[I apologize for the length of these posts, but I’ve decided it’s best to lay out the entirety of the argument at once.]
A couple of readers have written extensive, thoughtful comments regarding my last few posts. I’ve addressed many of the comments in yesterday’s post, but not all. This is a comment from reader Zackary —
But I really think this is a naive position to believe that “we can just love them so much that they couldn’t treat us as separate.” As Monty mentioned in an earlier comment, the early restoration leaders learned very quickly that melting together with the denominations would not be possible. Why would it be different today?
I really can’t buy the assumption that although unity is commanded, having tried it once and failed, we are now excused to never try again. Things have changed. The Baptists, Presbyterians, and many other denominations are not nearly as sectarian as they were 200 years ago.
And so it would be different today because the Spirit has been busy changing hearts to make the plea for unity much more realistic today than 200 years ago. Indeed, according to Bradley Wright in his Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites … and Other Lies You’ve Been Told: A Sociologist Shatters Myths From the Secular and Christian Media
In particular, an increasing number of Evangelical Christians now describe themselves in general terms such as nondenominational, born again, or just Christian instead of using denominational labels such as Baptist or Evangelical Free. Reflecting this change, in 1990, only about 200,000 Americans described themselves as nondenominational Christians, but in 2008, 8 million did so.
In a mere 18 years, the Spirit persuaded 7.2 million Americans of the virtues of nondenominational Christianity — all while many in the Churches of Christ deny that “the denominations” would be willing to respond to the plea!
I have absolutely no idea how it would be possible to have a “missional alliance” where various denominations recruit and train evangelists.
It’s already happening. Churches are crossing denominational lines across the country to do exactly this. As Lesslie Newbigin famously teaches, we should look to see what God is already doing and join God in his mission!
The only way it would be possible is if you stop preaching the good news and telling people how to respond to the good news. Then maybe they will accept you.
“Good news” is the gospel. The gospel is defined by Paul at the beginning of Romans —
(Rom 1:1–6 ESV) 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
What part of the gospel is not taught by the Baptists? The Presbyterians? I assume you are not really speaking of gospel but of baptism — which I addressed in yesterday’s post. But Jesus died to bring about salvation by faith in Jesus, not faith in baptism.
I believe our traditional teaching on baptism to be correct; I just also believe that those not properly baptized despite having faith in Jesus will be saved because God repeatedly promises that everyone with faith in Jesus will be saved, and I believe those promises.
I don’t see another way than to return focus on being Christians only rather than the only Christians, being welcoming in areas where there is no contradiction to God’s will, and a call to become nondenominational with us.
I deny that we are in any sense “nondenominational.” We walk, talk, waddle, and quack just like a denominational duck. We are a duck. The only way we can even claim not to be a denomination is to redefine “denomination” as “those people who are not going to heaven” and so damning all others. And that’s just as wrong as can be and utterly contradictory to our Restoration heritage.
“Denomination” means, according to Merriam-Webster —
a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices
How are we not that? How is that even wrong? The sin is in being sectarian, that is, in finding salvation in a denomination rather than in Jesus.
It seems like the underlying assumption of many “progressives” today is that we are no different than they. I’m sure in some ways that’s true, but in some ways and important ways it’s not.
The scriptural test is whether we have faith that Jesus is the Messiah.
(Matt 16:16–18 ESV) 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
(Rom 10:9–13 ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
I believe those passages with all my heart.
Will you merge with the Episcopalians, who embrace homosexuality? Will you merge with Catholics, who pray to saints? Will you merge with the hardcore Calvinists who will kick you out faster than you can blink. Will you merge with those whose creeds and affections will never allow you to merge?
“Merge”? What an odd concept to introduce into this discussion. There is no “merge.” There is no not-merge. Rather, we recognize as joined together those whom God has joined together. Unity is a gift from God, not an accomplishment of man.
(Eph 4:1–6 ESV) 1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit —just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call — 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Our task is not to create unity but to “maintain the unity of the Spirit.” We do not create “one body” because there is but one body. There is but “one faith.” And on and on. Paul’s point is that, because we have been united by God himself, we should start acting like it. To “walk in a manner worthy of the calling” is to live the unity that God himself has already created.
Therefore, it’s not about institutional mergers. It’s about each one of us changing his perceptions to recognize what God has already done — and living accordingly.
Now, is there sin in the other denominations. Most certainly. Is there sin in the Churches of Christ. Most certainly. Why are our sins forgiven and theirs damning? What makes us forgiven and them not? Don’t we all have faith in Jesus as Messiah? And doesn’t that mean that we’re all saved?
As I said yesterday, there is a boundary, which is faith in Jesus — understood as including trust in his promises and a penitent faithfulness to his commands. And you cannot with a straight face tell me that the only people on the planet who meet this standard are found in the Church of Christ. It’s just not true.
Look at it this way. Imagine you visit a Church of Christ, and presiding over the Lord’s Table is a man who is divorced and remarried in a way that you believe means he’s living in adultery. What does God require that you do? Do you treat the entire congregation as damned? (Some so teach.) Do you make a display of refusing to take the cup and the bread so that all know you don’t condone this man’s marriage or the teachings of his elders? (Some so teach.) Or do you figure that the holiness of the communion does not derive from the holiness of the man presiding — but from the holiness of the man who died on the cross — and so take the Eucharist in thanksgiving?
The fact that the Lord’s Supper is served by a sinner who believes himself right with God, when I do not, does not make the Lord’s Supper any less the Lord’s Supper. And if it’s offered, I take it — because it’s not my job to test the doctrinal purity of all present at the meal. Rather, I take communion to proclaim the death of Messiah Jesus — and in so doing, I proclaim his gospel. And why would I not want to do that?
Moreover, I will not stoop to stereotyping to preserve my denomination’s claim of superiority. Certainly there are Episcopalians who condone homosexual conduct that I do not. And there are Episcopalians who are just as opposed to homosexual conduct as I am. Do I damn the entire denomination for the sins of a few?
There are Calvinists who treat me as damned for teaching a non-Calvinist doctrine. But most do not. Do I damn all Calvinists because a handful damn me?
It’s easy to find error in the other denominations, but our Church of Christ holier-than-thou sectarianism is deeply sinful and contrary to the teachings of Galatians. Why do we excuse adding works to faith — which Paul says is damning — and refuse to excuse a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38?
We have to remove a plank or two from our own eyes before we can even begin to criticize “the denominations.” Indeed, we should pray that, in our unity efforts, the other denominations don’t judge us as harshly as we judge them.
I am thinking the early restorationists had it right in essentially saying: ‘we tried to meld with you, we would if we could, now you come meld with us. We’re repenting, now you repent.’
The early Restorationists did indeed announce their repentance, but they did not give up and declare all others damned because most denominations refused to join with us. Here are the words of Alexander Campbell —
From “Letters to England-No. 1,” The Millennial Harbinger (June 1837)
We would, indeed, have no objections to co-operate in these matters with all Christians, and raise contributions for all such purposes as, in our judgment, are promotive of the Divine glory or of human happiness, whether or not they belong to our churches: for we find in all Protestant parties Christians as exemplary as ourselves according to their and our relative knowledge and opportunities … .
(pp. 271-273; emphasis added)
Campbell’s reply to the Lunenburg letter —
In reply to this conscientious sister, I observe, that if there be no Christians in the Protestant sects, there are certainly none among the Romanists, none among the Jews, Turks, Pagans; and therefore no Christians in the world except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive to keep, all the commandments of Jesus. Therefore, for many centuries there has been no church of Christ, no Christians in the world; and the promises concerning the everlasting kingdom of Messiah have failed, and the gates of hell have prevailed against his church! This cannot be; and therefore there are Christians among the sects.
But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. A perfect man in Christ, or a perfect Christian, is one thing; and “a babe in Christ,”a stripling in the faith, or an imperfect Christian, is another. The New Testament recognizes both the perfect man and the imperfect man in Christ. The former, indeed, implies the latter. Paul commands the imperfect Christians to “be perfect,” (2 Cor. iii. 11.) and says he wishes the perfection of Christians. “And this also we wish” for you saints in Corinth, “even your perfection:” and again he says, “We speak wisdom among the perfect,” (1 Cor. ii. 6.) and he commands them to be “perfect in understanding,” (1 Cor. xiv. 20.) and in many other places implies or speaks the same things. Now there is perfection of will, of temper, and of behaviors. There is a perfect state and a perfect character. And hence it is possible for Christians to be imperfect in some respects without an absolute forfeiture of the Christian state and character. Paul speaks of “carnal” Christians, of “weak” and “strong” Christians; and the Lord Jesus admits that some of the good and honest-hearted bring forth only thirty fold, while others bring forth sixty, and some a hundred fold increase of the fruits of righteousness.
But every one is wont to condemn others in that in which he is more intelligent than they; while, on the other hand, he is condemned for his Pharisaism or his immodesty and rash judgment of others, by those that excel in the things in which he is deficient. I cannot, therefore, make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in infancy without their own knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ and the well-grounded hope of heaven. “Salvation was of the Jews,” acknowledged the Messiah; and yet he said of a foreigner, an alien from the commonwealth of Israel, a Syro-Phenician, “I have not found so great faith—no, not in Israel.”
Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians. Still I will be asked, How do I know that any one loves my Master but by his obedience to his commandments? I answer, In no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience to one commandment, for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Pedobaptist more spiritually-minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former rather than the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known.
With me mistakes of the understanding and errors of the affections are not to be confounded. They are as distant as the poles. An angel may mistake the meaning of a commandment, but he will obey it in the sense in which he understands it. John Bunyan and John Newton were very different persons, and had very different views of baptism, and of some other things; yet they were both disposed to obey, and to the extent of their knowledge did obey the Lord in every thing.
There are mistakes with, and without depravity. There are wilful errors which all the world must condemn, and unavoidable mistakes which every one will pity. The Apostles mistook the Saviour when he said concerning John, “What if I will that John tarry till I come;” but the Jews perverted his words when they alleged that Abraham had died, in proof that he spake falsely when he said, “If a man keep my word he shall never see death.”
Many a good man has been mistaken. Mistakes are to be regarded as culpable and as declarative of a corrupt heart only when they proceed from a wilful neglect of the means of knowing what is commanded. Ignorance is always a crime when it is voluntary; and innocent when it is involuntary. Now, unless I could prove that all who neglect the positive institutions of Christ and have substituted for them something else of human authority, do it knowingly, or, if not knowingly, are voluntarily ignorant of what is written, I could not, I dare not say that their mistakes are such as unchristianize all their professions.
True, indeed, that it is always a misfortune to be ignorant of any thing in the Bible, and very generally it is criminal. But how many are there who cannot read; and of those who can read, how many are so deficient in education; and of those educated, how many are ruled by the authority of those whom they regard as superiors in knowledge and piety, that they never can escape out of the dust and smoke of their own chimney, where they happened to be born and educated! These all suffer many privations and many perplexities, from which the more intelligent are exempt.
The preachers of “essentials,” as well as the preachers of “nonessentials,” frequently err. The Essentialist may disparage the heart, while the Non-essentialist despises the institution. The latter makes void the institutions of Heaven, while the former appreciates not the mental bias on which God looketh most. My correspondent may belong to a class who think that we detract from the authority and value of an institution the moment we admit the bare possibility of any one being saved without it. But we choose rather to associate with those who think that they do not undervalue either seeing or hearing, by affirming that neither of them, nor both of them together, are essential to life. I would not sell one of my eyes for all the gold on earth; yet I could live without it.
