(Copied below is a comment I posted on Green Bagginses. It appears as #85 under David Gadbois's post Berkhof and Baptismal Efficacy.)
After reading through the whole list of comments to this post, I think one of the keys to this set of issues (and to the whole Federal Vision debate) has not yet been mentioned here.
David wrote: “…we should conclude that, likewise, baptism cannot be an instrumental means, alongside of faith, by which we lay hold of Christ’s righteousness unto justification.… Such an idea would be directly contrary to the Reformational doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide).” (emphasis mine)
David, I want to ask in all seriousness: Have you ever heard anyone associated with “Federal Vision” theology teach that “baptism [is] an instrumental means, alongside of faith, by which we lay hold of Christ’s righteousness unto justification”? Pastor Wilkins and others say many other things about baptism, but I don’t think you’ll ever find them saying this. Rather, their theological opponents take other things that they say and unsympathetically deduce from them that they must mean this. But it ain’t necessarily so.
It’s just as clear to the FV men as it is to any other Reformed theologian that baptism and faith are two very different things. For you to talk as though even the most ardent FV’er puts them in the same undifferentiated category, as “instrumental means” of justification, is simply misleading.
I understand the FV position to include the following: Baptism joins a person, objectively, to Christ. Since every baptized person is in Christ, then what is true of Christ is true of all baptized people corporately. Christ is righteous, all of Him; thus His body the Church is righteous, with all its members. Christ is holy; thus, Christ’s body is holy, every member of it (in more or less the same way that the children of one believing parent are holy, because they are joined to Christ by covenant, 1 Cor. 7:14). It is for this reason that the Apostles speak to churches as they do–for example, 1 Cor. 1:2, where “the church of God which is at Corinth” equals “those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus” (despite the Corinthians’ obvious personal unholiness!). So everyone who is in Christ objectively (i.e., in the Church through baptism) is just as objectively “justified” and “sanctified,” because they are in Christ, and He is perfectly righteous and holy.
BUT at the same time (and who in the FV would deny this?) the righteousness that we have objectively in Christ has to be taken to heart, lived out and made permanent, or it ultimately becomes worthless. Christ’s justification and sanctification become ours in baptism, but we must still make them ours through faith and good works, both of which are gifts of God’s free grace alone in accordance with His eternal decrees. These are the justification and sanctification that bear fruit for eternal life.
To sum up: Baptism brings us into Christ, the Righteous and Holy One. To belong to Him is to be (covenantally?) justified and sanctified. But we also need to believe on Christ. It is this faith in the heart that leads to justification of the sort that is personally owned by the faithful Christian. Baptism grants us a share in Christ’s justification; faith applies His justification to us. Each one allows us to say that we are “justified,” and legitimately so, but from different perspectives and with different results.
In any case, baptism and faith are alike in this: Both are the good work of God within His people. His grace is everything.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Baptism and faith
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Jeff,
I've been following this thread over on Greenbaggins and decided to take you up on your gracious offer. It is just too crowded over there to keep the discussion focused. As a quick intro, I see myself totally agreeing with what Rey has posted. Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, I really have trouble seeing the truth in the FV position. For example, you say the following in your summary of the FV position:
"It is for this reason that the Apostles speak to churches as they do–for example, 1 Cor. 1:2, where “the church of God which is at Corinth” equals “those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus” (despite the Corinthians’ obvious personal unholiness!). So everyone who is in Christ objectively (i.e., in the Church through baptism) is just as objectively “justified” and “sanctified,” because they are in Christ, and He is perfectly righteous and holy."
Paul starts by saying he is writing to the church. So right away the question is who does he mean by 'the church of God that is in Corinth?
I see him adding qualifiers to narrow down his audience. For example, he is only writing to those in the church who are sanctified in Christ. Now, this can be taken to mean that all who are in the Corinthian church are sanctified or that he is only writing to the subset of the church who actually are sanctified. Same kind of question when he seems to further qualify the recipients by their holiness or by the fact of their having Jesus as their lord in the same way that he does.
So, I would like to ask how one can confidently conclude, as the FVer's seem to do, that he is writing to the whole baptized body and not just to the actual saints in Corinth?
Yours in Christ,
David Weiner
I'm not really interested in entering into the fray of FV/NonFV, but I'm not sure I agree with either suggested reading of 1 Cor. 1.2.
On the one hand, given the epistolary genre of 1 Cor., I'm not convinced that by stacking the clauses ("church...," "sanctified...," "called saints...," etc.), Paul is narrowing the field, so to speak. When coming to a formal letter that would have been read publicly, you would want to assume that the intended audience are all who are present to hear the letter (assuming it's to be read in the church), unless a clear demarcation is made (e.g. "Children, obey your parents..."). That he would be narrowing the audience appears overly subtle.
At the same time, I would caution against what might be a too generous reading of these parallel clauses in order to emphasize "objectivity." Given the scope of the rest of the letter, Paul may, even here, be starting off with a hint of sarcasm in order to shame the Corinthians. In other words, these labels of "sanctified," "called," etc. may be serving an important rhetorical purpose. Paul may very well be holding forth these indicative or, if you will, objective attributes in order to ground an imperative call to repentance.
I hope that is helpful.
w.
"I'm not really interested in entering into the fray of FV/NonFV"
Nor I.
