|
Post by tomah on Mar 31, 2006 6:10:25 GMT -5
Well, rather than divide up the discussion into various threads, I thought we'd jsut discuss the whole thing in one. What are your thoughts on:
Infant Baptism or the 'mode' of baptism e.g. Full Immersion, Pouring, Sprinkling If you were baptised as a child, do you have to go through Believers Baptism? If you were saved and baptised via the mode of sprinkling or pouring and then later you join a Baptist church and they tell you that you have to be fully immersed, are they correct?
I HOPE we don't have to bother discussing baptismal regeneration?!?!
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 3, 2006 13:12:00 GMT -5
Not a popular subject or what?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 3, 2006 23:03:44 GMT -5
as a quick comment... for baptism to mean anything, one must first believe. Baptism is always spoken of as being done after believing as far as I can see. And baptism doesn't save someone either, as we all know. So to say it has any significance when an infant is baptised makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 4, 2006 8:23:02 GMT -5
But then one would say, what was the significance of circumcision to the child?
For some time I always thought this topic was pretty straight forward, however, anyone who has studied all the various ideas will find it anything but straight forward.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 4, 2006 9:41:26 GMT -5
How I understand it (which I'm sure has much room for correction) is that circumcision was to concecrate them to the LORD, such as some churches do dedication services for babies. But I don't recall ever reading that one was to first believe and then be circumcised. I believe circumcision to be like branding oxen for ownership, for lack of a better analogy, LOL. At least a few times in OT, circumcising the masses wasn't by the people's choice in love for GOD, but instead to appease Israel. But this was off the top of my head so take it with a grain of salt. Blessings
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 5, 2006 5:50:39 GMT -5
Wasn't circumcision a sign of being part of the covenant promise?
(studying for this exam so i can't write much now....i'll get back to it though)
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Apr 6, 2006 18:54:39 GMT -5
Baptism is more of a symbol that we are dead, buried and ressurected with Jesus, The mark of the new covenat is the circumsision of the heart. Baptism is the outward sign of an inward change. Like sackcloth being the outward sign of an inward sorrow. The law is written on our hearts, we are sealed with the Spirit and we live holy. Baptism is neccesary for salvation, but baptism is not the mark of the new covenant, or else the babies in the Roman Catholic church are all living in the new covenant with all of its promises. I dont know, rebuke and exhort with all sound doctrine, I really havent studied this much...
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 7, 2006 8:12:58 GMT -5
"Baptism is neccesary for salvation"
What?? Are you kidding?
"Baptism is more of a symbol that we are dead, buried and ressurected with Jesus"
I really cannot see where people get water baptism in Romans 6 (assuming this is where you get this idea from).
"baptism is not the mark of the new covenant, or else the babies in the Roman Catholic church are all living in the new covenant with all of its promises"
Interesting point, but would circumcision have been a sign of being engrafted into the old covenant if neither of the parents were believers? I think not. The circumcision would have meant nothing and would have been mere hypocrisy. Likewise, at least one parent of the baptised child must be a believer, otherwise it is void. At least, this is how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 9:45:28 GMT -5
Armen, you are a Calvinist and yet you advocate infant baptism? Even I (a most uninformed calvinist, hence my recent change) know that calvinists heartily condemn infant baptism. Spurgeon preached against with all that he had. but anyhow, lets look at what you said.
No really I am not kidding, dont believe me, well I dont expect you too.
Acts 2:37-40, Matthew 28:18-20, and many others. Why did Jesus command baptism if it wasnt necessary? That is like saying you dont have to repent, if you are a Chrisitian then you have to get baptized, why? Because Jesus commanded it, "if you love me you will obey my commands" Peter didnt say go and get baptized if you want to, he said repent and be baptized for the remission of you sins.
No actually that isnt where I got it from, the entire New Testament teaches that baptism is a required sacrament. FInd me a passage that states otherwise, but of course you will cite that scripture in Acts where the gentiles recived the Holy Ghost before baptism, granted you are right, but what is the first thing the apostles did when they found them? baptized them.
