Boyd's Faith

 I recently read a book by Greg Boyd titled "The benefit of the Doubt."  The book is about faith, doubt, and certainty. I'm concerned that I may not represent his views accurately, but I will try my best. But this is not a book review.

The past few years, I've been hearing this idea that faith and belief do not mean the same thing. One of then includes doubt. I don't remember which one, but Boyd says that faith includes doubt, so maybe it is faith. I must admit that I found this problematic from the first time I heard it. For it seems to me that the words themselves do not support such a distinction. The Greek word for faith is the same for belief, being “pistis”; and of course “believe” is a verb, which is “pisteuo.” I would think the difference between the words is how one best fits in a sentence; that is, the word “faith” may work better than “belief,” and then it depends on whether you use a noun or a verb. However, one can choose to use “faith” to include doubt, and to use “belief” to not include doubt but the words themselves do not give indication that one includes doubt and the other does not. If faith and doubt can be used interchangeably in a context, it would seem they mean the same thing. If one includes doubt, then they both do. Wouldn't they?

Boyd believes that faith includes doubt, and that faith has the idea of “trust”--a trust that allows you to act accordingly in-spite of your doubt. At least that is how I understood him. He sees doubt as being honest, and certainty as being proud and unwilling to change ones view. He even calls certainty idolatry or the pursuit of certainty as idolatry. That's how I understood him.

I'm not sure about the idolatry claim, but I know that certainty can come across arrogant to others. I see certainty as a kind of confidence that can manifest itself as arrogant, depending on how it appears. David had a certain kind of confidence that came across as arrogant to his brother, when he came to where the battle was: “²⁸ Now Eliab his oldest brother heard when he spoke to the men; and Eliab's anger was aroused against David, and he said, "Why did you come down here? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your pride and the insolence of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle." 1 Samuel 17:28 Was David's confidence in God idolatry? I see his confidence producing a kind of bravery because of his particular belief in God. Am I wrong about this?

Certainty as a kind of confidence depends on the object and context. There are things I believe that we can be certain about and things that are not guaranteed. I can be certain that God is able to heal me, but I am not certain that he will. I see these as 2 different things, not one thing. I am certain that God cannot lie, but I don't know what He might do in a certain situation. It seems to me that certainty depends on the object of faith and what is actually being offered. Sometimes we are mistaken about what God says or promises in Scripture. If I have faith the size of a mustard seed, can I really tell a mountain to go jump in the water? What is being communicated in those words? Can I be certain that I can receive anything I believe God for? I don't believe so. Yes, I actually doubt it. But I do believe the object of faith is an issue, and certainty depends on the object. I can be certain that Jesus is coming again, but I am uncertain concerning the timing—such as “pretrib.” Though I know that some can be certain about the timing. I might say that I see one view more likely than the other, so maybe that indicates there is some doubt in my own belief. Fine.

Boyd saw a problem, a kind of hypocrisy, in those who considered it pride if one was not willing to doubt their view while they were not willing to doubt their own view. I would suggest that we shouldn't expect someone to doubt their view, but to be willing to consider a different viewpoint. It's not wrong to be certain of something, and yet be willing to consider a different viewpoint. It's probably true that one won't have a change of mind until they begin to doubt what they believe, but it doesn't necessarily have to begin with doubt. I have had a change of mind on some things that didn't necessarily begin with doubt, but a curiosity as to why someone had a different view than I did—so I looked into it.

Boyd sees doubt as a good thing, because then may be willing to consider a different viewpoint. But as I said in the previous paragraph, one does not have to doubt to consider a different viewpoint. If one does have doubt, it is good to consider why you doubt. Because it may mean you lack assurance. John the Baptist begin to be uncertain if Jesus was the one, the specific one to come, and so he sent his disciple to Jesus to ask him if he was the one—which reveals that he still believed he was sent from God, because, how could John even trust him to speak the truth? Jesus answered his inquiry by working some miracles to attest to who he was.

