Part 2 of Viewpoint Brief Bible Study #075. |
||
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
JESUS calls US to be |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
The Christian religion is the worship and service of Jesus Christ. It’s not Mary we worship, but her Son. We worship neither saints, angels, a law code, nor even God’s Spirit. It’s JESUS who is to be honored. The Bible is our guide. |
||
Not by Faith ALONE
God's gift spoken of in Ephesians 2:8-10
is GRACE, Not Faith
Part 2 Continued from Study #75-A Click to move directly to Part 3.
Ray said -- Obedience includes baptism to bring us INTO Christ, and repentance as a continuing state afterward. And His gracious gifts also continue.Marc -- Faith indeed "leads" to obedience. However, it *results* in salvation. Jesus didn't die for the angels. They don't have the option of receiving "faith" (acceptance and trust); they can only "believe" (acknowledge) and tremble.
Marc, there are good and bad angels, are there not? Faith IS trust. We humans can believe or doubt things we can't know for sure. Angels can't possibly doubt, for they KNOW that God is, and that Jesus is God. You say they (all angels) don't have the option of "receiving" faith. The fact is that they have no option (all angels have no option) to DOUBT. Angels who have rebelled against God know that the only end of their rebellion is punishment, so they tremble. But they can't doubt.
Humans can doubt, or we can believe. For we don't KNOW. God has made provision for our redemption. We know of no similar provision for angelic redemption.
But your comment about "receiving" faith is not supported by scripture. We hear facts, which WE either receive as true or reject as false. We are free to do this. God does not impose "faith" on some and "doubt" on others. That theory is not true. Having heard the gospel we are free to either accept or reject it. We have no right to blame God for which choice we've made!
RAY had said -- Men are totally free
(to believe or to doubt God).Marc responded -- Granted, to a point: Certainly, we are not "robots"; but our *abilities* are limited: Romans 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, *neither indeed can be*."
[Marc, note that "the carnal mind" is not the mind which will ever be within Christians who are walking with the Lord, but is rather the mind within unChristian people whose hearts are opposed to God and things of God. You're implying that Christians still have carnal minds. The word urges us to "Have THIS mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, etc." No choice? We are called to think wholesome, pure, and godly thoughts. The CARNAL mind is not a Christian mind.]
Marc -- Within the scope of our abilities, then, we have free will: 1 Corinthians 7:37 "Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, *having no necessity, but hath power over his own will*, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well."
[Paul is saying that those who are able to live rightly without sex are urged to do so, but that if the sexual urge is stronger than their particular will (won't) power, then they are to make proper provision for appropriate sex. This is not to say that all Christians have NO control over their impulses. Rather it's to say that all Christians DO have the ability to control themselves, and are to exercise that control appropriately.]
Marc -- Do we have an innate ability to "will" to do that which is pleasing to God?: Philippians 2:13 "For it is God which worketh in you both *to will* and to do of his good pleasure."
[Paul knows that every good and perfect gift comes from God. He repeatedly urges us to exercise OUR will in order to be in tune with God's will. Don't accept this verse as opposing all the times he points out that our WILL must be set on things above rather than on things here on earth. He does not intend in this verse to negate the many places where he points out that we are free to think and act as WE think best. He is pointing out again that our will must be to do God's will. It's OUR choice.]
Marc -- Are we "free" to resist God's will?: Revelation 17:17 "For *God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will*, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."
[If you want us to understand from this word in Revelation concerning future events, that God makes every decision for US, then there's nothing more for us to decide. If God does it all, then there'll be no judgment, for no one is guilty of sin if he had no choice but to sin. This verse is saying that in this particular situation, these particular persons were allowed to do things which it was God's will they should do. Does it apply to every situation? every person? I think not.]
Marc -- Is it in response to *our will to please God* that He extends to us His mercy?: Romans 9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
[This verse could be taken to mean that it's all up to God. Since every Bible passage revealing God to us must be in agreement with every other Bible passage which reveals God (since each is truth from God), THIS verse must be understood in the light of the many appeals to men to choose rightly. If we could NOT choose, much in the Bible has to be thrown out. I believe that God has decreed that men shall be free to choose good or evil. If there are some exceptions to that general rule, I can live with the fact. It's still true in general that God's mercy extends to every man who will seek His face and believe that "He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."]
Marc -- Did Jonah and Paul "freely" choose to do that which the Lord commanded; or were they constrained?: 1 Corinthians 9:16-18 "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: *but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me*. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel."
Both Jonah and Paul were encouraged by miraculous events to do what God wanted them to do (and in Jonah's case what God had specifically told him to do).
Paul points out that in his case, he does preach the gospel willingly, and hence will receive rewards because he did it "without charge" to the hearers. I don't hear Paul here claiming that what he does is done against his own will -- that God just took his life over and MADE him do what he has done and is doing.
