Greeting to Jack Holt and all interested readers,
I will begin my affirmative with a few new arguments and then deal with my opponent's response to my first negative. These arguments show indisputably that God sometimes requires some act, which the wisdom of the world considers foolish, as a condition for some blessing, including being forgiven of sin.
The Fiery Serpent (Numbers 21)
In Numbers 21 we read where the children of Israel were on a journey and began to gripe and grumble. They said, "There is no food and water and our soul loathes this worthless bread." Because of their sins the Lord sent serpents among the people, which bit them. Many of them were dying and they came to Moses admitting they had sinned saying, "We have sinned for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray unto the LORD that He take away the serpents from us."
Now, the denominational world insists that sins are remitted due to one praying to the Lord. Well, these people sought to have the snakes removed in that way, but when Moses went to God about it He said, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks shall live." And so Moses made a serpent out of brass and put it on a pole, as commanded.
Now, can't you just hear people of that day, who were of little faith, arguing with Moses while he was performing the building of that spectacle and telling them what God had said? Why, they would say, "There is no power in that pole or that snake. If God had been going to remove the snakes why would he not just do it when we asked by faith?"
In John chapter three, beginning with verse 14 we read where he said, "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so the Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. " So God chose man, made in the likeness of all of us, as a servant of God to conquer the very problem that had entered into the world, and that is sin - just as he did in the case with the snakes.
Now, nobody before that time had ever heard of curing a snake bite in that way. Common sense would say it would not work. The same worldly wisdom is around today that says baptism is of no value to receive the remission of sins. There may be several lessons here, but the lesson I want you to get is that IT TOOK EFFORT ON THEIR PART. They went to the snake by faith but were not healed by faith only or at the point of faith. THEY HAD TO LOOK! This is what they did. They did not argue "this is a work, and God does not save by works," or anything of the kind. They LOOKED and were healed.
Questions for Jack Holt Pertaining to the above: (yes, or no, please)
Was FAITH involved?
Was GRACE involved?
Was OBEDIENCE involved?
Were ALL the above NECESSARY?
Did the "snake" have a part in their salvation?
Did Moses have a part in their salvation?
Did those who looked have a part in their salvation?
Did they HAVE to look, or was the looking symbolic?
Is this a lesson for us on faith and doing what God says, even when we may think it is foolish?
If one bragged about how he had EARNED his/her recovery, would he be wrong to have had such a thought?
Does the lesson apply to baptism? If not, why not?
The answer is obviously "yes" to each of these questions, and it is equally obvious that the answer to the same questions when applied to baptism is "yes." The serpent that Moses built had no power, of itself, to save and there is no power in water; nevertheless, a condition was/is set forth that requires effort. Call it a work if you want, but don't be guilty of denying the facts!
Jesus Heals the Blind Man
In John chapter 9 we read where Jesus met up with a man that had been blind all his life. Could he not have just said, "Be healed!" and his eyes would have opened? We all should be able to agree that he could have done that. But he didn't! He spit on the ground, stirred up the dust and made a little mud and put it on his eyes. Then he said, you go down there to the pool of Salome and wash that off. Now, the wisdom of men would say, that will not work. Nevertheless, the fellow went on down there and he washed and he came away seeing. Then the Jews did not want Jesus to get credit for it so they questioned him about who did it. He told them a man called Jesus told him to go to the pool and wash and if he did that he would be healed. He said, "So I went and washed and received sight." He WENT, he WASHED and RECEIVED SIGHT.
Questions for Jack Holt (with my answers):
Was he cured by grace? Yes.
Was he cured by faith? Yes.
Did he put forth effort in response to the conditions? Yes.
Was he cured at the point of faith? Obviously not, but it was a faith that led him to do what the Lord told him.
But now a lot of preachers that I know, and have heard, if they had met him on the way they would have said, "Where are you going?" "Well, I'm going down to the pool and I'm going to wash, and if I do that a man said I could see." They would reply, "That's water healing! You've got to be healed by grace. You can only be healed by faith. You are trying to heal yourself by your own works. Let's just kneel down here and pray for God to open your eyes and then you should go wash because you can see, or as a show of what Jesus did for you."
Do you follow me? That is what my opponent now says about baptism. But just as surely as what God said must be done in the case of the blind man, to receive the promise, so it is true that one must be baptized to receive the remission of sins. My opponent no longer believes what the Lord said about it. But if we let him rearrange it to suit himself he will claim to believe. He does not believe what the Lord said as recorded in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved …." He now says the text is not even talking about initial salvation, which is contrary to the facts as attested to by virtually all of the dozens of scholars whose opinions could be brought in as evidence.
Illustration # 1:
Let's suppose that a storm comes through and downs many trees on your property. A neighbor learns that you are in need of a chain saw, so he drives over to give you one. He states to you: "I've got a chainsaw over there in the back of my pickup. It is yours if you want. Just go get it, along with the can of gasoline." He makes the offer because you need the saw and he is willing to help you. You believe and accept his offer and go over and take possession of the saw.
Now, your physical action of acceptance shows that you believe the saw has value; but that action (taking the saw from the pickup) is not enough effort (or work, if you want to call it that) that you could claim to have earned the saw. You would understand that it is still the man's gift to you. Well, what Paul is telling us is that no matter how much effort or "work" our faith causes us to do, it will never be enough to earn the gift of salvation. That is still a gift that we can never claim to have earned. Just as taking possession of the saw that was given as a gift does not negate the gift, being baptized to receive remission of sins does not negate the gift of life given by God to those who accept His offer through the means He has devised.
Illustration # 2:
Suppose I had a million dollars and I decided I wanted to give it to you. I would write a check and instruct you to sign the back and take it to my bank to get the cash. You would need FAITH that what I told you is true and that you'll get the money. You have to do as I told you to do or you won't get the money. Once you get it, you would be a fool to brag about how you EARNED the money by signing the check.
There was no power in your pen or the ink. It was only a CONDITIONAL gracious gift that required some faith and action on your part.
My opponent needs to understand that requiring a CONDITION to be actually DONE is not the same as EARNING, which is in essence what he accuses is being done if baptism is taught as the point that God saves. No one "brags" that by doing baptism they have EARNED salvation. In being baptized "for the remissions of sins"…"appealing to God for a clear conscience" one is merely complying with a gracious condition (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21).
Questions:
Is it your teaching that salvation is 100% God? If that is your doctrine what percent must man do in the process of coming to the point of faith? Is it unconditional election and irresistible grace, or must man DO something? Is this done with or without effort or "work" as you define it? There is work involved in preparing sermons, going to hear them, listening, etc. Are these deed merely symbolic or not for initial salvation?
Are you aware that your arguments regarding "born of water" (not referring to baptism) and the meaning of "for" or "unto" (eis; referring to something that has already taken place) is refuted by virtually all scholars, including Baptist scholars and translators? Yes, or no, please.
Waters' Reply to the First Section of Holt's Response:
My first affirmative contained 3380 words. Jack responded with right at twice that many and this was without quoting much of what I said. Much of his response was a repeat of things that were said in his affirmative articles. Evidently Jack was not satisfied with his efforts in his affirmative because he continues his affirmative. Thus, it will appear, at least in part of this installment, that I am still in the negative.
Jack's entire position rests upon his contention that baptism is a work and that salvation is "apart from works." The two texts he uses are Romans 4:1-8 and Ephesians 2:8, 9. Because of the fact that Jack's main response, in his effort to refute the affirmative arguments I offered, was to refer back to his proof texts (which is begging the question and circular reasoning) I shall give further attention to these texts. Jack's entire case from the Roman text rests upon the assumption that INITIAL salvation is involved. This is true because in his refutation of James 2:24, which says "Ye see than how a man is justified by works and not by salvation," he argued that this passage was all about Christian living and not initial salvation. Note his comments below:
"Romans 4 is talking about initial salvation (the point at which one ceases to be an alien and becomes a child of God in the deepest sense). That text says that salvation comes by faith apart from outward works. It uses circumcision, an outward work that Jews looked at exactly the same way that Brother Waters and many in the Church of Christ look at baptism, as an illustration of the kind of work that we are saved apart from."
