Is it true that the Bible the Gideons put out includes extra pages containing the Sinner's Prayer (or some varient thereof) plan of salvation? Do you support the Gideons?

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2000

Answers

Robin....

I have never financially supported the ministry of the Gideons and have always discouraged churches from doing so....for the very exact reason you pointed out.

I want to share an experience with you. Don't know if, or what, this adds to your thoughts....but at least it came to my mind.

While preaching in S. Hutchinson, Kansas in 1989-1992, a man started attending our church, along with his wife, that was a "gung-ho" higher-up in the Gideons. He lived and breathed "Gideons."

He was an immersed believer who ended up joining our fellowship. He attended the New Member's Basic Doctrines class faithfully......and was a devoted student of the Word of God.

The first time he approached us about sharing the ministry of the Gideons, I went along with it. I knew that he would not say anything that parted from the beliefs of our church.....and I was right. If I would have drawn a hard line and said...."No way".....the next step may or may not have happened. Who knows??

Slowly, over time, with discussions between myself and him.....and some other men in the church whom he respected, who shared my view of the Gideons......he left his position in the Gideons and never had anything to do with them again. It was about a 1 to 1 1/2 year process.

He went on to become a very devoted elder in the church.....and to this day, I consider him a very fine Christian man and leader.

Like I said....don't know if this contributes anything. But I can't think of the Gideons....without remembering that very fine man.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

Connie....

Thanks for your post.

It underscores why I DON'T support the Gideons.

Thanks again.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Connie...

Don't be ridiculous.....Gideons Bibles are full of "faith only" false doctrine promoted by the Gideons....which is exactly why the above mentioned man got out of the Gideons once he accepted what the plain truth of God was.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Connie....

For a "non judgemental" person....you sure are judgmental.

I mean....in all the posts of these last few months, the only one who every suggests someone is going to hell.....IS YOU!!!

NOT ONE of our people has ever done that.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Yes, it is true. Their published plan of salvation does not mention immersion.

Of course, they are the only ones placing Bibles in hotels, servicemen and womens hands, etc.

Whenever I find one in a hotel or motel room, I take a moment to add a couple of verses re: immersion and it's purpose.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

Robin:

We try to get a New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs and the words of well-known hymns and a few helps into the hands of every nurse, teacher, and in every doctor's office and school which will allow it.

Of course, every hotel room in the country and overseas is the prime goal. I can get figures for the world-wide distribution, if you so desire. And of course, it is the members who pay for this. It is truly a good work. The fellowship is great, too.

The persons making the decisions on whether to allow us to hand them out at Lansing Community College and MSU have been allowing us to do it. I'm not sure about Cooley Law School.

We leave it to the Holy Spirit to instruct and comfort. (Although we also try to assist questioners in any way we can).

We live in a state capital and the State Nurses' Association (which is really a political action committee in practice) has meetings semi- annually at the Radisson downtown.

On two occasions in the last six months we have handed out (in just the 4 hours I helped each time) 144 and 152 nurse's copies (white). There are a couple of 'distributions' monthly, where either my husband or I help.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

Oh, yes. In servicemen's hands, as well.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

By the way, the nurses and doctors are 'in the front lines' in the abortion battle.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

Darrell,

You wrote, "Yes, it is true. Their published plan of salvation does not mention immersion.

Of course, they are the only ones placing Bibles in hotels, servicemen and womens hands, etc. "

That brings me back to the "Do you support the Gideons?" portion of my original question. There is no doubt that getting the Bible into the hands of as many people as we can is good... But does the inclusion of the Sinner's Prayer false doctrine negate that effort? In my mind, it does. I do not want any of my finances to go toward dissemination of false teaching.

Thanks for your response.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

Robin,

While it is nice that the Gideons try to get Bibles into as many hands as they can - that just isn't enough to get the job done. I could run around and hand people Calculus Textbooks, but that wouldn't make them rocket scientists. Understanding is what is needed. I'm reminded of the Ethiopian Eunich's question to Phillip when Phillip asked him if he understood what he was reading,"How could I, unless someone guides me?"

I have a brand new copy of a Gideon New Testament in my hands as I type, let me share a statement from their Introductory page, "The Bible contains the mind of God." Notice that they do NOT say that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant WORD of God - that is because they (as a group) do not believe such to be true.

So do I support them - No. I cannot in good conscience support a "Christian" group that has doubts about the inerrancy of Scripture. If their god has made errors in documentation or just made up stories to teach us by, then their god is NOT my God. That invalidates their ability to act as guides to those seeking the truth of God's Word.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

There is a time to be silent, but this is not one of them.

Mark, you quoted above:

I have a brand new copy of a Gideon New Testament in my hands as I type, let me share a statement from their Introductory page, "The Bible contains the mind of God." Notice that they do NOT say that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant WORD of God - that is because they (as a group) do not believe such to be true.

Let me complete what the Gideons' New testament said after that one sentence quoted above, because the rest of what you said in that sentence is absolutely untrue, and unbecoming of you. May God have mercy on you for lying about this.

'The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable. read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. it contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christians charter. here Paradise is restored, heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.

CHRIST is its grand subject, our good the design, and the glory of God its end.

It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, and prayerfully. it is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure. It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgement, and be remembered forever. it involves the highest responsibility, will reward the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents'.

On the back covers: (which includes the dreaded decision to receive Christ as Savior)

GOD LOVES YOU

For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

{But be baptized first}.

John 3:16 (page 171)

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

{But not before you are baptized}.

Romans 5:8 (page 285)

ALL ARE SINNERS

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

{But if you are baptized, all will be forgiven}.

Romans 3:23 (page 282)

As it is written: There is none righteous, no not one.

{But you can gain righteousness by being baptized}.

Romans 3:10 (page 282)

GOD'S REMEDY FOR SIN

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

But His shed blood is not enough; BE BAPTIZED!}

Romans 6:23 (page 287)

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.

{Of course, you must be baptized first.}

John 1:12 (page 166)

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He rose again the third say according to the Scriptures.

{He died for our sins, but we must be baptized to make His sacrifice available.}

I Corinthians 15:3-4 (page 323)

ALL MAY BE SAVED NOW

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with me.

{But before we sit down to dinner, you must be baptized.}

Revelation 3:20 (page 446)

For whoever calls on the Name of the Lord shall be saved.

{But not before you are baptized.}

Romans 10:13 (page 293)

THE DREADED DECISION TO RECEIVE CHRIST:

My Decision to Receive Christ as My Savior

Confessing to God that I am a sinner, and believing that the Lord Jesus Christ died for my sins on the cross and was raised for my justification, I do now receive and confess Him as my personal Savior.

______________________________________________________________________ Name

______________________________________________________________________ Date

Assurance As a Believer

That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

{But not 'til you're baptized}.

Romans 10:9 (page 293)

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me HAS everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but HAS passed from death into life.

{But step into the water here, first.}

John 5:24 (page176)

These things have I written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you HAVE eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in His Name.

{Not so fast! You must be baptized FIRST.}

John 20:31 (page 213)

We Gideons believe the Bible to be the absolute inerrant Word of God, and that He has preserved the message of propitiation for our sins by the only possible source of remission for sins: Christ's shed blood, death and resurrection. And immersion is EXTREMELY important for our lives of obedience. It just can't save us.

Many who post here, however, are whitewashed sepulchres.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

Connie,

Now you owe me an apology!!!

I DID NOT lie, I merely quoted the part of their statement which was in error. Anything they say after that DOES NOT MATTER because they operate from a false pretense - that the Bible is not God's inerrant Word! Why read a whole dissertation, when the opening comment is flawed and untruthful?

You're right again, Danny. I made no comment on Gideons members personally as I said "as a group" - yet now as an individual, I am attacked by an individual, It ought not be so Brethren.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Danny,

I'll be a disributor of Gideon Bibles, and you can be a gun-toting preacher who will never give up his guns.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Mark:

I am sorry. ('Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are in the way'). But I consider partial truth to not be the whole truth.

The opening sentence in the Gideons New Testament is not exactly anti- Scriptural; in fact, not at all.

The 'My Decision to Receive Christ' in the back (what you call the 'Sinner's Prayer') is because people often do not remember the exact time they decided to accept Christ. All it does is give them a specific date to remember.

THOUSANDS of people world-wide accept Christ (and presumably are baptized eventually) because of the work of the Gideons. It is a way of going into the world to preach the Gospel, if one can't go.

This exchange is exactly why nothing doctrinal is put forth in the New Testaments we hand out. The Word of God is sufficient to do that job.

In Him, by virtue of His All-Atoning, completely sufficient, sacrificial shed blood, death and resurrection for my sins,

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Connie,

Now it is evident why you support the Gideons! Your words, "This exchange is exactly why nothing doctrinal is put forth in the New Testaments we hand out. The Word of God is sufficient to do that job" say it all.

In case you haven't noticed - The Word of God IS DOCTRINE!!!!!!!

By saying the Gideons put forth no doctrine, you PROVE that they do not believe that the Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God and therefore invalid in even their own eyes.

You said, "The opening sentence in the Gideons New Testament is not exactly anti- Scriptural; in fact, not at all."

I never said that the opening statement was "anti-scriptural" (though I'll accept your saying that it is...:~) ), all I said is that it was their Statement of belief - that they (as an organization) do not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures and because of that, I could not support them.

If you do not believe that the Gideon leadership looks at scripture in that way - prove me wrong! Show me their Statement of Faith or Beliefs that spell out the words "the Bible is inerrant in its original text". If you show me that - I'll stand on my head and apologize (which would be quite a show, I promise).

Oh, your statement,"The 'My Decision to Receive Christ' in the back (what you call the 'Sinner's Prayer') is because people often do not remember the exact time they decided to accept Christ. All it does is give them a specific date to remember", just goes to illustrate the fact that the Gideons do not even understand the doctrines in scripture (no wonder they don't print them!)

It's easy to remember the exact time one accepts Christ - It Is AT Their Baptism!

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Connie;

I am troubled by the statement you make: "THOUSANDS of people world- wide accept Christ (and presumably are baptized eventually)." Jesus told his disciples to "go and make disciples of all nations (how?) baptizing them..." Jesus made it very plain and clear that this was how disciples were made, by baptism first and then by teaching them obedience. You people in the "faith only" crowd seem to get the cart before the horse, and even make the horse optional. You teach them that they should be obedient, and then [maybe] be baptized as part of the obedience, but Jesus states it the other way around: Be baptized, and then be obedient. According to you, the Gideon "converts" are "presumably" baptized, "eventually..." That is very disturbing. I would say that they may "presumably" be Christians, "eventually" ... once they find the horse.

At every new birth, the "water breaks," as the placental sac is ruptured, and the baby comes forth through that water (which is probably what Jesus was referring to in John 3 when he talks of being born of water). I had a good friend and elder once say he considered those who said they "accepted" Christ but eschewed baptism as "unnecessary," "a work," "inconvenient," or whatever the excuse, to be "stillborn", because they had yet to come through the water of baptism into the new birth. Food for thought.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

John,

Keep on preaching Baptism - "the only way to be happy, is to trust and OBEY".

But I would shun the idea of John chapter 3 referring to amniotic fluid. That is the lie promoted by the anti-Baptism crowd. It would sound kind of strange for Jesus to tell Nicodemus that in order to be saved, he had to be born first - when he had already been born! Common sense (let alone other herneneutical principles) prevents this from being an acceptable interpretation. In fact that was the very thought Jesus was teaching against when He said that one had to "be born of the water & the spirit". Remember, the Jews (especially Pharisees like Nicodemus) felt that being born Jewish was a one way ticket to God ("We have Abraham for a Father"). When He spoke of water, He was speaking of Baptism - which was not a strange concept to the Jews as baptism was required of Jewish Prosylites(?) i.e. for all those outside of God's will - which today is all of us sinners.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Danny, I would like to copy and paste something you said above:

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Connie... Don't be ridiculous.....Gideons Bibles are full of "faith only" false doctrine promoted by the Gideons....which is exactly why the above mentioned man got out of the Gideons once he accepted what the plain truth of God was.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), May 10, 2000.

I agree with you! We present the Scriptures, and ALL of what is anything which is not Scripture presented in those copies, except the words of the hymns, I typed there. Also, there are four pages of Scripture references, included as helps.

Loaded with doctrine. God's.

And God sends along the Holy Spirit as Counselor and He speaks of Christ.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Formerly, 'til now, I considered the position of insistence on immersion for salvation to be innocuous. I thought: 'Oh, well, they believe one way about baptism and I believe another way, but we are all Christians, so God will sort it out'.

But now I believe that the teaching of salvation by baptism to be pernicious, even preventing so-called Christian ministers/pastors/ preachers/evangelists from accepting believers whom God has accepted and to think it is better to NOT hand out the word of God and prefer to do nothing. Perhaps they are visiting people in prisons and helping widows, though.

When people become Christians, God guides and directs their paths. He directs them to the people who will help them in their walks. If people read the Scriptures, they see that they should gather together with other believers and that they should be immersed. He creates a living relationship with that person, by living IN him/her.

If someone is at the point of converting to Christ, he/she is usually ready to read the Scriptures (especially if his/her decision is made from reading a Bible) and ready to find other believers.

This position means that the RM praechers denigrate the work of a Billy Graham or a Billy Sunday.

When I became a Christian, I almost felt as though I was a Chess piece, God directed my paths so amazingly. I was just a baby, (in Christ) but am amazed at the strength He gave me. I have no fear that the people whom we Christian Gideons have given the Word of God into their own hands will not find a Christian group to fellowship with, IF THEY WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT GOD. We pray for it continually.

I also am praying for all of you. I am thankful that my anger has completely drained away.

The 72nd birthday dinner for my husband at Red Lobster helped.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Connie,

It is the "faith only" false teaching which is pernicious, because you are taking away from God's plan of salvation.

As to your comment about Billy Graham/Billy Sunday...IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO is teaching false doctrine or what their name is, I for one will refute that teaching.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Billy Graham has gone into all the world, preaching the Gospel to all creatures, and being a Baptist has, I imagine, baptized or supervised the baptism, of many. (As Paul preached the Gospel, but didn't baptize many ~ and said he was glad he didn't!) He has been obedient and an example of the believers.

I'll leave him to God to say where he'll stand on Judgment Day. I think there are many to whom He will say: "I never knew you, you worker of iniquity!" There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Connie,

You wrote, "...and to think it is better to NOT hand out the word of God and prefer to do nothing."

I think it is GREAT to hand out the Word of God!! The church I am associated with and myself personally have worked very hard to get Bibles into the hands of many, many people abroad (via our missionaries) and here at home. These Bibles will each make an impact as they are going directly to people who already have a desire to read them and to learn the Word. There ARE other alternatives of getting the Bible to people... and that is how I will spend my money.

The problem that I have with the Gideon approach is what is ADDED TO THE WORD OF GOD. You wrote previously, "This exchange is exactly why nothing doctrinal is put forth in the New Testaments we hand out. The Word of God is sufficient to do that job." SOMETHING doctrinal IS added.... If "The Word of God is sufficient...", then JUST hand out the Word... and I'll support your efforts.

Thanks to all who have responded!

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Excellent points, Robin !

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I agree; there are some people whom I definitely do NOT want handing out the Word of God! Like certain TV commercials I see stating that if you call a toll free number, they will send you your free copy of the Holy Bible. "Its a gift ... from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." No thank you!

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Robin, I would like to comment on the following statement originally made above:

The problem that I have with the Gideon approach is what is ADDED TO THE WORD OF GOD. You wrote previously, "This exchange is exactly why nothing doctrinal is put forth in the New Testaments we hand out. The Word of God is sufficient to do that job." SOMETHING doctrinal IS added.... If "The Word of God is sufficient...", then JUST hand out the Word... and I'll support your efforts.

