A few days ago, I posted a criticism of my own views on baptism received from Olan Hicks. I have great respect for Br. Hicks and invited him to participate in a discussion on his critique here, and he was kind enough to do so.
At about the same time, Keith Brenton posted an article I wrote on baptism at New Wineskins. I’ll not repeat the arguments made there over here. (PS — The commenting software at New Wineskins works best with Google Chrome. I’ve not tested Safari, but Internet Explorer doesn’t work at all, and Firefox is bad to crash the comment feature.)
I’ve not yet responded to Br. Hicks’ arguments. I do so here, and I’ve advised him of this posting so he can participate in the discussion if he wishes.
Br. Hicks writes,
In Hebrews 11:6 we have the necessity of faith stated and its definition given. “Without faith it is impossible to please Him. For he who comes to God must believe that he is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.”
There is no question that those who deny salvation at baptism do so on the basis of a denial of this statement, the second part of it. They do not believe that God rewards our obedience. According to this passage that is a fatal mistake.
Interpreting Hebrews 11:6
Let’s begin with the interpretation of Hebrews 11:6.
(Heb 11:6 ESV) 6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
The reward promised is for seeking God, not obeying God, and certainly not for obeying a particular, specified command.
Consider the context.
(Heb 11:7-11 ESV) 7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.
11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised.
Noah is commended for obedience driven by faith. So is Abraham. But Sarah received God’s blessing by faith — with no mention of obedience. Her faith was purely a matter of the heart.
Therefore, faith is not to be confused with obedience. Faith always requires a heart that will obey in response to God’s commands. Absolutely. But all those who are commended were sinners. Noah got drunk on wine. Abraham gave his wife to two different pagan kings. Sarah laughed at God’s promises!
Hence, God judges the heart based on its overall direction, not whether a particular, singular command is or isn’t obeyed.
If a failure to be baptized damns, why didn’t the sins of Noah, Abraham, and Sarah damn them? Why were their sins — far worse than a failure to be immersed out of an honest ignorance of God’s word! — covered by their faith, whereas the sins of the improperly baptized are not?
You see, Hicks seems to argue —
Major Premise. Works are essential to salvation
Minor Premise. Baptism is a work.
Conclusion: Baptism is essential to salvation
All three contentions are mistaken.
Major Premise.
Yes, the saved do good works. Absolutely! But as we read in Hebrews, the works that evidence faith differ from person to person. There is no one, singular work that is required. Surely, not all good works are required!
The point of Hebrews 11 is that faith will surely be followed by works of obedience, not that we must obey every single command perfectly.
Minor premise.
Baptism is not a work. It is a gift received. In the comments, Hicks argues from Luther’s Large Catechism. Luther says in the same document,
For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore, although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God’s own work. …
Thus you see plainly that there is here no work done by us, but a treasure which He gives us, and which faith apprehends; just as the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross is not a work, but a treasure comprehended in the Word, and offered to us and received by faith.
Indeed, baptism is uniformly referred to in the passive voice, as something to be received, not something to be accomplished by the believer.
But that doesn’t mean it can’t become a work. When we damn believers for having been falsely taught on the subject, we impose on converts — not even yet babes in Christ — the burden of learning enough koine Greek to refute the writers of dictionaries and commentaries. We insist that they be able to refute some of the greatest theologians in church history.
And yet —
(1Co 2:14 ESV) 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Why, oh why, do we presume that all converts to Jesus may be fairly held to the standards of someone with a degree in Bible? That’s a lot to ask of someone not yet saved, who doesn’t yet have the Spirit. Indeed, we’re asking the convert to do a lot of, you know, work.
Worse yet, the tree is proved by its fruit. And the argument that baptism is an essential work is destroying many in the Churches of Christ. After all, if baptism is an essential work, then why not a cappella singing? Why not orphans homes? Why not fellowship halls? Why not having the right position on divorce and remarriage?
You see, there is nothing in Hicks’ interpretation of Hebrews 11:6 to baptism as the uniquely essential act of obedience. And this opens the floodgate holding back the wickedness of legalism.
I’m not remotely suggesting that Hicks is a legalist. But the argument necessarily leads to legalism.
The escape is to understand that God does indeed reward a believer’s obedience, but that there is no one particular command that a believer must obey to be obedient. Rather, God judges the whole person and the overall direction of his faith.
(1Sa 16:7b ESV) 7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “… For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.”
(1Ki 8:39 ESV) 39 then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind),
Obviously, this does not excuse rebellion against the known will of God! We are not obedient if we refuse to honor well-understood teachings of God. But honest mistakes regarding a teaching that even the experts can’t agree on do not damn. If they do, there is no grace, and we are all lost.
Not convinced that heb 11 is about god commending works. It’s god commanding faith !! It describes what faith produces but it is clear that the focus is in faith. It’s also interesting to compare verse 7 (Noah) with 1 Peter 3 regarding the same event.
I’m not convinced that Heb 11 is about God commanding faith. If God commanded us to have faith then we’d all certainly have faith because who can stand against God’s will? It seems to me that Heb 11 is about God rewarding faith.
Reward is the “compensation” for what we do.
So, seeking God is something we do.
Now, HOW do we seek God?
Going around and looking for Him in our drawers like a lost pair of socks?
Studying all kinds of philosophies in order to see a glimpse of the Spirit?
Digging into the Bible until we have understood Him?
Seeking Him alone or Him and his will?
Seeking Him and seeking to please Him?
The more seriously we we seek God the more will will do do meet Him and his standards. ONCE WE COME TO mARK !&.16
Oops, hit the wrong key …
… once we arrive at Mark 16:16 as diligent seekers, we will gladly receive baptism and “obey the gospel”. That is, if no one comes and teaches us otherwise …
Alexander
Jay, love this post. The things you commented on mirror my experience with baptism when I was a child in a small Methodist church. I knew little if anything when they sprinkled me. Latter a guest preacher preached on having a relationship with God as a result of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior including repentance. He also went on to say that I could talk to God any time I wanted. I wanted all that. I accepted Christ prayed for forgiveness and kept on praying. Afterwards scripture started making since I’ve felt God right here with me ever since. It was probably four years latter while I was joining a Baptist church that I was baptized more classically. When I look at scripture I see allowances made for less than ideal circumstances. It seems to me God actually wants us saved. He really wants a relationship with us. That’s the picture Christ relates to me. Maybe in this area we should seek the ideal while seeing the scriptures as a whole and allowing for different experiences. After all He wants our hearts.
Exactly.
That doesn’t mean we can teach that baptism doesn’t really matter. We have to teach what the scriptures say, and we can’t offer the promises of God on terms different from those given in scripture. As the teachers, we are held to a higher standard.
Jay,
You criticize the logic of Hicks’ argument for where it (according to you) necessarily leads. Let’s see where your argument necessarily leads.
Salvation is by faith without anything else.
Faith is expressed in a variety of works.
Therefore a variety of works express the faith that saves.
Is that really your position? Or have I just played a logic game like you did with Dr. Hicks’ statements?
You decide.
Grizz
PS – You might just want to reconsider your arguments from Sarah’s lack of works (did she not bear a child by faith?) and the arguments stemming from later disobedience by Noah and Abraham. Does Hebrews 11 stand against 1 John 2 or 3 or 4? Or is it possible that one of those passages is being ignored to try to make your point?
I am amazed at how easily one can be drawn into taking each book and each letter as though any of them stands alone. Perhaps once we begin to consider more than a smattering of partial teachings that answered only the gaps for those to whom they were written we will begin to understand that evangelism is more than a one-shot sit-down with someone we would rather rush to the point of satisfying our own understanding instead of making a disciple out of them. We were NOT commanded to make a good harvest of saved people. Even the apostles were told to make disciples … and that is something quite different.
One more note, Jay,
Who cares what “the experts” agree on? Where in scripture are we (or anyone in the 1st century) called to cite experts for what we believe? When did Jesus hesitate to contradict an expert? Or Peter? Or Paul?
Just saying …
Grizz
Good point, Grizz
This shows how pointless it is to point to faith only …
Alexander
Jay, as an elder how does one change their mind on the things they once taught, and remain an elder, an elder is supposed to teach those in need of stability in their spiritual life, not cause confusion by teaching what he has learned recently from “experts”. How can one raise children teaching “one thing” then rebuke his own teachings in front of his children. That is exactly why some people say there are no misleading statements within the pages of the bible, because if they admit to one fallacious statement, then how can they follow the rest without doubt, The same should apply to elders who are not set in their belief before becoming an elder, an “elder” who is still in the learning stage, is a good example of “the blind, leading the blind” how are you going to teach your philosophy when it is not set, I don’t recall Jesus or his apostles, saying hold on there , what I said might not be exactly right. In my opinion an elder who finds his beliefs are changing should step down until he is certain of himself, so as not to cause such doubts among the congregation, If you look back at every split in the church they were caused by “leaders” disagreeing, not the every day member. I believe everyone has the right to change their mind, but not the right to drag others into their disputes.
What is the point of this list? Giving examples, but not a conclusive biography of each of these examples. As for Baptism, it is a New Covenant Ordinance – of course you would not find it back then. Circumcision? Not prior to Abraham – but afterwards, all the heroes had circumcision as a sign of their covenant with God, even though it is not mentioned in Heb 11.
This is a “work”, they all had in common therefore, from the time it was commanded as a covenantal sign. The same with baptism – this should be viewed as a given, a starting point of one’s covenantal relationship with God through the resurrection of Christ.
Think of this in God’s word to Abraham:
Can one be saved without having been circumcized? You remember well that this was a big question among the Jewish Christians as well (Acts 15:1); but is is an even more disturbing question concerning a whole generation of Israelites that grew up uncircumcized in the wilderness:
See, the Bible does not address whether they were saved or not. It was simply not acceptable to the Lord that they were uncircumcized – in this state they could not even celebrate Passah! They were – de facto – outside the covenant.
