BODY PARTS NEEDED Part two

There is a severe shortage of acceptable human organs. As a result, in the United States alone, approximately 19 people on the transplant waiting list die every day, a number that can be multiplied many times over when considering the global needs!

Many families deny organ recovery from recently deceased relatives. As a result, valuable organs and some of the lives they could save are lost. Several plans designed to rectify this tragic situation have been proposed, including organ sales. We believe there to be superior plan…routine recovery of all transplantable cadaveric organs without consent…we believe that it is time to eliminate entirely the consent requirement for recovery of transplantable human organs. 

Aaron Spital, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York

James Stacey Taylor, Department of Philosophy, College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey 

Part 2 of this article will focus on a question many of us have never been confronted with; who owns the human body? Ownership of a deceased person is very ill defined in many countries. The exceptions are the USA's fictional and parochial quasi-property rule and Australia's fairly advanced property rule in dead bodies. Many jurisdictions still follow the dominant and ecclesiastically influenced no-property rule for dead bodies and body parts’. Some religions consider that God gave the body to the individual and that it should be given back to God after death. However, this does not simplify the situation. 

Do we believe that it is time to eliminate entirely the consent requirement for recovery of transplantable human organs? Each deceased body has the potential to ‘save’ the life of 8 – 9 human beings.

Societal appropriation 

There is an ever increasing unity in calling for a system based on societal appropriation. Societal appropriation (also known as ‘conscription’ does not require consent nor recognize the principle of autonomy. The primary purpose of consent is to protect the moral autonomy of people, allowing them to govern their lives by their own values and to protect themselves from harm and exploitation. However, this purpose ‘is no longer relevant to the cadaver, which has no autonomy and cannot be harmed’. The secondary purposes of consent include respecting the beliefs of the deceased while alive or observing cultural burial practices. Some believe though, however, that these secondary purposes pale and, ‘would seem to yield before the significant value of therapy for those suffering from serious illness.’

Thus the genuine possibility of being a significant benefit to others overrides any secondary purposes that consent and permission might have’, despite objections from individuals or members of religious groups.

Based on this concept, society may declare that after a person's death, internal vital organs—but not the
entire body—can be procured. This would help protect the religious and funeral rites of individuals. 

"Love toward men, but love without belief in God, very naturally leads to the greatest coercion over men, and turns their lives completely into hell on earth" Dostoevski. (Leningrad, Russia) 

A rush to judgment

Legalized in some American states, euthanasia is being practiced routinely and in increasing numbers. Physicians prescribe and practice de-hydration, however, we don't call it euthanasia. And many of us have been silent witnesses watching relatives and friends end suffering and their lives through this procedure. 

Organ transplantation significantly improves the health, quality of life and life-expectancy of people whose organs have failed. Most patients waiting for donor organs cannot enjoy the benefits of a transplant because of an extreme shortage of organs.

The word Euthanasia originated from the Greek language: eu means “good” and thanatos means “death”. It is important to note that there are various terms used in discussing euthanasia. Passive Euthanasia refers to removing some form of life-support which allows nature to take its course. Active Euthanasia refers to causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from the person. 

Physician Assisted Suicide refers to a physician supplying information and/or the means of committing suicide to a person, so that he/she can easily end his/her own life. This may also be referred to as voluntary passive euthanasia. Involuntary Euthanasia refers to the killing of a person in opposition to their wishes. 

The religions of Christians and Jews both hold human life sacred and consider any form of euthanasia as an act of murder. According to traditional Christian beliefs documented by Thomas Aquinas, all forms of suicide and/or euthanasia are to be condemned for the following reasons:

•  it violates one’s natural desire to live     
•  it harms other people·    
•   life is the gift of God and is thus only to be taken by God

In the spirit of this paper and debate, the question is not whether our tacit complicity is immoral and sinful, even though it’s culturally ethical. The question I’m raising is, are we assisting in hastening death in order to increase productivity in the competitive human body part harvesting industry by not speaking out? Can an increase in removing body parts from the terminally ill be justified through a greater good?

There is natural impulse to life; living beings do not want to die. We believe that they intuitively or instinctively fight to survive. However, when that drive flickers, is it not justified to initiate the process to remove useful organs and replant them in those where the desire to live still burns bright? 

