The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[heymikey80]

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

What -- baptism? You've asserted again that baptism has to involve water. Now you're saying it doesn't only refer to drowning.

It doesn't involve water.

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.

There you go again. The lexicons don't say the opposite. They say the word is perfectly legitimate in uses that don't involve water. You're saying they don't.

Of course some definitions include water, and some definitions talk about rites.

But not all.

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"?

I have a Savior that defines "baptism" as "more like Christ's Crucifixion than being washed with water".

Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized ..." Mark 10:38-39

The word stem means "wash", yes. If there's a problem with Jesus' use of a language He's using natively, perhaps you should take it up with Him.

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

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.

Uh, correction. I actually pointed out where PETER called it baptism, and saying that baptism saves and not washing.

You keep pointing back at washing. Peter says that view must be relinquished.

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:

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".

Which charity? In the Greek word, no, it can't be confused with works for wages.

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.

I'm not doing it -- it's you, leaving the question open. Reference what you mean Scripturally by "charity". I'll wait. It appears you're not using any definition in particular, so I remove all my assertions and request that you define Scripturally what you mean by "charity".

 

[heymikey80]

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

So you've defined one word. How about the other?

baptizo is a verb.

"baptisma" definition? Hm? No? I'll post it from Strong's:

G908
1) immersion, submersion
a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed

Note also the citation of Mark 10:38-39 above. Find the water.

 

[rrowell]

So you've defined one word. How about the other?

baptizo is a verb.

"baptisma" definition? Hm? No? I'll post it from Strong's:

G908
1) immersion, submersion
a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed

Note also the citation of Mark 10:38-39 above. Find the water.

Ah, sorry, I jumped in, in the middle, I thought the discussion was on baptism that saves...

In Mark 10:38-39 you are correct, "βαπτισθηναι" is used, and it does indicate submersion, but not necessarily with water, and when taken in context, Jesus is saying the same thing John said in Matthew 3:11:

Matthew 3:11 (KJV)
11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

only Jesus can baptize with the Holy Spirit as he did do to the Apostles and the house of Cornelius (just so happens he is talking to the Apostles, "a coincidence this word is used maybe? I think not").

This Baptism is of the Holy Ghost he is speaking of, a baptism that has not saved anyone, and your correct, it does not indicate (require) water. (And only Jesus can do it)

 

[heymikey80]

no, look at a commentary for the answer, which is not "baptism of the Holy Spirit". Read in context the Sons of Thunder were being confronted with an adverse event, not a positive one.

Greek supplies the answer. "baptism" (baptisma) is used in metaphorical sense more than it's used for washing.

 

[dadof10]

No. That's your conclusion, that "SOME PART" of water baptism saves.

MY conclusion? Really. Here are your words, you tell me who's "conclusion" it is.

"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."

"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."

I can't decide whether you are throwing this stuff up against the wall to see what sticks or just not paying attention. You tell me which one.

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.

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!

Please try and focus. What verses are we discussing?

1 Pt. 3:20-22

"eight souls were saved by water."

Hey, there it is!!! Let's continue and see if Peter ties this WATER to baptism and salvation.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us..."

Yep. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that the word baptismo, or baptisma, HERE and HERE ALONE, the word we are talking about HERE, refers to WATER BAPTISM, do you? I'm not alone, in fact, I can't find a scholar (Catholic or Protestant) that DOESN'T think this refers to water baptism.

Of course there are OTHER PLACES in Scripture that mention the word "baptism" in a context other than water baptism, but not in these verses that we are discussing HERE.

You can keep trying to distract from the point, but your arguments are getting more and more out there with each post.

 

[dadof10]

What -- baptism? You've asserted again that baptism has to involve water. Now you're saying it doesn't only refer to drowning.

It doesn't involve water.

There you go again. The lexicons don't say the opposite. They say the word is perfectly legitimate in uses that don't involve water. You're saying they don't.

Of course some definitions include water, and some definitions talk about rites.

But not all.

What about the verses we have been discussing for the last three weeks, 1Pt. 3:20-22? Does this refer to WATER BAPTISM?

To my question: "I'll ask again, would that [Paul's definition of "works"] include the ATTITUDE that if I have faith, God owes me salvation? Yes or no.

You answered: No.

So, let me get this straight. The concept that God OWES SALVATION to the person who has faith, does NOT fit into Paul's "works for wages system"? Is this your position?

