I have a confession to make. For decades, I was convinced that grace does not extend to baptismal error. After all, faith is non-negotiable. Why shouldn’t baptism be the same?
Not too many years ago, it became obvious to me that this isn’t true — indeed, can’t be true. But why? And how to explain?
I think it comes down to the fact that faith permeates the scriptures far more than I’ve been able to explain. Well, I covered the elements of the arguments over the years, but I’ve never tied it all together.
For example, in the Cruciform God series, based on Michael J. Gorman’s brilliant Inhabiting the Cruciform God
(Rom 3:3 NET) 3 What then? If some [of the Jews] did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the [covenant] faithfulness [dikaiosune] of God?
(Rom 3:21-23 NET) But now apart from the law the righteousness [dikaiosune = covenant faithfulness] of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – 22 namely, the righteousness [or covenant faithfulness] of God through the faithfulness [pistis] of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
(The use of “faithfulness” to translate pistis (faith/faithfulness) is not found in many translations, as this interpretation has only recently gained substantial support among scholars. It has always been recognized as a legitimate definition of pistis, but the theology didn’t suit an academia biased against the Old Testament and covenant theology. It’s all explained in the Cruciform God series.)
Now, if by dikaiosune Paul means “covenant faithfulness,” then we have his Greek word for the Old Testament’s chesed (or hesed) — God’s loving mercy because of his faithfulness to his covenant with Abraham. And “covenant faithfulness” includes, of course, grace.
This is from an article, by Norman H. Snaith, in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, edited by Alan Richardson (New York: MacMillan, 1951), pp. 136-7 —
The nearest New Testament equivalent to the Hebrew chesed is charis (grace), as Luther realized when he used the German Gnade for both words.
God’s grace is a result or a part of his chesed, his lovingkindness/mercy/covenant faithfulness. When Paul preaches grace, he is simply repeating the prophets, who use chesed dozens of times to refer to the character of God. (Again: if you don’t get God’s character right, your hermeneutics will fail and fail badly.)
Jesus, as the Son of God, is also a giver of chesed, and he expressed his faithfulness by coming to earth in human form and dying on the cross. Philippians 2:5-11 is all about the chesed of Jesus.
So how are we supposed to respond to the faithfulness of God and the faithfulness of Jesus to their covenant with Abraham to save those with faith/faithfulness? Well, with faith, which includes faithfulness.
As K. C. Moser argued in many of his writings, it’s wrong to suppose that faith is a positive command, an arbitrary condition imposed by a God who could impose any condition he chooses to save the lost. No, calling us to faith is calling us to become like God and Jesus. We must be faithful to become like God, to be restored to the image of God. It’s the first step toward theosis, the unity with God that Jesus prayed for in John 17.
The gospel is taught. We hear. We believe the gospel with a faith that draws us to become faithful. We confess our faith, which is also a commitment to be faithful. We receive baptism. We are saved. And so it’s the faith parts of the Plan of Salvation that are directly tied to the core of Christianity, indeed, of all the scriptures.
We also studied in the series on The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant
So why does God enter into this difficult, frustrating, costly, painful relationship with mankind? To reveal himself.
Why? Because we cannot be faithful to someone we don’t know. And we can’t be faithful to a being in whom we have no faith. And we won’t want to be faithful to someone we cannot love.
Again, it’s all about love. God’s love causes him to want to save us from our brokenness. We were created to be in the image and likeness of God. We cannot have joy and we cannot flourish — have life abundantly — unless we are restored to his image. And so, out of love, he gave himself and he sacrifices to repair our brokenness — our departure from his image. This is how God and Jesus are faithful.
We respond in faith and in love and commit to follow Jesus — which is exactly how we are repaired back to the image of God. God’s faithfulness prompts our faithfulness/faith.
That’s why faith is at the top of the heap as our most important response to the gospel. That’s why the gospel is what it is.
Baptism does not contradict any of this. But neither is it compelled by any of this. Rather, baptism is something received as a gift from God to demonstrate and help us to live our faith — because to follow Jesus, we have to follow him to the cross.
(Mar 10:38-40 ESV) 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
Jesus is not speaking of water baptism but the cross. But our baptisms also speak of the cross — not just its atoning power but the commitment to follow Jesus all the way to the cross that baptism entails. The pledge we make in baptism is to do in reality what this rite is doing symbolically.
(Gal 2:19-20 NET) 19 For through the law I died to the law so that I may live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
That’s Paul’s point in this passage. Having been crucified with Christ in baptism (Rom 6!), I now “live to God.” I emulate his faithfulness by having faith/faithfulness.
PS — My position on baptism is unchanged. I’m not arguing the Zwinglian/Calvinist/Baptist position. I just think faith in Jesus is far more central to our atonement than our baptism. In the normal case, salvation occurs at the moment of baptism. But God’s grace will cover an error in baptism for someone with genuine faith in Jesus. An error in baptism is not fatal because faith in Jesus is the true boundary marker between the lost and the saved.
I have been thinking in recent months that the term “faith only” ought to describe all Christians. Further, I believe we should resist the urge to turn faith into mere belief, for faith is much more than belief. I can believe something to be true, but do not have to act on that belief. Both Festus and Agrippa believed what Paul told them, but they did not act on that belief. They believed, but did not have faith. Biblical faith is always belief expressed in some action. There is not, and I have been looking, a single act of Biblical faith that is divorced from some act evidencing the belief at the heart of faith. Even Enoch demonstrates this, for he walked with God during a time when walking with God would have been unpopular.
I believe that God has given us the mercy and grace of baptism so that we have a visible sign to mark our entrance into covenant with Him and as an act of obedient belief, making our belief faith. I think this is clearly taught in the New Testament and the primary reason we have problems with this teaching are over 500 years of recent — in the sense of Jesus being crucified 2,000 years ago — theology divorcing baptism from its God-given soteriological role. If we could get around that bad theology, then we would be better able to restore baptism to its proper role.
But what if someone evidences faith through their actions or through their lives, such as someone who evidences the fruit of the Spirit, but have not been baptized? I have, since I was in college,found it curious that God acknowledges our sincere response to Him in faith even when the form is wrong. I strongly believe the Bible teaches that God is much more interested in someone’s faith more than He is interested in whether we checked all the boxes in rituals, even those rituals designed to show our faith. Hezekiah learned about the Passover and decided, after decades of Israel not observing Passover, to observe the day marking Israel’s freedom from Egyptian slavery. But, as his advisers read through the Torah, they discovered they did not have time to sanctify the priests, Levites, and others participating in the Passover. So Hezekiah prays, “May the good Lord pardon everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though not according to the purification rules of the sanctuary.” And we are told, “So the Lord heard Hezekiah and healed the people.” The form was wrong, but the Passover was in faith and God honored their Passover.
I came to understand a long time ago that if God’s mercy and grace for our sins meant anything, that mercy and grace had to extend to our theological sins. I strongly believe that baptism is the ritual act that God has given us to express our faith in Him when we enter the New Covenant established by the cross. I also strongly believe that God rewards those who seek Him diligently and sincerely in faith, seeking to find Him with open hearts even if their form is incorrect, or incorrect by how I or others interpret what is written, that God enters covenant with those who seek Him by faith even if they are not right about baptism. I strongly believe that God forgives ignorance and that God forgives errant theology, with the only thing that remains outside His forgiveness being rebellion, that is knowing what God wants and refusing to do that. And viewing the subject through the lens of the cross, I find it difficult to believe that a God who would allow His Son to experience the weight of sin on His dying shoulders would set up a process where ignorance or mistaken theology over a ritual, even a rich symbolic ritual like baptism, would undo the grace and mercy offered at the cross.
One of your best posts ever. Many will not like it.
“God’s grace is a result or a part of his chesed, his lovingkindness/mercy/covenant faithfulness. When Paul preaches grace, he is simply repeating the prophets, who use chesed dozens of times to refer to the character of God.”
AMEN!
This is a radical statement for those of us fed a steady diet of legalistic Paul and the structure of the church. I did not realize Paul ever repeated the prophets much less extended grace. I guess when the powerful did not want grace discussed from the pulpit, those verses were left out.
A powerful post and I think ramblinrants post hit the nail on the head!
Jay, you wrote:
“In the normal case, salvation occurs at the moment of baptism. But God’s grace will cover an error in baptism for someone with genuine faith in Jesus. An error in baptism is not fatal because faith in Jesus is the true boundary marker between the lost and the saved.”
For clarification sakes, by “error in baptism”, do you mean/include being sprinkled as a non (yet) believing infant as well as those who do believe but have never (yet) been baptized in any form?
Just what all falls under “error in baptism”?
When Jesus commands an act, I sorrow to hear any Christian say the act is unimportant. The ONE ACT Jesus commands of new believers is that the evangelist is to BAPTIZE that convert. Any person who tells a seeker that they are saved before they are baptized is mistaken at best and lying in fact. Of course faith is spoken of more often than baptism. Only those who do believe in Jesus should submit to being baptized as He commands is to be done for new BELIEVERS. But we do not want to lose sight of the fact that we are baptized INTO Christ, not because we somehow got in without being baptized.
Baptism without faith in JESUS is no baptism into Christ. The gospel is all about Christ and not about baptism. Yet the new birth involves two elements, each of which is equally important. Water AND spirit. Repentance and baptism. And those believers in Jesus who turn to Him as Lord and are baptized as He commands THEN receive the Spirit to help them live for Jesus.
I assert that the gifts of the spirit are NOT gifts from the HOLY Spirit but instead are the result of a good HUMAN spirit. Too many good people are not Christian and show the fruit of the spirit for it to be fruit of the HOLY spirit. We do well to recognize that every person has a spiritual nature. Often in apostolic writings the human nature (flesh) is contrasted with the spiritual nature of man. Not once is the human nature contrasted with the Holy Spirit. Many times in the New Testament translators capitalize “spirit” when the writer is speaking of the human spirit. And some people don’t realize the author was writing about the HUMAN spirit.
Also, would to “error IN baptism” mean the same thing as to “error ON baptism”? For example, suppose someone genuinely believed he/she did not need to be baptized in order to have his sins forgiven, and therefore opted to never be baptized at all. Would you consider such a one to have erred IN baptism? Or, would he have erred ON baptism? And would would he be saved by his “faith” either way? In your opinion?
I don’t think my last comment posted, sorry if it did and this is similar. Basically, by to err “IN” baptism, do you also mean to err “ON” baptism?
IOW, suppose a believer was convinced that baptism was not necessary to salvation and opted not to be. Would he be one who erred “in” baptism? Or, would he have erred “on” baptism. And, would his faith cover either case equally, in your opinion?
@ ramblinrants: very good thoughts in your comment. Certainly worthy or deeper consideration.
@ Ray. Your wrote as follows: “When Jesus commands an act, I sorrow to hear any Christian say the act is unimportant.”
Would you be so kind as to cite, copy and paste where someone on this blog says that baptism or some other Christian act is unimportant. Apparently I’ve overlooked or missed it in the past. There is no need for anyone else to reply b/c they think they know what you believe.
Hesed,
Randall
Ramblinrants, you wrote”
“I believe that God has given us the mercy and grace of baptism so that we have a visible sign to mark our entrance into covenant with Him and as an act of obedient belief, making our belief faith.”
With which, I agree – baptism does “mark our entrance into covenant with Him”. Those who have not been baptized have not marked there entrance into covenenant with him, because (without baptism), they have not enetered INTO any covenant with him at all. For, baptism is said to put the penitent believer INTO Christ, time and again. And the bible never offers a second way of entering INTO Christ….
Hank, I’m not sure who you are directing your question to if anyone, probably Jay, but I think you make a good point in that we can err on something, but this is not the same as err in something. I am not sure we can err in baptism, after all it is being immersed into water and that is what it is, but we can err on baptism, meaning that we can do it without faith and then it is just a dip in the water, or we can be baptized into someone (let’s say John for repenatance) and it not be a saving baptism and it not result in the Holy Spirit. The only real qualification for baptism is that we are baptized into Jesus as our saviour and King, that is all, which was the point of Acts 2. There are no words that have to be said, but we must have some sort of conviction and faith in Jesus. Since we cannot bury ourselves and that’s what we are told baptism is, a burial, we must be baptized by someone, but who is not important. Now is sprinkling baptism, if it immerses, then maybe, but it would have to be a good dousing that surrounds, but in this case going through a sprinkler might suffice, after all Jesus was buried in the ground, but this was above ground level.
Ramblinrants, you wrote”,
“I believe that God has given us the mercy and grace of baptism so that we have a visible sign to mark our entrance into covenant with Him and as an act of obedient belief, making our belief faith.”
Now Rom.6 “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Baptism is more than a show of being in Christ. It is about literally being placed in Christ. We often argue that the baptism is a sign and yet there are NO scriptures that talk this way. All of the scriptures that talk of this baptism make it an action of placement into something. We have a hard time making something physical also something spiritual, but we have no problem believing that Jesus was a sacrifice (a physical act) that forgave our sins (spiritually).
I found the “In the normal case, salvation occurs at the moment of baptism. But God’s grace will cover an error in baptism for someone with genuine faith in Jesus. An error in baptism is not fatal because faith in Jesus is the true boundary marker between the lost and the saved.”
So in the normal case salvation occurs at the point of baptism, until it doesn’t?”
I don’t know of any examples in the scriptures of erring in baptism, but people erred on baptism in that they were baptized into John and really this wasn’t an error as they did not sin, but they were not saved either in this baptism as it wasn’t into Jesus. Then there were those who did not come to God and were not baptized into Christ, apart from those who came to Christ and were baptized into Christ. There are also no scriptures that argue that faith is the true boundary marker as opposed to baptism as when one happened the other happened and in the case of the people they went on their way rejoicing after they were baptized. Peter commanded “repentance and baptism” when asked what must we do to be saved, so Peter must have misspoke to the masses.
Well stated. Thank you. I wonder if much of the controversy regarding the precise instant at which we are saved would go away if we would let go of the idea that we are qualified to be the judge. I’m guessing we all believe that God will extend mercy to anyone who dies before reaching the “age of accountability”, although the Bible doesn’t mention this at all. Perhaps only God is able to determine each individual’s “age of accountability”?
The Bible has examples of God being very strict and punitive, and also of God extending mercy to people who were not obeying the law perfectly or at all. My faith in God’s nature leads me to be confident that He did the right thing in each instance, even if I don’t understand what He did. Knowing this about God, I’m equally confident that he will judge each soul with perfect justice and mercy. Which leads me to agree with your conclusion about “error in baptism”.
If you want to take everything the Bible says about baptism “literally” then answer this question.
Romans 6 says this, ” Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death…”
Ray, Dwight, I suppose you take this to be literal? Surely you do because you believe that act of baptism puts us INTO Christ. Right?
If your answer is NO, then how do you decide what is literal and what is figurative? If your answer is YES, and if your “old man” died, who is it that is still doing the sinning in your life? Dead men don’t sin.
The answer is it’s figurative. Paul goes on to say, “So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness.
This is unrefutable evidence that the death we die in baptism is symbolic
Dwight,
Regarding your comment here and other places, it seems you believe and teach that salvation occurs when one is baptized in water for the remission of sins. It also seem that you don’t allow for any exceptions. If I don’t understand you correctly then please advise me as soon as you possibly can, I certainly do no want to put words in your mouth that haven’t said and don’t believe.
For the ease of illustration I’ll call the moment of baptism the “magic moment.” No disrespect intended by the use of that phrase as we all know there is no “magic” in it. Of course that means that all the normal exceptions typically put forward leave the person dead in their sins. A person who has decided to be baptized and is killed in an auto accident on his/her way to the church building is still dead in their sins. In response to the invitation on Sunday morning a person starts to walk the aisle to be baptized and has a heart attack and dies is still dead in their sins. A man marries a woman and she teaches him the gospel or he hears it from attending church with her and decides to be baptized but dies before Sunday. Too bad! He should have gone to the baptistery the night before. He remains dead in his sins. A 12 year old discusses baptism with their parents on Saturday night and plans to be baptized on Sunday morning dies in their sleep remains dead in their sins. The kid next door whose parents are unchurched people goes to VBS with your kids. He tells his parents he wants to be baptized and his parents say “not yet” or whatever and that kid dies the next day remains dead in his sins. Of course, this could be the case with your brothers, sisters, children or whoever. It doesn’t matter they remain dead in their sins b/c baptism is the magic moment and they never encountered it. Whoever it was should have made their decision and acted on it sooner. After all, they had heard the five finger sermon preached numerous times growing up and they simply should have made their decision a week or a day earlier. All these people missed the magic moment so all of them remain dead in their sins to suffer the consequences just like anyone that never came to a true faith in Jesus.
Is this what you believe and teach? I really want to know. This type of “stuff” is just one of the reasons I no longer attend a CofC.
Some people wonder if leaving the CofC and becoming affiliated with a group that denominates itself by a different name will find the grass any greener there. I assure you that many do find the grass greener, the teaching better, more joy and devotion to/in Jesus. (those pesky prepositions – which one to employ?) after all FOR the remission of sins must mean “in order to obtain.” No other possibility is reasonable regardless of how many different ways we use the preposition FOR.
May God bless you on your journey and lead you into a better understand of God and His will.
Randall
Royce,
That really sounds powerful, but you did not read the rest of the story.
Rom 6:1-12 ESV What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? (2) By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (4) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (6) We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. (7) For one who has died has been set free from sin. (8) Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. (9) We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. (10) For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. (11) So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. (12) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.
Re reading the text I believe that you will find that in baptism we died to sin, we were cleansed from sins, but we were raised to a new life (not dead but alive now). Could we sin again in this new life? Verse 12 says we can, but sin must not reign (control you) or live in it.
If you will read vs 7,8, and 10 and then chapter 7 vs 1-4 it is clear that when Jesus died he died for us. That is his death represented me and you so the Bible says when he died we died and that we have been crucified with him. The death that freed us from the slavery of sin was Jesus’ death, not baptism which looks to and simbolizes that death.
Royce,
Are you positive. I’ll explain, well maybe not, I’ll allow you to provide the conclusion to your comment.
Tell me then who, in this was not saved by Jesus death. Your statement cannot leave any human being out or Christs death and sacrifice failed.
You wrote, “Now Rom.6 ‘Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.’
“Baptism is more than a show of being in Christ. It is about literally being placed in Christ. We often argue that the baptism is a sign and yet there are NO scriptures that talk this way. All of the scriptures that talk of this baptism make it an action of placement into something. We have a hard time making something physical also something spiritual, but we have no problem believing that Jesus was a sacrifice (a physical act) that forgave our sins (spiritually).”
But, Dwight, what is it about baptism that *PLACES* us into Christ, that brings us into covenant with God through the cross? Is it the actual act of baptism, the physicality of going beneath the waters, of being immersed? Is there something special to the act itself?
Or, is our being placed in Christ, our being added to the covenant, at baptism God’s grace and mercy as He sees our faith, that is belief in Him evidenced by following His command, which is to be baptized? Are we saved by the physical act of baptism or are we saved by spiritual act of faith? Is our salvation something we do, which is being baptized, or something that God does, which is adding us to covenant and giving us the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
Dwight, it is *NOT* the act of baptism that saves, but the faith evidenced in baptism that saves. As David Lipscomb wrote in response to Daniel Sommer’s Sand Creek Address and Declaration, “It has been the besetting sin of Christians, when they start out to oppose a wrong, to commit another wrong to oppose this. Ulrich Zwingli, seeing the works-oriented baptism of the Catholic Church and pestered Anabaptists, or Swiss Brethren, rejected any soteriological significance to baptism. As the Churches of Christ, and we have many things in common with the Anabaptists, came to age in the late 1800s when the mourner’s bench or religious experience were popular (the sinner’s prayer and four spiritual laws are from the 20th century), men like Sommer and Austin McGary reacted by focusing on baptism to the point where we were close, and many individual churches taught, baptismal regeneration, that it was the very act of baptism that saved, that our being baptized forced God to save us. Just as Zwingli was wrong in divorcing baptism from soteriology, supporters of baptismal regeneration were wrong in emphasizing the act over the faith evidenced by the act.
And if it is the faith evidenced by baptism that saves, it is faith then that saves. Does God recognize faith, even if the act that evidences faith is improperly done? I believe that Hezekiah’s Passover is a guiding example as Passover is the act that freed Israel from Egypt. I find great significance in Jesus’ answer that man is not created for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath is created for man. In like manner, man is not created to be baptized, but Christian baptism is created for man. I find throughout the Old Testament that God honored acts incorrectly done in ignorance, but not those done in active rebellion or through willful ignorance. The Bible teaches that God sees faith, even when the act of faith is not perfectly done.
Therefore, it is my conclusion, that God is able to place sinners in covenant with Him through the cross, that He is able to clothe sinners in His Son, even when our first expression of faith is not done (e.g. the sinner prays the sinner’s prayer) or done correct (the sinner is sprinkled and not immersed). What saves is faith. This does not mean the act is not important, it is. The way Passover was to be celebrated, the cleansing of the celebrants, was very important. But what was more important in Hezekiah’s Passover was the statement of faith Israel made by celebrating Passover, even though it was not celebrated in accordance to the rules of Passover. Likewise, in conversion, it’s the turning to God, it’s our putting our faith and trust in Him, that saves.
Hank, you write, “With which, I agree – baptism does “mark our entrance into covenant with Him”. Those who have not been baptized have not marked there entrance into covenenant with him, because (without baptism), they have not enetered INTO any covenant with him at all. For, baptism is said to put the penitent believer INTO Christ, time and again. And the bible never offers a second way of entering INTO Christ….”
I am not going to repeat my reply to Dwight, which you can refer to, but simply ask what is it about baptism that saves? Is it the act of being immersed, of being baptized that saves? Or, is it the faith that is evidenced by baptism that saves? I agree that there is only one way to enter covenant. That one way is by faith. Faith, as I noted earlier, is more than mere belief, but is action motivated by belief. Baptism does not saved, faith does…
Hank writes, “IOW, suppose a believer was convinced that baptism was not necessary to salvation and opted not to be. Would he be one who erred ‘in’ baptism? Or, would he have erred ‘on’ baptism. And, would his faith cover either case equally, in your opinion?”
Does the question of whether the penitent sinner — probably a better term than just “sinner”, which I used in a previous post — is in error “in” baptism or in error “on” baptism? My study of baptism leads to me to the conclusion that the penitent sinner is incorrect in his/her understanding of baptism. I am at a loss to know how Ulrich Zwingli, even in his recoiling from the works-oriented baptism of the Catholic church and his irritation at the Anabaptists could read the New Testament and divorce baptism from its soteriological function. But he, and his followers over the last 500 years, have done so. I do not try to defend the sinner’s prayer, mourner’s bench, a religious experience (or was that last night’s pizza?), or any other of man’s substitutes for baptism as being from God. God left us baptism. But, again, it’s not baptism that saves, but the faith evidenced in baptism that saves.
“Would his faith cover either case equally?” Let’s first define “faith”. Many conservative, evangelical churches today mistake faith for being mere belief. It’s not. Faith is much more than mere belief. It is a belief that compels us to do something differently. Abram’s belief, for instance, was so strong that he was compelled to leave Ur when God told him to leave. Abram’s leaving Ur is faith as the act is motivated by his belief. So if you are using “faith” to mean mere assent to a set of facts about God and Jesus, than no. However, if you are using “faith” to mean a change in heart, a change in living, a seeking after and trust in God and Jesus, then yes.
Sometimes the evidence of God’s faith is obvious, or at least outward obvious. However, since I don’t know what is in someone’s heart, I sometimes don’t know the difference between someone feigning faith and someone in faith. But God, who sees the secrets of a man’s heart does. And the individual, who knows his or her heart in this regard, knows if they are truly seeking after God. Another person’s salvation is ultimately between them and God. Until someone proves to me by their lifestyle *AND* refusal to repent that they are not Christian, I will not judge their relationship with God. “Refusal to repent” — knowing that many of us are afflicted by a besetting sin, or a sin that we find very difficult to not to commit because of a peculiar weakness we have that God has chosen not take away, but us strength and grace to live with, there is a difference between someone who falls often and someone who refuses to repent of a favored sin. Again, sometimes I can’t tell that difference, but leave it to God.
So, “Would his faith cover either case equally?” I believe that if the person responds to God in faith, God will honor that request even if his understanding of baptism is faulty.
“Many conservative, evangelical churches today mistake faith for being mere belief.”
I have seen faith mistaken for merely showing up at the church house at every “appointed time.” A “faithful member” was there even in a tornado or ice storm and had the correct opinions on the big issues, e.g. kitchens, support for orphanages, order of worship.
Randall, you call baptism, “I’ll call the moment of baptism the “magic moment.” Now if we say that faith alone saves, then faith becomes that “magic moment”. We have moved the magic moment from baptism to faith, so they really aren’t that different, except one is purely internal (except when the faith is shown) and one is external (except tht the faith is shown in this), but they are both done for spiritual reasons.
I do argue, ” it seems you believe and teach that salvation occurs when one is baptized in water for the remission of sins. It also seem that you don’t allow for any exceptions.”
But only because the scriptures don’t argue past this point and point to baptism as the point in which the sins are washed away. I don’t know of any exceptions given in the scriptures. In Acts 2:38 when Peter is asked, “what must we do to be saved?”, he answered with “repent and be baptized.” And he doesn’t offer any exceptions and they could do this.
Ramblerants, you write, “Dwight, it is *NOT* the act of baptism that saves, but the faith evidenced in baptism that saves.” and then you quote from an outside source. Please provide scripture please to argue this point and who were Peter is mistaken in is his command and show were Rom.6:3 is wrong, ” Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” and show why I Peter 3:21 “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” is wrong.
The fact is that if God says that it is the act that saves us and that it has spiritual meaning, I am not going to argue with Him.
Rambling,
You repeatedly write that “baptism does not save us”. Why? Surely, you are aware of the fact that God, in his word, says that baptism does save us? Perhaps the clearest of all verses, is 1 Peter 3:21. There, the scripture says “baptism saves us”. Does it not say that? With all due respect, in repeatedly claiming that ” baptism does NOT save us”, you are repeatedly contradicting the word if God.
I have to ask, what do you do with that verse? In what sense, do you understand the word if God to mean that baptism “saves us”? How does baptism save us? In what sense does it save us? Why do you deny it?
Now, before everybody else who denies 1 Pet. 3:21 gets all upset at me referring to it, allow me to say that those of us who DO believe 1 Pet. 3:21 DO NOT believe that baptism save us apart from faith. Or, without the blood of Christ. Or without hope. Or without repentance. Or without God’s grace. Or without any other thing that the Bible clearly says that saves us.
Why take the many things that God says saves us, single out baptism, and deny it? Why argue that IF baptism actually does save us, that it must mean the other things don’t? Why, of all the things that God says saves us, do people single out baptism and deny the fact that the Bible says that IT (baptism) saves us? Why the need to argue that if someone is not baptized, that “God can/might/will make an exception”? Who told you that?
Which other things can sinners be without/not have/not experience and still be saved? Hope? Repentance? Belief? The blood of Christ? God’s mercy? His grace?
Randall likes to talk about the guy who was just about to be baptized and dies on his way, but what about the guy who was listening to a sermon about Jesus and dies just before he was about to believe? That’s, a ridiculous argument. That’s why today is the day of salvation. If you die before doing, believing, obeying the thing(s) that God says saves us….your lost.
