I’m privileged once again to greet the readers and Brother Waters.
After reading and thinking about Brother Water’s Second Affirmative I don’t see much value in going through all of the passages we went through in the last two articles again. Frankly, I am willing to allow my material on those passages as a whole to stand since I didn’t see much in Brother Water’s replies that needs a response. I believe we have both presented our case on each passage and the reader will have to decide which case is in harmony with the Bible as a whole.
Consequently this negative will be broken into four sections. In section one I want to review my fundamental arguments in this discussion and the comments Brother Waters made on them in his last affirmative. In section two I want to deal with some new material Brother Water’s offers in his last affirmative. In section three I want to deal with a specific case Brother Waters asks about. And then finally, in section four I want to return to the discussion of why this debate is so important.
Thus far in this discussion I have offered two basic affirmative arguments. In the negative I have used those two arguments to properly interpret passages Brother Waters has offered on baptism and I have added one negative argument.
The First Affirmative Argument
The first affirmative argument is that salvation comes by faith apart from works, and since baptism is a work, salvation comes apart from baptism.
I carefully defined the word “salvation” in this argument to be the point at which one ceases to be alienated from God and becomes a Christian (initial salvation). I defined faith as consisting of three essential elements: (1) confidence in God instead of self; (2) inward repentance including a resolve to obey God; and (3) the choice of love as one’s ultimate purpose in life.
This argument is supported by specific statements of Scripture that affirm it is so. First, in Romans 4 Paul affirms that salvation comes by faith apart from works, and he uses the outward work of circumcision to illustrate what he means by the term works.
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." 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. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (Romans 4:1-16 NASB)
The same argument that excludes circumcision as being necessary for initial salvation excludes baptism as being necessary for initial salvation—salvation is by faith apart from such outward works.
The second passage that affirms this argument is found in Ephesians 2:8-10.
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. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10 NASB)
Notice especially in this last passage the proper order of things. One does not work and then is saved, but one is saved apart from outward human works and then he performs outward works of obedience. According to this passage one does not work to be created in Christ Jesus, but is created in Christ Jesus to work. In this affirmation verse 10 of this passage is a perfect parallel to James 2. James does not affirm salvation waits until we do outward works—James affirms the faith of saved people will work.
Again, according to this passage, God conditioned initial salvation on faith apart from works so no man can boast about salvation.
In his replies to this argument Brother Waters first of all tries to patch up the terrible error he made in his final negative when he affirmed that he did not know who puts forth the most effort in salvation—God or man. Mind you, he doesn’t withdraw the blunder; he merely tries to hide it by arguing that God is so powerful that it is really an insignificant effort on His part when He saves and thus man may actually put forth more effort than God does in his salvation.
I don’t see things that way. When Jesus came to this earth that was no small effort on the part of God to save man. When Jesus prayed in the garden that was no small effort on His part so that man could be saved. When He went to the cross, again, it was no small effort on His part for the salvation of men.
The fact is, Brother Waters, man cannot save himself through His own outward efforts. Salvation is the work of God—totally the work of God. That is the affirmation of Romans 4 and Ephesians 2. You are still in trouble with this concept and you still affirm that you don’t know who puts forth the most effort in salvation and it proves that you pursue salvation by works instead of by grace--your protest to the contrary not withstanding.
Next, Brother Waters tries to deal with this argument by asking me if I believe salvation is 100% the work of God. He didn’t have to ask that question since I clearly affirmed it in my last negative.
Brother Waters continues this line of questioning by asking what percent of man’s salvation does he accomplish in coming to the point of faith, and my answer is zero percent. Faith is a surrender of self to God and an admission that man cannot save himself by his own works. Faith, therefore is necessary, but faith is not a work whereby man saves himself part of the way.
Brother Waters then asks if it is unconditional election or irresistible grace, or must man do something. No, Brother Waters it is neither of the things you suggest, and yes man must yield to God in faith, but here is the point—yielding to God in faith is not an outward effort put forth by man that saves him, but a surrender to God and an admission that man is incapable of saving himself. The Bible sanctions the inner choice of faith as the condition of initial salvation, but specifically excludes outward works (like circumcision and baptism) as being the point of salvation, or as being the condition of initial salvation.
Making outward works the condition of salvation places God in a box where people like the thief on the cross, and people who die on the way to the baptistery, and people like the young man who drowned while being immersed cannot be saved. When God made faith apart from works the condition of salvation He made salvation a possibility for all.
