Faith plus Works...how do you know if your doing enough works?

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Hi Albion, I am glad you agree with me but you may or may not be aware that what I have stated contradicts "Reformed" teaching - I am saying we are saved by a virtuous quality called faith/faithfulness (same word in Greek) rather than by the virtue of perfectly fulfilling a law or living a faultless life. Either way it is a virtue (or "work" if you like), it is not all of grace but it is dependant on God’s kindly favour (grace) in that He accepts us weak mortals on the basis of exercising a quality that has been freely provided to us.
I've heard that said before, but I consider it a mistake to think that a free gift of God, Faith, is an act on the part of the recipient.

What I agreed to was exactly what you wrote ("we are saved by faith not by acquiring a standard of worked merit or perfectly fulfilling a law, in other word by a quality possessed and utilised not a quantity or standard achieved") and that's about all I could agree to, not what might have also been in your mind but was not evident in your words.
 
Upvote 0

richard373

Newbie
Jan 24, 2015
63
5
72
Dunstable Bedfordshire
Visit site
✟7,719.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
I've heard that said before, but I consider it a mistake to think that a free gift of God, Faith, is an act on the part of the recipient.

What I agreed to was exactly what you wrote ("we are saved by faith not by acquiring a standard of worked merit or perfectly fulfilling a law, in other word by a quality possessed and utilised not a quantity or standard achieved") and that's about all I could agree to, not what might have also been in your mind but was not evident in your words.


I realised your agreement was qualified and restricted - but it did include my reference to the fact we are saved "by a quality possessed and utilised"
We are both agreed faith is a gift, but utilising it is surely (applying your phrase) "an act on the part of the recipient". The faith itself is not a result of anything worked up or "earned" by the recipient, it is a free gift, so nothing to boast about -

What have you got that was not given to you? And if it was given to you, why are you boasting as though it were your own? (1Cor4:7 NJB)

Yet the recipient must exercise it as with all the gifts of grace provided to those chosen (not on the basis of merit but elective grace) to be incorporated into the Body of Christ so that they might become holy and conformed to the image of their Master, a light to the world and a member of the royal priesthood of God (cf. 1Pet2:9). This of course hinges on a Catholic/Protestant disagreement between "all of grace" on one side and "cooperating with grace" on the other, and I suspect we won't agree about that.



 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I realised your agreement was qualified and restricted - but it did include my reference to the fact we are saved "by a quality possessed and utilised"
Yes. I failed to pick up the purpose for you including that word.
 
Upvote 0

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Wordkeeper, yes, St. Paul refers to the "men of flesh", spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:1 as "brethren" and "infants in Christ", and as those who are able to receive the word of God (which contrasts sharply with his description of the "natural man" in 1 Corinthians 2:14). The men described in 1 Corinthians 3 were Christians, the "natural man", described in v2:14, is not.

1 Corinthians 3 does not teach us that the men here described, "had not produced good fruit", just that they were more 'immature' in the faith than St. Paul felt they should be. Remind me how we got started with this "fruit" analogy again .. :scratch: The "good fruit"/"bad fruit" thing is from the Gospels, it's not used in Paul's Epistles (and, quite frankly, it introduces an analytical tool which is confusing here). I suppose it could work in chapter 2 where St. Paul contrasts Christians with non-Christians, but it doesn't work in chapter 3 because there he is talking to and about Christians ONLY. IOW, the contrast is between the "mature" and the "immature", but all are "in Christ".


Bottomline:

Natural man > unable to receive the word of God
Men of flesh > unable to receive solid food

The end result:

Both natural men and men of flesh cannot be sanctified, cannot see God:

Romans 8:13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Galatians 3:3Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?
Matthew 5:8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Revelation 22:4They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.
You continue:
And I showed you 'what' the EO teach about his works and 'why' they teach that his writings are heretical. I'm not EO, I can only tell you what they told me, that their church holds Pelagius' writings and beliefs to be in opposition to the truth that they teach.

