What would you think of a person who makes it their life hobby to “research” and observe other people’s families and post their opinion of these families online? The peak into the window of the neighbors down the street and jot down notes about what they see. The dig through the trash to find out where money is being spent. They make judgment calls on certain family practices and traditions. Now, you might wonder why they would be so obsessed with a community that they aren’t even a part of. Sounds crazy, huh?
We have been over and over and over this here at CRN.info, but I cease to be amazed at the ODMs relentless infatuation with other people’s communities. For me, the concern and anger hit an all time high while listening to this slice cast. I mean, here is a group of people who have made it their life ministry to critique and harp on everyone else’s church. And, when a church like the one in question is dealing with personal, in-house business, they stick up their noses and say “I told you so!” It’s absolutely asinine to me.
I love the Olympics. I have been watching as much as possible (and TiVo’ing th rest). One thing that I love to see is the sportsmanship between the athletes from different countries. They get along so well — no one is giving dirty looks, throwing elbows or firing off some crude language. Then the connection hit me… When you are so busy doing what God has called you to do, there is no room for criticizing others. You’re so focused on the task that you have to accomplish that there isn’t room to stop, look at the guy next to you and make snide comments.
Look, I may be way overstepping my bounds (and I love this community here, because they will put me back in my place), but I don’t feel like many of the ODMs have a strong sense of biblical mission. I just cannot imagine that God would call people to major on the mission of critiquing other churches (which should never be confused with “contending for the faith” or “defending the faith” — they are very different things). I wonder what would happen if ODMs focused on the biblical mission that God had for them, and gave their life to that. They actually might become the change that they want to see in their own cities and communities. The fact of the matter is, they are doing no good critiquing communities and churches that are a plane ride away.
…just some thoughts for the day. I’m gonna go hit the beach for the night. Peace
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
177 Comments(+Add)
Nathan,
When you get back from the beach check out what Chris L., had to say about this in the “Submissions” page.
Amazingly, while he was asking people not to discuss in those comments, he made a couple quick comments about this story and reduced it to pure irrelevance.
Neil
ROFL!!! This is the most pathetic things I’ve read in a long long time. This post reminds me of that video made by that crazed Britney Spears fan Chris Crocker that made the rounds on YouTube last year.
Was Nathan typing this while he was under a sheet?
Give me a break.
OK – here is where everyone reassesses how they feel about me. I received an e-mail a day ago from a blogger who called me “the most double minded man” they had ever seen. This is due to the fact that I am often unpredicable and do not seem to have any lockstep allegience with any one “camp”.
I listened to the entire podcast. I found Chris R. to be measured and articulate and I also find that even if the statistics are only generally accurate, there is a significant problem in that church. Can the pastor point to his many messages that specifically outlined these truths and thereby attribute his flock’s Biblical ignorance to their own distraction, or, must he take responsibility for their seeming lack of Biblical knowledge?
As a pastor I would be devestated to see such lack of basic Christian knowledge in my flock. If many of the people polled were new comers with no spiritual history then the figures can be understood differently. Even if that is the case the pastor should address the problems exposed in the survey.
I do give him credit for taking the survey, asking the right questions, and revealing the findings publicly. But I also continue to notice that other questions more pertinent to “orthodox” churches were not addressed, such as:
1. How deeply do you love sinners?
2. If your church believes and teaches the core of Biblical truth, why do you not mirror the power of the early church?
3. Do you believe baptism saves?
4. What is the ratio of your time spent researching, reading, listening, writing, talking, thinking, and generally being consumed with other churches, preachers, teachers, and those you disagree with – as compared with – the time you spend in the prayer closet interceeding for them, weeping for their souls, fasting, repenting yourself, worshiping God’s holiness, praising the Risen Christ, and allowing the Holy Spirit to filet your self righteous heart by His Sword?
PS – there are not enough hours in the day to do both adequately.
The answers to those questions notwithstanding, I still found the statistics disturbing.
Rick,
Maybe there are significant problems in that church.
There are also problems in my own church.
Which should I focus on?
I think I will help my own church. I don’t have time to worry about a church that I’ve never heard of that’s across the country from me. I know that in my church, there are a lot of young Christians who are searching, and don’t know what they believe. I hear every week questions about what the differences are between the Christian and Morman religions are. Lots of young Christians at my church don’t know what all the sins are yet. There’s a LOT they still need to learn. Maybe it’s the same situation at Granger. Maybe there are a lot of people still searching, and still learning the basics.
From what I hear, the leaders in that church are working towards taking care of the problem. A lot of blog posts on this recently are a lot more hurtful than they are helpful.
We can pray for Granger, but telling them that they’re doing everything wrong, like many people on blogs are doing? Unless you’ve been there and know for yourself, it would be arrogant to do so.
Maybe the ODM bloggers don’t have much experience with young Christians and the things they do (and don’t) believe? I’ve been there. It’s a whole lot different when you’re actually in the situation, and not just on the outside commenting about it.
When you are baptizing adults (many of whom did not grow up in church) it takes time for them to learn, grow, and mature.
The very fact that that church is looking at it shows they mean to do something with it.
I hate it when people talk about a church that is reaching people and saying it is a mile wide and an inch deep. I’d rather be a part of a community that is a mile wide and an inch deep than an inch wide and so deep that nobody can take a drink.
Christian P –
Very well said!
Merry – great points as well.
One of the main problems I find with ODM’s is the O – it is ONLINE and therefore, not relational.
While I can agree that relationships can be forged online to a certain degree they can never replace the face-to-face, sit-with-me-when-I-need-a-friend sort of relationship. Therefore, discernment is going to always be skewed and completely biased. ODM, by its very definition, is an excercise in futility.
This case is just one more reason among many. People so eager to throw the first stone and most if not all don’t even know the whore Jesus has already embraced and forgiven.
Obviously this church is courageous enough to do such a study and brave enough to put the results out there for the scrutiny of others. It is a shame that the body of Christ in some parts would find more joy in ripping off it’s injured limb rather than pray for its healing. What an odd sort of gospel that is.
There was another quote, that Muslims see Jesus as a great prophet.
So is Jesus somehow going to offer the resource of love and acceptance to Muslims who reject and persecute those among their own who choose to believe that Jesus is more than a great prophet? Is he going to help them tolerate instead of reject and fight against those who blaspheme God by acknowledging that He has a Son?
And why would God choose to offer resources to make Muslims loving and tolerant towards Christians and others?
The above comment is addressed to Chad and is a quote from the Mclaren article he cited. Understand that I have had close Muslim friends whom I deeply respect in many ways and take my above comment in that light.
amy,
You’re taking two unrelated quotes, twisting them both, then combining them to create a heretic. I suggest you search your heart and motives before searching McLaren’s words.
The only problem I see with the actual quote given is the touch of hysteria McLaren has about the future being worse than the past. Of course that’s something he has in common with many Christians, most of them of the dispensational pre-millennialist variety.
Bo,
I see now that in going to his article and coming back here I placed it under the wrong post.
Creating a heretic never crossed my mind and I hope I am incapable of doing such a thing.
I took two quotes from Mclaren’s article. Something that he believes and something that Muslims believe. I’m not trying to twist anything. I’m simply asking, how does one use “Jesus’ resources”to get Muslims to change things that they (”they” – not all, but many) believe that affect how they treat those of their own who come to Christ?
Another way to look at it: How can one work together in “global issues” with people of other faiths if family issues aren’t first addressed? It’s difficult to picture a Muslim father who has turned his son out of the community, or worse, working with a Christian pastor to promote peace on a global level.
And this question remains: “And why would God choose to offer resources to make Muslims loving and tolerant towards Christians and others?” It’s something worth discussing.
Apart from any “position,” and even apart from scripture, do you see the future as getting better somehow based on past events and current events?
We are all capable of condemning individuals unjustly.
That depends on what we’re evaluating. In evaluating traditional quality of life standards things seem to be getting better. The average westerner lives like kings compared to the average westerner 100 years ago (and I much more so than my family 100 years ago).
But if we’re evaluating the work of the gospel, then things are going on much as they’ve gone on since Jesus ascended. The church is persecuted, the gospel spreads, Judaizers attack the brothers and sisters, tares exist alongside wheat, and God is still on the throne.
Rick,
I was not commenting on the subject matter. I was commenting on what they were doing. Who are they to do a whole podcast, critiquing someone else’s church? What gives them the right to do side-line commentary on a community they aren’t even a part of. We have a word for that… it’s called being a busy body.
Amy-
Maybe. Afterall, he did something crazy like die for those who were his enemies and forgive them in the midst of their brutality.
