According to John’s Gospel, how is someone saved?
(John 1:12-13) Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
(John 3:14-18) Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
(John 3:36) “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
(John 5:24) “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
(John 6:29) Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
(John 6:35) Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
(John 6:40) “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
(John 6:47) “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.”
(John 7:38-39) “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
(John 11:25-26) Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
(John 12:46) “I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.”
(John 20:31) But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Do you, maybe, see a recurring theme? It does kind of seem that John wants us to understand that “whoever believes in him is not condemned.” And not a one of these passages conditions salvation on being baptized, with the possible exception of John 3:3-6, which is, of course, highly controverted.
Now, if you were an early Second Century believer and had a copy of John’s Gospel but none of Paul’s epistles, what would you conclude is the path to salvation?
Clement of Alexandria asserts that John was written after the other Gospels, which would place its writing after most if not all of Paul’s epistles, and certainly at a time when tens of thousands of Christians had been baptized. And yet John’s repeated emphasis is not on baptism, but on faith in Jesus.
We should spent a moment to recall the meaning of “faith” in the New Testament. I’ve addressed this several times.
- The Greek word is pistis. The verb form in English is “believe.” In the New Testament, “faith” and “belief” are the very same thing. So are “have faith” and “believe.” They also translate the same Greek word.
- The Greek word has these three shades of meaning –
- It can mean to accept a truth claim as true. I “believe” or “have faith” that what you say is true.
- It can mean to trust. I can believe or have faith that you will keep the promise that you make.
- It be mean to be faithful. Indeed, pistis is often translated “faithful” in the New Testament.
Thus, to “have faith in” Jesus normally means to believe that what he says is true (faith), that he will keep his promises (hope), and to be faithful to him (love). All three meanings are there in the Greek word.
(You’ll notice that I’ve used “faith” in two different senses — in the broad, three-part sense and in the narrower sense of accepting what Jesus says as true. Both senses are found in the New Testament, with James, for example, using “faith” in the narrower sense to speak of a faith that doesn’t necessarily change how the believer lives. But most of the time — nearly always — “faith” is used in the broader sense.)
John does not teach an easy “believism.” The faith John speaks of changes the believer. We should not run from what John so plainly teaches. He really does expect converts to be obedient. But “obedient” doesn’t mean “get every doctrine and every practice exactly right.” After all, John teaches nothing about how to organize a church or conduct a worship service! Rather, the obedience taught in John is —
(John 13:34 ESV) 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
(John 15:12-14 ESV) 12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.
(John 15:17 ESV) 17 These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
And so, you see why I label “be faithful” with “love.” And, of course, the New Testament concept of love is much broader than being kind-hearted to others. It requires action —
(1Jo 3:16-18 ESV) 16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17 But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
This is no mushy, sentimental love!
Why talk about faith in a series on baptism? Well, because John teaches that we receive the Spirit when we first believe (John 7:27-29). And that all with faith are saved. And if we understand this, it’s hard to see how John 3:3-6 could possibly mean that the unbaptized are damned. Of course, we normally don’t even mean this. We mean that the improperly baptized are damned. We argue that “born of water and Spirit” proves that those baptized by the wrong mode (pouring, sprinkling) or at the wrong time (as an infant) or for the wrong reason (any reason other than to obtain forgiveness of sins) are damned, because only a baptism that touches all these bases is “born of water.” But it’s really hard to find that doctrine in those verses.
You see, John 3:5 is a battleground verse because Jesus declares that only those born (begotten) of water and Spirit are saved. If he’s speaking of baptism, he seems to exclude all who aren’t baptized. And we want to argue that “baptized” only includes a proper baptism done in all the right ways — narrowing the list of saved people down to the Churches of Christ.
But this approach to interpretation runs afoul of John over and over again. As many translations have it, as part of the very same conversation, Jesus tell Nicodemus,
(John 3:18 ESV) 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Now, Jesus (or, according to some translators, John) is explaining what Jesus had just said. Somehow, “born of water and Spirit” means “believes in the name of the only Son of God.” Otherwise, Jesus (or John) has contradicted himself.
Context matters. And this reading makes the book fit together, as John declares in John 7:37-39 that all who believe receive the Spirit. And that ties perfectly with John 3 (Nicodemus) and John 4 (the Samaritan woman). It fits.
Does that eliminate baptism as a necessary practice? Does it make baptism irrelevant or unimportant? No. But it tells us what happens when someone’s baptism is less than ideal. Ultimately, the test isn’t baptism — it’s faith in Jesus.
