The Weekend Word
Hebrews 2:1-2
1Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.
- The author begins here to discuss the status of the baptized believer who falls away.
- There was no exhortation in the first chapter, but here…
- Therefore – Whenever you see a therefore, you must look around to see what the therefore is there for.
- Take some time to review Chapter 1
- Here is the authors main concern – people drifting away from the faith and not only the faith but away from fellowship with other believers
- Heb 10:25 “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
- This is not an exhortation against morality like we see in 1 Cor.
- He says pay attention – like keeping a ship on course.
- *** What is it that we have to know previously, to now pay attention?**
- *** What is it that you need to know to be saved?***
- (a baby knows nothing – what about us who are now older?)
- *** What did Paul mean when he said of his Jewish brothers “they had a zeal for God – but not of knowledge?*** Romans 10:1-3
- “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”
- So much for throw away doctrine divides and what you need is love – you had better have your doctrine down firm.
- Drifting away – keep thinking nautical. How easy is it to drift in the ocean?
- When I was young and would body surf, after I would swim out, I would usually look for the lifeguard station and use that as my point of reference.
- 15 min later you are a half mile down the shore.
- How do you keep a boat from drifting away? An anchor
- How does a Christian drift away from the faith? We don’t feed or strengthen our faith and it begins to shrivel and eventual dies
- What should be our anchor to keep us from drifting?
- Going to church – Bible Study – Personal Bible time – Prayer – The Sacraments – Fellowship – Pot Lucks.
2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,
- Angels delivered the Law. Not spelled out in scripture, but alluded to.
- See Deut 33:2
- By angels = through angels.
- Context of Acts 7:53 – “you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”
- Context of Gal 3:19 – “Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.
- Declared = the word spoken. What was this word? The Law –
- *** Proved to be reliable –
- ) There is a principle throughout the OT of Blessings and Curses
- Do good, get the blessing, do bad, get the curse.
- ) The early church did not need to know the Apostles’ Creed – until the Gnostics came along and distorted the message.***
- This is different from Galatians problem, where they wanted to add the Judaism on top of the Christianity –
- The issue here was to abandon Christianity altogether. Christianity is hard, especially when it is counter cultural.
- But the writer is making his case by showing that Judaism to Christianity is going from the lesser to the greater. In this case Angels to Jesus.
- What was the immediate issue here? Going back to Temple Judaism.
- It is difficult for us to grasp the hardship and sacrifice these people were making as 1st century Jews. To leave your religion was to leave family, culture and perhaps your job. There was no half way – no compromise.
- *** Can you mix and match religions and spiritualities? Oprah can!!!**
- Today, people just combine religions and spiritualities. It doesn’t matter if they are in total conflict with each other. Talk to people and listen how confused they articulate their Chrisstianity.
- When you left a church back then, you were cut off. Today you just up and leave and no one knows you had an issue. Just walk into the new church and sit down.
- But to a Jew, there was ONLY one Temple to go to.
- But think about it – how many times did Jesus tell people to “count the costs” – Jesus seemed in some cases to be discouraging people from following him – because he knew that they were not committed.
- How many today say that they are Christians for no other reason than – they know that they are not a Jew or a Muslim? – so I must be a Christian.
- So now he is building up to verse 3
- If it was such a great Law delivered by angels – how much more is it going to be delivered by the Son?
- Next week.
Good job, MLD! No complaints from me.
Now, off to church and the potluck afterwards with my bowl of spaghetti.
A little off subject…. in the NT and in some early Church writings, the Eucharist and something called the Agape Meal seem to happen at the same time. Later, they are divided into two separate events: Eucharist happening during Liturgy and the Agape Meal afterwards. This old tradition is seen today in the coffee hour or potluck after Liturgy. It is traditional not to eat anything the morning one receives Communion (the EO rule is no food or water after midnight the night before) so after Liturgy is over, people are very hungry and the potluck is very welcomed.
might not line up with Lutheran doctrine here (and not disagreeing with the post), but i think the choice of “message” delivered by angels was wise – inspired even – on the part of the translators … staving off unnecessary arguments over “The Word” as declared in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Em,
I think this is one of those places where context does the interpreting. Angels = messengers and messengers bring what? A message.
The context in John 1 is completely different.
I think that hidden behind v.1 is a discussion I have with many over many years as I have been on both sides – “The author begins here to discuss the status of the baptized believer who falls away.”
Are these believers who are thinking of turning away from the faith, have already turned away or are the part of the “well, they were never saved in the first place.”
How you answer this question at this point already will determine how you understand the rest of the book.
#6- “How you answer this question at this point already will determine how you understand the rest of the book.”
well, that’s a challenge … 🙂
“Are these believers who are thinking of turning away from the faith, have already turned away or are the part of the ‘well, they were never saved in the first place.’”
How one answers the question, “What is baptism?”, may help answer this question. The author seems, on balance, to be issuing warnings to people who are members of the community of faith, backsliders to a degree perhaps, but not people who have deserted Christ altogether. However, whether they are (or were) saved can be answered by looking at their baptism (6:2), if one believes that baptism saves, per verses such as 1 Pet 3:21.
I’ll boil it down farther.
Much interpretation here will be determined by whether or not you believe that someone who has been “saved” can “lose” their salvation.
I emphatically deny the possibility.
Thus, I will see things differently from either MLD or Jean.
The mistake, however, is to get stuck on that one point and miss the rest of the marvelous insights that are in this book.
But before you can debate if one can lose their salvation, which is not a point here yet, one must first determine who these folks are that the author is speaking to. Is he making his appeal to brothers, seekers, or people who were just along for the ride.
For my part, I think he is speaking to brothers, those who have came to Christ “all in”as we say – and that has cost them much. In this community, I think some have already left, some are leaning strongly to leave and their is a 3rd group who have made the appeal to the writer, to come and make the case for Christ to that whole group.
I have no doubt this epistle / sermon is to brothers and sisters in the Lord.
I agree.
well, i’ll go one further and say that it may hinge on what one interprets as the baptism that is salvific (think i’ve used the correct term) – i am satisfied that no water baptism does that, it is the spiritual baptism (not to be confused with the receiving a “tongue” manifested in verbal utterances), a baptism that quickens and moves one out from among the spiritually dead
this can be confused with dipping one’s foot into religion and then backing off … sometimes seen as losing salvation and, maybe, on one level that could be argued … kind of like losing one’s grip (which will happen, as one can only hang just so long) IMHO
However, i am not prepared to cite references … nor argue on this
Except that the Bible says there is only one baptism … and we know that water baptism is one of them. 😉
Baptism in the scriptures always speaks of 3 elements – the water, the word and the spirit. (the reason we don’t just spray people with a hose.)
Now if there were such a thing as a ‘spirit’ baptism then it is missing one and usually 2 of the elements.
I doubt Jesus was telling the Apostles to go into all the world and ‘spirit’ baptize people.
