Maybe Martin Luther's Belief on how Good Works play a role in salvation is not so uncatholic

[GDL]

Pure grace. If you get a chance read the canons of the 2nd Council of Orange. These are officially sanctioned foundational church teachings, hammered out mainly as a result of the Pelagian dispute and quoted by Trent as well as the modern catechism. Be sure to read Conclusions at the end.
The Canons of the Second Council of Orange (529)

Will take a look, Thanks.

Take a look at my next post in answer to @Daniel Peres.

 

[GDL]

The simple answer is, “absolutely nothing.” One biblical verse I can think of that supports this belief is John 6:44 where it is written that Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.”

What’s the typical Protestant belief? I must admit I have never discussed this with any Protestant so I honestly don’t know.

Thanks for the answer.

Although I understand why not being Catholic might make me Protestant, honestly, I don't consider myself either, so please don't let my answer color your views of Protestants: I'm Christian and my alliance is to the Word of God - the "head' of His Ekklesia. So, I'll answer from the Word and I'm glad you used John 6:44. We can build off of this.

NKJ John 6:44-45 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 "It is written in the prophets,`And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

• God [in grace & mercy] initiates the process (as here & as stated in other Scriptures) by drawing us to His Son by teaching us.
  • What we do, is to hear and learn & come to (believe in) Jesus
    • In context Jesus commands: NKJ John 6:27 "Do not labor (work) for the food which perishes, but [work] for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."
      • In context:
        • The food that remains for eternal life is what the Father is teaching through His Son to draw us to His Son,
        • To work (do) for this information is hear and learn it and come (believe in) to God's Son
        • Jesus just commanded unbelievers to work to receive the gift of eternal life that He gives
  • To make certain we don't misconstrue what we do, as being the key to this:
    • Not only does Jesus say God initiates by teaching & drawing us, He also says:
      • NKJ John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
        
        • In context, again, I see this as saying our belief in God's Son is God's work. He sent His Son, His Son is doing His work, He is teaching and drawing, and just because He requires some work from us to hear & learn & believe, does not negate whose Plan & Work of Grace this is.

IMO, the whole works-salvation debate is a mess. The mainstay argument of Ephesians 2 is really clarified here in John 6 where we can see God working in His Plan to save. His grace is seen here in His drawing via teaching. Our belief comes about in part from being given by Him what to believe and who we must believe in. Ephesians 2 also tells us God makes us alive from the dead and it reveals the union of life, of being raised & of being seated together with Christ - all of this being God's Plan and God's work by Grace through Faith (which is foundationally His work per John 6). What can or could we do to give ourselves life together with Christ, to raise ourselves & seat ourselves together with Christ? It seems ludicrous that we would need to be told that this is God's Work based in God's Grace. But the fact we're taught this speaks volumes about us.

Plenty to argue with here or maybe to consider and discuss. I already know many Protestants like to attack this and cry "works salvation". I also know they don't really attempt to explain these verses.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks for the answer.

Although I understand why not being Catholic might make me Protestant, honestly, I don't consider myself either, so please don't let my answer color your views of Protestants: I'm Christian and my alliance is to the Word of God - the "head' of His Ekklesia. So, I'll answer from the Word and I'm glad you used John 6:44. We can build off of this.

NKJ John 6:44-45 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 "It is written in the prophets,`And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

• God [in grace & mercy] initiates the process (as here & as stated in other Scriptures) by drawing us to His Son by teaching us.
  • What we do, is to hear and learn & come to (believe in) Jesus
    • In context Jesus commands: NKJ John 6:27 "Do not labor (work) for the food which perishes, but [work] for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."
      • In context:
        • The food that remains for eternal life is what the Father is teaching through His Son to draw us to His Son,
        • To work (do) for this information is hear and learn it and come (believe in) to God's Son
        • Jesus just commanded unbelievers to work to receive the gift of eternal life that He gives
  • To make certain we don't misconstrue what we do, as being the key to this:
    • Not only does Jesus say God initiates by teaching & drawing us, He also says:
      • NKJ John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
        • In context, again, I see this as saying our belief in God's Son is God's work. He sent His Son, His Son is doing His work, He is teaching and drawing, and just because He requires some work from us to hear & learn & believe, does not negate whose Plan & Work of Grace this is.

