This post will deal with some conversations that I've recently had with a co-worker. My hope is that this will be instructive, helpful, and encouraging for Christians with a zeal for preaching the gospel. First, a little background.
A few weeks ago, several Christian friends from work and I decided to start a Bible study together. I was reluctant at first, because I knew we had some differences (example: they do not hold to the KJV, are involved in ecumenical activities such as campus crusade, etc.). However, these guys seemed to have a desire to know Christ and follow him, so I joined with the hope that they simply haven't been confronted with these issues yet. There's been reasonable progress on that front, but that is not the main purpose of this post.
To try to make a long story short, a catholic co-worker (let's call her Eve) overheard us planning our study one day. In tears, she told us that her priest had told her she can't be saved. We talked for a few minutes (we had a short break in work), convincing her that what her priest said is ridiculous and invited her to the Bible study. That night, instead of our normal study, we spent our time answering Eve's questions and explaining the gospel. I want to highlight part of the conversation because it illustrates something that I've found myself doing more as I get more experienced in evangelism.
After using the law to explain sin and judgment, and preaching the gospel, it came time to call Eve to repentance. She asked me to explain repentance, how does someone repent, etc. This is how I answered: I know from Scripture that as you've been hearing the gospel, God has been convicting you (here I have in mind John 16:8, Isaiah 55:11). Also, I know from experience in talking to people that there's probably one main sin in your life, the one that you really love, that is coming to your mind right now. I'm guessing that you're sitting there asking yourself, "If I become a Christian, would I really have to give this up?" (she nods, confirming that she's having this thought) The answer to that question is "yes". That's repentance. I don't know what sin you're clinging to, but I can tell you for sure that no sin is worth going to hell for.
That explanation seemed to be effective in making things clear. It left Eve with a very definite idea of what she needed to do. It's akin to how Christ dealt with the rich young ruler, and how John the Baptist dealt with the people recorded in Luke 3. I've found that this explanation works very well when preaching the gospel to someone who doesn't have an obvious sin that you can deal with. It allows (relies on) the Holy Spirit to convict them of things we might never dig out in a conversation and defines repentance for each person specifically. I share these details with the hope that others who preach the gospel might be encouraged and add these ideas to their "arsenal".
Originally, when I sat down to write this post, I would have stopped here. This conversation with "Eve" was about two and a half weeks ago. In the time since then she has come to two more episodes of the Bible study. She was very curious and hungry for teaching. Even outside of the study, she was reading her Bible probably more fervently than most churchgoers. Well, about 3 days ago, Eve sent me a message saying she was saved. I'll share a bit of what she told me, because I find it a precious thing to hear this coming from someone just beginning to learn about Christ. That night, Eve said she sat down and started reading the Bible, picked up a catholic tract that I had given her, and started reading it and looking up the references. As she read, she became convinced that the things she has been learning through the study are true and that the catholic church has been deceiving her. That same moment, she said it just hit her that God loves her, more than anyone ever could, and that in spite of that, all she has ever done is fight against him, break his commands, and do the things that grieve him. As she put it, "I just decided I needed to change that. I want to do the things that please him instead." (Romans 2:4 anyone?)
Although I'm overjoyed by this and could probably write so much more, I'll close after a few final points. Naturally, I'll be using wisdom as things proceed with "Eve". Though all data looks good so far, there's always the possibility of a false profession, especially this early. Time and fruit will tell, though I'm very optimistic at this point. I also want to say that I think this whole story points to the necessity of wisdom in evangelism. Unfortunately, I know that most modern "evangelists" would have walked Eve through a prayer or pushed her into a decision. She would have done business with man, been told that the continuing conviction is just "doubt from the Devil" until it went away, and would have never done business with God! How much more refreshing it is to simply preach the gospel, patiently deal with a soul, and watch as God does his work convicting and converting in due time! Praising the Lord for the amazing (and unfortunately rare) opportunity and responsibility it is to witness and see people converted.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Acts 2:38 - Baptism Required for Salvation?
I have recently run into several discussions in which the issue of baptism being required for salvation has arose. This post will specifically deal with the misuse of Acts 2:38, but before I begin my discussion on this verse, I would like to say a few things regarding baptism for salvation in general.
First off, it should be noticed that there are only a handful of verses that even hint at baptism being required for salvation. Of those, I think Acts 2:38 is the only passage which would still give someone trouble after close examination. With this being the case, it's much better to question our understanding of this one passage than to take a single verse and run with it, overthrowing the whole doctrine of salvation in the process. There are hundreds of other verses which talk about salvation with no mention of baptism, not to mention case studies such as the thief on the cross, Acts 10:34-44, and 1 Corinthians 1:14-17. My point is that it's clear that the Bible as a whole does not teach that baptism is required for salvation, so we have good reason to question our understanding of this one verse.
