Importance of Spiritual Baptism (Part 1)
Someone who just loves me to death and has fought tooth and nail for the observance of baptism by immersion in water as the only acceptable and biblical way to baptize new converts, asked me to read Ironside’s complete article on baptism and refute it point by point and not simply dismiss it out of hand. So, “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
BAPTISM: WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?
By Dr. H.A. Ironside
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
Several years having elapsed since the first publication of this booklet, and a new edition being called for, I have considerably revised my former paper, though altering nowhere the teaching therein set forth.
Further study and experience have only confirmed what was first written, although I believe I see many kindred truths in a much fuller, broader way than I did some years ago.
The revision consists largely of additional matter which I hope may make clearer what is now sent out, and commended to the prayerful consideration of the people of God into whose hands it may fall.
The great essential is Christ, not baptism; but they who love His name will seek to keep His word. But in this it is well to remember that an unkind, critical spirit is far more to be deplored than divergent views and practices in regard to ordinances, however precious. (Emphasis added)
If the great essential is Christ (and I wholeheartedly agree), then no argument in favour of baptism by immersion in water being an essential part of Christian doctrine is feasible, let alone it being a sign of God’s approval, as Dr. Ironside later indicates in his dissertation on baptism.
We would do well to remind ourselves of God’s own testimony regarding his Son because that and that alone magnanimously proves that Christ is God’s “Great Essential.” Nothing else is needed.
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.
Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself.
Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.
And this is the testimony that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:7-13)
Jesus’s earthly ministry was initiated by his baptism in water which served as a preliminary, anticipatory sign or symbol of the way in which He would accomplish man’s redemption through his blood, referring to his death by which his earthly work was terminated, and thereby accomplishing and fulfilling all righteousness. (Matthew 3:15).
Jesus’ baptism in water could never have been a fulfillment of all righteousness if He hadn’t been baptized (been wholly submerged and immersed in death). Hence his words in Luke 12:50: “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!”
Several people have asked me: “Why was Jesus distressed until He was baptized when He had already been baptized in water by John the Baptist?”
Hadn’t He already been baptized by John the Baptist? Yes, He was. But this baptism, when the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descended from heaven upon Him simply gave Him the mandate, authority and power to accomplish the essential baptism into death on the cross.
Hence John’s magnanimous words in 1 John 5:6 “This is he who came by water and blood-Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.” Indeed, there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood.
To assert that a convert’s baptism is a testimony or a sign or a symbol of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection is to suggest that God the Father’s own testimony regarding his Son is insufficient.
Yes, a saved and blood washed saint’s testimony is great but God’s testimony is much greater.
He has already fulfilled all righteousness in and through Christ Jesus who came by water and blood.
It is finished; nothing more in terms of God’s testimony in and through water and in and through blood is needed. What is required of a saint is to testify by word of mouth. What does the Bible say?
And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. (Revelation 12:11)
It is not a once-off ritual that testifies to our death, burial and resurrection with Christ.
It is the unsurpassed power of our daily spoken word (our verbal testimony) to the unsurpassed power of the blood of the lamb that testifies to our death, burial and resurrection with Jesus Christ.
A once-off ritual which has absolutely nothing to do with salvation is powerless.
Hence Paul’s exhortation in Romans 6 that our identification with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection is made effectual by our own cognitive reckoning (faith) that we have indeed been baptized (immersed) into Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
I sincerely believe that the devil is using a ritual that has nothing to do with salvation as a tool and a ploy to divert the saints attention from the genuine and practical way to overcome the devil, our own fleshly nature and the world, and that is to use our God-given reasoning (reckoning) faculties to reckon that we have indeed been baptized into Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
Although baptism was initially a Jewish ordinance and later used by John the Baptist and the early Christian church which was uniquely Jewish in the beginning, it has developed into a ritual accompanied by the speaking in tongues and slain in the spirit, both of which have become tools in the hands of Satan.
Dr Ironside then wrote:
H.A.IRONSIDE
Fruitvale, CA, March 1915PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION
While, in the pages that follow, controversy has been so far as possible (consistently with the object of presenting what I believe to be the truth as to Baptism) sedulously avoided, yet it is hoped a careful perusal may prove helpful even to those who have been troubled by conflicting views.
The pamphlet presents the conclusions I have been obliged to come to after utterly denying for a number of years any present importance attaching to this ordinance, and after a careful study of what others have put forth on the subject, as well as much time spent, I trust before the Lord, over the word of God.
The apology for its publication, if such be needed, can be stated in a few words.
In going about, now for some years, seeking to “do the work of an evangelist,” I have been importuned again and again for a paper expressing my thoughts on this question.
