Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
April 12th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
In yesterday’s comments, the subject of baptismal regeneration was briefly considered. In light of the discussion, we thought we would take today and focus on that very topic.
Is water baptism necessary for salvation? No. Let’s examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue:
First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).
If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon’s portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn’t Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles’ being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3—note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter’s message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture—we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn’t contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.
Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture.
With that in mind, let’s look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are several plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis—”because of,” or “on the basis of,” instead of “for.” It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32.
It is also possible to take the clause “and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that “repent” and “your” are plural, while “be baptized” is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read “Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins.” Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).
A third possibility exists, as Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47).
The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.
I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark’s gospel. We can’t discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.
Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word “baptism” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means “to immerse.” Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13).
So Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ’s death and resurrection through “an appeal to God for a good conscience,” or repentance. Again, it is not the outward act that saves, but the internal reality of the Spirit’s regenerating work (cf. Titus 3:4-8).
I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the transcripts my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6.
In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” It is best to connect the phrase “wash away your sins” with “calling on His name.” If we connect it with “be baptized,” the Greek participle epikalesamenos (“calling”) would have no antecedent. Paul’s sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.
Water baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Thanks for this article in response to my questions yesterday. It is very helpful. Keep posting the truth!
“Water baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.”
Very good teaching. Solid. Thanks.
“Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood.”
“What can wash away my sins,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.”
To me it is not a matter of does baptism save you. It is a matter of doing what scripture tells us to do.
#1. The New Testament Church was born on the day of
Pentecost.
#2. The “first” Gospel sermon was preached on the “first” day of the Church.
#3. The “first” time the question was asked, “What shall we do? on the “first” day of the Church, during the “first” Gospel sermon was answered by Peter.
#4. So, the “first” answer given to the “first” question asked, to the “first” Gospel sermon given, on the “first” day of the Church, is good enough for me.
I DO NOT see how I can improve on Peter’s answer.
I suppose some would ask, where is “faith, belief, and confession?” Acts 2:37 seems to make “faith and belief” a given–”When the people heard this, they WERE CUT TO THE HEART…Brothers, what shall we do?”
I believe “cut to the heart” is a clear indication of “faith and belief,” and is leading them to repentance. And I believe that “confession” is wrapped up in “baptism.”
Peter understood that. So when they asked what shall we do? He knew they were cut to the heart; that is, were full of “repentance.”
As far as Luke not recording about baptism in Chapter 3, he had already recording Peter’s answer in Chapter 2.
fishon
Fishon , Amen ! Those on the day of Pentecost had it very clearly stated to them what was necessary to have their sins forgiven and baptism was essential.
Just some thoughts:
1.) Salvation is a 100% work of God.
John Chapter 1
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,
1:13
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
2.) Note that Eph 2:8-9 states “by grace through faith”. It does not say “by grace through faith and.”
3.) If Baptism save then what a Simon in Acts chapter 8.
All to Him only is the Glory of our Salvation
Just some thoughts to add.
In Service to The Master,
Tim S.
Fishon,
Thanks for your comment. It’s not quite clear (to me at least) if you are arguing for baptismal regeneration, or if you are just trying to clarify your understanding of Acts 2:38.
You make the comment: “I believe that ‘confession’ is wrapped up in ‘baptism.’” I think, by this, you mean that baptism is the first step of publicly identifying oneself with Jesus Christ — publicly confessing Him.
We would not disagree with you on that point — that baptism is the Christ-ordained means of publicly identifying oneself with Him and His body. It symbolizes salvation, unity with Christ, and entrance into the church (the body of Christ). But we would contend that both the desire to be baptized and the act of baptism itself are fruits of conversion/salvation, not a prerequisite to or a requirement for conversion/salvation.
Peter himself clarifies in 1 Peter 3:21 that he does not believe the external act of baptism saves. It is not “the removal of dirt from the flesh” (the physical act) that saves, but rather the internal “appeal to God for a good conscience.” Such an appeal is only possible through the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4-8), a regenerating work that occurs at the moment of conversion (not at the moment of water baptism).
That is why, as John MacArthur pointed out in this article, the NT includes examples of those who were saved before being baptized with water. They were regenerated by the Spirit before they performed the physical act.
Thank you again for your comment. I hope this helps.
- NB
For those interested, James White and John Piper also have some helpful thoughts on this important topic.
Baptism is the ” appeal to God for a good conscience.” It is the internal response of faith. It is being saved by grace in that it is the moment of reaching out to recieve the gift of salvation. Baptism is the “washing of rebirth.” Anyone who submits to the Lord’s command to be baptized is expressing faith when believing in that moment of obedience their sins are being forgiven and washed away. It is trusting in the blood of Jesus Christ to forgive sins.
“It [baptism] is trusting in the blood of Jesus Christ to forgive sins.”
Have to disagree here.
“I thank God that I baptised none of you, … For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel”.
Baptism is essential, but it’s apart from salvation. Salvation is clearly by God’s mercy alone.
fishon,
“When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.” Acts 7:54
These hearts were cut, but they hated Stephen.
It’s all about grace my brother, working in the heart from a sovereign Lord having mercy on that hard heart, and making it tender.
“For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God:
Not of works, that no man should glory.
For we are His workmanship”. Eph. 2:8-9
Gentlemen: We must also remember that the penalty of sin is death (not baptism)and that was meet by Jesus Christ on the Cross. Faith in Him, given to us by His Grace, because He was my substitute. My penalty was laid on Him. For me it is to submit and now begin a life obedience to my Lord (my rebellion ends), and that begins with the public profession by the ordinance of Baptism, which is my public profession and 1st step obedience.Question. What about the thief? The thief’s rebellion ended by acknowlegment of Christ. I see no where in the NT that Baptism is a “must” for Salvation. That would become a work of man, not the work of God, which salvation is only a work of God.
For His Service,
Tims.
Paul in writing about not baptizing in Corinth was only responding to the problem of division and looking to man instead of Jesus for Salvation.He did say he baptized Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas. Paul was not against baptism but wrote about the necessity. Gal. 3 : 26 and 27 , Romans 6 :3 and 4 and Col 2 :11 and 12.
Yes , God has saved us by His mercy but there is also our response of faith (Eph 2 : 8 and 9 ) , repentance
Acts 3 : 19 and 20 ), confession (Romans 10 : 9 and 10) and baptism ( I Peter 3 : 21 ). And many other scriptures under each response.
If there is not an individual obedient response to God’s mercy, grace and love then Jesus died for all men and all are saved and that leads to universalism.And universalism is a false doctrine.
Hebrews 5 : 8 teaches the necessity of obedience for salvation.
God is sovereign, and gives us His mercy and grace. And anyone who will can be saved through obedient faith.
It means we have to teach the total teaching about salvation.
Ray,
Are you asserting that water baptism is a necessary prerequisite for salvation, or that it is an expected fruit (i.e. result) of saving faith?
Also, here is an extended quote from John Piper regarding 1 Peter 3:21 … I think it’s helpful:
***
Now there are some denominations that love this verse because it seems at first to support the view called “baptismal regeneration.” That is, baptism does something to the candidate: it saves by bringing about new birth. So, for example, one of the baptismal liturgies for infants says, “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks.”
Now the problem with this is that Peter seems very aware that his words are open to dangerous misuse. This is why, as soon as they are out of his mouth, as it were, he qualifies them lest we take them the wrong way. In verse 21 he does say, “Baptism now saves you” – that sounds like the water has a saving effect in and of itself apart from faith. He knows that is what it sounds like and so he adds immediately, “Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (Or your version might have: “the pledge of a good conscience toward God”).
But the point seems to be this: When I speak of baptism saving, Peter says, I don’t mean that the water, immersing the body and cleansing the flesh, is of any saving effect; what I mean is that, insofar as baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience,” (or is “a pledge of a good conscience toward God”), it saves. Paul said in Romans 10:13, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord – everyone who appeals to the Lord – will be saved.” Paul does not mean that faith alone fails to save. He means that faith calls on God. That’s what faith does. Now Peter is saying, “Baptism is the God-ordained, symbolic expression of that call to God. It is an appeal to God – either in the form of repentance or in the form of commitment. (Online Source)
Nate B. ,
All I am saying is what scripture teaches about baptism being necessary for salvation. Just as faith, repentance and confession are all essential.
As to I Peter 3 : 21 : No , baptism is” not the removal of dirt from the flesh ” but baptism is ” an appeal to God for a clear conscience. ” The conscience is clear because God’s command is obeyed. Sins are washed away.
Ray,
Thank you for your response.
I must admit I’m still a bit confused by your position. I appreciate your desire to stick with what Scripture teaches about baptism. I hope that everyone in this discussion has that same desire. We certainly do here at Grace Church.
What I find confusing is how you can assert that water baptism is necessary for salvation, in light of the following:
1) The fact that Scripture clearly states that human works are not necessary for salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5)
2) Peter’s own clarification in 1 Peter 3:21, that it is not the physical act of water baptism that saves. The external act is merely symbolic of the internal cleansing that takes place at the moment of conversion; it is only the internal cleansing (that God does) that saves.
3) The numerous places in Scripture where salvation is conditioned on repentant faith, and nothing more (Luke 24:48; John 3:16; Acts 3:19; 16:31; 17:30; Rom. 10:9; etc.). Repentant faith is a gift from God (2 Tim. 2:25) which results in good works (or “fruits of repentance”).
4) The examples of those, in Scripture, who were saved apart from water baptism (as noted in the article). Also, examples in which salvation preceded water baptism (Acts 10:44-48).
5) Paul’s reluctance to baptize in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14-17). In verse 17, Paul explicitly differentiates between the gospel of salvation and the symbolic act of baptism. He says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.” In Romans 1:16, Paul noted that the gospel (which he saw as distinct from baptism) is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.”
6) Even Jesus apparently did not baptize during His earthly ministry (John 4:2).
It should also be noted that in Acts 2:39, Peter emphasizes the call of God in salvation (cf. John 6:37; Acts 13:48). This underscores Peter’s understanding that salvation is based on the irresistable call of God, and not on a human work like water baptism.
Peter is also the one who omitted baptism in his later gospel messages in Acts 3, 4, 5, 10, and 11 — even though he reiterates concepts like belief and repentance. Peter also affirmed Paul’s teachings when he asserted that Paul’s writings are on par with “the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter. 3:15-16).
Thank you again for your comments. It is always a joy to go to Word of God to examine what we believe (Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:20-22).
- NB
Nate B.
You are right , what a joy to explore the magnificence of God’s word.
In response to your comments :
1. Human works are not what saves you. It is not hunan merit No argument. But baptism is a response of obedient faith not human merit. If it is then any response to the preaching of the gospel would be considered human merit. That would even be true of faith ,repentance and confession.
2. Peter does clarify that baptism is the appeal for a clear conscience. The symbolism is Noah and the ark. Those who are baptized respond from an inner conviction of faith.
3. Any of us can isolate just one scripture. Romans 10 : 9 and 10 speak of faith and confession but not about repentance. Of course any study of faith , a comprehensive study , will conclude that true faith will result in repentance but also the desire to be baptized. The same would be true in Acts 3 :19 . No mention of faith or confession . But any study of repentance would conclude that those who repent believe ( or why even bother to repent ) , would not hesitate to confess their faith in Jesus and then to be united in Christ through baptism.
4. Those who were baptized in Acts 10 were not saved until they were baptized . In the book of Acts there was a lot of transition and the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit was to show the Jews that yes the Gentiles can be saved.
5.Paul was reluctant to baptize some because of their division of following men and not Jesus. He did baptize some in Corinth. No, those who preach are not baptizers , even though we do . Our main mandate is to preach but that does not mean we do not emapahsize the command to be baptized. And yes the gospel is the power of God for those who belive. And when there are open hearts to the preaching of the gospel they also will respond in obedient faith. In Acts 18 : 8 several in Corinth believed and were baptized.
6. Jesus did not baptize in John 4 because he had not yet died and been raised. In baptism we are buried and raised with Him. Roamans 6: 3 and 4 . Later He did command baptism for all disciples in Matthew 28 : 18- 20.
John 6 : 37. In verse 40 , it is God’s will that those who believe in the Son shall have eternal life .
That is how anyone is called , by hearing and reponding to the will of the Father found in His word, the scriptures.
Thanks for the discussion.
Ray,
Are you asserting in your fourth point that God poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his family in Acts 10 before they were saved? If so, that is completely contrary to everything else in Scripture regarding salvation. Only those who are saved have the Holy Spirit.
“Yes , God has saved us by His mercy but … ”
No buts Ray. Sorry, but I think you are set in your mind that unless a person is baptized, he is yet to be saved.
Please give me your concise interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9, if you would? Thanks.
If you understand God’s role in salvation,there is no way that baptism is necessary for salvation. A Reformed understanding of baptism, which is biblical, rules out baptism.
Further, both repentance and faith are understood as gifts from God as fruits of regeneration (Acts 10:43-11:18; Rom 3:23-26; Eph 2:8,9). Baptism is never seen as a gift for conversion. Repentance and faith are the prerequisites (Acts 20:21).
