I remember one year when the Pepperdine lectureship was on Galatians. It was one of the many excellent programs that Jerry Rushford has put together.
On the last day of lectureship (Friday), one of Pepperdine’s prominent professors — who’s no longer there — launched out in an impassioned attack on his university and the lectureship because of the things being said.
What that told us was this: people had gotten the message of Galatians right. For if you really understand what Paul’s saying, it will be scandalous. It was then; it is now. If no one is complaining, you may not have explained it properly!
Just remembering that story as I continue preaching through the book!
“Know that a person is not justified by observing the law, but by the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah. So we, too, have put our trust in Christ Jesus that we may be justified on the basis of the faithfulness of the Messiah and not by observing the law . . . .” (2:16)
“So in Jesus the Messiah you are all children of God through trust, for all of you who were baptized into the Messiah have been clothed with the Messiah. There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus the Messiah.” (3:26-28)
“For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (5:14)
“May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.” (6:14-15)
Mike
I really like that translation of 2:16 - “the faithfulness of the Messiah,” rather than the usual “faith in Christ.” That changes a lot of things doesn’t it?
I completely agree with that assessment, Mike, Galatians is the most scandalous book in the New Testament.
Bottom line, Galatians provides the clearest evidence we have from canonical texts of the most ancient feud in Christianity, between the Pauline wing of the church and the still-Jewish former disciples then still clustered in Jerusalem who did not believe everything Saul/Paul was teaching.
That the Pauline wing, led mostly by gentiles, grew into a separate religion from Judaism and was ultimately adopted by Emperor Constantine is an historical fact. That Jesus’ own closest disciples may have disapproved of the new religion (because it strayed too far from Mosaic Law on issues of circumcision, kosher foods, etc.), is the scandal most people want to avoid in Galatians.
Paul said we are saved by faith. Jesus’ brother James, though, taught that “Faith without works is dead,” and IMO the works he referenced were acts of obedience to the laws of Judaism.
This doesn’t mean Christianity is “wrong”, or it doesn’t have to mean that. Christianity simply is the structural vehicle through which our culture expresses spiritual seeking, and from the beginning there have been disputes within the faith about how best to do that.
The discovery of hidden gnostic texts in the 20th century demonstrates a broader array of faith traditions in early, pre-Constantine Christianity than most Christians today typically are comfortable discussing. But one needn’t go outside the canon to witness such those disputes. One need only look to the scandal of Galatians.
Don’t get why it’s scandalous, not in a self righteous way, I really don’t get why it’s scandalous.
Michael Vick dogfighting scandalous I get, but this one is too vague for me.
My favorite line in the letter is this one:
“How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort? Have you expereienced so much for nothing? Surely it was not in vain, was it?”
- Gal. 3:3-4 (NLT)
Here’s the post-Galatians problem for me. Theologically, Christ is the Elected One. Christ is Israel. Succinctly, Christ is the vehicle—the container—of salvation.
Thus, we must be “in†Christ to be saved. Great.
But the issue then becomes: How do I know (self-verify) that I am “in†Christ?
And it’s right there, on that point, that the issue gets very sticky. Much blood—literal and symbolic—has been spilt over that question.
Paul’s public confrontation of Peter was surely scandalous. As was the open letter he wrote about the event. The issue was that Peter was not embracing the Gentiles. Those who draw lines over lesser issues today fall under the same rebuke.
I sat in the Field House at Pepperdine and heard so many great messages that year. It was most likely then I realized that ANYONE who takes on Christ is to use the gifts they are given and NO ONE has a right to say you cannot use your gift because you are a woman. I thought of the Jews and the Roman Catholic church. I thought, though they are my brothers in so many ways, and I do love them, boy did they get that wrong. I also thought that 50% of Christians were being held back by other Christians. Who would be the architect of that-guess?
Gritsforbreakfast,
I’ve never thought Paul’s and James’ ideas are as incongruous as we make them out to be. Paul’s fruits of the spirit can only be expressed in action. For example, I can only be said to be kind and loving if my actions are kind and loving. I don’t see much difference between what James says regarding caring for widows and orphans and what Christ says of the sheep in Matthew 25.
