God is green

[Guest]

Dear Forum,

Baptism is defined as below, the bringing of a person into the community of Christians:

American Heritage Dictionary
bap•tism

A religious sacrament marked by the symbolic application of water to the head or immersion of the body into water and resulting in admission of the recipient into the community of Christians.

WordNet
Baptism

A Christian sacrament signifying spiritual cleansing and rebirth; "most churches baptize infants but some insist on adult baptism"

In the NT world of Christians Titus 3:5 is a pretty good description of being brought into God’s fold. But what did the Jews do to bring a recipient into God’s fold before there was Jesus? It was circumcision, right? Do we have any scriptural references stating that OT Jews were brought into God’s community/fold through circumcision?

Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Hello Paidion,

So leaving her a second time in the hands of a child molester is not only unwise for her sake, it's unwise to place that temptation again in front of the child molester. Why would you want to stumble a weak brother?

Your assumption seems to be that the man is still a "child molester". That he is still "weak". That he has not truly had a change of heart and mind so that he utterly abhors his previous actions and thoughts.

Can you accept that a very wicked person can become completely whole by the blood of Christ? Can he become a regenerated person where "old things have passed away and behold, all things have become new"?

If the person still has the same old urges, then he has not truly repented, and ought not to be forgiven ---- indeed cannot be forgiven [in the true sense of the word].

In these paragraphs you seem to equate "has the same old urges" with not being "completely whole by the blood of Christ," and not being "a regenerated person where 'old things have passed away and behold all things have become new.' " Do I understand you correctly?

This troubles me because I believe that I am regenerated, made whole, and that old things have passed away, and behold, all things have become new; yet I still have some of the same old sinful urges. For me, it's just that wanting to please God is a stronger urge ... usually, but not always. I have a troublesome habit of stumbling that drives me crazy sometimes.

Sadly, even in cases where there is a genuine repentance, a regeneration, people are unable to accept the fact that the person has been utterly changed by the power of God.

Why do you think "the tempation" will always remain with the man?

In my case, it's because I see it within myself. I've also seen other people, some great men, who seemed to be repentant, but became caught up in the same sins.

If I may, I'd like to recap your teaching on forgiveness; and maybe, if you have time and the inclination, you could tell me if I have it correct:

1. Forgiveness is the response to repentance; just as an answer is the response to a question.
2. Therefore, forgiveness always succeeds repentance and is out of place before it.
3. It is wrong-headed (and perhaps dangerous) to say you forgive an unrepentant sinner; in fact it would be a false statement as it is an impossible thing to do according to the definition above.
4. If a person has sinned against you and is unrepentant, it is good and necessary to give up grudges and bitterness against them, and to even pray for and love them, but this is not forgiveness.
5. When a person has sinned against you and repents, you must forgive them; and this means to restore the relationship to it's condition before the sin happened.
6. True repentance means that the sinner has had a change of mind and heart which have been made completely new, without the urge or temptation to sin like that again.

If I've misunderstood something, please correct me.

If I've understood correctly, could you tell me how we know if someone truly repents? Is it possible to "fake" it? Is just saying, "I repent" enough, or should there be some observable change in behavior and /or attitude? If so, how long does it take until you can confirm the repentance?

Thanks and God bless,
Michelle

[Guest]

Thank you, Michelle! You may be correct about "the old urges" continuing to arise from time to time, and that they need to be conquered by the enabling grace of Christ. In that case, my position as indicated in part f of your recap, is false. Thank you for helping me to rethink my position. If you are right, then I am faced with the problem of possibly having to reject the scriptural statement, "If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation. Old things have passed, and behold all things have become new." Can you help me with this problem from your perspective?

All parts of your recap seem to well represent the position I expressed, except possibly part b (Therefore, forgiveness always succeeds repentance is out of place before it.) For, as you seem to already know from part c, I had said it is impossible for true forgiveness to precede repentance. However, when I said this, I was thinking of the "easy" forgiveness that people bestow on unrepentant people. From what you showed me (below), I now see that it is possible to forgive an unrepentant person if we have been deceived into thinking he was repentant.

