The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[dadof10]

Good evening dado,

I'll explain my position, but it will be with the knowledge that at the current time, we do not stand on common ground. I don't hate you and I don't think you hate me. We disagree on the basics of the faith. So here's to the old college try.



I think faith is to be differentiated between work. I could use the expression, it is a lot of work to think. Did I do anything. No. I sat in my chair and worked the ideas around in my head.



I believe when a person is saved, one-time sanctification, that person cannot become unsaved. I know there are arguments to the contrary, that's just my position which is a whole separate thread. Now, when it comes to the life long sanctification process where progress is made to be conformed into the image of Jesus, a person can hinder this process. I would say the person will continue to make progress as slow as it might be.


Hebrews 11:1

New King James Version (NKJV)

By Faith We Understand

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.



Faith is being certain of what cannot be seen. The finished work of Jesus on the cross. His acts of obedience throughout His earthly ministry. Faith is evidenced by works. If you want to call belief a work, well, this will remain where we part in agreement. when the people came to Jesus asking what must we do to do the works of God, they would not have considered believing as the work that God requires of them. They were looking for what they could do to be identified as right with God.





I consider being baptized and charitable works unacceptable for justification. The reason being, if we were to count the righteous things we do, then we have to include the unrighteous things we do. This is why God does not accept our sacrifice. He only accepts the sacrifice of Jesus because he kept the law perfectly in letter, and spirit.



I consider the only actions that we can do to save us are nothing. God grants us faith, why? The only thing I can think of is because of His nature and desire to forgive rebellious sinners. The ability He gives us to obey Him is the evidence of the faith granted to us. I do not consider the actions themselves to be the justifying agent, only the faith which was given to us.



That is my position.



It is my faith that after we come to Jesus through repentance and faith, and are justified by His blood and life, we do not try to duplicate the feat of being justified by what we do. When I fail, I sin, but I don't lose my salvation. My salvation has been earned for me by Jesus' life. He was my representative just the same as Adam was my representative in the Garden, Romans 5:19.



The reiteration, saving faith is having the belief in Jesus as the Son of God, who committed no sin, died on the cross, was resurrected on the third day. Also, that if you repent and put your trust in Him, God justifies you, and no one can snatch you from the His hands. Because the sanctification process is life long, and we struggle with sin especially after coming to faith, there is no way our works can be separated between good and bad. Either you count them all towards your justification, or you count none of them. That's why the imputation of Jesus' righteousness is precious.

- Davies

I don't have much time lately, so let me just boil it down. The "faith alone" proponents think when Paul uses the word "works" in his letters and contrasts it with faith, he means EVERYTHING DONE. This definition includes baptism, charitable works and keeping the commandments. If the ACTIONS of baptism, charity, etc. are, in your opinion non-salvific "works", then it's only logical that the ACTION of "having a saving faith" is also a "work" to Paul. It's something that MUST BE DONE in order to be saved, correct? How is this CONCEPT any different that saying we must perform the ACTION of charity or baptism in order to be saved?

My point is, that to Paul, "works" means "works of the law" and not anything else. In these passages, he is not addressing whether baptism or charity is salvific, only that faith is and works of the law is not.

 

[heymikey80]

I don't have much time lately, so let me just boil it down. The "faith alone" proponents think when Paul uses the word "works" in his letters and contrasts it with faith, he means EVERYTHING DONE.

I'm sorry, that's simply not the case. I keep coming back to this. When Paul talks about "works", he's talking about "works" done for an employer. He's saying that model of working for a wage does not apply to salvation.

This definition includes baptism, charitable works and keeping the commandments. If the ACTIONS of baptism, charity, etc. are, in your opinion non-salvific "works", then it's only logical that the ACTION of "having a saving faith" is also a "work" to Paul.

No. It's simple to demonstrate, too. At this time nobody paid wages for your faith. So saving faith is not a work to Paul. I can also demonstrate that this is definitely not what Paul thought: Romans 4:4-5 demonstrates that Paul doesn't consider faith as work -- Paul says "one who does not work, but believes [verb form of 'faith']".

So yes, there is definitely a difference between faith and works.

It's something that MUST BE DONE in order to be saved, correct? How is this CONCEPT any different that saying we must perform the ACTION of charity or baptism in order to be saved?

You see how this initial mistake is projecting into your response, and hitting something left of the side of the barn? When assumptions are made about the opposition, then the conclusion is highly likely to be suspect.

My point is, that to Paul, "works" means "works of the law" and not anything else. In these passages, he is not addressing whether baptism or charity is salvific, only that faith is and works of the law is not.

And there is not one verse that can be drawn to make this case. Quite the opposite, in fact, Paul says that the reason Mosaic law didn't work, is because it was misinterpreted into "works" for wages, not because it happens to be listed in Mosaic Law:

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. Rom 9:30-32

Rom 9:32 says the problem with pursuit by law is that it becomes based on "works" -- whatever Paul means by it. Paul isn't making a circular argument -- Jewish readers would toss it in disgust if he did. He's persuading everyone that the whole problem is this conversion of what God gives us, into some wacky scheme to "work for wages [of salvation]".

Finally, you say that charity is a salvation requirement, but not a "works of law" requirement. But that's not true at all. Jesus Himself quoted the Mosaic Law to "Love the Lord your God" and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." "charity" is the same word here.

(And if you thought by "charity" you were intending almsgiving to the poor, the Mosaic Law includes vast numbers of commands to give (freely, not simply through tithe) to the poor and to aid causes, too.)

So -- it's pretty simple. An injection of the "works of law" idea doesn't fit Paul's use of the term "works". Paul is advocating numerous items in the Mosaic Law -- he's even defending numerous items by quoting the Mosaic Law! (cf Romans 13.)

So what does Paul mean?

We know for a fact that Paul doesn't mean by "works" every lifting of any finger, every motive of every thought, either. Paul advocates "works" in numerous places (often defending them as above!).

