There were heretics in the
church at Colosse and through vain deceit and the traditions of men, they were
leading men away from Christ in religion rather toward and after Christ in
truth. The issue in Colosse was the beginnings of what is known as Gnosticism.
The heresy was a mixture of a type of Judaism, mysticism, and philosophy that
corrupted the truth about Jesus Christ. Much like many of the cults today, the
wolves at Colosse were using the words of Christianity, but applying different
doctrines and philosophies and meanings to the words. They used familiar Christian
terms but applied their own definition.
There was the pre-Gnostic
idea of “the fullness”(Pleroma) which was "...the mediating eons or angel-powers or spiritual manifestations supposed to be intermediate between God and the world... the entire series of angels or eons, which filled the space or interval between a holy God and a world of matter, which was conceived of as essentially and necessarily evil." (ISBE). Paul declares that this is not fullness and true fullness is not found
in mysticism, or works, or ritual but Christ is the fullness: Christ is all and
we are complete and full in Him. Christ
is sufficient. Christ is fully God, Christ is the fullness of God in creation, Christ
is the fullness of God in redemption, Christ is the fullness of God in the
church, and Christ is the power and the purpose of living our lives. By
positively asserting Christ, Paul as inoculated the church from the heresies
that were (are are still) being taught. For the most part in this book, Paul battles the heresy by showing the truth.
When we get to second
chapter, Paul is dealing specifically with Christ and our salvation (Col. 2:9-10). How are we full and complete? Paul gives two
examples – not two options in verses 11-13. These examples are to illustrate
what the symbols were/are given to illustrate - that we are complete & made full
in Christ. The first example is showing the true meaning of circumcision and
what it actually represented.
Col 2:11 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:
Circumcision was never
given to impart faith. There was a twofold purpose for circumcision – one a
sign of the physical part of the covenant with Abraham (a land and a nation)
and the second part was a token of God’s work in redemption. When a person is born again, God takes away
the flesh, i.e. sin, the "old man". God preforms a circumcision of the heart. The Gentiles believers were
not encouraged to be circumcised but he is explaining from the physical token
what had happened to them spiritually by using the token that God had used with
Israel to demonstrate that very point. The covenant given to Abraham was based
upon the promise God gave to Abraham, not upon the works of the flesh (Gal.
3:17-19). Circumcision never conferred grace (Romans 4:8-10), it was a sign (Romans 4:11-12). This had always
been the spiritual aspect of circumcision (cf. Lev 26:41-42; Deut 30:5-6; Deut
10:12-17). In order to be a citizen of the nation of Israel and to partake of the inheritance of the land, one had to be circumcised, but this did not preform any spiritual work. The Old Testament taught the same principle as the new, a heart
circumcision (Ezk 11:10 and Col 2:11). However, circumcision never saved.
Moving on to Col. 2:12, we
see the second part of the same sentence giving the same thought.
Col 2:12 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.
As circumcision is being used to illustrate a point, so is Baptism. It
has never been something that confers grace, but it is a picture of the work of
God in regeneration. We are buried under the water (immersed, not sprinkled)
and raised to walk in newness of life. The act of going under the water
pictures death, our death to sin and Christ’s death FOR our sins - does not
bring faith. Our coming up out of the water pictures our walking in newness of
life on account of Christ’s rising from the grave for our justification. Like circumcision
in verse 11, baptism shows the operation of God who raises men from the dead.
We were dead in our sins and God gave us life in regeneration, forgiving us our
sins. This does not teach us that we are born again through the waters of
baptism or through the ritual of circumcision. Not only does this passage not teach that circumcision replaces baptism, it illustrates that neither had the power to save. Nothing can be as clear in the New Testament as the fact that Paul did not believe that circumcision had any efficacious saving power. Paul using both examples here in a positive light, Paul is showing that neither baptism or circumcision has efficacious saving power, but was given as a picture and a sign of God's redemptive work in regeneration.
It was the Gnostics and the mystic Judiazers who were trying to pull
the Christians into sacramentalsim and offering works and rituals to be
forgiven. When you read the rest of the chapter, Paul continues on by condemning
rituals, ordinances, and other aesthetics to gain salvation.
The analogia scriptura (analogy of scripture) is that we are saved by
Grace, through faith. Not by right, not by ceremony, not by works, not by
knife, and not by water. We are saved by faith, cleansed, not by the water, but
by the blood of Christ.
Grace & Peace,
48 comments:
Good morning, brother!
I just saw that you had made these recent posts on baptism. Here is my orthodox Christian/Lutheran reply:
Once again, you are reading the Bible through the rose colored lenses of your Baptist/evangelical doctrine.
If you read these passage of Scripture literally the conclusion is inescapable: Water baptism is the circumcision of Christ. In water baptism we put on Christ. In water baptism sins are forgiven. You refuse to read these passages literally because they conflict with your doctrine.
You read "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (and so do we) literally but when you get to the passages on baptism in the Epistles, you find all kinds of excuses why God's literal words are insufficient and why you need to jump in and explain what God REALLY meant to say.
