Now, notice that the first four Steps in the Five-Step Plan of Salvation are all found in “faith.” But not all of faith is found in the Plan of Salvation. In particular, the Plan omits trust in God’s promises given through Jesus. Yes, it’s sort of implicit that we are trusting God to forgive our sins if we execute the Five Steps correctly, but are we trusting God to love us? To give us an inheritance? My experience with 20th Century Church of Christ teaching is that we don’t. Indeed, many of our members have no confidence at all that God will save them in the end because they think their salvation depends on the perfection of their understanding and performance.
I can’t count the emails, phone calls, and personal conversations I’ve had with victims of 20th Century Church of Christ theology where I’ve been told how very unsaved these members felt. They knew they had to try to make it, but had little confidence that they’d really be faithful unto death. “Faithful” seemed an impossibly high standard.
After all, it’s standard cant in the 20th Century Churches that all sin damns until repented of, subject, perhaps to God’s patience granted to give time for repentance. But, ultimately, damnation results from any error (or any error that results in sin) because all sin will ultimately damn. Grace is found in the fact that God will forgive if we repent of that sin. But if we don’t repent of the sin, it’s not forgiven.
And this very false, very damaging teaching is justified by an equally false understanding of “repentance” and “obedience.”
Obedience
Now, I’ve said that “faith” by its very definition includes the idea of faithfulness/loyalty and thus includes obedience. The difficulty is that those caught up in 20th Century Church of Christ theology want to use two different definitions of “obedience” – so let’s be clear—
- When you ask about obedience, do you mean obedience as a child should give his father – obedience from the heart that is heartfelt and genuine but necessarily imperfect?
- Or do you mean perfect obedience?
We are told that God commands worship to be non-instrumental. Therefore, those who use instruments are in jeopardy of damnation and not to be fellowshipped until they “repent.” You see, those who worship with an instrument — not in conscious rebellion but sincerely believing they honor God by their worship — are nonetheless sinning, and the sin can’t be forgiven absent repentance. Thus, they are not truly children of God so long as they sing in error.
Now consider a parenting class filled with parents. The teacher says, “Children should be trained to do chores, such as taking out the trash. It teaches them responsibility and helps them feel like contributors to the household.”
A father of two speaks up. “Our maid takes out the trash. Does this mean my two daughters aren’t really my children?”
“No,” the teacher says, astonished at his question. “They should do chores, not to be your daughters, but because they are your daughters.”
“But I told them to make the bed yesterday and they refused. Should I disown them? Are they no longer my daughters because they are disobedient?”
Now, I know parents who’ve disowned rebellious children. I really do. But the rate is less than 1 in a thousand – and it never happens except after years and years of discipline, heartache, and tears. Failing to do one chore or one particular kind of chore does not do it. And no child is ever disowned because of an honest mistake in understanding her parents’ will. Ever.
Yes, being a child means the child will be obedient, but it doesn’t mean the child will obey perfectly. Therefore, a child who is generally obedient will not be disowned because of an honest mistake. Indeed, a child can behave much worse than a single honest mistake and remain a part of the household, fully enjoying the love of her parents and receiving an inheritance at the proper time.
Why on earth do we think our Father in heaven loves us less than our earthly father? Why on earth do we think he’s less patient than an earthly father?
We imagine that if we misunderstand one commandment we’ll be disowned, un-adopted, and left outside our Father’s house to die – but we wouldn’t imagine treating our own children that way. God gives us the metaphor, the story, the image. We are his children, he loves us, and he’ll be patient with us.
Therefore, yes, God insists on obedience, but not in the sense of perfect obedience. Rather, he looks at our hearts and whether we’ve turned toward God through Jesus. The question is not: are we perfect? Or even: Do we know all the rules? Rather, it’s: What is the state of my children’s hearts?
Even in OT times, this is how God dealt with his people –
(Deu 10:15-16) Yet the LORD set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today. 16 Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.
(Josh 24:23-24) “Now then,” said Joshua, “throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel.” 24 And the people said to Joshua, “We will serve the LORD our God and obey him.”
(Micah 6:6-8) With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Now consider what the NT says —
(Mat 5:8 ESV) “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
(Act 8:21 ESV) You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.
(Rom 2:28-1 ESV) 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
(Rom 5:3-5 ESV) 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
(1Ti 1:5 ESV) 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
Therefore, the old logic fails. It’s just not true that if you misunderstand any command at all you’re damned for disobedience. That’s not the nature of God. It’s not the nature of our father/child relationship with him. Neither does it mean that you go to heaven without faith in Jesus if you’re sincere. Faith is sufficient and faith is essential. And faith creates a faithful, obedient, penitent heart that leads to faithful, obedient, penitent living. But it does not require perfect living or even perfect understanding. Faith is enough.
John makes this quite clear in 1 John —
(1Jo 3:21-24 ESV) 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
John adds love to faith, just as Paul says in Gal 5:6 —
(Gal 5:6 ESV) 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
And both John and Paul emphasize the sufficiency of faith working through love. So how does love not contradict faith? Well, because being faithful to Jesus necessarily implies doing his will, and his will is that we love each other and our neighbors.
(1Jo 2:10 ESV) 10 Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling.
(1Jo 3:14 ESV) 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.
(1Jo 4:7 ESV) 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.
(1Jo 4:12 ESV) 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
(1Jo 4:16-18 ESV) 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(Gal 5:13-14 ESV) 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
I don’t know. Maybe I’m missing something — but John and Paul sure seem to emphasize the sufficiency of faith expressing itself through love. And they sure seem to deny that anything else “counts for anything.” Now, of course, love is a deep subject all of its own, and Jesus teaches us a lot about what love means and how we are to live in love. This is also a major theme of Paul and John. Books could be (and have been) written on how Christians should fulfill this command.
John and Paul tell us that love is what shows that we’re saved. That’s the truest, deepest, greatest form of obedience. And no one can do it perfectly — not since Jesus ascended to heaven.
And yet we persist in teaching that those who use the instrument (for example) disobey, God requires obedience, and therefore they are damned until they repent. But if we treated our own children that way, we’d be jailed! Imagine casting a child into the street, disowning her, because she misunderstood your command! We are not that cold and heartless to our own children, and God loves us more than we love our own children. Indeed, we’re be quite willing to keep our children at home, owned, and deeply loved if they’d just love us back. Of course, love is shown by its actions, but not by necessarily getting everything right. The test is love, not how well you understand. We are, after all, but children in God’s eyes.
You see, this whole being saved by faith in God’s plan thing leads to a deadly, divisive legalism. It makes us think humanistically. We make Christianity more about what we do than even who we are — much less about what God has done for us. It all starts with God — his initiative to save us and bring us into his family through Jesus. And yet we start with “hear” — what we do — not even being very clear about what it is we are to hear! We don’t hear the Plan of Salvation. We hear Jesus.
What we hear is that God saves all with faith because Jesus died to bear our sins and make it possible for weak, flawed, broken people to come to God through the simplest of faith. And then to stay in God’s arms, safe and secure, through faith. And we hear that we are saved to join in God’s redemptive mission, which is accomplished through a Christ-like, sacrificial love. Which can only be done through faith.
The Plan doesn’t save. Faith doesn’t save. Jesus saves. And we’re saved by Jesus, through faith, to join a community of fellow saved people in a mission to rescue the world from brokenness through love.
You nailed it!
Royce
The "church" would take over the world if what you wrote were it's message…Excellent !!
Bringing the main battery to bear: well done!
To the apologists for the "plan," sincerity is no defense.
"Indeed, many of our members have no confidence at all that God will save them in the end because they think their salvation depends on the perfection of their understanding and performance."
Dittos! From a preacher's perspective.
Your first three paragraphs encapsulate the entire issue. And this is why I cannot and do not preach that way any longer.
I really appreciate this:
"Faith is sufficient and faith is essential. And faith creates a faithful, obedient, penitent heart that leads to faithful, obedient, penitent living. But it does not require perfect living or even perfect understanding. Faith is enough."
Amen brother! Praise God for the Truth of that statement. Because there is absolutely no way that the imperfect (human) can absolutely or perfectly understand the perfect (God). Yet, through faith in Christ we are "perfected" that is absolutely Great News!
Jay, I want to say "Thanks" for all the heat you take. Stay the course.
Jay,
Your summarizing statement:
sounds like old school reformed Calvinism. It contains no human response to God's grace.
I'm sure you will deny it. That really isn't my point. You criticize the extreme emphasis on the human response to grace as represented by the phrase "plan of salvation", yet you counter with an equally overemphasized "faith doesn't save". I doubt if either extreme brings us closer to God.
Well said Brother! You need to write a book concerning this topic. Thank you for your courage and challenges.
Trent
@ rich. Isn't Faith the response to the offer of Grace. ????
Great Jay!
How we need that truth preached today.
The NT requirements for salvation is preached to be so much better and easier today than the OT, but, I know an ex con that is walking the streets of gold today that sees the OT as a much better way than what we preach as better. All he had was faith and a prayer.
Today, do we have to do more in this better way? As most in the church of Christ preach on works, he would of been lost without hope.
Too late denominational friend or erring brethren, or past unbeliever, you should of thought about your actions before getting in this fix. Now you do not have time or opportunity to do all of the five, so to hell with you.
Does that really sound like the Jesus or God the school master brought us to?
Price,
Good point. Let me clarify.
Not long ago, I had a good discussion with a Reformed Baptist who was very knowledgeable in his believes. Jay's post is uncannily similar to the words used by the RB. You see, he understands that Jesus-saves-through-faith means Jesus saves humans because of His faith in humankind. It is not our faith, but His loyalty to us that saves us. The Reformed Baptists still evangelize. They're motive is to help the broken live a better life on earth rather than affect their salvation. Salvation is all about what Jesus does and nothing about what we do. A person's salvation is chosen before he/she is born. This might overly simplify RB beliefs but it is how I understood our pleasant conversation.
My point isn't that Phil's article wasn't too narrowly focused or at least interpreted that way. My point is when we seek to dispel one point by going to the opposite extreme, as Jay is here, we may fix one problem but often create a new one. This type of reasoning doesn't find truth.
Jay wrote: "Indeed, many of our members have no confidence at all that God will save them in the end because they think their salvation depends on the perfection of their understanding and performance."
Yep. This is absolutely the result of poorly developed soteriology. This does not look like dying to self, which Jesus very clearly says we must do.
@ Rich. I guess there is always some danger in expressing our Doctrinal understanding and positions. However, in MHO there is a greater danger in our accepting what others believe carte Blanche. Ultimately, we have an individual responsibility to be able to give a valid reason for what we believe. The greatest danger is our propensity for disfellowshipp along minute doctrinal lines. Perhaps if we could agree to listen to one another and try to understand each other we could begin to build bridges instead of motes.
Paul had his soteriology right in Romans 2 and should have stopped there (actually he did). There he is most in agreement with Jesus from the synoptics. Everywhere else is questionable. Do we not see that we are being fed a bunch of sophistry? "All we have to do is have faith, but really we also have to obey. It is faith that saves, but really faith doesn't save. We are saved by faith apart from works, but faith is never apart from works." Blah blah blah. Jesus made it simple. And in Romans 2 Paul keeps it simple. I'll stick with that, and you can have the sophistry that someone added without authorization when they snuck in Romans 3-11.
The plan found in Romans 3-11 damns. The plan found in Romans 2 and Matthew 7 saves. There, that settles it.
In other words, the delimma is not the Man or the Plan, but which Man and thereby which Plan. Is it the Jesus of the synoptics that you choose along with his plan? (the Paul of Romans 2 agrees with him) or is it the Paul of Romans 3-11? You can never have a man without a plan. You always choose a man, and along with the man, you get a plan. Whose plan? Which man? Choose the synoptic Jesus and get the Paul of Romans 2 along with him, the plan of Matthew 7 and Romans 2. Or choose the Paul of Romans 3-11 and get Satan with him and a plan that can do nothing but damn to hell.
Price,
You make some good points that actually highlight my emotions concerning this series of posts. The below is a lengthy but true personal experience that really affected my thoughts concerning how people can be so unproductive when highlighting opposite ideologies.
The story is long. It's really not about the Germans, the French or me. The positive ending only occurred because the people really wanted, deep inside, to work together.
A few years ago, while working for a Fortune 100 Multi-National company, I was called upon to develop a corporate strategy/policy to address an emerging situation among our customers. Since the Europeans had more experience in this particular situation with customers, I was eager to listen to their views. The Germans and French both submitted eloquent proposals. Both advocated ideal philosophies which were polar opposites.
I developed the strategy/policy incorporating what I thought was the best of both the German and French proposals. It provided guidelines on having some flexibility in local decision making. I had felt good about including the European contingent. We, in the USA, tended to leave out those outside our country when developing strategy.
My work was a bomb. During a long, high profile review, the German representative, via phone conference said, “You know, we Germans and the French tend to disagree on many things. Well, there is now something we can both agree on. That is Rich W…. is wrong!”
I don’t remember exactly what I said, but I remember seeking a way to diffuse the conversation. It worked at the time. I also made a mental note that level of disagreement must be handled face to face.
A few months later, I was in Germany. The Germans presented their work. The French presented theirs. Both portrayed what I thought was excellent work. Near the end of the day I reflected what I had observed. To the Germans, I said it looks like on project X you did such and such. They agreed. To the French, I said it looks like on project Y you did such and such. They agreed. I then said, “Do you realize you both handled the different projects in exactly the same way?” They looked at each other and agreed. I then said, “Oh, by the way, you both did it the way I said you should do it!” The room broke out into laughter and the subject never became an issue again.
My faith "causes" me to obey or respond. Never will I ever, ever, say I obeyed and now I have faith. Good discussion and comments, learning from all of you.
Trent
NPA. We are reading a dif book of Romans if u think chapter 8 condemns. I refer to it as the freedom chapter.
@Price, Chapters 6 and 8 are attempts by a second editor to reign in the insanity of the first editor.
Awesome post, Jay!
Speaking of the notion "perfect obedience" (or, even more accurately, "perfect obedience on the matters that I happen to deem important"), I've noticed an underlying theme in the dialogue in your last few posts.
When I first became a Christian, I was taught that God will condemn you if you worship incorrectly, even if you do it out of total faith in Jesus and an absolute commitment to the Bible (insert prooftexts of people who are rejected when they knock at Jesus' door, Nadab & Abihu, and Uzzah).
More than that, the people who taught me liked the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I bought it for a while, and it sounded good. Until I ultimately realized how humanistic and unbiblical that statement was.
I ultimately realized that for my teachers, someone else could have a stronger faith, more of the fruits of the Spirit, and a greater thirst for word of God, but ultimately those things weren't enough. Apparently, the road to hell is paved by people like that. And the people who get into heaven are the people who perfectly obeyed the commands that my teachers deemed were important. In the end, it wasn't about faith in Jesus or even faith in the plan, it was about faith –in their interpretation of– the plan.
It was a heavy yoke to bear.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a dumbed down variation of Sirach 21:10 "The way of sinners is paved with smooth stones, but at its end is the pit of Hell" in the Apocrypha.
"I ultimately realized that for my teachers, someone else could have a stronger faith, more of the fruits of the Spirit, and a greater thirst for word of God, but ultimately those things weren’t enough."
This is the fruit of Paulinism: nothing is ever good enough. Even if you could perfectly obey, Paul would find a fault with your ceremonial observance and write you a scathing letter. Even if your faith were perfect, he would accuse you of relying on works. That man was the very embodiment and personification of the men you encountered. He was the sort of tormented type that just always was grumbling nobody is good enough. Hence the doctrine in Romans 3 that nobody can ever be good. He made a God in his own image, a God who expects perfection. Yes out of one side of his mouth he taught that we are justified by faith alone, but out of the other he constantly condemned everyone for every little departure from his way of doing things. He is the cause of all our bickering. Reject him and return to Jesus, the Jesus of the synoptics, the real Jesus, and you will find a God of compassion, yet one who insists on morality. But with Paul we have a God who supposedly saves by faith alone and yet can never be satisfied neither with faith nor anything else.
Jay,
I am weary of reading comments here that discredit Paul and the truth of the gospel. I can tolerate ignorance but not blatent unbelief.
I hope you will moderate comments as you suggested.
Thanks,
Royce
Of course a Calvinist would grow weary of comments questioning Paul, but a true Christian sets Paul's teachings side by side with those of Jesus from the gospels, scratches his head, and says "Why did I ever buy Paul's crazy story to begin with? A voice made him an apostle? Seriously, this is the best he could do? This gives him authority to bash Peter, James, and John?" It is high time to get back to Jesus and reject the PHARISEE who invented the ceremonial system that oppresses the churches of Christ and who invented the libertine doctrine of you Calvinists and other faith onlyists. PAul is not the Son of God: Jesus is. And faith in Paul is not a prerequisite to faith in the Lord. Its high time Christians who have a problem with this PHARISEE are no longer treated as criminals, but listened to.
NPA:
It seems Jay has been very clear in telling you that Paul isn't on trial here — this site recognizes his letters in the NT. Jay has definitively asked you to stop making posts to the contrary, as it is not in line with the direction of this site.
Truthfully, I find your point to be interesting. I don't agree with it, but it is an interesting argument that I find worthy of attention (although not in this series or blog).
But that doesn't change the fact that Jay has kindly asked you to stop with your line of challenges regarding Paul's authority.
And, while Jay is away from his computer on vacation, you continue to disregard his request as you spam the board with your anti-Paul rhetoric.
Is your goal to be a thorn in Jay's site — or to change the views of people on Paul? If it is the latter, you are failing miserably. All anyone is seeing is a person acting like a child by throwing spit wads in the back of the class while the teacher isn't looking. You are being childish, disrespectful, obnoxious, and un-persuasive.
I'm sure there are 100 other boards you can go to that will gladly accept your posts on this subject.
NPA,
Your reading of Paul is quite different from the Paul whom I know.
Paul would not want us to have faith in him, but in Jesus (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:11-15). He always points us to Jesus as our guide (1 Corinthians 11:1).
As for me, I view the things you are saying about Paul as little different from those who misunderstood his message and opposed him when he was still alive. Their misunderstanding of Paul was similar to those who misunderstood Jesus and considered Him to be a law-breaker who wanted to destroy the law and the prophets.
Jesus and Paul alike made the heart the focal place of our meeting God. That is why both emphasize faith and love – not ritual.
Respectfully,
Jerry
@JMF.
If not now, when? The argument that the point is worth evaluating but this isn't the time is nothing but subterfuge. If a discussion of the man vs the plan is not the time to ask "which man?" then what is the appropriate occasion. If you don't look into it now, you never will. Today is the day of salvation.
Paul has already all but erased Jesus from the pages of history. For more than a small handful of people to recover Jesus' truth message from the hands of the false apostle is a pipedream, which is very sad. And by asking that the matter be deferred, you help in the rejection of Jesus and aide in the destruction of souls. May God have mercy on the blind and give them sight. Especially to you Jay. Blessed is that man who does not condemn himself in what he allows.
Jay,
The illustration of the father in the parenting class in hilarious! Furthermore, the questions, “Why on earth do we think our Father in heaven loves us less than our earthly father?” and “Why on earth do we think he’s less patient than an earthly father?” encapsulates the doctrine for grace. Along with the uninformed father, they illustrate the point powerfully! This is preaching stuff!! Thank you
Clyde,
I agree, and try to encourage ALL our church of Christ preachers every chance I get to preach more on love and grace. Today, there are progressives that do, but around here most do not for fear in my opinion of seeming to be leaning left or becoming like the denominations or even worse, being called progressive. As a result, often we leave out so much positive encouragement and happiness that is to be gained in loving our Lord and His church AND KNOWING HE LOVES US TOO.
