I appreciate very much Brother Water’s reply. I appreciate most of all that he remains in the negative and does not jump into the affirmative as many seem to do these days.
This article will be my second affirmative. Brother Waters will have a chance to review it, and then I will have my third and final affirmative. After that Brother Waters will review it, and then present his first affirmative arguing for his view and I will be in the negative for three exchanges.
This second affirmative will be broken down into two sections. First, I want to use the outline I submitted for my first affirmative and briefly review some of Brother Water’s negations. Then, in the second section, I want to develop my affirmative material further.
I do not intend to make any new affirmative arguments. I don’t believe a debate that attempts to deal with too many arguments does very much good. Consequently, in section two I will simply take one of the arguments I have already offered and develop it further.
Defining the Proposition and the Issue
1. Saved. Brother Waters writes that he has no problems with my definition of the term saved so we are agreed that we are discussing the initial state one enters when he moves from alienation from God because of sin to the state of being in a harmonious relationship with God as a result of forgiveness. I believe this is very important and later in this article this will be an issue on a certain passage, and then it will be an issue again when Brother Waters presents his affirmative so I want to keep it in front of the reader.
2. Faith In his comments on this subject Brother Water concedes that I am not teaching salvation by faith only (mere mental ascent to certain facts). He states that he believes more is involved than I do, and that of course is the issue we are discussing. I believe salvation occurs at the point of faith as I defined it in my first affirmative (and again later in this article). Brother Waters is asserting that salvation waits until one is actually immersed in water (baptized). This is the issue between us.
3. Baptism
In this section I discussed the fact that a culture has been built in many churches of Christ around the idea that one is not a Christian until he is baptized in water. I also discussed the fact that many in churches of Christ take the view that anyone who disagrees with this idea is saying baptism is unimportant, or that they are saying that one who is saved by faith can live a life of disobedience to God, including refusing to be baptized and yet still be saved. I emphasized that this is not my point of view—that I believe that baptism is God’s will for the new believer and that it serves a very important function in the Christian’s life. Therefore, the issue is not “should we be baptized?” but the issue is “are we saved at the point of faith before we are baptized?”
Brother Waters states that he acknowledges these facts but he adds that “true faith also accepts what God’s word says about when one’s sins are ‘washed away’ or removed.” Of course, I agree with this, but I would caution him and the reader that sometimes when the Bible speaks of these things it does so using figurative or symbolic language, and thus we must be willing to dig beneath the surface of each passage that would seem to assert that any outward act, including baptism, is the point at which one is saved in the sense we are discussing.
Brother Waters himself denies that water baptism in and of itself has any power to forgive sins. He affirms instead that it is at the point of water baptism that God forgives sins. Consequently, even he will qualify any passage that states one is forgiven, or saved by baptism. Thus, the question is which one of us is presenting the correct view in qualifying those statements, not, should the statements be qualified.
For example, towards the end of his negative he sites 1 Peter 3:21 that says that baptism saves us. He will qualify that and point out that we should not take that literally, but that we should understand that it is at the point of baptism that God saves us. I, on the other hand, believe that the kind of salvation we are talking about in our proposition occurs at the point of faith, and that 1 Peter 3:21 is using the term in a more general sense referring to the work God does over our life time to save us. In other words, I believe that baptism saves in the sense that it strengthens faith in Christ like every other act of obedience does, but that initial salvation occurs at the point of faith.
The primary point the reader should draw from this is that both of us will qualify many statements the Bible makes about baptism. When the Bible says it forgives sins, or saves, or washes away sins, or similar statements both of us will qualify that and point out that baptism itself has no such power. The debate on these passages turns then, not on what the Bible actually says (for we both agree that baptism forgives sins, or saves, or washes away sins in some sense) but on how or in what sense God utilizes our baptism to do these things and when initial salvation actually takes place.
4. The Issue
I pointed out in this section that the issue between us pertains to the point of salvation. I affirm it is at the point of faith, as I defined that term in my last affirmative, while Brother Waters affirms it is at the point we complete the outward work of baptism.
I also talked about why this debate is important. I pointed out that in practical terms Brother Waters and I do the same thing—we teach people to place their faith in Jesus and then to be baptized—and then I explained why, in spite of the fact that we do the same thing, the issue is so important to discuss.
That reason this debate is important is that the concept that is formed about how and when one is saved has a tremendous impact on his Christian walk. If one understands he is not saved until the point of outward works, like baptism, I affirm that his concept of salvation is a works concept. If, on the other hand, one understands he is saved at the point faith, as I affirm, then his concept of salvation is one of grace.
These two different concepts have a tremendous impact on the Christian’s life. Brother Waters, correctly I think, affirms that his doctrine has not effected his Christian life as deeply as it has effected others. Even so, wrong concepts leads to problems and this is why I think this debate is so important.
