Beyond Our Calculation
I’ve been wanting to attend one of Lee Camp’s Tokens Shows for a long time, and tonight was the night at Smothers Theater at Pepperdine. There were so many highlights: Hal Holbrook quoting Mark Twain’s “War Prayer,” a special visit by Brother Preacher, hilarious skits, great music, etc.
But the most amazing moment was when Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Genome Project and now the director of the National Institutes of Health, sang and played this hymn by Thomas Troeger:
Praise the source of faith and learning
that has sparked and stoked the mind
With a passion for discerning
how the world has been designed.
Let the sense of wonder flowing
from the wonders we survey
Keep our faith forever growing
and renew our need to pray.
God of wisdom, we acknowledge
that our science and our art
And the breadth of human knowledge
only partial truth impart.
Far beyond our calculation
lies a depth we cannot sound
Where your purpose for creation
and the pulse of life are found.
As two currents in a river
fight each other’s undertow
Till converging they deliver
one coherent steady flow;
Blend O God, our faith and learning
till they carve a single course.
Till they join as one, returning
praise and thanks to You, their Source.
- – - -
The cover story in the most recent Christianity Today, “The Search for the Historical Adam,” focuses on Collins and his research:
Collins Speaking at the 2011 Christian Scholars Conference
Secularist brows furrowed in 2009 when President Obama chose prominent atheist-turned-Christian Francis S. Collins to be the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Under the Los Angeles Times headline “Fit to Head the NIH?,” Skeptic magazine’s Michael Shermer fretted that Collins’s beliefs might somehow corrupt America’s biggest biomedical research agency. In a New York Times piece, atheist Sam Harris was similarly “uncomfortable,” fearing in particular that a Collins administration might “seriously undercut” fields like neuroscience. Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago expert on evolution, carped that the nominee’s “scary,” “bizarre,” “inane,” and “snake oil” ideas “pollute his science with his faith.”
Nonetheless, Collins won unanimous U.S. Senate confirmation, thanks to sterling achievements in biomedical research and leadership of NIH’s human genome research. Under Collins, this historic effort in 2003 finished mapping the complete sequence of several billion DNA subunits (“bases”) and all of the genes that determine human heredity.
Collins, one of the most eminent scientists ever to identify as an evangelical Christian, staunchly defends Darwinian evolution even as he insists on God as the Creator. And he now stands at the epicenter of a dispute that increasingly agitates fellow believers. At issue: the traditional tenet (as summarized in Wheaton College’s mandatory credo) that “God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race.”
You can read more of the article here.
t this point, I will let the record speak for itself…….I do apologize for my lack of meakness and humility of spirit. Sincerely, I often say about myself “I should never be allowed out in public” So can we simply enjoy a group hug and move on to more profitable discussions. ……….except for just one clarification…..Q, I don’t think i’ve called anyone a heretic and I don’t think you can presume to speak for me (according to Gina’s theology, Ray would be a heretic) At the most, I would identify heretical teachings….but that’s far from calling anyone a heretic…..I can’t judge anyone’s salvation . That’s up to to the Lord but certainly we can examine the scriptures and see if what we “think” is true. Again, I do believe we can absolutely know the truth thru God’s WOrd. We can engge in speculation about many areas but , at the least, some basic doctrinal truths exist in His Holy Word.
I was sending some U-tubes about Patrick Henry College to my sister and ran across this one. I want to share it with you becuse it’s beautiful and inspirational. It was definitely a spiritual blessing to me today and i’d love to share it:
(Geezer, good catch and i’ll answer you later)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqpXjMlxTp8&NR=1
so sorry about that, it would not post until the last one and then i noted all of the above. How do you delete duplications? I hope Mike will………..gee, now i’m in real trouble! lol
I should share a pic of myself….how do you do it?
I was being hyperbolic.
Funny thing is, despite our butting heads from minute one, I kinda like you.
I hope you’ll stick around.
Gina ,
My point is what you said…we can know the truth through God’s word. And there are some doctrinal truths that are absolutely non-negotiable. It is sad when those who have strong biblical convictions are called legalistic and uncaring. Not true.
