WE ARE NOT MADE RIGHTEOUS BY DOING RIGHTEOUS DEEDS;

Butterball1 · May 7, 2021

fhansen said:
But how and why would a man act righteously unless God makes him righteous?

Man has the ability to obey God, man does not need any help. Man must choose to use the ability he has and obey God by believing repenitng of sins, confessing with the mouth and submit to baptism for remission of sins.

Why then would God make an UNrighteous, disobedient man righteous? He doesn't.

And if being righteous is a choice God alone makes FOR MAN apart from anything man does, then those left UNrighteous are so due to God's failure to make them righteous, God shows respect of person in whom He does and does not make righteous.

Butterball1 · May 7, 2021

Albion said:
That still puts the cart before the horse. If we could save ourselves or become righteous by our own lifestyle, there would have been no need for God to come to us and die for us.

As it was in Moses time, we'd simply perform and then expect to have earned life eternal. Every Christian should know that the entire point of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection and founding of a new church was that God came to us because we could not be right with him on our own.

Paul clearly said "obedience UNTO righteousness" in Romans 6:16. One obeys in order to be righteous. Paul did NOT say one obeys BECAUSE he already is righteous.

fhansen · May 7, 2021

Albion said:
Because he IS a new creature, natch. Your question seems to be asking why he would know that he's been made over, but of course that is not the way being born again or coming to Christ operates. It's not a secret to the new believer.

No my question asks why, if justification only involves a declared righteousness, would man choose to act rightly after being justified?

Albion · May 7, 2021

Butterball1 said:
Man has the ability to obey God, man does not need any help.

Well, that's not what Scripture teaches or, for that matter, what almost every Christian church teaches. We may, without God, do some things that would be considered by society good to do. We may avoid those things that are unfair or self-serving.

BUT no man is perfect. Not even those who try to obey the Commandments, the Law. No man is always guileless, fair, completely loving, etc. That said, the Bible is quite clear that all of us are sinners and that any transgression deserves damnation. Unless there is Faith, that is.

And if being righteous is a choice God alone makes FOR MAN apart from anything man does, then those left UNrighteous are so due to God's failure to make them righteous....

Okay. That's second-guessing God's decision-making. We don't think that's logical to do or our place to do it, either.

fhansen · May 7, 2021

Butterball1 said:
Man has the ability to obey God, man does not need any help.

Well, FWIW the church rejected that thought centuries ago. Fallen man lacks the Spirit, lacks grace, lacks God until he begins to acknowledge Him-and God must approach him first in order for him to be found even though we possess a sense of Him within us, having been made in His image. But there's a reason why all inevitably sin, and why that image is so obscured and distorted and twisted in man; God did not create man for that to happen either. So fallen man is not bad so much as severely "disadvantaged": sick, wounded, lost to the degree that he's not in communion with God.

Albion · May 7, 2021

Butterball1 said:
Paul clearly said "obedience UNTO righteousness" in Romans 6:16. One obeys in order to be righteous.

That's not what the verse is saying. And it's definitely not how Paul looked at things.

Take a look at the commentary section of this link, especially perhaps Barnes' notes.
Romans 6:16 Commentaries: Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (biblehub.com)

BBAS 64 · May 7, 2021

Butterball1 said:
Man has the ability to obey God, man does not need any help. Man must choose to use the ability he has and obey God by believing repenitng of sins, confessing with the mouth and submit to baptism for remission of sins.

Why then would God make an UNrighteous, disobedient man righteous? He doesn't.

And if being righteous is a choice God alone makes FOR MAN apart from anything man does, then those left UNrighteous are so due to God's failure to make them righteous, God shows respect of person in whom He does and does not make righteous.

Good Day, Butterball

Such error would be known as the historical heresy of Pelagianism which has been soundly and repeatedly rejected as "Christian" for many years.

In Him

Bill

The Liturgist · May 7, 2021

fhansen said:
BUT WHEN WE HAVE BEEN MADE RIGHTEOUS WE DO RIGHTEOUS DEEDS. Martin Luther

Catholicism would agree and maintains that this righteousness, that comes from God, alone, as we enter fellowship with Him through faith, also has an identity- defined mainly as love. And that we're in any case obligated to maintain and express this righteousness, an obligation which should present an easy enough burden since love acts, producing righteous deeds, by its nature.

Is any of this necessarily opposed to the doctrine of Sola Fide?

