Boxes

I have decided to share a discussion I had with some classmates regarding the eternality of salvation.  I hope you enjoy this, and please share your thoughts below the text.

Topic: As evangelicals debate the merits of Calvinism and Arminianism, the one point where proponents of either side often abandon their system is in the area of eternal security.  However, evangelicals are not all in agreement over this issue, and even those who affirm that one cannot lose their salvation due to sinful actions may nevertheless believe that one can lose their salvation due to apostasy (a willful rejection of faith in Christ).  In this discussion, state and defend your position on eternal security, and in doing so, address particular concerns such as how your view of Christian fruit-bearing, backsliding, and apostasy play into your overall view of eternal security.  Furthermore, address the differences and similarities between the doctrine of eternal security and the doctrine of assurance, and how these doctrines impact one another.   

Response:
Wow, this is a deep question.  I would argue that out of all the questions posed throughout this course, here and in the text, this is perhaps the most complex and difficult to wrestle with.  The issue of eternal security is one that must be approached carefully and not with haste in determining one’s position, as it has significant bearing on the rest of one’s doctrinal stances.
Growing up I had always been taught that “once saved, always saved”, and thus have been exposed to more support for this view than any other.  One of the most difficult issues with this topic regarding Scriptural support is that either side of the argument can say the same thing; the other guys are misinterpreting the passages.  I am one to not simply look at the passages themselves, but also weigh the logical flow behind them.  With that, I have come to conclude personally that Salvation cannot be lost once attained.  Even in the event of one turning away from the Lord in their life, I do not believe causes God to retract the free gift which has been given upon initial conversion.  As the text (Boyd) pointed out in the essay supporting the eternal security view, eternal life is grounded in God, who Himself is eternal.  To then say that an eternal gift can be removed fails to flow logically.  As the text puts it, “A life that is eternal by definition cannot come to an end” (187).
Numerous passages speak clearly of the eternality of salvation, and words spoken by Jesus and Paul explain that this cannot be taken away (Romans 8:38; John 5:24 to cite a couple).  The possibility of losing salvation undermines the power and authority of God, as the gift comes from and is sustained by Him.  If it were lost this would in turn communicate something of God that is contradictory to what we find in Scripture, namely that He is not omnipotent.  Yet as mentioned, Scripture is clear that this is not the case.  I further believe with regards to an issue such as suicide, that such an act does not remove one’s salvation as many believe.  This is a view I encounter regularly working with adolescents who have been suicidal, and cite this as a reason to continue living (While it helps prevent this tragedy from taking place, I believe it is theologically incorrect and impacts other aspects of their flawed view of God).
So what about the passages that seem to indicate otherwise, or the issue of fruite?  First it is important to note that nowhere in Scripture does it expressly say that salvation can be lost for any reason; it simply can be taken as such by one’s interpretation of the passage.  However, one rule of interpretation is to weigh our interpretations against Scripture as a whole, and when this is done I believe we find that an interpretation of conditional security does not fit in the context of Scripture as a whole, but rather contradicts not only Scripture, but the very nature of God Himself.  Instead I think that these contradictory passages should be taken as they are written and openly agreed to be, that being warnings regarding how we live our lives as Christians and the choices we make.  I do not believe that the eternal view supports a “cheap grace” mindset as is proposed by the conditional view.  We are called to life a life holy and pleasing to God, as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1-2).  When a believer “backslides”, I do not believe this jeopardizes one’s salvation, however I do believe it impacts their witness to others and the ministry of Jesus Christ through the church.  But one must keep in mind that we are still human, and we have yet to reach glorification; thus we will continue to struggle with sin until we pass from this life to the next.  This does not however grant us permission to act in such a way “...that grace may abound” (Romans 6:1).  As mentioned we are called to live lives that are pleasing to God, not because we are forced, but out of reverence for what He has done for us.  It is a life motivated by love, not force.  This is primarily where I believe the conditional view becomes confused regarding the eternal view, and then makes the accusation that it fosters a mindset of “cheap grace”.  Again, we are not to live a life of willful sin as followers of Christ, but be transformed to new life and seek after God out of reverence for what He has done, bringing pleasure and honor to Him through our actions.
In conclusion I would say that I do not particularly like declaring myself as a Calvinist or Arminian.  I don’t like being put in a box.  I believe that my salvation is secure in who God is, and by definition cannot be moved.  I believe that regardless of the stupid choices I make, NOTHING will ever change the fact that my Father holds me in His arms and will not let go of me.  I am at peace with the understanding that God knew from before time who I would be and what I would do, and in knowing this granted me grace and placed a call upon my heart.  I know that if it were purely in my hands, I would have continued in sin, running away from Him forever, because before He took my heart I was a wicked sinner before God.  Nothing but His power and will changed that.  And I am eternally grateful for what He has done in my life, and because of this I want to seek after Him and bring Him all the glory.

