I'm going to share this with my mom. We struggle to discuss religion because she belongs to a dispensationalist evangelical church and I walked away from that 4 years ago. I'm hoping it leads to some conversation if nothing else.
However, the one example of a person coming to faith and not being baptized is the thief on the cross. Because that is one of the main reasons that I was given growing up for why baptism isn't necessary to get to heaven and "is only a public declaration". As an adult I've tried to point out extenuating circumstances (he literally couldn't) and that it was Jesus who said he would be in paradise. As well as the fact Jesus was baptized and sent disciples to baptize, the story of the eunich etc etc etc but the main sticking point is thief on the cross, that one situation seems to outweigh all the others in that particular sect of evangelicalism.
I've noted before that evangelicals who focus on the thief are looking at how one dies in Christ, not how one lives in Christ. The vast majority of us live for sometime after becoming Christian, making the thief the worst possible example to live by for the people who use that example.
Not saying I hold this view, but growing up I was taught that the thief didn't need to be baptized because his faith/death happens before Jesus's death and resurrection--the latter being the timeline marker for when people putting their trust in God needed baptizing. But this leans toward baptismal regeneration, which is a whole 'nother point of contention for many Christians.
Interesting. I suppose the counter to that would be that John was baptizing people—including Jesus—well before Christ’s Crucifixion.
Faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation; faith without works is dead. Baptism should be taken as a public profession of faith and a symbolic (and mystical) joining to Christ and His Church, but it seems to undermine the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice if we insist it is necessary for salvation.
John's baptism wasn't the same as Jesus's baptism. Even John says that. Paul rebaptized someone who had only received John's baptism and Peter says baptism NOW saves, implying that at a previous time, it did not save.
John's baptism wasn't regenerative. Jesus's baptism was.
Yes, faith does save us. But not the western American version of faith.
Faith is a structural weight-bearing reliance; the posture of leaning one's full load onto a covenant partner, Yeshua. Or, as the article explained, allegiance.
That is the faith that saves. We must constantly strive to remain fully trusting and reliant upon Yeshua.
I like that- "Faith is a structural weight-bearing reliance". That single sentence sums up what needs to be explained to many and is actually exactly what I needed in this moment. Thank you for this! May your words continue to resonate in boldness for Christ.
Jesus told his friends to break bread and share wine in remembrance of him. Literally a memorial. There is nothing Biblical about turning that into a ritual using mass produced wafers endowed with magical properties. It is certainly an old tradition but that doesn’t make it Biblical or necessarily correct or required for a serious Christ center spirituality.
For a truth that supposedly isn’t biblical, communion is extensively documented and presented as a positive experience in the Bible. Our understanding of the subject and our practices may be imperfect, but it is obviously Bible based.
Extensively documented? Not really. “The lord’s supper” is mentioned but not described in any detail. It is likely that it was an actual meal. Not a sacramental ritual.
I came to comment about this (the thief on the cross), but I’d also point out people like the woman at the well. She came to belief in Jesus and who He was, but unless I’m mistaken, she was never baptized that we’re told.
I do think baptism is something we should do out of obedience and as a public declaration that we are His, but Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient and faith alone saves us.
I love communion and strongly believe it a powerful gift to the church. That said, Jesus was Jewish and the upper room experience took place as a part of Passover. The context of „do this in remembrance of me“ is obviously related to the Passover meal. Most Gentiles don’t practice Passover and don’t share a Seder meal. Luckily for us, Jesus is our Passover. As with all of God’s Blessings, there is certainly more to communion than we know.
Jesus also hadn’t died yet! I’m from a church tradition that immediately baptizes after a confession of belief, which is like every example in Scripture. However I’m willing to accept grace such as the Egyptian Muslim who had his throat slit on a beach by ISIS. They lined up his Coptic Christian friends/coworkers and gave him a chance to save himself by declaring for Allah. Instead, he claims Jesus Christ as his savior. And was immediately killed. I truly believe this man was saved, but God is our judge. The ancient Church fathers called it “baptism by blood.” Churches today who act like baptism can wait until Easter, or a baptism Sunday, are not following the examples in Scripture.