Next, by definition baptism is a ritual. It stands for something, for that is the true nature of a ritual (Rom 6:3-4).
I grew up church of Christ, which subscribes to baptismal regeneration, but my reading of Romans and Galations changed all that.
Now I can say that I am fully Reformed. Sola fide is Scriptural.
Ray,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to each of my points. I would like to make a few comments in response.
You wrote: 1. Human works are not what saves you. It is not hunan merit No argument.
My response: Agreed.
You wrote: But baptism is a response of obedient faith not human merit. If it is then any response to the preaching of the gospel would be considered human merit. That would even be true of faith ,repentance and confession.
My response: Here we would disagree. Faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Repentance is a gift of God (2 Tim. 2:25). But water baptism is not called a “gift” in Scripture. It is, instead, a work of obedience — an ordinance prescribed by Christ which symbolizes the believer’s unity with Christ and with His body, the church.
You wrote: 2. Peter does clarify that baptism is the appeal for a clear conscience. The symbolism is Noah and the ark. Those who are baptized respond from an inner conviction of faith.
My response: If those who are baptized respond from an inner conviction of faith, then saving faith must precede baptism. This is precisely what we believe the Bible teaches (that salvation precedes water baptism and is not conditional upon it).
You wrote: 3. … any study of faith , a comprehensive study , will conclude that true faith will result in repentance but also the desire to be baptized.
My response: It is quite different to argue that “faith will result in … the desire to be baptized” than it is to argue that “baptism is necessary for salvation.” We would agree that true faith (repentant faith) results in the desire to obey, and that water baptism is a matter of obedience. We would not agree, however, that salvation is conditioned upon water baptism.
You wrote: 4. Those who were baptized in Acts 10 were not saved until they were baptized.
My response: I find that statement hard to accept when I read the account in Acts 10. These Gentile converts received the Holy Spirit in the same way as the apostles (v. 47) before they were baptized. Your position posits that the Holy Spirit indwelt those who were not yet saved, even endowing them with spiritual gifts, such that the unsaved worshipped God and spoke in tongues. That is a very difficult position to defend.
You wrote: 5.Paul was reluctant to baptize some because of their division of following men and not Jesus. … And yes the gospel is the power of God for those who belive.
My response: In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul shows that he believes the gospel and water baptism to be two separate things. The gospel, which he calls the “word of the cross” in the next verse, is the power to save (see v. 18). In fact, later in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, Paul explicitly tells his readers that it is through the gospel (no mention of baptism) that they are saved (v. 2). How can the gospel alone save, if it is actually the gospel plus water baptism that saves?
You wrote: In baptism we are buried and raised with Him. Roamans 6: 3 and 4.
My response: We would contend that Romans 6 is not talking about water baptism, but rather about Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13), which takes place for every believer at the moment of conversion (Titus 3:4-8). In fact, I think you may at times be confusing Spirit baptism (the internal reality) with water baptism (the physical symbol).
Spirit baptism (the cleansing work of regeneration and the spiritual reality of being placed in the body of Christ) is necessary for salvation. It is wholly a work of God, and does not involve actual water. On the other hand, water baptism (the physical act that symbolizes Spirit baptism) is a human work of obedience which takes place after salvation and not as a condition for it.
At the same time, we would be very concerned about a professing Christian who had no desire to be baptized. You are correct in noting that those who are truly saved, having been transformed by God from the inside out, are given the desire to obey His commands. Baptism, though not a meritorious work, is a clear command in Scripture. Those who continually and deliberately disregard it raise serious questions as to the legitimacy their own professed conversion.
Thanks again for the interchange. May the Lord be honored as we seek the truth of His Word.
- NB
Nate B,
Though I do not believe that baptism is meritorious either, I do believe it is a command of our Lord to be identified with him. And I would be hard press to totally dismiss Rom 6 as referring to water baptism.
One does not have to surrender on sola fide by conceding that Romans 6 is referring to water baptism (See Moo on this). “Planted in the likeness of…” must be symbolic and not spiritual. Water baptism demonstrates that.
Is Col 2:12 to be understood as spiritual or water baptism? Even though Paul and the Cornelius and his household and Lydia were all Spirit-baptized they followed the internal with the external sign of baptism immediately.
I think Paul was point to those NT antinomians in Rome to their water-baptism which was a powerful sign of their identification with Christ.
Though water baptism is a ritual, it is not an empty ritual. Through it with display our identification and commitment to Christ.
Paul, to my understanding, did not baptize because he did not want division in the church. But Peter had the authority, Christ given, to bind on earth and loose on earth what would be bound or loosed in heaven. (To me that means that Peter’s direction to the crowd of Pentacost carried much weight and I apply this point to what Peter says as answer to the question “what must we do?” in Acts 2)
The passage in Acts where they found believers filled with the Spirit and not baptized is God’s revalation that the message is good for gentile and jew alike. Up until that time there is some evidence of a reluctance (I put that lightly) to preach to non jews. Not to mention the fact that it was literally unlawful for a jew and gentile to intermix (i believe).
Baptism is not stressed everywhere, neither is faith, or prayer, or repentance for that matter. Does that negate any of those points as it was said to negate baptism’s validiy/necesity?
To use a quite human example, Can you make an apple pie without apples. Sure apples are only mentioned on one line of the ingrediants, not even stressed on the other lines at all, but miss this line and what do you end up with. Even if you used apple flavoring to substitute is it really an apple pie?
Even if your teacher, pastor, and mom said differently, the original recipe holds true as the authentic real one that people should use. Peter was clear, Jesus was clear, I even think Paul was clear (I do think Roman 6 was about water), and yet I will read through your study in detail.
Thanks for the message and any responses are welcome.
Finally, as the bible says, “let God be true and every man a liar”, we’ll let the bible say what it will (i hope)
hc
One of you is clearly defining “salvation” in the sense of one moment in person’s life. The other is bordering on a definition of “salvation” as a process. Of course you will not reach agreement in your discussion about baptism. You both need to understand that all of scripture ultimately defines “salvation” as a person. Salvation is Jesus. That is why we talk about salvation as having a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ. Baptism brings us closer to Jesus in a REAL way. God has bound grace to baptism but He is not bound by baptism. You are both arguing from different directions. Certainly we are saved by grace alone, but the process of abiding in Christ is obedience. He will not save us against our will. Scripture speaks of salvation past, present, and future. It is best understood as a person, not limited to a particular moment of time in a person’s life. Salvation is defined by Jesus, not us. It is dynamic!
This is where Calvinism makes itself irrelavent. If we have no choice about salvation, then the dicussion about obedience (baptism) is irrelavent.
Hampton ,
The household of Cornelius was a special situation during the infancy of the church . The miraculous giving of the Holy Spirit was to prove to the Jews that the Gentiles could also be saved. Thre were other special manifestations of the Holy Spirit in Acts and all of them did not follow in the same sequence. The disciples of John the Baptist were baptized and after Paul laid hands on them then they received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. Yes , even those disciples could now be saved and follow Jesus as His disciples.
donsands,
Eph. 2 : 8 and 9 . Salvation is a gift from God to be received by faith. Faith comes from hearing the word of God. Real saving faith is an obedient faith.
Nate B.
The gift of Eph. 2 is salvation. Repentance comes from the gentle teaching we must do in the passage from 2 Tim. 2 : 24 – 26. Certainly saving faith must precede baptism. Jesus said it must be faith and then baptism and then salvation. Mark 16 : 16. The core of the gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus . Then there is the response to it. There is the gospel and then there is faith , confession , repentance and baptism. Knowing the glory of the gospel must precede any reponse to the gospel. No I ,am not confusing the Holy Spirit and baptism. Romans 6 is better understood if the better English word immersion was used. It is the word I use more often. Being buried with Him and raised with Him is involved in baptism / immersion for the forgiveness of sins. Not a response of human merit , no one can be saved by human merit, but a response of obedient faith.
Thanks for the discussion.
“Eph. 2 : 8 and 9 . Salvation is a gift from God to be received by faith. Faith comes from hearing the word of God. Real saving faith is an obedient faith”
Amen. And when the lord saves a soul, that same soul will have a desire to be baptized I’m sure, for a sign of his salvation.
donsands,
More than sign but for the purpose of being saved because a soul has responded in faith.
So after God saves a soul, then if that same soul is not baptized, even though he is saved by God, he is not saved??
Very confusing Ray, I must say. Don’t see this in the Holy Writ.
All I can say is what I beleive the scriptures teach about the whole teaching about the plan of salvation. I have to go out of town this weekend but can continue the discussion next week.
tc r,
Thanks for your comment. You are right in noting that Moo sees Romans 6:3 as a reference to water baptism. You are also right in noting that it is possible (per Moo and others) to see water baptism in Romans 6 and yet reject baptismal regeneration.
That being said, we would see the passage more from the perspective of Dunn, who writes:
***
[It is likely] that Paul is here taking up a metaphorical usage already familiar in Christian tradition. We know that there was a well-established tradition of John the Baptist heralding one who would baptize, not with water as John himself did, but in Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). We know too that Jesus himself probably took up and adapted this metaphor by referring it to his own death (Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:49-50). Luke tells us that it was familiar in the earliest days of the new movement, particularly with reference to Pentecost and similar initiatory experiences of the Spirit (Acts 1:5; 11:16). And the most obvious way of understanding 1 Cor 12:13 is that Paul himself knew and made use of the same metaphor on his own account–”we were all baptized in one Spirit into one body.” When such a usage, so closely parallel to Rom 6:3, was so widely known in early Christian tradition, it hardly seems necessary to look further afield for the point of contact with his readers which Paul assumes in 6:3. As Paul clearly implies elsewhere, the initiating experience of the Spirit was usually very vivid, an event often deeply moving and profoundly transforming, which the young Chrisitans would have no difficulty in recalling (e.g. 5:5; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 1:21-22; Gal 3:3, 5; 1 Thess 1:6). Certainly Paul of all people would take it for granted that all believers were bonded together by a common experience of grace (e.g. 5:17; 1 Cor. 1:4-5; 15:10; 2 Cor 6:1; Gal 1:6), by a common participation in the one Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 12:13; 2 Cor 13:13; Phil 2:1; Eph 4:3). It is probably his readers’ experience of this grace, of this Spirit, to which Paul here refers, using a metaphor whose familiarity he could equally take for granted.
(James Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, 327-28).
***
I include this section from Dunn, not to be argumentative (since we both agree on the non-meritorious nature of water baptism), but rather to show some of the exegetical thinking behind our understanding of Romans 6:3.
Hope that this is helpful. Thanks again for your comment.
- NB
Nate B,
Thanks for the piece from Jimmy Dunn and letting me know that that is the view you share. But we do agree that it is not a passage for baptismal regeneration.
And I am in complete agreement we your use of 1Cor 12:13 in the light of Pauline theology.
Tcr
Ray B,
It seems like you are arguing for baptismal regeneration. It is not a matter about isolating passages. It is what the Scriptures teach.
A person appropriates the blood of Christ through faith (Rom 3:25, ESV, note that Greek prep. “dia” is instrumental). Besides, Paul gives his own soteriology from Rom 3:21-5:1.
It is clearly a misreading of Scripture to say that Cornelius and his were saved only after they were baptized. See Acts 15:6-9 and how Cornelius episode was interpreted. He and his were clearly saved before water-baptism, when the Spirit overwhelmed him and his and they were purified by faith (see FF Bruce on the syntax of this passage).
It is either sola fide or faith plus something else. Isn’t that the teaching of Paul? See Gal 2:16; Phil 3:9; Rom 9:31).
You’re right in saying that baptism doesn’t save anyone and that is why Reformed Theology is correct in infant baptism. Does anyone really believe that their children are not in some way members and apart of the church? When households in the NT were baptized and thus brought into the church does anyone really believe that no one had infants? Of course they had infants! Everyone in the household was baptized…it doesn’t say everyone in the household except infants and undiscerning children. Most people include their child under the title of household.
