If you ever want to see what Rick Warren's vision for Purpose-Driven Preaching looks like in practice, then all you would need to do is watch or listen to Saddleback's sermons on-line. Over the past couple of years the sermons preached at Saddleback have covered such topics as Knowing Your Purpose, Thirty Days to a No Regrets Life, Leaving a Legacy, Deepening Relationships that Matter, Setting Financial Goals, Managing Your Time, Learning the Ancient Secrets From God's Word for a Less Stressed, More Relaxed, and Lighter, Freer Lifestyle, The Secrets of Staying Power - How to Always Give Yourself Fully to the Work of the Lord, and Breaking Free from Desperate Hidden Lives.
Every one of these sermons was teeming with 'good advice' and practical 'how to' information that could be applied to your life the same day that you listened. All of these sermons were heavy with God's law but sadly had nothing to offer me. For you see, my problem can't be fixed with 'good advice' and practical 'how to' applications because I am a wicked and sinful man.
It is too late for me to have a 'no regrets life'. Even though I have been a Christian for nearly all of my life, I have committed terrible sins for which I have deep regrets.
As for managing my time, I have struggled with procrastination my entire life. I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I have squandered my time doing unimportant and wasteful things when I should have been working on a project, doing homework, spending time with my wife, playing with my kids, visiting my grandparents etc. The correct way to describe me when it comes to time management is selfish. Even that doesn’t even correctly describe the depths of the ugliness of my sin when it comes to time management. In order to rein this sin in I’ve been to Franklin Covey time management seminars, read books and attended classes. Everything that I’ve tried has petered out over time. Overall, there has been some improvement but even when I am doing what I should be doing in my heart I want to be doing something else.
When it comes to financial management I have sinned so terribly that I deserve God’s wrath and punishments both in this life and the life to come AND I AM A CHRISTIAN.
I don’t need good advice, I need good news.
Am I going to burn in hell for all of the sins that I’ve committed? Can God forgive me for all of these sins? Will God forgive me for them or is there a limit to God’s grace? What if there is a limit and I have exceeded it? I’ve already asked God to forgive me for these sins tens of thousands of times. Can God forgive me the next ten thousand times I ask him to forgive me?
I am sick with sin. I don’t need good advice I need good news.
Don’t even get me started on the other areas discussed in these sermons. I am so depraved and sinful that I don’t even know what it means to be heavenly minded and prioritize my life accordingly. Yet, I read the Bible through several times a year. My priorities are so far out of whack compared to what God would have them be that they could only be described as wickedly selfish. As for offering forgiveness to other people, that is always so difficult. My first inclination when someone has wronged me is to knock their block off. But, according to God’s perfect law, that inclination is sinful and murderous. As for living as if it were my last day’s on earth, you’ve got to be kidding me. I am a selfish and wickedly sinful man. My obedience is pathetically weak and shot through with sin. If I were told that I had 30 days to live then the ONLY thing I could count on is sinning for 30 more days.
I don’t need good advice, I need good news.
I confess that I do NOT love God with all of my heart, I HAVE taken the Lord’s name in vain, I have NOT kept the Sabbath, I have NOT honored and obeyed my parents, I HAVE murdered, I HAVE committed adultery, I HAVE stolen, I HAVE lied and I HAVE coveted everything that belongs to my neighbor including his wife, his car, his clothes, and is entertainment center.
All of these sins I have committed since becoming a Christian. All of these sins I have committed THIS WEEK and every time I break even one of the commandments the Bible says that I am guilty of breaking the ENTIRE law.
James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
I am sick with sin through and through. I don’t need good advice, I need good news.
I am desperate because God’s word says that I deserve His wrath, punishment and hell for all eternity for the sins that I have committed and I am terrified because I know that God is just.
I don’t need good advice right now. I need good news.
Telling me to repent, change my mind and be more obedient just won’t cut it. I already know and believe that all of these things that I have done and continue to do are sinful and wrong and contrary to what the one true and holy God expects and demands from me. It's too late, the cow is already out of the barn for me. I can’t go back and undo these sins and ‘trying harder’ and 'doing better' is just not going to be enough.
So I don’t need ‘good advice’ right now.
Does Rick Warren or any Purpose-Driven Preacher have any good news to offer me?
"....smooth talkers who pastor large churches, write many books, lead wide ministries, and do not manifestly prize above their earthly good the whole counsel of God."
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 13, 2008 at 03:09 AM
"So I close with a pointed call to vigilance: Watch out for smooth talkers who pastor large churches, write many books, lead wide ministries, and do not manifestly prize above their earthly good the whole counsel of God."
John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, amongst others. I know... your list would include. Driscoll, Bell, McLaren, Pagitt, Jones, Hybels, Warren, etc...
Posted by: chris | June 13, 2008 at 08:55 AM
catransplant and Joe, yes my former church "bathed their decision in prayer" to put me on trial for confronting the pastor for his manipulative, leadership undermining and passive aggressive behavior.
I SOO appreciate those kinds of prayers. Thankfully they don't go any farther than the walls of the room they're said in.
And Joe, the love you exude in that last post is just... palpable. I'm so glad you don't have any anger about anything that is unjust.
thank you Ken.
Posted by: Paula | June 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM
CAT- "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."
I "copied & pasted" a quote from John Piper's site. I would say you making that "unkind" comment is more judgmental than me copying & pasting a “test” that J Piper says on how to identify false teachers. So is God and the Apostle Paul wrong when God wrote this through Paul:
Romans 16:17-20
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. Such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
What’s wrong with holding & testing all of our teachers against the Word of God?
