Yuku free message boards

While I understand the concept of an act to which God would be pleased to attach supernatural consequences in a way that doesn't become a works/rewards formula, this does raise at least one question in my mind.

The question is, does God clearly show in the Scriptures that He recognizes such a distinction? I have to admit that to this day, I struggle to see the clear distinction between two different things to which a promise is attached, such that one is reducible to a works/rewards formula and the other is not.

Now one way that does makes it a little clearer to me is the distinction that seems to be made in the NT especially, in which, while it can indeed be said that any way of attaining salvation involves "doing" something, works typically are seen as outward acts, as contrasted with the inner act of simply believing the gospel. In fact, this seems to be the exact point that Paul belabors, namely that God grants salvation to us while we have nothing to "show", much less anything by which to deserve it as our due payment or reward.

I can at least see how that kind of distinction could exist, because even in normal affairs, we're accustomed to see rewards or payments as being directly related to something we can "point to", even if it's only in an intangible sense. IOW, we don't always have to be able to point to some "thing", and say, "Do you see what I made?", in order to receive a recompense. We're quite accustomed to the process of invoking another's memory and saying, "Do you remember what I did?", as a means of getting what we are rightfully due. So even though we may not be pointing to a physical work, in both types of instances, we are nevertheless invoking works of some kind.

The contrast that Paul makes between faith and works then would then be between this sort of thing with which we are familiar, on the one hand, and a more invisible thing with which we are also familiar, on the other, in which we know full well that we have nothing to show in any sense, and are therefore left to plead for that which we cannot show ourselves to deserve. Both kinds of "extended hands" have ample human precedent. So if this is indeed the contrast that is being expressed in the NT, then it seems I am able to intuitively understand the rationale that Paul invokes in contrasting salvation by works and salvation by grace through faith.

So here comes the teaching of baptismal regeneration as a gracious bestowal from God on a human act. And while I don't want to dismiss those Scriptures that speak of salvation and baptism in the same breath, I find that the issue becomes much more obscure when I try to incorporate this rationale by which God does something that He has decided to attach to the performance of this ritual, because then it looks like we're walking a really fine tightrope, in which we're dealing again with deeds and things seen - IOW, things that can normally be called works - while denying that they are the means by which something is merited.

The strangeness of this position as compared with salvation being granted by merely believing will only be as apparent as my efforts here have been clear... and I have no way of ascertaining that as yet. But the point of this is that salvation being granted - even graciously - through baptism becomes muddy to me in a way that salvation by faith alone does not.