What does Paul mean? Paul means that we should not think about these works as being a work for wages. In ethics, how we think, matters. And Paul is clearest in his understanding of "works" in Romans 4.

This understanding and use of the Greek word "works" is very, very common. In employment it permeates the Greek world. Even in religious thought the idea of "doing works" for a god or demigod stands alongside the "worshipper"'s expectation of reward and favor. This even extends to Judaic Pharisaism and Essene texts, where devotees are urged to do things to bring God's favor to Israel and His wrath on wrongdoers.

Paul's saying that's not how salvation works.

 

[dadof10]

I'm sorry, that's simply not the case. I keep coming back to this. When Paul talks about "works", he's talking about "works" done for an employer. He's saying that model of working for a wage does not apply to salvation.

We can go around and around about the "works of the law" passages like you did with Drew, but I would rather move forward. Suppose you are right and all the "faith v. works" passages mean "faith v. a works for wages system". Please tell me how baptism fits into this system. How is a baby "working for wages" when he gets baptized? If he doesn't, then baptism CAN save because it doesn't fit into this system, right?

No. It's simple to demonstrate, too. At this time nobody paid wages for your faith. So saving faith is not a work to Paul. I can also demonstrate that this is definitely not what Paul thought: Romans 4:4-5 demonstrates that Paul doesn't consider faith as work -- Paul says "one who does not work, but believes [verb form of 'faith']".

Again, I agree with you, HAVING A SAVING faith is NOT a "work" and neither is baptism, charity, etc. I am using the ACTION of HAVING faith to demonstrate the inconsistency of your position. To be consistent, you have to show how the ACTION of HAVING faith is TOTALLY different from the action of baptism, for example. You have to show how the ACT of "accepting Jesus" DOESN'T FIT INTO A "WORKS FOR WAGES SYSTEM", yet baptism does. Both are actions that MUST be performed in order to be justified.

So yes, there is definitely a difference between faith and works.

And between works and baptism, charity, keeping the commandments and any other ACTS that Scripture cites as salvfic.

We know for a fact that Paul doesn't mean by "works" every lifting of any finger, every motive of every thought, either. Paul advocates "works" in numerous places (often defending them as above!).

Of course not, and he doesn't mean keeping the commandments, either, which are properly part of the law. Jesus tells the Rich Young Man, that to "enter life" he must keep the commandments, so they obviously aren't part of Paul's "works of the law", which he says doesn't save. I don't know what exact actions Paul is referring to, but it is really off this topic. I have already agreed (for the sake of argument) that Paul means "a works for wages system". Your burden is to prove how baptism falls within this and having a "saving faith" doesn't.

What does Paul mean? Paul means that we should not think about these works as being a work for wages. In ethics, how we think, matters. And Paul is clearest in his understanding of "works" in Romans 4.

Agreed.

So, there are actions that ARE salvific, besides "faith" as long as we don't THINK of them as God owing us.

This understanding and use of the Greek word "works" is very, very common. In employment it permeates the Greek world. Even in religious thought the idea of "doing works" for a god or demigod stands alongside the "worshipper"'s expectation of reward and favor. This even extends to Judaic Pharisaism and Essene texts, where devotees are urged to do things to bring God's favor to Israel and His wrath on wrongdoers.

Paul's saying that's not how salvation works.

And so am I. It's not how baptism works either.

 

[heymikey80]

We can go around and around about the "works of the law" passages like you did with Drew, but I would rather move forward.

... with just the comment that Drew offered one verse, where it was actually very difficult to demonstrate.

For my part I can offer two verses where the phrase "law of works" is stated by Paul -- that is, the reverse.

Suppose you are right and all the "faith v. works" passages mean "faith v. a works for wages system". Please tell me how baptism fits into this system.

I've mentioned it before: water baptism is shallowly modeled as a signature on a contract (a covenant, specifically). The contract is, The one who believes shall be saved.

How is a baby "working for wages" when he gets baptized? If he doesn't, then baptism CAN save because it doesn't fit into this system, right?

You're right that a baby is not working for wages when being baptized -- any more than a baby is not working for wages when being circumcised. The danger of course is that baby grows up and then thinks that their sacrament is enough to save them (cf Rom 4:9,10,12). Instead, the baptism that saves is the answer in good conscience toward God, and not something inherent in the water. 1 Peter 3:21

Again, I agree with you, HAVING A SAVING faith is NOT a "work" and neither is baptism, charity, etc. I am using the ACTION of HAVING faith to demonstrate the inconsistency of your position. To be consistent, you have to show how the ACTION of HAVING faith is TOTALLY different from the action of baptism, for example. You have to show how the ACT of "accepting Jesus" DOESN'T FIT INTO A "WORKS FOR WAGES SYSTEM", yet baptism does. Both are actions that MUST be performed in order to be justified.

Well, actually all I have to do is point out that Peter himself stated the aspect of baptism that is saving: an answer in good conscience before God, not a shower. You understand don't you, that baptism in the early church even extended to martyrdom? It didn't take water. Peter didn't think it was anything about water, but about conscience.

And between works and baptism, charity, keeping the commandments and any other ACTS that Scripture cites as salvfic.

Well, there are very few actions that Scripture unequivocally cites as causes for salvation. There are two other senses that explain these statements. First, more often Scripture characterizes the person being saved as someone who enters into these actions. Dogs bite when frightened and surprised; but I wouldn't call a toddler a dog for biting.

Second, numerous times an Apostle encourages, commends, or commands some Christians in performing certain actions. If they are already Christians, though, these statements would not benefit those they were written to. There would be no need for commands and encouragement if every Christian were already doing so.

Of course not, and he doesn't mean keeping the commandments, either, which are properly part of the law.

Paul does say all these commandments are what is meant by Christian love for one another.

Jesus tells the Rich Young Man, that to "enter life" he must keep the commandments, so they obviously aren't part of Paul's "works of the law", which he says doesn't save.

