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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
Hey JW,
i've got five minutes before i'm off my lunch break, but i'm struck with some deep ironies [testamonies, heh heh] i'd like to thank you for. Stayed for half my lunch break just now talking to a girl i work with about exactly this subject. It's been a long time since i've had any occassion to talk about this, and i'm very glad to get to twice in one night. She's "Christian" and her boyfriend's "Catholic" and they're in a funny li'l quandary.
i sat down to blog staight outta S.K.'s Postscript to the Fragments for discussion. Got the book right here beside me, then i read yer post. i'd love your input. i'll write more when i have a free hour tommorrow. Thank you for the challenge, brutha.
OK, i have a second and a thought; not so much an attempt at solving the question as an articulation (maybe) of where i'm at now. The importance (or relative lack thereof) of baptism has been a thorn in my side for exactly that reason. It's a work, full-stop. Can't work m' way to heaven. Can't coerce God into saving me. And as you say, asking is no less a work. But if anything we do (or think, feel, want, intend, incline our mildest hope toward, etc.) has any bearing whatsoever on the outcome of our story before God, then some sort of work[s] is called for. My problem with baptism is maybe a li'l backwards from the mainstream evangelical. They seem to respond to a "legalistic" CoC/ Catholic stance by saying that asking is just as good as(or else, qualitatively no different than)baptism. My problem is that baptism seems no less arbitrary than just asking. i can't help but think that if hopping on one leg and rolling in leaves was in vogue back in 30 A.D., we might've been commissioned to go, therefore, unto all nations bouncing and rolling...
'Course, i don't believe that God does things arbitrarily; it's just i can't see past my own small p.o.v. to the reason behind. So if asking is called for, then ask i must. And if baptism is the prescribed method of asking, then i swim.
There definitely was a sense of urgency for the eunich and those gathered at Pentecost, and that's important. It seems like they were given a method of pleasing God. Maybe that comes across as a trite way of saying it, or seems to downplay the act; but it shouldn't be and doesn't. For the person yearning to know that God is there and has a plan that includes us, anything that seems to have His seal of approval, that might allow me to draw closer to Him, that might show Him that i'm on His side would demand a sense of urgency. What puts the kibosh on the urgency is the consideration that i might be spending all that urgency, that passion on the requisite instead of on the One requiring.
Maybe the right attitude with which to be baptized would be one of thankfulness for the gift, but a thankfulness that maintains a sense of doubt in both the act and in one's own self-- such that, at once you're frantic for the proximity to God and gracious for the opportunity, yet are constantly aware of your indebtedness and of the infinitessimal weight of any demand or right you could claim to that proximity-- as well as the ridiculousness of any mode you could use to come to such a claim: repentance, baptism, hopping, rolling, eating Borscht, abstaining from the Borscht, asking, whatever. With the attitude that this has the power to save me, baptism (like asking) is arbitrary, useless. With the attitude that baptism is the gift, the gateway to the One who does save, then baptism seems vital and should be urgent.
Hey :)
I hope you don't mind me commenting on your post, I don't know if I'm considered Brethren, but I really liked what you said !
I think that if someone feels convicted within himself to be baptized (in water)go for it. If someone doesn't feel the "need" to be baptized (in water) then don't.
I don't think there's really a right or wrong answer to this question.
I do agree with you, I think that this is a question that if someone asks it's better not to answer either a yes or no !
All I know is my own experince and it's totally a spiritual experience, a walking and learning from the Lord (the spirit)daily. For me to be saved I didn't feel the need to be baptized with water.
My 7 yr. old daughter recently asked Jesus into her heart we sat and prayed with her and that was "it." I don't think she would've even understood what the meaning of being baptized is because we've taught her that she has a personal relationship with God from within her spirit.
I don't know, I think the baptism by water tends to be a more "showy" outward thing, for others to see. I can't judge someone who does though, only God knows their hearts.
Deborah
BTW - I was baptized in water when I was about 10 yr. old and it didn't mean anything to me.
Hi Jason,
I appreciate the piece on baptism because it is the occasion for receiving the gift of the Spirit. Think Acts 1-2. This promises the gift of the Spirit. Peter proclaims that Joel's prophecy is fulfilled that day because the gift of the Spirit is being poured out. Then comes the question, "What must we do?" Is this a question about salvation? Yes but not just in the sense of forgiveness. No, the context is the gift of the Spirit. So the question is better understood, "What must we do to receive the gift of the Spirit?" The answer, "Repent and be baptized." Why? for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gift of the Spirit. You see baptism is not just the occassion for receiving the gift of the Spirit but it is also the moment at which a person is justified/forgiven. I, therefore, disagree with your point 2 that says that baptism is for the righteous and not to be made righteous. Even though I agree with point 1 (baptism doesn't have any inherent power to save), I think it must teach unapologetically what Peter says, "that baptism now saves you -not the removal of dirt from the body but an appeal for a good conscience." I think point 3 needs to be clarified. I'm not clear on what you mean by baptism is not the mode of our salvation. All in all, I think your piece on this important NT doctrine is pretty good and essential to the doctrine of justification by grace through faith in Christ alone. Let me know what you think about my take on this.
Your brother and friend always
That is interesting, Mr. Katinga, and brings to light an observation if you care to hear it. It always seems to me like a kind of shabby legerdemain to wage a semantic war in order to "win" a dialectical argument; but time after demoralizingcrushingtediousirritating time semantics seems to be the actual issue being argued over-- so often, in fact, that there can't but seem to be a design behind it. The upshot of that is that, having come to the end of yet another semantic knot, one is awfully often left with a very simple, yet unanswerable (i.e., unverifiable) conditional equivocation: a question with only two possible, contrapoised answers, or two opposing questions, the affirmation of one necessitating the negation of the other.
In the event that any of that makes any sense at all, here's what i'm getting at:
You quoted some scripture (which i'll paraphrase liberally, and string together) saying that what we must do to be saved is repent and be baptized (from Acts), which baptism saves not by the washing away of dirt from the body, but as the appeal for a clean conscience (from Peter). i think the NIV says it's the "pledge" of a clean conscience. (i might be wasting my time here, because there's probably a correct interpretation of whatever the Greek word happens to be, but it makes a good example anyhow.) In this case there's an important difference between an appeal and a pledge: namely, if i'm baptized as an appeal, then i'm asking God for a clean conscience; if i'm pledging in baptism, then i'm declaring a clean conscience. The equivocation at the end is that i'm either baptized in order to declare my righteousness (that Christ has bought for me, importantly) or i'm baptized in order to beg for righteousness. i'm not sure there is a correct answer to that.
i am certainly inclined toward the appeal/ begging attitude-- i know i was baptized, myself, with that attitude. But i also see that baptism as "death, burial, resurrection," as metaphor is a loud and clear sort of declaration or pledge of what has already been done.
Hi Cody,
First, let me say that I read on a first grade level and so simpler words would go a long way to help me get at your argument. Be that as it may, I think I understand and so I'll take a stab at it. You're saying that baptism is either an "appeal" (begging for salvation) or a "pledge" (declaring that I am saved). So on the one hand, the person recognizes that he is lost and in sin and, thefore, seeks forgiveness. One the other hand, the person is saved prior to baptism and, therefore, simply declares that truth in the act of baptism. Baptism then simply becomes a symbol. Here's what I think Scripture clearly teaches about water baptism. First, it is the occasion where the sinner is born again/spiritually made alive (John 3:3-5). Second, it is the point at which a sinner is justified/forgiven/saved (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16). Third, it is the moment at which the sinner becomes a disciple of Christ (Matt.28:19). Fourth, it the moment when the sinner died to sin (Rom.6:1-6). Fifth, it is the moment when the sinner becomes clothed with Christ and is identified as a son of God (Gal.3:26-27). Sixth, in the act of baptism, Christ circumcises the believer - by the removal of the fleshly body(NET)/sinful nature(NIV), Col.2:11-13. Last, there is the language of appeal in 1 Pet.3:21. We've said enough about appeal/declaration at this point. The signficance of baptism as a "death, burial and resurrection" is has very little to do with a declaration in Rom.6 and more to actual dying to an 0ld/sinful/fleshly nature. Let me know what you think
Jason you're quiet out there. No thoughts my friend.
Love to all my friends
Hi Sean,
I think I will need more Scripture to believe that a person is made righteous in baptism. I think being "baptized into His death" (Romans 6) is the only thing that lends itself to that interpretation. However in the broader context of Romans, those who have faith in Christ are counted righteous at the point of belief. From this I leap to the conclusion that baptism is for those who have been counted righteous. While more is accomplished in the occasion of baptism than many give it credit for, I don't believe a justification before God is one of them.
I sincerely believe this post-apostolic theological problem. The first century church closely tied baptism to the salvation process, both in practice and in message. So much so, that as the believer considered his own testimony, the two (faith/righteous & baptism) would be virtually inextricably linked. Acts 22.
