In light of our discussion of the Colossian “heresy” combined with some of our recent discussions on this blog, I want to consider the presence of the ongoing supernatural activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.
In the first two chapters of Colossians, Paul makes it clear that rule-keeping without correct theology is powerless to bring about the type of godliness which should characterize the Christian life. Our “hope of glory” is not in keeping rules (no matter how beneficial they are–note that Paul maintains a generality with his description, “do not taste, do not touch, do not handle”. This generality can apply to any system of ethics). My “hope of glory” is Christ in me.
My contention is that Paul’s description of “Christ in you” transcends the merely rational. In other words, the very desire that I have to turn away from my “natural” inclination–sin, is evidence of a supernatural working of the Holy Spirit in my life. But more than that, the only real power to truly turn away from sin is the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit in my life.
In other words, many unspiritual people desire to “do the right thing” morally. Superficially, they may be successful. But deep within that person’s soul, they are serving only their own self-interests. Their thoughts, desires, and intentions are ultimately unspiritual. Paul says “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14).
In the last thread, I made the contention that man is not free to not sin. I make this contention based on evidence such as Paul’s teachings as outlined above. The implication is that unless there is a supernatural working of the Holy Spirit on the sinner, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the sinner to come to Christ. I believe this is completely consistent with 1. The sovereignty of God and 2. The teachings of Jesus (John 3:3ff, 6:35ff).
Over and over in the New Testament, the saved are described as those who have received the Holy Spirit. Paul says we are “sealed for the day of redemption” by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30). It makes perfect sense that only those who possess the Holy Spirit can understand spiritual things and only those who possess the Holy Spirit are sealed by God. If we are born with the freedom to not sin–or even the freedom to embrace the spiritual, then this would be evidence of people being born with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There is simply no biblical evidence to uphold such a position.
Not enough ‘discussion’ generated on the last topic, eh?
Ken – regarding being “born with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit” – what of Luke 1:16 when it says of John the Baptist, “he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”
Is that A) an exception to your statement or B) speaking to something else entirely?
I’m glad you brought that up. I think this serves as a perfect example of how a Sovereign God can and does choose his servants from even before their birth–filling them with His Spirit at whatever point He chooses–even while in the womb.
Therefore I wouldn’t see this as an exception but rather as evidence of the unusual nature of this “filling” with the Holy Spirit.
john the baptist preborn nature is another example that our attempts to put the LORD into a neat little box contenually fail. he is not a tame lion!
JOSH!!!!!!
How in the world are you? Good to hear from you.
You should have heard the “God box busting” conversation we had at lunch today. Trying to move from what God can do to what God therefore must do puts you smack into the “lion’s den”.
Please jump in on this thread any time.
i am doing great
still living up here in the dc metro area ministering to teens.
david ennis pointed out your blog to me so i thought i would check it out.
Howdy Ken,
You began the discussion by saying that Paul taught that rule-keeping without correct theology is powerless.
In light of everything that has been said, can you elaborate on what rule-keeping is powerful with correct theology, and what rule-keeping is not?
With so much that is said about rule-keeping, it would be nice to know what to emphasize to people, and what should be left open to opinion.
thanks,
James
Howdy back at ya, James.
you ask,
Please keep in mind that this discussion centers on Paul’s teaching from his letter to the Colossians. Rule-keeping seemed to be foremost on the minds of his readers. Paul condemns their ethical practices such as, “do not taste, do not touch, do not handle” because they were performing in their own power (thus my description of “bad” theology). They believed their “rule-keeping” was the basis of their justification (both achieving and maintaining).
With that said, Paul doesn’t condemn all forms of rule-keeping. Absolutely not. In chapter 3, he launches into one of the longest lists of ethical standards in the New Testament.
The major difference, for Paul, is that this list of “dos” and “don’ts” proceeds from one’s justification–as opposed to the false teachings which place “dos” and “don’ts” as the basis of justification.
So if you’re looking for a list, I’d make sure your people are correctly understanding the nature of their salvation first.
Howdy,
Thank you for responding. So, based on one’s justification, they have to do “the do’s”, but it will not affect their justification? Am I understanding your position correctly?
I ask that because so many may not appreciate or fully value their justification. Therefore, they become apathetic concerning their spiritual walk with God. While I may observe this trend, it is not the purpose for which we are redeemed (2 Cor. 5:15; Eph. 2:10).
I may not be as quick to respond as I was today. So, if you answer my queries, please give me some time to write back. Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
James
James,
You wrote:
I’m not so much “staking out a position” as I am trying to interpret the letter to the Colossians.
Apparently, there was a faction in the Colossian church which believed that they could be “good” by keeping rules in their own power. Paul counters this by reminding them that they had “died” to this kind of approach to “goodness”. In fact, their justification was a “done deal”. Therefore any REAL “goodness” that they do flows out of “Christ in them”–the power of the Holy Spirit–the power which raised Jesus from the dead.
They have an interest in “doing” –but as a means to sanctification (“being renewed in the knowledge of their creator”), not as a means to justification.
You wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree. I find that the more people understand the true nature of their justification (monergistic, by grace alone), the more worshipful they become.
I am glad that when I married my wife she didn’t say, “Just so you fully appreciate and value our relationship, I want you to bring me fresh flowers once a week, take me on a date night at least once every two weeks and you must spend at least $50 on my Valentines Day present – otherwise, you’ve shown that you don’t love me.”
Doing those things in and of themselves could never produce a love for her or sustain a marriage, but knowing what she appreciates, similar things occur out of my love for her and become tangible evidence of that love.
(XOXO to my sweetie!)
There’s a place for this gushy nonsense. The internet is not it. I’m gonna go vomit…
j/k 😉
Yeeesh! I know. David’s going to lose his honorary membership to the “Crusty Prickly Reformed (CPR) club”!
Just trying to use an analogy that is easier to relate to.
Do flowers, dates and gifts (rules) make someone be in love (justified)? No, they are after effects (sanctification) of already being in love (justified).
You may now resume the standard level of crusty, prickliness. 😉
Or put another way: don’t confuse cause and effect.
moving away from the mushy analogy. another way to put it is that we “follow the rules” because we are saved not to be saved.
we live like God’s people not to become one of God’s people but because that is what we are.
we live a life that pleases God out of appreciation for the sacrifice his sone made for us and because we are his people.
Ken,
If salvation is by “grace only”, what about faith?
Speaking of your views of the “supernatural working of the Holy Spirit,” where in the Bible does it say that the Holy Spirit works supernaturally in us to make us believers? On the day of Pentecost, didn’t those believers make the choice for themselves to follow Christ and give their lives to Him?
Didn’t Joshua say in Joshua 24:15 “Choose for yourselves this day…”?
You see, with your view there is no choice for me. If the Spirit decides that I am going to be a Christian, how do I choose to please God? That is like telling a child that if he/she wants a piece of candy they can have it, and then shoving it in their mouth and forcing them to eat it.
I understand that you view John 6:35 as one of your “bulletproof” verses regarding your view, but where does it say that the Father “supernaturally” draws us? Sorry, not in my version. Aren’t we drawn by the word of God, being “taught of God?”
Please explain.
Eric G.
I will try to keep the discussion on target as pertains to the subject of the indwelling Holy Spirit. I will however respond to the first question, “what about faith?” We are justified (placed in a legally innocent standing/counted righteous even though we aren’t righteous) before God by grace through faith. It is the gift of God. No argument here. If that faith doesn’t produce works, according to James, it is dead faith and it cannot save.
Eric says,
Just read a little past my “bulletproof” verse to John 6:44. “No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him.” The word “draws” is “helkyse” which is declined from “elko”. The word is used elsewhere in the NT and translated “drag” or “compel”.
In verse 45, Jesus pretty clearly says that this “drawing” is not general since EVERYONE who has heard and learned in this way comes to him. Then in verse 65 He once again makes it clear that mankind has no moral ability within himself to come to God. This is all an extension of John’s arguments in 1:12-13 and in chapter 3:3 that people don’t recognize the kingdom until and unless they are born again. The mystery of the Spirit’s work is like the wind.
As I’ve said before, people make real choices all the time. I made a choice to become a follower of Christ. The real question is “why did I make this choice?” Or “how could I make this choice?”
It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit (which, by the way, did not indwell me at my birth) that I could and did make that choice.
Ken,
You see, you are running around the truth so many times. How can you make a choice “only by the power of the Holy Spirit?” Did the Holy Spirit make that choice for you? It seems as though that is the case.
Here is the question that you need to answer. How is one “taught by God” and how does someone “hear” and “learn” from God?
If we want to be set free from sin, then we must do the things that God has laid out for us in His word. Jesus said in John 8:31-32, “IF YOU ABIDE IN MY WORD, then you are My disciples indeed. And you shall KNOW THE TRUTH and the TRUTH shall make you FREE.” Notice the stipulation “if you abide in my Word…” That is where the power is.
Paul said in Romans 1:16 that the gospel was the “Power of God unto salvation.” The Gospel is described in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the power to save, through the Holy Spirit in the inspired Word (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
It is interesting to note that Peter in Acts 2:38, tells the believers at Pentecost that after they repented and were all baptized that they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Answer this: If the Holy Spirit miraculously works in us to bring us to salvation before we are believers, then doesn’t that contradict what Peter said in Acts 2:38 about the timing that we would receive the Holy Spirit?
Other than the miraculous example of Cornelius, we have no other examples of the Holy Spirit falling on anyone before they were baptized into Christ and became “sons of God” (Gal. 3:26-27).
Please explain how this can happen.
Eric G.
Wow Eric. I offer up proof that the sky is blue and you counter with “the earth isn’t round!”
Apparently Eric, you think that the Holy Spirit works only through the presentation of propositional arguments within the pages of Scripture. Apparently you also think that every person approaches these propositions with the exact same ability to understand. This works real well to bolster your theology but it doesn’t seem to line up with Jesus’ teaching in John 1, 3, and 6…not to mention the number of passages which speak of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Now the Holy Spirit has a multi-faceted ministry on this earth. He regenerates. He adopts. He fills. He baptizes. He seals. Each of these is different from the others. And each is, as I pointed out before, somewhat mysterious. If you don’t understand this, then I don’t think I have the bandwidth to bring you up to speed.
Ken,
I agree that the Holy Spirit dwells within us. I do not think I said otherwise. But the only way that we can truly know that the Holy Spirit is working today is through the Word of God. Where are these miraculous gifts today? How did they receive them?
Doesn’t Acts 8:18 show that it took an apostle to impart the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit?
I wasn’t baptized with the Holy Spirit like the Apostles were. Does that mean I am a “make-believer?” Where in John 1, 3 and 6 does it say otherwise that the Holy Spirit works?
Eric G.
Eric G. says,
How do you know that the only way that we can truly know that the Holy Spirit is working today is through the Word of God? The Spirit works beyond our mere understanding of propositional truth. The Spirit empowers holiness (the fruit of the Spirit). I can’t be like Jesus, whom I read about in the Bible, unless the Spirit empower me to do so. The Spirit illuminates the Scriptures for believers. This is a work of the Spirit that functions on the mind and the heart. This is why an unbeliever can read the exact same words as a believer and yet the unbeliever comprehends nothing of the Spirit while the believer does.
You ask,
I prefer to be very careful in trying to find normative patterns in the Book of Acts…especially when it comes to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Apparently, IN THIS SITUATION, this particular measure of the Spirit was given by laying on of the hands of the apostles. However, in other situations, (such as Acts 11:15), He comes upon Cornelius, et al while Peter was speaking.
You say,
It depends on how you define “baptized with the Holy Spirit”. All believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). Not all believers manifest the gifts of tongues, healings, prophecy, etc.
If you will read my post a few back, you will see my treatment of John 1, 3, and 6.
Are you a “make-believer”? I really can’t make that determination based on the statement which you make. I would say it depends more on how the fruit of the Spirit is manifest in your life as well as whether or not you deny Jesus is God incarnate (which I don’t think you have done).
Ken,
Regarding Acts 8:18, what in the context shows that the gift could be imparted by someone other than the Apostles?
The logical conclusion is that the Apostles were imparting miraculous gifts “for the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12)and that Simon wanted to purchase this ability. This is different then the gift of the Holy Spirit that sealed us “who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession”, which would the what Peter was talking about in Acts 2:38.
But regarding the miraculous gifts, why did Paul say in Romans 1:11 “For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established…”? Could he have not told someone else who was not an Apostle to do that? It took him because he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and that is who could impart those spiritual gifts.
Regarding Cornelius, that is a completely different situation. The Holy Spirit came upon him to show Peter that “God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after beliving in the Lord Jesus Christ…”
But answer this: How would Peter had known that God accepted the Gentiles other than He imparting the gift of tongues for Peter to hear and see with his own two eyes? Was this not to help him understand the vision he received on the roof (Acts 10:9-16)?
Regarding 1 Corinthians 12:13, where does it say that we are baptized with the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit? Had all the Corinthians been baptized with the Holy Spirit like the Apostles did in Acts 2:1-4? The logical answer is no. We have no reason to think otherwise. The “one Spirit” goes back to the unity of the Godhead (Eph. 4:4-6).
If I am a Christian, and if I know people who are devout Christians, then why have I and they never spoken in tongues, been able to interpret, been able to prophecy, etc?
Eric G.
Eric,
I’m glad that you’ve figured out all the workings of the Holy Spirit.
As to your last question, I thought I made it very clear that all believers are baptized in the Holy Spirit but not all manifest the gifts of tongues, prophecy, or healings.