No, actually, Jesus points to the law and says, "You know the Law.", but then went further "if you really want to be complete ...", and the conversation abruptly ended. The ruler didn't bring the whole thing to a close, he walked away mid-conversation. But Jesus' disciples pressed Him on the matter. Jesus goes on to tell His disciples that God does what's impossible for them to do. If we're looking for consistency with Christ's Apostles, this is a telling pre-echo of Romans 8:1-4, Phil 1:6, Phil 2:13. The end result of this is the work of God in us because of His vow to save, not our work to obtain salvation.

Last I checked God was more powerful than I am, and so the work of God in us "is brought to completion in us" (cf Pp 1:6).

Once again, these actions aren't something that causes salvation, but are actually a result of God's vow to bring us to salvation.

I don't know what exact actions Paul is referring to, but it is really off this topic. I have already agreed (for the sake of argument) that Paul means "a works for wages system". Your burden is to prove how baptism falls within this and having a "saving faith" doesn't.

Why would I burden myself with this idea? There's not really an assertion from the Apostles. The baptismal rite, stripped of intention, which we've both agreed the baby's intent is not an aspect of a baby's rite, the assertion of Scripture does leave us wondering at what point baptism saves. But Peter says what saving baptism is and is not -- it's not the water part of the rite. It's actually the conscience part of the rite, a conscientious response of someone who believes.

So faith is the cause of the baptism that saves (the answer in good conscience toward God). The cause of a cause is itself the prior cause.

 

[dadof10]

I've mentioned it before: water baptism is shallowly modeled as a signature on a contract (a covenant, specifically). The contract is, The one who believes shall be saved.

This is not really a good analogy, unless you hold that without baptism (the signature) faith (the contract) is void. Also, I don't see even a vague hint of this idea in Scripture.

You're right that a baby is not working for wages when being baptized

Then infant baptism doesn't fall within Paul's definition of "works"? It is possible, then, that when Peter says "baptism, which now saves you" he actually means it?

-- any more than a baby is not working for wages when being circumcised.

Paul specifically says that circumcision doesn't save, yet doesn't mention baptism. You can try and draw a total parallel if you want to, but Paul didn't. If Paul meant to include baptism (or anything else) within his definition, he would have done so.

The danger of course is that baby grows up and then thinks that their sacrament is enough to save them (cf Rom 4:9,10,12).

If they are properly catechized, they will be taught that baptism is initial salvation, which can be lost through sin. I don't think anyone actually believes that since they were baptized, they are saved forever no matter what. Do you know anyone who teaches this?

Instead, the baptism that saves is the answer in good conscience toward God, and not something inherent in the water. 1 Peter 3:21

Well, actually all I have to do is point out that Peter himself stated the aspect of baptism that is saving: an answer in good conscience before God, not a shower.

Why would I burden myself with this idea? There's not really an assertion from the Apostles. The baptismal rite, stripped of intention, which we've both agreed the baby's intent is not an aspect of a baby's rite, the assertion of Scripture does leave us wondering at what point baptism saves. But Peter says what saving baptism is and is not -- it's not the water part of the rite. It's actually the conscience part of the rite, a conscientious response of someone who believes.

So faith is the cause of the baptism that saves (the answer in good conscience toward God). The cause of a cause is itself the prior cause.

Huh??? "Saving baptism"? I thought baptism was merely a rite to symbolize that a person was already saved by faith alone? So, the saved person is saved again by the "good conscience" part of the rite?

You understand don't you, that baptism in the early church even extended to martyrdom?

Yes, I understand, thanks. Do you know why the early Church recognized martyrdom to be "saving" and why they called it "BAPTISM by blood"? It's because they recognized that water baptism was NECESSARY for salvation. The early Christians, even though they obviously had faith, still weren't considered "saved" until they accepted baptism. Sometimes the early converts went through an entire year of instruction in the faith before they were baptized. If they were martyred before the rite, they were saved because of their sacrifice. There is also "baptism by desire" which is basically a deathbed conversion, but this is getting pretty far afield.

It didn't take water. Peter didn't think it was anything about water, but about conscience.

Sorry, no.

"...eight persons, were saved through water.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,..."

I don't know how much clearer it could be. Because he says "not as a removal of dirt from the body" doesn't mean "it didn't take water", otherwise he just contradicted the first part OF THE SAME SENTENCE. Peter is simply saying that the analogy he used isn't perfect. The flood cleansed the earth, and the water cleanses the OUTSIDE of the body, but baptism goes deeper because it is how the merits of the resurrection are applied to us.

Well, there are very few actions that Scripture unequivocally cites as causes for salvation.

OK, what are they? If "they" are anything but faith, sola-scriptura is non-Biblical.

There are two other senses that explain these statements. First, more often Scripture characterizes the person being saved as someone who enters into these actions. Dogs bite when frightened and surprised; but I wouldn't call a toddler a dog for biting.

I don't know about how often a person is "characterized" opposed to having the doctrine simply taught. It really doesn't matter because if there is ONE thing other than faith taught in Scripture to be salvific, sola-scriptura fails.

Second, numerous times an Apostle encourages, commends, or commands some Christians in performing certain actions. If they are already Christians, though, these statements would not benefit those they were written to. There would be no need for commands and encouragement if every Christian were already doing so.

I don't see how this bolsters your case. If believers are being "encouraged, commended, or commanded" to perform certain actions, couldn't it be because there is ETERNAL consequences for failing to perform them?

No, actually, Jesus points to the law and says, "You know the Law.", but then went further "if you really want to be complete ...", and the conversation abruptly ended. The ruler didn't bring the whole thing to a close, he walked away mid-conversation.

So what? What was His answer to the question "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" It wasn't "the ONLY thing you must do is have faith in me". It was "Keep the commandments" Would you answer the same way?

