The saving value of good works

ivebeenshown

Expert invisible poster and thread killer
Apr 27, 2010
7,073
623
✟17,740.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No.

If you read what I've posted, my point has been the exact opposite.
But in post 77, you said "We do", as in, we do have to believe and trust in Jesus to be saved.

So which is it, Josiah? Do we have to believe and trust in Jesus (which is us doing something) to be saved or not?
 
Upvote 0

Harry3142

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2006
3,749
259
Ohio
✟20,229.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Starlight11-

What Jesus did in the passage of Matthew 19:16-26 was lead the young man into a big bear trap. He knew before he even told him about the commandments that the young man would come back with the question of what else he needed to do. And when he did ask it, Jesus gave him the answer that Jesus himself knew he could not accept. We need to remember that this is the same Jesus who knew the background of a Samaritan woman whom he had never met (John 4:7-26). So, like a chessmaster, he was always many moves ahead of those he was with.

As for the keeping of commandments as making us holy, you need to read I Samuel 27:1-12. There David, who was under the laws and commandments of Torah, saw nothing evil in the massacres of entire villlages while he was under the protection of the Philistine king Achish. Every man, woman and child was put to the sword so that he could raid their villages and not be discovered by their king. There are activities permitted under the laws of Torah that no Christian may ever commit and retain a clear conscience.

But to say that God, the epitome of perfection, would permit those to come into his presence who still have the stain of sin on them is to directly contradict Scripture itself. We have been condemned by the laws and commandments of Scripture, and your trying to wish that away through saying that God accepts those who try, even though they fail to achieve perfection, will not set aside that condemnation. There is only one righteousness that God accepts, and that is a righteousness as pure as his own. That is why he laid out the blueprint for our salvation that enabled us to replace our unrighteousness with his righteousness:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no diffference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:19-26,NIV)

So we have a choice. If we accept the salvation that God himself earned for us through his Son's work, putting our faith in what he has accomplished rather than what we could accomplish, then we will receive the righteousness which God requires of us as a gift. But if we choose to earn our own way into paradise, then we must realize that with God there is no such thing as being 'good enough'. We must be spotless in order to enter his presence, and none of us is capable of that.

BTW: Please don't try to use the argument that we are to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ while still accepting that we must keep the laws of Torah in order to obtain eternal life. I consider that to be a 'bait and switch' argument. You bait the person by saying that they are to accept that Jesus died for their sins, only to tell them that they are still bound by the law. Another way of describing that argument is to say that Jesus came to save sheep rather than sinners.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Josiah said:
No.

If you read what I've posted, my point has been the exact opposite.

I believe that Jesus is the Savior.
I'm not.


Next month, I will be celebrating the birth of the Savior.
Not the part savior.
When January 23 rolls around (my birthday), I will not be celebrating the birth of the Savior (or even part Savior).


IMO, the Catholic songwriter Franz Joseph Mohr was correct in his very Protestant proclamation in his classic Christmas carol, Silent Night, as he wrote in stanza two, "... Christ the Savior is born...." (Christ der Retter, ist da) Not "Christ the PART Savior is born" (you may think the deletion was nothing more than artistic license mandated by the meter, and thus give him an excuse for this strong Protestant statement).



If it's MY works that justifies - then I'm the Savior (Glory be to Me)
If it's Christ's works that justifies - the the Savior is Christ (Soli Deo Gloria)
Which do YOU think it is?

On Christmas, will you celebrate the birth of the Savior?
Or the PART Savior (commemorating your own birthday likewise)?

But in post 77, you said "We do", as in, we do have to believe and trust in Jesus to be saved.

So which is it, Josiah? Do we have to believe and trust in Jesus (which is us doing something) to be saved or not?


We do have to believe.
Which is why we are given faith.


Do you have a response to my post?


Blessings!


- Josiah





.
 
Upvote 0

Ortho_Cat

Orthodox Christian
Aug 12, 2009
9,961
680
KS
✟21,039.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
We do have to believe.
Which is why we are given faith.


Do you have a response to my post?


Blessings!


- Josiah

And how do we obtain faith? You would say by hearing the word of God, no? Through the sacraments, perhaps? Is this a passive activity?
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
And how do we obtain faith? You would say by hearing the word of God, no? Through the sacraments, perhaps? Is this a passive activity?

