Back on December 13, I posted a series of comments I’d made at earlier posts, as a post called “A Framework for Discussing Baptism.” This was an effort to frame and so improve the conversation regarding the absolute necessity of baptism.
That post has received over 300 comments thus far, with no end in sight. (This may be a OIJ record!) But thus far, I’ve failed to elevate the conversation beyond endless repetition of ancient arguments that haven’t persuaded in the last 500 years.
I’m very disappointed that the challenges I’d made to the absolute-necessity-of-baptism position have been ignored by those who wish to push for that position because I thought that, even if I were proven to be in error, at least we’d make some progress. And we haven’t.
And so, I’m going to lay out those challenges very plainly to see if perhaps the conversation might return to these key points. Otherwise, we’ll just keep on rehashing arguments we’ve all heard many, many times and have not found persuasive.
Challenge 1: “Only” can be implied
I listed dozens of verses that promise salvation to all who have faith in Jesus. For example —
(Joh 3:18 ESV) 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
(Rom. 3:22-24) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
I then wrote,
“The usual tired, obviously wrong Church of Christ response is, “Well, they don’t say ‘faith only.’” If I said to my child, “Bring me a dollar and I’ll give you a piece of candy,” doesn’t that plainly imply “one dollar only”? Would I have any integrity at all if I told a child that his dollar isn’t enough because I didn’t say “one dollar only”?
“And so unless we’re willing to accuse the Spirit that inspired these verses of lacking integrity, we really have to accept the many, many promises to save those with faith as true. God keeps his promises. All of them.”
The only response to this I can recall seeing is a repetition of the original “he didn’t say ‘only'” argument, as though repetition might somehow respond to my point. Obviously, as my example shows, language can often imply “only” without the use of the word. Any open-minded person could think of many other examples.
“If you’ll pay me $5.00, I’ll cut your grass.” Would any rational person believe that the grass cutter could charge $10 on the theory that he didn’t say “only”?
Challenge 2: “Obedience” does not require perfect obedience
I argued,
Of course, “faith” includes “faithfulness” as part of its definition (in the Greek). We must come to God with penitence (a synonym for “faithfulness”) — and so we must obey what we know to obey. And baptism is a command.
But many, many new converts are taught baptism in error – and they are truly babes in Christ when they are taught this error. And yet they come with faith/faithfulness, and so they obey as well as their understanding permits. They can hardly be held accountable for an expertise in Greek and theology that eludes 80% or more of Christendom!
In the conservative Churches of Christ, there is a double standard that I’ve yet to see anyone explain. For obedience to moral commands, grace is granted. But for obedience to so-called positive commands, no grace is allowed.
Thus, the Churches readily treat those who fail to love as they should or care for the poor as they should as forgiven. Most would even grant that they are continuously forgiven, based on 1 John 1:7.
But when it comes to baptism or instrumental music, we also insist on obedience, but here “obedience” becomes “flawless” obedience. Grace no longer applies. And when someone challenges the inconsistency, the conservative advocate either tries to change the subject or else accuses all who violate the rule of doing so in rebellion to God, as all agree that rebellious disobedience can lead to falling away (Heb 10:26 ff). But, of course, it’s simply not true that everyone baptized in a flawed manner or who worships in a flawed manner does so in conscious rebellion.
I’ve corresponded with all sorts of prominent conservative Church of Christ thinkers and have yet to receive an answer for how to know when grace is continuously available and when it’s not. Obviously, the scriptures offer no such rule because grace is granted to all who have faith in Jesus (which includes faithfulness to and trust in Jesus).
In short, we demand doctrinal perfection as to those doctrines that distinguish us from the other denominations and grant grace as to nearly all other errors and sins. And that fact alone should be enough to demonstrate our very wrong motives in imposing such an unscriptural rule.
Challenge 3: We don’t get to cherry pick our verses.
Almost all baptismal debates boil down to this logic:
* You must either adopt the Baptist position or the Church of Christ position
* The Baptist position is error (cite favorite baptism verses)
* Therefore, the Church of Christ position is true.
However, across the street in a Baptist Church, someone is arguing:
* You must either adopt the Baptist position or the Church of Christ position
* The Church of Christ position is error (cite favorite faith verses)
* Therefore, the Baptism position is true.
Obviously, both are wrong because both fail to build a case on all the verses. We aren’t allowed to abridge our Bibles based on syllogisms.
I disagree with the first premise (but not only the first premise). I think there are possibilities other than the traditional Church of Christ and Baptist positions. The one I believe to be correct is that the Church of Christ position on baptism is true but grace allows for mistakes, so that those who have flawed baptisms are nonetheless saved (unless they refuse baptism out of a rebellious heart, in which case they aren’t save anyway, as both sides would agree).
However, nearly all the discussion thus far has proceeded on the assumption that there are two and only two possible positions to take. And it’s just not true. Once a third possibility is placed on the table, the logic utterly collapses — unless you also disprove my third option — which has not even been attempted by those insisting on the traditional Church of Christ view.
Let me express this symbolically —
* Either A or B or C is true.
* A is false
* Therefore, B or C is true. (“A is false” doesn’t prove B)
OR
* Either A or B or C is true.
* A and B are false
* Therefore, C is true. (You have to disprove all other positions to prove yours with this logic.)
Do you see? Merely disproving the Baptist position does not prove the Church of Christ position. You must also disprove my position — whether or not I’m part of the conversation. It’s a logical necessity if the goal is truth, rather than defeating your opponent.
Moreover, regardless of denomination, a position that disregards one set of verses or the other is just not going to be persuasive. The fact that both the Church of Christ and Baptist positions both ignore numerous Bible verses means that they are both wrong — or, at least, incomplete.
For 1,500 years, Christendom taught the necessity of baptism and that justification occurs concurrently with baptism. Zwingli and Calvin taught 500 years ago that baptism is an act of obedience that follows faith, and that the moment one comes to faith is the moment of salvation. And the two sides have disagreed ever since.
My third option has the benefit of respecting all the baptism verses as well as the faith verses as well as church history. Maybe I’m wrong, but the only challenges to my theory are the same, tired anti-Baptist arguments, built on the false premise that I’m really taking the Baptist position. But I’m not.
And that means that the arguments found in the old debate books and tract racks just don’t disprove my theory — and so those who disagree will have to do some fresh Bible study to come up with some new arguments. The old ones do not work.
I believe baptism is analogous to the sabbath in the famous statement of Jesus when he said that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. Baptism is a great blessing where we receive God’s assurance that our sins are forgiven and the Holy Spirit is living in us. I wish every disciple of Jesus would receive that baptismal blessing and assurance but I can’t imagine from Scripture or from the nature of our heavenly Father that anyone would fail to receive salvation because they somehow failed to be baptized.
Jay, your comment, “For obedience to moral commands, grace is granted. But for obedience to so-called positive commands, no grace is allowed”, is the hammer down. This has been the most obvious, yet ignored reality within the Church of Christ. Your example of the failure to love, or helping the poor, even the inexcusable racism of its past, and of racism in different modes in the present, will, unfortunately be met by anger and rationalizations. And of course, let us not forget, that the grace allowed for morale commands is found “only in the Lord’s Church” or for those “we know” who are truly born again, depending on which denomination is speaking.
And thank you for pointing out that it is not a case of “Either the Baptist position of baptism, or that of the Church of Christ.” I do believe that as people within the CoC became more progressive their closest religious neighbors, besides the Christian Church. were the Baptist, and they spent much thought in looking at the two positions. However, in time people have become more comfortable with the Methodist, the Episcopalians, etc, and in their conversations and readings began to see that “Baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is most certainly the demonstrative separation between the old and the new, but that the first moment of a person’s faith is the recognition and experience of eternal and infinite grace.
Good for you Jay. Keep up the good fight. Though I desire a good discussion about building one another up in love. Yes, becoming more like our Savior than a Pharisee. Because of our sin nature we sure do most of the time look like Pharisees. I remember our Lord Jesus discussing with those religious leaders and told them “the word did not live in them because they didn’t believe in the one God sent, for they searched the Scripture to find eternal life, but it is those scriptures that talk about me.” Our salvation is in Jesus and no other. Jay you are quite right and saying there is a third way, because it’s not what this group is doing or that group is doing. I have seen people baptized for the remission of sins and seen the Holy Spirit work mightily in their life. I have seen people accept Jesus as their Lord and God and gladly receive baptism identifying in the likeness of his death and resurrection and Jesus work mightily in their life. I have seen both party’s be saved according to their doctrine and no true conversion happen. The funny thing here is that both party’s have to be believing and both party’s have to be baptized. Salvation belongs to the Lord, until we can have the sense that when a person confess Jesus both Lord and Savior and consider him a brother we are just a Pharisee. How are you living your life? Are you reflecting Jesus every day, or at least struggling to?
Good post… First, the “faith only” argument is a straw man argument. It is a works based point of view argument… The fact is that God saves and God ONLY saves. It is by Grace that we are saved.. We don’t earn salvation. I don’t know many, perhaps a handful, that believe we somehow merit our salvation so why is the argument of “faith only” even brought up? It’s not saved by faith…It’s saved by Grace.
Faith, real faith that exudes faithfulness, ALWAYS PROCEEDS any act of obedience. If it does not, the obedience is a mockery. Baptism preceded by faith is an awesome public demonstration of faith that cannot be seen except by God. Baptism without real faith is a bath. Of course we accept our free gift by faith !! As Stephen told the Eunuch when he asked about being baptized…if you believe… assuming that is accurate text.
Your point about moral allowances was embarrassingly accurate. I can think of thousands of examples of churches and church leaders who raise the pits of hell so close you can feel the heat on your feet about homosexuality but preach to an audience of 85% obese or overweight people having never mentioned their personal bodily destruction from the pulpit. But, Lord knows, I do the same thing in regard to myself and my flaws. Interesting to whom we give out our get out of jail free cards.
I wish you would expound on your baptism option C… It seemed like there was some period of time that you are suggesting one might “learn” about the command to be baptized before doing so and during that time the person who has publicly declared their faith would not be in jeopardy of eternal damnation during this discipleship. Assuming of course that being taught in error would allow for being taught properly… It even sounds as if you have the time period covered from pew to baptistery just in case I have a heart attack on my way.. Sort of the Grace of the Gaps.. Is that an accurate understanding ?
I find this whole exercise to be quite interesting in terms of our understanding of Grace. If one believes they are saved before baptism and yet understands that it is indeed a command and does it with that understanding, there are some who believe that person to be incorrectly baptized and facing sure and certain judgment. I find it odd that our Father would work so hard to redeem His children and yet cast them from His presence over a theological misunderstanding. If one has saving faith, will they not then be baptized if properly taught ? So, where exactly is this line of demarcation that separates us from each other…proper understanding ?.. Who has perfect understanding ? Sounds like some Thanksgiving dinners with squabbling families.. If I was God I wouldn’t continue to show up.
Jay, one quick follow up… regarding your Option C… Does this cover the person who is being taught ? Jesus seems to have instructed the Apostles to go and make disciples…baptizing these disciples… what of the teaching period ? If Grace abounds for being improperly taught, does it not also cover the teaching period ? Just curious…
From my youth (long ago) I can remember being taught that if we differ, we can’t both be right, but that both could be wrong. I can’t say that I remember that being demonstrated in practice – but, then, I was young and unaware of what may have been happening beyond my ken.
Thank you, Jay, for reminding us that two opposing positions may both be wrong, and often are. Certainly, when we fire verses of Scripture at one another as artillery shells, something is horribly wrong with our discourse. We need to raise the level of our conversation, and I appreciate you for attempting to do that. That it has not been raised may be a measure of the depth of our all too human depravity!
“I’m very disappointed that the challenges I’d made to the absolute-necessity-of-baptism position have been ignored by those who wish to push for that position because I thought that, even if I were proven to be in error, at least we’d make some progress.”
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
If Jesus felt baptism nessary to the point that he traveled from Galilee to Jordan, to be baptized, I believe it is still necessary that we get up from our seat and walk down the isle to be baptized in Jesus name. This is “work/action” of faith.
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (be baptized every one of you).
I know, if you don’t believe it when you read the bible, my repeating the bible will not make a difference. May God Bless.
Jay,
Just maybe the “Church of Christ position” is as variable as the 27 chairs that were once used to illustrate the divisions among Churches of Christ by Rick Atchley of the Hills Church. After all, there are always labels to be used like conservative or liberal or moderate or progressive or ultra-conservative restrictive and so on and on and on. Now on to your 3 specific arguments …
(1) “Only can be implied.”
The issue here is that this is just another way of expressing the Necessary Inference portion of C-E-NI. Implications, by definition, are NOT clearly stated and usually lead to heated discussions of the merit or lack of merit of the POV that resulted in the interpretation of whatever one or the other claims was implied in a passage.
(2) “Obedience need not be perfect.”
This argument is all too often employed to prove way too much, rather than to clarify what is written. If obedience need not be perfect, then why did Jesus criticize those who were taught that murder is wrong while hating a brother is allowable? Why did Jesus teach that building a house on a bad foundation matters if one does not know their foundation is poorly constructed? After all, there is a lot of sand in concrete footings. Footings are a key part of construction. So why is it that we use concrete footings and all the sand in the mix of them as the industry standard? Must we really build only on bedrock foundations??? Or is that an ONLY you wish I would leave out of this part of the discussion?
(3) “We don’t get to cherry-pick our verses.”
Actually, I agree with this one but disagree with the way you defined it. This goes back to one of the responses you did not like in the previous 300+ comments. “Baptism as absolutely necessary” advocates cannot ignore the verses that talk about believers being saved; BUT, BUT, BUT, “faith is enough for those imperfectly taught” advocates also cannot dismiss those passages that speak of the necessity of baptism, either. NEITHER side gets to cherry-pick. We must give diligence to a thorough study of both facets of soteriology. We do not get to neglect whatever facet of soteriology that we wrestle with just because we are not comfortable dealing with it as presented in the overall scheme of soteriological teachings of Jesus and the apostles and other inspired writers of the scriptures.
Maybe you like my responses or you don’t, but at least now you do not get to claim that an answer has not been attempted/offered/submitted. (Of course, all of these responses in this reply/comment were rehashed/re-stated from the earlier 300+ comments.)
G
Comments like Laymonds to get up from pews to get in the baptistery is not what faith is about. Too many think in that little box that people are saved within a church building with pews and a baptismal, that is not reality. Faith is not making sure you have water nearby when you believe.
“I listed dozens of verses that promise salvation to all who have faith in Jesus.”
Jay, I believe this places the burden of proof on you, what is meant by “faith in Jesus.” ?
I believe Jesus said faith in him, was to do what he said to do. And if you decided against what he said do, you were lost to him, and he didn’t even know you. I am sure there are those who think they know Jesus, when he himself says they don’t, and remain lost.
hardheadedness, is not a virtue, and neither is willing ignorance.
On the subject of “implication”– Jay, while I agree with your conclusion, I think Grizz does point out the flaw in your approach. I don’t think the word “only” is implied in John 3:18 or 5:24. It need not be. Such an inference is a defense against an opposing inference, and as such really does not bear directly on Jesus’ statement at all. The inference you are opposing is that neither passage is reliable taken alone, and are only partially true unless and until conjoined with other recorded passages. That is not really even a matter of inference, but of belief or unbelief.
Jesus is here making simple categorical statements of fact, offered to real people in real space and time. The sentences are declarative and direct. Thus, they stand or fall on their own merit. Either these statements are true, or they are not true. Either they could be depended upon by the persons who heard them, or they could not be relied upon. People begin to look for implications when the simple statements do not satisfy them.
The problem lies in our process-building approach to what is revealed in scripture. We are now able to well demonstrate how one moves from following Jesus to “following the Bible”. We now feel free to disregard and hold as unreliable the very words of Jesus himself, because to do so would somehow challenge the truth of the scriptures as a whole. It is the Bible we trust, and we’ll not have Jesus distracting us from ferreting out its hidden patterns which we depend upon to save us.
When we find ourselves reading a statement made by the Incarnate Word of God, and our first response is, “Yeah, but…” then we have lost our way entirely. We have become disciples of the Bible.
Laymond, You have horribly missed Jay’s point and the tragedy is that you don’t see it that way and will continue to argue against a point you don’t understand.
Jesus DID tell Nicodemus that a new birth of water and spirit was essential for entry into His Kingdom. The Lord Jesus did command that we who tell others about Him are to baptize those who believe, obviously baptize them in water as can be seen in the examples in Acts. Why do some who claim to love Jesus want to disregard the clear command of Jesus that new believers are to be baptized? It makes no sense that such doubters can claim to love Jesus.
Grace,
I think you misrepresent Laymond’s argument. If I am reading it correctly it’s about submission and that we are to submit to it. Jesus the Son submitted to the God the Father and was baptized (and He also had his disciples baptizing those who came to Him.)
We like to quote John 3:35-36 (ESV):
The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
but then tend to stop there while the next verses continue:
4:1-2 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)…
It seems odd to me that the part discussing belief is bracketed by Jesus being baptized and then having his disciples baptizing if baptism was not necessary or, at least, of great importance.
Besides, it’s not a matter of grace vs. baptism vs. faith vs. belief vs. works (we get so blindly binary (i.e. either this or that) in our thinking and teaching sometimes). It’s not faith alone or baptism alone or works alone. It’s a complete package with all parts working in loving symbiosis.
Grace covers a multitude of sins. We can fail in multiple areas and grace still covers our faults. It may be that we all fail to understand the position and importance of baptism. Grace still flows.
A poor analogy is that belief is mother’s milk and baptism (and faith and works) is baby food. I can’t wait for the day we can get to the real meat.
Let’s look at all the scripture on this subject. And let’s focus on the explicit passages. The words ‘save’, ‘saves’ and ‘saved’ are used close to one hundred times in most NT translations. After filtering out contexts of saving for a rainy day and physical rescue one finds the Word of God says we are saved by the following:
Grace
Faith/believe
Jesus
Baptism (yes, it’s there at least twice)
Concerning Challenge 1:
We cannot leave out any of the above. If ‘only’ was implied, then we would be saved by grace without faith. Are we saved by faith without grace? Of course not. Why do we want to leave out baptism when it is explicitly included as are faith and grace?
Jay, how true you are. Thank you for this posting.
It seems to me the folks that have the Bible and do not argue so much are the happiest. They might not have everything just right but as these debates show pretty plainly, who does.
Bottom line is even though we all love the Bible, it is supposed to be the GOOD NEWS and is not to be twisted and used as a weapon to beat your neighbor with, cause hard feelings, etc but to be used to cause love of neighbor and of God. Regardless of the position taken when it is used. not to correct, but to win and condemn the user is wrong.
Love the Bible, but even more love and trust God Himself to judge every human that has and will live right and with grace and mercy ever how you translate its words.
Have confidence that Jesus blood will cover and wash away a lot of error for peoples of all time.
Jay says that faith ALONE is implied by the passages which point to the need for faith in Jesus in order to be saved by Him. He wrote
Shall we just IGNORE the command of Jesus that new believers are to be baptized? Do the examples of how the apostles understood the commission mean nothing?
Jesus DID command that we who tell others about Him are to baptize those who believe. Matthew makes this clear. Other passages make clear that this baptism was in water rather than in some other element. Was Jesus wrong? Did He not understand that faith alone saves? WHY would He command something that’s useless, of no worth? Should we erase Acts 2 from our Bibles? And the several other passages which make clear that baptism is INTO Christ, implying that we are not already IN Christ when we are not yet baptized?
Those who think they know more than did Jesus and His apostles about how sinners are saved generally are willing to admit that repentance is necessary, that sinners are not saved if they still love to wallow in sin. So they do not actually believe in salvation by faith ALONE. They choose to add repentance as necessary. But they want to ignore Acts 2:38 and the apostolic call for seekers to repent and be baptized in order to have sin taken away and in order to THEN receive God’s SPIRIT within. Did any apostle ever promise salvation based on faith alone? Every verse Jay points to about faith does clearly teach the necessity of faith in Jesus in order for a sinner to be saved. Jesus commands baptism for new believers and a drastic change in life. But faith ALONE does not call for baptism or any other obedience to the One in whom we place our faith.
“The fact is that God saves and God ONLY saves. It is by Grace that we are saved.. We don’t earn salvation.”
Price, what does the word “grace” mean to you. the very first time the word grace is used in the KJ bible it means “favor” and there was a reason quoted as to why Noah found favor with God.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Price as far as I can find the very first time the word grace was used in the new testamint
was. Luk 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
As far as I can desern, both times translates to “in good standing with God ” or standing in God’s favor. and there was a reason they were both “in good standing with God”.
Price is right, but does Price know why he is right? God saves, but you will not be saved if you are not found “in good standing with God “.
We are good at pitting faith scriptures against baptism scriptures as if they were incompatible. I have read the 300+ responses and the vast majority of responses are trying to pit one against the other to prove a position. No doubt, after this post, the food fight will continue.
There are many verses in the Bible that do seemingly contradict each other. As an example, “He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (I Cor 1:8) and “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” ( Phil 2:12). Which is it? The first verse suggests that God will keep us until the end. The second verse says we better be fearful we won’t make it. The two verses seemingly contradict each other (security vs. insecurity) but both are absolutely true and thus must be complementary. YES, they both are true. We have been pitting salvation by faith alone against salvation by water baptism as if these concepts are mutually exclusive. They both are true. We are saved by faith in Christ alone AND we should be baptized. Jesus said categorically that anyone who believes in him has eternal life. Jesus did not constantly insert “And is baptized”. We can see from the many faith only scriptures and the few baptism scriptures that the two concepts must be compatible.
Now to Jay’s point: Why does the CoC allow members to be in sin in many areas (lack of service, disregard for the poor, no evangelism, etc…) but at the same time can’t find grace in understanding faith and baptism? Is our God a God that basically hopes we won’t make it or is our God like the father of the prodigal son who ran to hug and forgive him. God is the later. The son was forgiven before he made the journey all the way back to the house. Thus, if someone has an imperfect understanding of baptism or an imperfect understanding of faith, can they be saved? Absolutely!
Laymond, You are correct, we can’t be saved without being in good standing with God. However, the good standing comes from the blood of Christ, NOT from our flawless behavior.
