|
Don't forget to bookmark this page!
Share this page with a friend!
Salvation by faith or by water baptism?
by Aramus Crane
Part 1: Salvation is by faith or works?
Based on a dialog with a missionary friend (claims to
be formerly fundamentalist, now evangelical) who graduated from Dallas
Theological Seminary (DTS). To make the dialog more understandable to the reader, I reordered some of it, corrected some English mistakes, and eliminated redundencies.
The views of my brother in the Lord should not be taken to reflect
those of all fundamentals, evangelicals, or DTS. In fact,
you'll find that his views differ explicitly from those expressed on
the DTS
website: "no baptism or other ordinance however
administered, can help the sinner to take even one step toward heaven."
I consider myself a simple Christian. My views largely allign with Protestant thought but the reader should not assume they reflect the ideas of all Protestants, my foundation, my church, my supporters, my alma mater, or any other creature on the planet.
Bible quotations are from the King James Version (KJV) because most
people of my brother's persuasion prefer that version.
His statements are in blue. Mine are in black.
"By grace are ye
saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the
gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast."
---the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians 2:8-9 King James
Version (KJV)
"For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord." --- Saint Paul to the
Romans 6:23 (KJV)
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the
Lord." The Apostle Peter Acts 3:19 (KJV)
"Jesus answered [the thief on the cross], "I tell you the truth,
today you will be with me in paradise." --- Luke 23:43
That plus the whole letter to the Galatians should be enough
to demonstrate to you that no work, including baptism by water is
necessary for salvation. However, I will take it step by
step and then allow you to present any Scripture you can find to
refute this Good News.
1. You acknowledged that
baptism is a work.
It can easily become one, yes.
Genesis 1 says that God worked six days by just
uttering words. Yet you can change into a baptismal robe, go
to a baptismal pool, get in the water, give a testimony
and still avoid work. Amazing. That would
imply that you are more powerful than God.
Let's take it a step at a time. If you get into a baptismal pool,
have you done something? Yes, you got into the pool and
accomplished getting wet. (-; Is there any time it
accomplishes nothing? No!
You have to consider the theological context
of a given term. We define the word differently.
Since I speak English, I use the English
definitions of words as much as possible. We
conservatives call it deconstruction when we see liberals
changing definitions to fit their goals.
There is a distinction between saying something is
necessary than it is a work. You would say
faith is necessary for salvation correct? you would say an
acknowledgement of the lordship of Christ is necessary for
salvation right? Does that make either of them
a "work"???
Dear brother, let us look at the definition of the word. Work:
/wȗrk/ Something that has been done, made, or
performed as a result of one's occupation, effort, or
activity. Work=force*distance. What is
your definition? If we stick with speaking
English, how much force does it take to "have faith" or "believe"?
Does your head move a distance when you think?
By the dictionary definition, I would not
classify thoughts as works, because for most people it takes
more effort not to have them than to have them. It
would be completely impossible to rest on the sabbath.
On the Seventh Day did God not have a
thought?!?! I doubt it.
OK, anytime I count on an act I
perform, regardless of what it is, to earn my
salvation it is a work. And that is wrong. Agree?
It is wrong to rely on anything other than Christ's
sacrifice.
2. You said that
some churches state that you are not saved until you are
baptized.
I agree
with what you are driving at and I understand where you
are coming from. Salvation can be described as a crisis
point in time event and as a process. From Eph 2
etc it is clear that good works have nothing to do
with salvation (point in time decision).
I think you are stretching the context to say that Ephesians 2 is only
refering to the point in time decision, what theologians call
"justification". Ephesians 2:8-9 says "saved" not "justified".
Anything you lump into "salvation" should be included. But
for the sake of the argument, we will let you go for now.
I think one difficulty you are having is stepping out
of your world view and thinking out of the
box. The Bible was not written from a
western worldview (nor from a necessarily eastern one
either). Rather it is supra cultural. We tend to
interpret it from our cultural perspective and from what we have
heard most often (and that sounds the most logical to
us). But because the Bible is above any given human
culture (because all are insufficient in themselves because of the
fall and our finitude) it is best approached from multiple
perspectives to understand and appreciate the fullness of its
message.
I don't know if I like
the word "supra-cultural". I believe what Jon Stott writes
about hermeneutics. How do you reconcile your statement with
proper hermeneutics which requires the reader to consider the
history and culture addressed? I agree that it is unfortunate
that people tend to interpret the Bible from their own culture.
