,10,11 and 15 are very clear and easy to understand.
No the usual response from many people is to ignore Peter’s words. Not a good choice. Because of the teaching of Jesus, John, Peter, Paul, and others I believe the “repent” in Acts 2:38 carries more weight than “be baptized”. Peter quoted Joel’s prophesy in Acts 2 and finished the quote with this, “21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ And, so it is until this day.
Ray,
I am in compliance as I have read the 16 pages. Well done and written.
My question is, does the points you disagree with Al Maxey on cause either of you to be saved or lost?
This whole topic has been about UNITY, and unless someone will admit wrong or even that our differences don’t matter in the long haul, UNITY is a long way off if not impossible.
Royce and whoever else keeps thinking that Cornelius is some sort of proof that sinners go from being lost to saved as soon as they believe and before and without baptism,
Please pump your brakes a little enough to consider some key facts which are being ignored:
1. “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” – Jn. 10:16
2. “Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” – Jn. 11:51
3. “12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” Rom. 2:12-15
What you brothers KEEP forgetting (or ignoring), is the FACT that throughout the OT, the faithful and God-fearing Gentiles (like Cornelius) WERE SAVED!!! They were the “other sheep”. They were the children of God “not of this (Jewish) nation”. They had their own law (written on their hearts) under which they could be faithful and saved.
Now think this through for once (I have explained all this before but it keeps getting ignored)..
1. When do you suppose all of the faithful and God fearing Gentile children of God who were saved during the OT became lost and headed for hell? Just try to answer that, was it:
a) As soon as the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost?
b) As soon as the 3000 Jews repented and were baptized?
c) As soon as Peter started preaching to Cornelius?
Royce, you write – “He did not baptize them so they would be saved. His testimony was that they had received the Holy Spirit just as he and the others, “when we believed”.
But, you are wrong, Royce! The apostles DID NOT receive the Holy Spirit WHEN THEY BELIEVED, unless you want to argue that they did not believe until the day of Pentecost! But of course, they believed before the day of Pentecost and that is why they were there waiting for the HS there in the first place. You make it seem as though all of the disciples were lost and unbelieving until the day of Pentecost -which was WHEN the HS fell on them! Technically, they had all believed and were clean WAY before the Holy Spirit fell on them. In fact, Jesus told them they were already clean and in Christ (and he in them) way back in John 15. Read it all again.
Lastly, I know you keep making a big thing about how Cornelius was about to hear a message whereby he “will be saved” and you think that that PROVES he had not been saved yet.
However, the Bible used the same language and tense like that to describe the faithful and God fearing Jews who would receive Jesus “and BECOME” the children of God. It’s found in Jn. 1:12 – “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right TO BECOME children of God.”
See that?! The faithful Jews who believed and received Jesus did not go from lost to saved by believing in Jesus. Rather, they merely KEPT ON being saved.
In the same way, when the faithful Gentiles (like Cornelius) who believed and received Jesus, they did not go from being lost to saved either. Rather, they too merely kept on being saved.
Jim McGuiggan wrote a pretty good article showing how and why Cornelius was saved. You can read it here: http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=Acts&id=314
Note – I know full well that all of this will continue to be brushed aside by the majority, here. I write it for the consideration and benefit of the others who will actually think about it.
Have a blessed Lord’s Day to ALL
*** I meant to say that the good article by Jay McGuiggan showed how and why Cornelius was saved “BEFORE he ever met Peter”
Hank wrote: “In the same way, when the faithful Gentiles (like Cornelius) who believed and received Jesus, they did not go from being lost to saved either. Rather, they too merely kept on being saved.”
>>>
This is an interesting view. Hank, are you saying that any “faithful Gentile” already has eternal life? In the case of Cornelius, you appear to conclude that his “faithfulness” (whatever that means) was an alternative path to eternal life… outside faith in Jesus. If this was the case, I am missing the point of preaching Jesus to Cornelius. And I am completely missing this message in the teachings of Paul.
Charles,
That is an excellent point. What you need to remember though, is the fact that when we talk about Gentiles such as Cornelius, we are talking about Gentiles who lived during the time when the Lord said that there were two folds. Cornelius lived during a time when there were Jews who were saved as Jews, and there were Gentiles who were saved as non-Jews. And he lived during the 10yr period where there were NO (as in zero), Gentiles in the Lord’s church. It was a special (as in unique) time period.
However, that time period wherein their who “two folds” of God’s sheep, is over. Today, there is only one fold, which is the church.
I believe that more light is shed on this in Acts chapters 14 and 17. There, Paul talked about the time when God allowed the Gentiles to “walk in their own ways.” In ch 17, he said that “the times of ignorance” were overlooked by God. What that means, is NOT that God allowed the Gentiles to sin and didn’t care. But, that he allowed them to be saved by being faithful to God with whatever light that was available to them. The were in “times of ignorance” not because they were stupid, but because they just did not have the revelation/information that the Jews had. The Jews had an advantage because unto them were given the oracles of God.
However, with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the church…. that time ended.
Today, the church (and only the church), contains the body of saved sinners.
I’m not making anything up Hank. All one must do is read the text. The following is Dr. Luke quoting Peter.
“If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:17)
We don’t know when Peter and the others fully believed Jesus was the Christ. We can know that it was Jesus’ intention that they be given the Holy Spirit, but not until he had been glorified. It would not happen until after his resurrection. Was it at Pentecost as is the common teaching? I don’t think so.
Jesus said this, “38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
John said here the Holy Spirit would be given only after Jesus had been glorified. Then in John 20 the record of the day of the resurrection is given. On the very day Jesus was glorified the following happened.
“19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
Jesus appears to the disciples (except for Thomas) in a locked room, shows them his scars, and they were convinced it was truly the Lord. He commissioned them saying “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you”. And after he said that “He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit…”
Now, what reason would I have to believe anything other than that they received the Holy Spirit as promised when He was “glorified”? It was on this day, the day of the resurrection that the disciples were first indwelt by the Spirit. If you recall, the 120 did not wait in the upper room for the Holy Spirit, they waited for the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ command was “wait for the promise of the Father” and just before He ascended into heaven he said these final words. “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) They were not waiting to be indwelt but rather to be empowered. The Holy Spirit would come “upon” them, not “in” them. They were already indwelt, they were waiting as Jesus commanded to receive power to preach to good news. (Acts 1:4)
I know this sounds very odd to most who read it but it’s what the Bible says. The common belief that the church started at Pentecost with the 3000 just isn’t exactly true. The church was alive and well, before Pentecost. If not, why would Luke record in Acts 2 that the 3,000 were “added”? “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41) The 3,000 were “added” to a number that already existed. The same thing with the same wording is recorded again in Acts 2:47, Acts 5:14, and Acts 11:24, believers were “added” to the Lord. You don’t add to nothing, you only add to an existing number and we know there were at a minimum 120 and very likely many more Christians before Pentecost.
Pentecost was not the birth of the church, it was the birth of Holy Spirit empowered preaching and sign gifts such as tongues and working of miracles.
Hey Royce,
How come you practically always ignore the big questions? Allow me to ask again…
When do you suppose all of the faithful and God fearing Gentile children of God who were saved during the OT (the “other sheep”) became lost and headed for hell? Was it:
a) As soon as the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost?
b) As soon as the 3000 Jews repented and were baptized?
c) As soon as Peter started preaching to Cornelius?