Which charity? In the Greek word, no, it can't be confused with works for wages.

I'm not doing it -- it's you, leaving the question open. Reference what you mean Scripturally by "charity". I'll wait. It appears you're not using any definition in particular, so I remove all my assertions and request that you define Scripturally what you mean by "charity"

More semantic distraction. I'm not playing along because the "Scriptural definition" of charity is not the point, nice try. Here is the conversation so far:

Me: 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?

You: No.

Me: 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".

Now you want to distract from the point by requesting I "define Scripturally" the word charity? Please...

Here is the ACT that you said does not fit Paul's definition of "works for wages":

A person gives freely from his want with NO hint of being repaid, either by God or another person.

If you don't like the word "charity" for this act, fine, pick your own. Choose chap-stick or albatross or bloviate or gooniegoogoo, I don't care. Just quit the incessant distraction so we can move on, please.

 

[rrowell]

no, look at a commentary for the answer, which is not "baptism of the Holy Spirit". Read in context the Sons of Thunder were being confronted with an adverse event, not a positive one.

Greek supplies the answer. "baptism" (baptisma) is used in metaphorical sense more than it's used for washing.

I agree baptism can mean other than water, it is 'submersion', whether be water, blood, HS, persecution, but it is water in good conscience that saves (hear, believe repent confess = good conscience, the work of the worker who believes)

 

[dadof10]

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;

Then, keeping with the topic, do you believe that repentence and baptism are NECESSARY for salvation? Do you believe these two ACTIONS fall under Paul's definition of "works"?

 

[BornAgain]

Then, keeping with the topic, do you believe that repentence and baptism are NECESSARY for salvation? Do you believe these two ACTIONS fall under Paul's definition of "works"?

Yes, repentance and baptism are necessary for salvation and they are actions (works) and part of Paul's gospel. Not by our own merit but obedience to God's commands.

Romans 6:4 (KJV)
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

As Christ was raised from the dead through the strength of God to a new life, we were raised to walk no more in the sins that have been put off in baptism, but were raised [from the watery burial with death between us and the old life of sin] to walk in the new life in Christ.

 

[dadof10]

Yes, repentance and baptism are necessary for salvation and they are actions (works) and part of Paul's gospel. Not by our own merit but obedience to God's commands.

Romans 6:4 (KJV)
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

As Christ was raised from the dead through the strength of God to a new life, we were raised to walk no more in the sins that have been put off in baptism, but were raised [from the watery burial with death between us and the old life of sin] to walk in the new life in Christ.

up:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[BornAgain]

up:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Glad we agree on this....

 

[heymikey80]

MY conclusion?

Yes.

Really.

Please ... proceed.

Here are your words, you tell me who's "conclusion" it is.

"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."

"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."

I can't decide whether you are throwing this stuff up against the wall to see what sticks or just not paying attention. You tell me which one.

Baptism isn't water splashed on someone. As Peter says, you don't have baptism without a vow to God through Christ Jesus.

I mean, we're talking about 1 Peter 3:21. What's your focus?

Please try and focus. What verses are we discussing?

Yeah, what's your focus?

1 Pt. 3:20-22

"eight souls were saved by water."

The word Peter uses is "through", not "by". They're very different.

Hey, there it is!!! Let's continue and see if Peter ties this WATER to baptism and salvation.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us..."

So Peter is saying "figuratively speaking you can also say baptism saves you, that, is not the water, but your answer in good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Christ Jesus".

Yep. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that the word baptismo, or baptisma, HERE and HERE ALONE, the word we are talking about HERE, refers to WATER BAPTISM, do you? I'm not alone, in fact, I can't find a scholar (Catholic or Protestant) that DOESN'T think this refers to water baptism.

It's quite a stretch beyond the breaking point -- because Peter explains what he means -- "not cleaning dirt from the body", but "the answer". Water doesn't speak, much less answer.

Peter's allusion is figurative, the picture is the same, says Peter. Pictures are not the reality. Peter alludes to the reality -- the answer in good conscience.

Of course there are OTHER PLACES in Scripture that mention the word "baptism" in a context other than water baptism, but not in these verses that we are discussing HERE.

Yes. Your point? I didn't say this had no allusion to the water rite. I pointed out that Peter thought the answer was critical to salvation, even to calling it "baptism". The vow taken is baptism that saves, says Peter: not washing the body.