And that’s important for another reason. You see, we in the Churches of Christ have been so busy building a baptismal theology to win debates with the Baptists that we’ve lost all perspective. The salvation theology we teach isn’t the same as what the New Testament teaches. The New Testament focuses over and over and over on faith in Jesus. We focus on baptism. And sometimes I think we worship the wrong god. We’ve turned baptism into an idol.
When a young man or woman meets an untimely death, the parents take comfort in the fact their child had been baptized in summer camp. We preach people into baptism. We measure success in terms of baptisms. Parents cry when their son or daughter comes forward for baptism. Baptism gives us comfort and assurance.
But read 1 John — a book written to assure us that we’ve been saved. John tells us to find assurance in our faith, our love, and our receipt of the Spirit. Nowhere does he mention our baptism. And yet, as a people of baptism, we find our comfort before God in the purity of our baptismal theology.
Indeed, we so distort the Bible’s teachings that we sometimes urge faith in a plan. You see, a community overly focused on a rite will fail to be properly focused on the person the rite points us to. Indeed, we get upset when the preacher preaches too much Jesus and not enough baptism — because we feel assured of our place in heaven by the perfection of our baptismal doctrine, not our relationship with Jesus.
We’ll continue to work our way through Peter’s and Paul’s teachings on baptism, but we’ll continue to find that baptism is secondary to faith in Jesus. And that matters. To me, the biggest way it matters is in how we, as a church, raise our children. If we were to grasp the vastly greater importance of faith in Jesus, we’d preach and teach more about Jesus, about trusting Jesus, and about loving others as Jesus loved others. We’d find confidence in Jesus’ sacrifice and our sharing in it through love for others.
And rather than feeling that getting our kids baptized is the essence of good parenting, we’d worry much, much more about developing in our chidren a faith that trusts and that changes how they live. Yes, we’d still celebrate the day they are baptized, just as we celebrate the day they were born. But we’d realize that, like their physical birth, baptism is but the beginning of our walk with Jesus, not the culmination.
Finally, don’t mistake me for a Baptist. I’ve said quite a bit about water baptism already and will have more to say. I don’t have to buy the John 3:5 arguments to think that Acts 2:38 speaks of water baptism. And I’m quite confident that it does.
The question is not whether there are verses that associate receipt of the Spirit or salvation with water baptism. There are. The question is what all the verses are teaching, taken as a whole. And we get there one verse at a time, not be defending our preferred view but by laying our views aside and digging into the verses meticulously. Only then can we see what the verses teach together. And, perhaps more importantly, what we can learn from these verses that we may have missed in our earlier readings.
Jay,
John’s theme is the revealing that Jesus is God incarnate, the Messiah of Israel, and the Savior of the world. In every chapter, belief is contrasted with unbelief because it had a purpose. Few can appreciate faith in Jesus like an apologist who spends long hours with people who do not believe “Jesus is Lord.” I truly appreciate you stressing belief in light of the COC problems that you mentioned. I am not that type of COC person, but it seems they are plentiful and agreeably, they need to be dealt with. Thus, I will not address your reactions and points about them. Please allow me to make two remarks and I will leave you to your day.
First, it would be a misuse of John’s gospel to pit it against conversion accounts in Acts and doctrinal problems in the Epistles. After all, the Spirit inspired and preserved John’s gospel for an immediate purpose and to compliment other NT documents. I am quite Orthodox in my thinking, as you know, and although I affirm Justification by faith alone, I do it from a book other than John’s gospel or John’s Epistles.
Secondly, it is historically unrealistic to conceive of someone having a copy of John’s gospel and not being familiar with any other NT written documents, prophets, and oral tradition. People were converted by the church, not a collected Bible in mass print like today. Churches had copies and the ECFs were already extensively quoting from them. Oddly, in proposing your question about the 2nd century believer, you did not factor that a Christian of the 2nd century would have heard the unanimous testimony of ECFs, like Irenaeus, teaching that water in Jn. 3:5 is a reference to baptism, though salvation is by faith and only supportive of baptism.
Again, I am not the COC person that you seem to have in surplus. Though I am a member of the COC, when I’m corresponding with you, just consider me to have a Sola Scriptura Eastern Orthodox mentality.
My experience has been that the usual way these verses in John have been treated is simply to ignore them. Men lean heavily on Jn 3:5 and pretend the others are not there.