But Jesus' disciples pressed Him on the matter. Jesus goes on to tell His disciples that God does what's impossible for them to do. If we're looking for consistency with Christ's Apostles, this is a telling pre-echo of Romans 8:1-4, Phil 1:6, Phil 2:13. The end result of this is the work of God in us because of His vow to save, not our work to obtain salvation.

To get all this from a simple question and answer, shows a tendency toward rationalization to come to a preconceived end.

Now, you STILL haven't explained how HAVING FAITH somehow doesn't fit under the "works for wages system". I have heard from a few people (some on this forum) that when a person has faith, salvation is OWED to that person. This, in my opinion is the very DEFINITION of "works for wages", so it's possible that faith CAN be included in Paul's definition, depending on the persons ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ACT. Do you agree?

This is really my point. Any action can either be salvific or damning (including faith), depending on the motivation or attitude.

Since you seem to agree that infant baptism doesn't fit Paul's "works for wages" definition, let's move on to Christian Charity? If a person gives freely from his want with NO hint of being repaid, either by God or another person, does this act fit under Paul's definition?

 

[BornAgain]

This is not really a good analogy, unless you hold that without baptism (the signature) faith (the contract) is void. Also, I don't see even a vague hint of this idea in Scripture.



Then infant baptism doesn't fall within Paul's definition of "works"? It is possible, then, that when Peter says "baptism, which now saves you" he actually means it?



Paul specifically says that circumcision doesn't save, yet doesn't mention baptism. You can try and draw a total parallel if you want to, but Paul didn't. If Paul meant to include baptism (or anything else) within his definition, he would have done so.



If they are properly catechized, they will be taught that baptism is initial salvation, which can be lost through sin. I don't think anyone actually believes that since they were baptized, they are saved forever no matter what. Do you know anyone who teaches this?



Huh??? "Saving baptism"? I thought baptism was merely a rite to symbolize that a person was already saved by faith alone? So, the saved person is saved again by the "good conscience" part of the rite?



Yes, I understand, thanks. Do you know why the early Church recognized martyrdom to be "saving" and why they called it "BAPTISM by blood"? It's because they recognized that water baptism was NECESSARY for salvation. The early Christians, even though they obviously had faith, still weren't considered "saved" until they accepted baptism. Sometimes the early converts went through an entire year of instruction in the faith before they were baptized. If they were martyred before the rite, they were saved because of their sacrifice. There is also "baptism by desire" which is basically a deathbed conversion, but this is getting pretty far afield.



Sorry, no.

"...eight persons, were saved through water.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,..."

I don't know how much clearer it could be. Because he says "not as a removal of dirt from the body" doesn't mean "it didn't take water", otherwise he just contradicted the first part OF THE SAME SENTENCE. Peter is simply saying that the analogy he used isn't perfect. The flood cleansed the earth, and the water cleanses the OUTSIDE of the body, but baptism goes deeper because it is how the merits of the resurrection are applied to us.



OK, what are they? If "they" are anything but faith, sola-scriptura is non-Biblical.



I don't know about how often a person is "characterized" opposed to having the doctrine simply taught. It really doesn't matter because if there is ONE thing other than faith taught in Scripture to be salvific, sola-scriptura fails.



I don't see how this bolsters your case. If believers are being "encouraged, commended, or commanded" to perform certain actions, couldn't it be because there is ETERNAL consequences for failing to perform them?



So what? What was His answer to the question "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" It wasn't "the ONLY thing you must do is have faith in me". It was "Keep the commandments" Would you answer the same way?



To get all this from a simple question and answer, shows a tendency toward rationalization to come to a preconceived end.

Now, you STILL haven't explained how HAVING FAITH somehow doesn't fit under the "works for wages system". I have heard from a few people (some on this forum) that when a person has faith, salvation is OWED to that person. This, in my opinion is the very DEFINITION of "works for wages", so it's possible that faith CAN be included in Paul's definition, depending on the persons ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ACT. Do you agree?

This is really my point. Any action can either be salvific or damning (including faith), depending on the motivation or attitude.

Since you seem to agree that infant baptism doesn't fit Paul's "works for wages" definition, let's move on to Christian Charity? If a person gives freely from his want with NO hint of being repaid, either by God or another person, does this act fit under Paul's definition?

If infant baptism was scriptural, how can an infant have knowledge "to faith alone" in order to become baptized?

Also, you stated above that, "as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,..."

How can an infant be capable of such understanding?

 

[rrowell]

Why would I burden myself with this idea? There's not really an assertion from the Apostles. The baptismal rite, stripped of intention, which we've both agreed the baby's intent is not an aspect of a baby's rite, the assertion of Scripture does leave us wondering at what point baptism saves. But Peter says what saving baptism is and is not -- it's not the water part of the rite. It's actually the conscience part of the rite, a conscientious response of someone who believes.

So faith is the cause of the baptism that saves (the answer in good conscience toward God). The cause of a cause is itself the prior cause.

How someone can appear to have such intelligence and still be so ignorant is beyond me, one has to work hard at removing everything but "faith only" to make the system work.

If you would work at the Doctrine of Christ like you do the Doctrine of men you would be a great value to the Lord.

"faith only" is used ONLY ONE TIME in the Bible ONE TIME ONLY and it says EXACTLY the opposite of what you teach:

James 2:24 (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


the (to quote you) "answer in good conscience toward God" simply means that like "faith only" will not save you, neither will just getting wet!


If you would READ your Bible you would clearly see that you first must "hear the gospel", "believe the gospel", "repent of your sinful ways", and "confess Christ is the son of God before men" and THEN AND ONLY THEN "IN GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARD GOD" WATER BAPTISM SAVES.

A Baby CANNOT "hear the gospel", or old enough to "believe" the gospel, not yet understand that "Christ is the Son of God" therefore not in good conscience a baby just gets wet!

Throw out your man made doctrine and work for the Lord like you do the who ever that wrote the garbage you go by!

