Thread: The value of good works prior to justification 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=030135
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
Article XIII of the 39 (articles) says:
---
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of the 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 hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.
---
I was wondering how Anglicans understand this. To what extent is this understood narrowly (you can't be justified by works) or more broadly (God regards all works prior to justification with equal approbrium). I'm assuming there is no single "Anglican" view on this.
I was also wondering how other traditions (particularly Orthodox and Catholic) react to the statement that works before justification "....have the nature of sin."
Curiously yours.....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You're right, there wouldn't be any consensus on this across Anglicanism as a whole.
The answer would depend on who you speak to.
A 'Reform' Anglican would give you a very different answer to a 'Forward in Faith' one ... but you needn't go as far as the 'extreme Protestant' or 'extreme Catholic' ends of the Anglican spectrum to find a wide range of views on this one ... or indeed, plenty of Anglicans who've never even given it a second's thought.
As the CofE was moderately Calvinist when the 39 Articles were drafted, then this particular Article represents the standard Reformed view that good works performed outside of the context of faith in Christ are of no salvific value.
Indeed, so the argument would run, they are almost at the level of sin - for 'whatever is not of faith is sin.'
My own view, FWIW and if I can be considered Anglican ... is that whilst good works are not salvific in and of themselves, I don't see how they can be actually 'displeasing' to God - unless they are performed in a consciously brownie-point earning type of way - like those of the Pharisees - 'Look at us, look how righteous we are ...'
It seems to me, from my reading of the Gospels, that God is actually quite pleased with those who do good stuff, even if their understanding is limited or they have yet to apprehend the whole Gospel 'package' as it were ...
The angel commended Cornelius for his alms-giving, prayers and righteous acts. The Centurion whose servant Jesus healed was also commended for what he'd done for the Jews. Those things didn't 'earn' them their salvation or Christ's attention, as it were - it was God's grace in those cases as with any other.
But that doesn't mean that good deeds done outside a faith context are 'sinful' or meaningless. If that were the case then there wouldn't be that many good deeds around for us all to benefit from.
Beyond that, I tend not to get drawn into speculation on cause and effect, on whether this, that or the other thing is somehow more pleasing to God than something else ... that's God's business, not mine.
Not sure that helps, but that's my take.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It's not the stupidest thing I've ever heard. But it's right up there.
Thing is, it's me-centric for the good worker who has received justification. Does it help MY salvation? Is it good for ME? ME ME ME ME ME?
That doesn't matter. Salvation is not a reward for good works; good works are good in and of themselves. And if you feed a hungry person, you'd damn well sure that was good for the hungry person. It's not about you, it's about others.
This seems to me to be a selfish theological position born out of self-interest rather than doing God's will.
ETA:
It also creates an unhealthy "us vs. them" mentality. WE do good works that are pleasing to God. THEIR good works are sinful. Nyah nyah nyah.
[ 18. June 2016, 17:15: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This seems to me to be a selfish theological position born out of self-interest rather than doing God's will.
Nicely put.
The real point is to renounce selfishness and do God's will.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wouldn't disagree with that, Mousethief.
Which is a very British way of saying, 'I agree with that.'
I've even heard Reformed evangelical flavoured preachers denounce secular charities for this reason - that the works they do are not done in faith ...
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
In fairness and in context, I can understand the historical/theological reasons why this particular Article came to be written ... all part of the Reformation reaction to late medieval Rome's highly codified Brownie-Point merits/demerits approach to these issues ...
But I agree with you, it topples over into daft demarcation and binary dualism territory ... which is an issue I have with the Reformed tradition more generally - or perhaps the Western Christian as a whole which tends to make all sorts of binary distinctions ...
I think we could point the finger at Orthodoxy on a number of points, but I don't think they fall into this particular trap.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I agree with Gamaliel. I think he's put it rather well. Both his posts. His second one more or less coincided with my first attempt to post.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 18. June 2016, 18:24: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
Then Peter began to speak to them: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
Acts 10.35, Calvinism is an abhorrence
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Agreed with all that's been said, not surprising given my current distaste for Calvinism.
To take it a step further, I would say pre-conversion or non-Christian good works are a sort of "proto-evangelism". When we do good works, even when done outside of a Christian framework, we are drawn into the heart of God. We are participating in the work of the Kingdom, even if we never would call it that or perceive it in that way. That might lead to a Christian conversion*, but whether it does or doesn't is not the point.
Indeed, this would seem to be the whole point of the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt. 25, when those who are doing good works seem completely oblivious to the relationship between those good works and the King, much less salvation:
Matt. 25:37-39: “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’:
And yet Jesus tells us “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’"
* (Pres. Obama's conversion testimony sorta goes this way-- beginning by doing "good works" as a community organizer in Chicago, meeting a lot of Christians who care about the same sort of causes, which leads him to go to their church...)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In fairness and in context, I can understand the historical/theological reasons why this particular Article came to be written ... all part of the Reformation reaction to late medieval Rome's highly codified Brownie-Point merits/demerits approach to these issues .
I think this is a crucial point. When dealing with Reformation or slightly-later era confessions and writings, context has to be taken into account. Documents like this were written in reaction to other writings and teachings, and considering them outside that context is like listening to one half of a conversation and can lead to an absolutism that may not have been intended.
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Calvinism is an abhorrence
Well, Article XIII probably owes as much to Luther as it does to Calvin. In his Lectures on Romans, Luther wrote:
quote:
For even the good works which are done while the tinder of sin and sensuality are fighting against them are not of such intensity and purity as the Law requires, since they are not done with all of our strength, but only with the spiritual powers which struggle against the powers of the flesh. Thus we sin even when we do good, unless God through Christ covers this imperfection and does not impute it to us.
Meanwhile, the Reformed confessions I've looked at don't seem to take quite as hard a tack, recognizing the good that may yet be in good works by the "unregenerate." For example, the Westminster Confession (Chapter 16.7) says
quote:
Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful and can not please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God.
At least from a 16th and 17th CenturyReformed perspective, I think the idea here is even though the "unregenerate" may do very good things—things that in general God wants and that benefit others—without grace those good works are tainted, in large or small ways, by sinfulness. Things like self-interest, pride, allowing others to see us doing good, etc., come into play, and keep the good works from being ways we grow in grace and serve God. (For context, I think part of the point may also have been that good deeds by the unregenerate were not going to catch God's attention and make God say "oh, okay, we're good.")
