Home » Uncategorized (Page 15)

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Biblical Preservation and Canonicity: Bible study 1B

Years ago, as a member of Lehigh Valley Baptist Church, I was introduced to the Scriptural pattern of doing evangelistic Bible studies with the lost as well as simply preaching the gospel to them at their doors.  There are a number of good evangelistic Bible studies that have been written; the ones available here are in use in a number of churches in the United States and internationally.  Video presentations of these Bible studies are now becoming available.  If you use these studies in your church already, the video presentations can help people become skilled in teaching others one-on-one. They also can help with those who you may not be able to do one-on-one studies. If you use different evangelistic Bible studies, these video presentations may serve as a supplement that you can offer seekers after truth.
To that end, please note the video for study #1: “What is the Bible?” Study #1A deals with the inspiration of Scripture while 1B deals with preservation and canonicity. Part #1A had an issue and is getting reprocessed to go live, so part 1B is here first; you will survive if you view them in the reverse order. The studies can be accessed on the Bible studies page on my website here or on YouTube (link to part 1B) as well as through the embedded video below. I would encourage you to “like” the video on YouTube as well as commenting on it both there and here if you believe it contains good content.
Study #1B: Preservation and Canonicity

The studies can be downloaded as a Word document for use in your Baptist church here.

By the way, if you have heard the canard that no two Biblical NT manuscripts contain the same text, note that the video displays copies of several MSS that are identical to the letter over the course of entire Biblical books.

King Jesus, the Least of the Commandments, and the Destructive Essential/Non-Essential Doctrine

In the flow of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, He preaches the requirement for entrance into His kingdom (5:1-12) and then the present identity on the earth of its citizens, salt and light (5:13-16).  Salt presents the negative identity of influence against decay or corruption (5:13).  Light presents the positive identity of the declaration of God, speaking righteous doctrine and living the righteous life, all in accordance with the kingdom of Jesus Christ (5:14-16).  Saltiness is distinctiveness, the sacred life impeding the profanity of the world, and light provides the revelation of the knowledge of God for others for their salvation and sanctification.  What is the basis for salt and light?  It is the Word of God (5:17-19).

“The law or the prophets” in Matthew 5:17 can be proven to mean the entirety of the Word of God, which at that point was the entire Old Testament, so the law in v. 18 and commandments in v. 19 are the same, especially since the total content of all three verses is an argument being made, as seen in the “therefore” at the beginning of v. 19.  The conclusion of verse 19 is based first upon the authority of Jesus Christ.  No one should think that Jesus was nullifying or abrogating the Old Testament.  Second, it is based upon the permanence of the Word of God to the smallest detail (v. 18).  Why would the Word of God be preserved down to the smallest consonant and vowels if every little bit of it wasn’t supposed to be obeyed?
The point of jot and tittle is that everything God said matters.  The Lord did not come to annul any of it down to the tiniest detail, against the conventional wisdom that said that new covenant meant the old was gone. Jesus didn’t come to do some of God’s Word, but all of it.  If Jesus would complete everything, what would that imply?  The conclusion of verse 19.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Break must mean not keep.  Fulfill must mean keep.  Because Jesus would keep all of it, which characterized His life from start to finish, those in His kingdom would keep it all too.  Those faithful in little would be faithful in much.  Following Jesus Christ meant living like Jesus lived.  People following Him, which are people who are saved, do what He did, which was keep it all.  Now for Jesus that also meant that He kept every prophecy and every covenant too.

The Lord Jesus Christ was contrasting biblical teaching from that of the scribes and Pharisees. They would say they were God’s people, but they weren’t keeping all of God’s Word.  They were teaching men to do the same.  They ranked doctrines into the greatest and the least, because they were self-righteous, which was impossible.  They tried to make it possible by leaving out what was hard, what they didn’t think they could keep, or they just didn’t like.  Evangelicals today are the same.  Almost all of what calls itself Christian is the same.

Out of those in the future kingdom of Christ, those who do not do the smallest things that God said would be least in the kingdom.  They wouldn’t shine with the brightness of the firmament to put it in Daniel’s verbiage.  That does not mean that all of those people would be in the kingdom, just that out of all those who would be in the kingdom, those who would not keep everything to the smallest detail.  All of it matters.
In absolute contradiction to Jesus’ teaching at the very outset of His sermon, the destructive essential/non-essential doctrine was invented out of whole cloth.  The Bible teaches the opposite.  In Pharisee-like fashion, evangelicals have embraced the idea that teaching of scripture is best ranked into essentials and non-essentials.  Only the essentials must be kept, and more than ever the essential list is shrinking and the non-essential expands.  This is hiding light under a bushel and decreasing the saltiness or savour of the salt.  Christianity becomes more indistinguishable from the world.
When Jesus is your King, you’ve repented for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, you don’t decide what not to keep.  You are determined to keep it all.  Not keeping it is you being King, and not Him.  That is not believing in Jesus Christ.  This is what evangelicals do today especially with the cultural issues.  They know that they are uniquely offensive to the world, so that two results occur.  They lose people — numerical shrinkage.  Their coalitions divide.  To keep everyone together, they need to reduce biblical teaching.  Numerical growth and unity among disparate groups masquerades as credibility.  God isn’t impressed.  More than anything, it contradicts Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount.

Test Your Theological Knowledge!

How is your theological knowledge? If you would like to find out, the:

Theological Placement Exam (click on the link)

is a useful test. I do not endorse Credo House, which produced the test, because of its new evangelical character and compromise to the point where it will produce material by “evangelicals” who are willing to entertain the possibility that the Bible contains some errors, despite the fact that God himself testifies in Scripture to his own infallible truthfulness and that the Lord Jesus Christ clearly affirmed the infallibility and inerrancy of the verbally, plenarily inspired Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16; John 10:35; Matthew 5:18; 24:35, etc.) I believe I became acquainted with their organization after finding out about a free course on the resurrection of the Lord Jesus by Gary Habermas that contained useful information despite the shortcomings of Credo House.
So please feel free to spend a handful of minutes taking the theological knowledge test. You can let me know your thoughts about the test and about how you did in the comment section below. (Don’t read the comments of other people until after you take the test yourself.) How would the men in your church, who are responsible to lead their families in the knowledge of God, do on the test? How about the ladies? How would your Sunday school teachers do? How about your Bible college graduates? (I recall a statement by a IFB seminary graduate who evidenced, in his official statement of faith at his ordination council, great Trinitarian ignorance, that would be serious heresy if he knew what he was talking about, but the false teaching was never even brought up by any of the pastors there.  Many Independent Baptist schools do a poor job teaching people the Bible and consequently produce preachers who have a very shallow understanding of Biblical teaching or even of how to study the Bible.)
If taking the test motivates you to improve your theological knowledge, there are useful (and, by God’s grace, growing numbers of) resources and courses on my website and YouTube channel, courses available from Dr. Thomas Strouse, material from Dr. Qurollo, and lots of other useful ways you can improve your knowledge of theology, the queen of the sciences, in your sound Bible-believing and practicing historic Baptist church.