Col 2:13,14 “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”
Look carefully at the verse. We were dead. God made us alive. We did not make ourselves alive by right deeds or choices. Dead people can’t do anything to earn God’s grace. Dead people can’t change to become alive. In our deadness and plentiful sin God reaches down and gives us life. Noah may have found favor with God but he wasn’t righteous enough to earn it. Read further about his life. He has sex with his daughters after getting drunk and produces offspring that became the bane of the Jews for decades. Look at King David, he kills a man to be with his wife. He has a child out of wedlock. He tried to cover up his sin. Yet, because God is merciful he forgave David. The Bible is replete with stories of very sinful and flawed men who God chose regardless. This brings us back to grace. We have an imperfect understanding of faith, repentace, and baptism and God is still gracious with us.
Skip, don’t just say I missed the point, and just leave me hanging, give me the point.
Laymond… context brother, context.. I was sticking to Jay’s request to address the particular points… I addressed “faith only.” I’m glad you agreed with my assertion that we aren’t saved by faith at all…. If you wish to debate that, let me know. Otherwise, jumping off on a rabbit trail on right standing with God and how we achieve that is something I think we were trying to avoid. I think we all know how you feel…
Laymond, Jay made the point clearly.
Nice post Todd,
Jesus said many things concerning faith and believing. Many create a sacred wall around those verses and are unwilling to consider the context and other pertinent information for fear it will implode their wall . A good example of this is in John 3:3-5. Jesus said, “except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Typical interpretations I’ve heard from many(because they understand the implications)are that Jesus doesn’t mean real water, that argument #1 He is using a metaphor for the Spirit, water was sometimes used in such a metaphorical sense- Ok, so, Jesus was saying metaphorically that except a man be born of the water(really he meant the Spirit) and the Spirit(literal here) that he cannot see the Kingdom. Water is figurative and Spirit is literal. Strange. I’ve also #2 – heard it explained that Jesus was referring to the water of physical birth. Something like except a man be born from woman(is there any other way-maybe today with test tubes) and then born of the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom-again strange. However in John’s gospel in chapter 1, John the Baptizer is baptizing in real water. Jesus is baptized in water to fulfill all righteousness. John was hesitant to baptize Jesus saying he needed to be baptized by him-why the reluctance if baptism is only a happy picture of something that has already taken place and isn’t related to repentance and cleansing of any sort? Ah, but I digress. In John chapter 2 Jesus was at a wedding and turned real water into real wine, anyone think it was figurative water? Didn’t think so. In John 3 of course we have those early verses where Jesus speaks to Nicodemus(our subject verses) and a few verses later Jesus of course utters that famous line-whosoever believeth in Him(Jesus) shall not perish but have eternal life. “Hey, no water is mentioned!” But what about the first part of the conversation ? Like 11 verses earlier? Remember the born of water and the Spirit part? Was Jesus excluding that part from verse 16? I don’t think so. Then in the same chapter, we’re back to baptizing in real water just 18 verses after the water and the Spirit in verse 5, and just 5 or so after the famous belief only verse – he that believeth on him should not perish. Then in chapter 4 at the beginning more talk about baptism-real water, also John calls it purifying in verse Jn. 3:25. Also see 1 Peter 1:22 – “Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit…..(23) Being born again, not of corruptible see, but of incorruptible, by the word of God….(25) And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Jesus said you must be born again. How? Read the scriptures that pertain to it. All of them! Don’t take a verse out of context or to the exclusion of all the same person has said on the subject, before or later. Read it as a letter. No one reads a letter from grandma and reads page 4 to the exclusion of pages 1-3 and 5-10. But it happens all the time in scripture. People read Romans Chapter 4 and skip over to Romans 10 and leave off what Paul says in Chapter 6, like Paul changed the subject matter all of a sudden.
Baptism just wasn’t that hard( IMO) for those guys to follow. It is for us because the waters have been muddied. Since the days of John the Baptist they understood that faith, believing on Jesus meant you obeyed what he said. If he said you need to be baptized, then you obeyed by faith. Not obeying was to not believe. Why do you call me Lord Lord and do not do the things I say do? Jesus of course referring to all of HIs teachings(one of which was “repent and be baptized”).
If Jesus said, “go wash in the pool of Siloam and you’ll be healed,” then by faith(belief) you washed in the pool of Siloam. All of it was faith. Not a faith part and then a meritorious works part(going and washing).It was all faith. The whole enchilada. No one, on here, is arguing that faith doesn’t save. It does. God saves, faith saves, the word saves, Jesus saves, baptism saves. We just need to see the “symbiotic nature” of each and appreciate them all without looking with whatever agenda and excluding baptism out of that list.
One last thing( IMO) it is wrong to compare a one time condition of salvation(allowing someone to baptize you) a condition that need not ever be performed on you again, and one that is certainly no problem in complying with (if you believe it’s necessary or even if you just believe it’s a picture) the command to love your neighbor or to walk faithfully. Those things are like the stock market charts, some days are good and some days not so good. Baptism is a one time condition to be met to enter the family of God. Sort of like being born again. Sound familiar?
NEW YEARS RESOLUTION:
SPEND SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TIME AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER, DOING GOOD TO OTHERS AND SAVING THE LOST, THAN ARGUING UNWINNABLE ARGUMENTS WITH BROTHERS. STOP.
Skip says:
Laymond, You are correct, we can’t be saved without being in good standing with God. However, the good standing comes from the blood of Christ, NOT from our flawless behavior.
Skip, is this the argument “once saved always saved” ? disobedience does not cause falling away.?
Hbr 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Hbr 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
I don’t know how one unwillingly decides not to obey the command to be baptized. I believe 10:24 said something about “good works”.
Price, I don’t know why we are told to show love and good works unless it might keep us in good standing with God.
Jay rightly points out “Merely disproving the Baptist position does not prove the Church of Christ position. You must also disprove my position — whether or not I’m part of the conversation. It’s a logical necessity if the goal is truth, rather than defeating your opponent.”
But, Jay, “our” position is not “the Church of Christ” position only. It’s simply what the Bible teaches in simple words no one needs to misunderstand. Anyone misunderstands only because they choose to do so, not because the words are not clear and simple. Those who disagree are disagreeing with JESUS rather than with “the Church of Christ position.”
Jesus commands that we who carry word about Him are to baptize those who believe. The command is not hard to understand. It’s simply stated. Some believe it. Some don’t believe it. It’s one or the other. Jesus COMMANDS that those who believe the gospel are to be baptized. Some choose to not baptize. That’s because they think baptism is unnecessary, it seems.
The apostles of Jesus obeyed Jesus, and without delay did baptize new believers in Him. They believed Jesus knew what He wanted done, and they didn’t doubt they should do what Jesus said was to be done. Many today go a different way. It’s not only Baptists who choose to not obey. Now it’s many in Churches of Christ who choose to not obey and to teach contrary to what the Lord says is to be done.
Jesus never promised salvation to those who believed only. Salvation by faith alone is totally different from what Jesus taught and had His disciples believe and teach. It’s not the “Church of Christ” that commanded baptism. It’s not apostles of “the Church of Christ” who baptized thousands of converts in the first heady days of Christian experience. It was apostles of JESUS Christ who practiced and taught baptism as part of the Way of ENTERING the kingdom.
Men who disregard what Jesus commanded have no excuse for doing so. Their way is not the Way of salvation through Jesus of Nazareth. To promise those outside of Jesus (we are baptized INTO Christ) they are already saved is to claim what cannot be proved. Faith alone is useless, not life-giving. OBEYING the gospel is spelled out by the apostles in Acts 2:38. Seekers who believe in Jesus MUST turn to Him as LORD (turning away from love of sin and self) and accept the baptism JESUS commanded. And THEN the new Christian can walk in “new life” with Jesus.
Any promise which omits the baptism commanded by Jesus is not the Way which leads to life. Some need to remove several passages from their Bible in order to believe in salvation by faith alone. We either accept what the Bible teaches or we ignore part of it. Faith in JESUS is essential for salvation. That’s not in question. Faith ALONE is useless. That’s Bible truth.
Laymond, Did I say “once saved always saved”? Be rational.
I have not read all of the responses because there are many but I thought I would share something. I think a lot of debate over this issue comes from hermeneutic issues. Given many of your other articles, I know you are well aware of this. A debate over baptism is problematic when the argument really begins with a difference in hermeneutics. If we examine our embedded theology and understand our interpretive framework we may realize that our disagreement begins with our “interpretation of interpretation.” A disagreement on Baptism would take a very different turn (hopefully) if the conversation was categorized by interpretive frameworks. A legal framework produces this…, a redemptive hermeneutic produces this…, a missional hermeneutic produces this…, an immediacy hermeneutic produces this…, a creational hermeneutic produces this… We need a willingness to at least concede that such frameworks exist. I am not saying we legitimize them all as equally good or equally flawed but rather understand that these frameworks are real. I myself am learning to define these things so I can better understand people’s perspectives. Honestly, I am preaching to the choir as obviously Jay has done a marvelous job in other posts and this one explaining many of these things. To the issue of the present post I believe a healthy direction for us to move is away from legal interpretations and toward discipleship. Even then it is a challenge not to frame discipleship legalistically, but I mean it directionally as I act to do what Jesus did.
Ray,
Why do you insist on fighting a straw man? Your supposed target is not commenting on this blog that I know of. You said:
“Why do some who claim to love Jesus want to disregard the clear command of Jesus that new believers are to be baptized? It makes no sense that such doubters can claim to love Jesus.”
There has not been one person of the participants who “disregard the clear command of Jesus that new believers are to be baptized”. Not one! There are two, or maybe three of us who believe differently than you and others about the efficacy of baptism but to my limited knowledge all of us baptize believers.
And the insult is your statement: “It makes no sense that such doubters can claim to love Jesus.”
Those “doubters” who don’t want to baptize anyone are a figment of your twisted imagination.
Some people have no need for Jesus at all. All they need is a set of rule and rituals and they are sure they can live good enough to be approved by God in the end. Or, maybe I’m not accurate. Could it be that what Jesus did is give them the chance to save themselves?
Steven, good post and position to be followed.
Who among us believes they have it all understood correctly and just right? Please answer in the affirmative if you do.
Sounds a lot like Jesus saying who will throw the first stone doesn’t it.
Interesting to come to these boards to see if anything debated has caused any change in the thinking and lives of those participating and invariably from posts of the regulars it hasn’t.
Still fun to see who is winning in COC versus the Baptist competition. Sad too as we ALL need grace and mercy from Jesus blood that was shed for us, each of us need it in the same amount.
Laymond, Regarding your previous comment to Price… I don’t do love and good works to keep in good standing with God. I do love and good works because God has loved me. I work out of gratitude, not duty.
When I was a boy, on Saturday afternoons at the local movie theatre, you could get in free by bringing 10 (I believe it was) RC bottle caps and exchange those for a free ticket. Even as a 9 year old kid I knew I had to scrounge around, (usually by tying a magnet to a string and placing it down the bottle cap receptacle on the drink machine once you pop the top, and pulling up the caps a couple at a time, until the quota was reached). I understood the requirement, I wasn’t going to show up and ask for a free ticket without any caps or with just 9 caps. The requirement was 10. I understood that. Now maybe if I had showed up and said, I misunderstood(somehow) what you were asking for, the theatre manger might have been a swell guy and took pity on me and let me in or if I had given him 9 caps and told him I must of lost one on the way there, he may have let me in. I don’t know, I never tried it. I just thought that the 10 caps were a condition that had to be met to get in free.
If God wants to be gracious and let everyone into heaven who doesn’t meet the conditions(certainly all are unworthy) he laid out. I’m fine with that( I say this for the sake of reasoning- certainly God doesn’t answer to me, so please don’t even go there, it’s for argument sake). If He just decides to save everyone unconditionally whether they believe on Jesus or not, repent of their sins or not, be baptized or not, I’m fine with that. Seriously! But, I can’t pretend that Jesus didn’t say that no man cometh unto the Father, except trough me. I can’t pretend that Jesus didn’t say that “unless you repent you will die in your sins.” I also cannot pretend that Jesus didn’t say that except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom. I could not (in good conscience) teach a penitent new believer he didn’t have to be baptized to be saved based on the examples and clear teaching from scripture. Many obviously can.
If I was a child and trapped on a burning roof and my father was down below(whom I couldn’t see because of the smoke) yelling “jump son, I’ll catch you.” And I said, “but dad I can’t see you.” And he yells back , “but son I can see you and if you jump I promise I’ll catch you.” I would be faced with a choice, believe dad and jump into nothingness trusting he catches me or perish on the roof top. What is required of me to jump? Faith in my dad, in what he just said, “if you jump I’ll catch you.” If I don’t jump, I show I don’t trust dad. If I jump, I show I trust him. To me that’s a picture of baptism. Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Baptism is the jumping part, the action that dad told me to do to be saved. Naturally it’s predicated on me believing in my dad. But it’s not a work that “merits” anything. (Dad isn’t rescuing me off the roof because I was especially obedient child). It’s just the way that trust saves us. It’s how dad saved me. I trust(believe) that Jesus accomplished everything that needed to be accomplished in order to procure my salvation by submitting to Him in baptism. Dad says, “this is what you need to do son in order to be saved, trust me and jump.” Now does dad,every time he mentions my being saved, have to say jump? No! He could just say, if you trust me son you’ll be saved and that would of course be true if understood in it’s proper context. He may say, “trust me”, “trust me”, “trust me” repeatedly and say “jump” only once or twice, but that still doesn’t mean you don’t have to jump because I didn’t say jump every time. Strange.
Some on here seem to want the kid (me or anyone else) to have faith(only) and not jump, even though dad is yelling “Jump!” Because, somehow, the child is saved before he jumps into dads arms. Or that the child should jump into dads arms as a picture of the saving that has already taken place. Or that if the child jumped that would nullify dads efforts. Strange indeed.
Regarding challenge #1
The plain reading of scripture assumes the reader understands that there are no unspoken conditions. No one is hiding anything, there are no secret passwords. It’s all laid out. Scripture is perspicuous (an important concept to A. Campbell). Faith alone. Sola Fide. Which brings us to the Reformers and the Five Sola’s. How, I ask my reformed pastor friend, can there be 5 “only’s?” If there are five, then they are not “only.” And in a rare admission for a hyper rational Calvinist his reply was striking–“I don’t know, and I will never know. All I need to know is that it is true.” And so I would echo Rich’s post in which he notes:
“one finds the Word of God says we are saved by the following:
Grace
Faith/believe
Jesus
Baptism”
So Ray, which is it? Grace? Faith? Jesus? Baptism? May I be so bold as to presume Ray’s answer; Yes to all. I don’t get it, and I may never get it, But it’s true. Which is why we should not hesitate to reply “repent and be baptized” when asked the question “what must I do to be saved?”
But we get into a bind when we start making assumptions. We assume since Peter was adamant about a confessing believer being baptized that a person cannot be saved without it. Really? Which scripture did you get that from? Again, presuming to guess at the reply’s I believe that you made an inference, a logical conclusion from scriptures that demand/require/assume baptism. But those scriptures never discuss the inverse. It is we, using the logic of men that form the conclusion. If A is to B as C is to D, and A is equal to C, then B is equal to D. Very Greek, but also extra scriptural.
I am content to quote scripture and let God work out the details.
BTW, the one of the best sermons I’ve ever heard on baptism was not even CoC, but by Francis Chan.
Skip said; “. I work out of gratitude, not duty.” so I suppose the talk Jesus gave in Matthew about goats and sheep, didn’t make much of an impression on Skip.
laymond, I’m not sure I understand the correlation between gratitude/duty and sheep/goats. I have spent a lifetime attempting good works. Most of those good works were out of duty, but more recently those works were of gratitude. Works done out of duty can be most tiring. Works done from gratitude are most exhilarating. I prefer the latter. It would seem God does as well (2 Cor 9:7.)
The problem with requiring works to stay in good standing with God is that it puts you firmly in the Roman Catholic camp regarding the whole discussion of faith alone. To counter the notion of sola fide the Catholic Church held council at Trent in 1545. At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church stated that the believer is “justified by the good works that he performs.”
Now, just because the Catholics believe it doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, but it is a rather uncomfortable position to be in. And not to mention that scripture is clear: our works have nothing to do with our salvation: Gal 2:16, 3:5, 10; Eph 2:8,9; 2 Tim 1:9; Heb 9:14, and all of Romans, but especially 3:20-4:5.
Joh 6:28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”Joh 6:30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Pharisee always want something else.
Royce wrote,
Exactly. No one here advocates against baptism. I advocate for the traditional Church of Christ understanding, except I believe God’s grace will cover error in baptismal practice just as it will cover error in worship practices and all sorts of other errors — for those who remain true to faith/faithfulness in and to Jesus.
Monty,
Interesting posts – but like Royce said – I don’t think anyone is arguing against baptism. If you tell a friend to bring 10 bottlecaps to the theater and he does will the manager give him a free ticket even though he didn’t know that the 10 tickets would get him a ticket? I think that is the argument (although the analogy doesn’t quite hold up). Does one have to have a proper understanding of baptism for it to be a “proper baptism”? At least that is the way I see the question.
Chais,
Thanks for your thoughtful post. Yes, there is a hermeneutical divide, but I think we need to go a bit deeper.
First, there’s a difference in how we perceive God. Is God the father in the parable of the prodigal son, desperate to forgive dreadful sins committed by his son? Or is he a god who hides his intentions in the silences of scriptures that can only be interpreted with special rules that only we have?
Is God like our old history teacher who gave us trick questions, so that the test was more about our ability to find the hidden meanings than the real substance of the course? Or is God like our own parents who would never, ever disown us for an honest mistake?
Second, there’s a question of pride. Is our identity tied to being right about every doctrinal question, about always having the right answer? Or are we humble enough to actually thoughtfully consider the other side and be willing to change should the arguments prove persuasive?
In law school, we were often asked to argue both sides of a case. I would say that this is a really good test of an open mind and whether someone truly knows what he’s talking about. Does the person advocating position A understand position B as well as the advocates for B? If not, he really doesn’t understand A, much less B.
Our hermeneutics tend to reflect our image of God, which is why Jesus spent so much of his ministry teaching us about the character of God. And our hermeneutics often reflect our pride. Hence, many have heard the refrain: That lesson on hermeneutics can’t be right — because if it’s right, then we’ve been in error! (I’ve heard in person and on the Internet many times.)
N.T. Wright wasn’t the first to observe that we become like what we worship. If we worship a graceless God who seeks to damn his own children, then that’s the kind of person we become and the kind of leaders we ordain — and that’s the kind of hermeneutics we adopt.
And so, yes, I very much agree, but until we repent of our pride and spend a little more time in the Gospels getting to know God through Jesus, hermeneutics won’t get us very far.
I was reading one Baptist blog about the “Sinners Prayer.” ANd the problems with it as being a Biblical plan for someone to follow for salvation or not. THe comments there were similar to those here. Some saying it was plenty good enough,(progressives?) others who took more of a middle ground, and then I guess those more conservative who really thought it didn’t go far enough in stressing repentance. Lol! Take out baptism and it seems folks still can’t agree. And here I thought if some just gave up baptism we’d all be on the same page.
Martin, Great comments but I am afraid they will be lost on Laymond. He prefers law and rules over grace and mercy. Unfortunately he appears to be missing the greatest message in the Bible.
Monty, the problem with the bottle cap argument is that God doesn’t want 10 bottle caps. He wants perfection. Since we can’t be perfect we must rely on his grace rather than on our paltry works. Knock yourself out if you want a legalistic religion based on your performance. In the end you will be a frustrated mess and will miss the grace of God.
Jay, upon the previous recommendation, I viewed Francis Chan’s 45 minute sermon on baptism on YouTube. He talks through Acts 2:38, Romans 6:4, and does a masterful job. He captures the gist of your points and talks about a true conversion.
Skip, said that I missed the greatest message in the bible. It seems to me that the great majority of Christians missed it also. I believe Skip says there is nothing demanded of us to stand in favor with God. Now some even say that baptism is not a command, it is a choice, a choice that has no positive or negative effect on salvation.
I believe this doctrine disagrees with what the bible says.
Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
To make a long story short, the sheep are those who worked, and helped others. The goats are those who did no work. the workers are justified, the non-workers are condemned.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Laymond, I have NEVER said nothing is demanded or expected from us. You seem to dramatically overreact to points made. In fact perfection is demanded of us. Since we are incapable of perfection we must rely on the grace and mercy of God to cover our failings.
I know people who spend their whole lives collecting bottle caps. They don’t know exactly how many are required to get into heaven, but they figure if they just keep collecting caps until they die, God will feel obligated to let them in.
Can’t wait to see if this unwinnable argument goes right thru 2013 and into 2014 without stopping for breath. Pathetic. Jesus quickly made His case to His detractors and then got back to doing good to others. Maybe that could be a new years resolution for you all but somehow I doubt it. If I were to check back tomorrow I bet I’d see that some of you went right thru midnight without so much as a “God bless you, brother”. Think about how 2014 can be different.
A good word Steven. Well spoken.
You guys really need to do a little better with my botle cap anaology. The bottle caps were a pretty simple condition to be met. So is baptism. Which is the hardest part of salvation? Is it belief, repentance or obeying the simple command to be baptized? Please think about that one. Please stop trying to make baptism some harsh Law of Moses type thing. It’s a straw man to do so. The hard part of being saved is faith in JEsus and repenting of sins. Baptism is a piece of cake after that. NIght all. And Happy New Year brothers and sisters in Christ!
Steven, Why does a debate trouble you? I have no ill will for anyone in this unwinable discussion. Let us kids play. I am learning different perspectives.
@ Steven… I sort of agree… but since the CoC has many individuals and now whole churches which has decided that baptism isn’t a sacrament, it seems that the discussion warrants some continued discussion. Especially in light of the fact that the CoC has a habit of condemning those that don’t believe as they do….even brothers in “other” CoC associations. Perhaps this will be a year when the condemnation stops and the listening begins. One could hope.
@ Laymond… I can’t imagine how one could read the first few verses of Romans 4 as Paul speaks about Abraham being justified by faith and come away thinking that this inspired word is somehow contradicted by Jesus.. God generally refers to our “good works” throughout the biblical narrative in less than complimentary terms when offered up for compensation. Besides, whatever I do without His help…probably doesn’t turn out as well as I’d like…I’ll give Him the credit for any good thing that I might accomplish. Besides, if He doesn’t “know me” or have a relationship with me, my works don’t accomplish much, huh?