Finding no publication that seemed to me altogether suitable (so few being at all full without being exceedingly controversial), I have tried to give as clearly and briefly as possible, what I believe to be the scriptural teaching upon it.
The query as to whether baptism brings its subject into the Kingdom of Heaven, the House of God, or the Body of Christ, has not really been touched.
Here I need only to say that I do not believe it brings one into any of the three.
To my mind the importance of it is not in regard to what it brings one into (and, as others have noted, Scripture NEVER says it brings one into anything), but in that it is the clearly expressed will of the Lord Jesus for His disciples, and therefore should possess marked interest for all who desire His approval.
I presume that those known as Friends, or Quakers, with numbers of other Christians who recognize no ordinances (though they assuredly lose much by such neglect), are yet in the Kingdom, the House and the Body.
At least, I know of no Scripture that teaches, directly or indirectly, otherwise. (Emphasis added)
Ironside happily concedes that baptism by immersion in much water has absolutely nothing to do with salvation, i.e. to bring the convert into the Kingdom of God, or the Body of Christ or the House of God.
Yet, he makes much ado about baptism being the expressed will of the Lord Jesus for his disciples and therefore should be of great interest to all who desire His approval. If this is true, then the one criminal who was crucified next to Jesus was allowed to enter into God’s Paradise without his approval. And guess why? Well, we all know that he wasn’t baptized by immersion into much water, which according to Ironside,. is a sign of God’s approval.
The most shocking thing about Ironside’s statement, “To my mind the importance of it is not in regard to what it brings one into (and, as others have noted, Scripture NEVER says it brings one into anything), but in that it is the clearly expressed will of the Lord Jesus for His disciples, and therefore should possess marked interest for all who desire His approval,” is that it distorts the meaning and purpose of God’s revealed will and therefore deceives the many who are captivated by his remarks.
If water baptism in lots of water gains God’s approval, then Paul of Tarsus was peculiarly lacking in God’s approval because he wrote:
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Corinthians 1:17)
Every single will or resolve of the Father expressed in the Bible has a purpose and ultimately a single-minded goal in view.
He never says: “OK you guys, listen up, this particular will or command of mine cannot benefit you in the very least. It has nothing to do with salvation or sanctification; it cannot bring you into my Kingdom; it cannot gain you access into the Body of Christ and it cannot bring you into the House of God. In fact it is completely impotent and cannot do anything for you. Nonetheless, you MUST obey it if you want to obtain my approval.” Really? REALLY???
A simple example will suffice. In 2 Peter 3:9 God expresses his will that none should perish but that all should come to repentance and be saved.
Any old Tom, Dick and Harry will tell you there is a magnanimously divine purpose in this.
His purpose is to grant everyone an opportunity to repent because it is his will that all of mankind, without exception, should enter into his Kingdom and the Body of Christ and the House of God.
No! saith the great Ironside, “To my mind the importance of it is not in regard to what it brings one into (and, as others have noted, Scripture NEVER says it brings one into anything), but in that it is the clearly expressed will of the Lord Jesus for His disciples, . . .”
But my dearest Lord Ironside, can’t you see that this was precisely why Jesus became man? “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:6-8).
God’s entire plan, purpose and will for mankind is to get them all into his Kingdom and yet you demand that we adhere to a ritual that has absolutely no value whatsoever so that we may obtain his approval?
Even the most basic man-made command contained in a country’s constitution has a specific purpose and that is to benefit law abiding citizens and punish the lawbreakers.
But you, Mr. Ironside, demand that we keep a command that benefits no one. Really??? REALLY???
In that case we may as well desist from being baptised by immersion in water because it does not bring us into God’s Kingdom and neither does it bring us into hell.
What then is the expressed will of the Father and his only begotten Son?
Surely if their expressed will was the baptism by immersion in much water so that his disciples may obtain his approval (which replicates a works-based salvation, although many would deny it), then Luke 19:10 should rather read as follows, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost and to baptise them by immersion in great quantities of water so that they may obtain my Father’s approval.” Really? REALLY???
This borders on blasphemy because it denies the efficacy of Christ’s death on the cross, his burial and resurrection. Indeed, it suggests that you have to do something, albeit being baptised by immersion in water, to obtain his approval. Really? REALLY???
Fancy that, Ironside admits that baptism by immersion in water does not save but audaciously declares that it obtains God’s approval.
The result of his immoderate statement suggests that all who are not baptised by immersion in great quantities of water like rivers, dams, swimming pools and the likes, do not have God’s approval. Let’s briefly look more closely at the meaning of the word “approval.”
The Merriam Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus defines “approval” as follows:
- the belief that something or someone is good or acceptable : a good opinion of someone or something
- permission to do something : acceptance of an idea, action, plan, etc.
