Dave, to be honest, RC Sproul was the person who made me get sick about the reformed idea of scripture. I actually threw up when I heard a sermon of his.
God it was awful
Dave, to be honest, RC Sproul was the person who made me get sick about the reformed idea of scripture. I actually threw up when I heard a sermon of his.
God it was awful
I had much the same experience Chad.
Me too! I’m glad we share that common ground
Davo, you seem to be adverse to works for some reason. God has commanded us to work and for very good reason. The way I see it, works are an integral part of salvation and righteousness. Furthermore, I think the lack of works is part of the problem. We can all get stuck sometimes in our mundane little worlds. Going out and helping someone else can be a very humbling experience and a real eye opener. It not only touches our own lives, but the life of the recipient as well. Children need to also be doing some works which helps them grow and mature into better adults. Why do you think so many people were flocking around Jesus? When we fail to do the work of God, we become spiritually starved.
Just a brief footnote here. I believe even the Roman Catholic church, has gotten away - from a system of works righteousness. And I don’t think it is found, in Eastern Orthodoxy or the varieties, of Protestant theology.
Are ‘both sides’ using the code word ‘works’ in the same way, or are opponents attacking what they THINK the other person is saying?
‘Work’ is a loaded word. What do you mean by it?
Are ‘both sides’ using the code word ‘works’ in the same way, or are opponents attacking what they THINK the other person is saying?
‘Work’ is a loaded word. What do you mean by it?
Let’s try one example definition - from bit.ly/2DrwCiU
WORK; WORKS
wurk, wurks:
“To work” in the Old Testament is usually the translation of
asah, or of pa
al (of the works both of God and of man), and “work” (noun) is most frequently the translation of maaseh, or mela'khah; in the New Testament of energeo, ergazomai (and compound), with ergon (noun). The word "works" (erga) is a favorite designation in John for the wonderful works of Jesus (5:36; 10:38; 15:24, etc.; "miracles" to us, "works" to Him). "Works" is used by Paul and James, in a special sense, as denoting (with Paul) those legal performances by means of which men sought to be accepted of God, in contradistinction to that faith in Christ through which the sinner is justified apart from all legal works (Romans 3:27; 4:2,6, etc.; Galatians 2:16; 3:2,5,10), "working through love" (Galatians 5:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:3), and is fruitful in all truly "good works," in which Christian believers are expected to abound (2 Corinthians 9:8; Ephesians 2:10; Colossians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:17, etc.). When James speaks of being justified by "works" as well as by "faith" (2:14-26), he has in view those works which show faith to be real and vital. "Dead works" avail nothing (compare Hebrews 9:14; 10:24). Judgment is according to "works" (Matthew 16:27, the Revised Version (British and American) "deeds," margin "Greek:
doing’ " praxis; Romans 2:6; 1 Peter 1:17, etc.), the new life being therein evidenced. A contrast between “faith” and “good works” is never drawn in the New Testament.See, further, JUSTIFICATION.
Is anyone here using the word in that way, I wonder? Or does each side use it in a different way?
I reccommend reading “Of Justification” ccel.org/ccel/gill/doctrinal.vii.viii.html and “Of Other Eternal and Immanent Acts of God, such as Adoption and Justification” ccel.org/ccel/gill/doctrinal.iii.v.html. This is crucial because if you couple this doctrine, justification from eternity, with the doctrine of universal atonement, you necessarily have a form of Universalism.
Dave, to be honest, RC Sproul was the person who made me get sick about the reformed idea of scripture. I actually threw up when I heard a sermon of his.
God it was awful
DaveB said:
I had much the same experience Chad.
And Bob said:
Me too! I’m glad we share that common ground
We may not agree on the where with all of each of our beliefs, but this is a great group of folks.
Peace.
Chad
HFPZ, thanks for the article on the works.
‘Work’ is a loaded word. What do you mean by it?
Dave, There is a difference between spiritual works and “the works of the law”/Jewish law, the works of the one true God vs. the works of pagan gods/man. From what I understand the Jewish law was not the work of God. By claiming to be doing the work of God, Jesus was basically considered heretic.