If I've understood correctly, could you tell me how we know if someone truly repents? Is it possible to "fake" it? Is just saying, "I repent" enough, or should there be some observable change in behavior and /or attitude? If so, how long does it take until you can confirm the repentance?

I think it is often difficult or impossible to determine if the "repentance" is genuine or faked. Sometimes, the Spirit of God, as well as the earnestness which we discern in the person is enough to convince us.
At other times, we may doubt. However, it seems, according to the words of Jesus, we are to forgive them if they say "I repent." If we forgive someone who has not truly repented, that is, if we believe their lie, and restore the relationship, we will no doubt be greatly disappointed later when we see them continue with the same old offences. Then there is nothing to do but to break the relationship again.

I might add, that it is not necessary that the offender come to us and confess, or state his repentance. We can forgive him, if he bears the fruit of repentance. That is a sure indicator.

[Guest]

Paidion,

So if I were to apply the words of Jesus, by your understanding, to the situation I described earlier about the child molester (Praise Jesus I don't have to apply them, but if I did...) then...

According to Jesus, I would have to forgive them (i.e. - restore the relationship just as it was before) every time they said they repented (since I don't really know if they really did, and Jesus just said to forgive them if they said they repented... 70x7 times).

So let's say that the person that molested the daughter says they repent. We are required by Jesus to forgive them (even if they just say they repent) or our Father will not forgive us. From your definition, we have to restore the relationship as it was before, which means allowing the daughter to be alone with the person. Then let's say they do it again (which, according to Jesus' example is possible even after they have repented). Then they say they repent. In order to obey Jesus, we must forgive them, which would mean restoring the relationship to exactly what it was before... thus we must let the daughter stay with them again....... then the 200th time around (which still hasn't even reached the 70x7 number) and the same thing happens. The guy still says he repents, and we are still required to forgive and completely restore the relationship.

Is this your understanding of what Jesus meant?

Thanks for being willing to work through this with all of us!

[Guest]

Thanks for the reply Paidion,

Thank you, Michelle! You may be correct about "the old urges" continuing to arise from time to time, and that they need to be conquered by the enabling grace of Christ. In that case, my position as indicated in part f of your recap, is false. Thank you for helping me to rethink my position. If you are right, then I am faced with the problem of possibly having to reject the scriptural statement, "If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation. Old things have passed, and behold all things have become new." Can you help me with this problem from your perspective?

Can I get back to you on this one? As I said before, you all intimidate me, plus I'm not a bible scholar, so it's going to take me a little time to formulate an answer. For starters, I don't think it's wise to reject any scriptural statement; it's better to adjust our understanding about the statement.

Here's what I believe about forgiveness:

I believe that point "d" in my recap...

If a person has sinned against you and is unrepentant, it is good and necessary to give up grudges and bitterness against them, and to even pray for and love them...

...is what forgiveness is about, and that we are required to do it whether or not the sinner is repentant. If that person is repentant, forgiveness doesn't preclude the responsibility to help keep a brother or sister from stumbling. I think that if a person has fallen into a certain sin, they've given you a good indication of an area of weakness. I wouldn't let a child molester be alone with a child. I would rejoice in his new life, I would help him get a job (away from children), I would give him money for his bills, I would pray for him, I would share meals with him, but I wouldn't test his ability to withstand temptation by putting it there right in front of him and then make it harder by leaving him alone with it.

If the urge to sin is an indication of being lost, I'm afraid that I'm lost.

Way back when I was not walking with the Lord, I developed a liking for cocaine. I really liked it -- I loved the waaaahhh, wide awake, powerful, euphoric feeling it gave me. I still, 25 years later, think about that feeling. As much as I try, even though I've been cleansed and made new by the Lord, I cannot abhor that sin. I've noticed that I even get a little excited when it's portrayed in movies. What works for me is that I love the Lord and I don't want to damage that relationship, so I've never sought out the drug since I returned to him. However, I've wondered many times what I'd do if I stumbled into a situation where I'd be tempted.

Just now I'm reminded that actually, I sort of did stumble once -- when Ritalin was prescribed for my son but I decided not to give it to him. It was pretty expensive to throw away and there it was... so I took it all. No one ever knew until now. This is why this discussion is so meaningful to me. I'm pretty sure I've repented and the Lord has forgiven me, but what if I stumble again? Would that mean I'm unrepentant, even if it appeared that for years I was? I don't think so. It just seems that for some reason Christians stumble sometimes.

