Two-Step Plan of Salvation Part III

In parts one and two of "Two-Step Plan of Salvation," I attempted to answer the question, "what's wrong with this picture," and that picture being the idea presented to my wife and I by a friend that she got saved by "making a decision based an act of my will."

I tried making the point that this theological error, decisionism salvation, amounts to another Gospel and therefore Paul's warning in Galatians 1:8-9 applies:

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8-9 NKJV)

Salvation is not the result of an act of one's fallen will. Salvation is being regenerated, made alive, or quickened, so that, or in order, that you might "confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead." (Romans 10:9)

As I pointed out in the part one, my friend elucidated what she meant by the Gospel by adding that first she "made a decision based an act of her will," then she said that part and parcel to her salvation experience was years later being "baptized in the Spirit evidenced by praying in tongues."

First part of what's wrong with this picture is that our friend thinks she is saved on the basis on something "she has done," i.e. making a decision based on an act of her will. Second part of what's wrong with this picture is that she thinks there is a second part to salvation, a second work of grace, if you will, to be sought after her first "decision based on an act of her will." Salvation is a "Two-Step Plan" for her and for literally thousands of professing (false) believers all over the world. They are false because they teach, preach, and believe another Gospel. To correct this second part of the "Two-Step Plan of Salvation," we have to take a look at what the Bible says about the "Baptism of the Spirit."

"For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-and have all been made to drink into [a] one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:12-13 NKJV)

So, we see the Bible does teach there is a baptism by (one) Spirit. But what does this mean?

"The baptism of the Holy Spirit may be defined as that work whereby the Spirit of God places the believer into union with Christ and into union with other believers in the body of Christ at the moment of salvation." (http://www.gotquestions.org/Spirit-baptism.html)

Another text with which to demonstrate this doctrine is seen in Romans 6:1-4:

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (NKJV)

The 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 text tells us that the Holy Spirit is the agent of baptism into one body (the body of Christ) and the Romans 6:1-4 text tells us what else is involved in this Spirit baptism.

1. We were baptized into Christ Jesus, which made us partakers of His death to sin.

2. Therefore, we are united in the likeness of his burial through this baptism into death.

3. And, in the likeness of Christ's resurrection, we are co-raised in Christ that we might walk in newness of life. (see Romans 6:5-12)

Both of these texts of Scripture show that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit accomplishes the following and no more or no less:

1. It puts us, or unites us, into the Body of Christ.

2. It unites us in the likeness of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection so that we can say:

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." (Galatians 2:20 NKJV)

If you want power to live the Spirit-filled life, look no further than your conversion experience and to your co-crucifixion, co-death, co-burial, and co-resurrection in Christ. Therein is the power of God unto salvation from the penalty and power of sin.

Two points obliterate this error that there is a second work of Grace one must seek after getting saved (if they are really saved at all).

1. The 1 Corinthians 12 text shows clearly that all Christians have been baptized by the Spirit into Christ. "We were all baptized," says Paul, "into Christ just as all have been given one Spirit to drink (the filling of the Spirit in Eph. 5:18)."

2. There is no text in Scripture where we are told to be baptized in, by, or with the Spirit.

"Experiencing the one Spirit baptism serves as the basis for keeping the unity of the church, as in the context of Ephesians 4:5. Being associated with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection through Spirit baptism establishes the basis for our separation from the power of indwelling sin and our walk in newness of life (Romans 6:1-10; Colossians 2:12)." (http://www.gotquestions.org/Spirit-baptism.html)

This, too, the second part of the "Two-Step Plan of Salvation" our friend shared and I mentioned in part one of this series, is another gospel. It is not the Gospel of the Bible, it is not the Gospel of Jesus, and it is not the Gospel of God. It is heretical.

To say that something more is required to experience the power of God unto salvation is not only error, it is blasphemy. To say what Christ bought for us with his death, burial and resurrection was insufficient is to deny the Doctrine of Christ (2 John 9). The redemption from the penalty of sin and the deliverance from the power of sin that we might walk in the newness of life was purchased at the Cross. At Calvary you got the whole deal.

You want to live a life that shows that you are a Christian? You want to live life walking worthy of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? You want to walk in a manner worthy of the calling in which you have been called?

Then the Apostle Paul would tell you three things:

1. In light of your co-crucifixion, your co-burial, your co-resurrection, reckon yourselves indeed dead unto sin and alive unto God in Christ Jesus.

2. And, because of the truth of point #1, or therefore, do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts.

3. You can do this because sin has no dominion over you because in Christ, you are not under law but under Grace. (Re-read Romans 6)

Beloved, don't trust anyone who presents you a decisionalism salvation. To do so would be to your peril. And, do not accept anyone who tells you what Christ purchased with his death on a Cross was not sufficient and that you need some "second blessing."

Believe the simple Gospel for redemption from the penalty of your sin and for freedom from sin's dominion and power in your life.

"And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."" (John 6:35-40 NJKV)

###

Two-Step Plan of Salvation Part II

Decisionism salvation can be summed up in the following description:

"I made a decision, as an act of my will, to believe in Christ."

To further expound the meaning, one could say that those who believe this idea about the power of God unto salvation, or the Gospel (Romans 1:16), hold to a doctrinal position that man is not totally depraved. Man's fallen nature does not extend to his will. The will was left untouched by the fall. When man hears the Gospel message, he can exercise himself Godward or salvifically and make a decision for or against Christ.

In part one of this paper, I showed that according to Scripture, man is so utterly fallen in his nature that there is none who can do the righteous thing of getting saved because there is none righteous; no, not one. Getting saved is indeed a righteous act and not an unrighteous one. Man is so depraved in his spirit that he cannot understand the Gospel much less seek it and exercise himself toward it to be saved. Man is so dead in his trespasses and sin that he cannot, apart from Divine quickening (being made alive), answer the call to come forth to Christ. I used the example of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in John chapter eleven to illustrate this point.

I concluded part one with the idea that to advocate this decisionism salvation plan is "another Gospel" about which the Apostle Paul wrote in Galatians:

"…so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:6-9 NIV)

If making a decision for Christ is not the Gospel of Salvation then what is? What is the Gospel and how does man get from being dead in his trespasses and sins to being saved?

Another man wanted to know the answer to this question. In fact, so scandalous was his interest in meeting Jesus and to discuss the things of God that it was under the cloak of darkness that he sought out Christ. This man was Nicodemus, a Pharisee, who, if this meeting with Jesus were found out, would have certainly brought him censure or worse.

Jesus told Nicodemus that unless he be born again he would never see the Kingdom of God. Confused by his spiritual blindness, Nicodemus asked the logical question coming from a spiritually dead man,

"How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" (John 3:4 NKJV)

Jesus responded,

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:6-8)

Being born again, says Jesus, is like the wind. The wind, though you can hear the sound of it, you cannot tell from where it originates or its destination. It blows wherever it wishes and so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

Spiritual rebirth, or regeneration, is as the Apostle wrote in Roman 9:15-16:

"For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion. So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy."