Moses himself was very “sloppy” at the beginning and did not circumcize his boys. Look at God’s reaction:
God was going to kill Moses! is wife had enough sense to understand the situation and to do something about it!
Baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant (Col 2:11-12), a covenantal sign and a work of God in our hearts. Drawing the conclusion of how serious God took circumcision, we cannot say that being unbaptized but a believer in Christ is sufficient for being saved. God’s attempt to kill Moses, His command to cut off the uncircumcized from their people, the circumcision ofthe Israelites before they could celebrate Passover demonstrates clkearly and with all seriousnes the covenantal necessitiy of being circumcized – and by implicatition (application of type and anti type) of baptism.
Let me affirm here again: There is no cvovenantal fellowship with professing and sincerly believing Christians who have not been baptized, yet. This says nothing about salvation, but a lot and firmly about the covenant. We can discern the covenantal relationship, because it it determined by confession, faith, baptism and obedience in ways we can and are called to discern. God alone judges the heart and decides about salvation.
The net gathers a number of fish into the boat, but not all will turn out to be clean fish. Yet, as being in the boat based on confession, baptism and conformit to the ordinances of the church at least outwardly they share in the covenant here on earth. The final decision will be at the end, when the fish will be sorted out that are unclean.
So, maybe it helps to make a clear distinction between a covenantal relationship/fellowship and salvation. Actually all we can discern is the first, while the latter is ultimately up to God. Concerning the covenantal relationship, however, it is clear that we enter it by baptism and no other means. That’s why we cannot have covenantal fellowship with infant-baptizers; which is expressed e.g. by NOT breaking the bread together.
Alexander
Alan wrote,
Entirely agreed. The Scriptures teach baptism and we therefore practice baptism. We baptize our converts. But we don’t judge as damned those who are baptized contrary to our understanding.
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. (Joh 5:39-42) If the Jews missed it…..don’t be arrogant that you think you are absolutely right in what you understand. The Jews were and could not see their Savior standing before them.
Grizz asked,
Well, of course there are many differents works that express our faith. I’m sure I could make quite a long list, but the Hebrews author has already made one for us. Let’s see, there’s —
(Heb 11:3-1 ESV) 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.
5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. …
7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.
9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.
11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore. …
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
20 By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau.
21 By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones.
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.
27 By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them.
29 By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days.
31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.
32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets– 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. 36 Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated– 38 of whom the world was not worthy–wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
And that’s hardly an exclusive list! Faith produces works — and quite a huge variety of works, indeed, works that blaze across history.
But not all works are products of faith. It’s not the works that change the world but faith bearing fruit in works. If Sarah has born a child without faith, she’d be a historical curiosity, but not the mother of God’s people (Isa 51:2).
Alexander,
Why should God feel any obligation to compensate me for anything that I do? Didn’t He make everything, including you and I? Doesn’t he already own everything? So I don’t think anything I do is worthy of His compensation. He even deigns to allow His Spirit to guide me to faith in Him… without Him I wouldn’t have that faith. No, He rewards me even though I have done nothing on my own to earn His reward. My reward from Him is totally a gift… thanks be to God!
Jay,
Of course there is a variety of works that follow salvation. And also of course it is God doing the only work being done in baptism. None of that addresses the question I intended to get and answer to. It has been noted that baptism is a new covenant corollary to old covenant circumcision, and that in the case of circumcision one could not be a covenant-related child of God without circumcision.
The question for which I was seeking an answer is whether saving faith is expressed (particularly in the new covenant) through a variety of works?
Faith/trust in God is absolutely essential. That is a given. The list of heroic deeds in Hebrews 11 does not address either circumcision or baptism per se and so does not answer the question being asked again here.
Is it your understanding that saving faith is ‘expressed’ (a term borrowed from you) in baptism for believers or not? For the record, baptism is not a sprinkling (rhontidzo) and not a pouring (cheo). Baptism is an overwhelming, an immersion, whether figuratively or literally. The word is pretty specific that way.
Blessings, whether you offer a more direct answer or not,
Grizz
Alexander… Read Romans 4 about God’s interaction with Abraham regarding circumcision. Wasn’t it Faith upon which the promise was made? Circumcision was a “seal” of that promise… It was an act of obedience. Vs. 13.. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
Baptism, if it is indeed a “seal” of the new covenant, it is very much like the the Old covenant in that the promise is made based on Grace through Faith, not the “seal.” vs. 14 “For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.” vs 16a “That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace.”
It seems to me that for a Jew to reject circumcision was to reject God and his commands. For a true believer in Jesus as Lord to reject baptism is to likewise reject God and His commands, as well as His Son… But, just like circumcision, baptism is a symbolic act of obedience recognizing an act of total Grace by God, accepted through a true faith and belief. The “seal” isn’t what God recognizes and rewards…it is the heart of the man/woman who truly believes… IMHO
You keep bringing up “faith only.” To whom are you speaking? No one has yet to say anything about faith only…
What has changed in God’s ‘plan to save man’? Nothing. But unfortunately, some give the idea that one part of the ‘plan’ is more important than the other. I believe it still holds true that one must consider all the verses on a subject to get a full understanding of the subject. Not everyone has a concordance, but reading through the Bible one comes across examples of faith, not moral perfection. God accepted people like Noah (he got drunk), Abraham (he had a problem with lying, and adultery), Joseph (a polygamist), Moses (well he did kill an Egyptian). There are so many examples of people who in spite of their imperfections, are lauded for their faith and the action of obedience that resulted from thir faith. Can we ‘divorce’ their faith and their obedience? Hardly. To do so leaves us with something far less than saving faith (Jms. 2). So having said that, what about Paul? He doesn’t oppose James. He actually compliments what James says. Faith stands opposed to legalistic works, but hand in hand with obedience. Romans and Galatians are great in dealing with legalism and it’s twin brother hypocrisy. Can baptism not save? Certainly! When faith is removed, and it becomes a work of merit. There is no way to put God in our debt. So Paul joins faith and grace together. What so many have grown up with is the mistaken idea that being saved is 50% my works and 50% God’s grace. It’s easy to be misunderstood here, but as far as I can tell, whatever God does in saving man is grace (100%), and whatever man does in repsonse to God’s message must be by faith (100%)(Not meaning that people have to have as much faith as they ever will have, but that their actions have to be on the basis of faith.) What we do, (repenting, acknowledging our faith in Jesus, being immersed) is all done with a view towards being saved, all because of faith. What about those who want to but never could be immersed? I’m not the judge. My opinion is that we have the responsibility to teach people about Jesus and invite them to come, based on God’s message. So I always tell eople who ask about their departed loved ones, that God knows their hearts, He knows their intentions, and it is up to Him to judge and be merciful. All I can do is tell people what the Bible says. Usually I tell them “If your mother, was permitted to come back right now, and encourage you… what do you think she would say?” Inevitably they say, “She would encourage me to obey the Gospel.”
So the plan of God stands in His grace, and is activated by our faith, otherwise it makes no sense.
Laymond wrote: “Jay, as an elder how does one change their mind on the things they once taught, and remain an elder, an elder is supposed to teach those in need of stability in their spiritual life….”
>>>
Laymond, you appear to suggest here that if an elder ever learns he has been less than completely correct about anything, he should resign. What rank absurdity! Who could ever qualify as an elder? For the record, it is not the elder who continues to learn about the faith who would concern me, but the one who claims to have all the answers down pat and is never wrong about ANYTHING he currently thinks. A man with that level of arrogance being placed in charge of the children of God would scare me to death.
Almost everyone here agrees that baptism is not something we do but is something done to us, but then we see several end up by trying to explain baptism in terms of obedience/expressing faith/showing a saving faith. I do not deny that baptism is all of these, and neither would I deny that baptism is getting wet, but we get off track if we try to explain the meaning of baptism along any of these lines, especially if we believe it saves. One of the most glaring and oft used misuses of Scripture I see in our fellowship is the dead faith/living faith aka the James 2 argument to show how baptism saves. “A dead, unexpressed faith can’t save anyone. You must express your faith by being baptized, and then you will have a faith that saves.” My thinking is, if that is the case why not express your faith according to James’ example of helping a needy person or by some other similar work? But of course no one would dare say one must help a needy person before he can be saved, so they toss out James’ example as being invalid and substitute baptism in its place. Brothers, pardon the pun, but that just won’t work.
It’s good that Jay is willing to let his e-mail friends think together and then discuss such problems as the necessity of baptism in conversion. Who can read Acts 2:37,38 and not understand that both repentance and baptism are essential for entry into the church Jesus built through His apostles? Repentance is not a human work. No more is being baptized. The first requires a change of mind by the person. The second requires submission to being baptized in water as Jesus commanded was to be done. Faith is no more a gift of God than is repentance. God’s original gift is grace which opens the door for a sinner to believe the gospel, obey the gospel, and be saved by the gospel. Repentance and being baptized are not “acts of faith” as is suggested by some who have imbibed Baptist doctrine and now promote it. Turning to Jesus as Lord is an essential step toward salvation by Him. And the Word clearly teaches through both precept and example that converts were baptized immediately and THEN considered to have been saved and to have received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Does that make repentance and baptism works? I think not. But that salvation is ever promised by a faith which omits obeying the gospel is not evident. Paul states that only those who do OBEY the gospel will be saved (2 Thess. 1:5-10). Acts 2:38 makes clear that the obedience called for by the gospel is for believing sinners to repent and be baptized.
Frankly, i don’t know. Do you have any idea why He wants to reward us? Fact is that He often promises rewards, and rewards are a compemsation for what we do (of course I could say more about it a fter a 4-part sermon series on rewards in our church, but in the end, this question remains unanswered)
Alexander
Rom 4, Price, does not rule out that from Gen 17 on circomcision was a binding sign of the covenant. Nothing els is my point. I did not speak about salvation or justification but about being in the covenant. Yes, I frequently speak agains faith only, since this tends to belittle the necessity of the terms of the covenant. It is an individualistic approach (“I and my personal faith in my personal God”) and overlooks the people of God the the way to enter a covenantal relationship.