To use another illustration, if I tell my wife I love her but don’t do anything that actually demonstrates I love her, then saying I love her is meaningless or “dead.”
I have a friend who is a professor of religion at Baptist University in my home town. He once asked his class of future Baptist ministers what exactly the Galatian heresy was. They responded, “The didn’t believe that the spirit of God was enough.You needed something else like circumcision to be accepted.” He then asked, “Are there any modern day equivalents to the Galatian heresy?” Almost every hand went up and the class responded, “The Church of Christ. They believe in faith plus baptism.” Knowing that this was a characature of what we believe, he went on to correct the class and explain that Churches of Christ do not classify baptism as a work, but rather a faith response similar to raising a hand and saying the “sinners prayer.” I do find it interesting though that many of our Christian brothers have this perception of us.
And, right or wrong, perception rules in the minds of most. Just mention “Church of Christ” and many people rise up and say with one voice: they think they are the only ones going to heaven, they think that if you are not baptized you are going to hell, they think that if you use musical instruments in worship you are going to hell, and women in their churches are not allowed to say a word. So churches of Christ have their work cut out for them in explaining their position in each of these four areas. “Speaking the truth in love” is a good start.
Joel-
Your illustration is exactly why we need to be preaching Galatians more today than ever. Paul’s point is that the Galatians have added to the gospel. Paul says, the gospel is Jesus Christ alone. The Galatians are saying, “Jesus plus circumcision”. There are so many modern equivalents of this that it’s unbelievable, especially in many Churches of Christ but not limited to the Churches of Christ. I preached Galatians last year and made this point and no one seemed to get it. I didn’t preach it well enough because not enough people were offended I guess. It’s like we add to the gospel but we don’t know that we are doing it.
But Kent, who was “adding to” the Gospel? Peter or Paul?
Paul never knew Jesus. Peter was the rock upon which Jesus said he would build his church. Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus occurred after Christ’s ascent to heaven. But James, who I believe opposed parts of Paul’s message, continued to lead Christ’s followers in Jerusalem after the crucifixion, said Eusebius, until his own martyrdom years later. For that reason, to me it’s the apostles in Jerusalem who arguably represent a more accurate, direct line to what Jesus actually taught than Paul, who came along later. From the 12 disciples’ perspective, Paul was “adding to” Jesus’ teachings by eliminating the overtly Jewish elements to cater to gentiles.
The “scandal” of Galatians is that, arguably, it was Pauline Christianity that was the “heresy” from the perspective of Jesus’ original teachings, at least as they were understood by Jesus’ family and closest confidantes who followed him day to day for three years and most fully absorbed his true teachings during his earthly residence.
“…to me it’s the apostles in Jerusalem who arguably represent a more accurate, direct line to what Jesus actually taught than Paul.”
Let’s not forget that Paul was no Gentile. If anyone had reason to trust in a Jewish religious structure, it was Paul. James and the Jamesian faction of the church was ultimately done in by the Romans destruction of the temple and it’s power structure.
I believe that Paul saw that if this fledgling “Jesus movement” was going to thrive, it was going to have to get beyond the bounds of traditional Judaism and reach out to Gentiles. Paul’s perspective as an outsider/insider gave him a unique perspective on where Christianity was going and what it would become.
Mike,
I’m looking forward to hearing your lessons on Galatians on Podcast. Right now I’m ramping up for James Thompson’s grad class on Romans and Galatians and could use any help I can get.
By the way, thanks again for spending some time counseling me when I was there in January. I’m now at Oak Hills and learning a lot.
Would it be possible to track down any recordings from that Lectureship, and if so, do you have any suggestions?
Chris Morton
“faithfulness of the Messiahâ€
So you’re saying, I have a chance?
If by Jesus’ family you mean to say his biological (half) brothers, they hardly followed him day to day for three years if the gospels are to be believed. I would also note that Peter, who unlike James *was* there from the beginning, was at Paul’s side in the end (1 Clement) — indeed he took the Pauline position before he met Paul if we believe Luke’s account in Acts 10. Lastly it seems hardly clear to me from the context of James’ use of ergon that he is referring specifically to works of the Jewish law.
IMO there just isn’t much daylight between the two positions, unless one holds to the usual caricature of what Paul actually said.