I will close this affirmative by talking more about the subject of a works based salvation versus a grace based salvation.
Argument 1: The Bible states that salvation is by faith, apart from outward works.
I cited two passages to sustain this argument and argued several points from them. Brother Waters responds to Romans 4:1-8, by saying that the passage has nothing to do with “how one gets into Christ.” I am assuming he means by this that this passage has nothing to do with the point of salvation that we are discussing, and I strongly disagree with that assertion. Romans chapters 1-8 are devoted specifically to that subject and what immediately follows. Then, in Romans 12-16 Paul speaks of the Christian’s walk over the course of his life.
The important thing to note here about Brother Water’s negation is that he merely asserts it. He does not go to the text, as I did, and argue from it for his case. He merely asserts his case is so. That may make points with those who agree with him, but it does not help those who are reading this debate in a sincere and honest attempt to discover what the truth is about the issue we are discussing.
In Section 2 of this affirmative I will have more to say about Romans 4, but I believe Brother Waters failed to negate my arguments on this passage through this assertion.
Next, Brother Waters attempts to negate my citation and arguments based on Ephesians 2 by saying the passage merely asserts that salvation is God’s doing. I beg to differ with him. That passage asserts not just that salvation is God’s doing, but it asserts that our outward works are not involved in initial salvation. Read the passage…
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast,” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB).
This passage teaches that one cannot effect salvation through outward works like baptism, and therefore cannot boast of effecting his own salvation. All such boasting is vain and misses the true nature of initial salvation, which is what this passage discusses. True salvation takes place at the point of faith. It is the gift of God and it is not a result of outward works which the person does, and God made it that way so that no man can boast in his outward works as the source of his salvation, or mistake the true grounds of salvation (grace). That is the clear teaching of the passage. Dismissing it as only saying that salvation is God’s work is to miss much of what is in the passage.
Argument 2: The Bible states that salvation is by faith or belief.
In replying to the passages I cited to support this argument Brother Waters quotes W.E. Vines, who he acknowledges agreed with my position. That being the case, it should be clear that Brother Water’s attempt to force a statement of W.E. Vines to deny what he stated he believes must of necessity be a twisting of what Brother Vines wrote.
Brother Waters then goes on to discuss the Bible’s teaching about “dead faith,” quoting James who says that “faith without works is dead.” We must realize that James was writing to Christians when he made that statement and urged them to engage in outward works as the natural outcome of true faith rather than making a statement about the point of salvation.
Even so, Brother Waters has already conceded that the faith of my proposition is not “faith alone.” It is an inward faith that has already taken some important inward spiritual steps in response to God’s work within. Hence, it is not a dead faith. The faith of which I speak, the same faith the Bible conditions salvation upon, involves one (1) removing himself from the throne of his life and placing Jesus there (confidence in God), (2) inward repentance in which one acknowledges that he is a sinner and resolves to return to obedience to the divine will, and (3) a choice of love as one’s ultimate choice, or purpose in life. All of these are inward, spiritual works resulting from God’s work in the heart. This is not a dead faith, and hence Brother Water’s comments are out of order in trying to style it as such. This faith will surely work, as James 2 urges, but that is not the issue between us. The issues is, “are we saved at the point of faith, or must we perform outward works before God will save us?”
Argument 3: The Bible teaches that outward works like baptism symbolize or picture the true spiritual inward reality of salvation.
In his reply to this section Brother Waters tries to argue that baptism is not an outward work one does, but something someone does to you. Now Brother Roberts, really! This is absurd. If baptism is something done to the person rather than something the person chooses to do then one is saved by the outward works of others and that is an even worse position than the one most in churches of Christ take! I think you better rethink this position, Brother Waters.
Certainly, in most cases, one is actually immersed by another, but baptism is a work of faith done by the individual being immersed in response to God’s command for him to be baptized. I think Brother Waters is quibbling on this and he needs to get serious and deal with the fact that baptism is an outward work of the individual who is baptized.
In this argument I cited the Hebrews writers’ discussion of the baptisms of the Old Testament and affirmed that what he says about them is necessarily true of the baptisms of the New Testament (the one John commanded and the one Jesus commanded) and argued that Christian baptism, like the washings (Hebrews 9:10, from the Greek baptismos) of the Old Testament, is a regulation for the body, but it cannot make the worshipper perfect in mind or conscious anymore than the baptisms of the Old Law could.
The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings (baptismos, jh), regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:8-10 NASB)
Christian baptism is a shadow and type of salvation, but not the reality of it. It pictures salvation--its inward transformation, cleansing, and forgiveness, and it pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but it is but a picture, or shadow, or symbol of these things. The reality is Christ, and salvation comes at the point of faith in Christ. Yes, true faith will ultimately lead one to symbolize it outwardly in baptism given the opportunity, but baptism itself is not the substance but a shadow or symbol and faith is the actual point of salvation.