It really does come down to definitions faith and discernment,,, a line such as “immersion for the forgiveness of sins”,,, makes me think of a baptism for a reason,,, for the forgiving of sin,,, let me ask, does it happen to say anywhere near this that “this baptism now doth save us”???
water baptism is clearly eviedent whenever baptism “in the name of Christ” is mentioned in acts it is specifically speaking about water (but yes there are different baptisms),,,
it should not be lost when speaking on or thinking about cornelius that his household was saved already as a rebuke to Peter specifically and a message to everyone that salvation was now available to greek and jew,,, now what happened next- peter went and explained this to the brothers in Jeruselem- and those brothers still had trouble with the idea of salvation itself for the non Jew,,, i will not say salvation is granted through baptism only, and nobody should ever say such a rediculous statement,,, no, any sinner who is baptised wrongly simply will come up a wet sinner,,, it takes a lot more than baptism to save,,, but it seems to be as important as prayer or repentance or faith is in the process,,, by the way, when we pray isn’t that something (an volitional act) we are required to do for salvation??? is baptism any different, did those of us who are baptised lower ourselves into the water and back up again or were we lowered in by loving brother’s arms and then lifted back out with a feeling of joy throughout??? it doesn’t seem so much like something we did on our own, or something we can do specifically to save ourself when i look at it from that perspective,,, i hope you can see that
but what about the mongolian prisoner who can’t get baptised??? those who, for whatever reason, can’t get baptised- don’t know the truth- are prevented from action by disability or restrictions— does God save them or are they doomed,,, simply put this is God’s call as to if they will get to heaven or not,,, i am quite confident in God’s ability to make this call correctly for all of us
let me know if i err — i look forward to reading your answers
hc
All Ican say is what scripture states. I cannot find the scriipture that says baptism is a work of human merit. I do not find that language anywhere in scripture. Why does baptism have to be eliminated for salvation when faith , repentance and confession are all essential And all of those call for a person to make some kind of response. The jailer said what must I do to be saved ? He had to do something in response. Those on Pentecost were asked what they had to do. Peter told them to save themselves . Yes salvation is a gift but a gift is either rejected or accepted. Accepting it is through faith, repentance , confession and baptism . If baptism is a work of merit as you are stating then so is any kind of obedience. But there is a vast difference between human woks of merit where a person puts his security only in his own effort and the obedience of faith. Again , it is the complete plan of salvation.
Sorry about some of the incorrect spelling in the last answer. I was in a hurry. And very tired. I also cannot find a scripture that uses the expression “baptismal regeneration.” Yes, the scripture states the importance of baptism and salvation. Read I Peter 3 : 19 -21 . Baptism : Answer of a good conscience toward God.
well stated Ray B.,,, I believe we agree,,,
I started the study of Baptism as a requirement for salvation after realizing that my old church teaches it while 90 plus percent of other churches do not (got me thinking why),,, I went through the Bible new test. and old with a fine tooth comb and could not justify the “pray your way into heaven” approach perpetuated by the mainstream,,, I am, of course, open minded and willing to revisit the issue (which is why I am here)
this is a more important issue than one might think however,,, because we are talking about salvation,,, this is not an issue that can be swept under the rug as a you believe your way i believe mine,,, well, for those of us who believe it is a requirement it is, for the opposing side it can be just that as it is not attached to salvation for them,,,
a close study will reveal that it was critically important to the 1st century church and it is to us too,,, in fact, baptism seems to be one of the first things that seemed to always come up immediately, ie they appear to have the spirit = they should be baptized,,,
i will check back later for more responses,,, thank you brothers and sisters for the discussion
hc
I just finished reading Acts 3 and here are a few thoughts
while it is correct that Peter is not recorded as mentioning baptism,,, in Acts 4 we see that Peter and his companions were seized and imprisoned during this event,,, maybe he never even had the chance to finish his “sermon”,,, we see from Acts four that there were many added to the flock from this but there maybe was not the spontaneous utterance from the crowd of “What must we do?” or at least it is not recorded,,, without this question being directly asked in mass, and having already covered the issue in Acts 2 it maybe that it would not really be an accurate depiction of the day to mention baptism,,, after all the bible never says “and he should have taught/said”, instead it shows what was actually taught, what actually occurred as it happened
hc
The author states that: “Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.”
Yet when Paul met believers he did not hesitate to discern their state and tell them the truth and finally baptize them in water:
Acts 19 (NIV)
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[b] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.
Also significant, John’s baptism (repentance) is not enough in and of itself, belief is included here
Finally, anywhere in Acts where it mentions someone being “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Jesus Christ) it is referring to water baptism
From the article: “The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter’s message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).”
First the thief on the cross and any pre-pentacost person was not necessarily subject to baptism as a requirement – Peter had Christ’s authority and uttered binding words on the day of Pentacost.
Second: Already discussed the meaning of Cornelius in previous post. Yes, God is free to use us as object lessons to other Christians in order to reveal the truth.
Finally: If we really need the Holy Spirit as evidence of our salvation should we all not speak in tongues as proof of our salvation??? of course not!!! the fact being mentioned here simply supports a bigger reason for the visit by Peter.
hc
Response to the article as written.
Acts 2:38 (NIV)
38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
MacGuire states:
“It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis—”because of,” or “on the basis of,” instead of “for.” It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. …”
Yes, this is possible
but look below…
Mark 16:16 (NIV)
16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
I don’t know how many ways AND can not mean AND. If Mr MacGuire asked his wife to pick up the kids and the dry cleaning and she brought home only the kids she has not fulfilled his wishes.
Jesus himself gave this mandate to His followers. Should we take it as simply our choice as to what was actually intended or simply obey.
(As to the authenticity of the verse all I can say is that it is in my Bible)
and more….
1 Peter 18-22
18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[d] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Even if it does not always mean baptized, that is how the word is rendered here. I am going to assume that the authors and translators knew the original language better than me. It seems to me that baptism is set up here as a requirement but not the sole requirement for salvation. As with the next example, we see that baptism alone does not save. It is not just taking a bath and getting outside clean. But that still does not mean that it can be discounted as a requirement.
We are taken to Paul’s conversion. The directive was given to wash away sins, by the calling on His name. Wash away may or may not mean with water. But the imagery seems clear to me.
I think this issue is not really open for discussion. Once the truth is revealed it must be obeyed. The worst part is our (everyone’s) desire to have the scripture follow what they believe at the cost of what it actually says. MacGuire falls to this a little when he sees a teaching contradicting what he has been taught and seeming looks automatically for why he is right and it is wrong.
hc
hiccera ,
Amen and thank you ! I will ditto you in saying it is not baptism alone, or faith alone, or repentance alone or confession alone it is all of these. All have to do with receiving the gift of salvation.
Hiccera,
I’m not a professional theologian, but just quickly glancing through your comment on Mark 16:16, it only says “whoever does not believe will be condemned”…it doesn’t also say “whoever does not get baptized will be condemned.” Obviously, there is some significant weight placed on believing that is not placed on baptism…
Hiccera,
p.s. Do you sleep?
Kevin,
If a person does not beleive then they will not obey the command to be baptized. Still the first part of the verse says beleif plus baptism brings salvation. Baptism is a part of the reception of the gift of salvation.
I beleive that God chooses folks souls he knows will endure. The baptizee must beleive in himself that the baptizm is his chance to lead other people to the Lord, but only by example will the authenticity of his integrity carry him through. And even though none of us baptized is perfect and we fall short, we understand that God chose us. And so we must get right and don’t repeat our sins. We must be ambassadors of Christ and take heed His word, and love one another no matter what. You can do all things through Christ. Amen and be blessed.
all things through Christ but not much of anything through our own strength alone
hc
and yes i do sleep,,, but i work graveyard shift a few nights a week
Hiccera
Again , thank you and Amen. It is God who enables us to be forgiven because of His love, the sacrifice of His Son and the obedient response to the glorious gospel.
…the obedient response that occurs of necessity because of the sovereign grace alone of a Sovereign God through His gift of faith…
Hiccera,
Bummer on the graveyard shift. Those are never easy.
And faith comes by hearing the word of God. Romans 10 : 17.
i was thinking about mk1616 again,,, you remember all those questions that people always are asking, like “what about the indian in alaska, or the prisoner on death row (although many don’t reralize but there is still a good chance that he could get baptised if he went through the proper channels as they are not 24/7 in their cells)” ,,, but maybe the second clause looks forward to these situations,,, and as i said before,,, the person who believes and is not baptised becomes God’s call as to if he makes it to heaven or not
Ray,
And faith comes by hearing the word of God. Romans 10:17.
Hearing the Word, but, not by baptism…
God is sovereign over the ends (Romans 9) and the means (Romans 10)…
hey kev,,,
thanks for the good words,,, but it is clearly stated that you must be baptized,,, yes, we need faith too, and a couple of other things,,, but good point nonetheless
hc
we need faith too, and a couple of other things
Hmm…I guess that’s where we disagree. Faith alone saves, but not a faith that is alone…James 2:14-17.
However, we shouldn’t confuse the works with the gift of faith by God’s grace. That opens the door to taking pride in our own accomplishments, i.e., my decision, my intelligence, my spiritual sensitivity, rather than humble thankfulness for the free grace of a sovereign God. Ephesians 2 speaks well to this.
Verses 8-10 say, “For by grace you have been saved through faith [KR: Notice it doesn't add baptism]. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not 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, that we should walk in them.”
The works, like the obedience of baptism, were prepared beforehand, “that we should walk in them,” but they are not what saves us. When I read passages like this one, I want to make sure that my theology is one that magnifies what God has done, not what I do.
Humble obedience in baptism, and other good works, is a necessary response to saving faith. It is not the thing that saves. Repentance of sin and faith in Christ as our substitute for the judgment of our sin leading to the turning from our sin to Christ is what saves.
hiccera ,
You are absolutely right. It is not by faith alone. The gift in Eph. 2 is the gift of salvation not faith. And true saving faith is an obedient faith. And when anyone is immersed / baptized they are responding in obedient faith for salvation. It is the moment when a person accepts the gift of salvation : a gift that can be either accepted or rejected.Baptism / immersion is not a work of merit. It is never described in those words in the scripture. All of salvation begins with the sacrifice of Jesus . The gospel. It is difficult to uderstand why so many say it is necessary to believe , repent , confess and then deny baptism as an essential response of a believer for salvation.
Consider the following passages : Mark 16 :16 , Acts 2: 38 , Acts 22 :16 , Gal. 3 : 26 and 27 , Col. 2 : 12 , Rom. 6 : 3 and 4 , and I Peter 3 : 19 – 22. None of those passages say anything about baptism being a work of merit. Notice how many are connected to faith.
If a person loves Jesus they will obey Him. Just obey the simple command to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Ray,
The gift in Eph. 2 is the gift of salvation not faith.
Actually, the gift is all of it, start to finish. Salvation, grace, faith…it’s all a gift. Even first year Greek geeks will tell you that what is translated as “it” as in “and this not of yourselves; it is a gift of God,” is neuter.
Grace and faith are masculine and feminine nouns (although I can’t for the life of me remember which is which). So, the neuter “it” looks for a neuter noun to modify. Not seeing one it refers to everything before it. It’s all a gift. A saving gift. And a list of gifts that still does not require baptism to accept it.
Kevin ,
There is scripture after scripture as I ponted out that teaches the necessity of baptism for salvation just as it is necessary to have faith, repentance and confession. And that is just the initial reponse.Then there is the life of sanctification and growing into the likeness of Jesus Christ.
Faith comes from hearing the word of God. Romans 10 :17. Sure , salvation is a gift received by faith which comes from hearing the word and the obedience of repentance, confession and baptism. Those who obey will be saved.Heb. 5 :8.There is so much to say about salvation. Saved by His blood, the gospel , obedience,etc.
If Abraham’s circumcision, the outward symbol of his inward change/covenant with God, is not counted to him as righteousness, then how can we say that baptism is? (Romans)
People who adhere to baptism as part of salvation like to use the first part of Mark 16, but ususally stop before the end of the verse where it says, “BUT he that believeth not is damned.” It doesn’t say that he that believeth not and is not baptized is damned. I believe if baptism where essential, then God would have included that. This is also found in a questionable portion of scripture.
Let me ask this:
A man is aved in church and has to walk across the street for his baptism ceremony immediately after he gets saved. He is then hit by a car walking across the street and dies before he can be baptized. Heaven or Hell?
1. If he goes to Hell, then his faith in Christ wasn’t enough to get him in.
2. If he goes to Heaven, then faith in Jesus alone is enough and baptism is not necessary.
Good thoughts, Chris. I completely agree.
Baptism is not an outward mark like circumcision. Col 2 : 11 and 12 . Baptism is essential to salvation. I hear what people say about the first part of Mark 16 : 16 but it is there. I Peter 3 : 21 states it : ” baptism that now saves you also. “It is a truth . Acts 2 :38 says it is necessary for forgiveness of sins. Acts 22 :16 says baptism is when sins are washed away. It is truth and it is there. Gal. 3 : 26 and 27 , baptism is the time of uniting with Christ.
If a man walks across the street and is already saved then why worry about him being baptized. However a person is not saved until there is the obeying of the gospel. Baptism is necessary along with faith , repentance and confession. Why is it so hard to accept baptism as important when scripture teaches the necessity of faith , repentance and confession ? All are involved in accepting the gift of salvation , the gift gven to those who will accept it through obedient faith.
When Mark 16 is looked at in its entirety, the condemnation falls on those that believe not, not those who have been baptized not.
Do we not believe in salvation by Grace? Baptism is a work performed on man by man. There is nothing we can do to earn salvation.
Beyond all of this, are we saying all the Old Testament saints are in hell because they were not baptized into Christ? The Bible plainly says in 1st Corinthians that the Israelites were baptozed into Moses when they crossed through the Red Sea with the cloud over them. Hebrews tells us that the OT saints are in heaven, CH 11.
If it depends upon obedience, at what point are they saved? Surely it is at the point of acceptance (repentence and confession) of the free gift of God.