Why don't we all just read the Bible and accept the simple, plain meaning the of ALL passages unless God makes it VERY clear in the passage itself that he is speaking hypothetically or metaphorically?
Why do Baptists and evangelicals read the word "baptism" in the Gospels and the Book of Acts and read it as "water baptism", but once you hit the Epistles, suddenly "baptism" no longer means "water baptism" it means some type of "spiritual baptism"?
In the Book of Acts, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is NEVER referred to simply as "baptism". So why do Baptists/evangelicals insist on believing that when Paul and Peter use the word "baptism" in their epistles that they mean a Baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Hey Gary,
Thanks for the comments!
Did you read the post? If so, do you have anything to say with my exegesis of the text? I know you think I'm wrong and I know you think I don't read the Bible literally. Would you like to interact with what I said in the post?
I don't claim it was a Holy Spirit Baptism. I pointed out that both circumcision and baptism in this text were used as examples by Paul to illustrate God's work in redemption.
2 Timothy 3:15
"And that from a child thou [Timothy] hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."
God says that even children can read and understand the Bible, the Word of God. Do we really need an "exegesis" and a Greek lexicon to understand what God wants to say to us in the Bible??
You once again are reading this passage through the biases of your "exegesis", your doctrinal perspective, instead of accepting the plain, simple meaning.
In Martin Luther's day, Churchmen told the common people that it was not appropriate for them to read the Bible because only a Churchman could really understand it. Luther responded by printing the Bible in the common language of the people and the Reformation was born.
Today some Christian denominations tell you that the only way to read and understand God's Word is to first understand THEIR exegesis (listen to what I say God is really saying) and to speak ancient Greek or have a good Greek lexicon nearby while reading the Bible.
The Gospel doesn't need an exegesis! The Gospel doesn't need a Greek lexicon. If you need help with the Greek, ask the Greeks in the Greek Orthodox Church, they will tell you that Baptism DOES forgive sins and IS the circumcision of Christ.
It is futile for us to have a discussion of the Bible, my brother, if you insist on placing YOUR exegesis in front of the simple, plain words of God.
Gary, did you read the post? If so, could you specify which Greek references I made? I want to have a discussion about the text, not respond to your straw men.
I re-read your post. We are in agreement on the following:
1. The act of circumcision has never saved anyone. Circumcision was God's sign to the Hebrews of his promises---his Word.
Salvation has ALWAYS been by the power of God's declaration (Word) received in faith. God's promises to the descendants of Abraham had to be received in faith and continually nurtured in faith for the benefits (eternal life) to be obtained by the individual Hebrew. Simply being circumcised was not a "Get-into-heaven-free card".
But there is no evidence in the Old Testament that the Hebrews believed that their infants were not covered by God's promises from birth. There is no mention of the necessity of a one time "decision for God" as an older Hebrew child or adult anywhere in the OT. Children grew up in the faith, were nurtured by their parents in the faith, and as adults these individuals continued in the faith. If at any point they turned from God and lived a life of willful sin and abandoned faith, they forfeited God's promises to them.
2. That act of Baptism has never saved anyone. Baptism is NOT a means of salvation. Baptism is one of several means of God giving us his unmerited favor (grace). Hearing the preaching of the Word or reading the Word are other means of grace.
It is always the power of the Word that saves, and ALWAYS received through faith. The means of salvation has never changed: Faith in God's Word.
The reason that Lutherans and Baptists seem like they are speaking past each other, or even speaking a different language to each other when discussing Baptsim, is that we have VERY different views on HOW the sinner obtains faith!
We Lutherans believe that faith is a free gift from God. He gives it to us without our asking for it and irrespective of our capacity to make a decision... whether or not we want it!
(Arminian) Baptists and evangelicals insist that man must cooperate with God to receive or produce faith. Man must make a decision that he wants to repent, he wants to believe, he wants to be righteous...therefore in this belief system the sinner must DECIDE to have faith!
Unless we can agree on how a sinner receives faith, we will never agree on Baptism.
The reason I mentioned the use of Greek is that in most conversations I have with evangelicals they want to go to the Greek to understand what God is really trying to say in his Word.
I guess I was anticipating your next "move".
I apologize for jumping the gun.
Is our discussion finished?
Hey Gary,
Sorry for the delay, I would very much like to continue our discussion. I'm a bi-vocational pastor and have a family, so sometimes life gets in the way of my blogging. I had been working on my Titus response which I hope to post soon and thought I had responded here. The next post will deal with many of the issues you brought up.
I was glad to hear you say that baptism has never saved anyone. I'm also glad to hear you say that we are saved by grace through faith. I totally agree that we can easily talk past each other, assuming what the other man believes, so to further the discussion with a new blog post on Titus. I think that by going there next, we can address the points that you made concerning how a person receives faith.
Sorry for not responding, but keep looking for the new post.