I am amazed that people in churches of Christ can see the principle I am driving at in relationship to sin, but not in relationship to salvation. When does one become a sinner? Is it at the point he sets his heart upon the purpose to sin, or when he commits the outward act? We all know what the correct answer to that question is (if not, read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7). Why then do many in churches of Christ find it so difficult to see the same is true of salvation? Is it not because their emphasis and attention is in the wrong place?
Salvation is an inward reality that is conditioned upon the inward choice of faith in God and occurs when that condition is created in the heart in response to God’s gracious work there. Yes, it will, and must express itself outwardly, but an inward salvation is not effected by outward works, nor can one produce acceptable outward works unless the inward heart is first right with God!
Many in churches of Christ, in teaching baptism as they do, are making the same mistake the Jews did with the outward works of religion in the Old Testament. They are making the outward works the condition of salvation instead of inward faith.
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." (Romans 9:30-33 NASB)
So it is with those who wrap salvation literally in baptism—they pursue it as though it is by works instead of by faith. Consequently, the one who dies on the way to the baptistery is lacking because he lacks the outward works, as brothers Steve and David Willis have affirmed during the past week on Marslist, and as, if I understood his comments correctly, Brother Waters has now affirmed.
The inward work of conversion has been done, but no, according to Brother Waters the outward work must be done before salvation comes, and even a tragedy making it impossible for one to do so leaves one without hope. This is not the grace of God I read about in the Bible. This involves an undue emphasis upon outward works.
In answering my question, “Brother Waters, in your first negative will you please tell us whether or not you believe that one who has true faith, but who dies on the way to the baptistery is saved?” Brother Waters does not answer with a yes or no, but I don’t see how any answer but “no” can be the result of what he wrote. Here is what he said...
“Second, I cannot disbelieve what God has said simply because of the possibility of one not receiving the blessing of obeying God when he did not fully obey. God's word tells us that we are baptized into Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Col 1:14) and that all spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph. 1:3). Thus, I can only believe that those who get into Christ, as prescribed by God, are the ones that will receive the promised blessing.”
Here then is the fruits of this works concept of salvation. Only one who “fully obey(s)” can be saved and thus receive “the blessing of obeying God.” If this is what is needed, why have grace based salvation at all? Who, besides Jesus Christ, fully obeys God’s word during his lifetime?
This position allows no possibility for one to be converted as the thief on the cross was. It would not allow the possibility that those who died recently in the terrible mine accident could have been saved in their last moments if they had desired to turn to God for salvation. This, I believe, reveals this doctrine’s terrible ugliness and “man based” mode of salvation instead of a graced based salvation that involves yielding the heart to God’s work within, and the, after salvation, allowing that transformation to affect one’s outward conduct.
Water and human outward works—these are the ground and condition of (sof-sign out front) church of Christ salvation. Grace and faith—these are the ground and condition of divine salvation. The reader must choose.
Certainly, baptism, and thus water has a role to play in the Christian’s life. Certainly true faith will work—it will obey outwardly. However, neither of these are the ground and condition of initial salvation, and that is the issue we are discussing.
In this section I want to expand further on my first argument. Instead of just adding argument after argument I want us to focus sharply on just a few arguments so I am only going to develop my first argument further in this second affirmative by focusing on one of the passages I presented to demonstrate its truthfulness.
Argument 1: The Bible states that salvation is by faith, apart from outward works.
Paul makes this argument very clearly and very forcefully in Romans chapters 1-8. I want to focus on his argument as he develops it in Romans 4. There, Paul writes…
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT." (Romans 4:1-8 NASB – the portion in capital letters are quotations Paul makes from the Old Testament and were placed in capitals by the translators of the NASB and not by me, jh).
First, let’s deal with Brother Water’s assertion that this passage does not address the issue we are debating (when one becomes saved or becomes a Christian), but instead speaks of how Christians live their lives.
Notice that Paul speaks here of “justifying the ungodly.” Paul is not speaking here of forgiveness for the one who is already in a right relationship with God and who sins, but one who is alienated from God, “ungodly,” and who is seeking a harmonious relationship with God in response to God’s work in his life. This goes back to the definition I provided in the beginning for the word “saved” in my proposition. Therefore, Brother Water’s objection and dismissal of the passage as addressing the issue between us is demonstrably wrong.
Second, I want to remind the reader of something Brother Waters said in his last negative. He said, “true faith also accepts what God’s word says about when one’s sins are ‘washed away’ or removed.” I agree, and I simply point out that this passage teaches that forgiveness occurs at the point of faith, apart from outward works. Neither Abraham nor David was ever baptized in the New Testament sense, but both were forgiven.
