The Role of the Church Elder

The primary duties of an elder(s) of the church is to teach and protect sound doctrine to the members. They overstep their boundaries and take on cult-like roles when they seek to intrude into a family within their assembly and seek to undermine the head of the household by telling them who they can and who they cannot consider to be a part of their home. It is the elders duty to teach sound Biblical theology and ethics and the practice of it but it is NOT their role to tell families who they can accept into their family household as members of their family though not blood related. When they do, they've got one foot in the door of a cult.

Easy-Believism is Antinomianism

Someone asked me why the sudden focus on “Easy-Believism” in my blog. After thinking about it for a while, I suppose the answer to that question is the crushing weight of incredulity I felt when I recently heard someone offer the excuse for his sexual immorality, violence, filthy talk, binge drinking, and threats of physical harm was because he was a “babe in Christ.” Actually, it was the one who “led him to the Lord” who offered up that excuse on his “disciple’s” behalf. The person who was discipling the younger man was from a prominent Evangelical Bible School.

Easy-Believism is nothing more than your good old-fashioned antinomianism. It is the system of doctrinal error that states that obedience to the law, in any form, is not required in the Christian's life. This gigantic threat to orthodoxy and orthopraxy must not only be understood but must also be denounced from the housetops. But, to do so requires an understanding of what antinomianism is in order to understand the true threat Easy-believism is to orthodox Christianity.

Antinomianism is a compound word meaning against (anti) the law (nomos). Understood in the realm of theological studies, it means that the Christian is not under the law as a moral code of conduct. An antinomianist takes to an unbiblical extreme a misunderstanding of what the Bible actually teaches. What the Bible teaches is that we are not under the Law written in the Old Testament as a means of salvation (this was the Pharisaical perversion of the Law). Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and ascension fulfilled the Law (See: Romans 10.4; Gal. 3:23; Ephesians 2:15). To say that there is no moral law that believers in Christ must obey is not scriptural.

The insidious core of Easy-Believism is that a person can hear the facts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and then exercise himself or herself salvificially Godward. The key player in this “transaction” is the human. The human, in other words, does his or her part and then God does His part. This “decision of the will” initiates the salvation act saving the person but effecting no moral change in the person. This belief concentrates on the justification of the believer but there is no “setting apart unto holiness” either positionally or conditionally. If sanctification is to take place at all in the life of the believer, than it must be on man's terms in something called “yieldedness.” To put it simply, repentance of sin in coming to faith in Christ is not necessary at all.

Not only do these folks believe that there is no moral law to be exhibited in the life of the believer, but also that the so-called Christian can remain a “babe” in Christ during his or her entire life and never show the fruit of the Spirit.

My concluding remarks are these:

Titus 2:11-15: "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee."

Recommended: Examine Yourself

Rejection: Easy-Believism

If you've been reading my blog, you will no doubt understand that I do not believe in what has come to be called, “Easy-Believism.” This is a doctrine of salvation (soteriology) that teaches a sinner can get right with God (saved from his or her sin) by giving a mental assent to the doctrines described in the Bible about Jesus. This idea of “Easy-Believism” is also called “Decisionism.” By whatever name it is called, I reject it.

I reject to the core the teaching that salvation can be accomplished by the intellectual acceptance of a few biblical facts about the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and then for the person to go forth living life like everyone else on the planet as though nothing has happened.

I know many people who profess Christ. What I mean is that they call themselves Christians and yet they live like the devil. Their “salvation experience” had no sense of the crushing weight of their own sin, which should cause them cry out, “God have mercy on me, a sinner.” (Luke 18:13) Yet, they point to a time in their past in which they prayed a prayer, walked an altar-call aisle (went forward), or raised their hand in a revival meeting and call themselves Christians though their lives show no evidence of being New Creatures in Christ (Gal. 5:17).

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was not, nor is not, just a call to receive “fire insurance” from the damnation of hell. Rather, it was (is) a call to be saved from the penalty and power of sin. Did you see that last phrase: “...from the power of sin?” Someone who truly is born again, has been brought by the Holy Spirit to faith in the finished work of Christ, is saved not only from the wages of sin, but is saved from the rule, dominion, control, or power of sin in their lives. That is why John wrote in 1 John 2:6:

“He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.”