My favorite statement that Paul makes is “Since we live by the spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.” Galatians 5:25. (NIV)
Richard-
Would you please explain what you mean by the statement: “Theologically, Christ is the Elected One. Christ is Israel” I don’t understand. Thanks.
Mike, I want to borrow your blog to ask for prayers for some dear friends. Travis and Kelly (Shunk) Speck were members at Highland while attending ACU. Their newborn son, Bennett, is fighting for his life. You can keep up with his story @ http://www.totsites.com/tot/bennettmitchell and let them know you are praying for him by going to http://www.prayingforbennett.blogspot.com/ I would ask all your readers to please join in prayer for Bennett, Kelly and Travis. Thanks.
Grits
Peter is not the foundation. His statement of belief that Jesus was messiah is the foundation.
Mike,
I was there and heard the tirade and thought the same. The speakers got it right and the teacher heard them clearly upset and angry and where would all this grace and freedom lead. It leads to more freedom in Christ. Not the freedom to do as we want, but the freedom to do as we ought.
Larry
Several years ago, I attended the lectureship at an old-school school associated with the Churches of Christ. During the Open Forum (big hint) someone said from the floor that he baptized people whose previous baptisms the preacher thought of as baptisms into the wrong system (My words, not his. But that’s what the guy was saying).
It seems that, in Galatians, a big question is: Does someone need to become sufficiently Jewish before they’re truly in Christ? The traditional Churches of Christ have a similar question: Does someone need to become sufficiently Church-of-Christ before members of the Church of Christ regard that person as being really in Christ?
Frank:
Didn’t you & I grill steaks one summer evening in 1985 on a balcony of an old dorm at that old-school school? I think I *might* know which school you’re referring to. Could be wrong, though.
I always loved that “where will it lead?” argument. “We can’t have men and women wearing shorts on campus! The next thing you know we’ll be up to our ears in sexual assault and rape.” Or “We can’t have hand clapping, the next thing you know, we’ll have a rock band and we’ll all be smoking weed.”
Where will it lead?
Where will it lead?
Mike and Larry,
If it’s the same lectureship I’m thinking of, there was a revealing lunchtime vignette played out at a table next to me. A large table, 90% men, but as the conversation evolved you could well imagine it was 100% male since women didn’t peep a word.
At one point the gentleman at the head of the table pounded the table with his big black KJV shouting, “If they keep teaching grace this way, we might as well change our name to Baptists!!!!
Yep! Those renegade Baptists really do understand the depth of God’s grace in our daily lives, not as a one-shot happening at the time of our baptism, as seems to be held or was held by many of our CofC preachers/teachers. What a spiritual starvation diet.
Joel, Where will it all lead, indeed! There is more than one way to look at that question. For too long I followed the path of least resistance as I sometimes mindlessly “kept the peace†by going along wherever the preacher said to go. When I woke up and found myself in a barren land, I was able to begin to get back on track by fixing my eyes on Jesus and on Him alone. So now, instead of boasting of where I “go to church†and feeling confidence from knowing the “right doctrine†I hope that from now on I “never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.†(Galatians 6)
Maybe “faith baptism” is a caricature of what some Churches of Christ believe, or even most, but it’s what the majority of my congregation believes. I just finished preaching through Galatians–wow, what an uproar–and several folks were upset that I didn’t make it clear that being baptized in the right way at the right time while believing the right things was essential to salvation. Sure, we don’t call baptism a work, but when the efficacy depends on me getting everything right, what’s the difference? I hope we are an outlier on this issue, but I know we aren’t unique.
“Faith baptism” was supposed to be “faith (plus sign) baptism” in my comment, but somehow the plus sign dropped out. I’m sure that means something significant.
Mike,
I’m a blog fan of your from Memphis, TN. You need to know someone has put a bad link (porn) on your responses to the post that has your son’s baptism pictures. You might want to dump that.
Love you…and your writing.
CL
[NOTE TO CL - Thanks so much! I hate how spammers are figuring ways to creep in. Most aren't porn links, but some are. I'm trying to watch for them. Thanks for this note. MIKE]
“Faith Baptism” sounds just right to me, Kirk C.! The Holy Spirit has a way of teaching us in spite of ourselves sometimes, doesn’t He. Thanks for the spontaneous lesson.
