Over the years, one question I’ve invariably
been asked by people has been: what
made you change from Baptist to Methodist? I don’t always answer, but when I do, I tell
them it’s a little like what the Apostle Paul wrote about his seemingly
“chameleon behavior”:
Even though I am a
free man with no master, I have become a slave to all people to bring many to
Christ. When I was with the
Jews, I lived like a Jew to bring the Jews to Christ. When I was with those who follow the Jewish
law, I too lived under that law. Even
though I am not subject to the law, I did this so I could bring to Christ those
who are under the law. When I
am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from
that law so I can bring them to Christ. But
I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ. When I am with those who are weak, I
share their weakness, for I want to bring the weak to Christ. Yes, I try to find common ground with
everyone, doing everything I can to save some. I do everything to spread the Good News
and share in its blessings. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
Russell translation: a man must do what a man
must do (or, more accurately what Christ calls him to do), and,
as I have heard it expressed where I live in Thomasville, North Carolina, Apostle
Paul says, when it comes to witnessing for Jesus, whatever it takes Bubba!
The follow-up question is usually, …but
aren’t there major differences between Baptists and Methodists; which one is
more Biblical?
For me, there were only two significant
differences causing me lost sleep as I contemplated whether or not to play for
the Methodist team, Methodist’s tradition of infant baptism (as opposed to
“believer’s baptism” in Baptist life), and the security of the believer (for
Baptists, it’s once saved, always saved, as opposed to Methodist opinion, of
the possibility of losing, or walking away from salvation).
What I hope to present here will not be an
exhaustive treatise on what baptismal mode or method is right, or whether the
security of the believer is in question for Methodists, but rock-solid and impeccably
secure for Baptists. Rather, I hope to
share an introduction to the possibility that, though we may have different
perspectives on baptism and eternal security, we don’t have to be divided by walls
that never should have been constructed.
Let’s first deal with the lesser of my two
problematic points of concern:
Infant Baptism vs. Believer’s Baptism
There are, without question, differences in
Baptist and Methodist doctrinal opinions.
I say “doctrinal opinions” because a doctrine is what you have left
after humans think and debate about what God has said in Scripture; it’s not
God’s Holy Word itself. Doctrines are the
way we interpret God’s Word and respond as human beings to what the Sovereign,
Almighty Lord of the Universe has said through Scripture.
It is much like our Pharisee friends, who
took the Ten Commands and added a bunch more of what they called the oral
law, 365 negative prohibitions and 248 positive commands. These 613 additional “commands” supposedly clarify
what was rather simple to begin with.
In the New Testament Jesus did the
clarification thing for a Pharisee (and all of us) when that lawyer asked him
about the commands; Jesus condensed the focus of the Ten Words given to Moses[1]
into two simple, clearly-understood commands:
Jesus replied,
“‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all
your mind.’ This is the first
and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The
entire law
and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two
commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40
Did you catch the last sentence? Jesus said the entire law
– all of the commands – are summed-up in those two principles, love God,
and everyone else.
And, in case you’re wondering if there’s a
purpose behind why we tend to take the simple and make it
complex, it’s because, when something is obscure enough to be interpreted 100
different ways, then accountability for the clear central message is easily avoidable. And where there is ambiguity, justice and
righteousness go begging.
Look at it this way…if you demand clarification
for “love your neighbor” by asking for the nitpicky understanding of:
·
Who
exactly is my neighbor?
·
How
far away or how close to me must it be for this rule to apply?
·
What
are the boundaries, and who decides all that?
·
…and please define in detail
what I have to do to LOVE those so-called neighbors! How much love is necessary?
What you have done is create enough loopholes
to pick and choose how you respond to what God has said, and that makes for
just enough wiggle-room, no…let’s be plain about this…it makes for excuses to justify
why you get to do what you want, rather than what God has said clearly; He has
said love your neighbor just like you love to be treated.
Obscurity is the safe place for arrogantly
taking control of your life instead of surrendering your life to God’s will.
Have you noticed I haven’t said a word about
baptism and the differences Methodists and Baptists (and about 500 other
denominations) have when it comes to just about anything?
