This discussion has been profitable to me in some ways. First, if I ever had any doubts that one is saved (forgiven of sins) at the point of faith rather than baptism, as the scriptures teach, I have none now. My opponent is very capable and if it were possible to prove salvation at the point of faith I'm certain he would have been able to present the proof and be able to successfully rebut the arguments that have been made that show that one is saved at the point of baptism. The fact that he has not even stayed with the subject, which, by the way, was supposed to be "limited," and has sought to denigrate the "Church of Christ" is disturbing. Brother Holt did say some things off subject that needed a response, and I have dealt with his remarks.
The proposition that I have agreed to affirm is as follows:
The Scriptures teach that one is saved when he is scripturally baptized. By saved I mean forgiven of past sins through the blood of the risen Savior and received into a covenant relationship with God.
Jack Holt has agreed to deny the above proposition. His responsibility has been to deal with my arguments and to answer questions that I have asked. However, I believe my opponent has been evasive, has avoided many of my questions, has failed to deal with the issue, has made some blatant misrepresentation and even charges against what he calls the "Church of Christ denomination" as a whole (majority), that are simply not true.
The issue in this debate is important because it involves what is necessary, as God has prescribed in the New Testament, to become a child of God. My opponent says sins are forgiven and one becomes a Christian at the point of faith. If the Scriptures do not teach this, but do indeed teach that God has required conditions to be met (other than faith, confession and repentance) then those teaching the doctrine espoused by my opponent would not be telling men the truth regarding what God says one must do to be saved.
I am not going to bring up again all the arguments that I set forth in my 2 nd affirmative. This final affirmative is basically a summary of the debate.
This debate was supposed to be about baptism. We were supposed to discuss the point of salvation. However, my opponent has obviously been more interested in denigrating those known as the Church of Christ than he has in debating the propositions. One of the most blatantly false statements he has made is the following paragraph:
"Herein, is the great weakness and error of the Church of Christ denomination--they will not regard others as brethren. They have a very narrow minded, peculiar slant on truth that refuses to listen to reason and to see the bigger picture, and anyone who disagrees with them is lost, and we can say and treat them any mean way we want to because they are lost."
First, I'm 53 years old and have worshiped and worked with a number of congregations since my teen years, yet I have only seen the attitude expressed above by a few who have become vocal in journals and Internet lists. The charge that Church of Christ members believe they can treat denominational members any way we want, because they are lost, is simply a lie. I have never seen that attitude among any member of the church. Second, those who believe that baptism is the point which God forgives one of past sins and adds him/her to the church could not conscientiously regard as brethren those who have not obeyed the gospel. This is no different than persons in any other group not accepting as members those who have not done what is required to be so recognized.
Below is another comment that was uncalled for and shows the disturbing spirit of Jack Holt:
"Those Baptists don't love God! Those Methodists don't care about what the Bible says. Those Pentecostals are just a bunch of emotional fools!" Justified? No, it is not. It is a lack of love for our brothers in Christ. It is self-righteous hypocrisy. It is narrow minded sectarianism."
Members of the Church of Christ are concerned about the salvation of denominational members. This is why we hold firmly to the teaching found in the New Testament about what to do to become a child of God, have gospel meetings, publish tracts, have radio programs, home studies, correspondence courses, etc., to teach them. Men like Jack Holt have done much damage in building prejudice against those who teach the truth. Jack's charge is as follows: "Members of the Church of Christ think they are the only ones going to heaven. They believe that their works alone save them! They think baptism is more important than faith, etc." These accusations (that I have put into my own words for brevity) are misrepresentations of the people he has attacked and my opponent knows they are. Actually, I believe, and have heard several others express, the thinking that one does not have to attend a church that has a sign over the door that says " Church of Christ." I'm aware of churches of Christ that have no sign at all. Some have a sign that says, "Christ's Church," while others say "Lord's Church," etc. If those who believe that baptism is a condition for salvation are a denomination, which Holt calls the "Church of Christ denomination," then where is the hierarchy and the earthly structure of this so-called denomination? Where is the proof of the charge?
Holt continues:
"John didn't say, 'this is the victory that has overcome the world-our baptism!'"
