“Not because of works”
Taking “washing” or “bath” in Titus 3:5 as a reference to baptism creates a theological problem for some, because Paul has just said — in the very same sentence — “he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness.” And to many, baptism is a work and therefore cannot be necessary to salvation.
Of course, Paul seems to think otherwise. This is the same apostle who wrote —
(Gal 3:25-27 ESV) 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Evidently Paul doesn’t read his own stuff, because he persists in associating baptism with salvation — and he does this smack dab in the middle of discussions denying that we are saved by works and forbidding any such teaching! So what on earth could he be thinking?
Well, he obviously doesn’t think baptism is a work. We have no chance of understanding the apostle until we accept that. We may never come to understand why, but it’s a brute fact that Paul doesn’t see baptism as a work.
I realize that many Christians accept the idea that baptism is a work as a given, and many build a significant part of their theology on the idea. But it’s just not true. Gal 3:25-27 can’t be reconciled with that idea. After all, Paul is arguing urgently against a works salvation in Galatians. If he considered baptism a work, he’d never have made that statement. Nor would he have said,
(1Co 12:13 ESV) 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
(Rom 6:3 ESV) 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
(Col 2:11-12 ESV) 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Paul closely knits our salvation with baptism over and over. What other “work” receives this treatment from Paul? If baptism is a mere ordinance, then why pick baptism as the ordinance so closely tied to our salvation?
Clearly, even if baptism is an ordinance, it’s a very special one. Recall that Jesus said —
(Mat 28:19-1 ESV) 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Baptizing our converts is something before and other than “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
Now, my point isn’t so much to argue for the necessity of baptism as to point out that baptism simply is not a work. And maybe getting a better handle on Paul’s theology of works will help us better understand baptism.
What are “works”?
In Paul’s vocabulary, “works” fit in more than one category. We need to work our way through Romans to understand.
(Rom 2:6-10 ESV) 6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing [good works] seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
In this pasage, “works” is a reference to moral merit: doing good, righteousness. Indeed, Paul is discussing “good” in contrast to “evil” in terms applicable both to Jews and Gentiles.
Is he referring solely to those Gentiles who had the Law of Moses? No —
(Rom 2:14-16 ESV) 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Even if the Gentiles don’t have the Law of Moses, the moral elements of the Law are written on their hearts because even the Gentiles understand that there is a right and wrong, judge those they consider wrong, and yet do the very things they consider wrong. They are judged by what C. S. Lewis calls the “moral law within.”
(Rom 2:26-28 ESV) 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Paul declares that Gentiles can keep “the precepts of the law” even though they don’t have “the written code.” And Jews can break the Law even though they have the Law. (He doesn’t mean Gentiles can be perfect, but that they can obey some of what they innately understand to be God’s moral law.)
(Rom 4:11-13 ESV) 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
In chapter 4, Paul argues that Abraham was justified by faith long before he was circumcised. Therefore, he was saved by faith, not works (v. 13).
But circumcision is no moral law. It’s a positive command, that is, it doesn’t reflect the moral law within, and therefore Gentiles aren’t held accountable for circumcision. But the Jews saw circumcision as a boundary marker, demonstrating who are truly God’s people and who are not. Therefore, to the Jews, circumcision became a requirement to be saved and thus a work.
We now turn to Galatians.
(Gal 5:3 ESV) I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
Now, circumcision is received passively in most cases. Babies eight-days old have no choice in the matter. They don’t choose to be circumcised, and they don’t even cooperate in the process. And yet circumcision is a “work of the law,” not because it’s something that the babies do but because it’s something the Jews claimed earned their salvation. To prove their good standing before God, they’d point to their circumcision as a mark of God’s approval. And those not circumcised were not among the elect.
(Gal 3:10 ESV) For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
It’s not the circumcision per se that is a “work.” It’s the reliance on the circumcision. Circumcision is indifferent until we rely on it as causing or demonstrating our salvation. Then it becomes damning, because as soon as we rely on one work to be saved, we leave grace and seek salvation by merit — and none of us merits salvation.