Royce,
And you still aren’t understanding the fact that Jesus assured his disciples that they were saved and “in him” LONG before he was glorified. You just can make the Bible teach that all of the disciples of Jesus were lost and unforgiven until they “received the Holy Spirit.”
Think about it…
Do you really want to take the position that all of the Lord’s disciples were lost and unforgiven throughout the entire time they were with walking around with him?
Because if you are going to argue that they were unsaved until they “received the Holy Spirit” and then admit that they did not receive as much until Christ was glorified, that’s where your at.
You are then forced to argue that they were all lost and unsaved until Christ was glorified. Unless, you don’t mind contradicting yourself again.
I’m pretty sure most can easily see you dilemma now.
To answer your BIG QUESTION Hank, we have a huge difference.
You believe a person can be saved by doing good. I don’t. Why would Cornelius be told he would be told how to be saved if he was already saved?
“13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ (Acts 11:13,14)
It would be very odd to tell a guy who was already saved that he would hear a message and be saved. Cornelius was as a good man but not a saved man.
You are very confused about the “other sheep” Jesus spoke of. I don’t know who told you they were saved Gentiles. They were not, they were unsaved people. John 17 is very clear.
“glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him” John 17:1,2
“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.” John 17:6
Not everyone will be finally saved. There is a certain people whom God gives to Jesus and Jesus gives them eternal life. Jesus said God gave them to him “out of the world”, not saved people, they were lost people who needed eternal life. Jesus was primarily talking about the disciples less Judas in the first part of John 17. Then he includes us who will believe on him by the testimony of the disciples. We also were a gift to Jesus. Read it for yourself.
“Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” John 17:24
That is us! We are those Jesus said “whom you have given to me…”
John 10 is the great shepherd and sheep chapter. This is Jesus’ words there.
“14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” John 10:14-16
Jesus had others who were not yet in the fold. Had they already been saved they would be in the fold, then. But he said “I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice”. They had not listened yet but they would. He is not speaking of some class of people who are now saved by clean living. He is speaking of those who were not yet in the fold, those the Father had given to him, those chosen in him before the foundation of the world. It is those who will come. It should not be a strange thing that God knows every person to the last one who will be saved.
“35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:35-40
Now you have to pay attention here.. First, “All that the Father gives me will come to me” vs 37a. Not just whomever, but those the Father gives to Jesus will come to him.
Then he says “and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” vs 37b The “whoever” in vs 37b is the same ones who are “All the Father gives me..” in vs 37a.
“And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:39,40
The “all he has given me” in vs 39 is the same ones the Father has given to Jesus. In fact, he says in a way we can’t easily mistake “…I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day”. vs39 And then in vs 40 he tells how it will play out in time. “Everyone (the same ones the Father gave to Jesus, other sheep..) who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day”.
God the Father and God the Son are in charge of who was, and is, and will be saved. If we choose not to believe these passages that fly in the face of our traditions we might just as well toss the whole thing. It is true, God is God and I am not.
Who will be resurrected on the last day? All those the father has given to the Son. That is what the Bible says. There is hardly anything in the Bible more clearly said than this. What you believe about is your business I suppose, but it is God’s record, not mine.
Well, the discerning readers here will just have to decide for themselves which/who makes more sense with all of this…
However, if you think that the apostles were not saved until they “received the Spirit”, that means you believe that none of them were saved throughout the entire time they were walking around with and following Jesus.
And I just plain don’t agree with the idea that the Gentiles had no chance to be saved since the Bible says that they could, if they were faithful….
And as far as Cornelius hearing a message whereby he “would be saved”… I have addressed that like 5 times already. Here is what I already wrote about that at 7:21 this morning:
“Lastly, I know you keep making a big thing about how Cornelius was about to hear a message whereby he “will be saved” and you think that that PROVES he had not been saved yet.
However, the Bible used the same language and tense like that to describe the faithful and God fearing Jews who would receive Jesus “and BECOME” the children of God. It’s found in Jn. 1:12 – “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right TO BECOME children of God.”
See that?! The faithful Jews who believed and received Jesus did not go from lost to saved by believing in Jesus. Rather, they merely KEPT ON being saved.
In the same way, when the faithful Gentiles (like Cornelius) who believed and received Jesus, they did not go from being lost to saved either. Rather, they too merely kept on being saved.”
Hank opined: “Cornelius lived during a time when there were Jews who were saved as Jews, and there were Gentiles who were saved as non-Jews. And he lived during the 10yr period where there were NO (as in zero), Gentiles in the Lord’s church. ”
>>>
Interesting fellow, our Cornelius. Saved, but not by the Savior. Saved not by grace, but by his works. Having eternal life, but not a part of the body of Christ. This fellow is unlike anyone else I ever heard of.
>>>
“It was a special (as in unique) time period.”
>>>
I just love “special (as in unique) time periods”. These nifty inventions allow us to take inconsistencies in reasoning and sweep them under a large hand-knitted hermeneutical rug upon which is embroidered, “Special Time Period: Reality Is Completely Different Under This Rug.”
Hank, it may well be that how God receives or does not receive those outside the reach of the gospel is more mysterious than we grasp. “He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy.” But your theory on Cornelius just seems to fall short on facts and consistency.
Charles and/or whoever else cares to answer,
So then, is it your belief that every single Gentile (non-Jew) was lost and unsaved throughout the OT? If not, then how were they saved?
If so, then how do you explain these passages:
1. “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” – Jn. 10:16.
*** Just who were these other sheep?
2. “Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” – Jn. 11:51.
*** Who were the children of God not of “the nation”?
3. “12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” Rom. 2:12-15.
*** What do you suppose it means that the Gentiles were a law to themselves?
Also, I would be very curious to learn of what you believe to have been “the times of ignorance” which was overlooked by God? What do YOU believe that was and when do you believe it ended (if you even believe it has)?
And who really cares which way it is?
Some things are best left to management. Simple ‘ol construction workers like me just need to keep their heads up no matter who is beside them, Methodist, Baptist, what ever the differences and keep driving nails for Jesus.
I thank God every day there will be no written exam to be passed in order to enter heaven. Most of the folks there couldn’t even read or write.
Hank…. just curious… why do you believe that Cornelius was saved ? Please quote from scripture what you know about Cornelius that would have counted him as saved… I can find that he 1) prayed to God 2) gave money to the poor 3) was in a position of authority in the Roman army….. I know that Peter had to be convinced to even meet with him… Does praying, and giving money overcome the decisions and actions he surely was required to participate in as a commander in the Roman army ? One could probably doubt that he was a faithful Jew who kept the sabbath and worshipped in the Temple. Could he have perhaps participated in the crucifixion of Jesus in some way ?? I just don’t see enough in scripture to qualify him as “saved” as you suggest.. I really have to go with the words as they are written in Acts…that he was to go to Peter and hear what he was saving so that he could be saved… anything else seems to be a LOT of speculation…
Price, you ask:
“Hank…. just curious… why do you believe that Cornelius was saved ?”
There are many reasons why. For example, Jesus said:
“And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” – Jn. 10:16.
*** Just who were these other sheep, Price?
Another reason is because the Bible says:
“Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” – Jn. 11:51.
*** Who were the children of God not of “the nation”?
Another reason is because Paul wrote:
“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” Rom. 2:12-15.