Salvation has always been based on grace, made possible through the means of Christ, and conditioned upon the inward choice of faith in response to God’s work within. When such faith exists, then one is saved. That was how and when Abraham was saved, that was how and when David was saved, that was how and when New Testament Christians were saved, and that is how and when we are saved today.
Third, let’s note Paul’s assertion that salvation is by faith “apart from works.” Here is the axle upon which our entire disagreement turns. What does Paul mean here when he makes that statement?
Many in churches of Christ affirm Paul is saying that salvation is “apart from works” of the Old Testament law, thus affirming in essence that works of the New Testament law, like baptism, are necessary now for one’s initial salvation. This is clearly not the case since Paul uses Abraham as his example—one who lived before Moses’ law.
Others in churches of Christ affirm that when Paul says that salvation is “apart from works” he means that it is apart from perfect or sinless works, and that Paul’s statement does not exclude outward works that arise from faith. My objection to this point of view is that the context does not support it. It is a point of view that does not seek to understand the text, in its context, but a point of view that arises from coming to the text with a belief already that outward works like baptism must be performed before one becomes saved with the desire to harmonize or interpret the text to conform to that view.
This is not a good type of Bible study. It is called eisegesis, which means, one comes to the text to prove something he brings there with him, instead of exegesis, which means one goes to the text for his belief in the first place.
To properly understand what Paul means by the phrase “apart from works” one only needs to read on because Paul explains what he means. Paul uses an outward work—circumcision, a work required of Abraham and a work required in the Old Testament Law by God—to explain what he means. Here is what Paul writes…
Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:9-13 NASB)
The Jews viewed circumcision exactly the same way that members of churches of Christ view baptism. To them circumcision was an outward work that, when performed, resulted in the individual being removed from a state of alienation from God and being transferred into God’s family (at that time the family of Abraham, or the Jewish nation).
Paul uses this work to illustrate what he means when we are saved by faith “apart from works.” He points out that Abraham was saved by God when he chose to trust God many years before he was circumcised and Paul argues that therefore salvation is not based on outward works like circumcisions but upon the inward choice of faith in the heart in response to God’s calling and work in the heart.
This I believe is exactly how baptism should be viewed. Is it, like circumcision, a command of God? Yes. Should a person of faith then obey God’s command and be baptized? Yes. If a person says he has faith and refuses to be baptized should he then be considered as those who refused to be circumcised were viewed--as being unfaithful to God and still an alien to God’s family? Yes? But, is baptism or any other outward work the point at which one becomes saved? No! Salvation is by faith, apart from works.
To take any other view leaves the man of faith who dies on his way to the baptistery without hope. But more practically speaking, and much deeper than that hypothetical situation, to take the view that outward works must be preformed in order to be saved initially, is to make salvation of works instead of grace. It is to change the whole basis upon which one serves God, and it is to introduce a terrible burden into the Christian’s life. If initial salvation depends upon faith plus works (baptism), then all of the Christian’s life depends upon doing certain outward works, and each failure or sin in the Christian’s life is an argument against his being saved.
Since the Bible says none of us as Christians can say we have no sin…
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8 NASB)
…a works approach to salvation leaves us without any real hope of salvation because all of us will stand before the throne of God having failed in one work or another.
The grace based salvation that is conditioned on faith, however, can deal with the sin problem. Each sin drives the person to Christ and thus deepens faith in Christ. Each outward work completed properly likewise deepens faith and drives one to Christ. The life of faith is the only life possible because we all will fall short if salvation depends upon works.
Paul put forth this same argument to the Galatian churches when Jewish teachers sought to force them to be circumcised. These Jewish teachers believed that circumcision was an eternal command of God and that no man could be saved apart from doing it. Paul taught against that, not just on the basis that circumcision was part of the Old Covenant with Abraham and the Old Law of Moses, but Paul taught against it on the basis that salvation is of grace, and not of works. He argued that if salvation is based upon outward works then those works must be done perfectly, and all the works of God’s law would have to be done perfectly if one is to be saved under such a system.
Read these three statements from Paul found in the book of Galatians on this important subject.
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." (Galatians 3:10 NASB)
And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. (Galatians 5:3 NASB)
Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (Galatians 2:16 NASB)
I would say, in view of what Paul write above, if the outward work of baptism is necessary before one can be saved then all the works of the “New Law” are necessary. If not, Brother Waters, why not?
Likewise, I would say, in view of what Paul writes above, if one receives baptism as a necessary work before God can save him then he must of necessity view every outward work commanded by God this way. If not, Brother Waters, why not?
Yes, true faith will work, but salvation occurs at the point one forms the faith that will work in response to God’s work within, and does not wait for the outward works themselves.
I urge the reader to consider these things carefully, and to study both this and Brother Water’s reply in light of God’s word.