All this said, I think many contemporary mainstream Reformed-types (me included) would be uncomfortable with Article XIII or Westminster Chapter 16.7, at least at face value, for many of the reasons others have said. The distinction might be, I think, that those contemporary Reformed-types might say that certainly unbelievers can do truly good works, but also would say that those good works are the result of God's grace at work in them, even if they are unaware of it (yet?). Big picture-wise, that seems quite consistent with Reformed understandings.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
At least from a 16th and 17th Century Reformed perspective, I think the idea here is even though the "unregenerate" may do very good things—things that in general God wants and that benefit others—without grace those good works are tainted, in large or small ways, by sinfulness. Things like self-interest, pride, allowing others to see us doing good, etc., come into play, and keep the good works from being ways we grow in grace and serve God.
To which I would reply: If you think self-interest, pride, allowing others to see us doing good, etc., don't come into play when Christians do good things, then you are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
quote:
(For context, I think part of the point may also have been that good deeds by the unregenerate were not going to catch God's attention and make God say "oh, okay, we're good.")
Of course. You can't earn salvation by doing good things. But this quote goes much further than that.
quote:
All this said, I think many contemporary mainstream Reformed-types (me included) would be uncomfortable with Article XIII or Westminster Chapter 16.7, at least at face value, for many of the reasons others have said. The distinction might be, I think, that those contemporary Reformed-types might say that certainly unbelievers can do truly good works, but also would say that those good works are the result of God's grace at work in them, even if they are unaware of it (yet?). Big picture-wise, that seems quite consistent with Reformed understandings.
And Orthodox understandings.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Things like self-interest, pride, allowing others to see us doing good, etc., come into play, and keep the good works from being ways we grow in grace and serve God.
To which I would reply: If you think self-interest, pride, allowing others to see us doing good, etc., don't come into play when Christians do good things, then you are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
I don't think that at all, nor do I think they thought that. I think they believed that without God's grace, there was nothing to work against that self interest, pride, etc.—hence the second part of that sentence.
quote:
quote:
(For context, I think part of the point may also have been that good deeds by the unregenerate were not going to catch God's attention and make God say "oh, okay, we're good.")
Of course. You can't earn salvation by doing good things. But this quote goes much further than that.
Oh yeah, it does. But that's what happens sometimes when one speaks or writes reactively—you go too far the other direction. I'll be the first to acknowledge there's been a big dose of that in Reformed history—some of which it has taken centuries to revisit. Understanding the context—what they were reacting against, what the agenda was—is helpful in assessing where they got it right and where they maybe went to far and missed the mark.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I suppose it can be summed up this way (what I heard, paraphrased in seminary)
"If you do good, it's because of God. If you do evil, it's your fault."
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
"In fairness and in context, I can understand the historical/theological reasons why this particular Article came to be written ... all part of the Reformation reaction to late medieval Rome's highly codified Brownie-Point merits/demerits approach to these issues."
I think that's a little simple, to be fair, the idea of a 'treasure of merit in heaven' is a thoroughly Jewish one. It's certainly present in the New Testament. Sure, the concept was abused, but classical scholastic and patristic literature on the matter has little to do with Brownie-points.
And, for the life of me, I cannot see why the Westminster Confession is more lenient. Could Nick Tamen explain?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And, for the life of me, I cannot see why the Westminster Confession is more lenient. Could Nick Tamen explain?
I can try. To be honest, I struggled a little bit with how to describe the difference. I settled on "not quite as hard a tack" in an effort to say it's still a pretty hard tack, but I think it is a little . . . softer? . . . than what Luther wrote or what Article XIII says.
In any event, I think Westminster at least tries to address the concern that mousethief raised in his first post:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thing is, it's me-centric for the good worker who has received justification. Does it help MY salvation? Is it good for ME? ME ME ME ME ME?
That doesn't matter. Salvation is not a reward for good works; good works are good in and of themselves. And if you feed a hungry person, you'd damn well sure that was good for the hungry person. It's not about you, it's about others.
This seems to me to be a selfish theological position born out of self-interest rather than doing God's will.
Westminster acknowledges that good works by the "unregenerate" may indeed be consistent with what God commands, and may be "of good use both to themselves and others." Westminster also states that it is more sinful and more displeasing to God for the unregenerate not to do good works.
I think the idea there, then, is that when Westminster talks about good works by the unregenerate being "sinful," it's not denying the value of those works to those helped or even to the person doing them, or to society as a whole. It's talking only about the relationship of those works to sanctification—that they arise out of the person's own motives and impulses rather than as a result of the Spirit working through one united with Christ.
As I said, I think many in the Reformed tradition almost 400 years after Westminster would agree with what Westminster seems to be saying up to a point, but would also take a different approach past that point.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I was wondering how Anglicans understand this. To what extent is this understood narrowly (you can't be justified by works) or more broadly (God regards all works prior to justification with equal approbrium). I'm assuming there is no single "Anglican" view on this.
This Anglican has never thought about it, still less lost any sleep about it.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Not Anglican, and so maybe this is not a response you'll want. But Lutherans teach basically the same thing with a couple tweaks--we don't say stuff about works deserving grace (grace by definition is undeserved) or about them making people fit for grace, or such. But we DO say what Paul says, that
quote:
For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)
[Waits a few beats to let some of y'all get done screaming]
Okay, now for how Lutherans understand it. It's not what you think (or what you probably think, ye erudite ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).
What this means is that anything a human being does is intrinsically flawed in some way, at some level, in some manner. There are evil actions--those are the easy ones to classify as sin. There are good actions with evil motives. There are good actions with good motives but evil consequences due to negligence or lack of foresight. There are cases where the whole shebang may be 99.999% pure--but then there's that .001 percentage point of shit, isn't there? Because our human nature is infected with sin, and no matter how hard we try, stuff is going to creep in. Like trying to handle glass when you've spilt honey over your hands. You're going to leave fingerprints, no matter what you do.
Okay, this is a sucky situation. But God says, "Yes, it's a sucky situation. Let me fix that for you." And gives us Christ. Now we don't have to fuss about the .001 percent of suckiness that is in even our best efforts. Christ deals with it for us. We can give over being constantly stressed about our sins. Christ has sorted it. "There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," and all of that.
So the whole issue of good works prior to or without Christ ought to be a non-issue. God has already said, "Here, let me wash that mess up for you." It's taken care of.
But it isn't a non-issue for a lot of people, because of what it implies about those of us (all of us) when we are not in Christ. It says, "Sorry, not good enough." And we get offended at that. I don't want to think that my noblest effort, my purest intentions, are unacceptable. Who wants to think that? And if I can put up with thinking it about myself, I certainly don't want to think it about my human heroes X and Y and Z, who are totally awesome and I will set the zombies on anybody who dares to criticize them.