Still, we must respond to this question of the meaning of Acts 2:38, not only to defend the gospel, but also to understand our Lord's words rightly. In studying this point, I have always been unsatisfied with the traditional way of explaining away this passage. It always seemed like a bit of a dodge to me. Then, while studying it out, I had a thought which I have not seen presented before. I feel my explanation is much more satisfying than "the usual" and I have shared my idea with a few other spiritually-minded men and they have agreed that it is valid, so I feel somewhat confident in posting this though I'm not 100%
Let's begin. First, realize who Peter is talking to when he is preaching. Acts 2:5 identifies his audience as Jews. At this point in time, Jews are known for keeping the law, and they pretty much have a correct understanding of God. However, they lack Christ. Jesus Christ is a stumblingblock to the Jews (1 Corinth 1:23) and their unbelief in him is truly their major sin.
So, I believe that when the people come to him and ask, "what must we do?", Peter tells them to repent and outlines for them specifically how they should repent. In other words, it is fair to say that Peter is telling them they must be baptized to be saved, not because baptism is anything, but because the public profession of faith in Jesus Christ by being baptized in his name is exactly what repentance would look like for a Jew. Compare this to Luke 3. John the baptist is preaching repentance and men come up to him and ask the very same question: "what shall we do?" John responds by outlining repentance for each individual. I think the parallels between these passages are very interesting.
In conclusion, baptism is not universally required for salvation, but repentance is. Peter was not teaching that baptism saves any more than John the baptist was teaching that being content with your wages brings salvation. Again, the issue is repentance, not a ritual. If you happen to be reading this and are trusting in a baptism or any other works for salvation, do not deceive yourself by thinking you are saved. I ask you to read Philippians 3:4-10 and ask yourself if you're willing to count all your religious acts as dung before Christ. Please do so, then turn to Jesus in true faith and he will save you.
First off, it should be noticed that there are only a handful of verses that even hint at baptism being required for salvation. Of those, I think Acts 2:38 is the only passage which would still give someone trouble after close examination. With this being the case, it's much better to question our understanding of this one passage than to take a single verse and run with it, overthrowing the whole doctrine of salvation in the process. There are hundreds of other verses which talk about salvation with no mention of baptism, not to mention case studies such as the thief on the cross, Acts 10:34-44, and 1 Corinthians 1:14-17. My point is that it's clear that the Bible as a whole does not teach that baptism is required for salvation, so we have good reason to question our understanding of this one verse.
Still, we must respond to this question of the meaning of Acts 2:38, not only to defend the gospel, but also to understand our Lord's words rightly. In studying this point, I have always been unsatisfied with the traditional way of explaining away this passage. It always seemed like a bit of a dodge to me. Then, while studying it out, I had a thought which I have not seen presented before. I feel my explanation is much more satisfying than "the usual" and I have shared my idea with a few other spiritually-minded men and they have agreed that it is valid, so I feel somewhat confident in posting this though I'm not 100%
Let's begin. First, realize who Peter is talking to when he is preaching. Acts 2:5 identifies his audience as Jews. At this point in time, Jews are known for keeping the law, and they pretty much have a correct understanding of God. However, they lack Christ. Jesus Christ is a stumblingblock to the Jews (1 Corinth 1:23) and their unbelief in him is truly their major sin.
So, I believe that when the people come to him and ask, "what must we do?", Peter tells them to repent and outlines for them specifically how they should repent. In other words, it is fair to say that Peter is telling them they must be baptized to be saved, not because baptism is anything, but because the public profession of faith in Jesus Christ by being baptized in his name is exactly what repentance would look like for a Jew. Compare this to Luke 3. John the baptist is preaching repentance and men come up to him and ask the very same question: "what shall we do?" John responds by outlining repentance for each individual. I think the parallels between these passages are very interesting.
In conclusion, baptism is not universally required for salvation, but repentance is. Peter was not teaching that baptism saves any more than John the baptist was teaching that being content with your wages brings salvation. Again, the issue is repentance, not a ritual. If you happen to be reading this and are trusting in a baptism or any other works for salvation, do not deceive yourself by thinking you are saved. I ask you to read Philippians 3:4-10 and ask yourself if you're willing to count all your religious acts as dung before Christ. Please do so, then turn to Jesus in true faith and he will save you.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Heaven vs. Hell is OK
I found myself discussing a relatively popular objection to "confrontational" evangelism with Tyson today. Some feel that reducing the evangelistic encounter to a question of heaven or hell distracts the attention from the centrality of God Himself and instead concentrates excessively on the individual and his personal comfort. One can certainly understand the motivation. The presentation of the preeminant Christ is of great importance, and it may seem compelling to avoid concentrating too concretely on anything else.
So... is it acceptable to preach the Gospel in terms of "heaven vs. hell"? Well, where is the scripture on this? I wanted to do a quick survey of one-to-one evangelistic encounters in scripture, and see what the typical picture is in the Bible:
Rich Young Ruler (Matthew 19:16) -- "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Jesus goes along with his query, and even tells him (academically of course) that it is by keeping the law. This is done to show that the ruler's pet sin of coveteousness will condemn him.
Nicodemus (John 3) -- "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The kingdom of God is the eternal, heavenly kingdom. Nicodemus is to consider how he can get there. What ensues is a contrast between those who are condemned and those who receive eternal life.
