Tag: Baptism

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 9 Part 2

What is the gospel-allegiance model of salvation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The first part, I’m going to quote a section of seeing as I think it’s pretty important.

Saving faith as allegiance to a king. Saving faith (pistis) in the New Testament is embodied, enacted relationally, and already includes good works within its purview. 1 Neither the Catholic nor the Protestant model tends to speak about saving faith as inclusive of active fidelity toward a king in this way.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 4253-4256). Kindle Edition.

The second part of his model is that works are included in justification. At this, some of you might get nervous, understandably so. Isn’t it all grace? That gets us into the third part of Bates’s model.

The model argues in the third part that this does not negate grace. One who does works shows their honor to the one who has given them the gift of grace. Works are not done to earn grace, but because the grace is already there. If we receive the gift of justification and do no works, we are not truly showing loyalty to Jesus, likely because He is not really our king to begin with.

Next, resurrection life is part of this justification. We are to be living the life of resurrection in that we are new creations in Christ. The old has passed and the new has come.

The next step is that we are not made righteous through impartation. This is a challenge to the view of the Council of Trent. Bates says that Trent did not have proper Scriptural interpretation on this point.

That being said, he does agree with the Catholics that we are to grow in the virtues and that this is part of justification. I happen to think this is something we need to think about, as virtue is not really taught that much anymore. One of the important parts of philosophy long ago used to be virtue. We need to bring that back.

The seventh step for Bates is that allegiance, not baptism, is when justification occurs. Baptism is part of allegiance, all things being equal. My biggest hurdle to baptism was a fear of going underwater, something that I still have to this day. Having a steel rod on my spine making it hard for me to bend back doesn’t help and when my baptism came, I went under the bare minimum. There can be issues obviously with people who are parapalegic and other such cases.

Overall, I do understand people concerned about some aspects of Bates’s model and I’m sure that he understands that as well, but if Protestants look at it and say, “But it’s not the traditional reading”, then we are forgetting a reason we had the Reformation to begin with. We need to be able to question ideas and discuss them. If the model works with Scripture and is backable, then we can go with it. If not, Bates would be the first one to agree to go back to the drawing board.

Next time, we’ll look at what Bates says about imputed righteousness.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 3

Is the plunge salvific? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Now Bates will look at some passages that are used for baptismal regeneration. He notes that 1 Peter 3:21 speaks about the pledge of a good conscience towards God. The pledge is what is salvific. It could be Peter is not saying the water doesn’t wash away sins, as if it could, but rather entering the water is a sign of loyalty to Jesus.

Bates also argues that whatever matters when it shows up is faith, i.e. pistis. It is the loyalty that we give to Jesus. While this would include baptism, it is not that baptism saves us. Undergoing baptism would be more an outward expression of our inward commitment to Jesus.

This also helps deal with some claims that are often struggled with both within Protestantism and Catholicism. I have heard Catholics speak of a baptism of desire, for example. This is a case where someone wants to get baptized, but for whatever reason, they cannot. In such a case, a person is considered saved. Cyprian in his time in the early church noted that some people were martyred before they could get baptized.

He also notes that while the Council of Trent is considered authoritative for Catholics, we do have access to documents the Council did not have. This is simply a matter of fact and is no way an attack on Catholicism. It just means that perhaps some things in Catholicism might need to be re-examined in light of such evidence. Two such documents he refers to are the apology of Justin Martyr and the Didache. (Also, the Reformers would not have access to these so some of their positions might have to be adjusted as well in light of new evidence.) We could consider a parallel with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Bates then quotes from the First Apology:

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water

I do not find this as convincing an argument as I do not see anything about them doing it to themselves as Bates says. I do agree with him that there is no mention of a priest in this. Bates says there is no evidence that priests existed at the time and at that, it would be the burden of the other side to demonstrate that they did.

After this, he takes a brief look at Tertullian. The topic under question this time for Bates seems to be infant baptism. Again, there is no indication that this was going on in the early church. If one wishes to say that the practice is biblical, then it will be their burden to make a case for it from the Scriptures.

A final statement is there can be a lot of concern about valid baptisms. Bates says we should relax because salvation is not constrained by baptismal methods, but it is based on allegiance to Jesus. We should expect nothing less today. My own thinking is God does not keep us out of eternity on a technicality.

If I would have added more to this, I would have liked a much more thorough look at Scriptural passages related to the topic of baptismal regeneration, such as Acts 2:38.

