The saving value of good works

[fhansen]

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?

Because God only elects those who're to be saved, acording to that theology. Even if it's true it's a completely academic point, however, because only God can know with 100% certainty just who are numbered among the elect and who aren't.

 

[Starlight11]

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.

I suggest you start a thread on "Jesus: PART Savior?" and explain your ideas on this there. You appear to have certain ideas about it means for Jesus to be labelled "savior" and the implications you think this has for synergism vs monergism. Here they are side-tracking the discussion of whether humanity is capable of meeting God's standards.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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?

What do you make of this?

Ephesians 1


3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Because God only elects those who're to be saved, acording to that theology. Even if it's true it's a completely academic point, however, because only God can know with 100% certainty just who are numbered among the elect and who aren't.

so where is free-will in all of this...i don't get it. If we cannot co-operate with God's grace to accept or reject it then we have no free will regarding salvation; I was born to go to hell or go to heaven.

However if one does believe in free-will regarding God's plan of salvation, and that we are free to accept or reject it, if we accept it, then that is a conscious "work" on our behalf; i.e. we are "co-workers with God". 1 Cor 1:9

 

[Ortho_Cat]

What do you make of this?

Ephesians 1


3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

God knows all things regarding the salvation of man, yet this knowledge does not influence our behavior; he still provides us with the ultimate choice to accept or reject Him.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

I'm not saying it can be drummed up. It must be received.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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).

But you believe the child receives grace through baptism, no? That child had to get to baptism somehow, most likely by the work of the mother/father. If an adult gets baptized later in life, this is a conscious decision they make (work) to get baptized and receive the grace of baptism. So how is this not co-operation with grace or work; choosing to accept reject?

Same for hearing the word of God, if we receive faith through hearing, we had to make a conscious set of decisions to get us into that position (most likely get up in the morning, go to church) so how is this not work?

 

[fhansen]

so where is free-will in all of this...i don't get it. If we cannot co-operate with God's grace to accept or reject it then we have no free will regarding salvation; I was born to go to hell or go to heaven.

However if one does believe in free-will regarding God's plan of salvation, and that we are free to accept or reject it, if we accept it, then that is a conscious "work" on our behalf; i.e. we are "co-workers with God". 1 Cor 1:9

There is no free will in it-and to tell the truth, I wouldn't have much respect for that kind of god.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I suggest you start a thread on "Jesus: PART Savior?" and explain your ideas on this there. You appear to have certain ideas about it means for Jesus to be labelled "savior" and the implications you think this has for synergism vs monergism. Here they are side-tracking the discussion of whether humanity is capable of meeting God's standards.

Following protocol, I have asked the Moderation Mods to counsel this thread.

IMO, what I have posted (and also ivebeenshown) is EXACTLY to the point of the thread and its title. But I have done as mandated and have sought the counsel of staff.

It can be said that attempts to switch the discussion to election or why are some saved and not others is hijacking, but I'd encourage all to hold off on the "REPORT" icon until the Moderation Mods can attend to the issue (they have been notified).

 

[bbbbbbb]

God knows all things regarding the salvation of man, yet this knowledge does not influence our behavior; he still provides us with the ultimate choice to accept or reject Him.

So, you cannot believe that what the text actually says is true - that God has chosen us before that foundation of the world and that He has predestined (not merely foreknown) us to salvation?

If that is the case, then I leave you with your opinion and hope that you understand that your disagreement is not with myself or CaliforniaJosiah, but with the Bible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm not saying it can be drummed up. It must be received.

How is it to be received? I do understand that you are Orthodox, but the issue at hand was whether or not God requires "meritorious works" to accompany the reception of faith or not. Do you believe, along with the Catholic Church, that such works are part and parcel to the reception of faith? If so, then faith is not a gift, but is something merited by our efforts to earn it.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

How is it to be received? I do understand that you are Orthodox, but the issue at hand was whether or not God requires "meritorious works" to accompany the reception of faith or not. Do you believe, along with the Catholic Church, that such works are part and parcel to the reception of faith? If so, then faith is not a gift, but is something merited by our efforts to earn it.

Faith is a gift from God, no amount of work we do can earn that gift. However, we are free to accept or reject it. It is our responsibility to respond to that grace so lavishly bestowed upon us. We are called according to his purpose, we must respond to His call in order to be saved.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So, you cannot believe that what the text actually says is true - that God has chosen us before that foundation of the world and that He has predestined (not merely foreknown) us to salvation?