Like marriage: In this act God is not only witness but joines us together – so marriage is more than just a “symbol of obedience”. A covenant is not only testifying to a realtionship, but establishing this relationship. Think about this verse as analogy to baptism/circumcision:
Alexander
Charles, are you saying, a man who claims he is indwelled by “the holy ghost” as the apostles were. and is made elder/leader ( by this same spirit) should learn on the fly. And should be allowed to teach one thing this week, and reverse that teaching the next, and remain in authority. How can one , especially in the progressive CoC claim being led by the holy ghost within, and change so often, I believe it is written somewhere that God never changes. ( I know it is said he was coaxed into changing his mind, but how do we know that?) Man does not know the mind of God. I am sorry to say, but I just don’t believe the spirit of truth tells a man one thing this year, and something else the next. I just can’t believe that is the way “the spirit” guided the apostles. Episodes like this is exactly why I cannot believe in the indwellment of the “holy ghost” in everyday Christians.
Let’s look at what Jay said about ordaining elders.How do we avoid ordaining bad elders?
28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, [1] which he obtained with his own blood. [2] (ESV)
Jay reminds us that the “Holy Spirit” should be the one to pick the overseerers, yet this spirit teaches one thing today, and another tomorrow, hard to believe an elder/overseerer that has an ever changing mind should be an elder at all.
Jay asked, And so, dear readers, what’s the solution? Is there one?
Some suggest placing a bishop over the church, serving in the shoes of the evangelist. And that works if the bishop is wise and knows the congregation very well. But who appoints the bishop? Who keeps him accountable? And how well has that system worked for those that have tried it?
Alexander,
I believe that God rewards us for learning to love in the same manner that He loves. But, even that is not some work that we accomplish. We love like God, Like Jesus, when the indwelling Spirit changes us into the image of our Father. To be sure, we can do some things to avail ourselves of the Spirit, but it is He who does the real work, the heavy lifting. But, God loves without expectation of compensation and so should we.
Charles said; “A man with that level of arrogance being placed in charge of the children of God would scare me to death.”
Well Charles if we change one word in your statement, we could place Jesus Christ, all the apostles and every writer of the bible (according to some) in that category that scares you so much. We just change the word “arrogance” to “knowledge”, which all men who qualify for the office of elder should possess if they have the holy ghost as a boarder.
I wonder if all of “christendom” taught “baptism for the remission of sins” if these conversations would be taking place? My guess is no. Clearly, (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:28; Acts 22:16) and many other passages teach that baptism (based upon belief in Jesus as Messiah, Son of God,the Savior of men), and repentance, remitts sin,washes away sins, and adds(by God)the respondent into the ekklesia(Acts 2:47), body of Christ(Rom. 6:3). I don’t think anyone on this blog(I would hope not) believes that a man doesn’t have to repent of his sin in order to be forgiven (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 3:19; Acts 17:30). Is repentance something man does or God does? It is something expected by God of men, all men! Well what if a person believes but doesn’t repent? Can that man’s faith save him? Are we really going to dance around repentance too? Are we going to make the same clumsy objections about repentance that many make in Mark 16:16 about baptism when Jesus says, “whoever does not believe will be condemned,” and the argument goes, “well he didn’t say whoever doesn’t believe (and) is not baptized?” I think not. Even though repentance by necessity follows belief, it is clear that belief without repentance isn’t saving faith and neither is faith without confession(see John 12:42). Much of “christendom” teaches a variation of Calvinism that teaches man plays no role in his salvation and that there are no “conditions” to be met by him. My understanding of what Calvinism teaches is that even belief is imposed arbitrarily by God into a man, that’s why we are having these discussions about baptism, because of a philosophy that is superimposed on the scriptures that man can do nothing towards his salvation by way of meeting requirements by his own free will in order to be saved. Calvinist call that heresy! Now clearly our good deeds(works) or bloodline(Jew) won’t save us, but who would deny that saving faith requires obedience to what God commands? Was confession of Jesus an addition to faith(as some like to call baptism) or was it an element or condition “of” saving faith? I strongly believe the latter. What about repentance? What about baptism? Aren’t these all components of saving faith? Doesn’t each condition have to be met in each person before God bestows salvation? If saving faith is the atom, then aren’t confession, repentance and baptism the electrons, protons, and neutrons that comprise it? If you remove or reconfigure any part of the whole, the atom changes. Strip “christendom” of unconditional election and irresistable grace and baptism towards a view of forgiveness(salvation) is not a problem IMO.
@Doug
Two objections or three:
“Love” is so general and broad – usually used to avoid specific acts. Say, our prayers will be rewarded, Christ said. Our fasting and giving alms as well. Think about these acts we normally do, because they are expected of us (not quite an appealing approach …). So what is the point in mentioning a reward for these acts? Isn’t the point to motivate us? If that’s the case, then it is not correct to regard the expectation of a reward as selfish or carnal. Christ himself endured the cross looking forward to a joy beyond the cross (also a reward) setting an example for us.
When God loves us, doesn’t He expect an answer from us? Repentance, faith and joyful adoration. Doesn’t that qualify as a “compensation” or reward for all he freely gave to save us?
Alexander
By the way, Alexander, this:
“Doesn’t that qualify as a “compensation” or reward for all he freely gave to save us?”
is outright heresy. We are reckoned righteous, not credited so.
Laymond, your perspective would disqualify Peter and James, et al. For while they previously believed that the Gospel was only for the Jews, they changed this fundamental belief after the experience with Cornelius. There was nothing more earth-shaking to those Jews than to find that they were not the ONLY children of God. Yes, even apostles have to learn and grow and change. Most certainly, an elder had better be able to do so.
We are not completed carved monuments, but living children of light. We are indeed like trees planted by rivers of water; we grow, and if we stop, we die.
Alexander,
I object to your description of Love as being too general and broad as to make it a subject for discussion of specific acts. Love should be the basis for all that a Christian does… God is love and Alexander and Doug should be Love as well. The three actions that you mentioned should all be as a result of Love , be that love of God or love of others. we pray because we love to speak to our Father, we give because we love God and others, we fast (well, you fast I guess… I’m not currently a faster) because we love ____? You are probably better postioned to fill in this blank, I guess. I’m sorry but I just can’t see myself bowing to the Lord and at the same time demanding compensation from Him. I do believe that we are probably talking past each other a bit. We might possibly sort this out face-to-face in short maner.
Bob, I slowly and reluctantly come to the conclusion that reading what hs been written (and understanding it) might not be one of your strong points.
First, I asked a question and did not state a doctrine. How can this be “outright heresy”?
Second, where is the heresy in the thought that God deserves a reward for what He gave to us in Christ? Aren’t we to be thankful? Aren’t we to liove, BECAUSE He loved us first? Isn’t that the result He wanted to create in us? Well, I called that something “qualifying” as a compensation for His labor. You call this heresy?
Alexander
You are absolutely right, Bob. That’s what I basically meant – we need to be more specific about love, however. Like a sermon that does not provide oractical examples, speaking of love easily becomes a religious phrase. Yes, fasting, praying or giving alms (all in Mat 6) is to be done out of love otherwise … it profits us nothing (again: the theme is reward in this statement from 1Co 13).
Anyway: Given the fact how often God speaks of rewards in a way that should motivate us, should make us look forward to it, think about it and dream a little as well. He does not have to reward us, but He wants to.
Alexander
aBasnar:
I’ve come to the conclusion that taking responsibility for your own writing and statements is not one of your strong points.
Oops I misseaddressed my last post here
should mean Doug
Actually, so far I haven’t found much common ground between the two us, Bob. Which is sad, but I can’t help it … Until you respond to what really has been written, and this in clear language with some evidence of sound reasoning behind it, I find it near to impossible to converse with you.
Alexander
I admit I do enjoy these kind of exchanges, I also recognize minds are rarely changed by them. That being said it does seem to me we forget the most important element of salvation. God gives, we accept. I will continue to preach Jesus and Him crucified. I will continue to immerse believers. I understand we are saved by grace through faith. Living faith will change the activity of my life and others if it is alive. My faith is not in my baptism or even the fact I was baptized many years ago. It was at one time. My faith is in my Redeemer, Jesus. God can and will save those He chooses, I can only try to follow His will in my life. I often fail miserable, as I am sure many do. I think the discussion is really a discussion of when is it actually in the process that God saves? When we seek him, when we are immersed, when our faith produces some specific work? Look God saves, he blesses those who seek Him, I will try to teach and live my life in ways tho encourage those who listen or see me to seek Him. God can figure out the rest without my help. When someone comes and says they want what I have found, you better start to run some water!
Philip
Jay;
In response to your first reply: I appreciate the fairness with which you handled the discussion of my article. I am a firm believer that the truth does not have to stack the deck nor does it need to fear examination. Fairness in the way we handle God’s word is a lot more than just personal convenience.
I did not answer your question directly as to whether I would consider you a “liberal.” Perhaps I should have. The answer was implied in my definition of the word. In any field a liberal is one who refuses to be constrained by the established standard. Apparently that does not fit you. You base conclusions on scripture passages and to me it looks like you try to avoid contradicting other passages. Liberals, on the other hand, are not constrained by scripture statements. They seem to be not concerned at all that many of their conclusions directly contradict express Bible statements.
For instance their conclusion that Eph. 2:8-9 “not of works” means that salvation is without works, contradicts the Bible throughout. James said that faith without works is dead and says of the man who does what is ordered in the perfect law of liberty, “This man shall be blessed in what he does.”
Jesus said again and again that when He returns He will “reward each one according to his works.” Even though they know the Bible says this they continue to adamantly press their view that salvation is without works and that our reward will not be based on what we do.
I recognize that human leaders in the church of Christ have made mistakes and there is a need for some course corrections. But it is the human leadership that is imperfect, not God’s laws nor any of the God head. Therefore our need is to adjust our thinking, not adjust God’s words to fit human mistakes.
