I've been pretty swamped at work lately so I haven't had a chance to blog as much as I would like. I wanted to give a quick informational update on the goings on.
The church has called me to be a singles intern under Randy Beggs and Joe Patton. My duties will be to basically function as the interim singles minister, under Randy and Joe's supervision. Randy will still be the singles minister but since he is the interim high school minister, the majority of the singles duties will fall on me.
The duties basically include making sure events are planned and communicated to the group, contacting visitors during the week, teaching the ABF, taking roll in class and being the go to guy when people have questions. Randy and Joe want to make sure that there is strong leadership in place while Randy is working with the high school ministry.
I have to say that I'm very excited about the opportunity. It feels like Christmas eve. For those who have eyes to see, God is doing some awesome things at Cottonwood Creek.
I think the biggest challenge that I observe, from my admittedly limited viewpoint, are subtle areas where the "church" gets in the way of the gospel. Luckily, God is the one who is working, our challenge is to stay out of the way!
I have also been in contact with Jon Wood and we are planning to have a Bible Basics/Faith 101 class starting in the fall that I will teach. This class would be during the 11:00 ABF time slot. I'm really excited about this class and I feel that there is a great need for this in the church. It will NOT be "Christianity for dummies".
The fundamentals of the faith will be taught, with the assumption that the class members are intelligent - competent people, even though they may or may not have a lot of biblical knowledge or background. The class will be for ANYONE but will be especially focused on new Christians/new church members, or people who have been in church a long time but want to get a grounded understanding of what the Gospel is - so they can better understand and appreciate their time in church and their study in the future.
The content emphasis will be on teaching the story of God in the bible, what the Gospel is, as well as how we can feed ourselves with God's word.
The class will probably run 10 - 12 weeks and be repeated each semester. Those who go through the class would then move on to find an ABF. I also think it's a great way to channel newcomers to the church into a place where they can be welcomed and taught while they get comfortable and aware of all the church has to offer.
I am also tentatively planning to teach the LDS Truth & Recovery class again in the fall (still working out the details on this). This would be an extended version of the spring class and would probably go somewhere between 8 - 10 weeks. Based on the turnout to the previous class, I think the focus of the class will change a little bit. The primary focus of the actual class will be teaching/awareness with an emphasis on evangelism - as opposed to fellowship/support. Hopefully, the class will also help those in transition come out of the woodwork and provide opportunities for fellowship/support which would take place in a separate (though related) home group.
It's all alot to think about, but the beauty of the LDS group is that once the lessons are planned and the powerpoints are done (hopefully I'll get them all done before the class starts), the actual class requires very little time outside of actually teaching it.
The same goes for the Faith 101 class. This semester will be tough, but once the lessons are prepared, repeat teaching the course will be alot easier.
Please note also that these are not official announcements. Except for the singles ministry, the other two classes are "in the works". Though they are likely, they are not official - yet.
That's all I got!
CMP
PS. If you know singles 1 type people (unmarried/18-early 30s), send them to Merge on Thursday night at 7:30 in the atrium at Cottonwood Creek. It's legit.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Quick Correction
In an earlier post on James, I stated that he was a fisherman by trade. This may not have been the case. James - brother of John was a fisherman. James - brother of Jesus was ??? I don't know. I like to think he was an accountant. - Just kidding. If someone knows what he was before he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, please let me know.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Water! Water!
I am listening to a DTS podcast about bible translation and I had an interesting side thought. The podcasters were discussing the challenges of bible translation and the different ways the bible can be translated.
One of the challenges that comes up is that "literal" words/phrases don't mean the same thing in different languages. The challenge of the translator is to decide whether they should translate the "literal word" or the "literal meaning" (From Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to English or other modern languages). I see merit to both. Here's the example I thought of from my foreign language experience.
In the Mexican Spanish that I learned while in California, the people use an expression which means "Watch out!" or "Be careful!" . They say "Agua! Agua!". The literal word translation of this is "Water! Water!". As you can see, this creates a challenge for a translator. Say I was a UN translator and one of the Mexican representatives used the term "Agua! Agua!". It would be silly for me to say "Water! Water!" into the microphone for the English speaking representative to hear. They would have no idea what the Mexican rep was talking about. I would justifiably translate this as "Watch out!" or "Be careful!".
