A little while back, I found a post on this blog that I decided to answer. He quoted this passage in Hebrews (as I have done below) and asked if anyone had thoughts on what it meant. Of course, I did, and I felt like they were pretty well reasoned. No one ever responded to my comment, so I thought I would repost it here, to see if any of you would like to.
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away,[a] to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. – Hebrews 6:4-6
This is definitely a difficult passage. Hebrews 10:26-30 is a little clearer in my opinion.
But basically, does this passage sound like Christians can fall away from God? From salvation? And if they do, does it further mean that they can never get that relationship back??
Well, I do absolutely believe that Christians can fall away and lose their salvation. Again, the passage in Hebrews 10 teaches that plainly – it talks about one who “was sanctified” looking forward to a “fearful expectation of judgment.”
But I don’t think that means we can never be forgiven. Romans 11:19-24 talks about this subject by comparing Christians to the branches of an olive tree. Those who were Jews and had rejected Christ, were cut off from God. But Paul tells the Gentiles not to be haughty, because if the Jews could have been cut off, the Gentiles could be as well, if they turned away. And then, if they repented, they could be “grafted” back in.
So even if we can fall from God’s grace, he will accept us back with loving arms when we see the error of our way. The parable of the Prodigal Son shows us exactly that.
I think Hebrews 6 is making the same point, and when it says “it is impossible to renew them to repentance,” I think it’s saying that as long as those Christians continue in sin, there’s no sacrifice for them… in other words, they can’t be saved while hanging on to that sin. Like Paul says in Romans 6:1-2, if we’ve died to sin, how can we continue in it? That’s the life that we are to put off, when we become Christians.
So as long as we refuse to give up sinful things, we can’t be “renewed again to repentance” because we mock the sacrifice that Christ made for us. As Hebrews 10 says, we “trample the Son of God under foot and count the blood of the covenant by which we were sanctified a common thing.”
Finding Truth 
Stewart,
I think you are making a mistake whaen you say Romans 6 is a very difficult passage. It seems to very plainly show us how baptism works and why it is necessary. It is only difficult if you try to make it mean something it doesn’t.
I have one more thing for you to consider, but I can’t recall the passages right now. I will look them up and respond back soon.
LikeLike
Stewart,
Ephesians 1:7 says that we have “redemption in Christ through His blood, the forgivness of sins”. He is saying here that we have to be “in” Christ to come in contact with His blood and receive the forgiveness of sin. Galations 3:27 tells us we are baptized into Christ. Therefore, to be “in” Christ we must be baptized. If there is no forgiveness of sin without being in Christ, then it necessarily follows that there is no forgiveness of sin without baptism.
Also, notice in Romans 6:17, Paul tells the romans that they didn’t receive freedom from sin until they had obeyed from the heart what they had been taught. Now, per your earlier post, you claim that God does it all for us, and that it is not necessary for us to do anything in order to receive salvation. If your claim is true, why did Paul make this statement? If God tells us something saves us, how can we in good conscience say it doesn’t? It is a convoluted and illogical argument to say that baptism does’t affect salvation.
LikeLike
Nate, may I bring your attention to verse 41 of Acts 2, which explains the order that events occurred after Peter’s sermon. Notice only those who received, that is accepted the gospel were baptized. And that is the whole point I’ve been trying to make, only after faith does baptism occur. This is the Biblical modal: first faith, then baptism. Believer’s (or more precisely confessor’s) baptism occurs after salvation.
Jim, I never stated we don’t have to do anything… what I said was faith starts with God and that faith is a response we have. There is a difference between a work that gains salvation and an unselfish response which credits us salvation.
Baptism is not a magic rite which somehow credits us salvation. It is the expression of God’s saving work in our lives. This is precisely why it is important, not because it literally saves. But because it expresses the inner personal reality of what Christ has done for us. And Romans 6 in my opinion clearly projects that assertion, as does 1 Peter 3.
LikeLike
Nate, sorry I didn’t finish answering your question on Acts 2:38.
As for what would be needed I would say nothing, because it does on the surface appear to say what you claim. So for me to see that verse for what you see it as, verse 41 would have to be removed.
You see Acts 2:14-40 as you know is Peter’s sermon… and we could spend all year going back and forth trying to say “he means this” and “no he means that.” But 41, tells us of the order the events occurred. regardless as to why Peter said, his actions interpret what he meant by verse 38.
