For the final time in this debate I am privileged to greet the readers and Brother Waters.
This final negative will be broken down into three sections. In section one I want to deal with the primary issues raised by Brother Waters in his final affirmative. In section two I want to review the arguments I have presented in this debate. And then finally, in section three, I want to close the debate by speaking once again to the issue of why this debate is important.
On Critiquing Churches of Christ
First of all Brother Waters pretends there is a disconnect between the subject of baptism and the critique I offered in my last negative concerning the current state of affairs in many Churches of Christ. I continue to maintain there is an important link between these two issues. I believe Churches of Christ use their view on baptism to separate themselves from the greater body of believers. This sectarianism is a real problem in many Churches of Christ and it links directly to the baptism issue which is used to justify it.
My critique of many in Churches of Christ was not meant to denigrate, but to redeem. I understand why those who disagree with me will want to put the worst construct on my critiques, but I see that as part of the overall problem within many Churches of Christ. The idea seems to be that if you disagree with us then you are a bad person, and you really don’t like us. It is part and parcel of the sectarian attitude I see in many Churches of Christ. Why can’t we, as brothers, accept one another critiques as coming from a pure heart with pure motives?
Even Brother Waters has a critique for some in the Church of Christ in his last article. He wrote…
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.
One is made to wonder why it is okay for him to critique an “element” among Churches of Christ, but it is wrong for Brother Holt to critique “many” in Churches of Christ.
Waters' View of the Job Holt Has Done In This Debate
Several times in his final affirmative Brother Waters offers his opinion that Holt has failed in the debate to do this or that. I have found it common among debaters that when their arguments cannot carry the day they simply say over and over again what they hope their readers will believe about their opponent. I believe a more proper way of debating is to let one’s arguments speak for themselves, and to let the opponent’s arguments speak for themselves.
In his first affirmative Brother Waters offered a list of passages on baptism. In my first negative I carefully cited each passage and commented on them in detail. In his second affirmative he came back and made some additional comments, but I did not believe any of them merited any further comments by me. In other words, I was willing to allow what I had written to stand and be judged by the reader and give Brother Waters the last word on each of those passages, and I stated as much.
Now, in this latest affirmative Brother Waters writes…
“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.”
I ask the reader, is this a fair and brotherly way to sum up what happened? Is it fair to indicate that I didn’t deal with the passages when I clearly did? Is it fair to say I wasn’t forthright when in fact I simply stated that I believed what I had written could withstand the additional comments made by Brother Waters?
Is the Church of Christ a Denomination?
Brother Waters asks for proof that the Church of Christ is a denomination. The dictionary says a denomination is: “A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.” The Church of Christ meets every aspect of this definition. Its administrative and legal structure is much less formal than in many other denominations, but it is nevertheless there in the forms of the foundations, colleges, papers, internet list, and preacher alliances that control those Churches.
I also realize that most in the Church of Christ denomination reject the idea that they are part of a denomination. I do not mean to be offensive by referring to them as such. I believe that refusing to state what is so obvious to everyone outside of the Church of Christ denomination would be to enable the common misconception among Churches of Christ that they are not a denomination. Only truth can set us free, and therefore I must lovingly, but firmly affirm that the Church of Christ is in fact a denomination.
Like all denominations the Church of Christ has a traceable history. That history begins with the Restoration Movement in American headed by men like Alexander Campbell, with the Church of Christ dating from either 1889, when Daniel Sommers made his declaration that “we cannot and will not regard them as brethren,” or 1906 when David Lipscomb, in response to an inquiry by the Federal government, asserted that the Church of Christ was now indeed a separate body from the rest of the Restoration Movement.
If one doubts these facts the internet is available and a simple Google or Yahoo search will help one find the material that confirms them.
Illustrations Are Not Arguments
I am simply amazed that Brother Waters does not get the point on this subject. Instead, he tries to quibble by equating “illustrations” with “examples,” and then proceeds to try and prove that illustrations are arguments.
I’m sorry that I have to give basic logic lessons to a 53 years old, but apparently that is what is going to be necessary here.
Here, Brother Waters, from the debating handbook, “Christian Contend For Thy Cause,” is what the writer says about illustrations…
“Illustrations are excellent to make certain principles clear, but illustrations by themselves cannot make a truth. Truth is illustrated, not made by illustrations. Just so arguments are illustrated, not made by illustrations.”
