I just noticed something. A few people in this thread are contending that baptism is a "work." But baptism is not something you go out and do to yourself. I have never seen someone baptize themself. You have someone else do it to you. You just lie there and simply trust (another interesting picture within the baptismal act!) How then is it a work?

(Jon, the following is not meant to be a direct rebuttal, necessarily, of anything you have said, here or elsewhere. I'm using yuor statement above as the springboard to launch into this.)

You have hit upon the key to this discussion/argument. Folks who take the position of Barry Hanson (and my brother, the "charismatic calvinist" of the family), in order to make their points, redefine what is and isn't a "work". They seldom say that there is NO human response required. one must "believe", or "have faith", or "trust", or "surrender the will" or "say the prayer". Whatever terminology they use, they ALL (except the most extreme "ultra-Calvinists") declare that there is SOME human response to the free gift of God's grace. The person being elected must give some response, or make some declaration, or make some intellectual and emotional and volitive decision. But they don't ever allow it to be said that such response or decision is to be called a "work", lest the grace of God be cast aside.

Yet they will constantly classify ONE decision -- the decision to obey God in baptism -- as a "work", and thereby nullify it's salvific efficacy.

I have spent literally hours going round and round with my brother about this very thing. He refuses to classify baptism in the same class as any other decision to accept the call of God.

I think that I can speak for almost everyone (note the "almost", people, and don't fry me if it doesn't include a couple of you) in declaring that baptism is classed, scripturally, with every other part of one's response to the grace of God. God gives; we receive, but only if we want to, and only if we respond to God's grace.

The next part of the argument is always, "Well, THAT does away with God's sovereingty. If man has any part in the exchange, then God is not sovereign." To which I reply, "Nuts." God is not trapped by His sovereignty into robotic action. God can give us free will only because He has it Himself. To say that man can make no move apart from the express and direct cause of God is to deny that God made man with the ability to turn away from Him.

YES, God is sovereign. YES, if He chose to do so, He could make everybody do everything at every moment. But the ABILITY to do so does not imply the DESIRE to do so. If God is truly sovereign, then He can, IN His sovereignty, allow man a measure of freedom. And that is what the majority of folks in this forum believe that He does.

Here is a Scriptural principle, never stated in the Bible, but nevertheless SEEN on every page, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 - - IN THIS LIFE, GOD HAS ALMOST NEVER MADE ANYBODY DO ANYTHING THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO. GOD HAS NEVER MADE ANYBODY MAKE ANY CHOICE OR DECISION THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE. GOD DOES NOT FORCE HIMSELF UPON ANYONE UNTIL A CHOICE IS MADE. HE WILL THEN ACT IN EITHER REWARD OR JUDGEMENT. BUT HE WILL NOT MAKE YOU CHOOSE ANY PARTICULAR COURSE OF ACTION.

He could if He wanted to, but He chooses, in His sovereignty, to let us make the choices, upon which he then acts. In this way, both His sovereignty and our freedom, which comes from a decision of His sovereignty, are maintained.

And it is in THIS framework that we come to whether baptism is to be classified in that category of man's responses (faith, belief, repentence, etc.) to God that are effective in God's bringing salvation to us.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Answers

Sam -

Did I say that? I don't remember (which doesn't make a difference, I just don't remember).

I still think that we are basically saying the same thing, but with a little different emphasis. I really like the quote someone had from Alexander Campbell about salvation being a 4-legged stool. Good illustration. Baptism being an act that you can't do yourself is also a very good illustration.

I'm in the middle of several major projects, so I'm not putting a lot of in depth thought into this. However, you said:

>He could if He wanted to, but He chooses, in His sovereignty, to let us make the choices, upon which he then acts. In this way, both His sovereignty and our freedom, which comes from a decision of His sovereignty, are maintained.

And it is in THIS framework that we come to whether baptism is to be classified in that category of man's responses (faith, belief, repentence, etc.) to God that are effective in God's bringing salvation to us. <

I can, I think, agree with this. Classifying baptism as a response of man that is effective in God bring salvation to us is more agreeable and clear to me. Maybe its semantics, but I find "response" better than "work."

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Your memory's not that bad, I'm sure, Dr. Jon. I was quoting John Wilson, from another thread. I forgot which of you spells the name without an "h".

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Oh good, I didn't think I was that bad! You'll have to excuse me, I had a root canal done this morning, so my mind is somewhere else :)

But what I said earlier I still mean. This is the clearest I have heard the idea presented. I may end up "stealing" it and using it.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Be my guest! =)

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Dr. Jon:

I am glad to hear your words for in fact it is true that baptism is a response to the very "working or operation of God" for our salvation in that he removes the body of the flesh or our sins at this point wherein we voluntarily, and humbly surrender and submit in response to his "circumcision not made with hands in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been imersed WITH Him in imersion wherein ye also were Raised WITH Him through faith in the WORKING OF GOD". COl. 2:11,12.

Baptism therefore is man's response in humble submission to the "working of God" which takes place in baptism wherein our sins are removed in this same working of God that is called " The Circumcision of Christ".

It seems that the true meaning of this passage has been obsured by those who are all too eager to make baptism "take the place of Circumcision" of the old law. When in fact the circumcision of the old law is merely an illustration of what happens when GOD WORKS in baptism to cut off the sins of the flesh from our souls when we "respond" in humble submission to the "working of God" that takes place when and only when we submit, surrender and yield our stubborn will to His.

A good illustration from the old Testament of God "working" in baptism is from the case of Naaman the Leper in 2 Kings. I will not go through the entire story but it is sufficient to say that Naaman humbled himself and submitted to the "working of God" by dipping seven times in the river Jordan and he was cleasned, not by his own efforts or diligent labor or righteous deeds but rather by the "power and working of God" that works in the place that God chose for it to work. He did not, for he could not, come out of the water and demand that God grant to him the cleansing of his leperousey because he had EARNED IT by doing as God had commanded. If he had refused to go to the place that God had chosen to "work on Him" by going to some other river that God had not told him to go to he would never have actually "responded to God's work". He would have remained a leper. God is soveriegn and in HIS soverienty He has chosen to command us to submit, passively, and humbly to BE IMMERSED. We can see men today complaining just as Naaman complained to His servant when he resisted this command to "go dip in the Jordan". For, you see, it did not make sense to Him. He expected the man of God to require something greater of him. He thought the rivers of other places were better than the Jordan. But the Jordan was the place God had designated to do his "WORK" on Naaman and it was not until Naaman responded and surrenderd and did as God had told him that GOd did HIS WORK on Naaman.

In Like manner, God has choosen the time and place where he will do his work on us. He has selected the place where men will undergo the "circumcision of Christ". He has chosen when he will remove the sins of our flesh. He has chosen when and where he will cure us of our "leperosy" and Paul in Col. 1:11, 12 tell us that place, where God does his work is in Baptism. We are not in any sense saved from this leporsy until God completes his work in His designated time and place. We must, through faith, accept HIS will in this matter or lose all hope of being clean. He will do this for us if we will respond and submit humbly, and passively to his will and then we will see Him do HIS WONDERFUL work.

Therefore it is God who works in Baptism and it is man who responds in humble, passive, submission and surrender to the will and the working of God.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Lee,

You said... some pretty cool things when you talked about Naaman in respect to baptism...

Just wanted you to know... "good goin'", I appreciated the reference. I've never looked at it that way before.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Brothers:

I agree wholeheartedly with the statements made here. I thought I might add a little historical perspective if that might be somewhat helpful.

We must remember that Calvin wrote in response and reaction to the doctrines of Roman Catholicism as did M. Luther, of course. The church taught that baptism (in their case, sprinkling) was essential for salvation. In addition, the Roman Catholic church at that time DID teach salvation by works. So, Calvin reacted to the extreme on both counts. His approach was basically: (1)if the Roman Catholics teach it, it must be wrong; (2) if the Catholics teach it, it must be about works. Armed with these two presuppositions, Calvin concluded that baptism was a work and not in any way a part of the plan of salvation.

What I find most ironic though, is that while he denied everything that the Roman church said, he kept many of their practices (including sprinkling). I suppose that just goes to show that all of us have our human preoccupations. Calvin was so enamoured with the good news of grace and so put off by the teaching of salvation by works in Catholicism that he couldn't see the forest for the trees.

It appears to be a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I think that this has reminded me of two important things for my own life: (1) we cannot evaluate any view or position apart from the sitz em labin in which it was born; (2) I must be very aware of how my own views may be effected by the enviornment in which those views were born. Any thoughts folks?

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Without having a whole lot of time to say as much as I would like, although it most likely will not matter in the long haul, being that this thread has been archived and not touched for over a year! Wow! I noticed that I specifically was mentioned in the opening message! Wow! I am quite shocked with not being around for so long and then finding my name mentioned in a thread. In any event, the Holy Scriptures do not teach one must be submerged in water for the blood of Christ to take effect. With all the multitude of words the simple truth is quite overlooked, by grace through faith.

If this message gets a response I may just fall over J

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2001