Biblical terminology and ideas
are complex. Theology and salvation in
particular are not as simplistic as you like to
make it out to be. I Cor 1:18 is a present
periphrastic participle. "Who are being saved" a
clear reference to salvation as a process not an point
in time event. Both perspectives are
true.
|
(For those of you who would like more on this idea, see the inset
to the right.)
Personally, I can accept either one. I don't see the
relevance to our discussion.
If someone
says that the act of baptism earns salvation
then that is a problem and wrong. If they were to
say "baptism is a necessary part of salvation" then I
would agree (using their understanding of the term
salvation). Just like we would say good works
are a necessary part of sanctification. Good
works don't "earn" sanctification but Christian
growth and maturity is impossible without good works.
Good works are a necessary part of
sanctification. Do you agree?
What I see supported by the Bible is that
salvation cannot be achieved or earned by works (0.000000...%)
and, by the English definition of "works", baptism is a work
so not necessary for salvation. I believe that
sanctification is achieved by works with probably
upwards of 99.9999....% of the achievement God's
purifying work at the moment of glorification, at life's end. (I
feel comfortable with "work" here because
something is "performed" by "effort".)
Good works can help us in our sanctification if they one performs them with the right motives. If one has selfish motives for performing good works, then they are a hindrance to
sanctification. As Chuck Colson wrote, "Worldly
power--whether measured by buildings, budgets, baptisms, or
access to the White House [3 of 4 of these are good works]--is more
often the enemy than the ally of godliness." ( A Dangerous
Grace, Dallas: Word Publishing 1994. p. 133.) If there is
love and grace behind the good works, then the person grows and
matures. If there is selfishness behind them, then the
person grows farther away from God. Thus, works are
neutral.
This is why Lordship Salvation people have such
problems with legalistic churches. Once again from A
Dangerous Grace: "Seeing holiness only as rule-keeping
breeds serious problems.
- "First, it limits the scope of true biblical
holiness, which must affect every aspect of our lives.
- "Second, even though the rules may be biblically
based, we often end up obeying the rules rather than obeying God;
concern for the letter of the law can cause us to lose its spirit.
- "Third, emphasis on rule-keeping deludes us into
thinking we can be holy through our efforts. But there can
be no holiness appart from the work of the Holy Spirit--in
quickening us through the conviction of sin and bringing us by
grace to Christ, and in sanctifying us--for it is grace that causes
us to even want to be holy.
- "And finally, our pious efforts can become
ego-gratifying, as if holy living were some kind of spiritual
beauty contest. Such self-centered spirituality in turn leads
to self-righteousness--the very opposite of the selflessness of
true holiness." (p. 53)
|
One perspective
Salvation =
-
justification,
-
sanctification,
-
glorification.
In my
first theology class in college dealing with salvation the
professor put it this way.
Salvation =
justification, sanctification, glorification.
When justified we
are saved from the penalty of sin
Through sanctification we
saved from the power of sin
once glorified we
are saved from the presence of sin.
The colliery
concept is the fact that was are said to have eternal life now
(most references) but it is also something we will
receive in the future (something we both have now
but will not receive in fullness till later).
Verses referring
to eternal life still being something future. (some
clearer than others)
Jude 21 "as
you wait...for Jesus to bring you eternal life" (still a
future event)
Rom 2:7
John
6:27
Daniel
12:2
Perhaps
the clearest is 1 Peter 1:3-12.
3
"us" clearly speaking to believers
3
"has given us new birth" past tense -- they were
saved in the past when they believed
5
"...until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be
(future tense) revealed in the last time."
Here is a clear
example of the concept of salvation (even uses the term)
being encompassing not only the point in time new birth
(vs.. 3 past to the reader) but also referring to
the future event of the reception of our
inheritance in heaven. (vs.. 5 still future)
in verse 9 it
also includes the concept of salvation as a process "you are
receiving (present tense) the goal of of your faith, the salvation
of your souls."
So in one
passage you have salvation as a point in time -- here the time of
their new birth (vs.. 3). A continuing process for the
believer (vs. 9). and yet at the same time something we look
forward to that we will (future tense) receive in
heaven. (vs.. 5). All three in
one nice little package for you.
|
|
|
Flexibility or Deconstruction?
We must use canonized dictionary definitions, not
definitions we contrive 2000 years later.