BTW all, when I wrote about the “renegade Baptists” it was meant as tongue in cheek. I have great love for that fellowship. Over an 8 year period they really taught me and showered me with the depth and width of God’s grace cover. I’d been among those that had been placed on that spiritual starvation diet. But now I’m aware of the Graciousness of God being made so clear every single day of my life. How thankful I am for it. Truly, what a lost one I’d be with it!!
Hey Matt,
Yeah, it was that old-school school.
Ah, those were the days. Grilling steaks on the balcony, storing Rubel Shelly books under the mattress . . .
Grrrr!
“Truly, what a lost one I’d be with it!!”
Talk about typos! Wow!
How about letting it read,
“Truly, what a lost one I’d be withOUT it!!”
Some questions in all this discussion. Is it being legalistic to teach that baptism is by immeresion and that it is for the forgiveness of sins ? Is it denying being saved by grace to be as obedient as God has instructed ? Just because a Christian is precise in teaching and desires to teach what is healthy teaching can also be a sign of loving God and loving peoeple.
Ray B
I’m not the expert that so many on this blog are, but my opinion?
What you say about Baptism by immersion and for forgiveness of sins seems to me to be missing the grace element. Neither one is “THE” answer to salvation if they are not preceded by our humble acceptance of Jesus as LORD and Savior, then God’s grace is poured out on us as we obey Him in Baptism. It is God’s grace that forgives our sins, and imho, not the water of Baptism. It is our bowing to Him in obedience that God promises to answer with forgiveness and salvation.
IMHO, in CofCs we have over emphasized the very important elements of Baptism, which include immersion, but have under-emphasized that first and foremost it is God’s grace given in response to our obedience that saves us; obedience that includes Baptism. No amount of water in any form can save us if declared faith in Jesus as LORD and Savior and obedience to His commandments are missing.
Kathy:
You articulated so well what I’ve been thinking (and trying to teach and write about) for years.
Old brother K.C. Moser helped me so much in this understanding of baptism as a RESPONSE of faith in Christ, not an addition to faith in Christ.
I may quote you in my class on grace this Sunday, my dear sister. If you don’t mind. I’ll just say “a friend of mine once wrote…”
Jim
Kathy ,
I agree about grace. Have always taught it is by grace through faith. Baptism is a reponse of faith and it is reaching out to receive the gift of salvation. But I still ask , will we continue to say someone must be baptized to be saved and will we still teach immersion as the mode ? I know some will say , that this is being legalistic but what I am saying and asking , is it legalistic to teach what sripture states or is it being obedient , which Jesus said is a way of demonstrating our love to Him and to those who are lost , hurting and without hope ?
Good points Ray.I think we should continue to teach what we believe the scriptures teach. But it’s an entirely different thing to go around judging everyone else’s conversion experience. If you ask most of us COCers about what makes a person a Christian, we’d immediately talk about what you should do. After reading Romans 8, I think Paul would simply say that a Christian is the person who has the spirit of Christ living in him. I am convinced that if the spirit of Christ were like a neon sign over someone’s head, we’d really emphasize that instead of baptism.
Precision has value but I wonder if we humans will ever be able to explain the salvation of God. It is an altogether wonder to me and inspires tremendous awe in me that the Almighty Creator would create us, much less seek a relationship with us—and to bring us back to him with the sacrifice of his son is almost more than I can comprehend. I guess what I am trying to say is that God is the one who saves us. It is his salvation that I am seeking. He will save who he will save. Pointing people to Christ and helping them get to know him as they develop faith in him and then encouraging them to be open to the Spirit’s conviction seems important to me. Sometimes I wonder if just talking about the mystery and greatness of salvation makes us so uncomfortable that we must rush back to our tidy lists and be sure we are checking off all the things in the order we have decided, using the language that we are familiar with, in order to feel that we have some kind of say or control over this. Our free will is a gift of God, but sometimes it seems to me that we have this thought that our will and our obedience is what saves us.
We should teach and live by the whole will of God. Teach grace , faith , baptism , obedeince ,etc. Follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Be transformed into His likeness. It is not pick and choose , it is Christians with an intense desire to know the word and a zealous heart to live in sacrificial odedience to all the will of God. And never in our own power but in the power of the Father , Son and the Holy Spirit.