To preach grace and love does not mean we are abandoning the scriptures on law, but embracing them.
I was having a written conversation with a person (we all know) about his belief in faith and grace alone being the way to salvation, when I brought up the times the bible says we will be judged on the work we do.
BTW ( I have never said works alone would save anyone, but I believe failing to do the works, will condemn)
Look at the beginning of the letters to the churches (I know thy works)
I ask the fellow (we all know) what he made of the following.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And the fellow (we all know) said that works only determined the amount of the reward.
Rev 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
So I suppose we should do good works, out of our greed to acquire more in heaven.
Jam 2:14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Paul many times say our works are useless, both John and James say they are not useless but essential, to salvation. somebody is wrong, you choose.
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
(then he explains why)
Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
(then he explains)
Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Surely Jesus is not saying, the works we do are determinative of our salvation, surely Jesus knew the determining factors were only faith and grace. (seems he didn't.)
Laymond—
Do you also challenge Paul's authority? If so, I'm not going to fight with you: I find the point interesting (mainly, because I've never heard it before).
However, for us in the COC, if we were to eliminate Paul's books, we'd lose our scriptures that teach us that instrumental music is damnable! 🙂 (tongue/cheek)
JMF, not only that, but you would lose many other things to argue about. 🙂 like faith only salvation. I just named three who weigh in on the other side. Jesus, John, and James. If any scripture seems to diverge from what Jesus said, I have doubts. sorry Jay, do what you must, I was asked. If I had said anything else I would be lying. I have doubts.
Jay,
i found myself largely in agreement with this post, but the whole time thinking about Reformation issues. So Catholics were weary of feeling more unsaved that heathen. They most certainly had to work their way to heaven–they bought indulgences, paid priests to say endless masses on their behalf and the behalf of their loved ones.
Calvin and Luther and the other Reformers came along and countered with messages that sound fairly similar to what you say here. The trouble is, eventually, their followers largely felt as unsaved as they had in their old Catholic state. Why? Well, the Reformers still had to answer the question of how saved people could know they were saved. To grossly combine and simplify their various positions–the based idea came out that good works were evidence that you already had saving faith. Your obedience didn't saved you, but it was proof that you were saved.
A person obeys because he has faith or because he is elect or because he is saved or whatever. And so many Protestants found themselves as "victimized" as those you describe. Why? Because how much evidence is enough? How much proof does it take to be sure? How much obedience proves that true-saving-faith is the causal principle behind it? If there are such things as pretenders, as people who do good things but are ultimately bereft of faith, how do i distinguish myself from one of them? Couldn't i be self-deceived?
i'm just not sure this confidence issue is solely related to one's arrangement of the roles of faith and obedience.
–guy
laymond, how long has it been since any of us bought someone a meal, and gave them a drink, or took someone in that had no food, drink, or shelter?
When you do it to one of these you did it unto me.
What makes us do these things? Laws, or love and grace!
I see and believe those of us following love and grace do this far more than those in law! Witness shelters, orphans homes, food kitchens, etc. that are not done by those of us that are the defenders and last bastion of the LAW.
When those of us with families work hard, to supply them food, drink and shelter, we are doing it not, because of law, but out of our love and that causes us to want to do the work. Both are expressions of the same kind of love God has for us. One causes the other, the work without love and grace that precedes it is nothing.
NPA,
Now that I'm back home, and have access to a real computer, I've placed you on moderation. That means your comments won't appear until I've approved them.
Many Church of Christ blogs moderate all comments, but I've found that largely unnecessary, but very occasionally I place a commenter on moderation.
As a practical matter, I often don't have time to review comments until the evening, and so even pertinent comments may be delayed for hours.
Many who've been placed on moderation have been released later when they've shown a willingness to stick to the subject and act as requested. Others remain on moderation but are often approved.
Frankly, moderation is a big pain for me and I hate doing it. If you'll stop changing the subject to your challenge to Paul's apostleship and discuss the scriptures as true and inspired, I'll be able to end it.
John, did Jesus seem to you to say these things were voluntary, or obligatory?
Laymond,
Both.
Voluntary in that we have a choice to do or not
Obligatory if we have the love and grace for others that we want from Jesus and God.
My experience is those that profess to follow the law the more closely instead of grace and love do not help anyone but send money to other of like faith preachers. I guess you could say they are giving them food, drink and shelter, but, I don't think that is what Jesus meant in Matthew 25.
John said, " I don’t think that is what Jesus meant in Matthew 25"
I don't either John, and I don't think we fulfil our obligation through giving at church, I believe when we see someone in dyer straits and do not attempt to help, we might end up on Jesus "goat list".
Thanks laymond, good to know someone believes as I do.
There are many other things that Jesus refers to, that doing for people is the same as doing for Him. Visited me in prison, clothed me when naked, etc. To the least of these!
I know I came from the very conservative CoC and left because of the doing nothing that Jesus stated for fear of doing something wrong. Their teaching is becoming more and more like there is going to be a written test on what the law says at judgment day, rather than a reading of the degree of love for God and your fellow man per Jesus great commandment in your heart and what that caused you to DO!
"As you have opportunity do good unto ALL men, especially those of the household of faith"
How well you can quote any teacher does not dictate to what degree you love the teacher, if at all.
I am absolutely with you on this, Laymond and Alabama John. And that's why I feel very uneasy when we talk so much about faith (only). Not that Jay belives works are not necessary – I think no one hear does think that way.
Alexander
Alexander….I would agree 100% that works are necessary. It's just that you and I just disagree (I think)on what they are necessary for… I won't accept that I have anything to offer meritorious for salvation. I will however readily concede that a tree is known by its fruit and without some evidence of true saving faith (works) I would doubt faith existed. But even at this point I cringe because its not whether or not I think they are Christians that's important but whether God who looks at their heart considers them as such…I believe that works are for sanctification and growth and that Grace through Faith is for salvation…It may be semantics but I don't think so. But let's wait on some future stuff to get into it because I don't want to do as some have and take off on a rabbit trail on this blog. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss it at length… Blessings my friend and Brother.
Hey A.J. I totally agree with you on the importance of "doing" for others… I had a "moment" one day when reading that very passage when I realized that Jesus identified himself as the prisoner… He didn't say that the prisoner was unfairly accused..He considered that prisoner, Himself… Wow… I know I've been puffed up in the past about this so I was convicted about how Jesus Himself felt toward that prisoner…that guilty prisoner.. that if treated that prisoner with kindness I was doing it in essence to Christ Himself… I think it was from that moment that I began to be less judgemental toward people… I'm working on being totally non-judgemental but haven't gotten their yet…There are still voting Democrats…:)
Laymond writes:
Let's see what this Paul character says about work, shall we? Not about "works" – particular external markers like the Five Steps or the Five Acts, but just plain work:
…While there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw– each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. (1 Corinthians 3:3-17 ESV)
Far from saying that work is useless, Paul says that our work is extremely important and relevant to our eternal life.
When we begin to be grasped by the historical context and the difference, to an ex-Pharisee, between work and works – precisely the point at which both Calvinists and Arminians seem to get hung up – we will see how clearly Jesus, Paul, James, and John ring out precisely the same message.
Nick, as you may recall I said.
"And the fellow (we all know) said that works only determined the amount of the reward."
I believe this is where he got that idea.
" If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire"
Perhaps that is the case, sir. Would you care to comment on how your testimony about Paul doesn't agree with what he says in 1 Cor 3, as well as in several other places?
There seem to be at least four categories in the discussion:
1) The one who believes, and builds effectively;
2) The one who believes, and builds ineffectively;
3) The one who corrupts/destroys God's temple – the church;
4) The one who "buries their talent" – whose mental assent to the information about Christ does not bring about any transformation, any good fruit.
Paul discusses the first 3, and seems to trust that Jesus' own word about 4 stands clearly enough without any commentary.
Dear Price (friend and brother)
See, this is really tricky: When do you (yourself) know that you have this saving faith? Only when there is fruit, if I take this paragraph word by word. So the assurance of your salvation then actually are your works.
NO! You'd reply, it is Christ, and what Christ has done for me!
OK. I agree. Another qustion: How does the work of Christ become effective for you personally?
Through faith, the correct answer is. And again, we agree.
But faith works. So if you don't have works, do you have faith? If the tree is judged by its fruit, won't our faith be judged by its works? So we can only say whether we have this saving faith – not pointing to others, but to ourselves – when we have works.
That's what James said, by the way: I will show you my faith by my works. (Jas 2:18)
And we will be judged according to our works by the Lord as well (Mat 7:21, 2Co 5:10, Rev 22:12 a.o.) – so he does not look at the faith in our heart only, but on the fruit. A branch that does not bring fruit, he prunes off the vine (John 15:2).
So the question whether works are meritorious to salvation is dead wrong, Price. We could also ask whether faith is meritorious to salvation. How'd you anwer the second one?
Is having faith a merit? Is faith a work? We can always find a verse here and there to back up a position: E.g. from John 6:28-29 we could argue that faith is a work. But all in all this is misleading. We could also argue (by interpreting the Genetive "of God" differently) that God "works" this faith in us. But it does not turn on such details.
Simply put: Faith is the response to the Gospel. The only thing meritorious for our salvation is the blood of Christ – we can only accept it through faith.
It is more about the meaning of faith. In English we can see the relationship between faith and faithfulness. In Greek it is similar, as we all know. Therefore we could translate the same Greek word with loyality instead of faith.
I think this is to the point: If we speak of loyalty, then the faith-works debate is solved once and for all! Why? Because if we are disobedient, then we are disloyal = unfaithful – unbelievers!
Being loyal is also different from being perfect. A loyal employee may have a bad day, can make mistake and can in a given situation act disloyally … but all of this does not necessarily leed to th loss of his job. If a boss in a company pardons a worker who in general is loyal to him, how much more God through Christ!
So it is not about being perfect, but about being loyal. Perfection is a matter of growth. Loyalty starts in our hearts and (normally) precedes the first works. We sign a contract and confirm our loyalty thereby. then we start working, and our loyalty will be put to test again and again.
And we will get our wage because of our works that are a result or a proof of our loyalty.
It is the same with the Gospel.
We are not called righteous only because we confess Christ as Lord with our lips, but when we do as He commands. And we all know what is important to Him: Love for God, Love for our neighboutrs, charity, mercy – but also holyness, unity among His saints, obedience to His various commands, separation from the world.
It is not about semantics, it is about the right understanding of faith / loyalty. As long as we use the word faith and understand it differently we might sound as if we agree, while in fact we don't.
So we should not ask whether works are meritorious or whether we are saved by faith as if these two were two totally different concepts. It is one and the same, once we have grasped that faith is the same as loyalty. We are saved by faith therefore is the same statement as being saved by works or being judged by our fruit.
While at the same time it is Christ who saves us, Christ who enables us through the new birth to live up to His standards, Christ who stands ready to forgive 7×70 times. He deserves my full loyalty – this is the expected response to His Gospel – this is saving faith.
Alexander
OK. I accept that we agree on 90% ….and perhaps we agree further but I'm just doing a bad job of describing my position…
First, I don't think God has to look at our fruit..I think His looking at our heart is totally sufficient…minor point…
But, consider this….I've seen some who have gone about doing good works that secretly were as corrupt as a Washington politician…You've seen that too…Also, many in the secular world don't see a need for Jesus because they see themselves as "good" people and quite frankly many are as good as they come…so works in an of themselves are really meaningless without Jesus as the centerpiece of "why" we do them…
Secondly, my personal opinion about works is that "it is Christ that is in us to work and do his will."..I don't take credit for the Holy Spirit guiding me..nudging me into doing this or that…My part is to surrender and follow His leading…
Lastly, there is just no way to read that we are "saved by Grace through faith and not by works" unless one goes about redefining that whole paragraph…Paul contrasts faith and works specifically…and points out clearly that faith is the response to Grace…not works…
We can go about saying all this and that about works but we can't throw away this statement. It's repeated elsewhere several times… So, in MHO…our belief that Jesus is God's son, who was sent by the Father to redeem us from sin and is the only way to be saved is my faith response…If in fact I truly believe that with all my heart then I would be a fool to refuse to do the things that He has instructed me to do…or prompts me to do from time to time…to "refuse" to do what is right to the best of my knowledge and belief (though some of that has changed over the years) would be to place myself in a position of knowing better than the Creator…foolish…but to do the things that He has said is the right thing to do in no way merits my salvation…It is a part of my growth and Santification but if I am "saved by an "unmerited favor" (Grace) by accepting in my mind that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, (Faith)…Paul says clearly that I am not saved by my works which would follow that confession of faith…To ascribe works to faith as a matter of salvation is in direct contradiction to this passage. To say that obedience to Christ and the Holy Spirit's prompting is a sign of faith is entirely accurate but my salvation is dependant on that mustard seed of faith not my ability to perform..
I hope that made better sense….
I guess I see works from a different perspective. I don't see works as "necessary" but as a grateful response to a loving God coming to an individual to live within them. If God really lives within a person, how can that person not love those that he contacts and how can that love not result in works? For that person to do anything else would be the unusual state… not the opposite. When we preach and try to convict others to do "works" it seems to me that we are going about the "works" issue from the totally wrong perspective. It would be much better to preach and teach and show them just how much God loves, how that love is unconditional, and how that same God came to change them into a creature that loves like He does. Then, "works" is a natural fit and that person won't see "works" as a task to be done but as a loving life to be lived.
I have never heard it explained better, Alexander.
Nick, I will simply answer you with a couple of quotes from above .
Price said "Paul contrasts faith and works specifically…and points out clearly that faith is the response to Grace…not works…"
Doug said "I guess I see works from a different perspective. I don’t see works as “necessary”"
I will just add both views come from something Paul said. IMO
Thank you, Laymond 🙂
@ Price
What kind of works is Paul talking about? I think we have to redifine a bit here, when we come from Protestantism – and that's by the way one aspect of the New Perspective On Paul.
Paul is not contrasting faith with good works per se, but with the works of the Mosaic Law. That's his debate with the Galatians (all about circumcision and the like); that's what his long discourse in Romans is all about; and also in Ephesians it is about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles.
How about translating this verse like this:
We are saved by grace through loyalty (to Christ) and not by keeping the letter of Mosaic Law
I think, this clarifies the whole matter, because
neither Jesus nor Paul were against the spiritual content of the Law, but they (both) superceded the letter of it through the Spirit.
And both the Lord and His apostle expect obedience, which out of its very nature has to do with works. The letter to the Romans starts and ends with the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5 and Rom 16:26)
But when we understand "works" as all kinds of work and an antithesis to faith, we end up with a faith that can be viewed as independent from works. Works may or should or will follow naturally, but a lack of works would not diminish the reality of faith. And that's your dilemma, too. In the end – even if there are no works, you trust that God, who sees the heart, will find real faith there.
Again: Translate loyalty instead of faith, and you see that this concept does not work. Loyalty will be shown by works, and if the works are absent, then no one would call this loyalty. It is the same as to say: I have deep respect for you in my heart, but I call you names anyway. My namecalling does not diminish my respect for you … that's silly, isn't it?
So the solution lies in the context: Paul is not contrasting faith with works in general; but loyality to Christ with obedience to the letter of the Law. That's his theme in almost all of his letters. And that's what the NPP (N.T. Wright and others) brought to our attention again.
Our (wrong) understanding of works has its roots in the controversies of Early Protetsantism versus Roman Catholicism. Martin Luther, traumatized by his Catholic quest for a mercyful God, grossly overreacted to works and grossly misunderstood Paul. And virtually all Evangelicals today follow in his footsteps and fall into the same trap he fell into …
So, this is a very important issue, Price.
Alexander
LM, both uninspired commentators you've quoted seem to be reading the Scriptures through the lens of the Reformation, where the Pharisees were cast in the black-hat role of the Pelagian Roman Catholics and Paul was cast in the role of the heroic Lutheran iconoclast.
Neither position does justice either to 1st century Judaism as a whole, the Pharisees as a group, or Paul's writing in particular.
I wish you would teach me, sir, what Paul is saying in 1 Cor 3 if not justification by works – right in line with what James and John teach. You assert that Paul says work is useless. I remain confused, because no one could believe that and write 1 Cor 3, Eph 4-6, Col 2:6-8, Col 3, etc. etc.
The NT is consistent and clear, men are not saved by works but by faith.
In the view of many here, an individual, or God, could never know if a person was finally saved or not until he drew his last breath because the totality of his works would need to be assessed.
Jesus had a different idea as did other NT writers. Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. 16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."
Eternal life is a present possession for the one who does what Jesus said, believe on him. Works expose the heart. Those who love the light come to it and those who love their evil deeds reject the light.
Jesus again said in John 6:40 "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him SHOULD HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY." Now this is either true or false. It is true and nothing Jesus or Paul or anyone else said contradicts it if, a big "IF", taken in context and at face value.
There is no such thing as a Christian with no good works. There are people though by the millions with works that we might approve and call "good" that do not know Jesus and are not acknowledged by him as his own because they are not trusting him alone for salvation.
Those who are actively depending on Christ alone are saved will not see condemnation and those who are trusting in anything else are already condemned and will face the vengeance of God's wrath against sin unless they repent and trust Christ.
A Christ rejector is a Christ rejector even if he is a church member, preacher, elder, or the most well thought of member of the community. The ultimate sin that damns is rejecting God's only remedy for sin, the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Nick, I don't think I've ever been called an uninspired Pelagian Roman Catholic before. I'm probably guilty on the uninspired, unsure about the Pelagian and absolutely innocent on the Roman Catholic charge (although I was involved with the Episcopalians so maybe I'm partially guilty there too).
I've done "works" from the "I'm a Christian and I ought to be out doing works" place before. I found this endeavor to be unsatisfying, unfufilling and for the most part…unsucessful. More lately, the "works" that I have been involved in are a result of finally realizing that I want to love others like God loves them and like I, way too late in life, realize that He loves me. One "work" is a duty response and the "work" other is a loving response… I see us Christians being called to the loving response and then the burden of "work" is very, very light. "Works" turns out to not be work at all.
Alexander…I think you gave us an example of exactly what I was talking about…You have to re-write the passage for it to include works. You've got to change Faith to Loyalty in order for it to fit… You would jump up and down if anyone else did that on another passage…
Regarding "works per se"….I disagree with your conclusion (hope I don't misrepresent you here) that works of the Law (Original Covenant) and Good Works (New Covenant) are somehow different "per se." Obviously, the Torah and the Book of James are different but aren't both talking about DOING something ?? Sure they are…but let's take a look at a different illustration of the same concept by Paul in a different book.
Romans 4:2-5 For if Abraham was justified by WORKS, he has something to boast about, but NOT before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who WORKS, his wages are not counted as a GIFT but as his DUE. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his FAITH is counted as righteousness"
Now considering that this illustration by Paul was pre-Moses, the WORKS Paul is talking about is neither Mosaic Law and certainly not New Covenant Good Works (as you referred to them)….And while they (works) may have been a cause for Abraham to feel good about himself, it wasn't a reason to boast before God much less demand something from him…Paul goes on to use a modern day (then) example of a person working and earning a wage as a payment for that work…and contrasts that with Belief (Faith)…
In MHO, Paul has made himself crystal clear.
And, maybe a good point to make here also is that when James speaks of Abraham justifying himself by his work (2:21) this is some 40 years after Paul said that Abraham's faith had already justified him by his belief-faith. Did Abraham loose his justification and then have to earn it back…hardly…James is talking about a faith that is OUTWARDLY evident ..Paul is talking about Salvation and Justification by God Himself…Big difference here…
James even goes so far as to include Rahab the Hooker as one justified by her works…Now, would anyone argue that a prostitute could help out at a homeless mission and earn her way into heaven?