What do they who are baptized for the Dead, if the dead rise not at all?
There is no reason to think the repentant thief remained unbaptized. What he could not do himself could be done by proxy, to a Christian acting on his behalf. The practice of baptism for the Dead is little understood, but it is attested in the scripture. And the law that one must be baptized was attested by Jesus when he told John that he must be baptized to fulfill all righteousness. If even Jesus required baptism, who is it who does not?
Your evocation of some of the gnostic heresies is well and timely spoken.
Love this—and especially that you’re banging the drum about the resurrection of the body and the restoration of creation.
I’m less sure about the statement that we can date this all the way back to Paul’s time. 1 Corinthians 15 and a few other passages may allude to a form of what might be called proto-Gnosticism, although even that is controversial.
Valid point of criticism. You're probably right that proto-Gnosticism is probably the better term for what Paul himself was addressing, although I think we do see him addressing ideas/practices in 1 Timothy that would still be "Gnostic", although they wouldn't be brought under that collective label until some time later. Is that fair?
I agree that it seems to me like it’s responding to proto-Gnostic teaching. But I know much less about the General Epistles than I do about Paul, so I don’t think I know enough to say that for sure.
What is a ‘glorified body'? This is where I'm feeling a convergence between the ancient and new: Biblical description and contemporary physics. Jesus can pass through walls, show up in different places, and there's all that business about particles being in 2 places at once, or you can - oh, forget it, I just copied this: “The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics stating that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be simultaneously measured with absolute precision. The more accurately one property is known, the less precisely the other can be determined.” (Thx, Wikipedia). I don't see what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 15 as rejection of the body but more as butting up against the limits of human language and understanding.
I ran into this recently when a guy insisted that true baptism was waterless. Water baptism was a work for the likes of kathlaks and other degenerates. To him nothing spiritual could be connected to anything material. That’s pretty basic Gnosticism.
To be ignorant of Church history is to be open to all sorts of heresies without having a clue.
This is compounded by the way evangelism has been communicated. Literally, all you have to do to be saved (and go to heaven instead of hell) is believe, repeat a prayer or nod your head and mentally agree with a few words. To suggest there is more is to preach a "Gospel of Works". If there is anything human nature seems good at it is doing the bare minimum.
There's something cold about holy communion that is treated as a memorial only. Paul makes it clear that it is a spiritual meal. Ditto baptism. And yes, faith means love one another, physically and prayfully.
Absolutely splendid article. Said it loud, said it clear. Spot on! Unembodied faith is not Christianity. The body is God's design and God's creation. And, praise the Lord, eternal in the new earth, when we'll be like Him. Thank you.
Faith = ALLEGIANCE. HOLD THE PHONE THIS MAKES SO MUCH SENSE 😭😭😭😭😭. Wait wait I’m going to sit with this for such a long time because people equate faith with belief and belief is such a fickle thing. Allegiance is much more of a choice.
What are we going to do? The American church is messing up 💔
What gets me is that Church History is a subject rarely taught. As a global historical movement, the Church has seen gnosticism before, over and over again. And yet every time the vast majority are left frozen like a rabbit in headlights, unsure of what's going on and where to go.
Gnosticism does a variety of vile things to congregations, most egregious being that it divides them into the spiritually elite "those who know" and those doomed to a sheltered-workshop faith "until God eventually promotes them, if He feels like it." Those who "know" have direct inner access to God himself. They don't actually need the Bible: God's Spirit impresses his will and his words upon them. And this inner access cannot be questioned from outside, because to challenge the prophet is to challenge God. "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm."