Brother Waters asks if I believe in the “praying through” concept. No, Brother Waters, I do not.
Finally, in regard to this argument, Brother Waters did a verse by verse review on Romans 4, but I wonder how many people caught the omission in that review? He cited and reviewed verses 1-4, and then skipped verse 5, and then continued his review with verse 6. Why did he do that? What does verse 5 say that he didn’t want the reader to see?
But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, (Romans 4:5 NASB)
Brother Waters' basic assertion on Romans 4 is that it is not talking about initial salvation, but instead is talking about the salvation of the saved. His proof for this is that the chapter is written to saved people. This is a serious blunder and simply ignores the context of the book of Romans.
I want the reader to remember though, that Brother Waters is affirming here that saved people still need to be saved in some sense. I suspect this will be immensely important by the time he writes his final affirmative and I write my final negative.
Yes, Romans was written to saved individuals, but if one will simply read the first four chapters of Romans he will see that Paul is discussing how men are saved initially. Paul first proves that all men are sinners, and then affirms that salvation comes by faith apart from works.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23 NASB)
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (Romans 3:28 NASB)
Romans 4 is a continuation and illustration of the argument set forth in chapters 1-3. Brother Waters is simply wrong when he asserts Romans 4 is not talking about initial salvation.
One positive step was taken by my opponent in his last article. Previously he has argued that baptism is not a work of the individual but in his last article he said…
“At this point I’m willing to retract that baptism is not a work based upon the following definition of the word: 5. Purposeful Effort – the physical or mental effort directed at doing or making something (Encarta).”
Now that Brother Waters has admitted that baptism is a work he simply needs to apply Romans 4 that says we are saved by faith apart from works.
Brother Waters attempts to say I am on the horns with him because the definition above makes faith a work. What he misses is that faith is specifically included by Paul in Romans 4 while all outward works like circumcision and baptism are specifically excluded! I think we are making progress here, Brother Waters!
Then Brother Waters asks about hearing. He says that hearing is a work and if we are saved apart from works then hearing is excluded. Again, what he overlooks in making this argument is that Paul specifically includes faith, and since faith comes from hearing, that means hearing is included, but Paul specifically excludes outward works like circumcision, and since baptism is a work like circumcision then baptism is likewise excluded.
Every passage on baptism is impacted by the teaching of Romans 4 and Ephesians 2. Since baptism is an outward work, and since both of these texts affirm that we are saved initially by faith apart from outward works, these texts affirm that we are saved initially apart from baptism. We must take this information to each text on baptism, and, contrary to Brother Waters’ assertion, it is not circular reasoning to do so.
I don’t think Brother Waters knows what circular reasoning is. Circular reasoning, Brother Waters, is like, for example, the argument that the evolutionist make about bones and the strata they are found in. If you ask the evolutionist, “how old is this bone,” he will says, “it is millions of years old.” You then ask him, “how do you know that?” He will say, “well, we found it in this strata that is millions of years old.” Then, you ask him, how do you know that strata is millions of years old?” He will says, “because we found this bone that is millions of years old there.” That, Brother Waters, is a circular argument, and it is not what I am doing when I cite Romans 4 and Ephesians 2 and demand that you harmonize baptism passages with those inspired statements.
The Second Affirmative Argument
My second affirmative argument affirms that baptism is a symbol, and not the reality (Christ is the reality); and therefore, passages that teach that baptism saves, or places us in Christ, or clothes us with Christ, etc., are in fact teaching baptism does these things symbolically or outwardly to reflect what has already taken place in the heart at the point of faith.
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 or symbolizes that salvation, inward transformation, cleansing, and forgiveness that takes place in the heart. It pictures the death of Christ and faith in Christ, which are the substance, but baptism itself is not the substance but a shadow or symbol of the substance (Christ).
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.
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 Brother Waters has affirmed in this discussion. 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.
All Brother Waters does in his latest article to deal with this argument is to tell us he is tired of hearing it. However tired he may be, the argument is sound and it is biblical, and therefore we must take it with us to each passage in the Bible that speaks of baptism if we are to understand the Bible’s teaching on baptism properly. Baptism is not the reality that saves us—only God can do that. Baptism symbolizes God’s work of salvation through Jesus Christ. It is an outward expression of faith whereby the outward man illustrates what has already taken place in the heart.
I wonder why Brother Waters didn’t deal with my argument on the sprinkled blood?
