This “question” is an attempt to raise doubt over the biblical teaching on baptism by appealing to emotionalism. It produces a negative emotional response to contemplate the fate of a person who wanted to be baptized but died before they could make it to the water. However, emotionalism doesn’t determine biblical doctrine. The Bible does!
It matters not one whit how I feel about something as to whether it is sound doctrine or not. How does the fact that the vast majority of the human population, from creation to judgment day, being lost make me feel? (Matt. 7:13, 14). Not good! Does that affect the truth of it at all? No! Likewise, how I feel about someone dying before they make it to the water, terrible as it is, has no affect whatsoever on the biblical teaching of baptism.
This is a very common question raised by those who are trying to find any way around the necessity of baptism that they can. I usually ask a question in response; “How old where they?” This brings the discussion back to facts and out of emotional appeals to abandon the word. “Well, what difference does that make?” The difference it makes is that the person is implying, from their “question,” that it would be God’s fault the person was lost. That is, if baptism is essential to salvation, and the person dies before they could be baptized, then it would be God’s fault they were lost. So, I ask, “how old were they?” No matter what the person says, though they usually say elderly, I will say that the person had “x” number of years to obey the gospel before they died and they didn’t. So, say a person of 50 dies on the way to the water and someone says, “well they wanted to get baptized so they are saved.” That means, according to the person’s reasoning, they are saved because they made a “last minute” decision to be baptized after a lifetime of disobedience. No, my response is, if they died on the way to the baptistry then they waited too late to decide to obey the gospel.
Let me ask some questions from biblical examples and see what the answer would be. If Naaman had died on his way to the Jordan would he have died a leper? (2 Kings 5:8-14). If the blind man died before washing in Siloam would he have died blind? (John 9:6-7). In both of these examples, among many, it clearly states that they were healed after they obeyed. No one would look at examples like these and say that if they died before they obeyed that they would have died anything other than what they were at the time of their death. When it comes to baptism for the remission of sins there is no apparent physical condition being healed. It is a spiritual condition that is being treated. However, the same principle of blessing after obedience, not before, is true.
In Romans 6:3-5, Paul says,
This passage makes it as clear as it can be made that the “newness of life” comes after baptism, not before. However, those who deny the necessity of baptism say that the newness of life can (and does) begin before baptism. Where is the example of such? No passage in the New Testament even comes close to implying salvation prior to baptism.
Some try to use the thief on the cross as an example of one being saved without baptism (Luke 23:39-42).
Here again, I like to ask some questions in return to such an attempt. I ask, “what did Jesus say to the thief?” Without fail they always reply with the text, “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Then I simply ask, “OK, what did the thief say to Jesus?” And it is very rare if the person can tell me. It seems to me that, if a person is going to base their salvation on the example of the thief, they would be very clear on what happened there.
The fact is, when a person uses the thief on the cross for an example of one being saved without baptism, they are making a supposition with no basis in fact and with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Now let me be very clear, it doesn’t matter whether the thief had been baptized or not. Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6). However, Jesus is not on earth forgiving sin today. He is in heaven at the right hand of God (Hebrews 1:3). The only way to be saved today is by giving obedience to Christ through his word (Hebrews 5:9; 1 Peter 1:23-25). With that said, when we examine the evidence of the thief on the cross, there is more reason to believe that he had been baptized than to believe that he had not.
The reason I ask what the thief said to Jesus is this, it shows that he did not just come to his faith while on the cross. He was a person who knew who and what Jesus was. The way he addressed Jesus and his knowledge about what Jesus would do demonstrate that he was either a follower of Christ who had fallen away into thievery; or, a thief who had heard and obeyed and was suffering the consequences of thievery committed prior to his repentance. Whatever the case my be, it cannot be that he was just encountering Jesus for the first time there on the cross. Notice:
-
The thief called Jesus “Lord” – a term used by Jesus’ disciples. At what point in the course of his being crucified and hanging on the cross would the thief have heard and/or seen any evidence that Jesus was Lord? He would have already had to have known this.
