Is the gospel just grace?

[Soyeong]

I have no problems with those verses. Just as faith without works is dead, works without faith are futile. And neither faith nor works would be worth a cent if it weren't for God's grace.

Amen.

In the verses you are quoting, Paul is advising Gentiles that they do not need to observe Mosaic law. I agree. Mosaic law was given to Jews, not to gentiles. I follow Torah as a Jew, not because I can be saved apart from grace, but because the only appropriate response to that grace is a life of trust and obedience.

There is a huge difference between saying that Gentiles don't need to keep the law in order to become justified and saying that Gentiles don't need to keep the law. Why wouldn't trust and obedience not also be an appropriate for Gentiles response to God's grace?

 

[Meowzltov]

There is a huge difference between saying that Gentiles don't need to keep the law in order to become justified and saying that Gentiles don't need to keep the law.

Of course there is a big difference. Soyeong, this is something you and I are just going to have to disagree about. I don't believe that Gentiles are required to keep the 613 laws that Moses received for Israel. Gentiles are required to keep the universal laws, or "natural law." The basics. Isn't that enough? The church struggles to get Christians just to keep the 10 commandments and you want to burden Gentiles with 613 laws like not wearing clothing made of both linen and wool?

 

[FireDragon76]

OH, don't worry too much. Most mainline Protestant churches do teach that we have stewardship for the environment. The issue is that some people want to abuse grace. This goes back to the "Cheap Grace" thread.

I would argue whoever is criticizing the Pope on theological grounds for raising environmental awareness as part of a Christian's vocation is risking a deadly sin (yeah, that concept exists in Protestant circles too- it's serious, premeditated sin we willfully ignore). The Pope is just engaging in a "3rd Use of the Law" (and maybe a 1st and 2nd use if he's speaking to non-Christians). I mean, we are talking about the fate of billions of people here that could get flooded or die in heat waves. No "decision for Christ" is going to make God ignore that on Judgement Day. Instead, the author engages in religious self-justification of their slothful and indifferent attitude. Not that different from what the Pharisees did in Jesus day "hey Jesus, you can't heal on the Sabbath! That undermines our religious doctrines, man!"

The sad fact is a lot of American Churchianity is addicted to cheap glace and pathological religious enthusiasm. Real piety is caring about God's good creation.

 

[Soyeong]

Of course there is a big difference. Soyeong, this is something you and I are just going to have to disagree about. I don't believe that Gentiles are required to keep the 613 laws that Moses received for Israel. Gentiles are required to keep the universal laws, or "natural law." The basics. Isn't that enough? The church struggles to get Christians just to keep the 10 commandments and you want to burden Gentiles with 613 laws like not wearing clothing made of both linen and wool?

If there's a big difference, then the verse doesn't say what you said it did. In Ephesians 2:12 and 2:19, it says that Gentiles were once alienated from Israel, but are now fellow citizens. In 1 Peter 2:8-9, it says that Gentiles and now included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood, so Gentiles should conduct themselves accordingly. In first Peter 1:13-16, it says Gentiles are to have a holy conduct, so how does it make sense for Gentiles to be told to have a holy conduct if they don't need to obey any of God's instructions for how to have a holy conduct? The Bible makes no distinction about only universal or natural laws being sins while other laws are not and being under grace does not permit Gentiles to sin. The Ten Commandments is a good start, but it's not about what I want or think is enough, but about what God has commanded. Jesus said his yoke was easy and his burden was light.

 

[fhansen]

The following is an article about the Pope's environmental encyclical, Laudato Si:

Pope Francis Doesn’t Get The Gospel
By telling people their spirituality is measured by what they do, Pope Francis in his recent encyclical rejects the central message of the gospel: grace.
​

I find this an absolutely appalling oversimplification (probably due to anti-catholic myopia). Yes, the heart of the gospel is Christ's atonement and salvation by grace, but that isn't the whole story. There is a lot in the new testament about obedience and refraining from sin. And how can we refrain from sin when we are not taught what sin is?

The essence of the mistake this evangelical author makes is that there is no place in his gospel for teaching right and wrong. Thank goodness the Pope believes differently. In an age where so many species are dying out, when resources are becoming scarce and contaminated by pollution, when our future is threatened by Climate Change, how are we to address this as Christians? What under these new circumstances is right and what is wrong? At least the Pope is on task trying to teach us.

What we do is inseparably linked to who we are-spiritually. What we do shows forth what grace has done-in us-not only forgiveness of sin but real change, towards real righteousness, towards love to put it correctly. This is a work of a Gods' that we cooperate with and participate in-or not.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There is a huge difference between saying that Gentiles don't need to keep the law in order to become justified and saying that Gentiles don't need to keep the law. Why wouldn't trust and obedience not also be an appropriate for Gentiles response to God's grace?