The right procedure in this case would be a reformation directed specifically by the written word, not an irresponsible revolution driven by our own personal prejudices. Men like Al Maxey, Edward Fudge, Max Lucado, Terry Rush etc. are adamantly opposed to that kind of adjustments. In fact they ridicule the whole idea of trying to “get it right.” Rubel Shelly in his latest book says that we must learn that “God is not a belief system and salvation is not being right.” (Intro. pg. 12) So the brotherhood is being pulled apart between those who do not accept the need for reform at all and
those who want to melt down the church altogether and merge it into denominationalism. Both are very wrong.
God specified what is needed in such a situation in Jeremiah 23:22. “Is they had stood in my counsel and caused my people to hear my words then they would have turned them from their evil ways.” I believe this is what you are trying to do and I applaud that. Neither of us can claim infallibility. But any mistake we make will not be due to refusing to be constrained by God’s word. Honest mistakes are covered by God’s grace. But as Samuel said to Saul, “rebellion is as the sin of witch craft.”
I will reply to your most recent response in another post.
Olan Hicks
Charles let’s take a look at what Paul thought about this ever changing belief.
Col 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
Now let’s look at what is said next.
Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
(If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled,) The gospel does not change, as far as I know.
I appreciate Bro. Hick’s comments above. Very thoughtful and respectful. I believe that the church of Christ needs to go back to putting it’s faith in Jesus and Him crucified, and not what the “brotherhood” thinks or does. There are far too many “book writers” that are practically reinventing the church of our Lord, and scrapping it for something new. Indeed there needs to be open dialogue concerning all the issues facing the church today (and it needs to be without the “lynch mob” mentality) but the Bible doesn’t have to be forced into fitting some new theology…it is God’s living word and when handled correctly it does not come back to God void…it accomplishes what He wills. May all of us esteem His word with the highest regard as we search for the truth it contains!
I too appreciate Mr. Hicks remarks. I would only note that when he mentions “irresponsible revolution driven by our own personal prejudices” by certain men of his selection, he leaves out many other CofC personalities who have in the past driven the CofC bus off the cliff. These men developed their own pet prejudices and used them to drive wedges (note the plural) between the brethern. Whether it’s no Sunday School, 1-cup vs. many, no kitchens, no orphanages, no praise team, etc. ad naseum… all of these men have assisted in the destruction of the unity of the Church. I’m not sure a simple “course correction” will suffice now. We could call on all of these personalities to recant their positions but a lot of them are now dead and probably would have died refore recanting anyway. Their followers, even today, would rather die than admit mistake. So, Men and brethern “what are we to do”?
Doug,
We are to read and stand on our own understanding, listen to others only to seek to glean anything that will change our mind and ultimately be ready to face the judgment alone in regard to other humans.
In all cases keep the thought that God, The Holy Spirit and Jesus loves you and wants you with them in heaven.
Realize that none of us will in the end have it all perfectly right using our thinking on the bible, but, we can have it just right in only one area and that is how we are loved.
Think about how you will react when you get to heaven and see many others you have known here.
Will you be happy or disappointed or angry at who all are there?
If any are anything but happy and rejoicing, the attitude one had on earth was wrong.
But AJ, I REALLY want the kind of unity that Jesus prayed for… you know, that we all maybe one. I’ve been a part of some really large Christian gatherings and it is a real blessing to be worshipping in the company of thousands. I know that I’ll get that experience in heaven but it sure would be nice to get a foretaste now.
Doug:
We are to hear the spirit and content of Ephesians 4:1ff. and act on it… and never stop.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Doug,
We’ll never see it on this earth. We humans like the lime light too much. If all are agreeing no one individual gats any special attention. In order to be the lead dog, if you can’t be it honestly, you must pull out of the pack and open on a false track if need be to pull all you can to your harking and that works for a while, that is, until they realize you are false barking to get the lead because you cannot get it any other way.
Bad thing is after a while the false mouth dog will be found out and no one will hark to his cry anymore.
Sad thing is the time wasted following the ego seeking false leader. Even far more sad is the price that leader just might pay at judgment day.
Salvation is an individual thing so why follow the crowd?
Norton said,
Very well put. I’ll be borrowing that one!
Grizz,
Paul compares circumcision to baptism in —
But read what Paul says about circumcision —
Paul argues that faith was credited as righteousness to Abraham BEFORE his was circumcised.
One of the central points of Galatians is that we’re saved by faith in Jesus — NOT by works of the Torah, including especially circumcision.
Therefore, to the extent circumcision is the Christian analog to Jewish circumcision, it is a sign of covenant membership but not a requirement to be saved. At least, that’s how Paul argues it.
You see, the whole water baptism/circumcision analogy is very problematic. But the problems go away when you recall that the element of baptism that saves is not the water but baptism with the Spirit.
Calvin writes in his commentary on Colossians —
Water baptism is performed using hands. I know of no other procedure. Paul must be referring to the circumcision done by the Spirit, a baptism performed by God himself —
Hence, Paul is referring to God’s circumcision, which is plain from —
— as well Deu 30:6 — which is what Paul is alluding to.
That is, Paul is speaking of baptism with the Holy Spirit — which effects a circumcision of the heart and which normatively occurs concurrently with water baptism.
Jay, I am sure that you of all people, as a lawyer, know what a covenant is. The party of the first part puts forth a covenant offer, with its terms and conditions, the party of the second part accepts it, and they enter a covenant. Once it is signed and “notorized” it is not changeable. The Bible puts God’s covenant in these terms to help us understand it. To the Galatians Paul wrote, “Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed no one annuls or adds to it.” (3:15) Our great need today is to accdept this fact. We cannot change the covenant.
The Israelites had a covenant with God but they violated it and worshiped and served other gods. God called that “adultery” and divorced them for it. (Jer. 3:8) But “when the fulness of the time was come God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” (Gal. 4:4) This is called in Hebrews “The New Covenant.” It contains laws. (Heb. 8:10)
Hebrews 12:1 refers to the events recorded in the 11th chapter as “a great cloud of witnesses.” You refer to one of these, Noah, that he “built an ark for the saving of his household.” But you seem to lose sight of the stated purpose of doing that, “for the saving of his household,” as later you say, “Yes, the saved do good works. Absolutely! But as we read in Hebrews, the works that evidence faith differ from person to person.” This would seem to suggest that you think Noah and his family were saved people building an ark because they were saved. This perverts the testimony. This witness says the ark was built for the of saving his family.
Irrational as it may be this is basically the way most evangelicals think with respect to baptism. They say that one is first saved “by faith” and then is baptized, not to be saved but because he is saved. That perverts the testimony of the Son of God Himself.
You say “the works that evidence faith differ from person to person.” Of course they do. Faith is belief that God will keep His promise in each and every case and the cases differ. The entire 11th chapter of Hebrews is a record of events, given as testimonials to demonstrate that point, that compliance with God’s instructions in faith produces results not obtainable in any other way. In Noah’s case it was the building of an ark. He did that and his family was saved. But Moses was not told that building an ark would get the Israelites across the Red sea. He was told something different, to raise his rod over the sea. The text says he did that by faith and the result was that the waters parted. Does God want us to understand in this that the sea parted first and then Moses stretched forth the rod? When the Israelites came to Jericho they were not told to build an ark nor were they told to stretch forth a rod. God told them to march around the city for six days and then march around it seven times on the seventh day, then blow trumpets and all the people give a shout. The text says that the walls fell down AFTER this was done. To read it as saying these walls fell down first and then the marching was done because they had fallen down is to pervert the testimony and lay the foundation for a false doctrine. Would God invest an entire chapter to illustrate to us something that is not true for our time? Certainly not.
When we come to the New Testament we are faced with the matter of removing sins and getting into the kingdom. Our instruction from God is not to build an ark, nor to stretch forth a rod, nor to march around a city. Jesus gave God’s instruction for us this way, “Preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned.” Isn’t it strange to suppose that God wants us to understand here that those who believe are saved and then will be baptized because they are saved? No, the church of Christ does not “damn” those who are not baptized. It was Jesus who said, “He who does not believe will be condemned.” You said, “The point of Hebrews 11 is that faith will surely be followed by works of obedience, not that we must obey every single command perfectly.” I say you missed the point of Hebrews 11.
Your syllogism is inaccurate. My major premise is not that “works are essential to salvation.” It is that “Obedience is necessary to salvation.” My minor premise is not that baptism is a work but that baptism is a commandment. The argument about whether or not baptism is a “work” doesn’t help the “faith alone” concept. Think about how the word “work” is used in the scriptures. Jesus said “This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent.” (John 6:29) Thus “believing” is a work. It does not have to be a physical, muscular exercize to be a work in the Biblical sense. Jesus said repeatedly that in the judgment we will be judged by our “works.” Will our evil thoughts be excluded from judgment because they aren’t “works”?
Notice this about baptism:
1. In the expression “BE baptized” BE is a verb. 2. It is a choice. You choose to submit to it. 3. According to Jesus something changes when it is done. Regardless of our analyzing, its purpose is what God said it is.
Too many today do not like the Biblical picture of God’s covenant so they reshape it “according to their own desires,” containng only grace and no laws, and turn away from the truth and are turned to fables. (2 Tim. 4:3-4) Yes there is also mercy in the covenant. (Heb. 8:12) But God is the judge of that, not us. The reason I want to persuade people not to pervert the covenant is not because I am mean spirited. My reason is the same as Paul’s was, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men. (2 Cor. 5:11)
Thank you, Olan, a “good work” of yours!
Let me add a few thoughts I am pressing at New Wineskins currently (but somehow they are not understood): God’s relationship with humans is covenantal from the beginning:
In Eden, God set a Garden apart from the rest of creation (with clear boundaries) and gave Adam and Eve both a task and a command. The term “covenant” is not used there, but some features most covenants have, are already there:
a) Boundaries
b) Terms (Commands, tasks)
c) Promises (Life, sustenance)
d) Relationship
As for the boundaries, it is intersting that they were not meant to be static in a geographical sense. “The concept Eden” should fill the whole earth when mankind would fill it and rule over it.