Baptism is not a sign of New Covenant cirsumsision, I was baptized as a baby, and lived in sin and hellbound for 15 years. Did the fact that I was batized mean that my heart was circumsized? No. In fact the only way you can know if your heart is circumsised is if you live a holy life or not.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 7, 2006 10:00:41 GMT -5
I'm not advocating infant baptism, but if you read material on it, it is not as straight forward as you think. Spurgeon may have been against it, but if you read older material you will find that the true children of the reformation (Presbyterian ) strongly believed in infant baptism. I am unsure as yet, where I stand on the issue. Yes, Christ commanded baptism, and I believe that everyone should get baptised whenever/wherever possible. But to say that it is necessary to salvation is heresy of the highest order!!! It would be a shame about the thief on the cross wouldn't it? Or those who have repented on their deathbeds over the past 2000 years!! They still went to hell according to your view!
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 10:09:14 GMT -5
Like always, people resort to the extreme cases to prove their point, I dont care what people say, I care what scripture says. Sola scriptura! Scripture makes it clear that baptism is necessary for salvation, call me a heretic if you like, or prove the other way, if I am wrong I will gladly and humbly admit my error.
You cannot use the theif of the cross, or someone on their death bed (we wont even discuss deathbed repentance) for examples, does God know the heart? Yes he does. Does God know if you had a chance to obey his command? Yes he does. If you could of been baptized and were not, then you disobeyed, it is your ouwn fault.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 7, 2006 10:56:03 GMT -5
indeed, but you'll not go to hell for it!
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 11:03:00 GMT -5
Ah, permissable disobediance. I see.
Is that your scripture proof?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 11:13:41 GMT -5
Baptism is simply the outward sign of an inward reality, if you have truly undergone that inward change then you will long to obey, if you have not been, or do not wish to be baptized there is a good reason to believe that you are not saved.
The covenant is not sealed in baptism, but rather the wahing if regeneration, the sealing of the Spirit and the law being written on you heart (Eze.36:25, etc). But the outward evidence is baptism. My argument still stands, if you love Jesus then you obey his commands, therefore, if you are not or do not desire to be baptized then you most likely dont love Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 11:17:08 GMT -5
Oh, where do people get baptism from Romans 6? probably this verse, "therefore we are buried with him by BAPTISM into death..." (Rom. 6:4)
Or this verse, "Know ye not that so many of us were batptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death." (Rom. 6:3)
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 11:21:06 GMT -5
Wouldn't Baptism be considered a "work"? I definitely think it is heresy to say you have to be baptized in order to be saved. It is an outward sign of what has already happened on the inside of a person. As far as circumcision, it was done as part of the covenant between Abraham and God. It was a sign that you were a child of GOd. Unfortunately, the Jewish people made it a religious thing instead of a reminding thing. They took it as, "If I am circumsized in the flesh, I am a child of GOd." God has always sought after those that would be circumcized in the heart. Circumcision is now seen as a way of keeping the male clean easier. That is a fallacy as well in my mind. God doesn't require anyone to be circumcized, just go read any of Paul's letters about that. God created man uncircumcized, so He must have had a reason for the foreskin... Evan, you are starting to scare me brother...really you are
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 11:23:59 GMT -5
Here is something else that I want to offer up to help understand Baptism. The word "Baptism" is actually just a transliteration of the Greek word Baptizmo. The word means "immersed", so don't be surprise if when you see the word Baptism (as in John 3), that it isn't talking about a believer being "immersed" into Christ and not just someone being dunked in a body of water...
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 11:41:12 GMT -5
Why is that? Many people, like watchman nee, have believed exactly the same way. Like I said, God knows the heart. Please answer this question, why did Jesus command it if we didnt have to do it?
So do you preach like the apostles, repent and bebaptized, or do you say, repent and be baptised if you want to? I am not being fecicious there either, that is a serious question.