That’s because there is a universal principle
about us humans which must be addressed before any kind of doctrine of baptism
or eternal security, or any other way of thinking about God is going to make
sense. God revealed that principle about
human nature in the first chapters of His Word; it all began in the Garden of
Eden when Satan said to Eve:
Did God really say
that you shouldn’t eat from any tree in the garden? Genesis 3:1
Satan’s question to
Eve wasn’t about her diet, the nature of a particular tree, or anything
concerning the garden at all. His
deceptive agenda was in corrupting Eve’s mind so she would think more about
what she was missing because of that one, simple, clear instruction God gave
about the tree, instead of remembering the rest of the garden’s fruitful
splendor that belonged to her and Adam.
This is the same approach the Serpent has been using ever since his
opening discussion with Eve. Casting
doubt on what God has made plain is what has fueled every sin since that first
bite of forbidden fruit. And Eve’s
husband, Adam, started the downward spiral when God asked him if he’d
disobeyed; Adam said:
uh, Lord, it was
that woman YOU gave me; she made me do it![2]
And, just to be clear, we have all
eaten at that table!
So, when I push further along in the differences
between Baptist baptism and Methodist baptism, please don’t bite on the apple
of obscurity; rather dwell on the plain and simple desire to please God that is
present in surrendering to the will of God, whether it be at the Methodist
baptismal font, or the baptistry behind the Baptist pulpit. After all, the pathway to this holy mystery
is saturated with wet water on both aisles.
There are enough Biblically-supported
reasons, and historic cultural practices of baptism to make a case for the
current Baptist or Methodist preferences (or, if you prefer, doctrines). For instance, in the first century church,
and for centuries after, baptisms were separate events for men and women,
because candidates were baptized like they came into this world, naked! That would not go over well in most churches
today, but neither would a revival of “holy crusades” or a new Inquisition,
complete with hangings, guillotines, and assorted torture tables.
Doctrinal opinions are not limited to the
ordinances of baptism or communion, or worship and music styles. Sacramental blood has been spilled over the
carpet color, or what kind of roof, steeple, or pulpit is holy. The renowned Baptist preacher, Charles
Spurgeon wrote in his memoirs about a lady in his church who was a stickler for
having everything in exquisite order, impeccable to the tenth-degree. After one service she came to Spurgeon and
asked if she might correct a slight mistake in his selection of a tie he was
wearing; it was too long to in fashion for a respectable preacher. He humbly agreed and asked her what she would
do about it. With that, she whipped-out
a pair of long scissors and snipped the tie in half. Pastor Spurgeon thanked her, and asked if he
might borrow those scissors, which she handed over with a self-satisfied
smile. “Now, madam,” said the parson,
“…if you will, please stick out your tongue”.[3]
In one
church I served (which is no longer a church, just an empty building decaying
on North Main Street in Jacksonville, Florida), there was a “doctrine” of how
the offering was to be taken. By the
time I got to this church they had laid it aside for a more typical
usher-gathering. But, according to the witness of my friend, old Leroy Brown,
who was a member there and had it on good authority that it really happened
this way, in the latter part of the 19th
century, men and women sat on opposite sides of the main aisle. When it was time for the offering to be
received, the pastor would say (with great ceremonially-deep voice), Will
the head of each household please bring their tithes and offerings to the front. All over the sanctuary, stout-hearted men, heads
of their household, stood and crossed the aisle to ask their wives if they
could please have their offering money to carry to the plate at the front!
Man-made traditions, like which way we should
receive offerings, or how long the preacher’s tie ought to be…all these come
and go, and sometimes (the way people cling to such nonsense) they both arrive and
are discarded at great cost to both the fellowship between believers and
genuine building of the Kingdom of God.
God help us!
Back to baptism…we will hear first from the
Baptists, the tribe of my upbringing and service as a pastor for over 25 years.
Baptist (or congregational) doctrine holds
that belief in Jesus Christ, repentance of sin, and a profession of faith must come
before baptism. This doctrine relies on
such Scriptures as:
Whoever
believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn’t believe will be
condemned. Mark 16:16
Crispus,
the synagogue leader, and his entire household came to believe in the Lord.