Marc -- According to whose will are these taken captive by the devil?: 2 Timothy 2:25-26 "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
If the wicked people here spoken of were captive by the will of GOD, their fate would be sealed. There would be no need of speaking of repentance. They were ensnared by the DEVIL. Paul urges that they should be prayed for, asking that God would SAVE them from the clutches of the Devil. The chosen method of saving them was "instructing" them in the truth so they would decide to accept God's salvation. They were to be called to REPENTANCE.
Marc -- Free will is limited by ability. We don't have the ability to "accept Him" or to "receive Him." Free will is useless for such a task.
You seem to be saying that Peter was wasting his breath, and didn't know the truth, when he urged repentance and baptism upon (as you see it) people who COULDN'T repent. Marc, you're saying we can't do exactly what we are TOLD repeatedly in the Bible TO do. I believe you're wrong. Of course we CAN repent, which is what Peter says is step one in accepting and receiving Jesus. Many don't do so. But anyone CAN do so.
Otherwise, there's no guilt, and equally, no hope. Let's don't remove everything good from the gospel. By saying sinners must passively wait until God either saves them or they die in sin, we negate the entire new dispensation which OFFERS hope to sinners. Shall we choose to take it all away, to tell our listeners that there's nothing they CAN do toward salvation? Peter says there IS. If not, why bother? If it's all up to God, let's not waste another minute telling people what THEY can do to make things better. It's all up to God. It's all finished. It's all done. No?
Marc -- Nevertheless, there *is a matter of "will" involved. It is not a matter of "choosing to accept," however, but a matter of *willingness to accept.* There is a difference! The first is an "act of the will," the second is a "state of the spirit."
A choice is a choice. Every sinner has choices, and has chosen freely the way he wants to go. Your desire to differentiate between "choosing" and "willingness" to accept or think or do is nothing known of in the Bible.
The sinners then were just told about a risen Lord and asked to come to Him for healing and life. Those who chose to do so found life and healing. Those who chose to NOT do so died in their sins. It was their choice. And God didn't make the choice for each person, so far as the Word tells us.
Marc -- There are, of course, different baptisms: water baptism in obedience, water baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29), the baptism of suffering (Matthew 20:22), baptism with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8), baptism unto Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2). Are you absolutely sure that baptism into Christ is a *result* of *water baptism*?
Marc, I sure am sure! We see that rightly dividing (handling aright) the scriptures calls for some exercise of logic. So let's put some facts together -- Jesus told the apostles who were to get the Lord's church going that what they were to do, everywhere they went, was to tell people about the risen Lord, and baptize those who believed that He in fact had risen from the dead.Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and in Ephesians 4:4-6 points out that there is ONE baptism which is common to every Christian and therefore creates unity. Logically, that baptism is the one Jesus commanded in what we call the great commission (Matthew 28:18-20).
So you list other baptisms and ask me which of the others fit the criteria. Was it the baptism (figurative) when Moses led the children of Israel through the Red Sea? Does that fit pretty well? How about the baptism of suffering which Jesus said He was to endure? Is that one for every Christian in every land in every age? Or was it for Jesus alone? You tell me.
Or was it John's baptism in which John baptized all repentant Jews in preparation for the coming kingdom? Maybe that's the one! In fact, many today are baptized with that baptism, thinking they're obeying Jesus by so doing.
But that's not Christian baptism. It was a sign of their repentance. It was also for remission of sins. But it was for faithful Jews rather than for Christians. No it wasn't a baptism which, since we all have submitted to it, unites all Christians. Only SOME church members today have been baptized with "John's baptism." (Some early disciples were thought to need to receive Christian baptism although they HAD submitted to John's baptism.)
Logic still. Jesus told His apostles THEY were to teach and baptize. Have you ever baptized anyone in the Holy Spirit? Want to try it now? How will you do it? In Acts 2 and Acts 10, we note there was baptism in the Spirit, and GOD did it. It wasn't done by any man or group of men, but by God.
When Jesus told His apostles to teach and baptize, maybe He made a mistake and meant they were to pray with the converts that GOD would baptize them in the Holy Spirit. I don't think that's the case. I don't think Jesus made mistakes. But perhaps some readers of this discussion will think so.
What other baptisms did you wonder about in connection with the ONE baptism Paul says in Ephesians 4 is the one for Christians?
I've convinced myself that it has to be one that humans can perform. I read in Acts about them doing it. It involved a body of water rather than a sprinkle of water. It was called a "burial" from which the person could be "raised." I think I know what it was. I should think you would too since you do understand language and its use. I don't really see any reason for wondering what Christian baptism is. It was Paul who said it was a burial, and it's he who says it's "into Christ."