The next (and first actual) covenant mentioned is the covenant with Noah. This covenant was meant to include all mankind (the whole creation actually), so it is a universal covenant, therefore no boundaries are mentioned. But the rest reads as follows:
a) Terms (Fill the earth, don’t eat blood, …)
b) Promises (not another flood)
c) Relationship (at the altar)
d) A covenant sign (the reinbow) as a reminder for God (and us as well)
Abraham is the next person whom God chose to make a covenant with. This covenant is different in nature to the covenant with Noah, because it again has boundaries.
a) Boundaries (Abraham’s Seed)
b) Terms (Go out of Ur, keep my commands, faith)
c) Relationship (many altars)
d) Promise (your seed will receive this land)
e) A covenant sign (circumcision)
As a future perspective, the seed (singular) should be a blessing to all nations, thus expanding the boundaries ofthe covenant by redefining the descendants of Abraham as being according to faith (not blood line).
The covenant with Israel on Mount Sinai is an “addition” to the covenant with Abraham, adding the Law necessary for the every-day life in the land but also (and mainly) because of the sins of the people, and as a tutor towards Christ. The terms and boundaries are essentially the same, except the Laws have become a lot more specific.
The covenant with David is a precision of promise of the seed that would be a blessing to all nations: This son of Abraham will bring the Kinbgdom of God to all nations. As fisrt step in this process, God established the Kingdom ofthe House of David. This covenant is as follows:
a) Boundaries (male descendants of David)
b) Terms (interestingly NONE, other that they “produce” sons, because the fuilfillment of this covenant is the incarnation of Christ)
c) Relationship (anointed with the Spirit)
d) Promise (the Son of David will rule the world – and in this expand the boundaries of God’s covenant with Abraham)
e) Covenant sign – none (except the genealogy)
The New Covenant replaces the Old covenant (Sinai) because it was meant to be replaced from the beginning. And it fulfilles the covenants with Abraham and David in the realiziation of the Kingdom of God. The covenant with Noah is still valid (no flood so far; the rainbow is still in the sky) that’s why also Christians still shall abstain from blood. The new covenant is described as follows:
a) Boundaries (those who accept Christ as Lord – no geographical boundaries, but mission to expand the Kingdom)
b) Terms (repentance, faith, obedience)
c) Relationship (indwelling of the Spirit, children of God)
d) Promise (resurrection, co-reigning with Christ)
e) Covenant signs (Baptism replaced circumcision, Lord’s Supper replaced Passover)
More could be said, of course. Yet I think it is clear, that a covenant is always a “all-or-nothing” choice. You cannot debate the terms God put forth, and since baptism is the way to enter the covenant (by Grace through faith), we must maintain that without baptism a Christian remains (legally) outside the covenant. Obedience is necessary to fulfill our part of the covenant and to remain within its boundaries.
Yet I do acknowledge that Melchizedek and Jethro both were priests of the Living God, but – strange enough – outside of the covenants with Abraham and Moses. Naaman became a bliebe after he was healed from leprosy in hte Jordan river, but he returned to his homeland – still trying to live faithfully to God – but oputseide the covenant. From this I do conclude that there are “exceptions” to the rule, but these are rare and we cannot turn excepetions into a rule. This is something that only God can determine.
Therefore I do like the way Jay puts it:
“Normative” is a word that accepts the terms of the covenant without limitig the souvereign God to it.
Alexander
Alexander, there is no covenant with God which we have the capacity to fulfill. This is the entire reason that we have been reconciled with God through the work of Christ. Not first by Jesus’ work and from then on by our work; nor by our work so far as we are able, and then the balance supplied by His work. No, my filthy rags are not sufficient to bring to the table as proof that I have fulfilled my part of the bargain, and thus feel justified in holding God to his side of the deal. That whole idea is somewhat surreal.
We are third-party beneficiaries of this covenant. The terms of this covenant are fulfilled in Christ. It is by our faith in Him that we benefit from what is fulfilled in Him. Thus, Jesus’ clear statement that the work that God requires is to believe on the one whom He has sent.
Oh, and BTW, the Seed mentioned in God’s covenant with Abraham is not a defined set of “seeds” (See Galatians 3), but Jesus alone. This indicates that the covenant is only fulfilled in Him.
The thing about such “exceptions to the rule” is that they strongly suggest that the “rule” being posited is either wrong or incomplete in its description of reality. Such “rules” are most often mere intellectual conveniences we use to oversimplify and generalize things which we do not fully understand, to make them more workable for us. This is not necessarily a evil thing; it is, after all, the way we explain certain things to children. It becomes problematic when, after living with such a rule for so long, we presume that our rule is actual reality. This occurs when we forget that we really don’t understand fully, or we rationalize away the obvious flaws in our rule by calling any inconsistency between our rule and reality an “exception”– as though that term explained anything at all.
What I am reading so far seems to say that, “God only does this particular thing this way. The fact that he did that thing differently in two instances means he is occasionally inconsistent, but this is okay because he is God, and he can be inconsistent if he wants to be.”
Rather than depending on this hypothetical “valid sovereign arbitrariness” to explain every flaw in one of our rules, I propose an alternative view: “Since this rule explains some of God’s actions under these circumstances, but is contradicted by another of his actions under these circumstances, this rule is not really a ‘rule’ at all, but only a generalization — and an admittedly flawed generalization– and it should never be used as anything more than that.”
That’s not quite correct nor the point. Yes, all that is required for our salvation lies in the work of Christ. Yet, we agree on the Term “follow me!”, don’t we. this is a life-long journey of growing in the realtionship in love and obedience. That’s our part in this covenant, something that we do (by his empowerment). If we don’t remain in Him, we will be cut off the vine. If we don’t keep the faith we will be broke off the olive tree. God rejoices in our obedience so much that He even promises a reward for it – strange, but true. So I would not downplay our roles in the covenant, but we need to put it into perspective: What God did is infinitely more than we could ever do. Yet we are called to do our part in the covenant.
Actually, both and. In the prgress from promise to fulfillment, Abrahams fleshly descendants were treated according to the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But the point of the covenant is Christ. Therefore Israel is not the fleshly Israel, but those who are in union with the true “Servant of God” (From Isaiah).
Alexander
BTW (important side remark) God does not view our righteiousness as filthy rags at all. Normally He rejoices and appreciates it (see e.g. Job 1:1). This expression is from a poetic text expressing a prayer of repentance (Is 64:6). Make a word search yourself on HOW OFTEN God views people as righteous and even blameless! This misuse of Is 64:6 distorts our view of who we really are and what we really are capable of doing in God’s sight. This led to the Calvinist doctrine of “total depravity” and the overreaction to any idea of workd connected to salvation.
Sure: “The righteous shall live by faith” – read carefully: The rightous (!) shall klive by faith – while the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom. Note: The righteous does not live by their reighteousness, that’s not what is said. But scripture does also NOT say that we are completely incapable of either dpoing something good or living righteous lives. Even blamesless to some extent, according to God’s OWN testimony.
Let me challenge you to think some time about this: Here lies one ofthe main errors of Protetsantism!
Since when are you using a black-and-white-approach, Charles? All I tried to say is that there are clear covenantal relationships in scripture, and that God deals with some people outside the covenant. Since covenantal relationships are the rule – there is no other name than Christ (Acts 4:12), read in the light of the New Covenant speaks of “no exceptions” – so maybe “exception” is the wrong word for it.
Suggest a better one! That fits the “no compromise” approach of the New Covenant (and the ol as well) and incorprates God’s dealing with people outside this covenant (like Naaman) without making Him appear inconsistent!
I could agree that it is possible for people to be saved without knowing Christ on terms defined in Romans 2 for instance; yet this might be hypothetical language there … Anyway, it’s not that simple. n the other hand, it is not difficult at all to see and understan the terms of the New Covenant and how to become part of it (and remain in it). This, I think, MUST be our focus. Anything beyond these boundaries is speculative.
Alexander
Jay,
Are you confusing the ‘outpouring of the HS’ with the ‘baptism with the HS’? It kind of looks to me like you are, but I need to ask to be sure.
Thanks,
Grizz
Grizz,
The outpouring of the Spirit and baptism with the Spirit are indeed the same thing.
Acts11:15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
Acts 10:45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.
Olan Hickes wrote,
“Your syllogism is inaccurate. My major premise is not that “works are essential to salvation.” It is that “Obedience is necessary to salvation.” My minor premise is not that baptism is a work but that baptism is a commandment. ”
Therefore, I take Olan’s syllogism to be —
Major Premise: Obedience is necessary to salvation.
Minor Premise: Baptism is a commandment
Conclusion: Baptism is necessary to salvation
There remains a flaw in the argument — but it’s a subtle one. What does “obedience” mean? For the syllogism to be true, we must take “obedience” to mean “obedience to every single command from God.” And, obviously, that is impossible.
It is, of course, entirely true that the scriptures insist on obedience and that the scriptures damn rebellion. But the scriptures don’t require perfection. How then must we obey?
Even if we were to take “obedience” to require obedience to all known commands, we still have a very strict standard (too strict), but even under such a strict interpretation, those babes in Christ who’ve been misinformed about baptismal theology would be saved. I know of no one who refuses to be baptized as he knows God requires.
But we need to go a step further. Why is it too strict insist on obedience to all known commands? Well, because no one, other than Jesus, has ever done it. That’s the essence of why Paul repeatedly teaches us that salvation must be by faith and not works. The Jews memorized all 613 Mosaic commands, but even the most faithful could not keep them. That’s Romans 7. Even Paul couldn’t keep them!
Therefore, the standard is faith, not works. Faith is about the heart, and a faithful heart obeys — but not perfectly and not those commands it doesn’t even know. And yet that’s enough — so long as the heart is striving to honor Jesus through obedience. That’s grace.
