How to baptize 1,000 people in four minutes
Posted: September 21st, 2009 | Author: James Duncan | Tags: Baptism, Doctrine, Newspring, Noble, Preaching | 57 Comments »Last weekend Noble and Furtick announced the astounding news that between them they’d baptized more than a thousand people. I was curious to see how they did it, especially given that, for NewSpring at least, none of the baptism candidates knew about the baptism until a few minutes before they entered the water.
How did Noble do that? What powerful message on baptism did he preach to persuade so many believers to take that sacred step?
The answer: he didn’t say much at all.
His sermon was focused mainly on Joshua taking off his shoes when, according to Noble, he met Jesus in Joshua 3. Jesus asked Joshua to obey the small, insignificant step of taking off his sandals. As a consequence of his obedience in such a minor matter, God put Joshua on the map.
Noble then asked what minor steps we needed to obey God in, and suggested that it might be baptism. He then explained baptism to his congregation. You can see the entire sermon here, but it was full of nonsensical examples that had the church voting for Chevy or Ford, and cheesecake or cheeseburger. You’ll have to watch it yourself to see how it related to baptism, but somewhere in there he did teach about the Why, How, Who and When of baptism.
With such an ambitious agenda, you might think this would take a few weeks to cover, though Noble got through it all in less than four minutes. The following clip is an edited version of the substance of his teaching. (I have edited out extraneous material on marital authority, fear of water, and infant baptism.)
Please understand that I am not criticizing anyone who was baptized last week, nor the church’s mission to baptize believers. What is disappointing is that the pastor thought it was worth a thousand people immediately taking an important spiritual step, yet he didn’t think it worth more than a few minutes of substantial teaching on a doctrine that literally defines his denomination.
Now, a part of his message is unassailable and praiseworthy–if Jesus tells us to do something, we really have no argument against it. That is true, but there is much more that Scripture offers us on the meaning and mode of baptism than demanding straight obedience. Can we not be obedient and informed? One would assume that knowing more about the sacrament would add to the believers’ blessings.
Commentator Tommy had guessed last week that Noble had achieved his numbers by presenting the sacrament as meaningless.
My interest here is the irony of Baptists celebrating nearly 1000 baptisms, by a group who thinks it’s meaningless.
Tommy appears to have been correct. Where does one find any meaning in Noble’s presentation here? Noble’s message was that this is such a minor step–just like taking off your shoes–, that you’d only refuse to do it if you were afraid or proud.
The only meaning he did provide was that this meant one was “going public” for Jesus.
If that’s all it is, how does getting wet in an above-ground pool behind the church building make one’s faith any more public than attending church in the first place? If going public is what it’s all about, why can’t we just post an announcement on Craig’s list?
Surely there’s more to baptism than this.
(Noble posed four questions: Why, How, Who and When. If I am to complain about his cursory answer, it might be expected that I provide my own, and so I will. Over the next few weeks, PP will answer these questions, probably in four different posts.)
Similar Posts:
- What is the purpose of baptism?
- New Turnstile Church strategy: We avoid God’s Word to keep you from sin
- What the Pharisees taught me about baptism
- Differentiating Jesus from the Word
- You can’t make this stuff up
Four minutes? Wow. That is really fast. I mean faster than it takes most NS-ers to down their kool-aid. And — funny thing is — kool-aid is more nutritious and meaningful to NS-ers than getting wet.
After all, it takes both to become a member at NS.
Clarification: the kool-aid reference is meant to refer to the nutritional quality of kool-aid compared with Noble’s 4 minute “sermon” which is riddled with psychobabble persuading people not to be afraid, and to go ahead and obey (Noble or Jesus?). The tone of his sermon seems awfully similar to the churches he rails against….
Question: I wonder how many NS-ers who were baptized last week will wake up one day and think … “I got baptized before I was saved. I think I need to correct the chronology of these events and be baptized again.” In other words, did Perry just persuade some people to practice baptism in the wrong manner? We can’t be sure. Neither can he. This is what happens when you’re goal is to persuade rather than inform. He could have informed them about the practice and then said: come back next week, if you’re ready to make this commitment. Instead, he reduced obedience to an infomercial, demanding people to “call now.”
The psychological pressure to follow such a “simple” step is insane. Preachers should be warning people about the dangers of following Jesus Christ. My guess is that Noble doesn’t trust the Holy Spirit to persuade and convict. He thinks it’s up to him.
Perry did this just to have bragging rights about numbers. It’s all about the scoreboard.
[...] With such an ambitious agenda, you might think this would take a few weeks to cover, though Noble got through it all in less than four minutes. The following clip is an edited version of the substance of his teaching. (I have edited out extraneous material on marital authority, fear of water, and infant baptism.) (source) [...]
