The Church of Christ and necessity of Baptism

[Guest]

Wow - I hardly know where to begin, but I will make some comments on what has been said.

Faith has always been the only manner in which a person was saved or pleased God. Romans 4 shows how this was true of Abraham,

This is an astonishing statement. Are we to believe that when Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac that he did not please God?!

Circumcision was actually the central act of obedience to enter in to the Old Covenant

So were women not part of the Old Covenant?

The theif on the cross had faith and was saved. Jesus said so. He was not condemned by God because his life as a Christian lasted only a few hours and he didn't have the chance to be baptised, nor was a special exception made for his salvation because normally your supposed to be baptised but he didn't have the chance. That would make God a respector of persons, I believe, and would make the statements of Scripture about the singularity of the path to salvation appear misleading. There is not a detour or "fast-track" to heaven for people who are more stubborn or tardy about repenting and getting on with obeying God.

So here we have "put God in a box" and eliminated mercy! God is still sovereign!

Baptism is not a belief, it is an act of obedience.

Are you sure baptism is a work and not an act of faith, as was also Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac? I could certainly argue that Abraham's odedience was a "work", but I will argue it was an act of faith, perhaps the greatest act of faith we read of in scripture. How do you determine what is a "work", which is basically trusting in yourself, and an act of faith, which demonstrates trust in the work of Christ, or do you believe nothing we do has the meaning of faith? Apart from what baptism might accomplish, what is the meaning of it. If you say it is "testimony", please cite one verse in scripture that says this is the meaning of it.

"How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us who were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

This is a curious translation of a passage admitted to be a reference to water baptism, to say the least. The Greek preposition eis is a word indicating movement from one place to, or toward another, (if you consult a Greek, not English, concordance, you will easily see this is so). A correct translation is "who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his
death? The implication ought to be obvious.

I take these verses to mean that water baptism (especially if the submerssion technique is in view) represents symbolically the death (submerssion)

The Greek word baptizo means to immerse or dip. How do you immerse with any other "technique" and how could it possibly represent a burial?

but I would worry about a person's soul if they felt that faith also required to be topped off with water baptism in order to be saved

I hope you realize that the entire early church believed this to be so. Are you worried about all of them?The imminent early church historian, Dr. Everett Furgeson, has stated that if baptism is not for the remission of sins, the entire early church had gone wrong about a basic doctrine of Christianity within 50 years of the Apostles! How can we believe the Apostles failed so miserably in "teaching them to obey everything I commanded you?" And that to their immediate followers! Oh well, the Gnostics would have agreed with you.

(Quote) I didn't appeal to God for salvation by getting baptised

Did you not noticed in 1 Peter 3:21 the Greek word eperotema is variously translated appeal, answer, pledge, &c? It was a Greek word used in making a contract? Baptism is primarily directed toward God, not to any crowd. Where do you find in any conversion narrative in scripture that they bothered to draw a crowd? Rather we find them baptizing in the middle of the night!

If He desires all to be saved, what is it that obligates Him to strictly adhere to this technicality?

Not a thing. "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy". God is not bound by that which He has appointed unto man, we are.

As for Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins", some have struggled mightily to establish that "for" (eis) means "because" in this place. The Greek word has never been proven to have a causitive meaning. The exact same Greek words are used to say that Jesus died for forgiveness of sins. It would be absurd to say He died "because of the forgiveness of our sins".

It is noteworthy to consider that the same Greek word for "faith" can also be translated "faithfulness".

Finally, I would ask that we consider our exemplar of faith, Abraham. In Genesis 15:6, Abraham's faith is accounted to him for righteousness. Then in v.7 God makes another promise. In v.8 Abraham appeals to God "how shall I know" that God will do as He said. Then God gives Abraham a sign. God has promised to forgive our sins, and He has givin us a sign, a sensible sign - baptism, that He will do what He has promised.

