TABLE TALK
Official Publication of the LMS-USA
May 2002
Volume 9, Number 2
In this Issue:
LMS-USA Annual Conference/Convention
June 21, 22, 23
St. Matthew Lutheran Church
Indianapolis, IN
Plans are well under way for
the annual gathering of the LMS. The Conference theme is, Nurturing the Soul.
Again this year the various sessions of both the Conference and Convention
are scheduled on Saturday and Sunday so that, for the most part, people can
attend without having to schedule time away from work. On Friday, time is
set aside for a meeting of the Ministerium and for interviewing prospective
clergy and for clergy and congregations applying for associate and/or
subscriptional membership. Activities for the youth also begin on Friday.
We are looking for the youth to arrive around 2:00 p.m., with a welcome and
orientation set for 3:00 p.m. Congregations receiving this issue of Table
Talk will find an application form for the Youth Conference included.
The focus of the Conference is on the Nurturing of the Soul. As Lutherans
we stress the importance of the Means of Grace, i.e., the means by which
God has chosen to work His grace in the lives of his children. We place stress
on the Means of Grace, but do we avail ourselves of what God freely offers
to us in Word and Sacrament? The Word of God is the primary Means of Grace,
but what place do we give to the Word in our daily lives? Even as pastors,
it is so easy to neglect God's Word. We use the word in our study, in our
sermon preparation, but to often we leave it at that. But such use is not
a substitute for private reading and meditating on the Word.
Conference presentations are planned on the various forms of private devotion
and meditation has taken through the years and which are often practiced
yet today. We will look at what it actually means to nurture the soul, and
the place of the Scripture, devotional literature, and prayer in this discipline.
We might look at other topic also, such as how does one find time? And, hopefully
an overview of Luther's suggestions in this area given in a brief essay he
wrote titled, "A Simple Way to Pray."
Women. A number of women met briefly at our last convention and the consensus
was that they wanted to organize a women's group. We will move ahead with
this at our meeting this year. The Conference sessions will be most apropos
to the focus of the Bible Study that is planned for the women to begin either
in the fall or in January 2002. Opportunity is planned for a dinner meeting
or two (there is room for more getting together if needed) so a committee
can be selected, or officers elected, to see that things begin to happen
in this organization. So, bring your ideas to share. If you cannot attend,
share your ideas with a representative of your congregation who plans to
attend our Conference/Convention. We will look for things to happen in the
year ahead.
Convention business. As is always the case, our convention business will
include election of officers and dealing with the budget. But some matters
of special interest this year include: Dealing with a couple of matters from
last year. 1) Who has a vote at the synod convention? 2) How do we deal with
the matter of attendance at the convention and ministerial meetings of the
synod of congregations and clergy?
Another matter of business has to do with possible mission support of ministries
within the LMS. (As a synod, we do not deal with mission funds, we recommend
and encourage congregations to be involved directly with mission efforts.)
One further matter of business has to do with our Seminary. We have some
exciting possibilities which we will want to act upon with regard to our
seminary program. This is important because we have been receiving inquiries
as to seminary training, and we have places where we could now place trained
pastors.
The LMS annual Conference and Convention is open to anyone who is interested.
The Conference sessions will begin at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday and continue
throughout the day. The Convention will begin on Sunday at 1:00 p.m.
There is no cost.
If you have questions, or if you wish to register, contact Rev. Ralph Spears
at 1-888-637-8880. Rev. Spears can possibly help you to locate lodging should
that be necessary.
If you have not been to St. Matthew Lutheran, the following is an easy way
to get there (once there you may want to try some other route). From I-70,
turn south on Rural Avenue. Continue south to East New York Street. Turn
left (east) for a half block to St. Matthew.
back to top
Who is the Israel of God Today?