Do we need to change the legislation to a system of presumed consent to address organ shortage? 

·      it harms other people 

·      life is the gift of God

·      is only to be taken by God 

The Church and TSA 

The Church believes God has given people life, and as such they have no right to take it away themselves. Although it accepts that the matter of life and death is very much a personal decision, the problem is that changes to the law may encourage society to adopt unhealthy attitudes towards the sick, elderly, terminally ill and even death itself: a Christian perspective on suicide begins with an affirmation of faith that nothing, including suicide, separates us from the love of God (Romans 8:38-39). 

'The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of human life. It considers each person to be of infinite value and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and redeemed. Human life is sacred because it is made in the image of God and has an eternal destiny (Genesis 1:27)... All persons, including those who are physically or mentally impaired, possess God-given human-hood... Assisted suicide is defined as directly helping or encouraging someone to end his/her own life.

Therefore, The Salvation Army believes that euthanasia and assisted suicide undermine human dignity and are morally wrong regardless of age or disability... the possibility does exist that subtle pressure will be placed on the sick, the elderly, the disabled and the dying to act contrary to their own wishes in order not to become a burden. 

The Salvation Army believes it is important to communicate by word and deed to the sick, the elderly and the dying that they are worthy of respect, they are loved, and that they will not be abandoned.' (The Salvation Army (USA website)

The Army defines euthanasia strictly, as a deliberate act causing the intentional death of a person in order to relieve that person's suffering. The Army does not regard either of the following as euthanasia or as morally wrong: using drugs to adequately control the pain of a dying person, even if the secondary effect may result in shortened life withholding or withdrawing medical treatment that only prolongs the dying process. 

The Army accepts that living wills or advance health care directives can be useful. 

Dr. Christiaan Barnard, son of SA officers,

transplanted the first human heart in 1967

The Christian faith puts death into proper perspective as the transition from earthly life to life eternal. In this context, The Salvation Army believes that man does not have the right to death by his own decision, whether procured by his own act or by the commissioning of another person to secure it.
The common experience of Christians throughout the ages has been that the grace of God sustains heart and mind to the end. To many, the end of life is clouded by pain and impaired judgment, and while we believe that it is right to use all and any medical treatment to control pain, experience denies the rightness of legalizing the deliberate termination of life by a doctor, authorized by a statement signed by the patient while in health. Such euthanasia threatens to debase the function of doctors and impairs the confidence of their patients. 

As an extension of this subject, The Salvation Army accepts that a patient' s next of kin is justified in agreeing to medical advice to remove life support systems where brain death has occurred. 

------------------------

Does it not follow then, logically and ethically, that any deliberate carving into and the removal of the loved one’s organs require legal consent? And does that same legal consent apply to all deceased persons? Or do we all become the property of the state on our death, to be used for the greater good?

Can we agree that the church, indeed TSA culture upholds an ethical standard that might differ sharply with that of society?

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, launched a fierce attack on the “moral relativism” that is eroding Christian values in society and Government. The speech sharply criticized the government saying that “those who run things” reject the idea that society needs core values as “unfashionable and unwelcome”. But without such shared values, he warned, “society’s definition of what is good for people will be largely determined by powerful interest groups… religious leaders must be guaranteed a central role in a reformed House of Lords to ensure moral issues are taken seriously”.

Dr. Williams stated that Christians are justified in mounting vigorous campaigns against the state if it is eroding Christian morality, “what is directly contrary to the Christian understanding of God’s purpose, then Christian activism is justified. He called for a return to a moral society in which the state recognizes “wider considerations than those of immediate profit...though, only if it is possible to convince those who run things in the public sphere that there are human values and ethical norms to which an entire society is answerable. In our relativist climate, this is very difficult. What tends to happen is that nothing much is left as a substantive moral basis for public life except a poorly defined principle of tolerance or avoidance of mutual harm.

We, as followers of Jesus Christ, have too often idly watched the demise of western culture and long-held ethical values. Liberal-humanists, hold that there is no creature in the universe greater than man, and the future of the human race rests only with human beings themselves. Most blog visitors live in a country where their culture has a history of Christian thinking. Consequently, the understanding of the intrinsic value of human life is much more likely for someone who comes from a culture with a background of Christian viewpoints and/or practices.