-
The thief asked Jesus to “remember” him. Why would the thief have expected Jesus to be able to “remember” him? Jesus was in the same condition the thief was, they were both dying on a cross! If the thief was just encountering Jesus for the first time on the cross when would he have heard anything about Jesus being raised from the dead? And, even if he had, what evidence would he have seen during the crucifixion to cause him to believe it? Clearly, the thief had already learned that the Christ would rise from the dead and, thus, could “remember” the thief after they both died on the cross.
-
The thief knew Jesus would have a kingdom. If he was just encountering Jesus for the first time on the cross, when would he have learned anything about the kingdom? Why would he be expecting a dying man to come into a kingdom? Clearly, he had already heard the teaching of Christ and his kingdom prior to being on the cross.
When we see this very clear evidence of the thief’s prior knowledge of who and what Jesus was, it becomes a very strong likelihood that he had been baptized. Notice, “Jerusalem, and all Judaea” went out to be baptized by John in the Jordan (Matt. 3:5, 6). Of course, this doesn’t literally mean that every single individual in this region was baptized. It is hyperbole to emphasize the very large numbers of people who were being baptized. But; even though John was baptizing so many people that it was said he baptized “Jerusalem, and all Judaea;” the disciples of Christ baptized even more than John did! (John 4:1, 2). There were a lot of people being baptized!
Also, those who were being baptized were being told to produce “fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8). So, how exactly would a thief, converted by the preaching of John and/or Jesus, bare “fruits worthy of repentance”? He would certainly have to stop being a thief! He would also have to make restitution for his thievery. It very well may be that the thief was on the cross because he had repented and been baptized.
Now, I have presented a supposition also – I believe the thief was baptized. The other side presents their supposition – that the thief was not baptized. Neither supposition can be stated as a matter of doctrine because the Bible simply doesn’t say. However, a supposition is only as good as the supporting evidence. Which supposition has the weight of evidence and which not only has no evidence but actually contradicts the known facts?
Is the thief on the cross an example of one who was saved without baptism? No, he is not! He is an example of one who confessed faith in the Lord and was saved by the Lord. Whether he was baptized or not is irrelevant. Not only because the Lord forgave him while he was still on earth but also because the thief died before Christ established his church and added those who were baptized to it (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38, 41, 47).
Let’s make application of the thief to the question at hand. What if the thief had died before he asked the Lord to remember him in paradise? What if he really wanted to say it but died before he could? What then? At what point will a person say that one died before doing what was necessary to be saved?
What if a person died in the process of having a Bible study before they heard the word to believe? (Romans 10:17). Could they be saved without believing, even though they would have if they had the time to study before dying? Or, if they had studied but had not yet confessed Christ? (Romans 10:9, 10). Maybe they were on their way to confess Christ but died before they could. What then? The Bible says a person must hear the word (Romans 10:17; Hebrews 11:6), believe what it says about Christ and his kingdom (John 8:24; Acts 8:12), repent of your sins (Acts 2:38; 17:30), confess faith in Christ (Romans 10:9, 10), and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16), in order to be saved. So, at what point in the process did God not mean what he said? Did he say that a person who believes and is baptized would be saved (Mark 16:16) but really only mean that a person has to be believe to be saved?
I have heard deceitful denominational teachers use the Philippian jailor as an example of one being told that faith only would save him. This is a deceitful and satanic use of Scripture! Every time a denominational preacher quotes Acts 16:31 to say that faith only is the means of salvation they are twisting the Scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). When they stop at verse 31 with their “plan of salvation” they have stopped before the jailor had even heard the word of God so that he could believe in Christ (Acts 16:32; Romans 10:17). They stop before the jailor repented of his part in persecuting God’s servants (Acts 16:33; 17:30). They stop before the jailor was baptized into Christ for the remission of his sins (Acts 16:33; Galatians 3:26, 27; Romans 6:3-5). They stop before the jailor was rejoicing in his salvation (Acts 16:34; 8:37-39). Notice, it doesn’t even say that the jailor had done what Paul told him he needed to do to be saved until verse 34, after he had been baptized! Paul told him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (31), then preached Christ to him (32), the jailor believed, repented and was baptized (33), and then it says he was a believer (34). I would to God that denominationalists would stop abusing this beautiful passage!