I get that. It's offensive. This is, in fact, the offense of the cross, if I'm understanding that right.
The cross is offensive because it declares to everybody that we can't get our shit together, even when we try. That we need a bail-out. That even the people we most admire need a bail-out. That our best human efforts are still, no matter how we try, incompatible with the holiness and goodness and perfection of God.
It's as offensive as-- well, I was going to say all hell, but that's sort of the point, isn't it?
It's a horribly hard thing to swallow for the first time, admitting that nothing in human nature is ever on its own going to rise to a level compatible with God. But holding on to that illusion is deadly. It's like blithely walking into the sun's corona and thinking you'll survive. As human nature exists now, we are not compatible with God's holiness. Neither are any of our works. But it doesn't have to stay that way. Which is why Christ came.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If you find somebody whose motives are 99.999% pure, call me. Until then this kind of hyperbole only clouds the issue.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you find somebody whose motives are 99.999% pure, call me. Until then this kind of hyperbole only clouds the issue.
The same thing applies if their motives are 90% pure, or 50% or 10%, or 0.0001%
I interpret it along the lines laid out by Lamb Chopped above - it's similar to the thought behind the line "And there is no health in us".
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Give me a break, Mousethief. You ought to recognize the old rhetorical trick of a fortiori.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
LCs post is clear to me too, and helpful.
Also - sometimes I think about the way we say 'God is good' and specifically about the 'is'. If some goodness in the life of the bad is there - and it is, isn't it, even in those we love to hate and caricature for their evil - then from whom does it come? If not from God then who - some other, lesser god who is also a bit good?
Wesley had a phrase which might apply to this kind of thing - something like 'prevenient grace'. But then he was notably not a Calvinist.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you find somebody whose motives are 99.999% pure, call me. Until then this kind of hyperbole only clouds the issue.
The same thing applies if their motives are 90% pure, or 50% or 10%, or 0.0001%
No, not really. I could believe someone's motives were 10% or even 50% pure. Not 99.999%. That's just absurd.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Also - sometimes I think about the way we say 'God is good' and specifically about the 'is'. If some goodness in the life of the bad is there - and it is, isn't it, even in those we love to hate and caricature for their evil - then from whom does it come? If not from God then who - some other, lesser god who is also a bit good?
Wesley had a phrase which might apply to this kind of thing - something like 'prevenient grace'. But then he was notably not a Calvinist.
The Arminian concept of "prevenient grace" (which I believe in) is actually pretty narrowly soteriological in its application..
Belief in a residual goodness in the unregenerate would seem to be best covered by the Calvinist concept of "common grace" - even though strict Calvinists would not admit this inclusion.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Just another reason I'm not a Calvinist.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I could believe someone's motives were 10% or even 50% pure. Not 99.999%. That's just absurd.
How about 51%?
For some reason, this reminds me of the response by an anti-pentecostal American evangelical to the late Oral Roberts's claim that he had had a miraculous vision of Jesus in which he was 100 feet high.
"That is ridiculous!", he thundered. "No-one believes that Jesus was THAT tall!"
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
This may be tangential. But the separation of grace from works has always seemed problematic to me. Such that you can be part of the 1%, and do what you will to exploit others and you're still absolutely fine in the ticket to heaven department.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Not at all. Someone who exploits others in the way you describe demonstrates that he's a thousand miles from God's grace, no matter what the hell he claims about himself*. His ongoing behavior is prima facie evidence that he hasn't a clue what grace is, how it applies to himself, or how he ought to be applying it to others.
* and he'll not be able to fool God, whatever he does around other people.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
About "residual goodness"--sure there's huge amounts of goodness left in human nature, and in the world at large, and only a fool would deny it. This is because we were created good, even the devil, and though we may be spoiled now, we retain a huge amount of that goodness. A chocolate cake does not cease to be chocolate simply because someone drops it on the carpet. The chocolateness endures, though in such a state (depending on your carpet, I suppose!) that no one may wish to eat it.
Human goodness is distributed lavishly and freely throughout humanity, and even the worst people have glimmers of it. I remember a friend whose mother claims to have been rescued by Adolf Hitler from being run down by a horse. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
More commonly we see parents raising their babies and caring through them through labor and colic and diarrhea and temper tantrums and ...
Seriously, I never had so much admiration for the human race as when I had my own baby and suddenly realized what so many people were doing with so little whining.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
This needs ongoing preachification throughout the world. Rather loudly.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Not at all. Someone who exploits others in the way you describe demonstrates that he's a thousand miles from God's grace, no matter what the hell he claims about himself*. His ongoing behavior is prima facie evidence that he hasn't a clue what grace is, how it applies to himself, or how he ought to be applying it to others.
* and he'll not be able to fool God, whatever he does around other people.
Do you have to understand grace in order to receive it? Which of us truly understands it? If we have to understand grace to receive it, isn't that making understanding prior to God's grace? Sort of a prevenient intellecting?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Belief in a residual goodness in the unregenerate would seem to be best covered by the Calvinist concept of "common grace" - even though strict Calvinists would not admit this inclusion.
Despite, apparently, Calvin's admonition that denying this inclusion denies and dishonors the Holy Spirit.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Belief in a residual goodness in the unregenerate would seem to be best covered by the Calvinist concept of "common grace" - even though strict Calvinists would not admit this inclusion.
Despite, apparently, Calvin's admonition that denying this inclusion denies and dishonors the Holy Spirit.
Near as I can tell, modern Calvinists give Calvin himself rather short shrift. One might mention the perpetual virginity of Mary, but then one probably shouldn't.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Not at all. Someone who exploits others in the way you describe demonstrates that he's a thousand miles from God's grace, no matter what the hell he claims about himself*. His ongoing behavior is prima facie evidence that he hasn't a clue what grace is, how it applies to himself, or how he ought to be applying it to others.
* and he'll not be able to fool God, whatever he does around other people.
Do you have to understand grace in order to receive it? Which of us truly understands it? If we have to understand grace to receive it, isn't that making understanding prior to God's grace? Sort of a prevenient intellecting?
No (to your first) and I'm not clear what you're getting at. I was doing the old "tree is known by its fruit" thing.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Near as I can tell, modern Calvinists give Calvin himself rather short shrift.