[Guest]

Homer,
I believe that people have always been saved by faith, regardless of the time period that they lived in. I mentioned Romans 4 in my post because Paul emphasizes this point so strongly. He mentions Abraham, a man revered by the Jews as a righteous man and the progenitor of their people, and states that because Abraham believed that he was considered righteous before God (Ro. 4:3). This righteous standing occured prior to God's command for circumcision and hundreds of years prior to the Old Testament law. Thus, circumcision and the law must not be the modes by which righteousness is granted, which is Paul's conclusion. Paul's point is that if faith alone is what justified Abraham to God, why would it be any different for his Christian New Covenant readers? He goes on to give other examples (David being one) of how throughout history, God has made faith the basis for relationship with him. Commands to be circumcised or baptized do not change that since these are acts of obedience that come from believing in the One making those commands.

Since I realize that different people define faith differently, I should mention that the faith I am referring to and the one I believe is spoken of in Scripture, is not a dead faith. It is not a mere intellectual assent in God's existence. It is the kind of faith that produces good works as its fruit. This is the faith that I believe saves a person.

Abraham exhibited faith in God in believing for a son (though his faith was a little slow to come around at first). He also exhibited faith when he showed he was willing to, in essence, give that son back to God if God so wanted. This act of obedience in being willing to sacrifice Isaac pleased God, but that does not detract from the fact that Abraham's faith is what justified him to God and caused him to obey. If Abraham had offered Isaac with a grumbling heart, would his sacrifice have pleased God? Faith is invisible, and anyone can claim to believe anything. But true faith, the kind that pleases God, produces a life of obedience to God that is plain to see and that proves the person believes what he/she says they believe. Abraham's obedience is related to his faith and one could even say that it was produced by his faith, but it is not the same thing as faith. Faith and works are certainly related, but I do not believe they are interchangeable terms.

Respectfully, I am puzzled by your accusation that I am excluding women from God because of my statements about circumcision. In Genesis 17:10,11 God says, "This is My Covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you." Also, in verse 14, God says, "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

I am sure that God was aware of the anatomical differences between men and women when He uttered these words. Is God sexist by saying them? How would you prefer that He worded it? Obviously, women were able to worship God and be used by God (Esther, Ruth), but that is understood quite clearly from reading the Old Testament and the strong emphasis placed on circumcision should not be placed in tension with that. To assume that I have a low view of women because I did not state the obvious (women can't be circumcised) is an ad homino arguement and fallacious.

I see a similarity between circumcision in the Old Covenant and water baptism in the New Covenant, though as I stated in my previous post, I do not believe that one is a type of the other. A Jewish boy was circumcised as an infant in order to be accepted in the covenant community, and this act was to symbolize the beginning of a life devoted to God and His law. His circumcision would hopefully be the first of a lifetime full of acts in accordance with God's laws. As I also stated in my last post, I believe Romans 6:1-4 teaches us that baptism symbolizes our new life in Jesus, and as one of the first acts a believer is to take in obedience to Jesus, it should be the first in a lifetime of public declarations of our faith in Him.

You asked for a verse that states that "baptism is a testimony". As you know, I cannot produce a verse that says that verbatim, anymore than I could defend the Trinity by quoting a verse that uses that word. However, in Romans 6, Paul says that we were "buried with Him through baptism into death" and Paul talks about us being baptized as if we were "baptized into his death". Paul's language certainly sounds as if he believes baptism symbolizes something. What I do not see Paul saying anywhere in his writings is that baptism is a part of God's saving work.

I am aware, as Sam pointed out, that there are passages which can appear to make a strong case for baptism as a part of our salvation (see his post for a list of some of them). If there were only verses that mentioned the necessity of faith in salvation, and those verses said no more than that, then that would leave open the interpretation that Sam gave to the verses he mentioned in Acts. However, there are verses in the Scripture that say that we are saved by faith alone. I am not aware how else to view such passages that appear to affirm a faith alone doctrine. Even well known passages like Eph 2:8,9 say that we are saved by faith, not of ourselves, and it is a gift of God and not of works so that no one can boast.

I must say that you have defined the terms "faith" and "works" in an idiosyncratic way that defies not only the dictionary, but also their common use in Scripture and everyday use. Somehow in your parlance, if a person does something out of faith, then what they do is no longer an act but is faith, because you define a work as "trusting in yourself". You may define work and faith in this way, but please know that most of the rest of the world does not. If you look in a dictionary (I just did), you will find that faith is defined on the basis of trust and what you believe, and that works are defined as what you do. Faith is internal and works are external. They are related, and I believe that the Bible teaches that faith produces works which become the evidence that the faith actually exists. But that does not mean that faith and works are the same, or that a righteous act of obedience becomes faith and not a work. Paul said in Romans 4 that God made faith the basis of our salvation rather than works so that we would not feel that our salvation is a "wage earned". Paul therefore separates what we believe (faith) from what we do (works), and he does not intermingle the two. He does not equate wages earned with what we believe because that is not a work and nobody would ever confuse it to be, unless their theology requried a blurring of these rather simple terms. We are to stir up good works in each other, and that would include obeying Jesus in water baptism after conversion, but we are not to put any degree of trust in baptism to wash away our sins since they have been rinsed with the "precious blood of the Lamb" according to I Pt. 1:19.

In terms of your comments on my mentioning the thief on the cross - I have to admit that I don't understand what your response means. I certainly have no intention of "boxing" God in. God can choose who He wants to save and how He wants to do it. Yet God has chosen faith as this means, and writers like Paul make that clear. Whether you are Abraham, David or the thief, you are saved by faith. I suppose you thought I was limiting God because I said that God does not offer different plans of salvation to different people. That statement does not limit God, because I did not say God couldn't do that. I simply said that God has shown us in the Bible that He doesn't do that. Jesus preaching in Mark 1:15 said "Repent and believe in the gospel" and that is exactly what the thief did. That is why Jesus told him that he would be in Paradise with Him. Why appeal to special circumstances to acount for the theif's salvation, which is only necessary when we add requirements for salvation that the Bible does not.

My mentioning I Pt 3 was only to point out that Peter refers to water baptism as an antitype. He seems to feel that the physical act of baptism (the actual washing) is not what is important, but rather what it represents, which is the clean conscience we have toward God by faith in Christ. That clean conscience comes from the fact that Jesus' death paid the price of our sins, and as our Proxy, we died with Him. This is what baptism is symbolizing, our death (submerssion) and resurrection (coming out of the water) - hence the terminology of type and antitype.

You asked rhetorically about what other mode of baptism there might be besides immersion? I worded my post in that manner because the Didache, the earliest non-Biblical Christian writing we have from antiquity, suggests that immersion is the first choice for a mode of baptism, but that if no body of water was available to do this, then pouring could be used. The Didache gives the idea that the mode of baptism was not as big of a deal to the early church as it has become to us.

You glossed over "the early church" by stating that all early Christians believed as you do. You also implied that the Gnostics and I are bedfellows. On the first point, I am well aware that the majority of Christian leaders believed in the necessity of baptism to be considered a Christian. I word it this way because, as I mentioned in my earlier post, books like the Didache and other writings considered baptism to be the first step in obedience a Christian was called to take. So easy is it to be baptized that many leaders in the early church felt that if a person wasn't willing to be obedient in baptism, then there was little proof they would ever be willing to follow Christ in anything. That would call into question whether they had truly come to believe in Christ. Usually, you were not admitted to the official membership of the church without public baptism.

There is also much written from that period about how water baptism is a part of the saving process - yes, I am also aware of that fact. But I ask you, so what? I respect the early believers, and would not quickly ingore their insights, but even what they wrote must submit to Scripture. There are many other things that some of the early Christians believed that I do not (paedobaptism, not offering the eucharist to anyone who had ever shed blood). Am I required to? I thought that the only true authority of doctrine was the Scripture, and not the traditions of the church? Let God be found true and every man a liar.

Why do you consider that if the early Christians you quote in support of your views are incorrrect, that this is a failure on the part of the apostles? Did Jesus fail in John 14:6-9, when Philip asked to see the Father so that "it would be sufficient" for him, and Jesus replied, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip?" Not every failure to grasp the truth is a failure of the teacher? Sometimes it is the audience who is dull of mind.