Let’s make application of the jailor to the question at hand. At what point during the process could the jailor have died a saved man? What if he died when he originally planned to kill himself? (Acts 16:27). He was obviously one who would obey the gospel given the chance. So, if he had fallen on his sword before having the chance to obey would he have been saved? He had not even heard the gospel yet! (Romans 1:16). When had he obeyed the doctrine of Christ for salvation? Not until he had been baptized into Christ!
It is not a pleasant thought, to think of one dying before they obey the gospel. But bad feelings about someone’s death won’t save them! Only obedience to Christ can save. And it cannot be said that a person has obeyed until they have been baptized. As unpleasant as it may sound, if a person dies “on the way to the water” then they waited too late to obey.
Similar Posts:
- God’s Second Law Of Pardon
- The Necessity Of Water Baptism
- Arguing With God
- Who Baptized You?
- Holy Spirit Baptism?
Nick ,
I absolutely agree with you! you made this statement ” The simple truth is we don’t need Thayer or another Greek scholar to tell us this. Jesus said as plain as day. “If you love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15 AMEN! I emphatically say to this! but my problem is the order you guys put this in. I say we keep his commandments because we ARE saved and you guys say we keep his commandments to BE saved! I believe man cannot merit his salvation through good works …. whether thats baptism or going to church! we MUST follow Christ in obedience AFTER we have accepted him , and if we do not then we cannot be no part of him (1 John 2:4) I must address however , you say the letters were addressed to the ones who had previously already been baptized and this I agree with , however , that is irrelevant. They were the church so expectedly I would think they had been baptized OTHERWISE they couldnt have been called “the church at _____ ” but just because they had been baptized I feel most certain if we were granted time travel today to talk to these people of that time they would emphtically tell us they were baptized BECAUSE THEY GOT SAVED not that they were baptized in order to GET saved (Eph 2:8) and thats the whole issue. I believe baptism is VERY IMPORTANT and no believer has an excuse to not follow Christ in this , however , it is not this act in which saves us , it is God’s grace (Titus 3:5) and because of his grace we are inclined and even indebted to follow him in his statutes. So Nick , I agree we are to up hold his commandments but we do not do this to be saved we do it because we are saved. Ya know , I cant find a single passages in the Holy Bible where baptism comes before salvation. In every one salvation is first then comes baptism. It holds the same pattern … I mean after all the Bible emphasizes throughout the text that we are saved BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH. There is no works to do. Its not about this plan its all about THE MAN Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior whom apart from we have no hope.
Thanks ,
Kyle.
Kyle,
No, correction, I say we keep his commandments because that is what you do when you believe, not simply to be saved. We keep His commandments in repenting because we believe that He is the Savior. We keep His commandment to confess His name because we believe He is the Lord, we keep His command to be baptized because He said we will come into a saved relationship when we do so. That we will bury that old man and a rise a new man. We believe it because He said it.
You have made baptism a merited work in your own thinking though you can not show it in scripture without making suppositions of what someone would tell us though what they did tell us is in contradiction to what you present.
Show one person under the New Covenant, one example of someone being said to be saved prior to being baptized. Just one would be intriguing.
Jesus said he who believes and is baptized shall be saved…. notice the order believe –> baptized —> saved. You say believe –> saved —> baptized. I’m sorry but I’m going to do it Jesus’ way, because I believe in Him.
Furthermore to argue we are removing God’s grace by saying you must be baptized is a bit well… amazing. To argue for what God has spoken does not remove the power in which he gives, the mercy which He extends nor the grace which he has revealed. Faithfully meeting him in Christ through baptism is not of work but of submission. The simple truth of teh matter is the very act or work of baptism is upon the baptizer not the person being baptized. The person being baptized is in a place of submission not of work or merit.
Hope you will continue to study. I use to make many of the same arguments as you present here. I use to argue vehemently till I realized one day I was using God’s word to prop up my beliefs rather than listening to God speak.
The funny thing about truth, is it is true whether we choose to believe it or not.
