Thai Green Curry, Presidential Debates, and Ephesus

Probably my favorite food genre to cook is Thai food.  A few years ago, Exie and I lived across the street from a Thai restaurant in Louisville, KY.  We got to know the owner and probably ate there 3 times a month.  One of the coolest parts about going was our owner friend brought us out different dishes to try on the house.  This expanded our palette, and like a true salesman (or is it drug dealer), got us hooked on his product so that we wanted more.

Sadly, when we left Louisville, our new home was nowhere near a Thai restaurant.  This left us with only two options: First, we could experience Thai food delirium tremens as a result of our withdraw, or second, we could learn how to prepare Thai dishes at home.  I opted for the latter.  I owe any success I've had in developing my skill to this website .  Since then, I've worked on my technique, my equipment, and my skill.  Last night we enjoyed a nice stir fry with chilies, chicken, egg, lots of veggies and basil.  AND, I made my first attempt at a Thai green curry, which came out pretty dang spicy - maybe too much....it's gonna leave an exit wound.

But here's my philosophy - it will get better as I learn from my mistakes and repeat my successes....  Even now that we live in a town with several great Thai restaurants, I like improving my skill, and not settling for only eating out.

What in the world does that have to do with elections or the Bible...?

I watched the presidential debate last night.  I have a lot of strong opinions politically, but I'll save most of that for another time.  Regardless of your political stances, there are some facts about the president's record: the deficit has not been cut in half like he promised to do, instead it's increased by several trillion dollars; our military is still in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the president's promises to withdraw our troops; and more Americans are unemployed today than when he took office.  Romney, in my humble opinion, didn't address this enough during the first debate.  Instead, both candidates tried to (pardon the pun!) curry favor from supporters with well-crafted rhetoric.

I don't know what the conclusions will be, nor how the public will ultimately vote next month, but there seemed to be a number of folks on TV saying that Romney did well, and the president did poorly, and that undecided viewers were more inclined to vote for Romney after seeing the first debate.  At the very least we might say that the public has been stirred.

Well, this morning I was reading in Acts chapter 19.  Part of that chapter tells of a riot that nearly broke out in the city of Ephesus.  What began as a complaint from artisans and craftsmen about how Paul's preaching was going to be bad for their business, became a city-wide uproar.  One verse stood out to me in particular - verse 32.  It says. "The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another.  Most of the people did not even know why they were there."

Let me ask you a question:
Do you know why you are here?  Wherever "here" is for you, did you get there by choice, or by following others?  Are you going through a season of transition, or of fear and worry?  Are you in a troubled marriage, or are you unemployed?  Maybe things are going great, but are you being tempted to coast along in your success?

I think our country is in confusion right now.  Even those with strong political views - how many of them are just following the crowd?  Many people are shouting one thing or another, but they don't really know where we are, how we got here, or what we should do about it.

How did we get here?  Financial crisis, $16 trillion debt, over 20 million Americans unemployed.  Prayer in school, Biblical marriage, and belief in creation have been elbowed out of our "tolerant" society, while terrorism is excused as an understandable reaction to a Youtube video.

And spiritually speaking, American Christians seem to waver between extremes of political over-involvement or isolationism.  Bold faith like we see in the early church seems to be diminishing.  If, heaven forbid, major persecution broke out against Christianity today, I'm not sure if Christians would remain strong in this country.  After all, church attendance dips whenever it rains, or there's a holiday weekend, or a good ballgame is on TV.  Midweek Bible study or small groups limp along, and community service is replaced by an annual check, in a number of congregations I know.  If American believers are threatened with physical harm and/or social ostracism, many may choose the path of least resistance.

What's the solution?   I'm going to suggest: Spiritual Maturity.

Paul wrote the church in Ephesus, the same city in which the riot once broke out, about this.  He said churches need to equip believers to be more unified and mature in the faith:
¹⁴ Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. ¹⁵ Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. (Ephesians 4:14-15, NIV).

Can you learn from your mistakes?  Can you repeat your successes?  Can our country change course?  Can our churches?  Yes, but not if believers continue to be tossed back and forth by every wind of teaching.  Not if we fall captive to rhetoric, and wind up shouting in the political arena INSTEAD of being built up in the word of God.