Some questions I have (and I would appreciate any NSers who might respond):
1) Who does the baptisms? Is there any sort of examination that takes place before they are conducted? The reason I ask if because I know of someone at a local gigachurch who joined via similar baptism practices many years ago. After you walk forward, you are herded in a room and speak with a volunteer (not pastor or staff) and asked a few basic questions. When you are baptized, virtually anyone (a friend, family member, etc.) can do it. In other words, it is possible (in this other church) to be accepted and baptized w/o ever coming into contact with the pastor of the church. I am wondering if this is the way of NS. I am also fearful that this may lead to many false conversions.
2) How many of this 1,000 number are actually the lost coming to Christ? I read a book by Paul House several years ago where he lamented that the huge baptism numbers his own denomination (SBC) often quoted were artificially inflated. Of the numbers of baptisms cited, about 50% were folks transferring in from churches where they were baptized as infants or they had not been immersed and therefore had to be baptized to join the new church. Another 40% were re-baptisms (recommitments) and that sort of thing. Only 10% were actually first-time new conversions to Jesus Christ.
Now, don’t get me wrong. If 100 people actually came to Jesus Christ via the preaching of the word at NS and Elevation, that is a great thing. But if they are artificially inflating numbers (and I know of people who have transferred to NS and had to be re-baptized in order to join), then stop point to the scoreboard.
just a passing thought. I wonder if we are wasting time in critiquing these churches and pastors, instead of going out and tell the world of the Gospel. Or, another way to think of it is, do we care more about the Gospel and for others to hear and get transformed by the Holy Spirit or do we want to catch these pastors who are just as sinful as we are in their sins and mistakes?
Think it is good for all of us to examine ourselves in the light of the scripture, Titus 3: 1-11
Not here to condemn anyone, just a heart check for all who reads this. Nor will you see me respond any more besides this post.
It was all about the numbers, no other reason. I don’t see why they don’t just lie about the whole thing and save themselves the trouble and money.
I too can’t believe they had people actually pretend to get saved either. That 50 year old lady and her son that stood to accept Christ behind me, in front of 2500 people, and who prayed out loud, sure sounded convincing. Probably got them from the Anderson University Drama department. OH, and then those same actors actually got baptized, are you ready for this, RIGHT THEN! Crazy I know. Everyone knows you are supposed to drag these things out for months, even years. You have to invite the parents, grandparents, etc to be there. Then it takes at least another week or two to decide what to wear, etc. That’s what really makes you a christian…that and meeting your pastor. The Bible says something like “…that whosoever believes in me and meets the pastor shall have everlasting life.”
I didn’t exactly see anyone getting “herded” but Newspring is high tech. They probably use those shocking dog collars to make sure people don’t escape. Before you know it, your swimming in a pool with some guy you don’t even know and picking up your baptism slip and gift certificates for Kool-Aid. Yep, this is exactly how this all happened at Newspring.
Tim P, I can answer those
There is an “examination” that takes place. I can’t vouch for every single baptism, but from my experience, everyone to be baptized talks with a staff member beforehand and tells them when/where/how they came to Christ, and if they have continued to follow Him since then. I know people are regularly turned away, and I know that more often than you would think it can get ugly trying to explain to folks caught up in the emotion of the ceremony, that they are not ready to be baptized. I also know a lot of parents try to bring their kids to get baptized and get upset when the kids can’t answer the questions and the staff tell them they aren’t ready to be baptized. The baptisms are then performed by (again as far as I know, from my personal experience) a staff member of the church. Apart form this short exam, I personally think it’s between them and Jesus if they’re ready and us humans are in no position to say yes or no.
I don’t think there’s any way to know the answer to your second question. I know I was baptized recently because I was originally sprinkled with some water as an infant in a dress (I’m a boy – thanks mom) So while I may fall into your category of recommitment, transferring church, etc, I had been a Christ follower for nearly 8 years before I was baptized, and I think a lot of folks fall into that category.
All that being said, I agree with you, even if it’s only 100, praise Jesus. I think having folks wait a week would be more ideal, but I don’t run the church. I think having them caught up in the emotionalism of the moment invites a lot of confusion and encourages folks not to think about what they’re going through.
Ben,
how about instead of saracstically and endlessly going on and on about who knows what, you actually make a honest, clear defense from the Bible about your disagreements. How do you think you will ever convince anyone?
One of the problems with Newspring in my opinion how the gospel is pesented. NOw, hopefuly I am wrong. But what i have seen is a teaching that revolves around coming forward, raising a hand, saying a prayer, making a committment and boom…you are in CHrist. This is called easy believism, and it has been plaguing the church since Charles Finny in the 1800s. There is very little teaching and newspring or many churches for that matter that involves what authentic conversion looks like. Very little teaching on godly sorrow verses worldly sorrow, the fruit that a believer should be baring, the heart for Jesus, the heart for his church, hatred of the things of this world, etc. If newspring were teaching these things as well as clear teaching on baptism, and the same things were happening, i sure would feel a lot better.
“Just Passing,”
I understand your sentiment, and it’s true that we’re all sinners, though James tells us that teachers are held to a higher standard.