Adherents to baptism by immersion in water claim that converts who’d been washed in Christ’s blood (i.e. been saved) are the only approved candidates for baptism by immersion in water.
But wait a second. If salvation through the blood of Christ alone permits him/her entrance into the Kingdom of God, the House of God, and the Body of Christ because God deems them good and acceptable (suitable) for his Kingdom – through the blood of his Son, of course – what kind of approval does baptism by immersion in water offer the repentant sinner?
Is it a special kind of approval that surpasses and exceeds the approval repentant sinners receive who’d been washed and cleansed of all their sins in the blood of Christ? Let met put it this way. The blood of Jesus Christ’s gains God’s approval for repentant sinners to be “delivered . . . from the power of darkness, and . . . [to be] translated . . . into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Colossians 1:13). However, God’s approval of the repentant sinner is only ratified the moment he or she is baptised by immersion in a lot of water in public, AFTER they had been saved. Surely, this gives the “whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose” kind of baptism precedence over Jesus’ kind of baptism.
I hope you can see that, although the adherents to baptism by immersion in water proclaim that baptism has nothing to do with salvation, they are inadvertently or deliberately exalting baptism above salvation, because “it is the clearly expressed will of the Lord Jesus for His disciples (all those who’d already been saved), and therefore should possess marked interest for all who desire His approval.“
If baptism by immersion in large quantities of water, like a river, a large tub, a swimming pool or whatever, was the will of Jesus Christ for his disciples [including Judas), the Holy Spirit would at least have mentioned it somewhere in Scripture.
The fact is, however, that there is no record in Scripture that any of the disciples went to John the Baptist to be baptised in the Jordan. (John 4:1-2).
Some may argue that the disciples must have been baptised because they themselves baptised new converts (Acts 8:35:39).
As matter of interest; If the phrase “come up out of the water” meant that the convert must be immersed in water and then come up out of the water, it would follow that both Philip and the eunuch were baptised, because Acts 8:39 clearly says that they both came up out of the water.
Among his band of disciples only Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist in the Jordan River, not to set the example of how future converts should be baptised, but to fulfil everything which He had come to accomplish (Matthew 3:13-17).
The righteousness Jesus had to fulfil (completely accomplish the right thing) was to end the old of which John the Baptist was the last prophet and to bring in the new.
Dr Ironside continues to write:
Baptism certainly is connected with the sphere of profession; that is not disputed, but insisted on; only let there be profession and not infantile unconsciousness.
The Word is simple: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal.3:27).
This can only be true of professed believers, who, in this act, publicly put on Christ, or, in other words, acknowledge Him as their Lord.
That it is not, properly speaking, a Church ordinance, but a Kingdom ordinance, I also admit and teach, because, unlike the Lord’s supper, baptism had a place before the Church began, and will have one after it has been taken to heaven; but whether tribulation saints will enter into its import as Christians can is very questionable. (Emphasis added)
Paul often used traditional military and traditional Roman dress codes to illustrate Christian values and truths. Most Christians are thoroughly accustomed with Ephesians 6 where he uses Roman body armour to describe the spiritual armour of God.
He uses something similar when describing what it means to be clothed with Christ in Galatians 3:27.
When a youth came of age in Roman society he was given a special toga which demonstrated that he earned the full rights of his family to be honoured as an adult.
The entire nation of Israel were kept under the disciplinary teaching of the Law and as such were regarded as children being tutored to receive Christ as their Messiah (verse 24).
Jesus Christ, having fulfilled the law (including the old Jewish law of baptism as it was administered by John the Baptist), has given us the right to no longer be regarded as children under the Law but as adult sons through faith, never to be reckoned again as being under a Jewish slave-guardian.
Paul reminded the Galatians Christians that they no longer needed to be UNDER the Law but that they had been COMPLETELY ENVELOPED (covered, clothed) with Jesus Christ (who had fulfilled the Law) the moment they were baptized into Him spiritually by the Holy Spirit.
What we need to discern is whether Paul was referring to the ordinance of baptism by immersion in water or spiritual baptism with the Holy Spirit into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e. salvation proper.
Ironside seems to think it refers to the ordinance of baptism subsequent to salvation since he says it can only “be true of professed believers, who in this act [baptism], publically put on Christ, or, in other words acknowledge Him as their Lord.”
The act of baptism by immersion in water in public is therefore equal to the putting on of Christ like a new garment. Whoa! That’s dangerous, very dangerous it suggests that water baptism itself is salvation proper.
A more careful and thorough reading of the passage shows that Paul did not maintain that the putting on of Christ like a new garment occurs in public when the professed believer acknowledges Him as Lord through baptism.