So if you remove verse 41, which explain that the reception of the words matters, then I would gladly switch views. But since you can’t (cause that would be heresy) I won’t.
LikeLike
Stewart,
No one is arguing the order of events, rather the point at which salvation occurs. I am asserting (and the scriptures teach) that salvation occurs when sins have been washed away. If you look at Acts 9, 22, and 26, you find that paul was told by Christ to go to Damascus where he would be told what he must do. Paul says annanias told him to be baptized and wash away his sins. If salvation occurs before sins are washed away, then Christ died for nothing.
If I get in my car and back out of my driveway and drive to work, at what point do i get to work? At the point when I get in the car? No, I have to back out of the driveway, follow the road and travel in the proper direction to get to work. It is only then that I have arrived at work, and can then get down to the business of pleasing my employer. This is just common sense. To say that I must be baptized, but I am saved at the point of Faith makes as much sense as saying I arrived at work when I got in my car.
It is obvious that faith has to come before repentance, confession, or baptism, but it doesn’t lessen the importance of any of these things in the plan of salvation. God has told us all these things save, so it is obvious that all these things must be taken together. Leaving any of them off would result in our being lost for eternity.
LikeLike
By the way Stewart,
I didn’t mean to misrepresent you, but it has sounded to me that you ARE saying we don’t have to do anything. In post 121 you stated “…Faith begins with God, specifically the Holy Spirit pressueing us. It’s when we allow Him into our lives as a mark of faith/ a step of obedience that salvation occurs. We don’t choose God, He chooses us; it’s whether or not we allow Him into our lives that shows faith/trust/belief in Him.” In post 119 you stated “Faith cannot be considered a human work at all. Faith is a divine work of the Lord…”. If we are saved at the point of faith, and faith is not a work that we do, then we do nothing to receive salvation. God sent His Son to earth to die for us, He inspird the Apostles and writers of the New Testament, and supplied us with faith and saved us, and requires nothing of us (in your view). This view does nor follow the bible pattern. All the conversions in Acts show the people involved did something. I find nothing in the new testament that supports your view. as a matter of fact, there are many passages that plainly state we must repent, confess and be baptized to receive salvation. You choose to ignore ar explain these away. If you look at them honestly and openly you will have to arrive at the conclusion that faith only will not save us.
LikeLike
Stewart, I’m surprised at your argument for the verses in Acts 2. Let me repost v 41:
41 Then those who gladly[g] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that this somehow disproves baptism. If you notice, the passage here says that the people received his word (including the instruction he had just given them) and were baptized. Then it says that they were added. If they had been saved before baptism, don’t you think this verse would have said something like “they gladly received his word and were added to the church. And that day, about 3000 of them were baptized.”?
Let’s think about this logically. In the preceding verses, Peter has preached to them about Jesus and has actually convinced them that they murdered the Messiah they had been waiting for. Remember, these are all Jews – their entire lives (and throughout all the previous generations) they had longed for the Deliverer that they believed would rescue them from bondage and reestablish David’s kingdom. And now Peter tells them that they killed their Savior! How terrible!
And you see their reaction when it says they were cut to the heart and they pleaded with Peter “What shall we do?!” At this point, I think we’d all agree that their faith was evident. And these people are in anguish! So Peter says, “Don’t worry! Your faith is evident, and you have been saved! God has forgiven you this wickedness! Now, be baptized as a symbol of the cleansing God has given you!”
But no, that’s not actually what Peter says. But don’t you think, as horrified as these people are at what they’ve done, that if they had already been saved by their faith alone, Peter would have told them that? Instead, when they ask what they need to do, Peter tells them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Stewart, it simply doesn’t get clearer than that.
I hope you’ll go back and read that account and think very carefully about the conclusions you come to. This isn’t simply about winning an online debate – your soul depends on what you decide.
LikeLike
Stewart,
You wrote:
“Baptism is not a magic rite which somehow credits us salvation. It is the expression of God’s saving work in our lives. This is precisely why it is important, not because it literally saves. But because it expresses the inner personal reality of what Christ has done for us. And Romans 6 in my opinion clearly projects that assertion, as does 1 Peter 3.”
