How Do We Reconcile the Incarnation of Christ with the Fact that God Does Not Change?

This was a question posed to me by my wife.  It was a question that she had seen on Facebook and so I slyly gave the answer, “the sovereignty of God,” which I believe is the ultimate one; but one that skips all the details.  Men write books and volumes of book on the incarnation and immutability, so I thought a Facebook question was looking for a simple answer.  Anyway, there may be some out there that want a more complete definition, or one includes all the details.  So, here we go....

Let’s start with the doctrine of the incarnation, or as it’s also called, the doctrine of eternal Sonship.  Christmas is a great time to reflect on the incarnation of Christ, being brought into this world as a baby in Bethlehem, but is this concept even biblical?  You see there are two views to this doctrine of the incarnation.  The first view, as we have already stated, is properly termed, “incarnational Sonship.”  Most who hold this view believe that Christ’s incarnation began with his birth; but others in this strain belief that Christ’s incarnation took place at his baptism, resurrection, or even his exultation, but we will stick with His birth at this seems to be the most common belief.  They see the Sonship of Christ as being a role, title, or function that Christ assumed as his incarnation.  Interestingly, John MacArthur was one of these advocates, but has since denounced this view in leiu of the second view.  This second view teaches that the Son has always been the Son, there is not a time when the Son was not the Son.  Christ is and has always been the Son of God.  This is not a role, title, or function, but an essential part of who He is.  There are several passages that teach the eternal Sonship, I will cite a few:

Colossians 1:14-16 and Hebrews 1:2 teach that Christ was at creation and, in fact, created al things.  So, Christ could not have been brought into the world at His incarnation because He already existed.  Galatians 4:4 and John 3:16 say that God sent his Son into the world and God gave His son to the world.  These verses, being in past tense, show that Christ existed already and was already God’s Son before he was sent into the world (time).  And then there is Hebrews 13:8, the strongest evidence to me, it says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  Because Jesus is unchanging, then He has always been the Son of God. 

Now, let’s add one more piece.  Enter the doctrine of immutability.  This doctrine teaches that God does not change.  There are a few thoughts on immutability that need to be stated.  First, if something is to change it must do so within the constraints of time, if something changes outside of time we cannot call it “a change” because it never happened.  They way we know something changes is because of the time that elapses for it to change.  Second, for change to take place, either something that is needed is added, which is a change for the better; or something that is needed is lost, which is a change for the worse.  Much like adding something to a recipe can either make it better or worse; or leaving something out a recipe can also make it better or worse.  But since God is perfect, he doesn’t need anything and therefore does not change.  Third, when a person changes their mind it is because new information has come to light or circumstances are now different.  God knows everything so when the Bible speaks of God changing his mind (Exo. 32:14 and 1 Sam. 15:11-f) it is described as a change of dealings towards man.  The circumstance or the situation has changed, God has not.

    

Now to connect these two doctrines of the incarnation and immutability.  If you believe that Christ preexisted, but was not always the Son of God, then you have a problem.  Because you believe that Christ became the Son of God at some point in history (i.e. His birth), then doctrine of immutability contradicts your viewpoint.  However, if you, like myself, believe that Jesus was and always has been the Son of God then the doctrine of immutability complements your viewpoint. 

So, to sum up...

....Since the Son has always been then logically he does not change.   

Is Baptism Required For Salvation? Part III

We have already discussed Acts 2:38 and its implication for those who believe a person must be baptized in order to be saved.  Now, here are a few more verses that are used to assert a person needs to be baptized in order to be saved. 

Acts 22:16

“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’”

Claim:  The basic claim for those who espouse baptismal regeneration is that baptism will wash away sins, as it did here in the case of Paul. 

Response:  The first thing we ought to take note of in the passage is the time element.  This is becoming a reoccurring theme for many of these verses that we have discussed so far.  In this passage, Paul is giving his testimony of his salvation experience on the road to Damascus.  Paul had already become a believer in Christ after his encounter with Christ, and then afterwards as he was led to Damascus, Ananias restored his sight and told him that he needed to be baptized.  Therefore, baptism and salvation in Paul’s case was not linked together.  Furthermore, baptism was Paul’s public identification with the “name of the Lord” which everyone knew he opposed.  A few years prior to this event in Acts 22:16, Paul declares that baptism God did not send Paul to baptize but to preach the Gospel (1 Cor. 1:17).  If baptism was an essential element in salvation, then why did Paul not include it in his words?