A Historical Critique of Dispensationalism
Part Three in a Series on Prophecy
by Rev. Mark Dankof
Young and O. T. Allis, comprising the best of what Reiter calls the
"Princeton-Westminster tradition," [13] offer an interpretation of the prophecy
which simultaneously rejects higher critical anti-supernaturalism while affirming
the historical fulfillment of the 70th week in the events surrounding the
first advent of Jesus Christ. These respective schemas are representative
of the Traditionalist, or what Reiter would term the Historicist school of
interpretation.[14] Allis deals most extensively with Daniel 9: 24-27 in
Prophecy and the Church, chapter five, entitled, "Old Testament Prophecies
Concerning the Kingdom," where he begins by stating:
The effect produced on the inter pretation of prophecy by the "parenthesis"
doctrine of the Church as set forth by Dispensationalists is one of the clearest
proofs of the novelty of that doctrine as well as of its revolutionary nature.
In 1835 an article appeared in the Christian Witness, the earliest organ
of the Brethren, in which the claim was made that all of the prophecies of
Daniel are still unfulfilled, that they do not relate to the Church age but
are to be fulfilled in the future kingdom age. At the time this article was
written the view was generally held that the Christian Church or dispensation
was the great theme of Old Testament prophecy. Today in Dispensational circles
it is regarded as axiomatic that the Church is completely ignored by the
prophets. Consequently, the prophets have a very important role in deciding
the issues raised by Dispensationalism. And since the Dispensational doctrine
that the Church was unknown to them was first applied to the Book of Daniel,
we shall confine ourselves largely to it in testing the correctness of this
method of interpreting the prophecies of the Old Testament.[15]
Allis continues by saying that the importance of the "Prophecy of 70 Weeks"
in Dispensational teaching can:
hardly be exaggerated. It is often appealed to as the conspicuous proof that
the entire Church Age is a parenthesis in the prophetic program which is
to be discovered between vvs. 26 and 27 of Dan. ix. . . Since Dispensationalists
hold that the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks is directly Messianic, it is
not necessary for us to discuss the various anti-Messianic interpretations
that have been proposed. Our concern is to defend the form of the Messianic
interpretation which has been called the "traditional" one because it has
been so widely accepted, and to show its superiority over this "parenthesis"
interpretation, the discovery of which has furnished, so Dispensationalists
tell us, the key to the interpretation of prophecy.[16]
Allis begins his summation of the Traditional perspective by acknowledging
the points of agreement with Dispensationalism, chiefly that the seventy
weeks represent weeks of years, a total of 490 years; that only one period
of weeks is described, as is proved by the fact that the subdivisions (7+62+1)
when added together give a total of 70; that the "anointed one, the prince"
of verse 25 and the "anointed one" of verse 26 are the same person, the Messiah;
and that the first 69 weeks or 483 years had their terminus in the period
of the first advent–their fulfillment is long past.[17] He then focuses
on the two chief differences between the Traditional and Dispensational schools
of interpretation. First, the question of whether or not the great events
described in vs. 24 have been fulfilled, or are yet future; second, the issue
of whether or not the 70th week is past or future.[18] Dispensationalists
take the futurist perspective on both questions, a development Reiter freely
acknowledges to be of 19th century origin. The latter locates the genesis
of the futuristic position on Daniel's 70th week to a time just subsequent
to the introduction of the futuristic approach to the Apocalypse in 1826
by Samuel R. Maitland.[19] John Nelson Darby, the central figure in Brethrenism
and "founder of dispensationalism," then advanced the position that a "gap
existed between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks, with the result that
the seventieth week is still future."[20]
Allis' presentation of the "Traditional" interpretation begins on page 113
of Prophecy and is as follows. First, that according to the view, all of
the great transactions referred to in vs. 24 are to be regarded as having
been fulfilled at the first advent and, more specifically, in what is to
be regarded as the "climactic event of the prophecy, the redemption at Calvary,
which is referred to literally in verse 26 and figuratively in vs. 27."[21]
The words, "to finish transgression and to make an end of (or seal up) sins
and to make reconciliation for iniquity" are to be regarded as referring
to that atonement for sin which was accomplished once and for all on the
Cross. This interpretation is in accord with many New Testament statements,
e. g., Heb. x. 12-14. Thus Allis reminds us that Paul says that:
. . Jesus has "abolished death." (2 Tim. 1. 10). Death was a very real thing
to Paul. He was living under its shadow, when he wrote these words to Timothy.
