So it seems clear that baptism is not a “work” as Paul uses “work” in Romans and Galatians. This is because in Paul’s vocabulary, “works” is short for “works of the law,” that is, the Law of Moses.
But he’s seeing the Law of Moses as an expression of God’s will. Thus, those Gentiles who’ve never heard of the Law of Moses, but who discover morality in their culture, in their hearts, or in Creation (God’s “general revelation”) are guilty of violating the Law and so need a Savior. And this means that everyone everywhere violates the Law of Moses, even though they are only accountable for the portions of the Law they are aware of.
Baptism is just not part of the Law of Moses, and so Paul never sees any need to discuss why baptism is not a work of the Law. It’s an obvious conclusion once the terms are understood.
So does this make baptism “faith”? Many in the Churches of Christ want to include baptism within “faith” to rescue it from being a work. But their reasoning is circular: Baptism is essential. Only faith is essential. Therefore baptism is a part of faith. Therefore baptism is essential.
In reality, “faith” in the New Testament means faith in Jesus, and does not include a systematic theology or baptismal theology. It sure doesn’t include a particular physical action, such as immersion. “Faith” includes believing Jesus to be Lord/Son of God, trusting his promises, and therefore committing to be faithful to him.
Obedience
Hence, a person of faith who has been instructed properly as to baptism will be baptized properly, because he has committed to be faithful. But if a new convert is incorrectly taught, he’ll surely be baptized incorrectly. After all, new converts are babes in Christ and can’t be held accountable for knowing how to interpret Greek prepositions that even the world’s greatest scholars can’t agree on.
The notion that “obedience” or “repentance” or “faithfulness” requires a punctiliously performed baptism is equally wrong. God does not hold us accountable for what we don’t know.
(Rom 5:12-13 NET) 12 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned – 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.
If God does not hold us accountable for moral error when we don’t realize that our conduct is a sin, then how on earth do we imagine that he’ll damn over baptismal error committed by someone in the process of committing his or her life to Jesus?
And so we can’t reject baptism as a “work of the law,” and we can’t insist on a meticulously performed baptism as an essential act of obedience. And yet baptism isn’t “faith.”
Abraham’s covenant
So where are we then? Well, we’re back to basics. And perhaps the most elemental teaching of the New Testament is the Jesus is the Messiah and those with faith in him are saved.
Remember: In Romans 4 and Galatians 3, Paul teaches that we’re saved by virtue of God’s covenant with Abraham — crediting faith as righteousness. And Abraham was not baptized — and not yet circumcised — but was deemed righteous (covenant faithful) by God because he believed: he trusted and he committed to be faithful, although he sometimes failed.
This is the very same covenant by which God saves us! Jesus’ work on the cross somehow allows us to be grafted into the covenant community — by grace. We deserve it less than the Israelites. We’re not descended from Abraham — but God made a promise.
Therefore, baptism is not part of the covenant. The covenant is all about faith and righteousness — God’s faithfulness to his covenant so that we become like him and Jesus: faithful to the covenant.
And so baptism is neither faith nor is it part of the Abrahamic covenant.
The new covenant
The “new covenant” God makes through Jesus is described in Jeremiah 31 —
(Jer 31:31-34 NET) 31 “Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. 32 It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.
33 “But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.
34 “People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me. For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the LORD. “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done.”
As we’ve covered many times, the new covenant is about the outpoured Holy Spirit entering our hearts to help us become obedient — and, as empowered by the work of Jesus on the cross — fully forgiven. Significantly, Jesus announced the dawn of the new covenant at the Last Supper. The anticipation of the cross necessarily anticipated Jeremiah’s prophecy finally coming true.
But baptism is not the Holy Spirit and it’s not God’s forgiveness. Indeed, as we’ve earlier seen in Rom 3 (and in Heb 10), Jesus’ work on the cross stretches backwards across the ages to forgive those forgiven under the Law of Moses — without baptism.
And so there’s nothing inherent in the cross that requires baptism, and there is nothing inherent in the Spirit’s outpouring that requires baptism. After all, Cornelius and the 120 disciples on Pentecost received the Spirit separate from baptism.
