We are considering N. T. Wright’s newly released Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God)
Beginning at p. 426, Wright briefly considers baptism as a symbol of Christian unity, starting with —
(1Co 12:13 ESV) 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
He comments,
The primary point of baptism, then, is not so much ‘that it does something to the individual’, though it does, but that it defines the community of the baptized as the Messiah’s people. Those who submit to baptism are thereby challenged to learn the family codes, the house rules, the way of life that this community is committed to precisely because it is the family of the Messiah, the crucified and risen one.
(emphasis in original).
Wright is not denying that baptism itself does something. That’s not his present topic. Rather, he is more concerned with the impact of baptism, at a worldview level, on the Christian and the Christian community.
And, he concludes, baptism incorporates the convert into the body of Christ — so that the convert must learn to live as a part of this new community, according to its way of life.
He is most certainly not arguing the Baptist view that baptism adds one to the church but doesn’t save. He is simply not responding to those questions either way. Rather, he is looking pragmatically at how baptism works in the life of the convert.
And, as is certainly true in the Churches of Christ, a baptism (among many other things!) announces to the church that this convert has come to faith and made a commitment to Jesus as Lord. We properly consider someone who’s been baptized as a “member” and subject to the obligations that members must necessarily take on. And the baptized convert realizes that his baptism does these things (but not just these things).
And as Paul — typically — makes clear in 1 Cor 12:13, baptism is into the singular, united body of Christ. There is but one baptism and it is into the one church. Hence, baptism is powerfully a symbol of the united church.
Of course, the same is true of the Lord’s Supper. Paul only speaks to the topic in 1 Corinthians, and there he insists —
(1Co 10:17 ESV) 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
That is, the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the unity of the church. It’s not so much that there is only one loaf. After all, it’s unlikely that the church in Jerusalem, with thousands of members, all ate from the same loaf! Rather, “the loaf” is synecdoche for the meal itself. We eat at a common table; we share food; therefore, we are family and united.
But as was the custom of the day for families, they ate from a single loaf (to the extent the bread would go that far) and following the Passover tradition, they shared a cup (symbolic of family and a common heritage within Israel).
Of course, the church transformed the Passover so that the Lord’s Supper spoke of the death and resurrection of Jesus and the new covenant of Jeremiah 31.
Thus, at a very practical level, this common meal was intended to help build the church up in love. Hence, the Corinthians’ abuse of the meal was a great travesty and insult to the institution.
It is therefore my view that church leaders should lead their congregations to conduct joint communion services with other churches in town. This is, for a Church of Christ eldership, terrifying, of course, because it forces the leaders to take a position on a matter that is hugely controversial. Exactly.
We cannot claim to honor God’s command to be united unless we practice a visible unity. The Lord’s Supper is a travesty if it does not lead to a visible unity. And unity is not bounded by congregational lines.
The sad truth is that the Churches of Christ — and many other denominations, too — have improperly narrow views of who is and isn’t saved, going back to the error of the Reformation churches in which fellowship was only granted if you agreed on every single point of doctrine.
This is precisely the error that Alexander Campbell and the other Restoration Movement founders sought to correct — and that the later Restoration Movement leaders rejected — all the while pretending to follow in the footsteps of Campbell, etc.
Hence, we went from being a unity movement to a movement that divided over all sorts of strange things — including “grace/unity,” the Sunday school, one cup, and whether a church may provide financial support for orphanages. Strange … and sad.
We cannot put this error behind us — we cannot repent — except by showing visible unity with those who disagree with us on some things but not the main things — most especially faith in Jesus.
The Church of Christ and the Baptist church could learn a valuable lesson from the Episcopal Church if they would let themselves look past their fear of its left leanings. And that is how it teaches that one’s baptism is for the forgiveness of sins; yet, spend valuable time before hand instructing the candidates as to what baptism is to the individual and to the community. What stands out is how they are Biblical in the purpose of baptism without the fear and the panic of “We have to get them wet right now!!” There is something to be said about trusting God’s knowledge of the heart.
Jay, does the writer not say that the PRIMARY POINT of baptism is something OTHER than what it does to the individual ? So, how would one reconcile this writer’s statement with the importance that some place on the salvific nature of water immersion? Don’t most CoC folks contend that the primary point of water immersion is for the forgiveness of sin/salvation? How could it be that salvation is somehow secondary to the suggested primary point of being included in the church? The only way that could be is if he considered one “saved by Grace through Faith” first and then making a public declaration to be included into the body of Christ.
Very good posts but I also understand the thinking of so many as debates have been held debating whether its the going under (immersion) that saves us or the rising up a new creature or newness of life? Hear it preached that while under water having a heart attack and dying would not save you but you must break the water rising out to be saved. Even heard it debated whether that means just the nose or the whole body?
We need more post like ya’ll are posting and asking questions like those asked here of our COC brethren.
Sadly it is easier and more fruitful to go to the ones plainly lost than to go to our brethren.
.
Price,
Wright is an Anglican and was an Anglican bishop for some long time. He takes a sacramental view of baptism. At least, he has in the past. But he was not addressing that question in the quoted material.
I can find nothing in his new books re the Baptist v. CoC debates re the effects of baptism. He’s just not interested in the question, so far as I can see. However, in earlier works, he does take a sacramental view, similar to the CoC view, except he sees no need for the timing of baptism to correspond with the timing of salvation.
Wright is arguing that when baptism precedes faith, it’s only effective if the child eventually comes to faith later. In which case, the baptism was always effective!
Regarding what is and isn’t “primary,” Wright is, again, simply not interested in when or how baptism is associated with salvation. It is. Rather, his point is that Protestants in general overly emphasize the individual nature of our salvation, ignoring the community aspect of it.
We are “elect” because when we are saved, God adds us to the “elect” Kingdom. Our election is entirely about our being part of the community of the elect. (And this is one place the Calvinists get confused.) Israel is God’s chosen people, and the Gentiles who come to God in faith are grafted into the elect community.
Wright, moreover, closely ties baptism to the Exodus narrative, as Paul plainly does in 1 Cor 10, and less plainly does in 1 Cor 12 and Rom 6. But the movement from slavery to freedom in baptism, narrated in Rom 6, is part of Paul’s exodus typology.
Again, God did not save individuals in personal relationship through the Red Sea. He saved a nation that he’d chosen. But they were indeed saved.
Obviously, individual and community salvation overlap — they are the same thing viewed through different lenses. Baptism, Wright argues, is actually more of a community lens event than an individual lens event — contrary to 500 years of Protestant assumption.
Of course, the Churches of Christ actually get this right much of the time. We have a strong preference for “public” baptisms, meaning baptisms within the presence of the gathered church. We even like to use Jordan River scene in the back of the baptistry — which parallels John the Baptist’s separate but related typology — Israel crossing the Jordan to enter the Promised Land: another community salvation event.
