Hi Butch5,
I can see now where the root problem lies in all this. You are taking several verses on the subject of what actually saves us -- (which are as clear and exact in their meaning and intention as the statement “my shirt is red” is clear and exact in its meaning and intention) – and you are interpreting them to mean something other than what they clearly and emphatically state.
No Kris, I'm interpreting them in their historical context. This is how to understand what the Scriptures actually say. The Bible isn't a book full of one liners. Every verse is connected to the book in which it appears. Each of those books was written to a group of people who were living in a historical setting. Paul's letters were written to Christians who already knew what was necessary to be saved. He didn't have to make a list of everything necessary because they already knew it.
In other words, if I am writing a factual statement to someone about what color my shirt is -- (not the color of the interior label or the stitching around the edges of the shirt, but just the color of the shirt itself) -- and I write, “my shirt is red,” then that statement means exactly what it says. It means that my shirt is red, only red and no other colors are present on my shirt color other than the color red. There is no middle ground or grey area present in this quoted statement. Therefore, in order for someone to understand the clear and exact meaning of my statement within the context of my shirt’s color, I only need to write, “my shirt is red.” I don’t have to write “my shirt is only red” or “my shirt is red and red alone” or “my shirt doesn’t contain any other colors but red” in order for them to understand the plain and simple meaning of the actual color of my shirt.
Now you're moving the goal posts. Are the label and the stitching part of the shirt? They are. Thus your shirt isn't completely read. I've pointed out several fallacies in your arguments and you've not addressed them. Here you've used the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. When you say you're shirt is red, you simply discard the parts that aren't read. This is the same thing you're doing with baptism. You simple discard what you don't want.
Similarly, when verses such as Ephesians 2:8-9 or Romans 5:1-2 or Romans 3:28-30 state clearly and unequivocally (within their historical context and the overall context of Scripture as a whole) that the gift of salvation is given to us by/through faith, and we are justified by God through faith, and the access into God’s grace is through faith (not faith plus anything else), you claim those simple-to-understand verses don’t really mean what they state. This is an undermining of God’s word that started all the way back in the garden when Satan said to Eve, “Did God really say...?”
It's interesting that you mention the historical context and overall context and then just dismiss it. Ephesians 2:8 is specifically talking about the works of the Mosaic Law. Your use of this passage completely ignores the historical and overall context of the passage. The same can be said of the Romans passages you mentioned. They are explicitly dealing with whether one is justified by faith or the Mosaic Law. So again, you've ignored the historical and overall context.
In each of these passages Paul is discussing whether one in saved/justified by faith or the Mosaic Law. These passages have absolutely nothing to do with baptism. The subject never comes up.
I've pointed out several times now that this argument is a fallacy. It's an argument from silence. There is a flaw in this line of reasoning.
I have seen this same faulty methodology used by many who claim that baptism (or other works) is required for salvation. They claim that when a verse says salvation is by faith, or we are justified by faith, or we are saved when we believe, it doesn’t really mean what it says because it doesn’t include the word “only” or “alone.” Therefore, they conclude that those verses are open-ended and leave room for other things to be included or required – however, that is where the problem enters in. It goes back to the “my shirt is red” example. These verses of Scripture are not open-ended but are stating a clear fact on the subject of what actually saves us. Anything else not included in those statements doesn’t qualify as a means to our salvation, period.
It's not faulty. It's your line of reasoning that is faulty as I've pointed out by showing the fallacies. If you can believe you can show any fallacy in what I've posted feel free. It's not there.
The words do mean what they say. They just don't mean what you say. You're imposing your belief onto the text and using an argument from silence to claim that your interpretation is correct. However, as I've pointed out, the argument from silence is a fallacy.
The passages say what saves, however, they don't say that that is all that saves and they don't give a list of what saves. You might have been able to make an argument from silence if it wasn't for the fact that we have other passages that state that other things save.
Now regarding some of the verses you mentioned in your argument to prove that other things are required for salvation aside from faith only...
You used Hebrews 5:9 as a proof-text to show that “works of obedience” are required for salvation, however that is false. This verse does not state that whatsoever. The focus of this verse is Jesus and it simply declares that He, having suffered (and died), became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him. From elsewhere in Scripture, who are those who obey Him? The gospel of John says that those who love Jesus will obey Him -- Jesus tells us that Himself. (We also know from the gospel of John that we love Him because He first loved us and gave Himself up for us). James also talks about good works/obedience being the natural byproduct of genuine saving faith. He says that you can’t have genuine saving faith without any good works to show for it, because the type of genuine faith that actually brings salvation – whereby God changes our hearts and makes us a new creation through the indwelling Holy Spirit within us – can’t help but do good works in response to that internal, eternal change. It’s like a man who says he loves his wife. If he truly does, his love will naturally produce outward actions toward her that reflect the reality within his heart. If he doesn’t, then he won’t. So reading into Hebrews 5:9 to say that this verse proves obedience is required in order to be saved is false and says nothing of the sort.
Your argument doesn't address the issue. whatever the reason one obeys doesn't change the fact that Christ became eternal salvation to those who obey. If one doesn't obey, He isn't salvation for them. The obedience is a must. Thus it is necessary for salvation.
It's interesting that you mention James. He states plainly that a man isn't justified by faith alone. He said that Abraham was justified by his works. We know that in order to be saved one must be justified. If one isn't justified one isn't saved. Abraham was justified by his works, thus his works were necessary for his salvation. This is really clear.