I’m not a Charismatic nor am I a Cessasionist. I am open to God doing what He will do and I make no claim to fully understand how and when the Holy Spirit works.
Ken,
What was the purpose of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit?
Eric G.
The purpose of miraculous gifts (or any gifts) of the Spirit…
Ultimately, to glorify God.
Specifically, to strengthen/edify the church. In some cases this was for the common good of the group (1 Cor. 12:7). In other cases the gift benefits only the individual (e.g. one who speaks in a tongue–if there are none present to interpret–he speaks only to God. 1 Cor. 14:2).
There also appears to be some evangelistic purpose for tongues accd. to 1 Cor. 14:22.
Now correct me if I’m wrong (or just paranoid), but I get the distinct impression that every question you ask is designed to trap me in some kind of heresy.
My aim on this blog is to explore biblical teaching on various subjects. I certainly don’t have all the answers (at least not all the correct ones). I will argue all day long over what I think is concrete in the scriptures. However, I will not do so when it comes to the workings of the Holy Spirit. It’s like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
Ken,
Referring to the Holy Spirit you said, “It depends on how you define “baptized with the Holy Spirit”. All believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). Not all believers manifest the gifts of tongues, healings, prophecy, etc..”
However, Jesus said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed in My name: they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So we must expect the signs and wonders.
Jesus also said, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” Subsequently, Peter follows through, elaborating for those that were just coming into a knowledge of the gospel, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” So we must expect the signs and wonders will not end.
In fact, the promise continues today in churches where they speak in tongues and the signs and wonders accompany the believers. This is not a theoretical or theological question. Go and see.
You are right about 1 Cor 12:13 although you mis-apply it. I have observed that there are many in my church that speak in tongues, but only a few have been privileged to have God speak through them to the congregation or to interpret God’s message. Brother Gordon is so gentle it is almost shocking. But when he has spoken to the congregation in tongues, there is REAL authority in his voice. This is rare. Maybe 4 people out of say 15-20 tongue talkers have been involved in a handful of incidents in two years. Bro. Gordon has spoken twice and a lady named Gwen has spoken a couple of times too. I think Sis. Gwen interpreted Bro Gordon once, and the other time, Sis. Mbisa interpreted. I think Sis. Thurston spoke once and interpreted once. The time Sis. Mbisa interpreted was really cool. She walked up and gave the interpretation to Pastor Jones in a note before Bro. Gordon spoke. Pastor Jones was fumbling with the paper trying to read it/understand why she walked up and handed him the note in the middle of church, and then Bro. Gordon broke out. Now that is sovereign! The special gifts seem to be reserved for those who really stand out in their humility, gentleness and prayer. Why am I not surprised?
Melanie prays in tongues all the time, and there are many people in our church that are devoted and speak in tongues like Mel, but who have never spoken in tongues to the congregation where the message is interpreted. Melanie did have a joyous experience recently when she instantly healed a lady’s stiff neck by laying hands on her. The Lady said it was a jolt of electricity. She had not been able to turn her head all day but she was instantly healed.
The Bible clearly teaches that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is distinct from being baptized in Jesus’ name. From the story of Cornelius we know the order can go either way although it is clear that Cornelius’ is a rare case, but then, how many guys do you know of whom it can be said, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God.” Now consider the Samaritans who believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, and they were being baptized. When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit for He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus! To Eric’s point, Peter and John probably knew they had not received the Holy Spirit because none of them spoke in tongues. In any case, here we have believers who did not have the Holy Spirit despite being baptized by one of Jesus’ disciples, so there is clearly a distinction between being a believer and having the indwelling Holy Spirit.
I think the baptism of the Holy Spirit is different than believers’ baptism in the same way that John 3:5 is different than John 3:3 and Acts 8:17 is different from Acts 8:12. The elephant is on the table. Sorry guys, but if it’s any consolation, I do not speak in tongues. What can I say then? Hmmm, like my daughter Jessica likes to remind me, God is sovereign!
Jose
Jose,
You imply that I take the position that signs and wonders have “come to an end”. I have never said that. In fact, I state clearly that God will do what He wants to do.
I can’t speak to your experience but I can speak to mine. I have seen what people refer to as “speaking in tongues” and each time it was done without an interpreter. This led me to believe that the individual who was speaking in tongues was more interested in receiving attention or receiving an ecstatic experience than edifying the church. Coupled with very bad theology and hack biblical interpretation I conclude that what I experienced was counterfeit.
Jose, I reject the teachings of “the second blessing” as unscriptural. All who have been reborn are baptized by the Holy Spirit. Just because Jesus told his disciples to expect the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit doesn’t NECESSARILY mean that we ALL must expect this. When you read from the epistles of later date, it appears that signs and wonders were waning somewhat. There is nowhere in the epistles where a general pronouncement is made for believers to expect to receive the gifts of signs and wonders.
I believe God uses signs and wonders as He wants to when He wants to. The scriptures, however, don’t teach that God is obliged to distribute them to everyone. It’s perfectly legitimate to interpret the manifestation of signs and wonders as appearing during great explosions of evangelistic activity and then fading away. The reason I am skeptical about most modern manifestations of signs and wonders is that, in most cases that I’ve investigated, those who claim to manifest these gifts are mangling the scriptures. I don’t think the Holy Spirit will empower those who misrepresent Him in such a way.
Ken,
All I ask you to do is answer from the Scriptures from your knowledge of them. I know that you have a great knowledge of the Scriptures, although I think it is a little off. Nevertheless, I enjoy reading your responses of the questions.
You say that I am attempting to trap you in some kind of heresy. Now Ken, think about the same questions you have been asking me throughout all of our conversations on this blog. I dare to say that you have tried to do the same.
I just want to hear your answer to see where you stand. I distinctly remember Peter say “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you…” I wholeheartedly believe that he is referring to the Scriptures also.
Now, I understand that you do not know everything about the Holy Spirit. Neither do I! But I do know some of what the Bible says, and I do know some examples in the Bible.
You stated it correctly: the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were to glorify God and edify the body. But you missed one huge purpose of the gifts: to confirm. The Apostles preached the Word and then confirmed it with a miracle or gift. That is the same as Jesus.
The question is why did they need to confirm it? Because it was new, they had no proof other than eyewitnesses.
Now answer me this: Has the Word been confirmed?
I dare say to you YES! 100%. We have the confirmed written Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17) which gives us “all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowldge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” through “His divine power” (2 Pet. 1:3).
Now that we have the complete revelation of God which has been confirmed time and time again, why do we need those miraculous gifts anymore? Can’t you read the Bible and be edified? Doesn’t the Bible edify the church? Doesn’t the Bible glorify God? YES, YES, YES.
So what need to we have of those gifts today? We have the ultimate gift of the Holy Spirit, that is the Holy Bible that is found in virtually every home in the United States.
Maybe this will give new light on 1 Corinthians 13:8-13.
Eric G.
Ken and Jose,
Anytime you have heard anyone speak in “tongues”,
1. Did they understand what they were saying?
2. What does it mean to speak in tongues?
Please use Bible references.
Eric G.
Eric says,
OK, Eric. I’ll give you that. 🙂
Of course, the Holy Spirit confirmed the word of the apostles but that wasn’t His only purpose. I agree that since the close of the canon there has been a markedly conspicuous absence of signs and wonders but I can’t reason from this that the work of the Holy Spirit is “done” and he has, like Elvis, “left the building.”
Two major workings of the Spirit in the life of today’s believers is 1. Illumination of the Scriptures (guiding the believer to recognize the things of the Spirit in the Bible) and 2. Empowering the fruit of the Spirit by the same power which raised Jesus from the dead.
These are both supernatural–even miraculous in that they are not experienced by the natural man in the course of his natural life.
Finally, I believe that the context of 1 Cor. 13:8-13 gives very little credence to the view that the “perfect” is the closed canon. It is far more likely to be either the 2nd coming of Christ or the glorification of the individual believer in death.
In your other post you ask:
Now Jose and I will have differing views on this. My answer is that I believe that they did not understand what they were saying because the manifestation was counterfeit–faked.
As to the meaning of tongues, not every instance of tongue-speaking was necessarily a known language (tongue of men). Apparently, accd. to 1 Cor. 13:1, there were “tongues of angels” as well which people had the ability to speak.
Ken,
I understand your being skeptical about tongues and I think you should be. There are fakers. I have seen them. And some of the real tongue talkers take their gift for granted and they don’t evangelize. ARRRRGH! And if anyone teaches anything other than the gospel… Amen.
That said, the references I used were straight out of the New American Standard Bible. And the context was accurate. I don’t know what your statement means that the “second blessing” is unscriptural. I quoted scripture without embelishing. The story of the Samaritans that is documented in Acts says they believed and were baptized by Philip, one of Jesus’ disciples, yet they had not received the Holy Spirit.
Even if the Bible particulary repetitive in the epistles, it does not make the preceeding scriptures wrong or weak. Paul notes that the gospel does not consist in words, but in power. The Lord’s statements are clear and He was not just talking about the disciples when he said, “These signs will accompany those who have believed in my name.” And Peter was talking to the church when he said, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
I think you are right about the frequency declining. Jesus was not able to do many miracles in His home town due to unbelief. I think that as the church grew and the truth was diluted or corrupted, the signs and wonders diminished.
Jose
Jose,
I have a problem with your reasoning about Acts 2:38. You assume that when they were baptized that they received a miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit. I think that is assuming too much.
All the text says is the “gift of the Holy Spirit.” Please be careful about what you call “miraculous” when the Bible does not make that distinction. I am not saying that some of them didn’t receive a miraculous gift, but I think it is a little beyond the text to say that they all received this.
This is the same promise given to us. That Holy Spirit is our guarantee to eternal life, given until Christ would bring home the “purchased possession” (Eph. 2).
Ken,
Please don’t think that I think that the Holy Spirit has “left the building.” The Holy Spirit still works in our lives. I just view it differently than you do. Not necessarily in a more “limited” way, just differently.
Eric G.
Awwhawwhaww…
Viv’ la diffrence!
Eric,
Regarding your last post, I would agree with you if Acts 2:38 stood by itself, despite what I have seen. However, Acts is a continuation of Luke and it is easy to follow the thread of the promise of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:48, Acts 1:4, Acts 2:33, Acts 2:39). With regard to the tongues, there are two kinds of references. Some scriptures indicate that the Spirit has not fallen, and then the people receive the Spirit and speak in tongues (Acts 2:4, 19:6). Some scriptures indicate that the Spirit has not fallen, but they do not specifically reference tongues as the evidence when the Spirit does fall. In those instances, you have to ask yourself, what was the outward evidence that allowed them to know the Spirit had not fallen? But that seems obvious from the first set of references. Ok, I said seems obvious, and I agree with you that it is not conclusive. What I have seen and heard is conclusive. Come and see.
Going back to your previous post, I don’t see where you get, “We have the confirmed written Word of God,” from 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Or from 2 Peter 1:3. In any case, I have studied how we got the Bible and I am satisfied that it is the divine revelation of God’s word. It is interesting to note what Peter says in verse 3-4 of 2 Peter 1:
3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
I interpret these verses to mean that through the revelation of the gospel of Jesus we are able to receive the promises, including the Holy Spirit, which is how we can be transformed and overcome our flesh. Yet in your next statements you discount the need for any gifts except the Holy Spirit and you do not in any way associate the receiving of the promise of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues or the other gifts as the Bible teaches? See my previous post to Ken. Whether you think we need them or not, your position is out of line with scripture. Is there anyone in your church that needs healing?
Regarding speaking in tongues, you ask, “do they understand what they were saying?” I have asked a bunch of the tongue talkers and they say they do not know what they are saying although they may have a vision or revelation while they are praying in tongues. I know the Holy Spirit teaches them but I don’t know if there is any correlation to them praying in tongues.
You ask, what does it mean to speak in tongues? I have observed two types of manifestations and the Bible indicates there is a third. (1) There is praying or worshiping. Most of them do this during their quiet time so you are no more likely to hear a tongue talker than you are to hear anyone else praying. However, we do a lot of praying in our church, so over time I have heard them. They will sometimes open up a little in a church service as part of worship if it gets really emotional, but mostly the music covers it up. I think they avoid it for fear of being perceived as putting on some kind of show, or that someone may think God is speaking to the congregation, but then there would be no interpretation.
Melanie, my wife, says that anytime she wants to she can focus on the inner voice and speak in the tongue that is particular to her. They each have a particular tongue. I know one Baptist preacher that says he does not speak in tongues although he has a personal prayer language that sounds like Navaho. It took some time for me to believe Melanie when she told me it had happened to her. When I finally asked her to let me hear, it was wild! The language is clearly a language and she (the Holy Spirit) is clearly saying something. No mumbo-jumbo or repetition. And Melanie’s Spirit language has popping and clicking sounds that you could not learn unless you grew up with it or spent an incredible amount of time learning.
Second, there is tongues and interpretation. The tongue talker that God has compelled to speak is loud and unrestrained. You KNOW it when it’s happening. I have only observed three people do this. I need to ask them if it is the same language they speak when they pray.
I said above that they don’t know what they are saying. There is one exception. One of them who once spoke in the congregation and then interpreted what they had said a minute or two later. I need to ask them if they knew what they were saying when they first spoke, but I doubt it.
I have only asked questions of a couple of the ones that have interpreted. They say it just comes to them what to say. The interpretation is weird like hearing my wife in that you know it is not them speaking. It sounds like the Bible, but it is not verses from the Bible even though sometimes it is close. It has always been some kind of exhortation to the church like “my little children, you will find me when you seek me with all of your heart.” (See Jer 29:11-14).