Reformation historians may recall the Zwickau Prophets, and the events of the Anabaptist takeover of the town of Munster. On a smaller scale we've seen this with IHOP-KC and the Kansas City Prophets, with its secrecy, and its inner circle of those "in the know".
But God does not bubble up from some spring behind your navel. He invades! crashing in from outside. His floodlight shines into our darkness and, like cockroaches, we skitter away from it into crevices and caves. His word is public, external, and testable. He comes through water, bread and wine, and the foolishness of preaching. He comes to us mediated through his Word, truth made flesh, and a death on a cross, not through inner voices.
The fault in evangelical Christianity regarding the Lord’s Supper lies with relegating it to a section of worship where it becomes an “add on” at the end of the service. It is much too important to the worship experience. I long ago began using the entire service to enrich the experience for worshippers. They have loved the change!
There's a girl in the YouTube comments of Catholic channels who really reflects the damage this gnosticism has had. She's been taught in “Jesus Alone” to such an extreme that she can't reconcile it with her physical life and only sees God’s provision as spiritual only. Because her physical life obviously requires food, water, shelter, and clothing - none of which are Jesus - she can't reconcile “Jesus Alone” with her physical life… therefore he is only providing for her spiritual needs.
She has not been given a framework to understand that even the physical things come from God. Its tragic.
I'm going to share this with my mom. We struggle to discuss religion because she belongs to a dispensationalist evangelical church and I walked away from that 4 years ago. I'm hoping it leads to some conversation if nothing else.
However, the one example of a person coming to faith and not being baptized is the thief on the cross. Because that is one of the main reasons that I was given growing up for why baptism isn't necessary to get to heaven and "is only a public declaration". As an adult I've tried to point out extenuating circumstances (he literally couldn't) and that it was Jesus who said he would be in paradise. As well as the fact Jesus was baptized and sent disciples to baptize, the story of the eunich etc etc etc but the main sticking point is thief on the cross, that one situation seems to outweigh all the others in that particular sect of evangelicalism.
There's actually a very good answer to this point of protest: baptism of desire.
Maybe will do a piece on that sometime.
I am also convinced that the job description for God does not include setting up hoops or laying traps.
I've noted before that evangelicals who focus on the thief are looking at how one dies in Christ, not how one lives in Christ. The vast majority of us live for sometime after becoming Christian, making the thief the worst possible example to live by for the people who use that example.
Not only the good thief on the cross but also many martyrs were baptized in their own blood.
I've never considered it like that before, but it definitely makes an excellent point!
Not saying I hold this view, but growing up I was taught that the thief didn't need to be baptized because his faith/death happens before Jesus's death and resurrection--the latter being the timeline marker for when people putting their trust in God needed baptizing. But this leans toward baptismal regeneration, which is a whole 'nother point of contention for many Christians.
Interesting. I suppose the counter to that would be that John was baptizing people—including Jesus—well before Christ’s Crucifixion.
Faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation; faith without works is dead. Baptism should be taken as a public profession of faith and a symbolic (and mystical) joining to Christ and His Church, but it seems to undermine the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice if we insist it is necessary for salvation.
John's baptism wasn't the same as Jesus's baptism. Even John says that. Paul rebaptized someone who had only received John's baptism and Peter says baptism NOW saves, implying that at a previous time, it did not save.
John's baptism wasn't regenerative. Jesus's baptism was.
Good point!
Yes, faith does save us. But not the western American version of faith.
Faith is a structural weight-bearing reliance; the posture of leaning one's full load onto a covenant partner, Yeshua. Or, as the article explained, allegiance.
That is the faith that saves. We must constantly strive to remain fully trusting and reliant upon Yeshua.
I like that- "Faith is a structural weight-bearing reliance". That single sentence sums up what needs to be explained to many and is actually exactly what I needed in this moment. Thank you for this! May your words continue to resonate in boldness for Christ.