When I referred to "mode" (this may not be the best word), I simply meant "method." There is a general agreement that participation in baptism is essential but I want to contend that baptism is neither a method nor a mode in which to be saved or to save yourself. It is merely the occasion in which God acts in our interest. Is that more clear? Its not too much different than point 1, eh?
I do have a couple of questions about what you wrote. You said "Even though I agree with point 1 (baptism doesn't have any inherent power to save).." but then you suffixed that with "I think it must teach unapologetically what Peter says, "that baptism now saves you -not the removal of dirt from the body but an appeal for a good conscience." If we believe that baptism has no power to save, how can we teach unapologetically (that is without explanation) that "baptism now saves us"?
Also, you wrote that the question being asked by the recipients of Peter's sermon was essentially, "What must I do to receive the Holy Spirit?" Certainly this would do well to support my (our) hypothesis! However, in the context, the larger message is that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), born of David, prophecied by David and that the Jewish community murdered their own Messiah "at the hands of godless men." The Scripture says, "upon hearing this they were pricked in their hearts..." So those who heard were "broken-hearted." I think their question (if posed in modern vernacular) would be "Oh %&*!, what do we DO? God help us! We killed the Messiah!"
I really appreciate your insight into the Holy Spirit pouring/gift texts. Have you read Ferguson's "Holy Spirit" yet? (For those reading along, I recommend this book and John Stott's "Baptism and Fullness" for a good understanding both of the work of the Holy Spirit and understanding the "strange" passages on water baptism, the gifts of the Spirit and the "Baptism of the Spirit.")
Thanks for you thoughts, Sean. Its seems daily that I find myself daydreaming about when I will see you next.
Hey Cody,
The last paragraph that you penned is a beautiful thing. Seriously, I read it to Lisa last night. She said, "That's nice. No...[thinking, thinking]..its really nice." :) I really believe that you have the good parts of Kierkegaard in your noggin. His style of course, is one of my favorites. I want a Philosophy degree! But I wont attribute your talent to the Paper. We'll just pretend that God had something to do with it.
Howdy D&S,
You are welcome to comment away on anything you read here. Thanks for the nice words. However, as I read what you wrote, we probably only agree on one thing! :) But admittedly, that's how life is.
For many years after I became a believer, I stuggled with Communion. It was so ritualistic, mundane and overly sober. Err, boring. Even now, I find it difficult to let it represent all that it is supposed to. In the minds of many Christians, baptism has gone that route. However, both are extremely important...for different reasons...but important. I pray that the Spirit infuses meaning and value in everything that we do before the Lord so that we might find our lives full of purpose, direction and thanksgiving.
Hey! How did Ed War-Ton get on my blog? You can't proof-text using Mark 16:16! That's a spurious addition to the Sacred Text. 9/10 scholars agree.
:)
[Giggle, giggle]
Sometimes I think it's hard to comment on these posts especially when we're not really familiar with someones background (as I'm not with yours.)
I remember in a meeting a couple months ago a brother asked about a particular subject, then on another occasion (meeting) another subject got brought up.
He said, "well what if something's really important to someone" and another brother in the church responded "everyone's going to have their own things that are really important to them, but where then do we draw the line, who's right?" Another comment was "we're here for Christ, whatever beliefs or things you do or don't do keep it within your own house, when we get together we're here for the Lord. Not to "debate" the many, many, many issues that people have.
My point with this "story" is that when I said about whatever someone feels convicted or compelled to do, do it, that's along the lines of what I meant.
I know baptism is extremely important to some people, like my husbands Grandmother as an example.
She's Catholic and after all three of our children were born she thought they should be baptized Catholic so if they died they wouldn't go to hell. We didn't believe this at all because we didn't feel that because our babies were sprinkled with water they were now "saved" for life.
I do not come from the religious system at all. I grew up meeting in homes with Christ the head of the church, that's simply all I've ever known. For me personally I guess I don't get "wrapped up" in things that for me just don't matter. It's not that I don't care, I just think it takes us off our center which is supposed to be Christ. I think like it talks about in the Bible, (I'm paraphrasing) we're free if someone wants to do or not do something who are we to say otherwise. To me, if I were to say something like that to someone I would feel as though I were stepping into an area that I'm not supposed to be in. God knows our hearts, I think if someone really believes that they have to be baptized in water to be saved, or get the spirit of God for me to say otherwise could crush that person and they could then never get baptized and never be saved.
Deborah
Man, you theologians kill me. How about, "Just because Jesus said to do it"? Who cares if you get saved before, during, or after.
For some, like AJ, if your theology can't fit on a bumper sticker then its not worth having.
Jesus said it, I'm doing it.
For me, if it cant fit on a billboard using Arial Narrow, 6-pt font, then its not worth having. :)
Last night I decided to re-read the Baptism section of Cost of Discipleship. Apparently Bonhoeffer is approximately in line with Sean K., or vice versa.
Confirmation from a famous martyr (Lutheran, anti-Nazi-conspirator pastor- be that it may) - lends considerable weight to Sean's argument. Nonetheless, I remain firm. I'll still stick to my guns. :)
Hi Jason and friends,
I'm humbled by your love for me and pray often about our being together again.
I want to address several things that you have said. First, you question the fact that a person is justified at the point of baptism. I want to start by defining justification - to be declared righteous/forgiven/saved. I think it can be clearly demonstrated from Scripture that baptism is for forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:38); baptism is for salvation (Mk.16:16). Here's an interesting thought on justification by faith. In Rom.3:28 Paul declares that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law. In chapter 4 Paul makes the case that Abraham was justified by faith. To support the point that a person is justified by faith he quotes Ps.32:1-2 in which Paul equates justification to having your sins forgiven. So, I think it is right to say that if baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, it is also for justification. Stated another way, baptism is the point at which a sinner is justified/forgiven/saved. I believe what Paul says in Rom.3:28 and what Peter says in At.2:38 and what Jesus says in Mk.16:16. So how do we reconcile all these verses. I believe the answer lies in the nature of baptism. It is an act of faith/belief/obedience. A person is justified by faith (what kind of faith James would ask?). An active, obedient kind of faith. This is why baptism is the point at which a person is saved because it demonstrates a living, active, real faith.
Second, is the method/mode of baptism important. I contend that it is . If not, why it is illustrated and taught in the Scriptures (see Acts and 1 Pet.3:21). So the water in and of itself has no power to save but it is the ocassion in which God saves the sinner. I think we partially agree on this.
About 1 Pet.3:21, note that Peter doesn't say water now saves you because water has no inherent power to save. He says that baptism now saves you - again, because it is an act of faith. But Peter doesn't stop there. Faith is the means (and baptism is the point at which mental assent becomes active faith) but the resurrection which also involves the atoning death is the basis of salvation. So when I say i will unapologetically affirm that Peter says, this is what I mean. I will not say that baptism doesn't save (like so many). I would rather teach that baptism in and of itself does not have any power to save if it is not a response of faith. Water doesn't save, faith does in the sense that it is the means of salvation and baptism is an act of faith and the point at which a lost person becomes saved.
Moving on to Acts 2. I agree with what you say about Messiah. Peter does say that the Jews are responsible and that God's overall purpose was fulfilled in all this. He goes on to say that Jesus was raised from the dead and is at the right hand of God and has poured out the Spirit. This is the climax of the sermon. The exalted Lord and King has given the gift of the Spirit to those who believe in Him. Yes, the Jews were pricked in their heart by the news that they killed the Messiah. They needed and wanted to repent of that. Peter offers more than that, he promises the gift of the Spirit. Read the text again and see that little is said about forgiveness but the promise of the Spirit is developed throughout.
I'm happy to engage in more bible discussion.
Hi again,
I wanted to say one last thing on the subject of baptism. I'll state what baptism is not which in my thoughts help to clarify things and then give my thoughts on what I think it is. First, baptism is not a work of the law to use Paul's language (Rom.2:18). Read the text and you'll know what I mean. Baptism is, however, an act of saving/living/genuine faith (James 2:14-19 compared to Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1Pet.3:21). Second, it is not an outward sign of an inward grace. Baptism is sometimes compared to circumcision and referred to as a "sign" or "symbol" that salvation had already occured. I personally think that this is a misreading of Colossians 2:11-13. Baptism on the other hand is the "occasion" at which God circumcises teh believer (i.e. the putting away of the sinful nature), makes him alive and forgives his sin. This is what I believe Col.2:11-13 says. It is not merely a symbolic act - even though it does symbolize the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord. The symbolism gives way to the reality of the death of the old nature (Rom.6:1-7, especially v.6-7). The point Paul is making is: Just us Christ died, was buried and raised, so the believer actually died to sin in baptism and raised to live a holy life. This fits the overall context of shall we continue to willfully sin so that grace may abound?
Other key passages could be brought into the discussion like John 3 and Galatians 3 but enough has been said so far.