There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of faith, absolutely essential to a Christian—though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort. My right hand and my right eye are greatly essential to my usefulness and happiness, but not to my life; and as I could not be a perfect man without them, so I cannot be a perfect Christian without a right understanding and a cordial reception of immersion in its true and scriptural meaning and design. But he that thence infers that none are Christians but the immersed, as greatly errs as he who affirms that none are alive but those of clear and full vision.
I do not formally answer all the queries proposed knowing the one point to which they all aim. To that point only I direct these remarks. And while I would unhesitatingly say that I think that every man who despises any ordinance of Christ or who is willingly ignorant of it, cannot be a Christian; still I should sin against my own convictions, should I teach any one to think that if he mistook the meaning of any institution while in his soul he desired to know the whole will of God he must perish forever. But to conclude for the present–he that claims for himself a license to neglect the least of all the commandments of Jesus because it is possible for some to be saved who through insuperable ignorance or involuntary mistake, do neglect or transgress it; or he that wilfully neglects to ascertain the will of the Lord to the whole extent of his means and opportunities because some who are defective in that knowledge may be Christians, is not possessed of the spirit of Christ and cannot be registered among the Lord’s people. So I reason; and I think in so reasoning I am sustained by all the Prophets and Apostles of both Testaments.
A.C.
That was Campbell’s announced, published position. I repeat this classic and important line:
Should I find a Pedobaptist [baptizer of infants] more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist [one who baptizes only believers], or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith [as in the RM], I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians.
Campbell himself insisted that we not allow our doctrine of baptism to divide us from other believers in Messiah Jesus. What I teach is entirely consistent with the teachings of the great Restorers of the 19th Century. I’m calling for a return to Restoration principles and away from the sectarian corruptions of the 20th Century.
I believe if we consistently made the plea to come be Christians only rather than remain sectarian on the one hand or just melt away into a weak evangelical Christianity on the other then Christians “out there” would respond.
We are not remotely “Christians only,” and we would be gross hypocrites if we were to pretend otherwise. What makes a Christian only? What is required to be saved only? Well, in my experience, in the Churches of Christ, we ask but one question: “Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?” When the answer is “yes,” we happily baptize such a person. We treat them as saved — as a Christian only.
But when someone makes the same confession in a Baptist Church, we treat them as damned and write volumes and volumes on why we must do so.
We admit people as Christians only, and then we insist that they be Christians who practice five and only five acts of worship, who attend a congregation that is autonomous, that has a plurality of elders, that has a “scriptural name,” and we pile on more and more requirements until they are a Christian of our denomination. Because if we didn’t do this, we’d have to recognize as fellow Christians all with faith (properly defined) in Jesus as the Messiah. And then we couldn’t as easily look down on others.
To be Christians only we must accept as saved all who’ve made the Good Confession and attempt to be faithful to the confession they’ve made. When we deny their salvation because they believe in, say, predestination in the Calvinist sense, we are adding to faith in Jesus additional requirements to be saved, and then we are no longer Christians only.
And yes, if there are opportunities to work with whole congregations who are seriously willing to seek God’s will and unity rather than just pretend to be unified, take advantage of those as well.
Again: we are unified. God has united us. The crucifixion of Jesus did it. Our place is to recognize the unity we’ve been given. And it’s a command, not a suggestion.
Being among those who cannot be baptized due to not enough water to cover them, illness, incarceration, foxhole, etc. but confess their belief in baptism puts a different light on how you will answer their question. I am about to die, believe in Jesus, pray for me, will I go to heaven?
This reality, looking them in their eyes, not debate, sure puts a different spin on your answer.
Think about it!
What would Jesus do?
Hank, I think you make a distinction without a difference. Are not all who are Christians saved (unless they fall away by rebelling against God)?
The example you give of our need to know who is in the church contrasts the world with “anyone who bears the name of brother,” not with whether one who wears the name of Christ is or is not falsely wearing that name based on whether he agrees with me on the five steps to salvation, the acts of worship, or a myriad of other matters. The distinction is based on visible actions and attitudes (1 Corinthians 5:9ff).
Jay said, ““Denomination” means, according to Merriam-Webster —”a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.”
But this is not the direct, basic meaning, but rather a religious redifining.
Technically denomination means “taking on a name”- de-nomi-nate. Now in a religious sense it would mean that those that have taken a name take on an assocaition with the larger system under that name. This is why the Baptist don’t shy away from being called a denomination, but embrace it. But this is hardly the true case as many that are called Baptist are only baptist in name, many who are Catholic are only Catholic in name, etc. The name simply connects them in name and not neccessarily in all doctrine.This is especially true of the coC denomination as there are many, many sects of coC that use the same name.
But to Jay’s point I have heard our preacher condemning denominationalism and yet no scripture is given why this is so and I thought we needed a scripture for everything. The fact is if we are a Christian, we are a denomination of Christ, so it must not be wrong. And again to Jay’s point, according to I Cor. Paul didn’t have an issue with people going under the name of another, but rather contending with another under that name and we would call this sectarianism. So there are examples of denomintionalism (not being considered sinful) and sectarianism (being condemned). But ineviatably those that settle on a proprietary specific name do this to separate from others. We call ourselves Christians to separate ourselves from the world as we should be, but then we call ourselves coC or Baptist or “whatever” to separate ourselves from our brethern sometimes despite the fact that we believe basically the same doctrine and do things the same way. And then there are no name assemblies that seem to drive those with names to distraction and get the most ire as they seem to be Christians that have run amok. And this is a monster of our creation as God never encouraged a naming convention.
AJ, You said, “Being among those who cannot be baptized due to not enough water to cover them, illness, incarceration, foxhole, etc. but confess their belief in baptism puts a different light on how you will answer their question. I am about to die, believe in Jesus, pray for me, will I go to heaven?” But some of these are excuses rather than reasons. I can’t think of any illness that has ever kept one from being baptized, which is a short step from being bathed or washed.
If dying it would be the first thing on my bucket list.
If I thought baptism was important I might travel a distance so I can find enough water.
Now being jailed or locked up, would surely keep one from being baptized and yet most people don’t die in jail and can fulfill thier intentions upon release or parole.
Now what happens between the time they are converted and are baptized is in Jesus the merciful judges’ court. We can comfort another and argue for God’s probable grace and mercy, but we shouldn’t short sheet them either telling them something we aren’t specifically told.
Great point, Dwight. Everyone who dies outside of Christ will surely spend eternity regretting not prioritizing their faith in and obedience to God. If they die before being saved (even right before) it will be due to their own lack of faith and/or delaying to obey, not God’s.
What about the guy who is hearing about Jesus and dies right before he was about to believe and “receive” him?
Such scenarios only illustrate the importance of obeying the will of the Lord, today!
As long as church of Christ people continue to condemn other church of Christ people because they don’t believe and do everything precisely alike our talk of unity is a joke.
If you put 100 coc preachers in a room to discuss unity you would find that most of them don’t know what the biblical basis of unity is. And they would soon be loudly disagreeing about what happens on Sunday morning and other topics and each would declare “I only follow the Bible”.
Why worry about other groups when ours is such a mess?
Jay, you write:
“I believe our traditional teaching on baptism to be correct; I just also believe that those not properly baptized despite having faith in Jesus will be saved because God repeatedly promises that everyone with faith in Jesus will be saved, and I believe those promises.”
But are you not adding “alone” to what is stated about having faith? God does NOT promise that everyone with faith in Jesus will be saved. We’re warned that faith WITHOUT WORKS is dead. Not once does an inspired writer promise salvation based on faith ALONE as you clearly imply. Most of us are familiar with the “great commission.” Jesus commands baptism as part of entering His kingdom. Those who offer salvation on faith ALONE are not speaking for Jesus.
The promise of the Spirit being given is based upon believers in Jesus turning to Him as LORD and being baptized as He commands. Not once is salvation promised based on faith ALONE. It’s obvious that without faith it’s impossible to please God. Faith is essential. Faith in Jesus. Jesus commands that new believers are to be baptized and it’s not He who does the baptizing. It’s not Jesus. It’s not the Spirit. It’s the one who tells another about Jesus. It’s the Christian witness who is to baptize the new believer.
It’s good for us to believe in Jesus. It’s essential for us who believe in Jesus to OBEY Jesus. Do we not all realize that Jesus commands that every NEW believer is to be baptized and His apostles point out that only then will believers receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit?
Here is a new way of thinking about an old adage- “It is dangerous to put off till tomorrow, what we are told we must do today.” Jesus never said, “Follow me, but you don’t have to do it now and go ahead bury your dead” the apostles never said, “The time is really not at hand.” Responding in repentance and baptism to Jesus was never given as an option or Plan B or something to do at a later date or something that was secondary to faith or confession. Especially when what we are told to do is so simple and straightforward and doable. The only thing in our way is us.
Royce, I hear you. The things Jay talks about are possible, but not very probable within the coC, even with many people softening or changing thier positions, because what we have are many people who are seeking something real are going off the grid and leaving the institutional systems, thus they don’t have to join with any group as as a group as they are not idenitified as a group, but rather as Christians. If you are in a denomination the leaders will usually tow the line of the party system and attempt not to make waves, even to stir up good things.
And additional comment: Jay wrote: “What makes a Christian only? What is required to be saved only? Well, in my experience, in the Churches of Christ, we ask but one question: ‘Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?’ When the answer is ‘yes,’ we happily baptize such a person. We treat them as saved — as a Christian only. But when someone makes the same confession in a Baptist Church, we treat them as damned and write volumes and volumes on why we must do so.”
I hope you are mistaken that we are baptizing people we think are already saved. The purpose of baptism is to SAVE a seeking sinner, not to bury a living Christian. NO Christian could ever be baptized “INTO Christ.” Baptism brings sinners INTO Christ (Galatians 3:27). If any member of the Lord’s church baptizes saved people (some surely do claim to be doing so) they are misunderstanding the purpose of baptism INTO Christ.
Surely our goal is to all love and obey Jesus by what we teach and what we practice. Not once does any apostolic writer speak of baptizing a Christian. In EVERY example of baptism, it’s a seeking sinner who is baptized. The ONE CASE we read about of a Christian found to be in deadly sin finds no mention of his being baptized again in order to get right with God. He was told to PRAY. Simon had sinned greatly, according to the account. Peter told him he needed to pray. No Christian was ever told to be baptized. Paul makes clear (Galatians 3:27) that baptism is INTO Christ.
So I hope Jay just misstates his thought. We never as far as I know baptize someone who is already in Christ. If we tried to do so, we would be in serious error. Yet that is what Jay is saying is our normal practice. Am I misunderstanding Jay? I know some of our teaching/preaching brothers are now teaching exactly that nonsense (that saved people should be baptized, having already been saved by faith alone). Romans 6 makes clear that it’s ones OUTSIDE OF CHRIST who are buried in baptism. In baptism sin is washed away. The person raised up out of baptismal water is a NEW CREATURE IN CHRIST (Romans 6:3-8). We need to unite in TRUTH rather than in what is false (salvation is by faith alone).
Jay,
I have had a busy weekend, and now I am spending my so-called day off getting the taxes done; so I haven’t read a single one of your “sinking into the body of Christ.” But I saw from the caption that you mentioned me, and came to say that I am really looking forward to plodding through each one of your three posts, and will be back. I appreciate your investment into this very challenging concern of unity!