The third manifestation is like what happened at Pentecost. Someone speaks in a tongue but no interpretation is needed because the hearer recognizes the tongue. I have not observed this although I believe it happens in places like Africa. I have watched videos and heard tell of ten-thousands in Ethiopia getting the indwelling Holy Spirit (evidenced by speaking in tongues) because they have seen miracles and have walked days to a meeting to hear preaching where they responded to the gospel in masses.
Have a great Sunday. Jesus is Lord of all!
Jose
Eric, you asked Jose to … “Please be careful about what you call ‘miraculous’ when the Bible does not make that distinction.”
Earlier you declared Cornelius’ salvation to be “miraculous” because they (Cornelius and the others) showed evidence of the Spirit before water baptism. (As if everyone else’s salvation is just plain ole business as usual – yawn.)
Nothing in the context of that account eludes to Peter’s wonder and amazement that someone was saved before they were baptized – only that Gentiles were involved. (If baptism is required for salvation then they could have just as easily busted out in tounges after they were baptized and still proved to Peter that God is even using those dirty Gentiles.)
While there are plenty of sentences where one can read that salvation occurs only after water baptism, there are plenty more full discourses that make it clear that we not saved by ceremonies.
But that might be another discussion for another topic.
Ken,
You crack me up. No differences 🙂
Can’t visit with you tomorrow but I will come again. Want me to see if I can get some tongue talkera to come with me next time? Or come to Mens Bible study? I doubt they would speak in tongues for you (it would not prove anything to you and prayer is not a side show) but you could talk to them about the Bible and your conscience would be a better witness than anything I can say.
Have a great Sunday!
Jose
David,
Please answer this regarding Cornelius.
Why did Peter “command” them to be baptized? Could it not be because of what he said in Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21? Could it not be because of what Jesus said in John 3:3-5, Mark 16:16? Could it not be because of what Paul said in Acts 22:16, Gal. 3:26-27, Romans 6:3-4? There must be some importance.
Also, please answer this.
If you say that baptism is not essential to salvation, then how can someone know that they are saved? What do they have to do?
Eric G.
Why did Peter “command” them to be baptized? Just like anyone else, because Jesus commands His followers to be baptized in water. It is of great importance and should be one of the first ways we follow Christ’s teachings, no doubt about that. But hey look, we’re getting back to a previous topic, is water baptism what actually causes salvation or is it one of the first effects of our salvation?
We can know that we are saved by making sure our faith is in the one thing that is able to save us, Jesus the Son of God, and seeing the fruit of obedience and spiritual growth. (See the entire book of 1 John.)
What do we have to do to be saved? The question itself makes me think of why Christianity is so different from all the other religions of the world. They all provide a system of rules and things to do to earn God’s favor. But Christianity is about God extending His grace down to us. (See Titus 3.)
What must we do to be saved? In this linear existance our responsibility is to repent, knowing that nothing we could do would earn our place in the presence of a Holy God trusting that Jesus, the Son of God, died and was resurrected on the third day to pay the price for our sins as we respond with our lives in obedience out love for the Savior.
I’m sure Ken has already given you plenty of the comparisons of baptism to circumcision and the usual “grace alone” passages. In 1 Cor Paul says that Christ didn’t send him to baptize but to preach the Gospel. Later on in chapter 15, Paul says it’s the Gospel that saves and describes what the Gospel is. The ceremony of baptism is not mentioned. The Gospel and the Spirit are the cause, water baptism is the effect.
David,
Nice try. But please take a moment and read your response and notice that it makes absolutely no sense. I have read your passages regarding circumcision, but those are two completely different things. You said that the Gospel saves us (1 Cor. 15). What about Romans 6 where Paul describes our baptism as reenacting the gospel? Can we be saved apart from the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? If not, then how can we be saved apart from obeying God in reenacting that?
Please answer this. If someone told you that your house was on fire and that the only way to be saved was to run out the front door, what would you do? YOu would run out the front door. Likewise, God said that this is how you can be saved (Mark 16:16). Now, if you say that baptism is not essential to salvation, and that it is just a “ritual” then you are calling Jesus a liar because He said “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Paul said that we are baptized “into Christ” (Gal. 3:27) to become “sons of God” (Gal. 3:26).
Can we be saved “outside” of Christ?
Ken,
I have an interesting point regarding the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.
You say that they are still around today, and I responded that it required an apostle to pass that gift on (Acts 8:18). If that not be the case, then why in Acts 8:9-13 as Philip the evangelist was in Samaria did it require the Apostles to come and lay their hands on the people so that they could receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17)? Why couldn’t Philip impart that gift to them?
I guess it is, as many say, “he didn’t have enough faith.” What a ridiculous response! Let’s read the text and draw examples.
Eric G.
David,
You say,
“The Gospel and the Spirit are the cause, water baptism is the effect.”
That’s not what Peter said.
“Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized (cause), and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (effect).” This is also known as becoming a Christian.
Eric G.
Eric,
We clearly believe that baptism is “essential” to salvation. We opt for more precise language, however, in recognizing that any form of obedience (including water baptism) is a response to the work of God in justification.
In other words, God justifies those whom he wills to justify. Those whom he justifies, he empowers with the Holy Spirit. Believers cooperate with the Spirit in obedience to the commands of God. Therefore, if one refuses to obey God’s command of water baptism, then that person is in direct disobedience to the commands of God and I would seriously doubt that they are justified.
Again, the over-arching principle when looking back on this process is the sovereignty of God.
My role as an evangelist is the proclaim the good news that Jesus saves sinners by grace–that those who trust in him are given a righteousness that is not their own. I call on sinners to repent and follow Christ (including obedience to his command to be baptized in water). I plant and water but God gives the increase.
As to Philip’s inability to impart the gift…I never said he didn’t have enough faith to do this. I simply conclude that God chose not to empower him with this ability. I draw no normative patterns from this one event.
I choose to be careful not to contain God in limitations of my own design. Just because I haven’t experienced the manifestations of signs and wonders doesn’t mean that God has necessarily ceased such practices.
Ken,
According to your doctrine, what is the point in preaching the gospel? According to what you say, God has already chosen those whom He will save, and that salvation is brought upon by the Spirit. If this grace is supposedly irresistable, then why proclaim the good news? Those whom God “chose” will come anyways, because that is what He said they will do.
But answer this. How are our sins forgiven, and at what point? Please use Biblical references.
Eric G.
Eric,
We preach the gospel because that is the means by which God brings his elect into a saving relationship with himself.
I preach the gospel because Jesus, my Lord, commanded me to do so.
I preach the gospel because Paul and the apostles preached the gospel. They planted, they watered, but God gave the increase.
I preach the gospel and I pray because it is a privilege to be allowed to participate in the workings of God’s divine decree…confident that God will use my foolishness to bring glory to His own name.
Atonement was achieved through a covenant agreement between God the Father and God the Son whereby Christ bore the sins of the elect, paying their ransom and taking upon himself the wrath of God. This was determined in eternity by divine decree.
I experienced this, however, in real time when, as the result of regeneration, I trusted Christ for salvation, repented of my sins, and followed him in obedience.
My biblical reference is the New Testament.
Look at the idea that Paul is communicating in Romans 6. If we are forgiven then we have a free pass to sin all we want right? No! We are made new through Christ’s death and resurrection – spiritual baptism occuring in the spiritual realm. I have no reason to believe that Paul was saying we don’t have a free pass to sin because we were physically dunked under water.
Regarding Galatians look at the beginning of chapter 3 for the idea that Paul is addressing:
Paul gives full credit to the faith as being the cause, not our actions. Why do you then turn it around to say that we receive the Spirit by the action (law) of water baptism? He starts off the whole idea with what is accomplished in the Spirit – what water baptism represents.
In Mark 16:16 you seem to be focusing on the word structure of one sentence to define the process of salvation. It is a summary of the days of Jesus after the resurrection crammed into 11 sentences that aren’t even found in the earliest manuscripts, I don’t know if I would be getting that analytical about the detailed requirements about salvation right here. The language in the account of Matthew doesn’t give water baptism a direct role in salvation.
I am not calling Jesus or Peter liars, I am just presenting biblical examples (Cornelius and the thief on the cross) and definitions of salvation the don’t fit your “Gospel + water baptism = salvation” translation of scripture.
Eric, your question makes me think of a related question… Do you believe that God is your provider? If so, why do you work?
That pair of questions has the same bad premise assumed. Namely that because God determines something, we have no responsibility to act. That is a straw man when applied to the doctrine of God’s sovereign election.
To address Acts 2:38, Peter was doing exactly what Christ told Him to do in the Great Commission as he answered the people’s question of, “What do we do?”
You repent and be baptized. Is Acts chapter 2 defining the inner workings of the process of salvation? From what we see of Cornelius and what I read elsewhere that does go into detail, I tend not to think so. It seems Peter is giving a call to action in a narrative of the events of the day.
Ken,
What about those who are not the “elect”? Did they ever have a chance? Did Jesus die for the whole world or only for the “elect?” Am I part of this elect? Are you a part of this elect? How does one know if they are of the “elect?” Are your children the “elect?” How do you know?
The elect is the church corporately, chosen of God to be His people corporately. They were not hand-selected, making God a “respector of persons.”
David,
Please stay away from Galatians in your using it as an example to disprove baptism. Paul is talking about observing things in the Old Law. Baptism is under the new law. Try again.
As far as Mark 16:16, excuse me for reading the English from guys who were very capable to translate the Bible into English from the Greek. My Bible is faultless. I am sorry if yours has incorrect translations. My God is able to allow me to have what He wants me to read. Let me cite this verse to you from the Greek UBS text. This is word-for-word.
“The one believing and being baptized will be saved, but the one disbelieving will be condemned.” Sounds pretty close to the New King James Version.
You referred to Matthew’s account. Let’s look at it.
Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…”
Jesus says to make disciples (believers) through preaching, and then to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and then to teach them all things that He commanded.
Is it necessary to make disciples?
Is it necessary to teach?
If yes, then it is necessary to baptize for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). YOu can’t pick and choose which statements you agree with. If that is not a direct role in salvation, then I don’t know what is.
Regarding Cornelius, he was commanded to be baptized. Must be important.
The thief on the cross is very old. That was before the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The New Covenant was not yet in effect (Hebrews 9:16-22). The Kingdom (Church) had not yet come. Try again.
Show me one conversion account in Acts where the person was not baptized and I will leave you alone. The problem is that you cannot. They all were baptized. Must be important.
Acts 2:38. So that day was just a different day? When they asked what they must do, Peter didn’t really mean repent and be baptized? You see, if you say that repentance is necessary for salvation, then you must also say that baptism is necessary. There is the conjunction “and” which ties the two together. You see, it wasn’t until those people were baptized until they were “added to them (church)” (Acts 2:41) because it is at this point that God adds those to the church, or elect (Acts 2:47).
Read these verses:
Romans 6:3,4
Ephesians 4:5
Colossians 2:12
1 Peter 3:21
Mark 16:16
Acts 2:38, 41
Acts 8:12-13
Acts 8:36-39
Acts 10:44-48
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:33
Acts 18:8
Acts 19:1-6
Acts 22:16
1 Cor. 12:13
Gal. 3:26-27
Matt. 28:19-20
Heb. 10:22
Funny how you’ll pick apart one sentence in great detail but then assume a concept like a “new law” (new rules to earn our salvation by) over the entire book of Galatians – something that Paul never mentions as he explains our freedom from law. You’d think he’d at least mention a “new” one.
I’ve asked before, please define this “new law.” What else am I missing besides the Gospel AND water baptism?
You say the Bible is “faultless” in regards to word/sentence structure. What do you make of issues like these?
“The importance of baptism” is not the issue – in your words, nice try. The issue is “does the act of water baptism save us?” Of course water baptism is very important but you still can’t explain Cornelius being filled with the Spirit before water baptism (in contradiction to your interpretation of Acts 2:38 since we all agree that the Spirit is evidence of salvation) – besides considering it a “miraculous” salvation in order to teach Peter that Gentiles can be saved too. In other words, you say that God lowered His requirements for salvation just this once to make a point. That doesn’t really sound like the character of God.
That’s my one example, now please leave me alone. :^)
Eric,
If you read Galatians, you’ll see that the controversy wasn’t over Old vs. New. If it were, Paul would have consistently used the definite article “The Law” as opposed to the indefinite article, “law”. Paul’s point is the Galatians attempts to be justified by “law”, any kind of “law”.
I’ll ask you a similar question since you believe that God knew of your decision to follow Christ from eternity (at least you told me this in an earlier post). Do those whom God knows from eternity past will NOT choose to follow Christ have a chance?
No matter what position you take on the meaning of “the elect” we all have to examine ourselves to see if we are truly in the faith. You have known people who simply “get wet”. Their profession and baptism is empty but sometimes it takes awhile to recognize this. I would recognize a person as “elect” much as you would. By their fruit you will know them.
Please, please, please. NO MORE LISTS of scriptures.
I have to address this one…
Eric said,
Was God a “respector of persons” when He “hand-selected”:
1. John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb?
2. The Apostle Paul who was chosen by God to carry the gospel to the Gentiles and chosen to suffer?
3. Lydia whose heart was opened to receive the things taught to her by Paul?
4. The people of Troas (Acts 16) as opposed to the people of Bithynia?
5. Jacob as opposed to Esau who, before they did anything good or bad, God chose to love one and hate the other?
David,
You never cease to amaze me. How does it feel to teach a so-called “faulty” Bible? Are you so ignorant in your studies to not find the answers to some of these questions regarding your links? I am sorry for the strong language, but for you to even attempt to claim that the Bible has faults means that you should not even come close to having the opportunity to teach, and those who listen to you should shut their ears off and regard you as a liar.
