The Work of Repentance Versus Faith Only

[heymikey80]

Romans 1 says, IMHO, that God from heaven outlines the sins he is against. The list in Romans one is from severe to not so severe (open to discussion). Right at the end of Romans 1 some folks understand the sins list, but in opposition to that list choose to judge ok those that sin and themselves (in His face) sin. Romans 2 says those who judge are in trouble.

Often lists are ordered in some way, in Greek often it's a listing in significance order. Others think the list is disordered.

The next issue revolves around "judging whom" vs "critiquing what".

So the whole thing in my Mississippi mind is to figure who is being a judge. If I agree with the sin list of Romans 1 (that God reveals); then I am in agreement and not a judge of sin.

It's a possibility that Paul's talking about the sin and not the sinner, but ... Romans 2:1's sentence continues with "judging someone else" as what Paul means. So essentially Paul is identifying anyone who agrees with him (including himself, btw) that those who perform such things deserve death. I think Paul's argument here is a slick bait & switch against the "morally superior" attitude that develops among moral people. We are condemned because we know sin, we can see it in others, and yet we still do wrong, and remain unrepentant. At least so it seems to me.

 

[dadof10]

I'll say it without the equivocation of this phrase.

LOL, What equivocation?

I said: I then go on to say that WE MUST COOPERATE WITH THIS GRACE TO BE SAVED. You have rejected this assertion over and over again, calling it "works salvation", however you keep applying this exact same concept to faith.

He responded: That cooperation is your ongoing faith. That is what saves you, not the merit of the work that faith accomplishes.

His response was concerning "That cooperation" of "ongoing faith" and "that is what saves you". This is what I responded to in my last post. How is this an equivocation?

So we THEN cooperate with God's Grace, willingly. We are saved, because faith is the response of the will.

I think it's quite clear once the equivocation is removed.

So do I. I think it's quite clear you are describing something a person MUST DO in order to be saved, he must RESPOND. How is this different from an adult ACCEPTING baptism or responding to the calling of God to give to the poor, for example? These (and other ACTS) are responses of the will too, right? What's the difference?

Infant baptism is not something accepted willingly by an infant, for instance

.

So, then it would be pure Grace. I believe that infant baptism is the NORMATIVE way of salvation. The infant does NOTHING to merit this Grace and he is saved from the moment he is baptized. Compare this to the "faith alone" doctrine, which REQUIRES a person to DO something in order to MERIT salvation. If the person "accepts" or "responds" or "trusts in the blood of Christ" or however you want to put it, he is then saved. If he doesn't "respond" or, as Jethro put it continue in "ongoing faith", he is damned. Which way seems closer to "works" salvation to you?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So we MUST cooperate with God's Grace, using our will, to be saved? How is this concept or attitude any different from cooperating with the Grace of baptism, for instance?

Your trust in the blood of Christ IS your faith. That's what faith IS--knowing with certainty that you are forgiven and made righteous through the blood of Christ.

Paul contrasts being saved that way--through the promise of Christ's blood, by faith (for all we have to go on is God's promise)--with the satisfactory performance of righteous duties and behaviors to be made righteous, the standard of those righteous duties and behaviors being the law of Moses. (What other established standard of righteous work is there to contrast faith in Christ's blood with? I showed you where the things you claim are not works of the law really are).

That's about as simple as it can be stated.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So, then it would be pure Grace. I believe that infant baptism is the NORMATIVE way of salvation. The infant does NOTHING to merit this Grace and he is saved from the moment he is baptized.

This is the exact same error in thinking the Jews made. They saw circumcision (performed on infants oblivious to what was going on in regard to the requirements of God) as the way to be in covenant with God. And why not? For God plainly told them that was required to be in covenant with him:

9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. ” (Genesis 17:9-14 NIV1984)

But despite what the scriptures seem to be saying so clearly about circumcision (as it does baptism), Paul uses Abraham to show how righteousness (and therefore a place in the covenant) comes through faith in the promise of God, not the commanded thing that signified covenant with God, and how Abraham's declaration of righteousness was granted before the thing they claim granted covenant rights had not even been done yet.

 

[dadof10]

Your trust in the blood of Christ IS your faith. That's what faith IS--knowing with certainty that you are forgiven and made righteous through the blood of Christ.

You are still skirting the question. It's a simple yes-or-no question.

You said: "That cooperation is your ongoing faith. That is what saves you, not the merit of the work that faith accomplishes."

I asked: "So we MUST cooperate with God's Grace, using our will, to be saved?" Yes or no?