Radical love and hospitality can do some crazy things.
Um, I think the better question would be, Why wouldn’t God?
Do you believe God is active in the world? Do you believe the Holy Spirit is convicting the WORLD of sin and drawing people to the one who was lifted up, promises to draw ALL men unto himself? Do you believe that God is love and that love ultimately wins?
I do. I think McLaren does as well.
One thing we so easily forget or place to the side (and it has been wisely pointed out by Bo, nc, corey and many others in many ways) is that evangelism is relational. And we are talking missions here, right? Whether we like it or not we all come with our baggage and our bias and our cultural hang-ups. We strereotype people even when we say we are not. People outide the Christian faith have stereotypes of us -some are true, some are false. We stereotype them as well – some true, some false.
What I see McLaren and others trying to do is cast missions in a relational model (how it should be) by starting us all off on the same foot – we (muslim, jew, gentile, pagan) are human beings created in the image of God and things are broken, but God is putting them back together. We start there. I think that is a good starting point. Starting here I can befriend anyone. I can become all things to all people. By starting here I can truly love someone without an agenda apart from working alongside God to bring about peace and healing to the world (God’s desire).
The world has problems that people who believe in God ought to be trying to remedy. Hunger, orphans, disease, health care, widows, care of the earth, and much more. I see no problem working alongside people of any stripe who desire to see God’s desires come to fruition.
But in the context of this relationship I give space for the Holy Spirit to really do the Spirit’s thing. I shut the Spirit out when I make it my perogative to first and primarily convert the “other” to the way I believe. All this does is reaffirm in the mind of the “other” the stereo-type they already hold: Christians don’t care about anything but telling me how wrong I have been and how right they are. However, if I have begun with relationship and show I love without agenda, God can begin to soften an otherwise hard heart. Now, to the “other”, Jesus is not just some belief I use to badger someone or make them feel guilty but Jesus is a real live person, incarnated for the moment before them and drawing them deeper into the story. They just might begin to see the kinks in their own narrative as they look at ours.
That is my brief answer
By the way, I lived in Bahrain for 4 years and had many Muslim friends as well.
peace,
Chad
Just for clarity – I’m not sure you understood my question and realize now it can have two different meanings. I mean, do you think Jesus is going to cause Muslims to love and accept those of their own who are rejecting the truth as they see it; in fact, blaspheming Allah.
I worked with a group of Muslim people who had zero known believers. The ones I knew personally were hospitable and giving in ways that I have never experienced before. It was a two-way relationship because we also had to give much to build the relationships. One of them told me I was more of a sister to her than any of her Muslim friends in the community.
In our case, my husband could have talked about Jesus and “religious” things to his heart’s delight – because the men wanted to convert him.
For me, it was harder to bring up my beliefs simply because women don’t talk about such things.
The “kink” in one of my friend’s narratives (as you put it) was, at one time, that she saw that our boys obeyed us – she couldn’t understand that. (A young son could slap his mother in the presence of the father, with no correction.) Her observation of our by no-means perfect family gave me a good opportunity to say why we raised our boys the way we did.
I don’t know that I would say Jesus is going to “cause” or not “cause” persecution to take place. If you are asking me if Muslims will be perfectly fine with one of their family members embracing Christ than probably not. But could they? Perhaps.
I would venture to say this is a conversatoin that would not have arose if relationship had not first been established and both parties knew that they other cared for the other, right?
What you describe is what I see McLaren and others hoping and praying for.
I’ve been in missions a long time and with most of my colleagues I have always heard and seen put into practice the fact that relationships must be made, not just so that whatever “work” one is doing can be done, but because having genuine love and friendship with others who don’t know Jesus as well is with other Christians is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.
Even the old missionary biographies I have read stress relationships. So I don’t see the idea of the necessity of relationship building in missions as something new.
(But I am NOT saying that one shouldn’t share the gospel or something else about Christianity with one whom one barely knows. )
I do see other new things in Mclaren’s ideas. I read “A New Kind of Christian” a couple of years ago; I have watched Mclaren’s video with the “grace” church – can’t remember the name of it. I honestly don’t know if the Jesus that Mclaren talks about is the Jesus of the Bible.
My biggest concern at the moment in missions is that people will think they know Jesus and are Christians when in reality they know only a counterfeit. Thus the need for scripture and using it, for discipleship, for prayer, for obedience.
As far as Christians and Muslims working together, one particular case where I can’t see this as a possibility came to my mind. I gave birth to one of my children in a mission hospital in a very closed-to-the gospel country. The sacrifice I saw from the Christian staff was amazing. They didn’t have Muslims on the staff; it was difficult enough to have Christian nationals on the staff, because of persecution. As far as I know the national workers all came from a different area of the country that was “allowed” to have Christians. What Muslim national would have chosen to work at this hospital simply for the sake of working with Christians?
And in so many other places those who have contacts with Christians -sometimes even unintentionally, or doing something as simple as sharing a meal -are persecuted. On a purely practical level I don’t see how this “working together” would work in many places.
It could work if “Christian” began to mean a person who believes that there are many paths to God. Because then Muslims, Buddhists, etc wouldn’t feel “threatened.”
Amy,
sounds like you’re engaging these people in a deeply incarnational way. I hope you see the fruits of your loving them.
Be encouraged.
Seriously.
should read “as well as with other Christians”
Thank you nc. I hope. I have to admit I’m not sure what “deeply incarnational way” means to you – but it does have a nice ring. Too bad an ODM didn’t come up with it first.
.
And may I say that there are a number of authors/pastors today who try to present conservative evangelicals, regular old evangelicals/fundamentalists/ whatever name they don’t like – as being people who try to cram the gospel down people’s throats and don’t really care about people.
It’s a gross misrepresentation. I can personally say that I know of noone who is working overseas who fits in that category – and I know people of just about every label you could come up with.
Amy, I echo what nc said.
This thing you said though is curious to me. What I hear you saying is that the Jesus Mclaren talks about might not be the Jesus you see in the Bible.
People in all times and places have claimed that they know the Jesus of the Bible better than the next guy or gal. The Pharisees thought they knew pretty well what the Messiah of the Bible would be like and they were quite wrong as it turned out.
What is the Jesus you see McLaren getting from scripture? Which Jesus do you see in scripture? How are they different? How are they alike? In what ways might both perspectives better serve to get a fuller picture? I think it is helpful if we drop the illusion that any one of us knows the Jesus of the Bible fully and perfectly. No doubt McLaren might emphasize aspects you do not and vice versa. That does not mean McLaren or others do not know Jesus.
peace,
Chad
I guess what I mean is that you are engaging them as people, in very personal ways, relationally, making visible in the flesh (incarnating) the person of Jesus even before you say anything about Jesus.
It’s actually quite “emerging” of you…
Even the iMonk will not discuss MacLaren and his teachings, and he is no fundamentalist. I find it quite revealing that MacLaren calls the penal substitutionary view of the cross as “false adverstising for God”. Now for someone who desires a respectful dialogue of different views that seems to be extremely harsh and does not even allow for the possibility that the view is correct.
I have often dicovered that some emergent types are just as intolerant as the ones they accuse of intolerance, they just apply it to different people. When Brian MacLaren recommended the book “The Last Week” written by Marcus Borg and John Clossan, two bone fide heretics, I can no longer view him as evangelical.
Among other things that book suggests the body of Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and probably eaten by wild dogs. Both of the authors are members of the Jesus Seminar, a coven for heretics.
“Now, you might wonder why they would be so obsessed with a community that they aren’t even a part of. Sounds crazy, huh?”
That’s the catch. Although they might not be a part of these communities, these communities are affecting them. The teachings and principles of churches like Saddleback, Willow Creek, and Granger are not limited to those areas of Southern California, Illinois, and the Midwest. Their methods and ideologies are prolific across America, and every time something new comes out (e.g. the up-and-coming “40 Days of Love”), the influence of those churches spreads all across the country.
You can love these churches and their methodologies, or you can hate them and shout from the rooftops that they lead people astray, but you cannot deny the widespread influence that they have on the nation and world at large. Therefore, there is some vested interest in people keeping an eye on what is going on in those circles.
–
CS
Unless it is in their churches it isn’t affecting them. And if its in their churches, being used by their leadership, perhaps instead of whining and slandering people on the internet they should be addressing… their churches.
Granger holds itself up as a model church that is especially effective and one that others should pattern themselves after. Although they lack tact, to say the least, the ODMs are primary critiquing the philosophy of Granger. That is hard to do without also critiquing the specific example of the philosophy.
