Churches of Christ...Continued

[bmerr]

Yes bmerr:
The faith of Luke 17:12-19 was acting -- but the directive was NOT completed. Of course, if any leper decided that s/he was not going to go to the priest, s/he would not have been healed, anymore than someone who decides s/he is not going to obey the Lord would be saved.

I am not suggesting that we do not have to be baptized. This healing, however, suggests that a faith that would get us into the water is what saves us.

That is what Scripture, when we are "handling aright" 2 Timothy 2:15, teaches. I have looked over the centrated verses of both Baptists and Church of Christ people and after "giving diligence" to learn, found that those passages teach this: faith that gets us to act on it saves us, and one of the specific acts that follow from this faith is submission to baptism -- but that faith that gets us there saves us before we can get it done.

Your position is that one can have that very same faith, yet it does not matter until the baptism ceremony is over.

Darron,

bmerr here. I'm starting to think we're not really all that far apart on this. The situation is often presented of the person who desires to be baptized, but is tragically killed before he is able to be immersed, and the question is asked, "Is this man saved?" As I've replied in the past, the Bible does not speak of such a case, so I cannot speak authoritatively on it, either. If God wants to make an exception for such a one, that is His prerogative, I suppose.

But that would be an exception to the rule, and I think we dcould both agree on that. I think where so many get messed up is when they try to use an imaginary exception, based solely on speculation, to do away with the explicitly stated rule.

As far as one haveing to wait until the "ceremony is over", the longest anyone had to wait in the NT was 3 days, in the case of Saul. Everyone else "completed the transaction" immediately. Saul was the exception to the rule. Does it not seem as though most in the religious world trade the demonstrated pattern for something more akin to the exception?

If we are saved by biblical faith/belief "not of works" as Ephesians 2:8-10 outline, but not so until completed baptism, we have a contradiction.

Not so, if we understand that the works Paul here condemns are those of which a man could boast. If one kept the Law perfectly, he could boast. If one were to do enough good deeds to be saved, he could boast. But if one simply obeys a command, such as baptism, of what could he boast?

"So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, asy, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10).

If the baptizee has the same faith:
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after baptism,
the fact remains that the baptizee would not be saved because of that faith but rather because of that baptism.

In Paul's letter to the Romans, he explains to them that they are servants to whom they obey (6:16). He goes on to say that though they had been the servants of sin, they had obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which had been delivered to them (6:17). Then he says, "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness" (6:17).

Whatever he meant about obeying from the heart "that form of doctrine", it was not until then that they were made free from sin and became the servants of righteousness. Can we agree on that?

If we can, perhaps we can discuss what is meant by the phrase "obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine" means.

Exactly who was baptism intended for? Was it intended for everyone regardless of whether or not they believed the Gospel? There are many people who would love to escape lifelong servitude to Jesus Christ by just being baptized and who think they have.

I posit that baptism is only for followers of Jesus Christ, and God "ordained" that it be done. Going with the text, rather than trying to divert the topic, puts baptism as a follow-up work to faith "not of works" that saves us beforehand.

Baptism was intended for those who believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. It was to these people that power was given to become the sons of God (John 1:12). They were not made sons of God merely by recieving him, but by recieving him, they were given power, or the right, to become the sons of God. This would take place via the new birth per John 3:3-5. They were born of the Spirit when they believed the message through the Spirit. They then had the right to be born of water by submtting to baptism in His name.

I also posit that "obey" means MUCH more than baptism.
Galatians 5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, |but only | the kind of faith that works through love” (NASB|ESV|ICB).
Philippians 2:12b “ocupaos en vuestra salvación” (RVR 1909/1960/1995, RVA) = “You-busy-you in your salvation.”
Even before and after baptism, we do not have biblical faith unless we have an attitude that makes us do from our hearts the general good works God calls for.

Absolutely. Baptism is merely the first step of obedience which makes us free from sin, and wherein we become the servants of righteousness. Continued obedience is the duty of a servant, and those who turn away to persistent disobedience will be judged as unfaithful servants (Mat 24:45-51).

Thanks for taking the time to correspond. My apologies if my replies are not always prompt.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[tommie]

I hope it is alright to post here since I haven't read all the posts. I was saved in a Boston Movement Church of Christ. I attended that church for about 2-3 years and grew incredibly, although it was very legalistic. In fact, I was baptised two time because I wasn't sure I really understood what I did the first time, or did it for the right reason. I know I was saved there but have since become baptist. (I really am just a christian) How I changed my thinking about baptism being essential for salvation was when I read the scripture about woman being saved through child birth. You say how does this have anything to do with baptism for salvation. Well the word saved in this scripture is the same word as saved by baptistm in the scripture, repent and be baptised every one of your for the gift of salvation (or something like that). I know women are not saved by child birth. The reason I believe that: the bible would have mentioned it more than once. So, going with that reasoning, I think that if God felt that baptism is essential for salvation He would have mentioned it many times and made it quite clear. He is not a God of confusion. I take the bible as a whole and I don't think you can take only a sentence and prove anything. Hope this helps.

 

[Eric B]

I think where so many get messed up is when they try to use an imaginary exception, based solely on speculation, to do away with the explicitly stated rule.