Exactly what I said, God knows your heart. Tell me this, if you have the chance to be baptized and never are, would that not be open and blatent disobediance to a direct command given by Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 11:45:57 GMT -5
I preach like Jesus and John the Baptist, "Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand"
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 11:51:36 GMT -5
I Peter 3:20-21 Galatians 3:26,27 Colossians 3:11.12 Just to name a few.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 11:56:53 GMT -5
Brother, Jesus also commands us to go preach the Gospel to ALL creation. Are you now saying that if you don't share the Gospel with everyone you possibly can, that you are going to go to Hell as well? Is that now a "requirement" for someone to be saved as well?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 12:05:56 GMT -5
Evan, I can tell that your presupposition is "sinless perfection", which I totally disagree with, so you and me might as well stop discussing this here. God Bless you brother...I appreciate your zeal for God's Word and to live Holy...
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 13:10:48 GMT -5
I have no presuppositions with God's word, that is dangerous. But I do believe that since Jesus commanded us to be baptized then we whould be baptized. But if you have circomstances that you cant, that doesnt mean you are going to hell, but if you can, then you should, that is all Iam saying.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 13:44:57 GMT -5
Baptism has nothing to do with Christian Perfection, Antinomianism, or Being a baptist, lutheran, methodist, or prebsyterian, baptism is a sacrament ordained by Jesus himself, should we neglect it?
Should we tell people that we dont have to be? That would be teaching people to disobey Jesus, and we can disobey him there, why not everywhere? You do remember what Jesus said about that type of teaching (Matt. 5) but anyway, You definately are commanded to be baptized, there is no question about that. Will you go to hell if you COULDNT, no. Will you go to hell if you WOULDNT, yes. If you couldnt there was something that stopped you, God will know that. If you wouldnt then you simply disobeyed, God will also know that.
Baptism is an outward act that proves an inward change, if you dont partake in the outward act, then you most likely dont have the inward change. But like I said, and like Luther said, My conscience is captive to scripture, If I am wrong show me, I will change, that why I started discussing this, so that others can show me where I err, or others can be shown where the err. That is the point of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2006 16:59:33 GMT -5
Evan, if something isn't true for everyone (theif on the cross, deathbed salvation), then it isn't true for anyone. What is needed for salvation is repentance and faith...simple as that brother. To add to that is to add works. We are saved to works, not by works. Our good works prove that we are saved...holiness, purity, baptism, witnessing, etc., but they DON'T save us. That is where you are getting mixed up brother. I agree that if someone can be baptized and know that God requires it of them, that they will if they truly are a Christian. But you CAN'T say that that is what saves them. We are saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ alone...to say anything else is to trust in Good Works...
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 8, 2006 12:12:11 GMT -5
(Part One - it was too long, part two is directly underneath this one)
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be d**ned.” (Mark 16:16)
(Please brother Armen, brother RevK, do me the honor of reading this entire post, I stayed up very late writing it, take a few minutes and see what you think.)
I really don't like to cite other peoples work, but I think it is necessary as this is a very important issue as it has to do with salvation. Since I have no degrees (you can have thirty-two and still be frozen –Leonard Ravenhill), or doctorates I guess my opinion has no pull. So, here we go…
The people’s commentary to the New Testament says this, “He that believeth. Believeth the gospel message; believes in Christ as his Savior. And is baptized. These are the conditions of pardon; faith in Christ and obedience to his command. If any one has not faith enough in Christ to obey him he has not faith enough to be saved. He that believeth not. Remains in a state of unbelief. Such have no promise.”
Coffman says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ... In linking faith and baptism as binding preconditions to salvation, Christ made it clear enough that salvation is the result, not of merely believing but of believing and being baptized. The reasons underlying this are as profound as the New Testament itself. Salvation depends upon the absolute and perfect righteousness of the individual saved, there being nothing that a sinner can either believe or do that could endow him with any degree of righteousness approaching what is required for salvation. The Medieval theory of God's imputing righteousness to a sinner is ridiculous. There is nothing that God could put into a sinner that would make him righteous. And if it is suggested that God's Spirit could do so, let it be recalled that God's Spirit is not given to sinners, but to sons (that is, persons in Christ), as stated in Galatians 4:6. However, there is a way that God makes people righteous. What is that? He transfers the sinner into Christ WHO IS RIGHTEOUS; and thus the sinner is saved in Christ and as Christ. (See Galatians 2:16,20) Thus, God's plan of salvation is not that of imputing righteousness into sinners, but the transference of sinners INTO Christ. The preconditions upon which Christ promised to transfer sinners into himself are here stated as faith and baptism. For extended discussions of the theological questions involved in such considerations, see my Commentary on Romans, Rom. 3. Since Christian baptism is the initiatory rite by which the sons of Adam are inducted into Christ, it was absolutely correct for the Lord to have linked it with faith in this passage as a prerequisite of salvation. There is no way that people can remove this teaching from the doctrine of Christ; but that they are able to get it out of THEIR doctrine is evident everywhere. What this passage does to the theory of salvation by "faith only" is the inherent reason for the "reservations" that some have as regards the authenticity of this passage.”
