The Work of Repentance Versus Faith Only

[Danus]

You couldn't guess how many times the charge of "cop-out" has been leveled at me when I say we must DO to be saved, yet it's God that DOES through us, and the exact marriage of the two is a mystery. See, we aren't as far apart as you would think. We only barely touched on purgatory and predestination, though.

Well, I'd say yes, we have some agreement in terms of the nature of God, the Christian life, and maybe even salvation, but maybe not. Just depends on condition of your heart and mine, not what church we attend, or so much on things like purgatory or praying to saints.

I've found that It's not all together true to identify people by denomination or affiliation, because while such labels might suggest a basis for a persons belief in theological construct, it does not tell anyone if someone if saved or not, or if someone even understands the bible or not.

So, I can say I'm a reformed Protestant, and make a public profession of faith, but that proves nothing. Take away that title and insert any other denomination or church affiliation, and the same thing applies. All such things tell us is where someone is coming from traditionally.

There are Catholics and Protestants who say they love God and are Christian, but who have no roots in the faith at all, and yet others with those labels have deep roots.

However, traditionally it can be said that the Catholic church teaches infused righteousness, but is that totally correct? NO. Not at all, and I'd be wrong to say that. While there are clearly traditional published teachings of such as of the 1500's and some of that spills over today, it is not all together true in practice, but the same can be said for Protestants inversely.

The Protestant reformation is credited with putting bibles in the hands of the masses. Setting the gospel free, in any language. We are supposed to be the ones who trust God only, and do not teach that salvation is of us in anyway, but that's not altogether true either when you dig into some of the teaching you find from the pulpits in the many denominations under the Protestant banner, or talk to some of us.

Then we see all these other so called churches; these fringe groups who broke out from traditional Protestants, and these pop-Christians churches, who fill stadiums and are popular on TV, with their self help books and CD's. Then we see heretical churches like LDS and Mormons, and other cultic groups who are too numerous to name, who are simply practicing religion under the Christian banner. I'm not even going to touch all the other religions not under the Christian banner.

But the bottom line, regardless of denomination, or church affiliation, the question is do we trust ourselves or do we trust Christ.

It's one of the other; because if we trust ourselves then the word of God can be anything we want to make it, and we can place whatever interpretation we want to it. A good example are atheist. They trust themselves and look at how many of them interpret the bible. But if we trust God, then we accept his word for what it is, and we understand it as it is revealed to us to be understood for what it is. Each does this to their level of ability, but the truth of it all is given to each by God so that anyone can see it, regardless of their ability.

The difference, in trusting ourselves vs trusting God, is found in the definitions of Infused Righteousness vs Imputed Righteousness. People calling themselves Christians are one or the other, regardless of what "church" they belong to, and regardless of what a church traditionally teaches.

Infused righteousness says Christ opened a doorway (so to speak) that allows us to be perfect like him, so by what is righteous, holly and good, becomes something we do in practice. These people will tend to use the Bible in bits an pieces like a rule book of do's and don't's designed to guide them in modifying their behavior in order to conform to Christ. In this way, they see the gospel as an improvement of the old nature, but still living firmly in a corrupt nature they wish to change into a righteous nature.

Is this salvation? well, theologically speaking it's not totally indicative of ones salvation or not. the bible points to conditions in action and behavior of the Christan, but it does not say this in terms of salvation indicative of it, and so could be either. But Imputed righteousness is totally indicative on ones salvation and the bible clearly says so.

Imputed righteousness teaches that the perfection of Christ is credited to the believer, so by what is righteous, holly and good, is given to us on behalf of us from the source by grace, mercy and love. In this way the believer by the gift of faith is given a new nature on his behalf. He still possesses the old nature, but yields to the new. Kind of like you holding a pencil drawing a picture, but Christ taking your hand and making the motions, which over time your motions become in unison, even though it's your old hand.

Infused righteousness produces works from the will of the believer on behalf of God; Where as Imputed righteousness produces works from the will of God on behalf of the believer. Both are on display for the unsaved world, and both will be judged accordingly.