Geezer, was this from Mark Hicks blog? Who is randall? Anyway, I was looking up some links on David Lipscomb University’s site and found this article by Professor Hicks
http://www.whatsuplu.com/2009/06/editorial-feature-john-mark-hicks.html
I found it simply as a part of my own research on the CoC and the emergent church. I know so much about this whole symbiotic relationship, I could write a book that would rival Stone and Cambell.
Anyway, if you read the link above, you will see why I posted this on his blog. I responded more in depth to the comments on the original article.
Yes, I was raised in the CoC. My father , a christian and a wonderful man in every respect, served as an elder in various congregations. I graduated from OCU. Many members of my family are highly involved with the CoC and OCU in particular.
Since I , for various reasons, left the CoC i’ve tried to tell my family what I consider to be the truth about the doctrines of the CoC. I would love for them to go to a strong bible-beliving church. I am a member of an independent baptist church but I don’t believe people have to be a “baptist” to go to heaven. lol The true body of Christ is all believers in Christ. Christ knows who truly thru faith believe in Him . Anyway, back to baptism. CoC practices what is known to be baptismal regeneration. Anotherwords, somehow the blood of Christ’s atonement is present in the water? It is in this water baptism that sins are forgiven? Think about it, do I need to get re-baptized everytime I sin or what? I’m still confused about this aspect. I am convinced thru scripture that baptism is an act of obedience and to identify as a member of His church. Anotherwords, water baptism has nothing to do with salvation. I believe in salvation thru faith alone.
So since i’m doing alot of research on the CoC and the emergent church, I found it interesting that a dialog is taking place in terms of water baptism so I responded. I was indeed water baptized thinking it was a part of my salvation but when I knew the Lord gave me saving faith in Him, I gave a testimony to my fellow church members (not a requirement) and was re-baptized but with a different understanding of what it meant.
I hope this isn’t a change in topic; i’m just addressing a sincere question. Perhaps Mike might enjoy posting the article; it would be a great discusiion.
gee, i don’t want to hog this site…but here’s what I said in response to the article: You will definitely see “Gina” in my directness.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkRslCJ8ecsC-lVCgwwXoaW-ToxEobOXuc | July 4, 2011 8:22 PM | Reply
I came across this editorial and it’s a tad confusing. The Church of Christ, I thought, believed one has to be water baptized for salvation; it’s called baptismal regeneration.
My understanding of Southern Baptists is they believe in saved thru faith alone and water baptism is simply an ordinance, an outward sign of the salvation one already received upon belief. I was raised in the CoC but I am now a independent baptist. We see the emergent church highly active within the southern bapatist conference. So , i guess i’m asking, what’s your compromise and what’s the compromise of the southern baptists?
Also, you discuss calvinian baptism – i’m again confused because although there are “reformed thinkers” within the baptist church; they usually call themselves “Reformed Baptists”
I do know a emergent church dialog is going on between “neo calvinists’ about Election, Atonement , etc but the classic Calvinist are exposing them.
Do you think most members of the CoC are aware of this dialog to concensus, the dialectic or the CoC’s relationship with the “emergent church” of Rob Bell, Tim McCleron, Rick Warren, etc. IS the plan to just indoctrinate young members and the old CoC members will soon fade away? I know alot of change agents go to many CoC events. Mike Armour is a change agent, transformer kinda egotisical humanist hiding behind his CoC affiliations as a past preacher . gee, what do you believe in anymore? Whatever concensus is reached with Rome?
RayB, here’s a clue: seldom is a person deemed “legalistic” and/or “uncaring” solely on the strength of his/her convictions. Typically it has more to do with the certitude, the disdain and judgmental tone, and the obvious inclination to imply that others simply haven’t “read their Bibles” honestly if they disagree with the opinion being advanced.
And no, you haven’t cornered the market on any of those, I know.
qb
…and when you go after Mike Armour in those terms and with such gratuitous generalization, Gina, you’ve got a fight on your hands. Either provide some first-person evidence that you know him well enough to slander him that way, or retract your shameless little strafing run. “Egotistical?” Mike Armour? That is truly pathetic. What’s left of your credibility is hanging by a thread. qb
Hi Gina,
Although I was raised CofC, I no longer attend a CofC. I think I understand them about as well as the next guy that spent many decades with them – off and on. To make a rather fine distinction, the CofC would rightly claim that they do not advocate baptismal regeneration – at least not as it is generally understood. They would – IMO – say that is the moment when regeneration occurs, but baptism is not the CAUSE of regeneration. They are “Protestant enough” to believe in “imputed” righteousness as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) understanding of “infused” righteousness. Although there are those that are enthralled with N.T. Wright and might advocate penal substitutionary atonement but NOT imputed righteousness. (NT Wright has many good things to say but his theology still strikes me as being Anglican rather than either Protestant or RCC. The Anglicans did ultimately adopt the media via or middle way rather than either the reformed or RCC view – which is to say they are reformed but NOT Protestant.)
