The Very, Very, Very, Last Word On “The Shack”
So, I now have an extended family full of heretics.
T, his mom, and his grandma, all went to see “The Shack” this weekend.
His mom informed me yesterday that I have to see this film.
Yesterday afternoon, T was using perceived lessons from it to evangelize his doctor.
I’m avoiding talking to his grandma, lest I be required to build three pyres for the cleansing of their souls…
Somehow, this wicked trip to the damnable cinema demonstrated to them in a profound way that God loves His children and that forgiveness is a great gift that not only must be received,but offered.
Despite all my efforts to quash this enthusiasm with warnings of lurking modalism and universalism, they’re still convinced that God loves and they should forgive.
Hell.
Why weren’t they impacted this way in church…or even more to the point, from me?
I’m not sure it’s because of dismal failures on the part of either…except in one area.
The church has neglected the power of art, story, and song, in conveying the core messages of the Gospel.
This was not always the case, but commercialism and tribalism have done their work well.
This movie has moved some people… so we’re warning everyone about the dangers of a warmed heart without a degree in theology.
What else can do we do now?
First, let’s encourage the creatives among us to make music, art, and films that touch people where they are in the name of Christ.
Let’s support them when they try…even if they don’t include a systematic theology with their work.
I’m having really good conversations that reinforce the good and keep it in an orthodox framework.
I’m as excited for my people as I would be for someone who found refreshment in a sermon or a song.
I’m grateful that these conversations have been sparked in the first place.
This really isn’t that difficult…
Because of this movie, some people will be refreshed in the things of God.
T’s doc might have had his heart moved.
Some are very good at stomping out such embers of hope in the name of complete doctrinal fidelity and in fear of apostasy.
They may need extra boots… I hope…
PREACH.
did you happen to see wayne taylor’s retraction of his recommendation for the movie ? i found it funny that he found “hidden meanings” in the film.
now i gotta go see it. and i did like roger olsen’ review too.
I will concede this – if the Christianity survived the, excuse my French – God awful teachings in the God is not dead movie, then perhaps it can do the same through the run of the Shack.
wow… I fell like I’ve stumbled across a liberal Episcopalian or Unitarian web page…
take care… done here
yes, MLB, if the gates of hell can’t prevail, a Shack attack won’t bring it down either.
TSB–I usually fall when I stumble. Perhaps you should take care.
I am a theological conservative, but if thinking about things beyond surface concerns offends you, then run away as fast as you can.
Michael–well said…Conversation confers value. We learn best through asking–and answering questions. God is better–and bigger than we think He is. I value your perspective here–how many conversations we abort with our neighbors when we use theology as a club.
Thanks for all you do…
Thank you, Rick.
I don’t support the aberrant theology of Paul Young.
I want to completely support any one whose heart was turned toward the things of God by this movie…it’s an excellent opportunity to have a great conversation.
Michael, understood. I don’t think the movie was meant as a theological treatise, just as I do not thin the Narna books are meant that way as well. Conversation and engagement over the major themes, love and forgiveness, perhaps will open some hearts to what is true; we can, with God’s help, nurture a loving orthodoxy among those we converse with.
I must admit, I am finding love demonstrated a higher proof of orthodoxy as I grow older.
Rick,
Well said…and amen.
Tune in next week for the absolute, undeniable, very, very, very, very, very, I really promise this time, very last word on “The Shack”. 🙂
The church has neglected the power of art, story, and song, in conveying the core messages of the Gospel.
_______________________________
I fail to see where the Holy Spirit inspired his instruments of personality to use song and story in apostate manner or where He directs those men to manipulate the emotions of the hearers into some experience apart from sound doctrine, looking to other gods.
For cash money, no less.
I don’t recall ever advocating for anything apostate.
Nor do I recall advocating for the”manipulation” of emotions.
Perhaps you should remove the book of Psalms from your bible…songs and poetry are deadly, you know.
The soul numbing reduction of a living faith to nothing but the mental assent to developed doctrine is a spiritual crime.
My old friend Larry used to talk about certain art and music as “streams of white light in darkened corners”. The music and the art he spoke of was not “Christian” in terms of orthodox theology, but they illuminated some aspect of God’s work in the world. A while back, I was asked by a music blog to name the best Christian album of that particular year – I chose Springsteen’s ‘Wrecking Ball’ because it spoke to Christian values much more that anything coming out of Nashville. We need to be willing to let art be art…
However, and I think this is the issue in this whole conversation. Does Springsteen and for that matter Paul Young speak to “Christian Values” or are they speaking to the human condition and human values? Now I understand that Christians are a part of the human experience – but the Christian condition, the Christian values and the Christian experience are separate and unique.
I can spend a month with the Dali Lama and I can improve my human spirit – I can draw closer to others and their human spirit, but it will do me absolutely no good in my relationship with Jesus Christ except to perhaps guide me to work harder dragging them out of their hell bound experience.
Singing Born in the USA unites me on a human level with all others who were physically born in the USA – but singing something like the Isaac Watts song “Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed” do we tune into the Christian experience.
Art can illuminate –
Acts 17:28, “for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'”
The first part of verse 28 comes from Cretica by Epimenides, and the second part of the verse from a Hymn to Zeus, written by the Cilician poet Aratus. Again, art, poetry, music can illuminate… Not saying that it is an exposition of orthodox doctrine.
Michael, recently I was confronted by a friend of 22+ years on my need to engage the gospel and see if I was a rare or wheat. I was stunned by the pharisaical legalism he has bought into (he moved from our area some years ago and has been involved in Neo-Calvinist church systems (SGM and 9 Marks). In the course of our conversation, I asked him exactly what he meant by the word ‘gospel’ because it did not appear I was being confronted with what I would consider ‘good news’.
I can totally identify with your description of ‘soul-numbing’ reduction–I guess in some ways my belief in Christ alone saving me and preserving me may represent to many a path to tare-dom.
In the above comment, auto correct changed tare to rare in the first sentence; I am beginning to hate auto-correct.
happy st. Patrick’s day everyone!
Top of the mornin’ to ye and and happy St. Patrick’s day O’Dusty!
Good comments Rick…
“I must admit, I am finding love demonstrated a higher proof of orthodoxy as I grow older.”
I love this and think it’s true. I see recognize Christ in the smallest of kindnesses that people do for one another. Gods love in Christ transcends theology. He is everywhere and art reflects Him and so does nature:
“Our Lord has written the promise of resurrection, not in books alone, but in every leaf in springtime.” – Martin Luther
Well, no one feeds steak to a newborn baby. 😉
Here’s the deal: it’s a freaking MOVIE. Since when does Hollywood consult with the Bible to make sure they are telling the truth? Heck, even when they make movies from the Bible, they’re not true.
So why all the fuss??
If, for ANY reason, a person is prompted to bring up God in a conversation, I’d call that a good start. You don’t have to agree with the theology of the movie.
And finally, I agree that love is the true test of the Christian. Not some nebulous, fakey, only-on-Sunday love – but the kind of love that flows from an unpolluted source and surpasses all earthly ideas of the worth of each person.
The church has neglected the power of art, story, and song, in conveying the core messages of the Gospel.
_________________________________________________________________
This is an awfully broad exhortation of the state of the entire church that’s completely unfair. If you are rebuking certain tribes in the fundamentalist tradition than maybe you have a point but Jesus’s church is alive and well with the gospel using art, story and song. And the “Shack” which I never read and have no desire to read makes little sense in being a measuring rod for the use of the arts in the church and its impact.
“Since when does Hollywood consult with the Bible to make sure they are telling the truth? Heck, even when they make movies from the Bible, they’re not true.
So why all the fuss??”
I agree – I just wish more people would follow my lead and point out to those unsuspecting souls that this movie – the shack – is not telling the truth. This is all I have called for from the very beginning of any of these conversations.
Look, this is very simple.
You shouldn’t see the movie/read the book because you should NEVER expose yourself to someone who has had words/actions in their life that contradict “orthodoxy” like
Paul (persecuted Jesus/the church, 3/4 of NT).
Peter (denied even knowing Jesus while cursing and swearing).
riiiiight.
: )
And I forgot many church fathers and leaders who wrote most of our foundational doctrines, yet wrote some very loopy, unorthodox ideas.
UC – actually if Paul Young had corrected some of his ‘loopy’ ideas I would not feel this way – however, he has doubled down on his heresies with his latest book he published this month.
https://www.amazon.com/Lies-We-Believe-About-God/dp/1501101390/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489768383&sr=1-1&keywords=william+paul+young+books
I don’t care he wrote the book – I don’t care they made a movie — we are a free country and as I said yesterday, if we can survive the God is Not Dead movie and all of it’s anti Christian teaching – hey we can survive the Shack. A simple warning so people know that this is about a god that Young made up and is not about the God of the Bible.
Duane, Paul’s words to pagan unbelievers in evangelistic efforts is a very different thing than this discussion. Heck, Greg Laurie regularly quotes pop culture lyrics and references in evangelism
I still remember stumbling across TBN when Jan Crouch was weepingly reading lyrics to Live Fast Die Young by the punk band The Circle Jerks. I stayed tuned for awhile since that was the first time other than one radio hour a week on Rodney on the Roq that I had ever seen or heard my punk music in the media. (Before Decline of Western Civilization movie came out)
I must admit, while it didn’t do a thing for my lost soul, it kept me tuned in to listen to her message. I was laughing through most of it.
#29 Steve,
“Again, art, poetry, music can illuminate… Not saying that it is an exposition of orthodox doctrine.”
In mentioning Greg Laurie, you made my point… art, music poetry can illuminate the message. I assumed that was what we are talking about here… God uses many “tools” in proclaiming his glory, as should we. I’m not really ready to go “heresy hunting” with a work of fiction. Otherwise, I might have to turn my attention to Lewis, Tolkien, Chesterton…
This all makes me quite weary.
What we have in this film is an opportunity to engage people who will never attend a Harvest Crusade, but whose hearts and thoughts have been turned to the things of God.
If I were pastoring an evangelical church, I’d have people outside the movie theater offering even more clarity on the goodness and love of God.
I’m sure some have folks outside the theaters warning that everything folks just saw is a lie…
You all can do what you want with it…I’m having some great conversations and building on the light that was given.
#32 Michael
I think there are many people who simply find this to be outside their comfort zone…
Duane,
God blew up all my comfort zones and I want to share the pain… 🙂
Duane,
It’s not a matter of ‘comfort zone’ at all. Is there any line that could be crossed in a movie or book where you would either not endorse it or in fact give a warning?
If there is, then you and I are just alike — except we draw the line in a different place.
#34
Funny… back in the 80s, my friend Charles took me to hear Hans Kung and meet him after the lecture (they were old friends). I went ready to “hunt heresy”. Instead, I heard a remarkable talk about the implications of the Incarnation and afterwards Kung told me about his friendship with Barth over drinks! Sometimes, God blows up our comfort zones for a reason…
Well…..I think I’ve made my position on The Shack pretty clear in the earlier thread.
I was just noting that someone like the Apostle Paul (or to a lesser degree, an evangelist today) using something familiar to an unbelieving audience of pagans to try and make that first inroads is different than the controversy about people who are already Christians being ministered to through this movie.
I’m not big on taking Biblical examples or verses and using them to make disconnected points. In fact, I weary of it.
But hey, judge not and cast the first stone. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever and I can do all things through Christ……
Now, if the discussion is the need for Christian art to make a revival of sorts today…
or if the discussion is whether we can talk to an unsaved friend who has seen this movie and share the gospel using aspects of the movie, then I would certainly agree.
All truth is God’s truth. If a Muslim has written that there is only one God, I can start with that because it is true. However, some things are NOT true, and we can’t start with those.
Paul quoted something that actually was true, even if it was spoken by a pagan. And he went from there in his evangelism….
As to “comfort zones” and such…I find myself agreeing with MLD…
I also weary of the “this bothers you because of some defect in YOU” line of argument.
That is far too common on the internet. Disagreement is dismissed because it is assumed the one disagreeing has the problem rather than one examining the foundation of that disagreement.
So rather than examine the merits of discussion, one disagreed with a position because a) you are a racist, b) you are a nationalist who has confused your kingdoms c) you are uncaring and not following the teachings of Christ
yada, yada….
I’m saying the defect lies in the culture that can’t see an opportunity when it presents itself and instead thinks that we have to start with what we’re against…
No, the defect is when we are satisfied that people have “god thoughts” and we are happy because they are happy.
The CC I attended spent so much time telling us what NOT to: read, listen to, watch, do, drink or wear that there was a lot less time to focus on Jesus.
Man-made rules will never change a persons heart.
UC wins a prize for getting to the heart of the issue.
I’m thrilled that I get to have these conversations, especially with close friends and family.
It’s been a great opportunity to fill out the picture and reinforce truth that somehow wasn’t communicated in other places.
I’m not happy because they’re happy, I’m happy because I was given an opportunity to have meaningful conversations about the things of God.
Also – to those who think they can speak to exactly “who God is” in tangible terms:
You’re kidding yourself. All you know is what you read in the Bible and learned from another person. Even your own personal encounters with God defy definition if you are honest. Our information is very limited and we only have so much understanding.
So for someone to sit in His seat and make judgements about what God can do and can’t do, again I say, you are deceived. Or at best, living in a fantasy land you made up in your own mind.
I suggest that the title for the sure-to-be-released sequel to the movie be “The Crock”. Just a joke folks. 😆
I guess that would never make any money though, so not likely to get the nod.
Disillusioned,
God has told us that he has given us everything that we need to know. Yes there are many mysteries but they were never ours to know in the first place.- It’s funny but this is the opposite of what you describe or rail against – it is Paul Young who is making the definitive statements of who God is – he even put all 3 trinity members in human flesh so we could see his rendition of God..
God does not hide information we need – he has given it all.
Deut 29:29 – “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
I haven’t read the “Shack” but from what I’m hearing here it sounds kind of like a pseudo Christianized trashy romance novel that a neglected wife would read, while her neglected husband watches pornography. But I haven’t read it yet, so my opinion is sorely lacking. It would be helpful for me for someone to briefly explain the basics of the book and how the god portrayed in it is different than the Almighty Christian Triune God.
Similarly, If the trinity is the issue, I am wondering if anyone has mentioned the movie “The Matrix” here. This is one of my all time favorite movies. I saw hints of the trinity portrayed in the main characters which I thought was pretty cool but it didn’t seem to generate the kind of controversy because it was not marketed and sold as a Christian movie. I’m wondering if this is the big difference here.
“Here’s the deal: it’s a freaking MOVIE. Since when does Hollywood consult with the Bible to make sure they are telling the truth? ”
Back in the days of yore, the days of Bing Crosby, when the Roman Catholics did play a role in overseeing movie production there were some lovely movies – “Going My Way” etc. and what the American public was brainwashed to believe was that there WAS a God and integrity mattered in one’s conduct of life… but it didn’t make us an R.C. nation…
point is… a diluted, but clear message that declares God loves can’t hurt, can it?