In this debate Brother Waters view is that one is not saved until he works. He cites to prove his case several illustrations: (1) the man who holds on to the rope and is dragged to safety, (2) Naaman washing to be healed of leprosy, (3) the children of Israel healed through the erecting of a brazen serpent and then gazing upon it, and (4) a blind man healed through washing clay from his eyes. Brother Waters argues that each of these illustrations prove his case. That simply is not so! They illustrate the principle he is arguing for, but they do not prove his case that initial salvation comes at the point of water baptism.
I have presented illustrations of people who were saved by grace apart from outward works, not to prove my case, but to meet illustration with illustration. Brother Waters himself even stated that I presented my illustrations properly and they prove my point. God saved Daniel by grace from the lions without Daniel having to do any outward works. God saved the three men in the fiery furnace without them having to do any outward works. In each case persons of grace were saved by faith apart from works.
Neither of our illustrations proves our cases. Both of our illustrations illustrate our views. The only way to prove our case is to go to God’s word. I have proven my case by pointing to Romans 4, which states we are saved by faith apart from works, and to Ephesians 2, which states we are saved by grace through faith and not as a result of works.
Brother Waters, on the other hand, has simply proven it is God’s will for us to baptized, a fact I don’t deny, and then tried to use these illustrations to prove that we aren’t saved until we are baptized. My passages specifically state that initial salvation comes prior to works, and since baptism is a work, every passage on baptism needs to be understood in the light of the passages I have presented.
That, in a nutshell is the debate. Brother Waters, recognizing the weakness of his case, has tried to carry the day by substituting illustrations for arguments, and I’m sure some will be swayed by it, but I am hoping that people with open and thinking minds will not be swayed by it. It is a grievous debating error.
In connection with his illustrations Brother Waters presented a long list of questions and complains I did not answer them. No, I did not repeat each question and answer them, but I did answer them as a whole by demonstrating that his use of these illustrations does not constitute proof of his proposition.
I think this complaint brings something into focus. Brother Waters has it fixed in his mind that there is only one way to debate—his way of debating. He likes to take the opponent’s article and paste most (but strangely, not all) of it into his reply and just follow it down and comment. That is not my style of debating. I like to pick a few points—the major points---and work on them and depend upon the reader’s intellect to take the principles from those points and apply them to specific matters.
Brother Waters, however, opines that because I don’t answer the way he does I have not answered. The fact is that I have answered every word and question Brother Waters has written—if not with specific references then I have answered them through general principles I have argued for. Brother Waters would get further in debates if he would spend less time making these kinds of charges and more time and effort trying to prove his propositions and leave the judging to the readers.
But, lest he thinks that Holt is trying to avoid his responsibilities here are his questions on his illustration and my answers to them.
Was FAITH involved?
Yes, faith was involved.
Was GRACE involved?
Yes, grace was involved.
Was OBEDIENCE involved?
Yes, obedience was involved.
Were ALL the above NECESSARY?
No, they were not all necessary, but in these cases God willed that faith and outward obedience should be involved and so they were in these cases.
Did the "snake" have a part in their salvation?
Yes it did—they had to erect it and look upon to be healed.
Did Moses have a part in their salvation?
Yes he did. God used him to reveal the method of healing.
Did those who looked have a part in their salvation?
Yes they did.
Did they HAVE to look, or was the looking symbolic?
They had to look—it was not symbolic.
Is this a lesson for us on faith and doing what God says, even when we may think it is foolish?
Yes it is. I have argued from the very beginning that obeying all of God’s commands, including the command to be baptized, are responsibilities of the believer, but that is the extent of the lessons we should draw from these. We should not draw the lesson from these that spiritual salvation comes as the result of human works.
If one bragged about how he had EARNED his/her recovery, would he be wrong to have had such a thought?
Only to the degree that he fulfilled the responsibility given. Naaman could brag he obeyed by dipping, and those who looked on the snake could brag they looked if they were so inclined.
Does the lesson apply to baptism? If not, why not?
Yes, it does apply to baptism in that it teaches us we should obey all of God’s commands, but no, it does not prove that salvation waits until baptism because such a point of view violates specific statements of scripture in Romans 4 and Ephesians 2.
Now that I have answered his questions, again, can he see, can the reader see, that in fact I had already answered everyone of these questions in principle through the arguments that I made that illustrations are not arguments, and through the arguments I made based on Romans 4 and Ephesians 2?
Who Does the Most Work in Salvation?