What that is doctrinal is added? I will happily send you a copy for you to look at yourself.

Nothing doctrinal is added to a Gideon Bible.

There is a flag page with the verse: 'Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people'; There is an opening statement which in no way can be considered doctrinal. There are four pages of Scripture references with no comment. The body is of the New KJV. The back covers have 13 more verses with no comment. There are six headings, which are words taken from the verses being quoted.

This is the small New testament; I'm not positive of the content of the larger ones put in Hotel/Motel rooms. I KNOW the Gideons would not add to nor take away from the Word of God. They would not dishonor the Name of Christ in that way.

May I repeat? ~:

NOTHING IS ADDED TO OR TAKEN AWAY FROM THE WORD OF GOD BY GIDEONS.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Connie,

In my opinion, the Sinner's Prayer is doctrine... False Doctrine. I should have said "...is added to the Gideon Bible." rather than, "... is added to the Word of God." I did not mean to imply that the Gideon's modifed the text of God's Word, but that they did include False Doctrine along with it.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

The following is what you are claiming is doctrine, and I would like for you to show me where:

My Decision to Receive Christ as My Savior

Confeesing to God that I am a sinner, and believing that the Lord Jesus Christ died for my justification, I do now receive and confess Him as my personal Savior.

_____________________________________________________________________ NAME

_____________________________________________________________________ DATE

Please edify me.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Robin,

There are other Christian organizations which have what you call 'the sinner's prayer' and I don't know which ones do or what they say.

In our church, we rarely have what is called 'an altar call', but occasionally we do ask if anyone wants to receive the Savior. We then shepherd those people who accept Christ and acquaint them with the basics of the One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism (which we believe to be 'INTO CHRIST' ~ not water baptism), AND OF COURSE WE THEN IMMERSE, as a figure of the death, burial, and resurrection. They fully understand what they are doing. We treat them very solicitously, as babes in Christ, because of our love for the Savior and for them.

For people who want to fellowship with us, we give them an outline of our doctrinal stands and ask for a statement of their belief, given to the elders. If they are not willing to confess their faith in Christ then we could not allow them to become members ~ of the local body, not the body of Christ; these are sometimes people who have been in the body of Christ for years.

Many people come to our services, hear the Gospel, accept Christ as Savior and Lord and begin to be built up in the faith.

We have attended there for 33 years and have NEVER seen the kind of confrontive behavior exhibited on this forum. We attempt to speak the truth in love and to build each other up in the Faith once delivered. We are not perfect, by any means, but God is our Father, Christ is our Savior, and the Bible is our standard. And the Holy Spirit is our Counselor.

Praise Him, in all Three Persons

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I would like to correct an error I made above:

For people who want to fellowship with us, we give them an outline of our doctrinal stands and ask for a statement of their belief, given to the elders. If they are not willing to confess their faith in Christ then we could not allow them to become members ~ of the local body, not the body of Christ; these are sometimes people who have been in the body of Christ for years.

These who would not be willing to confess their faith in Christ would NOT be Christians, in my estimation. (This is hypothetical ~ it has never happened, to my knowledge.)

The second half of that sentence should clarify that there are sometimes people who have been in the 'body of Christ' for years who want to confess their faith and join our fellowship. Any who would not confess Christ would not be acceptable as members of our local church. We have this requirement in cases where people might be considering serving in some capacity ~ as Sunday School teachers, for example, or drivers of children.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

We have attended there for 33 years and have NEVER seen the kind of confrontive behavior exhibited on this forum. We attempt to speak the truth in love and to build each other up in the Faith once delivered.

Connie have you really, and I mean really read about the apostle Paul? Quite a (what you would call) Confrontive person. And yet, on the other side of the coin, I do believe he spoke the truth in love and built others up in the Faith once delivered. Paradoxical you think?

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Hello, D. Lee,

I'll go with whatever Paul says. He's the author of I Corinthians 13 and 14.

His condemnation was reserved for those legalists who were trying to ensnare people back into rules. I feel a complete sympathy for his exasperation. He was compassionate, just, and zealous. (For him to live was Christ, and to die was gain ~ and Paul wanted the same for everyone).

Thank God He (God) has freed me in Christ to be responsive to His voice ('My sheep hear my voice').

May you be blessed this day, in Christ.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

D. Lee;

I agree that Christians who are SINNING should be privately rebuked ~ even to the point of not eating with such a person ~ what behavior would engender that response? - - read the works of the flesh right after the fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5 ~ but should bonafide Christians who love the Lord and are making sure to remain in a vital relationship to Christ, so have decided to distribute Bibles so that people who have never heard the word of God can do so, be denigrated and then accept untrue statements regarding what they are distributing? I think not.

I haven't read it, but I have heard of a book title, and it keeps coming to mind when I observe what goes on here. The title?: "Winning Through Intimidation". I think that is the 'modus operandi' of many on this forum (not all).

The problem is, I'm not afraid of them. Perfect love casts out fear, and that is what Jesus has done for me. And before I was a Christian, fear was a major sin with me.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Connie,

You adamantly stated,"NOTHING IS ADDED TO OR TAKEN AWAY FROM THE WORD OF GOD BY GIDEONS".

Then why is it, that on the back page which you previously posted for all to see, that the clear Biblical references of Baptism ARE COMPLETELY OMITTED? Could it be that the Gideons do not believe that part of the Scriptures, and as such, their own DOCTRINE does not allow them to mention Baptism? That is a "no-brainer" to see.

Earlier, you accused me of lying because I didn't finish the rest of the quote from the Gideon Preamble to the Bible. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT I DID AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING BY NOT MENTIONING BAPTISM AS A SCRIPTURAL REQUIREMENT IN THEIR CLOSING STATEMENT????????

Answer-------There is no difference.

If you truly belived that I lied in my post, then by your own definition - you have proven the Gideons to be liars and have allied yourself in the camp of liars!

Connie, stop throwing up the smoke-screen of "love" and embrace "truth". For inside truth, you will find the true love of God.

Outside of truth, there is nothing worth having.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

With all of the references to baptizing new converts from the Great Commission by Jesus Himself to every instance in the book of Acts, I honestly cannot see how any Christian could possibly leave out any mention of baptism whatsoever in a presentation of the Gospel to new converts! To me that is taking away from the Word of God, in the same way that the Jehovah's Witnesses have the whole Bible, yet in their presentations neglect to mention the scriptures that clearly show Jesus' divinity. It is selective quoting to forward an agenda; it is no more and no less taking away from the Word of God.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Mark et al,

Every single reference to baptism in the New Testament is included in a Gideons' New Testament. If we were to present either your view or my view in the covers of the New Testaments which we hand out, it would engender the kind of division which we are seeing here.

Divisions in the church do not glorify God.

Something which has come to my mind is the baptism of the Apostles other than John and Paul. Stephen, of course was one of the seven.

I'm sort of thinking out loud (or with fingers) here, but I'm sure you'll all give me the Scripture references.

And Jesus, of course. Come to think of it, John's baptism was of others.

Not much is said,if anything, about the baptism of the other Apostles, if I remember correctly.

I would like to ask you all a question:

I have read earlier posts where people have talked about children being baptized, and one reference indicated that a child of the age of three in a church the poster was visiting, was baptized while he was visiting, and he disapproved of that.

In another place, a poster said that he had believed from the time he could remember, but had not been baptized until the age of 8, which he considered too young. My Question: (And this is a serious question; I am in no way being smart-alecky):

What is the spiritual state of that child, from the time he/she indicates he/she believes until someone (who ~ the child? ~ the Parent? ~ decides the child is to be baptized? I can understand why RCs baptize babies, in that they believe it bestows salvation, but I guess I don't understand your position completely.

Jesus, Paul, and even the Word itself do not CLEARLY spell out all of the nuances of what they intend concerning baptism IF it is necessary for salvation. There are too many ambiguities, and is the chief reason there is controversy about it, IMHO. It seems that there are many groups which state they are Christian, and in every respect they are, except that they have differing positions where baptism is concerned.

I don't think God would have left us with this ambiguity if our salvation depended on it. I know that is using my human reasoning, but God gave us that capacity to use it.

I don't think He would leave such an important function to men who can't agree on music in services, when to gather for worship, what the Lord's Supper should consist of, or when and how frequently it should be observed, and even whether to call the person burdened with the task of being an overseer or shepherd of a local church a pastor/minister/preacher/evangelist/brother/sister or late for dinner. (That last was levity).

Please edify me.

Respectfully and prayerfully submitted.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

'Love covers a multitude of sins'.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Connie,

2 things to consider here:

First,you said that every refernce to Baptism in the New Testament was included in the Gideon Bible.

That is another half-truth. Yes the original text is there, but they have omitted it from the back section, which they have added as a quick reference for salvation.

You say that the Bible is ambiguous concerning Baptism - that is so Not True. "Baptism", or a derivative, is mentioned at least 96 times in the New Testament. And let's see, "faith only" is mentioned........ Once.

If the Gideons would remove their little addition from the back entirely and give a statement affirming that they believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God - I'd be on their doorstep tomorrow begging for a chance to pass out their Bibles. But until those things were to happen I just can't in good conscience support them. And since there are other groups and Bible Translators out there that do affirm the inerrancy of scripture - they will get my support over anything the Gideons do.

Now...to answer your Honest question concerning infant/child Baptism:

We, as a group do not believe in such. Nowhere in the New Testament is it shown that anyone other than a person who could make up their own mind concerning Jesus was ever Baptized. And it is improper to think that when a "household" was Baptized (such as with Cornelius) that children were also Baptized, because the culture of that day did not include child, and oftentimes women, when a group was mentioned or numbered.

I don't have time tonight to get all the correct Scripture references together so I'll have to give you the "Cliff's Notes" version, but here goes:

We do not not believe that baptism is necessary for a person until they come to an understanding of sin and its consequences and of how Jesus acted to save us from those sins. Paul explains it somewhere (forgive my feeeble memory) that the only reason God gave the Old Testament Law was to show the people what sin was. Until there was an understanding of sin, there could be no condemnation for transgressing that which you did not know.

Therefore, we feel that Baptism of a child is unnecessary until that individual grasps the concepts of sin, condemnation, and salvation. There are no age limits. At the age of 8 I knew what sin was, I knew I'd go to Hell for it, and I knew that I had to be Baptized to prevent it.....so I was Baptized. My youngest son came to the same conclusions when he was 8 and wanted to be Baptized. Trust me, I "grilled" him with questions as to why he desired Baptism. Shoot, he knew more about it than most of the elderly people in our church did - so I plunged him, as I felt I had no right to prevent it and may have put both his & my salvation at risk by denying him. My oldest son didn't come to those conclusions until he was 11. So age isn't the issue - it's understanding.

Personally, I do not baptize a minor unless I know the parents are ok with it - that's a legal issue for the church to avoid. But in fact, I try to talk & counsel with any who comes with the desire for Baptism - in order to make sure they understand the what & why-for.

Basically for kids - because of their innocence, they have an "immunity from prosecution" until they come to an understanding of sin, condemnation, & salvation.

Does that help?

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2000

Connie, I am confused. Why is it that you say you have an open mind, yet when anyone points out the VERY clear teaching regarding baptism, you almost immediately and vehemently respond with comments that it is "ambiguous" or "divisive" and basically start spouting Baptist party-line? I fail to see your openmindedness on this issue, especially since, as Mark pointed out, the Bible is FAR from ambiguous on the subject, and only mentions "faith only" (to be generous) half a dozen times or so.

I once did a study of one of the most important concepts in the Bible, the fact that there is only one God. God is so very specific about this, that he practically beats it into the heads of the Israelites: it is mentioned no less than 31 times (at least!) in the Bible. By contrast, Mark noted at least 96 times where baptism is mentioned or commanded in the New Testament. It would seem to me that Somebody is trying to make a very big point, and that someone is going to very great lengths not to see it.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2000

I have written the verses out so many times which state clearly that our salvation is achieved by our believing in Christ's shed blood as the propitiation for our sins, his death and resurrection for the remission of sin, which is the meaning of 'in Christ'.

See, I wasn't indoctrinated the way some in denominations are. I only read the Scriptures (past tense ~ meaning back at the time I was a new Christian). The only thing my mother believed about Christianity and passed on to us was that people should be immersed. ShE DID get that from being a Baptist, because her ancestor baptized Roger Williams.

What you don't understand is that when I became a Christian, I was a new creature in Christ and reexamined everything I had ever been told.

Unfortunately, I offended my sister by kiddingly saying my mom would rather be a Baptist than a Christian. (My sister was still a Baptist at that time). I suppose I've said it 5 or 6 times on this forum ~ I AM NOT A BAPTIST, AND HAVE NOT BEEN ONE SINCE I BECAME A CHRISTIAN. I AM NOT A PROTESTANT, EITHER; I AM A CHRISTIAN. I get my doctrine on this from the Scriptures. I believed what I believe from reading the Scriptures before I ever stepped foot in a church (as an adult, after receiving Christ. ~ I did go to church as a teenager). ~ Don't worry that I got any doctrine from that (Baptist) church. They didn't preach any. By the way, though, I DO believe many Baptists are Christians. Also many Calvinists. Also many of other denominations. And also many RMs.

Concerning putting on the covers of a Gideons' Bible that immersion for the remission of sins is a requirement for salvation, that would be adding to Scripture.

The passages for a person reading the Bible for the first time who, 9 times out of 10, is suffering some circumstances or wouldn't even be thinking about God or what a Bible says, are ones of discovering what the Bible has in the way of comfort in adverse circumstances.

I wouldn't hand one out which was promoting a particular doctrine. The words within the body of the New Testament are all there. The Holy Spirit knows how to teach what God wants known. He has that power.

The problem here (IMHO) is that you don't think anyone is a Christian who has not been immersed by one of you (from your 'movement'), and one who believes that the dipping in water is what saves you. That is ludicrous. Please go to the earliest manuscripts. It is being 'born again' by the spirit. The only work done by anyone is done by Christ. Mental assent or agreement (repentance, faith) is not work. Work is a physical act by one object on another. (Someone immersing someone else). I also sense that some of you somehow don't believe the Holy Spirit does much instructing, except to special insiders who have a more direct access to God.

Of course, I believe that only born-again believers have access to God through the Holy Spirit, so that is a few more than you believe do. Our big difference is the 'when' of the gaining of salvation; you believe it is at the immersion and I believe it is when one makes the mental assent to believe.

I wonder if God cares as long as we DO believe in His provision for our salvation ~ Christ. I KNOW that you feel that it is of utmost importance.

I pray that God, through the Holy Spirit, in Christ, will edify us all.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

I have looked at most of the references to salvation, faith, repentance, justification, and santification, which are all part of the process of salvation during the last two months, and there are only a handful which refer to water baptism. I would say one in six. (But I didn't count). In the case of Cornelius' family, they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized (and were already Christians) but in another place, when they were already Christians, their baptism proffered the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Very few of the Apostles' baptisms are mentioned. Some were baptized almost immediately; some weren't. I guess you were. I wasn't. But I was baptized to obey the instruction to be baptized. As a figure of the death, burial and resurrection of my Lord Jesus Christ. In His Name, and all that implies.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Once again, Connie, you misunderstand and mischaracterize us (well, at least me, and since I feel I am somewhat representative; us). You wrote that "you don't think anyone is a Christian who has not been immersed by one of you (from your 'movement')". This is patently untrue and I hope you have heard no one in this forum say it.

You also wrote that we "[believe] that the dipping in water is what saves you". This is also untrue. Make no mistake about it, We believed we are saved by faith and not by works. We believe that faith in Christ gives you the right to become a son of God, as John chapter one says: the right to enter into the New Covenant. That entry is through belief, repentance, confession, and baptism. Jesus said to go and make disciples, baptizing them. When asked at Pentecost what they must do to be saved, Peter said repent and be baptized. The two foundational times when baptism is mentioned in relation to entry into the New Covenant. Really, how hard is this? And why are people such as yourself so hydrophobic that they absolutely will not mention a word of it?

