An analogy to faith and works

[Ignatius21]

Since this topic is debated so frequently here, I thought I'd toss out an analogy and see what comes of it.

A frequent analogy given in the Scriptures for God's relationship to his people is marriage. Israel is described as an adulterous bride when she went astray in her worship...the Church is described as the Bride of Christ in the NT...etc. Now that's a corporate analogy, as the marriage isn't an analogy for the relationship of each and every believer to Christ. But at any rate...

In a marriage, a husband and wife are pronounced "married" when they exchange their vows and pledge faithfulness. Without this pronouncement they are not married. With it, they are instantly married in the covenantal sense. They are as married on day one as they will be in 100 years. It is an accomplished, objective fact.

But in the relational sense, they have just begun this marriage. Through hard effort done in love, they work to deepen this marriage and grow ever closer to true union. Every little thing, from cleaning the house for each other, to little gifts given when not required, to suffering together through tragedy and celebrating together through victory. Every little "good work" is done out of love, and it deepens the marriage. And a person who is married always has a sense of security that slipping up won't be met with rejection, and yet does not (should not!) take anything for granted or presume upon the goodness of the other. There is a sense of true security, but one takes care not to fall away.

None of these "works" makes a person married. He/she is already married. But without these works, the marriage does not thrive, and one could say the marriage is "dead."

In a marriage, nobody slices and dices and argues for hundreds of years over exactly how a "work" relates to the "vow." It's all one big whole. Everyone just gets it. You distinguish the objective from the subjective but nobody separates them. Nobody hyper-analyzes it. You do the "good works" because you love your husband or wife. Nobody earns favor or forgiveness, nor do they seek to. If you love your wife, you just do those things that ought to be done out of love, and the deeper union that results over time is its own reward.

It's really not that complicated, is it?

But when we turn to theology, we spill centuries of ink and animosity and schism over tiny nuances in how faith and works relate to each other.

 

[Noxot]

in the 'Poem of the Man God' it says:
'It is the purpose that justifies an action and changes its nature.'

so if the motivation is God then the work is for God and if the work is for yourself or something other than God then it is sin, a missing the mark.

but the motivation has to be in God and so a false image of who God is is also sin. God is Love and anything done without the Love of God is self-love, self-will. we have to do the works God wills us to do, and we can only do that by being part of His will, united to His will.

humans all have a spiritual desire/hunger and it can only be satisfied by God. anything less can not constantly fill us because we are made out of Gods love and so we need God-love to be in a non-fallen state.

our desire must only be for God, as much as we can. God demands this of us. in having love for God we are able to properly love our neighbor, when we lack loving God, we lack loving our neighbor. if we think we love our neighbor but do not love God, then we do not love our neighbor as we ought, since only God-love can properly love the neighbor. you can not properly love yourself if you do not have God-love.

nothing works right when you are not with God. everything works right when you are with God. and so being a slave to God is better than freedom to pick good or evil, this is why the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not to be eaten. and being a slave to God is to be a slave to good and in only knowing good, you are free from lack and error, which is evil and sin, missing the mark.

a poor woman that marries the richest guy in the world has no financial need. then so much more our pathetic condition, which is far worse than a poor woman, have all she needs when she is united to the one who sustains all of creation.

but a married couple work together if they really love each other. a good couple have to be a perfect match. the prince of peace demands a princess of peace.

 

[New_Wineskin]

It's really not that complicated, is it?

It is just as complicated as before - perhaps , more so .
Your analogy still comes through the eyes of your group's doctrines . It is a good attempt . Yet , the analogy falls short in that key points of the topic are not addressed .

Again , good attempt .

 

[Ignatius21]

It is just as complicated as before - perhaps , more so .
Your analogy still comes through the eyes of your group's doctrines . It is a good attempt . Yet , the analogy falls short in that key points of the topic are not addressed .

Again , good attempt .

Can you please elaborate? Everyone's understanding comes through the eyes of his groups doctrines. Where does this fall short?

