Justification by Faith Alone and the Meaning of Meritorious Works

He would come because I did want to come, and you know, even though we don't agree on some of the issues there, but I did appreciate it. You know, I agreed with a lot of what he said, and that's why I'm playing part of what he said right here.

Yeah, I've been keeping up with you probably for around a year. You've been popping up on Marlon Wilson's The Gospel Truth. I've seen some of your debates, and I think you debated a Universalist, and I messaged.

You.

I was like, hey, we're on the same team for this debate. So I appreciated that debate, and I have to admit, you had the Crawford guy twisted up in knots on Standing for Truth, the last that I watched.

And so yeah, I thought that was phenomenal, and you touched on that a little bit earlier, and I was going to tell you, and I think I did say when you came to 12 .5, I'm actually going to be on Standing for Truth debating a Lutheran on the Lutheran understanding and doctrine of baptism.

So you might get a kick out of that, too.

Okay.

Now, in what aspect?

Good question. And by the way, that will be a week from today, I believe. It's going to be the 16th of December, around 8 p .m. or so. We were going to specifically talk about baptismal regeneration, which you've distinguished yourself saying you don't hold that position, so I appreciate your clarity on that.

But the more I delved into the topic, the way that they have infant baptism is interwoven how they see the Spirit being at work. So it's going to be very broad. We're probably going to hit all the major aspects of how Lutheran understand all of the main verses, and how they understand baptism.

I got you. Okay, now, you and I also, I mean, I'm not trying to... I know you called in to make some point, but you and I were talking about a debate. We haven't got anything settled, but just a little teaser.

Actually, we were talking about an in-person debate, which I actually would like to do one of those at some point here. So we'll keep talking about it. Maybe we'll get that going.

Yeah, I think that would be a blast. And we live pretty close. I think you're about an hour-ish from where I'm located. So I really do think we could probably get something like that in the works, and that'd be a lot of fun.

Yeah, looking forward to it. So, did you have something you wanted to ask or make a comment on?

Yes.

Yes.

And I think you're an excellent teacher in terms of just being able to articulate well what you believe. And I won't name any names, but I appreciate your program and how you explain a lot of things in comparison to a lot of those other ministries out there.

And so when we were talking at the event, and you mentioned this on your show a little bit earlier, you said, in a sense, we can agree, justification by faith alone, and then you said meaning apart from meritorious works.

And I thought, that's a good point, because I do think, at least with me and you, we are closer on this issue than a lot of other people. And I like how you're, I agree with you, the word alone needs explaining.

I just tell people, when I hold to the five solas of the Reformation, that has a historical context. So I always try to define what alone means there, and it is different than the free gracers in the anti-lordship position.

And I think you're right when you're asking the question. They remove repentance. That's how I've heard Steve Anderson essentially define faith alone. I've thought, yeah, I'm not on that bandwagon, you know what I mean?

So yeah, I was wanting to talk a little bit more about meritorious works and kind of let you define that more. And listening to the Crawford debate, it seems like you said, look, the woman that reached out and touched the hem or the garment of Christ, this would not be a meritorious work.

And then to explain on that a little bit, and then to maybe contrast it with what a meritorious work would be, like the Jews trying to earn favor with God by law, like the Pharisees. So is that a good contrast of how you see works going on?

Okay, so yeah, and that's going to come out more in the program. So I don't actually use the term meritorious works. I don't have a problem with it. Every time I've ever heard that, and I'm talking about from people like-minded as myself, I don't know what a meritorious work necessarily is, but I think what they mean is probably what I mean.

I mean, you cannot, your own personal, here's what I mean, that in obedience to God, your personal righteousness is never deserving, you're not sinless, therefore you are a sinner, you are guilty. So your own righteousness in and of itself is just not worthy of God's favor, that there has to be a justification.

And so, and however we get that, you know, that is God justifying us by His grace. And so what I think Paul means when he talks about works, that salvation or justification is not of works, he's always talking about one's personal righteousness.

Now the Jews were striving, and he uses the term, their own righteousness in Romans. And right after, he talks about, they strove by works. So that's what he means. Now, and I think it's in Titus, he says, not by works of righteousness, which I have done.