But I digress, as I am prone to do. I have issues with CofC theology and that is why I am no longer among them. On the other hand, to associate them with emergent theology is a bit in a stretch IMO. Even on this blog, which is kind of on the edge of traditional CofC theology, they are not really all that emergent, even though there are some (only some, probably not the majority) that seem to go for Rob Bell’s type of theology. Personally, I like the presentation that DeYoung and Kluck put forth in their book Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be).
Whatever you do, please reconsider placing John Mark Hicks among the emergent theology group. He is a gentleman and a scholar, but NOT an emergent church type, even when he puts forth something other than a traditional CofC perspective. I really think you might benefit/enjoy reading his stuff on Stone-Campbell hermeneutics – as well as what he offers on hermeneutics in general.
That’s more than enough for now.
Grace and peace to you,
Geezer
qb, so you know the guy? I believe him to be extremely egotistical for innumberable reasons. I’ve heard him on various audios . It’s self evident. He consistently talks about how accomplished he is in the “corporate world” He applies, (and i might add deficient ones) business techniques and training transformational techniques to church staffing. He also is a change agent (coach) : his techniques for “change , especially applied in churches, is simply evil. I’ve many audios of his and hey i’ll post a link to one and anyone who’s interested can correct me if they believe i’m wrong. qb….I would have thought I had no credibility left? I’m shocked that i’m hanging on a string……..Provided below is a link to a OCU lectureship and Mike Armour”s 3 talks. Especially, note the #3 Leadership Panel Discussion with Mike Armour. I always pay attention when I see the word “Transformational Leadership” Are you familiar with the Dialectic? It’s dripping with all the common language and techniques. “need to rethink what we do” “discover the values beliefs and attitudes of the people. He actually says it’s “important for people to feel like nothings changed: it is still their church . In order to do this the church leadership must make them “feel” like nothing has changed, it is still their church” So identify “points of stability for people” This will do the trick for Dr. Armour. However, he suggests pick out some people in your church (at my church I had about 20-25) who would be my eyes and ears. They listened to the people’s concerns. It’s “not spying, it’s just a feedback loop.”This he suggests to do this so they can prevent any “concerns” from reaching a crisis.
If you think this is a “christian technique” , convince me.
http://blogs.oc.edu/quest/recordings
oh, here’s a little article that possibly ties into the baptism comments by Mark Hicks : Mike Armour also spoke to the leaders of the Southern Baptists. That’s interesting, isn’t it. CoC pays him to speak and then Southern Baptists pay him. I suggest you read the links to the author’s support for his claims.
Everything said is verifiable via Mr Armour’s own sites and in his talks.
http://apprising.org/2008/11/16/who-is-dr-michael-armour-and-why-is-he-teaching-southern-baptist-pastors/
Geezer, thanks, a worthy analysis. However, if you could pin down a better definition of exactly what and how water baptism works, i’d appreciate it. I’ve heard multiple explanations and i’m still confused. I’ve heard what I described above….that symbolically the blood is in the water…kinda like the grape juice in communion. Speaking of which, i’m confused as to whether or not the CoC believes that communion has some effect on ones state of spirituality.
Roman Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is actually present in the bread and wine, and the practice is to receive Communion at each Mass. They understand Communion as a means of grace, a way by which God’s grace comes to them. I think the Angelicans and Lutherans hold to this aspect of communion but not the “actual blood and wine”
The Baptist would tend to see Holy Communion more as remembrance of Christ’s death upon the Cross and what He did for them and the grace he freely offered . It is a memorial and not a means for any special grace. Obviously this is just a general picture – I just don’t know how the CoC views communion. I’m talking the regular CoC not progressives. I’ve heard alot of dialog and questions about what to do with communion on some other blogs. Do you know CoC’s traditional view.