John baptized with water and Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit. John 1:26, John 1:33
Jesus told his friends to break bread and share wine in remembrance of him. Literally a memorial. There is nothing Biblical about turning that into a ritual using mass produced wafers endowed with magical properties. It is certainly an old tradition but that doesn’t make it Biblical or necessarily correct or required for a serious Christ center spirituality.
For a truth that supposedly isn’t biblical, communion is extensively documented and presented as a positive experience in the Bible. Our understanding of the subject and our practices may be imperfect, but it is obviously Bible based.
Extensively documented? Not really. “The lord’s supper” is mentioned but not described in any detail. It is likely that it was an actual meal. Not a sacramental ritual.
It was both. It was the moment Jesus told the disciples that something greater than he would be left in his wake - The Holy Spirit.
It was the time when Jesus told them He was leaving.
Macey, check out Joe Boyd, the Deconstructed Pastor. He has great input !
I came to comment about this (the thief on the cross), but I’d also point out people like the woman at the well. She came to belief in Jesus and who He was, but unless I’m mistaken, she was never baptized that we’re told.
I do think baptism is something we should do out of obedience and as a public declaration that we are His, but Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient and faith alone saves us.
I love communion and strongly believe it a powerful gift to the church. That said, Jesus was Jewish and the upper room experience took place as a part of Passover. The context of „do this in remembrance of me“ is obviously related to the Passover meal. Most Gentiles don’t practice Passover and don’t share a Seder meal. Luckily for us, Jesus is our Passover. As with all of God’s Blessings, there is certainly more to communion than we know.
Jesus also hadn’t died yet! I’m from a church tradition that immediately baptizes after a confession of belief, which is like every example in Scripture. However I’m willing to accept grace such as the Egyptian Muslim who had his throat slit on a beach by ISIS. They lined up his Coptic Christian friends/coworkers and gave him a chance to save himself by declaring for Allah. Instead, he claims Jesus Christ as his savior. And was immediately killed. I truly believe this man was saved, but God is our judge. The ancient Church fathers called it “baptism by blood.” Churches today who act like baptism can wait until Easter, or a baptism Sunday, are not following the examples in Scripture.
What do they who are baptized for the Dead, if the dead rise not at all?
There is no reason to think the repentant thief remained unbaptized. What he could not do himself could be done by proxy, to a Christian acting on his behalf. The practice of baptism for the Dead is little understood, but it is attested in the scripture. And the law that one must be baptized was attested by Jesus when he told John that he must be baptized to fulfill all righteousness. If even Jesus required baptism, who is it who does not?
Your evocation of some of the gnostic heresies is well and timely spoken.
Love this—and especially that you’re banging the drum about the resurrection of the body and the restoration of creation.
I’m less sure about the statement that we can date this all the way back to Paul’s time. 1 Corinthians 15 and a few other passages may allude to a form of what might be called proto-Gnosticism, although even that is controversial.
Valid point of criticism. You're probably right that proto-Gnosticism is probably the better term for what Paul himself was addressing, although I think we do see him addressing ideas/practices in 1 Timothy that would still be "Gnostic", although they wouldn't be brought under that collective label until some time later. Is that fair?
That’s how I would lean, at least!
1st John is completely dedicated to refute Gnosticism so we can date it to back then.
Well, 1 John is (probably) a bit later than Paul.
I agree that it seems to me like it’s responding to proto-Gnostic teaching. But I know much less about the General Epistles than I do about Paul, so I don’t think I know enough to say that for sure.
What is a ‘glorified body'? This is where I'm feeling a convergence between the ancient and new: Biblical description and contemporary physics. Jesus can pass through walls, show up in different places, and there's all that business about particles being in 2 places at once, or you can - oh, forget it, I just copied this: “The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics stating that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be simultaneously measured with absolute precision. The more accurately one property is known, the less precisely the other can be determined.” (Thx, Wikipedia). I don't see what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 15 as rejection of the body but more as butting up against the limits of human language and understanding.
