Baptism

David Bercot's lesson What Did the Early Christians Believe About Baptism shows how the early Christians believed past sins are forgiven in baptism. I personally grew up not believing in the necessity of water baptism for salvation, but this was not for any good reason. As I got older, I began to study the Scriptures for myself and found that the New Testament clearly teaches that baptism washes away sins and is necessary for salvation. For example, in Acts 22:16 says, Paul says:

“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

Jesus himself said salvation is not based merely upon believing but also upon baptism:

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16)

In Acts 2, Peter boldly declares that repentance and baptism are intimately linked and are equally necessary to be saved:

“And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Peter also makes it clear in his first epistle that through faith and repentance, water baptism saves. Just as the floodwaters washed away the sins of the earth in the days of Noah, so is a man immersed/baptized in water to have his own sins washed away:

“God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you.” (1 Peter 3:20–21)

The notion that one does not need baptism to receive salvation is ahistorical within orthodox Christianity. Before the 1700s, all Christians universally agreed that baptism is part of the salvation process in order to receive the new birth which Jesus spoke of in John 3. Hence, Christ declared that one must be “born of water” to enter the kingdom of God in John 3:5. God bless!

Hello, dear sister Abigail. Greetings in Christ to you. My original reaction to the beliefs of the Early Christian Writers regarding baptism was a lot like yours. It did not sound right to me. Much more importantly, it did not sound Scriptural to me.
The best thing I think you can do is to open up a Concordance and search for every verse in the New Testament that contains the words "baptism", "baptize", "baptizing", "baptized", etc.

Read each of these verses in their context by reading the surrounding verses as well, even reading the entire chapter in which each verse appears if time permits.
The following is just a partial list of New Testament verses that have something to say about baptism:
1) Matthew 28:19
2) Mark 16:16
3) Acts 2:38-39
4) Acts 8:36-38
5) Acts 10:47-48
6) Acts 22:16
7) Romans 6:3-4
8) 1 Corinthians 12:13
9) Galatians 3:27
10) Colossians 2:12
11) 1 Peter 3:21

If you have never done so, another very helpful exercise would be to read through the entire book of Acts. I found this to be extremely helpful, since, besides being a book that describes the "Acts" of the Holy Spirit and the "Acts" of the apostles, the book of Acts also contains the accounts of many conversion experiences. For every account of a conversion experience that you read about in the book of Acts, ask yourself, "Was baptism performed in this case?" "Was baptism optional in this case?"

"Is anything important about the role of baptism said in this case?" "Was rebaptism ever practiced?"
The following is a partial list of cases of conversions in the book of Acts - you will find all of them if you use a Concordance to perform a word search for "baptism", "baptize", "baptizing", "baptized", etc. as described above.
1) The 3000 on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.
2) The men and women of Samaria in Acts 8.
3) The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.

4) Cornelius and his relatives and close friends in Acts 10.
5) Lydia and her household in Acts 16.
6) The Philippian jailer and his family in Acts 16.
7) Saul/Paul's conversion experience as he tells to the crowd in Jerusalem in Acts 22.

If you do all this, you will have laid a very strong foundation for further investigation into the matter of baptism. You will be able to decide for yourself, based upon your own studies, whether or not other verses such as John 3:5 , 1 Corinthians 6:11 and

Titus 3:5 also refer to baptism. You will have a strong foundation for considering the things the Early Christians Writers wrote about baptism. And you will be able to listen to dear brother Bercot's messages, particularly the one entitled "Baptism" and the one entitled "Assurance of Salvation", and see if what he says is indeed backed up by Scripture.

I have done the very things I listed above and have reached my own conclusions regarding the role and function of baptism.

At some point in time, after you have dug further into this matter, we would certainly appreciate hearing the conclusions you have reached and we will gladly share our conclusions with you.

May God richly bless you, dear sister in Christ, as you seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. May the words of the inspired authors of the New Testament bring you clarity and peace of mind regarding this topic of baptism.

Your brother in Christ,
- Charles Hood

What would you do then with the thief on the cross? Luke 23:43 And He said to him(the thief) “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in paradise”.