CHRIS- “John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, amongst others. I know...” I don’t think you are taking into account that last 4 words, “whole counsel of God.” These guys do preach the “whole counsel of God”. Piper is making the point that those who do NOT preach “whole counsel of God” may be failing that test?
Here is the entire link:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2006/1872/
Posted by: Zek | June 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
“whole counsel of God”
How does one determine the "whole" counsel? Silly question I know.
Posted by: chris | June 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Zek: I was simply reminding you through God's Word (would you call the Word of God unkind?) about a warning God gives all of us to be very careful who we pass judgment on. In no way was I passing judgment on you or being "unkind".
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 13, 2008 at 11:43 AM
chris (not Chris R) John Macarthur, Sproul, Piper, would not fall into that category, because of the last part of what you quoted. Those that "do not manifestly prize above their earthly good the whole counsel of God."
Posted by: paula | June 13, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Jim wrote: No, I did not tell my son these things, but he knew something bad happended because he saw it on the face of my wife and daughter.
Jim make sure you explain it to them so that they do realize that there are false churches and true churches, and what makes the difference. Our girls were 10 and 12 and our son was 6 at the time and they understand SO much better now what the real Gospel is and what is worth fighting for, what is worth leaving over, and that the poor behavior of people who name the name of Christ doesn't mean Christ himself is to be rejected.
Posted by: Paula | June 13, 2008 at 12:13 PM
catransplant wrote: "I'm sure you will give me quite a tongue-lashing for what I've just said."
Ken wrote:Ready, here goes: The Lord bless you.
Ken, that's actually a scarier thought! A real blessing from God in this context will be the gift of repentance of this false doctrine... and that kind of thing is NEVER fun! (but it IS ALWAYS GOOD!)
Posted by: Paula | June 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Paula, (Purpose Drivel)
In all seriousness I ask when will you be able to move past your hurt from the Purpose Driven stuff?
Is this really in line with "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" or "Forgive as you have been forgiven"?
I know your trying to warn others but do you really feel "thrown under the bus" because Chris R. had lunch with Rick?
Posted by: chris | June 13, 2008 at 03:04 PM
Actually, Paula by the time I was 12 I was every type of abused there is so I know a little something about real injustice. I saw a guy get shot to death because he was African American and he was friends with a white guy so I know a little about injustice. It's an interesting thing when a person is wronged, how they respond is almost always far bigger than what happened to them. Get angry me all you want but to this point you're allowing this incident with your former church to define you. You are not the first person who had disagreed with and believed their pastor was wrong, you are also not the first person to be asked to leave over it. You think you were wronged, I'm sure if I talked to your former pastor he'd have a different story. Not everyone who is nice to PD people is selling out to the enemy. Being kind to a person, even a person you disagree with isn't selling out. When I said you need to seek help I meant it. Finding a good counselor might help you to move past this.
Posted by: Joe Martino | June 13, 2008 at 09:24 PM
I appreciate your efforts on this issue. I have been approached by and spoken to one of Warren's underlings and I would have to simply describe the meeting, via e mail, as scripture driven vs. purpose driven. The scripture driven are those that focus on the centrality, the crescendo , of the scriptures and that is Christ's sacrificial death on the cross, the ultimate action of Grace! Purpose driven focuses on what one can get, and how they can get it, sans repentance on the cross (I have to admit, there is a token mention of Christ, the cross and repentance, but it is like back page news, hidden among the help wanted and personals adds, in other words it is virtually non existent!), not on what has been graciously given.
My impression of Warren has always been that he is a professional and a kind guy and you and Mr. Deeway confirmed that in your meeting. You did the right thing by being gracious in return and thanking him, even though I believe his teaching is delusional at best and straight from hell. So, I just wanted to drop you a note and encourage you, looks like you are approaching this in a thoughtful and right manner, keep up the great work and let's cut it straight together.
Your Brother In Christ
Robert C.
Posted by: Robert | June 14, 2008 at 01:38 PM
chris said:
“whole counsel of God”
How does one determine the "whole" counsel? Silly question I know.
As one who has fed deeply at the well of John MacArthur's preaching, via GTY and Commentaries as well as his study Bible you might consider this bit of a statistic, he has preached thru all the New Testament books but Mark and is nearing the end of Luke. Lord willing his intention is to complete that prior to the Lord taking him home. Counter that with what transpires in many pulpits today and it is easy to understand, for those with ears to hear and eyes to see, what preaching the whole counsel of God means. The tragedy of it all is that some prefer ignorance over humble wisdom - a deeply destructive form of prideful self-centeredness.
An easy way to identify the difference can be as easy as answering this question: "Does the message seem to be about what God can do for me and how I can be blessed by God or does it expose the sin in my life, call me to humble myself and submit myself to God all the more diminishing my fleshly desires and seeking to bring Him glory?
1 1/2 cents from the heartland,
In Christ's Service,
Bill B
Posted by: Bill Burke | June 14, 2008 at 07:41 PM
"Does the message seem to be about what God can do for me and how I can be blessed by God or does it expose the sin in my life, call me to humble myself and submit myself to God all the more diminishing my fleshly desires and seeking to bring Him glory?"
I was at Saddleback tonight and the message actually did both.