The first part of Mark 16 tells us who is saved. Anyone who does not beleive will not be baptized.
Baptism is not about earning salvation. If it is then all our responses would be including faith,repentance and confession. Any response to grace is a reaching out to receive the gift.
Heb. 9 : 15 gives the answer to those of the Old Testament. Now we are in the New Testament.
Heb. 5 : 8 teaches the necessity of obedience for salvation.
There is the acceptance of the free gift with belief , repentance, confession and baptism.
Now we are in the New Testament.
Has God changed? Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Where is the biblical record of his baptism?
Paul uses an OT patriarch to exemplify what saves NT believers: Faith alone. Rom. 4:1-12; Gal. 3:1-14 (v. 14 – so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. Notice it’s not by faith and baptism).
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. Heb. 9:15
Am I missing something here? This says that a death, Christ’s, redeems them from sins committed under the first covenant. Faith in the promised death of Christ…where’s baptism in this? Incidentally, do you realize that it only applies to those who are called? Just a side note…
Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. Heb. 5:8
This is a verse about Christ. Are you saying that baptism is suffering? If salvation only comes through some external rite, which rite saved Abraham, since his faith in God’s promise was counted as righteousness before circumcision? Before the law? Before the temple?
With all due respect, Ray, what you are arguing is regeneration through baptism. That’s a Roman Catholic doctrine.
Do you also believe in infused righteousness as opposed to imputed righteousness? Is the righteousness of Christ something we have to keep pulling into us through meritorious works in order to be saved? Do we have to inflict suffering upon ourselves to earn the merit of Christ? Or are we truly justified by a foreign righteousness, that of Christ, once and for all?
I would say the only obedience required for salvation is that you have to obey the directive to repent and accept. Nothing more.
Beyond that, there is obedience to be baptized, to love God, to love one another….
I tried to answer but I guess I forgot to enter submit comment. Excuse me for being so technically challenged. I think that is the way you say it today.
I will soon be out of town for several days but will get back to this great discussion.
Kevin , How do you make a comment on your blog ? Again ,excuse my incompetence.
Ray,
Well, it’s a five-person committee-intense process, actually…I’m a Southern Baptist…
Click on the comments link at the bottom of the post you want to address. Once you’ve written your comment, click “Publish.” Watch for the entry of the random letter codes that Blogger makes you do if the comments are moderated. I do moderate to keep automated spammers off my blog. Also, I avoid publishing anonymous comments. It tends to cut down on the venom.
Hit publish when you’re done. I’ll publish it if there’s no cussing or no over-the-top venom. You shouldn’t have a problem, Ray.
If you do, email me and I’ll try to talk you through it. Look forward to seeing you there.
I tried a post earlier today but do not see it so here goes again.
Mk1616– What if a man walking across the street…? I believe I put in my opinion on this that it is entirely up to God where his soul winds up. Just as it is up to God where thr soul of an aborted fetus winds up or any innocent child who dies. We are held to what we should know and do understanding however and this does not apply to us. We are alive and know what the bible says. May we always simply obey it.
Secondly: The first part of the verse Jesus says he who believes and is baptised. So why leave baptised out of the second part, is that proof that only belief is needed. Maybe but consider this. It may be that there is not a doubt that somehow baptism will be considered to be unnecessary. He who believes will be baptised period. If you are certain of this it may even seem redundant to add baptism to the second half. Additionally, he who does not believe will in no wise be baptsed, so no need to mention in the second part of the verse.
My question is simple, does not mentioning baptism in the second half really take away the “and” from the first part?
hc
Now, as to the Roman Catholic doctrine I ask simply can we leave religion out of our conversation. No matter where it comes from good doctrine is good doctrine. Truth is truth even if a liar utters it. This being said all of us need to be careful not to swallow what is given to us without any second thought.
hc
If the reformers rediscovery of the pure gospel: sola fide is correct, and it is, then no one can say that rite of baptism saves.
Sola fide is at the heart of Romans, Paul’s great letter. A careful, exegetical study of Romans 3:20-5:1, would prove detrimental to attributing salvation to water-baptism or any other rite.
I too struggled with water-baptism but Paul rescued me. Please, look at his careful argument for sola fide, faith alone in Romans 4.
The same way Abraham was justified is the same way every true believer is justified. That is why he became the father of the faithful (Rom 4:9-11; Gal 3:6-9).
Baptism then serves as the believers sweet proclamation of saving faith in Christ and a fitting identification with Christ (Gal 3:26,27). I wish I can delve into the Greek on this issue. Maybe for the next comment.
hiccera ,
I too have tried to write some reponses but they were not going through. Probably my problem.
Today , I have some time before leaving and can enter the discussion and hope it all goes through.
Your point is well taken. The first part of Mark 16 : 16 is there. Just obey. The person who will not believe will never obey.
The person who will not believe will never obey.
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that baptism isn’t a true believer’s obedience to Christ. What you guys are arguing is that baptism is a necessary condition for salvation, i.e., we add to the work of God in salvation and that salvation is not by faith alone in the finished work of Christ.
You keep blending those two concepts with the Scriptures you choose. Baptism is a sign of the change wrought in Christ. It is a command, and therefore a first sign of the believer’s obedience to his Lord.
But, faith in the baptism does not save. Faith in your act of confession does not save. Faith in your act of repentance does not save. Faith alone in Christ alone to the Glory of God alone is what saves.
Those other actions are a consequence of the grace by which you have been saved, if indeed you are in Christ. I get really concerned when people argue that some action saved them.
God saves sinners. The fruit of that gift of saving faith is repentance, confession, baptism, growth in the fruits of the Spirit, and the other good works that have been prepared for God’s elect from before the foundation of the world.
When we take away from faith in Christ alone, then we rob God of His glory and engage in idolatry to the extent we create a god of our imaginations that does not reflect the whole counsel of God in the Scriptures.
That is the error of the Roman Catholics. Putting faith in a baptism or any of the other synergistic hybrid doctrines is nothing less than a step away from the Reformers and a step back toward Rome.
Placing faith in Jesus is exactly what happens when anyone is baptized. I have yet to find a scripture that says salvation is by faith alone. The “alone” has been added by other than the scripture. James 2 : 24 does teach about faith alone not justifying.
What else can Mark 16 : 16 mean . The first part.
They are the words of Jesus. It is not adding to the cross. It is accepting the gift as a result of the cross.
I have yet to find a scripture that teaches baptism as a work of human merit. If so , then where is it stated in scripture ? The language of a ” work of human merit. ” Baptism is a step of faith in accepting the gift. It is not adding to the cross.
Ray,
Does Paul disagree with James?
Romans 5.1: Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Galatians 2.15-16: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Is the Scripture broken by a contradiction? Should we all should just go fishing tomorrow instead of attend church? Or could there be different uses of the word “justified”?
Kevin ,
There is no doubt that we are justified by faith. And no there is no contradiction. Paul in Romans is refuting salvation by works of merit. Jmaes is speaking of works of faith and how faith is completed. But neither one speaks of salvation by faith alone. And I still do not see baptism or repentance or confession as being works of human merit. Only the ways scripture speaks of accepting the gift of salvation. Along with faith.
I will be in church tomorrow and will teach salvation through faith in Jesus . I will teach that He died for our sins and there is nothing we can do to add to what He did at the cross. But I will also teach the neccessity of obedient faith as a response to the cross. Not workks of human merit. I will also teach that we are to do works of faith .
Is it that “were are to do works of faith” or is it the inward change that compels us to do works of faith. We get a new set of “want to” when we are saved and will perform works according to the measure of faith. As our faith grows, we take on bigger works for the Kingdom.
The answer to the Phillipian Jailer’s question is for him to believe on the Lord Jesus Chrust and he would be saved and those of his household who could make the same decision. Baptism isn’t even mentioned.
We are baptized into one Spirit upon salvation. The water baptism we discuss here is something totally different.
If you do not see baptism as being of human merit, let me ask you this: Can a baptismal candidate baptize himself? No, of course not. He needs a man to performt the work of baptism.
I still ask where is the scripture that teaches baptism as a work of human merit ? Or that baptism is a work of the law ? When an individual submits to baptism and is baptized by another person it is a total act of faith in believing that obeying the gospel will wash away sins. Just as the jailer obeyed after hearing the word about Jesus and coming to the point of belief and as a response to the faith brought about by hearing the word , Romans 10 :17 , then was baptized , Acts 16 : 31 – 34 . He was baptized immediately , at that hour of the night , not later at a baptism service. Yes, the jailer is a perfect example of the necessity of baptism to be saved.
James teaches how faith will work . James 2 : 24 teaches that faith alone does not justify. Works of faith are different from works of the law. The law cannot save.
Yes, the jailer is a perfect example of the necessity of baptism to be saved.
You know where I have to go after that statement…There’s the thief on the cross. “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Jesus dies before the thief. The thief was not baptized.
If you are looking for a verse that says, “No, Ray. Baptism is not necessary for salvation.” Then I’m probably not going to be able to point you to one. If you are looking for a verse that says, “Here, Ray. God is one in essence, three in person. It’s called the doctrine of the Trinity,” I’m not going to be able to show you one of those either.
Doctrine is deduced from reasonable inferences from the whole counsel of God. Paul is clear that circumcision does not save. That was an OT rite. The clear implication is that baptism does not save either.
Obedience is a result from an inward change, like Chris stated earlier. The acts of obedience do not save. I don’t trust in my acts. I trust in Christ alone.
Further, there are instances in Acts where Gentile converts received the Holy Spirit before being baptized. Receiving the “promised Holy Spirit” was a sign of true and saving faith. Eph. 1:11-14. The Holy Spirit was the guarantee or seal of the New Covenant, not the baptism.
Kevin ,
There are the scriptures that teach baptism as essential for salvation. I have given those numerous times. They never mention baptism as being a work of merit or of the law of sin and death. Circumcision does not save.
I explained about the Holy Spirit and the Gentiles in the book of Acts and the transition that was occuring. The blog about Calvinism. The example of Cornelius is not the norm. The gift of the Spirit is given to those who are baptized. Acts 2 : 38 and 39 and to those who obey God , Acts 5 : 32.
Where we will continue to differ is that you see baptism as a work of merit. I see it as accepting the gift of salvation.
I do not see baptism as a work of merit. We do nothing to merit the grace of Christ. The function of making baptism necessary for salvation elevates it to a meritorious work. I reject that notion.
Again, I think baptism is important. We are commanded by Christ to be baptized. But, baptism does not save. God saves. Saving faith moves to obedience.
Some are going to charge us with splitting hairs, here. I do not think it is. Coupling any work of man with faith as a necessity for salvation is a compromise of the gospel of God’s grace.
What’s your answer to the thief on the cross? Was Jesus wrong to tell him he’d be with Christ in paradise, even though the thief was never baptized?
Chris Elliot points out that faith is not even required, simply belief on the name is sufficient. Of course there is more to it, we know that no scripture can stand on its own and must be supported by/with other scripture. But if you take this one incident alone one might literally teach that belief alone is enough. Baptism was not even mentioned: what does this prove? It is mentioned elsewhere.
I remember in Acts they met disciples and the first topic of discussion seemed to be what baptism they had, they had only John’s baptism (which called people back to the fold), upon learning this a more better way was explained and they were baptized into the name of Jesus (water baptized). Was not this Paul who did this? If so does this not paint a different picture than one of a man who is adamant that faith alone saves? Does this not point also to the universal doctrine of baptism in the church at that time?
That church is our church, if we are true believers, because there is but one church. Our doctrine should not be different than theirs was. If we have a different doctrine lets examine why.
All of that said please tell me more or give me a link to “sola fide” information so that I can review it.
The thief on the cross has been thoroughly refuted Kevin. He was pre-pentecost. He was in fact, old testament, if you think about it. Regardless he recognized that Christ was innocent and on the cross dying and that was enough for Christ to give him the promise of paradise (be that heaven or not). Then Christ gave Peter power and Peter uttered words that are binding at pentecost. That is my understanding anyway.
Thankfully, no one is saying baptism alone saves. But is it a “work of human merit” any more than praying the “prayer of salvation” or repenting (which no one seems to have trouble attaching salvation to)? Because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God should preachers not preach because they are not mentioned in this equation? May I never see the day!
Look at it this way. If you are making tomato soup straight from the recipe and line one mentions tomatoes, even if they are never mentioned again, you better have tomatoes in that soup for it to taste right, for it to be authentic.
I would like to add that thanks to this discussion I am looking deeper into my own life. Thanks brothers for the chance to do that and for the good discussion.
hc
HC,
You said:
Look at it this way. If you are making tomato soup straight from the recipe and line one mentions tomatoes, even if they are never mentioned again, you better have tomatoes in that soup for it to taste right, for it to be authentic.
After you said:
Of course there is more to it, we know that no scripture can stand on its own and must be supported by/with other scripture. But if you take this one incident alone one might literally teach that belief alone is enough.
So, which is it?
The thief on the cross was not OT. The New Covenant was ushered in at the death of Christ. Jesus died before the thief.
