I am privileged once again to greet the readers and Brother Waters.
Brother Waters has had two articles in a row now. In his final negative article it was his duty to review my third affirmative, and then in his first affirmative article it was his duty to demonstrate from the Bible that salvation does not occur until the point of water baptism.
This negative will be broken down into three sections. First, there are some matters pertaining to Brother Water’s third negative that I will note. It is important to do this because these items will serve as the foundation for my reply to most of the arguments Brother Waters makes in his affirmative.
The second section of this reply will be a direct reply to his affirmative. In the concluding section I hope to be able to present once again why this debate is so important and why I believe that Brother Water’s view presents a clear and present danger to the spiritual well being of those who adopt it.
The affirmative case I offered was very simple, and contained two basic affirmations presented in three arguments. First, I affirmed that we are saved by faith apart from works, and therefore since baptism is a work, we are saved by faith before we are baptized. Second, I affirmed that the Bible teaches that baptism is a symbol or picture, and that therefore when we read passages that teach that baptism saves, or forgives sin, or brings us into union with Christ, or into union with His body that we should understand baptism only does this symbolically or figuratively.
Now, the simple fact of the matter is that Brother Waters never really dealt with the second argument as I presented it in my affirmative. His entire focus was on the first argument, and in his last negative he made some grievous errors in trying to deal with that argument.
For example, Brother Waters tried to get around the idea that baptism is a work by arguing that it is not a work of the individual being baptized, but rather a work of the individual who baptizes him. I pointed out, that if this was so he was still in trouble because that still meant a work was necessary to be saved, and Paul argues in Romans 4 that salvation is by faith apart from works. Here are some of the things Brother Waters said in response to my position.
"Again, submitting to the command to be baptized by another is not an outward work. God wisely chose baptism as the point of salvation because it isn't something one can boast about - he is passive in the act. Preachers sometimes boast of whom they have baptized and how many, but I have yet to hear a man boast about his own baptism. Have you, Jack?"
First, I want the reader to note that this doesn’t remove his problem at all. He still has an outward work necessary for salvation; he just says it is the work of the one who baptizes the individual that is necessary.
But, to answer his question, yes, I have heard many in the Church of Christ denomination brag about their baptism and proclaim that they were saved by it. In fact, typically, when you ask people in the Church of Christ for evidence of salvation they point to their baptism instead of pointing to Christ within, as the Bible teaches. In doing this they are not unlike the Jews who pointed to circumcision as the proof that there were saved, but as we all know Paul argues that outward works like circumcision have nothing to do with initial salvation (Romans 4:9ff).
While we have the subject of circumcision in front of us, I seem to remember that it is a passive act as well, but nevertheless, Paul argued that circumcision, as an outward work, was not the point of salvation, but faith is! I believe his argument applies with equal force to baptism!
Now, as Brother Waters continued to try and deal with the obvious contradiction between his doctrine and what the Bible says concerning the fact we are saved by faith apart from works, he wrote this…
“While it can be said that the man took the initiative to save himself, it cannot be said that he did it entirely himself.”
First of all, this statement is an admission that baptism is a work of the individual. Baptism happens, according to Brother Waters in this statement, when one takes the initiative “TO SAVE HIMSELF.”
Second, notice, that in Brother Waters worldview, and in many members of the Church of Christ’s world view, salvation is a 50-50 kind of thing—man does his part, but can’t do it “entirely himself” and so God does the rest.
Now, I ask, is this really the Biblical model of salvation?
I don’t deny that God has conditioned salvation on faith, but I do deny that faith, or any work of man, amounts to even one percent of saving oneself and then God does the rest. Salvation is entirely the work of God. Faith is not a work on man’s part that gets him part way and then God finishes the course, faith is instead a surrender and an admission that man cannot save himself and that therefore if he is to be saved all he can do is trust God to save him.
I urge the reader not to rush past this point. Here is the real issue! Does man have the capacity to save himself, even part of the way? Is salvation a process whereby we do all we can to save ourselves and then God just does the rest to get us across the finish line?
I admit, there are some Bible passages which can be torn from their context and made to look like this is the case, but I affirm the Bible does not advocate this kind of a view of salvation, but that Brother Waters and many of his allies in the Church of Christ denomination certainly do!
