Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

It's time, folks, for another few words from that fellow named Ebon, one of the more polite Skeptics out there, which is not to say more competent. This time he's trying to tell us how, oh my, contradictory the Bible is on how to be saved. Faith? Works? Fries? There's a pile of stuff we have here that needs to be looked at: our item on faith as loyalty; our item on the Semitic Totality Concept for starters. But Ebon gets only part of this...let's have a look. We start after Ebon sums up with the claim of contradiction:

I am not a fundamentalist Christian, nor a fundamentalist atheist; I do not believe, as these groups do, that even the slightest error or mistake in the Bible renders it entirely worthless.

Ebon is indeed a fundamentalist atheist, in that he brings a wooden-literal framework of interpretation to bear on the Bible. The notion that “even the slightest error or mistake in the Bible renders it entirely worthless” constitutes fundamentalism, Christian or otherwise, is only one piece of the pie. But Ebon perhaps needs to walk around the block more.

In principle, I have no problem with the idea that the Bible was once God's word to humanity, but that minor changes and mistakes have been subsequently introduced by human copiers. But for the Bible to be worth anything, I believe it is more than reasonable to expect at least the most important parts of it would have to have been kept free of error, even if human influence has crept into the rest. However, this has not been done, and therefore there are only two possible conclusions: either the Bible was the work of a very apathetic and unconcerned deity, or else it was the product of human minds and human hands from the very beginning.

On his path to the bifurcation fallacy, Ebon has skipped merrily past the key point: He needs to establish his foundational premise, above: “However, this has not been done”. We’ll be waiting for the time he returns to that key point.

Let us examine what the New Testament has to say on the issue of salvation. We will find that all the verses which address this topic fall into one of four categories:

• Faith alone - belief in Jesus Christ as the only Son of God will gain a person admittance to Heaven; nothing additional is required, and nothing else will suffice. The position of most modern-day evangelical Christians.
• Faith and baptism - a person must believe in Jesus Christ as divine, but must also be baptized in water, to gain admittance to the kingdom of God. The position of modern-day Lutheran, Seventh-Day Adventist and Oneness Pentecostal churches, it was also widely held in the early Christian church (see ).
• Faith and works - a person must believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, but must also do good works, usually defined as giving to charity, feeding the poor, aiding the needy, etc. The position of the Roman Catholic church.
• Predestination - a person's belief and actions are both irrelevant. God has chosen some for salvation and some for damnation, and nothing anyone can do will alter their status from one category to another. The position of 16th-century theologian John Calvin and the sect he founded, unsurprisingly called Calvinists.

To begin, note that Ebon has cooked up for himself an initial problem by having categories that overlap. Category four is compatible with each of the former categories, even in the Calvinistic sense in which Ebon intends the category to be understood. But let's leave that aside for now and see how Ebon goes with his flow:

Option #1: Salvation by Faith Alone -- According to many modern-day evangelical (so-called "born-again") Christians, the only thing a person has to do to be saved is to sincerely say the following prayer, or something equivalent to it...At the conclusion of this short prayer (it took me about 10 seconds to say it), we are told, Jesus Christ will enter a person's heart, cleanse their soul of sin and take control of their life, guiding and instructing it from that point on. Nothing else is required to be saved, these Christians believe, and there is no other way to be saved. Though the new convert is likely to do good deeds from then on as Jesus transforms his personality, good deeds are not required for salvation, nor do they help attain it; they are merely the outward expression of inward faith, and it is faith alone that saves - so these Christians believe.

Ebon cites among other passages Eph. 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5. We only question one of these, Romans 1:16, but can leave that aside.

Option #2: Salvation by Faith and Water Baptism -- However, there are other verses that say differently - verses that, when enumerating the requirements for salvation, add an additional requirement that the passages already mentioned say nothing about. For example: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." --Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Oh dear, to start with -- Ebon still hasn't learned not to use Mark 16:9-20, even as he will go on to say (with no evaluation of arguments) that this is one possible answer, and somehow, some way thinks it is only a "non-inerrantist" answer. But let's play anyway. Ebon appears to claim that the above verse says “differently”--but does it? In the Biblical context that Ebon provided already (faith in Christ unto salvation), let’s consider Mark 16:16 along with some comparable statements.

Mark 16:16 has the same requirement for salvation as do the preceding examples, that is, belief (“He that believeth . . . shall be saved”). It also mentions baptism (“and is baptized”). So, how significant is this, logically speaking? Assuming for the sake of argument that belief really is the requirement for salvation, which of the following meet the requirements for salvation?

