I am thankful for the spirit that brother Holt has maintained in this discussion. I trust that both he and I, as well as the readers, will come to a better understanding of the various passages pertaining to baptism, as they relate to God's plan in the scheme of redemption.
Jack wrote:
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.
rw: The best Jack can do with the passages that teach that one is saved at the point of his being baptized for the remission of sins is to contend that SOME of the passages are figurative or symbolic. Jack has attempted to show that such is the case in 1 Pet. 3:21, which I have already addressed. But, Jack, even if you are right about the text just noted, what about all the other texts? The word "some" or "sometimes" denotes a part.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Jack, it is interesting that you understand that I deny that it is God that saves, not the water. Yet you have charged the brotherhood (COC) of putting trust in their works as saving them, and have asserted that it begins with baptism. I do not know a single member of the church that does not recognize that it is God that forgives our sins when we respond by faith in being baptized as commanded " for the remission of sins."
Brother Holt continues:
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.
rw: Jack, it is easy for all to see that God is the one that saves. We have seen in 1 Pet. 3:21 that baptism, like Noah's family being saved by water, "saves us." Your contention, which I deny, is that water really has NOTHING to do with it. You contend that one is already saved at the point of faith. There should be no doubt in the reader's mind who is presenting the correct view in qualifying the statements on baptism. If there is any doubt at this point it will surely be removed when I am in the affirmative and we discuss passages relating to baptism that cannot be written off as being figurative or symbolic.
Jack continued:
For example, towards the end of his negative he cites 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.
rw: No, Jack, I do not say we should not take the text above literally. Baptism does save us. That is what the text says! The question is, does baptism alone save us? I have stated that it does not, but that God does when we comply with conditions.
Let me provide an example: A man is drowning in a lake. Along comes a man who has heard his cry for help. The man can't swim but has a rope, which he offers to the drowning man. The drowning man accepts the offer and grabs hold of the rope and is pulled to safety. Question: What saved the man? Was it the person who heard his cry and came to help? Was it the rope only? Or, was it both the rope and the man who offered and used it to pull him to safety?
Friends and brethren, Jack's doctrine has the man being saved at the point he decides to accept the man's offer. This is exactly his doctrine as it relates to the salvation that God offers. Neither is logical and the latter is unscriptural.
Jack stated:
"…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.
rw: Jack's statement, above, is rather far fetched. I'll have to say I've never heard anyone make this argument. The problem I have with it is that it is not in the text noted above, and certainly there is no hint of it in other texts that could be brought into the discussion.
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.
rw: No, Jack, I am not affirming that salvation is "at the point we complete the outward work of baptism." You added "outward work" even after I have explained that I do not believe submitting to being baptized is a work. It requires a change of will and, in most cases, some effort, but it certainly is not a work whereby one could boast. Did the drowning man who grabbed hold of the rope…do a "work"? Was it something he could "boast" about? Could he boast that he saved himself?
Jack continues:
The 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.
rw: Jack, if one believes he is saved by grace through faith and he understands that he merely accepted God's offer by "grabbing hold of the rope," (so to speak) could he not then go on about his life serving God with a grace/faith concept of salvation - rejecting the idea that one can save himself by his works apart from God's grace?
Jack continues:
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 lead to problems and this is why I think this debate is so important.
rw: The "wrong concept" that some have has no bearing on my belief and teaching, nor does it change the truth about when one contacts the blood of Christ. For example, if someone comes to believe that all one has to do is be baptized and go to "church," etc. to be saved, that is his problem. He has deviated from the truth. There is no basis on which to conclude that one's belief in baptism, as being the point at which one is saved, is what causes one to err on other matters.
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.
rw: Jack, you are in the affirmative. You selected that text (noted above) to help you affirm the proposition. The first clue that this text does not support your teaching is that your exegesis of it contradicts what James clearly states:
(James 2:21-24) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
I do not intend to press this text now, because I'm not in the affirmative. I am noting it here because it is needful to show that Jack is misusing a passage. Indeed, in view of what James said there can be no other explanation. Truth does not contradict itself.
What then are we to conclude was Paul's teaching to the Romans? No doubt God foresaw that there would be a serious problem with disciples concluding that they could earn their salvation through their works alone. In this sense Abraham was not justified by works - not by works only and neither are any today before or after they are saved.