"James 2, on the other hand, is talking about saved people.…"
When you look at the context of James' statement, above, you see that the person in this text is no different from the person in Romans 4 - Abraham. So how can my opponent dismiss James 2:24 by arguing that it is not about initial salvation and hold to his assertion that Romans 4 teaches that works has nothing to do with salvation? It is vital that we determine if the Roman text is referring to a man (Abraham) that had yet to receive initial salvation. Stay with me please and we will do just that.
In my first negative I wrote the following:
"Jack makes an argument based upon Romans 4:1-8. The text he uses here deals with how one who is a child of God is justified or forgiven of sin. I believe the "blessed" persons that David spoke of are those who "walk in the light." These commit sins inadvertently and ignorantly but are not taken into account, as the text says. This text has nothing to do with how a person gets into Christ."
Jack's response was that I did not deal with the passage in a "careful way." What I did seek to show was that the passage was not about INITIAL salvation, but about how God cleanses sin in the life of the faithful Christian – one who walks in the light. Since the text is obviously not about initial salvation Jack's explanation of James 2:24 fails. (He just did not deal with it "in a careful way," I suppose.) Nevertheless, Jack ignores this fact and continues to argue that it refers to initial salvation and that Rom. 4:1-8 teaches that initial salvation (to have a father/son relationship) is apart from works, which he says excludes baptism from being essential to salvation. Thus, let us look at the two texts, to include Ephesians 2, more closely.
Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
My opponent contends that Abraham was not justified by works. I contend that he was justified by works, but not by works only. My opponent contends that works have nothing to do with salvation. But let us see whose position will harmonize with James' teaching.
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 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. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
The above text very clearly reveals to us that works have a part in justification. Also, one cannot miss the fact that Abraham is the character noted.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Comments:
Was righteousness or justification in the above text that of an alien sinner? It is important to note that the text above is a quotation from Genesis 15:6. The only way we can give any credence to my opponent's argument is to assume that Abraham did not have a relationship with God before this time but rather that he was an alien sinner. But such an assumption would be imprudent because he had already shown himself to be a man of faith in God. God appeared to Abraham and told him to take his family to a new land. Then we read in Heb. 11:8: "By faith Abraham, being called, obeyed to go out into the place which he was to receive for an inheritance, and went out, not knowing where he was going."
If anyone has any doubts about whether the Roman text, which my opponent uses heavily to support his teaching, is talking about initial salvation all he need do is look at the context. Note the following verses:
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
The Lord will not impute sin unto the person who has a true and obedient relationship with him, as did Abraham. John tells us the blood keeps such a person cleansed (1 John 1:7).
Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.
Now, who does "us," in verse 24, refer to? Paul was writing to the church in Rome. Thus it applies to Christians then and now.
We can be certain that the language in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3 does not refer to initial salvation of an alien sinner. My opponent has erred greatly by making such an application and trying to use this text as a foundation to deny the necessity of baptism and to teach that salvation is at the point of faith.
Comments from Various Commentators:
Vinson:
"It is true that Paul was trying to convince the Jews that this justification happened before the giving of the Law, but he was using this well known fact to offset their claim that a person had to be circumcised after the manner of Moses, or he could not be saved. Their own father, Abraham, of whom they boasted, would be cut off by their arguments for the law."
Matthew Henry (my comments follow):
Rom 4:23-25 - The history of Abraham, and of his justification, was recorded to teach men of after-ages; those especially to whom the gospel was then made known. It is plain, that we are not justified by the merit of our own works, but by faith in Jesus Christ and his righteousness; which is the truth urged in this and the foregoing chapter, as the great spring and foundation of all comfort. Christ did meritoriously work our justification and salvation by his death and passion, but the power and perfection thereof, with respect to us, depend on his resurrection."
I have never known anyone who claims to be a Christian, and who was a teacher, that did not understand that we are not justified by the merit of our own works; yet that idea seems to be what my opponent has charged that his brethren believe, including me. Initial salvation requires a faith response to include baptism, which Jack likes to call a work. That is fine if he wants to call it that, but it is not fine for him to infer that it is a work of merit whereby one could boast of saving himself. He should know better than that.
To properly understand the text my opponent uses it should be helpful to look at the context:
Romans 3:20-31 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Mathew Henry Concise:
"27-31 God will have the great work of the justification and salvation of sinners carried on from first to last, so as to shut out boasting. Now, if we were saved by our own works, boasting would not be excluded. But the way of justification by faith for ever shuts out boasting. Yet believers are not left to be lawless; faith is a law, it is a working grace, wherever it is in truth. By faith, not in this matter an act of obedience, or a good work, but forming the relation between Christ and the sinner, which renders it proper that the believer should be pardoned and justified for the sake of the Saviour, and that the unbeliever who is not thus united or related to him, should remain under condemnation. The law is still of use to convince us of what is past, and to direct us for the future. Though we cannot be saved by it as a covenant, yet we own and submit to it, as a rule in the hand of the Mediator."
On Romans 4:5 Barnes sums it up:
"But to him that worketh not - Who does not rely on his conformity to the Law for his justification; who does not depend on his works; who seeks to be justified in some other way. The reference here is to the Christian plan of justification."
Indeed, as I pointed out in my first negative, Paul is talking about Christian justification – not about initial salvation. Thus, my opponent's main argument is without merit.
Ephesians 2
"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)
The text above (which Jack offered) does not support the idea that salvation is at the point of faith. It merely teaches that when one is saved it is God doing the saving, as we have illustrated repeatedly – showing that meeting conditions does not negate the gift. When one reads the entire text it should become evident that Paul was not talking about initial salvation, but was writing to Christians about how to stay saved. He obviously had no intention of deemphasizing the value of works or the need to "obey(ed) the gospel" (Rom. 10:16). This is evident from verse 10: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." The idea that Paul was teaching that salvation comes at the point of faith is not found in this text.
1 Peter 3:21
My opponent continues to argue that baptism is merely a symbol and perverts 1 Peter 3:21 in his effort to prove it. When this text is properly understood and received the believer can know exactly what he is doing and why, when he is baptized.
Jack contends that "Christian baptism is a shadow and type of salvation, but not the reality of it."
In my first negative I replied:
The text does not teach that baptism is merely a symbol but rather that what God did in saving Noah using water is an antitype or form of what baptism accomplishes. The meaning is that baptism corresponded to, or had a resemblance to, the water by which Noah was saved. God's plan to save the world involved water. The world rejected God's plan because it was foolishness to them. Only Noah and his family had enough faith in God to give a positive response to what appeared to most to be mere foolishness (1Cor. 2:14). In that day there had been no floods. The excuse in our day is that "there is no power in water." The results will be the same, destruction for those who refuse to obey.
Brother Holt has not said anything "meaningful" to refute my reply.
Jack Holt is evidently trying to teach that salvation cannot be at the point of baptism. He believes that the doctrine that I have set forth is a "clear and present danger" to the spiritual welfare of Christians. Jack has asserted that baptism is a work and that those who think that one is saved at the point of faith have a "works based" salvation, although he admits that I seem to have overcome the effects of this doctrine.
It cannot be denied that there are members of the Church of Christ who put too much emphasis on works, but the reason some do so is not because of their convictions regarding baptism, but because of what they think is taught on the subject of sin and forgiveness.