But it’s the striving, not the achieving, that keeps us in the center of God’s grace (for those with faith in Jesus).
Olan wrote,
“Jesus said “This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent.” (John 6:29) Thus “believing” is a work. It does not have to be a physical, muscular exercize to be a work in the Biblical sense. Jesus said repeatedly that in the judgment we will be judged by our “works.” Will our evil thoughts be excluded from judgment because they aren’t “works”?”
We are saved by faith, not works, as such words are used by Paul in such books as Romans and Galatians. I have no interest in any argument to the contrary, because Jesus and Paul do not contradict. Therefore, we should be aware immediately that there is a problem with Olan’s reasoning — which is a common argument of 20th Century Church of Christ thought.
Let’s look more closely.
John6:28 ESV Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
The passage admits of two interpretations. First, “works,” as spoken by Jesus’ audience, may well not be used in the Pauline sense. After all, Galatians wouldn’t be written until many years later. They were using the word in a much broader sense.
Second, it could be that Jesus is speaking ironically (which would be very true to his revealed character). That is, he calls “works” the singular “work” that isn’t really a work.
(I suspect but cannot prove that Paul’s use of “faith” and “works” is borrowed from contemporary discussions in Judaism, which is why he expected to be understood. Therefore, I prefer the ironic interpretation, but either one works.)
Now, let’s think carefully here. If Jesus is saying that faith in Jesus is the only “work” we must do to be doing the “works of God,” then faith is enough. Why do we insist on adding to it? What could be plainer?
The audience wanted to know how to find eternal life. They were responding to Jesus’ words —
John 6:27 ESV “Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”
What food endures to eternal life? The works of God! What works? Well, there’s just one: faith in Jesus!
Now, what throws us off is the interpretation of Reformation theology by many an evangelist, teaching the “believe” merely means to “accept as true.” I believe in the existence of Paris Hilton. I’ve seen her in live video feeds. She really and truly exists. But that is not “faith” or “belief” in the scriptural sense. She is not my Lord.
No, to have scriptural faith requires not only to accept as true but also to be faithful and to trust. Therefore, I don’t have real faith (in the Pauline and Johannine senses) in Jesus unless I’m faithful to him and trust him to keep his promises.
Being faithful returns us to obedience, as previously discussed. Trusting him to keep his promises takes us back to the discussion in Hebrews 11. You see, it all fits together.
Now, remember that I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t teach or practice baptism. We absolutely should. It’s a command of God that we do so! I could teach nothing else.
But we must also teach grace and the sufficiency of faith in Jesus (properly understood per the above), as taught by Jesus himself in John 6:29. Therefore, when we encounter those with a genuine faith in Jesus with a flawed baptismal theology, we should count them as brothers.
Jay,
I think the underlining difference between the conservatives and progressives is their definition of faith or rather, more specifically, their definition of a faith acceptable to God. I will try to state the difference, as I understand it, as simply as possible. Please let me know if you think I have it wrong.
Most conservatives include in their definition of faith: belief and obedience to God. (Note: I do not think conservatives believe perfect obedience is required, for if we could obey perfectly there would be no need for Gods grace after our initial salvation.)
Many progressives include in their definition of faith: belief and a willingness to obey God’s commands he or she believes are applicable to his or her life.
Jonathan
Jay and Olan,
I am unsure as to what you two are specifically disagreeing over. I understand Bro. Maxey posits salvation by faith before baptism; Olan posits salvation by faith at the time of baptism; and Jay posits [quoting him] “ I [Jay] contend that God gives salvation when one is baptized — in the normative case. I simply object to the view of many that God will make no exceptions.” Are you all disputing over what baptized/non-baptized are in fellowship or their eternal destiny or something else? I apologize for misunderstanding.
While faith and works are not the same, the early church proudly proclaimed baptism as a means of saving grace, as the standard orthodox teaching, while explicitly noting exceptions for those desiring baptism, but unable to receive it [as being saved].
Alexander and I have worn the Didache out, so allow me to quote Tertullian
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm
But, he also says…
Jonathan…might want to rethink that question…. What “conservative” do you know that does something in obedience to God that they don’t think
oops… What conservative does something in obedience to God that they honestly don’t believe God intended for them to have to do? Nobody does what they don’t think applies to them… the issue is what does apply and to whom…
Price,
I was trying describe the difference in what the two sides believe, not what the two sides do (I agree that neither side follows commands they believe are not applicable to them). I think the difference is a subtle but profound one. For example:
A conservative might believe the obedience part of saving faith includes among other things: repenting, confessing, and being baptized.
A progressive might believe that if someone choose not to follow a command from God because they believe, for whatever reason, it was not applicable to them, that person would still have a saving faith.
Jay,
From your answer it seems you believe one (or all) of the following:
(1) Baptism in the Spirit = outpouring of the Spirit
(2) In Joel 2:28-29, all flesh = all mankind
(3) Peter believed all flesh/all mankind meant young and old, male and female, but only Jews until his dream in Acts 10
(4) After his vision in Acts 10, Peter realized that all flesh/all mankind meant also people from every ethnic group/nation
(5) That because Peter and the others with him referred to the outpouring as ‘the gift’, this is that which Peter claimed was promised to those immersed in water into Christ a la Acts 2:39 and the passage you quoted in Acts 10
(6) So it is NOT always simultaneous to immersion in water that every believer is promised to receive ‘the gift’ of (which is also referred to as the outpouring or the baptism in) the Holy Spirit…especially since the Spirit was poured out in Acts 2 AND in Acts 10 BEFORE those who believed were immersed on those days
(7) And even though the Spirit was poured out and caused the notice of the crowd that gave an opportunity for sharing the gospel in Acts 2 BEFORE the 3,000 were added through baptism … and also even though Cornelius’ household experienced the outpouring of the Spirit BEFORE they went as a group (?) to be immersed in water … that Acts 19, where the baptisms PRECEDED the outpouring of the Spirit in Ephesus, is also a valid and normal process in which the believers were saved, turning from death to life and being created anew by God
I ask which of these or if all of these might describe your belief BECAUSE I believe these passages prove that whether the Spirit comes first or immersion in water comes first, the apostles were convinced that BOTH were necessary to effect new birth just the way Jesus taught Nicodemus that night which John records in what we call John 3.
There is a strong desire by some to separate the two as though one or the other is more important or more essential to God’s plan. Certainly the CoC has generally and traditionally held that it is the water immersion that is most important for nearly all of my life and the lives of my parents. It has been an uneasy proverb among us that we keep the Holy Spirit trapped in a book or tied up in a box hidden on the back of the top shelf in the hall closet, only to be taken down to prove to God that we have been sealed in Christ for salvation on the day of judgment. On the other hand, our friends in the Assemblies of God and other ‘Pentecostal’ groups have long proclaimed that it is the immersion in the Holy Spirit that is more important – with nearly as much exclusivity in practice as the CoC has demonstrated towards immersion in water. (Although I do not know of any AOG or Pentecostals who try to bind up the water in a book or in a box on the back of the top shelf of the hall closet. Most either ignored it completely or allowed it for those who insisted, for whatever reason, and usually by immersion whenever it did happen.)
I note all of this in order to get to this point: what I now see in your writings almost seems to go past finding a balanced approach and swinging towards adopting the AOG/Pentecostal approach on the other extreme – or at least taking bold steps in that direction.
Am I missing something, Jay?
Sincerely,
Grizz
Jay said: “But it’s the striving, not the achieving, that keeps us in the center of God’s grace (for those with faith in Jesus).”
>>>
I would agree that we find more grace for certain actions than for others, and more for certain motivations than for others. (Perhaps that is what is intended here by “center of God’s grace”.) But such a variance is in a specific divine support to DO this or that, not in the grace by which we become– and remain– the sons of God.
The idea that we remain in the saving grace of God because of the enthusiasm of our effort is a non-starter. First, this idea is unbiblical. “Striving” or “doing our best” has not found as the prerequisite for obtaining or retaining salvation, whether center, left-of-center, or right-of-center. That oft-repeated concept is, in fact merely a works doctrine with a fig leaf pasted over the gaping hole which Jay previously pointed out– that no one can be comprehensively obedient. Here, we simply redefine Olan’s “obedience”, as “doing my best to be obedient”. This is a concept directly from the Law, and reflects the greatest commandment of the Law. (“…love the Lord with all your mind…”) But we are not under the Law.
We continue to receive God’s grace because of WHO we are– adopted children– not because we are doing our best to be obedient. This is the very truth the Romans were twisting which Paul addresses in Romans 4&5 — that it is the increase of sin, not the diminishment of it– which necessitates and calls forth the outpouring of the grace of God. Paul corrected their licentious application of this truth, but did not back away from the principle.
Eternal life is not a paycheck to a loyal servant, but a genetic condition of the sons of God.
But, there is a reward/crown for “running the race” with our best effort. At least that’s what Paul told the Corinthians in his 1st letter (or really his second letter). Did you all know he wrote at least three letters to that bunch?
Laymond: Yes, Paul did tell the believers (not just the elders), that God would present them holy by the death of Christ, …”If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel,”
Indeed. But the hope of the gospel is not the entire revelation of every facet of the will of God. It is, in fact, the very germ of our faith, not the whole kernel. Knowing how to treat one’s wife is NOT “the hope of the gospel”. Knowing how to handle legal disputes among believers is not the hope of the gospel. The debate over how to conduct Sunday services is not the hope of the gospel. Knowing how long to wear your hair (a moot point for me) is not the hope of the gospel.
Elders, as all of us, must be settled in who has saved us and how. We may get greater light on this subject, but the simple fundamental truth of how we were reconciled to God does not change. On many other things, however, our understanding of God’s will remains quite imperfect. We “see as through a glass, darkly”. But we do learn, and grow, and mature in the faith. (At least an elder should have that as a resume.) For one to insist that a person can only be an elder if he promises never to get any more light and never to adjust his views based on his increasing understanding is frankly absurd.