Do you think I’ve been unfair to Brother Waters and the Church of Christ denomination by writing this? If so, then read this exchange between Brother Waters and myself in the last negative. I wrote…
“If this illustration is equal to the Bible's teaching on salvation then man puts forth just as much effort as God does in his salvation. Does the Bible support this kind of view of salvation?”
The illustration I referred to here is Brother Water’s “drowning man holding on to the rope” illustration. Now, here is Brother Water’s reply…
“I cannot say who puts forth the most effort. Nevertheless, it should be obvious to all that both man and God are active when God saves, and YES, the Bible supports this kind of view of salvation from beginning to end.”
BROTHER WATERS CANNOT SAY WHO PUTS FORTH THE MOST EFFORT IN SALVATION—GOD OR MAN!
Now, just let that sink into your mind and if you do that you will know what this debate is all about.
Who puts forth not just the most effort, but who alone has the power to save man?
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)
As an illustration of this important and vital Biblical truth, I cited the example of Daniel in the Lion’s Den.
“A better parallel of how we are saved would be Daniel in the Lion's Den. Daniel could not save himself from the Lion's by his own human power or works, but because he was a person of faith God saved him by grace, shutting the mouths of the lion. Just so, God saves us today by dong what we cannot possibly do for ourselves apart from our works.”
Brother Waters responded by saying…
“There is indeed a lesson to be learned from Daniel, and brother Holt has properly represented it. However, he takes it too far in defending the doctrine he has recently adopted. It is true that God saved Daniel without asking him to do anything but that does not prove anything. God could have required Daniel to keep his eyes closed or stand on one foot, which would be His conditions for holding back the lions. He just did not require anything in this case. It is important to note that this case was not designed to teach regarding forgiveness of sin and when one receives forgiveness, as was the case with Naaman. Leprosy was representative of sin and the dipping was representative of baptism.”
First, Brother Waters acknowledges I used the illustration properly. Second, he nevertheless denies that it illustrates the principle of being saved “by faith apart from works” and goes to the Naaman example, which involved the work of dipping seven times in the Jordon river and says that example was designed to prove how we receive the forgiveness of sins. Now, I ask, where is the proof that was the design behind what happened to Naaman?
The fact is, as Brother Waters affirmed; I used the illustration of Daniel properly. Brother Waters misused the illustration of Naaman by virtue of the fact that he violated Paul’s clear teaching in Romans 4 that we are saved by faith apart for works like dipping in water. Water and works—that is the Church of Christ concept of salvation. Grace through faith—that is the Bible concept of salvation. One plan doesn’t know who puts forth the most effort in salvation, the other affirms only God has the power to save and man’s role is simply to surrender to God’s work by faith.
Commenting further on this issue Brother Waters wrote…
“God has demonstrated, in a few instances, that He can do things for people without providing any conditions. However, throughout the Bible we find examples where God's blessings were contingent upon man doing something. Jack knows this is true.”
First of all, Daniel was saved conditionally—he was a man of faith. Those who were thrown in after Daniel were consumed by the lions because they were not people of faith.
Second of all, I do not deny that there are many divine blessings God has for the Christian that are contingent upon outward works of obedience. James affirms this is true in James 2. My affirmation simply says that initial salvation is not that kind of blessing. Initial salvation comes by faith apart from works so that no man can boast (Romans 4 and Ephesians 2). Brother Waters must come to grips with the real issue here.
While we are on the subject of James 2, Brother Waters wrote…
“Whether baptism is a work or not is not particularly important to the issue being studied because James clearly states that works are involved in justification. Nevertheless, when I showed that the one being baptized is passive and that the one doing the baptizing is the only one doing any real work, Jack quibbles with that.”
Whether baptism is a work or not is vital to the issue. If it is a work, then the Bible clearly says we are saved by faith apart from it. However, the point I want to get to here is his assertion concerning James 2.
The fact is James 2 and Romans 4 discuss faith and works in separate contexts. The mistake Brother Waters makes, and many in the Church of Christ denomination make the same mistake, is not recognizing the fundamental role of context in interpreting these two passages.
Romans 4 is talking about initial salvation (the point at which one ceases to be an alien and becomes a child of God in the deepest sense). That text says that salvation comes by faith apart from outward works. It uses circumcision, an outward work that Jews looked at exactly the same way that Brother Waters and many in the Church of Christ look at baptism, as an illustration of the kind of work that we are saved apart from.