Nick ,
I classify it as a work because its something you say must be done in order to obtain eternal life. There is nothing man can do to obtain eternal life and this is why Paul said in Eph. “If it be of works then it is NO MORE of grace!” anything you tag on as a “requirement” for one to be saved is adding a work to what Jesus Christ did on Calvary. This is false. You may hve once made the same arguments and I am sad to hear you backed away from truth and took the other side , however I will stand firm on this point until I meet Jesus Christ face to face. I will ALWAYS preach that its through the blood and not the water that we have our sins washed.
You said the following statement : ” Faithfully meeting him in Christ through baptism is not of work but of submission. The simple truth of the matter is the very act or work of baptism is upon the baptizer not the person being baptized. The person being baptized is in a place of submission not of work or merit.”
God ask us to submit after we have been saved … a lost man doe snot submit , therefore salvation and eternal life is imputed THROUGH Jesus Christ and after this we have received we will be obedient unto his commands … but you guys got the timeline mixed up here according to God’s Word. Salvation then works not the other way around. You said the work is in the one doing the baptizing and I find that funny because when we are baptized its simply a preacher with no power in him so I presume you are refrencing Christ , the funny thing is that Christ never baptized , as a matter of fact John said I baptize with WATER , but he that comes after me will baptize you with fire (Luke 3:16). I believe we must be baptized by the Holy Ghost of course , but not through water. Obedience is BECAUSE of his grace it is not in order to receive his grace. Last of all , you asked me to cite one person who was saved before baptism , and while I could give a list I will only give a few :
Acts 10:
39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
He received the Holy Ghost , and knowing one must be saved to receive that Cornelius and his family were saved BEFORE baptism. I realize the Church of Christ at this point will pull the ole’ pet argument of “exception law” but that doesnt fit so lets skip that mumble jumble. The Church of Christ like to call things exceptions when it doesnt add up with “there teaching”
We must realize this , I believe baptism is a command to be followed after salvation it is not a prerequisite for your eternal life though. The New Testament makes it equally clear that men can become saved as Christians prior to receiving water baptism. Cornelius’s family received the Holy Spirit and was manifesting the gifts of the Spirit after hearing the gospel but before being baptized (Acts 10:44-48). This observation must be balanced, however, by the fact that baptism was not an “optional extra” for Cornelius’s family; it was a command (10:48) that they were expected to obey. However, it was not obedience to this command that saved them, but their believing in Christ (10:43). Baptism is the expected initial outward response to the gospel, but it is not a part of the gospel itself (1 Cor. 1:17).
Thanks ,
Kyle.
Norm ,
Let me say this a little off the baptism track , you need to understand your denomination is only a little over a century old and developed of course in the “cult age” I understand your teachings and I understand where you come from but your view of scripture is so mangled that I dont know where to begin to pick it apart for you. Norm , I attend a church with a denominational name but it is a Church for Jesus Christ teaching the plain truth of Jesus Christ. You have been indoctrinated with the falseness of your church and it burdens me that you are tied down through the law of legalism in a church that poppep up a century ago and began condeming everyone. I do not need to besaved AGAIN because I am now. I hold an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ and him alone. I do not need to heretic teacher to pick apart my relationship with Jesus Christ. You guys practice mush scritpure twisting and I have friends who are Church of Christ and in that denomination who have been caught in the very act of quoting scripture where it did not belong. You are fooled Norm and I am told by Paul to mark the ones preaching that falseness. Hey , you stereotype us Baptist like this : We believe in faith alone , we believe in the rapture of the church , we use music. Well Norm , I could streotype much the same in the falseness of your young church movement. I pray God would enlighten you , but as to continue on in argument or bickering with you is of no gain for either of us because until I am dead and gone I will preach the gospel truth that man plays no role in the salvation of his soul. I pray God may eventually allow you to see the clear scriptural view of salvation as well , and that you would flee the falseness you are in now. Let us continue on in the faith not arguing we are not to strive together but bring others to Christ. So , with that said I choose to discontinue this “debate” and not for reasons of inadequate scripture to support my views , but because what does it profit us to bicker over this issue when souls are dying and going to hell everyday as we type away. I hope you concur with this view as well.
~God Bless~
Thanks ,
Kyle.
Kyle,
You still have not provide a single instance where one was proclaimed to be saved prior to baptism yet you stand on it like it is a rock solid and true.