Summary
Hence, the theology of the new covenant, faith, forgiveness, and the Spirit are not necessarily tied to baptism. They’re just not.
Baptism is not our savior, and faith in baptism is not a condition to salvation.
And yet baptism matters. In fact, despite everything I’ve just said, baptism was the practice of the early church and was associated closely with forgiveness, the Spirit, and entry into the Kingdom.
You know, when our theology causes us to reject apostolic practice, we really have to wonder whether we might have missed a turn. After all, while I think the preceding is entirely true, there must be a very good reason that the baptisms recorded in Acts happened immediately after someone came to faith, and there must be a very good reason that baptism is spoken of in terms that tie it very, very closely to the core elements of Christianity.
We can’t be so smart that we overrule Paul and Jesus and declare faith in Jesus insufficient to save, nor should we be so smart that baptism becomes a “work” that Paul speaks against in the very same passages where he assumes not only that his readers have all been baptized, but this somehow lets them know that they’ve been saved.
Hold that thought … We’ll be coming back to it shortly.
“Proper” baptism or “improper” baptism? If we do what Jesus commanded the disciples to do in regard to baptism, isn’t that enough?
Now you’re back to basics and this post is very good. But, you have painted yoursel into a box. This is the hole in your theology of baptism. Joe sinner hears the good news about Jesus, repents and puts his faith in Jesus, is not taught about baptism (or not properly) and is saved.
Bill Sinner hears the same gospel, repents and puts his faith in Jesus, and is taught correctly about baptism but can’t be baptized until next Wednesday and because he knows about baptism he is lost until he is immersed! This view is very odd.
The truth must be that both are saved at the point of faith or both are lost you can’t possibly have it both ways.
Jay, can you please expound on what you mean when you write “taught correctly” or “taught incorrectly” about baptism. In other words, what is the correct biblical way to teach baptism to a new convert?
This is not a question born out of sarcasm, I really want to get this thing right, as hopefully many of those in your reading audience who have been raised/exposed to many different views would want to as well.
Those who believe that Jesus is LORD will surely not quarrel about whether or not we need to obey Him. Disputing about the baptism which Jesus COMMANDS us to perform surely indicates a lack of faith in Jesus as LORD. Our job is to obey Him, not to dispute with Him. The commission is clear. Go. Teach. Baptize believers. He doesn’t call for us to dispute whether or not baptism is necessary. He commands that we baptize rather than debate. Should we wonder what Jesus thinks about our debating the necessity of obeying Him? We didn’t think up baptism. Jesus commands baptism. Some who claim to love Jesus aren’t convinced that baptism is necessary. Foolish theories about salvation by faith alone do not reflect credit upon those who choose to want to overlook what the Master clearly teaches.
Jay, you wrote:
“And so there’s nothing inherent in the cross that requires baptism, and there is nothing inherent in the Spirit’s outpouring that requires baptism. After all, Cornelius and the 120 disciples on Pentecost received the Spirit separate from baptism.”
Do you believe that the apostles waiting in Jerusalem for the promised endowment of the Holy Spirit were lost UNTIL they were empowered from on high? Do you believe that their receiving of the Holy Spirit had anything to do with their going from a lost to saved state? If not, and if they were already saved before the Holy Spirit falling on them on Pentecost, and if the Holy Spirit falling in Cornelius an Co. was “just like” what happened to the apostles “at the beginning), why argue that the Holy Spirit falling on them (the Gentiles) took them from a saved to lost state?
It seems (correct me if I am wrong), that you seek to use Cornelius as an example of him going from lost to saved by his receiving of the Spirit, and you compare that event to the reception of the Spirit by the apostles ob Pentecost. But, we all know, the apostles did not go from lost to saved with the Holy Spirit falling on them. Rather, they were already saved and simply kept on being saved. Those were obviously unique times.