“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (James 3:1)
Ben,
Did you miss the bit about us not questioning the people who were baptized? We’re noting how little attention Perry gave to a profound Christian sacrament.
You guys seem to have spent much longer crowing about the numbers than Perry actually spent talking about what those numbers represent.
Ryan, thanks for those responses. That does clear things up and sounds somewhat better than the gigachurch situation I described.
A couple of questions for further clarification. 1) Do these baptisms essentially take place “immediately” (that is, very soon after the commitment)? There seems to be no delay until next week, but there must be enough of a delay for the staff members to ask the questions, etc. 2) Does everyone have to go through this process? For example, in your case, you were getting “re-baptized” to fit NS’s requirement of believer’s baptism by immersion. Did you still have to walk forward and be baptized right then and there at that service? 3) Are these staff members who do the baptisms “ordained” (at least how NS/the SBC understands the distinction)?
Thanks again.
Ryan,
1) You wrote: “Apart form this short exam, I personally think it’s between them and Jesus if they’re ready and us humans are in no position to say yes or no.”
Based on what you’ve stated, I’m surprised a short exam is necessary. This means that the short exam is between NS and the person, but not the yes or no… If they feel led to be baptized, and if (as you state) it’s between them and Jesus, I think the question comes back to you: how does one get rejected for baptism? Do you inspect their conversion, repentance, prayer, etc? If so, how?
2) You wrote: some get “caught up in the emotion of the ceremony”
Are you stating that there’s an emotional appeal to baptism at NS? Does this mean that NS should actually slow down the process of baptism (like … think about it for 1 week), rather than speed it up (like … think about it for 4 minutes)? Religious decisions based on emotion are typically short-lived. It seems like NS might want to eliminate, rather than escalate the emotional aspect.
Ben mockingly thinks that churches slow things down for months or years. Well, how about 1 week? Is that too much to ask? Or does the emotion wear off after a few days, and then they might not return to get wet?
Just asking.
I am a baptized member of NewSpring Church… I don’t understand why some people seem to be so upset by the gospel being preached or by NewSpring asking people to follow God’s call of baptism…. Matthew 28 is pretty clear on our instructions as believers.
I wouldn’t call it “easy believism” either. Perry always says that accepting Christ isn’t the finish line, it’s the starting block. There are always counselors and staff around and everyone who is saved in church is told to go to talk to someone on staff who has been trained and asks very specific questions about how they came to Jesus.
I know this because I have been through it. Someone spent at least 20 minutes counseling me about my decision to be baptized- to make sure I was really a Christian and to make sure I was doing it as obedience to Christ… I was then baptized by one of the pastors at NS. that’s more than the Presbyterian (pca) church I attended in high school ever talked to me about baptism and salvation.
Again, I will never understand why people on this site intentionally misquote and take things way out of context that are said at my church… (if you’re not going to listen to the whole story, why bother criticizing it?) I will also never understand why fellow believers are SO critical of people at my church as well… in the end, all believers will be in the same place- HEAVEN! we will be worshiping at the feet of JESUS together! you, me, perry noble, steven furtick and all other believers… since that’s the case… why bother having a hate blog? We should glorify God and enjoy him forever NOW and stop wasting our time being mean to each other!!
Sara,
Where is the hate here? It is hateful to disagree? You and Ben apparently disagree with me, so does that make you hateful too?
Can you tell me what I’ve taken out of context? I provided a link to the whole sermon, but assuming that not all readers of this blog might not want to invest 90 minutes in watching the whole service, I reproduced the highlights. I think the edit was rather complimentary, and I don’t see any reason why a NSer would be unhappy with it.
There’s a slight irony in the sequence of sermons. The weekend Perry emphasized the sanctity of marriage. I don’t know what PN said about divorce and remarriage, if anything, but the Bible says you can get married multiple times (under certain circumstances), yet only allows you to be baptized once. In other words, the Bible is much stricter on the number of baptisms one can experience compared to the number of marriages one can have.
Do we see PN emphasizing that strictness in his message? Not really. He jokes about how he’s been baptized three times, and encourages people who were much younger when they were baptized to do so again. (I’m not necessarily talking about infant baptism, which is a whole different issue, but his sermon seemed to invite people who may have recommitted their lives to God to be rebaptized.)
The issue of one-time-only baptism needed a bit more attention than it got in this service.
i am not hateful- just curious. i sometimes feel the tone of this blog is one of hatefulness and not one of unity in the body of Christ- I don’t want to stir up dissension, but I am very curious and would like to beam a few questions to any readers/writers on this site:
1. how does your church address salvation in Jesus?
2. if i (or any other person) was to visit your church this Sunday, would we be presented with the gospel in a clear manner, so that by the end of the service, we would leave knowing about salvation through faith in Jesus?
3. how would you deem whether or not the salvation was “genuine”
4. how do you share your faith in Jesus with others in the community?