Those who accept infused righteousness, either do so knowingly or out of ignorance, but if knowingly they will totally discount imputation. Many who accept Imputed righteousness will do so and lean towards infusion out of guilt and distrust,falling back on their own efforts in this way yet still saying God does it all. You can't have both and that's something people who find themselves lacking faith have a hard time with, and so they place their faith in faith.

This thread is somewhat unknowingly disguised, but unlike other threads of this nature speaking against reformed theology, this one is pretty honest.

 

[rrowell]

Well, I'd say yes, we have some agreement in terms of the nature of God, the Christian life, and maybe even salvation, but maybe not. Just depends on condition of your heart and mine, not what church we attend, or so much on things like purgatory or praying to saints.

There is much in your post that I would love to address "purgatory or praying to the saints" is one of them, but it is off topic in this thread; but I would be glad to start another thread if you (or anyone else) would be willing to try to provide biblical proof of the above quoted subject.

 

[WIP]

But returning the stolen goods is a work.

Is it really? It surely is doing something but is it work? I enjoy fishing as a pasttime hobby. To me it is not a work although it is doing something. There are those that do this something for a living and to them I suspect it is no longer just a hobby they enjoy but a work they sometimes dread.

 

[rrowell]

Is it really? It surely is doing something but is it work? I enjoy fishing as a pasttime hobby. To me it is not a work although it is doing something. There are those that do this something for a living and to them I suspect it is no longer just a hobby they enjoy but a work they sometimes dread.

Actually I believe Jesus considers fishing a work :

Mark 1:17 (KJV)
17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Is it really? It surely is doing something but is it work? I enjoy fishing as a pasttime hobby. To me it is not a work although it is doing something. There are those that do this something for a living and to them I suspect it is no longer just a hobby they enjoy but a work they sometimes dread.

Yes, it is doing something, it is a work. The stolen goods will not get back to its rightful owner if I just sat and did nothing.

Some think faith only saves but sometimes I wonder if they really believe that or understand what being saved by faith only really means. Many times have I seen someone say people are saved by faith only but then they say one needs to do something like say a 'sinner's prayer' or some such thing and self-refute their whole point, (if there is such a word as self-refute)


Repentance, which requires reparation/restitution, is a work.

Mt 12:41 "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here."

The people of Nineveh repented:


Jonah 3:7-10 " And he caused [it] to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that [is] in their hands. Who can tell [if] God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned (repented) from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did [it] not."

 

[Danus]

There is much in your post that I would love to address "purgatory or praying to the saints" is one of them, but it is off topic in this thread; but I would be glad to start another thread if you (or anyone else) would be willing to try to provide biblical proof of the above quoted subject.

I think they are fantastic subjects to talk about, but I don't think the owners of this forum would like it much. Might want to check with one of the moderators to see, or see how best to approach it.

However, I've seen it brought up in broader discussions, kind of like this one. I'd suggest firmly framing it around the topic of salvation. We've had some pretty informative Catholics on this site to explain these teachings, but prepare for bitterness and mud-verse slinging.

What often happens in these discussions is people want to validate what they hold true. This is only natural. Rarely have I seen a good exchange in the A&T section of this forum, or on the street, but there have been some where both side present each view, or their own view without attacking the other just outright by flat out saying the other is totally false.

The worst threads are the ones who try to make a round about point by doing something I term "taking people down a rabbit hole" as if to say; "check this out" then clubbing them over the head when they look down there. nest thing you know people get into verbal shoot outs that make no sense.

To me, members who do that deserve to be verbally attacked for their efforts. I've drawn my own sword on many before. In any case those type of threads usualy get locked down.

The best threads in the A&T state the argument clearly upfront so there is no confusion on what's being talked about, and invite others to argue it. That's admirable, respectful and fair. Usually those thread hold up pretty well.