TDR

Baptism Debate Questions Answered: The Jacoby / Ross debate questions we ran out of time before answering, part 2 of 2

In my debate with Dr. Douglas Jacoby on the topic of whether faith before baptism is the moment of the new birth (I argued yes, he argued no) or baptism after faith is the moment of the new birth (I argued no, he argued yes), we had a question and answer session at the end of part two of our discussion.  Various questions that came in that we did not have time to answer during the discussion.  I have acquired copies of the questions and have answered them below, and have also invited Dr. Jacoby to answer them in the comment section. This blog post answers #8-14.  Questions #1-7 were be answered last Friday (click here for part 1).
If you did not already watch the debate, you can do so on YouTube by clicking here or by watching the embedded videos below.  The questions we did not get to answer commence after the videos.
Debate part 1, “We are born again before baptism” (Ross affirmative, Jacoby negative):
Debate part 2, “We are born again in baptism” (Ross negative, Jacoby affirmative):
Questions from the debates we did not get to answer in the Q & A session. Last time we put Thomas Ross’s answer first, so this time we will put Douglas Jacoby’s answer first.
8.) Isn’t it clear from John the Baptist response to the people coming to be baptized that he didn’t consider baptism as a work when he stopped them from being baptized by telling them to go and produce works in keeping with repentance?
DJ (Douglas Jacoby): Neither John nor Jesus nor any apostle ever designated baptism as a “work.” If we insist on calling it a work, we would only be correct that it is a work of God. After all, he is the one forgiving us! You are right to observe that the works follow baptism. Again, baptism itself was never called a work in the Bible, nor was it called a work in the course of the history of the church, until recent centuries.
TR (Thomas Ross): Matt. 3:7   But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
 
This passage says absolutely nothing about baptism not being a good work, a work of righteousness that is pleasing to God.  The word “work” in Scripture is not bad, it is good.  God has ordained that Christians do good works:
 
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)
 
But those very good works do not save:
 
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
9.) If you never had a doctrinal position on salvation, or if you had never read the scriptures – (or didn’t know Greek)What would you believe about how to become a Christian if you read through the gospels and Acts for the very first time?

DJ: Well, reading the gospel we learn a lot about the life to which we are called, but not so much about how to become a Christian. (After all, these were still the last days of the Old Covenant, which was in effect until Acts 2. In other words, the New Covenant is powered by Jesus’ death [Heb 9:15-17], though it doesn’t come into effect formally until Pentecost, 30 AD.) Many people are saved in the gospels, in the context of Judaism. For example, assuming he was a Jew, the thief on the cross (Luke 23:40-43) was saved as a penitent member of the Old Covenant people of God. There was no time to be baptized, nor any need—since baptism is a participation in Jesus’ death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-4), and Jesus had not yet been raised from the dead.

 
Acts is the book of the N.T. where we see people becoming Christians (present tense). The gospels anticipate Christian conversion; the letters assume and reflect back on it.
 
So let’s say we hand the book of Acts to a literate child, perhaps a 9- or 12-year-old. (It’s been done many times!) They read Peter’s Pentecost message (Acts 2:14-35). They hear the question asked by the crowd, “What shall we do?” (v.36). They listen to Peter’s response, “Repent and be baptized” (v.38). Finally, they note that those who accepted this message were baptized (v.41). Children grasp the connection between repentance and baptism and salvation. Unless they have been otherwise indoctrinated. This should not be controversial—but it is, since few churches really expect initial or ongoing repentance of their members, and entire denominations have lost their grip on Christian baptism.

 

TR: You would believe:
 
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:14-18). 
 
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).
 
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). 
 
“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43)
 
“And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:39)
 
 “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31) 
 
Baptism as the point where sin is taken away is adopted because of religious tradition and a misinterpretation of a very small number of verses, while ignoring the huge numbers of verses that teach one receives eternal life at the moment of faith before baptism.
10.) I know many people whose life are godly and righteous but without an experience of baptism. If God is looks at the heart 1 Sam 16:7, then what heart issue is involved in getting baptized? 
DJ: Sounds like we both know persons evidencing Christ in their lives, yet who have not been baptized. Of course, you are right: God looks at the heart. When I see Jesus in another believer, I am hesitant to write that person off simply because of a misunderstanding on some point of doctrine or practice. This perspective is consistent with biblical revelation. 2 Chron 30:18-20 and Rom 2:25-29 support such a perspective.

 
However, that doesn’t undo the command to be baptized. It’s one thing to be ignorant or misinformed, quite another to reject a divine command! So I still teach that people should understand baptism—this is always desirable—even though, as you note, judgment is up to God.
 
As for the heart (see the chart on salvation in the Ross-Jacoby debate), this is more connected with faith than with baptism. Hearing the Word changes our knowledge (and in a receptive heart, leads to faith—Rom 10:17). Faith is connected with a change of heart (Acts 15:9; Heb 10:22). Repentance (in a way, the other side of faith) leads to life changes (things we give up and things we begin to do). And baptism changes our relationship with God (rebirth, becoming his son or daughter).
 
As I reasoned in the debate, baptism is the normative point at which the rebirth takes place. I will let the Lord handle the exceptions.

 

TR: While baptism is not the point at which sin is removed, there is a heart issue involved in baptism.  Someone who is not willing to identify with Christ through baptism has a very serious heart problem.  The New Testament records many examples of people who were justified before baptism, but the New Testament records no examples of people who were born again who stubbornly and willfully refused and rejected baptism.  God expects you to reject false religion and follow Christ in His church after believing (Mark 16:16).

11.) You brought up early church teaching that mentions baptism.  Today, we have more translations, more books, and more teaching. Why has it gotten foggier with time? Were there errors? New realizations? Contradicting material discovered?

DJ: I wouldn’t say this is quite right. When more ancient manuscripts are discovered, our translations become better—either by a more certain knowledge of the originally wording, or by improvements in translators’ understanding of the biblical languages. This is not to say you aren’t on to something. There are tens of thousands of church groups, each claiming to be authentically representing pristine, apostolic Christianity. Not everyone can be right. Dr. Ross and I both agree that the “new-fangled doctrine of 1835,” the Sinner’s Prayer—embraced by most of the evangelical world—has caused much harm. It’s not only unbiblical, but tends to actually dilute commitment to Christ.

 
At the same time, to be fair, I know of a number of evangelicals who are coming to a high regard of baptism, viewing it within the process of salvation. (Ironically, some groups with an historically high view of baptism are giving in to subjectivism, even accepting the Sinner’s Prayer.) So there is a lot of confusion. In the pages of the New Testament, as in other documents produced by the early church (esp. the first three centuries), the murkiness is absent. Repentance and baptism were regarded as the last actions of a non-Christian—essential to the process of salvation.
TR: While I did not have time to deal extensively with the patristic material in the debate, please note that I supplied significant evidence at the end of debate #2 that the idea that people were lost before baptism was far from the universal teaching of early Christianity.  Nor, for that matter, should the sources Dr. Jacoby cited be assumed to be advocates of baptismal regeneration (see, e. g., the article here and the further sources cited in it.)
 
Furthermore, we would trace the true churches to the dissenting movements that were the minority rather quickly in church history rather than to the majority that became the Roman Catholic religion, e. g.:
 
1.) Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, a member of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1560): “If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished.”  This Catholic prelate, living at the time of the Reformation, admitted that the Baptists had been around since A. D. 360.
 
2.) Mosheim (Lutheran, A. D. 1755), said, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the name of Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion . . . is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained.”
 
3.) Dr. J. J. Durmont & Dr. Ypeig (Reformed writers specifically appointed by the King of Holland to ascertain if the historical claims of the Baptists were valid), concluded in A. D. 1819 that they were “descended from the tolerably pure evangelical Waldenses. . . . They were, therefore, in existence long before the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. . . . We have seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists . . . were the original Waldenses; and who have long in the history of the Church, received the honor of that origin.  On this account the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the Apostles; and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.”
 
4.) Alexander Campbell (founder of the “Disciples of Christ” and “Church of Christ” denominations, A. D. 1824):  “I would engage to show that baptism as viewed and practiced by the Baptists, had its advocates in every century up to the Christian era . . . clouds of witnesses attest the fact, that before the Reformation from popery, and from the apostolic age, to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists, and the practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced.”
 
5.) Reformed writer Leonard Verduin stated, “No one is credited with having invented the Anabaptism of the sixteenth century for the simple reason that no one did. . . . There were Anabaptists, called by that name, in the fourth century.” pg. 189-190, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 1965).