Ray, my opinion, and just that IMHO, I would want to follow the example of Jesus, as well as the events written for us in the Book of Acts. It would seem to me that if Jesus has commanded baptism, can we really expect him to accept us as His if we decide to ignore one of His commands? ergo, sure we should preach baptism as one of God’s commandments to be obeyed. As to the mode of baptism, I suppose we need to quit using the “word” “baptize” and translate the word. Maybe then we’d know if we should be “preaching” mode of baptism, rather than obedience in baptism. But again, that’s just my opinion.
btw- Jim Clark. You are somethin’ else. If you think my words help, by all means quote them. No problem. And no fair either; I’m blushing.
Kathy ,
It has always been my preference in teaching to use immersion over baptism .
Until recently, I had also thought that the Greek baptizo meant literally and ONLY immersion. I read something recently that spoke of other passages–including accusations that Jesus’ disciples didn’t always “wash” the way others did–that use forms of baptizo in broader ways– ie meaning simply any kind of washing.
Perhaps a Greek scholar might be able to address this?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on Galatians, Mike.
It looks like the most recent podcast is from 6/24/07 here:
http://www.highlandchurch.org/listen
Will the Galatians series be posted?
And Mike,
I’m hoping the 8/19/07 sermon on faith and doubt will be posted soon as well!! Definitely one of the best I’ve heard!
Mike, I was a speaker that year–addressed the Thursday evening men’s dinner. I remember trying to focus on the authentic basis of justification and how it could not be any longer understood as grounded in practice, polity, or any external act or sign, but only in the Cross and only in the internal, genuine response of every person. Thus, music, baptism, church order, etc. didn’t really matter, certainly not as we had taught for so long!
The person you have in mind had some very choice and surprising words to say about what I said in my speech. What he said got back to me: Something about “spiritual masturbation,” if I remember correctly. . . I figured at the time that it fit well with Galatians in view of Paul’s comments about circumcision, mutilation, etc. in chpater 5!
I never really understood what he meant–I guess I can speculate about that. . .but, I found the sexual reference interesting!
Well of course baptism matters as so clearly taught in Acts, Romans and other places. I am shocked to hear you say it doesn’t, Larry.
Allison, keep reading Galatians. While you are at it, take a look at the last paragraph of Romans 2, except everywhere you read the word “circumcison” in the text substitute the word “baptism.” You’ll get Paul’s drift. Sure, baptism matters, but not in the way we have usually thought. Galatians says that salvation is ALL by the action of Jesus and ALL by faith.
In the words of Dr. Burton Coffman, “There is not a particle of evidence that Paul here had in mind Christian baptism, or that these words may be forced into an application to that rite. Paul was only declaring that the only circumscision that could avail the Jew anything was a circumcision honored by a life consistent with the rite.”
Commentary on Romans, page 90
Immersion ( baptism ) is essential for salvation. Mark 16 : 16 , I Peter 3 : 21. It is essential for the forgiveness of sins ,Acts 2 : 38 , to wash away sins , Acts 22 : 16 , to be clothed with Christ , belonging to Christ and therefore eternal heirs , Gal. 3 ; 26- 29 , to be buried with Him and raised with Him , Rom. 6 : 3 and 4 . Baptism is a response of faith , Gal. 3 : 26 and 27 and Col 2: 12. Peter preached the gospel in Acts 2 before he said anything about being immersed and many other examples in Acts. Immersion is being saved by faith ,grace and trusting in the blood of Jesus to cleanse us from sins.
Ray B,
Let’s not miss the forest for the trees. Dying to the old self is essential. How that is symbolized isn’t
Baruch,
Unless it is commanded by God. How arrogant to tell God how it should be symbolized.
Perhaps.
Baruch ,
Yes , dying to self is the way of a disciple of Jesus Christ. It is the daily discipline of taking up the cross. It all begins that moment when the gospel is obeyed in being immersed for the forgiveness of sins , rising to walk in the new life of obedience to the King Of Kings and Lord of Lords , Jesus Christ.
Ray B,
But the question I would have for you and Allison is simply this:
If salvation is contingent upon following the baptism ritual per your specifications then can you claim that God is a good God?