I don’t believe that Cornelius was lost (unsaved) prior to the HS falling on him. Neither do I believe he was lost (unsaved) prior to his baptism. Cornelius was saved under the law that he was under. A law that was coming to an end. He lived back when there were two folds of God’s children. Before there became one fold with one shepherd. He lived during the time that God had suffered the nations (the Jews) to walk in their own ways. During the times of ignorance which God over looked – before he commanded all men to become Christians.
Of course, we know that Cornelius sent for Peter to hear the words whereby he “would be saved”, but remember that Jesus gave the power “to become” the children of God all those who would receive him. Clearly, the faithful Jews who did receive Jesus, who were indeed given the right “to become” the children of God, already were as much. They simply kept on being the children of God.
In a similar way, the faithful gentiles were not all immediately changed from saved to lost and condemned at the cross. Who believes that? Accordingly, when they received Jesus (and the Spirit and were baptized), they kept on being saved.
That is, until the church had welcomed the Gentiles and the one fold of all flesh was up and running. Or, until God no longer overlooked the times if ignorance.
All that to say that the example of Cornelius receiving the Spirit prior to his baptism has absolutely nothing to do in terms of teaching whether one is save before or after baptism today. Neither does the account of the Spirit falling on the apostles at Pentecost have anything to offer along those lines. Today, once the times of ignorance came to an end, once there actually was one fold consisting of Jew AND gentile, things changed.
Since then, nobody “keeps on” being saved at their baptism. The account of the apostles and the first gentiles Christians, notwithstanding…
No, Ray, disagreeing with one another about baptism does not indicate a lack of faith in Jesus. That’s just not true. That is the old idea that “to disagree with me is to disagree with God”. Now, if a believer knows about baptism and adamantly refuses it, perhaps that does indicate a lack of faith. But that occurrence is the Bigfoot of Christian experience. Everybody talks about hearing about it, but direct testimony about a person entirely refusing baptism after being taught about it is awfully hard to come by. That is why you don’t read threads on believers refusing baptism. Not enough material to argue about. This discussion is not even about whether or not to be baptized, but about diverse views on what such baptism means. Ray, impugning the character of people who disagree with your interpretation of scripture does not make your case any more compelling. Neither does mis-characterizing their views. In fact, these actions suggest that you have run out of both scripture and argument and are left only with ad hominem to write about.
Hank wrote,
I would not be insistent on a particular conclusion because it’s just not revealed. And the absence of a definitive answer is itself highly instructive. If baptism were the absolute be-all end-all of salvation, why don’t we see the apostles baptized? Why did they receive the Spirit of promise and prophecy separate from baptism? If Acts was written to teach that salvation is by baptism only, what a strange way to begin the book.
On the other hand, in NT theology, the possession of the Spirit is absolutely connected with salvation in all of its perspectives — justification, forgiveness, entry into the kingdom, etc. The distinction between John’s baptism and Jesus’ baptism is the name of Jesus and the Spirit. So it was necessary for the apostles to receive the Spirit outpoured on Pentecost.
But they are obviously exceptional cases, as Jesus states explicitly in John 13 ff. I would not build a baptismal theology on the apostolic case. Not by itself.
Cornelius, however, is another matter. In Acts 15, Peter uses the case of Cornelius as direct revelation from God that he cleanses their hearts by the Spirit by faith. And they received the Spirit prior to baptism. He does not consider their conversion so exceptional that we can’t learn from it. In fact, in the clinching argument about how Gentiles are saved, Cornelius is given as the prototypical example by Peter to the apostles and the elders.
The Cornelius event is so important that it’s told 3 times in Acts! Three recountings, each from a slightly different angle, and not a one drawing a lesson about the necessity of baptism. And I’m happy to let Peter teach me my soteriology. And all see Cornelius as a sign from God about the salvation of Gentiles.
(Acts 15:7:8 ESV) And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.”
Peter is arguing that the conversion of Cornelius demonstrates that the Gentiles will be saved by faith. I figure he’s right.
You can argue it the other way, saying the Cornelius is the exception that proves the rule, and there are examples in Acts where the Spirit is received immediately upon baptism. Luke does not make it easy! In fact, it seems clear that Luke isn’t very interested in the question of which comes first, because he offers no explanation at all for the differing order of events. I rather suspect that he saw it all as one event and simply had no interest in the “run over by a chariot on the way to the baptistry” question.