I don't know what Boyd would say about John the Baptist's doubt, but Boyd does make some interesting points about the difference between doubt and wavering. And I think there may be some merit in the distinction between the two, but I tend to think it involves the object of faith. Boyd would say to have doubt is not bad, but to waver would be. He says that the word translated “doubt,” as in James chapter one should be understood as “waver.” I find that interesting (and maybe possible). If one lacks wisdom, one should ask in faith without wavering (as opposed to doubt); in other words, you should precede to trust God for the wisdom and not waver. But I confess I have a little trouble distinguishing between wavering and doubt. So, I trust God and not waver but I can still have doubt? Ok. I'm not sure about this. I guess he means that one should live their life consistent with expecting that God will give wisdom (trust without wavering), but what is the doubt about? I suppose Boyd is thinking that deep down inside me there may be an uncertainty that I will receive the wisdom that God promises., but I should press on trusting that the wisdom will come, regardless of the doubt I might feel—this would be trust God without wavering.

One other thing I want to bring up--and I'm doing this from memory, so I hope I represent Boyd correctly on this—is his discussion of Hebrews 1:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for ...” Hebrews 11:1 I am only looking at the first part of this verse, which seems to give a definition of faith. I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this entire verse early this year (2025), trying to understand the Greek words translated “substance” and “evidence” (but not looking at that word here) in the KJV. I was teaching on the topic of “faith” as used in Scripture at Church in a small group, and I was finding myself uncertain how to best translate Hebrews 1:1. What does the KJV mean by “substance?” The Greek word is “hypostasis.” “Faith” is the “substance” of things hoped for—what does that mean? Other translations have words like “assurance” or “confidence.” I understand those words better, but they are quite different in meaning, and easier to make sense of. Faith is the assurance and confidence of things hoped for. I wanted to conclude that the Greek word had a broad range of meaning or usage, and “assurance” fits best. But the Greek word appears elsewhere in Hebrews and seems to mean “substance”: “[Jesus] who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person [hypostasis]” Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is the express image of God's hypostasis. The KJV translates “person,” but it could be “substance.” What does this mean?

My Greek lexicon says the best meaning is “realization”: “faith is the realization of things hope for.” I don't know, does that help? Boyd sticks with the word ”substance” and says that faith is something like the substantializing of things hoped for. I take that to mean that by one's actions, that reveal a trust in God, one substantiates the thing hoped for. Something like that. Does that make sense? There is a connection between what one does and believes, and there is a sense in which actions fulfills faith, and that is one way of understanding James statement about faith being made complete through works: “Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?” James 2:22 The word “perfect” can be understood as “complete.” So I think that Boyd was saying something about how faith substantializes the things hoped for by how it is made compete in actions of trust in God. I do believe Hebrews 11 is showing what living by faith looks like with the many examples from the Old Testament. So, I don't know if this discussion was of any help. But I will leave it at that.

I do think that calling “certainty” idolatry is rather extreme, but I do understand how some people may come across as arrogant in their faith and could maybe be dishonest or hypocritical in some way. But I think that certainty depends on the object and context and understanding of what is believed. I don't see a problem with being certain about some things, especially the character of God—because if God does lie, everything changes, and nothing is certain.

be ready

 

Many years ago, a fellow church member approached me and said that if he studied the Bible as much as I did and the pastor, it would mess up his mind. I can't remember if I even had a response. Maybe I could have thought...”are you saying that my mind is messed up?” I don't know how much Bible study he thought I did, but it wasn't like I spent many hours a day studying it. Usually, I spent a lot of time trying to think through issues I was confronted with, and I read portions of books that addressed issues I was thinking about (by people I would both agree with and disagree with). I had a lot of time to think, because for many years, I did factory work that was very monotonous, standing at the end of a conveyor, stacking automotive parts—for many hours every day.