Yeah, and that's what he means. He means my own righteousness, what I have done, cannot get me there. And this is in contrast to grace, meaning, it exactly, this is why I was playing this clip, Jeremiah, of Dr. White, because he mentions that what Paul is saying isn't true, or let me make sure I word this right, that when Paul says we're not saved of works, then James explains that as, you know, as if you could put God into debt, like He owes you something.

That's exactly what it means. If your own righteousness, what you do, your works, were in and of themselves deserving of God's righteousness, or of God's favor, then He would be obligated, because it's what He owes to you.

I mean, it would be wrong for Him not to bless you and do good to you, because you don't deserve anything but. So that's what I mean, and I believe that's what Paul means.

Sure.

Baptism as an Act of Faith, Not a Meritorious Work

So, just to kind of get some more clarity, so what would fall in the purview or circle of works, and then what kind of lands outside of that? Does that make sense? When I say works, I'm saying like meritorious works, like what you're talking about.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

So could something, well, let's take baptism. Could baptism, in your view, be a type of work that's not meritorious? Like if someone is fully trusting in Christ, then kind of like the woman that touched the garment of Christ, this type of act of faith, which I've heard you say, that wouldn't be meritorious.

Where, if somebody was stepping into a baptistry, you know, just puffed up, self-righteous, like a Pharisee, but in modern times, would that then, it's the same work, but then internally since they're kind of looking to themselves and trusting in themselves, is that what kind of makes it meritorious?

Yeah.

Okay.

So, okay. Two things. Number one, yeah. And so just technically speaking, I don't know that there would be any work that performed that could merit, but I think what you're talking about, yeah, is one's intent and purpose in their mindset.

Okay.

So, there's two ways that, there's two ways to do what Paul says can't be done. And let me explain what I mean. Now, when he says it's not of works, he says to the one working, this is Romans 4, to the one working, it's counted as wage and not as grace, not as a gift.

So in other words, one way to do it, which actually can't be done, is to actually just be sinless. Romans 4 comes from the earlier chapters when he's telling everybody everybody has sinned. If you have never sinned and all your works are righteous, then your personal righteousness, what you have done, your law-keeping, your obedience, does deserve God's favor because you haven't done anything to not deserve it.

So that would be one way, but Paul makes it clear that isn't a reality. Nobody does it that way. The other way, and I think this is more realistic to what he's dealing with, is the Jews. The mentality, and of course this applies to anybody, but in context, the Jewish superiority problem is that they thought that they were righteous enough.

They thought because they were Jews and they had the law of Moses that that made them righteous, unlike the Gentiles. And so they felt superior. And so Paul is saying, no, it doesn't work that way. And so, yes, what you're saying is true.

Anybody could do things. It could be a baptism. It could be anything. And then because of that thing, this, I am righteous in and of myself because of this. I feel superior to those who just haven't done the good things that I have done.

Yes, that is any kind of self-righteousness problem. It could be with anything. And by the way, it could be faith. Now, we won't get into it, but you know, you and I would disagree on God and how He chooses who believes and all that.

But I will admit that anybody could be saying, have the same incorrect attitude, you know, well, I'm a believer. Look how righteous I am because I believe. Now, I haven't actually met anybody like that.

I'm sure they're out there. But anybody could feel righteous and superior and like they deserve something because of what they've done. And so that could go for anything.

Yeah.

No, I appreciate you bringing clarity on that. I'm trying to figure you out before we square up one day.

I got you. Well, I'll go ahead and add that I don't know too many of the people I run around with. You know, I do get around a lot of people that believe baptism is, I'm not talking about Catholics. Now, well, so let me say it like that, now that I said that.

I was going to say most of the people that I am like-minded with on baptism, I've never heard them feel like they are superior or that they have earned something through baptism. But I do believe Catholics have a lot of that.

The act itself, the sacraments, when you do them, the acts itself infuses grace into your soul and things like that. It's like the power is in the act. And there is a lot of, even the concept of merit, you know, you do enough Hail Marys and this, you can cross the T's and, you know, I mean, check the boxes is what I'm trying to say.

So I do believe there's a lot of that in Catholicism, but I don't know anybody that shares a view like I do that believes they have earned anything because they have been baptized. So what I say, Jeremiah, is, this is what I was leading to, a person who trusts God and repents and is baptized as has been commanded, they're doing this because they trust God and it's because of their trust.