 

[Davies]

Hello heymikey80,

"Throw out your man made doctrine and work for the Lord like you do the who ever that wrote the garbage you go by!"

I think rrowell was loving you in a 'special' way. His concern for your well being speaks volumes.

Ephesians 6:12

New King James Version (NKJV)

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.


- Davies

 

[heymikey80]

This is not really a good analogy, unless you hold that without baptism (the signature) faith (the contract) is void. Also, I don't see even a vague hint of this idea in Scripture.

Why should I? There's not even a vague hint that the baptismal rite is necessary to salvation.

The idea that there isn't a vague hint of this idea in Scripture is kinda shallow, don't you think? I mean, the Lord's Supper is a sacrament, and it is remarkably covenantal. Are you claiming the sacrament of baptism isn't a sacrament along the same lines? And other initiatory sacraments are also highly covenantal.

So your argument against baptism being covenantal is of equal force against baptism being a sacrament.

Then infant baptism doesn't fall within Paul's definition of "works"? It is possible, then, that when Peter says "baptism, which now saves you" he actually means it?

That baptism is -- as Peter explicitly said -- "the answer in good conscience toward God." In fact Peter also said it is definitely not the rite -- "not the washing of dirt from the body".

On that basis, baptism saves. But on that basis, baptism is a conscientious answer -- an answer to a question. So tell me, what is the baptismal vow all about in baptism?

Paul specifically says that circumcision doesn't save, yet doesn't mention baptism. You can try and draw a total parallel if you want to, but Paul didn't. If Paul meant to include baptism (or anything else) within his definition, he would have done so.

So -- let's survey baptized people:

Judas Iscariot
Simon the Sorcerer
The party of Pharisees in Acts 15
Those who thought there was no resurrection in 1 Cor 15
Those who were once in the church in 1 John 2

You're saying all these people were saved. Ultimately it'll be a tap-dance of obedience that will ensue, an frankly, I've no time for it. Why not then baptize someone as many times as they repent, hoping that one of them "sticks" as a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?

No, the fact is, baptism is not an exceptional sacrament. It is a covenantal sacrament, whose promises have become active in believers.

If they are properly catechized, they will be taught that baptism is initial salvation, which can be lost through sin. I don't think anyone actually believes that since they were baptized, they are saved forever no matter what. Do you know anyone who teaches this?

Yeah, here it is, the ritual two-step. You show me where Scripture says a peep about baptismal salvation being lost through sin.

The one kind of baptism Peter claims saves, infants don't get.

 

[heymikey80]

Huh??? "Saving baptism"? I thought baptism was merely a rite to symbolize that a person was already saved by faith alone? So, the saved person is saved again by the "good conscience" part of the rite?

The answer in good conscience is an honest answer of a reliant -- Gk "believing" -- Christian.

And it's not part of the baptism that saves. Are we going to believe the Apostle Peter when he says it is the baptism that saves. I am.

Yes, I understand, thanks. Do you know why the early Church recognized martyrdom to be "saving" and why they called it "BAPTISM by blood"?

Actually, I know exactly why.

It's because they recognized that water baptism was NECESSARY for salvation.

And that isn't it. Look up "baptizmos" in the lexicon and you'll know why, too. Hint -- it has nothing to do with your viewpoint.

Oh, and ... for the record ... martyrdom does not involve water. Certainly not the threefold formula.

It's really kind of odd you'd demand this. No Greek speaker would object to martyrdom being a baptismos. The early point was that martyrdom is baptismos ... because by definition it is a baptismos more like Christ's Crucifixion than being washed with water. Once again, it's the answer in good conscience toward God.

It fits perfectly into the language and indeed the usage of the word.

The early Christians, even though they obviously had faith, still weren't considered "saved" until they accepted baptism. Sometimes the early converts went through an entire year of instruction in the faith before they were baptized. If they were martyred before the rite, they were saved because of their sacrifice. There is also "baptism by desire" which is basically a deathbed conversion, but this is getting pretty far afield.

Tertullian would be proud. But Tertullian would be a Montanist.

Of course in practice the church is intentionally going to follow the policies set down by Christ Jesus, to baptize those who are made disciples and to teach them. Your western tradition was a long drawn out catechetical period. Meanwhile the Apostles baptized thousands of people for simply accepting an invite.

Sorry, no.

"...eight persons, were saved through water.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,..."

I don't know how much clearer it could be. Because he says "not as a removal of dirt from the body" doesn't mean "it didn't take water", otherwise he just contradicted the first part OF THE SAME SENTENCE.

No, he didn't contradict the first part of the sentence. He just didn't use the definition you're using.

Peter is simply saying that the analogy he used isn't perfect. The flood cleansed the earth, and the water cleanses the OUTSIDE of the body, but baptism goes deeper because it is how the merits of the resurrection are applied to us.

Peter actually says it is not one; it is the other. Peter doesn't say "baptism is not a good analogy"; in fact the reverse, "baptism corresponds to this".

I'm afraid Peter contradicts what you're saying.

OK, what are they? If "they" are anything but faith, sola-scriptura is non-Biblical.

Faith, and specific things faith causes. :robinhood

I don't know about how often a person is "characterized" opposed to having the doctrine simply taught. It really doesn't matter because if there is ONE thing other than faith taught in Scripture to be salvific, sola-scriptura fails.

First, I don't think that phrase means what you think it means ...!!

But second, that's simply not the case. Faith does things. God does things too. Christ does things. Sola fide simply answers the question about faith and works -- be they religious or moral, or faith alone -- that is, faith without works or any other thing you think obligates God to pay you back for it.

Trying to force something into the statement that isn't there is putting words in your mouth.

I don't see how this bolsters your case. If believers are being "encouraged, commended, or commanded" to perform certain actions, couldn't it be because there is ETERNAL consequences for failing to perform them?

Are we circling back to the, "O, you better watch out!" Santa god? The question is about whether there are SALVATION consequences for failure to do work, when you actually have saving faith in God.

