What's the use of faith alone?

[fhansen]

One may claim that the practice of a sacrament is, by definition, aligned with God's Word, or "connected to the vine." But we all know it isn't.

I didn't say anything about a sacrament per se, only about communion with God, the engrafting of the branch into the Vine.

Now, the fact that the Eucharist is considered to be representative of that very union, and of our vital need for it, is all the better. The sacraments serve as theology "concretized", so to speak, teaching and giving us the means to live out the faith in the most basic ways. and they've served well for that purpose over the years especially in consideration of the largely illiterate Christians masses down through the majority of centuries since the beginning of the faith. Also, from the beginning, this celebration of the Lord's Supper and the union it implies has been considered central to the lives of Christians, incidentally.

And, yes, it's all about the heart at the end of the day, which is why the church teaches that the sacraments have no meaning or efficacy unless accompanied by faith as is the case with our relationship with God in general, of course. This truth needs to be strongly emphasized and taught as it's easy to fall into practicing any version of the Christian faith mechanically, legalistically.

 

[Fervent]

The idea that adherence to sacramental and liturgical Christianity js somehow inherently left wing is not briliant - it is unfounded and deeply offensive both to left wing Protestants such as of the UCC or other low church groups, or to conservative liturgical Christians such as traditional Catholics and Orthodox.

I didn't take his use of "left" and "right" to be referencing a political spectrum, but simply a matter of characterizing the poles on the question of faith alone from those who focus excessively on the role of works(what he refers to as "left") and those who strip faith of any content(what he refers to as "right"). Using those particular terms might have been ill advised given their typical usage, but it expresses the polarity and reality that it is a continuum well.

 

[RandyPNW]

The standard argument against sola fide is James saying faith without works is dead. However, I doubt there are any Christians who are without works. Which as far as I can see makes the argument of faith plus works moot.

Luther saw works as *not* being necessary in the exercise of faith. So for him it was not just about doing good works, but about whether good works can be coupled with Faith to produce Salvation.

I would agree with Luther that God "loved us first" by sending His Word into our lives, to which we respond in Faith. But that doesn't mean we don't respond in our Faith without the attendant works of repentance.

That is, we do participate in our own Salvation to the extent we respond to God's initiative, although we of course do not "earn" our Salvation. Luther's effort to separate Faith and Works, therefore, is unrealistic because even our choice to believe is a kind of "work." And as you say, we *all* do some good works in the exercise of our Faith.

So, we are not here discussing whether those who believe do good work or not, and I agree with you that we *all* do some good work for God. Rather, it is the matter of Salvation, because that was what Luther was concerned with--with the idea that our Work has zero to do with participating in our Salvation.

And I think that is wrong, because true Faith is defined as producing the works of repentance. That is, we choose to exchange our lifestyle for a Christian lifestyle.

 

[RandyPNW]

I didn't take his use of "left" and "right" to be referencing a political spectrum, but simply a matter of characterizing the poles on the question of faith alone from those who focus excessively on the role of works(what he refers to as "left") and those who strip faith of any content(what he refers to as "right"). Using those particular terms might have been ill advised given their typical usage, but it expresses the polarity and reality that it is a continuum well.

Thank you. I had no intention of expressing insulting rhetoric about Catholics or even about my own Lutheran upbringing. I in fact try to take myself out of any particular faction and focus only on the parts that I think creates a division between God and us. I don't think that focusing on any particular group was my focus at all--only on the extreme edge of any "Faith" definition.

 

[fhansen]

Christian faith was never, never, never meant to separate one's salvation from the necessity of being just and living accordingly, but is, in fact, the authentic means to finally accomplishing that very thing by virtue of union with God- in whatever way and to whatever degree He deems right for you but certainly in a way that produces love-born good fruit and is devoid of wanton, persistent, unrepented egregious sin.

 

[RandyPNW]

Christian faith was never, never, never meant to separate one's salvation from the necessity of being just and living accordingly, but is, in fact, the authentic means to finally accomplishing that very thing by virtue of union with God- in whatever way and to whatever degree He deems right for you but certainly in a way that produces love-born good fruit and is devoid of wanton, persistent, unrepented egregious sin.

I agree. Christianity by its nature encourages good works. The problem is, how much authentic "good work" do we need to do to be Saved? Or, is it just any "good work" we do for God that will Save us? Or is just the encouragement of good work virtuous enough in itself?

My belief is that anybody, Christian or not, can do authentic good works for God. That's why Christians ought to minister their Christian love to all, regardless of whether they get "Born Again." We aren't just trying to get them "Saved." More, we are trying to give them proper respect as people "made in the image of God, and to encourage them to do good.