It was when it dawned on me that God really did love that i could appreciate that hell was justifiable also… just pray for the promised gift of God the Holy Spirit to do His work, perhaps
#37 Steve
“All truth is God’s truth.”
Found something we can agree on…
“point is… a diluted, but clear message that declares God loves can’t hurt, can it?”
I don’t think so…especially if we’re committed to having conversations that fill out the picture.
But see, Michael, MLD and others don’t want to have that conversation.
They just want us to trust THEIR understanding.
PS Not ranting, only stating what seems obvious to me.
I have never heard one of those old sappy 40s / 50s religious movies mention Jesus Christ – not one.
But I did like the Cary Grant / David Nivens one where he was sent back to earth to do his fill of good deeds to get his wings in heaven. Nothing says the God of the Bible like that. 😉
MLD,
What you said to me is what is written in the Bible. I have read all the things you referred to. More to the point, I happen to believe them. So I’m not coming from an anti-Biblical stance.
My point is that there is much more to God than what we know – than what He’s revealed to us. I didn’t say I didn’t have all I need – I said I know that my limited human understanding can not begin to conceptualize who God really is.
And from that perspective, I’m not going to rule on what will or what won’t draw people to Him.
“I’m not going to rule on what will or what won’t draw people to Him.”
If we are drawing them to the right ‘him’ then I am fine. I don’t think that is what is happening in the Shack.
Because Paul Young may be a nice guy and because the story is so good, does not mean that he is not being used by the evil one to draw people away from the right ‘him’.
“If we are drawing them to the right ‘him’ then I am fine. I don’t think that is what is happening in the Shack.”
And you know this how exactly…?
I read the book.
As I said last week, if my pastor said from the pulpit what Paul Young has said in his book, I would be going to the board and to the elders to call for his termination.
My very point is that I keep talking with people who have been drawn to the “right” Him… there’s been no revival of universalism that I’m aware of.
“if my pastor said from the pulpit what Paul Young has said in his book”
Which part of the Shack are you speaking of here?
most of the world already hold a universalist position – even those who hate God think we all have the same fate or reward.
Perhaps if the movie spoke directly to the point that everyone is not saved and that people – the wide path of people – are headed for hell – then we would be able to better count those with the warm fuzzies religion.
Maybe if we tried to engage all these people in conversations about faith we wouldn’t have to spend so much time telling people what to watch…
Why do you assume that anyone who finds fault with this movie are not engaging folks in conversations about faith. That is a pretty snooty attitude on your part.
Hey, I would rather come at them from a position of truth – not just try to deceive them into a conversation.
I can find fault with the movie and the book all day long.
I’m well trained at theological fault finding.
I did not say that all critics are not engaging people in conversations about faith.
I’m saying that the primary strategy of some is to warn people (who are going to go anyway) instead of preparing to engage people who go and then build on whatever positives they come out with.
I will further enrage my critics by saying that it’s strategies like this that are contributing to our churches shrinking like cheap sweaters…
Michael
I remembered this quote from years ago… (and had to look it up!)
“The Christian life is a life characterized by true and spontaneous creativity. Consequently, a disciple is subject to the same charge that was leveled against Jesus Christ, namely, the charge of inconsistency. But Jesus Christ was always consistent in His relationship to God, and a Christian must be consistent in his relationship to the life of the Son of God in him, not consistent to strict, unyielding doctrines. People pour themselves into their own doctrines, and God has to blast them out of their preconceived ideas before they can become devoted to Jesus Christ.”
~ Oswald Chambers
Duane,
That is going on my wall somewhere…next to the blast marks. 🙂
Great word that I will spread around…
I don’t even understand why this thread has gotten so long. Michael made a point that even though the movie has some unorthodox stuff, it has afforded him the opportunity to engage people in conversations about God. I’m confident that Michael knows how to talk to folks about the true God and the true Gospel.
Moving right along…
This is not why churches are shrinking. People today do not what community. It is the same reason malls are closing down. People want to blame Amazon but malls used to be a place you hung out – whether you bought anything or not.
It is why movie theaters are empty and why the NFL attendance and TV ratings are down. No one wants to do what our generation wanted to do.
Last word anyone? Tiring….
Coming out of my eye doctor for my glaucoma check – right across the street are the several buildings that make up the Trinity Broadcasting Network audience studios. Would I be wrong to warn about entry into that environment? They make it up as they go along also…. A fiction of sorts. 🙂
MLD
Maybe pass out some Chick tracts
MLD@65…there may be something to not wanting community, but I’ll bet the shrinkage in community has something to do with both adults in a household working ungodly hours to make a living. I think we’re too tired but to go home, eat and sleep, and start all over again early the next morning.
When someone figures out how to separate lukewarm into hot and cold, then I’ll recommend the book.
#53 that is all I can take. You are nuts if you believe this book is a tool of the devil. Nine or so years ago this book was brought into my life and stopped me from committing suicide. I’m not going to tell my whole story here, but when I read the Shack I couldn’t stop from crying. The crying went on for about a week that is how torn up I was inside. I cried with loud slobs. I just couldn’t stop. But deep down in my spirit I knew the Lord was there waiting for me. And yes it was there ( before the Shack ) that the Lord said 40 years is long enough to carry this burden. And then , beyond reason I started to see visions in my mind of what really happened in Vietnam. I jumped out of my seat and kept saying ” Yes, Yes, Yes I see it now so clearly ) and then I wept some more. Many things such as this happened in the next few months where my torn up spirit was restored, but I had to confront my problems and yes sins to be delivered from this body of death.
Now go ahead and mock me for this story. But I don’t give a damn anymore. Your opinions about me mean nothing. And this was part of my deliverance also. Make your sorry selves feel better by knocking me.
Jon,
I’ve heard many similar stories over the years…which is why I’ve been so careful about how I approach this subject.
I’m very glad you read the book…
Thanks for sharing that with us, well, some of us, Jon. That is awesome!
Jon,
I never deny anyone’s personal experience – so God bless you. But… what do we say about the Tibetan Buddhist who is talked off the ledge after reading a book by the Dali Lama?
Jon, you are an example of just what i was talking about back up there somewhere (and MLD’s #74 just proves that the good Lutheran does have some blind spots – thankfully, tho, folk have been talked out of killing themselves by “ungodly” people)
that said,
it isn’t necessary to understand a lick of doctrine to have one’s soul awakened to the fact of a loving, understanding waiting Creator – He is always there waiting … we find Him and afterwards we seek sound doctrine, not vice versa… pray for the sheep
Yet again…
MLD is talking to himself. Indeed, he’s a true LIHOM. If he truly believed his “God bless you” to Jon, why would he then engage in some five-cent “apologetics”? I guess the guy just can’t stop putting his foot in his mouth.
Jon,
I admire your story and believe you. I’m really glad God used the book in the way He did!
Anon – I guess you have no idea what an “apologetic” is – as I offered none.
I listen to people all the time talk about how The Course in Miracles has changed their life. According to you, I must give that equal applause as the experience is what is all important.
Again, with the adherents of The Course in Miracles, I do not question their experience — that is a losing proposition. (and remember, Jon attacked me as if I had spoken to or of him personally.)
What is a LIHOM?
Legend in His Own Mind
Anon’ s style is very familiar.
Xenia,
To whom?
xenia,
I have a question for you. Would you please e-mail me? Michael can vouch for me.
pstrmike01@gmaildotcom
thanks .
Hi Ixtlan, check your mail.
MLD. Dude. Expecting a movie to live up to what is expected from the pulpit just shows how much you don’t even get what this conversation is about.
Disillusioned – Dude, truth is truth and false teaching is false teaching.
I only ask that we warn some of the people under our charge if we think something has gone off the rails. I am not against what any movie says – as this conversation has shown is my objection to those who think movies are off limits and because they are movies, we should just play nice. The fact that you find false teaching acceptable if it is on the movie screen makes me cringe a bit.
But then I remember all the hoopla back in the late 80s when the evangelicals were all upset at the movie The Last Temptation of Christ because Jesus was have sex (well at least in his dream) – and that is probably true..
The Shack aside – movies are a great method for gaining the minds and the hearts of unsuspecting souls – and why such channels like HBO used to be taboo in the church are today mainstream in the church – it the ‘no harm, no foul’ rule.
Steve @ 46
I dud a chapter by cheaper commentary here when there was a thread on this book.
MLD
As far as doctrine, there’s more than enough disagreement among Christians.
For example, who was John baptizing, and does Paul talk about water baptism, or baptism “In Christ”?
See what I mean?
Hannah,
The fact that there are differences does not mean that there is no truth. Mormons have doctrinal differences and this does not stop me from saying they are wrong. (they like the Shack also claim that the godhead are real people). This is the problem with the ‘love trumps doctrine’ crowd.
Who John the Baptist was baptizing does not matter – John’s baptism was an OT baptism. The institution of NT saving baptism comes post resurrection in Matt 28.
Also, Paul is the one who claimed that there is only one baptism. Water baptism IS the baptism into Christ. (I do not know of any Lutheran who would divide baptism like this). Those who divide the baptism are not doing such in a positive manner – this is always a statement that denies the efficacy of water baptism. The same is done with the thief on the cross – “well the thief on the cross was never baptize!” – Duh! he was an OT character.
Again, as I have said several times above and in the other threads – I don’t accept purposeful error just because it comes in book or movie form – even fiction if it is claiming to be Christian. If others want to accept error, hey this is America where even Rob Bell can be hailed as the great Christian American spokesperson.
MLD
I agree with you about the movie.
Was John baptizing anyone but Jews? what did they understand this baptism to be?
Why were they baptized?
If baptism saves, it’s a work and just as dangerous a teaching as a false message of the Godhead through this movie.
That was the point.
Peter- Believe and be baptized = salvation
Paul-believe=salvation
1 Cor 12:13
Gal 3:27,29
NT- Baptized INTO Christ in Spirit (not water)
As soon as I got this, it cleared up all the gray areas of baptism. (I used to debate with you here about this)!
“The fact that you find false teaching acceptable if it is on the movie screen makes me cringe a bit.”
Not a fact. Never said that. You are being obtuse and I am done.
Getting ready to run – but the chant here has been from the beginning
We know there are errors
We know that he does not touch on orthodox doctrine
It’s only fiction
People walk away feeling good.
The walking away and feeling good trumps everything else.
Well, after reading some of these posts, I guess I’m a heretic. I guess I better turn in my Evangelical Card.
No, MLD, the chant has been that Christians must warn each other and everyone else all the time of anything that may be in error (even if we disagree on what ‘correct’ teaching really is) and we are careless, lousy believers if we don’t.
This is such nonsense.
Sometimes the pain of living in a fallen world creates impenetrable barriers to emotional and spiritual health.
If a movie or a song, or a painting can penetrate that barrier and allow someone to entertain the possibility of a good and loving God, I will not rail against the source, but build on the opportunity to bring someone back into a full life of faith.
If that makes me a heretic, than so be it.
My concern is for the souls and hearts of people.
You know, there are 1,000s of crap Christian books published every year and no one says anything about them – so what is it that stands out in a book like the Shack that brings out some to say “well this may cross the line”? Perhaps there is something there that makes those thoughts cross the line.
Remember Michael, your first article was your belief that anyone who would criticize the book was wrong or evil on some level. (Tim Chalies sp)
Bob Sweat,
You are getting very near the kingdom. I have been advising people here for over 10 yrs to get rid of their evangelical card. 😉
it is a sad thing to think that one would depend upon the elements of this fallen world to effect their redemption…
i am quite sure that the lost soul wandering the desert of North Africa living on camel milk, dates, tea made of questionable liquid and unable to take a bubble bath in a tub of warm water can find Christ, accept God’s provision of redemption and ultimately enter into eternity a saved soul… playing the evangelical card, but bone dry
and the good keepers of the host, upon meeting him there, will most likely say, “well, we needed water, wine and matzo to hold onto the Truth” and that’s alright, too – probably
it’s a sunny, blue sky’d Sunday morning and i’m just sitting here thinking… and sayin
“Remember Michael, your first article was your belief that anyone who would criticize the book was wrong or evil on some level. (Tim Chalies sp)”
I said no such thing as anyone who reads the article can clearly see for themselves.
Nobody here is making a case for Paul Young’s orthodoxy.
No one.
Hasn’t happened.
Not even once.
What you do have is a godly desire to not invalidate those people who get a spiritual benefit that can be built on.
I could care less about whether you want to do so or not, I’m going to be there not just to warn, but mostly to edify.
Well we are making progress. This is the first time you have mentioned warning someone about the book or movie.
I misspoke. The only warning I gave them was to make sure to lock the car at the theatre.
Have to chime in on getting rid of the evangelical card. I couldn’t agree more. However, MLD, you should lose the Lutheran card. Are you a Christian or a Lutheran? A disciple of Christ or Luther? Stop following or at least advertising that you follow a man. Advertise that you follow Christ and for God’s sakes show it a little more on this blog.
Heck people claimed to follow Paul and cast out demons, what did that get them?
Oh and telling Bob he is getting close to the kingdom. Wow, are you the keeper of the keys, now? Is this what Lutherans do? Good grief, man. Do you really believe half the stuff you write here or are you just trying to stir the pot?
OCDan,
Do I need to buy you Blogging for Dummies? Screen names don’t mean anything other than to be a cute identifier.
Second, the may have a FAQ section that would allow you to ask – what does a ? at the end of a comment mean.
Are you really wound that tight? And this 🙂
No are you usually wound this tight?
Also, for someone who takes the faith so seriously, I am surprised by how light you make of it when called out, but when it is others, look out.
Anyway, ok Martin’s disciple.
I guess Martin’s anti-semitic and sexist views were just a big fat joke, as well.
My point being, I guess it’s all a when you get called out, but it is ok for you to call out others. Not kosher, martin.
OCDan,
Let’s play out this name thing. I assume, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but I am feeling that you represent the beast in Revelation as your name identifies the rule of human government and we know that the common understanding is that the beast rules man’s government and comes against the people of God.
Would this be true Orange County Dan? 😉
If you have noticed, I never take offense as I am unoffendable. You want to knock Luther – go right ahead. the man called the Pope a fart, he drank too much (if there is such a thing) had difficulty with the jews at the end of his life – I don’t know about his ‘sexist’ views. He did like Kate brewing his beer for him.The man had many faults but correct theology.
and btw, me and Sweaty Bob have been busting each other’s balls in a light hearted way for 10 yrs
Say what you will but I ask you again are you are Christian, or, a Lutheran? Do you follow a man-made system, or, Christ.
Both is not a viable answer.
BTW, you may be unoffendable, but that combined with many other statements over time, lead me to believe that you have a load of pride.
And please don’t use the busting everyone’s chops line. That ain’t gonna fly, esp. since you have led us to believe that you are a Lutheran. What is it man? Martin’s disciple or a follower of Christ? See, you missed my point. You get on several here about using the Shack as a starting point, but can’t even see the problem you would cause someone thinking you follow Martin and not Jesus.