Drop me a line and let me know what you think
with love
Hey folks, I am behind on the comments, but not for lack of desire or interest. I have been providentially hindered. For sake of time I will try to keep my comments brief and, at the risk of hurting feelings [unintentionally, of course], to the point.
(1) I find it interesting that in apostolic theology redeemed sinners are always justified by faith, never justified by baptism.
(2) If we follow the rhythm of the Book of Romans I don't think we will feel as compelled to play theological gymnastics. Baptism links the justification of sections 3-5 with the sanctification of sections 6-8.
(3) I will climb out on a limb and shout that "salvation" is generally misunderstood--even in the comments on this blog. Read through the comments and you will see that most folks seem to confuse conversion with salvation, baptism with salvation, justification with salvation.
Have any of you brothers ever considered that salvation involves more than these things, that it extends back to the past and includes all these things, and it extends forward to future and includes other things, that it encompasses justification by faith and sanctification by faith-works?
[I am not smarting off or condescending here, I really want to know if you have thought about it.]
(4) SK cited James 2 in support of baptism an act of faith. Ironically, James was writing to baptized believers who had slipped into nominalism. He was not exhorting them to be baptized n water, but to feed the poor and clothe the naked. If we allow SK's use of the text to stand--something we cannot do--even the case he was making would be undermined. How? It would mean that James' readers became "brothers" by faith apart from baptism--something SK emphaticaly rejects. So baptism (like caring for the widows and orphans)is a work that believers they must perform to prove that they are true believers. Not good, and probably not something SK would promote.
[See the context of James 2 for more.]
(5) Acts 2 is a great text and story. I do not agree that the climax of the sermon is baptism. The climax of the sermon is Jesus exalted to be Lord and Christ. I believe "cut to the heart" points to regeneration (new birth) and that water-baptism is the washing of regeneration. Note how Peter is careful to distinguish the two in his first epistle.
How does a sinner convert and come to repent, believe, and obey the gospel? By the grace of the Spirit and gospel of God. How does baptism save? By the resurrection power of Jesus.
(6) Finally, back to Jason's original post. I find so much to appreciate here.
For lack of better language (perhaps understanding) I have used the sign/symbol imagery, but it does not satisfy. Though I do not believe water-baptism is causal for salvation, I do believe something profound happens at baptism. There is an exchange of my old life of sin for a new life of righteousness, of a cruel task-master for a merciful Lord, of a world-shaped pattern of life for a cross-shaped way of life.
Baptism dramatizes all this, but it more than a drama, more than "sign". True, it is the 'occasion' for all these things but it is not these things. That is why we [I] end up saying things like it symbolizes or represents the occasion of exchange.
Elsewhere, grasping for the right language, I have called baptism a 'transitional moment' among other things.
(7) I am open to discussing the baptism of children in the household of believers and would like to hear what you folks have learned about it.
Hey Marq,
Better a late-comer than a no-show. I'll take what I can get.
I'll just throw out a few points in response to your points (which, by the way, are not condescending.)
I think most people would agree that we are "never justified by baptism" however some believe (see above) that we are justified at the occasion of baptism. This is not my belief but I don't want there to be a presumption of "legalism" (justification by works) on our part simply because someone holds to the belief that it is in baptism that righteousness is imputed. Personally, I believe strongly that we are justified prior to the waters. This does seem to be consistent (in my opinion) with apostolic teaching. So baptism must be a "rite of passage" for those already made righteous through faith.
Your salvation thought is a good point. I've noticed that in virtually every "salvation" verse in the NT, the word is future. "You will be saved." Salvation and justification are inextricably linked but inherently different. I'm not convinced it is good scholarship to make them indisguishable or even the same. Paul says that if you are righteous, you will be saved. I find the Romans 6 passage particularly interesting. In this one baptism section, we see our old man crucified with-that is at the same time as Christ, us baptized into His death in hopes of newness and a future resurrection to inheritance. 3 different time periods, 3 different events. Salvation in Scripture is discussed in these 3 senses. At the cross, at faith and before the Judgement Seat. Many people, especially evangelicals, are afraid to discuss salvation in any sense other than the "now."
I'll let Sean comment on his misuse of James 2. If Luther had had his way, Sean wouldn't even have James 2 to abuse. :)
Can you eloborate on what you mean by "water baptism is the washing of regeneration?"
"How does a sinner convert and come to repent, believe, and obey the gospel? By the grace of the Spirit and gospel of God. How does baptism save? By the resurrection power of Jesus."
Well said.
I think we are by-and-large on the same page regarding the signs and symbols of baptism. You are correct, words often fail. However, I would like to further encourage the use of the word "occassion." I would be remiss if I did not give you the Webster's: "...an occurance or condition that brings something about, especially the immediate inciting circumstances as distinguished from the fundamental cause." I think this is about as good a word as we will find. Even the concept of "dramatize" is still anchored in the symbolic even though it seems action-oriented. Again, I think it is poor, even weak, theology that teaches that nothing happens in the water; that is, the occasion of baptism. This seems to be what is happening when the modern Christian assumes that baptism is merely a sign. On the flip side, my wife kindly pointed out to me that in the act you are being immersed, buried if you will. It does have a picture of burial, covering and death. So I can't be so hardline as to pretend that there is nothing symbolic in the act, right?
On children being baptized, I assume you are making a distinction between infants and children. Is this correct? When I look at the Scripture, I have a hard time saying that the "household" was a bunch of 3 year-olds. (Especially with Cornelius and the Philipian jailer. The were men in positions of considerable responsibility and thus probably not young whipper-snappers. Chances are their kids were not small children.) On the other hand, I am beginning to realize that faith comes through the Word and Spirit and that God seems to bring it early and fast in believing families. The other day, a brother told me that his little "Lucy" (4) "accepted Jesus into her heart." I was less than impressed. Especially as Lucy begin to act like a big baby at the normally reverent time. So getting a 4 year to invite Jesus into her heart is pretty easy pickens. Equally easy is convincing a 4 year-old to be baptized.
But I do see in my own daughter(and the children of other believers) a growing respect and genuine love of God and Jesus. I'm guessing there will come a time soon when she will want to be in Christ and to be baptized. I will do it.
I can't in good conscience endorse the "age of responsibility" thing. Conversely, while Barbie movies hold more importance than Scripture, then maybe that is not the time either.
Hi Marq, Jason and friends,
I wish to address some of Marq's comments in particular about my views. I appreciate his comments and Jason's response to some of them. I will go through some of his comments point by point.
First, am I teaching justification by baptism? On the contrary, I also believe in justification by faith. I, however, believe that justification happens at the point of baptism because the apostles and Jesus (if you accept Mk.16:16) viewed baptism as an act/work of faith and not a meritorious work.
Second, contextually Paul's use of baptism does link chapters 3-5 (justification) with 6-8 (sanctification). But how? The apostle looks to a past experience (baptism) as an incentive/motivation to walk in newness of life. I don't really like the wording but I'm stuck for now and so it will have to do. What's faulty in your thinking about my analysis of baptism in Rom.6?
Third, I couldn't agree more with you that salvation is both a past, present and future reality. Sometimes, the biblical writers speak of salvation as a past event (justification), a present reality (sanctification), and a future reality (glorification). It is not, therefore, wrong to say "he that believes and is baptized will be saved" and have in mind justification. You and I can pick up a concordance and find enough verses that speak of these realities (past, present and future).
Fourth, it is true that James is writing to believers. It is also true that he is writing to baptized believers who had slipped into nomalism. It is also true that he is not exhorting them to baptized in water but to feed the poor and clothe the naked. It is also true that James 2 is discussing saving faith. And even though James has a future salvation in mind, it still is true that the nature of saving faith doesn't change. So James' discussion of saving faith can equally apply to the unsaved and the believer. The answer to me seems quite clear ... an obedient, trusting faith. James goes on to to illustrate saving faith in the example of Abraham. The same obedient response that was credited to Abraham's account in Gen.15:6 was vindicated/expressed in Gen.22 when he was willing to offer up Isaac.
Fifth, I'm not teaching that the climax of Acts 2 is baptism. I've stated that Peter's sermon is an explanation of the Pentecost phenenoma (speaking in tongues). Peter states that it is the outpouring of the Spirit according to Joel 2. From this text Peter proclaims the good news about Jesus. He was crucified but raised by the Father and is now sitting at the right hand of God. Jesus, whom God made both Lord and Christ, poured out the Spirit as promised in Joel 2. My point to Jason, maybe not clearly stated, that the emphasis was on the promise of the Spirit. Yet, those in the restoration movement (churches of christ/christian churches) have emphasize forgiveness of sins. We usually beat to death baptism for the remission of sins from Acts 2 but Peter's emphasis on this occassion was on the gift of the Spirit.