The only reason I brought baptism into the discussion was to emphasize who these people were. In the early church, they did not play around – you were a baptized believer or you were not a ‘believer’ at all. Today, we feel comfortable playing loosey goosey with baptism and it’s connection to plugging into what was won for us on the cross.
This church being spoken to in this letter – there was no such thing as a non water baptized believer.
God works through physical means to save people.
May I recommend a quick listen on this topic how God solves out time and space problem with a cross 2,000 yrs ago in a land quite a distance from us.
http://issuesetc.org/2015/08/05/3-gods-means-of-grace-pr-harold-senkbeil-8515/
one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism, yes… (not the baptism of John the Baptist 🙂 )
from where i sit, that one baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit… but, i’ve been baptized by water twice and both were with the best of intentions to obey God’s directive… there is a mystery where the blood, the holy, sacred, precious blood of the Lamb of God is concerned and i’d like to think that blood has been applied and is my sanctification… so, in Your mercy, God. i pray that Your sustaining grace continues to get us all home safely
the status of the baptized believer who falls away.
————————————————–
Baptism has not been mentioned yet in this letter. It will only appear once in the book, and is in the plural when it does (the doctrine of baptisms).
I have no reason to think the Hebrews are different than any other church gathering. I spoke to a congregation today that I assume are all believers…though I have no idea of knowing that with certainty. I can warn of the idea of looking to any other way but Jesus (especially the old covenant if I was like this writer addressing a Hebrew audience) while denying the possibility that anyone who has been placed by the Spirit into the Body of Christ (i.e. baptized) can ever be ripped out of that same Body (or choose to remove themselves)….the water ritual signifying the saving work of the Spirit upon one being born of the Spirit (born again) by grace through faith.
For infant baptism to be seen as salvific, one MUST allow for the possibility of a later rejection of that salvation when one is older.
For those who see dying babies as saved by God by His sovereign grace based in the merits of Christ, there exists no need for the water ritual until it can be done as the outward act of obedience, consciously affirming the inward working of the Spirit, as a public witness to the world and the answer of a good conscience towards God.
And likewise, one can affirm that some have gone through the water ritual later in life and basically done nothing but get themselves wet. Whether in CC or any other church.
It’s funny how the waterless baptism crowd at the mention of baptism runs away from the salvation issue. I stated and I clarified that my use of the term baptized believers was solely to point out that the Church in that day knew of no other believer than a baptized believer. I didn’t bring up anything about salvation.
Your reactions are telling.
But Steve I will ask you – how can a non believer drift away as the exhortation states? If he is a non believer wouldn’t his drifting be away from his false belief and towards a true relationship with God? I don’t buy that you preach these as hypothetical warning passages to your ‘saved’ congregation and finish up by saying – but you my saved friends have nothing to worry about in all of this.
Forget salvation for awhile – I want to make the case against the false teaching that there are multiple baptisms and some are waterless.
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
And I think the proper reading in that verse is – is born of (water and the Spirit) – with the word ‘of’ governing both water and the Spirit.
But I like how little value you put towards water baptism when you address it in it’s demeaning term – “the water ritual” 🙂
I remember hearing Romain ( Assistant pastor) at one of the Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa camp meetings saying to us kids:
“Therefore – Whenever you see a therefore, you must look around to see what the therefore is there for.”
Brought back some fun memories of my youth back to me.
Hey sounds like you body surfed in Newport Beach CA. 🙂
Newport at 46th St 🙂
Also Huntington at station #3 just south of the pier
By the way, really great teaching MLD!
There is a richness to it, not like regurgitated teaching-mode stuff.
You definitely have the gift and blessing for teaching the Word.
I can see a commentary forming up, not for commodity, but as a blessing to the Body of Christ in general.
May the Lord bless you and open doors for you, men like you are in demand by the Body of Christ.
Here are the sought after leaders:
New Living Translation
The eyes of the LORD search the whole earth in order to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.
2 Chronicles 16:9
English Standard Version
And I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none.
Ezekiel 22:30
I lived on 45th street. LOL
Spent every single day in the water all year round. A great back yard!
I wasn’t so fortunate – I was a day traveler down there. In the summers of 65 – 67 I would drive down daily in my 1960 Rambler American.
I continued later until 69 driving my hot 1966 Olds Cutlass. By the summer of ’69, life changed – I was married, the war was on – life got complicated at 20 😉
oops, that was a 1962 Olds
Life’s a Beach when you live in Newport or Huntington 😉
MLD…my simple point is the text is silent on baptism. A pentecostal could say the writer is speaking to tongue-speaking believers and warning them not to drift away with as much textual authority as your view.
It’s like Jaws. The chief was so excited when those early guys caught a tiger shark and the scientist came along as said “Look, I’m not saying this isn’t the shark..it probably is..it probably is…it’s a maneater, rare in these waters but the fact is the bite marks on the victim don’t match this animal”
MLD, I’m not saying they weren’t baptized, they probably were MLD, they probably were, baptism certainly followed salvation very quickly in the early church…but the fact is the TEXT does not say “these are all baptized believers” – to even mention baptism, much less repeatedly emphasize it in a book that does so exactly one time halfway through is not exegesis anymore.
Chief Brody would get my point. 🙂
As far as what and how I teach any passages, Hebrews or otherwise, on security, those are all public record.
I look forward to your comment on the one instance of baptism being in the plural – baptisms – (i.e. Spirit and water) when you get to it.
And I think the proper reading in that verse is – is born of (water and the Spirit) – with the word ‘of’ governing both water and the Spirit.
—————————————————————–
Of course the ek applies to both. That is not open to any discussion. It is straight from the text.
However, the use of kai connecting the two would argue against your view of one event.
(And that is even giving you the benefit of the doubt that Nicodemus would have been told by Jesus, at this point in the ministry, that he needed to be baptized (that born out of water has to do with baptism. Which is certainly open to strong disagreement).
Now, my final point about being addressed as the waterless baptism crowd. I have asked you in the past and here is a chance to clear it up if I misrepresent you.
A faithful Lutheran family is driving their little baby to be baptized and have a terrible accident and the little one is killed before the ceremony. The parents ask the Lutheran pastor if they have any hope of salvation for their baby. Is the answer, no?
Because once you say, yes. You too join the salvation without water crowd, also known as the grace of a Sovereign God and the merits of Christ’s death on the cross crowd.
Above all though, I hope the answer is not yes because they were trying to baptize the baby….faith in baptism….because that truly would be a wide drift from the Scripture.
Regarding the status of the intended audience in the warnings in Heb 2:1-3, the author uses the word “we”, not “you” or “them.” By using the word “we” the author, who obviously is a Christian, includes himself in the warning. Therefore, if we take the plain meaning of the text and interpret it at face value, the author is warning people, like himself, against drifting away from the message they received and neglecting their savation.
It’s possible, even probable, that non-Christians among them heard this sermon (I assume it was originally read aloud as a sermon), but the author’s focus is on the “we” among them.