He was not baptized, and yet Jesus said he would see him in paradise.

Thank you for your response. I will look into what you said and try it out. I realize that baptism is a very important thing and needs done, but I believe Jesus washes our sins when we repent and believe in Him.

Thanks again! I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

Abigail

Hello again, dear sister Abigail. This is a very interesting question. The case of the thief on the cross is definitely one that I have wrestled with myself.

One of the things I discovered while reading through all the New Testament verses regarding baptism was that the fact that the thief on the cross might have been baptized! I guess I should explain . . .

Putting together the accounts of the crucifixion in the four Gospels, we see that the two thieves originally joined the others in mocking/berating/blaspheming Jesus (see Matthew 27:44 ). But one of them obviously had a change of heart, rebuked the other thief, and admitted that Jesus had done nothing wrong. He then made his famous plea to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”, and Jesus made His famous reply, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

( Luke 23:42-43 ). But this is about all we know about these two thieves. The Bible never states that they were baptized, but it also never states that they were not baptized. The Bible is silent on this matter.

Since this repentant thief was crucified in Jerusalem, most likely he lived either in Jerusalem or somewhere around Jerusalem in the region of Judea. But both Mark 1:4-5 and Matthew 3:4-6

tell us about the tremendous response by the people in Jerusalem, Judea and regions around the Jordan to be baptized by John the Baptist:

“John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.” ( Mark 1:4-5 )

“Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist;

and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.” ( Matthew 3:4-6 )

The response to John's call to repent and be baptized was responded to by people from Jerusalem, all Judea and all the region around the Jordan. This was a very impressive response. In light of these verses, we cannot say for certain that the thief was never baptized.

Of course, we also cannot say for certain that this thief was baptized. But due to the tremendous response the Gospels record to John the Baptist's call to repent and be baptized, we should not say for certainty that the thief was never baptized. Saying that he was never baptized goes beyond what the Scriptures reveal.

In fact, as far as I am aware, the only people whom the Gospels specifically state to have rejected John's baptism were the Pharisees and lawyers, as clearly stated in

Luke 7:28-30 : “'For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.' And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.”

So the Pharisees and lawyers clearly rejected the will of God and were not baptized by John.

The Gospel of Luke clearly tells us so. Anyone else living in the areas of Jerusalem, Judea or the regions around the Jordan River at the time, however, most definitely could have been baptized. So we do not know for sure if this thief on the cross was baptized or not. He could have responded to John the Baptist and been baptized and later backslid. We simply do not know for sure.

This is why I believe that reading through all the verse in the New Testament regarding baptism is crucially important and cannot be ignored. These are the kind of facts that you will discover in the course of such a study.

May our dear Lord continually be with you, dear sister in Christ, as you walk along your journey of faith. May His grace, peace and love be yours in abundance.

Your brother in Christ,
- Charles Hood

Good thoughts... I’ll have to think on that for awhile. I’m kinda torn and not sure what to think at all. It would seem weird to think that baptism could have anything to do with your sins being washed away, and yet it almost seems that’s what the scriptures are saying.

I am already doing what you said to do and praying about it. Hopefully I’ll come to peace about the whole subject.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Abigail Brewster

Why in Mathew 3 verse 2 does it say: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” If you are not saved till you are baptized? Then John should have been saying: “Repent and and be baptized, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

In other words why would he bother to say to repent if that does not get you anywhere?

Amen, dear sister. I know from my own experience that this can be a huge topic to wrestle with.

If you are slowly and diligently studying the Scriptures, incorporating much prayer into your times of study, then you are doing all that our dear Lord could ask of you.

I see that you are genuinely struggling with this and you really want to know the truth. I am praying earnestly for you, dear sister, and I hope that many others here on the TheHistoricFaith.com will join me in praying for you.

May God be merciful to us all.

