What Constitutes a Work?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pickettman: When you say "condition" do you mean "We repent because we are saved" or "We are saved because we Repent"?

HP: Am I only limited to the two choices you give?

First repentance is antecedent to salvation, not a consequent of. Just the same, one can only say we are saved because we repent ‘in a sense.’ Repentance is NOT the grounds of salvation. We are saved for the sake of the mercy of God. That is the only grounds of salvation I know of. Repentance is a condition of salvation. Grounds and conditions are not synonymous. Let me illustrate.


A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just, and attitudes are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on their account. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’ It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’ in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’) of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Rather than to say that we are saved ‘because’ we repent, I would say that ‘unless we repent’ we shall not be saved. Again. repentance and all conditions of salvation are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ NOT ‘that for the sake of.’

 

[Pickettman]

Let me first say, I loved your answer!

Now, moving on!

Rather than to say that we are saved ‘because’ we repent, I would say that ‘unless we repent’ we shall not be saved. Again. repentance and all conditions of salvation are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ NOT ‘that for the sake of.’

Would it be safe to say that Baptism falls under the same umbrella as repentance? I guess what I’m saying is that “baptism is not a work”, but unless we repent and unless we are baptised we shall not be saved?

Mark 16:16 he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of sins.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pickettman: Now, moving on!

HP: I'm not moving :laugh:

Seriously, I would just say for now that I do not believe ‘water’ baptism is a condition of salvation. I certainly would encourage believers to be baptized, but subsequent to not antecedent of salvation.

There are at least seven baptisms spoken of in Scripture as I remember. It is highly likely that the baptism spoken of that you mention in the passage referred to is the baptism into Christ which is a spiritual baptism. I do not see Christ or the apostles, other than John, placing great emphasis on ‘water’ baptism. Certainly it was done, but again not to be saved but as a sign that they had been saved.

I have no problems with groups that do not even practice baptism. I do not agree with them, but neither do I believe it is a salvation issue. If one looks at "George Fox, the Red Hot Quaker" (a book title by the way) one will find that he did not partake of any of the ordinances of the church and for very good reasons considering the wrong emphasis the church was placing on them in his day. I believe he was lead of the Lord as much as any one is or has been.

 

[Pickettman]

I do not see Christ or the apostles, other than John, placing great emphasis on ‘water’ baptism. Certainly it was done, but again not to be saved but as a sign that they had been saved.

Jesus said "You must be born of the Water and the Spirit" (John 3:5)

One might say that this is not speaking of water baptism. But a closer look at scripture reveals it does.

The Great Commission was recorded in Matt 28 as “…baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost…”

In Luke 24:45-49 Jesus said that “…Repentance and Remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations beginning in Jerusalem…”

All three verses (John 3, Mat 28, and Luke 24 are all fulfilled in the book of Acts. Wouldn’t you agree?

Acts 2 is the first mention of Peter using the Keys he received in Mat 16. The men in Acts 2 were pricked in there heart and asked Peter and the rest of the disciples “What must we do” Peter said “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then they that they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls (Acts 2:38-41)

Acts 8 we find the Samaritans being baptized (Acts 8:12-16)
Acts 8:36 The eunuch was baptized. The Chariot was commanded to stand still so they could go down into the water. As soon as his profession of faith was made.
Acts 9, Acts 22 Paul was baptized. “…Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on the Name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)
Acts 10 Cornelius and his house were Commanded to be baptized.(Acts 10:47)
Acts 19 The disciples of John were re-baptized. (Acts 19:5)

HP, I’m not trying to open up a discussion about baptism so with that being said, I really do understand where you are coming from but For Me if Repentance is not considered a work and without it you can’t be saved, I have to put baptism in the same arena.

No one can say it better than Pedro. “Repent and be baptized… for the remission of sins…” There is no doubt in my mind that Acts 2:38 is the fulfillment of Luke 24:45-49. Jesus said teach repentance and remissions of sins in his name and Peter did!