I’m sure you believe our salvation is only through Christ’s Death Burrial and Ressurection. Why then do you ignore a plain passage that tells us it is through baptism that we contact that Death Burrial and Resurection? Also 1 Pet 3:21 that plainly tells us it is baptism that saves us. As you said not some magic that we or someone else does, but just obeying God. He chose baptism not us, its up to us to simply follow his word. I really pray that you start to take the scriptures for soley what they say, and not what someone else explains them away as. Don’t you see you have to continually come back and give explainination on why the bible doesn’t say what it reallys says to support your side of the argument. Please step back for a second and realize you are basicallying staiting:
I know that 1 Pet 3:21 says baptism saves you, but it really doesn’t.
I know that Romans 6 says it is through baptism we contact christ’s D,B&R, but thats not really how we do it.
Acts 2:38 says repent and be baptized for forgivness of sins, but thats really not how its done.
I could go on and on, but please just let the bible talk, thats how God wants it.
LikeLike
Ok, lots to respond to:
First Jim,
I know you are not arguing the order of events but they do matter. We all agree that baptism does not confer faith and that faith must come prior to baptism. What I am positioning is that salvation comes at the point of faith not baptism. Which is why the order very much matters. For instance if you were baptized first and then found faith (regardless to the time frame) that baptism is meaning less. The thief on the cross of instance, even if he was baptized prior to his crucification that baptism means nothing. Yet Jesus told him that he would go to heaven purely on faith. Which is why Nate, that verse 41 is such a key verse for me. Only those who received Peter’s gospel message were baptized. Not everyone who was there was baptized, only the believers. Hence the order: 1) repent; and then 2) be baptized.
As for the other aspect you mentioned, I think we have to create a dichotomy between a work and a response. Because there are clear passages which tell us that there is nothing we do to gain salvation. For this reason I claim faith is a response and not a work. Also for that reason (and Matt I hope this explains certain things) I see baptism as a work. Why? Because we actually go through a rite. And since baptism is a work and nothing we do credits us for righteousness… salvation must occur at the point of faith. That is my logic and that follows scripture. Therefore, you now can see why I hold to what I do.
All of the sacraments teach that one must first have faith before you may take part in said sacrament (Acts 2:38-41; Colossians 2:11-12; and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29). This is by baptism,, by its nature of being a sacrament, provides confidence of our standing before God. It does not provide standing.
Nate you stated, “I hope you’ll go back and read that account and think very carefully about the conclusions you come to. This isn’t simply about winning an online debate – your soul depends on what you decide.”
Wow that is harsh… The willful rejection of baptism after learning that one is now supposed to take that step of obedience is an unconscionable act for anyone how claims to follow Christ Jesus, for it smacks the authority of the gospel in the face. The same is true of anyone who regards baptism as the effectual act of salvation, for they lack faith in the only one who can save. I am not focusing on “winning an online debate.” While I wouldn’t go as far as you just did claiming my soul is on the line… I do understand the significance of our discussion.
Matt, 1 Peter 3:21. First of all, the flood was not an ordeal of water for Noah… it was a test. God was judging the world. Peter, in calling the flood baptism was illustrating that as Noah was saved from the flood waters Christians are saved from God’s wrath. But baptism isn’t a test and that’s another indication that Peter is using baptism as an illustration. Because there isn’t a 1 to 1 comparison here. The flood was a test of Noah’s obedience, baptism is not a test of obedience it is proof of obedience. Big difference. I know you think I’m splitting hairs here but it matters. Baptism represents the cleansing of sin, not the actual removal…
Ok, Specifically on the “Baptism now saves you” statement.
First of all 1 Peter 3:18-22 must be seen in its larger context. Peter’s comments on Noah are an excursus within a larger discussion on suffering. We see that Noah’s family of eight were waved through water as Christians were saved through the water of baptism. Notice that Peter has set up an analogical relationship between the family of Noah and Christians… he links the nouns “through water” with “baptism” and then links the verbs “they were saved” with “baptism saves”… you see at this point your argument makes the most sense… except Peter says more. The parenthetical explains everything. He creates a negation… “not the removal of the filth of the flesh” There is no allowance for anyone to suppose that water effects salvation, for it does not remove the filth from the body; the Greek word sarx is referring to the physical flesh on the body. And Second Peter continues explaining that baptism is a cleansing ritual integral to accepting conversion… it is not conversion but the first step of obedience. Hence it is faith which saves and baptism functions at the pledge.