See Heaven Only for the Baptized? for sources and more information.
12A.) This question is for Dr. Jacoby:
If a person repents and has faith in Jesus as the Lord and Savior prior to baptism, must they also be aware of what is happening at the moment of their baptism to be born again? Put another way, can someone hold Dr. Ross’ position yet still be receive the forgiveness of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism? Please explain your reasoning.
DJ: While it’s always ideal to know what we’re getting into, we aren’t saved by comprehensive doctrinal understanding. (Joseph Harris and I flesh this point out in our book, Informed: Untangling Harmful Interpretations of Scripture.) Consider marriage. It is certainly possible to underestimate the energy and discipline it will take to be a godly wife or husband, and many enter marriage without having prepared themselves emotionally and spiritually. Nevertheless, if they have exchanged vows and complied with the law, they are married all the same.

 
Please see my response to [Q14], which overlaps your question. Note also that in our debate, while Thomas indicated he believed I was a non-Christian because I did not share his view on baptism, I did not follow suit / deny that he is a genuine believer in our Lord.

 

TR: It seems that Dr. Jacoby recognized that people can indeed be born again before baptism, although he stated that this was an exception. I appreciate his concession here, one which fits with the early history of his denomination, e. g., as cited in our debate, the questions below that I asked him:
 
Do you agree with Alexander Campbell’s statement:
 
“I observe, that if there be no Christians in the Protestant sects . . .  and therefore no Christians in the world except ourselves [in Campbell’s new sect] . . . for many centuries there [would have] been no church of Christ, no Christians in the world; and the promises concerning the everlasting kingdom of Messiah [would] have failed, and the gates of hell have prevailed against his church! This cannot be; and therefore there are Christians among the sects[.] . . . [W]ho is a Christian? I answer, everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. . . . There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of the faith, absolutely essential to a Christian-though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort. . . . [There are] Christians in all denominations[.] . . . [Among] the different Episcopalian, Presbyterian,  Methodistic, and Baptist sects . . . [t]here are, no doubt, many . . . disciples of Christ.”
 
 (“The Lunenburg Letter: An Incident in the History of the Interpretation of Baptism,” Glenn Paden. Restoration Quarterly Vol. 2:1 (1958) 13-18 for original sources. cf. http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1950s/vol_2_no_1_contents/paden.html#).
 
Do you agree with Alexander Campbell’s statement:
 
“But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to the measure of the knowledge of his will. . . . I cannot, therefore, make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in infancy without their own knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ and the well-grounded hope of heaven. . . . Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith [Campbell’s new sect], I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians. . . . I do not substitute obedience to one commandment [baptism] for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or Pedobaptist more spiritually minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former, rather than the latter, would have more cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. . . . There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of the faith, absolutely essential to a Christian.”
 
(Millenial Harbinger, September 1837, pgs. 411ff., acc. pgs. 133-135, The Millenial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell, co-ed. W. K. Pendleton, A. W. Campbell & Isaac Errett. Bethany, VA: Pub. A. Campbell, 1862. Series V, Vol V. elec. acc. http://books.google.com. cf. “The Gospel and Water Baptism: A Study of Acts 2:38, Lanny Thomas Tanton, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 1990) pgs. 27-52).
 
At Douglasjacoby.com the following appears, written in March of 2015:
 
F. LaGard Smith . . . states that those who are baptized even without the knowledge that they are baptized for the forgiveness of their sins are still saved in God’s eyes. So what if a person fully repents but believes he is saved by grace and he gets baptized as symbol of his commitment biblically, is he saved? . . . [D]espite their misunderstanding of baptism’s purpose . . . believers who are immersed in order to obey the command to be baptized might nevertheless be regarded in God’s eyes as saved believers. If so, of course, they would not have been saved at the point of faith (as they, themselves, think) but only at the point of their baptism–an odd situation, to say the least. . . . I am inclined to agree with LaGard Smith on this. I am fully cognizant that this has not been the stand of the churches of Christ in recent times. In fact, when a preacher back then took the position that those who did not have “baptismal cognizance . . . must be “rebaptized,” Alexander Campbell disfellowshipped this person for being divisive. The group known today as the Christadelphians resulted from this split. It is ironic that the Church of Christ now takes the view which Alexander Campbell once viewed as divisive. (https://www.douglasjacoby.com/qa-1349-what-about-baptismal-cognizance-by-john-oakes/ Accessed on 5/2/2020.)
 
Should the COC follow the practice of Alexander Campbell and place under church discipline/ separate from those who believe that one must either believe that his baptism is administered in order to obtain forgiveness or must submit to rebaptism?
 
Does the dominant COC view today that one must believe baptism remits sin when one is dipped mean that Alexander Campbell and other COC founders are in hell, for neither Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell, Barton Stone, nor Walter Scott believed that baptism was the point at which sin was remitted when they were immersed?
 
While I appreciate Douglas Jacoby’s concession here the new birth before baptism is hardly an exception.  On the contrary, it is the plain teaching of huge numbers of verses of Scripture.  Those verses must control our understanding of the handful of texts—about 0.019% of the Bible—that even comes close to looking like it might contradict justification at the moment of faith before baptism.
12B.) This question is primarily for Dr. Ross (though both parties may respond):
How do you understand baptism in relation to the Suzerain-Vassal treaty? Was this type of treaty considered ratified when the two parties began the covenant making process or only after they had completed all aspects of that process?
DJ: No comment — although it does seem a stretch to posit a connection
between Ancient Near Eastern treaties and baptism. (Which isn’t exactly a treaty.) I’d be interested in what Dr. Ross says.  
TR: The suzerain-vassal treaty format is more relevant to the books of Moses than to the New Testament teaching about baptism (see, e. g., the study on archaeological evidence for the Old Testament here). However, since there has always been only one human response God required of man in order to receive forgiveness—faith in God and His coming Messiah (Old Testament) or faith in God and His crucified and risen Messiah, Jesus (New Testament), one can still learn something about what God requires today from the pattern set millennia ago by Moses, e. g., God is in charge and we, as His vassals or servants, submit to Him and enter into covenant with Him.  I believe we would do better, however, to get our answer to the question of whether one is justified at the moment of faith or lost until baptized from careful exegesis of Scripture rather than from looking at details of ancient treaties that certainly provide useful background to the Old Testament but are only valuable insofar as they illuminate the meaning of the Biblical text itself.  In relation to the specific second question above, it is reasonable to conclude that a treaty was not ratified when two parties only began initial negotiations, but that does not correspond to saving faith, for when one entrusts himself to Christ as Lord and Savior he does enter into covenant with the Lord at that time.  I think it is very possible that such treaties were formally ratified at a time before a ceremony solemnized them took place, but the plain statements of Scripture on baptism are going to (and ought to drive) our view of what significance such a treaty format might have on our theology of conversion.
13.) Given that, in the three days beginning with his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, that Saul of Tarsus believed in Jesus, that he called Jesus “Lord,” that he changed his life and began obeying Jesus, that he spent three days praying and fasting, that he saw a vision from God (of Ananias), that he was healed of his blindness; Why did Saul/Paul preach these things to a crowd he was trying to convert and then conclude that his own sins were not yet forgiven (Acts 22:16)?


DJ: It would be good to go back and reread the passage in full (Acts 22:1-16). Paul doesn’t “preach” prayer, fasting, healing, etc.—he only tells his story. And he wouldn’t have been saved by going through a checklist of activities or experiences anyway!

 
It is clear that the Lord had been working in his life, especially from the time of his Damascus Road experience. The text doesn’t address his inner thinking during those first couple of days after he realized he had been opposing the Lord. Once Ananias told him to be baptized and wash his sins away, any lingering confusion would have been cleared up. Saul/Paul needed divine forgiveness; it’s through faith, repentance, and baptism in the Lord’s name that this is freely offered.
 
[Technical point: It is true that the imperative verb is in the middle voice. That could mean that Saul should get himself baptized, or “wash off” his own sins, as Dr. Ross claims (an idiosyncratic translation). The first possibility makes sense—but not the second one. Nowhere are we told to wash off our own sins. Jesus takes care of everything in the sin department! Once we are reborn, there are no sins to wash away; we are pure.]