 

[farouk]

Interesting that Ephesians 2 says, immediately after 'not of works'; 'for we are His workmanship ...(etc.)'. God's purpose is that we should do good works to honor the Lord Jesus, although we depend entirely on Him for salvation.

 

[rrowell]

I think they are fantastic subjects to talk about, but I don't think the owners of this forum would like it much. Might want to check with one of the moderators to see, or see how best to approach it.

However, I've seen it brought up in broader discussions, kind of like this one. I'd suggest firmly framing it around the topic of salvation. We've had some pretty informative Catholics on this site to explain these teachings, but prepare for bitterness and mud-verse slinging.

I get the hint, apparently this forum is owned by someone of the Catholic Faith, and that is fine, I don't intend nor do I wish to "bash" anybody's faith, I only (like we all should do) search continually for the truth, there is ONLY one church:

1 Corinthians 12:12-26 (KJV)
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

Therefore some of us have to be right, and some of us are not, and there are many that think they will make it because they THINK they are doing it right, there is no doubt as many have seen and by my posts I am of the C.O.C (Church of Christ), and this following quote from the bible applies not only to all other faiths but to those of the C.O.C as also there are some in the C.O.C that may also not be doing it right, we are all (all men) held to the same standards the bible lays out:


Matthew 7:22-23 (KJV)
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


There is no good that comes from "Mud Slinging", if we stick to the Bible, and the Bible ONLY, there is no mud to sling.

What often happens in these discussions is people want to validate what they hold true. This is only natural. Rarely have I seen a good exchange in the A&T section of this forum, or on the street, but there have been some where both side present each view, or their own view without attacking the other just outright by flat out saying the other is totally false.

The worst threads are the ones who try to make a round about point by doing something I term "taking people down a rabbit hole" as if to say; "check this out" then clubbing them over the head when they look down there. nest thing you know people get into verbal shoot outs that make no sense.

To me, members who do that deserve to be verbally attacked for their efforts. I've drawn my own sword on many before. In any case those type of threads usualy get locked down.

It is a natural thing when one has been taught something all of their life, and at some place a point is made that something they have believed all of their life cannot be shown biblical they become defensive and angry... this is understandable and inevitable but we must not stray from the truth.

Your honesty in your post is admirable, I respect you for that, and I pray nobody gets "kicked off" of any forum for quoting the bible, but no matter what they believe, as a person they deserve respect, as they are our brothers and sisters (although I believe some are erring brothers and sisters) in Christ and our duty as Christians is to bring unity to all.

The best threads in the A&T state the argument clearly upfront so there is no confusion on what's being talked about, and invite others to argue it. That's admirable, respectful and fair. Usually those thread hold up pretty well.

AMEN!

 

[Danus]

I get the hint, apparently this forum is owned by someone of the Catholic Faith, and that is fine, I don't intend nor do I wish to "bash" anybody's faith, I only (like we all should do) search continually for the truth, there is ONLY one church

.........................Therefore some of us have to be right, and some of us are not, and there are many that think they will make it because they THINK they are doing it right, there is no doubt as many have seen and by my posts I am of the C.O.C (Church of Christ), and this following quote from the bible applies not only to all other faiths but to those of the C.O.C as also there are some in the C.O.C that may also not be doing it right, we are all (all men) held to the same standards the bible lays out:

As far as I know this is not a Catholic run site, but there are some rules I think they have established in regard to "Catholic bashing" That's my term, not theirs. Here is where I've seen it "Terms of Service #3 Discussion of Catholic doctrine will be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. Do not start new topics or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is Catholic in nature."

That's pretty broad and it makes it difficult to even be talking about what we are talking about, but I don't think there has been much trouble that I've seen.

I suspected you might be coming from a Church of Christ position, but I was not sure. Thanks for sharing that. It does help establish a foundation for belief and helps me understand you better. So I would not say you possess a works based faith for say, but I might say you are grounded in infused righteousness theology on many levels.