I know many Churches of Christ that like to treat baptisms as a family celebration, with the entire church singing to welcome the new member (“We Love You with the Love of the Lord”) or simply gathering to hug and congratulate.
Even “private” baptisms are quickly followed with an announcement to the entire church, not to make it official but to make the event a community event — which we instinctively understand.
Parallel to all this is Wright’s tendency to see salvation and forgiveness of sins, individual events, as secondary to the addition of a convert to the elect community. He gets there through his reading of the Prophets. For example, Jer 31 prophesies the new covenant and forgiveness of those who are a part of it, but this is a new covenant made by God with his chosen people. God’s covenants are made with the entire community, not particular individuals.
Forgiveness of sin is essential, of course, because forgiveness allows God’s Spirit to dwell within us and allows us to be a part of God’s own family. Forgiveness is the not the end but a means toward an end. It’s a really important means — but if we were to all be forgiven but not added to God’s chosen people and family, we’d have no inheritance. And inheritance is all about property owned by the community. We will not inherit houses. We’ll inherit the new heavens and new earth — together.
Valuable post and discussion. Emphasis on corporate solidarity certainly true to Biblical theology–it is a clear focus given to a divided community in Corinth, 1 C 10-11 (Supper) and 12 (Baptism). Same for Romans 6 and its place in the extended treatment of the Freedom theme (Romans 5–free from God’s wrath and for glory; Ch. 6–free from Sin’s tyranny and for newness of life; Ch 7–free from the Law’s impotence; Ch. 8–free from death and dissolution and for life and glory). Surely, needed guidance– given the division that exists in the Roman church (Romans 14-15, perhaps related to the Emperor’s expulsion of Jews from Rome in AD 49–imagine how that affected the church, and their return several years later under Nero–again, affecting the church in a profound manner). At various points in his presentation, Paul explicitly urges subgroups to follow his thinking–“I speak to those who know the Law,” later, “I speak to you Gentiles,” then, eventually, he is explicitly inclusive, “I speak to ALL of you.” One does well to open a concordance and follow the term “all” in Romans. The baptism text, like every other in the book, relates to the corporate nature of salvation.
I was saved through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Nothing I do can be compared to what He did for me.
All this discussion on the corporate nature of salvation and Paul’s combining of Jews and Gentiles (who are polar opposites) into the term “all” should mandate a complete rethink of unity. The fact that Jesus permitted everyone to come follow him including Pharisees, harlots, and tax collectors for Rome should be example enough that background did not matter. This should lead to Christians today accepting others who have different opinions, backgrounds, etc.
Mark,
Exactly. (I wish I’d thought to say that.)
Where in the Bible is water baptism discussed as being “effective”? Baptism is primarily a retelling of the gospel, just as is the Lord’s Supper. The one submitting to and participating in either is declaring his belief in the worth and work of Jesus for sinners isn’t he?
In my view, what is “effective” is our faith (trust) in Christ and that faith is expressed in a number of ways including water baptism. A symbol is never as powerful as what it symbolizes.
When a person who is baptized ends up not living a life worthy of repentance the problem is never the baptism. A baptism cannot be defective. The water is always wet. The problem is in the heart, it’s a faith problem, a failure to appropriate by faith (which includes every necessary good that follows) the benefits afforded in the gospel of Jesus Christ.So, the one who lacks Christian qualities of life after baptism does not need a better baptism he needs a new heart.
Would be nice if my church and your church could do eucharist together, but I know that is always the biggest point of contention in ecumenism.
Royce,
I see that you relate to baptism as a symbol and a message that must be intended for observation of others. I guess I must have missed those concepts displayed in the actions of baptizing in the scriptures. What I noticed was that the baptism was being performed to be of benefit to the one being baptized. There was not an importance placed upon the position or person administering the baptism, nor was there a importance placed upon those observing the action, who they were, what their beliefs were, or how many there were was not an issue. If as you suggest and I fully know there are many that hold the same view, would dictate that observers should be abundant and the scriptures should have given us the impression of the importance being displayed for the observers. But, notice the act was performed many times with only the administrator and the subject being baptized. Witnesses were not even documented. How many or who do you find witnessing Saul’s Baptism or the Eunuch? I noticed that you mentioned the declaration by the one being baptized of his belief in the worth and works of Jesus as the representation of the action. I have never found a place in scriptures that describe baptism for that conclusion. Enlighten me.
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx217.htm
Royce,
I have read this document from Al Maxey carefully and did not find any of his text that could answer the questions that I asked you. In fact he only analyzed the text he was asked to address, and I am not aware of any subject in scripture can totally portrayed in only one of many scriptures communicating about that subject. It is a common practice on many issues to limit the source of information about a subject to only what scriptures seem to support a preconceived concept. I believe that Al Maxey did not use all the resources in scripture to identify what purpose baptism serves, because the complete subject analyzed would expose his concept. I also fully believe that the carefully studied scriptures concerning baptism will contain answers to the questions that I proposed to you. I proposed those questions because the answers to them seem to me to be in opposition to the conclusion that you have presented.
Can you show how they are not relevant to the understanding of the actions displayed in baptism?
In your statement,”The one submitting to and participating in either is declaring his belief in the worth and work of Jesus for sinners isn’t he?” The declaring it to whom is one of the concepts that I am questioning. If God or Christ does not know already, then this action will not provide their affirmation of an individuals commitment. I just asked of you and others who was the declaring designed for then, considering the audience that was present at those recorded baptisms?
I see another: If you’re not baptized you’re damned to hell CofC debate coming. Just be sure you don’t hear the gospel of Jesus and make Him Lord of your life on an airplane that’s going to crash, or have a heart attack before you are baptized, H20 has to be applied on you before Jesus will forgive you.
Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient to save, the blood He gave is powerful enough to pay the debt for my sins.
Those that have been in situations that wouldn’t allow one to be baptized in water but would of if they could see things differently than most COC.
Larry, the purpose of being baptized by someone was obviously in order to have a witness for benefit of the church. God already knows but the church needed to know and having a reliable witness to ones apparent sincerity and actual baptism was essential to the life of the church. Aninias could now attest for Saul that he was sincere and changed. If no witness was necessary then we might immerse ourselves. Or, at least would be able to claim that we had. Again, God would know the truth but the church would not.
Price,
I would ask you to guide me to a place where the scriptures display actions that you have claimed. What would ever cause an individuals report about a baptism to be more powerful than that same individual reporting that his friend dedicated his life to Christ? Read the message of Aninias and show us how he needed the visibility of Saul’s baptism in water to testify to other Christians at he was changed. In fact if that was the reason, then the other Christians must have been the ones that would not accept his verbalization that Saul had changed or committed his life to Christ. Remember the dedication that the scriptures ascribe to Aninias? As you mention the church needed to know, show me a place in scriptures where there was an importance placed upon a witness confirming that anyone had been baptized to become a Christian. If you are a Christian today and meet another individual that says he is a Christian, are you commanded to accept his testimony at least until his actions proves that was a lie, or do you just consider him a liar until he produces a witness? Aninias was informed by God as to the message that he conveyed to Saul, so read again what that message. Would you not believe God’s massage? It really does conflict with your message.