We were all made in God's image. We should therefore note the "goodness" inherent in all men, regardless of whether they are regenerated spiritually. Otherwise, I think we are turning into "robotic evangelists," as opposed to godly Christians who respect other human beings.

We should encourage good works from all, which would not be possible if only Christians can do authentic good works. Thank you.

 

[Michael Scaman]

Faith alone does not mean faith isn’t transformative. In Colossians 1. Their faith working in love fruitfulness went back to the day they understood the grace of God

 

[fhansen]

I agree. Christianity by its nature encourages good works. The problem is, how much authentic "good work" do we need to do to be Saved? Or, is it just any "good work" we do for God that will Save us? Or is just the encouragement of good work virtuous enough in itself?

Well, the good works would or should align with the "state of the heart" an organ you've referenced already. And God, who prepares works for us in advance, knows what we should be doing with whatever we've been given-with more demanded of those given more (Luke 12:48). So we have guidlelines for "good fruit production" including those that direct us to refrain from deeds of the flesh as outlined in Galatians and elsewhere, and simply obeying the commandments as well, by the power of the Holy Spirit now. At some point we let God, the just and merciful judge, determine how well we've done with His grace, how well we've responded to and reciprocated His love, and hopefully we haven't buried our "talents".

And the reverse of your question should be asked as well. How persistently and wantonly could we engage in grave, ugly, harmful sin/deeds of the flesh, obviously opposed to and destructive of love, and still expect to make it into heaven?

But I agree overall. Nice post.

 

[fhansen]

Faith alone does not mean faith isn’t transformative. In Colossians 1. Their faith working in love fruitfulness went back to the day they understood the grace of God

Yes, it seems to depend on who's defining the idea, and on whether or not that transformation and its positive effects are 1) necessary, and/or 2) guaranteed to occur for a believer such that they could never refuse or thwart it.

 

[XrxrX]

You gotta love these classic battles of theology.. everything was going fine, then James is like "hehe, check this out!".. then John penning Rev.. "Hold my wine.." XD

 

[Fervent]

You gotta love these classic battles of theology.. everything was going fine, then James is like "hehe, check this out!".. then John penning Rev.. "Hold my wine.." XD

James and John can hardly be blamed for confusion introduced in the 16th century.

 

[Hoping2]

Are you sure of that?

Yes, as Paul seemed to be continuously arguing against circumcision and other Law keeping for salvation.

Self-styled works are not written against in the Bible? Works done apart from Christ's virtue aren't spoken against in the Bible?

Name a self-styled work done for salvation.
Nothing done apart from Christ pertains to salvation.

But I agree with you. True operation of Faith requires a demonstration of Works. Otherwise, it is Faith In Name Only.

Good.
The worst of the no-works crowd, would outlaw repentance from sin and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
Not to mention enduring faithfully until the end.

Cain did what he thought were "good works" in making an offering to God, and it wasn't accepted. It wasn't the works of the Law.

What Law ?

In the Christian era mankind is busy trying to do good works as well--not works of the Law.

That would be post-conversion works, ala James.

And God will not accept those works on behalf of Salvation unless they are an expression of faith in Christ for Salvation.

You are kind of blurring the line between works for salvation and works post-conversion..

However, even works of the Law were accepted by God in its own time, even if Salvation had not yet been worked.

Agreed.

The faith that existed along with the works of the Law were an expression of Faith that leads to Salvation,

Agreed.

So though I agree that Paul spoke against the works of the Law as a substitute for Faith,...

Agreed

...he did not denigrate faith that had operated under the Law.

No, he never did.

And he certainly did not uphold good works in the NT era that do not operate together with Faith. I should think you agree?

Agreed, though I can't think of any scrip's pointing that out.
He once considered his own works under the Law to be what God desired.
But those works were the persecution of the new church.
Is that what you are considering "good works under the Law" ?

 

[XrxrX]

James and John can hardly be blamed for confusion introduced in the 16th century.

I agree James and John aren't to blame for anything. Those culpable are those taking James out of context, the context of which is he cites both Abraham and Rahab.. both of whom did ONE "work".. at the inception of their faith, which essentially was to Believe. And therein lies the crux of what kind of "work" are we speaking of, salvific, or soteriological "work" or simply an "action"? Acting on your faith, thus showing its actual faith and not just "intellectual belief". That some have taken this nuance, which really isn't even nuance but simply plain speaking, and shoehorned a works-based salvation, flying in the face of the overwhelming glut of scripture absolutely destroying such an idea, is no less than criminal.