And for the record, it's ok to be blessed by God. We are blessed to be a blessing.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 15, 2008 at 12:40 AM
“whole counsel of God”
How does one determine the "whole" counsel? Silly question I know.
link: The Whole Counsel of God, by Bob DeWaay:
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue57.htm
“Where is the doctrine of sin? When is the last time you heard a sermon on the sin? Recall that when we say we are saved, we are not talking about being saved from sin; we are talking about being saved from the wrath of God that rightfully should be poured out upon sinners. Without sin there is no reason to follow Christ. When we fail to recognize sin we negate the reason for why Christ came. As the prince of preachers, C. H. Spurgeon once said, "Christ's sheep will never be offended by Christ's voice."
Posted by: Zek | June 15, 2008 at 01:40 AM
"In all seriousness I ask when will you be able to move past your hurt from the Purpose Driven stuff?"
Are you admitting Purpose Driven just might have hurt me and untold thousands of others?
When will I get over my intense loathing of wolves? Hmm...
maybe when Rick Warren repents and changes his message back to the Biblical one, and the world no longer goes after this cotton candy teaching in droves but would rather have Christ. But that still would not make me LIKE purpose driven.
When will you get over your hurt and bitterness over people 'dissing' Rick Warren? When will you get over your anger over injustice done to AIDS victims? When will you get over your anger toward Ingrid and Ken Silva, and me? Clearly you are obsessing about it since you are still here! Maybe I'm not the only one who 'needs help.' (In all seriousness...) When will Rick get over his fear of dissent and stop commending people for enforcing 'blessed subtractions?'
On the contrary, Rick has inadvertently shown me my purpose. To contend for the faith once for all given to the saints. To go outside the camp where so many saints have been put by purpose driven and give them a drink of water and offer encouragement.
I wonder if Rick is responsible for this? And for praising similar tactics by Dan Southerland, and writing a zillion articles about 'blessed sutractions' etc... I guess he's not responsible for those commendations either.
DISSENTERS AT RICK WARREN'S CHURCH - SHOWN THE DOOR OVER OBAMA
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 1:52 PM (12-14-06)
************************
Members of the congregation at Saddleback Church, the church led by Rick Warren, are evidently being ushered right out of membership for voicing any concern over the idea of Barack Obama being allowed to speak at the church recently.
I received a lengthy letter from a member of Saddleback this morning that confirmed as much:
*******************
I read where you say, speak out. I want to let you know. If and when we do, we are quickly shown the door. I have tried to speak out on another 2 issues that are internally devastating. My honesty was not met with a willingness to take action or to make certain things stop. The inner workings may be just as devastating to learn of.
At any rate, I for one am praying and asking a great deal of questions. On I have is what has Obama actually done for the AIDS crisis? Other than take an AIDS test in his father’s home land of Kenya? I have read Obama’s speech record and even his latest transcript while on Larry King and this is clearly not a man that has a burden for those with AIDS. I have also read his speech transcripts from the conference at Saddleback. If he was not addressing the “congregation” then I am not sure who he was addressing. Any fool can read just the introduction and glean that much.
There is much more to be said, and much more will be revealed on this and other matters concerning these issues.
*******************
They are not alone. Members at Willow Creek Community Church were treated the same way when they expressed concern over Bill Clinton being allowed to address a gathering of pastors.
It's too bad that these "seeker friendly" churches are actually unfriendly to their own congregation for simply asking the spiritual leadership of the church to be doctrinally strong.
Oh forgot, can't be doctrinally strong because this reformation is about deeds not creeds.
Posted by: paula | June 15, 2008 at 08:59 AM
What Good News does RW have to offer? Every sermon leads up to an invitation at the end. The opportunity to be baptized after the service is also offered. Before they can be baptized they are asked the question about receiving Christ as their Lord and Savior. They are also told for clarification that the baptism doesn't save them, it is the change of heart that does, the repentance. Baptism is simply a public declaration of that repentance.
Posted by: Jim Anderson | June 15, 2008 at 05:01 PM
"What Good News does RW have to offer? Every sermon leads up to an invitation at the end."
What kind of invitation?
The Dangers of the Invitation System
Jim Ehrhard
The Modern Invitation System Examined
By Massimo Lorenzini
The Reality of False Conversions
Posted by: Douglas | June 15, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Why would anybody be kicked out of Saddleback because they oppose Obama?
Sounds to me Rick Warren is a dictator and his church covenant that prohibits disagreement backs this up.
I'm an Obama fan, I think he is the best politician the United States has seen since Ronald Reagan. With that said I am sure there are christian brothers that don't like Obama and excommunicating them from the church (taking them out of church membership) is an offense to God who wants us to have fellowship with one another. The more I hear about Rick Warren, the more I'm convinced this guy does not behave like a christian, neither does he preach as a christian. He may have a little private confession that he is a christian but his actions and teaching in his books, as well as his preaching, don't back this up.
Posted by: Bill | June 15, 2008 at 09:58 PM
"What kind of invitation?" Douglas
He just can't win can he? Offer the Gospel, don't offer the Gospel. Or it can only be done one way, or the salvation doesn't take? What? It doesn't matter if Rick Warren was the most spiritually gifted man on earth, you'd oppose him. Thats fine. Great leadership always has opposition, it is good to help hold him accountable. I'm sure he is thankful for that. We just need to be careful to check the log in our own eye first.
Posted by: Jim Anderson | June 16, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Jim,
You wrote "They are also told for clarification that the baptism doesn't save them, it is the change of heart that does, the repentance. Baptism is simply a public declaration of that repentance."
Baptism does save. Peter told those on Pentecost that in baptism is the forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:38-39) and he wrote that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21). No where in scripture is baptism treated as a just public declaration, its more. It is a means of grace.
A changed heart does not save. God save us by his grace without any action on our part. A changed heart is the result of salvation just as repentance is the result of salvation.
