One of the things that I most enjoyed when I attended a traditional Christian church was the occasional baby dedication service. I mean, I am practically addicted to cute. My awnhhh...! meter goes off with every precious little baby I would see.
As I was meditating on God's precepts yesterday, a thought hit me. Let's say, that you walked into a church one Sunday morning and after a baby dedication service, you actually heard the pastor say that the babies that were just dedicated to the Lord are now saved. Let's say that the pastor declared that they were now born-again and they were guaranteed to go to heaven because their parents dedicated them to the LORD. For the record, let me be explicitly clear, I have not been in any church or congregation that ever taught such a thing, (except for the Roman Catholic/Lutheran church which teaches that infant baptism saves them), but if you heard this from a pastor of a supposedly Bible believing and Bible teaching church, would you think that he was preaching true doctrine or false doctrine? Of course, such a presentation would naturally be false doctrine. For we know that the baby dedication is a parent's commitment to raise the child in the love, admonitions and principles of Almighty God and Jesus Christ, and to train them up so that they can develop their own personal and saving relationship with Almighty God in Jesus Christ. We know from a biblical standpoint that if such a relationship between the child and the Lord does not eventually develop, then that person will be condemned, despite the fact that their parents sincerely dedicated Them to the LORD, is that not so?
In another example, we know that after a person comes to a saving knowledge of Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ, Holy Scripture requires and commands that they be baptized by immersion as a public testimony that the new convert believes in, and joins himself with what Jesus Christ accomplished through his life, death, and resurrection. With rare exceptions, the majority of Bible believers completely understand that in and of itself, baptism by immersion in water does not actually cause or bring about a person's salvation. Water baptism is generally the first act of Christian discipleship and is intended as a public testimony that the new convert has come to saving faith in God and Jesus Christ and is making a commitment to live as a new creation in Christ Jesus. For the most part, the majority of believers understand that if a pastor actually taught that water baptism is what caused or brought about a person's salvation, then this too would be heresy and false teaching.
In another example of the same principle, we know that Scripture commands and exhorts us to gather together in fellowship with other believers (Hebrews 10:25). We know in principle that gathering together is important. Iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17). Scripture commands and exhorts us that we should each consider how we can spur and encourage one another on t greater faithfulness and good works in God in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:24). So, we know that regularly congregating with other believers and encouraging one another to Love, Believe, Obey, Honor Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ, and to do good in Him is a biblical command. This is a good thing to do. It's very profitable. When it's done correctly, it's beneficial because of what other believers bring into your life, and what you bring to their lives. At the same time, will church attendance convert a person? Will church attendance guarantee to cause or bring about a person salvation? Of course not. For we know that if a person does not have a born-again experience, if the blessings of Ezekiel 36:25-27 do not actually occur within a person's being, if they do not come to believe and obey Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, then they are still lost and condemned even if they faithfully attended church out of habit throughout all of their lives. Is this not so?
And again in another example of the same principle, we know that reading and meditating on the Scriptures is commanded (Deuteronomy 6:4-9). We know that meditating on the Scriptures will bring about good success in our lives (Joshua 1:7-8; Psalm 1:1-6). Reading and meditating on God's Word regularly will protect us from self-deception or self-delusion (Psalm 119:105; Psalm 119:9; James 1:19-25). Reading meditating and practicing God's word on a regular basis can help us to persevere and overcome in various trials (Psalm 119:11; Matthew 7:24-25). At the same time, is it our perfect regularity and obedience to the Word which causes or brings about our eternal salvation and righteousness before God? Of course not! Any preacher that would preach such a thing would naturally be guilty of false teaching and heresy. For, apart from a saving relationship with God and Jesus Christ, apart from believing and receiving what Jesus Christ accomplished through His life and death and resurrection, there is no good thing that a person can do to be saved and made righteous before the Perfect and Holy God of heaven.
So we know that baby dedications can be a good thing, but the baby must grow into their own personal faith and obedience to Christ Jesus for themselves. They must still have their own born-again experience in order to be saved. So baby dedication can be a good thing, but by itself it will not save you. Likewise, we know that baptism is good. It is commanded in the Scriptures to fulfill a specific purpose, but it too will not cause or bring about a person's salvation apart from a saving born-again experience in Jesus Christ. The same is true with church attendance, with Bible reading and with all other good things that are commanded and exhorted throughout what is commonly called the Old and New Testament, or more accurately The Whole Testament. Is this not so?
