I know that’s a bold statement, but I didn’t say it. The apostle Paul did. That is a direct quote from 1 Corinthians 9:14, and it is preceded by saying that this is the Lord’s command (not Paul’s). Here’s the whole passage, in context:

This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it (1 Corinthians 9:3-18, NIV, emphasis mine).

Matthew Henry wrote this in his commentary on v. 6:

[Paul] had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and to claim what was needful for his wife, and his children if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to get it. Those who seek to do our souls good, should have food provided for them. But he renounced his right, rather than hinder his success by claiming it. It is the people’s duty to maintain their minister. He may wave his right, as Paul did; but those transgress a precept of Christ, who deny or withhold due support.

In other words, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel have the right to earn their living from it. This is the modern day pastor (which corresponds more to the biblical role of elder). Paul chose to serve in bi-vocational ministry, that is, he chose to earn his living from a separate job, that of tentmaking. But that was Paul’s choice. Paul makes it clear that biblically, ministers have a RIGHT to earn their living from preaching the gospel.

However, Paul also says that voluntary preachers receive a reward for their duties, while those who exercise their right to a salary “simply discharge the trust committed to [them].” In other words, their vocation is no better than the local plumber, teacher, tax collector, or nurse. Each of these is commanded to be a full-time minister of the gospel (all believers), but some may earn their living from it as a right, which has clearly been commanded by the Lord.

Paul recognized that as a missionary in his context, bi-vocational ministry was a more effective approach. He willingly sets aside his right to financial support so that people will not think his message is just a fancy speech designed to get money. Some Greek orators made their living by traveling and entertaining audiences with speeches. Others formed schools and charged students for lectures. Paul does not want anyone to think his message is motivated by selfish concerns. But Paul’s willingness to support himself does not change the Lord’s command. Ministers of the gospel have a right to financial support, and believers have an obligation to provide that support.

The command is not aimed solely at vocational ministers so that they should run around demanding their support (although it would be biblically warranted if their “flock” didn’t support them), the command appears to target all believers so that they recognize that it is their responsibility to support the work of the gospel.

1 Timothy 5:17-20 says:

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

Elders here are appointed leaders, not merely those recognized because of their age and experience. Those folks are actually addressed in v. 1: “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father.” In Acts 14:23, “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” “Double honor” in the 1 Timothy 5 passage does not refer to salary, but this passage does reiterate the point that “the worker deserves his wages.” It also establishes that those elders whose work is preaching and teaching are serving in an honorable vocation. It is a respectable career choice.

This becomes even more pertinent as more and more heresies abound and the resurrection of false teachings from the past continues. It is extremely beneficial to the church to have individuals who receive in-depth training in the bible, church history, theology, and practical ministry (counseling, helping people cope with traumatic events, addiction therapy, etc.). There is nothing wrong with this, indeed it is very helpful to the Church. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to go to seminary to learn about church history, biblical languages, etc. Many more don’t have the opportunity to go, and even more do not have the intellectual capacity to retain this knowledge. This doesn’t invalidate the education and training, however. A lot of people aren’t smart enough to go to medical school, but we’re all glad that we have doctors. The same is true of pastors. They are not better than other believers because of their training, but they are to be respected and should be able to earn a living from their work.

Not everyone is meant to serve in this role. Ephesians 4:11-13 says:

It was [God] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Clearly not all are called to fulfill these roles in the Church. The purpose of these roles is to prepare God’s people for good works of service, building up the body of Christ “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Since this hasn’t happened yet, we still need people to fulfill these roles. Not just anyone should jump into these roles, either. James 3:1 says:

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

God apparently even has a higher standard of judgment for those who teach His people. This should not be taken lightly. To ensure that not just anyone became an elder, Paul set up standards for them. Hear his words in Titus 1:5-9:

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

There you have it, the requirements of an elder and parts of his job description, and a reiteration of the fact that it is an appointed position. Paul also mentions here (and in several other places) that elders should not pursue dishonest gain. This precludes those folks who would serve in these roles solely to make money, or to make it dishonestly (such as through prosperity teachings). That would be wrong. But it doesn’t preclude them from making an honest living from preaching and teaching the gospel.