*** What do you suppose it means that the Gentiles were a law to themselves?
Also, I would be very curious to learn of what you believe to have been “the times of ignorance” which was overlooked by God? What do YOU believe that was and when do you believe it ended (if you even believe it has)?
You can read the way a well known brother comes to the same conclusion that Cornelius was saved before he even met Peter, here:
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=Acts&id=314
Hank…never mind..I was hoping you were going to speak specifically to Cornelius…
Price,
Does that mean I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for you to answer any of the 4 questions I just asked you? Which were:
*** Just who were these other sheep, Price?
*** Who were the children of God not of “the nation”?
*** What do you suppose it means that the Gentiles were a law to themselves?
*** What do YOU believe was meant by “the times of ignorance” and when do you believe they ended (if you even believe they have)?
I’ll take a stab at your questions (Price may have different answers).
1). the “other” sheep are those outside the nation of Israel
2). Gentiles. This is a prophecy that Jesus’ death would be for ALL who believed.
3). That Gentiles would be judged based on the law(s) that they knew.
“times of ignorance” – I assume you mean from Acts 17 when Luke refers to a time when men thought God was represented by statues and idols.
All are saved by God’s grace btw, old testament times, new testament times, current times.
Hank, you cannot ask enough questions to answer for the holes in your own theory, any more than you can shoot enough holes in another man’s boat to keep yours afloat. Sorry. You seem to be under the impression that, “My idea is right unless someone can provide an alternative which I like better.” This is also not correct.
Once upon a time, long before Newton, the idea was put forth that the earth was a sphere. A man objected. He said, “No, the earth is obviously flat. If it were round, the people standing south of the equator would fall off. Can you explain why they wouldn’t?” As no one could explain this, the earth remained flat.
Or perhaps it didn’t.
Charles,
Either the moon is made of cheese, or you really just don’t want to answer the questions (for obvious reasons).
Dude, the questions are not that hard to answer if/when your willing to accept the obvious conclusions. Nancy did it and I’m sure she would tell you that it was a rather simple processes.
Just try it bro. After all, they’re not weird questions – just basically, “what do you think this verse means” about 4 verses.
While you may choose to talk about shooting holes in boats and how the world is not flat…. your silence regarding the simple questions is telling. Here they are again:
*** Just who were these “other sheep”?
*** Who were the children of God not of “the nation”?
*** What do you suppose it means that the Gentiles were a law to themselves?
*** What do YOU believe was meant by “the times of ignorance” and when do you believe they ended (if you even believe they have)?
Hank, just to clarify, can you summarize your thinking about how the scriptures that you cite relate to Cornelius? The first two prophetic scriptures point to a time when the Gentiles will be “part of the pen” just like Jesus tells us (as recorded by John). If I read these and then read the account of Cornelius, it would be like an “aha” moment. Are you marveling at God’s perfect plan of salvation for all mankind? Are you citing these verses to prove that Cornelius was saved all along (I think you are)? If yes, what is the significance of Luke’s recording that event?
Please summarize your thoughts again, I’m just a little confused.
Hank,
The name Gentile was for any that was not a Jew and that covers many they didn’t even know existed back then. Heck, it would also include any we don’t know of today too.
Law unto themselves?
Many worship God in many ways for all time whether we call them savages, denominations, or the other church of Christ down the rroad that differs from us on some points.
To many of us, they are all equally lost.
God puts a knowledge of Himself in every person and without instruction, they worship the same God, but in a way they feel is right whether we agree or not. Whether they are obedient to that inward law is the law unto themselves. They will be judged accordingly as a just God will not judge them and everyone that has ever lived from the KJV of the Bible.
The time of ignorance is not over since its when anyone comes to understand what he must do to be pleasing to God and to too many of us that means understands just as I do.
I get the impression that many place more value on “how people feel” over “what the Bible actually teaches”.
I mean, how else can you honestly claim that the times of ignorance which God overlooked is still going on when the Bible says:
Acts 17:30 “The times of ignorance God overlooked, BUT NOW he commands all people everywhere to repent,”
Acts 14:16, puts it this way “IN PAST GENERATIONS he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways.”
BTW, there are no more Gentiles today with a “law to themselves”. Today, there is only one body of saved sinners and that is the church.
How did we happen to be born to a Mother and Dad that were members of the church of Christ so we were blessed to be brought up in that belief?
Were we chosen to be placed there by God for some reward or reason we do not understand?
What about all the others, the great majority that were born of different faiths?
Most people today are of the belief and church affiliation they were raised in.
Is more grace afforded them, or, was Jesus blood shed only for us?
Hank, I think if you’ll read both those verses in context, you’ll see that the “times of ignorance” and “let them go their own way” refers to a time when people were worshiping false gods and God had not judged them yet. Paul and his companions were trying to preach the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ….the “repent” (in the context of these verses) means to turn away from these false gods and worship the one true and living God.
I’m still not clear on how you are relating these verses to the event that Luke records concerning Cornelius and his family. If Cornelius was already saved, is he saved apart from belief in the Gospel? And, if yes, what did his baptism accomplish?
Can you provide a little more details / clarification.
AL,
His blood is for all sinners, no doubt about that. However, he said that the only sinners who will be saved are the ones who come through him and on his terms.
I know that some people say that’s not fair, but it is what it is. Personally, I wish he would just save everybody no matter what they believed. I honestly do. Of course, it doesn’t really matter what I want.
Nancy,
God never ever “allowed” and/or “overlooked” sin. He never “allowed ” the Gentiles to make and worship idols. Far from it…
Romans 1:18 ESV
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Especially worshiping false idol.
As for Cornelius, he didn’t do that. No, he was being faithful and God fearing at a time when there were NO Gentiles in the church
Now, either every Gentile in the world was lost, or some were still saved at that time.
Which do you believe?
If they (every Gentile) was lost, when did they become lost?
1. They all always were
2. The dday of Pentecost
3.. some other time
Hank,
I appreciate your answering my questions as much as you do.
Remember UNITY is our subject and these questions must be answered for us to have unity with those around us.
I would hate to see it, but hard times brings unity quicker than debating. God of course knows this and I worry about what’s ahead.
Where we differ is my belief in what’s commonly called “The available light” thinking which to me makes perfect sense and is what I would expect from a just God. Having taught that in places of despair it brought unity, the only me didn’t.
AL,
Its cool. We just disagree and in time we’ll find out if and how much it mattered …
(heavy sigh).
Hank, I was asking about the verses that you cite and how they relate to Cornelius. You brought them up. I’m not asserting anything. I’m just asking you to clarify your thoughts for me.
Hank, Nancy has offered honest answers to your questions to no discernible benefit. So, as one who learns from the actions of others, I think I’ll pass. You won’t answer my questions, so I didn’t answer yours. Hope you don’t mind if I leave it there.
