Viewpoint Brief Bible Study #002 |
||
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
JESUS calls US to be members of His church |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
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. |
||
Below is an informal discussion which was held via e-mail between A Texas Preacher (ATP) and Ray Downen (Joplin MO) -- about the Way of Salvation . Both ATP and Ray agree that baptism is associated with new life in Christ.Ray says baptism is the climax of the new birth, without which no sinner is normally saved. Baptism brings us INTO Christ (Galatians 3:26,27) as a final step in the new "birth of water and spirit" of which Jesus speaks in John 3:3-5. ATP looks at coming into Christ differently, placing complete salvation earlier in the process -- as is commonly the view of Baptist teachers and others who are sometimes called "Calvinists" (rightly or wrongly).
This study is longer than most Viewpoint brief studies. Sorry about that. And, since the comments are interspersed, it's NOT easy to follow who said what and when. I've left it interspersed because that's how A Texas Preacher (ATP) and I did our discussion. It is an important subject. His comments are all set for blue type.
Please take time to THINK about what ATP says and I say. On most things we agree but there is a point at which the agreement stops. I feel that BAPTISM in water is part of the new birth. I understand him to almost but not quite be able to agree with that position. Please don't jump to any conclusions. Do consider fairly both positions. Thanks.
A friend who has pondered this exchange makes a comment I want to share here: CHARLES PHIPPS says--God graciously, through His unique Son, offers me eternity with Him. I need to know what God wants from me as I accept His gift of life. Then, in order to receive the gift, I need to trust Him for the WHEN, and simply OBEY Him.Obeying Him takes a lifetime. Seeking to determine the exact moment when God's gift of life is transferred TO me is at best an academic exercise. Disputing about the exact moment of salvation could give the appearance of reluctance to go beyond the minimum -- of a desire to do the least possible to please God. Neither Ray nor ATP fit this "least possible" scheme. None of us would want to do so.
My living with God for eternity depends on His offer and my acceptance by faith expressed in loving obedience. It does NOT depend on my understanding of the process. God tells us, "the just shall LIVE by faith." We walk by FAITH, not by sight. -- Charles Phipps
THESE EXCHANGES occurred primarily on April 11,12, and 13 in 1997. They represent two commonly-held views of the Way of Christ which leads to salvation. To see the first note from Ray, look for the sections which show a date of 4-11-97 -- ATP inserted comments and returned the note plus comments, which then went back to Texas and the comments dated 4-13-97 were added, with a few final comments being added later. [4-13-97 from Ray] ATP, Thanks for your considerate reply to my inquiry! You conclude that we have different understandings of certain scriptures, and I must agree. Since I'm sure I'm right, and I'm senior guy on the block, I feel I should try once more to make clear why my understanding must be the correct one.
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 11:08:33 -0400 (EDT) ATP writes: In a message dated 97-04-11 20:30:56 EDT, you write:
[4-11-97-Ray] You do well to contend for the faith vigorously, and to remind all that salvation is based upon faith in Jesus which leads us to obey Him as Lord.[4-12-97-ATP] Thank you.
[4-11-97-Ray] It's unfortunate that ... you (may) teach in words which are perfectly clear (unambiguous) and yet not readily understood by many readers.[4-12-97-ATP] ...If people cannot readily understand words which are perfectly clear (unambiguous), that is unfortunate indeed, but I disclaim any credit for their problem. Is it better to use words which are ambiguous and not clear?
[4/13/97-Ray] The contrast I had in mind was not between ones which could not easily be understood as opposed to words which could mean anything. I wanted to say that you were implying something which from acquaintance with other texts (which you left unmentioned or which you implied were in agreement with a saved-prior-to-baptism position) you should have known was not true...
[4-11-97-Ray] You agree with me that Jesus is said to require entrance into his kingdom by means of a new birth (of water and spirit, John 3).[4-12-97-ATP] I do NOT agree that John 3:5 necessarily is speaking of water baptism. It might well be speaking of natural birth in contrast to spiritual birth -- which is the point of that whole context.
[4/13/97 -- Ray] If you really think Jesus was saying (via John's report) that the essential new birth was of spirit only, then you seem to now think Peter on Pentecost misunderstood the new birth. And I read your comment as meaning not only that it could but that it does, even though you don't quite say that.