Grace,
Whatever would make you only associate baptism in water with CoC doctrine? I believe that if you will read much of the history of Christianity you will find many people being baptized in water.
Every Christian group that I know about celebrates the Lord’s Supper and observes some form of water baptism. Some groups believe that God’s grace is imparted in the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine (grape juice). And some believes God only justifies those who are baptized, and some of those believe baptism is what actually saves them.
Both rites are biblical symbols of the good news about Jesus. Both look to Him and His work. Neither ever stands alone, and neither is anything but a sham unless the one participating is trusting the Christ the rites point to.
I am, by biblical standards, a Gentile. When God sent Peter to the Gentiles (Cornelius and his house) I believe the experience of Cornelius is the norm rather than the exception as all of our people teach so far as I know.
The reason many people have been baptized 2, 3, or more times, in churches of Christ, is because they expected baptism to do for them what only faith in Jesus can accomplish..
Hey Larry… Don’t have a specific BCV about the testimony of witnesses to one’s baptism….It was an observation… However, I would ask you why you think that someone must baptize you? Why, if it’s so easy to jump into a tub or pool of water by oneself would it be necessary to have a witness at all, if as you say one need only ask… My contention, though not inspired is that humans needed to have a witness to the event… Remember Ananias’ reaction to God first asking him to meet with Paul…more or less it was “Are you kidding me, God? You mean Paul the guy who is running around stoning people to death and persecuting the church?” Yeah, Ananias knew of Paul..Not via Facebook or internet Blogs… but by witness and word of mouth… How many times did Paul and Peter have to go to Jerusalem in order to testify to what happened? Why? Leadership needed to get some reliable confirmation… Maybe it’s pure speculation, but it seems fairly clear to me that the purpose of involving another was to provide a witness to the event that was necessary and critical to the life of the church at that time. Paul even speaks to how we are immersed into the church in I Cor 12.. a “member” of the body was there to be an encouragement and significant part of the group… It was important that a “public” declaration of one’s faith be made to give confidence to a persecuted group that this person wasn’t a wolf.. I’ve ever heard, though I have not researched it, that the Romans were particularly interested in imprisoning and/or worse those that were baptized rather than just one’s that professed to be a Christian. It was shared with me that they felt those that had made a public declaration were far more “dangerous” to Rome that some person who just said they were a Christian. Perhaps someone could speak to that… Wasn’t sure if Snopes would cover it. 🙂
Price,
Very interesting concept about the Romans. Seems to me that Christ would know his disciples, and equally the master deceiver who opposes Christ and Christians would know exactly who had accepted Christ and were no longer in his kingdom. If there was any validity to the Romans actions they might have been only persecuting Christians. No force on earth except Christ’s opposition would have a clearer incite into who an individual truly served. Can you explain any other concept why this event would have been conducted in this fashion?
This also makes ask the question. If that was such a major point in the identification of a Christian back then, why would it not carry the same weight today?
Think about this, Saul had been in the business of identifying Christians, there is no record of him asking if someone was baptized as assurance that he was persecuting a Christian. Can you find any communications that accuse Saul of taking action against one of his Jewish Brothers mistaking him to be a Christian, if he had done that even once, would the Jewish leaders have continued to back him in his work? They might even have treated his as a murderer. He would have been committing murder that was not authorized by Jewish Law. As long as he was killing Christians he was upholding The Law. Saul could identify a Christian without asking for a witness of his baptism. Even in Saul’s encounter with Aninias he did not have to ask Aninias for those who witnessed his baptism to identify him as a Christian.
Price, It is clear that Larry is one that likes to argue about baptism. Let him have the last word, Jesus knew that there would be people trying to trap Him when He would try to show them the Truth. There are not many ways to heaven there is One Way, not one for Jews and one for Gentiles, there is only One Way for all mankind. Jesus’ blood is sufficient to take away sins without the help of human hands.
Royce,
I to am a Gentile according to the same rules. I know that there has been a lot of teaching in the past concerning the events that transpired while the Gentiles were being accepted into the kingdom. In my studies of the events I learned to see something that I was not taught and I am glad that you have explained that you believe that Cornelius and his family were accepted into the kingdom. Because, in accepting that as a truth, it is also necessary to accept the importance that Peter placed on baptizing them. I hope that you also followed that same pattern with the same respect for baptism. Have you noticed how quickly that was performed?
Actually, the only opposition to the events recorded that I have ever heard was in response to the exact time of their salvation (which really should not effect whether or not they received salvation) so the arguments are useless unless they refused to submit to baptism, which they did not. Now there would be a definite deviation from the message and actions of scriptures if someone received a sign as they did then refused baptism with an attitude that i am already saved and don’t need to do it, because it is only a symbol of what I have received.
Royce is following what Peter confirmed about the Gentiles. Acts 15:6-11 So the apostles and elders met together to resolve this issue. At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: “Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe. God knows people’s hearts, and he confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith. So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus.”
Yes, Larry, you are correct.. The world considered all those that were baptized as serious Christians, including the church…But, that’s not what we’re talking about here are we ? We aren’t talking about the church or the Roman Empire deciding if one is saved from eternal death. That’s God’s domain. And, according to scripture, that is based not on what we do.. He thinks holding up some sort of effort on our part is worthless.. He thinks what Jesus did is the only thing that matters. We either accept that by faith or we do not. Pretty simple.. God knows our heart. He saves. I’d rather have my salvation determined by a God that knows all than 47 groups of human Elders who would try and guess. And, yes, any sincere believer will be baptized. Period. It is a command.. But again rom 4 says we aren’t saved by obedience…we are saved by Grace.. We don’t barter with God.. He’s in total control.. He knows fake from real. He knows what motivates every action we take.. and faith is special to Him.. so, it should be special to us..
Jesus became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him – Hebrews 5:8. No obedience, no salvation. Peter said in Acts 5:31- We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him. You can’t even receive the Holy Spirit without obedience factoring in.We can quibble about what role obedience plays or what type of obedience and how much is necessary and we have for hundreds of years, but we mustn’t so easily dismiss the idea of obedience to God and to the Gospel and the role it plays in our salvation. We aren’t saved by keeping a law system, but that is a far cry from believing God doesn’t require obedience to Him any longer.