Zack
Dwight, I’ve seen some wanting to be baptized so bandaged with cancer or some other terrible diseases or illnesses they were not to get dunked, barely could stand being washed off with a soft rag.
Well over a thousand die of various illnesses or diseases or accidents, killings, incarcerated each year and some want to be baptized and can’t until the yearly baptism date.
To the ones I have witnessed personally, it was first on their bucket list but not allowed and they died.
These are not excuses but reasons that is why I believe Jesus takes that into consideration in the judgment.
I realize believing now like I do is diametrically opposed to the coC that I am a member of all my life since age eleven, But, seeing what I’ve seen and believing in Jesus grace and mercy far more today than yesterday, I and many more like me have had a heart change.
Hopefully the rest will catch up to those believing in a more merciful God that the one we taught of in the past.
Either they that teach of a terrible God seeing practically everyone that has lived burning in hell will change or disappear or even worse, go underground and become far more cultist.
Wow! “A yearly” baptism! That’s a first for me. I know about churches, that with the exception of member’s small kids, haven’t had a baptism in many years. But, that’s a different subject.
Why all the concern about progressive coc congregations? Most of the ones I know about are doing quite well.
“Every man who despises any ordinance of Christ or who is willingly ignorant of it, cannot be a Christian” A. Campbell
“I’ve read you the scriptural and told you the application. You don’t agree, so you are damned.”
— Bro. I.M. Wright
And here is the heart of the judgmental, condemning nature of WAY TOO many. And they quote the RM father for their authority and “faithfulness” to the plea .to unity.
Dwight raised the question about prison sentences delaying a proper response. The proper response is “Head to the water.” God will judge if one “Didn’t make it in time.” But a possible / potential / exception does not “make the rule.”. This last fall, a group with whom I work closely (Operation Starfish Africa) heard of a food shortage in the harshest prison in Harare, Zimbabwe. (If a pregnant woman gives birth in prison, her child remains in prison with her.) A truck full of food was given “In the name of Jesus.” This led to “Why?” and the answer, “Because Jesus loves you.” Bible studies were requested and we were given permission to build a baptismal pool INSIDE the prison. Some 135 were immersed the first time around and Bible studies continue to bear fruit. To me, this is the heart of the gospel and of greater importance than the sometimes (and sometimes not so) petty things over which we argue / fight / discuss..
Jay has rightly called for communal / community / co-operational service to bless the land in which we live with the beneficial conversations that would result. Brothers, “Be ready to give an answer for the hope . . . “
Jay, are you not contradicting yourself? You say that you believe that our “traditional teaching on baptism to be correct” (which is that it is essentia/neccessaryl to salvation), and then you turn right around and claim that believers are saved without it, by their “faith”. Can you really believe both things?
Then, you argue that God will accept those who have been “improperly baptized”? By “baptized”, do you mean “immersed”? Or, do you include any and all things that people have called a “baptism”?
And, do you consider those who have “accepted Jesus” (prayed the sinners prayer) without being “baptized” in any way, shape, or form, to have been “improperly baptized”.
In your view, is no baptism at all, one of the “improper baptisms” which God accepts?
So then Laymond I’m sure you would object to 3,000 being saved in one day.
Royce,
I suppose(based on what you said about the old man not really dying or being dead, just symbolic)) that we are not actually “new” creations in Christ then either? Is that symbolic or actual? If any man be in Christ he is a new creation. Rick Atchely uses a good illustration about slaves being emancipated after the civil war. They were liberated, they were legally actually freed, but many didn’t feel free. Some even chose to remain and continue working for their former slave masters. They had a hard time accepting it, even though their bondage was now a thing of the past, or at least it should have been. I see Paul’s instructions to consider yourselves dead to sin the same way. We were freed from bondage to sin and it’s dominance over us. We don’t “have” to live in it any longer. We have to believe in that truth which is an unseen reality(by faith).
Before Christ, we were dead in our sins, without hope. Now, in Christ, we are new creations, and with a living hope. Not perfected, and not without free will to choose to sin if we choose to remain a prisoner to the old man. That’s why even after our baptism Paul instructs us to put off the old man of sin and put on the new man created in righteousness. It’s about where we fix our minds.There will always(until death) be a struggle against the old man(corrupt thinking), but make no mistake, the shackles have been removed. For Freedom did Christ set us free. How do you tell an alcoholic that comes to Christ, believing on Jesus and being immersed that he really isn’t a new man, that he is really the same old man he has always been? That is a perversion of truth. Jesus makes all things new. He tears down strongholds of corrupt patterns of thought. He is now enabled(through Spirit power) to overcome his alcoholism. Paul said, I have been crucified with Christ, never the less I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. Is that real or symbolic? Does Christ really live in us as Christians? How so? We can’t see Him, feel Him, touch Him. No, we accept it through faith in the promises of God. Paul of course wasn’t physically dead, he never meant it to be taken as a literal physical death, but something was crucified (his unregenerate, slave to sin, corrupt mind) according to him. That old Paul was dead(crucified “with” Christ). The same “with” he uses when he describes being buried “with Him” in baptism in Rom 6, and again being “clothed with” Him in baptism is Gal.3. We died(the old man)(crucified) “with” Christ in baptism, I am clothed “with” Christ in baptism, I am raised “with” Him in baptism. Baptism into Christ isn’t the finish line, it’s the starting point. Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither are mature saints. But when we come to Jesus by faith and submit to his lordship in baptism, he makes us new. Truly! He looks at us as new. I believe that, even when I have to do so, not by sight, or by feeling, but by faith.
Baptism for the new believer, is like the wedding ring in the marriage ceremony. It is a symbol, but not merely a symbol that points back to a reality that has already been transacted in the past, but one that is being transacted in the moment, in real time. Whenever Paul wants to draw the church’s attention to the reality of their union with Christ, he always refers back to their wedding day, when they were baptized into union with Christ.
“So then Laymond I’m sure you would object to 3,000 being saved in one day.”
No Royce, I object to 3,000 being told (wrongly ) they are saved, unless it is biblical. I agree God can save a sinner anyway he willed, but his will was that we be baptized , and it seems that baptism is growing more inconvenient, as the congregations grow, in number.
Royce, If baptism is only symbolic of the death and resurrection, what was baptism before Jesus was killed, and raised ?
Are people saying the purpose of baptism was totally changed because of Jesus death,?
No baptism is a continuation of our following Jesus. Jesus died and was buried a natural man, and was raised a spiritual being. If we are not buried in baptism a natural man, and raised from the water a spiritual man, then as Jay says, the baptism didn’t take.
Hank wrote the following about Randall:
“Randall, unless EVERY ONE of the worlds greatest translation committees of Greek Scholars who have translated the Bible into English are wrong, then you are!”
Randall says to Hank: I never said that. We simply disagree as to how to understand different passages of scripture. You’re mighty quick to tell someone they are wrong.
What is it about church of Christers that they think it is acceptable to condemn so quickly or be so all fired convinced they are right. This type of “stuff” should not be engaged in by responsible Christians. I can’t imagine a reasonable person thinking it is okay to engage in this type of thing.
Hesed,
Randall
Randall, I’m not referring to Acts 2:38. Here are the verses in question:
Romans 6:3 KJV — Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
See how it says that we are baptized “into” Christ?
And,
Galatians 3:26-27 KJV – For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
See how again, God says that we are baptized “into” Christ?
Randall, what do YOU believe “into” means? Do you not understand that in order to be baptized “into” Christ, one must be “outside” of Christ?
A person or thing simply CANNOT be transposed INTO a location in which he already is. The word “into” makes such impossible.
Again, do you have your own definition if “into”?
The difference between in and into is whether or not there is movement. Into is used when something or someone is going or being put into another location. In is used to describe where someone or something already is.
Ex: She is in the room. She walked into the room.
The toy is in the box. The boy put the toy into the box.
Which is why I am anxiously awaiting Jays answers. I would like to know what he has to say about all of the people he considers “saved by faith” (before and without baptism). If/when they ever decide to be baptized, is it still “into Christ”?
Or, are they saved “outside of” Christ then baptized “into” Christ?
Or, are THEIR baptisms not “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? (Except for those who were already saved, those guys were not baptized “into” Christ. Baptism is totally different for them)
Most of the world throughout time have not had a bible. It was a long time til King James came out and even then a long time til we here in the USA not counting the rest of the world had one.
Because of that fact alone we should read Romans 2:5-16 and especially verse 14.
The church of Christ as we know it wasn’t around but for the last couple of hundred years and by far most of us and all the rest of the world are Gentiles in the broad (not of Jewish descent) sense.
The way so many of us in the coC have interpreted scripture only a few will be saved. Interesting that those few were born in the last 2 centuries.
Yeep, unity is just around the corner!!!
Hank, I believe John 5:24 answers your questions– even the ones which are rephrases of those previously asked. But I will let Jay speak for himself. He and I do not always agree on all points.
Charles, the ones that “heareth my word and believeth on him” that have everlasting life, are those who do more than merely hear and believe. Oftentimes, in Scripture “believe” is synecdoche for more than simply “believe”. It means, “believe” in the full sense of obeying further. We know this is true, otherwise, those chief rulers of Jn 12 would be saved. Remember, the ones who “believed” on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue?
They believed, “but” did not confess.
Just like many people also believe today, ” but” have not been baptized.
Besides, the Bible teaches that those who believe in Christ, are transposed INTO Christ, when they are baptized “into” Christ.
If believers were in Christ prior to baptism, they could never be baptized INTO him. That’s what Ive been trying so hard to explain to Randall.
Surely, you understand that one can not be transposed “into” a location in which one already is? Only those who are not currently “in” Christ, can be baptized “into” him.
I can’t ride my motorcycle “into” Florida, unless I am “outside” of Florida first! Likewise, one cannot be baptized “into” Christ, unless he is “outside” of Christ prior to his baptism.
Think about it.
I’m sure I already indicated I consider it unwise to base a doctrine of who is and is not saved based on a single verse, much less a single preposition. Into can mean both of the things mentioned earlier e.g. go into a house. However, we cannot enter Jesus in the way that we would enter a house. There is a metaphor (is that the correct term) employed in that in this case I think it may mean into Jesus in such a way that we acknowledge him as our God; seek to know and serve him more. I believe disciples should be baptized and the norm should be as soon as they recognize they have come to faith in Jesus as the Son of God who makes atonement fro their sin (all of it, always).
Logically, faith, and subsequently baptism follow regeneration. And regeneration is an act of the God who is sovereign over everything.
Hi Dwight,
Surely it has occurred to you that could be justified (in time and space) when they came to faith BUT that was just the beginning of their walk which led them to baptism, good works, greater devotion to God and the usual stuff we figure goes with being a person that once was lost but now is found.
Randall writes:
“However, we cannot enter Jesus in the way that we would enter a house.”
Good point, Randall. We cannot be baptized “into” a house!
And, we cannot even “enter” a house we are already in! In order to enter into a house, one must first be outside of the house.
Likewise, in order to be baptized INTO Christ (as the Bible teaches, more than once), we must be outside of him at the time we are are baptized INTO him.
Randall, do you believe Rom 6:23 and Gal 3:27, in terms of us being baptized INTO Christ?
If not – I’m not surprised.
If so, then you must admit that if baptism puts us “into” Christ, then we are outside of Christ prior to baptism! For one CANNOT be transposed INTO a location of which one is already in.