Next, Bates will take a look at Calvinism and doctrines of election and regeneration.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 2

How did Jews see baptism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Usually, I find when baptism is debated, it’s not normally discussed how the Jews saw it. After all, baptism predates Jesus. It even predates John the Baptist. He didn’t come up with some new idea. Bates says we have archaeological evidence from the second century B.C. onward.

The water was not meant to cleanse from sins so much as impurity. He gives the example of a woman who has her period. The flow of blood did not indicate that the woman had done anything sinful. However, it did indicate she was impure and thus, she needed to have her impurity taken care of lest she do damage to anything that would be holy.

We have plenty of evidence of baptism at the Qumran community and Bates says that in this community, repentance came first. After repentance, there was then the preparation of the water for baptism. If one had not repented, one could not be forgiven.

He also references Josephus who says something remarkably similar about baptism.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, [for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,] thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.

You can see it for yourself in Book XVIII, Chapter 5, section 2 of his work here.

So how does Bates sum this up?

Repentance was the true instrument of cleansing prior to baptism, not the baptism nor the water. This is precisely what we observed at Qumran. For Josephus, regarding John’s baptism, the tool that God used to cleanse the true essential person (the “soul”) was repentance and a righteous life prior to baptism.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 2081-2083). Kindle Edition.

I wish I had had this years earlier. I still would have got baptized, but it would have made the stress I was going through a lot easier.

We shall continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 1

How do we start plunging into the topic of baptism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At the start of this chapter, Bates says that baptism was seen as effective for salvation but only on the basis of voluntary repentance and confessing loyalty to King Jesus. At the start, this is him expressing his opposition to infant baptism. Even those who advocate for infant baptism must confess that there is not a single example of it explicitly taking place in the New Testament.

But then it’s off to the real question. Do you have to be baptized to be saved? For my personal history on this topic, I was saved in a Baptist church, but I was not baptized immediately. In my case, I didn’t know anything about coming forward and sharing your decision. I did see people getting baptized and I know people rejoiced at seeing it, and I understand it, but I got frightened instead.

Because to this day, I have a strong fear of being in water.

Probably also got a bit more difficult when I had a steel rod placed on my spine about 2 months before turning 16. Really hard to bend after that.

I went to Bible College and I was a bit naive. I didn’t know as much as I thought I did and didn’t know much about denominational differences. My college turned out to be in the Churches of Christ movement that sees baptism as essential for salvation. Thus, I began my study on this topic.

I wish I had Bates’s book back then. He handles the topic so well.

Did I get baptized eventually? Yes. By immersion. I also went under what was the bare minimum. The minister knew about my steel rod and my fear of water.

My stance now is that baptism is not required for salvation, but if you are a Christian, you should get baptized anyway.

Bates in his book points out all the verses used, like 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38, but starts his case against first by pointing out about people who we have no record of being baptized, including the apostles themselves. He also points out that Paul says that it is by professing that Jesus is Lord that one is saved in Romans 10:9. While this could have taken place at baptism, Paul says the profession is what is salvific.

I would have liked to have seen more interaction at this point on the idea that this was a creed said at baptism. Perhaps it was. Perhaps it wasn’t. It is something I have heard so I am sure Bates has heard it as well and it would behoove him to deal with something like that.

Also, when asked why Cornelius and his guests were baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit, Bates says “We don’t know.” This seems strange. Wouldn’t it be for the same reason anyone else is baptized today? That is to show publicly that one has made a declaration of loyalty to King Jesus.

Next time, we’ll look at the question more seeing how Jews saw baptism.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Christian Body — Naked Baptisms

Did Baptism used to be a lot more graphic? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So the main point I want to emphasize in Frost’s next section is baptism. I do want to say that for a section about clothing standards in biblical times, no biblical scholars are cited. It’s getting rather tiresome. What Frost points out towards the end is baptism and that it was done in the nude.

Here’s what St. Cyril said about it:

2. As soon, then, as you entered, you put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds. Colossians 3:9 Having stripped yourselves, you were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree. For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, you may no longer wear that old garment; I do not at all mean this visible one, but the old man, which waxes corrupt in the lusts of deceit. Ephesians 4:22 May the soul which has once put him off, never again put him on, but say with the Spouse of Christ in the Song of Songs, I have put off my garment, how shall I put it on Song of Songs 5:3? O wondrous thing! You were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed ; for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed.

3. Then, when you were stripped, you were anointed with exorcised oil , from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. For you were cut off from the wild olive-tree , and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree. The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence. For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.

4. After these things, you were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism, as Christ was carried from the Cross to the Sepulchre which is before our eyes. And each of you was asked, whether he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and you made that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and ascended again; here also hinting by a symbol at the three days burial of Christ. For as our Saviour passed three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, so you also in your first ascent out of the water, represented the first day of Christ in the earth, and by your descent, the night; for as he who is in the night, no longer sees, but he who is in the day, remains in the light, so in the descent, as in the night, you saw nothing, but in ascending again you were as in the day. And at the self-same moment you were both dying and being born; and that Water of salvation was at once your grave and your mother. And what Solomon spoke of others will suit you also; for he said, in that case, There is a time to bear and a time to die Ecclesiastes 3:2; but to you, in the reverse order, there was a time to die and a time to be born; and one and the same time effected both of these, and your birth went hand in hand with your death.

And yet even in this there is some dispute. There is some belief that there were deaconesses who handled the baptism of the women, for instance. Let’s point out a few things.

Nudity here was for a specific purpose. It was not the norm. If Frost wants to show the early church didn’t have the standards we have about clothes, then we have to ask why did they dress again? If nudity represents freedom in Christ, why did they not stay that way?

These are questions Frost doesn’t wrestle with, but I do. Frost needs to point to normative behavior. He is not doing that. He is pointing to the way people dress for a specific event. You might as well say wearing a costume on Halloween or for a Masquerade Ball shows how people dress normally.

If anything, I think this actually hurts Frost’s case and again, he doesn’t point to any biblical scholars. By the way, he also ignores something else. Archaeologists have regularly dug up pottery in ancient Israel. They have also dug up an abundant number of loom weights. Thus, Israelites were apparently busy making a lot of clothes.

I wonder if Frost knows that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 5

What has been removed? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re continuing our look at KJV-Onlyism. Let’s see what we have today. Again, source material is here.

Bible Question #9: After we repent, and are born again (come to saving grace), what else does Jesus command us to do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are many changes that come in our new birth/in our new nature, but the answer I’m looking for is this: We are to make a public profession of faith. Then we are to be baptized, by immersion, in water.

Let’s look in Acts chapter 8, verses 35-37. In Acts 8:35 Philip, the Apostle, preached Jesus Christ to the eunuch. In verse 36 the eunuch realized his need to be baptized. The eunuch then asks if he can be baptized.

Now, take a look at Acts 8:37 in a ‘modern’ version of the Bible. Many (but not all) ‘modern’ versions go from Acts chapter 8 verse 35, to verse 36, then to 38. 38?! Where is verse 37 you ask? And, what did verse 37 say?

This key verse, properly included in the King James Bible, tells us whom should be baptized. It says:

“… IF THOU BELIEVEST WITH ALL THINE HEART, THOU MAYEST.” And he [the eunuch] answered and said: “… I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD.”

Numbering verses 35, 36, and then 38 is NOT the new math!

These ‘modern’ versions, which leave out verse 37, are omitting the deity of Jesus Christ. Also, they are missing the key point: We must make a PUBLIC profession of faith. We must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If we do not know, believe, and confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our baptism only ‘gets us wet’. Leaving out verse 37 omits a major portion of Christian doctrine.

Omissions of doctrine and corruptions of doctrine are bad news. In both cases, the reader is NOT getting the correct information he/she needs to know.

The cute thing about KJV-Onlyists is how they push the panic button over every supposed change. Now if you’re going to say a verse was removed, then you have to assume the text that you’re using to translate from is the one that is accurate. You have to establish that without a question-begging standard. KJV-onlyists look at how the translations differ and say “Well, we have the correct translation, so obviously the problem is on the other end.”

If you started with the other translations as the perfect standard, you would reach the opposite conclusion. Would it not be just as much a problem to add to Scripture? One could say that the KJV is older though, but that’s not the point. The point is the starting place is determining the conclusion.

Again, the solution is simple. These verses aren’t in the manuscripts modern translations are using. It is not a conspiracy to leave out key doctrine. What is left out supposedly is shown in other places in modern translations.

Bible Question #10: Can you recite the Lord’s prayer?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord’s prayer, taught to us by Jesus, and recorded in Luke 11:2-4 of the KJV, is as follows:

“… Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.”

Now turn to Luke 11:2-4 in a ‘modern’ version and re-read the Lord’s prayer. The wording will be similar to:

“… Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation”.

Note this modern version states “Father” but then leaves out “… WHICH ART IN HEAVEN …”. You don’t know who you are praying to, your Father in heaven, or to Satan!

It also leaves out “our” as in OUR father. We were created by God who is “OUR” father. Satan is a father, but he is not “OUR” father. Satan is the “father” of lies.

And this ‘modern’ version leaves out “THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH“. By leaving out the fact that we are praying to our Father WHOSE WILL IS DONE IN HEAVEN, this ‘modern’ version is re-directing your prayer away from God and toward someone or something else (in another place).

Lastly, there is a major omission in the last half of verse 4. Verse 4 states: “And lead us not into temptation”. But this verse then leaves out: “… BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL …”

Personally, I want to be delivered from evil! How about you?

I think the reader will agree: This ‘modern version’ is NOT the “Lord’s Prayer” you want to be praying! Think about it.

As I read through this, I am just thinking this has to be one of the most bizarre arguments from the KJV-Only position ever.

So Jesus’s disciples ask Him to teach them how to pray. In this scenario, He begins.

Jesus: Father…..

Peter: Whoa! Lord! You just said Father and nothing else! Are you praying to God or to Satan?

Jesus: I said Father…..

Satan is called the father of lies, but saying that this has to be specified would be like asking Jesus if He was praying to Joseph. As for the statement about which art in Heaven, well where else would a Jew think God would be? Now you might need this spelled out if you’re an ignorant KJV-Onlyist who has no clue how to read an ancient document, but not if you’re someone who is a Jew at the time and has half a brain.

That’s really just how dumb this argument is.

So why is this not in there? The same situation. This is not found in the oldest manuscripts.

That’s enough ridiculousness for this time. We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: In Search Of Ancient Roots

What do I think of Kenneth Stewart’s book published by IVP Academic? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Historically, many times different denominations have not gotten along. Today, there is much more communication and with the internet here, many people are coming across other belief systems they would have no access to before. Many an orthodox Protestant can be wondering about their belief system. Where did it come from?

Stewart’s book is written to help those searching Protestants. While not for any one particular denomination, he does work to show that many of the beliefs and such that we have today go back to our ancestors. Not only that, there was great theological development even on core doctrines. One quick example is the Trinity. It’s not that Jesus rose from the dead and immediately the apostles got together and wrote the Nicene Creed. The outworking of that event took at least three centuries to get to Nicea and today we can look back and see the development of the doctrine.

One great theme of this book is that the Fathers matter. I remember asking someone well over a decade ago in talking about apologetics if they could name an early church father. The only name that came to mind was John Wesley. That’s why we have to do a better job educating. So many people know so little about these great people that many times gave their lives for the Christian faith. We not only don’t know our doctrines, but we don’t know the history behind those doctrines.

Stewart definitely wants us to return to the Fathers. He tells us that early Protestants were known for doing this. Today we think of other traditions scouring the Fathers, but he says in the past the Protestants were the ones doing this the most. There’s no reason Protestants today can’t be doing in-depth research on the Fathers.

He also speaks about examples of debates that we have today. The two he chooses are the frequency of the Lord’s Supper and if we should participate in infant baptism. Both of these chapters bring up points that will be of interest to anyone in these debates.

There’s also a chapter on the history of Newman with the look at the claim that to study church history is to cease to be Protestant. Stewart contends that there are two different Newmans. One is the one presented in many popular writings. The other is one the Catholic Church itself was unsure about.

Towards the end, he starts looking at the harder issues. Many of these chapters I thought would actually work better at the beginning of the book. These include the claim that the Roman Church does have the highest authority due to the seat of Peter being occupied. Stewart argues that the data for this is not as strong as would be like and the claim is not helped by the fact that many times there were rival popes and each pope was busy excommunicating the other.

There’s also a chapter on the history of justification by faith. I find the fact that so many have written on this to show that the early Fathers taught this as fascinating, but there was one blind spot here. I did not see any quotations from the Fathers. I would have liked to have seen some of those at least. One could not get an encyclopedic look of course, but something would be nice.

Finally, it ends with why people abandon Protestantism and go the other way. Again, the message is that we need to really study our history and our doctrine. We have had a sort of anti-intellectualism come over the church and too many have the idea that everything just fell down from heaven and the history is irrelevant. We need to know not only where we are and where we are going, but how we got here.

Those interested in church history will benefit from reading this. It would be good for those on all sides of any such debate. I hope we can return to some serious look at our history. In an age of greater skepticism, we need it more and more not just because of the constant changing of churches, but because of outside attacks on all churches.

In Christ,
Nick Peters