People here can say that God can make “exceptions” all they want, but they are actually the ones making them for God. How do you or anybody else know that God can/does make exceptions regarding those who are not baptized? Who told you that?
It may sound or feel loving and all, but really, its a lack of faith that argues such non biblical ideas.
People should really stop saying that anything the Bible says saves us, doesn’t ….
Ramblerants, you write, “And if it is the faith evidenced by baptism that saves, it is faith then that saves. ” but your point argues against itself in that you argue that both faith and baptism saves, but faith saves first. Either Peter was correct or Peter was mistaken about his own statement to those who wished to be saved. They were not told that they had to have faith, but we assume that they developed it in thier conviction and yet they still asked what must they do to be saved and still Peter tells them, “Repent and be baptized.”
So either they had faith and were saved, but they and Peter didn’t understand that they were already saved. Or they had faith and were saved, but Peter told them to repent, which Jay argues is part of faith, and this is after the fact of thier salvation and Peter was mistaken. Or they had faith, asked what they must do, were told what they must do in thier faith and were saved in the doing of this. There is only one scenario that doesn’t make Peter look like he is clueless to what is really going on and he is unaware of when they were actually saved.
I can believe in God, but faith is belief in action, fully and wholly, without doubt in the action.
I think this is what James is trying to point to. In James 2:19 in regards to the demons James uses the word pisteuo (belief) as opposed to pistis (faith) and in this sense makes the distinction between the demons that know that God is God and do not act accordingly versus those of faith who do act accordingly in works. They are both part of the same word base, but they have different senses of what is done in relation to them. Many people believe in God, go to church, go through the motions, but do not act like it is faith that drives them in thier efforts, which is limited to what they do in church and not what they do in life. Faith creates an effort overall.
The irony is that those in Acts 2:38 took a “leap of faith” in regards to Peters command as they accepted and did what he commanded for what they percieved to be the answer to thier question on salvation and they showed thier faith. We for some reason argue and question the whole scenario, which I would think shows a lack of…what is the word? Hmmm…faith.
I guess what amazes me is that NO ONE in the biblical account argued against baptism. It was a “given” that God wanted it, that Christ required it, & that the apostles taught it. When whomever reached a point of repentance (they understood they were guilty of sin & regretted it), they were baptized; without debate.
As far as “the point of salvation” goes, that’s Gods call, not ours. The religious world has tried to play God way to many times in history, and it has always blown up in their face. Just worry about your own salvation (walking in the light) and stop judging whether everyone else is saved, God knows and that is all that counts!
Hank, You makes some great points. We want to make God an one-dimensional character answerable to us. But God is God and is beyond us. In this sense God also has requirements that often exceed our own thoughts, but don’t exceed our capabilities. There are many things that are pointed to in regards to us being saved…not just faith…not just baptism…not just repentance. Preseverance is one as if we don’t presevere, then we won’t gain the crown. Forgiveness and love, as if we don’t show it to others, God won’t show it to us. Grace might be there for us, but it is limited by what we do in our faith towards others and towards God. God will not stop us from being in the kingdom, we will.
Jes writes,
“As far as “the point of salvation” goes, that’s Gods call, not ours.”
Jes, is it your contention that God has not made that call? That God has not told man “when he is (or can be) saved”?
If he has not told us “when” (at which point) we can be saved, then how could we ever know that we are?
If, on the other hand, God HAS revealed information relative to “when” (or how) man is saved (which he has), and if certain men still do not know “when” (or how) sinners are saved, it can only be because they either:
1) don’t know what God has revealed, or
2) dont believe what God has revealed.
Whoever does not know “when” a man is saved, does not know “how” a man is saved….
I hate to keep going back to Acts 2:38 but this shows the perfect example of what the people understood and of what Peter and the other apostles understood. The people, who were convicted, might have been saved, but they understood that they were not. They asked Peter “how to be saved” and Peter responded as if they weren’t saved by giving “repent and be baptized” as the answer to their question. Either Peter was unifnformed or was messing the with the peoples minds in regards to their percived salvation or Peter was very informed and knew exactly what stte they were in, what state they needed to be in and the way to that state.
What astounds me is that we who have knowledge beyond what the people had in Acts 2:38 act as if we are somehow better informed, when they knew so little, but enough and did what was required of them without questioning it. These people didn’t have Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, James, etc to refer to and then retrofit everything around those text. Later those letters were written that expanded the original theme, but weren’t supposed to subtract from what they knew and did.
Again, even when we argue against baptism as the point of salvation, we are swept into faith as the point of faith and yet the people and Peter never argued this or acted on this concept and then we are faced with was it the point of faith when they were convicted or was it the point of faith in thier repentance, which they were told to do after they were convicted. So this “faith alone” concept is not understood by the people and never approached by the apostles .
Several who have posted here continue to argue against what no one in this thread has said. You put words in mouths to say “Baptism does not save and is not part of the salvation process. That some claim salvation is by faith only, meaning pure belief only without any action on that faith.” That is just false testimony and arguing against a straw man.
Romans 4, which I’ve posted before throughout the full discussion makes it clear beyond any doubt or confusion. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
The following verses I believe contrast circumcision, the physical act of becoming a Jew, with any action including baptism, the physical act of becoming a Christian. Is this not so?
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.
What does Paul say is the basis of salvation? It is a believing and trusting faith as exhibited by Abraham, who obeyed God and lived a life of faithful trust. THAT is what saves. If you want to disagree, please take it up with the Paul of Romans 4.
Buckeye, lots of people here deny the fact that baptism saves in any sense. In fact, I bet most of the people here take that position. Namely, that one is saved “by faith” before and without (yet) being baptized at all. One if the brothers who has commented on this particular post is on record as saying that sinners are saved by the work of Christ alone and “without ANY obedience or effort on the part of man”.
How can you say that nobody here has argued that ” baptism does not save”???
That is exactly what most of these guys (and girls) here believe and argue.
Right guys?
Buckeye,
Even Jay has “progressed” from arguing that one must be baptized in order to be saved, and that it is at the point of baptiam that he is born again, to a much loser and “inclusive” position.
Now, he believes that baptism is “normally” when a person is saved, but not always. And, that “baptism” can mean sprinkled as an infant, poured on and I’m guessing everything else that is called “baptism” by religious people.
Frankly (and I have asked here) if “erring in baptism” can even include no baptism at all. And Jay is more conservative regarding the meaning and purpose of baptism than many (most?) of his readers.
Monty, you write, “If by preaching and teaching Jesus we leave our hearers(those now believing especially) with any bit of hesitation in what they need to do immediately upon their new belief, then I suggest we are teaching something incomplete.”
Just to be clear, I believe we should be unambiguous in our teaching of immersion or baptism. But others do not teach what we believe to be true of baptism. And it takes every bit of restraint for me to write “believe” instead of “know”, for I know of few doctrines that are simply taught and exampled in the Scripture than baptism. When we interact with our friends from other fellowships — and I believe they are Christians — who do not have our teaching of baptism, I do not think we should compromise on what we know is clearly revealed in the Word. We should do this in love. We should do this in context (e.g. not set out to debate). We should do this with clarity. And we should do this without compromising God’s Word. I am faith only and I strongly believe baptism is part of that initial faith response to God, since, in faith, belief is always evidenced by action.
The question is not what we teach. Rather, the heart of the question, I believe, is how do we act towards those who have an incorrect or partial understanding of baptism. And for the unbaptized pentenant sinner, I believe God’s grace and mercy covers them as they seek Him in faith, although their faith, like our faith in many areas, is imperfect in the area of baptism.
Hank, you write, “Buckeye, lots of people here deny the fact that baptism saves in any sense.” It is not the act of baptism that saves. If the act of baptism saves, then we are doing wrong today. We should be at hotels, motels, public swimming pools and areas, or any other place that has enough water to immerse and force people to be baptized. It is the faith that is expressed in baptism that saves. Baptism is one of the initial acts through which we exhibit our belief and turn our belief into faith. Confession and repentance are other acts that we do exhibiting our belief in God, turning belief into faith.
“How can you say that nobody here has argued that ‘baptism does not save’??? That is exactly what most of these guys (and girls) here believe and argue.” Baptism has a very important part to play in salvation. And for 15 centuries, the Christian communities taught some type of baptism as the entrance to the covenant. Further, those of us who understand baptism and its part in salvation are under the obligation to teach immersion, to teach new believers the importance of baptism. But what is often lost, at least in the Churches of Christ, is what happens to those who clearly have faith, who are willing to undergo great hardship and persecution for Christ, who either have no been baptized or who have been incorrectly baptized. Are these people lost? Does God refuse in His mercy and grace to save those who are incorrect in their theology and understanding of baptism and send them to hell despite their being people of faith? Does ignorance over baptism prevent Jesus’ blood on the cross from cleansing their sins?
Dwight, you write, “Ramblerants, you write, ‘And if it is the faith evidenced by baptism that saves, it is faith then that saves.’ but your point argues against itself in that you argue that both faith and baptism saves, but faith saves first.”
You are incorrect in what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that saving baptism in the New Covenant can not be understood apart from its role in faith. Dwight, New Testament Christians are *NOT* just getting wet. The conversion examples in the New Testament are believers being baptized because they believe. It is the expression of belief through baptism that makes their belief faith. You can understand getting wet through immersion outside of the concept of faith, but you can not understand saving baptism outside the concept of faith.
Further, I am arguing that faith rises far above mere belief in that faith always has an action through which belief is demonstrated. Where many of Zwingli’s modern-day followers have made the mistake is they have equated faith with mere belief and instead of teaching faith only, they teach belief only. Biblical faith is always evidenced by some action on the part of the believer.
Hank, you write, “Randall likes to talk about the guy who was just about to be baptized and dies on his way, but what about the guy who was listening to a sermon about Jesus and dies just before he was about to believe? That’s a ridiculous argument.”
It is not a ridiculous argument.
Let me tell you a story about a woman. She was a life-long member of either the Assemblies of God or Church of God. She was not baptized. Given her age, she probably either had/faked a religious experience or went to the mourner’s bench. She might have been one of the early converts to Bill Bright’s Four Spiritual Laws and the Sinner’s Prayer, but I don’t think so.
As she grew into her elderly years, some of her sons and daughters converted to the Churches of Christ. One of her sons married a fourth/fifth-generation member of the Churches of Christ from Haleyville, Alabama. Her sons and daughters eventually convinced her to be baptized and she was going to be baptized July 6, 1968 (she died on a Thursday, either July 2 or 3, so I could be wrong about the exact date) when the circuit riding Church of Christ preacher would be back in town.
Hank, is my unbaptized grandmother in heaven or hell? She lived what people around her considered to be a good Christian life. She had faith. She followed Christ the best way she could. But, she was not baptized even though she was scheduled to be baptized.
My dad knew for years the correct teaching of baptism, but it was very difficult to get him into the water. He went to church every Sunday. He mowed the church grounds for free. As a lock and dam operator, he feed the visiting preacher’s river-caught catfish during gospel meetings. Our station wagon was frequently the church bus, But my father refused to be baptized. He was afraid that being baptized would condemn his mother to hell.
So, and I remind you this is not a hypothetical, Hank, is my unbaptized grandmother in heaven or hell?
Hank, you write, “You repeatedly write that ‘baptism does not save us’. Why? Surely, you are aware of the fact that God, in his word, says that baptism does save us? Perhaps the clearest of all verses, is 1 Peter 3:21. There, the scripture says ‘baptism saves us’. Does it not say that? With all due respect, in repeatedly claiming that ‘baptism does NOT save us\’, you are repeatedly contradicting the word if God.”
Hank, either you have either neglected to read my arguments, yet feel competent to address them without understanding the argument that I am making, or you have deliberately taken my arguments out of context.
The act of dunking someone outside of faith does not save. I can take a sinner at gunpoint, go to the nearest pool, lake, pond, creek, river, or ocean and immerse him dozens of times and that sinner will *NEVER* be saved. I’ve baptized the sinner, but he is not saved. Is Peter, who assures us that baptism saves us, wrong? Baptism, or its English equivalent immersion, outside the context of faith *NEVER* saves. And Peter does not say that baptism outside of faith saves.
Hank, if baptism/immersion does not always save, we must conclude that it is *NOT* the physical act that saves. If it is the physical act that saves, what are we doing having this conversation by e-mail? We would better spend our time at any body of water deep enough to baptize/immerse and force sinner’s heads under. Is not the possibility of a few years in prison for kidnapping and forcibly baptizing/immersing a sinner worth having that sinner spend eternity in heaven instead of hell? And Hank, I know you understand this because if you believed truly that the physical of baptism/immersion was what saved, you would be at a pool of water forcing sinners to be baptized/immersed.
Now hang in here with me, Hank…
If it is not the physical act of baptism that saves, but “baptism now saves us”, what is it about baptism that saves? Not only did you quote me out of context, Hank, but you also quoted Peter out of context. Peter tells us baptism saves as “the answer of clear conscience toward God.” It is not the act alone that saves, but something in baptism/immersion that results in salvation. What saves is the belief that compels baptism/immersion, with our baptism/immersion transforming that belief into saving faith. We express our belief in Jesus through baptism/immersion. It is therefore not the physical act of baptism that saves, but the faith that is revealed in baptism that saves. This is what Peter means when he writes that baptism is the answer of a clear conscience toward God. I have belief in God and the faith I express through baptism/immersion gives me a clear conscience toward God.
Baptism always saves when baptism in the context of faith. Understand, Hank?
Dwight, just to set the context of my reply, it is to your post that begins, “Ramblerants, you write, ‘Dwight, it is *NOT* the act of baptism that saves, but the faith evidenced in baptism that saves.’ and then you quote from an outside source. Please provide scripture please to argue this point and who were Peter is mistaken in is his command and show were Rom.6:3 is wrong,”
Again, I make the same charge to you that I made to Hank. Your reply shows that you are either not reading my posts but feel qualified to make a reply to them or that you are deliberately taking some talking points I have made out of context. Or I may not be making myself as clear as I believe I am.
For years in the early 1900s, K.C. Moser argued that Churches of Christ were teaching the Plan other than the Man. He argued that a person could enter a Church of Christ and not hear about Jesus, but hear a lot about the Plan: Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess, and be Baptized. And I know from my personal experience growing up in the Churches of Christ that what was being preached from many pulpits was not grace and mercy found at the cross, but baptismal regeneration. It wasn’t Jesus that saved, but baptism that saved. All you had to do was get wet and God was obligated to save you. Of course one sin meant you were damned again, at least until you prayed for forgiveness of sins or, if your sin was public, went before the congregation to beg for forgiveness.
I thought Lipscomb’s quote was very appropriate to this conversation: “It has been the besetting sin of Christians, when they start out to oppose a wrong, to commit another wrong to oppose this.”
The Catholic and Orthodox churches were wrong in their legalistic, semi-Pelagian approach to salvation. Perhaps the Anabaptists were incorrect in pushing Zwingli as hard as they pushed him and they were perhaps wrong in some of their beliefs regarding baptism. But Zwingli reacted to wrong doctrine by another wrong doctrine: divorcing baptism for salvation. As Lipscomb said, “It has been the besetting sin of Christians, when they start out to oppose a wrong, to commit another wrong to oppose this.”
The mourner’s bench and religious experience are not mentioned in the Bible. But these were the leading ways that someone tried to appropriate God’s grace and mercy in the practical Arminian, but officially Calvinistic evangelical churches in the days of Lipscomb, Austin McGary, and Daniel Sommer. So McGary and Sommer took a very hard line on baptism that came close to baptismal regeneration if it was not baptismal regeneration. Yes, the mourner’s bench and religious experience were unbiblical, just today’s Sinner’s Prayer is unbiblical, but those practices do not justify baptismal regeneration, which is just as unbiblical. As Lipscomb said, “It has been the besetting sin of Christians, when they start out to oppose a wrong, to commit another wrong to oppose this.”
Dwight, the Apostles, including Peter, are not mistaken on their teaching baptism. But they are *NOT* teaching baptismal regeneration. They are teaching baptism in the context of faith. And you can not understand their teaching on baptism until you understand the context of faith they are teaching baptism in. I wish that we lived in a world where Zwingli did not confuse matters when it came to baptism. But not only has he muddied the waters considerably by divorcing baptism from salvation, but 500 subsequent years of bad theology on this, where theologians, Bible experts, and teachers have watered down faith-only to the level of belief-only, where the essential act of faith has been denied, have left baptism, which is very simple in the Bible (and i am very thankful that I was born in the Churches of Christ who correctly teach baptism, except when we teach baptismal regeneration), as a confusing mess for the masses — almost as confusing as this sentence is.
In other words, Dwight, there was no question before the Apostles, even Peter, about the pentenent non-baptized believer. For 15 centuries, all who followed Christ believed and were baptized, maybe by sprinkling or pouring, baptismal acts that date back to the first century per the Didache. There was no question for 15 centuries about baptism’s association with salvation via the context of faith. And then, because man made a wrong, another man made a wrong by opposing the error of Catholicism and Orthodoxy by, to use a cliche, throwing the baby out with the bath water by severing baptism from salvation. As Lipscomb said, “It has been the besetting sin of Christians, when they start out to oppose a wrong, to commit another wrong to oppose this.”
it is time we restore baptism to its proper place in soteriology, that is baptism/immersion is the initial act (or remembering we also confess and repent, one of the initial acts) through which we display our belief in God, making our belief faith. There is nothing magic about the act that saves. It is our faith expressed through the act that saves, which is what the Apostles teach. And baptism is a gift given to us by God.
I surely admire the good sense shown by Dwight in his remarks! I admire the faith of Jay which causes him to teach good things about Jesus and how we should love and follow Him. I’m confident that speaking poorly of what JESUS COMMANDS is not honoring Jesus as Lord. Jesus does not command faith. He surely DOES command that every new believer is to be baptized. And some suppose there’s no purpose for the baptizing and there’s surely no hurry about baptizing new believers. Support for the teaching of salvation by faith ALONE is not showing love for Jesus.
Baptism is very simply done. It’s not complicated. It’s just immersing the penitent believer in water and raising that person up INTO NEW LIFE. So I don’t understand anything about a baptismal error. Either a person has been baptized or the person has not been baptized. And if the person has not been baptized, that person is not IN CHRIST and therefore is not saved. There may be a rare case where baptism is simply impossible. In which case, no doubt God will be merciful. Where death is promised to every baptized person, it might be necessary to not PUBLICLY baptize, but surely even there baptism is possible by those who believe Jesus and want to obey Him.
Royce is surely right that it’s symbolic that we die as we are baptized. We are not changed so that we are then free from evil desires and wicked thoughts. But we receive God’s Spirit to HELP US ignore the evil desires and wicked thoughts. And yet we sometimes sin. So Royce is right. Yet Royce is wrong in supposing baptism doesn’t change anything. At baptism we receive a helper to HELP US turn away from temptations, and to HELP US love even our enemies. It’s good to realize that we now have this helper. As we pray daily and hourly, and as we think more and more about the sinless Jesus, we are apt to be able to overcome sin which before had us in its grip.
But surely we must help the Spirit, and not rely on the Spirit to keep us from all sin. We still are free moral agents. So it’s up to US to make good decisions and to in fact love Jesus and serve HIM daily. The more attention we pay to blessing others with our words and actions, the more Jesus is able to mold and remake us in His image. Jay’s words are helpful! As are Dwights and those of several others who sometimes contribute to this blog.
It’s good that Randall is still willing to read remarks by us Christians who believe Jesus and seek to please and obey HIM. Jesus commands baptism. Those who think it unnecessary may think they know more than Jesus knew. Obviously they do think so. If we who know what Jesus commands is essential are unkind in our speech, we must ask forgiveness. We don’t intend to be mean. We just want to love and HONOR JESUS and obey Him. We know there is salvation in none other, and that those OUTSIDE of Christ are lost while those who believe in Jesus and have repented and HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED are now “in Christ” (Galatians 3:27). Anyone is free to choose Hell instead. We’ll do our best to win the lost to obey the gospel and be saved.
Larry Cheek has read and believes apostolic teaching. Good for Larry! Woe to those who don’t agree with Jesus and His apostles. Their end will be destruction for eternity.
Royce might seem to be implying that the baptism commanded by Jesus is of no value, no worth. It accomplishes nothing because we’re saved by the death of Jesus on the cross. I wonder why Jesus would command that every new believer is to be baptized since there’s no value in the act (if Royce is correct)?
Larry’s comment is right on! Jesus died for us on Calvary. That’s surely true. But Jesus commands that we should tell others about Him and then WE ARE TO BAPTIZE those who believe. Why would He tell us to do something that doesn’t change anything and is unnecessary?
Mark does well to remind us that repentance is turning to Jesus and choosing to OBEY HIM as Lord. It’s not becoming a faithful member of any church. It’s becoming an honest follower of Jesus of Nazareth, who of course lives for Him each day. Our love for Jesus shows in our love for other people and in our desire to bless and help others every day in every possible way. In the case of Jay, it shows in His desire to make this blog possible and to encourage us all to live for JESUS. We do well to pray for Jay and for each other.
Ramblin thinks he/she has proved that Jesus was mistaken in commanding that every new believer is to be baptized, for Ramblin realizes that all that’s really required is FAITH. I vote with Jesus. He commands baptism. I don’t think it’s unimportant. I can’t imagine what causes others to want to claim what Jesus commands is unimportant! But Ramblin goes to great lengths to explain there’s no real need to be baptized! Am I reading his ramble rightly?
I surely have to disagree with Chuck from Ohio. Jesus commands baptism. It is not something we thought up and decided was good to do and ask others to do. It’s what Jesus COMMANDS that we do whenever a person first believes in Jesus as Lord. Jesus commands that the person is to be baptized. How do some dare declare that baptism really isn’t important and doesn’t change anything? That IS what Chuck is saying, and he’s wrong as wrong can be.
Monty asks questions which surely are uncomfortable for anyone who despises Jesus by claiming He was wrong to command that every believer is to be baptized. Do some REALLY not know about the “great commission”? Do they not realize that by claiming salvation is by faith ALONE that they are teaching what is condemned by apostolic writers?
Ramblin makes clear his understanding that Jesus is mistaken in requiring that we baptize every new believer. Why would anyone claim to be a Christian and then despise Jesus?
Ramblin wants others to tell him whether or not his unbaptized grandmother was saved by faith in Jesus. But NONE OF US is judge of whether or not his unbaptized grandmother is saved or lost since she had finally agreed to be baptized but died before a particular preacher was available to perform the baptism. What difference would it make to her or anyone what WE thought about her situation? The fact is that Jesus commands that we are to (immediately, without delay) baptize those who believe the gospel. We do well to obey Jesus if we claim to believe Him. And some are eager to debate whether or not obeying is necessary.
Ramblin again calls for us to tell him whether particular people are saved or lost under certain conditions. But all we’re responsible to do is to tell others what Jesus calls for us to do. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE TO JUDGE those people. That’s up to the Judge, and we are not the judge. What difference does anyone think it would make if some of us decided one way or another about the necessity of the baptism commanded by Jesus? Could we remove the necessity? Could we ALL vote and remove the necessity? We do well to believe Jesus and obey Him!
Ramblin,
As Ray points out, we are baptized INTO Christ. The Bible teaches exactly that. In fact, it never speaks of any other way/means of getting INTO Christ. If one has not been baptized INTO Christ, they are not in Christ, and they are lost. The word if God simply offers or teaches any other way for the penitent believer to be united with Christ, to put Christ on, nor to get into Christ. It only teaches baptism. If you hold out hope for those who have not been baptized into Christ, and believe they got into Christ some other unrevealed way, just know that it is not from heaven. It is man made and uninspired.
Having said that, I’m sorry to hear about your Grandma who was never baptized into Christ. I’m sorry she delayed her entire life and never obeyed God’s command regarding such. Waiting for another hour and/or another preacher is soul risking mistake.
I’m also sorry that your dad refused to obey as well. I’m sorry that your father’s belief that him being baptized would condemn your Grandmother to hell. In reality, the only soul that would be condemned by your fathers refusal to trust and obey the Lord, would be his own.
I have studied with numerous people who refused to obey the Lord regarding baptism because of others they loved who had died outside of Christ. Satan has gotten/kept hold of many with that tactic.
And brother, with all due respect, the story about your father and his mom explain a lot in terms of the position you have taken. Your emotions and love of your family members who refused to and/or were just never baptized into Christ, are hard to overcome. But, we all have family and friends who have died outside of Christ, who were never buried with him and united with him in baptism. Who never put Christ on, as the Bible teaches. But, it doesn’t change the truth.
Lastly, I never even hinted at any idea that the “physical act” of baptism saves APART FROM A PENITENT FAITH in Christ. The time you spent discussing all of that was unnecessary.
Ramblin implies that we are divorcing the ACT of baptism from the faith which must precede it. But none of us have in any slightest way suggested that baptism alone saves. Jesus commands baptism, but has stated in private conversation that what is essential for entry into His kingdom is a NEW BIRTH of water and spirit. The apostles make clear that these acts of new birth are for the believer in Jesus to REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED. As PART OF NEW BIRTH, we believe baptism is very important. Divorced from faith and repentance we gladly admit that baptism is useless and of no value. Alone, immersion is of no value. As an act of FAITH IN THE ONE WHO COMMANDS BAPTISM, baptism saves, just as Peter affirms clearly both in Acts 2:38 and in 1 Peter. And those who think baptism is useless (by claiming salvation is by faith alone or by prayer alone) are ignorant of the command of the One who saves. We agree with Jesus that NEW BIRTH brings anyone into the kingdom of life where Jesus is Lord. We make no claim for baptism ALONE.
Ray,
I would suggest that when Peter made this statement, there were few opportunities to misunderstand. In the centuries since then, people have created a great deal of confusion about baptism and its significance.
My understanding of what Paul is describing in Roman 6:1-8 indicates that the only one who “works” in the act of baptism is God. The recipient of baptism doesn’t work any more than a dead body works to bury itself. Yes the person being baptized has to participate; their participation is an act of faith. But they are no more than spiritual dead meat, trusting that God will make them alive by uniting them with Christ, simply because God promised to do that. Since it is God who is doing the saving (the “work”), I think it possible that He will get His part done even if we do not do our part perfectly. Do I encourage people to be creative or careless with baptism? Certainly not. But God, and only God, knows with complete certainty what is in a person’s heart. And if He can only do His work once we make our responses perfect, I don’t see how any of us could have reason for hope.
I wonder what anyone means by an “imperfect baptism.” Baptism is immersing a person and not keeping him/her under the water but raising the person out of the water. How can it be done wrongly? What would make it “imperfect”? One stipulation. Baptism IS immersion. If anyone is supposing sprinkling or pouring liquid is baptism, they’re misunderstanding baptism. That may be what’s in question. But I surely don’t know what is meant.
Well Ray, You are on a roll! Same verse, same song, same tune, over and over. When you get carried away in your zeal you again and again imagine enemies that don’t exist. I have not ever read one person here at oneinjesus.info who said “Baptism is meaningless” or that “baptism is optional”, or “baptism doesn’t matter” etc, etc.
And you accuse those of us who disagree with your views of “despising Jesus”. That is quite a serious charge and one most Christian men would not make. Baptists, Calvinsists, Assembly of God, and I could list many more…who go make disciples, then baptise them, and teach them about what Jesus commanded are doing exactly what Jesus said to do. You can rant and pretend they are enemies of Jesus but you will give an account for how you treat others who love Jesus as much as you do.