Your definition of work changes with each response you have made. With this new definition of a work being anything that would be deemed as a requirement than by that defintion repentance, confession and even believing (which you never did actually respond to the fact the word pisteuo means more than an intellectual acceptance) woudl not be neccessary. Furthermore if one has to do nothing to recieve garce… well now you dont’ believe that. See you believe you must accept Jesus (I believe that was your words) so even you admit you must do something to be saved.
Again the order Jesus placed these things in believe –> baptized —> saved. This pattern is displayed in every conversion under the new covenant.
You keep quoting from letters written to those who already were Christians. You called this point irrevelant (but again provided no proof as to why it is irrevelanet other than it does not sit well with your belief system) but expecting Paul or Petter or John to write to those already in a Christian relationship and tell them how to become a Christian makes absolutley no sense. However they do call them back to the process of becoming when they became a Christian.
“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him
Romans 6:3-9 (NKJV)
Paul reminded them of their baptism being the place where they put on Christ:
” For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
Gal 3:26-27 (NKJV)
—> and I should point out that Paul directly attaches baptism to faith in this passage.
So what you are arguing is that one is saved before baptism. The reality of such a conclusion what leave this person in a limbo state of sorts fpr example (s).
1. What you then have is a saved person who is not in the kingdom of God. Baptism is clearly that by which we enter the kingdom. John 3:3-5
2. A saved person but not not a member of His church. Acts 2:47
3. A saved person who is not in Christ, has nott been buried with Christ is still in the old man. Has not been raised to walk in newness of life. Romans 6:3-9
4. A saved person who has not yet put on Jesus. Galatians 3:27
5. A saved person with sins still needing to be washed away. Acts 22:16.
Obviously such a position is not harmonious, how can one be outside of Jesus yet be saved? How can one be saved from their sins and still be in there sins? How can one be saved and not be clothed in Christ. How can one be a saved child of God and not be a part of His kingdom.
I believe whole heartily my sins are washed in the blood of Christ. I believe the difference has become obvious. I don’t believe God owes me anything for me gladly obeying His will to recieve that cleansing blood, and you seem to have the feeling if you must do something than God owes you something (And I would remind you once again that you admitted yourself one must believe… that is doing something for your salvation, never mind confession, repentance etc). No deed no matter how large no matter how sincere could ever deserve (this is the meaning of a meritted work) Jesus sacrifice. To obey is not to earn it is simply to obey, and Jesus has authored salvation to those who are willing to obey,
“And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,”
Heb 5:9 (NKJV)
Yet you believe their is nothing to obey tied to salvation. Again I will stay with Jesus on this one.
I do wish you well and would encourage you to continue your study. But I would also encourage you to stick with some semblance of logic. Whether it is the Hebrew form of block logic (in which the majority of scripture is presented) or Greek form of step logic, but neither can support your twist of plainly stated concepts in scripture.
Scripture is plain as day on the purpose of baptism. It has always been for the remission of sins even when John was preaching and baptizing. “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4 (NKJV)” It is to be refused to those unwilling to repent (the pharisees for example or to those who do not believe but it has always been for
the remission of sins). It is required in conjunction with belief so says Jesus Himself Mark 16:16 and onbviously supported by those who preached His message in the first century. This is why when the Eunuch asked Philip what does hinder him from being baptized he said nothing if you believe. (Should also stand to note that the eunuch rejoiced after being baptized not before. Why would a person not rejoice at their being saved yet rejoice at some ceremonial deed that marks them being saved, very odd predicament you end up in here)
This is the mode God chose for us to submit to Him, you can reject it but the word of God simply will not support the doctrine you are trying to preach. And you admit the same each time you repsond without showing an example of someone said to be saved before they are baptized (under the new covenant for this is the covenant we are under and most relvenat to our own salvation).
You are just going to have a hard time getting past that which Jesus said believe –> baptized —> saved. No matter how many ways from Sunday you try to argue against it, it still says believe–baptized –saved.