The fact that people apostatize from the truth does not prove a doctrine to be false. Jack Holt has left the Church of Christ and has taken up with the Baptists. Baptists generally believe and teach that once one is saved there is nothing that he can do to be lost. This is an example of going to an extreme on the subject of sin and salvation . The scriptures teach that those who walk in the light (1John 1:7) are continuously cleansed by the blood of Christ. That one can become an unbeliever (unfaithful) and be lost is taught in the Bible from beginning to end. Jack, are you going to try to teach the truth about eternal election to the Baptists, or have you, in your intensive studies, come to see some light that they see that members of the " Church of Christ" cannot see?
I previously made the argument that one is passive in being baptized. I even noted that one could have no use of his limbs and therefore be completely passive in being baptized. I stated that if there was a work involved it would have to be with the individual who did the baptizing. Preachers often do boast about the number they have baptized; but, contrary to my opponent's statement, no one ever boasts about his own baptism. Talking about it as being the point when God saves him is not boasting. Isn't it strange that my opponent contends that baptism is a show, while I contend that it is an "appeal to God for a clear conscience," yet he charges that the baptism I contend is essential to be saved is something wherewith one could and does boast? We must realize and accept the fact that it requires much work to teach the gospel and also work on the part of the hearer to study and properly understand. Is Holt going to tell us that preaching/hearing the gospel is really not necessary for initial salvation because it involves work and that cannot be right because (using his circular reasoning) nothing that is an act or work can be necessary for initial salvation? So tell us, Jack, is the gospel (preaching and hearing it, which is work as defined below) really necessary for one to obtain initial salvation? Is faith in Jesus the way, or only ONE of the ways? Are people in all nations made disciples by TEACHING them the gospel, or is that also unnecessary because it involves deeds and work?
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).
This does not help my opponent in the least because his contention that baptism cannot be the point of salvation because it is a work, would also mean "faith" could not be the point of salvation because, according to the dictionary, it too is a work. Obviously, Paul was thinking something different about works than was Jack Holt. Paul's thinking harmonizes with James' teaching – Jack's does not.
Brother Holt tried to make a point that if baptism was a work of the individual who baptizes him "…That still meant a work was necessary to be saved, and Paul argues in Romans 4 that salvation is by faith apart from works." Does my opponent not realize that to be saved preaching, hearing and repenting must be done? Each requires effort (work, as we just defined it). It requires much work to teach the gospel. Therefore, according to my opponent's own argument, a work was performed, which means the person who hears and accepts Jesus was not saved, because salvation is "apart from works." My opponent has gotten himself in a heap of trouble.
Jack made the statement:
"In fact, typically, when you ask people in the Church of Christ for evidence of salvation they point to their baptism instead of pointing to Christ within, as the Bible teaches."
Again, do not the Baptists teach that baptism is to show that one has been saved? Has not Jack Holt taught the same in this debate? My opponent seems to have lost his focus. It is strange that it is OK for the Baptist's to use baptism as a show, but when a member of the Church of Christ speaks of it as being the point of salvation he is simply not pointing to Christ within.
Jack continues:
"In doing this they are not unlike the Jews who pointed to circumcision as the proof that they were saved, but as we all know Paul argues that outward works like circumcision have nothing to do with initial salvation (Romans 4:9ff)."
In an illustration (the drowning man being offered a rope) I made the following comment:
"While it can be said that the man took the initiative to save himself, it cannot be said that he did it entirely himself." Instead of seeing the obvious value of the illustration to help one understand the idea of conditions, and those conditions not being a work where he saves himself, Jack tried to make hay about its being a work. He says:
First of all, this statement is an admission that baptism is a work of the individual. Baptism happens, according to Brother Waters in this statement, when one takes the initiative "TO SAVE HIMSELF."
Again, we see where my opponent uses "initiative" to mean "work." Remember, hearing, believing and repentance also require taking the initiative. Therefore, if baptism is a work then so is faith. This is a fact that cannot be successfully denied and it destroys my opponent's doctrine.
Question: If one takes the initiative to hear the gospel to gain faith in Jesus and then (after believing) to repent is he seeking to save himself? In his effort to dismiss baptism as having a part in what God has demanded for salvation my opponent has presented an argument that proves entirely too much, thus it proves nothing.
Jack continues:
"Faith is not a work on man's part that gets him part way and then God finishes the course, faith is instead a surrender and an admission that man cannot save himself and that therefore if he is to be saved all he can do is trust God to save him. I urge the reader not to rush past this point. Here is the real issue! Does man have the capacity to save himself, even part of the way? Is salvation a process whereby we do all we can to save ourselves and then God just does the rest to get us across the finish line?"
The above comment is indicative of the fact that Jack is not addressing the issue. Having taught the truth for a number of years he should know better. No one asserts that man saves himself "part way" and then God "finishes the course." My position throughout this debate has been that God has conditions to meet, not that his efforts to meet those conditions actually have any power to remove sin. I gave the example of the man being thrown the rope, which he only needed to grab hold of to be saved. Jack dismissed it as being a work. Jack's main argument and foundation for this entire debate is based upon what he says Paul teaches – that works do not have anything to do with salvation. His argument is based upon what is contended to be Abraham's INITIAL salvation; however, we have shown that he was already saved before the time indicated in the context. With this fact before us we have to wonder how Jack will now seek to explain James 2:24. He argues that baptism cannot be the point of salvation because Paul says justification is apart from works. However, he has failed to properly study the context and understand the situation. Therefore, he has no explanation for the passage that clearly contradicts his position. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only." If this passage cannot apply to initial salvation then neither can the text my friend uses as a foundation for his doctrine.
"BROTHER WATERS CANNOT SAY WHO PUTS FORTH THE MOST EFFORT IN SALVATION-GOD OR MAN!"
"Now, just let that sink into your mind and if you do that you will know what this debate is all about."
"Who puts forth not just the most effort, but who alone has the power to save man? "
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB)
The people who Jack Holt now says do not understand that it is God who forgives sins are the same people with whom he has, on numerous occasions, sung the song " Nothing but the Blood." Hear the words: "What can wash away my sins; Nothing but the blood of Jesus?" What can make me whole again; Nothing but the blood of Jesus?" Would people sing this song, or even have it in their books, if the following charge from Jack Holt were true?
"Water and works-that is the Church of Christ concept of salvation. Grace through faith-that is the Bible concept of salvation. One plan doesn't know who puts forth the most effort in salvation, the other affirms only God has the power to save and man's role is simply to surrender to God's work by faith."
Holt continues:
"Now, I ask, where is the proof that was the design behind what happened to Naaman?"
"Brother Waters misused the illustration of Naaman by virtue of the fact that he violated Paul's clear teaching in Romans 4 that we are saved by faith apart from works like dipping in water."
First of all, this is a classic example of "begging the question." Jack is assuming the very question that is under dispute. All he is doing is ASSERTING that an argument I give violates Paul's teaching, and what we are trying to do is to properly understand what Paul's teaching is. To simply say "that CAN'T be the right understanding of the text because that violates Paul's teaching in Rom. 4 or Eph. 2, proves nothing. It just begs the audience to accept that Holt's side of the question is the right one.
Second, the case of Naaman being told to dip seven times in the Jordan and then becoming clean from leprosy (representative of sin) is so clear it should need no explanation. The text tells us that when he obeyed he was cured – not when he BELIEVED. I don't understand how there could be more proof. My opponent simply denies the lesson because it contradicts his "understanding" of Romans 4 and Ephesians 2. Thus, once again we see his circular reasoning being applied.
Jack made the comment:
"Second of all, I do not deny that there are many divine blessings God has for the Christian that are contingent upon outward works of obedience. James affirms this is true in James 2. My affirmation simply says that initial salvation is not that kind of blessing. Initial salvation comes by faith apart from works so that no man can boast (Romans 4 and Ephesians 2). Brother Waters must come to grips with the real issue here."