There are a lot more scripture passages that we could explore, but this post is long enough as it is. It is a topic that deserves attention, though. And it is one I should have posted at least a few weeks ago before I started shifting some of my terminology on this blog. I apologize for not sharing these thoughts sooner with you, my readers. I know I have written blog posts with the opposite stance in the past, but the clear teachings of the word of God prevail, as explained above. Undoubtedly there will be more discussion on this issue, feel free to comment and read the comments to gain more insight.

I saw these quotes at Justin Taylor’s blog. They are from John Stott’s book, Christ the Controversialist (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1970):

On what Christians should do when they disagree with each other:

The proper activity of professing Christians who disagree with one another is neither to ignore, nor to conceal, nor even to minimize their differences, but to debate them. (p. 22)

On why we should speak the truth in love, not being truthless in love or loveless in truth:

We seem in our generation to have moved a long way from this vehement zeal for the truth which Christ and his apostles displayed. But if we loved the glory of God more, and if we cared more for the eternal good of the souls of men, we would not refuse to engage in necessary controversy, when the truth of the gospel is at stake. The apostolic command is clear. We are “to maintain the truth in love,” being neither truthless in our love, nor loveless in our truth, but holding the two in balance. (p. 19)

Read more at Justin Taylor’s blog.

In John 14:6, Jesus says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” But how often we leave Christ out of the picture. Or we introduce a false Christ who simply wants to better society and love people. We forget that He had to die for us, and that we must also die in order to become a part of His family. All sinners must die, for the wages of sin is death. They can either die eternally, or they can die baptismally. I saw this picture at Veith’s blog and thought it exemplified Jesus’ words in John 14:6 pretty well:

Is this picture accurate? Could it be improved? What thoughts does it elicit?

Growing up, there were times my parents and I didn’t get along. I’m sure you can relate. In fact, for a large portion of my adolescence, I was pretty convinced that my parents were idiots. I certainly didn’t respect them very much, and at times I thought I didn’t need them. Later in life, I have now come to appreciate and cherish them both, and I recognize their significant contribution to my life. They have shaped and molded me into the man that I am today, even when I resented and even failed to recognize it.

Despite my feelings and lack of recognition towards them, they have always been my parents since birth. They never ceased to be my parents. Our relationship with our heavenly Father is very similar in this regard. In our spiritual (re)birth we become His children, and He becomes our Father. I failed to acknowledge Him as such throughout much of my life, and I certainly didn’t (and often don’t) appreciate Him enough. But all the while, He was still my Father.

The other day someone mentioned to me that she had a hard time believing that human choice and sincerity plays no role in our salvation. She said that despite being baptized at a young age and being raised in the church, she didn’t feel that she was saved until she began taking her faith seriously as a young adult. Today I was thinking about the analogy above, and how God has been my heavenly Father even when I failed to recognize Him as such. I think we run into trouble when we make our sincerity or choice a part of salvation. God saves us, we respond to that, but only after He has saved us.

“To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” -John 1:12-13 (NIV)

What role did I play in being born into this world? None. But now that I am born, I have the choice of how I will live. Our spiritual rebirth is no different. I played no role in being “born again” (justification), but now I must choose to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in order to become more like Jesus each day (sanctification). We run into trouble when we use our feelings as a gauge of our salvation. They can be an indication of reality, but they also can mislead us. As children of God, we will continually grow in grace and in appreciation of what God has done for us in and through Jesus Christ. We will continue to understand more and more of the depth of His love and compassion for us. But as we grow in knowledge and grace, we don’t become “more saved” than when we were first baptized into His death and raised to life through faith with Him (Romans 6:4). We are saved by one thing: Jesus Christ took our place on the cross and died for our sins.

My dad has been my dad since I was born. And my heavenly Dad has been my Dad since I was reborn. The same is true for you.