 

TR: Paul did not conclude that his sins were not yet forgiven in Acts 22:16.  He taught that baptism ceremonially or figuratively washes away sin.  It is very appropriate for one who has his hands covered in the blood of Christian martyrs, if he turns to Christ and receives forgiveness at the moment of his true faith and surrender, to outwardly represent what has already taken away inwardly by washing away his own sins (Greek middle voice) ceremonially in baptism.  Please see the discussion of Acts 22:16 in Heaven Only for the Baptized? or check out what I said (more quickly than I would have had I had more time) in my response to Douglas on Acts 22:16 in part 2 of our debate (1:44:30ff into part 2).
14.) If those who believe that sins are forgiven apart from baptism turn out to be wrong; What would you expect to happen to them on Judgement Day?


DJ: The second question I thought I squarely addressed in my presentation. I emphasized what is normative (not exceptional– and of course the Lord can make any exceptions he likes), as well as the hope that God’s grace may cover not only moral errors
but even doctrinal ones. 

 
Surely lives of faithful discipleship speaks louder than technical correctness. Still, to know the Scriptures but then ignore what seems distasteful or inconvenient is not wise. 
TR: Christ plainly preached, and His Apostles recorded under the control of the Holy Spirit, over and over again, that one receives eternal life at the moment of faith:
 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (John 6:47)
 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
 
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)
 
If one is not forgiven at the moment of true faith, then the Lord Jesus Christ is not God’s final Prophet, not the Messiah, and not the risen Savior.  Then at Judgment Day we would have to see what Allah or Vishnu or Zeus or Baal or whatever god of the religions of the world turns out to be true wants to do with Bible-believing Christians who are trusting in the death and blood of Jesus Christ.  However, since Christ has risen from the dead and He is the Savior, people are justified at the moment of faith before baptism.  It is as certain as the infallible words of God’s final Prophet and God’s ultimate Revelation, His incarnate Word Himself, can make it.
15.) How important is it for our salvation that we fall on the right side of the debate, whichever side is the “right side”? For example, if I believe in baptism in terms of an “outward sign of an inward grace,” believing baptism isn’t necessary for salvation but believe every Christian should be baptized, does that negate my salvation?


DJThis is a great question. Please see my comments on question 11. It’s always good to strive for biblical understanding. And we always need to be open to truth—to be rethinking, open to what the Lord is showing us. Yet the Bible never says perfect understanding is essential for us to receive God’s promises.

 
[Interested readers, please see my short technical paper “Greek Grammatical Structures Similar to Eis Aphesin… in Acts 2:38.” Here is the link.]
TR: In Acts 15 and in Galatians if people add even one thing to faith as the means through which we appropriate God’s grace, they are fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) in that they turn away from the only way to receive salvation:
 
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9).
 
What was Paul’s message?  No law of any kind has ever been given which can give life, and justification is through the sole instrumentality of faith in Christ:
 
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Galatians 3:21-22)
 
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)
 
Being on the wrong side of this question means one is “accursed”—under God’s anathema, His eternal judgment.  It might seem to us as mere mortals that this is too severe, but that is what God says in His Word, and He is right, so we need to agree with Him, reject all false gospels, embrace the true gospel, and show love to those who do not believe the truth by plainly warning them about the error of their way and having no Christian fellowship with them, since they are not Christians.  If we truly love God and love them, we will respect them as human beings but we will recognize that affirming that people are Christians who believe a different gospel is actually the most unloving and cruel thing possible that we could do to them, for by so doing we are encouraging them to continue to believe a lie that will lead to their eternal torment separated from God and cost them the eternal joy of His blessed everlasting smile and presence.  “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11).
TDR

The Religion of Social Justice And Its Infiltration of Churches

For my entire lifetime, liberal theology has presented an alternative to the biblical story.  Man arises progressively through naturalistic origins.  The Christian story is superstition, proceeding from mythology in various cultures with hopes of explaining the past and the present.  Instead of taking the Bible literally, use it as an allegory, a source of archetypes for the physical well-being of mankind.  Truth that might spring from the metaphor parallels with conventional thinking, so the message can change.  Since man advanced progressively, improvements for man come from progressivism.  Cultural change mainly in the way of equaling social outcomes is salvation.  Liberalism is religion in all the ways I’ve just described.  For instance, ‘presenting your body a living sacrifice’ is enduring personal loss as an object of change through education, government, psychology, etc.Before the coronavirus, I talked every week to liberal Methodists, liberal Lutherans, liberal Catholics, liberal Presbyterians, liberal Congregationalists, and liberal Baptists.  My next door neighbor, an elderly man, who just died in the last two years, was a conservative Lutheran, who grew up in a Missouri synod church in Northern Wisconsin, but lived his adult life in California.  There was no Lutheran church for him in our area, because all of them had turned liberal.  He lit up when I talked to him.  It made sense, except for the salvation by grace through faith alone.  He would not accept that he couldn’t be saved through his good works.Social justice could be said to be a branch of the larger denomination of liberalism.  Liberalism accepts social justice in its hierarchy.  Membership of a certain generation within evangelical or fundamentalist churches would not accept liberalism, it’s denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, miracles, and the blood atonement.  The door stays closed to classic liberalism, but it opens to social justice, which is a denomination within big liberalism.  In fact, liberalism makes its way into churches through social justice.  Evangelicals have made way for the denomination of social justice into its churches through the lies it has told about social justice to pander to potential constituents.  For instance, they leave out the liberalism of Martin Luther King, Jr.  They embrace to a degree a Mother Theresa as if she were a saint.Even conservative evangelicals present themselves as a face of social justice with stories of stands taken during the civil rights movement against the racism of Southern Baptist churches.  Those types of stories are confusing, because they don’t give a clear delineation for who is preaching what.  There was racism in the United States, but did that mean that the black church leaders were preaching the same message as the white churches?  Even if the varied factions could have put aside the racial differences, would they still be meeting together, aligned with a common doctrine?  Common ground should not be attained by ignoring doctrinal error, including on the gospel.A good source for racial history in the United States is the massive amounts of writing found in the fourteen volumes of the Booker T. Washington Papers (look at the index here).  C. Vann Woodward called them “the single most important research enterprise now under way in the field of American black history.”  Many years ago, I read large chunks of these for hours in order to write a docudrama that our school performed on the life of Booker T. Washington.  Washington was relentless and harsh in his criticism of black clergy.  You can read this even in the classic Up from Slavery, which should be required reading in schools and especially Christian schools.  Washington and George Washington Carver would not be receptive to the social justice movement and its actual, real effects on black people in the United States.How is social justice even infiltrating conservative churches?  It comes into the church with themes similar to and apparent counterparts to orthodoxy.   Those themes fall on the ears and minds of younger members through school and media, unprepared to diagnose the counterfeit.  In many, if not most cases, they also might just be unconverted.  They are thorny ground, raised with the acceptability of worldliness, because their leaders did not inform them well enough on cultural issues.  They even attacked those who did in order to indulge potential members for church growth.  They covered for this with the concept of “gospel first importance” or “essential doctrines,” not found in scripture.  The church lost saltiness on the earth and dimmed light to the world.  It’s probably too late to do anything about the damage, but the churches and leaders should repent, and take the true Christians they have left and stand where they didn’t.  I’m not hopeful.The infiltration of social justice occurs with first a well-known theme of sin.  It is a perversion of the doctrine, but the sin and guilt relates to apparent injustice, which really is differing outcomes based upon socio-economics.  The law broken isn’t the law of God, but political correctness.  There are even standards that must be kept like the Pharisees or the Judaizers of the day of Jesus and the Apostles.  If those standards are not kept, separation occurs like not eating with the Gentiles.  These are almost never real sins that are committed.  Judgment comes on not accepting political correctness or following its standards.  They are changing standards, called progressive ones, but they can change based on progressivism.Younger church members embraced the idea of group guilt for an entire race of people.  Sin and guilt doesn’t work that way in reality.  Sin and guilt are individual, so this is a perversion, an important one.  God says the “soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20-24).  Group sin and guilt then changes the nature of redemption.  If no one committed a sin, just found himself already guilty for lacking in pigmentation, then there is also no individual redemption or forgiveness.  He must attempt to do penance by showing all the indications that he is woke.  He must use the correct language, take the correct posture, which might include kneeling, and then perhaps to pay an indulgence in the way of reparations, a kind of tithe to the system.  Redistribution of wealth is part of membership in the new group of the redeemed; however, never really finding redemption because the indulgence must keep being paid.The canon of social justice isn’t scripture, except for allegorized scripture.  It is leftist propaganda and psychology.  Members become duped in psychology and sociology.  Members of the Supreme Court have already joined this church by calling transgenders a sex.  There is no outcry in the country, even from evangelicals, because of the fear of retribution of some kind, a shaming way past the level of the shunning of the Amish.Psychology and sociology have been canonized even in churches.  My father hit me when I was a child.  Social justice would shun him.  If I mouthed off to my dad or my mom, one or the other might smack me in the mouth, not in an injurious way.  I am a victim.  I could claim victim status.  This is part of the psychology.  The fear actually kept me from evil.  It wasn’t sufficient, but it helped me in the short term, until my beliefs were settled.  The next generation resents spankings and if it received any physical discipline beyond spanking, that stands as justification for almost any behavior choice in contradiction of authority.Saints in social justice are victims, even if they are wicked criminals, who have robbed and raped.  Victimhood itself is a form of sanctification, where blame shift occurs.  Someone is released from all blame as a victim, a kind of redemption from guilt.Patriarchy is a social construct as a doctrine of the denomination of social justice.  Women are elevated in their position, so that any criticism is also a violation of political correctness in the canon of social justice.  Anyone who says a woman should take a required role is misogynist.  Men themselves in the general canon are misogynists.  Any man who continues on male patriarchy should be shunned.You can see that the doctrine does not center on the condition of the heart.  It is external behavior.  The kingdom teaching would be progress until there is a classless, sexless, completely equal society.  As you might know, this won’t or doesn’t happen.  It will be turned into an oligarchy much like the nation of Chaz up in Seattle right now, ruled by violence.What I’ve described in this post won’t end well.  It is against God.  God is still in charge.  There is a real, true God with a real, true Bible, that is the standard by which He judges.  Someone can invent his own world in his head, but he still lives in God’s world where God is the judge.  True saints should reject the denomination of social justice in the religion of liberalism.   Yes, today you will be persecuted.  You really are salt and light and you are being persecuted for righteousness.  Standing against the religion of social justice is righteous.