God Bless

 

[TCGreek]

1. Are you saying that Baptism is essential to salvation?

2. The Lord's Supper is never termed a work, but it too is commanded as a ritual, where baptism fits.

 

[Pickettman]

1. Are you saying that Baptism is essential to salvation?

2. The Lord's Supper is never termed a work, but it too is commanded as a ritual, where baptism fits.

I believe that being born again is essential to salvation!

God Bless

 

[TCGreek]

I believe that being born again is essential to salvation!

God Bless

Is baptism the point at which a person is born again?

 

[skypair]

Pickettman,

Rom 10:10 are the ONLY conditions for salvation: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession [agreement with God] is made unto salvation. "

a) believe and b) confess. In order to agree with God, we have to disagree or repent of self -- that is, convert, turn from self to God.

Since baptism is neither of these, I would have to conclude that it was one of the "works," like communion, that follows faith.

To me, neither the Calvinists nor the SDA's are clear on this. Being 'born again' follows belief and confession/repentance.

skypair

 

[Pickettman]

Is baptism the point at which a person is born again?

Absolutely not!

All I am saying is, if Repentance is not constituted as a work, neither is baptism!

Being born again is something we must do! It is a step of faith that we must take. So someone could argue the fact that the “New Birth” is a work.

Obedience to Christ is the only way one will ever find salvation, for without it you cannot put your complete trust in him! Heb 5:9.

So I submit to you that obedience is not a work!

God Bless

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pickettman: So I submit to you that obedience is not a work!

HP: May I submit to you that indeed obedience is a work, but not thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of?’

Why is not obedience a work? Is it not just as you say something that man must do? That is about as clear of a definition of a work as I can think of.


Repentance and all acts of obedience, antecedent to and subsequent of salvation are all thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ again, NOT ‘that for the sake of.’

It is not that works are bad and faith is good, for even faith is something we must exercise, or accomplish, by the formation of intents. It is simply that regardless what man is called on to do, nothing he does is ever to be considered the grounds of forgiveness. Everything man is called on to do is a condition that in no way is meritorious in nature in regards to our justification or salvation.

 

[Pickettman]

Pickettman,

Rom 10:10 are the ONLY conditions for salvation: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession [agreement with God] is made unto salvation. "

a) believe and b) confess. In order to agree with God, we have to disagree or repent of self -- that is, convert, turn from self to God.

Since baptism is neither of these, I would have to conclude that it was one of the "works," like communion, that follows faith.

To me, neither the Calvinists nor the SDA's are clear on this. Being 'born again' follows belief and confession/repentance.

skypair

How do you do sky!

Belief is the first step of anything we ever do. If we do not believe in something we can never fully submit. Would you agree?

But just because we believe in Jesus, that in it’s self does not constitute salvation.

It will take Obedience to Christ.

Example: Let’s say I believe in Christ but I do not wish to Repent of my sins! Is that person saved?

I’m not sure that confession and repentance is one in the same! As you stated, confession is an agreement. I confess Christ so I agree to do what he says.

Repentance is a change in one’s mind. Christ shows me a better way, His Spirit convicts me, I Repent, and He forgives!

You see, Repentance is something we do. So if we are saved at Repentance, then some would say that’s a work.

Again, I say repentance is not a work but an act of obedience. And if we obey the word of God, we will find salvation which is in Christ.

God Bless

 

[TCGreek]

Absolutely not!

All I am saying is, if Repentance is not constituted as a work, neither is baptism!

Being born again is something we must do! It is a step of faith that we must take. So someone could argue the fact that the “New Birth” is a work.

Obedience to Christ is the only way one will ever find salvation, for without it you cannot put your complete trust in him! Heb 5:9.

So I submit to you that obedience is not a work!

God Bless

So if a person who has repented and believed says he is born again without ever being baptized in water, Is he truly born again?

 

[Pickettman]

So if a person who has put repented and believed says he is born again without ever being baptized in water, Is he truly born again?

I will answer that like this. If a person believes that being “born of the water” represents water baptism, then the person who has not been baptized is not truly born again.