Last night I received a comment from Ty on a past post dealing with salvation. His comment read:

I personally believe what you saying makes sense theologically, and the Reformed position makes sense to me, however what I do not understand, is how someone can hold the Lutheran position while still holding to infant baptism? You said “by the Word of God in and with the water conjoined with our faith in that Word.” I’m not sure of your position on infant baptism, but I am not sure how Luther or any Reformed theologian could hold to this view while also confirming baptism of infants, unless they believe that the infants can process saving faith? Interesting question to think through. Thanks for the post.

I posted the following as a response (which is also part of a conversation between myself and a family member on Facebook recently) and wanted to share it for everyone to read:

Yes Ty, I do believe that infants can have saving faith. First, we’d have to agree on original sin. The Bible teaches that no one is righteous (Rom. 3:10). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). The human heart is “deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9). The natural man is dead in trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1). By nature, we pass “our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another” (Titus 3:3). We are inclined toward evil (Gen 6:5), conceived in sin, and “brought forth in iniquity” (Psalm 51:5). All of us “like sheep have gone astray” (Isa. 53:6). Even “our righteous acts are like filthy rags” before the Lord (Isa. 64:6). We are by nature not just morally tainted, but “children of wrath,” deserving of God’s punishment, even before we actually sin in our flesh (Eph. 2:3). Even on the best of days, we are divided, doing what we don’t want to do and failing to do what we know is right (Rom. 7:18-19). Because of the Fall, we are hardwired toward evil. We sinned in Adam and died through his trespass, inheriting his guilt and a corrupt nature (see Rom. 5:12-21). In other words, we all deserve hell from the moment of our conception.

But God has provided a means for salvation: Christ’s death on the cross. And “all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death[.] We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” Baptism is a way that infants can come to saving faith in Jesus.

So back to the question, “Can an infant have saving faith?” Think of John the Baptist, who leaped for joy while in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:44). Remember also that Jesus said that “if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea” (Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42). Notice that He said little ones “who believe in me,” indicating that these little ones possessed genuine faith in Christ. The Greek for little ones in both of these passages is μικρων (mikron), which implies children under the age of three. Psalm 22:9-10 says, “Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” 2 Timothy 3:15 points out how “how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures. . . .” The word used for infancy in this passage is βρέφος (brephos), which means an unborn child, embryo, baby, or infant! God can clearly create faith in anyone’s hearts — even infants, mentally handicapped, and Alzheimer’s patients — because salvation does not depend on our own reasoning abilities. This might even offend our reason and sensibilities, but the Scriptures are clear that infants and children can and do have faith. A child is upheld in the Bible as the ultimate model for how to receive Christ as Lord, for Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3).

The Bible is careful to show how faith is a gift of God. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). The gift of God is precisely the faith through which salvation comes. “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Philippians 1:29). “You were raised with Him through faith in the working of God” (Colossians 2:12).

Faith is a gift, created by God’s Word. Once again, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Of course, God does not do the believing for us. It is we, infants and adults, who believe, just as it is we who live, and yet just as God gives and sustains our life, so God gives and sustains our faith.

If you’ve ever got some free time, read my post entitled American Jesus: A Manifesto. It’s available at http://prayeramedic.com/2008/12/american-jesus-a-manifesto/. That will answer a lot of your questions about what I believe on these issues. I’m glad you enjoyed the post and thanks for stopping by!

So that was my response, let the madness ensue….

I’ve promised to post more of my questions causing me cognitive dissonance here for you to answer. Here goes. In the past I’ve written about what I believe to be the false dichotomy of clergy vs. laity. I feel that the clergy/laity dichotomy perpetuates an awful falsehood-namely, that some Christians are more privileged than others to serve the Lord. The contemporary practice of ordination creates a special caste of Christian. Whether it be the priest in Catholicism or the pastor in Protestantism, the result is the same: the most important ministry is restricted to a few “special” believers. When we make the pastor a professional clergyman who is distinct from laity we begin to view ministry as something that is only his responsibility. One person is not meant to sport all of these hats. Only an every-member functioning Body can accomplish the ministry that is required to be done. It shouldn’t be “lonely at the top,” because we aren’t meant to live in a separate caste from one another. The teacher is just as vital to the Body as the cashier and the pastor. How does Protestantism reject the Catholic priesthood while maintaining its own pastoral office, all the while affirming the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9, Rev. 1:6, 5:10)?