As for CocC on baptism – since they don’t believe salvation is accomplished until after baptism, they must, simply by definition, believe regeneration cannot happen until after water baptism. What say you? Exactly what part of salvation takes place in the water and why? If water is a means to something occuring, i’d like to know what and how these occur? Would you agree the CoC’s view is one’s salvation is not complete until after water baptism? If so, it is a classical definition of baptismal regeneration. The Catholics believe this although they practice pedo baptism. The Mormons believe this . Certainly the view “out there” is they practice baptismal regeneration. I would really appreciate some clarity on it.
When I state the CoC is involved with the big names in the emergent or some call it the mission church, I can 100% support the truthfullness of what i’m asserting. Of course, if you want to see some of my work, i’d ask for your e-mail because I have tons of proof.
Hi Gina,
There is some latitude in the CofC due to some degree of congregational autonomy and the high number of splits that have occurred – so there may well be multiple positions on almost any issue. I do think the CofC takes a view of the Lord’s supper that is about the same as the Baptists i.e. it is a memorial – a special means of grace but not a means of special grace is the view of some. Some believe there is a spiritual presence of Christ but not a more physical presence of him in the bread and grape juice.
I’ve already addressed baptism. The CofC does view baptism as the moment that one is saved but that does NOT make it the classical view of baptismal regeneration. If you want to know more than that I would suggest you contact a CofC member – I’m not one. Personally, I think the Baptists area little confused on the issue as well, in part b/c they are reacting against the CofC. I would recommend you read Leroy Garrett’s work The Stone Campbell Movement, An Anecdotal History of Three Churches.
Wish you well,
Geezer
Gina,
For more on the CofC view of baptism you may want to read John Mark Hicks book Down in the River to Pray: Revisioning Baptism as God’s Transforming Work or perhaps read some archived stuff on Jay Guin;s blog One In Jesus.
Hesed,
Geezer
Qb ,
Oh , how I wish you were right . However , I have personally been accused of it and just by stating my own convictions. And I do have certitude about divine truth.
That’s not what’s going on here, RayB.
And you might want to check on the difference between “certitude” and “certainty.” It was a deliberate word choice. I give you Oliver Wendell Holmes:
“Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so.”
Quite so.
qb
geezer, if communion offers a”special means of grace but not a means of special grace is the view of some. Some believe there is a spiritual presence of Christ but not a more physical presence of him in the bread and grape juice.” it stands in stark contrast to independent baptist churchs. As you know we probably have around 99 different kinds of baptists: reformed, ana, primitive, southern baptists, Judson, and on and on and on.
We don’t believe any “special means of grace” is a part of the Lord’s Supper. God’s Grace is always present in the believer’s life . It is a remembrance of Christ (I Cor. 11:24) it recalls His life (bread) His death (the cup) His resurrection and living presence (the service itself) We believe that God’s presence is within us thru the HS and He is present in our worship.
It is also a proclamation of his death. Our communion service states the Gospel message as well as the claims of the Gospel on the redeemed person. It also gives us an assurance of Christ’s second coming. It is a time of fellowship with Christ and His people (1 Cor10:21) It is purely a memorial but is is also a service in which the presence of Christ in His peope effects a real comunion. I asked my pastor about this and he gave me an even fuller explanation about “the love feast” with pagan practices that Paul addressed and He provided a great scriptural response to this but unless your interested, I won’t offer it.
again, i think if you look up church history, the baptists were around long before the Church of Christ and so the issue of water baptism having no part in salvation has always been clear. the ana baptists, chiliasm refused to go to Rome and denote a special means of salvation thru water baptism. This is the reason they were called ana-baptists. ( I can’t speak for the various strains of churches with the name baptist) Some baptist churches ordain homosexuals. I can’t defend that. lol
Sorry, but according to all my reading when one mixes water baptism with any kind of salvation, it is classic baptismal regeneration. I wish someone knew exactly what this water does in the salvation process. We don’t have a process of salvation – thru faith alone.
Geezer, if you want to study this and the security of the believer, it actually becomes so clear one wonders how they missed it. I missed it because I only knew the CoC and never asked questions. I found it thru God’s grace leading me to a bible-beliving church. If you know of a blog where this might be the topic , i’d love to join a study about eternal security.
qb, i hope you read my posts addressing Mr. Armour and listened to the audios. I actually did some research on him that contributed to the roots of Dr Armour’s teaching. Can you defend it? You called me out on it and i’m sorry I mentioned a name but it connected with me simply because of the dialog about baptism between CoC and Southern Baptists. I don’t know if he’s a specific link to this issue (have not researched it yet) but I do know he is a change agent and his use of dialectic techniques are not christian exercises. Any questions?