I carefully wrote responses to several, failing to remember that I had to fill in the name and e-mail info at this computer which is not my own. So I received the notice that I hadn’t furnished that info, but didn’t understand my error until after I had typed and sent three notes. So now I’ll try again after filling in the needed info. I’m switching computers in order to go to Windows 7. But I’ll be without my own computer for at least a day or two. I’m glad that Alabama John read my 16-page article which quotes a recent Reflections article from Al Maxey and explains briefly why what he is now teaching does not agree with apostolic teaching and practice. I have urged that anyone who is interested in what I see as Bible teaching about the new birth should read the study at my web site. The 32-page study is an analysis by Marion Owens and myself of what Al is now teaching. It’s at http://missionoutreach.org/OwensMaxey.pdf. The 16-page similar study is at http://missionoutreach.org/CD-D08.pdf. The 88-page can be read at http://missionoutreach.org/Raysed1.html. I hope I typed those correctly. I think it important that no one who loves Jesus and seeks truth should be confused about the baptism in/with the Spirit. It was not for remissionof sins either time it was done. Cornelius was saved exactly the same way every other conversion is reported. The new birth of water and spirit is, according to Jesus, of TWO elements which are water AND spirit. The apostle Peter informed seeking sinners that what they needed to do to enter the Kingdom was to repent of sin (a spiritual change) and be baptized (in water)–two elements, water and spirit. I feel sure Peter was correct and no later writing about conversion will differ from what was first revealed.
Ray,
Other than it being the outcome you desire, can you give the readers here a good reason why you decided “water” in the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus referred to water baptism? You are aware that Christian baptism had not yet begun? Or, do you believe John the Baptist’s baptism was also a new birth? There is no Bible evidence it was .
That “water” in John’s record of the statement of Jesus to Nicodemus meant water baptism is only one speculation people have arrived at. The most likely meaning, and the one most accepted, is that as the verses explain, was he meant a birth from above as well as a natural birth. Just because you decided a meaning to a word the Bible does not give does not necessarily make it true. I concede, It might be true, but it might not be.
Royce, concerning the idea that the new birth of John 3 refers to baptism, I see that you concede that such “might be true”. If you really believe your own words, then you’ve just conceded that, in order to be born again, “it might be true” that one must first be baptized. Can you see how you’ve just conceded as much with your very own statements? Don’t get me wrong, for I am thrilled to see your new position moving from that of your previous one wherein you claimed that you were positive that one can be (and is) born again before and without baptism. Just remember though, since you now concede that baptism might actually be what is referred to when Jesus spoke of being “born of water”, you will no longer be able to argue that you are certain that we are born again before and/or without being baptized in water. At least, not without contradicting yourself again…
Royce wonders why I (and the apostle Peter) would surmise that “water” was in reference to water baptism in the affirmation by Jesus that an essential for entering His Kingdom was a new birth of water and spirit. He notes that the church was not yet in existence at the time Jesus spoke. And he’s surely right.
The way I know what Jesus meant is by the way the apostle Peter understood Him. Peter was asked what seeking sinners could do about their sin. This was as the church was being ushered in. It was the very first day that the church as a family of faith on earth existed. Peter informed the seekers that what was needed (Jesus had called it a new birth) was for them to repent and be baptized. The baptism the apostle referred to was the baptism in water which Jesus had made part of His commission to the apostles (and surely to us who carry on their work in the present) concerning how they were and we are to serve by telling others about Him and then baptizing those who believe. I speak to this question in the 32-page study at my web site http://missionoutreach.org/OwensMaxey.pdf. I hope any interested reader will consider that study where the matter is discussed at length.
One thing I didn’t mention in the longer study is that in the very next sentence (John 3:6) Jesus does speak of human birth as contrasted with spiritual rebirth. The human birth is not a birth of water but instead is a birth of flesh. That should help anyone realize that the “water” in verse 5 is NOT a reference to human birth.
A brother assumes that all God-fearing Gentiles were saved. By good works, I assume, is the thought. But how does that relate to Paul’s suggestion that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? Will good works save today? Surely not. Why would we suppose that everyone who was a God-fearing Gentile was saved prior to the time of Jesus’ ministry on earth? Why would we suppose that ANY God-fearing Gentile was saved (by works) any time? I see that the assumption is made, and then we are asked to decide when this salvation by works ceased. I question when it began.
I note that using this different computer has put me back into the picture-less category of bloggers. That’s better than not blogging at all, but not much.
Hank,
Is it a possibility that you could be wrong ? Could you be wrong about people being saved by living “good” lives?
As only a man, I am flawed. You are too. Why would Jesus say on all those many other occasions that belief in him would result in eternal life? He would not make a good coc preacher would he?
Royce,
We are all flawed. My only point most recently was that since you conversation that baptism “could be” what the water referred to in John 3, you can no longer argue that baptism is not essential to being saved and born again. Cause you concede that you do not knlow for sure.
As far as how the Gentiles of previous dispensations
were saved.. I HAVE NEVER even suggested that it was
by “being good” as though it were apart from the grace and forgiveness of God. It has always been either sinless perfection (never sinning) or
by being forgiven. The OT gentiles were saved by faithfully walking within whater light that was available under the law under which they lived back then. Excuse any typos, my cell is tripping…
You “concede” that baptism could be… not “conversation” in line 2 above.
Hank…not to interfere with you discourse with Royce but just because Royce in his humility suggests that he isn’t God and that there are those that do hold to the concept you propose doesn’t at all mean he agrees with it… He has apparently, through much study and prayer, come to a different conclusion which he rightfully argues for according to his conscience. The opposite could be true, that you also, in your humility agree that Royce could be right.. that wouldn’t preclude you from arguing your POV… Humility in and of itself isn’t a concession…
Price,
His concession of the fact that he now believes that baptism could actually be a requirement unto all who will be born again may or may not be a sign of humility (he may have just slipped in his concession).
What it does do though, is it prevents him from continuing to argue that he knows that sinners are born again before and without baptism.
My guess, however, is that he will keep on arguing as much and prove that more than humility, the brother is just holding onto and espousing sloppy doctrine.
But, we will see
Hank, why in the world do you continue to mock people that you disagree with ?
Just to jump in here a bit: This is a classical example of proof-text-biased reading of scripture. By this I mean, we go to a concordance and look up all the texts that speak of salvation by faith, and: BINGO! See, all these verses don’t add anything to faith, do they? But when we look a few verses before and after, we will notice something strange: Christ is talking about works! A few examples to illustrate:
That’s a favorite one for Evangelists! So simple, so straightforward: Just believe – salvation by faith alone! Now read on:
Now He is talking about good works! Yes, they are done in faith and in the power of God – but they are works nonetheless. Faith and works are inseparable.
Another favorite one! There won’t be a judgment for believers! well, that’s not what Christ said two chapters earlier, is it? And it’s not what He says a few verses later:
So there will be a judgement after all – it will be by two different resurrections (if you look up Rev 20:5 and the following verses you’ll even see that these two resurrections are 1000 years apart). And guess what determines which resurrection we are going to be part of: Our works.
So it is immensly wrong and misleading to speak of salvation by faith only as if our works played no role in it. This is simply not true. Even Paul said something very remarkable:
Sounds like James, but is from Paul. Both were CoC preachers.
Alexander
Alexander… we agree on something !!! Faith and works are inseparable !! Yes, they are…Except that God doesn’t honor works, He honors Faith.. Read Hebrews 11…Men of MIGHTY WORKS were honored for their Faith… It is the Faith/Belief/Trust of a man in God that He commends people for…not what they did, although as you say, the works are a testimony to their faith and the sincerity of it… I believe that was what James was saying…the outward manifestation of one’s faith is what we see and they are a testimony to one’s sincere faith… But, those works just don’t add up to anything as far as submitting them for reward… at least to God..Romans 4
Alexander,
It’s a very simple concept. Those who have true faith will do good works, no exceptions. Not one person ever was counted righteous by an accumulation of good deeds.