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 final affirmative. I know that he believes there is a difference between the two, but let us see if he will openly acknowledge it. He certainly did not do so in his last article! 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)
My Negative Argument
In replying to Brother Water’s last affirmative I made the argument that the Bible speaks of salvation in several different senses.
Initial Salvation – The point that one ceases to be alienated from God and becomes a member of God’s family (justified, sanctified, regenerated, etc.)
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.
Final Salvation – The salvation we will receive on the Day of Judgment when we are welcomed to heaven.
This is an important argument because it helps us to understand several passages properly. Mark 16:16, for example, is not talking about initial salvation, but is talking about salvation in the ongoing sense, and in the sense of final salvation. I have affirmed from the very beginning that baptism serves an important function in the believer’s life who has the opportunity to be baptized. I studied the subject for two months before I was baptized after I made my initial choice of faith. When I teach people about salvation I always teach them to obey God and be baptized.
Consequently, in a context like Mark 16 baptism is like any other outward act of obedience—it is a work that perfects faith, and thus only indirectly saves. The one who believes and takes the Lord Supper will be saved. The one who believes and attends regularly will be saved. And just so, the one who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, none of these outward works have the power to save, or represent the point at which we are saved. We are saved by faith apart from outward works like circumcision and baptism.
At one point in his last reply Brother Waters points to James 2:24 that teaches that Abraham was justified by works. Again Brother Waters is not paying attention to the context or the words in that context. Justification, like salvation, is spoken of in several senses in the Bible. There is initial justification, and then there is on going justification, and then there is our final justification in the end at the throne of God. James 2:24 is not talking about initial justification, but about ongoing justification. James is talking about how saved people will work, not how works result in initial salvation.
I think it is significant that Brother Waters simply goes though all the passages again but doesn’t really come to grips with properly defining the terms as they appear on those passages. He merely assumes initial salvation is under discussion and chides me for not agreeing with his assumptions. This is not a serious way of addressing the real issues between us.
Brother Waters offers us some more illustrations. He goes back to the Old Testament and cites the example where God cured people of snake bites using a brazen snake, and he goes to the New Testament where Jesus healed a blind man through having him wash clay off his eyes. The problems with both of these illustrations, like the illustration of Naaman, is that they are physical healings and not examples of spiritual salvation. Paul clearly teaches that initial salvation comes at the point of faith, apart from outward works, and both of these examples involved outward works that led to their healing.
Brother Waters still has not learned that illustrations are not arguments. Additionally, if his illustrations prove anything then my illustrations of people who were cured or rescued apart from works prove my point.
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.
The three young men who were saved from the fiery furnace likewise were saved by faith apart from outward works. If Brother Waters’ examples prove his case, then my examples prove my case. If not, why not?
Again, illustrations are not arguments. Brother Waters would do well to make arguments instead of trying to use illustrations improperly.
Next, Brother Waters makes up some illustrations to prove that accepting and receiving a gift does not negate the fact it is a gift. I concede that to be the case, but it does not prove that water baptism is the point of salvation. Water baptism is an outward work of the individual. The Bible affirms we are saved initially by faith apart from outward works. Therefore, we are saved apart from baptism.
Finally Brother Waters asks if I’m aware that “virtually all scholars, including Baptist scholars and translators” disagree with my arguments on John 3 and Acts 2. No, Brother Waters, I am not aware of that, but as regards this debate that it is immaterial. Even if it is so a majority does not prove a position is correct. Are you aware, Brother Waters, that the majority of people confessing faith in Christ today deny your position is so? I don’t think, Brother Waters, that we want to settle this issue by majority vote, do we?
In his last affirmative Brother Waters wrote…
Was Cornelius initially saved even before Peter came? Remember, an angel had told Cornelius that Peter would tell him what to do to be saved. (Act 11:14) Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. In connection with this I remind my opponent that he was "commanded…to be baptized" (10:48). I suspect that my opponent will say Cornelius was already saved even before Peter came. So to "head him off at the pass" let us look at a passage of scripture: (10:43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. This text proves that Cornelius needed to believe in Jesus so he could receive remissions of sins.
I would begin by reminding the reader that the Bible speaks of salvation in at least three different senses—initial salvation, on-going salvation and final salvation. There was a sense in which Cornelius needed to be saved (ongoing salvation), and thus needed to hear words whereby that salvation could take place, but there was another sense in which Cornelius was already saved (initial salvation) before the events of Acts 10 and 11 took place.