By Grace - Doug
Just to be clear, what I said was is that the ACT of baptism, the religious ritual, has never saved anyone.
Millions upon millions of people during the last almost 2,000 years have been saved at the time of their baptisms.
That is the critical point: Baptism is not the "HOW" of salvation. Baptism is one of several "WHEN"s of salvation.
Salvation occurs by only one "HOW": by God's grace, through the power of his Word, received in faith.
"""Salvation occurs by only one "HOW": by God's grace, through the power of his Word, received in faith.""
Whose faith?
Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Romans 10:17 ESV
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Faith is a gift from God. It is not something the sinner manufactures by his own effort, intelligence, maturity, or decision-making capabilities.
So how do we obtain faith from God? The second passage tells us: through hearing the Word.
Lutherans and other orthodox Christians believe these passages to mean that the Word has incredible power, supernatural power. God speaks and it happens!
The Word of God is not a dead, static collection of words. It is not the meaning of the words that have power it is the Words themselves. The Word, the words, of Christ create faith and are the power that saves.
It is the preaching, reading of the Word that creates faith. It is a free gift, so no man may boast of HIS faith.
So if it is the Word that creates faith and belief/salvation, God is not limited to when he can use his Word to save sinners. If one reads the Bible and accepts ALL passages literally, unless there is a very clear indication that God is not speaking literally, one comes to the easy conclusion that God uses the power of his Word to save in TWO situations.
1. God can use the power of his Word, either preached or read, to quicken the soul of a sinner to believe and repent.
So if a man goes to a Baptist/evangelical church or any other Christian church and hears the pastor preach the Word, and God quickens him, gives him the gift of faith, causing him to believe and repent...he is saved immediately, right there in his pew! He doesn't need to pray the Sinner's Prayer or any other prayer. He doesn't need to be baptized to "finish" his salvation. He IS saved. Period.
A woman can be in her hotel room and pull out from the desk drawer a Bible left by the Gideons. While she is reading the Word of God, God quickens her spiritually dead soul, gives her the gift of faith, and she believes and repents. She is saved immediately. No prayers, no good deeds, and not even baptism are necessary for her to "complete" her salvation.
A teenager picks up a Gospel tract and reads the message of salvation. God quickens his lost soul through the Word written in the tract, gives him the gift of faith, and he believes and repents. He is saved. If he dies two seconds later he will wake up in heaven.
And when Christian parents follow God's command to baptize their children, God, by the power of his Word, gives the infant the gift of faith creating belief and repentance.
"Wait a minute!" you say. A baby can't believe. A baby can't repent!
Says who? We are talking about God and a supernatural event. If God can quicken the dead soul of an adult creating belief and repentance, God can do the same in infants.
The act of salvation is ALL God. The sinner is ALWAYS a passive participant.
Baptist/evangelical: "But there is no explicit mention of the baptism of infants in the NT, therefore, this practice is unscriptural."
There is no explicit mention in the NT that women may partake of the Lord's Supper. Just because something is not explicitly mentioned does not mean that it is not Scriptural.
Christ said to baptize ALL nations. He did not give an age limit. There is no mention anywhere in Scripture of an age limit for salvation, receiving the Holy Spirit, or for Baptism (Case in point, John the Baptist). If, as I explained above, God is 100% responsible for giving the sinner faith and through this free gift of faith creating belief and repentance, it is irrelevant if the sinner is an adult or an infant. The sinner is always a passive participant in his salvation.
The Bible teaching that God gives faith to believe and repent to all those whom he has predestined/called, even to infants, defies human logic. But if you read through the Bible...our God seems to enjoy defying human logic!
All my comments above will make absolutely no sense to you if you are an arminian Baptist or evangelical.
Arminians (not to be confused with the people living in Armenia)believe that the sinner has a free will to choose righteousness/to choose God. The idea that God has predestined some people to salvation and not others (Predestination) is repugnant to them. Therefore, if sinners must make a decision to "choose" God in order to be saved, infant baptism makes absolutely no sense because infants cannot make decisions.
One must believe in the Doctrine of Predestination before one can understand Infant Baptism.
The doctrine of Free Will is not found in the New Testament. Anywhere.
All my comments above will make absolutely no sense to you if you are an arminian Baptist or evangelical.
*facepalm
Remember all those times I said that I was Calvinistic? No, I take it you do not.
The Word of God is not a dead, static collection of words. It is not the meaning of the words that have power it is the Words themselves. The Word, the words, of Christ create faith and are the power that saves.
True. And words have meaning. The word faith has a meaning. The word repentance has a meaning. But in your world, faith and repentance mean one thing to the adult and mean something entirely different to the infant.
You make baptism a work, just like the Judaizers did with circumcision. If the parents obey (work) and have water sprinkled on the baby (work) then God is obliged to save (based on works).
And when Christian parents follow God's command to baptize their children, God, by the power of his Word, gives the infant the gift of faith creating belief and repentance.