I mean no disrespect, but it’s almost as if some of you guys have never read 1st John or Romans, or Ephesians, and more.
Sinners don’t “become” righteous as some people think. They are instead “made” righteous. In perhaps the best gospel presentation in the OT, the prophet Isaiah in chapter 53 said ” Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
MAKE many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities. ”
And then there is the great Psalm 32 where David wrote “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit”.
God alone makes sinners righteous by His own decree. The Hebrew writer put it this way. “he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” Hebrews 9:12-14
Here my friends is where the rubber meets the road. Is the sacrifice of Jesus enough? Is the offering of his perfect life enough to appease the Father’s wrath against sins? It’s simple, he is truly enough, or he isn’t enough. The correct answer is not the work and worth of Jesus + anything. Nothing can be added to what he has already accomplished for sinners. The reason Paul spoke his most harsh words to the party of circumcision in Galatians was that they were insisting that God was not fully pleased with the sacrifice of Jesus. They were teaching that to be saved one needed Jesus + circumcision.
I insist with all my heart that my salvation and yours was complete hundreds of years before we were born. The debt was fully paid by the doing and dying of Jesus the Christ. Jesus is quite enough. Every good work that God planned for his dear ones to walk in flow from faith, they do not precede faith. Ephesians 2:8-10
Each person is free to go his own way. You have a right to teach salvation by faith in Christ plus how ever long you decide the list is. And, I have the right to insist that Christ alone is sufficient. If that makes me an outsider so be it. I have been invited on several occasions to leave the churches of Christ because of my dogged insistence about trusting only the Christ of the church. I am at peace.
Price,
You mentioned works and rewards as used in Romans 4 and say they don’t add up to anything. However,what it actually says is that to the one who works, he is OWED a reward. It says:
Romans 4:4 ESV
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
See that?
The problem you are having is in failing to understand how that when Paul wrote “works” in Romans 4, he meant sinless perfection. For, who else would be OWED his reward?
He for sure didn’t mean anything about not being baptized there as some people try to make it. Bit, those people are ignoring what it actually says.
Romans 4:4 ESV
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Royce,
If the water in John 3 is a reference to baptism (as you concede it could be) then it would be Jesus plus baptism.
Unless, you believe that a sinner can enter the kingdom without being born again?
You need to think about that..
So it is your view Hank that Jesus didn’t do quite enough? And, that God was not satisfied with what Jesus accomplished?
I’m trying to follow your logic (I say that with great generosity..). The Father is sitting on His throne in heaven and observes the life of Jesus, sees his agony, his suffering, the untold cruelty poured out on His Son. He sees Jesus come out of death on the 3rd day as promised. And, God thinks….”That was pretty good, in fact almost enough for me to forgive any sinner, but it isn’t quite enough. I know, if a sinner is dipped in water too, that will completely satisfy my justice”.
Hank, don’t tell me this is what you believe. If it is, please, get back on the meds. And of course, if I understand you and others here, there are several other things God must have on the list too, in addition to the person and performance of Jesus His Son.
You know, the way I see it, when you get the list down just right, why in the world would you need Jesus? What could he do for you that you can’t do for yourself?
I have observed some poor theology in my years but this takes the prize. If you can barter with God on your own terms, why call yourself a Christian?
Royce, Hank, Price, and Alexander:
Your discussion would be more fruitful if each of you gave your definition of works, faith, the nature of perseverance, and whether man is actively cooperating or completely passive in receiving salvation. Most of us have read Romans, 1st John, and the other epistles Royce mentioned. Where one falls within the debate over justification as infused or imputed is deeply connected with ones view of forgiveness, sanctification, and the struggle to balance God’s offer of grace with man’s responsibility to listen.
Royce,
A prime example is the question you raised, “Is the sacrifice of Jesus enough?” Well, when presented in such a dichotomy, the answer is, no [I would say yes or no depending on the context of the question]. To be clear, Jesus at Calvary will not save or appease the father’s wrath against sin of a person unless joined with faith, repentance, and any perceived condition of salvation [unless affirming universalism]. And that Royce, is the real rub.
Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox all agree that without God’s grace no man would be saved, but the offer of salvation must be applied to mankind, which not only involves the atonement, but application of it as well [granted, universalism applies the atonement unconditionally to every human]. I don’t know where you stand within Systematic Theology, but even my scholarly Calvinist friends admit the crucifixion is worthless without the calling of the gospel and God implanted faith (of course God does not fail, but this could apply to multiple systematic theologies).
You use the word “true” faith [where is that in the Bible, lol] to emphasize what God has done while admitting men must work. Others, however, glory in what God does to save us but want to emphasize man’s responsibility to listen to God. Both parties are normally reacting to a problem in history. It would be as wrong for a Calvinist to accuse one of “man centered theology,” as it would for someone to accuse you of “promoting antinomianism;” Cleary you are not. Tertullian, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and the Council of Trent [any man others through the ages] gave variable nuances and struggled to balance the concepts. The rub is not can man save himself, but rather are works a sign of sanctification or a God-planned means of sanctification. All agree that without God’s grace we cannot be saved, as well as agree that works [love, charity, etc] must accompany the life of a believer.
Royce,
Can you not see how you are contradicting your own self?
History,
Well said, bro
Hank…you amaze me…you quote the scripture but miss the meaning…at least as far as I am concerned… If I said, Hank, righteousness is by Grace not by works… Abraham was justified by Faith and Not by works. Now if Abraham had a job and was paid for what he did, then it wouldn’t be grace, it would be wages paid for work performed… So, if Abraham had anything to brag about for what he did…it wasn’t to God, because God doesn’t grant righteousness by works, but by grace…
Now, you may not agree with what the overwhelming majority consider that passage to say but you snicker at the majority at your own risk…
History Guy,
I respectfully disagree.
I can’t convince you or anyone else that Jesus and His work was in fact enough to satisfy God’s wrath against sin. Every religion and every errant group under the banner “Christian” has something in common. They believe God will weigh their good against their bad deeds and hopefully they will have done enough to be received. This is why our churches are crammed full of folks who are just not sure if they will make it heaven or not. They have been taught to have a low view of God and a high view of man and thus are putting all their chips on self, it’s a loosing hand.
Tens of millions of uneducated people have become devoted Christ followers and many of them were burned at the stake and killed in other acts of cruelty because they would not forsake their faith in Jesus. Read Fox’s Book of Martyrs sometime. God in His wisdom that one does not need a Greek lexicon, a N T Wright book, or a degree from a Bible college to know Christ by faith and have eternal life.
I appreciate your scholarship, your love for God, and the kind way you react to others. As for me, I’ll just ride out my remaining years in the joy I have known since I was a 15 year old boy, when the best I knew how I put my whole trust in Jesus. He is precious to me and I can only glory in Him and what he accomplished for sinners like me.
I’ll keep bragging on Him, telling the good news about him, baptize those who believe on him, and wait to meet him one glad day. With this I’m done with this thread. Blessings be to you and yours.