I have taught adult Sunday School from my early 20's into my 60's, and I had to put some effort into knowing what I was going to talk about in my class. I did have a tendency to pick some difficult topics. I need to understand things and know what I am talking about. A pastor from the same church once called me to his office and said: “Jason, tell us what you know, not what you don't know.” He must have heard me teaching on a difficult topic, and thought I wasn't well enough prepared. I'm sure that he was correct about that. Obviously, I've never forgot what he said.

I try to understand what I believe. I try to maintain a consistent understanding. Years ago, a co-worker and I would have a lot of back and forth about salvation, and he told me that according to me, he was in good shape, because even though he had abandoned his faith in Christ and embraced a form of reincarnation, that only involved humans, he was still saved, if he was wrong. I probably told him that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, and that salvation cannot be lost. One day he came up to me and said: “Ok, you say we are saved by faith alone, so what about people in the Old Testament?” I said, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” He just stared at me for a moment, and then said “Oh,” and then walked away. He later told me to quit talking to him, because... he said, “how would you like it if I tried to persuade a new believer away from what they believe?” So basically, he wanted me to leave him alone and not challenge his reincarnationism.

One day, another guy at work walks up to me and asks, “do you believe in eternal salvation?” I said, “yes.” “Well I don't!” He walks away. I think, “what was that about?” At break time, I try to discuss it with him, but a friend of his, sitting by him, tells me to shut up, because she heard that stuff debated growing up, and she didn't want to hear it.

Years ago, the church I was a part of had a booth at the Kendallville Fair, and we had some things on display to draw attention, like a rather long chronological chart showing the origins of people and nations from Adam up to the 1800s. One day while standing by the booth, a man walked up to me with a grin on his face and asked me, “what came first, the chicken or the egg?” My response was, “the chicken.” His grin disappeared, and he just stood there for a moment, then walked away.

I remember at the same church on a Sunday night I was doing the speaking, and I was teaching on regeneration. We had a visitor that night, who had family members in the church. I and the pastor went to visit him one night. He just kind of unleashed anger on me for teaching on such a topic. He claimed that he didn't think his parents understood what I was talking about, and even he, an elder in his church, didn't understand what I was talking about. I was just a little surprised and wasn't sure how to respond. (My pastor actually got emotional about it and defended our teaching.) Maybe I made it too complicated; I don't know. 

Maybe it seems arrogant to others to try to understand and have an answer for the things the Bible addresses. I know there are things that I work at trying to understand that others say they just aren't interested. I've had people say or indicate to me that they just aren't interested in prophecy. I guess I understand that, but I am very interested in those things.  A family member once told me that he wasn’t interested in prophecy, but he must have changed his mind later, because I sent him a book on a particular topic, and a few years later, he sent the book back to me, but it was an updated version of the book, not the same copy. 

Maybe what the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy doesn't apply to everyone, but I see value in it for me: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15 Even with the study I have done, I believe I still come up short. And it seems like it gets harder to remember some of the conclusions I have come to—though fortunately, I have most of it typed up and stored on drives, the cloud, forums, and hardcopy. I can go back and see what conclusions I have come to. 

I also think of this Scripture from First Peter:  

“ But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.” 1Peter 3:15-16

Character witness

 In a church discussion group (a few years ago), the question was put to the group "why do you believe?" I don't think the questioner was satisfied with any of the answers the group gave. His answer was that God changed his life. That's why he was a believer.

I felt push back to that answer within myself. My response was that people's lives change for a lot of reasons, and such change is sometimes short-lived. Also, belief would actually precede the change, having resulted from the belief.

But I suppose I was looking at this question from the perspective of whether what was believed is really true.  Just because someone believes something, and it changes their life, it doesn't mean that what they believed is true. I wanted the answer to be that my belief was due to the understanding and persuasion that the object of my faith was true.

But looking back and thinking about the question some more, I would have to agree that character was a major reason as to why I believed. But not really my change of character, but others.