I will say that I am amazed at the phobia some have against the idea that God actually uses physical means to save people. Perhaps I too was one in the past, but there is nothing more obvious in the scriptures.
You still have made no progress in making a case for waterless baptism or that there may be more than one baptism we share according to none less than the Apostle Paul himself.
But back to the phobia – my description of these recipients as “baptized believers” says nothing about what I or anyone else believes about the doctrine of baptism – it just acknowledges that believers and I am sure all of them were baptized – before or after salvation it makes no difference to my descriptive point.
Steve,
First let me say a disclaimer – this part of our conversation is not a part of my lesson on Hebrews, we have branched off entirely.
You and I may define “event” a little differently. You may be describing a ‘moment’ more than an event.
So when I say ; “And I think the proper reading in that verse is – is born of (water and the Spirit) – – I see it in the same way I see Acts 2:38 –
“And Peter said to them, “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.”
Where I would say that – And Peter said to them, (“Repent and be baptized) is one ‘event’ even if it is not taking place at the same time. I will make the leap that you would agree with me that you absolutely cannot have one without the other.
It is the exact same with baptism – (water and the Spirit) are the required ingredients in the event of baptism – you cannot have one without the other.
So, in Acts 2 – “Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.” – wet or dry? Could they have accepted the message and not have been baptized and had the same results – “receive the Holy spirit and be added to the church.”?
“It is the exact same with baptism – (water and the Spirit) are the required ingredients in the event of baptism – you cannot have one without the other.”
Water, Word and Spirit. The Spirit proceeds from the Word.
I forgot about the dead baby in the car wreck. Lutherans do not say you must be baptized to be saved – we say baptism saves. God uses several means to save people.
My disagreement is that others say just the opposite and deny baptism by saying baptism does not save – which is fine … but we do know what the Bible says. 😉
“God works through physical means to save people.” This is the key to understanding biblical baptism. It is not immediately apparent why or how God works through physical means, so hear is a very layman explanation:
If I say, “I give my life to to you, Jesus”, or “Jesus come into my life”, or some other declaratory statement, I am confusing faith in Christ’s promise with faith in faith itself. I am deliverying Christ to me. I am making faith into a work.
By contrast baptism gives faith an object (i.e., Christ’s promises delivered by water to me). But the promise of baptism relies only on the faithfulness of the giver. This is the proper place for faith, because God is the only one who keeps his promises.
MLD, would you have anything to add, subtract or modify?
Lutherans do not say you must be baptized to be saved – we say baptism saves. God uses several means to save people.<<<<
Absolutely true, so no more hypothetical stories about people on their way to the church to get baptized and get killed on the way, please. God is greater that this. There are many stories in the history of the Church of martyrs who call upon the Name of the Lord at the very last minute of their lives and are then killed. Not only are they saved, they are remembered by the Church as martyr Saints.
Still, baptism is the prescribed way that God intends us to enter His Kingdom.
“The only reason I brought baptism into the discussion was to emphasize who these people were. In the early church, they did not play around – you were a baptized believer or you were not a ‘believer’ at all.”
Not true.
There were also those who professed belief but who were not baptized yet – Catechumen.
They were permitted to attend the Mass but were dismissed before the offering of the Eucharist.
Why did you cut off the study in the middle of a sentence? You left off the good part 🙂
There were also those who professed belief but who were not baptized yet – Catechumen.<<<
This is still the norm in the Orthodox world. Typically, when a person is "enrolled among the catechumens" they receive a special blessing. Each Sunday the parish prays for them: "Save them, have mercy on them, help them, and keep them, O God, by They grace."
However, the goal of the catechumen is to be baptized, which again, is the prescribed entrance into the Church, not to stop at the catechumen stage.
http://myocn.net/becoming-an-orthodox-catechumen/
Josh,
“Why did you cut off the study in the middle of a sentence? You left off the good part 🙂
Suspense! – and Michael only allows me so many words each week 😉
“Suspense! – and Michael only allows me so many words each week ?”
True…but this is working so well, I might have to give you a few more… 🙂
Still, baptism is the prescribed way that God intends us to enter His Kingdom.
——————————————————————–
The purpose of the hypothetical story, whether the dead baby or the dying martyr, is to refute this assertion…an assertion I see nowhere in the Bible.
And I guess once more I should go on the record as saying that I do not believe baptism is somehow optional or a get around to it sort of thing. I wanted to get baptized as soon as I could once I got saved.
However, we have an annual baptism at the church – a celebration – and I feel no guilt telling people to wait until that day. Nor do I think there is a single person “entering the kingdom” at that moment…rather they already are there.
Likewise, I am not about to preach to the persecuted saints in India who speak of waiting months, even a year or more to baptize converts to see if they truly have counted the cost before taking that step of public identification (which can then lead to great persecution). The idea these people have not entered the kingdom until they get wet is wholly without merit.
No, this is exclusively an infant baptism discussion. No conscious adult (or even child) who can understand the gospel has ever been baptized without FIRST having already entered the kingdom. The baptism follows salvation for such, it does not initiate (thus the hypothetical questions posed about dying before you can get baptized)
Now for those like Xenia and MLD who support infant baptism, where there is a better than even chance the baby might sleep through the whole thing (or cry through it for that matter)…then of course there has to be a connection to “entering the kingdon” – or else why do it at all.
But to say it is the primary way God brings people into the kingdom is without Biblical merit. And of course, as also stated, it explains why both Xenia and MLD see the possibility of that same salvation being lost, rejected, forfeited (whatever the word chosen) later in life when the baby actually develops the ability to think consciously on such weighty matters as the gospel. The doctrines are most definitely linked.
http://www.pravmir.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/infant_baptism1.jpg
Not possible to sleep through one’s Orthodox baptism, which is triple immersion, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And all the people say Amen.
The doctrines are most definitely linked.<<<
Yes, they are linked. Baptism is the start of one's race but one must stay in the race.
Steve,
“Now for those like Xenia and MLD who support infant baptism, where there is a better than even chance the baby might sleep through the whole thing (or cry through it for that matter)…”
Again, chalk up another difference. Since it is God, and God alone doing the saving through the baptism with no works or efforts on the part of the one being saved – perhaps you don’t need to be awake.
Do you have those you baptize “do” anything other than hold their breath?
Such a weird conversation, as neither side says you have to be baptized to be saved (MLD has admitted exceptions), and neither side says you should not be baptized.
” later in life when the baby actually develops the ability to think consciously on such weighty matters as the gospel. ”
Why is this any different than the guy who goes to a Harvest Crusade, listens to the message, hears the gospel clearly for the very first time – goes forward, makes a genuine confession of faith based on what he has been presented, now called a new believer … and later, as he now can “think consciously on such weighty matters as the gospel” and decides it is not true, that it is a hoax and falls away.
You accepted his confession of faith, which was true and valid for what he knew in his heart at the time – all 30 minutes that Greg Laurie could give him.
People, saved people can reject the faith.