When the parents do something, then God does something, rewarding the parents obedience with the salvation of their child? That is not grace, that is payment, that is the very definition of a work.
What does the infant repent from, exactly? In what way does the infant turn from his sins? The Bible teaches we are born depraved and born guilty in Adam, but HOW does the infant repent and from which sins does the infant repent of?
Hi Douglas, my comment to "arminians" was directed to your readership, not you. Yes, I remember you telling me that you are a Calvinist.
So you bring up a very important point. Is baptism a work?
Let's address first how an older child or adult is saved. By the way, I am happy to hear that you are a Calvinist. We have a much better chance of reaching agreement on how sinners are saved than if you were an Arminian. Predestination of the Elect is a very tough concept to try and convince a hard-core Arminian to accept.
What must an older child or adult do to be saved? The Bible is very clear: He must, by faith, believe and repent. Is belief just an acknowledgement that Jesus Christ is God, the savior of the world? No. Satan and his angels believe that. "Believe ON the Lord Jesus Christ/confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord (your Lord)...and you will be saved. Scriptural belief is much deeper than an intellectual assent to something being a fact. It is a complete reliance upon, a complete trust in Christ being Lord and king/ruler of your life.
What is repentance? Is repentance just the acknowledgement that you know that you have sinned? Is repentance saying "I'm sorry. Please don't punish me for what I've done...but I have no intention of stopping my sinful behaviors?" I'm sure you will agree: No. That is not true repentance. True repentance is heartfelt sorrow/contrition for what you have done with the intent not to continue that sinful activity and a desire to follow God and his righteousness.
So belief and repentance are actions that the sinner MUST perform. The faith that creates belief and repentance is truly a gift from God, but the believing and repenting must still occur, and this believing and repenting must be performed by the sinner.
So do you believe that following God's command to believe and repent are works? "Hey, God. If I believe and repent then you will reward me with salvation, right?"
Belief, repentance and baptism are all commands of God. These are not works done to please or earn favor with God. God commands it...you do it.
Is obeying a command of God a work? If so, then believing and repenting are works. Baptism is not a work of man but a work of God. You show up and God does the work. You bring your baby to the font and God does the work.
In order for YOU to have believed and repented when you were saved, you had to have gotten out of bed that day. You had to go to a church or a meeting to hear the Gospel or open a Bible or a Gospel tract. Were all those actions "works". You had to do them to be in the presence of the Word, and it is the Word that saves. So, by your definition, showing up, or your parents showing up with you, to be in the presence of the saving Word is a work. By your definition, no human being could be saved without "works".
In reality, the infant brought to the baptismal font by his parents does much less "work" than you did to be in the presence of the Word and to be saved. The infant did nothing but breathe!
To your last point: For what does an infant repent?
"ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God." "There is none righteous, no not one."
Those verses do not give an exception for infants. Another passage of Scripture states that "the wages of sin is death". Infants die, confirming that they are sinners. If they were not sinners, they would not be under the "wage" of death.
All sinners need repentance and forgiveness to be in the presence of a holy God. Thankfully, Christ's death and resurrection cleanses ALL of us of our unrighteousness and makes us perfect in the eyes of God. We are cleansed of sin by the Word, received in faith, which is a gift of God, not of our works, lest we would boast.
Infants need a Savior just as much as adults do. You won't find an exemption for infants regarding the need for a Savior anywhere in the Bible.
Suffer the little children to come to Jesus for "of such IS the kingdom of God". Bring your infants to Holy Baptism and let Jesus save them!
It is very interesting to note that there is no explicit mention anywhere in the New Testament regarding the safety/salvation of the infants of converts to the new Christian religion. The NT is completely silent on this issue.
I am a father of two toddlers. If I had been present on the day of Pentecost and had heard Peter's sermon, one of the first questions I would have asked is: "So how do my children become saved? If, God forbid, something should happen to my little one, what would happen to him or her?"
Yet in all the conversions mentioned in the NT, not once is this question asked. Isn't that odd? And it wasn't just the Jews. Even the Gentiles mentioned in the NT that converted never ask about how their infants are safe/saved in this new religion!
Is it possible that the reason that NO ONE asked this question is because it was a "given" in first century Mediterranean cultures that conversion to a new religion by the head of the household, meant conversion by ALL in the household, including infants? Is it possible that the total silence on this subject in the NT was due to the fact that everyone knew that infants are included in a household conversion??
Why would Jesus care so much for the "babes" mentioned in Luke but never tell new converts in explicit terms how their children would be safe or saved in this new faith? Did Jesus leave our infants and toddlers in spiritual limbo? Do you really believe that a God who said "suffer the little ones to come to me" would then not provide clear statements to the parents of these little ones about their safety/salvation? Does our loving Father really require a "decision for Christ" by our little ones the second that he or she reaches the age of accountability, and if they should die within seconds of reaching this "age", before they can finish reciting a heartfelt rendition of the Sinner's Prayer, they will burn in hell for all eternity???
