A brother brought an interesting idea to light the other day in conversation:
One of the agendas of the gay community is to wrest the responsiblity for being gay from the individual and let Mother Nature take the fall. They are not so bold as to use the "Product of the Environment" argument since too much would be made of their perverse, unstructured and ungodly homelives. The patently secular homosexual will unashamedly admit that he/she is "gay by choice." However, the pat answer for those in contact with the religous world is the tried-and-true "I was born that way. I didn't have a choice." And nowadays there is much scientific "evidence" to support this statement.
But can a gay man be athiest? Surely. Can a gay man believe in evolution and hold to the natural occurance of homosexuality? Not so easily. Two problems arise for the modern homosexual scientist, the gay evolutionist.
One. If homosexuality is a natural trait that has existed for 1000's of years, it is difficult to imagine a trait such as homosexuality surviving among evolving creatures. It has been shown repeatedly that even minor deformities or (to put it nicely) irregularities in animals can lead to isolation and ultimately pre-mature death. If evolving man did not isolate the homosexual Neanderthal, certainly that trait would have receded since it is inferior. Inferior? Homosexuality has lacked the ability to transmit the Gay Gene to even one generation. It just can't propogate.
Two. If evolution is continuing, it seems that it is necessary to exterminate the inferior trait. Thus homosexuality falls prey to the Machine. Survival of the Fittest.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Wrestling in the Baptistry...sounds fun.
The Sneaky Question
There is an underhanded question in the Christian community. (This is my Kierkegaadian definition of "underhanded": the purpose of the question is not to be answered so as to remove ignorance, but to solicit an answer that the Questioner might easily categorize the Answerer based on the response given.) This multi-purposed, underhanded question is "Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?" This question has been proposed to me on more than one occasion; more than two. And based on my "Yes" or "No," the one asking would know whether I believed I was saved by works or saved by grace. No is for grace. Yes is for works.
Take from my experience. Don't answer the question. Just don't. If someone asks you this question, just look at them with a blank stare and then with a subtle misdirection, hide their forehead labels from them.
(I do think there are better questions, like: What must I do to be saved? Or the theological question: What is "salvation?" Or if one is inclined toward the doctrinal, he might ask: Is baptism necessary?)
A New Slant on Urgency
Growing up among scribes and lawyers, the "Baptism passages" had a place of honor. All of these scriptures were irrefutable, self-explanatory and useful for reproof. One of my favorite teachings was the "Do it now!" exposition. According to the Scripture, those with faith in Christ were baptized immediately. That very day. That very hour. That very moment. In keeping with the Necessary Inference law, every person of Faith, should engage in baptism that very hour! (While I have stripped my theology of much of its CoC vestige, I still teach that baptism is important enough to do quickly.)
The baptism passage that struck me recently was the eunuch story in Acts 8. The eunuch had to have been affluent seeing that he served in Queen Candace's court, he was being chauffeured in a chariot and he had a working copy of the scroll of Isaiah. Hollywood dresses all of ancient African nobility in embroidered, white linen and so I can hardly imagine a court official in lesser clothes. Yet here is a wealthy man, a court official, dressed in white, who goes down into a road-side pond for baptism. I hold out no hope that this was a cement-lined, chlorinated, 88-degree baptistry.
Why were people wanting this rite so urgently? There seems to be no "push" by the Preacher to "do it now." Yet, the people wanted to. This is seen in Acts 2 when 3000 were baptized in one day. Couldn't a few have waited until the next day? Or with the jailer in Acts 16. It was midnight when the earthquake hit, couldn't he have waited until the next day? Well, it was the next day... technically. But he and his entire family were baptized that very hour after hearing the gospel and believing.
There is much ado nowadays about baptism being a sign. Among evangelicals (with whom I fellowship), I hear that baptism is an "outward sign of an inward grace" or some variation thereof. Outward symbol. Recently one brother said an "outward expression of an inward condition."
I certainly have no problems with symbols. Take communion for instance. However, Christianity by-and-large is not "symbolic." We do have symbols, signs and certainly outward expressions. However, the signs and symbols are very few. Interestingly enough, baptism is not one of those signs.