Chris asked,
It’s a very fair question.
* We are saved by faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Personally, I prefer to speak of “Messiah” rather than “Christ” because few Americans know what “Christ” means.
* Faith requires what some call repentance and others call faithfulness. It’s a commitment to submit to Jesus as Lord. In fact, in Rom 10:9, Paul says that confess “Jesus is Lord.” And this very, very important. Far too many people come to Jesus to get to go to heaven but never commit to live for Jesus. I would never, ever undersell this. And so a mere formulaic “repent and be baptized” is not strong enough to modern ears, since to most “repent” means “stop sinning” — which is not nearly as strong as “submit to Jesus as Lord.”
* The scriptural examples show people being baptized as soon as they come to faith (which includes submission). Baptism is so important to Jesus that every blessing associated with salvation is also associated with baptism (Beasley-Murray’s book makes this case very effectively). It’s not important whether we have a Baptist or CoC understanding of what happens in the water. More important is that we know the (true) story being told. Baptism pictures us dying to self and sin — along with Jesus on the cross — being buried with him — and being resurrected with him. The point isn’t so much that this is what happens in baptism but that this what we must be willing to do to be baptized. We must enter the story of Jesus by committing to become like him on the cross.
To submit to Jesus — to truly have faith — we must be willing to declare our faith, and baptism does that. It’s not just between us and God — the church needs to know because God saves us into his Kingdom, his community, his family. We are not saved alone, we don’t journey toward Jesus alone, and we won’t be alone in the new heavens and new earth. And baptism is the first step of becoming a part of the community of saints, living and dead, that live to serve Jesus. (One reason I can’t abide “personal Savior” — he’s also a community Savior and my relationship with Jesus is as part of his family/church/kingdom. “Personal” greatly misunderstands what’s really going on.)
* I think the traditional CoC form of confession (taken from Peter’s Great Confession) and baptismal language (Acts 2:38 + Matt 28:19) is very good. But I make a point to add a statement that the baptizee (for want of a better term) is submitting to serve Jesus as Lord. I think per Rom 10:9, it helps to say it. If we’re not comfortable using biblical language to conduct a biblical ritual, we have a problem.
* I think the biblical mode was almost certainly immersion, and so I think that’s what we should do.
* I think baptism is only for those with faith, and hence not for infants. And centuries of experience demonstrate serious problems with infant baptism.
You’ll notice that I’m vague about just when someone is saved vis-à-vis baptism because I don’t think it’s an important question. The NT leaves the question unclear and so I have to be good with that. And a baptism is exactly the wrong time and place to pound on people about my preferred baptismal theology. It’s not the point. The point is the story being enacted and the willingness of the baptized person to live in that story. We need to strongly reinforce in our converts what it really means to become a Christian — and get away from underselling the commitment involved.
After all, it’s God and Jesus and the Spirit who actually turn a non-Christian into a Christian. The water is there, not as a vehicle for God’s grace but to vividly illustrate what’s going on in heaven. Therefore, it’s critically important to know that this is not about a magical sacrament but rather a joining with Jesus in his death to be reborn a new person — not just forgiven but also committed to follow Jesus wherever he leads. We just so over-emphasize the forgiveness part that we nearly ignore the rest.
And I am NOT saying that nothing else works. God is not going to deny salvation to those baptized contrary to what I think is best — just as he doesn’t damn us because our communion practices and church structures would seem very foreign to First Century Christians.
And we overly emphasize where we differ with the church down the road rather than focusing on what the convert and the congregation need to hear. And it’s not a lesson on just exactly when baptism saves. The teaching should be about Jesus. Baptism will follow easily enough if we get the Jesus part right.
What I just said may or may not be optimal. I’m open to suggestions.
Royce wrote,
I don’t know. I rather like my corner. It’s a nice corner.
And I agree that the view as you’ve stated seems odd. And so in this series I’ve been refining it. God is an elegant thinker. His doctrines should have a greater beauty than that.