Holt knows one of the most popular songs among Churches of Christ is "Faith is the Victory." He also knows that we often sing, "Nothing but the blood," which I noted in my last affirmative. These are only a couple of the numerous examples that could be given of songs that we sing that indicate that Jack Holt is simply not telling the truth about what the Church of Christ believes and teaches. He should know better.
Holt said:
"The plan of salvation has never changed. From the beginning it has been based on grace, made possible through the means of Christ's death, and conditioned upon faith."
The above is exactly what all members of the Church of Christ believe. We just use the scriptures to show that faith is shown in actions (James said, "Faith without works is dead") and that God requires one to be baptized as a condition for receiving the promised blessing – "remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter. 3:21).
I have agreed with brother Holt that there is an element in the church that has a very bad attitude toward those who disagree with them on certain matters, particularly among their own brethren. I believe it is a fact that some in the Church of Christ do not have a proper understanding of how God forgives sin in the life of the Christian. They think they will be lost if they are not sinlessly perfect and if they so much as fellowship anyone who is in error. But the charges that Jack Holt made in his last negative go far beyond what can be supported by the facts pertaining to the people, in general, that he refers to as the Church of Christ." Yes, we have some preachers whose attitudes stink, but so do all churches. You cannot judge an entire organization by the actions of a few. Churches of Christ are independent and autonomous. Thus, we are not bound to believe what some ecclesial governing body dictates to be the truth. This means that members of the church may have different views regarding a wide variety of subjects; including divorce and remarriage, what name the church should have on the sign or in the phone directory, whether the church may eat in the building, whether the church may fellowship those who use instruments, etc. While there are some who think they are right on everything and that all who do not agree with them are lost and must not be fellowshipped, this is the exception rather than the rule. Certainly the kind of attitude that has been portrayed as characteristic of the Church of Christ by Jack Holt is irresponsible and deceitful.
While I might like to understand the Bible to teach that all who merely accept Jesus as their personal Savior are children of God, I am unable to conscientiously draw that conclusion. I'm certainly not willing to take a text and FORCE it to support that one is saved at the point of faith and deny the mountain of evidence to the contrary by the use of circular reasoning, as my opponent has done in this debate.
Instead of dealing with the passages I offered as proof to sustain my proposition, Jack says he does not "see much value in going through all the passages…." I ask myself, why should I be surprised that Jack did not forthrightly and meaningfully deal with the things I wrote in my second affirmative? When one does not have the truth all he can do is be evasive and try to make the reader think he has actually answered everything. He says he did not see much that needed a response. Well, perhaps we should just note some things that needed a response from my opponent if he was to successfully deny the proposition. They are noted below:
Some Arguments Holt Has Not Answered
I wish the reader to note that I gave examples that prove what my opponent has denied – that God saves in response to His conditions. What was his response? "Illustrations are not arguments," i.e., they do not prove anything. But just in case the reader might not swallow his evasive reply he had another retort: He tells us they were not talking about spiritual things, but physical matters.
In the case of the brazen serpent and Naaman, I showed that what was done was indeed an example designed to show that God can and does require things to be done (work, if you will) before his blessing is granted. Instead of acknowledging this fact as hurting his case or presenting some reasonable explanation why it does not support my proposition, my opponent offers a mere quibble, as noted above.
Can One Prove Something By Using a Bible Illustration or Example?
I gave two Bible examples (Naaman and the brazen serpent). Holt tells us they are merely illustrations and states that illustrations do not prove anything. My opponent is too smart not to know better than to have made such an argument. Let us examine this matter closely:
The word Example is defined as:
2. a pattern or model, as of something to be imitated… 3. an instance serving for illustration. Example is used of an object, activity, condition, etc., which is assumed to illustrate a certain principle, law, or standard:
The Bible examples I presented (Naaman as well as the brazen serpent) are to be disregarded, my opponent says, because they are illustrations. He wants you to just accept that illustrations don't prove anything. The examples were not mere illustrations, like drawing a picture. Rather, the examples were designed to illustrate a point that God wanted made.
Now let us note the meanings of the word illustrate: 1. to make clear or intelligible, as by examples; exemplify. 4. to clarify with examples. Illustration: 2. a comparison or an example intended for explanation or corroboration.
With the definitions of example and illustrate clearly before us it is very apparent that my opponent has merely offered a quibble rather than answer the examples that illustrate and prove that God does indeed require effort (work) or a faith response to be cleansed of sin.