Granger and similar churches have criticized traditional church for years. They may not use a specific church as an example but their words are critical of every church that fits the description of the churches they criticize.
What did the study from Grace Community Church say again?
Oh. Right.
Regardless of what “flavor” of Christian church it is, the statistics presented are unacceptable.
Maybe, maybe not. In statistical studies of these sort the devil is (or isn’t) in the details.
My point being that I haven’t seen too many ODM approved ministries being straightforward with the fruit of their ministries.
frankly, if I had to choose…
I’d rather have a church with those discipleship challenges than have a church like J-Mac’s whose rep. in the city is awful and makes ministering the gospel more difficult than it already is…
and you can bet his church is filled with people who are doing things “right”…at least to ODM’s…
I totally agree, and in fact, I have often remarked about how little (none) posts on the discernment sites are about their own sin or shortcoming. It seems as if humility is understood as weakness in some circles.
Let me be very clear and remove the emperor’s clothes – NO ONE PRACTICES WHAT THEY PREACH BECAUSE WHAT WE PREACH IS CHRIST WHO IS OUR PURSUIT AND NOT OUR ACHIEVEMENT.
The claims and commands and responsibilities of following and reflecting Christ are infinitely greater than anyone’s ability to personally fulfill to the extent He deserves, and following Christ is much greater than either written creeds or having an endless stream of identifying shortcomings in OTHERS. Following Christ is more about indentifying shortcomings in OURSELVES than in others.
I have a question for anyone who would like to give me a well thought out answer:
I’ve been told recently that the attendees of Granger are “false converts”, “evil” and need to be “purged out” from the church. That idea made made me so amazingly angry, but my question is this:
What, exactly, are “false converts”? I have heard two very different views, ironically using the exact same Scripture. (You know the passage in Matthew, ‘Not all who cry ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven but only those who do the will of God’ . . .) Is it even ANYONE’S place to judge who a “false convert” is or isn’t?
It seems everytime something like this comes up the ODM’s harp about “false converts” and it makes me so angry for some reason. Would someone maybe like to tell me why it should make me so angry?
I don’t know . . . the person I was talking to seemed to think the stastics were the whole story and the end of the story.
^That’s statistics, not stastics.
This is pathetic. It’s not as though they are highlighting some small town congregation, it’s a huge church who’s influence spreads far beyond South Bend. It’s clearly an example of the failure of the “seeker sensitive” model in properly leading people to, and teaching them about Christ. A church with those kind of statistics is in serious trouble and the blame can be set squarely on the pulpit. It comes from pastors abandoning solid Biblical teaching for a watered-down, feel-good, slow-pitch softball gospel that’s more about self-esteem than Jesus Christ.
Jesse,
You assume that other churches are doing better. I wonder what a statistical survey of the Corinthian church would have looked like.
Bo and Jesse,
Yep. Why don’t we all start taking surveys of our own churches and see what those results are? I bet a lot of churches are in a lot more sorry shape than it appears on the surface.
Most churches are about looking good on the surface; putting on a happy face Sunday morning and pretending we’re perfect. But when you start digging deeper, you start finding things wrong with the whole picture . . .
Jesse, the point is, worry about your own home church, which I’m sure is far from perfect as well. If you are so worried about Granger, why don’t you contact them and ask what you can do to help?
I think its hilarious that Jesse and everyone else seems to think that discipleship/maturity/whatever you want to call it is a direct 1:1 relationship to what is going on in the pulpit, as if its a mechanical assembly line. As I pointed out before, look at all the problems the churches Paul founded had, if we’re judging the preaching of churches based on the state of the church Paul was a prurient, seeker sensitive, milque toast, light and fluffy, felt needs kind of preacher.
As a resident of Indiana, who for years lived a little more than an hour south of Granger, I’d never heard of GCC until Ingrid started whining about them.
As a statistician, the results don’t surprise me at all for a church that is growing.
1) If your church is growing at any appreciable rate, you will expect that the spiritual maturity of the body as a whole will be declining. It’s just like if you had a body of believers with a median age of 80 and started adding members who were 20 – your average is going to start dropping like a rock.
2) If your church is stagnant, your rate of maturity will increase – to a point – and then stagnate at the relative maturity level of those who are leading. So, your church may “score high” on such a survey, but it would be a awful story to tell, because you’re a dead church with no real impact on the surrounding community.
3) If your church is only a way-station for semi-churched “church-hoppers”, then your score will be perpetually low, across the four demographics used in the survey in question.
Bottom Line: Chris R should stick to something he knows, which isn’t anything to do with statistics, and little to do with “discernment”
Well, apparently anyone who becomes a Christian and can’t give a dissertation on orthodox faith and have it stamped per Chris R’s approval is a “false convert”.
The message that “you’ve got to have it all together to become a Christian” is the insidious underlying message of Chris R’s evil diatribe against the body of Christ.
Rick – you can’t say that if you don’t know the people. You don’t fully understand the demographics, or why the results are what they are.
Yes, anything less than 100% is unacceptable, but – per the statistical mini-comment above – 100% actually says much worse about a church than 53% does…
A false convert is a person claiming to be Christian and then denying the grace of God that saved them. You can’t claim to be a Christian and in the same breath deny essential doctrine. If that’s the case, you arent’ a Christian, hence a false convert.
Sort of what the ODM’s teach others… “Come to Jesus by Grace, then forsake Grace and be like us!”
Making false converts… those who start by grace but think they can finish by works…
They are the seed that shoots a root is shallow soil, then dies… they never grow from the Law to Grace.
iggy
ODM is what exactly? Sorry, this is a new geeky subculture for me, I don’t know your acronyms.
ODM/ADM = “Online”/Armchair “Discernment” “Ministry” (ex. Slice of Laodicea, Christian Research? Network, Apprising ‘Ministries’, etc.)
Believe it or not, not everyone is a junior theologian, and Christianese is not bestowed upon them the moment they decide they wish to follow Christ. You would expect they would grow to understand this (which, by the way, GCC’s statistics bear out).
Without a follow-up survey a year or two later, with tracking mechanisms to tie individuals from the first survey to the same individuals in the second survey, there is no statistical way to “prove” that GCC is a “success” or “failure”. Especially if you want to compare them to a church that hasn’t undergone a similar survey.
Who knows, if you gave the same survey to Johnnie Mac’s church in CA, you might have the same or similar results…
actually, in the above comment #43, “bear out” should be “suggest”…
Oh I get it, so the ODM’s write articles pointing out theological problems in the church. And you guys write articles about how the ODM’s are causing problems in the church.
How is this site any different? It’s just bitching from the opposite end of the spectrum, throwing back the stones that are thrown in your direction. Sounds really constructive.
“Oh I get it, so the ODM’s write articles pointing out theological problems in the church.”
Do your research thoroughly, Jesse. Go read some “ODM” blogs for yourself and form your own impression . . .
Jesse,
1) We cover a wide variety of subjects. One of the key subjects isn’t “bitching” about the problems ODM’s cause within the church – it is defending those brothers unfairly and savagely besmirched from those who claim to be brothers in Christ.
2) We allow free and open discussion to sort out conslusions, whereas most of the ODM sites refuse to allow comments, or find excuses to allow almost exclusively those in agreement with them.
3) We admit that we get it wrong sometimes.
In this particular case, you’ve got a group of nib-noses with no understanding of statistics taking some transparency from a church they don’t attend, 2000 miles away from them, and casting aspersions with the integrity of a Chicago politico.
There are good stories and bad to be had within the data gathered by Granger. And, part of the good news is, you don’t normally collect such data and you especially don’t allow it to be published unless you seriously plan on looking for ways to improve. Of course, if all you get for your honesty and transparency is character assassination from within the body that is supposed to be cheering you on, you’re going to be less likely to be as up-front as time goes on…
I get what a “false convert” really is, I just don’t know why the ODM’s have to scream “false convert” at everyone who doesn’t agree with their theology. I’m going to get sick of that title very, very fast.
If there was as many “false converts” as some people make it seem, there sure aren’t going to be very many people in heaven.
John saw a multitude that no man could number. Perhaps he just couldn’t count all that high (or he just couldn’t see anyone hiding behind Spurgeon, so he just guessed)…
^He was dazed, confused, and seeing double!
Merry,
I’m familiar with Apprising and Slice, and while I tend to on their side theologically, their style and tone is often overly harsh and prone to exaggeration. I get it.
Chris,
I’ve been lurking here for a little while, call it what you want but it usually reads like childish bitching, not always, but quite often.
