Hey Cameron,
I apologize if it came across wrong. I was just trying to respond to different ways people view prevenient grace (grace that goes before) as it relates to someone being “cut to the heart.” Some view it as evidence of God’s predetermined election and some see it as a grace provided to all who hear the Gospel, yet that moving of the Spirit can be resisted and/or rejected. I wasn’t trying to label you but just trying to provide a response to the different ways people understand the Spirit’s moving in these instances.
First, let me address the concept of “works” as it relates to salvation and sanctification. When the Bible speaks of “works” as a means of obtaining salvation, it is generally addressing those who believe they can be righteous in God’s eyes as a result of their merit. For the Jews, this generally involved covenant obedience (circumcision, diet, obedience to commands, participating in feasts, Temple sacrifices and so forth). I think we both agree that no amount of good deeds or adherence to the Old Covenant is sufficient to merit righteousness. Those who were declared righteous by God were declared righteous by virtue of their faith, not their flawless obedience to the covenant. Of course, part of the expression of their faith was adhering to the covenant, but Romans 2-4 that even the most diligent in regards to the covenant were still under sin and in need of God’s forgiveness.
So I think the above is I am sure where we agree. I would argue that no where does Paul or the other NT writers indicate that Christian baptism, prayer, believing, confessing sins and so forth would fall in the category of “works.” In fact, the whole picture of baptism is that of being “buried with Christ” and “raised with Christ.” Thus, the person is not doing something to earn God’s favor but embracing and participating in God’s work through Christ. As Martin Luther put it in his argument with Zwingli on this very topic, “If baptism is a work, it is God’s work.”
On the topic of sanctification, while this may be considered “work” or “good works” we are saved to do, I think it is wrong to classify these “works” as similar to “works based righteousness.” For me, not only is the focus that the Spirit is empowering the believer to do good works, but even more than that, these acts are not the believer’s effort to merit righteousness. That is the most important difference. I think the most crucial thing to understand is that we are dealing with two entirely different covenants. In the first covenant, the law was the standard for what righteousness and holiness looked like. It was crucial for Jews to adhere to circumcision, dietary laws and other elements laid out in their contract with God. Romans 7 makes it clear that the law was good and God upheld his end of the contract. The problem was the people were not good (no one is) and could not uphold their end of the contract. The reason Paul gets so upset in with the Galatians is they were trying to blend the two contracts together as if they needed Jesus and the requirements of the previous deal with God.
The New Covenant is a different contract all together. It is based on grace. When one enters that contract, the agreement apart from law. The believer‘s agreement it to put their faith in Jesus, trust in his work to provide righteousness, and make him Lord of their lives. God’s agreement is to save them, adopt them and raise them on the last day to be their God forever and ever. So, there is no such thing as “works” from the first covenant perspective, in the second covenant. It is all based on grace. The question we are debating (at least as I see it) is: “How does one enter the New Covenant.” According to my understanding of the texts we have been discussing (Acts 2:38-42; Romans 6:1-6; etc), repentance and confession are the ways in which a believer enters the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant, someone entered that agreement with God through circumcision and adherence to the Law. But because the New Covenant has NOTHING to do with works-based righteousness in its framework, the entire notion of a Christian “working” to enter the covenant or maintain the covenant is a misunderstanding of the covenant parameters. Jesus said to make disciples (adherents to the new covenant) by teaching and baptizing them. Learning the words of Jesus or being baptized in his name is how people enter the new contract of grace and is by no means an effort to earn righteousness because the New Covenant has nothing to do with earning righteousness. I am arguing that those who say that baptism does nothing and one does not need to respond in any way (lest they try to earn righteousness) are misunderstanding the teaching of the NT on this topic. Repentance, confessing sins and baptism are a means of entering the New Covenant (according to my reading of these Scriptures) and are CERTAINLY not an effort to supplant that covenant with the Old Covenant works-based efforts at righteousness.
Sorry this is so long. I will respond to the final part about “dead in sins” in a second. Gotta eat. Thanks for reading all this. I need to work on being more concise!