I will have mercy and compassion on whom I will, writes Paul, or the Spirit, like the wind, blows on whoever it wishes, writes John.

And, it could not be any plainer: Romans 9:16 - "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy."

(See the Amplified Bible Romans 9:16: So then [God's gift] is not a question of human will and human effort, but of God's mercy. [It depends not on one's own willingness nor on his strenuous exertion as in running a race, but on God's having mercy on him.] )

In the beginning of John's Gospel, he gave the very definition of what it means to be born again:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13 NKJV)

Don't miss what it being said here: "…who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Those who are born again, saved in Christ, are born not because of their human will but of the Divine's.

The Gospel is simple. It is plain. It is saving Grace.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." (John 6:44-47 NIV)

One cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws the sinner. This is a testimony to man's depravity, his inability, which prevents him from seeking Christ unto salvation. The Gospel call is, "…he who believes has everlasting life."

"And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."" (John 6:65 NKJV)

"All whom My Father gives (entrusts) to Me will come to Me; and the one who comes to Me I will most certainly not cast out [I will never, no never, reject one of them who comes to Me]." (John 6:37 Amplified)

Those whom God gives to Christ "will come." In fact, I would venture to say they will never run the risk of anything other than coming to Christ in believing faith. Notice, "I will most certainly not cast out…" If God gives you to Christ in believing faith, you will be His and will never run the risk of being anything other than His!

"It is impossible for anyone to come to Christ without the enabling call of God. The sinner's moral inability to choose Christ must be overcome by the gracious and sovereign power of the Spirit (John 3: 5-21)." - New Geneva Study Bible; page 1674

I have wondered for years, no, decades, how a professing Christian could read or hear Ephesians 2:

"For it is by free grace (God's unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ's salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God; Not because of works [not the fulfillment of the Law's demands], lest any man should boast. [It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it or take glory to himself.]" (Ephesians 2:8-9 Amplified Bible)

I quote the Amplified Version here because of how it renders correctly the text:

1. It is by free grace you are delivered from judgment made partakers of Christ's salvation.

2. This salvation is not of your doing; it came not through your own striving.

3. It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself.

And, this is exactly what our friend I quoted in Part One of this paper is saying when she said she got saved by making a decision as an act of her will.

I shudder at that.

Salvation is God making man, who is dead in his sins and unable to choose Christ, alive (quickens him) in order that man would be able to confess with his mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead that he might be saved.

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9 NIV)

Two-Step Plan of Salvation Part I

My wife and I were sitting in the living room of an elderly couple we wished to influence for the Gospel. The man was admittedly a non-Christian. He was not hostile to the Gospel but from he understood from the Gospel explained to him by his wife, and the life she lived, was not a believer. The wife was a different story. In a completely self-aggrandizing manner would all but flush with excitement in telling us how she was saved when she was sixteen-years old.

When I asked her how she got saved her bubbly explanation was something very close to this:

"When I was sixteen-years old, I made a decision, as an act of my will, to believe in Christ. Years later, in my adult years, was taught about the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' and how to speak in tongues."

She confirmed, when we questioned her that, "that was it."

That was her salvation experience. A two-step process which began with "her decision" and culminated with her "baptism in the Spirit" some years later.

Any fruit of the Spirit, any manifestation of her regeneration, was limited to her own self-enhancing, self-exaggerating, self-power, and self- reputation protestations.

What is wrong with this picture?

Until the 1800's this idea of decisionism, or decisionalism salvation, not to mention the "baptism of the Holy Spirit", evidenced by speaking in tongues, was never a part of an explanation of the Gospel of Salvation. Through those centuries there were theological and doctrinal debates concerning various doctrinal position on different Biblical truths, however, there was no "decisionism" salvation. We can thank Charles Finney for introducing decisionism salvation to the church.

Finney, a theological Arminian, rejected the Biblical doctrine of total depravity. He held to the error that man could exercise himself Godward salvifically. Man could "decide" himself in and out of a state of salvation with God. So pervasive was his error that he taught that one could lose one's salvation while in heaven. Amazingly, Finney had huge followings.

Decisionism salvation has as its root, its very foundation, that man "can" exercise himself toward God in a salvation sense when confronted with the facts of the Gospel. It means that man is not hindered him from seeking God, and if man likes what he sees, can choose Godward.

Is this God's plan of salvation? Is this what the Bible teaches? Do the pages of Holy Scripture teach than man has some righteousness left in him, some light, that he, when hearing the Gospel, can "make a decision as an act of his will" to believe in Christ?

Let's look first at what the Bible teaches as to the exact state of man's nature or what the Bible calls mans "fallen nature." But before jumping in the Biblical texts let me ask a series of questions:

One: To decide to believe in Jesus would be a righteous decision, would it not?

Two: To decide to believe in Jesus, to be able to make a decision regarding the death on the Cross would mean one would have to understand the message, would it not?

Three: To decide to believe in Jesus would mean that one would have been seeking God, or the decision itself would or could mean one would mean the "lost" had been seeking Jesus, would it not?

Four: To decide to believe in Jesus would have to mean one did something "profitable" and "good", would it not?

Five: To decide to believe in Jesus would not mean a destructive and miserable thing was accomplished, would it not?

Six: To decide to believe in Jesus would be to choose a way of peace, would it not?

Seven: To decide to believe in Jesus would mean one would have to have decided to "fear" God (reverential trust and awe), would it not?

Now let's read what God says in His Word:

As it is written:


" There is none righteous, no, not one;

11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one."

13 " Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit";
" The poison of asps is under their lips";

14 " Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."

15 " Their feet are swift to shed blood;

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;

17 And the way of peace they have not known."

18 " There is no fear of God before their eyes." - Romans 3:10-18 (NKJV)

How would any man or woman be able to make the righteous decision to exercise ones self towards God if there is none who righteous, no, not one? (vs. 10)

How can any man or woman make a decision to be saved if there is none who (the message). (vs. 11)

How can any man or woman decide to seek God unto salvation when there is none who seeks after God? (vs. 11)

How can any man or woman make the profitable decision to come to faith in Christ when all have become unprofitable? (vs.12)

How can any man or woman do the good thing of believing Christ unto salvation when there is none who do good, not one? (vs. 12)

How can any man or woman clear his or her path to Christ when destruction and misery are in their ways? (vs. 16)

How can any man or woman choose the peaceful way of salvation when "the way of peace they have not known?"

How can any man or woman "fear God and keep His commandments" (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 KJV)?

And, God has commanded us to be reconciled to God.

"Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:20)

(The phrase "be reconciled to God" appears in the Greek text in the "second aorist imperative" and in the dative case. It carries the meaning of "Get reconciled to God and do it now.")

According to the Truth of Scripture, man is not capable of exercising himself Godward to believe on Christ unto salvation. Isn't that what the Bible is saying?

When someone asks me how I know I am saved I tell them:

"While I was yet dead in my trespasses and sins, a child of wrath, a son of disobedience, even as the rest, God made me alive in Christ Jesus saving me by His grace."

This is what it says in Ephesians 2: 1-10:

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

I love the way the King James Bible puts the first verse of this text:

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;" (Eph 2:1)

That's it. That's what the Bible says is the Gospel message: "and you hath He quickened (made alive) who were dead."

Let me illustrate: Do you remember the story of Lazarus who died and Jesus raised him from the dead? He was the brother of Mary and Martha and not the Lazarus of Luke 16:20. Jesus' friend, Lazarus had died from an illness and though his sisters sent for Jesus to come that he might heal Jesus' friend and their brother, Lazarus died and had been interred by the time Jesus arrived.

So that His disciples might believe, the John 11 texts says, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. He ordered the tomb stone to be removed to the objections to the sisters. Their brother had been dead for four days and there would have by this time developed a stench.

Once Jesus' orders were carried out, He cried out in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." (John 11:43)

Just how could a dead man, one dead for four days, rise up and walk? For that matter, how could a dead man hear the command to rise up and walk? But, walk Lazarus did. He came forth from tomb alive.

Before Lazarus could hear the command to come out of the tomb and before he could rise and walk, he had to be made alive or quickened in order to obey Jesus' command to walk out of the tomb. Take note of the order: dead, made alive, obedience.

This illustrates what the Ephesians 2 text is saying. How can a man dead in his trespasses and sins obey the command to be reconciled to God? The spiritually dead man, in order to hear and obey the command of God to be reconciled to Christ, must be quickened or made alive first so that he can "come forth" and believe in Christ unto salvation.

This was the first error of our woman friend mentioned at the beginning of this essay. She was telling us in essence what Paul called, "another Gospel."

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:6-9 NIV)

Our friend's gospel, her testimony, if you will, is that "she chose" herself into heaven. She believes and advocates another Gospel.

If is "her deciding to receive Jesus" that she might be saved is the Gospel, then why should she, or anyone else, need Jesus? Why not use the force or power of your will to be good and sin no more? If our friend "made a decision, as an act of my will, to believe in Christ," then why not skip the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16)" and just choose to be a good girl. From what do you need saving if your will, your decision making power, is untainted by the fall of man?

###

Unless you speak in tongues you do not have the Holy Spirit

“The simpleton believes every word he hears, but the prudent man looks and considers well where he is going.” (Proverbs 14:15 Amplified Bible)

If it is true the Holy Scriptures are able to make us, the believer, perfect and furnished unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:17), then it is to the Bible and the Bible alone we need to look to answer the question, “Unless you speak in tongues you do not have the Holy Spirit.” Experiences we may have, experiences we hear from others, experiences we witness, should be tested against and by the Word of the living God.

Two texts of Scripture, Acts 2:4, 10:44-46, do point to events in which speaking in tongues did accompany the activity of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:4 – The Apostles are filled by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel in other known languages so that the salvation message could be understood by others.

Acts 10:44-47 – Another event to demonstrate to the Jewish believers that the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon even the Gentile believers. Later in Acts 15:7-11, Peter points to this event as proof of Gentiles’ salvation.

Both passages are in accord with the Isaiah 28:11 prophecy, the purpose of tongues, which Paul quotes in I Corinthians 14:21,22, that tongues are for sign.

“In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord. Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.” (1 Corinthians 14:20-22 New International Version)

Tongues therefore were “…a sign to unbelievers, who are moved when they hear the gospel spoken in their tongue by men who have never learned it and do not understand it.” (See People’s New Testament Commentary: I Corinthians 14:20-22.)

The Apostle Paul outlines in Ephesians 1:13 that there is no period of time after receiving Christ that the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit but rather a Scriptural order that occurs at salvation: 1) Included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; 2) Having believed; 3) You were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.

When a man or woman is brought to faith in Christ, he or she is sealed in Christ with the promised Holy Spirit.

Paul, speaking to believers, says those in Christ are not under the control of the sinful flesh but by the Holy Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in us. If, he goes on, anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ (here equating the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ) then he does not belong to Christ. (See Romans 8:9-11)

Redemption and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are linked as one in the same in Ephesians 4:30 with the outcome of this redemption and indwelling being the putting off of bitterness, rage, and anger, brawling and slander, every form of malice. And, putting on kindness, compassion, and forgiveness. Notice that these moral attributes (fruit of the Spirit) and not speaking in tongues are the outcome of Redemption and the Spirit’s Indwelling.

This error, “Unless you speak in tongues you do not have the Holy Spirit,” began when the “Holiness Movement” originated their “Second Work of Grace” (or Second Definite Work of Grace) doctrine. With many subsequent variations, the theology went like this:

Though Christ was sufficient for salvation, you will need the baptism of the Holy Spirit, evidenced by the speaking in tongues, to have the “full gospel.” In other words, what Christ did at the Cross of Calvary was not sufficient enough requiring something “more,” which they called “the baptism of the Spirit.” Depending on which version you read, it was also called “the Spirit’s infilling.” Regardless of what you called it, “the baptism or infilling of the Spirit,” the doctrine taught that sometime after you received Christ, you had to seek this “second work of Grace” evidenced by the speaking in tongues.

If the gift of tongues, when it appeared in the first century, was a sign of judgment to the unbelieving Jewish nation as predicted in Isaiah 28:11, then when that nation ended (70 A.D.), the speaking in tongues would have ended. Its purpose would be done with. Therefore, tongues, the actual Biblical gift, and its association with the filling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) would not be seen today.

And, is it not another gospel to say that what Christ did on the Cross was not quite enough, that there is something more to seek, to be had, to want? To say there is a “second work of Grace” is essentially saying we are not complete in Christ to which the Bible clearly responds we are in Christ complete. (Col. 2:10)

There are even more grave issues about the modern tongues movement that one needs to consider.

"Dr. John Kildahl, a psychotherapist, conducted a ten-year, in-depth study of modern day tongue-speaking. The importance of the leader was well illustrated by the fact that the style of glossolalia adapted by the group bore a close resemblance to the way in which the leader spoke. A linguist engaged in glossolalia research found that prominent visiting speakers affected whole groups of glossolalists. Although no two tongue-speakers sounded exactly alike, if the prominent leader spoke in a kind of Old Testament Hebraic style, those who were taught by him also spoke in this manner. If the leader of the group evidenced Spanish diction and mannerism, his followers also developed that style. It is not uncommon for linguists to be able to tell which prominent itinerant glossolalist has introduced a congregation to tongue-speaking. Relatively few men and women travel the tongue-speaking circuit. The glossolalist styles of Bennett, Bredesen, Christenson, du Plessis, Mjorud, and Stone are distinctive enough to be identifiable by observant linguists. Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues, (Harper & Row) 1972, pg. 53." (SOURCE)

Testing what is being passed off as tongues speaking needs to happen. They, the tongues proponents, would have us accept their tongues experience as "gospel" based solely on their word.