Your brother in Christ,
- Charles Hood

Hello again, dear sister. Salvation is surely the goal, and we definitely do not want to fall short of that goal! But I would not say that repentance "gets you nowhere". As you continue to study the Scriptures, I believe that you will see a pattern emerging - our initial repentance is very important on its own, since repentance is a turning away from our old, vain, sinful, manner of living and turning towards God and holy living. That is a huge matter in and of itself.

But our initial repentance is also very important because it prepares us for baptism. In other words, our initial repentance is a crucial prerequisite for baptism.

John did not baptize any of the Jews simply because they were Jews. To those who came to be baptized by him, John insisted on a repentance that "bore fruits worthy of repentance" ( Luke 7:8 ). In fact, if you were a Jew who did not bear fruits worthy of repentance, John considered you part of the "brood of vipers" ( Luke 7:7 )!

Here is the full immediate context of Luke 7:7-8 : "Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones."

I believe that the inspired apostle Matthew only speaks of repentance in Matthew 3:2

because Matthew is focusing on John the Baptist being the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 40:3 . John was the promised forerunner of the Messiah who was "the voice crying the wilderness" so that the way of the Lord could be prepared and His paths could be made straight. Other related prophecies (such as Malachi 3:1 together with Malachi 4:6 , along with Luke 1:16-17 ) show us that the "way" and the "paths" here refer to the hearts of God's people. Isaiah 40:3

focuses on the work that would be done in the hearts of God's people as a result of the preaching of John the Baptist. The aspects of baptism and confession of sins in John's ministry are not the focus of Isaiah 40:3 and hence Matthew waits a few verses to mention these two other crucial aspects of John's ministry.

Only four verses after he connected the need for repentance with Isaiah's prophecy in Matthew 3:6

, Matthew writes about confession of sins and baptism, which were also parts of John's ministry ( Matthew 3:6 ). The rest of Matthew chapter 3 contains multiple references to baptism, including the baptism of Jesus Himself. One of the emphases of Matthew's Gospel is that many Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in John the Baptist and Jesus and this emphasis on fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies appears to be Matthew's emphasis in only speaking about repentance in Matthew 3:2 .

I think you will find the parallel passage to Matthew 3:1-2 in Luke's Gospel to be very interesting and enlightening. Luke 3:2-4a state, "while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying . ..

" Luke then proceeds to quote from Isaiah chapter 40 just like Matthew does, but Luke quotes more of Isaiah 40.

Notice, however, that Luke right away states the John was "preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" in the same place where Matthew has John only preaching repentance.

John's full message was one of "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins", but Matthew chose to first emphasize repentance before quickly picking up the topics of confession of sins and baptism four verses later.

If we put all of this together, we see that repentance (made real by visible fruits of repentance) and confession of sins needed to be in evidence for John's baptism.

So repentance led to baptism, and if a person had genuinely repented and confessed their sins and was baptized by John, the result was glorious - remission (i.e. forgiveness) of sins!

These are the types of things that become clear when studying all of the references to baptism in the New Testament in their context. Besides eventually pointing out the Messiah to the Jewish people, John's mission was to boldly preach a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins".

Repentance was part of the picture, but not the whole picture. Repentance needed to be followed by confessing of sins and baptism, and the confessing of sins and baptism had to be preceded by repentance.

I hope this helps, dear sister. And I hope and pray you will discover much more during your times of Bible study and deep prayer.

May our dear Lord draw you close to His heart and be extra gracious to you during this time.

Your brother in Christ,
- Charles Hood

I'll just throw in my two cents here. The early church wrestled with a problem similar to that of the thief on the cross; namely, those that were converted and martyred before they could be baptized. Though there was never a dogmatic pronouncement on the topic until Augustine (which is far too late for my taste), there are hints to suggest that they believed such persons were saved without water baptism.

Tertullian, On Baptism, chapter 16 (text here taken from Bercot's modern translation of Tertullian, A Glimpse at early Christian Church Life):

However, we do have a second bath—of blood—which is actually one with the baptism of water. About this bath, the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism," although he had already been baptized . (Luke 12:50)...This is the baptism that stands in lieu of the water bath when that has not been received. It also restores it when it has been lost.