There are clearly eternal consequences for sin. I believe there's a Redeemer Who found it necessary to pay in eternal value.

So are you saying Jesus does NOT pay in ETERNAL value, and so your works somehow shall do much greater than He did? I think that's a bridge too far for any Christian theology. Jesus is the eternal. Our works, our sins are a drop in the bucket against His righteousness. And our righteousnesses are as defiled rags in His sight. And you're telling me God cares about them. Hm.

So what? What was His answer to the question "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" It wasn't "the ONLY thing you must do is have faith in me". It was "Keep the commandments" Would you answer the same way?

On its heels, Jesus saying it's impossible for men to achieve this righteousness sort of blows holes in your sails, doesn't it. Or are you asserting that Jesus explanation of His response is irrelevant? How might you or I minimize such a statement? It's flatly clear Jesus didn't expect the ruler to respond as if he had followed the commandments, only to leave it at that. Because Jesus didn't leave it at that. Jesus lifted the curtain on the ruler's life of disobedience to the commandment to care for the poor.

And then Jesus goes on to teach those who stuck around for the next shoe to fall, that human righteousness is impossible.

To get all this from a simple question and answer, shows a tendency toward rationalization to come to a preconceived end.

To neglect the entirety of an answer shows a tendency to neglect what the Teacher has actually said.

Now, you STILL haven't explained how HAVING FAITH somehow doesn't fit under the "works for wages system". I have heard from a few people (some on this forum) that when a person has faith, salvation is OWED to that person.

That's very clearly not the case. It's what God has promised He will do freely, it is not something that God is obligated to do in repayment for faith. In point of fact faith is an instrument through which the power of God reaches His children.

The power of salvation is Christ Jesus. To think faith is meritorious is itself an error.

Since you seem to agree that infant baptism doesn't fit Paul's "works for wages" definition, let's move on to Christian Charity? If a person gives freely from his want with NO hint of being repaid, either by God or another person, does this act fit under Paul's definition?

No. In fact "charity" was not "giving things that you value", in Paul's Greek -- or even in English, until quite recently. The word is actually "agapao". CS Lewis does a good job describing this word in "The Four Loves". It is the ultimate in redemptive care for the one loved. And it's a gift from the Spirit of God for people who already believe (1 Cor 13).

 

[heymikey80]

If you would READ your Bible you would clearly see that you first must "hear the gospel", "believe the gospel", "repent of your sinful ways", and "confess Christ is the son of God before men" and THEN AND ONLY THEN "IN GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARD GOD" WATER BAPTISM SAVES.

And you think Peter meant all of that just saying "answer in good conscience". Hm. I don't think so. I think Peter said what he meant: that answer in good conscience toward God is baptism. It's what Peter said, so I would trust it before I'd pack more and more actions into it.

A Baby CANNOT "hear the gospel", or old enough to "believe" the gospel, not yet understand that "Christ is the Son of God" therefore not in good conscience a baby just gets wet!

To which I would agree -- the vowtaking of baptism, of faith in God, does not normally apply to the baby at the time of baptism.

It applies to the Other One Who instituted the baptism, though. I believe He vows in good conscience, as He has promised things to the children of believers. But I think this is flying very far afield of the subject of this thread, but there is an assumption that what small discipleship we do prior to belief, will be effective for the child who later comes to faith. And thus baptism itself becomes active in the believer.

Have you thought about how the first paragraph of Romans 4 actually applies to someone who was circumcised in infancy? Because that's half of what Paul is talking about there.

So by and large, I'd agree as far as you've gone. Babies aren't saved by a dunking. They're saved through faith.

Throw out your man made doctrine and work for the Lord like you do the who ever that wrote the garbage you go by!

It's always fun to watch people try to oppose me, and then end up agreeing by and large with the basic concepts.

So ... why would you call your own position -- by and large -- "garbage"? I guess I should stop listening to your man-made doctrine? Okay, no prob', I'll stop listening to you ....

I do hold to a view satisfactory to everything I know about baptism in the Scriptures, including the baptism of numerous whole families in the ancient world, as well as the fact that salvation is through faith, not works, not rites, not works of righteousness we have done. And not a little washy-washy with water.

 

[rrowell]

Originally Posted by rrowell
If you would READ your Bible you would clearly see that you first must "hear the gospel", "believe the gospel", "repent of your sinful ways", and "confess Christ is the son of God before men" and THEN AND ONLY THEN "IN GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARD GOD" WATER BAPTISM SAVES.

And you think Peter meant all of that just saying "answer in good conscience". Hm. I don't think so. I think Peter said what he meant: that answer in good conscience toward God is baptism. It's what Peter said, so I would trust it before I'd pack more and more actions into it.

I think that is exactly what Peter said, Just like James said here (of which you seem to just totally ignore (you have to, to make your man made "faith only" doctrine fit)):


James 2:24 (KJV)
24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You have to completely throw this verse out, or redefine it or come up with a "what he meant was" to make your "faith only" fit.

No where can you show me, no where, where the Bible teaches "faith Only", but I can show in one verse your whole doctrine fails..

And BTW, Baptism is not off topic, it IS a part of the righteous work that saves the Believer

Have you thought about how the first paragraph of Romans 4 actually applies to someone who was circumcised in infancy? Because that's half of what Paul is talking about there.

Your in the wrong dispensation, back in the Jewish law and trying to apply it to the Christian dispensation, the very thing Paul in the entire chapter is rebuking.

The entire Gist of of what Paul teaches here is it is by "faith in the Christian Dispensation" not "faith alone" faith that the "Gospel of Christ" will save you, not just part of it, not "faith alone" but faith in the entire Gospel and ALL it commands.

I always said you and those that follow your doctrine would have been a lot better off had you been able to remove the book of James.