Debate all you want about the legitimacy of the passage I chose it doesn’t matter because even without this passage the rest of the New Testament teaches the same thing. James says this, faith without works is dead. The way that you can show your faith by what you do is by, not only, living a holy life, preaching the gospel and helping the needy, but by being baptized and partaking in the lords supper. As Watchman Nee said, “I don't believe in baptismal regeneration, but I do believe in baptismal salvation.” If it weren't necessary, why did the apostles make such a big deal about it? Why was it COMMANDED? By saying it is heresy, you are calling not only me, but also Jesus a heretic. Jesus is used to it. Me, not so much.
You mentioned that someone must also preach the gospel, I think that someone who is born again will preach the gospel out of love for God, love for the lost, and love for their neighbor. So I guess to answer your question is that a “requirement”, NO, but it is evidence that they are saved. You can bet that someone who never shares their faith is most likely not saved, even your beloved Charles Spurgeon says this, “have you no wish for others to be saved, then you are not saved yourself, be sure of that.”
Now I will add another coal to the fire…
You said something about baptism being a work Rev. this is a solifidian doctrine and viewpoint (read below the article titled EXCURSUS ON SOLIFIDIANISM). I still hold to my stance that you can’t be saved apart from baptism.
“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:17-24)
Some people (Luther) say that Paul and James were at a variance about this topic. But I don't think they were. James is talking about dead faith, and Paul is talking about living faith (Rom. 3:28). Paul talks of justification before God and James talks about it as bearing fruit to be seen as proof. If you have faith and no works to prove it, I do believe you will go to hell because dead faith cannot save anyone (see the people’s commentary to the New Testament for more in depth info).
Wesley says, “It is not, though he have faith; but, though he say he have faith. Here, therefore, true, living faith is meant: but in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead, imaginary faith. He does not, therefore, teach that true faith can, but that it cannot, subsist without works: nor does he oppose faith to works; but that empty name of faith, to real faith working by love. Can that faith "which is without works" save him? No more than it can profit his neighbour. So likewise that faith which hath not works is a mere dead, empty notion; of no more profit to him that hath it, than the bidding the naked be clothed is to him.”
I have no idea where you support your “faith alone” philosophy in the New Testament, even going so far as to try and nullify baptism. It grieves my heart that you would condone blatant disobedience to Jesus. I love you brother, and this time I feel you are the once deceived.
Can I now have permission to shatter your “faith alone” belief? Please read this fascinating article by James Coffman on solifidianism.