Paul also declares that circumcision is a “work of the law” because it’s not faith.
(Gal 3:12 ESV) But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”
Three kinds of law
Therefore, “law” fits into these categories —
* God’s moral law
* God’s positive commands founds in the Law of Moses.
Of course, the moral law is also found in the Law of Moses; but it’s not found just in the Law of Moses. It’s found in countless other religions, the wisdom of countless uninspired men, and the consciences of nearly everyone.
Therefore, Paul sometimes speaks of “law” as “the Law of Moses” and sometimes, particularly when speaking of Gentiles, as God’s moral law. But it’s all law — if we see these things as the basis for our salvation. If we rely on these things to be saved or to demonstrate our salvation, they are law.
And baptism is neither moral law nor a Mosaic positive command.
But there’s a third kind of “law” in Paul’s writings —
* Anything we do that we count on to demonstrate our right-standing with God other than faith expressing itself through love.
This is the theme of Galatians. Paul’s argument isn’t that “we aren’t saved by works” so much as “we are only saved by faith.”
(Gal 3:2 ESV) 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
(Gal 3:7-9 ESV) 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
(Gal 3:11-12 ESV) 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”
(Gal 5:6 NAS) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
In each case (and there are more verses to the same effect), Paul’s argument is that we aren’t saved by works of the law because we’re saved by faith. Because “the law is not of faith” (3:12), we aren’t saved by the law and, therefore, teaching that we are is another gospel.
(Gal 3:24-27 ESV) 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
If Paul had only stopped at v. 25, the logic would be easy: “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” So what does baptism have to do with it?
You see, the hard question isn’t whether baptism is law. It’s plainly not. The harder question is: if we’re saved by faith and just faith, is baptism somehow a part of faith? And if it’s something else, how do we avoid making it into law?
I wonder if faith is something we have b/c we received it as a gift given by the Spirit (as suggested in Eph. 2: 8-10) or if it is something we did on our own and thus could/should logically be seen as meritorious.
Is baptism associated with salvation? Absolutely, but is it b/c of salvation? Is it in order to obtain salvation? Is it with a view toward salvation? To what, if any extent is it causal regarding our salvation?
How can one say circumcision is a positive command and baptism is not? (I guess I misunderstood.) And if circumcision is a work, even though it was performed on infants who really were passive in the matter, then how can baptism of a believer who made a decision, walked into the water and actively cooperated in being baptized by another be said to NOT be a work – just b/c someone else put their hands on him and assisted in getting him/her under the water and back up again means he was passive? Not really very convincing IMO and Paul never says that so far as I can recall.
Hesed,
Randall
I wonder if faith is something we have b/c we received it as a gift given by the Spirit (as suggested in Eph. 2: 8-10) or if it is something we did on our own and thus could/should logically be seen as meritorious.
Is baptism associated with salvation? Absolutely, but is it b/c of salvation? Is it in order to obtain salvation? Is it with a view toward salvation? To what, if any extent is it causal regarding our salvation?
How can one say circumcision is a positive command and baptism is not? (I guess I misunderstood.) And if circumcision is a work, even though it was performed on infants who really were passive in the matter, then how can baptism of a believer who made a decision, walked into the water and actively cooperated in being baptized by another be said to NOT be a work – just b/c someone else put their hands on him and assisted in getting him/her under the water and back up again means he was passive? Not really very convincing IMO and Paul never says that so far as I can recall.
Hesed,
Randall
Jay, I'm a little confused as well.. You quote Col 2 saying that Paul is referring to baptism as a form of spiritual circumcision then you quote Rom 4 saying that circumcision is post saving faith and then you say the reliance on circumcision (which you seemed to equate with baptism by quoting Col 2) is Law which does not save… What ?
I just continue to have a difficult time believing that God would make salvation a process whereby we'd all have to graduate from seminary to understand.