Jack, I have come to grips with the real issue and have shown that there is no foundation for your position. James 2:24 contradicts your proof-text (your conclusion) and your quibble that Paul's teaching was about "initial salvation" and James' was not has been shown to be error. You now need to come to grips with the fact that you are simply wrong and give up this grievous error and your attack on those who teach the truth about the design and purpose of baptism. There are souls at stake and unless you turn back to the truth your efforts will surely result in souls being lost, including your own.
In defining the proposition Brother Waters states…
By scripturally I mean, having the proper prerequisites. By when I mean, the point that he is raised up from the water.
"I am made to wonder by this what Brother Water's view would be of the individual who is immersed, but who drowns in that condition? He has already told us that the person of faith who dies on the way to the baptistery will not be saved. What then of the one who is immersed, but who drowns before he is raised from the water? "
"Impossible you say? Not at all. It has happened! On September 8, 1999 , in Houston, Texas, a teenage boy who was being baptized drowned when he slipped away from the minister's hands while under water in a Houston river. (Reported September 9, 1999 on Yahoo News: "A teenaged boy drowned during a baptism in the Houston river yesterday. The boy slipped away from the minister while he was under. Authorities are examining if the collapse of a nearby walkway may have contributed to the event.") Brother Waters, in such as case, would the individual be saved since he never was raised from the water? "
"Now, remember, Brother Waters, the issue is not, can it happen? The issue is if it happens is one unsaved until he rises from the water? We will all be waiting to hear your answer on this."
Jack brought up the case of a boy drowning while being baptized. He was "under," he said. He wants to know if the boy was saved or not. If the boy had faith in Jesus and was being baptized for the proper reason (appealing to God for the remission of sins) he contacted the blood. Ordinarily, one would rise from having contacted the blood to "newness of life." The boy would have risen with "newness of life" but not on earth. The boy would have been saved.
One of Jack's main arguments is that because of the fact that one on the way to the baptistery could be killed salvation must be at the point of faith. I asked if God could not prevent it from happening and for an example of it ever happening. Jack has come up with nothing at all that helps him. Now, IF one on the way to the baptistery were to be killed and God chose to save such a one it would be an exception to the pattern of scripture.
Question:
If a man decides he needs to get right with God and he calls up a preacher to come and help him gain the faith that he desires, but dies before the preacher gets there, would he be saved?
If Baptism is the point of salvation all can know for sure the point they were saved.
I made the argument that where God's plan of salvation is understood and followed people know exactly when they are saved, whereas with the denominational plan people are made to reply upon their feelings, which can be deceptive. Jack responds by telling us about his feelings when he decided to turn to God – feelings that he was saved. Remember God says "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Prov. 16:25). It is very interesting that Jack was not baptized until two months after he says he was saved. Why, hasn't Jack continually, throughout this debate, emphasized how important it is to be baptized immediately after being saved? And has he not told us that those whom he has now joined immediately obey the command to be baptized after being saved? In his last installment Jack stated: "…But refuses to do so, does not, as I understand it, have the kind of faith that saves."
Jack, you were apparently in disobedience to the command to be baptized for two months, yet you tell us you were saved. Dear reader, apparently Jack has been influenced by denominational error from the beginning, and we have seen inconsistency from his own pen about his own life regarding the importance of baptism. Yes, Jack has entangled himself in his own words. He has said he was saved at the point of faith then says those who refuse to be baptized don't have the kind of faith that saves, thus bringing his own initial salvation into question.
Jack continues:
"It is incredible to me that Brother Waters has such a shallow, external view of salvation."
I suppose when one is indoctrinated with denominational doctrine and thinks he has to do nothing in response to God's commands to be saved it would be rather distressing to most people, because of seeing the error they were in and of the need to repent, when they learn what the scriptures say. However, Jack has known what the scriptures teach for a number of years. What is incredible to me is that because some have had misconceptions of what is necessary to walk in the light and have developed bad attitudes, that Jack now rejects the truth and has accepted denominational doctrine, which he has for many years shown to be error.
Jack ridicules the idea of "external" matters. The fact is both external and internal things are important in Christianity. The Bible is filled with examples where God required action on the part of those who would receive his blessings or help. The fact that there are cases where God required no action proves nothing. Faith was required, which requires effort, but sometimes no faith at all was required. Thus, such examples as Daniel in the Lion's den (presented by my opponent) prove nothing.
Holt continues:
"However, it is understandable that when one thinks salvation is a joint working effort between God and man and he isn't sure who does the most work in salvation that he would place such emphasis on the external."
The above comment was unfair. In response to Jack's question I stated that I could not say who puts forth the most effort in salvation, man or God. Since God created the universe by merely speaking it into existence I hardly see how it would require a great deal of effort to save one who believes in Jesus and is baptized in obedience to his command to receive the remission of sins. Why, does not faith require effort? Is not effort required to repent? Confession is unto salvation. Does it not require effort to confess that Jesus is the Christ (Rom. 10:10)? Jack took my word "effort" and changed it to work (work of merit, as he sees is) in his effort to twist my words. Now he has to deal with the word "effort" (as being work) as it applies to the things he has stated are necessary to salvation.
Jack continues:
"True salvation is a matter that begins in the heart. I remember clearly the instant, some two months before I was baptized, when I yielded up my life to God. My daughter was not expected to survive child birth, and in that terrible instance I saw clearly how awful life was without God and I made the choice then to yield my life up to God. It was two months later that I was baptized, and thus accepted by the Church of Christ as being saved, but I remember very clearly the instant I turned to God and yielded my life to Him. Brother Waters is simply wrong when he says that without water baptism one does not know when he became a Christian."
Certainly the heart in involved in salvation, but my opponent has yet to admit that salvation is something that takes place in the mind of God. A Hindu can THINK he is saved, but is he before he learns of Christ? That my opponent has used his own feelings as "evidence" of what God's word teaches about when one is saved is very disturbing.
Holt Responds to Baptism Passages:
"Remember, in my affirmative, I defined saving faith, and demonstrated very clearly that it involves total confidence in God to save, inward repentance, including a desire to obey God in every way, and the choice of love as one's ultimate purpose in life. This is saving faith, and if any element of these three are missing it is not the kind of faith Paul was speaking of when he said that we are saved by grace through faith and apart from works."
The kind of faith that Jack is talking about is the kind of faith that leads to salvation. We have presented Bible examples of people who had this kind of faith but who did not KNOW they were saved, as Jack asserts is the case when one is saved at the point of faith; yet they asked what to do. Thus, it is prudent for the believer to look to the Bible for the answers regarding what to do to be saved rather than to allow himself to be deceived by such men as Jack Holt, which would result in failure to respond by faith in an appeal to God for the remission of sins as you call upon him when you are baptized (1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16).
Question:
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.
Holt continues:
"The important thing for the reader to keep in mind as he approaches each passage in the Bible on baptism is the fact that no Bible passage should be interpreted in such a way as to violate the greater context of the Bible. Specifically, as pertains to this debate, every passage on baptism must be interpreted in light of Paul's affirmation that we are saved by faith apart from outward works (and baptism is an outward work), and in light of the Bible's teaching that baptism is a symbol of the reality and not the reality itself."
It is rather common for persons who teach error to seek to defend their doctrine by the use of circular reasoning, but it is not common for one to be so bold in pointing out the necessity of it. Jack's two main arguments are begging the question. Every argument that I give he replies with "that cannot be the proper meaning of the passage because Paul teaches in Rom 4 that works (his idea of works) cannot have anything to do with salvation. Friends, this is circular reasoning. It is not an argument, but just an assertion of his interpretation, and then if that interpretation is correct, all other passages must be understood in light of that interpretation. The real problem Jack faces is that his proof-texts do not support his theory.