Now, so to make it clear, let's say a person does that, but it's not out of trust. And we all know you're not, you know, your church name is 12 -5, so I don't know, I assume you're not a Presbyterian or a Presbyterian man.

I'm a Lutheran Baptist.

Okay, okay. Well, I knew you were debating a Lutheran. So, well, you know that they baptize infants, but, you know, there's lots of people that get baptized because they don't, or because they see everybody else doing it, or because, well, I think I should do this.

But it's not really out of faith. But then that doesn't do anything. It doesn't matter, because it has to be an act of faith. And when you act out of faith, here's my position, you know, you may disagree or agree, but you just want to understand my position.

Just like the woman who touched his clothes. When you act out of faith because you trust in Christ for what He has said and for who He is, Christ, evidently, doesn't really see that as much different than what your faith is.

He said, your faith has healed you. And so that's my position.

Legalism, Full Submersion, and the Heart Behind Baptism

Yeah.

No, I think that brings a ton of clarity. I have a follow-up question, but then another one snuck in my head real quick when we were talking about this, and this made me curious. I've talked with some people that said that believe in Credo Baptism, you have to be baptized based on faith, and then it has to be by immersion.

And then these types of people say, if you don't do it, you're disobeying, you know what.

I mean?

And so, you know, my bells of legalism start chiming off a little bit. Not every, with every person, I always ask for definition of terms and context of certain verses. But with some of these individuals, they said that, I asked, well, what if, hypothetically, you know, somebody is desiring to be obedient to all that Christ has commanded us, but their hand didn't make it into the baptism?

Now, you've told me, you know, if you die in a car wreck on the way of wanting to get baptized, God will reckon your faith, you know, see that that's what you're designed to be obedient, that person would be, you know, saved by grace through faith.

And I'm over here like, hey, let's high five real quick, because I would answer the same.

Thing.

What do you think about the person that says, well, if your foot was hanging out or your hand was out and wasn't totally submerged, do you see that as somebody being disobedient to baptism?

No, not at all. So baptism as an act of faith, and they're responding to God. Well, so Peter, if he's standing there and he says, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, and they understand forgiveness is grace, you know, so they trust in God through Peter, obviously.

And they say, okay, that's what I'm going to do. Well, you know, if their hand is sticking up and they don't know, that's not the issue. And so I do believe, and I don't know anybody, and I'll just say it again, I don't know anybody that thinks like I do that thinks that it would be a deal breaker.

Now, maybe you have, but...

Well, I will say, and this is a little bit of my area that I live in, but under the umbrella of legalism, and like I said, it's not what you're pushing for, but they're saying you have to be obedient to the T, like full submersion, and if you don't, then you're disobeying the.

Gospel.

And I'm just like, man, it breaks my heart because they've missed grace, they've missed what the gospel is truly about, and I think they have exchanged the gospel of grace for this legalistic self-righteous mentality, but they'll never say that.

So, but I just wanted to bring that up in passing, I'm not going to name names, but just to show how there is a contrast from, you know, a lot of people that I interact with in what your position is, and so I appreciate your clarity.

I don't want to take up all the time in your program, I know you've got a number of things. I did have one last question, unless you wanted to get into something else.

No, well, I'll just say this about that. Well, so, my position being that we are justified by faith, and since baptism is an act of faith, to say, well, if your pinky never got out of the water, that wouldn't condemn you, you know, something like that, well, to me that's an absurdity, and I do believe that's legalism because if justification is through faith, then it is not through, or justification is not through the precision of your knowledge, or the precision of your, or the perfection of your obedience.

So, there's all kinds of examples of that in the Bible. Well, one would be, even in Chronicles, when Hezekiah was trying to reform Israel and get them to observe the Passover, and so there was this reform, or they wanted to do what's right, but they couldn't.

It was so late that they couldn't get clean, as the law wanted them to, for the observance. But they did it anyway, because they thought, well, this is the thing to do, and they prayed to God, and God was okay with it.

It says that in the text, even though it says they didn't do it according to the law, because the most important thing that God has ever wanted from man is for his heart to change and come back to him in faith, love, which obviously implies obedience, but it's coming back to him from rebellion and serving him.