Jack continues:
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).
rw: It is important that we don't simply read the passage but that we read it from various versions and study the context as well. Before I go into an explanation of the text let me emphasize again the need for proper hermeneutics. Jack's exegesis on the above passage, as was the case regarding the Roman text, contradicts James' teachings. Luther was so certain that his conclusions (which were much the same as Jack's) were correct that he sought to discredit the canonicity of the second chapter of James. That approach seems pretty faithless and radical. God would not have allowed His word to have been corrupted to that extent. There are virtually no scholars today that carry the torch for Luther on that matter. Jack, how do you explain James' teaching to harmonize with Paul's? Right now, all the reader sees is that you have them contradicting each other, which proves you have reached a wrong conclusion. Now, I realize that you have indicated that it is very important that we understand that James was written to Christians, not aliens. Well, brother, the same was true with Romans. Perhaps Jack will abandon his previous thoughts about how to deal with James.
The text:
(MSG) We don't play the major role. If we did, we'd probably go around bragging that we'd done the whole thing!
The above version makes clear the intent of verse nine. Indeed, we do not play the major role, but we do play a roll, according to James, who by inspiration wrote: "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect" (2:22)?
Jack teaches salvation by faith apart from works, but James says that faith and works are inseparable, as far as salvation is concerned. Look at the text again (2:22).
(GW) You see that Abraham's faith and what he did worked together. His faith was shown to be genuine by what he did.
(MSG) Isn't it obvious that faith and works are yoked partners, that faith expresses itself in works? That the works are "works of faith"?
Yes, it is obvious that "faith and works are yoked partners;" nevertheless some, for whatever reason, have convinced themselves, or allowed themselves to become convinced, that works are somehow WRONG and that faith is all that is involved in pleasing God.
Back to Eph 2:8, 9:
(Darby) not on the principle of works, that no one might boast.
Indeed, it is not the "principle" of works that one is saved, but first grace (God's part), then faith and works (man's part).
(ISV) For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God.
That a man cannot save himself is made clear by the rendering of the text, noted above. Grace comes from God, but faith, which is seen in and made perfect by works, comes from man.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Again, submitting to the command to be baptized by another is not an outward work. God wisely chose baptism as to 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? If you cannot document your charge you should quit making it. If it is true you should have no problem finding some quotes from known brethren in the Church of Christ.
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."
rw: Was Vine not a Baptist? Did he or did he not define "believeth" (in John 3:16) to mean "faith conjoined with obedience"? Scholars often tell the truth even when it is contrary to their professed religion. Barnes taught much truth that is contrary to the Presbyterian faith, which he held.
Holt continues:
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.
rw: The book of Romans was also written to Christians. Thus, if we are to disregard James' teaching about works we must also disregard Paul's teachings for the same reason. Jack must come up with a better answer if he expects to show his doctrine to be in harmony with the word of God.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Jack asserts that a faith without works is "not a dead faith." But unless he can show how those "inward spiritual steps" somehow involve works (and he obviously will not try to do that) the prudent reader will have only one conclusion to make: Jack's doctrine is contrary to the teaching of James, whose teachings I prefer to accept over any man's.
Jack wrote:
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.
rw: Jack speaks of putting Jesus in the proper place in one's life, inward repentance, and the choice of love. He then said, "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?"
rw: Brethren, we can go to the Book of Hebrews and James and read about works of faith that are NOT inward, but visible demonstrations of one's faith. If Jack will provide one example of New Testament conversion in which one was saved merely by what he calls "inward spiritual works," he might get an ear from COC members who are seeking truth. We all know it is not in the Bible, which is why Jack has not already provided it.
Argument 3: The Bible teaches that outward works like baptism symbolize or picture the true spiritual inward reality of salvation.