• He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
• He that believeth and weareth a cross around his neck shall be saved.
• He that believeth and coloreth his hair purple shall be saved.
• He that believeth and smoketh not tobacco products shall be saved.
• He that believeth and earneth a billion dollars shall be saved.

It should be somewhat obvious that all of the above meet the essential requirement, assuming that it is belief. Naturally, Ebon will moan that the texts, via “and is baptized” and “and weareth” and the like appear to add requirements. Again: Is that actually the case? Revisit Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” It would appear that this is setting up an obvious contrast between belief and unbelief, actually. If the verse had read “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth and is baptized not shall be damned” then Ebon would be right. As it is, however, we have no Biblical reason (logically speaking) for counting baptism as a requirement for salvation. This remains true no matter how many Christian denominations make the same error that Ebon makes..especially in light of Semitic Totality. But whoa nelly, Ebon does have another card to pull, and this one will look familiar. Mormons, Christadelphians, take heed:

To put it mildy, horsefeathers. To Ebon, the words of Jesus to Nicodemus make it “absolutely clear” that water baptism is a requirement for salvation, even though baptism isn’t even mentioned in either the passage or its immediate context. Ebon is practicing the time-honored error of eisegesis, or reading into the text, the same as our friends elsewhere. Nicodemus was taken aback at the notion of being “born again”, thus in the context “born of water” means either physical human birth (even today the phrase “her water broke” is associated with giving birth) [Valvoord, Zuck BKC p.281] (thus if you were never physically human, then you can’t be saved) or else relates back to Jewish metaphors of God's cleansing power, using water imagery. It’s actually pretty simple.

Amazingly enough Ebon knows this and even links to my reply on baptism -- but can't apparently figure out what I said. He says, " I do not doubt that such a connection (between water and cleansing) existed, but how Mr. Holding makes the leap from there to the conclusion that the baptism mentioned in John 3:5 is not a literal one, I confess myself puzzled." We, on the other hand, are puzzled as to how “baptism” has been magically inserted into John 3:5. It isn't there. Ebon continues:

Mr. Holding also claims that a reference by Jesus to water baptism would have only confused Nicodemus, the Jewish priest who would not have known what it was - a claim that is clearly false, as John 1:19-26 records the Jerusalem priests sending emissaries to John the Baptist to ask about his identity and his work, and in any event there are many occasions in the gospels where Jesus has no compunction about speaking in ways that confuse all those around him.

Good grief, but this mistake keeps popping up. Hello? There is NO WAY it could have referred to Chistian baptism of the sort under discussion. John's baptism wasn't Christian baptism. For Ebon to be right it would mean that Jesus is telling Nic to go get dunked by John. But if that's on the level, how is it that disciples of John (Acts 19:3-5) underwent water baptism again when they became Christians? Ebon goes on:

Indeed, the existence of John the Baptist, his declared mission, and Jesus' interactions with him, which are mentioned in all four gospels, raise difficulties for those who deny the necessity of baptism. In all three synoptic gospels, Jesus is depicted as undergoing baptism himself, and John (3:22, 4:1) represents Jesus and his disciples as baptizing others. While this does not by itself establish baptism as a requirement for salvation, it is difficult to understand why all four gospels would place so much emphasis on something that was of no real importance. Why would Jesus himself be baptized, Christians should ask themselves, if not to set an example?

Ebon should have realized that he was blazing a rabbit-trail when he wrote: “While this does not by itself establish baptism as a requirement for salvation […].” Yes, a Christian (or anybody, for that matter) might wonder why baptism figures in the New Testament documents; that doesn’t make it relevant to the topic of salvation. For an answer to the "why" Ebon needs to understand that symbolic, demonstrative and purposeful action was a characteristic (and still is) of ancient cultures. Sitting in his quiet Western corner, Ebon has no holding point to grasp this.

Ebon continues:

And as already mentioned, there are Christian churches today who do believe baptism is a requirement for salvation, that it "washes away" original sin and helps a believer gain admittance to Heaven. Most prominent of these are the Lutherans, who generally reject the "age of accountability" doctrine and preach the necessity of infant baptism, arguing that even infants are sinful, and even a child who dies without being baptized will be damned.