Let's learn the truth, and share it boldly and in love for others.  Let's understand the best thing that can happen to a struggling person or marriage or family, is to meet Jesus and follow Him.  That's the best thing that could happen in our country, too, by the way.  And as we mature, we can enjoy the fruit of maturity - more consistency in our walk with Christ.  Don't settle for following a politician or "going out" for every spiritual meal, relying only on the skills of others to nourish our souls.

Take responsibility for your future by trusting your life in God's hands.  I'm reminded to do that every time I take out my wok and fish sauce...

Soup, stew, and the flavor!

So, I'm an amateur home cook.  But I love to make good food.  I was sitting down for lunch with my wife and another young lady this week, who wants to learn how to cook.  As a new college student, this is going to be a big life lesson for her.  Then, my wife offered her a cooking lesson - from me!  Man, that's putting me on the spot a little bit, but I accepted the challenge.  Now, what to cook???

Over the years, I've discovered I have a knack for soups and stews.  I'm not French trained on consume' or bisque (although I would love to have a grasp on the fundamentals), but if you want a hearty meal in a bowl, I've had some success.  Maybe it goes back to my grandmother's famous chicken & dumplin's.  When I was in college, I discovered that both my older brother and my cousin had been practicing the art of replicating Gi-Gi's recipe.  None of us have done it perfectly, but we get close, even while using different ingredients.  Which is one reason I like one-pot meals - you can make changes and substitutions and still maintain the integrity of the dish.

My general approach is the main idea I want to share, though.  I try to add flavor (Flay-vah).  If I've learned anything from countless hours of Food Network and Top Chef, it's the idea of layering flavors to create a complex dish.  And sometimes all you really need to do that is good ingredients and a cup of Kosher salt. (And no, I'm not on the whole sea salt bandwagon yet.  Kosher is coarse, and forgiving, so you aren't as at risk of making the dish too salty.  Of course you would never use iodized salt in cooking, right?!?!?).

A good soup is probably going to start with a protein (like chicken pieces) and/or a touch of fat (oil or bacon), sweating mirepoix (carrot, celery, onion), seasoning with juices from the protein and the fond (brown bits on the bottom of the pot from the protein), and building with other veggies and some stock or broth.  So, a chicken soup would start with some thighs, seasoned, and skin side down in the big kettle in a little oil.  Once browned on all sides, I like to add the mirepoix, and a touch of thyme.  This is a great base for a bunch of different directions - brunswick stew, chicken noodle, chicken & dumplin's, chicken & rice, or even a white bean chicken chili or roasted corn chowder.  Just make sure to season between each addition.

The next step, though, is probably the most important.  Don't use water.  Why?  Guess what water tastes like.  NOTHING.  Why add water when you could add broth or stock?  You can make your own, you can buy it, you can start with boiling some chicken parts before you do the dish.  My new Chicken & pastry recipe boils a whole chicken first.  More for the stock it makes than anything else.  But flavor comes from the layers, and water has no flavor.

So take your base, cover with a stock or broth (save time if it's already heated on another burner).  Bring it to a boil, and add your other veggies (frozen are fine, but thaw on the counter first to save time).  Frozen veggies don't come seasoned, so pinch with salt.  Cover, simmer, skim off the fat, remove the skin and bones.  Salt, pepper, and maybe some hot sauce or garlic powder to finish.  If you're using tomatoes, I like to add a bay leaf early on.

I know a lot of bland food is out there.  But why eat it if you can make something better?

When Job was despairing his life, he said, "Is tasteless food eaten without salt, or is there flavor in the white of an egg?" (Job 6:6).  Part of what makes life enjoyable is tasty food.  But let me take it one step further.

Jesus said, "You are the salt of the earth," Matthew 5:13.  I know there were other functions for salt in the first century, but Christians ought to make an impact on their culture, not the other way around.  Are we being water or broth?  Are we bringing any flavor to the table, or is our message just getting diluted as our culture shapes us?  (To use another metaphor: Are we thermostats or thermometers?)

As Titus 2:10 says, I want to make the gospel attractive by the way I live.  I want to bring the layers of flavor (truth, discipline, kindness, compassion, love, and correction, etc.) to life.  There is a lot of hunger out there for meaningful spiritual meals, and in Jesus we find everything that we were made for and this world can't offer.