Ramblin, I never suggested that baptism was to be done without faith and actually am all for it. Jesus mentions faith, (if He did, which some question) in Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized”, but Peter never mentions faith. When we dissect scriptures we isolate relative commands. In this case Jesus and Peter make the case for faith, repentance and baptism, where baptism is mentioned twice. How can we mistake that. The thing is that when we look at those being saved in Acts, baptism is always present. This is significant. Faith has to be there as well.
There is truth that sometimes the plan has overshadowed the man, but usually this is because when you teach a lesson from scripture it isn’t always about Jesus, but sometimes it is topical and about things like love, joy, hope, sin, etc., but the ending is almost always the same as in an invitation that includes the “five steps” of salvation. I dislike invitations to the assembly of the saints, but it is done and a tradition that has hung on and persist.
To argue that there is “There is nothing magic about the act that saves.” also argues that there is nothing magic about faith that saves as well, as if magic is involved.
What is it about marriage that makes two people one…is it just in flesh, but then again we have Jesus stating, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” so God is involved in the process.
Baptism might be an act, but sacrifice is also just an act, except when done in the right context as in Jesus being crucified, it becomes an act that transcends being just an act. Within the scriptures the act of baptism as Ray and scripture has pointed out “puts us into Christ” because we have faith in Jesus and this calls us to repent and confess.
Basically the point is Jesus and everything…faith…repentance…baptism…confession is a response to Jesus. None of them are sufficient in and of themselves and all are connected to Jesus.
Dwight, to put my post in context, this is in reply to your post that begins, “Ramblin, I never suggested that baptism was to be done without faith and actually am all for it. Jesus mentions faith, (if He did, which some question) in Mark 16:16 ‘He who believes and is baptized’, but Peter never mentions faith. When we dissect scriptures we isolate relative commands. In this case Jesus and Peter make the case for faith, repentance and baptism, where baptism is mentioned twice. How can we mistake that? The thing is that when we look at those being saved in Acts, baptism is always present. This is significant. Faith has to be there as well.”
After digesting on this topic for a few hours, I think we may have a disconnect on our definitions of faith. Where you perhaps see faith and baptism as two different items, I see baptism, as well as confession and repentance or any other act we do for God or Christ, such as feeding the hungry or teaching the saved or lost, inextricably intertwined with faith. I get this from James 2:17-25, where James says faith without works is dead. Why is faith without works dead? It is because faith requires a work to be expressed. Faith is more than mere belief. And I get this definition from Hebrews 11…
By faith we understand… by faith there is an action (understand)
By faith Abel offered… by faith there is an action (offered)
By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed… by faith there is an action (obeyed)
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac… by faith there is an action (offered up)
Faith is belief evidenced in action. Because we believe, we are baptized and there is faith. Belief is not faith, nor is baptism. But belief and baptism are faith. Because we believe, we confess that Jesus is Lord. Again, the belief is not faith, nor is the confession, for the confession could be something we just say. But the belief expressed in the true confession becomes faith. Because we believe, we repent. Again, the belief is not faith, and would could be repenting of some past deed because we realize we are too old to drink and party like we did a decade ago. But our belief compelling repentance is faith.
Faith is not separate from the belief or the act, but is an intertwining of the two. Faith is belief expressed through the act. Thus, from my POV, baptism and faith are not two things, but baptism is how belief is expressed and through baptism the belief becomes faith. IOW, as James said, you simply can not have faith without the action since the action is absolutely necessary to express faith. Faith without works is not just dead, and I believe James is attacking an early belief-only group of believers, possibly influenced by Paul’s teachings which Peter said many did not understand, but faith can not exist without works. It is the work aspect of faith that makes belief faith.
This also means we need to understand Paul in context to the audience he is writing to. On one side, Paul is writing to Romans who believe actions save. And Paul writes to Romans and tells them they can do all the good works they want, but the actions, the good works, in and of themselves do not save. He is also writing to Jews in the diaspora. Jews believed they could be saved by keeping the Law. Again, Paul deflates this belief, telling them they can never keep the Law enough to be saved. Both Romans and Jews sought to divorce right belief from faith, believing the right works impressed God enough that He would save them. Righteousness is not found in good works, nor is righteousness found in law keeping. Righteousness is found in faith, which is right belief expressed in works that demonstrate this belief. It is neither the belief that saves nor the act, but the faith expressed when belief is intertwined with works. Thus belief can not be separated from faith, nor can the work, such as baptism, be separated from faith. Neither belief nor the work save independently from each other, but combined they produce faith.
So, when you write, “Peter never mentions faith”, it is because he does not have to. Saving baptism is intertwined with faith. Sinners brought to belief, in Peter’s day, were always baptized. There was no mistaken teaching of baptism. However, baptism was not always immersion, but immersion (in living, or running, water was always preferred). The Didache, which some scholars date to the middle of the first century, or around when Paul wrote his letters, and which most scholars date to mid/late first century (early) or early second century (late) reads, “If you have very little [water], pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:3). But there was no Zwingli divorcing baptism from salvation in Peter’s day.
If belief and baptism are so intertwined so that God sees faith at baptism, and it is the faith that saves, Paul is very clear on this point, we have to ask ourselves, in a world where a complex, but incorrect, theology has arisen to justify salvation without baptism, a theological world that incorrectly divorces not just baptism but all works from faith, is there an argument to be made that God sees faith in actions that are not correct (e.g. sprinkling or pouring) or in actions that are not prescribed (e.g. the mourner’s bench, sinner’s prayer) and forgives even our theological sins in relation to items such as baptism? My argument here, starting with Hezekiah’s Passover and Jesus’ quote about the Sabbath being created for man and man not created for the Sabbath, is that there is a strong argument that God is more interested in the faith revealed through what we do than in the correct carrying out of commanded ritual. Faith is what is important, not the precise obedience to ritual.
Just a general comment, and something I find interesting…
If you do not believe you can not be saved. Jesus said in John 8:24, “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
If you do not confess Jesus before man, He will not confess you before the Father. In Matt. 10:32-33, “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.”
If we do not repent, we will perish, as Jesus says in Luke 13:3, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
And, if we live a lifestyle of sin, we do not have Jesus living in us. Jesus tells us, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:5). And John writes, “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him” (1 John 3:4-9).
Can someone find the verse in the Bible that tells us specifically what happens to him who is not baptized? I have been searching for that verse over 20 years and can not find it. And I note here that not only is Mark 16:16 not in the original autograph, but it also does not tell us what happens to the one who is not baptized, only to the one who does not believe (“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”).
God specifically tells us that if we don’t believe we won’t be saved.
God specifically tells us that if we don’t confess Jesus on earth we won’t be saved.
God specifically tells us that if we don’t repent we won’t be saved.
God specifically tells us that if we don’t live by His principles after conversion we won’t be saved.
What does God specifically tell us about not being baptized?
Ray, you write, “Ramblin implies that we are divorcing the ACT of baptism from the faith which must precede it.”
No. That is not the argument I am making.
I am arguing that faith is the fusion of belief expressed through the act. In this case, I am arguing that faith is belief in Jesus expressed by baptism. I am arguing that belief and faith are, in fact, two different, but related, things. Belief does not compel us to do anything. But faith involves belief that compels, whether it is Abram leaving Ur or us coming to new covenant in baptism.
BTW, I usually respond to these forums with my e-mail address: either [email protected] or [email protected]. I’ve been meaning to let you know I am not trying to hide behind “Ramblin’ Rants”, which is the title of my very infrequently updated blog, but get caught up in the conversation. My apologies. My name is Veto F. Roley. I believe if you are willing to write, you should be willing to put you name behind it. Again my apologies for not doing this quicker.
Hank, my father was baptized before his death. He was in his late 40s, I believe, when he was baptized. But he understood baptism years earlier and agreed that he should be baptized. My grandmother is not, however, the origin of my understanding of baptism. I have always left it up to God to judge my grandmother.
I believe that if God knew she needed to be baptized, He would have allowed her to live a couple of days to get baptized. She was in relatively good health (e.g. not sick or in a hospital) when she died. I believe if God knew that her baptism was nothing more than a trick to get her children and friends to stop hounding her about baptism, God knew that as well. And I believe that if God accepted her faith shown in the decades of her life, He did not take her away from life too early. I do not accept the assertion that God is such a unloving, ungracious, and unmerciful God that He knew my grandmother was lacking baptism to get to heaven and took her anyway. That has never sounded, at least to me, like the God who loved us so much that He sent His Son to take sin on Him on the cross and die for our sins. So I have always been comfortable with God’s handling my grandmother.
The reason I mentioned her is that you said such an argument is “ridiculous”, a statement that usually implies the argument is based on hypotheticals. These arguments are not based on hypotheticals. My question at the end was to bring you face-to-face with the conclusions that have to be drawn from such an argument…
Hank, you write, “Lastly, I never even hinted at any idea that the ‘physical act’ of baptism saves APART FROM A PENITENT FAITH in Christ. The time you spent discussing all of that was unnecessary.”
No, it wasn’t as your statements, at least in the context of the arguments I am making, lead me to believe that is close to what you were arguing.
Now, it may be that I am speaking of “faith” in one way and you, Ray, and Hank are speaking of “faith” in another way, a way that reduces faith to mere belief. I refuse to accept the Zwinglian language that reduces faith to mere belief. I’ve written extensively on what I believe “faith” is, and I am tiring of plowing that ground over and over. In short, faith is belief that compels action. Mere belief does not compel action.
Do we have to be perfect in our understanding of how to enter covenant in order to enter covenant with God?
Ray Downen writes, “Ramblin makes clear his understanding that Jesus is mistaken in requiring that we baptize every new believer. Why would anyone claim to be a Christian and then despise Jesus?”
That is about as far from what I have written as it could be. I am truly at a loss of words or ideas on how you could be so wrong on what I have written.
Ray, the participants of every Passover, indeed anyone who entered the Temple, must be clean under threat of death: “Thus you shall keep the sons of Israel separated from their uncleanness, so that they will not die in their uncleanness by their defiling My tabernacle that is among them” (Lev. 15:31). Hezekiah discovers the Torah and as he has the Torah read before the people, he discovers Passover. And he orders Passover reinstituted after it had not been celebrated. “For there were many in the assembly who had not consecrated themselves; therefore, the Levites were over the slaughter of the Passover lambs for everyone who was unclean, in order to consecrate them to the Lord. For a multitude of the people, even many from Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not purified themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than prescribed” (2 Chron. 30:17-18). It appears, from Leviticus, that we are going to have a lot of dead Jews around the Temple since God is uncompromising in way His rituals are to be carried out. God gave the Law. It’s simple to understand. Whomever doesn’t understand it and is not ritually clean dies. But that is *NOT* what happens. Hezekiah prayed for the people and God saw their faith in an improper celebration of Passover.
I don’t despise Jesus. And, Ray, I believe Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said. But I also believe the cross shows the uncomprehensible depth and expanse of God’s love for us. God is not a back breaker. David writes, “Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him. For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust.” The funny thing about God is that He knows we can’t live up to His standards and He gives us grace and mercy. I believe grace and mercy exist even when we failures can’t even dunk ourselves correctly, if at all. Do we have to be perfect in our understanding of how to enter covenant in order to enter covenant with God? Jesus says we are not made for the Sabbath, so, Ray, why do you say we are made for baptism and not baptism made for us?
Ray Downen writes, “Ramblin thinks he/she has proved that Jesus was mistaken in commanding that every new believer is to be baptized, for Ramblin realizes that all that’s really required is FAITH. I vote with Jesus. He commands baptism. I don’t think it’s unimportant. I can’t imagine what causes others to want to claim what Jesus commands is unimportant! But Ramblin goes to great lengths to explain there’s no real need to be baptized! Am I reading his ramble rightly?”
Ray, I am at a loss to know how you could read me more wrongly…
Grace, good work in finding or recalling the Romans 13 passage that clearly instructs us Christians to “put on” the Lord Jesus Christ, by how we live and conduct ourselves. I had honestly forgotten about that verse. Thanks for sharing it!
Maybe you can further assist me (us)? I know that the word of God teaches us that we are baptized “into” Christ:
Romans 6:3 KJV – Know ye not, that so many of us as were BAPTIZED INTO Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Galatians 3:27 KJV – For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO Christ have put on Christ.
Grace, do you (or does anyone here) know of a passage of scripture that teaches any other way if getting “into” Christ, other than by being baptized into him? If so, please share and know that I would be extremely grateful. Because for years, I have been going around telling people that, according to the Bible, whenever is mentions anything about getting ‘into” Christ, it only and always says that it is by baptism. I would humbly stop doing that, if I can see that the Bible offers a second/alternative way if getting “into Christ.”
Keep in mind, the Bible teaches that ALL spiritual blessings are IN Christ, Eph 1:3. And so, if all spiritual blessings are IN Christ, and if we are baptized INTO Christ, we can know that we are baptized into all spiritual blessings! The same can be said of redemption, forgiveness, becoming a new creature, salvation, no condemnation, as well as every other similar blessings. Every one of them, according to scripture, are IN Christ. And, since the Bible teaches that we are baptized INTO Christ, we can know that we are baptized INTO all of the blessings that are found only IN him.
Conversely, outline of Christ, are no spiritual blessings. There is only death and condemnation.
And so, if baptism is the ONLY thing the word of God teaches that puts the penitent believer INTO Christ, then whoever has not yet been baptized into Christ, are not in him. They might believe they are or hope they are, but they can’t know they are. Because there is no Bible for that.
Rambling,
Faith and works are not the same thing. A man can have faith and not have works. Of course, it would be a dead faith.
But, you are wrong in arguing that faith IS baptism. It is not.
Hank, have you so badly read me that you believe that I am arguing that faith is baptism? I have not *ONCE* argued that faith is baptism.
It is really very simple… very simple… faith is belief in action. What is faith? It is belief in action.
Belief remains belief without some work to demonstrate that belief. Faith is when belief is put into action through some work. This is what James writes in James 2 and what is implicit behind *EVERY* *SINGLE* *MENTION* *OF* *FAITH* in the ENTIRE Bible. If I am wrong, there will be examples of faith without works in the Bible. There is not *ONE* *SINGLE* *EXAMPLE* of faith existing without works in the Bible.
Hank, you write, “And so, if baptism is the ONLY thing the word of God teaches that puts the penitent believer INTO Christ, then whoever has not yet been baptized into Christ, are not in him. They might believe they are or hope they are, but they can’t know they are. Because there is no Bible for that.”
Please give me the BCV that says that the person who is not baptized is not saved.
Hank, I’m not looking for your opinion. I am not looking for your interpretation. I am not looking for anything other than a direct statement from the Bible that someone who exhibits faith but is not baptized is going to hell.
IOW, Hank, I am looking for something like this: “Jesus looked at those on the hillside and said, ‘Verily, I say unto you, if you are not baptized, you have no part in Me” (Andrew 14:37).
I provided you earlier with passages where the one who does not believe will not be saved; where the one who does not repent will not be saved; where the one who does not confess will not be saved; where the one who lives a rebellious life will not be saved.
Please BCV your assertion that the person who evidences faith but is not baptized will not be saved.
Rambling,
The Bible clearly teaches that by/in baptism:
We are saved
We get into Christ
Our sins are forgiven
We are buried with Christ
We are united with him
Etc.,
And, after all of that, rather than proclaiming all of that, you choise to ask:
“Can someone find the verse in the Bible that tells us specifically what happens to him who is not baptized? I have been searching for that verse over 20 years and can not find it.”
Respectfully, that seems like an improper approach to the bible. It strikes as one who is skeptical. And disobedient. And lacking faith.
The child if God should never go around searching for twenty years of his life, asking “But what happens if I don’t?”
Why not just believe what Gid DOES say, rather than spend your life searching for what he doesn’t???
Hank, why hasn’t anyone replied to Royce’s question? You say God damns people with faith in Jesus who’ve not been baptized, and it seems no one else wants to reply to Royce’s question, so what about it, should his comment be overlooked?
Royce said, “If you want to take everything the Bible says about baptism “literally” then answer this question.
Romans 6 says this, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death…”
Ray, Dwight, I suppose you take this to be literal? Surely you do because you believe that act of baptism puts us INTO Christ. Right?
If your answer is NO, then how do you decide what is literal and what is figurative? If your answer is YES, and if your “old man” died, who is it that is still doing the sinning in your life? Dead men don’t sin.”
Romans 4:2-8 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.
Paul says Abraham was righteous from his faith in God apart from any works that he did. David calls the person blessed who God declares righteous apart from works.
Ramblerants,
I may have misjudged your argument as you may have misjudged mine. Let me explain what I believe. I beleive that faith, baptism, repentance, etc are part of the same thread of thought by God in regards to the unification of man with God. They may be different in thier functions (much like God, Jesus and the Holy spirit), but they are unified in why they are there…for us. None of these things exist in a vaccuum and alone without the other as context. Love drives it all to the glory of God. If God says to do something for a reason, we are not to argue or dissect the reasons, but do it.
Much of the effort I see here is to dissect faith from baptism and make faith preeminent over baptism to the point were baptism is needed, but not really vital. Well, the argument of faith saves, makes faith the point of salvation, which many veer away from in trying to fix a point, but points are important to man as it creates a surity of knowing. We remember our birthdate because we were born, but in baptism we are born again, not physically, but spiritually into Christ. Those in Acts are regarded as having faith when they were convicted in Jesus and yet asked, “What must we do to be saved?” They didn’t understand that they were already saved and neither did Peter because Peter responded with, “Repent and be baptized.” Now, Jay and some place faith and repentance together and yet, Peter after the point of their conviction, argues that they still needed to repent, so they still needed to have faith?
Someone could have conceivebly died inbetween thier conviction and this repentance/faith that Peter called for in Acts 2 and not been saved, so now perhaps they were saved at the point of hearing and conviction. And yet a saved person can be lost by rejecting Jesus for the world. So there are many parts to to the saved path. I see baptism as an agreement or covenant, where we do by faith that which Jesus did and are placed into a relationship with Christ. It is a physical act that has spiritual ramificaitons in our faith.
This is about marriage, but it rings true here as well, “What therefore God has put together let not man put asunder.” Everybody, keep calm and don’t undermine everything that God has laid out for us to gain Him.
Rambling, Did you really ask, ““Can someone find the verse in the Bible that tells us specifically what happens to him who is not baptized? I have been searching for that verse over 20 years and can not find it.”
Was this to argue that baptism alone doesn’t save and if so it is a bad statement.
If I Peter tells us “baptism saves”, then the opposite of this would be “not baptized not saved.”
We can also posit this same question about faith, “Where does the Bible specifically tell us what happens to him who does not have faith?” We know what faith does, but can we be saved by grace without it? Now Mark 16:16 does say, “Believe and be baptized are saved, and those that don’t beleive are damned.”, but many here don’t believe that Mark 16:16 is a valid verse and in reality all leaving faith out does remove an element of how to be saved argued for in the previous statement of “believe and be bapitzed”. If you removed baptism you would have the same non-salvation/damned argument.
I won’t mention names but you know who you are. I read so frequently here where one person deliberately misrepresents what another had said or believes. Of course this requires endless additional explanation on the part of the other person. So frequently people express their inferences and logic as though they were flawless and we can all see they are not. There is so little effort on the part of some to be authentic and genuinely try to understand what the other is saying. Regrettably, these are some of the hallmarks of the CofCs that I have been familiar with. No wonder we have such a poor reputation among other professing Christians. Why would anyone want to be associated with this group that denominates itself Church of Christ or church of Christ and then argues they are the true church of Christ as if the upper case “C” in church makes a difference.
So sad and disappointing. It is worse than childish at times. Where is the effort to give glory to God and edify women and men?
Hesed,
Randall
Hi Grace, In your comment you copied part of Royce’s comment and I have copied that below. It wasn’t addressed to me but since you noted no one has replied.
“If your answer is NO, then how do you decide what is literal and what is figurative? If your answer is YES, and if your “old man” died, who is it that is still doing the sinning in your life? Dead men don’t sin.”
From the NIV on line:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Let me repeat that last verse: 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Perhaps that answers Royce’s question, at least in part:
Of course, many in the CofC do not acknowledge that the natural man is sinful by his/her very nature (but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin). Or they argue that Paul was talking about himself before his conversion to Jesus. How foolish. Every Christian I know identifies quite easily with what Paul says about himself in Romans 7. We have freewill in the sense that we choose what we will or won’t do. However, we do the things in accordance with our nature – sinful nature results in sinful thought and actions. I have actually heard people argue that man has more freewill than God b/c man can choose to sin or not and God can’t sin. How foolish. I don’t think I overstate the case when I say there are some that bow down and worship at the altar to “freewill.”
Hesed,
Randall
Ramblin seems to conclude that what Jesus commands is not really important after all. I disagree. And I surely have to disagree that faith and baptism are the same thing. One is what we think and intend mentally. The other is an action. We can think about being baptized for months and years and never accept baptism. Or we can accept a substitute action which is NOT the immersion which is Christian baptism. We surely should believe what we read that Jesus said. But however long we do believe, until we act on what Jesus said we should do we’ve only had faith but no faithful action.
Ramblin wants a specific statement from apostles about the fate of one who refuses baptism into Christ. I wonder why we need a negative statement to understand what happens to those who refuse to do what Jesus says is to be done. Jesus commands (a positive thing) that humans are to tell others about Him and ARE TO BAPTIZE those who believe. Is it necessary for Him to speak about what will happen to those who refuse to obey? Or can we just understand that obedience is rewarded and disobedience is handled differently? We observe that the person who is not baptized is not guilty of disobedience. It’s the evangelist who disobeys who will pay the penalty for disobedience. Should we say we don’t need to obey Jesus? Should we guess there will be no penalty for disobedience?
I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding Ramblin. Faith is totally distinct from obedience. Faith and baptism are two separate things. I don’t understand Ramblin to be recognizing this truth.
It’s possible that a person could believe for many years and never act upon that belief. It’s possible that some could act (accept baptism) and yet not believe the act would have ANY effect such as remission of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Many have been baptized in order to become a member of a particular church and were taught the baptism was NOT for remission of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And infants who are baptized surely NEVER have faith in Jesus or in baptism as the remission of sins.
I hope we all understand and believe that baptism is the act of a mature believer in Jesus and that the act must be preceded by faith in Jesus as Lord and a desire to live FOR JESUS on the part of the one being baptized. Otherwise, it’s not baptism at all.
Anyone’s grandmother will face judgment as an individual, not as the grandmother of a particular person. And God makes the need of being baptized known “up front” so that no one can plead that they weren’t told of the need “in time.” Those who think they should be baptized but that later will do are responsible for their own fate. We have no business declaring anyone saved without doing what Jesus says is necessary.
But Vero, faith is simply what we believe. Whatever we believe. Only what we BELIEVE. Faith is NOT action. Faith is internal. Action is external. Faith is not baptism. Baptism is not faith. So when a brother says that repentance is also necessary, we do not do well to suggest that faith INCLUDES repentance and baptism or that it includes repentance or baptism. Faith is only what we believe. It’s not what we do.
Grace commented (in part):
“…you believe that act of baptism puts us INTO Christ. Right?”
Yes, we do!
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death”
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
We do believe that we are “baptized into Christ”. The word of God teaches us that we are ” baptized into Christ”.
What’s odd, is not that we believe it, but, that you don’t…
Ramblin wants to convince us that what we THINK is what is already done because we thought it, if I’m understanding him correctly. He refers to Jews who were excused once from what was required, and thinks that means that people today will always be excused regardless of whether or not they do as the apostles and the Lord Jesus say we must do. I hope I’m understanding him correctly. If I understand him, he’s wrongly understanding the gospel and apostolic teachings.
I’m agreeing that God understands us and loves us and is NOT unloving. I’m also sure that we who learn what the gospel calls us to do and choose to NOT do what the gospel calls for us to do will be judged as guilty and will not be rewarded for possible good intentions. We don’t need to judge anyone else and put them into either Hell or Heaven because of what WE think. We do need to teach clearly what the apostles and Jesus want us all to do.
And then we need to demonstrate that we believe by how we act. I want to again point out the debt we owe to Jay Guin for all the good work he does for Jesus. By the way, my grandmother (my mother’s mother) was a devout Methodist all her life and was never immersed so far as I know. And my dad’s mother made no claim to being a Christian, but always lived rightly and did good things for others. If salvation is based on “being good and doing good things” both will be saved. I was blessed to know them.
Grace, I was thinking more about your question. You asked whether certain of us believe that baptism puts one “into Christ”, and I say, yes – we do.
May I ask you the same question? Do you believe that we are baptized “into Christ”? Do you deny that baptism places one “into” Christ?
Just what do you believe the Bible means when it says (more than once) that we are in fact “baptized into Christ”?
Please share your understanding of such scriptures.
Good for Hank. As for Ramblin, I surely hope I’ve misunderstood him, as he says I have. But he goes to great length to SEEM to be saying that baptism really doesn’t matter, as I hear him. And Hank kindly but clearly points out that baptism is INTO CHRIST, which I’m sure some of those reading Jay’s blog do not believe.
Ramblin is sure that faith is something other than belief. I’m equally sure that faith and belief are exactly the same thing. Faith is merely what a person believes. That’s the way the word is used in every English writing, including Bible translations into English.
Part 1. I am going to offer some perspective on baptism starting with the statement that “familiarity breeds contempt or at least taking it for granted” and the fact that we as physical people have a hard time with “dualism” or seeing two things in one state, when we see it in only one state. We don’t have a hard time with the concept of Jesus as God in the flesh, but that is probably because we haven’t seen Jesus in the flesh. Those people that saw Jesus in the flesh, had an incredible hard time seeing Him as the Son of God, even after He performed miracles that only a God could do. They saw and knew him in one dimension and could not get past that.
In regards to baptism, we know water, we drink it we bath and shower in it and it is as close as our nearest faucet. The Jews and most in the middle east did not have this luxury. The water they had access to was used first for drinking, then cleansing themselves every once in awhile or according to the Law. Only the rich Romans had water piped to them. Water to the Jews was about life, but God made this precious commodity about cleansing also. It was a precious commodity that propigated life, which is why Jesus took this commodity and called Himself the “living water”.
Where I am going with this is that our view of water would change when we have it limited to us. We can take a bath anytime we want to, but the Jews in Jesus day didn’t take water for granted and saw it as vital in all aspects.
But just as the Jews had a problem with the man Jesus as God, we have a problem with the all too common water as a spiritual cleanser or doing more things than what we are familiar with. This is our problem, not the scriptures that point to water baptism propelled by faith and repentance as being able to save. We see baptism as a physical thing, but in reality it is loaded down with spiritual connatations.
Part 2: Burial and baptism. One of the arguments is that baptism happens to us, thus it is not us working or really doing anything. This diregards Jesus own death and burial as just happening to Him and not doing anything.
Let’s look at this from a different perspective: burial is you at your most vunerable as you have no control. Jesus when He was alive could control everything around Him, but once He died, He lost this control for three whole days. Who had control? It could be the people who buried Him, but in the overall thought…God did. We might think of Jesus as not needing faith, at least not while He was alive, but He did in death in believing that God would raise Him up. Jesus finest hour was when He gave His control over to God…willingly. He placed Himself in another’s hands. He had faith, hope, even confessed that God would raise Him up and mostly depended on God’s grace, etc. All of these things are present in baptism when we are baptized into Jesus. It is easy to dip yourself, but we give our complete control and trust to another saint and ultimately to God.
Conclusion: We could look at Jesus as just another man who did another sacrifice, but Jesus was more than a man…he was the Son of God and the sacrifice was more than a sacrifice, but Jesus offering Himself up for us. Allowing Himself to be buried and raised by God. It required Jesus to give up control and place His ultimate faith in God the Father, Jesus depended upon His mercy and His love. We should regard baptism on perhaps a higher platform than we do, when we see all of the parallels with Christ burial and what it requires of us. We might not do much when baptized, but we do a lot in our baptism. Just because we see water over a person, doesn’t make it not something more than that. This is not an argument against faith, as baptism needs a lot of faith as we have to have it in the one who baptizes us and we have to have it in God who raises us. It is an spiritual excercise of a physical manner that is done in pure faith. God Bless.
Ray wrote above: “Ramblin is sure that faith is something other than belief. :’m equally sure that faith and belief are exactly the same thing.”
What makes you so sure Ray? Wonder why the words are different if the meaning is exactly the same? Nearly everywhere I look for an understanding of the word “Faith” as it is used in scripture I find that it includes knowledge, assent and TRUST. By what credentials do you become so sure that is is merely knowledge and assent so that trust is not included? Do you have some respectable source to cite or shall we simply agree with you b/c you are sure of it?
I can’t do that b/c I believe you are less well informed that you could be if you studied more. The only folks I know of that believe biblical faith is merely belief and doesn’t include trust are trying to win a fight with those who think that we are saved through faith alone and not works. Therefore they change the meaning of words to make their argument sound stronger. Is this what you’re doing?
Hesed,
Randall
Hank, You did reply to some of Royce’s comment, yet avoided others.
Royce said, “If you want to take everything the Bible says about baptism “literally” then answer this question.
Romans 6 says this, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death…”
Ray, Dwight, I suppose you take this to be literal? Surely you do because you believe that act of baptism puts us INTO Christ. Right?”
You did say you take this literally.
Royce’s comment that you have not replied to is:
“If your answer is NO, then how do you decide what is literal and what is figurative? If your answer is YES, and if your “old man” died, who is it that is still doing the sinning in your life? Dead men don’t sin.”
I agree with Royce that it is symbolic.
In James “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” to indicate that they know of God as do the demons. but everywhere else in James the word faith is used as they are from the same root, but have two different connotations. Both faith and believe have the concept of thinking to be true, but faith when used in most context involves a belief that moves one to action due to trust. In Mark 16:16, if it is real, the word believe is used, so people are called on to beleive in Jesus and that He is the Son of God, then are called on to be baptized, which is an act of faith or an actualization of the belief. As argued in James even the demons believe, but since faith without works is dead and they don’t work for God or towards God, they have not faith in God. This does’nt mean that they don’t have faith in some sense towards Satan, but that it is not directed towards God. But also those that believe in God as James 2 says, “believe in God”, but this doesn’t consitute faith. This might also show up in regards to Cornelius in that He does believe in God, but later develops faith in Jesus.
I merely speak to the meaning of the two words. The definition is identical for both. To have faith in anything is to believe in that thing. Faith is belief, however dressed up one or the other is. Faith no more than belief refers to action BASED ON faith/belief. Faith’s definition: noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
“this restores one’s faith in politicians”
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
“she gave her life for her faith.”
———————————-
Belief’s definition: noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
“his belief in the value of hard work”
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
“contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language”
synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion
“it’s my belief that age is irrelevant”
a religious conviction.
“Christian beliefs”
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
“a belief in democratic politics”
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
“belief in the value of hard work”
Synonyms for belief: faith, trust… for faith trust, belief. You want faith to refer to action based on faith. It doesn’t. The action is BASED ON FAITH but is not itself faith.
Ray, from a dictionary stanpoint you might be right, but from the scriptures, two different words are used to mark the difference between believe and faith. Sometimes they might behave in the same way, but faith usually has an active component to it. I might believe that most tarantulas aren’t deadly to people, but I will not place my faith in that, so I will not be holding any tarantulas anytime soon. Peter believed or at least made the statement that Jesus was the Son of God, but when push came to shove, Peter lost faith in Jesus at critical times, even though Jesus was right in front of Him or near by, and thus Peter started to sink and denied Jesus.
Faith is a noun. Believe is a verb. Of course the definition of the two words is not identical. To HAVE faith is to believe. I have pointed out that belief and faith are identical. I hope at least that I’ve not said faith and believe had identical meanings. So I’ve furnished dictionary definitions of the two nouns, each of which list the other as a synonym (a word with the same meaning). We are called to tell others about Jesus (preach/teach the gospel) and to baptize who BELIEVE our message. Those who BELIEVE the gospel have FAITH in the One spoken of in the gospel. And they should be immediately baptized INTO CHRIST if they DO indeed believe in the risen Lord Jesus.
Faith in Jesus is essential for new birth. Faith is believing in the truthfulness and honesty and power of the One who offers salvation. Faith is not an action. It’s what we BELIEVE. Repentance is a verb form describing what faith should cause us to DO. “REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” is the apostolic remedy for sin given to all who believe in Jesus.
Grace,
Honestly, I don’t know what your question is about Royce’s question to somebody else. What is it that you want to know, or ask from me?
Meanwhile, do you believe that we are “baptized into Christ”? Yes or no?
BTW, you can’t be baptized “into” something/someone that you’re already “in”. Think about that…
Hank,
Royce said, “If you want to take everything the Bible says about baptism “literally” then answer this question.
Romans 6 says this, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death…”
Ray, Dwight, I suppose you take this to be literal? Surely you do because you believe that act of baptism puts us INTO Christ. Right?”
You did say you take this literally.
Hank you said, “What is it that you want to know, or ask from me?”
Here it is again, Royce’s comment that you have not replied to is:
“If your answer is NO, then how do you decide what is literal and what is figurative? If your answer is YES, and if your “old man” died, who is it that is still doing the sinning in your life? Dead men don’t sin.”
And to your question, “Do you believe that we are “baptized into Christ”?”
I agree with Royce that it is symbolic.
Dwight, you say that faith includes action. Where exactly is this usage in the New Testament? Where in the New Testament is just ONE PASSAGE which uses “faith” to mean action? I might also ask why anyone wants to believe we’re saved by FAITH ALONE, as some obviously do believe. Is there a passage I’ve missed reading where salvation by faith alone is mentioned? I can of course point to a passage which says faith alone is DEAD, but that’s not the same as saying it saves.
Ray,
Ever read Hebrews 11? Also in your definition of believe you didn’t post a definition of faith nor give credit to wherever you copied the “believe” info from. That should be the norm. Try looking up faith to see how it is used theologically – maybe a Theological or Bible dictionary. Perhaps even a systematic theology text. Ever read one of those?
Hesed.
Randall
Hank, You did reply to some of Royce’s comment, yet avoided others. Royce said, “If you want to take everything the Bible says about baptism “literally” then answer this question.
Romans 6 says this, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death…”
Ray, Dwight, I suppose you take this to be literal? Surely you do because you believe that act of baptism puts us INTO Christ. Right?” You did say you take this literally.
Royce’s comment that you have not replied to is:If your answer is NO, then how do you decide what is literal and what is figurative? If your answer is YES, and if your “old man” died, who is it that is still doing the sinning in your life? Dead men don’t sin.” I agree with Royce that it is symbolic.
My response is that this is an example of dualism where one thing happens that is seen on one level (physical), that is realized on another actual level (spiritual).
Do we argue that Christ is literally in us as in physically, of course not, but we do understand that Christ in some sense is in us, spiritually and literally.
We therefore are baptized (physically) into Christ (spiritually) and it really happens. Christ died physically and we die spiritually, Christ was raised physically, we are raised spiritually.
In regards to dead men don’t sin. Live men sin, so does that mean that we are bound to sin then, since we live? I hope not. But our hearts should be transformed so that we don’t.
The concept that we are united with Christ (spiritually), it does say united, but that doesn’ t mean that we have put off our flesh, so that we aren’t subject to it. We do fail and yet the baptism argues that we are in Christ, even in our failures, but living in Christ means that we will move towards Christ, walk in Christ, etc. The baptism is a physical thing that puts us in a spiritual covenant relationship. We might even fail in faith at times and yet we are saints and under grace, right?
Dwight said, “but that doesn’ t mean that we have put off our flesh, so that we aren’t subject to it.”
So you take some of it to be literal and some of it to be symbolic.
“If your answer is NO, then how do you decide what is literal and what is figurative?”
Ray,
Above you wrote the following: “It’s good that Randall is still willing to read remarks by us Christians who believe Jesus and seek to please and obey HIM”
Did you mean to imply that I do not “..believe Jesus and seek to please and obey HIM”.??
If not, just what did you mean to imply. Was there a compliment there that I misunderstood. Did you mean that even though you think I don’t “..believe Jesus and seek to please and obey HIM” it is still good that I am willing to listen to someone like you that does believe Jesus …?
You may want to be careful lest someone think what you write about others is unloving, disingenuous and deliberately misrepresenting another person on this blog,
Hesed,
Randall
Ray, step back a bit. I didn’t say that faith means action, but said, “has an active component to it.”
Hebrews gives the list of the heroes of faith, they all did something based on that faith. This is to be separated from the thought in James 2 where “the people and demons believe that God is real”, but they do not have the faith that is argued for in the rest of James that works. Belief doesn’t save, but faith does when it is actualized in action. It is the result of the faith and works that has pleased God, but a drop of either one and God is not pleased. God doesn’t want us acting from tradition without faith and God doesn’t want us expressing a faith that does’nt act, which borders on just belief.
Hank, you said: “Buckeye, lots of people here deny the fact that baptism saves in any sense. In fact, I bet most of the people here take that position. Namely, that one is saved “by faith” before and without (yet) being baptized at all.” Please quote where Jay or I or anyone here (other than Grace) has said that. Saying it does not make it so.
This discussion becomes so frustrating, because as Randall said “I read so frequently here where one person deliberately misrepresents what another had said or believes. Of course this requires endless additional explanation on the part of the other person. So frequently people express their inferences and logic as though they were flawless and we can all see they are not. There is so little effort on the part of some to be authentic and genuinely try to understand what the other is saying.”
It is impossible to have an intelligent honest discussion when participants to the discussion refuse to engage honestly. Some of you begin to spew multiples of verse after verse on topic after unrelated topic to trump the other’s point and to hijack the conversation in another direction. If you won’t even engage the points made in the original post, just please stop talking altogether.
Randall, yes I’ve read Hebrews chapter 11. It surely doesn’t claim that faith is something different than believing, so I’ll not concede that based on ANY apostolic writing that there’s a difference between believing and having faith. Both are identical. I could post any number of definitions, and obviously none would be believed. So I’ll not bother. I got the definitions by asking on the internet for “faith definition” and “belief definition,” but I didn’t note who was giving the definitions. Several were offered and I picked the first one both times.
Faith should produce obedience to the one in whom the faith is placed. But it doesn’t always do so. And common sense should be behind every comment made by Christians. But it obviously isn’t that way. Faith is simply believing that a thing is true and can be depended on. But “faith” isn’t any action at all. It’s MENTAL. It’s what we think. Often it leads to action, but the action is NOT the faith.
To Ray, Randall writes:
“Ever read Hebrews 11? Also in your definition of believe you didn’t post a definition of faith nor give credit to wherever you copied the “believe” info from. That should be the norm. Try looking up faith to see how it is used theologically – maybe a Theological or Bible dictionary. Perhaps even a systematic theology text. Ever read one of those?”
To me, the above seems extremely condescending. And then, to Ray again, Randall later actually writes:
“You may want to be careful lest someone think what you write about others is unloving, disingenuous and deliberately misrepresenting another person on this blog”
I believe Matthew 12:37 is appropriate —
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Hesed…
Ray you might want to consider the original Greek when defining words that have to be translated into the current vernacular. Jay has repeatedly shown that the word for faith in the Greek has a different usage and meaning than you give it. I believe the color of my car is blue, I have faith that my wife is faithful. Those are two completely different concepts.
So, is your car more or less blue than your wife is faithful? I don’t follow you…
Hank,
What”s your take on it? Do you think Hebrews 11 indicates that faith leads to appropriate action? Do you think Ray implied should have cited the source from which he copied and pasted. Do you think he should have proved a definition of the word “faith” as it is used theologically, and that this is way Jay and others have used that word in this post and subsequent comments? Do you think using a bible of theologically dictionary would have been more appropriate? I do think Ray has not ever read a systematic theology but that is (a reasonable) supposition on my part based on his comments.
I think he has was disingenuous and deliberately misrepresented me. Do you think it okay to not pay attention to what one actually wrote and believes and just jump on to any old negative assumption that comes to mind and characterize another person that way. What do you think?
I agree with your comment as follows: I believe Matthew 12:37 is appropriate —
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Do you think I miss the mark on that worse than you or Ray?
Hesed,
Randall
A little levity to break the tension…good. I don’t think anyone is arguing that faith and belief are so different as to not be related, as they both share the same root word, but they do differ in how they are used or applied. One thing I see is that within the church, belief isn’t a problem, but faith often is. They will argue for God, but won’t do much to reflect God. They will teach in the assembly to those who are saved about Jesus, but this message doesn’t make it beyond the doors, because many don’t believe people will change or listen. God ask us to speak to the rock and we are over here hitting it with a hammer.
Within the conservative coC baptism is often focused on as much as Jesus is even when we are speaking to those who have been baptized. I know there is something wrong with that scenario, but the preacher hasn’t given a lesson on what, so there must not be. Sarcasm. You are more likely to hear a lesson on why baptism is right, then seeing people take the message of Christ to others and baptizing them. Sad.
Teach Jesus to the lost, faith will follow, then a response to the faith will follow and you will have people in Christ. Teach Jesus to the saved and we will grow in faith and we will excercise that faith. God will be pleased with us.
I think that in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.
I just thought your recent comments were condescending with all the “try doing this” and “ever read Hebrews 11” and such. And I thought it just stuck out extra with your follow up warning about being careful to sound loving and stuff.
All of which prompted me to look up the “hesed” you always tag your comments with and the definition seemed out of character with your (recent) comments. That’s all…
Again, I’m no doubt guilty of sarcasm and the such, I just would want to try to be more “loving” (1 Cor 13 style), right before warning people about not sounding loving themselves. Especially, if I’m always gonna sign off with “hesed’s”.
Btw, I wouldn’t have written this last comment, had you not inquired..
Hank,
Yes, I inquired but you didn’t answer my questions. I use the word “hesed” in hopes that people will look it up and b/c it is so meaningful to me and the writers of the OT. I also mean to suggest that I desire God’s hesed towards the readers. In the future, I think it would best if I simply skip over comments by you and Ray. I don’t find them edifying or even a genuine attempt to deal honestly with me or others. As I just said, you didn’t answer my questions. I don’t want to assume that you meant to imply that Ray was employing sarcasm regarding all the specific issues I asked you about.
FYI, here are a few links to the theological meaning of hesed:
http://preceptaustin.org/lovingkindness-definition_of_hesed.htm
http://discovertheword.org/2010/09/08/the-old-testament-word-hesed-and-the-profound-meaning-it-has-for-us-today/
http://www.biblicalheritage.org/bible%20studies/hesed.htm
http://www.basarchive.org/sample/bswbBrowse.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=19&Issue=6&ArticleID=7
Hesed,
Randall
Randall, this is to your previous response to Ray, which Hank chimed in on and not your question to Hank. Ray, I think is zealous and very passionate. This I think leads him as it has lead others, (Grace anyone, maybe me at times) to jump very quickly to make assertions that weren’t made. It is sometimes hard to get out of fight mode when you believe something passionatyely, leading to some mis-statements/ miscommunications. I have been trying to break from this site for a while, but I get sucked back in. I have articles that aren’t getting written because I want to say something relevant, but the one good thing I get is that some of my thoughts are being tested and shaped by discussion. Within the last week, I have gone from believing that Jesus gives faith,to believing that man has faith (in the world),but not aligned with Jesus, until we surplant one faith with the other. So faith itself doesn’t save,but faith in Jesus saves and this faith must be activated in doing God’s will. Peter’s had much faith in Jesus until he saw the waves, then little faith in Jesus, but much in the waves power to drown him. We all have faith, but how we use it is the big question.
Ray Downen, you write, “Royce thinks demons don’t have faith but do believe. Why he thinks that I’m not sure. But I am sure he is wrong in thinking it.”
I don’t know where Royce gets his belief that the demons believe without faith. He possibly gets it from the same place I do: James, who writes, “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.”
“Ramblin seems to conclude that what Jesus commands is not really important after all.”
No, Ray, no. But we’ve plowed that ground already and will make allusions to that ground in later posts.
Ray Downen writes, “Ramblin wants a specific statement from apostles about the fate of one who refuses baptism into Christ. I wonder why we need a negative statement to understand what happens to those who refuse to do what Jesus says is to be done.”
Dwight writes, “Rambling, Did you really ask, ‘”Can someone find the verse in the Bible that tells us specifically what happens to him who is not baptized? I have been searching for that verse over 20 years and can not find it.”'”
Hank writes, “‘Can someone find the verse in the Bible that tells us specifically what happens to him who is not baptized? I have been searching for that verse over 20 years and can not find it.’ Respectfully, that seems like an improper approach to the Bible. It strikes as one who is skeptical. And disobedient. And lacking faith.”
There is a reason behind most of my questions like this. I wanted to point out that God is completely silent on what happens to the person who evidences a life of faith but is not baptized. And I tried to put it into context of what made this interesting to me, namely that God is not silent on the fate of those who do not believe, that God is not silent on the fate of those who do not confess Him, that God is not silent on the fate of those who do no repent, that God is not silent on the fate of those who continue to rebel against Him even if they are considered members in good standing of the local congregation. God is *ONLY* silent on those who exhibit faith, but are not baptized.
I find that very, very interesting, particularly when God did not have to be silent. He could have directed Paul, Peter, John, James, or another of the New Covenant writers to write something about the fate of the sinner — and we are all sinners — who exhibits faith but is not baptized. Hank, this is not someone being skeptical. It is not someone demonstrating a lack of faith. It started with me expecting to find some type of negative statement on those not being baptized and ended with me seeing that odd thing that puzzled me: God is only silent on baptism. Why is God silent on the lack of baptism when He is *NOT* silent on belief, confession, repentance, and living a Godly life?
In my experience within the Churches of Christ, I have come to the belief that we don’t like God’s silence and so we fill His silence with our interpretations and thoughts. Sometimes I believe God intended to be silent, and we need to let Him be silent as His silence, not our thoughts and interpretations, on a particular issue is His Word on that issue. This is one of the times where I believe that God is purposefully silent.
I have written, I hope, that I *BELIEVE* that God mercy and grace shown at the cross covers those who have exhibited faith in Him but have not been baptized. When questioned on this belief, I have given my reasons for my coming to this conclusion. Hopefully I have not stated this with certainty, but sometimes in the passion of the discussion I have a bad habit of stating my beliefs, interpretations, and opinions as if they were delivered from Mount Sinai, and they are not. But in reaction to my belief I have been met with the absolute certainty that the unbaptized will spend their eternity in hell regardless of the faith they have and have exhibited in God.
So, the second reason I wanted to put this out, in the face of God’s absolute silence on the topic, is to make the point that someone’s assertion that the unbaptized have their ticket to hell printed is nothing more than their interpretation, opinion, and/or studied belief. God does not say, anywhere in the Bible, that the unbaptized, regardless of their faith, will go to hell. Where God is not silent on belief, confession, repentance, and living a Godly life, He is silent, and I think deliberately so, on the fate of the person who has faith but lacks baptism.
We need to respect what God says. Part of respecting what God says is respecting His silence, what He does not say and not interjecting our thoughts for His thoughts when He is silent.
Let’s replow some familiar ground. Ray writes, “I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding Ramblin. Faith is totally distinct from obedience. Faith and baptism are two separate things. I don’t understand Ramblin to be recognizing this truth.”
Ray, there is a “problem” in the New Testament (and to those who dislike my use of the word “problem”, please note it is in quotation marks ;-)). James writes, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?” The answer to James’ question is yes, Abraham was justified by works. Paul, however, writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). In another letter Paul writes, “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified” (Gal. 2:16).
Who is right, Ray? Is Paul right that we are not saved by works, but by faith? Or is James right when he writes that we are saved by works? How do we reconcile what James writes, which says salvation is due to works, and what Paul says, which says salvation has nothing to do with works?
Ray, I hold a very high view of Scripture. I believe that God is the author of the Bible, that He has delivered us His message the way He wanted it to be delivered through the Biblical writers. I believe that God worked with His Power through the canonical process so that there is not a single book in the Bible that should not be there and there is not single book outside the Bible that should be there. I believe what we have today is exactly what God wants us to have and the Word is Truth the way God is Truth. So, in this battle between James and Paul, who is right and who is wrong? Neither is wrong and both are right.
So, then, how do we handle the seeming paradox between Paul, who says works have no place in salvation, and James, who says works have a central place in salvation?
The way I reconcile James and Paul is realizing there is a difference between saving faith and mere belief, or as I shorthand it, a difference between faith and belief. Faith and belief are both related, but they are different. Belief is an assertion to a fact or group of facts. Agrippa and Festus believed, but they did not act on their belief to produce faith. Faith is acting on belief.
Thus, as Paul says, we are not saved by works, but by God’s grace and mercy reacting to our faith. The work itself has no value without the belief that motivates the work. I go to the nearest pool and force the nearest sinner to be immersed all night long and he will not be saved. There is no magic in the work. But, as James said, for belief to become faith, it has to be expressed through works. I believe in God. I see someone hungry. I say to him, “Be filled” and do nothing else when I can do something else, then my belief is useless. For my belief to be saving faith, it has to be expressed through some type of work. Thus belief, though related to faith, and even being in the Greek New Testament the same word, is different from faith as belief does not require a work to be expressed while faith requires belief.
Belief is not saving faith. Baptism is not saving faith. But belief compelling baptism *IS* saving faith.
Ray, I hope that you have read my piece on God’s silence. I will not fully replow that ground in that post.
You write, “We have no business declaring anyone saved without doing what Jesus says is necessary.”
And, Ray, we have no business declaring with certainty any lost without God saying they are lost.
Ray, you say you respect God’s Word, but you do not respect His silence. Instead you fill God’s silence with your own opinions and beliefs. You say the person who shows faith but has not been baptized is lost, and you state this as fact. But there is not a shred of Scripture that has God condemning the person who has faith but not baptism. Your statement that this person is lost is nothing more than arrogance and hubris. In the presence of His silence, you seem to think you can speak for God.
Ray, you write, “But Veto, faith is simply what we believe. Whatever we believe. Only what we BELIEVE. Faith is NOT action. Faith is internal. Action is external. Faith is not baptism. Baptism is not faith. So when a brother says that repentance is also necessary, we do not do well to suggest that faith INCLUDES repentance and baptism or that it includes repentance or baptism. Faith is only what we believe. It’s not what we do.”
No, you are wrong on this. Faith is not simply what we believe. Saving faith *ALWAYS* has an action component. Always. Faith is belief combined with some action. The belief is internal. The action is external. Faith, then, has both internal and external components. According to James, if faith does not have an action, it is not dead, which I read to mean it is not faith.
Ray, you write, “Ramblin wants to convince us that what we THINK is what is already done because we thought it, if I’m understanding him correctly. He refers to Jews who were excused once from what was required, and thinks that means that people today will always be excused regardless of whether or not they do as the apostles and the Lord Jesus say we must do. I hope I’m understanding him correctly. If I understand him, he’s wrongly understanding the gospel and apostolic teachings.”
No.
What I use Hezekiah’s Passover, Jesus’ followers eating corn on the Sabbath, etc., is to either show past examples of God’s grace and mercy when ceremony is not done correctly or to show God’s attitude toward the ceremony/ritual/Law. Ray, when Jesus says that man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man, I believe He is stating a principle and not just excusing His followers for violating what the Pharisees thought were Sabbath laws. If Jesus is speaking a principle applicable to God’s Laws and rituals, may we not also say that man was not made for baptism, but baptism was made for man and draw the same conclusions that Jesus wanted the Pharisees to draw?
Ray, you write, “Good for Hank. As for Ramblin, I surely hope I’ve misunderstood him, as he says I have. But he goes to great length to SEEM to be saying that baptism really doesn’t matter, as I hear him.”
Baptism *DOES* matter, and I have said we have the obligation to teach and show baptism even among our religious friends who are faithful, but who have not been properly baptized or baptized at all and whom have incorrect beliefs in regards to baptism. However, that is not the question before us.
The question before us: Does God’s grace and mercy extended at the cross cover those who evidence faith in Jesus but who have not been baptized though teaching errors?
Thanks, Ramblin. You point to James to prove that demons believe, and sure enough that’s what is stated. You don’t point to any lack of faith, however. Isn’t it being stated that they have faith that what’s in store for them is dreadful? I see nothing in that passage that in any way implies they do not have faith in God, but rather it’s made clear that they DO have faith that their lack of obedience will have terrible and terrifying results. That’s what James is saying, isn’t it?
Good for Ramblin to call for us all to respect God’s silence! He writes
What is most important is for us to actually believe what Jesus does say and what the apostles DO teach, and not interject our opposing views as if they were inspired.
Does Jesus command that every new believer is to be baptized? Yes, He surely does as is quoted by Matthew. Has He been silent then about the NEED for every new believer to be baptized? No, He has surely not been silent. So His silence has nothing to do with this question. Have the apostles of Jesus been silent about the need for seekers to be baptized? No, they have not been silent. Should we respect what they have said? Or should we try to say what we think that is NOT what they have said and ask others to suppose they didn’t say what they said?
When God has not been silent, we do not do well to try to fill in His silence. The apostolic writings make clear that seekers MUST repent and be baptized. No silence involved. So appealing to God’s silence is not an option. He was not silent. We either obey or disobey what is revealed by what is SAID in apostolic writings. But we’ve no business claiming God was silent when He has spoken. Ramblin surely writes well. He is to be commended for his writing ability.
When a positive command is given it is not necessary to also state a negative in order for the positive to be effective and applicable. Jesus commands that new believers are to be baptized. That’s the positive. Should we demand a statement concerning the fate of those who are not baptized before we’re willing to do what Jesus calls for us to do? Isn’t that what some are doing?
Something to ponder. I am pretty sure that everyone here wants every new believer to be baptized as soon as possible after the have confesses faith in Jesus. Jesus said we should. I know no one who disagrees.
I have noticed a trend. Most of those who defend baptismal regeneration the longest and loudest practice it the least. Just curious how many churches represented here regularly see new converts baptized?
Absolutely not!! Not one single person on this blog has advocated no baptizing those who have faith in Christ. Please show me where some one has said that, if they have I have missed it. If you can’t show it PLEASE quit bearing false witness against your brothers
Ramblin suggests
But Paul does NOT say “works have no place in salvation” and James does NOT say “works have a central place in salvation.”
Both call for obedience to the gospel as demanded by love of God and truth. Paul makes clear that we are BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST. How does anyone dare to say otherwise? Or believe otherwise? To claim that Paul doesn’t realize the need for baptism by anyone seeking salvation in Christ is to ignore his clear teaching about how salvation is found in Jesus. In Romans 6:3-8 written by Paul is a very clear statement about baptism and its place in conversion. In Galatians 3:26,27 Paul makes clear the need for baptism which is INTO CHRIST. That is, no one is IN CHRIST until the person is baptized. How dare anyone claim Paul is teaching a waterless salvation?
And James doesn’t differ from the teaching of Jesus and His apostles when he points out that only those who OBEY THE GOSPEL will be saved by the gospel. Paul and James agree perfectly on the need for seekers to OBEY THE GOSPEL. Those who ignore the great commission of Jesus calling for us to baptize every NEW BELIEVER have no justification for their teaching about salvation minus obeying Jesus and His apostles. But perhaps vilifying those who believe the truth will make the truth go away, it appears some think. No, after we are all gone from the earth, the truth will still be true and only those who have obeyed the gospel will be saved.
Amen Royce, we have a church in town that is frequently attacked because of their worship style. Last year they baptized hundreds, they also feed the poor and homeless, they impact the community with good works, they reach out to those who are shunned by our churches. I disagree with them on some points but they are reaching people, they are changing lives, they have professions of faith and they baptize more than all our churches in town combined. Sadly most of our churches will have nothing to do with them.
How often does a truth need to be stated for it to be true? When did it become necessary for the negative to be stated in order for us to believe what is positively stated? When Jesus commands baptism for every new believer, why do some imagine He had to also state the fate of those NOT baptized in order for us to understand that baptism is NECESSARY?
Is dead faith not faith? What keeps it from being faith? Of course dead faith is still FAITH! It’s not SAVING faith, but it surely is faith. That’s what James says. Ramblin wants to say that dead faith is not faith. James makes clear that it IS faith. He also makes clear that dead faith is not saving faith, and that surely we could agree on.
Rambling,
I was thinking some more about the 20+ years you’ve spent searching for a passage that explicitly explains what will happen to the ones who are NOT baptized into Christ. And how, even thought the Bible says that in/by/thru baptism:
We are placed into Christ – Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27
We are saved – Mk 16:16, 1 Pet 3:21
We are buried with Christ and untitled with him – ROM 6; Col 2:12
Our sins are forgiven and washed away – Acts 2:38; 22:16
Etc,….
Rather than accepting and proclaiming all of those God given meanings and purposes of baptism, you actually admit to spending 20 years of your life “searching” for some verse that talks about “what happens if we’re not baptized?”
It’s astounding. And in a bad way.
In what other realms of life would/do you do that? Many of us here are big football fans. And, not to compare the word of God to any “rule book”, but just to point out the absurdity of asking “but what happens if we don’t?” Consider taking that approach with what the NFL “scriptures” have to say about what a touchdown is, what it means, and what happens (what you record) when you get one:
“A touchdown is the biggest single score in a football game. It is worth six points, and it allows the scoring team an opportunity to attempt to get an extra point.To score a touchdown, the ball must be carried across the goal line into the end zone, caught in the end zone, or a fumble recovered in the end zone, or an untouched kickoff recovered in the end zone by the kicking team.”
By what the NFL book says about a “touchdown”, we can know that:
1. Its is worth (you receive) six points
2. It allows you the opportunity to get an extra point
Now, who would actually need to ask “what happens if you don’t get a touchdown? What do you get if you never get into the end zone?” Obviously, you don’t get six points or the opportunity for an extra. To argue “but I have searched the rule book inside and out and it never says you DON’T get six points by NOT scoring a touchdown” is just ridiculous.
Back to the word of God. It (the bible), teaches that:
“To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.”
And, “be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”
What would think of the guy who said, “I’ve spent 20 years searching for a verse that says that the person who does not over come does not get to eat from the tree of life, and I’ve never found one, so I think the people that don’t overcome will still get that. Since, the bible never says he won’t!”
Or, “the bible never says that the person who is NOT faithful unto death WON’T be given the crown of life. So, I think he will be given it.”
Isn’t that silly?
But that’s exactly what you do with baptism. And, some of us want to know why? Why single out, disbelieve, and challenge what the Bible actually dies say about it? Why, spend your entire life searching for what it does not say?
Ramblin is looking for excuses to nullify the clear command of Jesus that we are to baptize every new believer. Why not look for reasons to OBEY what Jesus says rather than trying to find loopholes to excuse disobedience?
Please forgive me for misunderstanding, Ramblin! I’ve thought I heard you making excuses for NOT baptizing, and you say you’re just doing a mental exercise about how merciful God is and why for that reason we don’t need to obey what Jesus clearly tells us to do. Why spend our time on telling God what to do with those who haven’t heard or obeyed the gospel? Why not spend our time on telling everyone about what Jesus offers and how they can obtain it? I’ve heard some insisting that the baptism commanded by Jesus is not really necessary. Are my ears dull of hearing and they didn’t say that?
Johnny, to insist that baptism is not necessary is to say that Jesus was mistaken. Are you unaware that some are saying baptism is NOT necessary and that seekers need not be baptized? Is it true that faith is essential but baptism is optional? Isn’t that what Jay suggests as he introduced this topic? I have merely pointed out that baptism is commanded by Jesus and therefore is NOT optional no matter what ANYONE thinks. If Jesus chooses to save a person who has not been baptized, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO SO. But He includes baptism in His commission telling us how to serve Him. WE have no right to disagree with Jesus and His apostles, or to suppose we know more than they about what will please God.
I applaud Hank’s clear thinking and thoughtful speech about the futility of spending time searching for a reason to justify disobeying what Jesus says we should do! I comment that indeed we should be spending time winning souls for Jesus rather than just talking about it. But it appears that some discussion is profitable and apparently necessary.
Ray,
Is fidelity to one’s spouse optional? Will grace provide forgiveness for adultery to those in Christ?
You seem to insist that the availabillity of forgiveness makes obedience optional. God forbid!
This is legalism at its ugliest, denying grace on the assumption that forgiveness is opposed to obedience. That’s exactly backwards. God forgives to lead us into obedience, and this is a core teaching of the gospel. Miss this and you’re left with nothing but law and damnation.
ramblinrants ask the question;
“So, then, how do we handle the seeming paradox between Paul, who says works have no place in salvation, and James, who says works have a central place in salvation?”
Both statements are true, Paul is speaking of works of salvation spoken of in the Law given to Moses, such as circumcision, or sacrifice of animals for forgiveness of certian sins.
James is speaking of works that prove faith.
Paul speaks of the “old covenant” James speaks of the “New”.
Jay, I certainly believe we are saved by GRACE. Good for you for saying so clearly. But the grace of Jesus is shown by His offering salvation freely to all who will turn to HIM and OBEY HIM.
He doesn’t make baptism optional. Neither should we do so. Eternal life is offered to ALL. Entry into the kingdom of life is optional. No one is forced to enter.
No one is brought in except by the Way of Jesus, which is through NEW BIRTH of water and spirit which apostles clearly teach is by ones who believe in Jesus as Lord repenting to make Him THEIR Lord and then being baptized.
Baptism is optional. No one is forced to be baptized. But those who are NOT baptized are not IN CHRIST, if we can believe what the apostles taught, and those who are not IN CHRIST are not saved.
These truths differ greatly from “law and damnation.” Salvation is offered to ALL. Those who do not obey the gospel will be damned. We do well to understand what is meant by obeying the gospel! I think that’s what is being discussed by your permission. I repeat that salvation is never even once promised by Jesus or His apostles based on faith ALONE.
Ray said:
“Chuck says most in this discussion are agreed that baptism is INTO CHRIST. Yet Jay himself is hinting that salvation is by faith alone, that baptism is (at least not as important as faith, which he says is essential) optional and NOT for the remission of sins, and many are agreeing, with only two I read after who are sure that the baptism commanded by Jesus is essential for salvation and to take away sin. If I’m misunderstanding, I’ll be thrilled to be told that only Grace and perhaps one other think Jesus was mistaken in commanding baptism. But I think every writer who emphasizes the necessity of faith while not mentioning baptism as part of the new birth is taking a stance favoring salvation by faith ALONE.
1. Please stop misrepresenting Jay’s position. Those of us who can read already know that what you state here is false.
2. Jay nowhere says baptism is optional and not for the remission of sins. Expressly the opposite. Please stop the false witness. This is a serious sin according to numerous places in Scripture which I would assume you have read before.
3. We all know your position. You have stated it, what 30 – 40 times? Additional repetition is not needed. We know you disagree with Jay and many of the commenters here. You have the right to disagree. You do NOT have the right to restate positions into what was not stated because you disagree with it.
4. “Every writer who emphasizes the necessity of while not mentioning baptism as part of the new birth is taking a stance favoring salvation by faith ALONE” – just bad theology and untrue. If you don’t like that teaching, please take it up with Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 4: “3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now accepting this truth as Paul stated of Abraham does not negate the necessity of baptism any more than it negated the necessity of Abraham’s circumcision. But Abraham’s circumcision was the outward sign of his covenant with God, not what saved him. In a similar way, God instructed that those with believing faith in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection were to ““Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” I affirm what is taught in Acts 2:38 AND what is taught in Romans 4:3. Acts 2:38 clearly teaches that baptism is FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. That is where it happens.
Acts and Romans are not in contradiction with one another. But clearly, God values my faith more than he does my perfect obedience (as Jay has described it-an exhaustive list of what is and what is not imperfect obedience, as Hank requested, is just another list of rules and laws for the legalists to debate). Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness, not his obedience nor his circumcision, yet he did both as action on his faith. It’s not that my obedience is not required, but if one holds any particular doctrinal position that is incorrect, be it marriage and divorce, homosexuality, instrumental music or even baptism, then grace can also cover doctrinal error.
If grace does not cover doctrinal error, then the Christian must be 100% perfect in all worship, organization, practice, understanding of the Scriptures and daily life. This is to say that one single error will result in damnation. To teach that one single error, or any errors of a true God seeker with faith, will result in damnation denies God’s grace and amounts to unbelief. And THAT is another Gospel than what Jesus and his apostles and disciples taught and practiced. I am not speaking of willful sin here, so don’t try to take the conversation there. Grace does not cover the unrepentant murderer, etc. The subject here, and only subject here, is whether imperfect obedience, for whatever reason, damns. Jay is saying it does not and I will also agree. A true God seeker will study and will be led by the Holy Spirit to a better understanding of the Scriptures over the course of the Christian’s lifetime. I’ve changed my position on several issues over the past 20 years. Was I lost before and saved now? No, I was always saved because of God’s grace, not my perfect understanding. I will allow God to be the judge, not my church of Christ brethren.
Hank, on 1/6 @ 2:52 pm and 3:02 pm, you made direct accusations of erroneous statements regarding what Jay, I and others said previously throughout this thread, yet have failed to provide any QUOTES to illustrate that was true. Perhaps you are still looking. Jay’s, my and others’ statements do not need to be translated or interpreted through your position to be understood.
Johnny read, Mat 25:34 through Mat 25:46
or the whole chap of 2Pe 3: it is not a pretty picture for those who ignore the words of God.
Are we to think that God forgives PRIOR TO us turning to Jesus as Lord? Does God forgive “to lead us into obedience”? Is the gospel message that sinners are already forgiven while in their sin? Is that the gospel?
Or is it that salvation is AVAILABLE to those who WILL turn to Jesus and obey Him as Lord? If it’s true that everyone is already saved, surely we are justified in wondering why Jesus gave His “great commission” calling for the good news to be carried throughout the world and instructing that those who believed should be baptized. Are we wrong to think there was some REASON for the baptizing?
It’s granted that nowadays some among us are saying it’s NOT necessary and really does nothing for the person. But Jesus thought it was necessary, and His apostles thought it was necessary. And so do some of us who love Jesus and believe His apostles. It’s good to be reminded that we surely ought to be making disciples and baptizing and not just talking about it!
And one brother points out that some who are not of “us” are actually baptizing many converts and we sometimes don’t recognize these folks as being our brothers and sisters in Christ. Jay’s blogs are surely to be commended.
“Or is it that salvation is AVAILABLE to those who WILL turn to Jesus and obey Him as Lord? If it’s true that everyone is already saved, surely we are justified in wondering why Jesus gave His “great commission” calling for the good news to be carried throughout the world and instructing that those who believed should be baptized.”
Another blatant fabrication no one has said that or said that. Ray I wonder what your belief about bearing false witness is?
Good for Hank! Logic seems missing from some who read and some who write to this blog. But it’s important that truth be stated and believed if we want to go to Heaven. To say that what Jesus commands is not really important or necessary is an odd way of defending the gospel and standing up for truth.
Ray, faith is not action, but includes action, and I am going by the James definition if faith doesn’t have action, then it is just belief. I don’t and have never agrued that faith alone is complete, but faith needs action “so faith without works is dead also.” An example of this is coffee. You might go to Starbucks and buy coffee, so you put out your hand and they pour coffee into it. Wait, they pour coffee into a cup and then give it to you. The cup is a working component of the coffee and any drink, because otherwise the drink would run out all over your hands, this is so even though the coffee and cup are two separate items. They both compliment each other. Biblically speaking when you read of the cup you are being drawn to what is in the cup, but still the cup is the keeper of the contents and is vital to the contents. This is why I argue that although faith and works are separate, they are complimentary of each other and make the other relevant.
Buckeye,
Lol, you just actually did what you accused me of doing, even though I didn’t do what you accused me of, like you just did yourself!
Ramblin has said this – “Baptism does not saved, faith does…”
Grace believes people are saved before and even without baptism. Right Grace? (trust me, I’d live to be told otherwise and to learn she has come around).
Royce has for years here said that sinners are saved “before and with outhout one single act of obedience from man”. I was shocked the first time I read his words, but that was a long time ago. Now, I understand that many here feel that way. Surely, others here remember me questioning him over that? Let Royce say whether or not he believes that sinners are save WHEN they are baptized? Or if anybody must be baptized at all in order to be forgiven.
As for Jay, the whole point of this here article is about his “confession”. Namely, how he USED TO believe that people were only saved WHEN they were immersed. Now, he’s loosened his position to “normally”. On top of that, he has loosened “baptism” to include anything any religious person calls “baptism”. I have asked like ten times around here for him to tell us what he means by the “errors in baptism” he he claims to know that God will overlook. I think (one of) his main points in support of that comes from how the Jews back in the day observed the Sabbath all wrong back in Chronicles and yet God didn’t kill them like he could have. If I understand him correctly, because of that ordeal, he knows now that God will “overlook” all of the so called “errors in baptism” today. But, and again, he refuses to explain what all is included under “errors in baptism”. Why, I don’t know? I suppose he even believes that those who have faith but who do not believe baptism is necessary, and who accordingly choose not to, will still be saved the same as if they were baptized all along. I suppose in such cases, those who NEVER were baptized at all are considered to merely be guilty of an honest ” error in baptism”, which he knows God will overlook. Is that right, Jay? Can no “baptism” be considered an “error in baptism”?
So, I have not accused anybody falsely. If there is something specific of which you are unclear about, do tell. Pretty sure my history is just as good as anybody’s here in terms of answering questions asked of me, and not accusing people falsely.
Paula, I would say yes to Jesus response to Peter as the model for grace and this is reflected in God’s response to Israel as well. God had grace on Israel, but then again Israel had taken a covenant position with God as well, so they were bound. Now Israel did good things, but when they did bad things they were punished and yet they still were in a covenant relationship with God. Now in regards to faith. I have always thought that when we come to God we come to faith, but now I beleive that we have already had faith, but now we come to faith in Jesus. We are called to bow down ourselves before God. We place our hope in God…but we turn from our hope in this world. In respect to being born again, we are born once physically into this world, then when baptized are born again spritually into Christ. This doesn’t negate our first birth, but repositions our spirit from the world, the flesh, to Jesus in spirit. We can offer hope and grace to others on a limited scale, but the ultimate expression of grace and hope is is from Jesus.
I note that Chuck thinks we need to quote what others have said in order to avoid misunderstanding them. Yet the differing positions are surely understood by us all. Some are saying or implying that the baptism commanded by Jesus is simply optional, and that surely God will save regardless of whether or not a person is baptized into Christ.
The statements are on record. Surely the ones who wrote them will not now deny they made the statements. They seem willing only to deny that the statements mean what they said. If so, an apology is in order from the speaker/writer who said/wrote something other than was intended.
Attacking those who differ is no proper response to being caught in teaching error. Explaining why you think Jesus was wrong is the right response to being told that some believe Jesus was right and NOT wrong in commanding baptism. Baptism INTO CHRIST is not MY idea. I’m surprised anyone would blame ME for speaking about what the apostles taught and practiced. Is it loving others to let them believe and teach false doctrines and remain silent? I think not. Love compels that we both teach truth and defend the teaching of truth. Salvation by faith alone is false doctrine, however nicely it is presented.
Johnny accuses me of misrepresenting what others have written. I plead NOT GUILTY to the charge. Some are teaching that the baptism commanded by Jesus is optional at best and not necessary in any event, and that seekers for salvation are saved without being baptized. Surely anyone who can read is aware of this being the position held by some who freely admit that they believe in salvation by faith alone.
My computer has the blog entries saved. Has Johnny erased them all so that he can’t see them unless I repeat them? I quit doing so because several times the quotation I copied turned up as the quotation provided by the blogmaster. Other times only the original brief from Jay’s first entry is provided. So lately I’ve assumed what I wanted to reply to would be shown as the copied entry. If Johnny or anyone will furnish me his or their e-mail address I’ll be glad to send to him or them all the quotations about which I’ve written. My e-mail is at sofnet.com and I’m outreach there if the blog accepts e-mail addresses. Some don’t.
What I’m saying is that some are defending salvation “by faith alone.” Since no such “easy salvation” is taught by Jesus or His apostles, I’m sticking with what Jesus and His apostles taught instead. Love isn’t ignoring danger and error. It’s opposing what is wrong and dangerous.
An illustration of something you just stated: I had a great-uncle who’s family faithfully worshiped in their own home. Why? Because every congregation they attended was doing something wrong! And, no doubt, their assessment of the congregations’ faults were accurate. (I am talking about Church of Christ congregations.) These dear people were completely convinced that the only “approved” worship could be in a group that had achieved 100% doctrinal perfection. And they reached the only possible conclusion allowed by this criteria: there was no such group! And they remained blissfully oblivious to their own doctrinal errors/ misunderstandings, as most of us do. Their consistency in seeking doctrinal perfection was as tragic as it was sincere.
Every believer uses some degree of human judgement in deciding how to apply the Scriptures to our lives. Even when those judgements are instructed by the Scriptures, there is no reason to expect them to be perfect; things produced by humans never are. Sincere, God-honoring people have created non-Biblical ideas and terms in order to create a framework in which to understand and apply the Scripture: “necessary inference” , “age of accountability” and “saving faith” immediately come to mind. Many of us embrace these ideas as truth (or have done so at some time or to some extent) even though they are not mentioned in the Bible at all. Why mention this? Because, if we are honest, I think we all are very devoted to some ideas that are not explicitly stated in the Bible and are equally critical of the ideas of others that are not stated in the Bible. This calls for a great deal of patience, humility and mercy in the way we regard and relate to one another.
I’m not saying this as criticism toward anyone, but as a reminder that we’re all in the same boat. So let’s try to not sink the boat.
Yep!
No offense to Paula, but my “yep” was meant for the last comment of Ray. I haven’t even (yet) read Paula’s comments, bit saw that she had posted while/before I sent in my “yep”. Lol
Lesson – don’t just submit a “yep” or “amen” unless you’re willing to have it go under whoever is writing whatever.
Hank, I too am at a loss of what Jay/anybody else think is an “errors in baptism” as there is no example. This makes a proposition argument on something that may or may not exist. If we are immersed into water, then we have been baptized. It is so simple as to be error proof in its form and conception. Now the case of the those in Ephesus argues that to be baptized into John is not the same as being baptized into Jesus, but there is never an argument that the baptism itself was done in error, but that the person was just not baptized into what would save him. Me eating unleavened bread and drinking wine, is not the same as me eating unleavened bread and drinking wine with others in remembrance of Jesus. The ground on which Moses walked around the bush didn’t change in form, even though at one point it became Holy. Now Moses saw the bush as Holy, because God said it was. Moses changed, not the ground. We are supposed to be changed upon approach of doing, even when doing something that is familiar in a different context, because God said it is different in context. Baptism is saving in the context of faith.
Since you have such a great memory I’m sure you will remember your answer when I asked “is the sacrifice of Jesus enough to save a sinner and your answer was an emphatic NO! That is the biggest difference between me and you and a few others here. I Remer being shocked as saddened that some here knew so little about three gospel.
Ray, you said, “Dwight, you claim that in many apostolic writings it is stated that mature believers in Christ are saved (by faith alone).”, but I have never said this and do not beleive this and my argument that faith needs to work argues against this point.
You stated that I said, “that faith means action”, but what I said was “faith has an active component to it.” A liquid and a container might be two different things, but the liquid needs a container to be useful. These are examples of misrepresentations, but I am not angry. I figure we have all done this at some point in time hee, usually unintentionally. But we should not gloss over when we do them either and this blog format makes it easy to lose track and do. We lose credibility when we make claims of others and those claims aren’t really true and never admit to the fact that we might have done them. You will also make enemies of or be disregarded by those who are actually in agreement with you in most points. Zealously swinging a sword around will kill both friends and enemies.
Royce, I don’t exactly recall ever answering any question like that with an emphatic “NO”. That question, as you just put it, seems a little loaded. It’d be like asking if Ive stopped beating my wife. There’d be no right one word answer.
But, for my reputation’s sake, allow me to actually answer that now.
The sacrifice of Jesus is enough to save the sinner, provided he is penitent and is baptized into Christ!
But, the sacrifice of Jesus is “not enough” to save those who do not/will no obey him. I know that because God said, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him”
Which, was why I was shocked to hear a brother from the CoC arguing that the sacrifices of Jesus is enough to save sinners before and without ANY act of obedience at all. Of course, there’s more and more that believe like you.
At any rate, thanks for checking in.
@buckeye – see?
Paula, we all err and if we don’t think we do, we err. This is perhaps the first thing we need to know about us…we are not perfect or as perfect as we think we are.
Jesus died for the world, so the grace is applied to the world. We might be in the covenant boat and have a relationship with the captian, but we are still in the same ocean and we can still be affected by the waves. The Jews were the children of God and because they took this for granted they were placed a higer degree of condemnation when they turned their backs on God. We can also throw one another over the boat or crowd to one side of the boat from others and we all know what happens when one side is crowded, it starts dipping towards the water we were saved from.
” All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Royce, is that passage supposed to prove that sinners do not need to repent and be baptized in order to be saved? Since it only mentions “belief”?
Good for Dwight and Hank and anyone who loves Jesus and loves truth. I feel that description includes most on this blog and surely includes Jay Guin (loving Jesus and loving truth). So I am distressed when anyone wants to suppose Jesus didn’t MEAN IT when He commands that every new believer is to be baptized. What Jesus wants is what WE should want, I think. And how difficult it is for some to suppose the baptism commanded by Jesus is really necessary. No less important than baptism is REPENTANCE.
The apostolic requirement of believers seeking salvation is that the seeker MUST REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED. Why are some now trying to say salvation is by faith alone? And that some who have gone to the trouble of writing to this blog do believe in salvation by faith alone can’t be denied. At least that’s what they say they believe, and they express horror that anyone would think salvation is NOT by faith alone. And they suppose attacking us who believe Jesus will change things so that sinners no longer need to be baptized to become Christians. That’s as if it were possible for US to change apostolic requirements. I seek only to honor and obey Jesus. Surely that’s our common aim.
Royce, since you are not addressing your entries, I assume that you are specifically speaking to someone, but not making it only to that person. So in this vein, if Jesus sacrifice saves sinners, then the second verse you quoted, but didn’t give a name for argues for a conditon of faith and coming to Him, but conditions shouldn’t exist if Jesus sacrifice saves all regardless (which I think is Grace’s point) of what we do, but if there are conditions, then why only faith? I mean can’t God place whatever conditions he wants for salvation in place? We are told that if we don’t forgive and have mercy for others, we will not be forgiven and be shown mercy to by God, but these are conditions and this is not faith. My point is that it is easy to pull one scripture and then say, waha, see, but if the scriptures were only that verse, then we would be limited, but God is not limited to what He wants from us. Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments”, so this has love and keeping, but I assume that faith is in there, but if one verse excludes all other references, then all we need is love and works, after all we are not commanded to have faith, unless Mark 16:16 is an actual command, which many doubt.
I appreciate what Hank testifies about his history with Jay’s blogs. I’m a relative newcomer, and very much appreciate the good work Jay has been doing for many years. I first heard of him from a brother at a Tulsa Workshop a few years ago, but only recently have been following what Jay is writing. He does well!
Hank seeks to honor and obey Jesus, which I’m positive is the goal of myself and Jay and others. Yes, Hank, that IS our common aim. But some are thinking for some reason that Jesus didn’t mean it when He commanded that every new Christian was to be baptized by human hands. I’m glad Hank and Dwight and others speak up to call for loyal obedience to Jesus instead of substituting. I applaud everyone who shares that aim.
I’ve pointed out occasional statements which are not in harmony with the teaching of Jesus and His apostles. And some try to justify rather than apologize and retract such false teachings. God is our judge (Jesus will sit in judgment on every one of us) and surely none of us want to face Him and attempt THEN to justify our denial of His right to tell us what is necessary to enter His kingdom. We could never be justified in replacing what HE taught and what was taught through HIS APOSTLES by ideas we prefer. Yet some bravely defend their right to tell Jesus what He should have said. Do I mean YOU? Yes, if you oppose teaching the gospel plan of salvation, I surely do mean you. And this is regardless of how many words you use to justify teaching falsely. Unity in Christ is based on being IN CHRIST. How thrilling it is to be in unity as lovers of Jesus Christ such as Jay Guin has been with all of us who also love Him.
Is this boy’s faith/trust in Jesus Christ not enough to have salvation? Does God not know depth of his faith. Do you say he is not a Christian since he was not baptized after he had faith?
To all: My post at 12:54 pm today was a response to Buckeyechuck’s comment from a few minutes earlier. I did not realize how many other posts got in between his and mine until I came back to the discussion just now.
To Dwight: thanks for fleshing out the analogy. I agree.
To Hank: No problem. I’m learning to address my comments to specific people since I can never know exactly where they will be inserted into the discussion.
To Ray: I have read this entire discussion and can not remember a single instance in which a post stated that baptism is unnecessary or without spiritual effect. So our memories obviously differ. I would suggest that you produce direct quotes, easily done with the copy and paste feature. That way, no one has to rely on memory. And I’d like to know your opinion on this situation: a five year old child believes in God, but dies (at age five) without being baptized. Is this child in heaven? Why or why not? Is this child in hell? Why or why not?
Ray, I appreciate your concerns. But you still offer no direct quotations to support your assertions about their beliefs. And you still have not answered (or perhaps have not read) my questions.
Hank, perhaps you forgot what you said previously on 1/6 @ 2:52 pm:
“Buckeye, lots of people here deny the fact that baptism saves in any sense. In fact, I bet most of the people here take that position. Namely, that one is saved “by faith” before and without (yet) being baptized at all. One if the brothers who has commented on this particular post is on record as saying that sinners are saved by the work of Christ alone and “without ANY obedience or effort on the part of man”.
How can you say that nobody here has argued that ” baptism does not save”???
That is exactly what most of these guys (and girls) here believe and argue.
Right guys?”