Oh, and no I am not the beast, but if you want to believe that I am go ahead. At least I am not calling myself an Orange County Christian disciple. OC is just for the location, if you care to know.
I identify Lutheran as synonymous with Christian.
MLD
Is a Christian saved by grace or works?
Hannah, I will put the best construction on your question and answer as if it is not a trick.
By Grace alone with no activity at all on our part.
I would recommend reading Luther’s Bondage of the Will – as he explains to the Christians of his day why they have it wrong.
Does baptism (infant) impart grace?
How about regeneration?
This isn’t a trick.
Its a simple question of whether we are saved by grace or works.
Baptism is the method God has chosen to deliver the salvation Jesus won for us on the cross. Now in a way we are saved by works – but the works are the works of Jesus.
Now my turn to ask a question. In your view how is that salvation, won on the cross 2,000 years ago in a specific location perhaps 9,000 miles away – how is that salvation delivered to the Christian?
“Does baptism (infant) impart grace?
How about regeneration?”
It’s the most beautiful gift imaginable. To be given God as Father, the Son as Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier. All this by Word and at the command of Jesus Christ. Who would deny the grace of God to anyone?
MLD
Please link scriptural support for your views.
Thanks
MLD
My question to you.
How was that salvation on the cross 2000 years ago, delivered to Abraham?
Now my turn to ask a question. In your view how is that salvation, won on the cross 2,000 years ago in a specific location perhaps 9,000 miles away – how is that salvation delivered to the Christian?”
It’s by faith, not by delivery.
I find this to be the weakest argument for baptismal regeneration…I actually find it to be ridiculous.
As if we are delivered salvation like a UPS package…
Agreed Michael
“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.””
Michaels, your view is salvation received by pixie dust.
The Gnostic view is always a refusal to acknowledge any physical means in salvation. The reformed confession is “proof”
Joel, you have a big hole in your theological view there. One cannot confess Jesus as Lord until after you are saved.
So confessing Jesus as Lord is not causal.
MLD,
I have not refused anything…I said I find that theological construction weak.
Do you really believe that I am a Gnostic?
I’m tired of shots like that thrown out as if they are inconsequential…if you think me a Gnostic, you think me a heretic and enemy of the faith and I will have to address that strongly.
You need to answer this one clearly.
Michael,
So you say salvation is not be delivery but by faith.
LOL – now I know you may muster up your own faith – you may reach way down in your bowels to create you faith – but my friend faith has been deliver to me. Faith has been delivered by God to any person who is saved. Perhaps you misspoke again 😉
Michaels, I only stated what the gnostic view is regarding physical means of grace. You will need to determine if that describes you position.
So the question is, are there any physical means of grace involved in salvation?
I have nothing to say that is the least bit godly right now, so I will take my leave.
For the record, I am not a Gnostic, nor do I believe man can generate faith from within.
I am quite angry so off for the night.
MLD refuses to acknowledge a Spirit baptism despite the clear reference of Jesus to such a thing. It’s one thing to have a different view, another to ignore verses inconvenient to your doctrine.
He has previously declared when questioned that a parent taking their infant to church to be baptized that is in a deadly car accident in transit would still be saved.
And all this talk about God’s grace and our inability yet in the other thread he mocks eternal security and over the years has argued that our human efforts can separate us from Christ unto damnation.
His theology may be true to standard Lutheranism but has more holes than Duke’s defense this afternoon.
In that little flurry I think I missed Hannah’s question above.
“Please link scriptural support for your views.”
Well I think you know what they are but I’ll play because I lovemaking this point.
Acts 2:38 – “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” — I take repent and be baptized as one action (repent / be baptized)
Titus 3:4-5 – “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,”
Romans 6:3-4 “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”
Col 2:12 – ” having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
Gal 3:27 – “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
And I am sure you know the others. So my question is what value is there in baptism. The scriptures seem very clear that if you are baptized then you have died and been buried with Jesus and raised to new life. – so what about the one not baptized?
The scriptures then again are clear that if you have been baptized you have been clothed with Christ — and if you have not been baptized?
Darn – I am stuck in links moderation.
Steve, Can you tell me why water baptism is not spirit baptism. My claim is that water baptism is Jesus’ baptism to us. Paul says there is one baptism – the Nicene Creed says there is one baptism – Steve Wright says there are 2 baptisms …. hmmm, who to follow here?
Steve, every time you bring up the tragic tear jerker about the baby in the car accident you make the same error. The question was not do you need to be baptized to be save – the question was does baptism save?
Obviously you follow the theological standard of ready, fire, aim – because you missed on all points.
Also, if you haven’t commented on this week’s Weekend word I ask that you do – and answer Jesus about the unforgiving Christian.
and the question is still on the table – are there any physical means required for salvation?
You don’t need to be baptized to be saved?
Thanks for the affirmation.
MLD: “So confessing Jesus as Lord is not causal.”
I dont think it is. It is a work of the Holy Spirit through the hearing / reading of the Word. God creates faith in us.
MLD: “how is that salvation delivered to the Christian?”
Faith. Period.
From the LCMS website:
“The LCMS does not believe that Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. All true believers in the Old Testament era were saved without baptism. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of Baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God).”
MLD, I congratulate you that you have arrived at the place you know your own heart. Mine is still desperately wicked.
However I am grateful that my understanding of Scripture does not necessitate me to perfectly, purely, forgive someone from the heart. I fear there may be a time now and again where I forgive out of obedience. I would hate to know that Christ’s blood is not sufficient to offset my failings in this area over the years and to be surprised at judgement day that my works came up short and I was damned.
I don’t engage Weekend Word because it is futile to do so. And frankly, I don’t think anyone reading (but Jean) sees it like you do, yet nobody else seems interested in straightening you out either.
Joel – is that anything different than what I said? Your point?
My statement was baptism saves – not that you had to be baptized to be saved.
Steve,
“MLD, I congratulate you that you have arrived at the place you know your own heart.”
I do understand the place of my own heart – I confess it every week in front of God and all my friends.
“I don’t engage Weekend Word because it is futile to do so.” Why is discussion futile? Look, we are doing it here.
MLD,
You believe the Holy Spirit works in the waters of Baptism to create faith, thereby saving, right? So in the end you we can all agree that salvation is delivered to the Christian through faith. I’m glad everyone can finally agree on something in this thread. 😉
Last week you said you refused to engage on Jean’s thread – now today on mine? I think this goes back to the old “Lutherans aren’t Christians” bigotry held by CC all these years.
I take no ‘shots’ in my lesson – it is just the transcription of my class notes.
I will close on this as I think it is one of the most powerful saving baptism verses and it shows that the baptism being spoken of is water baptism.
Acts 22:16 = “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’” Ananias speaking to Paul
Yeah. That must be it, MLD. I’m just another CC bigot doubting the salvation of all non CC people. After 8 years on this blog you finally figured me out.
You might take better notes about who at this blog makes a point about casting judgement on the faith and the doctrine of brothers in Christ.
Meanwhile, I was just explaining my declination of your offer to debate your study.
“of your offer to debate your study.”
I didn’t offer to debate – I asked you to leave a comment as you had made a false claim about my view of OSAS.
“about casting judgement on the faith and the doctrine of brothers in Christ.”
I guess this may be a point of view issue.
I commented on why I thought the church should warn about the book / movie The Shack and I have taken a beating as someone who will not let people make up their own mind,
Hannah asked me questions about baptism and when I answered her questions, ya’ll jumped my bones. I was asked my opinion and you guys must have thought it would have been better if I had given your answers.
So from your point of view it is OK for you to judge and discredit my faith and doctrine. Funny how that works.
and, perhaps you should take over writing the Weekend Word – lets see how ecumenical you can be.
#122 Steve
I don’t want to get caught up in this thread, except to say most liturgical churches that perform infant baptism acknowledge a particular role of the Holy Spirit that, while connected to water baptism, is clearly something different. In some traditions, the priest/pastor actually says, “Receive the Holy Spirit”, in other traditions the anointing with oil (chrismation) is a remnant in the rite. Historically, Confirmation (at the age of consent) also alluded to the reception of the Holy Spirit. In short, liturgical churches have struggled with a “formalized” manner with which to indicate the reception of the Holy Spirit. I hope this helps a bit…
MLD
I want to thank you for 9 years ago and the exchange we had here on water baptism.
I say this because I have had many years of confusion due to the gospel accounts of water baptism ( John) vs Paul’s commission.
The verses you gave me are not references to water baptism.
The verses you gave me are baptism ” into Christ”, at salvation, not water baptism.
I am finally clear, after years of struggle, and almost leaving the faith over this issue.
John the Baptist was baptising Jews who were circumcised and under the law of Moses just as Jesus was. In Acts 22:16, Ananias was a Jew who had been under the law as Paul was before Paul’s ministry to Gentiles.
Water baptism is not a commandment to the Gentiles in the body of Christ, although there were Jewish converts in the Corinthian church ( followers of Peter) because they abstained from meats sacrificed to idols, etc ( that used to bug me bc I knew we were no longer under the law, and that was not for Gentiles)… And there were still people speaking in tongues . So we know there were Jews..obviously from Peter.
We are complete in Christ Col 2:10-23.
Can’t confuse spiritual baptism with water.
Water was not commanded in body of Christ like any other commandments.
There are no longer any physical ordinances as when Jesus was in early as a Jew under the law.
MLD you were a Jew. You took pride years ago telling me you were no longer a Jew.I’m surprised you believe there are any physical ordinances or law you can be under to have salvation or right standing with God.
I remember our exchanges here.
Do you keep the law?
Have you sold everything you have and given it to your church?
I admit for years I would read what Jesus said to the law abiding ( so they thought they were) Jews, and then I would read Paul’s writings and it just seemed like a totally different thing.. Especially on the word ” baptism”..
God bringing in Paul to the Gentiles ended any requirement of works on our Part.
Grace verses
2 Cor 5:14-6:3
Ephesians 3:1-9
Col 1:25-28
One baptism under grace.
Paul was not instructed to water baptize.
I see I am moderated. I spent a lot of time on my post and I hope it will be allowed. For me it was a life changing understanding of a conflict that took many years to come to terms with.
If there is disagreement, I hope it can be discussed.
Thank you
Hannah, I am too busy at work to engage, but I must ask – are you a mid Acts dispensationalist? (sometimes identified as an Acts 9 dispensationalist?
And real quick – I am no longer Jewish and all of the Jewish laws have passed on the scene just as I have.
There is nothing in the OT that is binding on the Christian just because it is in the OT.
If I may, I don’t see a lot of response to anything I have to input
But from my own experience and reading through the subject in scripture
There were many baptisms. Christ had to undergo the baptism of death by torture and crucifixion. We are baptised by the Holy Spirit and He baptised by fire. Jews had ceremonial baptisms for proselytes. Went there also Levitical baptisms? Baptism was pretty common among pagan religions before or after sexual rituals, if I’m not mistaken . They could be physically baptised into many things, or for many reasons. Therefore the water is symbolic, but what matters is the circumcision of the heart, regeneration. This has to happen before someone chooses to undergo water baptism, so the immersing in water is simply a physical manifestation of a spiritual reality (infants cannot choose to receive anything).
“…. but what matters is the circumcision of the heart, regeneration. This has to happen before someone chooses to undergo water baptism, so the immersing in water is simply a physical manifestation of a spiritual reality (infants cannot choose to receive anything).”
Siggy, this pew-sitter agrees with you. I can’t bring myself to believe that the Holy Spirit creates faith through Baptism. I think a “believers Baptism” is the Biblical Baptism. I’m not saying I’m correct. Just my opinion.
In short, liturgical churches have struggled with a “formalized” manner with which to indicate the reception of the Holy Spirit. I hope this helps a bit…
———————————————–
Thank you, Duane. I appreciate the input.
Personally, I see no such struggle as I study the Scripture.
Of course, I reject any value in infant baptism as well. The moment of the Spiritual birth is the moment of the indwelling of the Spirit, also known as the baptism of the Spirit, (I reject the Pentecostal, secondary, definition). I believe in Christ, and at that instant I am placed by the Spirit into the Body of Christ, no longer identified as “in Adam”
As John writes in the Prologue, one is given the authority to become a child of God upon believing in His Name.
Water baptism is the physical, visible, witness to the spiritual, invisible reality. Baptism meaning at its core, the idea of identification. I identify as in Christ, not in Adam.
We also are sealed by the Spirit at that moment (until the day of our redemption), a 1st century seal of course speaking to ownership and security, thus I also uphold to the security of the believer in Christ and find it no small matter that the infant baptism churches, of which I recognize there are many and varied, nonetheless typically also have some sort of secondary confirmation (as you noted), and some sort of doctrinal allowance for becoming “unsaved” down the line when the infant baptism no longer means squat doodle. (from the latin squaturus doodulrum 🙂 )
This is old ground on this blog for me, so I’ll leave it at that.
#146 Steve
To see the real issues around all of this, you need only look at Catholic Charismatics… they have experienced something real and struggle to place it within the sacramental system and liturgy of the RC Church.
So in Acts 22 when Ananias tells Paul to get up and be baptized to wash away his sin and to call on the name of the Lord – did Ananias water baptize Paul or do something else? Simply, did Paul get wet?
“Hannah, I am too busy at work to engage, but I must ask – are you a mid Acts dispensationalist? (sometimes identified as an Acts 9 dispensationalist?”
I don’t even know what that is.
I have been an evangelical with many questions about water baptism for many years.
I have been a Baptist, with still more questions about water baptism.
Why is it necessary to label someone anyway?
I have studied all of Pauls writings and I do not see water baptism anywhere.
Do you?
I already stated Paul was water baptized by a Jew who got water baptized.
The more important question to me is where is water Baptism in the verses you gave me?
Because the word “baptized ” is used., does that mean it was water?
And more importantly, how about those verses I posted?
Grace verses
2 Cor 5:14-6:3
Ephesians 3:1-9
Col 1:25-28
One baptism under grace.
Paul was not instructed to water baptize.
I have to admit, Michael awhile back had challenged me about being a legalist.
I think if I were to be honest, I didn’t fully understand salvation by grace..by faith alone.
I have spent all my time reading only Pauls writings and now I understand..and have much more peace in my life.
Baptism is a work..
This discussion is what happens when you utterly divorce the church from history.
The earliest church, including those who were the disciples of John, practiced baptism.
There has never been a day in the history of the Christian church when we did not baptize converts to the faith.
Not one.
Never.
We can argue over the form and function of the rite,but to say it unneccesary is historical and biblical heresy.
OK so I guess the scripture references moderate me…
Steve Wright
Everything you are saying about baptism (water) was fed to me by my Calvary Chapel Pastor.
It just didn’t compute with me.
If it is not necessary for salvation, then why do it?
I was told it was “an outward sign of a inward change”..
But was Johns baptism this?
No it wasn’t…They (The Jews under the law) repented and were baptized for the remission of sins…
So this is the conflict I had with believers baptism.
When Paul speaks of baptism, it is always unto salvation..immersed in Christ, not water. You cant apply water to his epistles and writings..There were baptized Jews (by John) in the churches when Paul began..hence the mention of the foods etc.