The view of Holy Baptism that Saddleback and the SBC teach if one of the reasons why I am no longer Baptist.
Posted by: Steve Newell | June 16, 2008 at 01:26 PM
Steve,
The prisoner on the cross was not baptized. Was he not saved?
Posted by: Miguel | June 16, 2008 at 06:29 PM
Miguel,
One does not have to be baptized to be saved. However, baptism does save. Nowhere did I state that baptism is the ONLY way of salvation.
What is your understanding on what Peter said and wrote about baptism?
Posted by: Steve Newell | June 17, 2008 at 06:27 AM
Wasn't trying to argue - upon re-reading your post I realize you weren't saying that, but that was my first impression.
Posted by: MIguel | June 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Steve, I believe Jim was referring to water baptism only. That's a completely different, physical baptism than the one-time baptism of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins. While baptism is the public declaration of faith in Christ, it is not the means of remission or forgiveness of sins. God's Word makes it clear that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 17, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Catransplant,
In scripture there is only one baptism and that is water baptism. This is want Peter wrote and spoke about. Paul wrote that there is only one baptism, not two. Once a person has been baptized into the Christian faith, there is never a need for "rebaptism".
Where in scripture is baptism only a public declaration? It wasn't with the Philippian jailer since he and his entire family were baptized at night. Scripture clearly states that baptism imparts the forgiveness of sin.
As a Lutheran, I completely agree with your use of Eph 2:8-9 that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone for Christ's sake alone. This is three of the four solas of the Reformation. The forth sola, scripture alone, teaches that God work trough means, that is Word and Sacrament with the Sacraments being Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. At no part of Eph 2:8-9 is Holy Baptism excluded from this since God is the one at work in the water and through the Word.
What do you understand Peter to be teaching about Holy Baptism?
Please read the posting on ExtremeTheology that I wrote sometime back on the fact that Holy Baptism saves.
Posted by: Steve Newell | June 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Steve, with all due respect, are you then going to tell me that innocent aborted babies and infants that die unbaptized are not saved? They haven't undergone water baptism. When I was a child I was taught that all infants needed to be baptized so that they wouldn't die unsaved and was told about Purgatory and praying to Mary as an intercessor and the need to confess my sins to a priest.....and when I began to read the Bible myself I could not find any of those teachings.
Are you saying that a person dying of AIDS in Africa who acepts Jesus' salvation a few moments before they die and does not undergo water baptism or receive communion is condemned to hell for eternity? That's not what my Bible teaches.
Water baptism is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ. It isn't the immersion that saved, me, it is Christ crucified - once for all - and resurrected for my sins that saves. Water baptism serves as both a reminder of the sacrifice of Christ and as a public declaration of my faith....faith that was already present when I was baptized because I had been saved by believing that Jesus is my Savior.
Concerning the Apostle Paul, Acts 22:16 states "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name" This confirms the symbolism of water baptism since, according to scripture, Paul had already been saved on the road to Damascus. Ananias was calling on Paul to make a public declaration of his salvation through Christ.
As for the Philippian jailer, he was told to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" in order to be saved. His water baptism came later and was not mentioned as a prerequisite to his salvation. There are many such examples throughout Scripture.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 17, 2008 at 02:38 PM
Catransplant,
You don't understand what I have said. One can be have without baptism and one can saved through baptism.
Paul stated that baptism washes away his own sins. It was not symbolic, but actual. Paul's own words show that he was referring to his baptism for the remission of sins as a fact.
How do you explain Peter? Peter tied baptism with salvation at Pentecost and in his first letter.
Posted by: Steve Newell | June 17, 2008 at 03:02 PM
"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days," (Acts 10:44-48).
Again, these Gentiles had the gift of tongues; they had been speaking in tongues and praising God. Only believers can praise God. Peter even states that they had received the Holy Spirit. That's when their salvation happened. The baptisms took place AFTER they believed.
And if you are referring to 1 Pet. 3:21, that verse does not state that baptism is what saves us. It illustrates that the water symbolizes a spiritual cleansing through the power of the Holy Spirit gained through Christ’s victory over death.
I could cite example after example of this. It is a good idea to have a Hebrew-Greek study Bible in your personal library. Many verses of Scripture are misinterpreted because several words have different meanings (such as "love", which can be speaking of romantic, parental, friendship, etc) depending on the context of the verse.
We've gone off topic here, Steve, so let's not belabor the point out of consideration for those who are blogging on this site.
Blessings.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 18, 2008 at 12:30 AM
WAY off topic, indeed. But catransplant48, it's folly to assume that if people only have a Hebrew-Greek study Bible, they're bound to agree with the lens through which you read Scripture. The Bible simply never says that baptism is a symbol of an inward change, not in 1 Peter or anywhere else. The water of the flood was a symbol of the reality, baptism, WHICH NOW SAVES YOU, by the resurrection of Christ. The Bible DOES say that baptism saves us, washes our sins away, unites us to the death and resurrection of Christ, puts Christ on us, and gives the forgiveness of sins. And no one is saying that it's impossible to believe the Gospel before one is baptized, either. Lutherans believe that baptism is a Gospel gift that delivers Jesus to us through the Word. Rick Warren and others teach baptism is merely a human work that we offer to God. Again with the emphasis on Law, and no Gospel.
It's why I'm no longer Baptist, either. There was simply too many Scripture verses that had to be explained away to mean the exact opposite of what they clearly seemed to state.