Paul simply said: The moment you were baptized into Christ, that was the moment when you put on Christ.” (Isaiah 61:10). The verse says it so plainly and clearly in the Amplified Bible:
For as many [of you] as were baptized into Christ [into a spiritual union and communion with Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah] have put on (clothed yourselves with) Christ.
Water baptism cannot possibly bring a repentant sinner into a spiritual union and communion with Christ, the Anointed One.
And yet Ironside seems to think so. Listen again carefully to what he says: “This (Galatians 3:27) can only be true of professed believers, who, in this act, publicly put on Christ, or, in other words, acknowledge Him as their Lord.”
He says in effect: “All who profess to believe in Jesus Christ (“infantile unconsciousness” cannot profess anything) can and will only put a stamp of approval on their professing faith (and thus obtain the aproval of God), and make it true when they publically put on Christ in this act (baptism by immersion in water) and thus declare Him to be their Lord.
Jesus Himself does not think too highly of people who profess to be believers and acknowledge Him as lord in public (Matthew 7:22).
I’m not suggesting that Ironside was lost. I am merely saying it is dangerous to propound something contrary to what Paul teaches in Galatians 3:27 because it can and does indeed mislead millions into an erroneous soteriology.
Paul never even once mentions that the putting on of Christ must of necessity take place in public.
Ironside sanctimoniously taps those who are guilty of eisegesis (to read something into the text that is not there) over the knuckles but fails to see his own eisegetical blunders.
Yes, of course, if the putting on of Christ is a baptismal ritual, then it must be done in the public eye, as all the adherents to baptism by immersion in water so demand.
However, if the putting on of Christ is salvation proper then it need not be in public. Most salvations occur in private where the repentant sinner is alone with God to reason with Him (Isaiah 1:18; Matthew 11:28).
Dr Ironside continues:
I am not wholly ignorant of what esteemed brethren? to whom I am indebted for much, have penned on “Household Baptism,” etc., though I remember that others, equally gifted and godly, have differed radically from them; so I would beware of following either unless I have a clear Scriptural basis for so doing.
I confess that while reading the books of the former, their theories seemed very plausible and had certain charms for me; but when I turned from their writings to the word of God I could not find the theories.
It seemed to me that they had read their teachings into Scripture, not out of it; rather eisegesis, than true exegesis. (Persons desirous of investigating the question of the baptism of children in households, in order to weigh what may be said for the practice, will find the leading arguments clearly and graciously stated in “Christian Baptism,” by Waiter Scott; “Reasons for my Faith as to Baptism,” and “A Review of Objections to Household Baptism,” by F.W.Grant. “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge.” The principle, at least, of this verse is doubtless applicable here.)
I ask an equally careful comparison of my statements in the following pages with the unerring guide, the Word of Truth. ” Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. ”
H.A.IRONSIDE
Oakland, CA, April, 1901
The “esteemed brethren” who “have penned on ‘Household Baptism” are those who argue that the household baptism of Cornelius and his family must have included infants. Whether “infantile unconsciousness” forbids infants to be baptised, remains to be seen in the next edition of my series on “The Importance of Spiritual Baptism.” – Thomas Lessing
Thomas,
Apologies for not responding sooner. In your last reply to me you asked me to name Dispensationalist teachers who taught that it was possible to be saved by the law/temple sacrifices. In other words another way of salvation. With much respect, it ought to be common knowledge to you that many Christians do in fact errantly believe that Israel of old were saved by temple sacrifices (law) and that the church age believers ONLY are saved by the blood of Christ. In fact this IS what I believed until about five years ago. Hence the oft heard mantra “we are not under law, we are under grace.” The Ten Commandments are the Christian’s “way of life”, the “way to life IS the cross”. The Ten Commandments ARE binding on the New Testament believer, they haven’t been “done away” with, they ARE eternal. It was only the ceremonial law that was “abolished”, read Ephesians 2.15.
L.S.Chafer the founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary wrote; “According to the Old Testament men were just because they were true and faithful in keeping the Mosaic Law. MEN WERE THEREFORE JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN WORKS for God whereas New Testament justification is God’s work for man in answer to faith” (emphasis mine): Systematic Theology, Volume 7, page 219.
I could quote many other such statements by Chafer, who was heavily influenced by C.I.Scofield. As I am sure you well know, Chafer was a very influential Dispensational teacher and had many followers including John Walvoord? Now, I believe that men like Chafer, Walvoord, and indeed yourself were/are sagacious and intelligent enough NOT to openly teach another way of salvation, no, not at all! It is my belief that this ‘unintentional’, or another way of salvation teaching is a by-product of errant theology, which unhappily they accepted, believed and taught; separating the Church and Israel into TWO separate people groups, which leads to two separate deliverances, the pre-tribulation rapture, and the Second Coming. I most sincerely believe that Dispensational Theology is NOT biblical doctrine. Dispensational theology, as you are aware has undergone many refinements since first being introduced by J.N.Darby, and there are today many conflicting theories within Dispensationalism, the worst, as you would no doubt agree being propagated by E.W.Bullinger. Maybe, given enough time Dispensationalism could eventually be brought into line and agree with Covenant Theology?