Temporary salvation is not salvation at all.
Josh, so why would anyone have any objection to my initial statement – that these were baptized believers? Even the dehydrated baptizers would agree that these folks had to have some kind of baptism to be saved.
This is what I find strange and I connected earlier to a phobia about God using physical means to save people.
Because the scripture does not implicitly tell us that they were baptised?
But you all are saying that it may not be water baptism that saves, but you all say spirit baptism does.
So they would still be baptized believers —- right?
“Temporary salvation is not salvation at all.”
So, the guy in my example – never saved? or now a denier of what he used to believe but still secure in the arms of Jesus?
Not sure I understand what you are getting at.
Hebrews read alone does seem to indicate that believers can lose salvation. In the whole scope of Scripture, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
In fact, this is the exact situation with this congregation in Hebrews. If they leave and go back to temple worship and the sacrifice of bull and goats – even after being true believers, followers of Jesus – are they doomed or still covered by Jesus .
My understanding would be – technically – never saved.
@ 54 – If they go back they are doomed, but it would prove they were never true believers in the first place.
“But to say it is the primary way God brings people into the kingdom is without Biblical merit.”
Here is Biblical support:
“‘As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?’ 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.’” (Acts 11:15-18)
Notice what Peter said to the circumcision party in Jerusalem: “who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” Peter here is reciting what he said ealier when he was with Cornelius: “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47).
Baptism is the means through which God saves and Peter was not going to stand in God’s way with resepct to expanding the Gospel to the Gentiles.
JEan – So your view is that those people in Acts 10 had received the Holy Spirit, but had not been saved?
This is the discussion that happens when regeneration becomes of matter of human will instead of the sovereign work of God.
Just thought I’d stir the pot with my Calvinist stick… 🙂
Josh – then all that says is that no one can have assurance that they are saved. How do you know that you are not a false believer who just hasn’t denied Christ yet?
I think this is why the Hebrews writer is making such a strong case to his brothers – to those who are to inherit the kingdom – because they are on the verge of falling away — drifting away as it says in 2:1
You can’t drift from where you have never been.
If you see my #53 – I agree that taken alone Hebrews seems to say that salvation can be lost.
I know that I am saved because I can’t be plucked from His hand. NOTHING can separate me from the love of God in Christ.
Your baptised baby has no assurance either though. They could walk away at any time.
You seem to be implying that there are no false believers…that any who claim belief are in Christ.
“JEan – So your view is that those people in Acts 10 had received the Holy Spirit, but had not been saved?”
Where God creates, you find water, Word and Spirit. In this case, which is an exception to the general process, the Spirit came before the water, probably as a sign to Peter that the Church was expanding to include Gentiles. Without the manifestation of the Spirit on the Gentiles, it appears that Peter would not have baptized them.
but you all say spirit baptism does.
So they would still be baptized believers —- right?
————————————————-
Yep. But I knew who the author of the article was and how he was using the word. 🙂
The Holy Spirit’s indwelling (which involves His sealing and baptizing work as well) is the litmus test of salvation in Scripture. Josh and I would agree that the Gentiles were saved the moment the Spirit indwelt them. “Baptized with the Holy Spirit” is the wording of the text cited above, (showing visibly through the tongues) just as Peter experienced “at the beginning” (reference to Pentecost)
1 John 2:19 is of merit in this discussion.
But once more, the sealing work of the Spirit is ignored – a seal in the 1st century spoke of ownership and security. The adopting work of God, bringing the child into the family, is likewise ignored as one might study the legal protections of adopted children when a parent chose to do so that were the law in Rome in the 1st century.
THAT is exegesis – the original words, written to the original audience as they would understand them. THEN drawing our interpretations accordingly.
I affirm the importance of baptism after salvation as the answer of a good conscience towards God. I affirm that there are many people who likely have had an emotional experience, (whether at a crusade or sermon altar call) rushed into baptism, who were never saved and thus fell away later (again, why in India they wait a year or more before baptizing).
So were they saved before or after Peter baptized them?
This is the discussion that happens when regeneration becomes of matter of human will instead of the sovereign work of God.
————————————————————————–
Except that is why it is important to see the baptizing, sealing, and indwelling work of the Spirit – the sovereign activity of God. As too the adopting work of God.
The extent of one’s will is secondary (I am not a Calvinist but I am not the cartoon MLD often paints either). Nobody just wakes up one morning and decides to be saved, or decides to be unsaved the next day.
Josh – “If you see my #53 – I agree that taken alone Hebrews seems to say that salvation can be lost.”
Where you see the obvious in Hebrews I see it all over the NT. 🙂
“So were they saved before or after Peter baptized them?”
According to Scripture, they needed water, Word and Spirit. That’s a plain reading of the text. It doesn’t answer directly your question, but the Spirit provided Luke with the revelation intended by Christ for us.
My resting place…
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
We are eternally secure because God wins, and doesn’t say “oops!”
“they needed water, Word and Spirit”
So MLD’s car wreck baby, and Xenia’s sainted martyrs don’t make it in?
I feel like I need to be over obvious here and say:
The only thing you need for Salvation is Jesus.
Josh, that over-obviousness is awesome and appreciated =)
“So MLD’s car wreck baby, and Xenia’s sainted martyrs don’t make it in?”
You were asking about Cornelius’ family, and that’s the question I was answering.
“The only thing you need for Salvation is Jesus.”
I agree – so how does he come to you? He did his work 2,000 yrs ago in a place probably 10,000 miles away and he presently sits at the right hand of God – so how do you cross that space time continuum.
If only Jesus had provided a way – perhaps some physical means in which we could receive him. hmmm – if only
regarding baptism’s efficacy… i know someone who was immersed unprepared for the event physically and they came up out of the water with a nose full, coughing and snorting to see the pastor’s wife laughing her head off… was that baptism legitimate or should it have been repeated, with a warning, “here we go – hold your breath?”
Steve,
I agree…the point is that God does all these works. He doesn’t undo them later. You’ve either been regenerated , adopted, sealed, placed in Christ, etcetera … or you haven’t been.
So perhaps the writer to the Hebrews was an intern pastor out learning his trade and his assignment was to write a sermon of exhortation and warning and go out and preach it on a congregation of believers who would have no need for such a sermon.
He is not calling this seekers to Christ – he is preaching his heart out to those who very well could do what you say is impossible.
But perhaps it is better to practice on brothers such as these and then go out and get the real audience at a later time.
MLD,
The warning passages are difficult and most be reasoned out with the whole counsel of God.
I believe they serve an important function as God uses them as one way of keeping the elect.
