Some Unanswered Arguments and Questions:
In his final affirmative Jack let some important questions go unanswered. I gave an illustration about a drowning man being saved by another man who offered him a rope. I asked several questions and he did not answer any of them. All he did was basically try to discredit the use of illustrations. Below are those questions:1) What saved the man?
2) Was it the person who heard his cry and came to help?
3) Was it the rope only?
4) Or, was it both the rope and the man who offered and used it to pull him to safety?
5) Did the drowning man who grabbed hold of the rope…do a "work”?
6) Was it something he could "boast" about?
7) Could he boast that he saved himself?
8) 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?
[It is particularly interesting that Jack observed the Passover on the last question above, because it hits at the very heart of the issue of this debate.]
I asked the following question:
"Let us get something straight. Is salvation something that takes place in the mind of MAN or the mind of God?"
The reason for my asking this question was because of a comment Jack made that indicates he thought that salvation is in the mind of the person receiving it. Below is the statement:
"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."
One has to wonder why Jack simply repeated his arguments over and over rather than trying to answer all the arguments and questions.
It is important that we realize that forgiveness is in the mind of God. It is He who determines when one has met his conditions. ("And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.") My opponent seems to think one is saved "in his mind" at the point of faith. Well, that may be true, but it has nothing to do with eternal life or heaven. Only if one is saved in the mind of God can he have true hope. True hope is contingent upon doing what God says for the reason he has stated. Baptism is "for the remission of sins." It is not a "show."
In the one example of conversion where details are given about the baptism, it was only the eunuch and Phillip – two people. There was no show to the world that salvation had been received at the point of faith.
The One Scholar That Was Brought Up
I brought up W.E. Vine on two occasions. The first time Jack responded with a quibble – basically charging that I had misrepresented him. I then asked the following questions:
1) Was Vine not a Baptist?
2) Did he or did he not define "believeth" (in John 3:16) to mean "faith conjoined with obedience”?
Brother Holt did not reply to the above. One of the best known and respected scholars (and one who does not hold "COC doctrine," Jack), made a statement that clearly indicates that one is not saved at the point of faith, but that where faith is used and indicates one is saved, it is comprehensive and includes obedience.
Another point and Question Ignored
I wrote:
"Again, submitting to the command to be baptized by another is not an outward work. God wisely chose baptism as the point of salvation because it isn't something one can boast about - he is passive in the act. Preachers sometimes boast of whom they have baptized and how many, but I have yet to hear a man boast about his own baptism. Have you, Jack?"
Now, the above paragraph is very pertinent to the issue we are debating. Jack says baptism cannot be the point of salvation because it is a work. So, after making the statement (above) I asked Jack if he had ever heard anyone boast about his own baptism. HE DID NOT RESPOND. Therefore, his whole reason for rejecting baptism, because it is a work whereby one can boast (as he has continually asserted), evidently is without merit because one's baptism is something people do not boast about. Thus, he has misused Paul's teaching in Eph. 2:8, 9, and is teaching a doctrine that is false.
Works Alone
In reply to brother Holt's effort to show that Rom. 4:1-6 supported his teaching I stated that it cannot be true because James 2:24 flatly contradicts his argument. I then asked:
"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 does not want to deal with the "works only" argument. He actually ignored this and argued against what others (not me) have argued. Note what he wrote below:
"Many in churches of Christ affirm Paul is saying that salvation is ‘apart from works’ of the Old Testament law, thus affirming in essence that works of the New Testament law, like baptism, are necessary now for one's initial salvation. This is clearly not the case since Paul uses Abraham as his example-one who lived before Moses' law."
"Others in churches of Christ affirm that when Paul says that salvation is "apart from works" he means that it is apart from perfect or sinless works, and that Paul's statement does not exclude outward works that arise from faith."
My brother Jack Holt has a problem with the teaching of some members of the COC. So do I when they teach error, or behave badly, but Jack is not debating them. I hope that he will remember that when we get into the next round of this debate.