Yes, Nancy, we are promised eternal reward for how we run the race. But that reward is not “getting to remain God’s children”. My idea of a father rewarding the good works of his children is NOT to simply tell them, “Good job! I guess I won’t destroy you after all.” My rewards exceed that standard. And if I, being evil, know how to give good gifts to MY children…
WHAT IS OUR STANDARD OF COMPARISON?
I do not mean to over simplify but I have a question. No, I do not challenge your ancestry or your pedegree, I just ask this: Don’t we believe that the God of the Bible is the supreme ruler of the universe and that our intelligence is as far below His as the earth is below the heavens? If so then shouldn’t we believe that on a matter on which He has spoken explicitly His word is final? Some examples to consider:
On the matter of what is to be done about the problem of human imperfection? Jay offers this: “For the syllogism to be true, we must take “obedience” to mean “obedience to every single command from God.” And, obviously, that is impossible.” Later he adds this: “But we need to go a step further. Why is it too strict to insist on obedience to all known commands? Well, because no one, other than Jesus, has ever done it. That’s the essence of why Paul repeatedly teaches us that salvation must be by faith and not works. ….Therefore the standard is faith, not works.”
God recognized the problem of human imperfection and gave this clear statement on it: “I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more.” (Heb. 8:12) So God’s answer is “mercy” and “forgiveness.” Man’s answer is to revise some of the commands or separate them from “faith.”
Later Jay stated what is to me a sensible conclusion. “But it’s the striving, not the achieving, that keeps us in the center of God’s grace (for those with faith in Jesus).” Amen! Right! Bravo! Atta boy! The way I say it is, “We can’t be perfect but we can be faithful and this is what Jesus requires.” So the answer is that we must try for perfection, (completeness, maturity) (Mat. 5:48) and God will judge our efforts.
Discussing John 6:29 Jay said. “I suspect but cannot prove that Paul’s use of “faith” and “works” is borrowed from contemporary discussions in Judaism, which is why he expected to be understood.”
The statement of God on this, written by Paul himself, is “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but in words which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual thngs with spiritual.” (1 Cor. 2:13)
Concerning James 2 a couple of you expressed the view that “if that is the case why not express your faith according to James’ example of helping a needy person or by some other similar work?”
The statement of God on helping the needy is that it is a practice of “pure religion,” (1:27) whereas the inclusion of works in saving faith is applied to being saved. (2:14)
Yes, I realize that many men claim “I am speaking the word of God” when actually they are speaking a theory. But I believe we can obey the command to actually speak the words of scripture. “If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God.” (1 Peter 4:11) We will need to remember that our assignment is to deliver the message, not to edit it.
The principle applied: Jesus said repeatedly “I will reward each one according to his works.” It is foolish to count on being judged by some different standard because the theories of men say so. God has spoken on it and what He said remains a fact.
Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” All the human theories in the world cannot make this untrue. Just as the Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John, even so if we are not baptized as Jesus commanded, we reject the counsel of God against ourselves.
The message is God’s, not mine. I am not your judge, I am your friend and I hope this is helpful.
Olan Hicks
I do not mean to over simplify but I have a question. No, I do not challenge your ancestry or your pedegree, I just ask this: Don’t we believe that the God of the Bible is the supreme ruler of the universe and that our intelligence is as far below His as the earth is below the heavens? If so then shouldn’t we believe that on a matter on which He has spoken explicitly His word is final? Some examples to consider:
On the matter of what is to be done about the problem of human imperfection? Jay offers this: “For the syllogism to be true, we must take “obedience” to mean “obedience to every single command from God.” And, obviously, that is impossible.” Later he adds this: “But we need to go a step further. Why is it too strict to insist on obedience to all known commands? Well, because no one, other than Jesus, has ever done it. That’s the essence of why Paul repeatedly teaches us that salvation must be by faith and not works. ….Therefore the standard is faith, not works.”
God recognized the problem of human imperfection and gave this statement on it: “I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more.” (Heb. 8:12) So God’s answer is “mercy” and “forgiveness,” not revision of the commands.
Later Jay stated what is to me a sensible conclusion. “But it’s the striving, not the achieving, that keeps us in the center of God’s grace (for those with faith in Jesus).” Right! The way I say it is, “We can’t be perfect but we can be faithful and this is what Jesus requires.” So the answer is that we must try for perfection, (completeness, maturity) (Mat. 5:48) and God will judge our efforts.
Discussing John 6:29 Jay said. “I suspect but cannot prove that Paul’s use of “faith” and “works” is borrowed from contemporary discussions in Judaism, which is why he expected to be understood.”
The statement of God on this, written by Paul himself, is “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but in words which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual thngs with spiritual.” (1 Cor. 2:13)
Concerning James 2 a couple of you expressed the view that “if that is the case why not express your faith according to James’ example of helping a needy person or by some other similar work?”
The statement of God on helping the needy is that it is a practice of “pure religion,” (1:27) whereas the inclusion of works in saving faith is applied to being saved. (2:14)
Yes, I realize that many have claimed “I am speaking the word of God” when actually they were speaking a theory. But I believe we can accurately speak the words of scripture. “If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God.” (1 Peter 4:11) We need to remember that our assignment is to deliver the message, not to edit it.
The principle applied: Jesus said repeatedly “I will reward each one according to his works.” It is foolish to count on being judged by any of the various the theories of men.
Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” All the human theories in the world cannot make this untrue. Just as the Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John, even so if we are not baptized as Jesus commanded, we reject the counsel of God against ourselves.
The message is God’s not mine. I am not your judge, I am your friend and I hope this is helpful.
Olan Hicks
I agree Charles. Earlier in the same letter, Paul had written about the concept of evaluative judgement. I just wonder what the rewards/crowns will be. Very exciting to think about. 🙂
Re: Rewards/Crowns
That brings to mind a Song we used to sing: “Will there be any jewels in my crown, in my crown? When at evening the sun goeth down”. I guess that I always figured the crowning rewards were icing on the cake and that life in the presence of God and my brother Jesus was the cake itself. To me it’ll be amazing that some preachers and elders (and bloggers?) will have smaller crowns than others and not be jealous….
Olan
“Concerning James 2 a couple of you expressed the view that “if that is the case why not express your faith according to James’ example of helping a needy person or by some other similar work?”
The statement of God on helping the needy is that it is a practice of “pure religion,” (1:27) whereas the inclusion of works in saving faith is applied to being saved. (2:14)”
******
But , whether or not one is willing to feed and clothe a needy person is the example James uses to show whether or not one has a saving faith. James 2:15-17. My point is that we can’t use scriptural passages speaking of the works a saved person must do to express his faith, to explain what an unsaved person does to get saved. Initial salvation is not about expressing an obedient faith. It is about obtaining an obedient faith. We are raised, when baptized, to walk a new obedient life.
Olan,
I think we get entirely off track when we argue for baptism as an act of obedience or work and therefore essential to salvation. When we claim that baptism is a work and therefore essential, we turn Romans and Galatians upside down and inside out.
Therefore, we come far, far closer to the biblical view of water baptism if we teach that it’s a covenant-required ritual. And certainly God, as ruler of the universe, has the right to impose whatever conditions on salvation he wishes.
There is obviously no intrinsic merit in being immersed in water. The efficacy comes solely by God’s decision.
But we also know from the Scriptures that God does not always insist on the covenant means of atonement. David was forgiven without sacrifice. The celebrants at Hezekiah’s Passover were allowed to participate without ceremonial cleansing because of their ignorance of God’s Law and their zeal to obey. Cornelius received the Spirit prior to water baptism. And there are more examples.
We find from our study that God always accepts those who approach him with faith and penitence, even when they do so in ignorance of the covenant prescribed rituals.
Now, as I’ve said repeatedly, I’m not advocating that we drop baptism from our teaching. Indeed, we are commanded to teach and practice baptism, and therefore we must teach and practice baptism.
Rather, the question before us is whether God will save those with a genuine faith and repentance but whose baptisms are flawed — not enough water, too soon, too late, wrong understanding … In other words, must someone have a correct baptismal theology to be saved?
We are saved by faith in Jesus, not by faith in baptism. It is the responsibility of the evangelist to teach and practice baptism correctly. But our converts won’t be damned because of the evangelist gets baptism wrong — so long as the evangelist gets Jesus right.
Jonathan stated, for my comment,
“Most conservatives include in their definition of faith: belief and obedience to God. (Note: I do not think conservatives believe perfect obedience is required, for if we could obey perfectly there would be no need for Gods grace after our initial salvation.)
Many progressives include in their definition of faith: belief and a willingness to obey God’s commands he or she believes are applicable to his or her life.”
Jonathan,
The 20th Century Church of Christ perspective insists on doctrinal perfection, especially when it comes to ecclessiology, that is, how to do church. Worship, handling the church treasury, use of the church building, church leadership structures, women’s roles, girls praying in mixed groups, and the church name are all considered areas without grace. Any error damns.
Thus, a church with an “unscriptural” name or an “unscriptural” fellowship hall is damned — all the members.
This graceless body of rules is expanded very subjectively depending on what the editors and lectureships are pounding. Thus, error on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was once not considered damning, but now is by many. Indeed, my observation is that the rightwing of the Churches of Christ is working hard to greatly expand the number of errors that make one an apostate.
However, in moral areas and in areas of doctrine that haven’t been debated in the periodicals, grace is allowed. But for moral sins, forgiveness doesn’t occur until one confesses that sin, repents, and asks forgiveness. If the sin is public, one must confess publicly — preferably by going forward at church. If the sin is divorce, one must make restitution, by putting away his second wife, even if the second marriage has produced children.
However, for doctrinal error outside the graceless areas, God’s grace gives continuous forgiveness. (I’m struggling to think of an example. They exist.) And not all moral failings are seen as requiring specific confession, repentance, and point-in-time forgiveness.