On another thread on this website there is a contributor by the name of Sharon, she claims that she is no theologian (and has no bias?), yet she has the Scriptural knowledge to know that the Church had it’s foundations BEFORE Pentecost. She may not (as indeed you do) realise that this effectively destroys the theory of the pre-tribulation rapture? Because if the disciples ask the question of the time of the Lord’s return in Matthew 24-25 as the FOUNDERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH, then the pre-tribulation rapture theory is untenable? It just collapses. You well KNOW this? Therefore, the disciples on the Dispensational scheme, must NOT be identified with the Church, but with the NATION OF ISRAEL.
jrdavis wrote:
I know perfectly well who teach/taught Dispensationalism. I asked to see whether you know but it is clear that you don’t because you have grossly misrepresented, not only some of the most esteemed Dispensational scholars, but me as well. You seem to be so hard-bent on proving that Dispensationalism is a heresy that you fail to see your own, and that is to openly and publically bear false witness against someone. With due respect, you ought to know that you are breaking one of God’s commandments which Jesus Himself dearly honoured and revered (Exodus 20:16; Matthew 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20). Paul exposed the real essence of breaking the law in regard to bearing false witness when he said it amounts to not loving your neighbour as yourself. (Romans 13:9). Fortunately you don’t need to bring a sacrifice to your church, slaughter it, and place your hand on its head and through faith receive forgiveness for your sin. You only need to go on your knees and beg for forgiveness and you will receive forgiveness for your bearing false witness because Jesus is the final and ultimate and ONLY EFFICACIOUS sacrifice for your and my sins.
None of the persons you mentioned believed in Dispensationalism as a system proclaiming two different kinds of salvation – one for the Jews by means of temple worship and sacrifices (law) and one ONLY by the blood of Christ. The putting on of the blood of a sacrificial lamb on the door posts of the Israelite in Egypt and the entire sacrificial system in Leviticus pointed ahead of time and with great expectation to the blood of Jesus Christ. Do you really think Chafer and Walfoord did not know this OR that they knew it but deliberately ignored it? You must be kidding!
Your infamous and derogatory remark “Hence the oft heard mantra “we are not under law, we are under grace,” is, to say the least, blasphemous. It is not a meaningless, oft repeated mantra but a clearly stated fact in Scripture. Paul emphatically states that Christians in this dispensation are no longer under law but under grace (Romans 6:1-5). Paul simply said that if today’s Christians were under the Law, it would be impossible to keep sin from being their master because the power of sin is the Law (1 Corinthians 15:56).
You should know that the Law hasn’t been done away with, unless you believe that Jesus lied when He said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” (Matthew 5:17). Those who are not in Christ (saved) who fulfilled the law in the behalf of all mankind, must fulfil it themselves, which, of course, is impossible, and hence renders them fit for God’s just punishment in an eternal hell. Fulfilment does NOT equal abolishment. Ephesians 2:15 does not say that the Law was abolished; it says that the ordinances (ceremonial ordinances) representing the Law were abolished. These ceremonial ordinances (continual sacrifice of animals) are no longer necessary because Jesus’ death on the cross is the ultimate and final sacrifice for our sins. The OT sacrifices were merely pointers to Jesus’ final and ultimate sacrifice on the cross and was unable to save anyone unless the one who brought the sacrifice BELIEVED that it represented (as an anticipatory shadow) Jesus Christ’s final and ultimate sacrifice on the cross. It was not the ordinance (sacrifice) itself that saved but the Israelite’s faith in the coming One whose ultimate sacrifice was signified in the ceremonial ordinance.
jrdavis wrote:
Wikipedia unequivocally avows that L.S Chafer “was vehemently opposed to covenant theology. Indeed, both he and John F Walfoord did not in the very least believe that there are two kinds of salvation. Chafer wrote:
Walfoord wrote:
Even some who are not Dispensational in their thinking testify that those who accuse Dispenstationalists of having two diverse soteriologocal viewpoints are woefully wrong. Willem Van Gemeren wries in his “Systems of Continuity,” Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Westchester: Crossway Books), 70-71 the following:
Millard J. Erickson, in his “Christian Theology” (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 1163 wrote:
The “elsewhere” to which Van Gemeren refers is what Paul says in Romans 11:
But of course, you don’t believe what Jesus Christ said through the apostle Paul who received the Gospel directly from Him. You are not a Dispensationalist because you believe the church has replaced Israel and that all the promises God had given to the nation of Israel have all been transferred to the church. It is obvious that Paul was a Dispensationalist and abhorred Replacement Theology. In your view Dispensationalism is unbiblical while Paul proves most emphatically that your non-Dispensational, Replacement Theology is totally unbiblical.