Posted by: Kelly | June 18, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Sorry, Kelly. Based on the Scripture verses that plainly tell me otherwise, I still don't agree with you. It's putting our faith in Jesus Christ and believing that He is our Savior that saves. He told us He is THE WAY. To say that a ritual such as water baptism actually saves flies in the face of a statement of the Lord.
There's a huge difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which saves, and water baptism.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 19, 2008 at 12:05 AM
You *have* to think that way, dissecting baptism into unrelated elements despite lack of textual evidence for doing that, because you're starting with the incorrect presupposition that baptism is a good human work that WE do. Of course if baptism is a human work, it wouldn't save us! But set aside that presupposition for just a moment. What if it's God's gift to us, a delivery of the Gospel itself? You think it's vulgar and unspiritual that God would use such earthly means to deliver Jesus to someone. But don't you believe that a pastor can stand in a pulpit, preach from a printed book, resulting in a person being saved? Earthly stuff was used there-- someone's paying that pastor to do his job; ink and a publisher were used to print that book, etc. This doesn't mean we're saved by works, it just means that God uses STUFF to deliver the Gospel to us. That's what the incarnation was all about.
Strictly speaking, it's Jesus on the cross that won us our salvation, not us making good decisions for him, giving him our heart, or anything else. But how do we receive the benefits of something that happened 2000 years ago? It has to be delivered to us, and by faith we receive the gift-- passively. If the Bible says that baptism connects me to Jesus's death and resurrection, which is my salvation, I believe it. This is perfectly in accord with salvation by grace through faith alone-- in fact, a lot more so than believing that my good decision-making secured me salvation and a less moral person's bad decision-making condemned them.
The Bible plainly says we're saved by grace through faith, and it plainly says that baptism saves. I believe both, and it's not that hard to when you realize that baptism isn't a human work. You don't have to jump through elaborate interpretive hoops to explain away all the passages on baptism! (Like trying to dissect Acts 2:38 as though Peter's telling them to be "baptized in Holy Spirit" for the forgiveness of sins, without water, after which they would receive the Holy Spirit. Uh, no.)
Posted by: Kelly | June 19, 2008 at 03:25 AM
Kelly: I can see it's pointless discussing this with you since you are restating several of my statements incorrectly....but Scripture doesn't lie. One baptism is spiritual (and happens at the moment of salvation); water baptism is a symbol of Christ's death and resurrection.
Sometimes we do have to dig deep into God's Word to know the proper meaning: or how would you explain 1 Timothy 2:15, which states "But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." Childbearing doesn't save. This verse bears closer examination to discover the meaning Paul was conveying, as do the examples I laid out before concerning baptism.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 19, 2008 at 06:14 AM
catransplant48,
Are you saying that you believe in 2 baptisms? Do you confess the Nicene Creed? Perhaps you don't. In it we confess that we believe in only one baptism for the remission of sins. Since you're here at Extreme Theology, you might be interested in one of Chris's own teaching materials on the correct understanding of what batism is and does. http://podcast.extremetheology.com/extreme/TSBaptism.pdf
Posted by: Becky | June 19, 2008 at 07:37 AM
Bcky: All I'm saying is the act of pouring water is not what saves. I've read what's posted here and I know what's in the Word. Titus 3:5-6 states that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the active players “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”.
One baptism, one time, for the forgiveness of sins....according to Scripture. My baptism by immersion did not save me. That was a decision I made because I wanted to declare my faith in the Lord at my church, to my church family. It was years before, when I put my faith in Christ as my Savior, that I was saved; baptized by the Holy Spirit.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 19, 2008 at 01:22 PM
I used to think like you, catransplant48. I'm not misreading you. But you're misreading me. No one said that a simple act of applying water is what saves. Baptism is water and the WORD (see Ephesians 5:26), and of course the Triune God is active in it. That word of promise, stated several places in the Bible, is what convinces us that baptism does exactly what God says it does. What you call a "plain reading of Scripture" is an elaborate construction that's actually not stated anywhere in the Bible; it's a deduction you're making on the basis of your assumption that God doesn't work through physical means to deliver Jesus to people. Where's the plain word of Scripture that says that baptism is play-acting because you want to show your faith to your church family? Where does it say that one baptism happens when you're saved, and the "other, water" baptism is a mere symbol of Jesus's death and resurrection? For that matter, where does it say to make a decision for Jesus, and that your decision (rather than God's action entirely) is what saved you? This isn't plain Scripture at all. It's an outgrowth of the assumptions of your theology, and actually mitigates against Scripture.
The washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, indeed. The Holy Spirit is delivered to us in this washing called baptism. I don't know why you think these passages prove your point over mine...
I know you're used to thinking this way, and such thinking doesn't disappear overnight. It took me awhile for the blinders to lift, so just consider it food for thought.
Posted by: Kelly | June 19, 2008 at 02:58 PM
Kelly, if it means that much to you to believe you're right, you go right ahead. You take my words out of context and add your thoughts and interpretations to them so that they end up being no longer mine, but yours anyway. In the end, that proves nothing and goes nowhere.
I believe the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture is it written that if you do not undergo a physical baptism by immersion in water that you are not saved. That's all I'm saying. If you can find a Scripture to disprove that, I'd love to see it.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 19, 2008 at 09:04 PM
Oh, come on... everyone who states an opinion here believes they're right, including you (I hope). A lot is at stake. Give me a specific example of a way I've described your belief which isn't actually what you believe, and we'll go from there. Engage in actual debate, please; that's what these kinds of boards are for. If you get your feelings hurt when people politely disagree with you, challenge you, or present an idea that you're uncomfortable with, discussion boards aren't your scene.