In fact, to come to faith and trust in Christ puts the professing believer on alert that if truly a Christian, one cannot have sin in any form reigning in his or her life.

Romans 6:12-14

“Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. ”

The Romans 6 text shows that when someone comes to faith and trust in Christ, he or she is united in the likeness of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The death Christ died to sin, we in Him also died. The resurrection of Christ from the dead, we in him were raised from being dead in our trespasses and sin SO THAT we might walk in newness of life and not like we did before we were saved.

Someone who is truly a Christian CANNOT live as they did before:

“...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. “ (Ephesians 2: 2,3)

Note carefully what this is saying: As a non-Christian, you lived like everyone else did on the planet. You walked according to the dictates of the devil. You were a son or daughter of disobedience. (Living a righteous life was not in your plans.) You lived your life in the lusts of your flesh and sought to satisfy your sinful flesh and mind. Your nature, your very core, was a child of wrath just like all the rest of the world.

That’s the not-so-pretty picture of who and what everyone born in the world is like. And, this is what the “Easy-Believism” crowd thinks you can remain like when you “pray to receive Christ.” “Obedience,” I was once told, “is preferred but is not necessary.”

This is a horrific nightmare that modern-day evangelicalism will accept ANYONE who professes to know Christ and yet has a life that is not any different than those who “walking according to the course of this world, the prince of the power of the air (Satan), and are sons of disobedience.”

This is NOT the gospel. It is false and dangerous.

In the simplest of terms: the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority (John MacArthur)

What does the Bible teach?

The Bible teaches that the Gospel is a call to repentance: Acts 2:38, 17:30, 20:21; 2 Peter 3:9.

The Bible teaches that repentance is a true change of heart and behavior: Luke 3:8, Acts 26:18-20

The Bible teaches that repentance is NOT man's work but all of God's grace: Acts 11:18, 2 Timothy 2:25

The Bible teaches that the faith to believe is also NOT a work of man but instead is a gift from God: Ephesians 2:1-10

The Bible teaches that true faith will never be compromised: Philippians 1:6

(The Easy- Believism crowd believes you can actually stop believing in Christ and still be saved—see 1 John 2:19.)

The Bible teaches that Christ Himself is to be the object of our faith and not facts about Him: “and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” (2 Cor. 5: 15)

(Did you catch the point of that verse? The context in which this verse occurs is speaking about being reconciled to God, or in other words, salvation. Those for whom Christ died (God's elect) are not to live for themselves but for Christ who died for them. That is salvation!)

The Bible teaches that if you are Christ's sheep, you will follow Him. (John 10:27, 28) You not only will not live as you did before but if you are one of Christ's sheep (in other words a believer), you will follow Christ.

(Easy-Believism teaching says that giving an assent to the facts of the Gospel is all that's necessary and that no following of Christ is required. I actually heard this once in an evangelism meeting in which the preacher told the crowd that all one had to do to be saved is believe that Christ died on a cross and nothing more would be required of you.)

The Bible teaches that the faith wrought by the Holy Spirit in you to believe unto salvation produces a “New Creation” (2 Cor. 5:17) in the inner person that can do nothing other than bear fruit of repentance.

The Bible teaches very plainly that we can know that we have come to know Christ if we keep His commandments (1 John 2:3). And, if someone who does not obey Christ's commands and claims to be a Christian, that profession is false. In fact, the Bible calls that person a liar (1 John 2:4).

“Whoever says, “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,” -1John 2:4 ESV

The Easy-Believism bunch believes most sincerely that obeying Christ's commands is an issue pertaining to a “second-level commitment,” ¹ which sounds suspiciously like another gospel to me.

Galatians 1: 8

“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.”

1 John MacArthur

Martin Luther on "Easy-Believism"

“They think one should not frighten or trouble the people, but rather always preach comfortingly about grace and forgiveness of sins in Christ and under no circumstances use these or similar words.

‘Listen! You want to be a Christian and at the same time remain an adulterer, a whoremonger, a drunken swine, arrogant, covetous, envious, vindictive, malicious, etc!’ Instead they say, ‘Listen! Though you are an adulterer, a whoremonger, a miser, or other kind of sinner, if you but believe, you are saved, and you need not fear the law. Christ has fulfilled it all!’…And it is saying yes and no to the same thing. For there is no Christ that died for sinners who do not, after forgiveness of sins, desist from sins and lead a new life…Now he who does not abstain from sin, but persists in his evil life, must have a different Christ, that of the Antinomians: the real Christ is not there, even if all the angels would cry ‘Christ! Christ!’