Monty, I don’t think obedience is being discounted by most… having a sincere faith also suggests that one will be faithful. I believe it was Jay that helped me understand that premise with his use of the term faithfulness. But, the Good News is that we are no longer judged by our ability to be obedient… otherwise, we would need to know whether or not perfection of 75% or 50% or 10% was good enough… Thankfully, the sanctification process allows us to grow up in the family of God, heirs to the Kingdom, and learn through trial and error to be more like Jesus without fear of being disowned due to our imperfections…
Monty says:
December 10, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Baptism is Naaman dipping seven times in the Jordan. Why? It’s what he was instructed to do in order to be cleansed of his leprosy. He didn’t think it necessary, but In the end he relented to the command and was obedient, and he was cleansed. Cleansed upon his obedience, not before obedience, though surely his trust(belief) is what prompted him to go to the Jordan with the expectation of healing. He didn’t merit or earn his cleansing by his compliance to the command. It was a gift(grace) applied, not at the beginning of his trust, but upon his completion of his obedience. James calls it “faith and actions working together” (James 2:22). Men love to separate faith and actions.
Actually Monty, I’m pretty sure God Himself separated faith and resulting action in Romans 4…
Luke 18:35-43 Then it happened, as He was coming near Jericho, that a certain blind man sat by the road begging. And hearing a multitude passing by, he asked what it meant. So they told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. And he cried out, saying, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Then those who went before warned him that he should be quiet; but he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” So Jesus stood still and commanded him to be brought to Him. And when he had come near, He asked him, saying, “What do you want Me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, that I may receive my sight.” Then Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he received his sight, and followed Him, glorifying God. And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.
John 20:24-29 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
The blind man heard that Jesus was on the road by him, he cried out for Jesus to give him mercy, Jesus didn’t make him perform any rituals, He knew the man had faith in Him and healed the man. The world wants to see something physical in order to believe. Thomas doubted and wanted to see a physical sign that Jesus had resurrected, Jesus had Thomas touch the wounds on Him so Thomas would believe. Jesus didn’t accredit Thomas for wanting a physical sign to believe.
Grace,
Are you actually promoting the idea that those you have identified did not submit to baptism? Therefore, it is possible to be saved without obedience to baptism? If so notice the following.
1. I must ask you maybe a dumb question, but it still needs an answer. In your first paragraph above, you bring our attention to the story of the blind man and the healing performed by Jesus. You seem to be indicating that Jesus saved the man; we notice that after he was healed he glorified God, which would indicate that he became a disciple also. We all know that many followed Jesus and many gave him honor and obeyed him that were not saved. Now for my question, Jesus healed many people, some did not even approach him to thank him, were they saved also, or just healed? My point being, that this man had ample opportunity to except Christ’s teachings just as others were doing after being healed, therefore, was Christ saving the man or just healing him? Jesus told him and us, “your faith has made you well”, should we translate his message into “Jesus saved him “?
2. You will have to assume that Thomas did not submit to baptism as he was following Jesus.
I have encountered many men that claim that there is no record in the scriptures that the Apostles were baptized in water, and their claim is true. But, visualize the following recorded events.
Thomas was among the disciples Jesus was speaking to here. Would anyone believe that a disciple listening to this message as their master spoke, who had not been baptized, and would neglect be baptized?
(Mat 28:19 KJV) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Would you really believe that a disciple could conscientiously perform the following actions and they themselves not have been baptized?
(John 3:22 KJV) After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. 24 For John was not yet cast into prison. 25 Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying. 26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
Even the volume of these actions were testified to by The Pharisees.
(John 4:1 KJV) When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
Of course, I am promoting that the Apostles were all baptized. Should we assume that they were not just because the scriptures did not make a record of that event?
Larry, I thought silence was prohibitive in nature.. Isn’t that the CoC rule ?? And, even if all 12 had been immersed in John’s baptism, it would have been a temporary forgiveness of sin.. Most likely it was more along the lines of the very common purification rituals performed in the Mikveh.. Plus, Jesus didn’t tell anybody to stop obeying the commands of the Law so sin was addressed only through animal sacrifice. The Hebrews writer says that forgiveness of sin is only made available through the shedding of blood… John’s baptism did not provide forgiveness of sin for all time.. THE sacrifice had not been made… There was no special dispensation for a small select group of people who just happened to hear John teach of the coming Messiah… It was a purification immersion and entirely symbolic or temporary in nature…until the next sin.. But, what you don’t see at all is the Apostles being immersed in water post resurrection.. perhaps this is because Jesus told them He was going to baptize them with the HS as opposed to how John did it in water… I guess they figured they had the indwelling HS just as Jesus said…like, how saved can you get Larry ?
You like most in the CofC went straight to Naaman to try to prove that someone has to be baptized before God will forgive them. So if you are going to use healings as examples of the power of God to save, let us look also at the blind man who Jesus accepted his faith and healed him.
John baptized and that made him known among the people, until this day he is still called John the Baptist. John baptized for the remission of sins and John’s speech didn’t put any power in baptizing people in water, Mark 1:7-8 “There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
I haven’t said the disciples were never baptized. However those that believe people have to be baptized to be forgiven can’t give a reason why the disciples baptisms weren’t recorded, an event that some in the CofC believe saves people from their sins, yet the disciples baptisms were not so important to be recorded.
There are clear scriptures connecting the time of baptism to salvation. There are also equally clear scriptures pointing to salvation without baptism being explicitly required. Everyone that was saved in the OT, was saved without baptism. There are many scriptures in the Bible that point to salvation by faith alone. So how do we reconcile this conundrum? I believe that we are responsible to respond based on our best understanding of scripture and at the same time we must recognize that salvation is not based upon rules or formulas but is based on faith from start to finish. There will be people in heaven that we are surprised to see and there will be people in heaven surprised to see us.
Jesus did a lot of things in different ways during his ministry on Earth, like packing a guy’s eyes with mud made from his spittle(interesting), healed instantly with no strings attached, accepted a criminals request to be in his Kingdom (albeit while hanging upon a cross), told 10 lepers who cried out for mercy(healing) to go and show themselves to the priest. Interesting story, it says as they were obeying the instruction from Jesus(headed to the temple) they noticed they were clean. Would they have been cleansed if they had not followed Jesus’ instruction? Some on here seem to think they would have. Would it have made Jesus a bad guy if he didn’t heal them because they refused to do as he said? Nope! Pretty simple instructions weren’t they?
Now no one (who had leprosy) would miss the fact that when Jesus tells you to do something to be cleansed – you do it! It’s still grace people. Call it grace with strings attached if you like. But it doesn’t make it a work of man. That’s really what all the fuss is about with baptism. Is it a work of God performed on a penitent believing sinner(leper) in order to make him clean (and yet many want to refuse it) -or – is it man doing something to earn his way? Jesus said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Pretty simple instructions. I’ve never shown that to anyone (who wasn’t previously taught against it), that when asked “what do you need to do”, that didn’t say, I need to believe and be baptized. You have to outthink yourself to miss that one. I don’t think that was Jesus’ intention with that verse.