We live in a time where secular relativistic agnosticism has eroded many of the human values maintained in our Judeo- Christian communities. This is generally the case within all societies in the West.

In his excellent book "The Victory of Reason”, Rodney Stark proves that the development of Christian values in the West had an enormous effect in developing political freedom, prosperity and social justice. Though it took many centuries, the primary battle for freedom of conscience was a Christian development.

The Army did not try to convert people to Christianity by using logic to convince them that Christianity was true. As Booth put it, "It's not the arguments that convince them, it's the lives." The Army believes that the behaviour and lifestyle of Salvationists comprise a powerful weapon of conversion. They seek to set an example by living in love and unity in a world of separateness and conflict and loving people who are hard to love. 

Does Booth’s reference to conversion also include the transformation of the mind? And is our life style not one dependent on and emerged in the cyber world?

Atheism’s premise is that God does not exist; there is no designer or purposer. In the Judeo-Christian west, truth, honesty, integrity, and justice are virtues. Our moral and metaphysical differences lead to very different societies. People who are consciously functioning from, or living off a memory of Judeo-Christian theism will more likely resonate with the need to speak truthfully; championing the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.

The Salvation Army is called to proclaim salvation to all classes, but its special glory should be its concern for and its ability to appeal to the lowest and most forgotten, and to be their champion in every respect, including the respect for all human life; upholding its quality and dignity.

r. Sven Ljungholm

Former Officer

USA, Sweden, Russia, Ukraine

TWO EYES AND A KIDNEY TO GO PLEASE... part 1

Malcolm Muggeridge on the Sacredness of Life
This life in us, . . . however low it flickers or fiercely burns, is still a divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives never so humane and enlightened. To suppose otherwise is to countenance a death-wish. Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other.         

The Leningradsky station (Ленингра́дский вокза́л) is the busiest of the eight railway stations in Moscow, Russia. Our regular SA feeding programme and frequent rail journeys caused me to pass through the station often.  The cavernous edifice is home to thousands of alcoholics and the homeless.  Petty crimes are of such frequency that the many police (Militia) roaming the area don’t bother with the routine nusaince of arresting and hauling the perpetrators to jail.  Bodily injuries are common and only the more seriously injured are provided any medical services.

Passing through the station late one evening I witnessed a small band of policemen standing over an injured man lying at the stations exit and observed the ambulance men opening the rear of their shoddy looking vehicle.  What happened next should not have surprised me as I was used to seeing dead bodies fairly regularly in Moscow. Dead persons in Moscow, in the early 1990s would often remain on the street where they died, in various stages of rigor mortis, for many hours under the watchful supervision of a policeman, waiting for an ambulance to carry the corpse to one of Moscow’s morgues.   On inspecting the injured man at the station the emergency attendants determined that the injured man was of more importance than the one already taking up room in the ambulance.  They quickly rolled out the gurney from the ambulance and dumped the already dead body on the street, loaded the injured party in its place and sped off.

With body parts selling on the internet for up to $60,000 for a kidney it’s doubtful that the above scene would be replayed today.  The market for used body parts has become a global industry and a cadaver with its lucrative body part’s offering might suddenly be more valued than a living person to the average ambulance driver or hospital emergency room attendant. Stories of the proliferation in the sale of bodies and body parts out of the back door of morgues are becoming commonplace in many countries.

In a German controversy involving autopsies, human body parts are smuggled out of hospital basements by shady hospital workers and sold to local drug companies for the extraction of growth hormones.  The list of items on drug companies' wish lists does not stop there.  In an investigative report by Der Spiegel, a liberal German newsmagazine, drug companies also buy meninges --the membranes that surround the

brain and spinal cord -- by the tens of thousands. 

In Russia bodies of the dead are automatically owned by the government and must be turned over immediately to authorities. And there are documented cases, accompanied by photographs, showing tables full of stacked nude bodies of men, women and children with long incisions showing they had been harvested for body parts.