I might say it's a little more complicated than that—at least depending on who is included as "Calvinist." In my experience at least, I'd say the mainstream Reformed, who have as a good a claim as anyone to bring his spiritual descendants, take him seriously without making him the end-all and be-all. He's not given short shrift, but there is critical shrift, if you will. And I think that's part of the Reforned DNA that's attributable to Calvin and others. (Which is one reason we tend to call ourselves "Reformed," not "Calvinist.")
Some of the hyper-Calvinists, on the other hand . . . .
quote:
One might mention the perpetual virginity of Mary, but then one probably shouldn't.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
One could also mention ecclesiology, personal interpretation of Scripture, and a few other things that some of the TULIP hyper-Calvinists seem to ignore.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
To LC: I guess I'm seeing this as another example of what seems to me fudging the issue. You know you're saved because you're saved and Christ protects the saved, but if you turn out later to not be saved (as shown by your works) then you were never saved in the first place, even though you did all the right things and you thought you were saved.
It seems to me that there is no security in the Calvinist system. Sure you may FEEL you're saved. But so did thousands of people who subsequently fell away.
It seems dishonest. Why not just say, you can't know if you're saved? Because that's what it boils down to.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To LC: I guess I'm seeing this as another example of what seems to me fudging the issue. You know you're saved because you're saved and Christ protects the saved, but if you turn out later to not be saved (as shown by your works) then you were never saved in the first place, even though you did all the right things and you thought you were saved.
It seems to me that there is no security in the Calvinist system. Sure you may FEEL you're saved. But so did thousands of people who subsequently fell away.
It seems dishonest. Why not just say, you can't know if you're saved? Because that's what it boils down to.
Oh, okay.
Here's where it's going wrong (I think). I'm not Calvinist.
Far from it, in fact.
Lutherans admit the possibility of a convinced Christian falling away from Christ. We do not believe in "once saved, always saved." Nor do we base our assurance on "I feel saved." That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Who feels the same all the time?
So the Calvinist thing is a mares' nest, at least insofar as you saw it in my post. It never entered my mind.
Now as for the guy in the example we were discussing, I took him to be a straight-up hypocrite, not a deluded I-thought-I-was-a-believer-but-I-was-wrong. I find it hard to believe anybody could be a believer and yet be showing such massive ongoing evidence of fuckwittery. The human heart is desperately wicked and self-deceptive, so I suppose... but really... is that even possible?...
It occurs to me now that Example Guy could truly consider himself a believer because he's never ever learnt the first thing about what Christianity is. I could see THAT happening. If, for example, he thought that Christianity = keeping the 10 commandments, or at least the convenient bits thereof, publicly, most of the time, the ones he remembered... A little bit of Christian education would send the whole delusion crashing down, but some people are very good at avoiding that education. And if that was his definition of "being a Christian believer," then yes, he could doubtless carry on being an exploiter of thousands and consider himself faithful nonetheless.
Yecchhh. Now I've got to go dry-clean my brain.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
About "residual goodness"--sure there's huge amounts of goodness left in human nature, and in the world at large, and only a fool would deny it.
The word residue and its cognates are quantity- neutral.
For example, whether you take 1% or 99% in fees from a sum of money, the remainder is still the residue.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Certainly. I was implying nothing about what "residual" meant. Rather I was responding to those (perhaps mythical) people who think that denial of human ability to please God without faith is automatically equivalent to denying that human beings, Christian or not, can do great and wonderful deeds in the world. And often say so in an indignant tone of voice, as if we meant to slander humankind.
[ 20. June 2016, 06:14: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
IMHO, a lot of this is founded in quite a serious misunderstanding of what grace is about. It's a wrong track that sub-Calvinists and sub-Thomists share. It was a component of the theological furniture in late medieval and early modern Europe, which has, alas, survived. They have both gone down it, even if they may be going in different directions.
Grace is not a sort of spiritual commodity, an emanation, a hypostasis with an independent existence of its own, rather like the oil flowing down Aaron's beard. Grace is a description of an aspect of God's character, what he is like, how he is.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yes. treating it as an abstraction bugs the heck out of me, even though I can see why people do that. In my own thinking I usually substitute the cumbersome "graciousness" instead of grace just to prevent myself from forgetting that this is a person with a quality I'm dealing with, not some sort of force.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
LC: There are, alas, a number of people who bomb abortion clinics and beat up gay people who think they are good Christians doing God's work in the world.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
And would you say those people have ever bothered to read the Bible, particularly the "love your neighbor" bits?
I won't say it's impossible, but I would expect it's very hard to actually read the thing and go on being quite comfortable killing people (as opposed to half-snoozing through a sermon on Sunday or digging through extremist websites that cherrypick your verses for you). There's power in the Scriptures.
But if they fall under "I go to church when the wife drags me, and then I snooze through the readings and sermon, and my pastor is just as much of a prick as I am"--well, I'd class such people as further examples of "doesn't know what the hell Christianity is, doesn't know enough to even be a hypocrite."
And really, I'd be astonished to see much in the way of good works from such a person anyway.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Certainly. I was implying nothing about what "residual" meant. Rather I was responding to those (perhaps mythical) people who think that denial of human ability to please God without faith is automatically equivalent to denying that human beings, Christian or not, can do great and wonderful deeds in the world.
Not mythical - I know some. "All our righteousness is as unclean as a menstrual cloth" (yes, they are all male men.....).
Quite clear about works having no salvific benefit (we are hopeless lost without God's intervening grace). How would a Lutheran answer the question "What value does God place on works that do not come from faith? Picking up Gamaliel's reference to various Centurions in the NT it would seem that such acts attract God's approval (as opposed to somewhat less disapproval than other acts).
@Mousetheif - not sure from your posts how the Orthodox would answer the same question.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Too neat and too simplistic, Lamb Chopped. It seems to me that some of the folks who go around bombing abortion clinics and beating up gays are actually pretty well steeped in the scriptures.
Yes, there's power in the scriptures but even the Devil can quote them, don't forget.
You can be top of the class in memory-verses or quoting scripture, that, in and of itself, doesn't stop anyone being a drongo.
There was a serial-killer up in Glasgow many years ago nicknamed 'Bible John' because of his habit of leaving Bible verses near the bodies of his victims. Sure, he wasn't a serial-killer because he'd been brought up in a strict Bible-believing Protestant evangelical sect, but such an upbringing in and of itself doesn't stop people turning out whacky.
Just as being Tsar of an Orthodox country didn't stop Ivan the Terrible from being a complete and utter screw-ball.
Meanwhile, back to the main point, I'm with Enoch on this one, it's the commodification of grace within strands of Western Christian thought that is the issue here ...