So here are the facts regarding "infant safety/salvation" in the New Testament:
1. True, there is no explicit mention of infants being baptized.
2. But, there is also no explicit mention of infants being excluded from the command to baptize "all nations" either.
3. The NT is completely silent on the subject of the safety/salvation of the infants of converts/Christian parents.
4. There is no mention, anywhere in the NT, of any child of Christian parents, "accepting" Christ as an older child or adult, and then being baptized as a public profession of faith. If that is the manner in which the children of converts and Christian parents are saved, isn't it odd that it is never mentioned nor one example of such a conversion is given?
And another point: Is there any mention anywhere in the OT that Hebrew children were required to make a "decision for God" when they had reached an age of accountability? Doesn't the preponderance of evidence indicate that Hebrew children inherited the promises of God to Abraham from their parents, and that it was the duty of the parents to nourish that faith in God and his promises, to bring up a child in the way that he should go, so that as an adult that child would continue in the faith? Only if that child turned his back on God and abandoned his faith, would the Hebrew then lose the promise of salvation.
Circumcision was never a guarantee of salvation and neither is baptism. Faith in both covenants required nourishing of the child's faith by the parents and then nourishing by the individual adult of his faith for the promises of God to be fulfilled for that individual.
Do you not see that God's plan of salvation has never changed? Salvation has always been by the power of God's declaration (his Word), received and nourished in faith!
So what have we established so far:
Circumcision in the OT was NOT a means of salvation. It was a visible sign of God’s promises. If circumcision had been the means of salvation in the OT, no females under the old covenant were ever saved.
Although the act of circumcision, the sign, did not save, the rejection of the sign was disastrous for the Hebrew male who refused it:
Genesis 17: 14 (ESV)
14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
So the Hebrew who refused/rejected the sign was not only cut off from the nation, he was cut off from God: the covenant with God had been broken. The promises to Abraham no longer belonged to this disobedient Hebrew. But was it the lack of the sign that damned him…or the lack of faith to obey? Since females were not circumcised, the lack of the sign could not be what damned a disobedient Hebrew. It was the lack of faith that damned him!
So in the OT, the Old Covenant, salvation was by faith in the promises, the declarations of God (his Word). However, there is no record in the entire Bible that the infants of believers in the OT were required to make a one time “decision for God”, after reaching an age of accountability, to be saved. There is no evidence of this in the Bible whatsoever.
Therefore in the Old Testament, the Old Covenant, the children of believers inherited the promise of salvation from their parents, who inherited it from their parents, etc. who inherited it from Abraham. The promise was inherited, salvation was not. Faith was required for the promise to be fulfilled. This faith required nurturing; first by the believing parents as their child grew and matured and then by obedience /personal faith as an adult. The Hebrew male in the OT who counted on his circumcision to attain eternal salvation, but lacked faith, was NOT saved.
So that was the Old Testament, now what happens once we get to the New Testament, specifically the New Covenant, which began after the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Did the paradigm for salvation dramatically change? Were infants and the young children of believers now no longer covered by the promise of salvation inherited from their parents as was the case in the OT?
In the OT, under the Old Covenant, adult converts were always required to believe by faith in God in order to enter the covenant of Abraham and in order to receive eternal life. Simply being circumcised would not have saved them. Circumcision (for adult males) always occurred after believing, as an external sign. However, rejection of the external sign, indicated a lack of faith, and was grounds for expulsion from God’s covenant. The infant children of converts received the promises of salvation at the time of their parent’s conversion, and if male, were circumcised. Only if the child grew up living a life of faith in the promises of God would he receive the benefits of the inherited promises: eternal life.
continued below
continued from above
So what changes are there in the New Covenant of the NT?
The sacrifice of animals is abolished. Christ is the sacrificial lamb. Instead of the blood of bulls, goats, and lambs purchasing the forgiveness of sins, the blood of Christ purchases the forgiveness of sins.
The external sign has changed, and in this covenant it is given to males and females. The external sign is now water baptism, no longer circumcision. And just as in the Old Covenant, it is not the act of the sign itself (the cutting of flesh, or the application of water) that saves, it is the declaration of God (his Word) that saves. In the NT, the New Covenant, salvation is still received through faith. The sign without faith does not save.
In multiple passages of Scripture in the NT, God states that he uses the power of his Word to forgive sins and save at the time of Baptism. He commands his disciples to baptize “all nations”, and Peter, speaking the words of God, says to repent and be baptized (if you are one of the “called”, the predestined) to receive the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit.
The means of salvation has NEVER changed! The salvation of ALL believers, for all of time, has been by the declaration of God (his Word) received in faith. The children of believers have always been included in the promise of salvation given to their believing parents.
The New Testament is completely silent on the issue of how infants are safe or saved if they die in the New Covenant. Why? There is no explicit instruction in Scripture forbidding the infants of believers from receiving the sign of faith as they had in the OT. Most conversions in the NT involved entire households. Only two individual conversions are mentioned: Saul and the Ethiopian eunuch. Saul/Paul did not have a family and the eunuch by definition did not either.