If you continue to insist that we are saved prior to baptism, you must also insist that we are save “outside” of Christ. Think about that.
I find it odd how much you like to talk about the complete sovereignty of God, but refuse to accept his doctrine (teaching) regarding the fact that we are baptized INTO Christ.
Why fight so hard against that fact?
Randall says:
“Logically, faith, and subsequently baptism follow regeneration.”
Consistent with his position that men are saved “outside” of Christ (before they are baptized “into” Christ), Randall claims that men are saved before and without faith! He claims that faith follows regeneration/salvation.
So, he takes the position that salvation come before and without faith!
The Scriptures declare thay without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Randall declares that men are saved and pleasing to God without faith. He says that faith “follows” salvation.
Randall pretty much says everything different than the Bible. But, that’s his own free will in action…
@Hank,
Randall didn’t declare most of what you attributed to him. Apparently, you would rather misrepresent Randall than find out what he actually believes. So that’s it for me. I’m outta here.
I wish you well Hank. I hope you take the time to learn something new rather than rehashing what you have believed for a very long time. And btw. learning something new does not necessarily require that you change your long held beliefs.
Hesed,
Randall
Randall, you wrote, “Surely it has occurred to you that could be justified (in time and space) when they came to faith BUT that was just the beginning of their walk which led them to baptism, good works, greater devotion to God and the usual stuff we figure goes with being a person that once was lost but now is found.”
“You could” isn’t a positive propostion argued for in the Bible, even though it might exist from a mercy standpoint of God. God never argued that just faith was where God was pleased with a person, otherwise God wouldn’t have required so many test and chances for His people to prove thier faith. While I do think faith is the first of the works that a man must have towards God, it is not complete in itself. A persons faith is what propelled a person to action, but action is what sealed the faith.
Faith is like wanting to run in the marathon and Baptism is like signing the acceptance form putting you in the running and yet the finish line is still far off, but attainable, but at least God doesn’t penalized us for coming in late or stumbling along the way and God doesn’t care if we have never run before, but he does want us to be in the race and He wants us to run and if we do stumble or get weak then God is there to help us up.
Again if we discount baptism as being the time when one is saved, even when it is argued for in that manner in the scriptures, then why do we think that faith is the “magic point”. We have just exchanged one magic point for another and faith is even harder to define unless it is acted on in some way. Even God wanted to see action.
Great Hank. You finally seem to get it. I am suggesting that regeneration precedes faith. Sinners are regenerated BEFORE they come to faith by the sovereign act of God. If you care to learn more read about the ordo salutis. A person must be born from above in order to come to a true saving faith and all that follows in the Christian walk. I realize this is foreign to your way of thinking. It is okay for Church of Christers to lean a little about what other Christians think.
Hesed,
Randall
Randall claims: “regeneration precedes faith”.
He further claims that: “Sinners are regenerated BEFORE they come to faith by the sovereign act of God.”
He has people saved without faith and while outside of Christ.
And, after admitting that, he tells me:
“If you care to learn more read about the ordo salutis.”
Warning: Don’t read the ordo salutis!
Randall, This is a strange take on the Calvinistic approach. We are regenerated by God, even before we have faith in God and/or are baptized? I guess we are regenerated even before hearing as well or repentance, after all those in Acts 2 believed and were told to “repent and be baptized”. I guess they were regenrated before they asked about salvation. In fact a person could conceivably be regenerated despite not knowing of Jesus at all.
I await a scripture that points to God’s direct intervention in saving us before we are saved in the way that the apostles argued for in Acts 2, Acts, etc., or is argued for in Romans or James.
Romans 6 “buried with Christ…raised anew”. This order seems to argue for regeneration after faith and baptism.
Hank,
You’re still having difficulty understanding me. I understand that b/c, like you, I was once limited to what I heard spoken of in CofC circles. Above you claimed that I had had people saved without faith while outside of Christ. Hank I never said that. Once again you are putting words in my mouth that I neither said nor believe. I would appreciate it if you would be more careful and not do that anymore.
I do believe sinners are saved by grace through faith before they are baptized – but it is normative in scripture for those sinners to be baptized as soon as they recognize they have come to faith in Christ.
Hank also wrote the following of Randall: “And, he still can’t explain how one who is already in Christ, can later be baptized INTO Christ. He belittles the word “into” as “a single preposition”, but it means what it means.”
So Hank thinks seems to feel that Randall places too little emphasis on a single preposition. Let’s try this Hank. Do you believe all the words in the Bible? If so, what do you think of the word “predestination?” It is found in scripture, in particular in Paul’s letters to the Ephesians and the Romans. He discusses it at length. In addition to the actual word, the concept is found all through the scripture. Do you place as much emphasis on that concept as you do on being baptized into Christ? As Hank likes to emphasize that it means what it means does he think predestination means what it means? The sovereignty of God is certainly found all through scripture. Do you affirm the absolute sovereignty of God over all His creation? Do you bow down or pay homage to the altar to “freewill?”
Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself.
Hesed,
Randall
Dwight,
That was there and for those people that were there.
Not giving God any credit for being able to make exceptions due to the circumstances is actually judging God and we have no right to do that.
Keep Lydia in mind when we quote the lack of exceptions. God does make the call, not us. At judgment are any of going to scold him for going against our understanding of the scriptures? Who would have the b—- to do so?
I have seen and believe situations where God will make the call different from our teaching and how we have seen the chosen, picked out,, bible verses interpreted.
After all, He loves us!!!
All of us are His children and we know how we treat an erring child and His love far surpasses ours.
AJ, I actually give credit to God for being able to make exceptions, just as he did with the man on the cross, but to the rest of everybody else who he did not personally attend, we are told to do just a few simple, uncomplicated things. The problem is when we put the possible untold exception before what we are directly told. Then we become like Naaman who was told to do one thing and Naaman came back and said, “but can’t I have another option”, but was reminded that it wasn’t such a bad thing and was within his power, so that is what he did.
The problem is that we cannot know how people are judged when they leave the earth and stand before God. Some people we think are the Holiest might not really be and the one we think are un-Holy, but we do know what we are told to do while we are here and how we respond is a measure of our faith and respect for God’s word. I am not going to put forth an option that God never put out there, even though it might be there in the end. The people asked about salvation and Peter responded “repent and be baptized” to everyone present.This is the path for then and now.
“@Hank who wrote: Warning: Don’t read the ordo salutis!
Do you think it is harmful to read about the ordo salutis. Should we ban or burn books that discuss it? Is there danger in learning what another person thinks? My, what an open mind we find here. Golly, wouldn’t it be great to have discussion with a whole group of folks just like …
Get a better education Hank. It probably won’t hurt you. We’re all ignorant of many things, but I don’t think I’ve ever been hurt by learning something new.
Hesed,
Randall”
Lol! Randall, I’m not opposed to reading and “learning something new”, not at all, bro. Having said that, I have no doubt that many have “learned” some new things that are just not so.
Apparently, you have learned a lot of me things. The problem is, that much of what you now know – is just unbiblical. You are on record here (more than once), for saying things that are just straight contradictory to the truth. In fact, you have said many things contradictory to some of your own statements.
The discerning readers here can all see that you have said that regeneration (salvation) precedes faith. Which, we all know is untrue.
You’re asked if I believe all of the Bible – I do.
Do I believe in “predestination”?, I do (as it is actually taught in the Bible). But, I don’t believe that predestination means that God saves (regenerates) people before and without faith. That’s just so wrong.
The Bible teaches that without fait, it is impossible to please God. Yet, you keep saying that men are save before faith?! You keep saying that faith “follows” salvation. That’s just so wrong.
And like everybody else who believes men are saved prior to baptism, you have no way of dealing with the fact that the Bible declares that we are baptized “INTO” Christ. Frankly, that proves, that prior to baptism, we are outside of Christ.
For, one simply CANNOT be transposed INTO a location in which one already is!
In order to be baptized INTO Christ, one must simply be outside of Christ before being baptized INTO him.
Think about that…
Hank,
I’ve covered this ground many, many times. You seek to impose a dichotomy — a false one — either the Baptist baptismal doctrine or the Church of Christ baptismal doctrinal. You disprove the Baptist/Calvinist perspective and so think you’ve proven the CoC perspective — which would be true if they were the only two choices. But obviously there are other well known baptismal theologies out there. And then there’s mine — which is neither. Therefore, it cannot be contradicted by disproving the Baptist position — I don’t take the Baptist position.
My position is not complicated. It’s the Church of Christ position with one wrinkle: God’s grace covers a failure to be properly baptized for those who have faith in Jesus as Messiah (“faith” being properly defined to include faithfulness and trust as well as mental assent). Period.
Why do I believe this? Because over and over the scriptures promise salvation to “everyone” who believes. I believe these scriptures to be true. But I don’t believe they necessarily speak to WHEN someone is regenerated/justified/whatever. The scriptures aren’t speaking to timing but to ultimate fate. For example,
(Rom 10:9–17 ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.’
Now, notice Rom 10:10: καρδίᾳ [heart] γὰρ [for] πιστεύεται [believes] εἰς [into] δικαιοσύνην [justification], στόματι [mouth] δὲ ὁμολογεῖται [confesses] εἰς [into] σωτηρίαν [salvation].
(Rom 10:10 BGT)
EIS appears twice, both times with the meaning of “into.” The English translations obscure the meaning. The KJV is fairly close —
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:10 KJV)
But by your logic, which I agree with, EIS means “into” as the most natural and preferred translation. And it fits here in obvious parallel with the baptizo eis (baptize into) passages, except here we believe and confess into salvation and justification.
Over and over, in the quoted passage, Paul credits faith (properly defined as including faithfulness and trust) with salvation — and says not a word about baptism.
Now, unlike the Baptists, I don’t pick this verse and reject Acts 2:38. I think they’re both true. You accept Acts 2:38 and reject the meaning of these verses. You and the Baptists both make the same mistake — assuming the right to pick. You don’t get to pick. All the verses are inspired and true.
So what would make them BOTH true? How do we respect both the CoC verses and the Baptist verses? Well, by figuring that generally God saves at the moment of baptism for those with faith — but that God will save those not properly baptized if they have faith (including faithfulness and trust).
So how can someone be faithful and not be baptized? Well, faithfulness is about the heart. One can only be as faithful as one is instructed to be. Ignorance is in fact an excuse. Babes in Christ will be judged as babes.
If God doesn’t require a proper baptism, why require faith? Because the passages over and over and over promise salvation to EVERYONE with faith. That’s a promise from God, and God will keep his word. God does not promise to DAMN all without Baptism. This is not about rule keeping by humans but promise keeping by God.
So what is the fate of someone who knows to be baptized and doesn’t reach the baptistry before he dies despite his very best efforts? Well, did he have faith in Jesus (including faithfulness and trust)? If he was literally on his way to the baptistry but was run over by a train, or if prison officials or hospital officials wouldn’t let him be immersed, or if he lives in Siberia and the water won’t thaw for three months and he died waiting on spring, then he was as faithful as he could be. God has PROMISED to save him, and I trust God to keep his promises.
If he was already saved, why be baptized? Well, if I were a Baptist, that would be a relevant question. I’m not. I did not say he was saved when he believed. I just said he would be saved. For all I know, God didn’t save him until he was resurrected and stood before the throne of heaven. All I know is that God PROMISED salvation. Therefore, he will be among the saved in the resurrection. God keeps his promises. But that doesn’t mean he was necessarily saved when he first believed. Only that his faith assures him of ultimately being saved.