Baptism Debate Questions Answered: The Jacoby / Ross debate questions we ran out of time before answering, part 1 of 2

In my recent debate with Dr. Douglas Jacoby on the topic of whether faith before baptism is the moment of the new birth (I argued yes, he argued no) or baptism after faith is the moment of the new birth (I argued no, he argued yes), we had a question and answer session at the end of part two of our discussion.  There were numbers of questions that came in that we did not have time to answer during the debate.  I have acquired copies of the questions and have answered them below, and have also invited Dr. Jacoby to answer them in the comment section.   I would encourage readers to consider both of our responses to the questions.  Our answers will be relatively brief because of the number of the questions, but since we have the privilege of responding in writing we are able to be a bit more technical than is possible answering off the cuff.  Some of the questions below were specifically directed to one or the other speaker, but I have answered all of them.  This blog post will answer #1-7, and, Lord willing, questions #8-14 will be answered next Friday–click here for part 2’s questions and answers.
If you did not already watch the debate, you can do so on YouTube by clicking here or by watching the embedded videos below.  The questions we did not get to answer commence after the videos.
Debate part 1, “We are born again before baptism” (Ross affirmative, Jacoby negative):
Debate part 2, “We are born again in baptism” (Ross negative, Jacoby affirmative):
Questions from the debates we did not get to answer in the Q & A session. My answers are TR (Thomas Ross) followed by his answers with a DJ (Douglas Jacoby). In the second post we will have answers for questions #8-14.

1.) Apollos was a believer and yet Priscilla and Aquila noted through the Holy Spirit that he only knew the baptism of John why was that critical and why did they need to teach him further if it wasn’t for the fact that he needed to learn about the baptism into Christ if belief was enough why did he need further teaching.
TR (Thomas Ross): Acts 18:24   And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. 27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: 28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Note that the text NEVER says that Apollos was lost and only became saved when he was baptized. Note as well that Apollos never actually was rebaptized—John’s baptism was sufficient for becoming united to the disciples in the church.  Acts 18:24-28 actually refutes baptism for justification.

In Acts 19:1-7 there is a contrast; the people there were non-Trinitarian. They did not believe in the Trinity, and so were unsaved (John 17:3), for they had never even heard of the Holy Spirit (19:2), although John preached about Him (Matthew 3:11). Their spurious discipleship is indicated by the fact that the plural word “disciples,” mathetai, is nonarticular in 19:1—unlike every single one of the 25 other references in the book of Acts to the word (1:15; 6:1-2, 7; 9:1, 19, 26, 38; 11:26, 29; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 18:23, 27; 19:1, 9, 30; 20:7, 30; 21:4, 16).  Paul does not tell these “disciples” that John’s baptism has passed away and Christian baptism has now been inaugurated; he tells them what John the Baptist really said (19:4), upon which they believed John’s message as expounded by Paul and submitted themselves to baptism (19:5-7).

Of course, this does not mean that Apollos did not need further teaching.  Of course he does need further teaching.

DJ (Douglas Jacoby): It seems Apollos (like the disciples in Acts 19) was not up to date on some important developments. After Jesus ascended, the Spirit (and the new birth) became available (Acts 2:30, 33; John 7:38-39). That is, the indwelling Spirit was not available until Pentecost (Acts 2:38). In short, John’s baptism was not the same thing as Christian baptism (baptism in Jesus’ name), even though John directed people to Jesus.
2.) Were the apostles saved before Pentecost?
TR: Yes, the Apostles were saved before Pentecost, the same way as in these texts:

Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
Luke 18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.

DJ: Jesus told them (before Pentecost), “You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you” (John 15:3). Keep in mind that the apostles were Jewish; as long as they were faithful to the (old) covenant, they were right with God. It is unreasonable, in my opinion, to hold that they needed to become “lost” so that they could become saved through Christ. A number of them submitted to John’s baptism. The Spirit came on them at Pentecost (Acts 2), though some interpreters take the Jesus’s prophetic action in John 20:22-23 to be the moment they received the Spirit.


Whatever was the unique case with the apostles, they told the rest of us that we would receive Spirit once we repented and were baptized (Acts 2:38). But back to your question: the N.T. never says the apostles were baptized at Pentecost (or later). One may speculate, but this remains an open matter.
3.) Are the commands “repent” and “be baptized” directed to the same audience in Acts 2:38?
TR: The grammatical structure of Acts 2:38 connects the receipt of the Holy Spirit (and thus the new birth “of the Spirit” (John 3:5-8) and its associated receipt of eternal life) with repentance, not baptism.  The section of the verse in question could be diagrammed as follows:
Repent (2nd person plural aorist imperative)
            be baptized (3rd person singular aorist imperative)
                        every one (nominative singular adjective)
                                    in (epi) the name of Jesus Christ
                                    for (eis) the remission of sins
            ye shall receive (2nd person future indicative) . . . the Holy Ghost
Both the command to repent and the promised receipt of the Holy Spirit are in the second person (i. e, “Repent [ye]” and “ye shall receive”).  The command to be baptized is in the third person singular, as is the adjective “every one” (hekastos).  Peter commands the whole crowd to repent and promises those who do the gift of the Holy Ghost (cf. Acts 10:47; 15:8).   The call to baptism was only for the “every one of you” that had already repented, received the Holy Ghost, and become the children of God.  The “be baptized every one of you” section of the verse is parenthetical to the command to repent and its associated promise of the Spirit.  Parenthetical statements, including those parallel in structure to Acts 2:38, are found throughout Scripture.  The grammar of Acts 2:38 requires the connection “Repent ye, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,” not “Be each one baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  The connection in Acts 2:38 between the receipt of the Holy Spirit and repentance, rather than baptism, overthrows the assertions of baptismal regenerations on the verse.