If that is the case, then I leave you with your opinion and hope that you understand that your disagreement is not with myself or CaliforniaJosiah, but with the Bible.

I understand the verse in it's context, which means that we as a people, have been predestined to be saved IN HIM. That is the key part of the above verse. God pre-ordained that us as Christians are to be saved in Christ. He, from the beginning of the world, chose to save those who are obedient to his Son through faith. Those he chose, called out to be his disciples, responded to him freely, and were not forced to do so by "irrestistable grace" or by some other method of coercion.

 

[ivebeenshown]

How is it to be received? I do understand that you are Orthodox, but the issue at hand was whether or not God requires "meritorious works" to accompany the reception of faith or not. Do you believe, along with the Catholic Church, that such works are part and parcel to the reception of faith? If so, then faith is not a gift, but is something merited by our efforts to earn it.

The Catholic Church teaches that faith is an unmerited gift given freely by God. However, it also recognizes that faith is not just some thing which is possessed, but rather an action exercised by the human: believing in and trusting the Truth which God has revealed to him. It is God's action of revelation, not man's actions, that merits a man's faith.

 

[ivebeenshown]

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).

[...]

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).

It seems like it would be less of a roundabout to just say that the 'arms' are grace -- that the 'situation' into which we are placed is a state of grace. God picks us up, puts us in a state of grace, and the result of being in that state of grace is the exercise of faith by man.

Now, it does not seem to make any sense to say that 'trust' is a 'position.' 'Trust' is a verb, and like all verbs, it may be referred to as a noun (participle, is that the right term?) but even the noun refers to the action of the modified verb. Even to say that one is in a 'state of trust' (if that is indeed grammatically correct) would imply that one is either trusting or being trusted by another.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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!

But as you know, I never said that.

You've simply changed what I said in order to create some "contradiction." You created the contradiction by changing my position and what I posted.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the discussion of whether humanity is capable of meeting God's standards.

Is not the issue here....

The title of this thread (as you stated it) is: The saving value of good works. The issue then is whether good words are salvational.

My stated position is: Christ's works are, my works aren't.
(Meaning Jesus is the Savior, not me)




.

 

[heymikey80]

I don't see how Paul is teaching the doctrine you espouse. For one, I'm not saying that works of the law (Torah observance) will justify or save anyone. If you would like to clarify, I would ask that you highlight and explain particular points within the passage that you feel support your doctrine.

The idea of works-of-law doesn't carry the point, because the Law doesn't simply say "You can't get there by works of law." The passage cites numerous verses where the Law identifies us as unrighteous people. It's not a judgment for violating the Law. It's an identification of the people.

That's simply what Paul said -- "we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin". What's the prior statement? Romans 1 & 2 & 3:1-8.

There's no exemption.

I've already read this passage, and I don't see what your point is. I'm not judging the present or future state of anyone's soul.

That would mean rejecting Romans 1. Because that's precisely what it does.

As to your last comment Paul doesn't cite James 2 after Romans 3:21. In fact Paul goes to great lengths to reject the way you've interpreted James 2, and indeed "works of law":

21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

1What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." Romans 3:21-4:8

This last item is very telling. Because Abraham never knew the Mosaic Law. So it's not about Mosaic Law. It's about any law -- any rule -- including justification by works.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

GT MEDIATION MOD HAT...

Following protocol, I have asked the Moderation Mods to counsel this thread.

IMO, what I have posted (and also ivebeenshown) is EXACTLY to the point of the thread and its title. But I have done as mandated and have sought the counsel of staff.

It can be said that attempts to switch the discussion to election or why are some saved and not others is hijacking, but I'd encourage all to hold off on the "REPORT" icon until the Moderation Mods can attend to the issue (they have been notified).

First, thanks CJ for contacting us; sorry I was not able to get here sooner.

Let's keep a few things in mind...

• GT is a debate and discussion forum; not a Pulpit so... when one opens a thread or posts in a thread, one is implying that the statements that they make are open to discussion which may include opposing POVs.
• Likewise, when one posts, that post will be interpreted by those who read it in light of the readers own understanding based on any number of things which may include their own personal theology, their own experiences, and their own personal interpretation of Scripture.
• The report button is not there so Staff can censer opposing views presented by any members, including the Original Poster; it is there so that CF's rules may be followed and enforced.