You can keep trying to distract from the point, but your arguments are getting more and more out there with each post.

Now, your constant omission of the whole sentence of 1 Peter 3:21 (and really further) actually speaks volumes already. If you don't actually focus on what meaning Peter has actually communicated in this verse, in its entirety, then I've no reason to take seriously your appeal to "focus".

 

[heymikey80]

What about the verses we have been discussing for the last three weeks, 1Pt. 3:20-22? Does this refer to WATER BAPTISM?

It refers to water baptism, but picks out the aspect (an integral one) of water baptism that saves: the answer. His assertion is that the cleansing of dirt from the body is not what he's saying saves.

To my question: "I'll ask again, would that [Paul's definition of "works"] include the ATTITUDE that if I have faith, God owes me salvation? Yes or no.

You answered: No.

So, let me get this straight. The concept that God OWES SALVATION to the person who has faith, does NOT fit into Paul's "works for wages system"? Is this your position?

That is correct.

More semantic distraction. I'm not playing along because the "Scriptural definition" of charity is not the point, nice try.

Okay, on this principle we differ. The Scriptural definition of words you want to throw into the concept you're naming "charity", is what I think is the entire point. I think what God says is the only thing that can be appealed-to for salvation.

So now you're saying something extra-Biblical is necessary for salvation? Otherwise please cite where you find the idea that sacrificial almsgiving is cited by Scripture as saving us. Just some idea where you get this would be helpful. Hint: it's not 1 Corinthians 13, nor anywhere else the word "agapae" is translated "charity".

I don't particularly care what you call it either, but I think it's imposing on God to claim He will save for something He doesn't mention. Putting words in God's mouth by sinful human beings is long the history of all religions -- and a risky and disconcerting practice.

 

[dadof10]

"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."

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."

It refers to water baptism, but picks out the aspect (an integral one) of water baptism that saves: the answer. His assertion is that the cleansing of dirt from the body is not what he's saying saves.

We are discussing what Paul means by the word "works" (a works for wages system) in his letters. I used baptism as an example of an ACT that doesn't fit under this definition. We are not discussing all the intricacies of baptism, if you want to start another thread, go ahead and I will respond as I see fit.

In the above sentences, you have admitted (even though you tried to deny it at one point) that a part or an aspect of baptism saves. Now, let's try and move on.

I'm under the impression that you hold the standard "faith alone" position on water baptism, viz. that it is merely a symbolic act performed on an ALREADY SAVED person. Is this true, or do I have your position wrong? If I do, please explain.

To my question: "I'll ask again, would that [Paul's definition of "works"] include the ATTITUDE that if I have faith, God owes me salvation? Yes or no.

You answered: No.

So, let me get this straight. The concept that God OWES SALVATION to the person who has faith, does NOT fit into Paul's "works for wages system"? Is this your position?

That is correct.

What you have just agreed to is the definition of "works for wages salvation". A person PERFORMS AN ACT, and God is OBLIGATED to save the person. How do you hold the above position and at the same time condemn a person who believes he is saved ONLY IF he gets baptized or recites certain prayers at certain times, for example? The ATTITUDE IS THE SAME!!!

Okay, on this principle we differ. The Scriptural definition of words you want to throw into the concept you're naming "charity", is what I think is the entire point. I think what God says is the only thing that can be appealed-to for salvation.

We actually agree "on this principle". I think Scripture makes the claim that charitable acts are salvific. We don't agree on that point, but we DO agree that "sacrificial almsgiving" does not fit under Paul's definition of "works", which is the point here.

So now you're saying something extra-Biblical is necessary for salvation? Otherwise please cite where you find the idea that sacrificial almsgiving is cited by Scripture as saving us.

OK, we have a name for it now. When did I attempt to make the point that this act was salvific, let alone, NECESSARY for salvation in this discussion? I didn't. This is what I mean when I ask you to focus.

No, I'm saying "sacrificial almsgiving" does NOT fit under Paul's definition of "works", that's it. What I'm getting at here is that sola-fide either stands or falls on Paul's letters. The FACT that baptism, charity, keeping the commandments, sacrifice, etc. are not even slightly in Paul's mind when writing the "faith v. works" passages, pretty much destroys all the sola-fide arguments. Can you defend the doctrine of sola-fide after you admit that "sacrificial almsgiving" and "an aspect" of baptism don't fit under Paul's definition of "works"? After all, Paul's letters are off the table because he doesn't mean "all actions" when he uses the word "works", right?