I had to get answers to my frustrations and when I finally realized that water baptism was for Jews when the Messiah came on the scene under the law, and not for Gentiles…it all started to come together for me. It bugged me for 15 years.
“The earliest church, including those who were the disciples of John, practiced baptism.”
Jews? or Gentiles?
Where is the references (Paul) for water baptism?
We baptize because Christ commanded us to.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
(Matthew 28:19 ESV)
The early church baptized all converts regardless of ethnicity or prior beliefs.
“While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,“Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.”
(Acts 10:44–48 ESV)
Hannah,
“Because the word “baptized ” is used., does that mean it was water?”
As I said earlier – Paul says there is one baptism and the Nicene Creed says there is one baptism. Why wouldn’t it be water?
The reason I asked if you were mid Acts dispensationalist is that is their calling card – everything up until Acts 9 is old Jewish stuff – still a part of the old covenant and that the NT times really begin with the branching out to the gentiles – and yes they claim baptism as an OT rite. It’s not a label – and you are not against labels as you self identified with a different label – evangelical.
Paul practiced baptism…
“I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”
(1 Corinthians 1:10–17 ESV)
Hannah,
Not to get pedantic on you, but
Was Jesus baptised? Why? Didn’t he tell us to baptise?
In what are we to baptise and how was he telling us to fulfill the great commission?
Michael
I do think it is necessary, not for regeneration or salvation, but perhaps in some ways for sanctification.
What Hannah believes is that “water” baptism is not spoken of. There are many here that believe any kind of baptism mentioned along with salvation (sin removal, granting of the Holy Spirit etc) is a dehydrated baptism.
I find it laughable – but I am trying to be nicer here on this first day of spring. 😉
Water baptism was the practice of the church from it’s beginnings in the book of Acts.
I have a hard time believing that such would even be called into question.
?
Interesting
When folks make the claim about Jesus being under the law as a Jew, they forget he was of gentile blood as well. The Jewish God got baptised a gentile, too.
that’s right! It is the first day of spring!
Good day for some baseball 🙂
And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
Obviously the eunuch was saved by Grace through faith before they came upon the water…
I really think we are missing the point dealing with the “chronology” of salvation…
We have clear NT and early Church evidence, even down to 2nd century baptistries that have survived intact. The issue is the meaning of baptism. How about this –
Q. What is Holy Baptism?
A. Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ’s Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God.
Q. What is the outward and visible sign in Baptism?
A. The outward and visible sign in Baptism is water, in which the person is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace in Baptism?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in Baptism is union with Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God’s family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit.
Q. What is required of us at Baptism?
A. It is required that we renounce Satan, repent of our sins, and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
and from the 39 Articles…
XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
We baptize because Christ commanded us to.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
Are we called disciples or Saints?
“Are we called disciples or Saints?”
Christians are called both.
Jean is correct.
I don’t understand the point of the question.
Siggy
Was Jesus baptised? Why? Didn’t he tell us to baptise?
In what are we to baptise and how was he telling us to fulfill the great commission?
Who said Jesus is telling this to us?
He was telling it to His apostles.
The great commission was to His apostles.
Did Paul give the great commission to anyone?
You see, for years my Jewish brother who was the President of his synagogue argued with me that Paul started a “new religion”. If I were honest, for years I wondered why the Jews have no problem with Jesus as a teacher and man of miracles..(of course they dont accept the Messiah part)..
As I began to focus on the gospels vs Paul, I had to admit this guy Paul started alongside Peter and the others, but started drifting away from what I read in the gospels (also in Acts)…and I had to come to terms with baptism being very different in the epistles…
Anyway, We can agree to disagree…
When John the Baptist was baptizing, I dont think anyone here will argue that it was a different baptism.
It was for the Jews who were under the law who understood ceremonial washings, and thought they were OK with God by their circumcision and attempt at observance.
So if now we have a “believers baptism”..after salvation..with no repentance (yes the churches tell you to come forward and ask God to forgive you of your sin)…and then at some later time be baptized..it is not what John was doing was it?
I will exit quietly…. peace..
..Peter said “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”..
Did Paul say this?
Is there anything we have to do (according to Paul) to be saved besides “Believe”?
This is why I finally understand grace!
Paul addressed us as Saints, not disciples…
Hannah,
Wait a minute.
You came here asking for answers (that you received in abundance ) and run off without interacting with any of it.
I don’t appreciate that…people took the time to respond.
Your playing off the various books of the NT against each other is the mark of a false teacher.
Your refusal to engage with the historical and theological stance of the church is another one.
I don’t know what “research” you’re doing but your sources are greatly flawed.
If you want to research baptism, I suggest Ferguson’s “Baptism In the Early Church”…It’s very large, but deals with the earliest records of the church.
best I can tell, the very, very, very last word on The Shack was at around #100…
Fil…I believe you are right and we can all thank God together… 🙂
Michael
It was a gracious act to go off this thread..as confirmed by Filbertz.
I was asking MLD for water baptism verses and all the ones he gave me from Pauls epistles are NOT water.
He did not engage in answering this.
The research I have done is reading Pauls epistles over and over again, and comparing it to Jesus and the gospels.
If you remember about 7 years ago, some cam eon here and talked about the ‘red letters”..that they will only believe this. I think it was G man.
I know you are angry with my posts and this has happened before, so believe it or not, I was doing everyone here a favor by bowing out, not to get you aggravated. Maybe you don’t see it that way but that is my heart.
I also dont have the time that I did 9 years ago when I wasnt working.
Paul baptized with water.
Paul wrote about baptism and everyone in the church would have known that baptism involves water.
Your “research” has led to to a conclusion that has been refuted by the whole church for all the ages.
Unless you are a new apostle, I suggest more research that involves sources other than yourself.
You came here asking for answers (that you received in abundance ) and run off without interacting with any of it.
_____________
I dont think that’s fair.
I asked MLD where water is in the verses he gave me (excluding Acts) and he avoided me.
For some reason, I have the ability to aggravate you, and you make accusations that are unfair towards me, and hurtful. If you think I’m a heretic (the comment about heresy), I think you should be patient with me. I do know that this is a tight group, and I do get the hint.
Thanks for the interaction.
For the record. My comment should not lead to any conclusion that water baptism is optional or meaningless. Obeying the commands of Jesus Christ are never either for those things.
I’ve shared my baptism experience in India. The privilege I had to baptize those who I was told were “ready for baptism”. I asked what this meant and was told “they have counted the cost of discipleship”. That they could go to Sunday services, read Bibles and remain relatively unhastled by their Hindu neighbors.
Once baptized publicly though, and thus definitively identifying publicly with Jesus Christ and Him alone, forsaking the gods of the village, THEN they were at risk of their house being burned to the ground, or even physical violent persecution against them. I know several who have suffered there.
The notion these dear saints I baptized were not yet empowered by God’s Spirit, were not yet saved until they got in the water, is madness. However, to rush new professors into the water was something the local pastors would not do, unlike in America.
These were MLDs verses
Acts 2:38 – “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” — I take repent and be baptized as one action (repent / be baptized)
Titus 3:4-5 – “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,”
Romans 6:3-4 “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”
Col 2:12 – ” having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
Gal 3:27 – “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
Other than the first (which was repent and be baptized for forgiveness of sin–do we do that now?) the others are not water in my opinion.
How were we buried in Him with baptism (and this is water)?
Thats not what the baptism of John was.
If baptized into his death is water..Jesus was still alive when he was baptized.
These are the issues I struggled with.
Baptism spoken of by Paul is baptism of the Spirit at salvation.
When we are saved we are in New life in Christ. Immersed with Him. It is no longer I who live but Christ…
I have to get back to work.
Moderation ^^^
Hannah – here is where you and I disagree … and I probably disagree with many here. The Creeds say that there is only one baptism – can you show me where baptism doesn’t mean washing of some sort? I don’t have time right now to go into the difinition but I think the word was chosen because it was a common Greek word for washing – even washing utensils, tables etc.
So why would a ‘wet’ word be chosen to describe a ‘dry’ event. Again, Paul and the Creeds say one baptism – and baptisms are wet. When a person is baptized into water that is a spirit baptism as that is who is doing the baptizing. A water baptism is into Christ – in acts2 when the 3,000 were water baptized it says they were added to the church.
To claim that any baptism does not involve water is twisting words and actually contrary to the Christian faith.
So where does Paul say water baptism? Every time he uses the word.
Not totally unrelated, one of the hardest things in ministry I have ever done was when I was asked by the local pastoral leader to write a letter to a young man who I taught and who was serving the Lord there in India (in what we might see as an intern position, if there is such a thing among the barefoot pastors) after he was badly beaten for the faith shortly after I left.
How does one compose such a letter from the security of his American office…..
“Other than the first (which was repent and be baptized for forgiveness of sin–do we do that now?) the others are not water in my opinion.”
When your opinion puts you outside of the witness of 2000 years of church history and practice, that should cause you grave concern.
By the way, describing this as a “Tight knit group” is borderline hysterical.
There are people reading here from all over the world, from every different Christian tradition.
The regular commenters here agree with each other about as often as we have solar eclipses…
MLD, as I have told you many times, tracing the word back before the Church used it, the word speaks to a dipping process that connects to a change of identification. An immersion.
Example. Immerse a white tunic into purple dye. That is the use of the word. Thereafter that item is identified as a purple tunic.
This is why the word can be applied in very non water/washing ways such as we see of hardship or trials where the word is used in that identification sense.
Didn’t I send you my Masters Thesis once? I cover this ground there.
Steve,
” the word speaks to a dipping process that connects to a change of identification. An immersion. ” I would assume that dipping and immersion is into something wet … in the original meaning.
I remember reading your paper some time ago – probably 6-7 years ago. If I remember correctly it was a denial of 1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,” — but I could be wrong – old age and the mad cow do that to you 😉
That was just a little 2 or 3 page exegetical assignment for my Greek 3 class. Not my 100 page Thesis.
“Other than the first (which was repent and be baptized for forgiveness of sin–do we do that now?) the others are not water in my opinion.”
When your opinion puts you outside of the witness of 2000 years of church history and practice, that should cause you grave concern.
________________
Ok leaving aside my opinion, what about “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins” part?
Is that what Paul is commanding when he is baptizing?
Do we need to repent and be baptized now?
If so, isn’t that a work?
Does Paul say “Believe”? (acts16:31)
…or do we need to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins… to be saved?
Wasn’t Paul doing a different thing than when John the Baptist was showing the Jews their Messiah?
I believe God gave me the Bible so I can read it and understand it.
Either its the same baptism of John, or it’s a different one.
One baptism of water, one baptism of Spirit in New life at salvation.
I never believed the second blessing. I also prayed for 7 years for the gift of tongues and never got it..I understand why…
Hannah – the repenting and baptizing are works — they are works of Jesus for our benefit.
This is why infant baptism is so wonderful – Jesus repents them, gives them the holy spirit through his word and the water – and the baby does nothing – except sleep and perhaps poop his / her diaper – and cries as the old baby resists the creation of the new baby.
God does it all and has chosen to do it through baptism.
Understanding the origin and secular use of the word before the Church helps me in this way.
As I am immersed in the water of baptism, I am identifying with Christ’s death. We even lower the person in the same manner (face up, backwards like in a coffin). Having been buried in the water, I am then raised up, identifying with His resurrection.
Understanding this identification aspect, Spirit baptism speaks to the change in identification as being in Adam to now in Christ (at moment of salvation). For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jew or Gentile. For “in Christ ” there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
This is what Jesus promised His apostles before His ascension in the opening of Acts, fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.
“As I am immersed in the water of baptism, I am identifying with Christ’s death.”
I prefer “”As I am immersed in the water of baptism, I am taken into Christ’s death and as I am raised I am raised into his new life.” An actual happening – not just an identity.
Here is the difference – baptism to you, the identifying part is like me identifying with the Dodgers when I put on my Dodgers cap.
Baptism to me is Jesus signing me to the contract and making me his (or in the story line – making me an actual Dodger — not just identifying. 😉
Steve – as I was driving home I was thinking – you just said the same thing about water baptism in your first paragrah as you said about spirit baptism in the 2nd.
Your confusion comes as you should not separate the two – there is only one baptism … water baptism is spirit baptism – is baptism into Christ.
Doing theology the way you do is the reason you end up with far too many 2nd comings and too many judgements. 🙂
Hannah,
No one here has stated that one absolutely must be baptized to be saved.
However, the commands still apply.
“I believe God gave me the Bible so I can read it and understand it.”
When my understanding contradicts the whole of 2000 years of orthodoxy, something has gone seriously wrong.
“Wasn’t Paul doing a different thing than when John the Baptist was showing the Jews their Messiah?”
I defer to one of my teachers, the esteemed John Stott;
“It is well known that John the Baptist (according to the four evangelists) contrasted his own water-baptism with the Spirit-baptism which the Messiah would administer: ‘I baptize you with water… He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit’ (Matt 3:11).
In view of this contrast, we would expect that when Jesus Christ began to baptize with the Spirit, all baptism with water would cease. The fact that water-baptism continued, by special command of the risen Christ, suggests that it now intended to signify the very Spirit-baptism with which it had previously been contrasted. The pouring of water by which we receive the baptism of water, dramatizes the outpouring of the Spirit by which we receive the baptism of the Spirit. Peter seems to have understood this on the Day of Pentecost, for, having interpreted the coming of the Spirit as the fulfillment of God’s promise to pour out his Spirit on all flesh, he said: ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to
your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him’ (Acts 2:38, 39). Here baptism is associated with both the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit.
These two blessings were distinctive blessings of the New Covenant promised by God through the prophets. Baptism is therefore to be understood as an eschatological sacrament, inasmuch as it initiates into the New Covenant which belongs to the New Age. It does this by incorporating us into Christ, for Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, and the bestower of its blessings.
To sum up, baptism signifies union with Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection, involving the end of the old life (through the forgiveness of sins) and the beginning of a new life (through the gift of the Spirit). Alternatively, baptism signifies union with Christ bringing both justification (a once for all cleansing and acceptance) and regeneration (a new birth by the Spirit unto a life of righteousness). To these three meanings of baptism we must add that incorporation into Christ includes incorporation into the Body of Christ, the Church.”
Michael
It is 10 PM my time.
I will look over your post tomorrow when I am less tired.
Thanks
The fact that water-baptism continued, by special command of the risen Christ, suggests that it now intended to signify the very Spirit-baptism with which it had previously been contrasted. The pouring of water by which we receive the baptism of water, dramatizes the outpouring of the Spirit by which we receive the baptism of the Spirit.
—————————————————
Yes and yes.
“To sum up, baptism signifies union with Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection, involving the end of the old life (through the forgiveness of sins) and the beginning of a new life (through the gift of the Spirit)” – Yes. I say almost these exact words when I baptize someone.
“Alternatively, baptism signifies union with Christ bringing both justification (a once for all cleansing and acceptance) and regeneration (a new birth by the Spirit unto a life of righteousness). To these three meanings of baptism we must add that incorporation into Christ includes incorporation into the Body of Christ, the Church.” – Yes again. The moment of salvation, the instant of the new birth.