Sara, those are interesting questions, and others can answer them if they want to, but they’re really beside the point. If you find a church that is doing these poorly, you can start a blog and we’ll come and read it.
As others have pointed out, a blind insistence on unity often leads to error. Unity is established around the truth, not around unity.
Alright, hopefully I can get to all of this. Let me know if I miss anything.
Tim P-
1)Last week was the first time they had been done “spontaneous” or right away, to my knowledge. I know SF and Elevation have done this before, and I have no doubt that’s where the idea came from. Most NS baptisms are planned weeks or months in advance.
2)To be a member of NS, you must be a follower of Christ, and be baptized by immersion. While I would say I had been “baptized” as an infant, I would not say I was “re-baptized”. What happened while I was an infant was out of my control and by no means a sign of my faith (I literally had zero faith at the time, and not for many years later). I think I may have answered this question in #1, but no, they are not usually done right away. Mine had been planned for weeks. As for those baptizing being “ordained”, I don’t know because I didn’t ask, but I would assume, that no, they were not ordained. I know this is an issue for some folks, but it’s not for me personally.
Tommy F – this is the internet, so I can’t read tone, but you’re post seems a little hostile, but maybe that’s just me.
1) You wrote: “Apart form this short exam, I personally think it’s between them and Jesus if they’re ready and us humans are in no position to say yes or no.”
Based on what you’ve stated, I’m surprised a short exam is necessary. This means that the short exam is between NS and the person, but not the yes or no… If they feel led to be baptized, and if (as you state) it’s between them and Jesus, I think the question comes back to you: how does one get rejected for baptism? Do you inspect their conversion, repentance, prayer, etc? If so, how?
Maybe I didn’t word that correctly. I think the short exam is necessary. Why would you/me/anyone want someone to be baptized if they would agree they were a follower of Christ. What I meant was between them and Christ, was whether they are truly followers and accept Him in their hearts. Can we agree on that? One is rejected for baptism simply if they cannot say they are truly a follower of Christ and that He is their Lord and savior, and explain why they are being baptized. Does that make any more sense?
2)I don’t understand this question completely, as I thought I answered my thoughts on it pretty clearly originally when I said “I think having folks wait a week would be more ideal, but I don’t run the church. I think having them caught up in the emotionalism of the moment invites a lot of confusion and encourages folks not to think about what they’re going through.”
Yes, I think waiting a week would be ideal. Yes, I think it’s an emotion decision that people should be encouraged to think about. Is that what you were looking for?
James -
I don’t feel that there was ever an invitation to get baptized as a recommittment, in fact I think that’s discouraged, as it’s not biblical. But would you not agree that someone “baptized” when they were not a follower of Christ, was not actually baptized at all? That’s just my opinion.
Ryan,
Regarding discretion (although you were addressing someone else), John the Baptist seemed to think he had discretion, even to the point of initially refusing Jesus his request to be baptized. Different reasons, but he had that right. That also gets to the question of ordination somewhat. Who has the right to refuse to baptize someone?
As for recommitment, I do think Noble was suggesting that when he talked about kids who got baptized at a youth camp (something they did themselves just a few months ago). What church, especially an immersionist church, is going to be baptizing unbelieving kids? In such a scenario, I think you’d expect you’d find someone who was saved as a child, fell away from their faith, then came back and rededicated their life to Christ at a church like NewSpring. This is really a soteriological question–when was the person saved? Noble’s sermon clearly instructs someone with such a story–and they’re common–to follow his example and be rebaptized.
We’ll get to this in later posts, but I do think that infant baptism counts as baptism. Sure, the baby didn’t know it, but why would that make it invalid? Baptism is something God does to and for us, not something we do to or for him.
Kind of like salvation.
James, I disagree about infant baptisms, but I’m very interested to see your posts on it. Honestly.
Regarding discretion, I must not be typing as clearly as I feel like I am. A person is (and/or should be) refused baptism if they cannot say “I have accepted Christ, and I lead my life in a way that follows Him and his teachings” Not exactly that, but pretty closely. I don’t think anyone tried to discern how true that is (because – as you said, we cannot) but if the person cannot even state that, they should be refused baptism. Am I the only one who thinks that?
I don’t recall in the message where he told anyone to be re-baptized. In previous sermons on baptism, PN has specifically said in that situation, that one should not be baptized again if they have been baptized since accepting Christ, and that it’s clearly not a rededication ritual.
James, it really doesn’t matter that you put one sentence in saying “we aren’t questioning the baptisms” when everything else that is written says just the opposite. So what is the appropriate amount of time that Perry should have spent on this, James? Ten minutes? One hour? More? What could he have done that would have pleased you guys…that would have warranted PP opening up and praising a great movement of God? You and I both know that as long as it happens at NS you all are never going to be happy about it. Not fooled so know need to point out the disclaimers
Paul, I’m not trying to convince anyone on here. PP is not about fairness or the truth and there is no place for open mindness here. I would tell you though that salvation IS as easy as you describe it. It’s so simple that “we” try to make it more difficult than Christ intended it to be. We don’t need to add church rules to it.