As far as one haveing to wait until the "ceremony is over", the longest anyone had to wait in the NT was 3 days, in the case of Saul. Everyone else "completed the transaction" immediately. Saul was the exception to the rule. Does it not seem as though most in the religious world trade the demonstrated pattern for something more akin to the exception?

The reason why is that those exceptions are enough to prove that salvation ultimately then does not occur mechanically in the water of baptism. It must be one's belief. That is the real issue here.

Not so, if we understand that the works Paul here condemns are those of which a man could boast. If one kept the Law perfectly, he could boast. If one were to do enough good deeds to be saved, he could boast. But if one simply obeys a command, such as baptism, of what could he boast?

"So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, asy, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10).

And that is precisely why salvation cannot be gained by the act of baptism. Your baptism still leaves you an "unprofitable servant" (the kind Jesus said are cast into outer darkness). Therefore, salvation cannot have been gained from it. Otherwise, the person could boast (as some are doing) "I was baptized, so I'm saved; you were not baptized, so you're not saved".

Baptism was intended for those who believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. It was to these people that power was given to become the sons of God (John 1:12). They were not made sons of God merely by recieving him, but by recieving him, they were given power, or the right, to become the sons of God. This would take place via the new birth per John 3:3-5. They were born of the Spirit when they believed the message through the Spirit. They then had the right to be born of water by submtting to baptism in His name.

Oh, no! So being baptized is "the power/right to become the sons of God" too? But notice how "born of water" comes BEFORE "born of the Spirit". You have the water birth coming AFTER spirit birth (which would be rendered null and meaningless if they weren't yet even saved or sons of God, and subsequent water baptism is what really accomplished that).
This shows that "birth by water" is not baptism. Sons of God is a spiritual state attained by a spiritual birth; not a physical birth through a physical medium.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron,

bmerr here. I'm starting to think we're not really all that far apart on this. The situation is often presented of the person who desires to be baptized, but is tragically killed before he is able to be immersed, and the question is asked, "Is this man saved?" As I've replied in the past, the Bible does not speak of such a case, so I cannot speak authoritatively on it, either. If God wants to make an exception for such a one, that is His prerogative, I suppose.

I posit that the Scriptures teach without any ambivalence that the victim of this fluke would be saved because of the faith that was sending him to baptism.

As far as one haveing to wait until the "ceremony is over", the longest anyone had to wait in the NT was 3 days, in the case of Saul. Everyone else "completed the transaction" immediately. Saul was the exception to the rule. Does it not seem as though most in the religious world trade the demonstrated pattern for something more akin to the exception?

You are `preaching to the choir' here.

There is no biblical reason why the conversion experience patterned and assumed in the New Testament should ever be trifled with.

In Paul's letter to the Romans, he explains to them that they are servants to whom they obey (6:16). He goes on to say that though they had been the servants of sin, they had obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which had been delivered to them (6:17). Then he says, "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness" (6:17).

Whatever he meant about obeying from the heart "that form of doctrine", it was not until then that they were made free from sin and became the servants of righteousness. Can we agree on that?

If we can, perhaps we can discuss what is meant by the phrase "obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine" means.

At this passage, it means those who have turned away from lives of sin.

Again, you are seeing "get baptized" where the Bible says "obey." I pointed out, and you rightly agreed with, that obey means MUCH more than baptism.

Even before someone makes it to the baptismal pool after believing the Gospel, s/he can still obey. Perhaps on the way up, s/he bites the tongue on a profanity that was on its way out because s/he had resolved to give up that sin to obey the Lord.

Again, "obey" means more than baptism.

Thank you bmerr for a civil conversation. In the Churches of Christ, it is hard to get a civil conversation if you do not believe the Bible teaches `salvation upon completed baptism.' The `questioner' usually gets his very character reviled.

 

[Darron Steele]

Bmerr:
As supplement to my previous post, I wish to clarify one more thing for you. You seem concerned about a teaching that we are saved by faith and that one `might possibly' be saved if by some fluke s/he was killed before baptism. You seem concerned that such an exception is being used to justify delayed baptism as a rule.

I am in complete agreement with you that baptism should never be delayed. At the Baptist church I got saved at, baptisms were delayed. The pastor held baptism in such high regard that he wanted to make sure he did not baptize any non-Christians. Hence, baptism was always delayed for converts until their lives showed a change the Gospel should have. Then and only then were they baptized.

Other people, as you point out, put off baptism deliberately. Both extremes are wrong. Baptism should always be done promptly.

I can understand your concern about the extreme that lightly esteems baptism, or evades it, and abuse so-called `faith' to justify it. I realize how `salvation by faith' can be abused.

However, with me as a person who spent his first half-decade in the Lord in a fundamental Baptist church and has attended church among the Churches of Christ for two years, and with you as someone who identifies with the Churches of Christ, our sole concern is about what does the Bible teach? Correct? I am sure you agree.

When I explain that the Scriptures teach that we are saved by a faith that involves repentance and obedience of the heart, and which would get us baptized, but saves us before we do a single thing, I am focusing on what Scripture teaches.

If someone wants to take the teaching that someone could be saved before completed baptism and abuse it to evade baptism, if s/he dies first, s/he will find out that this `faith' was dead and will be judged an unbeliever by God. I do not cater to sinners by considering their potential abuses; I will focus on what the Bible teaches.