"That he would be narrowing the audience appears overly subtle"
Clearly specifying the audience would be 'overly subtle' but using sarcasm right at the beginning of the letter would be OK? Paul is anything but subtle in this letter. My understanding of the TO: part of a letter is to specify the intended audience. It is not to narrow the audience but simply to define it. Leave out the clauses and you have a different set of recipients. God does not work sanctification for those who He has not yet saved as far as I can tell.
I understand your hypotheticals (e.g., "Paul may, even here, be starting off with a hint of sarcasm") However, allowing that the church in 1 Corinthians 1:2 is just anybody who showed up and said the right kinds of words is a very slippery slope. View the FV, for example.
Yours in Christ,
David Weiner
However, allowing that the church in 1 Corinthians 1:2 is just anybody who showed up and said the right kinds of words is a very slippery slope.
I would agree that this isn't what Paul is doing. I guess what I'm trying to steer clear of is a way of reading 1.2 as though each clause were a series of concentric circles. Rather, they are all parallel descriptions of the church. Paul is addressing a very specific group, viz. the assenbly of God in Corinth, [which are] those people set apart in Christ, who are called saints, along with all others who call upon the name of the Lord. There is nothing in the description of the church in verse 2 that would lead someone to think Paul is addressing anyone other than the visible church in Corinth.
I'm not hanging a whole lot on my use of the work 'sarcasm.' I was searching for a way of expressing the fact that this piling up of descriptions for the church plays a role in the rhetorical strategy of Paul's letter. Notice that Paul does nothing like this in his other letters. Anthony Thiselton's excellent commentary on 1 Corinthians does a much better job of discussing it. I'm afraid I trip over my written words nearly as much as I do when I speak.
Blessings,
w.
w.,
First, I took your offer to come over here as an opportunity to seek truth and clarity with a fellow brother in Christ. You need not in any way be careful that you don't trip over words. I am not your judge; just a fellow servant of His who has understandings that may or may not be correct.
"I guess what I'm trying to steer clear of is a way of reading 1.2 as though each clause were a series of concentric circles."
I agree. I just see him 'painting a picture' of who he is addressing. Or describing a Venn diagram, if you will.
"There is nothing in the description of the church in verse 2 that would lead someone to think Paul is addressing anyone other than the visible church in Corinth."
Ah, but this gets right to the FV issue - who is the church? By the way, I am not for or against FV. I just see it as wrong and I am trying to find out where I might be wrong in this assessment.
I realize there is something visible that is called the church in city xyz. But, I don't see Paul addressing any of the churches that he writes to in that fashion. I think he is addressing believers. And, THE CHURCH is only made up of believers. The fact that there may be non-believers in their midst does not seem to be of concern to him.
Is there a way to resolve this issue of to whom he is writing without just leaving it up to personal preference?
Yours in Christ,
David Weiner
And, THE CHURCH is only made up of believers. The fact that there may be non-believers in their midst does not seem to be of concern to him.
Ah, ok. I think we're coming to this text with two very different ecclesial presuppositions. I'm Presbyterian and from your comment above, I assume your background is Baptist. Perhaps, we should leave it there. I don't think we'll patch up that division any time soon. :-)
Rather than getting "right to the FV issue," as a Presbyterian, I see it as perhaps something tangential to it.
Thanks for the interaction though. I need to get back to "real life" matters. You've given me some things to chew over. I don't know this person's blog, so I hope he hasn't minded all this.
May the Lord bless you.
w.
David and w.,
I don't at all mind your use of my blog space for this discussion. Assuming that genuine seeking of truth is going on, which appears to be the case with both of you, then -- do so more and more!
Some comments on points you raised...
The Corinthian "church of God...those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" (1 Cor. 1:2) was precisely the same group to which the Apostle writes:
"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ." (3:1)
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned..." (5:1-2)
"Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry." (10:14)
"When you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." (11:18-19)
"Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (15:12)
My point is that this church, this group of people "sanctified in Christ Jesus," was still quite a mixed bag which included sectarians, carnal people, fornicators, deniers of the Resurrection, and some who faced real temptation to idolatry and may have already fallen to it. What they all had in common was their baptism which placed them into the body of Christ: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free" (12:13). (I can't take the time here to demonstrate that this passage is referring to water baptism--see Peter Leithart's excellent book The Baptized Body for a detailed argument.)
This is very clearly the visible church, not some invisible "church" of the saved only, that Paul is writing to. Otherwise, how could he say that those who were "inside" their number ought to be judged and expelled if found guilty of flagrant sin (5:9-13)? Why would he say, "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall" (10:13)? Why does he say that even factions in the church serve a good purpose, to identify those in the church who are "approved" (11:17-19)?
Note: One of the easy mistakes that people who are skeptical of the FV often fall into is to assume that we think baptism is some kind of free pass -- just get baptized, and you're in, no questions asked! Actually, it's quite the opposite. For those who end up defying the authority of God, baptism and entrance into the Covenant only makes their judgment far worse. The apostle Peter writes, "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them" (2 Pet. 2:20-21).
Viewed from one angle, the meaning of the "Federal Vision" interpretation is simply this: The Bible's warnings against apostasy are real warnings about a real danger facing the Church!
Jeff,
The basic difference that immediately shows up is in our views of the church. I don't know if it is possible to get past that; but as the saying goes - fools rush in . . . . So, here I go.
"My point is that this church, this group of people "sanctified in Christ Jesus," was still quite a mixed bag which . . . "
Agreed; but. . .
Your view seems to lead to three kinds of people in this world. Those who are lost, those who are saved and those who are in some kind of middle position. My view of Scripture is that there are only two groups.