Hence, the lesson on conditions subsequent. And lessons not yet posted on the importance of ritual.
I mean, if coming to faith is a process, and it obviously is, when does someone pass from lost to saved, when do they receive the Spirit? Well, it’s easy enough to say “When the believe,” which is plainly true. But when do they “believe”? What is the moment?
The early church considered someone to have come to faith when they confessed their faith, such as —
This is something that someone “does” but if your faith is so weak that you won’t admit it, well, that not good enough. Saving faith is a confessed faith.
But is that the moment of salvation? The scriptures are less than clear. Rom 10:9 arguably says exactly that. But we Westerners think of faith as a state of mind, not a verbal statement. But maybe that our own cultural bias.
And all the points that could be made about confession being the moment of salvation (it’s actually a pretty strong case) can be made about baptism. Baptism is also closely associated with confession in the Scriptures, and it’s a form of confession — God’s chosen form.
Hence, I figure you’re saved when you “come to faith,” whenever that is, but it needs to be followed with confession/baptism. Like the wedding certificate filed on Monday following a Friday wedding.
And I figure that there are cases where a failure to meet the conditions subsequent don’t damn — such as due to erroneous teaching. Although it’s extremely unusual for any denomination to not teach baptism. It’s nearly a universal teaching in Christendom. We just disagree about how much water and when it “takes.”
And under this theory, when salvation occurs becomes a matter of perspective. You can truthfully speak of faith, confession, or baptism as being the “moment.” And that seems to fit the text very well.
Jay, thanks for your thoughts. Clearly, like most, you assume that Cornelius was lost (unsaved and condemned) prior to the Holy Spirit falling upon he and his house. But why? What could have Cornelius been doing/liviving/believing to be considered “faithful” and uncondemed? Do you believe that he was born lost and with no chance of Salvation until Acts 10? What about Cornelius’ parents? If they lived their lives just as Cornelius had been living, would they have lived their entire lives condemned as well? Where does Romans 2:14 come in?
And what about Jesus declaring that prior to the church containing both Jew AND Gentile, before there would be one flock containing ALL of the children of God, he said that their were “two folds” of Gods children. Clearly, he mean that the Gentiles (the nations) had their own law and agreement with God. One of “ignorance” (less knowledge) that God had been overlooking.
This is the position (I believe) held by JW McGarvey and its sold I in my opinion.
Again, John records that — He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right “to become” children of God,
Of course those who were given the right “to become” the children of God (his own that DID receive him) already were as much. At least many of them were. They mere kept on being what they already were.
Same could be said of Cornelius…
ROM2.13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Could this not be describing the pre Acts 10, Cornelius?
Also:
ROM2.26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
And:
JHN10.16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Bible.com/app
Jay,
I came across this sermon/article by John Piper. I believe this will be the first link I have ever shared on your comments section. It has to do with Acts 14:16 and 17:30 and the “times of ignorance” which God overlooked.
Have you written much about God allowing the nations to walk “in their own ways” and/or “the times of ignorance” which God overlooked?
In my opinion (as well as John Piper’s and others), it has everything to do with how God dealt with the Gentiles (like Cornelius), prior to such times coming to an end.
Anyway, here is the link:
http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/the-age-of-ignorance-is-over
Hank,
I’ve discussed the Mars Hill statement and other related scriptures several times, most recent at /2014/07/baptism-is-baptism-a-work/ 5 days ago. I agree with Piper, except I don’t think this means Gentiles were saved pre-Jesus. They were neither saved nor damned (with rare exceptions, such as Rahab and Ruth, most likely). They just died and stayed dead. Hence, no punishment.
Therefore, Jesus brings not only the promise of grace but the promise of justice. Sins of the damned will be punished — fairly and justly. And it will not be Perpetual Conscious Torment. It will be finite because infinite punishment for finite sins is not just.
Hank,
You’ve gone all “liberal” on me! You’re arguing for “available light” — along with Leroy Garrett, Al Maxey, and Edward Fudge. And I can think of no more august group of scholars. But I’m convinced that they are mistaken.