Exactly my
point. You are using "canonized dictionary
definitions" (Webster's if I remember
right). To discuss theology you should be
using (ideally, Hebrew BDB for instance and Greek BAGD is
a good one, dictionaries. Or at least English theological
dictionaries (there are many good ones). But our
discussion is not simply about "English"
definitions. It is about the cross-cultural
understanding of a term in two different
languages. Thus the term must be defined in
both language to find out the exact correspondence of
meaning. When an East Indian says "salvation" is
there an exact 1 to 1 correspondence in meaning with what Aunt
Mildred in Ohio means?? Of course not. Nor would
there be an exact 1 to 1 if both were Christians. That is
my point.
Friend, one of my chief complaints is that you seem to
arbitrarily change definitions from their Greek and English
origins to conform the Bible to your preconceived
notions. Proper hermeneutics requires that we use the definition
intended by the author. We must not revise definitions according
to what we desire the Bible to mean.
I am not changing
definitions. I am saying the term is defined different
ways in different cultures. And even more that
that it is defined different ways in different
contexts even within the bible itself. That
is normal for language. Meaning is not
determined by a dictionary, but by authorial usage in
context.
How do you reconcile your first and second sentences? When any
decent author wants to explain something, they choose a word that the audience will understand. If there is a subtle
difference in meaning, he should explain it and not leave it to
the audience especially if he is an omniscient God explaining
to human beings.
The Bible
itself can use terms with slightly different connotations in
different contexts. A fundamental thesis of linguistics / language
is that any given word derives its meaning form (sic?) the context in which
it is used.
I agree. Context tells which one of those
definitions is being used. But (and this is an
important but) among educated people, a word's
range is limited to the range defined in the
dictionary. You would get nowhere in a court of law if you
try to use the argument, "In that contract, in its
context, that word meant..." if that is not a
definition recognized by society by its being included
in the dictionary.
If the dictionary is good enough.
Webster's is not for theological discussions. Nor for
Romanian of course.
Then, communication is deconstructed. If the
English represented by Webster is insufficient, then it is very
dangerous to translate into the language. The Bible
translators were very highly educated, respected men of many
persuasions, but the words they used were straight out of the
contemporary dictionaries, not ones found in the dusty corners of
theological institutions. It was common practice long ago to
coin new words if no appropriate ones are available. (You
may know enough about history of the KJV translation to know that it created many new words.)
True, theological
terms are still being coined if you read the scholarly
literature.
That's just my point, brother. New words should be used
instead of old words misused. Also, keep in mind that the writers
and intended audience of the Bible were common fishermen and shepherds
of the 2nd Century, not Princeton grads in the 20th Century.
Those reading any text must realize that to
understand what the person is saying, they must read
within the bounds of accepted definitions. You can't be absolutely sure
that the person writing has the education to use the
right word, but that is what editors check. Have
you ever seen the SNL skit Anna Roxannadana? That is
what happens when you practice what you are advocating.
A
dictionary can help give the range of meanings but the
specific contextual usage determines the specific
meaning of the term in that context.
I must respectfully disagree. Omit "help" and I can agree.
The dictionary gives the full range of meanings.
Context determines which one is in use at the time.
We must not deconstruct English to serve our desired ends but must
practice correct hermeneutics.
Likewise, if you are going to produce an
educated written essay that you want to communicate
effectively with others, you had better use
definitions that are accepted or else you will not be
effective in communication.
Or you
simply define the term as you intend to use it.
that is often the case in scholarly
journals.
Exactly. However, if this word is used subsequently, this special
definition must be clearly referenced in future works until it
becomes accepted into dictionaries. Case in point: the DTS
website which clearly states "water baptism" or "spirit baptism" as
appropriate. Do they write more powerfully and clearly than
the living GOD? I doubt it.
However, we have reached a classical conservative-liberal
impasse. We won't get past that one.
|
So if you define
Salvation as the entire process past, present, and future
(as 1 Peter 1:3-12 clearly does) and if baptism is necessary
for sanctification (as an act or sign of obedience) then
defined as some people define the term, baptism
is "necessary" for salvation (taking the
broadest yet biblical definition of the term).
If one believes that any action (including water baptism) is God's
desire for him, yet he doesn't do it, I agree that he doesn't have
saving faith. So, you can use any work to demonstrate your
saving love for God or for others, but absolutely no work is necessary
nor eliminatory when it comes to salvation, especially if it is
just some human that believes that you should do
it.
Your teachers at Dallas are many times more knowledgeable than
you and I together, and they write, "no baptism or other ordinance
however administered, can help the sinner to take even one step toward heaven."
(Emphasis mine.) Do you consider yourself smarter than all
your teachers combined?