But man, there are a lot of brothers and sisters who never learned how to cook with layers of flavor!  Here's to flavor and influence, and lots of soups, stews, and chili's this year!

“Why Should You Be Baptized?: A Critical Response in Love”

by Marty Anderson

Like many of my friends and colleagues, I dig pastor Mark Driscoll. I don’t catch every tweet, read every blog, or listen to every sermon of his, but I’m generally a fan.  There is a lot to be admired about this brother.  He's a good author, a powerful communicator, and he's a rock star of the faith.  He preaches in Seattle, an atheistic culture, and so he’s edgy and relevant and effective.  Moreover, he takes God’s Word very seriously. Which is why I was curious what he would say in a recent article of his called “Why Should You BeBaptized?”.  What I read left me feeling a bit frustrated that the role of baptism has been down-sized once again in popular Christianity by an outstanding leader in the faith.[1]  Here, I’d like to address a few points made in the article and offer my alternative interpretation. 

We agree Baptism is important, but is it optional?

Pastor Mark makes several great statements about baptism in this article.  “…the Bible is clear that believers should be baptized.”   I do wonder if the passages he would use to determine that believers “should” be baptized are the same as the passages I would use to determine baptism plays a non-optional role in conversion.  He continues:  “So, this begs the question: why baptism?”  Christian baptism is an act of obedience to Jesus’ command.”

The believer being baptized is immersed beneath the waters in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which expresses the believer’s death to sin and the burial of their old life, and then brought out of the water, which expresses the believer’s resurrection to a new kingdom life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:1–10; Col. 2:12).

Baptism also identifies a Christian with Jesus (Acts 10:48; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27), the universal church (1 Cor. 12:13), and the local church (Acts 2:41).

Finally, he admits: “When writing a piece such as this, there’s the tension of undermining the importance of baptism. Even though you cannot be saved through baptism, if you have put your faith in Jesus Christ then you should be baptized.”

I guess I would like to know what “importance” Pastor Mark sees in being baptized, and why he believes we “should” do it if he doesn’t believe it has anything to do with conversion.  If Jesus commanded it, isn’t it necessary?  About what other command of Jesus to His disciples would we say: “It’s important, and we should do it, but it’s not necessary and has nothing to do with salvation”?  I think the same thing that leads Pastor Mark to say that baptism is “important” is what leads me to conclude baptism is not optional.  Perhaps the reason he concludes baptism has nothing to do with conversion is that his theology has led him to separate the act of being baptized from faith in Jesus.

The Broad, Heady Stuff: Are Faith and Baptism Mutually Exclusive?

Pastor Mark begins his article with a conclusive observation:  some wrongfully teach that faith in Jesus plus the act of baptism is required to make you right with God. This is not the case at all. Jesus plus anything ruins everything.

There are parts of this that I agree with completely.  According to Galatians 3:3 Paul says, “3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

The Galatians were “adding to” the terms of the gospel by saying that after a person became a Christian, they were obligated to keep the Mosaic Law in order to maintain their salvation.  The response from Paul is a major theme of the New Testament – he contrasts law-keeping with salvation by grace through faith alone.  This is absolutely true and essential, and in that sense “Jesus plus anything ruins everything.”  The question is whether any act of man to respond to God’s call for salvation – any action connected with conversion to Christ – can be lumped in with the law-keeping of the Galatians. 

The New Testament connects belief/faith with confession by mouth, repentance, and steadfastness, as well as baptism, as conditions for conversion.[2]  Would any of these actions be considered “additional” to faith in Christ?  Or are they actions of faith – part of a person’s acceptance of the grace of Jesus?  Indeed, later in the same chapter of Galatians, in verse 27 Paul says that it was in baptism that these Christians “put on Christ.”  Apparently, Paul did not lump the action of being baptized in with “law-keeping”.

James makes a connection between faith and actions in James 2:14, 17 “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?... 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” 

James focuses on benevolence to the poor as his example of “deeds.”  Is he saying salvation is by Jesus plus benevolence?  Of course not.[3]  But what point IS James making?  It’s this: faith is not merely head knowledge (or assent) but also trust. 

I like the story of Charles Blondin, a tight rope walker in the 19th century.[4]  He would steer a wheel barrow across the high wire over Niagara Falls to the amazement of the crowds below.  On more than one occasion he would ask the crowd, "Do you believe I can carry a person across in this wheelbarrow?" The crowd enthusiastically shouted, "Yes, yes, yes. You are the greatest tightrope walker in the world. You can do anything!"