@ Monty… Your belief in the Movie Theater to reward you was what motivated your actions. Hebrews 11 is full of legendary saints who did incredible things but notice by what they were able to perform…Faith… Same as Abraham in Romans 4… He was justified not by collecting bottle caps but by believing in God who told him they were going to collect bottle caps in a place he did not know about… According to the HS speaking through Paul in this same chapter, to allow works to provide justification nullifies faith and makes the promise void.
WE in the COC get in these debates every so often with no end ever coming.
The old COC preachers and many today only read what they approve and preach and tell us plainly to do the same. We as the flock should follow the COC school educated shepherd we hired to lead us. For many years this worked and everyone was happy. Then more got educated, read baptist teachings, asked questions that disturbed their congregation, created many splits each centered on different understandings of the same Bible written for us to easily understand. God is not the author of confusion we see among the churches, we are.. Where we more blessed in ignorance and simple understandings. It sure seems so.
Price said ” I can’t imagine how one could read the first few verses of Romans 4 as Paul speaks about Abraham being justified by faith and come away thinking that this inspired word is somehow contradicted by Jesus..”
What surprised me Price is how a preacher of the gospel could even make such a remark as if Paul’s letters are somehow inspired, but the words of Jesus are not. As someone has said on this very thread ( the church of Christ, should be referred to as the church of Paul) Notice Price did not say that Jesus’ words were not contradicted by Paul, but vise versa. I believe Jesus spoke first. Paul had spoken “no words” for Jesus to contradict when Jesus spoke.
Sorry, I wrote thread, when it should have said blog.
According to Jesus, the works God requires of us is to believe on the one He has sent. But then, that’s just Jesus. He didn’t even HAVE a New Testament. We know so much better now.
I often wonder about the motivation of those who insist that we meet a string of conditions in order to inherit eternal life. To marginalize (or outright reject) the language of faith and grace which rings throughout the NT takes actual effort. Why go to all that trouble? It seems to me that the news that those who believe on Jesus have eternal life and will not be condemned would be good news. For most, it is. For many on this forum, it is clearly not. Why is this? I can think of a few possibilities:
1. The Error Rule. It has long been taught in the CoC that if you get it wrong, you go to hell. At least other people who get it wrong in the particular way they are getting it wrong are going to hell. And the CoC has taught works salvation of one sort or another for years. The holder of this view faces a Hobson’s choice: either spend your life quaking in fear that you will wind up at a brimstone buffet for accepting an errant doctrine, or convince yourself that you are not — repeat, NOT– in the wrong sort of error in any particular, closing your eyes and digging your nails into the doctrines you hold and crying out at the top of your lungs, “I have done what God requires!”
2. Skepticism. What’s the old saying? “If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.” Being granted eternal life before proving yourself the least bit worthy of it is simply too good to be true. We would never make an offer on such terms. And God is at least as smart as we are, so we can’t imagine he would do something so incredibly indulgent and profligate. So, the skeptic spends his life trying to find ways to justify his skepticism without entirely jettisoning the scriptures.
3. Pride. We simply don’t recognize the grace that has been extended to us– for we consider ourselves already fairly righteous on our own account. We thank you, Lord, that we are not as other men are. We have worked hard and sacrificed much to get where we are. To take our lifetime of effort and listen to someone tell us that it is not one bit salvific– not a crumb, not a scrap applies to our salvation– simply makes us mad. We’re not having it. You are not going to convince us that some latecomer is going to grab some greasy grace and with easy believism is going to get into the same heaven as his betters! That would just be wrong.
4. Envy. We are the prodigal son’s brother, we are the 6 AM hires in the vineyard. To think that God would give the same eternal life to these slackers makes us wish WE had played the carnal infidel a while ourselves before settling into a life of sacrifice. They got to have fun AND go to heaven! That’s not fair! We don’t believe this because it leaves us only to be mad at God for this injustice, and we don’t want to admit we would do that…
Skip,
I imagine this is the sermon you mention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wxP0HJX6ME
It’s a really, really good one.
Charles,
It is no surprise to see many jumping on the bandwagon of negativism. Perhaps that is the unintended but very real heart of progressive thought in the context it has sought for itself. That it is a reality is evidenced by the tenor and tone of the discussion, propagated as much by progressive voices as by all others here combined.
To see this negative mindset, one need only look to the comment posted by you, Charles, at 12:16 pm according to the notation on your comment as I see it here in the Central timezone. You found 4 assumed (without any real evidence cited) errors to use to accuse unnamed others among the comment-makers on this blog in particular.
Charles, of which of those four motivations are you NOT guilty? One remembers that when an accusation is made with finger-pointing, the same hand that points one finger at the accused also contains three fingers which are curled to point back at the accuser. So it seems natural to ask the one authoring these accusation which of the accusations his own hand declares himself to be guilty of committing.
Having already wondered aloud why there is not more being done here to seek for common ground, the wonder continues as the very idea of seeking agreement was resoundingly castigated by both the blogger who writes this blog and several others who share his views in general as much or more than most others who choose to make their comments/opinions known. Still … how can conscientious disciples NOT seek that for which Jesus prayed in EVERY arena of study and inquiry? Have we arrived and stopped needing to learn on this (or any?) subject? Is it only one option to seek common ground? Or is it the only path for an admittedly imperfect disciple who seeks His Master’s will above all others, including his or her own?
If those who call for understanding and deference from others do not offer understanding and deference towards those with whom they disagree, how can anyone take their requests or demands for understanding and deference seriously ? If one does not even have enough conviction to practice what he or she preaches while sounding the call, why should anyone else be persuaded by or even much concerned with such a hollow call?
Perhaps I am overly optimistic. If so, it is because of my conviction that Jesus is very much FOR ALL of the people here with such diverse views to share.
Do not be deceived, my fellow readers and commentators, these questions are asked of the one now writing as much as to anyone else present, and intentionally so. And I admit that I do not have all (or perhaps many) of the answers, though I believe that I am (as are most of us here, if not all of us here) in possession of the resources (particularly the Spirit, but also one another) to find the answers. Even so, the three-to-one ratio of fingers accusing myself are as real as those of anyone else who dares to ask for examination of the motives of others.
Perhaps we should just write all of this off as attempts to find sarcastic humor at our own expense. Perhaps not. I know that I need such a grace more often than I likely should, and am confident that the Lord is able to answer that need not only in me, but certainly with others of differing viewpoints. Still, I do not wish to even approach wearing out my welcome at the table where such grace is served up in abundance and with overwhelming love. So, even while I write to challenge the idea that other ‘sides’ in a conversation are always either wrong or right, I realize that the challenge to live all of my own convictions exists in my own heart as much or more than in anyone else’ heart who posts a comment.
I may be alone in the desire and belief that seeking common ground is the best and maybe only way for us to become more effective as a body of believers in a world hostile to the very foundations of our faith. I hope not. Likely I am just the least of such a number, and not even close to the ‘only’ one.
I have rambled on enough. Respond or not as the Spirit of the Lord directs you. I will love you either way – and perhaps the more for those who correct my views than for those who just ignore them.
G
Laymond wrote,
Laymond,
I think you’ve missed an important element of that talk.
(Mat 25:37-39 ESV) 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’
The “sheep” took care of the needy unaware that they were serving Jesus in doing so. They weren’t motivated by the command that if you refuse to help the needy, you are refusing to help Jesus. They were acting out of love.
After all, if you obey a command out of fear, then you aren’t acting out of love for God; you’re acting out of love for yourself.
Ray wrote,
Obviously, all sides think they are advocating for Jesus’ very own position. To say what you say only means that you think you’re right, and of course you do. I think I’m right, too.
Well, of course we should baptize converts without delay. Can you PLEASE understand that I’m NOT pushing the Baptist point of view? And what Church of Christ does not baptize converts? I know of none. The disagreement is whether God will accept a flawed baptism, not whether we should intentionally practice a flawed baptism.
This is the core of understanding grace. God forgives sin. Does that mean that he encourages sin? The church teaches God’s forgiveness of sin. Does that mean the church encourages sin?
I really think you need to re-read your Gospels, esp. John. And although Jesus did sometimes baptize through his apostles, we have FAR more mentions of Jesus forgiving with a word, and no baptism at all. If Jesus came to teach that baptism is absolutely essential, why forgive so very many without baptism at all? And why does the Gospel of Luke not mention Christian baptism even once? Luke emphasizes faith in Jesus.
Does that mean we shouldn’t immediately baptize converts? Of course not. Does that mean God will damn those with a genuine faith in Jesus and repentance but a flawed baptism? Of course not.
Of course. But does that mean that all who sin are damned? The whole point of grace is that we don’t deserve it and have no excuse and so desperately need it. It’s a free gift given to the faithful/those with faith.
“Faith” includes faithfulness and hence a penitent heart. Those with faith want to do God’s will. Those with faith do not rebel. Those with faith do not intentionally refuse to honor God’s commands. But they do sin and they do make mistakes, and their sins and mistakes are covered by grace.
Hence, it’s impossible to speak of someone with faith who intentionally refuses to honor God’s commands. But there are countless millions with a genuine faith who’ve been taught error as to baptism. They are not in rebellion and they are faithful. Many have even given their lives for Jesus. And their imperfections are covered by grace.
Monty wrote,
Monty,
The fact that baptism is “easy” is beside the point. If a convert has a genuine faith in Jesus and a genuine repentance, but is a babe in biblical knowledge, he will only obey the command to be baptized to the extent he has been taught correctly. For a new convert, being baptized correctly while being taught incorrectly is not easy.
On the other hand, you make a much more substantial point when you argue that baptism is a condition of salvation rather than an act of obedience. Errors in obedience are covered by grace. Conditions might be different. Faith in Jesus is more of a condition than an act of obedience, right? So might the condition of salvation be faith in Jesus + baptism?
Well, faith in Jesus is always mentioned as a condition of salvation. Sometimes other words are used to the same effect. “Confess” often means “confess faith.” “Repent” in Acts 3:19 is used to mean “repent from your lack of faith.” Context.
But the majority of the time, baptism is not mentioned as a condition. In fact, baptism is always expressed in terms of “if you’re baptized, then you’re saved,” which is NOT logically equivalent to “if you’re not baptized, then you’re not saved.”
As mentioned in an earlier comment, although Jesus baptized, through his apostles, nearly all those whom he forgave were forgiven for their faith with baptism — when Jesus certainly could have told these people to go get baptized and then and only then their faith would be effective.
And the necessity of faith goes back to God’s covenant with ABraham. In Rom 4 and Gal 3, Paul argues at length that faith is counted as righteousness because of the terms of God’s covenant with Abraham — and Abraham was never baptized (and was only circumcised years later).
In short, I eventually came to the conclusion that baptism is an act of obedience and, by God’s choice, the moment when we receive baptism of the Spirit and salvation — normally. That’s how God intends for it to be.
But if you look at the scriptures from Genesis to REvelation, we are saved by God’s grace through our faith in Jesus, normally at the moment of our water baptism, which is symbolic of and concurrent with baptism of the Spirit. We receive the Spirit and are saved when we obey in baptism — normally.
But because faith is fulfillment of the God’s covenant promise, and baptism is not, and because God always honors his covenant promise, he will honor faith when the baptism is flawed. To do otherwise would be to not be faithful to his covenant with Abraham.
But that does not remotely prove the Baptist position. The baptism verses are still there and should be honored. It’s just that new converts — babes in Christ — will not be damned if they have less than a scholar’s expertise on baptismal theology.
Ray wrote,
No one is making that argument. This is pure strawman.
Jay,
If I am faithful to my own understanding, does that make me faithful to Jesus? It would seem you think so. And does it matter how flawwed my understanding may be? It would seem you do not think it matters.
An inspired writer wrote that if I have faith to move mountains, but have NOT love, my faith is of no account. Doesn’t that conflict with your position? It seems that there really are some conditions that disqualify even a person who has faith enough to move mountains. It seems to me that there is a principle in there that modifies the faith necessary to be saved. Am I imagining things?
PS – this is why I think/believe/am convicted we need to study faith closer before declaring definitive boundaries around what it is and what it is not.
G
Rich wrote,
Rich,
High marks for a clever argument. But there’s a fatal flaw.
I tell my son that he may watch channel 3 on TV only. My son then brushes his teeth. Well, by your argument, he is obviously disobedient because “only” excludes everything other than the thing mentioned.
But in reality, in most contexts, “only” only excludes alternatives of the same type (lawyers say: sui generis). Hence, my “only” means my son cannot watch another channel. It doesn’t keep him from doing his homework.
The “type” is determined by context, which could be broader than the words spoken or written. Relationships and history could impact the call. It’s not the sort of determination that is purely mechanical.
Now, faith and grace are not of the same type. We are saved by grace through faith. Grace is a quality of God. It’s is desire — urgency even — to forgive his children. Grace comes from God.
Faith is a quality of us mortals. Consider,
(Joh 3:18 ESV) Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
“Believe” is the verb form of “faith.” The “only” is clearly implied by the sentence structure: “whoever believes” rather than “some who believe.”
So where is grace? Well, the entire verse is grace. The verse is God’s promise to forgive those who believe. That’s grace.
It would be utter nonsense to say “whoever believes in him and receives grace from God is not condemned.” Do you see? The exact equivalent of what John wrote is “Whoever believes in him receives grace …”
Grace simply does not parallel faith in the salvation of men.
However, baptism can be easily expressed in parallel with faith, as in —
Laymond wrote,
Laymond,
I notice your modifier: “willing.” But what of unintended ignorance? Does that damn as well?
It is unfair and untrue to presume that all who’ve been baptized incorrectly did so in willing ignorance. I doubt that a single person has ever gone to the baptistry intending to do so in a flawed way to rebel against God. If it ever has happened, it’s surely a rare event.
So, yes, if we could fairly impute to every Baptist on the planet a flawed baptism in which the convert intentionally violated the will of God, yes, such people would not be saved — not because of their flawed baptism but because of their lack of faithfulness/repentance.
Charles said, “The Error Rule. It has long been taught in the CoC that if you get it wrong, you go to hell. At least other people who get it wrong in the particular way they are getting it wrong are going to hell. And the CoC has taught works salvation of one sort or another for years. The holder of this view faces a Hobson’s choice: either spend your life quaking in fear that you will wind up at a brimstone buffet for accepting an errant doctrine, or convince yourself that you are not — repeat, NOT– in the wrong sort of error in any particular, closing your eyes and digging your nails into the doctrines you hold and crying out at the top of your lungs, “I have done what God requires!”
If you notice here on this thread it is being said repeatedly that others are not as scholarly as the CofC are, they don’t know the Bible as well as the CofC does, those who don’t believe baptism is salvic have flawed baptism. These comments fit rather well in this category, the only difference with the error rule is that some are saying, all those stupid people are forgiven for being stupid.
I completely agree with you Charles.
Grizz wrote,
I’m struggling to understand your point. ALL language requires a process of implication/inference. ALWAYS. Take the simplest of cases.
“Jesus wept.”
Which “Jesus”? There were thousands of men named Jesus in the early First Century in Palestine. We infer that “Jesus” is the Jesus whom we worship — and this from the context.
“Wept” is past tense. But we therefore infer that Jesus stopped weeping, that this is a completed act, but that he might later weep again. We infer that this is not continuous weeping but weeping at a moment in time.
This inferences are so very obvious that we don’t think of them as inferences, but inferences they are.
To suggest that X should be implied from passage Y does not mean that we adopt CENI anymore than suggesting that we ought to obey God’s commands means we adopt CENI.
So there is no grace and we’re all damned? Is that your position?
The point is that (a) of course God wants perfect obedience, and we should want to perfectly obey, but we’re going to fail and yet God is going to extend grace to those whose obedience is imperfect and save them — if they remain true to their faith. And that principle applies to baptism just as it applies to murder and hatred.
Really? Again you assume that there are TWO AND ONLY TWO SIDES in responding to a post that points out how this assumption is no longer allowed. I’m arguing for a third position. And my position is built on both sets of verses. Please don’t trot out the arguments against the Baptist view of baptism to contradict my views. That is NOT what I believe.
Laymond, you might consider slowing down a bit and reading without trying to argue. My point was that it is YOUR problem with properly understanding works. The Holy Spirit would not have contradicted Jesus…So, if you think justification by faith is a contradiction from what Jesus said, then it is you who misunderstands…not Jesus…not the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul… I’m actually surprised that you hold Paul’s writings in such little regard. As I recall it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him… Any disagreement between these letters and the four gospels is a matter of personal error in interpretation… no inspiration of the writer.. assuming one believes in the inerrancy of scripture.
Price asked,
I’m not sure I’m following you. Are you assuming a time during which a non-Christian is being taught about Jesus but has not yet come to faith? Well, faith in Jesus defines the borders of the Kingdom. God covenanted with Abraham to save those with faith. “Whoever believes” is saved.
Therefore, until someone comes to the moment of faith, they are not saved because they are not yet in grace.
Price asked,
My view is that the normative soteriology is that the Spirit and salvation are received at the moment of baptism in genuine faith in Jesus, but that God will not fail to save those with a genuine faith in Jesus despite a flawed baptism.
What about the person rushing to the church building to be baptized who is run over by a train (evidently a very common occurrence where I grew up)? Was that person saved when he came to faith?
Well, salvation is ultimately about what God does with you after you die. God will not damn such a person, I’m very confident. Does that mean he was “saved” before then?
In NT Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God, he argues that, in Paul’s vocabulary, salvation occurs when we die and that justification occurs when we are first converted. Justification, he believes, is concurrent with baptism and is the declaration by God, through the church, that this person has faith and the promise of salvation.
Thus, someone might be not yet justified but receive salvation at death because of his faith. And there is thus no contradiction between saying that justification occurs at baptism and that salvation occurs when you die (or Jesus returns).
There is more to baptism than justification, because that is also when you receive the Spirit, which marks you as justified and a holder of the promise of salvation.
And, ultimately, salvation occurs in God’s time, not ours. It’s an event that occurs in heaven, where God lives, which is not bound by earth time. And so I am confident God has no problem knowing who would have been baptized if only they’d not been killed by a train, and God will save them.
But that person will have not yet been justified — and that’ll be no barrier against God’s love and grace.
Grizz,
I’ve only argued for a very conventional understanding of grace and for the application of that understanding as to errors in baptismal practice and theology. This hardly means that all errors are covered by grace, because grace has boundaries — as I’ve taught here many times. People can and do sometimes fall from grace.
I have carefully, repeatedly said that grace is only for those who remain true to their faith/faithfulness.
You seem to suggest that those who fail to love others are not faithful. How does that require a perfect baptism?
Faith necessarily includes faithfulness. Faithfulness contradicts rebellion against God’s known will. Faithfulness requires us to love (and many other things). But faithfulness does not require a perfect understanding of baptismal theology.
The old argument that we are not faithful unless we understand every rule about how to worship, how to be baptized, and who to appoint as elders — and get those rules exactly right — is simply false and legalism of the worst kind. It imposes gracelessness on an arbitrary list of doctrines, so that our denomination (and only a minority of us) is saved and all others are damned, while allowing grace for our own sins.
It’s hypocritical and should be called out for the damage that it’s done to countless good Christians. It turns obedience into an exercise in understanding the Law of Generic and Specific Authority just the way the editor of some church magazine sees it and it tears up the Churches of Christ and congregations and families over some of the most absurd “doctrines” imaginable.
If we want to insist that baptismal theology be perfect to work, then what do we do with the hundreds of thousands who were baptized denying that they received the Holy Spirit? How is that covered by grace when a baptism to obey but not to receive remission of sins is outside of grace? I fail to see a meaningful difference.
Jay,
I read your little example of the child watching the tv then brushing his teeth, but I believe that it is in no comparison to the concept that we are studying. I’ll attempt to explain,You tell your son he can only watch channel 3 on the tv, your son really wants to watch channel 6 therefore he turns the tv onto channel 6 and positions a mirror so that he is watching the mirror. He is not disobeying both parts of your command therefore you cannot punish him. This is the exact parallel to the applications taking place in this study of baptism.
Any one who hears enough from a teacher to interest them into being a follower of Jesus is not dependent upon being mislead by even the same teacher that first brought their attention to Jesus. In fact if a preacher or teacher attempts to teach principles that are not easily compared to the scriptures by individuals with only a minor education, there is something drastically wrong with the message being taught. I can affirm that the scriptures were written in language that the common men could understand, Scribes and Pharisees were not the people who the good news was written to they refused to believe. That constitutes the majority of all misunderstanding today, we do not look at the message as it would have been understood in the eyes of the common readership in the first century. A first Century reader listening to some of these comments today would shake their head in unbelief that we could mess it up so drastically.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! I knew you kids would still be at it! 2014!!! LOL. And no I won’t be tempted into endlessly debating about how endless debates are endless. We’re saved by grace through faith. Living faith. God said to baptise, so do it. And pretty much every believer does. So except them as fellow brothers, saved by grace and continuing to struggle as we follow the perfect one who saved us. Wow, is that simple. Or don’t. Either way, resist the temptation to endlessly debate and go do something productive to this sick and suffering world in the name of Jesus. Uh oh I’ve been here too long and I feel the temptation coming. Run!
Jay Guin says:
January 1, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Laymond wrote,
Skip said; “. I work out of gratitude, not duty.” so I suppose the talk Jesus gave in Matthew about goats and sheep, didn’t make much of an impression on Skip.
Laymond,
I think you’ve missed an important element of that talk.
Jay said nothing to Skip for working for recompense. to repay God for something. I don’t recall that Jesus gave a reason why they did what they did, simply that they did it and he noticed they did it.
And the other bunch didn’t do it and he noticed that also. I don’t think obedience or gratitude was mentioned.
I don’t think I said those who worked did it out of fear, or even expecting a reward, evidently they didn’t because they didn’t recall when they did it. they did it out of the goodness of their heart, and God can read one’s heart.
@ Jay.. Sorry I wasn’t clear… In the normal course of things it seems that someone could be taught about Jesus and that the person could come to believe that He is the way, the truth and the life and that faith in Him would provide salvation through Grace. It seems logical that there would also be some necessary teaching on baptism. A new believer who was wanting to know what this baptism thing was might want to likewise be taught about it… I assume based on what you’ve said thus far that you would assume that God’s grace was sufficient for a person whom HE knew had placed his trust in Jesus and that he would in fact be saved if that dog gone train happens to run over him before he is properly taught and obeys the command to be baptized.