So if a person's attempting to do that by all possible means of his will when he's getting baptized, but he happens to get his pinky out, and God's saying, well, as much as that has been my most important thing for man, this whole history of my creation is getting his heart to come back to me.

But technically, your pinky came out. You didn't know it, but I'm going to send you to hell. That's absurd. It's contrary to everything in the New Testament. I do believe, and I'll just end it here so you could ask the last question, that the act itself is not more important than the heart, that is, and the purpose of the heart.

Now that's not to say that if you, well, as long as your heart's okay, then the act itself doesn't matter at all. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, the act itself is not more important than the heart that's attempting to do the right thing.

So anyway, you said one last question.

Faith Alone, Baptism, and Acts 2:38

Yeah, and I just want to appreciate, or just let you know how much I appreciate you bringing clarity on that, because believe it or not, a lot of people that I've met with would say the very opposite and call it disobedience.

And it just breaks my heart. Remember with how Jesus interacts with the Pharisees, they've almost held to the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. It's one of those things. I love how you're qualifying baptism as an act of faith.

I've even said that many, many times. So one thing, and you know, I'm a Dr. White fan, Dr. John MacArthur, and I'm very Reformational. So something that I've bought into, just as terms that have come throughout church history is faith alone.

You kind of have this quote-unquote dichotomy of faith alone, or in air quotes, faith plus.

Works.

Now a lot of people that I debate with and interact with, they'll say that that's not a true dichotomy or a true representation of their position. I'm like, fair, I want to hear them out. So the more that I've continued to listen and interact, I think the thing that we all agree with at the initial onset is we all believe a true saving faith will work, right?

What's the verse in Galatians? Faith, working love. And so I wanted to say, we all start there. And I wanted to ask you, and this isn't a gotcha question, I'm just trying to soak up more information about who you are so I can figure out the best questions to ask you one day in front of a crowd.

But I'm hoping it'll be Calvinism, because that's...

I tried to get you on particular redemption, and you're like, nah.

Yeah, that's, I just... To me, that stands and falls. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I gotcha.

To this question, is, you know, are we justified before God when we have that true living faith? And I have to go down the road of telling people we're not talking about a census or assenting to facts, right?

Kind of what pistou sometimes can mean, just assenting to facts like the demons do. Versus a pistous, something that truly trusts in Christ. And so that's more of the Reformational side of things. And I want to know if you're saying that we're justified before God when that true living faith works a particular action like baptism, Acts 2 .38, 22 .16, Galatians 3 .20, you know, all the rest.

Does that make sense of how I'm saying that there does seem to be a dichotomy, but if we word it differently, it's, okay, when does that true living faith justify us before God? Is it when we do have it internally that only us and God knows, or when it works a particular action like baptism?

I see, I think I see what you're talking about as far as the dichotomy. The reality is, as far as I'm concerned, the Bible doesn't ever get so specific as to, especially in the New Testament, articulate, like, the moment.

Other than if it's, the clearest thing we have when it gets specific is in passages like Acts 2 .38, when he says, repent and be baptized. So, if a person does that, we know because he says it. Now, so, there are much more verses that talk about, they just say things like justified or saved by faith.

Okay, well, we can read on that, and then that's when the question comes, at which moment? Well, it doesn't ever define the moment exactly, it doesn't talk about, well, here's the moment. But what it does say when it gets specific is repent and be baptized.

And so, I at least, so my conclusion comes, what I'm going to say and what I'm going to tell people is that when your faith, when you do this, this is saving faith. So, the Bible doesn't ever speak about faith as if, just when you believe in your heart and that moment.

Oftentimes, faith is expressed as when it occurs in Acts. Now, I'm going to give you an example, okay? Well, okay, so my example is in Hebrews 11, 30. Surprise, surprise.

Jericho.

Okay, so, well, now, so here's the question. Well, not my question to you, I'm just rhetorically. So, when the text says, when the text says that by faith the walls of Jericho came down. Okay, I think everybody can concede that they had faith before they took the first step.

Okay, so here's a text where we're said something happens by faith, okay? But we actually know from what it says and from the story itself that at least in this occasion that that didn't happen when they first in their heart trust but when their faith led them to obey God.