Many Corinthians believed and were baptized after listening to Paul. Acts 18:8
Notice that the
baptism comes after the believing. In
long gone-by days there was, in congregational/evangelical (such as Baptist)
churches, another hurdle to negotiate
prior to baptism and church membership – the mourner’s bench! Those who were in the repenting of their sins
stage, would demonstrate their contriteness by sitting on a pew/bench separated
from the rest of the congregation. This
bench was placed at the front, near the pulpit, where everyone else could see
those sinners! Only when the
leaders/elders of the church were
convinced the mourners were serious could there be talk of scheduling the river
for baptism.[4]
Many scholars hold
that the Greek word used for baptism (baptizo) means “to immerse”.[5] Hence, the Baptist contention that the only
proper mode for Christian baptism is to be fully-immersed. Therefore, this order, believe, repent, and then
be baptized, is seen by those who hold the immersion view as a completion of
repentance and standing in witness of God’s saving grace. The witness is an “outward display of an
inner-transformation”. The Baptist
Faith and Message, the Southern Baptist Convention’s statement of
doctrines (faith beliefs) and practice, cites baptism in Paul’s letter to the
Romans (and
other texts), as
being connected to Christ’s death on the cross. A believer’s submission to discipleship is a
mark (or witness) of God’s cleansing spiritual power in a Christian’s life and
service.
Therefore
we were buried with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ
was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in
newness of life. Romans 6:4
A believer’s
baptism is the starting point of following Jesus as a disciple. An analogy
would be a graduation ceremony. The
mourning is over because, in faith we have recognized our sins, and the
redemptive power of Christ’s death on the cross, and, having repented our sins,
they have been forgiven, and we are fully drawn into the membership of God’s
family. The process is complete, you’ve
believed in Jesus Christ, repented of sins, been saved, and then
you are baptized as a matter of witness to the community that you belong to God.[6]
Methodist doctrine is something of a flipped
order in which the same purpose is served.
Baptism is also seen as a starting-point, recognizing the present work
of God’s Spirit in the life of the one who is baptized, and is dependent on the
parent(s) or guardian(s) who bring the child to the font. That act celebrates the present faith which
will lead to a future conversion. Methodists
tend to see the “order” as less important than the command to be baptized.
Notice the same verse as above:
Crispus,
the synagogue leader, and his entire household came to believe in the Lord.
Many Corinthians believed and were baptized after listening to Paul. Acts 18:8
Undoubtedly this takes some “reading-in” of
the Scripture, but the phrase entire household would
include any children. And, if we’re
being literal (or nearly so) it is safe to assume a fairly large number of
children, both of the family as well as slaves in that household were baptized. They were presumably not all of the “age of
accountability” – perhaps some infants, but according to Scripture, ALL
baptized.
In the Methodist tradition an infant is
brought before the congregation by those charged with caring for their
physical, emotional, and spiritual health.
The little one cannot speak for itself, so Mom and Dad offer the child
to the Lord’s care with their promises.
Coming alongside those parents are the congregation, promising to have
that child’s (and the parents’) backs.
They covenant to bring that child’s life in line with every opportunity
to build a lifestyle of a disciple of Jesus Christ.
This is much like the practice Baptist folk
observe in child-dedication, the Biblical model being Hannah offering/dedicating
her infant child, Samuel (who would later become the prophet to the Lord in
Israel).
In no way do informed, thinking Methodist
folk confuse sprinkling of water on a baby’s forehead with salvation of a
soul. Rather, it is an act of faith,
dependent on God’s grace, and a commitment of promise (on the part of both the
parents and the assembled community of faith) that they will raise that child
with attention to spiritual nurture which points the child in the direction of professing
faith in Christ as an adult.
For the Methodist tribe, baptism is not a
graduation. Such a terminus happens for
the young Methodist (usually around age 12), after an intensive study of
Scripture, church doctrine, and theology, known as confirmation. Unlike the Baptist doctrinal mold of first, faith
in Christ, repentance of sin, and then baptism, a Methodist infant child is
baptized with familial promises, recognizing God’s presence and promises for
that child, with the understanding it will lead to a child’s profession of
faith and church membership at a celebration of confirming that faith, a
blessing from cradle to new birth.
So, how are these the “same” in the Baptist and Methodist tribes?
I’m so glad you asked!
The similarities between Methodist and
Baptist methodologies include profession of faith, congregational affirmation
and affiliation with, and recognition of, being part of the body of Christ
(membership in a local church), and of course, water baptism. As with a recipe for a cake, all the
ingredients are there; they are, however, prepared and baked in a slightly
different way by two different cooks.