As in Acts 2:38, so also in this verse there are some grammatical issues that can help us better understand this passage.  The verse contains four segments or parts: (1) arise (participle); (2) be baptized (imperative); (3) wash away your sins (imperative), and (4) calling on the name of the Lord (participle).  Each of the two commands are connected with their respective participle modifier.  So, the verse would read something like this: “arising, be baptized; wash away your sins, calling on the name the of the Lord.”  Participles are noun modifiers which will make us ask the questions: “How are we to be baptized?” by arising.  “How are we to wash away our sins?” by calling on the name of the Lord.  Looking at the grammar should clear up and confusion that this verse teaches baptismal regeneration.    

Titus 3:5

“he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Claim:  Baptismal regeneration advocates believe this passage to say that Jesus saves us through the washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit. 

Response:  We will make four simple points in response to the above claim.  First, Paul declares that we are not saved, “because of the works done by us in righteousness.”  Clearly, any works (including baptism), do not save us.  Second, Paul says that we are saved by, “regeneration.”  He is talking here about spiritual birth at salvation that places us in Christ.  There is no mention at all of a water baptism.  Third, Paul says that we are justified by his grace, not by any work or actions of our own.  Fourth, in the next verse (3:8), Paul refers to those who “have believed in God” as the recipients of this salvation. 

1 Peter 3:18-21

“For Christ also suffered  once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, ¹⁹ in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, ²⁰ because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. ²¹ Baptism, which corresponds to this, 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.”

Claim:  Proponents of baptismal regeneration say that this passage teaches that baptism saves by virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection.  The Roman Catholic Church takes the doctrine a step further in this verse saying that the act of baptism itself brings saving grace to the recipient.

Response:  The text says “baptism, which corresponds to this…”  At the very outset we see that Peter is making a comparison (to prove his point) with Noah and the flood and baptism.  Baptism, in this context, is just a figure, a shadow, symbol, or picture of salvation.  The person that is being baptized is not more saved by water baptism than Noah was through the flood.  Hebrews 11:7, speaking about Noah says, “By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”  Noah acted on his faith in obedience to God, but his salvation came through his faith, not as a result of his obedience in building the ark.  That last phrase of the verse is so important for understanding this passages context, “became an heir of righteousness [salvation] that comes by faith.”

Back to 1 Peter, we find some other helpful evidence.  The salvation spoken of here is not from the penalty of sin (that is, justification).  The “salvation” (or saving) that Peter talks about is from a soiled conscience (that is, justification).  Let’s take a minute to explain.  Justification means that when God looks at a believer in Christ, he does not see any sin because He is looking at him/her through the blood of Christ.  No longer does He see our sin because Christ has washed those sins away on the cross.  In the theological world we call this positional sanctification meaning that we now have a position (in Christ) or place in Christ’s kingdom.  The other side of the coin is what we call progressive sanctification.  This is more of the process of following Christ, whereas the positional aspect of sanctification is a one-time event.  So, in progressive sanctification, we are trying each day to do what is right and follow Christ will all our hearts, minds, and soul.  But, we are human, and we mess up, fall down, and get distracted from the goal, therefore this progressive side of sanctification will not be fully mastered this side of heaven.  Romans tells us that God is in the business of conforming his children into the image of his son, this is progressive sanctification.  Also in Romans 7, we get a picture of Paul as he also struggles with this progressive sanctification.  He says, my mind tells me to do one thing, but then my body does something else.  He is talking about his struggle with doing what is right and following Christ each day (all Christians in all ages have this struggle, even Paul!).   

So, both positional and progressive sanctification are part of salvation, just different in their function.  Now what Peter says in this verse is that being obedient to God and being baptism will save us from the knowledge of wrong in our conscience.  Baptism is a part of our progressive sanctification, not our positional sanctification.  Peter is not talking about saving a person from eternal punishment in hell; he is talking about saving a person’s conscience from being seared because they have not followed the Lord in believer’s baptism.        

*******

From the Scriptural evidence we have looked at, reasoned through, and discussed, our conclusions should not surprise us.  Those who teach and practice baptismal regeneration are teaching and practicing something that does not find its roots in the Scriptures.  Many passages in Scripture, written by a variety of men, all are congruous as to what necessitates salvation – faith, and faith alone.  Although at times some writers liked to use other terms to express salvation (belief, repentance, save), they did not include baptism as part of their theology of salvation.  Unfortunately, those who advocate baptismal regeneration are not the only people group that tries to distort the Scripture; cults are notorious for distorting the Scriptures as well as some mainline denominations.  With more than 30,000 different kinds of denominations there is bound to be some confusion, but the confusion is ended for baptismal regeneration as the ultimate authority has weighed in on the matter – God’s Word.