Indeed, the conservatives frequently cite 1 John 1:7 as teaching the continuous forgiveness of sins, while in nearly the same breath pointing out the necessity for confession, repentance, and point-in-time forgiveness as a condition to salvation.
It’s all quite inconsistent, and choice between the application of the two rules is very arbitrary. No one ever attempts to explain why sin X damns until confessed, repented of, and forgiveness is specifically requested, whereas sin Y is continuously forgiven despite a lack of the three conditions
Now, no conservative would state their views as I just have. But I grew up conservative and continue to read their periodicals. I think it’s a fair summary.
Progressives believe that we are continuously forgiven of our sins so long as we remain true to the faith and penitence that first brought us into grace. That is, the cleasing we received at baptism continues so long as we are true to our confession of Jesus as Lord.
That doesn’t mean that the progressives don’t confess or repent. They do, but these aren’t seen as occasional point in time events needed to purge occasional, point-in-time sins — much like the Catholic confessional. Rather, confession and penitence are continuous. They are lifestyles.
We judge ourselves continuously broken, unworthy vessels in need of continuous forgiveness. We confess our brokenness. We confess our sin and our sinfulness and our unworthiness. And we repent — by always striving to do better, to become more and more like Jesus.
But we do this, not be occasionally forgiven, but because we’ve been forgiven far beyond our abilty to comprehend. We so delight in God’s generosity that his generosity overflows our hearts and pours out to others.
Obviously, I am over-generalizing. “Progressive” and “conservative” are not clearly defined terms. In fact, those in the Churches of Christ exist in a continuum from pure legalism to pure grace. The right place on the continuum is pure grace, that is, utter reliance on God responded to with a life that can only be lived by utter reliance on God.
Grizz asked whether I consider baptism in the Spirit more important than water baptism. The answer is yes — because so did John the Baptist. So did the prophets.
(Mar 1:8 ESV) 8 “I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
(Joh 1:33 ESV) 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.’
(Joe 2:28-32 ESV) 28 “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. 29 Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. 30 “And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. 32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.
The emphasis of the prophets from Isaiah to John the Baptist is that the Spirit will be poured out resulting in forgiveness. There is no mention of water baptism in the prophets. John the Baptist, who practiced water baptism, does not speak of the promise of a better water baptism but of Spirit baptism.
These passages matter. This is the narrative of scripture. Indeed, Paul himself says that it’s the possession of the Spirit that saves —
(Rom 8:9-11 ESV) 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
If the Spirit had not been outpoured and if water baptism was solely for repentance, our sins may well be forgiven at water baptism — as was true of John’s baptism well before the crucifixion — but we would not be continuously forgiven by having God’s sanctifying presence within us through the Spirit. It would be a one-time forgiveness, no more effective than the repeated sacrifices of the Temple.
Does this make water baptism meaningless? No. The question is which of greater importance, not which matters. Both matter. Both are important. But the Spirit completes and perfects God’s salvation in ways that could not have happened by John’s baptism or by the Mosaic covenant. It changes everything.
But there is no dichotomy. For those properly instructed, it’s never a choice between water and Spirit baptism. There is one baptism, they are normatively concurrent, and we should baptism our converts in water and God baptizes them in Spirit — with God’s work being understood as far more important than ours.
However, when we encounter someone with faith in Jesus who gives every evidence of possessing the Spirit, we cannot treat him as damned just because his water baptism was built on bad baptismal theology. Faith in Jesus saves.
CM: The fact that he did that thing differently in two instances means he is occasionally inconsistent, but this is okay because he is God, and he can be inconsistent if he wants to be.
Alexander: Since when are you using a black-and-white-approach, Charles?
>>
I am simply challenging one approach which satisfies itself by considering God to be justifiably arbitrary. This may be God’s character, but no one has given me any reason to believe it just yet. This does not constitute offering an alternative, Alexander, nor does it require one. You have jumped what I said and presumed it means something I did not say. All I am pointing out is that this approach is unsatisfactory. I need not be able to draw a picture of a goat to see a picture of a goose and say, “I don’t think that’s a goat.”
Oh, and demanding an alternative to one’s theory is NOT supportive of that theory. Sometimes the issue is that we simply do not yet know enough to form a better theory, or to find the actual reality.
Jay,
I wonder if you have ever listened to John MacArthur’s lesson on “Believer’s Baptism?” I found it to be quite interesting, even though it had parts I’m not sure I agree with. It’s a good lesson about baptism from a different perspective and yet it makes some sense to me. I hope it’s OK to list the link here.
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-370/believers-baptism#.Tqa8SnKH2BM
When we argue that “faith only” will not save because repentance is also required, we show grave misunderstanding of both faith and repentance.
Repentance means to turn toward God. Faith means not only to believe that there is a God, but to trust Him (He keeps His promises by rewarding those who seek Him), and be loyal to Him.
When we look at these this way, it is fairly easy to see that they are two sides of the same coin. You really can’t have one in its full sense without the other. It is only by narrowing the definition of each that we can claim that here are two distinctly different responses to God.
By doing so, though, we also pave the way to assign a different meaning to baptism, a meaning that makes it distinctly different by both “faith” and “repentance.” Yet, baptism has no meaning at all apart from repentance and faith.
Jay,
I was glad to note that you see no separation between HS immersion and immersion in water to bury the old person of sin to be renewed by God and raised to walk in that newness. That YOU confuse the issue by referring to immersion as being the same thing as sprinkling or pouring into is just evidence that you have surrendered to the easy path of accepting popular terminology instead of biblical terminology. It seems like such a harmless and peace-seeking a way to avoid the real issue: commitment is NOT something of which you can have just a little – one is either committed or not.
Jesus told a whole church of part-timers to commit or be spat out of His mouth. He warned others who were walking towards compromise. But of course, those letters in the Revelation of Jesus to John were for others … not us. (Right? No – dead wrong!)
Take a look at Matthew 10 and Luke 14 if you think commitment can be half-hearted. Then ask yourself … can I be a disciple of Jesus if I hold the least bit back? What does Jesus say?
So let’s just accept the sprinkling as if it was a burial, right?
How about accepting a pouring into as a burial? Is that the same thing?
If the Spirit is getting through … try to remember that immersion is always a burial – a complete overwhelming – in the inspired scriptures. And do not fool yourself into thinking that immersion in the Spirit or immersion in water stand alone effectively any more than faith can stand alone and be anything but dead.
Alabama John seems to think there will be more in heaven than the number condemned for failure to trust God. One would have to ignore Jesus to accept such an idea. Of course, Americans (among others) are very good at ignoring Jesus whenever they want … even (especially?) the ones who claim to follow Jesus without ever doing anything He did.
Is truth optional? Accepting those who do not truly follow would suggest it is. And playing word games cannot change the truth.
God is truth. And God’s word is truth. And those who would change a jot or tittle of it will rue the day … if we believe Jesus.
I do.
Grizz
Grizz wrote:
A complete overwhelming in the inspired scriptures? Now we have baptism in water, baptism in the Holy Spirit, and “a complete overwhelming in the inspired scriptures” as baptism?
Where does that come from? I do not recall reading that anywhere in the inspired scriptures. Unless you mean to imply that the inspired Scriptures ARE the Holy Spirit???? There is a difference between a sword and the one who wields the sword. The word of God (which I take, in this text to be the inspired Scriptures) is the sword of the Spirit. The Spirit is the one who wields the sword – as Jesus told His disciples that the coming Comforter (the Paraclete or the Holy Spirit) whom the Father would send in His name would “convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come. Yes, much of this work is done through the inspired Scriptures – but can you maintain that the Spirit has no power to influence us except the words we read in the scriptures? I am not talking about new revelation here. I am talking about influence.
After all, we grant that the Devil has power to tempt us to do evil. Does the Spirit not have a corresponding power to tempt us to do good?
Jerry,
my apologies for confusing you. Perhaps I should have stated it better.
In the inspired scriptures the word baptidzo always means a burial or an overwhelming. Is that a bit more clear?
Let me know,
Grizz
This is absolutely the last comment I will offer on this thread. (1) Jay’s description of the “church of Christ” is something I have only seen from a distance. I have never been associated with one like that. He gave this sweeping indictment: “The 20th Century Church of Christ perspective insists on doctrinal perfection, especially when it comes to ecclessiology, that is, how to do church. Worship, handling the church treasury, use of the church building, church leadership structures, women’s roles, girls praying in mixed groups, and the church name are all considered areas without grace. Any error damns.”
My commitment has been to the ideal that the church Jesus adds us to when we are baptized does not have a written creed outside the Bible, that the only head, or director to the church is Jesus, and there is no such thing as a “graceless area.” I have seen groups wearing the name “church of Christ” that had the characteristics Jay referred to. Actually they were a cult, blindly committed to unproven concepts. The Lord did not build such a thing and we must not allow that perversion to high jack what the Lord did build and rob the world of what God wants given to them.
Our responsibility is to be faithful message bearers, not message editors. If we preach the same Gospel now as was preached on Pentecost day in Acts 2, we will be delivering heaven’s message unchanged. Those who receive that message and obey it as 3,000 did on that day, will be added by the Lord to the number of the saved. There are many aspects we might dig into in an effort to understand or analyze it. But whether we can “explain it” or not, we can accept it.
The reasoning that if salvation could be provided by the law then Christ would not have needed to die, is right. Galatians chapter 3 sets it forth. But notice that the same chapter says this, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (vs. 27) and adds that you are thus “heirs of the promise.” It also says that the covenant, once confirmed, is not changeable. (Vs.15) So there is no contradiction between the fact that we are not saved by law and the fact that we are baptized into Christ and thus become heirs of His promise. The only tension between the two is created by human speculation as men try to analyze the way of God.
“And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” (Acts 20:32) Grace, mercy, law, truth, judgment, are all in God’s message. The more we study and research in His word the clearer they become, but only if we study with an open mind. Let God’s word be the final word on every matter. God bless you all.
Olan Hicks