dpwclark@sbcglobal.net<\/a><\/span><\/p>\nSubject: <\/strong>Re: You’ve got a new entry<\/span>
\nDear Darrell:<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Thank you for dropping by scripturecache.com and for the lengthy message you left in our Guest Book. You obviously spent much time writing your very courteous statement. Since you listed your topic as “salvation by works or grace,” I’m assuming that your comments may have been prompted by reading my MS, titled, “Grace Only, a Review of Moser’s Books….” Let me suggest additional MSS you will find in our “Long Manuscripts” section that relate to various points you raised:<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 “Bible Baptism”<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Sin, The Lord Will Not Reckon”<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 “Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism in the Church”<\/span>
\nHad you read these and studied the Biblical truths set forth in them, perhaps you would not have made some of the assertions you made.<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0I welcome this opportunity to study and discuss these matters with you. Like you, I do not intend to be offensive in my response, and I am assuming that you are sincere in your convictions. However, I will respond frankly, with the appeal that you study and think much more deeply about these subjects. I will not respond to each of your numerous assertions, for to refute the foundation upon which they are built will cause them all to fall. Actually, I can find very little in what you wrote that is true to the Bible and therefore with which I can agree. Note the following responses:<\/span><\/p>\n\n- The Son of God<\/strong>, not Satan, placed conditions upon salvation when he said “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark. 16:16a). Besides the two conditions (belief and<\/strong> baptism) in this statement, other passages abound that prove that forgiveness of sins\/salvation is conditional<\/strong>. Satan is the one who seeks to remove<\/strong> all conditions, thus perverting the Lord’s plan of salvation and causing people who believe his lies to be lost.<\/span><\/li>\n
- You give up your entire attack on “conditions” when you assert (rightly so) that men must believe in the Christ in order to be saved. As already noted, belief is a condition<\/strong>, unless you are willing to contend that unbelievers will be saved. We know this is impossible, however, for Jesus said: “He that disbelieveth <\/strong>shall be condemned<\/strong>” (\u201cdamned<\/strong>,\u201d KJV, Mark 16:16b, emph. DM). You cannot have it both ways\u2014salvation with no conditions and <\/strong>salvation that requires belief in the Christ. These are mutually exclusive concepts. \u201cNo <\/strong>conditions\u201d means \u201cno <\/strong>conditions,\u201d not \u201cone <\/strong>condition\u201d that you call a \u201cnon-condition.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Your “no-condition” doctrine logically implies universalism, that is, that all men will be saved\u2014believer and unbeliever alike. Note: Christ gave himself “a ransom for all,” and God wills “all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4\u20136). Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of \u201cthe whole world\u201d (1 John 2:2). If salvation is unconditional, all will be saved, whether or not they believe.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Without doubt, the Bible repeatedly teaches that salvation is by faith\/belief in Christ, but your statement that “There is only one word that represents all a sinner can do and must do to be saved and that word is believe<\/em>,” is not only merely a human assertion, but an anti-Scriptural one. It was not a mere man, but the Lord Jesus, Who said that belief + baptism = salvation (Mark 16:16a). The Bible uses the term faith alone or faith only<\/em> but one time, and then it is to declare that men are not<\/strong> saved by faith alone<\/strong> (Jam. 2:24), but by works (more about “works” later in my item 6 below).<\/span><\/li>\n
- Your cherry-picking of Scriptures to fit your “faith-only” mold has, among others, the fatal flaw of arraying one passage against others, causing them to contradict each other. If you believe the Bible to be verbally, infallibly inspired, then you surely understand that any interpretation of a passage that places it in conflict with other literal and plain statements of Scripture cannot be a correct interpretation. The Scriptures must be interpreted in such a way as to harmonize them\u2014to avoid contradictions rather than to create them. To do otherwise is to fail to “handle aright the word or truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) and to \u201cwrest\u201d the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16). Thus, when you single out your pet verses (i.e., Acts 13:48; 16:31) and so interpret them that they contradict or deny the clear teaching of many other passages, your interpretation is obviously flawed. You have fastened upon these two cases of conversion as if there were no others. Please note that neither of these passages (nor any others, remember) contains the word only<\/em> or alone<\/em> relative to the necessity of believing.