[Guest]

Michelle, Paidion, and Rae,

It seems to me that the overriding principle is the "law of love". What would this require the mother of the child to do? First of all, the child is a person, another person; she is not the mother. The mother is responsible for both loving and protecting the Child. She is only obligated to love the repentant offender. The mother has no right to put someone else, the child, at risk to demonstate her love and forgiveness for the other person. And it is not the loving thing to do to put temptation in front of someone who may have a weakness.

If a Christian has no urge (temptation) to fall into an old sin, then why are we urged to "flee from temptation"? Because we could only, as "a new man", be tempted by new and different things than before? I think it most likely we will stumble at the same things that we have had a weakness for in the past.

If forgiving someone means we must treat them just as if they had never sinned, then surely this would apply to the Church as much as to us as individuals. And this would mean that Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker should have immediately been restored to their public ministry upon their professed repentance. Perhaps this is why the Roman Catholics got into so much trouble with priests and kids.

To my mind, forgiveness and trust are not the same thing. Forgiveness flows from grace; it is unearned. Trust is earned. Think of this: should a mother allow a strange man to baby sit her child? Why not? Because he has not "earned" her trust. As far as forgiveness goes, the stranger is "forgiven". She holds nothing against him; he has given her no reason to do so. But she has less reason to trust the man who molested her child than she does the total stranger.

If you are right, then I am faced with the problem of possibly having to reject the scriptural statement, "If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation. Old things have passed, and behold all things have become new."

I think this statement of Paul is simply a reference to the new birth (born again) which certainly does not make us impervious to temptations. I think Paul is saying we have a transformation in our outlook on things. As Michelle said, old temptations may still be there, but we want to please God even more, and feel very bad when we do not.

[Guest]

Dear Forum,

The believers in God in the OT times, before Jesus Christ, were brought into a relationship, into His community of believers, into a covenant through circumcision. We can see this scripturally in:

Gen 17:10-11 “ This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.”

With God’s chosen people circumcision brought them into a covenant with God, a binding agreement with Him …. You are my people and I am your God. What is amazing is that God did not want to keep the children away from this covenantal relationship. This is spectacularly demonstrated with the next verses in Gen 17:12-14:

“12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

God wants every male who is eight days old to be brought into this everlasting covenant and if not they will be cut off from this community of people. This is not promised merely to one generation but to the plural “generations”, all their descendants.

If we fast forward for just a moment you will see that God maintains that “everlasting covenant” promise (remember God does not lie) right into the NT times of believers and their children (generations of descendants) when he says in scripture:

Matthew 19:13-15 [Mk, Lk,] “13 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. ”

Here Jesus re-affirms the kingdom to children that he promised in the OT as an “everlasting covenant”. Wow, what a God. What a promise. Still, in those early NT times there were “disciples” (believers) that rebuked those who brought children to Jesus. What is just uncanny is that verse 13 could be related to believing disciples of today from other Christian faiths that do not believe that children can be brought to God through that everlasting “covenantal” promise. Believing disciples of Christ today rebuke other Christians of today for believing in the OT promise of Gen 17:10-14.

But wait a minute, Rom 2:29 says “No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.” Fascinating, so physical circumcision is now a circumcision of the heart brought by the Holy Spirit, but how can that happen to children? Still God did give this “everlasting” promise to little children. How would He do that? Does God break His promise, change the rules? What gives, God?

Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Today, I meditated on how the account of Paul's conversion may have played out, if God and the disciples had not held to the Biblical sense of forgiveness, but to a weaker sense, which most of the world seems to hold in our day. Here's what may have happened:

Acts 8:3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

Acts 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

[after Jesus met Saul on the road and told him to enter Damascus]

9:10-25 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias."

And he said, "Here I am, Lord."

And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying, and he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might retain his blindness. For if he should regain his sight, he might persecute my disciples again."