Larry, it is the desire to BE RIGHT, not the desire to DO RIGHT.
When it comes to baptism and salvation I don’t think Alexander Campbell’s Lunenburg Letter has ever been equalled. I never thought of Dr. Carroll Ellis at Lipscomb as a progressive but to his credit he gave each one of his students a copy of the Lunenberg Letter in a 1975 class I had with him. I have never since heard any reasoning that would cause me to question Campbell’s eloquent essay affirming that there are unquestionably unimmersed Christians. The same truth was implicitly but strongly affirmed by Rubel Shelly when he declared that there are “sincere, knowledgeable and devout Christians” in all denominations in his ground breaking book, I Just Want To Be A Christian, some thirty years ago. That that truth is still controversial for so many in Churches of Christ is a symptom of an exclusivist mindset that helps to explain why numerical decline continues for this fellowship.
As we have heard before, “It’s not once saved always saved and it’s not if saved barely saved.”
“Nor is it hope that your prayers exceed your sins by one and keep your fingers crossed.” I heard that from a minister so can’t take credit for it.
Jay,
Regarding John 3:18 and Rom 3:22-24, you stated, “The usual tired, obviously wrong Church of Christ response is, “Well, they don’t say ‘faith only.’” First, this is NOT, NOT, NOT necessarily a tired, wrong response. I have many Baptist friends; I have many Baptist family members. In fact, my Uncle is a Baptist Minister, and my Brother-in-Law is a Deacon in the Baptist Church. I can tell you without any equivocation that they believe “faith only” to inhere in these two passages and a host of others. I’ve heard these arguments firsthand. Notice a few others:
-Baptist Distinctives states, “While Baptists agree that the Bible teaches that salvation is always and only by grace through faith alone, they have differed on how grace and faith are involved in salvation. For example, not all Baptists have agreed on the relationship of God’s sovereignty and humankind’s free will.”
-CH Spurgeon – “Salvation is through Christ alone and by faith alone.”
-Random internet Baptist website – “The doctrine of salvation by faith only or faith alone teaches that a sinner receives forgiveness simply by belief in Jesus without obedience or works of any kind.”
-Another random internet Baptist website – “Romans 3:28- “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith (alone) without the deeds of the law.” Notice the inserted word “alone” in parenthesis.
-While not a Baptist document, the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 1972 Edition, p. 55, states, “Wherefore, that we are justified by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort.”
I recognize that beliefs vary throughout those who call themselves Baptists; however, most Baptists with whom I am familiar hold to this doctrine. Given that you spend a considerable amount of time referring to Baptists in this article, I don’t find it remarkable that many members of the Church of Christ would immediately begin countering the “faith alone” argument with regard to these two verses.
Most of the members whom I know also would point out that “faith” in these passages is used as a figure of speech, a synecdoche. According to Webster, a synecdoche is a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole. We see this figure of speech in relation to other things:
-Luke 13:3 and Repentance – “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” No mention of any other conditions. Synecdoche.
-I Peter 3:21 and Baptism – “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…” No mention of any other conditions. Synecdoche.
Larry,
I honestly have no idea how your first paragraph responds to what I said. I have no idea how grace from God as opposed to faith in a convert compare to channel 3 and channel 6 viewed through a mirror.
Larry next wrote,
So your argument is that if someone converted by a Baptist and taught Baptist theology doesn’t study his way out of it very quickly, he is ignorant and lacks common sense and, like the Pharisees of old, wilfully refuses to believe? Is that really how you see the Baptists?
I agree that the First Century readers did not derive a Baptist understanding from apostolic teaching. That came 1500 years later. But there are far more Baptists and other Calvinists than there are members of the Churches of Christ, and they are not all ignorant and foolish. In fact, I find them, on the whole, very dedicated to Jesus, very intelligent, and filled with common sense.
You can’t build a doctrine of grace and love on a slander. And the Churches of Christ have far too long dismissed their opponents as intentionally turning their backs on the truth. It’s not true and we need to stop.
Kevin,
You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. I was not saying that Baptists don’t teach a “faith only” view of salvation. They do — properly understood and not as caricatured by their opponents.
My point is that the requirement that Christians obey GOd — which EVERYONE agrees on — does not mean that a flawed baptism damns, any more than it means that a flawed love for our neighbors damns. Unless you’re willing to say that all sin damns, then you can’t say that error in baptism necessarily damns.
Yes, yes, yes, we must be obedient — but we can’t play games by saying that one is only obedient in baptism if they get it exactly right but getting any number of other teachings wrong can be covered by grace if we continue in our faith/faithfulness. I mean, if my mother insists that 1 Cor 11 requires that she wear a hat to church, and I disagree, does that mean one of us is necessarily damned? But if God will forgive that sort of doctrinal error for those with a genuine faith, why won’t he forgive a flawed baptism for those with a genuine faith?
And as I’ve said before, this is the great sin of the 20th Century Churches of Christ. We presumed to know that God would never grant grace for instrumental music but would grant grace for the sins common to us all, such as lust or anger. We granted grace for those sins that we might be guilty of and denied grace for any sin that might allow a different denomination to be saved.
And as Todd Deaver showed in Facing Our Failure (http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/deaverministries), we did so without a theory as to how to tell the difference. We just presumed to know the unrevealed will of God.
As to baptism, I’m just suggesting that the grace that saves me because of my faith/faithfulness will also save those who also have a genuine faith/faithfulness but a flawed baptism. For those with a genuine faith/faithfulness, grace covers error.
And we in the Churches of Christ had better hope that I’m right, because countless of our members went under the water, convinced that they would NOT receive the personal indwelling of the Spirit. Their understanding of the effect of baptism was in error, and by our traditional logic, they are damned. And I believe that to be sadly mistaken.
Paul may well have had the Churches of Christ in mind when he wrote,
(Gal 5:13-15 ESV) 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
We are so anxious to damn the Baptists and other Calvinists that we’ve managed to damn many of our brothers and sisters in the Churches of Christ.
AMEN Jay. Great thoughts.
Agree Jay, and the folks I have reading your site from my computer are for the most part thinking as you do on here but keeping quiet to not get in trouble in their church of Christ. Instead of me saying much it is great to have all those participating on here doing it for me and of course for them.
My old friend Frank Smith who is LeGards father knew this was coming and I believe he would be proud of what you are doing by having this site open for these discussions as the church of Christ is sure changing to allow more thinking that others will be in heaven but them. How this has helped with those that have died in talking to their loved ones that were not church of Christ and easing the fear of dying for those terminally ill who couldn’t be baptized no matter how much they wanted to be. Funerals of the progressives are far more rejoicing than those of the conservatives, especially among their kin
Thank you!!!!
Ala. John and Skip,
I appreciate the encouragement.
Not too many years ago, I attended the funeral of a missionary who’d converted thousands to Christ. The man giving his eulogy said, “If anyone of us has done enough to get to heaven, surely this man has.”
Of course, the audience had few who’d converted the lost by the thousands, and hundreds left feeling nothing but despair.
It would be absolutely shocking if we polled our congregations and asked them one question. “If you died today and stood before God and he asked you, “Why should I let you into my heaven?” What do you think the answers would be? “I’ve tried to live a good life.” “I have been baptized and have been faithful.” I just wonder what percentage would even make reference to Jesus?
My late father-in-law, a good godly man who had served two churches as an elder at age 91 or 92 told be he had not assurance of he would make it to heaven. He feared he had not been good enough or done enough. This man attended Bible classes and heard sermons for over 80 years and didn’t have a clue what Jesus had accomplished for him.
Our Bible teaching is woefully lacking in many of our churches. Please, let’s teach the gospel. Not just the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and baptism, but lets learn and teach what that means for sinful people.
Jay, I do appreciate your thoughtfulness which allows God’s grace to be the agent of salvation rather than our getting everything right. I believe your arguement was not against the necessity of baptism, but FOR the grace of God. Certainly we believe in the necessity of baptism, but “Doing the will of the Father” is much more than simply that. I have been washed in the blood of the Lamb as faith prompted me but I also know I am expected to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit those imprisoned. Let those who have their cable tv and fine homes think about what Jesus would think as many are starving throuout the world. What would Jesus think of our living in fine homes when members of our community or even our church fellowship have trouble feeding their families or providng them with warm clothes. I have seen this far to often for anyone to deny it is happening all around us. What good is our baptism, even done in faith, if we don’t fulfill every teaching of Jesus to our fullest ability? It seems like many are still living in a law system not realizing that the whole law must be kept perfectly when doing so. If they would deny salvation to someone who learned baptism incorrectly then they will have to be held to the same standard when it comes to every facet of their life. I do recognize wilfull ignorance of the word is cause for God’s rejection but so is wilfull ignorance of what Jesus meant when He taught us to love one another, and to care for the needs of others. We ALL need grace everyday. When Paul said, “None is righteous, No Not One,” he was speaking to all of us. If we believe Baptism saves us to the degree that many have posted, then we are indeed Baptismal Regenerationist as we have been long accused. I for one will not be so guilty. I will preach, teach, and admonish with the necessity of baptism to my dying day, but I will also always recognize that God’s grace is not only greater than all my sin, but is also greater than all the sin of those who truly seek Him in faith, and I will let Him decide who it is that truly seek Him. In loving respect, a fallen brother saved by grace.
Jay,
You were attempting to apply the tv to tooth brushing to an act of obedient or not.
My comment was directed to when your son brushed his teeth had nothing to do with disobedience in watching the tv.
But a method to watch the channel he wanted to by only disobeying a portion of your command is direct disobedience.
Maybe helping you to understand this will serve to help the understanding of the balance of the post.
Jay,
I have been to many Baptist baptisms and have been able to reconcile my differences with many maybe all churches that baptize. I do believe that it is an important enough action that it should be done as soon as humanly possible to the believers commitment. I also know individuals that have committed to Christ or at least to their church and their lives display a lot of likeness to Christ’s teachings that have never been baptized, whom I have attempted to teach the importance of following the example in scriptures they have not complied, I am not their judge but if I totally accept their position of being, “born into Christ” (something that is never stated in scripture as being accomplished by belief or faith) as I understand you to be promoting. I have a real problem believing that would be the same directive that Christ or the Apostles would have given to an individual after the Great Commission.
I know that you have expressed that you see the majority of churches baptize, but in the area which I live that is rare, most do not baptize and that is probably the reason that my communications seem different to you, you continually contrast Baptist and CoC and I personally desire to display the picture in scripture. I remember many commenting and I believe that you also mention that where there are two sides of an issue both can be equally wrong. Anyone that attempts to look at what is taught by both Baptist and CoC will be able to see imperfection. The goal here should never be to contrast the two, look at the original.
Jay,
I found this intriguing that you would use this as an example.
But there are far more Baptists and other Calvinists than there are members of the Churches of Christ, and they are not all ignorant and foolish. In fact, I find them, on the whole, very dedicated to Jesus, very intelligent, and filled with common sense.
Would not the same picture have been displayed by the Scribes and Pharisees, very dedicated to to God, very intelligent, and filled with common sense? They just had a problem accepting Jesus. Many men today have a problem accepting the messages in scripture when it is pointed out errors that they practice. Changing their dedication to a tradition, older teachings from historians or church fathers in place to allowing the Word to be their guide. I really do not remember anyone on this blog referring to Christ becoming the Word, how do you see that?
Larry, There are stubborn Baptists and stubborn CoC members. Often times the most pigheaded ones I ever met were smug CoC members.
Jay, The tragedy in your story about the missionary is that if he did not understand grace, he could not have properly instructed his converts in grace. He just converted a slew if legalists.
Royce said; ” This man attended Bible classes and heard sermons for over 80 years and didn’t have a clue what Jesus had accomplished for him.
Our Bible teaching is woefully lacking in many of our churches. Please, let’s teach the gospel. ”
Royce you have a pretty good platform right here. Or if you had rather use your own blog, I will read it there. I know I am banned from commenting there, but you can’t ban me from reading.
Tell us exactly what Jesus did for us, you say the CoC woefully neglects to inform, so inform.
Inform in a way that the simplest of us can understand. Step by step just what it was that Jesus did for sinners. And if you know please include why he did it.
Laymond,
I know you asked Royce to respond and I am sure he will. But I can jump in and share the gospel with you if you wish. We are sinners and lost. Jesus came to the earth and died on a cross for us. If we believe in Jesus Christ and trust him and his sacrifice for our sins and if we accordingly respond to his offer, we can be cleansed of our sins and be in his kingdom. By grace we will be given the opportunity to walk with him, to know him, to love him, and to serve him. I hope that sums it up.
Skip, this is Laymond being Laymond. He knows quite well what I teach. We’ve been down this road many times. Laymond rejects the Christ of the Bible and any of Paul’s writings that stands in contrast to a works based salvation. He rejects the Holy Spirit and is far closer to Jehovia’s Witnesses than Christians.
Larry, perhaps you could give the phone number to the churches you say don’t want to baptize, I have never known a church that doesn’t want to baptize people, it’s a good rule to hear it from both sides rather than to speculate what was actually said. And everyone here who are slamming our Baptist brothers and sisters saying they baptize with flawed baptism should tell them about this blog so they can say whether they baptize with the Great Commission the Lord gave we should baptize with. I have heard that if you’re pointing a finger at someone else you have three pointing back at you, you are putting people on trial when they don’t even know a trial against them is being held.
Larry,
I have many Baptist friends. I know some Baptist pastors quite well. And what you say about them is just not true. Yes, they teach error in their baptismal theology, but so do many Church of Christ preachers.
Remember the Parable of the Ungrateful Servant. And remember the Sermon on the Mount. I would not deny to others the grace granted to me.
Jay said; “And as I’ve said before, this is the great sin of the 20th Century Churches of Christ. We presumed to know that God would never grant grace for instrumental music but would grant grace for the sins common to us all, such as lust or anger. We granted grace for those sins that we might be guilty of and denied grace for any sin that might allow a different denomination to be saved.”
First off I want to say I don’t believe the congregation singing and praising God, even with instrument accompaniment could ever be considered a sin. but some do and that is just a fact.
But Jay’s comparison of sins forgiven, and sins not forgiven has a flaw. Sins of lust, and anger are not forgiven if the sinner never ask for forgiveness of those sins, and why would a person ask forgiveness for instrumental music if they didn’t see as a sin.
Jay,
I understood the point you were making. My comments were tangential, and I didn’t articulate my intent very well. I was merely commenting on what you perceived to be a “tired, obviously wrong” response relative to church members who challenge the notion that “faith only” inheres in various NT passages, namely “Well, they don’t say ‘faith only.’” This response is neither tired nor obviously wrong given that a significant portion of Christendom believes that these passages actually do, in fact, mean “faith only.”
You then stated, “And so unless we’re willing to accuse the Spirit that inspired these verses of lacking integrity, we really have to accept the many, many promises to save those with faith as true. God keeps his promises. All of them.” Jay, you have mentioned that you reject “faith only” theology, and I know that you do; however, you seem to be arguing the other side of the fence with this statement. On the one hand, you reject “faith only” as bad theology, but on the other hand you seem to argue that the HS would lack integrity if faith means anything more than faith. I am confused. Hence the reason I stressed that Matthew, Paul, Jesus, et al sometimes used “faith” (a part of the whole) as a synecdoche, a figure of speech, to reflect the whole.
I absolutely agree that some members of the church caricature Baptists and others; however, I have also witnessed a significant amount of caricaturing directed towards conservative members of churches of Christ by both Baptists and our own less conservative brethren. For example, you reject caricaturing of Baptist theology, and rightly so; however, you seem to then caricature conservative brethren with this statement: “We are so anxious to damn the Baptists and other Calvinists…” Now I know that you led off this sentence with “we”, but I suspect you are primarily referring to conservative brethren. I don’t personally know any conservative member who is anxious to damn anyone. Just because one believes a doctrine to be false and just because one boldly defends what he believes to be the truth doesn’t mean that he/she is anxious to damn anyone. That would be an unwarranted caricature.
You stated, “As to baptism, I’m just suggesting that the grace that saves me because of my faith/faithfulness will also save those who also have a genuine faith/faithfulness but a flawed baptism.” I agree. No arguments here. So, now where is the “So, what?” What does all this mean? Do we cease preaching against a doctrine (faith only) that is contrary to the truth? I don’t think so. Just because grace covers error does not mean that we cease opposing error. So, what is the way ahead?
One last point. You stated, “And we in the Churches of Christ had better hope that I’m right, because countless of our members went under the water, convinced that they would NOT receive the personal indwelling of the Spirit.” I read Todd Deaver’s book several years ago, and he made several legitimate points. I don’t believe this to be one of them. The process by which one becomes a new creature, a Christian, is a “pearly gates” question. Time after time scripture confronts us with a “pearly gates” fork in the road when it comes to initial salvation:
-John 8:24 “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
-Luke 13:3 “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
-John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
As a 16 year old, I met with a Baptist youth pastor and told him I was in a dilemma of sorts. I had always believed “on Jesus” as a youth (mostly from watching and listening to Billy Graham Crusades on TV. As my parents were not church goers) but I had a friend who was showing me some scriptures(all he did, didn’t try to “teach” me) that seemed to suggest I needed to be baptized to be saved. Maybe I just contacted a dud, but all he said that day was “That’s not the way we teach it.” Seriously! That’s all he had to say. If he had said, “We teach baptism is a picture of what has already happened and while not necessary for salvation, you really ought to do it if you truly love Jesus.” I would have let the guy baptize me, I believe. I left that day and let the scripture be my guide.
Baptism, as I have said before, isn’t a problem, unless you’re taught wrong and if you are taught it isn’t necessary then you will not teach someone else they “have to” do it. You will not command it, you may teach it, but you won’t command it. Some on here tippy-toe around that idea saying that they teach it, (so that makes everything groovy) but they won’t even answer a simple yes/no question of “would they command it”, they say they would “teach that it is a command”, but implied by their dancing around the question, they would not command it to wash away sins.
But herein lies the problem, the Baptist Youth pastor never saw me as a lost person. He never questioned me about my repentance or my lifestyle or any of that. I was just saved because I believed in Jesus. And I suppose he believed as I have heard it explained by some on here, “that will lead you to everything else you need to do, eventually, or else you didn’t have a real conversion.” If my friend in the CofC( who was pointing out scripture had arranged a meeting with his minister)- what do you think would have happened that day? Not with some ultra right wing guy but say with Rick Atchley or with Jay Guin? I believe they would have talked about several things but it would have culminated with a baptism that day. Not so with Grace, possibly Royce, and a few others. How sad. I could have went on my way rejoicing, knowing I was in Christ where all spiritual blessings are found, having all my sins washed away and receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit. I could go on about the blessings, but that is just too good to allow someone searching for truth to just walk away from, and to never offer it, don’t you think? And why not? Because you believe “the Bible doesn’t teach it that way.” Thank goodness, Philip offered it to the Eunuch and Ananias commanded Saul to obey it . and Peter commanded it to Cornelius and family, as Paul did the Jailers family and as Peter commanded it on Pentecost to those who were crying out, “What shall we do?” So, the question is do you(the reader) command it?
Probably if I had wanted to join that Baptist church and never having been baptized they would have demanded it. Strange. But I could have just as easily left that day and never been baptized. What then? Does God extend grace to those who are never baptized, not because they couldn’t make it to the baptistery in time, but because they were instructed it isn’t part of saving faith? I would like to hear your answers.
Let’s teach the truth where baptism is concerned and all the other things too, like love your neighbor and feed the hungry. Let’s be gracious and trust that God extends grace to the needy(even when baptism isn’t taught right),maybe even when there is never a baptism at all (who can claim they know the mind of God?) but let’s don’t deny the command of Jesus because we think that makes us a more gracious, loving people. That’s folly. And let’s not pigeon hole everyone who teaches the necessity of baptism as a legalist. Obeying God and teaching God’s word(rules) doesn’t make you a legalist. Trusting in your ability to keep those rules (instead of God) makes you a legalist. Jesus said, “if you love me keep my commands.” If a person believes scripture teaches a person must be born again and that includes they be baptized, let’s see that as them loving God. Let’s not demonize them for wanting to obey their Father where scripture is concerned, though you may see it differently. Believing you have the higher-morale ground (no matter what you believe) doesn’t give you the right to lambast others because you find their reasoning flawed, but I see a lot of that on here. Dispute the argument made, give your views, but let’s not resort to putting people down, name calling and ridiculing, as some are want to do, from both sides, especially from those who claim they are more grace centered.
Monty, I know of no one on here that has suggested that Jesus never commanded baptism. Although the only thing close to a direct command from Jesus to be baptized that I see is “Matthew 28:18-20 where he commands us to go into all the world… and baptize”. I can find baptism offenses like yours that have occurred in the CoC. I have seen little girls, about 6 years old, baptized. They had no clue about faith, or repentance, or seriously following Jesus. But the church considered them saved because the child was dunked. I believe this girl still believed in Santa Claus. Jesus was just another cute story to her. I have seen adults in the church who were dunked years ago but do not serve, do not study their Bibles, do not share their faith, and God forbid you ever sit in their favorite seat at Church. They were absolutely convinced that since they were dunked that they had to be saved.
There are extreme examples on both ends of the spectrum. Those who minimize baptism and those who trumpet it so much that baptism has been elevated above a relationship with Jesus Christ. Baptism in the CoC has simply become a sacrament that must be obeyed. We need to take the valid perspective from the CoC and take the valid emphasis from other groups that heavily focus on walking with and following Jesus Christ.
Monty wrote: “But herein lies the problem, the Baptist Youth pastor never saw me as a lost person. He never questioned me about my repentance or my lifestyle or any of that. I was just saved because I believed in Jesus.”
And sometimes the problem lies in not recognizing the gospel when we hear it. And sometimes we are so accustomed to one denomination trying to convert another that when somebody from Brand X recognizes us as a brother or sister in Christ, we don’t know how to handle it. We know that if the tables were turned, we certainly would not accept that Brand X person on the terms Monty describes. Therefore, the fault MUST lie in the other fellow.
I like Monty’s Baptist youth pastor a lot.
Jay,
Let me try to explain this once more. It seems that I am being labeled as one who opposes Baptist doctrine about baptism. I do not remember directing my opposition to Baptist’s. First of all, I know enough about what Baptist churches teach in this area, (I participated in five seminary extension classes in our area because there was nothing comparable from CoC in this area) I can see many Baptists teaching baptism here but, not all. I do not believe that there is a one doctrine fits all in Baptist churches. In fact I believe that there are more divisions in the doctrine taught in the Baptist churches than there is in the CoC. Most of the time they don’t participate in a manner of dissociating with each other as the CoC. I can guarantee you that many do have cliques that don’t fully accept even the members meeting in the same building. Sound familiar?