Just because somebody denies the resurrection does not mean that God could not have already transferred him/her to the kingdom of His beloved Son. Saved people are not all theologians nor are any of them sinless. One may sin more than another but that is only a difference in degree and not kind. So the fact that Paul lists these evils is not, per se, proof that he was writing to unsaved people. It may be taken as evidence; but it is not proof. Is there a way to prove this position?
Before this post gets out of hand (lengthwise) I really want to ask if you would be so kind as to provide the reader's digest version of Leithart's demonstration of 12:13 referring to water baptism. I am at a loss to see this and it is so fundamental to this difference in view of the church.
You asked a number of other really good questions that I would like to address with you. However, I'll wait to see how this goes. But, I can't resist responding to your last statement. The church, the real, saved, body of Christ, is in absolutely no danger. Christ will build His Church and nothing can hinder its final destiny. The lost or the apostates, regardless of the path they take, also have a very firm destiny that is just as sure and opposite to that of the church, the real church. Just my opinion, of course.
David
David,
There's always more than one way to count how many kinds of people there are in the world. However, I would not want to place everyone in the three groups you suggest: "saved, lost, and those who are in some kind of middle position."
You wrote,
My view of Scripture is that there are only two groups.
Could you quote some Scriptures that define the two groups as you're talking about them, so that we can know exactly what we're talking about and where our common ground is?
In the meantime, I agree with you that the most important classification of mankind is into two groups, and only two. However, I think we would disagree about the identity of those two (at least, as they are in the here and now). I see the two main camps as those who belong to Christ's Church, and those who belong to the world. Until the Last Day, it remains possible to move from one group to the other, in either direction, and these changes carry real importance and eternal consequences for those who make them. Therefore St. Paul writes, "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore 'put away from yourselves the evil person'" (1 Cor. 5:12-13).
You wrote,
Just because somebody denies the resurrection does not mean that God could not have already transferred him/her to the kingdom of His beloved Son. Saved people are not all theologians nor are any of them sinless. One may sin more than another but that is only a difference in degree and not kind. So the fact that Paul lists these evils is not, per se, proof that he was writing to unsaved people.
True. But at the same time, those who are committing sins such as these will eventually either come to full repentance and be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29), or else they will continue in their sins and prove themselves to be unfit for the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Eph. 5:5; Rev. 22:14-15).
Some of those who are "on the inside" of Christ's Church (the vast majority of them, we hope and pray) have been eternally chosen by God for life and an inheritance in His Kingdom. These will never fall away from the faith, or from the Church. Others, it is abundantly clear from Scripture, are not so chosen, and will fall away sooner or later. (**I'll include a list of Bible references about this at the end of this comment.) On the other hand, some of those who are now outside the church and strangers to the covenants of promise will be brought in (see Eph. 2:11-13), and will share fully in eternal life with God. But still others are outside of Christ now and will remain so forever. (That makes four groups, if you choose to count them in this way.)
--Here's Peter Leithart's argument, in summary form, with reference to 1 Corinthians 12:13...
First, he notes that John Calvin takes this passage to refer to ordinary water baptism. Quoting Calvin on 1 Cor. 12:13, "Paul of course is speaking about the baptism of believers, which is efficacious through the grace of the Spirit. For to many people baptism is merely a formality, a symbol without any effect; but believers actually do receive the reality with the sacrament.... As far as God is concerned, it always holds true that baptism is an ingrafting into the body of Christ, because everything that God shows forth to us in baptism, he is prepared to carry out, so long as we, on our part, are capable of it."
Second, context makes it clear that every other reference to baptism in 1 Corinthians has to do with water baptism: 1:13-17 ("I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized into my own name"); 10:2 ("all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea"); 15:29 ("Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead?"). It's pretty obvious that chapter 1 is not talking about a mystical experience of Spirit baptism, and whatever 15:29 means, no one was receiving Holy Spirit baptism for the dead. 10:2 is unusual, but the point is that the crossing of the Red Sea (which is definitely a body of water) was the Israelites' "baptism" into Moses--so here Paul is implying (according to Leithart) that the Corinthians' water baptism was in a similar way their baptism into Christ. If every other reference to "baptism" in 1 Cor. has to do with water baptism, we would need a really compelling reason if we were going to take "baptized" in 12:13 differently.
Third (and Leithart makes other arguments as well, but they're too complicated for me to get into here), 1 Cor. 12:13 is right in the middle of a chapter that is about what the "visible church" is and how it works. The chapter's themes are spiritual gifts and their use within the fellowship; the unity of the body since all its members are body parts of Christ (this begins in v. 12); and the way that the members need one another's help in order to function as a complete body. It would be strange, to say the least, to find in the middle of this chapter some reference to an invisible Spirit baptism, that places a person into an invisible church, whose membership list is known to no one on earth. So we should conclude, Leithart writes, that when the Bible says "baptism" it usually means simply baptism-- the ordinary kind that is done with water in the name of the Triune God.
Is this making sense to you?
**As promised, I'll close this comment with a list of Scriptural warnings that those "on the inside" of the Church have a real danger of being cut off if they turn away from Christ.