If you'd like to discuss this further, go talk to the EO here at CF and they will clear the problem up for you (but only if you are willing to listen and accept what they have to say about their own faith .. ;)).

I reiterate that Pelagius’ error was minor in comparison to Augustine’s and if you study the real situation of Man, with respect to what Scripture has to say about him as well as what is observable, Pelagius was not far from the truth if you expand on the terms he uses to describe that situation.


Again, this is not a proper analogy for 1 Corinthians 3. St. Paul was speaking to a Christians only group and his admonishment was a call to "maturity", IOW, for "believers" to grow in Christ, not to become something they 'already' were .. "BRETHREN"/"Infants IN CHRIST/able to receive the Word of God".

Yours and His,
David

Unspiritual men were carnal.
Immature believers were carnal.

Net effect: the same.


To expand on Augustine's error, his use of "in Adam" instead of "because of Adam" skews the situation of Man with regard to sin.

If I were working as an expat in Monaco, I would enjoy freedom from income tax. Now, if my father committed a crime that required his entire family to leave Monaco, then when I am returned to the United States, I would be required to pay tax on any income I generate! I have lost immunity from the laws regarding paying tax on income generated. I am now under the jurisdiction of income tax laws!

This is exactly what my father Adam did! His crime caused me to lose immunity from Law! I was deported from a law free zone to a situation where I have come under the jurisdiction of the law!

A similar loss of immunity can happen if a government decides that majority (maturity) is reached at the age of 16 instead of 18. Instantaneously those who are between 16 and 18 have lost immunity!

Of course the decision could be considered unfair if it is established that 16 year olds have undeveloped regions of the brain that decide morality and therefore can adversely affect making moral choices. So was God unfair to allow Adam to have free will, with the power to decide the fate of all his descendants when he exercised that free will? Well, they call God the greatest turn around artist. What men meant for evil, He can mean it for good! What Adam did selfishly God can and DID use to manifest the greatest act of unselfishness.


To understand what Pelagius was up against, what he found objectionable, you have to know what Augustine taught, it's wrong basis, and what it resulted in. You could say that his error was one of the most disastrous misunderstanding in the field of theology, with far reaching implications:

The Most Disastrous Preposition in History

Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle Wisdom

Quote
Doug Chaplin has recently explained how in Romans 5:12 Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”.

So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

yesyoushould

Member
Jan 14, 2015
899
70
✟1,398.00
Faith
Christian
Believing in God is a scenario that many are not ready to receive. Deceit and lying are some of the first clue's of one that is not ready to receive God. Only the Spirit of God is worthy to discern. Speaking boldly of truth is good. The down side is speaking boldly and not having a clue what truth is.
 
Upvote 0

richard373

Newbie
Jan 24, 2015
63
5
72
Dunstable Bedfordshire
Visit site
✟7,719.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
Jumping in, I broadly want to agree with Wordkeeper with some qualification regarding his comments on “original sin” which may be because I have misunderstood his inference:

Quote (Wordkeeper):
“Bottomline:
Natural man > unable to receive the word of God
Men of flesh > unable to receive solid food
The end result:
Both natural men and men of flesh cannot be sanctified, cannot see God”


This principle is re-affirmed by Jesus in his messages to the Asian churches directed through John (Rev2&3). All within those churches will no doubt will have made a profession of faith and been baptised by which they will (from a Catholic perspective) have received pardon from their former sins and been provided with the means of grace to live a holy life. Yet Jesus makes clear it is only those who persevere and are victorious who will receive the privileges of those who are jointly to inherit the Kingdom with Him (Rev2:7,11,17,26-28; 3:4,5,12,21).

Quote (Wordkeeper):
“I reiterate that Pelagius’ error was minor in comparison to Augustine’s and if you study the real situation of Man, with respect to what Scripture has to say about him as well as what is observable, Pelagius was not far from the truth if you expand on the terms he uses to describe that situation.”