Here is what I understand to be the bases of salvation for the CoC, and I'll add scriptural references.
To come to Christ you taught and hear the word (Romans 10:17, Matthew 7:24);
You must believe in faith what's been taught (Hebrews 11:6, Mark 16:15–16);
You must repent, turning from former ways and choosing God's ways (Acts 2:38, Acts 17:30, Luke 13:3);
Must confess a belief that Jesus is the son of God (Matthew 10:32–33; Acts 8:36–37);
Must be baptized, in full submersion only for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 1Peter 3:20–21; Romans 6:3–5; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16); and, must remain faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10).

This is about as far as I can discuss the COC, because there are divisions in the COC movement starting about 1960's that I can't really speak on for lack of knowledge, or concern on my part, but basically we could argue these points until the cows come home and in the end I will still be a Reformed Protestant and I'll accept you want to be COC. I have no issue with your belief system much.

You may have heard this; "in essentials unity, in nonessential liberty, and in all things charity." Take for example our discussion on being born sinners vs being without sin until the age of accountability. That's not essential. Your understanding allows your reconciliation with the issue. My understanding, also allows reconciliation with the issue. so, I offer you liberty in your understanding.

If you said to me that there is no God, well I'd offer you charity and the word. but, that's just an example for definition.

This section of the forum rarely works well as an exchange, and I think that's because many are searching for validation, and this is a cautious place to do that.

It's about like trying to see if one is strong and picking a fight in a biker bar. However, anyone here should ask themselves; "How important is it that others believe as I believe?" That would be a good title for a thread right there.

From our discussion so far I see that it is important that you feel correct, or it seems that way, You've mentioned someone is right and someone is wrong. I fully get that. It could be for a variety of reasons, and the vast majority of folks here feel similar.

I take particular interest in subjects of salvation. I find that fascinating and I focused my studies there for much of the first half of my walk with God. I'm 21 years into a relationship with God. I grew up in the Methodist church, but I'm well versed in the Catholic church. While many might see the Methodist church as a reformed protestant church, I'd disagree slightly on some points there.

My understanding of God does not connect fully with any church teaching, but the closest would be Presbyterian. I came to be saved by God outside the church and in my own study I've found particular connection with Luther, Calvin, Edwards and and the list goes on.

So, as you can see, I'd probably not be allowed to attend your church. (That's just a friendly joke)

I'm not capable of changing my theological views. I can tell you right now. I'm destined to die a reformed protestant. Could not change that even if I wanted to (That's kind of another joke, but an inside one)

I can answer questions about reformed theology, if you have them, and I can give you the opposing points, on some stuff If you want. I've seen quite a bit of misinformation about reformation theology posted here in the A&T and I try to clean that up when I can, but it depends on how messy the post are.

If you want to start a thread on one of the topics I suggested or something similar, I'll make point to contribute there.

Blessings.

 

[dadof10]

Well, I'd say yes, we have some agreement in terms of the nature of God, the Christian life, and maybe even salvation, but maybe not. Just depends on condition of your heart and mine, not what church we attend, or so much on things like purgatory or praying to saints.

I've found that It's not all together true to identify people by denomination or affiliation, because while such labels might suggest a basis for a persons belief in theological construct, it does not tell anyone if someone if saved or not, or if someone even understands the bible or not.

So, I can say I'm a reformed Protestant, and make a public profession of faith, but that proves nothing. Take away that title and insert any other denomination or church affiliation, and the same thing applies. All such things tell us is where someone is coming from traditionally.

There are Catholics and Protestants who say they love God and are Christian, but who have no roots in the faith at all, and yet others with those labels have deep roots.

However, traditionally it can be said that the Catholic church teaches infused righteousness, but is that totally correct? NO. Not at all, and I'd be wrong to say that. While there are clearly traditional published teachings of such as of the 1500's and some of that spills over today, it is not all together true in practice, but the same can be said for Protestants inversely.

The Protestant reformation is credited with putting bibles in the hands of the masses. Setting the gospel free, in any language. We are supposed to be the ones who trust God only, and do not teach that salvation is of us in anyway, but that's not altogether true either when you dig into some of the teaching you find from the pulpits in the many denominations under the Protestant banner, or talk to some of us.

Then we see all these other so called churches; these fringe groups who broke out from traditional Protestants, and these pop-Christians churches, who fill stadiums and are popular on TV, with their self help books and CD's. Then we see heretical churches like LDS and Mormons, and other cultic groups who are too numerous to name, who are simply practicing religion under the Christian banner. I'm not even going to touch all the other religions not under the Christian banner.

But the bottom line, regardless of denomination, or church affiliation, the question is do we trust ourselves or do we trust Christ.

It's one of the other; because if we trust ourselves then the word of God can be anything we want to make it, and we can place whatever interpretation we want to it. A good example are atheist. They trust themselves and look at how many of them interpret the bible. But if we trust God, then we accept his word for what it is, and we understand it as it is revealed to us to be understood for what it is. Each does this to their level of ability, but the truth of it all is given to each by God so that anyone can see it, regardless of their ability.

The difference, in trusting ourselves vs trusting God, is found in the definitions of Infused Righteousness vs Imputed Righteousness. People calling themselves Christians are one or the other, regardless of what "church" they belong to, and regardless of what a church traditionally teaches.

Infused righteousness says Christ opened a doorway (so to speak) that allows us to be perfect like him, so by what is righteous, holly and good, becomes something we do in practice. These people will tend to use the Bible in bits an pieces like a rule book of do's and don't's designed to guide them in modifying their behavior in order to conform to Christ. In this way, they see the gospel as an improvement of the old nature, but still living firmly in a corrupt nature they wish to change into a righteous nature.

Is this salvation? well, theologically speaking it's not totally indicative of ones salvation or not. the bible points to conditions in action and behavior of the Christan, but it does not say this in terms of salvation indicative of it, and so could be either. But Imputed righteousness is totally indicative on ones salvation and the bible clearly says so.

Imputed righteousness teaches that the perfection of Christ is credited to the believer, so by what is righteous, holly and good, is given to us on behalf of us from the source by grace, mercy and love. In this way the believer by the gift of faith is given a new nature on his behalf. He still possesses the old nature, but yields to the new. Kind of like you holding a pencil drawing a picture, but Christ taking your hand and making the motions, which over time your motions become in unison, even though it's your old hand.

Infused righteousness produces works from the will of the believer on behalf of God; Where as Imputed righteousness produces works from the will of God on behalf of the believer. Both are on display for the unsaved world, and both will be judged accordingly.

Those who accept infused righteousness, either do so knowingly or out of ignorance, but if knowingly they will totally discount imputation. Many who accept Imputed righteousness will do so and lean towards infusion out of guilt and distrust,falling back on their own efforts in this way yet still saying God does it all. You can't have both and that's something people who find themselves lacking faith have a hard time with, and so they place their faith in faith.

This thread is somewhat unknowingly disguised, but unlike other threads of this nature speaking against reformed theology, this one is pretty honest.

I understand the differences between infused and imputed righteousness. I don't think I'm being clear enough.

You believe that God chooses you to be saved. As a sign of this choosing He gives you the gift of faith, which you MUST cooperate with. As you rightly said, it's not up to us to know how much our cooperation with Grace effects our salvation, we just know it does and it's necessary.

My question is, why is cooperation with the gift of faith necessary and salvific, yet cooperation with the gift of baptism is not? Both take an act of the will. Why is baptism considered a "work", yet faith not? It seems inconsistent.

 

[Danus]

I understand the differences between infused and imputed righteousness. I don't think I'm being clear enough.

You believe that God chooses you to be saved. As a sign of this choosing He gives you the gift of faith, which you MUST cooperate with. As you rightly said, it's not up to us to know how much our cooperation with Grace effects our salvation, we just know it does and it's necessary.

My question is, why is cooperation with the gift of faith necessary and salvific, yet cooperation with the gift of baptism is not? Both take an act of the will. Why is baptism considered a "work", yet faith not? It seems inconsistent.