Paul contrasts being saved that way--through the promise of Christ's blood, by faith (for all we have to go on is God's promise)--with the satisfactory performance of righteous duties and behaviors to be made righteous, the standard of those righteous duties and behaviors being the law of Moses. (What other established standard of righteous work is there to contrast faith in Christ's blood with? I showed you where the things you claim are not works of the law really are).

Wrong. Paul contrasts faith with ONLY "works of the law" and the Jewish attitude of obligation inherent in it. Again you are begging the question. This is what we are discussing, what Paul means by "works". You think he means EVERY BEHAVIOR (except "trusting"), I think he means ONLY "works of the law". I have NEVER accepted your claim that baptism or charity are parts of "the law". There has to be proof, or at least a parallel drawn, between Paul's use of the word "works" and baptism, charity, keeping the commandments, etc., otherwise I will continue to believe these things are salvific because Scripture says so.

 

[dadof10]

This is the exact same error in thinking the Jews made. They saw circumcision (performed on infants oblivious to what was going on in regard to the requirements of God) as the way to be in covenant with God. And why not? For God plainly told them that was required to be in covenant with him:

9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. †(Genesis 17:9-14 NIV1984)

But despite what the scriptures seem to be saying so clearly about circumcision (as it does baptism), Paul uses Abraham to show how righteousness (and therefore a place in the covenant) comes through faith in the promise of God, not the commanded thing that signified covenant with God, and how Abraham's declaration of righteousness was granted before the thing they claim granted covenant rights had not even been done yet.

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision:

"For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." (Col. 2)

What do you think the "circumcision of Christ" means if it's not that baptism is entrance into the covenant?

Paul uses Abraham to show that salvation is no longer about circumcision or keeping the law, but about obedient faith, that's why he points to someone who was saved BEFORE the law. Baptism supplanted certain aspects of circumcision, but certainly Paul does not mean that because circumcision doesn't save, neither does baptism. He doesn't make this case anywhere.

 

[eddif]

Circumcism becomes of the heart (moves internal).

Baptism in a cloud becomes internalized too. Baptism of repentance (looking at the mental repentance). Baptised into Jesus (looking / believing / trusting the work Jesus accomplished). Baptism of the Holy Spirit (relying on the internal work of the Holy Spirit).

The first revelation of God is physical. Later hid in the works of the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Jesus. The spiritual significance of things starts to be revealed more and more. Not that the physical aspects totally pass away, but many scriptures show the growing importance of the spiritual aspects. Evidently we can do all the physical and miss the weighter aspects.

eddif

 

[cleanfreak]

Earnest T Bass has hit the nail on the head.

If you steal the man's horse and repent for stealing it and do not return it, it is a slap in our Lord's face.

If you have sold the horse, killed the horse, eatin the horse, or whatever the case may be. Where it is physically not possible to return the horse, then you should buy him a new one, or work off the funds to do so.....and for good measure get him 2 horses, so he knows you are sincere in your repentance.

Thinking any other way is just nonsense. It really is simple. Good Grief.

 

[heymikey80]

LOL, What equivocation?

I said: I then go on to say that WE MUST COOPERATE WITH THIS GRACE TO BE SAVED. You have rejected this assertion over and over again, calling it "works salvation", however you keep applying this exact same concept to faith.

No, I've rejected, "You first do something in order to be saved." Your statement is equivocal, to wit:

The submission to God in faith is to rest, says Hebrews 4 -- so there's an attempt to linguistically smuggle in "operate" by using the term "co-operate".

"must" do something, that's ambiguous. Conventionally, you're interpreting that as a compulsion -- that in order to be saved, you are required to perform some work. However, it's clear there's another way -- that if you believe, then it logically follows that you must be functioning a certain way. The phrase is ambiguous, so I rejected it.

Faith leads to willing cooperation; but it's not willing cooperation that saves; it's only faith that saves.

He responded: That cooperation is your ongoing faith. That is what saves you, not the merit of the work that faith accomplishes.

cooperation is operation. Faith isn't works: didn't you catch that, in James, or Paul, or Peter? One isn't the other. Faith leads to works.

But it's the faith that saves, not the works.

His response was concerning "That cooperation" of "ongoing faith" and "that is what saves you". This is what I responded to in my last post. How is this an equivocation?

No, cooperation does not save you. The faith that brings about willing cooperation, that saves you.

So do I. I think it's quite clear you are describing something a person MUST DO in order to be saved, he must RESPOND. How is this different from an adult ACCEPTING baptism or responding to the calling of God to give to the poor, for example? These (and other ACTS) are responses of the will too, right? What's the difference?

I'll say it again -- you aren't functioning with your will in accepting baptism as an infant. In fact any resistance you put up as an infant would likely be laughed-at by the one actually DOING the baptism: the minister. If this saves you, then forced conversion could save you; forced baptism could save you; forcible repentance could save you.