Looking back, I can see that human character had a major role in why I became a believer. It was the character of others that had an impact on me: it was the character of others who have believed. And it was the character of others that made me realized I wasn't saved, for I was already becoming positive about a lot of things related to Christianity.

And probably before and after I became a believer, I think I saw as one of the greatest witnesses to what I believed was the character of Christ. There is no one in history that was like Jesus Christ, in both words and deeds: "No man ever spoke like this Man!" John 7:46

As a believer for over 45 years, I have seen that though people's lives can and do change as believers, they are far from perfect. And though the character of believers had an affect on me, eternally and practically, I know that they, just like me, will fail. Unfortunately, but true.

Jesus is the “Captain” and “Perfecter” of faith (See Hebrews 12:2). We are to look to Him as the supreme example of what living by faith and obedience to God is to be.

Though I remember with gratitude those who by their words and conduct had an impact on my life and even led to my salvation, I know that even they have had failures and struggles in their Christian lives.

I have determined that regardless of whether others fail, I will not use that as an excuse to be disobedient to God. Because we can use others as an excuse for our own failures and disobedience to God. And it could be that what hinders us is not really the failures of others, but our own affections—but we tend to want to blame others for what hinders us.

Though the witness of the character of others plays an important role in our lives, Jesus is still the Captain and Perfecter of faith. Look to Him and His example.

Love Enemies

Jesus said to “love your enemies ... [and] do good to those who hate you,” Matthew 5:44, and this is seen by some as a contradiction to the accounts in the Old Testament where Israel was to kill all the inhabitants of certain peoples of the land of Canaan.

Some may seek to explain the extermination of the inhabitants of Canaan as a myth, or it was God accommodating the brutal ancient Near East culture, while God himself was opposed to such measures. Yet, I would suggest that not all enemies are the same and not all circumstances are the same.

Not all enemies are the same in that not all enemies are a threat in the same way. Some enemies are only those who disagree with what you believe, or they just don't like you for some reason. You can have enemies in your own family due to differing beliefs. Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. ... a man's enemies will be those of his own household,“ Matthew 10:34-36. You would not treat such enemies the same as you would someone who sought to do bodily harm to someone in your family. There may be circumstances where you have to do bodily harm to someone else. In times of war, you may have to kill the enemy, though in different circumstances, you could respond in a less lethal way, and maybe, even show compassion. It depends on the circumstances and the kind of enemy involved.

The “kind” of enemy is an issue. There are times when the enemy has to be dealt with in a just, legal way. And in some cases, the enemy is of such a disposition that they reap the judgment of God. This is the case several times in the Old Testament in which God destroys a people because they have reached a certain degree of evil or injustice. Israel was not to go into Canaan until the people's sins have a reach a full point: “...in the fourth generation they [Israel] shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete," Genesis 15:16. The Amorites, being the people of Canaan, were Divinely appointed to destruction, and God would use Israel to carry out that judgment. God uses nations to judge other nations. Though God could do it directly through other means, as in the days of Noah or the cities of the plain (Sodom, etc.), he also did it with nations against nations. One does not have to explain the killing away as a myth or some accommodation by God of evil cultures by the Hebrew people.

In the event of war, involving nations, one is not able to love his enemy, for he may have to kill him, lest the enemy kills his countrymen and possesses his country. And some enemies have reach a point of opposition to God that makes them objects of God's wrath. These types of enemies are the ones who are “the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” Romans 9:22. Though there are circumstances where an individual can show acts of mercy to their enemy (see the account in 2 Kings 6.8-23 concerning the Syrian army and the prophet Elisha), there comes a point where the enemies of God become objects of His vengeance and wrath. We can see this in the book of Revelation with the Christian martyrs: "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" Revelation 6:10. Prayers in the Psalms that are harsh against the enemy, praying for their destruction, could be understood in this light, that they are enemies of God, and they shall not prosper against the people of God (unless there is a Divine reason for them to). Depending on the circumstances, one could show grace to their enemy, or they could seek their destruction.