This surely is the case. If reported correctly, Pelagius was in error if he believed man had an innate ability to be saved (in the holistic gospel sense) i.e. through his own efforts and choices to restore the relationship with God that was jeopardised at the Fall - that is not possible apart from “the exceedingly abundant grace which is to be found in Christ Jesus” (1Tim1:14). Yet his arch-opponent’s assertions concerning mankind’s inability to love (from his interpretation of 1Jn4:7), ever practice or even desire anything noble or good was surely music to Satan’s ears, as were his assertions concerning God’s inscrutable justice, particularly his perceived intention to damn the bulk of humanity: “Many more are (to be) left under punishment than are delivered from it, in order that it may thus be shown what was due to all” (De Civitates Dei XXI ch 12). Even those who die unbaptised in infancy must experience an eternity of “mild sensual pain” (paena sensus - New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia: baptiised infants” – Para 2). These assertions concerning the narrowness of God's reconciliatory aims were substantially undermined by the teaching of Vatican II, whilst the punishment or exclusion of unbaptized infants from God's Kingdom is no longer dogmatically affirmed, rather their fate is "entrusted to the mercy of God".

Quote: It underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.

Absolutely, the Reformed theologian par excellence who built on Augustine’s teaching reinforced these concepts: unbaptised infants being in themselves “odious” and “an abomination to God - their very natures being a seed-bed of sin” (Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion - Second Book Chapter 1 para 8). This did not appear to me to be our Lord’s impression in his dealings with little children. It was scarcely “Good News”, nor was his assertion of God’s universal hatred for man in his natural condition: “Without controversy, God does not love man out of Christ” (Institutes Third Book Chapter 2 para 32), by which token Christ should have hated the human beings He encountered in His ministry or else He is not His Father’s Son. Veiled glory does not distort nature and scripture affirms Father and incarnated Son to be identically disposed towards humanity (Jn14:9 cp. Jer9:24). Again it is derived from Augustine’s assertion of Adam’s guilt being imputed to his offspring, although to be fair he wasn’t the first to do so in the West.

But it needs to be said that Paul does assert “original sin” to be a reality: In Romans 5 he states that “death reigned from Adam to Moses even upon those who did not sin in the manner of our first parents (v14)". But I have come to understand that that arises from the “body of this death” (Rom7:24 Greek) we inherit ultimately from Adam, i.e. this death which is currently being experienced by the natural man; not “damnation” but the carnal body disrupting our fellowship with God as long as we inhabit it (except we encounter the Son who can make us free indeed to serve the living God through cleansing with His blood and renewal of our mind). Adam’s degenerative body we inherit, his guilt I believe (as do the Eastern Orthodox) we do not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I could argue, how do you ever know your faith is really true faith? Both Protestants and Catholics have the same basic issue, that there is a lack of absolute certainty about ones salvation. Believing in justification sola fide really does not change that.
 
Upvote 0

richard373

Newbie
Jan 24, 2015
63
5
72
Dunstable Bedfordshire
Visit site
✟7,719.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
Both Protestants and Catholics have the same basic issue, that there is a lack of absolute certainty about ones salvation. Believing in justification sola fide really does not change that.