Don't you think that other people who "believe the Bible" are capable of disagreeing with you about baptism? Do you think that no Christians "believed the Bible" for 1500 years, until the Anabaptists came along?
Now, instead of talking about whether baptism saves or not, you've changed the subject and are asking for proof that lack of baptism (by immersion, for some reason, but that's another fish to fry) means that a person isn't saved. That's a different issue, one that Steve Newell addressed already on June 17th. (To recap: a person is saved by the means which God uses to deliver the Gospel to him. Baptism is described as such in Scripture, therefore it saves, as the Bible says. The preached Word is a means of grace, so people can hear it, receive it in faith, and be saved. There is more than one way for a Gospel to initially come to a person. That doesn't mean that one or the other doesn't really save.)
Now, how about answering some of the issues I've addressed already? What do you find is your single biggest resistance to the clear words of Scripture regarding baptism saving, washing away and forgiving sin, and so on, that you rely on a construction of a sort of dissected baptism? Can you analyze what your own presuppositions are? It helps all of us to do that from time to time. No one reads Scripture without bringing their own "stuff" to the text.
If you're like most, I suspect that you dislike the idea of God using water as a way of delivering the Gospel, because it seems like just some "ritual." It's earthy and doesn't look very spiritual, and above all it doesn't look like the kind of stuff dished up in popular Christianity, which focusses on the inner life of analyzing your levels of commitment, sincerity, decisions, purity of heart, and strength of obedience and overcoming badness. Also, it's just a foreign idea to modern Christianity, which has very much lost its roots. And if you're anything like I was, you didn't bother much really researching and looking into questions like, "Lutherans are obsessed with grace alone, yet they believe baptism saves. That confuses me, so maybe there's something *I'm* not understanding here that I need to learn more about..."
Long before I accepted that baptism was efficacious and agreed with the Lutheran position, I could at least respect the Lutheran position once I understood what it was. I had been wrong; they didn't believe in salvation by works just because they held baptism to be efficacious. Like so much else in their theology, they held baptism to be a free and simple gift of grace, a delivery of Christ crucified. It was me who'd held baptism to be little more than another human work, commanded by Christ the lawgiver as an empty ritual that benefitted no one. It was me whose theology was centered on works and my own inner life rather than on Christ and his work on my behalf.
Posted by: Kelly | June 20, 2008 at 02:54 AM
Kelly: You did it again. Right in your last paragraph you implied that my belief might differ as far as salvation by works and implied that I am wrong in adhering to the basic doctrinal truth of salvation by belief in Christ crucified and resurrected. For the record, I didn't "change the subject". Clarifying between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and baptism by immersion was the whole point of my exchange with Steve Newell:
Steve, I believe Jim was referring to water baptism only. That's a completely different, physical baptism than the one-time baptism of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins. While baptism is the public declaration of faith in Christ, it is not the means of remission or forgiveness of sins. God's Word makes it clear that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 17, 2008 at 09:12 AM
To which he countered:
In scripture there is only one baptism and that is water baptism.
And that is simply not true.
If you read all of my posts thoroughly you'll see that I would never say that baptism was "more than another human work" nor an "empty ritual". Those are your words, not mine. Actually you have taken so much of what I have said out of context that it's pointless "debating" anything with you when that's what is countered back.
So I'm sorry, my dear. Much as you seem to want me to rise to the bait, I am just not going to.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 20, 2008 at 05:13 AM
I was referring to THIS, in which Steve actually answered the question you posed to me about those who have not been baptized; the first post on June 17: "Miguel, One does not have to be baptized to be saved. However, baptism does save. Nowhere did I state that baptism is the ONLY way of salvation." Please read the previous discussions. And it would be nice if you replied to some of the very many points I've raised to you, as well. I don't see how anything I'm saying could possibly be viewed as baiting, except that if you're not too used to discussion boards, a challenge can feel naturally intimidating. I encourage you to be a little more open and not shut down communication because you feel overwhelmed.
I was referring primarily to my own past beliefs, but having said that... You don't believe baptism is a human work? The whole argument you've given for rejecting the salvific nature of baptism is that you believe that "Christ alone" (i.e., not our human works) save. So if you don't believe it's little more than a human work, is it a work of God? It has to be one or the other.
Empty ritual = a human action or work that doesn't actually communicate anything beneficial. Hope that clarifies.
I didn't "imply that you were wrong in adhering to the basic doctrinal truth of salvation by belief in Christ crucified and resurrected." I'm implying that you're wrong that a person's good decision-making secures their salvation and makes them a Christian, however. Faith is not the same as making good choices for God with a little help with the Holy Spirit, and this seems to be a primary point of talking past each other when it comes to conversations about salvation.
Ask a person why they're saved. If they go on about the things they've done, they've missed the point. (I.e., "I'm saved because I made the choice... I opened my heart to Jesus... I decided... I, I, I...") A person is saved because Jesus died on the cross for them and gave them the gift of saving faith through his Word. This is a truly Christ-centered testimony. It's not popular to talk this way in corners where Law often supersedes Gospel... as Chris often points out on his site.
When I was a Baptist I was often fond of shouting "CONTEXT!" whenever anyone disagreed with my theological stance, but that doesn't really help anything. Let's be specific when we're describing contexts, and any words we feel were taken out of them. That's just basic debate etiquette that keeps people from feeling injured and misunderstood without solving the problem.
Please pick any one topic to reply to, or ask any single question. It might keep a little more focused. For example: Based on what you've read people post here, would you be able to sum up why many Christians believe that baptism saves, even if you don't agree with it? I'm curious to see how you're reading the discussion.