When Jesus seemed to contradict the Old Testament [OT], it should be kept in mind that the Laws of the OT set limits, and one was not to go beyond those limits (but that doesn't mean that they didn't), but also, one was not obligated to go even that far. The “eye for an eye” set a limit: if someone knocked your eye out, you were not to take both of the offender's eyes out as a consequence; however, one didn't even have to take one eye out—you could chose to forgive them instead. One did not have to exact revenge or seek justice, but if they did, there were limits.

The ideal is not to return evil with evil but with good. But again, it depends on the circumstances. The Apostle Paul should be considered as well: “¹⁷ Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. ¹⁸ If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. ¹⁹ Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. ²⁰ Therefore 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.' ²¹ Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:17-21

But again, I would suggest that not all enemies are the same and not all circumstances are the same.

Water Baptism

Consecratory

I believe the ritual of water baptism is a consecratory act, meaning that it portrays one being set apart unto God for service in association with that thing God has sanctioned.

The Unger's Bible dictionary says that baptism is “the application of water as a rite of purification and initiation.” I would agree with this, but I believe the word "consecratory" includes both of those ideas. The person baptized is seen as being set apart for service to God (consecration), and this rite (ritual) is a kind of initiation into that service, and it has a purification significance (a washing) from any past defilement or associations. There is also an identification with the particular baptism to the particular service that God has sanctioned.

The book of Hebrews speaks of various washings, which could refer to baptisms that were done under the Old Covenant with Israel: the tabernacle service was “concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings [the Greek word translated is “baptisms”], and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.” Hebrews 9:10

The Gospel of John also speaks of a dispute over “purification” when the disciples of John and the Jews (probably the Jewish leaders) in a context about water baptism: “²³ Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. ²⁴ For John had not yet been thrown into prison. ²⁵ Then there arose a dispute between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purification. ²⁶ And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!" John 3:23-26

I think it is also significant that the First Century Jewish historian Josephus, in writing about John the Baptist, said, "They must not employ it [baptism] to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behavior."

I believe the baptism of Jesus by John makes sense when the baptism is seen as being consecratory, that is, setting one apart unto God for service. We also see that after Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit came upon him, he was driven into the wilderness to fast for 40 days and then to be tempted by Satan. His ministry would officially begin after that, and that would be his service to God which he was set apart for: “¹³ Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. ¹⁴ And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?" ¹⁵ But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him. ¹⁶ When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. Matthew 3:13-16 … ​¹ Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. ² And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights ... Matthew 4:1-2 … ¹⁷ From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17

Baptism defined

Unger goes on to say about Baptism... “[that it] is held by some scholars to mean 'to dip, immerse.' But this meaning is held by others to be not the most exact or common but rather a meaning that is secondary or derived. By the latter it is claimed that all the term necessarily implies is that the element employed in baptism is in close contact with the person or object baptized.” I include this definition here, because the words “baptized” and “baptism” appear in Scripture with a usage that doesn't necessarily involve the ritual involving water.

Knowing that the word “baptism” or “baptized” is used in a non-ritual sense may remove some of the difficulty concerning the significance of baptism.

Paul wrote that Israel was baptized into Moses, and this would be a non-ritual meaning and use of the word: “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.” 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 This baptism was an identification or unification with Moses. Moses was Israel's deliverer and leader. Israel was in Moses during their exodus from Egypt.

Similar to Israel being baptized into Moses, the believer is baptized into Christ, who is also a deliverer and leader: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? ⁴ Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:3-4

A similar statement is made to the Galatians:  "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Galatians 3:26-27

These references are not about water baptism, but identification, association, or union with Christ—like the second definition Unger gave.