There is no more Jew or Gentile.

In Christ Jesus we are one people guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The following is an article about the Pope's environmental encyclical, Laudato Si:

Pope Francis Doesn’t Get The Gospel
By telling people their spirituality is measured by what they do, Pope Francis in his recent encyclical rejects the central message of the gospel: grace.
​

I find this an absolutely appalling oversimplification (probably due to anti-catholic myopia). Yes, the heart of the gospel is Christ's atonement and salvation by grace, but that isn't the whole story. There is a lot in the new testament about obedience and refraining from sin. And how can we refrain from sin when we are not taught what sin is?

The essence of the mistake this evangelical author makes is that there is no place in his gospel for teaching right and wrong. Thank goodness the Pope believes differently. In an age where so many species are dying out, when resources are becoming scarce and contaminated by pollution, when our future is threatened by Climate Change, how are we to address this as Christians? What under these new circumstances is right and what is wrong? At least the Pope is on task trying to teach us.

From a Lutheran perspective obedience is about Law, not Gospel. The Gospel is unilaterally God coming down to man in man's weakness, inability, and sin. The Law is what we are supposed to do, how we are supposed to live. The Gospel contains no commandments, only promises; commandments are a matter of the Law. Which is why the Law has no saving power, and obedience to God's commandments can merit us nothing--for we remain fiercely unrighteous before the all-holiness of God's just commands. We are therefore justified solely by the good kindness of the God who humbles Himself to death on the cross, rising from the dead triumphant over sin, death, hell, and the devil lifting us with Him by His generous love toward us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Soyeong]

There is no more Jew or Gentile.

In Christ Jesus we are one people guided by the Holy Spirit.

I would agree that that is problematic for those who say that Jews should follow Christ in a different way than Gentiles. Christ kept the law perfectly to set an example for us to follow and as God's chosen people, we should all follow that example.

 

[Tangible]

Col 2:21-23

“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

 

[Soyeong]

From a Lutheran perspective obedience is about Law, not Gospel. The Gospel is unilaterally God coming down to man in man's weakness, inability, and sin. The Law is what we are supposed to do, how we are supposed to live. The Gospel contains no commandments, only promises; commandments are a matter of the Law. Which is why the Law has no saving power, and obedience to God's commandments can merit us nothing--for we remain fiercely unrighteous before the all-holiness of God's just commands. We are therefore justified solely by the good kindness of the God who humbles Himself to death on the cross, rising from the dead triumphant over sin, death, hell, and the devil lifting us with Him by His generous love toward us.

-CryptoLutheran

Those who are righteous are by definition those who do what is righteous. Man was righteous, but we sinned and fell from righteousness, and can not become righteous again through our own efforts, so the Good News is essentially that we can be made righteous again and have right standing with God. The law is God's instructions for how those who are righteous should conduct themselves, so we don't do what is righteous in order to become declared righteous, but because we have been declared righteous. After we have been justified and declared righteous, sanctification is about being transformed by faith and the leading of the Spirit into having the character of Christ and being more and more like him in having a righteous conduct. I think we will be two judgements: one in regard to our salvation and one in regard to our conduct:

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.

Romans 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works:

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

Revelation 2:23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.

 

[FireDragon76]

Which is why the Law has no saving power, and obedience to God's commandments can merit us nothing--for we remain fiercely unrighteous before the all-holiness of God's just commands.

Let's see how that works in the real world with an analogy of what Pope Francis is saying here:

"Do your laundry. Your room is a mess and clothes are piled up everywhere"

"But mom... I won't do it perfectly so I might as well not do it at all, because, after all you will still love me, right?"

I doubt God is going to put up with that kind of casuitry on Judgment Day. That's taking the Law-Gospel hermeneutic and abusing it, what some have called "Law-Gospel reductionism".

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-danger-of-law-gospel-reductionism/

"..the law-gospel distinction is no longer a description of how God speaks, but becomes an overarching theological paradigm. When this occurs, law and gospel are no longer doing what they are supposed to do."

 

[pathfinder777]

OH, don't worry too much. Most mainline Protestant churches do teach that we have stewardship for the environment. The issue is that some people want to abuse grace. This goes back to the "Cheap Grace" thread.