What I thought that I was conveying is that there are many churches in the area where I live that do not baptize. They will accept anyone who even suggests they believe that Jesus exists or did live on the earth. In fact one church that I met with for a while stated that if you attended their service three times they considered you a member of Christ’s Kingdom and that qualified you to be a member in their church. There was nothing said about any commitment from you to the Lord or to the church.
Someone will say why did you attend there when you found their doctrine so different than what you believe. And my response is that early gospel teachers purposely entered into the Synagogues of the Jews knowing that the teaching there was not the Gospel and attempted to teach about Jesus. Yes, you will understand me correctly if you notice that I believe that there are assemblies of people who are meeting giving honor to Jesus that Jesus will not know on judgment day, exactly like Jesus explained in Matt 7:21-23.
Is there no one else here that has concluded that Satan made an all out attack against Christ’s Church using the Jewish Nation and the Roman government as his weapons. Then Satan used the Roman Government to bring the church into a relationship with the government placing leaders into the church who are reigning in a fashion that is not compatible with Christ’s teachings. Yes, they may honor Jesus but only secondarily. Observe, they allow a man to alter many of Christ’s instructions.
Getting back to these churches that teach that baptism is absolutely not necessary; many have repeated the sinner’s prayer and claim they are saved by that action. Sound familiar, some think that those who baptize make the same claim for baptism. Of course we are accused of believing baptism does it all. Yet, I have never heard a CoC, Baptist or any other group who baptizes claim that baptism is ALL that is necessary. I have observed many who have portrayed baptism as only a sign and optional, stating salvation comes before and one who has not been baptized will not be refused to be in the Kingdom or church.
I have understood that as we learn more about Christ’s teachings we are commanded to expand this knowledge to others who are less knowledgeable. Is that not the duty of all Christians? Could we in attempting to do this, encounter men with an attitude like those in Acts 13:50,51? If we do not sometimes encounter these actions we are probably not teaching the same Gospel that the Apostles taught.
I have searched Matt through John many times to try to identify those of whom were saved by words explaining who can be saved. I have only found a few that the scriptures states were saved, those whom Jesus specifically identified, and he said nothing about adding them to the kingdom. I believe all the other communications were teaching principles that will exist when the Kingdom will be opened with the keys that Jesus gave to Peter. I cannot find a comment during the time Christ lived and died that speaks of anyone being added to the Kingdom similar to Acts 2:47 prior to that time. Was the Kingdom open to receive anyone prior to Jesus’ death? To complete the thought I am attempting to display Christ promised to build his church (his Kingdom) which was not at that time already built, He gave Peter the keys to open the (church kingdom) and it is documented when and how that was done.
If anyone has a more accurate account of events, please explain.
Larry, I have e been in many Churches of Christ where it was practiced that baptism was all that is necessary.
Larry said, What I thought that I was conveying is that there are many churches in the area where I live that do not baptize.
Again, perhaps you could give the phone number to the churches you say don’t want to baptize, I have never known a church that doesn’t want to baptize people, it’s a good rule to hear it from both sides rather than to speculate what was actually said.
Larry said, Someone will say why did you attend there when you found their doctrine so different than what you believe. And my response is that early gospel teachers purposely entered into the Synagogues of the Jews knowing that the teaching there was not the Gospel and attempted to teach about Jesus.
There was a guy from the CofC in an area I used to live in that would go to other churches harassing the people there with his camera in hand to later chop the clips up to make it seem different than what really happened and was said.
Larry said, Is there no one else here that has concluded that Satan made an all out attack against Christ’s Church using the Jewish Nation and the Roman government as his weapons.
Actually God used the Jewish lineage to usher in our Jewish Savior Jesus Christ and God used Jewish common people to tell the gospel of Jesus to Jews and Gentiles. And this is what Jesus told Pilate, John 19:10-11 “Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” Jesus spoke of one who turned Him into the authorities. I agree that Satan made an attack, no doubt, Jesus said that Satan himself entered Judas who betrayed Him. Luke 22:3 “Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve.”
Larry said, Getting back to these churches that teach that baptism is absolutely not necessary; many have repeated the sinner’s prayer and claim they are saved by that action.
Jesus gave us a great example of when people think that what they do is more important to God than someone who is broken before the Lord.
Luke 18:9-14 “Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Larry said, I have observed many who have portrayed baptism as only a sign and optional, stating salvation comes before and one who has not been baptized will not be refused to be in the Kingdom or church.
Baptism does not prove to God we have faith in Him, God knows our heart and our faith. The sacrifices throughout history that were offered to take away sins were a symbol for the true forgiveness of sins that is through the Messiah. All the sacrifices and washings were to point them to the sacrifice of Christ just as baptism points us back to the sacrifice of Christ. The good works we do point to the One who came to save us.
The Hebrew Scriptures sacrifices were but a foreshadowing or glimpse of the definitive Sacrifice of Christ who gives us forgiveness of sins.
Hebrews 10:1 “The Law is like a picture of the good things to come. The Jewish religious leaders gave gifts on the altar in worship to God all the time year after year. Those gifts could not make the people who came to worship perfect.”
Hebrews 10:4 “The blood of animals cannot take away the sins of men.”
From the language used people think that the sacrifices and sin offerings took away people’s sins. The Hebrew Scriptures sacrifices did not give forgiveness of sins they only prefigured the One who takes away our sins.
David understood what it is God wants from us, he got it right, while there are still so many who don’t.
Psalm 34:18 “The Lord is near to those who have a broken heart. And He saves those who are broken in spirit.”
Psalm 40:6 “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.”
God is not interested in your religious activity, He wants your heart, His desire is that you know and love Him.
Grace, you went through all this just to agree with Larry that there are people such as yourself, that believes baptism is not necessary.
“God is not interested in your religious activity, He wants your heart, His desire is that you know and love Him.”
Strange you know this when Jesus did not. Jesus said we were to obey God’s commands.
Jesus said we were to baptize, he also said God was the one speaking these commands, through him. Strange how some people today know more than the messenger God sent with the gospel.
Sip said,
“Monty, I know of no one on here that has suggested that Jesus never commanded baptism. ”
Skip, that’s not what I said or implied. I said, that there are those who comment here, maybe you too, who would never “command” baptism to those who were just coming to know Christ. It’s evident to me(perhaps not to others) that the Apostles commanded those to whom they were preaching, who were lost, (not saved at the time of their preaching)they had to be baptized. It was taught to them at the time Christ was “preached to them” and they were still in their sins and lost. Some on here would have to say that Peter, Paul and Phillip all jumped the gun in teaching baptism to lost people. “Save them first Paul” they would imply, “then baptize them at some point later on, even a month or two later, what’s the rush? That could be true, only if, belief without obeying a “called for” response, saves you. (Zwingli and Calvinist teaching)If baptism is a called for response to initial faith and it is the point where normally the blood of Jesus washes away sin, making you a new(clean)creature. Aren’t you still in your sins and unclean if you aren’t baptized?
Some will argue the strange case of Cornelius here no doubt, as being normative, but Jesus went way out of the ordinary and He Himself baptized Cornelius in the Holy Spirit baptism. At least that’s what Peter said. But to show you just how important and still necessary water baptism was even to someone who was just baptized in the Holy Spirit, Peter still insisted they be baptized. It was the first thing on his mind after having watched this incredible scene. Something you Skip or Charles or Grace and many others would have never insisted on after having seen them be baptized with the Spirit. Right? No doubt some will profess, maybe you Skip, they would have “insisted” Cornelius be baptized straightway as Peter did, but their former conversations on this blog gives them away. So, there is a difference in what Peter “commanded” and what some on here teach and it has to do with the purpose and necessity of baptism, not that they don’t teach it at all. If taught properly, Biblically, there aren’t any “unbaptized Christians.’ at least Paul didn’t think so. Only if taught wrong, could there be such a creature.
Some say they gladly teach baptism in the same way they would teach someone to love their neighbor. It’s just not tied in any shape or form to initial justification by faith. Paul, however, when he wants to draw the church back to some great truth whether they had died to sin and sin should no longer reign in them or that they are sons through adoption and therefore heirs of all the promises and Abraham’s seed, he gets them to reflect on their baptism and it’s purpose. See Romans Ch. 6 and Galatians Ch. 3. Where he says, either “Know ye not that as many of us who have been baptized” or “For as many of you as have been baptized.”
Question: Who is he addressing? Those who have been baptized. Why does Paul (who literally wrote the book on grace and faith), not draw them back to some faith alone experience? Why didn’t he say something like “remember when you believed in Christ alone by faith alone?” Why hearken them back to their baptism and not the “real thing” as some would say? If it is true, as some say, that a church or churches could have many “Christians” who just haven’t been baptized yet, why would Paul use speech that would surely make those people feel excluded and ostracized? “Hey, wait a minute Paul, I’m a Christian too! Baptism I was told isn’t necessary. I’m going to be baptized next quarter. You need to use speech that is inclusive and not so divisive.” The most logical explanation is Paul did use inclusive speech when he said, “For as many of you who have been baptized into Christ.” Believing and being baptized is what the lost did to become Christians, therefore there were no unbaptized Christians. Paul knew no such creature as an unbaptized Christian. That’s a progressive teaching. Paul said of himself, “I have been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. I wonder if you asked Paul when was he crucified with Christ and when did Christ come to live in him what he would say? Would he say on the road to Damascus or when after 3 days of praying and fasting he was told by Ananias – “Arise, be baptized washing away thy sin, calling on the name of the Lord?” (as Jesus had told him to go and wait in Damascus to be told what he “must do.” What’s your guess, Skip ?
The problem with many people’s theology is that baptism isn’t a must. Wouldn’t you agree? It’s something they could do or should do, but not a “must do.” That’s why Charles was happy that the Baptist youth pastor didn’t teach me anything about baptism, one way or the other. It didn’t matter to the Youth Pastor or even Charles if I was ever baptized. But how different is that compared to the Biblical examples of the urgency of the apostles and Spirit filled men who commanded it, straightway. If something is urgent, it’s a must. If it’s not a must, it really isn’t urgent is it? What does the Biblical example teach us? Anything? Enquiring minds want to know.
Skip,
You wrote, “Larry, I have e been in many Churches of Christ where it was practiced that baptism was all that is necessary.”
I have lived in TX, TN, SC, WI, HI, OK, Japan, VA, FL, & GA, and I have attended churches of Christ in all these states and some neighboring states. In all my travels, I have never heard of a church of Christ that practices baptism as being all that is necessary for either salvation or entrance to the Kingdom. That’s not to say that you haven’t witnessed this, but I would suggest that these congregations are not representative of the broader fellowship.
Laymond, Skip, and all
I’ve repeatedly said that Laymond’s views on the nature of Jesus have been thoroughly discussed here and are not to be considered again.
I’ll be deleting all comments on the topic
Jay why do you think it is more important to discuss baptism over again but not the nature of who Jesus is? Not meaning to rattle you, I’m pretty sure it is troublesome that he has been taught this at the CofC, but Laymond did bring it up on this post and his questions do seem to need an answer.
Grace
Laymond routinely seeks to turn topics toward his pet topic
We’ve covered the discussion thoroughly many times. Many readers have complained about it over the years and I’ve asked Laymond to stop
Baptism has also been covered many times but it is a major issue within the Churches of Christ and we have many , many members on both sides
I’m not aware of the Churches being divided over the divinity of Jesus and pray that it never happens
Grace, my question does have an answer, but there remains many who for some reason do not like that answer.
Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Monty, In all of my readings here on this thread and the other recent baptism thread, I have not read where anyone said that baptism wasn’t God’s will or that baptism was meaningless. So I don’t understand your great concern. Baptism is God’s will.
Laymond,
Because I know you enjoy getting the details correct, I begin with setting straight a detail. I actually quoted John the Baptist as he is recorded by the Spirit’s inspiration of Mark.
Next, I must answer your inquiry with a question or two. Do you really make the claim that John the Baptist and Jesus disagreed over who John the Baptist was? Your question indicates that either JTB or JC was wrong, or else you do not know the difference between a herald (JTB) and a king (JC). Which is it, Laymond?
G
Kevin, In the churches of Christ I have been in in Ohio, Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia, the preachers gladly baptized people but the congregants weren’t taught to live a disciples life of consistent prayer, or service, or love, or evangelism, etc… Most in these churches simply came, sat in the pew, and left without hardly any obedience to commands outside of baptism. This is what I meant. Practically these churches did not urge any serious obedience on behalf of the members. Most did not even bring their Bibles to Church. This has been my consistent experience.
Skip,
If the curches you have attended do little more than obey baptism teachings and then pack pews, why do you think you were not more effective at getting them to become disciples of Jesus?
G
Grizz, I think the answer to your question is self-evident. People who are content to be lukewarm don’t take kindly to being challenged to be a serious disciple of Jesus. In our church in Ohio the baptized teens were involved in all kinds of sin including getting drunk, etc… our campus minister was asked to preach and he shared the results of an anonymous survey of the teens that revealed all the sin they were involved in. The preacher, parents, and elders hit the roof because the kids were exposed. They weren’t indignant because of the sin, they were indignant because the campus minister made the teens look sinful. The battle continued where the elders wanted to tamp down any suggestion that the members needed to take following Jesus seriously. This was the case in other churches I was a part of. In Virginia, the preacher did a whole midweek series on Bible trivia and consistently failed to address real, meaningful topics for followers of Jesus. In another church in Virginia I appealed to the preacher to help the members get more involved, he tried and got tired of fighting the elders. He eventually quit. Perhaps my experience is unique but in the Churches I was involved in apathy seemed very normal.
Grizz.
That is and has always been the problem with discussing this topic with “progressives” when I bring up passages such as Mat 11:11,14 or Mat 16:13,17 they never try to explain what is said, they just insult my intelligence, and say well I guess I won that round. and they haven’t won or explained anything. I don’t have anything to explain because I take the bible at face value. I believe it means what it says. When you express your beliefs, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing against plainly written scripture.
Skip,
I have been where people were apathetic when I got there, but it didn’t last long. I found ways to ask them questions that caused them to discover the truth … even in cases where they had been igoring it deliberately. Why would you not show people the truth and then follow Jesus’ instructions about what to do when accepted or what to do when rejected?
G
Laymond,
What makes you think I am arguing with scripture? YOu are NOT scripture. And I was asking a question or two. Asking is not arguing. What are you so paranoid about?
G
No, what you did was place your words in my mouth, then call me stupid for saying what you said I thought. You are arguing against the scripture I quoted. You can’t tell someone what they are thinking, then argue against it. straw man, if you don’t have an answer for what Jesus said, just say I don’t have the answer. Don’t say you know what I’m thinking. and challenge me to explain it.
Grizz/Glenn, What makes you think I didn’t do exactly what you said? I did numerous things. Taught the college and single classes for years. Got the young group fired up and the older members, including the elders, hated the enthusiasm. Got one on one with an elder for years and he did not ever understand that the non college crowd needed to change. At another church I jumped in again and taught both adults and college members. I initiated often with the preacher and failed to overcome the stagnation. JESUS said KICK the dust off so I did. I am now in a Christian church that gets it.
Laymond, Saw your comments to Grizz. I am not a progressive. I take the Bible at face value and I still disagree with many of your conclusions. You appear to ignore scriptures that contradict your preconceived beliefs. No human is perfectly objective. We are all influenced by our paradigm. This includes you. Your interpretation skills are not superior to everyone on this website.
Skip,
I believe the Apostles also encountered many problems like those you express, but I do not see them attempting to extend those problems to all of the churches. You are voicing an opinion of the whole CoC being guilty of the acts you have experienced even those that you do not know, and even beyond that are upholding Christians meeting under another name as totally free from the sins you have seen. I truly believe that the Lord will evaluate us individually. Your expression would condemn the complete congregations where you experienced these problems. Were there no members within those congregations that you could have influenced to stand up for the proper Christian conduct? Did you leave by yourself or were you able to influence others to remove themselves from the sin that could not be changed?
Grace,
You really have a problem believing that I am not lying about churches. Actually, if I did supply you with phone numbers you still would not be convinced. Many of these churches don’t have phones. I do know of one Methodist Minister that used a motel swimming pool to baptize some individuals, but I also know members of the same congregation who have been accepted and counted as members who even teach classes who lived their whole life there never having been baptized.
Have you noticed any tv evangelists who do not teach what you have expressed that Christians need or are required, commanded to be baptized? If you did not hear them express any teaching about that need, have you followed up to see if they do at a later time frame?
I guess that the preachers that I listened to most of my life in the CoC were exceptional and not very worried about being sent down the road for exposing what they saw as our lack of living up to the expectations of the Lord’s ideals. As I look back upon many in the congregations, I guess they were really dependent upon the grace of the Lord. The could have their shoes trampled so badly it was a wonder where their toes were and the messages just rolled off their backs, many did not even get mad like the Jews did. I really believe that many of you in different churches experienced the same content.
Larry, I never said every church was like this, nor do I believe that. But many are like this.
Larry asked the question; “Have you noticed any tv evangelists who do not teach what you have expressed that Christians need or are required, commanded to be baptized?”
Larry as you said Skip paints with a broad brush, perhaps you might be guilty as well. first off some TV evangelist don’t claim to be ” Baptist” or called to baptize, I seem to recall one in the bible that denied he was called to baptize. But the evangelist I know most about does recommend that when you leave his evangelical meetings you go be baptized. That evangelist is brother Billy Graham, I have listened to a few of his sermons, and never have I noticed that he neglected baptism, he or one of his helpers always recommend that you go find a church home, and be baptized.
Although Billy Graham recommends that baptism ” is a necessary and meaningful experience”
he does not preach that it is necessary for salvation, as a matter of fact he teaches it is not.
Mr. Graham has stated: “I believe baptism is important, and I have been baptized. But I think we violate the Scriptures when we make baptism the prime requirement for salvation … Paul’s central theme was Christ and His saving power. Although he spoke of baptism, he said: ‘I thank God that I baptized none of you … lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name’ (1 Corinthians 1:14-15).”
“Baptism is a conclusive act of obedience and witness to the world that we are Christ’s. I believe in it wholeheartedly. In our crusades we don’t baptize because we feel that this should be done by the local pastors—and that if I baptized, some people would say they had been baptized by me, and that would be putting the emphasis on the wrong person. To one who has received Christ, baptism is a necessary and meaningful experience. But, I must say with Paul: ‘Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel’ (1 Corinthians 1:17).”
“You may know that we urge immediate and extensive Bible study for each convert. As the Scripture is reviewed, the place of baptism will surely be discovered. If baptism were a requirement for salvation, we would certainly say that. But you couldn’t support that knowing, for example, that the thief on the cross had no opportunity for baptism or church membership. Yet on his confession, paradise was secured. Jesus said to him, ‘Today shalt thou be with me in paradise’ (Luke 23:43).”
Just a clarification of my previous comment.
Skip said; “Your interpretation skills are not superior to everyone on this website.” and he is right, that is why I don’t give my own interpretation of scripture, I only quote scripture and ask what someone else makes of it. Or how does their theology stand up to the scripture I quote. Most “progressives” teach things that can’t stand in the light of scripture, things that can only stand in the shadow of their own interpretation, or changes.
Laymond, I’ll keep an eye out for those progressives.
After reading so many posts on this subject; why do we wonder why so many have given up and left the churches to simply try to live a good life helping and loving others, depending on Gods grace and mercy to straighten all this out?
Skip, you should keep an eye out, there is still hope for you 🙂
Larry, I don’t think you know the brush I paint with. Baptism is God’s will.
The church I go to was asked to and have joined with Billy Graham’s ministry to tell the gospel. We had already been doing a lot nationally to help people hear the gospel, to have and read the Bible and help them find a local church where they live. Many people are coming to church and are being baptized. God is blessing the ministry reaching out with the gospel and it is humbling to serve such an awesome God.
I have this mental picture of Jesus and Billy Graham strolling down a heavenly boulevard, and Jesus encountering some of my brothers with an introduction: “Hi, let me introduce my friend Billy! I know you haven’t met, but I heard you talk about him a lot.” 😉
Charles, I must have missed that part in Revelation. Are you sure that wasn’t a vision.
Charles, what do you credit all that special attention to ? surely not all the WORK he did. Charles have you forgotten the parable of the worker who came early, and the worker who came late getting the same reward. If we get to meet Jesus I doubt we notice Billy.
I am really impressed to find out that Billy Graham encouraged individuals to be baptized. I never have attended one of his gatherings. I have watched some on tv but I do not remember him communicating the need to be baptized, it was therefore easy for me to believe what others have stated from their experiences, which was totally different than some are expressing here. I have experienced that some who attended a crusade really thought that baptism was not necessary unless the local congregation demanded it before they could be fellow shipped (you know a church ordinance) that has no example in scripture.
People who know Billy personally know that it’s Jesus he wants people to know and love. At his age now he still doesn’t want people noticing all he has done, he wants people to know all that Jesus has done.
Skip,
I really have had a difficult experience identifying that you were committed to teaching baptism as necessary with the same vigor as we can see the early teachers and Apostles.
One post I might see a hint that you did, and also an expression that you could not see any difference made in an individual by being baptized. It really seemed to me that you held baptism in account for the way men did not respond correctly afterwards. I can agree that baptism can change no one, and is useless to those who have not fully dedicated their lives prior to the act. That is not a fault of baptism but of the individual. I believe that many have a valid and scriptural stand when they say baptism can save no one, of course that coupled with belief will. Otherwise Jesus, Peter and Paul have misstated the the act. Through all this we should remember even among the Lord’s pick of Apostles, one was a traitor. Yet that fact did not distract from the dedication displayed by the others. Also that Jesus stated that not everyone who says.
(Mat 7:21 KJV) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
(Luke 6:46 KJV) And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? 47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
Matthew 7:21-23 nor Luke 6:46,47 specifically had baptism in view.: The Matthew text was a continuation of warnings about false prophets and their hypocrisy. The text in Luke is addressing hypocrisy, those who profess Christ as Lord and live otherwise. You can stretch either passage to fit your needs I suppose but neither was addressing whether or not people baptize or for what reason. Another couple of favorites are 2 Thessalonians 1:8 and 1 Peter 4:17. Neither passage, if taken in context, had any connection to baptism. The same language ( have not all obeyed the gospel) is used in Romans 10:16 and all you need do is read it in context to see that the meaning is not to baptize or not, but rather a contrast between believing the gospel or not believing it. To obey the gospel is to believe it and to not obey it is to not believe it.
