Ship of Fools: By faith alone

Thread: By faith alone Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028297

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Matthew 7: 21 “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. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

This is a very, very odd verse. It seems to contradict many others such as:

quote:
Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

and this one:

quote:
Acts 16:30-31

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Does it not also contradict the protestant idea of justification by faith alone?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

ISTM that faith is more than belief. Its authenticity is seen in our words and deeds. We can't on one hand hate our brother and take the body of Christ with the other.

It could be that some who profess no faith but who do the will of God will enter the kingdom. That doesn't mean that they can work or pay their way in on their own initiative.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

The classic explanation is that true faith leads inexorably to action. Even the action of calling out "Lord, Lord" to Jesus: (a) need not necessarily come from true faith; (b) need not fulfill "the Father's will."

Of course, every classic explanation needs to be pushed to see if it really holds water.

I would also caution not to assume that Κυριος (Kyrios, "Lord" / "sir") is being used the same way by every NT author. It can vary from a merely conventional term of respect, to a divine title.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

You are also aware of James 2:18. I think much western Christianity has a very impoverished idea of what faith is. The duality between faith and works is wrong. It reflects the duality between mind and body, where the mind is seen as good and the body bad. As a result, we have made faith into a party trick of believing twelve impossible things before breakfast.

At its heart true faith creates an obedient spirit/will that follows the Lord's teaching and seeks to do the will of God. From this comes both the good deeds and good doctrine. Some are more gifted in one aspect than the other, most (self included) are poor at both.

The older I get the less time I have for even the idea of good doctrine as a set of precepts. I suspect good doctrine comes from a humble and teachable heart.

Jengie

[ 02. November 2013, 20:14: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

I quite like the approach that different authors meant different things by "faith" and "works" — here's Felix Just on the classic bits of Paul and James. But I think we can go further than Just — he gives an "incorrect" interpretation:

quote:
"Paul supposedly said: Justification comes not by our good works, but by our faith in Jesus alone."

I'd argue that that incorrect interpretation goes all the way back, and that in some sense James and Matthew both are writing against this interpretation of Paul.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

True faith leads to action, but I would also say that actions are an essential part of faith because actions that come from faith have the effect of strengthening that faith. As faith expresses itself in actions, it changes from something potential into something realized, that is, into something real, tangible, and living.

If my doctor tells me that I will feel better and be healthier if I exercise regularly and stop eating junk food, when does my faith in her become the strongest and most real? When I tell myself that I believe her, but do nothing to follow her advice? When I finally begin to follow it? Or when I follow it long enough to see that she's right?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Nice analogy!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I might suggest that the 'Lord, Lord' in the Matthew passage is the courtesy title of 'Master, Sir.' (As in 'The Lord has risen, etc...'

The second 'Lord' used by Paul is more like the divine name.
In the context of those years it was calling Jesus 'Lord' when the ionly person a Roman citizen was supposed to adddress as 'Lord' was Caesar. Th 'Lord' in this sense is kyrios - LORD - which is more than just 'Master' but is the Greek translation of adonai/YHWH.

[ 05. November 2013, 16:09: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The only place in scripture the phrase "faith alone" occurs is in James, where he explicitly says we are not saved thereby.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The only place in scripture the phrase "faith alone" occurs is in James, where he explicitly says we are not saved thereby.

That depends on whether it was Martin Luther translating.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

well there is grace alone, through faith. It's close enough.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I might suggest that the 'Lord, Lord' in the Matthew passage is the courtesy title of 'Master, Sir.' (As in 'The Lord has risen, etc...'

The second 'Lord' used by Paul is more like the divine name.
In the context of those years it was calling Jesus 'Lord' when the ionly person a Roman citizen was supposed to adddress as 'Lord' was Caesar. Th 'Lord' in this sense is kyrios - LORD - which is more than just 'Master' but is the Greek translation of adonai/YHWH.

I'm not sure the details of the titular lord in Matthew really matter. The people were using Jesus' name to perform many wonders signs etc. The essence of the passage seems to suggest such that prophecy and miracles in Jesus' name or not the real deal. The real deal is doing God's will.

