(Continued…)
3) In this
exact same epistle, Paul writes:
For he will render to every man according to his works:
to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness,
there will be wrath and fury. (Romans 2:6-8, RSV, emphasis added)
So according to Paul, salvation is linked with doing well and obeying the truth, and condemnation results from obeying wickedness (i.e., committing sin).
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph 2:8-9) All works excluded. That would include baptism.
1) With the exception of those who believe that everyone will automatically be saved (a belief that actually contradicts the Bible), all Christians believe that salvation is contingent upon some sort of work. Ask a Christian, “What is needed for salvation?” and the response will include some sort of action that I am supposed to undertake, and an action is a work (moreover, in this case it is a work that one is free to do or not to do). Am I to “accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior”? If so, then accepting Jesus is the work. Am I to “believe in Jesus and trust in the gospel message of salvation”? If so, then believing and trusting are the works. Am I to recite the Sinner’s Prayer? If so, then reciting the Sinner’s Prayer is the work. So what is actually being debated is the work(s) that needs to be done in accordance with God’s plan of salvation, rather than a debate about works vs. no works.
2) What Paul is saying in Ephesians is that apart from God our works are incapable of
earning our salvation. Christ is the only one who can earn it, and he did this for us in giving his life for our salvation. But salvation is a gift of love, and therefore (as with any true gift of love) we are free to accept or reject it. The means by which we accept salvation are the works that are to be done. The sacramental way that we do this begins with baptism.
3) If salvation “excludes all works” then why did James write:
What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them,
“Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body,
what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:14-17, RSV, emphasis added)
Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:20-26, RSV, emphasis added)
I’m pretty sure all good Baptists know what Jesus meant when he said one must be “born of water and spirit” (John 3:5). Born of water refers to the amniotic fluid present at childbirth. Born of spirit refers to being spiritually “born again” which happens after one gets saved by believing in Jesus.
Even though all good Baptists know this, I think the important question is, can they quote even one Christian, prior to the Reformation, who interpreted John 3:5 as not signifying the sacrament of baptism? If not, then this is a very strong indication that a non-baptism interpretation of John 3:5 is not apostolic.
What I wrote above isn’t my personal beliefs. It’s what I’ve heard from Baptists and what they will probably tell you when you try to convince one of them that baptism is required. In all likelihood, nothing you say will convince a Baptist that baptism is required for salvation.
Generally speaking, I agree. For example, some may hear the sort of things that I presented and be moved to re-examine their interpretation of Scripture, and consequently may change their beliefs concerning the role of baptism (possibly converting to Catholicism or to a Protestant denomination which teaches a more prominent baptism theology). But, by and large, I am sure that others would have counter-interpretations to what I have presented in my posts. After all, the debate has gone on for approximately five centuries.
Some Baptists believe one needs to trust Christ alone to be saved. Relying on baptism or any other work for salvation would mean that you aren’t trusting Christ alone (which according to some would mean that one is going to Hell).
Of course, this criticism stems from a misunderstanding of what Catholics teach. Relying on baptism is not done instead of relying on Christ, but a means by which we rely upon him. After all, many ancient religions had cleansing rituals, including Judaism, but the only one we trust is the one instituted by Christ and empowered by his grace.