Most of the time the Bible is it’s own best commentary and context is king. Texts taken out of context more often than not become a only a pretext.
There are many mediums that say they prophesy and do mighty wonders casting out demons in the name of the Lord who are certainly people He warns us about. God has warned people throughout history to beware of people such as these.
Explain this Larry, we are told not to believe every spirit out there, yet Jesus said those who truly cast out demons in His name cannot long speak evil of Him. Mark 9:38-40 “Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.”
How do you think the disciples comprehended Jesus telling them this, how do you comprehend what Jesus said?
Larry, I am honored that you have taken the time to scrutinize every comment I have made. It must have been a lot of work for you. Every person I have ever led to Christ was baptized. Does that make you happy? I am just not prepared to condemn someone I don’t know and who I did not teach if they sincerely believed and repented and died but no one ever taught them taught them the whole message. God will judge. I hope you can live with that.
Maybe Jay the only way to resolve this is to realize that the question that is being asked is wrong. That question is “what must a person do to be saved?”. This infers a group of or single act required for salvation. Well then that sets the stage for everyone to go looking for the scriptures that specify those acts. Well since the question is wrong. You have significant disagreement on why sacra aments or religious rituals are required for salvation. Reality is many have been baptized or said the the prayer but have never converted there hearts soil and body to Jesus. Therefore there has been no transformation in their lives. The faith that accompanies salvation has less to do with the forms of worship or rituals and more to do with the hear. Jesus said to clean out the inside of the cup.
Royce quoted a few verses of bible scripture, and said they did not specifically have baptism in view. And I believe Royce is right to think that. But the key word here is specifically. The point here is obediance to God, by obeying the “word” delivered by Jesus. And that does not omit baptism.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Spoken as plainly as possiable.
Royce said; “To obey the gospel is to believe it and to not obey it is to not believe it.”
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Belief does not = salvation
The following is an example of what Jesus said about baptism, and we know he was speaking of water baptism.Because he was speaking of John’s baptism.
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
NLT
But Jesus said, “It should be done, for we must carry out all that God requires.” So John agreed to baptize him.
NIV
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
It seems that God approved as well.
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
If Paul, and Silas had only had the ability to pay attention to detail, as Joe does this whole controversy could have been avoided.
Act 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
If only Paul would have said “that is the wrong question, it just can’t be answered, when put in that form”
Skip,
“Kevin, In the churches of Christ I have been in in Ohio, Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia, the preachers gladly baptized people but the congregants weren’t taught to live a disciples life of consistent prayer, or service, or love, or evangelism, etc… Most in these churches simply came, sat in the pew, and left without hardly any obedience to commands outside of baptism. This is what I meant. Practically these churches did not urge any serious obedience on behalf of the members. Most did not even bring their Bibles to Church. This has been my consistent experience.”
Sorry to hear that. I’ve not crossed paths with any of these congregations. Since much of my family are Southern Baptists, I have spent a lot of time in their worship services, and many of their members have the attitude you describe…only they were confident in their “belief in Christ” rather than baptism. We have even spoken about it, many times. When discussing systemic or individual lethargy, my family will usually say, “Well, regardless of how X is now, at least he was saved when he was 16.”
Kevin,
Yep, I have witnessed in several churches a pervasive cultural smugness. “We are saved, we know our Bibles, and we are the only scriptural group because we figured out baptism. We will now sit back on our laurels.”
Grace,
Do you think it would be impossible that those were the very men that Jesus said he did not know? Looking at the text carefully can you see that Jesus implied the will accept them? His statement only communicated that they could not speak evil of him. They were promoting Jesus even though they had not committed to him in a way that Jesus knew them. This seems to prove that miracles could be performed by calling on Jesus name without the individual calling knowing Jesus.
We are also warned to avoid witchcraft, if it did not exist then there would be no need to avoid it, not participate with those who do.
Skip,
It always gives me a boost when I hear a brother in Christ confirm that he is teaching truth as it is displayed in scriptures. So many times we can see teachers who do not. Just as you have been expressing many of those that you have been in touch with have either left out some very important instructions about how a new Christian should live after committing to Christ, or they never committed at all, just a performance to be accepted by the local church. Some of what you have expressed really appears to be a product of poor leadership, not setting the example, and only a few new Christians will be dedicated enough to excel above their teachers.
Sure sounds like they knew Jesus to truly do miracles in His name, Jesus said, “For he who is not against us is on our side.” Jesus said they were on His side.
Skip,
Based upon your comment, “I am just not prepared to condemn someone I don’t know and who I did not teach if they sincerely believed and repented and died but no one ever taught them taught them the whole message.” I have a question maybe you can help with. I have not been able to find a reference to an individual repenting and (dyeing) as he was committing himself to Christ prior to Paul’s portrayal of how that id displayed in baptism, There is no comments in the first five books Matt – Acts that portray to any of those individuals about dying to sin. There is a comment about an individual dying when they become a sinner, we all know that Adam was promised by God that he would surly die if he ate of the tree, he did eat, there was a part of Adam that died that day. That same event takes place in the life of everyone who sins. This is what Jesus came to earth to restore, this life that is dead. Paul even states that it is sin that caused his death.
(Rom 7:9 KJV) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
In other words what I am having a problem identifying in scripture is how an individual who is in sin not knowing the savior repents of sin then dies, without being done as Paul describes it in the following.
(Rom 6:2 KJV) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
The question, Paul says it happens while being baptized, and as you have baptized I fell assured that you believe that all that Paul said takes place while performing the act.
Where is there a similar description in scripture taking place when one becomes a believer and commits to Christ, before baptism?
Grace,
They knew him, otherwise they would not been using his name to perform the miracles. This proves that Jesus does not have to know those who perform miracles in his name. The only way Jesus could not have known them is if they had not committed themselves to him. If they committed themselves to him would he have turned them away, or refused to accept them? I would hope not because the Bible never gives us an example that Jesus will turn away anyone who comes to him on his terms.
Larry, You misunderstood me. By saying ” dying” I meant they physically died. You took it to mean they died in Christ.
Jesus told the disciples, “For he who is not against us is on our side”, the man did not cast out demons by the power of Satan, Mark 3:23-25 So Jesus called them together and talked to them using some stories. He said, “Satan will not force his own demons out of people. A kingdom that fights against itself will not survive. And a family that is divided will not survive.”
The disciples complained to Jesus about a man they saw doing miracles in His name. Jesus never said He didn’t know the man, there were many who had been deeply moved by the character and the work of Christ whose hearts were open to Him in faith. Jesus didn’t want His disciples to discourage these people when He wasn’t personally among them teaching. Jesus rebuked the disciples harshness shown toward the man, Jesus told the disciples they were wrong.
…Another couple of favorites are 2 Thessalonians 1:8 and 1 Peter 4:17. Neither passage, if taken in context, had any connection to baptism. The same language ( have not all obeyed the gospel) is used in Romans 10:16 and all you need do is read it in context to see that the meaning is not to baptize or not, but rather a contrast between believing the gospel or not believing it. To obey the gospel is to believe it and to not obey it is to not believe it…”
Royce,
I disagree. I Thess 1: 8 reads, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ;” 1 Pet 4:17 reads, “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?”
Both verses utilize the phrase “obey the Gospel.” Just because the overall context is God’s judgment at the end times or Christian suffering does not mean that “obey the Gospel” is not in view, at least in part. What is the Gospel, the very heart of the Gospel? In 1 Cor 15, Paul tells us that when you nug it all down, the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and his vicarious atonement for our sins: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
So if the Gospel is the vicarious atonement of Christ by his BDR, how do we obey that. Really? How does one obey a set of facts? Paul again provides the answer in Rom 6:17-18: “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” The Greek word for “form” in this passage is “tupos” (G5179) and according to the Greek Strong’s DIctionary means:
“-a die (as struck), i.e. (by implication) a stamp or scar;
-by analogy, a shape, i.e. a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance;
-specially, a sampler (“type”), i.e. a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning): — en-(ex-)ample, fashion, figure, form, manner, pattern, print.”
The pattern, form, die, model, figure, formula, or type of Christ’s DBR for our sins is found in baptism. In Rom 6:3-4, Paul explains how baptism is the pattern, form, die, model, figure, formula, or type of Christ’s DBR: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
While baptism is clearly not the only component involved with one “obeying the Gospel,” it is most definitely a part of it.
one correction:
Just because the overall context is God’s judgment at the end times or Christian suffering does not mean that baptism is not in view, at least in part.
Sorry for the confusion.
I never ever said baptism is not a part of obeying the gospel. What I have said it that believing the gospel is the first obedience and then comes other things. In fact, in part of the passage your just quoted Romans 6:17 says, but ye have obeyed FROM THE HEART that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
The whole New Testament idea of “obeying” the report goes back to the Old Testament. Paul says clearly in Romans 10 what obeying the gospel is and not one other place in the Bible contradicts this.
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Paul was not addressing baptism. He was speaking of those who did not believe in contrast to those who did believe. I’m sure you are familiar with Romans 10.
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. Baptism comes by teaching people who have put their faith in Jesus to be baptized.
6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:6-17)
Of course this is true and not anything in the Bible limits these truths or makes them untrue.
Royce,
I am sorry to have misunderstood you, and I’m glad that you see baptism as a part of obeying the Gospel.
Skip,
I have read and studied the post where you said I misunderstood your message about dying.
I took it to mean an extension of the believing and repenting, where an individual should also die to their sins as explained by Paul. I noticed in your comment correcting my understanding you mentioned dying in Christ. “You took it to mean they died in Christ.” That is a new concept to me I have always understood that an individual who becomes a believer must repent and in repenting he/she dies to sin (referring to the desire to commit sin). He/she is then made alive in Christ, Christ is life not death. Have I overlooked something again?
I really have a problem following your line of thinking on this. “I am just not prepared to condemn someone I don’t know and who I did not teach if they sincerely believed and repented and died but no one ever taught them taught them the whole message.” You are speaking of someone whom you don’t know, and have no knowledge of what they have been taught or learned, of course you have no authority to condemn them. But, no one will ever know all whom they have had an opportunity to teach. Even as we communicate here I hope there will be many who are influenced by each message that is published. If we always portray the truth on any subject, very few reading could claim not to be taught the whole message. If anyone reading chooses to not follow, or obey their fate will be their own, no one has the responsibility to condemn another. The Lord the righteous judge will do that, our duty is to explain his will and requirements, they will chose whom they will follow. We should also remember that the exact writings that we learn from is available to almost all people in the world, God’s written Word should be more powerful to teach a lost Soul what they need to do than any man on earth, so just encouraging someone to read fills a void, then if that message condemns we are not held responsible.
Royce quoted this from Romans 10
“13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent?
Paul is working backwards here with calling on the name of the LOrd as being the saving point. Calling on the name – believing – hearing – preaching. Calling on the name is not believing in your heart, but what is it? Baptist and others say it’s saying “LOrd save me.” BUt is that what it is? Peter said on Pentecost that what was happening was what was prophesied in JOel that the day was here where everyone who calls on the name of the LOrd shall be saved. We know what Peter instructed penitent believers to do, “Repent and be baptized in the name of JEsus for the remission of your sins.” They obviously believed(3000 did) that Jesus was indeed the messiah, Peter instucted them with many words, and 3000 obeyed the gospel, by calling on the name of the Lord(in baptism, being baptized into the name of Jesus).
Paul(Saul)had met Jesus on the road to Damascus, he obviously believed in Jesus, so why not celebrate instead of fasting and praying(a sign of remorse-and yet he had not called on the name of the LOrd in baptism, WHich he was instructed to do. ENd of that chapter of the story. Paul’s belief(faith) then repentance and subsequent baptism into the name of JEsus(calling on his name) was the culmination. “Arise and be baptized calling on the name of the LOrd.”
Paul says in Romans 10 that if ye confess with your mouth that Jesus is LOrd and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead ye shall be saved. there’s definitely alot going on in this passage, but consider what the Spirit inspired Philip said to the Eunech in Acts 8 when the Eunech excitedly said, “Here’s water what doth hinder me from being baptized?” Philip said something very similar to Paul in Romans 10 that if you believe with all your heart you may. THe Enuch said, “he believed with all his heart” and then Philip baptized him and he “rejoiced,” not one second before baptism but upon being baptized and he looked around and Philip had dissappeared- end of that chapter, mission completed. Calling on the name of the LOrd appears related to a persons confession taken at their baptism into the name of JEsus.
Yes, belief(faith) can’t happen unless a person is taught about JEsus but that clearly isn’t the completion of “obeying the gospel”, it is the driving force to do so, when taught properly. And as Paul says in Romans 10 if you don’t believe, it naturaly flows that you will not obey the gospel. You will not be baptized into his name upon your confession.
The church at Rome would have understood all of what Paul meant in Romans 10 without the compulsion to dissect baptism out of calling on the name of the LOrd, as so many do today.
When a person believes on Jesus and is instructed to do so,(as in scripture)he will confess Jesus and call on his name at his baptism. Baptism into CHrist seals the conversion. It is the only way, “Being born of water and the Spirit makes any sense.”
Read Jay’s post again Monte.
Monte have you ever known anyone who was baptized but not saved? I’m talking about someone who said the right things and had the right baptism but their live after their baptism proved they were not truly disciples?
Unless you live in a different reality than I do you must admit that not everyone who is immersed is truly saved. Try as hard as we might some impostors make it into the baptistery and for a time into the local church.
Since this is true, and it is true, what was missing? The missing ingredient was faith in Christ! The huge number of our people who have been immersed 2, 3, or more times prove my point well. They expected baptism to do for them what only Christ can do and they who were not fully trusting Christ were disappointed after being baptized.
No one here is against water baptism. Jesus said to do it and we do it. Some of us disagree that water baptism is the Saviour. Jesus alone is.
The Bible way is preach the gospel of Christ, some will believe and be willing to repent, baptize those who tell us they believe. God will sort them out.
In the end those who have faith and remained faithful will be resurrected. Not everyone who has been baptized fits that description.
Royce, said : “The Bible way is preach the gospel of Christ, some will believe and be willing to repent, baptize those who tell us they believe. God will sort them out.
In the end those who have faith and remained faithful will be resurrected. Not everyone who has been baptized fits that description.”
Royce what is in the gospel is not the problem, teaching things that are not in the gospel is the problem. There are no promise of miracles in the gospel
As paul said it is not faith nor baptism alone that saves, but hope.
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Job 6:11 What is my strength, that I should hope? and what is mine end, that I should prolong my life?
“Try as hard as we might some impostors make it into the baptistery and for a time into the local church.
Since this is true, and it is true, what was missing? The missing ingredient was faith in Christ! The huge number of our people who have been immersed 2, 3, or more times prove my point well. They expected baptism to do for them what only Christ can do and they who were not fully trusting Christ were disappointed after being baptized.”
Royce, I don’t think the word “impostors” is fair to say about some of the people who as you say become dissapointed and leave. I have known to many who were fully trusting Christ especially the young, who have sat in a hospital chapel, and prayed for a miracal, I don’t believe I have seen more trust, yet their child is no longer with them. The majority no longer attend church. I don’t believe teaching “miracles” today helps anyone. When hope is gone there is no trust/faith.
Whose fault is it that we believe in miracles that do not happen.
Laymond, Christians who believe God is sovereign should always understand that their will may not be God’s will. If someone prays in a chapel for a sick child to be healed and then they resent God for not healing and leave the church, who’s fault is that? Certainly not our Heavenly Father’s fault. The fault lies in not trusting that God ultimately knows what is best. Praying for a miracle does not demonstrate trust. Trusting that God is faultless in his decisions is trust.
Royce and Monty, a little more explanation might be in order to explain just what I am talking about. How many times can you recall either you or another member stood in front of the congregation calling for, and leading prayers calling for miracles, that never happen. We teach trust in Jesus to solve all your problems, then when it don’t happen wonder why we loose faith. believing in Jesus means believing in who he is, faith in Jesus is having trust in the message he brought. not that he will cure all your ills, while saving your soul.
Laymond,
You say that preaching that miracles still happen gives false hope that can shatter the faith of the one needing the miracle, right?
Do you take the same position regarding preaching that Jesus will come again? Nobody has seen that happen yet, so is it a travesty that threatens people’s faith if we preach it?
No? Didn’t think so. But that is the kind of logic you use to suggest that teaching what the Bible says about miracles just leads to false hope.
Think about it … what is next? Refraining from teaching about discipleship because most people would rather warm a pew than invite a homeless person to get warm at their house? After all, that could lead to unresolved guilt and hopelessness and lack of self-esteem for those who barely know how to talk a good game and know next-to-nothing about walking in Jesus’ steps on a practical level.
G
By the way, Laymond, when it comes to talking about miracles with folks, I begin and end with Bible study and also share my personal experiences with both “Yes” and “No” answers to prayer by faithful Christians, including myself. The “Yes” experiences are outnumbered by the “No” experiences, but that has never been a deciding factor for people with whom I have had an opportunity to talk together about what we can expect from a merciful and loving God who knows and sees more than we do about our personal situations.
Years ago, I was preaching for a city church of Christ congregation in central Illinois and received a late-night phone call from a brother whose wife was in the hospital. She was requesting that I come and bring the elders and some oil for anointing so she could follow the teaching in James about calling the elders if you are sick. There is a promise in those verses and she wanted to know if I believed it still applied, because she did. The three elders and I met in her room and anointed her and prayed over her with our hands on her arms and hands and head. She prayed, too, as did her husband.
A scheduled surgery for early the next morning was cancelled during pre-op because testing for the exact location of the affected part of her brain revealed that the problem was gone. A grapefruit-sized tumor surrounding her cerebral cortex and upper spine and protruding out the back of her skull had disappeared overnight. Brother, they had done CAT scans just 3 days earlier and had done a small biopsy of the tissue to confirm the specific type of cancer on the day we were called to her bedside. The tumor was well-documented and confirmed medically just pryor to our visit. The added tests the morning of the scheduled surgery were done because the grapefruit-sized protrusion at the base of her skull was completely gone when they came to mark her head for the incisions to be made. There wasn’t so much as wrinkled skin where the tumor had been. The surgeons and oncologists documented the disappearance of the tumor as thoroughly as they documented its presence and growth. There was no medical explanation for the tumor’s disappearance.
Through that situation and a home Bible study, one of those doctors came back to the church and another came to Christ for the first time within a month of that prayer time in the hospital room where our dear sister in Christ asked for 6 months of cancer-free life to let her train her husband to be able to care for himself well after she passed on. She got 6 months and 3 days and died just two days after the grapefruit-sized tumor reappeared and was redocumented medically. She had been scheduled for surgery again the following day, but did not make it that long.
Medicine can only document and verify what was there and then was not there and then what came back with any certainty. And that is what they did. They cannot tell us how or why it happened. That is the role of a person of God who was there and saw it with my own eyes. Joyce was given exactly what she and we asked for her, in order to serve her husband and become a witness to God’s ongoing involvement in the prayers of His faithful ones, even today.
NOTE: I also anointed and prayed over my Dad when he was diagnosed with lung cancer nearly ten years later. Dad died without respite from that cancer. And God was glorified as much in that instance as He was when Joyce was healed. You see, my Dad had been told he had 2 months to live when he finally went to the Dr and was diagnosed. He prayed and then promised my Mom he would last at least until Christmas. I came to pray with him and anoint him just 2 days after his diagnosis. He died on Christmas morning, just 2 months and 23 days after he was diagnosed.
God still says “Yes” to our prayers today, Laymond. I know. I have seen James 5 in action.
G
PS – Laymond, I have also been on the receiving end of a “No” , or at least a “Not yet” answer from God on more than one occasion. Most recently I have been praying to find a job where God wants me … since being laid off in a downsizing in September of 2009. That is 4 years, 3months, and 21 days ago, every day until today … and I will be praying the same prayer again tomorrow and every other day until God either takes me home or opens the door to the right job. And yes, I am still sending out resumes and networking and filling out applications … more than 3,000 of them so far, but who really cares how many it is? I will continue until God makes it irrelevant to continue.
G
“You say that preaching that miracles still happen gives false hope that can shatter the faith of the one needing the miracle, right?”
No that is not what I said, What I did say is that “PRAYING” for a miracle was no guarantee that it would happen., and that the success rate was minimal and non-provable .
“No? Didn’t think so. But that is the kind of logic you use to suggest that teaching what the Bible says about miracles just leads to false hope.”
Not even close “G” The return of Jesus is a promise from God, not a miracle of prayer.
Point to where the bible says pray for miracles and they will defiantly be answered and tell me what your success rate has been, with proof to back it up, please. Instead of teaching “give thanks for all we have, and trust God to know best” we teach that prayer is a persuader of God to give us what we want. “Lord we don’t like what you are doing here, so please change it, so we will”
Royce said, ”
“Monte have you ever known anyone who was baptized but not saved? I’m talking about someone who said the right things and had the right baptism but their live after their baptism proved they were not truly disciples?”