In terms of my relationship with the Gnostics, allow me to make it a short one. The Gnostics had a problem with water baptism because it used physical elements which many of them considered inherently evil. I have no problem with water baptism, and I have nothing in common with the Gnostics in that regard.

You mention Abraham being given a sign; the sign of his covenant with God was circumcision. The Bible does not say anywhere that I know of that baptism is our sign of forgiveness of sins. Jesus spoke only of the sign of His resurrection in this matter (the sign of the prophet Jonah), which Paul reiterates in I Cor 15:17: "If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" Baptism, however, is not described as a sign that "He will do what he promised", as you incorrectly asserted.

There is never an example of a believer not being baptized in the book of Acts, which is why I think baptism is so closely linked with salvation in that book. Yet in Acts 10:47 Peter said of new converts who had not yet been water baptized, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Can you recieve the Holy Spirit and not be saved? How would you reconcile this verse with your understanding of Acts 2:38?

In Mk 16:16 we are told that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe is condemned. What about those who believe and are not baptized? Belief appears to be the common denominator of these two groups and not water baptism, as I understand it.

[Guest]

It is very hard to establish norms in the book of Acts. The book is a survey of history. Not a theological treatise, per se.

I have no problem with water baptism, it is commanded. But so is "turn the other cheek", and "give to him that ask".
The whole 5-step plan to attain salvation just doesn't seem biblical to me. Though I could be wrong.

[_SamIam]

Brody,

I agree that it is a challenge to establish norms from historical accounts. A good example is the paractice of the early Jerusalem Christians to hold "everything in common" and apparently live a communal lifestyle in some respect. Few hold that this was meant to be the norm for Christians, although it is a perfectly good thing to do as circumstances dictate. (My take is that Jersusalem was a "tourist town" flooded with religious pilgrims several times a year. Many of these became disciples of Christ and perhaps ran low on funds. Holding everything in common would be helpful in these circumstances. It also helped spread the word as the pilgrims returned to their hometowns.)

Baptism, on the other hand, does not seem to be a local custom or a response to temporary circumstances. Christians throughout the ages have considered it theologically significant. It seems perfectly resonable to study the Acts and determine the beliefs and practices of the early Christians concerning baptism. I consider their example normative in this area. In my opinion, any supposed conflict between the doctrine and practice of baptism presented in Acts and teachings about baptism presented in the epistles is in the mind of the interpreter. They seem perfectly consistent to me.

For those unaware, the infamous "5-step plan of salvation" was popularized in the 1820's by an evangelist named Walter Scott. He used it as an evangestic tool. In his presentation, one became a Christian by:

1. Hearing to message
2. Believing the message
3. Repenting
4. Being baptized into Christ
5. Recieving the Holy Spirit

By the 20th century, the list was popularly stated

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent
4. Confess (that Jesus is the Christ)
5. Be baptized

As an evangelistic tool, it is easy repeat (and Walter Scott found it quite effective). As a soteriology it is seriously flawed.

There is no Biblcal plan where man can "attain salvation." Salvation is never attained by human effort. It is the gift of God. We probably agree that this gift is only given to those who meet the conditions God has expressed, and this condition is faith. More specifically, faith in the attoning work of Jesus.

I think you will find scripture supporting each item on the list associated with persons being saved. Sadly, some spirutally immature Christians have considered the list a step-by-step procedure to get to God. They need an education.

On the other hand, if a person is presented with the good news of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus, and is convicted of sin, and desires to get right with God; it seems perfectly biblical to tell them believe with all your heart that Jesus died for you, repent of your sins and turn to God with your whole life, confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and be baptized into Christ for the remission of your sins (or words of similar effect). In my mind, it is the popular "sinner's prayer" that has no biblical support.

[Guest]

My mentioning I Pt 3 was only to point out that Peter refers to water baptism as an antitype. He seems to feel that the physical act of baptism (the actual washing) is not what is important, but rather what it represents.

If your last sentence were true, David, then Peter would have used the word "type" for baptism, not "antitype". An antitype is the inverse of type.
It is the reality of which the type is a type of.