What was his fate between faith and death if he wasn’t baptized despite his best efforts? Did he receive the Spirit? Were his sins forgiven? All unanswerable, unimportant questions. I just know that at some point before judgment, God saves everyone with faith (including faithfulness and trust). God does this in heaven, which is outside earth-time. The rest is not interesting to me, and I don’t think the Bible answers the question. I will not presume to speak where the Bible is silent.
(Joh 3:16-18 NIV) 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Joh 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Joh 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Joh 6:47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
Joh 8:24 “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins.”
Joh 20:31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Rom 11:20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
1Jo 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness that
God has borne concerning His Son.
1Jo 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.
PS — I tell my child if he swims in the pool, he gets candy. The child asks how to get into the pool. I tell him, “Jump into the pool.” The child climbs down the stairs in the shallow end and then swims in the pool. Does the child get candy?
Well, do I honor my promise (if he swims in the pool, he gets candy)? Jumping into the pool would have certainly moved him from outside the pool to inside the pool, but that doesn’t mean that’s the only way in. And if the promise is premised on swimming, rather than jumping, swimming is enough.
Thanks Jay.
Here are my questions:
Why is it that EVERY respected English translation only and always translates EIS as INTO when it is written between “baptized” EIS “Christ”? Why, do no English translations use the English word “into” in the Romans passage (or the others) that have EIS after “belief” or “confession”? Why, only ” into”, after “baptized”? Is that not a legitimate question?
Secondly, you have never (to my knowledge) addressed the inquiries as to what you mean by “improper baptisms”, or “baptized incorrectly”? By those terms, do you mean and include those who have not been baptized in any way, shape, or form?
IOW, do you consider those who have ” accepted” Christ via the sinners prayer (but were never baptized), to be “baptized improperly”? What are your thoughts on that?
“ps — I tell my child if he swims in the pool, he gets candy. The child asks how to get into the pool. I tell him, “Jump into the pool.” The child climbs down the stairs in the shallow end and then swims in the pool. Does the child get candy?
Well, do I honor my promise (if he swims in the pool, he gets candy)? Jumping into the pool would have certainly moved him from outside the pool to inside the pool, but that doesn’t mean that’s the only way in. And if the promise is premised on swimming, rather than jumping, swimming is enough.”
Well, it depends how serious and and technical you want to be. If your promise if candy was contingent upon his “swimming in the pool” only, then he did do that. If it was also contingent upon him “jumping into the pool”, then he did not do that.
I see you working. But, either way, in order to get “into” the pool (whether by jumping “into”, or going down the stairs “into” the pool), he must be outside of the pool to begin with.
One could not get “into” the pool, unless he was previously “outside” of the pool.
The English word “into” implies moving from one location “into” another.
Your “PS” example, makes my point…
Jay, your swim analogy would have worked if you placed faith into the scenario, as in you must have faith to swim and then swim to recieve candy, but if you don’t swim, then faith is good enough and yet the swimming is the what you want to happen. The problem is that you would have placed the candy on two prepositions of faith and swimming, and yet if the child doesn’t swim, they get candy anyways. If we were going to give the child candy anyways, then we initally lied, but the child still never swimmed and go to where he needed to go and we would still expect the child to swim. The difference between baptism and swimming is that one is much, much easier than the other and doesn’t require much of us expect faith to submit to God and then we submit to baptism, being buried with Christ into Christ. It takes a few minutes of us being in water and being placed under and lifted up by another.
If the candy is given at the point of faith, then what is the point of the swimming except to burden us with something God doesn’t require us to do. And yet all of the converts were told to do it.
78 replies and counting. Happens every time baptism is discussed. Folks in the Churches of Christ just don’t seem to believe in this salvation by grace stuff that much of the rest of the Christian world does – at least the protestant portion. It is always salvation through water baptism, and often that needs to be done for the right reason; with the “right” understanding in one’s head. Regrettably, this way of thinking robs the Christian of much of the happiness that comes from recognizing salvation as the free gift (intentionally redundant) or God.
Hesed,
Randall
^^^^ from the guy who believes men are saved before and without any faith….
Hank,
I never said that. If you think I did then copy and paste. If you can’t produce that then an apology is in order and a genuine attempt to be more honest in the future. I can’t tell the difference between lying and putting words into the mouth of another person that they never said nor believe. A person that claims to be a Christian should be ashamed to treat another person that way. Regrettably, this type of behavior is common among members of the CofC. Why should the rest of Christendom take us seriously if we behave this way.
Hesed,
Randall
Randall said — “Great Hank. You finally seem to get it. I am suggesting that regeneration precedes faith. Sinners are regenerated BEFORE they come to faith by the sovereign act of God.”
There you go, Randall. You stand corrected are the one needing to take your words back.
And, you need to correct your unbiblical doctrine…
Hank, You just don’t get it. I suppose your lack of understanding of theological and biblical terminology is to blame. It seems that you are confusing regeneration with salvation and faith. You still have not quoted me as saying sinners are SAVED before they come to faith. I said they are regenerated before they come you faith. If you have a theological or bible dictionary you may want to use it. so I’ll repeat my previous comment:
Hank,
I never said that. If you think I did then copy and paste. If you can’t produce that then an apology is in order and a genuine attempt to be more honest in the future. I can’t tell the difference between lying and putting words into the mouth of another person that they never said nor believe. A person that claims to be a Christian should be ashamed to treat another person that way. Regrettably, this type of behavior is common among members of the CofC. Why should the rest of Christendom take us seriously if we behave this way.
Hesed,
Randall
.Randall, said:
“Folks in the Churches of Christ just don’t seem to believe in this salvation by grace stuff that much of the rest of the Christian world does ”
You often have many good comments, but I believe your frustration with a few people showed in that remark. You just threw everyone in the CofC under the bus as non-grace believers(therefore lost) if they believe baptism is part of salvation(believing in Christ). Is that what you are saying?
Does believing in Jesus have to be devoid of repentance, too? Or does repentance qualify as a part of accepting God’s grace? Does the yet unregenerate sinner repent or the guy who is saved and thereby forgiven, repent? Does the unregenerate believer( I don’t think you believe in such) need baptism to wash away(remit) sins or is it the saved(regenerated) who need their sins washed away(forgiven)? When do we celebrate? Pre-repentance, confession and baptism or after? Or both? Just curious.
It seems to me that if you change the timing of when salvation normally occurs in scripture then you have to change the meaning(in scripture) as to who does what and when, and not only that, but what he receives and when he receives it. That becomes confusion at best. Your version would suggest we get saved, (we’re forgiven) then we repent after we’re justified and then we receive baptism(because God said so “but it has nothing to do with forgiveness or washing away sins”- seems a bit more legalistic that way IMHO). All the baptism passages about being baptized into Christ, and being clothed with Christ in baptism, are they merely fluff? Again, just curious.
This is not about all the “what if” scenarios. I believe God cannot make mistakes. But what does scripture teach? Everyone that I know believes in salvation by grace through faith, and I believe repentance, confession and being baptized into Jesus name are part of that faith response. What do you believe?
I view regeneration as being born from above or born again. When one has been born again they can then look upon Jesus and see and hear him and come to faith/faithfulness in him. Logically it precedes faith, repentance and justification. It results in the erson being saved in time and space.
Hesed,
Randall
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/regeneration_grudem.html
Regeneration
What does it mean to be born again?
by Wayne Grudem
EXPLANATION AND SCRIPTURAL BASIS
We may define regeneration as follows: Regeneration is a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us. This is sometimes called “being born again” (using language from John 3:3–8).
A. Regeneration Is Totally a Work of God
In some of the elements of the application of redemption that we discuss in subsequent chapters, we play an active part (this is true, for example, of conversion, sanctification and perseverance). But in the work of regeneration we play no active role at all. It is instead totally a work of God. We see this, for example, when John talks about those to whom Christ gave power to become children of God—they “were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). Here John specifies that children of God are those who are “born…of God” and our human will (“the will of man”) does not bring about this kind of birth.
The fact that we are passive in regeneration is also evident when Scripture refers to it as being “born” or being “born again” (cf. James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:3; John 3:3–8). We did not choose to be made physically alive and we did not choose to be born—it is something that happened to us; similarly, these analogies in Scripture suggest that we are entirely passive in regeneration.
This sovereign work of God in regeneration was also predicted in the prophecy of Ezekiel. Through him God promised a time in the future when he would give new spiritual life to his people:
A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. (Ezek. 36:26–27)
Which member of the Trinity is the one who causes regeneration? When Jesus speaks of being “born of the Spirit” (John 3:8), he indicates that it is especially God the Holy Spirit who produces regeneration. But other verses also indicate the involvement of God the Father in regeneration: Paul specifies that it is God who “made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5; cf. Col. 2:13). And James says that it is the “Father of lights” who gave us new birth: “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures” (James 1:17–18).1 Finally, Peter says that God “according to his abundant mercy has given us new birth… through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3, author’s translation). We can conclude that both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit bring about regeneration.
What is the connection between effective calling2and regeneration? As we will see later in this chapter, Scripture indicates that regeneration must come before we can respond to effective calling with saving faith. Therefore we can say that regeneration comes before the result of effective calling (our faith). But it is more difficult to specify the exact relationship in time between regeneration and the human proclamation of the gospel through which God works in effective calling. At least two passages suggest that God regenerates us at the same time as he speaks to us in effective calling: Peter says, “You have been born anew not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God…. That word is the good news which was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:23, 25). And James says, “He chose to give us birth through the word of truth” (James 1:18 NIV). As the gospel comes to us, God speaks through it to summon us to himself (effective calling) and to give us new spiritual life (regeneration) so that we are enabled to respond in faith. Effective calling is thus God the Father speaking powerfully to us and regeneration is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us to make us alive. These two things must have happened simultaneously as Peter was preaching the gospel to the household of Cornelius, for while he was still preaching “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (Acts 10:44).
Sometimes the term irresistible grace3is used in this connection. It refers to the fact that God effectively calls people and also gives them regeneration, and both actions guarantee that we will respond in saving faith. The term irresistible grace is subject to misunderstanding, however, since it seems to imply that people do not make a voluntary, willing choice in responding to the gospel—a wrong idea, and a wrong understanding of the term irresistible grace. The term does preserve something valuable, however, because it indicates that God’s work reaches into our hearts to bring about a response that is absolutely certain—even though we respond voluntarily.4
B. The Exact Nature of Regeneration Is Mysterious to Us
Exactly what happens in regeneration is mysterious to us. We know that somehow we who were spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1) have been made alive to God and in a very real sense we have been “born again” (John 3:3, 7; Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13). But we don’t understand how this happens or what exactly God does to us to give us this new spiritual life. Jesus says, “The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8).
Scripture views regeneration as something that affects us as whole persons. Of course, our “spirits are alive” to God after regeneration (Rom. 8:10), but that is simply because we as whole persons are affected by regeneration. It is not just that our spirits were dead before—we were dead to God in trespasses and sins (see Eph. 2:1). And it is not correct to say that the only thing that happens in regeneration is that our spirits are made alive (as some would teach),5 for every part of us is affected by regeneration: “If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5:17).