I sure don’t see the argument in the “two folds” passage. Jesus is looking ahead to Pentecost and Cornelius. I can find no evidence of a Gentile covenant, and Rom 1-3 argues that there is no such thing because it addresses Gentile sin in terms of natural law, culture, moral law within — not a covenant relationship.
Acts 17 refers to earlier times as “times of ignorance,” not times of awareness of a distinct covenant.
Regarding Rom 2, I did an extensive analysis showing that the passage is NOT saying that Gentiles unaware of the gospel may be saved by works (now or before Pentecost). See /category/index/textual-studies/romans-textual-studies/god-is-not-fair-romans-textual-studies/ (you have to start with the post at the bottom and work up). Paul does not teach a merit salvation.
The harder question is whether Cornelius was saved by virtue of being a proselyte, but studies show that “God fearer” meant a Gentile who attended synagogue and did not convert to Judaism — no circumcision. And had he been circumcised, Acts would be a very different book!
Pre-Pentecost, circumcision was part of the deal.
Bite your tongue! I have not gone “all liberal” on you, neither do I espouse any “available light” theory (at least, not for today).
I do, however, believe that prior to the statement of Acts 17 and the fulfillment of the Lord’s promise of the two folds becoming one, in the church, that there were indeed “two folds” of God’s children. I do not believe that it was impossible for a Gentile to be saved, just because he was born a Gentile. I disagree with your view their.
And, where I disagree with the “available light” guys is in the fact that (as Piper pointed out), the “times of ignorance” are ended. God no longer overlooks said “ignorance”. From now on, as Paul preached in Acts 17, God commands all men to repent and to have faith in the resurrected Messiah.
I will read the link you posted, but honestly cannot see how you will convince me that it was impossible for a Gentile to be faithful under the unique law that he was under.
As far as them (the faithful Gentiles) being ” saved by works”, I never said anything near that. They were no more “saved by works” than were there Jewish neighbors. Rather, just like anyone whoevhas ever been saved, it was ultimately by the blood of Christ.
Can you at least agree that “IF” it were possible for pre Acts 10/17 Gentiles to be saved under their own law, then your argument(s) relative to the meaning of the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius, is “out the window”?
Either way, I appreciate your thoughts…
Another thing, Jay, you wrote:
“I agree with Piper, except I don’t think this means Gentiles were saved pre-Jesus. They were neither saved nor damned (with rare exceptions, such as Rahab and Ruth, most likely). They just died and stayed dead. Hence, no punishment.”
What about verses like — JHN5.28 “Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when ALL who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.”?
When Jesus made this statement, do you believe he meant ” all the Jews who are in the tombs”?
Do you really believe that evey Gentile (from the time there were Gentiles) just “died and stayed dead”?
No matter how they lived their lives, that it would make no difference? Their were none who God considered “faithful” (under their own law)? Tue best and worst of them all reach the same conclusion?
Addmitedly, I am still yet to read your link on Romans 2 and will do so, but just had to get this out there 😉
I will look for your take on this…
By the way, I post most if my comments via my phone and sometimes think they just vanish upon hitting “submit comment”. When I remember, I now copy the comment in order to try and resubmit if it doesn’t go through. However, I currently have such a situation in play but when I attempt to resubmit the comment, I am told ” duplicate comment, you already said that”. But, I can’t see the comment anywhere!?
Anybody else go through this? My most recent comment (that I can see( is posted, but not the one before it? Forgive me if everybody else can see 7 of my same comments as I try to keep sending it.
Is my seemingly missing comment “in moderation” or something?
Hank,
I have no idea why your comments are sometimes blocked. But no need to double post. I’ll fish them out.
Thanks, brother
Hank,
Your comments often go into moderation, and I have no why. I’ve not moderated you, and you’ve violated any of the rules that I know will trigger computer moderation (too many links, too long, dirty words, etc.). I have not a clue. But in the past, after I fished several moderated posts out for a commenter, the software learned and stopped moderating that person. Hopefully that happens in your case. But it’s outside my control. Except that I will indeed find and free your comments from spam-blocking purgatory.