DJ: Yes. This is the audience out of whom some 3000 persons—this is a male-only count, as in Acts 4:4, Matt 14:21, etc.—accepted the message and were baptized. Their response is recorded in v.41.

Some note that “repent” is a second person plural aorist imperative, while “be baptized” is a third person singular aorist imperative, and conclude only repentance is connected with forgiveness of sins. But this doesn’t work. Just as in John 7:53, the plural followed by the singular is used for emphasis.

4.) In Acts 2:38, Peter says repent and be baptized…and you will receive the Holy Spirit.
If we are not children of God until we receive the Holy Spirit, then how is it that we are saved before baptism at the point of faith? 
It would strongly seem that Peter is saying repent and be baptized and then you will receive the Holy Spirit.
TR: Please see the discussion in question #3. Acts 2:38 teaches that the Holy Spirit is received at the moment of faith before baptism.  Peter also clearly affirmed elsewhere in Acts that at the moment of repentant faith one receives the Spirit and eternal life. As taught in all the rest of the New Testament, Peter believed that one “receive[s] the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Galatians 3:14), not by baptism. In Acts 10:34-48, just as on the day of Pentecost (11:15, 17), eternal life, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, was received at the moment of repentant faith (11:18; 10:43-48) and before baptism.  Peter explicitly stated that God “purif[ied] [the] hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9) of those given eternal life in Acts 2 and 10, when they “heard the word of the gospel, and believe[d]” (15:7, cf. v. 11), at which time they received the Holy Spirit (15:7-9).  Furthermore, in the rest of the book of Acts, Peter proclaimed justification by repentant faith alone.  He preached, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19).  He associated “repentance . . . and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31).  He commanded men to “repent . . . and . . . be forgiven” (Acts 8:22).  In Acts 10:43, he preached that “through [Christ’s] name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”  If Peter taught forgiveness by baptism in Acts 2:38, why did he teach justification by repentant faith, as the other apostles did (Acts 13:39; 16:31), in all the rest of Acts?  Did he change his mind in Acts 10-11 and 15, and, twice, inform the very church at Jerusalem that included numerous converts from his sermon in Acts 2 that they were saved by faith, not by baptism?  Did the entire Jerusalem church agree with Peter’s new teaching and “glorify God” (11:18) for it, including those that were supposedly baptized in order to receive the remission of sins on that first Pentecost?  The allegation that Acts 2:38 conditions forgiveness of sins on baptism ignores the clear statements of Peter about what happened on that day, his preaching of the gospel everywhere else in the book, and the numerous affirmations of salvation by repentant faith alone by others in Acts.

DJ: Exactly right! It wouldn’t make sense that we’d receive the Holy Spirit (through faith), only to have to later be baptized to receive the Spirit. Salvation isn’t split into sections.

Religious leaders have caused needless confusion by teaching salvation by faith alone, before we have obeyed Peter’s simple command. “Faith alone” is a relatively recent teaching—dating only to the 16th century Reformation—an overreaction to the “priestcraft” and “works righteousness” of the medieval church. (See James’s balanced treatment of works in James 2:14-26.) As Peter further noted, God gives the Holy Spirit “to those who obey him” (Acts 5:32). Peter’s hearers on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, convicted by the gospel message, asked a simple question: “What shall we do?” To which the apostle offered a simple answer: “Repent and be baptized.”



We become God’s children when we receive his Holy Spirit (Gal 3:26-27; 4:6; Rom 8:9; Acts 2:38). Acts 2:38 doesn’t contradict John 3:5; baptism is the occasion on which we are saved by faith.

5.) Clearly the word baptism is not always referring to water baptism. “John indeed baptized with water, but…” so if we, in unity of the Spirit believe in “one Lord, one faith, one Baptism”, then which baptism is it?
TR: The “one baptism” in Ephesians 4:5 is being dipped in water with the authority of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  That neither proves nor disproves the idea that baptism is the point at which one is forgiven of his sin; 1 Corinthians also connects unity in the church with the Lord’s Supper, but Dr. Jacoby would agree that people are not unforgiven until they first partake of the Supper.
            Please see https://faithsaves.net/Spirit-baptism/ for an exposition of the Biblical teaching on Spirit baptism.

DJ: The significant difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Both baptisms involved water, yet only baptism in Jesus’ name confers the Spirit. Most Christians I know distinguish the “Holy Spirit baptism” from regular water baptism. I am not so sure this distinction is valid, especially in light of verses like 1 Cor 12:13.


Eph 4:5 isn’t the only baptism verse in Ephesians. 5:14 and 5:26 are two more. As correctly noted by Baptist scholar George Beasley-Murray, baptism is more than simply an initiation ceremony. Something actually happens when a man or woman is baptized.

6.)  You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
QUESTION; Did the demons repent at the time they believed if faith/repentance are the same?
TR: James 2 is talking about a kind of “faith” that does not result in works.  Saving faith, as I explained in my first speech, is not just mental assent to facts (like the demons have) but entrusting oneself wholeheartedly to Christ as God, Lord, and Savior. James 2 both denies that simple mental assent is saving faith (James 2:19) and employs Abraham as a pattern of the New Testament Christian’s saving faith: “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God” (James 2:23).  People are through the instrumentality of the (unbaptized) Abraham and are immediately accounted righteous at the point of faith, like Abraham was.  Mere “belief” like the devils have is not genuine faith.

DJ: If you mean that faith and repentance are the same, they are not.  It’s clear the demons don’t have saving faith. If they did, they would repent.

7.) In 1 Corinthians 1:14, if baptism is so vital, why does Paul say he thanked God that he baptized none of them, and why does he contrast that with the gospel, if the gospel apparently to you [Dr. Jacoby] includes baptism?
TR: 1 Corinthians excludes baptism from Paul’s gospel.  The apostle defines the message of salvation in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 as:
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)
 “[T]he gospel . . . [is that] by which also ye are saved” (v. 1-2), and those who “received” it “believed” (v. 2).  It was “preach[ed], and . . . believed” (v. 11) in “faith” (v. 14, 17).  While faith is mentioned, Paul defines the gospel without any reference to baptism; it is, therefore, not part of the gospel, and is not a prerequisite to justification.  Paul confirms in 1 Corinthians 1:17 what he taught by omission in 1 Corinthians fifteen, stating, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (cf. Acts 26, Galatians 1:11-16).  He specifically contrasts the gospel, which saves from sin (15:2, cf. 4:15), and baptism, which does not.  Paul also thanks God that he did not baptize people (1:14) and does not remember if he baptized others (1:16).  How strange these assertions would be were baptism essential to obtain forgiveness! Their strangeness is not solved simply by recognizing that the church at Corinth was not united but had factions.  Furthermore, Paul tells the church that “though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Corinthians 4:15).  Paul was the one through whom the church had been born again—but he had baptized only a tiny fraction of the membership (1:14-17).  In 1 Corinthians, Paul states that the gospel saves (15:2, 4:15).  He also excludes baptism from the gospel (15:1-4; 1:17) and informs the members of the Corinthian church that he was the means through which they had been born again, although he had not baptized them (4:15, 1:14-17).  Furthermore, Paul affirms that on the road to Damascus, when he saw the risen Christ, he was “born” again (1 Corinthians 15:8), although yet unbaptized.  Paul’s statements about baptism and the gospel in 1 Corinthians are highly problematic for the idea that baptism is the point of forgiveness.

DJ: Now Paul doesn’t say he baptized none of the Corinthians, only that he didn’t remember all those he baptized. Which was just as well, because anyone can baptize, but only one could die for our sins. Factions had been forming among the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:10-13; 3:3-6). People were identifying with human leaders instead of with Christ. Baptism is in the name of Christ—not the name of Paul or Apollos. “Was Paul crucified for you?” (1:13) suggests we are baptized into the one who crucified for us. (Rom 6:3-4 shows us that baptism is a participation in the death of Christ.)