So by and large, I'd agree as far as you've gone. Babies aren't saved by a dunking. They're saved through faith.

faith in what? what faith do they have? they don't know what to have faith in?
you act as if this "faith" is placed from conception like a dome over everyone, you have to "do" something to have "faith" else you have no idea "what" to have "faith" in... like a new born, you must reach the age of accountability, the point in which you "know what to have faith in" and THEN you either have "faith in it" or you don't!

Romans 9:11 (KJV)
11. (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

It's always fun to watch people try to oppose me, and then end up agreeing by and large with the basic concepts.

I have not "by and large" agreed with even your basic concepts, all I said is if you would work as hard for the Lord in what he said as you do the false man made doctrine of "faith only" you would be of great value to the Lord...

Your like a bird dog that has to be pointed in the right direction

So ... why would you call your own position -- by and large -- "garbage"? I guess I should stop listening to your man-made doctrine? Okay, no prob', I'll stop listening to you ....

I have no man made doctrine, I use the doctrine of Christ as it is written, you have to twist it to fit, it all boils down to the fact you cannot support your position as long as this scripture is in the doctrine of Christ:

James 2:24 (KJV)
24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

[dadof10]

If infant baptism was scriptural, how can an infant have knowledge "to faith alone" in order to become baptized?

He doesn't need faith to be saved because salvation is by Grace alone. The "faith alone" adherents are the ones putting a requirement on salvation.

Also, you stated above that, "as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,..."

How can an infant be capable of such understanding?

This is HeyMikey's point, not mine. Peter says that water baptism saves, and uses the flood as an anology. "Not as a removal of dirt from the body..." doesn't mean "the water means nothing". If it did, you have him saying "eight were saved through water, and this corresponds to baptism which now saves you, but the water, which I just said saved the eight and you, means nothing, it's only faith that saves". Does that make sense? Why even mention water SAVES if it is moot? Peter says the water saves and to think anything else is to come into these verses with a bias against water baptism instead of reading with an open mind.

What Peter's obvious meaning is, is that the flood washed the earth, and the water of baptism washes the body, but it goes beyond the flood analogy because baptism is how the merits of the resurrection is applied to the person. If it says what you think it does, Peter contradicts himself in the same sentence.

 

[dadof10]

Why should I? There's not even a vague hint that the baptismal rite is necessary to salvation.

You're right, it's not vague at all, it's blatantly obvious. "...baptism, which now saves you..." is pretty clear.

The idea that there isn't a vague hint of this idea in Scripture is kinda shallow, don't you think? I mean, the Lord's Supper is a sacrament, and it is remarkably covenantal. Are you claiming the sacrament of baptism isn't a sacrament along the same lines? And other initiatory sacraments are also highly covenantal.

Did you forget what your point was here?

You said: "I've mentioned it before: water baptism is shallowly modeled as a signature on a contract (a covenant, specifically). The contract is, The one who believes shall be saved."

Where does Scripture point to water baptism being a "signature" on a contract, that contract being "the one who believes shall be saved"? Please post the verses.

So your argument against baptism being covenantal is of equal force against baptism being a sacrament.

That baptism is -- as Peter explicitly said -- "the answer in good conscience toward God." In fact Peter also said it is definitely not the rite -- "not the washing of dirt from the body".

On that basis, baptism saves. But on that basis, baptism is a conscientious answer -- an answer to a question. So tell me, what is the baptismal vow all about in baptism?

So -- let's survey baptized people:

Judas Iscariot
Simon the Sorcerer
The party of Pharisees in Acts 15
Those who thought there was no resurrection in 1 Cor 15
Those who were once in the church in 1 John 2

You're saying all these people were saved. Ultimately it'll be a tap-dance of obedience that will ensue, an frankly, I've no time for it. Why not then baptize someone as many times as they repent, hoping that one of them "sticks" as a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?

No, the fact is, baptism is not an exceptional sacrament. It is a covenantal sacrament, whose promises have become active in believers.

Yeah, here it is, the ritual two-step. You show me where Scripture says a peep about baptismal salvation being lost through sin.

The one kind of baptism Peter claims saves, infants don't get.

My argument is not concerning baptism, but "works". See next post.

 

[dadof10]

The answer in good conscience is an honest answer of a reliant -- Gk "believing" -- Christian.

And it's not part of the baptism that saves. Are we going to believe the Apostle Peter when he says it is the baptism that saves. I am.

Ok, so SOME PART of water baptism saves. You need to clear up your view, then. I am under the impression that you hold the view that water baptism is symbolic of someone who is ALREADY SAVED. Is this what you believe or not?

Actually, I know exactly why.

And that isn't it. Look up "baptizmos" in the lexicon and you'll know why, too. Hint -- it has nothing to do with your viewpoint.

It has nothing to do with water??? Please.

1) immersion, submersion
a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed
b) of John's baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their sins were bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom soon to be set up. This was valid Christian baptism, as this was the only baptism the apostles received and it is not recorded anywhere that they were ever rebaptised after Pentecost.
c) of Christian baptism; a rite of immersion in water as commanded by Christ, by which one after confessing his sins and professing his faith in Christ, having been born again by the Holy Spirit unto a new life, identifies publicly with the fellowship of Christ and the church.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G908&t=KJV



baptismo/v [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]

1. a washing, purification effected by means of water
   1. of washing prescribed by the Mosaic law (Heb 9:
2. which seems to mean an exposition of the difference between the washings prescribed by the Mosaic law and Christian baptism

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Translated Words[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]KJV (4) - baptism, 1; washing, 3; NAS (3) - washing, 1; washings, 2; [/FONT]

http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=909

Oh, and ... for the record ... martyrdom does not involve water. Certainly not the threefold formula.

Thanks again for the clarification. I asked why martyrdom WAS CALLED "baptism by blood". I know it doesn't only refer to drowning.

It's really kind of odd you'd demand this. No Greek speaker would object to martyrdom being a baptismos. The early point was that martyrdom is baptismos ... because by definition it is a baptismos more like Christ's Crucifixion than being washed with water. Once again, it's the answer in good conscience toward God.