Holt says baptism cannot be the point of salvation because it is a work. The passages I used contained Bible examples that PROVE that God requires conditions to be met before receiving the blessings. Holt quibbles by saying it was physical and not spiritual. However, the two Bible examples were clearly designed for the reader to make a spiritual application. Regarding the serpent, I provided a New Testament passage that referred to the Old Testament text (John 3:14). Regarding Naaman, the disease was leprosy, which I pointed out was symbolic of sin. Clearly "cleansing" was the message – God's cleansing following man's act of faith in responding to God's conditions. If one cannot see the significance of the dipping, as it relates to being baptized and the cleansing of sin, there is little hope he will become free from the error of sectarian thinking about the purpose of baptism. Baptism is a physical thing, but just as in the example of Naaman's dipping to be healed and the example of the Israelites looking on the serpent to be healed resulted in what was promised, those baptized are doing so in response to God's promise of a blessing upon completing the required act of faith. The blessings promised include: "remission of sins" and to be added to the church or body of Christ and made a member of (born into) the family of God (John 3:5, Acts 2:27, 1 Cor. 12:13). My opponent refuses to acknowledge these things – things which he has known to be facts and things he has taught to others. They are just illustrations that don't prove anything, he tells us. They are figurative. The fact is, the truth just does not harmonize with his idea of works and salvation, as he thinks Paul taught, and so he is going to deny what is clearly said.
Comments in Holt's Latest Reply
"Thus far in this discussion I have offered two basic affirmative arguments. In the negative I have used those two arguments to properly interpret passages Brother Waters has offered on baptism and I have added one negative argument."
Holt has made an assertion that Paul teaches that works have nothing to do with initial salvation and then denies all the examples, passages, and arguments that prove otherwise. The reader must not miss the fact that I went to great detail to show that his text, regarding Abraham, is not about initial salvation. His only reply was that in the same chapter initial salvation is mentioned, but that does not answer my arguments. I was dealing with the CONTEXT, whereas my opponent departs from the context and makes a negative argument that is applicable only outside the context. I showed that Abraham already had a relationship with God at the time the text indicates. My opponent did not address this. He did note that I had not quoted one particular passage, which was inadvertent. The passages I did quote and explain were sufficient to understanding the context.
The Conversion of Cornelius
I pressed the argument that Cornelius was not saved before baptism. I showed that he was told whom to meet and that he would be TOLD words whereby he may be saved. Holt responds by saying he was already saved. In fact, he uses this as his ONLY example of conversion before baptism, which I pressured him to supply. Now, note his definition of "saved" or "salvation":
"I carefully defined the word "salvation" in this argument to be the point at which one ceases to be alienated from God and becomes a Christian (initial salvation)."
I suppose I could say, in reply, the case of Cornelius is just an illustration and that illustrations do not prove anything, as Holt has done. But that would be ridiculous and I have no intentions of going there. We need to understand the example and see how it illustrates or shows us the point that one becomes a member of the Lord's church, which is the saved according to Acts 2:47. Rather than prove my opponent's position it proves mine. If Jack Holt really thought this text supported his position by being an actual example of conversion before baptism, he would assuredly have not waited until pressured for such an example to have brought it up. Cornelius was told to go and hear a man (Act 11:14 ) Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. Shall be saved from what? Obviously the promise was to be forgiven of past sins and added to the number of the saved (Acts 2:47). He did not have faith in Jesus. This is why Peter came to preach to him. Paul asks "How can they believe unless they are taught?" Holt evidently thinks one can believe without being taught. Cornelius was not saved UNTIL he heard the word of Peter and obeyed the command to be baptized.
My opponent asserts that his (Cornelius) having received the Holy Spirit like the apostles on the day of Pentecost proves they were saved before baptism. That is merely an assumption. God obviously approved of this man's life (his deed has "come up for a memorial" Acts 10:4) else He would not have chosen him to be the first gentile convert. Nevertheless, his being used as proof of such acceptance (speaking in tongues) does not prove that he was saved before baptism. Peter asked, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized…?" If baptism was of no more importance than a show of having already been saved, and not necessary to salvation, why would the question above have been asked? Clearly, he was asking if there is any reason why these people should not be allowed to be baptized and thus become a member of God's family along with us.