I think the quote from Jesus in Matthew 28 is pretty interesting if one were to take off the baptism blinders and look at his message from a different angle..
He says to first make disciples…seems relatively simple to come to the conclusion that a disciple is one who believes in the message he follows after…Secondly, he says to baptize them..that is the ones who have believed…and then he says to teach them… Doesn't sound at all inconsistent with the Grace concept of of Faith for Salvation, Baptism for public demonstration of commitment and obedience and then study for growth (sanctification). One has to really strain to force the baptism for salvation theory into the passages…That continues to bear witness against it in MHO…
It seems to me that by this time in the discussion those who come from a Restoration Movement perspective are going to say that the “praxis” of the first century indicates that the zebra is in fact a white horse with black stripes. While those from the Reformation perspective are going to insist that systematic discipline requires that the zebra be referred to as a black horse with white stripes. The point of agreement, which both perspectives should be laying claim to as a needed voice for unity, is that the Biblical precedent for Baptism’s connection to conversion (entry into the New Covenant, and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit) is so strong that Paul would not have known a believer who had not been immersed in water. His use of the act as a powerful participative metaphor for identification with Christ is not just practical, it is ordained by Jesus, himself. The modern tendency to abandon this precedent in favor of the “sinner’s prayer” or a signed note stapled to cross is a shame when Jesus gave us such a clear, beautiful answer to the question, “What should I do?”
If you can agree to not condemn me to hell for thinking that God might accept an unfortunate soul who got hit by a train mere minutes before being baptized, then I think that I can call you brother and be a bit more emphatic about the importance of baptism for those that I introduce to Jesus. We can not undo the blind spots of our various heritages, but I think that we can cultivate a respect that allows discussion without derision, unity without uniformity, authenticity without acrimony.
And, just to be clear. I do know that a zebra is not a horse at all.
Steve Wilson
Good comment. Thank you. We can be thankful for every problem and every question that arose in the NT church, because the answer was written down and preserved for us. And everything is relevant. There was, however, one question that was never asked. What happens if someone isn't water baptized? I don't think that question came up because they didn't think to do anything other than water baptize. But to infer from their lack of questioning that it had to have been a requirement of God for salvation is a huge leap of human logic. I used to make that leap, or at least I thought I did.
As someone pointed out before, if water immersion had been that critically necessary to get into heaven, surely a question and an answer would have been generated in the church and recorded for us. In our Restoration-derived hermeneutic, we take the assumption of silence = necessity and, using a method called eisegesis, read "water" into the text every time the word "baptism" is used. Then we continually reinforce ourselves in a logic cycle. Once one gets comfortable with the scenery around them, it's sometimes difficult to realize one has taken the wrong path.
Behaviors, beliefs, and interpretations learned in the past often become the presuppositions that we start with when reading and understanding the meaning of scripture. I can think that I'm being objective when I'm not.
We all do have blind spots, as Steve said. We also have spots in the visual field where we have learned to visually "fill in" spaces in between lines or blocks. This perceptual "filling in" is a learned behavior stored in our visual cortex and is the source of many interesting "optical illusions." The same human brain that does this trick of visual processing also produces logical thought. What is worse than having a "blind spot" in our thinking is having a spot that we have filled in with traditional interpretations that begin to have so much of a familiar appearance we don't recognize they are actually illusions.
When we decide to hold Jesus Christ as Lord over everything, including our interpretations, is when we begin to learn from one another how to fill in our individual blind spots more accurately.
I predict few will be happy with Jay's conclusion at the end of this series, if he arrives at a conclusion, The idea that baptism is something WE do for God is well engrained in the thinking of most CofC folks as well as Evangelicals. Baptism is no more something we do for the purpose of pleasing God, or demonstrating faith, than is our hearing the Word, even if both are commands of God.