In witnessing to Mormons, I run time and time again into a bizarre phenomena I call "cruciphobia." Mormons have an almost vampiric fear and revulsion of the Cross of Christ. This seems to be a very similar phenomena, "hydrophobia," an unreasoning trepidation of the waters of baptism, to the point where it is not even mentioned in any salvation presentation for fear of being "divisive."

[Oh, and for the record, I never said you were a Baptist. I said you were sounding like a Baptist. And I find it kind of comical that those with the very word in their name seem to be the ones most afraid of the act.]

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

In defense of the "Sinners Prayer," I witness online often, and sometimes have brought people to the desire to make a decision for Christ. I have found that perhaps the easiest way to get them in touch with their Creator, and make sure that the bases of belief, repentance and confession were covered, was to have a prayer together. However, I tell them to go to a local church to be baptized, as they have yet to develop a "Virtual Baptistery."

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Connie,

You wrote the following:

"We then shepherd those people who accept Christ and acquaint them with the basics of the One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism (which we believe to be 'INTO CHRIST' ~ not water baptism), AND OF COURSE WE THEN IMMERSE, as a figure of the death, burial, and resurrection."

This sounds like 2 baptisms to me!

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

John,

I agree that a sinner's (small "s") prayer might be the best way to "...make sure that the bases of belief, repentance and confession were covered..." and I don't have a problem with that at all. It is the implied 'assurance of salvation' that goes along with the Sinner's Prayer that I object to (either blatantly, as in "You are now saved. Nothing can separate you from God." or by omission of any reference to baptism under a heading such as 'Salvation'.)

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Marc:

Yes, there are a couple of different baptisms mentioned in the Scriptures, but only one saves us ~ the One Baptism. The baptism into Christ's name. (And all that means ~ the shed blood, death, and resurrection of our Savior.) Then there is the water baptism, a figure of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and then the Holy Spirit baptism, which helps us in our Christian walk.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

John:

Well, I guess you don't mean me when you call someone 'hydrophobic', because I have been immersed TWICE ~ once before believing because it was the custom in my mother's church, and once after believing ~ at the prompting of the Holy Spirit when I discovered that it was God's will for me to do so.

And I have no fear of discussing it at length, either. My fear, if I have any, is that someone could think that it is their being immersed which saves them, when that is impossible. The only work that can save them is the blood, death and rising again from the dead of Christ, and their believing that. (Faith ~ through Grace ~ unmerited favor).

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

From another Christian forum: (It says a lot of what I want to say, so it will save time for me to copy and paste it here):

Are We Justified by Faith (Romans)or by Works (James)? profile | register | preferences | faq | search next newest topic | next oldest topic Author Topic: Are We Justified by Faith (Romans)or by Works (James)? Grace2U Member Posts: 742 Registered: Feb 2000 posted 05-12-2000 11:03 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- In Romans it says, "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . " (Rom. 3:20), and "for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," (Rom. 3:28), and "For what does the Scripture say? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3), and "Therefore, having been justified by faith . . . " (Rom. 5:1), and "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5). In James it says, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone," (James 2:24) and " . . . so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:26). Which is it? Are we justified by faith or by works? Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

It is a fundamental Christian belief that we are justified by faith. Justification means that God declares a sinner to be righteous. He does this by crediting, by reckoning the righteousness of Jesus to the sinner. This is done by faith. That is, when the sinner puts his faith in the sacrifice of Jesus and trusts in Him and not himself for righteousness, then God justifies him. "And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," (Rom. 4:3). But , if the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith, does it also teach we are justified by works as James seems to say? Do we have a contradiction? The answer is no.

Context is Everything

It is erroneous to take a verse, read it without its context, and then attempt to develop a doctrine from that verse alone. Therefore, let's take a look at the context of James 2:24 which says that a man is justified by works. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us to not show favoritism. Verses 8- 13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.

For simplicity, I've summarized each verse and arranged the section in an outline style.

14 - What use is it if someone says he has faith but no works? 15 - If you see someone in need 16 - and you don't give him what he needs, but say, Go in peace, be warmed.' What use is that? 17 - therefore faith with no works is dead 18 - therefore, someone says "I will show you my faith by my works." 19 - you believe in God? Good. The demons do too. 20 - faith without works is useless. 21 - Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac 22 - faith was working with his works. 23 - Scripture says, "And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" 24 - you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. 25 - Rahab, was justified by works 26 - faith without works is dead

Notice that James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith, verses 14. He then immediately gives an example of what true and false faiths are. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17). Then he shows that that type of faith isn't much different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith by showing Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds. James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20). This is why in the middle of his section on faith and works, he says in verse 19, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James says this because the demons believe in God, that is, they have faith, but the faith they have is useless. It does not result in appropriate works. Their faith is only a mental acknowledgment of God's existence.

Ascentia and Fiducia

Two words are worth introducing here: ascentia and fiducia. Ascentia is the mental ascent, the mental acknowledgment of something's existence. The demons acknowledge and believe that God exists. Fiducia is more than mental acknowledgment. It involves a trust in something, a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ, not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time. Another way to put this is that there are many people in the world who believed that Jesus lived: ascentia. But they do not believe that He is their savior, the one to be looked to and trusted for the forgiveness of their sins. Ascentia does not lead to works. Fiducia does. Ascentia is not of the heart. Fiducia is.

What is James Saying?

James is simply saying that if you say' you are a Christian, then there had better be some appropriate works manifested or your faith is false. This sentiment is echoed in 1 John 2:4 which says, "If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar." Apparently, there were people who were saying they were Christians, but were not manifesting any of the fruit of Christianity. Can this faith justify? Can the dead faith' that someone has which produces no change in a person and no good works before men and God be a faith that justifies? Absolutely not. It is not merely enough to say you believe in Jesus. You must actually believe and trust in Him. If you actually do, then you will demonstrate that faith by a changed and godly life. If not, then your profession is of no more value than the same profession of demons: "We believe Jesus lived." Notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul uses to support the teaching of justification by faith in Rom. 4:3. James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example. Therefore, we are justified by faith. That is, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by faith as is amply demonstrated by Romans. However, that faith, if it is true, will result in deeds appropriate to salvation. After all, didn't God say in Eph. 2:98-10, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

IP: Logged Noble one Member Posts: 100 Registered: Dec 99 posted 05-13-2000 03:55 AM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Dear Grace, a very, very good presentation! I hope that some Roman Catholics will read this and truly discover what biblical faith and justification is really about! Thanks! Keep on doin' what your doin'! Noble one

IP: Logged Ann Member Posts: 734 Registered: Jul 99 posted 05-13-2000 10:54 AM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Noble One- Catholics actually believe what Grace just wrote about faith and works.It has been part of Catholic teaching for centuries.Grace sounds-Catholic,in clarifying Romans and James. IP: Logged Noble one Member Posts: 100 Registered: Dec 99 posted 05-14-2000 12:39 AM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Ann, not according to the Catholic catechism nor the Council of Trent. Check it out. Noble one

IP: Logged Ann Member Posts: 734 Registered: Jul 99 posted 05-14-2000 09:43 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Noble One- Sorry.What it's in the Catechism is what Grace said.Do you want to start a fight where there is none? IP: Logged Noble one Member Posts: 100 Registered: Dec 99 posted 05-15-2000 04:41 AM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- No Ann, I don't want to start a fight. I love you and Jesus loves you too! In fact, I want to tell you the truth BECAUSE I love you and BECAUSE Jesus loves you so much, that He DIED for ALL of your sins. Even the SINS that you will commit tomorrwow! Jesus said "IT IS FINISHED"!!!! There is NOTHING you can add to what Jesus did for you but believe (TRUST) in His finished work, His blood atonement. It was sufficient enough for Father God and it should be sufficient enough for you! However, if you adhere to the Doctines of the Roman Catholic church, you CAN'T believe in the Biblical teaching of God's Grace and Justification because what Catholic Church teachings and Traditions teach and what the Bible teaches are totally opposite. Maybe you truly ARE born again and believe in the Biblical teaching of Justification and God's grace, only God knows your heart, but if that is the case, why would you still remain in a church that clearly teaches something contrary to the Word of God? A church that teaches a "WORKS" based Gospel? Is it because you have ALWAYS been a Catholic and want to hold on to your religious pride? Do you feel very COMFORTABLE being a Catholic? Would family members call you a Jesus FANATIC OR FREAK if you were to leave the Roman Catholic Church? Well, that's what happened to me when I was born again. But it didn't matter because I felt the warm, safe arms of my Saviour instead of the clutches and bondage of the Catholic Church! Just let go and surrender to what Jesus has ALREADY DONE for YOU! Don't allow ROME to fool you any longer! We (Christians) don't do good works to be saved or to stay saved, we (Christians) do good works BECAUSE we ARE saved! (Ephesians 2:8-9)

No, again, I'm not trying to fight with you, but just simply sharing with you some good news because I love you! If I didn't love you, then I would CARE LESS about your ETERNAL SOUL.

(Galatians 2:20-21) "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

(verse 21) "I do not FRUSTRATE the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

May the Lord free you from the clutches of Rome!

Noble one

IP: Logged

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

I know this should have gone on the Faith/Works/Baptism thread, but I didn't want to dig it out.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

I am going to say this one more time, because it appears some people in this forum seem to be a little thick on the subject. WE DO NOT BELIEVE WE ARE SAVED (JUSTIFIED) BY WORKS! That isn't the issue. If you think it is, then you have completely missed the entire point.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

John,

I have been told by several people on this forum that water baptism is for the remission of sins (salvation).

I consider water baptism to be a work.

The verses (mainly two, I think) when completely analyzed DO NOT SAY THAT.

I guess this is 'where the rubber meets the road'.

We disagree on the meaning of the word 'work'.

We need to pray some more and ask for more understanding of what is intended. I pray that we are not ALL bloodied and bowed by that time.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Connie,

You say that baptism is a work?? Would you please explain that statement? I truly don't understand how it can be viewed as a work........

Cynthia

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Hello, Cynthia,

In 1993 I read in the 'Books' section of the Detroit Free Press that Clarendon Press of Oxford (England) was bringing out a new dictionary named 'The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary".

Our old (1969-1979 printings) 'American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language' was getting worn, and the binding was falling apart.

When my children asked what I wanted for my birthday, I told them I wanted the new Oxford dictionary. It is in two volumes, each 3" thick; 500,000 words. It has almost 2 pages of definitions for the word 'work'. I will post a few of them, 'cause my understanding could be wrong:

WORK

Act; action; process. A thing done; a proceeding; Good or moral acts or deeds considered in relation to justification (usually as opposed to 'faith' or 'grace'. Doings, deeds, conduct. Purposive action involving effort or exertion; Also labor, toil. A thing to be done or to do; a task or a function.

Action of a particular kind; production of a characteristic effect, functioning or operation.

Perform; produce; Do, deed, process. Bring about; cause; accomplish; achieve.

Do something to; influence; affect; Cause to be in, bring into, a specified state (now especially as a result of exertion or artificial agitation.

Expend effort or energy on; operate in or on; or apply force to; Cause to progress or penetrate into or move out of some position, especially against resistance; direct the movement of, guide or drive in a particular course. Knead or stir.

The previous is a small portion of all it says to describe the word, 'work'.

What do you think?

I'm open to suggestions.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Connie,

Do you view partaking of the Lord's Supper also a work then? It requires physical action on our part.

Cynthia

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Cynthia:

Definitely. And I believe we are to 'walk in good works', including baptism and the observance of the Lord's Supper.

It's just that neither will procure our salvation.

Baptism is figurative of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And the Lord's Supper is in remembrance of Him.

Will you please tell me what saved and saves you?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Cynthia:

This is something I received from Benjamin Rees about a month ago or so, and while I may not agree with every word, I think it has a reasoned position on both what you believe AND what I believe:

**********************************************************************

Rebaptism For "The Right Purpose" by Cecil Hook

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why introduce this over-worked subject again? It is because we in the Church of Christ have let it block the path to unity. Our rejection of others because they were not baptized purposely "for the remission of sins" separates us from the greater portion of believers. In this, we have become rejecting judges denying the very validity of the discipleship of others. We in the Church of Christ probably have discussed baptism more than any other group because we have considered it of more importance than most other Christian groups. It seems that by now we should have laid the subject to rest. I think I have dealt with the subject sufficiently for my readers in general in my books. However, now being on the Web with new readers who are not familiar with the views I have expressed, I hope this essay may offer some helpful clarification.

In proclaiming Jesus promise that "he who believes and is baptized will be saved," we have also used the emphatic statement of Peter on Pentecost, "Repent, and be baptized every of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38). Although most all Christian groups practice baptism as an act of obedience to Christ, they generally teach that believing is the only necessary action of obedience in order to receive forgiveness. So they think they are saved before obedience in baptism. Since those persons are not baptized purposely "for the forgiveness of your sins," many of my people contend that those persons should be rebaptized specifically for that purpose.

By denying the validity of the baptism of such persons, many in the Church of Christ actually deny that such persons are saved, and they offer them no fellowship or admission into their congregations. So this goes beyond friendly discussion about accepting disciples and is made the basis of rejection. Rebaptism becomes a dividing issue.

Let me clarify this point in the beginning. Allowing God to be God who may make gracious exceptions as he may choose, I am convinced that ordinarily baptism is an essential action on the part of the sinner in accepting the grace of God bestowed in Christ. The contention of this essay is that one is not required to understand each and every purpose or result of baptism in order for God to fulfill those purposes and effects.

Is "for the remission of your sins" a part of the command or a part of the promise? If it is a part of the command, then one is required to understand that purpose and to be immersed specifically for that purpose. If it is a part of the promise, then it is fulfilled by God to the one obeying his command to be immersed whether that person understands fully or not.

If, in order for baptism to be valid, one must understand its purpose, let us look at the stated purposes. In Peters declaration on Pentecost, he first called for convicting faith. Then he called for them to repent and be baptized in order for their sins to be forgiven. Can anyone deny that both faith and repentance, in addition to immersion, are necessary for the remission of sins? Faith, repentance, and baptism are (1) for the forgiveness of sins and (2) to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Shortly after Pentecost, Peter delivered a similar discourse at Solomons Porch. Even though baptism is not mentioned specifically, he called for faith and, "Repent therefore, and turn again, (3) that your sins may be blotted out, (4) that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and (5) that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old" (Acts 3:11-22. Numbering added). If a candidate for baptism must understand these five stated purposes and have them in mind for his baptism to be valid, woe is me! I am a goner, a dead duck! I did not fully comprehend them all at that time and I still do not 62 years later! What about you? Were you baptized purposely in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? Why make an issue of one promise and not the other? In the one account of rebaptism in the Scriptures, converts of Apollos were asked by Paul, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" We are not told of any inquiry into the understood purpose of their prior baptisms (Acts 19:1-9).

Commands are to be obeyed, but how do you obey a promise? When Jesus announced, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved," he set forth two things that a person can do and the result that God will accomplish. The promised result was not a part of the command. It cannot be obeyed. Neither were any of the five promises enumerated above parts of the command. These are not things a person can do. In Matthews account of the Great Commission, no mention is made of the purpose or promise connected with baptism (Matt. 28:18-20), yet we can be confident that God saved those who were obedient.

Judean disciples in the Jerusalem church were convinced that circumcision, in addition to obedience in baptism, was necessary to be saved, yet no question is raised about the validity of their baptisms (Acts 15).

Other purposes were fulfilled through baptism in response to faith and repentance also. I shall continue the numbering begun above. We are baptized (6) into Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-4). By our baptism we are brought (7) into the one body, (8) the church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:18). It is through this obedience that we are (9) born again, (10) become a child of God, and (11) enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5; Gal. 3:26-27). There we find (12) newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4) and (13) are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Col. 2:11- 14).