In my thinking, your statement that “lots of people here deny the fact that baptism saves in any sense,” sounds like you are identifying a position that many have obviously NOT made and have actively voiced disagreement with, myself included. It would be beneficial to me, and I believe others here, if we were to limit the discussion to this singular point alone as it is the basis of your post in response to my comments and seems to be the central point of contention by a few other commenters here.
I ask for quotes where Jay or I or others have said that – specifically. I understand Grace is going to say that. But, we all already knew that. Continuing to state a straw man position that no one is stating or defending makes for a pretty unfruitful discussion. Specifically, to state that “we are saved by grace through faith” does NOT nullify also stating that “baptism also now saves us.”
Regarding your point about Jay’s use of the word “normally” to infer that baptism is really not necessary – you lock in on that one word and build an entire case around it to morph Jay’s position into what it is not. Jay’s actual quote: “In the normal case, salvation occurs at the moment of baptism. But God’s grace will cover an error in baptism for someone with genuine faith in Jesus. An error in baptism is not fatal because faith in Jesus is the true boundary marker between the lost and the saved.”
Jay does not say anywhere that “baptism does not save in any sense.” Jay has an entire post from Jan. 2 titled “Baptism – My Teaching and a few FAQs.” It’s pretty clear Jay recognizes baptism’s role in salvation. However, it may be the role he defines for baptism in salvation is not quite the same significance as you, Ray and others here have assigned, as I understand what you have all said, namely that immersion in water of the believer IS salvation. If you want to claim that makes Jay a false teacher, along with me and others who agree with him, then so be it. You’ve made your point ad infinitum. It seems fairly clear to me that your arguments have not changed my mind and I’d venture to say mine (or Jay’s) have not changed yours. It’s time to move on.
So, does the last person who comments here get declared the winner since the others have dropped out? So be it. You all can continue to judge if that is your purpose. Last one out please turn out the lights.
Paula, you wrote:
“I have read this entire discussion and can not remember a single instance in which a post stated that baptism is unnecessary or without spiritual effect.”
I don’t believe anybody claiming to believe the Bible here (or elsewhere, really), argue that baptism isn’t important or that it is without spiritual effect.
What they do claim, is that it is unnecessary IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. That, is where all of the friction is.
Some, like Ray, Dwight and myself believe that since the Bible says that we are baptized INTO Christ, that we are actually baptized INTO Christ. We believe that in/by/through baptism, we are born again, saved, forgiven of sins, buried with Christ, united with him and every other thing the bible teaches baptism to do and mean. Without and/or before baptism, all sinners are outside of Christ (since the bible says that baptism puts one into Christ and never offers another way), unforgiven, not saved , not buried with him , not united with him, etc. We believe that baptism IS “necessary” for all of those things God teaches baptism to mean and do.
Jay, believes that baptiam is “normally” necessary to have/enjoy all of those blessings. That that (what Ray, Dwight and I believe) IS what God actually teaches about baptism. That we are right. BUT, Jay says that any type of “baptism” is accepted by God. Too, he believe that sometimes, God accepts certain sinners who are never baptized at all. That he makes exceptions here and there.
Others, like Royce and Grace, argue that although baptism is “important” and has some type of meaning (they cant ever use a verse though), that baptism is NOT “necessary” to be saved, to get into Christ, or any of the other things God teaches about baptism. To them, believing what the Bible teaches about baptism is to deny the power of the blood if Christ. They believe that every sinner who is saved is saved before and without baptism. Even though, the Bible says all of the things it does, they deny it.
Hope that helps
I would like to give a couple of scenarios to Ray as well.
1. 1st Century believer who was in the desert and there was no water for immersion available and was poured on 3 times as described by the ECFs.
2. 12 year old male who was baptized at the baptist church after a profession of faith and who never heard of baptism for the remission of sins
3. A person who comes to faith in Christ reads the bible and has no clue that the word baptism means immersion. That person has water sprinkled on him and is told that he has been baptized.
4. A person is baptized by immersion but both their hands never went under the water.
Are these 4 “baptisms” in err? Were they ineffective? If so can you explain why some might be but others were not?
Good for Paula! How right she is that we need to love one another and work for UNITY IN CHRIST. That should be the objective of every Christian. We also feel the need to know and teach TRUTH and oppose error. So some of us speak up in defense of what Jesus and His apostles taught as revealed in the writings of the apostles and their co-workers. Why do we do so? To show off our superior knowledge? No, not at all. Simply to make clear what IS truth and what is NOT truth. It is NOT TRUE that salvation is by faith alone or without new birth of water and spirit. Acts 2:38 explains how seekers are saved. Some differ and have opposing views. They are not serving Jesus well by opposing what is taught by Him and His apostles. Christian Churches/Churches of Christ are people who love Jesus and seek to win others to HIM and to unity of all who love Him.
We are part of a “Restoration Movement” which has a more-than-200-year history in this nation. Every once in a while some begin to win disciples away from the truth of Jesus and His apostles, and it becomes necessary to loudly shout what is true and call for every lover of Jesus to stand against error and for truth. It is TRUE that Jesus commands baptism for every new believer (Matthew 28:18-20). It is TRUE that the apostles invite seekers to save themselves by two specific acts if they do believe in Jesus–REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED. They promise remission of sins and that God will gift each new Christian with His Spirit. Some among us seem unaware of these simple truths, so we remind them. With love. But with clarity of speech. Because we love Jesus and because we love those who share our love for Jesus.
Paula, you want me to furnish backup copies of all the notes sent to Jay’s blogs, and I won’t do so. You surely have the same ability as I do to keep such copies. As for the 5-year-old child, why under heaven would you ask me to say the child was saved or lost eternally? What does that have to do with anything important to seekers after truth? God will take care of His own.
What we’re discussing is teen agers and adults who are invited to save themselves by turning to Jesus and being baptized. I hope I’m never in the position of having to promise a parent who has lost a young child that the child who died will go to Hell OR TO HEAVEN. How would I know? People who have reached an age of accountability are older than 5 years. Small children are not expected to die and are not expected to perform adult acts. They are children.
I wonder just why you bring a 5-year-old into the discussion. If it was YOUR child, I will reassure you that the need for baptism is whenever the person is fully aware of right and wrong and can believe that sin is wrong and is able to make a mature decision against sin. Only such a person can be baptized into Christ. Most at 5 years are NOT adults and do not have adult responsibilities. But if a very young person wants to be baptized and understands sin and repentance and is taught about Jesus, then surely the very young person COULD be baptized into Christ. That they would NEED to be baptized I seriously doubt.
Paula, I see no reason to honor your [characterization deleted per site policy] request that I copy all the false teachings about which I comment. If you look through what has been written to this blog, you surely will see that some have no respect for the baptism commanded by Jesus and His apostles and are positive that baptism is not necessary for salvation.
I write what I judge might bless others and help them understand truth. I wish I could be more sure that your motive is the same as mine. Please review in your computer the recent posts and don’t expect me or anyone to do for you what you should do for yourself.
Ray, the more I read you, the more I appreciate you. Would, that the church (still) had more brothers like you. Your stance is a reminder that the Word of God is the word of our Creator and judge. And woe to all who pervert it. Whether intentional or otherwise.
Even if, the guilty are doing so in the name of unity and love. Really, its divisive and from below.
Johnny asks:
You do well to put baptisms in quotes when some are not baptism at all even though some call them baptisms. Since I’m not God, I have no way of telling you exactly what is required and what is optional in the act of baptism. I note that the intention is that the entire person is buried and then raised up INTO NEW LIFE. I observe that only repentant believers in Jesus, ones capable of making mature decisions, are proper candidates for baptism. I realize that Jesus commands that those who BELIEVE IN HIM as the resurrected Lord are to be baptized, so one thing required is belief in Jesus as Lord. Often the “good confession” is called for just prior to baptism, and that’s not a bad practice. NO substitute for immersion is baptism. No baptism of an unbeliever is Christian baptism. Baptism IS immersion. No act called baptism other than immersion actually is baptism. We do well to not try to tell everyone else what THEY should do. I’m sorry to be asked to be a judge.
I wrote,
Let’s look at a scripture from yesterday’s post —
Read the passage. God first gives his Spirit to change our hearts. The Spirit leads us to walk in God’s statutes and rules. Spirit first, obedience second. And the Spirit comes when we are saved.
Or consider —
God, by his Spirit, makes us “perfect forever.” He forgives us. He saves us. This is followed by “being made holy.” Justification and then sanctification. Forgiveness and then obedience.
The opposite point of view makes forgiveness conditioned on obedience — a product of works. We have to earn our forgiveness. But –
Salvation is free, not earned.
This is pretty fundamental stuff, which is why we find it all over the scriptures.
To “obey the gospel” is always a reference to coming to faith in Jesus — and is not about works or earning anything, just responding to the call of God to submit to Jesus as Messiah. “Obey the gospel” never refers to baptism.
Even so, baptism is not an act of obedience. It’s not a work. It is a gift received. It earns nothing. It only accepts God’s grace: a free gift.
When the apostles were asked on the day the church began what seekers needed to do, they were not told they were to wait for the Spirit to save them. They were told of two specific acts which would result in them receiving remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Anyone who puts the cart before the horse is putting the cart before the horse. The Spirit is not our Savior. The Spirit does not save us and THEN we can be baptized. We turn to JESUS for salvation and obey what His apostles tell us is necessary on our part and then we receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit to work with us and in us as we serve Jesus by our lives.
It seems surprising to see someone other than a Baptist theologian teach Baptist doctrine such as
The apostles had the strange idea that baptism was essential for salvation, that baptism was the marker between not in Christ and IN CHRIST. Members of Christian churches will do well to mark those who teach salvation by faith alone as being false teachers who oppose Jesus and His apostles.
Jay said, “baptism is not an act of obedience”
So, someone who has faith in Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior who is not baptized they are not being disobedient.
A person who wants to be baptized, they don’t have to do anything like go to a Christian to be baptized, they don’t have to go to where water is, and they don’t have to lie in someone else’s hands to be baptized?
Do you believe someone with faith in Jesus who hasn’t been baptized is saved?
Jay writes,
How odd anyone with this opinion must think it was for the apostles to answer the question, “What shall (must) we do?” with “REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED for the remission of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” They didn’t HAVE the Spirit when they asked. They received the gift of the Spirit as a RESULT of turning to Jesus as Lord and being baptized as HE COMMANDED was to be done. The APOSTLES explained how to obey the gospel. It was by turning to JESUS as Lord and being baptized. Clear enough for anyone to understand if they wanted to understand.
Wow, 239 comments and counting. I think there were between 50 and 100 today alone. Many of these comments were unkind at best. So very many misrepresented what another had said or believes to such a degree that it seems deliberate, or at least w/o any attention to, or consideration of what another had written and believes. Accusations and implications that another doesn’t believe the words of Jesus and the scriptures ate tossed into cyberland with little or no thought. One could call it benign neglect or malicious neglect depending on the case.
Then there are the denials by one or another that they didn’t do that even when it is obvious they did do it, and not very long ago. I spent more than 50 of my 60 plus years in a Church of Christ and haven’t seen anything new on this thread. Not even the degree to which so many in the CofC have maligned and libeled another professing believer in Jesus and the entirety of scripture is new. In the CofC I heard more sermons of the 5 step plan of salvation, 5 (and only 5) required acts of worship, why instrumental music will damn and so on to cups, kitchens, Sunday schools and the like.
The only times (three to be precise) that I heard Systematic theology mentioned in a sermon or class, it was to ridicule it. One person characterized Theological and Bible dictionaries, Systematic Theology texts and other similar woks as “fiction.” The meaning of words in the Greek text has been disregarded. Perhaps b/c the person didn’t like studying a foreign language or it simply didn’t support the position he took. There has little to no effort to actually strive to understand the position or argument proffered by another; as well as to reply to it appropriately.
Never once in my decades of affiliation with the CofC have I seen a 13 quarter devoted to the study of the nature and attribute of God, the person and work of Jesus and other truly important biblical and theological issues. Just the same old “stuff” from the 1950s or earlier. Very few of us are familiar with church history or even the history of the CofC. Nor do I see any interest in correcting these oversights. It is more than simply disappointing or unfortunate.
Regrettably these are some of the hallmarks of the CofC as perceived by those not still affiliated with the CofC. The CofC is viewed as a borderline cult or worse; and with good reason. There are many that were once members of the CofC that have left b/c of these issues. There are actually support groups for former members of the CofC just as there are for former Mormons. It is not hard to understand why this is so.
For what it is worth, I believe God draws those that are His to Himself and that he will never cast them out (that’s a triple negative in the Greek text. John’s gospel says He will not lose one of them. His sheep know his voice and respond to His call. Baptism as we see it in scripture is so closely associated with justification and salvation that it is normally done immediately upon recognizing one has come to faith (knowledge, assent and trust). Repentance is the natural result of recognizing one is lost by nature and practice. A thorough understanding of the difference between faith, repentance and baptism and continued obedience often requires genuine study and probably the illumination of the HS. The process goes hand in glove together
I drop in to this blog for a while until I can’t take this “stuff” anymore and then drop out for a while. Once in a while I drop back in to see how things are going with the denomination that was my church family. It is a very dysfunctional family to be sure, but family nonetheless. It is probably time for me to drop out again for a while. I have little doubt that will make at least a few happy and at this point I am happy to please them in this manner.
In the meantime, perhaps some will actually study biblical grace and hesed. God will let them find Him if they seek Him with all their heart. Scripture says so and I believe it. However, it doesn’t say He will if they make a halfhearted effort towards that end.
If the CofC had a flag it would appropriate to fly it upside down.
Grace and peace be with you and all the household of God.
Randall
Amen!
Randall, I also had decided to not post again to this discussion- until I read your post. You state: “Never once in my decades of affiliation with the CofC have I seen a 13 quarter devoted to the study of the nature and attribute of God, the person and work of Jesus and other truly important biblical and theological issues. ” I’m so sorry to hear this, though not surprised. I just want to let you know that there are congregations in the Columbus, Ohio area where you will find these deeper issues of the faith being studied. I co-taught a women’s class on the nature of God a few years ago. Not that I’m qualified for that subject, but I did it anyway! I’ve been in settings where the classes and sermons consisted of the weekly review of the Church of Christ rules. God and Jesus are much more interesting and beneficial as subjects! God’s Spirit is moving. Things are changing.
“Is baptism necessary for salvation? I don’t beat about the bush about it at all. I come out with a plain, definite, NO! No, baptism doesn’t save, doesn’t help save, and I’ll go even further to say that it doesn’t have anything in this world to do with the saving of a soul” – Good News, 3/2/72 (a Baptist paper)
I believe that Royce and many others here would totally agree with the above take, on baptism.
Which is NOT what Dwight, Ray, Jay and I believe at all.
Its two opposite positions. In case any here were wondering what these 200+ comments are all about…
Ray, You need to keep context in mind of what we write and just not attack a single paragraph . When I said, “In regards to the Holy Spirit baptism, the person was completely overcome by the Holy Spirit.” I was referring to the biblical definition of baptism, which means immersion or being immerse in, so Holy Spirit baptism would mean that the person was immersed in the Holy Spirit.
You seem to ignore things and simply press on with what you know without accepting what is written.
In regards to baptism and faith, in James and all through the scriptures baptism and faith are different and have different words used, so they are not exactlyu the same. James makes the difference that faith has action, but when talking of the demons, he uses the word beleif to argue that they may believe, but do not act towards God.
You seem to disregard that no one has said or argued the point that faith and works are the same, but still act as if people are saying that, even me. My point like James is that “faith without works is dead”, which means faith with works is alive. God wants live faith.
I like discussing things, but not having to defend myself for something I haven’t said or indicated and this seems to only happen with you.
Paula, I think there is a marked difference between offering alternatives scenarios and option for what we can do as opposed to just doing what we know to do and then being faced with something that actually stops us or impedes us and then doing what we can. On one hand we have already decided that the original path is not perhaps the only path and on the other hand we are trying to follow the original path to the best of our ability until something gets in our way and forces one way or the other and still we should try to get back on the path. What I see here are people throwing out what-if, then suggesting tht the what-ifs are as good as what is stated in scripture. I am one of these people that follow instructions, not because I am a legalist, but because I figure the instructor wrote the instructions for a reason…me and I have tried building things on my own without following what is written only to have to back to the instructions.
Peter instructs those who ask what must they do, with instructions on what they must do.
No options or other scenarios were commanded. I am not lost because I know the Way.
Randall, I have been through lessons on the attributes of God a few times and I have been in the coC. Every assembly has a different set of people, different take on things placing importance in certain things over another and all are not to be juged neccessarily by one assembly, but then again sometimes there are some common threads that run through certian forms of the coC…conservative/liberal/progressive. I have seen both good and bad from all forms. Hey, they are made of fallable people.
The only groups I really dislike are those groups that deny falliblity because they are doing everything right, which I have been burned by in the past, but most aren’t like that.
We seem to subvert the scriptures by arguing that faith saves and yet baptism is just what one does after being saved, except the scriptures don’t read like that.
When the people asked, because they were convicted, “What must we do to be saved?”
Peter did not say, “You are already saved, now just show your salvation.”
No Peter responded with, “Repent and be baptized to recieve the gift of the Holy spirit.”
If faith and repentance are essentially the same, then Peter is telling them to repent, even after they have the faith evidenced by their wanting to be saved.
Thier faith was evident by what they aked for, “salvation” and yet they were still told to “repent”, which then means that they either did not have faith before asking and Peter was telling them that they still needed it or that they had faith. but still lacked “repentance” and oh, yes, “baptism.”
Peter understood what they asked for and told them what they must do next to get that.
These people had faith, but were still intructed by Peter who had the HS on how to be saved.
Dwight, exactly!
These post are about baptism and how and if it relates to salvation. They aren’t about the nature of God, hence all the comments related to said topic. Jay posts several different topics per month, but these are obviously topics where well meaning folks disagree. Believers have been disagreeing about it for centuries. No real surprise here, is there? We all agree it’s important. We all teach it. So, what’s the difference? Obviously if someone believes it is necessary faith response then they are going to be passionate about it. I haven’t seen the vitriol that some have said they have seen. Save for one who hasn’t been posting as much recently. Naturally the ones who do not believe it to be necessary want the ones who do, to lighten up a little bit. I don’t see that happening. Neither do I see those on the Calvin side lightening up either. The Bible says plainly that baptism saves, we just need to figure out in what way. Baptism is washing away sins. Plain as could be. Baptism puts one into the body of Christ, plain and simple. If you don’t believe those things are necessary, then there can be no real discussion.
Hank, you write to Royce, “Would you be willing to briefly explain what you believe is the purpose of baptism? I mean, I honestly do not know what you believe to be the meaning and/or purpose of baptism.” Later you write, “Same goes for Grace, Paula, Rambling, Randall, and others. What exactly DO you guys believe to be the meaning and purpose of baptism.”
Should I take the easy way out and have you go back through the post and re-read my posts to see that I have already answered your question? If you have read my posts, you know my answer. If you have not read my posts, or read my posts for the only purpose of taking out-of-context bullet points to use against me, then you might not know what I have written.
But I will give you some things, some of what I have expressed in previous posts and some that I have not. The first four things below, btw, I have posted in this current discussion…
1) Baptism is extremely important to me and baptism is by immersion. In fact, we probably shouldn’t say “baptism” as that is a theological word created so that “baptism” could be debated and changed by men, but we should probably always use the word “immerse” since that is what the Greek “baptizo” means.
2) Baptism is the Bible-given moment when we enter God’s covenant established by God through the death of Jesus on the cross.
3) Baptism is God’s gift of mercy and grace to us in that it is a mile marker, or the signature on the document of peace between our God and us, of when we entered His new covenant of mercy and grace. Should we ever feel outside God’s grace and mercy, we can go back to that day we were baptized and know without any doubt that we were at least once in His grace and mercy. Then we can take the tests of 1 John and know if we are still in His covenant of grace and mercy, in danger of walking out of that covenant, for while no one or no thing can take us out of covenant with Him, God still grants us free will and will allow us to sever ties with Him through our apathy to His love and sacrifice, something that must make Him extremely angry, or resume rebellion because of some harm we imagine He has done to us, such as the loss of son or daughter, father or mother, brother or sister, friend, possessions, or something else we held close to us that has been taken and God didn’t prevent it. Or we can take those tests and find that we are outside of covenant and are in great danger of being given over by God to Satan. Then we can seek His face again and gain back the peace of knowing we are in covenant with God.
4) Baptism, when paired with infant belief, becomes faith as we follow the command of God due to our belief and trust in Him. Baptism is one of the initial acts that God has given us so that we can show faith in Him. (BTW, “infant” is in regards to age of the belief, not the age of the believer.)
5) Baptism confesses to the world my belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, which I am re-enacting through the act of baptism.
6) Baptism confesses to the world the death of the old person of sin, the burial of that person, and the rising of the new person of covenant meant and purposed to walk in holiness with my God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with my mind constantly focused on the example of Jesus and His death on the cross and His resurrection.
7) Baptism confesses my future death, since all of us will die physically, my future burial, and my hope in resurrection with Jesus to live with Him forever in heaven.
8) Baptism is where my sins are washed away. As Ananias told Paul, “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins.”
9) Baptism is where I submit to God’s command. No matter how much I question His method of baptism, I obey Him by doing what I understand He has commanded me to do.
10) Baptism brings me into unity with ecclesia universal, with the community established by Jesus of all who come to Him and enter covenant with Him through faith in what He accomplished on the cross. Regardless of denomination, and yes, I believe, being created and composed by humans, even though these men and women had a very high regard for sola Scriptura, the Churches of Christ are less than the community Jesus established, for no man or woman, or group of men and women, can ever be perfect and the community that Jesus established is perfect.
11) Baptism is my plea to God to save me, to enter me into covenant with Him.
12) We we know what Biblical baptism is — and I have said this many times before — are obligated before God to teach and example baptism even among our religious cousins who do not teach baptism. I understand that we are saved by faith, with faith being defined as belief that compels action or action that is compelled by belief or belief in action, but that does not mean that I compromise what I *KNOW* is Truth. Baptism I know is Truth. For the sake of the unbaptized, I am compelled to teach baptism. Because Jesus, the Son of God and the Second Member of the Trinity, died for me, I am compelled to honor Him, His death, and His resurrection by teaching Truth, by teaching baptism.
And I could write more. My regard for baptism is as high as anyone else who has posted in this discussion/conversation. That’s why I get frustrated when someone writes that I have a low regard for baptism. I know immediately when someone writes that I have a low regard for baptism that they have either not read me or are deliberately misreading me.
But this conversation is not about
1) my beliefs on baptism
2) what I teach and display to others about baptism
3) what the early church taught and did regarding baptism
This conversation is about those who have faith in Jesus, who are missionaries overseas, who feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit the sick and those in prison and bring the comfort of Jesus’ peace, those who undeniably have the fruit of the Spirit, and that fruit, listed in Gal. 5:22-23, is given by the Holy Spirit, who have the Holy Spirit indwelling with them, as proven by them having the fruit of the Spirit, who generally teach Truth, though they are wrong on baptism, who, and I can list other acts of faith that show faith, but they have not been baptized correctly or have not been baptized.
Does God honor their faith, even though their faith is expressed in an incorrect manner?
I can both affirm what baptism is and affirm God’s grace and mercy that is expressed to the unbaptized, faith-producing believer. Both, I believe, are God’s Truths, that God has given us baptism through which we enter covenant and His bottomless grace and mercy, which is able to cover all of the faithful’s sins, both those sins the believer knows about and those sins the believer does not know about or has mistaken beliefs about. BTW, Hank, the worst form of ignorance is not what we don’t know, for that can be taught, but what we know to be true but is not. This form of ignorance, knowing something that is true, but that is not true, the false must first be rooted out before the truth can be taught. So when we speak about false theology regarding baptism, we are talking about something that is difficult for many people to understand since they know something that that is false as truth…
Monty, You say, “The Bible says plainly that baptism saves, we just need to figure out in what way.”
Actually think that is the crux of this whole conversation.
Do we need to figure out “in what way” or can we just read what they understood and did and said and then do that?
In other words we do our part as God laid out, then God does His as He promised.
It is like being given a set of directions and then scratching our heads and saying, “Man if only this told me where to go and how?” or “what if there is another way, besides this” or “but what happens if….” We place the indirect in front of the direct.
People might argue that faith is more direct, but in reality faith is a requirement and is less direct than just being saved without having to believe at all. And if faith is made alive through action, then our salvation is made alive through our baptism into Christ the saviour. Simply Perfect Plan!
Just to throw this out there. I think the desire to know “how”, so we know “how” to act or accept it, is actually a weakness in our faith. We want to know how and define how the Holy Spirit works and dwells in us and on what level. Is this really important. Isn’t it just enough to know that we are told He does and is in us.We want to quantify it and qualify it, instead of just accepting it as it is. It is possible Gideon worried about “how” God was going to bring down the walls with them blowing thier trumpets and banging on pots, but they did it just the same and what do you know…it worked just like God promised. Was it the power of vibrations based on sonic articulation? We don’t know, but we do know that God said do this, they did it and they marched in.
True faith is when you do something based on trust in another and you don’t know why or how it will work, but you do it anyway. Abraham acted based on the promises of things he didn’t live long enough to see. Faith.
The Baptist church believes being baptized for the forgiveness of sins nullifies grace and they (at least I’ve read where some of their web sites )say they will not accept that baptism. Does that sound Biblical? If we say over a person, “I baptize you into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for he forgiveness of your sins”, is that wrong? Most on here who were raised in the CofC and baptized in the CofC who now espouse a more Baptist view, do you realize that they wouldn’t accept your baptism as valid? Seems like you will need to renounce your COfC baptism and accept the “not for the forgiveness of sins baptism of the Baptist”. In other words, according to Baptist thinking, baptized wrong = not saved by grace.
It reminds me of the time I was studying with a lady in a different church, and told her that her group wouldn’t baptize a person towards forgiveness of sins and she denied it passionately. She volunteered to call her pastor, I listened in on the other extension(by her permission) and when she asked him, “Brother So-in-So, don’t we baptize for the remission of sins, his response was, “Oh no baby! Who told you that?” She was crushed because she knew that’s what scripture says, but she loved her church.
So what do you do, folks who were baptized towards forgiveness , who now reject that teaching? Will you renounce that baptism, in favor of the “Not for remission baptism” espoused by your Baptist brethren? Do you need to be rebaptized-if not, why not? Or does it even mean anything to you one way or the other. It obviously means a lot to most in the CofC and it also seems to be of utmost important is Baptist camps. Which is the right way?
Hank writes, “Ramblin has said this – ‘Baptism does not saved, faith does…’”
So Hank believes that baptism saves regardless of the belief of the baptized.
If baptism saved the way Hank believes it saves, we are doing wrong in this conversation. If baptism saves, we need to be at every body of water capable of immersing someone and forcing sinners to be immersed. After all, baptism saves, so it does not matter, according to Hank, if the person believes or not. The reason I know Hank believes baptism saves regardless of the belief of the baptized is that I wrote my statement quoted by Hank in the context that baptism does not save in the absence of belief. Therefore since Hank disagrees with my statement that baptism does not save, Hank *MUST* also reject the context of the statement, which is baptism outside of belief is merely getting wet. Therefore, since Hank attacks my statement, he *MUST* hold that baptism alone saves regardless of belief, that forcing a sinners’ head under the water must save him even if the sinner does not believe in Jesus.