I really don't see the purpose for this particular question or comment. Christian baptism is in water, and it properly portrays a burial and a resurrection from death. That's immersion in water.
Peter assures us who will read the inspired Word that this baptism, if preceded by faith in Jesus and repentance from sin, results in remission of sins and receipt of the indwelling Holy Spirit. That's really very clearly taught to all who will read in search of God's light. Hopefully, that means ALL of us.
He means a second "baptism." He refers to a baptism (filling) with God's holy Spirit. I totally disagree, but will share here what the tract claims is true.
"Now that I'm a Christian, I should be filled with the Holy Spirit. I need this personal experience to give me power for Christian service, strength to live as Jesus Christ commanded, and to identify myself fully with the cause of Christ." Note the claim that being a Christian is insufficient! Without this additional step, which Peter didn't know about, which Paul never spoke of, which is no part of the apostles' doctrine, Christians are not yet saved. Surely any Bible student will see why I disagree with the tract.
"One of the main ideas of this particular denomination is to 'return to the teachings and the religious experience of the Early Church.' Now that you have accepted Christ as your Savior, you need to be filled with the Holy Spirit. This is a personal experience, separate from salvation, which we call the baptism in the Holy Spirit."
But please note that the teachings and religious experience of the early church finds Christians saved by Christ and His atoning death on the cross rather than by any "personal experience" at all! This writer would rewrite Ephesians 2:8,9 to read, "We're saved by grace through faith and a personal experience which we call baptism in the Holy Spirit." And they would be totally, fatally wrong to do so."Jesus considered the baptism in the Holy Spirit so important that following His death and resurrection, He would not allow His disciples to begin their public ministry until they had received it. He commanded them [the apostles] that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father. Then He went on to say [to the apostles only], 'but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now'" (Acts 1:4,5). I've inserted the true fact that the command and promise of Holy Spirit baptism was here given only to the apostles, and not to anyone else.
"Concerning the purpose of this experience, Jesus said, "But you shall receive power after the Holy Spirit is come upon you; and you shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Don't lose sight of the fact that here Jesus is speaking ONLY to the apostles. Then the tract writer continues as if Peter was refering to the promise Jesus made to the apostles, which is not the case --
"The Apostle Peter said, 'You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call'" (Acts 2:38,39). Perhaps the tract writer didn't have room to quote all of Acts 2:38 where the promise Peter was speaking of is made, for that surely would have ruined his train of thought. Peter promises that repentant sinners who are baptized into Christ WILL have their sins forgiven and WILL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That's the promise of which Peter spoke. ALL who submit to Christian baptism (which is in water, not the Holy Spirit) are by Peter promised that they WILL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit which is for us all. But the tract writer continues, just as if the Bible taught what he here says (which it does not) --
"These Bible verses teach us that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is necessary for Christian service, gives us power to be witnesses, and is still for us today." Those who read these verses in their Bible and note carefully who was speaking, and to whom he was speaking will surely see that this the tract writer's claim here quoted is totally false. He follows by additional explanations and claims --
"Because our only source of doctrine is the Bible, we agree wholeheartedly with everything the Bible tells us. We encourage every believer to seek this experience and we require it for all of our leaders. Church deacons, ministers, and Bible school teachers must be filed with the Holy Spirit to carry out an acceptable ministry. If Jesus required it of His disciples, we surely should require no less today." How wonderful it would be if the claim were true that this group took their teachings from the Bible. In fact they do nothing of the kind, for they're reading INTO the Bible what they wish God had said there. The tract writer goes on to explain what he thinks the baptism in the Holy Spirit every believer should seek is like --
"When you receive this experience, the Holy Spirit will give you the utterance of language that you have never learned. You will begin to talk in a strange tongue as the Holy Spirit speaks through you. The Bible says, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues (in other known languages which everyone present could understand), as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). And once again the tract writer twists God's Word to make it seem to teach what he wishes it HAD taught. Acts 2:4 is clearly speaking of languages that people there from many lands all could UNDERSTAND. The "experience" he wants unwary brethren to have is a babbling in an "unknown" tongue that must be interpreted if those present are to understand it.
"We (the denomination which published the tract) call speaking with other tongues (unknown language, he means) the 'initial, physical evidence' of the baptism in the Holy Spirit." This certainly is something different from becoming a Christian, but it's not something the Bible teaches that Christians should seek.
"You will continue on to show the fruit of the Spirit..." The teacher implies that those who babble are the ones who are to show the fruit of the Spirit. Peter teaches that ALL who are baptized into Christ receive the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit. The Bible's teaching is that all Christians should show the fruit of the Spirit. Inspired teachers do NOT teach that Christians should seek to babble, whether this is called by someone a "baptism in the Holy Spirit" or by any other name.
Continued in Study #75-C. Please click to continue.