In Brother Waters’ final negative he made a serious blunder by asserting that he didn’t know whether it is God or man that puts forth the most effort in salvation. Here again is that exchange. I wrote…
“If this illustration is equal to the Bible's teaching on salvation then man puts forth just as much effort as God does in his salvation. Does the Bible support this kind of view of salvation?”
The illustration I referred to here is Brother Water’s “drowning man holding on to the rope” illustration. Now, here is Brother Water’s reply…
“I cannot say who puts forth the most effort. Nevertheless, it should be obvious to all that both man and God are active when God saves, and YES, the Bible supports this kind of view of salvation from beginning to end.”
I continue to maintain that this proves Brother Waters is teaching salvation through human works. Furthermore, it attacks the divine role by asserting that man may possibly even put forth more effort in salvation than God does in saving man.
I realize that Brother Waters says he doesn’t believe in salvation by works, but it is not unusual for one to believe something but not accept the consequences of that belief, and that is what is happening here. I am not trying to be mean or ugly in pointing this out—I am simply trying to attack the heart of the problem I see in many in the Church of Christ denomination. I believe they are pursuing salvation by works, and that is why I am participating in this debate.
In his latest reply Brother Waters comes back and says…
“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.”
You see, in Brother Waters’ mind there are only two choices—either salvation must be 100% the work of God with man doing nothing, or it must be a joint working effort on the part of man and God in which man may even do most of the work in salvation. There is a third alternative. That alternative is the Bible alternative—salvation conditioned upon faith.
Faith is not man doing part of his salvation and then God doing the rest. Neither does the faith choice involve man doing “nothing.” Faith is a surrender on the part of the man and an admission that he cannot save himself by his works and must therefore be totally dependent upon God for salvation.
In this scheme it is not the case that man does part of the work of salvation and God does the rest. Neither is it the case that man does nothing. It is man surrendering to God and God then doing 100% of the work of salvation because only God can save.
How do human works fit into such a scheme? How does the work of baptism fit into such a scheme? Paul answers these questions in 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)
Notice first that salvation is 100% the work of God. It is not the result of any outward human work so that no one can boast. Yes, faith is involved, but that is an inward surrender on the part of man and a confession that man is incapable of saving himself.
Notice carefully in the passage that man does not work to be saved, but that man is saved to work. Notice carefully in the passage that man does not work to be created in Christ Jesus but rather is created in Christ Jesus to work. As applied to baptism, baptism is a work, and we thus are not baptized to be saved initially, but are saved then are baptized.
I urge the reader to not rush past this point. Here is the entire debate. Here most clearly the works approach to salvation made by Brother Waters and those who agree with him can be seen.
Brother Waters, recognizing the force of Romans 4 and Ephesians 2, began this debate by denying that baptism was a work. Later, he changed his mind and wrote…
"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)."
In his last affirmative he reaffirms his change of mind on this issue by saying…
Honest people change their thinking and actions when they are confronted with facts that require a change necessary to be seen as being consistent.
Since he recognizes baptism is a work, and since Paul clearly teaches we are saved apart from works, I fail to see how he can consistently continue to maintain his proposition.
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. Brother Waters affirmed that the one who dies on the way to the baptistery is lost. This view demonstrates his works approach to salvation.
Concerning the one who drowned while being immersed Brother Waters stated…
“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.”
The only way Brother Waters can reach this conclusion logically is to reason as I do about baptism and its place in God’s plan. But note, the one who dies on the way to the baptistery is lost, but if you at least make it to the baptistery, even if unable to complete the act in the baptistery, you are saved. That, my friends, puts the power to save in outward human works instead of faith.
Brother Waters asked…
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?
Yes, he would be Brother Waters. The moment he decided to get right with God was the moment in which he chose faith just as the thief on the cross did, and that is all I am arguing is required.
Romans 4 – Initial Salvation or Not?
In his last affirmative Brother Waters concedes that, as I have been arguing all along, James 2 is not discussing initial salvation, but is discussing what the faith of truly saved people will do—saved people will work. However, he continues to assert that Romans 4 is discussing the same subject.
Now, the problem with this is that it creates a contradiction between James and Paul. James speaks of the fact that we are justified by works and Paul says we are not justified by works. Read it for yourself…
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24 NASB)
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)
Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: (Romans 4:4-6 NASB)
If these texts are indeed discussing the same subject then they are contradictory and the Bible can be charged with contradicting itself. The only proper way of harmonizing these texts is to understand that James is talking to saved people and telling them that true faith will work. He doesn’t affirm we work and then are saved, but he affirms that if we have true, saving faith it will express itself in obedience. Paul on the other hand is talking about initial salvation. He is saying that initial salvation comes by faith apart from works.