There is the misguided idea that somehow Peter, or Paul, taught a different doctrine of salvation than Jesus taught. Nothing could be more wrong. But, if you start by trying to define scripture by the coc traditional view of water baptism you will always end up at the wrong conclusions. When we come to God's Word we should at least try to leave our presuppositions at the door and allow the Word to say what it says. The Bible is God's revelation of truth, it is not what God gave to support our views on anything but that's how we've treated it.
I'm not quite sure how to understand your defense of your teaching by saying "don't mistake me for a Baptist". Most Baptists insist on water Baptism and do not consider the unbaptized to be part of the church. And of course they baptize lots more folks than we do. A clue might be their name 🙂
Good post Jay. It needs no defense.
Royce
Royce,
I think I understand why Jay said, "don't mistake me for a Baptist." So many in the CoC mistake the teaching Jay is doing for pure Baptist theology! I've heard them often (and I'm sure you have as well). As you conclude, though, this post needs no defense.
I remember hearing K C Moser speak once when he pointed out that everything in the traditional CoC 5-step "plan of salvation" – HBRCB – is empty without Jesus. We must hear Jesus, believe in Jesus, Repent to serve Jesus, confess Jesus, and be baptized in Jesus' name. He stressed that all of this is our faithful response to Jesus.
If we stressed Jesus more than baptism, we would not have the problem Jay is addressing, and baptism would take its proper place as faithful response to Jesus instead of the idol it has become, an idol that has taken the place of Jesus as Savior in popular thinking of many CoC members.
You have identified our problem: we have our convictions and we go to the Bible to prove someone else wrong instead of to listen to what God is really telling us.
I join you in giving kudos to Jay on this post!
Jerry
Jay,
You are placing heavy credence on the silence of scriptures here (what John did not explicitly say). Interestingly, the words repent and repentance are both missing from John's gospel account. Do you think that John did not know what Jesus explicitly taught on the subject?
The concept of faith and believing had a much broader scope in NT times than we can find by reading the pure dictionary definition. One of the biggest mistakes today is for us to reduce that scope.
Jay said, " with the possible exception of John 3:3-6, which is, of course, highly controverted"
I do not see any controversy in the following vs.
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
The way I see what is said is (born of water) baptized for remission of sins.
(born of spirit) have a repentant spirit, become a new spirit/ born of spirit.
Unless both of these things happen, you cannot enter the kingdom.
If you are baptized for remission of sin, and it is granted, but there is no change of spirit, how long will it be before you need baptism again.
Born of water, and of spirit work hand in hand.
Jay, John 7: 27- 29 does not say that the Spirit is received when one first believes and neither does John 7: 37-39. One is begotten by God when one believes and he is given the right to become a child. (John 1: 12) One becomes a child of God by being born again, born of water and the Spirit.
Rich W:
To my understanding, the 3rd definition of 'pistis' that Jay has presented (faithfulness) would be synonymous to repentance/penitence.
JMF,
Yes, the third definition is close. If one understands faith has a very broad scope (includes loving one another, repentance, confession, obedience, baptism and living pure) then John makes a lot of sense. If one takes a more narrow concept of NT faith (just the Greek definition possibilities), then John contradicts the words of Jesus recorded by Luke (Lk 13:3) and Mark (Mk 16:16).
Rich W:
So what all are you going to load onto faith?
The reason I ask is because this is the introductory comment for every COC split that has ever occurred: "One CANNOT do xyz and be saved, because it is not of the FAITH! It goes against the teaching of Christ!"
Loading up "faith" is a slippery slope. After all, the most legalistic of our heritage (CFTF) would demand that you agree with them on whether a woman can do sign language during a sermon, and if you disagree, you've left the "faith."
Man, all of this stuff just turns into one big circular argument, does it not?
JMF,
Even Jay includes obedience within the NT concept of faith. You bring up an interesting extreme that I have seen happen. We must not be a typical cocer who responds to one extreme by advocating the opposite extreme.
You have to put all the scriptures on a particular subject together to have the complete truth on that subject. I once "believed" all by itself with no repentance, no new birth or desire to live by Christ-and my family "believes" in Jesus as God but have never had a born again experience, don't repent or desire to live right by God's standard either. Then one night God took away the veil-and not only did I believe I RECEIVED Christ. The demons and Satan believe and tremble. Belief in Christ all by itself saves noone.