As Matthew 9:35-38 points out, “Jesus went through all the towns and villages teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When He saw the crowds, He had compassion on them because they were harassed and helpless like sheep without a shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, " The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest field.”
God does not want us to be ignorant and led astray by every false god that comes down the pike. Our belief in the Spirit is not blind faith. We follow Jesus because our faith is justified ( proven or shown to be right) by works. As Jesus said " If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe Me, but if I do them though you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may know that the Father is in me and I in Him."
The sacrificing of animals and other ritual practices were the “dead works” of pagan gods, while the spiritual works of Jesus were bringing people alive. 'He that believes in Me, the works that I do, he shall also do." This is the Law of reciprocity, the Golden rule, and reaping what we sow in a positive way.
When one is persecuted and put to death for simply teaching and doing the work of God, something is terribly wrong. This is why Israel fell and their works were “burned up in the fire.”
Your faith is justified by your works - proven, declared to be real, genuine. Not to earn salvation, but to give evidence that faith is real and is in the God who raised Jesus.
You might want to think about that.
Your faith is justified by your works - proven, declared to be real, genuine. Not to earn salvation, but to give evidence that faith is real and is in the God who raised Jesus.
Bro, I would take an alternate view to that. That is pure and unadulterated works righteousness. When you look at a person and say that there is no evidence that that person is a person of faith, you are treading to ‘Luther’s’ salvation by faith. In other words like you say, you have to DO something to get something. Luther said “you have to have faith” You said “Your faith is justified by your works - proven, declared to be real, genuine”… so who in hell is going to make that assessment?
Just asking
People are justified, not people’s faith.
Yepper
Chad my brother there is NOTHING ‘work-righteousness’ about that. Nothing. I did not say that you become righteous by those acts.
Your FAITH is proven to be genuine by continuing in well-doing and seeking glory and honor and immortality. Not perfectly, no; but there must be some substance to our confession.
Is that just not common sense? How ELSE can one’s faith be genuine? Because one feels like it is?
I’m gonna sit firm on this, because the accusation of ‘works’ just is not to the point.
But remember - I build guitars! I have some redeeming value!
Chad my brother there is NOTHING ‘work-righteousness’ about that. Nothing. I did not say that you become righteous by those acts.
Your FAITH is proven to be genuine by continuing in well-doing and seeking glory and honor and immortality. Not perfectly, no; but there must be some substance to our confession.
Is that just not common sense? How ELSE can one’s faith be genuine? Because one feels like it is?
I’m gonna sit firm on this, because the accusation of ‘works’ just is not to the point.
But remember - I build guitars! I have some redeeming value!
That is where we differ and where the historical context of faith becomes interesting. From my perspective, In Jesus’ time and the time of the apostles right after him Faith in Jesus was very important. You know I believe and I think you know the preterist view. The verbiage of all of the NT scriptures was that of a soon coming Christ, a end of the old covenant and a new dawn to the new covenant. So going back, There is no need for proving faith because righteousness was a given through the new covenant.
So, the difference is interesting. How do we Judge or do we judge another’s faith? And ultimately if we do judge them on what grounds is the judgment based?
I know for a fact you are not a creed guy!!
If justification requires faith plus works it’s not clear to me what the faith side of the equation accomplishes. An unbeliever with good works could do the same works as a Christian with good works. If works count towards righteousness, why don’t they alone justify a person?
God wants people to be righteous. You are right that an unbeliever sometimes does good works, but he is unable to live a consistently righteous life without the enabling grace of God (made available by the sacrifice of Christ) to assist him (Titus 2). The Christian can appropriate this enabling grace through faith.
God wants people to be righteous. You are right that an unbeliever sometimes does good works, but he is unable to live a consistently righteous life without the enabling grace of God (made available by the sacrifice of Christ) to assist him (Titus 2). The Christian can appropriate this enabling grace through faith.