Prior to the events of Acts 10 and 11 Cornelius knew about Jesus and salvation through Jesus, but he had not yet sought to fellowship with the church because salvation had not yet been offered to the Gentiles.
Peter began everything he said about Jesus by affirming that Cornelius already knew those things…
You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. (Acts 10:38 NASB)
Beyond this, the Bible affirms that Cornelius was holy, God fearing, loving and a man of prayer even before the events of Acts 10 and 11 took place. All of these outward signs reflect that inward faith was present, and thus initial salvation was present.
Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually. (Acts 10:1-2 NASB)
Finally, before Cornelius was baptized in water he was baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is direct evidence that he was saved before he was baptized in water.
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. (Acts 10:44-48 NASB)
Peter cited the evidence of Cornelius’ acceptance by God as evidence that he should be accepted by the church and thus allowed to be baptized, and consequently Peter affirms that Cornelius was saved prior to his baptism.
Brother Waters asked for a Bible example of someone saved before baptism and Cornelius is one such example. There are many other such examples—Abraham, David, Noah, and all the other Old Testament worthies were saved without water baptism. If water baptism is necessary to literally cloth oneself with Christ then none of these have been clothed with Christ and thus none of them have been saved. If water baptism is necessary to literally be added to the body of Christ then none of them have been added to the body of Christ. If water baptism is necessary for the literal washing away of sins then none of them have had their sins washed away. All of these were clothed with Christ, added to the body of Christ and forgiven through faith apart from works just as we are. All of these did outward works after being saved to perfect their faith, just like we do when we are baptized and when we perform other outward works.
Brother Waters, the Bible is full of people who were saved without being baptized! But, if you doctrine is true, they are all lost!
Now the simple fact of the matter is the plan of salvation has always been the same. Men have always been saved on the basis of grace, through the means of Christ’s death, and upon the condition of faith. God has required different outward works from saved people at different points in time, like circumcision versus baptism for example, but in every case salvation is by faith apart from works. That is God’s plan of salvation and it has never changed. It has been the same since it was first formed in the mind of God.
Cornelius, as a Gentile prior to the time when the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, was saved by faith just like all other Gentiles were saved. The Bible says he was holy and God fearing. That should be enough for us to understand that he was saved in the initial sense. The Bible says the Holy Spirit was poured out on him. That should be enough for us to understand that he was saved in the initial sense. The Bible says he was totally aware of the story of Jesus and His role in God’s plan. That should be enough for us to understand that he was saved in the initial sense.
To continue being saved in the ongoing sense, and to be saved finally, Cornelius and other God fearing Gentiles needed to learn God’s way more perfectly and be accepted by the Jewish Church. Like Apollos in Acts 18, and the men who were only familiar with John’s baptism in Acts 19, Cornelius was saved in the initial sense, but needed further teaching to continue that salvation in the ongoing sense. This is why the text said he needed to hear words so that he might be saved. That affirmation is not a denial that this God fearing man was saved in the initial sense, but an affirmation that he needed to be accepted as being saved in the ongoing sense by the Jewish Church.
What is the debate on baptism really all about? I believe the issue pertains to undue emphasis being placed on baptism and a lack of breadth of thinking on this and many other Bible subjects within the Church of Christ denomination.
When I say the problem is one of undue emphasis I mean that baptism is certainly an important subject in the Bible and an important and essential step in a person’s life toward God, but that within the Church of Christ baptism has almost been deified. It is considered the crowning moment of a person’s life and what follows is anti-climatic.
It really should not be that way. Baptism should not be the climax of our relationship with Christ, but the beginning of one new “high” after another as we move closer and closer to God and His will for our lives.
In the Church of Christ denomination baptism is THE issue. Baptism is THE deciding factor in whether or not one is a Christian. Baptism is THE testing stone of whether or not we will fellowship someone.
Biblically speaking baptism is not THE issue. Biblically speaking Christ is THE issue. Faith in Christ is the testing stone of whether or not one is a Christian, and baptism is just one outward work in a life time of outward expressions of faith in Christ. It is a little more important, perhaps, because it is one of the first outward steps a Christian takes, but in the long run it happens and then the Christian moves on to the real essence of what being a Christian is—living a life in which one seeks a deeper relationship with God through which he becomes more and more like Christ and thus builds a life around love for God and love for others.