These are things that God through his Spirit accomplished in and for us when we obeyed him in baptism, whether we understood it or not. If one must have had those purposes in mind prior to baptism, then few of us could have confidence that Gods promises were fulfilled in us. Most of us would need rebaptism! Isnt it amazing how we become hung up on one point!

There is no Biblical record that all the purposes listed above were explained to a person before baptism. The last eight of them were explained to disciples after their baptisms to assure them of what God had accomplished in and for them when he saved them.

Perhaps it will put things in better perspective to look again at the records of conversions in Acts. On Pentecost Peter was addressing the very people who had called out for the crucifixion of Jesus. His discourse was designed to turn them from rejecters to believers in Jesus as the Christ. His powerful presentation of Christ caused them to recognize the horrible thing they had done so that they felt doomed. They called out in despair asking rhetorically what they could do when they thought their case was hopeless. They were probably surprised and greatly relieved when Peter told them simply to repent and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In Samaria (Acts 8), to these people who had been rejected by the Jews but were eager to serve God, the need for repentance and forgiveness was not mentioned, but great numbers of them were baptized eagerly in acceptance of Christ. A similar pattern is seen as the righteous Ethiopian gladly expressed his acceptance of, and allegiance to, Jesus as his Savior. They were not escaping impending doom due to heinous sins so much as aligning themselves with the one who would save them.

Sauls circumstance was similar to that of the Jews on Pentecost. Being convicted by an appearance of the Lord on the road to Damascus of fighting against God by his frenzied persecution of disciples, Saul cried out, "What shall I do, Lord?" Later, this man who had been fasting and praying in contrition for three days and nights was told to be baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 9, 22). Forgiveness was the burning issue with him.

Cornelius was a devout, God-fearing Gentile (Acts 10). After God convinced the Jews that he was receiving Gentiles by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his household, Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. No mention is made of "for the remission of sins," for that was not the emphatic issue with them so much as their being initiated into life in Christ. In his Great Commission, Jesus had authorized baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When they baptized in the name of Christ, they were baptizing as Jesus had authorized. It was a matter of obedience to Christ.

In no case was a discourse on baptism delivered to those who were to be immersed. No evidence points to an explanation of all the designs of baptism, nor of reimmersion of the penitents after they learned all the designs. They simply obeyed the expressed will of God -- like we should do, whether we understand all its purposes or not.

Many in our congregations think of baptism as a sacrament, a ritual or ceremony through which grace is conferred to the soul. They think it changes the soul from death to life, affecting a new birth in us. They believe in baptismal regeneration  that in baptism divine action transforms and regenerates the soul in a new birth process.

Baptism symbolizes, finalizes, and confirms the change that the convert has undergone rather than accomplishing the change. The conversion process is similar to the process of physical birth. There is an insemination, a conception, a period of gestation, and a parturition or birth. The birth finalizes what has been taking place in the womb rather than being the cause of the life developing process. The parturition is necessary, but it is not the cause of life. Life is not conferred, infused, or poured into the fetus at birth, yet the life-giving process is incomplete without it.

In similar manner, a sinner hears the gospel, develops faith, decides to submit his life to God in Christ, begins a process of reformation, and is baptized. Although baptism is necessary in this procedure, it is not the cause of life. Baptism confirms what has already been developing in the person. The regeneration is a process finalized by baptism instead of being produced by it.

Now, must a person who held a sacramental view of baptism be rebaptized when he learns of his misunderstanding? Such a person has obeyed what was commanded. He was not commanded to understand all the purposes and implications. If God does not demand such an understanding, why should we? And again, who could ever quality for baptism, for it is likely that none of us has understood all. He stands on unholy ground who rejects others who do not have his particular understanding.

The respected pioneers of our Movement did not demand rebaptism of those who had been immersed in other groups. It was later in the nineteenth century that an issue began to be made of it. David Lipscomb, the influential editor of the Gospel Advocate, opposed such rebaptism. In 1884, Austin McGary and Elijah Hansborough started the Firm Foundation especially to promote the rebaptism issue. That publication became very effective, but now I am confident that both the issue and the journal are waning.

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go" (Heb. 11:8). If he had waited until he saw everything clearly, he would not have left. How can we demand that others see all clearly before they begin obedience to the simplest of commands?

[For a thorough study of this subject, read RE-BAPTISM, Jimmy Allen, Howard Publishing Co., 3117 N 7th, West Monroe, LA 71291.]

Return to Freedom's Ring

********************************************************************** I would like to re-copy a portion of that here:

Many in our congregations think of baptism as a sacrament, a ritual or ceremony through which grace is conferred to the soul. They think it changes the soul from death to life, affecting a new birth in us. They believe in baptismal regeneration  that in baptism divine action transforms and regenerates the soul in a new birth process

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Baptism symbolizes, finalizes, and confirms the change that the convert has undergone rather than accomplishing the change. The conversion process is similar to the process of physical birth. There is an insemination, a conception, a period of gestation, and a parturition or birth. The birth finalizes what has been taking place in the womb rather than being the cause of the life developing process. The parturition is necessary, but it is not the cause of life. Life is not conferred, infused, or poured into the fetus at birth, yet the life-giving process is incomplete without it.

In similar manner, a sinner hears the gospel, develops faith, decides to submit his life to God in Christ, begins a process of reformation, and is baptized. Although baptism is necessary in this procedure, it is not the cause of life. Baptism confirms what has already been developing in the person. The regeneration is a process finalized by baptism instead of being produced by it.

Now, must a person who held a sacramental view of baptism be rebaptized when he learns of his misunderstanding? Such a person has obeyed what was commanded. He was not commanded to understand all the purposes and implications. If God does not demand such an understanding, why should we? And again, who could ever quality for baptism, for it is likely that none of us has understood all. He stands on unholy ground who rejects others who do not have his particular understanding.

The respected pioneers of our Movement did not demand rebaptism of those who had been immersed in other groups. It was later in the nineteenth century that an issue began to be made of it. David Lipscomb, the influential editor of the Gospel Advocate, opposed such rebaptism. In 1884, Austin McGary and Elijah Hansborough started the Firm Foundation especially to promote the rebaptism issue. That publication became very effective, but now I am confident that both the issue and the journal are waning.

**********************************************************************

What do you think?

In Him,

Connie

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Connie: You wrote"Will you please tell me what saved and saves you?"

Simply put~God's plan of salvation.My salvation is not at issue though. The only question I had for you was answered insofar as you believe baptism (immersion) to be a work. I have just scanned the threads on Faith/Works/Baptism and Salvation. Even after all these months here, and those thousands of words, you still want to pervert the word of God. I refer you to Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Cynthia

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Connie,

By your earlier definition of "work", I do not see baptism as any more of a work than faith (your mind is working) or repentance (you must change- that is HARD work!). Most "faith-only" people believe you must "pray" to be saved. Is not prayer a work? What about confession? Even reading and studying the Bible is hard work, yet, who would believe that you could be saved without doing these things?

In a Billy Graham crusade if you want to "accept Christ" you are to raise you hand or walk down the isle, all of which require an effort on your behalf (forgive me if I am not real up on what goes on at a Billy Graham crusade, I rarely watch them).

All of these things require as much effort or work as baptism does. When I was baptized all I did was walk to the baptistry. The one who baptized me did the work.

In reality it is God who does the WORK at baptism (Col.2:12)! He is the one who removes the sin by the blood of Jesus being applied! I would never say that baptism saves (that is baptism "alone"), rather, it is the TIME in which a person is saved (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom.6; Gal.3:27; Mk.16:16). I think that this is the real misunderstanding.

Jack Cottrell says it very well, "We are saved BY grace, THROUGH faith, IN baptism, FOR good works."

Baptism is not the means (work) in which we are saved, rather the occasion (time when sins are washed away- Acts 22:16) in which we are saved. Therefore, it is not a work!

I realize that this should have been a new thread, but I wanted to respond to Connies earlier statements about "work".

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

I feel that Cecil Hook, a leader in your 'movement', I guess, stated it well:

(From the above larger quote)

Many in our congregations think of baptism as a sacrament, a ritual or ceremony through which grace is conferred to the soul. They think it changes the soul from death to life, affecting a new birth in us. They believe in baptismal regeneration  that in baptism divine action transforms and regenerates the soul in a new birth process

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Baptism symbolizes, finalizes, and confirms the change that the convert has undergone rather than accomplishing the change. The conversion process is similar to the process of physical birth. There is an insemination, a conception, a period of gestation, and a parturition or birth. The birth finalizes what has been taking place in the womb rather than being the cause of the life developing process. The parturition is necessary, but it is not the cause of life. Life is not conferred, infused, or poured into the fetus at birth, yet the life-giving process is incomplete without it.

AGAIN: (From Cecil Hook, not from Connie Iversen)

'Baptism symbolizes, finalizes, and confirms the change that the convert has undergone rather than accomplishing the change'.

**********************************************************************

Some may have a longer gestation period than others, also. You can accuse me of that, but you cannot accuse me of perverting the Word of God.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Well, first, Cecil Hook, while generally a fine author and teacher, is far fron being a "leader" in "our movement."

And second, you'd best read again what you quote him as saying. he makes it very clear that baptism, while not the thing that saves you, IS the moment at which salvation arrives.

You are using him to make our argument for us, thereby both saving us the time and effort and showing your own argument to be wrong.

'Preciate the help.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Where, you may ask, does he make our argument for us? In the same from paragraph from which you took, out of its context, the sentence you ended with above. Note what he goes on to say in the same paragraph:

. The parturition is necessary, but it is not the cause of life. Life is not conferred, infused, or poured into the fetus at birth, yet the life-giving process is incomplete without it.

"Necessary" . . . "incomplete without it" . . . he clearly believes that baptism is the point at which it all comes together for the believer.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Sam et al:

I would like to re-post from my May 16th post to Cynthia from above:

Cynthia: This is something I received from Benjamin Rees about a month ago or so, and while I may not agree with every word, I think it has a reasoned position on both what you believe AND what I believe:

********************************************************************** Actually, it was more like 2 months ago, but that is not the reason I re-write it here. I DO like to keep my t's crossed and my i's dotted here, however.

The reason I re-copy it is because I want to point out that I don't agree with everything Mr. Hook said, but just showed you the parts I could agree with.

And I thought that his pointing out and using the birth of a child as a parable, sort of, was instructive. I have stated in the past that I believe we have been saved , we are being saved, and we will be saved, so it is a process.

It's just that I cannot believe that is anything I do, other than to accept what He has done for me.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

I didn't finish.

Last night was our monthly dinner at Great Lakes Christian College.

I have to say that I am so thankful to be associated with this Godly group of believers, sort of the (Spiritual ~ not material) 'cream of the crop' of believers from all different backgrounds, who want to present the Gospel of Christ to the unsaved of the world.

They all believe the message of the Scriptures to be the inerrant Word of God, with salvation of the unbeliever being the goal. The belief in the shed blood, death and resurrection of our Lord jesus Christ is central to our thinking. We also believe in the works which God has given us to do; We just don't believe these works will save us.

As for an individual working out, in God's own timing, of these works, we consider to be between the individual and God.

We love having a oneness of Spirit, and WORK at avoiding unedifying controversies which might damage the real work of getting out the message which saves.

Ironically, it seems as though we have achieved a major goal we all yearn for: a oneness in Christ. We can truly say of the Gideons, all believers:

"See how they love one another".

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Unfortunately, Baptism is not a controversy - It is a Commandment:

"...unless one is BORN OF WATER and the spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven" John 3:5

And Here is a WORK for you: "...WORK out your Salvation with fear and trembling" Phil. 2:12.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Hi, Mark:

I was just thinking about you as I was running around doing errands.

My husband and I both like classical music, as well as Christian music, and when I got in the car, found that my husband had left it on our local classical music station.

The piece playing was Chopin's 'Polonnaise'. That happens to be one of my favorite pieces, as well as Chopin's 'Revolutionary Etude'. A close third is 'La Mer'. It almost made me want to be Polish. The thing is, I am English, Scotch-Irish and Pennsylvania Dutch (German). This accounts for the 'warring in my members'.

I pray that we can come to a oneness of Spirit, even though we may disagree on certain passages.

You are all in my thoughts and prayers.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Connie,

I have to agree with your choice in music anyway. Chopin is alright! He kinda holds the banner for us Polock Musicians.....HA :~)

I enjoy a lot of the Slavik composers: like Dvorak, Smetana, Shostakovich, and even some Taichovsky(?).

Of course, there's even an occassional polka floating around in the veins too!

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Oh, Goody, Mark! We found something we can agree on! ;-) ;-)

Also, I made a mistake on 'La Mer'. That is by Debussey (another favorite), and I realized it tonight while having dinner at my son's. They were playing a wonderful CD and 'Claire de Lune' (also by Debussey) came on and it popped into my head that I had made a mistake in saying 'La Mer' was by Chopin.

My husband's favorites are the Russian composers ~ Tsaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Khatchiturian (sp) ~ 'Afternoon of a Faun' and another favorite is Respighi's 'Pines of Rome'.

For some reason, because I know you are in Florida, 'Pogo' comes to mind. We loved him. I remember one of Walt Kelly's strips had a duck named 'Mal de Mer' (a seasick duck! ;-)), and of course 'Mal de Mer' is seasickness in French and 'La Mer' is 'the sea' in French.

When my husband and I were in college (and later) we loved 'Pogo' and "Mr. McGoo'. In one 'McGoo' the director had him look at a painting of the ruins of Ancient Rome, (thinking he was looking out the window). He said: "Boy! This neighborhood is sure getting run down!" McGoo was VERY nearsighted, almost blind.

And one time when we visited in Florida, we visited at Okeefenokee Swamp, the 'home' of 'Pogo'.

Hey, are you hunting this week?

Have fun!

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Again Connie,

Still good taste in music! Have you ever heard Respighi's "Festivals of Rome" (Festa Romana)? It's a fantastic work that I had the pleasure of performing back in my College days. It makes you feel like you're standing in the middle of the Colloseum ready to do battle - the french horn work sends shivers down your spine! It is one of the "trios" of Rome that he wrote - the Pines, Festivals, and Gardens (I believe).

I grew up on Magoo - great stuff! I wouldn't trade him for a hundred Pokemon...Ha!

Oh... you just know I'll be out hunting tomorrow with the guys. I just come back from the camp, as I went down after work to meet the contingent from the North who have been hunting for the last 2 days. I'll be back down tomorrow morning bright & early getting sighted-in and psyched-up for the Festivities! Pray for good hunting & big hogs...as us Southern boys need to make a good showing; the first group of 7 harvested about 750 pounds of pig in 1 1/2 days of hunting! So we have our work cut out for us.

Maybe you ought to pray for the pigs - that none of us shoot like Mr. Magoo....Ha.:~)

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

I remember doing "The Pines of Rome" in high school!

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

The way this is going, perhaps we should start two new threads: favorite music and favorite cartoons? :P

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

Typo: 'Debussy', not 'Debussey'.

Yes, Mark, we formerly listened to Respighi's 'Fountains', 'Festivals' and 'Pines' of Rome. I should say here that my husband is really the classical music connoisseur. I like most styles of music, except the modern stuff and country.

And we love Dvorak's 'New World Symohony'; also, Ferde' Grofe's 'Grand Canyon Suite'.

What instrument do you play?

In that tape I sent of one of our services, did you notice the pianist and keyboardist? He won the 'Van Cliburn Award' in his home state of Texas. We have lost him, since he's gone back to Texas after marrying.

We have some terrific musicians in our church. I meant to say to E. Lee that, even though we have instruments in our services, (assemblies, meetings ~ whatever) it, also, is very beautiful. That cassette tape is of our church's 'Praise Band'.