Is Baptism Required For Salvation? Part II

In the previous blog entry we addressed the question, “is baptism necessary for salvation?”  We dissected Acts 2:38 and its implication.  Now, I want to give you one more angle on looking at Acts 2:38 and briefly (I stress briefly!) look at a handful of other verse used to substantiate baptismal regeneration. 

Continuing the discussion on Acts 2:38...

Fourth, if the three evidences posted in the previous blog entry are not enough evidence for the dismantling of the teaching of baptismal regeneration then continuing reading because there is more.  From a chronological standpoint, the events in Acts 2 happened 50 days after the resurrection, meaning that these events took place long before Paul ever wrote any of his Epistles.  Some of those who try to prove baptismal regeneration skip ahead to the epistles to prove their assertions, but this is an interpretive fallacy.  More significantly, think about what was on the minds of the people when Peter told them to get baptized.  Jesus did not baptize anyone during this time; he was baptized by John.  John was the only person who was doing the baptizing.  Then we must ask the question what was John’s baptism about and is it different than what Peter is talking about? 

According to Matthew 3:1-8, John told the people that they needed to repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.  Peter told the people that they also needed to repent.  Further, we find that in Acts 2:22 that Peter is addressing “men of Israel.”  It is possible that this may be a special command to the Jews (“men of Israel”) whose baptism (purification in this sense) was necessary for the national restoration of Israel?  Remember John the Baptist’s words: “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  Maybe the reason Peter wanted these men to repent was so that the kingdom of God (still future) would be ushered in?  Looking back at Acts 1:6 (50 days earlier) we see that the Apostles want to know when Christ will restore his kingdom, so this was heavy on their minds.  It seems that this fits right into the logic of Peter.  The Apostles did know the time frame of when Christ would return, they were just given a promise that He would return.  Peter, and Paul too, believed they were living in the last days.  In 2011, we still might not be living in the last days, there is no way to be sure that is why Christ tells us to always be ready for His coming – live today like His return in coming tomorrow. 

Even if we might say that Acts 2:38 does not apply to everyone, the baptism took place after the converts were saved.  Look down a few verses to 41, “those who received his word were baptized, and there was added that day about 3,000 souls.”  So, just reading down a few verses clears up the meaning of verse 38.  The text does not say that those who were not baptized were not saved.  It is acceptance of God’s Word that brings salvation (Rom.10:17).  By the way, this verse is also where the concept of church membership comes from.  The text says that 3,000 were added to the church.  Salvation, then baptism, and you become a member of a local church.  This is a biblically based principle that the early church used.                 

Is Baptism Required for Salvation?

Acts 2:38

The next section in our journey of the book of Acts brings us to Acts chapter 3, that is post-Pentecost.  But before we find our place in the crowded streets of Jerusalem listening to the Apostles preach the Gospel and hearing the religious leaders gnashing their teeth is disdain, we must stop and discuss a crucial verse in the book of Acts.  And one blog entry might not cover all that is needed to come to a better understand of this verse.  Acts 2:38 is the verse I am talking about, and this will be the first of a few blog entries discussing the interpretation and as well as application of this verse.  

Acts 2:38, along with a handful of other Scriptures, have been used to teach a person needs to be baptized before he can be saved.  This view is termed as “baptismal regeneration.”    The groups that espouse this view are as follows: Church of Christ, Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, Roman Catholics, Russian and Greek Orthodox, Mormons (LDS), Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), Apostolics (Jesus Only or United Pentecostals), Oneness Pentecostals, Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, Lutherans, and others which I am sure I missed.  Of these different groups some have more extreme views that require a person to be baptized in one of their churches, by one of their ministers.  So, in summary, a person who espouses baptismal regeneration says that believing in Christ and being baptized are what causes a person to become a believer (Christian).  To them (those who hold this view) belief in Christ is not enough, baptism must be performed in order for a person to be truly saved.

At first glance of Acts 2:38, the plain language of the verse might be disturbing.  It seems to say that a person is to repent and be baptized so that they can receive forgiveness of their sins (salvation).  But lets not count all our chickens before they hatch, indeed we must look at this first with our microscopes, but we must also look at the bigger picture. 