Brother Waters argue that Abraham is cited in Romans 4 as an illustration, and that the event cited is many years later in Abraham’s life after his initial salvation and thus Paul is not talking about initial salvation in Romans 4. It is true that a case many years later in Abraham’s life is cited later in Romans 4, but early in Romans 4 that is not the case. Abraham’s initial salvation is discussed in verses 1-8.
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT." (Romans 4:1-8 NASB)
The text affirms that Abraham’s initial forgiveness and salvation was the result of faith apart from works.
Then the text goes on to illustrate what kinds of works Paul has in mind. He uses the work of circumcision, which is parallel to Christian baptism, and argues that Abraham was circumcised many years after he was initially saved.
Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:9-13 NASB)
This, and the examples given later in Romans 4 from Abraham’s life, do not negate the fact that the subject of the early versus pertains to Abraham’s initial salvation. The cases later in his life are cited to support the fact that initial salvation comes by faith apart from outward religious works like circumcision and baptism.
Holt’s First Affirmative Argument
The first affirmative argument is that salvation comes by faith apart from works, and since baptism is a work, salvation comes apart from baptism.
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 as contrasted with ongoing or future salvation). I defined faith as consisting of three essential elements: (1) confidence in God instead of self; (2) inward repentance including a resolve to obey God; and (3) the choice of love as one’s ultimate purpose in life. I then affirmed that the term work refers to outward works like circumcision and baptism.
This argument is supported by specific statements of Scripture that affirm it is so. First, in Romans 4 Paul affirms that salvation comes by faith apart from works, and he uses the outward work of circumcision to illustrate what he means by the term works. Since baptism is a work like circumcision, it is excluded by Paul’s argument as being essential to initial salvation. I cite this passage above and argue from it so I will not repeat it here.
The second passage that affirms this argument is found in Ephesians 2:8-10.
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)
Notice especially in this last passage the proper order of things. One does not work and then is saved, but one is saved apart from outward human works and then he performs outward works of obedience. According to this passage one does not work to be created in Christ Jesus, but is created in Christ Jesus to work. As applied to baptism this means we are not baptized to be saved, but we are saved initially and then are baptized.
I am amazed that people 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? Sin cannot not possibly take place outwardly unless it has first taken place inwardly, and the same is true of salvation.
Holt’s Second Affirmative Argument
My second affirmative argument affirms that 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.
Christian baptism, like the washings (Hebrews 9:10, from the Greek baptismos) of the Old Testament, is a regulation for the body, but it cannot make the worshipper perfect in mind or conscious anymore than the baptisms of the Old Law could.
The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings (baptismos, jh), regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:8-10 NASB)
Christian baptism is a shadow and type of salvation, but not the reality of it. It pictures or symbolizes that salvation, inward transformation, cleansing, and forgiveness that takes place in the heart. It pictures the death of Christ and faith in Christ, but baptism itself is not the substance but a shadow or symbol of the substance (Christ).
Holt’s First Negative Argument
In replying to Brother Water’s last affirmative I made the argument that the Bible speaks of salvation in several different senses.
Initial Salvation – The point that one ceases to be alienated from God and becomes a member of God’s family (justified, sanctified, regenerated, etc.)
Ongoing Salvation – The day by day, moment by moment work of salvation in one’s life in which one moves from “glory to glory” closer to the image of God.
Final Salvation – The salvation we will receive on the Day of Judgment when we are welcomed to heaven.
This is an important argument because it helps us to understand several passages properly. 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. Consequently, in a context like Mark 16 baptism is like any other outward act of obedience—it is a work that perfects faith, and thus only indirectly saves. The one who believes and takes the Lord Supper will be saved. The one who believes and attends regularly will be saved. And just so, the one who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, none of these outward works have the power in and of themselves to save, or represent the point at which we are saved. We are saved initially by faith apart from outward works like circumcision and baptism, or taking the Lord Supper, or attending, or singing, etc.
Holt’s Second Negative Argument
In my last negative I presented an argument on the case of Cornelius. In presenting that argument again I remind the reader of the material just presented arguing that the Bible speaks of salvation in at least three different senses—initial salvation, on-going salvation and final salvation. There was a sense in which Cornelius needed to be saved (ongoing salvation), and thus needed to hear words whereby that salvation could take place, but there was another sense in which Cornelius was already saved (initial salvation) before the events of Acts 10 and 11 took place.