Once again that is the wording of Romans 6. Those who were baptized have pledged to live a Christian life. “How shall we ho died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” (Romans 6:3-4). Paul is drawing the same correlation… “You pledged to not sin so why are you!? Or did you not realize you made this pledge?” (my paraphrase) Do you see the comparison? This is why Paul continues to discuss their water baptism in those terms.
LikeLike
Baptism is a means of Grace.
As we have discussed prior, we all agree that God in the end saves us. I would take it further then you all would (it seems) and say that God only saves those whom he foreknew/predestined/chose before the foundations of the world. From everything I read in the Bible, I believe that baptism is important. It functions as a pledge that one is committed to God, but it is by no means the effectual cause of salvation. Now, I will graciously grant that I may be undervaluing baptism, and that I am divorcing it too far from the conversion process. I concede that I may very well be over-reacting to many of the initial statements made by many of you all. With that said I do respect your views, I just feel (as you do toward me) that you are misguided. I am by no means trying to suppress the significance of baptism in the conversion process… I am trying to present a Biblical view of it. Baptism is commanded and therefore a requirement of true conversion. I believe we are pushing each other towards unhealthy extremes (I was thinking this about two weeks ago). My point is though, that we are all on the agreement that one who has not placed their faith in Christ should not be baptized… do you agree that baptism in this case means nothing? It can’t save and it certainly can’t create faith… so if one was to say first baptized then came to faith what would happen? Do they need to be rebaptized? or was the one which meant nothing now acceptable in God’s eyes? You see the problem? For me that’s an easy one… baptism is for believers, if you were not a believer then, and are one now… get baptized, because now you are making that pledge to publicly follow God. Now I do find it sad when people come to faith and then choose to not get baptized. But I would never say they weren’t saved. The thief on the cross proves as much. Well, maybe he was baptized prior to faith… problem: even if that were the case, that baptism, as we just covered meant nothing/and did nothing. Lastly, have you ever noticed people you come to faith that are Jewish or Muslim and don’t get baptized right away? Their family/friends don’t bother them too much until they get baptized… why? To the outside world nothing has changed… they don’t know nor care if baptism results in salvation. To them this person has now changed allegiances, to the outside world baptism means a commitment to following the Christian religion. And that is how I believe the NT presents baptism. Faith saves… but Baptism results in a commitment to that faith.
LikeLike
Jim, Matt, Nate and Stewart,
I am new to this discussion but I would like to put in my two cents.
The eternal destiny of a soul is decided upon one fact alone, that soul’s relationship to God. It is only God’s point of view that matters at that point. What I think or want is irrelevant. Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life NO ONE comes to the Father except through me.” (emphasis mine) Christ is the only way to salvation. It is not anything we do. Period. End of Story. Christ’s death burial and resurrection are the means God intended for salvation. If this is not the case God was merely abusing His only Son. Baptism is a symbol of what we believe. It is a testimony to the fact that by belief in Christ we have been taken from death into life. Baptism cannot save you or remove sin, only Christ’s death on the cross can do that.
LikeLike
Ok, A lot of things being mis-understood here.
Stewart, I too believe that the order matters. Baptism without faith is just getting wet. And yes, Peter does say that it is not the removal of the filth of the flesh that is being talked about. He says it is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Why is it an answer of a good conscience? Because we have obeyed what God told us to do. You see Stewart, I too believe that we don’t earn salvation, and I agree that faith is a response. However, in the same manner, being baptized is also a response to a command of God.
The question is whether or not we can get in Christ in some way other than baptism. Galations 3 tells us we are baptized into Christ. If salvation is in Christ (and we all seem to agree it is), then baptism is part of the process. Notice in Romans 6, around verse 17, Paul says that they had been servants of sin, but they had obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine delivered to them. From the heart indicates faith, and the obedience indicates some type of action. This is said in the context of describing what baptism is. He says that after this obedience is when the became free from sin. Nowhere do I recall the flood being referred to as a test, rather judgement being brought upon the earth because of the extreme wickedness of the inhabitants. The same water that killed everyone else saved Noah and his family. The only reason he was saved by it is because he was righteous and had constructed the ark as commanded by God. Peter says it is in the same way in which baptism now saves us. When we are baptized we have obeyed what God told us to do to come in contact with the blood of christ which washes away our sins. Certainly, I can’t leave off faith, because without it, I wouldn’t care what God told me to do. I can’t leave off repentance, because without turning away from my life of sin I can’t turn toward God. Sin separates me from God. I can’t leave off confessing that Christ is the son of God, or my name will not be confessed before the Father. Neither can I leave off baptism, or I will not have my sins washed away. Are the literally washed away? Do I see them swirl down the drain? Obviously, it is through faithful obedience to the commands of God that culminates in my salvation. Too many NT passages plainly state that more than faith alone is required for salvation.