As to the authority of Peter to bind the church on the day of Pentecost, that sounds awfully popish to me. There is, of course, a difference in the way one interprets a historical narrative and a doctrinal letter. Be careful not to hang your whole theology on one chapter in Acts.
However, taking your tomato soup approach, where is baptism mentioned here?
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Romans 10:8-10
HC,
Sometimes I’m a little slow and I missed this on the first go around…what do you mean by paradise (be that heaven or not)?
Jesus said, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Was Jesus making a short stop on the way to the Father’s throne?
help on my post!!!
Just to clarify, where did I say that faith is not required? What is belief without faith?
Kevin,
I have tried twice to answer you but it is not going through. I will try later. Hope this gets to you.
wow, i can post again, i was thinking it was a conspiracy,
Hiccera,
Thanks for your comments. You are right. Keep on writing.
Kevin,
Try again. Hiccera was right about the thief on the cross.
You quoted from Romans 10 which puts faith and confession with the mouth together. Jesus put belief and baptism together in Mark 16 :16 . Neither scripture mentions a work of human merit.
i am confused now,,, first i hear that paul preaches by faith only and now i am wondering if i have to confess with my mouth,,, but that can’t be true if it is faith alone as a confession with the mouth would be something that i would have to do,,, and the arguement is that no act by me can contribute to my salvation,,, pick a side guys and be consistent
hc
also, do i have to pray???
hc
is really confused now
hehe
hopefully you all caught the irony in the last two postings,,, however, seriously speaking, that is exacly why i commented much earlier that it takes a couple more things besides just faith
hc
Hiccera ,
You have made some valid points. As has been pointed out, it is not by faith alone or repentance alone or confession alone , or baptism alone. All are included in the scriptures as to accepting the gift of salvation. And none add to the cross.
H’yuck it up boys, but you’re still missing the point. Romans 9 tells of a God Who is sovereign over the ends. Romans 10 tells of a God Who is sovereign over the means of accomplishing those ends.
Kevin ,
I believe that God is sovereign. Never have doubted it. You were the one who introduced faith alone into the discussion. I have yet to find the scripture that teaches salvation by faith alone. I have never said it was by faith, or confession or repentance or baptism alone. It is by all of them. It still comes back to where we will always disagree. While I say baptism, faith , confession and repentance is accepting the gift. You differ. I do not know how we can get around the difference. I cannot find a scripture or scriptures that teach baptism is a work of human merit or a work of the law. You have mentioned doctrine coming from a study of the whole counsel of God and I agree. It is when I have studied the whole counsel of God , I comprehend baptism as accepting the gift. And not adding to the sacrifice of Jesus or adding to grace.I will discuss this as long as you desire to discuss the issues but there is where we will always differ.
Ray,
I have yet to hear a decent and biblical explanation for the necessity of baptism for salvation in light of at least the example of the thief on the cross.
Again, Jesus told the thief that “today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43). Obviously, the thief could not be baptized before he died since he was also nailed to a cross. Do you doubt that he was saved that day?
To say that he was saved under the old covenant is a weak attempt to explain around what the Bible teaches concerning faith alone. The new covenant took effect at the death of Jesus. (Heb. 9:17) Jesus died before either of the two thieves who were crucified with him. (John 19:32-33)
Additionally, just saying that we will always disagree does not make your argument any stronger…
Kevin ,
The thief was given his promise before Jesus died. No doubt he was saved. Jesus also had authority while on earth to forgive sins. Matthew 9 : 6. After he was raised he gave the command of Mark 16 : 16 . I have yet to hear from you how baptism is not essential especially in light of Mark 16 : 16 . What else can He mean than belief and baptism and salvation.
My point in saying we disagree is to just state where we have a fundamental difference.
I still have not found the scriptures that teach baptism as a work of human merit.
I still have not found the scriptures that teach baptism as a work of human merit.
And you won’t, because there is no merit in it. That’s the point. You are making it a meritorious work by holding to this faith plus works doctrine.
Looking at the whole of Scripture, many have pointed out numerous verses where salvation is shown to come through faith alone. The arguments by Paul in Romans 4 come to mind. Not to mention Romans 5:1. You run back to Mark 16:16. Is there disagreement between Paul and Jesus?
Was Jesus’ ministry a third covenant for the brief time He was on earth? Atonement for the Jews under the old covenant involved the sacrificial system. You claim that in the new covenant we are under the baptismal system for atonement. Was there just a brief three years where Jesus would declare someone righteous and they didn’t have to do any work to be justified?
The thief obviously didn’t have time to make any sacrifices for his sin any more than he could have been baptized. So, are you arguing for a third, and very brief, covenant?
Kevin,
You keep running back to Romans 4 and salvation by faith alone. I have already stated that salvation is by faith but not by faith alone You have yet to point me to one verse that puts faith and alone together.
Third covenant , they are your words just as faith and works doctrine.
Jesus and Paul are in harmony. Do you not believe the words of Jesus in Mark 16 : 16 ? He is the One who said belief and baptism were essential for salvation. He said it , not me.
I have never said baptism is a work of human merit. Again , those are your words. You are saying baptism is meritorious. Is there a scripture that teaches baptism is a work of human merit ?
Ray,
You’re creating a false condition…a verse that puts faith and alone together…the question is, what does Scripture teach is necessary for salvation?
I don’t have to run to just Romans 4, unlike those who build an entire theology on Mark 16:16. This is probably a little overboard, but look at the overwhelming number of times the Bible shows that salvation is through belief, and doesn’t even mention baptism…
John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
Rom. 3:22, “even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction.”
Rom. 3:24, “being justified as a gift by His gracethrough the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;”
Rom. 3:26, “for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
Rom. 3:28-30, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.”
Rom. 4:3, “For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’
Rom. 4:5, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,”
Rom. 4:11, “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised [similar to baptism in that it was a seal or sign], that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,”
Rom. 4:16, “Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.”
Rom. 5:1, “therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” [Where's baptism again?]
Rom. 5:9, “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.”
Rom. 9:30, “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith.”
Rom. 9:33, “just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.” [Will he who believes in Him, yet for some reason is not baptized be disappointed?]
Rom. 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”
Rom. 10:9-10, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” [Even if you consider these actions necessary to obtain saving faith, which I reject, where is baptism?]
Rom. 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”
Gal. 2:16, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”
Gal. 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
Gal.3:5-6, “Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” [Notice the linkage with the faith that Abraham had before circumcision and the faith needed under the New Covenant. Again, baptism anywhere here?]
Gal. 3:8, “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.” [See above.]
Gal. 3:14, “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Gal. 3:22, “But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” [Should we add, "and are baptized?"]
Gal. 3:24, “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.”
Eph. 1:13, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.”
Eph. 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”
Phil. 3:9, “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.”
1 Tim. 1:16, “And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.”
I’m sorry that I may be acting a little snarky, but, seriously, it’s an overwhelming testimony in Scripture that we are saved by faith alone. That saving faith, the new nature, by necessity creates the desire to be obedient, i.e., confession, repentance, baptism, etc. But those results of saving faith are not what saves us. It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, not faith in baptism.
Even those who do not hold to Calvinism understand this. If you can’t see that, then there’s a wall of tradition before your eyes that will only come down through illumination by the Holy Spirit. I’m afraid that no amount of mere argumentation will break through.
My concern for you is the danger of placing your faith in something other than Christ alone. I cannot judge the status of your salvation. That’s God’s right, not mine. Nevertheless, from the evidence of Scripture, it makes me very concerned when I hear anyone argue for faith plus something else as the basis for their salvation. Is that truly saving faith?
Kevin,
When I hear people say they believe in anything other than salvation by grace through faith, I have to wonder if that is not “another gospel.” Galatians 1:8 comes to mind.
I don’t see where Jesus, Paul, or Peter taught that we are saved by anyother means. Anything beyond their teachings would then be another gospel.
Although a topic for another discussion, I believe someone who is truly regenrate is saved until the end. To teach otherwise, IMO, teaches another gospel.
What do you think? How are we to handle someone who believes this? Is it another Gospel?
Kevin ,
Not trying to avoid you but have sent two posts that have not been received . May have to wait. I will see if this one gets through.
You know…I had a loooong response to Chris’ question. It also did not get posted. Just so you know, you faith-plus guys aren’t being singled out.
I would typically be upset, but, I believe in God’s Providence in all things. So, I cannot be upset about His censorship of my comment, now can I?
Chris,
The short version of my comment to you was that yes, I do think that any reliance on human achievement through our actions for salvation is a gospel other than the gospel of divine accomplishment (to borrow shamelessly from MacArthur).
However, I will leave it to persons smarter and gifted with more wisdom than I to anathemetize such individuals, whatever their stripe. What concerns me is their placing of faith in some thing, some act, or some one other than Christ for themselves. I am also concerned that these Judiazer-type errors not get further promulgated throughout the Church and distract from the purity of the gospel of God’s grace.
Kevin ,
None of the verses you submitted teaches salvation by faith alone.
You know I have never built a theology around Mark 16 : 16. But you still refuse to accept the Lord and His teaching on the verse. If He gives just one verse that is enough. However , He said much about salvation.
More later , have a meeting to attend. Hope this goes through.
Kevin ,
You quoted Romans 10 : 9 and 10 that joins faith and confession with the mouth for salvation. That is more than just faith alone.
I still wait for the scriptures that teach baptism as a work of human merit.
None of the verses I pointed you to link salvation with the necessity of baptism. Isn’t that the issue at hand?
I think they teach very clearly the doctrine of faith alone. Did you read them?
As to Romans 10:9-10, you again make the fundamental error of confusing saving faith with the fruit of that saving faith. Until you get beyond that misconception, you are going to lodge these objections that rely upon a false presupposition.
Kevin ,
The issue is saying faith alone which is never used in scripture except in James 2 : 24. Faith alone for salvation is the not the language of scripture. If it is please give me a scripture. The scriptures you gave teach the necessity of faith for salvation. No argument and you know I have agreed with you about faith/belief and salvation. But not faith alone.
You asked to connect faith and baptism and we come back to Mark 16 : 16 . It connects belief and baptism and salvation. Those are the words of Jesus. Acts 2 : 38 teaches repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins . Acts 22 : 16 teaches baptism in the washing away of sins. Galatians 3 : 27 teaches being united with Christ in baptism. I Peter 3 : 21 says baptism does save. None of the scriptures I have just given you say anything about adding to the cross or grace or baptism being a work of human merit.
Where in Romans 10 : 9 and 10 is there the teaching about the fruit of saving faith ? Twice in the two verses the word saved is used. Not the fruit of saving faith.
I think the issue is in teaching the whole counsel of God about salvation.
You keep asking the same questions, and I keep pointing to the same answers. I have never seen a case of selective reading before. It is a new experience.
This article is about whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. I say no. You say yes.
You point to Mark 16:16 as evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation. Do you also believe that verses 17-20 are necessary signs for those who believe? Do you cast out demons? Do you speak in new tongues? Do you pick up serpents with their hands? Do you drink any deadly poison? Do lay their hands on the sick, and have them recover?
How many verses did I list above that intentionally stated the word “saved” in them? Or “justified”? Or speak about obtaining righteousness? Where is baptism in any of them?
Now, consider this. There was no compiled New Testament at the time these verses were written…the Ephesians had their letter, the Corinthians had their letters, the Galatians had their letter. Not every Church had Acts or Mark.
Don’t you think that when Paul wrote these letters explaining the mysteries that had been revealed after the Resurrection, he would have been very concerned to make sure that these Gentile churches had the whole gospel?
And yet, you’re telling me that Paul would leave out baptism in these myriad of verses I listed above, counting that these would-be Christians might possibly have a copy of Mark 16:16 (leaving aside the argument that 9-20 is not in some of the earliest manuscripts). Would the Apostle to the Gentiles jeopardize their very souls by not telling them that they needed to be baptized to be saved?
Ray,
I have another question. I don’t believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. Am I saved?
Ok, maybe two…
I was not baptized in a Church of Christ sanctioned baptistry…Am I saved?
Kevin ,
I am selective ? You are in pointing out the scriptures you beleive teach faith only. You have never answered my questions about the scriptures that teach the necessity of baptism for salvation or baptism being a work of human merit.
Perhaps you missed this comment on May 5…I’ll reprint it here.
You said:I still have not found the scriptures that teach baptism as a work of human merit.
I said: And you won’t, because there is no merit in it. That’s the point. You are making it a meritorious work by holding to this faith plus works doctrine.
Looking at the whole of Scripture, many have pointed out numerous verses where salvation is shown to come through faith alone. The arguments by Paul in Romans 4 come to mind. Not to mention Romans 5:1. You run back to Mark 16:16. [Have you answered these questions?] Is there disagreement between Paul and Jesus?
Was Jesus’ ministry a third covenant for the brief time He was on earth? Atonement for the Jews under the old covenant involved the sacrificial system. You claim that in the new covenant we are under the baptismal system for atonement. Was there just a brief three years where Jesus would declare someone righteous and they didn’t have to do any work to be justified?
