One In Jesus

Those with a Southern Baptist or Calvinist background often argue that baptism can’t be essential for salvation or else it would be a “work,” and Paul is very clear that it’s error – even damning error – to add a work to faith as a requirement for salvation. For example, in Gal 5, Paul writes,

(Gal 5:2-4 ESV) Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. ³ I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. ⁴ You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

In other words, Paul argues that if you insist on any element of the law as a condition of salvation, you must apply the entirety of the law. We can’t pick and choose. And, obviously enough, no one can perfectly keep the entirety of the Law of Moses, and so adding any element of the Law of Moses creates a standard that cannot be met and which therefore damns. Continue reading →

Perhaps the argument most commonly used by those arguing for infant baptism or for the necessity of baptism is based on Col 2:11-14:

(Col 2:11-14 ESV) In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, ¹² having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. ¹³ And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, ¹⁴ by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

In this passage, many commentators believe that Paul compares Christian baptism to the Jewish practice of circumcision. Circumcision goes back to the covenant God made with Abraham (Gen 17:9-14). The requirement to be circumcised was renewed in the Law of Moses (Lev 12:3). Circumcision therefore held a very high place in Jewish thought. Continue reading →

Although John Wycliffe’s 1382 English translation of the Bible is likely the first translation into the language of the people since the fall of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church thoroughly suppressed his work, and his translation was forgotten by the time of the Reformation.

Much later, in the 16^th Century, Martin Luther translated the scriptures into German, and thus lit a fire under the Protestant Reformation. Soon, William Tyndale translated the Bible into English, and although he was burned at the stake for doing so, the church authorities were unable to keep translations out of the hands of the people. Soon the church was publishing its own translation (one of which is now called the King James Version).

Famously, Luther translated Rom 3:28 by adding “alone” after “faith” (in German, of course) – Continue reading →

These are addition comments I posted in response to Price’s questions about John the Baptist’s (JTB) baptism.

I find these discussion fascinating because (a) they’re about God, Jesus, and the Bible and (b) they push me into unfamiliar territory, forcing me to test my theology against stories and events that I don’t usually consider.

After all, JTB is no longer baptizing, and, in one sense, whatever led to his baptismal practices is of historical interest only. But on the other hand — it happened. And it happened for a reason — and it was so important that all four Gospels speak of JTB. Indeed, they use JTB to set the stage for Jesus — and we (I) generally fail to understand how that works.

So maybe these thoughts will help. Continue reading →

So where does faith fit into the picture, if at all? Well, to a Jew, faith and repentance were inseparable concepts. How can you love your Father and not obey him? How can you trust God’s promises and refuse to care for the poor or use power to oppress the weak?

But faith, at this time, was in a Messiah yet to be revealed. It was faith in God’s messianic and Kingdom promises — combined with an eager expectation that the Messiah would soon appear and bring the Spirit promised by the prophets — that is, baptism of the Spirit, who would soon be outpoured like water falling from heaven.

So what are the salvific implications? Here’s the best I can make of it — Continue reading →

Price asked,

Were the disciples of Christ baptizing in the same manner as John the Baptist and his disciples ? If so, wasn’t that baptism just an outward expression of a repentance, changing of their ways ? Seems so. How else could baptism for salvation be augmented into the Old Law when Jesus said not one thing would be altered ? And, was this salvation only to those that were fortunate enough to hear this new teaching ?

Price,

The scriptures leave a lot of questions about John the Baptist (JTB) unanswered. And we usually come at JTB asking how it impacts the Plan of Salvation. We see baptism solely in terms of its effect on our individual salvation. This is, of course, a hugely important question, but it’s not the only question or the only point of John’s baptism — as I understand it. Continue reading →

[Reposted from January 2015, with some updates.]

Judging from the comments, it would be helpful for me to lay out what I teach about baptism again. It’s not complicated, but because it’s unfamiliar to most within the Churches of Christ, many readers have had trouble wrapping their heads around it — which is surely my fault.

But I think recent discussions have shown me a better way of expressing myself. Okay — here it is —

* The traditional teaching of the Churches of Christ is largely correct. We correctly interpret Acts 2:38 and all the other familiar baptism proof texts to conclude that baptism is the moment when God forgives — normatively. (By “normatively,” I mean this is what God intends to be the normal case, but God allows for exceptions.) Therefore, I teach baptism of believers by immersion into forgiveness of sins — just as Peter preached on Pentecost. Continue reading →

c. Although Leon Morris found no evidence that “water” was used as a metaphor for birth in koine Greek, he found plenty of evidence that “water” is used as a metaphor for conception.

“Water” may be connected with procreation. This conception is quite foreign to us and we find it difficult at first to make sense of it. But Odeberg has gathered an impressive array of passages from rabbinic, Mandaean, and Hermetic sources to show that terms like “water,” “rain,” “dew,” and “drop” were often used of the male semen. If “water” has this meaning here, there are two possibilities. Being born “of water” may point to natural birth, which must then be followed by being born “of the Spirit,” that is spiritual regeneration. Or better, we may take “water” and “Spirit” closely together to give a meaning like “spiritual seed.” In this case being born “of water and the Spirit” will not differ greatly from being born “of the Spirit.”^[9]

The Greek word translated “born” means “conceived” when the father is in mind,[10] and the ESV translates the same word as “conceived” or the like in Mat 1:2-16 (“was the father of” or KJV: “begat”), Mat 1:20 (“is conceived”), Acts 7:8, 29, 13:33 (quoting Psa 2:7), 1 Cor 4:15, Phile 1:10, Heb 1:5 (Psa 2:7 again), 5:5 (again). 1 John 3:9 speaks of being “born again” because “God’s seed abides in him,” and so the reference is really to conception (“seed” is a metaphor for semen[11]). Continue reading →