When we talk about bible translation however, this becomes more complicated and this is where the audience/purpose of translation becomes important. As a serious student (albeit lay student) of the bible, I want to know what the actual words are. This will require some further research on my part, language study, commentary study, etc. to understand what the meaning of the text is. I would like a translation that says "Water! Water!".
However - the regular reader, the young person, the new Christian, or the non-believer might not benefit from that kind of translation. They probably want a translation that says "Watch out!" because they don't intend to take the time to research the language. Actually - I would also like this kind of translation (in addition to the other), to use as a casual reading bible or to use in conjuction with the word for word during more serious study.
There are dangers to both as well. In a purely word for word (ex. interlinear and to some extent the NASB), some of the "meaning" could be lost because the words don't make as much sense in English.
The opposite danger that I see is that in an effort to help the words and phrases "make sense", the translator may take too much liberty or may allow their personal theology to skew the translation. In other words, while some interpretation must be done - too much interpretation could also cause the "meaning" to be distorted. Alot of good translations will help this issue by including footnotes that give the actual greek word when they have "interpreted" it to be something else.
Also, the KJV creates special issues because although it falls a little closer to the "word for word" end of the spectrum, it is Hebrew/Greek to Old English. Therefore you have the special challenge of making sure the translation from the Greek is correct, and then you (the reader) have the challenge of translating Old English to Modern English (in your brain) to understand the meaning.
And for those of you who didn't know this; the modern translations are not translations from the KJV into Modern English. They are from the most original and/or most abundant (different discussion) Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic transcripts.
Conclusion - Agua! Agua! and don't assume that your "phrase for phrase" translation is "literal" and also don't pretend that you understand all of your "word for word" translation's expressions. Don't be too lazy to consult a "word for word" and don't be to proud to consult a "phrase for phrase". The good news is that there are abundant resources available (language study, commentaries, different translations, etc.) to help us get to the bottom of what the text says and what the text means.
Happy reading.
Religion & Magic
I am reading a book called "Early Mormonism and the Magical Worldview" (written by a BYU professor who is now a former BYU professor because of the book). I am only 3/4 through the introduction but it is already very interesting.
The author makes the point that magic and religion are very similar. The difference is that society has deemed magic as "bad" and religion as "good/virtuous". They both use ritual, words, signs, actions, etc. to achieve certain results.
I agree with the author that religion and magic are fundamentally the same. This comparison reveals a lot about the author's worldview resulting from his LDS background. It is also an example of why I am no longer LDS nor do I consider myself "religious".
In a magical worldview (this is describing the occult and NOT the optical illusions of modern day magicians) a person attempts to manipulate his surroundings (both visible and invisible) by appealing to some kind of natural order through ritual, incantations, proper behaviors, sacred objects, etc. This manipulation is to achieve a result desired by the person whether that be health, wealth, wisdom, defeat of an enemy, finding treasure, telling the future, etc.
In a religious worldview, a person uses similar manipulations such as ritual, incantations (liturgy or prayers), proper behaviors (morality), sacred objects (cups, temples, altars, oil), etc. to attempt to achieve a desired result. The result desired may be similar to those described above, or it may simply be "heaven" or a kind of "paradise". The main difference I see between magic and religion, is that while the occult may be trying to manipulate nature or the unseen world, the religious try to manipulate God to achieve their desired result.
In religion, God becomes the means to an end. This is true, in some way or another, of all major "religions" (Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism). About Mormonism specifically (since the author's background is what sparked this blog post), the manipulation plays out something like this.
In Mormonism, God is the means to the end of man's exaltation (godhood). We bind God through the performance of ritual (ordinances), proper behaviors (works/obedience), sacred objects (garments/temples/seer stones), etc. and he must therefore bless us in this life and grant us exaltation in the life to come. "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise" (rough quote D&C 82). This runs parallel to the magical idea that if a person says the incantation correctly, is a virgin, and does the ritual dance correctly, then "nature" or whatever power they appeal to, will be compelled to grant their demands.