He must be damned with this, his new Christ…But our Antinomians fail to see that they are preaching Christ without and against the Holy Spirit because they propose to let the people continue in their old ways and still pronounce them saved. And yet logic, too, implies that a Christian should either have the Holy Spirit and lead a new life, or know that he has no Christ.” 1 (Note Luther’s expression “antinomians” here refers to church leaders who use the wonderful teaching of being justified and redeemed by grace through faith as an excuse for them and others to ignore or underemphasise the Biblical teachings on obeying God and living a holy life daily). Luther’s comments above are highly relevant to today.

SOURCE: http://internetbiblecollege.net/Lessons/Historical%20roots%20of%20easy%20believism.pdf

The Illness that Plagues Modern-Day Evangelicalism

Do you know the story of the conversion of Paul of Tarsus whom the Bible refers to as The Apostle Paul? If not, it goes like this:

Paul, according to the New Testament, was actually called Saul. He was a Pharisee whose life work had suddenly become to kill Christians. It isn't clear whether he threw stones, fed them to lions, or any other dastardly and heinous methods of killing worshipers of Jesus Christ. But, he did hunt them down, turned them into the authorities and this is where we pick up the story of his conversion.

Paul was fuming that day over the disciples of Jesus Christ. In fact, the text says that he was “breathing out threats and slaughter” about the chance to go on a Christian hunt and return with them bound and gagged into Jerusalem. ⁱ He had to go to the high priest to get written authorization to go on his murderous way. The permission was granted and off he went toward Damascus.

When he was getting close to reaching Damascus with his entourage of fellow Christian hunters, something happened. The Biblical text describes it:

“As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes, he could see nothing. So, they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days, he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.” ⁱⁱ

If you continue in the text (and read Paul's epistles), you will find that the result of that “Road to Damascus” experience was a complete and total change in the man’s life. He went from a Christian killer to a Christ worshiper in an instant. In the blink of eye, he stopped killing and began obeying the Lord Jesus Christ and would go on to become the great Apostle Paul.

For a brief moment, lets assume a different scenario:

Paul has the conversion experience and, though profoundly emotionally affected, he goes on killing Christians. He continues, in other words, in his previous heinous activities. He is living like the Devil.

Jesus comes to Paul again in a vision:

JESUS: “Paul, Paul, you called me Lord. You went when and where I called you to go. Why are still killing my people?

PAUL: “Oh, well, I am just a baby Christian and after all, I am not that mature in the faith yet. And besides, I just killed 75 Christians this week. That's down from my normal average.”

JESUS: “But Paul, you don't get the point. When I save someone, I make him or her New Creatures in Christ. The old man and all his lusts and evil desires are done away with and all things become new.”

PAUL: “Ok. I'll reduce my Christian kill rate to only 50 per week. How's that?”

As absurd as this sounds, I sat speechless one evening this week listening to a young man who had professed to have become a Christian, but telling me that he still engages in the sinful acts he did before he “prayed to receive Christ” and gave as his justification that this was how he was raised. The man who had allegedly “led him to Christ” offered an excuse, “We are all sinners and he is just a babe in Christ.”

Now tell me: Would the Apostle Paul had been sincerely converted if he continued on with his murderous spree of killing Christians after The Road to Damascus experience? Can anyone really respond to that question in the affirmative?

Of the many illness that plague modern-day evangelicalism, one of the most insidious is the idea that one can become a Christian by raising a hand in a gospel revival meeting, by signing a card, by going forward in a gospel “altar call,” or perhaps by repeating the magic words found in the “sinner's prayer.” This illness is called “Easy Believism.”

I once heard an “evangelistic message” in which the one giving the message said, “All you need to do is repeat this prayer after me in your heart and nothing else will be required of you.”

Repentance of sin was never mentioned. The word “sin" is rarely heard it in today's churches.