James 2, on the other hand, is talking about saved people and discusses the fact that it is essential for saved people to allow their faith to express itself in outward works. James does not teach that one has faith, but is not saved until he does outward works. James teaches that a saved person’s faith will work if it is genuine faith.
Unless we are willing to study passages in their context we will never understand the Bible the way we should.
In conclusion to this first section then, my two fundamental affirmative arguments still stand. First, I affirmed that we are saved by faith apart from works, and therefore since baptism is a work, we are saved by faith before we are baptized. Second, I affirmed that the Bible teaches that baptism is a symbol or picture, and that therefore when we read passages that teach that baptism saves, or forgives sin, or brings us into union with Christ, or into union with His body that we should understand baptism only does this symbolically or figuratively.
Brother Waters, on the other hand, affirms salvation is the product of a joint working effort between God and man. He is not sure which puts forth the most effort, but he is certain that initial salvation is, at least in part, the product of human works. This is our difference.
With these arguments in hand let us now move to examine Brother Water’s first affirmative.
Defining the Proposition
Brother Waters affirms: The Scriptures teach that one is saved when he is scripturally baptized.
In defining the proposition Brother Waters states…
By scripturally I mean, having the proper prerequisites. By when I mean, the point that he is raised up from the water.
I am made to wonder by this what Brother Water’s view would be of the individual who is immersed, but who drowns in that condition? He has already told us that the person of faith who dies on the way to the baptistery will not be saved. What then of the one who is immersed, but who drowns before he is raised from the water?
Impossible you say? Not at all. It has happened! On September 8, 1999, in Houston, Texas, a teenage boy who was being baptized drowned when he slipped away from the minister’s hands while under water in a Houston river. (Reported September 9, 1999 on Yahoo News: “A teenaged boy drowned during a baptism in the Houston river yesterday. The boy slipped away from the minister while he was under. Authorities are examining if the collapse of a nearby walkway may have contributed to the event.”) Brother Waters, in such as case, would the individual be saved since he never was raised from the water?
Now, remember, Brother Waters, the issue is not, can it happen? The issue is if it happens is one unsaved until he rises from the water? We will all be waiting to hear your answer on this.
Then, while defining his proposition Brother Waters raises an interesting issue. He claims that baptism must be necessary because without it one will not really know when he is saved. It is incredible to me that Brother Waters has such a shallow, external view of salvation. However, it is understandable that when one thinks salvation is a joint working effort between God and man and he isn’t sure who does the most work in salvation that he would place such emphasis on the external.
True salvation is a matter that begins in the heart. I remember clearly the instant, some two months before I was baptized, when I yielded up my life to God. My daughter was not expected to survive child birth, and in that terrible instance I saw clearly how awful life was without God and I made the choice then to yield my life up to God. It was two months later that I was baptized, and thus accepted by the Church of Christ as being saved, but I remember very clearly the instant I turned to God and yielded my life to Him. Brother Waters is simply wrong when he says that without water baptism one does not know when he became a Christian.
Baptism Passages
After defining his proposition Brother Waters moves to present several Bible passages on baptism. I will examine each one, but before I do so I want to say very clearly that I believe that baptism is God’s will for the believer, that the believer should be baptized immediately when he learns that is God’s will for him, and that anyone who says they have saving faith, and who knows it is God’s will for him to be baptized, and has the opportunity to do it, but refuses to do so, does not, as I understand it, have the kind of faith that saves.
Remember, in my affirmative, I defined saving faith, and demonstrated very clearly that it involves total confidence in God to save, inward repentance, including a desire to obey God in every way, and the choice of love as one’s ultimate purpose in life. This is saving faith, and if any element of these three are missing it is not the kind of faith Paul was speaking of when he said that we are saved by grace through faith and apart from works.
The important thing for the reader to keep in mind as he approaches each passage in the Bible on baptism is the fact that no Bible passage should be interpreted in such a way as to violate the greater context of the Bible. Specifically, as pertains to this debate, every passage on baptism must be interpreted in light of Paul’s affirmation that we are saved by faith apart from outward works (and baptism is an outward work), and in light of the Bible’s teaching that baptism is a symbol of the reality and not the reality itself.
With these thoughts in mind let us look at each passage Brother Waters presents.
1 Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 NASB)
Even Brother Waters will admit this passage is symbolic in nature. He knows that baptism does not save, but rather he argues that God saves us when we are baptized. Hence, even he will argue that the passage is symbolic.
