I greet the reader and Brother Waters. This will be my third and final affirmative. Brother Waters will be able to review this affirmative in his third negative, and then he will write his first affirmative article, and, Lord willing, I will review that article in my first negative.
This affirmative will be broken down into three sections. In section one I will review some of the things Brother Waters wrote about in his second negative. In section two I will review my affirmative material. And finally, in section three, I will close my final affirmative article by discussing what I believe are the consequences of the two positions on the issue before us.
Illustrations Are Not Arguments
I was struck with the fact that Brother Water’s last negative contained several illustrations by which he attempted to prove his case. While illustrations can help us, illustrations are not properly speaking arguments.
Admittedly, people who are not careful in their thinking are often swayed by good illustrations, and that is why they are used so often in debates. Careful students, however, whenever they read or hear an illustration will immediately ask for the evidence that proves the illustration is valid in relation to the issue being discussed.
The first illustration Brother Waters uses is that of a drowning man. He asks if, when such a one grabs a rope and holds on while another pulls him to safety, that is a work whereby he saves himself. He affirms it is not, and that the person who threw him the rope is the one who saves him.
The first problem with this illustration is that Brother Waters fails to show that biblically speaking it is a valid parallel to salvation. The second problem with it is that the person who grabs on to the rope and holds on certainly does save himself in a very real sense.
If this illustration is equal to the Bible’s teaching on salvation than man puts forth just as much effort as God does in his salvation. Does the Bible support this kind of view of salvation?
Yes, the Bible does teach that man must respond to God in faith, but this response is more like a surrender, rather than man saving himself through his own efforts. I believe Brother Water’s use of it demonstrates his leaning towards a man based, works based kind of salvation. I realize he denies that is the case, but the illustration certainly seems to suggest that is the case, and I believe his position on baptism does as well.
The next illustration that Brother Waters uses is the illustration of Noah and the flood. This illustration has the merit of being Biblical, but the problem is that Brother Waters twist the illustration to his own end.
To illustrate what I mean, I simply ask the reader and Brother Waters, was Noah’s salvation through the flood the same thing as our initial salvation? No, it was not. Noah was saved initially many years before the flood by faith, apart from works just like we are today (Romans 4:1-8; Ephesians 2:8, 9). His salvation through the ark was a salvation from physical destruction. Rather than being saved by entering the water, Noah was saved in an ark of safety which prevented him from ever getting wet!
When we interpret 1 Peter 3:21, we need to take these facts into account. The passage, as I affirmed in my last article, is not talking about initial salvation, but is referring to the work God does over our life time to save us. In other words, baptism saves in the sense that every other outward work of obedience does--it strengthens faith in Christ.
I stated early on that the Bible talks about salvation in many different ways and I specified that the kind of salvation we are talking about is initial salvation—“the initial state one enters when he moves from alienation from God because of sin to the state of being in a harmonious relationship with God as a result of forgiveness.” This is not the kind of salvation that 1 Peter 3 talks about in relationship to Noah, nor is it the kind of salvation 1 Peter 3:21 is talking about and linking with baptism.
The third illustration that Brother Waters uses is the illustration of Naaman in the Old Testament when he dipped seven times in the Jordon to be cleansed of leprosy. This is a favorite among those in churches of Christ. However, it is not a valid parallel to salvation because Paul teaches that salvation is by faith, apart from outward works. Since dipping in the Jordon seven times is an outward work, therefore this story cannot be used as a parallel to our salvation today.
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.
Another example that parallels our salvation is the case of the three young men thrown into the fiery furnace. Again, there was nothing they could do in the way of works to save themselves from the flames, but God through grace saved them on that occasion. Just so, God saves us from the flames of hell by grace, through faith, and apart from our own outward works.
In looking back on these we need to remember the important point that illustrations are not arguments. While many may be swayed by them, to the seeker of divine truth, such have no power unless they can be backed up by scriptural evidence.
Mere Denial Is Not A Proper Negation
Several times Brother Waters protests that he does not advocate salvation by works and says things to the effect that he feels I am unfair or in error to represent his views that way.
I’m sure there were some among the Galatians who likewise felt that Paul was wrong in telling them that they were preaching a works gospel as well, but Paul nevertheless told them what the end of their teaching was.
The fact is that Paul says that salvation is by faith, apart from works (meaning outward works), and Brother Waters teaches that the outward work of baptism must be done before one is saved. That is teaching salvation by works, and denials that it constitutes such are not a negation of that fact.
Again, Brother Waters protests that baptism is not a work of the individual being baptized, but the work of someone who baptizes him (stating the baptized individual is passive). This is a quibble and he, and all his brethren who read this, know that.