Baptism isn't something you do. Baptism is something done to you.

None of these ACTS saves. It is actually REST that saves, according to Apostolic teaching.

So, then it would be pure Grace. I believe that infant baptism is the NORMATIVE way of salvation. The infant does NOTHING to merit this Grace and he is saved from the moment he is baptized.

Well, first you said it's a work, and now you're saying it's not a work. I'll conclude you're not catching the point of work in a work-for-wages system, under which indeed, the child is not working in baptism for a wage of salvation. So baptism is not a work.

Compare this to the "faith alone" doctrine, which REQUIRES a person to DO something in order to MERIT salvation. If the person "accepts" or "responds" or "trusts in the blood of Christ" or however you want to put it, he is then saved. If he doesn't "respond" or, as Jethro put it continue in "ongoing faith", he is damned. Which way seems closer to "works" salvation to you?

No, that's a serious twisting of the doctrine.

God ... freely justifies; not ... by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God. Westminster Confession, 11.1

Got it? It's not what you're asserting it is.

 

[heymikey80]

Earnest T Bass has hit the nail on the head.

If you steal the man's horse and repent for stealing it and do not return it, it is a slap in our Lord's face.

If you have sold the horse, killed the horse, eatin the horse, or whatever the case may be. Where it is physically not possible to return the horse, then you should buy him a new one, or work off the funds to do so.....and for good measure get him 2 horses, so he knows you are sincere in your repentance.

Thinking any other way is just nonsense. It really is simple. Good Grief.

Right. It's the turning, not the restitution and restoration, that absolves you in God's eyes. Say you didn't repent from the heart, but you just got caught. You restored the horse and cheerfully handed it over, saying the right words, but without a change of will. You think God accepts that work? Well, no.

The question involves: What is in your heart? If you really repented, then you've turned against your sin. But it's not the works that save; it's just the works that follow.

 

[cleanfreak]

Right. It's the turning, not the restitution and restoration, that absolves you in God's eyes. Say you didn't repent from the heart, but you just got caught. You restored the horse and cheerfully handed it over, saying the right words, but without a change of will. You think God accepts that work? Well, no.

The question involves: What is in your heart? If you really repented, then you've turned against your sin. But it's not the works that save; it's just the works that follow.

 

[dadof10]

No, I've rejected, "You first do something in order to be saved." Your statement is equivocal, to wit:

The submission to God in faith is to rest, says Hebrews 4 -- so there's an attempt to linguistically smuggle in "operate" by using the term "co-operate".

"must" do something, that's ambiguous. Conventionally, you're interpreting that as a compulsion -- that in order to be saved, you are required to perform some work. However, it's clear there's another way -- that if you believe, then it logically follows that you must be functioning a certain way. The phrase is ambiguous, so I rejected it.

I know you're rejecting it. My point is I was not using the fallacy of equivocation, which I thought you were accusing me of.

Faith leads to willing cooperation; but it's not willing cooperation that saves; it's only faith that saves.

You probably have not read many of my posts, I know I only have time to read the posts addressed to me. I believe when Paul uses the word "works" he means "works of the law", specifically circumcision. You have to prove that when he uses the word, he is referring to EVERYTHING DONE or the doctrine of "it's only faith that saves" is not Biblical. Can you prove that?

cooperation is operation. Faith isn't works: didn't you catch that, in James, or Paul, or Peter? One isn't the other. Faith leads to works.

I'll tell you what, Heymikey08, I won't speak condescendingly toward you, and you don't do it to me, deal? I'll assume you have not read all my posts in this thread, so don't know that I believe that faith is NOT a work. I don't believe baptism is a "work", neither are keeping the commandments or charity or sacrifice. These things are specifically called salvific in Scripture. Again, "works" to Paul are only "works of the law". I am making the point that IF a person believes that Paul's meaning is "all behavior" or "everything done", then that definition MUST include the ACT of "trusting in the blood of Christ" or "accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" or however you want to phrase it. To "HAVE FAITH' is, by definition, an act of the will, so to someone who believes that by "works" Paul means "all actions", this would logically include faith.

Therefore, and this is my main point, Paul doesn't mean "all actions or behaviors" by the word "works" only "works of the law".

No, cooperation does not save you. The faith that brings about willing cooperation, that saves you.

Yes, faith does save. Without faith our good deeds are worthless. Everything done, must be done "in faith" or it doesn't affect our salvation. That's why Paul can say he "is saved", because it is faith that makes his deeds salvific. He also says he "is BEING saved" and tells the Philippians to "work out their salvation", which assumes cooperation with Grace.