Holt's Obvious Confusion as to Whether a Faith Response Is Equal to Saving Oneself by That Effort or Work
"The fact is, Brother Waters, man cannot save himself through His own outward efforts. Salvation is the work of God-totally the work of God. That is the affirmation of Romans 4 and Ephesians 2."
Below is a "paste" of questions (pertaining to the cleansing of Naaman) that I asked in my 2 nd affirmative, which my opponent evaded with a worthless quibble:
-------------------------------------------------------------
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!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will brother Holt answer these questions? His delaying tactic has allowed him to get the last word on these, which mean that I will not have the opportunity to ask the obvious follow-ups to the answers he gives (if he does), but I hope the readers themselves will provide them in their own minds.
Holt:
"Next, Brother Waters tries to deal with this argument by asking me if I believe salvation is 100% the work of God. He didn't have to ask that question since I clearly affirmed it in my last negative."
Below is what I asked:
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 deeds merely symbolic or not for initial salvation?
Jack clearly affirms that salvation is 100% the work of God. I think we should understand, based upon the explanation I gave of the question, that Jack asserts that man does NOTHING – it is all God. Yet before one can be saved Jack admits one must hear and believe, which I have shown to be work.
Holt continues:
"No, Brother Waters it is neither of the things you suggest, and yes man must yield to God in faith, but here is the point-yielding to God in faith is not an outward effort put forth by man that saves him, but a surrender to God and an admission that man is incapable of saving himself. The Bible sanctions the inner choice of faith as the condition of initial salvation, but specifically excludes outward works (like circumcision and baptism) as being the point of salvation, or as being the condition of initial salvation."
The above does not get Holt out of the dilemma that he is in. He just seeks to smooth things over by saying God approves of the work of faith, hearing repentance and confession, but NOT the work of baptism. He further says the Bible specifically excludes "outward works" as being the point of salvation. But of course his only "proof" is the teaching of Paul that he misuses, who only teaches that one is not saved by works only, but rather by the blood of Jesus when one looks to God in faith and obeys his conditions.
Below is a statement that indicates that my opponent appears to not be listening and that he seems determined to level unfounded allegations against the church:
"Making outward works the condition of salvation places God in a box where people like the thief on the cross, and people who die on the way to the baptistery, and people like the young man who drowned while being immersed cannot be saved. When God made faith apart from works the condition of salvation He made salvation a possibility for all."
First, Holt knows baptism is not THE condition but only ONE of the conditions that members of the Church of Christ consider to be essential. Virtually every sermon that is preached by gospel preachers in the Church of Christ is concluded by giving the conditions for salvation, which include hearing, faith, repentance, confession and baptism.
Jack Holt, having preached the gospel for years, knows that the "thief on the cross" was saved because Jesus forgave him, and this took place BEFORE the death of Christ, at which point His will (the New Testament) would go into effect. He also knows that the man was likely baptized by John. It is very troubling to see a man make such arguments when you know he knows the fallacy of them.
I have already answered Jack about the boy drowning when baptized, but Jack ignored it. The boy was saved if he was sincere in what he was doing. He did not rise physically to "walk in newness of life" but did so spiritually.
Below is a question I asked in my previous affirmative. I don't recall seeing an answer to it:
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?"
Holt continues:
"Brother Water's basic assertion on Romans 4 is that it is not talking about initial salvation, but instead is talking about the salvation of the saved. His proof for this is that the chapter is written to saved people. This is a serious blunder and simply ignores the context of the book of Romans."
You do not ascertain the meaning of a passage by the context of the BOOK but by the immediate context. Of course, the immediate context does not support my opponent's doctrine so he has to change the hermeneutical rule for the use of "context" to the ENTIRE BOOK.
Holt continues:
"I want the reader to remember though, that Brother Waters is affirming here that saved people still need to be saved in some sense. I suspect this will be immensely important by the time he writes his final affirmative and I write my final negative."
The issue involved in this discussion is what point is one saved or forgiven of past sins. Of course one needs to remain saved. That is what Paul was talking about in much of his letter to the Romans, which is supported by 1 John 1:7, which teaches that "if we walk in the light…the blood of Jesus Christ His son cleanses us of all sins."
Holt continues:
"One positive step was taken by my opponent in his last article. Previously he has argued that baptism is not a work of the individual but in his last article he said…
"At this point I'm willing to retract that baptism is not a work based upon the following definition of the word: 5. Purposeful Effort - the physical or mental effort directed at doing or making something (Encarta)."