IMO, the whole works-salvation debate is a mess. The mainstay argument of Ephesians 2 is really clarified here in John 6 where we can see God working in His Plan to save. His grace is seen here in His drawing via teaching. Our belief comes about in part from being given by Him what to believe and who we must believe in. Ephesians 2 also tells us God makes us alive from the dead and it reveals the union of life, of being raised & of being seated together with Christ - all of this being God's Plan and God's work by Grace through Faith (which is foundationally His work per John 6). What can or could we do to give ourselves life together with Christ, to raise ourselves & seat ourselves together with Christ? It seems ludicrous that we would need to be told that this is God's Work based in God's Grace. But the fact we're taught this speaks volumes about us.

Plenty to argue with here or maybe to consider and discuss. I already know many Protestants like to attack this and cry "works salvation". I also know they don't really attempt to explain these verses.

The main problem is getting hung up on myopically isolating “faith” such that the sheer act of believing a certain set of truths is all justification is about. The doctrine of Sola Fide served to muddy the waters as to whether or not man remained obligated to be actually, personally righteous under the new covenant, and to live accordingly, or whether freedom from being “under the law” did away with that obligation.

But the purpose of faith is to serve as the “mechanism” by which man and God are reunited after the Fall of man which resulted in our separation. Faith is the means to communion with God, which man was made for and is lost without. This state of fellowship is the basis and essence of justice or righteousness for man, which is what it means to say that we’re justified by faith, and which is the reason that faith pleases God immensely. Man’s righteousness flows only from that relationship.

The error is in thinking that righteousness is only declared of or imputed to man at justification, rather than given to or implanted in him. Once that error is made then any need for true righteousness is effectively thrown out the door, replaced by a vicarious one that changes nothing but man’s status in God eyes regardless of the truth of man’s true state of being. Ironically he remains just a “white-washed tomb” for all practical purposes. If a man can become just by declaration only then he has nothing to lose, no way to lose his justified state by living unjustly so long as he “believes”. And that is decidedly not the gospel. In fact, shades of Is 5:20 start dancing around in my head when I consider any doctrine that effectively places a wedge or barrier or level of uncertainty between righteousness… and, well, being righteous.

“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” 1 John 3:7-8

Lots of insights in your post, BTW.

 

[Daniel Peres]

The main problem is getting hung up on myopically isolating “faith” such that the sheer act of believing a certain set of truths is all justification is about.

I would also add to this point, that when discussing the issue of faith, we need to understand how the word "faith" is used in the Gospels. And this isn't just a Catholic-Protestant disagreement. One thing I have noticed on this forum is that although all Protestants believe in Justification by Faith Alone, there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to what faith is. For Catholics, the word faith encompasses many things. On the other hand, I have noticed that to many Protestants on this forum, faith means only one thing, and that is strictly belief. Other Protestants, other Protestants fall somewhere in between.

This difference in what a Catholic means by faith is probably the main reason that Protestants get infuriated when Catholics say, "Faith without works is dead." The typical Protestant will always say, "A-ha! You believe in faith plus works salvation." The problem is that most Protestants are not aware of Catholics mean by the word "Faith." Many Protestants, define the word faith as simply belief. While Catholics believe the word Faith encompasses so much more. That is why when a Catholic says, "Faith without works is dead," we are not saying good works are necessary in addition to faith, we are saying that good works are part of faith itself, just like belief is a part of faith. You may also hear Catholics sometimes say that is not enough to believe in Jesus as our savior, we must also believe what Jesus said. So, for us Catholics, faith has many aspects to it, while to a typical Protestant they see faith as only having one aspect, belief.

Therefore, Protestants and Catholics argue over Justification by Faith Alone, they usually talk past each other. It's like one person entering into a contract with another person in the regards to the purchase of several widgets. If the two parties have a different definition of what a widget is, then the contract is pointless. In fact, that's why many contracts include a definitions section to avoid such problems.

I guess what I am saying is that prior to engaging in debates over Justification by Faith Alone, maybe we should engage in a debate over the biblical definition of the word "Faith."

 

[GDL]

Lots of insights in your post, BTW.

Thank you.

I can understand the points you bring up regarding "myopic". I get myopic when I study topics so I can best understand how God uses words - what He means by them. Then I take all those studies & work to harmonize it all.

I came out of a camp theology by doing very focused studies in the Greek Text after realizing that it seemed many were speaking of faith & salvation in ways that did not seem to align with the Word. So, I got myopic about these 2 topics & a few more for more than a few years & my views changed immensely.