Again, Paul breaks it down to even more in Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God…:
No one earns a gift…or its not a gift, right ? and his phrase "not your own doing" is pretty inclusive of ANY good work whether a requirement under the Old Covenant or just a good deed…
To me, IMHO….Paul's illustrations cover the whole gambit of situations….pre-Law, New Covenant and just plain ole human effort and he says that none of them are sufficient to SAVE…Grace through Faith is the ONLY way…to BE SAVED…
Amen, Price!!!
You didn't get it, Price. Loyalty would be a less ambiguous translation of pistis. I don't change faith to loyalty; I suggest a better translation of pistis. This is in line with the use of this word, exemplified in Josephus' auto-biography (which was pointed out by N.T. Wright.
Jay has it in part 5 of "the man or the plan" series:
So my basic suggestion is to just drop the word "faith" for a while since it is an ambigious translation, and choose loyalty instead which is more to the point.
It is not about doing "something", but about doing the "right thing". The whole faith-works-debate of our day does not in the least cover the questions the 1st century church had to deal with. Thus we completely misunderstand these texts.
It starts with Acts 9 and 10 and the issue of clean and unclean food, but the main discussion took place in Acts 15 where they dealt with the following (quite understandable) conviction of Jewish Christians:
You see how the conversion of Cornelius opened the eyes of Peter. The question was settled therefore that the Gentile-Christians are not to be brought under the Law of Moses and need not to be circumcised. They just had to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, fornication, blood and strangled meat (which is from the covenant with Noah and binding to all mankind anyway).
And that's Paul's concern in all of his letters. So the controversy is not about faith versus works in general; but faith versus works of the Mosaic Law.
Even when speaking of Abraham, he clarifies the kind of works, he has in mind:
You see, it is all about circumcision and other aspectes of the letter of the Law.
Even when James declares that Abraham was justified by works, he did not refer to any work of the Law, but to obediently sacrificing his son (Jas 2:21): So the justificatuion James has is mind, is by works, but not by the works of the Law (another example he referred to was Rahab – Jas 2:25) James started this discourse when speaking aof showing mercy, of helping others in their needs; this are also not works of the Law (such as circumcision, or eating only clean food), but works of faith and love.
When speaking of the Law, he indicates, that the Law can only condemn us (Jas 2:10-11). But if we do works of mercy, we will be treated mercifully on the day of judgement (Jas 2:13)! So it is not the words of faith that save us, but the works of faith! (Jas 2:16-17)
Paul also pointed out that Abraham lived centuries before the Mosaic Law was given. So – simply put – Abrahams faith was a loyal faith, an obedient faith … inseperable from the works. Even in Gen 15 he already had a quite impressive lists of works of faith and obedience. How about rendering Gen 15:6 like this:
And Abraham showed loyalty to God (by stepping back from his own "Plan B" of appointing Elieser as his heir) and God declared him righteous therefore.
We should not forget, that this conversation started with an Abraham who began to doubt God's promise and offered a plan B. His faith included a commitment to "work out this promise" with his wife again. Seriously: The promise was dependent on Abraham working with Sara in order to be fulfilled. And God excpected Abraham to fulfill his duty.
So even here, we must sepak of works. Not of works of the Law, but of works of faith.
Unless you understand the original controversy, you will misunderstand the scriptures when they talk about faith and works. If you grew up a Protestant it will be even worse, because Luther misunderstood it himself.
I think that's one f the major issues the NPP brought to our attention.
To sum it up: There are two misunderstandings, here, Price:
a) I don't change faith for loyalty, but the better understanding of faith is loyalty.
b) It is not about all kinds of work, but about the works of the Law that the original controversy was all about.
Here lies our main difference. In my understanding, faith works. In your understanding it is desirable (or natural) that works follow faith – if not, there might still be genuine faith in one's heart. But loyalty is not simply a state of my heart (although it does start in the heart), it is not loyalty unless it has works of obedience, works of faith/loyalty, works of love.
Alexander
And: Therefore you can only say you are saved in a complete sense, when you have finished the race.
Before that we have been saved out of this world, have been saved into the Kingdom, have been empowered by the Spirit – so, yes, we can call ourselves saved in this limited sense. But unless we persevere unto the end, we won't be saved in the end.
Therefore, this verses are very important:
work out your own salvation – Paul's words, not mine
with fear and tembling – Paul's words not mine
So we MUST obey in order to be saved in the end, don't we?
That#s God#s priovision so that we may finish the race:
God works in us that we want to do His will and that we accomplish His will.
Praise the Lord! This is essential!
But this does not rule out our own will. We still have to struggle with our flesh and its carnal desires. We can be disobedient, we can do it with a grumbling attitude, we can start questioning God's will … all if this is very dangerous.
We are called to be the light of the world not by our words but by a blemeless life, that shows God's will in character and deeds.
So our salvation is not just for ourselves, but it is necessary to reach the whole world.
Unless we hold fast to the word of life, Paul would have labored in vain; this means: These believers started to follow Chrsit, but they did not persevere to the end. They fell away and shipwrecked.
Brothers, these are very plain and sobering words. And they only make sense when we understand fauith as loyality and not as something "opposed" to works. Our initial salvation is conditional. Face it, fear and tremble! Don't boast of your salvation as if you were already there.
Alexander
Good Morning Alexander…..Yes, we disagree…The Romans 4 passage I suggested has nothing to do with the Law of Moses and the Ephesians passage indicates that its nothing that you do whatsoever…not referring to any covenental jurisdiction……
But, I'm a Grace kind of guy so I figure if you are doing what you DO from a sincere heart and loyalty to Christ….to use your translation….then God will see you through Jesus as Righteous. Likewise, having put my complete and total confidence in Him and if I do anything at all worth mentioning, giving Him all the credit and taking on no claim for wages due, I'm sure He'll still forgive me of my inabilities to live perfectly as well…
In the end, you and I aren't going anywhere God doesn't want us to go and wherever He sends us, we won't be able to resist…
I have no fear of loosing my salvation either…How horrible a thought…
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
I don't want to start a whole new controversy, but I have come to believe God judges the heart, by what we do outwardly.
We do the same thing, "His heart is in it, he just can't do it"
Or "the spirit is strong, but the flesh is week"
I just don't believe God looks at a sleeping man and judges his heart. I believe God judges by how hard we try, not what we accomplish.
Price:
I am interested in better understanding your conclusions regarding a spiritual war? Is it real? How does a life under siege (Eph, 6:10ff.) fit with grace? Is what we "DO from a sincere heart and loyalty to Christ" ever at threat from deception regarding what we believe? Being specific regarding the threat, can we lean on the grace of God with all of our weight… as we "pray the rosary" every morning?
Someone may take my question as sharp and unkind. I do not laugh at or scorn those who "pray the rosary." Quite the opposite, I believe we desperately need to help people see that some of what they have come to believe is nothing less than spiritual deception — similar to the spiritual war and Satanic deception facing first century Christians in Ephesus. And I seek the same "iron sharpening iron."
Your thoughts?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
[email protected]
Laymond….It would surprise me to believe that you think God has to wait and see to know what's going to happen ?? Secondly, how does what is done "outwardly" determine the true intent of the heart…?? Could God be fooled into thinking that a person's heart is good by looking at the outward works? The only disception occurs to those of us who look at a man and "assume" that he is asleep…or "assuing" that the man is doing good things when in fact his hard work and effort is entirely motivated by greed or selfishness.. God is not mocked… But I've been suckered before…and I bet you have too… Furthermore, Paul said there were times when he did what he knew he shouldn't do and didn't do the things that he knew he should…Do you think God judged Paul guilty…Paul said it was the "sin" in him…sort of putting it off on the flesh if I understand him correctly… Yet in his heart, was there ever a man more truly devoted to Jesus than Paul ??
Yes, indeed …
I don't fear for you, Price. I think we both are heading the same direction. But Christ in Mat 25 never asks whether the sheep and goats had faith, but whether they did what He expected them to do. …
Actually, all texts dealing with the day of judgment focus on the works. You can't deny it – even if you quote some classical proof-texts from John, you'll find the works just a few verses before or next to the text (as in John 5:24 which is followed by John 5:28-29 – again, salvation is based on works, not on faith alone).
I am a little disappointed, though, that you did not accept my argument with circumcision (Rom 4:10) and the different uses of the term "work". You stand solidly on Reformation Theology, Price. This is not the worst theology imaniganbly, but in my opinion it has some serious flaws. Especially concerning the understanding of faith and works, Reformation Theology is quite misleading.
So I don't fear for you personally, but for those who have been misled by this theology.
Those who don't have works or fruit will hear the following words:
They had the correct theology (Christ is Lord), they even had miraculous gifts – they were (most likely) respected members of the church. But they did not do what they were told to do in the Sermon on the Mount. It's about their works, Price!
I envision people who went to court to fight for their rights – clearly not the way of the Sermon on the mount.
I envision people who were judgemental and hipocrits – clearly not the way of the Sermon on the mount.
I envision all these "born again Christians" who divorced and remarried (sometimes over and obver again) – clearly not the way of the Sermon on the mount.
I envision all these rich people in the church (those who do not share and give freely) – clearly not the way of the Sermon on the mount.
I envision soldiers who were trained to hate the enemies rather than to love them – clearly not the way of the Sermon on the mount.
This is just a small list of people, who will hear these words of Christ – how terrible this will be!
Do me just one favor, Price: Don't tell such people that as long as they have faith, everything will turn out fine at the end. It won't.
Christ never knew them, because they never really were faithful/loyal to the King. And we should be able to recognize these people in our church and to encourage them to be becaome faithful disciples.
As I have observed it however – this faith-grace-theology makes sinners feel very comfortable in the assembly of the saints (quite the opposite of what I read in the Psalms and elsewhere Psa 1:5 …); and it lowers the standard of holiness and separation of entire denominations …
Alexander
Alexander,
A small child can tell the difference between a sheep and a goat. They are two completely different animals. God is recognizing what is there already. Again and again scripture refers to his own as sheep.
You are correct about one thing. God NEVER knew the goats as his own. The idea that a man can be saved and then lost and then saved again and then lost…..is foreign to the Bible.
Royce
Royce
Alexander,
I wonder…when you "envision" the lost.
What about the church of Christ elder or preacher who trusts what he knows and what he does instead of trusting Christ. What do you "envision" about him?
What about these men whose favorite pastime is condemning other church of Christ people to hell because they are not like them. How do you "envision" them?
And how do you "envision" those who by their own teaching expose the fatal flaw of their theology about Christ and his work for sinners, teaching that his sacrifice was not enough to save sinners from perishing?
Royce
I disagree in part. While I am sure, that salvation is not a hop-on-ho-off thing, I believe that truly saved persons can fall away, based on scriptures such as the following (and many more):
Is there anything ambiguous in these verses? Not at all!
That's very serious, Royce (and Price).
I don't believetherefore that "I never knew you" means that these persons (mentioned in these verses) were never "really" saved. They were Christians, enlightened, they escaped the defilements of this world (= they lived holy lives for some time!). They knew CHrist and shared in the Spirit … and they fell away into destruction.
What does it mean to be "really saved"? It means to be saved at the end – salvation is a process, not a miraculous one-time-event (in the sense of: "The day I accepted Jesus defines my eternal destiny regardless of how I live afterwards …"). WE have to walk the whole length of the narrow path; it is not enough to have embarked on the journy; we must finsh it also. We can step out and fall from Grace any time.
So sheep can turn into goats, the same way as righteous men can turn into wicked men. So, yes, we can tell the differernce between a sheep and a goat – presently. But we cannot know, whether a sheep will turn into a goat sooner or later.
You cannot even say with confidence of yourself, that you will be counted amongthe sheep (me neither): Because you may come to a point when you turn away from God, as many others have done before us. Paul tells the Story of the Israelites and says, that only a few made it to Cannan – and he closes this with a very important satement:
If anyone says: For sure, I am going to be in heaven, he "bypasses" all these warnings in a way I would call selfconfident and proud; because if even Paul spoke of working out our salvation with fear and trembling, who are we to say: "We don't need to fear and tremble at all!"?
Again, this is too serious for me than to play games with God's Word. The message is cristal clear – "Let him who has ears to hear, understand it." That'
s what our Lord said repeatedly to the seven churches in Asia of whom most were in a dangerous spiritual situation, close to apostasy.
I can imagine quite a few brothers in these churches standing up, after these letters have been read, saying: "But we know we have been saved by grace through faith, so all these warnings cannot possibly apply to us. Relax, enjoy and worship our good Lord!"
Alexander
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Price, I don't believe I said we were righteous, if we acted righteous.
I believe I stated I thought God judged our heart, by our outward actions.
The following is a good example. IMO
Luk 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
Luk 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
@ Alexander…I would not dispute that a person who rejects God/Christ/Holy Spirit is lost. I was referring to a Christian who maintains his faith (Trust) in Jesus as his Savior…Paul said that he was certain that he was going to heaven…because he had "kept the faith." II Tim 4:8…So, I guess there is reasonable certainty in ones heart that their Trust in God will not be disappointed.
This coming from a man who admitted that he was not perfect and at times could not even do the things that he knew that he should do… Apostasy seems rather different to measuring up…I hope that brings us closer together in our understanding…
@ Bruce…Yes, I do indeed believe that we are in a spiritual war. Ephesians 6 speaks to how we should equip ourselves to fight against it. I don't see anything in these verses that would cause me to lean upon my on ability but rather the power of God working through me. God even warned Job about taking on the Devil…He said if you do it, you won't quickly do it again… The passage in Ephesians even emphasizes Faith as the dominant weapon. Does that address your question ??
Price:
Your post partially answers. So, is your "DO from a sincere heart and loyalty to Christ” at risk in a spiritual war?
As I read OneinJesus.info articles and posts, it seems to me that the focus on God's grace at times loses sight of the reality of a spiritual war in which not every religious thought honors Jesus. I continue to wonder if we are allowing the religious melting pot of twenty-first century America a significant measure of "cheap grace" — such that a sincere heart suffices to cover all spiritual deception.
If that is case, then why Paul's warnings to early churches?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
[email protected]
@ Bruce… I likewise have a distain for "cheap grace." However, if you read Romans 7 starting at about verse 14…you'll see this very argument discussed by Paul…
"nothing good dwells in me." "Captive to sin." "I have the desire but not the ability to do good.""Wretched man that I am…who will save me." (I think he makes clear that he is unable to do anything at this point to save himself) and then he answers his own question with…"Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Brother, I find that so encouraging…Not to justify rebellion and/or apostasy but that I am saved by Jesus Christ, not through the measuring up of my performance but through his redemptive Grace by my total Trust / Faith in Him.
Given the price he paid….. I don't see it as cheap.
Nor should any Christian regard it (Grace) flippantly…Nor their salvation meritorious. IMHO
@ Bruce….I forgot….he (Paul) then rolls into the my favorite chapter in all the Bible…Romans 8…And immediately after claiming that he is unable to save Himself and that he is totally dependant on the saving Grace of Christ begins…….There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…and ends with "Who can separate us from Christ Jesus? He includes references that most agree are of satanic powers…and concludes "Nothing" can separate us from the Love of Christ… Man, if that's not good news I don't know what is…
Yeah, God !!
But Price, if we start viewing born again Chrsitians as being under bondage, then where is the power iof the Gospel?
Paul is referring to his own pharisauic quest for righteousness in chapter 7; but from chapter 8 on he is pointingto the power of the new birth!
Please, listen closely:
So this is the big contrast between chapter 7 and the following passage: Being in Christ. What does that mean? You have to go back to chapter 6: It is about being dead and buried with Christ and being raised again.
Paul starts Romans 7 because this also applies to our relationship to the Old Covenant (speaking of Jewish Chrsitians): They once were "married" to the Law, but since they have died (Romans 6), they are free from this marriage, and the new life opens the door to a new marriage: To Christ.
Then Paul gave us his own testimony, how he came to understand how lost he is in spite of an almost perfect obedience to the Law (see also Php 3:5-7)! Then he returns to what it means to be "in Christ":
There is a new and different Law. A Law of life contrasted with the Law of sin and death (the Mosaic Law combined with our sinful nature). This new Law comes through Christ.
Now, God accomplished what the Law could not accomplish: This is: Making is righteous.
How did He do this? By sending our Lord Jesus, being made perfectly human (even with our fallen nature) in order to condemn the sin in His own flesh on the cross.
That's mindboggling, but it is so true! Praise the Lord!
But there is a purpose:
The requirement of the Law must be fullfilled in us, who now walk according to the Spirit. So, by walking in the Spirit, we can fulfill the requirement of the Law – the rquirement, not the letter (!) as has been exemplified by our Lord Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.
See, NOW we can live a righteous life! We are enabled to live that way, because of the New birth.
Our flesh is still there – and will always be opposed to God's Will and the Spirit. It is exactly the same message as in Gal 5:16-23!
But we are not under bondage anymore! We are not these poor sinners who cannot but sin anymore!
And that#s why there is a responsibilty tied to our new condition:
See, Price: If we – born again, regenerated CHristians – choose to live carnally, we will die (eternally). We will lose what has been given to us.
So we must not use Romans 7 as a description of our spuiritual condition, but we have to understand the power of the Gospel described so powerfully in Romans 8.
Again the Reformers did not really grasp the message. And this is a key issue, where Reformation Theology is dead wrong. Having come from this corner BTW discovering this truth really shocked me to the bones! I realized how carelessly I have lived so far, how misleading my teaching was.
Alexander
Price, I love your passion and your deep respect for your discussion partners and your love of God's Word. I appreciate how hard you're working to make your thoughts clear.
When you quote Paul in 2Tim 4, though, I think you're prooftexting. What I mean is, you're taking one set of words out of their context because they sound like they prove your point, when in context it is altogether likely that they contradict it.
Yes, Paul says that the reward he will receive is due to the fact that he has "kept the faith." But, when interpreting a Jewish writer, it is dangerous to take one parallel statement out of a series and use it in a way that the rest of the series does not support.
Paul says, "I have fought the good fight, I have run the race, I have kept the faith. Therefore there is kept for me a crown of righteousness, and not for me alone but for all who have longed for his appearing."
Please don't hear anything about "earning" or "meritorious works" in what I'm saying. That's not what I'm talking about. Paul and John and James have no problem talking about justification by works as well as justification by faith. Ockham's Razor suggests that the solution to this dilemma is found in understanding that there is an unhealthy way of understanding and using works in opposition to faith, and a healthy way of understanding and using works effectively alongside faith.
Nick,
Also known as Ockham's Principle of Lack of Imagination. =o)
(Are you an X-Files fan?)
–guy
Price asked, " Yet in his heart, was there ever a man more truly devoted to Jesus than Paul ??"
And I answer YES , John the Baptist ! and IMO others.
@ Nick….You are a fine fellow…My point regarding Paul (and thank you for pointing out that it wasn't just Paul) was that one needn't be perfect or justified by works to be certain of their salvation.
I know of no comment by Paul that said we are justified by works of any kind…When I did a word search just to make sure, he uses Justified and Justification and explains that we are NOT justified by works… Either that is in direct contradiction to James or James is speaking about an external public justification and not a salvation issue…Can't have it both ways…Right ?? I mean, either we are or we are not jusitified, saved by our own "doings." Paul spends a lot of time in Romans and Galatians making sure he hammers down the point… Besides, James says Abraham was justified by works but Paul says he was justified apart from works 40 years earlier when he believed God…not when he offered Issac up… That contrast strongly suggests that James and Paul are talking about two different issues…
@ Nick….You are a fine fellow…My point regarding Paul (and thank you for pointing out that it wasn't just Paul) was that one needn't be perfect or justified by works to be certain of their salvation.