Faith is not something that one drums up in one's brain until one is quite satisfied that one has a sufficient amount of it to justify himself in the sight of a holy God. It is, as Ephesians 2:8,9 declares, the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. The faith that one can drum up in one's brain can easily be viewed as one of a multitude of works that people do to merit salvation. Unless saving faith is granted as a divine gift of God there is no salvation.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 27, 2011
23
1
Visit site
✟15,148.00
Faith
Christian
But to say that God, the epitome of perfection, would permit those to come into his presence who still have the stain of sin on them is to directly contradict Scripture itself. We have been condemned by the laws and commandments of Scripture, and your trying to wish that away through saying that God accepts those who try, even though they fail to achieve perfection, will not set aside that condemnation. There is only one righteousness that God accepts, and that is a righteousness as pure as his own.
I don't agree that such a teaching is biblical. God does not require perfection. Throughout the Bible he regularly accepts, praises, and interacts with humans. Those humans weren't perfect (they were human). Jewish belief around the time of Jesus was that God didn't demand or require perfection. It was believed he required the inclination of one's heart, a commitment to righteousness. In terms of actions this was understood as requiring that the balance of one's works be good. I don't see the New Testament writers rejecting this doctrine, I don't see them raising the bar. Repeatedly they encourage people to have the love God requires of them, and strongly implicit in this is that humans are entirely capable of having the level of love that God requires.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no diffference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:19-26,NIV)
I caution you to be careful in trying to use this passage to "prove" anything. This is probably the single most difficult passage in the New Testament for translators. It contains numerous individual words which are unclear or difficult in meaning, several phrases where the word ordering is unclear and affects meaning, and it isn't clear how the different parts of sentence link up and affect the meaning. Every sentence in the above passage has had many many pages written on it by Biblical scholars discussing possible translations and interpretations. Mainstream Bible translators have tended to rather woodenly copy previous translations, or tweaked it slightly to agree with their own theology, unsure of a better reading.

If we accept the salvation that God himself earned for us through his Son's work, putting our faith in what he has accomplished rather than what we could accomplish, then we will receive the righteousness which God requires of us as a gift.
I don't agree that this is what the Bible teaches. I think such theology relies on the misreading of a number of biblical passages. This becomes clear when I study what Christians throughout history have believed, and observe that in the early centuries of Christianity no one thought the Bible taught that. Such ideas took one and a half millennia to develop as they relied on a number of cumulative mistranslations and misinterpretations.

But if we choose to earn our own way into paradise, then we must realize that with God there is no such thing as being 'good enough'. We must be spotless in order to enter his presence, and none of us is capable of that.
In the very first post in this thread, I argued extensively from the Bible that humans can indeed be good enough. The notion that we cannot be "good enough" is not a biblical teaching, as I demonstrated. For 1500 years Christians universally taught that humans are capable of meeting God's requirements, that God doesn't require perfection from us. The notion that God requires absolute and unachievable perfection of humanity such that we cannot achieve was made up during the Reformation due to a misreading of a few biblical passages and has no sound basis in the Bible.

Please don't try to use the argument that we are to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ while still accepting that we must keep the laws of Torah in order to obtain eternal life.
I don't think we need to keep the laws of the Torah (I don't think circumcision is required, nor ritual washings, nor animal sacrifices, nor refraining from eating pork), I think we need to keep the law of love. Nor do I think we need "to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ".
 
Upvote 0

ivebeenshown

Expert invisible poster and thread killer
Apr 27, 2010
7,073
623
✟17,740.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
We do have to believe.
Which is why we are given faith.
There you go, saying we have to believe (which is a verb, an action, a work, a doing of something) to be saved. I thought you said we did not have to do anything. Which is it, Josiah?

Do you have a response to my post?
Do you have a resolution for your apparently contradicting statements?

For reference, here is a small list of your posts in this thread which oppose each other:

#75, we don't have to do anything to be saved.
#77, yes, we do have to believe to be saved.
#80, no, we do not have to do anything to be saved.
#83, yes, we do have to believe to be saved.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
There you go, saying we have to believe (which is a verb, an action, a work, a doing of something) to be saved. I thought you said we did not have to do anything. Which is it, Josiah?