A recent blog article on our site warned of the sudden escalation and acceptance of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Western Europe.  Russian academician warn that euthanasia in Russia will become a legal way to seize human organs; the risk of criminal seizure of human organs sharply increases, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences academician Sergey Kolesnikov (United Russia) told a REGNUM correspondent commenting on Senator Valentina Petrenko’s initiative to draft such a law… it will become one of legal ways to seize property of an individual, depending on how the procedure is stated by the law,” Kolesnikov believes. “It is no secret that there is a practice of signing contracts with elderly people on using their organs after their death. In this case it would be legal,” he said.

Like any business, it comes down to simple supply and demand.  And euthanasia seems a likely step in the supply chain for those who can afford it. The illegal sale of human body parts is big business, and an expansion in the euthanasia business will undoubtedly add to this already widespread global racket.

It's illegal in most nations, to offer or receive compensation for an organ donation, but a black market for human organs does exist. Citizens of impoverished nations or regions are often tempted to sell one of their kidneys on the black market. In some cases, these entrepreneurial donors are recruited (or learn through word-of-mouth and volunteer) and flown to another nation, where the organ is removed in a makeshift operating room.

Indian police said stolen kidneys are being sold for between $6,000 to $10,000. Many Indian doctors make less than $10,000 in a whole year so the temptation to steal organs is high.

Near New Delhi, three leading Indian transplant surgeons, the owner of the Noida Medicare Centre, a hospital famed for transplants, and six others were arrested after Shaukat Ali, a mechanic, complained he'd been drugged and robbed of a kidney during a routine medical examination. Two similar accusations had already been filed against the centre including the theft of a kidney belonging to a mentally retarded child. Police say that hundreds of poor Indians disappear every day in New Delhi alone. Human rights activists wonder how many were murdered for their organs.

According to reports by U.S. insurance companies and hospitals, the going rate for a lung is $116,400, a kidney $91,400 and a heart $57,000 – making a human body one of the most lucrative thefts around. In fact when googling for ‘body parts’, human spare part sites now outnumber those selling auto parts.

Although illegal body part sales are often linked to third world countries and those where human life holds little intrinsic value organ transplant criminal cases are slowly spreading across the United States.  A doctor in a north California Regional Medical Center was charged by Los Angeles police with giving drugs to a comatose 26-year-old man to hasten his death for a transplant team. The man didn’t die after being taken off a life support machine and police charged the doctor with hurrying his death.

To thwart body snatchers at the University of California, a major destination for organs and cadavers donated to science, they are considering inserting super-market style bar codes or radio frequency chips into corpses to make sure they are not nabbed by body snatchers.

Ann-Charlotte Marteus warned in an article in Expressen (Stockholm) that the assisted suicide industry and euthanasia support groups appear to thrive.  (reported in an earlier FSAOF blog article)

Holland has been at the forefront of active euthanasia. As the first country subsequent to Nazi Germany to legalize the practice in 2002 the initial furor was surprisingly short lived. Many in the Netherlands deemed the new rights as progressive humanism at its best. The value of euthanasia gained ever increasing popular support. “More and more people make use of their new rights.” The number of people killed increased yearly and now numbers in the thousands. We have the clear testimony of the Netherlands to back that up. In the last two decades it’s estimated that at least 100,000 deaths were the result of involuntary euthanasia.

Dutch Radio reported that the association NVVE, "Dutch Association for Voluntary Death", is now seeking funding to open a suicide clinic where not only dying, but also people with mental illnesses and early dementia, can be helped to kill themselves.

Dr. Sven Ljungholm

Former Officer

USA, Sweden, Russia, Ukraine

Do officers primarily serve God or The Salvation Army?

Why do many Salvation Army officers, when they resign, no longer persist in “proclaiming the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”,  “to live to win souls and make their salvation the first purpose of (their) life” and “to care for the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, love the unlovable, and befriend those who have no friends”?

Are officers evangelists, preachers and leaders only because it is their assigned role in the Salvation Army?

It struck me that officers, including myself, typically base our reasoning from a starting point based on what we actually do, not from what God has called us to. The Salvation Army expects me to evangelize whereas God calls me to do so. The Salvation Army expects me to preach: God has called me to do so. Duty and the ‘call’ exist as matching, complementary characteristics. .