I know of no comment by Paul that said we are justified by works of any kind…When I did a word search just to make sure, he uses Justified and Justification and explains that we are NOT justified by works… Either that is in direct contradiction to James or James is speaking about an external public justification and not a salvation issue…Can't have it both ways…Right ?? I mean, either we are or we are not jusitified, saved by our own "doings." Paul spends a lot of time in Romans and Galatians making sure he hammers down the point…Obviously James and Paul are speaking about two different subjects.
Price,
If it's possible that Paul and James could've been using different senses of "justified," then it's also possible that Paul and James could've been using different senses of "works."
(And why should i take "works" to mean "doings"? That seems to me include faith–trust is something i do.)
–guy
Guy and Price,
Not only is it possible… it is much more likely that Paul and James are using such a central-to-Christianity concept as justified in the same way, but such a naturally diverse concept as works in different ways.
Not that dikaiosune is simple… but rather that its centrality suggests that writers will try and use it in the same way.
@ Alexander…so…how many mistakes are allowed before you die spiritually ?? Is your point that we are "sort of saved." ?? That we live in constant fear of our imperfections and sin ? I've seen that theology chase people from Jesus because they never could measure up. they always lived in constant shame and judgement.. I just think that's replacing old law with new law and when one does that they forfeit the whole concept of grace.
Again, that's not to undermine the point of living as righteous a life as one can according to that person's understanding and conscience. I believe that's extremely important to a peaceful and rewarding life. I just am not going to assign salvation, or any part thereof, to a man's effort on his behalf. If Jesus' work on the cross wasn't sufficient then what more can I do ??
One of the doctrinal statements of the CoC when I was growing up was "ignorance is no excuse." Man, you mean I can loose my salvation and never even know it? It's a theology based on fear..and as Rom 8 says so clearly I didn't receive a spirit of fear but a spirit of adoption as a son and an heir…
@ Guy…Maybe I'm confused…but here's what I read..help me out….Paul refers to Abraham in Romans 4 as a man that was justified by faith in that he believed God. He points out clearly to me that works had NOTHING to do with it…He is referring to God's promise to Abraham right ?? So according to Paul, at the point Abraham BELIEVED God he was justified……….so………….how is it that in the book of James that Abraham was justified again when he offered Issac up as a sacrifice ?? Did he loose his justification ?? Isn't that the only way that Abraham could be "re-justified" is if he had lost the original justification ?? OR….James is speaking of a public display of faith rather than a salvific one.
Why should you take it as doings? Isn't Faith something that you do ?? Well, not according to Paul..He contrasts Faith with works…He says they are not the same. I just accept that as the word of God. My "assumption" is that belief, trust, faith are mental accents while good works are physical actions. I've heard others say what you said but when I read Paul statements where he says we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works…how else can one read that? When he says its not of ourselves…not of works so that no one can boast…I'm at a loss to equate faith to works when it seems so clear..at least to me that they are in Paul's mind by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…different and sharply contrasted. Any reconciliation that you could come up with to equate rather than to distinguish the two just wouldn't satisfy my conscience…But, I understand the heart of man that wants to please his Lord and I'm just not going to condemn or pass judgement on a person for that…so believe what you want about it and I still would be proud to call you my brother.
That's the wrong question, Price. Being loyal and being perfect are two entirely different things. You think the only alternative to faith is the Law, and you always read "Law" when eading "works". Unless yopu grasp this difference, you won't get it.
Obedience is not quatifiable, is it? When is a child obedient? When it always obeys or when it generally obeys? Is there a point when this child would no longer be called an obedient child? I bet there is, but you cannot determine this with a certauin number of mischievous deeds.
It's the same spiritually. Falling away from God is a process:
We can be led to fall away from God – this is said to brothers. Our hearts can become hardened through the deitfulness of sin. So it does not happen from one moment to another, and you cannot say: "This was sin Number 101 – you are out!"
It does not work that way. Another example:
We can fail to obtain grace. This eventually may lead to a bitter root; this again to immoral and unholy lives – at the end we sell aour biorthright likje Esau did.
There is a point of no return. But we cannot say where exactly it is.
If you are loyal to Christ, you are loyal – not perfect, but faithful. But this can change gradually – so there is no guarantee that those who stand today will never fall away.
No, but salvation is a process, not a one-time-event. So we are saved but we will be saved also, if we persevere to the end. Just understand, that conversion is just the first step of faith, but not the finished race yet.
Ask Paul, why he speaks of fear and trembling. Ask him, I urge you – he, the apostle of Grace uses these words. But it is not a fear of imperfection, but a fear of becoming disloyal, worldly, entagled by sin again. There is a real danger that this can happen, and it happened to many others before.
I don't know these doctronal statements, and I would disagree with them based on Rom 5:13 and other texts.
To sum it up: Being loyal is not the same as being perfect. If you treat obedience as perfectionism, then you misunderstand it, It is not as trying to be made raighteous through keeping all the letters of the Law – this will always fail; this is completely upsiode down. But if we are loyal, we will strive to obey. Loyalty and obedience go hand in hand, but this is not perfectionism, but we pursue perfection.
Alexander
"What must we do to work the works of God?"
"The work of God is this: to believe on the One He has sent."
Do those words sound familiar, Price? Jesus Himself synthesizes faith/work so clearly that I can no longer believe that Paul's language contrasting them is as simple as you assert. You ask, "what else could it possibly mean?" It could mean that acceptance of a gift can be described as essential work, but not in any meritorious way or sense of earning the gift. The drowning man must seize the flotation device, but that essential seizing can hardly suggest that he deserves to be saved or earned his rescue.
Idle faith is incomplete. Incomplete faith is stillborn.
Nick, I would agree totally with Idle faith is incomplete and incomplete faith is stillborn…I do, I really do…but here is the day to day application that has divided the church…We focus on the works and not the faith…If I believe it's OK to include IM in worship…my works are judged..not my faith… If I use one cup or several, I'm disfellowshipped by some because of my works..not my faith…If I think its OK for a woman to pass out the communion trays or collection plates, I'm judged by my works..not my faith….so, while its fine and dandy to come to the conclusion that faith is made apparent by ones level of outward manifestation of that faith, how can one judge my dependance on Jesus as my savior by whether or not I agree with every theological tenant one ascribes to…That's the nut that seems never to be cracked…And, its the history of the CoC.and perhaps others..we look at how we interpret scripture, how we include the ECF comments and lifestyle and then if someone doesn't believe EXACTLY as we do…we separate and divide…not over whether or not I believe that I am saved by grace through faith but whether or not I believe that silence is the correct interpretative rule…because in theory we believe that faith saves but in historical practice its all about what we do…that is why I'm so adverse to a rules based, works based theology… It pulls me away from faith…make sense?
Price,
You are where I have been many times with some of these guys. Its like trying to stack marbles.
I too appreciate your kindness and sincerity as you discuss these matters. I admire your patience and wish I was more like you.
With all due respect to each of you, I think we have sunk to a new low. In an all out effort to justify our own self righteousness as meritorious we now just declare Paul a rascal and tear much of what he wrote out of the book. This is the most odd hermeneutic I have ever seen. Just to be consistent why not just take out all Paul wrote?
Are some of you the Holy Spirit incarnate? Are you now able to sit in judgement over NT authors? May God have mercy. It seems that a legalist will stop at nothing. Move over Jesus! Someone else wants to share your throne. After all you didn't really do all that was necessary, some coC guys had to do what you couldn't and they deserve some of your glory.
When the Holy Scriptures doesn't agree with your theology perhaps its time to change your theology. It is never time to change the Bible. One of the marks of a faith follower of Jesus is that he hears the apostolic teaching. Those who reject that teaching are suspect at best.
Price, run – do not walk – to the bookstore and acquire a copy of "Justification: God's Plan, Paul's Vision" by NT Wright.
He has precisely the same issues that you've described, yet his interpretation of biblical justification prevents James from becoming a "right strawy epistle."
In the meantime, Jay's done some fantastic writing here applying the critique from the New Perspective on Paul to the CoC externalism you've described above.
Royce, I used to wonder where Laymond got his caricatures.
Now I know.
Perhaps you and he could lock yourselves in a room and rant at each other (maybe NPA could come, too) while the rest of us stay out here and let our incorrect theologies rub up against each other, wrapped up in the bond of peace that the Spirit provides, until our minds are renewed by the love of Christ. Clearly you and Laymond have perfected your theology to such an extent that hyperbolous mockery is the only language you have to share with such unenlightened contributors as myself.
Or maybe you can stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA! while Alexander and I try to share some ideas from one of the most brilliant Pauline theologians who has ever lived. I'm quite sure he has nothing to add to your perfect theology.
.
Price asked, "If Jesus’ work on the cross wasn’t sufficient then what more can I do ??"
Price, how about trying to do what he asked of us.?
Hbr 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
Hbr 3:2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house.
Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
By faith in God, Jesus has also warned us of future things, now we have to build our own ark and stay on board, yes we have to pick up a hammer and drive a few nails, just like Noah did.
Jhn 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
As we see even Jesus had to drive a few nails while he was here.
Price:
As I read your posts, let me offer that your leaning on Scripture (I appreciate) is exactly the point I was urging. Apostolic teaching itself is an expression of God's grace. That characteristic of Scripture seems like an endangered species in our day.
What struck me initially was this statement: "I figure if you are doing what you DO from a sincere heart and loyalty to Christ….to use your translation….then God will see you through Jesus as Righteous."
Your leaning on Scripture seemed at cross-purposes with the statement; I realize you may have stated what you did, assuming the person was also leaning on the Word of the Lord. Correct?
Enough for now. I pray the Lord keeps you safe and blesses your searching the Scriptures.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
[email protected]
@ Laymond…Just tell me which thing Jesus asked me to do to save myself that He was incapable of doing and I'll try to do it …you;re not being serious, right ?
@ Bruce….Christ paid the price for me…As I understand it, God sees me through the blood of Jesus…My dependence on Jesus allows God to see me that way…otherwise He sees me as I am. I do what I can but absent the cross I am forever lost. Isaiah referred to my efforts as filthy rags…graphic detail of that description is unnecessary to make the point.
@ Royce…you're way to kind…I just like being able to disagree with respect for the person with whom I disagree. There are way too many blogs out there where disagreement gets one assigned to the depths of hell…and they wonder why their membership continues to collapse…Plus, one doesn't have to agree with me to advance into the Kingdom…I'm not the Gate Keeper…I'm just an ole country boy trying to live by faith in something much greater than me and pretty much indescribable. But, I do reserve the right to believe as I choose and prefer not to be labled and condemned for what I believe…Thankfully, at least on this blog, the boys had Momma's that taught them better…:)
Dear Price
I slowly begin to understand your background. Since I have never been in a CoC like the one you describe, I use words that you hear differently than I understand them.
When the ICoC hade their breakdown in Europe, the "leftovers" in Vienna sort of went from legalism to lawlessness (The words are not quite fitting, I know). From one extreme to another. It took a few years to bring them back to the middle of the road again.
I have the impression that you also try to come away from the conservative CoCs with their (obviously) wrong emphasis in some areas; and you also tend to go to another extreme: "Progressivism" or "Evangelicalism" without being aware of this.
And when I came out off "Evangelicalism", I had a time, when I developed a tendency towards legalism and perfectionism, which I had to overcome as well.
So I understand, that the words I choose are connected with associations on your side I was not aware of.
Did I get this right?
Alexander
P.S.:
To your Info: I am a "one-Cupper" – but our church uses miltple cups also – I don't segregate because of that.
Our house church is the only foot-washing assembly – we don't disfellowship the others.
All teachers agree on the headcovering, but our sisters don't do it (yet) – we donÄt exciommunicate these "wicked ones".
I believe in a literal 6-day-creation; but I don't expect every church member to dig into the matter and believe the same.
in other words:
I try to stay on the narrow path while having an open heart to others.
Price, you don't need to ask me, ask him.
Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Price I believe Jesus had an answer, other than (don't worry about it I have your back)
I was left with the impression that we all have a cross to bear, not Just Jesus.
Alexander, we are all one – cuppers when you think about it. we all drink from the same cup. In reality drinking from the same physical vessel, is symbolism,
another tradition. that assuredly is your prerogative, but you are right to accept those who don't, just as I accept those who do as my brothers and sisters.
It is physically impossible for all Christians to physically sip from one cup.
@ Alexander…. I think I'm Progressive by the definitions that I hear thrown about…I just am not a "works" kind of guy…Seen too much abuse from it…But, I am also one that believes in pouring into people and making a difference…just not to earn me anything except the personal satisfaction of doing something good for somebody…I appreciate your heart and attitude toward others with whom you may disagree from time to time…:Most folks have not been that way in the past but things are definitely changing.
I look forward to continued "debate" from time to time and have enjoyed getting to understand how you "filter" your thoughts…
@ Laymond…Nobody is saying that we won't have our crosses to bear, our deeds to do and our testimony to share…just IMHO its not to provide tokens for the pearly gate..it's what we do out of gratitude and appreciation for whats been done for us…Let me correct that…it's what I do for that reason. Praise God, you get to decide your own personal motivation and while I may totally disagree, it seems counter productive to try and disparage you for doing what you think is right before your God. Work on Brother.
@ Nick…Found the NT Wright book…Looking forward to reading it….slowly !! Thanks for the referral…
Price,
Regarding Abraham–
i don't see what about the text obligates me to read Paul as point-in-time strictly as you do.
Consider Luke recording Peter's words. In Acts 10:34-44, we're told the HS came upon Cornelius after Peter had said quite a bit. But in Acts 11:15, when Peter is recounting the event, he said the HS fell on them "as i began to speak." Should i conclude that Peter meant to claim that the moment the first syllable of a word came out of his mouth, the HS fell on Cornelius? If i understand it that way, then it contradicts the recording of the events themselves in Acts 10. Or i could simply not understand "as i began to speak" as intended to be taken so only-this-moment-in-time-ly.
Acts 16:31-34 may be another example where "believe" is not a only-this-moment-in-time referent. Hebrews 11:8 lends to a broader understanding of the events of Abraham as well. i concede that i'm using Luke and the Hebrews writer and not Paul. My point is that i think you take those phrases as more time stamped than they need to be read. i don't see why i've got to read Paul as meaning that Abraham was justified at the particular time slice that a particular mental state appeared in his brain.
Regarding faith and works–
i don't read where Paul ever defines works as mere doings. And why mental acts should not count as work is a baffling thought. Do you think a mathematician isn't (mentally) working very arduously? Do you think a husband and wife with lots of issues aren't (mentally) working arduously at developing trust in each other? If "works" is nothing more than "doings," i don't see why mental acts should be excluded.
But more to the point, i don't see that i or anyone here is saying that faith and works are meant to be taken as non-distinguished. i think what is at issue is what precisely is the distinction being made. Taking faith to include "doings" only makes it included in works *if* you continue to assume works refers to mere "doings." But i understand that that is the assumption being challenged by those in this discussion.
–guy
@ Guy…good question about "doings"…my observation about it is taken from Eph 2:8…"not of your own doing"…Perhaps you are more skilled in the Greek language than me but the translations seem to reflect that "anything" that I " do " is contrasted with Faith…However Paul would define Faith…He contrasts with Works…I don't claim to be an expert but it doesn't take a mental giant to understand that Paul intended to communicate that Faith isn't Works…However you define them…The argument isn't with me…it's with Paul…He says Faith and Works aren't the same and one saves and the other doesn't…So how would you define Faith that doesn't include works ??
All the experts believe that Paul was quoting from the O.T., specifically Gen 15:6 when he says He is quoting scripture that Abraham believed God and it was counted towards him as righteousness…Every respectable commentary on the subject seems to agree…And, if that is true, then that is considerably earlier than what James refers to. But, hey, I'm no expert…I'm just relying on those that claim to be…What little I've done to reflect on the matter seems consistent with their opinions. Do you have an alternative passage of scripture that you believe Paul is quoting ?? If not, then we are back to attempting to explain how one can acquire justification without works and then loose it only to acquire it back by works… That IMHO seems totally unreasonable.
Price,
i don't take "works" to be any and all doings. i do take "faith" to include doings. Thus, i can still take faith and works as contrastive. The problem you're pointing out only arises *if* you continue to adhere to "works" as cached out as "doings." i'm not sure anyone here challenging your definition of faith is telling you in the same breath to maintain your definition of works.
i understand the problem you're pointing out between Paul and James concerning Abraham. My point was even if Paul was referring to Gen 15:6, i still don't see why we're then forced to understand "justified" as applicable to one and only one time-slice, and in particular, the time-slice in which a certain mental state began to exist in the mind of Abraham. Why can't that statement refer to a collection of time-slices throughout Abraham's life?
–guy
@ Guy…I guess it depends on your definition of Justified…
Price,
i suppose. i realize one underlying assumption to the problem is that being justified happens in relation to only one time-slice. –that being justified is not something that can be happening continually or in process.
But what do you think about this–(i promise i see this as entirely relevant and related)–suppose i were to tell you that Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1. Why? Because Genesis 2 spells out a different order of creation than Genesis 1. What would you say in response to me? (Assuming you take them *not* to be in contradiction, and assuming you'd defend the view that they are meant to be harmonious on the issue of the order of creation.)
–guy
@ Guy….I would ask you to explain how you came to that conclusion so that I could determine for myself if I thought your argument had any merit….
Price said "However Paul would define Faith…He contrasts with Works…I don’t claim to be an expert but it doesn’t take a mental giant to understand that Paul intended to communicate that Faith isn’t Works…However you define them…The argument isn’t with me…it’s with Paul…He says Faith and Works aren’t the same and one saves and the other doesn’t…So how would you define Faith that doesn’t include works ??"
Price the way I understand this whole thing of "faith and works" is this. Faith is the causation of works, and faith without works is an inactive faith, a dead faith, and a dead faith will not save. They go hand in hand, one without the other will not bring justification.
As for sliced justification, we better hope we end up with a whole pie, when we deliver it up before God.
If faith is expressed in works (such as lyalty is not loyaltry without being proven by works), then faith can't be contrasted to all kinds of works, Price. I tried to point that out to you, and maybe you will see it, when you go through all the discussions starting in acts 15 and spelled out in detail in Romans and Galatians.
His contrasting faith with works is pointed to the works of the Law, the/some Jewish Christians expected from the Gentile-Christians. It's not about works per se, but about these specific works of the Law – or (broader) any mechanic work system without faith.
Since faith works (as loyalty does), Paul cannot speak against these works of faith, can he? I suspect it will be something like that you'r going to read in N.T. Wright's book, too.
BTW I watched a discussion on N.T. Wrights book on Justification by some theologians from a Baptist seminary. They were horrified: "This is not what our fathers taught", "This is against our Protestant Traditions" … but they had no scriptural response, still they thought they did a great job in refuting N.T. Wright and put it on YouTube … So just you're warned 😉
Alexander
@ Laymond…I understand your point of view…It's shared by many…I just can't seem to get there because the passages I quoted earlier are so distinct as to definitively separate faith from works rather than to connect them.. Although I am in total agreement that our good deeds do reflect our faith, at least outwardly where others might observe…God seems to look at our heart and our intentions which no other person can accurately do since they can't read our minds. I see James' discussion on the subject to be more of an encouragement for a public testimony rather than something that God needs to "see" in order to justifiy us…
@ Alexander…I'v read your posts and I just don't see how retranslating the word Faith and using the word Loyalty would change what Paul said… "By Grace you are saved by Loyalty, not of works lest any man should boast…" And again…For by grace are ye saved through Loyalty; and that not of yourselves: "
If he contrasts works with Faith, substituting the word Loyalty doesn't keep Paul from contrasting the two…
Not sure what difference it makes whether one is trying to Work his/her way into heaven via the Old Law or the Law of Grace in the new convenant…Again, in Eph 2 it simply says "not of yourselves." No reference to Law of any kind…simply that one is attempting to justify himself via some personal means…
It seems we just disagree on the subject…I'm sure there will be others…
I fully agree that Paul is talking about self-justification vs. God-justification. Do you see that that is also what Jesus in Matt 7 and James in James 2 are discussing?