Ryan, I appreciate your questions. I don’t know what your experience with Newspring has been but would tell you that my experience has been that NS is much more “in your face” on issues like baptism than other churches I’ve been involved with. I’ve been a Christian for 26 years and have been a part of five different churches (mainly due to moving). NS is the first church I’ve ever heard discourage someone from being baptized for the very reasons you mentioned. It’s the first church that asked me to give my testimony to a staff member before I could join the church. The reaction of many is that NS dumbs down everything to make it easier and less evasive. Regardless of how anyone tries to spin it my experience has been the exact opposite. Tough issues like tithing, sexual purity, salvation, worship, personal sacrifice, etc. have been taught in a way that has both challanged and stretched me in ways that make it downright uncomfortable at times. I am aware that there are some churches that have experienced tremendous growth through dynamic worship experiences and feel good sermons week in and week out. While Newspring is a dynamic worhsip experience it is far from being a feel good church.
One of the problems with Newspring in my opinion how the gospel is pesented. NOw, hopefuly I am wrong. But what i have seen is a teaching that revolves around coming forward, raising a hand, saying a prayer, making a committment and boom…you are in CHrist. This is called easy believism, and it has been plaguing the church since Charles Finny in the 1800s. There is very little teaching and newspring or many churches for that matter that involves what authentic conversion looks like. Very little teaching on godly sorrow verses worldly sorrow, the fruit that a believer should be baring, the heart for Jesus, the heart for his church, hatred of the things of this world, etc. If newspring were teaching these things as well as clear teaching on baptism, and the same things were happening, i sure would feel a lot better.
Actually, the “problem” of easy believism has plagued the “church” since the bible said that salvation is by faith, not by something we do. We are saved when we put our faith in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross. There is no need to “watch someone’s fruit” or post-salvation lifestyle, because these are inaccurate, at best, measures of whether someone is born again. Born again believers might live godly lives, or they might get distracted by the cares of this world and be unfruitful. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t saved if they were genuinely born again. At the same time, people who have a false religious experience might live visibly “good” lives, even as they continue on their path to hell. (How many “bad” mormons do you know?) Since we aren’t saved by how we live our lives, it is a mistake to draw an assumption about someone’s salvation (either for or against) based on how they live their life.
Three quick examples of new converts being baptized:
Philip and the Ethiopian. Acts 8:
35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Query: Why didn’t Philip ask the Ethiopian to wait a week to make sure his decision wasn’t just “emotion?” When the Ethiopian asked what would hinder him from being baptized, why didn’t Philip say, “Did you make Jesus Lord of your life? Do you hate the things of this world now? Do you have a heart for the church?” The reason Philip didn’t ask him those things is because those aren’t the things required for salvation. What’s is required is that we believe on Jesus Christ. Period. (Someone else said NS teaches that believing isn’t the “finish line” it’s the “starting point.” If PN is teaching that about SALVATION, he’s teaching another gospel which is not another. ALL that is required for salvation is believing on Jesus Christ. John 3:18. Maybe he means there is more to being a disciple than just being saved, though, in which case that’s true. Hopefully he’s clear about what he means, though.)
Second example, Paul and the Phillipian jailer:
Acts 16:
29Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
Once again, Paul didn’t require a “wait and see” period. They believed, they were saved, they were baptized. This is the pattern EVERYWHERE in the NT.
Ok…one more. Acts 10. Peter preaches the gospel to Cornelius and his gentile friends:
39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Hey, what gospel did Peter preach? “through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Is it whosoever turns from his sins and believeth? No. Is it whosoever makes Jesus “Lord of his life” and believeth? No. Is it whosoever believeth and joins a good church? No. Is it whosoever believeth and hates the world.? No. Is it whosoever believeth and lives a good life? No.
There goes the bible with that heretical “easy believism” again. In their defense, though, I should point out that Peter, Paul and Philip didn’t get the opportunity to attend a Way of the Master seminar to learn how to share the “gospel” the right way.
As an aside, Finney was not an advocate of “easy-believism.” He was one of the first in the modern evangelical western church to add the false requirement of “turning from sin” to the biblical plan of salvation. He was very much a proponent of works salvation, though you are correct that he was the first to use the “altar call” as a call to decision, a practice that is widespread today.
i think it’s really interesting that the same guy who hates the fact that perry noble will not respond to his questions, will not respond to my questions. all i really want is a an honest and straight forward answer… please?
1. how does your church address salvation in Jesus?
2. if i (or any other person) was to visit your church this Sunday, would we be presented with the gospel in a clear manner, so that by the end of the service, we would leave knowing about salvation through faith in Jesus?
3. how would you deem whether or not the salvation was “genuine”
4. how do you share your faith in Jesus with others in the community?