Regarding Cornelius, you still haven’t answered why it was so important for him to be baptized.
Ken,
Are you saying that the Bible has lied in regards to your list of those whom God “hand selected” and that you claim that He is a respector of persons?
I see that my welcome has run out long ago. Let me leave you with this. The Bible is the infallible word of God, and anyone that things that it does have faults has already left the faith, and should have their lips sown shut to save their souls from further condemnation.
May God bless you with the knowledge of His will, and may we all come to know the one True and Living God better each day.
Eric G.
Eric, you have quite a flair for missing the point. David’s point is that for a person to truly take the Scriptures seriously one must work systematically, interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, and reconcile apparent contradictions. You claim to take them seriously, but often refuse to move beyond the words on the page to the intended meaning of the author (and ultimately the Lord).
I have to echo what Eric Farr said. You can’t just cut and run after accusing us of accepting a Bible full of errors. You missed David’s point completely. You also missed my point. I attempted to respond to your simplistic notion that sovereign election was tantamount to “respect of persons.” I listed five instances which simply don’t fit into your neat little box.
Your welcome has never run out. David was being humorous when he said, “now leave me alone”! He even put the little snarky-nosed emoticon there!!! I meet with these guys every week and they can attest to my fondness for you and my gratitude that you choose to engage on these subjects.
On the other hand, I know that you have a very important event coming up this weekend for which I pray God’s blessing on you and her.
If you go. Please go in peace.
This may seem obvious to the readers that make it this far down the comment chain, but I find this irony a bit amusing…
Eric G is ready to condemn David for what he misunderstands David to be saying about his view of the inspiration of Scripture and claims that David should not even be allowed to speak.
Leaving aside the misunderstanding, and just assuming for the moment that David did believe that the Bible contains errors, what does that give us? Is this an area of doctrine that is central to the gospel (a heresy to get wrong)? No. The gospel does not ride on the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. It rides on the work of Christ. How God chooses to communicate that that work through the ages does not affect the gospel itself. Inspiration and inerrancy bring me great comfort and confidence, but I would still be a Christian without it.
But the irony comes in when Eric is perfectly happy to join with Jose in arguing against total depravity for a Pelagian view (itself considered by most to be heresy). This while Jose denies the Trinity, which virtually everyone considers a vital doctrine.
It’s majoring on the minors and missing the majors.
Eric G,
Okay, I will try to make this as simple as possible – if you’ll allow me to speak. ;^)
I answered your question about Cornelius immediately after you asked it the first time. He was baptized because Peter was doing what Jesus told him (and us) to do in the Great Commission. Jesus commanded us to go, make disciples, baptize, and teach. That’s why it’s important – because this is how Jesus said to build His Church. It is our call to action as Christians from Jesus. Our salvation is not dependant on accomplishing the items on this list at least once before we are able to be justified in the eyes of God as one of your previous comments seems to be saying.
My point of posting that link of Biblical inconsistencies was to show that if you are going to interpret scripture on a WORD/SENTENCE STRUCTURE LEVEL then it needs to be consistent across the whole of Scripture. Clearly we can’t use that method across the entire Bible. I’m not saying that the Bible is faulty. I’m saying that certain parts of your interpretation of it are.
How can I say that? Look mathematically at the process of justification that you claim Peter defines in Acts 2:38:
(Gospel + water baptism) = (justification + receiving of the Spirit)
Sorry but Cornelius is one post-resurrection example that proves your equation faulty and so far you have no reply except to change the subject.
On a personal note: In regards to “now please leave me alone” I was just trying to take you up on your offer in hopes that you would accept my answer :^), please don’t be upset. And congratulations on the big day coming up. Best wishes to you and your new bride!
David Ennis –
You heretic.
😉
Ken –
“my biblical reference is the New Testament.”
You crack me up!
David,
Here is the deal. All that I can do to please God is what He has told me to do in His Holy Word.
In Hebrews 5:8-9 it says “He (Jesus) learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.”
If Jesus is the author of eternal salvation because He learned obedience through suffering, then I must do what He says.
What has He said?
He said to Believe (John 8:24).
He said to Repent (Luke 13:3).
He said to Confess before men (Matthew 10:32-33).
He said to be Baptized (Mark 16:16).
He said to live faithfully (Rev. 2:10).
What did the Apostles say?
They said to believe (Romans 10:9-10).
They said to Repent (Acts 2:38).
They said to Confess (Romans 10:9-10).
They said to be Baptized (Acts 2:38).
They said to live faithfully (1 John 1:7).
You can say “Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized” all you want. But like you said, I am not going to base my entire beliefs around one particular instance. But when we read in the Bible passage after passage saying that Baptism saves, that it washes away sins, that it makes you a son of God, that it kills your old man, etc., then I am not going to diminish its importance as you have just to say that we have no clue at what point we are saved, but that we have received the Holy Spirit.
You see, your doctrine doesn’t make sense. How can anyone know that they have been fully pleasing to God?
Answer this: Ken said that he encourages believers to be baptized. If they refuse, have they received the Holy Spirit?
If they agree, when do they receive the Holy Spirit?
And how can you say that they come at different times? Wouldn’t baptism (granted they are a true believer and not doing it for a show) be the culminating act to bring it all together? Yes it is.
As far as Acts 2:38 goes, Peter tells them what to do to be saved. That message was repeated time and time again. I would think that after being said that many times that it is how one is saved.
Thanks for your wishes about the wedding. I would ask that you would pray for me and my bride for us to completely conform our lives to God’s will.
Eric G.
E.G.,
Hello again! You say,
Had to call you on this one…but first, a disclaimer. No list of verses please! I just would like for you to pick the best verse that supports the above statement, and post it, perhaps with a brief commentary if necessary. I’m trying to keep this focused…thanks!
“But like you said, I am not going to base my entire beliefs around one particular instance.”
“I would think that after being said that many times that is how one is saved.”
So you’ll accept a theology that works 9 out of 10 times with no explanation for that one exception? The Bible isn’t faulty, is it? ;^)
You keep saying, “your doctrine doesn’t make sense.” That’s because you’re looking at it from the framework of a doctrine that is works-based (Titus 3). Once you accept that justification comes from faith in the Gospel alone and not anything that we can DO to try to please God then it makes sense 10 out of 10 times.
To answer your question about the person that refuses to get baptized, my answer is that it’s not my responsibility to know. I think it calls for some church discipline to down to the issue. Are they being disobedient in their heart or do they have some kind of phobia of being under water? Maybe they ran across some street preacher on vacation that didn’t mention getting baptized (shame on him) and they have no clue about it yet. All this to say, only God knows the heart.
When do we in this linear existence receive the Spirit? Based on Romans 8 and Ephesians 1, we know we are saved the moment we accept the Gospel and Jesus becomes the Lord of our life. That is the spiritual baptism that washes away sin, makes you a son of God and kills the old man.
From then on obedience is the effect of our salvation and not the cause. We can continue to know that we are saved by seeing our sanctification, which was caused by our justification. (Col. 2,3). Just like bringing your fiance flowers doesn’t make you love her but is the evidence of that love.
(Still curious about this “new law.”)
David,
So we are saved “the moment we accept the Gospel and Jesus becomes the Lord of our life.”
Is that kinda like the sinners prayer?
Where in the Bible does it say that we are saved “the moment we accept the Gospel and Jesus becomes the Lord of our life?” I don’t think I have read that verse. Please give me a “list” if you don’t mind.
Jeffrey,
Sorry for putting what the Bible says on the subject. The best commentary is what the Bible says. That is what the Bible says, and if I am not mistaken, this blog is for discussing Bible things. The only way I know how to share my beliefs is showing you verses! And technically, I didn’t list verses. I listed Biblical ideas with verses.
Back to David,
I guess in Romans 6 I didn’t pick up on the figurative talk about a spiritual baptism. I thought that being baptized into Christ was just what the Ethiopian Eunuch did in Acts 8:26-39 as they both went “down into the water” and as “they came up out of the water…” That sounds more like a burial that Paul is talking about then a “spiritual” baptism.
Regarding this “new law,” I am afraid that I used difficult terminology. It is not so much new as it is revised. The “new law” which I referred to is the Christian system of faith. Sorry.
You misunderstand me alot. My doctrine is not “works-based,” it is obedience-based. It is conforming my life to God’s will, offering myself as a living sacrifice, doing the things that He has given through His grace and love so that I can be a faithful child of God.
You stand so much on “faith alone, no works” that you miss the point. What about prayer? Singing? Studying the Word? Worship? Is that not a work? Are you doing that to please God? But wait, we cannot “earn” our salvation, so maybe as you lead on, we should sit in our chairs, hush our mouths, and think “godly” thoughts and “accept” Jesus as Lord so that we can go to heaven. But we both know that is ridiculous.
Our sanctification continually happens as we are “transformed by the renewing of our mind” and as we learn to serve God more and more each day, and learn to serve self less and less each day. Watch out, it might we working!
Eric G.
Eric G., I think you misunderstood my statement. You said,
I didn’t say that you had posted a list of verses, I was just asking you to give me one verse that supported your quoted statement. Sorry for being unclear, but just saying “this is what the Bible says” is meaningless without giving some support and analysis. For brevity’s sake, I think just one passage that supports your statement would be sufficient for and edifying discourse on the topic.
Also, I’m sure David will say something like this, but you fundamentally confuse sanctification and justification. Any good systematic theology text will clarify this one for you.
One final question: what’s the difference between a work and an act of obedience? What’s the difference between works-based and obedience-based? The distinction David is trying to make, if I may speak for him, is whether salvation (that is, just the justification part for now) is monergistic or synergistic. As I understand it, he and I believe the former, and you believe the latter.
Eric G writes,
Eric, this is why it is so important to differentiate between justification and sanctification. You continually speak of salvation–constantly blurring the distinction between the judicial, forensic act of justification whereby God declares a person righteous (not just forgiven, but as a truly righteous law-keeper) and sanctification which is the process in the believer’s life whereby he is conformed more and more into the image of Christ.
The reason we keep talking past one another is because of this term, “salvation” which, in the Bible can mean a past event, a present event or a future event.
In addition, you continually limit justification to forgiveness only. you never have really systematized your theology on what happens to your justification when you fall short of perfect obedience.
If you are basing your justification on your own obedience, then you can have NO REAL ASSURANCE that you are justified. Just as circumcision is worthless unless there is circumcision of the heart, so also would obedience (in your system) be worthless unless the person loves the Lord with ALL his heart, mind, soul, and strength (the basis of obedience which can make a person righteous/justified).
If justification is nothing more than forgiveness, then within a nanosecond of my justification, I am in need of being RE-justified. In fact, since my obedience is always tainted by a “pound of flesh”, how can I ever really be fully forgiven unless God purpose to overlook my sin (past and future) and “count” me as righteous instead.
The truth is, God has done just that. Apart from any righteous acts of my own, apart from any obedience on my part, apart from me doing anything, God declared me, FROM ETERNITY, as righteous by imputing the righteousness of Christ (who was perfectly obedient) to my account. I now stand before God not only forgiven, but as righteous–a law keeper (even though I do not keep the law).
So I guess this means that you’ll settle for the 9 out of 10 times interpretation of Scripture?
“Where in the Bible does it say that we are saved ‘the moment we accept the Gospel and Jesus becomes the Lord of our life?'”
I was paraphrasing the general idea of the New Testament while trying to avoid the word “believe” since it is so vague in modern English. (James 2:19) Click here for list. Be SURE to read the conclusion.
If you missed Paul’s figurative language in Romans about a beautiful symbol of our faith and how it relates to the spiritual world then maybe you also missed Christ’s figurative language about the symbolism of Communion.
If Christ Himself said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Surely He didn’t mean His literal flesh and blood. And if it wasn’t his literal flesh and blood then that must be referring to Communion. And if He’s referring to Communion (which He also commands us to do) then … OH NO! Now we aren’t really saved until we physically take Communion too! And the list gets longer.
So in context of Ken’s previous post, I offer the same question back to you that you asked me.
If being considered Holy in the eyes of God is dependent on obedience then, “how can anyone KNOW that they have been fully pleasing to God?”
P.S. Please define “the Christian system of faith” cause I don’t think we have the same one. :^)
But Ken,
You always talk about how God saved you from “eternity past.” But did it not take your obedience to God’s will?
You will stand on sovereignty till the day you die, but in no way recognize the obedience that is required of the believer.
Regardless of when the believer is justified, it still requires obedience to God’s Word on the part of the believer. The sanctification is a continuation of that obedience throughout the believer’s life.
When a believer is baptized into Christ and contacts the blood of Christ in the grave of baptism, full forgiveness is received, the Holy Spirit is imparted into the believer, and the believer is justified in the sight of God, granted that they believed from a pure heart, and had true repentance. That is why the person “rises to walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4).
How are we justified? By faith (Rom. 5:1), which is the same faith that we have access to grace through Jesus Christ. So what is the faith? Is it the Christian system or is it the personal faith of the believer? As James Burton Coffman says in his commentary on Romans 5:1, it is an obedient faith, as in the case of Abraham. For more discussion on Obedience of Faith, see Romans 1:5 & 16:26. With this in mind, it makes Galatians 3:26-27 even more clearer of how we are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” by being “baptized into Christ.” Obedient faith.