The Hell Debate: A Reflection

The following is a research paper I have written for a Theology class, exploring the topic of Hell.  I do not claim to be right about everything, save the truth that there is a real literal place called Hell that lasts for all eternity in duration, not simply consequence.  Enjoy as you read, and I pray that this will challenge your thinking and bring you closer to God through a deeper understanding of who He is and what He has done for us through His Son Jesus Christ.

THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH PAPER II: THE HELL DEBATE

 

Much like the debates over the topics of the Charismatic Gifts, Baptism, Christology, Providence, and the Destiny of the Unevangelized, that pertaining to the topic of Hell is equally diverse and complex. With each debate issue comes differing views, and with the issue of Hell one can find a

few as well. But what is it about this topic that causes so much fuss? Are people just uncomfortable
with the possibility of a reality of Hell? Is it a fear of potentially ending up there? Or is it confusion
regarding what Hell really is? Most people have a concept of Hell, but the question is how Biblically
accurate is it.

In this paper we will seek to understand more fully what a correct concept of Hell looks like.  Within the contents of this paper we will take time to explore the words used to express Hell and their meanings, the history behind the concept of Hell, the two main views that dominate Protestant Evangelicalism, and finally conclude with my personal conclusion regarding Hell based on the research uncovered. As with the other major debates, history has much to say regarding the debate of Hell and we would be unwise to neglect this information in our study.

When we examine the words used in Scripture for Hell, we find only three in the New Testament. The first and most frequently used, is geenna, a Greek noun that is transliterated as “Gehenna, hell, ‘Valley of Hinnam’”. While this word is used a total of twelve times,  the second word is used ten. 1 This second word is the Greek hades (noun), which is transliterated as “hades, the grave, the place of the dead, ‘the underworld’”. Additionally, it is used as Hades five times, depths two times, grave two times, and hell once. The third word used in the New Testament is 2 the Greek tartaroo (verb), used once and transliterated as “to send to hell, hold captive in Tartarus”. It is “a derivative of the Greek ‘Tartarus,’ a place of torture and torment lower than Hades in Greek and Jewish apocalyptic literature, not found in the NT”. 3 It is interesting to note the difference between the different words

from a cultural perspective, as geenna (the eternal abode of the wicked) was similar to tartaroo in that they were both used to signify a place lower than Hades. Specifically Gehenna (geenna) is eternal hell, and the place of eternal damnation. 4

But the words for Hell are not only contained within the New Testament. The concept of this place can be found throughout the Old Testament as well in the Hebrew word seol (transliterated sheol), translated often as “the grave, hell, the pit”.5 In Job 17:13; Psalm 16:10; and Isaiah 38:10 the word is referencing the grave, where as in other passages (Genesis 37:35; Numbers 16:33; Job 14:13; Psalm 55:15; Proverbs 9:18) it refers to the abode of both the dead, both good and bad. 6 It is the place that all of the dead would immediately go upon death; it was more often spoken of in reference to

those dieing and believing they had no hope, being in opposition to the Lord. At the end of thediscussion regarding this Hebrew term, it is unclear as to the full meaning behind it. 7 But what is clear through studying this term in the Old Testament is that the concept of an afterlife for the wicked was prominent in the ancient Hebrew mind.

Additionally, many other words are used throughout Scripture in reference to and to describe Hell in both the New and Old Testament. Jesus Himself spoke about the reality of Hell the most, and was very pointed when He did so. One of the better known and explicitly clear teachings about thereality of and nature of Hell is Jesus’ story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. In this passage 8 Jesus tells the story of the rich man who had everything he wanted, and outside his gate sat Lazarus; poor, sick and wishing for the crumbs off the rich man’s table, which he fed to his dogs. Eventually they both die, and we discover that Lazarus is carried to Abraham’s side by the angels while the rich man found himself in Hades.

