1. Every Bercot CD looks clearly and honestly at relevant Scripture, clarifying things that, I confess, get clogged by denominational colorings. I see Scripture in its simplicity that I never saw before. As a result, I have radically changed my theology, changed how I view God, and my attitude toward sin. I suspect Mr. Bercot believes that denominational differences, when our Lord pleaded that we may be united (John 17:21), are not good, and can be overcome the way the early church did, by honest Scripture analysis. Too often, we twist it because we want it to tell us something—something comfortable about God, that doesn’t demand work or thinking, something that will allow us to continue to hang around friends and family at the same church. But denominational differences are not all about little nuances that fit different personality types—they’re too often differences between being lost and being saved. If you doubt that, take another look at the summaries on “Paul vs James.” Would you be willing to give up tradition, give up your friends, because you’re finally convinced that you’ve looked at Scriptures wrong over your entire life? Are you willing to be confident enough in your own thinking ability to look at a Scripture and say, “My favorite theologian or denomination has been wrong on this—I trust my own judgment more than theirs.” Most people would NEVER do that. But it’s also true that most people don’t care a rip about theology, or show any worries about entering heaven. The only time they get excited is in a discussion, if they smell that you’ve got a different belief than what they’ve been trained. No further thinking will happen. They shut you down.
2. But didn’t Jesus say, If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. This clearly suggests that you have to be willing to do anything to escape hell, to make it to heaven—even separating yourself from family, friends, your church, your denomination. You should be on a quest for truth, you have to feel your eternal life depends upon it—and it often does.
3. Mr. Bercot in this CD, takes a clarifying look at what Scripture has to say about baptism, which has an important role in salvation.
4. I must add an important note: when Mr. Bercot sees doctrinal controversy between denominations (such as baptism), he resolves the issue by looking at what the early church (pre-Nicea, or pre-325 AD, after which the church was corrupted by joining with the State) believed about it. Of course, they had to be backed by Scripture—and they always were. And they had to agree with one another—and they always were. His feeling is, the men who were taught by the apostles, or apostolic students, had a better idea than men today about what was correct. Read about their surprising conclusions below.
5. He starts by personal biography—“I grew up believing that baptism was a symbol of one’s dedication to God and Jesus Christ. ..it wasn’t connected to salvation.” That’s true of most of us.
6. But the early church believed that in baptism (1) “all of a person’s prior sins are washed away.” (2) “in baptism, a person is born again through baptism of water and the Holy Spirit…(3) through baptism, a person becomes a member of Christ’s church…the salvation process is not complete without baptism.” He then reads many quotes from the early church fathers proving that’s what they believed. All of them--Clement, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.—agreed on these facts 1-3 above. These were giants in the faith, thinkers, many of whom became martyrs for the cause of Christ.
7. But of course, what does the Bible say on this topic which has now seemed to take on a higher importance than most of us thought? Let’s start with John 3:5: Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Regardless of what twisties some teacher said otherwise, does this not say, literally, that “born of water” is water baptism? No tricks in the Greek—water is physical water. Does it not clearly say that water baptism is essential in being born again?—and even with a threat next to it (we don’t like to think God does threats).
8. Mark 16:16 says: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Again, this clearly requires baptism as a part of salvation.
9. Acts 2:36-38: Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit In verses 37-38, Peter has the ultimate evangelistic opportunity. Does he say what we’ve all been taught, to pray to let Jesus into their heart? No; after they’ve been shown who Jesus is, what they need to do to be saved…is…(1)repentance and (2) baptism. (He emphasizes the importance of baptism, saying “every one of you” needs to do it). These two steps will give them remission of sins.
10. Acts 22:16 was when Saul was saved, becoming Paul, and was told: …And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’ Baptism washes away our sins. That’s very important, is it not? Without it, how can you get to heaven? (I’m assuming allowance is made for those who cannot be baptized.) The early church fathers felt that this is important enough that they still insisted that a man who was saved, immediately imprisoned, then martyred had a baptism—a baptism of blood. Note the urgency associated with being baptized right away.
11. Galatians 3:27: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Putting on Christ, when you also read Romans 13:14, means wrapping yourself in godly thoughts and not thinking about sinful ones. It’s also “clothe yourself with Christ,” associated with Genesis 3 with Adam and Eve being clothed with skins, protection from the dire effects of sin. Baptism is the means to these desirable and necessary goals—without which we’re not saved.
12. Titus 3:5: …but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. This duo obviously has connections with John 3:5 (see #7 above), and the early church made that connection—the washing of regeneration speaks of baptism. Baptism is regeneration, becoming a new creation. And, as Jesus put it (John 3:3), that’s essential go to heaven.