The idea that God is a means to an end is further evidenced by the statement I have heard many times (and made myself) that "If all we are doing in heaven is singing praise to God I think that will get pretty boring. God is not that selfish that he would want us to spend eternity singing his praises." Also the idea that "Even if I'm not in the celestial kingdom with God, I'll be comfortable wherever I am." In both ideas, God is not what is desired - rather the person desires comfort or godhood.
Christian denominations are not immune to this kind of "religious" thinking. There are many in Baptist, Methodist, and non-denominational churches who obey God, "get saved", attend church, etc. because they are seeking their heavenly reward - whatever they envision that reward to be (this usually involves a mansion of some sort and eternal comfort - possibly playing a harp on a cloud). Or, they are simply trying to avoid their understanding of hell (small houses, fire, and eternal discomfort - also, no harps).
This is why true Christianity is different from every major religion. Christianity is not a religion, it is just the reality of what God is doing in the universe and what our role is in that reality. The Christian does not seek to manipulate God in order to receive a desired outcome. For a true Christian, God IS the treasure we seek (mansion or no mansion). When God is the treasure you seek, then hell becomes anywhere that you are separate from God. God's purpose is not to be the means by which we can move on to bigger and better things (our own godhood). There is nothing bigger and better than He is (X infinity). His purpose is the glory of His name by reconciling the world to himself through the saving work of Jesus Christ. God is bound by nothing and can not be manipulated. The good that He bestows upon us is because of His grace and mercy - not because we have bound Him by our obedience, ritual, etc.
Much more could be said about this. Suffice it to say that the magical/religious and the Christian paradigms are fundamentally different and have a profound effect on how we view ourselves, God, our purpose, God's purpose, morality, obedience, heaven and the meaning of life.
I'm interested to see what else the former BYU professor has to say on magic.
Friday, May 15, 2009
A quick note
In my last blog post I made a statement about "legalism" and that it requires extreme theological liberties and the creation of extreme practices. My friend Stephan S. pointed out that this was a very bold statement and that I didn't do a very good job of explaining this point (neither what I mean by "legalism" nor why it requires extreme theological liberties).
I agree with Stephan that it was a bold statement and that it was insufficiently explained. I hope to blog about that specific point in the near future. For now, I just want it to be known that although I still believe that the statement is true, I recognize my explainations of that specific point were inadequate.
It's good to have friends who can keep you "in check".
I also wanted to note that when I make generalizations and refer to "the Mormon" or "Mormons" I do so recognizing that not all Mormons believe the same things. I am speaking to my understanding of Mormon beliefs based on my experience in the church and based on the doctrine of the LDS church. I believe that generalizations are important and that they get a bad wrap in our day and age. Generalizations are things that are "generally" true. Obviously there are always exceptions.
CMP
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Baptism for the Dead - some thoughts
Legalism and Baptism for the Dead
The problem of legalism is that in order to follow it out to its logical conclusion, one has to take extreme theological liberties and create extreme practices in order to come to any kind of internal comfort level with its demands. Examples of these in the Mormon Church include post-mortem proselytizing, proxy ordinances, and hierarchy of sin. All such attempts to fit legalism into a quasi-Christian religious framework demonstrate a misunderstanding of both the nature of God (holiness) and the nature of man (depravity). They also serve to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the life and mission of Jesus Christ.
1. The first paradigm problem is that Mormons (especially Joseph Smith) tend to bring their theology to the Bible, instead of taking their theology from the Bible. The Mormon has decided that in order for God to be “just” that every single person on the earth must have the opportunity to hear and accept the “gospel”. This understanding applies to God’s Justice the human idea of “fairness”. Not only must every person have the opportunity to hear and accept the “gospel”, but in order for God to be “just”, they must also have the opportunity to meet the legal requirements of salvation, specifically the “ordinances of the gospel” which include baptism, “confirmation”, the endowment, and “eternal marriage”.