 

[New_Wineskin]

Can you please elaborate? Everyone's understanding comes through the eyes of his groups doctrines. Where does this fall short?

Do you wish a complete list or partial one ? - from what I see , that is .

 

[Ignatius21]

Do you wish a complete list or partial one ? - from what I see , that is .

By all means, be as complete as you like! I like the discussion.

 

[New_Wineskin]

By all means, be as complete as you like! I like the discussion.

Ok . It may take a while - or a day . I would like to word it in a way that would not be construed as disrespectful . Sometimes , it doesn't matter how careful one is .

 

[Ignatius21]

Ok . It may take a while - or a day . I would like to word it in a way that would not be construed as disrespectful . Sometimes , it doesn't matter how careful one is .

Thank you for wanting to be careful and respectful. I will not be offended by disagreement and thoughtful engagement.
Anyone else have a comment?

 

[Nanopants]

I like this analogy. God credited His own righteousness to Abraham for his faith, but we're also taught that faith should have a real effect in us and on our lives. I find two perspectives here that are difficult to reconcile but true nonetheless.

 

[ChetSinger]

It's really not that complicated, is it?

I like your analogy. It's very touching. And as a church, we are the bride of Christ, after all.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Thank you for wanting to be careful and respectful. I will not be offended by disagreement and thoughtful engagement.
Anyone else have a comment?

Great ... here is what I came up with ...

Since this topic is debated so frequently here, I thought I'd toss out an analogy and see what comes of it.
A frequent analogy given in the Scriptures for God's relationship to his people is marriage. Israel is described as an adulterous bride when she went astray in her worship...the Church is described as the Bride of Christ in the NT...etc. Now that's a corporate analogy, as the marriage isn't an analogy for the relationship of each and every believer to Christ. But at any rate...

As good a beginning as one could get .
　

In a marriage, a husband and wife are pronounced "married" when they exchange their vows and pledge faithfulness. Without this pronouncement they are not married. With it, they are instantly married in the covenantal sense. They are as married on day one as they will be in 100 years. It is an accomplished, objective fact.

You don't need this for the anaolgy of the topic . I completely disagree with this and it could distract from the whole message you are attempting to present .

But in the relational sense, they have just begun this marriage. Through hard effort done in love, they work to deepen this marriage and grow ever closer to true union. Every little thing, from cleaning the house for each other, to little gifts given when not required, to suffering together through tragedy and celebrating together through victory. Every little "good work" is done out of love, and it deepens the marriage. And a person who is married always has a sense of security that slipping up won't be met with rejection, and yet does not (should not!) take anything for granted or presume upon the goodness of the other. There is a sense of true security, but one takes care not to fall away.

I am left with a mixture of "ok" and then "huh? "
I do not know of loving married people being concerned about falling away . In fact , I never hear of that among married people nor at weddings .
I do not hear close married people doing things for the other because they are afraid of losing them if they didn't . That would be earning love but not really ... If the other person needed those things or get rid of their spouse , we are not discussing marraige .

None of these "works" makes a person married. He/she is already married. But without these works, the marriage does not thrive, and one could say the marriage is "dead."

You did not bring up how each knew what works each was to bring the table . This is important to associating the analogy to the topic . This person does this and this person does that - which ones are needed and which ones would kill the marraige if not done ?
　

In a marriage, nobody slices and dices and argues for hundreds of years over exactly how a "work" relates to the "vow." It's all one big whole. Everyone just gets it. You distinguish the objective from the subjective but nobody separates them. Nobody hyper-analyzes it. You do the "good works" because you love your husband or wife. Nobody earns favor or forgiveness, nor do they seek to. If you love your wife, you just do those things that ought to be done out of love, and the deeper union that results over time is its own reward.
It's really not that complicated, is it?

Ok . Here is where many on both ( or more) sides of the topic will agreed . And , that would be it except it isn't . It isn't complicated yet , bringing the analogy to the Christian/Lord relationship , something comes up and it becomes complicated .
　

