Chief of Sinners Though I Be

The first stanza to one of my favorite hymns:

Chief of sinners though I be,
Jesus shed His blood for me;
Died that I might live on high,
Died that I might never die;
As the branch is to the vine,
I am His, and He is mine.

Feeding the Sheep? Or Amusing the Goats?

From Charles Spurgeon:

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most short-sighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, “and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.” No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him . . . .

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? “Ye are the salt,” not the sugar candy — something the world will spit out, not swallow . . . . I do not hear [Jesus] say, “Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it.

Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!” Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement . . . .

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the Church met them half-way, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God’s link in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today’s ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

Baptism - Is it necessary? Does it save?

For the purpose of preserving a comment I sent to Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries regarding baptism and whether or not it is necessary and whether or not it saves:

From: Andrew
To: apprising@hughes.net
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 12:17 PM
Subject: roman catholicism and baptism -- Apprising Ministries contact form

Ken,

Great website! I read as often as I can. Thank you for taking Scripture
so seriously.

I do have to take issue with one thing in your entry about baptism. I am
not Catholic, so I don't mean to defend their doctrine. But I do think
your analysis of 1 Corinthians 1:14 is incorrect, or at least your
interpretation mistaken. I think this is due to the fact that you've
forgotten the context of the verse. Starting at verse 10, and running
through at least verse 17, if not to the end of the chapter, we see that
Paul is speaking about divisions in the church at Corinth. This idea -
divisions - provides the necessary context:

11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are
quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow
Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still
another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into
the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you
except....

Paul says he is thankful that he did not baptize very many because he was
concerned that the people in the church would claim "I follow Paul"! He
was concerned that his baptizing would lead to further division, because
the church was misunderstanding that ALL baptism was done in one name: God!
(Well, three names in unity, of course)

So it is really quite clear that Paul was NOT talking about whether baptism
is necessary for salvation or not necessary for salvation. I'm not even
addressing that question. What I'm saying is that this verse is
inappropriate to make the point you're trying to make. According to your
logic ("Paul, arguably the greatest evangelist after Christ Jesus Himself,
doesn’t seem to place much importance on baptism"; "Paul wasn’t sent to
baptize"), no one need be baptized, whether infant or adult. If Paul didn't
come to baptize, why should anyone be baptized?

I'm sure you don't agree that no one should be baptized. The text doesn't
mean to say that, nor does Paul ever hint at that elsewhere. Paul wasn't
even addressing the question of whether baptism was necessary. He was
merely using baptism as an example of the divisions within the church!
And without going into the issue of infant baptism (b/c that's not my point
here), your logic leads to your example of the thief on the cross, which is
a really poor choice of argument. The thief on the cross had no
opportunity to be baptized - regardless of whether baptism is necessary or
not, regardless of whether infants or only adults. He was forgiven by
Christ Himself, who I trust can allow that the man hadn't been baptized.
Using the thief to argue that baptism isn't necessary is a poor choice.

On the notion that Paul didn't "seem to place much importance on baptism",
it's clear from the context of this passage that he isn't even speaking
about baptism itself. But what does Paul ahve to say about baptism when he
is actually speaking about it?
- Acts 19:1-5 (Paul discusses & instructs disciples in Ephesus on the
meaning of baptism)
- Acts 18:7-8
- Romans 6:3-4 (Paul sure seems to think baptism is important here - it is
the key to understanding that we are no longer slaves to sin but are alive
in Christ, and sin no longer reigns over us: "We were therefore buried with
him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from
the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life")
- Ephesians 4:4-5
- Colossians 2:11-12

So Paul clearly placed great importance on baptism. Using the verse you
did, out of context, to attempt to prove that baptism isn't necessary for
salvation is mistaken, and I think even a bit irresponsible. Without
context, it becomes a prooftext for a pretext. Walter Martin recognized
that and he was right!

Anyway, I hope you understand that I do not mean to attack you in any way.
I think you are doing great work and I appreciate the time and effort you
put into this site. I value the resource and I know you are extremely
knowledgeable about these matters. I simply mean to clear up what I think
is a weak argument and a misuse of Scripture (which i'm sure wasn't
intentional).

In Christ,

Andrew

And his response:

fromApprising Ministries
toAndrew

dateMon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
subjectRe: roman catholicism and baptism -- Apprising Ministries contact form

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for contacting Apprising Ministries. Rest assured there was nothing I found offensive in the way you wrote or within what you said. I appreciate your concern that I misunderstood the context of what God is saying through Paul in the verses I cited.

Where you might have gotten confused is I'm simply speaking of a spiritual application also taught by this passage of Scripture where you are speaking of the other side of the double-edged Sword of the Spirit in it's historical-grammatical setting.

Please keep in mind that I am wrote the article with the idea that it will be read by Roman Catholics who believe in unbiblical baptismal regeneration and am employing a mild form of sarcasm in my saying, "Paul didn't seem to place much importance on baptism." This is not then to say there is no importance in baptism.

The post in question wasn't meant as an exegesis of that passage of Scripture. I pray this helps.

Sincerely,

Pastor Ken Silva
President
Apprising Ministries
http://apprising.org/
Ezekiel 3:7-14

General Editor
Christian Research Net
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/
2 Corinthians 11:12-15

Regarding whether baptism is necessary and whether it saves, what Mr. Silva calls "unbiblical baptismal regeneration", read this great summary by Extreme Theology.
Also, here is a fantastic and basic step-by-step look at God's promises in baptism.
On the issue of infant baptism, though not really part of the above discussion but certainly relevant, see this list of Scriptures.
Last, but certainly not least, is the treatment of baptism in Luther's Small Catechism.