2. The second paradigm problem is the idea of legal requirements and the two-way nature of the new covenant. Mormons believe that the statement by Jesus - “unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he can not inherit the kingdom of God” is a literal, unbending, legal requirement of every person who will go to the Celestial Kingdom (heaven), which must be satisfied apart from grace. The Mormon has no concept of “imputed” righteousness. To a Mormon, righteousness must be earned by obedience to all the commandments of God in order for a person to return to God in the Celestial Kingdom.
These two paradigms combine to create the necessity for the doctrines of post-mortem proselytizing and proxy ordinances in the Mormon theological framework.
Mormons believe that when we die there is a “spirit world” which is divided into two places – Spirit Prison and Spirit Paradise. Those who have died without accepting the “gospel” will go to Spirit Prison and missionaries from Spirit Paradise will go and preach the “gospel” to the spirits in prison. In this way, every person will have the opportunity to hear the “gospel” (gospel is in quotations because by “gospel” the Mormon means the teachings of the Mormon Church). According to Mormon doctrine, death does not relieve the person/spirit of the legal requirements of salvation; therefore the ordinances must be performed by the living on behalf of the dead. These ordinances are performed in the Mormon temples, and the dead person will then have the chance to accept or reject the ordinances performed.
As is the case with most errant teaching, the problems with the Mormon framework are two fold – Logic and the Bible.
Justice
God’s justice from a biblical perspective is not the same as the human idea of “fairness”. The biblical idea of God’s justice is that we are all accountable, offensive, and condemned before God based on our actions. God’s justice requires the punishment of those offenses which is described in the Bible as God’s wrath. Paul makes it clear in Romans 1 -3 (as well as other places) that all men are under sin, justice, and wrath. All means ALL, as what can be known about God is visible in creation.
Logic also tells me that if God is infinitely holy, then my sin is infinitely offensive to his nature (the idea of “infinite” excludes the ability to create a hierarchy of sin relating to justification). Logic also tells me that if I have infinitely offended an infinitely holy God, I am deserving of infinite wrath in order for the demands of His infinite justice to be satisfied. In order to deny this, a person must make God less than infinitely holy and thereby make our sin less than infinitely offensive to His nature. This brings God down and brings us up.
In Romans 2, Paul discusses how a person is held accountable for the amount of knowledge which they have. Those under the law will be accountable for the law. Those not under the law, will be accountable for that which God has revealed to them. A Mormon tends to think that this somehow gives a pass to those who have lived without the law (commandments) thus creating an opportunity for them in the spirit world. The purpose of the illustration however, is not to give a pass to some because of ignorance, rather to show that ALL are accountable, offensive, and condemned based on whatever level of knowledge they have.
God is under no obligation to extend the same mercy, opportunity, “chance” to every person. God is under no obligation to show mercy to any. Paul anticipates and speaks directly to the error of attaching the human idea of “fairness” to the idea of God’s justice.
See Romans 9:14-23
Scripture is clear that we do not get to apply our idea of “fairness” to God’s justice, nor do we get to dictate the terms of His mercy. This is a very difficult thing for people to understand. It requires us to leave our pre-conceived notions of what it means for God to be “loving” and “just”.
Two-Way Covenants?
Mormons believe that the covenant that is made between us and God is a two way promise whereby we keep our end of the deal (obedience to the law/commandments) and God will keep His. To a Mormon, baptism is one of the main and major acts which we must perform in order to keep our end of the covenant. This requirement must be satisfied, whether in this world or the next.
The problem is that if this is the requirement for the covenant to remain valid, then obtaining of God’s promises is a logical impossibility. No one keeps “their end” of the covenant. Logic tells me that if the validity of the covenant is dependent upon my obedience, then the covenant was, is, and will always (in the future) be broken.
The bible is also clear that the new covenant is dependent on one thing, God and His grace through Jesus Christ. His promises to us are what we depend on, not our promises to Him – because He is faithful, even when we are not. If the new covenant is like a marriage covenant, surely our role is the adulterous bride.
See Hebrews 8:8-13 for a description of what the New Covenant is really about. Awesome!