Therein lays the rub for many – they have seen it only one way, perhaps
the church in which they spent their youth, and therefore that is the ONLY
way it should be done! May I be critical of that?
If you’re looking for a doctrinal example of
baptism, you need not look farther than Jesus, who called his own baptism a
work of righteousness. Jesus went down
to the river, looked at his cousin, John baptizing crowds of sinners, got line
and was ready to get wet. Jesus’ cousin
looked him in the eye and said…we’ve got something wrong here; it’s YOU
that should baptize me…I’m not worthy to tie your sandal laces.[7]
This is
necessary to fulfill all righteousness. Matthew 3:15
Compared to Jesus’ baptism, not many people
have been baptized in a river by a locust-eating prophet wearing camel hair
overalls. Not many baptisms have had a
voice descend from Heaven like thunder, declaring the “sonship” of the dripping
one. And certainly, few are those who would
have bypassed dinner on the grounds following the baptismal service in favor of
heading right out to the desert so they could fast and pray for forty days and
nights while they did battle with Lucifer!
Still the question lingers for those
committed to living or dying on the hill of immersion. How much water is necessary? Does the Greek “baptizo” mean fully-immersed,
or does the other usage, fully-washed suffice (or, ahem, hold-water)? Can we sign the baptismal certificate with
sprinkling, or are we heretics?
Okay,
for those still struggling with do we dunk’em, sprinkle, pour-over like
Starbucks, or go down to the river and let the current rinse off the bad stuff? Maybe, since it’s 2026, we can just go to the
water treatment facility and let the chemicals do the work?
Well, most Baptists are pretty adamant
about immersion, but it may be somewhat
difficult to regain a Methodist baby’s trust if you plunge them under the
Jordan river…or the heated baptistry pool.
(Indeed, the local social worker would be waiting with handcuffs, and
you’d better have a good friend ready to post your bail, for the charge of
attempted manslaughter).
Before I actually agreed to become a
Methodist pastor, I had to settle this issue.
To my amazement my dear friend who served as mentor to this prospective
convert to the Methodist tribe, opened the Methodist Book of Worship and showed
me that the amount of water does not prevent the Spirit of God from blessing an
earnest desire to please God. Methodists
do baptize by immersion (and other methods) if requested.
So, my Baptist friends who are wondering,
yes, I did baptize quite a few children, both those who could speak for
themselves, and those who were too young, and had their parents speak for
them. Those baptisms were in large part
by sprinkling or pouring water.
And now the fun fact, the very first baptism
I did as a Methodist pastor was in the backyard swimming pool for a mother and
her two children, full-immersion! And,
as God is my witness, the world did not end on that day! Fittingly, the last baptism I did as a
Methodist pastor was also by immersion, five new believers in the same human
family, now in the forever family.
We now take a rather large leap from baptism,
the beginning of a believer’s journey with Christ, to eternal security, the end
of that earthly journey, and whether that journey continues in Heaven with
Jesus, or, for the backslidden, in Hell apart from Him.
This, as I mentioned at the outset, was (and
remains) the more problematic of my two dilemmas about becoming a
Methodist. Baptism was something of an
irritating battle; eternal security comes in the “much higher issues at stake”
column.
Eternal Security – or – Can You Ruin Your Faith?
The issue of the eternal security of
the believer is often expressed as
once saved, always saved.
For both Baptist (congregationalist) and Methodist (or Wesleyan)
believers it is a question of can you, for any reason, lose the salvation
Christ extended to you when you confessed your sins and were saved. Tell us, is it Eternal Security
or InSecurity?
Let’s hear from the Methodists first.
I spent more than twenty years with the
Methodist family. During that journey I
studied Wesleyan doctrine (opinions, remember?). I believe the best answer to the question
about if a true believer can somehow be lost again and wind-up in Hell, is to
come from the pen of the one who started the Methodist bunch, the
horseback-riding preacher, John Wesley. One
of his sermons contains Methodist doctrine, underpinning of what Methodists
believe about backsliding in the faith.