But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name. I am afraid he might kill me"

And the Lord said to him, “I know all about him. But I have forgiven him. For I’ve given up my anger and bitterness toward him, and I even pray to my Father for him, and I love him. What more can I do? However, I can’t trust him, and neither should you. Understand, Ananias, that forgiveness and trust are not the same thing. He may get one of those urges to persecute my disciples again. And who knows what he will do, then? So take with you at least ten armed soldiers for your protection, and the protection of any other disciples who might have contact with him, for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of his bad name."

So Ananias together with the soldiers departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me to make certain that you do not regain your sight. For you may persecute the disciples again. However, I will pray that you be filled with the Holy Spirit." And immediately something like scales covered his eyes and it was plain that he would never see again. Then he rose and was baptized, and took food and was strengthened.

For several days he avoided all contact with the disciples at Damascus, for God had forbidden him to do so. For it is not the loving thing to do to put temptation in front of someone who may have a weakness.

And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, "He is the Son of God."

And all who heard him were amazed, and said, "Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name? And he has come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests. Let’s tell him how evil this Nazarene sect is, and how they misrepresent the laws of the Lord. Perhaps he will join us again in persecuting these fools!”

But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah. But then he remembered the way he used to persecute the people of this Way, and felt an urge to do it again. However, he knew that would come against the purposes of His Lord, Jesus, and so he was able to overcame the urge.

When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to win him over, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night, to convince him. Saul was tempted to join them again, but his disciples, well armed for their own protection, took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket.

And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, surrounded by soldiers, he attempted to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, for though they believed that he was a disciple, they feared he might get one of those murderous urges again. So they told him to leave. They knew they were obligated to love Saul, because he was a disciple, but they were not obligated to trust him. They said, “We rejoice in his new life, we will be glad to get him a job as a tentmaker, but we know that just because he has been born again doesn’t mean he is impervious to temptation.”

[Guest]

Dear Forum Readers,

So we know God made a convenantal promise to His chosen people through circumcision and promised this everlasting convenantal promise to all generations, all the descendants.... that's us if you do not grab the depth of this promise. We also know that God never breaks his promises.

Circumcision is replaced by baptism in the NT where Paul notes this in Col. 2:11–12. In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul's reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Some may say that you must have a saving faith to receive baptism. To have this "saving faith" you need to be of age (some say as low as 7 years old but not scripturally founded so that would be a complete TRADITION) to comprehend what you are accepting from God, ie, His saving Grace with your faith. Even though Catholic Christians believe in adults being baptized with a knowledge of God's saving Grace, we also accept that children can be baptized without any outward knowledge/display of God's Grace.

We see this with sin in scripture, too. Some will say you must admit of your sin to be freed of it, but scripture is very descriptive that not everyone has to say/do anything but rather the faith of others can free you of sin. In Luke 5:20 "When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven." we see that Jesus saw THEIR faith and then said YOUR (paralyzed man) sins are forgiven. God ain't no dummy. He can see anything and everything. The paralyzed man was "saved" by the faithful actions of his friends. If God had seen the paralyzed man's faith scripture would have read "When Jesus saw the paralyzed man's faith, his sins were forgiven"....but, Jesus does not do that. So other believers can step in when another's faith is absent or lacking to create a spiritual change. This is what happens in circumcision and later infant Baptism .... the faith of another(s) can create a monumental spiritual change because it pleases God. God wants the children brought to Him.

The OT 8 day old baby did not have the outward will/say to stop the circumcision, but regardless he is brought into the family of God through the faithfulness of the parents and the promise of God! Wow, that's fantastic! Well, we can see in the NT times of Luke 5, the faithfulness of others can remove the sin of a person that can not speak for himself, ie, no outward will/say in the matter. Can you see how amazing this is? Can we see other NT stories where God intervenes in lieu of another because of the faith of another believer's and how this relates to infant baptism?

Christ's Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

You've written a thought-provoking reworking of the story. It makes me think some more about my position because the way you've applied it to this story, it does sound kind of kooky. I wonder why God had to give reassurance to his disciples in a vision? I wonder if they were "unpracticed" in forgiveness and had to learn how to do it.

I also wonder if using the example of a child molester added an emotional component that confused the discussion, since Rae and I picked up on that, and we are both mothers who are protective of their children.

I'm looking forward to working this through. Thanks for providing something to think about for the next day or so.

God bless,
Michelle