After our exchange yesterday, I dug out an old video tape of the life (and death from tuberculosis at age 39) of Frederic Chopin ~ 'A Song to Remember'. I imagine it might even bring tears to the eyes of a tough fellow such as you, (concerning the devotion to Poland, not the 'romance' part).

He lived from 1810 to 1849. He wasn't a Christian from all appearances, (only God knows for sure), but his music was certainly beautiful. It is about the Polish resistance to the designs of the Russian czar.

The performances of Paul Muni as his teacher and Merle Oberon as the evil George Sand (a woman novelist of the time) were great. It is the role that made Cornell Wilde (as Chopin) famous.

I was only 11 or so when I first saw it in 1944 or so, and I paid $50.00 for this tape. (It was made for video in 1987). I wasn't a Christian until 1959, so when I first saw this movie, it was the fact that his first 'romance' was of a girl named 'Constancia'. (Constance ~ my name). That and the music and the handsome figure of Cornell Wilde caught my imagination.

Why was an 11 year old going to a movie? My mother made my sister, who was 6 years older and loved movies, take me along ~ for me to be a chaperone for her, as much as for her to be a babysitter for me.

I almost never go to movies now, or even rent any, but this is the kind that Christians will watch today, but wouldn't when it was made.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

Perhaps John's suggestion isn't bad, but I wanted to correct something I said above:

'Prelude to An Afternoon of a Faun' ~ by Debussy, also;

'Gayne Ballet Suite'~ by Khatchaturian

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

That is by Debussy (another favorite)

Debussy is one of my favorites, too. I just fall over laughing whenever i see him in "My Little Chickadee".

That would, of course, be Debussy Fields.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

;-) ;-) ;-) (LOL)

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2000

What was it he said about animals and babies?

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2000

Getting the thread back on topic a bit, and responding to something Connie mentioned earlier. Connie said there was "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism," and that that Baptism was our inclusion in the church, not water baptism. That once we were included in the church by that "One Baptism," we were then water-baptized. Or words to that effect.

I agree with Marc; that sounds like two baptisms to me. Lets knock off all the transliteration that is warping the discussion and put it the way it ought to be. Technically, the passage says there is "One Lord, One Faith, One IMMERSION." How many immersions? ONE. ("One shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shalt be one. Two shalt not the counting be, neither shalt thou count to zero, unlest thou proceedest immediately to one. Three is right out...")

So where does that leave water IMMERSION? I submit to you that in the act of water immersion the spiritual immersion into the body occurs, as that is the time when you have completed the covenental terms.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2000

And NO, a thousand times NO, I am NOT saying the water baptism is what saves you! Lets not get on that merry-go-round again.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2000

Dear John,

I AM confused, then, concerning what the RMs teach. You say:

And NO, a thousand times NO, I am NOT saying the water baptism is what saves you! Lets not get on that merry-go-round again.

-- John Wilson (mrbatman@earthlink.net), May 21, 2000.

What is it that saves you? And what does baptism do for you?

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

All:

From that same Christian Forum I showed a thread from, above:

Author Topic: Is baptism necessary for salvation? Grace2U Member Posts: 679 Registered: Feb 2000 posted 04-05-2000 09:37 PM ----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).

If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?

Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.

Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism.

The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).

One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.

In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).

Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.

Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance.

I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6.

In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.

Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

**********************************************************************

I believe what this person is saying. My old, arthritic fingers didn't want to type this all out, when I could just 'copy and paste' them.

I am sincerely not trying to be difficult, but An RM 'movement' writer? ~ teacher? ~ Cecil Hook, said almost the same thing, above.

He DOES believe that salvation is completed, I guess, by the dipping in water, whereas I believe that salvation is completed by the 'washing of regeneration' ~ the 'new birth', the cleansing blood of Jesus, and one's complete reliance on THAT, not on anything that one can do him/herself.

I have access to a different, and not well-known translation by Dr. C. B. Williams, 1934, on Acts 2:37,38:

37: When they heard this, they were stabbed in the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: "Brothers, what shall we do?"

38: And Peter said to them, "You must repent ~ and as an expression of this, let every one of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ ~ that you may have your sins forgiven; and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,..."

I interpret that, as also from the way it is worded in the Amplified, to be: 'You must repent that you may have your sins forgiven." The phrase inserted in the middle is parenthetical (however important).

Respectfully and prayerfully submitted,

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Ok.....I'm back from killin' pigs, so it's time to get back to the work of savin' souls.

So.....Connie.....

As far as the music goes, I'm a classically trained Clarinetist.

Since I do have a love of music (both listening & performing), I'm really not as "tough" as you might think. One really cannot perform well if there isn't a "soft spot" deep down that can be brought out with the instrument (or Voice in Lee Saffold's case - which by the way I have & do enjoy a Capella singing in church). Nor can one be an effective preacher (in my opinion anyway) without that same "soft spot".

Now....back to the important question at hand.....

Yes...Baptism is a requirement for Salvation! The Bible is too implicit in its references for it not to be.

You have said that Baptism is a "work" and that faith is the only requirement for Salvation. Let me stun you here by saying I can agree with that TO AN EXTENT.

Baptism is not a "work" of salvation - it is a work of faith. An unrepentant, non-confessing sinner who gets baptized comes up out of the water as nothing more than a wet sinner. But the person who belives (has faith) and follows the Commands of God, as contained in His word, will be saved at Baptism.

You see, if one believes in Christ, they will desire to do His will. Doing His will consists of repenting of one's sins, confessing Christ before men, and being immersed into Him. In other words, Faith does not save you alone, Repentance does not save you alone, Confession does not save you alone, and neither does Baptism save one alone.

It is the combination of those things that save one from eternal judgment! And since Baptism is the final step in that process, it in essence becomes that which saves you, IF you have also participated in the other steps.

Another thought here about baptism and to why it is to be considered as important in the salvation process:

We would all agree here that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin" and that the Sacrifice of Jesus on the cross became the blood sacrifice that was given to cover our sin. The question now is: WHEN do we come into contact with the blood of Jesus? For until we come in contact with it, we cannot be covered by it.

Well, Paul says in Romans chapter 6 that when we are baptized, we are baptized into Jesus' Death. THAT is when we contact His blood. And That is why we can THEN walk in newness of life. Also, in Ephesians 1:13-14, Pauls says the the Holy Spirit was given as a pledge (or down payment) of our inheritance - and we know from Acts 2:38 that the Spirit indwells a believer AFTER Repentance & Baptism (and no - in the Greek it is NOT a parenthetical statement). Therefore, we have no pledge of inheritance (salvation) until we are sealed with the Spirit and we are not given the indwelling of the Spirit until we are immersed into Christ's Death and Blood. It's all quite elementary when one has "eyes to see" and "ears to hear".

So by your definition, Baptism is not a "work" - as it does not earn us salvation. It is something one submits to, out of faith, in order to fulfill or seal the process of salvation. Salvation is not an "either/or" propostion, it is an "all or nothing" propostion.

Connie...I think you know this to be true, to some extent, otherwise you would have never submitted to baptism a 2nd time.

Deny not the truth - "for the truth will set you free".

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Connie;

I don't see how it is parenthetical at all. It says you must repent AND be baptized. how is the "and be baptized" parenthetical? I could see the point if it were a prepositional phrase, but its not. Its like saying you can have cake and ice cream. From that would you expect that you would only get cake, that the ice cream was optional? No, of course not. Then neither is the baptism optional.

The way we see it (which I believe to be the Biblical view - and I had come to believe the same as you did, until some Priscillas and Aquilas in this forum explained the way of God more adequately) is that the New Covenant is just that, a covenant. In today's terminology you could call it a peace treaty. Every treaty has terms by which the parties must enter the treaty. If you don't accept the treaty by those terms, the other party may accept you but is in no way obligated to. The terms of the peace treaty God gave man are belief (faith, trust) in Him, repentance (turning from your sins), confessing Him publicly, and following Him in immersion, which pictures His death burial and resurrection, your sins being washed away, and also your new birth in Him, and is the "seal" of the covenant. Thats what Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:21 are all about. All of these things are steps of faith, accepting the treaty proposal by its terms.

Incidentally, I still would like to hear you answer a question which has been raised to you numerous times, and I have yet to hear you give a coherent answer to. Say I am at a Billy Graham crusade. The altar call is given, and I respond in the way they ask me to, by leaving my seat in the stadium, walking down to the front with the rest of the gathering crowd, then we all say a Sinner's Prayer, and fill out acceptance cards. How is this any less "work" than resting in someone's arms while they lay you back into a pool of water?

To me, baptism, far from being a work, is a perfect picture of a believer's trust and faith. The convert does nothing, the baptizer does it all. The convert's part: to just accept what is happening to them, not resist, have complete faith and trust in the person doing the baptizing as they lower you into the water (which could very well be a "watery grave" if the baptizer had any evil inclinations) and raise you out again. It is the perfect picture of the Christian life. Don't work, just put your life in His hands and trust.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Hello, Mark,

I believe baptism to be VERY important, for the believer.

Since God directs my paths, I wonder why He would never have put me in the path of someone such as the people on this forum until now, if he considered baptism a requirement for my salvation. (Not to mention the fact that I WAS immersed as a believer 38 years ago.)

As I said on another thread (or maybe it was this one) I felt like a chess piece as a baby Christian.

The people God put in our lives were absolutely devoted Christians who fed us (spiritually), nurtured us in love, and instructed us in righteousness. I thank my God in every remembrance of them.

They believed baptism to be important. We didn't meet some of these people for a couple of years after we became Christians.

We DID, however, start reading the Bible, and studied it as though we were devouring it.

All of the changes in our lives were made at the time we believed ~ the stopping drinking (never very much); the smoking by my husband ~ he quit so that he wouldn't offend his new brothers in Christ, after reading in the Scriptures that we shouldn't be brought under the power of ANYTHING); a diet for me, where I lost the most in my weight category (under 150#) in T.O.P.S. Club, which I joined; (I got down to 111#, less than my marriage weight of 118#) ~ I have gained it all back, plus more, so am really under conviction again ~ I have had to do this repeatedly throughout my life, since I come from a family of overweight people;

We started reading the Scriptures, going to church, praying, fellowshipping with other believers, and just learning directly from God how much He loves us and wants us to love one another.

It was during this time, also, that I was praying for Herb (my husband) to be baptized and to start tithing. When we attended that little Conservative Baptist Church for awhile, they were going to elect my husband to the Elder Board, contingent on his baptism! (Immersion). (Non-Scriptural, since he was a new believer).

This was because, in 6 months of intensive study, he knew more about the Scriptures than most of the other men there did ~ even those who had been Christians most of their lives. In fact, in our next church, an Evagelical Free Church, my husband taught the adult Sunday School class for a long time ~ until we moved to Michigan.

In the Free Church, which also immersed, Herb was brought under conviction about being baptized by our interim pastor, who before becoming a Chtistian, had been in the Church of England (Low Church) and had gone through a similar process ~ that of coming to believe in immerseion, though at first he had believed his sprinkling as a baby was his baptism.

My son, Eric, (one of the ones who hunt) went to a Church of Christ in Jackson, MI., when he was working on a job there for 18 months, and he said they accepted him as a believer and did not question him about baptism at all. They did immediately baptize anyone who became a believer, however.

His best friend (and hunting companion) from Owosso, MI., was a Church of Christ 'preacher' who has since moved east, and is still a 'preacher'.

His friend never questioned the authenticity of my son's belief, and Eric was baptized as a child (10 or 11, I think ~ my memory fails, having had 5 children who were baptized).

In fact, I have discovered that I have many acquaintances and friends who are CoC from our days at Lansing Christian (not a CoC school) where my daughter still teaches. We all accept each other as believers.

This is a very hard question to deal with, and I am willing to change my mind if the Scriptures teach it. My own personal experience is not going to be negated, though. All of the changes and becoming a 'new creature in Christ' happened at the time I believed.

I cannot get out of my inner being that it is Christ's work ~ the shed blood ~ the death ~ and the resurrection ~ which saved me. My only work was to give myself completely over to His trust, and to rest securely in His care. I felt uneasy until I was baptized in obedience to Him, but He knew my heart. I felt uneasy until we learned to give Him the first fruits of our increase, as well. (Which took too long). (The spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak). In fact He desrves our all, not just 10%.

We are still learning, and still listening to His voice. Everything I have read in the Scriptures, and SOME even from the words of some of your authors, teachers, etc., validates what I have experienced, so far. (Believe, be baptized).

I am not against any of you, and I have forgotten a lot of what is past. I hold no grudges, and I am not threatened by what you believe.

Changing what one has believed one's whole life is difficult. I have just gone through some of that concerning end-times prophecy.

But I DID prove to myself that I can change when confronted with irrefutable evidence.

Prayerfully and Respectfully submitted,

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Hello, John,

You must have been writing as I was and I didn't see your post until I printed out the last portion.

Let me tell you my history inre: Billy Graham.

We lived in Oak Park, Illinois, while we were having our house bulit in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. My neighbor across the street was nice, but one of those irritating 'Christian' types who kept inviting me to a Billy Graham crusade. I kept saying: "No, that's O.K. ~ I'm sure, that while I'm a Baptist, I'm more liberal than Billy Graham.

We also listened to 'Candlelight and Silver' during dinner on WMBI ~ a Christian radio station in Chicago (Moody Bible Institute). This is the program which made our ears perk up, because interspersed in the classical music pieces, they had the nerve to present the Gospel! It was Bill Pierce's voice.

At the same time, we were being given Bibles and reading materials from our neighbor (the one I avoided, because she kept inviting me to hear Billy Graham).

We had three young children ~ the oldest was 3 1/2 and a true hyperactive child ~ and my husband was working long hours at his job in downtown Chicago ~ 1 hour an 45 minutes each way on the 'El'.

So I was rearing our family virtually by myself, while my husband was earning a living.

Now, my husband was not one to 'sufferfools gladly, so when three different sets of preachers or evangelists or whatever they were, from three different churches, came to our harried door at dinner time, my husband summarily (in a very polite but pointed way) threw them out. But God, the Hound of Heaven, was on our trail!

I had already asked my neighbor for a Bible, and she asked if I had been 'born again' and I said 'I think so'. The only place we had actually heard the Gospel was from the Moody classical music program, 'Candlelight and Silver'. When I first opened the Bible, I opened it to where Jonathan was killed. 'Jonathan' is my oldest child's name and because fear was a particular problem with me, I couldn't open it again for several months.

Well, everything proceeded according to our plan (and God's, too) and our home was completed and we moved. When we were pretty settled, having moved in, in September '59,I invited all of the children and their parents for my son's and daughter's September 28th and September 24th birthdays. This was before the sidewalks and streets were paved (messy).

Well, who do you think was the parent of Peter, who was my son Jon's age? It was Mitzi Knappen, the wife of a Conservative Baptist preacher, and who had been alerted to the fact that we were moving near her, by ~ guess who! ~ my neighbor back in Oak Park. (This was 30 miles away).

Well, to tell the whole story takes a lot of words, so I hope you will forgive me.

They invited us to their church, and for some unknown reason, my husband went. I had been a Christian for 6 months or so. I was praying for my husband, but afraid of saying much (Me! ~ Connie!)

Ken, who was a very conservative Conservative Baptist, with 3 other neighbors ~ another unbeliever, as Herb was, and the owner of a ServiceMaster outlet, which at that time was only owned by Christians, invited Herb and this other neighbor to hear Billy Graham at Wheaton College with, get this, a very small group (20 or so) people. My husband would never have gone to a big rally of any kind (except maybe an occasional baseball, football, or basketball game).