That is to say, 99% of all the Christians who have ever lived sharply disagree with your beliefs on this issue. And this list includes some amazing saints (e.g., Mother Teresa, St. Francis). In your view all these people are going to hell.
This is such a ghastly belief. Allison chastises my pride. But her hubris goes beyond all words and moral accounting. The God who stands behind you belief system is, quite frankly, a monster. He will send 99% of his most devoted followers, people formed into the Image of His Son, to hell because they did not get wet from head to toe.
Bravo, Ray and Allison. Bravo. This is such good news you preach.
Baruch ,
It is God who will judge. I leave that to Him. If you read everything I mentioned then you would realize that I said immersion is the response to the gospel . And it is not a ritual. Those are your words. All I can do is to teach the scriptures and it is not my doctrine but the doctrine of scripture. Yes, to know anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved is good news. It is the good news that Jesus preached. The God I serve and worship is a loving God and good. It is His words that must be taught.
Ray B,
Speaking for God are we? That’s a cozy little spot to be in, rhetorically speaking.
My earlier question still stands. If the Greek word used, Baptizo, can mean “immersion” into water, into spirit or into death (it is used to refer to all three in separate places) or if it can also mean any sprinkling or pouring that is associated with “washing” (literally or figuratively) then do we have grounds to claim one singular interpretation as being the one God meant? Certainly we have grounds to interpret… but grounds to separate believers on the basis of interpretation?
I think I might need a more definite and “prescriptive” passage for that (if you accept that catagorizing believers is something we should be doing for ANY reason). What we do have are “descriptive” passages from Paul that tell us what this “washing” should give to us and should demand of us (ie walking in a new life) and “narrative” passages that tell us what was said and done early on in the history of the church (which varies quite a bit from story to story).
I so wonder how often I’ve put my own interpretation into God’s mouth for others to hear. It’s a bit blasphemous to presume to be God’s ventriloquist.
I stand guilty and repentant.
No one speaks for God. All any of us can do is to teach His word. As far as teaching baptizo being associated with water is to examine the scriptures that make such a reference. It is not speaking for God , it is only teaching what is written in the scriptures. We can be found guilty for the failure to not teach about salvation to a lost and dying world.
My only point–and it always sets off this debate, unfortunately–is that the principle at issue here with Paul would best be compared to what we have done with the Lord’s teaching on baptism–thrown the essence out or, better, in with the bath water–sorry, I try to smile! So that in Gal 5:12, is it, where Paul talks about the circumcision party mutilating themselves, he might well say to us who trust so in baptism, and judge so in baptism (just as the circumcision party trusted and judged in circumcision, also a command of God!): “Would that they would go on and drown themselves!”
Sorry, Mike! I’m going to stop now and crawl back into my hole!
When an indidvual believer is baptized , immersed , that believer is trusting in the blood of Jesus for salvation, receiving the gift of salvation and looking to the cross for the forgiveness of sins.
Larry,
Never appologize for sparking good discussion. Thanks for provoking us onto the green edge of growth for a bit… the place where it’s always a bit uncomfortable and there’s always a chance I may have to change my mind!
Ray B.,
I think everyone would understand and accept the reasoning behind your comments: that you aren’t implying that someone is saved by anything other than Jesus’ blood. So many of us just have experienced so much arrogance (or purpetuated it) by either assuming people who see baptism differently are either “not very smart” or are somehow “misled” or perhaps even have “evil motives.”
Personally, I have found that to be so distasteful and hurtful that I can’t bear to place myself in the position of pointing people toward anything but Christ himself. For most, I think that will lead in some way, at some point, to baptism. If I point them to baptism… that MAY lead them to Jesus… but why not aim straight for the source!
Scott,
I agree. Always Jesus and His cross must be preached. His death and victory over the grave. All I am saying in the discussion is that baptism is taught in the scriptures and we do not need to avoid it because some may have forgotten about the cross in the ministry of evangelism.
Larry,
Baptism cannot be substituted for circumcision (OT sign of the covenant), for in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is the sign of the convenant (Eph 1.13-14). However, the point is still the same. If Abraham was credited as righteous before circumcision (which Paul says he was), then one can be credited as righteous before receiving the Holy Spirit (which is received in baptism).
