We’ve been considering N. T. Wright’s newly released Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God)
Wright briefly (by his standards) discusses the connection of justification with baptism beginning at page 962, giving a good overview of his understanding of justification.
I need to begin by pointing out that Wright does not believe that the old Reformation understanding of “justification” is exactly right. It’s not way, way wrong, but it’s not exact.
The Reformation understanding is that justification is becoming saved initially. Wright believes that Paul uses justification a bit more narrowly. The word literally refers to the pronouncement by a judge that the defendant has been found righteous. It’s a courtroom metaphor — or a “forensic” metaphor, as the scholars sometimes prefer.
Thus, we’re “justified” when God declares us righteous. And it’s important, Wright says, to remember that justification is therefore always part of a forensic or courtroom metaphor in which our guilt is tried and, contrary to fact, we are declared innocent (not merely “not guilty” as in the American legal system).
(I’ve modified the paragraphing to facilitate reading on the Internet and dropped footnotes at the end of each sentence that cite to scriptures that support his points. Italics are all Wright’s. I replaced “spirit” with “Holy Spirit” because readers will not necessarily know that Wright intends “spirit” to have that meaning.)
_______________________
Baptism does, outwardly and visibly (as the sacramental textbooks say), what justification says. Justification is the declaration made by the one God himself; baptism makes that divine word tangible and visible.
Baptism, like justification, points back firmly to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the ground and means of the single divine saving action.
Baptism, like justification, is inextricably linked with the work of the [Holy Spirit] through whom the whole church, now incorporating new believers, confess that Jesus is lord, affirm that the one God raised him from the dead and commit themselves to living under that lordship and trusting themselves entirely to his saving accomplishment.
Baptist, like justification, brings people from every background into the single family whose incorporative name is Christos, providing the basis for their common life.
In justification the covenant God ‘reckons’ that all who believe are ‘righteous’; in baptism, Paul tells the Romans to ‘reckon’ that what is true of the Messiah is true to them — specifically, his death to sin and his coming alive to the one God.
Justification provides the solid platform, the new status of ‘righteousness’ as a pure gift, on which the entire edifice of Christian living is constructed; baptism reminds the whole church, and tells the new candidates, that they stand on resurrection ground.
Justification brings the future verdict into the present; baptism brings the future resurrection into present — and the future ‘verdict’ is of the future resurrection into the present — and the future ‘verdict’ is of course the ‘forensic’ dimension precisely of that future resurrection.
Both ensure, when properly understood, that the entire Christian life is known to be ‘in the Messiah,’ planted and rooted in his death and resurrection, and enabled by the [Holy Spirit].
Both are subject to the same problems: an over-concentration on the ‘objectivity’ and the ‘extra nos‘ [the belief that humans contribute nothing at all to salvation] of justification can lead to a carelessness about actual faith, never mind actual moral life, and an over-concentration on the ‘objectivity’ of baptism can lead to a similar casual or careless approach to actual Christian obligations. …
… Baptism is as it were the public celebration of justification by faith, the active and visible summoning up of the Exodus events which were themselves freshly encoded in the death and resurrection of Jesus and the constitution of the believing community as the Exodus people who have firmly decisively left Egypt behind and are being led by the [Holy Spirit] to their inheritance.
_______________________
There is not much here that’s inconsistent with traditional Church of Christ teaching, other than a much tighter, more precise definition of “justification.” Moreover, in the Churches of Christ, we don’t teach baptism as a public declaration of faith, because … well … that’s Baptist.
Of course, unlike the Baptists, Wright isn’t saying that baptism’s only real significance is as a public declaration. He’s not taking the Baptist or Calvinistic line.
And it’s been objected that the baptisms recorded in Acts are generally not in the presence of the church but individually done. And this is somewhat true, although when Paul is recorded as baptizing the first convert in a city, he can hardly do it in the presence of the church!
When Peter went to Cornelius’ house, for some reason he brought a plurality of witnesses. Why? Why not go by himself? Because it was important that several people see whatever God had planned to do. When God acts, it needs to be seen and told! And baptism includes God’s powerful action — the giving of the Spirit, the remission of sins — and why would we not want a cloud of witnesses to testify to God’s actions?
Why didn’t Philip take witnesses with him to ride along with the Ethiopian eunuch. Well, chariots don’t have back seats. So having several witnesses present is not a command or a “pattern” that must be obeyed or else we’ll all go to hell. But it’s the way God wants it to be — which is why 3,000 people were baptized in the vicinity of the Temple at Pentecost — lots of witnesses! And why John the Baptist baptized in the presence of a crowd.
This is not a quiet, private moment between just the convert and God. It’s not. You aren’t supposed to baptize yourself! Rather, it’s takes someone else, not just to drag out of the current, but to testify to your baptism. (Two or three witnesses, with the convert being one!)
You see, when we are saved, we are added to the church. And the church is a body, a community. And our relationships with each other matter. God saved us, but he expects us to help each other out, to help each other make it to the end. And we each have a duty to our church to do just that.