...when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
Baptism, the antitype of this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I Peter 3:20,21

Clearly the ark in the water in which a few were saved is the TYPE.
The antitype, the reality or the thing which is "important", is the baptism. This is what saves us. The result of baptism is not a mere cleansing of the body, but "an appeal to God for a clear conscience."

Christopher wrote:

There are a multitude of reasons that someone would not be baptized (ignorance, lack of opportunity, etc.) but in my opinion, the only reason I could see for that being a salvation issue is avoiding baptism out of disobedience. That merely indicates the person hasn't confessed Jesus as Lord.

Christopher! Reread your final sentence! MERELY? You seem to say "merely" as if confessing Jesus as Lord is not the essential thing!
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. In any case, Jesus said, "whoever hears these words of mine and DOES them is like the wise man who built his house upon the rock, and that he will be able to stand when the storms come. The apostle John wrote:

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

To believe in the Son, does not imply a mere "faith in His finished work on the cross." (Now you can get me for calling this kind of faith "mere")
Rather, to believe in the Son is to entrust your whole being, your whole life, to the Son. The same Greek word that is used for "believe in the Son", namely, "pisteuo" was used of Jesus when it was written that "He did not entrust Himself to man, for He knew what was in man."

[Guest]

Christopher! Reread your final sentence! MERELY? You seem to say "merely" as if confessing Jesus as Lord is not the essential thing!

You can relax Paidion, I would never suggest such a thing. I pour the same meaning into the word “confess” as I believe the apostle Paul did in Romans 10:

Rom 10:9
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
NKJV

Confession by mouth, if sincere, reflects the intent of the heart. This can only be proven true or false by the subsequent actions of the confessor. Confessing Jesus as “Lord” declares that one intends to obey Him as Lord.

If a person confesses Jesus as “Lord”, yet refuses to obey the simplest of His commandments (get baptized), then he has proven by his actions that Jesus isn’t really “Lord” to him. That is quite a different thing then saying it is the baptism itself that regenerates a person.

On the subject of baptism, it seems to me that we must go further than mere grammatical exegesis of the numerous verses on the topic, and look at the very character of God. Since there are obviously verses and anecdotes in the bible that suggest water baptism is a condition of salvation, and others that suggest conversion comes at the moment of believing, the two need to be reconciled somehow. I think that comes from examining what God has revealed Himself to be in scripture, and His true desire and will for man. In Hosea, He said:

Hos 6:6
6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
NKJV

It’s interesting that when Jesus quoted this verse, it was not in the context of offering animal sacrifices at all, but rather as an answer to being criticized for the company he was keeping (Matt 9:13) and for not keeping the sabbath (Matt 12:7).

Animal sacrifices and sabbath keeping were commandments given by God to be observed and obeyed. I believe most of us would agree that both of these things were prophetic ‘types’ which have their fulfillment in Jesus and the new covenant. However, there are numerous passages that indicate that it wasn’t the actual observance of these things that God was after, but the heart of faith and obedience that led to the actions. We see a great example of this in the words of Samuel the prophet:

1 Sam 15:21-23
22 Then Samuel said:

"Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
He also has rejected you from being king."
NKJV

I think the example of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac some of you gave earlier can also be applied to this principle. Faithful obedience is the issue I think. Likewise, I think baptism is a commandment of obedience given by Jesus (Matt 28:19, Mark 16:16). I don’t have a clue why He would give this particular commandment, but it doesn’t matter. If He told me to stand on my head and pour water up my nose, I’d do it. Because once I’ve committed to His Lordship, my only job is to follow orders because that’s what glorifies God. We should obey and glorify God because He is worthy to be glorified, not because it’s in our own selfish interest to do so.

I was taught, and once believed as many others do, that baptism was a “public declaration” of one’s faith, a “coming out” party so to speak. However, I now think it’s something much more than that (probably from other threads on this forum). I now believe that it might simply be the first test of obedience for the believer to “get the ball rolling” if you will. A testimony to God and ourselves that we are committed to follow all of His commands. Whether it’s that or something else, it’s hard to say. But Jesus said to do it, and that’s all a believer needs to know. I agree with you all that much of the modern church is remiss in minimizing this.