Jack argued:
"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!"
rw: Jack avoids the point as he tries to make it appear that when one is baptized it is merely an outward work of another. I emphasized that one who obeys the command to be baptized is passive. A person could be completely unable to move any of the limbs of his body and obey the command. And if we had to categorize it we would have to put it into the category of "inward works" that Jack talks about. I stated, "It is done as an appeal to God for a clear conscience knowing that He will at that point forgive you (1 Pet. 3:21)." I then provided a couple of renderings of the passage that supported my statement that when one allows another to baptize him "for the remission of sins" he is merely appealing to God to do as God promised. Jack says I need to quit quibbling on this and get serious and deal with the fact that baptism is an outward work of the individual who is baptized. Well, he is the one that is quibbling and who needs to show how such an appeal to God is outward works instead of the inward type or just no work at all.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: In my previous response I showed that the purpose for baptism is important and gave examples of where a baptism would not result in forgiveness of sin in the mind of God. Thus, baptism alone is of no value to the soul. However, when it is done by a penitent believer in Christ as an appeal for forgiveness, God's mind is changed regarding that person. Previously God was not pleased with his life, but afterwards he is pleased because Jesus' blood covers his sins. He is among the blessed that David prophesied of whose sins are covered and to whom the Lord will not impute sin ( Rom. 4:6-8).
Jack uses the passage below in his effort to prove his proposition. Let us look a little deep into the true meaning of the text:
"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)
Jack's comments:
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.
rw: The text does not say baptism is a shadow and type of salvation or that it merely pictures salvation. The text is about the blood of Jesus as opposed to the practices of the Jews under the Old Testament. Let us read a little further:
(Heb 9:13-14) For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
The sacrifices and the sprinkling had no power, of itself, to forgive. Nevertheless, these were things God required to be done. As long as they did these things, through faith, they kept in his graces. But, the blood of Jesus (available to us) DOES HAVE POWER. Jack's misuse of the above text in no way explains how to contact Jesus' blood. The scriptures teach that the blood of Jesus is contacted in baptism, not at the point of faith, as Jack contends.
Jack continues:
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?
rw: I am confident that Jack is wrong about when one becomes a sinner. His argument is that one becomes a child of the devil at the point of believing the devil. One can look carefully at the fall of man in the Garden of Eden and see that the steps are exactly opposite to the restoration of man today. I'm really glad that Jack made this argument because it is a very strong argument for visible obedience. Eve was not lost until she obeyed the word of Satan and man today is not saved until he obeys the word of God. This concept is fully developed in a sermon on my web site called "Conversion."
rw: Now, Jesus did teach about sin starting in the heart, but for example, adultery is not adultery unless actually committed. If "adultery in the heart" was to be taken to mean the same as adultery virtually every woman would have "grounds" to divorce her husband, according to traditional doctrine. Jack's text proves too much, thus it proves nothing.
Jack asserts:
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.
rw: Let us get something straight. Is salvation something that takes place in the mind of MAN or the mind of God?
Jack stated that, "…An inward salvation is not affected by outward works…."
rw: I agree that such is the case if one is trying to do those works apart from the blood of Jesus. However, the case of Naaman (2 Ki 5:1-14) clearly proves Jack's statement above to be blatantly false. The command was to dip in the river Jordan seven times to be cleansed of leprosy, which was a "type" of sin. One would have to wonder, if that man had been Jack Holt, would he not have listened to his servant who sought to convince him to merely obey the command, which would THEN (following the 7th dip) result in God cleansing him, as was the case.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Maybe some in the COC believe as Jack has charged. If you look hard enough you can find just about any doctrine believed by someone who claims to be COC. But it is unfair to say "many in churches of Christ," as Jack has done. The fact is, MOST preachers put emphasis on grace and faith and that the actual cleansing is done by the blood of Jesus.
Jack quotes Paul:
"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…and as, if I understood his comments correctly, Brother Waters has now affirmed."
rw: Jack, you are putting words in my mouth. I have not affirmed that failure to do outward works is the reason one might be lost if he died on the way to the baptistery. If such were to happen (and you have not shown where it ever has, nor have your responded to my comment that God can keep these things from happening) he would be lost because he had not obeyed the gospel, which is a requirement to get into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). When I am in the affirmative I plan to stress the meaning and importance of obeying the gospel.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: I think Jack's problem is lack of faith in what God has said. I see no difference in Jack's argument than one showing his doubts about whether God could have cleansed Naaman, when he was immersed the 7th time, by quibbling: "What if the river Jordan had dried up before he got there. Why, it would have been impossible to obey the command. Thus, Naaman did not have to obey." Let's get real!