It fits perfectly into the language and indeed the usage of the word.

What's odd is that you would define "baptismos" as "more like Christ's Crucifixion than being washed with water" when the lexicons say the opposite. The word itself means "washing". Do you have a Greek lexicon that defines the word as "more like Christ's Crucifixion than being washed with water"?

But second, that's simply not the case. Faith does things. God does things too. Christ does things. Sola fide simply answers the question about faith and works -- be they religious or moral, or faith alone -- that is, faith without works or any other thing you think obligates God to pay you back for it.

I'll ask again, would that include the ATTITUDE that if I have faith, God owes me salvation? Yes or no.

Now, back to the actual point. You have said that the "conscience part" of the baptism rite saves. you have actually called it "saving baptism". OK, let's move on.

I asked: Since you seem to agree that infant baptism doesn't fit Paul's "works for wages" definition, let's move on to Christian Charity? If a person gives freely from his want with NO hint of being repaid, either by God or another person, does this act fit under Paul's definition?

Your response was:

No.

OK, so then Paul is NOT talking about charity when he uses the word "works", right? Charity does not fit into "a works for wages system".

In fact "charity" was not "giving things that you value", in Paul's Greek -- or even in English, until quite recently. The word is actually "agapao". CS Lewis does a good job describing this word in "The Four Loves". It is the ultimate in redemptive care for the one loved. And it's a gift from the Spirit of God for people who already believe (1 Cor 13).

Now you are trying to change my example of simple Christian "charity" into your (faulty) definition of "agape"? I gave you a simple example of what most "faith alone" adherents would call a "work according to Paul", which you say is not. Good, but just admit it without trying to twist my example into your definition. This is the "definition" of straw-man.

 

[dadof10]

Hello heymikey80,

"Throw out your man made doctrine and work for the Lord like you do the who ever that wrote the garbage you go by!"

I think rrowell was loving you in a 'special' way. His concern for your well being speaks volumes.

Ephesians 6:12

New King James Version (NKJV)

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.


- Davies

Yes, Christ's Church was not only fighting against flesh and blood heretics at the Reformation, but also satanic influences. I agree. I think this is what RRowell means when he says "man made doctrine".

 

[heymikey80]

You're right, it's not vague at all, it's blatantly obvious. "...baptism, which now saves you..." is pretty clear.

With the definition of baptism: "the answer in good conscience toward God".

Did you forget what your point was here?

You said: "I've mentioned it before: water baptism is shallowly modeled as a signature on a contract (a covenant, specifically). The contract is, The one who believes shall be saved."

Where does Scripture point to water baptism being a "signature" on a contract, that contract being "the one who believes shall be saved"? Please post the verses.

Because it's a a sacrament in a covenant, dadof10. Or don't you believe that? Do you disbelieve it's a sacrament?

 

[heymikey80]

Ok, so SOME PART of water baptism saves. You need to clear up your view, then. I am under the impression that you hold the view that water baptism is symbolic of someone who is ALREADY SAVED. Is this what you believe or not?

No. That's your conclusion, that "SOME PART" of water baptism saves. Instead, I point it out again -- as a rite, baptism is one thing in English. But in Greek, the very first, most prevalent word usage for "baptisma" does not involve water. The language has shifted dramatically.

It has nothing to do with water??? Please.

1) immersion, submersion
a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed

I do find it rather remarkable when someone contradicts his own statement with the evidence he produces.

So definition 1a is a full definition of use. It's a complete word usage for "baptisma". And that's the word Peter uses.

But wait -- where's the water? It's not there!

There's a reason for this.

It's the same reason that "understand" doesn't mean you have to physically "stand under" what you're learning.

Etymology is not semantics. It only indicates semantic origin.

 

[rrowell]

No. That's your conclusion, that "SOME PART" of water baptism saves. Instead, I point it out again -- as a rite, baptism is one thing in English. But in Greek, the very first, most prevalent word usage for "baptisma" does not involve water. The language has shifted dramatically.

Strong's 907 baptizo bap-tid'-zo from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet)

 

[BornAgain]

The title of this thread is The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It should be remembered that after being convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and knowing that they had crucified him, they asked what they must do.

It is simple. These believers are told to "repent ye." John had taught repentance and Jesus had taught repentance. Luke 24:47.

They were not only to repent, but they were to "be baptized." In giving the commission, Jesus said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." John and Jesus had both preached baptism; Jesus had placed baptism in the commission;

The apostle Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, gave the answer and told them what they should do. "Repent ye" is singular, while "be baptized every one of you" is in the plural. There is here also a change from the second to the third person; this change shows a break in the thought; the first thing to do is make a radical and complete change; this is done in repentance; then let each one be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ."

This is the same as the command in Matt. 28:19. There is no distinction between "eis to onoma" and "en toi onomati" with "baptizo," since "eis" and "en" are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 "en toi onomati Iesou Christou" occurs, but "eis to onoma" is found in Acts 8:16; 19:5. The use of "onoma" means in the name or with the authority of one, as "eis onoma prophetou" (Matt. 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet.

unto the remission of your sins;—The Greek is "eis aphesin ton hamartion humon"; this is the phrase over which there has been so much controversy. It seems to be clear. After Peter convinced the multitude that they had crucified the Messiah and that God had exalted him and that he was now at the right hand of God, in this state they asked: "What shall we do?" Evidently they were asking what to do to obtain remission of sins.

Peter answers them and tells them to do two things—repent and be baptized. This is to be done by every one of them "in the name of Jesus Christ," "eis aphesin ton hamartion humon" "unto the remission of your sins."

Much depends on the meaning of "eis"; some have claimed that it means "because of; hence, they claim that baptism is "because of the remission of sins"; or one receives remission of sins before baptism. Others claim that "eis" means "for," "in order to," "unto" the remission of sins. Repentance and baptism are both "eis aphesin ton hamartion humon."