It is the faith that saves you, whether that faith is
applied in times of justification, sanctification, or
glorification. Let me put it another way. If a person
believes that any work is unnecessary and shows Scripture to support
her view, then it is no longer "an act or sign of obedience" and
hence not necessary for sanctification. This is root
of the Gospel message and the focus of the Christian Campaign of
Grace that we are trying to introduce on Liv-n-Letliv.net. You
might want to pick up a good book on grace. Yancey's What's
So Amazing About Grace is pretty good.
However, legalistic cults require a work with no basis in
Scripture. Is there any Scriptural support for baptism being
required for sanctification? I think you said it, "no". I
have a problem, (and the missionary sitting next to me here says
"so does Paul") with sanctification requiring works. You must
understand that God looks on the heart. Works can be used as
a tool to develop our heart but in no way do any of our
works amount to anything more than filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) since
our motives are usually selfish.
As we learned in Perspectives,
most professional Christian workers don't accept people movements.
It is western individualistic thought that each must come to God alone,
be baptized alone. However, the Bible, having been mostly
targeted at and written by people in the Eastern culture, is much
more oriented to societies. Thus, the Bible has much more
talk about whole cities repenting and whole
families getting baptized, including youngsters about
whom we never hear they feel a necessity to get rebaptized.
Thus, although you may never understand it, and I may have had a
preliminary bias against it because I was also reared in the West,
anyone's baptism as an infant is well within Biblical
guidelines.
3. So, how can
you tap-dance around salvation depending on a
work?
I'm not tap
dancing. My beliefs are perfectly clear.
Ephesians 2:8-10 says nothing can earn salvation. But you
don't seem to be able to see outside of your
theological box. You seem to have a naive
understanding of language that all words mean the same
exact thing in any context, culture, language,
etc. You have defined terms from your context
(which is normal and fine) but can't seem to acknowledge that
someone else coming from a radically different worldview could
define a word differently.
(For a brief side discussion on
hermeneutics, see inset to the left.)
In no way is salvation due to works, regardless of
definition. If it were, then we could go back to boasting
like the legalists do. Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn't say "for grace
you have been justified through faith."
Is justification due to works?
Justification is not due to our works but due to Jesus' work on the
cross and the Holy Spirit's work of conviction (John 16:5-11).
Is sanctification due to works?
Sanctification is not due to our works but due to the Holy Spirit's
work (John 16:13) and the Father's work in seating Jesus to His right
hand (Ephesians 1-2). Works can help us express our
salvation or help us develop our faith. However, if we were
tied up for the rest of our lives post-salvation we would be no
less saved or sanctified. One could argue that it may be possible to be more sanctified, due to
the suffering of being tied up. (James 1:2-4) Works can help God sanctify
our hearts but they are not required for so doing. Good works
can help us in our sanctification IF they are done with the right
motives. If good works are done with the wrong motives then
they are a hindrance to sanctification. Thus, works are
neutral.
Now what do we say about the accusations from the Orthodox that for us
"good works make no sense" and are "useless".
(http://www.ortho-logia.com/Romanian/doua_conceptii.htm)
That idea, in itself, makes no sense. If one has
faith, he will have works, for as James says "faith is completed by
works" and "faith without works is barren". Much as some people
would like it to say, the letter of James does not say that works save.
History and historians demonstrate that it is exactly the liberation of
the soul that comes from an understanding of saving faith which
motivates a person to good works. Ephesians 2:8-9 is followed by
10. Which countries are more industrious? Which send more
messengers of the Gospel? Which are more generous? The
answers to all these are the Protestant countries.
"According to Calvinism, goodness was a plausible sign of election.
Anyone could be chosen, but it was only reasonable to suppose
that most of those chosen would show by their character and ways the
quality of their souls and the nature of their destiny. This
implicit reassurance was a powerful incentive to proper thoughts and
behavior. ...Predestination... was eventually converted into a
secular code of behavior: hard work, honesty, seriousness, the
thrifty use of money and time (both lent us by God)." (Landes DS.
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. New York:
WW Norton & Co., 1998, p. 175)
Max "Weber's point is that Protestantism produced a new kind of
businessman, a different kind of person, one who aimed to live and work
a certain way. It was the way that mattered, and riches were at
best a by-product."(ibid)
Is glorification due to works?
It goes without saying that glorification is not due to our works but
to God's work. We are dead!
Still hold your opinion?
OK, now let's hear your Scriptural references for water baptism's
necessity in our salvation.
(Click here.)
What is your opinion so far? Take our poll by clicking here.
|
|