Or did Hank dishonestly wrest my statement from its context to make it seem that I said something I did not say? Either Hank believes that baptism saves regardless of the belief of the person or he violates the Ninth Commandment by providing false witness against me. Which is it Hank? Do you believe that baptism saves regardless of the faith of the person being baptized or have you deliberately edited my statements so that you have lied about what I believe?
This is what I mean by taking things out of context. To make his point, Hank *MUST* dishonestly take this statement out of context, for if he uses it IN context, not only do I say something completely different, but even Hank has to agree with it. It is dishonest because Hank must know he is twisting my words to make me appear to say something I did not say. This is what has been frustrating in this discussion.
Outside of belief, baptism does not save. Baptism saves when it is the Biblically-given act that transforms belief into faith, for faith requires an act to demonstrate the belief. Baptism without belief never saves, Hank. Baptism with belief becomes faith and always saves…
Hank writes, and I don’t know if I have the full context, but will give everything I have on this here: “Rambling, I was thinking some more about the 20+ years you’ve spent searching for a passage that explicitly explains what will happen to the ones who are NOT baptized into Christ. And how, even thought the Bible says that in/by/thru baptism: We are placed into Christ – Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27 We are saved –”
Ray Downen then writes, “Good for Hank! Logic seems missing from some who read and some who write to this blog. But it’s important that truth be stated and believed if we want to go to Heaven. To say that what Jesus commands is not really important or necessary is an odd way of defending the gospel and standing up for truth.”
“Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death” (Rom. 6:3). The verse says all who have been baptized in Christ Jesus have been baptized in His death. Because I am a lifelong member of the Churches of Christ, I know the verse says that all who have been immersed into Jesus have been immersed into His death. But the verse does not say what you want it to say. The verse does not say *ANYTHING* — positive or nothing — about the person who has faith in Jesus and demonstrates that faith through actions everyday but who has either incorrectly baptized or who has not been baptized. Ray and Hank, when you read into the verse that the non-baptized believer is lost without Christ, you are reading into the verse your personal opinion and *NOT* something that is in the verse, or even in the context that the verse is found. It’s simple reading comprehension. I know you want the condemnation of the unbaptized believer to be there, but it’s not. It simply says that all who have been immersed into Christ Jesus are immersed into His death. Adding condemnation of the unbaptized belief is adding to the text. “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18).
“For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Again, it’s fairly easy to see what the verse says, that if we have been immersed into Christ, we have clothed ourselves with Him. But, again, Hank and Ray, the verse does *NOT* say what you want it to say. Neither the verse nor the verses in context to Gal. 3:27 say anything — positive or negative — about the fate of the unbaptized believer. Again, you are reading into the passage what you want to be there. But it is not there…
I say amen to the statement below…
Buckeyechuck writes, “If grace does not cover doctrinal error, then the Christian must be 100% perfect in all worship, organization, practice, understanding of the Scriptures and daily life. This is to say that one single error will result in damnation. To teach that one single error, or any errors of a true God seeker with faith, will result in damnation denies God’s grace and amounts to unbelief. And THAT is another Gospel than what Jesus and his apostles and disciples taught and practiced. I am not speaking of willful sin here, so don’t try to take the conversation there. Grace does not cover the unrepentant murderer, etc. The subject here, and only subject here, is whether imperfect obedience, for whatever reason, damns. Jay is saying it does not and I will also agree. A true God seeker will study and will be led by the Holy Spirit to a better understanding of the Scriptures over the course of the Christian’s lifetime. I’ve changed my position on several issues over the past 20 years. Was I lost before and saved now? No, I was always saved because of God’s grace, not my perfect understanding. I will allow God to be the judge, not my church of Christ brethren.”
Again, to what is written below, amen… forgiveness is required since no one obeys perfectly…
Jay Guin writes, “You seem to insist that the availabillity of forgiveness makes obedience optional. God forbid!
“This is legalism at its ugliest, denying grace on the assumption that forgiveness is opposed to obedience. That’s exactly backwards. God forgives to lead us into obedience, and this is a core teaching of the gospel. Miss this and you’re left with nothing but law and damnation.”
Ray Downen writes, “Please forgive me for misunderstanding, Ramblin! I’ve thought I heard you making excuses for NOT baptizing, and you say you’re just doing a mental exercise about how merciful God is and why for that reason we don’t need to obey what Jesus clearly tells us to do. Why spend our time on telling God what to do with those who haven’t heard or obeyed the gospel? Why not spend our time on telling everyone about what Jesus offers and how they can obtain it? I’ve heard some insisting that the baptism commanded by Jesus is not really necessary. Are my ears dull of hearing and they didn’t say that?”
Ray your sarcastic comment is incorrect in so many ways that it reminds me of the Gordian knot. Your ears are dull of hearing. You only hear that which you desire to hear and only hear those things that agree with your previous interpretations. Ray, do you believe in a God of mercy and grace? Do you believe God forgives our sins, errors, and mistakes? Why don’t you believe that God can forgive theological sins?
Again, Ray, you are as correct as the person looking in Siberia for the Florida Everglades. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried…
Ray writes, “Ramblin is looking for excuses to nullify the clear command of Jesus that we are to baptize every new believer. Why not look for reasons to OBEY what Jesus says rather than trying to find loopholes to excuse disobedience?”
Rambling,
I’m quite sure everybody here knows what I believe. I’ve repeated here like 47 times it seems. Here goes #48:
Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins
Baptism puts one into Christ
Baptism buries one with Christ
Baptism unites one with Christ
Baptism washes away sin
Baptism saves
Brother, don’t get all upset with me quoting your previous statement, the one where you wrote “baptism does not save, faith does…” That statement of yours denies the statement of Peter in 1 Pet. 3:21. Peter tells us “baptism saves”, you told us “baptism does not save”!
Now either baptism does save, or it does not! Which side will you take? If you want to now side with those who believe that it DOES save (like the Bible plainly says), then that’s wonderful! For real, that’s awesome news. Just don’t get upset for me quoting your previous position where you write that it does not.
* Now, there is not a siolitary person on this blog of Jays (that I’m aware of) who has EVER made the argument that baptism “saves” anybody apart from faith. Nobody has ever argued that here (or anywhere else that I’ve ever heard). That would be a ridiculous argument. No, everybody who believes that baptism saves (like the bible says it does), believe it saves the person who believes and trusts God.
Yet, there are men like Royce and women like Grace who deny that baptism save at all. They argue that every person who is genuinely baptized (with faith) were all saved BEFORE and WITHOUT being baptized. You know, the traditional Baptist position. They DENY that baptism saves. You can’t “save” someone already saved. Neither can one get “into Christ” who is already in Christ.
Having said all of that, I’m sincerely glad to know that you now do believe that baptism actually doee save. Now, you can stop spending any more years searching for the verse that talks about what happens to those who are not baptized.
Hank, I love it when someone makes a really poor analogy. BTW, did I tell you I am a sportswriter and have written sports for daily papers for the last 15 years or so? Hank, I am about to tell you, from the rules of football, what the football rulebooks says about a team that does not break the plane of the goal line, so this might be boring for anyone who does not like football.
Hank, you seem to believe, by what you have written, that if a team does not score a touchdown, what happens next is up for grounds since the football rulebook does not *SPECIFICALLY* tell us what to do when a team does not score a touchdown. This is factually wrong, and you should know it is wrong.
You write, “By what the NFL book says about a ‘touchdown’, we can know that:
“1. Its is worth (you receive) six points
“2. It allows you the opportunity to get an extra point
“Now, who would actually need to ask ‘what happens if you don’t get a touchdown? What do you get if you never get into the end zone?’ Obviously, you don’t get six points or the opportunity for an extra. To argue ‘but I have searched the rule book inside and out and it never says you DON’T get six points by NOT scoring a touchdown’ is just ridiculous.”
Guess what, Hank? In order to better understand the game that I am covering, I’ve read the rulebook for football, basketball, and baseball and I’ve talked to officials in every sport I’ve covered so I know the rules. So when you write, “Now, who would actually need to ask ‘what happens if you don’t get a touchdown? What do you get if you never get into the end zone?'” Hank, you would be surprised at what is actually covered in the football rulebook. Hank, do you realize those scenarios are actually covered in the rulebook? Do you realized the players, the coaches, and the officials are actually told by those who write the rules for football what to do in those situations.
According to the rulebook, and this is specified Hank, if a team has the football, it is specified as the offensive team. So you don’t have to infer about which team is on offense and which team is on defense, which also a term specified in the rulebook. If the offensive team has a first down outside its opponents’ 10 yard line, the team has four downs to gain either 10 yards or to score a touchdown. If the team gains 10 yards in four downs, but does not score, it is awarded a first down. Again, Hank, this is *SPECIFIED* in the rulebook, not my inference of what is written.
At any time, the football rulebook, and this is for all levels, states, not infers, but directly states, that the offensive team can punt the ball to the defensive team. The rulebook states the defensive team becomes the offensive team at the point where the punt is downed by being touched by a player on the punting team or being caught by a fair catch by a player on the receiving team or the punt going out of bounds or the punt going into the endzone. The rules also specifically — this is *NOT* inferred Hank, not is deducted from the rules, but is *STATED* in the rules — state the receiving team can run back to the punt. If they return the punt, they score a touchdown if they advance the returned punt past the plane of the punting team’s goal line. It is also stated that the receiving team becomes the offensive team at the point where the receiving team’s punt returner is brought down by contact. Hank, these are all rules in football.
The football rulebook gives the offensive team one other option. On any down — first, second, third, or fourth — the offensive team can attempt what is known as a fieldgoal. Did you know that Hank? The rulebook specifies that on a field goal attempt, the ball must first touch the ground (or in high school or college a tee) before it is touched. This can be done through a holder, who is, in high school and college, allowed to have a knee on the ground without the ball being ruled down and play stopped, or by the kicker dropping the ball before kicking it (iow a drop kick). If the ball does not touch the ground, it is a punt, not a field goal. If the ball goes through the goal posts, the kicking team gets three points. If the ball does not go through the goal posts, the defending team gets the ball at the place specified by the rules (and, on this point, there are different rules in high school, college, and professional football). Hank, none of this is left for question. All of these things are *SPECIFIED* in the rulebook.
If the offensive team does not gain 10 yards in four downs, or does not punt or attempt a field goal in first, second, third, or fourth down, then the defensive team gets the ball and becomes the offensive team at the point where the ball carrier, which is specified in the rulebook as the person in possession of the ball so there is no question about who the ball carrier is, is brought down by contact to conclude fourth down. BTW, and I will not list these things here, the rulebook also specifies what is meant by the defense bringing down the ball carrier such as the knee or elbow touching the ground as a result of contact (in the NFL) or for any cause (high school or college).
One other scenario that is also *SPECIFIED* in the rulebook. The offensive team has the ball inside the defender’s 10 yard line. IOW, Hank, the offensive team can not pick up a first down in four downs because it has less than 10 yards to go., In this case, Hank, the rulebook specifies the offensive team has four downs to score a touchdown, kick a field goal, punt, or turn the ball over the defensive team on downs at the spot where the ball carrier is brought down.
Hank, I don’t know how to state this kindly. There simply isn’t a way to state this kindly without insulting your intelligence, since your analogy insulted the intelligence of everyone, including your allies, on this board. When you write, “To argue ‘but I have searched the rule book inside and out and it never says you DON’T get six points by NOT scoring a touchdown’ is just ridiculous”, you are making an extremely stupid, beyond-ridiculous argument. Why? Because the very same rulebook that specifies what it takes to score a touchdown *ALSO* specifies exactly what happens if the team does *NOT* score a touchdown. When one team does not score, the players, the coaches, and the officials are not scratching their heads wondering what to do next. Every possible scenario has been covered by the rulebook. So they look in the rulebook and say, “Team A did not score a touchdown in the required number of downs, therefore Team B gets the ball on offense at the X yard line.”
This is an extremely bad analogy as it is no where related to the discussion we are having.
Hank, the Bible says the baptized believer is saved. You and I both agree on this. But where the NFL rulebook *SPECIFIES* what happens when Team A does not score a touchdown or field goal or punts, the Bible is silent in regards to the unbaptized believer.
Ramblin, I know baptism is focused on, but I don’t know of anyone here who argues that baptism by itself saves, unlike some that argue faith by itself will save. Grace comes from God to us, but faith comes from us to God and faith by its nature is active. But while grace is there, does that mean all in this world will be saved despite thier sin?
The problem with Romans is that we separate faith from works, based on the text, even though the context is of the Jews placing thier faith in the works of the Law and law and not in God. Yes, that is right. They understood that works saved them, so they had faith in themeselves and thier works. But they had faith in the wrong thing. The context of Romans is faith in God and not just faith in general.
Romans starts out with Jesus as the saviour. Then later in Rom.6 “Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Paul is placing living in sin opposite those who have been baptized into Christ who are now dead to sin as they have died with Christ and were raised in newness of life. Sin is a spiritual thing, even though we fulfill it physically. Baptism is a spiritual thing, even though we fulfill it physically. Everything we do as a saint, has spiritual ramifications, which is why we are to live spiritually, even though in the flesh. So Paul wasn’t disregarding baptism in his diatribe on works, even showing that this was the way to Christ, but was arguing against placing faith in one self and the works that we do as opposed to faith in Christ. As seen in Acts 2, thier conviction and faith led them to act on it and Peter told them what to do for salvation.
Ray writes in response to one of my posts, “Is dead faith not faith? What keeps it from being faith? Of course dead faith is still FAITH! It’s not SAVING faith, but it surely is faith. That’s what James says. Ramblin wants to say that dead faith is not faith. James makes clear that it IS faith. He also makes clear that dead faith is not saving faith, and that surely we could agree on.”
Faith is either living or not existence. Dead faith is no faith. I don’t think it is all that clear from the context of James’ writings that he considers dead faith as valid faith and unless faith is valid, it does not exist.
I wrote, “Ray, I hope that you have read my piece on God’s silence. I will not fully replow that ground in that post. You write, “We have no business declaring anyone saved without doing what Jesus says is necessary.” And, Ray, we have no business declaring with certainty any lost without God saying they are lost. […]”
Ray responds, “How often does a truth need to be stated for it to be true? When did it become necessary for the negative to be stated in order for us to believe what is positively stated? When Jesus commands baptism for every new believer, why do some imagine He had to also state the fate of those NOT baptized in order for us to understand that baptism is NECESSARY?”
Ray, I will state the Truth about grace and mercy covering theological sins as long as necessary. This post may find the right words that will drive you to study and meditate on God’s Word, listening to what God says and adjusting your beliefs to what is Truth and not trying to find support for what you believe to be true and not taking out of context Truth to fit your idea of “sound” theology, teaching, and preaching.
Ray, I strongly believe what is positively stated about baptism. But what is stated positively about what baptism does for us does not contradict God’s grace and mercy being extended to the unbaptized believer.
Not lying is necessary for obedience. Not stealing is necessary for obedience, Not bearing false witness, even in small things, is necessary for obedience, Not gossiping is necessary for obedience. Not being jealous is necessary for obedience. Not being greedy is necessary for obedience. How many sins, Ray, do I need to list and not that not committing that sin is necessary for obedience. Ray, when we sin, we require grace and mercy, even if that sin is committed after we enter covenant with our God. And John, writing to Christians, says that if we have no sin we lie and we make God to be a liar. Grace and mercy are necessary because we DON’T obey, because we do things wrongly, because we don’t do everything perfectly, because we commit sins of omission (e.g. we don’t do the things God tells us to do) and sins of commission (we do the things God tells us NOT to do).
Without sin, there is no need for God’s grace and mercy. God’s grace and mercy covers sins. Why is, Ray, so hard for you to understand that God’s grace and mercy also covers theological sins?
Jesus tells us that by the same judgment we judge others, we will be judged by that judgment. Ray, if you continue to judge others unworthy of heaven due their theological sins and mistakes, I pray that you are perfect in your theology…
Ray writes, “Does Jesus command that every new believer is to be baptized? Yes, He surely does as is quoted by Matthew. Has He been silent then about the NEED for every new believer to be baptized?”
Ray, go to the Old Testament and answer this question for me: Did God required those participating in Passover to be ritually clean?
Hank writes, “Brother, don’t get all upset with me quoting your previous statement, the one where you wrote “baptism does not save, faith does…” That statement of yours denies the statement of Peter in 1 Pet. 3:21. Peter tells us “baptism saves”, you told us “baptism does not save”!”
Hank, I am not upset at you if you quote me. I am frustrating by your continuing false witness against me, something you do EVEN in this post, taking my words out of context and committing the falsehood of trying to say your edited words of mine are what I actually said. I am trying to avoid calling you a liar in your use of my words, but it is getting very hard to avoid calling a spade a spade…
Ramblin,
1. Do you believe that the Bible teaches that believers are baptized “into” Christ?
2. Do you believe that a believer can be saved “outside” of Christ?
3. Have you ever found a verse that teaches any other way if getting “into” Christ, other than by being “baptized into Christ”?
Think about the word “into”, brother. Steve drove his car “into” Florida. Can he already be IN Florida prior driving “into” Florida? There is a difference between driving a car “in” Florida and driving a car “into” Florida. To drive “into” Florida, you have to be outside prior.
In the same way, a person can not already be IN Christ before he is baptized INTO Christ? Baptism puts one INTO Christ. Wherein ALL spiritual blessings are found. Salvation is IN Christ, and we are baptized into Christ. Therefore, we are baptized INTO salvation and all spiritual blessings.
Think about that.
Don’t get so upset. But, please tell us how you define “into”…
Eph. states that faith saves through grace, which is not an indictmant against works, but rather includes it since faith has works as a copartner in creating a viable living belief in Christ. The only argument that I know of that seems to argue that works don’t save and faith only saves is Romans, but this is not within the context of Romans, Romans was written, like the other letters, to Christians, those that were in Christ already. In fact the only reference to becoming a Christian in in Rom.6 where Paul says, “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” and this says, “of us as were baptized into Christ” and “were baptized into His death” to inidicate that those he was talking to were baptized already. So within context Paul is talking to the saved.
What were the saved doing wrong in Romans? Depending on works not to save them, but to justify them or make them right. They were looking at a list of things to do, instead of looking to Christ who died so they woulnd’t have to look at a list of to dos. These people thought that they could place their faith in work, instead of placing thier faith in Christ in whom they were baptized. In Rom.3 “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe.” So the works in question are works in relation to the law, by which they were not supposed to be judging themselves and one another on. And yet these same people were the ones who were baptized in Christ in faith. So this concept that Paul is arguing that faith saves without works is not really in context here. They were already saved. And yet they were still going back to the works of the law to somehow cement or secure their righteousness. This isn’t the first or last time that the Jews sought security in the Law and in doing the Law as opposed to being spirtually minded first and doing the things of Christ.
” ‘In’ suggests location or enclosure. You are now ‘in’ the building. One stands ‘in’ his yard. A person is lost ‘in’ the forest. Fish are to be found ‘in’ the water. Birds fly ‘in’ the air. ‘Into’ is a preposition which denotes motion from without to within. A man puts his hands ‘into’ his pockets. A bit dives ‘into’ the water. People drive out if one state and ‘into’ another. You may hear one say he out his hands in his pockets or he jumped in the water. Technically, both expressions are incorrect. When a transposition takes place, ‘into’ is the proper word to use. The saved are ‘in’ Christ. All Bible believers accept this conclusion. How is one transposed from without to within Christ? What is the action one must take to get into Christ? The Bible emphatically declares that we are ‘baptized into Jesus Christ.’ There is simply no other way to bring about this union. Honestly answer this question — Have you been baptized into Christ? If not, you are still in your sins and to be greatly pitied.” – Jimmy Allen
Hank,
(Rom 10:14 ESV) How then will they call on him in [eis = into] whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
(Rom 10:10 KJV) For with the heart man believeth unto [eis = into] righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto [eis = into] salvation.
(Act 3:19 YLT) reform [= repent] ye, therefore, and turn back, for [eis = into] your sins being blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
So I believe into Christ, I confess into Christ, I repent into forgiveness, and I’m baptized into Christ. So if being baptized into Christ means baptism is the moment of my salvation, why isn’t repentance, faith or confession the moment of my salvation? What makes one the magic moment and not the others? Obviously, not the grammar.
Grammatically, you’d think that any one of the four would be sufficient, since each takes you from out to in. That’s your argument, and the grammar agrees — except it can’t be that way because you are only saved once.
But since we aren’t debating the Baptists, but whether God’s grace will cover a flawed baptism, the better question is whether God’s grace will cover imperfect repentance (which repentance is NOT imperfect?) or whether God’s grace will cover an imperfect confession (who really understands the full meaning of their words when they confess Jesus?) or faith (if you believed perfectly, then we’d see far more mountains being moved).
Odd, isn’t it? that we insist on an ideal baptism and accept less than ideal faith, confession and repentance without a second thought! It’s because we’ve been trained to treat positive commands as more important, less subject to grace, than moral commands. It’s the very simplicity of baptism that makes us feel it can be done perfectly and, so, why not insist on perfection? It’s doable.
But, of course, it’s all doable perfectly. Jesus proved that. It’s just that an ideal baptism seems easier — and we feel justified in setting higher standards as though God had appointed us judges to decide which commands may receive grace and which ones may not. And rather odd, isn’t it? that the commands that we allow no grace for are the ones that we in the CoC specialize in. But we allow grace for things we’re not so expert at.
Plenty of grace for a lack of evangelism. Or for divisiveness. Or a failure to give as we should. But no grace for baptism. Good thing we’re the ones who get to decide these things.
Rambling, Jay said “we aren’t debating the Baptists” here, I say with many guys (like you) we basically are. Here is what the Baptists say about baptism:
“Is baptism necessary for salvation? I don’t beat about the bush about it at all. I come out with a plain, definite, NO! No, baptism doesn’t save, doesn’t help save, and I’ll go even further to say that it doesn’t have anything in this world to do with the saving of a soul” – Good News, 3/2/72 (a Baptist paper)”
Peter says that baptism saves, the Baptists say that baptism does not save. Honestly, I believe that the ONLY difference between the Baptists and the brethren here who argue like them, is at least the real Baptists don’t “beat around the bush” nor try to disguise what they actually believe.
You however are on record as saying “baptism does not save”, but then get upset when contrasted with the Bible.
Then, you seem to say that baptism does save.
And now, you are saying that baptism does not save “per se”.
Why bring up and cloud things with/hide behind “per se”?
Does the grace God save us, “per se”? Does the blood of Christ save us “per se”? Dies our faith save us “per se”?
The bible never says or brings up “per se’s”. God just tells us what all goes into/is a part of what saves us. Our job is to accept it. All of it.
Man, thus doesn’t have to be this hard…
Cornelius, family and friends had the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. They were children of God before they were baptized. Acts 10:44-48, Acts 15:8-11
Luke recorded the very words the Gentiles “heard” Peter say, Acts 10:34-43. Luke said the gospel of Jesus was spoken and heard, Acts 10:44, “all those who HEARD the word” received the Holy Spirit. Acts 15:7-9 They heard the gospel and believed and God accepted them giving them the Holy Spirit.
God accepted them giving them the Holy Spirit because they believed in Him, Acts 15:7-9.
Luke, Peter or Paul never called the Holy Spirit a sign as some want to call Him.
The Holy Spirit is not an it. He is not an energy or a concept. The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead. He is God.
Luke said they received the Holy Spirit and Peter proclaimed God had accepted them giving them the Holy Spirit, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 15:8-11.
That’s a far cry from just having the ability to speak a language.
Romans 4:5 But you cannot make God accept you because of something you do. God accepts sinners only because they have faith in Him.
Romans 8:9-10 But you are not ruled by your sinful selves. You are ruled by the Spirit, if that Spirit of God really lives in you. But whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Christ. Your body will always be dead because of sin. But if Christ is in you, then the Spirit gives you life, because Christ made you right with God.
Roman 8:16 For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts and tells us that we really are God’s children.
Ephesians 1:13-14 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, He identified you as His own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom He promised long ago. The Spirit is God’s guarantee that He will give us the inheritance He promised and that He has purchased us to be His own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify Him.
Paul says those who have the Spirit belong to Christ. They were children of God before they were baptized.
Acts 15:11 But our Lord Jesus was kind to us, and we are saved by faith in him, just as the Gentiles are.
Peter proclaimed the Gentiles were saved when they had faith. And Peter proclaimed they are the norm of how anyone is saved.
We are accounted righteous when we have faith in Him. God’s grace is always available to anyone wherever they are at, whether on a plane, on a bus, in a car, on a mountain cliff, in an alley, in a hospital, in a prison, wherever a person is at it is by grace through faith they are saved. His sacrifice is sufficient. Such grace is personal and powerful. Romans 4:1-8
Jesus came and showed His compassion, mercy, and grace to people. He forgave people’s sins from their faith in Him, He accounted their faith as enough to Him. Jesus’ death and resurrection didn’t render Him powerless, He didn’t show people a false god, He showed them the true God. Jesus is willing to accept our faith in Him telling many people that their faith is sufficient to Him to give them forgiveness.
Jesus’ death didn’t destroy His character, it didn’t make Him a weaker God, nope He rose from the dead and continued to demonstrate through Cornelius and his family and friends His grace, mercy and forgiveness.
Why would Jesus give such great kindness forgiving people who had faith in Him, without them having to perform a ritual for Him to bestow His grace to them, to change His mind that He will only forgive people who perform a ritual? That would be pretty bad teaching example for Jesus to give.
Your theology is a person who has faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior is a child of the devil. Please show the Scripture that says a child of the devil has faith that Jesus saved them by His sacrifice and desires to follow Him.
Some in the CofC denomination consider people as saved, even though they weren’t baptized under the CofC denomination’s “general understanding” of baptism, as long as they were baptized. Do you agree with them?
Wow. Are you so desperate you h a d to go back 42 years to find a Baptist quote that suited you?
Royce,
Would you prefer a more recent quote? Like from this year? It would surely be no problem, as they still deny what God teaches about baptism as much as they ever have!
Let me know which year(s) from which you prefer the quotes on what what they believe.
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water. …It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.
Southern Baptist statement on baptism. Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water. …It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.
Larry asked,
Why “after Pentecost”? Pentecost is as much new covenant, kingdom, reign of Christ as any other event. In fact, it seems the Luke treats Acts 2 as something of an example showing the nature of salvation and the church to introduce the reader to the new covenant. And the disciples who were with Jesus and awaiting Pentecost without the benefit of Christian baptism. Some were surely baptized by John, but there is no record of any of the 120 receiving Christian baptism, and they quite obviously received the Spirit apart from water baptism in the name of Jesus.
Cornelius and his household are another example. We’ve covered them many, many times and I’ll not repeat the arguments. But the shows them saved pre-baptism. For example,
(Act 15:7-9 ESV) 7 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.”
Apollos knew only the baptism of John, but was not re-baptized in Acts 18.
Now, the usual retort is to insist that they were baptized but the baptism wasn’t recorded, but that’s to assume that your conclusion is true. It’s entirely circular. In fact, Luke seems to be very meticulous to record baptisms when they happened.
But, of course, my argument isn’t that we shouldn’t be baptized as believers by immersion for the remission of sins. My argument is that when a new convert fails to do this due to poor instruction, and somehow or others fails to be baptized as we teach (correctly, I think), God’s grace covers that error because literally dozens of times the scriptures promise salvation to all with faith in Jesus. I believe them. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t believe faith and baptism should be separated, but we live in an age when they are. Wrongly, I think. But I’m confident God will keep his promises to save all with faith.
