Baptism is not the Gospel and legitimacy for Parachurch

Just reading again in the Word, and this verse in 1 Corinthians 1 stood out to me.

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:17 ESV)

1. Baptism is not required for salvation. Paul here distinguishes the gospel (which is the power for of God for salvation -Rom 1:16), and baptism. They are not one in his mind. In fact, Paul prioritizes the preaching of the gospel. If baptism was necessary to be saved, it would be quite mean for Paul to give them the gospel, but leave them short of being saved, by leaving baptizing to someone else.

2. This verse also seems to give credibility to Parachurch organizations. If one of the ways we distinguish the church and the parachurch is that the parachurch does not administer the Ordinances, then Paul here seems to be acting more as a parachurch guy, in the process of church planting.

These are not developed thoughts, but just some fresh, initial reactions.

I would be curious for comments from you on your thoughts on one or both of my thoughts on the text. I am open for push back!

Biblical deception

Today I was reading in Joshua and read about Rahab. In this account, she lies to her people in order to save the Israelite spies.

This account describes what happens, and so does not necessarily comment on whether it was ethically okay to do this. According to the events, God does bless Rahab by allowing her to be spared, while the rest of Jericho was destroyed a few chapters later.

In my opinion, Rahab was justified in her actions to do a greater good by lying. I think there are times where it is okay to do something that is normally sinful in order to do a greater good. To clarify, I don't think is is always okay to commit a sin for a greater good. In this case however, I think she was justified.

Other accounts of deception are in Exodus 1 (the midwives), 1 Samuel 16 (Samuel deceives Saul about his true reason for going to Bethlehem).

What are your thoughts on this issue:

1. With reference to Rahab?
2. In general?

Could Jesus return right now?

I just read a chapter in Grudem's Systematic Theology on The Return of Christ. It mainly looked as the aspect's of Christ's return that all Bible-believing Christians believe. These are things such as Jesus will return as a person, visibly, bodily; as believers we are to eagerly await his return, we do not know when he will return, etc.

An interesting endpoint of this chapter focused on the question of whether Christ could return at any time. To be more specific, could he return right now.... or now.. or now?

The thing that makes this question interesting is that there are some things written in the Bible that are suppose to happen before Christ comes to earth for a second time. For instance, the gospel is supposed to be preached to all nations first. Or there is supposed to be a great tribulation. Or has this happened yet? These are some of the things that are supposed to precede Christ's return. So can we really say that Christ could return right now?

Based on the first reason, that the gospel hasn't been preached to all nations, I was convinced that Jesus not only would not, but could not return until  that happened.

Grudem suggests another way to look at it. He suggests that for each sign that is supposed to occur before Christ returns, we can say that it is unlikely, but possible that the sign has been fulfilled already. For me that biggest hang up with this view is the fact that the gospel hasn't been preached to all nations (nations = people groups). But then what does this verse mean? Or this? From these verses I could say that it is unlikely, but possible that the sign has already been fulfilled.

So maybe it is fair to say that it is unlikely, but possible that Christ could return this hour. What do you think?

Theology Matters

DugDownDeep_Carnahan.mov from Covenant Life Church on Vimeo.