Royce,I was taught I needed baptism(age 16) to wash away sins(be saved). I had been believing(not really walking with)in Jesus since a child. I had a proper baptism. WHat I was not instructed in was what true repentance was. I was just saved(in my mind) but did not have a dramatic change of lifestyle at all. MY heart might have been softened and a seed implanted that would eventually lead me to a full rejection of my former lifestyle(and it wasn’t a churchy thing, as I had not been attending a church). But a slow spirit leading that changed my heart. I did (at a gospel meeting) go forward and confess my sins and express a deep heart felt desire to change(many tears). I then in a process started attending regularly and began to change and become more obedient in my walk. During this time my then girlfriend believed, repented and was baptized. I later in reflecting upon my previous baptism(no one persuaded me) began to think about how I had not truly repented. I decided to put an end to doubts I had and to go ahead (since I did have a complete change of heart) and be baptized again. Now I personally don’t know how to make sense of all of that. Maybe you would have advised me to not be baptized again, maybe God accepted my first one and worked with me to bring me to where I was more fully changed some 6 years later. Maybe it was one continuous process since my young childhood and believeing in Jesus.How the Spirit moved in my life exactly, I can’t say. BUt I do feel the Spirit led me to be baptized again, not some CofC preacher. Truly each of us(who trust in JEsus) are on a unique spiritual journey. I don’t believe there is a cookie-cutter, one size fits all trip. BUt I do believe that baptism is part of the beginning of the trip. It’s starts with trusting in JEsus, and when you do,you repent and are baptized into Christ. Your argument is valid that just becasue you were baptized doesn’t mean you are saved, but at the same time, we have to give God room to work with people. I have baptized people that IMO were just doing it to appease someone else(get them off their back)at least that’s what I suspected, but at the same time who was I to refuse them when they said all the right words? Maybe that would start a journey like I had. God can take our little and make a great blessing out of it. I think you would agree. BUt my last say on the matter is that there is nothing wrong with baptism, only with the attitudes of the people who get baptized. A dull lifeless walk after baptism doesn’t invalidate the need for it(Biblically), anymore than a failure to repent (by some) negates the need for it. And all of that to say that truly believing in your heart should lead to (when properly taught)heartfelt repentace and a valid baptism. Just because I believe in the necessity of baptism,I’m not one to try to pidgeon-hole God. GOd does know our heart, he is the JUdge, all I desire to do is teach what the Scriptures teach us to command a person who believes on JEsus. I would command them to repent and be baptized to have their sins remitted and to receive the HOly Spirit.I’ll leave who is in and who is out if things don’t go in cookie-cutter mold to GOd. PEace.
Laymond,
I am sorry to have mischaracterized your position. Perhaps it was the rest of your comments that confused me. You did, however, claim that God does NOT promise that praying for a miracle would guarantee it. That is a fact.
James 5:14-16a reads thus,
“14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.”
Look closely at v.15 gain, Laymond. What part of that is NOT a promise?
Your claim that the logic I applied is invalid is trashed by these verses. The logic I applied is exactly correct.
You also wrote, “Point to where the bible says pray for miracles and they will defiantly be answered and tell me what your success rate has been, with proof to back it up, please.”
The ‘defiantly’ part I leave to you. I have already offered two or three examples of answers to prayer that I believe can only be termed miraculous. Then again, with your defiance, perhaps you think healing is not a miraculous promise in James 5. If that is the case, then it is your definition of what is or is not miraculous which I would oppose.
Try to calm down a bit and have a blessed day, brother.
G as in Grizz
Grizz, I am sorry you have been without sufficient employment for such a long period of time. and I am not going to try to convince you that the episodes which you describe were not miracles. But the scientist in me says they are not very unusual especially the episode with your dad. prognosis are often off by as much as 21 days, even longer. It is a sad event when we loose a parent, or close family member no matter the situation, I regret your loss there also. Sounds as if anyone needs a miracle it might be you. Maybe God will see fit to send a great job your way, or maybe he has but you didn’t take advantage of it.
Grizz, What kind of work do you want to do? I might be able to circulate your resume. I worked in industry and in academia and have several connections. Give me an email address or number and I can contact you.
Skip
Skip,
I could do management consulting or operations work, but my heart (and calling) are to ministry in the gospel and in the area of discipleship and church growth. I am open to God showing me an unexpected door, as well. I am a 53 yr old, white male of very mixed ancestry with about 25 years experience in management and a recent (2011) summa cum laude degree in Organizational Management with 2 years at Sunset when it was called a school of preaching and 3 years in Christian colleges associated with the churches of Christ. I am a retread as far as marriage goes. My first wife left me for a man who abandoned her. My current wife encourages me to pursue ministry if at all possible. We currently reside in NW Indiana where my wife is a hospice RN.
My email is [email protected] and my cell phone is 219-678-8148, if Jay will allow me to share them via these comments.
I appreciate the opportunity to share. Thank you for caring.
G
Laymond,
Thank you for your compassion. There is much too little of that going around and we must change that. God bless you.
G
Just one little question Grizz, who were the “church elders” when James 5:14-16 was written?
Laymond,
Your “little question” is not so little as it might seem. Since historical evidence points to the half-brother of Jesus as the author for whom the book is named, and since he died around 62 AD/CE, and since the author doesn’t even hint at a reference to the council we read of in Acts 15-16 while he does cover much the same ground Paul would later cover in his letter to the Galatian saints it seems a fairly safe conclusion to date this letter before the letter to the churches of Galatia (ca. 48 AD/CE). Such a date would point to James being an elder in Jerusalem at the time of this writing and the elders of James 5, well, it is pretty safe to say that the elders were not just older men and women, but rather those men appointed by each congregation of the dispersed believers (see Acts 8 and following) to whom one of the most familiar leaders in the church from which they were chased, a man who was an elder there, could have written with so much advice to dispense to guide them as they came to new communities and established gatherings and assemblies for believers. In other words, I have no names for you, but only the general statement that I believe these elders to whom James refers were elders appointed in each city where new communities of believers were established. I believe James was an elder among the saints, appointed as one of several, in Jerusalem at the time of this writing. And I further am of the opinion that it was probably written in the early 40’s AD/CE.
Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that I could have said that much more concisely? LOL
G
Anyone who has ever sincerely prayed to God affirmed the supernatural by doing so.
Royce,
If I could “like” that comment, I would. Greatpoint.
G
I agree with Royce, why pray to something you do not believe in ? when we pray we affirm our belief in the supernatural .
And if you believe in Angels you believe in aliens from out in space. There are worlds, if you will, that we cannot imagine awaiting us. This world and the life we have here is only a very small part of what we will be and do.
Alabama John,
If you believe in aliens in space then where in the Bible do we learn of Jesus going to their planet and dying on a cross for them too? How would they be forgiven? I don’t think any scriptures support aliens with souls existing in our universe. Perhaps there are creatures on other planets but not creatures with souls. I believe we humans are the only redeemable creatures. See Psalm 8
3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?
5 You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor.
The ones on another planet might of not screwed up as we did so didn’t need Jesus to come suffer for them as we did but could be straight with God.
To think God made all the universes that we cannot get to or understand for just us alone is pretty far stretched and sure limiting God in my opinion.
Skip, think about what John said, or do you believe the bible says that God and his angels are from earth. If you are not from earth, you are alien to earth. If you believe angels visit earth, why is it so hard to believe space ships visit earth. I believe scripture refers to something alien appearing in the sky wile a whirlwind or like a chariot . I don’t believe anyone is saying “little green men from Mars are stalking us” although they certainly could be. All things are possible with God.
We don’t know nearly as much about the history of this rock we live on, as we would like to think.
And hiding our head in the sand won’t change anything.
Laymond, I am bemused and dumbfounded. I am talking about this physical universe. I am not talking about when angels from heaven appeared or when Jesus appeared in the OT.
Are you talking about science fiction? If aliens with intelligence, not from heaven, appeared then we would have to surmise that they have a soul. Did Jesus die on a cross for them? How did they hear the gospel? We can only go by what the Bible teaches and reveals. I don’t see any scriptures purporting of the existence of aliens living on other planets. I do see visits from heaven though. Those beings need no redemption.
Laymond, I have studied solar system astrophysics at the university. It is nice fodder on the internet to speculate about life on other planets. All planets discovered so far have shown no proof of life or any ability to support life. There is a wonderful Christian video out called the “Privileged Planet”. Christian Scientists explain why we are unique in the universe. You should watch it. The sheer time to travel from across the galaxy to earth would result in the death of all aboard the spaceship (unless they can live for 10’s of thousands of years). If you want to have fanciful speculations about aliens then fine. But nothing in science or the Bible says alien beings from another planet visited us. Angels are sinless “aliens” from heaven. So I am not talking about that group. I would like to get away from science fiction speculation and get back to debating legitimate Bible topics.
Skip, please inform me of just how far it is to “heaven” , and how long did it take for Satan to reach earth once he was kicked out of God’s Kingdom. No we are not talking of our primitive machines reaching the outer reaches of the universe. But the bible said Jesus was coming back, but I would surmise he will not be in a 747 Boeing . You say there is nothing said about other beings and their residents in the bible, if you were writing a book of instructions exclusively to the Chinese, would you start by giving the history of the Arabs. or Japanese ? This book was written from information given exclusively for the benefit of the human race. Maybe the Vulcans have an altogether different book. Have you not seen the spaceship Enterprise and the speed it can attain. Seriously we know more about this earth than any first century writings ever revealed, there are things here that would stretch the abilities of modern man, with all their machines. God didn’t explain his origin, nor any of his actions prior to the creation of earth and man. but we know he had to be, in order to create.
Laymond, So you think heaven is in this physical universe and Jesus will quickly fly here when he returns. Jesus is in the spiritual realm. He will eventually appear. The Bible says he is not far from each one of us right now. Let’s not confuse yruth with Star Trek.
Laymond, You said, “God didn’t explain his origin”. Of course you know God had no origin. He is eternal.
In the 40’s and 50’s the science we studied in school taught us that it would be impossible for humans from this earth to ever go to the moon because they would die of old age before getting back due to the distance.
Our thinking of outerspace has advanced.
WE cannot imagine the wonders we will behold when we get to heaven, whever it is. Folks all around the world even primitive peoples for some reason look upward into the heavens for their God.
We’ve got a lot to learn.
Whatever the future holds we know the current heavens and earth will be destroyed with fire and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Somehow I don’t think it will be in the physical realm since God is infinite in this universe.
Skip said, “Let’s not confuse truth with Star Trek.”
Let me tell you something Skip, genesis 1 knocks Star Trek plum out of the box. If God existed before all things, where did he exist if something exists it has to have a place to exist, if it exists “nowhere” it does not exist.
Laymond, Your thinking is too restricted. God is simultaneously everywhere. Do you actually believe God is physical and thus is restricted to in one spot? If he is next to you, can’t he simultaneously be next to someone in China? Have you not studied Psalm 139?
That’s why He can be the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one, and also three all at the same time. That’s all we know about but who or what else or where else God can be if he wants is anyones guess. Pillar of fire, rock, cloud, who knows what else and how many heavens?
The devil, the other side, can do many of those things too. Once was even inside a herd of pigs. Try to explain how the devil can and did do that. We only know so very little of these things and that is why for any of us to stick our chest out and tell anyone how it really is is pretty bold and absurd.
Many things hard to explain about our God to grandchildren when they ask about our ever loving God, who loves us all, having everyone killed, even the livestock and the babies of bad people and many other things written in the Bible.
We all do the best we can but to think any of us have it all just right and full understanding above all others is folly. Better to be humble and wait for much to be explained to us on the other side.
I like what one man said that I cannot remember his name: When I get to heaven, God has a lot of explaining to do.
AJ said,
“When I get to heaven, God has a lot of explaining to do.”
You probably didn’t mean it to sound that way, but Job thought the same thing . Then he repented. Yes there are some mysteries we are all curious about, but God doesn’t have to explain Himself to anyone, but He may choose to.
I was reading something the other day about how the evil angels had mated with human women(Gen 6) and produced in essence a bad seed(evil blood line). “Noah was perfect in his generations.” HIs blood line was still all human(no hybrid). God had those people completely annihilated because he knew that if the Jews intermarried with them, that would infect his chosen race with a demonic/human bloodline.
Not saying I buy into that, but it does give an explanation about why they were completely destroyed. Plus it’s kind of hard to kill children’s parents and raise them thinking they are going to love you in return for doing so.
Monty,
I should of put an LOL after that.
It would be hard for any man to kill children but in the Bible it happened many times.
As a forward observer many years ago I called in artillery on a supposedly known enemy occupied building and when it hit, saw children coming out all injured to say the least. It was a school.
Never have forgotten that and it was from a distance, can’t imagine putting them to the sword or bashing them.
Monty,
with that evil angel thinking, they must have bred with the animals too as they were ordered to be destroyed.
Lots we don’t understand and Thank God we go along in faith.
Let me try to get caught up on questions here.
skip asked, “Laymond, So you think heaven is in this physical universe and Jesus will quickly fly here when he returns. Jesus is in the spiritual realm.”
Please allow me to do what others have and continue to do on this blog, let me answer that with a question of my own.
Skip do you think what the angel of Christ showed, and described to John in revelation, was physical, or spiritual?
Skip asked, ” Do you actually believe God is physical and thus is restricted to in one spot?”
I take Jesus at his word, ” Jhn 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
And I believe what makes God, God is the fact that he/ “The Holy Spirit” is not restricted in anything.
Alabama John said, “That’s why He can be the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” John I will not attempt to argue with you as to “What God can be” God can be anything he wishes, as long as it is a living thing. Spirit is life, and God is a spirit. Any living breathing thing has the spirit/breath of God. remember how Adam became a living soul. That said there is no scripture that mentions God being a “Trinity” I will ask you the same question Skip asked me, wouldn’t that restrict God, to being “three persons”.? Three is not an unrestricted number.
1Cr 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Job 36:26 Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out.
Once the breath of God is taken from this body, it is a dead body, and we of our own can not change that. But there was one occasion when that was not the case. Jesus spirit re-entered his body and revived it, how did he do that? well here is what he said. “This commandment have I received of my Father.” He did not say he did it all on his own.
Jhn 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Jhn 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
laymond,
God by naming three that He is, is not restricted to be only three.
God is only restricted to doing good. God cannot do evil. Even God has limits as that is the order God created and He is bound by it as we are.
As George Burns said when he protrayed God, there is a opposite side to everything, top has a bottom, back has a front, up has a down, good has an evil.
God made it that way.
A. John said, “God by naming three that He is, is not restricted to be only three.”
True, but when we say God is a Trinity, that is exactly what we do. We restrict God to being made up of three spirits #1 the spirit of creation #2 the spirit of knowledge #3 the spirit of truth. I believe that is way short of the God the bible shows. The spirits of God at least number seven, and I would be surprised if that covered them all.
Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.
Numbers 24:2 the Spirit of God came upon him
Matthew 3:16 the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.
Many scriptures in the Bible, including those above say that God has A Spirit – singular. Revelation talks about God having a 7-fold spirit. I can’t translate that to contradict the scriptures above. Perhaps God’s singular spirit has 7 dimensions or 7 aspects to it. Be mindful that the number 7 in the Bible is the number for perfection and the seven-fold spirit of God might simply mean the perfect spirit of God.
KJV
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
NKJV
“God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
NLT
For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”
NIV
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
ESV
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Skip,
I notice you prefer to use one of the versions that refer to God as “spirit” rather than “a spirit” but no matter which version you use, the pronoun that represents the noun, is singular. If Jesus saw God as “three equal persons” don’t you think he may have used the pronoun “them” ?
Ham, loin, pickled feet, three named but many more parts available, ever what you call or describe each so a person would understand what’s for specific meals, they are still ALL Pork.
Same with God.
Laymond, You previously said, “We restrict God to being made up of three spirits”. I don’t see God as being made up of multiple spirits. I also see that 4 of your 5 translations say God is Spirit (singular). Thus your scriptures tend to prove my point. The bigger point to me is that God dwells in a non-physical/spiritual realm. He is everywhere at all times. He knows all things at all times. He also dwells within me through his Holy Spirit. This is very comforting.
Skip said, ” I don’t see God as being made up of multiple spirits ”
Neither do I Skip, so what are we disagreeing on. I see God as being Lord over all, I see God as having authority over all other spirits. So if you and I are correct in how we see it , how could God be made up of a Trinity of individual but equal spirits, as is claimed by many.?
Laymond, You seem to contradict yourself. You previously said, “The spirits of God at least number seven, and I would be surprised if that covered them all.” Yet your last post says that you agree with me that God is NOT made up of multiple spirits. I guess I am confused.
Well I can see where you might not grasp what I was thinking by what I said Sorry. I did not mean to say God the Father/creator, was more than one spirit. maybe I can be a bit more clear. My belief is that God Almighty is the great spirit, not one among many, but one with authority over many. Many spiritual servants that he commands. In my opinion that is backed by scripture that tells us that God sends his servants on missions, and those servants obey the commands of God. Actually God has authority over all spirit, heavenly and earthly, as well as all things not spiritual. When some say Jesus is God, or equal to God they deny many times where Jesus himself says he was sent by God on a mission. If two are equal in authority, one does not send the other.
Laymond,
Christ dealt with the very question that you are so sure that you can answer, yet those who Christ spoke to could not answer.
(Mat 22:41 NIV) While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 “What do you think about the Christ ? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied.
43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”‘
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.
In verse 44 The Lord refers to God, saying to Jesus Christ, represented here as “my Lord”. This phrase is an action that Jesus is participating in, “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” Then Jesus asks in verse 45, “how can he be his son” referring to the one sitting at the right hand of the Lord, If then David calls him ‘Lord,’
Jesus had them stumped so badly, notice their response in verse 46.
Do you know anyone who has more knowledge of the relationship between God and Jesus than Jesus Christ? Would you believe that Christ would intentionally deceive those he was speaking to, or us?
Larry said, “This phrase is an action that Jesus is participating in” Yes Jesus is participating in the dialog, but he is referring back to.
Psa 110:1 [[A Psalm of David.]] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
and if you read Psalms 110 you find David was speaking of future events. I don’t believe Jesus said he wasn’t from the stem of Jesse, nor the line of David. The bible says he was.
Larry asked, “Do you know anyone who has more knowledge of the relationship between God and Jesus than Jesus Christ? Would you believe that Christ would intentionally deceive those he was speaking to, or us?” NO is my answer to both questions. But, how would anything Jesus said be taken as deception?
I believe David was speaking of the event spoken of in the book of Hebrews.
Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Hbr 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
NIV
But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
NIV
and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.
So Larry I don’t know what you are saying when you say, “Christ dealt with the very question that you are so sure that you can answer”
Proposals for Jay’s challenges
Jay has mentioned many times that no one has offered to address his challenges and I have never seen some of these point that I will provide addressed, so I will stick out my neck to see if these stand the test.
Challenge 1: “Only” can be implied
I listed dozens of verses that promise salvation to all who have faith in Jesus. For example –
(Joh 3:18 ESV) 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
(Rom. 3:22-24) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Please take special note of the location of these scriptures, or to be more precise the location of these scriptures in chronological time, prior to or after Christ’s death, directed to the lost or to Christians.
While on earth Jesus began teaching about the Kingdom, he selected the Apostles and was training them as he was teaching about the Kingdom. Also during that time Jesus told several individuals that their faith had saved them, that he forgave their sins. This was done to prove that he had power on earth to do those things, and of course it stirred up a great resentment among his people who used those events as evidence that they should put him to death.
With that in mind let us look at this John 3:18 passage carefully.
Let’s join the conversation.
(John 3:1 NIV) Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3 In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” 4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” 5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”
In these passages Jesus is addressing how to be, “born again”. He does not explain in detail here how to be, “born of water” but explains that, “the Spirit gives birth to spirit”.
It would be beneficial for you to continue reading, but getting to the next point.
(John 3:14 NIV) Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
In verse 14 Jesus states that the “Son of Man” referring to himself, must be lifted up. That really appears to me to be future tense. It had not happened yet. After that happens then verse 15 applies. 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. Verse 16 then conveys the message, “that he (God) gave his one and only Son”, is that not past tense? Had God already gave his Son, or is that supposed to be when he dies on the cross? The balance of that verse, “that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”, was that in effect right then or will that apply after Christ has given his life?
Verse 17 and verse 18 go together to make a statement.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
That statement is directed to define those condemned, and explain that there will be an alternate plan for those who will believe. It is not giving a full definition of how the process of salvation will be accomplished, to get to the point; it is not explaining that all who believe will be saved. Notice the following as proof.
(John 8:31 NIV) To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
(John 12:42 NIV) Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue;
(1 Cor 15:2 NIV) By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
(James 2:19 NIV) You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder. 20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
(James 2:21 NIV) Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
Should we attempt to separate his faith from his actions and defy God by stating that both are not needed?
Following this have you noticed that Jesus defines what he has been talking about?
(John 3:19 NIV) This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
Then notice the actions that Jesus and his Apostles did.
(John 3:22 NIV) After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.
Would they really do this just for no reason at all? Or was this a continuation from the explanation Jesus gave Nicodemus earlier?
You will probably anticipate that my response to the second reference will be, but to secure your thoughts keep reading.
Yes, the complete Book of Romans was written to Christians who had obeyed the message taught to them by the Apostles and those who were instructed by the Apostles. You can read all of the books Romans through Revelation and you will not find a passage of scripture that instructs the lost how to become a Christian.
Now, here is my challenge to any of you, find one and show me how it is verified.
I doubt that most of you are convinced yet, so let’s continue.
Many men really like the Book of Hebrews, and there are some very good lessons there.
This one has to do with the transition from The Old Covenant to The New Covenant. We can see Jesus in his actions as the change is made.
(Heb 9:1 NIV) Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary.
Go ahead and read the verses in between.
(Heb 9:15 NIV) For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. 16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”
All those that Jesus had spoken to and forgiven sins and told that their faith had saved them were completed at his death, just as stated in verse 15. All communications to them were only examples that we can observe that culminated at his fulfillment on the cross.
At his death the New Covenant was instated. As he met with his Apostles after the resurrection the only commands that he instructed them to do is found in these verses.
(Mat 28:19 NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
(Mark 16:15 NIV) He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
The message from Luke is a little different, but if you follow the events that take place at Jerusalem there can be very little confusion as what The Apostles taught.
(Luke 24:46 NIV) He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.
We sometimes read into what is said just as the Apostles did.
(John 21:20 NIV) Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
I for one have not been convinced that anyone who is not allowed into the Kingdom has been saved. I cannot bring myself to the position to oppose Jesus’ message to Nicodemus, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” As I understand “born of water” is baptism. Some individuals claim to be born of the Spirit who have not been baptized, but to complete only half of this instruction does not allow entrance into the Kingdom. Are there really Christians that are outside the Kingdom?
Challenge 2: “Obedience” does not require perfect obedience
I argued,
Of course, “faith” includes “faithfulness” as part of its definition (in the Greek). We must come to God with penitence (a synonym for “faithfulness”) — and so we must obey what we know to obey. And baptism is a command.
But many, many new converts are taught baptism in error – and they are truly babes in Christ when they are taught this error. And yet they come with faith/faithfulness, and so they obey as well as their understanding permits. They can hardly be held accountable for an expertise in Greek and theology that eludes 80% or more of Christendom!