Don’t be mad at the CofC for tying baptism to salvation, (the ECF’s did it too) . It was Jesus himself who instigated it. It was listed in his marching orders for his disciples. Peter says it remit’s sin when coupled with repentance. Peter says it does now save us. Some on here would say it doesn’t remit sin(forgive) and it doesn’t save us or have any possible connection to salvation. Who is right?
Monty, The whole body of scriptures on salvation is right. This includes all the faith only scriptures and all the baptism scriptures.
I look to the Scriptures, not the opinions of men. The Gentiles Peter spoke about at Cornelius’ house were saved before they were baptized. The CofC want to say it was an exception to the rules. It’s sad that people can’t see the power of God in the sacrifice He gave through Jesus. There are not many ways to heaven there is One Way, not one for Jews and one for Gentiles, there is only One Way for all mankind. I have faith in Jesus’ sacrifice, the blood He shed for me to be forgiven is sufficient. There is nothing that can compare to what He did for me.
Skip,
Could you share a few of the “faith only” scriptures? If a person is required to be baptized is that not faith only or are you saying it’s a meritorious work on our part? John called belief a work in his gospel, certainly not a meritorious work, is repentance faith or faith only, or is confession faith or faith only? Help me out.
Grace,
It was an exception to the general ways it had been done since Pentecost,( about 10 years if memory serves me correctly). Peter says so. Read it again. Why was there an exception? Cornelius was a Gentile. Common dig a little deeper. May God make an exception if HE chooses? Sure! But are we to count on Him making exceptions when there are pretty simple instructions? Are we to put God to the test? Cornelius wasn’t the one who changed the norm, it was God. If God does the changing who are we to argue, but it shouldn’t be us doing the deliberate changing.
Many ways to salvation, wow Monty for a church group that has argued with each other over communion cups, worship, Sunday school, kitchens, and whatever else, they will bend a little when God upsets their little world by saving people before they are baptized.
Monty, The faith scriptures are replete in the Bible and far outnumber the baptism scriptures. You have a concordance, you can look them up. I, of course, was baptized many years ago. But I also know of the numerous scriptures in the New Testament that talk about salvation without a single mention of baptism and I know that numerous people in the Bible were saved without baptism going from Genesis to Revelation. I believe that baptism is God’s will for every believer. I cannot condemn people who have faith in Jesus Christ and weren’t baptized or were not baptized “properly”. I will let God do that. I can point them to the scriptures, they must decide.
What if you have faith in Christ and are baptized correctly (you know, with the right words being spoken…) and then play a guitar on Sunday morning?
All,
Do we really need to retread these baptism arguments? I mean, we’ve covered the topic many times before. So … many … times …
And this discussion is not remotely about what I said in the post. Which is okay, I suppose, but conceding that baptism has a community element hardly defeats either the CoC or Baptist positions. It’s just true. It gets so old for folks to argue that any variation from the CoC tract-rack positions means we’re guilty of the Calvinist/Baptist position — as though the totality of all Bible truths may be necessarily classified as either COC or Baptist.
There’s a world of biblical truth that doesn’t fit neatly into either category, and we really need to learn think more freely than the 10-pages of a tract.
Regardless of what the old CoC-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.
(Mark 9:23) “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for him who believes.”
(John 1:12-13) Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
(John 3:14-18) Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. “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. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 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.”
(John 3:36) “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
(John 5:24) “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
(John 6:29) Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
(John 6:35) Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
(John 6:40) “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
(John 6:47) “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.”
(John 7:38-39) “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
(John 11:25-26) Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
(John 12:46) “I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.”
(John 20:31) But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
(Acts 10:43) “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
(Acts 13:38-39) “Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.”
(Acts 16:31) They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household.”
(Rom. 1:16-17) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
(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.
(Rom. 3:25-28) God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
(Rom. 4:4-5) Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(Rom. 5:1-2) Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.
(Rom. 10:4) Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
(Rom. 10:9-13) That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(1 Cor. 1:21) For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
(Gal. 2:15-16) “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”
(Gal. 3:2) I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
(Gal. 3:22) But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
(Gal. 5:6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
(Eph. 1:13-14) And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession-to the praise of his glory.
(Eph. 2:8-10) For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
(2 Thess. 2:13) But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
(1 Tim. 1:16) But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.
(Heb. 10:39) But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
(1 John 3:23-24) And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
(1 John 4:2-3) This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
(1 John 5:1) Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
(1 John 5:3-5) This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
(1 John 5:13) I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
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.
The usual tired, obviously wrong CoC 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.
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!
Now, a couple of years ago, we covered Romans 5 in some detail. One major theme of the chapter is that we’re only accountable to obey what we know.
Consider Adam and Eve — they were not accountable for their sins until they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We are not accountable for what we don’t know. Therefore, if a convert is taught in error regarding the meaning “baptizo” or “eis,” God will save them despite their error, if they have faith in Jesus.
After all, we don’t insist on perfect faith for salvation. Or else we’d see mountains being relocated. Nor do we expect perfect repentance (or we’d have sinless members). And so why insist on baptismal perfection? Is baptism that much more central than faith and repentance? Faith and repentance go back to Abraham. The scriptures are filled with those two. You won’t find baptism in the prophets. And the Gospels don’t say all that much on the subject (not nothing, but compare the number of “faith” passages to the number of “baptism” passages — and you’ll wonder why our preaching doesn’t sound much like the Gospels! We really and truly sometimes preach faith in baptism rather than faith in Jesus).
Our graceless approach to Christianity helped us win debates against Baptists in the 1920s. But it’s not sound exegesis, because it requires us to ignore far too many passages that plainly center our salvation on faith in Jesus.
That’s not to say that the baptism verses don’t say what they say. They do. Of course. Obviously. The question, though, isn’t whether we should teach or practice baptism as we do. I really think we should. But we have no business teaching that those improperly baptized who come to Jesus with a genuine faith and repentance are lost. They are not. The Bible is really quite plain — if we’d just be willing to admit that we’ve been wrong to damn so many saved people.
They doesn’t make me a Baptist. I think Baptist baptismal theology is just as wrong. You see, there’s a universe of truth that fits in neither the CoC nor the Baptist mold. And there’s no better way to blind yourself to the scriptures than to assume that all truth fits in one box or the other. That’s the dregs leftover from a debating culture that was more concerned with winning arguments than being true to Jesus. It’s time to think an entirely different way.
Jay,
I believe as I read your book, Born of Water, and reading what you have written above that you have stated that if an individual has not been taught about baptism being a command and is taught about Jesus and becomes a believer, they will become saved because of their belief and faith. I also understand you to be saying that when one in the example stated learns of the command to be baptized that they will obey.
I guess the major question that seems to be unanswered for me is if an individual refuses to submit to baptism because they believe that they are already saved, will grace continue to cover their disobedience forever?
As we read of the actions of the Apostles can we identify that any of the Apostles would have directed any of those that they taught about Christ that obedience to the command of baptism was not necessary, that they will be saved without it.