I’m having my own sort of cognitive dissonance right now with this blog. I’m re-evaluating some of my beliefs and viewpoints and am reading a lot from conflicting perspectives to help sort out my thinking. I apologize for the scarcity of posts during this time, I assure you I’ll make a strong comeback once I get my head together. For now I’m focusing on His Word and prayer and other resources to help me understand some positions and how they have come about historically. I’m also asking a lot of questions, and I’ll post one here for anyone who cares to try to answer it:

Revelation 20:1-3 (NIV) says: “And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.” I happen to be amillennial in my eschatological views, but this passage makes it clear that I must then believe that Satan is bound during the millennium and is thus being kept from deceiving the nations. This seems to be cognitively dissonant from what amillenials teach regarding Satan’s activity in the world today, even though this passage makes it clear that Satan is bound in the Abyss during the millennium. How do you reconcile these unscriptural teachings about Satan in light of Revelation 20 from an amillenialist perspective? (I’m not really interested in the premillenialist response, “because you’re end times view is wrong.” I’m just curious to see how someone might explain this from the amillenial perspective). I know it’s not a salvation issue, God will work out the end times in His own way, I’m just curious. . . .

A man asked a minister whether or not we are saved by works or by faith, to which the minister replied, “neither, we are saved by Christ.” Here’s a few words from Oswald Chambers speaking to this:

I am not saved by believing— I simply realize I am saved by believing. And it is not repentance that saves me— repentance is only the sign that I realize what God has done through Christ Jesus. The danger here is putting the emphasis on the effect, instead of on the cause. Is it my obedience, consecration, and dedication that make me right with God? It is never that! I am made right with God because, prior to all of that, Christ died. When I turn to God and by belief accept what God reveals, the miraculous atonement by the Cross of Christ instantly places me into a right relationship with God. And as a result of the supernatural miracle of God’s grace I stand justified, not because I am sorry for my sin, or because I have repented, but because of what Jesus has done. The Spirit of God brings justification with a shattering, radiant light, and I know that I am saved, even though I don’t know how it was accomplished.

So we are saved neither by works nor faith – we are saved by Jesus Christ.

H/T JOLLYBLOGGER

I’ve written before about the prosperity gospel and positive confession, teachings that make the gospel all about man and his health and wealth. Here’s a short video giving an interesting perspective on it:

I’m not saying that we should only seek negative things, by no means. But I am saying what the Bible is saying, that we should rejoice if we are counted worthy to suffer for His name, and we should praise God amidst all troubles, like Job.

H/T to Heather.

This is part 5 of a series on the paradox of salvation. In part 1, I presented two humorous video clips (one minute each) dealing with Calvinist and Arminian witnessing. In part 2, I broke down Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and how he used the Bible to proclaim Christ to those gathered in Jerusalem that day, using both Law and Gospel. In part 3 I further discussed Peter’s answer to the question, “what must we do to be saved?”, focusing on the importance of baptism and what the Bible says about it. Then in part 4 I discussed the link between the Holy Spirit and baptism by examining Acts chapters 8 and 19.

Here in part 5 we are going to discuss 1 Peter 3:18-22 and the link between baptism and salvation. Let me preface this by pointing out that this is one of the most debated texts in scripture, and exegetical scholars have written extensive essays explaining the text. This is going to be a very brief synopsis, but that inevitably means there will be a lot of holes that will need to be filled in. I encourage you to do the studying yourself, read the text and pray to God that His Holy Spirit will reveal its meaning to you.

First the text itself:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit…. In [Noah's ark] only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. (1 Peter 3:18, 20b-22)

Yes I know I skipped verse 19 and part of verse 20, and yes they are important verses, but not so much for interpreting the teaching on baptism in this text. I omitted them only because of length, I could write an entire post on verses 19-20 which would involve explaining the Nephilim in Genesis 6, what happened to them, and how demonic spirits can be sentenced to imprisonment / bound in chains prior to Christ’s final return. I’ll save that for another day. For now let’s stay on track: baptism and its link to salvation in this text.