I would suggest that one of the reasons why the Orthodox find it comparatively difficult to get their points on this issue across to the rest of us is because we're steeped - to a greater or lesser extent - in that kind of mind-set. It's taken me many years to grasp that.
I'm not saying that they always do themselves any favours in the way they express their particular 'take' though ... these things work both ways.
Saying that, I agree with Nick Tamen that the broader Reformed tradition has a more balanced and nuanced approach to these issues than many would give them credit for ... mainly because the hyper-Calvinist voice is often the loudest from that end of the pitch.
As for the Lutheran 'take' - the only place I ever encounter Lutherans is here on the Ship (and during visits to Germany back in the '90s). Lutherans are as rare as hen's teeth here in the UK.
From what I can gather, the Lutheran stance can be even 'bleaker' in some ways on this issue than either Westminster or the 39 Articles - but I might be getting the wrong end of the stick.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
I sometimes think that if you are worried about your salvation then you are not saved. This is not because as is wrongly supposed that there is some great assurance that is revealed to those that are saved. As a rule of thumb, God does not go into that sort of stunt. What is true is that the saved love God for being God and not for saving them.
So where does this leave Good works prior to justification? Exactly where they are after justification; that is they are signs of the work of God through creation but not intrinsic to God's salvific action. News at 10, God does more than save humanity and in much of God's work we are irrelevant.
Jengie
[ 20. June 2016, 17:47: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think it was some of the Church Fathers and the great ascetics and contemplatives who said that we should aim to get to a point where we aren't bothered so much about our own salvation as simply to be doing God's will regardless.
Or something like that. People here who are better informed than I am on these things can enlighten us on that point.
However, I'm not sure that concern or worry about one's spiritual state or salvation is necessarily a sign of 'despair' or that one is or isn't 'saved'.
One might equally argue that a kind of puffed-up and pompous form of assurance - and there can be Pharisees in all traditions - could equally indicate presumption.
'Do not despair, one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume, one of the thieves was lost.'
I'm not sure that there's any particular schema or system that adequately does justice to any of this - it seems to me we can ratchet things up too tightly at each end.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
What I forgot to say was "but then I remember God does not give such useful rules of thumb."
I am however clear that those who are likely to be saved are not those assured that they are saved, but those that have got over the need to know.
Jengie
[ 20. June 2016, 18:12: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
What I forgot to say was "but then I remember God does not give such useful rules of thumb."
I am however clear that those who are likely to be saved are not those assured that they are saved, but those that have got over the need to know.
Jengie
Excellent. I used to have a Buddhist teacher who used to say that while thoughts of enlightenment persist, you could not be enlightened. But of course, there are many such moments without such thoughts! Hmm, interesting.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
@ Gamaliel. You said Meanwhile, back to the main point, I'm with Enoch on this one, it's the commodification of grace within strands of Western Christian thought that is the issue here ... I would suggest that one of the reasons why the Orthodox find it comparatively difficult to get their points on this issue across to the rest of us is because we're steeped - to a greater or lesser extent - in that kind of mind-set. It's taken me many years to grasp that.
So you're ideally placed to explain their points to the rest of us. What would be an Orthodox response to my question to LC "What value does God assign to good works prior to justification?"
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
The value of good works always includes the benefits to the recipients. The people you feed have been satisfied for a while. The people you house are protected from the elements. The sick, shut-ins, and prisoners you visited (one hopes) got some comfort from your presence. Your words of encouragement helped someone move on to the next moment. What God makes of it all is up to him.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
So where does this leave Good works prior to justification? Exactly where they are after justification; that is they are signs of the work of God through creation but not intrinsic to God's salvific action. News at 10, God does more than save humanity and in much of God's work we are irrelevant.
I half agree, half disagree.
I would agree that good works before and after justification are the same. What I would disagree with is the statement that good works are not part of God's salvific action.
Works are not a way of earning salvation, certainly. But salvation as understood in the OT and NT is more than just "getting into heaven when you die". Salvation is the way that God is saving, redeeming and restoring all of creation-- the way God is setting things right. And humanity, while not the whole of what God is restoring, is a significant part of it. God's restoration involves restoring and reworking our hearts-- transforming our hearts to be like his. This is a part of the "setting right"-- becoming what we were always meant to be. And that is salvation, in the broadest sense of the word. Good works are the natural outgrowth of that work-- not something that earns anything, but rather what life in the Kingdom naturally looks like.
The fact that we see good works among non-Christians is evidence that God's salvific work is not limited to those who call upon his name. God is working in all sorts of odd and unexpected places in the Bible-- in pagan astrologers and kings, in donkeys, in prideful despots, all kinds of odd ways. So of course he's going to be working in good-hearted people who don't yet know him. This should not surprise us. The surprise is when we see so little evidence of good works in some of those who DO claim his name.
But even there we can find reasons for hope. In the journey to find and be restored to the life we were intended for, we're not all starting on the same square. Life experiences shape us for good and for ill, so you may have a believer who's starting out with a heart so damaged and hardened by sin, abuse and suffering, that s/he's starting out miles behind a non-believer who was raised in a non-abusive, loving home that taught him/her to care for others. It matters not that the believer isn't as "good" as the non-believer, what matters is that the believer is farther along the path today than they were yesterday-- that is evidence of the Spirit's restoring work.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
@cliffdweller. Setting the question in the context of God's overall work of redemption is something I find very helpful. @Gamiel - should have said I also found your first thoughts upthread highly pertinent.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Too neat and too simplistic, Lamb Chopped. It seems to me that some of the folks who go around bombing abortion clinics and beating up gays are actually pretty well steeped in the scriptures.
You think? I hear a ton of instances of the same prooftexts, but no more depth than a frog pond in August. In fact I don't think I've ever come across anyone well-versed in the Scriptures who pulled this kind of shit. To be sure, this is just anecdata; but my experience is that those who go off the deep end are usually working from a sheet of proof verses (often out of context) and couldn't find 2 Corinthians, or their own asses, with both hands.
To be sure, being well-steeped in the Scripture is not a cure-all; but I think most people vastly over-estimate the amount of Scriptural knowledge (say) Westboro members have. Certainly the cultists knocking on my door are pitifully armed with the same handful of verses.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
From what I can gather, the Lutheran stance can be even 'bleaker' in some ways on this issue than either Westminster or the 39 Articles - but I might be getting the wrong end of the stick.
Gosh, I really wonder what that's about. I'm guessing wrong end of the stick (sorry), but if you remember more, let me know.