Scripture makes no clear pronouncement here, but I am open to the idea that our loving Heavenly Father, in his mercy, makes exception for those who die without baptism through no fault of their own (especially if martyrdom is the cause of death). I will never be dogmatic on this point, for that would be to go farther than scripture, but I cannot bring myself to be dogmatic against the idea either.

Some would use these verses from Matthew to find scriptural support for such a position:

• Matthew 10:32: "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven."
• Matthew 10:39b: "...he who loses his life for My sake will find it."

Just curious: Have you always believed that baptism is essential for salvation or is this something that is “new” for you?

That's a difficult question to answer; I've always viewed it as important, but my convictions of its importance/necessity have grown as I've gotten more articulate about my beliefs. So have I always believed it? At minimum, I've always believed it was an important part of the normal conversion process.

For me personally I have always believed Baptism is essential for salvation even though many of my understandings of the faith had been weaked by the poor modern teachings that make obeying Jesus' commandments seriously and literally to be less relevant. Seeing scriptures like "he who believes and is baptized will be saved" has alwsys kept me grounded in that.

That scripture especially, and the other scriptures that speak on Baptism, have always made me believe that Baptism is important and essential.

I believe the thief on the cross shows the mercy, understanding and compassion of Jesus to an even deeper degree. The thief on the cross shows that God is understanding and would not withhold someone from the kingdom who never had an opportunity to get baptized, but who put their trust in His Son and then died the next moment before they had opportunity to get baptized or to serve and do good works.

Had that thief on the cross had the opportunity to live his life after he trusted in Jesus he would have gotten baptized and would have applied his life to love and good works and keeping the commandments of Jesus.

Had he had opportunity to get baptized and to live out his faith, but neglected to do those things by his own choice, not from lacking opportunity, that would count as sin and the Lord would judge him in the last day and that neglect and disobedience would be considered as the Lord judges his works in that day.

I do believe the theif on the cross also shows that faith is indeed the first step to salvation and upon truly believing we are saved at that moment by our faith in Jesus, but we must maintain that salvation and practice our faith as we have opportunity to, applying ourselves to obeying His commandments which consist of baptism and going out serving and doing good.

We who have opportunity to believe and to now live our faith have much greater responsibility and accountability in the day of judgment to live out our faith and to do things like get baptized than the theif on the cross or someone else who dies early in their faith.

And it is much better and more rewarding to have opportunity to live out our faith and impact this world as our works of faith and obedience do store up reward and treasure for us in heaven so we who are alive have more opportunity to labor, help love and impact the people of this world with the gospel and receive reward for our work. The Lord will judge us by our works and He will judge with understanding and righteousness as a good and just judge.

The best way to handle situations like this is to take all of the scriptures seriously that speak on the matter with equal importance and be careful not to give more emphasis to certain scriptures that speak on salvation over other scriptures that speak on salvation, but give equal weight to all scriptures speaking on that topic. We should take all of the scriptures that speak on salvation seriously to believe them as they are written.

That is the way the earliest Christians handled the scripture and it kept them balanced and away from teetering into wrong and confusing positions that don't agree with other verses of scripture. They took all of the scriptures seriously to the heart to believe them. In evangelical teaching, which is what I have been closer to, there is more emphasis on the scripures that speak on faith and its role and importance in salvation.

There are groups that put greater emphasis on works and put less emphasis on the scriptures that speak on faith. But both parts speak important things in relation to salvation and both should be taken with equal force to believe what the scriptures say about both. This discussion at its root is really about faith and works and their role in salvation.

So would you say that we need to take everything Jesus said literally?

Someone told me that not everything Jesus said is to be taken how He said it.

I personally would say that there is a healthy balance to find between the two sides using righteous and non self-seeking discernment to understand what should be taken literal and what should be taken metaphoric, but I believe that we should lean more toward the literal especially when it comes to things that are told in the scriptures for Christians to do.