EXCURSUS ON SOLIFIDIANISM by: James Coffman
Solifidian, from which the noun solifidianism is derived, means "one who maintains that faith alone, without works, is the one requisite to salvation (from Latin solus, alone + fides, faith)." Under James 2:26 it was explained that solifidianism is founded upon an altogether inadequate understanding of the true ground of justification, that ground being neither human faith nor obedience nor both of them together. The one and only true grounds are the perfect faith and obedience of the Son of God. In the light of this, the doctrine is a theological faux pas of phenomenal dimensions. It claims eternal salvation for sinners, along with eternal justification (in the highest sense), grounded upon a purely human act of obedience, that is, the subjective trust/faith of sinners. Thus it makes sinners their own saviour by grounding the hope of salvation upon what the sinners themselves do. Logically and theologically, this is an arrogant absurdity. Even if the major thesis of solifidianism were provable (which it is not), it would still fall short of any ultimate justification. That thesis is that in some way "saving faith," as it is called, includes all necessary acts of obedience, or produces them, or issues in them, or even does them. This is considered by holders of the doctrine to be a vital element of it, as judged by so many varied and repeated assertions of it. First, we shall notice a sampling of such assertions, demonstrating their falsity; and then, it will be pointed out that even if allowed as true, the whole concept of justification as resting upon what sinners themselves either believe or do, or believe AND do, still makes man his own saviour and misses altogether the only possible justification "in Christ" our Lord. Assertions relative to "saving faith's" (so-called) inclusion of all necessary works: "Faith cannot be severed from works." This cannot be true, because many of the rulers of the Jews "believed on" the Lord Jesus Christ ( John 12:42) and B. F. Westcott assured us that the words there employed by the apostle John mean the completeness and fullness of faith. Yet those same people were the ones who murdered the Son of God. They had every kind of faith there is; so faith can and often does exist without works, being therefore separated from works. See full comment on the text from John in my Commentary on John, pp. 305-307. "Faith uses works as its means." This is untrue because James represented works, not as something faith was using, but as something "working with," or "cooperating with" faith
Likewise, the author of Hebrews made faith and baptism (a work in the usual solifidian view) to stand as coordinates in the foundation of the first principles of the gospel
"If faith is genuine, works will follow." Again, John 12:42 refutes this. See above. Further, James' challenge to errorists refuted in this chapter carried no criticism of their faith, other than the fact of its being without works. If it had been true that those workless Christians did not have the "right kind of faith," James would have dealt with that instead of the need for works. The entire last section of James 2 proves that faith can, and did, exist apart from works; and that it is not true that where faith is genuine works will follow. "Works are an expression of faith." This is false because works are something done by the believer, not by his faith. Eternal justification, as viewed by Paul, was grounded (in one sense) upon what men do
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 8, 2006 12:12:44 GMT -5
In those citations from Paul, it is not deficiency of faith, but the deeds done by the believer, that is stressed. "Works are the necessary fruits of faith." "Faith bringeth forth works." "Faith always issues in good works." "Faith is bound to overflow in action." "There is no faith that does not issue at once in loving obedience ." "Obedience is the inevitable and immediate issue of faith." Not any of these statements is in the Bible, nor is a single one of them true. If such notions as these had been a fact, James would not have bothered to give his urgent exhortation to good works. If such statements as the above had been the truth, and there had been the "wrong kind of faith" in any of the Christians he addressed, he would have devoted his energies to correcting the deficiency of their faith, instead of ordering them to obey the precepts of the Master relative to good works. "Not for faith plus works does James plead, but for “faith at work." Like most of the samplings noted above, this also is a clever remark, but it is not true. James did plead for "faith plus works," flatly declaring that there was no profit in the faith that did not have that "plus." "Real faith unites a man with Christ." Significantly, this particular error is rather seldom advocated, in all probability because it is so frontally contradicted by the New Testament which nowhere carries such a statement as this, but which does categorically state no less than three times that one is "baptized into Christ," or "into his body" No amount of faith ever united a man with anything, the P.T.A., the Masonic Lodge, the Democratic Party, nor the spiritual body of Christ. "James was pleading for the `work of faith.'" This statement found in a number of commentaries is true, the error lying in the misunderstanding of "the work of faith," which means not the work which faith does, but the work commanded by "the faith" in the objective sense. Paul mentioned "work of faith" but his reference carries the thought that the Thessalonians were obeying the commandments of God, not that their "faith" was doing all the work. "The ground of justification is