Because regeneration is a work of God within us in which he gives us new life it is right to conclude that it is an instantaneous event. It happens only once. At one moment we are spiritually dead, and then at the next moment we have new spiritual life from God. Nevertheless, we do not always know exactly when this instantaneous change occurs. Especially for children growing up in a Christian home, or for people who attend an evangelical church or Bible study over a period of time and grow gradually in their understanding of the gospel, there may not be a dramatic crisis with a radical change of behavior from “hardened sinner” to “holy saint,” but there will be an instantaneous change nonetheless, when God through the Holy Spirit, in an unseen, invisible way, awakens spiritual life within. The change will become evident over time in patterns of behavior and desires that are pleasing to God.
In other cases (in fact, probably most cases when adults become Christians) regeneration takes place at a clearly recognizable time at which the person realizes that previously he or she was separated from God and spiritually dead, but immediately afterward there was clearly new spiritual life within. The results can usually be seen at once—a heartfelt trusting in Christ for salvation, an assurance of sins forgiven, a desire to read the Bible and pray (and a sense that these are meaningful spiritual activities), a delight in worship, a desire for Christian fellowship, a sincere desire to be obedient to God’s Word in Scripture, and a desire to tell others about Christ. People may say something like this: “I don’t know exactly what happened, but before that moment I did not trust in Christ for salvation. I was still wondering and questioning in my mind. But after that moment I realized that I did trust in Christ and he was my Savior. Something happened in my heart.”6 Yet even in these cases we are not quite sure exactly what has happened in our hearts. It is just as Jesus said with respect to the wind—we hear its sound and we see the result, but we cannot actually see the wind itself. So it is with the working of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
C. In This Sense of “Regeneration,” It Comes Before Saving Faith
Using the verses quoted above, we have defined regeneration to be the act of God awakening spiritual life within us, bringing us from spiritual death to spiritual life. On this definition, it is natural to understand that regeneration comes before saving faith. It is in fact this work of God that gives us the spiritual ability to respond to God in faith. However, when we say that it comes “before” saving faith, it is important to remember that they usually come so close together that it will ordinarily seem to us that they are happening at the same time. As God addresses the effective call of the gospel to us, he regenerates us and we respond in faith and repentance to this call. So from our perspective it is hard to tell any difference in time, especially because regeneration is a spiritual work that we cannot perceive with our eyes or even understand with our minds.
Yet there are several passages that tell us that this secret, hidden work of God in our spirits does in fact come before we respond to God in saving faith (though often it may be only seconds before we respond). When talking about regeneration with Nicodemus, Jesus said, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Now we enter the kingdom of God when we become Christians at conversion. But Jesus says that we have to be born “of the Spirit” before we can do that.7 Our inability to come to Christ on our own, without an initial work of God within us, is also emphasized when Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), and “No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:65). This inward act of regeneration is described beautifully when Luke says of Lydia, “The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul” (Acts 16:14). First the Lord opened her heart, then she was able to give heed to Paul’s preaching and to respond in faith.
By contrast, Paul tells us, “The man without the Spirit (literally, the “natural man”) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14 NIV). He also says of people apart from Christ, “no one understands, No one seeks for God” (Rom. 3:11).
The solution to this spiritual deadness and inability to respond only comes when God gives us new life within. “But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:4–5). Paul also says, “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ” (Col. 2:13 NIV).8
The idea that regeneration comes before saving faith is not always understood by evangelicals today. Sometimes people will even say something like, “If you believe in Christ as your Savior, then (after you believe) you will be born again.” But Scripture itself never says anything like that. This new birth is viewed by Scripture as something that God does within us in order to enable us to believe.
The reason that evangelicals often think that regeneration comes after saving faith is that they see the results (love for God and his Word, and turning from sin) after people come to faith, and they think that regeneration must therefore have come after saving faith. Yet here we must decide on the basis of what Scripture tells us, because regeneration itself is not something we see or know about directly: “The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8).
Because Christians often tend to focus on the results of regeneration, rather than the hidden spiritual act of God itself, some evangelical statements of faith have contained wording that suggests that regeneration comes after saving faith. So, for example, the statement of faith of the Evangelical Free Church of America (which has been adapted by a number of other evangelical organizations) says,
We believe that the true Church is composed of all such persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the body of Christ of which He is the Head. (paragraph 8)
Here the word “regeneration” apparently means the outward evidence of regeneration that is seen in a changed life, evidence that certainly does come after saving faith. Thus “being born again” is thought of not in terms of the initial impartation of new life, but in terms of the total life change that results from that impartation. If the term “regeneration” is understood in this way, then it would be true that regeneration comes after saving faith.
Nevertheless, if we are to use language that closely conforms to the actual wording of Scripture, it would be better to restrict the word “regeneration” to the instantaneous, initial work of God in which he imparts spiritual life to us. Then we can emphasize that we do not see regeneration itself but only the results of it in our lives, and that faith in Christ for salvation is the first result that we see. In fact, we can never know that we have been regenerated until we come to faith in Christ, for that is the outward evidence of this hidden, inward work of God. Once we do come to saving faith in Christ, we know that we have been born again.
By way of application, we should realize that the explanation of the gospel message in Scripture does not take the form of a command, “Be born again and you will be saved,” but rather, “Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved.”9 This is the consistent pattern in the preaching of the gospel throughout the book of Acts, and also in the descriptions of the gospel given in the Epistles.
D. Genuine Regeneration Must Bring Results in Life
In an earlier section we saw a beautiful example of the first result of regeneration in a person’s life, when Paul spoke the gospel message to Lydia and “the Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul” (Acts 16:14; cf. John 6:44, 65; 1 Peter 1:3). Similarly, John says, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John 5:1 NIV).10 But there are also other results of regeneration, many of which are specified in John’s first epistle. For example, John says, “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9 NIV). Here John explains that a person who is born again has that spiritual “seed” (that life-generating and growing power) within him, and that this keeps the person living a life free of continual sin. This does not of course mean that the person will have a perfect life, but only that the pattern of life will not be one of continuing indulgence in sin. When people are asked to characterize a regenerated person’s life, the adjective that comes to mind should not be “sinner,” but rather something like “obedient to Christ” or “obedient to Scripture.” We should notice that John says this is true of everyone who is truly born again: “No one who is born of God will continue to sin.” Another way of looking at this is to say that “every one who does what is right has been born of him” (1 John 2:29).
A genuine, Christlike love will be one specific result in life: “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God” (1 John 4:7 NIV). Another effect of the new birth is overcoming the world: “And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God has overcome the world” (1 John 5:3–4 NIV). Here John explains that regeneration gives the ability to overcome the pressures and temptations of the world that would otherwise keep us from obeying God’s commandments and following his paths. John says that we will overcome these pressures and therefore it will not be “burdensome” to obey God’s commands but, he implies, it will rather be joyful. He goes on to explain that the process through which we gain victory over the world is continuing in faith: “This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith” (1 John 5:4 NIV).
Finally, John notes that another result of regeneration is protection from Satan himself: “We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God [that is, Jesus] keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him” (1 John 5:18 NIV). Though there may be attacks from Satan, John reassures his readers that “the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4 NIV), and this greater power of the Holy Spirit within us keeps us safe from ultimate spiritual harm by the evil one.
We should realize that John emphasizes these as necessary results in the lives of those who are born again. If there is genuine regeneration in a person’s life, he or she will believe that Jesus is the Christ, and will refrain from a life pattern of continual sin, and will love his brother, and will overcome the temptations of the world, and will be kept safe from ultimate harm by the evil one. These passages show that it is impossible for a person to be regenerated and not become truly converted.11
Other results of regeneration are listed by Paul where he speaks of the “fruit of the Spirit,” that is, the result in life that is produced by the power of the Holy Spirit working within every believer: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal. 5:22–23). If there is true regeneration then these elements of the fruit of the Spirit will be more and more evident in that person’s life. But by contrast, those who are unbelievers, including those who are pretending to be believers but are not, will clearly lack of these character traits in their lives. Jesus told his disciples:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. (Matt. 7:15–20)
Neither Jesus nor Paul nor John point to activity in the church or miracles as evidence of regeneration. They rather point to character traits in life. In fact, immediately after the verses quoted above Jesus warns that on the day of judgment many will say to him, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” But he will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers” (Matt. 7:22–23). Prophecy, exorcism, and many miracles and mighty works in Jesus’ name (to say nothing of other kinds of intensive church activity in the strength of the flesh over perhaps decades of a person’s life) do not provide convincing evidence that a person is truly born again. Apparently all these can be produced in the natural man or woman’s own strength, or even with the help of the evil one. But genuine love for God and his people, heartfelt obedience to his commands, and the Christlike character traits that Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit, demonstrated consistently over a period of time in a person’s life, simply cannot be produced by Satan or by the natural man or woman working in his or her own strength. These can only come about by the Spirit of God working within and giving us new life.
Monty wrote of Randall: You just threw everyone in the CofC under the bus as non-grace believers(therefore lost) if they believe baptism is part of salvation(believing in Christ). Is that what you are saying?
Randall replies: No, that’s not what I’m saying. I think most people in the CofC believe sinners are saved by faith plus works rather than by grace through faith. Just b/c they are confused in their theology doesn’t means they are lost/condemned, just missing out on the joy associated with salvation by grace through faith.
Hesed,
Randall
Jay, can you explain what you define as “failure to be properly baptized” from your statement of “God’s grace covers a failure to be properly baptized for those who have faith in Jesus as Messiah (“faith” being properly defined to include faithfulness and trust as well as mental assent). Period.”
I don’t know and can’t think of an example of this in the scripture. There are examples of people not being baptized into Jesus, but rather John, but this was not improper, but then again they had to be re-bapized into Jesus to be in Jesus and the people recieved Christ and were baptized into Christ (buried and raised with Christ).
In the scriptures faith is never given a preeminence over repentance or baptism and repentance is not given a preeminince over faith or baptism and baptism isn’t given a preeminence over faith or repentance. They are just simply part of the same motion into Christ. Somehow we want to do surgery and divide the concepts from each other just like we wish to do with our relation to the body.
Now I have heard many coC say that what you are baptized into must be correct and then make it based on numerous things, but in reality the only thing that matters is that we are baptized into Jesus knowing that Jesus is the Son of God and savior. This is what put you into Christ and not baptism into a doctrinal system or a certain enviroment or by certain people. And then many coC tend to largely focus just on baptism, sometimes excluding other things, probably because they want to corner it and yet when Peter was asked, he said, “Repent and be baptized”, so to a faith only person, Peter would sound very chuch-of-Christy.
One of our major problems is seeing faith as faith and baptism as a work, but in the scriptures faith is called a work and baptism is never called a work, but is related as submission. You present yourself, declare your faith, then are taken into water, then are held by another who brings you down and then raises you up. You give up control and are completely vunerable to another in the same way Jesus was when He died and was buried and raised again. This is true faith.
LOL! Dude, I didn’t read the book you just shared but you have made a mess for yourself.
You say faith follows regeneration. Then you deny saying men are saved without faith, and call me a liar, and ask for a quote, and blast the Church of Christ. Then I give you your quote. Then you again say you didn’t say men are “saved” without faith, only “regenerated” (as if they don’t mean the same thing). Then I give you the actual definition of “regenerate”, and advise you to chill a bit until you get and use a dictionary.
And NOW, you admit — “I view regeneration as being born from above or born again.”
In your unique world, are “born again” (regenerated) sinners still lost?
If so, you are really (more than we even thought) off on your own.
If, like everybody else in the world, you see/consider/view “born again” sinners as saved, then you have people saved without faith!!!