When that emphasis is replaced by baptism the kind of Churches and the kind of problems we see in many Churches of Christ today are the result. Division is on every hand. Phariseeism, legalism, judgmentalism, and this absurd idea that only people who are part of the Church of Christ denomination really love God, really are honest enough to accept what His word says, and are really the only Christians.
Every sin is allowed to thrive among Churches of Christ as long as they hold fast to the party line on the baptism issue, the instrumental music issue, and the “we are the only true church” issue. Gossip about others is okay. Slander about other people seeking Christ is okay. Looking down on others who claim to be Christians is okay. Driving out people from among the Churches of Christ who refuse to hold to the partly line is okay. But change your view on anyone of these three core issues and you are not okay!
Are these things what Christianity is really all about? Isn’t Christianity really all about God's work to save man? From our point of view, isn't it all about love for God through Christ and love for one another?
Beyond this undue emphasis there is the problem of stagnation in thinking. The Church of Christ denomination is one hundred years old this year. Or, if you date it from Daniel Sommer’s famous, or infamous, “We cannot and will not regard them as brethren!” declaration in 1889, then the Church of Christ denomination is just a little over 100 years old.
What began as an effort to return to the Bible and to point out that baptism was not being emphasized enough became an obsession with baptism—no, not with baptism, but with a very narrow, one sided view of baptism. The view was adopted, minds were closed to any further exploration for truth on the subject, lines of fellowship were drawn, and then people went about the business of spreading the heresy.
What it led to was division after division as people began treating other subjects the same way. Whether is was the “one cup,” on the “Sunday school,” or the “covering,” or “divorce and remarriage,” or “the fellowship issue” or whatever, people adopted one angle on the truth, insisted it was the only angle, and said concerning those who disagreed with them, “we cannot and will not regard them as brethren!”
What we need to do is open our minds and try and see the whole picture on baptism and not just the angle that the Church of Christ denomination has indoctrinated us with for years.
Is baptism an important element of the Christian’s life? Yes it is. Is baptism a command of God? Yes it is. Shouldn’t a Christian want to obey, and as much as lies within his ability actually obey every command from God? Yes he should!
Is baptism essential to salvation? Yes it is, in one sense, but no, it is not in another. As a command of God the outward work of baptism is essential in the sense that every Christian wants to obey every command of God. Every command we obey brings with it attendant blessings from God.
Having said that, however, obeying outward commands is not the essence of being a Christian. It is an important and essential element of being a Christian, but neither it or any other outward work can make one a Christian.
Becoming a Christian involves stepping down from the throne of one’s heart, bowing the knee of the heart, and allowing Jesus to sit down upon that throne. Faith is the essence of being a Christian--a faith that leads one to choose love for God and love for one's fellows as one's purpose in life is the essence of being a Chistian. From our standpoint, faith is what it is all about.
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)
John didn’t say, “this is the victory that has overcome the world—our baptism!”
I have not taken the stand I have against the Church of Christ denomination’s teaching on baptism because I dislike people being baptized. I have not taken the stand I have against the Church of Christ denomination’s teaching on baptism because I think baptism is a nice, but unnecessary option in the Christian’s life.
I have taken the stand I have against the Church of Christ denomination’s teaching on baptism because I believe baptism has replaced true faith in many of those Churches as the essence of what it is to be a Christian. Baptism has replaced faith as the only proper condition God has set forth to forgive one and make him a child of God.
The plan of salvation has never changed. From the beginning it has been based on grace, made possible through the means of Christ’s death, and conditioned upon faith. Yes, at different times God has commanded people of faith to do different things (like circumcision versus baptism), but the plan of salvation has never changed. It has always been, as Paul argues in Romans 4, by faith apart from works like circumcision and baptism.
I accept the idea that baptism is a command of God and is therefore an important and essential step for the person of faith to take. What I deny is that baptism, or any other outward work, is the point at which one becomes a Christian. Salvation comes by faith apart from outward works so that man can never be under the illusion that he can do anything to save himself. Salvation comes by faith apart from outward works so that man will know that salvation is a work of God, and not a work of 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)
When any outward work, whether it be baptism, instrumental music, or the “my denomination is the only true church” belief and practice, replaces faith as the testing stone of whether or not one is a Christian a false standard is set up. The emphasis shifts—subtly—from grace to works.