So isn’t more probable than not that the OT concept that the infants of believers/converts receive the promise of salvation at the time of their parents conversion continued in this New Covenant? If such a dramatic change, requiring that the children of believers remain in a spiritual limbo until they reach an age of accountability, when they are forced to make a quick “decision for Christ” before an unfortunate tragedy takes their life and sends them to eternal torment in hell…wouldn’t Christ, Paul, Peter, James, Luke, Matthew, Mark or John have said SOMETHING about this dramatic change???
And, there is no mention in the writings of the early Christians of any controversy regarding the baptism of infants, except for Tertullian, and Tertullian recommended that not only infants, but widows and single persons should not be baptized. Why? Because according to Tertullian baptism washed away all sins prior to baptism but not the sins committed after baptism. Even Baptists would agree that this is heresy. Tertullian did not deny baptismal regeneration.
There is no evidence that anyone in the first 800-1,000 years of Christianity believed that baptism is simply and only an act of obedience/public profession of faith!
The preponderance of evidence from the OT, the NT, and from Early Church history supports infant baptism. Infants inherit the promise from their believing parents, not salvation, just as in the Old Covenant. Infants are not born saved. However, God says that in the New Covenant, by the power of his Word, God saves and forgives sins at the time of the new “sign”. There is nowhere in the Bible that states that God only saves adults who can make a decision to believe. God saves all who are “called”, by the power of his Word, and one situation in which he saves and forgives sins is in Holy Baptism. The act of Baptism has never saved anyone! It is the Word of God that saves at the time of Baptism and also by the preaching/reading of the Word.
Adult-only baptism as simply an act of obedience does not fit into the biblical and historic pattern of salvation for adults and infants.
Now that Gary is done with his sermon, and saying everything he wanted to say, perhaps he will address the actual subject of the post.
It is instructive to notice how he just throws out his proof texts and moves on. The entire reason I decided to take these verses one at a time is because in the original comment section, he was dropping verses and moving to something else, as if that by merely sayin the name of the verse had proven me wrong. Taking verses out of context or saying "why don't you just believe what it says", or calling me unorthodox, or building a tower of platitudes does not prove anything. Jello isn't a rock of defense just because you can't nail it to the wall.
Gary said this verse proved, without a shadow of a doubt that the Bible teaches infant baptism and baptisimal regeneration. I expounded the text and have shown that it does not.
It is an absurdity to say that all Christians believed in infant baptism for the first 1,000 years of Christianity. But again, just throw tons of information out there and hope it sticks. Get proved wrong? Ignore it and throw some more.
In fact, Gary has proved the point of my post several years ago that got him fired up to start with. Notice his last several posts. If you do not understand Gary's theology and do not understand his theological framework, you cannot understand infant baptism.
Can you take the Bible and prove infant baptism? Of course not. You have to go back to Abraham and circumcision and then you must assume the connection in the New Testament.
Alright! I finally have gotten you worked up enough that you will start responding to my comments!
I thought I had already responded directly to your comments on Colossians 2:11-13 but if I did not, I apologize. I will do so in the next post.
Let's start by posting the ENTIRE chapter of Colossians 2 (and if Douglas wants to, we can post chapter 1) to see the context of verses 11-13.
Colossians 2
English Standard Version (ESV)
2 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. 5 For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.
Alive in Christ
6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities[b] and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.[c]
Let No One Disqualify You
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,[d] puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
I completely agree with your statement above:
"Christ is all and we are complete and full in Him. Christ is sufficient. Christ is fully God, Christ is the fullness of God in creation, Christ is the fullness of God in redemption, Christ is the fullness of God in the church, and Christ is the power and the purpose of living our lives. By positively asserting Christ, Paul as inoculated the church from the heresies that were (are are still) being taught. For the most part in this book, Paul battles the heresy by showing the truth."
You said:
When we get to second chapter, Paul is dealing specifically with Christ and our salvation (Col. 2:9-10). How are we full and complete? Paul gives two examples –not two options in verses 11-13. These examples are to illustrate what the symbols were/are given to illustrate - that we are complete & made full in Christ.
Now you start doing the standard Baptist/evangelical "dance" around the word "baptism". There is no where in this passage that states that Baptism is an example. What it says is that Baptism is the circumcision of Christ. What is says is that we are buried with Christ in Baptism. What it says that in Baptism we are also raised with Christ. What it says is:
(continuing the discussion of what happens in Baptism) And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.
That is what the Word of God SAYS! "Example" is nowhere to be found in that passage, my Baptist brother!
Lutherans agree with Baptists that circumcision saved NO ONE in the OT. It was a mark of God's promises. Circumcision was not a means of salvation and neither is Baptism.
The means of salvation has always been by the declaration of God (his Word) received in faith by the believer. The act/mark itself has never saved.
Here is what you are not getting: Lutherans do not believe that Baptism is the "HOW" of salvation. We believe it is one of several possible "WHEN"s of salvation.