The earliest Christians took Jesus literally believing that the bread and wine drunk for communion is the actual body and blood of the Lord the way Jesus says it is. I do see them in their writings and interpetations lean more often toward taking scripture just the way it says. I see the earliest Christians in Acts chapter 2 and 4 obey Jesus to forsake all and to sell what they have and give to the poor.

And they sold their lands and houses and put their money into a collection among one another as the Apostles taught them to according to the teachings of Jesus.

Those are two examples of teachings in scripture that if just left to modern interpretation people would, and very often do, say that they shouldn't be taken literal but the earliest believers did and we see an example of that directly in scripture in Acts by the practice of the new believers selling their excess possessions putting the money in a collection to give to all who had need.

For me, even Jesus' command that if your right hand or eye or foot causes you to sin to pluck it out and cut it off is literal. Never in history has a person's eye, hand or foot, in and of themselves caused a person to sin, they are tools that are used for sin, but never are they the origin/root and cause so there is never a reason to actually cut them off or pluck out our eye according to Jesus' teaching. That teaching is commanding us that we cut off and get rid of the cause of our sin.

That cause is most importantly in the heart. It can be other objects or things or even people if we see those things corrupting us and pulling us off of the path to get those things away from us, but Jesus used the perfect example, an eye or a foot that has no enticing or causing factor in themselves to make His strong point. So even that teaching taken literally is strongly applicable to obey literally.

I definitely believe preference to the literal application of teachings of the new testament is to be given, but I do believe there is a balance. Such as Jesus says beware of false prophets who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. He obviously isn't talking about prophets who come to you literally wearing the physical clothing of a sheep or that you will know them by literal apples and banana's in their pantry.

He is clearly speaking metaphically. I do believe there is balance and righteous and wise discernment must be used.

But regarding baptism being a means of salvation for us I do believe there is serious and literal applicability to that the way Jesus says whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (not saying only whoever believes will be saved, but whoever believes and is baptized will be saved) and considering what all of the other scriptures in the New Testament say about baptism and its role in salvation.

1. He says "If your right eye causes you to sin...". The eyes may not be the only cause, but we can easily see that they are also a cause by turning it around: if we didn't have eyes, we would not have committed this sin. They are part of the causal chain and therefore also caused it. Any other meaning of "cause" would make the term essentially empty, don't you agree? Because you can always point to something earlier/later/more universal/more specific in the causal chain (e.g.

I didn't cause him to die, my gun did; and yet the gun has also caused it because without gun he wouldn't have died). That need not be confused with the fact that we can sin in thought without committing the action. I don't believe that saying "it was not the origin, therefore it doesn't apply" is a honest literal interpretation. Can you agree to that?

2. Have we really honoured Jesus more when we take His commandment directly literal, but also say they cannot be applied directly literal? If we can only apply them "by expansion", then instead applying them "by intent" seems no less earnest to me.

3. To me, none of His commandments are to be explained away, but some are exaggerated on purpose. I see the following intent behind this:

- Some strict rules are needed, but the New Covenant follows a different model. Ultimately we cannot live a life strictly regulated by a big set of laws (i.e. by the letter). We need to have the right attitudes and give room to personal directions (by the spirit). Many of His commandments are given in a way that everyone would understand they cannot be applied literally, but teach us an attitude instead (what I called "by intent").

- we are to strive towards a greater perfection which we will never achieve, rather than be satisfied with some minimum standard. At the same time we should regard ourselves as saved right from our conversion, even when we are still only at the beginning in sanctification.

- they are testing our earnestness and simplicity. I contrast, intellectualism is a hindrance to obey them because they seem impossible to begin with.

Let me ask you about a few other examples to strengthen my point: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." What about a promise? A contract? Surely we say some things with greater confidence or determination than others. Are we to avoid all of that and will the result be desirable? "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." Are we to literally give everything anyone asks from us? E.g.

our children? "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things." Is that exaggerated or literal?

I want to honour every word Jesus said, but my best understanding is that not everything is literal. However, these exaggerations apply mostly to the Sermon on the Mount. Baptism is a different issue. I'm looking forward to hear your opinion on these points, Justin.