In the New Testament, and in cases in the OT (Naaman), baptism is done for a reason. There is a purpose behind it. In other words, baptism is practical. In baptism, something happens. It is never referred to as a symbol or sign of something else. So while, "outward sign of an inward grace" sounds nice, it is just not biblical. Paul teaches that if you have the Spirit, or if you have salvation or if you have an inward grace, you will walk according to that Spirit, live in obedience and sin no more. These are the outward expressions. Confession is an outward expression. Praise is an outward expression. Yet they are not signs, per se. They are not symbolic of salvation.
Those who call baptism a sign (not all) often do so because biblical baptism has been emptied of its purpose and function. It is no longer a place (as the Catholics teach) where righteousness is imparted, where salvation is granted, where the Spirit comes. It is no longer necessary for salvation. It serves no function except to (among many other things) indicate a condition. It is done simply at the command and example of Christ and the apostles. Since we have to do it, it is said, it must have some reason. And so the reason must be...baptism is a sign of greater things.
But as I consider the "urgency model" I am convinced that the early church had a higher expectation in baptism.
Before I continue, I want to make three disclaimers (which are also open to discussion):
I do not believe baptism (the act or the water) has any inherent power to save or administer or produce anything. Baptism is not the source of our salvation; it has no saving power.
I do not believe that a person is made righteous in the waters of baptism. I believe that baptism is for the righteous not to be made righteous.
I do not believe that baptism is the mode of our salvation.
Whew! Glad to have that off my chest. Back to the higher expectation.
What exactly did the church expect to happen in baptism? I believe they expected the gift of the Holy Spirit. This gift is not a gift given by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit himself. Why did the 3000 cram impatiently into the baptismal pools and fonts? Why did the noble eunuch seek baptism in a street pool? Why did the jailer gather his family for baptism at 3 in the morning? For a sign? Not at all. It was for the Gift. The very Spirit of God.
Look at Acts 19. Paul comes across some believers teaching the baptism of John. Paul makes a connection between baptism and the Spirit and asks them, "Do you have the Spirit?" They respond, "No, we didn't even know there was a Spirit." (One of the key differences between the baptism of John and the baptism in Christ, is the Spirit.) Paul baptizes them. Indwelling.
God is not giving the Spirit because you are baptized. Rather, He gives the Spirit at the occasion of baptism. S.K. offered this word to me: occasion. It is the occasion when God give his Gift. Baptism is not the mode, or the God-arm-twisting rite. It is the time and place when God gives his Gift to those made righteous through His given faith and grace.
Someone may ask, "Is baptism a sign of our righteousness?" because Paul said "You who have been baptized have been clothed with Christ." He also said, "Or don't you know that those who have been baptized have been baptized into His death?" These two passages are probably not much different in meaning, though the picture is different. However, in these passages Paul is not saying that baptism is symbolic of our entry into death or a sign of Christ-clothing. Christ-clothes are real. His death is real. In Ephesians 1, Paul uses "in Christ." This is a real location. A real place. Likewise baptism is not a sign of all the behind-the-scenes realities, it is an occasion where some of these realities come into play.
My Stoning
A couple of weeks ago, I offered these thoughts to our fellowship and I faced more than a bit of opposition to this teaching. So, as a result I am still mulling over some things and I am not hard-and-fast sold on everything.
One man said, "You might say that baptism is a place where one receives the Spirit, but you cannot say its the only place." I can concede this.
Another sister said, "Baptism is not when you receive the Spirit, you receive Him by asking him into your heart." This statement received a lot of nodded heads. Hear. Hear.
There are two problems with this that I see (and then I will be done for today.):
One, people often use verses that Jesus said (as a description of God) to dictate church doctrine and practice. Like any biblical text, this is good...when done properly. We all agree that God will give the Spirit to those who ask of Him. Yes, it is true, that if you open the door, He will come in. However, as you look at church practice in the first century, what you see (hopefully) is how they understood the teachings of Christ and how they put them into practice. So when people in the NT ask about salvation, the apostolic teaching is not "open the door" and "ask" but believe and be baptized.
The second problem I have is the with this prevailing idea of works. If the Spirit comes into the heart of all those "ask in faith" and does not go into the heart of those who do not ask, does that not mean that the Indwelling is dependent on our asking? Let us not assume that asking and confessing is any more or less of a "work" than baptism. In an effort to avoid one work, many have fallen headlong for another.