Jesse,
I ave never known one ODM to pray for me… here we call for prayer for these people often…
Our heart is for reconcilation… while it seems most ODM’s still live under the Law which was the ministry of Judgment and Condmnation.
My prayer is that they come to know the loving kindness of our Great God and to realize that the grace, mercy and kindness God showed them, is ot be extended to others… even those who are still unsaved… or they disagree with.
You even stated that you do not like their tone… yet, this is not about Calvinism versus other traditions… it is about misuding Jesus to judge and condemn others… when he did not even do that Himself… if Jesus did not condemn us but came to save us, do you think then that we have the right to do so…
The typical ODM calls people names, judges them by their own standard… which they see as better than God’s I guess, and then condemn people that are alread condemned or that they simply do not agree with their methods.
Really this site is quite different… if you truly are a lurker, then you might see this.
Be blessed,
iggy
Jesse,
Just so Iggy knows, he is on my prayer sheet every day. I am considered an ODM, but really, I am a reconciliationist and am reformed, so that makes me an ODM.
merry:
Actually, Merry, I would use the scripture in Luke 8:5-8 to describe the soil of the heart and the response to the seed sown of the Gospel. There are four soils (heart/response) and one seed (the Gospel). The fear is that many churches- not just Granger- can produce a sort of false soil or ecology, one where the fruit (the Christian) will seem healthy and happy, but when the harvest day comes, many will run into the response of ‘I never knew you’ (Matthew 7)
This being said, no one should ever call someone a false convert. That is not for a human to judge, though we do have the ability to look at fruit, we have the ability to examine actions that those who claim Christ take and determine if they should be fellowshipped with. If I see what I perceive to be a false convert, I don’t judge him or her, I witness to them! I simply encourage them to examine themselves under the light of 1 John.
I think it is a very mature of GCC to reveal the results of their REVEAL survey. How many times do we actually take the time to asses the success or failures of our methods? Humanity love to stay ignorant about its failures. We are planning to do the REVEAL survey of our church next year. I am nervously looking forward to the results.
Pastorboy, I must say that your tone has improved a lot since I first started reading/commenting here. Iggy’s prayers for you must be working…
As for the results of your prayers for him… 
=)
igs
I am still waiting for PB’s response to the Tozer quote where Tozer disagrees with PB’s theology…
It is on the bait and switch post.
iggy
Iggy, click on THIS link and be enlightened.
But I am old school… what’s wrong with old school?
Old school…? Very emergent… Some more of that ancient practices?
Who have you reconciled with?
As long as there are also some large plasma tv sets present.
igs
Bo Diaz,
I am a reconciliationist, working with God by the power of the Holy Spirit to reconcile lost people to Him by proclaiming the good news.
http://www.pastorboy.wordpress.com explaines it very well.
Only the Elect of course… the rest be damned!
iggy
Best line in the Slicecast, “Hey Jesus, pull my finger.” Classic Chris. Classic.
So none then.
A stunning display of double speak on your part, worthy even of Orson Wells. Especially considering all the hit pieces you’ve written on individuals, you have more than a few people to be reconciled with.
Compare and contrast:
Pastorboy,
“This being said, no one should ever call someone a false convert.”
You’re doing a whole lot better than the ODM’s I’ve talked to who seemed to think they get to decide who is and who isn’t.
Maybe you could gently tell them what you just told me?
“This being said, no one should ever call someone a false convert.”
Sure you can, you should qualify the statement with “only God knows,” but there’s nothing wrong with telling a person that their salvation is in question. If you claim to be a Christian but live a completely unregenerate life, are you really saved? If you claim to be a Christian but deny essential, salvific doctrine, are you really saved?
Some of the comments had to do with a form of inclusivism, in other words can someone who has never heard the gospel still be saved? I do not believe that.
But my witnessing and intercession for the lost falls short of substantiating my doctrinal view. And in that light, I totally confront this preamble on CRN about inclusivism:
The actual piece was balanced and well witten, but the overt tone of doctrinal self righteousness in that statement leads me to ask this:
I am sure you’ve knocked on every door in your city, right? I am sure you spend many hours daily praying for missionaries to reach those who’ve never heard, right? I am sure you work a second job just so can send more money overseas to help reach those in darkness, right? I am sure you hand out scores of tracts every day, right? Your doctrinal view of those who’ve never heard has made you a witnessing spectacle, right?
I’m thinking wrong. It is acceptable to see Scripture as teaching some truth, it is never right to be prideful about it and belittle those who see it differently, especially when your behavior doesn’t seem to reveal a remarkable difference enanating from your Biblical view.
Oh yea, you probably believe in unconditional election and limited atonement so, really, who cares if they hear anyway.
If you claim to be a Christian but ADD TO essential, salvidic doctrine, are you saved?
Baptism saves?
Mark 16:16 says that belief + baptism = salvation.
Jesus did say it, doing what Jesus said is generally a good idea.
Show PB shows us salvatin comes by works? Are you saying it is your works that saves people?
Again John, there is so much you are missing.
Not sure who stated this quote… but if it is an ODM… It is very revealing.
WOW! So if you claim to be a Christian and
1. Deny Grace to others
2. Deny Mercy to others
3. Deny God’s loving kindness to others
4. Hate your brothers and sisters ( even struggle with hating them!)
5. Claim Jesus works on the Cross was not enough for all people as well as creation
6. Hold others to a standard of works to prove their salvation… your own standard not GOd’s
Man I could go on, but by this statement every ODM is condemned for ever to hell… by this quote! I would not go that far…
So, I guess yes, if someone denies those things and claims to be a Christian I would assume them misguided, unsaved… or and ODM. And even more shocking is … I agree with the quote completely.
iggy
Rick: I am a Calvinist.
Jerry: I’m sorry.
jerry
Man I could go on, but by this statement every ODM is condemned for ever to hell… by this quote!
Every ODM is guilty of the things on your list? That’s a bold statement.
He also said sell all that you have to have eternal life. You take Scripture out of context. In your doctrinal view, John 3:16 is an incomplete deception and Paul’s “we are saved by grace through faith” is heresy.
Works salvation at its finest.
BTW – if I took a church survey and 50% of my members said baptism saves I would be every bit as concerned as those who said that Jesus wasn’t the only way.
I would write a post about it and claim the pastor was doing a poor job of teaching!!
What’s out of context about Mark 16:16? Jesus said it while commissioning the disciples. The other verse you referenced was a directed at and intended for a very specific person, the “rich young ruler.” So yes, that verse out of context doesn’t work.
John 3:16 is out of context and to a specific person? Paul’s saved by grace through faith is out of context? You cannot take one verse from one of the gospel and proclaim it as foundational upon which all salvation teachings must stand.
Show me where Paul said baptism saves.
If baptism involves getting dunked in water, then that has nothing to do with being saved.
If baptism involves receiving the Holy Spirit, then yes, that’s a huge part of salvation.
John baptized with water, Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit.
For the record, I have yet to be dunked in water. I do plan to in the future, but for anyone who has not been baptized with the Holy Spirit, the effort is meaningless.
Very good, merry. You are saved by faith, period.
“Sure you can, you should qualify the statement with “only God knows,” but there’s nothing wrong with telling a person that their salvation is in question.”
Except for the fact that you might be misssing something, come across as being self-righteous, not knowing the entire situation, being extremely rude, possibly prying into personal business that is between that person and God, and possibly taking the Lord’s name in vain, but besides all that, it’s always perfectly acceptable to call people false converts! I can’t imagine how it would ever be taken the wrong way!
I should clarify that I believe if a Christian close to you is seriously falling off the deep end and is in serious danger of harming himself and his relationship with God permanently, then yes, taking them aside and meeting with a pastor to discuss their salvation is strongly recommended.
However, to just use the term “false convert” about anyone and everyone who does not agree with your own personal theology, like I’ve seen happen so many times, is just nothing but rude, disgusting, and should not be happening.
The term “false convert” should not ever be used flippantly. Unfortunately, that’s the only way I’ve ever seen it used.
Merry, I have to disagree about baptism (as in getting dunked) having nothing to do with salvation. I know this conversation has been had before, and I guarentee that not all the writers here even agree. But the word for baptism means immersed. There are many passages referring to immersion into Christ.
I would agree that the giving of the Holy Spirit should be a part of it or else it doesn’t mean anything, but the two are linked in scripture, to separate them as either/or is unbiblical.
Paul did teach about baptism. Gal. 3:27, Romans 6, and I find Acts 22:16 to be very revealing.
Also, immersion into Christ is not a work. The work is done by the Spirit.