1 Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 NASB)
"Even Brother Waters will admit this passage is symbolic in nature. He knows that baptism does not save, but rather he argues that God saves us when we are baptized. Hence, even he will argue that the passage is symbolic.
"In light of the Bible's affirmation that we are saved by faith, apart from works, and in light of the Bible's affirmation that baptism is a symbol, we should understand Peter to affirm that baptism symbolizes our salvation, not that baptism itself has the power to save, or that salvation awaits the moment of baptism ."
Jack made a reply but did not deal "in a meaningful way" with my response on this. He merely continues to deny what the text says, that "baptism does also now save us." The text makes a comparison to Noah and Ark and shows how water was/is involved in salvation. Jack states that baptism is merely a symbol. Although denominational preachers, when confronted with this passage, have answered with the same quibble as Jack, the text does not teach that baptism is merely a symbol. Was the water that lifted up the ark a symbol? Is the water that we contact the blood of Christ in (when one is baptized) a symbol?
Which should we believe:
Denominational quibble: "…We should understand Peter to affirm that baptism symbolizes our salvation."
OR….
The inspired apostle: "Baptism doeth also now save us..." ?
Look at the meaning of the word symbol – "something that stands for or represents something else,"
One thing we agree on is that the water ITSELF ALONE does not save, but the text tells us water saves. But it would be helpful to Jack if it can be insinuated that those who think one is saved at the point of baptism somehow believe there is power in WATER, rather than God doing the saving, or that one is saving himself APART from God, when he is baptized. Jack has conjured up a straw man. No one I know of believes there is power in water, but the Bible teaches that baptism does also now save us.
Holt continues:
"Clearly, 1 Peter 3:21, cannot be referring to initial salvation because Paul affirms that salvation comes apart from works, and baptism is a work."
We see the circular reason used by my opponent once again. We are supposed to believe that baptism saves us, not initially but "ongoing" salvation, like the Lord's Supper. Using my opponent's own reasoning, maybe it is possible that one is not saved "at the point of faith" or even faith with repentance and love.
"Baptism does save in the sense that it is one of the many works that God wants saved people to do…"
If the above is all baptism is about we have to wonder why God did not name other "Christian responsibilities" as saving us. Why would God make such a clear statement regarding baptism: "Doeth also now save us," yet not make such a clear statement on numerous other things that "show" that we are a Christian, if they are of equal importance?
John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, (John 1:12 NASB)
Jack stated "John 1:12 does not mention baptism.…"
What kind of an argument is this? Baptism does not have to be mentioned. The text clearly shows that one who "received Him" has not yet done what is necessary to become a child of God.
Jack continues:
"There is a sense in which we become a child of God when we are initially saved, but there is another sense in which we do not become children of God in the fullest sense until the resurrection and our glorification with God in heaven."
This line of reasoning reminds me of the premillenialists' response to the argument that the kingdom is the church established in 33 A.D., which destroys the very foundation for their doctrine that Christ will come to earth and set up his kingdom and reign for 1000 years. When faced with the teaching of Col. 1:18 they often reply, "Well, the kingdom came in a sense." It came in fact and those who can see what the scriptures teach about it cannot miss it. It is also true that at baptism one becomes a child of God. The text says those who merely receive Jesus THEN have the POWER to become children of God. When and how can that power be exercised? Obviously, the power can be exercised immediately by being baptized "calling on the name of the Lord" (1 Pet 3:21). Jack is not the first to deny the text by trying to explain it away, nor will he be the last.
Acts 2:38
(ASV) And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
"The argument members of churches of Christ have made for years is that "eis" (for) implies point action in Acts 2:38, and thus one repents, then is baptized, and then (at that point) is forgiven of past sins, becomes saved, and is made a Christian all at the same time.
"The phrase" (eis) for the forgiveness of sins" occurs in other places in the Bible. For example, it is used in connection with Jesus' death on the cross.
"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27-28 NASB)"
"Now, I want to ask the reader this simple question-will the point action argument in relationship to the forgiveness of sins work in this verse? In other words, was it the case that Jesus died on the cross, and then at that very point in time the sins of the all (for He died for all, right Brother Waters?) were forgiven?
"No, No, Brother Waters say. You see…"
"I really don't care what follows after "you see…" Whatever it is, it admits of the possibility that something can be "for (eis) the remission of sins" but not involve point action ( i.e., the action following immediately upon the deed upon which it is predicated-in this case, Jesus' death, in Acts 2:38's case, repentance and baptism). If it can be true here that point action is not involved, then it can also be true in Acts 2:38! If not, why not?"
Jack has stated that he really does not care what my response is. Thus, my only hope to teach here, apparently, is those who might read this debate. Regardless of Jack's smooth efforts, Acts 2:38 still means what it says to people who do not want it to mean something else.
The dispute is not over point action, but whether the view of "eis" is toward a future benefit or not. My opponent would say it is future, regarding faith and repentance, but not regarding baptism.
The word "for" (eis) means "in the direction of," and is also translated "unto." Thus when one is baptized he is doing so looking in the direction of receiving the remission of sins. The same is true in the passage about Jesus. He shed his blood so that those in the past, present, and future could receive the remission of sins. Now, my opponent came up with an argument, but it is obviously lacks reason. The text proves my proposition to those who accept it the way virtually all scholars and translators explain it.
Now, let's look at another occurrence of the phrase…
"And He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47 NASB)
"This passage says that repentance is 'for the forgiveness of sins.' If this is to be understood as most members of the Church of Christ understand Acts 2:38 then forgiveness comes at the point of repentance!"
Jack, both faith and repentance come before salvation – they are "unto" or in the direction of, salvation (see Acts 11:18). How can you not admit this? Thus, your "argument" fails to help you in either of your illustrations above.
"Brother Waters will likely object, 'well, baptism must be added!'"
It is God that tells you, me and everyone who believes, repents and want to be saved, "Repent and be baptized…for the remission of sins." Virtually all translations into English render Acts 2:38 in such a way that it is understood that baptism is to be done looking to salvation. This is proof that initial salvation is not before baptism, but after.
Jack stated:"I do believe Jesus' death is for the remission of our sins. I do believe that repentance is for the remission of our sins. I do believe that baptism is for the remission of our sins. But I don't believe that point action is involved in any of these passages."
Jack's whole argument is full of holes because both repentance and baptism are AFTER faith, and Acts 11:18 tells us "repentance is unto life." The text states that repentance and baptism are in the direction of remission of sins, but he denies it and urges you to understand that one has already received remission of sins at the point of faith. If one's sins are forgiven before repentance and baptism then there are no sins to be forgiven at baptism, and the command would be senseless. Remember, the Jews at Pentecost who heard the gospel and believed, asked "Men and brethren, what shall we do." If Jack Holt had been there he would have objected to the apostle's answer and tried to teach all who heard him that their faith had already saved them. That is essentially what he is trying to do now.
Jack continues:
"There is a very real sense in which every outward act of faith (whether it is outward works of repentance (restitution, etc.), baptism, eating the Lord's Supper, assembling with the saints) is for the remission of sins. It is the same sense in which Jesus' death was for the remission of sins. Every act of faith has as its objective dealing with the sin problem in our lives as we seek to please the God we have chosen previously to place our faith in."
The problem with Jack's "argument" is that the text (Acts 2:38) speaks of repentance and baptism being unto or for (in the direction of) the remission of sins, but these other things he mentions are merely Christian duties. Jesus stated the purpose of the Lord's Supper – "This do in remembrance of me." The blood, that we are to remember, was shed for the remission of sins. We do not take the Lord's Supper for the remission of sins. That is merely a new argument that Jack Holt has dreamed up. Jack knows the weaknesses of the arguments that denoninationalists have made to try to get around what the Bible teaches on baptism, so he has come up with a new one. He should learn that you cannot defeat the truth with unsound arguments. Well, the fact is, you cannot defeat the truth.