It looks like @Daniel Peres has mentioned Faith along these lines, so maybe we can discuss a bit more from his post.

 

[fhansen]

I would also add to this point, that when discussing the issue of faith, we need to understand how the word "faith" is used in the Gospels. And this isn't just a Catholic-Protestant disagreement. One thing I have noticed on this forum is that although all Protestants believe in Justification by Faith Alone, there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to what faith is. For Catholics, the word faith encompasses many things. On the other hand, I have noticed that to many Protestants on this forum, faith means only one thing, and that is strictly belief. Other Protestants, other Protestants fall somewhere in between.

This difference in what a Catholic means by faith is probably the main reason that Protestants get infuriated when Catholics say, "Faith without works is dead." The typical Protestant will always say, "A-ha! You believe in faith plus works salvation." The problem is that most Protestants are not aware of Catholics mean by the word "Faith." Many Protestants, define the word faith as simply belief. While Catholics believe the word Faith encompasses so much more. That is why when a Catholic says, "Faith without works is dead," we are not saying good works are necessary in addition to faith, we are saying that good works are part of faith itself, just like belief is a part of faith. You may also hear Catholics sometimes say that is not enough to believe in Jesus as our savior, we must also believe what Jesus said. So, for us Catholics, faith has many aspects to it, while to a typical Protestant they see faith as only having one aspect, belief.

Therefore, Protestants and Catholics argue over Justification by Faith Alone, they usually talk past each other. It's like one person entering into a contract with another person in the regards to the purchase of several widgets. If the two parties have a different definition of what a widget is, then the contract is pointless. In fact, that's why many contracts include a definitions section to avoid such problems.

I guess what I am saying is that prior to engaging in debates over Justification by Faith Alone, maybe we should engage in a debate over the biblical definition of the word "Faith."

I agree, and I've offered my definition here in this thread and elsewhere. But I've come to appreciate Augustine's quote in any case,
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

And love acts, works, whatever, for the good of others, by its nature. And:

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

 

[fhansen]

Thank you.

I can understand the points you bring up regarding "myopic". I get myopic when I study topics so I can best understand how God uses words - what He means by them. Then I take all those studies & work to harmonize it all.

I came out of a camp theology by doing very focused studies in the Greek Text after realizing that it seemed many were speaking of faith & salvation in ways that did not seem to align with the Word. So, I got myopic about these 2 topics & a few more for more than a few years & my views changed immensely.

It looks like @Daniel Peres has mentioned Faith along these lines, so maybe we can discuss a bit more from his post.

By "myopic" I just meant getting so focused on faith so as to overlook the bigger picture. Again, faith does not stand alone, as the sole reason for salvation. It's the means to it because it's the doorway to relationship with God who, alone, can make man just, overcoming the sin in us that otherwise earns us death as we remain in Him, living by the Spirit. We're saved by faith, via faith, "through and on the basis of faith", Phil 3:9.

Faith is not the end, but the beginning of salvation for man. Faith doesn't "stand in" for righteousness in man, nor is it the equivalent of righteousness or sums it up even though it's one part of it; it's not all God desires of man. If any one word would sum up God's desire for man, defining man's righteousness, that word would be love.

 

[Daniel Peres]

I agree, and I've offered my definition here in this thread and elsewhere. But I've come to appreciate Augustine's quote in any case,
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

And love acts, works, whatever, for the good of others, by its nature. And:

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

Your post reminds of what I often tell people. I often say, "What good is it to talk the Christian talk, if you don't walk the Christian walk."

 

[fhansen]

Thank you.It looks like @Daniel Peres has mentioned Faith along these lines, so maybe we can discuss a bit more from his post.

To broaden our concept of the purpose of faith one thing to keep in mind is the reason Jesus came-which was to reconcile fallen man with God. That falleness, the essence of which is the very alienation from God that we're born into in this world, is an anomaly, an injustice, a state of disorder in man, out of sync with God's will. Adam thought that he knew better- that he could go it alone. We're here to learn how foolishly wrong that choice was. When we see Jesus we see God, when we know Jesus we know God, when we believe in, hope in, and love Jesus we believe in, hope in, and love God. Union with God is the primary target of faith. Again, that union and the bond of love that is intrinsic to it, is the basis and essence of justice or righteousness for man.