He had been reading an Amplified Bible for several months and talking to a teacher from Moody on the 'El' for several months. This Teacher asked Herb what he was reading (he knew) during one trip home. This teacher, when we later left the Conservative Baptist Church, invited us to the Evangelical Free Church. There were a lot of starts and stops along the way, but God was directing us.

The wonderful thing is, that, out of our experience with the Baptists, we both became Christians, and out of our experience with the Evagelical Free Church, we were both immersed.

But that is not all. Mitzi Knappen and another Christian neighbor organized a neighborhood Bible study, which I attended. Thsi is where I discovered that denominationalism was unimportant. Our chief mentor was a Mrs. Cole (I can't even remember her first name) whose son was a missionary and for whom we prayed.

He later became the 'Radio Pastor of Moody Bible Institute' and still is, I think. They were 'Mission Covenant' and the women were never allowed to speak in what they called their 'assemblies'.

16 different churches were represented and 7 or 8 denominations. It was such a blessing, because all of these ladies wanted to know more about God as revealed in His Son, Jesus. What church we went to didn't matter. What mattered was that we were 'one in Christ'.

We were in that community for seven years, before moving to Michigan.

After mt husband heard the Gospel from Billy Graham in a room of 20 or so people, half believers and half unbelievers, he was asked by Ken Knappen if he though the Bible (which he had been reading for 6 months ~ he loved to read ~ )were the 'Word of God' Herb replied: 'It's

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

[Hit the wrong key]

To continue:

'It's GOT to be!', we all knew that it wouldn't be long before Herb was a believer. And it wasn't.

There was no 'altar call', no signing of a card, no sinner's prayer, nothing but the Holy Spirit confronting us and revealing himself to us. That's why I believe He can do it with NO ONE'S help, if He wants to. Of course, there were the people planting, watering, and tending to us. And He put them all there.

Then we were led to the Interim Pastor at our church who shepherded us into baptism, and all sorts of growth.

Our present church (33 years, as I've said) is completely non- denominational, but we have been helped by denominational ones as well. The school we sent our children to has people from all different denominations, but one parent, at least, had to give personal testimony to being a Christian. That is where I met most of the CoC people I know.

Praise God for His tender care of us. I could tell you a dozen, at least, other miraculous occurances visited upon us by God, but this is already too long.

I hope I answered your question, John.

Respectfully and Prayerfully submitted,

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

John:

RE: Baptism and a Billy Graham Crusade:

I don't know if you are aware that the churches in a given area of an upcoming crusade join together and have parayer meetings for a full year before a crusade is given.

They direct the new believers to churches and shepherd them afterwards for quite some time, with Scriptural material, and spiritual helps. They probably instruct them about baptism and the Lord's Supper nad all of the other precepts of Christianity. I do not know, other than I later went to a crusade, after becoming a Christian. When Billy Graham came forward to preach, there was noanoouncement, because he didn't want to break the calmed, reverent meeting, which had been opened in prayer by Cliff barrows, I think, after leading the group in song.

After the very simple, straightforward, not appealing to emotion presenting of the Gospel, my thought was: "No one will come forward with a message like that!"

Well, thousands came forward. Of course, for every one coming forward, there is a believer who follows them, to be of help after they have made their confession, and to pray with them and get information with which to follow up.

Thousands were saved when Christ preached, and thousands can be saved today. There was no large body of water near where Billy preached, except the Chicago river, and if they had been baptized there, they'd have died a-borning! (VERY polluted).

We were miles from Lake Michigan. I believe that God, through the Holy Spirit Comforter and Counselor, oversaw their instruction and led them to be baptized. As He did with us.

Thankful for His magnificent plan of salvation!

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Connie,

There is some wisdom in what you have just said, but let me add a few thoughts:

You said, "Since God directs my paths, I wonder why He would never have put me in the path of someone such as the people on this forum until now, if he considered baptism a requirement for my salvation. (Not to mention the fact that I WAS immersed as a believer 38 years ago.)"

I really don't feel that is relevent or even a proper question to ask. That would be like Moses asking God why it took Him 80 years before telling Him to free the Israelites or me asking why it took God 32 years before he ever sent a man to me who could convince me of the need to be a preacher. God does things in God's own time. Maybe Moses wasn't ready to do God's work in God's way until he had been trained as an Egyptian and humbled as a shepherd for 40 years apiece. Perhaps my heart or mind was closed & unwilling to accept ministry until Danny Gabbard showed me otherwise. And just maybe, you had to experience a lifetime of things before coming to this forum in order to prepare you to hear the truths that many speak of here - and I have to guess something or someone lead you here in God's timeline. I can't say any of these things for sure - all I can do is thank God for opportunities presented.

You're right when you say that the Baptist church wanting to make your husband an Elder was un-scriptural. Not because they expected him to be baptized, but because he probably should have been considered as a "new convert". But if he was truly learning & maturing at the rate you say, then he should have been mentored & brought along by the existing leadership so as to be prepared for leadership. Shoot, I was was made an Elder at the age of 33 after only about 2 1/2 years in the Christian Church - that may have been pushing it, but I had a good mentor to help along the way.

It was proper of the Jackson, MI church to not question Eric's baptism. Such is not the church's or preacher's right to do so. I would accept anyone who has been immersed as a Brother or Sister without question, though if they were new to the church I would explain my view on Baptism in order to make sure they understood where this church stands so that they could be sure they were compatible with its doctrine - such prevents a lot of disention down the road. Personally, I was baptized in a Baptist church at age 8 and have no qualms about my Baptism because I knew why I was Baptized (I wanted to be Saved). If one who came forward had questions about their previous Baptism I would gladly immerse them so as to give them a clear conscience (a promise of scripture per Heb 9:14).

Connie, I'm glad that you say you are still open to learning, for we must never stop doing so. Nor would I question your salvation, as you have been immersed (and I do not make Eschatology a test of fellowship). I also think that if you continue to open yourself up, you will see as truth what we speak of Baptism.

You just have to release the hang-up over Baptism being a "work". Of course, it is the shed blood of Christ that cleanses us, but as I said earlier we have to contact that blood and that is done through an immersion into His death..ie Baptism. Until that "covering" is made, our sins are still "as ugly as sin" to God.

Consider this: There was a reason you "felt uneasy" until you were Baptized in obedience to Him. It is the Holy Spirit's job to convict the unbeliever, via the Word of God, of what they need to do to be saved. Could your uneasiness have been the Spirit saying, "finish the job, you're not secure until you are obedient to ALL of the Word"?

This is speculation on my part, but educated speculation none-the-less. We must be careful of only trusting our "inner being" or "hearts" for "the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it".(Jer 17:9)

Now back to the original idea of this thread - the Gideons:

You obviously consider Baptism to be extremely important since you & all of your family submitted to it. Since this is so, do you not think that reference to it on the back page of the Gideon Bible would be appropriate? If it has eased your "inner being", do you not wish for others to have the same peace of mind and clear conscience that you have? Questions I hope you will prayerfully consider.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

John et al:

I made a mistake in the following:

Our chief mentor was a Mrs. Cole (I can't even remember her first name) whose son was a missionary and for whom we prayed.

He later became the 'Radio Pastor of Moody Bible Institute' and still is, I think. They were 'Mission Covenant' and the women were never allowed to speak in what they called their 'assemblies'.

**********************************************************************

The mistake: They were, instead of 'Mission Covenant' (my husband's church for a short time as a child), 'Plymouth Brethren'. Mrs. Cole's son is named Don Cole.

Also, Bill Pierce was part of a group named 'Sixteen Singing Men' with Dick Anthony. They had several records out at the time of the old hymns with beautiful new arrangements which were among our favorites. There were many of both 'a capella' and instrumental pieces. Bill Pierce plays trombone exquisitely, and hosts a latenight program with the theme song of 'He Never Sleeps, He Never Slumbers'.

Mark:

I have proved to myself that if I am presented with irrefutable evidence concerning a matter, that I can change.

It seems to me that most Christians DO NOT believe baptism is required for salvation. (I had never heard such a thing until I came to this forum). Now, admittedly, the majority is not necessarily correct.

But if YOU were presented with evidence (as I believe abounds in the above presentation by Grace2U from the other forum) could you change YOUR mind?

Changing one's mind about a subject so close to one's heart is painful sometimes.

Prayerfully and Respectfully submitted,

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Well Connie,

I doubt that either of us will change on this subject - At least I know that I won't be. You spoke of whether I would change if presented with irrefutible evidence - sure I would. But such has not happened.

Remember what I said, I was raised Baptist, so there were definitely some different things being taught about Baptism than what I believe now. But even as an 8 year old, I could tell that Baptism was a requirement for salvation - and fortunately, as a child I had not been polluted by traditions, feelings, or doctrines of man. All I knew was what I read in my Bible - and I understood it to mean that I HAD to be Baptized, period.

Well, after 32 years experience and some 100+ credit hours of Bible College Studies later, I have only been further convinced of my original conclusion. Baptism IS a requirement for Salvation!

You're absolutely right when you said, "It seems to me that most Christians DO NOT believe baptism is required for salvation. (I had never heard such a thing until I came to this forum). Now, admittedly, the majority is not necessarily correct."

And a study of church History will explain exactly why this is so. Immersion for salvation was NEVER questioned in the Church for the first couple of centuries. It was only due to convenience concerns and the influx of Greek (worldly) Gnostic philosophy into the church that Baptism began to be slowly phased out. Once one accepts that man is totally depraved in the flesh (an Augustinian precept based on his Gnostic mentality)then Baptism becomes worthless because a man cannot choose on his own to do a good thing, like submit to Baptism.

So yes, we of the Restoration Movement ARE Different from mainstream Christianity. That is because of the simple concept that we want to restore the Church to its 1st Century beginnings - to have the Church the Apostles had. To go by no other doctrine or tradition other than what they had then. No Other Group in History has ever wanted to do that. THAT is why we are different from them - they were happy with stopping at the corrupted 5th Century Church of Augustine. And THAT is why they are wrong. If you want the purest water, you don't drink from half-way down the stream after its been polluted by fish, men, etc - you go to the spring at its source.

Think about it.....Jesus had to be Baptized to "Fulfill all Righteousness".....Paul had to be Baptized to finish his conversion.....the Ethopian Eunich begged to be Baptized after coming to an understanding of the Scriptures......the multitude on the day of Pentecost submitted themselves to Baptism after being "cut to the heart" with Peter's 1st Gospel sermon......Paul had to "Re-Baptize" some in Ephesus because they had not known why they should be Baptized.....Cornelius (a devout believer in God) and his family had to be baptized after accepting Peter's message of the Gospel.

If all of these noteworthy & faithful people had to be Baptized - what makes you any different? Are you better than them? Are you Holier than them? Are you more knowledgeable than them?

I think I know your answer to those questions - I'm sure you would say no. Obviouly so, because you and your family was Baptized - but why do you want to withold from others, what you yourself submitted to? And that is exactly what you are doing EVERY TIME you fail to mention baptism when talking of salvation.

I have to figure that God will deal mercifully on those who have lived up to the Light they have been given. There may be many Catholics, Baptists, etc (those who do not Immerse for salvation) allowed to enter the Pearly Gates because they have been faithful to all they have been taught. I hope that is the case, but that is God's call. But, to those who HAVE Been presented with the truth of the full Oracle of God (such as you have been by members of this forum), I doubt God will be quite as merciful to them as they continue to lead others astray with the doctrine of men. It always grieves me when I speak, preach, & teach what the Bible says and still have people not accept it, because I may have just helped condemn them by taking away their excuse of not ever being taught the Scriptures in their entirety. - Connie, don't make yourself one such person, there is just too much at stake.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Dear Mark,

I appreciate your gentle approach, and can sympatize with all who post here. I believe the RM has retained what was taught by the Roman Catholic Church, as each reformation group kept a little of what that church taught. (Not believer's baptism ~ they taught that the baptism, though sprinkling, bestows salvation, which seems to be what the RMs believe). In fact, while the rules have been relaxed somewhat, I believe the RC church still baptizes very early; when I was a child, I believe it was still by the eighth day, harking back to Judaism.

Even the translatians, which were made by men who wanted to be faithful to what the earliest manuscripts said, included a few of their own prejudices. That is why there are different translations. And while the KJV was the first Bible gotten into the hands of the common person, it today has words which have different meanings from the days when it was translated. I know King James authorized it, but I'm not sure if it was under the auspices of the Church of England. They kept much of the form of the RCs, so the translators would of course be bent that way.

The earliest manuscripts have the best information, and the ones who can understand those have a tremendous gift and responsibility to those of us who are dependent on them for their information. We have to depend on their scrupulous honesty and accuracy. Even so, the message God has for us is preserved for us.

Words are simply a tool to get across ideas, and some people have more ability at this than others.

Mark, I believe our church has achieved some of what you desire for the RM churches. I can't wish that you had a church like ours, because it is one of a kind ~ faithful to Our Lord, faithful to the Scriptures, and blessed by God.

I am not saying there are not other churches which achieve this, but any group which tries to control from an ecclesiastical position what other churches believe is not exhibiting the behavior that I see in the New Testament churches.

I also believe that God has allowed some leeway in the expression of our faith. That is why both a capella music and instrumental music are allowable and accepted by Him, as expressions of our adoration for Him. While instruments are not specifically mentioned, as they of course are in the Old Testament, (all except drums! ;-)) they are not specifically forbidden, either.

Now, to get back to baptism: I BELIEVE in the efficacy of the 'One Baptism'; It's just that I believe that to be 'into Christ' by regeneration, achieved by the blood He shed in death and His rising from the dead. THAT is what I believe in, not something which I consider to be less: (but required to be obedient as a 'figure' (picture to others) of what has happened to me internally by His work, not my own.

I am always wary of the rule-makers, except for the One Rule-Maker. I WANT to obey His rules, and to the best of my ability and as a measure of my faith, have. Oftentimes, I think the rule-makers want others to obey THEM rather than God (but I make no such assumption about those posting here). At least I try not to.

I am still open to His changing my belief, if I am in error. Are you?

Respectfully and Prayerfully submitted,

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Connie,

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried when you said, "I believe the RM has retained what was taught by the Roman Catholic Church, as each reformation group kept a little of what that church taught."

Alexander Campbell was so against the Catholic teaching of baptism that he did not Baptize his dying infant daughter, based upon his belief that Baptism was only effective for the believer - totally in opposition to the RC Position of Original Sin.

About the only thing we have in common with the RC's is a belief in the Triune Godhead - Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. We do what we do, preach what we preach, teach what we teach, based Solely on what the Bible says and what the 1st Century Church did as recorded in the Bible!!!!

I agree that the KJV is defective in some of it's translation because of the Church of England's influence. In fact, those translators are partially at fault in the "Baptism Controversy" Their belief in sprinkling interferred with the Greek word for Immerse (Baptizo) - so instead of translating the word correctly, they transliterated the word to "Baptize" - thereby opening it to anyone's preferred interpretation. Even though God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had the Apostles and Gospel writers specifically say "Immerse" in the Greek.

You're right about ecclesiastical control being wrong - another reason why we ARE NOT like the RC's. Our ONLY authority is the Bible, period.

And yes, The RM churches do allow a great deal of "expressionable freedom". Each church operates independantly - none are forced to adopt others' positions, nor do they force their opinion on the other churches. That is why the Christian Churches & Churches of Christ still maintain a brotherhood - both's doctrine are still based on the Bible only, yet we can "agree to disagree" on non-essential periphrials like music.

I'm glad you're happy with your church, such should always be so. But I am glad that it is not my church. We make no rules for anyone, we follow only God's rules (requirements, commandments, etc) as contained in the New Testament. We teach the full Oracle of God - including Immersion for the remission of sin - the very same Immersion that Jesus and His Disciples spoke & wrote of for ALL of our instruction.