As a side note: We orthodox find it very curious that Baptists and evangelicals read the word "baptism" in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts as literal, water baptism, but once they get to the epistles, "baptism" no longer means literal, water baptism, it means a spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit or it is a metaphoric use of the word baptism.
What evidence do Baptists have that God changed the use of this one word in the epistles?
Isn't it very possible that YOU changed the meaning of this one word so that the Bible would fit with your doctrine?
Do you really believe that God wrote his Word in such a complicated manner that only Churchmen like yourself with a Greek lexicon or knowledge of ancient Greek could understand what God is trying to say? You guys make the Bible so complicated, with all your reading between the lines, metaphors where no metaphor exists, hypothetical/allegorical statements where no clear indication of this literary technique is being used!
The Bible says that even a child can read the Scriptures and understand it. Stop reading into God's Word and just accept the simple, plain rendering of his words!
You said:
"As circumcision is being used to illustrate a point, so is Baptism. It has never been something that confers grace, but it is a picture of the work of God in regeneration."
Never confers grace?? What is your definition of grace? Our definition of grace is "God's unmerited favor". When God forgives your sins, that is grace. You and every other sinner do not deserve for your sins to be forgiven.
"Baptism now saves you"
"Why do you tarry, arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord"
"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved"
Baptism is the "washing of regeneration".
Christ says he washes/sanctifies his bride, the Church, with water and the Word.
That sounds like a whole lot of grace to me!!
You said:
"We are buried under the water (immersed, not sprinkled)..."
Very cute. Very cute.
However, there is one small problem: Jews in Christ's day did not "immerse" their dead under the ground to be buried. They "placed" them in a tomb, a cave, and then covered the entrance with stones. So if Baptists want to insist on baptizing, being buried with Christ, by being completely literal with the method of Christ's burial, they would need to place their converts into caves filled with water. THEN and only then, could they use this passage of Scripture as support for immersion-only baptism.
Otherwise, your immersion analogy is...all wet!
This points out the central problem with Baptist theology: Baptists read into Scripture their own personal cultural world view instead of looking at the culture at the time that the passage was written.
Jews in Christ's day did not "immerse" their dead under the dirt.
AND, Jews and other middle eastern cultures in the first century practiced household conversion as the norm for changing religions, not individual conversion. The only two individual conversions mentioned in the NT were of Saul and the Ethiopian eunuch, neither of whom had a family. All the other conversions, after Christ's resurrection, in the New Covenant, were household conversions.
The Baptist notion that every person in a household had to make an individual decision to join the new religion is based on the cultural biases of western Europeans living in Switzerland in the 1500's (Ana-Baptists and Baptists) and of persons today living in Western cultures.
THAT is another reason why Baptists can't understand the reason why there is no mention of a means for infants and toddlers to be part of the new religion...why there is no mention of infant baptism in the Bible...it was ASSUMED! It was assumed that they would join the new religion in the same manner and at the same time as their parents: in water baptism!
I'm going to continue addressing your post but I can guarantee your readers that no matter what I say, you will never accept the literal, simple, plain rendering of any verse in the Epistles of the NT that mentions the word "baptism" or one of its variants for this simple reason: doing so contradicts your pre-established Baptist doctrine that salvation/the forgiveness of sins/regeneration...can ONLY occur when the sinner makes a mature, informed decision to accept Christ into his heart OR, as a Calvinist, you believe that you were BORN a Christian/a member of the Elect as confirmed by your feelings of sincerely "believing".
Both of these concepts are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Arminian Decision Theology is false doctrine and the Calvinist/Reformed belief that the Elect are born saved is also false doctrine.
Gary said OR, as a Calvinist, you believe that you were BORN a Christian/a member of the Elect as confirmed by your feelings of sincerely "believing".
Both of these concepts are nowhere to be found in the Bible.
That concept is nowhere to be found except in your imagination. It is really hard to take someone seriously who tries to correct a doctrine that he apparently knows nothing about.
Fair warning. If you call me an Arminian one more time, or if you address Arminian theology one more time I'm deleting the comment.
Enough is enough.
Gary said about baptism meaning immersion Very cute. Very cute.
However, there is one small problem: Jews in Christ's day did not "immerse" their dead under the ground to be buried. They "placed" them in a tomb, a cave, and then covered the entrance with stones. So if Baptists want to insist on baptizing, being buried with Christ, by being completely literal with the method of Christ's burial, they would need to place their converts into caves filled with water. THEN and only then, could they use this passage of Scripture as support for immersion-only baptism.
Otherwise, your immersion analogy is...all wet!
I don't think you understand how this sarcasm thing works. It isn't MY immersion analogy. It is Pauls. He is the one that said "buried with Him in baptism".
I wasn't joking about bringing up Arminianism.
You said:
"The act of going under the water pictures death, our death to sin and Christ’s death FOR our sins - does not bring faith. Our coming up out of the water pictures our walking in newness of life on account of Christ’s rising from the grave for our justification."