"I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord." Jer 31:33-34

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

"Through Him you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him, and so your faith and hope are in God." 1 Pet 1:21

 

[GDL]

I would also add to this point, that when discussing the issue of faith, we need to understand how the word "faith" is used in the Gospels. And this isn't just a Catholic-Protestant disagreement. One thing I have noticed on this forum is that although all Protestants believe in Justification by Faith Alone, there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to what faith is. For Catholics, the word faith encompasses many things. On the other hand, I have noticed that to many Protestants on this forum, faith means only one thing, and that is strictly belief. Other Protestants, other Protestants fall somewhere in between.

Understanding any word as God uses it is vital.

I've gotten completely away from using the "Faith Alone" phrase. Even within Protestantism there is the retort, "Faith is Never Alone". So, it's a debate about the meaning of Faith, which makes your point.

Faith encompassing many things is a view held by Catholics (taking your word for it), many Protestants (Faith is Never Alone) and me from doing focused studies of the word in the Word. The simple concept of some stand-alone belief, let alone a one-time undefined belief, is simply unbiblical.

This difference in what a Catholic means by faith is probably the main reason that Protestants get infuriated when Catholics say, "Faith without works is dead." The typical Protestant will always say, "A-ha! You believe in faith plus works salvation." The problem is that most Protestants are not aware of Catholics mean by the word "Faith." Many Protestants, define the word faith as simply belief. While Catholics believe the word Faith encompasses so much more. That is why when a Catholic says, "Faith without works is dead," we are not saying good works are necessary in addition to faith, we are saying that good works are part of faith itself, just like belief is a part of faith. You may also hear Catholics sometimes say that is not enough to believe in Jesus as our savior, we must also believe what Jesus said. So, for us Catholics, faith has many aspects to it, while to a typical Protestant they see faith as only having one aspect, belief.

I came to see James' Faith + Works as foundational and agree with you that what I'll call "Biblical Faith" (1 Peter 1:7 talks about testing for the "genuineness" (close enough translation for now) of faith) can only have [good] works. I think many misunderstand Paul, which is why I posted the John 6 & Ephesians 2 information. I think I've seen in Paul where he may have been specifically addressing James' Faith + Works and qualifying it with his works of law under law discussions. IOW Paul agrees with James but determined it necessary to clear up the initial justification/acquittal matter.

I also think it's important to view whose work is being highlighted in context. God has the perfect right to be talking about all of His work and saying something like, "even if I have you doing something in response, it doesn't mean I ascribe any merit to you." It's kind of like when He began cross-examining Job with, "where were you when I created..."? Ephesians 2 to me is, Where were you when I created My Salvation Plan, sent My Son, determined to join you to Him in resurrected life, ascension, and seating in authority!? Did you make yourself alive from the dead!? What makes you think you did anything deserving of merit!? Were you even able to believe apart from my giving you what's necessary to believe? The works-salvation arguments around Ephesians 2 just seem so unnecessary to me now.

The works-salvation issue has been blown way out of proportion. Few like what I ask when I point out Jesus' command to unbelievers to work to receive the gift He gives that remains for eternal life. Many won't even discuss it.

I don't think belief and faith in the Text are any different. They both translate the same Greek word. It's just a matter of understanding all that God attaches to the concept of Faith/Belief, so we understand what He means when He says something about it. I'm comfortable saying Faith/Belief in God must include Obedience to God, because I can show this in Scripture - how the 2 words are even used interchangeably. In doing so, I get charged with works-salvation.

Therefore, Protestants and Catholics argue over Justification by Faith Alone, they usually talk past each other. It's like one person entering into a contract with another person in the regards to the purchase of several widgets. If the two parties have a different definition of what a widget is, then the contract is pointless. In fact, that's why many contracts include a definitions section to avoid such problems.

I guess what I am saying is that prior to engaging in debates over Justification by Faith Alone, maybe we should engage in a debate over the biblical definition of the word "Faith."

Agree. But the debates will be just as severe. Some are so deeply invested in these positions in both time & reputation that to be reversed would be beyond difficult. I watched as some wrote scholarly articles to say faith is absolutely passive, and others say things like, "if you add anything to faith, then you're not saved." IMO this is just a pendulum swing to counter another pendulum swing. I once asked someone deeply in such Faith Alone mentality:

• Q: Are there any commandments in the NC to believe that Jesus is the Christ?
  • A: I received the correct answer, Yes.
• Q: Then, when we believe that Jesus is the Christ, have we not also obeyed God's command to believe?
  • A: The answer was deer in the headlights and no answer.