There are people who get regenerated outside of baptism, because they cry out to God and were not told the full Gospel plan of how to receive Him…but I as one of these very examples asked God what baptism was supposed to be to me, He clearly told me that He meant for me to receive HIm IN baptism and I was to go "finish the job" immediately. Notice only Cornelius and his family are the only examples shown to get born again (as well as have the Pentecostal Gift of tongues bestowed on them) before baptism-yet the disciple said they were IMMEDIATELY told to get baptized the same night-though they were already born again they were still baptized without delay. That tells me there was something the Holy Spirit still had to give to Cornelius and his family through baptism.
I went to a museum once and they were discussing the "Cradle of Christianity." A non (totally secular) authority on the matter said in the third century Church they were baptizing them immeidately upon their decision to become saved. And did you know there is a verse on baptism for the dead in the Bible? It wouldn't apply to pagans due to the way it was worded, and Jews didn't baptize, so it had to be about those who sometimes get born again outside of baptism but die before they are baptized-this shows me God has even greater mercy.
If I had my own church, I would first tell them the plan of salvation in full, then stress that it is the Holy Spirit and not them, Who is going to do the salvation work through their obedience, and not them saving themself-and that outside the Holy Spirit getting in the water doesn't make them come out a saint. Then I'd lead them in about waist deep, have them confess Christ, renounce their sins, ask God to come into their heart and save their soul (ie calling on Jesus), then ask them to hold their nose while I prepare to dunk 'em.
Just an addition to the texts from John, also from the 3rd chapter:
This tells me two things: Even in John's Gospel baptism was a vital part of Jesus' (!) ministry. You won't find that in the synoptics. Even though Jesus did not baptize himeself (as John clarifies in John 4:2), baptism was very important for Him.
Second: Baptism is called "purification" in this paragraph. ??????????? as defined by Strong's means:
So baptism in the Gospel of John is not only important, but alsoi defined as "having an effect" (beyond a mere symbolic understanding of it).
In my understanding the difference between the baptisms of John and those of Jesus' disciples was the presence of Christ, the bridegroom. This might raise the question whether the "pre-pentecostal" baptisms were "valid" or "complete" in NT-terms. Baptisms perforformed by John needed to be repeated; but baptisms performed in the presence and the authority of Christ most likely not. So the disciples, who received the Spirit at pentecost, received only the 2nd half on the "one" baptism they (I believe) received during Christ's ministry. Otherwise we'd see three different baptisms: John's baptism – Christ's "pre-pentecostal" baptisms – NT-baptisms since pentecost. But nowehere we see an example of a baptism received during the time od Christ#s ministry on earth that is declared incomplete!
Note, that Christ's disciples baptized even moree people than John (John 4:1)! And still: Christ in not called, "Jesus the Baptist" …
Alexander
Jay,
You have no idea how this study is helping me make sense of what I thought was true but, after studying baptism intensly the last two years, being unable to find that truth in the scriptures I've always read with traditional C of C eyes.
Now whenever I'm worshipping or working along side those who are not C of C, I don't have to dwell on the skepticism in the back of my mind about whether they are actually saved or not. I felt like I was believing that they were saved despite what the Bible said because of our baptism doctrine. I know even more (intellectually anyway) that they are my fellow brothers and sisters and Christ as evident by the lives they live in the Spirit. Now I'm free to focus even more on going after the lost versus feeling an obligation to argue this over and over with my other non C of C friends. I hope others reading this feel the same.
Adam
Rich W,
Did you not read the post? I wrote, in a bullet point, that "faith" includes faithfulness. I've said the same thing countless times in this blog. One would be hard pressed to distinguish repentance from becoming faithful.
Or are you asserting that someone who fails to be baptized, even in ignorance, isn't penitent? I've heard that argument many times, and it doesn't really hold, you know, water.
Adam,
Thanks. That makes perfect sense to me.
Yes, I've not tried to reconcile all the passages (yet), but that's intentional. You can't begin to reconcile them until you understand them as they stand. The usual approach is to pick a side and then interpret the scriptures to suit that side.
Hopefully, by delving more deeply into each text and delaying the theorizing, we see that the scriptures aren't aimed at damning all who misunderstand baptism even if they have a genuine faith in Jesus. And while that's not the only lesson to be gained, it's a big one.
We desperately need to seek unity across denominational lines with all true believers in Jesus. The church cannot be effective in its mission until that happens.
Laymond,
It's really not reasonable to take "begotten (or born) of … Spirit" as referring to a change in heart. Yes, salvation involves a change in heart. Absolutely! But if you check out the use of "begotten" throughout scripture, it means much, much more than that.
(Deu 32:18 NAS) You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth.
What does "begot" mean in that passage?