"Listen to the experiences of Dr. Kildahl: We attended many meetings where glossolalia both occurred and was interpreted and noted that the interpretations were usually of a very general nature. After a segment of tongue-speech, an interpreter commonly offered the explanation that the speaker had been thanking and praising God for many blessings. Another frequent theme was that the speaker was asking for strength and guidance for himself and for others. However, perhaps a third of the time, the interpreter offered specific interpretations of what glossolalists said. More rarely, an interpreter "translated" phrase by phrase and sentence by sentence. In order to investigate the accuracy of these interpretations, we undertook to play a taped example of tongue-speech privately for several different interpreters of tongues. In no instance was there any similarity in the several interpretations. The following typifies our results: one interpreter said the tongue-speaker was praying for health of his children; another the same tongue-speech was an expression of gratitude to God for a recently successful church fund-raising effort. When confronted with the disparity between their interpretations, the interpreters offered the explanation that God gave to one person one interpretation of speech and to another person another interpretation. They showed no defensiveness about being cross-examined and generously upheld alternative interpretations as equally valid." (Source)

If we take it all at face value that what we see and hear in tongue's meetings, then how do we know for sure that what just took place is the supernatural? There has to be some way of framing it all in some sort of testable hypotheses. Just because someone pops up and demonstrates an Academy Award worth "interpretation" performance, means nothing. If it really is the Biblical gift of tongues, then the tongues with the so-called interpretation, if recorded, should prove to be a real foreign language. And, if it is, how do we know that the tongue speaker really did not previously know that language?

"We know of a man who was raised in Africa, the son of missionary parents, who decided -- rather cynically perhaps -- to test the interpretation of tongues. At the appropriate moment he rose and spoke the Lord's Prayer in the African dialect he had learned in his youth. When he sat down, an interpreter of tongues at once offered the meaning of what he said. He interpreted it as a message about the imminent second coming of Christ. John Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues, (Harper & Row) 1972, pages 62- 63. The Bible is clear in its warning to Christians concerning the many false teachers in the world. Many will be eternally lost who thought they had prophesied, cast out demons, and done many mighty works (i.e., tongue-speaking, etc.) in the name of Jesus (Matt. 7:22-23)." (Source)

In God’s Image

Unlike some theological ideas and concepts which are implied strongly in Scripture but not explicitly mentioned, like The Trinity, the theological answer to the question, "What is man," is indeed explicitly spelled out in Holy Scripture. In Genesis 1:26, God said, "…Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (NIV)

What it does not mean to be created in the image or likeness of God is that we, His creation, look like God. God does not have a material body. What is not in mind here when discussing man being created in the image of God is a "physical likeness." God does not have a fleshly body after which man was made. The Bible teaches that God is a spirit (John 4:24). What it does mean to be created in God's image is that man is the visible expression on Earth of God's invisible nature. Man is created in the likeness of God's mentality, morality, and sociability.

Mentality

Man can make deductions and, from those deductions, make a decision. The ability to make a judgment from his intellect and then choose is a mirror image of God's mental processes of intelligence and volition. Each time a member of the human race creates a mechanism, writes a college term paper, exercises creativity artistically, balances his or her checkbook, he or she is exercising his or her Imago Dei.

Morality

Man received from his creator perfect righteousness (see Eph. 4:24) and, because of The Fall, is lost but restored in Christ in the New Creation. When a man or woman, whether in Christ or unredeemed, obeys a law, opposes evil, praises and practices good behavior, accepts the consequence for his or her bad behavior, he or she is showing a remnant of his creature-Creator relationship.

Sociability

Another way in which mankind expresses his creature-Creator likeness is in wanting to have social associations with other humans. Man was made by God to have companionships, comradeships, and acquaintances with one another. Each time someone gets married, embraces someone, takes care of children, gathers with the Saints of God, that is an expression of his or her creature-Creator relationship.

God provided mankind, in the person of our first parents Adam and Eve, with a mind and the power of choice to be able to choose between good and evil. Mankind had the "light of reason" (John Calvin) as the means to make the choices to do what is right.

"Man in his first condition excelled in these pre-eminent endowments, so that his reason, understanding, prudence, and judgment not only sufficed for the direction of his earthly life, but by them men mounted up even to God and eternal bliss. Then was choice added, to direct the appetites and control all the organic motions, and thus make the will completely amenable to the guidance of the reason." (John Calvin, Institutes I. XV. 8)

Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden marred, tainted, and stained the Image in which they were made. This ruination of God's image has been passed on to all their subsequent offspring and is the source of our ruination today. We murder God's image bearers in our society and that is a reflection of what happened in the Garden when Adam chose to sin against God, our Creator. In fact, all one has to do is read history, even the history of the church, to see expressions of how marred the image of God is in mankind. And, though still bearing some remnant of God's image (James 3:9), we still curse our fellow image bearers.

The hope we have in the testimony of Holy Scripture is that in Christ, in His redemptive work, when man is brought to faith and repentance in Christ, God begins to make new that original image of God within us. In Christ, as new creations, we are commanded, "...and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4:24 ESV).

Application

Far too often Christians are left in the Theological Stratosphere to ponder the things of the Doctrinal Milky Way without anyone showing them practical applications to profound Theological Concepts found in Scripture. Our Imago Dei is one such profound theological concept with profound applications.

An immediate practical application of Imago Dei is the mandate not to murder or hate our fellow image bearers of the Divine. Nor should we ignore the morality in our relationship with our fellow image bearers. The goodness or badness of our relationships with our fellow image bearers is determined by the morality within those relationships.

Though I did not understand the profundity of Imago Dei when God brought me to faith and repentance in Christ, what I did understand is that as someone making a profession of faith in Christ, having been made alive together with Christ while dead in my trespasses and sins,

"And have clothed yourselves with the new [spiritual self], which is [ever in the process of being] renewed and remolded into [fuller and more perfect knowledge upon] knowledge after the image (the likeness) of Him Who created it." Colossians 3:10 (Amplified Bible)

God had positionally made me alive together with Christ and had begun a process of making me in my condition, or walk, on Earth more conformed to that which I was in my heavenly position before God in Christ.

Even at the age of sixteen, an immediate change in me was that I hungered and thirsted after the things of God found in His Word. I was blessed beyond measure to have a Baptist pastor who met with me almost every Saturday afternoon to privately teach me how to study the Scriptures and to answer all my questions. This went on for three years until I went off to college.