HG…glad to do so…. We are saved by Grace (free gift) through Faith, not by works lest someone could brag about it… I can’t earn Grace or it isn’t Grace (Romans 4) .. Faith is defined pretty well by Heb 11:1.. Doesn’t mentioned doing anything.. It isn’t works.. Baptism is my Symbolic act of an inner faith for the purpose of being included in the church which can’t know my inner faith. It is an act of obedience similar to circumcision which again isn’t what reckons me as righteous. Rom 4:10. I am then sanctified by Truth…that is, I am trained and instructed by the Word, both the written word and by the Holy Spirit personally. I go from milk to meat… I am matured by my walk in the faith which is far from perfect.. And unless I somehow decide to refute the existence of God completely, nothing can cause me to loose my salvation..I am not going to be dropped out of His grasp… For me and perhaps me alone, although Royce seems to agree, Jesus did it all…All I have to do is believe in Him to be saved. The testimony of my faith is the degree which I sincerely attempt to do as He has instructed… but perhaps only God and I know the extent to which that is true.
Something that might get into this discussion of faith and works is the degree of one believers works compared to another believers works. I can’t help but compare myself to others who seem to have done so much more, and are continuing to do so much more, than myself. At times, I feel like my works are really very puny. I am currently enjoying classes being taught by a minister who, with God’s help, ministered a church from 120 people to over 17,000. Man, do I feel puny compared to him. If I was depending on my works to get my due reward, I might feel that I have very little reward coming. But, and I am not boasting in any way, I do have works of my own and I have faith in Jesus and God and I am confident that even if I can’t figure out how Jesus will ever compare this wonderful minister and myself, I trust that he will do so in a loving manner. I further trust than those who have less works than myself but have placed faith in Jesus will receive their salvation in due time and receive their reward and that in both of these cases both of us will be perfectly content once in heaven.
Doug, my guess is that you are correct. We all have some talent… maybe 1, maybe 3, maybe 5. The goal is not to be faithful to another’s talent but to our own. In the parable it is assumed that if the guy with only one had done something with it he would have been commended for having done so…
Royce comments that he is confident that Jesus did it all so we sinners need do nothing in order to save ourselves. Did I read him rightly? Is that not what he said with great enthusiasm? And how differently Peter SHOULD have replied when seeking sinners inquired what THEY should do! Peter knew what Jesus had said about entering His kingdom, so Peter said there was indeed something they could and must do in order to have sin remitted and in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. If he had only known what Royce knows! What should Peter have said? Luke in Acts 2:38 reports what the apostle DID say.
Perhaps we need to consider whether or not Cornelius was “saved” prior to when the Word says he was saved. A well-known brother says of course he was already saved since he was a god-fearing Gentile. An angel came to him just prior to Peter’s visit and told him to send for Peter. Why? So Peter could give him a message by which he could be saved, if I read the text correctly. But if he was already saved, did he really need to be saved? Of course not. So we see that the angel was wrong. Or Luke was wrong. Someone has to be wrong, for one says he was saved and the other says he was NOT saved. Can both be right? And one on this blog says all it took before Calvary was good works, and both Jews and Gentiles could be saved without obeying the law perfectly, or in the cases of Gentiles, even knowing the God-given law. Yes? God went to considerable trouble to get Peter there so Cornelius could be baptized into Christ. But was there a need for Him to do so if Cornelius was already saved?
Ray, imagine Peter’s surprise when Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before his immersion in water… it was at that time he remembered the words of Christ Himself who said that is was John the Baptist that used water…but they would be baptized by the Holy Spirit… Peter said that Cornelius and his household received the Spirit just as they had in the beginning… No record of Peter being baptized in the upper room… Perhaps because we have the book and can read the whole account…that you’re right…Royce knew what Peter only later remembered… just a thought.
Price says, “Jesus did it all…All I have to do is believe in Him to be saved.” All who hold to Baptist doctrine will shout, “Amen.” Any who have read Acts would be dismayed to see anyone claim to be a Christian and so obviously deny the truth there taught concerning conversion from sinner to saint. Acts 2:38 can be misunderstood. But to just deny that the apostle Peter knew how sinners were saved is amazing!
Ray…yep, me and ole Cornelius…saved then baptized in obedience…
I’m happy to see the thinking that we earn salvation by ourselves, by our works, but IF we miss anything then grace will fill in that little bit. This teaching is dying out.
Storms in the last couple of days destroyed many homes here once again. Our church, Crossbridge is trying so hard to help in our community and I mean help anyone. We are using Galatians 6:10 as our guide.
So many of the local COC will not participate or open their doors to those not in the COC. This hurts us greatly in our wanting UNITY among the Christian churches.
Its a sad thing to see, the division among those of us calling ourselves the Church of Christ. Especially in time of great suffering and need.
We’ve had two killed that they have found so far and one was a 16 year old girl.
Some COC were posting that they didn’t know of any Christians that were hurt. You know what that means!
Hope her family doesn’t see that. It sure wouldn’t help us in our Unity efforts.
Unbelievable how the Church of Christ disaster relief responds and helps all that need it. Now, this attitude WILL cause UNITY, not the old way.
OneCOC congregation here is loaning their building, and that is a big, big, big move in these parts. for a center for folks in their neighborhood, regardless of religious affiliation to come and get food, clothes, all necessary items to sustain them until they can get back on their feet.
I don’t mean to interrupt ya’ll debating, but just wanted ya’ll to know, there is progress being made toward UNITY and that may be just what is the purpose of these terrible storms.
Ray…you didn’t respond to Peter’s recollection that JESUS said that the old way of baptizing was how John did it…His way was going to be via the Holy Spirit…Peter didn’t recall that at Pentecost… it wasn’t until Cornelius that he finally “got it.” Jesus contrasted water with the Holy Spirit…He didn’t say I’m going to use both did He ? Imagine how confused the reader would be to learn that water was required for salvation when there is no record of the Apostles being water immersed… Imagine how surprised they are to learn that Paul says Jesus didn’t send him to baptize people…really? If it’s essential for salvation why wouldn’t it be the number one priority to get them under the water ?? You read what you wish to read with preconceived notions…
Ala John… glad to hear that some folks are coming to their senses…good luck with that.
Ray… Gal 2:11 “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.” Are you suggesting that Peter never misunderstood what was going on ??
Price doesn’t apparently want to understand truth. He suggests that since Peter was wrong later (he doesn’t mention the night of the trial and later crucifixion) perhaps he was wrong also in the case of Cornelius. He suggests that Peter didn’t know what he was saying in Acts 2:38 and when he later authorized the baptism of Cornelius in order that he could be saved and raised into new life following water baptism. Price wrote,
Ray…you didn’t respond to Peter’s recollection that JESUS said that the old way of baptizing was how John did it…His way was going to be via the Holy Spirit…
Price has no idea what Peter was claiming to remember. It was not that Jesus had said the old way of baptizing was how John did it (in water) but that Jesus was going to do it differently. Jesus said no such thing!
Peter didn’t recall that at Pentecost… it wasn’t until Cornelius that he finally “got it.” Jesus contrasted water with the Holy Spirit…He didn’t say I’m going to use both did He? Imagine how confused the reader would be to learn that water was required for salvation when there is no record of the Apostles being water immersed… Imagine how surprised they are to learn that Paul says Jesus didn’t send him to baptize people…really? If it’s essential for salvation why wouldn’t it be the number one priority to get them under the water ?? You read what you wish to read with preconceived notions…
This is all nonsense. I realize it’s unkind to say so. But what Price is writing has no relation to what the inspired Word says. To point out only one of the problems with what Price has affirmed is to say that the reason Paul was glad he himself had not performed many baptisms in Corinth was because brethren there were separating themselves into parties, including one which favored Paul over other teachers, and he wanted nothing to do with their divisiveness. But Paul thought highly of baptism, and he loved all the Corinthian Christians.