So some children are shy and don’t want to walk down the aisle. But they are still baptized with friends and family — a subset of the church — declaring to them, and through them, to the world, a new allegiance, a new heart, and a new Lord.
Now it just freaks out some readers to suggest that baptism has consequences not traditionally taught in the Churches of Christ. But in fact Wright is tying justification by God and baptism by the church (a member of the church) very, very closely together, whereas the tendency in modern Evangelicalism is to push them as far apart as possible.
Indeed, one could argue from Wright’s accumulated evidence that because baptism and justification do the same things, they should normatively occur simultaneously. Wright would disagree, but it’s a fair argument to make. In fact, I’m making it.
Wright, as a former Anglican bishop, must support infant baptism, which doesn’t really fit what he’s written very well. His conclusions make much better sense in the context of believer baptism.
I’m not saying that God is bound to damn those believers who are wrongly baptized by the church (or church members, if you prefer). It’s hardly the fault of the convert that the person who taught him to believe in Jesus misunderstands baptism — and God is faithful to his promises, including his many promises to save everyone who believes (understanding “believes” as including faithfulness and trust, not mere intellectual acceptance that Jesus is the Son of God).
Nonetheless, Wright puts together an excellent argument that what is intended by God is that baptism occur near the moment the convert comes to faith.
Was at a recent Baptist promoted event(Christmas Play) and the preacher at the end had everyone bow their head and close their eyes, and took a couple of minutes and taught the necessity of believing in Jesus(a good thing) to be saved and then instructed anyone who wanted to be right with God to pray in their heart (along with the preacher) the sinners prayer. It was promoted by the preacher as “no one is going to know you did this”, other than me(and of course a few ushers who would bring literature to their seat when they raised their hand they had accepted Jesus).
He reported that 2-3 people had accepted Jesus and were now saved and everyone applauded, except no one knew who they were. How odd. Like “saved anonymous.” Is this real salvation, or a first step of faith in the right direction? Is it the believer’s fault the preacher didn’t require of them anything likened to a public confession of faith? Is that call for anonymous faith, a saving faith, or anything like what we read about in scripture?
I’ve seen this as well. It’s, not to put too fine a point on it, shameful. I’ve heard the speaker say, “Just slip your hand up there. Nobody’s going to see it but me.” On the other hand, I once saw a mega-church pastor rise up when a visiting speaker did this, and take over the altar call. He almost roared, “If you have come to believe in Jesus this morning, raise your hand. Up high! Nobody slinks into the kingdom of heaven! If you believe in Jesus, it’s time to say so!” The whole place burst into applause. And those people who believed raised their hands high. I think sometimes we see foolishness and we know it’s foolishness, but we are so conditioned to do whatever the pulpit says that we endure what we know is not right.
The commission to baptize was given to the apostles. It was carried out by individuals and never in apostolic writings by a church. The baptizer acts for Jesus and NOT for a church body. What’s this about needing witnesses? The examples we read about did not include witnesses to the baptism. The six who accompanied Peter were there to witness God’s deeds rather than the baptisms which they were ordered to perform. Nothing in apostolic writings calls for witnesses at a baptism.
Jay writes, God is faithful to his promises, including his many promises to save everyone who believes (understanding “believes” as including faithfulness and trust, not mere intellectual acceptance that Jesus is the Son of God). To imply that salvation is by faith alone is to promise far more than any of the “many promises” in reference.
That we must believe in Jesus as Lord in order to be saved is not in question. That’s what is often stated. New birth begins by hearing about Jesus and believing that He IS God. Seed has been planted. As faith-seed grows, one who then believes in Jesus is invited to save himself/herself by repenting of false loyalties and turning to Jesus AS LORD and then by being baptized as the LORD commands is to be done. No one is saved by JESUS except through new birth of water and spirit (repenting and being baptized).
Ray said, “No one is saved by JESUS except through new birth of water and spirit (repenting and being baptized).” This isn’t exactly so. Many people were saved without the new birth before Jesus was crucified. Now the question posed in the past is – what if someone is not taught the full message as we understand it. What if they were taught to repent and believe and they did exactly that? What if no one teaches them baptism as we understand it? What if they believe they were saved and months or years later are ceremonially baptized. Are they then saved even though they didn’t understand baptism as we do? Must we perfectly understand the meaning of baptism to make it efficacious? Can Jesus make an exception on the day of Judgement? How did Cornelius receive the Spirit and speak in tongues without being baptized? What was the basis of salvation for all the OT saints and all the saved people in the NT before Jesus was crucified? All these questions muddy the waters a little bit.
Ray,
Maybe I’ve been guilty of it, too, but why all the roaring about what’s not done when your own example of Peter taking witnesses contradicts the clear evidence? When Peter and friends saw Cornelius and household baptized, it most certainly WAS a witnessing of God at work. Baptism isn’t a work man initiates nor even one in which man sees another human do much at all … but because God does something, the action becomes significant.