Another vast difference in my life was the immediate desire to be like what I read in Scripture and not like that which I saw in the world. I was no longer comfortable "hanging out" with my teen peers and I sought out other believers. Our church had a "youth club building." An older high school student would pick me up on his motorcycle and we would use the building each Friday evening to pray for our Sunday schools fellows that they would come to faith in Christ.

Another almost inconceivable desire was to serve God full-time as a missionary. The thought never would have occurred to me before God drew me to Himself in repentance and faith. I maintained that desire until I was stricken with a neurological illness. However, I have managed, by God's Grace, to have a "ministry" online and in the Mexican church where we fellowship in Guanajuato, Mexico.

All of us are made, or created, in the Image or Likeness of God but cannot come into the realization of the full meaning of this apart from becoming New Creatures in Christ. We must come into a correct moral relationship with God, through His Son, in order to begin becoming conformed into the image of His Son (Rom. 12:1,2). This is what I believe to be a true, renewed Imago Dei.

New Testament Worship and Today’s Church

From top to bottom the veil was rent, ushering in the fulfillment of the Old Testament's legal code of ordinances. No longer would Levitical priests enter into the holiest of the places within the Tabernacle to perform worship unto God. It is now Christ who has entered into the true and permanent Holy of Holies to sit at the right hand of the throne of God, not only as our Atonement but also as our Great High Priest. The mere types have yielded to the real thing: The Great High Priest. The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ changed everything.

The Resurrected Christ brought a change in Priesthoods. The Levitical priesthood was no longer needed in light of Christ's eternal one. With the Old Testament Tabernacle worship ceremonies having been fulfilled, what was left in terms of a public worship service? A continuity of certain components of worship did carry over from the Old Testament to the New Testament dispensation that would form the church. I would suggest that though not a complete list, the following were the main components of the formation and continuation of the New Testament's worship.

READING SCRIPTURE

From ancient times, Moses, in the Old Testament Scriptures, had been preached and read in Old Testament worship services. Similarly, the Apostles' letters were read to the church as part of Scripture.

"Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."

And,

"I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren."

TEACHING - PREACHING SCRIPTURE

The New Testament church taught and preached scripture through the venue of public address. Jesus was Himself an example of this in that He went into the public venues for Jewish worship, the Synagogues, preaching the Word of God. His disciples, after His ascension, mimicked this practice by going into people's homes and into their temples in the cities and villages.

FELLOWSHIP

Where people came to faith and trust in their Savior, the Lord Christ, assemblies or churches were formed. No longer was worship relegated to a city, Jerusalem, but to wherever there were Saints to form corporate worship. In Acts 2:42, there were four things to which the New Testament was devoted: 1) teaching, 2) fellowship, 3) breaking of bread, and 4) prayer.
These assemblies also were composed of gifted men and women who exercised these gifts given by the Holy Spirit of God unto the edification of the Assembly of the Saints. Some of these fellowships, as in the case of the church at Corinth, had fallen into the misuse of the gifts (among other atrocities) and had to be re-instructed in their proper and orderly uses.

BREAKING OF BREAD - BAPTISM

The New Testament church also observed two sacraments, Breaking of Bread (the Lord's Supper) and Baptism. The New Testament was to exercise two outward signs of the New Covenant. Christ commanded the observance of the Lord's Supper and Paul expounded its meaning, "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." This sign of the New Covenant was to be an ongoing observance within the New Testament church as was baptism.
Christ commanded this outward sign of the New Creation relationship the believer has with his identification in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection to be practiced.

"Though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory" than the old ordinances, the New Testament sacraments hold forth Christ "in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles."

PRAYER

The New Testament church was an assembly of prayer warriors. In the Old Testament, prayer was not solely Temple-bound. There were numerous venues in which prayer was made. Within the New Testament setting, there was congregational prayer. The doctrine or teaching of the Apostles to which the word says the Saints were devoted made much emphasis on prayer.

CHURCH GOVERNMENT

Another aspect of the New Testament Church was that its polity, or its operational and governing structure, was that of a plurality of leadership. There was no paid, professional clergy versus laity structure. Elders and deacons ruled the local assemblies. The word elder, or overseer, and its application to the leadership of the church are mentioned over 25 times in the New Testament.

The foundation for an elder-ruled church, how an elder is selected, the responsibilities within this church office, the moral and behavioral qualifications for elder are specifically spelled out in scripture, offering more insight into this New Testament church component that almost any other.

Today's worship within Evangelicalism tends to fall within three umbrellas of church order: 1) The Regulative Principle, 2) The Normative Principle, and 3) The Informed Principle.

The Regulative Principle idea of the order of church worship came into being sometime in the 20th century. Its basic meaning, when applied to the order of church worship, is "that only those elements that are instituted or appointed by command, precept or example in or by good and necessary consequence from the Bible are permissible in worship, or in other words, that God institutes in the Scriptures everything he requires for worship in the Church and that everything else is prohibited."

In other words, since those components mentioned above appeared in the New Testament church, they should also be the components of today's Christian church worship. Controversy exists in churches today in exactly how to apply the Regulative principle with special application to the use of musical instruments during congregational singing. The criteria for the rejecting or accepting of musical instruments used for the accompaniment of the singing seems to hinge on whether or not something mechanically-made by man is some sort of evil thing that should be ousted from the church's worship service.

I find the position by those who would oust the use of musical instruments an argument from silence and specious. Most of the "Regulative principle" adherents I know do not have a church polity in which Elders and deacons rule. Rather, they have a professionally paid clergy, a pastor, and he or "she" is usually the one who runs the church program from start to finish. I find this inconsistent that they would not apply the Regulative principle to church government but would chuck a fit over the use of musical instruments in the church.

The Normative Principle is a theological position, which posits that anything not specifically and directly forbidden in Scripture, like the use of musical instruments, can be incorporated as a part of a modern worship service. Moderation and common sense would be a ruling factor.

The Informed Principle is the idea of trying to strike a balance between the Regulative and the Normative Principles. This idea says that what is commanded in Scripture is required and what is forbidden in the Bible is prohibited in a worship service. Again, moderation, common sense, and logic can be ruling factors in what to allow and not to allow in those things to which Scripture does not speak.

Most of the Plymouth Brethren churches I have attended come close to applying the Regulative principle of worship. The worship service begins with a "call to worship," then there is a period of quiet in which the congregation is silently meditating on the Lord's Table, which is celebrated weekly. Men within the assembly may get up and share scripture or have a five- to ten-minute exposition of the Word. Songs encompassing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are sung. The song choice is impromptu and is suggested from the congregation.