I believe if we do what Jesus says, we will be saved! Would you agree?

God bless

 

[TCGreek]

I will answer that like this. If a person believes that being “born of the water” represents water baptism, then the person who has not been baptized is not truly born again.

I believe if we do what Jesus says, we will be saved! Would you agree?

God bless

1. If you believe that only when a person is baptized that person is born again, then I see no need for you to be tentative in your belief.

2. I believe a person is saved when he/she puts faith in Christ (Eph 2:8, 9).

 

[Pickettman]

1. If you believe that only when a person is baptized that person is born again, then I see no need for you to be tentative in your belief.

2. I believe a person is saved when he/she puts faith in Christ (Eph 2:8, 9).

Jesus says "Ye must be born again" Nick said "No way, I dont understand" Jesus said "Ye must be born of the water and the spirit, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit..." (John 3:1-6)

If you are a person who chooses to believe that "Water" equals baptism, then it's not at the point of baptism that a person's “New Birth” has taken place. Wouldn’t it have to be after the “Water & Spirit”?

Where in scripture do we find actual hard core evidence of people experiencing the New Birth? Where do we actually see people being “Born Again?”

Scripture is the only source any of us have to find the means of salvation. In John 5:39 Jesus said to search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they are they which testify of me.

I know who the audience was that Jesus was speaking to, and I understand that he was speaking of our so called “Old Testament” when he spoke of "Scripture". But isn’t that just as much relevant to us as it was them. We are able to search the Scriptures to find out how we can obtain Eternal life as well.

There has to be examples of people being “Born Again.” Where are they? Who were the people?

Lord Bless

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pickettman: "Ye must be born of the water and the spirit, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit..." (John 3:1-6)

Joh 3:1 ¶ There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

HP: It may just be a slight error, but it does not say that he had to be born of “the water” as you wrongfully state. It states that one must be “born of water” and “of the Spirit.” To be born “of water” is simply referring to the natural birth Nicodemus had mentioned as possibly having to be repeated. Jesus told him once naturally is all you need but you do have to be born of the Spirit. Certainly anyone that knows something about child birth can readily see the connection between birth and water. There is no reference to baptism here unless you desire to classify the natural birth in water as a baptism.

Where again did you say that Jesus stated that in order to be saved you needed to be baptized via the ordinance of baptism?

 

[TCGreek]

Jesus says "Ye must be born again" Nick said "No way, I dont understand" Jesus said "Ye must be born of the water and the spirit, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit..." (John 3:1-6)

If you are a person who chooses to believe that "Water" equals baptism, then it's not at the point of baptism that a person's “New Birth” has taken place. Wouldn’t it have to be after the “Water & Spirit”?

Where in scripture do we find actual hard core evidence of people experiencing the New Birth? Where do we actually see people being “Born Again?”

1. "Water and Spirit" is an echo of Eze 36 as part of what God is doing in the NT.

2. The stress is on the Spirit: "Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit" (v.6).

3. John says, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12, 13).

4. In Scripture, those who believed have been born of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12, 13).

4. In Scripture, those who believed have been born of God.

HP: According to the verse you quote, how can you arrive at that conclusion? It does not say that those that believe ‘have been’ born again, it says that “to all who did receive Him.” Joh 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

Here 'receiving Him' is a stated condition of being born again, without which none are born again. They do not receive Him 'because they have been born again,' they receive Him 'in order to' be born again.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: According to the verse you quote, how can you arrive at that conclusion? It does not say that those that believe ‘have been’ born again, it says that “to all who did receive Him.” Joh 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

Here 'receiving Him' is a stated condition of being born again, without which none are born again. They do not receive Him 'because they have been born again,' they receive Him 'in order to' be born again.

1. "Born of God" is aorist passive and therefore, "Have been born of God" is a correct rendering.

2. Neither does the text say, "believing" or "receiving Him" is a condition for being born of God.

 

[Brother Bob]

2. Neither does the text say, "believing" or "receiving Him" is a condition for being born of God.

Where does it say the "saved" must be born again?