It is based upon much Scriptural support and Wesley’s interpretation of
Hebrews:
If we make the decision to sin after
we receive the knowledge of the truth, there isn’t a sacrifice for sins left
any longer. There’s only a
scary expectation of judgment and of a burning fire that’s going to devour
God’s opponents. When someone
rejected the Law from Moses, they were put to death without mercy on the basis
of the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think
is deserved by the person who walks all over God’s Son, who acts as if the
blood of the covenant that made us holy is just ordinary blood, and who insults
the Spirit of grace? Hebrews 10:26-29
Here is what Mr. Wesley said about eternal
security, or the perseverance of the saints, in his sermon entitled “Serious
Thoughts on the Perseverance of the Saints”:
"Can a child
of God, then, go to hell? Or can a man
be a child of God to-day, and a child of the devil to-morrow? If God is our Father once, is he not our
Father always?" I answer,
1. A child of
God-that is, a true believer-(for he that believeth is born of God,) while he
continues a true believer, cannot go to hell.
2. If a believer make
shipwreck of the faith, he is no longer a child of God; and then he may go to
hell, yea, and certainly will, if he continues in unbelief.
3. If a believer may
make shipwreck of the faith, then a man that believes now may be an unbeliever
some time hence; yea, very possibly to-morrow; but if so, he who is a child of
God to-day, may be a child of the devil to-morrow. For,
4. God is the
Father of them that believe, so long as they believe; but the devil is the
father of them that believe not, whether they did once believe or no.
The sum of all is
this: If the Scriptures are true, those who are holy or righteous in the
judgment of God himself; those who are endued with the faith that purifies the
heart, that produces a good conscience; those who are grafted into the good
olive-tree, the spiritual, invisible Church; those who are branches of the true
vine, of whom Christ says, "I am the vine, ye are branches;"
those who so effectually know Christ as by that knowledge to have escaped the
pollutions of the world; those who see the light of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ, and who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of
the witness and of the fruits of the Spirit; those who live by faith in the Son
of God; those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, may nevertheless
so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. [8]
John Wesley leaned upon quite a few Scripture
passages[9]
in the rest of that sermon. Those verses[10]
formed Wesley’s thinking that God will indeed separate former sheep into the
goat herd if they continue in sin, having made a “shipwreck”
(ruined) of their faith by turning away from God’s grace (as Hebrews 10 states
rather clearly).[11]
Now for the Baptist Side of Eternal Security/Perseverance
John Calvin lived in the early 16th
century. His doctrine (“Calvin’s
Institutes” opinions) of what the Bible means/teaches/requires,
are volumes of “this is how it (salvation) works”. Calvin states, explicitly, that God does all the
choosing of who will be saved and who will be lost; humankind will have no say
in it. That is my “condensed” opinion of
Calvin’s theology.[12]
For the sake of comparing Calvin and a later
notable player in the doctrine-building scenario, Jacob Arminius, who was born
in 1560, just four years before Calvin died, and took the opposing view from
Calvin. In fact, he argued that “free
will” placed the choice for salvation issue firmly in human hands; God had
offered us redemption on the cross, but we must choose to accept it. As such, there is an offer on the table, take
it or leave it.
In 1618 church leaders from around the world
gathered at Dordrecht, the Netherlands to decide whether Calvin or Arminius was
right. On May 9, 1619 the Synod Council
of Dort issued a statement that Calvin had it right, and Arminius was a
heretic, damned to Hell, worthy of being drawn and quartered. He suffered little from that, however, having
died ten years before the council met. Fast
forward to the beginning of the 18th century and John Wesley born in
1703.
Wesley was rather “middle of the road”
between the extremes of Arminius and Calvin.
He believed in free will, and the open invitation of salvation to “all
who will” come to Jesus. But he believed
a sinner who was saved could also exercise that free will in walking away from
being God’s child subsequent to salvation.[13]
Generally, either Calvinism or Arminian
teaching is held today by most of Christendom.
But they are both generally modified and watered-down. For instance, once saved/always saved is commonly watered-down to an insurance
policy against punishment for sin.
As long as you can point to a time when you said some prayer of
contrition and repentance, you’re good…..from then on – no harm, no foul; you
can live the way you want to, and you will still go to heaven.
In Arminian (Wesleyan) circles, the modified
(watered-down) understanding of salvation’s requirement of growing in the faith
towards perfection has people so worried about losing their salvation they get
buried under a pile of good works thinking they’re keeping themselves saved (instead
of trusting in Christ).
Satan’s specialty is deception; whatever true
doctrine is taught will one day be watered-down, modified and retro-fitted to
suit what we want. This is actually a
kind of proof of being able to lose your salvation – as one of my friends once
wrote to me: Why would Satan
bother tempting Christians if there was no chance of getting them to fall?
