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.