The Sum of All Things
At this time, I am seeing everything this way:
We were sick and depraved and far from God. We were separated from God by God because of our sins. While we were yet sinners and enemies of God and the Cross, Christ died us. God, through Christ, the Spirit and the gospel of Christ, brought about in us faith and repentance. Apart from these things there would be no faith. Through the God-given faith we were counted as righteous through the sacrifice of Christ. As righteous people, we entered the waters of baptism. At that occasion, we were baptized into the death of Christ, clothed with Him and given His Spirit to dwell in Us. We have the Seal, the Comforter, the Eye-Opener, the Heart-Opener and the Gift-giver inside us. He will bring us home to glory, our inheritance and our salvation before the throne of God on That Day.
Calling All Brethren
You be iron.
There is an underhanded question in the Christian community. (This is my Kierkegaadian definition of "underhanded": the purpose of the question is not to be answered so as to remove ignorance, but to solicit an answer that the Questioner might easily categorize the Answerer based on the response given.) This multi-purposed, underhanded question is "Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?" This question has been proposed to me on more than one occasion; more than two. And based on my "Yes" or "No," the one asking would know whether I believed I was saved by works or saved by grace. No is for grace. Yes is for works.
Take from my experience. Don't answer the question. Just don't. If someone asks you this question, just look at them with a blank stare and then with a subtle misdirection, hide their forehead labels from them.
(I do think there are better questions, like: What must I do to be saved? Or the theological question: What is "salvation?" Or if one is inclined toward the doctrinal, he might ask: Is baptism necessary?)
A New Slant on Urgency
Growing up among scribes and lawyers, the "Baptism passages" had a place of honor. All of these scriptures were irrefutable, self-explanatory and useful for reproof. One of my favorite teachings was the "Do it now!" exposition. According to the Scripture, those with faith in Christ were baptized immediately. That very day. That very hour. That very moment. In keeping with the Necessary Inference law, every person of Faith, should engage in baptism that very hour! (While I have stripped my theology of much of its CoC vestige, I still teach that baptism is important enough to do quickly.)
The baptism passage that struck me recently was the eunuch story in Acts 8. The eunuch had to have been affluent seeing that he served in Queen Candace's court, he was being chauffeured in a chariot and he had a working copy of the scroll of Isaiah. Hollywood dresses all of ancient African nobility in embroidered, white linen and so I can hardly imagine a court official in lesser clothes. Yet here is a wealthy man, a court official, dressed in white, who goes down into a road-side pond for baptism. I hold out no hope that this was a cement-lined, chlorinated, 88-degree baptistry.
Why were people wanting this rite so urgently? There seems to be no "push" by the Preacher to "do it now." Yet, the people wanted to. This is seen in Acts 2 when 3000 were baptized in one day. Couldn't a few have waited until the next day? Or with the jailer in Acts 16. It was midnight when the earthquake hit, couldn't he have waited until the next day? Well, it was the next day... technically. But he and his entire family were baptized that very hour after hearing the gospel and believing.
There is much ado nowadays about baptism being a sign. Among evangelicals (with whom I fellowship), I hear that baptism is an "outward sign of an inward grace" or some variation thereof. Outward symbol. Recently one brother said an "outward expression of an inward condition."
I certainly have no problems with symbols. Take communion for instance. However, Christianity by-and-large is not "symbolic." We do have symbols, signs and certainly outward expressions. However, the signs and symbols are very few. Interestingly enough, baptism is not one of those signs.
In the New Testament, and in cases in the OT (Naaman), baptism is done for a reason. There is a purpose behind it. In other words, baptism is practical. In baptism, something happens. It is never referred to as a symbol or sign of something else. So while, "outward sign of an inward grace" sounds nice, it is just not biblical. Paul teaches that if you have the Spirit, or if you have salvation or if you have an inward grace, you will walk according to that Spirit, live in obedience and sin no more. These are the outward expressions. Confession is an outward expression. Praise is an outward expression. Yet they are not signs, per se. They are not symbolic of salvation.
Those who call baptism a sign (not all) often do so because biblical baptism has been emptied of its purpose and function. It is no longer a place (as the Catholics teach) where righteousness is imparted, where salvation is granted, where the Spirit comes. It is no longer necessary for salvation. It serves no function except to (among many other things) indicate a condition. It is done simply at the command and example of Christ and the apostles. Since we have to do it, it is said, it must have some reason. And so the reason must be...baptism is a sign of greater things.
