Is belief "works"?

[Jethro Bodine]

If there is no such thing as a good person, then God justifies evil when He justifies a person.

Being justified means no longer being guilty of wickedness before God. Justification is for evil people...so they won't be evil anymore. Believing in that which makes you no longer evil in the sight of God (the blood of Christ) is what does that justifying.

The perfect and never-ending sacrifice of Jesus' blood, offered up through the perfect and never-ending ministry of Jesus' Priestly ministry, in the eternal and incorruptible Temple of God in heaven, continuously and forever sits before God covering all sins committed by those who trust in those things to do that on there behalf. This perfect ministry that never ends and can never be interrupted or corrupted (unlike the earthly Mosaic ministry of temple, priest, and sacrifice) is always in place before God to deal with the sin of those who believe in that ministry to do that (not those who don't believe) keeping them justified and legally guilt free before God.

There's a word for that, and it's called 'self righteousness'. And you are right, self righteousness is not Godly and is the reason the world is the way it is now.

But thinking your imperfect obedience, even if it is by the Spirit of God, is somehow what merits salvation, you are still relying on self-righteousness to be saved. Don't you see? If salvation is based on obedience, even obedience worked in us by the Spirit of God, that obedience still has to be perfect for that obedience to justify. This is perhaps the most neglected truth among people who think faith + obedience is what justifies. How is it that if obedience is required for justification--in that it's a co-agent of justification--that obedience can be an imperfect obedience?

However, the Bible does not state that a person has to be a Christian to do anything right or have a good moral standing in the eyes of God.

Read this carefully. Does this teach that any and all people can do right, or only those who are in Christ and have the Spirit of Christ can do right and please God?

5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." (Romans 8: NIV1984)

You do not need Christ to be a modest, moral person capable of goo works and Godly righteousness. There in fact remarkable people out there who simply never grew up with Christianity or hold it in some sacred fashion. Some people just trust that the universe will unfold the way it should, and that is good enough.

Somehow the atheist and unbelieving do-gooder, trusting in his own good doing to be saved from a God they do not believe exists, serving the agenda of a greater moral judge they are sure does not exist, always leaves the matter of their own sexual purity and self control out of that standard of goodness. I personally have never met or heard about an atheist or unbeliever that had fashioned their personal concept of right and wrong, and how things are to just work themselves out, to include self control and sexual purity. I suspect it is those very things that cause them to fashion their own perception of right and wrong, and how to saved (from a God they do not believe in).

Christ's sacrifice was not a demand of belief, but a moral ultimatum.

The problem with this is, even those in Christ do not have perfect behavior. IOW, nobody lives up to a moral ultimatum. If sacrifice is a moral ultimatum then NO ONE can be saved by sacrifice. It reasons then that sacrifice means something else. Sacrifice is payment for sin. Blood for blood, eye for eye, skin for skin, tooth for tooth. Now, either you can pay that yourself, or you can accept the gracious offer of God for him to pay that himself. Your choice. Let me know.

If behavior is the criteria in a works, or works + faith justification, then that obedience would have to be perfect to do that. Partial obedience, as far as the merit of behavior toward justification, even in the Holy Spirit is no different than no obedience at all.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

In keeping with Reba's request I shall not reply (regarding baptism), however,should you like to take this to the debate forum, "ask and ye shall receive".

If you think there is literal power in water, how can I change your mind about that?

Some things only the Holy Spirit can show a person. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will meet you in the one-on-one...someday.

I'm being funny, of course. It's just that you have to understand that, like the meat sacrificed to idols being really defiled in and of itself, some people aren't limited by conscience about whether water baptism literally removes sin. IOW, it's the conscience of a person that decides if, for them, the water has actual power in it or not. I respect your conscience in regard to this matter. But you must also respect mine. That is the unity of peace that binds the body of Christ together.

 

[Webb]

If you think there is literal power in water, how can I change your mind about that?

Some things only the Holy Spirit can show a person. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will meet you in the one-on-one...someday.