You also used 1 Peter 3:21 as evidence that water baptism saves us but this is also a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of that verse. Peter is not speaking of the literal water of baptism here, but the spiritual baptism that takes place when we believe, as stated in the rest of that verse which speaks of a pledge of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is His death, burial and resurrection that saves us when we believe, not the water that removes dirt from the body. This correct interpretation is in complete agreement with all other direct and clear verses on the subject of what actually saves us, which is faith and only faith.
No offense Kris but this is nonsense. Are you really suggesting that Noah didn't go through literal water in the flood?
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is,
eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure
whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Pet. 3:20-21 KJV)
I think you're just trying to get around what it plainly says. Eight souls were saved through water. The like figure whereunto baptism does now save us. Noah didn't go through a spiritual baptism in the ark. He went through water just like peter said. It seems you're trying to allegorize the passage away.
Additionally, your claim that Titus 3:5 is a proof-text that water baptism saves because of the phrase “the water of regeneration” is also a complete misreading and misinterpretation of that phrase and entire verse. Read it in its entirety. It clearly states, “But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” This verse is not referring to water baptism whatsoever but instead speaks of the regeneration (i.e., salvation) that occurs when He washed us (i.e., regenerated/cleansed us from our sin) and renewed us through the Holy Spirit when we believed (see verse 7) -- so I don’t know how you can read that verse in its context and conclude that the “washing” it speaks of is literal water baptism. It clearly is not.
The word isn't washing, it's bath. A bath is taken in water. One immerses themselves in water to bathe. You are correct when you say it's about the cleansing of sins. That takes place in water baptism.
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mk. 1:1-4 KJV)
Note how Mark starts, the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What's the first thing he mentions? The baptism for the remission of sins. It's part of the Gospel. We know Jesus did the same thing in His ministry.
Ananias also told Paul to be baptized as wash away his sins.
15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:15-16 KJV)
and then we have Peter,
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and
be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38 KJV)
Baptism is for the remission of sins. Tell me Kris, how can one be saved without the remission of sins? If baptism isn't necessary then neither is the forgiveness of sins. This is plain and straight forward.
Notice also that Peter to them to repent and be baptized and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. So Peter tells us that the Holy Spirit is received after one repents and is baptized; We know too that Jesus received the Holy Spirit when He was baptized.
16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo,
the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matt. 3:16-17 KJV)
So, we see that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and is the point where one receives the Holy Spirit
Finally, you wrote, “yes, you do need a passage that says ‘faith alone.’ If one is going to claim that one is saved by faith alone, then they need to show from Scripture that it is stated.”
This goes back to my first point where I said a statement as clear and exact as “my shirt is red” doesn’t need to include the word “only” or “alone” to convey the intended and plain meaning of the statement -- which is that my shirt is red, only red and has no other colors present on the shirt.
The same type of clear and exact verses on the subject of what saves us are found below and do not require the addition of the word “only” or “alone” to be understood. These verses speak directly to what actually saves us, and they speak directly to the vehicle or means by which we are saved. They are straight-shooting, specific and unequivocally clear in their plain and intended meaning. I really encourage you to re-read these verses, asking the Lord to show you His truth on this very specific subject and then answer the questions that follow each one below. I did not include all of the verses, but just a few to start:
Again, your red shirt argument is flawed. It's called the, "No True Scotsman" fallacy. This fallacy is often seen in OSAS debates. It goes like this. No Scotsman uses sugar on his porridge. Glen uses sugar on his porridge. Well, no true Scotsman uses sugar on his porridge.
When evidence is given that refutes the claim (Glen uses sugar on is porridge) the claim is simply changed to exclude the evidence. When I pointed out the there are other colors in the label on your red shirt, you simply dismissed the label so that those colors weren't on your shirt. Thus, you dismissed the evidence that refuted your claim. That's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Ephesians 2:8-9 – For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Question: What is the means by which Paul tells us we are saved?
In context Paul is addressing whether one saved by faith or the Mosaic Law. Of those two it is faith. But he didn't say it was faith alone. That's the part you're imposing on the passage.
Romans 5:1-2 – Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Question: What gives us actual peace with God? What element allows us access into God’s grace?
In context Paul is addressing whether one saved by faith or the Mosaic Law. Of those two it is faith. But he didn't say it was faith alone. That's the part you're imposing on the passage.
John 1:12-13 -- But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Question: What is the means that gives us the right to be children of God? What actually causes us to be born of God?
This passage doesn't mention faith. It says as many as received Him. It's talking about Israel. However, in context we know that the Gospel that He brought contained baptism
Romans 3:28-30 -- Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Question: What justifies someone before God? What is the means God will use to justify us before Himself?
In context Paul is addressing whether one saved by faith or the Mosaic Law. Of those two it is faith. But he didn't say it was faith alone. That's the part you're imposing on the passage.
Here again, the context is stated in the passage. It's the Mosaic Law.
Philippians 3:8b-9 -- ...so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith;
Question: What is the means by which we attain God’s righteousness for ourselves?
Again, the context shows that it's the same argument. It is righteousness through the Mosaic Law or faith.
You've mentioned the context and yet in these passages you've completely ignored it. Taking passages that are debating between faith and the Mosaic Law and using them to argue that baptism isn't necessary is absurd. Baptism has nothing to do with that argument. To say that the Mosaic Law doesn't justify but faith does, therefore baptism isn't necessary is a non sequitir, another fallacy.