But the fear of death and the power of death had been destroyed, because
Christ had brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel. For
Paul, death was indeed "abolished." Sin is, likewise, very much alive; it
is very active in the world. But sin was finally dealt with ("made an end
of") and reconciliation brought about through the death of Christ, His passive
obedience as a sufferer for sin. It only remains that the benefits of that
finished work be applied to all those for whom it was performed. The same
applies to the three other matters referred to in this verse. An "everlasting
righteousness" was provided for all the redeemed through the active obedience
of Christ, His perfect keeping of the law of God. Prophecy was "sealed,"
i. e., authenticated in a unique way by the life and death and resurrection
and ascension of Christ; and prophetic gifts ceased in the Christian Church
with the close of the apostolic age. The "anointing of a most holy" may refer
either to a person or to a place. If to a person, the reference may be to
the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus to fit Him for His Messianic work
(Lk. iii.22; iv. 18); if to a place, it may refer to the entrance of the
risen Christ into heaven itself, when "through his own blood he entered once
for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. ix.
12) for all His elect. In a word we have in vs. 24 the prophecy of the
"satisfaction of Christ," of His obedience and sufferings, by virtue of which
the sinner obtains forgiveness and acceptance with God.
According to this view, the 69th week ended with the beginning of the ministry
of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus; and the 70th week followed
immediately upon it. Consequently, the "cutting off" of the Anointed One
which occurred, "after the threescore and two weeks" must be regarded as
having taken place in the 70th week; and a reference to it is to be found
in the words, "In the midst [half] of the week, he [the Messiah] shall cause
the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." That Christ by His death put an
end to the Jewish ritual of sacrifice, substituting for bulls and goats "a
sacrifice of nobler name and richer blood than they," is the great argument
of the Epistle to the Hebrews. So interpreted, it is the Messiah who makes
firm or confirms the covenant for the one (the 70th) week; and the crucifixion
which takes place in the midst of it is the great event of that week and
may be regarded as the climax of the entire prophecy.[22]
Allis admits that the Traditional interpretive scheme is not without problems,
simply that the problems posed are far less exegetically and historically
problematic than those posited by the Dispensationalist grid. He does concede
that one difficulty resides in the fact that the Traditional interpretation
does not clearly define the "terminus of the 70th week."[23] If "in the midst"
is taken in its natural sense to refer to a half week, or 3 1Ú2 years,
the latter 3 1Ú2 years must be accounted for.[24] Allis regards as
"possible"[25] the options that either the last half refers to the period
of the founding of the Church and the preaching of the Gospel exclusively
to the Jews, a period ending with or about the time of the martyrdom of Stephen;
or that the time in question was "graciously extended to some 35 years, to
the date of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a reference to which is
found in vs. 26."[26] His main point continues to be that if Calvary took
place "in the midst of the week," there can be "no interval between the 69th
and the 70th weeks."[27] It is to be noted that the scheme of E. J. Young,
another Traditionalist, is not without its mathematical problems. In a summation
which coincides with that of Allis, Young notes:
The traditional Messianic interpretation entails less [emphasis mine] difficulty
than do the others and at the same time does justice to the language of the
text. Upon this view the seventy sevens serve as a symbolical number for
the period that has been decreed for the accomplishment of the Messianic
salvation (v. 24). In v. 25 we are taught that two segments of time elapse
from the issuing of a word from God to rebuild Jerusalem until the appearance
of Christ. After these two segments have elapsed, the Messiah will be cut
off by death and Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed by the Roman
armies of Titus. The Messiah, however, will cause the Jewish sacrifice to
cease by means of His death, and He will do this in the midst of the seventieth
seven. As a consequence, the Temple will be destroyed, and the destruction
will continue until the end appears which has been appointed by God. The
precise point of termination of the period of seventy sevens is not revealed.