In light of the Bible’s affirmation that we are saved by faith, apart from works, and in light of the Bible’s affirmation that baptism is a symbol, we should understand Peter to affirm that baptism symbolizes our salvation, not that baptism itself has the power to save, or that salvation awaits the moment of baptism.
Another way of understanding 1 Peter 3:21 and like passages is to realize that the Bible speaks of salvation in at least three different senses.
1. Initial Salvation – The point that one ceases to be alienated from God and becomes a member of God’s family (justified, sanctified, regenerated, etc.)
2. Ongoing Salvation – The day by day, moment by moment work of salvation in one’s life in which one moves from “glory to glory” closer to the image of God.
3. Final Salvation – The salvation we will receive on the Day of Judgment when we are welcomed to heaven.
Clearly, 1 Peter 3:21, cannot be referring to initial salvation because Paul affirms that salvation comes apart from works, and baptism is a work. Baptism does save in the sense that it is one of the many works that God wants saved people to do so they can deepen or further their salvation, and baptism saves in the sense that it is an outward work that deepens faith and thus results in one’s final salvation. But, again, initial salvation, the point that one ceases to be alienated to God and becomes a member of God’s family, is conditioned solely on faith and does not require outward works according to Paul in Romans 4 and Ephesians 2.
John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, (John 1:12 NASB
)John 1:12 does not mention baptism and Brother Waters does not really develop his argument on it, but many in the Church of Christ denomination argue that this passage teaches that faith gives one the right to become a child of God but he does not actually become one until he is baptized.
The first problem with this is that this is not the author’s argument. The second problem with it is that like salvation, becoming a child of God is spoken of in different senses. There is a sense in which we become a child of God when we are initially saved, but there is another sense in which we do not become children of God in the fullest sense until the resurrection and our glorification with God in heaven. That is the sense in which John is using the term here. All believers have the right to the final glorification of the children of God.
Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NASB)
The argument members of Churches of Christ have made for years is that “eis” (for) implies point action in Acts 2:38, and thus one repents, then is baptized, and then (at that point) is forgiven of past sins, becomes saved, and is made a Christian all at the same time.
I realize that the training is such in Churches of Christ that to the average member this explanation is so deeply planted in the mind that anyone who denies it is thought to be dishonest or unwilling to accept what the Bible says. I would simply ask that the reader and Brother Waters would carefully consider the things I am about to write.
The phrase “(eis) for the forgiveness of sins” occurs in other places in the Bible. For example, it is used in connection with Jesus’ death on the cross.
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27-28 NASB)
Now, I want to ask the reader this simple question—will the point action argument in relationship to the forgiveness of sins work in this verse? In other words, was it the case that Jesus died on the cross, and then at that very point in time the sins of the all (for He died for all, right Brother Waters?) were forgiven?
No, No, Brother Waters will say. You see…
I really don’t care what follows after “you see…” Whatever it is, it admits of the possibility that something can be “for (eis) the remission of sins” but not involve point action (i.e., the action following immediately upon the deed upon which it is predicated—in this case, Jesus’ death, in Acts 2:38’s case, repentance and baptism). If it can be true here that point action is not involved, then it can also be true in Acts 2:38! If not, why not?
Now, let’s look at another occurrence of the phrase…
And He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47 NASB)
This passage says that repentance is “for the forgiveness of sins.” If this is to be understood as most members of the Church of Christ understand Acts 2:38 then forgiveness comes at the point of repentance!
Brother Waters will likely object, “well, baptism must be added!” Even so, the point action assertion is negated then for this passage. If the point action conclusion forced by the Church of Christ upon Acts 2:38 is demanded here then this passage says the point of forgiveness is repentance. If Brother Waters can take this verse and argue that no, it is not at the point of repentance that forgiveness occurs because of what the Bible says elsewhere, then I can do the same with Acts 2:38! If not, Brother Waters, why not?
In fact, the Bible does teach else where that the actual point of forgiveness, or the actual point one becomes a Christian, occurs somewhere other than immediately following water baptism! I have been pointing to passages like Romans 4 and Ephesians 2 throughout the entire debate to prove that point!
Well, at what point does the Bible say one becomes a Christian, or is saved in the sense of forgiveness? If Jesus died for the remission of sins, but we weren’t saved at the point of the cross, and if repentance is for the remission of sins, but we are not saved at that point either, is it not possible that baptism can be for the remission of sins, but that doesn’t mean that salvation comes at that point?