It is a verb, a work. It's just not mine.



For reference, here is a small list of your posts in this thread which oppose each other:

#75, we don't have to do anything to be saved.
#77, yes, we do have to believe to be saved.
#80, no, we do not have to do anything to be saved.
#83, yes, we do have to believe to be saved.

Lost me. There's not remotely an "opposition" in any of them. I don't follow you.


Here what I posted to you (which you've yet had time to address)

No.

If you read what I've posted, my point has been the exact opposite.

I believe that Jesus is the Savior.
I'm not.


Next month, I will be celebrating the birth of the Savior.
Not the part savior.
When January 23 rolls around (my birthday), I will not be celebrating the birth of the Savior (or even part Savior).


IMO, the Catholic songwriter Franz Joseph Mohr was correct in his very Protestant proclamation in his classic Christmas carol, Silent Night, as he wrote in stanza two, "... Christ the Savior is born...." (Christ der Retter, ist da) Not "Christ the PART Savior is born" (you may think the deletion was nothing more than artistic license mandated by the meter, and thus give him an excuse for this strong Protestant statement).



If it's MY works that justifies - then I'm the Savior (Glory be to Me)
If it's Christ's works that justifies - the the Savior is Christ (Soli Deo Gloria)
Which do YOU think it is?

On Christmas, will you celebrate the birth of the Savior?
Or the PART Savior (commemorating your own birthday likewise)?





.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
And how do we obtain faith?

We don't.


You would say by hearing the word of God, no?


No. God uses the Gospel as a Means of Grace, yes - I'd agree with that.



Through the sacraments, perhaps? Is this a passive activity?

For us, yes. For God, no.


Salvation DOES require work.
Just not mine.
Which is why Jesus is the Savior.
Not me.






.
 
Upvote 0

ivebeenshown

Expert invisible poster and thread killer
Apr 27, 2010
7,073
623
✟17,740.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Lost me. There's not remotely an "opposition" in any of them. I don't follow you.
If you can't see how "we can't do any kind of work to be saved or else Christ is not the Savior" and "we have to do the work of believing to be saved but Christ is still the Savior" are contradictory, then we probably better end the discussion here. Good day!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ivebeenshown

Expert invisible poster and thread killer
Apr 27, 2010
7,073
623
✟17,740.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That we believe is God's work, not our own.
So in other words, you do the work of believing because God gave you the necessary grace to do so, and while God gives you eternal life because you do the work of believing, God still gets the glory because it is he who gave you the grace to do that work?
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I would ask that this thread be kept on-topic as much as possible, and would ask that those (particularly you CaliforniaJosiah) who want to argue monergism vs synergism do so in another thread. The subject of this thread is the role of works in salvation.


I addressed that issue.
Singularly, exclusively and particularly.
Just as asked.

My reply has been solely:
Our works have none (thus, I'm not the Savior)
Jesus' works have a saving role (thus, He is the Savior)

Does this not address the issue of the role of works in salvation?
Is that not to the issue?


Sorry if it's not.



.
 
Upvote 0

ivebeenshown

Expert invisible poster and thread killer
Apr 27, 2010
7,073
623
✟17,740.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
My reply has been solely:
Our works have none (thus, I'm not the Savior)
Jesus' works have a saving role (thus, He is the Savior)
This is why I am confused. You say that our works have no role in salvation, but then you say that our work of believing has a role in salvation. :confused:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
This is why I am confused. You say that our works have no role in salvation, but then you say that our work of believing has a role in salvation. :confused:

No. I never said any such thing. In fact, I find that truly repugnant.

If you are confused, it may be because you haven't read what I posted?

But - if the opening poster will permit - I'd be MORE than glad to clarify.

And, I admit, I'm more than curious about how this "Jesus: PART Savior" idea "cranks out" for you.

Perhaps we're mostly talking "past" each other...





.
 
Upvote 0

ivebeenshown

Expert invisible poster and thread killer
Apr 27, 2010
7,073
623
✟17,740.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No. I never said any such thing. In fact, I find that truly repugnant.
I see. Perhaps this question will help me to understand you better: do you believe that a man is saved because of his belief?