And these are the two Scripture portions that
fuel the debate:
In this corner for the Calvinists – Apostle John, 10:27-29
My sheep listen to
my voice. I know them and they follow
me. I give them eternal life.
They will never die, and no one will snatch them from my hand. My
Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them from my Father’s hand.
And in this corner for Arminians – also Apostle John?
I am the true vine,
and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he
taketh it away. I am the vine, ye are the branches. If
a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men
gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." John
15:1-6
Those are the two positions – Calvinism (once
saved always saved, no, you can’t lose it) and Arminianism (Oh, yes you can!)
Two Observations on the Two Positions
Observation #1. God is NOT playing parlor games with our
salvation
God is not playing “Now you have it – Now you
don’t” with our eternal state. A
consistent argument Calvinists make against Wesleyan Arminianism goes something
like….if you sin and forget to repent, even after living a great Christian
life, you’ll go to hell for that one sin.
Oh, I forgot to tithe last week or Oh man, I forgot
to confess that cussword I said when I hit my finger with the hammer…and,
just my luck, I forget to confess it before the truck hits me and takes me out.
Oops–sorry, off to hell with you!
That was not Arminius’, nor Wesley’s
doctrine, and it is not the doctrine It’s really the deception of our mortal
enemy, Lucifer; it smells like smoke and it was born in the pit of hell.
A United Methodist Church scholar, Scott J.
Jones, has written extensively on what Methodists believe, and how it is
applied. In his book entitled “United
Methodist Doctrine” he wrote: Believers
should be aware that they can lose their salvation and backslide into unbelief.[14] There’s the rub –unbelief! This is where the line is crossed.
Methodists do sin! I was one, so I can say it loudly, Methodists
sin often! So do you! But it’s in the rebellion of unbelief, when
we willfully refuse to repent, we find the salvation we once enjoyed in
jeopardy.
For if we willfully persist
in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a
fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the
adversaries. Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without
mercy “on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” How
much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned
the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were
sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace ? Hebrews 10:26 - 29(NRSV)
The key phrase is “willfully persist”. God is not waiting like an assassin with a
machete to hack you to pieces if you mess-up.
But neither is He willing to accept our unwillingness to honor the
sacrifice of his son, Jesus.
In the Old Testament we read when King
Solomon sinned willfully God was not going to put up with it; Solomon had
played a dangerous game turning his back on God…not a smart thing for an
otherwise very wise man:
And the Lord was
angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel,
which had appeared unto him twice, 1
Kings 11:9
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands
of an angry God!
A friend sent me a personal testimony of her
Great Uncle who grew up in church, got married and they had a daughter. Sometime later the child died; the uncle
grieved so much he despaired and got angry.
Grief is a natural part of that experience; Wesley would call it the
“heaviness of life”. But instead of
allowing his faith to carry him through the heaviness of grief, the uncle
turned towards the “Wilderness State” – that which is seen in the rebellion of
the children of Israel in their desert wanderings. It led to outright rejection of faith and
God. Hear my friend Anne’s description:
From that moment
Uncle Curtis was angry with God. He never darkened the doors of a church
again, totally renouncing his former faith. He was more eager to denounce
God than a Christian was to give a good witness for the opposite side.
Maybe you could
make a case that his original conversion was not genuine. I’m sure he
felt it was at the time. My take on it was that he had faith until
trouble came, and then he went the opposite way. Although his final end
was not up to me, I felt sure he was headed for Hell. Unless he had a
deathbed reconversion, I’m convinced he is not with God at this moment.
My friends, God is not playing parlor games
with our salvation; in fact He’s not playing games at all. Sin and rejection of God lead to eternal
separation from him; it leads to hell.
Observation #2. You CAN sin-away the grace that saved you.
Scripture (in many places) teaches us
that “turning-away” from God puts us in the category of “unrighteous” or guilty
sinners.