Notice Romans 6:17-18. We were freed from sin when we “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.”
Hope that makes sense.
David,
You still did not answer my point about when a sinner is saved.
Nevertheless, out of the goodness of my heart I will answer your question, but I do expect your answer soon.
1. Being obedient to God is not earning your salvation. If you go visit the widows, if you give to the poor, if you help your neighbor, then you must be earning your salvation. Those are commands of our Lord and His inspired Apostles about obeying our Lord, but I don’t guess you view those as “earning.”
2. How can anyone KNOW that they have been fully pleasing to God? (This is not earning!) When you were a child and you wanted to be pleasing to your parents, how did you know what they wanted you to do? Did you have to read their mind, or wait for some miraculous emotion to come over you to say that you were pleasing to them? No. You did what they told you. Were you earning your “sonship”? No. You were simply trying to be obedient to your parents. Likewise, God has told us through His inspired Holy inerrant Word what is pleasing to Him. Being pleasing to God is a lifetime action. But becoming a Christian, being converted, etc. is a one-time event when the sinner decides to give his/her life in humble submission and obedience to the will of the Father, following the things given in the Word. How else would we know how to be pleasing to God?
Considering that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation, and we want to be saved, how can we know outside of the Word how to be saved? And at that, doesn’t that mean that we must do the things in the Word? Didn’t James say to “be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves”?
Eric G.
David,
Sorry but I cannot define the Christian system of faith because you guys will not let me list verses of Scripture 🙂
Eric G.
Eric G. says,
To be more precise, I said God “justified” me in eternity past. And no, my obedience is/was/will never be sufficient to make me righteous. I stand on the imputed righteousness of Jesus who bore the punishment of my sin–once and for all.
Eric G. says,
As I just said, my obedience will never suffice to justify me. My obedience, when offered to God as a means to righteousness, is but “filthy rags” (Is. 64:6). Any obedience I offer is but my feeble attempt to respond to the unspeakable gift of justification. I obey out of gratitude and out of love for him who first loved me.
Eric G. says,
With this statement, Eric, I believe we are closer to agreement then we have ever been. I have no argument with you there. This is why I say that baptism (and obedience) is essential for salvation. One who is justified and regenerated must “work out” his salvation by obeying his Lord in whatever He has commanded. The fact that my justification is “done” by the finished work of Christ on the cross, gives me assurance that there is therefore no condemnation since I am in Christ Jesus. I have been set free from the righteous requirements of the Law of sin and death. I am free to obey through the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit–free to experience true growth and sanctification because the power that is in me is the same power that raised Jesus from the dead.
It totally goes against your paradigm of those who believe in Reformed Theology but at GF, we teach that believers have a responsibility to obey their Lord. We hold one another accountable. We exhort and encourage a deeper walk with Christ. Next February, you will have an opportunity to celebrate your first Valentine’s Day with your new bride. If she asks you why you bought her such a huge bouquet of roses (which I’m sure you will!), you won’t say that you did this in order to win her love (I hope). You will be secure in her love for you (which is sealed by the ring of promise and her vows). You will give her those roses because you love her and you delight in pleasing her. This is how we look at obedience to God. It is an act of worship flowing from grateful hearts to the one who has secured our salvation (sealed by the Holy Spirit and the blood of Christ). It is our delight to serve Him and to please Him.
Answered your “point”? Oh, I think I see what you’re aking now. “What is faith but action (obedience)?” Right?
I think a link to someone that’s already defined the Christian system is allowed. 🙂
Just so I fully understand the nature of this “9 times out 10” justification process, when you say,
…does the status of that full forgiveness/justification ever change based on anything afterwards? Because even as believers, we all don’t measure up from time to time in our obedience.
Ken, Eric,
We are totally on the same page now on the necessity of baptism and obedience.
Praise God!
Jose
Ken,
The action that took place of God saving me was accomplished on the cross. God knew before the foundations of the world who would decide to follow Him. But that has in no way changed the fact that I have a decision to make everyday to continually follow Christ.
It was at the point that I came up out of the water of baptism that I was fully justified in the sight of God, having had my sins washed away (Acts 22:16) where God would remember them no more. And at that point I was sanctified in the way that I was set apart, being one called out of darkness and into light. It is the sanctification that is a life-long process of a continually calling out of darkness because of temptation to go back to the old life.
But if you believe that baptism is essential to salvation, then how did you discover the idea that it is not the point at which the believer is saved?
Eric G.
The following is an attempt to conduct a ‘same page’ analysis:
Ken – is baptism necessary for salvation?
Jose – is baptism necessary for salvation?
You guys are loved. 🙂
Eric G. says,
Go back in this blog or any and show me where I have said any differently. I make that decision every day too.
Eric G. says,
You admit that God knew before the foundations of the world who would decide to follow Him (i.e. He ordained this because He never LEARNED this fact–it is eternal knowledge). Then you say that your completion of an act of obedience is what fully justifies you. Maybe you are saying that you are *partially* justified in eternity but somehow *fully* justified at some point in time when you complete an act of obedience?!?!?!
Eric G. says,
This is from our Q&A section of this website:
We can’t speak the same language when you keep insisting that I use “salvation” in the ethereal sense that you do.
If a referee looks on the field and sees uniformed players he assumes that they are on the team. However, when the player put on the uniform, this wasn’t the point at which he became a team member. But the referee doesn’t care about that. To him, the player became a “team member” according to the strict definitions in his rule book when he entered the field of play in a uniform.
Saying I’m “saved” is like saying I’m “on the football team.” To the coach, this means X. To the fans, this means Y. And to the refs, this means Z. They are all correct. They each simply have a more precise definition of the term.
John,
Yes, the Bible teaches explicitly and implicitly that baptism is required for salvation. An explicit example is Mark 16:16 which says, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” It is plain and simple to understand. No other interpretation is possible. An implicit example is Acts 2:38.
The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is by faith in God and `that we cannot buy our salvation by works (just as clearly as it teaches that believers must be baptized if they really are believers). It teaches that the Father must draw us to Jesus. There is no ambiguity or conflict with Mark 16:16 or other passages such 1 Peter 3:21 (it is baptism the saves you). Faith and obedience are two sides of the same coin the way it is properly understood in the Bible. I do what I believe. And if I believe Jesus, I do what he tells me. So when James says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone,” he is referring to obedience. There is no conflict. James is not talking about buying salvation through works. Belief, in and of itself is not believing in the way the Bible teaches believing. To quote James again, “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe (Jam 2:19). According to Acts 19:15, “And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” So believers who are not baptized are just like demons who recognize Jesus. If you believe the way Abraham belleved, you submit to God. I cannot, however, do it without God’s help, drawing me, teaching me (but that is another subject).
Jesus knows all about faith and grace. Jesus says to anyone that has ears to hear:
If you love me you will keep my commandments (John 14:15).
He who has my commnadments and keeps them is the one who loves me (Jn 14:21).
Many will say to Me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” (Mat 7:22)
Paul says of his purpose, “who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake (Rom 1:4-5). And Paul concludes Romans with, “For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed” (Rom 15:18).
If I were to teach anyone that they don’t need to be baptized or they don’t need to be obedient in order to be saved, then I would be a liar.
John, We must make our doctrine conform to the Bible, not the other way around. I love you too brother. I bet Ken gave you a pretty good scare last night :). Ken is right about Grace. Despite some of your doctrine errors, Grace Fellowship seeks after God and teaches obedience. I praise God for that. I believe that or I would not encourage my kids to go there. I would obviously prefer the kids were in my church as I believe we stick more faithfully to the plain and simple truth of the gospel. Change a few of your teachings and I could be there again (not that I would have a reason to leave my present church).
Jose
Ken,
You back-slid on me. 🙂
I wanted to comment on time. You seem to reason that because God knows everything, that there is no uncertainty with God. I think you are assuming that God ineracts with time as we do, a sort of linear view of time as observed from outside of time. But we don’t know how it works.
To suppose that we can understand the interaction of God in time (which universe or inertial frame is that?)is absurd. One of my favorite topics in phyics was special relativity (I never could understand general relativity). I am sure Einstien and Planck and some of the guys that did the work leading up to it were trying to understand something close to what I am trying to address here. Have you ever heard of Schroedenger’s Cat or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
I don’t think we can even ask a question like “when did God learn.” We don’t know enough to ask the right question and our minds probably cannot comprehend the answer if we were told. The Bible says God changes His mind (Gen 8:6; Exo 32:12. Didn’t He know what was going to happen? I don’t think the Bible is clear on how God interacts in the context of time or uncertainty other than “God knows it all.” And I don’t think we can draw a conclusion about uncertainty or free will. Yes, God is sovereign. The way I look at that is “my redeemer lives,” even if he kills me.
Jose
Jose wrote,
I do reason that God knows everything. I make no such assumption about God interacting with time except to take the view that he operates outside of the limitations of time, space, and matter.
Jose drops names,
I’ve heard of Schroeder’s Piano…the theory that when Beethoven is played on a toy piano it has the same sound as that of a grand piano when heard by girls named Lucy. 😀
Jose says,
I simply ask the question to illustrate the absurd. It would be absurd to think of God as learning something. The Bible also speaks of God walking in the Garden, having eyes and nostrils, having hands with fingers, etc. You have to take the literary style for what’s intended.
Some may say I’m harping on the issue but just as Jose puts it, “we must make our doctrine conform to the Bible.” But what I don’t understand is how Jose and others then turn and accept a “9 times out of 10” interpretation of scripture.
I just wanted to point out that by calling your interpretation that, you may feel insulted by it, but it is actually being gracious. Looking at all the other Biblical accounts of conversion, there is no way to prove that anyone was justified and received the Spirit only until after they were physically baptized.
Cornelius is the only account that gives us that level of detail.
Ken and I have addressed the intended meaning behind the language of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, but we have not yet heard an explanation for the account of Cornelius.
The way I see it, we have four choices:
A. The chronological order and interpersonal exchanges contained in the account of Cornelius occurred differently in reality than what is described in the text.
B. God broke his covenant and gave the Spirit to someone that wasn’t justified yet to make a point to Peter.
C. God broke his covenant and justified someone who wasn’t physically baptized yet to make a point to Peter.
D. Physical baptism isn’t required to be justified.
Feel free to offer more options. If not, post your choice below.
I would say the evidence of Scripture is that D. is the correct answer.
For those that would hold to water baptism as a requirement for justification (i.e. getting into heaven), I would ask for a positional clarification on Luke 23:39-43. I am sure that you have been asked the question before, so I am certain you have an answer.
It would seem to me that any answer, other than a biblical answer, would be an example of making the Bible fit a doctrine.
Eric G, I know you’ve already offered an answer to John’s question. Just be sure to post your choice or add another option.
Which one of the 80 comments is his on this matter, I am interested in seeing how that position is justified.
Sorry, should of had it in my previous comment. Here’s a link.
Thanks for the link, David.
I find it ironic that one would make the comment….
My post didn’t post for some clearly Providential reason.
Suffice it to say, I think Eric G’s response regarding the thief on the cross is a cop-out and that he is guilty of the very thing Jose warned against: Making the Bible fit a doctrine.
Faith was enough for Abraham (Rom. 4). Circumcision was a sign of that faith.
Here is my sarcastic position:
God the Father decided to improve the plan. He sent His Son, who had been with Him since before the foundation of the world, to be murdered – after keeping the law in every respect, living a holy, sinless life – and God the Father determined that faith in what Christ had done was NOT ENOUGH. Now you gotta have faith and.
This position is in stark opposition to so many paragraphs and even entire books of the bible, that to try to argue against it is like trying to argue that the earth is round in the face of those who insist it is flat.
Ken,
you crack me up. I agree it’s ubsurd to think God learns. I’m just saying we can’t apply our limited understanding of uncertainty to God.
Jose
Jose, you didn’t pick an option or add a new one. So what’ll it be?
David,
I do not accept “9 times out of 10” interpretation of scripture. The story of Cornelius is not an exception. It is the gospel. Your straw man tour de force is a dud. My answer is:
E. None of the above
Also, you say, “Ken and I have addressed the intended meaning behind the language of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38.” The meaning behind the language? Is that like the real truth as opposed to what the Bible says? 🙂 I do not see where you have explained anything satisfactorily. I think Eric answered any points you thought you might have made regarding Acts 2:28 so I won’t go into it.
I did find a post from you on Mark 16:16 that warrants further reply. You said, “In Mark 16:16 you seem to be focusing on the word structure of one sentence to define the process of salvation. It is a summary of the days of Jesus after the resurrection crammed into 11 sentences that aren’t even found in the earliest manuscripts.” By earliest manuscripts I assume you mean the the codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus. Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus may be the oldest complete manuscripts of the New Testament, but experts place them in the 4th century. Mark 16:16 is quoted as authoritative by
Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second/third century. That is probably why the experts that have given us translations such as the NASB included Mark 16:16. Do you realize that you are now attacking the Bible to defend your doctrines? And it is a false attack at that!
These is a ton of scripture that supports the explicit meaning of Mark 16:16. I will not go into it for the sake of keeping my posts shorter.
I think you need to revise your doctrine to conform to the Bible. I know you don’t mean to disregard the Bible. This is going going to take us to some additional good discussion.
Thanks,
Jose
David,
Just to be clear, examine your assumptions. You assume you are saved when you receive the Holy Spirit. That is not what the Bible teaches. There is no need to give an explanation for the order of baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. There is no F.
John, you can call it a cop out but it stands as an absolutely valid explanation to your question. Jesus had not yet given the disciples the command to baptise in His name. And Abraham had the good sense to trust and obey God. Faith, the way you seem to want to define it, is not biblical as I explained in one of my previous posts.
Jose
David,
Here is my answer:
Baptism IS essential to salvation. Baptism is a figure of the Old Testament that we find in 1 Peter 3. It also prefigures things that the priests had to do before entering the temple on the Day of Atonement, by washing themselves in the Lavars.
Besides all of that, the Bible says that it is important because Jesus said that if we obey His commands, which baptism is one, then we will be saved. What is the big deal?
If you say that repentance is absolutely necessary for one to be saved, then likewise baptism is also essential because it is found in many passages in the New Testament asserting its importance.
Eric G.
John,
You said, “For those that would hold to water baptism as a requirement for justification (i.e. getting into heaven).”
It appears that you are equating justification and salvation. Where do you get your definition from the Bible?
Romans 5:9 says, “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.” Titus 3:7 says, “so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Romans 5:18 says, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”
It is clear that the Bible teaches that justification and salvation, while related, are not the same thing.
BTW, which of the scriptures that I showed you was your sarcasm aimed at?
Jose
“Just to be clear, examine your assumptions. You assume you are saved when you receive the Holy Spirit.”
Jose, I never said that and I am not assuming that. I am taking that from your interpretation of the process of justification under the New Covenant (post-resurrection) that is said to be so clearly described in Acts 2:38 and the description of the events of Acts 10:44-46.
Repent > Baptized > Justification > Gifts of the Holy Spirit
So it sounds like you are leaning more toward B.
E. None of the above = E. I don’t know.
Jose, so where in your chronological process does one gain salvation from the wrath of God? Is there no assurance of salvation, just assurance of justification if repent, only to be lost again somehow (I assume by sinning)? Good luck living perfectly* and I hope you get a chance to repent before getting broadsided in a car or shot in a random act of violence. (God forbid.)
Then you’ll stand guilty before a Holy God and you can tell Jesus thanks for nothing.
*Whatever that means because I have yet to be presented the new/revised law that Christians are now expected to live up to. I can’t seem to find it in the NT as easily as I can find the old one in the OT. I also get the feeling that Jose’s list would be much different than Eric G’s.
David,
Are you a “once saved, always saved” believer? What do you believe the Bible teaches about how you can have your assurance?
I know a Baptist pastor that says that is assured of his salvation. Although he say he never would because he loves Jesus, he says that even if he were to commit adultery, even if he was not repentent and continued to sin, he could not lose his salvation. I would like you to judge whether that pastor is right or not.
Thanks,
Jose
We’ve been around the barn on the Perseverence issue…
Two thoughts on Mark 16, though.
1. Jose writes,
There are actually four possible endings to Mark in the manuscript evidence. a.) The traditional ending (which includes v. 16 as quoted), b.) The book ends with no additional material at v. 8, c.) An expanded form of the traditional ending, and d.) a shorter ending.
A careful study of the textual witnesses would most likely eliminate options b. and d. However, weighing the textual evidence makes a. and c. unsatisfactory as well. At best we have spurious evidence for any of the options which leaves option “e”– the actual ending to the book is lost.
I wouldn’t be so quick to embrace the traditional ending simply because it is quoted by Iraneaus. The vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (entire sentence structures and words which don’t appear anywhere else in the book). The connection between v. 8 and v. 9 is awkward at best. The subject of v. 8 is the women whereas Jesus is the presumed subject of v. 9ff. These and other features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly at v. 8 and wanted to supply a more appropriate conclusion. This is guessed to have happened around the first half of the second century. (Source: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce M. Metzger, UBS, 1975).
2. Let’s assume that v. 16 is authentic. Does this verse connect water baptism with justification? I don’t think so. A legitimate conclusion would be that anyone who becomes a follower of Christ in this way (through belief and water baptism) will be counted among the saved as opposed to those who don’t believe. There is no necessity to see a condition for justification from these words. If one’s soteriology (theology of salvation) requires individuals to meet a condition of some level of obedience in order to be justified, then one could easily “read into” such passages as Mk. 16:16 and Acts 2:38 the desired conditions. This is called “eisegesis” and is considered an illegitimate form of biblical interpretation.
You know, Jose, I’m not going to get into a spitting contest with you. I love you, and I love your family.
I do not agree with you on this subject, and find no purpose engaging in an argument with you over these points. Why?
We are clearly on opposite sides of the page – and if you do not understand the Scriptures as I do, there’s no argument that I can make that will be persuasive.
I find nothing sanctifying about arguing these points with you, I would much rather enjoy spending time with you and your family in fellowship.
Please direct no more posts to me by name.
David Ennis – thanks for inviting me into the fray.
I’m gonna check out now.
Jose, I give you the same answer I gave Eric G. earlier. It’s not my responsibility to judge that person’s soul. God knows if he is using the Gospel as an excuse – “Hey, I prayed the prayer, I can do whatever I want” – what Paul addresses in Romans 6 and James in James chapter 2. Yes, we can and should exercise church discipline (1 Cor. 5) but condemning them is not our job. (Note that Paul says the person that refuses to stop sleeping with their mother-in-law will be saved on the day of judgement.)
You use the example of adultery as some great ominous black sin that no real Christian would continue to commit over and over again. But doesn’t Jesus tell us that lust is equivalent to adultery?
From one man to another, please tell me how you’ve reached perfection in this area.
Ken,
Awwww, I like to discuss perseverance 🙂
I think Mark 16:16 fits perfectly with the rest of scripture. I appreciate your knowledge, but I have to go with the Bibles we commonly rely upon. It is no strech given the rest of scripture to accept what it says.
I really do appreciate that you don’t make a pretense about what it says. I prefer your questioning the manuscript evidence over someone pretending it does not say what it says.
On your point 2, I agree that the verse does necessarily connect water baptism with justification. The verse gives no direct insight on justification, only on salvation.
Have a wonderful Sunday. He is risen!
Jose
John,
I love you too brother. You are a beautiful human being. I know I could trust you with my life. I hope you will be able to refresh your mind in the presense of the Lord and enjoy worship tomorrow. Please don’t be angry with me. And please don’t disengage completely. It is healthy to examine the scriptures. It is just not easy. We have much we agree upon, we just don’t discuss that. I will try to come visit again soon so we can worship and pray together. There is much to be thankful for. The Lord is good!
Jose
David,
1 Cor 5:5 says, “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Where do you get “will” be saved? You are abusing the scripture, David. Regarding juding people, Paul implies he not only judged him, he killed him or had him killed. He says, “For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.”
Doesn’t Paul know how Christians are supposed to behave? Yes he does. Speaking of immoral persons in general Paul writes in 1 Cor 5:12-13, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” Not very politically correct to say this now a days. Tough love.
Adultery comes after murder in the Ten Commandments. With regards to lusting, that is a hard issue. I don’t watch TV; I don’t look at signs or billboards; I don’t look at women by averting my eyes or focusing on something else. And then when I am stuck waiting for a haircut like the other day, I pray a lot and ask Jesus to help me overcome the urge to look. I also ask Him to forgive me for having the urge in the first place and to help me not have the urge. More often than not, that does the trick. Clearly, it is not easy and I am not perfect. James 1:14-15 gives me some incouragement in making a distiction between lust and sin, and indicating that there is a process that leads to sin. Thus, I try to interfere with the process.
Jose
Jose, you are correct about the “may” and Paul judging. I read too quickly and carelessly. But I must say, I have never heard it suggested that Paul off’ed someone. That’s a new one for me. %^|
But look at that, we actually agree on James 1:14-15. 🙂
My point though was that it’s easy to think that as long as we don’t commit any of the “big” sins then we are successfully living good Christian lives. But in reality we sin much more than we even realize – pride, lust, anger, jealousy, fear, selfishness, etc. Though still being sanctified, we all still fall short on a regular basis.
If you’re saying that once justified, our sin can nullify our justification then good luck getting in because even as Christians being sanctified, our chances are pretty slim. So good luck I hope you make it!
On another note, since you threw out a hypothetical situation let me ask you one. So in a modern day thief on the cross situation where someone has an honest change of heart and is not able to be baptized before they die, does Jesus say, “Sorry, off ya go”?
Thanks, Jose. Your words are an encoragement to me. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
John
David,
I don’t think the size of the sin makes a difference (it’s all filthy rags). Also, I don’t think justification is a milestone, it’s a gift. But men love the darkness rather than the light.
According to Jesus, the gate is small and the way is narrow, and there are few who find it. Ken doesn’t want us to go into perseverance again, but that is what I believe the Bible teaches (not the “P” in TULIP). With the help of the Holy Ghost, I think we have a real chance.
I suspect the answer to your hypothetical question lies in what we deserve. But then again, we don’t deserve Jesus.
Praise Jesus!
Jose
I think I am going to take John’s lead and check out now because I need to focus my time and energy on getting a house on the market.
I also think I have been more of a hindrance and distraction by trying to keep things out of the “predestination zone” for simplicity’s sake. But as both Eric G. and Ken have shown, it can’t be done.
But I’d still love a consistent explanation about how Cornelius could have been justified to receive the Holy Spirit BEFORE he was physically baptized in relation to Acts 2.
Jose, now that you have found the way/gate (Jesus) I hope you can be righteous enough, live up to the “new/revised Christian law”, and actually get through the gate. (Funny you should mention filthy rags as Isaiah was referring to his righteousness as filthy rags.)
If not, I hope you can hit the “Jesus smart bomb” in time to wipe out any remaining sin before you meet the Holy God of the universe. Good luck!
I also suggest that when Eric G. gets back from his honeymoon, you and him get together and work out what this “new/revised Christian law” actually is. You just may find that you aren’t currently living up to his version.
It’s been fun everyone! We’ll see ya around!
“Jesus smart bomb”
I love it! Asteroids/Missile Command reference duly appreciated.
I periodically try and catch up on the discussion in this blog and appreciate the desire to express views and expose faulty positions. This forum isn’t for everyone, but it certainly helps one in the process of thinking. Thanks.
Jose, in reference to a sinning brother in I Cor. 5, you said,
“Paul implies he not only judged him, he killed him or had him killed. He says, “For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.”
Would please clarify what you meant when you said, “he killed him or had him killed.” I am confident you don’t believe Paul murdered this man or that Paul called for and conspired a “hit.”
One last thing before I go. Eric G. asked “What’s the big deal?” The big deal is that it is understanding the sourse of our justification/salvation. Our works or Christ’s work on the cross.
Earlier Eric G. asked me:
My answer is: Apparently so if they planned to disown me based on my obedience like you seem to say that God does in a “doctrine of obedience.” Thankfully my parents didn’t do that and praise God that He doesn’t do that to His children. (Eph. 1:1-14) No, I’m not a “I prayed the prayer, I’m in” person. See James 2 and Romans 6 for people trying to use the Gospel as an excuse.
No really, this is my last comment. Anybody want to move to Cherokee County? :^)
Dan,
We don’t know what happened. It might have been akin to what happened to Ananias and Sapphira. Certainly being “delivered to Satan for the destruction of his flesh” is real bad. The point I was making was that Paul is certainly not squeemish about taking responsibility for passing judgement on the man. I have to admit, there was some tongue in cheek to my story. I don’t know but it seems to me that 2 Cor 2:6-8 suggests that guy was restored to the chruch 🙂 However, I would not test that apostle.
Jose
David,
I am by no means claiming that I am righteous or that I am counting on any system of works for salvation. The Bible makes it totally clear that is just not possible. My use of the term “filthy rags” was in reference to the fact that if even our righteousness is filthy rags before a Holy God, the sins that we can see plainly fall into a very ugly category indeed. All of them.
I totally agree with you that salvation is by faith in Jesus. I believe the key is in our relationship with Jesus. And I believe that Jesus, or the Holy Ghost, will help us to overcome sin so we can have and maintain that relationship. However, the Bible teaches that it is possible return to our own vomit afte knowing the Lord (2 Pet 21-22).
Regarding your question about Cornelius, I think it is an interesting question. To go along with it, there is the question of Philip and the Samaritans. The Bible says they belived in Jesus and were baptized by one of Jesus’ discoples, yet they did not receive the Holy Spirit. Its clear that receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized do not automatically happen or at least, not necessarily at the same time or even the same order.
Jose
It’s lunch time, I’ve got a few minutes…
Jose, sorry I forget multiple positions are being argued. You may not have an elaborate “new/revised law” like Eric G. does, but to say that someone is going to hell because they died on the way to the baptismal and didn’t get physically baptized is counting on at least one human work to receive justification.
Regarding Cornelius, so now you’re saying that you don’t need to be forgiven (justified) to receive the Spirit? (The whole Spirit thing is a different topic.) At least Eric G. is consistent in his interpretation of Acts 2.
Earlier Eric G. wrote:
David – are you a “Ken’s Blog Addict”?
🙂
David,
I already agreed that you have a good question about Cornelius getting the Holy Ghost before he was baptized and how that compares with Acts 2:38. What is your thought? While you are at it, Waht about the Samaritans being baptized by a disciple of Jesus and not getting the Holy Ghost?
I’d like you to explain your position relative what Jesus, Paul and James teach about obedience. Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize. Didn’t they make baptizing an extremely high priority and even reference baptism as necessary for salvation? I have explained how I reconcile those verses with my belief that the Bible teaches that it is faith that saves us. How do you explain your position?
To John’s point, I need more prayer and less blog.
Have a great week! May God bless you.
Jose
John, I’m not an addict. I can quit anytime I want. ;^)
Jose, sorry I didn’t understand that you agreed. Thank you for your kindness in the midst of my non-personal directness.
There is no doubt that water baptism is important. It is something that Jesus commanded us to do just like He commanded us to participate in the Lord’s Supper. While the specific language is tricky (as it often is), it is not a key to justification. However it plays an important role in our sanctification, it is a commanded symbol that we can look to and remember our position in Christ (Eph. 1:1-14) in times of persecution or times of difficulty.
There are several ways to view what happened with Philip and the Samaritans. Here are two sermons from John Piper that address the issue and also touch on the whole issue of faith and works.
Simon’s Perversion of Signs and Wonders
What Does It Mean to Receive the Holy Spirit?
You seem to look at faith and works as one in the same. Way back when, you stated,
While I agree that we act on what we believe, both Paul and James treat faith and works as two separate ideas. Paul and James refer to the same Old Testament verse to say what appears to be completely opposite statements. Both sides have to do some fancy footwork to explain what is being communicated. In light of Jesus’ parable about the seed that sprouts and then dies and the seed that grows and then gets choked out, there is faith that doesn’t save (a dead faith). What do Jesus’ parable, Paul in Romans 6, and James all say will be the evidence of real living faith? Fruit/obedience/good works that come from the faith – again, two separate ideas. Read the sermon about Simon, it goes into it more.
So my position is: Saving faith leads to obedience.
Where you believe that saving faith comes from is another topic for another day. :^)
P.S. To anyone reading this that claims to be a believer but hasn’t been baptized. You need to do some serious introspection. Please go and obey your Lord now!
Hi David,
No worries brother. Direct is good!
BTW, you never did judge the hypothetical “saved,” sinning pastor from our previous posts. Heaven or Hell?
We were discussing baptism and whether or not it is required for salvation. In reference to baptism you said, “it is not a key to justification.” Salvation and justification is not the same thing. I have shown you scriptures that clearly indicate that Baptism is required for salvation.
I see that you are telling people they must be baptized, yet you don’t agree with me that baptizm is required for salvation. I have heard it argued from those with your point of view that, “you can’t have to obey something because that would make it works based salvation.” Yet Jesus (and all the gospel) teaches that you must obey his commandments or else. Please list some scriptures that indicate that baptism is not required for salvation.
I am happy to discuss predestination with you, but that is a different subject. I do not see Eph 1:1-14 contradicts or obviates what the Bible teaches about Baptism.
In reference to baptism you said, “However it plays an important role in our sanctification, it is a commanded symbol that we can look to and remember our position in Christ (Eph. 1:1-14) in times of persecution or times of difficulty.” I challenge you to show scriptures that suggest that baptism “plays an important role in our sanctification.” I can’t recall any scriptures where Baptism and sanctification are even related in any way. Also, where in Eph 1:1-14 does it suggest that baptism is a symbol?
You said, “both Paul and James treat faith and works as two separate ideas.” I have shown you scriptures in this thread that clearly indicate that this is not the case. What scriptures would you show to support your claim? I think you are confusing the obedience of faith that is the gospel, with works based salvation.
The John Piper sermon on receiving the Holy Spirit that you provided in your link is very good. Did you read it? The only knock I have on Piper’s sermon was that he soft-pedals the accompaniment of external signs and wonders. After making a case for the experiential nature of the power, he gives some not-so-evident manifestations of power as experiential evidences and then asks that you not disqualify him for having real power. With a little more confidence he could be a pastor in an apostolic pentecostal church. In any case, I don’t see why you referenced that link. Do you agree with him? Did you note his first test he gave for having received teh Holy Ghost is obedience?
Piper’s article on the perversion of signs and wonders is ok, but it sounds like he is thinking out loud about what he does not understand. He does manage to make a couple of salient points. I agree with him that miracles are just accompanyment, they are not the main event. I suspect he has not come to grips with perseverance the way I understand it yet. He references two sermons on this subject. The one you listed and the other on the Samaritans in general. I need to go find the other one to see if he does a better job with the question I posed. But I am out of gas.
Have a great week.
Jose
Jose,
Based on the words, “…even if he was not repentent…” and after having gone through biblical church discipline, I would judge that person as not being a true believer.
Before I give an extended reply to your challenges, let me get your direct answer to a question I’ve already asked.
Someone becomes a believer – they even start speaking in tongues – and as many churches do, they have to wait for the monthly scheduled baptism service to be baptized. But before that service rolls around, they die. Heaven or hell?
David,
Your “what-ifs” can go on all day.
Let me give you my perspective…
Problem 1: The Bible is clear regarding when the believer receives the Holy Spirit (with exception to Cornelius, and that discussion is hopefully over and done with regarding a special occasion). See Acts 2.
Problem 2: The church should not have a “sceduled” monthly baptism service. We should follow the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36). Ananias told Saul, “Why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).
If that does happen, then it is in God’s hands to save or condemn them. But if they are condemned, then the sins of that person ought to be on that church for not following the Bible 100% when such examples are given to immediately baptize a person into Christ.
Eric G.
Welcome back Eric. This whole discussion is hypothetical seeing that most Christians get the opportunity to be baptized but these “what if” situations can and do happen. They are good ways of determining truth. (Baptism: Cause or Effect?)
Seeing that you didn’t provide another option to define the “special occasion” in the Cornelius multiple choice question (assuming you aren’t going with options A or D) and you aren’t quite ready to say that God will send this hypothetical person to Hell regarding something the Bible speaks so clearly on (he had no “contact with the blood of Christ”, even if it was due to bad church policy), then you are consistent in saying that God can move in and out His covenant as He pleases. In other words, God breaks His promises.
David,
Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. I never said that it was for sure that the person was going to heaven. I said that it is God’s choice, not mine. According to what the Bible says, they are not going to heaven because they did not fully obey God’s commands regarding salvation. But if they knew that they had to be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16), why would they wait on some “church” leadership to tell them when it is okay to be baptized?
Eric G.
David,
You asked, “Someone becomes a believer – they even start speaking in tongues – and as many churches do, they have to wait for the monthly scheduled baptism service to be baptized. But before that service rolls around, they die. Heaven or hell? ”
I don’t know for sure, but I would not risk finding out. I think the condition you established is supposed to make me think, “What a good guy. He believes and is filled with the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues.” Further, “Those awesomely good guys that run the church wouldn’t allow anything bad to happen to that guy.” And, “God is love, so…” It does not matter what I think. God is just and Holy, and He has given a commandment, and we can see the sense of urgency that the disciples demonstrated toward baptism in the Bible, so I don’t think anyone should risk your hypothetical.
The Bible teaches that you can believe, be baptized and be filled with the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, and you still are not guaranteed that you are going to heaven. In fact, the Bible teaches that Apostles that can raise people form the dead can’t take their salvation for granted. And Paul’s version of assurance reads like this, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”
Your thoughts?
Jose
Hello to all once again. My two cents before the hour becomes late and the speech incoherent…
Eric G., much love to you in Christ. You say,
From this statement and from the history of this and other threads, allow me to make a general statement that you are free to disprove, modify, or affirm.
It seems to me that you are presenting an interpretation of the “new covenant” (for those covenant theologians out there) as being more strict or at least as strict as the Old Testament law. We used to have multiple requirements for the atonement for sins, and you say we still have multiple requirements placed on us to be saved (profession, baptism, etc.). I believe this misses the point that Christ died so that we would not have to pay for our own sins, not so that we could pay for our sins (or gain payment) by a new series of requirements.
What if someone does not know these full requirements? What happened to the things of God being plain to them from creation (Romans 1)? You would not have guessed baptism as a requirement unless this tradition was started by Christ and recorded in the Gospels. I know I would have never figured that one out–and therefore, by your judgment, I would “not [be] going to heaven because [I] did not fully obey God’s commands regarding salvation.” So not only is obedience required before God has the power to save a sinner, but full obedience. Not a very gracious system, eh?
Even under (and out from under) the Old Testament law, individuals were justified by faith in God–without the requirements of the law. To say that the gospel now includes such requirements for salvation borders on saying it was easier to be saved under the law then it is now, under grace!
To me, your progression from the law to grace is flawed because you never give up the law: you simply transfer required obedience from Moses to Christ. If it still rests on our own obedience, then God help us all. Oh wait, He does…
Jose, I was asking to understand how required “required” is. I want to see if there are “special occasions” of unforgiven sin that God works with when baptism is out of a person’s control – Church policy (many churches delay baptism to make sure a person understands exactly what they are doing), being on your death bed, trapped in a 3rd world prison with an impending execution, bizarre medical reasons, whatever. Sure, they are not the norm but none the less, God’s truth should apply.
“I don’t know for sure, but I would not risk finding out.”
“I said that it is God’s choice, not mine.”
So far “required” is not sounding so absolute.
Regarding works and faith – James 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith (noun 1) and I have works (noun 2).” Show me your faith (noun 1) apart from your works (noun 2), and I will show you my faith (noun 1) by my works (noun 2).
Romans 4:2,3 For if Abraham was justified by works (noun 2), he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God (noun 1), and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
See this article for more.
As for your challenge questions, for brevity I will post another link. Part 1 outlines the different positions, Part 2 gets to the substance. Based on your view that the Trinity isn’t Biblical because it isn’t specifically mentioned anywhere in scripture, I’m not sure this will do any good, but here it goes.
Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins (Part 2): Sign, Seal, or Means of Grace?
I referenced Eph 1. regarding our position in Christ, not baptism.
See how sinful I am? I lied to you guys before. Please forgive me. :^) I really am going to check out now. Again, congrats on your marriage Eric and congrats on the new son-in-law Jose.
Grace and Peace!
Jeffrey,
Do you see the error in your arguments?
Where in the Bible has God not required obedience to Him regarding all aspects of life?
Following His commands regarding salvation is not “earning” or “working” for our salvation. It is the true implication of faith. Faith is action. Faith is knowing without seeing.
Oh, but it makes so much sense. God said to believe, and how we all agree on that. But believing is more than just some thought that crosses our minds, because even the demons believe and trembled at the sight of Jesus Christ. So what is the difference between the devils believing and our believing?
Our believing is professed through faith in action.
You see, when I repent of my sins daily, that is an act of faith because I know without a shadow of a doubt that my God has already forgiven me, but I still ask for that forgiveness. I know when I confess His name before men as I try to live for Him everyday that I am living by faith.
Likewise, by faith I know on the day I was baptized into Christ, when I put on my Lord (Gal. 3:27), that He washed all of my sins away (Acts 22:16). That is faith man!!! I know 100% that at that point I was forgiven, I was saved, I was justified!!!
Was it the water? No, that was just the mode. It was God who saved me as I humbled myself, denied myself, and put the old man to death, and rose to walk up in a new life as God raised my new man out of the grave of baptism just as He raised Jesus from the grave of the tomb (Rom. 6), and by that I can know that God will raise my soul from the dead on the Final Day.
That is the day that true peace came to my life. That is the day that God saved me, because by faith, I humbly obeyed Him.
That is faith, and that is the Bible.
Argue with it all you want, but you cannot deny that faith is expressed in obedience, and that all along God has required obedience of His people.
Eric G.
Welcome back Eric G! Congratulations to you.
You said,
If God has required obedience of His people, why is it that Paul says that “by law (or The Law) no flesh shall be justified”? The righteous live by faith. It’s been this way all along.
Granted, faith is “proven” by works. But justification is righteousness imputed (not just forgiveness…but actually being credited as a law keeper–one who perfectly obeys–even though we cannot keep the Law).
Jeffrey’s right. Your system makes it harder for a person to be saved than it was for Abraham. According to your system, one must completely dissect the nuances of the “Command, Example, Inference” model of hermeneutics and obey every jot and tittle of the “New Law” perfectly in order to even attain justification in the first place. Maintaining it gets even more dicey.
Ken,
Your “system” of “faith alone” is beyond all of my imagination regarding what the Bible even comes close to saying.
You forget about that beautiful thing called grace. It was there in the Old Testament through the anticipation of the death of Jesus Christ, and we have it in the “last days” because of the death of Jesus Christ and the Love of God.
You are right, I can never do everything right. But God did, and He tells me to try. Therefore, I am gonna try. And when I mess up, He forgives me, but I am still gonna try. That’s faith, my friend.
But there is one thing that I cannot mess up on, and that’s obtaining salvation. If I never get it right, then everything else must be forgotten. You stand all day on “we only need faith”, “Abraham only had to have faith”, but as I believe it says in Romans, it was when “Abraham believed God”, which was after he did what God commanded him to do, that “it was accounted to him for righteousness.” You see, his belief was in his response.
It is no different today. My faith is in my response to the Gospel day after day. Everyday I must put away my selfish ambitions and try to live for the Loving Almighty God.
I will never get it all right, but I am gonna try because I want to be pleasing to a God who loves my obedience.
Answer this: What was Paul talking about in Romans 6:17 when he said, “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you OBEYED FROM THE HEART THAT FORM OF DOCTRINE TO WHICH YOU WERE DELIVERED”?
Eric G.
Eric G. says,
Where do you find a biblical definition of faith as “trying to do everything right”? Where does God tell you to “try”?
And what about all the aspects of God’s holiness that I never get around to trying because I haven’t quite learned about them yet. Do I get a “Mulligan”? And if I do, then it’s not all about trying after all is it?
You ask,
Here’s the passage in context (NIV):
In context, Paul is speaking to believers about their sanctification. These Roman Christians had the notion that a life of holiness was irrelevant since they had been justified by grace. Paul corrects their false thinking by reminding them that by embracing justification by grace, we “offer” ourselves to Christ to be slaves of righteousness. We have been filled with the Holy Spirit so therefore we can have real victory over the sins which beset us. Paul is making it VERY clear that obedience is the RESPONSE to God’s justification, not the condition for receiving it. Notice in v. 17, the Romans were delivered to the teaching (by the Sovereign hand of God).
Eric G., thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I will do my best to offer an honest response, based on my own straightforward reading of the Bible, as we all should.Oh, first, a minor point–your question, “Jeffrey, Do you see the error in your arguments?” is an irrelevant question at the beginning of your post, because you have not said anything that would show me error, and of course I don’t see error in an argument I just made. 😉 The question seems to be emotionally grounded, not an actual defense. It’s a statement disguised as a question. Anyway, on to the good stuff…
You’re right–He requires obedience everywhere in the Bible. But you confuse “ought” with an implied “can.” Contrary to the common expression, when it comes to obedience to the Law, ought does not imply can. There is no other explanation for the fact that “if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21). I think we agree that in our sinful state, we cannot keep any law (whether the Law or a human law). Why is this different with the “new law” of threefold obedience you say we received from Christ? I would think that the Law, with every detail spelled out clearly, would have been easier to humanly obey than the “law of Christ,” which requires abstracts like faith and dying to live.
Very true. But once again, I get the sneaking suspicion that by “salvation” you mean the regeneration part, not the sanctification. Look at James–he’s speaking to believers about justifying by their actions their claims to having already been regenerated. You can’t take those instructions to the believer and apply them to an unbeliever as “instructions on how to be saved. ” That would lead the new believer into legalism: if he was saved by his own obedience, then he would have to stay saved by staying obedient.
*buzzer* Wrong. The difference is not in how the belief is expressed, but in the content of that belief. Baptism and confession are not part of faith, and performing those acts cannot confirm 100% the presence of faith. (Think: could a demon confess that Christ died for your sins and be baptized? Would those acts save him?) From reading James, it seems the only thing that these acts can do is confirm a lack of true faith. If these acts are present, then the person may or may not be saved. If they are absent, then this person is exhibiting a lack of faith by his lack of desire to obey Christ. Hope that makes sense.
If you didn’t repent of these sins in your Christian life, would you still be forgiven? Or does it depend on you, just like that “first repentance” that God was waiting for you to perform before He could come in and regenerate you?
I’m glad to see that you’re excited about salvation, but it saddens me when you couple that with a classic misinterpretation of the text (Galatians 3:27). Baptism into Christ does not equal baptism in water. The context of this verse is:
The first verse here establishes that Paul is speaking to individuals that are already believers (already saved, already regenerated). Then he moves to the verse you used–he can’t be talking about the mode of salvation, because these people are already saved. He’s talking about baptism into Christ as something that happens after regeneration. And what does he mean by “put on Christ”? Another passage by Paul gives some clarification:
Clearly he’s talking about the Christian life here (sanctification), not the mode of salvation (regeneration). So, when Paul writes that those who are baptized into Christ have put Him on, he’s saying that baptism is a means of living the Christian life, a part of the obedience part of ongoing sanctification–it’s something Christians should do, not something someone should do to become a Christian. Now, the other half of the Galatians verse: what does it really mean to be “baptized into Christ”? You may take it as the literal act of water baptism, as I did above, and say what I said about it clearly being part of an already regenerated person’s life. But, what if Paul’s not even talking about water baptism here? He could be talking about salvation; he could be talking about the baptism that saves us. (Never thought you’d hear me say that, eh?) But even this excludes the act of baptism as a requirement for salvation! Let me explain… John the Baptist said, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. But he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matt. 3:11). The focus of Christ’s ministry was not physical baptism, but the spiritual reality behind the symbolic act–actually, this holds true for the entire Law (everything was a type of what Christ made a reality). There is a clear distinction in Scripture between the baptism that saves (the Holy Spirit) and the baptism that is a symbol (water baptism). This makes sense, because it is the work of God that saves us, and the human act that confirms and exhibits what God has done. We could not save ourselves through baptism because all we’d have is the physical symbol devoid of the spiritual reality behind it. Peter speaks to this fact when he says, “in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:20-21). The figure is that of water baptism, the effectual reality is that of the Holy Spirit baptizing us into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I believe that I have shown above that it was not the water, neither was the water the mode of salvation. Baptism is a symbolic act, on par with the Lord’s Supper.
Phew! Glad that you and God were able to work together on that one, otherwise He would never have been able to pull you from the pit of hell. Notice how self-centered your summary of regeneration is? You humbled yourself, you denied yourself, you put the old man to death, and you rose to walk in new life. All God did was raise your new man out of the grave? This is all off-balance because your system is man-centered, based on re-interpreting the commands of Christ into a keepable code, just as the Pharisees did with the Law. True legalism does not bind itself to a strict code, it takes a strict code and dilutes it until it’s keepable. You, my friend, have all the earmarks of a legalist.
You forget the purpose of having instructions on how to live is to show us that we can’t live that way. Only God can do that in us. As Paul writes,
Just as the old law was given so that sinful man might be proved utterly sinful, the command to repent is given that man might be proved utterly rebellious. Only a heart-change can allow a man to accept the call to repent, and only God can change a heart. The call to repent does not imply an ability to repent–the commandment is “holy, and just, and good”–it is given to show what God expects and how far short of it we fall. Finally, you fail to address my anecdotal comparison: Abraham was “justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28), and you say that justification under a “new covenant” comes when we “Believe… Repent… Confess before men… be Baptized… [and] live faithfully.” No matter how many items you add to or take from your list of requirements, you’ve still got n – 1 more requirements than Abraham needed. It is not logical that God would create a new covenant under grace that has more requirements than a strict, Law-based system. How do you justify the addition of these requirements to belief? “The law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12). You can’t have it both ways: salvation is either all about us (obedience) or all about God (faith). Quick food for thought: if water baptism is part of obedience, i.e., one of the requirements for salvation (in addition to fides), why did Christ need to be baptized? Christ Himself said that John’s baptism was one of repentance–was He repenting as we do? Was it just an example, or did He need to have His sins washed away, too? Oops… One more thought and I’m done. The apostles were baptized, but they did not receive the Holy Spirit until Pentecost. (I say that they were baptized because it was said of Christ that “Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John” (John 4:1).) So, in addition to Cornelius, we have 12 11 more examples of believers who were baptized out of obedience, not for forgiveness or to receive the Holy Spirit.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that post was around 2,000 words. I apologize for making such a lengthy argument when I’ve tried all along to keep things concise, but I hope that this will start to close the debate. I expect we will eventually have to agree to disagree. Either way, other than responding to replies to my arguments, I’m done here.
Jeffrey,
I do not have the time nor the patience to answer even half of your 2,000 words. As I was told in a previous post, keep it short.
But I will answer your last question. You say that the apostles did not receive the Holy Spirit until Pentecost, but what you fail to understand is that they did not receive the miraculous gifts of the H.S. until Pentecost.
When Jesus sent them out on the Limited Commission, did they not have the power of Christ to cast out demons, etc?
Do not confuse the indwelling of the H.S. with the miraculous gifts. Completely different measures.
Also, your argument about Jesus being baptized is old and worn out. Try a new one that I haven’t argued at least 50 times in my life. I believe Jesus told why He was being baptized. Try reading it. Thanks
Eric G.
Eric,
Yeah, I know, it was long. I felt the need to answer you comprehensively, and I apologized for it being lengthy.
I have the patience, so if you ever get bored, feel free to continue this discussion. I’ll be here.
It’s quite alright if my “final thoughts” are proven erroneous, I was just asking for asking’s sake. By no means do those random thoughts comprise an argument to be refuted. Although, I don’t understand your connection with miraculous gifts–I don’t believe I mentioned miracles. I was talking about the apostles’ having been baptized before they recieved the H.S.
I apologize again if you have heard an argument before, but it was an original thought on my part. I could never have predicted that you had heard it already–sorry.
Hi David,
I hope you are well. Sorry it took so long to respond.
I’d like you to go back and read our exchanges. You said you would answer my challenges but I feel like you just keep jabbing at the points I have made using scripture, by asking questions leading to conclusions from reasoning. You said, “So far ‘required’ is not sounding so absolute.” How absolute do you thinks Jesus is when He says,
If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. (Jn 14:15)
He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; (Jn 14:21)
You are My friends if you do what I command you. (Jn 15:14)
21 Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter (Mat 7:21)
And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” (Mat 7:23)
Is this an absolute outcome? Are you going to chastise Him for implying in that you have to do something in order to get into the kingdom of heaven? Doesn’t He know that salvation isn’t by works?
You said, “Regarding works and faith – James 2:18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith (noun 1) and I have works (noun 2).’ Show me your faith (noun 1) apart from your works (noun 2), and I will show you my faith (noun 1) by my works (noun 2).” And you followed this with, “Romans 4:2,3 For if Abraham was justified by works (noun 2), he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God (noun 1), and it was counted to him as righteousness.'”
I understand you intent but you are abusing the scriptures David, taking them out of context. Paul was talking about people justifying themselves according to the Law. You only have to slip back about 5 or 6 verses to Rom 3: 27, “Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”
Paul and James are totally in sync with regard to obedience. Jesus taught that you will know them by their fruit. The gospel is one lump and it does not require any “explanations” of seeming contradictions. James 2:18-20 is talking specifically to the superficial gospel that is often being taught as a result of the misleading doctrine you espouse. Thank God you understand the need for obedience because many that latch onto the doctrine you teach may not. Lets take a closer look at Paul’s doctrine.
Paul’s purpose as an apostle is, according to Rom 1:6, to “bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake.” It is clear from comparing multiple translations that obedience of faith is not just a way of replacing the one word “faith” with more words. Can Paul really be talking about obedience? This is Paul’s mission purpose proclaimed in one of the key doctrinal books of the Bible? Who can be obedient? What happens if you are not obedient? How often can you be “disobedient” before your faith is really “unfaith?” If faith requires obedience, then who can be saved? The bottom line is that it is the gospel. Abraham is credited as the father of faith. Yet his story is replete with obedience. God said go, and he went. God said wait, and he waited. God said sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham climbed the mountain, bound his son, and only God prevented him. Abraham was often afraid and questioning God. Yet he almost always obeyed God even when God demanded the unthinkable.
In Romans 15:18 Paul says that Christ has accomplished obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed through him. It is pretty clear that the reference to “obedience of faith” in chapter 1 is not just a way of speaking. In this portion of his closing comments in the letter to the Romans, Paul is really talking about obedience being a central purpose. When I think of Christ accomplishing something, I think of His creating the world and accomplishing the Father’s will by overcoming sin and death, providing the means of our salvation. Through this verse, Paul is putting obedience way up on a pedestal. Unfortunately, Paul’s letter to the Romans is often abused because he goes into great detail to make it clear that he is not preaching works based salvation.
Lets look at some more verses starting with more from Romans:
Rom 6:16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
Rom 16:19 For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.
Romans 16:26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;
Acts 6:7 The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.
2 Cor 2:9 For to this end also I wrote, so that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things.
2 Cor 7:15 His affection abounds all the more toward you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, how you received him with fear and trembling.
2 Cor 9:13 Because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify God for your obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all,
2 Cor 10:5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,
6 and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.
Eph 6:5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;
1 Pet 1:22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,
1 Pet 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the
David, the demons believe, but they are going to Hell. The faith that the Bible is talking about is manifest in what people do.
I read some of the stuff in the links you posted. There is a lot of poison mixed in with the good food. The first writer manipulates words and meanings, and inserts his own definitions like they are gospel. I will give one example. The writer compares what Paul says, “Faith without works saves (Rom 3:28)” with what James says “Faith without works does not save (James 2:14),” and concludes that the seeming contradiction can be explained by injecting the idea that Paul’s faith is “living faith or (saving faith)” and James is talking about “dead faith.” The writer’s version of the gospel is fiction. It’s a figment of human reasoning and imagination. I have already shown above that Paul and James believe the same thing. It is a sin to “explain away” portions of the Bible or to inject reasoning as if is is the gospel.
There are several scriptures that discuss Christ’s obedience. One even refers to Jesus learning obedience. Don’t be ashamed of the gospel because it doesn’t fit with the doctrine you have been taught.
The second writer was so offensive I couldn’t get past the beginning. Talking of Mark 16:16 he quoted some expert saying, “This analysis also conforms to logical construction, as elucidated by Millard Erickson: ‘It is simply absence of belief, not of baptism, which is correlated with condemnation. According to the canons of inductive logic, if a phenomenon (e.g., salvation) occurs on one occasion but not on another, the one circumstance in which they differ is the cause of the phenomenon.'”
This is the lie my kids were taught. The damage of these type of lies is incalculable. We need to read the Bible for what it says and stop believing false doctrines of men.
Jose
Jose, no more of this discussion directed to me please.
But as I read, I must say I’m not quite sure what your argument is anymore.
“Are you going to chastise Him for implying in that you have to do something in order to get into the kingdom of heaven?”
“Unfortunately, Paul’s letter to the Romans is often abused because he goes into great detail to make it clear that he is not preaching works based salvation.”
David,
If you teach on Baptism, just say that it is required for salvation. That is not teaching works, it is simply the gospel.
Jose