As always, I am as open to changing my mind every bit as much as God is to changing His mind. If another Book appears miraculously in my Bible tommorow that says baptism is no longer required for salvation - I'll stop preaching it. But until that happens, I have to follow the only Words of Jesus and the Apostles that we have. Those words are, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age". Matt 28:19-20.

(By the way, vs 19 was written AS a command, and as any command from the king - one either follows it or inccurs the King's wrath.)

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

I have found the following on another Christian forum, and think it might be a help to us.

It is very long, and I haven't really studied it, but as I've scanned it, can agree with most of it.

It addresses 'inerrancy'.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy profile | register | preferences | faq | search next newest topic | next oldest topic Author Topic: Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Grace2U Member Posts: 758 Registered: Feb 2000 posted 05-20-2000 11:26 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- This statement was produced at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1998.

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority. The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word that marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large. This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life and mission. We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we propose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word. We invite response to this Statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help that enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.

I. SUMMARY STATEMENT

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself. 2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises. 3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning. 4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives. 5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

II. ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I.

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II.

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture. We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III.

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV.

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V.

We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects of contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI.

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII.

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII.

We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX.

We affirm that inspiration, through not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or falseness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X.

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI.

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.

Article XII.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII.

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of metrical, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV.

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved violate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration. We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history. We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII.

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII.

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads or relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.

Article XIX.

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

III. EXPOSITION

Our understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy must be set in the context of the broader teachings of Scripture concerning itself. This exposition gives an account of the outline of doctrine from which our Summary Statement and Articles are drawn.

A. Creation, Revelation and Inspiration The God, who formed all things by his creative utterances and governs all things by His Word of decree, made mankind in His own image for a life of communion with Himself, on the model of the eternal fellowship of loving communication within the Godhead. As God's image-bearer, man was to hear God's Word addressed to him and to respond in the joy of adoring obedience. Over and above God's self-disclosure in the created order and the sequence of events within it, human beings from Adam on have received verbal messages from Him, either directly, as stated in Scripture, or indirectly in the form of part or all of Scripture itself. When Adam fell, the Creator did not abandon mankind to final judgement, but promised salvation and began to reveal Himself as Redeemer in a sequence of historical events centering on Abraham's family and culminating in the life, death, resurrection, present heavenly ministry and promised return of Jesus Christ. Within this frame God has from time to time spoken specific words of judgement and mercy, promise and command, to sinful human beings, so drawing them into a covenant relation of mutual commitment between Him and them in which He blesses them with gifts of grace and they bless Him in responsive adoration. Moses, whom God used as mediator to carry his words to His people at the time of the exodus, stands at the head of a long line of prophets in whose mouths and writings God put His words for delivery to Israel. God's purpose in this succession of messages was to maintain His covenant by causing His people to know His name--that is, His nature--and His will both of precept and purpose in the present and for the future. This line of prophetic spokesmen from God came to completion in Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Word, who was Himself a prophet--more that a prophet, but not less--and in the apostles and prophets of the first Christian generation. When God's final and climactic message, His word to the world concerning Jesus Christ, had been spoken and elucidated by those in the apostolic circle, the sequence of revealed messages ceased. Henceforth the Church was to live and know God by what He had already said, and said for all time. At Sinai God wrote the terms of His covenant on tablets of stone as His enduring witness and for lasting accessibility, and throughout the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation He prompted men to write the messages given to and through them, along with celebratory records of His dealings with His people, plus moral reflections on covenant life and forms of praise and prayer for covenant mercy. The theological reality of inspiration in the producing of Biblical documents corresponds to that of spoken prophecies: Although the human writers' personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted. Thus what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author, having given it through the minds and words of chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithfulness "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (I Pet 1:21). Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.

B. Authority: Christ and the Bible Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the Word made flesh, our Prophet, Priest and King, is the ultimate Mediator of God's communication to man, as He is of all God's gifts of grace. The revelation He gave was more that verbal; He revealed the Father by His presence and His deeds as well. Yet His words were crucially important ; for He was God, He spoke from the Father, and His words will judge all men at the last day. As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead to Him; the New Testament looks back to His first coming and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ. No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is--the witness of the Father to the incarnate Son. It appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed, inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The Church's part was to discern the canon that God had created, not to devise one of its own. The word 'canon', signifying a rule of standard, is a pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ, the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy Scripture, the written Word. But the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the law and the prophets, even dying in obedience to the words of messianic prophecy. Thus as He saw Scripture attesting Him and His authority, so by His own submission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He bowed to His Father's instruction given in His Bible (our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to do--not, however, in isolation but in conjunction with the apostolic witness to Himself that He undertook to inspire by his gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians show themselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apostolic writings that together make up our Bible. By authenticating each other's authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ- centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.

C. Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called 'infallible' and 'inerrant'. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths. 'Infallible' signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Similarly, 'inerrant' signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions. We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise. So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed. The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions. Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind. Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

D. Skepticism and Criticism Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world views have been developed that involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such are the agnosticism that denies that God is knowable, the rationalism that denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism that denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism that denies rationality in His relationships with us. When these un- and anti-Biblical principles seep into men's theologies at presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.

E. Transmission and Translation Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free. Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

F. Inerrancy and Authority In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of Church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at that casual, inadvertent and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by so many in our day. We are conscious too that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible that God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's critical reasoning and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further. We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.

IP: Logged All times are ET (US) next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic Hop to: Select a Forum or ArchiveList of Forums:Bible TalkBooksGeneral DiscussionHome SchoolingMarried LifeMight Men of ValorMusicOther ReligionsPrayer RequestsPraise ReportsSinglesSupportWomen of Nobel CharacterList of Archives:Bible Talk Archive

Contact Us | In Christ

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.42 ) Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Well Connie,

I went through all of the "Articles" and found them to be sound.

Now....I challenge you to find and post a similar statement about the inerrancy of scripture issued & approved by the Gideon Leadership (not just individuals). As that was my original point - as a "body", the Gideons do not believe in this type of Inerrancy of the scriptures. Otherwise their edition of the Bible would start out by saying that the Bible is THE WORD of God, instead of just saying it "Contains" the mind of God.

Oh...by the way, check out Article XVIII. It spells out one of the Hermeneutical principles that Miller violates with his "modern Time only" way of interpreting Prophect.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Mark:

I didn't say I would agree with every word said in the very long post.

In believing Charles Miller I go to the Scriptures:

'But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the time of the end; many will go back and forth and knowledge will increase'.

Most Christians of every persuasion believe much of what was put forth by earlier prognosticators, who have been proved patently wrong.

Did these things happen already which were to occur within one generation? H-m-m? Did they?

I wonder why people are still quoting and believing them. 'Course, prophecy is not exactly a favored-status producer. Both the ones who told the truth and the ones who didn't were stoned! ;-)

'Til He comes!

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Hal Lindsay quoted that very same verse of Daniel to put the stamp of authenticity on HIS prophetic speculation. And that is all it is, whether it comes from Miller or Lindsay: speculation.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Yes, most prophets are wrong. That's why not many go into it as a profession.

But the Word of my God will prevail forever!

He has written to us for these end-times. He wants us to know what He has in mind, or He wouldn't have written the words to us.

Please remember that I didn't bring up the eschatology on this thread.

Nor did I bring it up on the 'Revelation 11' thread.

But I am going to re-post what Mr. Miller, the author of 'Today's Technology in Prophecy', said when I asked him for some clarification about that thread:

Hi Connie,

In my view Rev. 11:1&2 are figurative--see Chapter 12 p. 287 of my book for details, and I don't see these verses supporting the rebuilding of the temple. Verse 4 defines a reassignment of the two witnesses' main mission, directly after the Sixth Trumpet World War. Verse 4 also draws attention to the fact that the two witnesses will be presenting the end-time prophecies before the seven trumpet events and the great tribulation begins, by stating that they are the two olive trees introduced in Zechariah chapter 4. Zechariah's introduction of the two witnesses as olive trees, before he introduces the world's first atomic war in chapter 6, shows the two witnesses will be present before the atomic war and the great tribulation begins, and they will also be present at the time the world government is established after the Sixth Trumpet World War. Since the world government will only last 3 1/2 years, it is clear the two witnesses will be present through the entire end-time period, which, in turn, verifies that the end-time period takes place within the life span of one generation.

In my opinion the Greek allows for the two witnesses to be two men, a man and a woman, or two women. The fact that they are killed and their bodies lie in the street of the great city for 3 and 1/2 days indicates they are two people.

The question Michael Demastus asks: "How do we know if something in prophecy is literal or figurative," is a fair question. We are instructed to "study" and "rightly divide the word or truth." This means we have to determine literal from figurative by taking into consideration the context of a prophetic passage and the greater context of all the end-time prophetic body of Scripture. In the final analysis the person whose interpretation does not come to pass, will be proven incorrect, and the person whose interpretation does come to pass, will be proven correct. (Certainly the prophecy experts who said a generation is forty years and that Christ would return forty years after Israel was re-established as a nation, have been proven incorrect.) Since many of the end-time prophecies have not come to pass yet, people will continue to debate these issues until the prophecies do come to pass.

Chuck

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

I re-post the final paragraph for emphasis:

In the final analysis the person whose interpretation does not come to pass, will be proven incorrect, and the person whose interpretation does come to pass, will be proven correct. (Certainly the prophecy experts who said a generation is forty years and that Christ would return forty years after Israel was re-established as a nation, have been proven incorrect.) Since many of the end-time prophecies have not come to pass yet, people will continue to debate these issues until the prophecies do come to pass.

Chuck

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), May 24, 2000.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Robin, Mark and others:

As you requested:

HISTORY OF THE ASSOCIATION

Founders of The Gideons International on July 1, 1899

Mr. Samuel E. Hill

(1867-1936) Mr. John H. Nicholson

(1859-1946) Mr. William J. Knights

(1853-1940)

In the autumn of the year 1898, John H. Nicholson of Janesville, Wisconsin, came to the Central Hotel at Boscobel, Wisconsin, for the night. The hotel being crowded, it was suggested that he take a bed in a double room with Samuel E. Hill of Beloit, Wisconsin. The two men soon discovered that both were Christians. John Nicholson, as a 12-year-old lad, had promised his dying mother that he would read God's Word and pray daily, and it had been his custom for many years to read the Bible before retiring. They had their evening devotions together, and on their knees before God the thoughts were given which later developed into an association.

On May 31, 1899, they met at Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, concluded to band Christian commercial travelers together for mutual recognition, personal evangelism, and united service for the Lord, and decided to call a meeting for Janesville, Wisconsin, July 1, 1899, in the Y.M.C.A.

Only three men were present: John H. Nicholson, Samuel E. Hill, and Will J. Knights. They organized with Hill as president, Knights as vice president, and Nicholson as secretary and treasurer. Much thought was given to what the name of the association should be, and after special prayer that God might lead them to select the proper name, Mr. Knights arose from his knees and said, "We shall be called Gideons." He read the sixth and seventh chapters of Judges and showed the reason for adopting the name, "The Gideons."

Gideon was a man who was willing to do exactly what God wanted him to do, irrespective of his own judgment as to the plans or results. Humility, faith, and obedience were his great elements of character. This is the standard that the Gideon association is trying to establish in all its members, each man to be ready to do God's will at any time, at any place, and in any way that the Holy Spirit leads.

In view of the fact that almost all of the Gideons in the early years of the Gideon association were traveling men, the question quite naturally arose regarding how they might be more effective witnesses in the hotels where they were forced to spend so much of their time. One suggestion was that a Bible might be placed at the reception desk in each hotel so that the patrons would have the privilege of borrowing it if they wished. It also occurred to these men that this would be a silent witness remaining in these hotels when they were elsewhere.

This question of advanced activities, as they called them, was carefully considered in the Cabinet meeting held in Chicago, October 19, 1907. One trustee went so far as to suggest that The Gideons furnish a Bible for each bedroom of the hotels in the United States. He commented," In my opinion, this would not only stimulate the activities of the rank and file of the membership, but would be a gracious act, wholly in keeping with the divine mission of the Gideon Association." This plan was adopted by the convention at Louisville, Kentucky, in 1908.

It is interesting to note that the practice of the churches contributing to the support of the Gideon Scripture program originated with a pastor. Just two months after the 1908 Louisville Convention, a state convention convened in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. National Secretary Frank Garlick came from Chicago. He and Mr. A. B. T. Moore attended a meeting of the Ministerial Union, and after their program they asked if Brother Garlick could address the ministers on the work of the Gideon Association. He spoke of the needed Bible distribution, and at the close of his address (10 minutes), Mr. Moore's own pastor, Dr. E. R. Burkhalter, First Presbyterian Church, arose and moved, "That Gideon Bibles be placed in all local hotels and that the Union be responsible for the funds." The motion was unanimously carried and a committee appointed to apportion the cost to the churches, according to their strength.

Thus the idea of the Gideon ministry as an "extended arm" of the church came into being, and the church took an initial stand to give financial support to the Bible placement program. The Gideon association praised God for the revelation of His plan whereby the local church would supply the needed funds.

"The sower soweth the word." (Mark 4:14)

I have requested a 'Statement of Belief' from our Gideon Camp leader.

There are Gideons in every true Christian denomination or group, as you prefer, including Churches of Christ.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

And this:

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <> The Gideons International, founded in 1899, serves as an extended missionary arm of the church and is the oldest Christian business and professional men's association in the United States of America. A board of distinguished Christian laymen, international in makeup, supervises the worldwide Gideon ministry, ensuring an efficient, economical operation. The association has more than 130,000 members, located in over 170 countries of the world. They are united in carrying out the same program using the same methods to accomplish the one objective of winning others to Christ.

The emergence of more than 2,000,000 readers in the world each week creates an unprecedented need for reading material. This offers a challenge to Christians to supply the tremendous void by making available God's Word. This is a primary function of The Gideons, placing and distributing Bibles and New Testaments in the human traffic lanes and streams of national life. Gideons as laymen, stand shoulder to shoulder as "missionaries" of local churches and their pastors in going to the four corners of the world to win others for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Annually, The Gideons International is placing and distributing more than 45,000,000 Scriptures worldwide. To God be the glory! This averages one million copies of the Word of God placed nearly every eight days, or 86 per minute.

A non-profit organization, The Gideons International is generously supported by pastors and churches, who realize that presenting people with the gospel message is an indispensable element in winning people to Christ. Every dollar contributed by members of the churches is used to make it possible for others to have their very own copy of God's Word.

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Connie,

All this history of the Gideons is fine and dandy, but you still have not shown where they irrevocably state, "the Bible IS the Word of God".

I really wish you could find such a statement, because if you can't, you are going to miss a wonderful opportunity to see me standing on my head to apologize to the Organization!!!

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Mark, Dear, I can't wait!! ;-) ;-)

I re-post from above:

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I have requested a 'Statement of Belief' from our Gideon Camp leader.

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

There are Gideons in every true Christian denomination or group, as you prefer, including Churches of Christ.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), May 24, 2000.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Besides, 'By their fruit you shall know them'. And the fruit of the Gideons is very good.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

The Mormons have good "fruit" also, if by fruit you mean good works. But I think that doctrinal fruit is really the gist of that oft- misquoted phrase. IMHO.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

Hello, John,

Please don't compare the Gideons to the Mormons.

The Gideons are simply a group of Christian laymen, from all different groups and denominations, who believe that getting God's word in the hands of every possible person is God's work, and they are willing to do it.

Of course, satan doesn't want God's work to carry forth, so he uses every wile he can to prevent it. He tries, it seems, to use criticism by other Christians to discourage the distribution of the priceless gift of God's word into the hands of people who might never see one otherwise.

In the case of the nurses' organization which I mentioned early in this thread, and stated that they are really a political action committee in practice, are you aware of what that means?

Most of them are not believers and are in favor of all forms of abortion, right up to partial birth abortion. They act as a unit to get legislation passed which supports their very liberal (sometimes ~ not always) positions.