Josh, in modern day times this would be like the Eunuch being baptized at a rest area on the side of the highway. Pajama Pages would have a field day with that one. I sure hope Perry doesn’t share his faith with anyone when he stops for a bathroom break.
I’ve always wondered if the other Phillipian jailers on duty that night secretly questioned this one jailers salvation. In modern days….well, you get the point.
Sara, well said but don’t expect your questions to be answered. You will soon learn that we can’t let the facts get in the way of a good criticism. Seriously though, thank you for sharing your experience! There are 1000′s of people in South Carolina now who have similar experiences and will now have eternal life in Christ.
James and James, today Perry tweeted “if you aren’t following Rick Warren you should be.” I fully expect you two to take this literally and begin a new blog post about following others instead of Christ. Looking forward to reading that one.
Sara, who hates that Perry won’t respond? Anyway, since I post here I’ll answer your questions:
1. We teach it.
2. Yes. Without question.
3. I wouldn’t.
4. Both verbally and through actions.
Ben (and to a degree, Josh) – The question is not about the Eunuch or the jailer. The questions would be, did Philip and aul preach the Gospel to them? The answer to that question is yes, so you would never see someone on PJ Pages take issue with that.
You guys won’t to hold up these baptisms as the biblical standard, but don’t want to hold Perry to the standard of Peter and Philip.
James, Perry did preach the gospel to those that were saved Sunday.
I do hold up these baptisms as a biblical standard. Why wouldn’t I? What would make me think, or give me the authority for that matter, they weren’t?
Once again your last statement gets to the heart of the matter. Your issue is not with baptisms or salvations, it’s with Perry himself. I would much rather you attack him than to continually question someones salvation.
James Downing,
How am I not holding PN to the same standard as Peter and Philip? I wasn’t addressing NS or PN, I was addressing the false teaching that people have to “prove” themselves by their lifestyle before they are baptized. The bible teaches that the only prerequisite to baptism is being born again, and the only requirement to be born again is believing on Jesus Christ. That’s what Philip taught. That’s what Paul taught. That’s what Peter taught. If that’s not what PN is teaching, he needs to correct his doctrine to get it in line with the bible.
Josh – Got ya – No Issue there.
Ben – We have made that clear over and over again that we are not questioning anyone’s salvation. We do question Perry and his methods. Glad you are finally getting that distinction.
You are right James. I don’t know how I could have ever concluded that you were doubting someones baptism or salvation.
The only meaning he did provide was that this meant one was “going public” for Jesus.
If that’s all it is, how does getting wet in an above-ground pool behind the church building make one’s faith any more public than attending church in the first place? If going public is what it’s all about, why can’t we just post an announcement on Craig’s list?
Surely there’s more to baptism than this.
(Noble posed four questions: Why, How, Who and When. If I am to complain about his cursory answer, it might be expected that I provide my own, and so I will. Over the next few weeks, PP will answer these questions, probably in four different posts.
Ben – I suppose that is sarcasm, but there is no doubting of salvation at all in that quote. I’m not sure of your point.
Ben,
Here is a blog I wrote a few months ago about this subject: http://davidjosephhorn.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/confessing-christ-false-profession-and-the-numbers-game/
Not to threadjack the comments (and if you guys feel this does, I won’t be offended if you delete this comment), but I wonder if anyone has any biblical support for a few of the statements people have made about baptism in this thread.
1. Believers should be baptized only one time. The bible says there is “one baptism” in Eph 4:5, but I think the context is that of Christian unity, rather than the number of times a person can be baptized. In other words, being baptized in the name of Christ by Paul is the same as being baptized in the name of Christ by Appollos or Barnabas. I had a friend who went to the Holy Land and was telling me that he was baptized in the Jordan River. He had already been baptized and was a long time believer. It seemed odd to me, but I couldn’t really think of a reason why it was wrong.
2. Baptism should only be performed by ordained ministers or some other “official” person. Can any believer baptize another believer? If not, why not? Who would be eligible to baptize, according to the bible?
I don’t really have a firm belief about either of these things either way, but would be interested in everyone else’s thoughts.
No threadjacking, Josh. Those are good questions.
Unfortunately, not much time to answer them now, but the one baptism rule is fairly well-established Christian doctrine. Westminster Confession XXVIII.VII: ‘The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.”
As for who can baptize, it needs to be a priest or an ordained minister of the gospel. This is why Jesus sought out John, and why he used John’s priestly status as a defense when he cleaned out the temple later in his ministry. (An issue I’ll be discussing in more depth shortly.)
Westminster describes it this way: ” by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called.”
Just to tease you a little on the aspect of John as priestly baptizer–this was the issue that converted me from an immersionist to a sprinkler.
But that’s another story, which will be told on another day.
Josh, those are good questions. I don’t have bullet-proof answers either, but here are my thoughts:
1. Outside of Ephesians 4:5, I would just question the purpose of baptism if it is something you do more than once – as a beleiver. And if the act is made useless in doing it several times, why even bother ever getting baptized?