I do believe Jesus’ death is for the remission of our sins. I do believe that repentance is for the remission of our sins. I do believe that baptism is for the remission of our sins. But I don’t believe that point action is involved in any of these passages.
The point at which we are saved is when we truly place our faith in God in response to His work within, deny ourselves, and choose to love our fellowman.
In John 3 Jesus puts it this way…
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16 NASB)
There is a very real sense in which every outward act of faith (whether it is outward works of repentance (restitution, etc.), baptism, eating the Lord’s Supper, assembling with the saints) is for the remission of sins. It is the same sense in which Jesus’ death was for the remission of sins. Every act of faith has as its objective dealing with the sin problem in our lives as we seek to please the God we have chosen previously to place our faith in.
The whole Bible is for the remission of sins. It reveals God’s plan of redemption to that end.
Thus, I affirm Acts 2:38 teaches baptism is for the remission of sins, but that it does not teach point action in that verse. Baptism is an act of faith where we seek to deal with sin in our lives just like any other outward act of obedience is, but the faith that leads to it is what truly makes us a child of God, and thus anyone who has that kind of faith belongs to Him. Hear the apostle John on the matter…
For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. (1 John 5:4 NASB)
Notice, John did not say, “this is the victory that has overcome the world—our baptism.” You put any other outward act into that slot where baptism is and the fact remains, it is not the outward acts that provide us with the victory over the world—it is our inward faith. Salvation comes through faith apart from outward works (Romans 4; Ephesians 2).
Acts 22:16
'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.' (Acts 22:16 NASB)
Just like 1 Peter 3:21, even Brother Waters will argue that this passage is symbolic, or figurative. Baptism, immersion in water, has no power to wash away sins. Brother Waters will go to other passages to teach that sins are actually forgiven by God, and then will come back to this passage and argue those sins are not forgiven until one is baptized.
The problem with that is that it denies Paul’s clear teaching in Romans 4 that forgiveness comes at the point of faith, apart from outward works like baptism; and, it ignores the clear teaching of the Bible that baptism is symbolic—not the reality. Hence, baptism symbolically washes away sins, but the actual point of forgiveness occurs when one places his faith in Christ.
Mark 16:16
"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16 NASB)
To understand Mark 16:16 one needs to only consider the material I presented above which demonstrates that the Bible uses the word saved in several difference senses.
1. Initial Salvation – The point that one ceases to be alienated from God and becomes a member of God’s family (justified, sanctified, regenerated, etc.)
2. Ongoing Salvation – The day by day, moment by moment work of salvation in one’s life in which one moves from “glory to glory” closer to the image of God.
3. Final Salvation – The salvation we will receive on the Day of Judgment when we are welcomed to heaven.
Paul clearly teaches that initial salvation occurs at the point of faith apart from outward works like baptism. Hence, Mark 16 cannot be talking about initial salvation, and initial salvation is the issue we are discussing in this debate.
However, baptism certainly plays a role in our day to day salvation in which we grow from glory to glory, and certainly has a role to play in our final salvation.
James, in James 2, speaks clearly of the proper role of works as they relate to salvation. Works, he says, “perfect” faith. Works help faith to grow and develop, but initial salvation takes place at the point of faith, and then we go to the day by day process of growth.
Salvation is not the product of human works. Salvation is a work of God. It is conditioned upon faith—a surrender to God’s work. Human works of obedience to God—whether it be baptism, taking the Lord’s Supper, attending, praying, reading the Bible, or whatever—all are designed to perfect faith, but none of them have the power to save man, and none of them compete with God’s sole power to save through His divine works. Brother Waters does not know who does the most work in salvation, but the Bible states it clearly, that salvation is 100% the work of God and man is 100% unable to do any work that will save himself.
Baptism is one of the first outward works of a Christian. Initial salvation occurs prior to baptism, but when one is baptized his inward faith is confirmed and perfected (made to grow and develop) by virtue of his obedience to Christ, and this certainly leads to salvation in the second and third sense.
Now, I am pretty sure that Brother Waters is going to use a tactic that is common among Church of Christ preachers when he replies so let me head him off at the pass. He is going to try and tell you that Holt believes that one believes, is saved, and then is baptized, but Mark 16 says one believes, is baptized and then is saved.