You bring up the thief on the cross. My first response is that Jesus could save anyone he wanted to any way He wanted to. And I suppose, if I saw Jesus in the street, He could spesk it and I could be saved then as well. Instead, He has provided His word to me in the New Testament, and in it He has graciously laid out what He expects from me. Therefore, I have no choice but to do what He has told me to do. Also, Christ had not died at the point He told the thief he would be in paradise, so the Old Law was still in effect. The New Testament, the law of Christ, would not come into effect until Christ’s death. So, consequently I am under a different requirement than the thief would have been anyway.
I think I need to respond a little more, but I need to look up some passages and say a little more a little later.
LikeLike
Jim,
I think you and I basically agree on everything except what baptism is. I’m curious why you refer to baptism as a response. Because while I agree that baptism is a response of obedience… it is not a response as faith is. Baptism regardless as to how one words it is a physical act I do. And as Peter expertly explained it, our salvation is based solely on the one who saves. Tacking on baptism as a requirement adds in an element that I control. My salvation is partially in my hands… and if it is in my hands (even partially) it is not by grace that I am saved, but of works.
I cannot in anyway hold to a doctrine of anything apart from belief accredits me salvation or the removal of sin. The scriptures never allow me to take it that far.
LikeLike
Stewart, does that mean that God will save me against my will? Are you saying that I have no role whatsoever in my salvation? Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that I can earn it in any way. All I’m saying is that I have to choose to be saved, and the way I do that is by faith (Heb. 11:6), repentence (Acts 2:38), confession (Rom. 10:9-10), baptism (1 Pet 3:21), and living a faithful life before God (Rev. 2:10) as Nate and Jim have repeatedly pointed out. No one deserves salvation; it’s by God’s grace that we even have a way to be saved. It’s up to me to find that way and follow it.
LikeLike
Ryley,
You hit upon one of the most difficult aspects of theology. God’s choice to save me V my choice in coming to him. The Bible tells us that God chose us before the foundations of the world. But it also tells us that faiths saves and that we have to choose to accept or reject Him. So what do we do now? Personally, I believe this is a tension that no theologian can fully answer. On the one hand, we have God’s irresistible grace; and the other, free choice. Its best left as an unresolved tension, for to move the pendulum to far in either direction results in answer that the Bible doesn’t support.
Also, we don’t choose to be saved… that would place salvation under the category of ‘something I can earn.’ We accept God’s pressings in our lives and allow Him to lead us. And that is the most difficult thing in the world to do. Why? Because I want control of my life. And salvation requires placing myself on the complete dependence of my Creator. That is trust, and that is faith in His gospel. When you do that you have no choice but to acknowledge that you are a sinner and confess/repent of your sins. At that point, you are made righteous; the scriptures tell us that.
Baptism is the next step, it is a public confession of faith to follow the ways of the Lord. It illustrates not only what Christ went through on the cross, but what we have literally gone through in becoming a new creation.
Obedience and faith are too well connected throughout the entire NT to create a dichotomy and say either I follow His commands or I go to Hell. Remember every sin that was, is, and will be committed for all eternity was taken upon the Jesus at the cross. Once I have placed my faith in Christ I am eternally saved. Yes, it is by God’s grace that we are saved… but He has already told us how to find it… through the faith that He has already given us. Everything lies in faith alone. Why did God choose faith? Because it is the only human quality that displays selflessness. Anything less is not saving faith.