John 6:65-71
John 15:1-7
Acts 8:12-13, 18-23
Rom. 11:13-23
1 Cor. 5:9-13
Gal. 5:1-9
Col. 2:18-19
Col. 4:14; Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4:10
1 Tim. 1:18-20
Heb. 6:4-8
Heb. 10:26-31
2 Peter 2:20-22
But remember that none of this changes the "golden chain" in Rom. 8:29-30 and elsewhere. Those whom God determined from eternity past to save, He saves. They are brought into the Church at the time of their salvation and will be in the Church at the end of time. God determines all things that happen, predestines some to heaven and abandons others to hell before they are even born (cf. Rom. 9:10-13). And it is His unfathomable will that some should enter the Church and be included in some of the benefits of belonging to Christ, for a time, even if they are not true sons of His and in the end will be cut off. So let the righteous fear Him, and obey His voice! Let them rejoice in faith and confident hope that He does not abandon His own whom He has chosen for eternal life, and who love Him!
Jeff,
Sorry, for the length of this response. You just raised so many important issues that I could not decide which ones to let lie. As it is, I have only skimmed the surface of all of them.
I really do thank you for your response and in particular your summary of Leithart's explanation. Let me say that I do agree with you that a person who will not end up spending eternity with Christ but who is a baptized member of a local church most likely does receive benefits from that association that are not available to those who do not receive baptism and membership in a local church. The task then becomes one of defining what those benefits are.
You wrote,
There's always more than one way to count how many kinds of people there are in the world.
Sorry I wasn't clearer in my definition of 'two groups.' What I left out is that this is a 'snap shot.' Over time, some will move from the 'not saved' group to the 'saved group.' None will ever move from the 'saved group' to the 'unsaved group.' At any point in time, only the ones who are 'saved' are in Christ's church or body. Now it seems clear your view is very different from this. I hope we can move closer to the truth because one of us has to be wrong. We just don't agree yet on which of us that is.
You asked for Scriptures that might support this view. I could write a very long book (actually I am not really capable of this, but . . .) in answer to this. Fortunately for you, I'll only go to the one that came to my mind first.
Colossians 1:3-4 defines to whom Paul is writing. These people have 'faith in Christ Jesus.' I assume Paul means 'real' faith, the kind that he says over and over again is required for salvation. And, he never defines a temporary salvation (warnings, notwithstanding). The kind of faith that only comes as a gift from God, the Father. Then in verse 5 he states that they have 'heaven.' It is not an iffy thing. Hope in the NT never means 'maybe.' So, these people who he is writing to and who possess faith in Christ Jesus and who have a place in heaven are defined in verse 13 as having been transferred from the domain of darkness (slavery to satan) to the kingdom of Christ. Nowhere in this does Paul make any mention of their names being on any church roster. Nowhere are there other choices of where one may find herself and nowhere is anybody who is in the kindgom of His Son ever specifically said to be transferred back to the kingdom of darkness. The transfer is only and ever described as a one way trip.
You wrote
. . . prove themselves to be unfit for the Kingdom of God
Don't we agree that nobody is fit for the Kingdom of God?
Now to 1 Cor 12:13
Calvin was a brilliant and gifted theologian. But, as far as I know, he was not infallible. I would have to study all of what Calvin said on this matter and not just this particular quote to really understand his view. But, I will certainly grant you that this quote strongly points to his understanding being water baptism.
1:13-17 is water baptism. Agreed.
10:2 has nothing to do with water baptism vis-a-vis Christ's church. This is talking about how Israel was immersed, not in the sea, but into Moses, indicating their oneness, or solidarity, with him as their leader. None of the Israelites got wet. Seeing this as in any way related to the sacrament of water baptism takes a special kind of creativity that I do not possess.
15:29 Honestly, I have no idea what this verse is teaching. The only thing that I can grasp at is that he was referring to a deviant activity of some as a way of showing that even they (wrong as they were in what they were doing) still believed in a resurrection. I have no trouble believing that what they were doing involved water baptism. Clearly not as a way to enter the church however.
You wrote
It would be strange, to say the least, to find in the middle of this chapter some reference to an invisible Spirit baptism, that places a person into an invisible church, whose membership list is known to no one on earth.
I'll respond; but first a question: Do all water baptised members of a church have spiritual gifts (including the indwelling of the Holy Spirit)? Because as I understand it all of our deeds are as filthy rags. Only when a person is submitted to the Holy Spirit can HE do anything of value for the body of Christ through the person. Remember that the fruits are not the believer's fruits; they are the fruits of the Spirit. Moreover, the one who is not saved is a slave to satan. He can not do anything to build the body of Christ!!
You find it strange? God can not use the Holy Spirit to bring a person into His Son's church without anybody seeing it???? It's strange that you or I can not be sure if that particular person over there has experienced that 'baptism????' This activity of the HS is amazing! For Paul to mention it in any context is perfectly reasonable. He knew what a miracle it was. But, in this context where the building up and unity of the body and spiritual gifts are under discussion it is the most reasonable place for him to mention it. What he said in chapter 1 or 15 is not setting the context! What he is saying right here is setting the context and is the most reasonable place for mentioning the way a person is saved that I can think of. How can we see it so differently??????
Your list of warnings is indeed daunting. I would be happy to address each one in order if that were your desire. Just let me know. All I can say at this point is that after much prayer and study, I have looked into each of them and do not have any concern about my salvation. I am a terrible sinner who has absolutely no right to heaven. Nevertheless, my hope is totally secure.
We agree about the 'golden chain.' It is the use of the word 'church' upon which we disagree. The Greek word we translate as church has the meaning of called out ones. If the person is a slave of satan, then how can he/she be described as called out? Called out of what?
David
Jeff,
After posting my comments to you earlier I went over to Greenbaggins and saw your comments there. I can't resist responding to one of them (Of course I could resist . . .)