Now the gospel doesn’t include baptism, nor does it even include faith. That would be to confuse the gospel with our response to the gospel. The Ethiopian responded to the good news about Jesus (Acts 8:36) by being baptized (Acts 8:38), so Philip, the person who instructed him, clearly included baptism in his message about Jesus. Yet again, while repentance and baptism are our response to the saving message, these actions are not themselves part of the gospel.

If all we’re doing in evangelism is counting souls we have won, we’re working at cross-purposes to the gospel; we’re leading people away from the Lord and towards mere humans. When Paul says he wasn’t sent to baptize, I understand him to be saying he wasn’t sent primarily to baptize. Of course he baptized! All the apostles did. It’s like John 12:47-48. Did Jesus come to judge the world? His primary purpose was a rescue mission. Yet he did come to judge (John 9:39). Reading John too quickly, one might finds a contradiction (Jesus came to judge; he didn’t come to judge). One more example: As a Christian teacher, my goal is not merely to publish books. My goal is to publish the truth—to cause others to think and rethink the faith. Book-writing is part of that, but I would be horrified if others measured their spirituality by how many of my books they had read! The emphasis must remain on Christ. It’s a matter of emphasis and perspective.

Please check back next Friday for the last seven questions and answers. You are encouraged to interact with this information in the comment section below, where we also can interact with each other’s answers.

TDR

Why David’s Life Would Matter

The background of Psalm 30, written by King David, was his numbering of Israel.  2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 mention the event.  God offered David his choice of punishments: three years of famine, three months of war with Israel’s enemies, or three days of pestilence. David chose pestilence.  About 70,000 people died in three days.

David himself was sick unto death and he prayed to God about it, like an argument for his continuing to live (Psalm 30:8-10).

I cried to thee, O Lord; and unto the Lord I made supplication.  What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth?  Hear, O Lord, and have mercy upon me: Lord, be thou my helper.

God wasn’t going to kill David with disease, but David didn’t know that.  While 70,000 of his people were dying because of what he did, he thought he would too, so he made his case.  What would a good case be to make to God in order to live?  What purpose would impress God that your life is worth living?  David says two related purposes in verse 9.
What David did that made his living superior to dying was, one, praising the Lord, and, two, declaring the truth of the Lord.  Could the opposite argument be made?  If someone does not praise the Lord and declare the truth of the Lord, does he have an argument before God for living?
David believed his life would matter if He praised God and declared God’s truth, which is His Word.  Any one of us could argue about lives mattering, but David didn’t see his own life mattering unless he did those two things.  When you think about lives mattering, what do you think makes them matter?  Are you even thinking right about life and why it matters?
The Lord doesn’t accept all praise.  If you regard iniquity in your heart, He doesn’t hear your praise (Psalm 66:18).  It must be acceptable to Him (Romans 12:1).  He is holy.  Praise is about Him being praised, not making you feel good, because your “praise song” “rocks.”  God is praised through reverence and solemnity.  They are required for His offerings.
Declaring the Lord’s truth is declaring all of what God says in His Word.  That’s trickier to evangelicals.  Praise has become easier to hoodwink.  People won’t want to hear the truth, so declaring all of it won’t make you popular.  It’s why God wants us here though.
On Sunday, David taught Psalm 30.  He taught about why David’s life would matter, except he didn’t know he was sick like David in the Bible.  David Sutton, the other pastor at our church, started feeling dizzy about 2/3 of the way into his lesson.  He started a migraine.  He went out the side door to lie down in the office.  The emergency room said his brain was bleeding.  An ambulance took him to Redwood City, and the next morning did a cerebral angiogram and found a small leak on his brain stem.  The doctor said they thought he would make a full recovery.  He would need to stay in the hospital though for ten days or more.
David Sutton’s life matters to God.  We are hoping for a speedy and strong recovery.  We’re rejoicing in his life.
You should ask yourself about your own life.  Could you make the same argument for why you should live?

Contemporary Indications of the Reprobate Mind

Where I live at this moment has the fifth busiest traffic in the country on Highway 80, headed toward what is called the MacArthur Maze.  During coronavirus, it’s been different, but before March 2020, traffic would come to a complete standstill because people would turn to look at an accident.  The same principle applies as the world stares at the present devastation in America.  Scripture provides commentary and explanation for what they see happening.  What is it?

In Romans 1:28, the Apostle Paul writes, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.”  The flow of Romans 1 is that men knew God, but they suppressed that knowledge.  God turned them over to what they wanted, as His act of judgment.  An indication of God’s turning them over, is their “reprobate mind.”  “Reprobate” is depraved.

The lust is what fools the person, their thinking that what they like, based on their feelings, is good for them.  James 1:14 describes it as being drawn away of one’s own lust, and then enticed.  The enticement is in the mind.  Nothing or not enough is there to stop the lust.  When someone is saved, Hebrews 9-10 describe the inward transformation, the purging of a defiled conscience.

What looks horrendous to many, construed by and through a reprobate mind looks attractive.  Someone’s trash really is a treasure.  It is a perspective, a worldview, a grid by which someone measures.  The chaos in Seattle many call a street festival.  The right instinct is trash.  Why does someone see it as depraved and others as acceptable?  This is the reprobate mind.

The most influential party platform in the United States is built upon killing babies in the mother’s womb, destroying the most fundamental unit of relationship, the family, by eliminating male and female roles, promoting homosexuality, and they are proud about it.  Then Paul say in verse 32 that it is not only those who do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
These people and their activities are advocated or defended on social media by a majority of 18 to 30 year olds.  They take pleasure in them that do them.  They elect them to office.  They choose them for congressman, senator, and president.  That’s who they want.  They reject those who point it out, hate them.
Because of the depraved mind, they can’t find favor in what God does.  They don’t want what He wants.  They are not for righteousness.  The problem is not an external problem.  It is an internal one.  That’s who they are.  Like Jesus said in Matthew 12:35:

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Earlier in Matthew 15:18 He then said this:

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

There is a salvation problem here.  It’s possible that someone, like Lot, is vexing his righteous soul, but more likely, someone not saved.  He has forsaken the church for the world.
A common reaction in many cases is to mask the pain of conscience.  Some of these were trained in a different way by their parents, but they anesthetize it in three ways at least.  One, they listen to sensual music that pushes everything out but their own lust.  Two, they set up boundaries against those who say something different.  They don’t listen to their parents.  They push away a church that teaches the truth.  This allows them to continue to be misinformed.  Then third, they speak evil of dignities, like 2 Peter 2 talks about.  They tear everything down that came before them, including the law of God around them.  They’re pigs.
Apostates scorched earth the previous generation of righteousness.  They’ll find something.  Everyone can, but that’s the not the point.  The point is like those in Ezekiel 18:2:

What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?

This proverb took root as a philosophy of the day.  The fathers ate sour grapes and now the children’s teeth are set on edge.  The latter doesn’t follow from the former.  The former is just used as propaganda.  These were bad people.  These were the ones that either built these statues or they allowed them to stay.
The children don’t care about the teeth.  They just use them to nullify anything the parents or authorities say.  “You ate sour grapes.”  The result doesn’t follow, but it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t.  This phenomena of apostasy occurs to a certain degree with any generation, but because of technology especially,  has multiplied.   Most of these don’t study out almost anything from scripture.  They don’t have the means or the interest.  They’re not looking for the truth.  They won’t even be challenged.  The point isn’t knowing what scripture says.  They can’t stand for almost any kind of debate, which is why they set up boundaries, where they are unaccountable.
The boundaries of children with teeth set on edge are also a psychological barrier with the auspices of self-care.  Personal well-being necessitates not being under any kind of analysis.   The bent teeth really are in the head, psychological bent teeth of this generation.   This is the reprobate mind.  They hence redefine love to be toleration, what they call “unconditional love,” as opposed to “transactional.”  These are what the Apostle Paul calls “vain philosophies” in Colossians 3, or today, psychobabble. They pervert the gospel, which is transformational, someone turning from these excuses to serve the living God.
Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to hinder the lust.  Without righteous souls as salt and light, nothing was there to stop the downward slide.  The United States has reached a new state of existence.  Instead of standing up, too many churches are encouraging the depravity with their silence.  It’s a tipping point.  This portends for a different kind of judgment in the future, maybe very close.