In R.P.T, there is no choice but to cooperate with faith, since faith is intrinsic in it's own value. That is to say it exist wholly within itself, or of itself. faith is recognized as something that did not exist before, but now does. It is self evident to the born again, as a real tangible thing. That's the faith of imputation. It's there, you feel it, recognize it as something added to your essence of being and actively does something to you to cause as a real catalysis of true conversion and change. Like a drug, and like a drug, once it's in you, you've not choice in that.

The difference in faith of in infusion is that, that faith is a mustered up faith. As if to say; "I believe, I believe, I believe", or a belief to believe for the sake of believing, or faith in ones faith. because this type of faith is something developed BY the believer, it is then a work of the believer, and not necessarily God.

Now we are getting into something that can cause some hurt feelings. I'm not going to sit here and say that someone of any other denomination or church affiliation does not have faith because they belong to a group of some sort, or interpret some bible verses differently. So, please note, I'm not saying that.

But, as you can see, that faith being what it is as I described it, is not a work of the individual. It came from some place, but not from the will of any person, rather the will of God onto that person. The other faith (faith in faith) is said to come from the individual by their own cognition: The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought

As for baptism, RPT does not require it for salvation, but rather something done as a public expression OF salvation. Should one be baptized? yes. It's important, but not necessary for salvation.

What I've described is Reformed Protestant Theology in it's classic sense on the matter of baptism, but as I mentioned, you'll find Christians proclaiming RPT who will say otherwise, but they are not speaking from RPT, just their own feeling on the matter, for any number of reasons. What I've described about faith is pure RPT, but I've found it expressed by many Catholics, as well. It does not belong solely to Protestants.

 

[dadof10]

In R.P.T, there is no choice but to cooperate with faith, since faith is intrinsic in it's own value. That is to say it exist wholly within itself, or of itself. faith is recognized as something that did not exist before, but now does. It is self evident to the born again, as a real tangible thing. That's the faith of imputation. It's there, you feel it, recognize it as something added to your essence of being and actively does something to you to cause as a real catalysis of true conversion and change. Like a drug, and like a drug, once it's in you, you've not choice in that.

OK, well now I'm confused. The above is classic Reformed Theology, but what you said earlier sounded different, like it was necessary to COOPERATE with the faith given to us by God.

"I would alter the idea that faith alone saves to say that only God saves anyone. Our faith in God is also a gift to us from God. So, for me, God gives us a measure of faith, we respond to God, we are saved in that."

Do you mean we are FORCED BY GOD to respond? If so, WE don't respond, do we?

The difference in faith of in infusion is that, that faith is a mustered up faith. As if to say; "I believe, I believe, I believe", or a belief to believe for the sake of believing, or faith in ones faith. because this type of faith is something developed BY the believer, it is then a work of the believer, and not necessarily God.

I see it more as cooperating with the Grace given, whether the Grace is faith, baptism, the will to do charitable works, etc.

Now we are getting into something that can cause some hurt feelings. I'm not going to sit here and say that someone of any other denomination or church affiliation does not have faith because they belong to a group of some sort, or interpret some bible verses differently. So, please note, I'm not saying that.

But, as you can see, that faith being what it is as I described it, is not a work of the individual. It came from some place, but not from the will of any person, rather the will of God onto that person. The other faith (faith in faith) is said to come from the individual by their own cognition: The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought

The "mental action" is called cooperating, or as you put it above, "respond[ing] to God". To respond to anything takes some kind of action.

As for baptism, RPT does not require it for salvation, but rather something done as a public expression OF salvation. Should one be baptized? yes. It's important, but not necessary for salvation.

I know. I'm simply asking for an explanation of how responding to faith is NOT a "work", yet responding to other things the Bible says "saves", are "works". As I said above, it seems inconsistent.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

isn't "going swimming" the same as "doing things"

No.

Faith in Christ is not a behavior. It can be seen in one's behavior (and should be!), but faith is not a behavior.