Where we differ, Price, is that your argument hinges on the assertion that works and self-justification are inherently related, while you assert that faith/loyalty is somehow "not of yourselves" and thus isn't available for self-justifying use.
Paul doesn't tell the Galatians, "The only thing that matters is faith." (Gal 5:6) He says, "The only thing that matters is faith expressing itself in love." It is an inseparable unity.
Think of NaCl. Good old table salt. Without simple NaCl, we would die. But what if you consumed sodium w/o chlorine, or chlorine w/o sodium? On the one hand, you would probably explode – on the other, you'd die within moments.
Likewise, neither idle loyalty and/or faithless workaholism are means to justification. In fact, they poison spiritual life. What matters? By what means does God justify? Precisely what Paul says: faith expressing itself in love.
I meant to add the line, "Faith is even more personal than works, Price." The simplest response that doesn't do violence to the rest of Scripture is to understand "and that not of yourselves" as referring to the source of justification. Faith is one of the most deeply personal matters in human life.
Nick, the fact remains that grace through faith is "NOT of works, lest ANYONE should boast." What say ye about that?
Price,
The text in Gen 2 is ordered differently in terms of which bits of creation were created before other bits. The issue is that the contradiction claim assumes that reading Gen 2 as intentionally chronological is the only possible/plausible way to read that passage. i think you make similar (but not identical) assumptions when comparing Paul and James.
–guy
I am beginning to think the Gideons have the right idea on how to evangelize the world.
This subject would likely never had been interesting enough to get 113 comments on a blog had people only disagreed about IM vs. A Cappella. It was when certain people started to teach that those who didn't agree with them would go to hell that the conversation became what it is today.
This and the scores and scores of other discussions about such topics points to poor theology, and poor theology always results in poor behavior.
I'd like some of you to lay out what you believe Jesus died for? Did he only die so God would be justified to save us because of our good works? Now that sounds strange when you see it in print but it seems to me that is exactly what some of you believe. If not, how could any of you think you are justified, even partially, based on how well you perform?
One of the absolute truths of the historic Christian faith is this. God justifies the wicked wholly upon the merit of Jesus. The gospel announcement is, Christ died for our sins! If He took my sin upon Himself and died "for" me, in my place (and He did) then how could I expect that my goodness, what I do, can add to that, or that anything needs to be added to His work?
It is not to give God glory, it is not to give praise to Jesus, that men insist that they will be saved because of how good they have been. If that could possibly be true Jesus died in vain. No, what it is is the human ego that demands to be applauded, it is not from God but from the evil one.
The cross of Christ is the end of self, it is the end of sin, it is the beginning of righteousness, it is the beginning of life immortal. The cross is not a place to just start over and if you are good enough you might in the end be right with God. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. He himself made the final offering for sin and if His offering was not enough you and I have no hope.
It saddens me to see Jesus suffering downplayed. Jesus is not just one piece of of the puzzle to eternity with God. Jesus himself is our righteousness, he is our peace, he is our life, and only by his once for all time and once for all people giving of himself can a sinner be saved. Good works do not save, church does not save, believing right does not save. Eternal life is only in the one who is the resurrection and the life.
I beg you in Jesus name and for his glory, don't trust yourself. Repent and trust him to do what he has promised.
Royce, I'm down with what you wrote 100%. When it comes to my salvation, I bring nothing but my faith in Jesus to the table. And, that's enough.
@ Royce…If there were something that I could say stronger than Amen I would say it…Thank you…for stacking marbles. 🙂
@ Doug. I read a statement by Max Lucado once that stuck in my mind…He said, "The only thing I contribute to my salvation…is my sin." I've always felt like that summarized my dependance on Jesus…Even my faith I see as a gift from Him…
Amen Royce!!
That's a very good question.
For the longest time I held to the "satisfaction model" of the atonement: In this the reason for Christ's death on the cross was to pay the full price forthe sins of mankind. This means, since the penalty has been paid, we are free and may live eternally. Christ paid for our past, present and future sins – so nothing could possibly endanger our salvation. Why? Because sin is like debt that needs to be paid, and once the debt is paid, sin does not count anymore.
There is a lot of truth in this model, to be sure. But it is only half of the story. It does not explain, for instance, why it was necessary that Christ rose from the dead for our justification. You reflect the same focus on Christ's sacrificial death, but I think the resurrection is of even more importance.
That's why I sympathize more with the "classic model of the atonement", nowadays called "Christus Victor".
There it is not only aboutr opaying a debt (which is one true aspect of salvation), but also to pay a ransom to free us from captivity. Christ's sacrifice was also a heroic sacrifice, in as much as He gave himself into the hands of the enimy to buy us free from his slavery. So the blood of Christ was not only for atoning before the Father (which it was, too), but also for paying a ransom to the powers of darkness that held us in captivity.
And it is only through his resurrection, that he opened the prison for us and brought us from darkness to light, from the slavery of sin to make us slaves of righteousness. That's why His resurrection is so important. If Christ had only shared in our death, we would all be dead. Period. And the Powers of Hell would not release anyone of us. But here is the triumph:
He has the keys of death and Hades now. He can release us and the gates of Hades cannot overcome us, they must be opened for us in the name of Christ!
Being no longer under the power of sin and Satan, we have received a new life thriough the Spirit. We have died with Christ, but even more important: We have been raised with Christ! It is his resurrection, that changes us into newborn men and women.
So the effect is, that we are enabled to live righteious lives, and we are called to do so.
Christ's sacrifice therefore profits us nothing if we don't live under the government of righteousness. So faith and works are inseperable, Royce.
As long as we only focus of the first half of the story: Christ's death, we are unable to see that (and Reformation Theology is based on the satisfaction model only). We say: "The debt is paid, so there is nothing that could condemn us."
But with "Christus Victor" it becomes onbious, that the ultimate reason was not obnly to forgive our debts, but to set us free from sin and the master of sin, Satan, in order to ive inthe Kingdom of peace and righteousness of our Christ.
The satisfaction model does not urge us to live new lives, it intices us to enjoy the freedom from all laws and from penalty without pursuing holiness. Good works are merely a way to express thanfulness, but they are not viewed as important or essential to salvation.
In the "Christ Victor" model we are takn out of this world and put into His kingdom. This new King and citizenship requires obedience and loyalty. And Christ makes it clear, that He will not tolerate sinners in His kingdom, who mock His Gospel with their deeds.Jesus expects us to become a holy nation, fruitful in good deeds.
In the satisfaction model this text is soemhow set apart from the Gosepel or salvation, in that it does not affect our salvation when we do good works. But in the "Christus Victor" model this is the essence of the Gospel! That's what Christ died for and rose again!
And therefore the consequence for unholy, carnal, disobedient Chrsitians is absolutely consistent with the Gospel:
And that's why the equation faith=loyalty makes perfect sense.
Now what about the forgiveness? Has Christ forgiven all our sins (past, present and future)? Yes He has.
So how can we be lost again, when we sin after our conversion? This forgiveness is conditional:
What conditions are tied to the forgiveness?
Faith.
And you see, it makes a big difference how you understand faith in this discussion. When you say: "Yes, I believe that Christ died for my sins and that I am forgiven solely by His sacrifice" you won't understand the necessity of holiness and will always be in conflict with verses like Heb 12:14.
But if you understand faith as loyality to Christ our new Lord and King, then obedience, holiness, good works and fruit are inseperable from believing the message of the Gospel.
Let's close with trying to understand Eph 2:8-10:
In either model it is clear, that our salvation is based on Grace and God's work. But of which aspect opf our salvation is He writing here? He is speaking of how we came out of the "prison". That's interely His gift.
On our side we must resond in faith – we could also say, it is a gift that we may have faith, becauise the Gospel message offers us this response, and the Spirit of God opens our hearts. So even our conversion is a gift of God – without overruling our free will to respond to it. Somehow a mystery, but I think we all agree on that.
Now what is the faith expected from us? It is the confession: "Christ is Lord", we must bow our knees in His name, must submit the the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So even our initial faith is an expression of loyality. We accept the rule of Christ's righteousness in our lives. This is saving faith.
None of us could have escaped the "prison" by our own strength and merit. We were slaves of the dark powers and there was no way out. CHrist had to step in, to defeat the powers of darkness and to break open the gates of Hades.
This "not of works" also refers (and mainly refers) to the works of the Mosaic Law. Because even this mosaic Law could not save the people, but all righteous men from Abel to John the Baptist waited in Hades for Christ to come and preach the Gospel of His victory.
And here we see the result: Why are we set free from the "prison"? In order to live new lives.
But, please note: These veres don't speak of our final salvation, but only of the first step, being released from the "prison". Now, living in His Kingdom we must prove our loyalty to the King by living holy lives and staying separate from the world. That's what Christ rose for! We received His Spirit as the power from above in prder to be renewed and to be created into His image and be enabled to live the lives we are called to live.
So that's my understanding. The "satisfaction model", focussing on Christ's death and forgiveness, falls short of understanding this – and it has been developed in the miiddle Ages by Anselm of Canterbury. "Christus Victor" is the "classic model" believed by the Early Church. It is the ancient understanding of the Gospel.
I see some true and important aspects in both models, while I don't believe any of these models can stand on their own.
But your question, Royce, is definitey incomplete: It is not enough to ask "What did Christ die for?" We also have to ask, "What did he rise from the dead for?"
Alexander
Alexander,
Of course you are correct about the importance of the resurrection. It was for preaching the resurrection that the apostles were thrown into prison and hated so much.
And, I also agree that redemption is on metaphor used in the scriptures to describe what Christ accomplished by his doing and dying. Justification, redemption, reconciliation, adopted, reckoned, transferred, quickened, born, etc are all different ways to describe what God has done for the wicked in Christ Jesus.
I disagree with your outcome. Your "model" as you refer to it puts man in the drivers seat and finally leaves the sovereign will of God out of the picture. If your salvation depends on your loyalty, a loyalty that rises from your intentions and abilities, you will be lost because you could never be loyal enough to satisfy God. Jesus was "loyal" on your behalf.
You are also mistaken about motives for good works. It is God's lavish love and grace that leads those who have been saved to say NO to unrighteousness. Good works (loyalty) is God's design for every believer. We are "created in Christ Jesus FOR good works". It one reason we were redeemed, so that in our kingdom living and loving we will bring glory to God which is the ultimate end of our salvation.
Every good in you or in me is from God. A circumcision of the heart is what makes us different. God's law written on the heart so that naturally we want to please God. A reading of 1st John tells us if we are or are not in the faith. Do we walk in the light? Do we love our brothers? Do we take heed to the apostolic teaching (even Paul by the way)? Are we quick to see our sins as God does and forsake them? Are we ready to always admit that we do sin? (We call God a liar when we say otherwise).
Our God is the one and only self sustaining God who needs nothing. His essence is love and He "so loved the cosmos" that He for his own purposes and for the praise of his glory in eternity past determined to come in flesh and redeem a people for himself. From start to finish salvation is wholly of God and not man. Christ Jesus met all the demands of the law of God, suffered all its penalty for sin, and reaped all of the blessings of perfect obedience FOR US!
To think that God must wait until Alexander and Royce dies before He will know if they have been "loyal" enough is really foolish when you think about the God of the Bible who is the all knowing God. Does anyone think anything ever takes God by surprise? No, he knows us and yet chose by his own divine prerogative to love us and chose each of us who will be finally saved to be his own dear people.
One of the most common mistakes humans make is to assign human limitations to God. He is limitless in love, in justice, in righteousness, in knowledge, in wisdom, in grace, in compassion, in power…and I could go on and on. In the person of the man Christ Jesus, our man in heaven, all of these eternal attributes are clearly seen. I am in Christ, He is in me, and we are in God. We are ONE with God.
It is the base nature, the will of the flesh that clings desperately to works for at least part of salvation. It is not God who puts into a man's heart that he must earn God's favor. It is not God who puts fear of failure in a man's heart. It is the evil one. If a man is in Christ he is safe.
One last thought. We are "made righteous". We are declared righteous based not on our good works but on Christ's perfection. Just as Adam was our first representative even so Jesus is the 2nd Adam. Just as Adam represented Royce Ogle in his disobedience, Jesus Christ represented me in his perfect obedience. On that God looks at me and says I declare you "righteous". Now a week later, or later that day, or a month later is commit a sin. Am I then lost until I repent? No, I am still declared righteous and my righteousness depends on Jesus and not me.
Royce said " you will be lost because you could never be loyal enough to satisfy God. Jesus was “loyal” on your behalf "
Right Royce, but, we do have to satisfy Christ. He left instructions, and he said I am the way, I am the gate, you will never see God except through Jesus. We will never see God unless we accept Jesus, and the gospel he preached. Re-read the sermon on the mount. When we discard works as part of salvation, we discard the obedient life of Jesus. It seems to me that some respect the things Jesus did, but not the things he said. That is my opinion, because as said ,
only God can see the heart, but even I can see their actions. If belief/faith is the only determining factor, why did Paul jump on those he considered doing church wrong?
Alexander, I agree with a lot of what you wrote in your last post but as far as me being enabled to live a righteous life, I align myself with Paul in Romans 7:14-25. I want to live a righteous life and possibly do live a mostly righteous life but I am not always sucessful in that regard. I humbly submit that I am no worse or better than you or any other follower of Christ in that regard.
Anyone who thinks that they are sucessful in living a righteous life is just deceiving themselves because there is none righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10). My claim to righteousness is totally based on the righteousness of Jesus.
I also find that I connect with those who are outside of Christ much better when I own up to my unrighteousness. Coming to one like that with a smug attitude of righteousness is a definite turnoff for them. But, coming with an attitude that I am just like you except I have the righteousness of Jesus can win souls to Christ.
Doug,
why would anyone outside of Christ want the righteousness of Christ if having the righteousness of Christ has left you just like them?
You do know that reading Romans 7 as Paul's present-tense testimony completely destroys what he says in Romans 6?
either believers are slaves to sin or they are slaves to righteousness.
If Paul is a slave to righteousness (Rom 6:17) then he cannot still be a slave to sin (Rom 7:14).
If Paul possesses the Spirit of God (Rom 8:9), then he cannot be unspiritual (Rom 7:14).
If Romans 3:10 is as universal as you have stated, then it also means that Jesus falls under its condemnation. But since HE is the righteous judge, those whom He declares righteous are truly righteous.
The first three rules of scriptural interpretation are context, context, CONTEXT!
You do realize that unrighteous and unjustified are the same Greek word? If you're running around proclaiming that you're unrighteous, you're also proclaiming that you're unjustified.
You may stay in Romans 7:14-25 if you want to, but I think life is much better in Romans 8:1-14. Come on in… the water's fine!
"If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
Dear Royce
Let me pick out 4 statements and answer thenm briefly:
I never said that. I said faith (loyalty) is as well a gift from God as an answer we give to the Gospel. I speak of God's spirit working within us, empowering us – without taking from us our ability to chose and to disobey.
Yes, but does it really? It is us, who choose to obey the Spirits prmpting or to harden our hearts to his voice. We can even quench the Spirit, can't we?
Of course God knows where we will end up. To say anything contrary would be silly,. but WE don't know ahead of time, do we? So speaking confidently about eternal security is assuming that we klnow what only God can know. As long as we are in Christ, luive by faith and prdoduce good fruit, we might be sure to be on the right track. But there is no confidence for a branch that does not bear fruit. It will be taken off the vine and thrown into the fire.
Yes, but there are two stages of being made righteous:
Stage one: being taken out of the world and coming into a living relationship with God through CHrist (conversion)
Stage two: Making our faith complete by good works – which is called justification by works in James.
Salvation, Royce, is a process. It is not somenthing one has that he could not lose anymore. Scriptures and history are full of examples of people who lost what they have received.
Alexander
@ Nick: Great post!
Who is doing a good work in me? If it depended on me I would utterly fall, praise God it is He who is doing a good work in me! Who will complete that good work until the day of Jesus Christ? “Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.”(Philippians 1:6). If it depended on me I will utterly fall, praise God it is He who will complete it!
What gives Paul that confidence, Anon? Is it not what he says before?
If the branches have nothing to do with bearing the vine's fruit, it is hardly righteous to burn them.
Imagine, Anonymous, the following situarion. You have been seriously offended, treateded unjustly, hurt. God's command says: Forgive as you have been forgiven.
Consideruing your feelings, the tears you have shed, the righteous anger and the carnal call for revenge inside of you: How easy is it for you to forgive?
It is a struggle, isn't it? And you have to options: To forgive or to not forgive.
The Spirit of God is working in you in this situation; he is urging you to forgive by remembering you of the grace and liove of Christ. He even says: Do it, I'll help you!
But there is this other voice, too: "No way, it is not fair, this bastard has to pay for it!" That's your flesh.
Paul says:
That's your situation. What's your part in this fight?
YOU have to decide: Going by the flesh or being led by the Spirit.
If you decide for the first way you step off the path of life, and if you don't change direction this will lead to your damnation.
If you decide to go by the Spirit, you will overcome.
Now, who has done this good work in you? God made you want to and he helped you accomplish ist. So, all Glory to God! Amen?
Yes, but to say, you did not have to fight, would not be true either. The situation I described was meant to show, that we sometimes have to fight with all our might and realy painfully put our flesh to the cross again and again! It is not always easy. And we are challenged in our body, soul and spirit!
So there are two sides to the matter, and both sides are equally true: We have to fight with all our miht, and yet it is God who gives us the victory.
Alexander
“But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like launderers’ soap. He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; He will purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer to the LORD an offering in righteousness.” (Malachi 3:2-3)
Really, Anon? The burning in John 15:6 sounds like a refining fire? In the vine metaphor in John 15, the refining occurs in John 15:2.
All this talk about justification has made me hungry to post an NT Wright video… so listen to this lecture from back in April, where he places justification in its proper context. Thanks to Bobby Valentine for finding and sharing this gem.
Nick, I really can't figure out if we are in violent agreement or if you and Alexander are really saying that you all are living a totally 100% holy and righteous life while still in the flesh. I'm just sayng that my life isn't totally 100% righteous sometimes and my recognition and admittance of that fact is beneficial in converting the unsaved. The difference is I have the righeousness of Jesus going for me and they don't. I get to tell them what a difference that makes.
Maybe you guys are the ones who are putting up the signs along the road that read "Do you believe that you can live without sinning? We do!". Well, I don't!
I believe, Doug, that we are operating with different definitions. Then, when we read something written by the other, we hear it according to our own definitions and the intended meaning gets lost.
I'm hearing you use the word justified in the "just-as-if-I'd-never-sinned" sense, and while that idea catches some of the meaning, I do not believe it does justice to the whole meaning, The relationship between God and Abraham, described in Gen 15 and Rom 4, cannot be limited to a sin transaction.
Also, I am convinced that the doctrine of imputed righteousness is at the heart of our disagreement. You're for it, and I'm against it. When God reckoned Abraham righteous, he gave him an unearned righteousness of his own. The righteousness of the judge and the righteousness of the defendant are two very different concepts – and the judge cannot give his to someone else.
Alexander,
I suppose we will just have to disagree. You don't thing you can know that you will finally be saved and I do.
You think a person is justified by what he does I don't.
You think it (justification) is a process, I don't.
I think the final salvation of sinners depends wholly upon God you don't.