QB ,
Certitude has to do with convictions, via Webster . There are convictions that I have based on scripture . And my comments were to Gina about an emphasis that is in the current culture. It was to her .
Hi Gina,
This may be my last comment so please don’t be offended if I back out of the conversation. Above you indicated that there are many kinds of Baptists and then regarding the Lord’s Supper you said: “We don’t believe any “special means of grace” is a part of the Lord’s Supper.” I assume you are speaking for yourself and the congregation you attend rather than all those who identify themselves as some kind of Baptists. My experience with Baptists is that a fair amount of latitude is tolerated among the pastors, deacons and regular pew sitters regarding most doctrines. Several Baptist friends have joked with me that “wherever there are two Baptists, there are three opinions.”
I am glad you asked your “pastor about [communion] and he gave [you] an even fuller explanation about “the love feast” with pagan practices that Paul addressed.” If your pastor indicated the love feast was a pagan practice you may want to do a little more research before you come to a firm conclusion on that topic. I am sure your pastor is a wonderful man, but surely he doesn’t know everything and I am sure you don’t want anyone else to do your thinking for you. No doubt someone did mix pagan ritual with all kinds of Christian practices, (just look at the “Christian” holidays) but I would not denigrate the love feast b/c of it.
Also, regarding the Supper, you mentioned: “It is purely a memorial but is is also a service in which the presence of Christ in His peope effects a real comunion.” This suggests to me that this might be what some folks mean when they say it is a special means of grace as there is a communion between Christ and his people that occurs during the Supper that is special or different in some qualitative way that during the rest of the time.
Regarding baptism, it is clear that the Baptists were around before the CofC, but all Baptists have not always believed the same thing(s). Baptist doctrine has changed (whew, I almost said evolved ;->) over the years. It used to be that Baptists were pretty devout Calvinists, at least with regard to the doctrine of sovereign grace as it relates to salvation i.e. they were five pointers. Now there is little of Calvinism left outside the Reformed Baptists. Many Southern Baptists have dropped most of that and even changed the doctrine of perseverance of the saints to simply eternal security. They are not necessarily the same thing. Before CofC days (and remember that the Campbells were Baptists after they were Presbyterians) the Baptists did not require re immersion of a formerly immersed believer. When the CofC began to require it in Texas then the Baptists began to require it as well. Their argument was the same as the CofC as they each said the person did not have the right theological understanding about baptism so they had to have a do over with the right thoughts in their heads. Check out Landmark Baptists if you’re interested.
I attended a Baptist church for a number of years when I lived overseas – and that congregation had a Landmark connection. Eventually my wife and I both held positions on the church council and were quite active in the congregation. In our case they made an exception and did not require us to be re-baptized – we would have refused – not b/c our initial baptism was perfect but b/c a re-baptism would not have been perfect either – it would simply have pleased a few that wanted to have their way. The pastor there always made it a point to say that baptism had “nothing to do” with salvation and then it became clear he thought a person was baptized b/c they had been saved. If that is the case then baptism does have something to do with salvation, it simply is not part of the cause of salvation. That pastor would then conduct a baptism and say something like “I now baptize you, Sally, in the name of the Father, Son and H.S. and then he would baptize her. When he raised her up out of the water he would say he had now raised his “sister in Christ.” This would imply that she was Sally, not his sister, before he baptized her, but he evidently didn’t make that connection.
Forgive me for pointing this out but Gina, you said “the ana baptists, chiliasm refused to go to Rome and denote a special means of salvation thru water baptism. This is the reason they were called ana-baptists.” Actually the reason they were called anabaptists according to wiki is: “The name Anabaptist is derived from the Latin term anabaptista, or “one who baptizes over again”, in reference to practicing adult baptism, because, as a new faith, they baptized converts who already had been baptized (as infants) in the older Christian churches.” It is Geezer’s understanding they did not like being called anabaptists b/c they did not believe they were baptizing a person over again since they believed infant baptism was not baptism at all.