...you see, every point once saved always saved makes...

I hope you're not referring to me. Because I'm not OSAS.

...always leads to contradiction either in what they say, or what they quote from the Bible...

Well, since I'm not OSAS, this doesn't apply to me then.

 

[Danus]

OK, well now I'm confused. The above is classic Reformed Theology, but what you said earlier sounded different, like it was necessary to COOPERATE with the faith given to us by God.

"I would alter the idea that faith alone saves to say that only God saves anyone. Our faith in God is also a gift to us from God. So, for me, God gives us a measure of faith, we respond to God, we are saved in that."

Do you mean we are FORCED BY GOD to respond? If so, WE don't respond, do we?



I see it more as cooperating with the Grace given, whether the Grace is faith, baptism, the will to do charitable works, etc.



The "mental action" is called cooperating, or as you put it above, "respond[ing] to God". To respond to anything takes some kind of action.


I know. I'm simply asking for an explanation of how responding to faith is NOT a "work", yet responding to other things the Bible says "saves", are "works". As I said above, it seems inconsistent.

It can be confusing, but I think I can lay it out better.

All I said was "We respond to God" Your taking it to mean by effort we do this, but I'm describing it by self evident means.

I used an analogy liking faith to a drug where ones response is indicative of the substance.

Does that help?

I understand you see it as a cooperative effort between you and God. The question I used in this way is; "Is it essential for salvation?" Does it matter if someone who is saved see's them self as cooperating with God? I'd say no if someone is saved, but yes if they are not, or thinking they are working towards salvation.

Jim Jones would have said he was doing God's work. Just cooperating with the lord and racking up points for it. He got so good at cooperating with God and earning points that he decided on his own to take on even more of Gods responsibility. He gave full credit to himself for his efforts and a little credit to God for allowing it.

 

[rrowell]

I used an analogy liking faith to a drug where ones response is indicative of the substance.

Does that help?

But don't you have to accept the drug to gain the effect? in like fashion don't you have to accept salvation before you can get the effect?

 

[Danus]

But don't you have to accept the drug to gain the effect? in like fashion don't you have to accept salvation before you can get the effect?

No to the first question. A drug can be given to anyone without their knowledge in a number of ways.

As to the second question, the analogy does not fit anymore because we've gone from describing faith to describing salvation.

If Salvation is BY faith, and faith is BY God, then you have to have faith before you have salvation, and since you can't have salvation without faith and the faith comes from God, then it is God who saves. The credit goes to God.

 

[rrowell]

If Salvation is BY faith, and faith is BY God, then you have to have faith before you have salvation, and since you can't have salvation without faith and the faith comes from God, then it is God who saves. The credit goes to God.

No doubt only God through Jesus does the saving, but if this gift of faith is given by Gods Grace, and salvation is an automatic result of faith, and God is not a respecter of person:

Romans 2:11 KJV
For there is no respect of persons with God.

Then why are not ALL men automatically saved by doing nothing at all? what is it that one man must "do" to be saved, that another has not "done"?

 

[farouk]

The Lord Jesus, as recorded in Mark, said, 'Repent ye and believe the Gospel', and this repentance and faith is something that God does in the heart; it's not a meritorious thing.

 

[rrowell]

The Lord Jesus, as recorded in Mark, said, 'Repent ye and believe the Gospel', and this repentance and faith is something that God does in the heart; it's not a meritorious thing.

Nothing like beating a dead horse, but here goes...

So if believing is all it takes (and God does the rest), then even devils are saved because James said they believe:

James 2:19 KJV
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

But we KNOW that cant be, because in the very next verse he says:

James 2:20 KJV
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

It is works that separates devils from saved men, as both believe...

 

[savedbygrace57]

The Lord Jesus, as recorded in Mark, said, 'Repent ye and believe the Gospel', and this repentance and faith is something that God does in the heart; it's not a meritorious thing.

It becomes meritorious if it is the reason why you get saved and another does not who does not do them !