Lastly, I would like for you and Jason to give some biblical proof for separating regeneration from baptism. You have stated this view but in my opinion have not given biblical proof for it. Please know that I believe that you must have biblical proof for your views otherwise you would not hold it. Do we read of unbaptized regenerate people in the narrative of Acts? Does the NT know of non-baptized believers?
Thank you for indulging me. If my thoughts seem disconnect, it is simply a deficiency in my language and writing skills and also because this is a knee-jerk reaction to you post.
Love to all the brothers
This is for SK in reply to his request for a biblical distinction between regeneration and water-baptism. It is not my intention tobe self-promoting, but here is a link to a piece I wrote bout that very issue. It is lengthy, so get some coffee and your Bible redy before you start.
http://renovatio.blogspot.com/2006/06/new-birth-and-baptism-expanded.html
JW, "baptism is the washing of regeneration" is rooted in the language of Titus 3. There Paul speaks of the laver of regeneration. I understand that to mean: baptism [like faith and repentance] is an effect of, or a mark of regeneration. By grace the Spirit works rebirth and renewal in our hearts.
Marq,
I have read your article a few times now. And if I was to summarize your article (part), I would say:
"A man comes to obedient faith and spiritual awakening through the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the regeneration. The regenerate man then needs to repent, confess the Lord and obey the gospel to receive salvation."
I think we can all agree that the Spirit is the Spiritual Awakener, the Heart Opener and the Power of the New Birth. We all agree that the Spirit is the origin of our aware, obedient faith given to us through the Spirit's own power, the Gospel preached and the preacher. It seems that there is common agreement that a move to obey through faith is dependent on the Spirit and not man's power or natural inclination.
I think there are two or three "muddy" points, that is, not clear.
One, is regeneration simply an awakening? Or is regeneration a complete renewal? (If I have over-simplified your presentation on regeneration....I'm sorry.)
Two, is anything happening at the occasion of water baptism?
Three, if anything is happening at the occasion of water baptism does this lend itself to the idea that the man is somehow incomplete prior to baptism?
Sean and Marq and other hangers-on,
So far this is what I am thinking, tell me where I am off. I hate "stepping" out the salvation plan, but I am trying to clear things up. Here is are some statements of belief for me. Assuming a basic understanding of the work of Christ on the cross and God's choosing of us from since before the beginning:
1. We were dead in our sins and our hearts were opposed to God, enemies of the Cross.
2. We received faith and awakening through the monergistic work of the Holy Spirit in conjuction with God's predestination, the message of the Gospel and the preaching body of Christ.
3. In faith, we renounced our sins and committed to righteous behavior (repentance), called on the name of the Lord (confession) and were baptized.
4. Salvation was assured for us (the believer) on the basis of the righteous of Christ and His death on the Cross through our (God-given) faith in Jesus.
5. When we believed, we are counted righteous and when we were baptized, we were immersed in the death of Christ, clothed with Christ, given a gift of the Holy Spirit indwelt, we saw our sins accounted for in blood, and our consciences cleaned.
6. Salvation was/is not accomplished on the basis of our repentance, confession, baptism and obedience.
7. On the other hand, salvation was/is not accomplished separate and apart from our repentance, confession, baptism and obedience.
8. Faith (and every subsequent act) find their origin in God alone. Therefore since my very belief was a monergistic work of the Spirit, I can say "all of grace."
9. Since I can say "all of grace" I can confindently assert that "baptism now saves me" (1 Peter 3) that I am saved by "works" (James 2).
10. Since I am saved by works and baptism (through the grace of God), I can say that I was justified when He counted me justified, I received the Spirit when He imparted the Spirit and that I was regenerate when all of this is complete in His eyes. In other words, a man of faith may be justified but incomplete, he may have been awakened by the Spirit but not indwelled by the Spirit.
11. A regenerate man is a complete man. Faithful, justified, translated, empowered, indwelled and saved.
12. A regenerate man has been baptized.
Sean, do I still need Scripture for all of this?
What do you think, guys?
Hey John and Cody,
You guys haven't thrown any money into the pot in awhile. Any of this stuff ring true?
Also John,
In my comment above I listed two books. One is "Holy Spirit" by Sinclair Ferguson - see link above and the other is "Baptism and Fullness" by John Stott - see link above.
The Stott book is the easiest to read but I would recommend it first anyway. It answers many of the questions surrounding the so-called "strange" passages in Acts, Cornelius and the Samaritans. Also he explains the necessity and practice of laying on of hands. The other book is a little more technical but still interesting. He does a much more thorough job of explaining and refuting the "continuationist" argument. Both give a lot of honor to the Spirit and in no way belittle His work in the modern church (as is common in the CofC.)
Hi Everyone,
This is a response to Jason's last post. If it sounds as if I'm repeating myself, it is only because I've said all that I know on the subject. Be that as it may, I'll throw in my penny's worth.
Let me begin by looking at the definition of regeneration. Is Jason correctly stating your view on regeneration, Marq? Here's what he wrote in summary, "it is coming to obedient faith and spiritual awakening through the Spirit." I have to disagree that definition based on my reading of John 3. I think Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology) accurately defines regeneration as an act in which God by the Spirit imparts spiritual life to the sinner. I might disagree with Grudem on how that happens but I basically agree with how he defines regeneration/new birth.
Now let me point out two concerns. Concern #1 - The view that states that man is incapable of believing the gospel apart from regeneration (defined as coming to an obedient faith and spiritual awakening). John 3 sheds some light on this idea. In his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus states that believing in him is a condition for receiving eternal life (v.14-15). And I would further argue that it is a condition for receiving the new birth (v.3-5). Look at what Jesus says in v.7, "You must be born again." Does that not sound like a command. And if it is a command, then Jesus assumes that man is capable of obeying it. This does not align with the view that says faith is a consequence/gift/result of regeneration. In fact, if I am interpreting Jesus' words correctly, regeneration is conditioned upon believing in him.
Concern #2 When we believed, we are counted righteous and when we were baptized, we were immersed in the death of Christ, clothed with Christ, given a gift of the Holy Spirit indwelt, we saw our sins accounted for in blood, and our consciences cleaned (taken from Jason's post). Here's what I believe. The NT apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers do not separate faith and baptism because baptism is an act (I like response better) of faith. So much so that baptism is linked with the very two things that you separated, i.e. justification and regeneration (according to Grudem's definition). When a person believes the gospel message and is baptized, he is justified (accepted by God) and regenerated (made a new creation, 2Cor.5:17). No type of mental assent saves anyone. Look at what James says, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder." The point is simple isn't it? No mental acceptance of truth saves anyone. Faith without actions is ... could it be, the same as "demon faith."
Well, my 15 minute break is up. Much more needs to be said. If I'm wrong on any of this, with a Bible and a spirit of gentleness correct me in love.
Yours in Jesus
Working from the end of you post to the beginning I would like make a few observations.
First of all the demons in James chapter two cannot be classified as offering any sort of credible faith. James uses plain language to describe that they believe in God (even the correct God) but their belief is insufficient because (a) it is not enough to believe in God we must rust him (b) true faith leads to, or is fleshed out by works. It should be noted that although faith and works work together, they are not the same thing. Even James is willing to create some room between the two leading us to believe that they are not inextricably linked (e.g. Abraham’s saving work came several decades after his saving faith was first generated.) In the end James agrees with Paul’s argument that Abraham was saved by I (and at the point of) faith (see Romans 4). But James presses the matter further adding that although faith saves true faith fleshes itself out. Actually James uses the example of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac on the mountain to show that faith is a process that grows and perfects over a long period of time. This as you know has been James’ theme since 1.2-4.
Secondly. Whether one takes baptism to be the new covenant form of circumcision or not, it seems odd to me that the New covenant would hinge more on signs and symbols (as means to acquire salvation) than the Old. Again, referencing Paul’s argument concerning Abraham’s salvation he is clear that circumcision (necessary as it was) did not save him, faith (unproven at that point) did. Actually, Paul uses this example to show that one system is not better than the other – faith has always saved!
We all know that the whole thing would have been a moot point if Abraham had of disregarded circumcision. But there really is no arguing when Abraham was saved… Paul clears that up. James’ point is not to muddy the waters (baptism or any other) by saying that Abraham saved by works of law or faith… but that faith is completed (fleshed out, shown true, evidenced by) the works that follow.
I am not sure what conclusions we should draw based on these arguments or what we should do when someone walks down the proverbial aisle (I’m not sure they had those back them – or invitations songs either.)
Brandon
I think everything's summed up in these verses.
Acts 19:1-6 (NIV)
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. Paul said, " John's baptism was a baptism of repentance.
He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
This says quite plainly, John's baptism was one of repentance, but we are to believe in the one that came after John, Jesus and be baptized into the Holy Spirit (as they then were.)
John's baptism (in water) Prepared the way for Jesus coming, until we could receive Him (Holy Spirit) within us.
Brandon! Halelujah! Long time, no hear.
I knew as soon as someone started in on James, you'd pop up. It was only a matter of time. :)
I've not thrown in my two mites on James yet, so here is what I am thinking.