"Today, in the ranks of our Independent Baptist churches, we are overcome by the super salesmen ‘soulwinners' who pull professions out of lost souls with a promise that they will go to heaven on the basis of a little prayer and a profession of faith in Jesus. They follow the Hyles, Hutson, Gray, Vineyard, statement of faith and never know the reality of passing from death to life. The followers of these preachers of corruption are promising lost souls liberty where there is not liberty. . . . One "Easy-Believism" preacher, Jack Hyles of the large First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, says that ‘sin does not have to be repented of, only forgotten.' ... I am afraid these preachers want to hide their sins instead of forget them." ⁱⁱⁱ

Amazingly, the idea of repenting from your sin when you are brought by the Holy Spirit to faith and trust in Christ, as taught by those like John MacArthur, is often labeled as a legalistic and heretical promotion of a works salvation. This is astonishingly incomprehensible.

"To leave out or minimize repentance, no matter what sort of a faith you preach, is to prepare a generation of professors who are such in name only. I give it as my deliberate conviction, founded on 25 years of ministerial observation, that the Christian profession of today owes its lack of vital godliness, its want of practical piety, its absence from the prayer meeting, its miserable semblance of missionary life, very largely to the fact that old-fashioned repentance is so little preached. You can't put a big house on a little foundation. And no small part of such preaching comes from a class of modern evangelists who desiring more for their own glory to count a great number of converts than to lay deep foundations, reduce the conditions of salvation by 1/2 and make the other half but some intellectual trick of the mind rather than a radical spiritual change of the heart... . Such converts know but little and care less about a system of doctrine. They are prayerless, lifeless, and to all steady church work reprobate." ^iv

Evangelizing children is easy for the “Easy-Believism” crowd. This approach is something like, “Don't you want to see your grandmother again?” or, “Don't you want to live forever with your parents when you die?” Then, a call for a round of hand raising is made and most, if not all, the children hearing this gospel fraud raise their hands and they are counted as true conversions. The problem with this, says George Eager , “...that does not mean they are saved.  The Bible says that no one can be saved unless he repents. . . .  Repentance is being sorry enough for your sins to want to stop doing them."

Gospel presentations that do not wrestle with the terrible fact that man's sin is sending him straight to hell and one that implores men everywhere to repent of sin is fraudulence. Easy-believism preaching is not only fraudulent but it produces fraudulent conversions and people who are as hell-bound as they were before their fake conversions.

Horrifically, this has infected those preaching, those listening, those engaged in missionary endeavors, and those who are book authors. Evangelicalism has become a hoard of slick, smooth-talking frauds who show no sign of being made alive together with Christ. They scream from the rooftops that they are saved by believing in Jesus and yet fail to get the point that “faith without works is dead.” ^v

Recommended Reading: The Gospel According to Jesus: What Is Authentic Faith? John MacArthur

Acts 9:1–9, AV

Ibid

_{Gaylon Wilson, Last Baptist Church}

_{- B.H. Carroll, in Repentance and Remission of Sins}

James 2: 14-26

i

ii

iii

iv

v

Psalms

The imprecatory Psalms are basically those Psalms which contains the Psalmist's praying curses or judgments upon the wicked enemies of God's elect people. Some scholars divided the Imprecatory Psalms into a major and minor categories. For example, Psalms 69 and 109 would be in the “Major Imprecatory” category while Psalms 5,6,11,12,35,37,40, 52,54,56,58,69,79, 83, 137, 139, and 143 have been designated into the “Minor Precatory” slot.¹ Some say that there are only 18 Imprecatory Psalms with other opinions in the scholarly literature.

A problem within the Bible believing community is how to regard these Psalms in light of the New Testament teaching. If 2 Timothy 3:16 which says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,²” is true then how are we to apply the Imprecatory Psalms to our walk with God? How do we do it exactly, in light of Jesus telling us in the Gospel to “forgive our enemies?”

In doing the research for this assignment, I never once found any writer advocating praying the Imprecatory Psalms. In fact, the majority of the paper I read took the position that to pray for God to deal with the enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His people was the wrong thing to do. Their position was generally that in the “dispensation” of the New Testament we have a more progressive revelation (i.e. “Love your enemies) than in the Old Testament. This tends toward an invalid position since even Moses commanded that we should love our enemies and not bear grudges (Lev. 19:18). 

 

Other “interesting” positions offered in the literature is that we as Christians can't use these Psalms in prayer to seek personal vengance on “the bad guy.” It is a reality that Christians suffer, even today, horrible persecutions and sometimes death for godly righteousness sake. Even so, using these Psalms for revenge is wrong.

Another position is the while the curses are there in Holy Writ they are simply a recording of the sinfulness of the writer. In other words, they were the Psalmist venting rage. This is also wrong since the Pslams, all of them, are written in Scripture as “inspired by the Spirit of God” for our instruction and training in righteousness.

Then there is the Dispensational explanation which is also in error since it would imply inconsistency in God's revelation and Divine directive to walk in His word (see Ps. 119133). I believe also it calls into question 2Tim. 3:16.

A more “reasonable” approach offered in the literature is that Psalms should be read with the thought in mind that much of it is written using hyperbolic language. This is not an entirely problematic position to take. While hyperbole is used in both the New and Old Testaments, I would add that its usage does not detract from a literal interpretation of Scripture. The use of hyperbole, I believe, is always used to communicate a liter intent. An example of this would be the hyperbole used in Ezekiel 26:14: “I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.” This verse has exaggeration in it to convey the literal intent: A severe judgement and not being turned into a literal bare rock. Jesus used hyperbole to convey what our attitude toward sin in our lives should be when he said in the Gospels that if one of your eyes causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away (Matt. 5:29). Again, hyperbole to convey a literal intent or message.

Another point of view in the literature about the Imprecatory Psalms is that the curses were always made toward a class or group of people and not individuals. Individuals were never targeted. The problem I have with this is what is a group or class of people composed of but that of individuals? Besides, in Psalm 55: 12-15 speaks of “a friend”-singular-being an enemy.

A better and perhaps a more effective approach is to consider the following when praying the Imprecatory Psalms:

1. We must consider our motives in the light of Scripture. Why are we wanting to pray the Imprecatory Psalms? What's our reason. We should pray the Imprecations if, and only if, our motives is a Biblical hatred sinful injustice. If we do not have as our motives to stop the Evil One who is behind the persecution for righteousness sake, then we should not pray the Imprecations. We must want individual enemies to be pressed down and shaken into crying out to Christ for mercy and not to “even” with our enemies.
2. Wanting as the ardent desire of your heart that justice be served and realize that it will be done because God is faithful. If you do not see it in this life, you can rest in the hope that it will when an impenitent sinner stands before God. In some countries such as Mexico, the Justice System is so utterly corrupt that criminals are routinely turned loose for “lack of evidence.”
3. Lastly, if you pray the Imprecatory Psalms, you must have as your ultimate motive the desire that God's name not be taken in vain nor brought into question.

An example of this is a situation in which my wife and are presently in with a woman in our town. She claims to be a Christian and yet participates in seances, tarot card readings, and astral projection. She sees nothing wrong this at all. In fact, when we confronted her she became insanely biligerent and is presently persecuting us through the Gringo community in our small Mexican town. We pray daily for this woman the truths in Psalm 140 with a view to her repentance in our hearts and minds.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprecatory_Psalms

2 Revised Standard Version

REFERENCE: Examine Yourself

Does the Apostle refer to baptism in water or baptism in the Spirit here?

One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Eph. 4:5 (NKJV)


Many credible scholars claim that "baptism" in the Eph. 4:5 text is referring to water baptism. Though most of their arguments are sound, I want to take the opposite view in which "baptism" in this specific text is not referring to water but to the Spirit baptism. If Paul meant "water baptism," one of the church sacraments, why did he not also mention the other sacrament, "The Lord's Table?" Why didn't he say, "One baptism, one cup, one bread?"

This text of scripture occurs in the context of supernatural "unities." The context speaks to unity in the Body of Christ. He is talking in the context of supernatural or immaterial things. Water baptism is not supernatural, but material. It is done by one man to another.

Water baptism does not unify but has historically divided many Christians as to mode and meaning. Paul addressed the disunity concerning baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:13. Ephesians was written after First Corinthians. This would not be contextually consistent with the "unities" theme of the Eph. 4:1-6 text.

