Works Salvation: Protestant Style
I thought this comment by new commenter, Chad, was rather insightful, demonstrating a truth I’ve tried to convey in the past, though much more ham-handedly than he has elegantly phrased. In answer to the question “what would you consider ‘heresy’”, he writes:
Making works necessary for salvation. I would qualify this, though, by saying that our Roman Catholic friends are not heretics in this regard. When I say “works as necessary for salvation” it is to say that grace is being denied as free gift (or more to the point, that there is no need of grace), that God in Jesus has not done something to open the door to heaven.
I am quick to point out that many of my protestant brothers and sisters are no different than our RCC brothers and sisters - they have simply changed the system of “works” from one of penance to one of mental assent to a set of propositional truths or doctrines. While not “heresy” I consider it to be a departure from orthodox understandings of grace (gift!).
In the early church, particularly those with a Jewish background, the separation of “works” from “faith” was inconceivable. In this mindset, one physically cannot have a belief system that is not demonstrated. Sin, itself, is a demonstration of a belief that God cannot provide. As most of the world, and the church along with it, was Hellenized it began creating abstract compartmentalizations which separated ones “faith/belief” from one’s “actions”, leading to the church schizophrenically pitting one against the other.
We see the seeds of this already planted in the book of James, and the schizophrenia fully realized in Luther’s desire to strike it from the canon, since it appears to stake out ground somewhere between legalism and sola fide. To paraphrase James, “faith” (mental assent) really isn’t faith (mental assent) unless it is demonstrated.
And all of this is independent of grace, which is freely given.
As you survey the online landscape of Christianity (in which the relative percentage of Evangelical vs. Reformed vs. Catholic is skewed far differently that represented in living, breathing human beings), you can’t help but wonder why so many people are busy defending a 450-year-old church split, looking for the devil in the other party. One need only examine the wailing and gnashing of teeth anytime a Protestant church reintroduces a Catholic tradition. What you end up seeing is extra-biblical whining in condemnation of extra-biblical tradition (noting that I used ‘extra-biblical’ and not ‘unbiblical’ or ‘anti-biblical’).
It’s no wonder Jesus’ criticisms were almost exclusively about the religious class, always eager to demonstrate their righteousness while condemning anything that didn’t fit their own narrow traditions.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
So, it’s all the fault of “we are justified by faith and not by works” Paul.
Odd how he looks to the Old Testament, for example to Abram, to show that even then they were justified by faith, not by works.
–you can’t help but wonder why so many people are busy defending a 450-year-old church split, looking for the devil in the other party.–
Which remark addresses none of the concerns either side has.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Jazz,
You could blame Paul if you wanted to, I suppose, but I wouldn’t.
It is interesting that the archtype of faith that Paul upholds, as you mentioned, is Abraham, don’t you think? I mean, why would Paul praise Abraham’s faith when he is the one person who never knew, never could have known, nor never confessed the name of Jesus Christ? And yet, he has “faith”?
Is it not equally interesting that Paul says that even FAITH is a gift, not of ourselves but of God? We can’t even take credit for our believing!
So lets not be so quick to blame Paul. Perhaps he was reassuring some people who needed to be reassured that they do not have to climb a ladder like at Babel to get to God but rather God has climbed down the ladder to rescue us. Isn’t that Good News?
peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
As humans, we know that it is possible to do good works without having any faith. So, the extension some make is that it is possible to have faith without works.
Or, in logic terms:
We know that just because B is present, that doesn’t mean that A is present.
However, the fallacious extension that is made is:
Therefore, just because A is present, that doesn’t mean that B is present.
Instead, if we are to believe James:
You cannot have A if you don’t have B.
Thus, when Paul says “we are justified by faith and not by works”, ‘faith’ implies demonstration (A and B), whereas ‘works’ implies lack of ‘faith’ (B alone). It is impossible to have “faith alone without works” (A alone)
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Well said, Chris. I agree.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Everything is a gift of God as is all creation. This includes our free will which contains a responsibility attributed to the receiver. To say all streams and denominations of Christianity teach the same thing is absurd and represents a deep ignorance or devaluation of slavidic teachings that are revealed in the New Testament, regardless of what different groups thought.
Any group, regardless of any chosen name, that teaches any works, ceremonial or otherwise, as necessary for salvation is teaching heresy. No one completely knows how God will deal with adherants to these falsehoods, but Paul once taught that if you include righetousness by works “Christ has profited you nothing”.
And anyone who preaches another gospel or another Jesus is an accursed thing of God’s wrath until Jesus comes. That should give us pause about the importance of preaching truth who is Jesus.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Chad
My comment had to do with such statements as “In the early church, particularly those with a Jewish background, the separation of “works” from “faith” was inconceivable.” I was not blaming Paul for anything; rather, I was pointing out that the OP, with again such statemens as “As most of the world, and the church along with it, was Hellenized it began creating abstract compartmentalizations which separated ones “faith/belief” from one’s “actions”, leading to the church schizophrenically pitting one against the other.”, seemed to be saying that this split between faith and works was somehow “extrabiblical” (againt to borrow a word).
Which is ironic, since Paul, having been “a Pharisee of the Pharisees”, would likely have been well-grounded in Hebrew thought, and so was not likely to accept any kind of faith/works split if he didn’t think it true.