The Lutheran stance is and always was that if you are saved, all glory to God, hurray! and if you go the other way, it's your own damned fault, and why were you such an idiot to choose that, dude? We don't at all believe that God predestines anybody whatsoever to hell. Anybody who gets there does it much against God's will and in the teeth of a ton of interventions, the Cross being the first and foremost. And on the day of judgment, nobody is going to be able to whine "but it's not FAIR" to God, because we will all be self-sentenced.
To be sure, I am hoping that hell will be as empty as possible, because that's certainly what God wants, and that's what Christ deserves--that he should have as many of the people he loves with him forever in safety and joy. But God will not in the end overrule human free will.
[ 21. June 2016, 03:48: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
To be sure, I am hoping that hell will be as empty as possible, because that's certainly what God wants, and that's what Christ deserves--that he should have as many of the people he loves with him forever in safety and joy. But God will not in the end overrule human free will.
This is what I believe. Add to that that I think ultimately God will outwait all of us. But as Screwtape says, "He cannot ravish, he can only woo."
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Quite clear about works having no salvific benefit (we are hopeless lost without God's intervening grace). How would a Lutheran answer the question "What value does God place on works that do not come from faith? Picking up Gamaliel's reference to various Centurions in the NT it would seem that such acts attract God's approval (as opposed to somewhat less disapproval than other acts).
@Mousetheif - not sure from your posts how the Orthodox would answer the same question.
What value does God put on this stuff? Well, we have that bit on Micah (it was Micah, wasn't it?).
He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly
And to love mercy
And to walk humbly with your God?
Elsewhere we have Jesus speaking of unnamed "whoevers" who offer his followers a cup of cold water, and says "they will surely not lose their reward." Those whoevers--who are they? I am hoping and banking on them being people like my godchildren's parents, who have opened their hearts to us, Jesus' servants, even if they refuse as of yet to acknowledge him in his own name. That will come, I hope. Right now they seem to be loving him as they see him in us--and sooner or later that veil will tear.
Then there are the sheep (not the goats
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
) who apparently did habitual acts of kindness without much thinking about why or who they were doing them to. They inherit the Kingdom at Jesus' word, though it is not at all clear that they were conscious, fully catechized believers.
The widow with the two small coins comes in for praise, as does the widow who took care of Elijah by cooking for him and giving him a place to stay. The first, well, we know little about her faith except that Jesus praises her (which is the best testimony there is, so maybe I should leave her out of this list). The second keeps referring to "the Lord YOUR God" when she talks to Elijah instead of "the Lord OUR God." Since she lives near Sidon and is a Gentile, not a Jew, this probably means something. At least that she is not yet a fully-signed up convert.
I could go on and on but I'm too windy already. Suffice it to say that God appears to love this stuff--acts of goodness and mercy etc.--no matter how flawed. But loving it (and rewarding it!) and granting salvation in the basis of it are two totally different things. I may adore the drawing my child brings me, but it's going to hang on the refrigerator--not in the Louvre.
The value of good works is inestimable. But salvation is not an award you can purchase with this value, or any other kind of value. It is a gift of God.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But God will not in the end overrule human free will.
Agreed, but I'm interested to hear it coming from someone who belongs to a denomination named after a man whose On The Bondage Of The Will was the work of which he was most proud.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Ramarius, I think MT would be better placed to answer this than me. I can have an unfortunate tendency to jump the gun and put words in other people's mouths or answer on their behalf - and I've had Hostly and Admin warnings about tgat.
However, as you have addressed the question to me now as well as to MT I feel I can legitimately venture an answer.
As far as I understand it, the Orthodox don't make the same sort of distinctions that some Western Christian traditions have about the precise mechanics of these things - good works are good works irrespective of whether the person performing them is regenerate or not.
The evaluation lies in the benefit they bring. Only God knows and can judge the purity of motive and so on.
If you were rescued from drowning, would it matter if your rescuer were an atheist, a Hindu, a Buddhist, Pentecostal, RC or Mormon?
From an Orthodox perspective, as I understand it, the question doesn't really arise. It's a non-issue. Not because they don't understand the kind of distinctions that early Protestant Christians - whether Lutheran, Calvinist/Reformed or Anglican - were trying to make in relation to make in reaction to late-medieval Roman Catholicism - but these distinctions don't make sense to them in their particular context.
There are several reasons for this. For one thing, whilst they don't believe in salvation by works - although it can sound that way if you're not used to it - they are synergists and not monergists - and also they see salvation more as a process rather than some kind of crisis experience of regeneration - not that they would dismiss such a thing necessarily.
MT will correct me if I have got the wrong end of the stick.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Lamb Chopped, I think we're talking past each other to a certain extent. I agree with you that Westboro' types and off-at-the-deep-end people in all traditions tend to have a very wooden, proof-text list approach.
My issue, I suppose, isn't that of the extremists- we'll always have those with us - but the kind of points Cliffdweller is making about the 'unregenerate' being part and parcel of God's Kingdom plan, if you like - often unawares.
You see elements of that in both the OT and NT.
Of course, the Reformed and Lutheran traditions readily ackniwledge that - and as Nick Tamen and Jengie Jon have indicated, there is a more nuanced view across the broader Reformed tradition than can sometimes be found in some forms of evangelicalism.
By and large, I don't see evangelicals carping at good stuff done outside of a faith-context or outside their particular tradition - but it does happen.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Quite clear about works having no salvific benefit (we are hopeless lost without God's intervening grace). How would a Lutheran answer the question "What value does God place on works that do not come from faith? Picking up Gamaliel's reference to various Centurions in the NT it would seem that such acts attract God's approval (as opposed to somewhat less disapproval than other acts).
@Mousetheif - not sure from your posts how the Orthodox would answer the same question.
What value does God put on this stuff? Well, we have that bit on Micah (it was Micah, wasn't it?).
He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly
And to love mercy
And to walk humbly with your God?
Elsewhere we have Jesus speaking of unnamed "whoevers" who offer his followers a cup of cold water, and says "they will surely not lose their reward." Those whoevers--who are they? I am hoping and banking on them being people like my godchildren's parents, who have opened their hearts to us, Jesus' servants, even if they refuse as of yet to acknowledge him in his own name. That will come, I hope. Right now they seem to be loving him as they see him in us--and sooner or later that veil will tear.
Then there are the sheep (not the goats
) who apparently did habitual acts of kindness without much thinking about why or who they were doing them to. They inherit the Kingdom at Jesus' word, though it is not at all clear that they were conscious, fully catechized believers.