Price,
Did Jesus’ disciples also baptize with John’s baptism? Were these baptisms also not valid after Pentecost? We have used the example of men being baptized again to prove that John’s baptisms were not effective for remission of sins which is the example that you have expressed. What is wrong with that interpretation is that the men in the example had been baptized only knowing the baptism of John after Pentecost, after Christ had died for sins, and John’s baptism was not then of value to remit sins, therefore they were baptized into Christ. This does not invalidate the baptisms of John or Christ’s disciples that were done before his death, all of those commitments by those that obeyed were fulfilled at the cross, just as all that had lived from Adam were fulfilled, all of the sins that had been rolled forward by the sacrifices, all that had the faith of Abraham etc.
(John 4:1 KJV) When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
Larry, there is so much assumption in your question that it’s difficult to address… I think what you are suggesting is highly improbable. One might have been water immersed but was it symbolizing the death, burial and resurrection that the Disciples didn’t know about or even understand years later? Did the “forgiveness” of sin then override and supersede the Law and it’s requirements to make atonement for sin with animal sacrifice? HIGHLY unlikely that the Disciples decided to quit obeying the Law. Would Jesus have approved of them disobeying the Law? Was the Hebrews writer incorrect in his/her statement that the forgiveness of sin is only accomplished through the shedding of blood? Probably not. So, in order for the Disciples’ baptism to have mattered, it seems that it would have to have shirked the Law, been representative of something that couldn’t yet imagine, and been based on a sacrifice that had yet not been made… Honestly Larry, I don’t see that being dependable.
The other thing that would make me highly suspicious of your suggestion is the text given us regarding the Ephesian believers in Acts 19:1-5.. The text says that when the believers reported that they were baptized by John that it was decided to re-baptize them. This clearly indicates that the earlier baptism wasn’t somehow sufficient to “carry over” and be applicable to the new covenant…
Given the uncertainly and reliability of John’s baptism pre and post resurrection, I think it is much more likely that John’s baptism was ceremonial purification that the Jews were already very familiar with. Perhaps there was some forgiveness of sin from the repentance offered during the event, but if it was, it was definitely temporary, either until the next sin or until the dawn of the new covenant Easter morning.
At least that’s how I see it… but who am I.
As long as you base your argument on a false premise you will always reach a false conclusion. Our sins are forgiven wholly upon the basis of the cross work of Jesus, not on any rite or ritual.
Jesus said He came, not to condemn but to “seek and to save that which was lost”. He does the seeking and He does the saving. Our salvation is not a cooperative effort. Until you see Jesus alone as the Savior you will be on the wrong track.
I wrote a post titled “Repent and be baptized”. (http://gracedigest.com/2012/10/01/repent-and-be-baptized/) I invite you to read it. As Jay and many others teach, baptism is not salvic, there is only one way to be saved and that way is Jesus Christ. God counts as righteous those who put their whole trust in Jesus. Isaiah said it some 700 years before Jesus was born, Paul and Peter and John taught it and you should too.
This is my last response to comments under this article, unless Jay asks any questions of me.
The question is not who saves, baptism or Jesus, that’s just a straw man. The issue is, is there any responsibility on man’s part to do anything to receive the blessing of salvation. If there is, then man must respond, but how? Have faith is of course the answer. Man must have faith, but what does that mean exactly? I think it means we must trust that Jesus did everything necessary for our salvation, and that faith is the means by which God justifies the sinner. But how was faith expressed at Pentecost and following? What was the picture we get when we look at what folks did in faith? They believed on Jesus as Messiah and turned from sin and all obeyed the command to be baptized for the removal of the old man of sin(rebirth) and to be cleansed from sin( remittance).
That’s the picture of what people did. That’s the picture of putting your “hole trust in Jesus.”
Faith isn’t the absence of action, it includes action. Read Hebrews chapter 11 and see. By faith, Noah prepared an ark. By faith, Abraham was called to leave UR, it says and he obeyed and left. You just can’t dissect the believing from the leaving. Without Noah “building” an ark there is only belief without action, can that man’s faith save him? No!
If anyone ever had a right to use the meritorious works argument Noah did. He worked on that boat for along time. He could have said, he saved himself, but he didn’t. It was faith that saved Noah. The faith in God that was obedient to God’s command. No obedience, then no faith. If building an ark isn’t a meritorious work, then how is baptism one? If it’s faith, then people shouldn’t say “it isn’t necessary.” How can faith not be necessary? Being baptized is as important to the believer as building an ark was for Noah. It’s following God’s instruction in order to receive the blessing. Try to dissect them if you choose, but why would you?
Some on here try to paint a different picture than the scriptures paint as to what faith looks like. They see a faith totally unrelated to man’s physical action. They see belief only. And if it truly is belief only then there isn’t a need for anything else, not repentance , not confession, and certainly not baptism, or even Godly living.
Some see faith as the initial spark of new life(salvation), and any subsequent(action) coupled to that initial spark of faith(such as baptism) is of human origin and therefore man’s attempt of trying to add to(help God save him) what God has already done for him.
There are those who teach the Catholic view of regeneration (baptize babies).
There are those without a doubt who hold a distorted view that baptism saves regardless of true faith and repentance. Just get them dunked.
Then there are those who just think baptism is a sweet symbol that points backwards to identification with Jesus, but is void of any part of the faith that saves.
Like it or not, it still get’s back to what is the faith that saves?
Faith with actions that are called for or faith without any actions, even if commanded.
People should gladly receive the word that Jesus is God’s Son who died for their sins. And gladly receive the gospel call to be baptized. After Pentecost, there was no gladly receiving the word without baptism. There was no one who just had faith only(as some would mean it). All who were baptized were all that were saved. Today, some would teach that all get saved, some of those (all) get baptized, some of those immediately after they’re saved and others months later or perhaps even never. And it’s all OK.
Awesome post Royce, if people were to read it without an agenda set in their minds to so easily dismiss what God wants us to understand, that He from the beginning had one plan of salvation for all mankind. That the Creator Himself so loved us that He would give His life to save us. I’ve seen so many people that come from legalistic churches harden their hearts toward people truly seeking to know the truth. The cross gives us all access to come to Him, Jesus can save anyone anywhere. And let us show that we truly belong to Him as Jesus commands us to love one another.
Larry,
Thanks for your thoughtful questions.
“I also understand you to be saying that when one in the example stated learns of the command to be baptized that they will obey.”
I know countless people who’ve chosen to be baptized by immersion on a confession of faith once they learned the First Century practice. It really happens — and happens quite a lot.
“if an individual refuses to submit to baptism because they believe that they are already saved, will grace continue to cover their disobedience forever?”