Now to the material of brother Holt's last affirmative.
Illustrations Are Not Arguments
rw: Brother Jack said "illustrations are not properly speaking arguments." He went on to say that "Admittedly, people who are not careful in their thinking are often swayed by good illustrations…." Where is Jack going with this? Cannot persons who are "careful" in their thinking be swayed by "good illustrations”? Isn't this the way that one determines truth – by listening to reason, and logic, which is presented in the form of what we call "evidence”?
It appears that Jack has seen how powerful these illustrations are and that they defeat his position. He could not effectively defeat the illustrations so he subtly tries to discredit a long established effective method of persuasion.
Jack wrote:
"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.
rw: We are dealing with "language" and much of our differences involve the meaning of the words "faith" and "save." Jack says God saves a man at the point of faith. I gave two illustrations (one was a clear scriptural illustration obviously designed by God to defeat the doctrine that Jack has adopted), both of which showed that his thinking and teaching is wrong.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Jack apparently has a problem with God's plan of salvation. It has been God's plan, at least from the day of Pentecost, that men have a part in their salvation. Note the following passage and some of the comments of Albert Barnes: Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
"God deals with men as free agents. He calls upon them to put forth their own power and effort to be saved. Unless men put forth their own strength and exertion, they will never be saved. When they are saved, they will ascribe to God the praise for having inclined them to seek him, and for the grace whereby they are saved."
rw: The type of effort put forth by the drowning man, who accepts help from another, is basically the same type of effort that one who wants to be saved from hell puts forth. In both cases the man is saved by his faith (seen in his efforts) and by the one who was able to help. While it can be said that the man took the initiative to save himself, it cannot be said that he did it entirely himself. To affirm, as Jack does, that the man was saved at the point of faith BEFORE accepting the offer (conditions to receive grace and receive blessings) by grabbing hold of the rope (obeying by being baptized) is to speak contrary to sound language and to deny what God has said.
Jack continues:
If this illustration is equal to the Bible's teaching on salvation then man puts forth just as much effort as God does in his salvation. Does the Bible support this kind of view of salvation?
rw: I cannot say who puts forth the most effort. Nevertheless, it should be obvious to all that both man and God are active when God saves, and YES, the Bible supports this kind of view of salvation from beginning to end.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: When Jack speaks of "man saving himself" (above) I get the impression that his thinking is that man is saving himself APART from God, who actually is the one that REMOVES THE SINS. This must be the case because there is no reasoning for being so adamant that salvation is at the point of faith before any response to that faith is seen. Jack’s next statement (below) seems to make it clear that he is mixed up about man's part in his salvation.
"I believe Brother Water's use of it demonstrates his leaning towards a man based, works based kind of salvation."
rw: Man's salvation is based upon the grace of God and is obtained only by contacting the blood of Jesus. What the Bible condemns is the attitude that one can save himself apart from God. While some in the Lord's church may put undue emphasis on their works and righteousness, Jack is not debating them. He is debating me and he has no evidence that I hold to a "man based, works based" kind of salvation. The Lord's church is made up of independent and autonomous churches. There is no organization that ties New Testament churches together, as to what must be believed. Thus, it is unfair to characterize the entire body of Christ, in some manner, based upon how one perceives some to believe and behave. (Jack has come out with an article in which he recants on this matter.) Of course, Jack now feels that he is dealing with a denomination – the Church of Christ church. Because of the successful efforts of some to manipulate and control the thoughts and actions of preachers in the brotherhood, I'm about ready to join Jack and affirm that there is a Church of Christ denomination. However, I stand firm on the teaching that Jesus established one church and that those who are in it were added to it by the Lord as He determined they should be saved (Acts 2:47). I shall present various passages in my affirmative arguments that clearly show that it is at the point of baptism, not faith, that God saves.
Jack continues:
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!
rw: When we talk about being saved the thing one is being saved FROM is understood. Indeed, Noah was not a person who lived after Pentecost and who must respond to the command to be baptized. Nevertheless, God gave an illustration to help us not miss the fact that baptism has a part in our salvation.