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. ”
Mark 16:16 (NKJV)
Oh didn’t respond to the Conrelius statment. There is no exception, Cornelius was not saved before baptism. Their speaking of tongues was a sign to Peter and the Jews who believed a gentile was not to be given the opportunity to be saved (baptized) unless he first became a Jew. Matter fact if you look at what Peter said he stated the requirement of working righteousnes in order to be accepted by God.
“Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. ”
Acts 10:34-35 (NKJV)
I don’t believe working righteousness is going to forward your case of nothing being required to be accepted by God.
No the sign given Peter (on the roof top) testified to the acceptance of the Gentiles and the sign of the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius’ house testified to the same to the Jews accompanying him there. So actually the case which you bring up (though it had an added emphasis of teaching the acceptance of the Gentiles) is just like every other case of conversion. They needed to be baptized and they had that right, without becoming relgiously Jews, to be baptized into Jesus.
“Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Acts 10:47 (NKJV)
Tthe attack on the church is an intriguing tactic, I learned along time ago if one cannot defeat the message you attack the messenger. Instead of trying to assail the church with negative accusations (obviously not knowing for which you speak) it would help your cause more to show by the word of God (the same word by which all of us shall be judged) how one changes the order of salvation from the believe –> baptized –> saved that Jesus spoke, to the believe –> saved –. baptized that you have been a propoent for.
Kyle made another comment after this that I have chosen not to post for the following reasons:
There is a difference with someone having an incorrect interpretation of the Scriptures and someone who is just outright dishonest. When I pointed out to Kyle that he had used a passage to define a Greek word that wasn’t even in the passage he neither corrected or even acknowledged his error. He is content to let his dishonest comment stand unaddressed. Very well, all the readers know that Kyle is comfortable with purposely twisting the Scriptures.
If anyone else would like to pick up Kyle’s attempts to refute the biblical teaching on baptism they are free to do so. It is my prayer that the biblical truth presented in this article would be compelling enough to warrant further study on the part of any who would think to deny the necessity of baptism and that further study would bring them to the knowledge of the truth and the obedience of faith.
Thanks,
Norm
Hi Norm. I do agree with this post, but I also believe God is still the God of exceptions. David clearly didn’t follow the prescribed method to have his sins forgiven, but was called a man after Gods own heart. He didn’t run and kill an animal per the plan of forgiveness of that day. Can you elaborate some on this. Also, as you know, there are other examples where God acted outside of His plans. I’m not trying to downplay the role of Baptism, just haven’t reached a point where I can put God in a box, and say He has to act a certain way.
Randy
Randy,
Please be more specifice on God being a God of ‘exceptions,’ as you put it. I also believe that He is a God of exceptions, but not in the way you think He is. “Except Jehovah build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psalm 127:1). “Shall two walk together, except they have agreed?” (Amos 3:3), “That except your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20). “Except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3). “Except one be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3,5). “No one can come to Me, except the Father that sent Me, draw him…” (John 6:44).
There are many others that could be brought out, but I think you get the picture. You say that you don’t want to put God into a box – I guess thats you way of saying that you don’t believe God is narrow minded.
Please consider Matthew 7:13-14 that tells us that there are only TWO ways – the narrow that leads to heaven and the wide that leads to hell. The narrow or strait, depends on the version you use, comes from a Greek word that denotes the idea of taking effort to get through. there must be diligence, and working to make ones way through this gate. But the wide gate, doesn’t take any effort at all, in fact you don’t have to do one thing to be found walking down this path. Yes God is narrow minded, there is only one way to please Him, not many. Truth is black and white with no gray areas to be found.
As for David – just because there is no text that tells us specifically that David went to the temple and offered sacrifice, does not mean that he did not. There are many things in the Bible that we must infer/deduce. If David is said to be a man after God’s own heart, and God required all Israelites to offer sacrifice for their sins, then it must be the case that David obeyed God in repentance in order for him to be a man after God’s own heart. I refer you to Deuteronomy 29:29, and John 21:25 which in a paraphrase says that not everything that happened has been recorded. Only those things that we truly need to know have been revealed to us.
I hope this helps .
Thanks Mike.
One not need inference when David clearly said He didnt offer a sarifice. He acted outside of the prescribed pattern, and God still forgave him. I am not suggesting nor implying one is saved apart from Jesus.
Randy