Passages “Faith Only” Preachers Feel Forced To Make Figurative

Mark 16:16a (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”) seems to clearly teach baptism is necessary to salvation. But most Baptists I debate will change the baptism from a literal immersion in water to a figurative immersion in the Holy Ghost (admittedly found elsewhere in the NT). Of course they have no reason to say the verse is figurative other than the fact that the plain meaning of the verse (if taken literally) contradicts their long-standing position that salvation is by faith only.

A cardinal rule in understanding the Bible (or any other written or oral treatise) is that we must take words in their primary and literal sense, unless the context or some other verse demands a secondary and/or figurative meaning (see below). If we are allowed to take any verse figurative (without contextual reason), just because the verse contradicts what we already believe, then we can make the Bible say anything we want it to.

John 3:5 (“… Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”) would seem to teach, at least on the surface, that water baptism is necessary to entering the kingdom of God. But “faith only” preachers can’t have that, so they say “water” in the verse is figurative. Many of my debate opponents have put it this way – “water is being used metaphorically for the word in John 3:5.” They really have no justification for that assertion … except – we can’t take the verse literally; that would mean a sinner has to be baptized to be saved.

Another verse that “faith only salvation” proponents take figurative is Acts 22:16 – “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” When I asked one of my early debate opponents (Fred V.) what justification he had for taking that verse figurative, and did he realize his logic would also make “calling on the name of the Lord” also only necessary to figurative forgiveness, he had no real justification/reason. What could he say? – other than the fact “if you take Acts 22:16 to mean what it says, that would prove we have to be baptized to be saved.”

This same thing has occurred in pretty much every debate and conversation I’ve had with a “faith only” advocate since then. Likewise with Gal 3:26-27. They say it must be talking about figurative (Holy Spirit) baptism, else the verse would mean we have to be baptized in water to be become a child of God, and we can’t have that.

Consider the way D.R. Dungan explains this modus operandi in his book “Hermeneutics: The Science of Interpreting the Scriptures, pgs.184,195-203” – “All words are to be understood in their literal sense, unless the evident meaning of the context forbids. – Figures are the exception, literal language the rule; hence we are not to regard anything as figurative until we feel compelled to do so by the evident import of the passage. … here great caution should be observed. We are very apt to regard contexts as teaching some theory … in our minds. And having so determined, anything to the contrary will be regarded as a mistaken interpretation; hence, if the literal meaning of the words shall be found to oppose our speculations, we are ready to give to the words in question some figurative import that will better agree with our preconceived opinions. Let us be sure that the meaning of the author has demanded that the language be regarded in a figurative sense, and that it is not our theory which has made the necessity.”

One other passage the “faith only salvation” apologist must take figuratively – Rom 6:3-5. They say Rom 6:3 is talking about a figurative baptism, because it says we are “baptized into Jesus Christ,” and if the verse were talking about a literal immersion in water, that would mean if we haven’t been water baptized, we are still outside Christ. Baptists make this argument even though for centuries they have used verses 4-5 (against the Methodists) to prove water baptism should be an immersion, because it should be a likeness of the burial and resurrection of Christ. See what kind of inconsistencies we get ourselves into when we try to make verses figurative (arbitrarily) just because their plain meaning contradicts what we want to believe?  Repeating to make sure this important point is comprehended:  The Baptist church uses Rom 6:3-5 to prove water baptism should be immersion (not sprinkling), but when discussing whether or not baptism is necessary to salvation, they say Rom 6:3-5 is NOT talking about water baptism.  See the inconsistency now?

Beware when Bible teachers call any passage figurative just because it contradicts their position.  The Bible means what it says, and it is consistent – God never talks out of both sides of his mouth.

hear Bible Crossfire Sundays at 8:00 pm central on SiriusXM national radio Family Talk 131 & 62 local stations across America or at www.BibleDebates.info