Could organisations like The Salvation Army possibly define and present ‘being called’ in a simpler, and more easily acceptable format? Might it even become so much simpler to fathom that officers can function with integrity and do so without the claim of ‘being called’? Indeed, contemporary organisations encourage employees to seek their own direction. "Do what the Bible says" is meant for individuals, not for organisations. What The Salvation Army believes the Bible wants it to do and how the Bible defines what it is to do is determined long ago and can hardly be altered. Officers have to fit in. And officers get trained in the hope that they do just that.

Even in The Salvation Army the call of the organisation transcends the call of God.

I hated selling The War Cry house to house. Mainly because the principal motivation was fundraising. Maybe I wasn't an evangelist at all. And yes, we

pretended as if we were evangelising and yes, we prayed for that single person finding Christ. The Bible doesn't say you have to sell War Cry's does it? But don't you dare utter something like that out loud: sacrilege!

So the magazines kept coming. And I kept selling them.

As an officer you have to evangelise whether you have the gift evangelizing or not. And if you have the gift of evangelising you have to lead anyway whether you like it or not. Well, I don't have any gifts (I always say this

to make my wife angry), but The Salvation Army doesn't offer God the privilege to call officers who uniquely have this gift.

If so all officers have to chose sooner or later in their officership career and service to remain sensitive to God’s direction, which by definition supercedes the appeal of any human or organisation – never mind the outcomes – or acquiesce to the wishes and expectations of the organisation. Officers always have to choose  between a personal, God-fearing conflict or to let their dynamic faith cool down and become moulded into a quiet common position.

I’m not grumbling. And for some it doesn’t sound nice. But organisations simply work like this.

We can verify these facts by simply imagine some possibilities. For example, what would Linda Bond do when The Salvation Army would no longer be defining the tasks expected of her. What would she do if she has to listen to God’s explicit direction? Would she be a word leader of some other evangelical mission? I could not say that for sure.

Could you, as I do, call to mind some DC’s and TC’s? In accordance to the mission of The Salvation Army these are godly people and gifted evangelists. What would they do if The Salvation Army suddenly disappeared? Would they again get their soapbox out of the closet, put it in a nearby shopping mall and start winning people over to Jesus? I don’t think so.

How many officer who resigned stand by their promise to soberness and sacrifice and be an evangelist 24-7? The life to which officers report they were called? A few. And they hold on some of these aspects of an officer’s life only because they “accidentally” succeeded to merge into another organisation which again is filling in the expectations of them.

Did God call me to become an officer or did The Army customary practices simply recruit me? After my resignation I continued doing nothing of the things I did as an officer. As an officer I pretended acting like an officer living out the orders God laid out for my life. But when I stopped being an officer I stopped being an evangelist, and a preacher and a leader as well.

No comment on this article will clarify these laws of nature regarding organisation. It seems to be a fact that officers serve mostly an organisation and just fulfil plain instant tasks demanded by the organisation. It seems also to be true that officers romanticize their work in considering it as a post which transcends a profane job. But in reality it’s just that. Without The Army officers aren’t evangelists, preachers nor leaders serving God’s Kingdom. They were all that just serving the Army.

Would that really be all? I’d like to disprove this phenomenon one day with my life.

Pieter Raaijmakers


Former Officer
Netherlands

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? PART 2

Part 2

Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.  And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.‘"

This verse is often used to say that baptism is part of salvation, but we know from other scriptures that it is not, lest there be a contradiction.  What is going on here is simply that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected.  In the Greek, "repent" is in the plural and so is "your" of "your sins."  They are meant to be understood as being related to each other.  It is like saying, "All of you repent, each of you get baptized, and all of you will receive forgiveness."  Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only.  In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized.  Baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from God, that is the sign of the circumcised heart.  That is why it says, "repent and be baptized."

Also, please notice that there is no mention of faith in Acts 2:38.  If this verse is a description of what is necessary for salvation, then why is faith not mentioned?  Simply saying it is implied isn't good enough.  Peter is not teaching a formula for salvation, but for covenant obedience, which is why the next verse says that the promise is for their children as well.

1 Pet. 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.  It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

This is the only verse that says that baptism saves, but the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate.  A better translation is found in the NASB which says, "and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you."  The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon.  It means "copy," "type," "corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc.  Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else.  The question is "Of what is it a type?" or "Baptism corresponds to what?"  The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 20: "who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.  21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you," (NASB).