Righteousness Imputed
Jesus did for us what we could not do for ourselves. He didn’t only die for us; he lived a perfect life for us. He satisfied the demands of the law both by absorbing its punishment and by meeting its requirement of perfection. This includes baptism.
Christ was baptized to “fulfill all righteousness”. What does this mean in relation to the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead? It means that the legal requirement that Mormons are trying to satisfy for the dead has already been satisfied by Jesus Christ. When we come to Christ in faith, we “put on Christ” (Gal 3:27). This is the idea of being clothed in Christ. I have heard it described as “When God looks at us, He sees Jesus.” I like to think of it in a court room setting at our judgment. It goes something like this.
When I stand before the throne of judgment, Jesus is my defense lawyer. When the list of requirements is brought out and my life is compared, it is not my righteousness that will be judged, it is Christ’s. When the question is asked - Did you keep the law of chastity? The answer will be from Jesus “No, but I did – and he is in me.” Did you murder or have anger in your heart? “Yes, but I didn’t – and he is clothed with me.” Did you love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength? “No, but I did – and he is covered in my blood.”
Were you baptized as was commanded? “No, but I WAS – and he IS MINE!”
It is interesting that Mormons are very intent on proxy. They have no problem accepting that Jesus suffered for our sins by proxy. Why then do men have to be proxy for the dead if Jesus has already “fulfilled all righteousness” for us by proxy? If he died “once for all” why can’t he be baptized “once for all”? It is my belief that he has.
Of course we who have been saved follow the example of Jesus Christ in baptism. We try to follow the example of Jesus in all things. We are compelled to, by the change that has occurred in our heart and because we are a new creation. But baptism, just like all other legal requirements, was fulfilled on our behalf by Jesus Christ. That is why “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 8:1)
Imputed Righteousness is not the only way Jesus saves us. He also pays the penalty for our sin. If the charge is brought against us and the sentence is read “The defendant is found guilty, the sentence is death.” – He can answer “I’ve already suffered the penalty, and he is IN ME!” No matter how you slice it – he’s got us covered.
This is why the hypothetical situation of a person being saved but not being baptized is a non-issue. Just like in all other commandments - for those who are in Christ – Jesus says “I got that.”
The problem of legalism is that in order to follow it out to its logical conclusion, one has to take extreme theological liberties and create extreme practices in order to come to any kind of internal comfort level with its demands. Examples of these in the Mormon Church include post-mortem proselytizing, proxy ordinances, and hierarchy of sin. All such attempts to fit legalism into a quasi-Christian religious framework demonstrate a misunderstanding of both the nature of God (holiness) and the nature of man (depravity). They also serve to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the life and mission of Jesus Christ.
1. The first paradigm problem is that Mormons (especially Joseph Smith) tend to bring their theology to the Bible, instead of taking their theology from the Bible. The Mormon has decided that in order for God to be “just” that every single person on the earth must have the opportunity to hear and accept the “gospel”. This understanding applies to God’s Justice the human idea of “fairness”. Not only must every person have the opportunity to hear and accept the “gospel”, but in order for God to be “just”, they must also have the opportunity to meet the legal requirements of salvation, specifically the “ordinances of the gospel” which include baptism, “confirmation”, the endowment, and “eternal marriage”.
2. The second paradigm problem is the idea of legal requirements and the two-way nature of the new covenant. Mormons believe that the statement by Jesus - “unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he can not inherit the kingdom of God” is a literal, unbending, legal requirement of every person who will go to the Celestial Kingdom (heaven), which must be satisfied apart from grace. The Mormon has no concept of “imputed” righteousness. To a Mormon, righteousness must be earned by obedience to all the commandments of God in order for a person to return to God in the Celestial Kingdom.
These two paradigms combine to create the necessity for the doctrines of post-mortem proselytizing and proxy ordinances in the Mormon theological framework.
