Defining "Works"

[GDL]

GOd prechose a group called Chrsitian to be saved

Precisely.

 

[GDL]

I do not believe in Calvinism or its idea of TULIP including the idea of irresistible grace where men are 'dragged' to God.
John 6:45 "cometh unto Me" Matthew 11:28 "come unto me" .....coming to Christ is done willingly and lovingly.... no dragging involved.

Agree, and this is why I'm backing off from even bringing up the drag issue. It was not my intent to concur with irresistible grace. Rather, it was just a comment on how messed up we are and how being dragged out of our infected capacities (yes, ultimately by choice) paints a picture that makes sense to me. It's more of my commentary than a definition.

 

[Butterball1]

Agree, and this is why I'm backing off from even bringing up the drag issue. It was not my intent to concur with irresistible grace. Rather, it was just a comment on how messed up we are and how being dragged out of our infected capacities (yes, ultimately by choice) paints a picture that makes sense to me. It's more of my commentary than a definition.

I see that Jeremiah 31:3 accurately describes God's way of drawing men "The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." God, through His word, appeals to our intellect and emotion teaching man he is in a lost, sinful state and man's need to come to God for His love, care, concern to heal man of this sin. God draws men to Him by His love, men freely choose to come.

 

[Clare73]

Lots of discussion lately about "works".
When compared with discussions about "grace" and "faith", we are pretty quick to define the terms.
But, what about "works"? It seems to go undefined, and appears to mean different things to different Christians. What's your definition?

Additionally, I would like to discuss a few aspects that I find interesting about works.
1) The good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:10)
2) The "do nothing" works of Jesus. (John 5:19) Imitating the Father.
3) Wood, hay and stubble works. (1 Corinthians 3:12-14)
4) No work "works". (Romans 4:4-5) Trusting God, not self.

Ephesians 2:10 NIV
For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

John 5:19 NIV
Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

1 Corinthians 3:12-14 NIV
If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.

Romans 4:4-5 NIV
Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Lots of discussion lately about "works".
When compared with discussions about "grace" and "faith", we are pretty quick to define the terms.
But, what about "works"? It seems to go undefined, and appears to mean different things to different Christians. What's your definition?

Additionally, I would like to discuss a few aspects that I find interesting about works.
1) The good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:10)
2) The "do nothing" works of Jesus. (John 5:19) Imitating the Father.
3) Wood, hay and stubble works. (1 Corinthians 3:12-14)
4) No work "works". (Romans 4:4-5) Trusting God, not self.

Ephesians 2:10 NIV
For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

John 5:19 NIV
Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

1 Corinthians 3:12-14 NIV
If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.

Romans 4:4-5 NIV
Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Works are deeds, performance.

 

[Saint Steven]

Men's souls are also eternal.

No. We have a beginning.

 

[Saint Steven]

No. Paul is NT COMPARING something that is temporal to something else that is temporal. But is CONTRASTING what is temporal to what is unending.

Again, Matthew 25:46 if punishment is temporal so then is life temporal. Univeralsits cannot have it both ways.

John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Universalists I have dealt with claim punishment is temporary, so the disobedient that went to be in punishment will be there temporarily but eventually have eternal life ...eventually ALL saved. Yet John 3:36 says the disobedient, unbelieving SHALL NOT SEE LIFE...NEVER, EVER see life. It says "God's wrath abideth on him", the verb abideth is present tense denoting a action ongoing, sustained, continuous. God's wrath upon them lasts as long as God lasts and above you said God is eternal.

You are correct. Both the punishment and the life after are age-during. I don't have a problem with that. As I said, one age follows another. Like you, I was raised to believe in eternal life. I no longer buy it.

 

[NotreDame]

As for plain readings of the Bible in all cases, even William Lane Craig and Licona, for instance, don't believe in a literal reading of everything. The book of Genesis being an example.

You say you need "Evidence" that Craig and Licona don't necessarily rely upon an ultra-literal, plain reading of all things in Scripture?

Licona appeals to J.I. Packer's view - Baptist Press

Genetics and the Historical Adam: A Response to William Lane Craig - Articles

Moreover, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE should be reading the Bible and assuming that in all cases whatever they 'think' a verse says on a prima facie level is what it indeed means.

Regardless, there is no argument being made on my part that interprets Paul as saying we are justified OR saved by subscribing to "Works of the Law." I've never said as much, let alone implied as much.

So, I'd appreciate it if folks would get off of my back about it!

You never did answer my question from earlier, and being that any full effort on your part to be transparent about the exegetical and hermeneutical sources (other than those in Law) you use in your "logical" development of thought are seemingly still forthcoming, I have naught but to assume (logically) that you're attempted refutation is little more than smoke and mirrors.