Woman at the Well (John 4) -- Here, Jesus uses a concrete transition from well-water to living water as a symbol for eternal life (explicitly in verse 14). The acquisition of eternal life was the gateway to this conversation which concludes with a hard-hitting rebuke concerning her adultery and postmodernism.
Philippian Jailor (Acts 16) -- Prompted by the events surrounding the earthquake, the jailor's introductory question: What must I do to be saved? It is final, eternal salvation that is the focus of the conversation -- and it's apparently a valid central concern for the jailor.
Felix (Acts 24:25) -- The three topics of discussion were righteousness, temperance, and judgment. The discussion was of the eternal state, evidently concentrated on Hell and final things.
Some Counter-Examples
In some cases, this is not the primary focus of discussion. Philip preaches Christ as the Lamb of God to the Eunuch (Acts 8) and Paul affirms the resurrection and preaches contrition and repentance to Agrippa (Acts 26). Further, some of the open air preaching examples are not focused on an individual's afterlife, such as Pentecost.
Conclusion
It is not necessary to show that the biblical examples all support a "heaven vs. hell" or "reward vs. judgment" approach to the evangelistic conversation. It is sufficient however, to show, that it is acceptable to use these as a focal point with a lost person. We should feel no shame when accused of distracting from the centrality of Christ.
Ultimately, the centrality of Christ is that the death, burial, and resurrection (the Gospel itself) is for the very purpose of setting Him forth as a propitiation for our sins to allow for reconciliation. The eternal aspect of this work of Christ is the most concrete, accessible, and farthest-reaching consequence of our response to the Gospel.
It is strongly biblical to entertain an individual's query about how to get to heaven (the rich young ruler), and also to lead off with the importance of obtaining eternal life (woman at the well). The essentials of the Gospel include all these things, and escape from judgment is at the heart of the Good News.
Caveats
It is important to note that in no case is a positivistic presentation made without clarity about the negative. Heaven is not presented as a target without discussion of judgment. Even the Philippian Jailor is clearly shaken and contrite, requiring the briefest presentation (we also don't know what he heard in the hymns prior).
The error of easy believism is not in asking whether someone expects to be in heaven, or what it takes to get eternal life -- it is in baiting someone with the chance to easily and quickly make sure of it right away, without even understanding the Gospel. Quick prayerists say, "Would you like to make sure of heaven right now with this simple prayer?" A non-prayerist says, "What does it take to get to heaven?"
So... is it acceptable to preach the Gospel in terms of "heaven vs. hell"? Well, where is the scripture on this? I wanted to do a quick survey of one-to-one evangelistic encounters in scripture, and see what the typical picture is in the Bible:
Rich Young Ruler (Matthew 19:16) -- "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Jesus goes along with his query, and even tells him (academically of course) that it is by keeping the law. This is done to show that the ruler's pet sin of coveteousness will condemn him.
Nicodemus (John 3) -- "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The kingdom of God is the eternal, heavenly kingdom. Nicodemus is to consider how he can get there. What ensues is a contrast between those who are condemned and those who receive eternal life.
Woman at the Well (John 4) -- Here, Jesus uses a concrete transition from well-water to living water as a symbol for eternal life (explicitly in verse 14). The acquisition of eternal life was the gateway to this conversation which concludes with a hard-hitting rebuke concerning her adultery and postmodernism.
Philippian Jailor (Acts 16) -- Prompted by the events surrounding the earthquake, the jailor's introductory question: What must I do to be saved? It is final, eternal salvation that is the focus of the conversation -- and it's apparently a valid central concern for the jailor.
Felix (Acts 24:25) -- The three topics of discussion were righteousness, temperance, and judgment. The discussion was of the eternal state, evidently concentrated on Hell and final things.
Some Counter-Examples
In some cases, this is not the primary focus of discussion. Philip preaches Christ as the Lamb of God to the Eunuch (Acts 8) and Paul affirms the resurrection and preaches contrition and repentance to Agrippa (Acts 26). Further, some of the open air preaching examples are not focused on an individual's afterlife, such as Pentecost.
Conclusion
It is not necessary to show that the biblical examples all support a "heaven vs. hell" or "reward vs. judgment" approach to the evangelistic conversation. It is sufficient however, to show, that it is acceptable to use these as a focal point with a lost person. We should feel no shame when accused of distracting from the centrality of Christ.
Ultimately, the centrality of Christ is that the death, burial, and resurrection (the Gospel itself) is for the very purpose of setting Him forth as a propitiation for our sins to allow for reconciliation. The eternal aspect of this work of Christ is the most concrete, accessible, and farthest-reaching consequence of our response to the Gospel.
It is strongly biblical to entertain an individual's query about how to get to heaven (the rich young ruler), and also to lead off with the importance of obtaining eternal life (woman at the well). The essentials of the Gospel include all these things, and escape from judgment is at the heart of the Good News.
Caveats
It is important to note that in no case is a positivistic presentation made without clarity about the negative. Heaven is not presented as a target without discussion of judgment. Even the Philippian Jailor is clearly shaken and contrite, requiring the briefest presentation (we also don't know what he heard in the hymns prior).