Paul's letter to Colossae is a refutation of gnostiscm as well.
I ran into this recently when a guy insisted that true baptism was waterless. Water baptism was a work for the likes of kathlaks and other degenerates. To him nothing spiritual could be connected to anything material. That’s pretty basic Gnosticism.
To be ignorant of Church history is to be open to all sorts of heresies without having a clue.
This is compounded by the way evangelism has been communicated. Literally, all you have to do to be saved (and go to heaven instead of hell) is believe, repeat a prayer or nod your head and mentally agree with a few words. To suggest there is more is to preach a "Gospel of Works". If there is anything human nature seems good at it is doing the bare minimum.
There's something cold about holy communion that is treated as a memorial only. Paul makes it clear that it is a spiritual meal. Ditto baptism. And yes, faith means love one another, physically and prayfully.
Absolutely splendid article. Said it loud, said it clear. Spot on! Unembodied faith is not Christianity. The body is God's design and God's creation. And, praise the Lord, eternal in the new earth, when we'll be like Him. Thank you.
1 John 4:17 “Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.”
Thank you for this today, exactly what I needed and need to share with others. You are always a treasure.
Thank you, Claudia!
A thousand times AMEN! Such a great and needed article.
Faith = ALLEGIANCE. HOLD THE PHONE THIS MAKES SO MUCH SENSE 😭😭😭😭😭. Wait wait I’m going to sit with this for such a long time because people equate faith with belief and belief is such a fickle thing. Allegiance is much more of a choice.
What are we going to do? The American church is messing up 💔
Good word! I tell people, “Jesus is not coming back to take us away, He’s coming back to take over!”
Be worthy of the first resurrection, see Luke 20:35. Our Christian life is an internship for our role in the coming Kingdom.
Thank you for this. It is a good reminder that we are to have a living and active faith.
What gets me is that Church History is a subject rarely taught. As a global historical movement, the Church has seen gnosticism before, over and over again. And yet every time the vast majority are left frozen like a rabbit in headlights, unsure of what's going on and where to go.
Gnosticism does a variety of vile things to congregations, most egregious being that it divides them into the spiritually elite "those who know" and those doomed to a sheltered-workshop faith "until God eventually promotes them, if He feels like it." Those who "know" have direct inner access to God himself. They don't actually need the Bible: God's Spirit impresses his will and his words upon them. And this inner access cannot be questioned from outside, because to challenge the prophet is to challenge God. "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm."
Reformation historians may recall the Zwickau Prophets, and the events of the Anabaptist takeover of the town of Munster. On a smaller scale we've seen this with IHOP-KC and the Kansas City Prophets, with its secrecy, and its inner circle of those "in the know".
But God does not bubble up from some spring behind your navel. He invades! crashing in from outside. His floodlight shines into our darkness and, like cockroaches, we skitter away from it into crevices and caves. His word is public, external, and testable. He comes through water, bread and wine, and the foolishness of preaching. He comes to us mediated through his Word, truth made flesh, and a death on a cross, not through inner voices.
The fault in evangelical Christianity regarding the Lord’s Supper lies with relegating it to a section of worship where it becomes an “add on” at the end of the service. It is much too important to the worship experience. I long ago began using the entire service to enrich the experience for worshippers. They have loved the change!
There's a girl in the YouTube comments of Catholic channels who really reflects the damage this gnosticism has had. She's been taught in “Jesus Alone” to such an extreme that she can't reconcile it with her physical life and only sees God’s provision as spiritual only. Because her physical life obviously requires food, water, shelter, and clothing - none of which are Jesus - she can't reconcile “Jesus Alone” with her physical life… therefore he is only providing for her spiritual needs.
She has not been given a framework to understand that even the physical things come from God. Its tragic.
A valid warning for the contemporary church - thanks for sharing.
Also, love the Adeptus Astartes in the featured image, ha. The Emperor protects!
By their fruit, you shall know them...