(Psa 2:1 ESV) 7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you."
And what does "begotten" mean in Ps 2? It’s the same word in both passages. Jesus was speaking to a teacher of the Law.
I don't think it means just that the Israelites or David changed their attitudes!
(Joh 1:13 MIT) They were fathered neither by blood lines, nor by biological drives, nor by a husband's insistence, but by God.
Again, what is John's point in the use of this verb? You can't answer what "of the Spirit" means until you first answer what "begotten" means.
Well, to be re-begotten is to change who your father is, isn't it? It's like being adopted (one of Paul's favorite metaphors). The point of re-begotten vs. adoption, though, is also that to be re-begotten is to have your nature changed.
To be begotten of God is not only to become his child (and it is that, for sure!), it is to begin a process of becoming like him. A child must be like his father.
(Joh 5:17 ESV) 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
(Joh 5:19 ESV) So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise."
Paul makes explicit what is implicit in John 3:5 —
(Eph 5:1 ESV) Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.
But it's even more than imitation. When we are re-begotten, our natures are changed so that we become innately more like God.
(2Co 3:18 ESV) 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
And this is by the power of the Spirit.
To be "begotten of … Spirit" is to be transformed from a person of mere flesh to a person with the Spirit, who has God's special Presence within him, who is transforming him to be more and more like God.
So, yes, of course, our attitudes change, but it can't be reduced to that. I mean, my attitude changed when I got married, too, but the relationship with my wife, over time, radically transformed me. And she is flesh and blood. A relationship with Divinity transforms us all the more — IF WE DON'T REFUSE THE BLESSING. We don't lose our free will, and we can stubbornly frustrate, grieve, and even quench the Spirit.
Arland,
I quoted many scriptures in John that promise salvation to ALL who believe, such as —
(Joh 3:18 ESV) 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
They are in the inspired text. I believe them to be true.
Yes, that creates difficulty in reconciling these texts with the baptism texts, but I can't overrule the repeated, plain teachings of scripture. And, yes, that makes it hard to have a nice, neat, systematic, exclusive plan of salvation. But I'll be true to the text even if it makes things messy. (And I HATE messy.)
And so we all have to work to see how BOTH sets of texts can be true — both the "all with faith are saved" passages and the "God saves when we are baptized" passages.
Some try to clean them up by denying that we are saved at baptism. Some try to clean them up by denying that all with faith are saved. As nice and neat as those two theories are, neither can be right because neither is consistent with ALL the verses.
Jay,
I said you include obedience within the concept of faith. I understand in NT times, baptism was included within faithfulness. We don't see them separated in scripture (other than being separate words).
test
Jay & all,
(660 words in this post) I believe Gareth Reese in his book on Acts really made the concept of Faith including obedience popular when he wrote “the faith that saves.” This is a Catholic concept. As sure as some raise eye brows with my staunch A cappella stance, I will go stage left and raise some more on faith. Faith does not include obedience. We are justified and kept justified by faith, not obedience. I will let you all deal with antinomianism and legalism. Saving faith includes ascent, trust, and knowledge, but obedience is separate from faith. Faith does not include obedience, but obedience includes faith, and this is a crucial difference to be remembered. Saving faith produces the desire to be obedient and obedience perfects faith.
I am using justified as a legal term of God indicating a verdict of 'not guilty'; in regards to sin, he who is justified is not held accountable for his sins. There are many commandments that require faith to act on or faith to obey. Believing the gospel is a command – Acts 16:31, Mk 1:15; Repenting of sin is a command – Mk 1:15, Acts 2:38, Lk 13:3; Confessing Jesus as Lord is a command – Mt 10:32-33, Rom 10:9-10, Jn 12:41-42, 1 Jn 4:1-3; Believers Baptism is a command – Acts 2:38, Mk 16:16, 1 Pt 3:21; Be Faithful unto death, which involves knowing/obeying the teachings of Jesus – Rev 2:10. Such commands and others in scripture are related to eternal life and forgiveness of sins. This provides the believer with a systematic “birds-eye view” as opposed to a “horizontal chronological view” where various obedience’s of faith are disconnected from each other or elevated above one another.
Only a living faith can obey God, thus justification is declared by faith in the gospel. Disciples must learn Christ’s teachings, but the saving gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-4). To disregard the connection between the forgiveness of sins, the short list of commands I gave, and justification is to deny scripture and create a reactionary error of interpretation where the results of one command are attributed to another. Commands have associated promises that must be acknowledged. Scripture connects the forgiveness of sins not only to repentance and baptism, which are separate in the life of the believer, but to belief, blood, and confession (Acts 2:38, 10:43, 22:16; 1 Jn. 1:7-9).