In my professional opinion, no. The sole extent where certain obligations exist in the Catholic church that might be unwarranted are I believe specific to some of the Western Rites, “to wit” as Luther might say, the Holy Days of Obligation on the laity and the obligation on clergy to say mass daily, and to recite the divine office (this also exists in the Maronite Rite, which is why the Maronite breviary is called the Fard, Arabic for “burden” or “obligation”) and also the obligation of confessors to apply penances.

These are generally lacking in the Orthodox churches, but at the same time the Orthodox are in many cases able to outperform the Roman church in terms of midweek service attendance, availability of the divine office, and attendance of the divine office. However, Rome does excel at availability of midweek masses.

These obligations are however much akin to clerical celibacy in that they are a disciplinary matter; however, insofar as failing to adhere to them is a sin, this could create a potential incompatibility with sola fide which is oddly rite-specific.

I would also argue that some specific devotions and indulgences related to Purgatory might exceed the limit of sola fide.

However, sola fide allows much more than most people realize, including an obligation for baptism, the Eucharist, and confession and absolution, and also permits prayers for the dead, as seen in Anglicanism, and permits, as we see in the case of Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Methodism, and at Taize, whose founder was a Reformed Calvinist, monasticism and ascetic practices.

The Liturgist · May 7, 2021

Butterball1 said:
Man has the ability to obey God, man does not need any help. Man must choose to use the ability he has and obey God by believing repenitng of sins, confessing with the mouth and submit to baptism for remission of sins.

Why then would God make an UNrighteous, disobedient man righteous? He doesn't.

And if being righteous is a choice God alone makes FOR MAN apart from anything man does, then those left UNrighteous are so due to God's failure to make them righteous, God shows respect of person in whom He does and does not make righteous.

As others have observed, this is classically Pelagian. However, if you were to say that if we chose to love Christ and desire to follow Him, the grace imparted by the Holy Spirit is what gives us the ability to realize our love for Him through faith and obedience, this would not be Pelagian but doctrinally correct, I believe.

Some Calvinists would not be satisfied; I am a semi-Calvinist in that I believe God ultimately knows who will be saved, but otherwise my soteriology, following the example of John Wesley, has become Arminian.

fhansen · May 7, 2021

Albion said:
As I explained...coming to Christ, accepting him as Lord, is not done without the person knowing anything about it.

He has accepted Christ as his spiritual leader and so he naturally aspires to live in accordance with Christ's own instructions to mankind. It's ridiculous to think that the convert would not want to follow in the way that his leader taught followers to live.

Were the person NOT want to do that, we all would question whether his "conversion" was genuine...or just words.

Yes, he necessarily knows-faith is based on knowledge. But that's not the question. Depending on theology fallen man is totally depraved, unable to even assent to God, let alone move himself towards Him, nothing much more than a worthless sinner lacking any personal righteousness. And, of course, even faith is a supernatural gift, something he couldn't obtain of the kind or quality God requires without His help, without grace. And the doctrine of Sola Fide maintains that man is strictly declared or imputed to be righteous at justification, so he still lacks any personal righteousness after justification, pretty much a snow-covered dung-heap at that point I guess. In Catholicism, OTOH, he's translated into a new creation, not only cleansed and forgiven of sin but also given the virtues of faith, hope, and love, even if in a more or less seedling form in need of being exercised, expressed, tested, nurtured, and grown. More is expected of those given more, including receiving more time within which to work out his salvation now. And sin will still be struggled with but expected to be overcome in the overall sense, especially when it comes to most serious offenses, persistence in acts intrinsically opposed to love of God and neighbor.

Either way the question arises, how and why would a personally unrighteous person act righteously? I believe Luther may have said that it would be done in gratitude but even that would seem to be an unlikely response for a still unrighteous person-and not really the kind of motivation that would cause a person to regularly desire to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sorrowful or even proclaim the gospel with any true zeal. It seems to me that, beginning with faith, man is already assenting, already making his first move towards real righteousness with that act, and then continues to do so with the help of further grace during his entire walk with God throughput his life...or not.

Albion · May 7, 2021

fhansen said:
Yes, he necessarily knows-faith is based on knowledge. But that's not the question. Depending on theology fallen man is totally depraved, unable to even assent to God, let alone move himself towards Him, nothing much more than a worthless sinner lacking any personal righteousness. And, of course, even faith is a supernatural gift, something he couldn't obtain of the kind or quality God requires without His help, without grace. And the doctrine of Sola Fide maintains that man is strictly declared or imputed to be righteous at justification, so he still lacks any personal righteousness after justification, pretty much a snow-covered dung-heap at that point I guess.