James' motive appears to be to correct the abuse of the apostolic teaching on grace and our faith-based justification. It had already been widely debated (and settled) that a person is saved by faith, not by obedience to the law (or works), but through a sincere trust in God and His grace which was bestowed in Christ. In the first century church, there was a common understanding that justification is imputed through faith and not earned. However, this theology has an element of "lawlessness" to it and is easily distorted by the disobedient. Thus James' intention is to show that obedience has a place in faith and that faith is obedient. Likewise Paul, shortly after demonstrating the seemingly argumentative early-Abrahamic justification still had to reason, "Shall we sin more that grace may abound? By no means."
I also agree that there is a differentiation between faith and works, though no apparent disassociation. So while faith that does not obey is not faith, it does not stand that faith is a work or series of works or that it must be expressed in a work to be real faith and thus receive justification. In other words, God does not have to see me first, repent, second, confess and third be baptized to see the genuine nature of my faith and so impute righteousness. So, for my part, I hold to the view that justification can be received apart from a work, whether meritorious or otherwise. I think this is the apparent teaching of Romans 4. Paul's reference to the Genesis 15 passage further supports that idea in that all that can be inferred from that passage is that Abraham simply believed. His next two recorded moves were to ask "But how will I know?" and to get it on with Hagar. :)
But BJG has already said all of this.
Anyway, that is my Scripture for my understanding of a pre-baptism justification.
In support of Sean's idea on justification being past, present and future - (this is a stick in the spokes for my justification theology.) Romans 5:
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."
This is obviously written to baptized believers as is evidenced in Romans 6 ("...all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus..."). However, Paul so closely aligns salvation and justification, if you were to take this verse on its own (or with Romans 4), you would conclude that a person is saved when they are justified. Indeed this is the common evangelical interpretation of this passage. Actually, he says, "will be saved." But the same idea. Nonetheless, we all believe that certain, important aspects are still missing in the unbaptized believer and that apart from those things he/she will not be saved. Paul calls these believers justified and in line for salvation.
So then, are we to conclude that salvation, justification, sanctification (and any other "ation") are at once punctilliar and on-going; past, present and future? In my mind this makes grace all the more needed and prevalent and the occasion of baptism that much more indispensable.
This is another thought altogether. More past, present and future stuff.
I find it interesting that Christ died for us while we were still sinners. And that we were set apart from our births. And that we were chosen before the foundations of the world were laid. I believe we were justified at faith. And redeemed in history. I know that I am saved from this perverse generation. And that we will be saved before the Judgment Seat of God. We were clothed with Christ in baptism. And baptized into His historical death. We will be resurrected in the future. But we are presently indwelled by His Spirit. Sealed. According to the Scripture, He foreknew us. He predestined us. He called us. He justified us. He will glorify us.
OK, I'm done. Sorry for rambling.
Brandon and Marq,
In your estimation, what do you see happening at the occasion of baptism?
Love,
j
Hi brothers,
Thank you for putting up with my ramblings. You must think to yourselves how many times can he restate the same things? I find this kind of dialogue very helpful because it helps clarify my thinking on these important biblical truths. I appreciate all the comments and the opportunity to be engaged in such a helpful discussion.
Let me take this opportunity to respond to Brandon's post. Is this BJ?
First, you're correct in saying that the demons cannot be classified as offering any sort of credible faith. That wasn't my point at all. I was simply pointing out that James teaches us that an inactive faith (believe-only-kind) is a non-saving faith. This he illustrates with an example of the demons.
Second, I agree with the statement that James 2 teaches that saving faith is fleshed out by works. I think you're wrong in saying that Abraham was saved by a believe-only-type-of-faith which later developed into an active-type-of-faith. Just a cursory reading of the Abraham narrative speaks of the contrary. God calls Abraham to do something in Gen.12 - go the land I will show you. This command of our gracious God is backed up by wonderful promises. What does Abraham do? He obeys God. And what does the Hebrews writer say about this? By FAITH Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was later to receive as an inheritance (Heb.11:8). In the same chapter, see examples of true faith ... Abel (v.4), Noah (v.7) and several others. Several things happen between chapters 12 and 15 but this is where Moses makes the comment that Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. So at what point was Abraham justified? I would say when he responded in/by faith to God's call. My point - Abraham from Gen.12 demonstrated an active-type-of-faith and not a believe-only-type-of-faith.
Third, to compare baptism to circumcision in the Old Testament, in my view, is to say more than the Scripture. Circumcision was merely a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Gen.17:11). Circumcision did not and could not save - it was only an outward sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham. Nowhere in the NT is baptism compared to circumcision to my knowledge. I could be wrong. The only reference that connects circumcision to baptism is Col.2:11-13. And here I believe Paul teaches that baptism is the occasion at which God circumcises the believer, i.e. regenerates his spirit. Circumcision was merely a sign, but the "baptism language" of the NT goes beyond that of sign/symbol. God actually does something to/in the believer as he responds by faith to the command of God.
Let me know what you think
Hi Sean,
I forgot to address some of "Concern #1" on your post above.
I believe John 3's "be born of the Spirit" is not a command, it is a requirement. If it had been an easily completed task, undoubtedly Nico would have run right out and done it. Instead, he stood there incredulously.
This may have no bearing whatsoever on this part of our discussion but I like this quote from John Owen (from Monergism.com):
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect."
Hi Jason,
The "requirement" language works well if you are teaching that man is incapable of repenting/believing with the Spirit's regeneration. But the language looks to me like a command to be obeyed. This would be a very simple exercise for both of us to do. Look up the construction of the sentence and move on from there.
Thank you again for this forum. Everytime I read it, I'm reminded to pray for the work of the Lord that he is doing through you, Lisa and your tribe.
Love to all
JW: yes, it is my understanding that regeneration [lit. new birth] is the awakening work of the Spirit that enables them to believe, confess, et al. [one reason so many professing christians lack the marks of new birth is because they were never born anew.] not sure if i would characterize it as total renewal since the work of sanctification is unfinished business.
SK: unless you are prepared to make the case for baptismal regeneration, i encourage you to rethink your understanding of John 3. was Jesus commanding Nicodemus to be water-baptised? or was Jesus emphasizing Nicodemus' total inability to bring himself into the kingdom by his own performance? by declaring that no one can experience or enter the kingdom by flesh power, Jesus was then able to highlight the fact that what is impossible for man is possible for God. no one can cause himself to be born again, but the Spirit of God can cause new birth. i know you know that in your heart.
Nicodmus recognized the impossibility of performing a new birth. there is a difference between "you must be born again" (passive) and "rebirth yourself" (active).
ironically, even in the baptism texts, baptism is a passive act. spiritually, by one Spirit we were baptized into one body. physically, someones else baptized us in water.
BJ: i agree with your comments on Abraham' life. SK is right to point out that by faith Abraham went to an unknown land, but wrong to say that he was declared righteous in Gen. 12.--epecially when the text says he was declared righteous when he believed the promises in Gen. 15. so i read the story like you do. Abe was justified by faith alone (Gen.15/Rom.4) and sanctified by works of faith (Gen.22/James 2). in other words, over the course of his life Abe justified his faith claims. [note: paul was arguing against legalism, james was arguing against nominalism.]
SK, BJ, JW: it's interesting to note that while Abe was declared righteous by faith (Gen.15), he was required to be circumcised and to circumcise all his male descendants (Gen.17). read the text again. i realize it was a covenantal requirement: either cut off the foreskin, or else be cut off from the covenant. [i teach something similar about baptism. just as circumcision was indispensible for Abraham, so baptism is indispensible for us.]
part of the reason i think baptism is a bridege between justification and sanctification is because that is how circumcision functioned in Abraham's life.
by the way, i think colossians 2 needs more consideration. as i understand it, circumcision of the heart (aka, regeneration) is by the Spirit; water-baptism follows hard on its heels. to call OT circumcision or NT baptism a "mere" token or mere sign is to do violence to the sign/token language. the signs and tokens established by God are never just mere, superficial, empty things. my wedding ring is made of inexpensive white gold, but it is a sign of something more precious, valuable, and real. water, bread, and wine are signs of the new covenant that point to larger and deeper realities than themselves. have you ever noticed that the Lord's supper is more like a sip and nibble? were we to consume larger portions of bread and wine the sacrament would still fall short of the eternal wedding feast.
free thought: since Abe was an idolater when God called him out of Ur, I conclude that he experienced regeneration prior to leaving Ur. how else can explain his radical conversion from idols to the true and living God.
all: i maintain that regeneration precedes justification and sanctification. and while we're at it, i maintain that election and predestination precede regeneration.