And, I admit, I'm more than curious about how this "Jesus: PART Savior" idea "cranks out" for you.
I believe that God associates us with his work, so that we are not our own saviors, but that God saves us by giving us the necessary grace for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
.


To our new Mediation Mods for GT....

andreha ; Sojourner1 ; suzybeezy ; Criada ; D'Ann ; JCFantasy23 ; Davidnic ; MarkRohfrietsch ; A New Dawn ; twob4me ; Hisbygrace ; Edial

Can we get some help here? Please?

I don't want my friends here or myself in any trouble here....

Could we either some counsel or whatever it is you do to avoid reports and problems?

Are ivebeenshown and/or I in violation here?

PLEASE intervene and do your thing that avoids Reports, warnings, bannings, etc.

Thanks much!




.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ortho_Cat
Upvote 0
G

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest
So in other words, you do the work of believing because God gave you the necessary grace to do so, and while God gives you eternal life because you do the work of believing, God still gets the glory because it is he who gave you the grace to do that work?

This is a really good point when making the case against certain sorts of Protestants for whom a believing is the criteria or condition upon which the gift of eternal life is given.

Fortunately, Lutheranism recognized this error right up front, and both the Apology of the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord condemn this understanding of the role of faith in justification, and that for two reasons.

First, because faith as something intra nos (internal to us), that is, as belief, is the Catholic definition of faith (faith as intellectual assent to the truth of Christianity), and Lutheranism has always denied that this is a comprehensive definition of faith. Justification and salvation are always, for Lutherans at least, extra nos (eternal to us).

By way of explanation to this first point, allow me to point out a subtle but important distinction between the definition of faith in Lutheranism and Calvinism. In both, saving faith consists of notitia (knowledge of the truths that Christianity teaches) and assensus (assent to those truths of the faith), just as in Catholicism, but it also consists in fiducia (fidelity to the faith, which is the reason faith produces good works). Lutherans and Calvinists hold to this threefold definition of faith over-against the twofold definition of Catholicism.

However, in Calvinism, the subtle priority is placed on the assent of faith (assensus), and thus Calvinists who baptize babies have long struggled to argue that babies can possess intellectual truth-content (and their inability to sufficiently prove this point is basically what led to the English Baptists). Fiducia grows out of notitia and assensus. Yet in Lutheranism, the priority has been placed on fiducia, which is a sense of existential trust which we know babies possess even in the womb. Fiducia is not complete without assensus, of course, but it is fiducia that allows assensus to happen in the first place.

This leads to the second point: in Lutheranism, saving faith is primarily not belief, but the situation into which we are placed by grace. Think of a baby being held by its mother; that baby is not "doing" trust; it is in a position of trust that is solely dependent on the work of the mother in maintaining the necessary arm strength to hold the baby aloft. That infant my squirm out of her arms (Lutherans have never believed in eternal security of either the eternal perseverance or once-saved-always-saved varieties) and so fall, but the mother will always strive to pick the infant up again, and that picking up can never be a credit to the infant.

We trust in God because we are in his arms, and we are in his arms because he has picked us up and carries us. And it is that situation into which grace places us that produces both knowledge (assensus) of the one who is carrying us (what Catholics think of in terms of "faith" or "mere belief") and which generates in us a love for that one who is carrying us and leads us to love others as well (fiducia).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ortho_Cat

Orthodox Christian
Aug 12, 2009
9,961
680
KS
✟21,039.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
We don't.





No. God uses the Gospel as a Means of Grace, yes - I'd agree with that.





For us, yes. For God, no.


Salvation DOES require work.
Just not mine.
Which is why Jesus is the Savior.
Not me.






.

So if salvation is entirely up to God, and we play no part in accepting or rejecting it, then why isn't everyone saved? Are you suggesting that God determines from the beginning of the world who we wants to save and who he doesn't? Sounds an awful lot like predestination to me.

Surely if it were entirely up to God, and we had no free will in the matter whether to accept or reject Him, we should all be saved, no? "For God does not desire the death of a sinner." Unless you believe that God consciously wants to damn certain people to hell and save others, and the person themselves have no choice, they are simply "pawns" of God?
 
Upvote 0