In Catholicism, OTOH, he's translated into a new creation, not only cleansed and forgiven of sin but also given the virtues of faith, hope, and love, even if in a more or less seedling form in need of being exercised, expressed, tested, nurtured, and grown.

In my opinion, you've painted those two as being much further removed from each other than is the actual case.

More is expected of those given more, including receiving more time within which to work out his salvation now. And sin will still be struggled with but expected to be overcome in the overall sense, especially when it comes to most serious offenses, persistence in acts intrinsically opposed to love of God and neighbor.

Same thing here.

Either way the question arises, how and why would a personally unrighteous person act righteously?

Because he is a new creature in Christ. And you've just explained that he is NO LONGER estranged from God and a slave to sin after having become a born again believer.

fhansen · May 8, 2021

Albion said:
In my opinion, you've painted those two as being much further removed from each other than is the actual case.

Maybe we could say that while Protestantism maintains that our righteousness is imputed when we’re justified, and Catholicism maintains that righteousness is actually given when we’re justified, we both agree that we’re not righteous in any sufficient manner before justification, we’re not justified because we’re already just/righteous IOW. We certainly wouldn’t need a Savior if that we’re the case.

And we can and should agree that part and parcel of being justified by faith and so becoming a child of God involves Him changing us, for the better, in terms of our possessing and growing in righteousness to the extent that we remain in Him, such that this righteousness should serve as a hallmark of being a Christian even if sin will also still be struggled against.

And I think that should be consistent with thoughts underlying Luther’s statement.

Albion · May 8, 2021

fhansen said:
Maybe we could say that while Protestantism maintains that our righteousness is imputed when we’re justified, and Catholicism maintains that righteousness is actually given when we’re justified, we both agree that we’re not righteous in any sufficient manner before justification, we’re not justified because we’re already just/righteous IOW. We certainly wouldn’t need a Savior if that we’re the case.

And we can and should agree that part and parcel of being justified by faith and so becoming a child of God involves Him changing us, for the better, in terms of our possessing and growing in righteousness to the extent that we remain in Him, such that this righteousness should serve as a hallmark of being a Christian even if sin will also still be struggled against.

I do agree with most of that. But really, there isn't a difference between the Protestant's understanding and the Catholic's understanding of justification except that the Catholic sees justification as giving the person a chance to work towards his salvation, whereas the Protestant view is that the person has, through the gift of Faith, been given salvation on account of the atoning work of Christ.

fhansen · May 8, 2021

Albion said:
I do agree with most of that. But really, there isn't a difference between the Protestant's understanding and the Catholic's understanding of justification except that the Catholic sees justification as giving the person a chance to save himself (which he had no chance of doing previously, as we both agree), whereas the Protestant view is that the person has, through the gift of Faith, been given salvation on account of the atoning work of Christ.

And yet some Protestants agree that the gift of faith need not be accepted to begin with, or may be rejected later on; we may fail to remain in Him. And Catholicism actually teaches that, at justification (formally at baptism), the believer is heaven-bound were they to die in that moment. They’ve already endured to the end, but the end came quickly for them. But only God knows with perfect certainty the heart, and therefore the fate, of any individual.

But, yes, the Church teaches that justification is the beginning, rather than the end, of our salvation, the “root and foundation” of it and generally speaking our lot involves more time within which we may compromise our faith, our relationship with God. We’ll be tested, challenged, etc, with grace always at hand and, hopefully, our faith, hope, and love will only be refined and grown at the end of the day rather than falter. And this is why there’re so many warnings and admonishments and encouragements to believers to strive, to persevere, to be vigilant, to put to death the sins of the flesh, to be righteous and holy, to love, to work out their salvation with He who works in us, with more expected from those given more. The most concise Catholic teaching is reflected in this quote, used in the catechism:
“At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love.”

Love, the greatest gift, is considered to be the true measure of man's righteousness.

fhansen · May 8, 2021

Albion said:
I do agree with most of that. But really, there isn't a difference between the Protestant's understanding and the Catholic's understanding of justification except that the Catholic sees justification as giving the person a chance to work towards his salvation, whereas the Protestant view is that the person has, through the gift of Faith, been given salvation on account of the atoning work of Christ.

I also think I that with a strictly declared/imputed righteousness being the result of justification there's really nothing for the believer to compromise, no just state of being to lose if we don't really possess any personal justice or righteousness to begin with. And this is why there can be confusion or ambiguity and disagreement with this doctrine over whether or not sin can compromise our position with God, whether or not sin still earns us death.