Some think that the baptism corresponds to the Ark because it was the Ark that saved them, not the floodwaters.  This is a possibility, but one of the problems is that this interpretation does not seem to stand grammatically since the antecedent of

Baptism is most probably in reference to the water, not the Ark.

But, water did not save Noah.  This is why Peter excludes the issue of water baptism being the thing that saves us because he says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God."  Peter says that it is not the application of water that saves us but a pledge of the good conscience.  Therefore, baptism here most probably represents the breaking away of the old sinful life and entrance into the new life with Christ -- in the same way that the flood waters in Noah's time was the destruction of the sinful way and, once through it, known as entering into the new way.  Also, Peter says that the baptism is an appeal of a good conscience before God.  Notice that this is dealing with faith.  It seems that Peter is defining real baptism as the act of faith.

Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."

Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation of the circumcised heart (Col. 2:11-12) which means you are already saved, or is it by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7)?  Obviously it is the blood of Jesus and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus' name.

Rom. 6:4, "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."

Because the believer is so closely united to Christ it is said that the symbol of baptism is our death, burial, and resurrection.  Obviously we did not die -- unless, of course, it is a figurative usage.  And that is what it is here.  The figure of baptism represents the reality of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  It is a covenant sign for us.  Remember, a covenant sign represents the covenant.  The covenant sign of baptism represents the covenant of grace which is that covenant between God and the Christian where we receive the grace of God through the person of Christ by means of his sacrifice.

Titus 3:5, "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.  He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

The washing of rebirth can only be that washing of the blood of Christ that cleanses us.  It is not the symbol that saves, but the reality.  The reality is the blood of Christ.

Gal. 3:27, "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

This is speaking of the believer's union with Christ.  It is an identification with, a joining to, a proclamation of loyalty to, etc.  In 1 Cor. 10:2 the Israelites were baptized into Moses.  That means they were closely identified with him and his purpose.  The same thing is meant here.

Conclusion

Baptism is not necessary for salvation.  It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace.  As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6;  Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26;Ezk.44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12).  The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12).

One last thought: If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ?  If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved.  If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

 Matt Slick

The Sacraments and the Bible

A personal review and testimony by Pauline Fidoe from her perspective as a Salvationist who came from a Baptist tradition, August 7th 2007.

'A valuable teaching tool, both for new and not so new Salvationists.'

This book is excellent. Set out in a simple easy to read style it gives the reader a clear and concise understanding of The Salvation Army's premise regarding the subject matter.

I have not always been a Salvationist but have come from a mainly Baptist background. Nothing 'spiritual' had come to mean anything to me through childhood and beyond. One day in 1970 I experienced a profound touch of God whilst in a Baptist chapel. That experience was very real and I needed to speak with the minister. I was totally ignorant of church beliefs and the Bible. The minister, a deaconess, gave me a verbally concise understanding of the beliefs and practices of Baptist spirituality. I took those beliefs etc. as being the norm for the whole church. Gradually I learned differently as I worked in conjunction with several other denominations through the churches together network, especially in London. I found division and criticism with each one defending any difference. I began to search for joy among believers in unity and mainly drew a blank.

Tacitly The Salvation Army was looked upon as being peculiarly 'different'. Their work was recognised and applauded but.....

There was always a 'but'.

The circumstances of life brought me to live in Hythe, still looking for joy as well as faith. I began to attend the Hythe Corps and found that joy plus a simple straight forward preaching of the glorious Gospel.

I knew they did not water baptise or celebrate the communion service, but I did not then fully understand why. However, with the joy and love I was experiencing along with unity and the Gospel preaching I became a soldier.

Now, of course, with this book I am a soldier who has gained understanding which I can fully accept. Furthermore I see that the book can provide a valuable teaching tool, both for new and not so new Salvationists.

Also, because it is written without bias, it will certainly give enquirers from other church backgrounds a clear understanding of the Army's biblical premise regarding the sacraments and allow them to make up their own minds.