The thief obviously didn’t have time to make any sacrifices for his sin any more than he could have been baptized. So, are you arguing for a third, and very brief, covenant?
Kevin,
You are the one who has said baptism is a work of human merit. I have not. You know that I have said all along that baptism is not a work of human merit. I am still waiting on the scriptures that teach baptism as a work of human merit or that baptism adds to the cross or gace.
Ray,
I’ve already addressed that issue. It becomes a claimed work of merit if it is added by those who hold to faith-plus in spite of the vast Scriptural evidence that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.
The Bible does not teach that baptism is a work of merit because it’s NOT. There is no saving merit in it. You’re asking for a verse showing what I know the Bible does not teach. There is nothing we can do that earns salvation…including baptism. Baptism is the fruit of saving faith, not the cause of it.
You might as well ask, “Show me a verse that says that doves can breathe under water…Well…”
Even so, you have yet to meaningfully respond to ANY of the questions referenced above. I’m waiting on a response to the thief on the Cross. Is there a third covenant for the brief time Jesus was on earth?
I’m waiting on a response to whether or not early Christians were damned for not having the FULL gospel as you call it, when Paul didn’t put “and be baptized” when he recounted in his letters to the churches how a person can be saved.
I am also waiting for an answer to two other questions I asked, which were:
I don’t believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. Am I saved?
I was not baptized in a Church of Christ sanctioned baptistry…Am I saved?
Kevin,
You have not given me any scriptural answers and I have given you answers to thief on the cross. You just do not agree.
I have also given you several biblical answers to your question and baptism and salvation.
It does not matter where a person is baptized.
You cannot give me a biblical answer to why baptism is a work of human merit because none exist. To say baptism is a work of merit is of man not of God.
Kevin ,
Where is the scripture that teaches baptism is the fruit of saving faith ?
Where is the scripture that says baptism is the cause of saving faith ? Faith comes from hearing the word Romans 10 : 17. I have never said that about baptism. You know I have said that baptism is accepting the gift. Like they did in Acts 2 : 38 after hearing the one gospel about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After hearing the message they were cut to the heart and then repented and were baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. They did not add to the cross or to grace. They were not earning salvation . And there are a number of examples throughout the book of Acts that illustrates how indidviuals when they heard the gospel accepted the gift of salvation.
All this time , as you well know ,I have said the whole counsel of God must be preached about salvation. You know I have said that faith is essential but have yet to find one scripture that teaches faith alone saves because such a verse does not exist.
I must teach all God has revealed about salvation. If you want to avoid the scriptures that teach the necessity of baptism for salvation , then that is your choice. My conviction is that the Lord has commanded baptism as essential for salvation. And no , as you know I have stated constantly , not to add to grace but as a response to hearing the gospel. And no not by faith alone or confession alone or repentance alone or baptism alone. In looking at the whole of scripture they are all commanded. That is where I stand .
To say baptism is a work of merit is of man not of God.
I agree, so why treat it as if it is meritorious?
Kevin ,
You know I have never said such about baptism . Saying baptism is a work of human merit comes from the langauage of men not the language of scripture.
Saying baptism is a work of human merit comes from the langauage of men not the language of scripture.
Again, I agree. Baptism adds no merit to the saving faith given by God to those who will believe.
There is defining it as such with language and there is treating it as a functional equivalent to human merit through practice. You can treat it as human merit even though you may deny that it is in word.
To elevate baptism as a necessity for salvation makes it a work of human merit in practice.
Kevin ,
It is your words that make baptism a work of human merit in practice. Nothing of that teaching is found in scripture. If it is please give me the location.
You have yet to answer the above questions. Do you plan on doing so?
Kevin ,
There are a number of my quesions you have never answered and I answered your questions.
and I answered your questions
Did I miss that comment? When did you answer:
Was Jesus’ ministry a third covenant for the brief time He was on earth? Atonement for the Jews under the old covenant involved the sacrificial system. You claim that in the new covenant we are under the baptismal system for atonement. Was there just a brief three years where Jesus would declare someone righteous and they didn’t have to do any work to be justified?
The thief obviously didn’t have time to make any sacrifices for his sin any more than he could have been baptized. So, are you arguing for a third, and very brief, covenant?
Or…
How many verses did I list above that intentionally stated the word “saved” in them? Or “justified”? Or speak about obtaining righteousness? Where is baptism in any of them?
Now, consider this. There was no compiled New Testament at the time these verses were written…the Ephesians had their letter, the Corinthians had their letters, the Galatians had their letter. Not every Church had Acts or Mark.
Don’t you think that when Paul wrote these letters explaining the mysteries that had been revealed after the Resurrection, he would have been very concerned to make sure that these Gentile churches had the whole gospel?
And yet, you’re telling me that Paul would leave out baptism in these myriad of verses I listed above, counting that these would-be Christians might possibly have a copy of Mark 16:16 (leaving aside the argument that 9-20 is not in some of the earliest manuscripts). Would the Apostle to the Gentiles jeopardize their very souls by not telling them that they needed to be baptized to be saved?
Or…
I don’t believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. Am I saved?
I was not baptized in a Church of Christ sanctioned baptistry…Am I saved?
I can’t find the answers to those questions…Maybe they didn’t go through.
Kevin ,
Everytime I give you a lengthy answer it is not allowed. I will try to be brief. Jesus said baptism was necesary for salvation and so did the apostles. Each person will have to decide to obey or not . I have given you many scriptures that teach the necessity. You know I have.
It does not matter where a person is baptized. I do not even understand the question about the place. Obey the command from the Lord.
I have no idea what you mean by a third covenant. Never heard of that except when you mentioned it.
Acts does tell us that when the gospel was preached that the those who believed had no problem with being baptized for the for the forgiveness of sins. Never adding to grace or the cross.
You still have not answered my question as to where is there a scripture that says “faith alone”. It does not exist. Hope this is allowed to go through. More I would like to say.
You still have not answered my question as to where is there a scripture that says “faith alone”.
Ray, have you ever heard of the concept of a reasonable inference? Or do you just search the Scriptures looking for the words you want side by side and then read a whole theology into it? Did I not point to the vast, and I mean vast, number of verses that point to the basis for salvation as belief in Christ WITHOUT ONE REFERENCE TO BAPTISM!!? Was Paul just being sloppy in his explanation of the gospel and he left out baptism? How said for those churches that didn’t have a copy of Mark 16:16…I guess they were just deluded into thinking they were saved…
I feel like I’m beating my head against a brick wall here…
My question about the third covenant was clear…look at my comment from May 5th…I’m tired of copying and pasting it in…
I have given you many scriptures that teach the necessity. You know I have.
I know nothing of the sort…I know of Scriptures that you point to and read in Church of Christ/Catholic tradition…But none of them teach the necessity of baptism for salvation. The Scriptural evidence for “faith alone” is massive…
I listed several questions I had for you in my previous comments…I’m tired of re-posting them…I’m still waiting on answers…
I deny that baptism is necessary for salvation. Am I saved? I was not baptized in a Church of Christ church. Am I saved?
Kevin,
I have answered your questions several times . You just do not accept the scriptures I have listed. I am also tired of posting scripture after scritpture that teach the necessity of baptism. I would list more but everytime , my post is not allowed. I answered your last two questions several times in the past. Again , you do not agree with what I have posted. That is a free choice you have made.
Go back throught the posts I have made and numerous scriptures are listed. You mentioned reasonable inference about faith alone but none of the verses you listed ever teach faith alone. That is not the langauage of scripture. I have given you scriptures that mention the whole counsel of God about salvation.
I still await the scriptures that teach baptism as a work of human merit for salvation. Where is the verse that teaches confession as a fruit of saving faith ?
Ray,
It is a shame that your lengthy post did not go through…However, I have looked through your responses and cannot find the answers to my very clear questions.
Perhaps we have reached yet another impasse.
Kevin ,
My post on May 9 gave you some very clear answers , just not very long. Several times I gave you very lengthy answers but I guess I am being moderated and they were not allowed. Yes , I guess we are at an impasse. My desire is to teach all there is about salvation.
My desire is to teach all there is about salvation.
I’m all for that…just don’t add to it.
Several times I gave you very lengthy answers but I guess I am being moderated and they were not allowed.
I seriously doubt that you are being moderated. I have read on another post that they are having trouble with Wordpress comments and are trying to get it straightened out. My lengthy comments were also lost a few times…if you recall, I mentioned that earlier.
Kevin ,
I have never added to what scripture says about salvation. I have only given the scriptures concerning salvation. I have often said that baptism , confession and repentance add nothing to the cross or to grace. There are a number of verses that just mention one part of salvation and some that do not mention faith or grace. All need to be read and understood.
Maybe I am not being moderated but every time I have posted with a large number of verses , none have gone through. If I thought it would , there are many sections of scripture I would love to discuss with you.
There is email, you know…
Still waiting on that email with the large number of verses…
I have much to do in my house but ok Kevin, I’ll try. I posted a link that gives many scriptures.
How about starting with who Jesus says will receive eternal life and who He says will go to eternal punishment.
if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments Matthew 19:17 and this same passage is found in other Gospels
Matthew 25:31-46 You read and tell me if on Judgment Day sole fide will be the measuring stick.
From John 15: I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
and we abide through OBEDIENCE:
If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
and if we don’t abide we are CUT OFF and CAST INTO the FIRE. some say, “this isn’t pertaining to TRUE beleivers.” well, what about Jesus’ letters to the churches in Revelation? Read ch 2 and 3. I’m short on time and will post just a couple:
‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place–unless you repent. Rev 2:5
Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. Rev 2:10
I’ll post more verse from Paul but forgive my paranoia of my posts being cut off.
oops Kevin, never mind, I have been here too long and posted under the wrong article.
Now, I wish Ray could see how his arguments dovetail into those of Roman Catholics…
Kevin ,
I will try with samller posts. I willl be out of town for a week so I will not be avoiding you , just not able to write and the last two weeks have been very hectic.
There is no connection to what I believe and the Catholic traditions. They believe in total depravity therefore they have to sprinkle babies who have not violated the law of God. I have only taught what scripture teaches about the necessity of baptism : Mark 16 : 16 , I Peter 3 : 21 , Acts 2 : 38 and Acts 22 : 16. Just a few for now.
They believe in total depravity therefore they have to sprinkle babies who have not violated the law of God.
I’m going to definitely have to disagree with you there. I have a feeling you have a great misunderstanding of the doctrine of total depravity.
We can talk about that too, if you want.
God bless you with safety on your trip…
Kevin , I am home now. Please let me know what you disagree with.
Catholics may believe in a concept of original sin, but they have no understanding of total depravity as a Calvinist would define it.
Maybe we should go at it this way: What do you believe the doctrine of total depravity teaches?
Kevin ,
My earlier response was your comment about me being like the Catholics in my teaching which is not true. I would never advocate the sprinkling of babies. I cannot find the teaching about all of us inheriting the sin of Adam , which we discussed in the blog about Calvinism. Yes, sin entered the world through one man . I will write short responses because of past problems .
I would never advocate the sprinkling of babies.
Well, I wouldn’t either, and, I do believe in Total Depravity, as you well know. Unlike the papists.
My comment about the similarities of your theology to that of the papists was one of substance, not methodology. It might do you well to read through some of the comments on the Scripture and Tradition posts. My comment was more to the issue of asking how would you disagree with the papists on baptism other than method and timing?
So, what is your understanding of the doctrine of Total Depravity? You mentioned “all of us inheriting the sin of Adam”…Is that it?
Kevin ,
I do not believe in the human doctrine of total depravity. I do not know what else to say to you. You know by now that I believe Jesus died for our sins. All who would be saved must respond to His sacrifice to be saved. All I have said in this entire series of exchanges is that baptism , as well as faith , confession and repentance are essential for salvation and that baptism is not a work of human merit. I have baptized a great number of those who once professed to be Catholic and now just want to be Christians . They along with me are in no way connected with the papist false doctrines.
I do not believe in the human doctrine of total depravity.
I got that. Please explain to me what you believe the doctrine teaches.
Kevin ,
I already said there is nothing more for me to say about the issue of total depravity. I do not accept the human teaching about the man made doctrine. Any teaching about the issue. It is not biblical to me. To you it is. A free choice you have made.
It is not biblical to me.
How can you make that claim if you can’t even articulate what it is?
It is not biblical to me.
With all due respect, Ray, it doesn’t matter if it is biblical to you. Is it biblical to God? He wrote:
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil. Jer. 13:23
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. Eph 2:1-3
Sinners by nature who express that sin through action. That is what the Bible teaches. Anything less is a misrepresentation of the truth affirmed clearly in Scripture.
Is that your understanding of total depravity? That’s what a Calvinist believes, because it is biblical according to the Author, not our opinion.
A
A
And those who were dead in sins had a Savior to die for them . Those who choose can be forgiven . It is a choce. Acts 2 : 40 , John 3 : 16 , 2 Cor. 5 : 20 – 6 : 2 . And many other scriptures.