Was Peter terribly surprised when God sent signs to convince him that the Gentile could be baptized into Christ? He surely was given enough reason to not be further surprised, starting with the vision on the rooftop in Joppa. But Peter knew the reason for baptism in water. He did not consider that the signs had saved Cornelius, as is the assertion of Price and many others who accept Baptist doctrine.
Ray, what you call nonsense, I call Acts 11:16 “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, BUT you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” and Acts 1:5 “for John baptized with water, BUT you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (emphasis mine).. God even explained it to John the Baptist… in John 1:33 “I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ I see a contrast of water with Spirit…
And, if Peter didn’t consider Cornelius saved then neither did he consider himself and the rest of the Apostles saved…none were baptized in water to receive the Holy Spirit…
but that’s what Jesus, John, John the Baptist and God the Father had said…not Price.
It would be strange for Peter to except everybody to do something to be saved that neither he nor his fellow Apostles had done… How could he reconcile that in his mind ?? Was he a different class of Christian ? Was Cornelius and his wife ? Do as I say not as I have done? Is that a step in the plan of salvation ?
Yes, we all think highly of baptism since it is a command…but Paul says that Jesus didn’t send him to baptize but to do what? Preach the good news which is the power to save… not the water, but the cross…read it Ray… you’re becoming waterlogged.. Paul said Jesus didn’t want him to concern himself with baptizing people…the very act of salvation according to you was discarded entirely to just preach the power of the cross which was THE power to save…
your comments are not unkind…passionate might be a better word. Well, maybe a little unkind but that’s not entirely unexpected.
Ray, the Hills church in Ft. Worth says in their mission statement that one enters into the covenant relationship with God by Faith.. One demonstrates that faith by baptism.. Yes, they are well taught indeed… They also have instruments…
I think Royce and Price would like this tract.. . its called “Acts 2:38 Satan’s Favorite Verse”
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/acts2.html
Ray wrote of Peter: “He did not consider that the signs had saved Cornelius, as is the assertion of Price and many others who accept Baptist doctrine.”
>>
Ray, I’m fairly familiar with mainstream Baptist doctrine and I have never heard a Baptist teach that Cornelius was saved by signs. I don’t think you are actually quoting Baptist doctrine at all. I think this statement is just an attempt to blacken someone’s viewpoint by association. Trouble is, most of us do not shudder at the idea of “Baptist doctrine”. Doesn’t bother me a bit. In fact, much of Baptist doctrine agrees with CoC doctrine.
255 comments and counting. I think this may well be a record for One In Jesus!
Jay,
Are not you glad to see a post more popular than the IM/AC posts 🙂
Everyone,
I tried to post some thoughts for you guys to flush out because I am enjoying reading (I am sure others are), but don’t let that over shadow that I hold to a Classical Arminian view. Before anyone accuses me of promoting works salvation, which I would deny, I would ask them to consider the words of Martin Luther who is one of greatest champions of justification by faith alone.
Baptism in the Large Catechism
http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php
Baptism in the Small Catechism
http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#baptism
Thank you for this input, HG. You are right, this is very necessary. I start with a quote by Royce:
Many tend to make it or fit it into a “concept”. Or better: Many “submit” the verses about works to the verses about faith. Resulting in statements like the one quoted – this could have been said by any Evangelical and Calvinist as well. The reason I say this: Evangelicalism and Calvinism present “concepts” of salvation that try to strengthen the Protestant Antithesis to work-salvation. The reason I object to Protestantism as a whole is that it was born out of controversy and is very imbalanced. Luther taught and wrote in extremes, even adding the word “only” (saved by faith “only”) in his translation of Rom 3:28. And this “Faith only” became a Protestant dogma, which I do not share.
Now for my definition:
A)Those who have true faith
We must start with a definition of “true” faith. Let’s first cross out the word “true”, because faith is not qualified by true or false in the NT, but with obedience, fruit or works. Examples:
Yes, faith can be dead. But nowhere is it said that our faith can be an “illusion”, a wrong faith” in contrast to true faith. Our faith can be small as a mustard seed.
When does faith start and what does it consist of? In the Christian age it starts with accepting the gospel and confessing loyalty to the King and Lord Jesus Christ in baptism. So the simple and good confession “Jesus is Lord” is all that is needed for baptism. But it is only a starting point. Confessed loyalty must grow into practiced loyalty: Obedience, fruit, works.
B) … will do good works, no exception.
Really? When we are called to obedience, we have a choice, haven’t we? To obey or to disobey. Even when we are prompted by the Spirit we have the same choice: To follow or not to follow. In no stage of our Christian life our free will is overruled by God. Why? Because faith is loyalty – and loyalty is always the attitude of the servant to the King, nothing the King does for the servants.
The song: “God said it, I believe it, that’s all that faith demands” should therefore be understood as “God said it, and I do it, …”. We are to be loyal.
Christ in His parables made it clear that obedience is not an “automatic function of faith”. His parables about the talents made it clear. It is possible to bury the faith and the gift of the Spirit in the ground. Yes, it was all still there, when Christ returned! But it did not grow, it did not multiply, it brought no fruit. Not, because the faith was not “true faith”, not because the Spirit proved to be powerless; but because the servant chose not to work. Nowhere is it said that he was not a true servant. But he did not grow from confessed loyalty to practiced loyalty.
The same is true for the fruitless branches on the vine. There were really part of the vine, truly His disciples, but they did not remain in Christ. Not because, they had no true faith, nor because the Spirit proved top be powerless; but because they chose to put Christ further back in their priorities.
In the same way the word that was sowed among the weeds was choked by the weeds, namely worries, riches and pleasures of this world. The word started to grow, a real and true plant grew out of the soil … but it was choked, killed and remained fruitless! Imagine this! A born again Christian, boating of “unconditional eternal security” that does not bring fruit, but lives a worldly life will have a terrible awaking: Christ will deny him! When Christ denies those who once confessed loyalty to him, He says: “I never new you.” (Mat 7:23) This does not mean they were never truly saved, but He is denying them as they denied Him by their lawlessness (= disobedience). When Peter denied Christ he used basically the same words: don’t know this man” (Mat 26:74)
Summary
Christians must grow from confessed loyalty to practiced loyalty. This does not happen automatically. We need to be trained, exhorted, encouraged and admonished to do God’s will, to obey His commands, to imitate His character.
In order to be able to do this, we are gifted by the Spirit who enables, motivates and strengthens us continually. But we always have to choose whether we obey or not. The best short text that shows both sides of the story in just a few lines is this one:
See, even though the Spirit prompts and enables us, we are exhorted to do and to obey. Our free will is never overruled by Grace. Grace is not irresistible (the I in Calvinist’s “Tulip”).
Alexander
Royce
Consider the logical conclusions of your recent arguments:
1. You concede the fact that the water spoken of in John 3 “could be” referring to baptism.
2. You then argue that forgiveness comes through what Jesus did “plus nothing”.
3. Which means that you believe forgiveness could be available to sinners who have never been born again!
Think about all that.
You’re trying to have your doctrine and eat it too…
There is not a single Baptist Church I know that would allow someone to make a new professional of faith, then say but I refuse to be Baptized and accept them as a member. They would say someone who is willing to be Baptized who is incapable of being Baptized, dies on the way to the water, makes a profession on their deathbed is fully saved upon their profession of faith and willingness to be a disciple.