Mormons believe that when we die there is a “spirit world” which is divided into two places – Spirit Prison and Spirit Paradise. Those who have died without accepting the “gospel” will go to Spirit Prison and missionaries from Spirit Paradise will go and preach the “gospel” to the spirits in prison. In this way, every person will have the opportunity to hear the “gospel” (gospel is in quotations because by “gospel” the Mormon means the teachings of the Mormon Church). According to Mormon doctrine, death does not relieve the person/spirit of the legal requirements of salvation; therefore the ordinances must be performed by the living on behalf of the dead. These ordinances are performed in the Mormon temples, and the dead person will then have the chance to accept or reject the ordinances performed.
As is the case with most errant teaching, the problems with the Mormon framework are two fold – Logic and the Bible.
Justice
God’s justice from a biblical perspective is not the same as the human idea of “fairness”. The biblical idea of God’s justice is that we are all accountable, offensive, and condemned before God based on our actions. God’s justice requires the punishment of those offenses which is described in the Bible as God’s wrath. Paul makes it clear in Romans 1 -3 (as well as other places) that all men are under sin, justice, and wrath. All means ALL, as what can be known about God is visible in creation.
Logic also tells me that if God is infinitely holy, then my sin is infinitely offensive to his nature (the idea of “infinite” excludes the ability to create a hierarchy of sin relating to justification). Logic also tells me that if I have infinitely offended an infinitely holy God, I am deserving of infinite wrath in order for the demands of His infinite justice to be satisfied. In order to deny this, a person must make God less than infinitely holy and thereby make our sin less than infinitely offensive to His nature. This brings God down and brings us up.
In Romans 2, Paul discusses how a person is held accountable for the amount of knowledge which they have. Those under the law will be accountable for the law. Those not under the law, will be accountable for that which God has revealed to them. A Mormon tends to think that this somehow gives a pass to those who have lived without the law (commandments) thus creating an opportunity for them in the spirit world. The purpose of the illustration however, is not to give a pass to some because of ignorance, rather to show that ALL are accountable, offensive, and condemned based on whatever level of knowledge they have.
God is under no obligation to extend the same mercy, opportunity, “chance” to every person. God is under no obligation to show mercy to any. Paul anticipates and speaks directly to the error of attaching the human idea of “fairness” to the idea of God’s justice.
See Romans 9:14-23
Scripture is clear that we do not get to apply our idea of “fairness” to God’s justice, nor do we get to dictate the terms of His mercy. This is a very difficult thing for people to understand. It requires us to leave our pre-conceived notions of what it means for God to be “loving” and “just”.
Two-Way Covenants?
Mormons believe that the covenant that is made between us and God is a two way promise whereby we keep our end of the deal (obedience to the law/commandments) and God will keep His. To a Mormon, baptism is one of the main and major acts which we must perform in order to keep our end of the covenant. This requirement must be satisfied, whether in this world or the next.
The problem is that if this is the requirement for the covenant to remain valid, then obtaining of God’s promises is a logical impossibility. No one keeps “their end” of the covenant. Logic tells me that if the validity of the covenant is dependent upon my obedience, then the covenant was, is, and will always (in the future) be broken.
The bible is also clear that the new covenant is dependent on one thing, God and His grace through Jesus Christ. His promises to us are what we depend on, not our promises to Him – because He is faithful, even when we are not. If the new covenant is like a marriage covenant, surely our role is the adulterous bride.
See Hebrews 8:8-13 for a description of what the New Covenant is really about. Awesome!
Righteousness Imputed
Jesus did for us what we could not do for ourselves. He didn’t only die for us; he lived a perfect life for us. He satisfied the demands of the law both by absorbing its punishment and by meeting its requirement of perfection. This includes baptism.
Christ was baptized to “fulfill all righteousness”. What does this mean in relation to the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead? It means that the legal requirement that Mormons are trying to satisfy for the dead has already been satisfied by Jesus Christ. When we come to Christ in faith, we “put on Christ” (Gal 3:27). This is the idea of being clothed in Christ. I have heard it described as “When God looks at us, He sees Jesus.” I like to think of it in a court room setting at our judgment. It goes something like this.