I'm being funny, of course. It's just that you have to understand that, like the meat sacrificed to idols being really defiled in and of itself, some people aren't limited by conscience about whether water baptism literally removes sin. IOW, it's the conscience of a person that decides if, for them, the water has actual power in it or not. I respect your conscience in regard to this matter. But you must also respect mine. That is the unity of peace that binds the body of Christ together.

Of course you can't change my mind, but if you represent the truth and I do not, then it is the truth (which Jesus said) sets us free. Its the truth, not our conscience which makes us free. I'll be waiting on the one-on-one, but of course, I respect your decision.
God bless, and have a good day

 

[Jethro Bodine]

<Can a person stop the 'work' of believing and reject the faith--the power and ability to know the gospel is true--thus removing themselves from the sufficiency of Christ's blood? That, in my mind, is the real question.>

Isn't that essentially what Judas Iscariot did? (Good post btw!)

Well, I wonder. Even though he apparently operated in spiritual power along with the other disciples when he went out with them proclaiming the gospel, he was stealing out of the kitty during that time (John 12:6). That says more to me about his unbelief, more than it says to me about his belief.

I do tend to see him more as an example of the flawed 'believing' I was talking about. It's an acknowledgment of Christ and the gospel in general, not an outright rejection of the gospel, but still a 'believing' that has some very fundamental disagreements with foundational issues of the faith. Jesus speaks of the necessity of 'total surrender' to be justified/saved in Luke 14:31-33...

“...(S)uppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."

Jesus is saying you have to surrender to the greater King coming against you and ask for his terms of peace to be saved from the destruction of the greater kingdom, obviously referring to himself and the kingdom of God. It seems some people 'believe' but are actually holding out and trying to negotiate their own terms of peace with God and the kingdom to come and not coming to Christ in total, unconditional surrender, and inquiring about HIS terms of peace--the one's he's capable of enforcing. Ultimately, that being the kind of 'believing' that eventually fails. Meaning, eventually that person knows they can't negotiate their own terms and they turn and run, or dig in deeper...not cave in to Christ's terms of unconditional surrender.

Perhaps Judas serves as more of an example of that kind of 'believing'--believing, but on his terms, despite the might of the King he resists--and seems to give weight to the idea that the believing that does not persevere was really not of a quality to justify/ save to begin with. Ah! But it just occurred to me...perhaps he serves as an example of the believing that does not persevere, not because it is not of a quality to justify, but because it is simply not of a quality to persevere. Sounds like double talk, but think about it. So, I don't know. Maybe you're right.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Of course you can't change my mind, but if you represent the truth and I do not, then it is the truth (which Jesus said) sets us free. Its the truth, not our conscience which makes us free.

Free from what, destruction on the Day of Wrath? Knowing the exact nature of the water in regard to the remission of sin in your own water baptism is NOT a matter of salvation or not. It really isn't. It simply is not a matter of life and death.

There are truths that matter, and there are truths (things that are true) that do not matter...except if your conscience binds you to that truth. Remember, this is not a matter of whether or not people should obey the command to be baptized. This is a (to me, meaningless) argument among baptized people about whether or not the water itself had any power to remove sin.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Where does Scripture call baptism, charity, sacrifice, etc. "works"?

"9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence (of work) to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised." (Hebrews 6:9-12 NIV1984)

Here Paul uses the exact same word for 'work' that he uses in Romans when he says we are not justified by 'work'. Yet he commends the Hebrew church for the 'work' (the work that can not justify) that accompanies their salvation, and that continuing in it reveals the surety of the hope they have. Why would Paul commend the Hebrew Church for the work that you insist only has the negative connotation of the self-righteousness of Mosaic law keeping, specifically circumcision???? You say 'work' never refers to the righteous deeds (charity, etc.) of the justified/saved believer. But it does here.

You chew on that for awhile. It's Saturday and I'm going outside to get some stuff done. I'll chime in on this and other things you have brought up in your posts as I can. As obstinate and ornery as you come across (lol!) I do like the opportunity your resistance to the fundamental doctrine of certain denominations gives for sharing the beliefs about those denominations for the sake of those interested in discerning the truth for themselves.

 

[Webb]

Free from what, destruction on the Day of Wrath? Knowing the exact nature of the water in regard to the remission of sin in your own water baptism is NOT a matter of salvation or not. It really isn't. It simply is not a matter of life and death.