Thankfully, I believe we both want the same outcome. We want to live holy lives of obedience. We want to love each other. And, we want others to know Christ.
Some wise person once said its good to love theology but it will never love you back, only God can so get to know him. I trust we honor Christ with our words and our deeds until he comes.
Royce
Nick, I'll tell you what…in regard to jusitfication and righteousness, I'll let you be for what you are for if you'll let me be for what I am for. I realize this might be a big thing for you but it's just one of those things that I'm content to wait on for the real truth to be revealed. I have my own ideas about judgement and they likely aren't identical with yours. Maybe we just have to wait for some things to see if either of us is right and then I suspect it won't make any difference by then anyway.
I'm more likely to see judgement from the Prodigal Son's (or Loving Father's) point of view. I know that within my ability, there's nothing I wouldn't do for my children and I know that I am the brother of Jesus, the adopted son of God. He'll take care of me and you too. I could choose to see Him as the Judge but I choose to see Him as Abba.
Doug
Royce,
There's another way to tell that story.
You think faith is something God does to you, not something you do towards God.
You think repentance is something God does to you, not something you do towards God.
You think faith (contrary to all historical and literary evidence) that faith is something a patron gives a client. The gifts of grace are what a patron gives their clients; faith is what the client gives their patron.
Yet the father in Luke 15 did not drag his younger son back from the far country, and he did not drag his older son back from the fields.
And you would not lock your child in a cell in the basement so that you could call them loyal.
Finally, fathers don't justify. Judges do. Our Abba is the judge of all creation. Ignoring it because it makes you nervous is hardly helpful to aligning our minds with reality.
@ Nick… A quick review of the names for God quickly points out that He is not only our Judge..He is our Healer, our Comforter, Our Provider…..Seeing Him only as a Judge I think is what causes people to focus on Judgement. That's Fear… the one thing that the Prodigal Son's Father didn't do…was condemn or judge or punish..He just welcomed him back home and loved on Him… The son incorrectly assumed that the Father would punish him even if he allowed him back…The Father chose love and that was the illustration Jesus used to describe Him…The son didn't deserve what he got…That was Grace.
No, our Abba doesn't forceably drag us to where He wants us to be or lock us up so we won't stray from where He wants us. But, He's always there looking for us and always ready to welcome us home to Him. He doesn't go anywhere, He's always home while we're the ones who wander away. If I'm going to be judged, I want a Judge like Abba or Jesus because they aren't going to throw the book at me over a technicality. If I am judged unworthy it will be because I have not believed that my faith in Jesus is sufficent to save me. And I simply cannot imagine that ever being the case.
Doug.. over and out!
Amen!
I understand what you're saying. I would phrase it like this: if I am found unworthy, it will not be because I stopped trusting Him. He is the Sovereign One, and I trust Him implicitly.
I believe history proves that the failure to understand the Bible doctrine of justification results in people who are exclusionary and believe that they alone are right with God.
Traditional churches of Christ and Roman Catholics are alike in that both believe justification is yet to be determined and that it is not by faith alone.
Both believe they are the only ones saved, both practice closed communion, and both believe baptism is efficacious,
It is interesting that modified views of justification only started to be recorded about 1500 a.d. The early church notables held the view that justification was by faith alone and that it was the declaration of God that a sinner is acquitted of his sins on the basis of his faith in Jesus.
In my admittedly limited understanding, it is my view that a church that does not believe that God justifies the ungodly by faith has little to offer to a dark and sinful world.
The gospel is not good news if by it God doesn't set the captive sinner free and take away his sin and guilt. Less is not much of an offer. Yet, many churches tell people do this and do this, modify your behavior and do this and this and you will probably make it in the end, but we are not sure.
God offers hope and healing and I contribute hopelessness and helplessness. God offers righteousness and I contribute a miserable sinner. God offers life everlasting and I wait to die and to die the 2nd death. God offers a new heaven and a new earth and I wait to perish in my sinful state.
The good news cries to the spiritually dead "LIVE!". It cries to the one estranged, come be a part of God's family as an adopted child. It cries to the poor of this world come inherit the riches of God. It says to the prisoner of sin, You have been set free! It says to the most unrighteous, wicked, ungodly sinner, trust Christ and be acquitted of your crimes and stand before God righteous.
Anything less is religion and hell will be heavily populated with religious people.
Royce
Creation is pleading for judgment, Price. Judgment is how our Abba will deal with the sin that is destroying His good creation. I don't "see Him only as a Judge," but part of the reason I love Him is because I trust Him to judge with righteous judgment. That's why the most common command in the Bible is, "Don't be afraid."
And in my likewise limited understanding, it is my view that a church that believes that the gospel of God is merely a gospel of sin management has nothing to offer the world at all.
See Nick, when you write things like "Sin Management", it makes me scratch my head. What does Nick mean by that?
If you mean a religious system whereby a person tries to manage their sin by doing certain things and taking certain actions, I might agree with you. Is that what you meant?
@Royce N°1
What follows is a debate between Reformed Theology and the Bible:
(Note: This “second justification” of Abraham occurred many decades later in his life – Gen 22 – and is called a fulfilment of his “initial justification” in Gen 15)
In spite of the disagreement, I agree with you on this, Royce:
But I fear for those who lean back on the “Cushion of Grace” and believe beliving the right theology is enough. What does Christ seek in those who shall inheriot the kingdom? Correct theology or fruit of love? By what are we going to be judged: By words or by works?
That’s why I call the Reformed Theology (in all its different shades) a dangerous thing to teach.
Alexander
@Roye N° 2: Strong post – Strong answer
In fact, that’s what our Lord himself exemplifies: Who are his true relatives? Those who hear and do the words of the Father. Outside of the house were not only his mother and brothers, but also a multitude of wellmeaning Jews and zealous Pharisees.
And Paul said: Not all who are Jes are really Jews. You could also say: Not all Christians are really Christians, which is to the point.
On the other hand: Look at Protestantism with its “correct theology on Justification” and at their worldly lifestyle, their divorce rate, their ugly political involvement, their materialism … I miss the good fruit in general, Royce. Of course that’s a bit unfair. But if you brush my understanding of justification in such bright and ugly strokes, I may point out the outcome if I apply such an argument the opposite way.
So I take back the last paragraph, because I don’t want to judge others here. But Christ will be the judge on all these obvious wrongs.
You can add the Eastern Orthodox churches, and – actually – ALL churches prior to the Reformation. It is this overreaction to a mechanical/sacramental work system WITHOUT personal faith that led to this distortion of the Gospel expressed in “by faith ALONE”. One extreme led to another extreme, but I don’t want to follow such extreme positions, but the word of God without having to press it into my theology.
Concerning communion: Shall we give that which is holy to the swine and dogs? That’s the verse quoted for closed communion in the Didache (written in the 1st century AD)! No, unless one has been baptized, he may not partake of the communion, because he is still outside the covenant which is represented by the cup. This is so obvious and consistent, Royce, that I can only shake my head in disbelief when intelligent persons want to dispute this …
And concerning baptism: Before Zwingli ALL Christians taught that baptism is efficacious. Again, the symbolic understanding of baptism is an overreaction to a mechanical/sacramental understanding of baptism (infant baptism) WITHOUT personal faith. Then came “FAITH ONLY which ruled out any other physical action such as baptism and good works as being efficacious. One extreme led to another extreme; and I don’t want to follow extreme positions, but the Word of God.
It is precisely the other way round, Royce! The reformers would have been numbered among the Gnostic Heretics by the Early Church (or at least among the Nicolaitans)! I don’t know which writing from the Early Church you have in mind that would teach faith ONLY salvation. I know of none, and I have read most of the leading authors from the Early Church. They ALL disagree with you strongly.
@ Alexander….the Second Justification ?? Can you explain why Abraham, a man of Faith and called a friend of God, would have to be RE-Justified ?? That's like RE-saved… For me that's not a correct understanding of the justification spoken about in James.
The Cushion of Grace ?? I like the cushion of Grace… I like the fact we are under an entire covenant of Grace. Romans 6 declares we are dead to sin… not sure how much more removed you can get than that.. We are "made free from sin because we believed from the heart" v.16-17. The Wages (what is earned) of sin is death, but the Gift (unearned) of God is ETERNAL life through Christ Jesus… If I am saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus… The Cushion of Grace? It's much more than that…
I think that some of you are confusing Justification with Obedience (Santification). I don't think you can be or need be RE-Justified on a continious basis…Can one be disobedient…Now you're talking…Sure..None of us is sinless..We all make mistakes…We are at times all disobedient… However, the Good News is that dispite my sin, my disobedience, my failure to live perfectly and unselfishly, etc., etc…is Covered by my Faith…Do we sin on purpose just to Test Drive Grace…Paul addressed that as well but he never discounted Grace as "cushiony"….It totally protects us…Can we decide to walk away from God and discard our faith,,,surely…But, that's not what we're talking about here I don't think…I was thinking we were speaking of each other and those that call upon the name of Jesus…If that is right, then we are SAVED by Grace…nothing in that is temporary or insufficient to the believer in spite of his inability to follow the rules. Think about it…failure to follow A rule makes one guilty of them all…so partial holiness isn't worth anything….Grace, Grace, Marvelous Grace is what matters… Period…and it can't be earned…only received or rejected "from the heart" which is by Faith… Any theology that wants to add to that I reject out right.
If you want to talk about the BENEFIT of Obedience then that's a discussion on Sanctification…the NECESSITY of Obedience is an impossibility therefore irrelevant.
Nick,
I am not sure why those who believe in a works salvation always (a strong word) assume that people who believe in justification by faith don't put any value on works. It might shock you to know that I agree with James and John in 1st John 100%! Both were writing to people who "said" they were Christians but their lives said the opposite.
You can be sure that if a man does not live right he is not right with God and Never has been right with God. Of course you know that I can cut and paste scripture passages all day to prove my position and you would still think I'm in error.
There is no such thing as gradual or progressive justification in the Bible or in court room or in history. Every dictionary verifies this fact. In the Bible it is simply that God declares the offender acquitted of all charges. That only happens once.
The question that you can 't answer is this one. How much sin will God tolerate before he kicks you out of his standing in grace? The answer is you don't know and that is why you can never have assurance of your salvation. That is unless you have a high view of yourself where you think you are sinless.
I have been a Christian decades longer than you have. And, I believed some of the error you hold for a long time. Finally I came to the place where I decided to let the Bible dictate my beliefs, not what someone said about it. I read only the Bible with an open mind and heart and started to notice passages that I was taught to only ignore. I started to believe what Jesus said and to take him literally. I started to grapple with those statements in John 17 that I skimmed over for many decades. I started to understand God's grand scheme of redemption. I started to see his glory and get a glimpse of his purposes. I started to notice tenses of verbs and delve as best I could into original languages. And perhaps most important to take the Bible in its context, something that is largely ignored by most people.
The truth set me free and at age 65 I love God more than at any time in my 50 year walk with him, I enjoy his love and grace, I desire holiness, know his promises, and have regular answers to prayer.
Just before he would be betrayed into the hands of the religious leaders Jesus prayed the beautiful words of John 17. Knowing his time was near I was on his mind. I believe with every fiber of my being that Jesus always got his prayers answered and because of him I am one with him and the Father and will be for eternity.
Nick, my wife's father was a church of Christ preacher for many decades. He died defeated, addicted to prescription drugs, with no assurance. He was a good man and loved the Lord. Her mother has been in the church of Christ all her life and at about age 85 she had absolutely no assurance she would be saved, she had only fear. Her husband, my wife's stepfather, at age 92 also had no assurance. This fine man, one of the best I ever met, former elder and deacon, didn't know if he had been "good" enough. He died the following year and we buried him on my birthday and I'm sure his will be with the Lord when I get there. My deceased wife had the same story. She never was sure she had done enough or been good enough.
Nick, these fine people can be multiplied ten thousand times over in coc churches. They were taught the same thing you are teaching and had little hope. Sorry, that is not for me. You can depend on your goodness if you want but I will trust the Lord alone.
Royce
Royce, that is a very moving post. It fits so many of us!
We who were brought up in that belief church have many problems in our faith because if it. never know where you stand at any time. Uncertainty abounds.
I still believe, most in the CofC do not actually believe that when you talk to them one on one. In the conservative churches, its taught, but most in attendance disagree. How many I've heard say when so and so, mother, father, grand mother, grandfather, die, I'm leaving.
Just observe when a progressive church of Christ opens nearby how many start attending it.
They still want the CofC name.
Things are getting better and moving your way.
Be encouraged!
Royce, what a wonderful post! I'm a couple of years older than you and like you, the last 14 years of my life in Christ have been the best. That's when I started seeing people and loving people similar to how Jesus sees and loves them. All this posting is okay, I guess, but if we really want to win souls for Christ we need to stop arguing and start loving.
It is heart breaking to hear stories of precious saints going to their death uncertain of their future. It is just so sad.
Bless you Brother,
Doug
Royce said "There is no such thing as gradual or progressive justification in the Bible or in court room or in history. Every dictionary verifies this fact. In the Bible it is simply that God declares the offender acquitted of all charges. That only happens once."
Royce, a small correction in order, it only happened once, we draw from that well continually.
Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Royce does this sound like a one time pardon to you ?
Jhn 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Jhn 16:26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
I believe when it is all said and done, we have a direct line to God the Father just as Jesus does, Why?
Jhn 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
No it does not say we are forgiven of all sins past present and future, in one appearance before the judge, that is the reason I ask in Jesus' name more than once a day. I believe it is said any and all sins are forgiven, (except one ) if you repent before God. Not that there is a continual forgiveness that surrounds us to keep us saved, without any effort on our part.
Well Laymond, I hope you die with perfect timing and the full knowledge of any sin that you may have comitted and asked forgiveness for. Otherwise, according to your theology..you ain't gonna make it…if unforgiven sin will be held against you… is that really what you believe ??
Royce said, "They were taught the same thing you are teaching and had little hope. Sorry, that is not for me."
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for that we see not, [then] do we with patience wait for [it].
Christian hope = ) joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation
(I expect to be, but not yet.)
Royce you are the one without hope, you have no need for it, unlike others who wait with patience in hope, you already know, so what good would hope do you, you are not hoping for two helpings of salvation are you ?
Laymond, your hope is in yourself.
You discredit Paul, scoff at the deity of Jesus, and trust your own works to get to heaven. Some theology! You boast that you are a "red letter" Christian who only follows Christ. Unfortunately the biblical Christ is different than the one you portray.
Christ's coming again is my "blessed hope" and a blessed certainty. It is "Christ in you the hope of glory" that is my hope and joy.
Of all people who should lecture another about God and the Bible I doubt that it should be one who doesn't believe the Bible or the Christ who is it's central theme.
Royce
Price said "Well Laymond, I hope you die " .
See how reading someones comment out of context could give the wrong impression.
I simply said when I sin out of anger or frustration, I ask forgiveness. BTW just what kinds of sins do you commit that you don't recall. I try to confess as soon as I realize I have sinned. It may be just a "forgive me Lord, I know I did wrong"
If you pray do you never ask for forgiveness, since yours is for all sins forever.?
Royce, and you do have the authority to lecture Nick.
might be a little arrogance showing through.
Job 32:9 Great men are not [always] wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.
Elihu seemed to question, that you are old makes you wise.
@ Price: This is really important and goes to the heart of the matter
“Second Justification” was put under quotation marks, because it is a different situation in Abraham’s life where he is being described as justified. The first event is in Gen 15, where he stepped back from his “Plan B” (appointing Elieser as heir) and beginning to “work” again with Sara out of faith to God’s Promise. It is this faith (which is inseperably tied to “works”: Sleeping with Sara until she gets pregnant) which was counted to him as righteousness.
Being counted to a person means: God views Abraham as righteous although he has not done a deed that would deserve it. This I call “initial justification”, because it stands at the beginning of a process.
Abraham’s “second justification” took place when we brought his son to the altar at Morijah. James commented on this:
Please note: This is not Genesis 15, but Genesis 22! Decades after God counted his faith as righteousness! That’s why I call it a “second justification” – not a justification by faith, but by works. The latter being the fulfilment of the first:
Do you get the idea? In other words: The “initial justification” is not enough; it is incomplete until it is being fulfilled (continually I’d add) by works.
It is also possible and happens much too often to leave “the way of righteousness” and thus to loose salvation. Peter used quite clear words:
The phrase “the way of righteousness” is important for this discussion, because “way” speaks of a process, a step by step growth into righteousness, it speaks of following Christ’s footsteps on a daily basis. The Greek word is ??????????? and it ist he very same word as “the righteousness of God (Rom 3:21) or the faith that is “counted as righteousness” (Rom 4:3) . So we see that righteousness – even though it is initially “imputed” – is in fact a process, a way of righteousness (or a way of justification = it is the same word, brothers!).
To be justified means to be counted as righteous (initial justification), but even more to be made righteous, to be transformed into just, upright and holy men. The initial justification at the time of our conversion is just the eliminiation of our sins and shortcomings – but then we enter the way of righteousness. And on this way we prove our loyality / faith to God through works of faith/love/obedience.
So intead of using “justification” as a theological term, we should see it as a down-to-earth concept: God takes a sinner and makes him a saint. But not that he simply “views” a sinner as a saint “in Christ”, but that the sinner is truly changed in is mind, heart and action into a real saint, that will be recognized by the world as well (and not only by theologians).
A just, a righteous person, is described as a man who obeys God such as Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth were righteous:
A merely “imputed” righteousness is completely alien to the Scriptures! If someone says: I am justified by faith, but does not strive to obey God in everything, then he is a liar or a misled Prostant! True and complete righteousness is righteousness/justification by works and not by faith only!
In fact, Price, this inspired testimony of Zacharias and Elisabeth describes righteousness/justification (???????? = righteous, just) as being obedient and walking ion God’s ways. Again: It is a WAY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.
To your understanding of the "impossibility" of obedience ("the NECESSITY of Obedience is an impossibility therefore irrelevant.") these two pre-Christian (!!) saints must be very disturbing. Again: This testimony is from the Holy Spirit. So it cannot be entirely impossible to live an obedient life. Since even under the Law God provided forgiveness, I don't even think that God expects "Perfect" obedience from us. He expects obedience, and it is absolutely allright for the King of Kings to demand obedience. So to say: "Hey, King, you know it is impossible to obey!" is mockery.
And that, Price (and Royce) is the reason, why justification (and salvation) are a process, not a one time event. And that’s the point where Reformation Theology is deeply in error. This theology has a deeply wrong understanding of Justification.
Alexander
We believe Jesus died once for all our sins.
When we sin, we ask for forgiveness of any sin we know is a sin which shows we recognize we sinned. (folks sure differ on which are and which actions and thoughts aren't committed and heard especially among those in the church of Christ). If you sinned and didn't know it was a sin, you are still forgiven. Like a mentally handicapped person that we all DO agree will not be held accountable. WHY! Same answer for you if you don't know any better.
If we sin and somehow don't have time to ask for forgiveness, I don't believe God will say "Gotcha, go to hell" but will have Jesus's blood wash that sin away.
In my opinion, none of us will appear before God at judgment day totally clean. Who claims to totally understand all and lives perfect?
Too many will appear and get the judgment of the Pharisees and that was not for sins they committed by doing or not doing something physically as they went overboard each way, but for not believing the simple message.
I don’t assume that concerning you or Price; but it is a general tendency on Protestantism to downplay the importance of obedience. In the course of discussions even you write sentences that are in direct contradiction to the scriptures (as I pointed out above) – I don’t write “against” you, Royce, but I address a Theology. And since Price and you seem to believe and to defend this Theology, I address you – but not as persons.
But since these discussions always lead to extreme statements – such as:
… any reader might understand that Royce says: “We can live lukewarm lives and still be saved.” And so you create this impression that “people who believe in justification by faith don’t put any value on works” yourself, Royce.