One final attempt to deal with this problem comes from CARM , whose argument on the issue is essentially, "We know the Bible says X, therefore the verses which seem to be saying Y must be saying something else." This amounts to assuming inerrancy in order to prove inerrancy, and will not suffice.

The use of clear verses to help interpret verses that are not as clear is standard practice for interpretation and exegesis of any work. Ebon pretends otherwise for effect, ignoring the issue of textual clarity while making his remark. In summary, Ebon has failed to make the case that baptism is a biblical requirement for salvation. Perhaps he is hoping that a division of Lutheran Cavalry will ride to his rescue.

Option #3: Salvation by Faith and Works

No Christian sect denies that faith in God and Jesus is necessary for salvation. But is that enough? Or must faith be supplemented with a component of action - must we do good deeds in the world?

The writer of the Epistle of James seems to believe so:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.... Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." --James 2:14-17,24 (KJV)

The conclusion that the writer of this epistle is trying to urge on followers is an obvious one. Faith without works is "dead" and cannot save; men are justified by good works as well as faith, not by faith alone.

Ebon is unaware that this tired claim has been put to bed (see here) many times. The justification spoken of by Paul and that spoken of by James are two different things. Ebon commits a fallacy of ambiguity by missing the distinction. And it gets worse:

The most common evangelical reply to this is that James is not saying that good works are necessary for salvation, but that faith in God produces good works by definition, and so the two are inseparable. But this will not suffice. The writer of the epistle himself refutes this position in verse 2:19. As he explains, his argument is not that faith produces good works which are not truly needed - indeed, he says that "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." His argument is that faith alone is not enough for salvation - after all, he says, the demons also have faith in God, but they are not saved by it.

Ebon ignores the meaning of faith as loyalty (as noted above) and ignores Semitic Totality as though he thinks it is an ANE fitness program. The verses that Ebon cites do not “explain” anything with regard to salvation, but with regard to public testimony and the expected link between saving faith and resulting works. Put in terms of the earlier illustration:

• He that believeth and helpeth little old ladies cross the street shall be saved.
• He that believeth and beareth his brother’s burdens shall be saved.
• He doeth nothing evidencing saving faith giveth observers no reason to believe that he has saving faith.

In other words, the public justification of salvation is not accomplished without works. Divine salvation is not James’ focus.

Nowhere does the writer draw a distinction between the type of faith demons have and the type believers have. Instead, the distinction he points out is that believers do good works, and demons do not.

If Ebon were able to consider Semitic Totality, a concept he blasted right over in the very article he links to, he would realize that the absence of works alters the type of faith (saving vs. non-saving). Contrary to what Ebon thinks, the contrast between the two types of faith (loyalty and trust, as noted) is marked: One type is knowledge of the truth, the other is exercise of that knowledge into salvific faith which does not require works, but instead leads to works. In short, Semitic Totality.

In response to this, some apologists argue that James' statement "by works a man is justified" is in regard to fellow believers, not to God. This is not tenable.

The type of justification is the same as would be displayed to fellow believers or to unbelievers (or even to God). That is, the evidence that faith is of the saving variety, as the evidence of loyalty and trust is action for the object. James is speaking with respect to the public witness of works that is the expected result of saving faith. Ebon himself comes near to explaining this in his description of salvation by faith alone, via his stipulation that his version of the sinner’s prayer be offered sincerely. If one prays that he is sorry for his sin, and subsequently acts as though he was never sorry, doesn’t this call his sincerity into question?

Sincere repentance should be expected to have a result. This is parallel to the point that James makes.

When the word translated above as "justified" (Greek dikaioo, to render, show or regard as righteous) is used in other contexts in the New Testament, it is always used in the sense of being justified before God. (Examples: Romans 3:20, 3:24, 3:28, 5:1, 5:9; Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:7). It is never used to imply justification in the sight of one's fellow Christians.

Hmm. Has Ebon given a counterexample other than Paul?

The immediate context is the primary method for determining the usage of a term in context. Only when the primary context fails to provide the meaning should secondary context be considered. Ebon appears to have made his case on the back of another ambiguity, in fact. Works are the evidence of saving faith no matter who is watching (believer, unbeliever, God), yet Ebon simply asserts that if the context suggests God, then justification equals salvation. The usage of dikaioo is in stark contrast to condemnation in Matthew12:37. By Ebon’s reasoning, according to Matthew we should expect that condemnation is not by unbelief alone, but by unbelief plus works. To borrow Ebon’s phrase, this is untenable. Context and parsimony favor the view that the Pauline NT (secondary) contexts be downplayed in favor of the view that the justification referred to is evidential, not salvific.