Honest people change their thinking and actions when they are confronted with facts that require a change necessary to be seen as being consistent. So far my opponent has shown no willingness to admit error on anything but rather has seemingly dodged the facts that have been presented to refute his claims. He has even made arguments that he has for a number of years known do not help him in the least, as far as proving his proposition in this debate.
Holt continues:
"Then Brother Waters asks about hearing. He says that hearing is a work and if we are saved apart from works then hearing is excluded. Again, what he overlooks in making this argument is that Paul specifically includes faith, and since faith comes from hearing, that means hearing is included, but Paul specifically excludes outward works like circumcision, and since baptism is a work like circumcision then baptism is likewise excluded."
The problem with the above statement is that Holt contends that the reason the work of hearing is not included in "apart from works" is because hearing is included whereas baptism is excluded by the apostle. The problem with this thinking is that Paul did not exclude baptism in the Roman text (the book, which my opponent says is the context) but made it very clear that it is at baptism that one contacts the blood of Christ (chapter 6:1-4). Now, if there was anything to my opponent's contention he has yet to explain how repentance (which is also a work) is excluded by Paul but not hearing and believing, as being one of those saving factors that are "apart from works."
Holt continues:
"Every passage on baptism is impacted by the teaching of Romans 4 and Ephesians 2. Since baptism is an outward work, and since both of these texts affirm that we are saved initially by faith apart from outward works, these texts affirm that we are saved initially apart from baptism. We must take this information to each text on baptism, and, contrary to Brother Waters' assertion, it is not circular reasoning to do so."
My opponent asserts that he does not use circular reasoning (begging the question) in his efforts to prove his proposition. He says I do not know what it is. Therefore, I think it would be worth our time to discuss this matter.
"Circular reasoning is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed. In Logic-speak, you assume that proposition A is true, and use that premise (directly or indirectly) to prove that proposition A is true."
Example:
"The charges of physical abuse are absolutely untrue, because the police would never do something like that."
There is no proof that the police would never do something like that. The same is true with my opponent's argument. He has put all his eggs in one basket and contends that because Paul says justification is "apart from works" that baptism cannot be involved in initial justification. He even says you have to interpret EVERY PASSAGE in view of his assertion or else you get it wrong. It does not matter how much evidence there is that baptism is indeed an essential faith response to God's conditions to be saved, you must disregard it because you have to circle back around here and accept his assumption. This is a classic example of circular reasoning! Once again, circular reasoning is where you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. Holt assumes that works are not involved in initial salvation and his "proof" is a passage that he asserts proves his assumption. The problem is his proof-text does not support his assumption and his assumption is contradicted by a mountain of evidence. For a matter to be seen as sound reasoning, rather than circular, one must establish certain facts and base his conclusion on the reasonable, sound, logical outcome of those facts. Those "facts," if true, will harmonize with other facts. My opponent's position only harmonizes with his desire to see all who have faith in Jesus as being a member of the Lords' one true church. The Bible is replete with evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, where one is determined to use circular reasoning that evidence is not considered.
Holt's Second Affirmative Argument
Holt says "baptism is a symbol, and not the reality (Christ is the reality); and therefore, passages that teach that baptism saves, or places us in Christ, or clothes us with Christ, etc., are in fact teaching baptism does these things symbolically or outwardly to reflect what has already taken place in the heart at the point of faith."
The problem is Holt just asserted that baptism is a symbol, he did not prove it. It does not say it in 1 Peter 3:21. It merely makes a comparison to baptism and Noah being saved by water. It does not say baptism is a symbol of anything. In fact, the one passage that my opponent uses to try to prove his position actually is strong evidence against it.
Next my opponent states that baptism is a regulation for the body which cannot make the worshipper perfect in mind or conscience any more than the baptisms of the Old Law could.