If it is not, then Brother Waters is teaching that we must be saved by faith plus the outward works of others (the one who baptizes us) and he is thus still teaching salvation by works. Rather than solve his problem this lands him in a deeper problem.
Yes, it is true, that in most cases someone immerses the individual who is baptized, but because the person chooses to be baptized, prepares himself to be baptized, and yields himself to be baptized, it is an outward work, or act of obedience on his part when he is baptized. There just is no way around this if we are going to allow reason to prevail.
Brother Waters protests that he and many other preachers put the emphasis on grace and faith, and I don’t deny that they see those things as important. However, the fact remains that they are arguing that faith plus the outward work of baptism is necessary for salvation when Paul said we are saved by faith, apart from works. Mere denial is not a proper negation.
If one should doubt that the emphasis is on the outward work of baptism then see again Brother Water’s affirmation that the one who dies on the way to the baptistery is nevertheless lost. This is affirming that the outward work of baptism must take place before one can be saved.
Again, if one doubts Brother Water’s emphasis upon human works for initial salvation then read this quote from his negation of Ephesians 2:8, 9: “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).”
Paul says initial salvation is by faith, apart from works, Brother Roberts says that it is by faith and works. In doing this he is applying a statement made to saved individuals about how their faith should work to the individual seeking salvation, and, as we will see in the next section, by so doing makes salvation of works and contradicts Paul.
Citing Passages Without Regard to Context Is Not A Proper Negation
Brother Waters thinks that in the exegesis I offer on Romans 4 that I conflict with James 2, but that simply is not the case. Romans 4 and James 2 are talking about two entirely different things. Romans 4 is talking about initial salvation while James 2 is talking about how saved people will act. Romans 4 affirms that salvation comes by faith, apart from outward works, while James 2 affirms that saved people of faith will work outward works. Context, Brother Waters, context!
Furthermore, James argues that outward works have as their purpose to bring faith to perfection. True faith will work. I have maintained that from the beginning. True faith will be baptized. Again, I have maintained that from the beginning. The purpose of baptism is to perfect (i.e., strengthen and increase) faith in Christ by symbolizing the cleansing that comes through Christ, the union of the believer with Christ’s death, and by symbolizing the believer’s entry into the body of Christ.
The issue between is not, “should or must saving faith work?” It should and it must. The issue between us is not, “should and must a person of faith, given the opportunity, obey Christ by being baptized?” They should and they must. The question is, “at what point are we saved?” Paul answers that question in Romans 4 when he says we are saved initially by faith, apart from works (meaning outward works of obedience to God’s laws).
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?
I want to pause here and correct a misrepresentation made by Brother Waters. He implies that I teach there is no urgency in baptism. He says that my teaching implies that one need not immediately “arise and be baptized and wash away his sins.” That simply is false.
Brother Waters assumes that baptism is only urgent if salvation waits until the outward work of baptism is completed, and this simply is not true.
I think also, that he overlooks that in the passage he cites in making this charge that Saul was delayed several days before he was baptized! If baptism plays the role that Brother Waters claims it does, why did God wait the time period He did before sending one to Saul with the message to be baptized?
Having said that, I teach, just like Brother Waters does, that believers should immediately be baptized. We differ in that Brother Waters believes sins are washed away literally in baptism (i.e., God forgives when one is baptized), while I believe it is symbolic, but both of us see urgency in baptism.
I believe obedience in baptism, and in every other command of God, is a matter of urgency, and I teach it so. When one knows his duty, he should do his duty without delay. However, that is not the issue before us, and by making this false charge Brother Waters is muddying the waters.
Conclusion to My Review of Brother Water’s Negative
It saddens me to say this, but the three items I cover above answer the essence of everything that Brother Waters wrote in his negative. The sad fact is he did not deal with the exegesis I made of Romans 4 in a careful way. He did deal in a meaningful way with Paul’s use of circumcision to illustrate what he meant when he said we are saved by faith, apart from works. He did not deal in a meaningful way with my arguments from Hebrews 9 and from Ephesians 2.
He will now have two articles in a row, and I’m certain we will be treated to a great deal of material in them, but I’m sad that he did not deal in depth with the heart of the issue by studying the passages I offered in a meaningful way in his reply.
In this section I want to review my affirmative material. I feel much of it has gone unanswered, and therefore it is in one sense repetitious. However, good learning often involves repetition, so I make no apology for presenting my material again to the reader’s mind.
Argument 1: The Bible states that salvation is by faith, apart from outward works.