First, think about all the many verses in Scripture that do not require baptism for salvation.  A case could be made for almost 100 verses that do not cite baptism as required for salvation; in fact these verses and passages in this section that we are discussing are the most often used verses for attempting to substantiate baptismal regeneration.  So, only a handful of verses and passages are used in attempt to prove an important doctrine compared to the hundreds of verses that teach otherwise.  It must be remembered that we are not to base an entire doctrine on such a small numbers of verses; this would be unwise.  When formulating a doctrine there must be many verses that substantiate it.  Many men and scholars can often give opinions on certain biblical teachings based on a few verses, but they are just opinions, they are not doctrine, especially doctrine that can affect the destiny of human life!  We must consult the whole counsel of God as we develop our doctrine, and doctrines that are based upon a few verses will not hold up under the scrutiny of the rest of the Word of God.  

Second, there is the issue of linguistics and semantics.  The preposition "for" in the phrase for the forgiveness of your sins does signify a causal or basis meaning.  However, the problem here is that the preposition "for" is used with the accusative case.  Rarely does this happen in the New Testament Greek, and when it does, the idea conveyed is direction.  The preposition can also mean "because of," or "in accordance with."[1]  This would match up with what the rest of the Scriptures teaches and also make the verse a little less "controversial."  So, using a different meaning for the preposition, the verse would sound something like this: "repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins have been forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Third, along with the second point, there are some grammatical issues in these verses that help explain it better.  This is called the parenthetical view or the re-punctuation view.  Basically, this view enables a person to see the importance of grammar by keeping the 2^nd person phrases and the 3^rd person phrases together.  Whether in English or Greek, it’s a rule of grammar that the verbs agree with their subjects in person and number.  Look at the diagram below to visually see the connections between the phrases in the verse:

            Repent -------------and you will receive ----- the gift of the Holy Spirit

            (2^nd person)             (2^nd person)                       (2^nd person)                          

            Every one of you ----- be baptized ----- because of the forgiveness of sins

            (3^rd person)             (3^rd person)                        (3^rd person)

This allows a better understand of what the verse is really saying and/or teaching in the original Greek language.  Not only that, but it also proves that Spirit baptism (receiving the gift of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit) comes before water baptism.  All in all, this verse, properly interpreted, gives us a clear and simple timeline for a person’s salvation experience.  Belief (repentance) comes first, and then we receive the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit after which we should follow the Lord’s command and be baptized to symbolize what Christ has done within us.

I have one more evidence that I will present; it’s the one I believe is most significant.  It is evidence that deals with the context of the verse.  Who is Peter talking to in this Pentecost sermon?  And why does he give the command to repent when they ask him what they must do?  Who is his audience?  What has happened prior to Pentecost in the Upper Room?  These questions and others will lead to understand the real truth behind this often misinterpreted verse –but that will be for the next blog post. 

________________________________

One more thing:  One of my favorite songs about baptism is sung by Third Day entitled, "Born Again."  It might not be titled as such, but the words of the song speak to me about what happens when a person is baptized - how a person literally comes to life from being dead in sin when he is baptized and the very presence of the Holy Spirit takes up residence within his heart!  Click on the link to take you to Youtube to watch the video Third Day "Born Again"

---

[1] The American Standard Version (1901) translates the phrase in question as, “unto the remission of your sins.”

The Subtly of Cults...and the Watcher Tower Magazine

Today, as my wife was taking my daughter to art class, some Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the door to talk to me and my son who were staying home.  I do remember the same fella that came because I had taken his literature and said thank you – that was all, although I had to constrain myself not to tell him about the evils of following a cult like the Jehovah’s Witness.  This time I did the same thing – took the literature said thank you and they left.  I opened the Watchtower, their monthly publication, and began to flip through the articles.  The one at the very end caught my attention and my frustration.  It was titled, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?”  The Jehovah’s Witnesses say that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 607 BC, rather than the traditional (and correct) date of 586 BC.  The article continued to say that this was the first of two articles that discusses the date surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem with thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers.  As I read that tag line I thought to myself, “oh really now....hmm lets see what you have to say.”  So, since I wrote a full-length doctoral dissertation on the book of Daniel and have spent at least 4 years studying these issues that they discuss in the article, I thought I’d sink my teeth into their writings. 