Jay – Everyone,
I seeRomans 2 and Romans 4, so I would like your input on Romans 3. Romans 3:21-30 discusses justification by faith, apart from works of law. It seems to me that the context makes it clear that this is works of any law system, not just Torah. Neither a law on the Gentile heart [Rm. 1] nor Torah [Rm. 2] can save anyone, because every human is under sin [Rm. 3] since they fail to keep – any law system- given to them. God is the God of both Gentile and Jew, so Romans 3:21-30 presents justification by faith, apart from – any law system. Paul reaffirms this use of any law system with the example of Abraham [Rm. 4:1-5] who was justified by faith apart from works, which was before the Law/Torah [Rm. 4:13-16]. That said, I take the view that a NT believer dies with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12) and is regenerated in baptism (Tit. 3:5). So don’t accuse of promoting Zwinglism (ha ha)
(I am a history buff so cut me some slack – lol)
Within the last year I have been struggling to arrive at a consistent view without using “exceptions” or “absolute & relative necessities.” 1 Clement and some other ECFs present justification as the root of salvation and baptism as the bath of regeneration making my understanding of Scripture possible.
Since all non-Calvinistic systems allow un-regenerate believers to respond to the gospel, why cannot a person be justified [forensic – imputed] at the POINT of faith, but regenerated AT baptism? I’ve been told to be cautious with this view, but nobody – who associates regeneration with baptism – has told me why I should abandon it. Any help?
Jay's next post, 02/08/2011, should be relevant.
Baptism, An Exploration: “So that no one may boast”
I believe regeneration does occur at baptism. But it is God's baptism rather than the baptism that we control. Identified as baptism within the Holy Spirit and baptism within water, respectively.
The imagery of water (bath, cleansing, washing, etc) in Paul's explanations of regeneration cannot be validly stretched into a command for the necessity of water baptism for salvation.
Jay Said: "Evidently Paul doesn’t read his own stuff, because he persists in associating baptism with salvation — and he does this smack dab in the middle of discussions denying that we are saved by works and forbidding any such teaching! So what on earth could he be thinking?"
What have you been taught about baptism? Do you believe that the Scriptures came by inspiration? If we are follower of Calvin's Doctrine of "Save by Faith Only" this is the teaching of all evangelicals groups.
and why are you saying this ? : We have no chance of understanding the apostle until we accept that, (Accept what? "save by faith only?). We may never come to understand why, but it’s a brute fact that Paul doesn’t see baptism as a work.
Jay said: “baptism simply is not a work. And maybe getting a better handle on Paul’s theology of works will help us better understand baptism.
Was the Apostle Paul a Theologian? Did The apostle Paul has to study before teaching the message of God? like we do today? He was guided by the Holy Spirit and what he wrote is the message of the Spirit without error. God said :(1 Peter 2:21).
Jay said "Paul’s argument isn’t that “we aren’t saved by works” so much as “we are only saved by faith.” In this phrase I think Jay Forgot specify "Works of the Law of Moses" because the main purpose of the letter of Galatians was to teach those who were trying to teach that to be save you need to keep the law of Moses as well.
if we’re saved by faith and just faith ( Calvinistic View, and all the denominations), is baptism somehow a part of faith? And if it’s something else, how do we avoid making it into law?
If Baptism is not part of Faith why the eunuch of Ethiopia ask Philip the evangelist . “Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” (Acts 8:36-37). Is not the word “Believe” as “Faith” or both word are different? What is the difference between believe and Faith?
Also using the same example of Conversion the inspired writer wrote: “Acts 8:35 “ Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.” So Philip was repeating Jesus, Jesus, Jesus ? What do you think he preached? This kind of reasoning just considering few passages and not the whole picture makes confusion about the topic. What do you call when you find all the passages about the topic and then see the whole picture? Can we make the same mistake as the denominations following doctrine of man “Calvinism”?
I am surprise that you been a lawyer or accountant, you don’t like laws. Why you don’t like the Law of Christ? Do you know the biblical teaching of Faith? Hebrews 11:6, Romans 10:17.