There are truths that matter, and there are truths (things that are true) that do not matter...except if your conscience binds you to that truth. Remember, this is not a matter of whether or not people should obey the command to be baptized. This is a (to me, meaningless) argument among baptized people about whether or not the water itself had any power to remove sin.

I have certainly never, nor have I ever heard ANY of my brethren teach that "--THE WATER ITSELF HAD ANY POWER TO REMOVE SIN.'' Such statement is an absolute misrepresentation. The moderater has asked us not to make this thread a baptism thread so unless you are willing to go to the one-on-one to defend your misrepresentation this shall be my last post on the subject.
I wish you well.

 

[reba]

Why is belief,considered by some, a "work" before regeneration?

Eph 2:8....And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - τοῦτο touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - πίστις pistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking.

Where in the bible does it spell out for us that belief is a work?

I believe that the kingdom of darkness is behind this myth that we as creatures cannot believe. Satan wants absolutely no creature in heaven and is trying to blind Christians from teaching Free believable and Available Grace to the lost.

When Christ is the object our belief and faith it has no human merit what so ever.

Satan is trying to convince us that belief is a work, and he will try to convince us that our belief is the object of our faith therefore its a "work".

With this scheme Satan antagonizes both Grace for the unbeliever and true knowledge for the believer.

1 Tim 2:4 who desires ALL people to be saved(GRACE) and to come to the knowledge of the Truth. That is the will of our Father!

Satan.....who desires NO people to be saved(convince them they cant believe for Gods Grace) and to blind ALL from the knowledge of the truth so Gods free and available Grace wont be taught to the lost.

Starting over

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Here Paul uses the exact same word for 'work' that he uses in Romans when he says we are not justified by 'work'. Yet he commends the Hebrew church for the 'work' (the work that can not justify) that accompanies their salvation, and that continuing in it reveals the surety of the hope they have. Why would Paul commend the Hebrew Church for the work that you insist only has the negative connotation of the self-righteousness of Mosaic law keeping, specifically circumcision???? You say 'work' never refers to the righteous deeds (charity, etc.) of the justified/saved believer. But it does here.

But not relevant to salvation. Only for the work done, which is what our reward in heaven is based upon. Heaven is not our objective. Heaven is assured by faith. Our objective is to grow the Kingdom of God in the hearts of men.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But not relevant to salvation.

Right. Only relevant to salvation in the sense that it accompanies justifying faith, confirming that faith as able to justify and save on the Day of Wrath.

Dadof10 insists 'work' only means the work of the law of circumcision and that righteous deeds are not referred to using that word 'work' in the Bible and, therefore, can not be included in what Paul contrasts faith with in regard to what can not justify a person. But there in Hebrews 6 the word 'work' is used exactly for the righteous deeds of the saved Hebrew church. 'Work' most certainly does include any and all righteous deeds, those righteous deeds also being in the category of 'work' that can not justify a person, but which dadof10 claims are needed to justify a person and are different than the 'work' Paul is speaking about in Romans.

"10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints. 11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end..." (Hebrews 6:10-11 NASB)

"...God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works (e.g. the Hebrew Church), but according to His own purpose and grace..." (2 Timothy 1:9 NASB)

"5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds (work--G2041) which we have done in righteousness (e.g. the Hebrew Church), but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs..." (Titus 3:5-7 NASB)


Oh, almost forgot. The argument has been made that somehow water baptism is not a righteous work. Well, actually it is:

"13 Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. 14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” 15 But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”" (Matthew 3:13-15 NASB)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I have certainly never, nor have I ever heard ANY of my brethren teach that "--THE WATER ITSELF HAD ANY POWER TO REMOVE SIN.'' Such statement is an absolute misrepresentation. The moderater has asked us not to make this thread a baptism thread so unless you are willing to go to the one-on-one to defend your misrepresentation this shall be my last post on the subject.
I wish you well.

Well, you're obviously not getting it.