I'm not making positive statements about what acts are NECESSARY for salvation, only negative statements about what acts are EXCLUDED from Paul's definition.

I don't particularly care what you call it either, but I think it's imposing on God to claim He will save for something He doesn't mention. Putting words in God's mouth by sinful human beings is long the history of all religions -- and a risky and disconcerting practice.

You might have a point if all He mentioned was confined to writing, but Scripture doesn't teach sola-scriptura either, which means to believe it is "putting words in God's mouth", according to your own view, wouldn't you say? If you disagree, just post the sola-scriptura verses.

What's risky and disconcerting are private interpretations of Scripture, which lead to all kinds of errors.

 

[heymikey80]

We are discussing what Paul means by the word "works" (a works for wages system) in his letters. I used baptism as an example of an ACT that doesn't fit under this definition. We are not discussing all the intricacies of baptism, if you want to start another thread, go ahead and I will respond as I see fit.

When they're relevant, they're relevant.

In the above sentences, you have admitted (even though you tried to deny it at one point) that a part or an aspect of baptism saves. Now, let's try and move on.

Aspect, not "part". Baptism is a vowtaking.

I'm under the impression that you hold the standard "faith alone" position on water baptism, viz. that it is merely a symbolic act performed on an ALREADY SAVED person. Is this true, or do I have your position wrong? If I do, please explain.

You have my position wrong. It is not merely a symbolic act, it is a vowtaking at the acceptance of a covenant.

To my question: "I'll ask again, would that [Paul's definition of "works"] include the ATTITUDE that if I have faith, God owes me salvation? Yes or no.

You answered: No.

Paul's definition of "works" does not include the attitude of the believer.

So, let me get this straight. The concept that God OWES SALVATION to the person who has faith, does NOT fit into Paul's "works for wages system"? Is this your position?

God does not owe us.

God freely promises (there's that word again) salvation to the one who relies on Him.

What you have just agreed to is the definition of "works for wages salvation".

I said NO. How is it that saying NO is saying "Yes" in your view? Isn't that logical contradiction?

The fact is that God doesn't owe us salvation in exchange for anything we do. God doesn't owe us. God doesn't owe us.

Do I need to say it again? God doesn't owe us.

 

[heymikey80]

What you have just agreed to is the definition of "works for wages salvation". A person PERFORMS AN ACT, and God is OBLIGATED to save the person. How do you hold the above position and at the same time condemn a person who believes he is saved ONLY IF he gets baptized or recites certain prayers at certain times, for example? The ATTITUDE IS THE SAME!!!

As you're realizing, we don't agree here. I'm saying Paul does not identify faith as a work, and so similarly, any treatment of faith has to assume that Paul doesn't include faith in any works-for-wages system. See Romans 4:4-5: Paul sees faith as "not work". I'm afraid this assertion is accurate, but on different grounds than you're concluding Paul asserts.

That is, you'd need to factor in Paul's statement, "does not work, but believes".

We actually agree "on this principle". I think Scripture makes the claim that charitable acts are salvific. We don't agree on that point, but we DO agree that "sacrificial almsgiving" does not fit under Paul's definition of "works", which is the point here.

Well, it's quite clear we don't agree on this principle. I'm saying faith isn't even within the economy of works in the first place. And yet you're saying faith is somehow excluded because it is a work, only not.

OK, we have a name for it now. When did I attempt to make the point that this act was salvific, let alone, NECESSARY for salvation in this discussion? I didn't. This is what I mean when I ask you to focus.

Right here:

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?

Ah. Focus.

Therefore, I say again: sacrificial almsgiving is not salvific.

 

[dadof10]

Aspect, not "part". Baptism is a vowtaking. You have my position wrong. It is not merely a symbolic act, it is a vowtaking at the acceptance of a covenant.

I have your "position wrong" because it changes with every post. Might I remind you of your words again?

"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.

Here we go again. More attempts at semantic distraction. OK. Now we've settled on the words "aspect" and "vowtaking". These words don't change the question you have been dodging. I'll ask again. Isn't water baptism (vowtaking, aspect, part or however you want to define it) something done to an ALREADY SAVED PERSON? You have called it "saving baptism" (unless your going to run from that phrase too), so how does water baptism save if it's only performed on someone who's already saved? How does this view fit into your OSAS worldview?