Surely, many believe this speaks of water baptism, and they may use it to describe what water baptism portrays, being buried with Christ and raised with Him, but like the reference to Israel being baptized into Moses, these references can likewise be speaking of the association of the believer with the death and resurrection of Christ.  This association is a work of the Holy Spirit.  The death of Christ releases us from the eternal consequences of sin, and since sin resulted in spiritual death, the release must include being delivered from the condition of spiritual death. The believer is seen as buried and resurrected to a new life: the old man or self with its sinful disposition is seen as dead and buried with Christ, and he is resurrected from the dead with a new man or self—this is his new eternal being, which shall live with God forever, fully realized in the future resurrection of the body.

Another case in which “baptism” is used that is not about the ritual is where Jesus said he had a baptism to be baptized with that surely speaks of the sufferings he would face: "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They said to Him, "We are able." ²³ So He said to them, "You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father." Matthew 20:22-23.

The Apostle Paul wrote of a baptism that involved the work of the Holy Spirit in which the believer is united with all other believers in one body: “¹² For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. ¹³ For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. ¹⁴ For in fact the body is not one member but many. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14

Mode and Portrayal and Recipient

The mode of the application of the water is debated whether immersion, pouring, or sprinkling--though immersion probably best portrays what the ritual intends to portray. It may be common to say it portrays outwardly an inward change--and that may sound right, but that is an assumption.  If it is a ritual washing as a consecration, then it would seem better to see it as portraying a change of standing and not state:  the candidate's standing with God has changed; he/ she is a new creation; the old is gone, and the new has come.  The state of the person is always a potential thing, depending on their walk and maturity in the Lord.

This change of standing also supports who the recipients should be, being a believer in Christ, who has become a new creation in Christ; and it seems in every case in the New Testament, that it is for those who have responded in faith in Christ. In the account about Cornelius, he first believed, and then was baptized: “⁴³ To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." ⁴⁴ While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. ⁴⁵ And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. ⁴⁶ For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, ⁴⁷ 'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' ⁴⁸ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. Acts 10:43-48 Infant baptism may have been practiced early on in Christendom, but that was a departure from believer's baptism.

The ritual of water baptism is a consecratory act, meaning that it portrays one being set apart unto God for service in association with that thing God has sanctioned and that thing with which the service is identified--which for the Christian is Jesus Christ.

Baptism and Salvation

An important issue concerning the ritual of water baptism is whether it in some way is essential to be saved, in the eternal sense. There are many who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, or at least the intent to be baptized. It appears that most of the Early Church Fathers held this view. There are also some Scriptures that seem to connect salvation with baptism. There are other Scriptures that say one is saved by faith in Jesus without a reference to baptism, and you have the account of Cornelius and those with him apparently being saved before their baptism. And then there is the issue of the thief on the cross, being told he would be with Jesus in Paradise, without a chance of being baptized.

If salvation requires the ritual to be performed, then salvation would have to be put on hold until one could be baptized, unless the intent to be baptized would suffice, if they were to die before the ritual is carried out. And what about those Scriptures that say we are saved by faith apart from works? Paul makes it very clear that Abraham was justified by faith alone: “if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. ³ For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." ⁴ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. David Celebrates the Same Truth ⁵ But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,” Romans 4:2-5. I suppose the response would be that baptism is not a “work” of the Law. Though baptism could have been very much one of the washings of the law for consecration. Obviously, Abraham was not baptized in water to be justified before God: He believed the word of God and was justified.

Salvation and remission or forgiveness of sins can be understood in a temporal sense as well as an eternal sense. It could be that when salvation or forgiveness is associated with the ritual, it could be of some temporal nature. In other words, when one believes in Jesus for salvation, they receive eternal salvation or eternal forgiveness, but when they are baptized, they receive some sort of temporal salvation or forgiveness—just like the believer doesn't need to think his eternal salvation is forfeited every time he sins, but only his fellowship with God is interrupted, which can be restored through acknowledgment: “⁹ If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9 So, maybe baptism has some sort of temporal salvation in view—especially for the First century Jew, who was particularly held accountable for the rejection of Christ. Maybe it released the First Century Jew from the consequence coming upon the nation, though I'm not sure how that would really work. The nation would be judged, and the believing Jew would become part of the new people—the “Church,” and Peter does say, "Be saved from this perverse generation." Acts 2:40 That salvation would be a temporal kind of salvation. But it does seem like the believing Jew would have been disassociated when they believed in Jesus—though the baptism would have been a clear associating act with Jesus on their part.