But Jesus goes further to describe what Hades was like for this rich man, who once had everything he wanted and now was eternally separated from the Lord. Jesus used words like torment, anguish, and flame to describe the experience of Hell. Further, Jesus says that there is a chasm separating Heaven and Hell that is uncross-able and eternal. Additionally, the expressions “unquenchable fire”, “furnace of fire”, “outer darkness”, “eternal fire”, “lake of fire”, and “the lake that burns with fire and brimstone” are used in Matthew, Mark, and Revelation to describe the environment of Hell. 9 Another strong passage that demands an understanding of the eternality of Hell and one’s presence there once sent is Jesus’ words when he says “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life”. 10 Now that we have an understanding of the terms used, their meanings and that within the Old Testament, we have set the stage for diving into the history and two main views of the concept of Hell.

Over the centuries, differing views have come to the forefront of Christian thought while others

faded. Additionally, there have been views that though not as prominent as others, have been

recognized and found to have support as well. This paper however is more concerned with the two

main views concerning the nature of Hell within the Protestant Evangelical Christian faith. The main

question that is sought to be answered, as alluded to previously, is whether the punishment of Hell is

eternal in duration or in consequence. We approach the debate in this case with 11 the understanding

that Hell itself is a reality, that it is a real place for a real purpose and real people.

Before diving into the two main views within the Christian faith, perhaps it would do us well to

understand that there are three additional views regarding Hell that fall outside the realm of Christianity,

and are thus unbiblical regardless of the “support” they may claim in Scripture. The first is Universalism, which holds that eventually everyone will come to be saved either in this life or the next. 12  This view was largely developed and taught by Origin in the early Church, and has been supported by more recent individuals such as Karl Barth, C.H. Dodd, and John A.T. Robinson. 13 A second unbiblical view is Reincarnation, which believes that an individual is “reborn” on earth and that they then pay for past sins through situations encountered in their new life. This view rejects the belief in a final judgment. The third is called Naturalistic, and believes that there is no standard 14 by which one should be judged. This in turn rejects the need for Hell or Salvation, excusing any responsibility for our actions, and placing it in stark contrast to the Bible. 15 Regarding these three views, they are unbiblical as they minimize or altogether reject the need for Christ’s work upon the cross and the responsibility of the individual for their actions and choices in this life.

With a basic understanding of these three unbiblical views, we can now begin to explain the first

main view. While this understanding of Hell continues to grow and is held by many believers, I would

propose that it too is unbiblical like the others mentioned previously. This view is known well as

Annihilation, or The Wicked Shall Be No More. This view simply says that the punishment of the

wicked is everlasting in consequence, not duration. 16

Traditionally this view has not been held by Evangelicals, but rather such groups as Seventh Day

Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. 17 But as mentioned, today it has become a more popular view

among Evangelical Christians. They state first that the main issue with the traditional view (of which we
will discuss next) is that it is rooted in a “Hellenistic philosophy” which generally viewed the human soul

as immortal. 18 With that, they report that the early church fathers read into the Scripture a belief that

the wicked suffer unending torment, leading to their conclusion (and in turn became the Traditional

View) that humans were eternal in spirit thus suffering eternal duration of punishment.

The support of this view is mainly a refutation of the Traditional View, leaning more towards a

“moral revulsion” of the idea of an all loving God damning people, as admitted by Clark H. Pinnock,

“than by exegetical considerations”. With regards to Scripture, they claim such as 19 passages referring

to an “unquenchable fire” and “undying worm” teach that the wicked will inevitably be eternally destroyed after they suffer justly for their sins; however, their suffering will only be for a time and not eternal. 20 While this view uses several Scriptures to support their view, as Pinnock stated himself, the conclusions of these passages are reflections of poor exegesis. For example, one verse this view uses is Matthew 10:28 which reads,

     “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.

         Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

The Annihilationist View claims that this passage teaches the God will do to the souls of the wicked,

what humans do to the body when they kill it. In other words, the souls of the wicked will not go on

existing in a conscious state just as the body will cease to exist. 21 As mentioned, this view is incorrect

and displays poor exegesis. First, the word “destroy” used here is the Greek assir, which is

transliterated “captive, prisoner”. 22 Secondly, Jesus used the Greek word geenna in this passage for

“hell”, and we know from earlier this is transliterated as “Gehenna”. We know that this place, also

called the “Valley of Hinnom” was a real place, associated with wickedness and filth in ancient Israel.23

What Jesus was communicating in this passage, as opposed to the Annihilationist View claims, is that there is a real place in which the wicked will be kept “captive” eternally, not destroyed as a surface study of the text might lead one to believe. This same method is neglected with other passages as well used to defend their position. When one takes the time to examine the Scripture properly, with correct exegesis, a clear understanding comes forth that contradicts the teaching of the Annihilationist View. The correct view is our next focus.