Because I believe salvation is all of the Lord, to posit one losing their salvation would require God changing His mind and admitting He made a mistake when He chose someone before the foundation of the world.
as i read this thread, i appreciate that the main concern is salvation, not one’s interpretation of the mechanics of Faith in Christ… if one thinks that their salvation transaction occurs at physical baptism… ? … i do see some need to fit an explanation of why some turn away and are lost into this equation…
for my part, it is the Holy Spirit’s baptism into Christ that seals the transaction and that incredible blessing is set in motion with a discernment that is totally from the Throne of God and in His timing… after this you can stray for a period, but you can never invalidate it – IMHO
many “try” out the Faith, but rebel and walk away at some juncture in their learning process – rebellion against a hard truth that offends their intellectual egos or a bad turn of events that destroyed their prosperity expectations or ? – and many of those have had a water baptism (most, have perhaps)…
FWIW – an annual baptism doesn’t seem right… quarterly, maybe?
the point is that God does all these works. He doesn’t undo them later. You’ve either been regenerated , adopted, sealed, placed in Christ, etcetera … or you haven’t been.
——————————————————–
Yep..and to one of MLD’s questions up there….I go back to my pesky habit of referencing Scripture for my belief system…
The Spirit bears witness with our (my) spirit that we are a child of God.
That’s why I don’t wake up wondering if I am really saved or not. I believed (faith’d) the Gospel and the Spirit did all those things Michael and I referenced (including drawing me to that belief). A supernatural work. And He continues His supernatural work by bearing witness to my spirit that I am His child.
And does so 24/7…not just at the communion table.
FWIW – an annual baptism doesn’t seem right… quarterly, maybe?
————————————————————————–
EM…every year we have about 15-25 people get baptized at our annual baptism. If we were a larger church, we would have more than one.
At Costa Mesa there were four a year, all during the summer, 2 on Saturdays and 2 on Friday nights. I was baptized with a few hundred others and there were about a dozen pastors in the ocean doing the baptizing. It was a special time, as it was the other times over the years I was a witness to friends being baptized there.
Steve,
“The Spirit bears witness with our (my) spirit that we are a child of God.”
and so the spirit did with every Christian I know who fell away. Look, everyone one of them were true believers — until they weren’t.
Because I believe salvation is all of the Lord, to posit one losing their salvation
I never suggest that a person loses their salvation – they can’t sin it away, they can’t make God mad and take it away. However, they can walk away from it.
MLD,
To be able to walk away from salvation assumes that it is something external to us instead of being the result of God raising a dead spirit to life and performing all the other acts of grace and redemption that Steve and I have mentioned. It implies that a change of mind can change the will of God and undue all His sovereign works on behalf of His elect.
I say thee nay!
I’m reading Packer at the skatepark, so I’m going to be dogmatic today…
I’m reading Packer at the skatepark, so I’m going to be dogmatic today…
LOL 🙂
So you have a believer who stops believing – he really get’s turned by Richard Dawkins, but … he is eternally secure, so you end up with an unbeliever in heaven?
MLD,
I don’t believe that a truly regenerated person will become unregenerate. Thus, your hypothetical believer was never regenerate and will read Dawkins in hell instead of Packer at the skatepark. 🙂
I didn’t say he became unregenerate – I am going along with your thought. He is eternally secure, (regenerate) he just doesn’t believe any longer. So, a regenerate unbeliever in heaven?
Jesus spoke of a seed that grew and received, but then gave it all up
“20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away.:”
Who is this? Who hears, receives with great joy – hangs on for a while and then … and this is the key – falls away. You can’t fall away if you were not there.
I think the writer of to the Hebrews has this in mind – these guys have received the word – become Christians and now the whoas of the world are beating down on them – and he is afreaid that they have started to fall away.
“I agree – so how does he come to you? ”
By faith.
“I agree – so how does he come to you? ”
I forgot about the moderation when multiple Bible citations are used, so here’s the comment without the citations:
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’
“And Peter said to them, ‘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.'” (Acts 2:32)
Josh – I don’t think so. You receive him by faith – but that is not how he comes to you.
People still run from the physical aspect of how God saves. It’s all physical.
For some people (present company excluded) all their Christianity takes place within their skulls. It’s all based on what they think.
“For some people (present company excluded) all their Christianity takes place within their skulls. It’s all based on what they think.”
This is so true Xenia. I see this all over Facebook, as well as in my community. It’s idolatry, of course. As St. Paul wrote, “no one understands; no one seeks for God.” (Rom 3:11) If, as Jesus said, we must receive him as little children, then how could Christianity depend on what we think?
what one thinks is terribly important – how one thinks is the key… Romans 12:2
i think 🙂 that there may some confusion of ‘thinking’ with ‘feeling’ IMNSHO
“what one thinks is terribly important – how one thinks is the key”
Agree. In Romans 12 ;2, this is God’s work too “be transformed by the renewal of your mind.”
I don’t know about the “all their Christianity” qualifier, but since we are commanded to love the Lord with all our minds….
and since Acts shows us plenty of examples of “come let us reason together…(a passage about the forgiveness of sins if quoted in full)” in action by the apostles….
And since the word of God is, you know, WORDS that require conscious thought to read and or listen to when spoken by others…
And since our minds, like the rest of us, are the result of God’s creation and certainly make us unique compared to the rest of the creation
I think equating the mind with idolatry is a little bit of a stretch.
As far as “it’s all physical” – The which is of the flesh is flesh, that which is of the Spirit is Spirit…..(and) The words that I speak to you, they are Spirit, and they are life.
“For some people (present company excluded) all their Christianity takes place within their skulls. It’s all based on what they think.”
This manifests itself in at least two ways:
There is the “spiritual but not religious” crowd. This crowd views Christianity as primarily an individual matter and experience and have no use for a church family. There is no submission to spiritual authority (including the Bible). Therefore, Christianity for this group is a customized spirituality based on what the individual thinks it is and means.
Then there’s the “Jesus is love” crowd. This crowd uses Christianity to affirm individual’s autonomy and freedom. This crowd views major portions of the Bible as out-of-date and does not respect the moral teaching traditions of the Church.
What these two groups have in common (and a person can simultaneously be a member of both groups) is that the Bible does not constitute the inspired, infallible word of God, constituting the rule and norm by which all teachers and doctrines must be examined and judged. They create caricatures of God. When an individual makes him/her-self the judge of what is and what isn’t God’s word, then Christianity for that individual becomes whatever he/she thinks it is.
Both of these groups are not worshiping the God of the Bible. Therefore, it must be idolatry.
“People still run from the physical aspect of how God saves. It’s all physical.”
If by this you mean Jesus lived, was murdered, and rose by the power of God then I am in agreement. But we know different, don’t we.
Steve,
“As far as “it’s all physical” – The which is of the flesh is flesh, that which is of the Spirit is Spirit…..(and) The words that I speak to you, they are Spirit, and they are life.”
Yet the words are physical and Jesus comes to us in those physical words.
The words come to us through a preacher who is physical and Jesus comes to us through the physical words of that preacher.
The words are written with physical ink and physical paper and read by yourself a physical being or by a physical preacher and Jesus comes to us through physical ink and physical paper etc – you get the point.
Oh, well let’s add to it – Jesus came to us as a fully physical person and hung on physical wood to do his work.