The alternative is to argue that baptism is just as central to God’s plan of salvation as faith, and that contention contradicts an overwhelming volume of scriptures.
Larry asked,
It’s true that the epistles were written to believers, already converted. But they often teach converts how to live and make decisions based on the gospel first taught to them. We often act as though the gospel changes after we’re saved, moving from grace to legalism or some such. But Paul in particular argues that the terms on which we were saved instruct us on how to live as Christians.
I argued this point several times in the 1 Cor series, also in my lessons on Galatians from a couple of years ago.
For example,
(1Co 10:1-8 ESV) For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 ¶ Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.
Paul speaks of baptism as a example of how to live as Christian. Rom 6 is a similar argument. Paul is not teaching baptism but rather using baptism to teach a deeper point about what it means to be a Christian. And Paul does this over and over and over.
(Gal 3:1-9 ESV) O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain– if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith– 6 ¶ just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Gal 3 begins with Paul asking his readers to recall the terms on which they were first saved: “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”
Paul reminds them they began their walk with God “by hearing with faith” and “by the Spirit.” So I figure he speaks the truth and we can learn from that.
Dwight asked,
That would be a really good argument if I were taking the Baptist position. I am not. I believe that God intends that we be baptized by immersion as believers into the forgiveness of sins. The question I’m willing to ask is what happens when a convert is wrongly taught baptismal theology and so his baptism isn’t as I think it should be? But it’s wrong. I’m not saying the Baptists are right. They are not. They are wrong. So anti-Baptist arguments do not speak to my contention.
Rather, my contention is that grace is for sin and error. Grace makes up what is lacking in us. But grace is ONLY for those with genuine faith in Jesus. So what happens when someone has honest-to-God saving faith in Jesus but fails to be baptized, not out of rebellion, but poor instruction. Does God turn his back on his promises to save all with faith? Surely not!
Peter quotes Joel’s prophecy, which I believe to be true. The same prophecy is quoted by Paul in Rom 10 (among other places) where he promises salvation to all with faith in Jesus.
The Greek for “everyone” is highly emphatic, meaning “every single person without exception,” as I’ve shown in earlier comments. Either we believe it or we don’t.
Therefore, God quite plainly promises to save despite baptismal failings, which makes sense given that our faith is in Jesus, not baptism. In fact, I worry that we sometimes so insist that the convert believe in the efficacy of baptism that we turn baptism into an idol. Jesus is building his church on faith in Jesus, not faith in the moment when forgiveness occurs.
And my position is indistinguishable from that of Alexander Campbell and the other Restoration Movement founders. And that makes me far from a liberal. I’m just asking that we get back to the original RM teachings.
Ramblin knows a great deal that isn’t true, and wants us all to believe it just as he does. The apostle Paul makes some things clear that the apostles made clear the very first day the church existed (Acts 2:38). But Ramblin knows better and wants to show his ignorance clearly. He’s a liberal in truth. Jesus commands that every NEW CONVERT who seeks salvation is to be baptized by the one who led that person to faith by telling the person about Jesus. The apostles point out that seekers MUST (not just can, but MUST) repent and be baptized in order to have sin washed away and IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE SPIRIT. The Spirit is not given prior when He is given. What the apostles say is the Spirit is God’s gift to the newly baptized repentant believer in Jesus. Some are eager to not believe what the apostles taught and practiced.
Jay, Your last 3 comments are very good. You have NEVER said baptism is unimportant, unessessary, or optional. Yet that is the charge repeated often. Your teaching about the grace of God is spot on.
Hank asked,
Well, we need to talk about the Greek, not the English, right? And I made the point that the Greek structure of “baptizo eis” (baptize into) is paralleled in the GREEK repent, confess, and believe “into” = eis.
Now, when I argue, as I believe, that Acts 2:38 should be translated “baptized into forgiveness of sins” rather than “for” no one complains from the CoC side of the fence, even though the translations uniformly disagree with me. But I’m right because baptism in Acts 2:38 is a transition from out of forgiveness to in forgiveness. But tradition weighs heavily on translators at times.
Read through the definition of eis in BDAG, you’ll find that the basic meaning of eis is into, but just as in English, the preposition can take on different meanings by analogy to “into” as the meaning.
In Greek, the primary meaning of eis is into, and so we start there. But sometimes it means “in” — unlike English. And sometimes it means “unto,” except “unto” is archaic in English and most people don’t really know what it means.
Now, we don’t get to first decide our theology and then decide our prepositions. That would be backwards. Rather, we find the meaning of eis from context and THEN make theological conclusions. I’ll take just one example,
First step: try “into” because that’s the primary meaning of eis in Greek. Well, does it fit? In fact, it does, in that Paul’s point is obviously that faith and confession produce salvation, NOT that they are merely early steps on the road to salvation. How do I know that? Because I read the context. For example,
(Rom 10:4 NET) 4 For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes.
I take “everyone” to mean “everyone.” I don’t think there’s a grammatical objection to that. “Righteousness” I take to mean credited righteousness — that is, grace or salvation or imputed righteousness.
(Rom 10:6-8 NET) 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?'” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach),
Paul is exegeting Deu 30 here. He reiterates “righteousness that is by faith.” I believe him.
(Rom 10:9 NET) 9 because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Simple sentence. Greek isn’t too hard either. Paul concludes “you will be saved.” I believe him.
(Rom 10:10 NET) 10 For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation.
Now we’re back where we started. NET translators translate “eis” as “and thus has” which is a very good translation of “unto” without being archaic. “Into” would work as well, but in English it sounds odd in this context. But clearly the point Paul is making is that a confessed faith moves one from outside salvation to inside salvation.
(Rom 10:11 NET) 11 For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
“Everyone” kind of means “everyone.” Again, Paul is plainly teaching that faith moves one from out of salvation to in salvation.
(Rom 10:13 NET) 13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Paul paraphrases Joel 2:32, just as Peter did at Pentecost. And this is the same emphatic structure found in Acts 2:21. “Everyone” means every single one without exception. The Greek is stronger than the English.
So, in context, Rom 10:10 is very parallel with Acts 2:38. If you prefer, we could translate both as the NET translators do: “and thus has.” Hence, Acts 2:38 become Repent and be baptized and thus have forgiveness of sins. The thought is still “into” — moving from outside forgiveness to inside forgiveness — but a little less awkward in the English.
In short, yes, the NT often follows baptizo with eis, and eis means “and thus have” or “move from outside to inside.” But that thought is not unique to baptism. The NT says the same thing about repentance, faith, and confession. And it’s plain that God intends all to happen essentially at the same time. We aren’t supposed to separate in time faith and baptism and confession. Therefore, CoC traditional practice and teaching is correct on the whole.
And yet today the vast majority of believers are not baptized as the scriptures teach. So does a baptismal failure damn? Clearly, the answer is no or else God would not keep his promises to save everyone with faith — clearly the emphasis in Romans and other Pauline epistles. And to teach otherwise risks making baptism into a work that earns salvation, even an idol. I mean, we in the CoC sometimes teach baptism more than Jesus. Muscle & a Shovel would be a classic example — and it’s idolatrous. Our deep-seated desire to damn the Baptists has caused us to distort our salvation theology so severely that we insist that baptism is a work essential to salvation. We make grace into an after thought. We preach baptism more than the crucifixion. And we become so enamored of our own intellects that we see no need for an indwelling Spirit to have any influence on us. Who needs the Spirit when we have 27 books on how to baptize correctly?
As a result, I can literally quote Paul on salvation by faith and be excoriated as denying the scriptures. We have become like the god we worship, and many in the CoC worship a god who saves based on punctilious adherence to ritual with no grace for error in performing the ceremony. It’s pagan. It’s like magic. Say the spell wrong and the gods won’t grant your wish. It denies the essential nature of God as a God of chesed, grace, and mercy — who loves us so much that he gave his Son for us. He’ll die on the cross for us, but he won’t forgive using too little water in a baptism.
And so, by worshiping a caricature of the real God, we also become sticklers for ritual and rite, with precious little grace or mercy to our fellow believers. And so we become harsh, mean-spirited people, just like the god we worship.
All,
I will likely not be addressing baptism again here. I’ve said what I know to say. I’m behind schedule on working the Sermon on the Mount and need to get those lessons posted.
Jay makes clear his conviction that Jesus was mistaken in commanding baptism for every new believer. Why mistaken? Because Jay thinks faith alone is taught by the apostles of Jesus who obviously were just wrong in answering seekers as they did on the first Pentecost when salvation in Jesus was first offered publicly. But we have to choose whether to believe Jesus and the apostles or a statement that salvation is based solely upon faith. What every inspired writer affirms without doubt is that faith in Jesus is essential for salvation.
None ever states that faith ALONE brings anyone INTO Christ or will save from sin. Jay now is clearly teaching that baptism is optional and is NOT required for entrance into Christ’s kingdom. If it’s not necessary, why bother with it at all? If it were not necessary, why would Jesus have commanded that it be performed for every new believer? I think these questions are pertinent to a discussion of conversion. Either Paul is telling the truth in Romans 6:3-8 and in Galatians 3:27 or he was mistaken. I hear Jay disputing that baptism is “into Christ.” Faith is not “into Christ” in any passage. James makes clear that faith alone is DEAD, and now many of “us” are claiming that faith alone SAVES from sin and brings us INTO CHRIST.
I praise those who preach Jesus as Savior. Jesus surely IS savior of all who obey the gospel. The apostolic answer to what does it take to OBEY THE GOSPEL is that the seeking believer must repent and be baptized. Paul points out that the one baptized in the name of the Lord is raised up into NEW LIFE after being buried WITH CHRIST. He’s obviously talking about baptism, not about mental exercises. What a pity it is that many are being deceived into believing in salvation by faith alone. Those who so believe really should join the Baptists where that’s been taught right along. It’s a shame that those who no longer believe apostolic doctrine still claim to be members of the church of CHRIST.
The teaching about conversion they do is based on PART of what the apostles taught, which is that faith in JESUS is essential for salvation. Jesus made baptism something to immediately follow believing the gospel. The apostles make clear that baptism is INTO Christ. People already saved surely could not possibly be baptized INTO CHRIST. Apostles promised that God’s gift of His Spirit would FOLLOW the believer repenting and being baptized. Why would God need to gift what a person already possessed? Simple logic destroys the teaching of salvation by faith alone.
We all admire Jay, I trust, and appreciate all he does in service of the king. But he writes, “we insist that baptism is a work essential to salvation.” And we do NOT ever speak of being baptized (passive) as a “work” of any kind. Nor do we call for converts to understand need for baptism. It’s US who are to speak of the need and to baptize new believers, or else Jesus was wrong in saying we should do so! But that IS what Baptists say, that baptism is only to gain membership in their church. If you can convince Baptist leaders that you’re already saved, then they will baptize you, using the correct formula of speech, but with every wrong intention. A Christian could not possibly be baptized INTO CHRIST. A Christian is one who already is IN Christ. Yet the apostle Paul makes clear that baptism is INTO CHRIST. Anything he wrote which might seem to disagree with that clear statement is being misunderstood by anyone who thinks in one place the apostle disagrees with what he said in another place. No apostolic writer speaks even once of a sinner believing INTO CHRIST or being brought into fellowship by reciting a statement of belief. How pleasing it is to read what Hank writes. Always brief. Always true. And how many words are used by those who differ from wanting to obey Jesus by baptizing each new believer. It’s wearisome to even read all the attempts to prove He shouldn’t have required baptism.
I love Jay. I wish he still understood the gospel of Jesus Christ which calls for new birth of WATER and spirit and which is simply and clearly explained in Acts 2:38. 3,000 understood it and OBEYED THE GOSPEL and were saved as described in Acts chapter two. No one has been saved by faith alone. Or should we say “No one has ever been promised salvation based on faith alone”? Faith leads to obedience. Jesus commands that every NEW believer is to be baptized. Again I point out that the command is NOT to the convert. It’s to the one who brought and taught the gospel TO the convert. Baptize the new believer! Right away. Now! Not three weeks from now or at ANY FUTURE date. Baptism brings the believer INTO CHRIST. But it’s US who are commanded to baptize, not the convert who is commanded to find someone willing to baptize the convert! And for shame on anyone who claims we thought up baptism and seek to bind it upon innocents. It’s JESUS who commands that new believers are to be baptized. It’s unbelievers who say baptism isn’t necessary.
Ramblin sure talks a lot. And rambles. But he doesn’t understand clear speech from Jesus and His apostles. JESUS commands that every new believer is to be baptized. That’s part of the great commission given to the apostles but obviously understood by the early church to be the responsibility of every disciple. Those who preached/taught about Jesus BAPTIZED those who believed after hearing about Him and His love and His power over death and Hell. They did so because Jesus wanted it done, not because they thought it up as a nice thing to do.
Ramblin doesn’t believe in baptism. He obviously doesn’t believe in Jesus or he would surely believe in OBEYING JESUS by doing what He says we are to do. But my, how he loves to talk! And to refuse to answer civil questions. His answer would condemn him. His speech opposing what Jesus commands WILL condemn him. We will answer to Jesus for our words and our deeds. Wise people obey Jesus and His apostles. Others insist they didn’t mean what they said.
Surely we’re agreed that faith in Jesus is essential for salvation. No dispute there! And apostles, freshly filled with the Spirit, informed seekers that two acts were essential for salvation. So here come doubters insisting that salvation is by faith alone so the two acts are optional and not really important at all. We note that Jesus promised His apostles they would be led into all truth. So why would anyone want to say the apostles were mistaken? The apostles were not mistaken. Peter spoke for all the apostles as quoted by Luke in Acts 2:38. Why do some insist the apostles are wrong? Why do some search high and low for conflicting apostolic teachings? It’s a marvel!
Jay said;
” Does God turn his back on his promises to save all with faith? Surely not!”
And then he quotes a verse written by Luke, as proof positive I suppose.
(Act 2:21 ESV) 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
( Jesus said “prove it” )
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(They seemed to say surely you can’t deny we have faith/belief in you/your name when we prophesied, and cast out devils using your name.we even done many wonderful works in your name, and you say it counts for nothing.)
I think we are “short changing” people when we tell them calling on Jesus is all it takes.
wouldn’t that mean “the sinner’s prayer ” would be sufficient for salvation?
As James said prove your faith by your actions.
Jay speaks of the 120 who “may have been baptized by John” as if that might have made baptism INTO CHRIST unnecessary. It wouldn’t. The two baptisms were different in aim. The one was to prepare for the future kingdom. The other was to ENTER the promised kingdom. The 120 needed Christian baptism and no doubt were the very first ones baptized INTO CHRIST. Since CHRISTIAN baptism symbolizes the death and resurrection of Jesus, no one could have been baptized with CHRISTIAN baptism prior to the resurrection. And there’s no reason to suppose (guess) that any baptisms were performed prior to the sermon and invitation offered in Acts 2 by the apostles.
I note and acknowledge that no mention is made of the apostles themselves receiving baptism INTO CHRIST. It’s just my guessing that they baptized the 120 first. What I’m sure of is that the count of 3,000 INCLUDED the 120, who I’m guessing were the first ones to be baptized. But it’s equally sure that ONLY the apostles received baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was promised only to them. The flame-like appearances likely were only seem above the apostles. The preaching was done by the apostles (with only Peter’s sermon recorded). After all, this event was to empower the APOSTLES, who had been trained after being called to serve in this office, and to give them an audience for THEM to preach the gospel. Luke speaks to the fact that it was THE APOSTLES who then performed mighty miracles (wonders) in succeeding days.
Royce asks about why we know that obeying the gospel is by what Luke records. When asked what seeking believers needed to DO, they were told exactly what was required in order to have sins remitted and in order to receive the Holy Spirit. There’s no reason seekers today should be given a different answer than the apostles gave in Acts 2:38. Any other answer would be a wrong answer. I believe Jesus meant what He said. I believe Jesus kept and will keep His promises. It’s for those reasons that I believe what the apostles taught and why I want to practice as the apostles practiced the Way of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Just as Jesus had commanded, they baptized new believers right away and taught them LATER any lessons they felt were needed to help the new Christians grow “in Christ.” But they were baptized INTO CHRIST. Peter and the other apostles used well the opportunity God had given them to tell others about the risen Lord. God brought the people there by way of “the sound of a rushing, mighty wind” throughout the city of Jerusalem. Once there, he pointed out the apostles by flame-like appearances upon the heads & shoulders of the apostles. THEN He further opened the way by allowing the apostles to speak in languages they had never studied and didn’t KNOW. It was surprising. It was amazing. What the apostles said that day was weighty because of the signs which preceded it and marked it as being God’s words.
Laymond is surely right that our actions speak as loudly as our words, or more so. Jesus commands that we are to BAPTIZE every new believer. Jay produces many passages which claim that belief and repentance or belief alone is all it takes to please Jesus. I’m very sure no apostolic writer would want to say that Jesus didn’t know what seekers needed to do to please Him. And I’m pretty sure that the apostle Matthew who was present at the giving of the great commission recorded it accurately, neither adding to it nor omitting part of it. So doctrine which DOES add to it or subtract from it surely does not please me in the slightest. I feel it will not please the great judge of all either. Do we all see that Jesus commands that new believers are to be baptized?
Why then are some trying to prove baptism is NOT NECESSARY? Do they not realize that it’s JESUS who commands that every new believer is to be baptized? Obviously they’re not aware! I’m sure it’s not that they don’t care what Jesus wants. It’s just that they suppose He didn’t really mean it, that Matthew just remembered wrongly what Jesus said, and Jesus really did NOT speak of the necessity of baptizing each NEW BELIEVER IN HIM. Surely that’s why they say we should ignore the great commission. Surely that’s why they go to such lengths to try to prove that baptism doesn’t really change anything, that it’s only symbolic of the real thing which can’t be seen.
Royce wants proof that baptism isn’t just symbolic. Was the baptism of John the Baptist symbolic or did he actually put people under the water and lift them back up OUT OF THE WATER? When Jesus commanded baptism, was He speaking of some real activity that His apostles would know about or was He speaking of a spiritual change none of them knew anything about? When His disciples were making and baptizing more Jewish patriots than John the Baptist was, were they immersing those people in water or exactly what were they doing that is called baptizing?
Whatever they were doing THEN was what they were being told to do LATER as apostles of Jesus obeying their Lord. It was baptizing in water then. It was baptizing in water later, as is made clear in chapter eight when Philip went INTO THE WATER with the Ethiopian and THERE baptized the Ethiopian. Entirely spiritual? No, in WATER. And Paul writes about the burial and being raised up OUT OF something, which we know was water, as being Christian baptism, death and rebirth. Burying the person of sin. Lifting into NEW LIFE the believer in Jesus who commanded the baptism. With the Spirit-gift promised to each newly-baptized believer in Jesus Christ.
Those who want to spiritualize baptism may be ignoring the fact that Jesus calls for a new birth of WATER and spirit, which His apostles say is repenting (a spiritual change of masters) and being baptized (in water, of course). Now, Jay is worried about those who are baptized (innocently) wrongly somehow. I speak again to the fact that the command TO BAPTIZE is not given to the convert, but to the converter–the one telling about Jesus. If there’s an error involved, why would Jesus blame the new believer? All he’s asked to do is submit, and he/she surely is not doing that in some wrong way. I’m sorry Jay is so concerned about the poor person being baptized wrongly as if the person BEING BAPTIZED could in any way be at fault if something is done wrongly. He’s (or She’s) just taking for granted that the baptizer knows what needs to be done and is doing what is right. The one BEING BAPTIZED is being acted UPON, not the actor. If there’s any blame in the deed, it’s NOT THE FAULT OF THE ONE BEING BAPTIZED. So Jay does well to point out that the one being baptized is NOT responsible for the “ceremony” being fault-free. He’s surely right that the one being baptized is baptized if he’s dunked, and that’s regardless of what words are said or how neatly the deed is done. I’m sorry Jay thinks the one being baptized had any voice in how the baptizing was done. Usually every decision is made by the baptizer. If there’s fault, it falls on the one making the decisions and doing the deed. The one baptized is not at fault. Really. Not guilty. If the person, because the person believed in Jesus, was immersed and raised up out of the water he/she was baptized INTO CHRIST. If not, no baptism was performed. So the person is not now IN CHRIST, since we are brought into Jesus through repentance AND BAPTISM.
Royce wonders why we would suppose that obeying the gospel meant repenting and being baptized. Why would we suppose it wasn’t repenting and being baptized? If we believe the apostolic writings, we will understand that when the apostles were asked (Acts 2:37) what seekers need to do about their sin, the apostles (Peter a spokesman for them all) gave the answer which Royce doesn’t like but which we realize is THE answer to the question of what to do about sin. How many times should it need to be stated in order for us to believe it? 3,000 people did the first day it was stated. So they obeyed. And Luke reports they were saved and added to the Lord’s family, the church which is identified as the church of God and by several other descriptive names which let us know that it is headed by Jesus Christ, which makes it a group of Christians (ones who are loyal to Jesus Christ).
Oh well, I hoped you would answer the question. I will assume you couldn’t since you ignored it and repeated the same things you always do
Amen!!!
Maybe if Jay restricted commenting on his blog to the hours between 8am and 4pm there would be less time for anger to build up, and more time for cooling off.
Rambllin, you don’t believe in baptism. Jesus COMMANDS baptism. You claim to believe in Jesus but you don’t believe in doing as He says we should do? The book of Acts tells how the apostles understood what Jesus wanted done and how they did it. You disagree that they were correct? The epistles are written to people who sought to live for Jesus. Are the apostolic writings helpful in YOUR decisions and in your life? Those who believe in JESUS surely believe He has the right to tell us how to live. So we really have no right to disagree with Jesus and still hope to be saved by Him.
It may be I failed to respond to what you actually said about apostolic writing. You are claiming, Ramblin, that one or more of the apostles taught salvation apart from obedience to the gospel. I’m sure none of the apostles ever disagreed that the only way for seekers to be saved was as Jesus taught and as the apostles expressed in Acts 2:38. First, seekers must accept as truth that Jesus is LORD of all and deserves obedience. Then seekers must turn to Jesus AS LORD and choose to obey Him even when what He calls us to do is not what we wanted to do. And in order to have sins washed away (remitted, erased), the seeker who believes in Jesus and has turn to Him must submit to being baptized as Jesus commands is to be done.
No apostle ever presents a different plan for conversion than I’ve just outlined. Faith in Jesus is demanded. Obedience to Jesus is demanded. Turning away from self-love and no longer doing just what the person wants to do is essential for salvation by Jesus. And submitting to the baptism commanded by Jesus is equally essential. Only those who have obeyed the gospel by repenting and being baptized are assured of salvation by Jesus. And of course we then live for Jesus, eager to do whatever will please HIM through the rest of our lives on earth. I think your ideas differ from what I’ve described.
Ramblin thinks that obeying Jesus is submitting to law. That’s one way of looking at conversion. It’s of course wrong. But it is how Ramblin sees loving Jesus and being saved by Him. He thinks if we choose to do what Jesus says we must do that we are trying to save ourselves by keeping laws. Does Ramblin really suppose Jesus will save those who refuse to do what Jesus calls for us to do? I’m sure that if we love Jesus we will eagerly do whatever He calls for us to do.
Ramblin suggests that to serve Jesus and obey Him is to seek salvation by law-keeping. I’m sorry Ramblin knows so little about the grace of God which allows us to save ourselves by turning to Jesus as LORD and by submitting to the baptism commanded by Jesus, and then living in love and continuing to obey Jesus in all ways. We will not be saved by doing as we please and by opposing acting as apostles call for Christians to act. The apostles speak for Jesus. Those who love Jesus are sure to seek to listen carefully to what apostles of Jesus taught and then doing accordingly.
Royce rewrites the gospel:
No apostle ever claimed that repentance alone places anyone into the body of Christ or causes the gift of the Holy Spirit to be given. But that’s what Royce believes. He believes that way because he wants to believe that way. And he has the right to believe whatever he wants to believe. God gives us freedom of will. But those who offer salvation based on their own ideas rather than on what the apostles taught and practiced will find that they and those who believed them are lost rather than saved.
It’s good that Royce understands that faith in Jesus is essential for salvation. Faith in Jesus surely IS essential for salvation. It’s good that Royce testifies that repentance (turning away from self-love and turning to Jesus as LORD) is essential for salvation. That’s surely true. But he wants baptism to be merely symbolic of what happened previously. And there Royce is wrong as wrong can be. We are baptized INTO CHRIST (Galatians 3:27), not because we were already IN Christ. Baptism is the burial of the OLD sinful person and the raising up INTO NEW LIFE of a cleansed sinner (Romans 6:3-8) who will in the future live for Jesus. If there is apostolic writing which claims that repentance ALONE accomplishes new birth, it would be good for Royce to point to that passage rather than just claiming the act ALONE does what it does not do.
.Hey Ray,
A lot of guys here who deny what the Bible says about how baptism saves us, are convinced that “calling on the name of the Lord” means something different than repenting and being baptized, right? Even though in Acts 2, after telling the lost crowd that “whoever calls up on the name of the Lord will be saved”, when the same crowd asked ” what shall we do”, Peter told them to Repent and be baptized. The people here who deny what the Bibles actually teaches about baptism make it seem like Peter forgot what he said in v.21 or else he changed his mind or something. I mean, whyvtell the to “call upon the name of the Lord” and then tell them in the same sermon to “repent and be baptized”? Clearly, Peter didn’t offer them two ways to be forgiven? Like, you all can repent and be baptized, or if you prefer another way, you can call on the name of the Lord and not have to repent and be baptized.
Now, the Baptist are straight up and actually say that to them, “calling on the name of the Lord” means to recite the “Sinners Prayer”, but our brethren here seem unwilling to show their cards.
Watch, I’ll ask Royce and Rambler:
What do YOU two believe it means to “call upon the name of the Lord”? Just how does a person do that?
I bet, they won’t even try to answer that
Hey Ray,
A lot of guys here who deny what the Bible says about how baptism saves us, are convinced that “calling on the name of the Lord” means something different than repenting and being baptized, right? Even though in Acts 2, after telling the lost crowd that “whoever calls up on the name of the Lord will be saved”, when the same crowd asked ” what shall we do”, Peter told them to Repent and be baptized. The people here who deny what the Bibles actually teaches about baptism make it seem like Peter forgot what he said in v.21 or else he changed his mind or something. I mean, whyvtell the to “call upon the name of the Lord” and then tell them in the same sermon to “repent and be baptized”? Clearly, Peter didn’t offer them two ways to be forgiven? Like, you all can repent and be baptized, or if you prefer another way, you can call on the name of the Lord and not have to repent and be baptized.
Now, the Baptist are straight up and actually say that to them, “calling on the name of the Lord” means to recite the “Sinners Prayer”, but our brethren here seem unwilling to show their cards.
Watch, I’ll ask Royce and Rambler:
What do YOU two believe it means to “call upon the name of the Lord”? Just how does a person do that?
I bet, they won’t even try to answer that
Ramblin affirms that to point out what he has said is to malign him maliciously and to misrepresent him. When Jesus commands that we are to baptize each new believer, it’s surprising that anyone who claims to love Jesus would assume that Jesus didn’t mean what He said.
All,
I’m closing comments on this topic. I think we’ve covered the ground pretty thoroughly, feelings are on edge, and I can’t say I’ve seen much new in the last several comments.