Well, they are in fact already saved. They are still in grace. But will they be damned for their “disobedience”? Well, are they in rebellion against God’s known will (Heb 10:26 ff)? It’s an easy, superficial argument to make — they know to be baptized correctly and they don’t do it; therefore, they are damned for rebellion. But by that standard, not many of us will make it. I mean, who lives up to the standards of even the known will of God? Who evangelizes as he knows he should? Who prays as well as he knows to? Who loves as he knows to? Who cares for the poor as he knows to? Who is the husband or wife he or she knows to be?
Why privilege baptism as more important to God and the state of one’s heart before his judge than concern for the poor? Or the lost?
Well, it’s just so easy to get it right.
True, but it’s not that hard to give away everything you own. Or to forgive all who’ve ever sinned against you. In theory. But we are complicated beings, and even the simplest things can be very hard for us.
Therefore, I decline to judge someone for failure to be baptized in this situation — because I don’t want to stand under the judgment of —
(Mat 7:1-5 NET) “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
As I can’t stand that test, I will not apply that test.
At an even deeper level, I take Jesus to be quite serious when he says that all who come to him in faith will be saved. And I think those with faith will be faithful and that the faithful will obey — imperfectly with all kinds of gaps in their works and performance — and grace will cover all that. (Not that rebellion is impossible, but it’s not the expected or normal course.)
Meanwhile, I’ll teach baptism by immersion for remission of sins – because I think the Bible teaches it — and I’ll practice exactly that within my sphere of influence — and I’ll treat all who confess faith/faithfulness to Jesus as brothers in Christ.
Those with faith will be faithful and the faithful will be obedient. Like that Jay! It seems that describes Abraham who righteousness was accredited to him based entirely upon his faith.
Pingback: A Framework for Discussing Baptism | One In Jesus
Abraham was counted righteous BEFORE he was circumcised.
Skip,
I appreciate your spirit here. That is a verse that so many who claim “faith only” use, just as much as those who use Acts 2:38. “Tit for tat’ I suppose. With all due respect, I don’t believe what you are implying is what Rom. 4 is teaching. I would invite you to with just a couple of clicks on your computer to google Burton Coffman’s online commentary on Romans 4 and James chapter 2. It is short ,easy reading. He was a highly esteemed brother who(I believe) taught at ACU. Just food for thought. Take it for whatever it’s worth. 🙂
Monty,
If I initially DO anything in order to receive salvation then it implies that what I do obligates God to save me. Romans 4 says that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised.
9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
I was baptized by immersion understanding that I was born again. However, I also understand that we aren’t saved by what we do or procedures we go through, we must be saved in like manner to Abraham where he was justified by faith BEFORE he obeyed. The CoC turned baptism into a NT law that must be obeyed in order to receive salvation. The clear implication is that we can’t be saved until we do something. This flies into the face of salvation by faith. It is all a big paradox to me so I believe both conclusions: Faith only AND baptism.
Skip,
Sounds like something Paul might’ve said.
Sounds, like something the Holy Spirit told Paul to say…:)
All nits don’t have to be picked.
Skip,
I take it you didn’t read brother Coffman’s commentary on Romans ch.4 and on James Ch. 2. I would sincerely like to know your thoughts if you had read it. Since you won’t go there, apparently, I ‘ll bring to you a couple of snippets:
From his commentary on Romans 4: Strangely, some who make a sinner’s baptism to be “works’, and thus exclude it as a precondition of salvation, are strong to insist that faith is not “works” and the sole condition of salvation; but faith itself is a work of faith, in exactly the same sense as baptism. No less a scholar than Charles Hodge pointed that out. He wrote: “But faith considered as an act, is as much a work as prayer, repentance, almsgiving, or anything else of the kind. As it is as much an act of obedience to the law, as the performance of any other duty.”
Therefore, if obeying the gospel and being baptized should be classed as “works” in any derogatory sense, then the same thing applies to faith, Christ himself making it a “work.” He said, “This is the work of God, that we believe on him who he hath sent(John 6:29). Thus, of both baptism and faith, the scriptures teach that they are “works” in the sense of being things men must do in order to be saved; and both are, in a higher sense, “the work of God,” having originated with God and being commanded of Him.
He later quotes David Lipscomb : “Baptism has fewer qualities of a work than either faith or repentance. Faith is an act of the heart the soul, the inner man – something the man does. It is a work…so of repentance. “Believe and repent are both active-both done by the subject. The person baptized gives himself into the hands of the administrator, and is buried out of self, to be raised up in Christ. When a man dies and his friends take his body and bury it, no one would call it a work of the one being buried.”
Skip you said, “If I initially DO anything in order to receive salvation then it implies that what I do obligates God to save me. Romans 4 says that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised.”
Skip, do you not have to believe on Jesus? Of course you do. If you don’t, then Jesus saves man apart from anything he does or doesn’t do. That’s hyper-Calvinism. Is that what you believe? Maybe Jay believes that too, considering he backs you in what you said. Peter told the crowd on Pentecost to “save themselves from this untoward generation.” Of course you won’t say they didn’t have to “do” anything, such as believe on Jesus (Jesus calls that a work) or that they had to repent. Isn’t that something a person does? It’s just baptism that you deny(something they couldn’t do themselves) they had to have done to them. Paul calls baptism the “circumcision done by Christ” in Colossians Ch. 2 Why would Paul call it something done by Christ and someone else call it a work of man? Which is it? Isn’t it spiritual, every bit as much as faith “only” or repentance? If not why not?
Your argument is basically man can do all manner of things such as the “work of belief” and the work of repentance because it doesn’t require anything physical. Man according to you, mustn’t move his body or that obligates God somehow, but he can believe and he can repent, he just can’t respond by allowing someone to baptize him or that cancels out true faith.(Not moving his body, just engaging the heart and mind). If the mind thinks, is that not work on man’s part? Or is it just physical work God is opposed to? Isn’t this all so silly? Just a parting question for you. When you were baptized did you at that time believe you were “earning” your salvation by allowing someone to baptize you? Jay if you are listening in, is that what you believed? You earned it?
I wasn’t brought up in the CofC and was ignorant of any such arguments. I responded by faith in baptism, never once thinking I had earned forgiveness. I have been in the CofC for 35 years and never heard it preached or taught that baptism obligates God to save a man as if he had earned something by keeping the Law perfectly. Just strange stuff on here. Skip if you didn’t believe that you had earned forgiveness of sins when you were baptized, and Jay if you’re listening, if you didn’t believe it either, then why all the straw men arguments about baptism being meritorious? Just more Baptist teaching.
Monty, You misinterpret what I have meant. You can find scholars to support your view just as you can find scholars to refute your view. It is silly to call faith a work when the Bible says the opposite is true. A work is anything I do hoping to secure my salvation. Faith is placing my trust in the work of Jesus Christ. My faith leads to works but is NOT a work. We can agree to disagree since I have been down your road for decades and now have a slightly new perspective.
Monty, Also, I am far from Baptist and resent your using attacks to try to win an argument.