Dispensationalism does not separate the church and Israel as far as salvation is concerned, as you have intoned, and neither does it make a distinction between two separate deliverances. Yes, the deliverance of the remnant of Israel at Christ’s Second Coming after the Great Tribulation will be a deliverance unto salvation (Ezekiel 37; 39:25-29). The Pre-Trib Rapture is not a deliverance unto salvation but a deliverance from out of the sphere of God’s wrath and righteous judgements that are coming upon the entire world during the Tribulation.
jrdavis wrote:
As you may know I rejected and refuted Sharon’s view of the institution of the church before Pentecost. I maintained throughout that the church was instituted on the Day of Pentecost. So please don’t try a guilty by association trick on me because it just won’t work.
The dispensational scheme with regard to the Rapture, in spite your effort to identify Dispensationalism with the nation of Israel instead of the church, includes both the church and the nation of Israel. In fact, the seven year tribulation will be the dispensation in which God is going to deal with the nation of Israel once again in a most miraculous way. Not only is He going to seal 144 000 Jews (12 000 from each tribe) to proclaim the Gospel throughout the entire world, multitudes of Jews are going to turn to Him for their salvation. It is, therefore, no figment of the imagination that it is called “the time of Jacob’s trouble.” The latter can only commence when the restraining work of the Holy Spirit in and through the Body of Christ (the Ekklesia) is taken out of the way because, as Paul wrote: “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.” (2 Thess 2:7)
Thomas,
It is very interesting that you didn’t refute the statement from Chafer that I quoted in my last post? In fact you made NO comment on it?
It is my belief that Dispensational theology does give rise to two ways of salvation, this is what it clearly amounts to. It is a very confusing, and unbiblical theology. I NEVER said that Chafer and Walvoord openly taught that the Ten Commandments were abolished, I was only making the point that Dispensationalism has been interpreted by many believers to teach such. I am sure that you are aware of this?
I can only believe that men such as Chafer and Walvoord (and therefore their followers) were deceived by Dispensational theology, and in their best endeavours to defend it came out with many unguarded statements which will NOT bear the testimony of God’s Word.
Another amazing statement by Chafer:
“Whatever may have been the divine method of dealing with individuals before the call of Abraham and the giving of the law by Moses, it is evident that, with the call of Abraham and the giving of the law and all that followed, THERE ARE TWO WIDELY DIFFERENT, STANDARDIZED, DIVINE PROVISIONS WHEREBY MAN, WHO IS UTTERLY FALLEN, MIGHT STAND IN THE FAVOR OF GOD. (emphasis added) Systematic Theology vol 4 page 14-15.
Whatever are we to make of this? This statement recognizes the difficult question that the Dispensationalist theologian must answer with regard to the pre-Abrahamic saints. To what BODY do these redeemed people belong? Chafer implies here that he is not sure how these people came to stand in the favor of God. Secondly, Chafer IS sure that since the time of Abraham there have been TWO ways that fallen man could come to a right standing with God.
As you said in your reply to me, Chafer IS indeed “vehemently opposed to covenant theology”, I will quote him again:
“Covenant theology engenders the notion that there is BUT ONE SOTERIOLOGY and one eschatology, and that ecclesiology, such as it is conceived to be, extends from the Garden of Eden to the great white throne. The insuperable problems in exegesis which such fanciful suppositions engender are easily disposed of by ignoring them. (emphasis added) Systematic Theology vol 4, page 248.
He criticizes covenant theology for teaching “ONE SOTERIOLOGY”! ONE way of salvation, and he calls it a “fanciful supposition”! This IS astounding? Chafer could NOT have chosen clearer words to say that there is more than one doctrine of salvation? He would appear to mock covenant theology for the truth that it teaches? Covenant theology teaches that the Church extends from the Garden until the end of time. Scripture teaches that there is ONE body of redeemed people. This is what I am contending for, can you not see this?
Thomas, I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT believe that the Church replaced Israel, that is a false charge.
Replacement theologians believe that God HAS finished with Israel and replaced Israel with the Church, and that there will be NO literal millenial kingdom. God has most definitely NOT finished with Israel, ALL the unfulfilled prophecies (too many to mention here-you know them well, I need not quote them?) will yet come to pass.