The things that were required of the Israelites: washings, animal blood, etc., could not forgive sins, in and of themselves, but GOD could, and did, when they complied with his conditions. The same is true of baptism today. There is no power in the water, just as there was no power in the blood of animals; nevertheless, we can have faith that God saves today when men meet the conditions. When one is baptized he is "calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16) and "appealing to God for a clear conscience" [1 Pet. 3:21 - (GW) "Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn't save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience ."]. My opponent used to be able to see these facts clearly but for whatever reason he now argues against these facts that are clearly stated in the passages above. My opponent cannot now claim that "calling on the name of the Lord" is prayer because he has stated that it is not through prayer (praying through) that one is saved. Thus, he must accept the truth that the calling is the request to be saved when you do what God has commanded you to do, as was the case with Cornelius (Acts 10:48).
Holt continues:
"Baptism is not the reality that saves us-only God can do that."
The words above flatly contradicted 1 Peter 3:21, which says "baptism doeth also now save us." We must understand that it is "through the faith of the operation of God" that one is saved when he is baptized. The text noted above is another passage that my opponent cannot deal with.
Another Passage That Devastates Holt's Doctrine
Col 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. Col 2:13 And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses;
Does Paul give any indication in the above text that baptism is merely a "symbol"? He does not, but he does explain that it is through the faith of the working of God that one who obeys is raised with him (Jesus). Initial salvation is obviously in mind and to dismiss it as being symbolic would be absurd.
Holt's Question Regarding Hebrews 10:22 (Sprinkling)
Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water . (Hebrews 10:22 NASB)
I first should point out that this is an ILLUSTRATION which the Heb. writer uses to MAKE AN ARGUMENT about our own salvation and boldness. If Holt's point is that in this illustration there is a use of "sprinkling" to refer to our faith, I have no problem with that. But this passage also has reference to the washing of their bodies in water, which of course easily connects to our being baptized. Interestingly, the order is reversed - the washing took place BEFORE the sprinkling. However, the point is that they both contribute together in the process of bringing about our initial salvation - both are necessary. The acts were separate and distinct, but necessary to be done BEFORE the blessing was imparted.
Holt continues:
"Mark 16:16, for example, is not talking about initial salvation, but is talking about salvation in the ongoing sense, and in the sense of final salvation."
Does my opponent believe in the doctrine commonly called "once saved always saved"? I don't think so, yet his argument could prove true only if this doctrine were true. If his argument is valid the passage should then read, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved eternally." Why, my opponent chides me for teaching that baptism is involved in initial salvation but he says when one does it (is baptized) he will be saved ETERNALLY. Of course he does not believe that, I'm just showing how ridiculous his argument is. He knows Mark 16:16 is about initial salvation.
It is really quite ludicrous for anyone to contend that the text is not about initial salvation. We don't "go unto all the world of those already saved." The text does not tell those already saved that they must "keep on believing so you can remain saved." It doesn't mean "if you stop believing after you began, then you will no longer be saved but will be damned again." The text is what we call "the great commission." It is about going and preaching to the LOST! Yet my opponent had digressed to the point of denying a fact that can be seen by virtually everyone.
I used James 2:24 in an argument and my opponent says I was not paying attention to the context. The fact is I was not contending that James was talking about initial salvation; I merely used it to show that works do have a part in salvation and that Abraham was the character in point. My opponent's main proof-text involves this same character and it is not talking about initial salvation, as I have previously proved.
My opponent says I merely assume "initial salvation is under discussion" and that I chide him for not agreeing with my assumptions. He says this is not a serious way of addressing the real issues between us. The fact is both Rom 4 and James 2 are talking about justification, and initial salvation cannot be proven in either case. But I have provided several passages that teach that baptism is involved in initial salvation. These passages are clear, but they are rejected by my opponent because they do not harmonize with the assumption he has made and his errant conclusion regarding works. His proof-text, if taken as it might appear if one did not consider the context as well as other pertinent passages, seems to say that works have nothing to do with being justified. However, my opponent's obvious problem here is that he needs for the Roman text to apply to initial salvation. But there is no more reason to conclude that Romans 4 applies to initial salvation than does James 2. Thus, my opponent's entire doctrine is based upon an assumption that he has not and cannot prove. Therefore, each time he replies to my arguments and says this cannot be true because of blah, blah, blah he is guilty of circular reason or begging the question.
Holt continues:
"Brother Waters still has not learned that illustrations are not arguments. Additionally, if his illustrations prove anything then my illustrations of people who were cured or rescued apart from works prove my point."