Prior to the events of Acts 10 and 11 Cornelius knew about Jesus and salvation through Jesus, but he had not yet sought to fellowship with the church because fellowship with the Jewish Church had not yet been offered to the Gentiles.
Peter began everything he said about Jesus by affirming that Cornelius already knew those things…
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)
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.
Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually. (Acts 10:1-2 NASB)
Finally, before Cornelius was baptized in water he was baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is direct evidence that he was saved before he was baptized in water.
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. (Acts 10:44-48 NASB)
Peter cited the evidence of Cornelius’ acceptance by God as evidence that he should be accepted by the church and thus allowed to be baptized, and consequently Peter affirms that Cornelius was saved prior to his baptism.
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 cloth oneself with Christ then none of these have been clothed with Christ and thus none of them have been saved. If water baptism is necessary to literally be added to the body of Christ then none of them have been added to the body of Christ. If water baptism is necessary for the literal washing away of sins then none of them have had their sins washed away. All of these were clothed with Christ, added to the body of Christ and forgiven through faith apart from works just as we are. All of these did outward works after being saved to perfect their faith, just like we do when we are baptized and when we perform other outward works.
Brother Waters, the Bible is full of people who were saved without being baptized! But, if you doctrine is true, they are all lost!
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. God has required different outward works from saved people at different points in time, like circumcision versus baptism for example, but in every case salvation is by faith apart from works. Abraham was saved before he was circumcised. Cornelius was saved before he was baptized, and so are people of faith today. That is God’s plan of salvation and it has never changed. It has been the same since it was first formed in the mind of God.
Baptism Serves an Important Function in the Believers Life
I want to begin my closing statement by affirming that baptism serves an important function in the believer’s life. I have affirmed this from the very beginning, but in closing I think it important that I emphasize it again.
I have argued throughout the debate that salvation occurs at the point of faith and thus before water baptism, but that doesn’t mean that baptism isn’t essential and vital to the Christian’s life.
As an outward work, like all outward works, baptism perfects faith.
You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; (James 2:22 NASB)
When one looks at salvation in the ongoing or final sense, baptism stands synecdochically for every other good work we do as a result of placing our faith in Christ and thus Jesus said in Mark 16:16…
He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16 NASB)
Like all other outward works, baptism’s design is to help man deal with the sin problem. Hence, I fully embrace Acts 2:38, and only differ with Brother Waters and most in the Church of Christ in that their assertion that the passage involves point action (see my first negative for more details).
Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NASB)
I believe that baptism symbolizes the forgiveness of sins, and embrace that view of 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)
I believe that in baptism we outward demonstrate that inwardly we have clothed ourselves with Christ as Paul teaches in Galatians 3:26.
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Galatians 3:27 NASB
)I believe that in baptism we outwardly unite ourselves with Christ, his death, his burial and his resurrection and thus outwardly symbolize what has already taken place in the heart.
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. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. (Romans 6:3-7 NASB)
And yes, I believe that baptism saves us symbolically in the ongoing, or final sense, and that in it we symbolize the inward appeal we made for forgiveness when we first placed our faith in Christ as Peter teaches in 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)
This debate is not about whether or not we should be baptized. This debate is not about whether or not baptism is essential when a person has the opportunity to be baptized. This debate is about the point of salvation—is it at the point of faith, or at the point of baptism? Brother Waters has presented his arguments, and now I have presented mine. The reader must now take his Bible and study the issue for himself and decide what God’s will is for him
.The Baptism Debate and Works
As I have just stated, the issue in this debate pertains to the actual point of salvation. Is it at the point of faith, or is it at the point of water baptism?
When we come to understand the issue our first question might be, “Is this really worth debating?” I freely admit that in one sense it is really kind of a foolish debate. In most cases when one decides to place his faith in Christ baptism follows within minutes. So, at first glance, debating the actual point of salvation may seem to be unimportant and not worth our time and effort.
There is, however, a very important reason to debate this subject. If one adopts the idea that salvation waits until outward acts of obedience are completed then, if he is consistent, he will maintain that idea throughout his Christian walk. Adopting this view of salvation means that every misstep or every failure in one’s outward deeds becomes a challenge to his salvation. It breeds a relationship with God that is full of the wrong kind of fear and uncertainty about one’s relationship with God. 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. They then begin casting stones at all who do not measure up to the works they have chosen to measure themselves by. The Bible calls this approach seeking salvation by works—it was the Pharisees approach to salvation, and it is the approach to salvation one takes when he asserts that outward works like baptism must first be preformed before a person can be saved.