But, this is no new thing? Dispensationalists often ignore or even seek to refute the existence of Historic Premillennialism.
I most certainly believe in the coming millennial reign, Scripture clearly teaches this.
Thomas, the “time of Jacob’s trouble”, or the great tribulation is 31/2 years; Revelation 13.5, 11.2 & 12.6. Daniel 9.27 tells us that Antichrist “in the midst of the week shall cause the oblation to cease”? Indeed, the “tribulation saints” as you say, WILL come out of the great tribulation, then the Second Coming. There will be no “first resurrection” prior to the “first resurrection”, as that is what the pre-tribulation rapture theory amounts to?
jrdavis wrote:
Then you must be a dispensationalist if you believe in a literal future millennial age of peace when Jesus is going to rule the entire world with an iron rod from the throne of his father David in Jerusalem, on earth.
IN another comment you said: “But, I just couldn’t accept the way they separated Israel from the Church.” The nation of Israel, like any other consists, of believers and unbelievers. In saying that Israel as a whole is not separate from the church, you are in effect saying that any other nation is not separate from the church either. The word “Ekklesia” as you know means “called out ones” (called out ones to be separate unto God). Israel as a nation does not owe its existence to the church but the church to Israel (
Yes, the bible teaches that that there is ONE body of redeemed people. Therefore, in saying that the entire nation of Israel is not separate from the church (ONE body with the church), you are implying that some in Israel were saved in another way. You can’t include unbelievers within the ranks of Israel as a nation in the church and then say there is only ONE soteriology. In what manner do you include the entire nation of Israel in the body of Christ when the great majority of them are not saved and are lost?
Your view that the church extends from the Garden until the end of time is an outright denial what Jesus conveyed directly to Paul in Ephesians 3.
Note the word “oikonomia” which refers to a household or estate, specifically a (religious) “economy – dispensation, stewardship. Paul was a dispensationalist and unlike you he did not believe that Israel as a nation was not separate from the church. He clearly says that the church as a mystery (musterion) was unknown in the Old Testament up to Pentecost when believing Jews and Gentiles were made ONE in Christ Jesus.
I asked you whether you were a Calvinist. You haven’t answered me yet. If you are, it explains why you believe in a Covenant Theology with one soteriology. Their one soteriology is tied up in the belief that God saves only the elect and damns the reprobate or non-elect.
Indeed, the second half of the seven year tribulation will be a time of great trouble for Israel. However, the 3 1/2 years preceding this period will be a time of comparative peace for Israel following in the wake of the peace treaty the Antichrist is going to make with her (Daniel 8:25; Daniel 9:27 KJV). Midway into the seven year tribulation Satan is going to put into action his plan which he had been dreaming of for many centuries – to sit as God in the person of his Antichrist in the most holy of holies in the temple. Jesus refers to it in Matthew 25:15.
I will comment on your quotes from Chafer if you comment on my quotes from Chafer.
Good day
I do not know where else to ask this question so here goes. Can someone who is not an ordained minister\pastor but a Bible believing Christian dedicate\baptise a baby of other Bible believing Christians who no longer attend a church but gave their hearts to Jesus and do strive to live according to the Bible? Jesus’s words to His disciples were that they should go and make disciples and baptise them and I see no restriction there? My own children were baptised – I then still belonged to a church – and to me it is something precious to want to make a promise to the Lord, in the presence of other believers, that you’ll bring the baby up in His ways.
God bless and enjoy the day!
Rista,
You don’t need water and an audience of other believers to make a promise to the Lord. I am sure He is quite capable to understand and accept a promise made by a mother without having to use water in the presence of other believers. Remember, when you make a promise to the Lord and dedicate your child to Him, the child belongs to Him and he or she may not indulge in any worldly activities such as partying, smoking, drinking, etc when they become of age. Hopefully you don’t smoke, drink or party because if you do you will be a lousy example for your children.
May I ask, How does a sinner give his/her heart to Jesus? As far as I know the Bible says that lost sinners should repent and believe the Gospel and consequently be baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit (also called the Living Water) in order to be saved. There is only one place in the entire Bible that says “give me your heart” and that is in Proverbs 23:26 where the Father says to his son ” My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways.” He is not talking to a believer, not an unbeliever. No one can be saved without the person first realizing that he or she is a lost sinner and on their way to a well-deserving eternity in hell. Jesus did not say He came to encourage sinners to give their hearts to Him. He said that He came to seek and to find lost sinners. He cannot find people who do not realize and acknowledge that they are lost.
The bible does not say “go AND make disciples.” It says “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”The phrase “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is another way of saying, “teaching them fully about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, helping them to understand Who God is and to live more like God in their lives.” It simply means that by teaching them you are immersing them into the Name (the character) of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. So, the best thing for you to do is to immerse them into the Name (character) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by teaching them and being an example for them.