If the sacrament of water baptism were the point in this text, why exactly would Paul have ignored the other sacrament? I suggest it is that the sacraments, both baptism and the Lord's Table, do not fall within the "unities" emphasis of the passage.

There is the absence in this text of any baptismal prescription. Water baptism in the Gospel of Matthew 28:19 clearly prescribes that we are to be water baptized in the "name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." This is obviously missing from the Eph. 4:5 text in its immediate and remote context.

Lastly, the one ministry of the Holy Spirit that brings us into an organic unity with Christ and His body is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This would be consistent with the theme of the Eph. 4 text referring to the unity in Christ's body. It is also consistent with 1 Corinthians 12: 1-13 in which Paul wrote, "we are all baptized into one body by one Spirit." Here, Paul uses the same language as in Eph. 4:1-6: the word "one" signifying unity.

Does the Apostle mean salvation or faith is the gift?

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Eph. 2:8 (NKJV).


Much has been said about this verse regarding the words "that" and "it" in this text and to what exactly do these words refer. The reason for trying to discern the meaning of these words is to find an exact meaning to the issue of salvation in Christ Jesus being all of God and not of us. For if it is as some say, "Grace is God's part, faith ours," then salvation is partially of works and thus man can boast.

"That" which appears in the Eph. 2:8-9 text is a neuter pronoun. In Greek, as in most languages, to discover to what this word refers, it has to have "gender agreement." Since it is neuter, it would have to refer to another neuter word. Some think "that" has to be referring to the word "grace" or "faith" in the text. But, "grace" and "faith" are both feminine nouns and therefore there can be no gender agreement between "that," "faith," and "grace."

The neuter 'that," therefore, has to be referring to the clause, "For by grace are you saved through faith…"

The next phrase, "it is the gift of God," also finds itself looking back to the clause, "For by grace are you saved through faith." The word "it" is also neuter. Therefore, it cannot be referring to "grace" or "faith," but rather to the entire clause, "For by grace are you saved through faith…"

So, the Apostle is referring to both salvation and to the instrument through which we receive saving grace, faith, as the gift.

Many have problems with this. But to say that "Grace is God's part and faith is ours" can lead to errors such as "Semipelagianism" in which God is seen to "cooperate" with man in the salvation process.

Scripture teaches it is those who have been "appointed" unto eternal life who believe (Acts 13:48). If anyone comes to believing faith in Christ, it is because it has been "granted" to him or her on behalf of Christ to believe (Phil. 1:29). It would not be possible to respond in faith and repentance without God granting "repentance to life" (Acts 11:18). Faith comes through Christ (Acts 3:16).

The old and hated doctrine of sin

One of the really surprising things about the
present bewilderment of humanity is that the
Christian Church now finds herself called
upon to proclaim the old and hated doctrine of
sin as a gospel of cheer and encouragement.

The final tendency of the modern philosophies,
hailed in their day as a release from the
burden of sinfulness, has been to bind man
hard and fast in the chains of an iron determinism.

The influence of heredity and environment,
of glandular makeup and the control
exercised by the unconscious, of economic necessity
and the mechanics of biological development,

 have all been invoked to assure man
that he is not responsible for his misfortune
and therefore not to be held guilty.

 Evil has been represented as something imposed on us
from without, not made by us from within.
The dreadful conclusion follows inevitably
that as he is not responsible for evil; he cannot
alter it. Even though evolution and progress
may offer some alleviation in the future there
is no hope for you and me now.

 I well remember how an aunt of mine, brought up in
an old-fashioned liberalism, protested angrily
against having continuously to call herself a
miserable sinner when reciting the Litany.

Today, if we could really be persuaded that we
are miserable sinners, that the trouble is not
outside us but inside us, and that therefore, by
the grace of God, we can do something to put
it right, we should receive that message as the
most helpful and heartening thing that can be
imagined. -- Dorthy Sayers

Reply

Forward

Baptismal Regeneration

The first century Jewish historian, Josephus (37 – c. 100 AD), a law-observing Jew, said of John the Baptist,

"John, that was called the Baptist…who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." -Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2

John’s water baptism was, according to this first-century historian, not for the forgiveness of sin. Baptism did not purify the soul but was an outward sign for those whose souls were already purified. Baptism was a sign or symbol of a work already done in the soul of the recipient of John’s baptism.