On the other hand, those who understand that salvation takes place at the point of faith handle their sins and shortcomings in a much different way. Since they don’t define salvation as the sum of their works, each sin has the same effect each success has—it drives them to deeper faith and reliance upon Christ for forgiveness and salvation. The Bible calls this salvation by grace through faith.
In this system salvation is not the sum of our works. Instead, our works reveal the quality of our faith and are a tool to help us to develop deeper faith in Christ. Sin is serious, but if one has true faith in God he realizes that his life will never be completely free of sin on this earth.
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8 NASB)
Hence, salvation is not about perfect doing, but about deeper and deeper faith in Christ. The wonderful thing is, that freed from fear and condemnation (Romans 8:1) one is free to serve in ways that those engaged in seeking salvation by works can never dream of (read about the frustrating struggle people pursuing salvation by works have in Romans 7 and then contrast it with the walk of faith in Romans 8).
Furthermore one who is pursuing salvation by faith does not require perfection in doctrine or practice of those around him. He knows that no human being is perfect, and that all are saved by grace through faith, and thus he can fellowship other imperfect human beings in a way that those pursuing salvation by works cannot.
Consequently, our decision on this seemingly unimportant issue pertaining to where the actual point of salvation is will have long term effects in our Christian walk. This makes it an important issue to debate.
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.
The Baptism Debate and Sectarianism
Finally, this debate is important because the baptism issue has been used by some for sectarian purposes.
Being a Christian is about trusting and loving God, but it is also about loving one’s brother. It is also about being patient with one’s brother. It is about allowing God to work in a brother’s life. It is about accepting weaker brethren. It is about recognizing that as Christians we will disagree, but we don’t have the right to divide. We don’t have the right to set up our little group and say, “we are the only ones who are saved, and the rest of you who profess faith in Christ just don’t love God, love His word, or love the Savior like we do.”
God made human being diverse. All of us are different. We are at different levels of maturity. We are at different levels of education. We come from different cultures. We will see things in the Bible differently for these and many other reasons—not the least of which is that we are all tainted by sin and thus diminished in our capacity to see ourselves clearly, to see God’s word clearly, and to see one another clearly. We need, therefore, to extend as much grace to each other as possible. We need to embrace all who confess Christ and evidence Him in their day to day conduct and not let out peculiar interpretations of the Bible become a cause for dividing from one another and pointing at one another and saying, “We cannot and will not regard them as brethren!”
Herein, is the great weakness and error of many in 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.
Compare the average Church of Christ member to the average Baptist. Both have believed. Both have repented. Both have confessed, and both have been baptized, but the average Church of Christ member affirms he is saved but his Baptist friend is lost. Why?
What began as an effort to return to the Bible and to point out that baptism was not being emphasized enough became an obsession with baptism—no, not with baptism, but with a very narrow, one sided view of baptism. The view was adopted, minds were closed to any further exploration for truth on the subject, lines of fellowship were drawn, and then people went about the business of spreading the heresy.
What it led to was division after division as people began treating other subjects the same way. Whether is was the “one cup,” on the “Sunday school,” or the “covering,” or “divorce and remarriage,” or “the fellowship issue” or whatever, people adopted one angle on the truth, insisted it was the only angle, and said concerning those who disagreed with them, “we cannot and will not regard them as brethren!”
What we need to do is open our minds and try and see the whole picture on baptism and not just the angle that the many in the Church of Christ denomination have indoctrinated us with for years. This is another reason why this debate on baptism is so important.
Is baptism an important element of the Christian’s life? Yes it is. Is baptism a command of God? Yes it is. Shouldn’t a Christian want to obey, and as much as lies within his ability actually obey every command from God? Yes he should!
Having said that, however, obeying outward commands is not the essence of being a Christian. It is an important and essential element of being a Christian, but neither baptism or any other outward work can make one a Christian.
Becoming a Christian involves stepping down from the throne of one’s heart, bowing the knee of the heart, and allowing Jesus to sit down upon that throne. Faith is the essence of being a Christian--a faith that leads one to choose love for God and love for one's fellows as one's purpose in life is the essence of being a Christian. From our standpoint, faith is what it is all about.
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)
John didn’t say, “this is the victory that has overcome the world—our baptism!”
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? That is the question that each person who reads this debate must now answer for himself.