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Baptism is not a “good work” in the sense you ascribe to it in your item 2 (i.e., something one does that is somehow meritorious or “earns” salvation for its recipient). I have never met anyone who teaches such, and I certainly know better than to do so. Baptism is a \u201cwork\u201d all right (something that involves one\u2019s will and action), but it is simply a work of obedience<\/strong>, or one of the \u201cworks of God,\u201d even as Jesus said belief <\/strong>on Him is (John 6:28\u201329). In the context of saying we cannot be saved<\/strong>by our own works of righteousness, Paul then says we are saved<\/strong> by God’s mercy, “through the washing of regeneration”\u2014an unmistakable reference to baptism (Tit. 3:5). Paul thus denies<\/strong> that baptism is a meritorious work of human righteousness, and contrariwise, affirms <\/strong>that it is part of God’s plan of mercy to save men. When one correctly understands the requirement of baptism for salvation, his faith is not in himself when he is baptized, but in God who promised salvation upon baptism (Col. 2:12).<\/span><\/li>\n
- Again, I mean no offense, but your last item that discusses repentance is amazing in its conclusions. You are simply mistaken in alleging that repentance was required of Jews only. I challenge you to find one case in all of the Bible in which God either promised or granted forgiveness of sins before the sinner repented, whether Jew or Gentile, Old or New Testament. More specifically, please note the following:<\/span><\/li>\n
- In Luke 24:47, Jesus said that \u201crepentance<\/strong> and remission of sins\u201d was to be preached in His name \u201cunto all<\/strong> the nations<\/strong>, beginning from Jerusalem\u201d (a reference to the preaching of the apostles on Pentecost [Acts 2:38]). That sounds like more than to Jews alone.<\/span><\/li>\n
- In Acts 17:30, Paul said to his Gentile<\/strong> audience in Athens: \u201cThe times of ignorance therefore God <\/strong>overlooked; but now he commandeth <\/strong>men that they should all everywhere repent<\/strong>.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- I also suggest you consider Paul\u2019s statement in Acts 26:20, that he \u201cdeclared both to them of Damascus first and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles<\/strong>, that they should repent<\/strong> and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance<\/strong>.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Your attempted dichotomy between a \u201cGentile Gospel\u201d and a \u201cJewish Gospel\u201d is hardly new. Its fatal flaw is seen by noting that the same Gospel<\/strong> was to be preached in all the world<\/strong>, the whole creation<\/strong>, and every nation<\/strong> (Mat. 28:19\u201320; Mark 16:15\u201316). I emphasize again, that the one Gospel<\/strong> that brings salvation includes the condition of baptism, not merely belief<\/strong> (unless you want to contradict the Savior Himself). To claim different \u201cGospels\u201d for Jew and Gentile is to make God a respecter of persons, which Peter declared He is not (Acts 10:34\u201335). Paul preached the same Gospel<\/strong> to Jew and Gentile<\/strong> alike and warned that any man or even an angel who taught a \u201cdifferent gospel\u201d was subject to the anathema of God (Gal. 1:6\u20139).<\/span><\/li>\n
- So believe<\/em> is used alone 115 times. That proves nothing. \u201cRepent\u201d is all that sinners are told to do in Acts 17:30, as already noted. Were I to follow your line of reasoning, I might conclude that repentance alone is required and that belief is therefore unnecessary. But note further: All that Ananias told Saul of Tarsus to do was \u201cArise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins\u201d (Acts 22:16). By your line of reasoning, I should therefore conclude that Saul did not have to either believe or repent of his sins. (By the way, please note that this passage proves beyond doubt that if Saul was saved before he was baptized<\/strong>, he was saved before his sins were washed away<\/strong>.) Just as the Bible does not <\/strong>teach salvation by \u201crepentance only\u201d or \u201cbaptism only,\u201d neither does it ever teach salvation by \u201cbelief only.\u201d Luther, Calvin, and the lesser reformers are to be commended for breaking some of the shackles of Roman Catholicism in the 16th century, but they erred egregiously when they came up with their sola fide<\/em> slogan and doctrine. I say it kindly, but truthfully: Those who have taught you this doctrine have misled you (Mat. 15:14). It is as far from the Truth of the Gospel as is the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation by meritorious works.<\/span><\/li>\n