But when the righteous turn away from their righteousness
and commit iniquity and do the same abominable things that the wicked do, shall
they live? None of the righteous deeds
that they have done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which they are
guilty and the sin they have committed, they shall die. Ezekiel
18:24 (NRSV)
For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those
who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have
shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God
and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen
away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are
holding him up to contempt. Hebrews 6:4-6 (NRSV)
Another friend shed some great light
on this. If a person robs a bank, gets
caught and goes to jail, and then is pardoned and released, he is free. He is no longer a wanted person. However, should he refuse to live a
law-abiding life, struts back down to the bank to make a withdrawal at the end
of a .44 caliber handgun, that previous pardon won’t do him a bit of good! It makes a difference how you live after
you’ve been saved!
God’s prevenient grace[15]
(the that goes before) calls us to him starting from the day we’re born. We are given the gift of free will to choose
him or reject him. Once we’ve chosen to
give our allegiance to Christ God does not remove our free will; we can
still choose to walk away.
There are far less people who do this than
just those who fail to go to church, read their Bible, give their tithes and
pray. But those who harden their hearts/necks risk crossing that
line. One of Dr. Billy Graham’s favorite verses used in preaching backs
this up:
He, that being
often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that
without remedy. Proverbs
29:1
Even most people who have stayed
out of church for many years, held back tithes and never witnessed to even a
dog would be quick to tell you they still believe in Christ, and that
they should
get back in church, but their actions convince me more than their
words. We choose with our life, not our lips, who we will follow.
Wesley preached a special Call to
Backsliders – those who had forsaken the way of meeting for worship, and
progressing in holiness. Listen to what
he said about treating your salvation from holy God so lightly:
Presumption is one
grand snare of the devil, in which many of the children of men are taken. They so presume upon the mercy of God as
utterly to forget his justice. Although
he has expressly declared, without holiness no man shall see the Lord, yet they
flatter themselves, that in the end God will be better than his word. They imagine they may live and die in their
sins, and nevertheless escape the damnation of hell.[16]
Before I left secular employment to go to
seminary, I worked in the same office with a man who was affable, funny, and
drank like it was the solution to every problem imaginable. He swore and caroused like the caricature of
a sailor on leave. We had a conversation
once over lunch. I felt urged to
question him about his relationship to God.
During the conversation the subject of church came up. When I shared where I attended, he said “No
s***, I’m a member there! H***, they put
me up for deacon a few years ago, but I told ‘em I was too busy.” I’d been at church every Sunday the previous
three years, and never seen him darken the doorstep.
Grace is NOT irresistible as John Calvin
wrote…we can sin it away…and the Father is not ready to force it down our
throats. If you recall, Jesus gave the
parable of the prodigal, whom the Father, granting free will to the son,
allowed him to go away. The father did
not force him to stay at home against his will.
Nor did the father chase after the son!
That parable was about the heavenly father and those of us who would
turn our backs on every good and holy thing he’s done for us, starting with
life itself, and the gift of eternal life on the cross!
Now…enough of the debate over whether you can
lose your salvation or not. If you’ve stayed with me this long, you’re probably
as tired of the debates over doctrine (opinions) as I am. Let’s talk about…
A Better Way
There's
an old sermon illustration about a rich nobleman who lived on a high mountain
in Eastern Europe. He wanted to hire a new driver to take his children by
horse-drawn carriage down the winding mountain road each day to school.
He interviewed three drivers with the same question - "How close to the
edge of that road can you come and still keep my children safe?"
The first driver's answer: "Sire,
I am skilled - I can come within a foot of the cliff, and your children will be
absolutely safe."
The second driver: "Sire, I am
highly skilled - I can dance within two inches of the cliff, and your children
will come home safe and sound every day."
The third driver: "Sire, your
children are too precious to take chances with their lives; I would stay as far
from that cliff as is humanly possible."
Which driver did he hire?
The analogy ends with this - It's not a point
to be embraced about the fail-line, whether or not you can be saved or lost,
becoming enemies with God again; the better way is refusing to be near the line
at all.
It is for this reason I do not insist upon
Wesley’s or Calvin’s, or any other doctrine concerning whether or not you can
lose salvation after being saved; nor do I demand it of any other believers,
because it is not a doctrine “essential” to salvation, and that is where I draw
the line.
And that line is defined by the 17th
century German theologian Rupertus Meldenius:
In
essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity
I do, however have
my “opinion” (as do all of you) about which is true, and that sides more with
Wesley than either Calvin or Arminius.
(If
doctrine is too strong a word, be satisfied that I only used “opinion”.)
