Faith vs. Works

[hedrick]

Two churches that are not in communion with each other cannot both be "the Church."

Certainly not. But they can be *parts* of the Church. Unless their pride in being The Church is sufficient that the Lord decides not to consider them part of his Body. I pray that he won't do that.

 

[Hismessenger]

Faith without works is dead! You are saved by faith alone. It has been said that both are speaking of the the very same thing and this is above all else true. The problem with the modern christian is that they want to equate works with a physical action and this is only the tip of the ice berg. For the works that are pleasing to God are only the things which he has given us to do. Not what we think he wants us to do.

To make this more plain for those seeking understanding, If you ask God for something of which you have no way to bring it about of yourself, this is the work of faith, That the only thing you can do is trust God to do what it is that you can't. And when you understand this, you will understand why faith is the only way to salvation. While you use your faith to believe that God will do what it is that you have asked in His name, you are working your faith. The work of faith is only to believe in the God of creation, that he has everything in hand. Saved by faith alone through your works of believing what God has said and will do according to his word.

hismessenger

 

[Hismessenger]

Another work of faith is when God tells you to do something and you respond without question. Ala. Abraham.

hismessenger

 

[Ignatius21]

That first section which I pieced together from your entire post seems a little ambiguous. If it happens to mean to you that I have to be baptized into the Orthodox Church and or baptized by an Orthodox priest to be in the body and therefore save we have a problem. If it means that I simply will not be fellowshipping according to your ideas, I can live with that. If it means I'm not saved - that's another thing altogether. Then it becomes a doctrine to the effect that I am cursed much like Catholic doctrine.

I need clarification on the above ideas as you have the time.

Time is something I wish I had more of! Of course, I suppose that's kind of the whole point of our faith

As with almost any "denomination" you will find a spectrum of thought within Orthodoxy as wide as the planet on which it resides. In my old Reformed denom, I encountered those who thought TULIP was the right understanding of things, but wasn't intended to really be pushed too hard...it was nonessential to salvation. Others equated it with the gospel itself...deny monergistic regeneration, and you've denied God and worshiped a false Christ. Some were measured in their views of non-Protestants...and would say oh-so-gracious things like "There are real Christians in communion with Rome who are saved in spite of their false doctrines." Others made no bones about it...you're catholic? See you in hell...well, not really, because I'm saved...but really, the Pope is Satan and you're going to hell.

So in Orthodoxy, there are definitely those would would affirm that you are absolutely not a part of the Church, there is no union with Christ without fellowship in the Orthodox Church, there is no salvation without union with Christ...so yeah, you can read the Bible and pray all you like, but you're basically a flower planted outside the range of the sprinkler (I made that one up myself! Just now! ) and you're withering away, until the day you will be cast into the oven.

The majority, I think, would simply rest along the lines of "we know where God's grace is...where know where the gospel is preached...we know where Christ himself is present...we don't know where it isn't." It's God's business, not ours.

For myself, I do not curse those who are outside of communion with Orthodoxy. God looks on the heart, and his Spirit blows where he wishes. I'm not going to tell God how to do his job. I know full well I have no right to this inheritance, and I'm not about to take it away from anyone else because they don't come to the "right" address on Sunday morning.

Also I think there is great precedent in not condemning. There were schisms among the various churches all throughout history, and from what I can gather, those on the various sides of these schisms did not automatically condemn all on the other side to hell.

I need some clarification on the third section's statements much as wih the statements of the first section.

By this I mean that the sacrament of the Eucharist (by which the earliest fathers really referred to the entire worship of God, because it all centered around the Eucharist) has always been central, and that a belief in God's mystical presence has always been held, although not always with great clarity. To this day Orthodoxy maintains that the elements become the true body and blood, but really go no further dogmatically...you could say that something like Transubstantiation is kinda-sorta a very distinct way of expressing the reality of it, but by no means is it dogmatically held (because to dogmatically insist upon it, is to dogmatically insist upon a framework of medieval scholasticism and Aristotelian logic, none of which can be said to be essential to Christian doctrine).