- A harmony of Acts 13:48; 16:31, 17:30, and 22:16 implies that belief, repentance, and baptism, all three, are required of all sinners and\u00a0that the inspired historian (Luke) simply used one of these terms in various places as a figure of speech (i.e., a synecdoche) to stand for the others as well. Your view puts Paul in conflict with his own teaching, with that which Ananias taught him, and with what Paul himself did to be saved. Thus on Pentecost, believers (Acts 2:37) were told by Peter to repent and be baptized in order to receive remission of sins (v. 38). My exposition of these\u00a0passages harmonizes them perfectly and does not contradict any other statement of Scripture. Not only so, but the foregoing harmony also ties all three accounts of the Great commission together in a harmonious whole (Mat. 28:19\u201320; Mark 16:15:16; Luke 24:47). These passages, all spoken by the Lord, when summarized, include faith, repentance, and baptism as conditions of salvation\/remission of sins, to be preached to all men every where\u2014Jew and Gentile alike. Contrariwise, your explanation of them places them at irreconcilable odds with each other and \u00a0makes hopeless nonsense of the cases of conversion.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There is more that can be said in response to some of your assertions and conclusions, but this will have to suffice for the present. I again urge you to read the other MSS on our Website, to which I referred above, and to seriously study and consider the things I have written. Test them by the Bible. Refute them if you can. If I am in error, you will be my friend in correcting me. Your salvation and mine literally depends upon our understanding of these issues. May God bless you as you sincerely study His Word.<\/span><\/p>\nCordially yours,<\/span><\/p>\nDub McClish<\/span><\/p>\nGospel preacher<\/span>
\n908 Imperial Dr.<\/span>
\nDenton, TX 76209<\/span>
\n940.387.1429<\/span>
\n\u201cRoad\u201d address: dubmcclish@gmail.com<\/span>
\nVisit www.scripturecache.com<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
From: <\/strong>Darrel\/Patricia Clark <dpwclark@sbcglobal.net><\/span>
\nDate: <\/strong>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:50:37 -0400To: <\/strong>‘Dub McClish’ <tgjoriginal@verizon.net><\/span>
\nSubject: <\/strong>RE: You’ve got a new entry<\/span><\/p>\nFirst of all the only condition for being lost is unbelief (Mark 16:16b, John 3:17-18). Since unbelief is the only condition for being lost recorded in the Bible the faith is all that is needed for salvation. Can you show from the Bible where it says that if a person is not baptized he is condemned, judged, or lost? What does John 3:15-16 say a person [sic.<\/em>\u2014must?] do to be saved? \u00a0I am not saying there is NO conditions for salvation. There is and that one thing is faith. Universalism is a different subject. To assert that I am teaching universalism is not understand what it is [sic<\/em>.\u2014entire paragraph!].<\/span><\/p>\nFaith in Christ is all that is needed for salvation. Baptism is a work. Isn\u2019t it something in addition to faith? Then is a work [sic.<\/em>]. If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe, not when we get baptized, otherwise we are not saved by faith. \u00a0Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins, etc., would go to hell if he doesn’t get baptized before he died. \u00a0This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved. \u00a0Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren’t baptized. \u00a0Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions\u2014otherwise it isn’t necessary.<\/span><\/p>\nThe washing of regeneration is not water baptism. Where do [sic.<\/em>] find these words in the texts? You don\u2019t. You only washing<\/em> and then make out to mean water baptism [sic.<\/em>]. If the author wanted water baptism here he would have said so. Works of righteousness is anything we do outside of faith hoping to make us right with God. [In] Titus 3:5 context is everything to understanding what the author meant. Titus 3:5. <\/strong>[sic.<\/em>] We should immediately be suspicious of an interpretation which understands the \u201cwashing\u201d here to refer to any human ritual or work because of the emphasis of verse 5a. No mention is made here of faith perhaps because the emphasis is totally on what God has done rather than on any kind of religious or ritual work that man could possibly do\u2014including water baptism. Unfortunately, some see the words \u201cwashing of regeneration\u201d as a reference to baptismal regeneration even though this context is prefaced by, \u201cHe saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done\u2026.\u201d Can this refer to water baptism? Not on your life! Why?<\/span><\/p>\nThe immediate context is emphasizing that salvation is a work of God and not man. <\/span>
\nWater baptism, no matter how you slice it, is a religious work. If water baptism is the basis of our regeneration, then it is a work of our righteousness or a righteous act produced by us. The passage is telling us that regeneration results in a spiritual cleansing, the forgiveness of sin and this is part of the rebirth work of the Holy Spirit. We can translate the last part of verse 5 as \u201cby the washing produced by regeneration, even the rebirth produce by the Holy Spirit.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n