I have already dealt with this once but did not deal with part of it. Actually, the fact that God has rescued persons, such as Daniel, by faith without any conditions, does not prove my opponent's proposition. He says salvation is at the point of faith, but Daniel had faith BEFORE the incident, thus it is not an example of salvation as the point of faith. Also, Jesus healed people who did not have any faith at all.
Jack cannot honestly say that the case involving Naaman [who was cured of a disease (leprosy) that is symbolic of sin, after he dipped in water, which alludes to baptism] does not prove anything. Why, it is likely that this example was given by God to teach that baptism is essential to receiving cleansing from sin. What other lesson could have been the intended point. I'm sure that Jack Holt has used this text just like I am using it; but after he drew his new conclusion regarding what was supposed to be the conversion (initial salvation) of Abraham, the example no longer teaches the same lesson.
Holt continues:
"Next, Brother Waters makes up some illustrations to prove that accepting and receiving a gift does not negate the fact it is a gift. I concede that to be the case, but it does not prove that water baptism is the point of salvation. Water baptism is an outward work of the individual. The Bible affirms we are saved initially by faith apart from outward works. Therefore, we are saved apart from baptism."
This is the only point to which my opponent has conceded, but he resorts to his circular reasoning and says it does not apply. Well, why does it not apply? The answer is obvious; it is contrary to my opponent's assumption.
Now to the consequences of Holt's conceding on this point: He has conceded that when an act or deed is necessary, it does not mean that one is saved apart from faith or grace. And yet that is precisely his point about baptism. He says that if it is necessary it would make it "salvation by works" rather than by faith/grace. The example that I gave of the million dollar check (in my 2nd affirmative) illustrates how it is indeed NECESSARY to do some things, and you don't get the blessing until you do. Yet it is still by faith and GRACE - not "receiving the gift by works."
Holt continues:
"Finally Brother Waters asks if I'm aware that "virtually all scholars, including Baptist scholars and translators," disagree with my arguments on John 3 and Acts 2. No, Brother Waters, I am not aware of that, but as regards this debate that it is immaterial. Even if it is so a majority does not prove a position is correct. Are you aware, Brother Waters, that the majority of people confessing faith in Christ today deny your position is so? I don't think, Brother Waters, that we want to settle this issue by majority vote, do we?"
Jack knows I was not seeking to settle the issue by majority vote. God has spoken to us through writing of men who were inspired to write. Those writings have to be translated into the language of those who would hear. But my opponent insinuates that what the scholars say is immaterial. He seeks "damage control" by trying to make it appear that "the majority" is at issue. We are not talking about the "majority," we are talking about virtually EVERY Greek scholar, and this is something that cannot be dismissed. Jack's conclusion regarding water in John 3:5 is contrary to virtually all experts in the languages. The same is true with the Greek word esis. There is no reason to make an argument that " for" or "unto" refers to something that has already taken place, unless you want to disregard all scholarship and all evidence to the contrary so you can hang on to a preconceived comforting doctrine that is based on that assumption. Of course, honesty will not allow one to do that.
More Regarding Cornelius
My opponent presents the following text in his effort to show that Cornelius was saved before he heard words whereby he could be saved:
You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. (Acts 10:38 NASB)
Holt comments:
"Beyond this, the Bible affirms that Cornelius was holy, God fearing, loving and a man of prayer even before the events of Acts 10 and 11 took place. All of these outward signs reflect that inward faith was present, and thus initial salvation was present."
All the text above proves is that knowing who Jesus is and being a good and honest man is not enough – one must obey the gospel as commanded in all the examples of conversion in the New Testament. Cornelius would be a saved person before the cross, under the Law of Moses, but not after the New Testament went into effect. We all now need the gospel, which tells us about Jesus of Nazareth.
Holt continues:
"Brother Waters asked for a Bible example of someone saved before baptism and Cornelius is one such example. There are many other such examples-Abraham, David, Noah, and all the other Old Testament worthies were saved without water baptism. If water baptism is necessary to literally clothe oneself with Christ then none of these have been clothed with Christ and thus none of them have been saved."
"Brother Waters, the Bible is full of people who were saved without being baptized! But, if you doctrine is true, they are all lost!"
What I asked for was New Testament examples of conversion. The answer my opponent gives, regarding Old Testament salvation, might be seen as just ignorance if it had come from someone who really did not know the answer, but this reply, coming from Jack Holt, has to make the intelligent reader wonder what is wrong with his mind and thinking. The argument is a total "red herring.