 

[Fervent]

I agree James and John aren't to blame for anything. Those culpable are those taking James out of context, the context of which is he cites both Abraham and Rahab.. both of whom did ONE "work".. at the inception of their faith, which essentially was to Believe. And therein lies the crux of what kind of "work" are we speaking of, salvific, or soteriological "work" or simply an "action"? Acting on your faith, thus showing its actual faith and not just "intellectual belief". That some have taken this nuance, which really isn't even nuance but simply plain speaking, and shoehorned a works-based salvation, flying in the face of the overwhelming glut of scripture absolutely destroying such an idea, is no less than criminal.

I'd put at least some of the blame on those who added "alone" to Romans declarations about the salvific role of faith and the decontextualization of Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians in general(especially Romans), not just the decontextualization of James.

 

[XrxrX]

Well, the good works would or should align with the "state of the heart" an organ you've referenced already. And God, who prepares works for us in advance, knows what we should be doing with whatever we've been given-with more demanded of those given more (Luke 12:48). So we have guidlelines for "good fruit production" including those that direct us to refrain from deeds of the flesh as outlined in Galatians and elsewhere, and simply obeying the commandments as well, by the power of the Holy Spirit now. At some point we let God, the just and merciful judge, determine how well we've done with His grace, how well we've responded to and reciprocated His love, and hopefully we haven't buried our "talents".

And the reverse of your question should be asked as well. How persistently and wantonly could we engage in grave, ugly, harmful sin/deeds of the flesh, obviously opposed to and destructive of love, and still expect to make it into heaven?

But I agree overall. Nice post.

The actual "question" here, is what "gets you into heaven"? Certainly, rank sinning does not.. conversely, does "refraining from sin"? THIS is the bottom line of the soteriological debate.. and IF you cannot unequivocally state that "refraining from sin will get you into heaven", then you need to seriously rethink your theology.

 

[XrxrX]

I'd put at least some of the blame on those who added "alone" to Romans declarations about the salvific role of faith and the decontextualization of Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians in general(especially Romans), not just the decontextualization of James.

The 'decontextualization" is conflating behavioral mandates with soteriological "requirements". And effectually contriving a stumbling block for those that know no better. The one is of course extremely serious, and yes, "binding"... the other precludes salvation. Delineating the 2 demeans neither, but rather honors the same scripture both are predicated on.

 

[Fervent]

The 'decontextualization" is conflating behavioral mandates with soteriological "requirements". And effectually contriving a stumbling block for those that know no better. The one is of course extremely serious, and yes, "binding"... the other precludes salvation. Delineating the 2 demeans neither, but rather honors the same scripture both are predicated on.

The issue is that building an entire soteriology on a late medieval understanding of Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians is a far more egregious issue that is only compounded by the relegation of James to a sort of second-class bit of literature that needs to be explained away rather than properly accomodated.

 

[XrxrX]

The issue is that building an entire soteriology on a late medieval understanding of Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians is a far more egregious issue that is only compounded by the relegation of James to a sort of second-class bit of literature that needs to be explained away rather than properly accomodated.

Your assertion demands that the Gospel of Grace was a contrivance of Luther.. which is absurd. Mr. "Sin boldly" didn't "create" what the bible clearly teaches. If anything, God used yet another woefully flawed vessel to teach the "wise". This is why Protestants insist on if not Sola Scriptura, at the very least Prima Scriptura, because so many of these foundational rifts may be exegeted and clarified simply by a plain reading of the relevant scriptures.

 

[Fervent]

Your assertion demands that the Gospel of Grace was a contrivance of Luther.. which is absurd. Mr. "Sin boldly" didn't "create" what the bible clearly teaches. If anything, God used yet another woefully flawed vessel to teach the "wise". This is why Protestants insist on if not Sola Scriptura, at the very least Prima Scriptura, because so many of these foundational rifts may be exegeted and clarified simply by a plain reading of the relevant scriptures.

Teaches it so clearly that it was completely absent before 1517. Yep. Makes sense.

 

[XrxrX]

Teaches it so clearly that it was completely absent before 1517. Yep. Makes sense.

Again, this is appealing to authority.. to which I (and every believer has the right) to selectively submit. We could sit and pick apart literally Every single Church Father, and ostensibly destroy half of their positions. Literally, a contemporary layman could.. just as a modern ditch digger would know to put Neosporin on a cut. This isn't to belittle them, it's simply a chronological fact. So, that appeal rings hollow in an honest debate. Again, why Prima Scriptura is the standard.. not some appeal to authority, divest of the scripture it purports to "interpret". This is literally why there was a Reformation.