Contrasted to a typical Protestant view, though, where the sermon can be given in isolation from the sacrament of the Supper, Orthodoxy holds that both word and sacrament must be given together. They're kind of two sacramental aspects to the same mystery: the real presence of the Word of God among his people, gathered in worship.

That's probably all even less clear than what I said before

As for that 4th section having to do with what we each consider to be Scripture - That's a very big subject for another time and thread.

As for my interpretation being superior to any of the church fathers - I know how I arrived at mine and how the Holy Spirit was involved in my interpretation. If a church father has a commentary to go with their thoughts such as a systematic theology opinion by a current author might offer - I would certainly take into consideration their views.

Of course their views would have to line up with the scriptures as I accept them. We may have a problem. I could imagine this to be a particular problem when considering doctrines having to do with Mary since my documents only say so much about her. I wouldn't accept tradition on things like that. Same goes for the"sacraments".

I'd very much like to discuss that with you. I don't expect to change your thinking and it isn't my aim. But everything you've posted on this forum, almost without exception, is the same thinking I spent years posting myself. What finally hit me in the face was the realization that I could not account for my canon of Scripture, my hermeneutic, my choice of "this scripture" as clear vs. "that scripture" as vague, or my entire conceptual framework without arriving at someone's tradition that I had imbibed without even realizing it. Notice what you've said above..."their views would have to line up with the scriptures as I accept them." In answering the question of why your tradition is superior to theirs, you've essentially appealed to...your tradition. So did I. It's self-referencing and circular.

As for Protestantism's necessary relationship to the Roman thing - I agree. I would call myself a Protestant proudly in that I definitely protest against heresy wherever I find it (and there's plenty to be found in Rome).

Do you agree that the entire Protestant hermeneutic arose as a rejection of Rome? That without Rome's errors, Protestantism would never have arisen as a distinct movement? And that therefore Protestantism is organically linked together with Roman Catholicism, despite the seemingly great differences?

Another way of saying it is, Protestant tradition is essentially a modification of the Catholic tradition it seeks to deny?

I really prefer not to use titles other than things like "believer" etc. But then often we almost have to take titles to ourselves to differentiate against what we consider false. That's just the way it is in this age.

To adequately describe myself, I'd have to string together a dozen or so Christianeze words. All strung together I'd probably sum them all up by calling them "orthodox". I'm thinking you'd disagree with my characterization of myself as orthodox though.

Clear up some of that potential "curse" stuff I alluded to earlier in the post and we can hopefully still call each other brother.

Awww, c'mon! What's a little curse between friends?

"Orthodox" is a broad term. But no, I would certainly not place your approach to interpreting Scripture, and your understanding of the nature of the Church, under the heading of orthodox (and by this I don't mean eastern, or Russian, or whatever...I mean "in line with the teaching of the fathers.")

 

[Ignatius21]

And here's a recent Orthodox perspective on "faith vs. works" based on some ongoing drama within The Gospel Coalition.

http://onbehalfofall.org/an-orthodox-commentary-on-the-gospel-coalition-controversy/

After 500+ years, Protestants still cannot resolve among themselves just what role are played by works, or exactly what sanctification means.

Telling...in my humble opinion.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Awww, c'mon! What's a little curse between friends?

"Orthodox" is a broad term. But no, I would certainly not place your approach to interpreting Scripture, and your understanding of the nature of the Church, under the heading of orthodox (and by this I don't mean eastern, or Russian, or whatever...I mean "in line with the teaching of the fathers.")

Regarding the canon of scripture – I’m going to go with the books generally accepted by Protestant, Catholic, various “cults”, and Orthodoxy as well. I don’t say “all” of the books accepted by them all. No one agrees on such a list and it simply isn’t going to happen. So I winnow things down to the ones pretty much received by all. That (with a few exceptions) comes down the 66 common books of the Bible as I know it. I’m sure people from each group would want their own special books and traditions included. But like I say - it isn’t going to happen. So -- I’m getting all my scripture from the one source – the 66 books of my Bible. I’m quite certain that that is a reasonable and wise thing for a Western convert like me to settle on.

Some questions I would have concerning my consideration of Orthodoxy go like this.