Yep, that's why the Bible when it's referring to final judgement tends to refer more to works/behaviour/character or in Jesus-language FRUIT which is the evidence of faith or the lack of it. A bible word-search on judg* or reward* will tend to confirm that, although as ever each verse it selects needs to be looked at in context.
But I know the next question will be "How much is sufficient?" which is what I tried to explain earlier in the thread. In a sentence justification on the basis of works would relate to quantity/standards/targets, justification on the basis of faith concerns a quality that we either have or don't and its evidence is love (agape) [Mt25 yet again]. That is not how Reformed Evangelicals or some more Augustinian Catholics might express the matter (because I'm effectively saying we are justified by a meritorious quality, albeit one that has been provided to us so is nothing to boast about) but it's what I'm convinced the Bible is saying. I personally experience "assurance" because I know I love Jesus Christ (however inadequately); likewise I have compassion for my fellow man. If justification were by works I would be wondering "but is that love/ compassion sufficient?" but that would be the wrong question and one could never know true peace or assurance. Likewise when I was a Calvinist I constantly questioned whether I was relying solely on Christ's imputed justice or secretly harbouring the idea that I was contributing to my own salvation:confused:. Now I have come to understand that whole notion to be a Calvinist gloss I experience a good deal more peace than I ever did then.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm convinced the Bible is saying. I personally experience "assurance" because I know I love Jesus Christ (however inadequately); likewise I have compassion for my fellow man. If justification were by works I would be wondering "but is that love/ compassion sufficient?" but that would be the wrong question and one could never know true peace or assurance.
The two most obvious problems with that answer are: 1) that's not what your church teaches or how it looks at the matter, even if you do so personally; and: 2) it's basically just to set the issue aside and not think about it. ;)
 
Upvote 0

richard373

Newbie
Jan 24, 2015
63
5
72
Dunstable Bedfordshire
Visit site
✟7,719.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
The two most obvious problems with that answer are: 1) that's not what your church teaches or how it looks at the matter, even if you do so personally; and: 2) it's basically just to set the issue aside and not think about it. ;)

In terms of 1) My Church would rightly place emphasis on the importance of participation in the sacraments as a means of grace as indeed do I:liturgy: but I was not in this post primarily seeking to be a Catholic apologist, just to answer the question of how we might have assurance concerning the evidence of saving faith. As a result of an encounter with the Holy Spirit, you rightly discern I am no longer an entirely orthodox Catholic (see my blog) but the Church thankfully tolerates a degree of deviation from orthodoxy or at least I have not been asked to leave just yet.

2) I have aimed to confront the issue head-on, not in any way "set it aside" i.e. for the sake of one's own peace and assurance how can one know one has saving faith and how does that tie up with Scripture's emphasis of "works" or "fruit" appearing to be the predominant criterion of judgement? As for not thinking about this particular issue I have been doing so for 40+ years as a result of which I've had to acknowledge personal error and change denomination, losing many friends in the process. That is not to say I have it right yet but I am not endeavouring to speak for any Church:preach: just share the understanding I have come to after many years. Hopefully some may find it helpful or alternatively may be challenged to rethink their own understanding or indeed that of their particular tradition (which is in part what I thought CFs were for!)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In terms of 1) My Church would rightly place emphasis on the importance of participation in the sacraments as a means of grace as indeed do I:liturgy: but I was not in this post primarily seeking to be a Catholic apologist, just to answer the question of how we might have assurance concerning the evidence of saving faith. As a result of an encounter with the Holy Spirit, you rightly discern I am no longer an entirely orthodox Catholic (see my blog) but the Church thankfully tolerates a degree of deviation from orthodoxy or at least I have not been asked to leave just yet.

2) I have aimed to confront the issue head-on, not in any way "set it aside" i.e. for the sake of one's own peace and assurance how can one know one has saving faith and how does that tie up with Scripture's emphasis of "works" or "fruit" appearing to be the predominant criterion of judgement? As for not thinking about this particular issue I have been doing so for 40+ years as a result of which I've had to acknowledge personal error and change denomination, losing many friends in the process. That is not to say I have it right yet but I am not endeavouring to speak for any Church:preach: just share the understanding I have come to after many years. Hopefully some may find it helpful or alternatively may be challenged to rethink their own understanding or indeed that of their particular tradition (which is in part what I thought CFs were for!)

To be clearer about my earlier comments, I do not doubt that this matter has been of concern to you for a long time. That would describe the way many of us have approached it, also. But the tone of your remarks does suggest to me that you have--after all this time of wrestling with it--set it aside. Or thrown up your hands and decided not to worry about the details anymore.