I would argue whoever is criticizing the Pope on theological grounds for raising environmental awareness as part of a Christian's vocation is risking a deadly sin (yeah, that concept exists in Protestant circles too- it's serious, premeditated sin we willfully ignore). The Pope is just engaging in a "3rd Use of the Law" (and maybe a 1st and 2nd use if he's speaking to non-Christians). I mean, we are talking about the fate of billions of people here that could get flooded or die in heat waves. No "decision for Christ" is going to make God ignore that on Judgement Day. Instead, the author engages in religious self-justification of their slothful and indifferent attitude. Not that different from what the Pharisees did in Jesus day "hey Jesus, you can't heal on the Sabbath! That undermines our religious doctrines, man!"

The sad fact is a lot of American Churchianity is addicted to cheap glace and pathological religious enthusiasm. Real piety is caring about God's good creation.

These Christians that get their panties all in a ruffle over the Pope's views on stewardship of the planet watch to much Fox cable news. Thats my unscientific theory.....their Pope is Oreilly and the Fox crew.... in regards to the environment......politics comes first based on repeated superficial sound bites transmitted through the idiot box over and over again every evening after work.......high ratings for sure....any mention of man made climate change is rebutted with economic arguments on how much better quality people have the potential to live with created jobs from energy sector jobs. Talk about rearranging seats on the titanic....But then again we just had another idiot self proclaimed Catholic Justice Kennedy vote legalize gay Marriage. With so many " Catholics" demonstrating their disdain for their churches teaching .........im rambling...just disgusted this morning a "Catholic" vote just legalized >>>.sorrrrry i will stop now. YOURS TRULY DISGUSTED AND [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ED OF Catholic

 

[pathfinder777]

These Christians that get their panties all in a ruffle over the Pope's views on stewardship of the planet watch to much Fox cable news. Thats my unscientific theory.....their Pope is Oreilly and the Fox crew.... in regards to the environment......politics comes first based on repeated superficial sound bites transmitted through the idiot box over and over again every evening after work.......high ratings for sure....any mention of man made climate change is rebutted with economic arguments on how much better quality people have the potential to live with created jobs from energy sector jobs. Talk about rearranging seats on the titanic....But then again we just had another idiot self proclaimed Catholic Justice Kennedy vote legalize gay Marriage. With so many " Catholics" demonstrating their disdain for their churches teaching .........im rambling...just disgusted this morning a "Catholic" vote just legalized >>>.sorrrrry i will stop now. YOURS TRULY DISGUSTED AND [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] OF Catholic

you have to joking my words censored ?????/ wow!!!! sad!!!

 

[FireDragon76]

In Ephesians 2:12 and 2:19, it says that Gentiles were once alienated from Israel, but are now fellow citizens.

The early Church settled the issue already, you can read about it in Acts 15 with the Jerusalem Council where they ruled Gentile converts only have to keep the Noachide law, which is an early codification of natural law. The 10 Commandments in Church history have mostly been interpreted along natural law lines as well.

 

[FireDragon76]

These Christians that get their panties all in a ruffle over the Pope's views on stewardship of the planet watch to much Fox cable news.

Yeah... they've done studies in the past and found when politics and religion collide in the US, politics wins out over religion. Politics has become an idol for many people with mythologies created by Washington think-tanks, with the rhetoric of Christianity paying lip service to that. At the heart of this is the narcissistic cult of individual sovereignty, nobody ever having the right to tell you what to do or what to think. So the conscience gets shaped by political power instead of religious conviction. Religious conviction is then shaped by politics after the fact.

In a way, this goes back to some of the things Bonhoeffer was writing about in his theology. The sin of the modern age is idolatry, whether it's the state or the individual, we have a desire to set up something else as God other than the crucified Savior.

 

[Soyeong]

The early Church settled the issue already, you can read about it in Acts 15 with the Jerusalem Council where they ruled Gentile converts only have to keep the Noachide law, which is an early codification of natural law. The 10 Commandments in Church history have mostly been interpreted along natural law lines as well.

Acts 15 was about whether Gentiles had to follow Jewish traditions, not about whether they had to obey God - obedience to God was a given. The Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God, so they could not and did not rule against Gentiles obeying His laws. The list of four laws in Act 15 does include all of the Noahide laws and contains a law that is not found in the Noahide laws, so this was a specific list for a specific purpose, not an exhaustive list of everything that would be ever be required of Gentiles. If you hold hard to it being an exhaustive list, then that would exclude the commands of Jesus, but if you say it is not an exhaustive list and that other commands were obviously included, then I'd agree with you.