"Picture, picture, picture" I don't see that word in this passage either. Once again, you are reading into the simple, plain rendering of the passage your preconceived Baptist doctrine.
I have a challenge for you: Post a passage of Scripture that you believe that a Lutheran pastor would never say from the pulpit of a Lutheran church because it conflicts with our doctrine.
But would a Baptist pastor ever make these scriptural statements from the pulpit without retranslating the entire passage:
"Repent and be baptized every one of you for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
"He that believes and is baptized will be saved. He that does not believe will be condemned."
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
"Why do you tarry? Get up and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
I grew up a Baptist pastor's son. I went to Baptist church two times on Sundays (three times if you count Sunday School) and once on Wednesdays, attended Baptist revival meetings, Baptist Church Camp every summer, Vacation Bible school every summer, and Baptist convention meetings, until I was eighteen, and I never ONCE heard any Baptist pastor, Sunday school teacher, or Baptist evangelist mention these passages of Scripture. Why??
Why: Because these are "problem verses" for Baptists. They do NOT like them. Baptists believe that these passages were either intentionally or unintentionally mistranslated by paedo-baptist Bible translators, and therefore these, and other passages that in their simple, plain rendering infer that Baptism plays some role in the forgiveness of sins and salvation MUST be re-translated by a Greek-speaking Baptist pastor or theologian (Churchmen).
You said:
"Not only does this passage not teach that circumcision replaces baptism, it illustrates that neither had the power to save."
What does the passage (God) say:
"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."
Does the simple, plain, literal rendering of this verse NOT say that baptism IS the circumcision of Christ??? The whole passage is talking about baptism; not baptism of the Holy Spirit, not a "spiritual baptism" but good ol' fashioned WATER baptism, the same word for water baptism God all through the Gospels and the Book of Acts!
Water Baptism IS the circumcision of Christ. Christ's circumcision replaces the Abrahamic circumcision! It is as plain as the nose on your face, brother! Read the Bible in its plain, simple meaning.
"Neither has the power to save"??? God says in this passage that in baptism we are buried with Christ, we put off the flesh, we are raised with Christ by the powerful working of God through faith!! That sure sounds like salvation to me!
The water of baptism is not what saves, just as it wasn't the water of the Jordan that healed Naaman of Syria in the OT. It was God's declaration (his Word) that saves, received in faith, working in and through the water.
The water does NOT save! It is always the power of the Word that saves received in faith!
You said:
"Nothing can be as clear in the New Testament as the fact that Paul did not believe that circumcision had any efficacious saving power."
Agreed. The act of circumcision never saved anyone. The act of Baptism has never saved anyone. It is the Word received through faith that ALWAYS saves.
Baptism is a "WHEN" of salvation, not the "HOW" of salvation.
You said:
"The analogia scriptura (analogy of scripture) is that we are saved by Grace, through faith. Not by right, not by ceremony, not by works, not by knife, and not by water. We are saved by faith, cleansed, not by the water, but by the blood of Christ."
Lutherans and Baptists are in full agreement on this statement. Rituals and good works do not save. We are saved by God's grace, through the power of his Word, received in faith...ALWAYS!
Once again, Baptism is one of several "WHEN"s of salvation, it is NOT the "HOW" of salvation. That is what you thick-headed Baptists can't seem to understand!
:)
I hope you will now agree, Douglas, that I have fully addressed your post.
You said:
I don't think you understand how this sarcasm thing works. It isn't MY immersion analogy. It is Pauls. He is the one that said "buried with Him in baptism"."
Yes, Douglas, Paul is the one who said "buried with Him in baptism".
Here is the definition of "to bury": to deposit a dead body in the earth or in a tomb.
Since Jews in Christ's day did not deposit dead bodies in the earth, we would have to use the second term in that definition for this passage: "deposited with Him in baptism". To deposit is not the same as immersing UNDER.
YOUR analogy is still all wet! This passage cannot be used to support immersion-only baptism.
I meant to say: "deposited into a tomb with Him in baptism".
Deposited into a tomb is not the same as immersing/depositing below the earth/ground.
It is YOUR definition of "to bury" that is the problem, not the word "buried" itself.
Two of my sisters and their husbands (both studying to be ministers) are Reformed Baptists.
They do not believe that it is necessary to know a "when" of salvation, only the "how". They believe that someone who is of the Elect will at some point in his or her life declare themselves to be a believer. He or she will then be baptized as a public profession of their faith. My Reformed Baptist relatives are vague as to when salvation actually happened for these persons who declare themselves to be the Elect.
One brother-in-law cannot remember when he was saved, but because he believes at this moment, he believes he is saved. I believe he is saved too. He confesses Christ as his Savior and has been baptized. So for me, that is enough.
Do you, Douglas, believe that it is necessary to know the "when" of your salvation? And would you tell me your belief of the "how" of salvation? Do you say a prayer, like the Sinner's Prayer, or what?
Post a Comment