[note: it is imperative that we maintain the distinction between the history and theology of the things we are discussing. CofC folk tend to emphasize the historical and practical things and to marginalize the theological meaning of the history. we can see this clearly in the CofC doctrine of baptism. all the baptisms of Acts are marched out and displayed as proof that baptism is necessary for salvation. "see, i told you!" but the CofC has typically done a very poor job of developing the apostolic theology of baptism. it is hard to overcome blindness, and we all have our blind spots. like Jesus warned, some are afraid to come out of darkness into the light.]
JW: you wanna know what i think happens at baptism? i will get back to you ASAP. out of time for now.
oh yeah, one more thing.
theologically speaking, election is not salvation, regeneration is not salvation, justification is not salvation, sanctification is not salvation-- but all are vital parts of God's work of salvation.
practically speaking,
belief is not salvation,
confession is not salvation,
baptism is not salvation,
but all are vital parts of the human response to God's saving work.
we should say that salvation--as a past, present, future reality-- undergirds all these things and that each one is an element/aspect of salvation. none of them standing alone constitutes salvation.
Hi Marq,
You asked me an either/or question in your last post. I tend to think that the answer to both your questions (Was Jesus commanding Nicodemus to be water baptized? or was Jesus emphasizing Nicodemus' total inability to bring himself into the kingdom by his own performance?) is an affirmative "Yes." I disagree with your interpretation that states that being born of water looks back to Ez.36:25. Nicodemus would have been familiar with water baptism because both John the Baptist and Jesus practiced it (Jn.3:22). When Nicodemus asked, how can a person be born when he is old? Jesus connected water baptism (in my view) with the work that the Spirit does. You are right in saying that man is total incapable of bringing himself into the kingdom by his own performance. This is why he has to submit to Jesus' command (dei = it is necessary) to be born again . Again, I believe that water baptism is the occassion at which the Spirit regenerates the sinner. And by regeneration, I mean gives him spiritual/new life/new birth.
Thank you for your thoughts on these things.
SK: thanks for the quick reply.
I anticipated such a response from you (as all your previous comments pointed to it), so at least you are consistent within your own theological framework, but i do not see how I could disagree with you any less than I do. :-)
I find it very hard to believe that you would simply toss out the Ezekiel text, and by default other prophetic texts. surely not for the sake of your own interpretation?! Like Nicodemus I am astonished, especially considering the fact that Jesus appealed to Nicodemus' knowledge of Scripture as the teacher of Israel and not to his knowledge of current events (e.g., the practice of baptisms performed by John the Baptist and by Jesus the Christ. not to mention the baptism of Jewish proselytes.) Nicodemus should have known that the Messiah would come in the power of the Spirit and realize the promises of God for Israel.
When you say "man is total incapable of bringing himself into the kingdom by his own performance" I wonder if you actually mean it. It seems to me that you really mean man is 'partially capable'. I say that because you commented, the totally incapable man "has to submit to Jesus' command (dei = it is necessary) to be born again.". So is new birth is based on our ability (err, performance) to submit to the command of Christ? If so, what causes/enables unregenerate men to submit all of sudden to God's word?
In a nutshell, for you new birth is the result of repentance, faith, and baptism (correct me if I am wrong). For me and others posting here, new birth is the catalyst and those other things are the effects/results of new birth.
I cannot see how your view is anything other than an adaptation of baptismal and/or decisional regeneration since you believe (intentionally or not) that God’s actions and decisions are based on the actions and decisions of sinful man, that the Spirit causes sinful man to be born anew when/after that sinful man first obeys the gospel.
As you know, I totally reject the notion of synergistic rebirth. But I gladly receive you as a brother despite our differences.
-------------
Everyone: playing devil's advocate, I took the liberty of reconstructing the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus by replacing gestational language of the text with the baptismal language of various faith-traditions. I’ll leave it to others to decide if it makes any sense biblically.
[[Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is [re-baptized] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be [baptized] when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be [baptized]?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is [baptized] of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is [baptized] of the flesh is flesh, and that which is [baptized] of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be [re-baptized].’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is [baptized] of the Spirit.”]]
Finally, here’s a link to a few things that make you go “Hmmm”.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp
--------------
JW: what occurs at baptism?
+ since baptism is (among other things) a purification rite, it is right and good to say that we are cleansed, our sins are washed away, and made ceremonially clean to render service before the face of God in the temple. [ephesians 5:25; hebrews 10:22]
+ at baptism we also receive a new name as we are legally/formally adopted into the family of God. [matthew 28:18-20]
+ at baptism we receive the gift of the Spirit, which I understand to mean more than simple indwelling. we receive the realized promise and dynamic power that comes with his abiding presence. [acts 2:36-39 and elsewhere]
+ at baptism we embark on the lifelong process of renewal that was initiated by the Spirit at rebirth. [Titus 3:4-8]
there is probably more if i stop and think about it, but that is a good start.
is baptism an essential component of salvation? yes, i believe it is. Hebrews 10 alone is enough to convince me that no unbaptized worshipper may enter the Most Holy Place.
This has definitely been the most beneficial discussion on baptism that I have ever had, so I must say thank you. It probably seems belabored and lengthy to some (as compared to normal conversation) but it is good to read and re-read and by-and-large the thoughts are well-planned and expressed and beneficial to me.
I think I am "somewhere" between JMT and SK. Neither being overly extreme, of course. But as BJG used to say, "Maybe I should just suck my thumb and slip away into my quiet place." :)
---------------------
For your reference, here is another concise explanation of the John 3 passage from MacArthur. Similar to what Marq said.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-14-6.htm
---------------------
Another observation on the "water" language of the text
Assuming that Jesus and Nicodemus both mentally envisioned the Ezekial promise, then I would think this promise would also be reflected in later apostolic teaching. So beginning with John 3:3,5 "...no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again…I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit..." we have a reference to water and larger emphasis on the work of the Spirit. However, I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that the water is not a reference to water baptism. So (perhaps) in essence Ezekial, and subsequently Jesus, could have been envisioning a washing of rebirth. This reference/teaching would later be reflected in Paul's letter to Titus (3:5)" ...He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."
Also I noticed how the Ezekiel 36:25-26 and Hebrews 10:22 have "shades" of the infamous 1 Peter 3:21.
Ezekiel 36:25-26 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.
Compare to:
1 Peter 3:18-21 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, ... and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
-------------------------------------
Conciliation
No one has a theological leg to stand on, if they contend that any "dead" man can bring himself to life. Other than Jesus, of course. So we must teach that regeneration is a Spirit initiated and fulfilled act. Just as impossible as it is for a grown man to be born again, so it is impossible to be born of the Spirit apart from the Spirit. A dead man cannot have faith, obedience, repentance or saving baptism apart from the work of the Spirit.
The hard part for the legalist is that God has asked us to obey impossible rules and made impossible requirements for entry into the kingdom. We must let that set in. We cannot fulfill the requirements of God. So whether he has commanded us to be born of the water and Spirit or simply made a statement of requirement - this is irrelevant! All are impossible apart from the work of the Lord, the circumcision of hearts, the opening of eyes and the strengthening of arms to obey!
-------------------------------------
My Irenic Tone
I cannot accept the language of "decisional regeneration" or "baptismal generation" because no one in this discussion has stated this as a possibility. Who here believes that they were regenerated by the water? Or by their decision? Raise your hands! Anyone? Anyone? - I am not being sarcastic...maybe a little...but I am not trying to be mean. :)
-----------------------------------
Let's consider this language and when it happens and by Whom it happens:
Sprinkled clean, pure, cleansed, washed, washed away
Reborn, rebirth, born again, born
justified, made righteous, in his death (blood), clothed with Christ
-------------------------------
Time for me to get back to work!
God bless.
Dear brothers,
This is my final post on the subject of baptism. Yes, I do believe in baptismal regeneration. Yes, I do believe that God/Jesus actually does something when I in faith respond to the word of God in repentance and baptism. In fact, the very things that Marq pointed out are the some of the very things that I believe actually happens. I also believe that sometimes God will receive the desire (for lack of a better word) for the deed. Example, the thief on the cross. A man turning to Christ on his death bed. Baptism is the normative faith response in Scripture but it is not always the only response in some situations. God cannot be locked into a theological box.
One final word to Marq. I think you're incorrect in representing what I said. I said that Jesus was commanding Nicodemus to be baptized and at the same time emphasizing Nicodemus' total inability to bring himself into the kingdom by his own performance. You're still thinking of baptism as a meritorious work. It is not. It is a faith response or a work of faith. If it is a faith response then it is totally consistent for me to say that Jesus was (and I believe he is) pointing out to Nicodemus that he is totally incapable of entering the kingdom by his good works/meritorious work. I hope I've cleared up this matter.
About the Ez.36 passage, I think what is pictured there definitely happens in baptismal regeneration. Your interpretation of the water in my opinion is not correct. Be that as it may, I just wanted to make myself clear on this as well. Thank you again for your response.
As one who is growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus, peace to all God's people
Well, I said "No one believes in baptismal regeneration" but apparently I was mistaken.
