baptism

Simple Faith. Simple Grace. Part 3: Keeping It Simple

March 8, 2021 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Very soon after the apostles began spreading this good news of simple faith, people, some of them undoubtedly well intentioned, began adding things to the list. The first, as far as we know, were the Judaizers, who apparently followed Paul around on his travels and, after he had left a given city, “explained” to the new believers that there was more to the story. You see, the Bible says that God commanded Israel to be circumcised and keep the Law, and since Jesus is the Messiah, the Jewish deliverer, following Jesus means becoming Jewish. It’s right there in the Bible.

Paul was merciless with these teachers, well intentioned or not. He is at his angriest when he writes to the Galatian church, denouncing the teaching with the explosive words, “I wish those who are troubling you would be castrated!” (Ga 5.12). If circumcision is good, then castration would be even better, right? A fortiori. QED.

Adding to the list is not something to be trifled with.

Simple faith. Simple grace.

Over the years some groups—most notably the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ—have noted the mention of baptism in 2 of the 9 passages listed in Part 2 (Ac 2.38; 8.12), and they’ve argued that getting baptized is part of the requirement for salvation.

What about that? It’s mentioned, right?

Indeed it is. There’s no question that baptism is expected of believers. But that’s not the question here. The question is, “Is baptism a prerequisite for salvation?” or, to put in another way, “Does the gospel apply only to those who have both believed and been baptized?”

That’s a good question, and it deserves a thoughtful response. Several considerations:

It’s true that baptism is mentioned in connection with salvation in 2 of those 9 passages. But that means that it’s not mentioned in that way in 7 of them. If it’s necessary, if you’re not going to be saved without being baptized, then it’s inexplicable that both Peter and Paul repeatedly omitted it when instructing people how to be saved—especially since Peter himself is the one who mentioned baptism at Pentecost, the first public offer of the gospel.
In one of the accounts, that of Peter’s sermon to Cornelius’s household, the group receives the Spirit before they are baptized (Ac 10.44-48). In fact, Peter’s judgment is that they ought to be baptized because they are showing evidence of a salvation already acquired (Ac 10.47).
Paul later says off-handedly that he has baptized almost no one, because “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel” (1Co 1.17). He appears to show no interest in even recalling whom he’s baptized (1Co 1.16). Given Paul’s feverish devotion to Christ’s commission to take the gospel to the Gentiles, his words make no sense if baptism is a requirement for salvation.
Jesus assured the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Lk 23.43), even though he was clearly not baptized, and was not going to be.

So no, we can’t add things—even good things, even significant spiritual exercises—to the gospel. The death of Christ for your sins is applied to those sins when you repent and believe. Like a child (Mk 10.15).

Simple faith. Simple grace.

Jesus said that faith doesn’t have to be strong or great. Faith the size of a (tiny) mustard seed, he said, is all it takes (Lk 17.6). Many of us have had the experience (probably as young teens) of lying in bed night after night, filled with fear, praying, “Lord, if I didn’t really mean it last night, I really mean it tonight.” That’s sad, because it’s completely unnecessary.

Faith doesn’t depend on the intensity of the faith of the one believing; it depends on the faithfulness of the One being believed. You’re not saved because you scrunched your eyebrows sufficiently close together (<7.6mm!) when you asked Jesus to save you; you’re saved because you asked Jesus, and he keeps his promises.

So away with this “enough faith” nonsense. Jesus directly spoke against that.

Did you believe in Jesus? Even more simply, do you believe now?

Well then. Bask in the sunlight of warm assurance.

It is finished.

There’s one more thing we need to give some attention to—the question of antinomianism, or fruitless faith. We’ll look at that next time.

Part 4: Working It Out | Part 5: Keeping It Going

Photo by Todd Trapani on Unsplash

On Jesus’ Baptism—and Our Incompetent Repentance

September 24, 2020 by Dan Olinger 4 Comments

We all know the story of Jesus’ baptism by John in the Jordan. We know that God chose this event to reveal publicly his approval of Jesus as “My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3.18). We know that this event is one of the clearest exhibitions of the Trinity in the Scripture, with the Father speaking from heaven, the Son standing in the Jordan, and the Spirit descending like a dove and landing on the Son.

But as familiar as this story is to us, we find ourselves still wondering, with John, why Jesus came to John to be baptized. As John protested, “You should be baptizing me!” Was this just Jesus’ way of announcing the onset of his public ministry? And if so, what did Jesus mean when he said, “This is necessary for us to fulfill all righteousness”?

There’s been a lot of ink spilled by writers of commentaries over these questions. When that happens, it usually means that the Scripture itself doesn’t give a clear answer to them. And when that happens, the systematic theologians step in and offer speculation—ideally, well founded and scripturally based.

I’d like to do that here.

To begin with, we should notice what John intended his baptism to mean. He called it “a baptism of repentance” (Lk 3.3; Mt 3.11); by agreeing to be baptized, people were acknowledging their sins and turning from them (Lk 3.10ff). And this makes the image of Jesus’ baptism all the more odd—and John’s objection to it all the more sensible—since Jesus had nothing to repent of.

Which brings us to our second consideration—Jesus’ statement of his own purpose in being baptized: “to fulfill all righteousness.”

What does that mean?

Perhaps we should consider his words against the larger theological significance of his incarnation. He came, of course, to die for the sins of mankind (Mk 10.45). But in order to get to that point, he had to present himself as a spotless lamb; he had to demonstrate his own sinlessness through a perfect life, the perfect fulfillment of the Law, thereby putting in place a righteousness that could be reckoned to our account (2Co 5.21). Theologians call this his “active obedience.”