2. I don’t think there is any scriptural backing for this. However, generally, someone ordained by a particular denomination would share the same view of baptism, and be able to avoid any confusion as to why you are being baptised.
Thanks, Duncan.
Did the Westminster Confession have any biblical support for the one baptism doctrine?
Good point about John the baptist. I’ve always thought it was interesting that Paul didn’t do a lot of baptizing himself. Obviously at Pentecost there were people baptizing besides the Apostles themselves so I assume they appointed people to help out. Is that what you mean by “ordained”?
I was posting at the same time Duncan was, and didn’t see his answers. I am eagerly awaiting those posts now.
Westminster cites this: “TIT 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Of course, that fits into the context of the whole doctrine, which is supported by other texts as well. But this is the one cited for the one-baptism doctrine.)
The concept is that baptism is something God does to us, so there’s no need for him to do it twice.
As for baptism in Acts 2, the large number is consistent with baptism as sprinkling. A single priest–Peter perhaps–could sprinkle 3,000 quite easily and quickly. It would be similar to what Moses did in Exodus 24:8:
But if that was the case, why didn’t John baptize by sprinkling? It’s obviously easier that way.
Speaking of John, the Pharisees asked John the Baptist in John 1 if he was Elijah, the Christ or the Prophet (Isaiah?). John said he wasn’t, that he was the “voice of one crying out in the wilderness….” So they asked him: “Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
I am not familiar with any reference to baptism in the OT. Obviously the pharisees had some familiarity with baptism, but thought it should be performed only by the Christ, the Prophet or Elijah. Anyone have any thoughts about this?
Josh, John had to have sprinkled. That’s what convinced me, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
The baptism of Jesus passage doesn’t actually show immersion. When you read that they came up out of the water, that does not necessarily mean they were both under the water, just in it. They might have been under, then came out, but that would require reading more into it than is there.
Also, it says that after Jesus was baptized they came out. Shouldn’t it be as he was baptized if you want to prove immersion in this passage?
I have to throw this in there, in the orginal Greek text the term used is baptizo. This word means immersion. This is the only word used in the NT to describe baptisms. If God had meant for us to sprinkle water on someone would he not have used the greek word rhantizo which means sprinkle? But that word appears nowhere in the NT. I might be getting ahead of all your posts on this subject, but I just wanted to throw that in there.
Josh, I understand(i think) thepoint you are trying to make. Good works never save. We are only saved by the blood of Christ. That much is clear. Matt. 7:15-23 teaches you will know authentic faith by the fruit of a person’s lifr (I know the context is false teachers, but the implications are the same). I do think that if a person understands and cna articulate the gospel, and is repenting of their sins, i see no reason to baptize them into the church body. However, if their continues to be habitual, unrepentant sin, and no fruit in keeping with true repentance even though they are receiving faithful teaching and discipleship, something is not right. Jesus conlcudes in that passage that there were many who make a decision for Christ but do not have authentic, saving faith.
Seth,
You’re correct that it is a meaning of the word, but it’s not the only meaning and shouldn’t be as determinative as the rest of Scripture in interpreting the mode. Baptizo also means to wash, as in Luke 11:38 when a Pharisee noted that Jesus had not washed (baptizo) before dinner.
Do you think baptism is more likely a sign of God washing us, or more like us sinking under water?
Yours is a good argument, however, and I’ll make sure I address it more completely in my baptism series.
The statement that “baptizo means immersion” is not correct, and this is another problem with the video. It can mean to immerse something, but it has a much broader semantic range that this. For example, it can carry a meaning along the lines of putting an object in contact with a liquid so that the properties of the object are altered (e.g., “to dye” is a possible meaning; this is why it has the idea of “cleansing” attached to its meaning). It is the “change” that is being emphasized, not the actual mode. When words have broad meanings, we don’t simply pick up a lexicon and point to a possible definition and insist that a word means that always in every circumstance; the context of the passage in which the word is used is important, and there are places in the NT where baptizo is used where it cannot carry the meaning of being “immersed” (e.g., Mark 7:4; 1 Corinthians 10:2; see also Hebrews 9:10, where the noun form of the word is connected to sprinkling ceremonies under the Mosaic law in the rest of the chapter). At any rate, to the best of my knowledge, the word baptizo never carries the meaning of placing an object in a liquid and then immediately removing it, in either classical or koine Greek.
Duncan
I do believe it is God washing us, but since we are fully cleansed of our sins, would not a full fledged dunking symbolize that better and more fully than alittle water being sprinkled on your head?
Tim, very nice.
Seth, if God’s doing the washing, how much water do you think he needs?
None?…
Sorry. Just joking. This is an interesting conversation. Not sure I have a well thought out position on this yet.
Its symbolism. Like when we take communion. The water symbolizes Gods washing our sins away.
You’re getting close, Seth. Both of them are sacraments, which means that while they are symbols, they are also real spiritual events.