After reviewing the first view, it is now time we turn our focus to a more Biblical and traditional

understanding of Hell. This view is recognized within Evangelical Christianity as The Classical View,

also known as The Unending Torment of the Wicked. This has been the traditional view of the Church

regarding Hell, and simply holds that “the wicked will be cast into hell, where they will experience unending suffering”. In regard to the terms used previously, this view argues that 24 the punishment of Hell is eternal in duration, not just simply consequence. Many supports are given to this view, both logically and Scripturally. With regard to Scripture, this view strives to exegete the Scripture properly, not allowing emotion to guide the interpretation.  In defense of their view and refutation of the Annihilationists the Classical View raises several pointed questions that challenge the logic behind the opposing argument. One is the question of how the wicked could experience shame and contempt eternally as described in many of the passages noted

earlier, if they are not eternally conscious. Often, when the torment of the wicked is 25 expressed it is in

contrast to the eternal joy of the righteous. This view argues that this logically concludes that the wicked are consciously and eternally tormented in duration. To sum this up, it has been stated that “If the state of eternal life is an eternal state of consciousness, the state of punishment must also be one of eternal consciousness. ...hell cannot simply be eternal in consequence, as annihilationists teach.” 26

This view also adds to its defense Romans 2:89, concluding that for the anguish and torment described here to be experienced one must be conscious, in turn implying that Hell itself is a conscious state. Additionally, other teachings from Jesus in the Scripture clearly indicate that Hell is an eternally conscious state both in nature and duration, not just simply consequence. 27

Perhaps the biggest issue with the opposing view is the idea that we as humans have the correct standard of fairness and we then judge God based on this standard, concluding arrogantly that God would not be so cruel as to subject people to eternal torment in duration. But we must step back, as the Classical View does, and recognize that our minds and understanding is finite and incapable of fully fathoming and understanding the purposes or reasons of God. Regardless of this though, one can find the logic in the truth presented in the Classical View if they only look. We understand logically that a criminal should pay for their crime, and if they cease to consciously exist their crimes cannot be atoned for and in conclusion justice is not served. This same logic applies to Hell. Sin against God is infinite, because God is infinite; that is deserving of an infinite punishment. 28

One final note regarding this view before moving on; it proclaims that the images of Hell
described in Scripture should not be taken literally, as they tend to contradict themselves (e.g. being a
place of “outer darkness” while simultaneously being filled with eternal fire). Rather, the purpose of the description is to “convey the truth that to fall under the judgment of God and to miss out on the joy of heaven are the worst things imaginable.” 29

This brings us to the conclusion, that being a reflection of my thoughts, opinions and convictions
regarding the doctrine of Hell in light of Scripture, proper exegesis and logic. I conclude with a view very much in line with that of the Classical View, as I firmly believe that logically and Scripturally Hell is an eternal conscious state both in nature and duration. To conclude that Hell is only eternal in
consequence and not duration seems to contradict a proper exegesis of Scripture dealing with this issue.

I also believe that this is an important issue for the Church to address truthfully, as Jesus gave much

attention to it Himself. What we have today however, are churches who are more concerned with
numbers and popularity, and in turn “sugarcoat” or altogether ignore the truth of Hell and calling sinners to conviction for their sin. They would rather give them earthly comfort by telling them that either they will all end up in heaven, or that those who will not will only suffer a short time if at all. These however are nothing but lies from Satan, and fly in the face of our Holy and Just God who requires atonement for sin whether that be through His Son Jesus Christ or our own willful torment for eternity in Hell.

I believe that while the images expressed in Scripture may not be literal, they still give us a

gripping mental and emotional image of the agony and torment those who reside in Hell will suffer. As Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church has said in regard to teaching on Hell, “My job is to tell the truth, your job is to make a choice. Not making a choice is making a choice.” 30  My job 
as a believer in Jesus Christ is to tell the truth, and this includes the truth of Hell. If you do not believe that Jesus took your place upon the cross in death, taking on your sin to satisfy a Holy and Just God, you will reside in Hell. There is only One way and One God. Jesus Christ was not just a “good teacher”, He was the Creator and Savior of His creation. And we will be held accountable before God for the choice we make regarding Him. What is yours? 