From the standpoint of what God truly requires of us, I believe there is a certain spirit or attitude God wants all who are His to possess in order to be compatible enough for fellowship with Him. I think we see what that spirit is in verses like this:

Mic 6:8
8 He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?
NKJV

Jesus considered these the “weightier matters of the law” (Matt 23:23):

Matt 23:23
23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.
NKJV


And we know from Paul that committing to the Lordship of Christ can only come by means of the Holy Spirit:

1 Cor 12:3
…no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Until I’m convinced otherwise, I stand by my earlier statement (phrased in a question) that God is not bound by the act of water baptism to justify His children. But I also agree with Homer’s statement as well

God is not bound by that which He has appointed unto man, we are.

You’re right Homer, we are. But God can also save those who are ignorant or have no opportunity to get baptized.

Submission to God, glorifies God. We ought to do it even if we get what we deserve in the end (thankfully we don’t) because He deserves it. He paid for it.

I believe baptism glorifies God as much as other acts of obedience do. I’m not yet convinced that it’s much more than that though. But I am listening, and I’m still teachable (praise God).

[Guest]

You’re right Homer, we are. But God can also save those who are ignorant or have no opportunity to get baptized.

Amen. The exact point I was trying to make! God always has the option of mercy.

The problem with quoting many of the statements regarding the efficacy of faith is that they are often in the present tense, indicating an ongoing , not a momentary event. John 3:16 and Romans 10:11 being prime examples.

It would be most interesting to hear what other conversion rituals, other than baptism, are believed to be appropriate. After all, most Evangelicals do have them, whether they admit it or not. The "sinners prayer", alter calls, &c. have been substituted for the historical initiatory ritual of baptism. None of them, to my knowledge, have scriptural precedent or precept. It is interesting to note that there is no conversion narrative where the convert is urged to pray! Instead, we find them promptly being baptized.

It is most easy to take the offensive and pick apart another's position. Let us hear your practice and your biblical justification of it, or do you believe no response, other than mental assent to the testimony about Christ, is all that is necessary in conversion?

In this discussion, some exhibit a very different idea, to my own, of the meaning of faith and works.

Abraham's obedience is related to his faith and one could even say that it was produced by his faith, but it is not the same thing as faith. Faith and works are certainly related, but I do not believe they are interchangeable terms.

Consider Luke 5:17-20. Luke informs us of some men who made a hole through a roof to lower a paralyzed man down to be healed by Jesus. Notice in v.20 Luke informs us "And seeing their faith" Jesus healed the man. What did Jesus see? The work these men did was categorized as faith, not works! Their work had the meaning of faith according to Luke (and also Matthew and Mark) in relating this event.

Again in these same three gospels we read of a woman who had a hemorrhage for twelve years, who, through her exertions, managed to get to Jesus and touch the hem of His garment and was healed at that moment. Not before; she obviously believed prior to that moment. Again her efforts are denominated as faith. Again in Matt. 9:2 we find the same type of statement regarding "seeing their faith".

And what of the man to whom Jesus made clay and applied it to his eyes and told him to go wash in the pool whereupon his sight was restored? Would you categorize the man's obedience as an act of faith or works? I hope you will answer this!

It is my belief that certain actions we take have the meaning of faith. Please show me wherin I error regarding this.

I have stated that I believe that "works" have the meaning of trusting in one's own efforts. I believe Jesus affirmed that this is so. Consider the story of the Pharisee and tax-gatherer in Luke 18:9-14. Jesus describes the Pharisee as avoiding bad actions and doing good things yet Jesus said the man went home unjustified. Luke informs us that the parable was given as a warning to those who trusted in themselves. The Pharisees "works" amounted to trust in himself and his own goodness.

What was the meaning of Abraham's obedient willingness to sacrifice Isaac? Did it not have the meaning of faith? What is the meaning of baptism if not faith? Does it have some other meaning, or no meaning at all? I am not asking what baptism accomplishes.