Jack continues:
"The whole Bible is for the remission of sins. It reveals God's plan of redemption to that end."
The Bible gives the revelation from God as to the plan of redemption, which we can learn and obey. To argue that it is "for the remission of sins" in the same way Peter used the phrase is incongruous. Jack, if Peter had meant to convey the thought that baptism was in the direction of, or to receive the remission of sins (which is after faith), what would he have needed to say? Obviously, he would have needed to say nothing more or less than what he said. It is truly amazing how people sometimes deny what is so clearly stated. Saul was told to "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord." This passage says it as clearly as would be needed for anyone not corrupted by false teaching. There is no hope for Jack to get out of the predicament he is in without admitting that salvation comes before repentance, which is given the same level of importance as baptism to receive the remissions of sins. Since he cannot do that without giving up his proposition he is in a real dilemma.
Jack stated:
"Baptism is an act of faith where we seek to deal with sin in our lives…."
Jack Holt has repeatedly emphasized the need to be IMMEDIATELY baptized upon being saved at the point of faith. He even said one who refuses was not saved. Now, saved persons are forgiven of all sins, right? Yet in the statement above Jack states that baptism is an act of faith where we seek to deal with "sin in our lives." THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, but yet my opponent is denying such to be true. And you have to see this; if one is saved at the point of faith and immediately went to be baptized he would have no sins "to deal with." What a dilemma people get themselves in when they begin teaching denominational doctrines.
For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. (1 John 5:4 NASB)
"Notice, John did not say, 'this is the victory that has overcome the world-our baptism.' You put any other outward act into that slot where baptism is and the fact remains, it is not the outward acts that provide us with the victory over the world-it is our inward faith."
Indeed, faith is the victory that overcomes the world. One of my favorite songs (often sung in Churches of Christ) is " Faith is the Victory." We don't think that baptism is the victory and certainly do not sing it. But Jack Holt would have you to believe that the text he noted above defeats the position I am affirming. One cannot overcome the world without faith. One's faith in Jesus and the word of God will lead him to repent and be baptized unto the remission of sins.
Jack has given me an idea. In answer to the question "What must we do" Peter said, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." Now, remember these people already had faith, yet they obviously did not know they were saved. Let us see how much sense it makes to insert faith in the place of what these people were told to do: "Have faith and have faith for the remission of sins." How ridiculous! Peter said what he meant and if one is to be saved he must accept it and obey it. Don't allow anyone to deceive you.
Acts 22:16
Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name. (Acts 22:16 NASB)
"Just like 1 Peter 3:21, even Brother Waters will argue that this passage is symbolic, or figurative. Baptism, immersion in water, has no power to wash away sins. Brother Waters will go to other passages to teach that sins are actually forgiven by God, and then will come back to this passage and argue those sins are not forgiven until one is baptized."
My opponent knows I understand the phrase "wash away thy sins" to be symbolic of what happens when one is baptized – the real cleansing being done by the blood of Christ. But the passage is not symbolic. You cannot explain away the passage by asserting that it is merely symbolic. The teaching regarding baptism is obviously there. People who love the truth and want to see people obey the gospel will not seek to pervert this clear passage of scripture.
Mark 16:16
Anyone who believes me and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe me will be condemned. (CEV)
"Paul clearly teaches that initial salvation occurs at the point of faith apart from outward works like baptism. Hence, Mark 16 cannot be talking about initial salvation, and initial salvation is the issue we are discussing in this debate."
Once again my opponent's response to this clear teaching is to use his circular reasoning. He has asserted something to be true that he has not proven, but says the above text cannot be true because of his unproven assertion. This approach reminds me of the foolish atheist who refuses to hear any arguments for the existence of God but keeps saying, "God does not exist because evolution is a proven fact." One was known to say "We cannot explain exactly HOW evolution happened, but we KNOW it must have somehow, because we are here!" That simply begs the question.
Jack stated:
"Salvation is not the product of human works. Salvation is a work of God. It is conditioned upon faith-a surrender to God's work."
While it is true that salvation is not a product of human works it is not true that God does not require a faith response, as in being baptized as commanded "for the remissions of sins."
Holt continues:
"Now, I am pretty sure that Brother Waters is going to use a tactic that is common among Church of Christ preachers when he replies so let me head him off at the pass. He is going to try and tell you that Holt believes that one believes, is saved, and then is baptized, but Mark 16 says one believes, is baptized and then is saved.
"The problem with this argument is that it involves equivocation. Yes, it is true, when one speaks of initial salvation that I believe, as Paul says in Romans 4, that salvation come apart from the work of baptism."
The problem my opponent has with Mark 16:16 is that it contradicts the interpretation he has placed on Rom. 4 and Eph 2. Regardless of his quibbles and effort to head me "off at the pass" his doctrine still has salvation before baptism, which is contrary to the text. He argues that the salvation Jesus alludes to is not initial salvation. But if that is true, what about those who merely believe but are not baptized. They miss out on ETERNAL salvation. What proves too much proves nothing.
"In this sense it is like saying the one who believes and takes the Lord's Supper shall be saved, or the one who believes and attends regularly shall be saved. All these statements are true, but none deny Paul's teaching in Romans 4 that salvation comes by faith apart from outward works."
The problem with the above "reasoning" is that Paul says baptism saves, but does not say these other things save.
Romans 6:3, 4
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4 NASB
)Instead of dealing with the meaning of the passage above, and my explanation of it, Jack brings in a new argument. He has already had the opportunity to make his affirmative arguments and the reader has seen their weaknesses. Therefore, I will not waste my time dealing with his new argument. Let us look more closely at the passage my opponent wishes to divert your attention from.
When we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death, and therefore into His burial and resurrection as well. Through baptism we are united with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection; and being united with Him in this manner we rise to new life; leaving behind our old self and rising to a new. Baptism is when our old self dies and our new life begins. Baptism is also when we come into contact with the blood of Christ. It is in repentance that we "die to self." The burial follows the dying and the rising follows the burial. When we are raised from the watery grave, with Christ, we then live with him in "newness of life." One who is then "in Christ" is a "new creature" according to Paul. (2 Corinthians 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
We have looked at Galatians 3:27 and 1 Corinthians 12:12 and have seen that they teach that one gets into Christ be being baptized.
Colossians 2:11, 12
In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (NRSV)
Holt's Comments:
"Paul makes a distinction in this passage between the circumcision of the heart (forgiveness) and outward baptism. The circumcision comes first, then the outward baptism."
Jack's conclusion is simply untrue, at least according to one Greek scholar who helped me with this one. The verb for baptism is an aorist passive participle, and circumcised is also aorist passive (but indicative). There is no basis to say one happens before the other. The grammar indicates they are simultaneous. It is a structure where one restates the same thing.
The NRSV makes it clear that it equates circumcision of Christ as being the same thing as baptism, and baptism is not something that happens later. It says "WHEN you were buried...."
I quoted verse 13 in my affirmative and made the following comment: "I do want to note that Paul added that it was "through the faith of the operation of God" that they received the forgiveness of sins. This is to say that forgiveness was received because of each individual's faith in God that as He raised up Jesus he would raise him/her up to be "forgiven" of "all trespasses" and would then be consider him/her to be one of His children."