If you think water is an essential ingredient in order for sins to be remitted then you are attaching power to water that it does not have...unless you are convinced it does, in which case you are indeed bound by conscience in that regard. But my conscience is not bound by your conscience. But what does it matter among already baptized people, among the many churches that do in fact obey the command to baptize new believers? It's a senseless, contentious, divisive argument. There are much, much more important matters of faith to make sure the church knows and understands.

 

[Webb]

Well, you're obviously not getting it.

If you think water is an essential ingredient in order for sins to be remitted then you are attaching power to water that it does not have...unless you are convinced it does, in which case you are indeed bound by conscience in that regard. But my conscience is not bound by your conscience. But what does it matter among already baptized people, among the many churches that do in fact obey the command to baptize new believers? It's a senseless, contentious, divisive argument. There are much, much more important matters of faith to make sure the church knows and understands.

This has nothing to do with "conscience". "Conscience" is not the standard of truth, the scripture is. Paul told the council in Acts 23:1: "I have lived in all good conscience before God until ths day", and that included even when he made havoc of the church. The scripture is the rule of truth, not "conscience". Further, ANYTHING Jesus commanded may indeed and often is "contentious" and "divisive" but certainly not "senseless". The one-on-one awaits.
God bless

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This has nothing to do with "conscience". "Conscience" is not the standard of truth, the scripture is.

Which is what everyone on the weak side of faith says, because that's exactly how it looks to them. They don't have the capacity to see what the one with greater faith and understanding can see. (If 'weak' sounds insulting to you, don't be insulted. Read Romans 14).

As I've grown in Christ, I've seen various issues in the church from both viewpoints, weak and strong faith. I understand how something for the weak in faith can only be seen as the absolute, unbendable truth. But as I matured and became stronger in faith regarding those things I could then understand how others found the freedom to not be inhibited by what I had believed about those things when I had weak faith about those things.


There's no point in going head to head with you in the one-on-one thread, not just because I really don't have the time to devote to it, but it would be like trying to persuade Abraham he did not really have to be literally circumcised, or telling the disciples God didn't really mean to avoid literal leaven when he told them to stay away from the yeast of the Pharisees (you're probably familiar with the story).

Only someone with greater insight and understanding, and therefore a stronger faith, can see some things differently than the one with less revelation of understanding about those things and not be restricted by the beliefs of the one with that lesser understanding. That's not a put down. It's just the way it is. For example, it would be unthinkable to Abraham to see believers today not getting circumcised. And the disciples would probably call fire down on you if you said to them you don't have to avoid the literal leaven of the Pharisees before Jesus himself told them what he was really talking about.

 

[Webb]

Which is what everyone on the weak side of faith says, because that's exactly how it looks to them. They don't have the capacity to see what the one with greater faith and understanding can see. (If 'weak' sounds insulting to you, don't be insulted. Read Romans 14).

As I've grown in Christ, I've seen various issues in the church from both viewpoints, weak and strong faith. I understand how something for the weak in faith can only be seen as the absolute, unbendable truth. But as I matured and became stronger in faith regarding those things I could then understand how others found the freedom to not be inhibited by what I had believed about those things when I had weak faith about those things.


There's no point in going head to head with you in the one-on-one thread, not just because I really don't have the time to devote to it, but it would be like trying to persuade Abraham he did not really have to be literally circumcised, or telling the disciples God didn't really mean to avoid literal leaven when he told them to stay away from the yeast of the Pharisees (you're probably familiar with the story).

Only someone with greater insight and understanding, and therefore a stronger faith, can see some things differently than the one with less revelation of understanding about those things and not be restricted by the beliefs of the one with that lesser understanding. That's not a put down. It's just the way it is. For example, it would be unthinkable to Abraham to see believers today not getting circumcised. And the disciples would probably call fire down on you if you said to them you don't have to avoid the literal leaven of the Pharisees before Jesus himself told them what he was really talking about.

No, the word "weak" doesn't "insult" me as it pertains to "Romans 12". I understand Romans 12 and our disagreement is not a matter of Romans 12. Romans 12 discusses differences brethren have over matters of opinion only and ours is not opinion. ANYTHING Jesus and His apostles commanded is NOT of opinion, and must be obeyed not only in the WAY they instruct but for the very REASON they instruct, and if not, why not? I don't know weather you and I differ over the WAY to do what they commanded but I do know we differ about the WHY. Either one has eternal consequences.