_____________________________

 1  Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance
      (strongest Strong's), Supersaver ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 1537.

2  Ibid., 1524.

3  Ibid., 1596.

4  Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker

     Academic, 2001), 547548.

5  Ibid., 547.

6  Ibid., 548.

7  Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker

     Academic, 2001), 931932.

8 Luke 16:1931

9 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody

     Publishers, 2008), 394.

10 Matthew 25:46

11 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 281.

12 Ibid.

13 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody

     Publishers, 2008), 395.

14 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 281.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid., 282.

17 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody

     Publishers, 2008), 395.

18 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 286.

19 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody

     Publishers, 2008), 395.

20 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 287.

21 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 289.

22 Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance

     (strongest Strong's), Supersaver ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 706.

23  J.D. Douglas et al., The New International Dictionary of the Bible, Pictorial ed. (Grand Rapids,

     MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999), 377378.
 

24  Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 281.

25  Ibid., 282.

26  Ibid., 283.

27  Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 283.

28  Ibid., 284285.

29  Ibid, 285.

 

30  Mark Driscoll, “Luke's Gospel: Investigating the Man Who Is God, Heaven and Hell,” Mars Hill

     Church, http://marshill.com/media/luke/heavenandhell
     (accessed May 10, 2013).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.

Douglas, J.D., revising editor, Merrill C. Tenney, and general editor. The New International

     Dictionary of the Bible. Pictorial ed. Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999.

Driscoll, Mark. “Luke's Gospel: Investigating the Man Who Is God, Heaven and Hell.” Mars

     Hill Church. http://marshill.com/media/luke/heavenandhell

     (accessed May 10, 2013).

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker 

     Academic, 2001.

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Rev. and expanded. ed. Chicago: Moody

     Publishers, 2008.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998.

     Goodrick, Edward W., and John R. Kohlenberger III. The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance
     (strongest Strong's). Supersaver ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004.

Hannah, John. Our Legacy: the History of Christian Doctrine. Colorado Springs, Colo.:

     NavPress, 2001.

Koessler, John, and general editor. Foundational Faith: Unchangeable Truth for an Ever Changing 

     World. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate
     Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Ministries, Published by Ligonier, and General Editor: R. C. Sproul. The Reformation Study

     Bible: English Standard Version Burgundy Leather 2nd Ed W/maps. 2nd Edition with Maps
     ed. 400 Technology Park, Lake Mary, FL 32746: P & R Publishing, 2008.

Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. 2nd ed. Mason: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.

The Baptism Debate: A Reflection

The following is a research paper written for a theology class regarding the issue of baptism within the Christian faith.  Some of the proper formatting has been lost in transferring the text to this blog, but this should not detract from being able to read and follow the end notes.  Enjoy, and I pray that this will challenge your thinking and encourage you to become more grounded in an understanding of the Scriptures and proper Doctrine.

THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH PAPER I: THE BAPTISM DEBATE

 