So how about we proclaim what IS happening and keep it positive?
Just a thought …
And Jay, thanks for sharing. From what you’ve written there is a sense that Wright gets it – that justification happened at the cross and is accessed when we answer the call to die so that we may live. God does it as we come to make our appeal, one by one but never alone.
Grizz
I just wonder, god know’s i am serious ,does anyone know what this scripture is ,saying about what MUST be taught
in order to bring about belief…
.what does rom.
1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.34 1:17 For the righteousness35 of God is revealed in the gospel36 from faith to faith,37 just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”38
? what does 1:17 imply about that teaching….
and with out that teaching how are they to understand the following 3 chapters…????
FIRST TRY LOOKING TO
ACTS 7:1-53
While attending Harding during the seventies one of the Bible teachers said that when he held Gospel Meetings he would request that anyone brought to faith by a home study during the week wait until the next service to respond for baptism. if I remember correctly, he had a conviction of how baptism should be a public declaration. I believe I am safe to say that there are, even now, ministers who prefer the person of faith to wait until the next service.
With that in mind, the Episcopal church teaches baptism for the forgiveness of sins; yet the candidate for baptism is required to go through discipleship classes for a number of weeks before being baptized. So, what is an acceptable wait, and what is not? It has to be accepted that grace follows the person from the moment of faith to the baptistry, whatever that time period may be. So, the question is not necessarily the time between faith and baptism, but the honesty and integrity behind the wait. Whether it is for the purpose of simply making ones faith public, if it is being given time to learn more of the gospel, or because the person is following the authority of the one in the pulpit, the grace of God is there each moment and step.
There is no biblical warrant for requiring someone wait and be baptized at a church service. Nor is there warrant to make them submit to a series of studies. How long did the people wait in Acts 2. Back in 1974, the minute I was convinced I was lost, I begged to be baptized and I was around 10 PM.
Sometimes a little child will lead the rest of us into truth. My 9 year old daughter went to a Vacation Bible School at a Baptist church with her friends. They asked the children to bow and pray and hold up their hand if they wanted to be saved. She did that and was told that she was saved. She came home and told me (in no uncertain terms) that she had to be baptized that very day. I talked with her and tried to get her to at least wait until Sunday. She refused. I called our preacher and he met us at the church. He talked to her and agreed that she wanted to be baptized for the right reasons. He also suggested that she wait until Sunday because the water in the baptistry was cold. She refused and insisted that she would go under cold water rather than not obey her Lord. This daughter is now a 39 year old believer. She knew what she was doing and the immediate was necessary for her just as Skip said it was for him.
Seen many a line of cars form front and back of the one carrying the one that came forward to be baptized to the creek down the road or the church with a baptistry 10 miles away. How they drove slowly and held up traffic, even called the police for an escort to prevent the one to be baptized from having an accident and dying before they were baptized and saved.
I often wondered why no ambulance escort in case they had a heart attack.
Does seeing this type carrying on being taught make us wonder if we don’t think God will make exceptions?
After all, God could prevent anything from hindering us in any way if He wanted to couldn’t He?
Sometimes I think God just shakes His head at what we do thinking that is the obedience He wants from us.
People usually respond to Jesus in accordance to how they have been taught. If you’re taught to raise your hand if you want to be saved, you’ll raise your hand. If you’re taught to believe and be baptized to be saved, you won’t want to delay baptism. If baptism is after salvation, then an opportune time makes perfect sense,not the same hour of the night(Jailor and family),or trying to find a pool of water in a desert(Eunuch)or waiting in a long line on Pentecost(3,000). While any teaching can be taken to an absurd extreme as in AJ’s example of “cars in front and cars behind”, it’s almost as absurd in the opposite direction to wait for the quarterly baptisms as a matter of convenience.
“When Peter went to Cornelius’ house, for some reason he brought a plurality of witnesses. Why? Why not go by himself? Because it was important that several people see whatever God had planned to do. When God acts, it needs to be seen and told! And baptism includes God’s powerful action — the giving of the Spirit, the remission of sins — and why would we not want a cloud of witnesses to testify to God’s actions?”
Jews were prohibited from contact with Gentiles. They were not to enter a Gentile residence. They were not to invite a Gentile into their home. Why did Peter take witnesses? Peter was a Jew. He knew the law. He had already received one sign from God telling him the time had come to welcome Gentiles into the church, but still he had to return to Jerusalem and convince the brothers there that what he was doing was at God’s direction. It was breaking the Jewish laws.
That’s the only reason for the witnesses. Normally NO witnesses were needed. Baptism was not and IS NOT a demonstration of faith. It’s simply obeying a command of the Master. It’s in order to save a sinner, as is made clear by the apostles. It’s being born again of water and spirit when a person repents and is baptized as Jesus ordered.
Peter took witnesses so that it would not be his word alone when he had to tell the other leaders in Jerusalem of what he had done.