James, in James 2, tells us that the purpose of outward works is to “perfect” faith. All outward works of the Christian reveal the quality, or lack thereof, of one’s faith. All outward works test, strengthen, and exercise faith so that it grows. However, the focus must ever be on the faith and not on the works. When we shift our focus to the works we will find fault.
You look at any believer for any length of time and you will find fault in his works. You may self-righteously and hypocritically decide, “We cannot and will not regard them as brethren!” but when you do so you condemn yourself because you likewise have some failing in your works.
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8 NASB)
Constantly in his last affirmative Brother Waters has tried to make me a Baptist. He does that so that he can point to failings among the Baptist to try and discredit me. I’m not a Baptist. Yes, I have visited some Baptist services of late since I have been driven out from among Churches of Christ, but I’m no more a Baptist than Robert is. But, even if I were, and even if Robert could point to flaws in Baptist, what he misses is that he and his brethren likewise are full of flaws.
Being a Christian is about trusting and loving God, but it is also about loving one’s brother. It is also about being patient with one’s brother. It is about allowing God to work in a brother’s life. It is about accepting weaker brethren. It is about recognizing that as Christians we will disagree, but we don’t have the right to divide. We don’t have the right to set up our little group and say, “we are the only ones who are saved, and the rest of you who profess faith in Christ just don’t love God, love His word, or love the Savior like we do.”
God made human being diverse. All of us are different. We are at different levels of maturity. We are at different levels of education. We come from different cultures. We will see things in the Bible differently for these and many other reasons—not the least of which is that we are all tainted by sin and thus diminished in our capacity to see ourselves clearly, to see God’s word clearly, and to see one another clearly. We need, therefore, to extend as much grace to each other as possible. We need to embrace all who confess Christ and evidence Him in their day to day conduct and not let out peculiar interpretations of the Bible become a cause for dividing from one another and pointing at one another and saying, “We cannot and will not regard them as brethren!”
Herein, is the great weakness and error of the Church of Christ denomination--they will not regard others as brethren. They have a very narrow minded, peculiar slant on truth that refuses to listen to reason and to see the bigger picture, and anyone who disagrees with them is lost, and we can say and treat them any mean way we want to because they are lost.
“Those Baptists don’t love God! Those Methodists don’t care about what the Bible says. Those Pentecostals are just a bunch of emotional fools!” Justified? No, it is not. It is a lack of love for our brothers in Christ. It is self-righteous hypocrisy. It is narrow minded sectarianism.
It is destroying many Churches of Christ. Most of the rural Churches are dying. Most of the urban Churches are surviving only because of the population they have to draw from. We cannot survive claming that we alone know the truth, love God, and that we alone are His people. By cutting ourselves off from other Christians who think differently from us we are cutting ourselves off from the truths they can see and which we cannot. We are also cutting ourselves off from the possibility of growth and development. We are committing spiritual suicide as a group. We are saying that our gifts and understanding are sufficient, and that we don’t need the gifts or understandings of others who likewise profess Christ. We are doing the very thing Paul condemns when he teaches against one member of the body saying of another, "I have no need of you!" (1 Corinthians 12:21).
If one person did what the Church of Christ denomination does we would consider him insane. If one person stood up and said, “I alone know the truth; I alone am a child of God; I alone practice the truth;” we would all immediately recognize him to be insane or immensely egotistical. Why, when a group of people does the same thing, should we consider them any differently?
The apostles could say…
We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:6 NASB)
…they were inspired messengers from God. We are not. We cannot say such a thing. However, when Daniel Sommers stood up and said, “We cannot and will not regard them as brethren!” that is what he was saying. He sowed the seeds that day for the Church of Christ denomination. It has been the hallmark of the Church of Christ denomination ever since then.
Brethren, I beg you to open your minds, your hearts, and the doors of your Churches and to recognize the great brotherhood of Christians that are out there serving God with every bit as much love for Him as you have. They are every bit as much interested in learning God’s will as you are. They are struggling with sin, yes, just like you are…
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8 NASB).
…but through faith in Christ they are moving closer and closer to God’s will for them. Embrace them as brothers. Love them as brothers. Only when we are one with them can we as Christians convince the world that God sent Jesus into the world, that God loves the world, and that we love God and we love one another.
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.” (John 17:20-23 NASB)
So, what is salvation all about? Is it all about baptism and our peculiar views as a group of believers as distinguished from other groups of believers? Or, is it all about Christ—faith in Christ, love for Christ, and the exaltation of Christ as our Lord--and our love for others?