Paul's definition of "works" does not include the attitude of the believer.

Then what in the world does this mean?

"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.

What we think matters, but the attitude doesn't? How is "how we think" toward an action different than our attitude toward it?

God does not owe us.

God freely promises (there's that word again) salvation to the one who relies on Him.

I said NO. How is it that saying NO is saying "Yes" in your view? Isn't that logical contradiction?

The fact is that God doesn't owe us salvation in exchange for anything we do. God doesn't owe us. God doesn't owe us.

Do I need to say it again? God doesn't owe us.

Are you sure? Will this change in the next post also?

 

[dadof10]

As you're realizing, we don't agree here. I'm saying Paul does not identify faith as a work, and so similarly, any treatment of faith has to assume that Paul doesn't include faith in any works-for-wages system. See Romans 4:4-5: Paul sees faith as "not work". I'm afraid this assertion is accurate, but on different grounds than you're concluding Paul asserts.

That is, you'd need to factor in Paul's statement, "does not work, but believes"

Right, faith is not a "work", neither is keeping the commandments, baptism, almsgiving, charity, etc. From the beginning of this I've been saying that Paul is NOT talking about faith when he uses the word "works", only "works of the law". To keep you from turning this into a word game, (as you did with Drew) I granted the point that Paul means "works for wages" when he says "works". The only reason I'm referencing faith at all is to point out the inconsistency of the "faith alone" position.

If you agree that God does NOT owe us salvation in exchange for faith, I agree. It just seems from your previous posts that you disagree.

Well, it's quite clear we don't agree on this principle. I'm saying faith isn't even within the economy of works in the first place. And yet you're saying faith is somehow excluded because it is a work, only not.

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Are you making this up as you go along? Let's recap:

Me: We actually agree "on this principle". I think Scripture makes the claim that charitable acts are salvific. We don't agree on that point, but we DO agree that "sacrificial almsgiving" does not fit under Paul's definition of "works", which is the point here.

You: Well, it's quite clear we don't agree on this principle.

Really? If you say so....Now. Let's go back a few posts.

Me, Post 345:
"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?

You, Post 350:
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)."

Me, Post 355:
"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"."

You, Post 361:
"Which charity? In the Greek word, no, it can't be confused with works for wages."

Me, Post 366, refusing to go down the word game road:

"Here is the ACT that you said does not fit Paul's definition of "works for wages":
A person gives freely from his want with NO hint of being repaid, either by God or another person.
If you don't like the word "charity" for this act, fine, pick your own. Choose chap-stick or albatross or bloviate or gooniegoogoo, I don't care. Just quit the incessant distraction so we can move on, please."

You Post 373:
"So now you're saying something extra-Biblical is necessary for salvation? Otherwise please cite where you find the idea that sacrificial almsgiving is cited by Scripture as saving us. Just some idea where you get this would be helpful. Hint: it's not 1 Corinthians 13, nor anywhere else the word "agapae" is translated "charity".
I don't particularly care what you call it either, but I think it's imposing on God to claim He will save for something He doesn't mention. Putting words in God's mouth by sinful human beings is long the history of all religions -- and a risky and disconcerting practice."

You have admitted above that "sacrificial almsgiving" (A person gives freely from his want with NO hint of being repaid, either by God or another person.) DOES NOT FIT UNDER PAUL'S DEFINITION OF "WORKS FOR WAGES". Is this still your position or not?

As I said above, we can disagree on whether this ACT affects salvation, but that's not the "principle" we are discussing. We are discussing which ACTS fit under Paul's definition of "works for wages". That's it.

Now, you SEEM to hold the position that "an aspect" of water baptism and "sacrificial almsgiving" DO NOT FIT PAUL'S DEFINITION OF "WORKS". That means two ACTIONS are not being referenced when Paul contrasts faith and works. Notice, I'm not saying either of these things "save", only that they don't fit within Paul's definition. Do you agree or not?

 

[heymikey80]

I have your "position wrong" because it changes with every post.

ooo, snarky. Mind if I do that too?

Might I remind you of your words again?

"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.

Did you notice what "it is and is not" --? What does "it" refer to?

Oh, right ... baptism.