So only to believe in Jesus doesn't seem to be enough.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Revelation 20.12: And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books.

john 5:28-29 Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

There seems to be alot of competing strands of thought on this idea of faith alone will save you. John is pretty strong on the "believe in the one the Father sent" and all will be well yet he speaks of judgement by words in chapter 5.

Revelation is also strong in the works department as James is.

The whole by faith alone thing seems to be mainly from the Pauline and pastoral epistles.

Which makes sense really because that was the traditional bias of the Reformers.

I suppose its just ironic that the Reformers have such a strong sola scriptura principle yet do not seem to practise what they preach. They just ignore the many passages of scripture that do talk about the importance of works.

The mind boggles.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I suppose its just ironic that the Reformers have such a strong sola scriptura principle yet do not seem to practise what they preach. They just ignore the many passages of scripture that do talk about the importance of works.

The mind boggles.

The mind needn't boggle. While there is indeed plenty of fodder in the NT for both the "Catholic" view and the "Protestant" view, nobody I know of who holds to sola fide view ignores the importance of works. They just see the meaning and role of those works differently. Per Luther, a saving faith is

quote:
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!

In this view, a faith that doesn't result in good works us not a saving faith. The difference is that the works are not done to achieve salvation; rather, they are done because faith compels them. They're not done to earn a reward, but in gratitude to grace.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

I might go a step further: they are themselves grace. Our good works are God's gift to us. That is the Catholic position, anway:

quote:
Joint Declaration:
38.According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the "meritorious" character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I suppose its just ironic that the Reformers have such a strong sola scriptura principle yet do not seem to practise what they preach. They just ignore the many passages of scripture that do talk about the importance of works.

The mind boggles.
The mind needn't boggle. While there is indeed plenty of fodder in the NT for both the "Catholic" view and the "Protestant" view, nobody I know of who holds to sola fide view ignores the importance of works. They just see the meaning and role of those works differently. Per Luther, a saving faith is

quote:
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!

That sounds alot like the epistle of James. I wonder why Luther called it the epistle of straw then?

If works are the outworking of faith, then what are good works with no faith?

[ 06. November 2013, 05:02: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If works are the outworking of faith, then what are good works with no faith?

Spiritually empty? (Although I would include conscience and altruism as precursors to faith) If I'm not doing them from faith, conscience, or altruism, then I'm doing them from some ulterior motive.

Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on :

God's love saves us - and as we go through sanctification, we are blessed to reflect it, the more we do this, the closer we are drawn to Him.

Or something. I'm working out how to best express how I feel about it, without being entirely heretical.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If works are the outworking of faith, then what are good works with no faith?
Spiritually empty? (Although I would include conscience and altruism as precursors to faith) If I'm not doing them from faith, conscience, or altruism, then I'm doing them from some ulterior motive.

Moving from faith to "faith, conscience, or altruism" is moving the goalposts into a whole new stadium.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If works are the outworking of faith, then what are good works with no faith?
Spiritually empty? (Although I would include conscience and altruism as precursors to faith) If I'm not doing them from faith, conscience, or altruism, then I'm doing them from some ulterior motive.

I don't see how a good work in itself is spiritually empty. What about goodness for goodness sake? Good works effect us and others in positive ways.

quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
God's love saves us - and as we go through sanctification, we are blessed to reflect it, the more we do this, the closer we are drawn to Him.

Or something. I'm working out how to best express how I feel about it, without being entirely heretical.

Doesn't sound heretical to me. Sounds pretty good.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't see how a good work in itself is spiritually empty. What about goodness for goodness sake? Good works effect us and others in positive ways.

Not always. The 'Lord or Lady Bountiful' attitude as some look down on those they are helping might leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
That sounds alot like the epistle of James. I wonder why Luther called it the epistle of straw then?

Luther and the other Reformers were speaking and writing in a particular time and context. The Five Solae can't be properly understood without considering the contemporary understandings of faith and salvation to which they were reacting.

quote:
If works are the outworking of faith, then what are good works with no faith?

Insufficient to justify or save.