LikeLike
Stewart,
Why is faith a different response from baptism? Isn’t a response something that is done because of some stimulation received? God has commanded faith as a requirement of salvation. We both agree on that. I disagree that my doing something in order to obtain salvation in any way lessens the grace involved. You say that the scriptures won’t allow you to take the idea of doing something so far as to say it influences salvation. Where does this come from? The new testament is full of passages telling us what we are to do. Why did the apostles suffer the things they did if their actions didn’t affect their salvation? Why didn’t they just quietly have their faith and rest upon the fact that God was going to save them? You say that repentance and confession are a part of the response of salvation. How can you reconcile this with Faith only? Does God handle repentance for us? Does He make confession for us? Where in the New Testament do we find a passage that shows the conversion of someone who didn’t do anything? If faith is provided by God, why are we told to believe or perish, because by your argument it is God doing it all. And, if God requires ME to have faith, and my faith is a response to Him telling me that, then why would you limit the response to just faith when God has told us to do other things (i.e. repent, confess, and yes, be baptized)? To say that “faith only” is what saves us takes all responsibility off of us, and in effect is saying that God is a respecter of persons and only saves those whom He gives faith to, and condemns the rest. This is an arbitrary, unfair, and illogical approach.
How can I be confident that grace or faith saves me? I know the bible says so, but it also says baptism, repentance and confession saves me, and if it doesn’t mean what it says in regard to those activities, why should it be believed in regard to faith and grace? It ssems to be cherry picking the scriptures.
LikeLike
Very good points Jim,
I’m sure you would agree that once a person is saved, they are to “work out [their] salvation with fear and trembling.” You see that is why the Apostles did not just sit back and quietly enjoy their new found faith… you see it is at the point of salvation that obedience comes into play, not before. We are supposed to follow His commands, because we have now placed our eternal security in the hands of someone whom we trust and love… with all our “heart, soul and might.” We don’t obey because we can loose our salvation, we obey because we want others to acquire that same joy that we have; that same security. Of course the NT is full of what we are supposed to do? why, because that is what brings glory to our savior. Furthermore, God is the author of our salvation and the perfect completion of that salvation (Hebrews 5:9, 12:2). Salvation does begin with God and ends with God. Also, I am not saying that we passively sit by and do nothing. Salvation, which is of faith, can only come when you allow God to lead your life. It is a response completely rooted in faith. Baptism is something you do, it is a rite you go through. Yes, I will agree that it is precipitated by faith and that baptism shows your obedience to the one who has saved you. The notion of believe or perish fits snugly with what I am saying. You see while yes while specific individuals are predestined, or chosen. We don’t know who they are. Furthermore, the gift of salvation is given to all because God does not wish any to perish. Through His foreknowledge He knows who who accept that invitation and he has already predestined them to do just that. And that is the marvel of it all, we do not fully understand His ways and I would make no claim to even try 🙂 All I do know is that everything works for His glory, and that is something I can take full comfort in.
Lastly, you stated, “To say that “faith only” is what saves us takes all responsibility off of us, and in effect is saying that God is a respecter of persons and only saves those whom He gives faith to, and condemns the rest.” Well yes, in essence that is what I am saying. however, that does not make God a respecter of persons. That makes God have no respect for persons. It clearly shows instead that God created an untested perfect being and Sin corrupted that creation. God understands this in ways we cannot. It does not in anyway remove responsibility from us. In the end it points to the fact that I can do nothing to attain salvation apart from the author of that salvation.
LikeLike
So Stewart,
Let me get this straight. Are you saying we are saved, and THEN we are required to obey? If this is what you are saying, then do you not see how illogical this is? Can you not see that your argument demonstrates a lack of faith? Look at Acts 26:27-28. Paul is talking to Agrippa, who was knowledgable about the scriptures, he knew the prophesies, and Paul says that he knew agrippa believed, yat it is evident that Agrippa knew he wasn’t a Christian. Why not? He obviously had faith in God, and that obviously wasn’t enough. Look at Acts 10 and 11. Cornelius was a devout man who feared God and did much good, yet he obviously wasn’t saved. Why? What was he lacking? In chapter 11:14 Peter recounts the events, and says that Cornelius was instructed to send for Peter who would tell him words by which he could be saved. What is the result of these words? Cornelius and all his household were baptized, leading to the conclusion that it was part of the salvation process. James 1:22 tells us God begat us with the word of truth. He also tells us in James 1:22-25 that we are to be doers of the word and not hearers only. Matthew 7:21-27 tells us basically the same thing. If, by your own argument, faith is a response, not reaslly us doing something, but God doing for us, then how can that be sufficient for salvation? It is plainly stated that obedience is necessary for salvation (see Romans 6,2Thessalonians 1:7-10, Hebrews 5:9, etc).