My opponent makes a comment regarding the first part of the text, which he has sought to show affirms his position. But that is all. There was no response to my comments above. And what is very interesting is that he completely left off verse 13, which destroys his doctrine. It says: (Col 2:13) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.…"
Now, when is one dead in his sins and made alive with him? The text is so clear one would need more help than even Jack Holt can give to miss it. One is dead in sins and made alive ONLY AFTER baptism (which is the burial) is done.
Galatians 3:27
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Galatians 3:27 NASB)
"In baptism we symbolically, publicly, and outwardly clothe ourselves with Christ, but the reality takes place in the heart first."
There are a couple of problems with Jack's quibble:
1) Jack's position has one saved at the point of faith, but there is no "putting on Christ" at that time. Thus, according to his doctrine and his confession, he went two months after being saved before he "put on Christ." Paul says a man puts on Christ at baptism. Whom will you believe, Paul or Jack Holt?
2) The above text is parallel to 1 Cor. 12:13, which says baptism puts us into the body, which is the body of Christ. Of course, that passage is not accepted as being true to his proof texts either, and therefore he has sought to explain it differently from what is obvious.
Holt 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?"
New material to this reply:
Jack, those men and women on the day of Pentecost who heard the gospel and asked, "men and brethren, what shall we do?" had obviously set their hearts to do what Peter told them, but they still needed remission of past sins.
Saul, though in a penitent state, was told to go into the city and he would be told what he "must do." He was told to arise and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Saul's heart was right even when he was killing Christians. Explain, please, why Saul was not already saved before he arose and was baptized. Explain why he was not already saved before he heard the preacher as he labored (worked) for God in going to the place designated and preaching Christ.
Previous answers:
I am confident that Jack is wrong about when one becomes a sinner, i.e., initially. 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.
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.
My second response…
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."
Holt continues:
Earlier, in the debate, Brother Waters replied to this by affirming that Eve did not sin until she actually ate the fruit. Really, Brother Waters, so she formed the intent to sin and reached for fruit and did not sin in so doing? You are sadly mistaken sir about the nature of both sin and salvation. Sin cannot not possibly take place outwardly unless it has first taken place inwardly, and the same is true of salvation.
My point was that Eve was not cast out until she acted in disobedience to God in eating of the fruit. Before she ate she was still in the garden and had eternal life. After she ate she was cast from the garden. I made the point that everything is exactly opposite with the reconciliation of man. Here is the link to the entire sermon.
Perhaps my opponent's misunderstanding is in thinking that it is just as easy to become saved as it is to become condemned. This is not true. The path to hell is wide. Evil thoughts lead to the committing of actual sin. Deliberately contemplating thoughts of evil or rebellion are contrary to God's will and therefore sinful. But in examples like Eve, which I have illustrated, (whether we are talking about being saved or lost) there must be obedience shown in actions. One who has no knowledge of Jesus is not "saved." To be saved one must come to understand the gospel, which involves deeds and it also involves the act of obedience of baptism.
Jesus said, "I am the light of the world," (John 8:12). "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well" (John 14:6-7). People who claim that there are other ways to salvation are wrong.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB)
"The comments I made on Romans 6 and Galatians 3 apply here as well. In baptism we are symbolically baptized into the body, but the reality takes place at the point of faith in our hearts."
Once again, Jack Holt brushes aside the word of God by claiming it is symbolic. God says we are "baptized into one body." Jack Holts says, "That is not true, what God said is symbolic. He did not mean that at all, because that is contrary to what I think Paul taught regarding works" (my wording, rw).
Either one is baptized into the body or not. This "symbolic" argument is getting to be monotonous and is working on my serenity. One could as well argue that faith is symbolic as to argue that one is only baptized into the body of Christ (the church) in a symbolic way. Why, an atheist could argue that God is symbolic.
John 3:1-6
Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:1-6 NASB
)I find it truly amazing that Jack Holt has taken the position that the word "water" in the text above does not refer to baptism. Note some of the comments by some scholars on the matter – men who are not "Church of Christ":
Verse 5
Clark: Of water and of the Spirit - To the baptism of water a man was admitted when he became a proselyte to the Jewish religion; and, in this baptism, he promised in the most solemn manner to renounce idolatry, to take the God of Israel for his God, and to have his life conformed to the precepts of the Divine law.
JFB: A twofold explanation of the "new birth," so startling to Nicodemus. To a Jewish ecclesiastic, so familiar with the symbolical application of water, in every variety of way and form of expression, this language was fitted to show that the thing intended was no other than a thorough spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together in a glorious evangelical prediction of Ezekiel ( Eze_36:25-27), which Nicodemus might have been reminded of had such spiritualities not been almost lost in the reigning formalism. Already had the symbol of water been embodied in an initiatory ordinance, in the baptism of the Jewish expectants of Messiah by the Baptist, not to speak of the baptism of Gentile proselytes before that; and in the Christian Church it was soon to become the great visible door of entrance into "the kingdom of God," the reality being the sole work of the Holy Ghost ( Tit_3:5).
Holt comments:
"Note very carefully that Jesus asserts that man must be born again. Then Nicodemus asks Him about physical birth, and how a man could possibly be born physically a second time. Jesus then declares that a man must be born of both water and Spirit to see the kingdom of God."
Jack has it right up to this point.
"Physical birth is accompanied by an event which is commonly referred to as the breaking of the mother's water."
Really! And who are the groups that use this terminology? Certainly not Bible scholars! The only time I have ever heard it said is by a denomination preacher who was seeking to get around the teaching of the passage.
"I believe Jesus is using the word that way to refer to Nicodemus' question about how a man could be born physically again. He tells Nicodemus that it is not enough to be born of water (the physical birth) but one must be born of Spirit (and inward birth from God which takes place when one places His faith in God in response to God's work within)."
Jack, before you chose to give up the truth about the necessity of baptism did you not realize that you would have to make this ridiculous argument, which you probably have always thought was absurd when others made it? You would have the reader to believe that Jesus said, basically, "Except a man be born he cannot enter the kingdom of God." That is a truism. Men with integrity do not speak that way and Jesus did not speak that way.
Holt:
"This understanding is clearly what Jesus has in mind because He continues by contrasting these two births when He says in verse six, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." He then goes on to emphasize He is talking about a birth of the inward, unseen part of man and He uses the wind to illustrate that fact.
"In affirming that the water here is the water of baptism those who do so ignore the context of verse six, which clearly establishes what Jesus is referring to, and they make a fallacious argument. The argument is this: The passage mentions water, baptism involves water, therefore the passage is talking about baptism. That argument simply is not sound. Just because water is mentioned does not mean that baptism is the subject under consideration. One must prove from the context this is what Jesus intended, and in view of verse six I don't believe that can be done."
Four Fold Gospel: Except one be born of water and the Spirit. By far the vast majority of scholars consider the word "water" in this verse as a reference to Christian baptism. The Cambridge Bible says "the outward sign and inward grace of Christian baptism are here clearly given, and an unbiased mind can scarcely avoid seeing this plain fact. This becomes still clearer when we compare #Joh 1:26,33, where the Baptist declares, 'I baptize in water,' the Messiah 'baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.' The fathers, both Greek and Latin, thus interpret the passage with singular unanimity." Men would have no difficulty in understanding this passage were it not that its terms apparently exclude "the pious unimmersed" from Christ's kingdom. But difficulties, however distressing, will justify no man in wrestling the Scriptures of God (#2Pe 3:16 Ro 3:4). Water and Spirit are joined at #Mt 28:19 Ac 2:38 19:1-7 Tit 3:5.
Clark: That which is born of the flesh is flesh - This is the answer to the objection made by Nicodemus in Joh_3:4. Can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born? Our Lord here intimates that, were even this possible, it would not answer the end; for the plant will ever be of the nature of the seed that produces it - like will beget its like. The kingdom of God is spiritual and holy; and that which is born of the Spirit resembles the Spirit; for as he is who begat, so is he who is begotten of him. Therefore, the spiritual regeneration is essentially necessary, to prepare the soul for a holy and spiritual kingdom.