Albion · May 8, 2021

fhansen said:
I also think I that with a strictly declared/imputed righteousness being the result of justification there's really nothing for the believer to compromise, no just state of being to lose if we don't really possess any personal justice or righteousness to begin with.

You see, as I read your posts, this is the point that you seem to me to be returning to again and again.

It's describing the person who has been justified by faith as someone who isn't changed, but just reclassified. That is not the way Protestants look at the event.

fhansen · May 8, 2021

Albion said:
You see, as I read your posts, this is the point that you seem to me to be returning to again and again.

It's describing the person who has been justified by faith as someone who isn't changed, but just reclassified. That is not the way Protestants look at the event.

Ok, and Luther's quote above is consistent with that. But other quotes of his seem to imply something quite different I think (maybe coming from different times of his own walk)-and not all Protestants would necessarily agree with your statement in any case I believe. I really don't care which side has it right-only that we have the best understandings of God's intentions that we can have-and try to word the concepts accordingly. In the end, what your and Luther's statement above reveal regarding this aspect of justification agrees very well with my own understanding and belief.

I also understand what you've been saying-that Sola Fide means that were not judged by any personal righteousness or the works that should flow from it-but that faith, alone, saves us. The issue, though, is whether or not faith or the justification it achieves necessarily includes personal righteousness and therefore should exclude sin-and then, either way, whether or not that righteousness/ sinlessness to one degree or another is necessary for salvation

Albion · May 8, 2021

fhansen said:
and not all Protestants would necessarily agree with your statement in any case I believe.

Well, we're always safe to say that, no matter what the issue is!

There's always some church that is classified as Protestant and would beg to differ. But that's the problem when anyone phrases questions or makes assertions and words the thing like this--"Protestants believe."

That's why I try to be a bit more specific in such cases. In this one, you are mainly dealing with Luther, and my answers were, I think, in step with his views about salvation by Faith Alone.

Hmm · May 9, 2021

Albion said:
Take a look at the commentary section of this link, especially perhaps Barnes' notes.
Romans 6:16 Commentaries: Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (biblehub.com)

I found Barne's notes on the verse helpful especially this bit:

"Unto righteousness - Unto justification; that is, unto eternal life. The expression stands contrasted with "death," and doubtless means that he who thus becomes the voluntary servant of holiness, will feel himself bound to obey it, unto complete and eternal justification and life; compare Romans 6:21-22. The argument is drawn from what the Christian would feel of the nature of obligation. He would obey him to Whom he had devoted himself."

Do you think the part I've bolded is essentially saying "we become what we worship" to quote NT Wright?

If so, although I'm sure it doesn't!, does this resolve the difference between the Catholic and mainstream Protestant views about Sola Fide? So we can can lose our salvation by not continuing to do good deeds - the Catholic position - but this is because it is an indication that we have stopped devoting ourselves to/worshiping God.

This also resolves one of the issues I had in the idea that we would automatically do good deeds if we genuinely become new creations - the Protestant view. This always seemed robotic or puppet-like to me but if it's seen as the natural outflowing of God in response to our worship (we become more like Jesus as we worship Him) then it seems to make more sense.

Butterball1 · May 9, 2021

The Liturgist said:
As others have observed, this is classically Pelagian. However, if you were to say that if we chose to love Christ and desire to follow Him, the grace imparted by the Holy Spirit is what gives us the ability to realize our love for Him through faith and obedience, this would not be Pelagian but doctrinally correct, I believe.

Some Calvinists would not be satisfied; I am a semi-Calvinist in that I believe God ultimately knows who will be saved, but otherwise my soteriology, following the example of John Wesley, has become Arminian.

It's not Pelagian, it's Biblical, Genesis 4:7. Man can and does make choices for God, Joshua 24:15 and against Matthew 23:37.

If God chooses for men which men will be made righteous, which men will be "regenerated then those left UNrighteous are so due to God's failure to make them righteous, God shows respect of person in whom He does and does not make righteous. I have posted this a few times but not seen it addressed.

WE ARE NOT MADE RIGHTEOUS BY DOING RIGHTEOUS DEEDS;

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Facilitator

Oldbie

Facilitator

Contributor

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Oldbie

Facilitator

Oldbie

Facilitator

Oldbie

Oldbie

Facilitator

Oldbie

Facilitator

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Well-Known Member

Similar threads