You also said “Sorry, but according to all my reading when one mixes water baptism with any kind of salvation, it is classic baptismal regeneration.” Gina, you dont’ get to re-define the terms when there is already a generally accepted understanding of the term. The classical view (RCC view) is that in baptism a sinner is infused with enough grace to overcome the effects of the fall. The CofC view is pretty much that a person is imputed with righteousness as gift of God and a result of their faith, plus obedience and maybe even their supposed correct theology on the issue. In each case the person is believed to be regenerated when they were baptized. Many in the CofC hardly understand the meaning of regeneration/born again as it is generally used theologically, but they don’t get to redefine the terms either. Anyway, just b/c something is understood to happen at the same time it is not the same doctrine if it happens for different ways and different ways. That should not be a difficult concept to grasp.
Finally, you mentioned “i’d love to join a study about eternal security.” Gina, I am a five pointer, I am completely convinced that God is sovereign regarding my election and ultimate destiny. There is no need to convince me of the perseverance of the saints. I would challenge you to learn the distinction between eternal security and the perseverance of the saints.
I wish all of God’s lovingkindness on you.
Over and out,
Geezer
geezer, you remind me of Santa . You bring me interesting thoughts, stories and wisdom and then…off you go to the world-wide web. oh well, just for the record, i still need to respond to your comments. I think you might check back one day (santa is a lurker by trade)
Where to begin?
1st Anabaptists : honestly, i’m not trying to be a snob but i don’t just accept Wiki for it’s definition. I know you must be familiar with J.M. Carroll and you will say he got his history wrong..but I claim otherwise. Christ is the one who keeps His Church and not all believers followed Constantine who as you know had a rather quirky view of baptism) As you also know many christians suffered persecutions, horrid deaths by Rome. Unfortunately, the christians kept growing so Constantine made a deal and simply said “i’m a christian too and I welcome all christians” Unfortunately, he only welcomed christians who obeyed his view. He was kinda like the Church boss. so anyway, i’ll give you or anyone else a link to this history. I would agree that the name “anabaptist” was a name that evolved over time. So technically, since we know the anabaptists didn’t join with the Protestants or Rome……we assert our theological history stakes it’s claim with the martyred and certainly some of the believers known as anabaptists. I’m not all that familiar with Landmark Baptists or their current beliefs. You are right the name baptists goes from super liberal theology to well, perhaps my little church.
Love feast: This feast of love is mentioned in 2Peter 2:13, 1 COR. 11;20 Independent baptists churches in general would say it was an extended serve that did include the Lord’s Supper – a full meal was also eaten in and by the church. Whatever the origin of the meal (pagan, Jewish common meals, or christians’ desire to avoid eating meats offered to idols), it had obviously fallen into major abuse when Paul wrote 1 Cor. Some were making it an excuse for gluttony, refusing to share. So Paul definitely said “hey, maybe you should eat at home rather than negate the idea of fellowship and love. History tells us that this love feast kinda went out of practice in the 4th century. So we baptists, just say the fact that Paul did counsel its suspension in the church definitely excludes it from being an ordinance. I won’t get into foot-washing but we don’t practice it and as always have good reasons why we don’t.
http://www.biblepreaching.com/trailofblood.html < link to what we claim is us! (not to the current anabaptist church)
chiliasm: we definitely identify many of our beliefs with chiliasm. Are you familiar with the get together of fundamentalists in the 1800's . I can't re-call the name of the books published from various speakers at that time. I have the set but I can't find them today. Anyway, it's really undeniable the premil approach to eschatology existed in Jewish thought. See link below…it's also undeniable that this was a common view held by early christians and I would add it's indeed scriptural. Rome again adopted a amil . view and unfortunately the Reformers didn't reform alot of things Rome did. Oh well
Premillennialism was the most widely held view of the earliest centuries of the church. Philip Schaff has said, "The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age (A.D. 100-325) is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, . . . a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papia, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius." (History of the Christian Church, Scribner, 1884; Vol. 2, p. 614)
Premillennialism began to die out in the established Catholic Church during the life of Augustine (A.D. 354-430). Chiliasm was suppressed by the dominant Catholic Church, but survived through various "fringe" groups of Christians during the mediaeval period. During the Reformation, Anabaptists and Hugenots helped to revive premillennialism and it was adopted among some Puritans during the Post-Reformation era. (NOTE: we identify with these anabaptists also because we are also premillennial; so it’s not just baptism)
The greatest development and spread of premillennialism since the early church came in the late 1800's – early 1900's with the rise of U.S. Fundamentalism and Dispensationalism. Starting in the British Isles and spreading to America, premillennialism (in its dispensational form) has become prominent in the Evangelical faith.