At some unplanned point, a man will ask God's blessing upon the bread and cup. After partaking of the bread and cup, a period of fellowship ensues. Then come a period of corporate prayer and, afterwards, a longer, planned period of exposition of the Word.

Because these churches or assemblies are traditionally cessionists, there would not be speaking in tongues in these gatherings. There can be, however, the laying on of hands by the Elders for healing of the sick. I have never seen this in the Mexican Plymouth Brethren I attend, but, in theory, it is supposed to be permissible.

Trinity: Three Gods?

Is it true that to believe in the Trinity is to believe in three gods? There are some groups, such as the Oneness Pentecostals, who believe this so profoundly so as to call you heretic to your face. This happened to me in the heart of American Pentecostalism, Topeka, Kansas, in a job where I once worked. A young African-American kid in his very early 20's found me in the lunchroom sharing my faith. So incensed was he that I would be talking to someone about Christ when I was a Trinitarian, that he promptly walked up to the table where I sat and interrupted my attempt at explaining the Gospel to another young man. I never had another chance to talk to this person before leaving that place employment.

Though I do not mean to suggest all Oneness Pentecostals would do the same behavior, I do mean to say that the Trinity issue is a highly charged topic with some of the groups who, in rejecting the validity of the Trinity, find themselves in the unorthodox camp.

So, does "The doctrine of the trinity teaches that there are three Gods?" Trying to answer that question leaves me in much fear and trembling. It is an incomprehensible theological concept that mankind has been trying to answer for centuries. And, to try and explain this in a paper of a thousand words of so has to be where even angels fear to tread. It is, however, important to try and understand the Trinity since it is an aspect of theology that reveals the very nature of God.

In spite of anti-Trinitarian rhetoric and its detractors, to hold to the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT to believe in three gods. This orthodox view of God, Trinity, is monotheistic despite what naysayers claim. One definition of the Trinity is:

"The Trinity is monotheistic, one God, not three. However, God has three ways of being God, just as a triangle has three sides, but is one shape. This idea of God working in three ways is expected to strengthen the Christian belief in the 'Oneness of God.' All three are regarded as eternal (everlasting) and fully God without dividing the true nature of God."

"God had three ways of being God…" seems a little unsettling to my thinking so I thought of this: "Trinity is a theological concept within the systematic structure of Christian doctrine that demonstrates a monotheistic God who is (somehow) divided into three perfectly equal beings. Each being is perfectly God. The Father is perfectly God; the Son is perfectly God; the Holy Spirit is perfectly God. All beings are perfectly God, in perfect unity, in absolute perfect agreement."

I used the phrase, "perfectly equal beings," because it may be that the distortion of the Biblically orthodox Trinitarian doctrine results from the misuse of the words "persons" and "beings" and the differences within the two ideas. "Being is what makes something what it is. Person is what makes someone who he or she is. As Hank Hanegraaff puts it, when speaking of the Trinity, we speak of one what (the Being of God) and three who's (the three divine Persons)."

Being implying "essence" and "person" implying personality and work (ministry). And, it is important to maintain this difference since it may be the problem in the vast errors that exist concerning the Trinity. An easy way of understanding this is that the Father is not the Son but is God. The Son is not the Holy Spirit but is God. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son but is God. "God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity."

Probably the most common Trinitarian error is modalism. This distorts the nature of God in that it claims that God is a single person and has revealed Himself throughout history in different forms or modes. Throughout the Old Testament, God was revealed as "the Father mode." At the birth of Christ, God was revealed as "the Son mode." After Christ's ascension, God was revealed as "the Holy Spirit mode." Never, says this doctrine of modalism, do these modes of God appear at the same time. I've always wanted to ask a modalist just to whom Christ prayed when He addressed God as "My Father…?" Was Jesus praying to Himself?

Another error is that of Arianism. This heresy states that Christ was a created being and subservient to God the Father. Therefore, the Deity and preexistence of Christ is rejected. Actually three sub-forms of Arianism came out of the initial error. "Radical Arianism-the Son is "dissimilar" to the Father; Homoeanism-similar to the Father; Semi-Arianism-touched on orthodox teaching in that the Son was similar to the Father but distinct."

Oneness Pentecostalism is another error with which I'm personally acquainted. They teach that God is one and not divided up into three persons. The terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mere titles that reflect the modes in which the Deity is manifested to humanity. The Father is a mode indicating parental relationship. The Son is a mode of God in the flesh. The Holy Spirit is the mode of God in His ministry as Spirit. A dangerous (yet interesting) thing about their theology is that the Oneness sect does not believe that "the Son" existed before the "Word became flesh and dwelt among us." They believe that Jesus became "the Son" when he was born on Earth. Prior to that, He (the Son) was the Father. That is to say, Jesus was in heaven as "the Father" but became "the Son" at the incarnation. This presents massive problems scripturally and in logic. And yet, it is to logic my Oneness Pentecostal friends have pointed me when we debated this issue.

Logic does not negate that three persons can exist co-equally in perfection in one being. Because someone may not like it does not qualify him or her to reject the idea or doctrine. The detractors to the Trinitarian doctrine object most vociferously based on the fact that "the word" Trinity does not appear in the Bible. Well, the word oxygen does not appear in Scripture and yet few will doubt the existence of it though few of us have ever scientifically viewed oxygen molecules. If the unorthodox wants to deny the Trinity, then let him do so by stating so in a testable hypothesis why it cannot exist. Then let's test it.

One test in which the Trinity passes with flying colors is a Scriptural one. Though not using the word specifically, the amount of Biblical evidence is impressive. Any inquiring mind could use this as a beginning study and in conjunction with a good study Bible like The Ryrie Study Bible or the Geneva Study Bible:

1. Compare Scripture with Scripture: Isaiah 6; John 12: 35-42; Acts 28:25-27
2. Christ's Baptism: Matthew 3: 16,17
3. The Trinity at the Great Commission: Matthew 28:19-20
4. Paul's benediction: II Corinthians 13:14

You can try using an Internet search Engine using this search term "scriptural proof of the trinity" (without the quotation marks). Be sure to check all verses using a Bible Commentary at Bible Study Tools.

"I've Got The Holy Spirit; Why Be Baptized?"

Having been in the faith for more than 41 years, I think I have heard just about every objection to obeying God and His Word. I once was told by a fellow male member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church we were attending in the States that he "didn't work-be gainfully employed- to support his family because he was afraid his sons would grow up not knowing who he was if he was gone to work all the time." That was an easy one. However, every now and then something comes along that takes me by surprise, like the theme of this essay: "A member of your cell group/congregation tells you that because he already has the Holy Spirit he does not believe that baptism in water is necessary."

Perhaps the root of this distorted view of the biblical doctrine of the sacraments is merely a misunderstanding or an ill-taught view of what baptism is and why we, as Christians, should be baptized. If so, then a small examination of the Scriptures would do nicely to set this person's view back on track and, hopefully, direct him to obedience in baptism.