Below is part of my response that Jack quoted:
"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."
rw: Rather than deal with the sound arguments I made regarding obedience and getting into Christ, Jack makes the following comment:
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?
rw: Jack jumps from obedience to be a Christian, to obedience throughout the entire life. Jack is obviously quibbling.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: What I believe is grace based salvation and DOES involve yielding the heart to God. Also, what took place within will result in outward conduct that pleases God.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Jack, the above is offensive to me, not because it is true but because it is not true - you have made a false charge. You could never have gotten a preacher of the true gospel to have debated any proposition whereby he would affirm what you have written above.
Brother Holt made further comments pertaining to Romans 4. I have already dealt with his concerns in my reply above.
rw: Brother Holt made the comment that "Neither Abraham nor David was ever baptized in the New Testament sense, but both were forgiven." OK, but what does that prove? We do know that it was things these men did by faith that resulted in God's approval of their lives.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: In view of what I read from his web site it seems strange that Jack is going to such trouble to show WHEN one is saved. He wrote: "In fact, the issue of when we are saved, biblically speaking, is not really emphasized. The Bible instead places its emphasis on how we are saved--we are saved by grace through faith."
I agree that the emphasis is on HOW…but Jack tries to make a point as to when David was saved and tries to use it to prove his thinking that one is saved today at the point of faith. The fact is, David was BORN into the family of God (as a Jew) and therefore did not need to do anything. His love for God and life of faith, seen in his works, is what resulted in God's speaking so highly of him.
Jack continues:
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?
rw: Jack dealt with a couple of arguments that brethren have made to explain Paul's statement that salvation is "apart from works." I made neither of the arguments so I shall not seek to defend them. Jack, you are supposed to be debating me, not your perception of the COC.
Jack quoted Romans 4:9-13, and then made the following comment:
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).
rw: I fail to see how false concepts that one might have, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament, have any bearing on the New Testament's teaching about the necessity of baptism. I think Easton tells the truth when he writes that circumcision "…was appointed by God to be the special badge of his chosen people, an abiding sign of their consecration to him. It was established as a national ordinance (Gen_17:10-11).
Jack made the following statement:
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?
rw: I assume that the question mark, above, is a typo and that Jack means, yes. How long would you be willing to permit one, whom you say is saved, to go without being baptized? Your teaching in this debate seems to be designed to persuade us that we do not need to immediately "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins." Why should we hurry, as the above text teaches? Why, according to you there is no need to hurry because we are already saved.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Perhaps there is some truth in what Jack says above. But he is debating a straw man. I base my salvation on God's promises, the blood of Jesus, and my faith. Like brother Holt, I too deplore the doctrine of SOME who seemingly base their salvation on works and their ability to live above sin. It will be interesting to see how John Welch (who has taught that man can live sinlessly and offers Jesus as the "proof" that man can live above sin) will respond to Jack's affirmative in the debate on baptism that is scheduled.
Brother Holt on Gal. 2:16:
"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 wrote 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?
rw: Paul was simply telling Christians that you cannot be saved by trying to follow Moses. This was likely the biggest problem in the early church. Paul even told the Galatians that their efforts made them debtors to do the whole Law, which they obviously could not do, and that they were "fallen from grace" because of their error and practice (Gal. 5:3, 4).
Jack continues:
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?
rw: First, I do not view baptism "as a necessary work" but as a faith response. I have shown that the "work" on this matter is actually done by another. Now to the question: One can expect that God will add him to the number of the saved (the church, Acts 2:41) when he complies with the conditions to receive that promise, which include baptism. Afterwards, the child of God is to be diligent (2 Pet. 1:10) to "walk in the light" (1 John 1:7). This is the condition for being continually cleansed by the blood of Jesus. Jack, do you deny that one must be diligent to walk in the light to remain cleansed by the blood?
Jack concludes:
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.
rw: Jack has yet to provide a single passage that supports the above assertion. In view of the passages that have already show that teach to the contrary, and in view of the fact that God's word does not contradict itself, he will not come up with such a passage. Nevertheless, I urge the reader to continue to carefully hear what is said by each participant with a view that you could be wrong. The truth is what we are seeking.