So, yes, even today it is all physical as Jesus comes to us through people, words, ink, paper, bread, wine, water … well, everything physical.
All of this is the physical means God uses to save people.
You and Gordon Greenbaum may have a similar Jesus. 😉
Is your stance, MLD, that baptism is A means of salvation, the same as ink on paper is A means of salvation? That there are many physical means that God may use to save a soul?
Am I understanding that correctly?
This is not Holy Scripture, but is presented to demonstrate continuity of doctrine between Scripture, the Church Fathers and contemporary sacramental traditions concerning baptism.
Fragment XXXIV of Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.):
“‘And dipped himself’, says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'”
Josh, my position and I thought I have made it clear for years is that God uses physical means to save people. This is why the scriptures can say baptism saves and why scriptures can say that the bread and the wine can forgive sin.
God always deals with us physically.
Are you now ready to convert? 😉
But it seemed in #100 that you were saying there were other means that God uses to save, not just Baptism. Is that correct?
I mean, apparently so, as there are obvious examples of saved people who were not baptized (in water). You allowed those exceptions yourself. So at least in those instances, God used some other means to save. Right?
The question is – do you believe God saves with external physical means.
I see now what you are addressing. My comment about it all being physical was when I asked how God comes to you you said by faith and I said no, that is how you receive him – but he comes to you through physical means.(see #91 & 92)
But you can still answer #105 just for conversation. 🙂
Answer my 104 first, so that I’ll understand what we are talking about.
Josh – thought I answered. Jesus comes to us through physical means and has even designated some as saving. This isn’t rocket science. He does or he doesn’t. Steve thinks it is only non physical.
If you include that God uses the preacher, the written word, etc…as a means to saving someone, I think Steve would agree with you.
When talking about faith with someone from the RCC it’s about the organization (Church) and the practice where salvation is found. So when reading a Ltheran version of faith and salvation I would expect the “external (or physical) means” of salvation would arise.
I believe the Bible very clearly teaches faith in God and nothing else is where “salvation” is found and that would be expected from the “other” Protestant sects of Christianity. But I also believe the Bible clearly teaches, “if you love Me you will do…” and that means to not be baptized (when one hears the instruction to do so) is a bit of rebellion (or middle finger waving) also.
Bottom line is baptism (immersion in water) is a response to faith and love of God and does not come in the reverse order (that is to say people do not receive their faith and love of God through water).
Yes MLD my argument is this; if one never was taught, heard nor understood the instruction to be baptized it is their faith (no mater how argued it has been given to them) which saves them, not the dowsing of physical water. Of course once one hears about baptism why would they not want to be baptized in front of their faith community?
Haven’t we all been down this road before?
MLD:
I do agree God does deal with His creation in a “physical” means. Why else did Messiah have to be a physical man.
But there is that spiritual thing which goes beyond our comprehension and that is why these arguments about physical verses spiritual have continued from the very beginning.
We live in a physical world where young men video themselves doing things which break multiple bones and cause compound fractures so they can be on YouTube. How come there never seems to be an end to the supply of really stupid young men?
What’s the point? I don’t know; just a random thought about facing the physicality of this world.
Bob, I am not making the case for salvation – I switched gears to how Jesus comes to us – Josh said by faith and I disagreed and said Jesus comes to us only through physical means. Steve objected and said something about flesh begets flesh or something like that.
Typical gnostic response – spiritual = good /// physical = bad.
MLD, your presentation on this matter (not the Hebrews study) has been confusing. Maybe you could stop short of calling Steve a gnostic heretic, and chalk it up to misunderstanding instead.
Well I did not mean to call him a gnostic heretic – I was saying we are in a Christian culture that seems to want to deny the physical aspects of salvation and run to an all spiritual.
How has my discussion with this been confusing?
I have made exactly 2 points and they were summarized in my #100.
1.) Jesus comes to us through people, words, ink, paper, bread, wine, water …all physical.
2.) All of this is the physical means God uses to save people.
I don’t know why people object.
Because you aren’t as clear as you think you are.
It seems, initially, that you are saying people must be baptised to be saved. Now, you state the obvious, that God saves people, but uses people, ink, etc…to do so.
“Because you aren’t as clear as you think you are.” 🙂 i think you got that right, Josh
but then, with the exception perhaps of Xenia and Michael, maybe none of us are…
off i go into the wild blue yonder… into the sky
Josh, I will try to make it more clear and go back up to my #33 where I stated something that I have said probably a couple of dozens times over the years.
“I forgot about the dead baby in the car wreck. Lutherans do not say you must be baptized to be saved – we say baptism saves. God uses several means to save people.”
But I am sure that you still disagree with my clarification.
Oh, I agree Em. 🙂 Guilty myself.
And I wanted to make it clear, that the Hebrews study is wonderful. It’s just when we get into this type stuff where the communication gets murky, and we border upon calling one another gnostics.
Ok, that is more clear. So, in your view: God does use several means to save people, and baptism is just one of those means, but baptism is not necessary for salvation.
OF course, I would still disagree, as I am a proponent of Believer’s Baptism, which states that one believes and then gets baptised. But at least I understand you better.
MLD:
“I switched gears to how Jesus comes to us”
Thank you for clarifying this, I basically agree but not in the manner of the sacraments as you do. It would be a statement of ignorance to think any knowledge of God just comes in some sort of non-physical way. We learn of God through our physical senses as well as our ability to reason and know truth. However, faith is something entirely else, while it may be sparked or come alive through a physical means (like “hearing the word of Messiah”) the spiritual side of it is the mystery no one can explain.
Now can you do us all a favor and stop writing stuff like this:
“Typical gnostic response – spiritual = good /// physical = bad.”
When you do such things you place your knowledge, study and understanding a bit over the top. I would bet no one here is even close to being a “gnostic” in any form or fashion.
BTW when I write, “faith is something else” it needs to be clear to understand the inner workings of faith is almost, if not, impossible. We don’t even understand how humans can be self aware and have the ability to exceed and dominate all other life on this earth let alone know why some have faith in God and others don’t.
We think, therefore…
“Ok, that is more clear. So, in your view: God does use several means to save people, and baptism is just one of those means, but baptism is not necessary for salvation.”
Although God may use other physical means, his plan is through baptism – it is clear. There are something like 200 plus references to baptism in the NT and at least half of them have a connection to salvation, forgiveness, receiving the Holy Spirit etc.
So, I like to use the phrase necessary but not absolutely necessary
But Josh do you believe God uses any physical means to save people?
Sure, God used a break table at a motor shop to bring me to Salvation.
I would assume that since you became a Lutheran later in life that you were also baptised after Salvation. Were you rebaptised in the Lutheran church?
“So, in your view: God does use several means to save people, and baptism is just one of those means, but baptism is not necessary for salvation.”