Because, according to you, “faith FOLLOWS regeneration”.
Honestly, you have a major doctrinal mess on your hands. You really should go back to the Bible, man. All of your “learning something new”, is getting you all twisted and confused…
Randall, you said, “I think most people in the CofC believe sinners are saved by faith plus works rather than by grace through faith.”
Actually from what I understand and I have been raised in the coC is that we are saved by grace through faith which results in a repsonse of repentance and baptism. This would seem to be in line with what happned in Acts 2. Grace is never not a part of salvation, but it is not something we do like faith or submit ourselves to like baptism. Grace is always there, but our faith can stop in world, can start in Jesus, can grow in Jesus, can weaken in the world. And we can or cannot submit ourselves to Jesus by being baptized.
The problem I see is that the discussion among the coC becomes heatedly focused on works vs baptism and grace gets pushed to the peripheral, even though it is often noted as important. It is kind of like seeing the plane and having a discussion over the wing span versus the engine thrust and forgetting the pilot who controls it all, even though we know he is obviously there.
From these definitions of regeneration, anyone who is lost will be God’s responsibility.
Any individual in the world who never ever heard of God or Christ who is lost then is lost because God did not regenerate him. Is God a respecter of persons? Can we read God’s word then proclaim, God, if any soul is lost you will be responsible!
I don’t know of any action that could be called “improper” without falling into the category of sin. Adultery is improper because it is a sin, lying, etc. Baptism and even faith are not improper in thier nature, although they can be done in reference to others in degrees. The baptism of John (non-saving) vs Jesus (saving), Peter great faith in Jesus when walking vs little faith in Jesus when sinking and yet faith and baptism are not incorrect.
Randall,
The problem in your interpretation is that God becomes responsible for regeneration prior to an individual coming to faith that saves. In fact, if God regenerates, creates a rebirth in us prior to faith, then faith is not saving faith, the act of saving and rebirth is totally done by God prior to faith. That is exactly what I have read that you said.
I have never read a portion of scripture in NT the portrays that God saves or regenerates (renews a spiritual life in an individual prior to the individual having faith and belief) and if there was then faith and belief is not essential to salvation. Do a search on save, saved, faith and you will find that we are commanded (given instructions that we must be in control of our willingness to believe and to have faith) prior to salvation.
Jay,will you explain what the “improper/incorrect baptisms” are, which you believe God accepts as good?
Do you include the NO baptisms of those who “accept Jesus” via the Sinners Prayer (without being baptized in any way, shape or form), as the “improper baptism” that God accepts?
Also, I’d really like to know why you believe it is, that every Bible has baptized “into” Christ? And, can one who is ALREADY “in” Christ, be baptized “into” him?
Does not the English word “into” demand one must first be “outside”?
Too, if God accepts “improper/incorrect” baptisms, why will he not accept “improper” faith? Or, does he?
Hank,
I answered all of your questions at /2015/04/the-progressive-churches-of-christ-sinking-into-the-body-of-christ-part-3/#comment-139403.
So you do believe that those who have “accepted Jesus” through prayer (but who have not been baptized) to be “improperly” baptized? Is that right? Or, have those who have not been baptized, not been baptized? And, if you’re talking about the kid and pool for candy illustration, I don’t really get it. IF baptism puts nie INTO Christ (as every translation says), then one must be outside of Christ prior to being baptized INTO him. The very definition if the word “into” demands as much. Eis can mean “to”, ” toward “, ” in” and “into”. But, those words have different meanings. And one simply cannot be transposed ” into” a location in which he already us is. Accordingly, any people you have saved prior to being baptized “into” Christ, you have saved outside of him. If, that is, every english Bible was correct in saying that we are baptized “into” Christ. Think about that.
Hank,
Have you even read my response to your earlier question? You show no evidence of having done so. You just repeat your questions and continue to impose assumptions on me that are not true and that I’ve specifically denied. Why should I go to the trouble of answering your questions yet again if you’re going to ignore what I’ve already said. I answered all of your questions at /2015/04/the-progressive-churches-of-christ-sinking-into-the-body-of-christ-part-3/#comment-139403.
@Larry,
We choose God b/c He first chose us. In our effort to understand we can’t understand to the nth degree. We are creatures bound by time and space. God is not limited by anything other than his own nature. From eternity past He knew who He would save and who would not be saved. So in that sense one can say they were always saved, even before they were born, not to mention born again. But that doesn’t make a lot of sense to us since we are bound by our being finite and limited by time in space. So in the life of the elect God regenerates us and we then come to a true faith in Jesus and all that accompanies that.
Essentially every choice we make is a choice that we did in fact make and for which we are responsible. However, our ability to choose is limited not only by time and space but by our own nature. If our nature is corrupt we will make corrupt choices and we are responsible for them. We need a new nature, we need to be regenerated so that we have spiritual life and light and can begin to understand the things of God. We don’t cause our regeneration anymore than we did our physical birth. We were passive in the process and our choice wasn’t involved. Remember God always knew this (our nature) about us as He knows everything and He never increases in knowledge. Even though it was determined from eternity past it plays out in time and space. When I came to true faith it was my faith. But I did it b/c God was working in my life in a way in which he does not work in everyone’s life. He makes one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable. And the end is not finished until all has been carried out according to His plan. both the END and ALL the MEANS to that end were destined from eternity past. Stuff surprises us but God is never surprised. He was working His plan every step of the way.
Above Larry wrote the following:
I have never read a portion of scripture in NT the portrays that God saves or regenerates (renews a spiritual life in an individual prior to the individual having faith and belief) and if there was then faith and belief is not essential to salvation. Do a search on save, saved, faith and you will find that we are commanded (given instructions that we must be in control of our willingness to believe and to have faith) prior to salvation.
Randall suggests go back and read John 1:13 and John 3 account of Jesus and Nicodemus. I won’t quote them again here.
Hesed,
Randall
Hank adds to what Jesus said, as limiting himself to what Jesus said inconveniently damages his position. Then he encourages me to think about his view after he declines to even discuss Jesus’ words. But I thought about Hank’s words anyway. Still not convinced. I still take Jesus’ words over Hank’s nine times out of nine.
Very well said Larry
“Hank adds to what Jesus said, as limiting himself to what Jesus said inconveniently damages his position.”
How so? Adds what?? I suppose, you take it that all of the NT epistles are letters “adding to what Jesus said”? Like, Gal. 3:27 and Rom. 6:3?
Charles, doesn’t your Bible teach that we are baptized “into” Christ?
in·to:
1. expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something becomes enclosed or surrounded by something else.
“cover the bowl and put it into the fridge”
2. expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something makes physical contact with something else.
“he crashed into a parked car”
Can you explain how a person can be transposed “into” a location in which he already is?
Do you believe that every best translation committee of renowned Greek scholars to record the Bible “into” English, erred in telling us all that we are baptized “into” Christ?
Or, is your problem more with the actual definition of the English word “into”?
What does “into” mean in your world?
Jay, I went back and looked at your proof verses that you argue from. (Rom 10:9–17 ESV) “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. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” Now, notice Rom 10:10: καρδίᾳ [heart] γὰρ [for] πιστεύεται [believes] εἰς [into] δικαιοσύνην [justification], στόματι [mouth] δὲ ὁμολογεῖται [confesses] εἰς [into] σωτηρίαν [salvation]. (Rom 10:10 BGT) EIS appears twice, both times with the meaning of “into.” The English translations obscure the meaning. The KJV is fairly close —For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:10 KJV)”
But Romans is overall written to Christians “Rom.1” and these Christians have been saved by “baptism-Rom.6:3 “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.”
Romans 10 that you access was written to reflect that Israel still needed the gospel to be saved and that they must come to salvation through faith, not the law, and yet this faith as noted in Rom.6:3.results in what the saved already did…baptism. This is what they did in Acts 2 with repentance when asked what they must do to be saved. It is interesting that Rom.10 never mentions “repentance”, so that must not be an element of salvation either. Or is it? You focus on faith, but never mention “confess” as in “confess and believe”, but shouldn’t you believe first? The problem is that it is not talking about the order of salvation, upfront issues leading to salvation in regards to Jesus. They had to believe in Jesus first.
I’ll just stick with that God saves “whoever” believes in Jesus. “Whoever” means anyone. For me it doesn’t get more basic than, “God is not (willing) that “anyone” should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” In my mind “whoever or whosoever”, “any”, “all” sure sound like it’s referring to, well, everyone. God is not “willing” that anyone perish. Calvinism says exactly the opposite, that God was very much willing to do the choosing and saving of only a predetermined select “few” individuals.” Based on what? HIs desire to save only a few. Why won’t most men be saved? Because of their own free will they rejected and spurned God’s generous offer of forgiveness? NOooooo! Because God doesn’t move them to repentance, because God doesn’t regenerate but only a preselect few. According to Calvinism, God was in fact, quite willing, to save only a few and to punish with torture the masses for just being who he created them to be(lost). In fact, you could argue that according to Calvinism(predestination) that God never intended that all should come to repentance because no man can repent unless he(God) willed it before creation ever began. Then to try to avoid this passage Calvinist try to talk out both sides of their mouth. They take all the words referring to God wanting “all” to repent as meaning “all” he’s already saved. Huh? Makes perfect sense to me.
They(Calvinist) would say, He’s not willing that any should perish, but that “all” should come to repentance who (according to Calvinism) can only come to repentance when he moves them to come to repentance, (it gets pretty confusing doesn’t it)like some hypnotized sleeper cell assassin. Well if God pre-saved or saved before creation certain ones then there is no drama about “will they or won’t they” come to repentance- of course they will. God is in control of the whole thing, He’s the puppet-master pulling all the strings, how could they not?
However, Jesus wept over Jerusalem in Luke 13:34 and cried out, “how often have I longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” Jesus says, in essence, “I was willing”, but you were “not willing.” Calvinistic predestination makes a mockery of Jesus’ words. Why? Because according to them, if Jesus(God in the flesh) willed they come to him like chicks come to their mother hen, then that is exactly what they would have done. But Jesus says, “you would not!” In fact Calvinism has to explain the failure of the people to receive Jesus as Jesus’ will that was predestined before time began. It really does get a bit silly with all the hoop jumping they have to do. Not only that, it really minimizes IMO the love of God that he would even die for those he knew would reject him. Talk about a great love. Suffering and dying for those who you know will not bend their will to yours is admirable and is an extravagant kind of love, like loving your enemies. It’s risky business, this love stuff.
Calvinism minimizes God’s great love and takes away the vulnerability of God humbling himself by death on the cross. Where is the vulnerability, the depth of God’s great love in dying for only those you already preselected individually for saving? They say, “isn’t God good for selecting even a few to love according to HIs own purposes against their will ? I say, it makes God a monster. Why? Well if God so loved the whole world, and yet he didn’t send Jesus to die for me, then I wish he had loved me just a little bit more. You see, if God had limited resources or only a limited amount of love then dying to save a few would be commendable, he did what he could, but when you have unlimited resources and an unlimited amount of love and you only save a few due to your will and not theirs? Can you call that a great love? I would liken that to having the resources to feed say, a thousand starving people, but only choosing to feed(and save) only a handful. You could on the one hand say ,”Oh how generous, he fed a few”, but in comparison to the unlimited resources to feed all one thousand who were starving? You’d be closer to a monster than a hero. No, God is not willing that anyone perish, even those who choose to spurn HIs great love.That’s what’s so extraordinary about God! He wants to save them all but He will not override their choice to refuse Him. In one sense God has limited his grace to all who will believe in Jesus, but still that is an open invitation to everyone, and not to a preselect few. I serve a great God who isn’t as worried so much about HIs sovereignty but more about saving as many as would receive him.
Monty, you done a nice job of presenting the caricature of Calvinism. If you, or others are interested in something other than the caricature you could read this: https://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/10/23/10-things-i-wish-everyone-knew-about-reformed-theology/34667
or you could read this: http://www.calvinistcorner.com/predestination.htm
Randall, are those links where you “learned” that sinners are saved without any faith?
Hank – I do not intend to reply or provide any explanation so long as you deliberately misrepresent my beliefs. Read your bible and you will find the sovereignty of God from beginning to end.
Randall, You wrote, “So we preach b/c we are told to and b/c it is the means by which people hear the gospel and come to faith.”, but if we are saved, then what is the point as faith is to save us, but you are arguing that we are predestined saved by God, but if so, then how can we be saved by faith? This is circular logic that argues against itself.
The path was hearing, faith, response in Jesus, baptism (renew) and then living in Jesus, but in between that time man is fully capable of doing God’s will or not and either succeeding or failing.
The fact is that I am not a follower of T. or A. Campbell, but of Christ.
Jesus tells us to follow him to gain the Kingdom, not that the Kingdom is ours and that we must do things because we are just commanded to do so. Technically if we are predestined to salvation, then we could live the most heinious life and still gain heaven, so commands and being told to do something aren’t much of a reason. And vice-versa we could live the most Godly life and be damned. There is no reward for running the race, because we have already won or lost.
@Dwight We were not there in eternity past so that is of not much relevance to us today, We preach and pray b/c we have been made new creatures and we want to serve the Lord. Not in order to meet some physical requirement in order to get saved. The is regenerated and then ” hearing, faith, response in Jesus, baptism (renew) and then living in Jesus,”
In between that time an unregenerate person may be able to fake it but they can;t do the real McCoy b/c they aren’t. Beside they don’t like God so they don’t strive to please him. All things are lawful for me but not all things are helpful.
The point of saving faith is that it is the means God has purposed for the elect to come to Him.
Please read the book – it is short and you won’t be coming to me with these questions
The ungodly won’t be running the race at all b/c they are not seeking to be of service to God.
God – “faith comes by (thru and after) hearing”. In God’s book, the sinner FIRST hears and then believes and then is saved/born again.
Randall – “faith comes by (thru and after) being born again”. In Randall’s book(s), the sinner is first saved/born again and then hears and then believes.
Randall’s view is the direct opposite of God’s. It’s very odd how he stays on here trying to convince us of such unbiblical ideas…
“It’s commonly assumed that if God has chosen from eternity who is saved, evangelism is rendered pointless. But Calvinists believe that God chooses to work through his people and through their preaching of his word to save those he has chosen. (See Romans 10.) God’s sovereignty over salvation, says Reformed theology, fuels the desire to evangelize. The pressure is off the Christian to persuade a person to believe — he trusts God to save even those who seem to him the furthest from faith. Because God chose to save independent of character or behavior, the Reformed preach to all, as no one is beyond the hope of salvation that was ordained from eternity.
Michael Horton, author of For Calvinism, says that election is what makes evangelism worthwhile. Without it, none would choose Christ, none would choose salvation — “we would all be left in our sins and there would be no point to evangelism”
Pay particular attention to the sentence, “The pressure is off the Christian to persuade a person to believe.”
This is simply not so. The Reformed idea is that evangelism still has to occur because it’s God’s plan, (so far so good) but it just has to be taught or spoken, but man shouldn’t be concerned about “persuading another person to believe.” However, that is exactly what we see in scripture, preachers persuading hearers to respond to the good news. Peter on Pentecost, “and with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying save yourselves from this untoward generation.” One of the major cogs of Reformed theology is that man cannot do anything even remotely likened to saving one’s self. Everything is of God, nothing can come from an unregenerate except sin. Yet scripture plainly says, man has a duty to respond if he will be saved. Man can make a conscious decision to obey or not obey the gospel. And therefore he is persuaded to do exactly that! Agrippa in Acts 26:28 says to Paul, “almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. There was an element is Paul’s speaking to Agrippa that was of a gospel preacher persuading a lost soul to become a Christian. I’m quite sure it was a passionate plea. In Acts 17:4 “some of the Jews were “persuaded.” Vines: to apply persuasion, to prevail upon or win over, to persuade, bringing about a change of mind by the influence of reason or moral considerations- which is something Reformed theology utterly denies is possible, that unregenerate man is able to reason anything towards his salvation. They might say(I suppose they would have to in-light of these passages) that when God flips the switch in their hearts, and He enables them to reason, they then can make a reasonable choice. Wow! But if that’s the case then we are back to square one and there really isn’t any need to persuade men with the gospel because all who are appointed unto salvation will be persuaded anyway. According to Reformed theology Peter could literally have preached til he’s blue in the face and try his best to persuade the lost to respond but he was in essence wasting his breath until God did his work of regeneration in them. Peter just didn’t understand I guess. In 2 Corinthians 5:11, Paul says,” Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.” Acts 19:8 “and he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.”
Reformed theology has to admit(though I doubt they like it) that the gospel is to be preached unto the world, but to be consistent, it has to come out and basically refute the idea of man persuading another man with the gospel is of any value- simply put, as in the case above, it cannot be done, so you shouldn’t do all you can do in the way of speaking persuasively. Speak it once and leave it to God.
It’s God’s will that all men be saved. All men will not be saved. Why? God’s will being done? Or because man has a free will to spurn God’s love? If it’s totally up to God and man doesn’t get a say so, then it can’t truly be his will that all be saved, which we know is a lie. God in his sovereignty has given man the free will to choose or accept his calling of man through the gospel.
Here is a conversation that a Calvinist should think about:
Are you saved? -Yes!
How do you know? -Faith, I have faith in Jesus!
But Faith doesn’t save, so you might be saved or you might not be depending on which way God decides to go.- God always wants what is best and God’s will is sovereign.
So everyone is saved? -No, just who God desires to save.
So how do you know you are saved? -Trust!
But even trusting you might be lost, so how do you know that God chose you and not someone that is living in sin instead as you have no control over your salvation at all.- I just have to live Godly and hope for the best.
But couldn’t you live unGodly and still be saved? -Yes!
Then you cannot be sure of what state you are in and it doesn’t matter how you live and it doens’t matter that Jesus sacrificed himself for you and brought the word and told people to follow Him.
Why does God tell us to “Be Holy as I am Holy” if you are already Holy. Are you just doing things that have no bearing on your outcome?
The problem with Calvinist is that they never consider they are on the lost side, even when they admit that God chooses who He wants and that not everyone will be chosen.
Randall says — “Okay, that is it. I won’t rejoin this discussion.”
That’s the best thing you’ve said so for far!
Calling people stupid and continually blasting the Church of Christ is bad enough, but twisting the Bible is worse (like trying to convince people that sinners are saved before and without faith.)
If you do rejoin, I hope its without your current false doctrine bro.
Randall, In my defense I try not to read the writings of others and base my faith on them. I go straight to the scriptures. If I quote anyone it is Jesus or the apostles. Calvinism is very wrong, so if A.W. Pink uses the Calvnism concept and I know he does from my studies of him, then that his writings are wrong and they are. He declares tht God is soveriegn and so He is, but God is not a sledgehammer either and let’s man decide who he will and will not worship and whether he will be counted as pleasing to God. God cannot serve God and mammon and God will not count righteous one who serves another.
Dwight, Randall’s gone. It was God’s sovereign will for Randall to take his doctrine of “salvation before and without faith”, and to depart from this discussion…
Hank, it is not the brave who fire their boldest shots at the back of the enemy who is walking away. smh
It seems oxymoronic to me that those who insist that they “go straight to the scriptures” to learn the things of God continue sharing their own views and conclusions for others to read. If true nobility is found in limiting our study to the scriptures themselves, why are we presenting OUR words for others to read? “Sola scriptura” is not a biblical concept, whether it is applied to salvation or any other subject.
Charles,
All I have been arguing here, is precisely what the book of God declares. Namely, that believers are baptized INTO Christ.
Does not every bible you read, declare that we are baptized INTO Christ??
Here is my question (to you and to all), does not the fact that we are baptized INTO Christ, prove that we are not “in” Christ prior to being baptized INTO him?
For, how can one be transposed INTO a location in which he is already in???
Now, Randall exited the discussion….
Allow me to ask you:
1) What do you believe “into” means?
2) Why does every Bible say that we are baptized “into” Christ?
3) Can someone who is already “in” Christ, be baptized “into” Christ?
Explain that…
I believe that it would be a very wise move for all of us to include in our prayers a special prayer for Randall, possibly he could be enlightened to follow God’s Word rather than the writings of A. W. Pink.
Randall,
Is that all you got? Just a resort to chiding and name calling? “Too stupid?” “Dunces?” Amazing! I stated the case from the link that you gave and I quoted the expert you referred me to. I then show how his assertion was false. I never stated that man saves man, but persuasive preaching and teaching can (as I demonstrated from the scriptures.) Do you now deny that it can? Which is what your expert denied. There is even a sense in which man does save himself as scripture says, “save yourself from this untoward generation” by being obedient to the gospel. In other words submit to it, so that it can save you. Poor Peter, he just didn’t get it. Of course if you deny the freedom of man to submit then those are wasted words.
Reformed theology says man can’t even submit unless God sovereignly chose him so that he can, and if that’s the case then your expert is right, there is no sense in trying to persuade anyone, if it’s meant to be, it will be. That’s just not what scripture says. Not only did the apostles preach the word but they did their best to persuade their audience, “knowing the terror of the Lord.” THe apostle John said, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” I guess the apostle John just was too stupid to understand reformed theology. He seemed to think that Jesus’ death was a death for everyone and not limited to just the elect. The Calvinism I have read about(maybe yours is a different branch) doesn’t believe that Jesus died to save the whole world, but only his own the Father gave him. I suppose I am too stupid(you know, being in the CofC) to understand all the double talk of reformed theology. “He did, but he didn’t” stuff that you get so easily.
AJ, I am not judging Randall. It is possible that despite his belief on how one is saved that he is saved and I never argued he wasn’t. He will stand before God and have to explain himself as will I. Most of us here are simply arguing for the path that the scriptures take in regards to salvation. It is possible that Randall took that same path, but if appears that Randall thinks he was saved even berfore that path was taken, but then again under Calvinism you can never be sure. You could conceivably live a Godly life and be a Godly person and yet prejudged as lost by God. It is a strange and nerve wracking position to think about if you actually think about it.
I was conversing with AJ. The being “bad” comment caught my attention as I’ve never been called “bad on this site. Sorry if it disturbed you.
Randall, reread my post as I was saying we in our criticizing of you are as bad or worse than how we see you.
Throughout the ages, we have done so to practically everyone but ourselves and now are doing it to the well over 50 different sects of the churches of Christ.
The bible is the most misinterpreted book ever written.
Better have mercy on all others as we will sure need mercy on mistakes we surely have committed even with the right intentions.
Chances of us having it all just right is pretty small percentage wise.
Pray for forgiveness and ask for mercy for all our mistakes, all of us and Randall too.
Thanks AJ. I misunderstood what you meant and now I do understand.
Hesed,
Randall