Posted by: Kelly | June 20, 2008 at 09:39 PM
Kelly: You wrote: "Ask a person why they're saved. If they go on about the things they've done, they've missed the point. (I.e., "I'm saved because I made the choice... I opened my heart to Jesus... I decided... I, I, I...") A person is saved because Jesus died on the cross for them and gave them the gift of saving faith through his Word."
Do you not see that you're assuming a whole lot about someone's heart based solely on their spoken words? Neither you nor I have that right. We can't judge what's in a person's heart based on those words. 1 Samuel 16:7. God looks at their heart. God, not us. That may be their way of expressing what has already happened (their salvation because they believe Christ died for their sins).
I don't know why some people believe the things they do. Steve specifically said, "In scripture there is only one baptism and that is water baptism." That statement is a clear misinterpretation of Scripture and demands clarification, but I would never doubt someone's salvation based upon someone stating - in the best way that they know how - that they believe in Jesus as their Savior. God knows their heart far better than I do.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 20, 2008 at 10:31 PM
I was referring to water baptism.
Baptism cannot save. See Eph.2:8-9; Rom.5:1;6:23;11:16 as just a few of many scriptures about this.
Salvation is by faith alone, not by any works. It is given to us as a gift, and if baptism were required it would no longer be grace. Regardless of any imperfect technique we use to bring others to salvation, it is God's Holy Spirit that gives a person the ability to believe and respond in faith. Nothing else.
Acts 18:8 says they believed first and then were baptized.
Posted by: Jim Anderson | June 21, 2008 at 01:46 PM
I see that we're not actually going to get any discussion going. No one seems to want to address what I've actually been asking. Jim, have you even been following this discussion? For once and for all, baptism is NOT a human work! Human works do not save; the Gospel does. How does that Gospel reach us? Through means. Real, tangible, physical means. An incarnate Son of God. A wooden cross. A pastor in a pulpit preaching from a printed book. Sound waves hitting eardrums. Water with the Word. Through means, the Holy Spirit works faith in us and saves us. This is a clear teaching of Scripture, as well as common sense. Do you believe that the ink and paper of Scripture being read, resulting in a person coming to saving faith, is an example of "salvation by works"?
Of course grown adults who have never heard the Gospel are going to hear and believe before they are baptized. What on earth is that supposed to prove?
"Baptism cannot save." Scripture clearly says, "Baptism now saves you" and "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." Does the Bible contradict itself? Or could it be that baptism is simply not a good human work, like you're assuming it to be?
Catransplant said: "Do you not see that you're assuming a whole lot about someone's heart based solely on their spoken words?" I'm assuming that a person is not lying. A person's words are the only thing we have to go by when considering what they believe, and a person's confession of faith is important. Please don't think that I'm saying a person isn't saved if they have the wrong idea about how they came to believe the Gospel. But they are in jeopardy of attributing the attainment of their salvation to their own good choices, which results in pharasaism or despair, and potential loss of faith. I'd rather people know the good news that their salvation was completely free, not based on their good intentions or a certain level of achieved sincerity on their part.
Posted by: Kelly | June 21, 2008 at 03:32 PM
""Baptism cannot save." Scripture clearly says, "Baptism now saves you" and "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." Does the Bible contradict itself?"- Kelly
Context and proper exegesis. Psalm 14:1 also clearly says "There is no God."
1 Peter 3:21
Peter exhorted them to have the courage to commit themselves to a course of action by taking a public stand for Christ through baptism. The act of public baptism would "save" them from the temptation to sacrifice their good consciences in order to avoid persecution. For a first-century Christian, baptism meant he was following through on his commitment to Christ, regardless of the consequences.
Baptism does not save from sin, but from a bad conscience. Peter clearly taught that baptism was not merely a ceremonial act of physical purification (A Jewish custom of Mikvah - bathing), but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. Baptism is the symbol of what has already occurred in the heart and life of one who has trusted Christ as Savior (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12). To make the source of salvation perfectly clear Peter added, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3).
Posted by: Jim Anderson | June 21, 2008 at 06:02 PM
Certainly context is important. But when Peter says "Baptism now saves you" is he really saying "The fool says in his heart, baptism now saves you"? Not quite the same as Ps 14.
Kelly (and others), you're doing a great job. I wish I had time to join the debate, but just know that there are many silent readers cheering you on. As my pastor likes to say: it's not easy, but it's totally worth it, so hang in there.
Posted by: Mark | June 23, 2008 at 02:20 PM
You'd think that those who deny the efficacy of baptism think that no one but them have ever heard of the concept of context. Allow me to disabuse you.
With all respect, your exegesis of 1 Peter 3 is simply nonsense. There's no way you could arrive at that conclusion unless you've already decided that baptism is a "public testimony of faith," which the Bible never teaches. Baptism did not take place in the public square for all to see. This initiation into the Christian faith took place among the intimate circle of believers, sometimes only a couple of people. Are you suggesting that when Scripture says to be baptized and "wash your sins away," the speaker is telling the person that "washing your sins away" is the same as making a public testimony to save them from the sin of having a bad conscience? That would be a very creative way of avoiding the clear words of the passage, indeed.