Your confusion comes as you should not separate the two – there is only one baptism … water baptism is spirit baptism – is baptism into Christ.
——————————————————————–
If this is what you believe, then how can you say that water baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Can we agree that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the litmus test of Christianity.
“Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” (Rom 8:9b)
If in fact the Spirit does not indwell the person (infant or otherwise) until they are baptized in water, then there is no salvation apart from water baptism.
Michael wrote, “No one here has stated that one absolutely must be baptized to be saved.” – MLD sure seems to come as close as possible if one just reasons out his argument to its necessary conclusion….
“Can we agree that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the litmus test of Christianity.”
No we certainly cannot agree.
The litmus test for Christianity (if one is to speak so crassly) is whether you believe (i.e., trust) that Christ died for your sins and that for His sake God has forgiven you all your sins. If you have that faith, then you have the Holy Spirit, because without the Holy Spirit you cannot believe. It is the Holy Spirit which bestows faith.
To try and make the Holy Spirit a litmus test, (1) puts the cart before the horse, and (2) is extremely poor soul care for anyone. We have the Holy Spirit by faith. If you are telling people to search around inside their heart or mind for the Holy Spirit, you are depriving them of the assurance that one has in the promises of Christ, the only One who never lies and deceives.
Steve,
“If this is what you believe, then how can you say that water baptism is not necessary for salvation. ”
I will answer in a way that you do not understand as it seems your entire Christian faith is built on properly tied down understanding of words. I never say that baptism is not necessary -I said that it is not absolutely necessary. As I said, in your world of everything has to be tightly bound or it is not Biblical (your continual parsing of Greek words) you do not understand. But I must allow for the pastor who teaching against the efficacy of water baptism continually runs to the edges to find the child, being brought to the church for baptism gets killed – not just in an auto accident, but an horrific auto accident.
But you never have answered my question (and you probably still won’t) – what do you do when Paul says that there is only one baptism – and the creed that says there is only one baptism? If it is indeed your version of a dehydrated “spirit baptism” then there is no value to water baptism as there is only one baptism.
But more important is your role as a pastor and what you have been commanded to do. As we know being a Christian, a believer and a disciple are all the same thing. So when Jesus commands that you go into the world he says that pastors are to do certain things – one is to make Christians – it says it right there, make Christians. How does a pastor make a Christian?
Michael
I read your 195..
The only thing missing is Paul.
Earlier I asked whether Paul taught “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and you shall recieve the Holy Spirit”?
Pauls was —saved by grace through faith–no works
Peter on the other hand (your paragraph confirms)..beiieve+baptism=salvation (MLD would agree)
So here is the dilema.
So who was being baptized in the Jordan?
It was Jews under the law.
Gentiles are and never were under the law.
These Jews woudl have understood ceremonial washings..the way to get to God’s presence.
So there was anew message..your circumcision is not enough..You are not right with God through your works pf the law..so repent of it and be saved..
Tulian T and I had a conversation years ago when he told me that baptism replaced the sign of circumcision. He gave me a DVD from his Orlando seminary professor to support this. In it he said that Jesus replaced circumcision with baptism.I dont believe that.
I guess it all really depends on your view of God’s plans for the Jews and whether you adhere to replacement theology..
Also if you believe there will be a literal kingdom on earth and millenial reign of Christ to finish His plan to His people.
Anyway, I hope the issue of Pauls “Believe” vs Peters “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” issue can be dealt with first..maybe thats the starting point.
I will be working today so I will check in..or we can just leave the subject.
I like to have references in scripture rather than men..and what they say.
I like to open my Bible and have God speak to me through the Word.
..one more on the subject of the kingdom..
John the baptist (as per Exodus 19) was baptizing in the Jordan to fulfill Gods promises to Israel-that it would be a kingdom of priests..hence the Matthew 3:2
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Acts 8 is a good example how a pastor is to make Christians. Philip went to where God called him, found a prospect and help him understand the scriptures. I am sure Philip brought the Ethiopian to the brink of understanding and salvation.
Now the question is was water baptism a part of that teaching? I think it was. One thing we note is that when they began to ride off we do not see any rejoicing on the new found salvation. Why? Because it was not there yet.
Now we do know that Philip taught water baptism as part of his message because as soon as they are passing some water the Ethiopian recognizes what it means and he asks what is to keep me from being baptized? Note that Philip’s response was not “hey dude, what are you talking about? – you were just spirit baptized about a half mile back.”
No, they stopped and completed the process — and then there was rejoicing because now the guy had been water baptized by the spirit.
OK One more before I have to go to work…
My last was in moderation..
According to the OT, were the women ever Priests?
No?
Were women being bapized in the Jordan?
Women were never Priests..could it be that women were not baptized (water)?
That would add further to the conversation that John Baptism was indeed a different baptism that Pauls.
Some references for men having to be at least 30 years old to enter priesthood..preparing the kingdom..are in Numbers chapter 4..
(tight system – moderated for 2 links 🙂 try again)
Good morning Hannah,
I understand where you are going with this (I don’t agree but I understand) – Whether you recognize it or not this is why I was asking you if you were a mid acts dispensationalist because they believe what you believe – everything up until Paul in Acts Nine was OT Jewish stuff and the NT covenant begins with the Gentiles and with Paul. You should Google either mid acts dispensationalist and Acts Nine dispensationalists and I think something will come up..
But you threw something in that may or may not be relevant.
“I guess it all really depends on your view of God’s plans for the Jews and whether you adhere to replacement theology..
Also if you believe there will be a literal kingdom on earth and millennial reign of Christ to finish His plan to His people.”
Are you saying this is what you believe or are you saying someone may be wrong about baptism if they believe this? Not a trick – just trying to figure out your point of view.
one more on the subject of the kingdom..
John the baptist (as per Exodus19) was baptizing in the Jordan to fulfill Gods promises to Israel-that it would be a kingdom of priests..hence the Matthew3:2
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Hannah may be correct about what John the B was doing vs what baptism is today.
We know for sure that what baptism is today was instituted by Jesus himself in Matt 28.
MLD
I do believe in a literal millenial kingdom.
I was saved at a Calvary Chapel–so that was my beginnings.
And was a student of John Macarthurs for many years. Listened to him all day when I wasnt working.
Gotta run.
MLD said “Acts 8 is a good example how a pastor is to make Christians. ”
I respectfully disagree that a pastor “makes” a Christian. It sounds like you equating making a Christian to baking a cake with the first ingredient being water. And how come the pastor is the only one that can make the cake?
It seems to me that the great commission applies to the entire church and making disciples is something all Christians should be doing.
I am a weak sinner. I was moved by the article about not drinking and I tried for 4 days to not smoke. I failed yesterday and need more time. I could despair of this, but I can look back at my Baptism and remind myself I’m still “in Christ”. This is a practical reason to be baptized. I don’t know the theological ins and outs of Baptism and the Lords Supper, but I can do them and be thankful.
Jean
To try and make the Holy Spirit a litmus test, (1) puts the cart before the horse, and (2) is extremely poor soul care for anyone. We have the Holy Spirit by faith.
_________________________________
A Devil’s advocate might say that the words “belief”, “Faith” also mean “faithfulness”.
It could also be stated that Grace is not gifted until a heart repents.
Hannah
Paul absolutely mentions water baptism
First Corinthians 1:13-14
Unless he was using the Holy Spirit, which I doubt for all kinds of reasons
Or burying people in sand 😉
Siggy,
It is grace which turns the heart to a merciful God. Grace is the first cause and the Holy Spirit is the agent. Without grace, no one would repent. Remember, the letter kills. God must console us with His Gospel, so that we have a Father to whom we might turn.
Siggy, I am much like the writer to the Hebrews who always said ‘it is written somewhere…’
It is written somewhere in the OT, I think Psalms that says in the KJV ‘turn me Lord and I will be turned’.
It is not ‘if you turn I will consider you turned.
Whenever I read some of these comments on baptism, I think about all the Quaker friends that I have had over the years who have died. I officiated at many of the funerals. According to some of you here, because they were never baptized with water, they are in the depths of hell. I have been baptized with water and only wish that I had a walk with God as closely as some of those dear saints.
Had a conversation with a nominally Norman friend last night. She mentioned seeing this movie and loving it! She went not knowing what it was about exactly, but came out pondering many things. She said she could hear others in the theatre “sniffling”. For herself, she realized how hard it is for her to trust God in a way that is free instead of analytical.
She said the movie cinematography was beautiful and that she enjoyed watching it for so many different reasons.
It was a very good review from her.
Lol. Moron, not Norman
#218 is funnier than #217 x-D
Btw, thanks MLD and Jean
Bob,
When some of us speak of water baptism we do so as the assurance of salvation. That is a positive comment.
Those who aren’t baptized do not have that assurance in the way we speak. It is the same with a baby who dies unbaptized – you really have no assurance to give other than to say to the parents ‘well God is merciful…’ and then hope. Baptism however brings promise.
The trouble with the Quakers is that they have said “I will not be baptized’ – I find that troublesome. (what is funny is that many modern day Quaker churches now have added baptism to their lineup. I think both in Yorba Linda do.
MLD,
I do not have all day to set around the computer and debate this topic. I was the pastor to some of these people, and I can speak to the assurance of their spending eternity with God. They did not died hoping that God would be merciful! Through His death on the cross for forgiveness of their sins they had assurance. And you are correct. Some Friends Churches, such as Yorba Linda do allow for baptism with water.
I have traveled this road before with you and know we will not arrive to any agreement. I just reached a point where some of the words used by you and others made me sick!
Bob,
Not to cause you grief – but if you have trouble with the theological concept of baptism saves – well that is an issue you must take up with the Bible.
To others, I look at it this way. There are something like 217 passages that refer to baptism. Some are fairly benign about the purpose and some allude to salvation is a pretty clear way. Some shout out loud in their very words something to the effect “baptism saves.”
But when the discussion comes up, every time, people run to non baptism verses to say baptism does not save. My challenge to anyone up to the task – find a baptism verse / passage that states that it is not efficacious in what it says that it does.
I always have believed that Jesus saves. My friend, I believe the 5 words you will utter most in heaven will be, “What are you doing here?”.
“I always have believed that Jesus saves.”
What could be more “Jesus saves” than “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
I don’t get the brush off from so many evangelicals to the most grace-filled passages in the Bible. Can we not just let Jesus do His will to us?
Bob,
You surely have a wrong view of my position. I am not trying to keep anyone out of heaven – hey if it was up to me even Adolf Hitler would be in heaven – because “Father forgive them…”
Why do you fight the idea of grace being delivered in baptism?
As I said, I have work to do. I just needed to speak my mind. As you said the other day MLD, we have been “ball busting” for 10 years.
Bob, yes, but didn’t we used to body surf at the same beach back in the 60s – across from the old Jack in the Box? 🙂
Who must perform the baptism in order for it to take affect?
Josh – if I answered that question for you would you then become a proclaimer of baptismal regeneration?
No, I am simply asking a question. I do not believe at all in baptismal regeneration.
Now, can a dad Baptize his son in the bath tub? What about being baptized at sy, a pentecostal oneness church? Do these count, or are there specific officials that must be present to bring about the salvific baptismal powers?
In emergencies anyone can baptize. For church order under normal circumstances it should be some for of proper clergy.
One thing is a must – it must be a trinitarian baptism – so your oneness buddies are out.
The Lutheran church accepts all trinitarian baptisms.
Being that many Trinitarian churches and denominations do not have “proper clergy”, you think they still get in? Would it be safer to be re-baptized in a church with proper clergy?
#234 Josh
The RCs sometimes do this in receiving people from other traditions where a baptismal certificate is missing, or the person is not sure they were baptized in the name of the Trinity. They call it, however, “conditional baptism”…
You know of churches where no one is at the pulpit (or at least up front) but only people in the pews or standing area? No one preaches – no one leads prayer? Just a common breathing room?
Now Mormons have no clergy – are you talking about them? So, these churches you are talking about – they would be incapable of receiving a letter dictated by Jesus to John like the 7 in Revelatiion?
But I understand your position – Jesus is not free to do his work of saving people in your church in all the ways he has stated that he saves folks. It seems to limit Jesus – but if it works for ya’ll in NC – well bless you.
And to be clear – when my wife and I joined the local SBC church, they did not want to receive our previous baptism. They were very particular.
“You know of churches where no one is at the pulpit (or at least up front) but only people in the pews or standing area? No one preaches – no one leads prayer? Just a common breathing room?”
Oh, you said proper clergy. I thought you meant something else. So if a guy opens a church in an old gas station and is baptizing in a plastic pool…that is proper clergy, since he is the preacher and all?
Ok, just curious. Insult all you want.
Most Orthodox jurisdictions will accept converts from other traditions by Chrismation. This is an anointing with oil that “fills in what the non-Orthodox baptism lacked.” This is how I was received into the EO Church. We all assumed that Pastor Oland Cole, who baptized me and my parents in Lake Erie when I was twelve, used the Trinitarian formula. I sure hope he did. It was March and that lake had barely thawed and my teeth were chattering so loudly he could have baptized me in the name of L. Ron Hubbard and I wouldn’t have heard him.
The Russian Orthodox want to re-baptize everybody who comes from a non-EO tradition. I think they’d re-baptize the Greeks if they could get away with it…. (J/K)
But I can guarantee you that my old CC would not have accepted an Orthodox baptism, even though we triple-immerse in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Josh, you must remember that I believe that Jesus instituted an office of ministry. I guess baptists don’t.
No insult intended.
My daughter is getting married in the fall – a 2nd for both of them. They want my youngest son to marry them – so he is getting one of those online ordinations. My daughter asked me for some appropriate Bible verses that could be intersperses throughout the ceremony. I told her I could not help her out as I saw nothing Christian about their wedding and what they were doing would work fine as a civil ceremony – and I have absolutely no problem with that at all. That is what I call playing with “clergy” roles and Christian events, So I do believe in some type of “proper clergy” and proper Church order.
Some obviously don’t.
Ok, so that’s a little better answer to the question. Let’s continue that route.
How does one become proper clergy?
Josh
I was baptized by a Calvary Chapel pastor on a beach in SoCal… Not really a question when I was confirmed as an Anglican, or when I was ordained…
BTW, Augustine is explicit in saying a lay person can, if needed, baptize another…
Duane, I’m not sure Anglicans believe in baptismal regeneration. Do you?
We say that a martyr who converts to Christ at the last minute is baptized in his own blood.
Duane.,
I was baptized at Lake Perris by a CC pastor and that is the baptism that the SBC wanted to reject.
My wife was baptized as a Lutheran and CC would not accept it – so she rebaptized (which she regrets) and then both were rejected by the same SBC.
So Josh, I guess I should be asking your the “proper” questions. 🙂
I don’t know why you just can’t answer the questions I’m asking.