How about logic, how about that? How about rational? Common sense? I need not cite to some person or authority when it’s logical, rational, common sense. Does it make sense to ignore plain text meaning? Does it? Is it logical?

“And Jesus wept.” Hold up, let’s not adhere to the plain text meaning that Jesus cried. Let’s abandon the plain text meaning a watery liquid was excreted from his eyes. Yeah, let’s look for alternate meaning other than the plain text. That doesn’t make any sense.

The above is a realistic implication of your idea the plain text meaning can be swept aside or cannot be deduced until we’ve consulted with some authority.

“The cow jumped over the moon.” Not literally a cow, it was a house was tossed over cheddar cheese, despite the plain text meaning saying otherwise.

Logically, words are used to express and convey a message, a point. Words have a limited range of meaning. Words placed into writing are logically done to express a point or message by the writer/author. Adhering to the plain text meaning is done to preclude alternate meanings which do not fit within the words used, thereby better ensuring no deviation from the point/message the author is expressing by the words they chose to express it. After all, the author chose the words with a specific point and messge in mind.

And this is how humans have collectively made sense of the world in writing. There are writings everywhere. Advertisements, job postings, letters, history books, famous writings, etcetera. People do not look for alternate meanings when the plain text meaning is evident.

“Band practice begins at 10:00am.” The plain text meaning shouldn’t be followed because? Do you have a rational answer?

When Plato wrote the “Apology” and “Crito,” based on plain text meaning, I can logically know Plato is discussing a trial involving Socrates. I can say Plato isn’t discussing the trial of Zeus or the three Kryptonian criminals from Superman. But your reasoning, and bizarre insistence, I cite to some authority before I can confidently take a plain text meaning from those works of Plato is irrational.

A sign which reads, “Closed. Reopens at 8:00am,” on a business, by your reasoning, cannot confidently mean what it’s plain text meaning says until one can dial a expert to back up their logical plain text meaning of the sign.

Logic is sufficient. Rationality is sufficient. It is not logical or rational to go through this life with the default view of not adhering to a plain text meaning. If you believe otherwise, it is your burden to show how it is logical and rational to not adhere to plain text meaning.

I provided other examples. I gave you the Due Process Clause example and parking the car in the bay. It is your burden to show why the plain text meaning should be ignored in those examples, because your logic leads to the implication it should in my examples.

As for plain readings of the Bible in all cases

This is a strawman. I’ve never said “all cases” and I have been direct and explicit in stating plain text meaning isn’t for “all cases.” I specifically highlighted some instances where plain text meaning shouldn’t be followed.

As for plain readings of the Bible in all cases, even William Lane Craig and Licona, for instance, don't believe in a literal reading of everything. The book of Genesis being an example.

A few points.

First, you’ve confused plain text meaning with literal reading. The two aren’t the same. A plain text meaning is a serpent talked to Eve. Not a cow, not a crow, but a snake spoke to Eve. The snake did not speak to Adam, or a bird, or another snake.

Now, there’s the question of whether the snake talking to Eve is to be understood as literal, i.e. the author is presenting to the reader an actual account, a factual account, or is the language figurative and metaphorical.

Second, both Licona and Craig adhere to the plain text meaning.

Third, absent ambiguity, evidence of idioms, evidence of different but specific meaning of a word/words than the common meaning, absent evidence of a esoteric, arcane meaning, then the plain meaning controls. Both Craig, Licona, and others follow this principle. But as I said before, the name dropping you demand is irrelevant.

You say you need "Evidence" that Craig and Licona don't necessarily rely upon an ultra-literal, plain reading of all things in Scripture?

Licona appeals to J.I. Packer's view - Baptist Press

Genetics and the Historical Adam: A Response to William Lane Craig - Articles

Moreover, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE should be reading the Bible and assuming that in all cases whatever they 'think' a verse says on a prima facie level is what it indeed means.

That is evidence addressing an argument I never made. I never asserted “in all cases.” Never. Try addressing my argument, the argument I made, factually made.

 

[NotreDame]

If any were predestined to eternal life, then everyone else was predestined for the opposite. Foreknowledge doesn't change the claim of Damnationism toward the vast majority. Countless billions, most with no knowledge whatsoever of Christ. Which labels God as the most despotic tyrant of all time.

Not really. God being omniscient knew, before they were created, who would freely choose to rebel with morally significant choices and who would freely choose to follow God with morally significant choices. God “predestined” what was to happen to those who freely chose to rebel or follow him.

World renown philosopher, religious philosopher, Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, in his famed book, “God, Freedom, and Evil,” provides a compelling argument for free will, evil, and a good, loving God because of free will, and in his other works how eternal punishment can be justified because of free will.