The emphasis, rather, is not so much upon the beginning and termination of
this period as it is upon the great results which the period has been set
apart to accomplish. [emphasis mine][28]
Finally then, must come a summation of the basic position of the best
representatives of the Dispensational "gap" or "parenthesis" theory regarding
Daniel 9: 24-27. These representatives include modern exegetes John Walvoord,
[29] Leon Wood, [30] Herman Hoyt, [31] Paul Feinberg, [32] and Charles Ryrie,
[33] as well as the classic, older Dispensational scholars, including Sir
Robert Anderson,[34] Arno C. Gaebelein, [35] William Blackstone, [36] and
William Bell Riley. [37] In summation, the basic outline of the Dispensational
interpretation of the passage, beginning with Darby, is as follows–first,
in contrast to the Traditional perspective, verses 24 and 27 are deemed to
be future in their fulfillment.[38] The "Prophecy of 70 Weeks" is part of
the division of Daniel's book (chapters 7-12) that records visions of future
earthly kingdoms, both human and divine. [39] J. Randall Price [40] continues
the summary of the Dispensational position by mentioning the six restoration
goals [41] of 9: 24, which are outlined by the remainder of chapter 9, in
terms of events which will unfold in Israel's subsequent history. As Price
notes, Dispensationalism joins with most Christian scholarship in holding
that the seventy weeks are to be interpreted as seventy weeks of years; the
resulting period of 490 years (70 x 7) is divided, according to the text
(vv. 25-27), as periods of seven weeks (49 years), sixty-two weeks (434 years),
and one week (7 years). Dispensationalism is also in agreement with most
evangelical scholarship in interpreting the context of the passage as messianic,
with the coming of Messiah taking place after the sixty-nine weeks.[42] What
follows with Price is the crux of the Dispensational view of the passage:
However, dispensationalism (classical) is distinct in its interpretation
of Daniel's Seventieth Week (v. 27) as future. With Israel's rejection of
the Messiah and His death taking place after the sixty-ninth week (v. 26),
the completion of the six restoration goals for Israel (v. 24) is left for
the Seventieth Week. If the Seventieth Week immediately succeeds the sixty-ninth
week historically, then the expected restoration must be applied spiritually
to the church as a new Israel [emphasis mine].
Because dispensationalism adheres to the principle of literal interpretation
and recognizes the scriptural distinction between God's program for Israel
and for the church, it understands the historical completion of Israel's
restoration must take place in a future week [emphasis mine]. During this
time (as described in v. 27), there is a resumption of the messianic program
for Israel with the overthrow of the Antichrist (the apocalyptic prerequisite
to the establishment of the messianic kingdom). This interpretation requires
[emphasis mine] a prophetic postponement [emphasis mine] (older writers referred
to this as a "gap" or "parenthesis" [emphasis mine]) between the events of
verses 26 and 27. The revelation of a prophetic postponement in the fulfillment
of the eschatological aspect of the messianic program is in harmony with
numerous passages in the Old Testament [emphasis mine] that reveal the two
[emphasis mine] advents of Christ [numerous passages cited]. . . The six
restoration goals of Daniel's seventy-weeks prophecy (v. 24) may have a near
fulfillment in the experience of the nation (Messiah's redemptive advent)
but must wait for its complete fulfillment in the future (Messiah's restorative
advent [emphasis mine]). The postponement understood between verses 26 and
27 is the consequence of partial and complete fulfillment in the messianic
program. The first phase of the messianic program accomplished spiritual
redemption for ethnic Israel in the First Advent (Matthew 1: 21; cf. Luke
2: 11). National rejection of Messiah (Matt. 23: 37; cf. Acts 3: 13-15, 17;
4: 25-27), while fulfilling the promise of Gentile inclusion (Acts 15: 14-18;
Rom. 11: 11, 25, 30), necessitated a second phase of the messianic program
to apply spiritual redemption to Israel nationally (Acts 3: 18-21; Rom. 11:
26-29, 31) and complete the promise of national restoration (Matt. 23: 39;
Acts 1: 6-7; 3: 22-26; 15: 16), which will be fulfilled at the Second Advent
(Zech. 12: 10-13: 2; 14: 3-11). The dispensational view depends on the validity
of interpreting the Seventieth Week eschatologically [emphasis mine].[43]
This then, is the summation of the Dispensationalist exegesis of the passage.