Verse 18 begins with the word “for.” One of my teachers told me that any time I see the words “for” or “therefore,” I need to find out what they’re there for! In this case it is referring to the immediate context of vv. 13-17, which deals with suffering for doing good, specifically for professing Christ as Lord. It is thus saying that Christ’s suffering and death in v. 18 is the ultimate suffering for good, since he “died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous.” He had no need to suffer, since He was perfect, but He chose to suffer in order to redeem us, and that is our example for suffering even when innocent of wrongdoing. Verse 18 also makes it clear that “Christ died… to bring [us] to God.” We must keep this in mind as we read this entire text: what brings us to God? Christ’s defeat of sin, death and the devil on the cross.

Enter the controversy. Vv. 20b-21 in the ESV read: “Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah and his family’s salvation from the flood through the ark], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The water itself did not save Noah, but it sustained the ark built in faith, resting on God’s word: thus it was to him the sign and means of the regeneration of the earth. The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on the Bible puts it this way:

“The flood was for Noah a baptism, as the passage through the Red Sea was for the Israelites; by baptism in the flood he and his family were transferred from the old world to the new: from immediate destruction to lengthened probation; from the companionship of the wicked to communion with God; from the severing of all bonds between the creature and the Creator to the privileges of the covenant: so we by spiritual baptism…. The antitypical water, namely, baptism, saves you also not of itself, nor the mere material water, but the spiritual thing conjoined with it, repentance and faith, of which it is the sign and seal, as Peter proceeds to explain.”

Let me cut through some of the wordiness: “Baptism… now saves you… through the resurrection of Christ.” It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Conclusion

To conclude this entire series, we should not look to man-made doctrines to understand the paradox of salvation. It is just that, paradoxical, and human reason often goes beyond scripture in order to “make sense” of justification. Evangelism involves sharing Christ by teaching both His Law and Gospel. This means teaching that we are born spiritually dead and are thus subject to the power of the devil. Apart from Christ, we are morally and spiritually bankrupt. Because of sin, we are destined to death and eternal separation from God in a literal hell. We are completely helpless and hopeless, powerless to change without the divine grace extended in the offer of the Gospel, God’s good news of salvation through Jesus Christ.

This salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. The Bible clearly teaches that our salvation cannot come about by our own works; it is entirely the work of God. The Holy Spirit draws us to Christ through the Word of God and creates faith in our hearts.

All sinners must die, for the wages of sin is death. They can either die eternally, or they can die baptismally. Baptism should be immediately sought out by and administered to new believers for the forgiveness of sins and the seal of the Holy Spirit. Through baptism we are buried with Christ and integrated into His new covenant, being raised to life by faith, now being counted dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Thanks for reading this series, I hope you found it worth your time and thought.

Denominational Comparison on Baptism

So where do we go from here? I’ve given what the Bible says, yet many Christians still can’t agree on much of the teachings concerning salvation and baptism. That’s because we apply human logic to the Bible and come up with doctrines. Everyone does it, myself included. My only point here is that we should unify on the essentials we all agree in, like those above. But there will inevitably remain differences. I’ll go through the main spectrum of beliefs on how baptism functions, then close with a personal position. The following is from Understanding Four Views on Baptism, p. 125:

I personally vacillate somewhere between the Lutheran and Reformed views. Here is my own personal statement on baptism:

In baptism, God graciously and miraculously washes away our sins by applying the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection to us, gives us a new birth, clothes us in Christ’s righteousness, seals us with the Holy Spirit, buries us with Christ and through faith raises us up with Him as new creatures, making us holy before God and integrating us into the Body of Christ. None of this comes about due to anything magical in the water, but by the Word of God in and with the water conjoined with our faith in that Word. According to the Bible, all of this happens in baptism and it is entirely the work of God, not our own doing.

Thanks for reading!

For more good reading on baptism, check out the following posts:

• Baptism: Children Running Through God’s Sprinkler of Grace or Just a Symbolic Confession?
• Baptism in the New Testament: The Holy Spirit and Water Baptism in Acts
• Luther… on Baptism
• What We Believe