:)
appendix:
in my finite understanding of things, regeneration is internal [our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience] and baptism is external [our bodies washed with pure water].
not to pour gas on a fire, but i do not understand how i misrepresented SK's position, especially since he acknowledged what i suspected all along: namely, that he believes in baptismal regenration. i will gladly eat any crow served my if it can be shown that i was unfair to SK.
finally, this conversation has helped me come clean (no pun intended) on my doctrine and practice of baptism. as i tell folks, in reality i have a very high view of baptism. but long before we reach the water's edge i believe there are many other things to teach and preach. the cross is priority one, for i was not sent to baptize but to preach Christ crucified.
i know all of you believe the same.
Hello again,
I feel compelled to respond to something that Jason said. He asked the question if anyone believes that he/she is regenerated by the water. Is this what you mean by baptismal regeneration? What I mean by baptismal regeneration is something totally different. By baptismal regeneration, I mean, that baptism is the occassion at which the Holy Spirit quickens the spiritual dead and makes them alive to God (again my definition of regeneration). So the sole source of regeneration is the Spirit. The occasion of regeneration is water baptism. The means of regeneration is faith and baptism is the normative faith response. That is why I see it as the occasion when the Spirit comes and indwells the believer and regenerates his spiritually dead self.
One question for Marq, Do you believe that baptism is a faith response or a work (similar to Paul's "works of the law")? This is what I was getting at.
Here's what you said:
When you say "man is total incapable of bringing himself into the kingdom by his own performance" I wonder if you actually mean it. It seems to me that you really mean man is 'partially capable'. I say that because you commented, the totally incapable man "has to submit to Jesus' command (dei = it is necessary) to be born again.". So is new birth is based on our ability (err, performance) to submit to the command of Christ? If so, what causes/enables unregenerate men to submit all of sudden to God's word?
Here's my response:
One final word to Marq. I think you're incorrect in representing what I said. I said that Jesus was commanding Nicodemus to be baptized and at the same time emphasizing Nicodemus' total inability to bring himself into the kingdom by his own performance. You're still thinking of baptism as a meritorious work. It is not. It is a faith response or a work of faith. If it is a faith response then it is totally consistent for me to say that Jesus was (and I believe he is) pointing out to Nicodemus that he is totally incapable of entering the kingdom by his good works/meritorious work. I hope I've cleared up this matter.
The emphasis to me is on "by his own works" and you place the emphasis on "incapable." Am I correct here? If you were just to say that man is incapable of believing on Jesus without regeneration, then I would have to disagree. You, however, stated something totally different.
Perhaps this is all semantics but I think we all know that it is more than that.
Let's continue to preach Jesus Christ, descendant of David, raised from the dead, this is Paul's gospel that he told Timothy is suffering for.
Love to all.
I love the picture of partially dead sinners hobbling to the baptistery to get saved. The scene looks more like a “Thriller” video than scripture.
(check out the Indian version here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whBYmI25_Ks)
By the way Sean, Soren still refers to you as the dark guy who doesn’t know what dead means (ha!).
It is always amazing to me how good minded Christ following ministers of the gospel could see the same texts so differently. This post is an excellent example why we should be patient with the folks who sit at our feet – heck, we cannot even come to a basic agreement about a pool of water!
I have to add that we had better be saved by faith for if agreement on doctrine is necessary we are all doomed. Or if you take the old CoC position, everybody else is doomed but us (I’m being nice saying that I or we are them). BTW, my bases are covered. I was baptised (for the right reasons (according to some people) before I got mixed up. I hope that counts for something, Maybe I will get half credit... Or, add that to the my other works (of faith or otherwise - I will take what I can get.) and I might even get a B- (not likely.)
My last sarcastic statement just reminded me of something serious. Are there any credible works other than works of faith. So obedeying the law (circumcision, commandments, sacrifices) meant nothing unless it was by faith. Am I right? My point is this ( and I think this was Pauls in Romans 4) what saved them then is what saves us now, namely Faith.
Brandon
SK (in case you log on again)--actually, i do believe sinful man is incapable of believing and obeying the gospel of Christ apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit.
apart from grace all men are dead in trespasses and sins, enslaved to a spirit of disobedience, hostile to God, and by nature are objects of wrath. [ephesians 2:1-3; 4:17-19]
by grace through faith many sinners are saved, are resurrected by God in Christ, enjoy free access to God, are reconciled to God, recreated by God, and by love and grace are objects of mercy. [ephesians 2:4-10]
+ i do consider baptism a faith-response to the gospel.
+ i do not believe baptism precedes regeneration.
-------------------
for me, the salvational continuum (order of salvation)looks like this:
ETERNITY
election->
predestination->
HISTORY
redemption-> regeneration-> justification-> [crucifixion]-> sanctification->
ETERNITY
glorification-|
notice the flow from eternity to history to eternity.
in a nutshell, i believe everything from election to regeneration to justification is monergistic, and that everything from crucifixion (baptism) to sanctification is synergistic. of course, resurrection and glorification are monergistic.
* "crucifixion" -- for me water-baptism (faith-response not law-work!) is located between justification and sanctification.
------------------
again, the main point of departure between sean and i is this: he believes that baptism is the "occasion" of regeneration and thus holds to baptismal regeneration. however he wishes to define it, for him regeneration is a synergistic effort between God and man that occurs at/through baptism.
i believe regeneration is a monergistic effort. i believe that baptism is the result/effect of regeneration (lit. new birth) and that baptism is the "occasion" of purification.
we both believe that baptism is a necessary/essential component of the conversion process, although we differ sharply on the order of events.
-------------------
everyone: one last thing. i think it would help to compare physical birth [John 1:12-13] and spiritual rebirth [John 3:3-8].
like all of you i was born into a family that i did not know or choose. my parents did not ask for my permission or cooperation to conceive me and give me birth. but i was conceived and born as a result of their decision, will, and efforts. similiarly regeneration (new birth) is like physical birth, only it is clearly not the result of human desire and effort: it is the result of God's desire and effort.
all of us who experienced spiritual rebirth were conceived by the word of God and delivered into the family of God by the will of the Father and the work of the Spirit (alone).
as with physical birth no one asked my opinion, permission, or cooperation. spiritual rebirth was the result of Father God's decision, will, and efforts. since every good and perfect gift comes down from from the Father of heavenly lights i need not worry, question, or second guess his decision and desire to engender me through the word of truth.
now, believing God, obeying the gospel, submitting to baptism, confessing the Name, repenting of sins, choosing life, loving my brother, et al flow out of the new birth reality.
as a newborn babe, child, adolescent, man i am enabled the power of regeneration and renewal to cooperate with the Spirit and word of God as i grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus.
beyond a doubt, the same is true for all of you who call on the name of the Lord Jesus by faith.
-------------------
+ due to some special circumstances i have been able to enjoy a little more free-time this week, that's why i was able to post so much. next week, after the holiday, i will not be as free, so i wanted to be involved as much as possible. i apologize for taking so much time, but i appreciate the iron sharpening iron.
Please explain what you mean when you say that I believe regeneration is a synergistic effort. I think I know what you mean but for the sake of clarity what exactly do you mean by it? Because I believe that the Spirit alone regenerates a person. That's pretty monergistic to me. I do, however, believe that a person must submit to the new birth through a faith response. My faith response (in this case baptism) does not make the new birth any less monergistic. Can I state it any clearer than that. I hope I'll cleared things up for you. I don't believe that I can help out the Spirit in his regenerational work any more than I can contribute one bit to having my sins forgiven. Both regeneration and justification, which is a part of the salvation picture, is totally by GRACE through faith (Eph.2:8-9).
Sean,
You mean to say that it is totally BY the Spirit so long as you allow him to do it. Therefore, does it not ALL hinge on you - you choose, you control the outcome. A lot of pressure for a feeble (dead in my estimation) sinner wouldn't you say? That is as synergistic as it gets.
The proponent of synergistic salvation says, "I believe God is sovereign..." They all do! But God is only as sovereign as I let him be? That's a contradiction in terms.
To be clear, monergistic salvation is ALL God - no permission, no please, please, please P-L-E-A-S-E believe. Synergistic salvation is that which requires cooperative work (of any sort) in order to accomplish the salvation of the sinner. Monergism says the sinner is dead and in need of resurrection. Synergism's picture is more like a man over board (the image I not so fondly remember from sermons MY WHOLE LIFE. This man overboard may or may not choose to reach for the life preserver. In fact, he may or may not choose to hold on to it once he's got it.
Good hearing all your opinions. My experience is that this debate never ends...
Brandon
In my estimation (humble that it be), we all seem to be approximate agreement. Sean, Marq, Brandon and I.
Someone may ask, "Huh? Have you not been reading?"
I have been.
The original intent of my post was to demonstrate that something happens to the believer in baptism. Namely, the indwelling of the Spirit and purification.
So, let's end the discussion here.