All SBC churches are autonomous and can accept or reject any Baptism they please. It would surprise me that a believer’s baptism in the name of the Trinity was not accepted. It would not surprise me that an infant baptism was not accepted.
“And he [Christ] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,”
#243 Josh
I do, but with some caveats. I’m purely Augustinian in this one – “It is not the lack of baptism that damns, it is the despising of baptism…”
Secondarily (and here I’m on thin ice – with both Methodists and Baptists) I do believe in a “conversion” – you may call it “a conversion of manners” or “a warming of the heart”, but I do still believe in “Amazing Grace”…
Excuse me now while MLD puts the logs around the stake for my burning…
“How does one become proper clergy?”
A call by God that is confirmed by the call of a Church.
How do you do it?
“Secondarily (and here I’m on thin ice – with both Methodists and Baptists) I do believe in a “conversion” – you may call it “a conversion of manners” or “a warming of the heart”, but I do still believe in “Amazing Grace”…
Excuse me now while MLD puts the logs around the stake for my burning…”
Duane, I would not belittle your personal experience. But I would advise you not to place your trust in God’s grace there, and would strenuously object if you made it a requirement for others.
Duane,
I have no problem with what you said above.
My comment to Bob Sweat above about the Quakers was that they don’t forget to get baptized – the refuse baptism – which is the same as you saying despising baptism is what condemns you.
“A call by God that is confirmed by the call of a Church.
How do you do it?”
Yep, same way.
Then, even though we do not think our Baptism baptism saves, do you think it actually does and we just don’t know it? Because we do have proper clergy performing baptisms. Does it require belief that the baptism is in fact saving?
“Then, even though we do not think our Baptism baptism saves, do you think it actually does and we just don’t know it?”
Well let’s see:
You say “no” to God’s “yes.”
Then, you say “yes” with your man made conversion ritual, i.e., the sinners prayer, where God has made no promises.
What do you think? Rock or sand?
#250 Jean
No, but just an observation contemporary and historical – Luther in the forest, Luther in the darkness of his room; Augustine in Milan; John Wesley’s “warmed heart”; one could go on for pages with examples. I think people can have experiences that somehow bring the reality of their baptism to life (Luther, Wesley) while others hear the voice say “Take and read” (Augustine). No matter, it is God who gives grace in the time and manner of his choosing…
Jean has learned the insults well, from his mentor MLD.
Jean, I’m just trying to figure out which baptisms save. It certainly seems that some do not. I want to narrow down which ones.
I’m betting it will end up looking like all that are outside LCMS, but I’m open to being wrong.
Josh,
To be perfectly blunt – and you know that is out of character for me 😉 I don’t think you guys know what baptism is and the Holy Spirit does override you.
I have heard pastors deny the efficacy of baptism as they are in the very act of performing one. Explaining as they are dunking that this act is not saving anyone, but it is the testimony to others that this person is now a Christ follower.
And the Holy Spirit stands by and says horse pucky and saves the person anyway.
Josh, you already told us that none of them save.
@ 256 – Thanks for the answer MLD. Well said.
@257 jEan – I don’t want to talk to you.
I don’t know why anyone would be insulated by their own theology.
Duane,
” I think people can have experiences that somehow bring the reality of their baptism to life ”
If I understand you properly, and I hope I do – I fully agree.
For all of the ex Lutherans I have spoken to over the years who have said how dead the Lutheran church was when they went there – and then they came to Calvary Chapel and there they got save – I always tell them – “no, you just came to realize what God gave you in you baptism in the Lutheran Church (it could be Catholic or EO too where they were baptized)
#260 MLD
Thanks. I’ve spent 40 years studying church history. You see people who suddenly “change”, however one wants to characterize that change. I cannot deny the primary efficacy of baptism as a sacrament, but I also have to account in some manner for that later “change”. I’m not a “second blessing” person, so instead I see that grace once given in the sacrament as being manifested in the change that takes place. I’m reminded that the sacraments are connected to Christ, the eternal God-Man. The times and seasons are of no consequence to him. We’re the ones that get snared by chronology… not him.
“For all of the ex Lutherans I have spoken to over the years who have said how dead the Lutheran church was when they went there – and then they came to Calvary Chapel and there they got save – I always tell them – “no, you just came to realize what God gave you in you baptism in the Lutheran Church (it could be Catholic or EO too where they were baptized)”
Based on that, my first 20 years as a Christian didn’t count. I’ve read enough! Josh you go for it!
And Jean, MLD doesn’t need your help with his conversations to me.
For the record it looks like the very, very, very, very, very last word on the Shack was at 10:03 am today.
Bob Sweat – You are reading out of context – I was replying to something Duane said – I think you read the exact opposite into my post. But I don’t want to get your blood pressure up.
#262 Bob
I’m probably more “liberal” than either Jean or MLD on this point, but I think the Roman catechism makes a great point when it says, “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”. I think we’ll see a a good number of people in heaven that will surprise us…
Duane (and Bob),
The issue isn’t if we will be surprised by who we see in heaven – the question is about those who deny the efficacy of baptism – those who would teach that baptism is of no effect and steer people away from their baptism..
I even allowed for ‘baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary’ – but others here have said that baptism has no connection to salvation and that is absolutely false according to scripture.
So the real bigots in this area are the deniers.
#266 MLD
Sorry, I can’t follow you down a road of absolutes… Again, we may be bound by the sacraments, but God isn’t…
I don’t think you guys know what baptism is and the Holy Spirit does override you.<<<
That's what I think, too. God wants to save people.
Duane – I denied “absolutism’ in my #266 and argued against the absolutism of the deniers – who claim that salvation absolutely cannot come through the sacraments.
MLD
3 times you have avoided this..
Pauls was —saved by grace through faith–no works
Peter on the other hand (your paragraph confirms)..beiieve+baptism=salvation (MLD would agree)
What thinks thee?
And your reference to Matthew 28
I dont believe everything told to the disciples applies to us.
We can’t raise the dead, cast out demons, drink poison, and mess with serpents.
Can you?
These are the things I had to come to terms with.
I believe the great commission was spoken to the 11.
Thats who Jesus was speaking to in this Chapter.
All through my Calvary days, the Pastor was applying Matthew to us.
So here it is..your reference..
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them….
OK, you are going to apply this to us now?
Hannah,
Look at the last sentence of Chapter 28:
“And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
The “you” cannot possibly be the 11, because none of them are around until the end of the age. He is with his Church until the end of the age. The commission is to his Church until the end of the age. To his disciples of every generation until the end of the age.
Jean
He is talking to them when he says this.
He is with them to the end of the age, because he is coming back to set up the kingdom they have been waiting for.
The “church” is the mystery Paul speaks of.
I need scripture to back up what you are saying.
Jean
read Exodus19
You have to understand this was a Jewish promise.
The OT was Jewish-the Messiah was a Jewish promise for Israel
The disciples were Jewish.
You have to understand what they were waiting for.
That why when anyone rejects the kingdom promised to the Jews( millenial), and makes application to the “church” when Jesus was on earth..it is wrong.
Actually, some of Alex’s problems in his faith helped me to dig deeper in understanding what they Jews were waiting for.
He used to be upset at the OT God verses Jesus.
I too had a hard time ..until I understood the difference between what Jesus did here on earth, versus what happened when Paul came on the scene, and now brought the message of salvation to the Gentiles..
And the gentiles never having been under the law, are free in Christ..
Are positioned in Christ at salvation, with NO works of the flesh..
Grace by Faith alone..
we all will really understand water baptism better if we realize that it is the act of an obedient child of God after adoption – yes, i know that there are many baptized with water that have no membership in the Family, just in the “fellowship” of a church…
Phillip’s Ethiopian became a Believer and then he became obedient – if there had been no water beside the road, would he still have been redeemed? i say yes!
if they’d passed by the water source with the Ethiopian thinking, “I’m not convinced that I want to do that silly baptism thing,” would he have been a true Believer? that question is more to the point
Jean “The “you” cannot possibly be the 11, because none of them are around until the end of the age.”
Yes they are going to be with Jesus when he is here on earth.
Hannah,
Your refusal to engage with other teachers whom God has given the Holy Spirit through the ages as well as the historical witness of the church has led you to this place of confusion.
You are positing that Peter and Paul were propounding different means of salvation and nothing could be farther from the truth of Scripture.
Paul was baptized after his regeneration and he baptized as well as he says himself in Scripture that was already given to you.
Not only did Paul baptize, he affirmed that his associates did as well.
“Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.”
(Acts 18:8 ESV)
“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”
(1 Corinthians 1:13–17 ESV)
We know that the early church had no confusion on this point at all…they baptized new converts and we have that record not only through the NT, but in the earliest Christian writings we have.
Paul obviously saw no conflict with his doctrine of salvation by grace through faith and the command to receive baptism.
The conflict is wholly in your mind.
Em
The Ethiopian Eunich verses are great.
He was reading Isaiah 53..we dont even know if he was Jewish or not.
He believed Jesus was the Son of God.
He believed that he was the Messiah.
Thats what was going on then with the Jews and thats what they had to believe.
That Jesus was the sent Messiah.
Now we have to believe he died and rose from the dead.
That wasnt the message..obviously, because when Jesus was alive he was authenticating his Messiahship by his signs and wonders to Israel.
Hannah,
We can all play this word game of yours
“Pauls was —saved by grace through faith–no works”
So are you denying that Paul was saved by the “work” of Christ?
Look, you ignore what was inconvenient to you. Acts 22 Paul acknowledges that he was saved by his baptism – you choose to spin it so that the baptism was just the act of some old Jewish guy performing an old Jewish rite.
But why all those years later – between Acts 9 and Acts22 is Paul still crediting his baptism
Hannah,
“He is talking to them when he says this.” Agree.
“He is with them to the end of the age, because he is coming back to set up the kingdom they have been waiting for.” No, he is with them to the end of the age because he is with them to the end of the age. Since he’s with them to the end of the age, the “them” (or “you” in the Gospel) cannot mean only the 11. Now, at this point Hannah, are you willing to submit to Scripture? If you won’t, then it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else says.
The “church” is the mystery Paul speaks of. The Church is the people of God that Jesus started converting and collecting during his ministry and which consists both of the faithful of the OT and all the converts from his ascension onward.
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches.”
“This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs [with the Jews], members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”
Michael – get me out of moderation for 2 links
Hannah – you need to stop getting your information from your Jewish brother – he lives in darkness with one goal – to lead you astray.
Michael,
Early in Pauls ministry he did baptize a Jewish ruler of the synagogue.
Paul was also baptized.
But he said he was” not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel.”
Why did he say that if it isnt true?
The Corinthian church were Jews that were baptized…and as we know Paul was sent to the Gentiles..and the Gentiles were not to be baptized.
Theres an overlap of the disciples and Pauls ministry.
…sorry the Corinthian church ‘Had” Jews…
I think there is a distinction between the ministry of Jesus to the Jews..and then how it transitioned to Pauls conversion and what Paul says in ROmans and the epistles.
I think that is why there is so much differing in each denomination and view of the end times..
Ok before you get aggravated with me, I’m retiring for the night.
I’m not out to change anyones mind.
I am jst surprised no one else has had conflict with the gospels message vs Paul..
The Jew first and then the GEntile.
“Why did he say that if it isnt true?”
Read the context of the passage…Paul was glad he didn’t baptize more people because people were seeking and boasting of “celebrity baptisms”.
This would have been the perfect place for Paul to tell us all to stop.
Here’s the bottom line.
We have an unbroken line of the church baptizing people into the faith from Pentecost to today.
The church has always, in every place, practiced baptism.
If you choose to put yourself outside that line, that is your problem.
There are many scholarly studies on baptism in the early church by men of God interacting with both the biblical text and history.
Those should be the object of your study…the “me and my Bible” method has created every cult and spawned every heresy in history.
Anyone can Google mid acts dispensationalism and you will hear Hannah’s exact words.
MLD
Interesting you keep avoiding my question…
So now we are up to 4 times!
Pauls was —saved by grace through faith–no works
Peter on the other hand (your paragraph confirms)..beiieve+baptism=salvation (MLD would agree)
I know when I challenge you, Michael gets upset with me
lol as if my brother knows a thing about his own religion!
All he knows is not to put cheese on his hamburger.
You came out with this to avoid answering my question…
Anyway, goodnight and I will end this conversation..so as not to continue to divert it from “The Shack”.
“I know when I challenge you, Michael gets upset with me.”
That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.
MLD and I have to go into counseling together about every six months… 🙂
OK Last
I understand through Paul that we are baptized “Into Christ”.
There is ONE baptism..
So either it is water or spirit.
I believe it was water as the Jews would understand it.
And then as Christ died and ascended back, at conversion we are baptized INTO Christ spiritually.
I never believed the second blessing after conversion.
I will continue to read Pauls writings as I have been focusing on and ask God to continue to reveal truth to me.
If that is unacceptable to you, so be it.
I believe God can speak to me through His word.
Thank you all for the interraction.
It was like old times.:)
I have answered all of your questions — the right way. Your questions do not make sense as not a one of them is based on any Biblical fact.
Everyone has shown you that Paul believed in baptism – I even stated several times that his testimony in Acts 22 is to baptismal regeneration.
You have not answered that.I know the mid acts position well – you are a rookie in trying to explain it.
Hannah,
You criticize MLD for not answering your questions, but Michael and I have shot down every bit of false doctrine you’ve proposed, and you haven’t accepted any of our teaching. Like Michael said, you have placed yourself outside historic Christianity. That’s a nice way of saying “red alert.”
Michael
LOL..yes, any time in the past I have challenged MLD, you have come to his defense!
I haven’t brought up communion for that very reason 🙂
Goodnight
Hannah – you failed to answer my Acts 22 question – Paul’s clear claim to baptismal regeneration.
Always, no sometimes, think it’s me
but you know I know when it’s a dream
I think I know I mean a ‘Yes’ but it’s all wrong
that is I think I disagree
Jean
‘Beatles ’66’ great book, just finished it…
Duane,
Some of these threads leave me feeling like I’m in the middle of a Beatles song. LOL
Would that pass for a heart gently warmed? 🙂
Im confused. Surprise
It really sounds as if one camp says there must be ordained clergy doing baptism or it doesn’t count, and MLD saying water saves you.
??
I like that
“Horse pucky”…
Could it be that baptism was made for man, not man for baptism? Josh’s laughable scenario of baptism by a preacher man in a plastic pool is so foolish it should confound all this wisdom –
That being that a baptism of an individual being baptised in the name of the Father Son and HS, a priest and prophet by the blood of Christ, is as efficacious/non-efficacious in a plastic pool at a crack house by a charlatan WoF preacher as the one attended by ordained clergy in an ornate church. The attending person can be nothing more than a practical atheist in a collar, and the baptism is still simply a physical manifestation of the spiritual reality.
To say otherwise, that there must be water, that baptism is salvific diminishes the graceful power of God to swiftly answer the prayer of the sinner and relegates it to a Holy Bureaucracy.
This was not my experience at all. God saved me and healed me where I was at, in that moment, when I decided my life is His.