In a review of different commentators in the literature, there are minor
revisions and differences in emphasis, but the basic adherence to the parenthesis
theory and the futuristic fulfillment of the 70th week is absolute. One variance
worth mentioning is the occasional difference over the dating of the beginning
of the prophecy. Most of the Dispensational commentators begin the 70 weeks
at either 458 or 444 B. C. (Nehemiah 2), utilizing one of two decrees of
an Achaemenid king of Persia to the Jews as the commencement of the allotted
time for the unfolding of events in Israel's prophetic program. Occasionally,
one will see reference to 538 B. C. as the commencement (Cyrus' decree),
but this is rare in comparison to the other two beginning points noted.
Footnotes:
13. Reiter, op. cit., 144.
14. ibid., 74-97.
15. O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, Phillipsburg, Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1945: 111.
16. ibid., 111-112.
17. ibid., 112.
18. ibid., 112.
19. Reiter, op. cit., 27 quoting Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ,
p. 30.
20. ibid., 27.
21. Allis, op. cit., 113.
22]. ibid., 113-114.
23. ibid., 114.
24. ibid., 114.
25. ibid., 115.
26. ibid., 115.
27. ibid., 115.
28. Young, "Daniel", op. cit., 700.
29. John Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19th printing
1979; The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976;
The Nations, Israel and the Church in Prophecy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1988 [Reprint (1st work) of The Nations in Prophecy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1967. Reprint (2nd work) of Israel in Prophecy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1962. Reprint (3rd work) of The Church in Prophecy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1964.]
30. Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973; The
Prophets of Israel, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
31. Herman Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialism," in The Meaning of the
Millennium–4 Views, Robert G. Clouse, editor, Inter-Varsity Press, 1977:
63-92.
32. Paul Feinberg, "The Case for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Position," in
The Rapture–Pre, Mid, or Post Tribulational?, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1984: 45-86.
33. Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.
34. Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 11th reprint
1984. An excellent modern essay which corroborates Anderson's view of 360
day "prophetic years" is found in the work of Harold W. Hoehner, "Chronological
Aspects of the Life of Christ–Part VI: Daniel's Seventy Weeks and New
Testament Chronology," in Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 132, Number 525,
January-March 1975: 47-65.
35. Arno C. Gaebelein, Daniel, New York: Our Hope Publications, 1911; The
Conflict of the Ages, New York: Our Hope Publications, 1933.
36. William E. Blackstone, Jesus is Coming, New York/Chicago/London/Edinburgh:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1898, 1908, 1932.
37. William B. Riley, The Evolution of the Kingdom, New York: The Book Stall,
1913.
38. Allis, op. cit., 115.
39. J. Randall Price, "Daniel's Seventy Weeks, Dispensational Interpretation,"
Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1996: 76.
40. ibid., 76-78.
41. ibid., 77. Curiously, J. Barton Payne, a post-tribulationalist, also
affirms these six goals from Daniel 9: 24, referring to them as "six infinitival
phrases of purpose," in "The Goal of Daniel's Seventy Weeks", Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 21/2, June 1978: 97-115. The quotation
is from page 97 and includes Payne's citation of E. J. Young's idea that
the six items presented in 9: 24 settle the terminus ad quem of the prophecy,
while the termination of the 70 sevens coincides with the first advent of
Christ. See. E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, a Commentary, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1949: 201.
42. ibid., 77.
43. ibid., 77-78.
back to top
Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
by Rev. John S. Erickson
How many times have you asked this question? How many times have you been
asked this question? We especially hear the question asked in the context
of infant baptism.