Which raises other points. The split between faith and works is in the Bible; however, here it is attributed to Hellenization. What is the OP maybe saying concerning biblical inspiration and inerrancy?
Or has someone been reading Pagitt’s new book, and trying to put that “thinking” into something like practice?
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
The Bible speaks AGAINST the separation of faith and works (James especially) But New Testament letters were being written during the Hellenistic period, so it would follow that they would address this cultural trend. As for the split being “extrabiblical”, well, yes, why not?
What I see is a failure of communication and an exercise in semantics and intimation. There isn’t necessarily a difference between Paul’s “faith alone” and James’ “faith and deeds”. It is just a matter of time. At 12 y/o I am saved by faith alone. But at 32, if I truly have faith, it will be accompanied by deeds. Otherwise my faith is dead.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I’m not questioning inspiration or innerancy - rather, interpretation.
In actuality, Paul is responding to a church in the Hellenized world, not in Israel. Paul does not espouse “It is possible to have faith that is not demonstrated” - it is this compartmentalization that gradually occurred (’you can ‘believe’ even if your works don’t demonstrate belief’), taking Paul’s comment to this illogical conclusion.
Instead, let’s read both Paul and James -
Paul:
James:
These are not a contradiction. ‘Observing the law’ comes back to ritual observance, and following a list of do’s and don’ts. The ‘works’ that cannot be separated from faith are not ‘observance of the law’, but living in a way that demonstrates correct belief.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I’ve read a couple of Pagitt’s blog posts in the past two years, and haven’t read any of his books… Sorry.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
ooops, NT books written shortly AFTER the Hellenistic period, but would still be influenced by that shift in the thinking…
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Rick, what you’re missing is this - do you really have faith if your actions say you do not? You can have actions but no faith, but James tells us you can’t have faith without actions which demonstrate it. The actions have no salvific mode, but are rather demonstrations of the faith. So, is it ‘works righteousness’ to say “you are saved by faith, and your faith is outwardly demonstrated by your actions“?
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Rick and anyone else who cares to answer:
When a statement like this is made:
Any group, regardless of any chosen name, that teaches any works, ceremonial or otherwise, as necessary for salvation is teaching heresy.
is the “teaching heresy” synonomous with being unsaved or outside of Christ’s salvation?
What I am trying to determine is whether or not people use the word “heresy” simply as an adjective to describe teaching that is off center from orthodoxy (yet not necessarily making them an apostate) or if it is one to describe people who are no longer in the fold.
Thanks,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Why is it only a work if it is an outward act? Do you consider it a work if it is an inward act?
When people get into the idea that absolutely no outward acts whatsoever in any way/shape/form gains us salvation, then where is the line between that and extreme calvinism? I have always seen “mental” acts as acts also, and isn’t my choice an act? Isn’t my repentance an act? At what point does it become a work/act? Only if others can see it? I don’t believe so.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Chris and Zan - the works must be the visible substantiation of faith. They cannot be the causation of salvation. The faith must be on the work of Christ, and the works authen ticate that faith.
In other words God say believe and be saved, he doesn’t say do this and be saved. Many different teachings have added “do this” but they have the cart before th horse.
Chad - Only God knows who is saved, but the teachings are unbiblical (heretical).
Zan - repentance is not an act. Metanoia is a change of mind that results in a change of behavior. But the word is meta(change) noia (mind). If you will puruse the internet you will see people teaching that stop sinning (repentance) is required in a gospel presentation. Only a change of mind from unbelief to faith is required and that is repentance. Repent and believe is change your mind and believe.
Paul is clear, we have no works of righteousness to present. Everything we do is tainted by sin. Only faith in the sinless Lamb is counted for righteousness. Faith is not a work in the sense that our faith is placed upon someone else’s work, unless we believe in our own works.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Zan,
I think you are hitting the nail on the head. “Works” can certainly include both inner and outer works. I am reminded of the story Jesus tells of two people praying. One says, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner” while the other prays, “Lord, thank you for not making me be like that one…” Which one went away justified?
In interesting thought experiment is to ask the question: What does our theological reflection allow us to say about those who cannot say anything for themselves? What do we say about the salvation of, say, the mentally handicapped or the infant? Is the 30 year old mentally disabled person damned to an eternal hell because they are incapable of mentally assenting to a doctrinal statement? Or is our God one who saves despite our mental incapabilities or even faux-paus?
Monty Python has a great skit where there is a bridge keeper who demands the correct answer to 3 questions in order to pass. One unfortunate soul, when asked what his favorite color is says, “Green. No! I mean Yellow!” and falls to a tragic death. I fear we have turned Jesus into the bridge keeper (I only hope he has better teeth) who will boot us out for our our mental errors. This seems hardly fair of a Just God who made us fallible in such a way and ignorant in so many other ways.
When I hear that I am justified by faith, not works, and by grace alone, I hear a Father whispering to his child, “I got this covered, my dear. You don’t need to strive so hard to come to me, I have already come to you. Grace has saved you, faith will bring you home as you learn with each day to fall backwards into the arms of my Son.” One day, when we enter into our eternal salvation, this same Father may say to some of us, “while I appreciate all your striving and “works” and even your great attempts to nail everything down in your head about doctrine, it was all for naught. See? All this was already prepared for you. Come on in. There are towels over there for the sweat on your brow.”
peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
What kind of God allows the mentally retarded to be born? Etc.