Since the air is evidently clearing, let’s clarify a couple related matters:
The only thing that condemns a person is the absence of faith. Thus, we’ve been discussing how it is that God creates faith in a person’s heart. The Bible describes three means by which God delivers faith to a person: (1) The power of the Holy Spirit working through God’s Word; (2) baptism; and (3) communion (only post-conversion).
Regarding baptism, the Bible is repleat with passages describing the salvific nature of baptism. It isn’t man’s work but God’s work of joining His promise of the forgiveness of sins to the water.
The Bible does not teach salvation as a menu of options. It never teaches that baptism is optional; it never teaches baptism as an ordinance; it never teaches baptism as a seal of faith or public witness to faith.
Jesus said “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them”
Cut to the heart, the people asked Peter “What shall we do?” “And Peter said to them, ‘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.'”
St. Paul said to the Corinthians: “and such were some of you. But you were washed…”
He said to Titus: “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.”
Peter later wrote: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you”.
God gave us baptism as a gift for us, not as law. Why would we not accept such a gift?
Josh – so we can say shop tables save 😉
Actually I was baptized after belief – I don’t know that that was necessarily after salvation. I was not rebaptized – Lutherans do not re baptize. We accept any trinitarian baptism. The only people who ever tried to get me to rebaptize were the SBC. They seriously did not recognize my CC baptism.
I told them no and they recanted
You could say shop tables save. I would say a shop table had a bible on it. God used the table to hold that bible that delivered the Gospel to me…and through that, Jesus saved me.
SBC churches will usually accept any believer’s baptism by immersion, but being autonomous, each church decides what it wants to do.
“God gave us baptism as a gift for us, not as law. Why would we not accept such a gift?”
Has someone been arguing to reject baptism?
Josh, here is an example. I’m not going to go through the whole thread for others.
“For those who see dying babies as saved by God by His sovereign grace based in the merits of Christ, there exists no need for the water ritual until it can be done as the outward act of obedience, consciously affirming the inward working of the Spirit, as a public witness to the world and the answer of a good conscience towards God.”
Oh, I am against paedobaptism too.
Actually Josh, I was making a different point. Baptism done as an act of obedience is a rejection of the gift. It twists the gospel into the law. It says “I’m doing for God”, not “God’s coming to me”.
” Baptism done as an act of obedience is a rejection of the gift. It twists the gospel into the law. It says “I’m doing for God”, not “God’s coming to me”.”
And there Jean has put this to rest. He even has the terminology that directs us to God
God gives a gift and God comes to us
I can answer #124.
I was baptized twice — once as a member of the Evangelical United Brethren church as a baby. Second, as a teen in the throes of the “Jesus Movement.”
I didn’t need to be baptized again when I joined the Lutheran church. My understanding is that they accept any baptism (previously) done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Hope that helps.
“The only thing that condemns a person is the absence of faith.” that sentence could bear with a little elaboration, i think, i.e., faith alone is not enough… as my old Presbyterian minister once said (not original, i know): if you compare faith to a plane ticket to get you to Atlanta, but you get on a plane to Rio, you’re going to end up in Brazil, no matter how much faith you have…
your faith must be in response to a revelation of God, Himself – just want to be sure we know what faith we’re talking about
Elaboration on”faith” and tying it with baptism:
“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
Galatians 3:25-29 ESV
#135, well, i am willing to let it lie there with the reference given…
for me the baptism into Christ is not H2O, but the Holy Spirit’s work… why was John the Baptist baptizing and why did Jesus submit to a water baptism? for my part it is a very important, symbolic act of submission to God and if one sees their baptism as a part of their redemption? well, it is …
I don’t see any non water baptisms in the scriptures. All baptisms are the same made of of water and the spirit just like it says in John 3. The spirit enters when God’s word is pronounced during the baptism – in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit.
Can someone point me to an obvious non water baptism? The scripture says there is only one baptism – we know of water baptism – how can there be another?
The John 3 conversation with Nicodemus doesn’t even mention baptism.
To you it doesn’t – perhaps the water from being being born from above is rain. 😉
Congrats MLD. You ruined this Weekend Word discussion with another trip down baptism lane.
🙂
You know that Luther doesn’t see John 3 as a proof of Baptismal regeneration, right?
Josh,
Beside the language of water and Spirit in Jo 3, the language of “born again” or “born from above” is baptismal language. Take St. Paul’s language in Ro:
“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.” (Rom 6:3-4)
Baptized into His death, and raised to the newness of life. Baptism unites us with Christ. Baptism is pure gospel.
There’s no “born again” in the Paul passage.
The conversation with Nicodemus is about birth. It’s obvious from context that the “water” birth is the physical birth.
Just not a good proof text for baptismal regeneration.
Josh –
I did not start the baptism conversation at all. 3 times early on I tried to say it was not about baptism. As I have explained – these are from the notes on the class I taught at my church. I know you will find this hard to believe but not a single class member objected to my use of the term.
The whole body of Christ understands what is meant by ‘baptized believers’ … except the baptists.
I know what baptized believers means. Its just in this case, the text does not say that.
water is not, as we’ll all have to concede, always literal H2O in the Scriptures… if it were there’d be a lot of good folk running around in wet pants…
FWIW the Romans baptized their swords – in blood
PS – MLD, you did start the Baptism conversation way back at # 5, and nearly every one of your comments since.
Doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t apply to this passage, bur I still don’t believe in baptismal regeneration…and you don’t really either with all the exceptions you’ll allow. (“You really have to be baptized to be saved, except you really kinda don’t.”)
My only requirement for salvation is Jesus, and there are absolutely no exceptions. Either you are with Him or you are not.
“Just not a good proof text for baptismal regeneration.”
Josh, I’m not proof texting. I’m doing everything I can, by pulling from everywhere in the NT the consistent and persistent teaching on baptism. You are responding so fast that I wonder if you’re more interested in debating than “studying.” This is a Bible Study. The Bible says what it says. In order to take a “symbolic” or “obedience” approach to baptism, one has to take the Scripture at other than its plain, face value meaning. I’ve been down this road personally myself and after much study and reflection and many discussions with various people, I am going to submit to the plain meaning for the Scripture.
I’m not going to say that you or anyone else who believes differently is not saved or a heretic, so I hope I’m not reprimanded for saying that. I’ve spent this much time on this thread, because of the comfort and joy that I have received from going with the plain meaning of Scripture. Therefore, if there are any fence sitters or lurkers who are wondering about baptism, MLD has more detailed articles and podcasts that go into the minutia of the exegeses if you need that. Whether you need more support or what you’ve been given here, may God bless you.
well, what can I say.
Jean – I am conversing with more than one person here, and yes, I try to do so quickly. It has more to do with being in conversation than a lack of willingness to study.
So straight question to you, yes or no – Does one have to be baptized in water in order to be saved? Simple question.
Also, I OBVIOUSLY disagree with you about the plain meaning of Scripture. Totally disagree. Couldn’t it be that we have differing points of view rather than I just don’t believe in the plain meaning of Scripture?
i wonder what our Lord is thinking as we sit around here – kind of like a bunch of Jews of old sitting at the gate to the city… i think i heard Him sigh, “oh, well, at least, they do understand Who I Am and what I’ve done for them….”
dunno, tho – do i?