Rick has a wierd hermaneutic, so we just ignore him
.
I would also like to point out that faith, confessing the name of Christ, repentance, and baptism are all listed throughout scripture as part of salvation. All of them together are a part of faith and the exclusion of any one of them is a denial of faith. I realize that’s strong language, but even if a person believes that baptism is an act of obedience, to not do it would then be an act of disobedience and therefore not in faith.
“Rick has a wierd hermaneutic, so we just ignore him
.”
Well then, I guess I have a weirder hermaneutic, so you can choose to ignore me, too!
Sure, I believe baptism is a big part of making a commitment. I’m just saying that I can’t believe that a person who has never been dunked in water but has been a committed believer in every other way would be thrown into hell just for that.
How did we get on the topic of baptism, anyway?
You cannot have it both ways. If Merry is not baptized, she/he is not saved. And if a person gets baptized believing it is just symbolic, that person is not saved. Unless you massage your doctrine with some wierd hermeneutic!
You must be consistent.
“she/he”?
I’m offended!
I’m a giiirl! *sniff*
Sorry sister!
Ken called me a tattletale. I am calling his ISP. I demand satisfaction.
You killed my father, prepare to die!!
Jesse,
OK I might know of one that may not fit the list… but take one of those things from Christianity and it becomes a religion that has no life… for these only come from Christ… and one must know Christ to receive them.
And yes most are as this list describes and believe me I have talked to more than most people… more than you probably have… and it always ends with them being very mean and nasty… with my salvation even being questioned.
So… I think my statement is both bold and true.
iggy
But Rick, then I would be calling into question somebody’s salvation and I personally don’t do that (at least not out loud and in public. I try not to do it at all, but sometimes…). I do not question. I do teach and read scripture.
Merry, be very careful with the line of thought that you can’t believe God would do such and such. We see in scripture, who God is, what He has done, some things He will do, and what He wants us to do. Which one of those things are we responsible for?
Why do we have such an issue with these things? Because somebody says something about how it all works that we disagree with? Do any of us really understand how it all works? Rick, we place our faith in Christ, not in baptism. So no, I don’t think a person has to understand it and believe a certain thing about baptism for God to do what He promised He would do. I’ve never met a person who has been immersed that does believe that immersion is necessary for salvtion that fully understood what Christ did for them on the cross, let alone how God works in all of it and how His Spirit indwells believers.
Merry, read those passages of scripture I quoted earlier. Read all of acts and look at the role of baptism (it shouldn’t take you too long.) When were people immersed into Christ throughout Acts? I encourage you to read that, and then think about how to respond. I don’t want you to change how you look at baptism, I want you to change how you respond to God. And I in no way doubt your faith.
I’m glad you both got my joke as well, the smiley face didn’t show up. And Merry, we would never ignore you, you are one of the few females that participate around here. We want to keep you around.
Most tattletalers tend toward the truth and have a sense of justice… so I guess Ken is acknowledging you are right Rick… as most that complain about tattletalers are guilty of something…
iggy
merry, I am not offended you are a girl…
(reading it like an ODM)
iggy
Now that the thread is about baptism…
I have been talking to some friends lately about baptism and in these conversations some interesting things came up which I am looking for sources for. Perhaps some of you know of such sources?
- In Jesus’ times baptism was not only a Jewish custom but some pagan cultures also had some forms of baptism that signified either washing off of sins or starting anew.
- Most rabbi’s practiced baptism. A symbolism of their baptism is the laying off of believe in something or someone’s teachings and taking up the teaching of the rabbi.
- This last point is why Peter asked people (in Acts) with which baptism they where baptised (John’s or Jesus’).
Christian P, thanks for your concern. I have read those passages before.
Let me pose my own situation to you, plainly, so you know exactly where I am coming from.
I am 18 years old. My parents would prefer me not to get baptized until at least 21 years old, for several reasons. One is that they want me making a serious commitment on my own, so I’m not just “riding” on my parent’s faith. There are other reasons that I won’t get into right now. I’m choosing to honor my father and mother, and waiting till I’m a mature adult. Let me make it very clear that I DO NOT have a problem at all with baptism. I am not questioning God AT ALL about His will on that.
But if I die within the next 3 years, will I go to hell? (That’s a rhetorical question). Will I not be a true Christian for the next 3 years? From what God has communicated with me thus far in my personal relationship with Him, that’s not the case.
Iggy, good, I’m glad you’re not offended that I’m a girl, because I plan to stay that way for a long, LOOOOONG time!
Merry-
(psst, you’re fine).
Since your question was rhetorical I won’t offer an answer but you can guess what mine would be
In the early church baptisms were held off until Easter morning. For the year leading up to that catechumenates (those who were preparing to be baptized) would learn what it means to be a Christian and determine whether or not they really wanted to be baptized. Sounds like you are doing much the same thing.
peace.
BTW, I believe in infant baptism and don’t care whether one is immersed or sprinkled. If we truly believe it is God that does it, not ourselves, than the means or times do not matter much at all.
I happen to have unassailable proof that baptism saves. I was saved in March of 1975 – dramatically changed and regenerated – and was not baptized for two more years which I then baptized MYSELF in the Gulf of Mexico.
So all the systematic theology concerning baptism “added nothing to me”.
The first sentence should read “does not save”. I believe you understood that!!
for by doctrine AND grace ye are saved through faith AND mental assent to correct opinions…
not by good works, but the ones about your bedroom activities are still the most important and being angry at people who disagree with you, lest anyone should boast, but you can boast about the aforementioned issues…
beloved.
elect.
amen
Rick,
Salt water invalidates baptism. Sorry, yours didn’t count. Do you have a swimming pool? Wait, Chlorine. Dang!
Rick,
You wrote: “John 3:16 is out of context and to a specific person? Paul’s saved by grace through faith is out of context? You cannot take one verse from one of the gospel and proclaim it as foundational upon which all salvation teachings must stand. Show me where Paul said baptism saves”
Well, Peter said that baptism ‘now saves us’ (1 Peter 3:21). But Peter probably doesn’t count.
Anyhow, I might agree that Peter’s words can easily be stripped of their theological context. However, I would say this. If baptism doesn’t ’save’ us in the sense of a ‘work’ saving us, isn’t it very possible that baptism ’saves’ us in the sense that that is the moment when grace is conferred upon us? That is, perhaps we are not saved ‘by’ baptism, but we are saved ‘in’ baptism.
For all of Paul’s wrath against works (which in Galatians is something equivalent to Jesus plus ______), he doesn’t shy away from the importance of baptism in the salvation moment: “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” Well it seems rather strange to me that Paul says we are clothed with Christ in baptism if, in fact, we are clothed with Christ prior to baptism by some experience of the Spirit. (And, to be sure, Jesus’ ‘Spirit baptism’ and John’s ‘water baptism’ are not so at odds that we should think Jesus’ Spirit baptism excludes or happens apart from water baptism. If that were so, then there would be no commands from Jesus to baptize those who wish to be disciples; Matthew 28.)
One further point. Paul also seems to make it perfectly clear in Romans 6 that we are to die to ourselves, to our sin and be raised to life in Christ. He says, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” Now at face value I would say this: How can Paul say we are to participate in the death of Jesus in baptism and then us think that there is some other way to participate in the death of Jesus? In other words, the Scripture only gives one moment when we are to participate in the death of Jesus (besides perhaps communion) and that is baptism. Furthermore, how can those who have not been baptized into Jesus participate in his death when Paul clearly says it is the baptized who do that very thing?
I don’t think it can be both ways. Baptism may not ’save’ us in the sense of a system of works, but clearly baptism saves us in that this is the moment when such blessings are conferred upon us through the Spirit who is given at the time of baptism. We don’t have to be afraid of baptism being a work if we are simply obeying the condition that Jesus himself gave. Baptism is a work; but it is always a passive act in the Scripture (and in Greek!). It is a work of God.
jerry
PS–can you show me where Paul says baptism doesn’t save?
Jerry – “PS–can you show me where Paul says baptism doesn’t save?”
I can’t show you where Paul says the Lord’s Supper doesn’t save either. Proving a negative.
Paul clearly states in many cases that we are saved by grace through faith period. Paul tells the Corinthian church “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” That would seem at odds with Mark 16 and in fact judging by the overwhelming emphasis on baptism in certain denominations Paul would be shallow and leaving out the main core.
Since Paul teaches so clearly that we are saved bu faith in Christ alone, it would seem duplicitou for him to then demand baptism for salvation. Many times his baptism references are concerning the Spirit not water.