I believe you are hoding to a premise, that while it is comforting and sounds good, is false. If you look at the scriptures with an open and clear mind, it becomes obvious that God DOES expect us to render obedience to his word, and that obedience includes more than faith.
I am not addressing predestination at this time, I want to stay on the subject of salvation until we reach some resolution, to say God is not a respecter of persons while saying that he arbitrarily chooses to save some and not others, regardless of an individuals actions, is a lie. If God chooses to sve you and not me before we are even born, regardless of our actions, then He has shown preference to you without any basis, and that makes Him a respecter of persons. More on this later.
LikeLike
Stewart’
I got a little off track, sorry. I started off by saying that the argument of faith only demonstrates a lack of faith. Let me attempt to explain.
If I have faith in God and His word, I will do what He has told me to do. Look at James 2 again. The point is being made, in context of the 1st chapter, that God expects us to do something (follow His commands), and if we don’t, our faith is not suffivient to save us. When God tells us repentance saves us, we have to believe it enough to repent. When God says confession saves us, we have to believe enough to confess. When God tells us baptism saves us, we have to have streong enough faith to be baptized. When god says to live faithfully and follow the teachings of the new testament to be pleasing to Him, we must have strong enough faith to do it. It is this strong faith, coupled with our obedience to the requirements of god that will save us. Faith by itself is weak and ineffective, and will not save, being alone.
LikeLike
I see…
Jim, you mentioned, “to say God is not a respecter of persons while saying that he arbitrarily chooses to save some and not others, regardless of an individuals actions, is a lie.” It not a lie at all, in fact that is the Biblical standpoint… remember there is nothing we can do to merit us salvation. Nothing. “All our righteousness are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).
In fact let’s look at that whole passage (Isaiah 64:6-7):
But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.
And there is no one who calls on Your name,
Who stirs himself up to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us,
And have consumed us because of our iniquities.
Isaiah, states it much better than I. We are unclean, our righteousness is worthless, we will fade as a leaf due to our iniquities which toss us around in the wind. The truth comes out in verse 7, Isaiah calls out that no one calls on God’s name anymore… that is the whole key. God saves, period. There is nothing, not even baptism, that I can do to gain salvation.
Also, I am not saying that we are to follow God’s commands once we are saved. We are always supposed to obey God’s commands, and it is the sheer fact that we don’t on a daily basis which arises the need for a savior. If baptism saves me, then every time I sin (i.e. a lie, an impure thought, a brief notion of anger, etc.) I would then have to be rebaptized. And the point is, I don’t. Faith in God is all that matters because He is the author of my faith. Once again I point to the thief on the cross.
Lastly, if faith the size of a mustard seed can move a mountain… the amount of faith that one may or may not have makes no difference.
LikeLike
Stewart,
Isaiah was prophesying to Israel and Judah. They had turned their backs on God and were worhipping and performing works of “righteousness” in accordance with their own will and desire without any consideration of God’s commands. Isreal was sent into Assyrian captivity and Judah into Babalonian captivity because of their failure to repent and turn back to God. You should notice that tese people knew God, were His chosen people, and obviously had faith. However, God was displeased with them and punished them, removing them from the promised land because of disobedience.
Also, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of baptism. You stated that if baptism saves, then we would need to be rebaptized almost daily because we often sin. The bible doesn’t support this statement. What the bible does support is the fact that by obeying God (thru faith, repentance, confession, and baptism) we enter a covenant relationship with Him, and become part of the family of God. As such, we have the opportunity to turn from our sin and ask for forgiveness (see Acts 8 and Simon the Sorcerer). If you understand Romans 6 and what is said there in describing how baptism works, then it becomes apparent that Baptism is not something that is done repeatedly.
1 Corinthians 10:11, making reference to the old testament, tells us that those things that happened are for an example to us that we might learn from them. What do we find there? Obedience to God was demanded and those who were not obedient to God were punished. 2Thessalonians 1:8 tell us that God will take vengence on those who do not obey Him.