But when we turn to theology, we spill centuries of ink and animosity and schism over tiny nuances in how faith and works relate to each other.

Part of that problem comes from what you wrote ... if one believes that "everyone just gets it" , why is it that the Catholic/Orthodox constantly bring this up to mention it ? The need to mention it shows that it is niether relational nor is it natural - people don't "just get it" - they become dead works not of faith .

I would say that the biggest problem with using this as an analogy is when one moves from the analogy and starts discussing what these works are in the main topic of a Christian relationship with the Lord and , more importantly , what prompts the Christian to do them .

 

[Hentenza]

Since this topic is debated so frequently here, I thought I'd toss out an analogy and see what comes of it.

A frequent analogy given in the Scriptures for God's relationship to his people is marriage. Israel is described as an adulterous bride when she went astray in her worship...the Church is described as the Bride of Christ in the NT...etc. Now that's a corporate analogy, as the marriage isn't an analogy for the relationship of each and every believer to Christ. But at any rate...

In a marriage, a husband and wife are pronounced "married" when they exchange their vows and pledge faithfulness. Without this pronouncement they are not married. With it, they are instantly married in the covenantal sense. They are as married on day one as they will be in 100 years. It is an accomplished, objective fact.

But in the relational sense, they have just begun this marriage. Through hard effort done in love, they work to deepen this marriage and grow ever closer to true union. Every little thing, from cleaning the house for each other, to little gifts given when not required, to suffering together through tragedy and celebrating together through victory. Every little "good work" is done out of love, and it deepens the marriage. And a person who is married always has a sense of security that slipping up won't be met with rejection, and yet does not (should not!) take anything for granted or presume upon the goodness of the other. There is a sense of true security, but one takes care not to fall away.

None of these "works" makes a person married. He/she is already married. But without these works, the marriage does not thrive, and one could say the marriage is "dead."

In a marriage, nobody slices and dices and argues for hundreds of years over exactly how a "work" relates to the "vow." It's all one big whole. Everyone just gets it. You distinguish the objective from the subjective but nobody separates them. Nobody hyper-analyzes it. You do the "good works" because you love your husband or wife. Nobody earns favor or forgiveness, nor do they seek to. If you love your wife, you just do those things that ought to be done out of love, and the deeper union that results over time is its own reward.

It's really not that complicated, is it?

But when we turn to theology, we spill centuries of ink and animosity and schism over tiny nuances in how faith and works relate to each other.

I like biblical analogies but here is some food for thought. A man and a woman are married and stay married because of the love for one another. The good works that I do for my wife I do from the love that I have for her just as the good works that I do for Christ I do because of my love for Him. Good works are the result of this love; the flow naturally from this love. The works are not a condition for the love but the result.

 

[Ignatius21]

I like biblical analogies but here is some food for thought. A man and a woman are married and stay married because of the love for one another. The good works that I do for my wife I do from the love that I have for her just as the good works that I do for Christ I do because of my love for Him. Good works are the result of this love; the flow naturally from this love. The works are not a condition for the love but the result.

Exactly! Faith, working in love.

 

[Ignatius21]

Thank you for your reply. I didn't quite understand your objections, I guess, so maybe we can keep discussing it?

You don't need this for the anaolgy of the topic . I completely disagree with this and it could distract from the whole message you are attempting to present .

Actually I see this as a key point of the whole analogy. Without this, it fails. I was trying to capture the "already, but not yet" sense of a relationship like marriage. There is an already-accomplished, already-completed declaration that these two parties are in a particular relationship toward one another. In this sense, whether they live like lovebirds or argue like Edith and Archie Bunker, they are still married.

What is it that you disagree with? This aspect of marriage is objective and legal, and it is a status that is conferred upon the relationship.