Tnx for getting back to me Thomas, I have the answer I needed.
To explain – Giving my heart to the Lord means that I want Him to change me – our hearts are deceitful above all things and only He can bring about the change we need. It means an acknowledgement that I’m a lost sinner, acknowledgement and repentance of my sins, asking the Lord to help me to turn my back on the things the world entice me with. I try my best to, with the help of the Lord, stay within the Biblical boundaries Jesus set up for us (I feel safe within those boundaries) so I can also set an example for my sons. I believe Jesus died to set us free FROM sin, not TO sin and only by His grace can I say no to the worldly enticements that cross my path on a daily basis. And no, smoking, drinking and partying definitely are not on my list of enticements, I cannot even begin to fathom why you had to mention that?
God bless!
Rista,
The reason I mentioned the usual run of the mill expression “I gave my heart to Jesus” is because it can, and indeed in most cases, leads to a wrong impression of what it means to be saved. Giving your heart to Jesus, involves, as I explained from Scripture, a believer who needs to commit his/her whole life to Jesus. Salvation is never depicted as a giving your heart to Jesus in Scripture.
Unfortunately most parents think that when they have their babies baptized it is a promise they make to God. And then, when they reach their teens they allow them to party and whoop it up as much as they like. As you can see, that’s no promise or at best a promise broken. Indeed, man’s heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked which proves that when he makes promises to God it is usually just a lot of empty words.
Thomas,
How do you reconcile what you say in your reply above to Rista, where you said;
“Remember, when you make a promise to the Lord and dedicate your child to Him, the child BELONGS TO HIM and he or she may not indulge in any worldly activities such as partying, smoking, drinking, etc when they become of age”
(emphasis mine). With your reply to Andy on 5th-6th February 2014 in the article “Jacob Prasch twisting Scripture the midrash way”:
Andy asked in regard to the statement, in the article on that page, “If you are Elect, your children will be Elect”; where this was attributed to Calvin? To which you duly replied that Calvin taught this from his institutes iv 15. 2,20.
It would seem that what you assert is indeed not too disimilar to what Calvin teaches?
Colin,
I think you misunderstood me. There is a vast difference between what I said and what Calvin believed. I sincerely hope you don’t see the dedication/baptism of your children as salvation. In fact, God says that all souls belong to Him. Are all souls saved because they BELONG TO HIM?
It does not mean that one is saved. The above verse clearly teaches this. Therefore your assumption that I made a boo-boo is wrong.
Thomas,
Thank you for your reply.
You are correct to say that “all souls are mine” Ezekiel 18.4. Like you, I certainly believe that “all souls” do indeed belong to God, be they forever in heaven or hell.
But, reading again your reply to Rista, it seems that you are implying very strongly that when you say “belongs to Him”, I would suggest that you were very strongly inferring that would be with Him above, and not down below? I think to say otherwise, would be just a tad disingenuous on your part? Indeed why even bother, on this reasoning, as in your words to “dedicate your child to Him, the child belongs to Him…”, if you know he or she belongs to Him anyway? Surely the child would NOT “belong” to God, in the true sense, if he or she ended up in hell? He or she would be a child of Satan?
I would think that 1 Samuel 1.11, for example, would be used by some to teach child dedication to God.
Whatever you may think of Calvin as a man, one thing is sure, he wasn’t daft? He would have known about David and Absalom, and a host of others?
When I have more time I will read his “institutes” on this topic.
Colin,
Once again, your inference is wrong. My soteriology would be completely wrong if I should believe that “belongs to him” means to be in heaven with Him. Why do you think I quoted Ezekiel 18:4?
Knowing about David and Absalom isn’t what made John Calvin daft. He was daft because his soteriology was daft. I believe that Calvin is in hell and my reason for saying this is the following,
Anyone who believes he is going to heaven because he is one of the so-called elect is deceived and needs to repent.
Hannah’s dedication of her son was something completely different to today’s dedication of babies. Hannah’s dedication involved the giving of her son as an offering in the service of the Lord in the temple.
thank You!
I have this problem.. I accepted Jesus last year but I got swayed by false teachings. I started experiencing things in my body I thought I needed deliverance ministry not thinking right cause I was panicking. That deliverance ministry made me renounce my church and even baptized me. Found out they’re not Christians. I read the post about false Holy Spirit of fire.. I am experiencing some of those symptoms. I don’t feel the fruits of the Spirit anymore. I miss the joy of my salvation. Now I don’t think I’m still saved.. What’s your opinion on this. Thank you
Dear MV,
Would you mind telling me how you were saved?