The issue of baptism is no small topic to undertake.  With it comes a plethora of views, beliefs and practices stretching from today, back to the first recorded baptisms performed by John the Baptist.  Over the course of history, the Church has meet on numerous occasions to discuss, debate, solidify and affirm different doctrines and practices within the Christian community.  Baptism, more specifically beliefs surrounding it, have been one of the issues found at the tables of these counsels.  And yet, with each denomination, each faith stream within the Christian faith one can find varying differences pertaining to the meaning and mode of baptism within the Church.
Within the confines of this study, we will be looking primarily at five aspects of baptism, beginning with a look at the meaning, followed by its purpose and merit within the Church, who the practice is meant for,  a look at what mode of practice is Biblical, and finally some concluding thoughts on the research presented.  History along with Scripture has much to say regarding the issue of baptism in general, and these five aspects specifically.    Let us now begin by developing an understanding of the meaning of baptism.
When we examine Scripture for references of the practice or instruction of baptism, we only find this occurring within the New Testament.  When we observe more closely the terminology used regarding this subject, we find three primary Greek terms each varying slightly from the other.  The first is the Greek baptizo (verb), transliterated as “to baptize, wash; the baptizer”, and is used a total of seventy-seven times throughout the New Testament.1  The second is the Greek baptisma (noun), which transliterated means “baptism”, and is used twenty times throughout the New Testament.2  The third primary word used is the Greek baptismos (noun), transliterated as “baptism, ceremonial washing”, and is used in the New Testament three times.3  One explanation of the term baptism finds its roots in the Greek baptisma, and simply put “denotes the action of washing or plunging in water”.4  Put this only helps to define the mode of baptism, and not so much the meaning behind it.  (We will address this issue in more detail later).
While the practice and instruction of baptism is found only in the New Testament, the idea of baptism can be found within the pages of the Old.  When we examine the Scripture we find the idea and practice of ceremonial washing popping up numerous times within the Mosaic laws dealing with purification.5  We see this idea presented as early as when God instructs Moses to “bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tent of meeting and wash them with the water”.6  It is here we see the implementation of the law of purification that had to be done prior to anyone entering the Tabernacle.  One could not enter unclean, as they were going before the Holy God.  Other passages in the Old Testament paint the same picture, and this is carried on into the New Testament and developed into the practice and instruction of baptism for Believers.  This new meaning and significance was brought about with John the Baptist.7  We see this event, particularly the participation of Jesus being baptized by John in Matthew 3:13-17, and when John is preaching and confronting the people who came to be baptized by him in Luke 3:3-6.
When John began the practice of baptism, as mentioned previously, he injected into the act a new meaning and significance.  Instead of simply being an act of ritual purification practiced by the Jews, it became symbolic of one’s conscious decision to submit to Christ as Lord and be transformed from within by the Spirit.  But this meaning was not fully understood when John began this practice.  One can find explanation of this significance later in time, when Jesus spoke of his own death being a “baptism”.8  In Luke 12:50, we find Jesus speaking to His disciples about His mission.  While speaking of the judgement that was to come, Jesus speaks of a baptism in which He was to go through.  This being said after He had already been baptized by John indicates as has been concluded by Scholars, that He was speaking of His coming death.
We see more evidence to support this view of Jesus’ future baptism in passages such as Matthew 20:22, and Mark 10:38.  In these passages, though one indicates that the disciples ask and the other their mother, Jesus is responding to a request for James and John to sit at His left and right hand.  In both responses He speaks of the cup that He will drink, a reference to His death and suffering.  In the Mark passage there is an addition not found in Matthew, that being reference to the baptism.  In the context of His speaking about the cup (death and suffering), one can conclude that the baptism He speaks of is also linked to this death and suffering.  And this is where we find the meaning behind the practice for us today.  It is strongly symbolic, first in that Christ died and was raised from the dead, and that like Him we die to ourselves (our former, sinful way) and are raised again to new life in Christ as a child of God.  As mentioned before, this does not bring salvation, as is explained throughout Scripture, but signifies our salvation as a way of identifying ourselves with the risen Lord.
But the meaning of baptism is not just simply symbolic; it is also subjective, in that through the Holy Spirit it brings the believer into a right standing before God.9  Paul helps explain this along with tieing in the symbolism of the act, particularly in his letter to the Roman church.  In Romans 6:3-5 Paul explains the significance of their own conversion in light of Christ’s death and being raised again.  But what of the purpose and merit of baptism?  We can see that the meaning behind it is substantial, yet the purpose and merit it holds is strongly linked to the meaning and all the greater.
Paul was not one to beat around the bush when it came to the issue of salvation.  He was forthright regarding the nature of man and the implications this had on our relationship with our Creator.  One can find a great deal of explanation regarding this issue in his letter to the church in Rome.  All throughout in passages such as 3:23-24, 5:6, 6:3-11, 6:23 just to cite a few, we come to understand the state in which every human being is in prior to the saving grace of Jesus.  But to be clear, salvation is not automatic; this free gift requires a conscious choice on our part to accept Christ’s death as our own.  In these passages, Paul explains that everyone is a sinner, that our sin is what separates us from God eternally, and that there is only one way to solve this eternal problem: Salvation through Jesus Christ who died on a cross in our place.  And at the same time of explaining this, he connects the symbolic and subjective meanings of baptism to what Christ did, and makes it clear for us to understand the significant merit of both.  One might argue that many of the Scriptures brought up here give merit to Christ’s sacrificial death alone, and not baptism. But I believe based on the context of the passages and the purpose behind Paul’s writing this letter that he intended to tie Christ’s sacrifice, the act of baptism, and the gift of Salvation together for his readers to understand more fully the merit of all three.10