Destruction of Jerusalem by David Roberts (1850)

I will be brief as possible; I don’t want to get bogged down into too many technical details.  Here is the belief of the Jehovah’s Witness: the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 607 BC.  My belief, along with at least 20 other published scholars and writers, countless Bible teachers abroad, and classical historians, is that the destruction of Jerusalem took place in 586 BC.  What I can seem to gather about their belief is that since the period of the 70 years of captivity of Israel ended in 537 BC, then 70 years earlier would be 607 BC.  Therefore, the destruction of Jerusalem, they say, took place in 607 BC.  They quote from Jeremiah 29:1,2,11 which says that “the whole land of Israel will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”  They further support their claim saying that Daniel 9:1-2 says essentially the same thing: at the end of the 70 years of captivity Israel would be restored and that would mean 70 years earlier Jerusalem was destroyed.  Now, here is line that made me frustrated, “But if the evidence from the inspired Scriptures clearly point to 607 BC for Jerusalem’s destruction, why do many authorities hold to the date 587 BC.”  WOW!  They are making this important claim based on two lines of evidence, maybe three....all of which ARE NOT “thoroughly research and not Biblically based.”  

Before I show you the error of their ways, let me first explain some chronology about the destruction of Jerusalem and Babylon’s role in bringing this.  Bible and historical records show three distinct times when Nebuchadnezzar came to the land of Israel to deport captives and lay seize to the city.  The first deportation took place in 605 BC (Daniel 1:1-2).  This was when Daniel and other royal captives were taken to Babylon as prophesied by Isaiah, along with some of the temple treasures.  Interestingly, nothing is mentioned in the Watchtower article about Daniel chapter 1.  The second deportation took place around 597 BC (2 Kings 24:14-16), when Jehoiachin, Israel’s king and Ezekiel the prophet, along with many others were taken into exile, and the rest of the temple treasures too.  Then, Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah the king of Israel.  The third deportation took place in 586 BC (2 Kings 25:8-10), which was in the 19^th year of Nebuchadnezzar.  The reason for Nebuchadnezzar coming this time was the rebellion of Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:20-25:1).  This was the time when Jerusalem and the temple was completely destroyed

Now lets talk about all the evidence, not the selective evidence that the magazine gives.  The magazine is right in saying that the captivity will be 70 literal years, but the destruction of Jerusalem did not commence this period of time, there is just no Scripture evidence for this.  Jeremiah does say though that the land and its inhabitance will be laid waste for 70 years, something he prophesied during the very first year of King Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (Jer. 25:1).  It seems that much of their evidence relies on one Scripture text: Daniel 9:1-2.  It’s never a good thing to rely on one text for such an important event.  Daniel gives us some more insight into the matters at hand.  He interprets Jeremiah’s 70 years prophecy to be literally, which caused him to intercede for his land to be restored.  Daniel’s prayer is taking place at the end of the 70 years; hence that is why he is praying for restoration.  Daniel notes the “desolations of Jerusalem,” something that he had witnessed or was reported to him while he was in Babylon.  But the word “desolation” does not mean destruction.  Comparing also Nehemiah 2:17, we see that the Bible calls Jerusalem devastated even after the Jews had returned to it.  The term devastated place or devastations does not then have to be applied just to the time after Jerusalem’s destruction, but can rightly apply to the entire period.  Jerusalem, as I noted earlier, was seized on three different occasions: 605, 597, and 586.  The last seize of Jerusalem and the temple completely annihilated everything.  The prophet Jeremiah writes the Book of Lamentation about this event, he laments the destruction of Jerusalem. Zechariah proves to be helpful too, but time does not permit that study or the Septuagint evidence.         

Now, there is documented archaeological evidence since at least 1975 that shows that Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 587/586 BC.  Even Wikipedia attest to a 586 BC date, fancy that!  But where is that listed in their article? I do agree that chronology can be frustrating and confusing at time, but when you blatantly say and publish that the evidence of inspired Scripture clearly points to a 607 BC date for Jerusalem’s destruction you had better have an air-tight case with indisputable evidence.  Obviously, they do not.  I think the key idea that bothers me the most is that they do not consult all of Scripture, but are selective.  As I said before, there was no mention of cuneiform documents, no mention of Zechariah’s prophecies, no mention of Nehemiah’s words, no mention of Daniel 1, no mention of the Septuagint.  How can a publication state that their evidence is biblically based and thoroughly researched when they obviously missed many things?  I don’t know.  Maybe next months magazine will have their answers.  Be careful of the subtle deception that any cult brings, there is a lot of truth to the article that they wrote, but a careful and biblical eye will find the inconsistencies and see their errors.  The proven way to reveal that something is false is to handle the real thing – the Word of God.