I'm OK to discuss and debate such things. But it's unreasonable to just ignore them and go straight to allegations of works-salvation. All these things must be simply a matter of "rightly dividing" 2 Timothy 2:15.

 

[GDL]

To broaden our concept of the purpose of faith one thing to keep in mind is the reason Jesus came-which was to reconcile fallen man with God. That falleness, the essence of which is the very alienation from God that we're born into in this world, is an anomaly, an injustice, a state of disorder in man, out of sync with God's will. When we see Jesus we see God, when we know Jesus we know God, when we believe in, hope in, and love Jesus we believe in, hope in, and love God. Union with God is the primary target of faith. Again, that union and the bond of love that is intrinsic to it, is the basis and essence of justice or righteousness for man.

"I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord." Jer 31:33-34

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

"Through Him you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him, and so your faith and hope are in God." 1 Pet 1:21

I would only add that union is ultimately like the union within the Godhead. It is a union of thought, behavior and deed. We are being conformed to the likeness of the perfectly sinless/perfectly loving/ perfectly obedient Son of God who is not only our Lord, the first of the new creation, but our first-born brother (Romans 8:29).

This is the ultimate Like Father, like Son & sons. He is going to bring us to His intended "created in His image" concept & we are going to work with Him to fulfill His dominion mandate, because He is God & this is what He wills.

 

[fhansen]

I would only add that union is ultimately like the union within the Godhead. It is a union of thought, behavior and deed. We are being conformed to the likeness of the perfectly sinless/perfectly loving/ perfectly obedient Son of God who is not only our Lord, the first of the new creation, but our first-born brother (Romans 8:29).

This is the ultimate Like Father, like Son & sons. He is going to bring us to His intended "created in His image" concept & we are going to work with Him to fulfill His dominion mandate, because He is God & this is what He wills.

Yes, and because that's man's purpose, his telos, his glory, even. And Love seeks to lift up and glorify its beloved. And unless were on that road, growing in His likeness and less conformed to the world, unless we grow in holiness, we're not going to be seeing Him. We may not truly even want-or be capable of- seeing Him.

 

[Daniel Peres]

The purpose of my post was to see if Catholics and non-Catholics had some common ground. I was very sad with some of the first responses from non-Catholics. I was a little shocked with how they attacked Martin Luther, as if he believed that a person needs to earn his salvation through good works. It makes me happy to see that many non-Catholics agree with Luther. So, although we continue to have our differences, it seems many of us do have some common ground.

 

[GDL]

his telos

good word

 

[GDL]

it seems many of us do have some common ground

Agree.

 

[Receivedgrace]

I am concerned that we have a problem with distinguishing between sanctification and salvation among many folks today.
We are saved only one time and it is a specific event in the life of the person being saved. 2 Cor 5:17 speaks to the new creation in Christ which occurs at the moment of salvation. Just as the caterpillar cannot return cocoon after he becomes a butterfly, so it is with the new Christian. The butterfly now lives as a different creature no longer seeking the thing he did before he was reborn as butterfly.
I would be more inclined to consider the veracity of their position for salvation by grace if they did not place so heavy a burden upon the sacraments.
A big part of Martin Luther's problem with the catholic church was the sale of indulgences to those who could afford them.
One must become saved to begin the process of sanctification. Sanctification does not contribute to salvation but certainly results from salvation.

 

[fhansen]

The purpose of my post was to see if Catholics and non-Catholics had some common ground. I was very sad with some of the first responses from non-Catholics. I was a little shocked with how they attacked Martin Luther, as if he believed that a person needs to earn his salvation through good works. It makes me happy to see that many non-Catholics agree with Luther. So, although we continue to have our differences, it seems many of us do have some common ground.

I think there may be more and more commoin ground-IDK. But movements like Arminianism in the past and Lordship Salvation in the present and even the Gospel of the Kingdom now seem to acknowledge that certain crucial aspects of the faith are missing in some versions of theology. As these movements, as far as I know, recognize an obligation for man, in turn involving his will and the role that his actions, his expression of faith, hope, and love, play in his salvation, its a bit ironic perhaps that they tend to be reaching back to the past, knowingly or not, to the original old-time religion as taught by the ancient churches east and west as well as the ECFs.