The real “meat” of the whole debate between
the two doctrinal stands (and the thousands of other debates unessential to
salvation) is not how close to the line we can come without losing something,
rather our “business” is:
·
Our business is going on to
perfection, striving in holiness and good works.
·
Our business is yielding every day to
the Holy Spirit of God, putting ourselves, our days, our tasks at His disposal,
under His control.
·
Our business is to grow up into the
love which the Father has created us for.
·
Our business is in building up the
body of Christ.[17]
We may have the doctrine right or wrong – God
will eventually sort it all out and point us in the right direction. But there is a better way to stay away from
that dangerous line, and here it is, gift-wrapped by the Spirit of God, handed
down to us by the pen of St. Paul.
If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but
do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have
prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have
all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may
boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not
envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own
way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing,
but rejoices in the truth. It bears all
things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never
ends. But as for prophecies, they will
come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come
to an end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but
when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I
thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an
end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will
see face to face. Now I know only in
part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest
of these is love. 1
Corinthians 13:1 - 13 (NRSV)
And may it be with us that the greatest is
indeed love…not doctrine! I would
normally end there, and have us sing the final hymn, but there is one last
issue before we say “amen” to this earth-shaking topic…
From Baptist TO Methodist and (now) Back –
WHY did you come
back, Russell?
If ever there is a confusing point about why
someone leaves, it becomes exponentially so if they return. So, please answer, if you will, Russell, why
you did rejoin the Baptist Brigade?
There are two reasons, both strong, Biblical
motivations:
1. I
Desire to worship with family and strengthen the family I neglected while
serving
Most of my family were raised in Baptist
churches (including the ones I pastored) and are still closely
involved/serving-in that group.
Elizabeth and I wanted to be with them.
I also felt more than a bit of clergy-guilt
over not being as available to my family over the 45 years of seminary and full-time
ministry. I had some Dad (&
Granddad) stuff which needed my attention up close and personal!
2. I
Needed to Respond Appropriately to the United Methodist Church’s division over
homosexuality & gender confusion
Doctrines (uh…shall I say it one more time…opinions)
are both dangerous and plentiful. When
the Scripture says something about anything with definite articles
preceding, and little doubt remaining, it is up to the church to
stand at attention, not grow sleepy like the Lazy Laodiceans of
Revelation.
Enough said.
Love
you all!
[1]
Exodus 20:1-17
[2][2]
See Genesis
3:8-12 for the full conversation between Adam and God
[3]
I know this story has nothing to do with Baptism, but I just couldn’t help
it…all preachers have been there.
[4]
In full disclosure, I cannot say I disagree with the mourner’s bench; too often
baptism is deemed simply as another “hoop” in the membership process. I cannot say how heartbroken I am to (at
times) see such a holy moment treated as just one more event in the circus
parade.
[5]
For further study on the word usage see here:
Immersion
or Sprinkling
[6]
I recognize that every analogy breaks-down at some point, and a simple process
theory is not exempt from this flaw.
Here it merely makes distinction between Methodist and Baptist
understanding.
[7]
Russell’s loose translation of Matthew
3:13-14
[8]
From the closing paragraph of Wesley’s Sermon, Serious
Thoughts on the Perseverance of the Saints
[9]
There are too many to list here; read the entire sermon (if you have an hour)
HERE:
[10]
1 Timothy 1:18-20, John 10:27-29, Romans 11:17-22
[11]
The Baptist view of Hebrews 10:26-29 which “answer” to Wesley’s
viewpoint/doctrine will be presented in the next segment of this paper.
[12]
My opinion of Calvin’s theology is condensed for the sake of brevity in a short
paper. Calvin’s theology
(“Calvin’s Institutes”), are about 1500 written pages
long (600,000 words), and speaks for itself.
[13]
As noted above: If a believer make
shipwreck of the faith, he is no longer a child of God; and then he may go to
hell, yea, and certainly will, if he continues in unbelief.
[14] Jones, Scott J., United Methodist Doctrine; The Extreme Center, (Nashville, Abingdon
Press, 2002), 209.
[15]
Prevenient grace is the unearned, universal divine power and presence of God
that "goes before" human choice, actively drawing people toward
salvation (for further understanding of what Methodist doctrine teaches on
prevenient grace see: A
Wesleyan Understanding of Grace
[16]
John Wesley, A Call to Backsliders,
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/86/
No comments:
Post a Comment