Paul and Baptism

30 Nov 2009 at 02:01

Matthew Keedy Clifton

Salvation

No Comments

by Matthew K. Clifton

It is sometimes stated that the writings of the apostle Paul give no particular emphasis to baptism as a command of the gospel. In fact, the average “man on the street” evangelical adherent will claim that since Paul said Christ sent him “not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17), it must mean that baptism is not a part of the gospel, nor necessary for salvation.1 But how does Paul treat baptism in his writings? Does he really isolate baptism in water from the gospel? Does Paul see baptism as unnecessary and inconsequential? If not, what purposes and needs does Paul see being fulfilled by baptism? Continue reading →

  1. Blomberg, Craig L. The NIV Application Commentary, 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Blomberg claims that 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 is a proof that baptism is not required for salvation, but in both his references (p. 46 and pp. 191-197) he fails to give exegetical support to the statement, other than to say that the Israelites were not literally immersed in water while following the cloud and at the crossing of the Red Sea. Somehow he applies Paul’s figurative use of “baptism” in reference to the Israelites to the Bible’s literal teaching in regards to baptism and conversion. [↩]

The postmodernist attack on Christianity

30 Apr 2009 at 08:22

Matthew Keedy Clifton

Sermons

3 Comments

thinIce

It started innocently enough with a simple picture created for a school project, a mere line drawing by the hand of a teenage boy. But the boy’s teacher found the work so objectionable that she refused to give the boy a grade, and the Wisconsin school stood by this teacher. The boy was also given two detentions for the objectionable artwork.

The drawing in question was submitted alongside the artistic creations of other students. Among these other works was a red-skinned demon mask complete with horns and bared fangs; a Buddha fountain; a sorcerer; an eight-armed Hindu goddess riding a giant swan.

But the work the boy submitted went over the limit in the eyes of the school. What was so offensive, so vulgar to the boy’s teacher? It was simply this: a white chalk drawing on a black background of a cross, with the caption, “John 3:16, a sign of love.” Continue reading →

Archaeology and the Date of the Exodus

29 Apr 2009 at 09:19

Matthew Keedy Clifton

Apologetics, Biblical Archaeology

3 Comments

TheExodus0687-043662

The biblical account of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt plays a central role in Judeo-Christian religious understanding. When a severe famine in the land of Canaan brought the patriarch Jacob and his family to Egypt, God promised that He would go with him, and bring his descendants[1] out again (Gen. 46:3-4). God’s promise to Jacob is a continuation of the “promise plan,” first made to Abraham in Gen. 12. This “promise plan,” which some would say extends even further back to Gen. 3:15, is the common thread which runs throughout the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation.[2] The plan finds its main subject in the coming of the Messiah, and has its climax in the judgment.

Since the exodus narrative is part of God’s fulfillment of this promise plan, and since the event is referred to over and over in scriptures, if one doubts the exodus, one basically doubts the Bible as being the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Being such a focus of the scriptures, the exodus has for many years in turn been a focus of much controversy and discussion. Although there are some scholars and historians who doubt the biblical exodus ever happened[3], this paper will work from the assumption that an exodus of the sort described in the Bible actually did happen, a view that is taken by most scholars. The portion of the debate that will be examined in this short paper is the question of the dating of the event. Continue reading →

Debate begins tonight

27 Apr 2009 at 16:13

Matthew Keedy Clifton

Cross Currents

No Comments

The Nature of Man debate will begin tonight at 7 p.m. with an altered format. For an explanation of the format, see the Shaumburg church of Christ website. For live audio of the event, follow this link:

http://pointers.audiovideoweb.com/stcasx/3c3winlive3145/play.asx

Baptist minister pulls out of debate

24 Apr 2009 at 08:53

Matthew Keedy Clifton

Apologetics

No Comments

Weylan Deaver, gospel preacher and son of Mac Deaver, sent me this note this morning, and he has allowed me to post it here for your information. Weylan writes,
“Matthew Black, the Baptist pastor scheduled to have a four night debate with Mac Deaver on April 27-30 in Chicago, has, at the eleventh hour, pulled out of the debate. This, in spite of the best efforts of members of the Schaumburg church of Christ (the debate’s sponsor) to encourage Black to keep his commitment to participate.

“Months of preparation have gone into this event, including advertising and numerous people making travel arrangements to attend. Expecting several visitors, and not wanting to have to turn them away with nothing, the Schaumburg church has asked that Deaver go ahead and come to present his material, at least for Monday-Wednesday nights. The URL for listening to the audio of the now-canceled debate will (hopefully–no final word yet) still be used for streaming the audio of Deaver’s presentations.

“Having gone over Deaver’s PowerPoint presentation, including affirmative and negative arguments, it is excellent and most helpful material in addressing whether sin is (or even can be) inherited, and whether a person can, of his own free will, respond to the gospel’s invitation. So, even without an actual debate, the study that has gone into preparing for it will pay dividends in helping brethren in the future who have to deal with Calvinistic thought. Having already made all plans to be there, I will still make the trip to encourage the event, and it will be grand to see the good brethren at Schaumburg once more. Of course, the initial shock of this news was most disappointing. However, Lord willing, good will still come from it!”

We will keep you up-to-date on the availability of the audio broadcast as the date nears.