I'll say it again -- you aren't functioning with your will in accepting baptism as an infant. In fact any resistance you put up as an infant would likely be laughed-at by the one actually DOING the baptism: the minister. If this saves you, then forced conversion could save you; forced baptism could save you; forcible repentance could save you.

I never claimed that the infant was "functioning in his will". I'm only using baptism as an example of salvation by Grace ALONE as opposed to salvation by "accepting" or "trusting", which ARE ACTS OF THE WILL and, therefore "works", if you believe Paul means "all acts". As I said above, you believe we must DO something (not resist, accept) in order to be saved. I'll ask again, which way seems closer to "works" salvation and which seems closer to salvation by pure Grace?

As circumcision was entrance into the old Covenant, baptism is entrance into the new. Baptism supplanted circumcision Is the GIFT of faith a Grace? Do you believe we EARN it? I'm going to guess "no". This is the same concept as baptism. God freely gives faith, God freely gives baptism. You clearly believe we must "accept" this Gift of faith or we are not saved. Is this "accepting" an act of the will? Is it then a "work"?

Baptism isn't something you do. Baptism is something done to you.

So it can't possibly save? Again, you are making the case for (in your opinion) "works salvation".

None of these ACTS saves. It is actually REST that saves, according to Apostolic teaching.

Do you mean "His rest" in Heb. 4? This seems to be referring primarily to the afterlife. "Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it." I'll wait for your response to comment.

Well, first you said it's a work, and now you're saying it's not a work. I'll conclude you're not catching the point of work in a work-for-wages system, under which indeed, the child is not working in baptism for a wage of salvation. So baptism is not a work.

I explained this above. Baptism is not a "work", neither is faith, keeping the commandments, etc. "Works" means "works of the law".

I said:

Compare this to the "faith alone" doctrine, which REQUIRES a person to DO something in order to MERIT salvation. If the person "accepts" or "responds" or "trusts in the blood of Christ" or however you want to put it, he is then saved. If he doesn't "respond" or, as Jethro put it continue in "ongoing faith", he is damned. Which way seems closer to "works" salvation to you?

To which you replied:

No, that's a serious twisting of the doctrine.

God ... freely justifies; not ... by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God. Westminster Confession, 11.1

I agree that salvation is by GRACE ALONE. My only question is why does this "gift of God" is limited to ONLY faith? Could this concept of "Grace alone" be broadened to include other things that ostensibly "must be done" in order to be saved? We MUST accept God's gift of faith IN ORDER to be saved, right? The Confession states that, basically (and I don't want to get accused of "equivocation"), even our acceptance is a "gift from God", right? We (Catholics) believe that both "the will to work and the work itself" are Graces, as do you (I think). The only difference is that this Grace is applied to ALL our actions (baptism, commandment keeping, prayer, charity), not faith alone.

 

[farouk]

I guess it's about whether doing religious observances can be regarded as earning merit with God.

The answer of Paul (who himself had been super-religious) is a resounding 'no'. It's all of grace, Ephesians 2, 8 - 9.

 

[cleanfreak]

I guess it's about whether doing religious observances can be regarded as earning merit with God.

The answer of Paul (who himself had been super-religious) is a resounding 'no'. It's all of grace, Ephesians 2, 8 - 9.

methinks the book of James mentions something about faith without works is dead

I wonder why?

 

[farouk]

methinks the book of James mentions something about faith without works is dead

I wonder why?

...because faith that is not followed by works isn't true faith at all. But works don't earn merit with God for salvation.

 

[cleanfreak]

...because faith that is not followed by works isn't true faith at all.

+1

But works don't earn merit with God for salvation.

I never said it did.

 

[dadof10]

I guess it's about whether doing religious observances can be regarded as earning merit with God.

The answer of Paul (who himself had been super-religious) is a resounding 'no'. It's all of grace, Ephesians 2, 8 - 9.

Right. Do you think that Grace comes through faith ALONE, or that there are other salvific channels of Grace?

 

[dadof10]

methinks the book of James mentions something about faith without works is dead

I wonder why?

Because, as it says, we are "not justified by faith alone, but by works".

 

[farouk]

Right. Do you think that Grace comes through faith ALONE, or that there are other salvific channels of Grace?

'By grace...through faith...not of works' means what it says. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbols, not means to achieve merit with God.

 

[dadof10]

'By grace...through faith...not of works' means what it says.

Yes, it does. It means we are saved by Grace through faith, not by works OF THE LAW. This verse doesn't speak to the topic of baptism, charity or any other good deeds.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbols,

Chapter and verse, please. I believe Scripture when it says "baptism, which now SAVES YOU".

not means to achieve merit with God.

Again, never said it does.