That's fine with me, of course, but it is worth noting that your church doesn't take that approach, which is exactly why people ask the question about "How many" and "Which kinds" when they read, from Catholics, posts saying that we will be saved in accordance with our works. If you are at peace with this little disconnect, that's also fine with me, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

The main thing is that none of us "know" in an absolute sense if we are saved or not, but the churches that subscribe to "works righteousness" rather than to "sola fide, sola gratia" leave their members without any clear bearings on what, exactly, they have to do in order to merit salvation.

By contrast, it isn't the case that believing that we are saved by Grace through Faith leaves us in the same position because, with Faith, we are not asking "How much Faith" or "What kind of Faith" since Faith is not a matter of a lifelong accumulation of chits, as though it were some spiritual savings account.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I could argue, how do you ever know your faith is really true faith?
Saving faith requires 2 aspects: object and purpose.

For faith to be saving, the object must be Jesus Christ, understood as the Messiah, the Son of God. Jn 20:31 - but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

The purpose must be for eternal life. 1 Tim 1:16 - Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Saving faith requires 2 aspects: object and purpose.

For faith to be saving, the object must be Jesus Christ, understood as the Messiah, the Son of God. Jn 20:31 - but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God


Even the demons believe Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah, yet they have no salvation. So you haven't really solved the issue.
 
Upvote 0

richard373

Newbie
Jan 24, 2015
63
5
72
Dunstable Bedfordshire
Visit site
✟7,719.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
To be clearer about my earlier comments, I do not doubt that this matter has been of concern to you for a long time. That would describe the way many of us have approached it, also. But the tone of your remarks does suggest to me that you have--after all this time of wrestling with it--set it aside. Or thrown up your hands and decided not to worry about the details anymore
.

It may appear that way because in a sense there is no need to be concerned about certain details (how many works and which ones) because we are not justified by works. The issue I'm concerned with (as is God and the Church) is do I have saving faith, in which case what is the fruit or evidence required to determine that? - it is love for God/Christ/my fellow man. Many Catholics may think in more legalistic terms but they are wrong, even in terms of the Church's teaching which is (I was initially surprised to learn) justification by faith evidenced by fruit. However RCs including myself believe in the requirement for perseverance (which is not guaranteed) so the complication can arise concerning the possibility of committing "mortal sin", i.e. sin so grievous that it radically damages our relationship with God. At that point, yes the Church does become more dogmatic and defines the nature of such sin - that I acknowledge is where doubts may arise about one's status before God and so one seeks the sacrament of reconciliation.


The main thing is that none of us "know" in an absolute sense if we are saved or not, but the churches that subscribe to "works righteousness" rather than to "sola fide, sola gratia" leave their members without any clear bearings on what, exactly, they have to do in order to merit salvation.

The Church places a good deal of emphasis on conscience - if a believer is endeavouring to be faithful to God and the teaching of Scripture as set forth by the Church, he is exercising faith and will assuredly not face perdition although (the Church would say) may require a temporal period of purging if polluted by sin. [I'm really not the best person to be setting this stuff out - as I acknowledge I'm not entirely orthodox, do not regard the RCC as infallible in terms of doctrinal detail but nevertheless believe her to be the mother Church which (hopefully like all of us) is progressively coming to a fuller understanding of the Truth.] As I've argued on the Catholic forum, Vatican II which (I believe rightly) introduced the concept of individuals "of good will" including Christians who through a matter of conscience refuse to be members of RCC, even agnostics could finally be accepted into God's Kingdom. I came to that view from Scripture even before I became Catholic, the point being that earlier councils did not affirm that so the RCC cannot claim that conciliar pronouncements are infallible - rather they are the current understanding of the Church that adherents are to believe.