Well done Captain Philip - I read your heart in your book.
  Pauline Fidoe

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? PART 1

If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe, not when we get baptized, otherwise we are not saved by faith.  Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins,  etc., would go to hell if he doesn't get baptized before he died.  This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved.  Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren't baptized.  Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions -- otherwise it isn't necessary.One of the most nagging questions in Christianity is whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. The answer is a simple, "No, water baptism is not necessary for salvation."  But you might ask, "If the answer is no, then why are there verses that say things like '...baptism that now saves you...' (1 Pet. 3:21) and '...Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins...' (Acts 2:38)?"  These are good questions and they deserve a good answer, so we will look at these verses later.  But for now, the reason baptism is not necessary for salvation is because we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8), not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11).  You see, a religious ceremony is a set of activities or forms peformed by someone.  In the Bible circumcision was a ceremony where one person performed a religious rite on another person.  Likewise, baptism is also a ceremony where one person performs a religious rite on another person.  But, we are saved by faith alone and anything else we do, including ceremonies, will not help.

Now, in order to more thoroughly look at this issue, I need to lay a foundation of proper theology, and then I'll address some of those verses that are commonly used to support the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation.

God Works Covenantally

First, you need to understand that God works covenantally.   A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties.  The New Testament and Old Testament are New and Old Covenants. The word "testament" comes from the Latin testamentum which means covenant.  So, the Bible is a covenant document.  If you do not understand covenant you cannot understand, in totality, the issue of baptism because baptism is a covenant sign…

If you do not think that God works covenantally then look at Hebrews 13:20 which says, "Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,..." 

If you fail to understand that God works covenantally and that He uses signs as manifestations of his covenants (rainbow, circumcision, communion, etc.) then you will not be able to understand where baptism fits in God's covenant system.

Second, you need to know what baptism is.  It is a ceremony that represents an outward representation of an inward reality.  For example, it represents the reality of the inward washing of Christ's blood upon the soul.  That is why it is used in different ways.  It is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus.

The Covenant of Grace is the covenant between God and Mankind where God promises to Mankind eternal life.  It is based upon the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the condition is faith in Jesus Christ.  As the Communion Supper replaced Passover, baptism, in like manner, replaces circumcision.  "They represent the same spiritual blessings that were symbolized by circumcision and Passover in the old dispensation" (Berkhoff, Lewis,Systematic Theology, 1988, p. 620).  Circumcision was the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant; it did not save.  A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties and that is exactly what the Abrahamic covenant was.  God said to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you," (Genesis 17:7).  God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only every adult male, but also eight day old male infants as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13).  If the children were not circumcised, they were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant.  This is why Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet (Ex. 4:24-25).  She knew the importance of the covenant between God and her children.  But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to all who received it.  It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews).

An important question here is how is it possible for an infant to be entered into a covenant with God.  There could be a lot of different answers given but the point remains: it was done; infants were entered into a covenant relationship with God -- through their parents.

If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12).  It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration.  It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 12:3) and the work of God (John 6:28).

Third, the Bible says that it is the gospel that saves.  "By this gospel you are saved..." (1 Cor. 15:2).  Also, Rom. 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."  Neither of these verses, which tell us what saves us, includes any mention of baptism.

What is the Gospel?

It is clearly the gospel that saves us, but what exactly is the gospel?  That too is revealed to us in the Bible.  It is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.  Otherwise, you have believed in vain.  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."  The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins.  Baptism is not mentioned here.

Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.  (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17).  If baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation?  It is because baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Additionally, in Acts, Peter was preaching the gospel, people got saved, and then they were baptized.  Acts 10:44-48 says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.  The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.  For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.  Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?  They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.'  So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.  Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days."  These people were saved.  The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues.  This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers (see 1 Cor. 14:1-5). Also, unbelievers do not praise God.  They cannot because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14).  Therefore, the ones in Acts 10 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved, and they are saved before they are baptized.  This simply is not an exception.  It is a reality.

Let's Suppose...

Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration.  Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior.  Is that person saved?  Of course he is.  Let's further suppose that this person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church.  In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed.  Does he go to heaven or hell?  If he goes to heaven then baptism is not necessary for salvation.  If he goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, is not enough for salvation.  Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)?

Saying that baptism is necessary for salvation is dangerous because it is saying that there is something we must do to complete salvation.  That is wrong!  See Gal. 2:21; 5:4.