So you think that Total Depravity teaches that each person does not have freedom to choose? Is that your issue with it? I still have yet to see you articulate a clear statement of what you believe Total Depravity teaches.
All that matters is what scripture teaches , not some human system of religion.
All that matters is what scripture teaches , not some human system of religion.
I agree. That’s why I’m a Calvinist. You hurl insults and accusations and have yet to define what it is you despise. Third time, Ray: Please define for me your understanding of the doctrine of Total Depravity.
I have but you do not agree. May 18. I have not hurled insults and accusations , just stated what I believe about the whole human system of Calvinism. What do you believe about total depravity ?
C’mon, Ray…
I have but you do not agree. May 18.
On May 18th you wrote:
They believe in total depravity therefore they have to sprinkle babies who have not violated the law of God.
That’s it? That’s all you believe that total depravity teaches? I find it amazing that with all that knowledge you can so cavalierly claim it is unbiblical.
I’m curious. You have mentioned that you are some sort of teacher/leader in your church. Is that what you teach your members? “Stay away from Calvinism because they have to sprinkle babies who haven’t sinned yet?”
What is the basis of your understanding of what total depravity means and how a Calvinist would define it? Just a hunch? Don’t you think it is necessary to understand someone’s theology and compare it with Scripture before you write it off with one sentence as unbiblical?
What do you believe about total depravity?
I asked first…don’t try to dodge and deflect. I’ll be happy to give a thorough definition of total depravity, but I’m still waiting for a complete answer from you. Either say you don’t know (which is what I suspect), or fully explain to me your understanding of what a Calvinist means when he refers to man’s total depravity.
My responses have been short because of the problems in the past. I am sorry that you seem to be offended. No , I have not taught what you wrote. A very short version : What I understand is that total depravity is that none of us because of inherited sin or something similar makes all of us incapable of responding to the gospel without irresistable or conquering grace. But only the particular elect will be enabled to respond. Maybe that is my problem , I am not one of the elect .
One of my reasons for asking you to explain your understanding is to have a way for us to dialog.
I just preach and teach. I am not a scholar , as you can tell by my simple writing , just a man trying to reach as many souls as possible.
What I understand is that total depravity is that none of us because of inherited sin or something similar makes all of us incapable of responding to the gospel without irresistable or conquering grace.
I’ll take that definition for our purposes. I would clarify “incapable of responding” as to mean morally incapable, not physically incapable. Obviously, the majority of human beings have the ability to hear the gospel and speak their confession for Christ. Given those clarifications, what about your definition of total depravity do you disagree with? How is it unbiblical given just the few verses I cited above?
Maybe that is my problem, I am not one of the elect.
I detect a little sarcasm there. Have you trusted in Christ alone for your salvation? Has that faith been evidenced by a transformed life?
We’re not saved by a particular soteriology. We’re saved by Christ. Nevertheless, we (Calvinists) seek to honor the Author and the purity of the gospel He has given us by seeking to understand what Jesus meant when He said, “Many are called, few are chosen,” and other such statments.
I am not a scholar , as you can tell by my simple writing, just a man trying to reach as many souls as possible.
Again, neither am I a scholar, and would agree with you concerning the need for evangelistic zeal. There are plenty of non-scholars who have embraced these truths and it has ignited their zeal for evangelism. Look at John Bunyan.
I think one of the clearest expressions of Total Depravity in Scripture is Eph. 2:1-3. “By nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” Children are born with a nature. Paul defines it as one of wrath…following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in “the sons of disobedience.” Again, sons are born after their father. Paul here calls us “sons of disobedience”, assuming of course that we fall into the “rest of mankind.”
As I am writing, I am reminded of Paul’s statement to the Corinthians, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor. 2:14
Just looking at these two verses, I gather this assessment of our condition prior to coming to Christ:
I am free to choose what I most want to do. The problem is that what I most want to do always in some way violates the law of God. All of us are born into this world spiritually dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; the sinner’s heart is desperately corrupt. Our will is not free in this sense; it is in bondage to our evil nature.
We are fallen. And, by our nature, we are free to only fall faster. We cannot violate the gravity of our own natures.
Therefore, we have lost our ability to choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. This is moral ability, like I said earlier. Also, it takes more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring us to Christ. We need regeneration, new birth, by which the Spirit makes us alive and gives us a new nature. We need God to do the impossible and completely undeserved action of new birth before we can even see the kingdom of God, feel the need to repent, or confess Christ as Lord.
Faith is not something we contribute to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation – it is God’s gift to us, not our gift to God.
Here are a few other verses to consider: Psalm 51:5, 58:3; Isaiah 53:6, 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9; John 3:3, 8:44; Romans 3:10-12, 5:12.
Each of them speak to this issue.
So you tell me: Where does this involve baptizing babies who have not yet violated the law of God?
I believe Scripture teaches that we are born violators of God’s law. What does the Roman church need for infant baptism have to do with me? What good would it do if I believed the water preserved innocence anyway. We’re not born innocent.
We have already had our discussion about ” by nature”. That was in another blog.
All of salvation is a gift when you consider that God has given everything for us to be saved. Is a choice to either choose or reject.
Paslam 51 : 5 – David laments his personal sins. It is not a universal statement.
Psalm 58 : 3 – Notice that a differemnce is made between those who are wicked and those who are righteous in verse 10.
Isa. 53 : 6 – Sure we have all strayed but nothing is said about from birth.
Isa. 64 : 6. Same with this verse. Verse 5 speaks about God helping those who gladly do right.
Jer. 17 : 9 – Look at verse 10 and those God will reward according to conduct.
John 3 : 3 – Cetainly no argument. All who would accept the gift must be born again of water and the Spirit.
Romans 3 : 9 – 10 – The condition of those outside of Christ but they can believe , repent, confess and be immersed for the forgiveness of their sins.
Romans 5 : 12 – Yes , sin entered the world through Adam but it does not say we have inherited sin.
I Cor. 2 : 14 – To the person outside of Christ it all seems foolish but can when encountering the word can see the cross as God’s way of pardoning sins. The cross will always be foolish to those who will not repent. I cannot see total depravity taught in any of these passages.
I believe the baby is born innocent and each person is capable both from a moral and physical sense to obey or reject.
My comment about babies being sprinkled came from your comment about my teaching being in harmony with Catholic teaching. Not saying it is yours. What I teach comes from scripture not Catholic tradition.
What happens to the baby that dies ? If it is not sprinkled , will it be lost in hell forever ?
My reason for saying I must not be one of the particular elect is because I cannot grasp toal depravity, etc. from scripture. Not being scarcastic but just wondering where all this leads if the “whosoever will” passages do not mean free will. Hope this is allowed to be posted.
Ray,
This may get a little long, so I’ll try to break these up as I go.
First, I see no response to my arguments on Eph. 2. I assume it was overlooked.
Second, here are some of my questions to your responses to these passages:
Ps. 51:5 – Is this passage inspired Scripture? How did you come to the conclusion that David was speaking in hyberbole (if that’s what you’re saying)? Was David the only person in history who was “brought forth in iniquity” and conceived “in sin”? How can you say that what is true of him is not true of you, me, and the rest of mankind (to borrow from Eph. 2)
Ps. 58:3 – How is v. 10 a comparison? “The wicked are estranged from the womb.” What makes one righteous? You won’t find it in v. 10. What makes one wicked? You will find it in v.3. They are wicked from the womb, birth, by nature. Are there some born wicked and some born righteous? Is that what you believe?
Is. 53:6 – In light of Ps. 58:3, who is wicked? Surely in your studies, even though we are not scholars, you have recognized the rule of faith that states: Scripture interprets Scripture. Is. 53:6 points to the universality of our condition. Ps. 51:5 and 58:3 point to where it starts. Also, I would point out that the analogy to us being “like sheep” points to the nature of sheep to wander.
Is. 64:6 – Again, in light of Ps. 51:5 and Ps. 58:3, who is wicked and where does it start? Nowhere in v. 5 does it say what makes one righteous or a subset of the “all” who have become like one who is unclean. This verse points to the universality of sin. Verse 5 merely points to the results of righteousness, it does not point to some being able to choose by nature to be righteous, otherwise v. 6 makes no sense. Verse 5 is merely the standard for God’s favor. Verse 6 is the true condition of us all.
Jer. 17:9 – Given that the verdict on the human heart is desparately sick and deceitful above all things, do you really want God to judge according to the fruit of our deeds? How does v. 10 mitigate against this universal proclamation against the nature of the human heart in v. 9? Yes, the heart is wicked and God will hold man accountable for his deeds. How does that point to free will? How does that point to a natural ability to choose righteousness?
(more to come)
(cont.)
John 3:3 – All who would accept the gift must be born again of water and the Spirit. Do you really mean that? Rebirth precedes ability to accept. If we agree there, then our discussion ends with a handshake…(it should still end with a handshake…;)) I think you have looked at verse 5 anyway.
Notice v. 3 says, unless one is born again they cannot see the kingdom of God. Blindness speaks to ability and nature. I ask this question: Jesus uses the analogy of birth for what theologians call “regeneration” or the creation of the new nature by the Holy Spirit. To state the need for a rebirth before one can even see the kingdom, doesn’t that mean that the first birth left us blind to the kingdom? Both pictures, blindness and birth, are pictures of one’s nature, not by neutral choice. Does a baby choose to be conceived or born? Does the blind eye choose not to see? Jesus is talking of nature. By nature, blind to the kingdom.
In fact, all of Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus addresses total depravity, irresistable grace, election, and arguably limited atonement. But, we’re just dealing with total depravity here.
(more to come)
(cont.)
Romans 3:9-10 –
You said: The condition of those outside of Christ but they can believe , repent, confess and be immersed for the forgiveness of their sins.
Really? On their own? Where does it say that? Have you read a little further?
v.11, “No one understands; no one seeks after God.” If no one understands and no one seeks, how can they have the ability to choose? Incidentally, Paul is quoting from Ps. 14 and Ps. 53 and applying it universally. Isn’t Paul aware of David’s penchant for hyperbole? Or does he, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, realize that David speaks as a prophet throughout the Psalms, describing human nature, among other things?
(more to come)
(cont.)
Romans 5:12
You said: Yes , sin entered the world through Adam but it does not say we have inherited sin.
The whole argument from 12-14, picking up again in 18-21, is concerning the comparison of Adam as the representative of the human race as a type of Christ as the representative of those who would believe. Sin came into the world through one man. One trespass led to condemnation for all men. By one man’s sin the many were made sinners.
Maybe it’s just me, but there’s a lot of “by nature” we sin in those verses. Condemned in Adam, our representative. Incidentally, there’s also limited atonement. “By one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” But, that’s another topic for another time.
(more to come)
1 Cor. 2:14 –
Now, I was surprised at your response to this one. That’s some side-stepping there.
The verse says, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
In an attempt to deny that this verse teaches that we are sinners by nature, you said, To the person outside of Christ it all seems foolish but can when encountering the word can see the cross as God’s way of pardoning sins. The cross will always be foolish to those who will not repent.
Don’t you see the parallel to John 3? The natural man, the man without the Spirit, does not accept spiritual things, because they are foolish to him and he is not able to understand them. Not able…that’s ability…that’s a function of nature. Kind of reminds me of that verse in Jeremiah, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” Jer. 13:23. Yet another verse pointing to the fact that we sin by nature, and are total unable to come to Christ unaided.
Eph. 2 was not avoided, we already covered our differences in a previous blog.
In Psalms 51 , David was only commenting on his own sins. If he had said ” we ” , then there would be a legitimate argument for universal total depravity but writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he did not. The man without the Spirit cannot discern but those who have received the Spirit and are controlled by the Spirit can live by the Spirit. Acts Acts 2 : 38 and 39 , Acts 5 : 32 , Romans 8 and Gal. 5.
I could come back with refutation on each response but your suggestion of a handshake is probably the best solution because of some vast differences.
I’d prefer to hear your responses from the text, not eisegesis, at this point. However, if you are tired of our discussion, I wish you the best.
As to David, is what is true for David not true for us? Is that your position? By describing his standing before God, he doesn’t necessarily speak for the rest of us?
If this is his admitted condition, and he was a “man after God’s own heart,” where does that leave the rest of us?
David was lamenting his own sins. He was evaluating his own life. But where is the universal statement in the passage ?
Paul said he was the worst of sinners and was not talking about every person. Scripture tells us that we have all sinned. No doubt , but each person who hears the word of God can respond. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Rom 10 : 17.
David was lamenting his own sins. He was evaluating his own life. But where is the universal statement in the passage?
Is he any different than you or me?
Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Rom 10:17
If saving faith comes by hearing the word of God, and Scripture says it does, why doesn’t that faith come to everyone? Why aren’t all saved merely by our preaching the Gospel? Who made you to differ from your neighbor?
Romans 10 points to the general call, the indiscriminate Gospel call that we are commanded to give in the Great Commission. If faith is going to come at all, it will come through the preaching of the Word of God. Salvation doesn’t happen in a knowledge vacuum.
We agree on the means of salvation. ‘Nuff said.