1. I absolutely wouldn't agree with those statements. As a man who has struggled with lust in my life, I can absolutely say that my eyes have never caused me to sin. The cause of my sin has always only been in my heart and not with the fault of my eyes. Just because I used my eyes to sin that does not make my eyes at fault. My eyes will only do what my mind and heart tell them to do. As the scripture says we are tempted when we are drawn away by our own desires and enticed.

It doesn't put the blame for temptation on things we use to sin or anything else than our own evil heart/desires as the cause of temptation. My eye, hand or foot will never in and of themselves take control of me and cause me to sin nor tempt me. I cause myself to sin by choosing to misuse my eye.

If my eyes were truly such a cause for me to sin then there would certainly be cause then for me and for many believers who fall to walk maimed without eyes if that would really solve the problem, but would that really solve the problem? I certainly don't think so because it is not the cause of the issue of the sin of lust. You can lust without seeing.

A person who has seen women and had an issue with lust but then later on in life goes physically blind could still lust in their imagination from remembering what women look like and thinking lustfully. Then what could they cut out at such an instance? The issue and true cause of the immorality, by which, if it was not there, the sin would never have happened then lies only with the heart and not with the tools used to do the sin.

And I do believe we need to be careful to guard our hearts and keep away from things that taint it. Although I am a man of peace according to the commandments of Christ I am not against guns in and of themselves, or against bows and arrows. They can be used for hunting for food. I certainly would use a gun for hunting deer, but never for harming a human and I am absolutely against the usage of weapons for that. A gun could never cause a human to sin.

It can cause a human to get hurt or die but it did not cause the person to sin. According to your point, if we say that a person who shot someone would not have committed the sin if they didn't have the gun and the gun was the cause of it, could they not, if they had intention to kill, use a knife or poison instead if they did not have a gun?

The cause isn't the objects that the murderer used to commit the murder, it was the murders evil heart toward his neighbor and disregard of God, if that was not there then the murder truly would not have happened. Then we can really say if this was not there then that would not happen. That is the true cause of the murder/sin. A Knife can be used as a weapon to do harm or it can be used to cut up food.

The objects themselves are not the cause of any harm so, they could not fit Jesus' teaching, even in a literal sense, nor can the eye, hand or foot, which are tools controlled by the heart of man. So I definitely see no problem with taking Jesus' command regarding that literally.

I think He wisely used examples that people could, with the use of logic to meditate on His teachings, clearly be seen that they do not cause us to sin for us to know that we do not need to physically maime ourelves to abtain from sin, but instead should pay careful attention to what is affecting our hearts. That is the conclusion I come to by taking that command literally.

I believe the hand, foot and eye were used to stress the importance of cutting off what caues us to sin and how seriously we should take sin it. If something is enticing us, no matter how valuable it is to us it isn't worth losing eternal life for and it is important that we disconnect our heart from it to keep from sin.

2. Also, your response sounds as if it is a response to me saying that strictly literal obedience is the way to follow Jesus' teachings when that is not what I said, but instead, I said I do give preference to literal obedience but I advocate for healthy balance and using righteous wisdom and discernment to discern those metaphores or exaggerations being used such as in the cases and examples that you gave and that I gave. So it seems that you may not be hearing me correctly regarding my point.3.

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying in this point and I believe you have spoken a few needed keys to maintaining that balance in rightly practicing Jesus' teaching in the cases where it is not strictly literal as I said, I do advocate healthy balance. In the early Christians understandings of the teachings of the New Testament from reading their writings for myself I have seen them use that healthy balance.

I see them interpret His teachings metaphorically and I see them take them seriously and literally. I personally do see preference to literal understanding in their writings but I do see both ways of them interpreting His words as they had learned from the earliest apostles and the leaders who were trained by them.

I do believe Jesus meant what He said in a lot of the things He spoke and I don't think they are all up to in the wind interpretations that lead everyone to different opinions and conclusions against one another of how they should be practiced, as many today are taking His commands who do not take them literally at all. Your point goes along with the point I made in my response to Abigail when I used the example of false prophets coming as wolves in sheeps clothing and knowing them as wolves.