There is a rather simple, and, I believe, appropriate answer that one can
give in support of baptism. Our Lord commanded it, i.e., the Great Commission
(Matt. 28:18-20). And when our Lord commands something, that command is something
we ought to take seriously. To not take a command of our Lord seriously,
would be the same as suggesting that our Lord has commanded something that
really is not necessary. Or, that He has commanded something that it really
makes no difference one way or another. There is ample evidence in Scripture
that God expects us to take him and his commands seriously, and that includes
our acts of worship. Jesus himself said, "God is spirit, and his worshipers
must worship in spirit and in truth." Are we to think He would expect or
demand such if it didn't matter? There is an interesting passage of Scripture
found in Isaiah 45. God is here speaking through the Prophet and says, "I
am the Lord, and there is no other." A bit later he says, "Woe to him who
quarrels with his maker. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are
you making?" It is not for us to question God as to why he did, why he does,
or why he says he will do a particular thing. Nor is it for us to question
as to why he commands what he does of us. It is not for me, or for anyone
else, to question as to why our Lord commanded baptism, or to try through
rational argument to somehow work around His command.
This would be the simple answer, but when asked on a couple of occasions
of late about this issue, I decided I wanted to take a fresh look at the
question. I, of course, have come from a tradition that baptizes infants.
I come from a tradition that holds firmly to baptism and to the necessity
of baptism to the salvation of one's soul. This means that when I go about
looking into the matter of baptism, I am going to approach the subject with
some bias. This is something that, try as I might, I cannot help. I will
see baptism, or allusions to baptism, in passages of Scripture that will
not be seen by someone who holds a view different than my own. When for example
Jesus speaks of the necessity of being born "of water and the Spirit" (Jn.
3:3), I see baptism in these words. There are many Bible scholars who do
not.
As I struggled as to how to approach this question in a somewhat unbiased
manner, it came to me that rather than looking, first of all for this verse,
or that, as proof of my particular position, I should rather seek to bring
my understanding and practice of baptism into conformity with what the New
Testament reveals as to the understanding and practice of baptism by the
early church, i.e., the apostles.
So, with this goal in mind, the first question ought to be, When, and by
whom was baptism instituted? As far as I can determine we cannot look to
the gospel record of our Lord's ministry for answer as to how we are to
understand and practice baptism, because our Lord had not yet instituted,
and he himself did not practice, what we now call "Christian Baptism." However,
we can and must look to the closing verses of Matthew's gospel and to the
last verse of Mark. There are those who will insist that Mark 16:9-20 is
not reliable because some ancient manuscripts and witnesses do not include
these verses. But, we can leave it at Matthew, in that I know of no one who
questions the words of the Great Commission of our Lord as recorded by Matthew.
Here Jesus himself gives instruction to his disciples, that they are to make
disciples by baptizing and teaching. Mark has Jesus instructing the disciples
to go into all the world preaching the good news. To which he adds, "Whoever
believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will
be condemned."
Next, we can turn to see how things were done in the New Testament Church.
Upon his ascension into heaven, Jesus had instructed the disciples to wait
in Jerusalem and wait for the gift promised by His Father (Acts 1:4). They
waited, and when the day of Pentecost came, the promised gift came (Acts
2). When people questioned what was going on, "Peter stood up with the Eleven,
raised his voice, and addressed the crowd" (Acts 2:14). What follows is the
first sermon preached in the Church era (Peter followed the instruction given
him by his Lord (Mark 16:15). Peter's preaching was such that it called for
a response from those who heard it. And it is very important that we hear
the question asked of Peter and the Eleven. We find this in Acts 2:37. "Brothers,
what shall we do?" Peter's reply, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you,
in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children
and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call." (Acts
2:38-39).