To further illuminate the contradiction here, let us consider what is surely not an uncommon occurrence - the deathbed conversion. Suppose a dying man, with his final breath, is convicted of his sins, sincerely repents and cries out to Jesus to save him, and then dies, without ever doing any good deeds in the name of his newfound faith. Will he go to Heaven or not? By the logic of the verses listed in the first section of this essay, his salvation is as assured as that of a person who repented at any other point in their life. But according to the Epistle of James, since this man never had the chance to do good works, his faith is "dead" and cannot save him. We are left to conclude that he is therefore damned.

On the contrary, if the faith of the dying man was of the type that results in good works, then it is saving faith. That he had no time to express that loyalty physically is of no relevance, any more than a contract would not have been honored by someone merely because they died with the pen in their hand. If, on the other hand, that faith is the type that results in the man doing precisely as he did before his deathbed confession, then that faith is not really faith at all (it is “dead” faith). Why does the fundy-literal Ebon not care that the faith itself is described as “dead” rather than the one exercising empty faith? Why, that’s because he imports his interpretation into the text (eisegesis).

As a final point in favor of this interpretation, consider the words of a famous past Christian. Modern-day inerrantist apologists are stuck with the canon of the Bible, as inconsistent as it is, and will go to any lengths rather than admit that it contains a contradiction. But theologians of the past were not so concerned with protecting the canon above all else. Martin Luther, the key founder of the Protestant Reformation that led to the creation of all Protestant sects, read the Epistle of James and saw in it exactly what modern-day apologists insist it does not contain: a requirement for believers to do good works. He called it an "epistle of straw," and said that it was "flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture" (see ), which Luther believed contained a call for salvation through faith alone.

Luther was wrong about the content of James, insomuch as he thought that it contradicted Paul. Did he know Semitic Totality? No, he didn't. It would have relieved him of a substantial burden. Ebon's "authority argument" is far from impressive.

However, James is not the only biblical book which teaches that salvation depends on works; in fact, there are others that teach it even more explicitly. To show this, a brief digression on evangelical beliefs is required.

A discussion of evangelical beliefs is necessary to establish that other books in the Bible teach the necessity of works to salvation? Do tell.

Christian evangelicals believe that God is the epitome of justice, righteousness and holiness, and therefore he cannot tolerate any sin (which is the opposite of these characteristics) whatsoever in his presence. By his nature, God is bound to send all sin to Hell. However, evangelicals believe that humans are inherently sinful creatures, unable to prevent ourselves from committing the acts that God cannot abide. This places us in a dilemma, they believe, since it means that none of us can attain Heaven by our own efforts. If God were to judge us on our deeds alone, everyone would go to Hell. The only solution, they conclude, is the blood of Jesus Christ, which "covers up" our sin and allows God to forgive us and let us into Heaven. Again: Were we judged purely by our actions, we would all be damned, and God would be fully justified in pronouncing such a fate upon us.

In light of this belief, it must be quite shocking for evangelical Christians to open the book of 2 Corinthians and read the following:

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." --2 Corinthians 5:10 (NIV)

Under a theology in which enough good deeds can outweigh a person's evil deeds and gain them access to Heaven, this verse makes perfect sense. Under the evangelical theology of innate depravity, what this verse is telling us is that everyone who has ever lived or will ever live is condemned to eternal damnation, because if we receive "what is due us" for the things we have done, that is the inevitable result. The point of evangelical Christian theology is precisely that by accepting Jesus, a person will not receive what they justly deserve, but that God will forgive that person by his divine grace.

Ebon has committed yet another sensational blunder by simply failing to consider that heaven and hell are not necessarily all-or-nothing destinations, with different punishments meted out in hell, and various rewards given in heaven. His entire laboriously constructed point falls on that overlooked issue. Ineptitude, thy name is Ebon!

"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." --John 5:29 (KJV)

Ebon forgot to see John 5:24, just a few verses prior:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

In context, Jesus is teaching salvation by faith (loyalty); the context connects “believeth on him that sent me” with “done good”.

"[God] will render to every man according to his deeds, to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life...." --Romans 2:6,7 (KJV)

Ebon pops forth with another verse removed from its context. The greater context of Romans overwhelmingly emphasizes salvation by faith (Romans 1:17 and 3:22 to name but two nearby verses). Faith is followed by works -- inevitably. Separating the two is a modernist fantasy.

All these verses say the same thing - that at the time of judgment we will be punished or rewarded as our deeds deserve, that those who have done evil will be damned, and those who have done good will be granted eternal life. Paul in Romans says that God will reward those "who by patient continuance in well doing" seek eternal life. Jesus in the Gospels of John and Matthew says that those who have done evil (again, in the evangelical worldview, this means everyone) will be damned, and those who have done good (in the evangelical view, no one) will be glorified.

Evangelicals teach that everyone will be damned? I must have missed that meeting.

These verses are clear: We will be judged by both our faith and our works. There is no other conclusion to be drawn.

The above deserves to be separated from the rest, since Ebon accidentally got something right. The Bible (Romans, in this case) does teach that people will have their works judged. Heaven or Hell need not be the extent of sentencing. Ebon appears to exclude this option from consideration, however.

Option #4: Salvation by Predestination

The five key points of the predestinationist Christian sect called Calvinism can be summed up with the acronym "TULIP":

Readers of this site will know these points and what we think of them; see here for an entry. Ebon does incorrectly call the P "Preservation" rather than Perseverance. He also unwittingly bungles with the statement, "Calvinism came first." Compared to Arminius, maybe so. Compared to what is in the first century, no. We'll leave it to Ebon to decide whether he can take our material on; we don't care about his material on either 16th century system. We imagine the mysteries of Hebrew block logic in Romans 9 is one thing he'd find impenetrable. He adds as well that "the Puritans who were largely responsible for the founding of America were Calvinists also." Maybe Ebon should have explained to the Puritans just how popular they really were—they wouldn’t have had to come to America in the first place! We do think this deserves comment, where Ebon barks his chihuahua bark up Glenn Miller's tree:

Apologetics site the Christian Think Tank has offered an alternative interpretation for these verses, claiming that they should be rightfully seen as God's selecting individuals for earthly tasks, not eternal destiny. This interpretation is a non-starter, unless the claim is that earthly behavior has no relation to eternal fate, because the "task" God "selected" for Pharaoh was to hold his chosen people in cruel slavery, and then, after being forced to let them go, to head out after them with an army determined to either re-enslave or massacre them, and finally to be drowned in the closing of the Red Sea in the course of that pursuit after having his heart "hardened" by God on numerous occasions. Does this sound like the kind of person who will end up in Heaven?

Sigh. Ebon, Ebon, Ebon. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart after Pharaoh had hardened his heart. Everything that occurs once the Israelites head out away from Egypt would seem to be in the realm of Pharaoh’s own choosing. Truly, your eisegesis is extra-gratuitous in this case.

The Christian Think Tank also suggests that the main focus of this passage is on groups, rather than individuals, that are chosen for salvation or damnation. Since groups are made up of people, this makes no difference whatsoever, and in any event the specific reference to Pharaoh, an individual, again disproves this.

Ebon is able to accuse somebody else of a non-starter while writing that sort of nonsense? Experience should tell us yes, so we’ll plod on with the obvious answer: It makes a critical difference that a group is involved. Suppose that all the male cheerleaders for the Tennessee Titans get sent on a trip to Greece. Ebon, seeing his trip-of-a-lifetime within his grasp, joins the group of male cheerleaders in order to participate in the trip. Was Ebon chosen as an individual for the trip? Of course not. He was chosen on the basis of group identity. And Ebon had better bone up on the matter of group-identity in the ancient mind as well before shooting his mouth off further. That's one of those social lessons he couldn't seem to learn in our last exchange.

Ebon closes:

In conclusion, what do we have? We have a Bible whose writers apparently could not agree among themselves, a book that presents no fewer than four mutually contradictory paths to salvation, each of which is declared to be the only true one. They cannot all be correct. If salvation is by faith alone, it is not by faith and baptism; if it is by faith and baptism, it is not by faith and good works, and if it is any of these three, it is not by predestination. Throughout history, there have been and still are various Christian sects advocating in favor of all four of these possibilities. What is the source of this confusion?

Alas, one is tempted to inform Ebon that the source of confusion is to be found in his looking-glass. As usual his confusion is sourced in miseducation; but we will keep trying. One final note, he says: "Instead of looking forward to another life, we should spend our time improving this one for all humanity - that is the meaning of atheism."

I wonder...did Joe Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung get that memo?