Bottom line is...

• Few, if any of the posts which have been reported are off topic, and therefore can be discussed and refuted in thread.
• If it seems that someone has missed the point of a post that they reply to; first offer clarification of what you have written, then ask for clarification of what they have written... in a nice way.
• If, for what ever reason, you are unable to refute, don't hit the report button, just walk away.
• That being said, don't ignore a post which requests an answer or clarification, and keep on posting the same stuff, that is rude.
• And, as always, address the post not the poster; if you disagree with what was posted, state why, and support your statement... again in a nice way too.

As always be mindful that we are all sons and daughters of our Lord God, and we should always interact in ways that pleasing to him.


God bless all, and Happy posting.


Mark
GT Mediator and Staff Supervisor.

 

[Harry3142]

Starlight11-

Thank you for the courteous reply, but I have a different interpretation than you do.

The passage in Romans 3:19-26 has been used by me, as well as others, as evidence that God's demand for righteousness will not be compromised. It is part of a passage that goes from Romans 3:19 to 5:10, and deals with what made the patriarchs holy, namely, their total trust in God rather than in themselves. I have actually had an SDA minister try to talk me into rejecting this entire passage, because it is so contrary to their doctrine that we must obey the laws of Torah, as well as the sublaws that the SDA's have attached to each of those laws.

The rebuttal to God's permitting us to 'skate by' his demands is the fact that he found it necessary to send his Son Jesus Christ as the expiation for those demands not being met. If he tolerated 'doing our best' without 'setting the bar' at a certain height, there would have been no need for Christ's salvific sacrifice.

And besides this, there is no evidence in Torah that the laws and commandments were intended to make us perfect in and of themselves. Their primary purpose was to create a strong, cohesive society out of a people who were surrounded by their enemies.

Even the promise made to the Hebrews by God as a reward for their loyalty to those laws and commandments has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation:

If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers. He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land - your grain, new wine and oil - the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, bu he will inflict them on all who hate you. (Deuteronomy 7:12-15,NIV)

That's it; that's the contract which God entered into with the Hebrews. They obeyed his laws and commandments in this life; they were rewarded in this life. But there it ended. There was no mention of there being an afterlife for them to aspire to, much less that they could do anything to ensure that they had eternal life.

In fact, the only mention of an 'afterlife' in Torah is located in Genesis, and its acceptance by the Sadducees, as well as many Jews yet today, is the primary reason that they do not accept that an aferlife exists:

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. (Genesis 3:19,NIV)

I know Jews who have explained to me that when they call themselves atheists, it's not because they don't believe in God. Instead, it's because they don't believe in an afterlife. To them the Torah is accurate concerning its description of how life advances: we're born, we grow up, we have families ourselves, and we die. And there all life ends insofar as they are concerned.

And it is the set of laws that these people follow which you claim that we must follow in order to obtain eternal life. That's like saying that I must get into my Ford here in Ohio and drive it to London, England. There's a little thing called The Atlantic Ocean in the way. Similarly, the laws and commandments whose original intention was to unify a people and turn them into a cohesive society that could defend itself against its enemies and prevail, but whose original intention not only had nothing to do with acquiring an afterlife, but actually opposed the very idea of an afterlife existing, cannot be taken away from its original usage in order to make it apply to the attaining of eternal life. It doesn't fit into that theology.

What we can accept is that we, like Jesus, are to show compassion for those around us. Our 'laws' are written on our hearts; that identifies them as emotions which form the very core of our being rather than rules and regulations that, more often then not, are known by our transgression rather than our obedience to them.

A passage which describes the emotions which we are to shun and emotions which we are to recognize as the Spirit's uniting with us is this one:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

Our 'laws' are to be the 9 'fruit' listed here. If we show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, then we are following in Christ's footsteps, as these are the emotions which he expressed. We are also going far beyond what the law commands, so accepting the law as our guide isn't a step up; rather, it's a step down from where we should be. Superficialism, which the mere following of laws by rote entails, is not nearly enough for us Christians. It could be done by those who were merely following a set of laws in order to make themselves safe from their enemies, as the Hebrews did. But it falls woefully short when applied to Christians saved by grace. Our 'laws' are the quite literal renewing of our heart, with the subduing of those emotions which are part of the sinful nature, and the welcoming of the emotions which we are to accept as the borders within which all our words and actions are to originate.