—-
Since the Holy Spirit is the sign of salvation, I do not know what to think of people who either deny the Holy Spirit’s existance or ignore the Holy Spirit for one reason or another.
—-
As far as the CoC and our way of teaching baptism… IMHO it seems that when baptism is preached it is done so as though baptism is about what we are doing. While I agree that we must make a decision to “be baptized,” if we would read closely we would notice that the verb “be baptized” is passive (We don’t need a Greek NT for this either). The point is that our role in baptism is passive. It is God who is the active agent in baptism.
When I offer an invitation to be baptized at the end of a sermon, I have been asking people to “Come and let God baptize you into Christ.” Recently someone came up to me and said “Why do you say ‘let God baptize you,’ we are the one’s who must be baptized.” First, this person was not even aware of the passive language (s)he was using. But secondly, this shows just what happens when we continue to ignore God as the active agent in baptism. And as long as we teach baptism that stresses our role above God’s, then our Baptist brothers and sisters are correct in acusing us of teaching salvation by works.
That’s all, Rex
When I think of baptism, I think of Christ’s example. We know Jesus was baptized. It is my belief/understanding that Jesus was baptized to receive the Holy Spirit. Certainly Jesus did not need to be saved, but if Jesus was a man and tempted in every way as you and I are, Jesus ultimately had to rely on the Holy Spirit to overcome temptation. Isn’t that how we overcome? The scriptures say the Holy Spirit descended and remained on him. Remained on him. When did Jesus begin performing miracles? The only ones recorded occurred after he was baptized. When was he tempted personally by Satan? After he was baptized. When did Jesus begin his ministry? After he was baptized. We know that Jesus relied on the Holy Spirit to do all he did. Something more than just a ritual occurred here.
I wouldn’t say that 99% of believers out there think baptism is just a ritual. Look at our brothers and sisters in the pentecostal faith. I don’t want to generalize, but I believe the majority of them believe baptism (by that I mean immersion)is essential for salvation. Only they believe that a very visible sign such as speaking in tongues must occur to show that one has truly been saved. Talk about pressure!
There are other people who believe if you are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that you are going to hell, because at baptism it should only be said that you are being baptized into Christ. So it’s not just churches of Christ that are at odds with mainstream Chritian media.
It was Peter who was speaking the coC’s favorite verse in the Bible.(Acts 2:38) Now for the rest of the story. It was also Peter speaking in the 10th chapter of Acts when at Cornelius’ house “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?†(How did they receive the Holy Spirit?)
Then later when he would defend his words and actions to the counsel by saying this, “If therefore God gave them the same gift (of the Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.†(Acts 11:17, 18)
By Peter’s own lips, his testimony was that he and everyone else received the Holy Spirit “When we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ”.
There is no question about this, the Bible is very clear. So, what about Acts 2:38?
The operative word in that text in 2:38 is “repent” not “be baptized”. Peter declares that he and the others received the very proof of salvation at the point of belief, (faith/repentance…â€God has granted to the Gentiles repentance to life”.)Not at baptism. He and they received the Holy Spirit when they believed.
Please don’t think I’m being offensive but I could correctly say to a sinner, “Repent and start going to church and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”, or I could say “Repent and love your neighbor and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.
If God is restrained as to the reach of His love and grace by who is or is not immersed in water as some teach, He has been stripped of some of His eternal attributes and cannot possibly be just. The fact is that just as Phillip instructed the Ethiopian eunuch after he had preached Jesus to him, “If you believe with all your heart you may” be baptised, so that saving trust must precede water baptism. Will we void Romans 10 “with the heart man believes unto righteousness”?
Salvation is only in Christ, wholly upon His merit, and only by faith. Those who “believe with the heart” (different than giving mental ascent to facts) will gladly and joyfully want to do everything they know to do to please Christ including public immersion in water because of the forgiveness of their sins.
Should every believer be immersed? Absolutely they should. And, if they are properly taught they will gladly submit to believer’s baptism just as they do in every other area of Christian living.
Grace to you,
Royce Ogle
I’m so glad Jesus himself said it so plainly, otherwise I would feel the need to argue myself.
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
Keith ,
Amen ! What Jesus teaches is the final authority.