I hope that you have noticed that I have not resorted to the Greek or Theology in the explanations; I do not believe that is necessary for an individual to understand Greek or Theology to understand the scriptures. I have never seen the use of those tools change any portion of scripture that did not conflict with other proof text within scripture. I believe that unbeknown to many scholars God has provided his Word with interlocking stories and events that will expose alterations.
Jay said. In short, we demand doctrinal perfection as to those doctrines that distinguish us from the other denominations and grant grace as to nearly all other errors and sins. And that fact alone should be enough to demonstrate our very wrong motives in imposing such an unscriptural rule.
My thoughts here are; “baptism in error”?
I have never found a formula expressed in scripture of what words needed to be said or if there have to be any, or instructions as to who has the authority to do the baptizing. There is no mention of any witnesses present as the Eunuch was baptized, so the one doing the baptizing and the one being baptized is enough. I certainly did not intend to overlook the fact that to baptize someone who does not believe would be considered an error and the fact that baptism is always displayed in scripture as immersion. Other than those, please explain what is meant by in “error”. Many of those who were baptized must not have understood all that is involved while the act is being done, many years after those at Rome had been baptized. Paul wrote in Romans 6 to explain it to them. This seems proof to me that a lack of understanding of all that is taking place while being baptized does not invalidate the baptism.
Paul wrote the letter to the Romans from the city of Corinth, while he was on his third missionary journey. At the time he was gathering an offering from the Gentile Christians for the church in Jerusalem (15:25; Acts 24:17). This would place the letter’s composition date at ca. AD 56.
From; Blue Letter Bible
If I was informed what a flawed baptism was I might see this differently, but as of now I believe that there would be no need for grace to cover any baptism conducted by immersion. Validated by Paul’s message to the Romans explaining what he says they did not understand.
Just another thought, how does this fit with someone being saved without immersion into water?
(1 John 5:5 NIV) Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. 6 This is the one who came by water and blood–Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
As far as I can tell, all that believe that baptism is not necessary or that one can be saved prior to baptism have not entered into the agreement between the The Spirit, the (water and the blood).
These verses really convey the message to me that the blood of Christ is connected in a fashion with the water. If this is true, and of course Paul gave an explanation similar, we are cleansed by Jesus Blood while in the baptismal water.
I have never found another application of this cleansing by his blood before he died, or being applied to anyone who was not a Christian as I read Romans through Revelation.
Challenge 3: We don’t get to cherry pick our verses.
Almost all baptismal debates boil down to this logic:
I disagree with the first premise (but not only the first premise). I think there are possibilities other than the traditional Church of Christ and Baptist positions. The one I believe to be correct is that the Church of Christ position on baptism is true but grace allows for mistakes, so that those who have flawed baptisms are nonetheless saved (unless they refuse baptism out of a rebellious heart, in which case they aren’t save anyway, as both sides would agree).
Looking at the title.
I noticed in Jay’s original comments the following.
Regardless of what the old Church of Christ-Baptists debates said in the early 20th Century (which is where most of our rhetoric originated), the Bible promises salvation to ALL with FAITH in JESUS repeatedly. It really does.
Now, these aren’t all the verses that teach that faith is sufficient to save. They’re just some of the ones that are the most obvious. I could easily add dozens more.
Jay quotes a huge number of scriptures, most are single verses, some are multiple that help to convey the context.
Some are from Jesus teachings prior to his death, prior to instituting his covenant. Most are excerpts from communications to Christians. Of course faith is sufficient to save all who have entered the kingdom.
Of course, the thought here could be that someone received Christ and became a Christian not knowing they should be baptized, and therefore was not baptized.
This seems to me to be the situation to which Jay is referring. They now have learned they need to be baptized and obey. Would they in any way be handicapped by the life that they had lived before? No, each individual is living today and into the future, what is in the past or even yesterday has been sealed in time and cannot be changed.
Just as many of us have made statements in the past that we no longer agree with it is what we say and do today and into the future that will affect our destiny.
Laymond, why do you believe you are saved?
Jay, I do hope can find the time to reply to Larry’s last two posts. It’s not as if you have not covered this ground before but, it would be informative to see how you respond. In my view
his whole thinking is built on a false premise. Unless one accepts that no person was ever “saved” (counted righteous by God) before the cross work of Christ and the practice of water baptism, Larry’s answers crumble under the weight of logic.
Larry it looks like it took you days to work on your baptism post. Your baptism explanation actually is more complicated than the sacrifices and sin offerings that were offered for the forgiveness of sins in the Hebrew Scriptures. The work they did couldn’t save them, their sacrifices and sin offerings prefigured the One who takes away our sins. They needed the Messiah to save them, the same Messiah we need to save us.
Grace, we should all be so diligent as Larry, we would learn many things. But I am a little disappointed that Larry ignored my comment and my question of him. Maybe a little patients is in order, so I wait.
Grace as for your question put directly to me. When and where have you ever heard me say, or seen me write, “I know I am saved” Because of my diligent study and acquired knowledge of scripture, I have “great hope” that I might be saved on the day that Jesus returns with his angels to gather the harvest of his work.
In the preaching of about Jesus(the Gospel), it includes the bad news(we are all lost and dead in sins) but then the Good News is God “because of HIs great love” and “HIs mercy” was willing to save us and took upon Himself the necessary work to do so and sent HIs Son Jesus to be our sin bearer and our atonement because of his perfect sinless life. Through His death(Jesus) on the cross and his resurrection, man could be assured salvation and an eternal inheritance,(life with God). Jesus died for all. But all will not be saved. Why not? Because many will refuse to believe the Good News. – I think we can all agree with that so far.
God loves everyone, and desires that everyone be saved. The proof is the cross and HIs word. The fact that God will send to Hell those who refuse to believe on(in) Jesus doesn’t make God a monster. He didn’t have to save anyone but HIs desire is to save everyone, but man has free will. The Good News is only Good News to those who choose to believe on Jesus. But what does that mean exactly? Should we not let the Bible explain what that means? And not some men’s thoughts since the Reformation?
If we look at the Biblical examples of what men did under the tutelage of inspired teachers we will not be confused. For example, in Acts 8:34, Philip told the Eunuch the Good News about Jesus(the Gospel) which Paul says, is the death, burial,and resurrection of Christ.(True that). But what has to be at least a little confusing for some is that in the teaching of the Good News about Jesus, the takeaway for the Eunuch was that he needed to be baptized. Here is water, “Why shouldn’t I be baptized?’ Philip had preached the good news to a lost sinner and the recipient’s first stated response was for baptism. Why? We are left with one conclusion, that in the preaching of the Good News about Jesus, Philip had instructed the Eunuch on what must be done when you believe the Good News. You must be baptized by immersion in water(upon your belief in Christ) for the benefits of the cross to apply to you. If he had been taught that he would be saved upon his belief “only” then he would have already rejoiced, but he didn’t rejoice, until after his baptism.
To drive an unnecessary wedge between “believing and being baptized,” as it pertains to a new believer’s faith response, is to do an injustice to the Gospel . Philip taught Gospel. Gospel taught, demanded a particular kind of faith response. A faith response that isn’t finished(culminated – a new birth has not yet occurred-everyone’s outside the delivery room expecting) until water is sought(for the Eunuch) and for every new believer. If all preachers and teachers would teach Jesus(the Good News) and teach the proper response to that Good News (As Philip taught the Eunuch, as Peter taught on Pentecost “Repent and be baptized everyone of you”, as Ananias commanded Saul of Tarsus, “why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized calling on the name of the Lord”, and on and on we could go, then we wouldn’t be having these ongoing debates.
What did Philip say that triggered the Eunuch to say in his heart, “I need to be baptized”, (pronto!)? Why did Saul need to get up immediately and be baptized? Why did the jailor’s family need to be baptized in the same hour of the night? Isn’t it because Jesus taught his disciples that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved? Jesus didn’t drive a wedge between believing and being baptized. That’s so totally modern. The time between the two is only put there by modern teachers who teach, faith “only.” There is a necessity for faith “only” teachers to have time between the two. To insist, urge, demand, or command that all believers be immediately baptized in the name of Jesus (much less say- “for the forgiveness of sins”) is to place upon being baptized into that name an importance they simply cannot stand for it to have. Yet to read the conversion accounts leaves one with no choice but to see the urgency the teachers placed on it and the new believer’s compulsion to obey the command, and to then see the acceptance of that new creation into the community of faith.
They cannot deny the teaching of baptism, therefore they are left with driving a wedge between “believing and being baptized.” Baptism doesn’t fit into the faith “only” mold, however it fits the faith mold just fine.To purposely make for the allowance of time between the two, whether purposely done or done in innocence, is to take away the necessity of it. Something never dreamed of by those who taught Gospel in our scriptures. I can say, I “should” do something, but that is far different than saying I “must” do something. To “must do something” but being allowed an infinite amount of time to “not do it”, really means it never was a must in the first place.
Again, I leave all the judging and what if’s up to God, where they belong. I’m not trying to say who’s in and who’s out. My only aim is to be like the Bereans. If that places me at odds with others, so be it. Let’s all teach the Good News(Jesus saves) and let’s all teach and command what the inspired teachers said believers must do (believe and be baptized). Could we go wrong if we did it as they did? If we refuse to instruct it (as they did) maybe we need to question why.
Nicely said, Monty.
What is this fascination with what God might do “if”?? Are we advisors who need to tell God what to consider? Surely not! Has God given us confusing instructions? OF course not! Then exactly what IS the issue? Namely, this: modern preachers are so little occupied with the Father’s business that idle speculation has become the unnamed idol on the hillside amongst all the others for which we have names. But unlike what Paul encountered in Athens, the unnamed idol on this hillside is NOT the God of heaven. It is the distraction of men called to preach God’s word being sidetracked into preaching speculative theories. And as Jay has provven, even elders are caught up in this snare.
That’s right, I forgot that the CofC are the only one’s who are about our Father’s business. The CofC 101 rule says they are the only true church about the Father’s business and for years have been damning Christians. When reading the Bible there was a sect of scholars just like that who Jesus said knew the Scriptures well but they didn’t know Him.
Grace,
Would you sincerely teach your chiildren that their faith response to Jesus dying for them is to believe “only” and then to purposely wait days,weeks,even a few months(many churches do) to be baptized? Is there any logical reason for delay, outside of being physically hindered?
Monty,
Am I mistaken or did you also understand both Grace and Royce to testify that they had been baptized and they teach others that they need to be baptized? If that is true, can you help me to understand why they seem to constantly oppose to act upon baptism as soon as an individual comes to believe?
Neither of us have ever said that Larry. Neither of us say baptism is optional, that it should be delayed, or that it’s a response to the gospel.
Both of us deny that baptism is a sacrament or Slavic. We believe God saves those who come to him in repentance and faith wholly upon the finished work of Jesus. We have NO merit we can claim as coming from us that makes us acceptable to God.
Now, speaking only for myself, I also believe God gives faith to those the Holy Spirit draws to the Father, that God grants (gives) repentance, and gives eternal life, sonship, the promise of resurrection, all in the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit who is Christ in us the hope of Glory.
Royce,
is. there any part of Calvinism that is NOT a part of your belief system?
G
Pingback: A Framework for Discussing Baptism: Unanswered Challenges |
There are two contrasting belief systems: Calvanism and Arminianism. It would be wise to understand both perspectives because the truth lies somewhere in between. Pure Calvanism teaches what we were foreordained to be saved and we have eternal security barely having to believe anything. Arminianism teaches that we have to work hard to assure our salvation and we can never really be secure in our faith. The Arminianism crowd is always looking for formulas and procedures and tests for salvation (As is witnessed on this website).
As Jerry Jones once said, “It is not once saved always saved, but neither is it if saved barely saved”. Much of the blogging going on here is an overreaction to someone else’s comments. There are elements of Calvanism that are absolutely true and can be backed up with scripture. There are also elements of Arminianism that are absolutely true and can be backed up with scripture. It is clear that the Church of Christ has followed a fairly entrenched Arminianism path. Please, let’s all stop overreacting to someone’s comments, trying to trap each other, and let’s try to see the truth in what others are saying. Otherwise this thread will never end and we will continue talking past one another until the Lord returns. (That would not be much fun.)
Laymond,
You said, “Because of my diligent study and acquired knowledge of scripture, I have “great hope” that I might be saved on the day that Jesus returns with his angels to gather the harvest of his work.”
Do you think you will be saved because of your diligent study and acquired knowledge of scripture? Is your salvation based upon your knowledge or the blood of Christ? Or perhaps I misunderstood your point.
Just trying my best to understand the gospel message Skip, If we weren’t supposed to study diligently and obey what we understand, I don’t understand the reason for the message.
Maybe we were just meant to “eat, drink, and be merry” but if, as Royce seems to think, we are all predestined by the “indwelled holy ghost” what are we supposed to do? if we are predestined , what good is the blood of Christ, if we are predestined what good is the words of Jesus.
Skip asked ; ” Is your salvation based upon your knowledge or the blood of Christ?”
If when God spread the manna from heaven no one picked it up, what good would it have done, who would it have saved.
I believe Jesus said he was the true bread from heaven, but we do have to pick it up.
I just don’t know how a covenant works unless both parties participate .
Royce says:
“Neither of us have ever said that Larry. Neither of us say baptism is optional, that it should be delayed, or that it’s a response to the gospel.
Both of us deny that baptism is a sacrament or Slavic. We believe God saves those who come to him in repentance and faith wholly upon the finished work of Jesus. We have NO merit we can claim as coming from us that makes us acceptable to God.”
( Royce, if sin cleansing baptism doesn’t make you acceptable to God what does ? Or if you want to go at it a different way, what makes you acceptable to Jesus, so he will recommend you to God? either way I can’t see a non-baptized sinner (sins and all) as acceptable to either of them)
“Now, speaking only for myself, I also believe God gives faith to those the Holy Spirit draws to the Father, that God grants (gives) repentance, and gives eternal life, sonship, the promise of resurrection, all in the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit who is Christ in us the hope of Glory.”
(Royce if God gives out faith like you believe, why does he not instill faith/belief in all his creation Scripture says he does not want any to be lost, and you say those with faith are saved and it is all free. no strings attached. Royce faith/trust is as personal as it gets, and it has to be earned. And sometimes we have to work hard at maintaining our faith, yes even in God our faith has to have a reason to exist. )
Skip, I agree with most if what you said here. However I think your description is if the extremes of both theological positions.
Edward Fudge has a great article on his website titled “What Armenians and Calvinsts have in common”. We agree more than we disagree. The difficulty is that people jump to conclusions and start assigning positions to people they have never held. It’s sort of like politics. Someone may say I’m a Democrat. That doesn’t mean that person embraces all the ideology of the far left.
If we were worshipping together in a community, this disagreeing would cause once again another split.
How many more times can we split and how much smaller can our churches become and be able to sustain themselves?
One close to us is going broke from loss of members while even another small split off one has split once again and opened in a metal building built for commercial businesses.
How long before those that opened it will split over some disagreement.
With all this going on, we better stop and evaluate what we are doing wrong as obviously it is something.
We in the churches of Christ have stopped looking pretty goofy to others and are looking that way to ourselves, but, maybe that is what it takes to bring us to our senses.
If we could just repent of our arguing, bring back those that have left the churches of Christ because of all the bickering we would be doing good. How to do that without anyone admitting they might just be wrong on something must first be done or we’ll keep on down the same boring path to destruction.
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
If I might interject, you guys seem to be talking past one another, taking each verse in it’s proper context is the key. Ephesians 2:19 – “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together.” (apostles and prophets taught the Good news – which is truth)
Depending on which passage you are reading and it’s context, both Skip and Laymond can be right IMO. Jesus is the foundation our salvation is based on. (1 Corinthians 3: 11) For no man can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. Context, context, context !
Monty, Context is always the key. Jesus didn’t just tell the truth. He claimed to be The Truth. Jesus didn’t come to show us the way, he claimed to be The Way. He didn’t come just to give us life, he claimed to be The Life. (John 14:6) No Jesus, no sacrifice = no salvation.
It is hard to believe we are even arguing this on a Christian blog.
Amen Skip!
Actually, Laymond’s soteriology is not far removed from what has been taught in traditional CoC circles for decades, which is that we are saved by our participation in a divine “plan”. A plan, BTW, which we got from Walter Scott but never admit it. Most teaching about “the plan of salvation” barely mentions Jesus. “Hear the Plan explained by a credible (i.e.; CoC) source, believe that the Plan will work, confess that Jesus is the son of God, repent of doing evil previously, be baptized to remit your past sins, and live according to the rules found in the New Testament from now on.” With the exception of a one-sentence quotation of the Ethiopean’s confession, Jesus is sometimes little more than prologue to The Plan.
Laymond,
there are times when I think you have said something about as well as it could be said, but there are also times when I wince at nearly every word you write. This one started like the former, but ended up exploring new ground in poverty of reason. Of course, this is due to your denial of Jesus being God in the flesh, which just goes to show that even a simple passage like John 1 can be drastically misunderstood, especially when someone is blinded by their own personal biases when they come to the text.
For instance, when you are looking at a plate of cookies and see oatmeal raisin where there are only oatmeal chocolate chip cookies, you are influenced by the bias of thinking the appropriate additive to oatmeal cookies would be raisins and only raisins. When you look at the same plate of oatmeal chocolate chip cookies and can only see donuts, you are blinded by your bias to find only donuts on that plate on the table. In one instance, your bias causes a reasonable error, but error still. In the other instance, your bias has blinded your ability to discern reality.
Laymond, when it comes to Jesus being the Word made flesh, John leaves no room at all for questioning that fact. It is so sad that you are too blinded by your biases to see that truth.
Then we come to Charles –
and here I have to say, brother, that if you weren’t so busy finding wood to feed the fire upon which you have piled tradition and church of Christ experiences you have had and everything else you despise, you would be a much better writer. You undermine the credibility of your writing so that your gift becomes like a nagging mosquito or a pestering bee with all of your tiresome diatribe about which branch of the S/C-RM has gotten things the most wrong in highly publicized debates and discussions of your favorite target doctrines.
I used to enjoy your posts, for the insights you shared. Now I see your name and immediately ask myself, “what about the cofC has gotten Charles’ goat today?” Regrettably, Charles, you very, very rarely fail to answer that question. I am reminded of Dr. Phil’s old stand-by … “How’s that workin’ for ya?”
Perhaps these two stand for what has prolonged this discussion so far beyond its sell-by date. When we come with our own agenda, even the best intentions become deaf to the reality of the conversation. Is there a solution? Yes. 1 Corinthians 15:31 given expression in the way we live with and love one another.
Just sayin’,
Grizz
Grizz, I overlooked the comment where you asked if there is any part of Calvinism that I don’t believe. That’s a fair question given what I written here. As I hinted above in a comment, a person can be a Democrat and not hold all the positions and ideologies of someone like say the chairperson of the DNC. And so it is with Calvinism or other theological schools of thought. If you asked me “Are you a Calvinist?” my answer would be “No” given that Calvinists largely agree with all 5 points of classic Calvinism.
Jay has asked that we not discuss Calvinism and so I will not do that here. I do not agree with some of the 5 points of TULIP. I have written about that on my blog, GraceDigest.com. You can do a search there and find the post.
Grizz said,
“I used to enjoy your posts, for the insights you shared. Now I see your name and immediately ask myself, “what about the cofC has gotten Charles’ goat today?” Regrettably, Charles, you very, very rarely fail to answer that question.”
I’m not usually one to go “Amening” (see my posts) what others say on here, but I feel I must “Amen” what Grizz wrote at 3:34 yesterday and make an exception in this case. I agree with everything Grizz wrote(and he wrote it well) concerning Laymond and Charles.
Where Charles is concerned, what a talented, talented writer, but one who possesses such a bitter, divisive, spirit. He offers us gems of brilliance if we’re willing to go digging through the muck, regardless of the pervasive stench.
You should read the whole book if 1 John.
Skip, Laymond, etc.,
As I’ve repeatedly stated in the past, I will not allow the comments to be taken over by Laymond’s theorizing on the nature of Jesus. His theories have been thoroughly aired here before, the readers are tired of it, and it will not continue.
As is my longstanding practices, I delete without explanation all such comments, by both sides. If Laymond wishes to continue to push his unorthodox theory, he is welcome to do so at his own blog, but this is not the place.
Thanks Jay. I will cease and desist in future such discussions with Laymond.
Jay, I understand that is troublesome to you that there are people in the CofC professing things as Laymond is, I try to respect that you don’t want anyone to comment back to him. You said you were going to delete all the comments made back to him about his disbelief, however you only deleted my comment trying to tell Skip there was no need to keep an endless discussion with Laymond about it until he was open to it. You did not delete Skip or Grizz’s comments to Laymond about his disbelief. I was just wondering why two men’s comments were left on here, but being a women’s my comment was not?
And you can moderate me over the gospel itself if you want, it only shows to me and others that see this that the progressive CofC really isn’t as open to discussions as they claim to be. With God on our side we do not fear to speak about Jesus. As I said I try to respect that you don’t want it discussed here, I had stopped commenting back to Laymond about it, I tried to intervene the discussion Laymond was continuing on here with Skip. I try to respect your blog, though for someone to get so upset over people speaking the gospel is not admirable for people to see. Have you moderated the men that have commented back to Laymond? That tells a lot about your character.
Wow Grace!
I can assure you that you are mistaken about Jay’s character and motives.
Remember he is not well and it takes some doing to read and moderate comments. If Jay did delete your comment and not others it was not intentional. I would be shocked to learn otherwise.
One of the reasons I have chosen to approve comments before they are approved is because of problems I see such as this.
Patience….
Grace, You are somewhat new to the website and trust me, Laymond has repeatedly gone over his theory about how Jesus is less than God, legalistic obedience, and truth (not Jesus) is our foundation. I think since the discussions get nowhere and Laymond’s theology is unorthodox and aberrant, the desire is to move on to more fruitful discussions.
How about posting what has worked for you to help get to those either that have left the very conservative churches of Christ and are attending no where or those that still attend but are very unhappy but keeping their mouths shut to not be labeled a trouble maker.
I will pass on any ideas you have that worked as we are wanting to expand our efforts and reach out to those very brothers and sisters here in Birmingham, Alabama.
I’m not asking for theory, heard all that I can stand from butt sitters writing, but what actually worked.
AJ I’m curious. I had friends at Homewood many years ago and know that it was considered to be somewhat progressive. Is that still the case?
Gary, yes, it still is somewhat, far more than most around here, and we have members that left there to worship more so.