What is required to become a Christian and be saved from one’s
sins? The Protestant world seems to have
convinced itself that salvation comes to a person by faith alone without any
further actions on an individual's part.
It is especially adamant in its stand that baptism has no part in
salvation. It is hard to understand but
it is without any doubt the majority position of the Protestant world.
They use passage after passage that teach we are saved by
faith which no one doubts but they add the word “alone.” And yet the only time the phrase “faith
alone” is used in the Bible the text says, “You see that a person is justified
by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24 ESV, see also the CSB, NAS, NET,
NIV, and the NLT) The King James Version
and the New King James Version reads “not by faith only.”
One has to remember faith has to be defined. When the Bible speaks of us being saved by
faith is it speaking of a dead faith or a living faith? If it is a living faith it does not stop at mental
assent but is moving and active. To stop
is to be dead in its tracks.
Let me ask a question. In
Acts 2 we read of the first gospel sermon ever preached. Were those people in Acts 2 on the Day of
Pentecost who responded to Peter’s gospel preaching saved by faith? Certainly!
They were but they were saved with a living faith that responded to
Peter’s preaching by believing and obeying it, by repenting and being baptized;
Peter said for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). Peter’s command was, “Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts
2:38 KJV)
Now make no mistake about it, the faith-only or faith-alone
crowd would have those saved that day saved before obedience to Peter’s
preaching, saved at the point of faith; based on what they teach their
doctrine demands it. They would deny
that but only in part. They would say
you must repent but to do that you have to split Peter’s preaching in half
taking part of it, repentance, while rejecting the other, baptism. One wonders what good conjunctions are in
grammar if you can do that to a sentence or in this case to Peter’s oral
command. Or, should we say the Holy
Spirit’s oral command? Yes, we should.
But, if they include repentance in their faith alone doctrine
then they ought to quit referring to it as “faith alone” for that it would not
be.
It is plain enough that this crowd on the Day of Pentecost in
Acts 2 had not repented but had developed faith. We know they had come to faith for the text
says “they were cut to the heart” by Peter’s preaching and ask Peter and the
apostles “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)
We know Peter’s response. Why
command people to repent who have already repented? Peter commanded them to repent thus they had
not done so even though they had faith.
Repentance is not just sorrow for sin. These people were clearly sorry about
crucifying Jesus when they asked what shall we do. The text says they were cut to the heart. Godly sorrow leads to repentance (2 Cor.
7:10) but it is not repentance. To
repent one must turn from sin to righteousness.
It is a state of mind and will.
It is a determination to cease sinning and live righteously. One may be sorry about a thing for a number
of reasons without any determination to change his/her ways; this is the sorrow
of the world that leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10).
Peter’s preaching that day had produced faith. The question to be answered was whether it
would produce repentance and baptism. Some
of the faith-only people like to say repentance is inherent in faith, that
faith is a synecdoche. Yes, I believe
that is true at times but when used that way it includes not just repentance
but baptism also. That they will not
accept. However, in Acts 2 faith is
clearly not a synecdoche. The question
they must answer in Acts 2 is exactly when those people were saved. The only options are (1) at the point of
faith, (2) at the point of faith and repentance, (3) at the point of faith,
repentance, and baptism.
In the past, some have argued that the word “for” in the
passage means “because,” because of the remission of sins. There is no truth in it but for the sake of
argument let us pursue the thought. If
that was so then you have forgiveness of sins before repentance of sins. You can be forgiven without repentance. If you repent and are baptized because your
sins were already forgiven, forgiven by faith, then you were saved before you
repented of your sins. Saved without
repentance. Now it is easy to see that
will not work.
I suppose another question, in due order, would be good to ask
the faith-only people. Had you been in
the crowd that day on the Day of Pentecost and heard Peter’s preaching being
subject to it yourself, one of the guilty ones, could you have walked away from
it having believed it and repented and been saved without obeying Peter’s
command to be baptized? Their doctrine
demands that if they are consistent.
And, in such a scenario could it truly be said you believed Peter’s
preaching if you refused baptism?
Jesus said in a disputed passage, “He who believes and is
baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)
It is disputed because the ending of Mark is disputed. But, in an undisputed passage Jesus says,
“Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
(John 3:5 NKJV) You cannot go to heaven
without baptism.
Finally, the faith-only position belittles the Great
Commission for in it Jesus commanded baptism.
“Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been
given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go
therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all
things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end
of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)
Can you disobey Jesus and be saved? He is “the author of eternal salvation to all
who obey Him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV)
[To download this article or print it out click here.]