The widow with the two small coins comes in for praise, as does the widow who took care of Elijah by cooking for him and giving him a place to stay. The first, well, we know little about her faith except that Jesus praises her (which is the best testimony there is, so maybe I should leave her out of this list). The second keeps referring to "the Lord YOUR God" when she talks to Elijah instead of "the Lord OUR God." Since she lives near Sidon and is a Gentile, not a Jew, this probably means something. At least that she is not yet a fully-signed up convert.
I could go on and on but I'm too windy already. Suffice it to say that God appears to love this stuff--acts of goodness and mercy etc.--no matter how flawed. But loving it (and rewarding it!) and granting salvation in the basis of it are two totally different things. I may adore the drawing my child brings me, but it's going to hang on the refrigerator--not in the Louvre.
The value of good works is inestimable. But salvation is not an award you can purchase with this value, or any other kind of value. It is a gift of God.
Yes, good works do not merit us a reward of salvation, and God does not judge our good works based on the pureness of our heart, but it does not necessarily follow from that that good works have nothing to do with salvation. You mentioned the idea that we can choose not to accept God's salvation, so the question is how we go about making that choice. Do we make a choice by what we say? By what we think? What we believe? Is it possible for us to believe something if we never attempt to put it into practice?
If I believe that exercise is good and worthwhile, I will believe it even more if I actually get myself to do it every day. If I believe that treating my neighbor well is good and worthwhile, I will believe it even more if I actually get myself to do it every day.
If God gives us a choice about accepting grace and salvation, then it makes sense if the way we go about exercising that choice is by choosing how we try to live our life. It has nothing to do with merit or the pureness of our motives. Trying to do good works and live according to God's will is simply the way we can most completely commit ourselves to our choice to be faithful. It's how our faith becomes a living faith.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Perhaps we can think of good works as similar to the sacraments.
In Reformed theology, the sacraments are not symbols, they aren't merit-worthy human action, they are signs-- visible signs of God's invisible action.
So good works aren't earning us anything, but they are visible signs that point us to something-- the presence and power of the Spirit at work. When we see someone overcoming our default sinful urges towards selfishness, greed, self-interest and complacency, that is a sign that God is at work. We can point to it and say "good one, Lord!"
The fact that some show these signs before conversion is again consistent with our sacramental theology. We baptize babies because, as a sign, it points us to the truth that God's gift of grace comes to us prior to our response of faith (Rom. 5:8)-- that God acts first. So we shouldn't be surprised to see that in other people's lives-- that God is moving and working redemptively (setting things right inwardly) even before they respond in faith to call upon his name.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I am however clear that those who are likely to be saved are not those assured that they are saved, but those that have got over the need to know.
I'm unclear as to how anyone who is aware of their need for salvation can be in any way blasé about whether they will get it or not.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm fairly sure that at some point in spiritual growth one does start caring more about God himself than about one's own welfare--but I don't think this stage is a prerequisite for anything. Tons of us are going to die in the faith before we ever get to that point, and that's okay.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
@W Hyatt. You wrote
If God gives us a choice about accepting grace and salvation, then it makes sense if the way we go about exercising that choice is by choosing how we try to live our life. It has nothing to do with merit or the pureness of our motives. Trying to do good works and live according to God's will is simply the way we can most completely commit ourselves to our choice to be faithful. It's how our faith becomes a living faith.
I suspect Erasmus would say "amen" to that. The more self aware I become, the more I recognise the variety of motives - and their relative purity - for decisions I make. The key point I take from your post is the desire, within those motives, to live before God or to use your words according to God's will.
[ 21. June 2016, 17:19: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Well said, W Hyatt.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
I was reminded this evening of George Macdonald's statement that God is easy to please but hard to satisfy.
I shall reflect on that in the context of this subject.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And would you say those people have ever bothered to read the Bible, particularly the "love your neighbor" bits?
I won't say it's impossible, but I would expect it's very hard to actually read the thing and go on being quite comfortable killing people (as opposed to half-snoozing through a sermon on Sunday or digging through extremist websites that cherrypick your verses for you). There's power in the Scriptures.
But if they fall under "I go to church when the wife drags me, and then I snooze through the readings and sermon, and my pastor is just as much of a prick as I am"--well, I'd class such people as further examples of "doesn't know what the hell Christianity is, doesn't know enough to even be a hypocrite."
And really, I'd be astonished to see much in the way of good works from such a person anyway.
Thank God we are not as other men, eh?
The world is full of people who know their Bible better than you, who love their neighbour better than you and kill.
The other guy you describe doesn't parade his good works for you to see.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps we can think of good works as similar to the sacraments.
In Reformed theology, the sacraments are not symbols, they aren't merit-worthy human action, they are signs-- visible signs of God's invisible action.
So good works aren't earning us anything, but they are visible signs that point us to something-- the presence and power of the Spirit at work. When we see someone overcoming our default sinful urges towards selfishness, greed, self-interest and complacency, that is a sign that God is at work. We can point to it and say "good one, Lord!"
The fact that some show these signs before conversion is again consistent with our sacramental theology. We baptize babies because, as a sign, it points us to the truth that God's gift of grace comes to us prior to our response of faith (Rom. 5:8)-- that God acts first. So we shouldn't be surprised to see that in other people's lives-- that God is moving and working redemptively (setting things right inwardly) even before they respond in faith to call upon his name.
As you know, cliffdweller, I've got a love-hate relationship with Reformed theology.
This is one of the parts I love.
Can we ever rightly dismiss or deny the signs of God's presence when they are manifested in others, even those who may not be able to fully recognize it themselves? Or does that only reveal our own corresponding inability to recognize it?
God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God in them. 1 John 4:16
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The whole works v faith thing has always puzzled me.
If one does good for one's fellows regardless of faith, does this not show a true understanding of God, even if one does not believe? And, if one is not drawn to do good for one's fellows, even in the presence of belief, does this not indicate a lack of acceptance of God?
This is how I read Jesus' words and actions.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The whole works v faith thing has always puzzled me.
If one does good for one's fellows regardless of faith, does this not show a true understanding of God, even if one does not believe? And, if one is not drawn to do good for one's fellows, even in the presence of belief, does this not indicate a lack of acceptance of God?
This is how I read Jesus' words and actions.
Shows people understand that God is good and celebrates goodness in action. Doesn't show the people understand that sin is killing 'em and no amount of good works will help them with that. The antidote to sin is grace and forgiveness.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
As you know, cliffdweller, I've got a love-hate relationship with Reformed theology.
This is one of the parts I love.
Right there with ya on both counts buddy.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The whole works v faith thing has always puzzled me.