 

[NotreDame]

I think we're we're both identifying the role of God & man in Faith, and you're weighting on the faith of man We make the final decision in our free will, but some of us will certainly say how getting there was after being dragged (or allowed to be dragged) through the mud first.

To some who have said in past discussions that God doesn't force man's will, I've brought up the threats of the final judgment. Sorry all, but some of His warnings/threats are a type of force. They caught my attention and still do.

I notice you said “type of force.” I’m not sure what this may mean, so I want to talk more generally below for now.

Free will means, at a minimum, the cause for doing some action/choice is the person and not something else causing the action or person. There can be external factors designed to influence our free choices, such as punishment, but the threat of punishment didn’t cause the person to decide, the person was the cause for the decision, their decision no doubt took into consideration the penalty.

The threats though do not “force” a man to decide, in the sense that the man had to decide a specific way, that it wasn’t within their freedom to decide differently.

 

[GDL]

I notice you said “type of force.” I’m not sure what this may mean, so I want to talk more generally below for now.

Free will means, at a minimum, the cause for doing some action/choice is the person and not something else causing the action or person. There can be external factors designed to influence our free choices, such as punishment, but the threat of punishment didn’t cause the person to decide, the person was the cause for the decision, their decision no doubt took into consideration the penalty.

The threats though do not “force” a man to decide, in the sense that the man had to decide a specific way, that it wasn’t within their freedom to decide differently.

Since "force" shows up as a synonym for "influence" & influence carries the connotation of power, I think we're going to run into some limitations on words here.

By type of force I meant the God and Creator of the Universe warning us of judgments & penalties we will incur for being outside of His will. I think we're both going to the same thing re: this: We have free-will to decide whether or not to heed the warnings.

On another note, when a Child of God is disciplined by our Father, this discipline is a type of force. It can certainly be an awful powerful influence, like a rod to the child in Proverbs.

Does this answer you?

 

[Danthemailman]

No worries.
One simple test is to take the phrase "works of the law" and use it to replace "works" in the scripture in question. (Romans 4:4-5) Then we can see if the verse still works. (no pun intended)

Now to the one who [does the] "works of the law", wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not [do the] "works of the law" but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

I often hear people who teach salvation by faith AND WORKS try to "get around" such passages as Romans 4:5-6 by teaching that whenever Paul says we are not saved by works, he merely limits that to specific "works of the law" but does not include works of faith/good works/works in general etc.. However, that is a bogus argument.

In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To give a brother or sister these things needed for the body would certainly be a "good work/work of faith" yet to neglect such a brother or sister and not give them the things needed for the body is to break the second great commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses. (Leviticus 19:18)

In Matthew 22:37-40, we read: Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. There are no good works that a Christian could perform which are "completely detached" from these two great commandments which are found in the law of Moses. (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18) We cannot dissect good works/works of faith from the moral aspect of the law and then teach that we are saved by "these" works (good works/works of faith) but just not "those" works (works of the law).

In Titus 3:5, Paul clearly states that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, (works which are done in righteousness) but according to His mercy He saved us..

In 2 Timothy 1:9, Paul clearly states that God saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works.. So Paul does not limit "not saved by works" merely to specific works of the law, but includes works in general.

 

[Saint Steven]

Not really. God being omniscient knew, before they were created, who would freely choose to rebel with morally significant choices and who would freely choose to follow God with morally significant choices. God “predestined” what was to happen to those who freely chose to rebel or follow him.

World renown philosopher, religious philosopher, Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, in his famed book, “God, Freedom, and Evil,” provides a compelling argument for free will, evil, and a good, loving God because of free will, and in his other works how eternal punishment can be justified because of free will.

Yes, I understand that Damnationism has a complete apologetic to back it up. We have all been lulled into to apathy about the supposed fate of the "damned". (even claiming they deserve it) This does not erase the reality of what Damnationists are accusing God of.

 

[Saint Steven]

I often hear people who teach salvation by faith AND WORKS try to "get around" such passages as Romans 4:5-6 by teaching that whenever Paul says we are not saved by works, he merely limits that to specific "works of the law" but does not include works of faith/good works/works in general etc.. However, that is a bogus argument.

In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To give a brother or sister these things needed for the body would certainly be a "good work/work of faith" yet to neglect such a brother or sister and not give them the things needed for the body is to break the second great commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses. (Leviticus 19:18)

In Matthew 22:37-40, we read: Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. There are no good works that a Christian could perform which are "completely detached" from these two great commandments which are found in the law of Moses. (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18) We cannot dissect good works/works of faith from the moral aspect of the law and then teach that we are saved by "these" works (good works/works of faith) but just not "those" works (works of the law).

In Titus 3:5, Paul clearly states that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, (works which are done in righteousness) but according to His mercy He saved us..