You claim not to have time for discussing this on the one-on-one yet you seem to be on the forum more often than not when I turn it on. Your excuse here seems somewhat lacking.

I simply cannot be believe your claim for yourself, it is shocking. You (above) claim to be ''SOMEONE WITH GREATER INSIGHT AND UNDERSTANDING, AND THEREFORE A STRONGER FAITH, CAN SEE SOMETHINGS DIFFERENTLY THAN THE ONE WITH LESS REVELATION OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THOSE THINGS AND NOT BE RESTRICTED BY THE BELIEFS OF THE ONE WITH THAT LESSER UNDERSTANDING.'' This says much about you. Henceforth I shall bother you no more to expound and defend your doctrine on the honorable polemic platform of the one-on-one.

God bless, and warewell

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't know weather you and I differ over the WAY to do what they commanded but I do know we differ about the WHY. Either one has eternal consequences.

Really they don't. I am baptized, and so are so many, many others in the church. What role we think the water played in our obedience to get baptized does not nullify that obedience. And even though I personally am convinced water baptism is very much an immersion in water it is also very Biblical to be sprinkled with water to be made clean.

"25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." (Ezekiel 36:25-27 NIV1984)

If one wanted to legalistic and technical about it, both, sprinkling and bathing are requirements for cleansing found in the Bible (Numbers 19). I choose not to be so legalistic about it. Submersion is how they did it in the days of the Apostles and that's good enough for me...and certainly not a matter that nullifies the obedience of baptism for anyone...unless that person is convinced in their own mind that it has to be a certain way to be acceptable to God. Then it really is an important matter, but as I say, for them, not me.

You claim not to have time for discussing this on the one-on-one yet you seem to be on the forum more often than not when I turn it on. Your excuse here seems somewhat lacking.

Have you also noticed I don't venture into other folders very much, too? I would like to, but I simply don't have the time to participate in them, let alone read them (which I hardly do). Right now I devote 10 minutes here, my lunch hour there, a little time on some evenings, more on Saturday's (when I'm not on the clock doing brain surgeries) to this thread and this folder. If I open up another front I'll be spreading myself too thin and will regret even starting it.

Okay, back out into the cold. Done changing the daughter's oil. Time to make a garbage run.

 

[dadof10]

Maybe.

It depends on if it happens to coincide with placing your trust in the blood of Christ in your heart.

Let's try it again, because I'm SURE THIS time you can point me to the part of Scripture that teaches this, right? You haven't been able to show where "works", when contrasted to faith, means anything other than works of the Mosaic law. You haven't been able to show where "deeds...done in righteousness" refers to "all deeds" nor have you been able to show where water baptism is called a "symbol". Maybe you'll have more luck with showing where Scripture teaches that baptism ONLY saves when "it happens to coincide with placing your trust in the blood of Christ". Chapter and verse, please.

 

[dadof10]

"9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence (of work) to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised." (Hebrews 6:9-12 NIV1984)

Here Paul uses the exact same word for 'work' that he uses in Romans when he says we are not justified by 'work'. Yet he commends the Hebrew church for the 'work' (the work that can not justify) that accompanies their salvation, and that continuing in it reveals the surety of the hope they have. Why would Paul commend the Hebrew Church for the work that you insist only has the negative connotation of the self-righteousness of Mosaic law keeping, specifically circumcision???? You say 'work' never refers to the righteous deeds (charity, etc.) of the justified/saved believer. But it does here.

You chew on that for awhile. It's Saturday and I'm going outside to get some stuff done. I'll chime in on this and other things you have brought up in your posts as I can. As obstinate and ornery as you come across (lol!) I do like the opportunity your resistance to the fundamental doctrine of certain denominations gives for sharing the beliefs about those denominations for the sake of those interested in discerning the truth for themselves.

