“Easy Believism: How Would ‘Hard Believism’ Affect the Gospel?”

Those who challenge the teaching of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone use such loaded phrases as “easy believism,” and “cheap grace.” The insinuation is that salvation by faith alone is watered-down, lax, and morally weak. In the historic debate salvation by faith has been characterize as antinomian, i.e., lawless. It is assumed that Christians who believe they are saved by the sheer grace of God, with only naked faith in Christ, are ethically irresponsible and morally careless. They are seen as neglecting obedience to God and the necessity of good works.

Image via Wikipedia

But if there is “easy believism,” then one wonders what “hard believism” would be like. How does one make believing harder? And should we make it harder? As we look deeper, we see that the aspersion of “easy believism” goes to the very definition and nature of faith. What is true saving faith?

To have faith means more than to have an opinion, belief or conviction. It means far more than knowledge or acknowledgment. It means trust and reliance. "Reliance upon a thing or person supposed to be trustworthy, this is Faith."[1] As I said, some make the mistake of faulting those who hold to "faith alone" as "easy believism" or mere "mental assent." But the issue is more than "easy believism" or "uneasy legalism." The phrase "easy believism" betrays a lack of understanding concerning what Scripture teaches about saving faith. The issue is the clear meaning of saving faith as presented in Scripture.

Read the rest of this article at "Easy Believism: How Would 'Hard Believism' Affect the Gospel?"

---

[1] H.C.G. Moule, Justification By Faith, (London, John F. Shaw and Co., n.d.), p. 12.

1 Peter 3:21 “Water Baptism and Salvation”

Image via Wikipedia

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 Peter 3:21 KJV)

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 ESV)

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 NASB)

[A]nd this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 NIV)

Does Peter Teach That Water Baptism Saves?

Baptismal remission is buttressed primarily by three specific verses in the Bible. The first is Acts 2:38, the second is 1 Peter 3:21, and these are linked to Jesus’ words in Mark 16:16. These three verses are cited as though they exist in a mutually supportive bond, and as proof that the apostolic teaching is baptismal remission.

One writer, Talmadge French[1] asserts that the case for baptismal remission is made by a proper understanding of the word eis, and the proper connection of Acts 2:38 with 1 Peter 3:21:

Peter, to the contrary, makes such a strong case for baptism that he says Noah was “saved,” not by the Ark, but “by water”! God, of course, saved them, but it was through the agency of water, in that the water lifted them above the judgment. The Apostle points out that the water is the antitype of water-baptism that “doth also now save us.” Why? Because of the Name of Jesus! Baptism in Jesus’ Name (Acts 2:38) is “for the remission of sins,” or, as indicated by the work eis (Gk). In order to access remission. This literally means into the remission of sins, but not because, or as a result, of sins already remitted.[2]

First, before we look at the exegesis, one thing that stands out to me, French uses circular reasoning to prove baptismal remission. He first assumes that water-baptism is the means of sin’s remission. In order to prove that “for” in Acts 2:38 means that sin is remitted by baptism, he cites 1 Peter 3:21, as further support that water-baptism saves. But, in his conclusion about 1 Peter, he circles back to Acts 2:38 to prove that Peter teaches water-baptism saves us. Both verses are interpreted in a way that appears to support French’s a priori assumption – baptismal remission. It seems baptismal remission is automatically assumed to be true. Only then, are all the verses of Scripture interpreted as confirming that assumption.

If you would like to read the rest of this article go to "1 Peter 3:21 'Water Baptism and Salvation'"

You might also be interested to read Does Baptism Save? from Q & A.

[1] Author of Our God is One, Talmadge is a former ordained minister of the UPCI and teacher at the Indiana Bible College (a UPCI school). He is now Education Committee Chairman of the World Pentecostal Fellowship and teaches at the Apostolic School of Theology in Sacramento, CA.

[2] Talmadge French, Theology Column, Indiana Bible College Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 7.

Mark 16:16 “He That Believes Shall Not Be Condemned”

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16 ESV)

Some Christians believe this passage teaches that only those who are baptized are or can be saved. Is this true? Those who believe in and teach baptismal remission (and regeneration) base their teaching on this verse. Does Jesus teach that those who believe, but are not baptized, are not save? I do not believe this is what Jesus meant.

Image by Bob McCaffrey via Flickr

First, Jesus said, "But he that believeth not shall be damned." If you take it word for word, then the only one not condemned is the one who does not believe. Rather than take it literally, some add their interpretation "of course one who does not believe will not be saved, because he will not be baptized." That is an assumption and a fallacy known as “the converse of the condition.” If you applied to this to other passages you would have serious problems. For example, Paul said, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed.” (Gal. 3:29), could you reverse that and say, “If you are Abraham’s seed, you belong to Christ”? Surely not!

If you would like to read the rest of this article go to "Mark 16:16 'He That Believes Shall Not Be Condemned.'"

You might also be interested to read "Does Baptism Save?" from Q & A on my website.