Walking on Water is Not Swimming

Here's a silly question; Have you ever considered that walking on water is not the same as swimming? What about how walking on water doesn’t even involve swimming? This article is going to argue that if you are in fact walking on water, you can not be swimming at all.

You know, those who are sceptics of the Bible often come up with all kinds of explanations of why the Disciples thought Jesus was walking on the water in Mathew 14:22-27. They say everything from it’s a made up story to He was walking along the shore, or even floating on ice. The truth is no one confuses walking on the water with anything else. Actually if someone had never seen, or had a person walking on water properly described to them a person might think that “swimming” is akin to walking on water. However, if one has seen it they would never confuse the two. So, just like the skeptics of the Bible, skeptics of walking on water minus swimming can come up with all the explanations they like and still not change the truth.

For the purposes of this article I'll state that Justification in Christ (which is the prerequisite of Eternal Salvation) is sort of like walking on water. Works based (religious) Justification (and therefore Eternal Salvation) is sort of like swimming. If one is Justified in Christ they are supernaturally lifted above the mire and anything they do there has nothing to do with keeping themselves above it. Such a one is not swimming. I'm also going to state that Eternal Salvation includes resurrection unto life which is recently being referred to as "Final Salvation" by some Brethren.

Readers may remember a long conversation with Lordship Salvation (LS) proponent Mark Pierson here. After I read Mark’s affirmation that no one who understands LS also rejects LS I asked for anyone who believes in LS to proclaim the Gospel to me so that I could understand. For many days I dialogued with Mark about his view of Salvation. I painstakingly examined his presentation using the definitions of terminology that he supplied. In the end, I found that the LS position is exactly as I (and many others) have understood it to be, and I continue to reject it.

After that, Mark asked me to visit his blog and repeat the same or a similar conversation there with him. In the mean time the Lord was working on me about my desire to debate people. I really don’t know how future conversations here at OMW are going to play out but I knew repeating the same debate at Mark's blog would not be profitable. He has suggested that I wished to only converse with him within the safety of my own blog or those of my friends. Such a view doesn't actually seem reasonable in that Mark was given complete freedom of uncensored expression here.

Mark asked me to share the Gospel with him at his blog. That’s not the sort of thing you can just say “NO!” to. So I gave him a link to a YouTube video of the Gospel in one minute. His reply to this video was to suggest what someone who is in gross sin might say in response to this video. The supposed person said they didn’t want to give up the sin they were in. Of course the sin was inflammatory and fully in the realm of the fleshy nature of mankind. Such that ought not even be named among the saints. Eph 5:3-4

I proclaimed the forgiveness of sins, and Eternal Life in Jesus Christ and Mark’s supposed person said “But I don’t want to stop sinning!” as a rebuttal to the idea that the Gospel I proclaim is false. I believe it is the inflammatory nature of the sin Mark chose that is of issue to him. Mark didn’t choose speeding.. or picking your nose, or not telling the people around you that you love them… no he chose gross adultery. Why? Well I can only assume that adultery is a worse sin than those other I noted in Mark’s eyes. However, we’re told in Scripture that one sin is like another because the same God who said thou shalt not commit adultery also said thou shalt not murder. James 2:10-11 It is the falling short of God’s perfection that is sin, not the details of the issue.

So what is it that Mark is saying? Is he saying that a person must be willing to give up adultery in order to be saved?

Here read his comment yourself;

So Kevin, thanks for telling me the Gospel in a minute.

I have some pressing questions for you -You see, I am a married man. Here's
the problem: I've met somebody else, one of my co-workers. She also is married.
At first we were just friends. Then, over the course of time, we both discovered
that we complete one another. We both feel like we are soul-mates. Yes, we have
gone on to be intimate. We really love each other.

Now even Sunday-school kids know that God has said "Thou shall not commit
adultry". If I were to become a Christian would I have to give this woman up? I
can't see myself ever being able to do that.

Of course that is what Mark was saying and has consistently said. Well here’s something to consider. If your unsaved neighbour gives up adultery are they any closer to Heaven? Are they any more worthy of being saved? If the person that Mark makes up DID give up adultery would they be saved then? Or would there be another sin they’d have to give up? If so, then how many? If not then why not? Is there a Biblical example of what sins you can continue in and what ones you may not in order to be Eternally Saved?