Nice stories, Chad, but only if you refuse some obvious teachings in the Scriptures. Do you believe the Scriptures are the only basis for whatwe believe? Are they God’s revelation to mankind?
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Rick,
I agree with you about who knows who is saved. But I have to question what you mean by heretical being unbiblical. It’s not that I disagree but who or what is the standard bearer? None of us are objective. The moment you or I start speaking about what the Bible says we have entered into the realm of interpretation and subjectivity. So when you say “unbiblical” that could mean a lot of things. It could mean we are all heretics. Of course, one man’s heretic is another man’s Savior (i.e. Jesus).
peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
If forgiveness is an act (like when I choose to forgive a brother who has wronged me), then why isn’t repentance? I have always seen my salvation as a birthday gift. It is offered freely, and I have done nothing to earn it, but I must physically reach out my hand, grasp it, open it, and use it. None of those things “got” me the offer of the gift, but only by doing those things do I then claim it as mine.
btw, that MP scene is one of my favorite! along with the relentless, armless, legless guy!
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Do you believe the Scriptures are the only basis for what we believe? Are they God’s revelation to mankind?
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Rick,
As to what kind of God allows the mentally retarded to be born, I don’t need to tell you, I’m sure. I’m happy to talk the problem of evil but my guess is you and I already agree on all that. Don’t you think? So that question doesn’t really take us far.
I believe Jesus is God’s revelation to humanity and that scripture bears witness to the infinite, infallible and inerrant God. Scripture is that Grand Narrative in which we find ourselves but most importantly where we find God.
I am happy that you find my stories “nice.” Stories, afterall, are what shape us and help us form our own stories. We are all telling one. I pray that my stories are inspired by God’s stories, as I trust my imagination is forever being formed by scripture. Don’t you hope for the same?
But in any event, why do you find my stories “nice” but impossible?
peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Chad:
Every concept we have of Jesus, salvation, works, faith, etc. , i.e., anything pertaining to the basis of one’s arguments during this conversation is by definition “doctrine”. Futher we are commanded by God to be conserned with doctrine, 1 Timothy being one Scripture that consistenly references the requirement for sound doctrine. Right doctrine is crucial and hardly for naught. Your musings of what the Father will say to his children regarding doctrine is a product of human imagination and sentimentality with no Biblical basis. Just say’n :-).
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
“but I must physically reach out my hand, grasp it, open it, and use it.”
That is a good illustration but it is not accurate. You can do nothing physically to earn or receive salvation. You reach out physically to obey God as a result of receiving salvation by faith.
What works do you suggest? feed the poor helps recieve salvation? I mean what works does the Word say are necessary to receive salvation?
The answer, none. Works righetousness is what Paul refuted throughout his ministry. What you are saying is Lordship salvation as per MacArthur. He contends that only when works are present is salvation real. That is also not proveable.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Rick and John:
So belief in the right doctrine is what saves?
yes or no?
Thanks.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Chad - Do you believe the Scriptures are the only basis for what we believe? Are they God’s revelation to mankind?
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Right doctrine is crucial and hardly for naught. Your musings of what the Father will say to his children regarding doctrine is a product of human imagination and sentimentality with no Biblical basis. Just say’n :-).
It’s the word “right” that is really the bug-a-boo, isn’t it? “In essentials, Unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, Love.” This is wonderful, but what was probably underestimated is the fight over what is essential, or dare I say, “right doctrine”.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I would suggest that sinners are lost until saved by faith in Jesus Christ. That should qualify as “right doctrine”.
How about only Jesus saves not Buddha, again, right doctrine.
There are such truths about which we cannot compromise without constructing something other than Christianity.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Chad - Do you believe the Scriptures are the only basis for what we believe? Are they God’s revelation to mankind?
Rick, I thought I answered that when I said what I believe scripture is, here: I believe Jesus is God’s revelation to humanity and that scripture bears witness to the infinite, infallible and inerrant God. Scripture is that Grand Narrative in which we find ourselves but most importantly where we find God.
Is scripture the ONLY BASIS for what we believe? God, I hope not - not for me or for any of us. I pray that the basis for what we believe is grounded in a SOMEONE not a SOMETHING (scripture). I hope the primary basis for what we believe is, to quote from my own heritage, “I sensed that my heart was strangely warmed, and I realized that this Christ died for me, for even me.” (Wesley)
Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason are all part of the “basis for what I believe.” Scripture is indeed the norming norm. So it is an odd thing to have to answer if scripture is the ONLY basis for what we believe. I hope “belief” runs far deeper than what a book witnesses to. I hope our belief is grounded in the one the book points TO.
Has that cleared that up?
peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Oh yes…
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I have no dispute with the reality that only Jesus saves being called “right doctrine.” John seems to imply in his response to me that “right doctrine” includes a host of other things and that our salvation is dependent upon our getting at least an A on some future test.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“Is scripture the ONLY BASIS for what we believe? God, I hope not - not for me or for any of us.”
As long as scripture validates it?
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Andy, that is what I mean when I say: Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason are all part of the “basis for what I believe.” Scripture is indeed the norming norm.