Quoting those other passages do not help your case or detract from mine-- in fact, they don't discuss baptism at all. Of course the source of salvation is perfectly clear. Baptism does not save because it gets you clean, or merely as an outward act, but because it is an appeal to God for a good conscience. Baptism SAVES by the resurrection of Christ; it connects us to Christ's death and resurrection. It delivers this Gospel to us. (Romans 6)
I have to ask: What is it about God delivering the Gospel to us through physical means that is so distasteful to you? It's one thing to disagree over a passage, but the attempt to avoid the many clear descriptions of baptism throughout Scripture is a truly amazing thing to see. I still say that you have convinced yourself that baptism is a human work, so that no matter what Scripture says, you have to interpret it away if it seems to attribute anything salvific to baptism. Try thinking outside that box for a moment. If baptism is a gift of God, which Scriptures mitigate against that position? Why does it seem so unreasonable and distasteful to you?
Posted by: Kelly | June 23, 2008 at 02:20 PM
Quick note of clarification-- the Romans 6, Colossians 2, and Galatians 3 passages do of course discuss baptism, beautifully, and in fact emphasize the fact that we are connected to Christ in baptism. It's the first bunch of passages Jim mentioned, Ephesians 2 and Romans 5, that don't touch on the issue, except to say that salvation is received as a passive gift through faith, which baptism is.
It's interesting how, if you walk into a Christian bookstore with baptistic theology and look at the baptism cards, pretty much none of the cards with Bible verses in them ever use the verses that discuss baptism. The reason is that people would get the "wrong" idea from those many verses that baptism actually accomplishes something. That alone should be a flashing red light to people out there...
Posted by: Kelly | June 23, 2008 at 02:25 PM
Okay. So you've made your opinion clear and it ignores the cultural and historical context. I don't see a Biblical foundation for it. I see a denominational pretext.
The Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox churches, most Lutheran bodies, and many in the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal church hold that baptism is the direct instrument of regeneration. Roman Catholics subscribe so strongly to this view that, accordingly, they also hold that all adults or infants who die unbaptized are excluded from heaven. I believe this ignores the cultural (Jewish) context in which the passage in 1 Peter is made. The early Roman Catholic church tied significance to it that wasn't originally intended. From an historical context, perhaps to support their intentional distancing themselves from the Jewish people necessary for their survival under the Romans. (Jews practiced Mikvah, which was a cleansing ritual. It was symbolic for a spiritual sense of cleansing. Baptism is an extension of that ritual, given new meaning by Christ as I mentioned before.)
Many evangelical churches believe that baptism is not only the rite of initiation into the church of Christ but a sign and seal of divine grace symbolizing spiritual cleansing or purification (Acts 22:16; Rom 6:4-11; Titus 3:5).
This argument is as old as the Roman Catholic church, so I doubt it will be settled here. However, I think this point illustrates why this blog is called "Extreme Theology" and sees the need to publicly criticize Rick Warren and other evangelical churches. This is an attempt to assert a denominational position on the Purpose Driven idea, concerning the "non-essentials" of the faith, attempting to make them "essential".
Posted by: Jim Anderson | June 23, 2008 at 05:11 PM
Perhaps it might help to define "essential" more clearly, so try this definition on:
A doctrine is "essential" if it directly affects one's salvation.
Going from this definition, the doctrine of Baptism is most certainly an essential teaching of faith.
Start with the simple question, "Why are you saved?"
My guess is that most paedo- and credobaptists would agree, "Because Jesus died as the atoning sacrifice for my sins."
Next ask, "How do you know you are saved?"
Here's where you might get a lot of different answers, but suppose someone answers, "Because I was baptized."
This is the point where one's understanding of baptism becomes essential. If one understands baptism to be a conscious decision to follow Christ or declaration of that decision, the weight of salvation comes down on not only the human act of decision, but also the human act of washing--a BAD thing. We become dependent on ourselves both to make the proper decision and to exhibit that decision. (If interested, check out what the Bible has to say about what our decision would be: Rom 3.10-12; Rom 8.7-11; 1 Cor 2.9-16; Gen 8.21; Jer 17.9; Rom 7.18-20; Gal 5.17; Eze 36.25-27; Jer 5.3) In short, if I think I'm saved because of something I've done, however small, I'm in big trouble.
On the other hand, if one understands baptism to be one of the ways through which God gives both salvation and the reassurance of that salvation, the weight comes down on Christ's shoulders. In other words, I know I'm saved because of what God has done.
So it is that gulf between self-reliance (again, however small and weak) and God-reliance that makes this issue an "essential".
(BTW Jim, please be careful with lumping the practices/teachings of the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Church of England, and other churches together, especially when you ultimately end up describing the RC perspective. It betrays a common misperception that we're all just RC with a fresh coat of paint. And, quite frankly, it is more difficult to take seriously the arguments of someone who does not appear to percieve key distinctions.)
Posted by: Heidi Sue | June 23, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Heidi Sue,
When I say essentials, I understand them to be the following:
1. The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture.
2. The deity of Christ (implying as well His humanity and virgin birth).
3. The sufficiency of Christ's death to pay the price for our sin owned to an infinitely Holy God.
4. The literal resurrection of Christ from the dead.
5. The literal return of Christ in the second coming.
Beyond this we are free to disagree without eternal consequences. I have no doubt the various denominations have distinct differences, however, this position on baptism is an issue they tend to have in common, there was no intention of globally lumping them together on all things. That is not what I said.
We no doubt agree on these five essentials. There is no reason to fight over the rest. We should be concerned for the developing church departures that are rejecting one or more of these essentials. For example, one of those in the news lately is "black liberation theology", an American version of "liberation theology" which denies the diety of Christ, and that He died for the poor, not sinners.
Posted by: Jim Anderson | June 23, 2008 at 08:33 PM