There are numerous passages in the New Testament (which have been pointed out to you several times already) that plainly state what saves us. How can you ignore these passages? Nowhere is faith only mentioned as saving us. Your view is like me saying I can be saved without faith because a passage says I can be saved by repentance. It all works together, and yes, I can impact my salvation, not by works that I have done, but by obeying the commands of God. This obedience is not “my” works, rather it is me doing the works of God, which is simply complying with His requirements. God is the author of my salvation. It is His plan, He sent Jesus to be the perfect sacrifice, without which there would be no salvation. James 2, which you chose to ignore, tells us that we have a responsibility to DO what God has said. If faith is all we need, then the devils are saved also, because they believe. This simply is not enough.
LikeLike
I’ve been away for awhile and am just now catching up on the latest responses. Though this may have been answered already (I haven’t read them all yet), I wanted to point something out to Stewart:
In 1 Peter 3:21, I think you are misreading something. When it says “not the removal of the filth of the flesh”, it means that baptism is not the same as taking a bath. In other words, the purpose of baptism is not to physically remove whatever dirt you might have on your body at the time; instead, it’s the “answer of a good conscience toward God.”
That statement doesn’t mean that it’s talking about something other than water baptism. In fact, I think that when Peter says in the preceding verse that “eight souls were saved through water” and then compares it to baptism, it shows that water baptism is definitely what’s being talked about here. But Acts 8:38-39 shows that definitively.
LikeLike
Sorry, I know I’m rehashing old territory, but Stewart, I agreed with a lot of what you said in post 135.
I wholeheartedly agree that baptism is a means of grace. Incidentally, I do wonder if our differences on predestination is one of the root problems here. If you believe that God chose only certain individuals before he created the world, then yes, there’s nothing we can do for salvation. I’d say our faith is even moot. If God chose us, that’s it.
Of course, I think that’s in direct conflict with the passage that tells us God wants everyone to be saved, and I fail to see the need of the Bible at all, if everyone’s already slated to go to either heaven or hell. But I suppose those are points for another thread.
Anyway, I also don’t quite understand why you separate conversion from salvation. Will God save us before we commit ourselves to him? Paul especially talks about being a “living sacrifice” quite often, so it’s hard for me to see how we can be reconciled to God without committing to him. This is another reason why I think baptism is necessary – we both agree that it’s part of the “conversion process,” only I think that we aren’t really saved until we’ve been converted.
Finally, I think we have to be very careful about going back to the thief on the cross for our example of a proper salvation. You are right that baptism prior to faith is meaningless (although I think Jim’s argument is that the thief may have had faith in Jesus before his crucifixion). But let’s assume he was never baptized at all. Jesus had already demonstrated that he had the power to forgive sins while he was on earth, so if nothing else, the thief’s salvation seems to have been a special case: he was nailed to a piece of wood and speaking directly with Jesus. None of us will ever be in that situation. More importantly though, the Old Law was still in effect, since Jesus hadn’t died yet. The New Testament teachings of baptism were still irrelevant at this point.
These points may have already been made, but I’m still playing catch up.
LikeLike
Again, this may have been covered already, but I want to throw something in here.
Stewart, you’ve said that you can’t accept a doctrine that would have you do anything for salvation – that since we’re saved by God’s grace, salvation can’t depend on us at all. But in the same breath, you say that we must have faith. Isn’t that something that depends on us for salvation?
I’m having trouble understanding this concept.
LikeLike
I think Jim’s last few points have been excellent. Stewart, I think (and I could be wrong) that the foundation you have has been heavily influenced by a lot of Calvinistic doctrine. Obviously, you’re not alone. I’d say most of the mainstream denominations today are in that same boat. And as long as you hold to that foundation and refuse to question its authenticity, then you’ll always be forced to explain away passages that deal with baptism, or anything other than faith.
However, if you’ll take some of those beliefs that I’m sure you’ve held for many years, and kind of “go back to square one” with them, you might come to some different conclusions.
Ideas like faith alone, eternal security, predestination, total hereditary depravity, etc are very prevalent today. And I’ll admit that they all seem to have some basis in scripture. But if you’ll let yourself question those things, you may see some holes in their logic.
As has been shown on here several times, there are passages that seem to contradict those ideas. I would encourage you to study through them carefully. Perhaps there’s a way for the entire Bible to fit together a little more cohesively with fewer contradictions.
LikeLike