In 2 Timothy 1:9, Paul clearly states that God saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works.. So Paul does not limit "not saved by works" merely to specific works of the law, but includes works in general.

Exactly. The law is a singular thing. (made of 613 individual laws)
The law that God gave to the Israelites through Moses.
Loving God and loving others is not our adherence to that law, it is a result of our adherence to Christ.

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How about logic, how about that? How about rational? Common sense? I need not cite to some person or authority when it’s logical, rational, common sense. Does it make sense to ignore plain text meaning? Does it? Is it logical?

Oh by golly, I most definitely think you DO!!! Otherwise, it's just YOU making a claim to logic that isn't always so or isn't always evident to everyone else. I mean, am I supposed to just take your word on how to best interpret the Bible simply because...... "NotreDame says so"?

You see, if we're going to even broach the topic of "logicality" and "biblical exegesis" then yes, I'm going to admit up front that I'm definitely going to have to refer to and defer to sources outside of myself by which to do this since, (logically speaking), its obvious to me that the finer aspects of language and linguistics, logic, hermeneutics and exegesis aren't typically self-evident to anyone, which is why we have to school our children afterall --- since they don't learn even their ABC's by merely standing out in the sunshine.

If there's anything that is self-evident, it's the fact that reading the Bible and understanding it is not an exercise in self-evident realizations.

It seems to me that all that's happening here is that you've decided that you can show me the application of logic, even as it pertains to biblical exegesis, and that you can do so without citation to any of the books and/or references that have actually informed you in your intellectual development over the years.

By contrast, I'll show you how little logic I personally know and my overly abundant need to reference and learn from many sources, all of which I have to draw from in order to gain even a smidgen of understanding about various forms of logic that exist out there in the world (since there is more than one) and about various modes of exegesis/interpretation (even of the bible---since there's also more than one) which are used and applied to the bible in multitudes of different Christian churches. Here's just a few of the sources I feel I NEED in order to responsibly read and understand the Bible:

Introducing Logic and Critical Thinking - by T. Ryan Byerly
The Power of Logic - C. Stephen Layman
A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis - Craig L. Blomberg
Out of Context: How to Avoid Misinterpreting the Bible - Richard L. Schulz
The Most Misused Verses in the Bible - Eric J. Bargerhuff
Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus - Lois Tverberg

...and 100's of others.​

So, yes. Sometimes I do need to ignore a 'plain text reading,' or equivocally speaking, even a literal reading, of the Bible. If I don't, there's no telling what kind of strange interpretations and applications of the bible I may attempt to make....I might even come out from reading the bible thinking I really do need to "hate my parents" or "cut off my right hand" or "refuse learning from a woman" in order to love God. I might even think that I can be justified in my faith, maybe even be saved, by merely thinking of belief and faith as nothing more than a set of ongoing moments where I sit on my laurels, doing nothing good or loving for either God or for family or for people for the whole of my life. I might think (God forbid!) that I can just rely upon what I think a small collection of, say, 10 highly selected verses are supposedly "telling me."

 

[Butterball1]

You are correct. Both the punishment and the life after are age-during. I don't have a problem with that. As I said, one age follows another. Like you, I was raised to believe in eternal life. I no longer buy it.

Everyone has to make their bed and lie in it.

 

[Butterball1]

No. We have a beginning.

Men's souls are without end.

 

[Saint Steven]

Everyone has to make their bed and lie in it.

On the contrary. Many have made a bed for others and lie about it.

Saint Steven said: ↑
You are correct. Both the punishment and the life after are age-during. I don't have a problem with that. As I said, one age follows another. Like you, I was raised to believe in eternal life. I no longer buy it.

 

[Saint Steven]

Men's souls are without end.

That means you are not an Annihilationist. You believe in "eternal" incineration.
What did Jesus teach us about how to treat our enemies? (Matthew 5:43-48)

Saint Steven said: ↑
No. We have a beginning.

 

[Butterball1]

On the contrary. Many have made a bed for others and lie about it.

Saint Steven said: ↑
You are correct. Both the punishment and the life after are age-during. I don't have a problem with that. As I said, one age follows another. Like you, I was raised to believe in eternal life. I no longer buy it.

You or myself cannot make up other people's minds. Each person must make up their own mind then be held accountable to that.

 

[Butterball1]

That means you are not an Annihilationist. You believe in "eternal" incineration.
What did Jesus teach us about how to treat our enemies? (Matthew 5:43-48)

Saint Steven said: ↑
No. We have a beginning.

In an earlier post from John 3:36 it says God's wrath abides upon the disobedient/unbelievers therefore the souls of the disobedient last as long as God and His wrath lasts. Matthew 5 deals with how humans are to treat humans and has nothing to do with God's judgment of men in separating the obedient from the disobedient.