StefanM,
bmerr here. I appreciate your switching to the KJ for me. Like I said, I don't mean to be an "elitist" or whatever. I've been that route before, and there's little light, but alot of heat generated in the "onlyist" camps. But I think you'd agree that in many of the newer versions, alot of bias has crept in and distorted the text. Anyway, thanks.
While I would have to agree that baptism is not mentioned in the verses you have given, I'd disagree that baptism is not mentioned in the larger context of the chapters, or even books that those texts are in.
For example, if we continue in Rom 10, we find this statement from Paul in 10:16, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"
I'd like your thoughts as to what it means to "obey the gospel". In 10:16, Paul seems to use this phrase in conjunction with the idea of believing the report.
Keeping with Romans, if we go back a few chapters to 6:17, 18, we read,
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Paul speaks of a time when these Romans had obeyed a form of the doctrine they had received, at which time they were made free from sin. What doctrine had the Romans received?
There's also Rom 6:3-5 to consider.
If we move to Galatians, we find that Paul is teaching that men cannot be justified by the works of the law. It's the Mosaic Law that he's speaking of. There was alot of bad teaching being done by the Judaizers. Those were the ones who tried to make the Gentiles be circumcised and such (Acts 15:1, 5).
[As a side note, it's usually helpful when studying from an epistle to a church, to go back to Acts and see what was going on while Paul was in that particular city.]
The influence of the Judaizers was so great, that even Peter and Barnabas were "carried away with their dissimulation (hypocrisy)" (Gal 2:11-13). As a result, Paul spent quite a bit of time undoing the false teaching of this group.
In the text under consideration, the issue being discussed is, in fact, not baptism at all, but the matter of eating with Gentiles. Peter had been accused of this very thing in Acts 11:3, after Cornelius was converted. This was a BIG, HAIRY DEAL to many of Jewish heritage.
Peter had been eating pork and whatever with the Gentiles at Antioch. But when the Judaizers showed up, Peter went Kosher, and Paul got in his face about it. He goes on to say in Gal 2:15-ff that they (Peter and Paul) being Jews by nature (heritage) ought to know that they cannot be justified by keeping the Mosaic Law. "Peter, you should know better than to be acting the way you have been!"
Picking up in the text you cited, Paul says that we are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law (Mosaic). Now I ask you: what is the faith of Jesus Christ? I would submit to you that it is the system of faith instituted by Christ's authority, Christianity. It's certainly not the faith that Jesus had Himself. If it were, then all would be saved, would they not?
Paul actually does talk about baptism in Galatians, though. In Chapter 3, Paul continues to contrast the works of the [Mosaic] law to the hearing of faith. Along about verse 23, Paul describes the law as a schoolmaster, that brought them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. Once faith had come, they were no longer under the law.
The whole book is to convince the Galatians to not be brought under the bondage of the Mosaic Law, as the Judaizers were trying to effect. Paul wraps up Chapter 3 by telling them (Jews and Gentiles) that they were "...all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
They were all on the same team in Christ.
You mentioned the fact that some like to try and pit James against Paul. I've heard that too. The reality of the situation is that Paul and James were fighting. Not toe-to-toe against each other, but back-to-back, against different enemies.
Paul fought against those who advocated the works of the Mosaic Law over, or without the faith of Christ. James fought against those who claimed to have faith in Christ, but did not manifest works that were in keeping with their professed faith.
I'd still disagree that either one of them taught salvation by faith alone.
James' audience was composed of those who had already become Christians, so he wouldn't have needed to speak to them of baptism, best I can figure.
Well, I didn't mean to be so long-winded. These long posts often just get skimmed over, I'm afraid.
Talk to you later.
In Christ,
bmerr