Wow, really? Again? I was joking in a previous post when I said I was going to put "when contrasted with faith" after the word "works", EVERY TIME I POST IT. I didn't think I really had to because I think I've made it CRYSTAL CLEAR in more than one post written directly to you, that I believe the word works, when contrasted with faith by Paul, means only works of the Mosaic law. I realize that the word "works" has other meanings within Scripture as I've posted Rom. 2: 5-7 to you numerous times, and the word "works" is right in the middle of it and doesn't mean "works of the Mosaic law", JUST LIKE THE VERSE YOU QUOTED IN HEBREWS. I have posted James 2:14-26 numerous times also and the word "works" is mentioned many times and not once does it refer to "works of the Mosaic law".

I guess I shouldn't have let my guard down and should have realized that when people get desperate, they will take ANY opportunity to "score points". Many of your beliefs can't be reconciled with Scripture, so you have to distract and twist my words in an attempt to show how your "theology" is superior. Sadly, this is the only way you can accomplish this.

If the above comes across as "obstinate and ornery", it might be due to your refusal to actually engage the points I'm making, instead of posting more straw men and distractions.

Yet he commends the Hebrew church for the 'work' (the work that can not justify)...

Another example of eisegesis. You keep bringing your personal, man-made theology into your reading. Where does the author of Hebrews say these works "can not justify"? He doesn't. Why? Because he's NOT TALKING ABOUT WORKS OF THE MOSAIC LAW HERE, BUT GOOD DEEDS THAT ACCOMPANY FAITH. HE IS NOT CONTRASTING FAITH AND THESE WORKS.

Even though the author DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE to saying these works "do not justify", you are SURE that is his intent. This is quite illustrative of your whole mindset concerning Scripture. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to think that Paul means "all deeds" when he uses "works" IN CONTRAST TO FAITH (I hope you got it THIS time), or "deeds...done in righteousness", but you're sure he does it. There is not ONE VERSE that calls baptism "symbolic", but you're sure it is.

For someone who believes in sola-scriptura, you sure have a lot of non-scriptural beliefs.

 

[EdenBorn]

For someone who believes in sola-scriptura, you sure have a lot of non-scriptural beliefs.

That's sort of the irony of it, right? For the sake of the rules of debate here, I cannot contrast such beliefs with our own, but it is nice to meet a fellow Catholic who holds the same sacred beliefs as my own

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That's sort of the irony of it, right? For the sake of the rules of debate here, I cannot contrast such beliefs with our own, but it is nice to meet a fellow Catholic who holds the same sacred beliefs as my own

Dadof10 does not believe what you believe about baptism, nor does he believe what you do about works. The irony of which is factious, differing beliefs are not limited to certain, rebellious denominations as some claim. If you catch my drift.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Let's try it again, because I'm SURE THIS time you can point me to the part of Scripture that teaches this, right? You haven't been able to show where "works", when contrasted to faith, means anything other than works of the Mosaic law. You haven't been able to show where "deeds...done in righteousness" refers to "all deeds"...

Do I really have to show you this all over again? Really?

Faith in the Blood of Christ stands all alone on the side of that which justifies. Any other thing you can do or think is by simple definition not faith in the blood of Christ. It may be a manifestation of your faith in the blood of Christ, but it is NOT faith in the blood of Christ itself.

The Bible does not list anything else that can justify. It plainly says what does justify. And if you insist that James says love for others justifies (the example of the work that 'justifies' that he uses) as Paul means 'to justify' then he is directly contradicting what Paul says, so we know by simple logic and rationale that he is not saying we are made righteous by fulfilling the work of the law to love others. And then of course you'll want to argue that 'works of the law' has a connotation about it that refers ONLY to works of the law not done in faith. Then I will refer you to Hebrews 6 where we see that word does NOT automatically have that connotation attached.

Just show me this verse that says Paul was just leaving out something on the side of faith in regard to what can/ can not justify. That's all you have to do. Do that and you win and we can all go home.

...nor have you been able to show where water baptism is called a "symbol". Maybe you'll have more luck with showing where Scripture teaches that baptism ONLY saves when "it happens to coincide with placing your trust in the blood of Christ". Chapter and verse, please.

So if a person does NOT have faith in the blood of Christ at their baptism they will be saved?