Though the word "sacrament" is not in the Bible, it is an interesting word, which finds a highly appropriate application to what baptism (and the other church sacrament: communion) is all about. It was a word used in ancient Roman times as a sign of a soldier's military pledge to serve faithfully his commanding officer. It was sign, indeed a seal, representing the promise to faithfully execute his commander's standards and a sign of the promise not to desert him.

This excellent description of a sacrament applies to baptism in that when we are brought to faith and repentance in Christ, we, too, are listed in the service of the "Captain of our salvation" (Hebrews 2:10 KJV). Our standard, the thing to which we pledge ourselves through faith in Christ, is to take up our cross daily, denying sin within us, and follow Him in obedience.

Some early church fathers saw the sacraments as "solemn badges" worn by Christians metaphorically as a means to distinguish believers from the rest of humanity. As circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness and faith (Romans 4:11) under the Old Economy, under the New, the same distinction corresponds to the New Testament sacraments. What baptism represents is Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and how this benefits the believer (Romans 6:1-12). It is the outward expression (sign) of the believer's New, Inward Nature. In every sacrament, there is a spiritual reality between the sign and what it represents.

Baptism is not only a New Testament sacrament, the sign and seal of the New Nature in Christ (Galatians 3:27; Col. 2:11,12), but it was also ordained by Christ Himself. In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19), believers are commanded to baptize in the fulfillment of the discipleship process. To be baptized is to obey Christ's word.

"In baptism you were raised up with Christ through faith-your own faith, not your parents' faith. If it is not "through faith"-if it is not an outward expression of inward faith-it is not baptism." (John Piper)

In I Peter 3:21, reveals that: 1) Baptism is not the removal of dirt from the flesh (the water is not the object); 2) Baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience; 3) Baptism is the outward demonstration or expression of a changed heart and mind in Christ. This, therefore, is a nail in the coffin for infant baptism.

If baptism is a Christ-ordained sacrament for the New Testament, and if there can be no discipleship without it, (New Testament, first-century Christians were baptizing and baptized Saints), then let me suggest five reasons why someone who claims to be a believer refuses baptism.

One is that they just do not know. They truly came to faith in Christ and were not taught to take the sign and seal of the New Covenant through baptism.

Two is that once they learn of baptism and its meaning, they are ashamed to admit they've never been baptized.

Three is that they are apathetic. Once they are taught and understand that baptism is an issue of obedience, they can't be bothered. I have encountered this with the elderly.

Four is that they are rebellious. They have been living a spiritually duplicitous life, and they know it, and if they were to suddenly come forward in obedience and be baptized, they would be found to be a spiritual fraud.

Five is that they are not really Christians after all. Church attendance is all the spirituality they need and is the extent of their meaningless profession of faith or lack thereof.

The waters of baptism are not what save you. Faith in Christ, because of Grace, and through the instrumentality of Faith, is what saves you. But, just as the Old Testament saints received circumcision as a sign and seal of their Covenantal relationship with God, so, too, do New Testament saints receive the sign and seal of the New Covenant through the waters of baptism. It is a command of Christ within the salvific purposes of God. And did not Jesus say,

"If you love Me, you will keep my commandment?" (John 15:14 NASB)

The Effect Upon the Church of the Legalization of Christianity Under Constantine

The legalization of Christianity under the rule of Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, or Constantine I, was a landmark decision for persecuted Christians. It would, eventually, change everything. What Constantine would implement during his reign would cause Christianity to become the official religion of the empire. It would bring tremendous changes for good for believers as well as many changes of questionable value. When Constantine signed his infamous Edict of Milan it would grant religious freedom to the kingdom for all religions but with a decidedly Christian bias on the part of Constantine. This favorable bias toward Christianity would endure for centuries.

Advantages

Constantine the Great became the Christian's patron. Financial support flowed church-ward. Not only did Constantine build churches but tax exemptions were available for the clergy. Constantine began a church building program in the Holy Land. For the purpose of evangelism and increasing wealth for the clergy, under his or his mother's (Helena) support, he ordered the following churches built: Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem to be constructed; in Rome, St. Peter's Basilica, an oratory now the Basilica di San Lorenzo fuori le Mura, Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls¸ and in Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, plus the Church of the Holy Apostles.

Employment in prestigious positions never before allowed for Christians were suddenly available. Property of great value was granted to the church as well as land taken during the persecution of Diocletian was returned. Constantine's Christian biased proved to provide an unprecedented acceptance into the society at large.

Constantine's pro-Christian reforms were enforced as law. These reforms favored not only Christians but had an effect for the non-Christian. Capital punishment and prison reforms were implemented affecting all, Christian or pagan alike. This, however, did not prevent and increasing pagan hostility toward Christians to whom to was obvious Constantine favored. What had to add to this growing hostility was the fact that Constantine, while building Christian churches, was not building pagan temples. In fact, as he no doubt grew in his faith, he became less and less likely to mix pagan with Christian, which he did very early in his profession of faith in Christ, and grew to the point of limiting his patronage Christian-ward.

The newly emboldened church resulted in internal strives which Constantine saw as his duty to deal with in the forms of "councils". He ordered in 314 A.D. The council of Arles to settle the Donatist controversy and to deal with the Arian error he ordered the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

These were certain advantages never before experienced by the church. To have an Emperor who not only claimed to be a Christian but who more often than not consistently demonstrated his conversion with reforms and favor toward a previously persecuted God's Elect.

Disadvantages

Mostly certainly a negative point to consider, and which garnered much enmity and resentment toward the Christian from the pagan camp, was that Constantine eventually got around to closing their temples and forking over the pagan wealth into the Emperor's bank to fund his Christian favoritism. Some scholars say the motive was to teach the pagan to come to the point of despising their paganism and to convert to Christianity. Well heeled Roman families began to be deprived of key government appointed jobs for their rejection of Christ. This could not bode well for the Church.

Another point to consider requires a bit of history. During Constantine's time and previously to his alleged conversion, there were four stages with which someone engaged to become a Christian. According to Ian Mugford's paper, Constantine's Impact on Christianity when someone became an inquirer into the faith he would meet with believers to express his desire to become one of them. In other words, he would make application to the church and submit himself for examination. If deemed worthy he would proceed to step two.

Step two was the instructional stage in the faith that could take up to five years. During this instructional phase the candidate's life was examined and judged. If found acceptable, he would then be permitted to advance toward stage three.

Stage three centered on the beliefs of the potential Christian. More intense teaching ensued. After much additional orthodox teaching and severe examination to test the sincerity of the candidate and his knowledge of church doctrine and practice, he was baptized.

Stage four was the "mystagogy"-the explanation of the baptism and communion the "new Christian" had just experienced.