In getting God's word into the hands of every nurse and doctor in the state of Michigan, if it even prevents the death of just one innocent baby, it is worth it.

I cannot see how that can be even questioned, much less criticized. It seems to me that this is something which we all should be on the same side against the world, its prince, and his influence.

I am thankful for a Christian group which has let their differences be assuaged, not giving up what each may believe, but just not arguing about it. In fact, avoiding it, as in 'Avoid unedifying controversies...'

They are seeking a oneness of Spirit, in Christ, to do His work. As in 'unity in Christ' the very noble (but seemingly elusive) goal of even the Restoration Movement.

We DO believe that God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit, has the power to instruct any individual in the way that he/she should go.

Didn't and doesn't He do that for you?

The reason ANY verses are put on the covers is so that an individual in stress can read something which will give comfort, so that even suicide, perhaps, can be avoided.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

It may give comfort, but it is a false comfort of being saved if baptism is not included.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

"We DO believe that God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit, has the power to instruct any individual in the way that he/she should go."

I could say that the Holy Spirit has instructed me that Baptism is a necessary entry point into the New Covenant. You could say that the Holy Spirit has instructed you that it isn't. Saying "the Holy Spirit instructed me" is not a sufficient substitute for sound doctrine. It becomes a subjective basis for truth, just as the Mormons say that the Holy Spirit gives them a 'burning in the bosom' that the Book of Mormon was true.

I hate to keep bringing up the Mormons but it is a valid point. Your faith seems to be far more subjective [the Holy Spirit instructed me in the way that I should go] than it is objective [what do the scriptures plainly teach?]. No amount of good deeds or good feelings can substitute for sound doctrine. And ultimately you come back to the Gideons being truthful because of their good deeds, or because you feel good about them, irregardless that they completely ignore baptism and cast doubt on the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

John!

The Gideons DO NOT cast doubt on the inerrabcy of Scripture! Someone on this forum questioned that, with absolutely NO PROOF, and now it is being said that they doubt the inerrancy of Scripture. That is how propaganda is fostered!

What purpose would they have in distributing, at some cost to themselves, something which they do not hold to be absolute truth? It is absolutely UNTRUE that they do not believe the message in its originals of the Bible to be the absolute, true Word of God.

John, did you check the verses I listed early on in the thread, quoting from the frontispiece of the small Gideon New Testament? What could possibly be anti-Biblical about them? They are Scripture!

I have NOT used just my emotional self to present my views, which are all based absolutely on Scripture. There are probably 6 verses which state that repentence and faith are how we come to Christ to every one which says ANYTHING about baptism.

I am going to get a 'doctrinal statement', or its equivalent, from our Gideon Camp leader.

Our purpose is not to promote any doctrine except what the Scriptures themselves say. The WHOLE New Testament is there.

It is unjust to claim something about any group, which even remotely might not be true. Lest we bear false witness, we need to have all of the facts, and it is obvious that most posters here do not have them in this instance.

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Apologies to anyone who is tired of the faith/works/baptism discussion.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

Proverbs 3:1-12: [NASB]

1: My son, do not forget my teaching, but let your heart keep my commandments;

2: For length of days and years of life, and peace they will add to you.

3: Do not let kindness and truth leave you; Bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart.

4: So you will find favor and good repute in the sight of God and man.

5: Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

6: In all your ways acknowledge Him, and he will make your paths straight.

7: Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord {C.: ~ revere Him?} and turn away from evil.

8: It will be healing to your body, and refreshment to your bones.

9: Honor the Lord from your wealth, and from the first of all your produce;

10: So your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will overflow with new wine.

11: My son, do not reject the discipline of the Lord, or loathe His reproof,

12: For whom the Lord loves He reproves, even as a father, the son in whom he delights.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

Mark asked earlier, "WHEN do we come into contact with the blood of Jesus? For until we come in contact with it, we cannot be covered by it." He mentioned several scriptures that show that blood is applied when the terms of entry into the covenant are finalized, i.e. at baptism. I would like to point out something else I just realized (or perhaps the Holy Spirit showed me?).

When do we come into contact with the blood? When we come in contact with the water. When Jesus died on the cross, the soldier stabbed him with a spear, and from his side flowed his shed blood, and the blood was mixed with the water. The blood is inseparable from the water. Meditate on that one a while. =)

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

John,

We have a medical doctor who occasionally teaches our one Sunday School class. (Not the one on prophecy).

He said that the fact that water flowed from Jesus' side meant that He was really dead; that it was plasma which flowed, and that the plasma separates from the platelets at death. I say this as an aside, not as a proof of anything, other than that Jesus DID actually die. I guess there is a group which claims that Jesus didn't actually die; this proves He did.

The verses (as far as I can remember) do not have all of these other explanations regarding baptism being the sealing of the New Covenant. John 3:33-36 indicates it is belief (receives His testimony) which seals.

These verses are among those which indicate what gives life, and baptism is not mentioned.

I want to re-post a portion of something I wrote above and comment on it:

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

We started reading the Scriptures, going to church, praying, fellowshipping with other believers, and just learning directly from God how much He loves us and wants us to love one another.

It was during this time, also, that I was praying for Herb (my husband) to be baptized and to start tithing. When we attended that little Conservative Baptist Church for awhile, they were going to elect my husband to the Elder Board, contingent on his baptism! (Immersion). (Non-Scriptural, since he was a new believer).

********************************************************************** Mark: The non-Scriptural part was because Herb was a new believer. He DID grow very rapidly and did become an elder (a deacon first) at the Free Church. He accepted Christ at age 30 and by the time he was 33 was an elder. He was always an elder or a deacon at both churches we attended, and our Christian school, as well, until the last few years. ********************************************************************** This was because, in 6 months of intensive study, he knew more about the Scriptures than most of the other men there did ~ even those who had been Christians most of their lives. In fact, in our next church, an Evagelical Free Church, my husband taught the adult Sunday School class for a long time ~ until we moved to Michigan.

In the Free Church, which also immersed, Herb was brought under conviction about being baptized by our interim pastor, who before becoming a Chtistian, had been in the Church of England (Low Church) and had gone through a similar process ~ that of coming to believe in immerseion, though at first he had believed his sprinkling as a baby was his baptism. **********************************************************************

The pastor of the Conservative Baptist Church was a high-strung, agressive person, (with ulcers, poor guy) and while we appreciate very much his part in my husband's coming to Christ, his insistence that Herb be baptized before serving with the elders is what made my husband not want to continue there. It is why we left for the Free Church. Herb had been talking to the teacher from Moody (on the'El') concurrently with our attending this Baptist Church, and he invited us to his church.

When we got to the Free Church, this is where we met the Interim Pastor (who had been a Missionary in China, and imprisoned for being a Christian for a year by the Communists when they took over). This pastor had gone through a similar experience upon HIS conversion, so was the ideal person to take Herb through a study of it. It wasn't very long before Herb agreed that he should be immersed. See what I mean when I say that God directed our steps continually?

This Interim Pastor was from England and had an Oxfordian accent ~ but that wasn't his chief asset. THAT was his deep knowledge of Scripture and his gift as a teacher. He wasn't a spell-binding preacher ~ he gave a very 'teacherly' message ~ but we learned SO MUCH from him.

I just wanted to clarify a little of what I said.

Thankful to be a distributor of Gideon Bibles,

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

I wanted to keep this between Mark and me, but I haven't heard from him, and I just can't let the false accusations inre: Infallibility of the Scriptures and the Gideons' stand on that to go unanswered. it is too unjust. So-o-o:

From 'The Gideons International Guide Book ~ Policies and Procedures' (100th Anniversary Edition):

On page 95, headed 'Section 10', 'Membership', and 'Membership Guidelines':

Spiritual

'If the requirements for membership in The Gideons International were to be arranged in order of priority, surely at the top of the list would be the spiritual qualifications,

The Gideon program is a spiritual program. In order to qualify, an applicant must answer the following questions "yes" with the exception of question five which must be answered "no'.

1. Do you believe in the Bible as the INSPIRED, INFALLIBLE, INERRANT, WORD OF GOD?

2. Do you believe IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD?

3. HAVE YOU RECEIVED HIM AS YOUR PERSONAL SAVIOUR, AND DO YOU ENDEAVOR TO FOLLOW HIM IN YOUR DAILY LIFE?

4. Do you believe in the endless lake of fire for the unsaved?

5. Are you a clergyman, an ordained minister, an evangelist, a pastor or a missionary, or do you hold yourself out as any of these, or are you in any other way identified as any of these?

6. Are you a member of a church?

On page 96, set off in a frame:

There are some religious groups, cults, and sects that claim to stand under the Christian banner whose members are not eligible for Gideon membership. Some of these religious groups recognize the written works of human authors as inspired in the same sense in which the Bible is the inspired Word of God. others cast doubt on the Deity of Christ, or His position as Saviour, or do not emphasize receiving Him as personal Saviour, or deny the endless lake of fire for the unsaved.

Among such groups whose members are not eligible for Gideon membership are Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Advent Christians, the Orthodox Churches (i.e. Eastern, Greek, Syrian, Russian, Western, etc.), Unitarians and Universalists.

From page 185;

Q. Is it permissable to discuss doctrinal matters which may be controversial at Gideon meetings?

A. No. We should focus on the power of the Word of God and winning the lost to Christ which is the purpose of the Gideons. Of course, some doctrines are contained in the Gideon Constitution (such as the Inspiration of Scripture and the deity of Christ), and other doctrines comprise our spiritual objectives (see page 143 for our spiritual objectives), and it is permissable and apprpriate to emphasize these doctrines or subjects at Gideon meetings. However, from an historical standpoint, these subjects are not considered "controversial' within Gideon ranks. Obviously, each Gideon has a right to his own persuasion regarding other doctrinal matters and practices, among which earnest Christians disagree, and we must not discuss these matters at Gideon functions.

Section 17:

SPIRITUAL OBJECTIVES

MEN OF THE BOOK

Read:........ I Timothy 4:13 Study:....... II Timothy 2:15 Memorize: ..Deuteronomy 11:18

MEN OF PRAYER

I Samuel 12:23 Ephesians 6:18 Philippians 4:6

MEN OF FAITH

Ephesians 2:8 & 9 Hebrews 11:6 II Corinthians 5:7

MEN OF SEPARATED WALK

II Corinthians 6:14-18 Romans 16:17-18 Ephesians 5:15

MEN OF COMPASSIONATE HEART

Matthew 9:36 Psalm 86:15 I Peter 3:8

MEN WHO WITNESS

Acts 1:8 Proverbs 11:30 II Corinthians 4:13

MEN WHO GIVE

II Corinthians 8:5, 8, 24 I Chronicles 29:11-14 II Corinthians 9:7

SOUL WINNING

"Win men for Christ through PERSONAL WORK" From the monthly magazine THE GIDEON/JUNE 2000:

This paper was originally given as apeech at the 100th International Convention in Nashville. It seemed appropriate, as we face a new century and our upcoming 101st convention in Chicago, to remind our members of the commitment and legacy of our God-given ministry.

That the world may know....

Our Legacy

Part one - by Jerry Burden

[third page over]:

'Spiritual qualifications were further defined in the 1950s when, in response to a growing liberalized view of the Scriptures, members were asked toi declare their belief in the inspired Word of God. This qualification was further delineated in 1987, when the "battle of the Bible" came to the forefront and the membership affirmed their acceptance, not just of the inspired Word of God, but of the inspired, infallible, inerrant [their emphasis] Word of God.

Brother Gideon, Sister Auxiliary member, there is perhaps no greater element of significance in our legacy, in our heritage, than our view of God's Word as inspired, infallible and inerrant. And may it ever be so.'

AMEN!

THINGS WE DO NOT DO OR DISCUSS AT GIDEON CAMP MEETINGS Because more than 8000 new gideon members are being signed up annually in the U.S.A., it is necessary to stress important policies of our association so that new members, especially, will be informed. There have been instances at Gideon meetings (prayer meetings, camp meetings, and conventions) which have violated the Association's long-standing policy that prohibits the discussion of doctrinal matters and the performances of certain practices regarding which earnest Christians have different opinions. Specifically, and as containedin the question and answer section of the Guide Book under the heading "Gideon Meetings" , communion services, baptismal services, divine healing services, speaking in tongues, and other similar practices should never be discussed or engaged in during or in connection with, Gideon meetings.

From a positive standpoint, we should focus on the power of the Word of God and winning the lost to Christ which is the purpose of the Gideons. When this policy is violated, it inevitably brings division among Gideon members and serves to tear down our ministry, rather than build it up. Obviously every Gideon has the right to his own persuasion regarding such doctrinal matters and practices, but, to repeat, we must refrain from discussing or performing such practices at Gideon meetings and focus on the primary things regarding which we can all agree as members of this association.

FUNCTIONS NOT PERFORMED BY GIDEONS

Gideons, as members of an interdenominational Association of Christian business and professional men, do not conduct communion services, baptisms, healing meetings, etc. Such services are the function of the church and the responsibility of the clergy [the state of being ordained to the Christian ministry] not the Gideon Association.

All of my wonderful formatting with colors and changes of font for emphasis were lost in translation. Oh, well.

I felt I had to post this to clarify the gross misunderstandings promulgated here against the Gideons.

I am even more thankful to be a Bible-distributing Gideon.

Mark? ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Connie, All this history of the Gideons is fine and dandy, but you still have not shown where they irrevocably state, "the Bible IS the Word of God".

I really wish you could find such a statement, because if you can't, you are going to miss a wonderful opportunity to see me standing on my head to apologize to the Organization!!!

-- Mark Wisniewski (Markwhiz@aol.com), May 24, 2000.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark, Dear, I can't wait!! ;-) ;-) I re-post from above:

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I have requested a 'Statement of Belief' from our Gideon Camp leader.

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

There are Gideons in every true Christian denomination or group, as you prefer, including Churches of Christ.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), May 24, 2000.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Connie, All this history of the Gideons is fine and dandy, but you still have not shown where they irrevocably state, "the Bible IS the Word of God". I really wish you could find such a statement, because if you can't, you are going to miss a wonderful opportunity to see me standing on my head to apologize to the Organization!!!

-- Mark Wisniewski (Markwhiz@aol.com), May 24, 2000.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

cast doubt on the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

-- John Wilson (mrbatman@earthlink.net), May 25, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

John! The Gideons DO NOT cast doubt on the inerrancy of Scripture! Someone on this forum questioned that, with absolutely NO PROOF, and now it is being said that they doubt the inerrancy of Scripture. That is how propaganda is fostered!

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

The Gideon program is a spiritual program. In order to qualify, an applicant must answer the following questions "yes" with the exception of question five which must be answered "no'.

1. Do you believe in the Bible as the INSPIRED, INFALLIBLE, INERRANT, WORD OF GOD?

2. Do you believe IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD?

3. HAVE YOU RECEIVED HIM AS YOUR PERSONAL SAVIOUR, AND DO YOU ENDEAVOR TO FOLLOW HIM IN YOUR DAILY LIFE?

4. Do you believe in the endless lake of fire for the unsaved?

5. Are you a clergyman, an ordained minister, an evangelist, a pastor or a missionary, or do you hold yourself out as any of these, or are you in any other way identified as any of these?

6. Are you a member of a church?

PROVERBS 21:2-3:

2: Every man's way is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts.

3: To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord rather than sacrifice.

JUSTICE

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

JUSTICE........FAIRNESS........TRUTH

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

JUSTICE***************FAIRNESS*****************TRUTH

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

My husband just helped this week to place Bibles in every room of a new hotel here in Lansing.

This is a blessing to countless people and many write to say what a blessing it is, and that in some cases their reading it has prevented suicide, with a turning to Christ.

Thank God for the faithful Gideons. 'Let a man be found faithful'.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001