If one does good for one's fellows regardless of faith, does this not show a true understanding of God, even if one does not believe? And, if one is not drawn to do good for one's fellows, even in the presence of belief, does this not indicate a lack of acceptance of God?
This is how I read Jesus' words and actions.
Shows people understand that God is good and celebrates goodness in action. Doesn't show the people understand that sin is killing 'em and no amount of good works will help them with that. The antidote to sin is grace and forgiveness.
But don't their actions show that grace is working in their lives? What you really mean is that the antidote is, they have to join our team. Because forgiveness has thick black borders.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@Mousetheif. Good work doesn't necessarily mean grace is at work. The human soul is like a dirty mirror - God's image is tarnished (not totally depraved). So you'd expect some evidence of the image of God prior to justification. It's only grace that deals with the poison of sin. Sounds thoroughly Orthodox to me.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The whole works v faith thing has always puzzled me.
If one does good for one's fellows regardless of faith, does this not show a true understanding of God, even if one does not believe? And, if one is not drawn to do good for one's fellows, even in the presence of belief, does this not indicate a lack of acceptance of God?
This is how I read Jesus' words and actions.
Shows people understand that God is good and celebrates goodness in action. Doesn't show the people understand that sin is killing 'em and no amount of good works will help them with that. The antidote to sin is grace and forgiveness.
But don't their actions show that grace is working in their lives? What you really mean is that the antidote is, they have to join our team. Because forgiveness has thick black borders.
Yes, exactly. Our problem is too narrow a definition of "grace" and too narrow a definition of "salvation." Sure, "grace" means "forgiveness of sin"-- but it also means transformation, 2nd chances, renewed hearts. And "salvation" means "getting into heaven when we die" but it also means God working and moving in this world to change and transform and recreate it into what it was intended to be.
We take those very narrow definitions and we read it into Jesus' words. So Jesus says "*I* am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but thru me." We hear "*Verbal profession of faith in me * is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but thru such a verbal profession of faith ."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Mousetheif. Good work doesn't necessarily mean grace is at work. The human soul is like a dirty mirror - God's image is tarnished (not totally depraved). So you'd expect some evidence of the image of God prior to justification. It's only grace that deals with the poison of sin. Sounds thoroughly Orthodox to me.
Not at all. That's not how we understand "Grace." What deals with the poison of sin is Christ's resurrection. Not joining a particular team which keeps grace all to itself. The OC is very explicit that membership in the OC does not guarantee salvation and non-membership does not prevent it.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So Jesus says "*I* am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but thru me." We hear "*Verbal profession of faith in me * is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but thru such a verbal profession of faith ."
This reminded me of another internet discussion we both were involved in almost exactly ten years ago now (!) in which you said that the verse, rather than separating those who were "in" from those who were "out",
quote:
emphasizes that we're all in the same boat. The only way anyone "gets in" -- Jew, Christian, non-Christian -- is through the redemptive grace of Jesus Christ. And Jesus is not the sole possession of anyone -- not even Christians. It cuts through that sense of moral superiority where salvation is tied to doctrinal purity…. [T]he text never says a word about beliefs. And my experience of Jesus, both in the gospels and in my life, is that Jesus ALWAYS has more grace than I do. So however wide I might open the door, I can expect that Jesus will open it even wider. It affirms the old evangelical truth that Jesus died, yes, for the whole world, not just a select few. It's not so much that we know his name, as that he knows ours.
And I said,
quote:
If you think about it, this is very good news even for the non-believers among us. Even if ... Jesus is the only way, we don’t necessarily need to know him by name, because he already knows us by name and loves us anyway. For anyone in fear or doubt, knowing that that’s the only consequence of being wrong can be a huge relief.
[ 25. June 2016, 02:17: Message edited by: fausto ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Oh yes I remember that
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The OC is very explicit that membership in the OC does not guarantee salvation and non-membership does not prevent it.
That is the only reasonable interpretation of Jesus' teachings. The only interpretation that jibes with the Christian view of God's nature.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The OC is very explicit that membership in the OC does not guarantee salvation and non-membership does not prevent it.
That is the only reasonable interpretation of Jesus' teachings. The only interpretation that jibes with the Christian view of God's nature.
And it's really just the application of two Scripture passages any Christian would presumably know. The first is the parable of the wheat and the tares, and the latter "I have sheep not of this fold."
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Since we do good stuff because we are made in God's image then by definition, doing good isn't the preserve of any particular group. Rom 2:14 - Gentiles do good "by nature." According to the OSB (Orthodox Study Bible) "doing good" means working to God's glory and honour and not our own. Gentiles can follow the law written on their conscience in the same way the Jews are guided into what pleases God through the Mosaic law.
Motive is crucial to detemining whether a work is "good." St Maximos the Confessor reckoned that whilst many human activities are good in themselves, they turn out to be "not good because of the motive for which they are done." So self glory is an example of a "not good" motive. Who decides about motives? Only God can make that call. God "searches our purpose."
Although we do good, which is what God created us for, we also act contrary to our nature by doing bad. Resolving the consequences of that needs God to intervene. Cornelius the centurion in Acts 10 did loads of good works - these prepared him for conversion, but he still needed converting. "Even good people need Christ."
Something good works can't help you with is if you reject Christ. That's the basis of our condemnation at the judgement.
So yeah, God has mercy where he chooses to and we'll meet some surprising people in heaven. But we're sent to preach the gospel for a reason - people need to hear it because the only sure path to partaking of the divine nature begins with new birth. Outside of that, you have levels of uncertainty you don't want to be playing with.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
When we do anything for God's glory and honour, we glorify and honour ourselves. I don't know anyone who actually DOES do anything to glory and honour God, so we're selfless!
Can one be quietly, discreetly, consistently kind for the wrong motives? Motive is as motive does. What calls will God make?
Nowt unnatural about doing (good,bad)x(badly,goodly). God certainly needed to intervene. So He did. The vast majority of good people know nowt about Christ. How do they need Him? Would they be gooder if they did?
Who has rejected Christ? How?
So God is arbitrary in who He allows to meet US-all-right-Jack in heaven? What's the good news that people need to hear? This? "...the only sure path to partaking of the divine nature begins with new birth". What does that mean?
[ 25. June 2016, 10:24: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Who has rejected Christ? How?
He answered that question pretty directly himself, and it didn't have anything to do with acknowledging him personally by name.
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
"Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me." Matthew 25:45
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye fausto, but at least one denizen here believes that the least of Jesus' brothers only refers to Christians.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0