"Holt continues:
"Now the simple fact of the matter is the plan of salvation has always been the same. Men have always been saved on the basis of grace, through the means of Christ's death, and upon the condition of faith."
The above is simply not true. Faith in Jesus the Christ was not needed under the Law or as a gentile before the events recorded in Acts 10, but of course it is now. My opponent's reasoning leads me to wonder if Jack Holt believes sincere Jews today are saved, or if sincere gentiles who have "the condition of faith" but who don't regard Jesus to be the Son of God, are saved. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER, Jack? If this is my opponent's belief, and I'm thinking it is, then we need to realize that his contention is that Saul was saved while murdering Christians and that the Muslims (the 9/11 murderers) were saved if they believed in God. This is contrary to the passages I noted in my previous affirmative that indicates that one must believe in Jesus to be saved.
Holt continues:
"In the Church of Christ denomination baptism is THE issue. Baptism is THE deciding factor in whether or not one is a Christian. Baptism is THE testing stone of whether or not we will fellowship someone."
The above is a misrepresentation. Like circumcision among the Jewish men being used as evidence to determine if one was a Jew, baptism is used as evidence that one is a Christian. However, circumcision was no PROOF of being a Jew (since any man could do it) and neither is baptism proof because one can do it without being properly taught and without faith and repentance.
My Opponent Digresses:
"Every sin is allowed to thrive among Churches of Christ as long as they hold fast to the party line on the baptism issue, the instrumental music issue, and the "we are the only true church" issue. Gossip about others is okay. Slander about other people seeking Christ is okay. Looking down on others who claim to be Christians is okay. Driving out people from among the Churches of Christ who refuse to hold to the party line is okay. But change your view on anyone of these three core issues and you are not okay!"
Admittedly, I have seen evidence that some of the above is true among some preachers. Indeed, something needs to be done about such rotten attitudes and behavior. However, making oneself a "martyr" by teaching false doctrine to the point that brethren recognize you as having turned from the truth, and therefore have no further use for you in teaching the gospel, is not the way to deal with this serious problem.
Jack, in denying that he is a Baptist, made the following statement: "But, even if I were, and even if Robert could point to flaws in Baptist, what he misses is that he and his brethren likewise are full of flaws."
Yes, we are full of flaws, but we are children of God because we have done what we must to become such. As children of God we diligently seek to apply the facts and principles we read about in God's word, which assures us that we are cleansed continuously by the blood of Jesus (Rom. 4:7, 8; Rom. 8:1 2; 1 John 1:7). My opponent's doctrine does not help his brethren with their flaws nor dies it help the alien whose initial sins have not been forgiven and who has not been adopted into the family of God. We must preach the gospel to them, which includes telling them the truth about baptism being a condition to receive the remission of sins. Those who are taught the true gospel (not tainted with sectarian doctrine) have no problem with God's conditions. They also, generally, continue their life of faith, or their "walk in the light," and periodically sing songs like "Nothing But The Blood," and "Faith Is The Victory" – knowing they did not save themselves literally, but merely accepted God's offer and showed Him their faith by their response to His command.
My opponent closes with an earnest plea for unity. Jesus prayed for unity (John 17:22-21); thus it is a worthy endeavor. However, we must not seek unity at the expense of important truths, like what is necessary to become a Christian. Jack's Holt's efforts are no different than if a Jew has said we must accept all men of every nation as being Jews and God's children, regardless of whether or not they have been circumcised.
While I have not appreciated many of the disparaging and unfair comments that my opponent has made in this debate I do agree with his final paragraph copied below:
"So, what is salvation all about? Is it all about baptism and our peculiar views as a group of believers as distinguished from other groups of believers? Or, is it all about Christ-faith in Christ, love for Christ, and the exaltation of Christ as our Lord--and our love for others?"
Indeed, baptism is not everything – far from it! Without Christ, faith in him, and love for Him and others, we are lost. Nevertheless, we must not let our feelings and desires divert us from our goal of reaching the lost with the message of salvation, which involves being baptized " for the remission of sins."
I pray that my opponent will reconsider these things and return to the fold that he has willingly left. He was rejected in some circles but he was not driven away from the church, and if he will return and once again preach the truth he will be received and forgiven.