That done, he offered himself up, dying on the cross in our place—vicariously—paying our sin debt and putting us into position to receive his righteousness, also earned vicariously.

He lived in our place, and he died in our place. He fulfilled all righteousness for us.

Hmmm.

That’s what he said to John, back at the baptism—remember?

The baptism was necessary, he said, “to fulfill all righteousness.”

The baptism of repentance.

Which he didn’t need. Because he didn’t need to repent.

What if—what if—he repented for us?

We’re terrible at repenting, you know.

We tell God we’re sorry, and we’ll never do it again.

And we’re not lying. We mean it.

But we do do it again, don’t we?

In spite of all our good intentions, and in spite of all we can do, we break the most important vow we ever make to God.

We can’t even repent right.

We’re miserable failures.

What if, at his baptism, Jesus offered the Father a repentance that was worthy of the name?

What if he repented—and never went back on his promise?

And what if that perfect repentance was offered to the Father—for us?

In our place!

“Let me do this,” Jesus said to John.

“It’s necessary to fulfill all righteousness.”

If I don’t do this, nobody else ever will. My Father will never get a decent repentance. I’ll do it for him. And for them.

And over the next 3 years, the Father received a repentance, and a life of obedience, and a sacrificial payment for sin, that were all perfect. In our name, and credited to our account.

Perfect. For us.

Photo by Ryan Loughlin on Unsplash

The Gifts of Salvation, Part 15: Spirit Baptism

May 6, 2019 by Dan Olinger 2 Comments

Introduction
Our relationship to sin: Conviction / Repentance / Regeneration / Forgiveness / Redemption / Justification
Our relationship to God:
Before conversion: Election / Drawing / Faith
At conversion: Reconciliation / Positional sanctification / Adoption / Union with Christ / Spirit Baptism / Sealing / Indwelling / Assurance
After conversion: Progressive sanctification / Filling / Glorification
Conclusion

With our conversion, our relationship with all three members of the Godhead is transformed. In adoption, we have a specific relationship with the Father; in union, we have a specific relationship with the Son. And among this pile of gifts there are several that have to do with our specific relationship with the Spirit.

The first of these (and yes, they’re all simultaneous in our experience) is Spirit baptism, by which we are joined with the body of Christ, the church (1Co 12.13).

There’s not a lot of material in the Scripture on this event, and we need to be careful not to ascribe things to it that the Scripture doesn’t (::cough:: like the Wikipedia article ::cough::). It’s predicted a couple of times (once by John the Baptist [Mt 3.11; Mk 1.8; Lk 3.16; Jn 1.33], and once by Jesus, just before the Ascension [Ac 1.5, recalled by Peter in Ac 11.16]). Then there’s the 1 Corinthians verse noted above, and that’s it. In that passage Paul seems to compare it to “being made to drink into one Spirit,” which is an interesting expression, but still doesn’t tell us much.

I conclude, then, that Spirit baptism includes a couple of benefits for us—

We’re united with Christ’s body, the church. And that makes sense in the light of our union with Christ.
We’re united in some way with the Spirit; we’re “drinking him in.” That seems to imply spiritual power for following and serving Christ.

There are a couple of questions that come up with this event. The first is the terminology itself, which varies among Christians. You’ll see “baptism in the Spirit,” “baptism with the Spirit,” “baptism by the Spirit,” “baptism of the Spirit,” and just “Spirit baptism.” The difference comes from the fact that Greek prepositions, like English ones, can mean a lot of different things. Think about the following statements:

I eat ice cream with a spoon.
I eat ice cream with hot fudge sauce.
I eat ice cream with my wife.
I eat ice cream with great joy.

Wait—come back! Get away from that freezer!

I apologize for the distraction.

Each of the listed statements means something very different from the others, but the little word with is doing all the work.

In Greek it’s the same way. We are baptized “en” the Spirit. And that word can speak of agency—“by”—or of instrumentality—“with”—or of sphere—“in.” If you’re baptized “in” the Spirit, then the Spirit is the water in which you’re being immersed (yes, my baptistic bias is showing here, but it doesn’t make much sense to use “in” of pouring or sprinkling). If you’re baptized “by” the Spirit, then the Spirit is the pastor, and he’s putting you in the water.

So which is correct?

I dunno. Most English versions, from the KJV to the NIV, say “by.” I prefer “Spirit baptism,” which admittedly isn’t a literal rendering of the Greek but avoids the ambiguity altogether.

The second question is between some Pentecostals / Charismatics and mainstream Protestants. It’s typical of the former to use the term of a “Pentecostal experience”—“I got the baptism of the Spirit, and I spoke in tongues!” Setting aside for a moment the issue of the genuineness of the experience, the term itself doesn’t match the biblical use; it appears to me that Pentecostalists are confusing Spirit baptism with “filling,” which is a different phenomenon, and which we’ll get to several posts down the road. If Spirit baptism is the event by which we’re placed into the body of Christ (1Co 12.13), and if all believers are members of the body (same verse; note “all”), then by definition every believer has received the baptism, whether he realizes it or not. It’s not a later experience after conversion; it’s simultaneous with it.

So you’re one with the body of Christ, the church. That has all sorts of ramifications. Plunge in.

Photo by freestocks.org on Unsplash