Many Protestant church historians believe that the doctrine of Baptism was one of the first to drift from that of Historical Orthodoxy. This was probably due to the fact that attention was directed toward other doctrinal issues and, through neglect, the doctrine of baptism fell into error. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, ch.7, part 92, notes that the early church fathers did not have a refined understanding of original sin. This led church fathers to say such things as:

“According to the Pelagian Julian of Eclanum, Chrysostom taught: We baptize children, though they are not stained with sin, in order that holiness, righteousness, sonship, inheritance, and brotherhood may be imparted to them through Christ.”[1]

The lack of controversy in the early church over the issue of baptism (controversy often led to a clearer understanding through examination and debate of a doctrine and the reasons for it) allowed a mishmash of beliefs and teachings about the purpose and work of baptism to develop.

Tertullian, in On Baptism 13, comes close to contradicting his fellows and agreeing with the Orthodox view. He said that Abraham was saved, apart from any baptismal waters, by faith alone. This would certainly be the nail in the coffin of those holding to baptismal regeneration because the very author of Galatians, Paul, says the example of our “faith alone” Christianity is Abraham. If it is true, as Tertullian wrote and as Paul teaches in Romans and Galatians, that we are justified in Christ apart from works, this would logically include the work of baptism. After all, baptism is not a “non-work” but a work, is it not?

Baptismal regeneration belief ran strongly into the Middle Ages. Christian missionaries traveled extensively throughout Europe baptizing hordes in mass baptism ceremonies. But, as was frequently the sad story, these so-called converts would revert rather quickly to their pagan ways as the missionaries were “walking out the back door.”

In the year 597, Augustine of Canterbury, along with 41 fellow missionaries, landed on the island of Thanet, where the king received them. Baptisms to the tune of 10,000 converts in one day were reported. Vast numbers of these alleged converts were said to quickly revert to worshipping their pagan gods. The Kent king himself, Eadbald, was said to have been one of those who quickly apostatized.[2] Water baptism seemed to have availed a whole lot of nothing.

Water baptism offered the barbaric Anglo-Saxons a chance at a bath but nothing much more than that. They were baptized as pagans and came up out of the waters as pagans. A spiritual rebirth, a regeneration, did not occur as spelled out in Ezekiel 36:25-27:

“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will be careful to observe my ordinances.”

And, though this experiential evidence shows a lack of changed lives that the waters of baptism could not impart, the ultimate test is to what do the pages of Scripture attest?

Signs of the covenants with God never bring anyone into the Kingdom of God. In the Old Testament, the sign of an individual’s covenantal relationship with God, circumcision, could not save any one. Jeremiah 4:4 and 9:25-26 are two texts of Scripture in which the author makes distinctions and comparisons between physical circumcision of the flesh and “foreskins of your heart.”[3] The author uses language like “circumcised and yet uncircumcised”[4] and “uncircumcised of heart”[5] to show that the sign of the covenant, circumcision, did not mean that all who had received the sign were truly of the circumcision. In other words, you could not enter the Kingdom of God because you had the sign of the covenant. You had to be “circumcised of the heart.”

In the New Testament, Paul uses this same reasoning and language:

“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”[6] (Emphasis mine)

In fact, the Apostle Paul makes the argument from Romans 2 – 8 that no man can be saved by the works of the law (any law) but only by faith. By faith, righteousness is credited to man’s account with God and not by any work. If receiving the sign of the Old Covenant, circumcision, cannot save, why do some within the New Covenant think that the sign of one’s membership in this covenant, baptism, can save?

Perhaps in the “baptismal regeneration” camp there have been those who did not understand that no matter how badly they want to see water when they see the word “baptism,” it isn’t always so. The word baptism can mean different things depending on the immediate and remote context in which the word appears.

If I were to tell you, “After kicking the red ball in the yard, I went into my house and told my wife that we had to go to a ball at eight o’clock. On the way home from that ball, I told my wife I had a ball at this ball with all the exciting music we danced to.”

The word “ball” in the above example would not mean the same thing in each instance. The context is what defines the word “ball” and how it is used. In the first instance, it means a round-shaped toy that can be kicked or thrown about; in the second and third usages, it mean a “dancing event;” in the fourth instance, it means, “I had a good time;” the fifth usage was, again, “the dancing event.”