I am left with a mixture of "ok" and then "huh? "
I do not know of loving married people being concerned about falling away . In fact , I never hear of that among married people nor at weddings .
I do not hear close married people doing things for the other because they are afraid of losing them if they didn't . That would be earning love but not really ... If the other person needed those things or get rid of their spouse , we are not discussing marraige .

Maybe I stated it poorly. I was trying to say, not that people should be living in constant fear of being given the boot--in which case the marriage is no longer based on love but on fear, and "true love casts out fear (1 Jn 4;18)." Rather I was trying to say, maybe should have said, that while married people do not live in such fear, neither do they presume upon each other's love and take it for granted, such that they can ride roughshod over each other and still say "Hey, what difference does it make, we're married and you're stuck with me." If they do live in such a way, you could say they aren't truly married...at least, not truly living in love...but going back to the objective sense, they are still married, which makes their lack of love all the more grievous.

In a Christian sense...and yes, in keeping with Catholic/Orthodox traditiong...if one has joined himself to the Church through baptism, that union to Christ is real. If he falls away from that union through constant sin and lovelessness, we do not say "Then he was never really joined to Christ." He was and is joined to Christ, and now "has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace. (Heb 10:29)"

You did not bring up how each knew what works each was to bring the table . This is important to associating the analogy to the topic . This person does this and this person does that - which ones are needed and which ones would kill the marraige if not done ?

Do people sit down and list out all the terms and conditions, making checklists of which ones are deal-breakers? I guess the do in the form of celebrity-style "pre-nup" contracts. But then the marriage has come to be based on adhering to law and fulfilling obligations, the very antithesis of love. 　

Ok . Here is where many on both ( or more) sides of the topic will agreed . And , that would be it except it isn't . It isn't complicated yet , bringing the analogy to the Christian/Lord relationship , something comes up and it becomes complicated .

I'm not seeing how it becomes complicated. Could you elaborate specifically on this?　

Part of that problem comes from what you wrote ... if one believes that "everyone just gets it" , why is it that the Catholic/Orthodox constantly bring this up to mention it ? The need to mention it shows that it is niether relational nor is it natural - people don't "just get it" - they become dead works not of faith .

Hashing out the tiny nuances of "faith and works" is mainly in the domain of the Protestant and Catholic dialogue of the last 500 years. I mean no insult, but it always seems to me that when Protestants elaborate this topic, they are trying to come as close as they can to saying that works are a required part of salvation, without sounding like the Catholic Church

Orthodoxy really conceives of salvation along different lines. The whole understanding of atonement and sin is offset from "the West.' Which is why we don't usually bring it up. Except now...

I would say that the biggest problem with using this as an analogy is when one moves from the analogy and starts discussing what these works are in the main topic of a Christian relationship with the Lord and , more importantly , what prompts the Christian to do them .

Again I don't understand why it suddenly becomes more complicated. Of what necessity?

 

[Tigger45]

I like your analogy. It's very touching. And as a church, we are the bride of Christ, after all.

Exactly!

 

[Albion]

In a marriage, nobody slices and dices and argues for hundreds of years over exactly how a "work" relates to the "vow." It's all one big whole. Everyone just gets it. You distinguish the objective from the subjective but nobody separates them. Nobody hyper-analyzes it. You do the "good works" because you love your husband or wife. Nobody earns favor or forgiveness, nor do they seek to. If you love your wife, you just do those things that ought to be done out of love, and the deeper union that results over time is its own reward.

It's really not that complicated, is it?

But when we turn to theology, we spill centuries of ink and animosity and schism over tiny nuances in how faith and works relate to each other.

It's a reasonable analogy. Works flow from faith but do not effect salvation.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Thank you for your reply. I didn't quite understand your objections, I guess, so maybe we can keep discussing it?

Ok . Let's see .

Actually I see this as a key point of the whole analogy. Without this, it fails. I was trying to capture the "already, but not yet" sense of a relationship like marriage. There is an already-accomplished, already-completed declaration that these two parties are in a particular relationship toward one another. In this sense, whether they live like lovebirds or argue like Edith and Archie Bunker, they are still married.