All right, so this sounds reasonable.  But still, what about those verses that seem to say that baptism is part of salvation?  I will address those now, but because this subject can become quite lengthy, in fact sufficient for a book in itself, I will only address a few verses and then only briefly.

Baptism Verses

John 3:5, "Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

Some say that water here means baptism, but that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn't yet been instituted.  If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4).  If that is so, then baptism is not necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced.

It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process.  Jesus said in verse three that Nicodemus needed to be born "again."  This meant that he had been born once -- through his mother's womb.  Nicodemus responds with a statement about how he cannot enter again into his mother's womb to be born.  Then Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit.  Then in verse 6 He says that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."  The context seems to be discussing the contrast between the natural and the spiritual birth.  Water, therefore, could easily be interpreted there to mean the natural birth process.

I would like to add that there are scholars who agree with the position and some who do not.  Some believe that the water refers to the Word of God, the Bible, and others claim it means the Holy Spirit.  You decide for yourself.

 Matt Slick

Questions for those who say that baptism is necessary for salvation

Should euthanasia be the new definition for black?

"Do not kill yourself," said world pianist Arthur Rubinstein, "you’ll regret it within a year."

He knew what he was talking about. 21-year-old, penniless and desperate, he decided to take his life. The question was: how? "I had no guns, no poison, and the thought of jumping out the window was disgusting - I could well be forced to go through life with broken arms and legs."

It got to be hanging. Young Arthur drew the belt from his old coat and fixed it on a hook in the bathroom. But when the suicide attempt was made the belt slipped off and he tumbled to the floor.

This happened in Berlin in 1908. In those days one could not get suicide assistance. But 100 years later the suicide industry seems to thrive.

Holland has been at the forefront of active euthanasia. As the first country after Nazi Germany legalized, its practice was legalized in 2002.

More and more people make use of their new rights. In 2003 the number of people killed were 1815 people, the 2008 number was 2331 and the year after that, 2636.

This week, Dutch Radio reported that the association NVVE, "Dutch Association for Voluntary Death", is now seeking funding to open a suicide clinic where not only dying, but also people with mental illnesses and early dementia, can be helped to kill themselves.

Whether the clinic becomes a reality or not, it is a frightening development.

When a euthanasia debate begins in one country - as it has in Sweden - is it always the most severely ill, the dying, those with irregular pains, which are taken as examples of people who should be allowed to "die with dignity", as they say in these contexts.

Now, nine years after the groundbreaking law in the Netherlands we are talking about people who are not dying, but that is - so what? Looking into the near future will it include, the guilt-ridden, the lonely, victims of poor mental health?

We should not be surprised at the development. When a society has abandoned the view that health care is to cure and alleviate illness, and begin to see death as a "cure", then there really is no upper barrier.

People can, of course, be deemed unworthy to live meaningless, unbearable lives for almost reasons whatsoever.

Moreover, it is conceivable that the better standard of living people attain to, the more "security addictive' the influential middle class can afford to become; the tighter and more luxurious is the definition of what constitutes" a dignified life ".

In Holland, euthanasia opponents argue that the increase in active death-assistance is because life-care has deteriorated since the law was enacted They are not alone in that interpretation. Even former Health Minister Els Borst, who pushed through the law, has complained that it appears to have undermined the palliative care.

What would happen if a society became accustomed to the idea of mental illness and dementia (sufferers) may / can / should choose death?

How would it affect health care resources? And, above all, what would it be like to have a psychiatric diagnosis and to know that the "dignified" way to confront it, according to the prevailing norm, is to ask to die?

Arthur Rubinstein said in his memoirs that after the suicide attempt ended he emerged into a changed world. Before his mental trial, he had prepared himself by painting everything in gloomy colors. But now: "The streets, trees, houses, dogs chasing each other, men and women, everything looked different." His life changed forever.

"In this chaos, I discovered secret of happiness, which I still cherish: Love life for better or for worse, unconditionally."

Ann-Charlotte Marteus

translation: Dr. Sven Ljungholm

WHAT SAY YOU ???? Survey posted on the right...

Candidates for election for the nineteenth General of The Salvation Army, from left: Commissioners John Matear, Christine MacMillan, Barry Swanson, William Roberts, Max Feener, Linda Bond, Robert Street, William Francis and Dick Krommenhoek)