If you'll bear with me a moment, I would like to pose a few poignant questions for your consideration.
Since we know that by itself baby dedications will not save our children, then does this naturally mean that we should abolish all baby dedications from our churches? Since baby dedication day does not save our children, then does this mean that parents should never publicly commit themselves to raising their children in the love, admonitions and principles of Almighty God and Jesus Christ? Since baby dedication will not cause the baby's salvation, then does this naturally mean that parents should not publicly make such a commitment, and that they should not make a public request that the congregation assist them in this all-important endeavor? Since it does not directly cause the child's salvation, does this naturally mean that we should abolish it altogether and never practice it?
Since apart from a saving commitment to Jesus Christ, the act of baptism by immersion in water is not actually what brings about or causes a person to be saved, then does this naturally mean that we should abolish the practice of water baptism in our congregations?
Since apart from a saving born-again experience in Christ Jesus, regular church attendance is not what guarantees a person's salvation, then does this mean that every congregation, home fellowship, or church should naturally close its doors, and believers should stop congregating together, since congregating is not what saves you?
Since apart from a saving born-again experience in Christ Jesus, regular Bible reading and meditation on the Scriptures is not what guarantees a person's salvation, then does this naturally mean that churches and fellowships should now actively discourage Bible study and practice instead of promoting it?
Of course, no truly sane and healthy believer would think it wise to abolish or even discourage these good things simply because doing them in and of themselves is not what causes a person to be saved. Most healthy believers can rightly see the benefit of these things, and we understand that as long as we don't teach that these things can save a person apart from Jesus Christ, then each of these good things has its proper place and function in the life of believers. These good things would only become bad if we allow them to develop into a false doctrine that doing these good things is what caused, brought about or insured a person's salvation. Then what was good, would become bad or false teaching.
What amazes me though is that the same wise Christians who would not think of abolishing baby dedications, baptisms, church attendance, or Bible readings from their faith and practice, but instead they know how to keep these things in the right perspective, the same wise Christians think it perfectly acceptable to abolish Old Testament teaching and principles, instead of wisely applying the exact same method across the Whole Testament of Scripture. The same wise Christians who would not think of abolishing Bible meditation think nothing of abolishing the annual Passover and the feasts of the LORD (Leviticus 23), instead of applying the same wise principle to those things that they do to New Testament standards. That blows my mind.
***
Understanding the Apostolic Perspective
In the time of the apostles in the first century, traditional rabbinical Judaism actually taught the false teaching that keeping the Law of God given to Moses and keeping the Oral Law of the rabbinical traditions of the Elders is what caused or brought about a person's salvation. They did that in much the same way that the Catholic Church now teaches that keeping Roman Catholic tradition might make God like you better and give you a better chance to get into heaven. This too is false of course, but that's what the rabbis taught about keeping the oral rabbinical tradition.It's absolutely critical to understand that the popular rabbinical traditions of the first century Judaism were heretical. They were false teachings even by Old Testament standards.
It's crucial to realize that even in the Old Testament, righteousness before God was something that God gave you as a gift through faith (Genesis 15:6; Deuteronomy 30:6; Habakkuk 2:4; Ezekiel 36:25-27, just to name a few places). From the accurately Biblical Old Testament point of view, people only obeyed God and followed the Law after God transformed them from the inside, not before then. However, this was not what traditional Judaism taught in Christ's day, nor in the time of the apostles. What rabbinical traditional Judaism was teaching was in reality the exact opposite of what Scripture actually taught.
The Oral Torah, the Oral Law, or the Oral rabbinical tradition of the elders (all names synonymous for the exact same thing, actually taught things that were the exact opposite of what the written Scripture commanded. So when the rabbis taught that part of gaining salvation was to obey the Oral tradition, they were actually teaching people to disobey the written Scriptures. This was heresy and false doctrine.
For example, it’s part of the oral tradition of the elders that if a person disobeys their rabbi, they are deserving of death. In another portion of the Oral tradition, it says that if a person disobeys their rabbi, they will be boiled in excrement in hell. According to the rabbinic al oral teaching tradition of the elders, the oral teaching tradition of the rabbis in the elders was to be held in higher value than the written Scriptures. They even taught that if the written Law of God and the prophets taught a particular thing, but the rabbinical teaching tradition of the elders taught the exact opposite thing, one still had to obey the Oral rabbinical teachings of the elders, even if it meant disobeying the written Scriptures in the process[1]. Nowhere is this taught in Scripture of course. In fact, God's written Law explicitly forbids adding to or subtracting from what God has said. Therefore, the Oral rabbinical teaching tradition of the elders was in many places a direct violation of God's actual Law, because they changed, added or subtracted from what God said which is illegal (see Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32). Nevertheless, that's what was being taught by religious tradition in first century Judaism. It is still often taught in traditional Judaism today.