I reject the idea of baptismal regeneration as conferring any benefit apart from faith. I agree that no man (or woman) was ever saved by anything other than faith, but some actions have the meaning of faith.

Paul said if man can be saved by works of law, the Christ died for nothing.
Caution is warrented; it must also be kept in mind that much of what Paul said was a polemic against the Law. Some misunderstood Paul as antinomian which he was at pains at times to correct.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

I’m not exactly sure who your last post was addressed to, but since it started out with a quote from mine, I’ll take liberty to make a few observations.

You wrote:

It would be most interesting to hear what other conversion rituals, other than baptism, are believed to be appropriate. After all, most Evangelicals do have them, whether they admit it or not. The "sinners prayer", alter calls, &c. have been substituted for the historical initiatory ritual of baptism. None of them, to my knowledge, have scriptural precedent or precept. It is interesting to note that there is no conversion narrative where the convert is urged to pray! Instead, we find them promptly being baptized.

I agree with you on this. Baptism is the appropriate conversion “ritual”. However, we do see instances where people were not instantly baptized. The incidents you quoted for example. Remember Jesus first told the paralytic his sins were forgiven. Sounds like justification to me. Yet I don’t remember him getting baptized at that time. Nor the woman with the flow of blood or the woman caught in adultery (John 8 ),
Zacchaeus (Luke 19) etc.

Please don't misunderstand me. I think baptism is required of the believer. I just don’t see baptism as being the moment of regeneration. I’ve already given my testimony on this in another thread.

Regarding the issue of faith vs. works, I see it somewhat different than you do on this. I believe the examples you cited were indeed “works” produced by faith. James tells us so:

James 2:17-26
17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
NKJV


I would define “works” simply as acts of obedience done by faith. I think Jesus “seeing their faith” was seeing their “works” produced by their faith. Faith is simply believing God.

[Guest]

Christopher,

Faith is simply believing God.

I agree. What I was attempting to point out is that actions have meaning. An action may indicate faith in God or, conversely, faith in your own goodness.

I might make something in my shop for my wife, something of no interest to me. I make it because I love her. Thus my labor (works) has the meaning of love.

Anyone who wishes to respond to my posts on this matter I appreciate. Due to the number of people posting, I have addressed them to no one in particular.

Steve has effectively made the point, in refuting dispensationalism, that this eschatological system was unknown before J. N. Darby. It is my understanding that the popular ideas of baptism being unnecessary, being merely testimony, &c. find their basis in the teachings of Zwingli and were virtually unknown for about 1500 years of church history.

David has a lot of Christians to be concerned about, who have believed baptism is necessary.

[Guest]

Homer, your post expresses my own beliefs about faith in a way that is better than I could express it myself! Thank you very much! I am saving a copy of what you wrote.

Hebrews 11 tells us in detail what all those great men and women of faith did, and how they performed these actions through faith.

Christopher wrote:

Since there are obviously verses and anecdotes in the bible that suggest water baptism is a condition of salvation, and others that suggest conversion comes at the moment of believing, the two need to be reconciled somehow.

I don't think that there is anything suggesting that baptism is a "condition for salvation." Rather I think the "verses and anecdotes" tell us that at baptism the the door to salvation is entered. Salvation is a process, but regeneration occurs instantaneously ----- when we are baptized. That's the norm, but God makes provision where baptism is practically impossible (as per the example constantly put forth of the thief on the cross).

Christopher, I don't think the reason Christ requires baptism "doesn't matter" and that it might be as meaningless as "standing on your head and pouring water up your nose."

Baptism (immersion) is symbolic of death to self, and coming up out of the water is symbolic of resurrection to the new life in Christ.
But it's not only symbolic. When one receives a true baptism (much different from participating in a mere ritual) something is happening internally which corresponds to that which is depicted outwardly.
Outwardly, you are merely going under water. Inwardly, your "old person" is dying and is being "buried with Christ". Outwardly, you merely come up out of the water. Inwardly, you rise out of death to that new life in Christ Jesus. You have been regenerated! It wasn't the physical act that did it. It was what happened during the physical act.