And while I'll agree that moving from faith to altruism is a stretch, I don't discount the possibility of a person having some faith (trust) even if they don't fully understand or know the object of that faith.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't see how a good work in itself is spiritually empty. What about goodness for goodness sake? Good works effect us and others in positive ways.
Not always. The 'Lord or Lady Bountiful' attitude as some look down on those they are helping might leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

It would seem that acts of charity accompanied by a condescending attitude hardly qualify as "goodness for goodness' sake."

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If works are the outworking of faith, then what are good works with no faith?
Spiritually empty? (Although I would include conscience and altruism as precursors to faith) If I'm not doing them from faith, conscience, or altruism, then I'm doing them from some ulterior motive.
Moving from faith to "faith, conscience, or altruism" is moving the goalposts into a whole new stadium.

Yes, it is, but it's a stadium I'm using to playing in.

Substitutes aren't as good as the real thing, but they are substitutes and I think God accepts a lot of substitutes where faith is concerned - otherwise, most of the world would be lost.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If works are the outworking of faith, then what are good works with no faith?
Spiritually empty? (Although I would include conscience and altruism as precursors to faith) If I'm not doing them from faith, conscience, or altruism, then I'm doing them from some ulterior motive.
I don't see how a good work in itself is spiritually empty. What about goodness for goodness sake? Good works effect us and others in positive ways.

Goodness for goodness' sake is altruism. Goodness for an ulterior motive (e.g. for one's reputation) can still have the same positive effect on others, but doesn't help the actor draw closer to God.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It would seem that acts of charity accompanied by a condescending attitude hardly qualify as "goodness for goodness' sake."

To you and I, perhaps. To the condescending ones, it may be 'good for goodness' sake'. They are not giving to the poor wretches so that they will receive anything in return.

If God alone is good, then 'good for goodness' sake' may equate to 'good for God's sake'. I wonder whether it's possible to do God's work without professing faith in God.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It would seem that acts of charity accompanied by a condescending attitude hardly qualify as "goodness for goodness' sake."
To you and I, perhaps. To the condescending ones, it may be 'good for goodness' sake'. They are not giving to the poor wretches so that they will receive anything in return.

If God alone is good, then 'good for goodness' sake' may equate to 'good for God's sake'. I wonder whether it's possible to do God's work without professing faith in God.

Doesn't Paul talk about those who have not the law, who nevertheless do the works of the law, having a law written on their hearts, their consciences now accusing, now acquitting them?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Doesn't Paul talk about those who have not the law, who nevertheless do the works of the law, having a law written on their hearts, their consciences now accusing, now acquitting them?

You're right.
A law unto themselves.

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :

And it might be that the good works of even a hardened atheist, done from a loving motivation if not a Christian motivation, are themselves 'gifts of [common] grace' from God. They may assist the atheist to draw closer to God without knowing it, so that when they do truly see Christ, he chimes with them in a way that would not have happened before the works.

Just as someone who had never been to a doctor, but who had learnt the need for good exercise, diet etc, on their own, might be more ready to listen to a doctor when they met them, because he chimed with their own experience.

Or my friend was an atheist who did many good things for the poor. However he became dissilusioned, because he saw that the poor did not change and were not any morally better than the rich. He has found that Christianity deepens the meaning of the works, whilst also explaining why they are not 'the answer'.

Of course the strange bugbear with this is Gandhi, spent his days doing good works but did not become a Christian even though he knew them well. Though the Christians he knew sound pretty joyless.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
If works are the outworking of faith, then what are good works with no faith?
Insufficient to justify or save.

Oh I dunno. Sheep and goats come to mind.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
If works are the outworking of faith, then what are good works with no faith?
Insufficient to justify or save.

Oh I dunno. Sheep and goats come to mind.