[4-11-97 - Ray] Peter seems to equate this (on Pentecost, Acts 2) with repentance and baptism, which by my tally puts two inspired teachers on record as teaching that faith ALONE is not sufficient for salvation.[4-12-97 - ATP] It all depends on what someone means by "faith alone." If one means that sinners must DO something to make salvation a reality, but only one thing, and that is to accept intellectually as true what the Bible says, then that is not saving faith and I do not believe in that kind of "faith only."
If one means that all we can do to enjoy salvation is to trust God for it, based on what he did in Jesus, since we cannot do anything to accomplish salvation ourselves, I agree with that and insist that it is what Jesus teaches throughout the Gospel of John and what Paul teaches throughout Romans and Galatians.
The ONLY way we are saved is by trusting God's love and work in Jesus, not by CONTRIBUTING something to our own salvation, or EARNING it or DESERVING it by anything we do. If that is what one means by "faith only," it is the gospel and I affirm it with all my heart.
[4/13/97 -- Ray] Jesus clearly teaches the baptism of new converts (an action done TO them rather than BY them). Both Ray and ATP agree immediate baptism is appropriate.
[In further explanation on 4/18/97 ATP states, "Baptism 'for the remission of sins' is possible only because baptism expresses faith, and whoever believes in Jesus 'has remission of sins' (Acts 10:43). And THAT is true only because Jesus' blood was shed 'for remission of sins' (Matt.26:28)."]
Note that if each item in a list is needed for salvation, as the Scripture attests, then a sinner is not saved prior to the last in series, which is immersion into Christ. We're saved because of Calvary. Peter says salvation is by way of faith expressing itself in repentance and baptism!
[4/11/97 - Ray] Proper Bible interpretation then demands that we understand statements speaking of salvation by faith, of receiving remission of sin through faith, as NOT meaning by/through faith ALONE. Yet you seem to prefer the use of these scriptures as if they conflicted with Jesus and Peter and Paul. This is not to your credit![4-12-97 - ATP] See above.
[4/13/97 -- Ray] Above I see you saying that you do believe in salvation by faith alone, which is an improvement over the Roman doctrine of salvation by works, but is not yet entirely satisfactory to Bible students who are not willing to cast aside the obvious meaning of Acts 2:38. I trust you are aware that if Peter is right in what he clearly said on Pentecost, you are wrong in what you are understanding Jesus to have said in John 3. I do not mean to say that it's wrong to teach that we are saved by faith and not by works (but baptism is not a human work).
[4-12-97 - ATP] We can't have it both ways. We are either saved by trusting or we are saved by trying. Either Jesus did it all, or we do some of it. We either bring God something in exchange for which we hope to receive his favor, or we come to him with empty hands trusting his promise that he loves and forgives us in Jesus and for Jesus' sake.
[4/13/97 -- Ray] You are describing what new believers are to do. There's no reason except faith in what Jesus taught that would cause such persons to accept baptism. They might think they should give money to their preacher or that preacher's organization, or they might weep and wail and pray aloud, or they might do any number of other things in an effort to save themselves. But the Bible example and teaching is that they are humbly, with empty hands, to admit their love for Jesus, their acceptance of His lordship, and the preacher is told then immediately to baptize them in water! It's not from the Word that some get a theory that baptism is some kind of human work. It's what Jesus SAID each convert was to do, and not next week or next year...
Paul says that those who ARE baptized have "put on" Christ and are then sealed with His Holy Spirit. You seem to believe Paul wrongly times "putting on Christ," and think the Spirit is given in some other way at some other time (and please don't refer me again to Cornelius as if he and his family were not the very first Gentiles, whose conversions were no more descriptive of normality than the events were which transpired on the Day of Pentecost).
[4/11/97 - Ray] But any teacher is wrong who teaches a doctrine which conflicts with clear scriptural teaching.[4-12-97 - ATP] That is absolutely correct. And we Church of Christ and Christian Church (of the Stone-Campbell Reformation) folk have been wrong through the years when we denied that people are saved by trusting Jesus, and have tried to make baptism a necessary condition without which God could not save people. [NOTE-- I see this as a peculiar way to describe our reporting to persons what God says they should do in order for Him to save them. I have known a very few legalistic people who made baptism a requirement regardless of faith. They were rare exceptions, - Ray].
The Cornelius family was saved before water baptism (Acts 10) [NOTE--We see no proof of the assertion here made by ATP. God was dealing with both Peter and the members of the family of Cornelius. Who says they had been saved prior to water baptism? Certainly not the inspired text! - Ray].
We should not be afraid to say what Peter told them in 10:43 or what Paul told the jailer in Acts 16, or what Jesus says through the Gospel of John. [NOTE--No text here referred to claims that salvation is through faith ALONE. We will all agree that what Peter and John and Paul say is not incorrect, and we should never be afraid to speak of what they did say!]
We have acted as though Acts 2:38 overrode and modified all other texts -- despite the fact that people who heard those other sermons and read those other writings might not have even had Acts 2:38. [NOTE--They may or may not have known about Acts 2:38, that's true. But WE do know of it. WE have no excuse for trying to make false or deny what Peter by inspiration revealed in Acts 2:38-Ray.]
[4/13/97 -- Ray] Paul told the jailer that salvation was entirely through Jesus who rose from the dead. He baptized the jailer the same hour of the night. It's unreasonable to think this is an argument against our understanding that baptism is part of the new birth.
The story of Cornelius is told as the starting point of the early church actually accepting Gentiles without prior conversion to Jewry. Surely you don't want to say that God makes every case an exception by giving the Holy Spirit in the way which He hadn't used since Pentecost and (in the Word) is not reported to have used on any other occasions than the first Jewish converts, and again when the first Gentiles were accepted into God's church.
[4-11-97 - Ray] You imply that the one baptism of Ephesians chapter four may be less important than faith since, after all, it's only based on the one faith in Jesus as Lord which Paul teaches.[4-12-97 - ATP] You might infer that, but I do not imply it. I specifically urge that it is very important, precisely BECAUSE it is based on the one faith in Jesus as Lord.
[4/13/97 -- Ray] I'm glad you don't INTEND to imply it, for of course it's essential to Christianity, made so by Jesus. By abandoning it (through saying that we're saved without an act which Jesus says is imperative), we would certainly be implying that it's just another one of many things Christians should do -- whenever -- sometime.
Jesus makes immersion in water a one-time act, positioned at the birth of the new Christian to show all interested observers that this humbling act which reminds of the burial and resurrection of the King is an acceptance of, a believing in, the resurrection of Jesus. Paul says the former sinner is raised out of the water, as Jesus was raised from the tomb, to walk in a new life. Those who believe in salvation prior to baptism dispute Paul's assertion that in baptism we have "put on" Christ, and that baptism is "into" Christ (Galatians 3:26,27).
[4-11-97 - Ray] Is it not true that a correct translation of Gal.3:27 puts Paul in the believer-in-the-necessity-of-baptism column? Do you feel that you're with him there?[4-12-97 - ATP] Yes, I'm with Paul. We are all baptized in (Greek "en") one Spirit into ("eis") one body (1 Cor. 12:13). Paul would not teach one thing in Galatians down to 3:27 and then contradict himself in that verse.
[4/13/97 -- Ray] If you want 1 Corinthians 12:13 to be speaking of some "Holy Spirit baptism" rather than the immersion in water which brings us into Christ, you're right with the faith-only position. Otherwise, we should be on the same side in this discussion!
But that's making Paul contradict Ephesians 4 in his clear teaching that there is abiding for the church ONE baptism, which has to be that one which Jesus instructed His apostles (and us by proxy) to perform as soon as new disciples were formed and PRIOR TO the teaching of additional matters about the Way.
For water baptism can't be erased from the Way. The Lord put it there -- right at the start of the new life. It's the debut (the coming out) of the babe in Christ. It's the time when the new convert receives the gift of the Holy Spirit (we need not fret over exceptions in the earliest days, if we realize that at that time EVERYTHING was new and God was nursing along "infants" who had a very great deal indeed to learn about this new religion. In those first days, He was exceedingly generous in pouring out the Spirit, and they apparently were uninhibited in accepting and being led by the Spirit of God, just as we should also be.)
[4-12-97 - ATP] It appears, Brother Ray, that we have different understandings of these Scriptures.
[4/13/97 -- Ray] If these differing understandings are not worked out, that will surely affect our continuing endorsement of one another's teachings. Each time I've recommended your good writings, I've lately had to point out your wrong teaching of salvation PRIOR TO baptism.
We both see that salvation is entirely by faith and not by works. Yet salvation does not precede accepting immersion in water in the name of Christ unless God chooses to make an exception to the Way He has clearly marked out for men.