An employer doesn't want to make it too difficult for a new employee by teaching them everything they would ever need to know about doing their job up front, but rather they teach them the basics with the understanding that they will learn how to do the rest on the job. That's the same thought that's being expressed in Acts 15:19-21. Paul did not want to make it too difficult for new Gentiles coming to faith who were unfamiliar with God's laws, so he started them off with the basics, and excused it by saying that they would continue to learn how to obey the laws of Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues, which at the very least implies that they were already keeping the Sabbath.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let's see how that works in the real world with an analogy of what Pope Francis is saying here:

"Do your laundry. Your room is a mess and clothes are piled up everywhere"

"But mom... I won't do it perfectly so I might as well not do it at all, because, after all you will still love me, right?"

I doubt God is going to put up with that kind of casuitry on Judgment Day. That's taking the Law-Gospel hermeneutic and abusing it, what some have called "Law-Gospel reductionism".

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-danger-of-law-gospel-reductionism/

"..the law-gospel distinction is no longer a description of how God speaks, but becomes an overarching theological paradigm. When this occurs, law and gospel are no longer doing what they are supposed to do."

And anyone who would think "I might as well not do it at all, after all you will still love me, right?" is precisely the kind of thinking St. Paul condemns when he says "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may abound? Heaven forbid!"

That, of course, isn't what I--or other Lutherans--believe. We understand that there is a Coram Deio/Coram Hominibus dichotomy; in other words as we relate to God we are to live as there is only the Gospel, as we relate to our neighbor we are to live as though there is only the Law. Indeed, Matthew 25 is quite clear that there will be a day when all must stand before the Lord and give account for how they treated their neighbor, in particular the least of these.

Someone who says, "I can't be perfect, therefore I shouldn't aim to be obedient at all" is faithless; not faithful. Someone who says, "I have faith, so I don't need to try and love my neighbor" does not have faith, because faith believes what God has said, and God has said, "Love your neighbor".

The distinction between Law and Gospel is not an excuse to lawlessness, and those who would use it for that end is denying both the Law and the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Acts 15 was about whether Gentiles had to follow Jewish traditions, not about whether they had to obey God - obedience to God was a given. The Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God, so they could not and did not rule against Gentiles obeying His laws. The list of four laws in Act 15 does include all of the Noahide laws and contains a law that is not found in the Noahide laws, so this was a specific list for a specific purpose, not an exhaustive list of everything that would be ever be required of Gentiles. If you hold hard to it being an exhaustive list, then that would exclude the commands of Jesus, but if you say it is not an exhaustive list and that other commands were obviously included, then I'd agree with you.

An employer doesn't want to make it too difficult for a new employee by teaching them everything they would ever need to know about doing their job up front, but rather they teach them the basics with the understanding that they will learn how to do the rest on the job. That's the same thought that's being expressed in Acts 15:19-21. Paul did not want to make it too difficult for new Gentiles coming to faith who were unfamiliar with God's laws, so he started them off with the basics, and excused it by saying that they would continue to learn how to obey the laws of Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues, which at the very least implies that they were already keeping the Sabbath.

Acts 15 is pretty clear in its teaching that Gentile converts to Christianity were not to be expected to observe the Torah. St. Paul makes this pretty clear in his epistles also.

Scripture is pretty clear, both the Old Testament and New Testament are clear that the Torah was given to the Jewish people as part of the covenant God made with them at Mt. Sinai and that Gentiles were under no expectations to ever observe them. Judaism and Christianity don't agree on many things, but this is one of the few things where there is agreement between the two religions.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

Indeed, Matthew 25 is quite clear that there will be a day when all must stand before the Lord and give account for how they treated their neighbor, in particular the least of these.

N.T. Wright is correct in pointing out that the Bible emphasizes that our covenant relationship to God and the final judgment is what is important (and not our individual justification), and in the end it is a judgment of our faithfulness, a "whole life lived" as Wright puts it (just look at the parable of the talents, for instance). Our immediate justification has to do with how we know we are in a right relationship with God, but that relationship requires repentance when we sin, it is not "once saved always saved". So how we live has everything to do with our salvation.

 

[marawuti]

.
.
.
I mean, we are talking about the fate of billions of people here that could get flooded or die in heat waves.

No. We're not actually talking about people drowning here. We're talking about relocations - granted large numbers if the extremists are correct. This does not rise to the level of sin against my fellow man to my way of thinking.

These putative events are over a hundred years or so at most urgent. Therefore the specter of violence against others on this planet seems a bit overblown.

The question for me is is unwise management of the planet a sin? I'm not so convinced by the Pope's staffed answer. There are those in the Christian community that talk about the planet as if it is a sentient being - kind of Gaia like. I don't have any concept how to even comprehend that.

Allowing another person to remap the bounds of sin is a little beyond it for me. I have enough difficulty with the 10. Having to consider each decision in what used to be the gray zone of personal wisdom now a possible encroachment into sin seems beyond the scriptural pale.