There is more than one lesson to learn from Noah and Jack has inadvertently touched upon an important matter. He talked about "salvation through the ark." The ark is symbolic of the church. How do you get into the church? A passage I have brought up in a previous installment is 1 Cor. 12:13. We are baptized into it. Thus, Jack's doctrine not only denies that water has a part in salvation; it also denies that the church is the saved. Nevertheless, just as sure as Noah was saved by water when lifted up in the ark, those saved today are saved by water in the church. Jack's response is nothing but a quibble. The scripture is clear and the illustration soundly defeats the denominational doctrine that salvation is at the point of faith.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: I wonder if Jack thinks that what happened with Noah, who was saved in the ark that was lifted up and set apart from the sinful world by water, was merely his faith being strengthened and that God did not really use those means (the ark and the water) to save him? And what about Naaman, another Bible illustration? Does Jack think his dipping in the river Jordan was merely done to increase his faith? His servant was the one with the faith and insisted that he obey the command resulting in him being cleansed. And it was "not some great thing" that he might boast about.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: The above is a statement that illustrates perfectly how some go against sound hermeneutics. Jack knows the necessity to make the scriptures harmonize. Nevertheless, he obviously is determined to make the scriptures harmonize with his contention that man does not have a part in being justified initially, or at least that God does not require man to do anything. His doctrine requires him to outright deny the illustration in 2 Kings 5 (Naaman) as well as the clear statement of the apostle James, who said, " You see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only."
Jack's only argument, in dealing with the case of Naaman, is that we cannot use the illustration because it contradicts what he has determined to be proof that salvation cannot be at the point of baptism. His response obviously is not a refutation. Thus, the argument stands as proof that initial salvation is not at the point of faith.
Jack Tries to Use Illustrations
“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.”
rw: There is indeed a lesson to be learned from Daniel, and brother Holt has properly represented it. However, he takes it too far in defending the doctrine he has recently adopted. It is true that God saved Daniel without asking him to do anything but that does not prove anything. God could have required Daniel to keep his eyes closed or stand on one foot, which would be His conditions for holding back the lions. He just did not require anything in this case. It is important to note that this case was not designed to teach regarding forgiveness of sin and when one receives forgiveness, as was the case with Naaman. Leprosy was representative of sin and the dipping was representative of baptism.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: God has demonstrated, in a few instances, that He can do things for people without providing any conditions. However, throughout the Bible we find examples where God's blessings were contingent upon man doing something. Jack knows this is true.
Jack says: 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.
rw: The argument presented above is obviously full of holes. The Galatians were seeking to be justified by the Law of Moses, rather than by the blood of Christ. To insinuate there is a parallel between what they were doing and the position I hold is totally irresponsible and offensive.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Jack did not present a passage that teaches that man is saved at the point of faith, yet he keeps asserting it as fact. Just as mere denial is not proper negation, mere assertion is not acceptable evidence.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Whether baptism is a work or not is not particularly important to the issue being studied because James clearly states that works are involved in justification. Nevertheless, when I showed that the one being baptized is passive and that the one doing the baptizing is the only one doing any real work, Jack quibbles with that.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: The above is an interesting quibble; nevertheless it is a fact that God has always used people (who will work) in His efforts to bring about His will, which includes people being saved by the blood of Christ. This fact cannot be successfully denied.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: I gave the example of one being completely passive, such as in a case where one had no use of his limbs. Yet Jack continues to assert that when one is baptized, regardless of the fact that it is done by another, he is doing an "outward work," and he continues to assert that this proves that salvation must be at the point of faith
.Outward Work of Baptism
"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)."
rw: Let us take a close look at the text:
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Brother Holt has continually asserted that baptism is an outward work. His entire basis for his new belief that salvation is at the point of faith is based upon his misunderstanding of Paul's statement in Rom. 4:6. I have explained this passage once already, but because of its importance in this debate we need to look at it again. Clearly Paul alludes to prophecy of David in which he stated that there would be a time when men's sins would be covered -- God would not impute sin unto them. I explained that that man is one who contacts the blood of Christ, is a Christian, and is continually cleansed by the blood as he walks in the light, according to 1 John 1:7. Now, there are brethren that do not believe this. They continue to think as if they are under the "law of sin and death." But Jack is not now debating one of these brethren. John Welch has agreed to so do, but unless he changes his position on the teaching of 1 John 1:7 Jack will give him a very hard time.