The enemies of our doctrine are those who contend that baptism is not necessary. Those who say it is trivial. Merely symbolic.
And the enemies of our doctrine are those who contend that we are saved by the act of baptism.
I will write at another time about these other subjects - regeneration, justification, election and predestination.
May God bless us with patience and insight and patience with those lack insight. :)
On another note,
The evangelical community is a mess.
I have met men with advanced bible degrees who can neither defend nor attack the most basic assumptions of the Christian faith. And they are leaders in the body.
I know people who has never been baptized after decades of discipleship.
Others tell me that baptism is not necessary for salvation but repentance is. Or that if you haven't asked Jesus into your heart, then He is not there.
Brothers,
I hope that each of us has it firmly settled in our minds that Christ is our saving Grace. Let us preach with conviction that He alone saves. Let us support a Faith demonstrated in obedience in the Church. Let us affirm the beauty of Grace and of baptism. Above all, let us not be overly theological. Let us be practical - that is practicing. Let us love according to the Love shown us.
Thanks for the great discussion.
Peace to all who have it.
j
Grace and peace to all who believe - Brandon
but wait...just one more thing...
joking.
grace and peace. jmt
i've been watching this strange conversation from a sort of distance, like watching someone on television pulling nylon over a coarse rasp, with the sound muted. Rather than being involved in the tearing of clothes and shouting of "Raca!" i just blink a lot and squint with mild confusion here and there. But just to drive your hits nearer the 50 mark, i do have a question that i'd like one of you theologians to clarify for me.
i'm afraid i nibble only cursorily at theology proper-- around the edges of the lawn, as it were-- and find myself each time i do wading in verbiage cathected with nuances by no means self-evident in the words themselves. In this case i've been watching the movements of "monergistic" vs. "synergistic." Help me with your usage here, do: differentiate for me "monergism" from "straight determinism" if there is in your collective mind any difference. If there is no difference, then i'll know you better. Thank you, and sorry for possibly extending this; but at least it'll continue in a mildly tangential vector, and perhaps not for very long.
I haven't been able to post a comment on this yet and feel compelled to throw my widows mite in the jar with your bling.
A man in a plane is reading some verse about baptism (as the story has been conveyed to me)and decides that he needs to be emersed (he had just seen "O Brother Where Art Thou" on the in flight movie)when the oxygen masks dropped.... WAS HE SAVED? is the question we are all theoretically faced with. My problem with the "yes", "no" answer to that is that it leaves God out of the equation. God has some role in our lives (Most Armenians would concede to this as would the rest of us Calvinist...or Lutherans depending on what book you've read). I can just see Moses getting ready to kill the Egyptian when, BANG, he is struck from behind by another guard. And God is thinking, "Crap! Didn't see that coming." I guess that really had no place in the discussion except to say that the salvation experience whether regeneration faith, then the seal, then the righteousness, or the whole lump sum at the same time, come at the bidding of God.
I do beleive that the main controversy concerning salvation in the CofC (may be in other denomintions also) is the issue of relationship. We get the kiddos married off with no knowledge of who they are marrying, or in the pre-arranged vernacular: no sense of eternal obligaiton and a want of learning a relationship. (I think the putting on of the new is the wedding ring) I have been involved in numerous studies (dare I say (I apologize Rex) the Mark Study) where Jesus is secondary to baptism. Good cake, nice white gold ring, everyone looking at you, kiss at the end, photographs (oops! that part sucked) mushy songs. We don't even know why we are doing it in some instances. It is out of a sense of duty. We show our kids, "See, that guy is getting baptized. That's what all good little boyscouts and girlscouts do when they are 14 or 12 or 8. Whenever, you feel enough pressure from me Johnny you feel free to pick up that pamphlet on baptism. And if I can help you find the verses and circle in the Yes or Nos you just call." Baptism is a beautiful thing! Let's not treat it as the unwanted drunk Uncle at Christmas. What a glorious Christ we have who has been raised up to take away the body of the flesh! Who is able to forgive my sins against Him! And who is able to make me complete! The finer theological points do need to be argued (though not much more after this disCUSSion), but let us not waste them on the those who simply need someone who truely is love.
Love all of you and miss all of you more than words can express,
(Give me some of that bling)
is this really the Ian?! You really exist? Now there's just the Yeti and the Holy Grail left to find on "The HypoCretan." Dude! My faith has been restored unto me. You must call me... [waffles a moment]... i must call you.
Ian wrote! There might just be a point to life after all. Thank you. Maybe you can differentiate "monergism" and "hard determinism" for me. And if you couldn't actually care any less, well i'd love to talk to you anyway. (Ian wrote! He lives!)
cody, i would be more than willing to dialogue with you about monergism and synergism via email. jomato42@gmail.com shawn daniel is visiting us this weekend and sends you greetings.
---------
everyone: here is a piece by bro. jim mcguiggan on john 3:5
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/questions2.asp?q_ID=132
he argues (along with the vast majority of christian thinkers throughout history) that "water" refers to baptism.
no big deal.
my arguments here were mainly concerned with the role of the Spirit, not the role of the water.
i wonder if this will help anyone.
http://renovatio.blogspot.com/2006/11/birth-rebirth.html
"My experience is this debate never ends"
I totally agree Brandon, I think this (and many other doctrines that people can debate) just never end, and as I said before who's right? Everybody thinks they're right, so where does it end ?
( JW put an "end" to this conversation, but 100 yrs. from now people will be debating the same things, and in my opinion missing the most important thing, Christ himself.)
Deborah
What Deborah and Sally said is true; this is a never ending debate. People will be debating these matters long after we have all passed on. That doesn’t mean, however, there are no answers and that doesn’t mean the topic at hand is of little consequence. Jason’s original post called for others to ‘be iron’. I suspect he accomplished his purpose in that each person had an opportunity to sharpen (fine tune) their own thoughts regarding this matter.
In the end, there were some points of agreement and some differences. In light any differences, those who seek to follow Christ must determine the severity of their differences. Are your differences so egregious that they have the potential to influence working relationships or are these mere ‘in house’ debates that have no bearing so as to disrupt peaceful working (side-by-side) relationships. For those who hold to a strong ‘faith only’ view, does consistency demand that you view those with a ‘baptismal regeneration’ view as those who promote a serious distortion of the gospel? Are they adding to the gospel (ala Galatians 1….to ‘be accursed’ because they are distorting the gospel)? If you paint SK’s view of baptism as a ‘work’, are you using the language of Scripture which strongly condemns any ‘works oriented’ gospel? Can you, without hesitation, affirm the gospel that each one is preaching?
I appreciated all the thoughts expressed. I think it was profitable. While more could be said, most said their piece. After the dust settles, I think people have to settle some of the questions that I posed.
LJ
Ian!
Bring the bling!
I am so glad to see you on my blog. I will try to run another controversy up the flagpole so you can participate. I hear you too are prepping to come East. Woohoo!
Talk to you later,
j
Word of warning to Jomato:
If you want to keep your Inbox free(er) from spam, never, never, never put your email address in a public forum. There are 'bots and spiders traversing the WWW every second of every day harvesting email addresses. These addresses go straight into address book of every spam organization on the planet.
j
Hey LJ,
Is this MLJ or JLJ?
Thank you for your thoughts. SK and I spent some time discussing this very thing Saturday night.
I was reminded that I used to hold a legalist view of baptism. It was the last important step on the way to righteousness, regeneration and salvation.
Even when I relinquished some of these doctrines, I still was looking to "finish in the flesh."
At one time:
- Monergism was not even a word in my vocabulary.
- My old "Doctrines of Grace" made a mockery of Grace.
- I was anti-Calvinist but had no clue who Jacobus Arminius was and certainly never looked at any semi-Pelagian doctrines. In fact, I had no definitive answers for the sinful state of man, the choosing of God, the work of the Spirit, the atonement of Christ on the cross and the saving intentions of God.
- When I first began to consider the "other side" I stayed up nights on end, unable to sleep, sick to my stomach and my heart broken.
- On top of that when I gained a knowledge of the role of the Spirit, I then quickly misplaced works.
- In my walk I have embraced baptism, thrown it away, defended it and belittled it.
I suspect I am not the only one.
May God give me Grace upon Grace to understand his salvation. As it stands now, I can in no way view SK's comments as legalist (works-oriented) or outright contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Thanks for the admonishment.
j
Hi JW...this JLJ
I believe both Calvin and Arminius have been misrepresented. They both have some worthy points. Of course, their points of disagreement need to be resolved. However, I have found it difficult to find people that fairly represent the views in the 'other' camp. Only after we truly understand what they were saying can we seek to resolve differences.
I'm glad that you can't view SK's gospel as being distorted. I know many that would disagree with you and who would, without hesitation, color SK's gospel as false.
Perhaps you and I can discuss bits and pieces of Calvin/Arminius. I seem to get further when I deal with small segments.
Blessings,
LJ
Post a Comment