Y'catch that? Do I need to repeat it? it's grammar.

So again, what did I say saving baptism really is? It's part of a baptismal rite, yes. However the rite isn't the baptism that saves, and its pieces aren't all baptism either. Per Peter, baptism is the conscientious answer.

Attempting to twist this statement into something I didn't say, doesn't change what I said. So please, in future, if you don't twist what I say, you'll discover I'm constantly saying the same thing.

The rite is not what you claim it is, and it doesn't save. Peter has said as much. The baptism Peter is referring to is the answer in conscience. It's part of a rite.

Now, do other people call the water rite, "baptism"? Oh, sure they do, even in Peter's time! But Peter, for his purposes, says neglect the water when it comes to salvation, because it doesn't save. The "baptism which saves us" Peter is referring to is "the answer in good conscience". He says this out loud. I don't see the point of trying to say Peter doesn't mean what he explicitly, openly says. That can only come from an agenda, not the Apostle.

Here we go again. More attempts at semantic distraction. OK. Now we've settled on the words "aspect" and "vowtaking". These words don't change the question you have been dodging. I'll ask again. Isn't water baptism (vowtaking, aspect, part or however you want to define it) something done to an ALREADY SAVED PERSON?

No. I don't get how you can assert that "water baptism" is "vowtaking". Water is not a vowtaking. Conscience is not water. If you want to talk about the whole rite, once again, you've got another watershed issue: that the saving aspect of the whole rite, is not necessarily present in the water. So then two questions emerge:
(1) Is it baptism in the first place without a necessary aspect of baptism?
(2) Where is salvation when necessary saving aspects of the rite are missing?

You have called it "saving baptism" (unless your going to run from that phrase too), so how does water baptism save if it's only performed on someone who's already saved? How does this view fit into your OSAS worldview?

See your quote of my statement.

I've called the answer in good conscience "saving baptism" because of what Peter said -- the answer in conscience is baptism according to Peter. I've denied water baptism is something done to an ALREADY SAVED PERSON, because frankly -- it's a rite. And Peter isn't referring to the rite. He's referring to the answer in good conscience. He's said it is not washing dirt off people.

Then what in the world does this mean?

What it says. A person's attitude is not a work.

"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.

Yepper. Nothing there about how we think being a work.

Not a peep. Meaning, how we think, matters, and because it matters, any work based on how we think is corrupted. We're sunk by our corrupted thoughts.

What we think matters, but the attitude doesn't? How is "how we think" toward an action different than our attitude toward it?

Oh, it matters, and in judging it, God condemns it all. If you want it to matter: there 'tis. Curtains, all.

Are you sure? Will this change in the next post also?

I don't know. What will you post next?

 

[heymikey80]

Right, faith is not a "work", neither is keeping the commandments, baptism, almsgiving, charity, etc.

Not the case:

Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness (AV)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 9:32

By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. Rom 3:27

From the beginning of this I've been saying that Paul is NOT talking about faith when he uses the word "works", only "works of the law". To keep you from turning this into a word game, (as you did with Drew) I granted the point that Paul means "works for wages" when he says "works". The only reason I'm referencing faith at all is to point out the inconsistency of the "faith alone" position.

If you agree that God does NOT owe us salvation in exchange for faith, I agree. It just seems from your previous posts that you disagree.

When people start with the conclusion, many things seem to be going their way. It prejudices a reading of a dissenting view by assuming the dissent is wrong, without a review.

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Are you making this up as you go along?

ooo, more snark.

Me: We actually agree "on this principle". I think Scripture makes the claim that charitable acts are salvific. We don't agree on that point, but we DO agree that "sacrificial almsgiving" does not fit under Paul's definition of "works", which is the point here.

But there again, we don't agree on this view. almsgiving indeed does fit Paul's definition of "works".

You: Well, it's quite clear we don't agree on this principle.

Really? If you say so....Now. Let's go back a few posts.

I point out and reiterate, when you refused to resolve the ambiguity, you went down this road. Don't try to twist your introduced ambiguity into fact-checking my posts. That is disingenuous.

The distinction is quite clear. Greek "charity", "agapae", is not a work, no. However, it does not mean "almsgiving" by any stretch at all.

"almsgiving" is so obviously a work, I have trouble seeing what your problem is with it. Of course it is doing something, and often it is done with an expectation of blessing on the giver.