But if one espouses salvation through water baptism, he must be consistent and doubt the salvation of those who do not. Many hard core Church of Christ people do just that and at least they are consistent. But because the evidence of the Spirit’s working in non baptismal regeneration believers is so obvious, many baptism denominations have tempored their teachings to disingenuously provide wiggle room for people who reject baptism as anything but emblematic.
Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the Word and do the work of an evangelist but no where does he exhort him to either baptize or teach about baptism. The lack of emphasis on baptism by the Apostle Paul is doctrinally transparent. He teaches salvation by grace through faith and very infrequently even mentions baptism. Curious.
Here is a question to some of you legal types. I believe you can link to a post, but can you copy and paste an entire post from another blog?
Merry,
Just curious. Since your parents don’t want you to get baptized until you are 21 do they also not want you to invite Jesus into your heart until you are 21?
Whatever your theology about baptism it would seem that if they want you to postpone baptism because they want the decision to be yours and not ridding on their faith then they would also want you to postpone inviting Jesus into your heart until you are 21 so that would not be riding on their faith.
I kind of doubt they are encouraging you to wait to say the sinners prayer so it doesn’t make sense, at least to me, to encourage you to wait to be baptized.
Rick,
If your first initial is a certain letter in the second half of the alphabet and your second initial is a certain letter from the first half of the alphabet then the answer is probably “yes,” that is if you’re doing it to someone else and they aren’t doing it to you. And if anyone disagrees they’ll probably be hearing why they are wrong for the next couple of months.
Sorry I’m not the legal type so I can’t really answer your question.
Merry,
In the Bible there is never a long separation time between believing in Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism.
Rick,
Your theology about baptism may be right but basing it on your personal subjective experience is not the way to prove it.
We would not accept someone’s claim that they were radically change and regenerated by Islam, Buddhism, or Mormonism as proof that those are true. They would say not only is baptism not necessary but belief in Jesus isn’t necessary either. They too could claim that they have unassailable proof that one does not need Jesus to be saved and that the Bible “added nothing to them”; they were transformed without them.
Like I said, it doesn’t mean you are wrong about baptism but arguing from subjective experience doesn’t prove anything.
Rick,
I’m not going to draw this out here because it is pointless. But in conclusion, I’ll note that you wrote this:
“Since Paul teaches so clearly that we are saved bu faith in Christ alone, it would seem duplicitou for him to then demand baptism for salvation. Many times his baptism references are concerning the Spirit not water.”
And no one here is disagreeing with that (that we are saved by grace through faith) at all. But if we are saved by grace through faith then why cannot we be saved by grace in baptism? The problem is that you divide and conquer. You separate baptism from God’s grace by reducing it to something purely man made, man initiated, man practiced, etc. But if in baptism God is doing something, then it’s another story altogether. The problem, even in the Churches of Christ, is that baptism has been made an event in and of itself–part of a supposed ’steps’ to salvation process.
The problem with many hard-core baptists is that the only way you can avoid the logical implications of the Biblical teaching on baptism is to redefine baptism and make it merely a Spirit baptism event. There is simply no warrant whatsoever to assume that when Paul spoke of baptism that he was referring to anything less than full immersion in water.
The rest of your argument is specious at best. Paul may not have been sent to baptize at Corinth, but, curiously, he admits to baptizing people there. The point of his argument there was that people were developing cliques in the church based upon who had baptized them–not that Paul had definitively decided baptism was moot. Come on Rick. Your ideas here are just bad, bad exegesis.
Then again…
You also wrote: “But because the evidence of the Spirit’s working in non baptismal regeneration believers is so obvious, many baptism denominations have tempored their teachings to disingenuously provide wiggle room for people who reject baptism as anything but emblematic.”
I can also say that the ‘Spirit’ is working in the lives of many who will never become regenerate. But I would chalk this up to a lack of total-depravity and evidence of free will.
jerry
Rick,
Amy wrote: “Merry,
In the Bible there is never a long separation time between believing in Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism.”
This is right. This explains my comment, “The problem, even in the Churches of Christ, is that baptism has been made an event in and of itself–part of a supposed ’steps’ to salvation process.”
y/f
jerry
I’m sorry I made that explanation already.
Diogenes, hate to seem rude, but it’s really none of your business. It’s not like they’re forcing me to wait, and some of it is personal issues between me and God that I’m still working out. Which makes it no one’s business.
I’m still not sure how we got into such an in-depth conversation on baptism, and I’m really done with the subject for now.
If a person believes that baptism saves then he believes that his faith in baptism is what saves him.
But how can a person who has no saving faith in baptism be saved by it? How can a person who has no saving faith in Christ be saved? If a person believes Jesus was just a good man be saved? Can a person who believes baptism is only ceremonial be saved?
You cannot parse the theology to accommodate people who do not believe in what God has provided for salvation. If God has provided baptism for salvation, how can a person reject it as such and God doesn’t care? If it is faith in Christ AND baptism so be it.
I can understand those who believe that, I cannot understand how they can say “baptism saves” but not for everyone. That does not add up.
“Your ideas here are just bad, bad exegesis.”
Yep, and yours are just good, good, exegesis. I disagreed with your view without calling it “bad, bad, exegesis” which would mirror the verbiage on certain other blogs.
Are you saying you cannot even see how some men like Moody, Wesley, Whitefield, Torrey, Spurgeon, and others would arrive at such bad exegesis since your view seems so obvious?
Bad exegisis = I don’t agree.
This is what happens when people disregard the Biblical view of what baptism represents. Essentially, the point of baptism symbolizes dying to an old life and resurrecting to a new life. A baby cannot make this decision for itself and therefore should wait until he/she can accept Christ and THEN be baptized. Otherwise, it is completely useless and impotent.
Baptism is an outward commitment, much like marriage and represents a covenant between the believer and his Lord. It should not be undertaken lightly, but it is an essential step in one’s journey with the Lord.
It’s amazing that this is even debated. The Bible is clear that we believe and are THEN baptized. Why all the argument to refute what is so clear?
Sounds very, very Catholic. Where do you see this represented in the early church writings of the Bible (versus the early church after the apostles had all died and Catholicism was on the rise)?
While I agree with Jerry that your exegesis is pretty screwy, Rick (particularly your subjugation of everything to Paul), I would just suggest that baptism has more than an inconsequential role as portrayed by Jesus, Paul and Peter. We can argue till the cows come home as to where it exactly fits, but I wonder at what point it becomes a matter or pride trumping simple obedience.
As for infant baptism, I would agree with Paul C’s assessment that the baptism taught in scripture was a believer’s baptism…
Now – what this has to do with the OP and Granger, I have no idea…
Actually, the delay of baptism for a year was something that arose within the first 300 years of the church.
The supremacy of Rome and it’s bishop was not asserted until much later and fundamentally contested until the Great Schism.
it’s one thing to acknowledge a change in the praxis of the early church, it’s another thing to attribute everything you disagree with to the excesses and “evils” of the RCC…
the delay of baptism was out of the good and right desire to make sure that a person understood the implications of and responsibilities that go with that baptism.
I think nit-picking over the timing is really sad.
Early church leaders made a pastoral call that took baptism so seriously they wanted to do the teaching/training/mentoring/ that would inculcate in their people a profound awareness of the full implications of the act.
For crying out loud…these people WERE obedient. They got baptized, the process led to it.
If you want to be accurate, then this did not occur until AFTER the apostles had died off and the church was being more easily infiltrated with false teachings and doctrines (as was prophesied by Christ Himself and the apostles).
So, more accurate would be that this practice (probably along with infant baptism at some level) did not make its way in until the 2nd and 3rd century – coinciding with the infancy of the Catholic church and ceremonialism.
I guess those poor, misled apostles and early church workers got it all wrong. How dare they baptize on a roadside without someone taking the “5 steps to salvation class” first!!
While I believe baptism’s symbolism must be understood, it doesn’t require all the empty ceremonialism that was built around it by Catholicism. That’s simply my point.
Paul C-
We baptize infants because we acknowledge that just as a baby does not choose who his or her parents are we do not get to negate the story we are already being grafted into by the death and resurrection of Christ.
Baptism is not some individualistic symbolic ceremony that allows you to feel better about yourself and your newfound relationship with God. It can be that, but it is first and foremost an acknowledgement that this child or adult belongs to God and that long before you were ever born Jesus died for you and rose that you might have life. It is also a recognition that this life in Christ is not done alone but is fostered in a community of faith.