Jack continues:
Paul says initial salvation is by faith, apart from works, Brother Roberts says that it is by faith and works.
rw: Both of the above statements are false. Paul was not talking about initial salvation and I do not contend that initial salvation requires anything more than a faith response, which can, as I have illustrated, be completely passive.
Jack continues:
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
rw: What is interesting is that in the text of Jack’s main argument, regarding Paul saying salvation is “apart from works,” that the man that Paul is taking about is already a Christian (his sins not imputed unto him because he walks in the light, 1 John 1:7) is saved apart from works; but when it comes to James' teaching on how one is justified he rejects the statement and argues that it applies only to those already saved. Thus, his number one argument is dead in the water. Jack must either explain James’ teaching or he is sunk. He has not explained it yet.
"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!"
“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.”
rw: If Jack's line of reasoning were true then the only benefit Noah received from being saved by water was that it built his faith by symbolizing the cleansing that came from being removed from the sinful world.
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? 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?
rw: On this point I presented a response that defeats the argument above, but my opponent did not so much as acknowledge that he read it. I wrote: "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. "…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."
Jack continues:
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.
rw: My brother Jack has apparently come to believe that one who has been saved at the point of faith (as he contends) does not need to "arise and be baptized" to wash away (figuratively speaking) his sins. Thus, if you reject the command he noted (Acts 22:16) on what basis would he then contend that there would be any need for urgency to be baptized? Jack, the Baptists whom you have joined, do not generally practice immediate baptism following "saving faith." They usually wait weeks or months and several are baptized at one time.
Jack continues:
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?
rw: Jack's second biggest problem with baptism being the point of salvation seems to be because of the possibility of one accepting Jesus and dying before he could be baptized. I dealt with that argument (it is being generous to call it that) but, again, Jack did not respond to my comments. In the case with Saul, as with anyone who has accepted that Jesus is Lord, is it not reasonable to think that God can protect that individual from harm until he has the opportunity to obey the gospel? I asked for an example where one had ever been killed on the way to the baptistery. Jack was unable to provide such an example.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Let us understand that WATER does not literally remove sin, as it does dirt or "the filth of the flesh," but God literally removes sin when we comply with His conditions, which include baptism.
Jack continues:
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.
rw: Well, I suppose it is up to the reader to determine whether or not I dealt with Jack's arguments in a meaningful way. My next installment will include various passages and arguments that show that it requires more than faith to have confidence from the scriptures that God will forgive. We shall see if Jack deals with these arguments in a meaningful way. I predict he will not because he has not dealt with many of my responses in a "meaningful way." Much of the space he used was to merely repeat the same arguments and assertions again and again, rather than attempt to fully answer my reply. The problem is not that Jack lacks talent to write, the problem is he is fighting against the truth and he cannot defeat it.
Jack continues:
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: In my previous response, I argued that wrong conclusions drawn by some have no bearing on what is actually the truth. Yet Jack continues to make the same statement without replying to my rebuttal. Is Jack listening or just giving us his isigesus (or however he spelled it) [exegesis]?
My brother Jack Holt has some legitimate concerns about how some in the Church of Christ think and teach about grace and works. He evidently has been driven by such, including their attitudes and behavior, to take a position that is not supported by the scripture. If it were true that salvation is at the point of faith I am confident that Jack would have had some proof of it, he would have been able to meet objections and he would have been able to answer all the questions that were asked of him.
Lord willing, my next installment will be to affirm that God saves at the point of baptism. Please stay with us.