In both cases, they represent and celebrate God’s work, not ours.
It took awhile, but PP readers now insist on proper terminology, and insist that words be used correctly….
JDuncan, it appears you’ve won the argument that words do matter.
SCOREBOARD.
Josh, I understand(i think) thepoint you are trying to make. Good works never save. We are only saved by the blood of Christ. That much is clear. Matt. 7:15-23 teaches you will know authentic faith by the fruit of a person’s lifr (I know the context is false teachers, but the implications are the same). I do think that if a person understands and cna articulate the gospel, and is repenting of their sins, i see no reason to baptize them into the church body. However, if their continues to be habitual, unrepentant sin, and no fruit in keeping with true repentance even though they are receiving faithful teaching and discipleship, something is not right. Jesus conlcudes in that passage that there were many who make a decision for Christ but do not have authentic, saving faith.
“Fruit” doesn’t mean living right. If it did, how would the “fruit” of someone who is a born again believer be any different from a “good” mormon or jehovah’s witness? Fruit is what comes when something reproduces itself. In Genesis 1, the bible says: The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. An apple tree produces apples. If an apple dies, it might take root and produce more apples.
In the same way, if a believer dies to himself and uses his life to preach the gospel, he will produce after his own kind: A Christian should produce other Christians. A false teacher will not produce people who believe the gospel, but he might produce people who live an ostensibly moral life.
More importantly, why do you add the amorphous requirement that someone be “repenting of his sins” in order to be baptized? That wasn’t mentioned in any of the three accounts I cited, and I am not aware of any biblical requirement that someone “repent of his sins” in order to be baptized. It might be because the phrase “repent of sins” isn’t found anywhere in the bible, or maybe it’s because NO ONE has ever “turned from his sins” because we all still sin, even after we’re saved.
The people that Jesus doesn’t know in Matthew 7 aren’t people who believed on Jesus but failed to live a good life, they’re people who failed to put their hope in Jesus Christ. Their claim to salvation wasn’t the blood of Christ, it was their own good works: THEIR prophesying in his name, THEIR casting out demons in his name, THEIR good deeds in his name. These men were living a “good” life. They had “fruit,” as you define it. But they hadn’t believed on Jesus Christ or they would be claiming his righteousness, rather than arguing their own.
Josh,
Good conversation.
youare kind of all over the place there, but ‘ll try to respond briefly.
fruit baring is a theme throughout the entire Bible. I could list endless references, but one will have to suffice. THe fruit of the Spirit that Paul speaks of in Glaltians. A true believer has a new heart that bears a fruit. He then lists what is in that fruit. Good works flow from this type of heart. Mormons for example, may do good works, but it is not from a new heart that is trusting in the righteousness of Christ.
agree with you on fruit producing other fruit (Christians producing Christians). I just think this fruit baring motiff is larger and includes more in Scripture. Like I said earlier, I agree with you the context of Matthew 7. Yet, I still stand by my statment about the implications.
I’m not sure if you are correct about repenting of sins being anywhere in teh Bible in regards to baptism. I’ll assume you are correct because even if you are right, it is implied all throughout out the Bible. Authentic faith in Christ is accompnied by repentance of sin. Baptism should follow authentic faith. I think the Bible implies that if one is to be baptized, that person must show they have faith in Christ by their confession of Him and by their brokenness and repentance of their sinful state before a holy God.
I’m not sure if you are correct about repenting of sins being anywhere in teh Bible in regards to baptism. I’ll assume you are correct because even if you are right, it is implied all throughout out the Bible. Authentic faith in Christ is accompnied by repentance of sin. Baptism should follow authentic faith. I think the Bible implies that if one is to be baptized, that person must show they have faith in Christ by their confession of Him and by their brokenness and repentance of their sinful state before a holy God.
We aren’t required to be “broken” by sin in order to be saved. We’re required to put our faith in Jesus Christ. Obviously if we believe we have no sin, we aren’t putting our faith in Christ, we’re putting it in our own “good” life (and we’re also wrong, of course.) Did Philip ask the Ethiopian if he was “broken” about his sin? Is anything in that passage about the Ethiopian’s sin? Did Peter tell Cornelius to “turn from his sin”? No, he said, everyone “whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Is this true, or isn’t it? Are you suggesting someone can believe on Jesus Christ and go to hell because he wasn’t sorry enough about his sin? I’m also confused about how Paul was able to make sure the jailer (and his family, don’t forget) had “repented of sin” when he baptized them the very night they believed.
The only requirement for baptism is being born again. The only requirement to be born again is to believe on Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sin by grace. If we are required to do something to receive grace, it is no longer grace. The water of life is available without price to all who desire it, not just to those who “deserve” it because of their lifestyle change.
JDuncan,
You wrote: “Just to tease you a little on the aspect of John as priestly baptizer–this was the issue that converted me from an immersionist to a sprinkler.”
I couldn’t resist: chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk-chk
Tommy, would you put down the OED already?