A living faith is a saving faith and a saving faith results in justification since a dead faith cannot save. The faith that obeys is a saving faith, since a dead faith will not obey. Mankind is justified by faith since he cannot keep all the commands of God perfectly. To teach anything less, results in an impartial obedience that saves. One is either saved by keeping a law system perfectly or by faith, and there is no middle ground (Rom. 11:6). Jesus obeyed the Law perfectly and mankind fails to do this. The Law of Faith upholds the Law in that a law system cannot be kept by mankind. Therefore, one can only be justified by faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. True saving faith upholds the law of God as a system that mankind cannot keep, calls people to a higher standard, and demands spiritual maturity through lifelong sanctification.
I say again, saving faith includes ascent, trust, and knowledge, but obedience is separate from faith. Faith does not include obedience, but obedience includes faith, and this is a crucial difference to be remembered. Saving faith produces a new attitude toward God and the desire to be obedient, but even then we will fail and realize that obedience only works to increase our saving faith. Eph 2:8-10 speak of (1) grace through (2) faith into (3) good works, which God prepared for the saved to do – That is a Biblical pattern I will uphold.
I recommended Restoration Movement scholar [Dr. Jack Cottrell, Faith Once for All, pg. 318-330; 346-359] books.google.com
HistoryGuy,
A while back, I considered Paul's phrase from Romans "the obedience of faith." /2010/06/the-fork-in-the-ro…
I'll not repeat the arguments there; I'll just add this —
In English, we use "obedient" in two senses. If I tell you to do something, and you don't do it, I can truly say you weren't "obedient."
But I can say that my son is "obedient" even though his obedience is imperfect. He doesn't obey all my commands perfectly, but he has an obedient heart.
Almost always, the NT sense is the second sense: "obedience" refers to the state of one's heart.
The "obedience of faith" is a heart transformed by the Spirit through our faith. By the Spirit, faith changes our hearts into obedient hearts.
Therefore, perfection isn't the standard. No one is perfectly obedient. But, of course, an obedient person will, on the whole, in fact obey. Having an obedient heart changes how you behave. Always. But not perfectly.
Now, an obedient heart will be baptized as instructed. An obedient heart does not rebel against what the heart understands is God's will. However, an obedient heart can certainly misunderstand or be badly instructed and yet still be obedient.
A classic 20th Century Church of Christ error is to declare that those who were baptized as infants and who've been taught that this is sufficient are damned by not being "obedient." But that grossly misunderstands the NT sense of "obedience."
Indeed, it's exactly that flawed reasoning that leads so many good, believing church members to doubt their own salvation, as they know how imperfect they are.
Therefore, I would say that faith includes obedience in the second (heart) sense but not in the first (perfection) sense.
“In Baptism, the believer is making a public profession of his faith in Christ. He or she is outwardly displaying an agreement with Christ`s death, burial and resurrection by obeying Christ’s command to be baptized. Being baptized in water is simply and only an outward sign of the inner work of the Holy Spirit.”
This is the Baptist/evangelical doctrine of the “Ordinance of Believer’s Baptism”. There is a small problem, however, there is not one single verse in the Bible that makes this statement. However there are many verses that say:
“Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins”
“He that believes and is baptized shall be saved”
“Why do you wait, get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins”
“Baptism now saves us”
You can twist and contort the Bible to say most anything. However, the plain, simple interpretation of the Bible says that God saves and forgives sins in Baptism. Orthodox Christians have believed this plain, simple interpretation of God’s Word, that God saves in Holy Baptism, since the days of the Apostles. Numerous historical records from the first three centuries of Christianity confirm this interpretation of Scripture. The Baptist/evangelical belief that Baptism is simply and only OUR act of obedience/OUR public profession of faith is a sixteenth century false teaching of Swiss Ana-Baptists, and in the seventeenth century, the Baptists. There is no historical evidence whatsoever in the first 800-1,000 years of Christianity of ANYONE believing this concept of Baptism.
Baptism is GOD’S act of saving sinners. He does all the work of salvation, you and your “decision for Christ” are not needed or allowed to help save you. God does 100% of the saving! Period.
For more information on the true means of salvation, I encourage you to visit the official website of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, an orthodox Christian Church that adheres to the doctrines of the Early Christian Church.
http://www.lcms.org