The Scripture examples abound where baptism can mean something other than something involving water. John the Baptist himself used baptism in two different senses in the same paragraph:

“As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fir to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”[7] (Emphasis mine)

Many within the groups who advocate the Baptismal Regeneration doctrine point to Paul’s letter to the Galatians (3:27) as a proof text for salvation by the work of water baptism. (The inherent problem with offering “a verse” of Scripture as a proof of an entire doctrinal system is that it rarely works. No one gets it right, as is seen in this case). The immediate and remote context of Scripture is radically ignored, and preconceived ideas end up being forced upon the texts of Scripture.

"...for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."[8]

Paul’s letter to the Galatians was one correcting a grave problem. The immediate context (the entire letter.) was one in which Paul was reproving the Galatians for abandoning the one and only Gospel (the Truth) and turning to a fraudulent one that mixed Grace with works and thus could not justify them before God. The content of this fraudulent gospel was one in which circumcision was required to enter into a relationship with God through the Messiah. This was false; it wrought not righteousness, without which no man shall see God, but only death. The overall point of the letter in which Galatians 3:27 appears is that Grace plus works equals death. From justification to sanctification, beginning in the faith and being completed in the faith, always has been and will forever be by faith in Christ alone. Why, then, would the great Apostle reverse his reasoning and add baptism as a requirement for eternal life? He wouldn’t.

Paul used “baptism” in a “non-water” sense in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2, referring to being baptized “into Moses.”

“For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea…"

In 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul again uses “baptism” in a “non-water” sense:

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."

No water is in view in these texts in their immediate and remote contexts. So, what do these verses mean, including Galatians 3:27, if they do not refer to being immersed in water?

The word “baptize” in the Greek text comes from the “dyer’s trade.” When someone wanted to change the color of a piece of white cloth, he or she would go to the man or woman in the village who had vats of colored dyes. The customer would request a specific color and the dyer would then dip, submerge, immerse, or baptize the cloth into the desired color. When the cloth was removed and dried, the cloth would have changed. The color of the cloth would now be identified or be in union with the color into which it was baptized.

“Union with” is what is in view in Paul’s use of the word in I Corinthians 10: 1-2. Paul uses comparative language to show the similarity and the same sense of the word “identification.” The Jews went through the redemption of the Exodus by their “union” with Moses. They were “identified” with him in the deliverance. In the same sense, all Christians are baptized into Christ in union or identification with His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (See Romans 6 and Colossians 3).

In the 1 Corinthians 12:13 text, Paul is referring to yet another use of the word baptism. This usage refers to the agency of the Holy Spirit whereby all believers are placed (incorporated) into the Body of Christ. The act of water baptism is a great symbolic sign that teaches the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that act of placing into the Body of Christ or New Covenant the believer.

In Galatians 3:27, as I wrote previously, there is no mention of water. This text does not teach a baptismal regeneration in the waters of baptism. What this text does teach is that through the God-given gift of faith, we are justified apart from the works of the law or from works, period! The word “baptism” here means we are united in the likeness of the Person and Work of Christ. We are not miniature Christs. We are identified as having been placed in Him and having put Him on. We’ve been placed into the dyer’s vat and have come out changed and clothed with His righteousness. A careful reading of Romans 6, written by the same Apostle Paul, in my view, defines the Galatians 2:27 text.

A very interesting point is that if this is teaching the possibility of salvation through the waters of baptism, if through the baptismal waters one could be regenerated, born again, then why did John the Baptist refuse to baptize the Pharisees? If baptism could save one soul from hell-fire damnation, then why didn’t John line up the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to where he was baptizing and push them into the water?

Instead, John said to them:

“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance…”[9]

The conclusion is that water baptism does not regenerate anyone. Regeneration and repentance precedes water baptism.

---

[1] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, ch.7, part 92

[2] SOURCE: J.H. Merle d'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, trans. Dr. H. White, Vol. V (Rapidan, VA: Harland Publications, reprinted 1846 London edition), pp. 683, 685.

[3] Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25-26

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Romans 2:28-29

[7] Matthew 3:1-11; See also Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, and John 1:33

[8] Galatians 3:27 (NIV)

[9] Matthew 3:7-8