As far as your deep seated fears of anything that smells Catholic, we have been down that road before. I can’t help you with your prejudices.
peace.
yeah, Paul C…that’s exactly what I’m saying…the apostles got it wrong.
sheeesh…
the point is to get baptized…
it’s YOU who mistake a later pastoral decision for something evil, mistaken, etc. or purely ritualistic.
If you’re talking about certain practices/theologies from the 11c. on…you might have a point.
but the reality is Paul C that the historical documents that explain the early church theology around certain later discipleship practices don’t corroborate your view.
sorry.
Just doesn’t.
trust me.
This stuff is fresh for me.
I just got done with a year immersion in the theology and practice of the church from inception to just before the reformation.
really, Paul C…the more I think about it I just don’t get your need to see basically everything after the first 100 years until Luther as somehow suspect.
I mean…does your church have pulpits? a choir? musical instruments? sing anything other than the psalms?
It’s fine to believe the timing should be immediate, but nobody here is saying that your view of baptism is a bankrupt ordinance view the reduces it to mere obedience in an arbitrary symbolic act rather than the sacramental view of even the reformers sans Zwingli.
I don’t think that, but that argument could be raised…
a little more latitude maybe?
well said, Chad.
In my tradition the norm has historically been adult baptism, but we do practice infant baptism too.
I’m glad I baptized my daughter.
If she wants to get baptized as an adult, that’s her choice…but I intend to disciple her with a deep awareness of our inability and God’s gracious “doing” for us what only God can do…
Cool, nc.
I had both my baby boys baptized and will be baptizing our adopted children next month. We also practice both believers and infant baptism. There is something profoundly powerful about handing your child off to be baptized into the family of God (or adopted into the family of God) and then watch both parties (family and church) vow to pray for and nurture the faith of a newborn.
beautiful.
Was jesus baptized as a child?
not trying to stirr up emotions here.
Didn’t jesus just lay hands on the children? If it was a mandate from God, jesus would have been baptized as a child as well.
Let’s see, we cannot agree if baptism is for adults or children or both, we cannot agree whether it is immersion or sprinkling or either or both, we cannot agree whether you can wait or must be baptized immediately, and with all that confusion one thing we do know -
Baptism saves. Seriously.
I don’t know if the book of Acts is so prescriptive as it is descriptive…and then that is kind of questionable considering the insights of textual critique.
Can of worms…I know.
To the point:
Rick, you’re funny.
You are moving toward the force, Luke!
And yet, it means absolutely nothing to someone who did not make this decision him or herself. The whole issue I have is that when infant baptism is practiced it is first unbiblical, but it also removes the conviction of the individual who is saying, with this action, they are starting a new life in Christ. It basically reduces Christianity to nationalism (ie: “I’m a Catholic because I was born Catholic, my parents and grandparents are Catholic.”)
That’s how it is for millions: no conviction, just inheritance.
And that’s not the way it was meant to be: Jesus and the apostles are very clear on this.
If you say so Chad. As far as your willingness to embrace everything Catholic, we have been down that road before. I can’t help you with your lack of judgment in these matters.
Paul C…
tell that to my wife who was baptized as a baby.
she might bristle at your assumptions about how she understands her love of her Savior, Jesus.
The Roman Catholic Church is a false expression of a Christian church.
I am a pastor-teacher, please consider that before you challenge me.
Correct. That is a gentle way of stating it, but true nonetheless.
I, too, was baptized (Catholic) as a baby – along with everyone in my family and most people I went to school with. What did it mean to me? Nothing.
In fact, I would go so far to say that BECAUSE people are baptized, then confirmed (and all the other junk) there is a false sense of security as if, by doing these things, they are in the faith when this is not the case.
Here’s a song I hope you enjoy:
Baptism by Randy Travis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oFd4gJnar4&feature=related
Baptism is a beautiful experience that each one should decide for themselves.
LOL. I feel so, well, inside, to get that insider joke a passerby would totaly miss.
I was baptized in the Lutheran church at 3 months old and I can remember thinking, “Man, the theology of this is all wrong! One day I’ll grow up to prove it!”.
I am the only person I’ve ever met who baptized himself. It took me two years of study after I was saved to accept immersion. BTW – it was right after the movie Jaws came out and I was nervous in the Gulf at night that I would be eaten by a shark.
Does baptism in the dark take??
Other than, perhaps, a cute little funny dress in her mother’s hope chest, just what does she remember about that experience?
How “ME” centered of you, Paul.
For the record, I do not embrace “everything Catholic.” I just don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
John, Paul or others-
Baptism should not be about me or you. It should not be some nice thing we have done that we can show off to others or look back on nostagically. Why should it be that? Would any of you recommend rebaptism as adults? Would you tell someone who goes on a retreat and now feels REALLY close to God that they should mark this moment with baptism? If not, why?
Baptism is not the end of a journey or some marking of a watershed moment. Is is initiation INTO the journey – it is JUST the beginning. So whether an infant or an adult it should not be something we do just because it gives us warm fuzzies.
In our tradition we have annual baptismal renewal services where we all get a chance to remember our baptisms. These are beautiful services where we acknowledge God’s never ending faithfulness and the community God has called – the Church – to surround us in love and faith and prayer to nurture us into a more mature faith.
As for confirmation, this is a wonderful time to acknowledge one’s baptism and make a solemn choice that they will live into the family they have been adopted into as a child.
Jose – Jesus wasn’t baptized as a child but he was circumcised.
As for Acts? If we learn anything from Acts it is as NC already said – it is not prescriptive. Some are baptized right away, some are adults, others not, some are delayed, some receive the Spirit right away others do not, etc. The one thing that IS consistent is that God does it, not us.
One helpful thing about infant baptism is it makes a clear statement that it is God who saves, not ourselves. Furthermore, it takes any notion of works righteousness out of the equation of the idea that I am gaining points with God.
peace,
Chad
What can I say, you nailed it Chad. All along I thought I was advocating something biblical because, hey, the argument is reflected in scripture… only to find out, as you wisely put it, I was simply advocate for warm-and-fuzzies. Impeccable. Thanks for clearing that up!
“Furthermore, it takes any notion of works righteousness out of the equation of the idea that I am gaining points with God.”
That is what the Mormons insist when they baptize the dead. That’s better than infants!!
“I’m H20 intolerant.”
Paul, no problem.
Rick, just make sure my wig is on tight and my makeup is waterproof!
Wow! False doctrine to the maximum (I hope you were being sarcastic, but somehow doubt it).
actually JH and Paul C…
Your comments only reveal one thing:
You know nothing about my wife and the genuineness of her faith in Jesus Christ as her Savior. going through that process of baptism and confirmation does not preclude her having a genuine conversion.
To implicitly or explicitly insist that it does only demonstrates your ignorance.
honestly.
This is just really sad…and no, what’s sad is not my wife’s baptismal experience.
So we save ourselves, paul c?
NC. Nothing sad here. I made absolutely no reference whatsoever to your wife’s conversion experience or current spiritual condition. Where did you get that? I was responding to your reporting of her assumed attachment to an event she cant’ possibly remember. You are taking offense where none was given or even hinted at on my part. Yikes! Sprinkle away!
Yes, I guess so, we save ourselves nc – very good. Carry on…
Who spoke about your wife? As someone who is in bible college (as you made sure to mention) surely you would prefer arguing based on scripture rather than sentiment?
may God bless both you and your wife nc.
I’m just curious…what’s the message we want to convey to a new believer who’s asking about baptism? Sounds like we’d be pretty up a creek in explaining it.
“well..it doesn’t save you because you can’t be saved by what you do, but baptism is something you do and you have to do it, but it doesn’t save you, but it’s part of the salvation process, and it’s a display of what happens to you in Christ, but it’s metaphorical, but it’s a real process too and half the baptism verses make it sound like you have to do it to be Christian and other verses put much less emphasis on it, it’s an act of faith but you’re only saved by faith and not works/acts….so…do you understand?”
lol.
What am I supposed to tell someone, you know?
Sounds like “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” was a lot easier to me…and baptism came later…:sigh:.
Joe
The only baptisms in Acts that are delayed are those that did not know about being baptized into Christ.
Also, how is Acts 22:16 not prescriptive. This passage is part of a narrative, but the command is given to Paul by Ananias (both of whome were sent to eachother by God to “be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”
I am responsible for what I teach and preach. I don’t argue what ifs and the reason I have not furthered my conversation with Merry is that I am not her Elder, teacher, or mentor. But at all times I must declare, “Now what are you waiting for? Get up and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of Jesus the Christ.”
I went to a seminary once. The lobby was beautiful.
Joe, it did not come later. And it doesn’t have to be that complicated. Tell them what Peter told the crowd, tell them what Ananias told Paul.
You know, it’s very interesting. Merry’s parents want her to wait because it is a very serious decision and they want it to be because she has faith, not because her parents have faith (sounds very much like believers/adult baptism).
I’ve known many parents since I was in Jr. High that have hesitated or even refused to let their child (ages ranging from 10 years old to 18 years old) be baptized for similar reasons as Merry’s parents, this is a very serious decision and the parent(s) wanted to make sure the child was mature enough to understand and fully accept such a decision. The irony for many of these stories is that those parents weren’t (I have two situations currently, so also “aren’t”) Christians. They were not involved in church. Some had never even been to church. How is it that even the world understand the importance of baptism and yet those who have faith in Christ reject the idea that it is so important and/or a decision to be made in conjuction with faith in Christ?
Now that I’ve basically been told that I’m not a Christian . . .
Joe C, I agree. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” . . . the most important part of salvation is true repentance and surrender to God. Without that baptism is just empty symbolism.
Thank you Joe – summing up in one sentence what 73 comments could not achieve
I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not that complicated. What makes it complicated is when we try to overlay our own sentiment and traditions on what is really simple.
Merry – I believe you are a Christian, if you tithe!
Merry – I believe you are a Christian, if you tithe! To me!
iggy
And with Christian P’s last comment, I’m extremely sorry I even talked about my situation.
Please don’t assume things about my parents. They are Christians. They aren’t refusing to let me. I’m an adult, I can get baptized anytime I want to. I’m not rejecting baptism. I WILL be baptized. It’s a decision I’ll make on my own.
I’ll kindly ask everyone to please ignore my comments on baptism. They aren’t there. They don’t count. How about we “butt out” of this conversation. And it’s okay to address me personally at anytime, 3rd person is not necessary.
—————————————————————————–
All right. No hard feelings toward anyone here.
A good friend of mine recently preached on baptism. The sermon is worth the read. You can find it HERE.
One great point he makes is that baptism is not something we have to do…it is something we GET to do. It is an invitation into a life with God. How more exciting can you get?!?
Merry – Iam sure Christian meant no harm, it is not like him. Your participation on these threads is always insightful and warm and seemingly above your age. Keep seeking Him, I was not even saved when I was 18 years old, I pray God will use you mightily!!
Merry, I’ll drop it but I want to apologize. I tried to word my comment in such a way to not make any assumptions but only to bring up specifically one thing you brought up, that they did not want your choice to be about their faith (I actually did assume they were Christians but even then I was careful not to say what I did not know). That’s why I didn’t draw the conclusions I did after mentioning your situation but after talking about situations that I have personally been a part of. The point was your comment got me thinking about situations that I have been a part of. That would also be part of why I didn’t address you but the main reason I didn’t address you is that I was not trying to argue your situation. I was trying to respect your desire from before to not argue about it.
All in all, I could have left it out and I’m sorry that I did not communicate as well as I could have and that I brought it back up. Just so you know, I didn’t include it because I thought it was bad or wrong, I included it because I agree with the sentiment/desire.
Thanks, Rick. Sorry to anyone if I came across as impatient or rude. There are some aspects of Christianity that I am still really confused about, and so I’m sure I’ll need a bit of grace extended my way now and then.
We all have very different views on salvation, and I don’t mind people disagreeing with my views on what it means to be saved. I just humbly and kindly ask that no one here suggest someone is unsaved or not quite saved just because their theology differs from anyone else’s.
That was one reason I really am not enjoying this debate; let’s please not start treating anyone differently just because we found out that they aren’t baptized, or for any reason, for that matter. It isn’t worth it.
Well said Rick. A great prayer to pray for eachother.
All right, Christian. Thanks for the explanation. Everything’s cool.
Can we still treat Rick differently because he’s so different?
Depends. I really appreciate his differentness!
Wow. A strong and opinionated thread ends with expressions of love in Christ. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to be?
Different? Oh you have no idea! Hey – the storm is headed toward Tampa, pray for us.
No evacuation?
your responses subsequent to my mentioning of my wife’s baptismal experiences would logically lead me to the statements I made thereafter.
Seriously, Paul C. it baffles me that you would assert that I’m arguing from sentiment, considering your own view of church history is clearly derived from a certain “sentiment” no matter how hard you try to say otherwise. Not to mention your own anecdotal experiences with infant baptism…it just doesn’t cut it.
The point about my wife is that you can’t make blanket statements about the value of infant baptism and later confirmation of anyone as being meaningless–or somehow suspect, wrong and all inherently “popish”…
It’s not about my sentiment for my wife…she’s just a great example of how the discipleship process of infant baptism on through 14 years to confirmation can actually mean something, do good and set a fantastic foundation for a person’s walk with God.
At the end of the day your “church history” is fuzzy and your blanket assertions are unfounded.
Christian and Paul,
Really I was just listing the amalgamation of everything that had been talked about concerning baptism in this thread by us silly Christians. If we’re all over the map on this, what are we going to say to the babies in Christ? That’s what I want to know. Because a bunch of you keep saying “it’s really not that complicated/hard/confusing” but this thread and your arguments say the COMPLETE opposite
What I meant by ‘baptism comes later’ is that regardless of 5 minutes later or 1 year later, it comes after the conversion/placing ones faith in Christ for salvation (which I think we all agree is what actually SAVES a person to God/for God)
Peace
Joe
I have come to the conclusion that the sinner’s prayer must be said while inside a baptismal pool for it to take!
An olympic baptismal pool to boot!
And you have to get gold. Or bust.
Today I learned something. I had no idea Merry was 18 years old and after going over her particpation on this blog in days gone by I am impressed. There are young people who love Christ and with that I rejoice!
Oh, you’d be surprised, Rick. I know 14 and 15 year olds who are much more spiritually mature than I.
The sinner’s prayer keeps coming up. I can’t seem to find reference to that anywhere in scripture. Where could that be…?
Joe, I’m going to ask for a little speculation. At what moment do you think Paul placed his faith in Christ? We have a few places where Paul’s conversion story is told, so it’s not complete speculation. Do you think it was after Jesus finished speaking? Maybe as he was being helped into Damascus ? Maybe on day two of being blind and he had some time to take in what just happened? The moment Ananias showed up and verified what Jesus already told him?
If we can separate Paul’s acknowledgment of the truth of who Jesus is with faith in Jesus, when do you think he saw the truth? When he was blided? etc.
I am curious to know having never thought about it until this evening. It is speculation and I can’t imagine what emotions and thoughts were going through Paul’s mind. But I think Paul saw the truth when he saw Jesus. He even asked what he should do. Three days of blindness pass. And then Ananias shows up and tells him he’s going to receive his sight and the Holy Spirit. He tells him to get up and be baptized, washing away his sins, calling on the name of Jesus Christ. It strikes me that three days after seeing Jesus, after asking what he should do, he is told his sins will be washed away. Can we be in Christ, can we be saved, without our sins being washed away? Does this mean that Saul/Paul didn’t have faith until that time? Was his going to damascus to wait on the person the Lord would send not in obedience to the very Jesus that appeared to him?
I’m not trying to develop a systematic theology from this, but I think it’s worth discussing (especially since the first time I’ve thought about this particular situation is tonight). Especially in light of the timing of faith and baptism.
Christian,
You present a really cool question that I have avoided answering to myself many times. I think God has been pretty silent to me on this matter, but that shouldn’t stop us from seeking. Certainly Paul believed in Christ when Christ spoke to him, and from Paul’s other writings, this would indicate salvation on Paul’s part. But then you have the situation 3 days later coming along where he’s told to be baptized and wash his sins off. Interesting twist. You also should consider when Paul was telling his testimony he mentioned how God had revealed Jesus in him. That in itself is a very odd statement
Also, let’s think about the fact that perhaps Paul’s conversion experience was a bit unorthodox compared to the majority of Christians. Of course we have to realize that the specific circumstances under which a person is saved are different from person to person. Same Jesus, same Way, different circumstances. So who says it has to be totally uniformed? I wasn’t baptized until a year after I was first saved.
Overall..I kind of have this idea about all of this. God stands outside of time, so to Him it seems to me that things are see as a constant state of ‘already happened’. We’re linear, God is not. So perhaps it’s all a moot point, maybe that’s why Christians cannot agree about the subject. Maybe it’s debatable because God would like to see us work it out with eachother in mercy and grace. Maybe God wants us to focus on Jesus all the more, and on His saving power, not our own ideas. Just some thoughts.
Joe