The problem with this argument is that it involves equivocation. Yes, it is true, when one speaks of initial salvation that I believe, as Paul says in Romans 4, that salvation come apart from the work of baptism. However, I do believe that when one looks at the other two senses in which the Bible speaks of salvation that it is just like Mark 16:16 says—the one who believes and is baptized shall be saved.
In this sense it is like saying the one who believes and takes the Lord’s Supper shall be saved, or the one who believes and attends regularly shall be saved. All these statements are true, but none deny Paul’s teaching in Romans 4 that salvation comes by faith apart from outward works.
Romans 6:3, 4
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4 NASB)
When one comes to this passage he must remember the material I presented in my first affirmative, and every article since it, on the idea that baptism is a symbol and not the reality. Christ is the reality; baptism is a symbol representing the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
Hence, in baptism we are joined with Christ symbolically and outwardly, but in faith we are joined with Christ in reality as He becomes the Lord of our life, and at the point of faith we are cleansed by the blood of Christ.
Brother Waters, is there a difference between sprinkling and baptism? Now, Brother Waters, I want you to give us a clear answer to that question in your second affirmative. I know that he believes there is a difference between the two, but let us see if he will openly acknowledge it. If he will, then we should see clearly in the Hebrew letter the distinction between the sprinkling of Christ’s blood on the heart, which takes place at the point of faith, and the Christian’s immersion in water that takes place afterwards.
Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:22 NASB)
Colossians 2:11, 12
And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12 NASB)
Paul makes a distinction in this passage between the circumcision of the heart (forgiveness) and outward baptism. The circumcision comes first, then the outward baptism. This passage is parallel to Acts 2:38 and my comments on that passage are applicable to this one.
Additionally, in Paul’s mentioning of circumcision here our minds should be drawn back to Romans 4 where, after affirming that salvation comes by faith apart from outward works, Paul uses outward circumcision as his example of the kinds of works that initial salvation does not depend upon. The Jews looked at outward circumcision in exactly the same way that many in the Church of Christ look at baptism, but Paul affirms that we are saved initially apart from such outward works.
Galatians 3:27
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Galatians 3:27 NASB)
In baptism we symbolically, publicly, and outwardly cloth ourselves with Christ, but the reality takes place in the heart first. Again, in connection with this passage, I remind Brother Waters and the reader of the Bible’s affirmation that baptism is symbolic and not the reality. Christ is the reality, and baptism only symbolizes the faith at which point we are actually saved and clothed with Christ.
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?
Earlier, in the debate, Brother Waters replied to this by affirming that Eve did not sin until she actually ate the fruit. Really, Brother Waters, so she formed the intent to sin and reached for fruit and did not sin in so doing? You are sadly mistaken sir about the nature of both sin and salvation. Sin cannot not possibly take place outwardly unless it has first taken place inwardly, and the same is true of salvation.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB)
The comments I made on Romans 6 and Galatians 3 apply here as well. In baptism we are symbolically baptized into the body, but the reality takes place at the point of faith in our hearts.
John 3:1-6
Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:1-6 NASB)
Note very carefully that Jesus asserts that man must be born again. Then Nicodemus asks Him about physical birth, and how a man could possibly be born physically a second time. Jesus then declares that a man must be born of both water and Spirit to see the kingdom of God.
Physical birth is accompanied by an event which is commonly referred to as the breaking of the mother’s water. I believe Jesus is using the word that way to refer to Nicodemus’ question about how a man could be born physically again. He tells Nicodemus that it is not enough to be born of water (the physical birth) but one must be born of Spirit (an inward birth from God which takes place when one places His faith in God in response to God’s work within).
This understanding is clearly what Jesus has in mind because He continues by contrasting these two births when He says in verse six, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” He then goes on to emphasize He is talking about a birth of the inward, unseen part of man and He uses the wind to illustrate that fact.
In affirming that the water here is the water of baptism those who do so ignore the context of verse six, which clearly establishes what Jesus is referring to, and they make a fallacious argument. The argument is this: The passage mentions water, baptism involves water, therefore the passage is talking about baptism. That argument simply is not sound. Just because water is mentioned does not mean that baptism is the subject under consideration. One must prove from the context this is what Jesus intended, and in view of verse six I don’t believe that can be done.
Having said that, however, even if the water here is a reference to baptism this would not lead to the conclusion that we are saved initially at the point of baptism. If it is a reference to water baptism then the passage should be viewed exactly as Mark 16:16 is viewed—as a reference to final salvation in which baptism is mentioned when all outward works relating to salvation over one’s lifetime is what is intended (a figure of speech called a synecdoche).
Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not understanding the things He taught. Paul tells us the fundamental reasons why the Jews failed to understand true salvation.
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)
The Jews pursued salvation as though it was by works, rather than an inward conversion of faith and this is why Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not knowing what he should have known all along about salvation. Jesus’ rebuke continues to be a valid one to all those who condition initial salvation upon outward works like baptism.
When Brother Roberts says he is not sure who does the most work in salvation—man or God—he is affirming salvation by works instead of by faith. He is stumbling over the same stone the Jews stumbled over—a legalistic approach to religion that misses the heart and essence of what salvation is all about.
Finally, in the context of John 3 Jesus clearly establishes faith as the sole condition for initial salvation. He says…
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16 NASB)
In closing, Brother Waters asks…
Brother Holt, please explain, in as much detail as possible, exactly how one becomes a Christian; and not only how HE can know when it happened but also what evidence there is that OTHERS can look at to see when the Lord added him to the number of the saved.
One can know he is saved when he truly places his faith in God. Each heart can look within and know who is sitting on its throne. If Jesus is there, then the person will know they are saved, and those who observe their lives will see Jesus clearly in their conduct, including, when they are baptized.
The issue in this debate pertains to the actual point of salvation. Is it at the point of faith, or is it at the point of water baptism?
When we come to understand the issue our first question might be, “Is this really worth debating?” I freely admit that in one sense it is really kind of a foolish debate. In most cases when one decides to place his faith in Christ baptism follows within minutes. So, at first glance, debating the actual point of salvation may seem to be unimportant and not worth our time and effort.
There is, however, a very important reason to debate this subject. If one adopts the idea that salvation waits until outward acts of obedience are completed then, if he is consistent, he will maintain that idea throughout his Christian walk. Adopting this view of salvation means that every misstep or every failure in one’s outward deeds becomes a challenge to his salvation. It breeds a relationship with God that is full of the wrong kind of fear and uncertainty about one’s relationship with God. It produces people who are full of guilt, shame, and a sense of defeat instead of the kind of victorious life God provides through the grace-faith approach to salvation.
This in turns often leads to greater and greater efforts to make the outward deeds what they ought to be, and that in turn leads to greater and greater realization of just how short our outward deeds come of God’s expectations of us. Failing this way, people, often in an act of desperation that is searching for some kind of peace and comfort about themselves and their relationship with God, begin to become blind to their own misdeeds and they create a very legalistic approach in their religion so they can define in some easy, achievable way their salvation in terms of deeds properly done. They reduce their religion to church attendance, taking the Lord’s Supper and other outward acts. The Bible calls this approach seeking salvation by works.
On the other hand, those who understand that salvation takes place at the point of faith handle their sins and shortcomings in a much different way. Since they don’t define salvation as the sum of their works, each sin has the same effect each success has—it drives them to deeper faith and reliance upon Christ for forgiveness and salvation. The Bible calls this salvation by grace through faith.
In this system salvation is not the sum of our works. Instead, our works reveal the quality of our faith and are a tool to help us to develop deeper faith in Christ. Sin is serious, but if one has true faith in God he realizes that his life will never be completely free of sin on this earth.
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8 NASB)
Hence, salvation is not about perfect doing, but about deeper and deeper faith in Christ. The wonderful thing is, that freed from fear and condemnation (Romans 8:1) one is free to serve in ways that those engaged in seeking salvation by works can never dream of (read about the frustrating struggle people pursuing salvation by works have in Romans 7 and then contrast it with the walk of faith in Romans 8).
Consequently, our decision on this seemingly unimportant issue pertaining to where the actual point of salvation is will have long term effects in our Christian walk. This makes it an important issue to debate.
Wrap your minds around Brother Water’s confession that he does not know who does most of the work in salvation. He says it is a joint effort between God and man and that he doesn’t know who puts forth the most effort. This is the clearest indication of all that he is pursuing salvation by works and that he is advocating it in this debate.
I urge the reader to review the material presented carefully. Brother Waters will now have a second affirmative and then I will have another negative, and then he will have his third affirmative (his final effort in the debate) and then I will have my third negative (and my final effort in the debate). I urge the reader to study what both of us present carefully in light of God’s word.
God bless!