I'm not sure that on the Day of Pentecost when the Jews and their proselytes asked Peter what to do, after seeing and hearing his message, would have understood his words—or even he intended them to mean—a temporal kind of forgiveness or salvation. Some believe those who asked what they should do of Peter were already believers and saved at that point—since they asked—and peter is telling 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.” Acts 2:38 If they were already saved, what were they to repent of, and what is this remission of sins? And then they will receive the Holy Spirit—though this could be just the special manifestation of the Spirit in e exercise of spiritual gifts. Some try to understand the “for” her in the sense of “because of”: be baptized because of the remission of sins. If one repented in the sense of they resolved to get right with God by believing in Jesus, they would have forgiveness of sin, and because they have it, they should be baptized. And then they receive the Holy Spirit in the sense of His manifestation in their lives. That use of “for” is possible, but not as common.

I guess I am open to the possibility that water baptism could be very closely associated with faith, and in a sense completes it, at least for the First century Jew. Their baptism assumes faith. And the manifestation of the Spirit afterwards makes it clear that it is in connection with Jesus as the Christ that all this is happening and not just because they are sons of Abraham or Jews. It could be that in the mind of Peter, to be baptized and to believe are inseparable—at this point. And at this point in time, such expectation is acceptable to the Holy Spirit. The repentance would be a resolve to get right with God by believing in Jesus as the Christ and being baptized in His name. And this would work with the words of Jesus at the end of Mark –though that is a variant text that is disputed: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16 Of course, the salvation here could be of some temporal kind, but I question if it is. It's true that Jesus doesn't say that one is condemned if they do not believe and is not baptized, but if they do not believe, they probably will not carry through with baptism. The baptism is an expected act associated with the believing.

When Paul is baptized by Ananias, we see Ananias saying to Paul, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16 The washing away of sins could be some sort of temporal thing, but I wonder if Ananias was thinking in those terms. It's often thought that Paul was saved when he saw Jesus and called him “Lord,” but is that for certain? I have thought that while he was in Damascus until Ananias came to him, he was kind of in a state of limbo, waiting for further revelation. The revelation from Ananias and the exhortation to be baptized may have been the final piece of revelation that resulted in him to believe and be baptized. His sins then washed away.

Connected with this is the words of Peter: “...the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 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).” 1 Peter 3:20-21 Like with Paul, baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. By baptism, one is accepting what it is associated with, being Jesus. This would especially apply to the First Century Jew, because of the consequences it would bring, such as ostracism from those who don't believe. Concerning the Baptism of John, we read how baptism “justified God”: ²⁹ And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. ³⁰ But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” Luke 7:29-30 Looking at Peters statement again, associating baptism with the flood, it was through the flood, that God saved Noah's family from the corruption of the world, and through baptism, the believer disassociates from the nation that rejected Christ. The baptism is the manifestation of one's faith in that which God has sanctioned.

I just want to add here that I don't believe John 3:5 is about water baptism, but it is about the negative and positive aspects of the new birth/ regeneration: “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. ⁶ That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John 3:5-6 The being born of water and spirit, speaks of the negative and positive aspects of the new birth, being the washing and renewing work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration: “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Titus 3:5-7

So, I am open to the idea that those passages that speak of baptism and salvation in some sense is closely associating the baptism with faith in Christ, that faith is assumed in it. And keep in mind that Jesus was not baptized to be saved, but it is a manifestation that one is in agreement with what it is associated with, and it is a consecratory ritual—being set apart unto service to God, in association with that which God has sanctioned.