What we’re discussing is the why and ultimate how of salvation. Does the Bible tell us why some don’t believe when they hear the Gospel? I believe it does. John 6, 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph 2:1-3; and on and on and on…
Yes , we are different from David in that David was making his own personal evaluation. You make your , I make mine , etc and we have all sinned. I still cannot find the universal staement of total depravity inherited from Adam in David’s statement.
I cannot find in the verses you last listed as saying we are totally depraved due to Adam’s sin. Guess we are at another impasse.
Yes , we are different from David in that David was making his own personal evaluation. You make your , I make mine , etc and we have all sinned.
So David, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writes that he was conceived in sin, but that’s just his interpretation of his own condition. I can look at my own heart and say, “Man, David is really a pessimist. David may have been conceived in sin, but that’s not true for me!”
Is that how we treat Scripture, the God-breathed revelation? It may have been how David looked at his own heart, but that doesn’t apply to me…How do you, a fallible man, make that determination?
Because David was so upset about his own sins he said , “Surely I have been a sinner from birth…” He was , writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, stating his own grief about his sin , not the whole human race. Where is the universal statement of inherited sin and total depravity in the passage ?
Because you come to the text with a presupposition of hyperbole, you deny the clear statement of the text. And, so I ask again: How are you or I different than David? This “man after God’s own heart” saw his true condition. Are we any better?
Not about being any better. All have sinned . Roamns 3 : 23 .
Where is the statement about all being born in sin ? Also, what happens to the infant that dies ? Lost or saved ?
Not about being any better. All have sinned.
Was David just a born sinner, whereas the rest of us move from a state of born neutrality?
If we are born neutral, why do we choose to do anything, good or evil? What motivates to one choice or the other?
All I said was that David was lamenting his wown sin. You keep asking the questions but will not answer any of mine. You are convinced of total dapravity and I have yet to find the passages that teach it.
sorry , meant , his “own” sin and “depravity.” Got in a hurry.
Ray,
I don’t doubt David was lamenting his own sin, but in his lament he points to his fallen nature. The implication is that this nature is the same for all of us. We are certainly no better or different than David.
You keep asking the questions but will not answer any of mine.
Boy, I know that is frustrating…see the massive amount of biblical evidence for Total Depravity above to which you have yet to respond. And that deals with what has been revealed to us.
You are asking me a question on what has not been explicitly revealed in Scripture. I would point out that the issue of dead infants is just as much a problem, if not more, for you as it is for me.
Having wrestled with this issue on a personal level, I am confident I have a God Who superintends over the wills of men. That’s what my Bible tells me.
Your’s is more “hands off” and “I’ve done all I can do. It’s up to you.” Those infants who die are just out of luck, I guess. We certainly wouldn’t want to explore Scripture to see if they are elect or not because that would make God, well, sovereign…
I have found no passage in Scripture that teaches blessed are the neutral for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven…What translation do you use that you would come to such a conclusion?
You make the statement about being neutral , not me. I have already said , all sin but still wait form the passages that teach we inherit sin. Again , where is the universal statement in David’s lament ?
I suggest you read my comments on May 30th very carefully. That’s a sampling of the Biblical record on this issue.
The universal application in David’s lament is in his inspired assessment of his own condition, i.e. conceived in iniquity. It would be foolish to assume that this statement just applied to David, “a man after God’s own heart.”
It is also clarified in Ps. 58:3. Are we wicked, as the Bible defines wicked, prior to our conversion?
We all sin prior to our conversion but Psalm 58 is stating a difference between the wicked and the righteous. It is an imprecatory Psalm where David is calling for God to deal with his enemies . Not a universal statement about total depravity.
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
Again, you create two classes of people then with your logic on these verses. Some are estranged from the womb speaking lies…conceived in iniquity. Others are born able to choose right or wrong – a description of neutrality, even if you didn’t use the “n” word.
Imprecatory or no, you have to account for how he describes the wicked. The fact that the righteous rejoice at God’s justice concerning the wicked (a fact I, of course, will never dispute) does not negate the clear teaching of Eph. 2:1-3 that we were all by nature children of wrath and sons of disobedience “like the rest of mankind.” Paul does not make the distinction that you do.
If children were born innocent, why don’t they stay innocent? Why don’t we have one, just one, example of a human child, a son of Adam, who stayed innocent? Do you know of such a one? Is the life of that child documented somewhere?
Again, I point you to my comments on May 30th. Lots of questions and lots of verses. The totality of the biblical testimony on original sin is truly overwhelming. I’ve barely scratched the surface.
If there were any chance that we could save ourselves through self-effort or a natural righteousness, then what was the point of the cross? Your argument makes the cross of no value because we really didn’t need Him to die in the first place. (to roughly paraphrase John Owen)
I gave you answers to the May 30 post. You do not agree. I never said that any child remained innocent but have constantly quoted the scripture that states all have sinned. Psalm 58 does not teach universal total depravity.
Because we have sined makes the cross essential . All need the grace of God to be saved.
You gave a blanket answer that “none of these passages teaches total depravity” but failed to deal with the texts…If you’re just not wanting to continue the conversation, just say so.
I do not know what you want. I tried to answer your questions. I can dialog as long as you want. Tell me what you want. I dare not try long posts .
Do you believe David was exaggerating his condition from birth in Ps. 51? If so, what language in the text itself leads you to that conclusion?
David was so overwhelemd by his sin , that he said about himself that surely , he , David was born a sinner. He only speaks about his life. I cannot find the language of universal inherited sin in his lament. Yet , he was a man after God’s own heart because when he realized his sin he grieved over it and repented. His grief is expressed in Psalm 51.
He only speaks about his life. I cannot find the language of universal inherited sin in his lament.
So was he just exaggerating, but really new he wasn’t born with a sin nature? Is that the way you read that passage? If so, what about the language used leads you to that conclusion?
If he speaks accurately, but only about his own life, what makes you or I any different than the “man after God’s own heart?”
The language of his own lament. He does not speak in the words of “we” were all born sinners. I have constantly said to you that we need Jesus and His sacrifice to save us from the wrath of God . Propitiation is essential. The blood of Jesus. Redemption through Jesus. Our difference is in the issue of being born sinners and our sins being inherited from Adam. Tell me , where the language of universal total depravity and inheriting the sin of Adam is found in Psalm 51.
He does not speak in the words of “we” were all born sinners.
Again, are we different than David? Was he born a sinner and we (or some of us) are not? Do you take at face value his claim that he was a sinner at birth or do you think he is exaggerating?
He is commenting on his life and laments his own sin. That is all. Not a universal comment. If so , then where is it ?
Do you take at face value his claim that he was a sinner at birth or do you think he is exaggerating?
I really want an answer to this question. If David was accurate in his assessment of his own condition (sinner from birth), how are you different from David?
I think this might help. Click here.
I have answered to the best of my ability. In the Psalm David mentions his own sin . All I know is that he does not use the language of universal total depravity. Where is the universal language in the Psalm ?
So then, it is your position that David is somehow different than the rest of us. His mention of his own sin has absolutely no implication for our own status before God from birth. Is that your position?
It is not about any position, I am stating what David, said about himself . Will you tell me where his statement teaches universal total depravity ?
I am stating what David, said about himself
What does he say about himself? and is he different than you or me in what he attributes to himself?
This is really not a difficult couple of questions. I am answering your question about universality with the answers to those two questions. You just refuse to answer the questions because of your tradition that presupposes that there is no such thing as original sin.
It’s really not a complicated argument. You just don’t want to see it.
Same with you. You refuse to answer my questions because of your tradition. I have answered your question , you do not like the answer. It should not be complicated for you to answer my question but the answer is that there is not a statement of universal total depravity in Psalm 51. David laments his sin. Not the sin of the whole world. I do not know how to give you a better answer.
David laments his sin, that is true. He points to his depravity as a reason, not an excuse, for the sin he has committed.
The point that you refuse to acknowledge is that David’s assessment of his condition from birth is a testimony of all of our conditions from birth.
Romans 5:12, 19; Ephesians 2:1-3; Psalm 58:3, to name a few, also bear witness to this testimony. I have answered your question, “Where is the universal statement” in multiple ways, but with the same core answer: David is no different from you.
Your status before God from birth is the same as David’s. Just because you have not sinned (I assume) such a great sin as David does not mean that your heart is any different. But for the restraining hand of God, we would all fall to such depths and worse.
I’m sorry you don’t agree. I really am. I don’t see how anyone can appreciate the grace of Christ until they get a clear picture of what they are being saved from. My only hope in this exchange is that you have at least begun to think about this stuff and will see it more clearly as you read through Scripture. It’s everywhere in the Bible. You just refuse to see it. But, I pray that the Holy Spirit will remove the scales of man-made tradition from your eyes.
You claim that you cling to only the Scripture and not a man-made tradition. But ask yourself: Who has to inject something into the text in order to make his argument? The text plainly states, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
But you have to read into that plain statement something other than what it clearly states. You have to go around your elbow to get to your thumb to deny that David is stating that he was a sinner from birth. We sin because we’re sinners; we’re not sinners just because we sin.
The kicker is that if you admitted that David was recognizing his state from birth, you know you’d have to admit that it applies to us all. You and I are no better than David. You and I need a new and created heart by God.
That’s the better answer. That’s the clear and unambiguous answer from this text. Who is sticking closer to Scripture?
Psalm 51 does not give a testimony concerning the condition of everyone from birth. Only human cojecture can come to that conclusion. There is nothing in the lnaguage of the Psalm that makes that claim. Only a system of human tradititon.
I answered you in the past concerning the passages you mentioned in your last post. You did not agree. None of those have the language of inherited, universal total depravity.
I know that without grace we are all doomed to an eternity in hell. You are very wrong to state my failure to undersatnad the need for grace. It is my constant message.
You are injecting universal total depravity into the text. I have constantly asked you to tell me where is the language that teaches such , in Psalm 51 and you will not give it to me, beacuse it is not there.
I have only given you scripture.Only the text.
I have only given you scripture.Only the text.
And what does the text say about David’s condition from birth? You just refuse to believe the plain language he uses describing his status from birth. Where did you get the idea that he is just exaggerating? That’s what you’re saying without saying it. “He can’t mean that he was conceived in sin. That would go against my tradition of free will!” So, it has to mean something else.
Then you try to defend your tradition with statements like the one above. But, using the narrow and miopic view of “I don’t see the words total depravity or universal in the text” you miss the entire point of the verse while claiming you are sticking close to the Text.
The fact is, you find support for other doctrines where the exact language is not used. Can you point to a verse of Scripture that uses the word, “Incarnation?” I assume you believe in that doctrine. How? You reasonably infer from the Text that Christ came in the flesh and that He is fully God and fully Man. Do you understand it completely: I doubt it. Neither do I. But we trust what the Text teaches regardless.
It is the same with this doctrine of total depravity or human inability. Hermeneutics involves gleaning from the Text what it explicitly states and also what is reasonably inferred from what is stated.
Nevertheless, there comes a point where I am banging my head against a wall without a helmet in this conversation. If you refuse to believe what Scripture states, you do so willingly and inspite of clear language in the Word. If grace is earned by something we have to offer God, then it is not grace. I submit, you do not fully appreciate the grace you claim if you refuse the Biblical testimony that God did everything for your salvation from start to finish.
Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death. If only those who are charged with sin deserve death, why do infants die?
No , I said that the language , the teaching of universal depravity is not taught in the text and all you do is to insert something about exaggerating . Tell me where David said we are all born sinners . It is not in the text. Say all you want about what you think I am saying but you have yet to prove that total depravity, the teaching is clearly taught in the passage. You have taken a personal statement and made it to be universal but that is not the teaching of the text. You are the one not staying with the text.
We die becuase sin is the curse that comes from sin but there is a difference in death coming to all men and saying that every baby inherits sin. When babies die they are innocent and safe. They cannot know about sin , they cannot repent , confess or believe. Jesus said they make up the kingdom.
You are the one who keeps bringing up grace and earned salvation. Not me. I already said it is by grace that we are saved. Not by grace alone. And I have already said that God has provided everything for salvation. No one can add to the cross. Our difference is in how the gift is received. This blog started with a discussion about baptism and the necessity of baptism for salvation. I have stated several times that baptism is not a work of human merit but it is a response of obedient faith to receive the gift. That is where I stand.
When babies die they are innocent and safe. They cannot know about sin, they cannot repent, confess or believe.
And yet they still die in as the result of sin…Is God just in having them bear the results of sin if they are innocent? For what are these innocents being punished?
Now, I also believe that infants who die are in Heaven, but not because of any innocence they have before God, but on the basis of the mercy of God in saving His elect children in that manner.
You are the one who keeps bringing up grace and earned salvation. Not me. I already said it is by grace that we are saved. Not by grace alone.
There are so many levels of irony in that statement. But, I am convinced you just don’t see them, so I won’t take the time to point them out. I will end our discussion on this topic with this:
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. Romans 11:6
No argument. Saved by grace. Scripture teaches salvation by grace. It has been a good discussion.