But I say, even though you emphasize works, you do it in a wrong way, because in your theology works have nothing to do with salvation.
And that’s one of the key problems: In the Bible Justification and Righteousness are the same word and it is not limited to a legal term. You define Justification from the perspective of Law, but that’s simply not enough. This may apply to “initial justification”, when a sinner is pardoned and accepted as child of God.
But this is onbly half the story, Royce! Justification is not the same as Forgiveness of Sins! It includes forgiveness, to be sure, but it includes transformation into righteous persons as well. Justification includes the New Birth, the Empowerment of the Holy Spirit, growth in holiness and obedience …
There is training in righteousness! It is a process of transformation, Royce! And that’s where any court-room-analogy fails! We have two important words in this phrase: ???????? – tutorage, that is, education or training; by implication disciplinary correction: – chastening, chastisement, instruction, nurture. And ??????????? – equity (of character or act); specifically (Christian) justification: – righteousness.
The Protestant understanding of Justification stops with the Forgiveness of Sins. That’s why the court-room-analogy is used very often to describe the Gospel. But this leaves the sinner with a blank slate … there is nothing really righteous to see. Just the filth and dirt has been washed away.
Biblical Justification includes the transformation: And this is part of the salvation process! It is a training in righteousness. Justification encompasses three aspects: Past, present and future.
We have been justified (“initial justification”)
And we are continually trained in righteousness (“present justification”)
And we will be judged according to our works (“final justification”)
The Protestant understanding of Justification focuses on the “initial justification” and separates the present and future aspects of justification from justification; and thus also from their understanding of the Gospel.
Present Justification turns to “desirable works out of gratitude and love”.
Future Justification turns to “a judgement turning only on rewards extra to salvation”.
The result is “Mainline-Protestantism” as we know it …
I stated it more than once, but Protestant Theology cannot get it, because it thinks in two extremes: Salvation by faith versus salvation by works. This is completely off base, Royce!
Once again: Faith or Loyalty is not the same as being perfect. A loyal employee will in general fulfil his tasks in a praiseworthy manner. He will have bad days, he will even have an argument with his boss once in a while; but his employer won’t kick him out because of one or two mistakes. Loyalty is not perfectionism, it is an attitude.
It is the same as asking: “How many whiskers make a beard?” You cannot say this or that number. You are shaved, I have a beard. Brad Stanford has even more beard than I have. In general it is pretty clear to make a difference between men with and without a beard.
The same is true for obedience or loyalty: It is not the number of works (or the last permissible sin), but an attitude of loyalty or obedience. As others say: An obedient love-faith relationship with Christ. Since you are married, you’ll hopefully understand this one:
Your wife married you out of completely and undeserved grace and love. And now you are married to her. What did your “YES” mean and involve? It was a confession of love and loyalty. So what is necessary now to maintain your marriage and to keep it alive? You have to be faithful to her, loving, nourishing. If you don’t do this, your relationship will suffer, and dependent on how gravely you sin against her, she might even divorce you.
God divorced Israel, his wife! But he did not do it immediately, did he? He was and He is long-suffering and patient. This is our salvation (2Pe 3:15) – but the context in which this is said, we find an urgent and serious call for holiness:
Does this make me uncertain? Not really. I just say, I am not there yet. I cannot predict my future. I have the ability and my flesh has the will to depart from God. And since I have seen people fall away, I cannot say self-confidently: This cannot happen to me. And I cannot say God-fidently: He will see me through! Because my God was their God, too, and still they fell away.
All I can say, is what Peter wrote in these verses: Be diligent!
Alexander
P.S.: That there were and are many CoCers who follow another extreme theology, is a sad story. But the cure for them is not Protestant Theology, but a complete and fuller understanding of justification.
Laymond…stopping in mid sentence isn't taking my statement out of context, it's misrepresenting it…big difference…
The acknowledgement of my mistakes is for my growth as a Christian. If I thought I was lost everytime I made a mistake I'd have a different view of God…I no more think I"m lost because I make a mistake than my own son is not my son if he makes a mistake..Horrible way to think of God… And, you didn't answer the question…if you die before you ask forgiveness, are you lost ?? Man, if you believe that I don't know how you sleep at night…
Jesus died 2000 years or so ago for my sins. So, yes he died for my sins in the future. His Grace covers me no matter what. My faith I am an heir and co-heir with Christ…Nothing can separate me from his love or snatch me out of His hand…I alone can choose to deny Him and turn away but as long as my trust is in Him, I'm saved as saved can be.. Praise God…
Alexander, At least part of what you are describing as "justification" is in reality "sanctification". And, like justification it is God's work to form us into the likeness of Christ.
Royce
I am not a Calvinist, or Reformed, but to be fair, just because the critics of Reformed theology say that it's adherents are soft of works does not make it true.
Two myths about Calvinists are: 1. They are not evangilistic 2. They believe you can live like hell and still go to heaven.
Modern era missionary pioneers like David Brainard, William Carey, Hudson Taylor, Adoniram Judson and others were all Calvinists.
One of the best known Calvinists alive today is John Piper. On his site (DesiringGod.org) in 181 sermons he talked about holiness 1,803 times.
And this is a pattern of other well known Calvinists like McArthur, Mohler, Chan, and Sproul. I know of no "free will" preacher who hardly ever mentions holiness, without which no one will see God.
It is easy for me and for you to paint with a broad brush, speak in generalities, and be incorrect. BTW I disagree with all of the above guys on a number of issues just as I do the most prominent Restoration Movement preachers.
Perhaps I'm too odd to fit well in any group but I'm at peace. At best in a few years I will stand before the judge and give an account. I am ready.
Royce
So maybe, Royce, there is no real distinction between justification and sanctification; between being righteous, just, blameless, holy, … (I don't think there is)
All God's Work: Show me me how God loves your wife instead of you! Don't always "theologiize" our part out of every action we physically and mentally do. We are not puppets on strings, we do have a will, and we can say no to God's will any time – and we can say yes. It is our decision, therefore we do have a part in it.
Example: A Gardener cannot "create" tomatoes, but he can weed the garden. The first is God's part the second our part in gardening. It is the same with salvation.
Alexander
The gardener I know did create tomatoes!
Price asked "if you die before you ask forgiveness, are you lost ?"
Price, that misrepresents what I said, as much as I did about what you said.
No I don't go to bed every night thinking if I have a bad dream about something, I,m going to hell. But I do say a prayer before I retire for the day.
God judges the heart, I just happen to believe, he takes into account your actions when he does.
Justification was the work of Jesus and He has accomplished His work. It is done. It is perfect. It is complete.
Sanctification is the on going work of the Holy Spirit as He dwells in us. God, the Holy Spirit, hasn't finished that work in me and He works with me to create a person more and more in the likeness of God. That process will be completed when I am presented faultless before God.
That's what I think anyway.
Doug
Laymond….so God judges the heart but takes into account your actions…so…you might have sinned but since you didn't mean to it doesn't count…but just it case it does you pray before you fall asleep so that if you die in your sleep you're covered….???
Come on man, that's not Grace…If God judges your heart then with your heart you've already trusted God by faith to accept His Grace..You're saved by Faith which is the sincere expression of what you believe, not what you do…If as you say, He takes into account your heart relative to works don't you think He continues to take into account your faith ?? Dude…you are saved…quit worrying about going to hell and celebrate the fact that you ARE going to Heaven…People who see your joy just might want to know how it came about. All you can to somebody right now is that if you give up your worldly desires and place your faith in Jesus….you MIGHT go to heaven…
Alexander….since the Bible discusses both Santification and Justification…how do you see the differences in the two concepts ?? Some of what we are discussing might be cleared up if we could agree on the definitions of those two words and what impact they had on our salvation or walk with the Lord…See I'm convinced that Justification is by Faith, and that Obedience is an important part of our Santification…Just curious to see if we understand those two concepts similarly.
Man is to keep two greatest commandments and all the others hang on them, Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
God’s requirement of perfection is, Matthew 5:48 “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” We are commanded to be perfect and the measure of that perfection is God Himself.
Not only do we sin by breaking God's commands (sins of commission), we also sin when we don't do the things God commands us to do (sins of omission), James 4:17 “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
We sin unintentionally and it is still sin, Numbers 15:29 “You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.”
When we do something good so we can make ourselves look good, we sin. When we do something because refusing it would make us look bad, it is turned into sin. We may be able to fool others, sometimes ourselves, but God knows it.
Anything we think makes us significant other than the Lord Jesus Christ is an idol. A career can be an idol, a home, a person, a car, money, even ourselves can be an idol. Anytime we say I worked hard to get my money, or I worked hard to get this house, or I worked hard to get this car we take the glory away from God.
We sin not only when we murder, but when are unjustly angry. Even if this anger takes no action. If we feel a flash of anger it is still a sin against God. Resenting someone, even only for a moment, because they took the parking spot you were going to pull in, is a sin, When we yell angrily at someone at home after it’s been a hard day at work, we sin. Sinful action doesn’t have to occur, we have still sinned against God.
Do you always love your neighbor as you should, do you always keep what you say to someone, do you always help someone you see needing help, do you ever see someone with something and want it too and covet, do you ever eat in excess which is gluttony, do you ever hear another person gossip about someone and have even a little interest, are you ever lazy, have you not given a deserved compliment to someone out of pride.
The greatest command is to love God, completely, continuously, with every part of our heart, soul, and mind. When we fall short of this, we sin. When we are distracted by this world and what is in it, we sin. When we take God for granted, we sin.
How many times do we break the commandment “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”? Anytime we are not content with what He has given us. Anytime we are angry about what life has dealt us. Anytime we fail to give God the glory. Anytime we want control over our lives instead of searching out what God has for us. Anytime we rely on man’s understanding instead of on God. Anytime we sin we rebel against God and break His command.
When we cut a person off in traffic, rather than letting him in, we sin. When we fail to offer help to a neighbor, we sin. When we shun people not wanting to be bothered by them, we sin. When we consider the command to “love our neighbor as ourselves” we must consider our sins of omission. The command is not “When you interact with your neighbor treat him with love”. This command is broken many times by omission for every time by commission.
Other commands are “do not steal”, “do not bear false witness”, and “honor your parents”. When we get creative with our tax report, or bring the office’s supplies home to use, shave a little time off the clock by leaving early or taking long breaks, or don’t tell the clerk about an error, we commit the sin of stealing. We can steal not just money and valuables, but also time, privileges, and honor.
We sin when by our silence when we fail to stick up for someone. When we pay a person false complements, exaggerate qualifications, or hide faults, resulting in a false representation of a person, we bear false witness and sin.
“Honor your father and mother” is more than just a command for children to obey their parents until they become adults. When we fail to respect our parents, we sin. When not listening to our parents, we sin. When we hold resentments, we sin, if they have hurt us through their sin and we fail to forgive our parents, we sin. When we place ourselves above our parents, we sin.
Jesus is our perfect standing before God, 2 Corinthians 5:21 “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ did not deserve death, we do! It is only the righteousness of Christ that can satisfy the perfect demand of God’s law, Romans 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” I am a sinner saved by God’s grace, Praise God!!
Price, I don't worry about things I have no control over.
I have seen a lot of people who were scared the entire time we were on an airplane, I have no control over whether that airplane goes down or not, but if the pilot says we are going down, I will listen carefully to his instructions, and do the best I can to follow them.
And BTW Im sure I would be saying a prayer also.
Does what you do keep the plane in the air,or is that what the pilot does? I know I feel completely safe with God as my pilot!
@Price
If you say justification is a work of God, then the same is true of sanctification. And I agree that it is so. But it is not God's work in the way that we have nothing to do with it.
Take this one for instance:
Here sanctification and and justification and the washing (baptism) are part of one saving act, done by God in us. So here it is hard to make a clear distinction between justification and sanctification; actually they greatly overlap.
You can translate it like this also: You have meen made righteous and you have been made holy. Being righteous is not just a "legal state", but it is a life style (as with Zacharias and Elisabeth) of obedience and charity. And Holiness is also a lifestyle of obedience.
There are distinctions between the two, but the overlap is actually bigger than the difference. While being holy focusses more on being set apart for God and being separated from the world, and maybe also envisions more of the priestly aspects, being righteous focusses more on our down to earth life – how we deal with our riches, about showing mercy, about keeping God's Word in all aspects of life.
But as you see, you cannot draw a clear line between the two.
And while both justification and sanctification share the aspect that they are a work of God, both also are things we we have to develop in our lives: We have to grow in righteousness and holiness. So we read of a "way of righteousness" or a "training in righteousness" – which is the same word as justification! – and we have to strive for holiness.
So the work of God at our conversion, when we are born again, makes us holy and just. But it is like being put from the djungle into a school by an act of benevolence. Someone else paid for it – it is all undeserved grace! But being put into a school does not make you a graduate at once. In fact it is just the beginning of a long journey … It is not about being a pupil, but about becoming a graduate, fit for life.
Being justified does not make you just/righteous at once. Being sanctified does not make you a saint immediately. And please don't confuse this: Being put into a school makes you a student. Being justified makes you a trainee in righteousness; being sactified makes you a trainee in sanctification. After all: That's the meaning of being a disciple!
But that's just the beginning of a process, of a transformation … of salvation in its fullness!
And you can be thrown out of school again. We can ignore the duty to do our homeworks; we can be lazy and distracted; we can go to the movies instead of going to school (miss the assemblies, so to say), … we can fail at the tests. And as it is in real life: No one will be kicked out of school because of a few minor issues; but when some stern warnings bring no result, pupils will be removed from the school.
It is the same in the Kingdom of God: If we turn out to be constantly disloyal to the King, if our heart turns again to the earthly things … after all: Friendship with the world is enmity with God, spiritual adultery (Jas 4:4) and a just cause for divorce! Yes, then our initial justification and sanctification profits us nothing! That does not mean, it was no real faith, no real conversion, no real justification to begin with. I don't doeubt the reality of God's Grace at our conversion … but – as I said – the "initial justification" is just the first step of making us truly righteous.
And no one, who is unrighteous, may enter God's Kingdom. No one shall deceive us:
If justified and sanctified Christians don't continue in sanctification on the way of righteousness, they will not enter the Kingdom of God and His Christ in the end. Whoever teaches anything else, is a deceiver.
So what is the difference between sanctification and justification?
Both are a work of God at our conversion ("Initial justification") – no difference here.
And both are to be acquired through training and obedience as a disciple – no difference here, either.
Being made righteous (justification) means becoming a righteous person in daily life.
Being made holy (sanctification) means striving for holiness in daily life.
Do you see, howe these two go hand in hand? You cannot be justified as a Christian without being sanctified and vice versa. You cannot live a holy life without living in a righteous way.
As it is difficult to tell the clear difference between the Spirit and the Soul, I think justification and sanctification are two aspects of one and the same salvation. And understanding this, makes it clear that obedience is tied to salvation also, and not only to sanctification. Because salvation cannot be separated from justification and both are aspects of salvation.
Such as life needs body, soul and spirit, so salvation needs God's Spirit, faith (soul) and obedience (body). One without the other is dead:
Obedience without faith is impossible.
Faith without obedience does not live.
Obedience without the Spirit of God won't work.
The Spirit of God without obedience remains fruitless.
…
We need all three of these. When we start dividing it up into different theological categories and terms, we miss the point. And Protestant Theology is a theology that missed the point in salvation because of such a wrong methodology.
Alexander
Sin, sin, sin ….
So what?
Do you think God is shocked by that? In the same Sermon on The Mount where He says: "Be perfect" he also teaches us to ask for forgiveness.
See it from this angle: If God would demand "perfectness" (as we understand it) he would demand something entirely unrealistic. So God would give a command we are unable to keep and then be utterly angry with us – and then suddenly change his tone of voice, pointing to Jesus, saying: "Well, then just rely on Grace." – in the end, nullifying this command. This is a strange God with a strange behavior …
To be "perfect" means to be "adult, mature, grown up". It is not like turning a switch, saying: From now one I don't sin anymore, from today on I am without spots and blemishes.
No it is a process of growth. A natural process, like a child growing up to be a man.
Try to read it in this light: "Become mature, as you father in heaven is mature."
This does not sound that discouraging any more. Here Grace is still grace, because God still needs to forgive our shortcomings; but the focus is no longer on how BAD we are, but on how GOOD we shall become.
This is more like a Father-God, than the God who demands absolute perfection, and then steps back from his demand based on Grace. That's why I am at odds with Protestant Theology.
Alexander
That was not my point, Royce.
If we are to work and keep our garden (understand that spiritually as well) then it is out of question who "created" the tomatoes, but we need to know what kind of work is needed on our side to be able to harvest tomatoes at the end of the season.
The seed of the Kingdom God planted in our heart (His Word, his Spirit, the New Life) contains everything that is needed to bring forth fruit. But have to be diligent gardeners that take care that the garden is weeded and the plant watered sufficiently.
If we fail to do that, the New God-Given Life, the Seed will wither and die fruitless. Which means: We die spiritually again.
So our work is essential to salvation; but it is not work salvation, since our works alone cannot "create" the desired "tomatoe". But if we don't work, then the deceit of Mammon, the worries of this world or earthly joys and entertainment (distractions) will grow beside the Godly Plant and kill it. That's BTW the meaning of the parable in Mat 13:3-9.
Again: Don't put this into the box of "work-salvation". It is not "faith-only"-salvation either. But since these are the only two boxes Protestant theology seems to offer you, I really want to stress this: It is neither work- nor faith-only-salvation. It is the Biblical teaching of salvation: All that is necessary for life comes from God, but we must work diligently to develop the good fruit which is coming out of God's seed. We can reap 30, 60 or a 100fold …or we can stand before God with empty hands on Judgement day. Christ is pretty clear about the destiny of the fruitless ones.
Alexander
He is absolutely clear about the fruitless ones. The have NEVER been saved.
Why does the scriptures refer to "saved", "justified", and "redeemed" in the past tense? You have put your self in the position where God's promises cannot be believed. For instance, a few times, the Bible says the indwelling Spirit is God's "guarantee" that he will complete our salvation. It seems to me that you, like some of the others here will need to toss out much of what Paul wrote to be consistent.
Royce
Anonymous, This is not personal, because I don't know any anonymous people. Do you love your black, brown, red, white, or yellow skinned neighbors as thyself, whether they are Christian or not.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.
How could the Judge use this criteria to Judge if he weren't watching what we do.? and placing great value on it, when he made his judgement.
It is pretty sad what is said of those who do not do these works.
But Jesus is the one who said it, not Paul, but since Jesus is the one who will judge, I believe what he said.
See, that's the point! If you or I happen to fall away from Christ in the future then this theology says: We have NEVER been saved in the first place: Now where is my blessed assurance now – if it all may be in illusion???
Or do you say, it is impossible for you to fall away from God? Do you really believe that? No – don't quote verses like Php 1:6. As long as Demas was a faithful co-worker with Paul (Col 4:14) he would have been confident that Php 1:6 applied to him as well – and Paul would hardly have doubted this. But in the end, he went back to the world (2Ti 4:10) …
I am therefore very, very reluctant to predict my own future. Not that I am insecure – I cling to the Rock of my Salvation which is Christ. In Him I am secure – but apart from him I will whither and die. So my assurance of salvation is tied to an obedient love-faith-relationship with Christ.
And isn't that in line with John 15:1-10? Yes, it is. And those who are taken off as fruitless and burned were true and genuine branches on the vine who did not REMAIN in Christ through loving and obeying Him.
So they were genuine, born again Christians – who did not make any progress after their conversion. It is as simple and sad as that. to say they were NEVER saved leaves you with the problem to explain, HOW on earth did they become branches on the vine?