Because, you see, that's what their faith was. In other words, God says, hey, if you do this, and I'm going to bring down these walls. I'm going to do the impossible for you and bring down these walls.

Now, you could either say, are you kidding? I ain't going to do all that and trust. Or you could say, and they did say, I trust God. And so when they did what God said, that was their faith. Although they obviously had faith in Him before they took the first step.

So at least in this, what we can learn from this, Jeremiah, and I know usually people say, that's not a salvation passage, yet that's not my point. My point is, here's Bible saying something about what faith means.

Now, here's an instance when something happens because of faith. And in this instance, they got something because of the faith. They got this, this is a gift, and this was the walls coming down. So here's something they get, and it's by faith.

But what we can concede, and I think is absolutely undebatable, is, well, but we debate it anyway, right? But it should be undebatable in my mind, that when the Bible says something can come from faith, it does not necessitate that it means the moment you believe.

If further information tells you, well, have faith doing this. So I've said a lot. I do what James White does occasionally. I give long answers.

That's okay.

It's your show.

But yeah, he gives long answers sometimes, and that's okay. But so I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't really elaborate on the moment, but you do have this information like Acts 2 38. And I just want to say, I am not one who bases everything on one verse.

I think James thinks that people that believe in the command of baptism for salvation, you know, and maybe there are, but I don't. I base it upon a number of passages. That's kind of the clearest of the passage about baptism.

But so that's my answer. And it was kind of long, but did you understand it?

I love it. I've made a few mental notes watching your debates. I saw that your best friend, Sonny Hernandez, that's a joke, by the way, when he debated the Lutheran, I made note that you asked a particular question about Acts 2 38.

So I've put that in the back of my mind. And I've made a mental note ready for when I need to explain the woman who touched out and grabbed the garment of Christ and the walls of Jericho. So I'm keeping notes on you.

Yeah, well, you don't have to keep notes because it's all right here on YouTube now.

Yes, well, you're a gentleman and a scholar, and I just want to thank you for bringing clarity to these issues. They're important, but you have a way of being able to be respectful and to have a good dialogue.

So that's why when you're like, hey, what do you think about an in-person debate? I was like, oh, heck yeah. You're someone I would definitely want to do that with. So we'll make it happen one of these days.

All right.

Well, I appreciate you calling in, and we'll keep in touch there.

All right.

Thanks so much. Take care.

Bye.

I appreciate it, Jeremiah.

All right.

So everybody look forward to a future in-person debate. Lord willing, me and Jeremiah are going to talk that out.

Acts 2:38, Jewish Context, and Forgiveness of Sins

Okay.

Now, so we're going back to the video. Now, and this really touches on everything me and Jeremiah just or that I talked about in response to what he was asking me. I'm going to back it up a little bit more.

Brothers, what shall we do? Who's the we? See, almost all the time the conversation is, you know, this is general means of salvation for everybody is to be baptized, so on and so forth. These are Jews saying to fellow Jews, because they call them men and brethren, we've crucified our Messiah.

Jeremiah, is there any hope for us? Is there any hope for us? That's the context. If that's not...

Oh, by the way, in case anybody doesn't know, this is Jeremiah here, the gentleman they called earlier. But just remember, ask this question of James, what are you saying? Well, these are Jews, so what?

Whatever Peter says to them isn't applicable to anybody else? Because remember, the question wants his answer to do with eyes and the relation of baptism in the verse. So James says, this is a particular context spoken to Jews.

Okay.

So what are you saying, James? Are you saying that if you're a Jew, you're saved differently? And if not, then what's the emphasis on the Jews about? Yeah, he's talking to Jews. We get that. But is Peter, if you're not a mid-Acts dispensationalist or a hyper-dispensationalist, and he's not, most Calvinists are not, most evangelicals are not, so if you're not, then what does he's talking to Jews mean for Acts 2 .38?

No.

I've listened to James a long time, but I haven't... It's been a long time since I have listened to him, lately, unless I'm missing that he was a dispensationalist. Am I missing something? No, I know MacArthur is.

Now, maybe if he's a dispensationalist, maybe that's what I'm missing here. Maybe I have just completely forgotten. Does anybody know if James White is a dispensationalist? Now, Jeremiah... See, you made the mistake, Jeremiah.