You wrote
Baptism is the work of God through His appointed servants;
faith is the work of man in response to God’s initiative;
both are gifts of God’s grace, and for both we owe Him thanks and praise.
What happens when one is 'born again?' At least one thing is that the Holy Spirit takes over and 'indwells' him/her. This action does not depend on man. It is totally up to God as to when this happens. But, from that moment on the person is a new creation. So, no appointed servants are required for this to take place.
Faith is NOT a work when we speak of becoming a new creation. It is the means by which one is saved. God gives the person the faith; the person changes their mind (repents; does no 'work') and God puts the person into His Son's body. No appointed servant or water is required for this transaction. It's all up to God. Where, when, and how. God decides.
David
David,
Thank you for your carefulness and grace in formulating these thoughts. I trust that this conversation will bear good fruit, in the two of us at least, for the Kingdom of God.
I think your exegesis of Colossians 1:3-4 is mostly correct, but still doesn't tell the whole story. Let's see...
So, these people who he is writing to and who possess faith in Christ Jesus and who have a place in heaven are defined in verse 13 as having been transferred from the domain of darkness (slavery to satan) to the kingdom of Christ. Nowhere in this does Paul make any mention of their names being on any church roster. Nowhere are there other choices of where one may find herself and nowhere is anybody who is in the kindgom of His Son ever specifically said to be transferred back to the kingdom of darkness. The transfer is only and ever described as a one way trip.
As I read the Bible, I see the Church described in a couple of different ways. Sometimes (as in the Parable of the Prodigal Son) the ones who "get it" and the ones who "don't get it" are both described as being members of the Father's family all along--and when you find out at the end who's really "in," it can turn out to be quite a surprise. Other times (as in the parable of the wheat and the tares, or weeds), the distinction between the sons of the Kingdom and the sons of the Evil One is assumed to be really present all along, even if we can't see it until the end.
Sad and even abnormal as it is, however, we have to face up to the reality that people can be "on the inside" of the Church at least in some ways, and later fall away. Sometimes this is described in terms of the Book of Life. Moses intercedes with God on Mt. Sinai: "Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, 'Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! Yet now, if You will forgive their sin -- but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.' And the LORD said to Moses, 'Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book'" (Exodus 32:31-33). Those who are truly the Lord's have their name written in the Book from before the world's foundation (Rev. 17:8), and yet anyone who takes something away from God's Word will himself be taken away from the Book (Rev. 22:19). The promise to the overcomer is that his name will not be blotted out from the Book of Life (Rev. 3:5).
Don't we agree that nobody is fit for the Kingdom of God?
In ourselves, none of us is worthy. But God makes us worthy (see Matt. 21:43; Mark 10:14-15; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Thes. 2:11-12; 2 Thes. 1:5, 11; James 2:5; cf. 2 Cor. 3:5-6). And yet there are some who are joined to the church and appear to be on their way to heaven, but become disqualified and are cast out (Matt. 8:11-12; 1 Cor. 6:1-10; 9:27; Heb. 6:4-8; etc.).
Only when a person is submitted to the Holy Spirit can HE do anything of value for the body of Christ through the person. Remember that the fruits are not the believer's fruits; they are the fruits of the Spirit.
Amen and amen! But I'm not so sure that what you go on to say is equally Biblical and true:
You find it strange? God can not use the Holy Spirit to bring a person into His Son's church without anybody seeing it???? It's strange that you or I can not be sure if that particular person over there has experienced that 'baptism????' ... But, in this context where the building up and unity of the body and spiritual gifts are under discussion it is the most reasonable place for him to mention it.
It seems to me that there's a contradiction here in your thinking. You want to emphasize that true salvation is the work of the Spirit--I agree, of course--but also that it can be invisible and unknowable by others. I agree that this is possible in some cases, for a limited period of time. Sooner or later the truth of someone's standing toward God will be revealed, and if not in this life, then definitely at the Judgment that precedes the eternal state. Neither salvation nor lack of salvation will remain hidden for very long, and certainly not forever (Mark 4:21-23).
Now here's the contradiction: In one paragraph, you emphasized that the reality of someone's spiritual state can be a hidden thing, but then you also wanted to focus on the use of spiritual gifts to build up the body. If people's status before God is such a mystery, then what body are we supposed to build up? The invisible body of Christ? How do we do that? If someone tries to help us, how can we accept spiritual help from him, not knowing whether he is truly a child of God? Surely there must be some visible, objective standard of belonging to Christ that should guide our actions and responses while we are in this world! Yes, a man is joined to Christ by faith, but that faith is to be signified in water baptism and revealed through good works (cf. James 2). Just as faith without works is dead, faith without baptism is confused and sick, and baptism without faith is deadly.
All I can say at this point is that after much prayer and study, I have looked into each of them and do not have any concern about my salvation. I am a terrible sinner who has absolutely no right to heaven. Nevertheless, my hope is totally secure.
As is mine--and for this we should both praise God! But how do you know that Christ's promises are for you? Is it because of the high quality of your faith? Your expert handling of the doctrine of justification? Or is it because the Spirit has marked you as His own, and so God has named you as His child in baptism and you have trusted in His promise?
It is the use of the word 'church' upon which we disagree. The Greek word we translate as church has the meaning of called out ones. If the person is a slave of satan, then how can he/she be described as called out? Called out of what?
Called out of the world, called to be a follower of Jesus, just as both Peter and Judas were called. Peter denied his Lord, but later repented and was restored; Judas betrayed Him, but hanged himself and did not return. Both had the same call; one ended up with a faithful response to it, the other did not. "So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen" (Matt. 20:16).