Hank,
John 5:28, in context —
On first reading, it seems to me that Jesus is looking ahead to the Second Coming. He’s not looking back to Mosaic and earlier times.
Next, I turn to the commentaries,
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar NTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 258.
I can find no commentary that interprets Jesus’ words are reaching back to Mosaic and earlier times, even though he is clearly basing his teaching on Daniel 7.
If we read Jesus’ words as reaching pre-Christian Jews and Gentiles, then we must conclude that the wicked pre-Jesus will be damned on the basis of works, and this contradicts Paul in Acts 17:30 (Mars Hill — overlooked ignorance) etc.
So we must take Jesus (and Daniel) as looking forward, which is consistent with every commentator I’ve checked (about six different ones).
So, what are you saying? Just who exactly does the “all that are in the graves” refer? I wasn’t aware that anybody took the “all that are in the graves” to mean less than “all”.
What do you mean, ” looking forward”? I don’t follow you here
Hank,
I can find no commentary that interprets Jesus words to mean that all Gentiles dead at the time would rise to live eternally with God.
In John 5:28-29, Jesus is referring to —
(Dan 12:2–3 ESV) 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
And this is a prophecy of the Kingdom. It’s the same passage that gives the number of years until Christ. It’s speaking how things will be in Christ’s Kingdom. And Jesus’ words only make sense if we read him consistently with the passage from Daniel his addressing when he claims to be the “Son of Man” — also found in Dan 12.
If God saves Gentiles who do good works pre-Christ, then why not now? What changed? Paul says in the passages we previously considered, such as Acts 17:30, that God is now going to punish those who sin apart from the Law, but he never announces an end to forgiveness outside the Law — because there was no such thing.
The supposed unfairness of damning those without Jesus is removed when we realize that (a) God is just and incapable of unfairness, (b) the soul is not innately immortal, (c) no one deserves heaven, and (d) gehenna will provide a finite, utterly just punishment for sins committed contrary to only so much of God’s law as is known.
Hence, there is simply no problem to be solved by imagining pagans in heaven, and therefore we don’t have to abandon essentially all of Romans and Galatians, which teach that NO ONE can earn God’s salvation.
In short, I take Acts 17:30 and related verses to refer to the absence of punishment for sin, not heaven for unforgiven pagans. Therefore, “all” in John 5:28 refers to those dying after the time of Jesus, just as does Daniel 12. Jesus is speaking of changes resulting from his ministry.
Under your reading, we’d have to accept “available light” not only pre-Jesus but today. I mean, under your reading, where does God say that Gentiles could once be saved by works but that’s no longer true?
Jay,
Why, if/when I say that the Gentiles could be faithful under their law and be counted righteous, do you insist on saying that that means they could “be saved by works”?
Do you believe that the Jews, who were considerd faithful under THEIR law, were “saved by works”?
As far as John 5:28-29, I’m gonna check some commentaries myself. I don’t see (yet), why that is limited to a future time. And only for the Jews? I always thought that it meant that when Jesus returns, that “all” (as in everybody who ever lived and then died) would be raised from the dead and judged.
That the faithful would receive eternal life, and the unfaithful would receive eternal condemnation. Bit, never, did I believe that the faithful would be rewarded, or saved/forgiven “by works”. I don’t know why you (seem) to insist that if any of the most faithful Gentiles could be saved, that it would have to be “by works”?
John Gill, says the passage refers to a “universal” resurrection:
“This respects the general resurrection; for there will be a resurrection both of the just and unjust, of all that are in their graves; and though all that are dead are not in graves, or interred in the earth, as some are in the sea; yet, because the greater part are in graves, this phrase is chosen to express the universality of the resurrection: and this is also a proof of the resurrection of the same body; for what else are in the graves but bodies?”
This is a point where we try to pit scriptures against scriptures and not just follow the words as written. Mark 16:16 requires “faith and baptism=salvation” and to dispute this is to dispute scripture. Now can a person be saved without baptism, it is possible if God makes that decision based on intent and situation of the person, but that is not the plan laid out for us to follow. Abraham went to slay Isaac and his action showed his faith. God only stopped Abraham at the point that Abraham was going to kill Isaac, but Abraham could have argued and said, “Isn’t faith enough?” God expected an expression of that faith and only God said when enough was enough. We can argue over faith versus works, but the strength is where they meet and compliment.