Church

The word “church” is an interpretation of the Greek word “ekklesia” which means “assembly.” Church is an interpretation because it is telling you what kind of assembly is in view. Church actually comes from another Greek word, “Kuriakos,” which means “the Lord's.” The word Church just kind of evolved from the Greek word over time. In most places in the New Testament, where ekklesia appears, it is referring to the assembly of God. The Church is an assembly of believers in Christ.

The primary aim of the assembly is set forth in Ephesians 4:11-16 (text below). It sets forth that each member in the assembly (“the body”) has a part (a gift, role, and “ministry”) towards building up the assembly in unity of “the faith” and maturity. There are certain roles of a leadership nature that are to help equip the others in fulfilling this ministry. This aim is something an individual cannot do by himself, since he/ she is outside the assembly: he can't do his part, if he is not part of the assembly. Of course, there are circumstances where one cannot be part of an assembly of believers, but this is the ideal.

The Apostle Paul gave some practical instruction on how the assembly should function, in his letter to the Corinthian Church in Chapter 14 (text below). This was because they were placing too much emphasis on a certain gift. The instruction he gave reveals that there was more involvement, more participation, among those assembling together at that time. The usual church "worship service" today doesn't really allow for such--the format Paul gave is definitely different.

The Apostle Paul gives a list to the Corinthian Church of a Divine order of the roles. Though the word “pastor” appears in the Ephesians 4:11 reference, it does not appear in the list in Corinthians. “Pastor” appears in the English in Ephesians 4:11, but elsewhere, the Greek word from which it is translated is always “shepherd.” But Corinthians does not list the pastor/ shepherd. But it does list “teacher,” and some believe the role in Ephesians 4:11 is not just pastor but “pastor-teacher.” Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.” 1 Corinthians 12:28 It might seem that “pastor” and “teacher” are the same role or function in the Church. The designation “pastor” is often used for the “elder” and more specifically the vocational elder. Elder is an office, and all elders should be able to teach, but not all teachers are elders. In a sense, all teachers are pastors/ shepherds, but not all pastors are elders. Elder is an office, and not all qualify for that office, whether they can teach or not. Paul's list that has teacher but not pastor probably combines the two.

The Church is the Lord's assembly, with the aim of each member doing its part to build up and mature in the faith, having certain leaders to help them fulfill this; the assembly is to gather together and function in a way that this can be accomplished.

Ephesians 4:11-16: 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. Ephesians 4:11-16

1 Corinthians 14:26-33: 26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:26-33

crazy Bible

 "The Bible says crazy sh!t too, but nobody takes it seriously": Bill Maher

If he's talking about the Mosaic Covenant, and its requirements, then it needs to be kept in mind that it applied to the theocracy of Israel only, setting them apart from the nations, but it contained timeless morality. Things like the animal sacrifices were to teach that sin has a consequence before God, which is death; they provided a temporal kind of forgiveness for the Hebrews in their special status with God (by which the nations could observe and learn about God's holiness and salvation from sin), and they foreshadowed the future sacrifice/ death of Christ as God's ultimate answer to the sin problem of mankind (by His death we have forgiveness of sin, are justified and born again/ receive eternal life).

If he's referring to the miraculous things God did, it should be pointed out that if God created all things, then He can do anything with His creation that is not contrary to His nature.

If he's referring to what man has done to one another, it should be pointed out that man has a measure of free will and an evil nature, and God allows that free will and evil to a certain extent.

God instituted government to exercise justice on certain evil, but if the government becomes evil and does not execute justice, then that government and society's existence is limited. We see this several times in the Scriptures, with the destruction of Noah's world, the cities of the Plain (such as Sodom), the Amorites/ Canaanites, Israel (taken captive by Assyria and Babylon), Assyria, Babylon, and so on.