"Okay," said Blondin, "Get in the wheelbarrow...."

Sometimes “deeds” are used to demonstrate faith.  I think James and the New Testament help us understand that there is a difference between “works of the law” and “deeds” of faith.  The former are treated as a means to salvation, while the latter are the expression of genuine belief.  All of the commands and admonishments of the NT epistles only make sense if we understand that faith in Jesus requires obedience to His commands.  And that lack of obedience demonstrates a lack of genuine faith.[5] 

Again, none of this precludes the truth that “Jesus plus anything ruins everything.”  It just clarifies how I understand that statement, versus the way it is used in the article.  From here, we move from the broad and philosophical to the specific statements about baptism and its role in conversion.

An Outward Witness, or Something More?

Pastor Mark says, “the Bible presents baptism as an outward witness of an inward faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.”  This is a true statement, but I don’t think he encapsulates ALL that the Bible says about baptism.  It’s like he says, “Baptism is a symbol.”  I agree with that, but I believe not only is baptism a symbol, it is an act of responding to God’s call.  It is a work, but not of man to earn salvation; it is God’s work of cleansing on the heart of everyone who submits to Him.[6]

Baptism is an outward witness usually accompanied by an inward faith.  But that doesn’t mean that it is not ALSO a necessary step in conversion.  True, the water does not save, neither does the act itself save – only Jesus saves, and to say otherwise would be belief in baptismal regeneration.  Baptism apart from faith is just getting wet.  But baptism is the most likely, and most biblical, occasion for a believer to be united with Christ.  Consider all that baptism in water is for one who puts his/her trust in Jesus:

•        It is when we are united with Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6)
•        It is when we are clothed with Christ (Gal 3:27)
•        It is when we receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
•        It is how we “call” on the name of Jesus (Romans 10:13; Acts 22:16)
•        It is when we are sealed with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13)
•        It is when we are “born again” (John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5)

A Wedding Ring, or a Wedding?

Pastor Mark uses a popular analogy for baptism.  He says, “Baptism is like wearing a wedding ring.”  In other words, a couple is married whether they wear it or not, but it’s a nice thing to do for your spouse to show them you love them.   But what if baptism were less like a ring, and more like the wedding ceremony?  Would that make a difference? 

When does a couple go from dating or engaged to married?  One day the couple are two single people with love and a pledge to each other to be together, the next day they are a married couple.  What happened?  There was a ceremony – an act that unified them.  Now, at what exact moment did the couple become “man and wife”?  Was it at the engagement?  Was it when the father gave the bride away?  Was it at the vows?  The exchange of rings?  The pronouncement by the minister?  The kiss?  When they had sex for the first time, consummating the marriage? 

I don’t know for sure, but what I do know is on the morning of May 18^th, 2002 I was still a single man, but by that evening I was married to my beautiful wife, and “the two [have been] one flesh” ever since.  I’m not sure which portion of the ceremony was THE moment, but like my friend Dave Stone once explained, I participated in them all because I love her.   I didn’t argue whether or not the exchange of rings was necessary, or the public kiss, or the vows, I just did them all. 

In the same way, Scripture gives a number of instructions for someone ready to accept the gospel and begin their journey with Jesus.  Believe, repent, confess, be baptized, remain faithful.[7]  Which one is the moment a person is saved?  Which ones are optional, if any?  These are the wrong questions.  If you love Jesus, wouldn’t you want to do them all so that you begin your union with him in an attitude of love and full submission? 

In John 14:15, Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commands.”  Who would respond to Jesus, “Well, I’m good with everything besides baptism into the whole Father, Son, Holy Spirit thing.  That one’s optional…”?

Just like a Wedding Day is the benchmark for a couple, marking their anniversary for years to come – so baptism is the benchmark for every believer for remembering the day he/she began their journey with Jesus.[8]  Sadly, I think there are a lot of live-in companions of Jesus (cohabitating with the Savior, playing church) who haven’t gotten around to making their commitment “official”.  But I digress…

A Critical Argument

At the crux of Pastor Mark’s article he gives three arguments against connecting baptism to conversion: If baptism had anything to do with salvation, what about the Philippian jailer and the thief who died on the cross next to Jesus? ...Both of these guys were promised heaven without being baptized.  …if baptism was pivotal to our salvation, why did Paul tell the Corinthians that he came to preach the gospel and not baptize them (1 Cor. 1:14–17)?