Why do you keep ignoring these texts, where justification, salvation and redemption are in the present and future tense?
The past aspect of our salvation does not mean that we are ultimately saved. It means we have been engrafted intio the olive tree as branches. That's the past aspect of our salvation. But we wait for the future aspect – the resurrection – as we see a little later in this reply! And this means, the past aspect of our salvation cannot mean a full and finished salvation. We live in HOPE of salvation (Rom 8:24).
The present aspect of our salvation/justification/sanctification is to hold fast, to obey, to strive for holiness. Here we see that to "initial justification" by faith is followed by training in righteousness (2Ti 3:16-17) and aims at "justification by works" (Jas 2:21-24). You see, that th past aspect of justification is tioed to a present and future aspect of this very same justification. It is process, Royce, not a one-time-event!
And the future aspect is the coming of the Lord when He will give each one of us according to what we have done.
This is not difficult to understand, Royce, but you are so limited by your "two-box-theology" (work-salvation vs. faith-only-salvation) that you fail to understand the Biblical way of salvation which fits in neither of your two boxes.
I do believe all promises God gave. I don't believe distorted presentations of God's promises that take out the conditions He tied to His promises.
Concerning the Spirit as "guarantee": Yes, it is a ??????????? – (2Co 1:22; 2Co 5:5; Eph 1:14) Strong: a pledge, that is, part of the purchase money or property given in advance as security for the rest: – earnest. I think "guarantee" is an a bit misleading translation.
The Spirit is the "down-payment" (so to say) of our salvation that will be completed in our resurrection. But it is up to the buyer to pay the rest of the sum. If we ask a builder to build a house, we give a down-payment (an ??????????? ). But if in the end we are not satisfied, because the builder has not built according to our approved plan, we will not pay the rest of the sum; instead we will sue him and get back our ??????????? !
An ??????????? is part of a two-sided contract. And it is the same with salvation:
First thesis: Our salvation is being completed in our resurrection. The Spirit of God in us is the necessary condition / guarantee that we will be resurrected. It is God's ??????????? .
But we can do several things, that we will fail to obtain salvation in the end:
If we live carnally, we will lose our salvation and die. Since Verse 11 speaks of our resurrection, the natural death is implied there, too. So Paul is writing of the second death in verse 13.
Paul is speaking to "brothers"who can choose between being led by the Spirit or by their carnal desires. He says plainly, that if we make the wrong choice, we will lose our salvation.
Like quenching a fire this nmeans, the Spirit can be extiguished in us (through a carnal life style).
The same as above. Grioeving the Holy Spirit is the first step in a series of steps that lead to the quenching of the Spirit. And we see what can lead to this. As is clear from other texts: If we don't forgive, than God will not forgive us – he will even take back his forgiveness (Mat 18:32-35 – one of he scariest parables of the Lord).
Second thesis: This guarantee of the Holy Spirit is conditional.
I can say the same of you, Royce. I don't deny any of the verses you show me, in fact I love each and every one of them; but he wrote more about salvation. Salvation is a conditional gift, Royce, and a process with present and future aspects.
And even more directly: You cannot prove your understanding of salvation from the Gospels! Our Lord Jesus never explained it the way you interpret Paul. But Paul – if you take all of his writings – is totally in line with Christ. You have to read Paul in the light of Christ's words of course to see that (not vice versa).
Alexander
P.S.: But what I like about our discussion: It is not about IM and such side issues, but about the real thing.
Amen Alexander, believe me it is hard to get , so called progressive Christians to discuss "the real thing" they are so caught up in leaving their mark on the gospel, they forget it has already been written.
Royce some people don’t want to see, “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine.”(John 15:4) and “for without Me you can do nothing.”(John 15:5).
When people aren’t bearing fruit, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.” (Matthew 7:15-20)
Those that don’t continue with us, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” (1 John 2:19)
Anonymous, can you please explain the parable of the talents to me.
or Royce, either will enlighten me Im sure.
Anonymous, there was a fig tree that did not bear fruit, and our Lord cursed it. Was ist a bad tree, a good tree, or what went wrong?
Alexander
Alexander/Laymond…You guys seem determined to find God as a judgemental and condemning God. Royce, I and others choose to see Him as a God of Lovingingkindness and compassion…
I was thinking about this discussion yesterday in church and suddenly the preacher quoted from Hebrews. I thought I'd present it to you as let you determine the correct interpretation.
Let us then with (confidence/anxiety) draw near to the throne of (grace/Judement), that we may receive (mercy/condemnation) and find (grace/ Judgement) to (help/uncertainty) in time of need.
Parable of the talents…good example of sanctification, which is growing in the knowledge of God…Not a good story to use in regard to earning your way to salvation…Unless you're determined to take credit for your own salvation…
Don't you think that the branch would seem silly telling the vine to look at its accomplishments ?? What can the branch do but allow the vine to work through it ?? It isn't the branch that does anything except that it is connected to the Vine…It dies when pruned away…It is God who is at work in us. Dare we take credit for that ?? AT what point do you wish for God to see you absent Jesus ?? Hey, God, look at me. See what I can do withouit your help.. I can help you save me…
A true disciple will not "sit on his rear and do nothing". That is the point. God "created" him for good works.
"Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off." (Rom 11:22 ESV)
I'm still waiting for an explanation from Royce or Price about how the unfruitful branches ("He is absolutely clear about the fruitless ones. The have NEVER been saved." -Royce) got connected to the Vine in the first place. What does being connected to the Vine signify, if not a saving relationship with Jesus Christ? Why does Jesus Christ warn his disciples that they are branches that can be cut off and burned, if they are unfruitful?
Let's go line-by-line through the Vine and branches, fruit-bearing teaching in John 15. That way, we aren't talking about what Nick and Alexander think – or about what Royce and Price think – but about what Jesus Christ said. I don't believe Jesus and Paul ever contradict each other, so let's stop wasting time with that accusation, and just try and discover what Jesus means right here.
What does Jesus Christ mean by "in me"? I don't believe He means that the branches earned their way in. But they ARE in.
What does He mean by "takes away"? He is about to tell us.
What does Jesus Christ mean by "already you are clean"? Following the "in Me" language of the previous verse, I cannot help but believe that He is saying that these disciples belong to Him – they're in a saving relationship with Him – they're part of His body.
At this point, Jesus Christ begins to make his point clear.
One, What matters is bearing fruit. This has POWERFUL implications – my salvation is not the point. God saved me in order to bear fruit in carrying out His mission of showing all Creation that He is the One True God. When we understand "sin management" to be the point of God's action, we cut off a great deal of what Scripture has to say about what God is doing. Sin removal is a means to an end, not the end in itself.
Two, Those "in Me" who don't bear fruit will be "taken away"
Three, You (the disciples) are "in Me," but you must abide in Me in order to bear fruit, because you can't do it by yourself. But who does Jesus say is bearing the fruit? You (the disciples) or Me (Jesus)? Does the Vine bear the fruit, or do the branches bear the fruit because of the power shared with them by the Vine? It seems that Jesus has no problem saying that the branches bear the fruit, while strongly maintaining that they don't do it by themselves. The Vine and the branches do it together.
Why does Jesus warn these disciples to "abide in Him," if either A) they were never in Him, or B) they cannot ever again not be in Him, since they are "in Me" and "already clean"?
Why is "abide" an imperative here, if the disciples have nothing to do with the abiding?
Clear example of Hebraic, rabbinic repetition. What Jesus Christ stated in verse 4, he restates in a slightly different way here. The concept that is added here is the image of the two-way abiding. They are placed in a parallel construction: whatever is true of the one abiding is also true of the other.
MUST Jesus abide in His disciples? Or is it a free decision of love?
There's the most intense two letters in the English language: IF. The whole concept surrounding the word "if" demands the potential for change in relationship. The word "if" makes no sense if there is no potential for change in the "abiding" relationship between the Vine and the branches.
When Jesus gives this teaching, the branches in question are "in Me" and "already clean." Jesus commands those branches to make a specific, definitive, decisive choice to STAY in Him. Otherwise, they will be taken out of Him and burned.
I'm certainly not infallible, but I can't spot my own blind spots – so please, so me where my reading of this passage is in error.
"Alexander/Laymond…You guys seem determined to find God as a judgemental and condemning God. Royce, I and others choose to see Him as a God of Lovingingkindness and compassion…"
Yeah, and he is not going to destroy the world either, just make it kinder.
Luk 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
(and Jesus said if you love me, you will do what I say)
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
(if you are contentious of doing what Jesus said, this is your reward)
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
(the enforcer)
I did not place the moniker, vengeful God on him.
Nick…For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out….Rom 7
The issue is whether or not we can do good out of our own power…If we can then we would not need Grace. If we can't, then what we do is simply a matter of God working through us for which I take no credit…
(1) i think there's a difference between credit in the sense of deserving accalades and credit in the sense of something being attributable to a person. It seems to me that some of the reformers were so afraid of the former that they even tried to eradicate the latter ("the HS irresistably generates faith in me–it's not a product of my will at all"). Unless you go the Calvinist or Lutheran route, i don't see why we should deny the latter kind of credit. (But perhaps, as Nick seems to be suggesting, Christ means for us to have both senses.)
(2) It struck me from what Nick said–if Jesus paints the portrait of being able to say "well done, good and faithful servant" to people, then surely we can't interpret Paul's use of "works" in such a way that renders Jesus' words just plain inappropriate. And if Paul simply meant any of our "doings," denying that such has any bearing on our salvation, then surely Jesus' words to the sheep at judgment are really just inappropriate.
–guy
Guy….I'm not sure why a difference in "Law" would matter. Does being under the "law of liberty" allow one to be able to perform outside of the power of Christ that dwells in us ?? My conclusion is that we do not operate in righteousness outside of the power of Christ.
Nick…Well done for submitting to my desire to work through you…If I need not have Christ in me to do what is right then I indeed should be rewarded for my own effort. If I need Christ to do what I should do then my performance is actually His…We just have to disagree on this topic.
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Amen and Amen and Amen!
That's exactly what I'm trying to express – exactly what I believe – I bless God for the wisdom He has given you.
Price, I believe you missed the whole lesson of the “talent parable”.
I understand it to say, if you sit on your rear, and do nothing what was given will be taken away, and given to another. Someone who will work at growing what was given.
Of course you would see it differently, because you believe work is only out of gratitude, not necessity.
Who is it here who believes they are paying God back for things already given, and who is looking forward to a reward, for obedient work.?
According to the bible Jesus was rewarded for the work he did, and in many places says you will be also.
I could list them, but you know where they are.
Please explain what these two, mean to you, I already know what they mean to Royce.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Nick…If I understand correctly, Romans 11 says that the branches were “granted” in…they didn’t join on their own…they were “put” into the vine by the power of the one grafting them in…
The only difference I see in our view on this subject is who gets credit for what fruit is born….If I understand correctly, the branch has no power of its own..it can only reflect the ability of the vine to work through the branch. If the branch bears fruit it is only allowing the vine to bear fruit through it…Some, not necessarily you, see the fruit as a result of the branch’s effort. I see the fruit being the product of the vine. Yes, the branch could somehow refuse to allow the vine to work through it and be pruned away but in my mind that doesn’t allow credit to the branch for fruit that IS produced…
Some believe in a works based salvation. I don’t. I believe that our “works” are the product of allowing Christ to work through us. Therefore, I take no credit for the fruit that is produced. I can only frustrate the work of Christ but I cannot produce it…He is the Power…not me…
You just don't get it, Price!
We receive a new Spirit in our New Birth, a Power from above. NOWHERE EVER did I say or mean we obey out of our own strength! Get that outr of your herad! We are not saying that! BUT WE SAY: WE HAVE TO OBEY! We have to work, we have to follow. WE, Price! We are being held responsible.
To this we are enabled by the Spirit, but WE must do it!
So forget about Rom 7 – That's gone, that's in the past! We can and shall overcome our unability through the Spirit of Christ and kill our flesh. This is OUR part in the salvation process. And if we DON'T do it, which als is in the scope of our possibilities, then woe to us.
Alexander
1Cr 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Price, you see we didn’t take his job, he gave it to us.
Price,
Then your argument is with King Jesus, not with me. What sense is there in the phrase, “Well done, good and faithful servant!” if the servant didn’t do anything?
Who does Jesus say, in John 15, bears the fruit? I believe you are creating a false dichotomy that doesn’t do justice to the teaching of Jesus or the role we are created and called to play in the mission of God. Here’s the dichotomy that you keep stating, over and over and over.
God does everything on His own or man does something “on his own,” or “without His help”.
Jesus, on the other hand, seems to have no problem giving credit. What kind of loving parent, what kind of wise elder brother, would do otherwise? What kind of parent doesn’t show off what their children do?
What kind of parent, when their child does well, says, “Oh, that was really me – they didn’t do anything.”
Love does not seek its own – it doesn’t demand its own way – it doesn’t think of itself at all. When Abba wraps His arms around me, it isn’t because I earned it – it is because He loves me. When I point to something awesome that He did, it isn’t because He earned it – it is because I love Him for what He did. And when He says, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” it is because the servant did something worthy of credit.
Knowing that Scripture teaches that God gives credit to His servants is not the same thing as the servants demanding that credit.
Is there a difference between, “Daddy, daddy, look what I made!” and “But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’”
To me, there is all the difference in the world between those two.
Price,
i’ve always understood that Romans 7 has to be describing the plight of a person (particularly a Jew under the Law) *prior* to becoming a Christian.
–guy
Well, Price, then I leave it to you to explain to Abba why he’s wrong when he tells you, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Good luck with that.
I pray that one day, you will understand that you – like Paul – are no longer enslaved to the flesh, and that you are misapplying Paul’s statement. You cannot keep removing it from its context – Rom 7:18 is only true for those for whom Rom 7:14 is also true. Since, for disciples of King Jesus, Rom 6:17-19 cancels out Rom 7:14-18 (because God defeated your flesh and given you a spirit of power and love and self-control), you are free! Come out of the cage of slavery to the flesh.
I pray that one day, you will understand the concept of koinonia – of fellowship, partnership, working together. “For when I am weak, then I am strong.” If God wanted to do it alone, he would never have created humanity and made them stewards over His creation. If we really can’t do anything good, then He’s a pretty shabby Maker. But the truth is that when we partner with Him, we don’t vanish! Because He loves us, we love one another. We glorify Him, and He glorifies us. That’s what love does. We’re called to out-do one another in showing honor.
I pray that, one day, you will be convinced that God is a giver, not a taker – even of credit.
Nick, I have 50+ years of experience as a a Christian. I have tried to do work for my Lord in all of those years but for many of my early years I was reliant on my own skill and wisdom. I used my own intellect to resolve problems and to deal with others and make decisions. As I look back on the fruit of those years, it really seems bitter and shriveled. In fact the fruit was so bad that I was very discouraged and ended up hanging on to my faith by my fingertips. In the end, I wound up in a Church with a very different worship tradition where I was intent to come in to services last, talk to no one, and leave as soon as services were over so I wouldn’t have to talk to anyone. I was burnt out and used up.
But, I did hang on and God eventually began a new work in me through the people in that Church. I am sure that it was God who, over a period of about 6 years, renewed me. I saw my errors and resolved to never try to serve God by myself again. When I rely on my own works, I’m pretty sure that I create a situation where I’ll never hear “Well done, thou good and faithful servant”. But, when I offer myself as a living sacrifice, obediant to the Holy Spirit and open to the will of God… that’s the place where God and I produce good fruit. That’s the fruit that I think will result in hearing those welcome words.
Now, I don’t know if that fits the theology of anyone in this blog but it’s the lesson that God taught me. I’m happy and content with it so I’ll leave the debating to those who want to debate.
Doug
Again, you aren’t disagreeing with me, brother.
Fellow workers – sunergoi – sun: together + ergoi: workers.
We work WITH God – God receives glory from all of His creation – God gives glory – we receive glory from God.
Please meditate on these words from Paul, and I pray that you will come to understand your true and glorious position as God’s beloved fellow worker.
I am alive to God in Christ Jesus. “I will enable you to obey,” YHWH says through Ezekiel. God created me in His image – I really do exist. I can do nothing without Him, but I – I – can do all things through Christ who strengthens me! It isn’t about credit or reward – it is about existence and meaning.
@ Price
Lots of differences of opinions and a lot to think about.
Do any of you think anyones belief position different from your own stated on here is enough to cause them to be lost?
1 Corinthians 2:5 says faith does not rest in the wisdom of men,but, in the power of God.
We men have given our testimony but Psalms 19:7 says Gods testimony makes wise the simple.
Maybe its time to put down all our books, differences and opinions and just look around and cotemplate Gods handiworks and see the leaves changing and all around us Gods testimony. Nature tells us many things and teaches many lessons if only we will be still, see and listen.
Nick,
I believe what is being contrasted here is Israel, often referred to as a vine, and Jesus and his followers. I do not believe it is talking about salvation for one obvious reason. If it was then much of what Jesus said in other places would be completely untrue.
Some, but not all instances are: John 10:27-30 and John 6:35-40. Sorry, I just don’t see this allegory making clear statements that are not allegory or parables untrue.
Of course you and I and Alexander will never agree. Much smarter men than us, and perhaps more holy men than us, have debated these things for hundreds of years and I’m not sure how profitable these dialogs are.
We all believe that everyone saved will be saved because of Jesus. We all believe that saved people will have good works, love others, and want others saved.
There are some Bible that seem at fist glance to be opposed to each other but in some cases they are both equally true. For example, was the execution of Jesus murder by wicked men or the predetermined plan of God? It was both. Are we already saved and are we being saved and will we be saved in the future? Yes. All are true.
Sometimes I fell like the legendary monks who would talk for years about how many angels could stand on the head of a pin.
Are we bringing God glory? Are we building each other up? Are we giving opportunity to the devil to sew discord? These are things we should consider going forward.
I appreciate Jay very, very much. He is not infallible but according to comments I’ve seen in the last several hours, many people have been helped by what he has written. I doubt that many have been helped by guys who were born in the objective case and the kickative mood.
I am glad Jay is taking a break, I am too.
May God bless each of you as you walk with him.
Royce
Alexander…. Paul is referring to his Flesh…”nothing good dwells in my flesh”…. Isn’t that referring to his human ability ?? Certainly it is…
There is nothing in Romans 8 that gives power back to the human ability…If anything Romans 8 points out clearly that the Spirit is the one that guides, directs, empowers, etc…Our own ability will never be sufficient. If you don’t believe that then we just will have to disagree on this topic.
Alexander…Brother, I totally get it…At least for me…I am redeemed, saved, justified, empowered, etc.,etc., by a power that I neither regulate nor control. It is not acquired by me. it is a gift. I am a willing servant to the Lord God Almighty and to the extent that I am able to do anything I give him all the glory and praise. I take no credit for anything. I no longer live but Christ lives in me to do whatever He wishes to do…I just try and do the best I can to not get in the way…
Romans 8:13 suggests that I am able to put to death the deeds of the flesh (both good and bad flesh) only by the power of the Spirit….Now if the Spirit is my power to do it, how can I take credit for doing it ? I can’t do it on my own…
Like I said, we just disagree on who gets the credit. Not whether or not that good works are evident of a saving faith…I just have no need for recognition of anything that God does through me..If in heaven, He insists that I take credit, I guess I’ll have to go along but until then, Praise God for His immeasurable Grace that would even be interested in a low life sinner like me.
There’s a flip side to that, Price.
God can’t do it on His own, either. God cannot make us love Him (or anyone else) without our willing participation. “Love doesn’t demand its own way.”
Nick…I agree…I just see my ability to love being a fruit of the Spirit….
Silence in Blogland… Amen! Amen!