The purpose of baptism is closely related to its merit, and one might even say they are one in the same.  As discussed before, the merit of baptism lies heavily in the connection between our sinful nature and the sacrificial death of Christ on our behalf.  While the merit of the act is theological in nature, the purpose is more practical.  That being said, the purpose is to act as a visible  testimony of one’s unity “with Christ in his death and resurrection”; they have been transformed through a conscious choice to trust and follow Christ, from their sinful ways that resulted in spiritual death and eternal separation from God to new life in Christ and eternal solitude with God.11  But one must be careful to not confuse baptism with salvation.
While closely related to each other in a sense, they are not interchangeable nor are they dependent on one another both ways.  We must understand that baptism does not dictate one’s salvation.  Yet on the other hand, baptism without one’s conscious confession of faith in Christ is meaningless.  We see evidence of this distinction very clearly in the scene of Jesus on the cross with the thieves.  While one mocks Jesus along with the crowd, the other in the midst of his pain and agony rebukes his fellow man and asks Jesus that he be remembered when He enters His kingdom.12  Jesus tells this thief that he will be with Jesus that day, indicating the man’s salvation; yet he is on a cross dieing, incapable of partaking in the act of baptism.  But as we see, this lack of baptism for the man does not hinder his salvation.  And while some have argued that the term “paradise” used here may have meant something other than heaven, based on the Greek here meaning “garden”, it can be concluded that the word used here is referencing heaven when one studies it more deeply along with other Scripture and context.
Now to address a question that has caused perhaps the most debate within the issue of baptism: who is it for?  Adults?  Believers?  Babies?  Everyone?  With each suggestion comes varying opinions, supports, and contradictions from one extreme to the other.  The primary views we will examine all take much of the information shared already into consideration, interpreting it one way or another.  I have shared with you how I view it in light of what I have studied and believe.  However, there are two main views within Evangelicalism that differ from one another dealing with baptism.  The first, known well as the “Believer’s Baptism” view believes that baptism is for believers only.  In their view, this disqualifies infants simply because they are not able to consciously make a choice to believe on their own.13  In addition, they also point to a different understanding of baptisms taking place within households of the New Testament.  Unlike paedobaptists, those of the Believer’s Baptism view do not believe that infants were included in these household baptisms, one main and very strong reason being that children (unlike servants) were not considered part of the “household” in ancient Rome.14   Paedobaptists, more commonly known as the Infant Baptism view, see things differently.15  Unlike their counterpart, they do believe that infants were included in the ancient Roman household, giving them historical support for their view.  Granted, historically within the Church, infants have more often than not been baptized.  In fact, this is still a practice done by Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox Church, and Presbyterians today.
After looking more closely at the two opposing views, the view of Believer’s Baptism seems to be the most logical.  While there is a history within the Church of infant baptism, we must remember that “tradition” does not justify practice.  The fact that the practice of infant baptism is historical is just that, history; it does not give it weight of being right. In addition, when we examine passages of Scripture used to support the view of infant baptism in light of passages such as Romans 6:4, 6, and 1 Peter 3:21 it becomes difficult to explain how these instructions can be legitimately accepted if infants are incapable of fulfilling them.
I personally was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran Church, and re-baptized when I was nine years old and came to understand what it meant to follow Christ at a basic level.  When I look back, I recognize that my infant baptism had no effect on me other than being a part of my life history.  It did not affect me on a personal level as it did when I was nine, because I was not able to comprehend the act or its significance.  I believe that much of what drives the idea of paedobaptism is fear and misunderstanding; misunderstanding of Scripture, God’s grace, and a misplaced fear breed out of the two.  When we do not understand the biblical grounds for salvation, it becomes easy to fall into the trap of believing something can save us that cannot.16  As mentioned before, baptism is not what saves us; our faith and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and in what He did for our sake is what bestows the free gift of Salvation upon us.  I conclude therefore, that baptism is for not just adults, but anyone who comes to a saving knowledge and understanding of who Jesus is and what He has done for them.
Last is the issue of the mode of baptism.  Like the issue of who should be baptized, over the years of church history three primary views on the mode of baptism have been established.  When we examine the experiences in the New Testament it seems clear that new believers were immersed in a body of water, and this is the only way we find it being done.  However, as we move through church history, we begin to find baptism being done by way of pouring or sprinkling of water on the persons head.17  One must be mindful before going to deep in this issue, that it is not primary but secondary in importance.
We have already established that baptism has no saving power and is primarily symbolic of one’s commitment to follow Christ.  But again, one should also be cautious to not let historical tradition of a practice trump what Scripture has to say regarding the issue.  In this case, as mentioned, immersion is the mode in which baptism should be done.  However, this does raise questions regarding baptism for those who are unable to be immersed.  Should this mean that they not be baptized, or that their baptism is less significant than one who’s was done by immersion?  I believe not.  While I believe that the symbolism of immersion is powerful (being buried and raised to new life), the act is primarily about our commitment to following Christ, not imitating Christ’s death and resurrection.
Should an individual be able to be immersed, I believe that this is the mode in which it should be done based on the example given to us in Scripture, regardless of the inconvenience it may cause.  However, if doing so is not realistic, either pouring or sprinkling of water can be used.  Again, this is not a primary issue and should not be met with hostility over opposing views.  We should however strive to follow the example given to us in Scripture whenever possible, understanding that God is gracious and understanding that our circumstances do not always allow us to do so.
Many sub-issues circulate within the main issue of baptism.  It has been an issue of debate for years, and most likely will continue to be so in the days to come.  We as believers are responsible for understanding to the best of our ability when Scripture teaches regarding these issues, and then to practice them in our day-to-day life.  We understand that baptism is a one-time-only necessary event; that meaning it is unnecessary for a believer to be baptized more than once.  It symbolizes one’s commitment to a new life in Christ, and brings us into a right standing before God by work of the Holy Spirit thought our faith in Jesus Christ.