WEN: Joh 3:6 - That which is born of the flesh is flesh - Mere flesh, void of the Spirit, yea, at enmity with it; And that which is born of the Spirit is spirit - Is spiritual, heavenly, divine, like its Author.
Barnes: That which is born of the flesh - To show the necessity of this change, the Saviour directs the attention of Nicodemus to the natural condition of man. By "that which is born of the flesh" he evidently intends man as he is by nature, in the circumstances of his natural birth. Perhaps, also, he alludes to the question asked by Nicodemus, whether a man could be born when he was old? Jesus tells him that if this could be, it would not answer any valuable purpose; he would still have the same propensities and passions. Another change was therefore indispensable.
(CEV) Humans give life to their children. Yet only God's Spirit can change you into a child of God.
(GNB) A person is born physically of human parents, but is born spiritually of the Spirit.
(GW) Flesh and blood give birth to flesh and blood, but the Spirit gives birth to things that are spiritual.
Holt continues:
"Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not understanding the things He taught. Paul tells us the fundamental reasons why the Jews failed to understand true salvation."
Nicodemus was rebuked because of his ludicrous statement about returning to his mother's womb to be born. My opponent likewise deserves rebuke for his argument that Jesus was talking about the physical birth. When Jack Holt used the argument that "water" refers to the physical birth (the breaking of water in the mother's womb) I was shocked. That argument is so far fetched it is hardly worth a reply. Jack knew it is not a sound argument so he has a contingency for it.
Jack's contingency:
"If it is a reference to water baptism then the passage should be viewed exactly as Mark 16:16 is viewed-as a reference to final salvation in which baptism is mentioned when all outward works relating to salvation over one's lifetime is what is intended (a figure of speech called a synecdoche)."
That John 3:5 is a reference to water baptism should be obvious to all so I think there is no need to further deal with Jack's quibble regarding it. However, we shall deal with his contingency. Jesus said, "Except one be born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God ." OK, let us now insert Jack's second explanation of "water" as used in the text. Except one have outward works (all his life) to prove his salvation, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. This explanation is objectionable because Jesus' statement was about the new birth – not the entire life, but mostly because it is not what Jesus said at all. The promise was not in regard to heaven but the new kingdom (the church) that began on the day of Pentecost. This is evident because those who heard and believed the gospel (after asking what to do) were told to be baptized. (Remember Jesus' statement in Mark 9:1.)
Jack's contingency for John 3:5 is not even consistent with what he has stated. Note what he said below, quoted from his last negative:
"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."
So we see that in trying to explain John 3:5 to harmonize with his "salvation at the point of faith" doctrine, my opponent has contradicted his statement above in which he opposes the idea of works being related to salvation. Thus, Jack's effort to show that "born of water" in the text does not refer to baptism is seen to be not only fruitless, but also what should be an embarrassment to him.
Finally, in the context of John 3 Jesus clearly establishes faith as the sole condition for initial salvation. He says…
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16 NASB)
Jack, I thought we had established that you do not believe in "faith only"? Your statement above leads me to think otherwise. I have asked you twice about the meaning of "believeth" but you completely ignored it. You know it means "faith conjoined with obedience" yet you argue against that fact. You truly seem desperate to prove your proposition.
Question:
Now, do you believe that repentance is necessary for salvation? Does one have to learn the facts about Jesus and ALSO repent (determine to live for Jesus) before he will be saved?
In closing, Brother Waters asks…
"Brother Holt, please explain, in as much detail as possible, exactly how one becomes a Christian; and not only how HE can know when it happened but also what evidence there is that OTHERS can look at to see when the Lord added him to the number of the saved."
"One can know he is saved when he truly places his faith in God. Each heart can look within and know who is sitting on its throne. If Jesus is there, then the person will know they are saved, and those who observe their lives will see Jesus clearly in their conduct, including, when they are baptized."
The apostle Paul tells us that "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." The word that builds our faith is the same word that tells us what to do to be saved. Saul, Cornelius and those at Pentecost are examples of people who believed in God and but who were not saved at the point of faith. After they were commanded what to do they acted upon their faith, and only then did they know they were saved.
"Wrap your minds around Brother Water's confession that he does not know who does most of the work in salvation. He says it is a joint effort between God and man and that he doesn't know who puts forth the most effort. This is the clearest indication of all that he is pursuing salvation by works and that he is advocating it in this debate."
Jack, you are not being cordial in your dealing with this matter. I did not say anything that hints to the idea that man can save himself or that I did not know who actually has the POWER to save. I only replied that I cannot say who puts forth the most effort. You then twisted that to use to your advantage. How much effort is needed to be exerted by God, who created the universe by speaking it into existence, to forgive the sins of a man who has complied with his terms of forgiveness? Is it more than the effort one puts forth in asking someone to baptize him? Dear reader, my opponent is so desperate to associate baptism with "works of merit" that he is willing to twist his opponent's words.
An Unanswered Question:
Some groups claim that one simply prays for salvation ("prays through") until God decides to save him. Do you hold this position? If so, please explain how it can be true in light of the following statement: "…God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). Is not God a respecter of persons IF he responds to some, in answer to their prayer, who want to be saved, and speaks to them or enlightens them in some supernatural way, while others who want to be saved are made to wait and wait on Him to extend his mercy?
Jack's negative comments, or answers, have been little more than his affirmative arguments. Every time I presented a passage to prove my position, he replies, "No, that can't be, it contradicts my affirmative argument." This is begging the question and circular reasoning. You cannot defeat sound arguments using such a device. Perhaps we should have limited our debate to the teaching of Paul to the Romans like I offered to do in debating him on the divorce and remarriage issue. I affirmed: "The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, teaches that all divorced persons are 'unbound' and may marry another." I sought to limit the discussion to the chapter, but none were willing to do that. The reason is they have their proof text that proves their position and all passages must be explained to harmonize with their preconceived opinion.
Holt concludes:
"There is, however, a very important reason to debate this subject. If one adopts the idea that salvation waits until outward acts of obedience are completed then, if he is consistent, he will maintain that idea throughout his Christian walk. Adopting this view of salvation means that every misstep or every failure in one's outward deeds becomes a challenge to his salvation. It breeds a relationship with God that is full of the wrong kind of fear and uncertainty about one's relationship with God. It produces people who are full of guilt, shame, and a sense of defeat instead of the kind of victorious life God provides through the grace-faith approach to salvation."
"This in turns often leads to greater and greater efforts to make the outward deeds what they ought to be, and that in turn leads to greater and greater realization of just how short our outward deeds come of God's expectations of us. Failing this way, people, often in an act of desperation that is searching for some kind of peace and comfort about themselves and their relationship with God, begin to become blind to their own misdeeds and they create a very legalistic approach in their religion so they can define in some easy, achievable way their salvation in terms of deeds properly done. They reduce their religion to church attendance, taking the Lord's Supper and other outward acts. The Bible calls this approach seeking salvation by works."
The above may be true with some, but the charge is apparently leveled against me and all who claim that salvation takes place at the point of baptism. I could name a number of brethren who not only fully understand that there is no power in water but that they were cleansed by the blood when they obeyed the gospel and are continuously cleansed as they walk in the light. We fully understand that as we look to God by faith and endeavor to be faithful to his word it is not our works that save us but Jesus' blood, which he offered by his grace.
Unanswered Question:
In my second negative I wrote:
"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."
I have provided several examples of conversion and showed that the salvation came after baptism. This alone proves my proposition. On the other hand, Jack Holt has not and cannot provide one single instance of conversion to Christ where one was saved at the point of faith.