One of the things that is commonly seen as a mark of the Spirit's working is a specific experience. While Scripture calls us to put God's will before ours (Romans 12:1,2; 6:12-14; Matthew 16:24) and to renounce our sins (1 John 1:9; Proverbs 28:13; 2 Corinthians 7:10) and to trust in God's power rather than our own (Proverbs 3:5,6; Psalms 127;1,2; Ephesians 2:10), it does not prescribe a required experience. Rather, the Spirit of God intervenes in different ways in different contexts (1 Samuel 10:2-13; Acts 4:31; 13:9-12). Nor is the gift of tongues the sole sign of the Spirit's working in us, as we are not all to speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:27-30) and no gift is a proof of spirituality (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).
Now the chief means the Spirit uses to work in the lives of believers is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 4:1-4; Hebrews 4:12). Another means often classed with it is the sacraments . Certainly these ordinances are commanded of us (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; Acts 2:38). But does an individual's receiving the benefit of the sacraments depends on their belief regarding them or the method of administering them? Now if the correct understanding or exact mode of administering the ordinances were crucial to their validity, I would expect Scripture to spell it out, not leave it for us to infer. But while Scripture does speak against obvious abuses such as turning the Lord' Supper into a drunken feast (1 Corinthians 11:17-22), it does not specify the details. Now we should investigate these issues and follow what we conclude is the correct method. But I have a problem with basing the work of the Spirit on issues the Scripture does not categorically command.
I would therefore go back to my original conclusion that the Spirit is at work in all those who genuinely put their faith in Christ. And while we should all work to understand and obey God's commands, we are all still in the process of growing in Christ. And we need to approach our disagreements from that perspective.
The relationship between the Christian and the Holy Spirit, as well as the work of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, are particular concerns of mine. I find myself in agreement with everything you wrote in this posting. How could I not; everything is supported by Scripture. Only in your conclusion I find a slight tingle of concern, “I would therefore go back to my original conclusion that the Spirit is at work in all those who genuinely put their faith in Christ.”
ReplyDeleteWhenever anyone modifies the words “faith”, “trust”, “conversion”, and “repentance” with such words as “genuine” and “real” it always raises the question, “how can I know that my ‘faith’ etc. are in fact ‘genuine’ and ‘real’”? That is why the Reformers put such emphasis on the “objective” aspects of our faith; that is, God’s promises in Scripture, including what He promises us in the Sacraments, rather than our own subjective feelings, be they about ourselves or others. Since we are all sinners it is so easy to think that our sins make us less than “genuine” or “real” Christians, and we sometimes loose sight of the fact that the Savior came to save “sinners”, not those who do not need a physician.
Likewise, we know from Scripture what God promises us in Baptism. In the words of St. Peter on Pentecost, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven and you will (will!) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (And about a dozen others that tie Baptism and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit together) In other words, the Holy Spirit does not work in those who “genuinely put their faith in Christ” but in all who have been baptized and have received Him and faith as a gift. So it does not depend on our “genuineness” but on the Word of God. Scripture does tell us that it is possible to commit the “Sin against the Holy Spirit”, which is not forgivable, but indications are that this is something which becomes evident at the very end of life, and we are not all constantly on the verge of committing it.
Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart
Thank you again for your thoughtful comment. As I mentioned in our last discussion I can can sympathize with your reservations about "genuine faith" though by genuine faith I mean nothing other than relying on Christ's work on the cross rather then our own works for salvation (1 Corinthians 15:1-11; Romans 4:23-25; 3:21-31). But my problem with your solution is what constitutes legitimate baptism. My understanding is that the legitimacy of the baptism is based on faith (Acts 16:31,32;10:43-48; Romans 4:11). If I held to infant baptism I would conclude it was legitimized by the faith of the community or the parents. If this is not so what constitutes legitimate baptism. The Roman Catholics claim it is based on an unbroken chain of ordination, but I cannot find this concept anywhere in Scripture. I can find in Scripture that God is not pleased with those who have the form without the substance behind it (Romans 2:25-29; Jeremiah 4:4; Malachi 1:10). So what do who consider makes a baptism legitimate?
ReplyDeleteWoops, sorry, I forgot you don’t believe in infant Baptism. The problem becomes simply that if salvation is by grace through faith, then it is by grace through faith for all, including infants. At least Scripture does not tell us of a separate way of salvation for infants. But it does tell us of the sensitivity of infants to faith in the words of Elizabeth (Luke 1:44), “For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy.” She said this, being “filled with the Holy Spirit,” about her own child, who was not a miraculously conceived one as his cousin.
ReplyDeleteIf faith is achieved by our becoming convinced that certain things the Bible tell us are true, then faith cannot be achieved by infants. If faith is a gift from God, then infants can have faith.
As to what Baptism does: Romans 6: 4 “We were buried therefore with him by Baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” and Titus 3: 5 “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
See, I did not even mention Eph. 2:8.
Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart
I feel to a certain extent we are speaking at cross purposes. I understand your idea that baptism produces faith in the infant. I am hesitant to deal with this subject because it becomes a question of: if I believed in infant baptism would I believe it produced faith. I do not know the answer to that one. If you want to deal in detail with why I do not believe in infant baptism I can. But it does not at all hinge on whether infants can have faith. I do not understand how infants could have faith, but God requires me to believe a number of things I do not understand. My question is what constitutes a legitimate baptism. I would understand the requirement for a legitimate sacrament is faith. Now in the case of infant baptism this would have to be by proxy, if faith is the criteria. But you seem to be saying that it is baptism that legitimizes faith. But if so what legitimatizes baptism. Does every Roman Catholic or Mormon baptism create faith. If someone where to form a group that did not believe in God or Jesus Christ but preformed something similar to baptism on their children would that create faith. What are the criteria for a valid baptism?
ReplyDeleteThe process of coming to faith is not described in Scripture with the same precision as one would expect from the instructions for assembling a grill or a toy. For instance, here is a case where things seem to happen out of order, Acts 8: 14, “Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit 16 (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). 17 Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” And here they receive the Holy Spirit before they are baptized, (Acts 10: 44), “While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
ReplyDeleteWhat legitimizes Baptism is the command of God. Matthew 28: 18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Baptism does not create faith. God creates faith, and His command is that we baptize. But He is not limited by what He commands us to do in an imperfect world. So the thief on the cross, and probably many others were saved without ever being baptized. But as our Lord said, “The servant is not above the Master.” Therefore, what He can do we may not.
God is not a bookkeeper or a bureaucrat. He did not give us a new law to describe exactly how Baptism or Holy Communion must be done. Therefore, what is required for a true Baptism is that water be put on the person, and the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” or something that carries the same meaning, be said. You may note that in Acts we read several stories of people who were baptized practically without any preparation. Ultimately God will determine if the Baptism was legitimate, judging the person who abused the sacrament, and having mercy on the person who suffered from an illegitimate Baptism. But it is important to remember that it is not the act of Baptism ex opera operato, but the will and promise of God that makes Baptism effective.
Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart
I am certainly not trying to set up a new Law or advocate the idea of ex opera operato or accuse you of it. Nor am I trying to force everything into a formula or limit God. My question is what should I base my assurance on and encourage others to base their assurance on regarding salvation. My understanding is that this should be based on faith in Christ. Because there are may different understandings of what constitutes faith I would qualify that be saying genuine faith. You would if I understand you correctly base proper assurance on baptism, but there are many different understandings of what constitutes baptism. I would regard genuine baptism as that which is associated with genuine faith. Therefore I would see genuine faith as the definer of genuine baptism. It would appear you do not see things this way. I am not trying to attack your beliefs but to understand how from your perspective one would know that the faith and baptism an individual has is genuine.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “My question is what should I base my assurance on and encourage others to base their assurance on regarding salvation. My understanding is that this should be based on faith in Christ.”
ReplyDeleteIf your assurance comes from knowing that your faith is “genuine”, then the time will come that you will ask yourself, “How do I know it is genuine?” The most elaborate checklist will always leave open the question of whether you believe these things firmly enough. But if your assurance is based on the promises our Lord made regarding the gift of faith and Baptism, then when you ask yourself that same question, your answer could be as follows, “I can only be sure because I know that my Lord does not lie; therefore my assurance of salvation comes from the promises of God, which cannot be broken.” Now that deals with your and my “assurance”. That still does not mean that we are actually saved. We are merely certain that we are, and this certainty could be wrong.
That is why we have to again look outside of ourselves to what our Lord had to say, John 3: 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Or as Peter wrote, 1 Peter 3: 21 “Baptism, which corresponds to this (i.e. the water of the Flood), now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”
Finally, did the Apostles know that those three thousand who were baptized on Pentecost had “genuine” faith, or the two thousand that were added shortly thereafter? Did the jailer in Philippi “and all of his household” have “genuine” faith when they were baptized by Paul and Silas? Acts 16: 30 “Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.”? Do you doubt that all of these received a “genuine” Baptism?
Peace and Joy to you in the assurance of your faith and the certainty of your salvation!
George A. Marquart
There comes a point in every discussion when you feel both sides have made there points and to continue would simply be to restate the same points again. I feel that we have reached that juncture.
ReplyDeleteSubject to your correction let me restate where we are. We both would hold to both faith and baptism. We each have verses of Scripture to support that faith or baptism is important. (I would conclude that they are both important and would not advocate neglecting either.)
I would ground assurance of salvation on faith.
You would maintain that this is too subjective and dubious and it needs baptism as an objective basis. (I should note that I do not feel the response to doubts of one's faith is navel gazing or going through a checklist but to look to Christ and His death and resurrection. If we are relying on Him we have faith.)
You would ground the assurance of salvation in baptism.
I find this dubious when not associated with faith as there are many who claim to have gone through baptism and show no evidence of Biblical faith. I am speaking of clear doctrinal error here, it is not my place to judge anyone's heart. (I am willing to accept baptism as a secondary ground of assurance in conjunction with faith. My reservation is trusting in it as the primary basis.)
Unless you have something to correct or add of something new to say I think perhaps it is best to leave it at that. May God give whichever one of us is wrong a clearer understanding of these truths.
Joy and Peace to you also.