David (in response to your latest),
What happens when one is 'born again?' At least one thing is that the Holy Spirit takes over and 'indwells' him/her. This action does not depend on man. It is totally up to God as to when this happens. But, from that moment on the person is a new creation. So, no appointed servants are required for this to take place.
Are you sure this is true? What about the evangelist or preacher from whom this person heard the Gospel? What about those who printed the Bible or tract or devotional book that he read? What about the family that invited her over for a meal and showed true Christian kindness? Romans 10:13-15. It must be very rare for God to bring anyone to Himself without working in them somehow through His servants. So it's not so odd, really, that He should choose to use baptism--an external action performed by His servants--as the thing that "officially" brings a person into His family.
Faith is NOT a work when we speak of becoming a new creation. It is the means by which one is saved. God gives the person the faith; the person changes their mind (repents; does no 'work') and God puts the person into His Son's body.
You're right, I shouldn't have described faith as a "work," because in the Bible faith and works are often treated as opposites. But I think the main point that I was getting at still stands. Some people are leery of putting much stock in baptism, because they think it is a "work" that people would be tempted to trust in for their salvation instead of in Christ. But actually, baptism is something God is doing, faith is something that we are doing in response to God. So if you're tempted to go astray, it's more dangerous to trust in the strength of your own faith than it is to trust in God's promises made at your baptism.
***
Let me ask you, then: What do you think Christian baptism does? (What's the point of it? Could we do just as well without it?) And what about the visible Church? Does it have a mission, a calling all its own, or is it just here as a convenient aid to individual believers as they pursue their individual way to Heaven?
Jeff,
You wrote:
Thank you for your carefulness and grace in formulating these thoughts.
Well, thank you right back. How can Christians talk about such matters in any other manner???? Far too many 'Christian' blog participants are a disgrace to our Lord.
You wrote:
I think your exegesis of Colossians 1:3-4 is mostly correct, but still doesn't tell the whole story.
I am sincerely flattered that you characterize my babblings as exegesis. And, of course, with the depth of God's word, I could never tell the whole story. But, I keep trying . . .
You wrote:
As I read the Bible, I see the Church described in a couple of different ways.
I believe the parables of the Prodigal Son and the wheat and the tares teach important truths. However (now don't get upset) I don't see them teaching concerning the body of Christ. We can let this sit for now since interpreting parables is a very tricky business unless Jesus gives us the correct interpretation. Thankfully He did on a few occasions.
You wrote:
we have to face up to the reality that people can be "on the inside" of the Church at least in some ways, and later fall away.
Absolutely, depending on what one means by the church. The church, meaning some particular local group of people who come to the same physical building from time to time to exercise a particular tradition most often contains people as you describe here. Neither of us can say with certainty which are written in the Book of Life and which aren't. So when God says that anybody who takes something away from His Word will himself be taken away from the Book of Life you can be sure that nobody who is in the church (the real church) will ever do this. That can also be said as the overcomer of Revelation can never sin a sin against the Lord which has not been forgiven because God gave him/her the faith to trust Jesus for this eternal salvation.
You wrote:
But God makes us worthy . . . And yet there are some who are joined to the church and appear to be on their way to heaven, but become disqualified and are cast out
Do you think that the ones that God makes worthy one day, He makes unworthy on another? Do you think that God makes a person worthy and the person has the power to undo this? The ones who appear to us to be on their way to heaven have fooled us. They were never on their way to heaven and they did not become disqualified; they never were qualified. God does not and in fact can not change His mind.
You wrote:
I agree that this is possible in some cases, for a limited period of time.
The work of the Spirit is invisible to us regarding one's salvation. The fruits of the Spirit which should be evident after that can be discerned by us. However, our discernment is not infallible. Whether I can tell the truth about somebody else's position vis-a-vis God before the rapture is not important and certainly does not affect that person's standing with God.
You wrote:
Now here's the contradiction: . . . If people's status before God is such a mystery, then what body are we supposed to build up? . . . Surely there must be some visible, objective standard of belonging to Christ that should guide our actions and responses while we are in this world!
Hopefully, this won't sound too corny or simplistic; but, I am to walk according to the Spirit. It is not I who builds up the body; it is He who does that. The reason that the church (the real one) is likened to a body is that the Head (Christ) controls the body (us). It is not the other way around. The toe does not decide which way the body goes. A servant did not go to the master to ask what to do next. He waited to be told and then did it without any delay whatsoever. That is what I see as the model for us. In this model there is no need to worry that I am 'loving' a non-believer who happens to be a member of the same local church as I am. Nor, do I have to be afraid of accepting a 'loving' act from a non-believer in my church. (Actually, the non-believer is incapable of performing a loving act towards me.) I simply let the Holy Spirit lead me. I can't possibly do the wrong thing if I really trust Him. It is only when we put our intelligence to work (lean on our own understanding!!!) that we sin and fail to build up the body.
You wrote:
Yes, a man is joined to Christ by faith, but that faith is to be signified in water baptism
Actually, I fully agree with this, given that our definition of faith is the same. I get so tired of preachers talking about faith that is not in the head but in the heart. All that is in my heart is blood!! The faith that is to be signified is the faith that God has given to that person. Anybody can say that they have faith. I can't tell for sure. If I were a pastor (and I am not one) and somebody comes to me and says that he/she has faith and it seems so to me then I should baptize them. As it turns out, some times I will end up baptizing people who do not have faith given to them by God. Not a problem that God can not deal with.