But as I consider the "urgency model" I am convinced that the early church had a higher expectation in baptism.
Before I continue, I want to make three disclaimers (which are also open to discussion):
I do not believe baptism (the act or the water) has any inherent power to save or administer or produce anything. Baptism is not the source of our salvation; it has no saving power.
I do not believe that a person is made righteous in the waters of baptism. I believe that baptism is for the righteous not to be made righteous.
I do not believe that baptism is the mode of our salvation.
Whew! Glad to have that off my chest. Back to the higher expectation.
What exactly did the church expect to happen in baptism? I believe they expected the gift of the Holy Spirit. This gift is not a gift given by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit himself. Why did the 3000 cram impatiently into the baptismal pools and fonts? Why did the noble eunuch seek baptism in a street pool? Why did the jailer gather his family for baptism at 3 in the morning? For a sign? Not at all. It was for the Gift. The very Spirit of God.
Look at Acts 19. Paul comes across some believers teaching the baptism of John. Paul makes a connection between baptism and the Spirit and asks them, "Do you have the Spirit?" They respond, "No, we didn't even know there was a Spirit." (One of the key differences between the baptism of John and the baptism in Christ, is the Spirit.) Paul baptizes them. Indwelling.
God is not giving the Spirit because you are baptized. Rather, He gives the Spirit at the occasion of baptism. S.K. offered this word to me: occasion. It is the occasion when God give his Gift. Baptism is not the mode, or the God-arm-twisting rite. It is the time and place when God gives his Gift to those made righteous through His given faith and grace.
Someone may ask, "Is baptism a sign of our righteousness?" because Paul said "You who have been baptized have been clothed with Christ." He also said, "Or don't you know that those who have been baptized have been baptized into His death?" These two passages are probably not much different in meaning, though the picture is different. However, in these passages Paul is not saying that baptism is symbolic of our entry into death or a sign of Christ-clothing. Christ-clothes are real. His death is real. In Ephesians 1, Paul uses "in Christ." This is a real location. A real place. Likewise baptism is not a sign of all the behind-the-scenes realities, it is an occasion where some of these realities come into play.
My Stoning
A couple of weeks ago, I offered these thoughts to our fellowship and I faced more than a bit of opposition to this teaching. So, as a result I am still mulling over some things and I am not hard-and-fast sold on everything.
One man said, "You might say that baptism is a place where one receives the Spirit, but you cannot say its the only place." I can concede this.
Another sister said, "Baptism is not when you receive the Spirit, you receive Him by asking him into your heart." This statement received a lot of nodded heads. Hear. Hear.
There are two problems with this that I see (and then I will be done for today.):
One, people often use verses that Jesus said (as a description of God) to dictate church doctrine and practice. Like any biblical text, this is good...when done properly. We all agree that God will give the Spirit to those who ask of Him. Yes, it is true, that if you open the door, He will come in. However, as you look at church practice in the first century, what you see (hopefully) is how they understood the teachings of Christ and how they put them into practice. So when people in the NT ask about salvation, the apostolic teaching is not "open the door" and "ask" but believe and be baptized.
The second problem I have is the with this prevailing idea of works. If the Spirit comes into the heart of all those "ask in faith" and does not go into the heart of those who do not ask, does that not mean that the Indwelling is dependent on our asking? Let us not assume that asking and confessing is any more or less of a "work" than baptism. In an effort to avoid one work, many have fallen headlong for another.
The Sum of All Things
At this time, I am seeing everything this way:
We were sick and depraved and far from God. We were separated from God by God because of our sins. While we were yet sinners and enemies of God and the Cross, Christ died us. God, through Christ, the Spirit and the gospel of Christ, brought about in us faith and repentance. Apart from these things there would be no faith. Through the God-given faith we were counted as righteous through the sacrifice of Christ. As righteous people, we entered the waters of baptism. At that occasion, we were baptized into the death of Christ, clothed with Him and given His Spirit to dwell in Us. We have the Seal, the Comforter, the Eye-Opener, the Heart-Opener and the Gift-giver inside us. He will bring us home to glory, our inheritance and our salvation before the throne of God on That Day.
Calling All Brethren
You be iron.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