_____________________________

1. Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance (strongest Strong's), Supersaver ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 1535.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 129.

5. J.D. Douglas et al., The New International Dictionary of the Bible, Pictorial ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999), 123.

6. Exodus 29:4

7. J.D. Douglas et al., The New International Dictionary of the Bible, Pictorial ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999), 123.

8. Ibid., here we read that “John’s baptism was, nevertheless, only transitory - his baptism of repentance was but preparatory to a baptism of identification”.  We learn that it is “only in the light of the redemptive death and resurrection of Christ” that the full meaning of baptism can be understood.
9. Ibid., 124.

10. Ibid., 870. The issue I am referring to is that of theology.  At this point the church in Rome, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, were struggling to come together theologically and therefore Paul used this time to address the theological issues of sin, justification, sanctification, and glorification.  Throughout Paul draws from the Old Testament and then makes practical applications and gives meaningful insights for the members of the Roman church.

11. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998), 1110.

12. Luke 23:32-43

13. Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 215-220.

14. Ibid., 218.

15. Ibid., 220-225.

16. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008), 343.

17. Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 138.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical
Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.

Douglas, J.D., revising editor, Merrill C. Tenney, and general editor. The New International
Dictionary of the Bible. Pictorial ed. Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Academic, 2001.

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Rev. and expanded. ed. Chicago: Moody
Publishers, 2008.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998.

Goodrick, Edward W., and John R. Kohlenberger III. The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance
(strongest Strong's). Supersaver ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004.

Hannah, John. Our Legacy: the History of Christian Doctrine. Colorado Springs, Colo.:
NavPress, 2001.

Koessler, John, and general editor. Foundational Faith: Unchangeable Truth for an
Ever-Changing World. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate
Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Ministries, Published by Ligonier, and General Editor: R. C. Sproul. The Reformation Study
Bible: English Standard Version Burgundy Leather 2nd Ed W/maps. 2nd Edition with Maps ed. 400 Technology Park, Lake Mary, FL 32746: P & R Publishing, 2008.

Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. 2nd ed. Mason: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.

A New Purpose

In the past I have been arrogant and quick to judge.  In turn I made many foolish remarks out of haste.  Over the years I have come to understand the importance of being "quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" (James 1:19).

Here I intend to share some of my more recent theological studies and convictions that have developed more fully over the years.  I do not claim to have the last say on these matters, however there are certain topics in which I will be very clear that I believe what I believe is correct in light of Scripture, which should always be our guide in thought and practice.  Please enjoy reading my thoughts, share with me your reflections, and together we may learn something new as hopefully, "iron sharpens iron".