What is it that you disagree with? This aspect of marriage is objective and legal, and it is a status that is conferred upon the relationship.

You could just start in with two married people . How they are married would be doctrinal and would have the thread be a discussion on *that* instead of the faith/works topic . I suppose that I had a problem with the word "pronounced" as used . We can move on from this .

Maybe I stated it poorly. I was trying to say, not that people should be living in constant fear of being given the boot--in which case the marriage is no longer based on love but on fear, and "true love casts out fear (1 Jn 4;18)." Rather I was trying to say, maybe should have said, that while married people do not live in such fear, neither do they presume upon each other's love and take it for granted, such that they can ride roughshod over each other and still say "Hey, what difference does it make, we're married and you're stuck with me." If they do live in such a way, you could say they aren't truly married...at least, not truly living in love...but going back to the objective sense, they are still married, which makes their lack of love all the more grievous.

If the couple are at that point , either they were never married in the first place or they are now divorced .

In a Christian sense...and yes, in keeping with Catholic/Orthodox traditiong...if one has joined himself to the Church through baptism, that union to Christ is real. If he falls away from that union through constant sin and lovelessness, we do not say "Then he was never really joined to Christ." He was and is joined to Christ, and now "has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace. (Heb 10:29)"

How would your analogy work in that case ? You stated in the previous paragraph that they are still married . In this paragraph , you would say that they would not be .

The only problem that I would have with this paragraph is that Catholic/Orthodox equate a huge portion of sin with works - works that would not have a similar aspect in marraige .

Do people sit down and list out all the terms and conditions, making checklists of which ones are deal-breakers? I guess the do in the form of celebrity-style "pre-nup" contracts. But then the marriage has come to be based on adhering to law and fulfilling obligations, the very antithesis of love. 　

My point exactly . I am torn between ending this post here because it is indeed the complete picture of why there is a faith/works problem in christianity . I n order to be complete , I will proceed .

The Catholic/Orthodox do have such lists . That is where a problem lies .

I'm not seeing how it becomes complicated. Could you elaborate specifically on this?　

Well , that is the point of the whole analogy , isn't it ? With marriage , we could discuss this a bit - not that complicated . Yet , go straight to the topic of faith/works and - viola - complicated .

Hashing out the tiny nuances of "faith and works" is mainly in the domain of the Protestant and Catholic dialogue of the last 500 years. I mean no insult, but it always seems to me that when Protestants elaborate this topic, they are trying to come as close as they can to saying that works are a required part of salvation, without sounding like the Catholic Church

No insult to me . In fact , a big "amen" from me . If you read many of my posts , I go right at noncatholics continuously . Most of those groups do indeed have works for salvation/righteousness at the center and throughout their doctrines . In fact , the "Scriptural Authority" ( not to e confused with "Scripture Only" but kissing cousins ) doctrine is very thing that Paul wrote against extensivley concerning where noncatholics get their rants on Catholics on "unbiblical" works . Paul was writing about how the believing Jews were attempting to force the "bible" on the believing Gentiles and saying "the Scriptures say to do this - so *do* this !" . That is the very essence of "Scriptural Authority" and faithless , works-oriented ideology .

Orthodoxy really conceives of salvation along different lines. The whole understanding of atonement and sin is offset from "the West.' Which is why we don't usually bring it up. Except now...

And , you don't think that would make it even more complicated ?

Again I don't understand why it suddenly becomes more complicated. Of what necessity?

It becomes more complicated when the actual works are brought up - bringing up the faith/works topic , as well .

Let's see ... I will bring up something small in an attempt to not have something that could sidetrack the thread . I know ... someone brings up Catholics genuflecting before entering a pew and signing the cross ( I am not saying that this is a mandatory idea of Catholics - just using it as an example ) . It is complicated as it isn't something that would be played out in marraige .

I hope that helps