A convert to Christ should have no option about whether or not to be baptized. If the person wants to be saved, those who trust Jesus and want to obey Him will simply then and there immerse that convert so that he/she can be added to the roll of the saved, can put on Christ, can feel him/herself then and there brought "into" Christ. In the scriptural accounts, baptism always was done immediately (and it's clear that it was immersion in water). We're not saved by praying or paying. It's by obeying.
So I've added several comments to your comments and my questions. I very much appreciate your taking time to share your thoughts on this subject.
Proper Bible Interpretation leads to Christian unity. Interpretations which conflict with other clear teaching lead to chaos... I'd rather find out that I had misunderstood your position, but I seem to be clearly hearing you saying that Christian baptism (to bring us "into Christ") is NOT part of the new birth. -- Ray.
[4-14-97 - ATP's concluding remarks]Ray - No matter how many times and ways I insist that baptism is part of the N.T. way of conversion, the initial expression and declaration of trust in Jesus' atonement, of the sinner's repentance and of his/her intent to follow Jesus in discipleship, you still want to make me say it is merely an option.
How can one say that water baptism is the prime condition and the only time God shows mercy to a repentant sinner, when Scripture so clearly shows Him doing otherwise, and when all the Bible from Genesis to Revelation places the emphasis on God's unilateral and merciful saving work accomplished in Jesus of Nazareth 2,000 years ago rather than on ANYTHING the sinner does who hears about that work? ...
RAY'S concluding remarks --Baptism is in no way a HUMAN work. It's the climax of God's work in creating a new life in Christ. Yes, God can make an exception. Since Calvary, every NORMAL birth into Christ is through baptism in water!
ATP says on 4/18/97 that both he and Ray see the need for immediate baptism for new converts. Our different expressions, he says, are because he sees baptism as faith which is trusting Christ for salvation while I'm seeing baptism as obedience which God makes a condition of salvation. I appreciate his way of wording this, and agree. We both see the necessity of baptism. Yet I don't see faith AS action. I see faith leading to action, but the action is not the faith.
It's because we do trust Jesus that we're willing to be baptized! What other reason would justify our submitting to the indignity of being dipped in water and raised up in full view of our family and friends with our hair disarranged and dignity forgotten? It's God who works when we are baptized. He gives us His Holy Spirit within. He writes our name in the Lamb's Book of Life.
But when we were baptized, what work did WE do? God and the baptizer did all the work when we each were baptized into Christ and then raised to walk in new life. We accept baptism because Jesus wants us to do it. It's not our idea. JESUS saves! He chooses to save by way of sinners being baptized in water... then raised to walk in NEW LIFE with Him (see Romans 6)!
===== e n d =====
=================================It is correct that we're saved by grace through FAITH. We don't NEED to know the exact moment of our having become saved. I nonetheless believe it important that no gospel teacher should imply that sinners are reborn before they, in Jesus' name, are immersed in water and raised then to walk in new life with Christ and God.
We know when a baby is born. It's BORN when he or she is no longer within the body of the mother. The birth process began long before that. So it is with a babe in Christ.
Our walk with God surely MUST begin before our baptism. But it's AT Christian baptism that the new birth is finished and the life-long walk with Jesus is SEEN to begin. Sinners go into the baptismal water. Saints emerge, not because of magic water, but because that's how God does it!
================================= You're invited to send for or read study #31 to read a response by one reader of the above material. Click here to go to Viewpoint study #31 . On 1/20/99 I received another comment which should have been part of this study if the author had been smarter. Please read it. And here's a brief comment by another Missouri reader:
Ray, I agree that we receive the forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit, and addition into the church at baptism, and not before. However, isn't it possible for someone to be baptized to fulfill a commandment of Jesus, or some other scriptural reason, while misunderstanding exactly at what point forgiveness occurs, and still receive the blessing promised by God?For instance, many Christians misunderstand and do not accept the indwelling of the Holy Spirit promised in Acts 2:38.
However, that mistaken belief does not make their baptism invalid or prevent them from receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit. So, why should a misunderstanding of the exact time of forgiveness prevent them from receiving the blessing of forgiveness?
Now, if they are being baptized for some unscriptural reason (i.e. to be considered a member of a particular congregation) then their baptism is not the "one" baptism mentioned in Ephesians, and is useless for remission of sins, putting on Christ, obtaining the Holy Spirit, being added to the Church, and any of over 20 scriptural reasons for being baptized. -- Rick
To go back to Viewpoint's first page, click < here. Or here > to go on to Viewpoint Study 3. For Ray's concluding remarks, click HERE.