faith, and that only." This type of statement is not merely untrue; it contradicts the word of God in James 2:24, which declares that a man "is justified ... and not by faith alone." This kind of statement is not nearly as common as it once was, because more and more who believeit are embarrassed by James' refutation of their theory; but instead, greater and greater reliance is rested in the type of statements examined above, where the common design is in every case that of declaring solifidianism. Over and beyond all of these efforts to prove the unprovable, however, there looms the cosmic fact that even if faith should be viewed as all-inclusive of everything else, the basing of justification upon it (in any final sense) would still be making man his own saviour, still predicating the reception of eternal life upon thoughts and deeds of fallible and sinful men. Who could believe it? The basis of the final and eternal justification of the redeemed has already been determined and announced by God himself, the same being the righteousness of God "in Christ," available to those and those alone who are truly "in him," and moreover are "found in him" at last. Nevertheless, it is still an interesting and important question of whether faith plus works (of some kind), or merely "faith alone" is required of sinners seeking justification on the secondary and lower level which must be achieved "by them" before they may even become eligible for entry "into Christ" where alone true justification is available. The whole problem then turns upon one question alone, and that is, "How are men truly united with and brought `into' Christ?" Fortunately, the Scriptures do not leave such a question open, announcing repeatedly that men are "baptized into him." This mountain fact lies behind Jesus' declaration in Mark 16:15,16. Thus, even upon that lower level of secondary justification regarding fulfillment of preconditions of redemption, "faith alone" is valueless, even for the initial phase of justification; and, after that, the necessity of remaining "in Christ," of being found "in him" at last, even this will be determined by one's "deeds, which have the utility, along with faith, of keeping one "in Christ." The all-important thing that must precede final and ultimate justification is that the one to be justified must be "in Christ" and found "in him" at the end of his probation. Therefore, the whole question of "faith plus works of obedience" or "faith only" should never have been raised. This is true because "faith only," no less than "faith plus obedience" is a "work" performed by sinners (being also, in a sense, a work performed by God, in the sense that God commanded it); and the predication of justification upon either "faith only" or "faith plus obedience" makes what the sinner does the grounds of justification; and the solifidian who bases his supposed salvation upon subjective trust/faith, rather than upon an obedient faith, does not gain the slightest advantage in such a conception, everything, in the last analysis, depending upon whether or not at last he shall be found "in Christ." The impossibility of "faith only" entering one "into Christ" is the ultimate condemnation of solifidianism. The concept of "saving faith" (so-called) as a religious experience: This is positively the most irrational and unbiblical idea ever to invade Christianity. The concept, variously advocated, supposes that "at some particular moment," "with emotions better felt than told," "in answer to prayer, .... under the emotional appeal of revivalism," or in some other bizarre circumstance, the sinner suddenly "experiences FAITH." Boom! All of his sins are forgiven; he is transformed spiritually, born again and saved eternally! The word of God nowhere pictures any such "spiritual orgasm" as that! This is pure voodooism. No Biblical precept, no apostolic example even hints at such a thing. That is not the way Paul was converted; no member of the historical church as reviewed in Acts of the Apostles ever came "into Christ" in the manner of this false conception. Unscriptural and erroneous as such a "conversion" truly is, the mistake is compounded and multiplied by the solifidian arrogance of making that the only thing necessary for salvation and claiming eternal justification on the basis of it! There has never been a religious teaching that cried any louder to Almighty God for a drastic correction than does this one. The satanic thrust of this evil theory also registers in its hatred of all who seek salvation and justification (even on the level of fulfilling preconditions of redemption) through faith and obedience of the gospel, and its adamant opposition to all preaching of the New Testament plan of salvation, accusing the followers of the New Testament of lacking salvation altogether and of attempting to be their own saviour. The illogical nature of this attitude appears in the fact of their denial of salvation predicated upon FAITH AND OBEDIENCE, while claiming it for themselves on the basis of FAITH WITHOUT OBEDIENCE, overlooking the fact that FAITH AND OBEDIENCE surely has everything their method has AND MORE! The only thing the true method of redemption lacks which theirs has is the alleged "faith experience," which to them is everything. The incongruous assertion that "faith only" could have anything not found in "faith and obedience" is impossible of being taken seriously. No "experience" that any man ever had could rival that of Paul on the Damascus road. He actually saw the Lord! But three days later, he was still a, praying, penitent, grieving sinner; and so he remained until he heeded the command of Ananias to "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins!"