In regards to the Gentiles and salvation, many Gentiles knew of God and followed God, even though they were not the chosen people of Israel. Ninevah repented and turned to God and they were Gentiles. Even in the OT and NT many gentiles became converts to Judaism or just worshipped God within thier capabilities. Many of the mighty men of David were not Jewish. Many were considered righteous without being Jewish.
Dwight, you are right. Thanks for adding that.
Jay,
Consider ACT10.34 “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”
Prior to Acts 10, do you believe Cornelius to have been a man who “feared God and worked righteousness”?
Can a man be “accepted with God” and unsaved, simultaneously?
ACT10.34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Jay,
I commented just a bit ago, but it seemingly (to me) went into limbo. Allow me to try again, with an added point.
First of all, wouldn’t you consider Cornelius to have been a man who “feared God and worked righteousness”? Even prior to Acts 10? If so, doesn’t “accepted with God”, imply “saved”?
Also, its usually argued that since Cornelius “received the Holy Spirit” before he was baptized, that he therefore must have been saved before he was baptized. Right? Because nobody who is unsaved can “receive the Holy Spirit.” Only saved people can receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit simply isn’t “given” to unforgiven sinners.
Well, that’s consistent with my position here. Cornelius didn’t “receive the Spirit” as an unsaved sinner. The HS isn’t given to those people. Rather, he (the Holy Spirit) is only given to people who are forgiven. Like Cornelius was when the Spirit fell on him. And, just like the apostles were already saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon them at the beginning.
Think about that, brother…
Hank,
I spent yesterday evening typing up a post responding to your very interesting questions. It should post tomorrow.
Hank,
Did I miss where you responded to the scriptures from Acts 10, 11 and 15 I quoted earlier?
Hank asks,
* The passage you quote in John 5 seem to point to a works salvation when taken out of context — that is, the context of faith in Jesus.
* We can easily conclude that faith in Jesus is in mind, because that’s THE major theme of John’s Gospel.
* How do read something else into the text? Faith in what if not Jesus?
* The Jews obviously did not believe in Jesus before he came in the flesh, but they believed in God’s promises, which included a Messiah who was to come. Even Abraham believed in God’s promises, which pointed to the Messiah yet to come.
Hence, the Jews pre-Jesus were saved by faith in the Messiah yet to come — that is, God’s covenant promises (including esp. the Messiah).
So how does a Gentile unaware of these promises have the faith that saves? Therefore, to me, “faithful Gentiles” pre-Pentecost is a contradiction in terms. How could search a person exist?
There would be a few Gentiles who, through contact with the Jews, came to faith. Of course. But where do the scriptures say that Gentiles, pre-Pentecost, completely unaware of God’s promises given through Abraham and his descendants, could be saved? And if it’s not by works, what is it by?
I’ll cover my point of view in detail in tomorrow’s post.
Jay,
Isn’t Romans 2 discussing the time when the Jews had the law of Moses? And the Gentiles were under a law “unto themselves”?
Concerning the Gentiles and their law, Paul wrote this:
ROM2.26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
What does that mean?
Rom.2 waasn’t about the Gentiles being good, but rather the Jews being bad, even with the Law and God right there with them. They were bad despite this advantage. It is much like me giving one person a machine to collect water and the other person nothing and yet the other person finds a way to collect water and the person I gave the machine to doesn’t use it to collect water.
We really don’t know how many Gentiles were saved without the Law and really don’t know how many Jews were saved with it…actually none, as the Law and sacrifices weren’t capable of saving. All we know is that God has relayed His will to all, which have heard, and all who have heard are able to accept or reject. Everyone else that hasn’t heard God will be judged as He wills.
Let us consider Enoch…he wasn’t Jew or Gentile but was taken up to be with God. He was considered righteous before the Law and Jesus. This is a case of God knowing the quality of the person and accepting them based on that quality.