When I stand before the throne of judgment, Jesus is my defense lawyer. When the list of requirements is brought out and my life is compared, it is not my righteousness that will be judged, it is Christ’s. When the question is asked - Did you keep the law of chastity? The answer will be from Jesus “No, but I did – and he is in me.” Did you murder or have anger in your heart? “Yes, but I didn’t – and he is clothed with me.” Did you love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength? “No, but I did – and he is covered in my blood.”
Were you baptized as was commanded? “No, but I WAS – and he IS MINE!”
It is interesting that Mormons are very intent on proxy. They have no problem accepting that Jesus suffered for our sins by proxy. Why then do men have to be proxy for the dead if Jesus has already “fulfilled all righteousness” for us by proxy? If he died “once for all” why can’t he be baptized “once for all”? It is my belief that he has.
Of course we who have been saved follow the example of Jesus Christ in baptism. We try to follow the example of Jesus in all things. We are compelled to, by the change that has occurred in our heart and because we are a new creation. But baptism, just like all other legal requirements, was fulfilled on our behalf by Jesus Christ. That is why “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 8:1)
Imputed Righteousness is not the only way Jesus saves us. He also pays the penalty for our sin. If the charge is brought against us and the sentence is read “The defendant is found guilty, the sentence is death.” – He can answer “I’ve already suffered the penalty, and he is IN ME!” No matter how you slice it – he’s got us covered.
This is why the hypothetical situation of a person being saved but not being baptized is a non-issue. Just like in all other commandments - for those who are in Christ – Jesus says “I got that.”
Speak to what you Know
A friend of mine sent me a link to a round-table discussion between 4 people with different religious viewpoints. One of speakers was a woman who was an ex-prostitute and who's ministry was to prostitutes. Jesus saved her out of the deception and darkness of prostitution and into the light of his truth. She now spends her time trying to share that truth with prostitutes. That is what she knows.
CS Lewis was an atheist. Jesus saved him out of the deception and darkness of atheism. Much of his ministry and writing was directed at explaining Jesus to atheists. That is what he knew.
Tommy Nelson used to be a college athlete. He was chasing fulfillment in the things of this world - money, fame, entertainment, etc. Often in his ministry, he speaks to this and how Jesus saved him out of it. He spends his time trying to lead people out of a shallow worldly existence and into the fullness that comes with a relationship with Jesus Christ. That is what he knows.
There are leaders of Celebrate Recovery and other similar programs all over the nation who were deceived by the darkness of drugs and alcohol. Jesus saved them from that life. They now spend their time sharing the truth and saving power of Jesus with people who are involved in drugs and alcohol. That is what they know.
A lot of my posts on this blog relate to Mormonism. Mormon's like to say that "You can leave the church, but you can't leave it alone." They intend to imply that because ex-Mormon Christians tend to direct their ministry towards Mormon's, that this somehow validates the LDS beliefs and claim to be the only "true" church.
Just as with the prostitute, the atheist, the suburban world seeker, and the alcoholic; when Jesus saves people from darkness, he often puts it in their heart to love and minister to people who are in the same darkness. It is what we know. This desire comes from the love that Jesus has put in us.
Yes, part of this ministry involves tearing some things down. Not people, but ideas. The idea that prostitution is the only possible life must be torn down. The idea that there is no God must be torn down. The false promises of worldliness must be torn down. The lie that substances are needed for happiness must be torn down. Not out of hate, but out of love for the people.
Just like the woman's ministry comes from a love for prostitutes and a desire to see them saved, CS Lewis's ministry comes from a love for atheists and a desire to see them saved, Recovery leaders ministry comes from a love for the drug addict and a desire to see them saved - my purpose comes from a love for the Mormon people and a desire to see them saved.
Saved from a life of trying to earn what has already been purchased. Saved from the burden of unattainable, un-biblical expectations. Saved to the freedom that is in Jesus Christ. Saved to an assurance of our place with God. Saved from an obedience of fear of damnation to an obedience of faith and gratitude because Jesus paid it all. Saved to unmerited joy and peace.
What kind of crappy Christian would I be, if I didn't speak to the people who I know and love about the truth that God has shown me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)