13. Hebrews 10:22: let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. “Pure water” is baptism. Baptism gives us a full assurance of faith and enables us to draw near to Him.
14. I Peter 3:21: There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This bluntly points out that baptism saves us. Of course, in context, and thinking of my “Paul v James” blogs, to be saved, you need baptism combined with true faith, repentance, and obedience. Paul is also saying, you need the inward baptism too (see #20 below). Baptism gives you a “good conscience toward God.” The antitype (Old Testament prefigure) it refers to is Noah, whose ark saved eight souls.
15. There are other types in the Old Testament. I Corinthians 10:1-2: Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Was crossing the Red Sea merely a “symbol” of their salvation from the Egyptians? No, it WAS their salvation! Then why do most evangelistic churches use the word “symbol” for baptism? If the type is true, it IS our salvation. Keep in mind, though—context—other things of faith were involved. They had already stepped out in faith to follow God’s leader Moses, when they believed the ten plagues were a message from God, when they obediently protected themselves from death at Passover, and when they packed their belongings and marched out into the desert—which a sensible man would never expect to stay alive, it couldn’t possibly support 3 million people. All of it was their salvation, but the baptism of passing through the sea completed the job.
16. Another Old Testament figure of baptism—mentioned several times by early Christians—was Naaman, the leper. Naaman was purified of leprosy when he was baptized in the Jordan. This was a symbol of what baptism can do for us regarding the leprosy of sin. We are cleansed through it.
17. If you’re thinking, “surely there was some group who didn’t hold to this view of baptism, who thought it was just symbolic,” and you’re right—the Gnostics. Of course, you also need to know what else they believed--that the creation of the earth and mankind was done by an inferior god, a second god, so his creation was flawed and beyond redemption (hmm, a Calvin principle), so they concluded the flesh cannot be saved. They did not believe in the resurrection of the body—you can’t get a perfect result from an imperfect body. Jesus couldn’t have come in the flesh, since He wasn’t imperfect, as all flesh is. Thus, there was no God Incarnate. No one can be “reborn” through physical substances (since all such are evil)—like water. So baptism has no power to save, it’s just a symbol of what’s happened in the spirit. Isn’t it great that what most of us believe about baptism is supported by such a deviant bunch? We’re also saying all the church fathers, as holy a group as you ever want to meet in heaven, men who were taught by the apostles, were dead wrong. Which group do you want to follow? I should also mention: The Gnostics were excoriated by early church fathers, saying they were “instigated by Satan…heretics…the antichrist.”. They said they were totally wrong on baptism, and they re-defended these baptism views. The big question, though, is this: Can we argue against all the above Scriptural passages? Not without doing twisty reasoning, instead of simple, literal reasoning.
18. How did the church move away from this doctrine, if it’s correct? I think partly because the church reacted to people’s desire for convenience—people wanted to feel assurance of salvation, wanted the “formula.” So eventually they got it—do the sacraments, or ordinances, and you shall be saved. Infant baptism came about because of the high infant mortality rates; people wanted assurance that their baby was saved. Also, when an entire nation was defeated by a “Christian” nation, it was required that the entire nation’s children would be baptized. None of these changes were Scripturally based. This “mechanical” religion requires no relationship with Christ and no day-to-day holiness, as Scripture demands (see the “Paul vs James” blogs). The idea as Jesus said that “few would find” heaven (Matt 7:14) was thrown out when they wanted a whole nation of “Christians.” Expanding “the kingdom of God,” as they called it, by sword, by expansion, by alliances with pagans, came naturally to them as well. Scripture became hidden, in an impossible language, and darkness reigned.
19. When pietism (late 1600s, beginning in Germany) and the Great Awakening revival (1700s, in England and New England) came along, they placed their emphasis on the conversion experience. They called the spiritual awakenings the “new birth.” In their countries’ state churches, everyone had already been baptized—but dead spiritually. Rather than preach on the difficult topic on “why what you did wasn’t good enough now,” the revivalists wanted to see people saved. They saw the idea of requiring baptism a second time (as was done once in Acts) as confusing, and it would slow the people’s spiritual awakening down, mixing a difficult intellectual topic with their wonderful emotion. Was a second, and real, baptism important enough to trump that? They decided No.
20. Keep in mind this extremely important caution (read the “Paul v James” blogs): The early Christians believed the above-mentioned Scriptural benefits of baptism were not “automatic” at baptism. A saving relationship with Christ, following His ordinances (and baptism was one of them) are necessary. “Inward” baptism—of the Spirit—was essential to strive for, not just “outward” baptism. When you want to submit to the Spirit AND when you are dunked in the water, then your sins are washed away. You need both. Doing the outward baptism without the inward desire for submission and cleansing? You’re still dead—you’ll just look nicer in hell.
No comments:
Post a Comment