We are saying the same thing there. Also I loved the way you put it in the beginning of point 3 Because the way we follow and obey Jesus is different than how the Jews followed the Law of Moses. The Laws are now written in our minds and on our hearts if we have entered into this new covenant and we can manifest obedience and understanding to His teachings by grace as we walk by faith in Him.

That freedom and liberty from strict obedience to law does allow the teachings of Christ to occur in a more spiritual way by the working and power of God than by man in his wisdom and understanding gritting his teeth and trying to obey Jesus without faith and grace.

But I do believe right understanding Jesus' teachings are a guide to us in the spiritual process and we should be careful to understand the things literally that should be understood literally and metaphorically/spiritually the things that should be understood metaphorically/spiritually.

Again, I do believe there is preference to the literal and the scripture teachings are more often or rather are closer to literal otherwise the earliest Christians in Acts 2 and 4 would not have sold their possessions and put their money into a collection to give to the needy among them as Jesus said sell what we have and give to the poor and forsake all. They did take Jesus at His word pretty strongly.

Regarding your conclusion I too believe that not everything He said is literal, but I do personally believe that His teaching often are literal and that they should most often be obeyed the way He said for them to be. But I stand with healthy balanced interpretation to discern what He is clearly saying. I myself give preference to the literal in my interpretation of His teachings but I do pursue to discern the cases where He is not to accurately follow His teachings.

I believe the baptism scriptures and the doctrine of it should be taken as they are written in the word. Whatever scripture says regarding baptism I personally believe it the way it says it. So I myself can boldly say and teach, as Peter did, that Baptism is an antitype which saves us, whereas someone who does not believe baptism has an essential role in salvation may try to make that metaphoric and not really mean that what it says there.

It takes balance and discernment but there is an accurate way that God expects His word to be taken and as we grow in righteousness and in grace and spiritual understanding and discernment in Christ we will more clearly see and practice His word rightly.

Going back to the topic of baptism I definitely think we should believe what the scriptures say about it the way they say them and take baptism as something important to explain and teach as an essential part of salvation, but not be so rigid as to ignore or neglect examples like the thief on the cross to say that it is impossible that God can save through Christ without baptism if a person is sincerely ever held back from being baptized, perhaps, even by ignorance as I think was the case for

men like Francis of Assissi or some of the notable saints in history who did great works of faith and labor of love and obedience to Christ risking their lives for His name but their doctrines were not all the way accurate so they missed some important things due to wrong teachings they had. Some would say such men were not saved because they were not baptized properly. I'm not exactly under this persuasion.

I believe all of the scriptures speaking on salvation and baptism with equal weight and if we value all of those scriptures highly without ignoring any of them it will keep us balanced and away from extreme and wrong positions.

That's a super defining question. Actually, all of Anabaptist thought comes straight from the assumption that we do what Jesus says. If I tell you that you really need to meet my amazing friend Jake, and then add that you need to take everything Jake says with a grain of salt, you would be right to conclude that I don't think Jake is totally truthful. Why should we treat Jesus' words that way? Is that true faith and obedience? Did Jesus really say the things he did just to give us warm feelings?

I mean, he's God. Is God able to express himself in our language? Is the spirit that says Jesus didn't mean just what he says, the spirit that confesses Jesus Christ came in the flesh? This is a great discussion-- I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments!

Justin, I enjoyed sharing my thoughts with you and it's nice to read that we share most of our understanding. About the meaning of "cause", it doesn't seem beneficial to have a long discussion on these points. My main thesis was that there are many causes involved which make a causal chain, and any of them can be called a cause. Nevertheless I'll leave it at that and apologize for bringing it up. God bless.

Sorry for all the typos you had to bear through. The website doesn't allow us to edit our posts after a certain amount of time. So it was too late when I came back later to fix it.

But thank you for sharing. I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I thought you brought up good points that can be helpful for us to consider as we think about the right way to understand the Lord's teachings. Grace be with you.