Constantine completely changed this process. He had not submitted to this four step or stage process. He spoke of church leaders as his brethren and would eventually regard himself as "fellow servants" within the church. Yet, he had not submitted to this process of examination and scrutiny. By example Constantine gave people the chance of becoming a Christian without submitting to baptism or being instructed by the church. After all, the Emperor didn't submit to these requirements, why should the people? It wasn't until the end of his life that he did submit to baptism and teaching. There wasn't time to judge his life as to determine the sincerity of his professed conversion which was what the four step process provided. Regardless of the Emperor's conversion and its sincerity, during the next twenty years of his reign would prove problematic for the church.

The impact upon the church was significant. The four step process that one would normally need to go through was the opportunity for the church leaders to judge a candidate's sincerity or motive for becoming a Christian seemed to decline in importance. During Constantine's rule the motive for conversion changed. Constantine did not coerce people to become Christians but he did bribe them. Not only did he change the conversion landscape by ignoring the four step process for becoming a Christian, he polluted the church's membership with those with nefarious motives. How could those who responded to the Emperor's conversion bribes of cash for the convert and church, better jobs and promotions, and the social status for being a member of the Emperor's religion be sincere? The sad thing is that this bribery continued after the Emperor's death. Edicts made it impossible for pagans to get jobs or advance n their positions.

Conclusion

How to judge the effect of the legalization of Christianity during Constantine's reign is difficult. Granted that before his reign Christians were on the Empire's extinction list. By the time of Constantine's death, Christians were in all levels of government positions and institutionalized persecution was gone from within the empire.. Whether one believes Constantine's conversion was real or not, he was definitely "christianized" and his subsequent "christianized" reforms changed everything.

###

RESOURCES


Christianbook.com Home


bible-media.com

Christian Dating

Christian Music

A Plurality of Leadership

^“And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” (Acts 14:23 NIV)

In the New Testament, the church, each local, earthly expression of Christ’s body, was expected to appoint a plurality as its leadership called elders. Deacons were also to be appointed and, again, in the plural sense. Missions in the New Testament also sought to establish a plurality of leadership where churches were established.

Today, in the array of church denominations existing in our Western societies, there is a confusing string of terms describing church leadership. There are pastors, elders, bishops, overseers, deacons, and even, in some cases, the word apostle is used. In the first century church, there were two offices, elder and deacon, used to describe how the church was to be “set up” and how it was to function.

“Elder” (presbureros) is what the man is called who shares leadership with at least one other Elder within the church’s government. Bishop or Overseer (episcopos) is the work of the Elder. He “oversees” the church and its needs. Pastor (poimen) is the means by which the Elder accomplishes oversight of the flock. He shepherds or pastors it. In the English translations of the Greek text of the New Testament, these English terms are often interchangeable.

For example, in Titus 1:5-7, in the New American Standard Bible, Paul is giving instruction for the appointment of Elders in the church in Crete (verse 5). He goes on to list the qualifications for Elders (verse 6). Then he says, “For the overseer must be…” (verse 7), and he delineates additional qualifications for the Elder or Overseer. Elder and Overseer are equated as the same thing. The word “for” links verse 7 with 5 and 6.

In the King James Version, in verse 7 of the same passage, Paul says, “For a bishop must be…” using “bishop” in place of overseer. Here bishop, as is overseer in the NASB, is equated with elder (see Titus 1:5-7 in the King James Version). It is the same word, episcopos, in the Greek text.

In I Peter 5: 1-2, the function of the Elder, what the Elder does, is defined. Peter writes to “exhort the Elders” to pastor the flock. The word pastor, the Greek word poimen, is translated “shepherd” in the NASB and “feed” in the KJV. In the same passage, Peter also shows how they are to shepherd or feed the flock and that is by “exercising” or “taking” the oversight (episcopos).

In Acts 20:17 and 28, Luke links Elders to Overseers to Pastors. Luke records in the text that Paul met with the Elders (presbureros) of the church admonishing them to take heed of themselves as well as the flock over whom they had been made, by the Holy Spirit, overseers (episcopos) to shepherd (poimen) the church of God.

In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word elder is used. The word chosen to render the Hebrew word for elder into Greek is presbuteros. Elders in the Old Testament led the Israelites. They would represent the Jews in spiritual issues, represent them before Kings, and settle political matters. (See II Sam. 5:3; II Sam 17:4; I Kings 20:7; Exodus 7:17; 24:1-9)

Therefore, Elder is the office a male within the church holds; Overseeing is what the male does in the office of Elder; and Shepherding or Pastoring is how he carries out oversight as an Elder. But, what of the Deacon? Is there a difference in what a Deacon is and does within the church?

From the Greek word “diakonos,” we get our English word, “deacon.” It means a “servant.” Though this word has a general sense in its various usages, it also has a specific use. When diakonos is used in a technical sense, it is tied to the office of “deacon” within the church. Quite simply, when it is used to refer to the office of deacon, it has the meaning of serving others within the church. A deacon is a male who is in the office of ministry to others within the church. A deacon renders service.

The qualifications for a deacon are almost exactly the same moral attributes as that for an elder. In I Timothy 3:1-13, Paul spells out first the qualifications for the office of Elder. He lists the attributes, “above reproach, husband of one wife, temperate, self-control, respectable, hospitable, not addicted to the drink, etc…” Then, when the Apostle gets to verse 8, he writes, “Deacons, likewise, are to be men…” Likewise or “in the same way” indicates a link between the Elder qualifications and those for the Deacon.

There is no confusion in the mind of Paul as he penned the qualifications of both Elder and Deacon. While the office of Elder was different from the office of Deacon in function, neither office should be regarded frivolously. Both should be the husband of one wife, making it necessary the offices being filled with males. They should have exceptional character and run their homes according to Scripture. He, of course, has to be a believer and walk in a manner worthy of his calling.

So why are so many church governments set up with one man running the entire show rather than a plurality of leadership? Is it as some suggest that the primitive church government was only a workable solution for the first century church?

The normal church government you see today is an organization with a man or woman called a “pastor” who runs everything. If there are Elders or Deacons, they are more often than not little more than figureheads. A church building growth program is usually their reign of influence. Since “pastor” is not a church office but a function of the Elder, then churches set up on this type of top to bottom structure is not biblical.

In the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I belonged to in the States, there was a ruling Elder (the pastor), Elders, and Deacons. This triangular or pyramid structure had the “ruling elder” at the top, then came the “lower” Elders, then the Deacons, then the church members. This is not the biblical example. One Elder is never above another no matter what you call them. They are all equal.

An excellent example of an entirely Elder ruled, viable church government is found in the Plymouth Brethren Assemblies.[1]

###

RESOURCES


Christianbook.com Home


bible-media.com

Christian Dating

Christian Music

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Brethren