Of course I may be arguing with no one.
#297 Jean
To get the heart gently warmed, you have to sing “I am the Walrus”…
“and MLD saying water saves you.”
Never said that and that is not my position. God saving you through water baptism is my position.
“It really sounds as if one camp says there must be ordained clergy doing baptism or it doesn’t count, ” — I didn’t hear anyone say that — but there is a Jesus instituted office of the ministry.
“…that baptism is salvific diminishes the graceful power of God to swiftly answer the prayer of the sinner and relegates it to a Holy Bureaucracy.” — well then it sounds like you are into that pixie dust salvation that I was talking about the other day. God always uses physical means to save people – never is it just an instantaneous ‘poof’ and the person is save.
Look at the story of Cornelius in acts ten. Why didn’t God just save them – totally and completely? He sent Peter to do his work … even up to and including baptism.
I already spoke earlier about the Ethiopian in acts 8 – Why didn’t God just do magic and save him – but he sent Philip, physically to preach, teach and baptize.
Hey, thx for that, MLD. God Bless
Jean has learned the insults well, from his mentor MLD.
——————————————–
I hope Jean’s world would not be shattered to know that MLD has been known to listen to my sermons online as part of his own message preparation.
And not out of curiosity as to what the false teachers are instructing….
MLD
You are a clever man.
You have not addressed Peter vs Paul.
You can’t because if you admit Paul’s gospel was faith plus nothing, your baptism position crumbles.
So you are throwing me a bone to trip me up.
You also believe God is done with the Jews, and there is no millennial kingdom God promised to His people.
So we have a different starting point, and it’s pointless to go any further.
You want to label me, as if I am not capable of reading the Bible and going to the Lord with my challenges in His word. I have a doctorate, so I do have some intelligence, I hope. At least critical thinking skills. Not that I have to prove anything to you. But your comments always leave one on the defensive.
With all my confusion and doubt, as I expressed, God heard. And He loved me so much that He knew I tried for many years to work my way towards His love, and He answered my questions. But I doubt you process those comments and the references I give you.
I hope you listen to enough Steve Wright messages to change your position on the plans for Israel when their Messiah will return. And also have more respect for women..who weren’t even baptized by John.. No one addressed the priestly kingdom in Exodus 19.. Very curious what is avoided. The baptism is directly related to what was promised to Israel.. But you believe that promise is null and void. So I get you cant go there.
Hannah,
I love waking up and seeing your posts – thank you.
Let me see if I can clear up a couple of points.
1.) John’s baptism was not Christian baptism. There was no Christian baptism until Jesus instituted it in Matthew 28. It is very similar to the Lord’s Supper – they celebrated Passover until Jesus made the change – and after they had eaten he turned to them and said…
2.) I do believe that there is a millennial kingdom where Jesus sits on David throne. Peter described that event as currently happening when he spoke his Pentecost sermon in Acts 2.
3.) You say “And He loved me so much that He knew I tried for many years to work my way towards His love,” Working our own way into God’s love is not a Christian position.
4.) The differences you come up with between Peter and Paul are imaginary. When Peter says Repent and be Baptized they are one act – to be baptized is to be repented. From the Bible’s point of view it is God who repents you (‘turn me Lord and I will be turned’ – shows that God is the actor in repentance) and he repents you by baptizing you. Baptism is all God’s work. Peter and Paul taught the same thing – Salvation through God alone.
5.) The whole salvation work of God is done by God – God repents you – God justifies you – God sanctifies you – God glorifies you. God does it all for you by himself. I’ll bet even you don’t believe that. I will bet that you are working on your own sanctification and trying to steal that work from Jesus.
6.) You must remember, I was a dispensationalist believing all of that Hal Lindsey / Chuck Missler / Calvary Chapel / DTS stuff for 25 yrs. I was teaching that position before Steve Wright ever became a Christian so don’t presume to tell me you hope I can learn it from Steve Wright.
7.) You are correct on one point – I do believe in the prophetic sense God is done with Israel. Your accusation about replacement theology is false.My view is that Jesus through his lperfect life, his death, his burial, his resurrection and ascension has fulfilled all that Israel was to be. It is you who is infact the replacement theologian as you have replaced Jesus Christ with Israel. your position that the Church is God’s plan B is not quite biblical..
Hannah,
I love waking up and seeing your posts – thank you.
Let me see if I can clear up a couple of points.
1.) John’s baptism was not Christian baptism. There was no Christian baptism until Jesus instituted it in Matt Twenty Eight. It is very similar to the Lord’s Supper – they celebrated Passover until Jesus made the change – ‘and after they had eaten he turned to them and said…’ – so you are correct John baptized differently and for a different purpose.
2.) I do believe that there is a millennial kingdom where Jesus sits on David throne. Peter described that very event as currently happening when he spoke his Pentecost sermon in Acts Two.
3.) You say “And He loved me so much that He knew I tried for many years to work my way towards His love,” Working our own way into God’s love is not a Christian position.
4.) The differences you come up with between Peter and Paul are imaginary. When Peter says Repent and be Baptized they are one act – to be baptized is to be repented. From the Bible’s point of view it is God who repents you (‘turn me Lord and I will be turned’ – shows that God is the actor in repentance) and he repents you by baptizing you. Baptism is all God’s work. Peter and Paul taught the same thing – Salvation through God alone.
5.) The whole salvation work of God is done by God – God repents you – God justifies you – God sanctifies you – God glorifies you. God does it all for you by himself. I’ll bet even you don’t believe that. I will bet that you are working on your own sanctification and trying to steal that work from Jesus.
6.) You must remember, I was a dispensationalist believing all of that Hal Lindsey / Chuck Missler / Calvary Chapel / DTS stuff for 25 yrs. I was classroom teaching that position long before Steve Wright ever became a Christian so don’t presume to tell me you hope I can learn it from Steve Wright.
7.) You are correct on one point – I do believe in the prophetic sense God is done with national ethnic Israel. Your accusation about replacement theology is false.My view is that Jesus through his perfect life, his death, his burial, his resurrection and ascension has fulfilled all that Israel was to be. It is you who is in fact the replacement theologian as you have replaced Jesus Christ with Israel. Your position that the Church is God’s plan B is not quite biblical..
Hannah – now I have answered enough of your – it is now your turn. I have asked you 3 or 4 times to address Paul’s claim, in his own testimony to others, his claim to baptismal regeneration in Acts 22.
He is very clear – to be saved and have his sins washed away he needs to be baptized.
To Steve Wright – you are correct in your claim that I have used your material in some past studies. I am the most and perhaps one of the few who are willing to go outside of my tradition to give a balance to what I teach. I always include an evangelical (you in some cases – not my Matthew study because you had not ventured there yet – and my upcoming Revelation class as I think you are saving yours as the grand finale to your whole through the bible gig.) I also include a strong Calvinist of the Reformed type – not the baptistic ones like John MacArthur..
Paul writes about baptism a lot.
In Ephesians he writes there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” Here his emphasis is on the unity of the church, one church made up of Jews and Gentiles who all share the same one Lord, baptism and God.
In Romans Paul writes “all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Here his emphasis is on sanctification worked by communion with Christ wrought in baptism.
Ask yourself: Why does Paul refer back to baptism? The reason is that baptism is a singular, physical event which can be precisely defined to a date in time. We can remember it; experience it with our senses. We know what happens in baptism with water and the Word. It gives concrete expression to what every Christian has undergone. Therefore, it is a symbol of unity. Moreover, for purposes of sanctification, it is a concrete event by which you can no that the old man was put to death and the new man created. You know for certain that the Holy Spirit was given in baptism.
If baptism was a work, then what you are saying is: Jesus, I unified your Body by my act of obedience. Jesus, I sanctified myself, so it is not longer I that live, but You that lives in me. Does that sound plausible to you?
If baptism was not physical (and only spiritual), it wouldn’t bring unity, because I don’t know for sure if you were Spirit baptized. Moreover, I cannot be sure of my sanctification in Spirit baptism because I may not feel the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is why when Paul speaks of baptism for these purposes he is speaking of water baptism.
Baptism is grace (not a work) that gives a Christian assurance that he has been given the blessings of salvation promised in the Gospel. If you can’t count on the concrete event of baptism, then where can you locate your assurance. Does your sinner’s prayer or altar call give you confidence and assurance? That, my friends, is the definition of works-righteousness. It is a form of penance.
Why not believe that Christ baptized you with water and the Word. Christ speaks His Word to you in Church on Sundays. It is His Word, even if it is spoken by a preacher. “What is Paul? What is Apollos?”
Baptism is a work of God…it is not a work of merit on the part of men, but an act of faith.
Faith produces works…
Baptism is a work of God…it is not a work of merit on the part of men, but an act of faith.
Faith produces works…
Why was John the Baptist baptizing Jews?
Jesus in Matthew 15
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
As high priest he needed to be initiated into the Priesthood-fulfillment of prophecy
The Jews at the time understood that.
That is why Jesus was baptized. Ceremonial cleansing.
John the Baptist said the kingdom is at hand.
Do you believe we are in the kingdom now?
If so why recite the Lord’s prayer if we are already there?
“They kingdom come, they will be done on earth as it is in heaven”
I guess, however you answer this determines whether you believe God is done with the Jews and the church has replaced Israel.
It is interesting that MLD believes baptism saves, and he is right, but it isn’t now it was then. It was during Jesus’ time on earth. They needed to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins..
It is not that way now.
MLD @305
I won’t begin to argue with you.
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, (Romans 6.3-6).
How can this be the same baptism of John or Jesus?
Jesus was on earth when He was baptized.
He was not crucified, buried and resurrected.
John was baptizing for repentance and forgiveness of sins..to usher in the kingdomto Jews only..and MEN only (women were not initated into the Prieshood)
Paul makes it clear what he is talking about.
One is mandatory for the nation of Israel..Jesus says he ONLY CAME for the lost house of Israel!
No Gentiles were being baptized.
This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit at salvation, not water baptism.
Hannah, “I won’t begin to argue with you.”
You can’t, you are out of ammo. 😉
John the B is an OT prophet acting under the OT covenants.
Jesus, Post Resurrection instituted a new baptism and we see people getting wet from that point on.
Are you claiming that Jesus told the Apostles to go out and make disciples by spirit baptizing them? Can one person spirit baptize another?
No comment on Paul’s baptismal regeneration? Come on, throw me a bone.
This is the issue with dispensationalists of any stripe – the failure to recognize use of multiple terms describing the same event.
Water baptism is holy spirit baptism. Water baptism is baptism into Christ. Water baptism is whatever kind of baptism your can think of.
But this happens when the writers in the scriptures use different terms to describe the Day of the Lord – so dispensationalists end up with several different ends and 2nd comings. The same with judgement – different terms used for judgment day – sometimes called the Bema Seat sometimes called the Great White Throne and dispensationalist end up with multiple judgments.
It’s insanity.
It’s amazing (and frightening) how much error compounds upon error when one chooses to remove themselves from orthodox teaching.
There is both continuity and discontinuity between the baptism of John and Christian baptism, the explanations of which are beyond the scope of blog comments, but easily assessed even from online commentaries.
This whole conversation makes me shudder at the pride and impudence of someone who will declare the teaching of the church for centuries as error without consulting the many gifted teachers who would disavow them of their foolishness.
It makes you wonder what other fundamental truths of the faith they will choose to disavow based on their own skewed views of Scripture.
MLD
Of course Jesus instructed to water baptize.
He was baptizing Jews.
read my 312.
You are avoiding Gods plans for Israel
I guess Michael also agrees with you on that?
The fact that you are avoiding why John was baptizing and whose was baptizing..
And also that there was a difference…you want to pick and choose what you can defend, and avoid what you can’t.
I don’t sit around a computer all day, so this is really not worthy of my time.
If you want to interpret that as a gain for you, so be it.
Michael
Thanks for the put down
I really thought you put down the sword.
It’s been fun.
Hannah,
I’m responsible for what is posted on these pages.
I will suffer someone who is honestly seeking resolution to biblical issues…I will not suffer someone who opposes the teaching of the church that transcends denominal, eschatological, and traditional lines.
You have always been basically unteachable…I hoped that you would be at least as humble as those here with advanced degrees from conservative seminaries and very well educated laymen.
Such is not the case.
I do not know how you can take comfort in believing that God has revealed to you alone how wrong two thousand years of Spirit filled Christians were…
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
Josh,
as you made no comment, I will need to pry a bit. Are you expecting 2 resurrections and / or 2 deaths at the end? (at the end times – the culmination of all things)
First resurrection would imply more than one. Disagree?
Second death would imply there is a first, right?
I will answer when I get to my office – but at least there they are called the same thing. But my question was specifically do you expect both at the end?
Daniel and Revelation do seem to speak of two distinct resurrections happening at the end (Of course, keeping in mind that the “end” could be a number of years, not a single event)
The two deaths seem to be pointing toward physical death, and then a spiritual or eternal death for those not in Christ. Not sure though. Haven’t studied that one too thoroughly.
I think part of our difference is that you go to the 2 most symbolic / allegorical books in scripture to work out a doctrine.
John Five Twenty Four (I am trying to avoid the tight link modification) says that the first death and first resurrection have already taken place;
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.”
As to judgment, Jesus seems to indicate their is one resurrection and one judgment – dispensationalists disagree and say that there must be a 2nd because Israel is never listed as “the nations”.
Matt Twenty Five v. 31-46 = ” “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”
Josh – PS — when I say you, I mean a plural you 😉
I don’t think Daniel and Revelation are allegorical at all. Certainly there is lots of symbolism used. Some of those symbols are interpreted by the author and some are not. But the parts I’m talking about here are not symbolic, just plain language that points to more than one Resurrection and more than one death.
Also, I do use Revelation and Daniel to work out doctrine about the apocalypse, because they are far and away the most apocalyptic books in the bible. Of course, a fuller treatment would also included the two Thessalonian letters and Matthew. But you can’t form an end times doctrine without spending a lot of time in Revelation.
“Jesus seems to indicate their is one resurrection and one judgment – dispensationalists disagree”
Keep in mind that my original point had nothing to do with Israel, simply posted a quote from Rev. 20.
So do your 2 resurrections and 2 judgments that you come up with at the end override what I quoted from Jesus?
My take is that the first death first resurrection happen upon believing Jesus (I won’t even get into wet or dry baptism) and that the 2nd death comes at your own death.
The 2nd resurrection is the resurrection of all at Christ’s return for judgment as laid out in Matt 25.
Even the rapture is mistaken as a separate event when in reality it is nothing more than the way the living get resurrected.
I don’t see anything in the quote from Jesus that says there will only be one resurrection. Besides, you just agreed that there are more than one, now we only disagree about the timing and nature of the resurrections.
“Even the rapture is mistaken as a separate event when in reality it is nothing more than the way the living get resurrected.”
Again, we agree, just disagree on timing.
I don’t see why one event (say, the resurrection) can’t describe a 7 year period on earth. 1 event in multiple phases, perhaps.