To understand this problem using our own modern parallel as points of reference for clarity, it would be exactly as if a denomination of Christianity in our day actually taught that baby dedication, that baptism, church attendance, and Bible reading is what actually caused, brought about or insured a person's righteousness and eternal salvation. More than that, assume that a denomination also sprang up that said that not only did a person have to do those four things in order to cause or ensure their salvation, but they also could not be saved unless they joined a particular denomination, went to that particular church and fulfilled those four things in the precise ceremonial way that this denomination required. Now assume that this denomination became dominant over the centuries and that they began teaching at their own tradition was equal to or greater than the Scriptures, so that if there was a conflict between their teaching and what Scripture taught, you still had to obey them instead of obeying what Scripture teaches, and that if you disagree with or disobeyed the leaders of this dominant denomination, then you would go to hell. Now, if you understand these dynamics then you understand the problems of rabbinical Judaism (and also some of the problems of Roman Catholic tradition which essentially teaches the same thing), both of which are traditionally accepted, but it's completely false doctrine. When you understand the historical context, then Messiah's words make a lot more sense (Matthew 5:17-20; Matthew 23:24; Mark 7:6-9).
In effect, the Pharisees were teaching that in order to be saved, a person had to obey them, even if that required disobeying the written Scriptures to do it. It's crucial to understand that such a teaching tradition, although widely accepted at the time, is in direct violation of God's Law in the Scriptures, (Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32). It's imperative to understand that this is the primary reason why Jesus, the apostles, and eventually Paul, did not get along with the Pharisees and other religious leaders in their day. Some of the laws of they were requiring people to obey were in reality the direct opposite of what God's written Word required, and that's why Jesus Christ and the other apostles opposed the religious tradition.
Can you see now why Scripture goes out of its way to praise the Bereans (Acts 17:11)? For the Bereans to have the courage to diligently check out what Rabbi Paul was teaching would have been completely the opposite of what they would have been taught to do by their religious tradition, but they loved and cared enough about the truth to check things out for themselves, and they were diligent about doing so, even though everything in their upbringing in the religious tradition taught in first century Judaism told them to accept the rabbis words automatically. The Bereans were doing the right and correct thing, in spite of the fact that they were brought up to think and do the wrong thing by tradition. That's why they were praised. Please don't forget this. Scripturally speaking, there is a pattern showing that God tends to take special notice of people who do the right and correct things, especially when they were brought up and taught to think and do the wrong things. That's what overcoming the world means.
What the apostles taught in the first century was that obeying God's Law and the customs which God gave to Moses was good. They would not have commanded against doing those things anymore then faithful teachers of God's word today command someone never to dedicate their children to the Lord, or never get baptized. The apostles never taught anyone to actively violate the Laws of God, any more Than faithful teachers today would dare to teach that Christians should altogether abandon church attendance or regular Bible study. No, the apostles taught that obeying the Laws of God was good, but they also taught rightfully that obeying the Laws of God apart from Christ is not what caused, what brought about, or insured, a person's salvation.
Conclusion: Sooner or later every growing and thriving Christian must confront some important questions. Why do we do what we do? Why do most of our churches teach only topically, and almost never, verse by verse, chapter by chapter and book by book from Genesis to Revelation? Why do we do what we do as a church on an annual basis? Why do we not treat all of Scripture the same? It obviously is the same, since Jesus was with God when the Word was given, (John 1:1-12)? Can everything that I am taught to believe and do, in church truly be supported in the Scripture? If it can, what can I do to be even more perfect and what my church teaches? If what I am taught to do by tradition and by practice cannot be expressly defended in the Scriptures, then by what authority do we traditionally do what we are doing? Am I truly following God and His Word? Or, am I believing and following merely the tradition of men? At the end of the day would Almighty God recognize me as one who had the courage of the Bereans, in spite of what the religious tradition of men has taught me to do? Not going along with the crowd, and doing what God says is exactly what's required to be a believer that overcomes the world. Would you choose to be a Berean? Will you develop Berean courage?
Brother Michel Lankford
No comments:
Post a Comment