Let's get back to swimming and walking on water to see if we can reconcile some of this.

The modern Reformed Calvinist Lordship Salvation proponent will claim that it's not the works (the swimming) that saves (keeps one above the water) but that everyone who is saved will work.

When Paul says that the one who believes and does not work is justified, he is sort of saying that walking on water doesn’t involve swimming. Romans 4:5-8 Paul is surely saying that justification is "apart from" works. The righteousness that a Believer has in this life is accounted, and imputed. It is not actualized until we are glorified (experience this "Final Salvation"). 1 Cor 13:12-13, 1Jn 3:2 The one who is walking on water is not swimming. If one is swimming, or working to be saved then they are not walking on water. They are either truly not saved, or they are acting like it. The idea of works proving that someone is saved is well and fully addressed in Dr. Fred R. Lybrand's wonderful new book "Back To Faith." This book examines the phrase "It is therefore faith alone that justifies, but the faith that justifies is not alone" in great detail. I think it would be foolish to try to offer here what he so excellently offers in his book so I will not. Often people will point to our works as proof of "true saving faith." Unfortunately this is a great perversion of what is written in James 2:14-26. I address this idea of examining your works to see if you're in the faith in my book Fail-Safe for Fallacy but surely not as well as Dr. Lybrand does in his. For the purpose of this article I want to iterate; swimming is not walking on water. If one is walking on water, they can not be swimming. I also wish to point out that looking at swimming for proof of walking on water is absurd.

However, if you teach someone that their works prove their salvation, will they not try to swim? Isn't the consistent question of the lost "What must I DO to be saved?" Acts 16:30, John 6:28

Beloved reader, the answer to this question is always the same - BELIEVE (put your trust in) the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 16:31, John 6:29. Not "really believe and prove it by working"! No, we are never told to test our faith by our works.

What is true saving faith? That is the question. If you have faith in Christ alone, then your faith finds validation in Christ alone. If your faith is not in Christ alone then it will find validation in the various things your faith is in. If your faith is in Christ alone you can not have your faith in anything else. So, in the swimming/walking discussion if you’re walking on water you can’t swim, and if you’re trying to swim you're either a very confused water walker, or your not a water walker at all.

True saving faith is trust and assurance. We read this in Genesis 15:1-6. A fearful Abraham came to believe God, or rather trust God and be assured by His promise. This was accounted as righteousness. Abraham didn’t look for validation of God’s promise in some aspect of his own life. He didn’t look for “evidence” of God having saved him. He didn't look at his performance in view of how he should serve this glorious and faithful God. He trusted God, and was assured that God would fulfill His promise. The issue was settled. With regard to our conversation Abraham walked on water and did not swim. Nothing he did or didn't do had reflected the truth of his being above the water. Why? Because he was above the water ONLY because God faithful. Not because Abraham was made faithful. God alone is faithful.

If I trust and am assured by God then I need not look anywhere else. If I do not trust God and or am not assured by His promise then I must look elsewhere for my assurance. If I’m assured by anything else than God’s promise then I do not have faith in Christ alone.

If I am swimming I am not walking on water.

If one is Justified then they can set aside the wondering if they are saved and start operating in the trust they have for God. Instead of constantly looking inward to find validation of their confidence as those who check their works do, the one who knows he is justified simply gets on with the work of the day. If your justification is based on God's faithfulness, then you are assured as surely as His Word is true. Heb 6:13-20

Let’s spell it out. You don’t do the works that we read of in Hebrews 11 if you are not sure of God’s promises. You don’t do those works unless you already know you are saved. These works are not evidences of salvation, they are evidences of getting past the milk and onto the meat. Leaving the beginnings of faith and moving on to perfection, not laying the foundation of repentance again. The person who is looking to their works for validation of their confidence doesn’t have the kind of faith it takes to do those works. Their faith is not “in Christ alone.” They are still trying to swim instead of realizing they can simply walk.

This concludes part 1 of this two part series. In the next article I’ll be looking at how Peter was able to physically walk on water, and what happened when he sank. God willing this will shed some light on how we too can stop trying to swim and start truly walking on water.