New Spiritual Sword a must read

17 Apr 2009 at 10:05

Matthew Keedy Clifton

Cross Currents, Denominationalism

11 Comments

In the latest edition of The Spiritual Sword, the question “What is happening to us?” is examined. Many issues that are being discussed and disagreed over are covered in the issue, including homosexuality, the role of women, denominationalism, instrumental music, and postmodernism. One issue, however, stood out and caused me a little shock.

At the beginning of his article entitled, “Is immersion a condition of salvation,” Hugh Fulford quotes Gary Holloway of Lipscomb University:

“Currently there is some controversy among Churches of Christ regarding immersion. Many of us cannot deny that there are many devout Christians who are unimmersed.”

Now, this quote was from back in 2006 and I believe came from New Wineskins. But Fulford also quotes Mike Williams, also a professor at Lipscomb and the minister at Fourth Avenue Church of Christ in Franklin, Tenn., as saying that the congregation will accept the baptisms of anyone, whether baptized as infants, for reasons other than remission of sins, as well as those who have not been baptized. He quotes Williams as saying, “And so, we have decided we will not be contentious, and we will be encompassing, and embracing all who choose to come here and walk with us.”

At what point, brethren, do we begin to notice the gradual but steady slide down the slippery slope of religious plurality and inclusiveness? If you have not read The Spiritual Sword, I encourage you to get a copy and read about the issues that are facing the church in our times.

Deaver-Black debate will be broadcast live on internet

15 Apr 2009 at 08:50

Matthew Keedy Clifton

Cross Currents, Denominationalism

2 Comments

It was announced recently that Mac Deaver will participate in a debate with a baptist minister April 27-30 at Schaumburg (Ill.) Church of Christ. The title of the debate is “The Nature of Man.” For more information, see the previous article here.

Jeffery Miller with the church at Schaumburg dropped by to tell me that the debate will be broadcast live on the internet. Follow the link below to watch each night between 7 and 9:30 p.m.

http://pointers.audiovideoweb.com/stcasx/3c3winlive3145/play.asx

Realizations about graceconversation.com

13 Apr 2009 at 12:47

Matthew Keedy Clifton

Fellowship

59 Comments

Here are a few realizations I have come to as a result of reading the comments on graceconversation.com:

  1. The format of the discussion is conducive neither to learning nor to resolution. Although it is always good to have an “open forum” situation, an open forum where everyone is chattering non-stop and chasing rabbit trail after rabbit trail is useless. Unless, of course, one wants to promote confusion. I appreciate the attempt at dialogue, but it is not working. It has turned into a brilliant opportunity for progressive bloggers to attack and ridicule conservatives, and backslap and cheer one another on as they do so.
  2. Although I started reading the site with the thought that most progressives are kind and open minded, I have instead learned from graceconversation.com that the majority of progressive bloggers are just as close minded as those they accuse of the same. I have lost a lot of respect for some of my progressive friends due to their actions, language, and tone in the comments on the site.
  3. Finally, I have come to the realization that graceconversation.com is damaging the image of the church. I know that those who started the site desired for a good, productive dialogue to take place, but the comments section has become a place for those who are disgruntled with the church to teach everything from denial of God’s plan of salvation, to “original sin,” to religious pluralism.

To Jay Guin and Todd Deaver, I ask you: Is this the result you had in mind?

Greg Tidwell and Phil Sanders, I appreciate the great job you are trying to do. Jay and Todd, I have read your articles as well, and though I do not agree with your positions, I appreciate your kind manner.

I am sure no one is interested in my opinion, but I think you need to close down the comments section, unless you plan to moderate the way people speak to each other, and what doctrines they teach. If this does not happen, you are simply sponsoring a forum for Christians to be led into false doctrines.  Alternately, what would be wrong with an actual moderated debate?

If you do not agree with the doctrine of “original sin,” why have you allowed it to be openly taught on your site? If you still hold to the biblical teaching that baptism of those who come to faith is necessary for salvation, why are you allowing those who oppose God’s teaching on salvation to run free on your site?

Just my humble opinion, but it appears what started out as an interesting way to hold a discussion, has instead played directly into the hands of those who want to change the simple teachings of the church into a more denominational form, not to mention those who come by just to ridicule the church. In the comments section, the church is being held up to open shame!

I enjoyed passing by there occasionally, but I will be staying about my own work and avoiding the site until a more useful format is implemented.

May God bless you all as you seek to serve Him according to His will,

Matt

‘Red letter’ version of fellowship?

09 Apr 2009 at 11:57

Matthew Keedy Clifton

Fellowship

2 Comments

redletterbignt

He was quite convinced his view was correct. “After all, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, therefore it must not be sinful,” he said. When he was approached with the fact that the New Testament condemned homosexual behavior (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7), he said, “I only go by what Jesus said.” This fellow had a belief that he was only obligated to obey what was printed in “red letters” (denoting words spoke by Jesus). If Jesus did not say it in red letters in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, he did not feel bound to obey!

This story came to mind while I was pondering the fellowship issues being discussed at graceconversation.com and the myriad confusing comments passers-by are leaving following the writer’s blog entries. One of the current claims in the “progressive” camp is that since there are no passages that specifically say those who worship differently from the New Testament pattern should not be fellowshipped, that we therefore are obligated to accept any error in worship practice in full fellowship. Continue reading →

Reasons for withdrawing fellowship

07 Apr 2009 at 12:24

Matthew Keedy Clifton

Fellowship

No Comments

Based upon an overview of some key New Testament passages as found in the brief studies I presented last week, below is a list of reasons for withdrawing fellowship according to the Bible: Continue reading →

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →