quote:

---

Our life was displeasing to him; everything in us that was of our doing was displeasing to him, but what he himself did in us was not displeasing. So he will condemn what we did but save his own work in us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus
What Augustine is saying is that every act of human charity, kindness, generosity, goodness, is not only disregarded by God - which would be bad enough - but is positively displeasing to him. He will condemn every such act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In other words, Augustine was wrong.

---

90% of the time I bump into Augustine he's wrong, so what's new?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Aye, he gave us love the sinner, hate the sin, not Jesus as a Baptist friend insists.
 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Am I misunderstanding this? It seems to me that the direct meaning is that there may be many things in us which are pleasing to God and that these are the things which we have allowed Him to work in us. Whereas the things we have done of our own accord (i.e. against God) are inherently unpleasing.

The message I take from the passage as given in isolation is that all good things come from God ('from whom all holy desires, all good counsels and all just works do proceed'). Or am I wrong?
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Aye, he gave us love the sinner, hate the sin, not Jesus as a Baptist friend insists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Bad things done with faith in God can be pleasing to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From this morning's Office of Readings:

quote:

---

Our life was displeasing to him; everything in us that was of our doing was displeasing to him, but what he himself did in us was not displeasing. So he will condemn what we did but save his own work in us.

---

St Augustine, Sermon 23A, my italics.

What Augustine is saying is that every act of human charity, kindness, generosity, goodness, is not only disregarded by God - which would be bad enough - but is positively displeasing to him. He will condemn every such act.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Bad things done with faith in God can be pleasing to God.

---

Name one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From this morning's Office of Readings:

quote:

---

Our life was displeasing to him; everything in us that was of our doing was displeasing to him, but what he himself did in us was not displeasing. So he will condemn what we did but save his own work in us.

---

St Augustine, Sermon 23A, my italics.

What Augustine is saying is that every act of human charity, kindness, generosity, goodness, is not only disregarded by God - which would be bad enough - but is positively displeasing to him. He will condemn every such act.

I don't, won't, can't believe this. My stomach turned when I read those words this morning. The idea that under the New Covenant God is revealed to so hate his creation ... it's disgusting. We were better off under the Old Covenant.

Anyone care to convince me otherwise?

---

quote:

---

Romans 14:22-23English Standard Version (ESV)

22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

---

Now this is kind of obscure, but what the Lutherans make of it is that the motivations and attitude behind an action are just as important as the action itself when it comes to deciding if the thing is good or not. So you could have three people who carry out identical actions, but one does it out of pride and a desire to be noticed, one does it out of fear and a belief that God will punish if the action is not performed, and the third person does it out of love and faith in Jesus Christ.

To human eyes, the actions are identical; but in the eyes of God, the third is the only one that is really acceptable. It's acceptable because it is carried out by God working in us--by the Holy Spirit, who creates faith and love in us, which flows out into a life of good actions. This is the true gold, while actions that are carried out for pride or fear are fair-seeming counterfeits.

Now as for the strong language of "displeasing" or even "hating" (your word, I think?)--

It does NOT say that God hates his creation. What he hates/is displeased by/feels to, are distortions of that good creation--marrings of it, counterfeits offered for true gold. And as we all come of a sin-infected species, "distorted" and "marred" is going to be our default state, unless the Holy Spirit is working in and through us. At that point things start to come right again.

Is that as clear as mud?

[ 31. August 2014, 18:59: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Suppose I should have added--

This is all speaking from a divine point of view. From a human point of view, we usually don't care WHAT the motivations behind a good action are, as long as the action happens. For example, giving to charity--we'll take even the devil's money gladly without enquiring into his motives for giving it , and rightly so, since we're working on a human level there. But the text (Augustine's and Paul's) is not dealing with the obvious human level (of course donated $ are a good thing because you can feed more people!) but rather with God's view of things.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What Augustine is saying is that every act of human charity, kindness, generosity, goodness, is not only disregarded by God - which would be bad enough - but is positively displeasing to him. He will condemn every such act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
FWIW, I agree with EE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Bad things done with faith in God can be pleasing to God.

---

Name one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
it's saying that he claims 100% of the credit for the good we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Bad things done with faith in God can be pleasing to God.

---

Name one.

---

Back to Abraham and Isaac again

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From this morning's Office of Readings:

quote:

---

Our life was displeasing to him; everything in us that was of our doing was displeasing to him, but what he himself did in us was not displeasing. So he will condemn what we did but save his own work in us.

---

St Augustine, Sermon 23A, my italics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From this morning's Office of Readings:

quote:

---

Our life was displeasing to him; everything in us that was of our doing was displeasing to him, but what he himself did in us was not displeasing. So he will condemn what we did but save his own work in us.

---

St Augustine, Sermon 23A, my italics.

---

Does anyone have a link to Sermon 23A?

I've found this quote in the Office of Readings for August 31, but it says "from a sermon by Saint Augustine"; elsewhere I've seen references to Sermo 23a: CCL 41, 321-323, but I haven't found any link to the whole thing, just links to the breviary text. (I've found Augustine's Sermon 23 on the New Testament, but it's not the source of the breviary text.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's not possible to hate the sin but love the sinner: to the sinner his sin isn't sin but part of what he is. If you hate the sin that is him, you hate him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
FWIW, I agree with EE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The traditional picture is that every good act is initiated by God's grace and carried out by going along with God's grace. Whereas every evil act is initiated by us and carried out in resistance to God's grace.

That's exactly the doctrine stated by St Augustine in your quotation. Hence St Augustine is not at all denying the value of "every act of human charity, kindness, generosity, goodness". Rather, he is attributing all of these to God as root cause, whereas humans only act as instrumental cause. Human good just is the alignment with God's grace, which works in us and through us all good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is the source of this sermon, and here is the full (Latin) text of this sermon (obtained via this useful site, click "sermones" and then look under "Sermones de Scripturis de Vetere Testamento"). Best I can tell, the only thing missing in the Office of Readings translation are the last six lines, starting after "confitebimur tibi deus, confitebimur et inuocabimus nomen tuum". And that's basically a call to confession, or so my nearly defunct Latin from two decades ago suggests.

---

Alas, the first link goes to a website to order the book, and none of this appears to be translated into English...
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Is there a link to the rest of the sermon anywhere?
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is the source of this sermon, and here is the full (Latin) text of this sermon (obtained via this useful site, click "sermones" and then look under "Sermones de Scripturis de Vetere Testamento"). Best I can tell, the only thing missing in the Office of Readings translation are the last six lines, starting after "confitebimur tibi deus, confitebimur et inuocabimus nomen tuum". And that's basically a call to confession, or so my nearly defunct Latin from two decades ago suggests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What Augustine is saying is that every act of human charity, kindness, generosity, goodness, is not only disregarded by God - which would be bad enough - but is positively displeasing to him. He will condemn every such act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So you could have three people who carry out identical actions, but one does it out of pride and a desire to be noticed, one does it out of fear and a belief that God will punish if the action is not performed, and the third person does it out of love and faith in Jesus Christ.

To human eyes, the actions are identical; but in the eyes of God, the third is the only one that is really acceptable.

---

quote:

---

What about the fourth person? A person of no faith, perhaps a thoroughgoing atheist, who performs an act of charity out of simple human kindness? Is that "acceptable" to God? Or is it, in Augustine's word, "displeasing" to him? Or are you going to go with the crowd on this and say there's no such thing as simple human kindness - that if it's a good act, then God grabs the credit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
So consider a vacuum cleaner and electricity. It is accurate to say that the vacuum cleaner sucks up the dirt. It is also accurate to say that the electricity enables this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
True, there's more editing going on in the text. It would take about half an hour of work to splice the current English translation with the removed Latin parts, creating a hybrid text that would serve as a convenient basis for some crowd-translation. Unfortunately, I see no way of doing this without violating copyright.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I'm not trying to argue, but the explanations don't make sense to me. A model of humanity based on the vacuum cleaner/electricity analogy I think more or less makes humans merely a vessel of grace.

---

quote:

---

We are not the source of grace, and doing good things may even go against our own inner convictions such as in the example of the atheist who does good things. That does not sound like people to me, that sounds like robots.

---

quote:

---

Once you're past this, you're on to the "okay, if people aren't the source of good, and God is - what is good and by whose standard?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Alt Wally, I quite agree. If, when I'm doing a good deed, I'm only ever acting as God's glove puppet, then what is the point of me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Alt Wally, I quite agree. If, when I'm doing a good deed, I'm only ever acting as God's glove puppet, then what is the point of me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Only time for a quick catch-up at the moment - thanks everyone - but this caught my eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So you could have three people who carry out identical actions, but one does it out of pride and a desire to be noticed, one does it out of fear and a belief that God will punish if the action is not performed, and the third person does it out of love and faith in Jesus Christ.

To human eyes, the actions are identical; but in the eyes of God, the third is the only one that is really acceptable.

---

What about the fourth person? A person of no faith, perhaps a thoroughgoing atheist, who performs an act of charity out of simple human kindness? Is that "acceptable" to God? Or is it, in Augustine's word, "displeasing" to him? Or are you going to go with the crowd on this and say there's no such thing as simple human kindness - that if it's a good act, then God grabs the credit?

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: The good deeds may be perfectly acceptable on a human level--if person X saves a hundred orphans' lives, I'm sure as hell not going to speak against what he did!--but without Christ, the infection is still there, the deed is still contaminated in that sense. Just like everything else we do outside of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: I said that on a human level (which is basically everything bar "this earns salvation") the deeds are awesome and wholly acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: Nevertheless, if we move into the area of "these things are acceptable offerings for God's altar," suddenly the standards have changed. We're now looking at 100% perfection, no flaws need apply. Which basically rules out any human deed ever.

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: Auggghhhh! I'm obviously not communicating. He does NOT think of us as despicable beings. If he did, why the hell would he send Christ/come himself as Christ, whichever formulation you prefer, in the first place?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Adeodatus, I really think Augustine could have expressed himself much better, and I don't think that's what he meant to convey. I suspect if we had the context and the audience, we'd understand it better. Seriously, he'd have to be a freak of human nature to mean what you suggest he's meaning--and that's not the impression I get of him at all, reading other stuff by him.

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: Your example (an atheist) is not attempting to give a gift at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I said that on a human level (which is basically everything bar "this earns salvation") the deeds are awesome and wholly acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Let me propose another, which I believe is close to what Augustine had in mind.

A child comes to me, wanting to learn to draw and paint. I watch the child's first attempts. But then I say, "I'm not at all pleased with anything you've done."

---

quote:

---

Once I've conceived my daughter she is now an entity quite separate from me. But that is not our relationship to God in Augustinian theology: God is our creator and sustainer, and is in Augustine's words, closer to us than we are to ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I said that on a human level (which is basically everything bar "this earns salvation") the deeds are awesome and wholly acceptable.

---

I don't know if you intend the implication that if, somehow, we were able to perform perfect works, those perfect works could earn salvation. Salvation is not something that could be earned even by the sinless. The prodigal's elder brother has no more earned his father's love than the prodigal has. There is no earning; the father loves them before the question of earning even arises.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Let me propose another, which I believe is close to what Augustine had in mind.

A child comes to me, wanting to learn to draw and paint. I watch the child's first attempts. But then I say, "I'm not at all pleased with anything you've done."

---

I believe there is a good case to be made that this is not what Augustine had in mind, based on my understanding of Augustine's theology elsewhere. And if there is doubt I think one should interpret Augustine or the Bible or any author giving the benefit of any doubt, preferring a more edifying interpretation over a less all other things being equal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Let me propose another, which I believe is close to what Augustine had in mind.

A child comes to me, wanting to learn to draw and paint. I watch the child's first attempts. But then I say, "I'm not at all pleased with anything you've done."

---

I believe there is a good case to be made that this is not what Augustine had in mind, based on my understanding of Augustine's theology elsewhere.

---

The better analogy is this: any picture will have imperfections. No description of any reality can ever be adequate to the reality itself; portraiture cannot capture the whole of the one sitting, abstract expressionism cannot contain the whole of an emotion, and even a photograph can capture detail only down to the resolution of the film grain—and won't capture the wind, sounds, and smells of the reality its based on. Try as you might to draw a picture that is perfect, absolutely perfect, you can't. You will always—always—fall short if you rely on your own efforts. In a way, both the child with their crayons and the master artist are equally far away from capturing the infinitely complex nature of reality, as their finite and imperfect descriptions vanish when compared to the infinitude of being. That's not to say that one doesn't have a greater degree of resemblance to the reality being described, but rather that, when compared to perfection itself, both are as straw.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Ariston,
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariston:
LC basically has it laid out—that first passage she cited might have come straight out of On Nature and Grace—the Augustinian doctrine is not that only bad things can be done by human beings, but that, if a human does something pleasing to God, something truly virtuous, it is a gift of God, an effect of grace, and comes from the source of all goodness, God, who is Goodness itself. In general, it's a standard Augustinian rhetorical formulation (in his letters, in De Trinitate, etc.) that faults are to be attributed to him, but what is good to the One who is the true author. Much of the explication of this doctrine can be found in his anti-Pelagian works, especially those on nature and grace, which makes sense.

While Augustine really and truly does not believe that all of creation is evil, or that evil is a thing, or that evil is anything other than a deprivation of the good, he does believe, and believe very strongly, that humanity is fallen, and, by its own merits, can never attain grace. As Kant will put it in his reading of the Genesis story 1400 years later, there is a propensity to radical evil in humanity, a sense in which we can never act according to a purely good will once we have become rational actors; "out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made." It's a long story as to why, of course, for Augustine, Kant, and, come to think of it, Hegel, but it is the case for all of them that there are impure motives lurking in the back of every seemingly noble deed done by humanity, motives that cannot ever be expunged save by grace, and grace alone.

Humanity can never achieve the perfection it once enjoyed in Eden. We are fallen. We are depraved. The moral certainty we once enjoyed, the ability to walk perfectly with God and follow His will exactly, has been lost to us, save that God acts in us and through us by His grace. Given our fallen and impure wills, it is impossible, contra Pelagius, to ever act without any impure motive, or to do anything that is not in some way tainted by original sin, by being born outside of grace—at least, purely by our own wills.

So no, it is not that humans can only do evil. It is not even that non-Christians can't act according to imperfect virtue—Augustine destroys this claim when discussing the heights of old Roman virtue in City of God. But to act according to pure motives, free from error and the taint of original sin—that belongs to the grace that comes from Goodness itself, and the source of all such goodness in the world.

---

quote:

---

A child comes to me, wanting to learn to draw and paint. I watch the child's first attempts. But then I say, "I'm not at all pleased with anything you've done." (I am displeased - Augustine's word.) "It's all worthless, it's rubbish." (I condemn the work - Augustine's word.) "You will never be an artist. I might as well do all your drawing and painting for you. And however much the world thinks you an artist, you and I will always know that the work was mine."

Have I done my best for that child?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

Why is it that if a fallen human being does good, it must be attributed to God's grace but when a human being does something bad it is attributed to themselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
As an aside, I need to correct myself a bit: not all human good requires God's grace. Formally, only supernatural goods require God's grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
AIUI Catholic theologians have differed over this question. Augustine I think would tend towards the side that asserts there is no human good without grace. The late nineteenth century scholastic theology, against which Von Balthasar and Rahner both reacted in their different ways, asserted strongly that there is a natural human good without grace. Which side Aquinas falls on is a matter of contested interpretation.

---

I think Aquinas is rather clear on this, and I was making my corrections since I thought the distinctions in the Summa (rather than in some later commentary) were important. There is a sense in which Aquinas would say that all good comes from God, see first article at the link, and actually much of what I said previously was thinking along those lines. Yet a valid distinction can be made between a natural good that is "powered by God" only in the sense that God is the creative and motive force behind everything, and a corrupted natural good that fails unless supported by an additional supernatural action, and again a full on supernatural good. And we tend to care more about the latter two (taking nature for granted), and when we say "grace" we really mean bringing about these.

So if there is indeed a debate in the literature about what Aquinas says, then I think it is merely about what is properly called a "grace" in his scheme. On your description I would say the late Scholastics win over Balthasar and Rahner (as is right and just ). For example, consider from the third article at the link this: "And hence we must say that in the state of perfect nature man did not need the gift of grace added to his natural endowments, in order to love God above all things naturally, although he needed God's help to move him to it; but in the state of corrupt nature man needs, even for this, the help of grace to heal his nature." It seems pretty clear that Aquinas distinguishes here between a "gift of grace" and the "Divine help to move", where the latter "powers" natural ability.
 

---

Posted by Elephenor (# 4026) on :
 
To return to the original sermon quotation, Augustine is not actually here speaking about the necessity of God's grace for good works.

Rather his point here is simply that Jesus did not die for us because of our good works and self-earned merit, but for the sake of humankind as God's good creation. (So God is emphatically not revealed to 'hate his creation'.)

The translation in Adeodatus' office book perhaps obscures this slightly by speaking of what God has done in us, rather than made (Augustine's rhetorical parallel relies on the range of meaning of the latin verb 'facio'), but the sermon immediately and unambiguously continues (Edmund Hill's translation:)

quote:

---

He will condemn the evil deeds of men and women and save the men and women themselves. People didn't make themselves, but they made bad deeds. What God made in them is good, because God made man to his image and likeness. But the evil that man worked by free choice, turning away from his author and creator and turning to wickedness, this God condemns in order to set man free; that is, God condemns what man has done, and God sets free what God himself has done. So it's not true that we were good. And he had mercy on us, and sent his Son to die, not for the good but for the bad, not for the just but for the ungodly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

A child comes to me, wanting to learn to draw and paint. I watch the child's first attempts. But then I say, "I'm not at all pleased with anything you've done." (I am displeased - Augustine's word.) "It's all worthless, it's rubbish." (I condemn the work - Augustine's word.) "You will never be an artist. I might as well do all your drawing and painting for you. And however much the world thinks you an artist, you and I will always know that the work was mine."

Have I done my best for that child?

---

One of my earliest recollections is of my attempting to write my name with my mother holding my hands and helping me to shape the letters until I had the knack for myself. Does that help?

---

quote:

---

XIII. Of Works before Justification.
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It seems clear that it is CofE doctrine that (good) works done before "justification" (whatever that means) are actually displeasing to God and "have the nature of sin".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So we're back to mousethief's excellent description earlier? - That to God, we stink, and only the application of a generous squirt of Jesus-deodorant will mask the smell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So we're back to mousethief's excellent description earlier? - That to God, we stink, and only the application of a generous squirt of Jesus-deodorant will mask the smell?

---

We don't stink to God, we stink in general. Look at the world around you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It was precisely looking at the world around me that prompted my revulsion at what Augustine appeared to be saying. Sure, the world is full of terrible things going on; but I look around me and I see acts of kindness and generosity. I see people honouring one another's dignity, encouraging one another in hardship. Every single day I see simple, plain, unadorned goodness that fills my heart with a sense of privilege that I've witnessed it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It was precisely looking at the world around me that prompted my revulsion at what Augustine appeared to be saying. Sure, the world is full of terrible things going on; but I look around me and I see acts of kindness and generosity. I see people honouring one another's dignity, encouraging one another in hardship. Every single day I see simple, plain, unadorned goodness that fills my heart with a sense of privilege that I've witnessed it.

---

I'd say to that either you are choosing only to see the nice things, or you are not close enough to know the unkind things people do.

Look at how many children grow up without a father who even checks in more than a handful of times in their childhood. Look how common infidelity is in marriages. Look at how many people in positions of influence use their jobs to enrich themselves materially rather than to help others. Look at the prevalence of racism, sexism, and xenophobia.

And I'm not even going into crime and violence.

You prefer to wear rose colored glasses, and that's great for you. But the world is not a place where people are going around loving each other all the time. If so it wouldn't be such a challenge to "love your neighbor as yourself."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Look at how many children grow up without a father who even checks in more than a handful of times in their childhood. Look how common infidelity is in marriages. Look at how many people in positions of influence use their jobs to enrich themselves materially rather than to help others. Look at the prevalence of racism, sexism, and xenophobia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And all without reference to God. All (or most) done by people who aren't "religious", or wanting to be "saved", who have no other motive than that they encountered another human being in need. And that is "displeasing" to God?

---

quote:

---

On the Spirit and the Letter
Chapter XXVII — The Law Being Done by Nature Means, Done by Nature as Restored by Grace
Nor ought it to disturb us that the apostle described them as doing that which is contained in the law by nature — not by the Spirit of God, not by faith, not by grace. For it is the Spirit of grace that does it, in order to restore in us the image of God, in which we were naturally created. (Genesis 1:27) Sin, indeed, is contrary to nature, and it is grace that heals it — on which account the prayer is offered to God, Be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against You. Therefore it is by nature that men do the things which are contained in the law; (Romans 2:14) for they who do not, fail to do so by reason of their sinful defect. In consequence of this sinfulness, the law of God is erased out of their hearts; and therefore, when, the sin being healed, it is written there, the prescriptions of the law are done by nature — not that by nature grace is denied, but rather by grace nature is repaired. For by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; in which all have sinned; (Romans 5:12) wherefore there is no difference: they all come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace. (Romans 3:22-24) By this grace there is written on the renewed inner man that righteousness which sin had blotted out; and this mercy comes upon the human race through our Lord Jesus Christ. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Look at how many children grow up without a father who even checks in more than a handful of times in their childhood. Look how common infidelity is in marriages. Look at how many people in positions of influence use their jobs to enrich themselves materially rather than to help others. Look at the prevalence of racism, sexism, and xenophobia.

---

The question isn't whether some people are evil, or even whether some people are mixed. It's whether there are any good works done for their own sake and not from grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It seems clear that it is CofE doctrine that (good) works done before "justification" (whatever that means) are actually displeasing to God and "have the nature of sin".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And because of all the bad things happening, any good that's done is worthless?

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: They aren't worthless to you and me as humans, but they are worthless to God because we do not please Him by works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

seekingsister: They aren't worthless to you and me as humans, but they are worthless to God because we do not please Him by works.

---

This god stinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My image is that of a parent that quietly loads up a kid's room with brushes, paint, paper, etc, leaves more art stuff strewn around the house, them hold his breath and waits. When the child picks up a brush and starts messing around, he privately does the Snoopy dance of joy. Then he keeps watching to see what the child will do next. Long before the child even thinks to ask for approval, he rejoices. Because the child picked up a brush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

seekingsister: They aren't worthless to you and me as humans, but they are worthless to God because we do not please Him by works.

---

This god stinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

seekingsister: They aren't worthless to you and me as humans, but they are worthless to God because we do not please Him by works.

---

This god stinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Agreed. Were our forebears in the faith (e.g. Augustine) so cynical that they thought God could take no simple delight in the good done by his creation, without God also thinking that by doing so we were trying to buy his love?

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: You like a god who gives more grace to those who do more nice things?

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: What if by circumstances, mental illness, other struggles you cannot do good works? Tough luck?

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: Do you believe good works done by someone who has not faith in God, have any impact on how God views that person?

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: Why did Jesus come if all we had to do was just do good works, to be in good standing with God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
To "have faith" or "believe" in the Lord Jesus Christ only so as to go to heaven when you die is as surely a "work displeasing to God" as any other work that tries to buy itself into heaven. It derives from selfish motives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Would God prefer a selfless atheist to a completely selfish bastard asshole of a Christian that did not love others?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Would God prefer a selfless atheist to a completely selfish bastard asshole of a Christian that did not love others?

---

God loves them both equally without reservation. God loved them both before the foundation of the world. All God has is equally theirs.

To imply that God prefers one is to imply that God could love the other one more.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: The question is still - is God pleased by works we do that are done without faith in Him? Perhaps on a "it's nice that my children are treating each other well" level (assuming God thinks like that), but those works are not going to go into some register or account of how good X person was versus Y.

---

I find this two-tier system very weird. It's like God saying "Yeah I'm pleased with that but I'm not pleased-pleased with that. It doesn't really count."
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
They aren't worthless to you and me as humans, but they are worthless to God because we do not please Him by works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Would God prefer a selfless atheist to a completely selfish bastard asshole of a Christian that did not love others?

---

God loves them both equally without reservation. God loved them both before the foundation of the world. All God has is equally theirs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

To imply that God prefers one is to imply that God could love the other one more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's not about what we have to do to be in good standing with God. That's not why we need to do good things.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: But you seem to be missing my point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
And you're missing mine. I'm not talking about who is saved or who isn't. That's not the question here. I'd even say it's the wrong question.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: Doesn't God save those who please Him?

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: In which case I'm not clear what you mean when you say individual human actions please God, if we are not talking about them having a spiritual impact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
What if by circumstances, mental illness, other struggles you cannot do good works? Tough luck? That stinks in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
And you're missing mine. I'm not talking about who is saved or who isn't. That's not the question here. I'd even say it's the wrong question.

---

Doesn't God save those who please Him?

It would be pretty messed up if someone did lots of things that pleased God and then found out at the end that because they never committed to Jesus they were SOL.

In which case I'm not clear what you mean when you say individual human actions please God, if we are not talking about them having a spiritual impact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
And you're missing mine. I'm not talking about who is saved or who isn't. That's not the question here. I'd even say it's the wrong question.

---

Doesn't God save those who please Him?

It would be pretty messed up if someone did lots of things that pleased God and then found out at the end that because they never committed to Jesus they were SOL.

In which case I'm not clear what you mean when you say individual human actions please God, if we are not talking about them having a spiritual impact.

---

That is EXACTLY what Jesus said...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A21-23&version=NIV

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: What pleases God is faith, not works. That's all I've been trying to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
LOL, it's funny how you can get that from "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Works seem to be winning from faith here.

And it still leaves the question mark of what "entering the kingdom of heaven" means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

seekingsister: What pleases God is faith, not works. That's all I've been trying to say.

---

LOL, it's funny how you can get that from "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Works seem to be winning from faith here.

And it still leaves the question mark of what "entering the kingdom of heaven" means.

---

quote:

---

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

What pleases God is faith, not works. That's all I've been trying to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
So, I'd say that our standing before God is important and can't be regained just by doing good works without faith (in both the believing and trusting senses of that word). Our fundamental problems as humans isn't that we don't do enough good things, it's that we turned away from God and put up barriers that only He can pull down - and has done, through Jesus. God loves us madly and doesn't think us despicable at all; but until we turn back to Him and acknowledge Him and do the good that He calls us to do, we're still snookered.

And for me, that's not abhorrent; it's the most beautiful, amazing thing there could be (and this thread has reminded me of that).

---

Well said
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Stejjie: So, I'd say that our standing before God is important and can't be regained just by doing good works without faith (in both the believing and trusting senses of that word).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Stejjie: So, I'd say that our standing before God is important and can't be regained just by doing good works without faith (in both the believing and trusting senses of that word).

---

But that's not the point when I do good works. It isn't about whether I'll regain my standing before God. It isn't about me.

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: My point is that our standing before God is important and is at the root of the problem

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: It's a bit like... if I did loads of good things in my house for my family - worked hard to earn money we need, did all the cooking and cleaning, did the shopping etc. - but never actually paid any attention to them, never listened to them, talked to them, never even particularly acknowledged their existence, especially when they were trying to tell me there was a problem with me, then it wouldn't be beneficial to anyone. In fact, for all the good I was doing, I could actually be destroying my relationship with them. They'd probably want me to do the good stuff, but also to pay attention to them so our relationships could be right.

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: In fact, it's that that's supposed to spur us on to do even more good works - but they're not enough on their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Has nobody noticed that it would never cross an atheist's mind to ask whether the good they did pleased God? The point of my OP is that Augustine seems to be saying that the good that (for example) an atheist does is positively displeasing to God - and that's what I'm calling abhorrent.

---

And you'd be quite right.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And because of all the bad things happening, any good that's done is worthless?

---

They aren't worthless to you and me as humans, but they are worthless to God because we do not please Him by works.

There are many reasons to do good deeds to each other while on Earth but "because God will love me more" is not one of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
It's a bit like... if I did loads of good things in my house for my family - worked hard to earn money we need, did all the cooking and cleaning, did the shopping etc. - but never actually paid any attention to them, never listened to them, talked to them, never even particularly acknowledged their existence, especially when they were trying to tell me there was a problem with me, then it wouldn't be beneficial to anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But this is absurd. Of course it's beneficial to them. Having a roof over one's head and food in one's belly is beneficial. Having a crappy relationship with them doesn't change that.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: And yet there's an entire industry of counselling for people whose well-off parents met their material needs but didn't actually love them.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: Therefore, someone with faith who does not or cannot do lots of good works is justified, someone without faith who cures cancer is not - from a spiritual perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

someone without faith who cures cancer is not - from a spiritual perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

seekingsister: Therefore, someone with faith who does not or cannot do lots of good works is justified, someone without faith who cures cancer is not - from a spiritual perspective.

---

Yup, abhorrent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

someone without faith who cures cancer is not - from a spiritual perspective.

---

So Gandhi is going to hell?

---

quote:

---

Ikkyu: So Gandhi is going to hell?

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: How would I know?

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: I've already said that I believe God can (and hopefully will) save anyone by HIS grace. But not by THEIR works.

---

quote:

---

Lyda*Rose: Universalists would call it everybody-comes-to-party-together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But a God who actively condemns good works (Augustine's word again), just because those works don't smell of Jesus-deodorant, is a monster.

---

quote:

---

Our life was displeasing to him; everything in us that was of our doing was displeasing to him, but what he himself did in us was not displeasing. So he will condemn what we did but save his own work in us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But a God who actively condemns good works (Augustine's word again), just because those works don't smell of Jesus-deodorant, is a monster.

---

Except these are neither St Augustine's words, nor an accurate paraphrase of his words. St Augustine believes that (in one sense or the other) all human good flows from God into human agency, and all human evil arises from human resistance to this flow and consequently human agency left to its own devices. You can critique this view, of course, but as it stands you are blatantly misrepresenting what St Augustine is saying. God is not displeased with human good, according to St Augustine; rather God is displeased with the evil that people cannot avoid doing without (some form of) Divine assistance. To use your own quote from the OP, but with correct emphasis:

quote:

---

Our life was displeasing to him; everything in us that was of our doing was displeasing to him, but what he himself did in us was not displeasing. So he will condemn what we did but save his own work in us.

---

As shown above by a direct quote from St Augustine, God's work in us includes the (partial) restoration of uncorrupted human nature, which allows non-Christians to do natural human good.

Basically, you are ripping part of St Augustine's out of context, and interpret it to his detriment according to your rather different outlook on good and evil. This simply doesn't do St Augustine justice, and so no matter whether St Augustine is right or wrong in what he says. He deserves to be judged on his own terms, in context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And you are okay with Gandhi going to Hell because he didn't meet the Biblical belief standards although he acted very lovingly to his fellow human beings, loving his neighbors as himself and even seeming to love his enemies much more greatly than most of us could manage?

ETA: As I understand it, grace is God's freely given gift. If it is based on our works OR faith, I don't see how one can call it "free". Calvinists would call it election. Universalists would call it everybody-comes-to-party-together.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: Again - to say that works without faith please God leads to legalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

seekingsister: Again - to say that works without faith please God leads to legalism.

---

No, it doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

seekingsister: Again - to say that works without faith please God leads to legalism.

---

No, it doesn't.

---

When taken to its extreme, faith before works leads to a "just say a Jesus prayer and you're all good" type of religion.

When taken to its extreme, works before faith leads to a "do these works and you're all good" type of religion.

Only the latter can be described correctly as legalism: "adherence to moral law rather than to personal religious faith"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(b) Human beings are incapable of good, therefore any good we seem to do is really being done by God, so we're back to being nothing more than God's glove puppet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Stejjie: My point is that our standing before God is important and is at the root of the problem

---

I don't believe it is.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: It's a bit like... if I did loads of good things in my house for my family - worked hard to earn money we need, did all the cooking and cleaning, did the shopping etc. - but never actually paid any attention to them, never listened to them, talked to them, never even particularly acknowledged their existence, especially when they were trying to tell me there was a problem with me, then it wouldn't be beneficial to anyone. In fact, for all the good I was doing, I could actually be destroying my relationship with them. They'd probably want me to do the good stuff, but also to pay attention to them so our relationships could be right.

---

But what if your family made itself invisible? What if you couldn't be sure they existed? But you'd still cook and clean the house? I'd say that is a good thing.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: In fact, it's that that's supposed to spur us on to do even more good works - but they're not enough on their own.

---

Enough for what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But this is absurd. Of course it's beneficial to them. Having a roof over one's head and food in one's belly is beneficial. Having a crappy relationship with them doesn't change that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:


Why is Gandhi's work better than that of the drug-addicted homeless person? Are you OK that Gandhi goes to heaven because he fought for political independence, but the drug addict who was too mired in problems to achieve much in Earthly standards does not?

THIS is abhorrent to me!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(b) Human beings are incapable of good, therefore any good we seem to do is really being done by God, so we're back to being nothing more than God's glove puppet.

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: The comparison isn't exact though, because I believe God has made himself visible/revealed himself in Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: To correct that thing that's gone wrong between us and God which, as I've said, is what I believe to be the ultimate root of our problems - not just doing enough or not enough good things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Ingo is suitably informed. Which means he ought to recognise that God is personal, not a person.

---

quote:

---

Catholic Encyclopedia
[W]e have [there] a definition comprising the five notes that go to make up a person: (a) substantia - this excludes accident; (b) completa - it must form a complete nature; that which is a part, either actually or "aptitudinally" does not satisfy the definition; (c) per se subsistens - the person exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate possessor of his nature and all its acts, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes; that which exists in another is not a person; (d) separata ab aliis - this excludes the universal, substantia secunda, which has no existence apart from the individual; (e) rationalis naturae - excludes all non-intellectual supposita.

To a person therefore belongs a threefold incommunicability, expressed in notes (b), (c), and (d). The human soul belongs to the nature as a part of it, and is therefore not a person, even when existing separately. The human nature of Christ does not exist per se seorsum, but in alio, in the Divine Personality of the Word. It is therefore communicated by assumption and so is not a person. Lastly the Divine Essence, though subsisting per se, is so communicated to the Three Persons that it does not exist apart from them; it is therefore not a person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And you are okay with Gandhi going to Hell because he didn't meet the Biblical belief standards although he acted very lovingly to his fellow human beings, loving his neighbors as himself and even seeming to love his enemies much more greatly than most of us could manage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(b) Human beings are incapable of good, therefore any good we seem to do is really being done by God, so we're back to being nothing more than God's glove puppet.

---

Let's try another analogy. Which is true: creation or evolution? The answer is both. Life evolves through Darwinian evolution, and also God creates it. The two are not exclusive alternatives. That doesn't mean God set everything in motion, and then let Darwinian evolution go on its merry way; that doesn't even mean God micromanages Darwinian evolution nudging it along now and then. It means that 'God did it' and 'it evolved as a result of random mutation' are both true. It depends on the level of explanation at which you are working.

Likewise, if somebody recovers from illness, should we give thanks to God? Yes. But does that mean modern medicine wasn't responsible? No. Again, God did it and modern medicine did it are both valid explanations depending on the level of explanation at which you are working.
I think this goes for any doctrine of providence. If we thank God for our food at grace before meals, we are not implying that the farmers and food carriers and supermarkets and cook had nothing to do with it, or were merely sockpuppets.

Now: for Augustine any good deed falls into the same category: we did it, and God did it through the Holy Spirit are not competing explanations either. It's not the case that God did it reduces our role to a sock puppet, any more than thanking God at grace reduces the farmer to a stage show.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If you were to ask, "How did the hallway get cleaned?" then, if I was being careful about my answer, I'd acknowledged that the cleaning involved me, the vacuum cleaner, and some electricity. All three were necessary.

But Augustine seems to be saying that in any good act, nothing human is involved. On the contrary - "everything in us that was of our doing was displeasing to him". It's as if, the hallway being cleaned, the electricity suddenly finds a voice and claims all the credit! It's pure, clean, good electricity, and has nothing but condemnation for dirty old vacuum cleaners.

---

quote:

---

Christian theology traditionally teaches the corruption of human nature. However, there have been a range of views held throughout church history. Pelagius taught that human nature is not so corrupt that we cannot overcome sin. Arminians believe that our nature is corrupt, but that free will can still operate. Saint Augustine believed that all humans are born into the sin and guilt of Adam, and are powerless to do good without grace. John Calvin developed the doctrine of total depravity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Bad things done with faith in God can be pleasing to God.

---

Name one.

---

There isn't one in my opinion. Believing good things done without divine purpose are evil, is just the flip side of the coin from those who believe evil things done for divine purpose are good. That is fanaticism in my opinion. I agree with the word used in the thread for both. Abhorrent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not the case that God did it reduces our role to a sock puppet, any more than thanking God at grace reduces the farmer to a stage show.

---

Does the reverse hold true for the Devil and human evil?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Making life a "competition" for salvation misses the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If you were to ask, "How did the hallway get cleaned?" then, if I was being careful about my answer, I'd acknowledged that the cleaning involved me, the vacuum cleaner, and some electricity. All three were necessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But Augustine seems to be saying that in any good act, nothing human is involved. On the contrary - "everything in us that was of our doing was displeasing to him". It's as if, the hallway being cleaned, the electricity suddenly finds a voice and claims all the credit! It's pure, clean, good electricity, and has nothing but condemnation for dirty old vacuum cleaners.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: - God is not pleased by our works but by our faith and devotion

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: - works done by anyone - believer or not - are not in and of themselves pleasing to God, although they can have a great benefit to other humans and possibly to ourselves in terms of aligning ourselves with God's attitude of love

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: - God will save who He saves, and who He saves will have nothing to do with the amount of Earthly good works that they did

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: In sum - I believe the homeless drug addict and Gandhi will be seen EQUALLY by God.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: I do not accept that Gandhi (...) is going to be more pleasing to God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Yes they are.

I'm not much into proofreading, but I have to say your position is very unbiblical. There's plenty of stuff in the Bible about "Treating the orphans and widows well pleases Me"

---

quote:

---

James 1:27

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

---

That awful "epistle of straw" according to Martin Luther
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Who said anything about being more pleasing? This is you introducing a competition here. "Your good deed pleases me" doesn't mean "You please me more than someone else".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not the case that God did it reduces our role to a sock puppet, any more than thanking God at grace reduces the farmer to a stage show.

---

Does the reverse hold true for the Devil and human evil?

---

No. The Devil in orthodox Christian theology is another creature. Therefore, the devil is in genuine competition for ontological space with us. Either the devil did it or we did it, but not both.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: I was trying to use an example of someone who perhaps due to circumstance does no good works in their life at all, versus someone that everyone thinks did a lot of good works.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: If your position is that God sees the non-faith having non-good work doing person as pleasing, then it's neither works nor faith that please God but just our being humans period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between people being pleasing to God and deeds being pleasing to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore, the devil is in genuine competition for ontological space with us. Either the devil did it or we did it, but not both.

---

So technically, if our good works only come from God, our bad works could theoretically come from the Devil?

---

Dafyd: This is black.
Evensong: So technically, this is white?

 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore, the devil is in genuine competition for ontological space with us. Either the devil did it or we did it, but not both.

---

So technically, if our good works only come from God, our bad works could theoretically come from the Devil?

---

Dafyd: This is black.
Evensong: So technically, this is white?

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: I'm not having difficulty distinguishing these two things, but working from the theological framework as in Article 13 from the 39 Articles and from Augustine's statement - the acts that we do when outside of God's grace have the nature of sin because we have a sinful nature.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: It's as if God can't see what we are doing - good, bad, or otherwise - because we are not in a relationship with Him at that point.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: You are talking about something else - a god who is like "cool look at those kids sharing toys, wait now that guy is giving money to someone homeless, ooh someone fed a poor person."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

seekingsister: I was trying to use an example of someone who perhaps due to circumstance does no good works in their life at all, versus someone that everyone thinks did a lot of good works.

---

I understand that. Both people would be pleasing to God.

quote:

---

seekingsister: If your position is that God sees the non-faith having non-good work doing person as pleasing, then it's neither works nor faith that please God but just our being humans period.

---

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between people being pleasing to God and deeds being pleasing to God.

Suppose I were parent of two children. Would they be pleasing to me? Yes of course. I'd love them both unconditionally, no matter what they did or what they thought about me.

Suppose one of these children did a good deed. Would that be pleasing to me? Yes, it would. Would that mean that I'd love this child more than the other one? No, it wouldn't.

Now suppose that one of the children was so handicapped that (s)he was bedridden and couldn't do much of anything. Would I still be pleased with a good deed of the "healthy' child? Yes, I would. Would this mean I'd love it more than the child who was handicapped? No, of course it wouldn't. Both children would be pleasing to me.

---

Brilliant analogy.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore, the devil is in genuine competition for ontological space with us. Either the devil did it or we did it, but not both.

---

So technically, if our good works only come from God, our bad works could theoretically come from the Devil?

---

Dafyd: This is black.
Evensong: So technically, this is white?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose I were parent of two children. Would they be pleasing to me? Yes of course. I'd love them both unconditionally, no matter what they did or what they thought about me.

Suppose one of these children did a good deed. Would that be pleasing to me? Yes, it would. Would that mean that I'd love this child more than the other one? No, it wouldn't.

Now suppose that one of the children was so handicapped that (s)he was bedridden and couldn't do much of anything. Would I still be pleased with a good deed of the "healthy' child? Yes, I would. Would this mean I'd love it more than the child who was handicapped? No, of course it wouldn't. Both children would be pleasing to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. That's how opposites work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
An abhorrent doctrine.

---

quote:

---

You're being very dismissive about this. "Oh yeah cool, whatever." Sharing toys, giving money, feeding the poor are good things. These things matter.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: I've said multiple times that good works matter to us humans on Earth, and can even have a positive spiritual effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
They matter to God too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
They matter to God too.

---

Can you provide a basis for this position?

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: Can you provide a basis for this position?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I refer you to the recorded sayings of a Mr J H Christ, c. 4BC-30AD, who hardly ever shut up about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

seekingsister: Can you provide a basis for this position?

---

The Bible is full of God instructing us to help the widows and the orphans. Some verses were already quoted on this thread. Why would he give us these instructions if these things didn't please Him? He litterally said that these things please Him, more than sacrifices and saying "Lord, Lord!"

Jesus did the same thing. He explicitly told a Parable where an unbeliever (a Samaritan) did a good thing, and He recommended him for it.

The church history and tradition are full of recommendations of doing good things. In my church, we bring the gifts to the altar because they please God.

The evidence is overwhelming.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: Samaritans shared many of the same religious texts and beliefs as the Jews, as I'm sure you are aware.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: In fact having thought about it - Jesus' ministry was primarily focused on showing that those who did good works but lacked faith (the Phariseees) were displeasing to God, while people who were outcasts, poor, criminals (i.e. doing bad works) but were open to a real relationship with God were pleasing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
IIRC, Jesus never chided the Pharisees for lacking faith or even for not wanting a relationship with Him. He chided them for being ostentative about their deeds, for using their compliance with the Law as a means to gain status and power. Neither did He commend the lepers and the tax-collectors for having faith. The faith or lack of it of these two groups doesn't come into play here, I think it's rarely even mentioned (if at all).

C'mon, read the Gospels. They're full of Jesus instructing us to do good things. Why did He do that? Because they matter to Him. If all that mattered to Him was us having a good relationship with Him then He wouldn't be talking about these things. Case closed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
"And he will say to those on his right hand, 'You lot can go for everlasting punishment, too.' And they will say unto him, 'Whoa, hang on a sec. What about when you were hungry and we fed you? Thirsty, and gave you drink? What about when you were a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and cared for you?' And he will say to them, 'Oh, you thought that was you doing that? You poor silly blind creatures, that was me. Everything that's of your doing is displeasing to me. Now sod off.'"

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: But if Jesus had only come to tell people to do good things because that pleased God, there's no way he'd have got nailed to the cross (unless it was to shut him up saying things that were patently obvious) - that wouldn't have been remotely controversial.

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: Similarly, if Jesus had said that the people's relationship with God wasn't important

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: He has done no good works, at least none that we're told about, yet the father welcomes him back with open arms and treats him with honour and love.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: OK - why does he say that we should clothe the naked or care for the sick?

Because any of them could have been Jesus himself. Or as said elsewhere, if we show kindness to strangers we may be caring for angels.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: I understand that you instinctively reject the idea that the good in us is from God and the bad in us is from our human nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. That's how opposites work.

---

The devil is not the opposite of God in any orthodox Christian theology.

If you believe the devil can go around possessing people, then when the devil possesses somebody you can say that the devil did it and not that person. Otherwise, if you believe the devil goes around tempting people, then the devil no more makes somebody do things than any human being can make somebody do something. Iago can manipulate Othello into killing Desdemona, but he doesn't make Othello do it.
God's relationship to us (and to the devil) is entirely different. It's more like Shakespeare's relationship to Othello and Iago than like Iago's relationship to Othello.
(If we have free will in relationship to God, it's in the way that an author finds that her characters would do something in the situation they find themselves in other than the author had planned. God, except in some ultra-Calvinist theologies, doesn't intend us to sin in the way Shakespeare sets out to tell the story of Iago manipulating Othello into killing his wife.)

---

I'm not familiar with Shakespeare's Othello I'm afraid so the analogy is wasted on me.

I think I'm objecting to this posted by IngoB on the first page:

quote:

---

The traditional picture is that every good act is initiated by God's grace and carried out by going along with God's grace. Whereas every evil act is initiated by us and carried out in resistance to God's grace.

---

quote:

---

Otherwise, if you believe the devil goes around tempting people, then the devil no more makes somebody do things than any human being can make somebody do something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, what Jesus is saying here is: our good deeds please God. Just what I've been arguing all along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Stejjie: My point is that our standing before God is important and is at the root of the problem

---

I don't believe it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
God's relationship to us (and to the devil) is entirely different. It's more like Shakespeare's relationship to Othello and Iago than like Iago's relationship to Othello.

---

I'm not familiar with Shakespeare's Othello I'm afraid so the analogy is wasted on me.

---

quote:

---

I think I'm objecting to this posted by IngoB on the first page:

quote:

---

The traditional picture is that every good act is initiated by God's grace and carried out by going along with God's grace. Whereas every evil act is initiated by us and carried out in resistance to God's grace.

---

If every good act is initiated by God's grace and we have to respond to that to carry out the act then it seems sensible that the reverse must be true for bad acts. There must be some external initiating factor in the bad acts, just as there are in the good acts.

---

quote:

---

It seems to deny a human being any intrinsic ability to initiate and discern a good or bad act.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Otherwise, if you believe the devil goes around tempting people, then the devil no more makes somebody do things than any human being can make somebody do something.

---

In this case, the devil is the initiator of bad as God's grace is the initiator of good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, what Jesus is saying here is: our good deeds please God. Just what I've been arguing all along.

---

No - you are arguing that good works with or without faith are pleasing to God.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: I am arguing that God is pleased when we have faith and pleased with the good works that flow as a result of said faith.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: No one without faith is going to be pleasing God simply by doing good works.

---

• These works are going to be pleasing God, simply because good works please Him.
• These people are also going to be pleasing to Him, not because of their works but because God loves people. Call it Grace if you want.

quote:

---

seekingsister: Whatever God finds pleasing in that person is as a result of his grace, and that grace can be bestowed on anyone regardless of the works they do.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: Your argument really is that God is pleased with humankind.

---

quote:

---

seekingsister: I'm not sure why you are hanging your hat on works because you think God is pleased if we do them, if we don't do them, if we believe in him, or if we don't. It's a universalist position and therefore works are completely irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: Thank you for clarifying and correcting me and many apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying. FWIW, I do think good works, whether done from belief or not, please God: as Lamb Chopped said, there's plenty in the Bible that suggests that and if God is good then, even if you don't agree that they happen because of God's grace working through us, they do reflect God's goodness into the world.

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: What I think Jesus was pointing to this as the root of the problem: Israel & humanity in general had left God behind, but God was welcoming them back with open arms before they'd done anything good.

---

quote:

---

Stejjie: So their/our relationship with God is more than just "important", it's absolutely crucial, the most important thing there is. The loss of it, I think, is what's caused the problems in our world and recovering it is what I think Jesus came to do above and beyond his (necessary) talk of good works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose I were parent of two children. Would they be pleasing to me? Yes of course. I'd love them both unconditionally, no matter what they did or what they thought about me.

Suppose one of these children did a good deed. Would that be pleasing to me? Yes, it would. Would that mean that I'd love this child more than the other one? No, it wouldn't.

Now suppose that one of the children was so handicapped that (s)he was bedridden and couldn't do much of anything. Would I still be pleased with a good deed of the "healthy' child? Yes, I would. Would this mean I'd love it more than the child who was handicapped? No, of course it wouldn't. Both children would be pleasing to me.

---

Some Christian positions on this go even further than this, I think. Everything about us and God is often boiled down to being about Whether We Get To Heaven Or Not. Which to me is kind of like saying everything your children do is all about working their way into your last will and testament. A child can delight their parent without the parent going away afterwards to rewrite their will. So, surely, we can delight God without us then saying "So do I get to heaven now? Huh? Do I? Do I?" A good parent isn't always thinking of divvying up the inheritance: surely they're more interested simply in their children being the best human beings they can be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But this is absurd. Of course it's beneficial to them. Having a roof over one's head and food in one's belly is beneficial. Having a crappy relationship with them doesn't change that.

---

OK, maybe I was over-egging the pudding by suggesting there'd be no benefit for anyone - yes, those things are beneficial. But the relationships would suffer and it may be that that might counteract and undo the good that was being done by the good things I was doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I am arguing that God is pleased when we have faith and pleased with the good works that flow as a result of said faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Your argument really is that God is pleased with humankind.

---

quote:

---

Moo: George Macdonald said that God is easy to please and hard to satisfy. He is pleased at our efforts to do right, but he isn't satisfied until we meet his standards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Moo: George Macdonald said that God is easy to please and hard to satisfy. He is pleased at our efforts to do right, but he isn't satisfied until we meet his standards.

---

I don't think I like this very much. What does it mean if He isn't satisfied? And how does that relate to Grace? I don't think Grace means "I'm not really satisfied with you but alright, here you go."

---

quote:

---

deano: But isn't it just how parents are in the real world? If my child plays a new piece of music through - mistakes and all - I am pleased. But I am not satisfied until he nails it without mistakes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, when I say that God is a Person, I am asserting the philosophical definition of Boethius, as it was understood by Aquinas:

A person is a complete substance of rational nature subsisting of itself and separate from all else. (ST IIIa q16 a12 ad 2,3)

This is explained further in the

quote:

---

Catholic Encyclopedia...
(d) separata ab aliis - this excludes the universal, substantia secunda, which has no existence apart from the individual; (e) rationalis naturae - excludes all non-intellectual supposita.

---

---

Could you explain (d) a little, Ingo?

I probably don't entirely understand this definition, but it sounds too much like John Zizioulas's description of "an individual" as opposed to "a person"-- his point being that personhood involves relationships with other persons. Individualism, to him, is an unfortunate product of peculiarly Western thought.

Dafyd writes:

"Augustine... does believe that without grace it is impossible to act out of love. So, for example, he believed that the pagan justice of the Roman Empire was simply a conspiracy of thieves not to rob each other."

Sometimes American justice seems to be headed in the same direction.

Be that as it may-- according to the Jews, establishing courts of justice is part of the Noahchic Covenant, incumbent on the entire human race well before Abraham or Moses, let alone Christ. It looks to me as though this implies a degree of faith on God's part in man's ability to
perceive justice-- not at all perfectly, to be sure, yet well enough to make the world better off than if they did not try. I can't believe that a sincere attempt to follow such a commandment were displeasing to God.

[ 12. September 2014, 11:15: Message edited by: Alogon ]
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
I probably don't entirely understand this definition, but it sounds too much like John Zizioulas's description of "an individual" as opposed to "a person"-- his point being that personhood involves relationships with other persons. Individualism, to him, is an unfortunate product of peculiarly Western thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And the Orthodox bloody well oppose this teaching, because they know that this establishes the validity of the "filioque" unassailably.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And the Orthodox bloody well oppose this teaching, because they know that this establishes the validity of the "filioque" unassailably.

---

Maybe they actually oppose this teaching because they don't believe it's true.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0