I am uncomfortable using the word “validates,” however. If a person has an experience that is not found in scripture does that mean the experience wasn’t real? Scripture will and should certainly chasten us and caution us before heading into unknown territory, like a guidepost. I would perfer to say, “as long as scripture guides it.” I have some exegetical reasons for holding this, much of it coming from Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council. If you want more on that I can send the 12 page write-up.
peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I’m inquiring i’m not accusing (i’m the dumb one here
But personally i would be very suspicious of an “experiance” that as no mooring to the scripture
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Cart and horse…Having beliefs and finding validation in scripture happens to everyone, unfortunately. Ideally, we should lay all the groundwork from the text, and then base our beliefs on that foundation. Our tradition, experience, and reason can all be guided by scripture, but they should not be the starting point.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
“If a person has an experience that is not found in scripture does that mean the experience wasn’t real?”
No, but if it violates Scripture it is not of God. Acts 15 is not a foundation for church doctrine, and James himself was still steeped in the law. Paul is the teacher you’re looking for.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“Ideally, we should lay all the groundwork from the text,”
Pop quiz - you get an A!
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Chad,
your quote in the post is brilliant. Thank you for it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Our tradition, experience, and reason can all be guided by scripture, but they should not be the starting point.
I agree.
Andy,
And for the record, I guarantee there are plenty who will call me the “dumb one,” not you.
I didn’t think you were accusing
peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“If a person has an experience that is not found in scripture does that mean the experience wasn’t real?”
No but that doesn’t mean its from God,and as God seemed to of choosen the bible to descibe Himself, i would of thought the experiance should be have some basis in scripture ???
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Rick: Acts 15 is not a foundation for church doctrine, and James himself was still steeped in the law. Paul is the teacher you’re looking for.
Rick, I didn’t say it was a foundation for church doctrine. It is, however, a marvelous account of how the early church married scripture and experience to come to a revolutionary conclusion. Had the council all thought that scripture was the ONLY basis for what we believe than we Gentiles would be in a sorry mess.
peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Chad give it time and more post from me and ur see rofl..
For someone from England my grammar is appalling
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Nathan - thank you. I clicked on your name but the link is broken? Maybe it’s an error on my end?
peace.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
The Scriptures can be misguidedly worshiped as God, but they can also be misguidedly relegated to a less than authoritative exclusivity. It is a balance, but everything we know about God has come through the illumination of the Scripture by and through its Author.
Subjectivity is our enemy and it seeps into out interpretations regardless of our attempts at pristine objectivity, but when we refuse to fight that battle we are left with subjectivity alone.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Chad - the Spirit was guiding an embryonic church who as yet did not have the New Testament. And the experience you reference was a direct intervention of God to the Apostle Peter, such divine visitations to teach such important doctrines are no longer necessary.
Only men like Joseph Smith now claim private visitations with private interpretations outside the accountability of the written revelation.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
andy - you made me laugh
Um, sorry about the earlier Monty Python comments….
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
hahaha i’m more of a “office” guy
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
The Office is but one of many of the great gifts you all have given to us rebels.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Rick,
I am not talking about a Joseph Smith type of vision.
Yet I am hesitant to say what you have said about the council being led by the Spirit because they as of yet did not have the NT. This suggests that God as Holy Spirit is not at work today as He was then. I don’t believe that. But that isn’t even the point.
The point is not in the experience itself that led the council to make this decision but in how that experience led James to use the only scripture they had (the OT). James quotes from Amos 9 and chooses to use the LXX over the MT because the LXX serves his purposes far better for it is far more universalistic. This is nothing short of shocking.
side note: In the “other” blog where Warren gets beat up for using many translations of scripture they ought to consider that James did the same thing.
peace
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
All i’m saying Chad is experiance need’s a anchor , and i think that anchor is scripture or we start to see whats happening in your sunshine state at the moment
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
experiences***
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Andy,
I couldn’t agree more.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Coming to this conversation a little late, I am glad this point was made. As I read the Catholic Catechism, I get no sense that Catholic doctrine lends itself to anything remotely resembling Pelagianism. Cetainly, Luther and Calvin were responding to the penance excesses of the day, but I think those days are long gone by. And since Vatican II, there is even a spirit of “inclusion” with regard to those of us who are brothers and sisters outside of the Catholic Church itself.
One quote I find to be particularly revealing is from para. 169 of the Catechism:
Now I know that sounds a little foreign to our Protestant ears but I think the emphasis here is on the fact that the Good News of the Gospel is proclaimed by the family of God, i.e., the church. And so Paul observes:
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
JohnD,
Thank you for that quote from the catechism. While I can understand how a question like, “Who can have God as their Father who does not have the Church as their Mother?” could raise some eyebrows, it shouldn’t. Salvation, far from being an individual affair is really a communal one. John Wesley often said that there is no such thing as a solitary Christian. I think he’s right. The Church is the community that invites people into this strange story of God revealed in Jesus Christ. We cannot live without her.
Thanks for your words. Grace and peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Chad: “John seems to imply in his response to me that “right doctrine” includes a host of other things and that our salvation is dependent upon our getting at least an A on some future test.”
No sir, not my thoughts at all. “He who has the Son has life, He who does not have the Son does not have life”.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
JohnH-
Good. I’m glad we can agree on that, then.
grace and peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Chad said, “If a person has an experience that is not found in scripture does that mean the experience wasn’t real?”