Josh, You know my old saying ‘In a contingent universe, anything is possible – except squeezing toothpaste back into the tube.’ – I guess it could, but you need to admit that the 7 years is a made up figure. Where does that come from?
It is the final of Daniel’s 70 weeks.
And why didn’t that final week come right after the other 69?
I don’t know. Why would it?
So that it wouldn’t be an allegory?
Do you see anything in the text that indicates a 2,000 yr gap?
“So that it wouldn’t be an allegory?”
Not if I understand what allegory is.
“Do you see anything in the text that indicates a 2,000 yr gap?”
Not specifically. I would probably have to argue mostly from silence on that one.
So if I tell you Josh, let’s get together next week for some Mexican food – that would be anytime between now and 2,000 yrs from now?
This goes back to my original comment about too many comings, too many judgments etc. To a dispensationalist reader – words and common sense do not make any sense.
So the passage says “a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing.”
So my question – how long was the gap between week 7 and week 8? Was there a gap?
“So if I tell you Josh, let’s get together next week for some Mexican food – that would be anytime between now and 2,000 yrs from now?”
So your take is that Daniel’s 70 weeks is 490 days?
“This goes back to my original comment about too many comings, too many judgments etc. To a dispensationalist reader – words and common sense do not make any sense.”
But this is baloney and you know it. All I did was start off quoting a verse that said, all but explicitly, that there is more than one resurrection and more than one death. You claimed the passage was allegorical, before admitting there is more than one resurrection and death, and that we just disagree on the timing.
The first death/resurrection:
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”
“So your take is that Daniel’s 70 weeks is 490 days?”
No, my take is that 7 and 70 mean something symbolically to the hearers.
But I still wonder about that ‘gap’ between weeks 7 and 8 – no one ever talks of that and address only what they see as a gap between 69 and 70.
About the supposed gap between 69 & 70 it does not exist – the passage tells us straight up that something happens immediately following week 69 – ” And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing.” — no gap – the anointed one comes and is cut off.
“after” does not mean anything happened immediately.
After just means sequentially later than what was just mentioned.
Looks like Jean agrees that there is more than one death.
“But I still wonder about that ‘gap’ between weeks 7 and 8 – no one ever talks of that and address only what they see as a gap between 69 and 70.”
That’s because we can look back at history and see the fulfillment of weeks 1-69. So happens there weren’t any gaps. The events described in week 70 don’t seem to have taken place yet.
I am going to the bank and to the market.
And after the market….
There would be absolutely no confusion, no flailing around saying, “what about the bank” if I communicated this way. That is how dispensationalists read Daniel 9. There will be 7+62 and after the 62….
Honesty in hermeneutics requires admission when there is a legitimate way of reading a passage that affirms a doctrine one does not agree with.
It is not the same thing as saying one HAS to read it that way, or pounding the pulpit and shouting how a certain verse proves without any argument X.
The 2000 year gap (and counting) is the Church where there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Daniel’s prophecy is concerning Daniel’s people (the Jews – and he is not part of the Church as it is still future – per Jesus own words about “I WILL build my Church”) and concerning Jerusalem.
It is not an argument from silence. It is a looking at the totality of the Scripture. Why would one expect to see the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Church – anywhere in the OT before Christ even showed up?
The real question, which MLD has never answered as I have asked many times. Is why the split between the 69 and 70 and where in fact is the 70th year in Scripture.
And if MLD gives me an answer, I guarantee that if we asked other denominational traditions we would get different answers. Just read their commentaries. Whereas, dispensationalists from whatever denomination all give the same answer – the 7 year period described in Revelation. Where Jerusalem, Jews from every tribe etc are all prominent and the Church is nowhere to be seen in the bulk of the letter.
I’m not going to argue this further. However, MLD acts like only a total loon could see the Bible this way when there are some tremendous scholars that MLD would not be worthy to hold their concordances who in fact understand the Scripture this way.
This is what is so ungodly. The refusal of charity to admit, hey, I disagree but I can see where these guys are coming from.
Josh – then you missed the point of the original post I did on this topic. If something says 1st death and 2nd death – there are 2 deaths. I didn’t bring that up. If you go back, folks come up with several comings and judgments because writers use different terms for judgment and the day of the lord.
Those are all speaking of the same one event.
I will repeat – because judgment is called the Bema Seat and the Great White Throne of Judgment does not mean that there is more than one judgment day / event.
it’s the same with the rapture – you can’t have multiple 2nd comings but say “well that one didn’t count because he came but his feet didn’t touch the ground.”
“it’s the same with the rapture – you can’t have multiple 2nd comings but say “well that one didn’t count because he came but his feet didn’t touch the ground.” ”
But you can have 1 second coming that lasts a period of years, as you’ve already conceded is possible.
Look, all I did was post a verse @319. You’ve been arguing with it ever since.
MLD asks for why a split between the first 7 and the next 62.
A very legit, possible answer is that, since the prophecy timeline kicks off with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, and specifies the streets and trench (not just Nehemiah’s wall) – that it took 49 years to complete.
The 69 are until the Messiah comes. So there is a consecutive timeline from the beginning decree to Christ (the triumphal entry to be exact) for the full 69 – while a mini-completion reference to the rebuilt Jerusalem and the split of 7/62.
I don’t care if anyone who is already fixed against the interpretation agrees to this explanation, but one could stop asking, why, why, why, as if one has framed the perfect gotcha question and as if offers of explanation are not out there in the dispensational literature.
Steve is very forgetfull.
“The real question, which MLD has never answered as I have asked many times. Is why the split between the 69 and 70 and where in fact is the 70th year in Scripture.”
I have answered this question the exact same way every time it comes up – it is a literary device by the writer. Steve, I ask you what is the significance in the break between week 7 and 8? – and Steve will not answer.
“where in fact is the 70th year in Scripture?” Jesus was cut off during the 70th year — just like the passage said he would and just as the gospels say did happen.
He just did 🙂
You guys know why I asked about the Vulgate in Open Blogging?
Because Jerome, supported by a lot of manuscripts, shows vs. 1 of Matthew 25 concerning the 10 virgins that they went out to meet the bridegroom AND THE BRIDE. The ESV includes this in its footnote on the passage.
Now, even if you stick to the KJV and other English translations, you have to admit that the 10 virgins are meeting the bridegroom and they are not the bride. Where is the bride (if Jerome was incorrect)..
I’ve been teaching on Ch 24 and 25 of Matthew for several weeks, and unlike some of my brethren, I am showing that we should not see the rapture in these verses. However, I am showing that it is quite troubling to your security in Christ, your assurance of salvation, if you see yourself in the possibility of having your torch go out, or being the servant who was not watching, or did not do anything with his talent etc.
Even those who allow for such a thing, tend to think themselves secure.
Why are you going by Steven?
MLD’s interpretation of the 70th “week”
490 years are determined….well 483 years and a few days…
This is the same thing we see in any prophecy.
God used laser-like precision in the wording and details of the many prophecies concerning the 1st Coming of Christ, but now all bets are off and we need to have someone explain to us when allegories and metaphors are being used, and when literal words mean literal things etc. No longer can one read God’s word individually as a child of God expecting God has communicated. Nope. Have to go through the learned scribe once more. Jerusalem does not mean Jerusalem here. Yes, yes, I know, Bethlehem meant Bethlehem, but that was the 1st Coming. Yada yada
I fixed that. Thanks Josh. I had to reset my defaults….
🙂
The things that bother me are weird.
Steve, don’t be dismissive – So just when is messiah cut off – if not the 69th week and not the 70th week??? Help me out here.
You already posted it – AFTER the 69th week.
The last Shack comment was 250 comments ago…
filbertz,
There was one at #217.. The official last word…
I can just imagine God laughing while thinking all three of you are wrong!
483 years (exactly) from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the presentation of the Messiah, the King. The triumphal entry, when Jesus fulfilled Zechariah, Psalm 118. The one day He allowed (and even arranged) the people of Israel to celebrate Him as King. No longer saying, “my hour is not yet come”
That fulfills the initial prophecy, and the clear demarcation between 69 and 70.
After this, Messiah would be killed. And He was.
The remaining 7 years are decreed upon Jerusalem and the Jews (NOT the Messiah) just like the prior 483 years were.
When is that 7 year period of time? The Church, neither Jew nor Gentile, would be born in a matter of a few weeks on Pentecost. Jerusalem would not be destroyed for a few decades.
Gosh, if we only could find in Scripture God doing something over a final 7 year period of time……
Oh wait…
(I’m off now – every question MLD asks has been clearly answered before by those who hold the hermeneutic. Plus, he is studied enough that he already knows the answers anyways.)
Bob Sweat – I know that I’m wrong about a lot of it. All I can do is read the bible and try to understand it. This is my best understanding, though absolutely flawed.
I can just imagine God laughing while thinking all three of you are wrong!
——————————————————————–
Very possible.
I began Ch 24 by saying to the folks at CCLE we all need to approach an interpretation of verses still prophetic with a lot of humility. Look at how wrong the apostles were and the experts in Scripture as to the prophecies when Jesus first came to earth. Great scholars can be found who disagree on such things.
That said, I want to stand before the Lord saying “I taught your word as literally as possible except when I felt it was clear You were using figures of speech”
I would rather answer to God for NOT allegorizing away from the literal sense of a passage, than to allegorize without justification and answer to Him as to why I just did not teach what He wrote…..
This thread reminds me of “Hack a Shaq”.
Calm down guys, I said that tongue in cheek. I don’t want to get Steve mad at me.
I’m calm as a cucumber.
Or something like that.
Actually I thought the conversation went quite well. It could have gotten out of hand and it is a good thing that we all agree that the “he” in 9:27 is Jesus the Messiah.
I’m calm too, Bob. Just using your comment as a springboard to a larger point.
@ 365 – Well, no, but it was a fine conversation.
Just for fun everyone… The Mormons think the prophecies are all about them…
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Daniel,_Prophecies_of
Wow, someone wronger than MLD 🙂
that guy in Duane’s article is not that wrong.
Is it any coincidence that Mormonism, Christian Science, Adventism, JWs and Dispensationalism all sprouted in the Northeast around the same time?
What was happening then and there – were they drinking Flint Michigan water?
Is it any coincidence that Mormonism, Christian Science, Adventism, JWs and Dispensationalism all sprouted in the Northeast around the same time?
—————————————————————–
That’s about as stupid a comment as equating Michael’s comments the other day with gnosticism.
1.) I did not equate his comments with Gnosticism – I gave the Gnostic view in light of the discussion.
2.) Which part of my comment above do you disagree with? Did I state anything incorrectly? I think it is factual that each came out of the Northwest in the 19th century. Was it my comment about Flint that was objectionable? 😉
The Burnt Over District
Speaking of Gnosticism
Figured this is as good a place as any to ask
If The Shack is just fiction, why do people keep coming away from it with new understandings about God?
😛
Siggy – Which God?
When people watched Touched by an Angel or Highway to Heaven did they walk away with a better knowledge of who God was? Who Jesus was? or in a way did they walk away feeling good about a god who did not exist.
I was not a Christian in 1977 when Oh God came out – I had a warm feeling about the George Burns god.:-)
And I don’t know if a ‘new’ understanding is the goal. Hannah came away with a new understanding of God from somewhere and I do not think it was beneficial
MLD
Egg-zactly
Stupid question and one I’m tired of answering… to the point of starting to ban people.
When the book came out it was able to communicate the love of God to me in a way nothing else had.
The movie is doing the same for some people.
I’ve talked to about a dozen who were moved not by “new ideas” but by a story that was able to communicate the truth so they could hear it.
If that’s a problem for you, take it up with God, and take this crap off my blog.
Period.
What if a new understanding of God through this book (though it is fiction) is closer to the truth than the old understanding one grows up with? And what if this new understanding leads to further examination of the real Triune God?
“seek and you will find”……..
Btw how accurate is the portrayal of God in Michelangelo’s painting “The Creation of Adam” posted in Jeans article today? 😉
JoelG,
Good job… 🙂
Joel,
Old, white and buff?
I just hope its a decent movie. In general, even the best Christian movies are awful. Blue Like Jazz and Ragamuffin are the last two I tried to watch, and even though I was very interested in the story, the movie itself was sub-par.
I have no desire to see the movie.
However, I see no need to warn people about it or dismiss it…unless all the orthodox teachers people can talk with have suddenly disappeared.
It makes for wonderful discussions…and that’s a good thing.
Oh, I want to see it. Not at a theater, mind you. But I’ll catch it on Netflix or something down the road. I wasn’t even crazy about the book. Not because it was heretical or anything, I just though it was OK.
Jean,
He bear’s striking resemblance to Charlton Heston in the “Ten Commandments”
Sorry, Michael, I was misled by the title of the post…
It’s been argued to death.
If you don’t want to see it, don’t go see it.
Yet the Bob Caldwell thread is up to six hundred something these days… !
My comment #374 was tongue-in-cheek, mostly.
You can do me a solid and ban me if THAT comment on THIS thread is worthy of it. Reminds me of a certain fellowship of fellowships we used to attend.
I don’t think our conversation from this point is good for anyone or our health. Good luck to yourself.
“You can do me a solid and ban me if THAT comment on THIS thread is worthy of it. Reminds me of a certain fellowship of fellowships we used to attend.”
If you want to see me move from annoyed to angry, pursue this line of irrationality.
This is not a church.
It’s a blog.
I call threads when the only direction a discussion is going to go is down.
There is a spiritual elitism that thinks only some means are allowable for people to be touched.
I reject that and I’m tired of the whole mess.
Period.
This is not a church.
_____________
So much for your ecumenism
Keep telling yourself that. Seems in that one statement you regard yourself as overseer and pope.
Goodbye.
Siggy,
I regard myself as the one who created, pays for, maintains, and is responsible for this site.
When push comes to shove, I own the property.
I decide how to best maintain it.
If that is an issue for you, then move on…
Here’s hoping everybody else is finally done commenting on this thread just so I can have the very, very, very last word on “The Very, Very, Very Last Word on the “The Shack””.
Not a chance.
Josh, you mentioned above that you, um, attempted to watch the movie “Ragamuffin” – your thoughts on the movie? I own it and have not watched it yet. I still plan on watching it, as I am a big Rich Mullins fan.
Thanks!
Josh,
You always have to be difficult, don’t you? You Baptist types….. 🙂
Now, would you get back here and answer Dan’s question so that I can then post again after you to reclaim the last word!
Gladly, Kevin 🙂
Dan – it is worth a watch, and DEFINITELY better than Blue Like Jazz. I think a Mullins fan would be pleased. I wasn’t a huge Rich Mullins fan, just interested in the story.
Low-budget production, poor acting, and overall, just kind of a bummer.
Thanks for responding Josh. Definitely miss Rich and his music. I have learned not to get my hopes up too high when it comes to viewing most Christian movies.
Here’s a new Christian movie to get excited about:
http://newluthermovie.com
Now, will the rest of you please get off this thread so I can have the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very last word!
Kevin,
You have the last word…D’oh!
Hehehehehe…
I enjoyed the movie!
Word!