Eternal security debate: Douglas Jacoby & Thomas Ross, now live!

As regular readers of this blog likely know, I had the privilege of engaging in a two-part debate with Dr. Douglas Jacoby, a minister in the denomination that calls itself the “church of Christ” and was started by Alexander Campbell and his associates in the 1800s, last month over the topic of whether baptism is the moment of the new birth (the Bible says “no,” John 3:16, and so did I, while his denomination says “yes.”).  We broadcast that debate, which took place on Saturday, May 9, on livestream.  Early on Sunday May 10 we debated the question of eternal security.  Our eternal security debate, in which I was in the affirmative, was over the specific topic: “Those truly born again can never finally and eternally perish.”  This debate was not broadcast on livestream, so you can only see it by clicking on the video below or watching it on YouTube by clicking here:

I believe that the debate went well and the truth of eternal security was clearly presented and defended by God’s grace and for His glory alone.  A number of the arguments I made were identical to those made in the Kent Brandenburg / Larry Hafley debate over eternal security, and Dr. Jacoby was no more successful refuting them than Mr. Hafley had been (although Dr. Jacoby is far more polite and does not employ the smoke-and-mirrors tactics and antics of Mr. Hafley).
If you believe in eternal security–as you should–watching the debate should strengthen your ability to confess and defend the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.  If you do not believe in eternal security, you should watch this debate and seriously consider if God requires that you believe this crucial doctrine closely related to the core of the gospel.
Many thanks to those who prayed for the debate, helped with the debate preparation, and equipped the saints so that a serious defense of the faith was possible.
If you believe the video glorifies God, please feel free to “like” it on YouTube and post a comment. Responding to comments by anti-eternal security people and pro-baptism-as-the-moment-of-salvation people would also be appreciated, as I may not have time to respond myself.
TDR

The Apostle Paul’s Response to A First Century Gospel-Destroying Cancel-Culture Wokeness Plague on the Church

The Apostle Paul had woke credentials.  He lists them in Philippians 3 in case anyone might wonder.  No one was more Jew than he was.  He took great advantage of that in Gentile cities when he visited the synagogues first.  If he went to the Gentile first, his hearing with the Jews would be diminished.  If anyone could say, “You ain’t Jew,” it was Paul.  He attended the top of the Jew only schools.  He could be on speed dial to talk about oppression, because he was raised in the minority environment of Tarsus, a Gentile province.

The plan of God was a Jew and Gentile church.  That was patently clear through Jesus’ life and ministry.  That was plain with the Ethiopian in Acts 8 and then crystal in Acts 10 and 11 with Cornelius.  The Old Testament already taught it start to finish especially beginning with the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12) and then the uber-obvious book of Jonah.  Once Paul was converted, born-again, saved, believed the gospel, transformed by Jesus Christ, or purified by faith alone, he set about to preach it to everyone.
Paul comes onto the scene of the first century church in a conspicuous way in Antioch with Barnabas.  That church in Syria exploded with Gentile growth and then sent those their top two leaders on the first missionary journey with Gentiles prominently in mind.  Every stop brought Gentile success.  They were gone for two years and returned to Antioch to find a woke mess back home.  Wokeness occurred all over, following Paul in almost every town, but it arose most in Jerusalem, where Jews were the majority.
The essence of wokeness was subjugation of Gentiles to Jewishness.  The Jews started canceling any fellow Jew for visible association with Gentiles.  Out of fear of retribution, the Apostle Peter submitted to the Jewish demands and wouldn’t eat with Gentiles in Antioch.  Being Gentile wasn’t villified in Antioch.  It was sufficiently Hellenized, already cosmopolitan.  Gentiles flooded that church.  Yet, the pressure was still enough for Peter to cave to woke interests.
Later in Acts 15, when Peter stood to speak on wokeness to a gathering of Antioch and Jerusalem church members he recounted his experience with Cornelius.  Cornelius believed and received the gift of the Holy Spirit.  He was never circumcized.  He didn’t cede to any Jewishness for salvation.  Faith brought every bit of purification Cornelius needed.  He couldn’t be any more woke than faith alone.  No Jewishness was required.
Jewish lives mattered, but so did Gentiles.  In many locations Paul preached, Jews rioted because of Paul’s general message of faith only.  It was unacceptable.  Jews got violent.  They stoned Paul.  They chased him out of cities.  He never relented.  These Gentiles needed to show solidarity by kneeling to Jewish culture.
Paul withstood Peter to his face over canceling one lunch date.  This act required accedence to Jewishness to the extent that it confused the gospel.  Could Jews enter the kingdom of the promised Messiah by faith alone or by faith plus deferral to Jewishness?  Woke Jews created a list of demands for both Jews and Gentiles.  For one, Jews couldn’t enter Gentile homes or eat with them.  Gentiles must be circumcised and observe dietary restriction.  God would not accept Gentiles by genuine faith alone.  Concession must be made to Jewishness.
In Jersualem especially, but also even in the Gentile world, Jews could pressure Gentiles through various means, physical and psychological.  If Jewishness wasn’t accepted, the Jews held enough sway still to bring enough Gentiles to attain their demands by force.  They had the numbers, even if they weren’t in a majority.  The threat of violence and social shame manipulated those on the margins.  Even if they didn’t agree, they dreaded the reproach, so preferred to keep their head down and go along.
Paul never ceded to the pressure of wokeness.  He arrived.  He preached the pure, unadulterated message without the garnish of Jewishness to render it politically correct.  This would acquiesce to what he called “excellency of speech” (1 Corinthians 2:1).  The gospel was good enough.  The church was enough.  Neither he or Jesus attempted social change in their day.  They focused one hundred percent on the future kingdom, not the present one.
Today wokeness has entered the church in very similar fashion as it did in Paul’s day.  When Paul encountered it in Antioch, both he and Barnabas made haste to Jerusalem to confront it and excise it.  If allowed to stand, it would have established two gospels, one by works and one by grace.
The new woke gospel teaches group guilt that requires group repentance.  It’s not the soul that sinneth that dies, but the race that sinneth.  The former woke gospel added circumcision and the present one adds resignation to racial privilege and a kind of reparation, an adequate penitence for cooperation with wrong outcomes in the past.  Their teeth really are bent because you ate grapes (Jeremiah 31:29).
“To do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8) is hijacked to mean ‘genuflect to race.’  Kneel.  Vote for Joe Biden.  Hate Trump.  Post a black meme on blackout Tuesday.  Walk in a protest march.  Talk in an urban dialect.  Allow for liberation theology.  Center kingdom teaching around acceptable social causes.  Blame wrong outcomes on systemic racism.  Admit white privilege.
Those keeping track know that it is more than race, but also gender and sex.  Beleaguered people include same sex and transgender.  And in the end, it really is about choosing whatever identity you want, unchallenged.  This contradicts actual salvation, but this is twisted to the acceptance of it being compassion, honesty, and self-care.  Toleration is compassion.  Authenticity is honesty, that is, not being someone you’re not, at least to you.  Self-care is self-love, which has become at the root of loving your neighbor, as yourself, the emphasis being on loving your self.   It is suicide to an entire culture, let alone the church.
Churches pandering to millennials craft their message around wokeness.  They see it as church growth success.  They are making merchandise of the weak, compliant, emotional, and superficial.  I see almost an entire generation of apostasy on a level never seen in the United States.  Christianity subdues itself to the world.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives