Part 3 of Viewpoint Brief Bible Study #75 |
||
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
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 3
Continued from Study #75-B Click to move back to Part 1 of this study,
or to the WORLD addendum.Marc -- What does it mean to be "clothed with Christ"?
Paul indicates that it means we will then think as Jesus did, and act as Jesus did. We'll repulse Satan's attacks. We'll gladly serve Jesus, doing whatever we learn He wants us to do. In the judgment, it means our sins will be covered over and hidden -- which means that God CAN accept us even though He hates sin and will not accept sin in His presence. To be clothed with Christ is to be saved.
Marc -- Is not being "clothed with Christ" to have His Spirit? And have we not already seen that the giving of the Spirit is *not necessarily* a result of water baptism? [Not yet -- and not ever. The Bible says it IS the result of baptism in water! I have to believe the Bible instead of Marc.]
You have asserted that. I see no reason to believe your idea about this is true. I disagree completely with your feeling that Peter was mistaken in Acts 2 or thought in Acts 10 that he was calling for the baptism of already-saved people. Your claiming something does not prove it any more than MY claiming something makes it true. Just quoting a verse (or referring to it) does not make that verse prove what you or I may think it says.
In Acts 10, Luke does not say WHAT effect the baptism in the Holy Spirit may have had upon Cornelius and his household except that Peter as a result of what he saw then baptized these Gentile believers in water into Christ.
Since Peter is on record as knowing the purpose of baptism was for the one accepting baptism to receive remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I think it logical to suppose that's the purpose for which he became convinced he should baptize these Gentiles.
RAY said This same teaching is made equally clear in Romans 6, early verses, where Paul clarifies that baptism is a burial (in water) out of which the person is raised in order to "walk in new life."
Marc -- And what is the source of this "new life"?: Romans 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." Romans 8:10 "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." And again, as we have seen, the Spirit is *not necessarily* given at the time of water baptism. [NOT!].
Marc, are you quoting Paul in Romans 8 to shed light on what he meant in Romans 6? Are you really convinced that you've proved by quoting Acts 10 (where it says no such thing) that the indwelling Spirit is given prior to baptism or at some other time THAN at baptism? Couldn't Peter have been RIGHT?
I think we should let Paul speak for himself in Romans 6. He'll NOT dispute there with what he said in chapter 8. But chapter 8 does not quarrel with chapter 6 either. What he said was that in baptism we are buried with Christ and raised, as He was, to walk in NEW LIFE.
Harmonize that with John 3 where He points out that the Christian walk, the Way that leads to life, begins with a NEW BIRTH.
In baptism we put on Christ. Paul calls it (NIV translation) being "clothed with" Christ. In more than one place the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is spoken of as us having God and Christ within us. They got there by God's gift when we repented and then were immersed into Him (into His body, it's worded in 1 Corinthians 12:13).
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Marc A. Todd" Subject: Re: Salvation is of the Jews? Date sent: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:29:59 -0700Ray:
Well... I guess we're going to disagree.
I know beyond a doubt that God bestowed His Holy Spirit on me before I was baptized. When I asked Him to reveal Himself to me, He could have been Vishna or Buddha for all I knew. I didn't expect and didn't *want Him to be the God spoken of in the Bible; the Father of Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, when He chose to reveal Himself, that's exactly who He revealed Himself as. My heart leapt for joy when He made His Presence known to me and spoke to me. If I had a choice to accept or reject Him at that point, then it was similar to the choice I make when I decide to eat when I'm starving. This is truth.
I guess you can continue to pat yourself on the back for having the intelligence and innate spirituality that led you to accept God's "offer" of salvation. God has rewarded you for all eternity because you cared and chose to believe that the Bible is His word and that it reveals the truth of God and that Christ died for your sins.
Congratulations!
I see no point in continuing this discussion, but I welcome discussion with you on other matters.
In love, Marc A. Todd mtodd@triax.com
It's written by Rob Looper, "assistant pastor (clergyman) of Twin Oaks Presbyterian Church in St.Louis, Missouri." He recognizes that Martin Luther added "only" to the inspired text, and believes this was all right. He says it's what we all should do.
(That is, it's suggested that unity comes by us all changing God's Word to say that salvation comes by faith alone, when the Bible says faith alone is dead. To me, this does not seem quite right). He's commenting about Promise Keepers --
Last October I sat in the Memphis Liberty Bowl a Promise Keepers skeptic. Having come there to examine the phenomenon firsthand, I thumbed through my program booklet with a critical eye. Printed on a page titled "Core Values" was the PK statement of faith, summed up in five solidly evangelical points. In spite of PK's charismatic flavor, I was basically impressed.
I wanted to be impressed. Although the teaching seemed theologically homogenized, I was looking for things to affirm. I left Memphis ambivalent, because PK is para-church and ecumenical, and one of its primary stated goals is "visible unity." I knew this kind of unity could be achieved only when those involved agreed to leave doctrinal distinctives at home. But I knew also that these problems are not unique to PK, and I saw no "new" issues of concern.
Recently, watching the Washington event on television, I also was pleasantly surprised. I could hear scriptural challenge from some of the speakers rather than easy moralism. But, looking through my file of PK materials, I also ran across a new fundamental problem, one so subtle that most evangelicals may never notice it.
Last October, article 5 of PK's statement of faith read, in part, "man ... because of sin, was alienated from God. That alienation can be removed only by accepting through faith alone God's gift of salvation which was made possible by Christ's death" (emphasis added). Today, the statement reads, "Only through faith, trusting in Christ alone for salvation which was made possible by his death and resurrection, can that alienation be removed."
What's missing? Faith alone, sola fide, the core doctrine of the gospel. [NOT, says Ray.] As of at least last October, PK stood with the Reformation, itself a movement that reclaimed, among other truths, the clear Bible [NOT, says Ray] teaching that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone [YES, says Ray, salvation is found only in Christ]. Only through trusting in God's mercy in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf can man be saved. [Note that this is what the revised statement also affirms, says Ray.]
Now, according to PK, it is not faith alone in Christ that saves; it is faith in Christ alone that saves. The latter is the classic teaching of the Roman Catholic church, that faith is a necessary but insufficient condition of salvation; trust in Christ's death merely begins the process of salvation, which is "completed" as Christ enables us by grace to participate in works of righteousness. [Ray comments -- If the theology of the Roman church agrees with Bible truth that faith alone is insufficient, the fact that they have a different misunderstanding of Bible truth which brings in works as necessary for salvation does not mean that the anti-scriptural teaching of salvation by faith alone is right.]
This distinction may sound picky, but it is what led Martin Luther 480 years ago to pick a life of conflict rather than accommodation. Churches that celebrate Reformation Day in two weeks will be remembering the long struggle to establish the principle of "faith alone."
Even if the distinction is no big deal to evangelicals -- though it should be -- it IS a big deal to Catholics, [Ray comments -- and to anyone who knows that the Bible never claims men are saved by faith ALONE, which means that those who add this teaching are not teaching BIBLE truth] according to the Catholic weekly OUR SUNDAY VISITOR. Its July 20 edition reported that PK changed its statement of faith to accommodate Catholics who wanted to join but couldn't, because to embrace "faith alone" would "force them to reject their Catholic faith."
WORLD reporters sought out PK's side of the story. Staffers in the public-relations office issued a statement that claims the change "has not altered the meaning of this key principle in any way. Our objective was only to bring more clarity to this important fundamental truth of Christianity." Moreover, PK maintains, the revised statement of faith "expresses Ephesians 2:8,9 [and 10, adds Ray] more accurately than the old statement, thus we felt we were being truer to Scripture. Promise Keepers believes that salvation is a free gift from God and cannot be earned by any human effort."
PK director of public affairs Steve Rupp told WORLD that PK was "not under pressure from Catholics or anyone else to make the change in any wording. Our board voted unanimously to make the change. Many board members would have objected if it was not biblically correct." Pressed on how he reconciles his statements with the Our Sunday Visitor reporting, Mr. Rupp says, "I can't address what was said in the Catholic newspaper article. I wasn't there; I don't know what really was said."
Notice the wording of the written statement: "this key principle" and "this important fundamental truth." It's not entirely clear what is the "this" to which the statement refers. Top PK officials were not available to answer questions. But, fundamentally, there is only one: Is sola fide the official theological position of Promise Keepers, or is it not?
The Presbyterian clergyman calls on Promise Keepers to agree with his unscriptural position. He posits that they will either stand for "truth" or they will "fall for" an appeal for unity.
Bible students should all agree that we are NOT saved by works. Paul makes this point very clearly. The works he particularly refers to are works of law, I suspect. But the statement is clear -- salvation is through faith rather than works of any kind. The revised statement, as suggested by the PK spokesman, is in full harmony with Ephesians 2:8-10 as Paul wrote it. The earlier statement was in harmony instead with that text as Martin Luther revised it to include the word ALONE.
Shall we seek unity based on the Bible or on men's opinions? Shall we face God in judgment and call for him to recognize our salvation because of human additions to His revealed truth? Grace is God's gift to mankind. Faith is man's response to God's offer of salvation without human works. The new birth includes repentance and baptism into Christ, after which the former sinner has received remission of sins and the indwelling gift of God's Spirit. Ephesians 2:8,9 must not be understood to contradict John 3:3-5 or Acts 2:38. Truth does not conflict with truth. The teaching that men can be saved by faith alone DOES conflict with Bible truth. Therefore it is not a teaching from God.
I asked WORLD for permission to post the above material here. The permission was graciously granted. Please do NOT feel you should write to WORLD unless your thoughtful note contributes to edifying a Christian friend. And, of course, I'd like to receive a copy of any note you send to WORLD regarding this subject.
Here's the post received today from WORLD's editor, Marvin Olasky, whose conversion is the subject of Viewpoint Study #10:
From: Molasky@aol.com
Date sent: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:43:18 -0500 (EST)
To: outreach@sofnet.com
Subject: Reprint Permission RequestRay -- I don't agree with your interpretation, but it's fine to have a debate, so permission granted as long as you include the address of the World website, <www.worldmag.com>, so that people who want more information can check it out themselves.
In Christ's Fellowship, Marvin Olasky
Brief Bible Study #75 from Ray Downen. To go back to Viewpoint's first page, click < here. Or here to go on to Viewpoint Study 76. For Ray's concluding remarks, click HERE.