You keep listening, and now you're tempted to get back into it. You see, that's what happens to me. When I was listening to James White, you know, I was thinking, can I ask this question?

No, I didn't.

See, it can be tempted. Yeah, you can call in. You can call in if you want.

And you're totally right. The more I listened, I was like, ah, I have to come back.

It's irresistible, man. It's an irresistible debate.

Yes.

It can't be resisted like the Holy Spirit. I thought I could bring some clarity in what I think Dr. White's saying. I deal in these same realms.

Okay, yeah, so before you do that, that's important to me because I'm not trying to misrepresent him. Now, obviously, because I didn't ask him, what did you mean by that? So if I have not understood him, that's exactly what I'm going to ask because it is always important to know what a person is actually saying.

I don't want to straw man somebody. I want to steel man them.

Yes, absolutely, and I think you do a good job of that. So especially when you're like, is Dr. White a dispensationalist? I literally yelled at my TV as I was holding my little boy. I was like, no, he's not.

So here's where I think Dr. White is getting at, and this is a position I would hold to. You do, throughout the book of Acts, you have an emphasis on baptism, but baptism is present later in Acts 10 with Cornelius representing the Gentiles.

But the way that I read it is there's an emphasis on baptism as a call to repentance, like you rightly said. This is a demonstration or an act of faith. Now, why is he making a big deal about that with the Jews?

Now, he goes into the whole reason about what must we do. His explanation of that is all the cursings of Deuteronomy 28, 29, like we're doomed. And then his thing is, no, just repent, which my argument is always repentance and faith is always two sides of the same coin, which my argument would be justifies.

And demonstrate that faith to the world, i .e. your baptism in the name and authority of Jesus Christ, the triune God. And so that's significant for the Jews, Dr. White is saying, because that would mean the whole book of Hebrews, they're leaving their Judaism.

Now, you make a good point. Now, we're not saying just the Jews are to be baptized. Cornelius and them, they were baptized. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized. So what's the difference? Well, baptism is a call to a new way of life.

I identify with this person, with Jesus Christ. And so I don't know if you saw my comment earlier. I was trying to say, OK, in a different context. Let's say you have someone dealing in the realm of homosexuality.

Are they still going to have to repent, believe, and then demonstrate that faith and baptism?

Yes.

But in that particular gospel proclamation, they need to realize that counting the cost of discipleship following after Christ means their whole life. And so what that would surface in their mind is, oh, man, I've got to leave this life of sin, the thing that I love most, this whatever habitual sin, I have to turn my heart from loving it and loving Christ.

Yes.

So I think that's the big push for why baptism is mentioned the way that it is in Acts 2 .38. Maybe I didn't explain that super well. Maybe you can ask me some clarity on that.

Well, I get the point about it being emphasized. I've said the same thing pretty much, because the stress of Peter to be baptized in the name of Jesus, the reason he says that is because they just kill Jesus.

And so, well, I mean, at least in some way are involved. And so what he's saying is, since you were opposing him to the point of killing him, now you need to be baptized in his name, meaning this is how you're going to now be in allegiance with him, by being baptized in the very name of the man you killed.

That's it's very appropriate that he would say that, because that's the particular form of repentance that is most important. You know, I'm sure some of those Jews had told a lie before, but didn't say and stop lying.

And, you know, baptism, because you need to now be aligned and in the very man in, you know, being in Christ, the man that you just killed. So I get the emphasis part, but it still do it for the forgiveness of sins.

So what was clear in James' answer is, in order to get both forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, they did have to repent and they did have to be baptized. Don't you think that was clear in his answer?

And I was like, you're going to get up there and ask me a question and be like, all right, Jeremiah says this, Dr. White, do you agree with it? Or vice versa? I'm like, no, don't do this to us. But like you said, you know, not everybody's perfect.

And so there are a number of things I differ with White on and even old Johnny Mac.

But, well, I hope you disagree more with Johnny Mac than you do with James, to be honest with you.

Well, I love my New Testament study notes from Mac. But yeah, over time, as I refine down what Mac, you know, a lot of it is eschatology and dispensationalism. I'm like, yeah, that influences so many other doctrines.

I wanted to make this point. So I got debated Brock Kendall.