Paul makes this argument very clearly and very forcefully in Romans chapters 1-8. I want to focus on his argument as he develops it in Romans 4. There, Paul writes…
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT." (Romans 4:1-8 NASB – the portion in capital letters are quotations Paul makes from the Old Testament and were placed in capitals by the translators of the NASB and not by me, jh).
Paul’s asserts that salvation is by faith “apart from works.” Here is the axle upon which our entire disagreement turns. What does Paul mean here when he makes that statement?
Many in churches of Christ affirm Paul is saying that salvation is “apart from works” of the Old Testament law, thus affirming in essence that works of the New Testament law, like baptism are necessary now for one’s initial salvation. This is clearly not the case since Paul uses Abraham as his example—one who lived before Moses’ law.
Others in churches of Christ affirm that when Paul says that salvation is “apart from works” he means that it is apart from perfect or sinless works, and that Paul’s statement does not exclude works that arise from faith. My objection to his point of view is that the context does not support it. It is a point of view that does not seek to understand the text, in its context, but a point of view that arises from coming to the text with a belief already that outward works like baptism must be performed before one becomes saved with the desire to harmonize or interpret the text to conform to that view.
This is not a good type of Bible study. It is called eisegesis, which means, one comes to the text to prove something he brings there, instead of exegesis, which means one goes to the text for his belief in the first place.
To properly understand what Paul means by the phrase “apart from works” one only needs to read on because Paul explains what he means. Paul uses an outward work—circumcision, a work required of Abraham and a work required in the Old Testament Law by God—to explain what he means. Here is what Paul writes…
Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:9-13 NASB)
The Jews viewed circumcision exactly the same way that members of churches of Christ view baptism. To them circumcision was an outward work that, when performed, resulted in the individual being removed from a state of alienation from God and being transferred into God’s family (at that time the family of Abraham, or the Jewish nation).
Paul uses this work to illustrate what he means when we are saved by faith “apart from works.” He points out that Abraham was saved by God when he chose to trust God many years before he was circumcised and Paul argues that therefore salvation is not based on outward works like circumcisions but upon the inward choice of faith in the heart in response to God’s calling and work in the heart.
This I believe is exactly how baptism should be viewed. Is it, like circumcision, a command of God? Yes. Should a person of faith then obey God’s command and be baptized? Yes. If a person says he has faith and refuses to be baptized should he then be considered as those who refused to be circumcised were viewed--as being unfaithful to God and still an alien to God’s family? Yes. But, is baptism or any other outward work the point at which one becomes saved? No! Salvation is by faith, apart from works.
To take any other view leaves the man of faith who dies on his way to the baptistery without hope. But more practically speaking, and much deeper than that hypothetical situation, to take the view that outward works must be preformed in order to be saved initially, is to make salvation of works instead of grace. It is to change the whole basis upon which one serves God, and it is to introduce a terrible burden into the Christian’s life. If initial salvation depends upon faith plus works, 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.
And since the Bible says none of us as Christians can say we have no sin…
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8 NASB)
…a works approach to salvation leaves us without any real hope of salvation because all of us will stand before the throne of God having failed in one work or another.
The grace based salvation that is conditioned on faith, however, can deal with the sin problem. Each sin drives the person to Christ and thus deepens faith in Christ. Each outward work completed properly likewise deepens faith and drives one to Christ. The life of faith is the only life possible because we all will fall short if salvation depends upon works.
Paul put forth this same argument to the Galatian churches when Jewish teachers sought to force them to be circumcised. These Jewish teachers believed that circumcision was an eternal command of God and that no man could be saved apart from doing it. Paul taught against that, not just on the basis that circumcision was part of the Old Covenant with Abraham and the Old Law of Moses, but Paul taught against it on the basis that salvation is of grace, and not of works. He argued that if salvation is based upon outward works then those works must be done perfectly, and all the works of God’s law would have to be done perfectly if one is to be saved under such a system.
Read these three statements from Paul found in the book of Galatians on this important subject.
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." (Galatians 3:10 NASB)
And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. (Galatians 5:3 NASB)
Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (Galatians 2:16 NASB)
I would say, in view of what Paul write above, if the outward work of baptism is necessary before one can be saved then all the works of the “New Law” are necessary.
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 work commanded by God this way. If not, why not?
Yes, true faith will work, but salvation occurs at the point one forms the faith that will work in response to God’s work within, and does not wait for the outward works themselves.
Argument 2. The Bible states that salvation is by faith or belief.
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, (Romans 5:1 NASB)
"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)
Argument 3. The Bible teaches that outward works like baptism symbolize or picture the true spiritual inward reality of salvation.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I urge the reader to review the material presented carefully. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, Brother Waters will not have two articles in a row before I have my next article. I urge the reader to study what both of us present carefully in light of God’s word.
God bless!