In my closing thought to you, maybe i'll see ya on some Reformed blogs. Probably around 15 yrs ago, I enjoyed debating with them on Pal-Talk. To your point, of course I know the difference between Eternal Security and Perseverance of the Saints. I always found it interesting that Calvinists tend to say everything is UP to God except in this area – then it's up to the Saints. I think that's rather strange. (and wrong) Now, again…i'm not saying you're doomed to Hell over it..but of course, we have some major differences. I probably disagree with the whole TULIP but I do agree in the Depravity of man just not the explanations and definitions and use of "elect" etc. Well, that's for another day. Atleast it's Sola Scripture with calvinists and they do have a fully developed theological intrepretive method. Atleast I can talk to you about the Doctrine of Election, Extent of Atonement, imputation of sin and on and on and on. Studying these areas with my scriptures out and led by the HS, I did alot of growing in Christ when I was saved in my little baptist church. Gee, I never expected myself to say so much that is irrelevant to the topic. I'm blaming Santa!!
http://www.the-highway.com/chiliasm_Masselink.html This is an extremely interesting article.
As a member of the church of CHrist I’ve never heard of salvation comes after baptism. Baptism is the washing away of sins.
anne,
thanks……if baptism is the washing away of sins …do i need to be baptized again every time I sin? If not, what sin or sins does water baptism wash away? I just don’t understand what is in the water that can do this and so i’m asking how this is accomplished.
Gina,
It’s not the water. It’s the obedience. It’s no more an “act” that accomplishes salvation than your sinner’s prayer. It’s the grace of God imputed to us through our obedience to the commands and examples of Christ. The end.
ETA: In fact, since one submits to being baptized and doesn’t actually have an active part beyond the decision, I’d submit that it’s actually less of an action than an active prayer. It’s submission to the will and grace of God.
Gina,
To answer your other question, baptism doesn’t save, Jesus does, but the submission to his example and to the request of God through scripture to be baptized, cleanses us from all sin. Past, present, and future. We are viewed evermore through a filter of blood – represented by the water.
I have no problem with others who pray the sinner’s prayer and become followers and adherents. It would be a problem for me however to make the confession and not then be baptized. A poor analogy (to explain my view) would be to say yes to a man asking me to marry him, live with him as his wife, but never having the ceremony or license – tho we would be wed in all ways for all practical purposes, it would still be missing something vital in my eyes.
Gina, You asked
“if baptism is the washing away of sins …do i need to be baptized again every time I sin? ”
1 John 1:5-9 Walking in the Light
5This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
John is speaking to Christians here. So confessing our sins is what is necesssary.
Q, i’m confused. So are you saying, that baptism is an act of obedience. So therefore it is the same as”God’s imputed grace that christians receive when we obey Him and are examples of Christ? Does that mean every time I follow a command, it’s similar to baptism? If I follow a command or show an example of Christ in my life, I continually receive this imputed grace, the same as baptism – except no water?
If I understood you correctly , what happens when a christian fails to follow a command or at times is definitely not an example of Christ to others? Then I am without the imputed grace of God? Do I need to correct myself and then the next time I obey him or am a good example of Christ to others, then I get the next burst of “imputed grace”
Sorry, i’m not understanding this .
D Dallas,
“the blood of Jesus cleanses us from ALL sin” So are you saying that the blood of Christ is in the water at baptism…..i’m just asking how does the blood of Christ cleanse us from all sin? Is it baptism and then confessing our sins or some combination of both?
What would happen if I sthought a bad word or wished some one ill health or yelled at a lady taking who stole my parking place,,,but I died before I could confess my sin? Any sin is an anathema to God…so would I be condemned since I didn’t have time to confess each of my sins that day?
“Just telling someone to pray more or believe more or go to church more or to stop thinking so much—well, that just isn’t very helpful.”
I’m questioning………………………….
(perhaps i’m not questioning with a post-modern vibe?)