They would say anyone who professes Christ but refuses to follow him in the first act of discipleship has not accepted Christ as Lord.
H.G. I would agree with ML if he were right…:) but, to say baptism isn’t a work is to define it that way to match up with one’s belief. I could say digging a ditch isn’t a work and because I said it, then it is so… I have a very difficult time with that… God doesn’t grab me by the back of the neck and through me into a pool of water.. I do it.. I could brag about it as many here do… If I can boast that I have done it…not that YOU would, but if you could, then it is not part of the faith that saves… “lest any man should boast.”
You’ll note that in the example of Cornelius and his entire household, it wasn’t a result of Baptism that God demonstrated His acceptance of the group…It was their belief…Why would God demonstrate his acceptance apart from the very thing that is claimed to be the moment of salvation ? Everybody look and see that I accepted the Gentiles, just as you in the beginning… how was that? with or without water ? Yes, without water…Like I said it would be… Now YOU accept him with baptism…I’ve already accepted him… As a result Peter asked the Jerusalem Council this question…What was I do to? Resist God ? How could he have resisted Him ? Refused to baptize him… So God accepted him by faith in what he heard (as the angel said) and Peter admitted him into the church (as on the day of Pentecost) by water immersion as a symbolic act of faith.
Hank, do you not see that your snide remarks are falling on deaf ears ? Well, perhaps not, there are those that read and don’t comment… If you are satisfied with your faith, then be satisfied…There is no need to justify yourself before men by tearing down another brother in Christ… There will always be differences in opinion because we are human. Lighten up. The condemnation and bashing of others has nearly destroyed the CoC… Most in this faith heritage agree that it’s way past time to stop with all that… It’s a poor reflection of Christ.
I still think that the danger of faith+works=salvation is that all Christians are gifted differently. I have to fight a feeling from deep inside of me that some people I go to Church with are simply not pulling their weight. I have concluded that this feeling comes not from the Spirit but from Satan. He would put enmity between me and my bothers and sisters in Christ over this issue. Likewise, if I look at myself from the outside, I believe that their are probably those who look at my works and think “He could do more”. And that is a danger that comes from a works salvation… those that are perhaps better gifted for Spiritual Works can become unsatisfied with their lesser gifted brothers and sisters. I don’t think that is what the Church should be. So, I tend to think my salvation is a gift from God and any works I do are a response to that gift. I don’t know what that makes me in clinical terms but that’s the way I roll. The rest of the arguments are for biblical scholars and quite frankly, I’m okay with them discussing these sort of things but their discusssion don’t interest me or affect me a great deal.
Luther said – “We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone.”
The moment of my salvation was when God determined before the foundation of the world to save me because of Christ.
The moment of my salvation was 2000 years ago when Jesus died for me.
The moment of my salvation was 33 years ago when my sins were first washed away in baptism.
The moment of my salvation was Tuesday evening when I taught a difficult lesson to help disciple our leadership.
The moment of my salvation is right now as I struggle with understanding how the Word applies to my life in Christ.
The moment of my salvation will be when my savior declares “well done” over me on the day of His appearing.
I am saved by the grace of God Who decided to save everyone who believes.
I am saved by my faith in that grace (which faith is both a work and a gift in and of itself from God)
I am saved by my baptism, not because it meshes with my theology but because that is the very word of an apostle.
I am saved by my participation in the Body of belivers because it is God’s will that the Body will sculpt me and present me mature in God’s eyes.
I am saved by my works because they are the proof, the fruit, of the Spirit God has placed within me, and even then I am saved by the faith that produces the works lest I begin to believe that I can save myself.
As humans we want to make all of this make sense in an either/or fashion. But God has ordained that we live and believe in an atmosphere of paradox. He uses His wisdom to display our foolishness. He establishes on unshakeable foundations those things we say can not be.
Consider:
You are saved by grace – unless you use it for license.
You are saved by faith – unless by faith you simply mean a nodding agreement with what God says.
You are saved by baptism – unless for you baptism is just a means of trapping God in His promises or has become the “end all, be all” of obedience.
You are saved by “working out your salvation” – unless you have become a law unto yourself or see in your obedience a means of bringing glory to yourself and not to God.
Neither does God a grab a sinner by his neck and make him believe. Whoever believes does so of his own volition, but surely that leaves no room for boating?
Also I find it strange how so many go direct opposite of the bible. The bible never calls baptism a work and you say that it is. And even though the bible does call belief a work, you say that it isn’t?
The Bible says that we are saved by faith – you say faith alone.
The Bible says baptism saves us – you say it does not.
I’m not mocking here, but its true…you do deny and seek to change quite a bit of what the book of God actually says.
1. Does the Bible actually call belief a work? – do you?
2. Does the Bible ever actually call baptism a work? – do you?
3. Does the Bible actually say baptism saves us? Do you?
See??
AMEN, Todd. Well said..
Hank,
Maybe there’s no room for boating but surely there is room for fishing? Just kidding, I think surely you meant boasting, right?
Doug,
LOL!
So glad God didn’t say believing and/or being baptized leaves no room for boating OR fishing.
I mean, had he said that I might better understand why so many are so against the need to be baptized 🙂
Once again, an excellent article on the Fork in the Road.
Within the Church of Christ, I see an overall Grace Awakening and a greater awareness and longing to know our source of Spiritual Life, The Holy Spirit.
The one quote from this blog that stood out the most to me was as follows.
“It’s not that avoiding instrumental music makes one arrogant. My own church remains a cappella. No, it’s taking those kinds of things and turning them into the very definition of Christianity and of obedience. When we define our relationship to God by whether or not we use an instrument, clap, or refuse to re-affirm elders, we cheapen the gospel and, all too often, take pride in our supposedly superior obedience — substituting the cheap and easy for the challenge of the cross.”
For this reason I have abandoned pattern-centered theology altogether. I have learned from growing up CofC that it is very selective and used to our advantage and convenience to maintain a sense of elitism and superiority over other Christians [it’s because we follow this “pattern” we’re the ‘only ones going to Heaven’]. It is good to today see CofC sacred cows being done away with and the preposterous claims made by the descended hijackers of the Restoration Movement, demanding that everything has to be done exactly as it was back then in this whole other place and time, culture, and language, or else you are not a true Christian, is being seen for the preposterous claim it is, more and more by those who’ve believed that for years, some decades! We are seeing our tradition more for the ecumenical movement it began as under the likes of the Campbells and Stone.
As far as CofC and ICC goes….this is a great first step, it’s where God first started with me when He first put unity on my heart….but it must move on to include all other Christians. In other words, if your focus is merely on these two traditions, that’s fine for now, but sooner or later it will need to progress to include all of the Body of Christ which I have come to discover that the “Restoration Movement” Fellowships are not comprehensive of the entire body of Christ. God’s people are more in number and in more traditions than I could have possibly imagined back in my college days to where now that Pauline shock I once had that others could be included and part of God’s people has worn off and it’s now a reality for me I live in.
Todd,
Your post January 26, 2012 at 9:39 am is great. Perhaps I am just focused on the line items as I say “yes, yes, yes…” and I may need to look at it more critically within a framework. Yet, for the moment, it is great. Simple but powerful… I am short on words 🙂