We need to keep in mind just what has gone on here. In the days immediately
before his death, Jesus gave detailed instruction to His disciples as to
what going to take place, and why. We see this in the later chapter of all
the Gospel narratives. Then, in the forty days between His resurrection and
ascension into heaven, Jesus gave further instructions (See the opening verses
of Acts.). How did Peter know what to do when people asked what they needed
to do to be saved? He knew because Jesus had instructed him and the other
disciples as to what they were to do. These instructions were fresh in the
mind of Peter and the Eleven. What should the people do? They should "repent
and be baptized." Is there any need to ask if baptism is necessary?
[I am dealing only with the matter of the necessity of baptism in this article.
I am not going to deal with matters such as: the benefits of baptism, the
mode of baptism, infant baptism, or whether one's baptism is a guarentee
he or she will never go lost.]
If baptism was not important, even necessary, would not one of the other
disciples have maybe challenged Peter on this matter? But, the other disciples
seem to have been in full agreement with Peter. Evidence for that can be
found in the account we have of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40).
When Philip ran up to the Ethiopian's chariot and heard the man reading from
the book of Isaiah, he asked him if he understood what he was reading. The
Ethiopian then invited Philip to sit with him in the chariot and explain
it all to him. Philip then, "began with that very passage of Scripture and
told him the good news about Jesus." Then we read how, when they came to
some water, the eunuch said to Philip, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't
I be baptized?"
This is one of the many instances in Scripture where what is not said, speaks
volumes. How would the Ethiopian eunuch have known to have asked about baptism
if Philip had not said something about it? Clearly, in his explaining the
way of salvation to this Ethiopian, Philip had shared much of what has not
been written down for us, but which Jesus had given instruction concerning.
And, with regard to baptism, it must have been made clear to him that it
was important, even necessary, to his salvation. So much so, that the eunuch
did not want to put it off.
And, although not one of the Eleven, but as an apostle "untimely born," Paul
also received instruction from the Lord. And an incident recorded in Acts
16, verses 16 and following speaks to Paul and Silas' understanding of the
subject at hand.
Paul and Silas had been placed in prison, and about midnight that night,
a violent earthquake hit as they were praying and singing hymns to God. The
prison doors flew open and the chains that secured the prisoners came loose.
The jailer, waking up and assuming all the prisoners had escaped, was about
to kill himself. Paul and Silas called to him, "Don't harm yourself! We are
all here!'
At that, the jailer "rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas.
Then he asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved!'" Their reply? "Believe
in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household." Then,
Paul and Silas "spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in
his house." Notice now, what happened next. "At that hour of the night the
jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his
family were baptized." Again, from what Paul and Silas had said in answer
to the jailer's question as to what he must do to be saved, it seems to be
without question, that they had shared with this man something of the necessary
connection between baptism and the salvation of this man's soul. [Take special
note of the wording here, "What must I do." Notice that Paul did not seek
to correct what this jailer understood as necessary. Rather he acted on the
jailer's understanding and desire, and baptized him and his household.]
Later, in his letter to the Galatians, Paul, in speaking to the Christians
there said, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all
of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."
(3:26-27). Is there a necessary link between baptism and saving faith? It
seems Paul was convinced there was.
If you and I wish to be saved, or if it is our desire that our children be
saved, why should we even think to do anything less - why would we dare do
anything less - than that which our Lord has invited us to do, and which
He has commissioned us to do.
back to top
Contact Information
The LMS-USA is a Biblical, Confessional, Evangelical, Liturgical, Congregational
expression of the universal (catholic) orthodox Church on earth. It is a
'Forum by Subscription.' As a 'Forum' the intent is that there will be an
ongoing discussion of theological issues and concerns among clergy and lay
alike. The LMS-USA meets annually for a Theological Conference and this
publication, besides carrying news of the Ministerium and Synod, functions
also as a vehicle for this continuing dialogue.
For information or to make comment contact:
President/Pastor, LMS-USA
2837 East New York St.,
Indianapolis, IN 46201
Table Talk
P. O. Box 31
Chetek, WI 54728
email - revralphs@juno.com or
revjse@discover-net.net
back to top