Too bad that Paul never knew anything about being saved by "faith only." The alleged Scriptural support of solifidianism is extensive and will be briefly examined here. Solifidian methodology is characterized by the employment of a number of devices, as follows: 1. There is the literalization of synecdoche. Synecdoche, a type of metonomy in which one thing stands for a group of related things, is frequently used (especially by Paul) in the New Testament; and one of his frequent uses of this figure of speech is that of making "saved by faith" a synecdoche, or short-form way of saying, "saved by faith, repentance, confession, baptism, hope, the blood of Christ, and all other great essentials of the Christian religion." In my Commentary on Romans, a large number of Pauline uses of synecdoche were pointed out, there being no doubt whatever of Paul's "saved by faith" always being inclusive of many other things also; never did he mean "faith alone." The device of literalizing the synecdoche is a denial of the word of God. Take the synecdoche: "Philip II had 1800 sails in his navy." "Sails" actually means "fully equipped and manned warships"; the solifidian misunderstanding of it would assert the meaning to be: "Philip II had no warships at all and had gone into the cloth business!" 2. Another popular device is that of making passages which attribute salvation to "faith without works" mean that nothing whatever is to be done by the sinner except to believe in Christ. The error of this is multiple. "Without works," in the Pauline usage, in the vast majority of instances, means "works of the Law of Moses" and faith means either (a) all the Christian requirements (synecdoche), or (b) "the whole Christian religion" (faith used objectively). Again, the solifidian misinterpretation reads "works" to include every conceivable kind of human activity, whereas the New Testament speaks of seven classes of works, including the "work of faith," i.e., deeds done in obedience to divine commandments," as necessary to salvation. It is a perversion of God's word to apply "without works" as meaning "without obedience to Christ." 3. The device of interpreting New Testament references to "faith" as meaning (subjectively) the unscriptural "experience of faith" in which instantaneous salvation results. Many have been deceived into thinking this meaning is in the New Testament; but it is not, the usual meaning of the word faith in the New Testament being simply that of "faithfulness" or "fidelity." See in my Commentary on Galatians (p. 44) for extended discussion regarding the error of construing New Testament references to "faith" as having the meaning of "subjective, sinner's trust/ faith." There are more than a hundred instances in the New Testament in which the solifidian bias of reading "faith" in the subjective sense has been imported and read into the text; one notable scholar even declared that 2 Tim. 4:7 is "best understood subjectively"! In that passage, how can it be denied that Paul's saying he had "kept the faith" means anything other than that he had been true to the holy religion of Christ? 4. Outright mistranslation of God's word is also used extensively to mutilate and alter passages which do not "fit" solifidian error. Thus, John 3:16 is perverted to read "SHALL have everlasting life" instead of "SHOULD have, etc." Romans 10:10, "Confession is made unto salvation," is perverted to read, "It is stating his belief by his own mouth that CONFIRMS his salvation" (Phillips). These are only two of many scores of such arrogant changes which solifidian scholars perpetrate against the sacred word. It is very difficult to believe that the consciences of those who commit this type of outrage could be easy in the doing of such things. The great plethora of "modern English" translations of the New Testament has many of them that in no sense may be legitimately called translations, being loaded with solifidianism and other errors throughout. 5. The device of substituting sinner's trust/faith for "the faith of Christ (the faith Christ had) in Romans 3:22,26, Galatians 2:16,20, and many other places, carries the effect of making the sinner his own saviour (through his providing the "saving faith"); whereas the faith that truly saves is "the faith of Christ" PLUS the perfect obedience of Christ! See extensive discussions of this subject in Romans (my Commentary on Romans) and Galatians (my Commentary on Galatians), under above references. 6. Rejection of whole blocks of the New Testament that cannot be made to fit the solifidian straitjacket has, from time to time, been brazenly advocated. Martin Luther rejected James because he thought it contradicted Paul; whereas, it only contradicted what Luther erroneously alleged to be Paul's teaching. There is no logic at all in the allegation that it was actually James which was misunderstood by Luther, and that James does not contradict solifidianism. Of course it does! Then, there is the case of Arthur Cushman McGiffert, the theological "giant" who rejected the Pastorals, grounding his case on the assertion that "Nowhere in them is `faith' used in the great Pauline sense (solifidian sense, of course)!" McGiffert was absolutely correct in seeing that solifidianism is bluntly contradicted by the Pastoral epistles. Countless other examples of such behavior in smaller particulars could be pointed out, raising the question of what must be thought of a theory whose adherents seek to change the word of God, rather than give up their error? 