The error of easy believism is not in asking whether someone expects to be in heaven, or what it takes to get eternal life -- it is in baiting someone with the chance to easily and quickly make sure of it right away, without even understanding the Gospel. Quick prayerists say, "Would you like to make sure of heaven right now with this simple prayer?" A non-prayerist says, "What does it take to get to heaven?"
Friday, September 4, 2009
Paedobaptism
The following passage is oft used to defend the doctrine of infant baptism. Colossians 2:11-12 reads:
The argument proceeds thus: the old covenant was sealed by circumcision as the induction into the faith of Judaism; similarly, baptism is the inductive rite into the new covenant. Baptism, then, replaces circumcision for the people of God. Circumcision was administered on the 8th day after one's birth -- ergo, baptism should be administered to infants. Many who adhere to paedobaptism also hold baptismal regeneration, concluding that the infant baptism is the beginning of saving faith for the individual.
In my regular reading yesterday, a passage sprang out to me that I had not previously noticed except in passing. Romans 4:8-11 reads as follows:
The point being that Abraham was not yet circumcised when his faith was counted to him for righteousness. This is the specific point of this passage -- Paul is using it as a logical argument against the idea that the gentiles are not party to God's redemptive plan.
Furthermore, if this dissertation of Paul's is to be used in concert with our passage in Colossians, then it shows that baptism is only a ritual seal of the covenant. It has no salvific power any more than Abraham's circumcision saved him.
Even more, it occurred to me that the circumcision of the numerous seed of Abraham was a sign and seal of the abrahamic covenant. Each Israelite's circumcision was a reference to Abraham's, like a little footnote saying, "See God's promise to Abraham." It was a symbol of Abraham's faith. Likewise, our baptism is a symbol that refers to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, by which we are saved. It's not the actual thing, it refers to the actual thing.
Looking at these passages together, it is exciting to me to see the "scripture defines scripture" principle tying these ideas up very nicely. Thoughts?
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
The argument proceeds thus: the old covenant was sealed by circumcision as the induction into the faith of Judaism; similarly, baptism is the inductive rite into the new covenant. Baptism, then, replaces circumcision for the people of God. Circumcision was administered on the 8th day after one's birth -- ergo, baptism should be administered to infants. Many who adhere to paedobaptism also hold baptismal regeneration, concluding that the infant baptism is the beginning of saving faith for the individual.
In my regular reading yesterday, a passage sprang out to me that I had not previously noticed except in passing. Romans 4:8-11 reads as follows:
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
The point being that Abraham was not yet circumcised when his faith was counted to him for righteousness. This is the specific point of this passage -- Paul is using it as a logical argument against the idea that the gentiles are not party to God's redemptive plan.
Furthermore, if this dissertation of Paul's is to be used in concert with our passage in Colossians, then it shows that baptism is only a ritual seal of the covenant. It has no salvific power any more than Abraham's circumcision saved him.
Even more, it occurred to me that the circumcision of the numerous seed of Abraham was a sign and seal of the abrahamic covenant. Each Israelite's circumcision was a reference to Abraham's, like a little footnote saying, "See God's promise to Abraham." It was a symbol of Abraham's faith. Likewise, our baptism is a symbol that refers to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, by which we are saved. It's not the actual thing, it refers to the actual thing.
Looking at these passages together, it is exciting to me to see the "scripture defines scripture" principle tying these ideas up very nicely. Thoughts?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Eternally Begotten?
Systematic theology often confuses me. I read things that seem to make sense, and "feel" true -- yet they sometimes have little scriptural support. Once, though, I figured out that a systematic theology is basically a "scientific model" of scripture.
Most systematic theologies take some small number of biblical principles and abstract a larger system of thought that plugs into those scriptures and seems to make them fit. We use "models" in understanding all sorts of things, but one of the dangers I've encountered in theology is that of not recognizing where the scripture ends and the model begins.
One set of doctrines in which I've been very frustrated with this phenomenon is the Trinity. Don't get me wrong, I'm a trinitarian through and through. But there are some models for understanding the Trinity that have always bothered me. "Jesus is 100% God and 100% man." What is that supposed to mean, anyway? It's a sequence of words that actually cannot mean anything (if you know what a percentage is).
I've been running into some trinitarian "models" dealing with the deity of Christ that have been gnawing at me recently. Some statements of faith talk about the "eternal begottenness" of Jesus. Or perhaps they will refer to his "eternally proceeding" from the Father. The Nicene Creed reads, "begotten of the Father before all worlds."
I recently read a whole essay on the eternal begottenness [1] of Jesus, where the primary argument was that Jesus is the Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24) and Proverbs 8:24-25 says that wisdom was "brought forth" before the mountains were settled. It's argumentation like this that makes me think we've come up against a flaw in the model that others have abstracted from the biblical statements of the Trinity!
The reason this came up for me was that Jehovah's Witnesses are always arguing that the "begotten" terminology in the New Testament in reference to Jesus indicates that He had a beginning. Then, just to confuse you more, they can pull out some of these "classic" trinitarian statements (such as from the Westminster Confession and the creeds) and show you how confusing they are.
But things started to make more sense for me when I found the following passage in Hebrews 1:6 -- "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." I realized that this is a reference to the incarnation. It was then that the entire heavenly host worshiped Jesus, as an infant even.
I then started checking the various "begotten" references to Jesus. In this usage, it is predominantly used by the Apostle John (four times in the Gospel of John and once in 1st John). A key verse is John 1:14, with which we should all be familiar anyway:
John, who gives us the "begotten" terminology, calls the pre-incarnate Jesus the "Word". This is His Name -- and He was beheld by John as the only begotten of the Father (in the body of Jesus Christ, the man). Further down in the same chapter is the following pair of verses (vv. 17-18):
The reason I included verse 17 is for a bit of context. Grace and truth came (past tense) by Jesus Christ, and the only begotten Son declared (past tense) the Father. Jesus is (present tense) in the bosom of the Father. I recently heard this preached for almost an hour about how "in the bosom of the Father" refers to the eternal begottenness without any scriptural cross-references. Isn't it much simpler to suppose that this means the incarnated Christ declared God to the world and then went up to be with the Father in glory?
It's my conclusion that the primary application of the begottenness of Christ is as the incarnated Christ. Jesus certainly did have a beginning -- as God, incarnated. Prior to that event, He was eternally the second member of the Godhead (Trinity). His role was that of the Word of God, and was the agency through which the worlds were created.
I found out recently that I am not the only crazy person ever to notice this -- Walter Martin in his classic "The Kingdom of the Cults" discusses the concept in his section on the Jehovah's Witnesses. He writes, "He previously existed as the eternal Word of God prior to His incarnation." No "eternal Sonship" or "eternally begotten" or "eternally proceeding" in Martin's view either.
What does it all mean? It means that if I hold too firmly to an abstracted model for understanding the Trinity, I can get into trouble when I'm witnessing to someone who wishes to attack this doctrine. If I quote the Westminster Confession and the Nicene Creed in my defense, I'm elevating it to the status of scripture. I will inevitably get into trouble. I've noticed that the Watchtower folks will just assume that I believe these documents as if they were scripture, and lead off with an attack on them right from the beginning.
Is someone a heretic for teaching that Jesus is eternally begotten? No -- it's a model. I think it's a leaky one, that falls apart under some scrutiny. Seeing "begotten" as a reference to the incarnated Christ does not change anything important (Jesus is eternally God, made the world, represented Man in the atonement, serves as the mediator and advocate, etc., in both cases). What it changes, though, might be your ability to argue about this with a unitarian -- and isn't the real Gospel ministry the main focus of deep biblical study in this life anyway?
If you disagree with me, that's fine -- but if you run into someone who says "begotten" means Jesus had a beginning, I think you can say, "Yep, when the eternal Word became a man!" And you can even give them a scripture reference for it (which sure beats using a trinitarian creed).
Most systematic theologies take some small number of biblical principles and abstract a larger system of thought that plugs into those scriptures and seems to make them fit. We use "models" in understanding all sorts of things, but one of the dangers I've encountered in theology is that of not recognizing where the scripture ends and the model begins.
One set of doctrines in which I've been very frustrated with this phenomenon is the Trinity. Don't get me wrong, I'm a trinitarian through and through. But there are some models for understanding the Trinity that have always bothered me. "Jesus is 100% God and 100% man." What is that supposed to mean, anyway? It's a sequence of words that actually cannot mean anything (if you know what a percentage is).
I've been running into some trinitarian "models" dealing with the deity of Christ that have been gnawing at me recently. Some statements of faith talk about the "eternal begottenness" of Jesus. Or perhaps they will refer to his "eternally proceeding" from the Father. The Nicene Creed reads, "begotten of the Father before all worlds."
I recently read a whole essay on the eternal begottenness [1] of Jesus, where the primary argument was that Jesus is the Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24) and Proverbs 8:24-25 says that wisdom was "brought forth" before the mountains were settled. It's argumentation like this that makes me think we've come up against a flaw in the model that others have abstracted from the biblical statements of the Trinity!
The reason this came up for me was that Jehovah's Witnesses are always arguing that the "begotten" terminology in the New Testament in reference to Jesus indicates that He had a beginning. Then, just to confuse you more, they can pull out some of these "classic" trinitarian statements (such as from the Westminster Confession and the creeds) and show you how confusing they are.
But things started to make more sense for me when I found the following passage in Hebrews 1:6 -- "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." I realized that this is a reference to the incarnation. It was then that the entire heavenly host worshiped Jesus, as an infant even.
I then started checking the various "begotten" references to Jesus. In this usage, it is predominantly used by the Apostle John (four times in the Gospel of John and once in 1st John). A key verse is John 1:14, with which we should all be familiar anyway:
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John, who gives us the "begotten" terminology, calls the pre-incarnate Jesus the "Word". This is His Name -- and He was beheld by John as the only begotten of the Father (in the body of Jesus Christ, the man). Further down in the same chapter is the following pair of verses (vv. 17-18):
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
The reason I included verse 17 is for a bit of context. Grace and truth came (past tense) by Jesus Christ, and the only begotten Son declared (past tense) the Father. Jesus is (present tense) in the bosom of the Father. I recently heard this preached for almost an hour about how "in the bosom of the Father" refers to the eternal begottenness without any scriptural cross-references. Isn't it much simpler to suppose that this means the incarnated Christ declared God to the world and then went up to be with the Father in glory?
It's my conclusion that the primary application of the begottenness of Christ is as the incarnated Christ. Jesus certainly did have a beginning -- as God, incarnated. Prior to that event, He was eternally the second member of the Godhead (Trinity). His role was that of the Word of God, and was the agency through which the worlds were created.
I found out recently that I am not the only crazy person ever to notice this -- Walter Martin in his classic "The Kingdom of the Cults" discusses the concept in his section on the Jehovah's Witnesses. He writes, "He previously existed as the eternal Word of God prior to His incarnation." No "eternal Sonship" or "eternally begotten" or "eternally proceeding" in Martin's view either.
What does it all mean? It means that if I hold too firmly to an abstracted model for understanding the Trinity, I can get into trouble when I'm witnessing to someone who wishes to attack this doctrine. If I quote the Westminster Confession and the Nicene Creed in my defense, I'm elevating it to the status of scripture. I will inevitably get into trouble. I've noticed that the Watchtower folks will just assume that I believe these documents as if they were scripture, and lead off with an attack on them right from the beginning.
Is someone a heretic for teaching that Jesus is eternally begotten? No -- it's a model. I think it's a leaky one, that falls apart under some scrutiny. Seeing "begotten" as a reference to the incarnated Christ does not change anything important (Jesus is eternally God, made the world, represented Man in the atonement, serves as the mediator and advocate, etc., in both cases). What it changes, though, might be your ability to argue about this with a unitarian -- and isn't the real Gospel ministry the main focus of deep biblical study in this life anyway?
If you disagree with me, that's fine -- but if you run into someone who says "begotten" means Jesus had a beginning, I think you can say, "Yep, when the eternal Word became a man!" And you can even give them a scripture reference for it (which sure beats using a trinitarian creed).
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Romans 7 - Struggle or Unsaved?
Less than a month ago, I was reading through Romans. As I got to chapters 6-8, I felt like something wasn't right. Chapter 7 seemed really out of place. I had always heard chapter 7 preached as a Christian struggling with sin, but as I read through, I didn't get that impression at all. After more reading and studying, I came to change my position on this passage. I want to point out that I changed my position solely on the reading of Scripture, it actually wasn't until after I'd changed my mind and began to labor to iron out some of the details that I became aware of any debate over this passage. Since I've had this experience of recently changing my mind on this passage, I feel like I'm in a good position to give my thoughts on it.
First off, I would start by encouraging everyone to read through this passage, starting at chapter 5. Keep reading until you've passed at least 8:18. For this discussion, I'll start off very general. I think the tone of these passages speak plainly. In chapters 6 and 8 especially, we see Paul making clear contrasts between those who are dead to sin and living after the Spirit and those who are not. In chapter 7 Paul makes statements about himself, oftentimes using terminology which is essentially the same as that used in chapters 6 and 8 in places that are clearly talking about the unsaved. I think it's clear that Paul is not talking about a Christian struggling with sin, but about his experience with the law before he was saved.
Let's get a little more specific. In Romans 6 Paul uses strong language to describe our state as believers. Here are some of the main ideas:
- We are dead to sin (v.2, 7, 11).
- Our old flesh is crucified with Christ (v. 6, 8).
- We are no longer servants of sin, but are servants of righteousness (v. 13-14, 17, 20)
We see a similar thing in chapter 8:
- We are free from sin and death (v.2)
- Christians walk in the Spirit (v.1, 4, 9, 13-14)
- We are not carnally minded (v. 5-9, 12)
Now let's see what Paul says in chapter 7 in light of this:
[1-4] Using the analogy of marriage, Paul explains how we are dead to the law, so we can be married to Christ.
[5] Before salvation, sin worked with the law to bring death
[6] However, we're delivered now because we are dead to the law.
[7-8] Paul continues discussing the function of the law. The law itself is not sin, but shows us what sin is and gives opportunity for sin. This is where Paul starts talking about himself before conversion. Again, the point is to explain the function of the law. From everything we've noticed beforehand, it's plain that the law is active only to the unbeliever. Believers are dead to the law.
[9-11] Before Paul knew the law, he was alive, but the law came, sin worked, and he died.
[12-13] Paul again describes the function of the law. It is not made for death, but sin worked with the law to bring death.
[14-23] Paul describes himself as carnal and sold under sin, then goes on to describe what this looks like. He knows the law, and knows that he should obey it, but he can't/won't.
[24] Paul begins his conclusion of the matter by asking: how can I be saved of all this? Of course, the answer is Christ. As a side note, I think Paul is also giving a description of the conversion process (seeing God's law as good, recognizing his own sin, coming to the end of himself, turning to Christ for mercy).
[25] The last part of this verse is a summary of what he was saying. As an unsaved man, he acknowledges and serves the law in his mind (contrast this with being dead to the law), but in reality serves sin.
* Note that his next phrase is that, because of what Christ did, we have no condemnation and we walk in the Spirit, not the flesh.
If that doesn't take care of it for you, here are a few more verses to look at which make this even more clear. In addition to what I've highlighted in red above, these are instances in which Paul uses the same terminology:
- 7:17, 20, 23 compared to 6:13-18.
- 7:14 compared to 8:6-7
Conclusion - Do Christians still struggle with sin? Yes. However, our teaching on that should come from other passages in Scripture, not this one. While a Christian may still fight and struggle with sin, he is also dead to it, but alive unto God through our Lord Jesus Christ. If someone is in a situation where they can say with Paul in chapter 7 that, "I agree that the law of God is good, but I serve sin.", they need to repent and turn to Christ for their salvation.
First off, I would start by encouraging everyone to read through this passage, starting at chapter 5. Keep reading until you've passed at least 8:18. For this discussion, I'll start off very general. I think the tone of these passages speak plainly. In chapters 6 and 8 especially, we see Paul making clear contrasts between those who are dead to sin and living after the Spirit and those who are not. In chapter 7 Paul makes statements about himself, oftentimes using terminology which is essentially the same as that used in chapters 6 and 8 in places that are clearly talking about the unsaved. I think it's clear that Paul is not talking about a Christian struggling with sin, but about his experience with the law before he was saved.
Let's get a little more specific. In Romans 6 Paul uses strong language to describe our state as believers. Here are some of the main ideas:
- We are dead to sin (v.2, 7, 11).
- Our old flesh is crucified with Christ (v. 6, 8).
- We are no longer servants of sin, but are servants of righteousness (v. 13-14, 17, 20)
We see a similar thing in chapter 8:
- We are free from sin and death (v.2)
- Christians walk in the Spirit (v.1, 4, 9, 13-14)
- We are not carnally minded (v. 5-9, 12)
Now let's see what Paul says in chapter 7 in light of this:
[1-4] Using the analogy of marriage, Paul explains how we are dead to the law, so we can be married to Christ.
[5] Before salvation, sin worked with the law to bring death
[6] However, we're delivered now because we are dead to the law.
[7-8] Paul continues discussing the function of the law. The law itself is not sin, but shows us what sin is and gives opportunity for sin. This is where Paul starts talking about himself before conversion. Again, the point is to explain the function of the law. From everything we've noticed beforehand, it's plain that the law is active only to the unbeliever. Believers are dead to the law.
[9-11] Before Paul knew the law, he was alive, but the law came, sin worked, and he died.
[12-13] Paul again describes the function of the law. It is not made for death, but sin worked with the law to bring death.
[14-23] Paul describes himself as carnal and sold under sin, then goes on to describe what this looks like. He knows the law, and knows that he should obey it, but he can't/won't.
[24] Paul begins his conclusion of the matter by asking: how can I be saved of all this? Of course, the answer is Christ. As a side note, I think Paul is also giving a description of the conversion process (seeing God's law as good, recognizing his own sin, coming to the end of himself, turning to Christ for mercy).
[25] The last part of this verse is a summary of what he was saying. As an unsaved man, he acknowledges and serves the law in his mind (contrast this with being dead to the law), but in reality serves sin.
* Note that his next phrase is that, because of what Christ did, we have no condemnation and we walk in the Spirit, not the flesh.
If that doesn't take care of it for you, here are a few more verses to look at which make this even more clear. In addition to what I've highlighted in red above, these are instances in which Paul uses the same terminology:
- 7:17, 20, 23 compared to 6:13-18.
- 7:14 compared to 8:6-7
Conclusion - Do Christians still struggle with sin? Yes. However, our teaching on that should come from other passages in Scripture, not this one. While a Christian may still fight and struggle with sin, he is also dead to it, but alive unto God through our Lord Jesus Christ. If someone is in a situation where they can say with Paul in chapter 7 that, "I agree that the law of God is good, but I serve sin.", they need to repent and turn to Christ for their salvation.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Baptism for the Dead
There are certain passages that hold a special place for the apologist. They're the ones that sit in the back of your mind when you ring a doorbell. The ultimate fear is that someone asks you about it "out there", where it "really matters." Why? Because they appear to defy explanation, especially when compared with the rest of scripture. With practice, a little motivation, and the certain help of the Holy Ghost, I've found satisfaction on many such passages. Here's a doozy:
None of those work for me -- they involve adding words to explain it, or justifying practices / doctrines that are otherwise refuted in the scriptures. But, in wrangling about this within our group for some time, I believe we've found a model for approaching this passage that really works well.
What is this chapter about? This verse shouldn't be interpreted in isolation. To conserve space and paint the logical flow, here's a rough outline of the chapter:
(1) The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (vv. 1-4)
(2) There's lots of evidence of this (vv. 5-11)
(3) If there's no resurrection, then Christ is still dead (vv. 12-14)
(4) Paul's preaching is but lies if Christ is still dead (vv. 15-16)
(5) If this is the case, then "ye are yet in your sins," and now-dead Christians are still dead (vv. 17-19)
(6) But Jesus did rise, and we are made alive in the (future) resurrection (vv. 20-28)
(7) Baptism for the dead is vain (v. 29)
(8) Why would we suffer, then for Christ? (vv. 30-32)
(9) Dissertation on the resurrection itself (vv. 33-58)
The whole chapter is about resurrection, and how it is not vain to become a Christian because of the truth of it. It's clear that vv. 12-19 are all about what things would look like if there was no resurrection. I think the key verse for understanding the difficult text is v. 13:
All of these people that would be baptized in the name of a dead man, who did not conquer death, suffering in this life, will only go to the grave. If the dead do not rise, there is no hope in the Gospel, and Jesus as a dead man is a meaningless start for a religious movement. So, your reception of the Gospel, and baptism in the name of this dead man is also vain. The subsequent suffering is all you have, and all is vanity.
Of course, this is all completely different if the resurrection is true. It shows that death is truly conquered, Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection, and your profession of faith (baptism) has wonderful meaning -- you, like Him, will rise and be glorified. Isn't it wonderful?
This verse isn't talking about some ancient, now-defunct practice of baptizing people on the behalf of other dead people. It is a part of Paul's logical argument about the centrality of the resurrection in the Gospel. Indeed, no victory over death makes the Gospel absolutely meaningless. Gladly, though, we continue on, preaching that Gospel, because we have hope for the restitution of all things in Christ at the second coming!
Appendix: In anticipation of someone pointing out that the Greek word "for" means, "in behalf of," or "for the sake of," that doesn't really frustrate this interpretation. Baptism is an identification with Christ, and it is certainly because of him (and also for him in obedience) that we are baptized.
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? (1 Cor. 15:29)I've found various explanations. Obviously, Mormons like to use it for their actual practice, surrogate baptisms for dead people. I've met Roman Catholics who use it to defend prayers for the dead in purgatory. Those don't particularly thrill me. I've heard from some that it means "... baptized for the [testimony of] the dead." Or, perhaps, it's, "... baptized for the [replacement of] the dead [lest the churches die out]." Finally, I've heard it means, "... baptized for the [resurrection of] the dead."
None of those work for me -- they involve adding words to explain it, or justifying practices / doctrines that are otherwise refuted in the scriptures. But, in wrangling about this within our group for some time, I believe we've found a model for approaching this passage that really works well.
What is this chapter about? This verse shouldn't be interpreted in isolation. To conserve space and paint the logical flow, here's a rough outline of the chapter:
(1) The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (vv. 1-4)
(2) There's lots of evidence of this (vv. 5-11)
(3) If there's no resurrection, then Christ is still dead (vv. 12-14)
(4) Paul's preaching is but lies if Christ is still dead (vv. 15-16)
(5) If this is the case, then "ye are yet in your sins," and now-dead Christians are still dead (vv. 17-19)
(6) But Jesus did rise, and we are made alive in the (future) resurrection (vv. 20-28)
(7) Baptism for the dead is vain (v. 29)
(8) Why would we suffer, then for Christ? (vv. 30-32)
(9) Dissertation on the resurrection itself (vv. 33-58)
The whole chapter is about resurrection, and how it is not vain to become a Christian because of the truth of it. It's clear that vv. 12-19 are all about what things would look like if there was no resurrection. I think the key verse for understanding the difficult text is v. 13:
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.We know baptism is the outward profession of an inward new birth. It is a testimony that, "I now follow Christ." In whose name are we baptized? Is it not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Paul writes in verse 29 that if there is no resurrection, then the Son is dead, and your baptism is meaningless on behalf of that dead Christ. In other words, perhaps I could paraphrase it this way:
All of these people that would be baptized in the name of a dead man, who did not conquer death, suffering in this life, will only go to the grave. If the dead do not rise, there is no hope in the Gospel, and Jesus as a dead man is a meaningless start for a religious movement. So, your reception of the Gospel, and baptism in the name of this dead man is also vain. The subsequent suffering is all you have, and all is vanity.
Of course, this is all completely different if the resurrection is true. It shows that death is truly conquered, Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection, and your profession of faith (baptism) has wonderful meaning -- you, like Him, will rise and be glorified. Isn't it wonderful?
This verse isn't talking about some ancient, now-defunct practice of baptizing people on the behalf of other dead people. It is a part of Paul's logical argument about the centrality of the resurrection in the Gospel. Indeed, no victory over death makes the Gospel absolutely meaningless. Gladly, though, we continue on, preaching that Gospel, because we have hope for the restitution of all things in Christ at the second coming!
Appendix: In anticipation of someone pointing out that the Greek word "for" means, "in behalf of," or "for the sake of," that doesn't really frustrate this interpretation. Baptism is an identification with Christ, and it is certainly because of him (and also for him in obedience) that we are baptized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)