I must say this makes me a bit edgy! My roots go more towards the Pentecostal and I could fill a large book with the abuses I’ve seen and have experienced based on similar statements.
Any experience can indeed be real but, being a “real” experience doesn’t mean it’s of God, we have to be very careful, especially when the experience is revelatory in nature.
But, then you went on and said.
“Our tradition, experience, and reason can all be guided by scripture, but they should not be the starting point.”
And I agree whole heartedly.
The rest not directed to Chad, just my thoughts in general.
I can ask ten people what James meant when he said “works” and get ten different answers. And I think James was a little light in his explanation of “works”. And I admit I have trouble with doing what I believe James was trying to say. I find myself often leaning towards works when I operate under my own logic. While at the same time knowing in my heart what Paul said about grace………
I’ll use my father as an example. He was saved late in life and since his death I’ve always been concerned about his salvation. Reason? He never seemed to grow past the point of entry. I’ve seen this in MANY folks. And this leads me to the question I’ve asked many times and have yet to get the answer that I could say, “that’s IT!!:.
How far can one lean before. one way or another, the salvation experience is not real or never took place?
I’m secure in my salvation but, what are the works that need be done in order that ones faith can be validated under the light of James? It’s seems that the folks that are most judgmental have the fewest answers for this question. In my experience most people are pretty vague…I admit I haven’t got the answer.
….but then I’ve seen the extremes of faith taken to the point where people sit on their hands a do almost nothing.
“Lord, I need a job”. And then not knock on a door or fill out a job application. An extreme example but I think it shows my point going too far the other direction.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Hi Scotty,
Just to clarify, I think Zan made the point with which you agreed wholeheartedly. I merely quoted her and said I agree with her. So in a round about way we all agree
Scotty, you shared something personal about your father - thank you. I can’t imagine the angst of always wanting to know, to be assurred, about someone like a father. I don’t pretend to have the “that’s it!” you are looking for but just a few random thoughts that I pray will be of comfort.
I am reminded of the thief on the cross next to Jesus who never made it past the point of “entry” as you called it. And yet, Jesus said to him, “today, you will be with me in paradise.” There is no sliding scale that determines who is in or out - God does not grade on a curve (thank God!)
We are so limited in our understanding of things in large part because we are bound by time. We have no concept of eternity, even though we talk of it often in Christian circles. I believe that salvation is three-fold - it is past, present and future. We have BEEN saved in the accomplished work of Christ on the cross and resurrection and ascension. We are BEING saved as we presently live into the reality that IS - we are God’s children whether we know it or not, and we WILL BE saved on that day the New Jerusalem is established on earth and all are raised to new life.
I say all that to say that I do not believe your father’s salvation is tied up in just the time from when he first believed to his death. Rather, God was working salvation in your dad from the foundations of the earth, accomplishing it in large part 2000 years ago. We are blessed in this present age to get the opportunity, for as long as we are able, to partner with God in bringing about His purposes on His earth - but I would say none of us, upon believing, would be considered “entry-level Christians.” In God’s eyes, we have been His from the inception of the cosmos.
Lastly, we have all of eternity to grow into God. We should not assume or think that in heaven we will be like God. God is forever infinite and beyond anything we can imagine. Even with all of eternity on our hands we will still be falling head over heels into a deeper knowing of our God who has rescued us. So your father’s journey has only just begun….as it has for all of us. We have a lot to look forward to.
Just my thoughts.
grace and peace,
Chad
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
A truely great thread!!!
Ive always read James and replaced works with love, it seems to make more sense to me then
GB all and Chris thks for a great site!!
June 4th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Great thread… been busy.
I look at Paul and James as very compatible.
Simply this:
Paul states Jesus saves us and did all so that salvation is a gift and not by works.
James is talking about the experiential side. Simply, if you believe it, do it.
Now I see these as a bridge. Paul ushers us to and onto the bridge by grace through faith, and James ushers us off the bridge telling us that Christ in us is will have the outward sign of God’s works in us coming out. Paul states it is all God… James is saying that if you have this saving faith God will be seen in and through you by your works of faith.
I see no in compatibility.
Paul states we are saved by Grace through faith, and justified by Christ’s works, James says we are justified by our works…
In a point our works and Christs are the same if we walk in the Spirit of Christ as we do the will of God as Christ Jesus did the will of the Father.
I don’t have much time as I am off to work and I am sure this needs further unpacking. But often I think many have over thought what is said and going on.
be blessed,
iggy
June 4th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Hi,
This is my first comment here.
Quote: “they have simply changed the system of “works” from one of penance to one of mental assent to a set of propositional truths or doctrines.”
A staunch Protestant once remarked at a meeting, “There is a bit of Popery in every Protestant.”
If we are honest enough, we would recognise that in ourselves.
For e.g.:
How many brownie-points have we chalked up when we “won” someone over for Christ?
Or in the case of the ODM, how many “converts” have we help “change their minds”?
How many books have we written to help all these poor ignorant Christian, to see the errors of their ways?
The list can go on… but I rest my case.
OSC
June 4th, 2008 at 6:26 am
–The Bible speaks AGAINST the separation of faith and works (James especially) But New Testament letters were being written during the Hellenistic period, so it would follow that they would address this cultural trend.–
If that Bible speaks against it, then why does it also speak for it? To claim some sort of Hellenization seems a bit of a reach, as it would seem if such thinking was so very wrong, then Paul and the others would spend time correcting it, not adapting to it. After all, they spent time correcting others modes of action and thinking.
I brought up Pagitt’s book because Hellenization becomes the great bogeyman in his mind as he tries to make everything “holistic”. But that is another discussion.
One could point out, for example, the story Jesus told of the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer. The Pharisee look at his own works, and counted himself righteous. The tax collector did no such thing, but could only ask God to be merciful to him, a sinner. Jesus’ question about which one went away justified had the obvious answer, the tax collector, and that would likely not have set well with the work-righteousness ideas of the Pharisees.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:58 am
“If that Bible speaks against it, then why does it also speak for it?”
The Bible doesn’t speak “for” the separation of faith and works. It speaks FOR works with the right attitude…one of humility, thankfulness, and love. The Jesus speaks often of having the right “heart” in our lives (actions/works). If you look on a woman with lust, you have committed adultery. If you hold hate in your heart, you have committed murder. It is about our internal actions as well as our external ones.
This brings to mind the Sunday School lesson and song we all remember:
June 4th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Jazz,
Where do you interpret scripture speaking for the sepaparation of faith and works?
peace,
Chad
June 4th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Have you actually read Pagitt’s book, or are you just saying this based on another source?
I haven’t read his latest book, although I plan to soon, but it seems to me that when I’ve heard him speak on this subject that his point isn’t to denigrate Hellenization, but rather to say that Christianity has always been pliable enough to accommodate different worldviews. This is the point he makes on the podcast with Tim, and it’s similar to the point he made at his sermon at Mars Hill.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Iggy, I agree. I see no incompatibility either.
We must remember that our concept of the word “believe” or even “faith” is in many ways far different from the writers of the NT. Today, we compartmentalize everything. I can say that I believe flying is the safest way to travel but be scared to death to get on a plane and never fly anywhere. Not so in the 1st century. To say one “believes” something or has “faith” in something (or more to the point, in someONE), is to be buckled in on the plane. The knowing and doing are one and the same.
peace.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:20 am
I think the one thing we might be getting hung up on is what “works” meant in a Bible. I think we naturally think it means doing good stuff like feeding hungry, giving to the poor, etc. To Paul and the Pharisees, though, I think the word meant something more along the lines of keeping the ritualistic aspects of the law. Isn’t this what Jesus constantly chastised the pharisees about - they were all about the rituals, but they neglected the greater things? In fact Jesus says this in Luke 11:
That’s really sort of shocking to me. Jesus tells the pharisees to give to the poor so that “everything will be clean for the”. He didn’t say repent or believe, but He told them to do something. I’m not saying that we can add anything to salvation by doing something on our own, but clearly Scripture says that faith doesn’t really exist without the accompying action.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Jesus said a lot of things that were meant to push people off their comfort zones. To the rich young ruler he said sell everything and give it to the poor and he would have eternal life. Jesus knew if he did that he first would have to believe Jesus was more than a “good teacher”.
But the epistles doctrinalize the gospels and in fact interpret them, otherwise every man can twist the narratives to support his point of view. Many times the things Jesus said (goat vs sheep = good works) amplify the necessity of good works revealing the salvation the came by faith.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:11 am
So, Phil, do you think that the disciples and pharisees thought it meant feeding the hungry, etc, but that Jesus was saying, “No, it’s bigger than that, even”? It’s an interesting thought either way.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Zan - without the Holy Spirit the Pharisees did not have a clue. Even the disciples could not fully understand until Pentecost dispite some allusions to His death, burial, and resurrection.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Rick,
I agree that Pentecost changes a lot of things and that with the gift of the HS certain things were further revealed. But you say, “the Pharisees did not have a clue.” Why not include the disciples in that as well? Either everyone present has some sort of clue based on Jesus’ presence alone and his teaching (and lets not forget that Jesus’ teachings, even before the HS was given, opened the eyes of many and they thought he taught with great authority) or nobody has a clue. Don’t you think?
peace.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I get that they didn’t understand the full impact of what was really happening in regards to the fulfillment of prophecy and some of Jesus’ teaching.
I have never thought this, and am thinking it over. Rick, I still can’t just write the Pharisees off. If they had no chance of understanding without the HS, then why did Jesus address them? Surely there were those that were impacted by His words and grasped the bigger picture a little better. But ultimately, Jesus was speaking to the condition of our hearts. And that lesson is irrefutable and applicable to all. We must, in our works and attitudes, do all things with a spirit of humility, grace, hope, and love. I know you agree with that!
June 4th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Zan,
Sorry for butting in. I think that was classic theology for 1500 years before Luther “reinterpreted” the book of Romans.
Paul taught we are justified by faith (in Christ) [New Covenant], not by works (of the law) [Old Covenant]. James taught faith (in Christ) = faith worked out in love. Faith not working in love is not faith. There’s not really any contradiction between the two.
All people can do good works for their fellow human being (feed the hungry), it’s in our nature; but if a Christian feeds the hungry with the only motive being love of God, then that is HOLY.
Peace
June 4th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I think Jesus was saying that the pharisees missed the whole point of God giving the Jews the law in the first place. The Jews were chosen to be a blessing to the nations, but the pharisees, who were supposed to be Israel’s shepherds, ended up missing this. In fact, they were working against it.
So, Jesus is trying to get through to them that despite the fact they were “chosen”, they themselves were facing judgement because of the hardness of their hearts. It’s not just that they weren’t “doing good”, it’s that they had lost the plot.
I believe Jesus is saying that if they get back to the heart of the law, that there is a chance their hearts will soften, and their eyes will be opened.
So, no good works don’t save us, but often doing good can lead into the correct belief. It’s the way humans are created - the way we act always affects the way we think and believe.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Brett, not a problem! There is no “butting in” on a blog! If I’m going to discuss something in the open, I better be prepared to have people comment! Thanks be to Luther that he straightened us out! (apologies! I was sprinkled in the Lutheran church as an infant, so I jest in love) anyway, I appreciated the way you worded it. That the pharisee’s works were in keeping the OT law makes total sense. I like the way you put “working out our faith” from James, as that is really what it is to me. I continue to learn how to live my faith…
and
That is really the gist of it. In the end, all I can do is to examine my heart and my actions, and compare them to what Christ has asked of me. No one else. Just me (Gal 6:4)
June 4th, 2008 at 10:17 am
So well-put
Zan - I knew I married you for a reason (OK, well, several
June 4th, 2008 at 10:22 am
[Zan says]: That cracks me up!
I have a 9 year old weimaraner name “Zan”. She always has an intent look when I talk to her, like she wants to answer. (sorry inside joke)
ps – I mean not harm at linking you to a dog by my comments
June 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Ow! Zan and I had a weimaraner, General Sherman, for 13 years, and to say that she didn’t like the dog would be an understatement.
So - a weimer named Zan is like getting strikes one and two in the same pitch!
June 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Hey guys, get a room!
; )
June 4th, 2008 at 10:57 am
HA! how could she not love such a calm little creature.
I actually thought my dog was a little active and hard to discipline; but then I had 4 little kids. (That’s a whole different ball game altogether.)
June 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Chad, your reply to Scotty way up above was very nice. Well said.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Chris L
Could we see a footnote on that? What is the source for this declaration?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:42 am
–Have you actually read Pagitt’s book, or are you just saying this based on another source?–
Read it.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Chris L:
So when I received a plenary indulgence (thus missing out on years in Pergatory) when I attended a special Easter Mass back in ‘91 when I lived in New Orleans that was just an “extra-biblical” practice and not an “un-biblical” one? Who knew?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:57 am
However, come to think of it, I didn’t go up and kiss the Jesus statue’s feet the priest was holding like the majority of the others did so maybe I still have a few years in Purgatory left after all.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
John,
Did I miss Chris L mentioning plenary indulgences? Because as far as I can tell he was speaking directly to the Reformed/RCC conversation going on in the blogosphere. While I don’t read the entire blogosphere I do read enough to know that generally that hasn’t been a topic addressed enough to say its a general topic of conversation.
Furthermore the bit you quoted dealt directly with protestant churches using Catholic styles of worship. Could you please cite for me a single protestant church that has introduced plenary indulgences.
Communication becomes much easier when you let the person writing communicate what they want to communicate rather than interpret it as uncharitably as possible.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Both Jesus the Jewish Theologian and Paul the Jewish Theologian by Brad Young cover this.
Young also comments on Luther’s issues with faith/works and the propensity to go overboard in eschewing things irrationally during a schism in Paul…
June 4th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I don’t know - we’ve got four kids as well, and I think that dog was harder to train than any of the kids…
June 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Tim,
Chris L said: “Evangelical vs. Reformed vs. Catholic”.
That just about covers everybody, not just Reformed vs Catholic as you mis-read Chris L.
Further, the nashing of teeth comes because anyone with an eye for these things looks at the big picture and understands that the Road Back to Rome is taken one little step at a time, not on a jet plane.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Chris L,
Thanks for the reference.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
John,
You miss the point again. How about you point out where protestants have been adopting plenary indulgences, since the line you take objection to was in direct references to Protestant church services reviving certain Catholic practices.
Even if you take CL’s reference to mean the general conversation in the blogoshere just adding Evangelical to the mix doesn’t do anything to make your objection valid as he directly referenced the conversation going on in the blogosphere where I haven’t seen any protestant of any stripe advocating for plenary indulgences.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
John,
Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, we might all agree that the road out of Rome was on a jet plane.
Perhaps inching one step at a time towards each other ought to be commended as wise?
peace,
Chad
June 4th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
As I check technorati for all this Evangelical/Reformed/RCC chatter about Plenary Indulgences I find nothing but RCC blogs even mentioning them (or one in particular for the most part).
June 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
So Tim, I take it you’re not one who buys the whole “slippery slope” argument?
June 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“I’m leav’n on a jet plane.
Don’t know when I’ll be back again.”
Man I’m getting old.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Tim, How about the “frog in a pot on the stove” analogy? No?
Well, how about . . .
June 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
“labyrinth”
June 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
How about the Birnam woods approaching model?
June 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
. . . Quickly exits room
June 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I tend to think it is WAY overused - particularly when root cause issues are not understood.
In the case of Protestant churches re-adopting traditions (no, I’ve not heard of any re-instituting plenary indulgences) that can somehow be linked to the RCC, I would say that the “slippery slope” and “frog-in-a-pot” analogies are usually just facades for “guilt-by-association” (you know, like Jesus eating with sinners…) or ad homenim, and not legitimate courses of logical argument.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Chris L answered pretty well for me. I will say this John, your conversation skills are a breath of fresh air. I appreciate how you conduct yourself, even if what you are conducting is probably not in my preferred genre.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Fair enough Chris.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:22 am
The problem with accepting the RCC as Biblical is a general slide toward sacramental salvation as well as a rejection of evangelism to Catholics since we then consider them Christians. There are perhaps millions of former Catholics who would stongly disagree with that.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Rick,
How do you define “sacramental salvation” or at least as you perceive it in the RCC?
As a Wesleyan I have no problems with calling the sacraments means of grace. In fact, I refer to them as such all the time. Wesley, an Anglican, was not too far removed from the Catholic understanding of sacraments and their importance. I take it you disagree?
Btw, I do consider Catholics to be Christians and we can be doing far more good aiming our evangelism where it is needed.
peace,
Chad
June 5th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Then you will have to duscuss that with millions of Roamn Catholics, including in my immediate family, that became born again after they heard the true gospel outside the RCC.
Faith in Christ is the only means of grace. Everything else either reflects that grace or detracts from its revelation.
I rest my case.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Rick,
I don’t doubt that man Catholics who convert to Protestantism have an “experience” that they might describe as being “born again.” I have some Protestant friends who have converted to Catholicism who have attested to much the same…they describe it as “coming home.” I have also heard my Calvinist friends who were once Wesleyan say the same thing when they try to convince me that I should stop being a Wesleyan. They use language like, “I thought I was saved before….but now, boy oh boy. If you could only know…yada, yada, yada.”
I rejoice along with you that many of your relatives have found a deepening of their relationship with Christ by finding a home in a Protestant church. Perhaps you, like me, have known people who have left one protestant church and joined another and found yet another deeper level that they might grow. Isn’t it great the Holy Spirit is still leading today as always? I would not classify such people as heathens or pagans before and now, all of a sudden, they are Christians because they “feel” something deeper.
peace,
Chad
June 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
You spiritually eviscerate people’s experience by suggesting the supposed commonality as well as the directional differences expose a lesser spiritual revelation. So when an American becomes a Buddhist and he gives up drugs and describes his experience as a spiritual awakening, someone who holds to universalism defines his experience as congruent with my salvation experience.
When in fact the widespread spiritual conterfeits disguise the authentic Christian conversion as nothing more than one of many with many authentic paths to God. And your theology is one of the most insidious since you manipulate the Scriptures and seek to confuse people as to the Biblical revelation of Christianity.
And others do not see the danger in this type of theology because they see it as just a discussion point rather than one brick in a deception that continues to gain more and more popularity, or at least consideration, from within evangelicalism.
Many great and committed men and women of God have given up much to travel the world, not to tell people they are saved, but to persuade men to believe the gospel and be saved. This IS the gospel and its commission, and we now live in a very philisophical time that accommodates many unbiblical thoughts and in fact people are enraptured with the entire notion of uncertainty about everything. And some use the uncharitable and self righteousness of others as part of the platform with which to question foundational Biblical truth.
The first teeth that must be pulled are the unpleasant ones, the ones that deal with justice or punishment or eternal separation from God. Do not look for a cult to arise that says no one will be saved and everyone will wind up in hell, that contains no attraction for man and his hopeful assumptions about his divine caricature.
The direction of the modern theological metamorphosis is decidedly unilateral and even while incorperating many different angles most agree that the truth of past generations has been fundamentally wrong. Especially the unpleasant and seemingly harsh doctrines. We can all hope they are correct, but in the end it will only be if God exercises His right to change His Word. In the meantime men will do that without His permission.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Rick,
I became born again after I heard the true gospel inside the RCC; so go figure huh.
Biblically speaking Catholics are Christians (see Acts 11:26) I’m not sure what extra-biblical source you’re using to determine that Catholics are not Christians. I would concede (with no great joy) that many Catholics may end up in hell for eternity, and sadly enough that may be some Southern Baptists and a few Lutherans there also.
But I don’t get to make that judgment and I am joyful that you don’t either.
I do agree that all Christians are in a continual need for evangelization, but it’s important not to teach false ideas when evangelizing.
Peace
June 5th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
No one said some were not Christians just like many Baptists. The issue is salvation through baptism, sacraments, good works, and communion.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Rick,
Your eloquence (which I admire) almost serves to mask the fact you misunderstood me.
It is one thing to compare the salvation experience of a Catholic becoming Protestant (or vice versa) and quite another thing to add an American becoming a Buddhist. Surely you can see the difference. They are apples and oranges.
Let me be clear: There are no “many paths to God.” There is no Borgian mountain top “sacred” that all roads lead to eventually. Jesus is the way.
You say: “Many great and committed men and women of God have given up much to travel the world, not to tell people they are saved, but to persuade men to believe the gospel and be saved. This IS the gospel and its commission…”
Chad: They indeed have. And many great people before these great people went about spreading t