Yes, this is true. But can a person have the grace of God? Whether they actively know Christ or not? I say they can. I spent many years with this saint and authors, from the book at amzn.to/2DrPzkK. And with this Native American author at amzn.to/2rle0eE. They acted every bit as Christian - IF NOT MORE SO - then most Christians I know. And I became friends with them, years before they ever penned a book.
Just a couple of footnotes - on the Eastern saint - for you skeptics:
The book cover says at 100 plus, he can outrun (and outlast, mind you) - young folks. Well, I was in my twenties, when I hung out with him. And there were some other twenty-year-old men - who ran with him. We were exhausted, after a few minutes. And he didn’t even break a sweat!
And I and a close nurse’s aid friend, once measured his blood pressure. He had one blood pressure reading. And asked for another one, a few seconds later. Well, it changed in a matter of seconds - well over 40 units, on the blood pressure scale. He was controlling his blood pressure - of course.
I refer folks to the EO article on Inclusivist. Which is now an official part, of RC theology. And to the Calvinist theologian’s talk - at the Theosophical Society at youtu.be/5O81xzLnKGc
Let me share today’s reflection from cac.org/. It should be noted, I’m in harmony with the Franciscan and EO views - on this matter:
Jesus of Nazareth
At-One-Ment, Not Atonement
Sunday, January 21, 2018The common reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”—either to pay a debt to the devil (common in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, 1033-1109). Franciscan philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) agreed with neither of these understandings.
Duns Scotus was not guided by the Temple language of debt, atonement, or blood sacrifice (understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul). He was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18) and gave a theological and philosophical base to St. Francis’ deep intuitions of God’s love. While the Church has not rejected the Franciscan position, it has been a minority view.
The many “substitutionary atonement theories”—which have dominated the last 800 years of Christianity—suggest that God demanded Jesus to be a blood sacrifice to “atone” for our sin-drenched humanity. The terrible and un-critiqued premise is that God could need payment, and even a very violent transaction, to be able to love and accept God’s own children! These theories are based on retributive justice rather than the restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught.
For Duns Scotus, the incarnation of God and the redemption of the world could never be a mere mop-up exercise in response to human sinfulness, but had to be the proactive work of God from the very beginning. We were “chosen in Christ before the world was made” (Ephesians 1:4). Our sin could not possibly be the motive for the incarnation—or we were steering the cosmic ship! Only perfect love and divine self-revelation could inspire God to come in human form. God never merely reacts, but supremely and freely acts—out of love.
Salvation is much more about at-one-ment from God’s side than any needed atonement from our side. Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity (it did not need changing)! Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God!
God in Jesus moved people beyond the counting, weighing, and punishing model—which the ego prefers—to a world in which God’s mercy makes any economy of merit, sacrifice, reparation, or atonement both unhelpful and unnecessary. Jesus undid “once and for all” (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:10) notions of human and animal sacrifice (common in most ancient religions) and replaced them with an economy of grace and love.
Jesus was meant to be a game-changer for the human psyche and for religion itself. But when we begin negatively or focused on a problem, we never get off the hamster wheel of shame, separation, and violence. Rather than focusing on sin, Jesus—“the crucified One”—pointed us toward a primal solidarity with the very suffering of God and thus of all creation. This changes everything. Change the starting point, and you change the trajectory, and even the final goal! Love is the beginning, the way itself, and the final consummation.
God does not love us because we are good; God loves us because God is good. Nothing we can do will either decrease or increase God’s eternal and infinite eagerness to love!
Yes, this is true. But can a person have the grace of God? Whether they actively know Christ or not? I say they can.
HFPZ, Yes, I say they can as well, and thanks again for the at-one-ment article. I found it very informative.
Is it impossible for an unbeliever to choose to not take vengeance?
qaz, No. It’s not impossible.
Luther said “you have to have faith” You said “Your faith is justified by your works - proven, declared to be real, genuine”… so who in hell is going to make that assessment?
MM, The way I see it you can either:
Do we have any other choices?