If a modern day tribal member receives the gospel in it’s simplest form from a missionary and “accepts Jesus” as his Savior, and is baptized to openly proclaim his newfound faith to the community and if he relies only on the sacrifice of Jesus for his salvation - is he “saved” vs. “lost”?

If he is given a Bible in his own language and told to study it with an open mind – but admonished to judiciously use the assistance of the teacher’s the Holy Spirit has provided for the church in his study - all the while wisely researching their conclusions himself from the scriptures themselves so as to not be led astray – is that an adequate thing to keep him safe from false teaching through the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

I’m going to assume from your previous posts that you personally would say yes to these concepts even though you believe in the Orthodox way of doing things.

Well- the gospel in that very form is going out to every tribe and nation as we speak. I’m assuming they are being saved in most cases.

Assuming that is so – I am that modern day tribal member. My tribe is the Knox tribe. My language is English. My jungle was not located in the Amazon basin or in Borneo. It was the mean streets of a Northern city on the Pacific coast. The Bible that I was given is the Protestant Bible of 66 books. I have been baptized after openly confessing Christ as my Lord and Savior. It was a real conversion and not just one of convenience. It was and is deeply personal between me and my creator.

I have worked at my faith for some 56 years now since first receiving Christ around a little campfire – preached to me by a Baptist missionary at a youth camp in the mountains. My only hope of salvation is the blood of Christ shed for my sins according to the plan of God in fulfillment of the very O.T. scriptures which were in common acceptance in Jesus and the apostle’s time.

Cutting this short – I’ll refer to a common Western saying. “You dance with the one that brought you to the dance.”

In my case that one is the evangelical Protestant version of the gospel in it’s simplest form.

I’ve explored a lot of Christian ground over a half century and more since I first received that gift of salvation offered to me around the campfire. I’ve always used one very basic grid to strain every teaching I have ever received through.

What does what I’m considering do to that very simple and direct salvation message that I received in my youth?

Does what I am about to receive contradict in any way my simple belief in my salvation being assured by my personally receiving the message of the gospel? If anything adds to that message - it is viewed with extreme suspicion by me.

That addition could come in the form of an appeal to personal works or it could come in the form of “Church works” (use of sacraments such as baptism into a special group, no matter how large the group may be – the Eucharist blessed by a special priest – “whatever”).

I’ve been giving due consideration to Orthodoxy just as I did with Catholicism, Mormonism and Islam for that matter. Most considerations over the years have not been accepted by me. Those that left the simple faith of my youth in tact were sometimes accepted. Those that changed the basic gospel of grace as I have always understood it have been roundly rejected.

If Orthodoxy, as understood my many or most involved with it, didn’t add to that gospel that I received around the campfire – I’d give it a lot more time. But the practice of Orthodoxy as currently understood through my research seems very much to add to and detract from the simplicity of my faith. I’m currently rejecting it.

I’m not against traditions ”per se” and - for sure – Orthodox traditions hardly approach the gospel changing traditions of the Catholic church. But I am one who changes traditions very,very carefully.

God’s eternal Son –crucified and raised from the dead for my salvation according to the Hebrew Scriptures – that message received on a very personal basis by me through faith resulting in my justification – and that simple gospel message kept pure throughout my life as my only hope for an eternity with my creator in a world without sin.

[FONT=&quot]I’m approaching 70 years old now and it looks very much like I’m staying with the one who brought me to the dance. [/FONT]

 

[prodromos]

If a modern day tribal member receives the gospel in it’s simplest form from a missionary and “accepts Jesus” as his Savior, and is baptized to openly proclaim his newfound faith to the community and if he relies only on the sacrifice of Jesus for his salvation - is he “saved” vs. “lost”?

I find the text I have bolded to be a strange concept, after all the Apostles never taught the Gospel in its 'simplest' form but spent long periods teaching face to face, especially in the case of the Gentiles who did not have the benefit of God's continuous revelation over the centuries. The Apostles ensured that before they moved on, they had established elders who were well grounded in every aspect of the faith, in much the same way that Christ taught His disciples.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I find the text I have bolded to be a strange concept, after all the Apostles never taught the Gospel in its 'simplest' form but spent long periods teaching face to face, especially in the case of the Gentiles who did not have the benefit of God's continuous revelation over the centuries. The Apostles ensured that before they moved on, they had established elders who were well grounded in every aspect of the faith, in much the same way that Christ taught His disciples.

“Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures” 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

“…………if you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved” Romans 10:9

Salvation has to start somewhere. It starts when you receive the gospel.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” John 5:24

Salvation in totality is an ongoing process involving body, mind and spirit. But first you have to be born again.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3

“…… you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.” 1 Peter 1:23

Multitudes have attempted to enter the Kingdom of God without receiving Christ's gospel on a personal basis to begin with. They end up with a religion - a Christian religion for sure - but only a religion - not a personal relationship with God.

If you try reverse the process - you end up with a gospel of works which is not really a gospel at all.

 

[prodromos]

Why was it necessary for the Apostles to spend so much time teaching before they moved on if what you posted above was all that was needed to know?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Why was it necessary for the Apostles to spend so much time teaching before they moved on if what you posted above was all that was needed to know?

How to receive forgiveness for sins through believing on Jesus Christ is not all there is to know.

He told us to not only preach forgiveness for sins to all the nations. He told us to teach and make disciples as well.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19

When you think about it - if Paul for instance had not complied with the mandate to teach we wouldn't have a great deal of the N.T.

Teaching has always been a big part of making disciples. Jesus even took a lot of time to teach. He could have just died and left it up to those who followed Him.

We enter the Kingdom of God through that narrow gate of the gospel of Christ's cross. But there's a lot more to Kingdom life than just being born again and having your sins forgiven.

He's not only to be Savior. He's to be Lord.

Much has been wrongly made of the concept of easy salvation being preached by evangelicals. Assuming that a believer truly repents and receives Christ as Lord - the battle has just begun.

"Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Ephesians 6:11-12

I would hope that we all - evangelicals and Orthodox alike - are in the Kingdom and battling together.

But anyone who doesn't first believe on Christ on a personal level and pass from death to life is kidding himself. He may spend his entire life "doing Christianity" as it were only to find Himself naked or dressed in his own filthy rags of religious righteousness when he meets the Lord face to face.

That could be as true for someone from an evangelical background as it is for a Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon or any other form of Christianity.

It seems a bit more likely that people from a more formal, sacramental, or nationally practiced religion than for an evangelical. But it's not a possibility for only the former groups.

One would think that it would be more likely for an evangelically raised person who hears a cry for personal acceptance of the gospel every day of his life to receive the gospel and be born again. But there are hundreds of tales of evangelical who practiced church activities for many, many years only to have the Holy Spirit lead them to personally accept Christ and be born again.

We all need to examine ourselves to be sure we are in the faith.

I reiterate the need to be born again to any group or individual where I find something said that would tend to hide or cloud that need to be born again. Often those folks are from a sacramental background.

Please don't take having the gospel preached in it's most basic beginning form (concerning the need for personal regeneration) as any kind of personal affront.

Many people make church activities such as receiving the Eucharist a means of achieving righteousness. But personally believing the gospel in it's simplicity is the only way to be dressed in His robes of righteousness. We can only be justified before God through faith in His Son and what He has done for us.

If you've been born again we're in this fight together. If not or you really haven't thought much about that concept - please consider it.

Send me a private note if you like.

 

[jax5434]

And here's a recent Orthodox perspective on "faith vs. works" based on some ongoing drama within The Gospel Coalition.

http://onbehalfofall.org/an-orthodox...n-controversy/

After 500+ years, Protestants still cannot resolve among themselves just what role are played by works, or exactly what sanctification means.

Telling...in my humble opinion.

I think you have reached the wrong conclusion about what this article shows. There is one person being chastised, and removed from Christian fellowship because he doesn't like The protestant view of sanctification. To characterize this of proof that " Protestants still cannot resolve among themselves just what role are played by works, or exactly what sanctification means". is a bit of a misrepresentation and ,I think, think a bit self serving.
Should I use any number of orthodox heretics as proof that orthodoxy can't get its act together?

God Bless
Jax

 

[bcbsr]

Faith is the cause, works the effect. Salvation is contingent upon faith alone. But the faith that saves is the faith that works.

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." Rom 3:28

"Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Rom 4:4,5