By contrast, it isn't the case that believing that we are saved by Grace through Faith leaves us in the same position because, with Faith, we are not asking "How much Faith" or "What kind of Faith" since Faith is not a matter of a lifelong accumulation of chits, as though it were some spiritual savings account.

"Savings accounts" apply more to rewards (storing up your treasure in Heaven and the like - now Who was it who said that?;) Also as I said in my reply to FireDragon I genuinely had a problem as a Calvinist being sure that I had "truly saving faith" that was relying entirely on Christ's righteousness not my own. Any Catholic who thinks in terms of the "accumulation of chits" in terms of justification/final acceptance is in error in terms of the Church's teaching and just as important (to me) Holy Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Even the demons believe Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah, yet they have no salvation.
Since Jesus didn't die for the sins of demons, this fact is not relevant to saving faith.

So you haven't really solved the issue.
Comparing apples to oranges only confuses the issue. Saving faith is only for humans, those Christ died for.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Albion, I don't se how you can claim that the RCC leaves people in the dark about what they have to do to be saved. Unless a person is scrupulous, it's not that hard to understand. Whether they are correct in their teaching is another matter, but I don't think its all that unclear what one must do.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Since Jesus didn't die for the sins of demons, this fact is not relevant to saving faith.


Comparing apples to oranges only confuses the issue. Saving faith is only for humans, those Christ died for.

So believing in Jesus now means you must believe he died for you? That leads down the rabbit hole into debating if penal substitution is in fact the Biblical belief. I happen to think it is not.

I tend to focus on his Messiahship and resurrection as the starting points for belief in him. I believe his death is part of his mission, but I do not accept the idea that Jesus death imputes his active righteousness to the believer. We are responsible for our own deeds.
 
Upvote 0

Brother Chris

Newbie
Jan 12, 2011
891
63
✟8,852.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was wondering those who believe Faith and works together saves us, how do they know if they are doing ENOUGH works?

And what works would all be included?

They will never have enough works. They will stand before Christ on the day of judgment and say "Lord! Lord! Did we not do this and that in your name?" And then they will hear the most terrifying words in all the bible: "Depart from Me, I never knew you! You evildoers."

Read Matthew 7:21-23 to see what happens to those who trust in their own works.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
They will never have enough works. They will stand before Christ on the day of judgment and say "Lord! Lord! Did we not do this and that in your name?" And then they will hear the most terrifying words in all the bible: "Depart from Me, I never knew you! You evildoers."

Read Matthew 7:21-23 to see what happens to those who trust in their own works.

Is that really what that passage is about?

It seems to me the passage is really about Jesus approval of acts of mercy, not about justification by faith alone.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Albion, I don't se how you can claim that the RCC leaves people in the dark about what they have to do to be saved.
Oh, it's absolutely the case. No question about it. OTOH, most people do not really think about it. They simply assume that, upon death, they'll be saved because "I been good" or some such rationalization. But if they were scrupulous or really thoughtful, they would be asking--and some do--about how many works of mercy, which kind of good works, and so on.

The irony is that their church spells out much of the surrounding information with excruciating detail (mortal sins vs. venial sins, Purgatory for two kinds of sins, indulgences will moderate the suffering, and so on), but when it comes to how to earn merit in God's eyes....it's never dealt with.

What Catholicism does, in effect, is adopt a position not unlike the Protestant view of Faith--believe and trust--but with Works substituted for Faith. The problem is that good works are a series of individual meritorious acts, whereas Faith is not quantifiable or cumulative.

Unless a person is scrupulous, it's not that hard to understand. Whether they are correct in their teaching is another matter, but I don't think its all that unclear what one must do.
Be the poster who spells it out for us, then. The two questions that have been asked over and over again are 1) How many good deeds? and 2) What is the ranking of good works? For example, throwing a dollar into the Salvation Army kettle cannot possibly be considered the equal of taking a homeless man into your home etc.
 
Upvote 0