7. Another device is that of bypassing the spiritual body of Christ in their doctrine of salvation "by faith alone:" Solifidian theology pays scant attention, if any, to the overwhelmingly important Pauline teaching of "salvation in Christ." The expression "in Christ" (in him, in whom, in the Lord, etc.) is used 169 times in Paul's writings. Forgiveness, eternal life, salvation, redemption of sins, hope, grace, love, etc. - in fact EVERYTHING is "in Christ." Therefore, when Paul speaks of "faith in Christ," what does he mean? Sinner's subjective trust/faith? No! That is not "in Christ," it is in the sinner! A number of Pauline references to "faith in Christ" mean "faith" exercised by one "who has been baptized into Christ," thus stressing the theater of faith, not the mere subjective trust/faith of sinners. No unbaptized believer has faith "in Christ," as long as he is "out of Christ." The hard logic of this basic truth shows the fundamental error of solifidianism. Throughout this series of commentaries, careful attention has been paid to solifidian mistranslations, perversions and other devices used in allegations of Scriptural support of their error; and the above are only a few samplings from the wholesale outrages committed against the New Testament by unspiritual men who, under a pretense of "spirituality" are guilty of misrepresenting the word of God. The candid manner of discussing solifidianism, adopted here, should not be construed as a private judgment against "other Christians" (so-called). We do not maintain the position that intellectual error, even on so important a topic as this, may necessarily lead to final condemnation. In fairness, as noted earlier, it must be said that many solifidians, to the best of their ability, proceed to obey the teachings of the New Testament, in spite of their incorrect theory; and to the extent that they indeed "do believe and obey" the truth, they have exactly the same hope as all others who "believe and obey the gospel." However, and here is tragedy, countless "professed" Christians are not in any sense obeying the gospel, walking in the teachings of the New Testament, ordering their lives by the precepts and examples of the apostles, nor in any other sense exhibiting the character and conduct of genuine followers of Christ. Their lapse in this whole area of "doing" the religion of Christ covers all phases of it; from violation of Christ's commandment to be baptized, forsaking his word relative to the Lord's supper, denying any appreciation for the church which is his spiritual body - from all such violations as these, all the way to a total abandonment of ethical and moral behavior by living in gross sins such as drunkenness, adultery, fornication, falsehood, stealing, idleness - put in all the lists of sins in the New Testament. Such things are openly practiced by a very large portion of those in our nation today who, according to themselves, are "saved by faith alone." It is in this frame of reference that this rather extensive discussion of the key error in modern theology is offered.
I hope that this cleared it up, or maybe it made it worse, either way, I still stand on what I said, salvation apart from baptism is not possible. Please, refute these things if they are wrong, but this article is shattering to you belief. Again, I love you brothers, and I only want the best for both of you.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 8, 2006 18:32:37 GMT -5
Ok!
You said that if circumstances make it impossible for one to be baptised, then God will overlook that and they'll be ok, like deathbed repentance, thief on the cross, etc.
But here you are placing baptism along with repentance and faith.
So I ask the question, if circumstances of ignorance make someone unaware of their need to have faith in Christ, but they repent and are baptised, will God overlook it and accept them into Heaven? Or if someone doesn't realise that they need to repent, but they believe and are baptised, does God overlook that and accept them? If God does not make exceptions for no faith or no repentance, than WHY should he make exceptions for no baptism if it is necessary to salvation??
I agree if you're not baptised when given the opportunity then it is a sin, but it is not damning.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Denham on Apr 9, 2006 1:03:29 GMT -5
I believe that you have to be baptised in the name of Jesus only to be saved. I'm beginning to lean more toward the Oneness theology. It just seems to make since. Hahaha, just playing.
I agree with the Apostle Paul. He said he didn't come to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is kinda like my wedding ring. My ring identifies me to my wife and baptism identifies me to Christ. Just an outward sign that's all. It's the heart that matters.
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Apr 9, 2006 8:15:18 GMT -5
Repentance and faith can be had anywhere, in prison, on the top of a tall building, 400 feet underground, anywhere. Baptism however, requires more than faith and repentance, it needs water.
|
|