God keep
Josh –
all I can say is WOW! if you even begin to think my #5 was about baptism. I asked the question – “Are these believers who are thinking of turning away from the faith, have already turned away or are the part of the “well, they were never saved in the first place.”
and made a challenge – “How you answer this question at this point already will determine how you understand the rest of the book.”
Where do you get a baptism argument?
Did you ever engage that question? Very important to the whole understanding of the book. Very important.
So straight question to you, yes or no – Does one have to be baptized in water in order to be saved? Simple question.
but why do you continue to ask the same question that we already answered clearly. You don’t have to be baptized to be saved but baptism does save.
I have a simple question for you – do you have to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved? Simple question.
#5 was the beginning. You re-upped your extra-biblical assertion that these were baptized believers. Clearly looking for a response to that, not to the text in Hebrews.
You continued in #12, since nobody took your bait yet, but this time took it to the point of no return.
Look man, you wanted to have a discussion about baptismal regeneration so we did. There ya go.
MLD – that question was for Jean. I want a simple answer from him.
Answer to MLD’s question – Yes.
my #12 was in response to someone’s comment that there are different types of baptism. I didn’t initiate it..
So does one need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved? Simple question.
Again – yes.
So, belief in Christ is necessary – so there is no salvation for infants, small children, those with mental disabilities etc.
See how that works? – just like the baptism question
Small children and people with mental disabilities can certainly believe. It doesn’t take a genius. Seems that they are maybe more suited for “faith like a child”.
Now babies is a tough one, but we both know the constructions that both sides have made to answer that question.
“So straight question to you, yes or no – Does one have to be baptized in water in order to be saved? Simple question.”
Josh,
I answered that question in #126, clause (1) and again in #149, bottom paragraph. I also trust the mercy of God in other cases, such as abortion, infant death, etc.
Our numbers must be different. I have MLD as both of those.
But a simple answer would only take three letters to type at most.
Well, this should not come as a surprise to you – we believe that God gives the faith and the belief to the infant at baptism — and the baby can sleep through it. This was the point Jean was making earlier about baptism being gift, pure gospel from God and not obedience by us.
“but Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.’”
One other tact I might take is to ask whether a sacramental view of baptism is any more difficult to believe than God enabling a 90 year old woman or virgin to become pregnant, or raising Lazarus or Jesus from the dead, or converting water to wine, or any number of other miracles that the Bible records?
“And when I think,
That God, His Son not sparing;
Sent Him to die,
I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross,
My burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died
To take away my sin.
Then sings my soul,
My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art!
How great Thou art!
Then sings my soul,
My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art!
How great Thou art!”
Jean – I don’t think baptismal regeneration is hard to believe, I just don’t think it is supported by Scripture.
So, trying to sum it all up – Everyone here agrees: Baptism is not necessary for Salvation ( we only disagree on the degree to which it is necessary) but we all agree that it is vital.
“we believe that God gives the faith and the belief to the infant”
Then you’d also agree that the baptism is not necessary for the salvation (you know, the car wreck on the way. Hey, God already gave them the faith and belief)
Baptism is not necessary for Salvation
Just like we all agree that faith in Christ is not necessary for salvation – right?
But the discussion isn’t “necessary” the question is does baptism save – there is probably no statement more clear in scripture than “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you ”
But if people can deny the direct statements ofd Jesus “this IS my body / this IS my blood, well I guess they can do anything with the words of the Bible. As Xenia would say – present company excepted 😉
I wonder why people don’t get tired of trying to make their case by saying “well I know the Bible says that, but what it really means is…”
Have I said that somewhere?
Wow, nevermind. I fell victim to MLD’s classic Baptism argument, and now he’s trying to pull me in to his trusty Communion debate…
I’ll pass 🙂
Your Hebrews study is good, we should have stuck to that.
Josh – I made 44 bullet point comments on the Hebrews passages and you seemed to have only reacted to one.
Here let’s dig deeper – I asked 3 hard questions in relation to these people addressed by the Hebrews writer;
*** What is it that we have to know previously, to now pay attention?**
*** What is it that you need to know to be saved?***
(a baby knows nothing – what about us who are now older?)
“*** What did Paul mean when he said of his Jewish brothers “they had a zeal for God – but not of knowledge?*** Romans 10:1-3
MLD, honestly I didn’t deal with any of the points, only the comments in this thread. Those are good questions you ask. And I agree, those are totally related to Hebrews. I’ll only attempt the first for now:
With the “pay closer attention to what we have heard”, I think the author is referring to all the the original readers had previously encountered…i.e. the Old Testament, and the fulfillment of the Old Testament that they had heard about in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Remembering that the New Testament Cannon was not complete at this time, much of what was being spread was through spoken teaching. This teaching was particularly important to these former Jews, because it testified to the Messiah that their prophets had spoken about 100’s of years earlier. The author of Hebrews seems to want to canonize some of those verbal teachings, and thus stresses throughout the letter that the Old Testament was indeed pointing to Jesus.
As some were going back to the temple, and others were tempted to do so in the face of increasing hardship, it became vital to “pay closer attention” to these truths. If Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies, you can never go back to the old way. So, pay close attention, be convinced, and don’t be fooled.
I guess I can comment on my own thread and not just on the comments of others.
After I asked the 3 questions I re posted at 171 I made the statement; “So much for throw away doctrine divides and what you need is love – you had better have your doctrine down firm.”
I find this quite important that we do not fall for “doctrine divides” or “Jesus is more concerned about your actions than what you believe.” The writer is bringing up that very point – think about what you have been taught – rehearse your doctrine, because the teaching is what keeps you from drifting away.
This was important for me to say in my class that sits right in the valley of Purpose Driven Christianity where the battle cry is ‘deeds not creeds’
Anchor your doctrine!
” because the teaching is what keeps you from drifting away.”
Agreed, MLD.
Any thoughts on my answer to your first question?
Josh – I think you are on point with your reply. I was waiting for further posts from you to see if you tied the 3 questions together.
“What did Paul mean when he said of his Jewish brothers “they had a zeal for God – but not of knowledge?”
MLD, this is more of an “application” response than a direct answer to your question. When we’re struggling with a personal problem or unhappy about the world around us, it’s easy to get impatient and want to “help” God out; make kingdom things happen; right injustices, etc.
The pharisees were the Jews of Paul’s day with “zeal” for God. They knew about the promises of restoration in their scriptures and thought that by zeal they would motivate God to make good on His promises. They totally missed what God did, when He kept those promises. “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him [Christ].”
They didn’t have “knowledge” of what God was actually doing in and through Christ. Even if they were presented with that knowledge, it was not according to “how the world works.” We have to be careful that not only we have the “knowledge” but that we submit to God’s wisdom and not fall back on the world’s wisdom.