Sure they do, which just points up, as I said earlier, that there is fodder for both views in the NT. There are also varieties of interpretation, including the interpretation (seen, among other places, in C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle) that the lack of good works by the goats is a symptom of lack of real faith, while the good works of the sheep are a sign of faith, even if those who performed those good works didn't realize until the judgment that the goodness they had faith in had a face, and that the face was Christ's.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

I am given to understand that the Greek word for faith, pistis, can be rendered as belief or trust. The problem, of course, is that belief and trust are two different concepts. An emphasis on faith as "belief" is that salvation becomes adhesion to a set of theological and/or doctrinal propositions. As such faith is passive, and results in the paradoxes raised by Evensong. My personal preference is for an emphasis on faith as "trust", because it recognises the uncertainty and limitations of belief, and is generous towards those who have different beliefs from my own. Critically, faith as "trust" has an essential active component because it assumes a life lived, in this case, centred on trust in Jesus, which seeks to emulate his example. Faith as trust, ISTM, mitigates that dichotomy between faith and works which an emphasis on correct belief starkly raises.

It may be pointed out that "trust" contains an element of belief: Jesus will see you right; but is it not also the case that belief might be seen as a "work" or the mind?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

sorry..........last three words should read "of the mind?" [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
... is it not also the case that belief might be seen as a "work" o[f] the mind?

I suspect that the biblical writers wouldn't have got hung up about distinguishing too closely between faith and works. The concept of loyalty within the covenant worldview setting would have led to an expectation that a whole person should be demonstrating loyalty - faithfulness in heart, mind, body... So there would indeed be a 'work' of the mind involved, both in coming into a loyal covenant relationship and then in staying there.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

I'm never 100% convinced about the difference between "faith of belief" and "faith of trust" (with the latter normally seen as preferable). Surely trust implies some kind of belief in/about the person in which one is trusting, that they are trustworthy, a belief that (perhaps in crude terms) they are able to do what they have said? If you didn't believe that that person could do what they said, then you wouldn't trust them.

(By the same token a "faith of belief" ISTM also imples some kind of trust in that person as someone worth believing in).

I don't think they're separate concepts at all; and I can't help thinking that "faith" in a biblical sense encompasses both aspects.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Stejjie

quote:
I'm never 100% convinced about the difference between "faith of belief" and "faith of trust" (with the latter normally seen as preferable). Surely trust implies some kind of belief in/about the person in which one is trusting, that they are trustworthy.........

I agree, Stejjie, that faith as trust necessitates a belief that the person in whom one places trust is trustworthy. Faith as trust, however, allows for a large tent of trusting Christians who have a wide variety of doctrinal positions and differences to co-exist. It encourages a tolerance that has not always been a feature of Christian history.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I agree, Stejjie, that faith as trust necessitates a belief that the person in whom one places trust is trustworthy. Faith as trust, however, allows for a large tent of trusting Christians who have a wide variety of doctrinal positions and differences to co-exist. It encourages a tolerance that has not always been a feature of Christian history.

Interesting stuff, Kwesi - I will reply properly but RL has intruded today; believe and trust me that I will reply properly tomorrow!

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

[Hot and Hormonal]

...and that's why you should trust, believe and have faith in God and not humans...

I do see your point and agree to a large part. I also agree that Christians have often seen "faith as belief" too narrowly and used it as a tool of exclusion, abuse and condemnation towards those who don't conform to the "right" "belief". I don't think our place in heaven is given just on the basis of mentally accepting the right propositions about Jesus.

But... I don't think it's unimportant and I don't think it can be detached easily from "faith as trust". I think they should work together, that we learn to trust God because we believe He is who He says He is, as shown especially in Jesus. Perhaps the two are mutually re-inforcing: as we learn to trust in Jesus more, we understand and believe more and as that happens we come to trust Him even more. A kind of virtuous spiral of trust and belief together making up this thing we call faith, which then works itself out in the way we live our lives.

That's all a bit "off the top of my head" and hugely idealistic: no doubt it can quite easily be ripped to shreds! But that's the way I think belief and trust "fit" together - both are important, AFAICS.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Stejjie, I was hoping you would miss yesterday: Put not your trust in Stejjie and all that! [Devil]

It proves a point, bit I'm not sure what it is!

As to your post, I find myself in as full agreement as is reasonably possible, which seems to be a terrible admission of failure on my part!

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Stejjie, I was hoping you would miss yesterday: Put not your trust in Stejjie and all that! It proves a point, bit I'm not sure what it is!

I have a feeling I'm all too good at proving "Put not your trust in Stejjie" to be true... [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Te absolvo!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0