You wrote:
faith without baptism is confused and sick, and baptism without faith is deadly.
I had faith before I was baptized in water. I was saved before I was baptized in water. It was clear to me that I should be baptized. And, so in obedience I participated in this act. I can assure you that at the time I had very little understanding of what the Greek word baptidzo means nor the difference between water and Spirit baptism. On the other hand, a lost person who goes through the baptism ritual is no more lost than before the ritual.
You wrote:
But how do you know that Christ's promises are for you? . . . is it because the Spirit has marked you as His own, and so God has named you as His child in baptism . . .
As I said above, I knew I was saved before I was baptized (with water). (As an aside, I had been an atheist for 43 years. The difference in me was absolutely overwhelming and obvious to me.) God did indeed mark me as His own in baptism but this baptism was done before I witnessed to the world (not quite the whole world!) my faith by participation in the sacrament of water baptism. There are several things that are called baptism in Scripture; they are not all the same thing.
You wrote:
Both (Peter and Judas) had the same call . .
With all due respect, you do not know if this is or is not a true statement. Somebody who says 'I have been called' is not necessarily called. God has 'called' the whole world to Himself. True. But, ALL are dead in their trespasses and sins and a dead person can not do anything about his/her deadness by responding to that call. Only if God gives them the faith to trust Him can they be 'born again.' If I have anything to do with my salvation (or alternatively my non-salvation or 'falling away') then I have something to brag about.
You wrote in the second post:
What about the evangelist or preacher from whom this person heard the Gospel?
God can use anybody (saved or unsaved) and anything (material or spiritual) that He wishes to accomplish His purposes. What I said was that the act of salvation (the baptism of the Holy Spirit) is not dependent on anything other than God's act. So, no appointed servants are required for this baptism of the Holy Spirit. The method that God chooses to impart faith to a person is an entirely different matter.
You wrote:
So it's not so odd, really, that He should choose to use baptism--an external action performed by His servants--as the thing that "officially" brings a person into His family.
I really don't see any place in Scripture where an 'official' entry into the church is called for. Certainly, God knows when it happens without water baptism. I was absolutely in the family of God before my water baptism. I was absolutely in the body of Christ, the church, before I underwent water baptism. My local church (evangelical free, at that time) did not require it for membership. I did it because it was obvious to me that that was what God desired of me. There are lots of good things to be said about water baptism and it is certainly a sacrament of the church. It is just that it is man who has attached meaning to it that God does not. And it is man who has misread the Scriptures and mixed up water and spirit baptism.
You wrote:
So if you're tempted to go astray, it's more dangerous to trust in the strength of your own faith than it is to trust in God's promises made at your baptism.
I certainly do not advocate one trusting in the strength of their own faith. However, what about all the promises God makes to me in Scripture? Do I need baptism to have promises regarding eternity????
You wrote:
Let me ask you, then: What do you think Christian baptism does?
I think it is a witness and that it is an act of obedience and obedience builds faith in me and in the ones looking on. God thought it was important enough to tell us to do it; that ought to be enough for me, don't you think? BUT, it does not save me, the Holy Spirit does that when He baptizes me into the body of Christ, the real church, that He said He would build. He didn't ask us to build it by baptizing people.
You wrote:
And what about the visible Church? Does it have a mission, a calling all its own, or is it just here as a convenient aid to individual believers as they pursue their individual way to Heaven?
Individual believers are going to get to heaven without the help of any organization. I have the Holy Spirit indwelling me. He knows what He wants to do and can use me to do that if I am submitted to Him. If I am not, then He still knows how to accomplish His purposes. Part of what He wants to do is show the world the way His people live in community. Because, this is the best way for Him to be seen. He has set things up so that every believer needs every other believer. The hand can not do what the foot can do. But, even with all of our selfish prideful sin, He will purify the bride at exactly the right time.
David
David,
So when God says that anybody who takes something away from His Word will himself be taken away from the Book of Life you can be sure that nobody who is in the church (the real church) will ever do this.
I agree...if you define "the church" as "those whose names will not be taken away from the Book of Life." Nobody in the "real" Church will ever be lost; not one of its members will ever become apostate.
However, I don't think that's quite what "the church" means in, e.g., Acts 5:11; 1 Cor. 1:2; 11:18; Phil. 4:15; 3 John 9-10; Rev. 2:1; 3:14...or really any of the places that the plural, "churches," is used in the Bible. What the Holy Spirit is speaking about is a group of people who have a history as a cohesive, visible group, who gain and lose members as time goes on, who are gradually being purified as a holy bride for the Son of God.
In this model there is no need to worry that I am 'loving' a non-believer who happens to be a member of the same local church as I am. Nor, do I have to be afraid of accepting a 'loving' act from a non-believer in my church.
True. The real problem that comes in is when pastors think they have to keep re-evangelizing their congregations, worrying that some of them might not "really" be members of the Church, and they end up teaching people to doubt their own salvation. The response should be: You are a member of the family of God, you have believed in Christ and been baptized and had the name of Christ placed on you. Just continue to have faith in Him, and you need not fear.
As I said above, I knew I was saved before I was baptized (with water). (As an aside, I had been an atheist for 43 years. The difference in me was absolutely overwhelming and obvious to me.) God did indeed mark me as His own in baptism but this baptism was done before I witnessed to the world (not quite the whole world!) my faith by participation in the sacrament of water baptism.
Praise the Lord for His grace! I want to know, though, do you think God has nothing to do with water baptism -- is it merely your own act, your own testimony? In that case (and I don't mean to be rude here, just to probe your beliefs) -- why do it at all? Once you've given oral testimony to your faith, is water baptism redundant? Did God command us to do something that adds nothing in terms of edification, except what is already done just as well in other ways?
However, what about all the promises God makes to me in Scripture? Do I need baptism to have promises regarding eternity????
The promises are to those who belong to Christ. Water baptism is the mark of belonging to Him. You can be saved without being baptized, and you can be baptized without being saved (if you're a hypocrite), but in normal circumstances, saved people and baptized people ought to be the same group of people.
BUT, it does not save me, the Holy Spirit does that when He baptizes me into the body of Christ, the real church, that He said He would build. He didn't ask us to build it by baptizing people.
Well, baptism is involved, though, as the first mark of Christian discipleship. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them..." (Matt. 28:19-20).
Part of what He wants to do is show the world the way His people live in community. Because, this is the best way for Him to be seen. He has set things up so that every believer needs every other believer. The hand can not do what the foot can do. But, even with all of our selfish prideful sin, He will purify the bride at exactly the right time.
Amen!
Your brother in Christ,
Jeff
Jeff,
You wrote:
However, I don't think that's quite what "the church" means in, e.g., Acts 5:11, . . .
Words have meaning; but, without context, it is typically not possible to determine the meaning of a given word. For example, the Greek word diakonos has the meaning of minister or servant or waiter. However, it is also used in the NT in a technical sense to refer to the office of Deacon. These are two quite different uses of the same Greek word. In Luke 22:26, for example, the word is being used in the generic sense. While, in 1 Timothy 3:8 the word is being used in the technical sense. The same word thus has different meanings and only by carefully considering the context can one tell how the word is to be interpreted in a given passage. (Please forgive me if I am telling you something of which you were already well aware.)
Ekklesia is also such a Greek word. It refers to any assembly of people of all kinds (the local Knights of Columbus group could probably be called an ekklesia) and it refers to an assembly of 'people who come together in a particular place and who call themselves Christians' and it also refers to the group of people who God has determined will spend eternity with Him. It can also refer to a building!
So, what the Greek word means in any given passage has to be discerned. In Acts 5:11, I think he is referring to all the people who typically assembled together with Ananias as a 'church.' Some of them were to ultimately end up eternally with God and some not.
You wrote:
What the Holy Spirit is speaking about is a group of people who have a history as a cohesive, visible group, who gain and lose members as time goes on, who are gradually being purified as a holy bride for the Son of God.
First a quibble: Cohesive vs "gain and lose members" ????
You also say that this group is being purified. Do you mean the group as a whole (i.e., some of the lost ones eventually leave the group) or do you mean the saved individuals who undergo sanctification over time are being purified? Because, the ones who were never in the church (true body of Christ) can not be purified or cleansed or sanctified until they become members of the body of Christ. Until that time they are slaves to sin and dead! That does not mean they aren't 'nice' people nor that you can't enjoy a pot luck meal with them from time to time.
You wrote:
The real problem ... pastors think they have to keep re-evangelizing their congregations . . . worrying that some of them might not "really" be members of the Church . . . they end up teaching people to doubt their own salvation.
I certainly agree that pastors should not teach their saved church members to doubt their salvation. If they stick to the truth, then this shouldn't really be a problem. On the other hand, unless one can guarantee that only saved people are in that particular local church, then the pastor has to keep evangelizing. Hopefully, the saved members are also doing this with their witness to the unsaved in their midst!
You wrote:
The response should be: You are a member of the family of God, you have believed in Christ and been baptized and had the name of Christ placed on you. Just continue to have faith in Him, and you need not fear.
This only applies to the ones who are saved at the time this is said. The others are NOT in the family of God, etc. They are lost and slaves to sin. They are in the family of satan. They are experiencing God's wrath in that they have been left to their own desires (of course, this can change any time God decides to do so). So to tell them that they don't have to fear is misleading at best.
You wrote:
I want to know, though, do you think God has nothing to do with water baptism -- is it merely your own act, your own testimony?
First, I believe that God is sovereign and that means that God has something to do with everything. I think I have already said that water baptism is a good thing. I just don't think it typically brings people into the church (the real one). God does that where and when and how He decides. And, He uses faith as the means of effecting this transformation.
God specifies baptism for a reason (probably many reasons). Whether I can list all of them or not is beside the point. I see that I am to be baptized. What else must I know? But, only if I am a believer do I care to follow what God has said that He desires of me. The unbeliever (not saved) has no real interest in God or His desires. So his/her baptism is a meaningless jesture on his/her part. That doesn't mean that God can't use it to bring faith to or to increase the faith of another.
You wrote:
Water baptism is the mark of belonging to Him.
As a Jew, I was circumcised early on. As a Christian, I was baptized in water much later. I can assure you that the circumcision left a mark; water baptism did not. If you were to look at me today, you could not see any marks left from my experience of water baptism. So, I really don't understand what your assertion here means. For my part, the mark of belonging to Him is having the seal of the Holy Spirit and that does not require water baptism. It is also not directly visible.
You wrote:
Well, baptism is involved, though, as the first mark of Christian discipleship.
ABSOLUTELY!!! Can a non-Christian perform an act of Christian discipleship? The question I think we have been wrestling with is what the baptism accomplishes vis-a-vis bringing non-believers into the body of Christ or the New Covenant (in some sense). I say no; I believe you say yes.
David
Post a Comment