Skip and Monty,
I know of not a single scholar of any persuasion who considers faith a “work” as Paul uses “work” — except for a handful of Church of Christ authors who based their study on Lipscomb’s commentary on Romans. It is obviously untrue, since Paul routinely contrasts the two — and the contrast would be nonsense if one were to include the other. The John 6:29 arguments carries no weight because Jesus is not using “work” in the same sense as Paul (just I wouldn’t be if I said “I’m going to work tomorrow.” Same word. Different meanings.) I mean, if faith is a work (as Paul uses “work”), how can Paul write,
(Rom 4:5 ESV) 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
It’s incredible, to me, that someone of Coffman’s education would make such absurd arguments. And his arguments collapse in light of Gal 5, as explained below —
There are those who debate whether baptism is a work, with Luther saying no and the Calvinists saying yes. The Baptists take the yes position because they inherited their baptismal theology from their Puritan (Calvinists all) roots. It’s an old argument.
Here is where I think you have to start to ask the really interesting questions —
(Gal 5:1-6 ESV) For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
My reading of this passage is that imposing circumcision as a test of salvation damns, not because it’s Torah or something we do or legalistic or a work or whatever, but simply because it’s not faith in Jesus. And that’s much stronger than “works cannot save.”
But if anything added to faith as a salvation requirement damns, the question to ask isn’t whether baptism is a work but whether it’s faith — or is there is some other reason that Paul can say in the same letter —
(Gal 3:25-27 ESV) 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Paul seems to be both a Baptist and a Church of Christ theologian — in the very same letter! And so how do we reconcile the passages?
You can clobber your opponent with all the “we must obey” passages and “faith is sufficient” passages you want, but when you get worn out from the arguments, both passages will still be sitting right there in Galatians. The key to understanding, I’m sure, is to find an explanation that makes sense of it all. And merely declaring baptism a work or not a work doesn’t get you very far down the road toward a solution.
And there aren’t many people on either side who even attempt to reconcile all the passages. Most seem to prefer to pick a side and then outshout their opponents.
So you all are welcome to discuss this as you wish, but I’d be interested in how you both interpret the two seemingly contradictory passages in Galatians. It’s in the detailed exegesis of passages such as these where we really begin to sort things out.
Can a man claim faith as his own? No. Faith “comes” by hearing….the gospel.
Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that God saves. We don’t.
Royce,
It appears to me that Jesus applied the term faith with a different definition within the Gospels than you specify. There are also many passages of scripture throughout the Bible that speaks of an individuals faith using the context that it is their own. Abraham is among those I can identify. Surely there is a broader definition.
Jay, Thanks for weighing in. For about five years in my past I was a part of a Calvary Chapel church. Their mandate is to teach through the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation and then to start all over again. The preacher tackles about 5 chapters every Sunday doing a practical exposition while constraining himself to what the scripture actually says. This was very different for me coming from a CoC background where often the preacher would preach topical sermons. I was amazed over time how, by teaching through the whole Bible, one can connect dots that otherwise are never connected. I learned more about the “whole” Bible and God’s eternal plan in my years at Calvary Chapel than I ever learned over 30 years in Churches of Christ. As a part of this experience I saw how Calvary Chapel tried to walk the line between Calvinism and Arminianism. They believed that a believer can be secure but that we can also lose our salvation by persistent rebellion. Calvary Chapel also taught and practiced baptism and our church had about 20 or more baptisms every time they asked who wanted to be baptized. (By this I am not saying that Calvary Chapel had no flaws but only that they did some things exceedingly well.)
We now go to a Christian Church that has about 7,000 members (the local CoC is very dead). They too seem to stress faith and security AND the responsibility of the believer. We are constently baptizing also.
So I guess I have witnessed churches that welcome all comers, stress faith, and consistently baptize but without a preoccupation with the subject of baptism. Baptism in my recent experience is a natural consequence of bringing people to faith, not the goal of our faith.
Pastor Chuck (now with Jesus in heaven) from Calvary Chapel was the Pastor of my Pastor. My Pastor planted a church to teach verse by verse chapter by chapter that gives people so much more of the Bible and will stay in the context where we are at in the Bible. We have a balance between Calvinism and Arminianism, we do not believe that people lose their salvation we believe people who are saved are changed. We encourage baptism to people who have come in faith to our Lord and Savior Jesus. We baptize people with the Great Commission Jesus gave to us.
Grace, Having been in Calvary Chapel in the past, they do teach you can lose your salvation but not easily.
I asked my Pastor about it and we do not teach that, I’m not arguing about it, just saying what we believe and teach.
Jay..you said something some time back about needing to change our thinking… I wonder if a part of that change would be to try and avoid categorizing scriptural theology such as Calvinism, Armenianism, etc… It seems that there are scriptural truths that don’t belong to Calvin, or Luther, or Graham, etc…. and by suggesting that if a person believes such and such then they are grouped into a entire theological sector is wrong… Thoughts ?
Grace, I read through many of Chuck Smith books and Chuck Smith believed that one could lose their salvation. Our CC Pastor in Virginia also believed one could lose their salvation but not easily. The general consensus in Calvary Chapel Churches is that one can fall away after repeatedly and willfully living in sin. Your current pastor is an exception to the norm.
Not really Skip, we have had many Calvary Chapel Pastors from other states teach at our church who have said they do not believe that people lose their salvation.
Grace, A quote from Chuck Smith, “I tell people that, of course, I believe in eternal security. As long as I abide in Christ, I’m eternally secure.”
This issue on this is not on Calvary Chapel’s main statement of faith. Calvary Chapel does not have an official stance on this issue, they try to leave their Pastors freedom on it. The best thing to do would be to ask the Pastor to find out his stance on it.
Our CC pastor taught one could loose salvation consistent with Chuck Smith’s book on “Calvary Chapel Distinctives”
This is what I said, and it seems I have to repeat what we believe at the church I go to.
Pastor Chuck (now with Jesus in heaven) from Calvary Chapel was the Pastor of my Pastor. My Pastor planted a church to teach verse by verse chapter by chapter that gives people so much more of the Bible and will stay in the context where we are at in the Bible. We have a balance between Calvinism and Arminianism, we do not believe that people lose their salvation we believe people who are saved are changed. We encourage baptism to people who have come in faith to our Lord and Savior Jesus. We baptize people with the Great Commission Jesus gave to us.
I’m not arguing about it, just saying what we believe and teach. And we have had many Calvary Chapel Pastors from other states teach at our church who have said they do not believe that people lose their salvation.
This issue on this is not on Calvary Chapel’s main statement of faith. Calvary Chapel does not have an official stance on this issue, they try to leave their Pastors freedom on it. The best thing to do would be to ask the Pastor to find out his stance on it.
I’m not arguing over this, again just saying what we believe and teach.
I understood because of my prior experience.
Pingback: A Framework for Discussing Baptism |