The three examples he uses against the necessity of baptism are: the Philippian jailer, the thief on the cross, and a statement from Paul to the Corinthians.  These are the most obvious differences between Pastor Mark’s view of baptism and mine.

First, Pastor Mark says the Philippian jailer in Acts 16 was “promised heaven without being baptized.”  We are more familiar with verse 31 than we are with verses 32-33.  Just read them TOGETHER, and as Paul Harvey used to say, we will get “the rest of the story.”

30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved —you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

While belief (faith) in Jesus is the starting point in leading this man and his family to Jesus, it was clearly not all that Paul and Silas instructed the man to do.  The “word of the Lord” must have included the step of baptism, because within an hour, Paul and Silas were baptizing everyone in the family[9].  The same thing happened previously in Acts 8, when Philip won the Ethiopian eunuch to Christ.  The Bible says, “35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.  36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”

Apparently the “word of the Lord” and “the good news about Jesus” included instructions to be baptized into Christ, just as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19-20. 

I’m confident that Pastor Mark knows the Philippian jailer was immersed, but he claims that the jailer had the promise of heaven before baptism (but presumably after belief in Jesus).  That’s like splitting hairs to me.  Maybe somewhere between verses 31 and 32, there is an implied promise of heaven.  I just don’t see that here. 

On the contrary, I think suggesting the Philippian jailer had the promise of heaven before baptism would be akin to saying that Naaman[10] would have been healed BEFORE he dipped in the Jordan the 7^th time, or that the walls of Jericho[11] would have fallen BEFORE Israel marched around the city 7 times on the 7^th day.  The actions leading up to those transformations demonstrated faith, and completing the process was the necessary obedience for receiving God’s blessings.  In neither example did those people work for or earn those blessings – they were a free gift from God.  There was a command with a promise, and the blessings of the promise were received by faith, as demonstrated through obedience to the command. 

I love how the joy in the Philippian’s house is depicted in verse 34 after their baptisms.  “The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.”  This is the joy I’ve seen time and time again after a new believer rises from the water of baptism.

The second example Pastor Mark uses is the thief on the cross.  There were two thieves.  Both hurled insults at Jesus at first.[12]  But approaching death, one of them wised up and rebuked the other saying, “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

There are three things I believe about this “wise” thief.  First, I absolutely believe that he is saved, and he will be in heaven with the rest of God’s people for eternity.[13]   No doubts whatsoever.  Secondly, I believe the thief will be in heaven for the same reason I believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, David, and John the Baptist will be in heaven.  They were saved by their faith.  They “believed God” and it was “credited to [them] as righteousness.”  Which leads to the third thing I believe about the thief on the cross: he was saved according to the conditions of the Old Covenant. 

The thief on the cross died prior to Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection.  And he died before the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost to inaugurate the church.  He died prior to the preaching of the first gospel sermon by Peter in Acts 2.  He was a believer, but he was not a part of the Christian church during his life on earth.  There was no baptism into Jesus Christ until Pentecost, and no Christian in the New Testament who wasn’t baptized into Jesus after Pentecost.  There were actually a group of believers who were baptized by John, who, upon hearing about Christian conversion, were baptized into Jesus.[14]

So the Philippian jailer WAS baptized.  The thief on the cross didn’t need to be baptized because he was saved under the Old Covenant by God (indeed by Jesus himself!) because of his faith.  Now, what about Paul’s statement to the Corinthians about baptism?

The context is that there are divisions and cliques (“quarrels”) in the church at Corinth.  So Paul quotes them in his letter, saying, “12 “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Pastor Mark asks why Paul would say this if baptism were pivotal to salvation.  Here’s my understanding.  I think Paul was talking about divisions in the church, not conversion.  This passage is not instructions for new believers to convert to Christianity, but a rebuke to a congregation of Christians who are not demonstrating Christian unity. 

Paul was glad that he didn’t baptize more people personally because that might have widened the chasm between the cliques. He wanted the Corinthians to baptize each other into Christ to remove the celebrity factor from their feud.  Any Christian can baptize.  Paul’s calling was to preach, not necessarily to do all the baptizing himself – although he did baptize several of them. 

Elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul teaches about baptism on no fewer than 14 occasions.  The real question (IMHO) is: Why did Paul teach so much on baptism if it wasn’t pivotal to salvation?

Conversion is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith.  It is pivotal to Christianity because it deals with how one begins his/her journey with Jesus.  Sometimes our churches hold onto traditions and methods and ceremonies beyond their usefulness – and we could easily understand them being labeled as “optional” formalities.  Stained glass, pipe organs, Sunday School, morning exercises before Sunday School, acolytes to light candles, singing the Doxology after an offering; the list of optional formalities is endless.  But baptism is deeply rooted in Scripture, with direct ties to every convert in the New Testament, and centuries of church tradition that saw it as connected to conversion.  Plus, it’s simple.  It’s easy.  It’s accessible to people in every corner of earth.  There is no good reason NOT to baptize every person who wants to become a disciple of Jesus Christ, and every reason to believe that we should retain this ancient practice in the modern church. 

And, in case you’re wondering, I’m still a big fan of Pastor Mark.

---

[1] I’m going to presume that Mark Driscoll’s understanding of baptism is more influenced by his overall theology (including Calvinism) than purely looking at the bible passages that teach about baptism.  The same argument might be made of me, that I am coming to the Bible and his article with the preconceived idea that baptism plays a role in conversion – and I will grant that we both have biases.  But what I want to point out is an alternative to his interpretation, and leave others to discuss.

[2] Acts 16:31; Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38, 3:19; Romans 10:10; Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Revelation 2:10.

[3] But it should be noted that Jesus said an awful lot about social justice and taking care of the poor.  Jesus connected this with salvation (Matthew 25:31-46).  Benevolence is EVIDENCE that someone shares the heart of God, serves him with all his heart, mind, soul, and strength, and is loving his neighbor as himself.  I won’t take time here to expound, but we shouldn’t be dismissive of the importance of good works in the life of a believer (Ephesians 2:8-10, and careful consideration of verse 10 in this case).

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Blondin

[5] John 14:15, 23-24.

[6] 1 Peter 2:21-22.  Colossians 2:11-12. 

[7] Acts 16:31; Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38, 3:19; Romans 10:10; Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Revelation 2:10.

[8] Baptism is the only action commanded for conversion that is a one-time action.  It’s usually in the aorist tense as a Greek verb or participle, indicating a complete action.  Faith, repentance, confession/profession, and steadfastness are all described as continuous actions that a believer perpetually demonstrates.  One other observation is worth acknowledging: many church traditions have substituted the occasion of baptism with a prayer.  Often called a “salvation prayer” or a “sinner’s prayer”, the act of praying that prayer is considered to be the start of the faith journey for countless Christians.  But as important as prayer is, it is not mentioned at any conversion recorded in the New Testament.  On the contrary, Saul – blinded on the road to Damascus – prayed and fasted for three days before Ananias commanded him to be baptized to wash away all sins and call on the name of Jesus (Acts 9:9-11; Acts 22:16).   Paul believed in Jesus and was praying, but arguably didn’t have his sins washed away until his baptism.  Later, Paul uses baptism as a benchmark in his teaching for believers to remember their conversion (e.g. Romans 6:3; Colossians 2:11-12; Galatians 3:27).

[9] It should be noted that some use this passage to argue that infants were baptized on this occasion.  That would be an argument from silence as no infants are mentioned here or anywhere else in the New Testament as being baptized into Christ.  What is mentioned is belief/faith in Jesus as a prerequisite for salvation.  And since infants are not capable of trust/faith/belief in that way, they are not candidates for baptism.  Space will not allow for an explanation here, but I believe such infants are still covered by Jesus’ death on the cross until they reach an age of accountability where they are willful in their own sin.  See Romans 5:13, 16-21, and Romans 7:9-10.

[10] 2 Kgs 5:14

[11] Joshua 6:20

[12] Matthew 27:44

[13] It should be acknowledged that Jesus told the thief he would be in “paradise” that day.  This is a different word than that of “heaven”, but it still stresses the point that Jesus’ promise was that the thief would be together with Jesus after their physical deaths.  It also affirms the thief was saved personally by Jesus, no less.

[14] Acts 19:5.